浴火鸟

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。

正所谓世间的故事就那么几种，悲欢离合八九不离十，同性异性的爱也不过是两心相悦，终身厮守，棒打鸳鸯不能如意，加上法律制度国家宗教民俗等等因素，也不过就是这些个情节。

然而到了电影里面，演员的颜值和演技就成一部电影的加分项了，这些正好应在这不电影里。

浴火鸟应该是前苏联的一部芭蕾舞名剧，映衬了浴火而死的男主角，在妻子和爱人之间无法忍受，选择去阿富汗战场，不幸离世。

给另一男主留下无尽的思念。

So cliché. The movie seemed good at first, but then became boring after 30 minutes. The WW2 theme was good but the storyline wasn't. The Storyline was boring and script was meh. It was forced and full of wrong decision-makings and issues that could easily be avoided. (I loved the scenes when they visit Sochi for summer. So Beautiful.)以及，Luisa真的太慘了…(The actor Diana Posharskaya who plays Luisa is the one shining light in the film but sadly the story wasn't really about her character :(P.S. The English lead spoke in a really weird clipped accent and I wondered if he was attempting to imitate a Russian accent and failing. 英文很令人出戲真的😂

喜欢firebird这部电影。

好可惜据说放映前泄露片段，这部电影一点也不卖座，但是演员颜值演技和剧情让人难以忘怀，还是根据真事改编的。

这个片两个人在一起的时候虽然充满了禁忌危险但心动指数💯，前面多甜后面分开就有多让人心碎💔虐死了。

不敢看第二遍，第一次看就哭了2次真的是😭🐦二等兵Private Surgey在离开枯燥的服役基地前遇到了前来支援的飞行员中尉 Comrade Roman，Roman发现Surgey也懂拍照就大方送了胶卷给他，之后就有了在冲印暗房里的暧昧洗照片，哈哈我也是服了，一开始主动的是Roman，后来屈于事业世俗的也是他（但是I totally understand him）在树林里Roman主动亲了大为震惊的Surgey,但Surgey很快就回应了他，我暗恋的人也喜欢我[抱一抱]然后天降小雨，他们一起笑的样子太美好了🐦Roman找到看不下去他和Lucia坐在一起看大电影，独自去教室排练戏剧的Surgey,关灯后要亲他，这个情节好会，虽然见不得光在黑暗中也要吻你。

被车灯照亮后马上分开Let's go游进大海里才能掩人耳目在一起，这牵动我心的情节🥰🐦我发誓这是我活到现在最痛恨KGB的一次，我想把那个恶心的中尉碎尸万段，虽然他的上级也知道相恋，可能因为惜才没有说破，但是这个中尉还出现在片尾彩蛋里，我真希望有一个第二集是讲他把Roman关了起来，假死。

这世上有什么是资本做不到的呢？

🐦Roman的第一次退缩，被匿名信吓到了拒Surgey百米之外，在飞行任务中不得不紧急迫降，是Surgey和另一名机械师把阻力网好不容易装好让他顺利滑行。

这里是我最喜欢的镜头，就是Surgey被命令回去后还是来找坐在驾驶舱里心有余悸劫后余生的Roman，Roman亲吻了Surgey的手应该是感谢他救了自己，之后Surgey抓住Roman的衣领亲他，差点失去才知道自己已经那么爱他。

就这段没有一句台词但是眼神和动作把他们的感情推上一个高度。

之后就不用说了，露的相对多的一段(其实也不多)，但还是有个Surgey抱着Roman头，心疼担心写在脸上，能感受到他们饱满的情绪。

🐦Roman再次被警告两个人在房间里还差点被发现，我真的不想回忆这段紧张气愤，恶心的KGB还打断了即将发生的亲亲！

直接把Roman吓得对Surgey提了分手。

还娶了女秘书掩人耳目，但是Roman到底是为了自己还是像他说的在protect Surgey呢?应该是两者皆有。

🐦婚礼进行中两人还在后台讲话也是big胆了。

每次Surgey看不下去Roman和女生在一起跑出来后，Roman总是会跟出来，说明Roman一直在关注他呀。

Roman傻傻地问what're u doing这里应该是被牵起了手，然后Surgey要亲他他也没有躲掉，一定是听到Surgey说couldn't forget you被爱情冲昏了头忘了自己在和谁结婚了😮🐦后面两人好不容易出来租房一周的甜蜜假期也是抓马，一一被朋友和妻子发现恋情，最后还被征召上战场，这苦命的鸳鸯。。

