浴火鸟

从roman身上看到我的影子，我好几年前被迫入伍，然后在里面家人介绍了一个女孩，我以为我可以和她很顺利的恋爱结婚，但当我退伍之后，当我再次可以相遇男孩子之后 我发现我做不到。

会像roman说的没办法分裂我自己去爱两个人，我很痛苦。

我没办法和任何人解释我的难过，但我从roman中找到了我的影子，但庆幸的是我没有考上军校，如果可能我会是现实中的第二个roman。

我很庆幸自己离开了枷锁。

我最近才开始慢慢认同我自己，看完了这部电影。

我真的有点撕扯一般的难过，点点滴滴的回忆，我们甚至不如roman。

至少他找到了那个爱他至si的男人，他们经历了非常多浪漫美丽的回忆。

如果可以，我希望他们能一直在一起，如果不可以，我希望他们在天堂可以在一起。

正如电影里的，我的爱只存在于一瞬间，存在我的思想里。

我希望每一个人都可以真正找到属于自己的爱，毕竟我们只是来人间走一趟的平凡人。

战火、军人、部队、上世纪……这些都是Be的元素，更何况还有可怕的『真实故事改编』，这行文字一出来，我的心都跟着一颤。

他们化学反应好好，好有性张力。

很久之前看过一次，这是第二次观看。

为了拍你，拍了其他人，但焦点对准你，这种暗戳戳真的好甜。

好喜欢他们水里那里啊，张力满满，但头顶上的战火又预示着结局注定是分离的。

让人觉得好悲伤。

想他们的甜蜜长一点，再长一点，慢点到结局，反复拉扯进度条。

看到他们鱼水之欢的笑觉得好甜蜜，甜蜜得我想哭，想到结局的我又伤心地流下眼泪，注定圆满不了的结局。

喜欢他们从床上摔下来相视一笑那里，好甜。

情欲戏拍得好好哦，看得我热泪盈眶，他们相处的时间太短暂了。

迫降那里，他们经历了一次差点生离死别，为何后边还要再经历一次，太残忍了。

为了所谓的“正常”生活，伪装成另一个自己，自己辛苦，也伤害了爱他的那个他。

他们憧憬的美好未来，全都无法实现，配上那首注定悲剧的背景留声机曲子，我爆哭。

愚蠢可悲的贱女人。

还有那个垃圾朋友。

再看一遍结局，还是哭了。

两人的英语口音好可爱。

1970年的苏联对于同性中的感情是禁止且规定了相关刑法。

纵而使两个相爱的人被世俗狠狠地压在了深不见底的黑暗中。

“黑色的玫瑰和荆棘，微笑与泪水，它们种在一起，互相缠绕。

” 片头的一句旁白，交待了这份复杂而注定没有结果的感情。

“一个永远不会出现的时刻，犹如一个逃避世界的幽灵……” 谢尔盖得知罗曼的婚礼后，他不知道该如何处理这段感情 ，他最后的挣扎，罗曼的一句她怀孕了，使谢尔盖崩溃……唯一的选择是逃离与忘却“so hard ”这段感情，我努力尝试过忘却它………他们在契索的那段画面，让观众沉迷于其中，谢尔盖的爱胜过了罗曼对他的伤害，两人无忧无虑的样子却始终逃脱不了现实。

圣诞节那天，路易莎的到来，使一切烟消云散，谢尔盖独自出门，买了一颗圣诞树。

当路易莎到来时，他见证了罗曼的生活：活泼可爱的孩子，相爱的夫妻，一个幸福洋溢的家庭，与自己相比呢？

又能算什么。

当路易莎问：“谢尔盖，你有没有遇到生命中特别的人？

” “罗曼……还有你。

”谢尔盖的话亦真亦假，他知道，他们之间的爱是不见天日。

最终，谢尔盖选择了逃避，为了罗曼，也为了所有人。

“罗曼，我们之间的爱，只能存在于没有时间与思想的地方，你不该再来找我了………” 再次回来时，谢尔盖收到了罗曼离开时的信：“谢尔盖，我没什么可考虑的，我不会再次伤害我爱的人，不会再分裂自己，去属于每个人……” “谢尔盖，说和做，思考和生活，是不同的………”“谢尔盖，我选择了让我自由的地方，是天空，Forget me，我将永远和你在一起。

