[英文]无需护照的飞行：雅克贝汉访谈录

梦的轻波

作者：JAMIL MOLEDINA  
来源：www.thecinematicverses.com
发表时间：2004-4-9 15:21:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    编者：许多人也许是在看了《小宇宙》《候鸟迁徙》之后才知道雅克贝汉的，但其实可能看了下面这张照片，会觉得他更面熟一些，是的，他还在《天堂电影院》里演过成年的多多，在《狼族盟约》里演过年老时的Thomas d'Apcher，当然，关于他还不止这些，详情请看下文。

                                             

Some of you may recognize Jacques Perrin from his extensive acting career, appearing in such cross-Atlantic sensations as Cinema Paradiso and The Brotherhood of the Wolf. However, early on, Perrin dedicated himself to creating film projects too, both from a professional and personal standpoint. His fascination with nature has brought us into the world of insects with Microcosmos, and now he takes us into the air to soar with birds, in Winged Migration. The experience of watching the film is astonishing, as described in our review, and so we were understandably curious to learn more about the man who conceived this soaring vision. Luckily, we had a chance to sit down with him while he was in town for the San Francisco International Film Festival.


Renaissance filmmaker Jacques Perrin

The Cinematic Verses: You’ve had a very successful career as an actor, what compelled you to go behind the camera?

Jacques Perrin: Thirty years ago, I enjoyed and appreciated an acting career in Italy — I made movie after movie, and it was a comfortable life. But I don’t think I’m here to be comfortable. I am here to be involved. It’s a little passive as an actor; you are involved at the last moment. I love acting, but I didn’t want it to be my profession. When you like so much of something, it’s great to step out of it, so you have the pleasure of returning to it.

In the 60s, I remember so many directors saying, “The system is terrible — I have a great project, but nobody wants to finance the movie.” Then I thought, when something matters so much to you, why ask someone else to finance it? It’s better to take on the risk of the adventure yourself. Also, cinema is an adventure not only of business, but also an adventure of life. I like to become involved in the subject I choose, whether it’s political, historical, or natural. I like to put all the essential elements together, to have the choice of the elements, to understand the others who are in it with me. We don’t make make movies alone, we make them with others. I know nothing about biology, about birds, about insects, about the details of politics. I don’t make movies about my political view, whether something is right or wrong, I just make movies about human interest stories.

My first production was with Costa-Gavras — it was a film called Z. It was fantastic, because it was 1968, and it put you into the social student movement in France, Europe, and in American universities. In France, it was an important strike. And Costa-Gavras is French, but his origin is Greece. At that time, we worried about the world — everywhere in South America, there were dictators — in Eastern countries, they were being taken over by communist governments — so the world’s hope was not so easy. It seemed like there were more dictators than democracies at that time. In Greece, the Colonels took power, and they made many things forbidden. You could not have long hair, you could not study Sophocles, Euripides, all the Greek authors, you could not have an independent political party outside the party of the government, and you could not like the Beatles — it was a strange country. One man, Dimitris Lambrakis, tried to stand up to this, and was shot. The movie is the recounting of one lawyer, who tried to prove that the responsibility for the killing was the Greek army.

The movie was based on real facts. When I was producing the film, everybody said to me, “People don’t want more politics, they get enough from TV and radio.” However, when it came out, it won two Oscars in Hollywood, it went all over the world, and it was an enormous success. And it was a political movie. I like that because the political approach for movies was not appreciated by the industry at that time, and there were, more or less, no political movies then. After that, I made another movie with Costa-Gavras about Uruguay, about the Tupamaros. It was called State of Siege. It was also a political movie.

But after a couple, I realized I couldn’t continue making only political movies. It’s good to be open, and when you are involved with life, you have so many interests. The cinema cannot follow all the different turns of curiosity, so I made a normal, traditional film, and I made a normal documentary, archiving past events. Part of that is that the documents speak for themselves. For example, you can see how the Germans fared during the last war. They shot so many films, but it was propaganda. But the same pictures, the same images, worked against them after the war. It’s very dangerous. I think one of the best guns we have is the picture, the movie.