可以理解为Roman得知Surgey不会介入他的婚姻要离开他，而Luisa知道了密恋，Roman终于不想再背负这个秘密毅然把生命献给天空也算是一种解脱。

在当时可能也没有更好的选择了。

Roman带Surgey看芭蕾剧，鼓励他追求演员的梦想，把自己儿子名字取成Surgey的小名，我相信他是很爱Surgey的即使他结婚生子隐瞒世人，所以这份爱已经深到他愿意用死亡来抹掉失去爱情的悲伤😭🐦Roman信里的话让人肝肠寸断，I shall always think of you,Surgey.No matter what life may bring,I will always be there with you.但怎么with啊？

灵魂吗？

🐦戏剧始终是戏剧，虽然电影让人悲伤，他们演的太好了，亲密戏超级自然，演出了心动和爱恋，各自的形象也很贴角色。

但这两个演员戏外的追求是两个截然不同的世界。

算是帮助我走出来不要这么入戏🤧

《浴火鸟》是一部以1970年代苏联为背景的禁忌之恋史诗，改编自真实事件。

影片以空军上尉罗曼与士兵谢尔盖的同性情感为主线，在压抑的时代背景下，探讨了爱情、自由与人性之间的永恒冲突。

这场爱情如同火鸟的传说，既燃烧着冲破桎梏的炽烈，又裹挟着被现实冰封的悲怆，最终以悲剧的姿态定格成一段时代的注脚。

时代的枷锁：爱在高压下的挣扎苏联对同性恋的严苛法律与克格勃的监视，构成了影片最沉重的底色。

罗曼与谢尔盖的初遇始于军营，两人因共同的文艺气质与精神共鸣逐渐靠近，但这份情感从一开始便注定无法见光。

罗曼作为军官，深知这段关系的风险，却仍选择在谢尔盖醉酒时亲吻他，在波罗的海的暴雨中紧握他的手——这些片段既浪漫又充满危险，像一场明知会坠落的飞行。

他们的爱是“黑色的玫瑰与荆棘”，在苏联铁幕的阴影下，每一次触碰都伴随着自我撕裂的痛楚。

而当克格勃介入后，罗曼的退缩与谢尔盖的退役，更是将两人推向了世俗与内心的双重放逐。

人性的矛盾：道德困境与自我救赎影片并未将主角塑造成完美的殉道者，而是以细腻笔触刻画了他们的软弱与矛盾。

罗曼的选择尤为复杂：他一边与谢尔盖幽会，一边娶妻生子，试图用婚姻掩盖真实的自我。

这种分裂让他成为“世俗眼中的渣男”，却也折射出被时代压迫者的无奈。

正如谢尔盖所言：“一个对自己撒谎的人，最终会失去尊重他人的能力。

”罗曼的挣扎，实则是试图在谎言中寻找生存缝隙的缩影。

直到阿富汗战争的召唤，他才以死亡终结分裂——天空成为他最后的自由之地，既是对妻儿的赎罪，也是对谢尔盖的永恒告白。

谢尔盖的角色则更具悲剧性。

他始终忠于内心，却不得不在罗曼的婚姻与自己的孤独中反复徘徊。

当他目睹罗曼家庭的幸福时，那句“罗曼……还有你”的回答，既是对路易莎的讽刺，也是对自我情感的妥协。

他的余生如同舞台上的《火鸟》芭蕾，在回忆与现实的交织中，将爱定格为“无思无时之境”的永恒。

浴火与涅槃：自由的隐喻 火鸟的意象贯穿全片，既是爱情的象征，也是人物命运的隐喻。

传说中，火鸟需投身烈火方能重生，而罗曼与谢尔盖的悲剧恰似一场未完成的涅槃。

他们的爱在时代的寒冰中冻结，却始终保留着灼热的灵魂。