” 画面的接近尾声时，谢尔盖走到了他们曾经游泳的地方，此时，已经一片冰凉……如同他们之间的爱，无论过程多么热烈，结果都会凄凉。

仅仅是因为人们眼中的世俗与规矩。

“love is love”爱亦是爱，谢尔盖对路易莎说：“我们之间的爱不逊于你的爱”。

尾声时，谢尔盖，身处于剧院中心，而舞台上的戏剧，正是当年罗曼带他观赏的第一部戏剧“火鸟” 罗曼站在谢尔盖身旁，慢慢的离去。

犹如他从没来过谢尔盖的世界，或是说，这段感情从来没有存在过…… 如开头一样，它是不见天日的…… 如果没有现实生活中老年谢尔盖的叙述《A Tale About Roman》关于罗曼，我们也许永远不会知道这个发生于1970年代两个苏联军人的爱情。

爱亦是爱，它胜过了一切，无论是同性还是异性，它们都存在，是不可抹去的。

Firebird is an epic Queer love story set in a tense Soviet Union. This unconventional film followed the romance of Sergey, played by Tom Prior, and Roman, played by Ukrainian hunk, Oleg Lobykin.

Set in the 1970's Cold War, Firebird is an incredibly stylish film. The visuals feel authentic and true to its setting. But surprisingly, there are bouts of action, adding more thrill to a story that is already anxiety inducing. Another twist is that the film explores a love triangle between Roman, Sergey, and Roman's partner, Luisa- played by Diana Pozharskaya. This part of the world has always been incredibly hostile to LGBT+ people. It is common to see an attempt to erase Queer people from the histories and identities of post-Soviet countries. From the 'LGBT free zones' in Poland; the Gay Propaganda Laws in Russia - to the toxic political discourse in Hungary - 'Firebird' is a symbol of Queer existence throughout history. It is a statement that Queer love is not a modern and Western construct, but it is imbedded in the fabric of humanity. And this piece of history- beautifully shown in the film- is a shining example that the #TheNewEastisQueer, and it always has been.In this interview, the writer/lead actor, Tom Prior and director/writer Peeter Rebane talk about the true story of 'Firebird', its making, and what it was like to meet the real Sergey. EAST: Where did you first meet each other? TOM: I was doing some work in Los Angeles, and a film financier that I was meeting- by coincidence- mentioned that she heard about the story of Firebird- which was under a different name at the time- and promised to introduce me to Peeter. Then we basically connected and I read the script, and fell in love with it instantly. It was when the draft of the screenplay was at a very early stage, and that’s really where it began. EAST: Peeter, when did you first discover the story?PEETER: That was over 10 years ago. A friend of mine- who founded the ‘Black Nights Film Festival’ in Tallinn- she received the original story from a Russian journalist showing it around at the Berlinale, and she knew that I was looking for material for my first film. So I read it over a weekend at home, I literally cried and decided that I have to turn this into a film and then started writing for the first time ever.

EAST: ’The New East is Queer’ is a campaign to debunk the myth that Queer people don’t exist in Eastern Europe and Post-Soviet States. Yet here is a queer love story set in Soviet Russia. Were you conscious of this when deciding to make the movie? Did you feel a sense of duty to tell the story?PEETER: Foremost, I was taken a back by the universal love story. I was also fascinated and really surprised when I read the original manuscript that such a relationship could have actually existed in the Soviet airforce. Then we went on to interview people who served in the Soviet military in the 1970’s and found out that many such relationships existed, and we were also fortunate enough to interview Sergey in Moscow. But at the same time I do feel also that it is important to share this story in light of the real horrors that are going on in Russia and especially in Chechnya today. It is important to remind people about the importance of love and how such relationships have existed throughout the ages. TOM: For me its really important to share these messages. But we were very true when we said we made this film- not for political reasons- but for about love, love wins. Sergey’s character in the film is really about following his heart. There are terrible atrocities happening, but being able to make movies like this, we are effectively being that very change that we want to see in the world. EAST: How was Roman cast? PEETER: That was a really long process. We set a very clear intention to find the most authentic actors that are believable to the true story. So we did a world wide casting, and got 2,500 submissions for the role of Roman. For months we were casting in Europe and the UK, to Moscow. One day in Moscow, Oleg walked in the room and everyone was like: “That’s our Roman”. EAST: How was it working with Oleg?TOM: It was a really fascinating process as Peeter said. We just knew from the minute he walked in the room that it was right, this kind of presence. When you talk about casting in a film, you really are casting a person as you are a performer. He had this real presence and he was the nearest person that we felt was Roman, and so, our journey began. Because he is not a native speaker, at all, in fact he had a very small amount of English when we began the project. It has its challenges, and in some ways it actually helped, to a degree, because it meant that we couldn’t communicate as freely as we would, say in a modern day context in English- which serves the story in an amazing way. Because at the time there was no language around the subject matter. Today we are in a very liberal society where we can begin to scale that in a very easy and transparent way, but at the time there wasn’t that. So it bought a really interesting dynamic to the film. Working with Oleg was a real pleasure but it of course it had its challenges as well: cultural background differences, and things like that. But it was a really beautiful working relationship. EAST: Tom, you were a writer as well as an actor in ‘Firebird’. How did this come about?TOM: When Peeter and I met- and fell in love with the story- at that time we didn’t have the financing in place to make the film. So we made a teaser for the film, and the scenes that we selected for the teaser. I made some suggestions about how we might improve the script a bit, and the lines and the nature of the lines. I have a real sensitivity to being able to produce texts or language of how people actually speak- as oppose to how people one would think people speak- this is something I am quite sensitive to. So I made these few suggestions on how we might improve the script and that ended up several pages of notes and ended up as several weeks of work, which ended up being overall significant rewrites and redrafts and restructures- and doing lots and lots more research. Then by that point, the script was completely a different animal to what I first came to. So we took the strong elements of that and then imbedded in a lot more research.