But you can have different interests. When I make a movie about nature, it opens a window on nature, but it can still be a bit political. In the sense that if someday we don’t have the beauty of nature, it will be a difficult moment for everybody. And the problem of nature in the south, in the north, in each country will be the same. And now, for example, when you have a problem in Asia, the repercussions of the problem become worldwide. When we talk about oceans, what goes wrong in the Atlantic is terrible for the Pacific. We don’t live in countries with frontiers; we live on a planet. So our interests are bound by all things on the planet. So the next movie I do will be about oceans. The beauty of oceans, and also how many crimes there are in the oceans. So many people do what they want, because the sea is for everybody. That means nobody is watching, so you do what you want. It’s terrible.

So I go through life with curiosity. I know few things [laughter]. I didn’t study when I was young. But I am prepared to understand, and to make way for significant things. My profession is not cinema; the cinema is my form of life. If I live, well, why must I make an uninteresting subject? I make movies because I discover something. In normal life, it’s hard to go and ask all your questions to different professors and scientists, but with the cinema I have a good excuse to ask. And that’s called collaboration! And because it’s a movie, they talk to me. They give me the science, but also the heart — why they became scientists. I have this chance.

TCV: I remember reading that something similar happened with Winged Migration. That you heard of a man who successfully flew with birds, and wanted to talk with him. Is that how the subject of birds come into focus for you?

JP: I think when you dream of something, you always have the possibility to build the things in your dreams with movies. The moment I knew I wanted to do this was when I heard about the Canadian Bill Lichman flying with birds, 12 years ago, with the Canada goose. I thought, “Wow! This can be a fantastic movie!” When we think about freedom, we think of birds. Picasso, all the painters, they all showed freedom through birds. To follow birds into their space, to feel that freedom, would be magnificent. And also, they don’t know about the concept of a foreign country, because the idea of a country does not exist for the birds. They instead have the planet. They go for over 10,000 kilometers. So the only frontiers they know are the deserts, the seas, and the mountains. To have, in this century, a point of view of some other population, like animals and birds, it will be good. It is important now, our preoccupations are causing pollution and environmental damage that affects the whole planet. Yet the birds have been around for 70 million years, existing in harmony with the planet. So to have a new look on the planet, along with other people, there is a possibility for change. I hope you can understand me, English is not my first language.

梦的轻波

作者：JAMIL MOLEDINA  
来源：www.thecinematicverses.com
发表时间：2004-4-9 15:06:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TCV: I certainly do, your point is very clear. As a member of the audience, I interpreted that message from the film. I made a few other interpretations too. But as a filmmaker, you may have separate intentions than what the audience comes up with.

  
                                             

"None of us were really directors -- nature is the director"

JP: I understand, and I think you’re right. My intention was to make a documentary, no narration. That means this is just a proposal, these pictures. At the moment, everybody has a special feeling toward nature. If I make a documentary, I am not saying, “Follow me,” but rather we are together inside. With nature and the birds. And then it’s up to you, based on what you remember of nature, when you were a child, what your feelings are. The screen is not big enough for this, it’s your memory and feelings that make the picture complete. I think this kind of movie, I think you have ten different interpretations, or no interpretation. So I don’t want to close the movie by limiting the screen. It’s just a little thing, we only give the barest facts, and film the birds — they tell the story. It’s through the emotion of each person in the audience.

For example, there were 15 directors for this movie. They each feel a different way. But they have one thing in common, the emotion. When they returned from shooting, they were so funny, they all said something different. Some said they waited all day, thinking birds must be near, others say they’re so beautiful when they fill the sky. So they all had different experiences, different sensations. But none of them, including me, were really directors. Nature is the director. I asked everybody to start with hearing me, and seeing my direction, but then they must make their own direction. It’s because I appreciate the collective enterprise. If you make a fiction movie, then yes, you have the point of view of the director. It’s less my point of view here. I want to open the windows with so many people around me.

I remember talking to the director of photography of the cranes in America. The director wasn’t on the flight, because you could only have two people on the flight, the pilot and the cameraman. I asked the DP, for the sake of continuity with the rest of the movie, to get the cranes when they first take off. Instead, he took the moment when the cranes arrive in the sunset. He did the opposite of what I asked, but I really liked that. You must have confidence with the people. Also, nobody has been in flight with birds before, so nobody is sure how to do this. Nobody can say, “I’m a professional” with this. So we try for one thing, but if we get another result that we like, then that’s good. I like this way of making movies. To not be sure of anything! [Laughter].