罗曼选择战死阿富汗，如同火鸟振翅冲向太阳，以死亡换取精神的解脱；谢尔盖则成为浴火后的残羽，在漫长的岁月中咀嚼爱的余烬。

影片结尾，年迈的谢尔盖凝望舞台上的《火鸟》，眼中含泪却释然微笑——这一刻，他或许终于理解，真正的自由不在于相守，而在于灵魂的彼此照亮。

超越性别的时代悲歌《浴火鸟》的深刻之处，在于其超越了同性题材的局限，直指普遍的人性困境。

无论是罗曼对家庭的愧疚，还是谢尔盖对孤独的隐忍，都揭示了人在社会规范与自我真实之间的永恒挣扎。

影片借谢尔盖之口道出：“真正的爱情不是纵情声色，而是无法停止思考对方。

”这种纯粹的爱，在任何一个压抑的时代都可能成为牺牲品。

而罗曼的最后一封信，既是对爱人的告别，也是对自由最悲壮的宣言：“我不能同时属于每个人，我选择的唯一地方就是天空。

”《浴火鸟》的结局没有奇迹，却留下了震撼人心的力量。

它让我们看到，在极权与偏见之下，个体的爱或许注定成为灰烬，但那些为真实自我燃烧的瞬间，已足够照亮人性的深渊。

正如火鸟的传说，毁灭与重生本是一体——罗曼与谢尔盖的爱，终将在自由的天空中获得永恒。

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.

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。

自从青宇后，我很久没看耽美一类的书籍和片子了。

最近工作压力超大，突然想看看这些片子了。

因为最近看了《军区大院》，所以入坑了军人的禁忌之恋，然后没想到，就搜到了一部冷门片。

军官和士兵之间的反复纠结终究无法永远在一起的悲伤。

谢尔盖和罗曼终究不能像单军和周海峰那样可以在一起，因为前者存在于现实，后者存在于那个虚构的世界。

所以这种感情只能存在于超于时间，超于空间的地方，最终罗曼牺牲去了天堂，说这样我们可以永远在一起了。

淡淡愤懑的忧郁突然压抑至极。

很久了，没看到这种一点点冲击心灵至压抑的片子了。

很喜欢，看多了同性题材的电影电视剧之后，其实对于这类型剧已经有一点挑剔了，已经不是主角长得好看加上有床戏就能满足我了，但这部剧完全长在我的审美点上了。

角色都很有魅力，节奏把握的很好，给人一种文艺但又不拖沓的感觉，摄影画面很美。

看完之后其实心情有点伤感，虽然作为通讯录早已对于现实生活的偏见、压迫等等问题感到习惯了，但还是会情不自禁为剧中的三位主角感到悲伤。

三个人我都能理解，也为他们的悲剧感到伤心，但我不会去埋怨Roman或是Sergey，因为他们只是被大环境推着走的人罢了。

如果我是Roman、或是Sergey，我很难说我能做得更好（更符合大众的期望）。

当然时代还是稍微变好了一点，我也不是Roman，我不会也不支持骗婚。

最后Roman主动选择前往阿富汗也值得一提。

在（当时的）大众眼里男同性恋是变态、是怪异的、女性化的人（这在影片中也有体现），但Roman向死而生的勇敢证明了他是一名真正的勇士，绝对符合社会对于好男人的期望。

我想，如果同性恋可以合法地、不受偏见地结婚，他一定会是一名好丈夫。

所以我觉得Roman体现了一种态度，那就是我们每个人都不该被轻易贴上刻板的标签，而带着偏见去评价一个人也是绝对错误的一件事情。