EAST: Thats an interesting point. After stalking your Instagram its quite clear that you are a spiritual person and quite centred. Did these qualities help you in your writing or acting?TOM: Most definitely. For me this project has been quite extraordinary, in the sense of the level of depth that I have been able to get to. Writing the content, for sure, is a whole other level as a performer. Then also meeting the real Sergey, we interviewed him in Moscow, we also very tragically went to his funeral. He passed away in the time that we were developing the story, and it was a very surreal moment for me, to be at the funeral of a person whose life you have extended in the literary form, and who you will play in real life. So there were very strong moments during the time filming that there was this awareness that Sergey was with us, or certainly the energy. For me, having a real level of emergence within the project meant that the emotion came easily, or the stream of conscienceless, lets say. It was very profound and beautiful for the opportunity to do that as a performer. EAST: And when you met Sergey Fetisov, what were your impressions of him, and did these impressions influence the way you played or wrote about him? TOM: Very much so. It was an honour to meet him, and he was so very full of heart. He was a very heart-led man. You could tell that he had such a sunny persona, and despite having had a lot of trials and tribulations in love, he was bold and happy. So I bought that level of following your heart, and that bounciness to the performance- where I could - without making it seem to out of context at the same time. EAST: And for you Peeter, how was it meeting Sergey Fetisov, and did this impact the way you directed the film?PEETER: As Tom said, he was an amazingly warm and heartfelt person, considering what he had gone through in his life, and how these experiences had made him loving and not hating. I think he definitely informed how we developed the character, and it was an amazing treasure trove speaking to him about actual details, like: what were their favourite pieces of music; what were their favourite foods; which music they would play to each other; which books would they read; which theatre plays they went to see. It all kind of built a world, and helped us to be very authentic in directing and staging the film.EAST: Peeter, being from Estonia, was there anything about your heritage and personal identity that you bought to the project?PEETER: Definitely, when I was a very young boy I still recall the Soviet occupation, and our summer house was actually the airforce base where this story takes place. I have this distinct memory of my friend being on this bicycle and these two MiG’s (Mikoyan-Gurevich) flying overhead at maybe 150 feet, and us literally falling off the bicycles because the noise was so deafening. So I have a very strong personal connection, besides having grown up with this feeling of shame about ones sexuality, having to hide your true identity, and the surrounding environment lacking understanding and being ignorant. So, a lot of parallels for me. EAST: How much history is in the story?PEETER: I think its, well I don’t dare to say 100%, but I think its 99% historically correct. The events happening, the small details of the airforce base, the setting, we really made our upmost to make a film that looks and feels like the 1970’s could have looked and felt like.