TCV: I did notice the film never mentions nations, but describes regions.

JP: I didn’t want to give the names of the country, but only geographic continents or names of seas or rivers. We were obliged to give a little information, because sometimes it’s not clear to the public what it means for a bird to fly 20,000 kilometers a year.

TCV: Now we’re getting into an area where I might have been interpreting, and you can tell me whether it was part of your intent, or if I’m adding my own memories to the experience of seeing the film. My impression was that these birds with their vast migratory paths are actually citizens of the world, and entitled to live and exist anywhere. To them, the world itself was their home, not a small patch of land, and that we should recognize the truth of this as it applies to us. Am I reading too much into your film?

                                                  


“Nothing can be so inhuman as a world with only human beings”

JP: No, you are absolutely right. No frontiers. I think the planet has a breath, and the birds know the breath of the planet. And you’re right, we see home as a piece of land. We consider the planet our garden, but it is the territory of the others. We must understand that, whether through this movie or otherwise, that we are not alone. But one scientist who worked with me said, “Nothing can be so inhuman as a world with only human beings.” I think he’s right.

TCV: As shown in the film, birds scare easily when humans approach. So how does your camera get that close? How did you get those dramatic shots tracking the birds in flight?

JP: The answer is time. Time, time, time. We had six teams shooting over four years, so we had 24 years. You have to be patient, and to be patient you have to be involved. You wait for that moment. We would go to Canada and Iceland to shoot, but birds don’t just show up. We’d go for two months and not get anything. We’d return the year after. Finally it was the third year that we got those sequences. You cannot plan this work. That means you must find your own financing solution.

TCV: I know I’m stepping into another interview, so I appreciate your sharing some insights into your process.

JP: Oh, merci!

TCV: De rien!

梦的轻波

作者：JAMIL MOLEDINA  
来源：www.thecinematicverses.com  
发表时间：2004-4-9 15:36:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WINGED MIGRATION


TCV RATING: GF (GREAT FILMMAKING)

MPAA RATING: G

REVIEW POSTED: MAY 12, 2003

RELEASE DATES: APRIL 18, 2003 (NY); MAY 16, 2003 (WIDE)

In this Academy Award-nominated documentary, director, writer, producer, and narrator Jacques Perrin (actor in Brotherhood of the Wolf, Cinema Paradiso, producer of Microcosmos, Himalaya) follows the migratory paths of several of the world’s large birds. While this may sound like a sedate experience, the photography in this film is anything but.

The camerawork is what sets this film apart from every other depiction of birds. Working in conjunction with bird specialists, Perrin and his team were able to follow the birds up close in balloons, gliders, and through other non-intrusive techniques. The scenes look like normal filmmaking, in that they appear to have been planned and choreographed with cameras mounted on tracks, but instead the subjects are wild animals photographed in the air. The result looks so astonishing that the film begins with a notice claiming that no special effects were used in filming the birds. The sheer strength of this achievement does not diminish noticeably over the length of the film, but instead the range of different and groundbreaking views of birds keeps the audience gasping to the end.

This breakthrough in photography is used effectively to remind audiences of the sublime beauty of nature, and the original state of our planet. The message is overt with the focus tightly on the birds themselves, with humans only appearing in the background; and subtle in the way the narration describes regions, not nations. Although there is a boy who frees a bird in the film, most humans are portrayed as selfish, corrupting influences, cutting down vegetation regardless of who might live there, and building monstrous machines that damage and trap birds in their migratory paths.

The film draws on a long history of natural documentary filmmaking. David Attenborough’s watershed BBC series Life on Earth set the pace for future visions of nature. Attenborough’s gentle yet highly informed narration whispered over the beauty of nature, while instrumental music heightened the effect. His recent Life of Birds built on this, expanding greatly the layperson’s understanding of birds. The style of Winged Migration is something of a departure from the classical approach. Instead, Perrin’s narration is barely there, piping in every ten minutes or so. The musical accompaniment is not just instrumental, but also vocals and songs. The use of human voices seems antithetical to the idea of letting nature speak for itself, particularly when we are the villains of the story.

However, the film succeeds in gently promoting the importance of our natural world. Freedom, serenity, and beauty are attributes that birds often represent in our cultures, and the film does a stunning job of capturing on film those ideas embodied by these amazing creatures. GF (great filmmaking).