EAST: And there seems to be a big military presence in the film. PEETER: From the directing perspective, we had amazing consultants. We had a retired airforce base, a retired Soviet airforce base commander, flight pilot, a person who worked in the command centre, who directed all the flights. We had a lot of people who literally went through the script, went through the dialogues, who were on the set with us, telling us to do it like this, or do it this way. We put trust in not making a Hollywood version of what someone envisages, but in thorough research. TOM: The intricacy of the details is very particular, I mean, even when it comes to the radio announcements, and things like that, and the calling in’s to the planes and the lights from the command centre and everything- its all very accurate. We did the best research to our knowledge, to make sure that it was as real as possible, and the same really with the job titles, the job roles. The military consultants in particular were very useful and an intrinsic part of the training for the performance: the way we would walk; the hand salutes; all this military realism that actually happened, and making sure that the attention to detail- our costume department were really great around that also. So, the military aspects of the film, even this accident, there was an accident sequence within the film as well, which was in the original story, and I was absolutely adamant we had to put it into the film, to give it this military flare, instead of having it simply as a backdrop, but actually as an action sequence, this was really paramount and important to me, to ground it into the real world. EAST: Any personal highlights from onset?Peeter: I think for me one of the most amazing shots was the last shot of the film. Without giving away too much, it lasts about 1.5 minutes, and the camera is going into Sergey, and technically it was huge challenge for our team to pull it off, but also performance wise, for Tom to act out all the different emotions, truthfully, being surrounded by 50 or 60 extras, and knowing that we can’t cut, and that this is all real time, one very long take. TOM: Its a very unforgiving shot, lets put it that way. I’m very proud of that moment, and what came through. It was one of those moments that I was speaking out earlier, where there was this profound connection. I started experiencing some very curious things, emotionally. It was like being show the end of ones life, but I was experiencing it in the real time, which was quite curious. For me, the highlight and more significant highlights of the film was really my personal growth. That to me is a huge success. As a measure of success, it challenged me emotionally, physically, spiritually, and now its a sort of standing point, as a physical manifestation of what one can achieve when there are so many odds against you and challenges and time limiting factors, and all those kind of things. So yeah, we can have a whole other discussion of that for the highlights. But we were so blessed, to have such a wonderful committed and loyal team who were willing to go way above standard hours, the commitment was astounding. EAST: Peeter, did you learn anything about yourself personally or professionally during this project?PEETER: Absolutely, first of all it was my first full length feature. I have done documentaries, but that’s a whole different game. Learning all the nuances of directing on the set of the feature, and actually doing a pretty challenging script. We shot in the air, under the water, in the baltic sea, staged Hamlet in theatre, staged the full production of Firebird, including costumes and choreography, dancers and sets- a lot of very specific scenes. It was very challenging and I had a lot of personal growth during this process, over the last couple of years. TOM: I think for me also, as I mentioned, the physical challenges, the stamina, keeping up your health, mental clarity and sharpness through longer days, and resilience through that. Some days there would be, 5, 6, 7, 8 costume changes, multiple different set environments, we would have to change them very quickly as well. I would be sitting on the train, where we would shoot the train sequences, and moving from one emotional state to another, within minutes, and the whole world of the character has changed and gone upside down in that time. So, to be able to tune in to that energy, that emotional change very quickly, was really amazing. And to also play a lead in a film, there is this overwhelming pressure that you can put on yourself, and to scale that, was for me, a real joy and a real challenge, at times. To stay centred, to stay focussed, and to know what we have got to do and what we are there to do, and yeah, this was a really beautiful example of change and growth, and long hours, knowing that you can do it, and you have got to get through it.

EAST: How relevant do you think the story is for todays audience?Tom: For me, the story is very relevant in terms of following your heart. We live in a world which is probably more divided than ever, with regards to health, with regards to beliefs and perceptions. It is a standing point for following your heart. Actually, if you choose to walk that path, its not necessarily going to be the easiest route, but its probably somewhat the most rewarding- in terms of being able to feel and develop as a person. The film is about following ones heart and ones desires against all the odds, and against the laws of the country and the environment in which somebody grows up in. I hope this is a standing point of inspiration to follow your heart, to love daringly, that would be my wish and hope for its relevance today. EAST: Do you have any plans to show this to Eastern audiences? Peeter: Absolutely, we will distribute the film across the world. We trust we will be at some festivals in the summer, also Autumn, late October- and end of the year we will have a wider distribution across the region. So, I guess we will see how the world is as we open, and depending on how much we will be in cinemas. But definitely, we will be on all major platforms across Europe. 'Firebird' premiered at the 2021 BFI Flare Festival on 17th March 2021 and is available to stream on the BFI Player until 28th March 2021.

当你按下快门的时候，，在那一刻，一定有什么东西，永远消失了，一个永远不会再出现的时刻，如同幽灵一般逃离这个世界 把命运托付给自身，而非星辰——莎士比亚 你有足够的理性，不要屈服于酗酒，以及语言的杂乱，不要向肉欲屈服，也不要迷恋金钱，最重要的是，不要说谎，不要欺骗自己，对自己撒谎的人，只能听到自己的谎言，本质上，他无法分辨自己内心的真相，或是他身边的真相，如此便失去了对自己喝他人的尊重，没有尊严，也就不会再爱了。

你觉得为什么我们要用名著来教你，因为这些故事里的人物，并非理性的，他们是鲜活的，有呼吸的，有感受的人，他们因战栗而温柔 去说，去做，去思考，去生活，他们不是一回事。

我再也无法分裂自己了，我也无法同时属于所有人 谢尔盖，我必须选择唯一一个我仍能感到自由的地方——天空，请不要等我了，忘了我吧，我会一直想着你的，无论未来如何，我永远都会在你身边

对于阅片无数的我来说，故事情节其实挺老套的，很多地方有《断背山》的影子，这是时代局限性造成的，没办法。

但两位主角的颜值实在太高，尤其是罗曼，一出场的那身蓝军装，看得我心砰砰跳！

电影画面好美，两位帅哥每次亲热的时候都是金黄色的滤镜，又欲又暖！

真是赏心悦目极了！

今天又是为罗曼的疯狂的一天！

因为罗曼这个人物描绘的比较少，所以有几个点我一直不太确定。

1.他对路易莎是什么感情？

骗婚？

我的答案：不完全是。

从爱情的角度，他明显更爱谢尔盖，但对路易莎也不是一点感情都没有。

我倾向于罗曼本身就是双性恋。

刚到基地的时候，他对路易莎的好感还挺明显的，属于正常男人看到美女的反应，在跟谢尔盖之前，他和路易莎的互动，感觉挺暧昧，说明他有追求女性的经验。

谢尔盖离开基地之后，他完全没必要跟路易莎逢场作戏，为啥还让她怀孕了？

至于后来跟她结婚，是多种因素权衡后最好的结果。

他需要婚姻来推动事业，需要打消克格勃的疑虑，需要保护谢尔盖，也需要对路易莎负责。

这就跟一个男人虽然有爱人，但到了一定岁数想生孩子就找个合适的人结婚一样，不能叫骗婚吧，只不过他的爱人是男人。

婚后他确实是出轨了，但即使单独面对着谢尔盖，他也给了路易莎应有的尊重，他再想谢尔盖也只是想跟他偷情，从没真正想过要让路易莎难堪或离婚，我不认为这全因为事业。

他对家庭是有责任的，如果你完全不爱一个人，是做不到他这个程度的。

2.罗曼为什么会和谢尔盖相爱？

因为他和谢尔盖本质上都是极其浪漫文艺的人。

路易莎会功利地劝说谢尔盖在基地奋斗，好过去鸟不拉屎的农场堆稻草。

谢尔盖让她帮忙对台词，她虽然答应了，可是脸上的表情是不愿意的，她从心里就不觉得谢尔盖会成功。

这是一个现实的女人，电影前期暗示了她喜欢谢尔盖，但当谢尔盖要走，罗曼这个帅气的军官适时出现，她立马倒向了罗曼。

但罗曼不同，他热爱摄影，热爱芭蕾，即使不了解谢尔盖，也不知道能不能成功，还是会去鼓励谢尔盖追求戏剧梦。

所以谢尔盖爱他，这几乎是必然的。

谢尔盖对英俊的罗曼是一见钟情，罗曼送他胶卷时，他就彻底沦陷了。

他见到路易莎和罗曼在窗口聊天，醋意上头，表面是约罗曼洗照片，实则已经开撩。

罗曼教他洗照片的时候，动作暧昧，语气性感，谢尔盖摔跤他扶住，然后四目相对，这里就已经接收到了谢尔盖的小电波，心动的感觉来了（信号接收得很快，感觉有经验）。

他立马下手，带谢尔盖去看芭蕾舞，劫后余生后吻了他，一波操作一气呵成。

他跟路易莎在一起时彬彬有礼，绅士十足，跟谢尔盖在一起的时候却是积极主动，热情如火。

第一次跟谢尔盖在海里时，谢尔盖是搂着他肩膀亲阿亲，他呢？

手往谢尔盖下面伸；第二次他们两个人互相脱上衣，他一把扒下谢尔盖裤子霸气十足扶他坐自己身上。

这一系列动作，感觉罗曼是老司机。

无论是在基地还是几年后，他们之间的关系，一直都是罗曼在掌控。

但他也有脆弱的时候。

飞机事故迫降后他一个人坐在飞机上，谢尔盖来找他，他握住谢尔盖的手亲吻，并把脸轻轻贴在谢尔盖手上…罗曼结婚那天，单独找谢尔盖，他摸着婚戒小心翼翼问谢尔盖的近况，得知他很好，低下头黯然神伤地问他有没有女朋友…这该死的爱情啊…3.为啥Roman是romantic的呢？