Jamil Moledina
mailto:jamil@thecinematicverses.com

Note: The film started a limited run in NY on April 18, and screened at the 46th San Francisco International Film Festival on April 19. It opens wide May 16, 2003.

梦的轻波

作者：纪录·中国
来源：CCTV.com
发表时间：2004-4-9 15:41:38  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　 风儿掠过树梢，撩动着生命的琴弦。阳光透过林翳，洒在雨后新绿的草地上。两只宝石般红艳的瓢虫互相倾诉着爱情的甜美；远方的天空，一群迁徙的候鸟正悄然划过雪白的云端；而在它们旅行的终点，那白雪皑皑的喜马拉雅山麓，一队驱赶着牦牛的藏族村民，在亲人的祝福声中，正准备踏上他们艰险的征途。

　　这是法国电影人雅克·贝汉奉献给我们的“天·地·人”三部曲：讲述鸟儿飞行梦想的纪录片《迁徙的鸟》、展现虫子们幸福生活的电影《微观世界》，以及赞美人类与自然血脉相连的故事片《喜马拉雅》。这三部电影从三个不同的音阶轻声合唱，当它们交汇在一起，就构成了一曲穿透灵魂的旋律，在我们的脑海中回响着一首天籁的歌谣。

　　“生命的奇迹”

　　对生命的礼赞或许是雅克·贝汉“天·地·人”三部曲共同的心声。它也是我们这颗蔚蓝色星球上最伟大的奇迹。还有什么比见证一个幼小生命的呱然落地更令人心醉？无论这生命是一条小小的昆虫，还是一只刚刚破壳而出的雏鸟，它们同样呼吸着轻柔的空气，同样用未谙世事的眼睛打量这神奇美好的大千世界。那些记录生命诞生的人是幸福的，因为他们触摸着大地的脉搏。

　　雅克·贝汉：“作为纪录片导演，你所能做的一切就是准备好，期待你所能梦想的镜头光临，去捕捉美好的瞬间。而你如果真正喜欢一件事，你每天、每时、每刻、每秒都期待这件美好的事情出现，当它在你的等待中终于出现的时候，你的感觉是无法用言语来形容的。如果你最终捕捉到那精彩的瞬间，你会感觉无比的畅快。”

　　或许将这三部影片摆在一起，我们便可以领略生命的平等与共通之处。无论这生命绽放的舞台是一片方圆不足百米的草坪，还是苍莽雄浑的喜马拉雅山，抑或是从南极到北极的漫漫旅途，我们这些地球的子民都在为种族的生存与繁衍奔波忙碌。鸟儿千万年如一日地固守着它们迁徙的航程，只为在祖先的栖息地孵育子孙；蚂蚁们不知疲倦地采收食物，辛勤囤积着维持温饱的口粮，它们既不比出海捕猎的海鸥来得更高贵，也不比行走在雪山垭口，用盐巴向远方的村落交换大麦的人类商队更为低贱。我们应怀着同样的情感，同样的尊重与关怀，去看待每一个自食其力的劳动者，哪怕它只是一只奋力滚动着粪球的屎壳郎。

　　雅克·贝汉：“捕捉那些镜头是非常难的，你要随时注意到机器、灯光、人员、角度都要到位。有时为拍摄一分钟的镜头，我们至少要花整整两个月的时间。因为那个镜头是一个特殊的镜头，不过我们所有的工作人员都充满了耐心，都对这项工作很执着。对于这样的工作，一个人不仅要有能力，他还要是一个哲人。”

　　“爱情与歌”

　　我们总以为，人之所以不同于鸟兽，正是因为我们拥有种种精神上的追求--我们有炽热的爱情与真诚的信仰，这使我们自居为造物的宠儿，万物的灵长。当电影《喜马拉雅》中那对英俊美丽的藏族男女彼此相爱时，似乎狂暴的雪山也为之温柔了起来，人类在最为荒凉冷漠的大自然中依然寻觅着美好的情怀，这的确是令我们骄傲的高贵人性。但雅克·贝汉却在它关于鸟虫的两部纪录片中，赋予了这些看似渺小的生命以同一种深沉的情感，甚至足可比拟人类的爱情。在《微观世界》中，两只相爱的蜗牛在一起缠绵悱恻，如一双深情拥吻的恋人；而在影片《迁徙的鸟》中，那些在两极之旅彼此眷恋的候鸟，它们在万里漂泊的旅程中不离不弃，交颈相拥，似乎正印证了“在天愿为比翼鸟”那句古诗。