摄影听交响乐看芭蕾就不说了。

罗曼跟谢尔盖互攻之后，踏着柴可夫斯基《六月船歌》的节奏，手里举着心爱的飞机模型，缓缓走向谢尔盖，把飞机交到他手中，并微笑着呢喃：for you，so you won't forget me～天哪！

罗曼太会了！

我觉得这是全片最缠绵的时刻。

有时候我在想，路易莎和谢尔盖关系那么好，大家都看得出来，上校甚至说如果没有罗曼，路易莎会嫁给谢尔盖。

那么他知不知道路易莎喜欢过谢尔盖？

路易莎告诉谢尔盖婚讯时说，I missed you so much，这是不是也是罗曼的心声？

跟一个也思念谢尔盖的人结婚，生下孩子，然后用谢尔盖的昵称给孩子命名，这是不是极致的浪漫？

当他拥抱儿子，呼唤他谢廖沙时，有没有幻想过这是他和谢尔盖的孩子？

影片最后，谢尔盖把飞机模型留给了罗曼的儿子谢廖沙，也许是希望罗曼和谢廖沙（谢尔盖）永远在一起。

上述均是从感情角度说的。

我们向往爱情，讴歌爱情，希望能拥有至纯至真的情感，这无可厚非。

但作为女性，我也认为路易莎很惨很惨，她同时失去了爱人和最好的朋友。

但人不应该脱离时代站在道德制高点上指责主角，电影就应该反映人性的挣扎和裂缝，否则去翻政治书就是了。

今年最喜欢的电影。

70年代的苏联已进入一种非常微妙的社会，虽然克格勃的监视无处不在，但全方位的松动是真的，年轻人可以像欧美青年一样穿着古巴领大谈西方哲学与戏剧，人们可以在婚宴上毫不违和地鼓动新人亲吻，军队的图书馆里也借得到莎士比亚的书，甚至二人在部队时的情感被上尉看得一清二楚也当做看不见……这些都给“欲断未断”的同性情感提供了潜在的机会。

二人独处洗胶卷时，军官对谢尔盖产生了好感，特别是听到他说“当你拍摄照片时，有一些东西就永远消失了，一个永不再现的时刻”，那一刻，可以称之为：“心动”。

他说“叫我罗曼”。

他扶着有点微醺的谢尔盖，四目相对，很想抱一抱他，但显然此时还为时尚早。

于是，他开始反复试探谢尔盖：在车上听到谢尔盖讲述和同年玩伴的故事，听到他们互相在信上署名“Valentine”时有那么一瞬的错愕，旋即又放松；在草坪上问他“你有女朋友吗？

”，对方回答“No”时，心中似乎有了点信心。

直到躲避边境警察的巡察时，他满怀希望地望向他，忍不住靠近、嘴唇相抵，谢尔盖先是惊讶，不过几秒也开始接纳并给予回应，双手相扣，迎接一场波罗的海的大雨——罗曼不知道的是，从接过那卷他送他的胶卷起，谢尔盖也已对自己动心：在车上偷偷瞄这位新来的年轻、英俊的上级，听他谦逊却不谦卑地回应同僚的质疑，也看到他不经意间瞥见自己的眼神；冲洗胶卷时，些许紧张地一边看自己的手被对方轻轻握着，一边听他在耳边像电流般说话。

但是他还是想逃走——这样做的风险太大了，即便已明显从对方望向自己的眼神中看到了相同的气质与味道。

然而，除了克格勃外，这种艰难维持的情感在后期遭遇了更普世、也更软性的考验：来自妻子、家庭，以及内心的矛盾，等等。

婚后，罗曼的很多行为放在当代中国或其他任何社会，都会被贴上“渣男”标签，他可以在结婚当晚面对谢尔盖的靠近依旧止不住将嘴唇靠近，可以在四年后告诉妻子前往莫斯科进修实则只是想见见谢尔盖，可以塞给对方一张火车票说“我有一个礼拜的假期”言下之意即邀请对方与自己偷情，可以在三人过圣诞时拼命地察言观色不让自己妻子瞧出真相……一切都太熟悉了，似乎是所有已婚Gay都会做的事情。

所以越到最后，他越是无法接受自己在路易莎和谢尔盖之间不断寻求平衡与周全，他前往阿富汗战场，直接原因是谢尔盖的离开且说“不要再来找我”，但根源还在于内心深处长年积累下来的悔意：“我害怕去伤害我爱的人，我害怕再分裂自己了，同时属于每一个人”。

同样之于谢尔盖，或许很多行为也会被人冠以“男小三”的称号：他可以一边在剧场说狄德罗的台词：“欺骗自己，同时也欺骗他人，这种活在欺骗中的人会慢慢地不去尊重任何人、任何事”，一边又忍不住跑去火车上与罗曼相见，并前往索契偷情。

路易莎来莫斯科时，他可以一边怨恨罗曼把自己当做一个普通演员，甚至就差赶自己走，一边又去买圣诞树并且回到那个不属于他的家，假装只是个客人。

而他相比罗曼唯一的光辉，或许是从未结婚，从未去伤害另一个女子，而是独自终老。

二人都是过于矛盾的人，也都是不够干脆的人，站在局外人的角度，这种当断不断的情感处理方式让我很不喜欢，但他们有其他选择吗？

或许从道德上讲，把这些关系捋捋清楚很简单，但要从情感的角度，把所有的思念和爱都狠狠割断，非当事人并不能轻易置喙。

毕竟当谢尔盖在犹豫之后选择去火车上相见，望着对方，两个人都喜笑颜开时的眼神，除了“爱”，没有什么可解释。

谢尔盖一名陷入困境的应征者，他的最好的朋友路易，一位迷人有野心的基地指挥官秘书，以及一个胆大的年轻战斗机飞行员罗曼，三者之间如何形成危险的三角恋爱关系。

在好奇心的驱使下，他们开启了禁忌之恋，在暧昧与欺骗之间，爱情与友谊的界限开始模糊。

随着罗曼的职业生涯受到威胁，谢尔盖被迫面对自己的过去，而路易莎也努力使家人团聚。

在围城之内，他们冒着失去自由和生命的危险，面对克格勃不断升级的调查，他们之间的命运会走向何方？

那时候还太年轻，不知道所有命运赠送的礼物，早已在暗中标好了价格。

——题记一位迷人有野心的基地指挥官秘书谢尔盖，以及一个胆大的年轻战斗机飞行员罗曼，他们的缘分似乎冥冥注定，很难不被对方吸引。

军营中的爱恋，总是应该青涩地试探和小心翼翼，更何况是在上世纪七八十年代。

虽然暗藏威胁，可他们的爱情似乎得到了幸运女神的庇佑总能不被发现。

看着爱人，少年的眼眸中闪烁着动人的光泽。

罗曼替谢尔盖抵挡着来自上层的压力，他不忍心破灭少年的激情，但也深感力不从心。

谢尔盖离开军营时，两个人也没能见一面。

他选择忍受世俗的制约去结婚生子，但仍留恋于曾经的牵绊。

谢尔盖一直按照他们的约定，去戏剧学院努力学习表演，并期盼着罗曼来找自己。

日后再见，尽管世事难料，但他们一如既往地深爱着对方。

在那些相依相伴的日子里，也许他们都十分感谢自己和对这份感情的坚定。

谢尔盖道明自己害怕失去他，罗曼笑着安慰他自己就在这里。

未来不可预测，起码这一刻我们是开心幸福的。

虽然有些及时行乐的成分，但人生如果一直畏畏缩缩，那未免也活的太憋屈了。

新年时朋友聚会上两个人情不自禁跑到卧室拥吻，却被好友发现，好友说他们不是爱是恶心，谢尔盖悲愤交加却又无可奈何。

他想让那些偏见的人明白，爱一个人没什么可抱歉的。

罗曼爱谢尔盖，也爱他的妻子和儿子，他于心不忍伤害任何一方，辛苦地来回维持奔波，可不知不觉中两者却都被自己深深地伤害了。

圣诞节后，谢尔盖留下一封书信黯然离去，路易莎终于明白了真相和他大吵了一架。

他们知道的是罗曼对不起他们，自己很心痛，可他们不知道的是，这是自己与罗曼的最后一次相见。

罗曼是那么温柔又有责任感的人，他两者都想兼顾可到头来两者都失去了，疲惫到再也没有精力去道歉挽回，他厌倦了尘世的挣扎，也知道他们已经不会原谅自己了，他也不再奢求什么了，知道自己拥有过幸福，就足够了。