　　雅克·贝汉：“对于我来说，重要的既不是拍摄角度的美丽，也不是拍摄手法的新颖，而是情感，这是唯一重要的事情。在你的一生当中，你会经历很多事情，但是当这件事情涉及到情感的时候，你就会有回忆。我所做的就是试图给人们留下回忆。”

　　天籁是大自然的歌谣。它是鸟儿扇动翅膀的风声，是草丛中昆虫的吟唱，是雷电的轰鸣、风雨的鼓乐，也是最单纯质朴的人的歌喉。雅克·贝汉的“天·地·人”三部曲贯穿了同一种原自生命脉动的音乐，这音乐合着自然的韵律婉转起伏，如另一曲天籁。

　　雅克·贝汉：“这些电影的音乐创作出自同一个作者：Bruno Coulais。在电影《喜马拉雅》里，有很多西藏曲调的歌。在长达数月的时间里，他一直在思考，直到有一刻，他决定用原创的音乐。但是这些原创的音乐都是由他的音乐之旅得到的启发。”

　　在为《迁徙的鸟》选择音乐的时候，一开始我们也不知道该选择什么样的音乐。但是当我们观察鸟儿的时候，我们发现在鸟儿运动的过程中，它们会发出一些声音，这些声音象“邦…邦…邦”，每一个鸟儿都会在翅膀振动时发出不同的声音。而鸟儿自己还会发出“呵、呵”的呼吸声。我们将这些翅膀的运动和呼吸作为我们音乐的启发，因为这对于鸟儿来说，飞翔是一种艺术。

　　“艺术与梦想”

　　飞翔是一种艺术。不单是鸟儿，对那些拥有翅膀的昆虫们来说，飞翔同样是一种美妙的艺术。这些只能在草坪的上空穿梭往返的小小生命，这些从没有奢望过飞越高山大海的蜜蜂或蚂蚁，它们同样拥有振翅飞翔的梦想，它们同样可以乘着清风，追随着鲜花的气息，飞向短暂生命的最高峰。当一轮圆月升上空中，在雅克·贝汉的镜头下，这些小小的飞行家着实令我们肃然起敬。

　　雅克·贝汉：“我们能从它们身上学到什么？我想，生命中的奋斗，对于飞翔不舍地追求。当我们做某些事情遭遇困难的时候，我们就应该想一想鸟儿。我们遇到苦难的时候往往会抱怨，我们花很多时间去说，而不是做。但是鸟儿从来不说什么，它们没有这样的哲理，但是它们坚持去飞。我想它们坚持飞翔的勇气是我们应该学习的。在每一个时刻你似乎都能感受到这种精神的感召力。”

　　对于人类来说，我们的梦想也许就是一段充满挑战与希望的人生旅程。在影片《喜马拉雅》中，年迈的藏族老酋长以他对雪山的真诚信仰，拯救了在暴风雪中挣扎的族人，他用生命达成了与自然的和解，并将一种生生不息的希望传递给年轻一代的领路人。就在梦想成真的那一时刻，藏族少年茨仁平生第一次见到了一棵挺拔的大树；也是在那一时刻，一只才将身体探出水面的蜻蜓展开它稚嫩的翅膀，平生第一次腾空飞起；或许就在此时，一群雪白的候鸟第一次启程飞向遥远的东方，在祖先传承的记忆里，那里皑皑的雪山正召唤着它们的到来。

　　雅克·贝汉：“人总是在改变，而鸟儿却从来不改变，它们对于飞翔是如此的执着，对自由是如此的渴望，他们从来不停止振翅的飞翔。它们飞过高山，飞过大海，它们奋勇的飞翔，让它们停止飞翔真的很困难，因为它们没有时间停歇。它们总是在飞翔的奋争之中。当我们在高高的云端之上，当我们看不到大地，看不到都市，看不到我们的世界，而只有这个天空中鸟儿的世界与我们相伴之时，每一次，每一刻对于我来说，都是无与伦比的时刻。”