深知谢尔盖一直以来对感情的偏执，对此“我无法选择，因为害怕伤害我所爱的人。

我不能再分裂自己了，同时属于每个人。

”是他的回答。

他知道谢尔盖一定会责备他的离去，所以遗书中安慰自己的爱人——“我选择唯一的地方，在那里我仍然感到自由，是天空。

”谢尔盖那么爱自己，他一定会懂的。

“我将永远和你在一起”罗曼对任何人都不够残忍，唯独对他自己。

大雪纷飞，渲染着生离死别。

命运好像总是爱和人开玩笑，对于美好的事物，人们都会想尽办法贪心地拥有。

谢尔盖想和罗曼光明正大地在一起，罗曼想着顾及家庭和爱人，路易莎如愿以偿地结婚却怀疑着自己的丈夫。

似乎每个人都不知足，可人生就是这样。

要说什么下一世，生生世世，无穷无尽，都是如此，是人就会有欲望，只是像罗曼这样的人，下一世不管是作为丈夫还是作为情人，都莫要再让他受苦了。

在107分钟里，并没有火焰。

相反，水一直在影像中。

谢尔盖童年噩梦的幽蓝深渊，潮湿森林里的拥吻，让照片显形的一框静水，海边礁石后的躲藏，冰封的海边……水，作为火的对立者，在处理上达到了平衡。

因为谁都知道，火焰是情欲的，发源于内在的美好欲求。

如果谢尔盖和罗曼时刻在暖光中，在一片炎热的红中释放炙热浓情。

反而会让人感到唐然，过于直接。

在水与火拉开的距离中，二者相互补衬的张力才能显明。

苏勋宗的七十年代是过于扎眼的背景，让人不得不想到其中可以包含的政治指涉。

然而如果明确了电影“爱”的属性，淡化政治影响和改变政治影响的影像诠释其实是一种高明。

谢尔盖和罗曼并没有因为身份遭到迫害，那些可能的阉割，入狱，流放都没有出现。

但冷战就是冷战，高压就是高压。

那种雾气是一直弥漫在四周的，只不过尚不让人溃烂绝望。

同的身份受到的现实压力是每个时代都会有的病症，在苏联时期更会多一层体制性的束缚。

通过罗曼这个人物的前期踌躇和后期结婚来隐性的释放出这种无处不在的压力信息，并不会让人因为一些直露的对同的打压场面产生不适和畏惧。

同样，如果电影过度执着于对政权批判，也会失去本身的感性力量。

相爱，结婚，忘不了彼此，一人先去。

这种情节很难不让人想到断背山。

但事实上，《断背山》和《请以你的名字呼唤我》开创了G群体电影的两个形象。

世俗的，诗意的，纯真的，美好的，压抑的，痛苦的，空灵的，阴差阳错的，在看之后的西方同电影时，会不自主地联想到这两个作品。

这其实是正常现象，也不能单纯讥为烂俗，老套。

如今电影最难的，其实就是创造一个新故事，一个新人物。

但是同的身份又不得不牵扯到面对外界的脆弱，这是这个群体的属性赋予这类电影的必然。

况且《浴火鸟》里有一些别样的设计，比如罗曼走后，他的妻子在悲愤无奈之下却抱住了她的“情敌”谢尔盖。

这一瞬的异样举止使得人看到了她复杂翻涌的内心。

一瞬间是不可言说的，但确实也最能击中人。

这个电影可以说让我在屏幕上看到了今年看到的最好的情欲镜头，这当然包括颜控的情绪加持。

看完电影当然为之感到难过，可你想这不过是一个故事，有导演编剧的故事。

真正把我击垮的是“真实事件改编”。

为虚幻艺术所触动的痛觉和为真实生活所触动的痛觉原本是来源于一处，究竟没有分别。

每个内心的底色有善良和美好的人都会希望在我们的存在宇宙之外能有一个独立的灵的时空。

那些人们生活中和笔下的遗憾可以在那个世界里补足，那个世界里有一片海，让短暂分离的鸟儿浴火再会，然后一起笑着飞上蓝天。