观看视频：rtsp://real.cctv.com.cn/movie/56K/70842yake.rm

[ 本贴由 梦的轻波 于 2004-5-17  16:24 最后编辑 ]

梦的轻波

来源：记录中国
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　“人总是在改变，而鸟儿却从来都不改变。”2004年1月9日，雅克·贝汉轻松地坐在北京国际饭店的会客厅里，银发飘逸，仿佛是一位刚刚收拢了翅膀的天使。“它们对于飞翔是如此的执着，对于自由是如此的渴望，它们从来也不停止振翅的飞翔。”雅克陶醉地鼓动着双臂，仿佛重又回到了五千米的高空之上，“飞过高山，飞过大海，它们奋勇地飞着。让它们停止飞翔可真难！因为它们没有时间停歇--它们总是在飞翔的奋争之中。”

　　作为震撼了全世界电影观众的纪录片《迁徙的鸟》的导演，这位60岁才赢得“法国新锐导演恺撒奖”的老人如一位沟通人间与鸟界的通灵萨满，以他光影的诗篇为我们洞开心扉：“在人类的梦想里，总有一个自由的梦想--像鸟儿一样自由飞翔的梦想。”而我们这些早已在灵魂上折断了双翼的鸟儿，在某一个清晨或午夜，在登上飞机或走出地铁站的一瞬间，又或者，在雅克·贝汉精心营造的翩然梦境里，是否也会感觉到一种久违的冲动呢？想飞！

　　想飞。1997年某一个秋日的黄昏，当了近40年电影演员与制片人的法国人雅克·贝汉，注视着一群叫不出名字的季候鸟嘎然划过巴黎的上空，忽然想飞。他知道这思想无比美好，而美好的东西却往往转瞬即逝--这位曾经在《天堂电影院》里扮演过成年以后的“托托”、曾经为那些落英缤纷的亲吻镜头泪流满面的老演员决定马上付诸行动。他起飞了，而这一飞就是整整四年。和迁徙的鸟儿们一起，雅克飞越广袤的非洲与美洲大地，横穿浩瀚的太平洋与大西洋，他偶尔停落在冰雪峥嵘的喜马拉雅山，有时也歇脚于撒哈拉沙漠弧线完美的沙丘之上，或许又曾在某个暴风雨的前夜，让一只名叫乔纳森的年轻海鸥感到深深的震惊。

　　“如果你是鸟儿的话，当你飞累的时候可以随时找个地方歇歇脚，但如果你在一个机械里，而它又情况不佳，你就哪儿也去不了。”雅克·贝汉微笑地谈论起他唯一的飞行缺憾--人类难得有对其他生物自愧不如的时候，飞鸟的翅膀却恰恰正在此列，“我们曾有过七次坠机的事故，大都是有惊无险，但当你在几千米的高空和鸟儿一起飞翔的时候，你只会感觉到无比愉悦，而那时载着我们的机器会怎样？随它去吧！”

　　“鸟儿从来不说什么，它们只是坚持去飞。”雅克·贝汉用他四年的坚持留给统计家们一长串耐人寻味的数字：400多人的拍摄队伍，4000多万美元的制作成本，40多个国家和地区的往来奔波以及460多公里的胶片长度。在《迁徙的鸟》这部作品当中，雅克也遵循了鸟儿寡言而绚烂的“鸟文主义”传统：所有的旁白加在一起，也没有超过40句。

　　这是一部“视觉系”的电影，一部“印象派”的电影，或者说，它带给人们的是一场宛如梦境的亲身经历--而按照诗人们的说法，“梦是可以不押韵的”。至少在银幕上，我们还从未如此安详地与鸟儿们亲密接触，和它们一起并肩飞翔在湛蓝的天宇，不是作为一粒子弹，不是这些美丽精灵噩梦中的加害者，而是它们当中的一员--另一只明月入怀、无心可猜的季候鸟。这是一个“庄周梦蝶”般的法国之梦，或许真有过那么一个瞬间，飞行在云端的雅克·贝汉也曾如那位两千多年前的中国哲人一样，弄不清究竟是自己化作了飞鸟，还是一只在迁徙途中打盹的鸟儿，梦见它变成了一位满头银发的法国人：雅克·贝汉。