Screw our roots
November 29, 2011
Baya nervously meeting with Arthur's Parents
I always love the comical characters in the french movies. They are like the princes and princesses in Disney fairy tales which shows us how perfect the world could be, yet, with the compelling story telling and acting by French actors, writers and directors, French dramas are able to connect the protagonists with reality and give us a sense of hope in envisioning a better and romantic future, whether it’s for love or politics.
The Names of Loves (Le nom des gens) is a story about roots. Baya, a modern day hippy and Arthur, an articulate liberal professor, constantly question the reason of their being and the history of their family. There are limitless factors to account for how we came into being they way we are right now, for instance where did our grandparents come from? how did our mom and dad meet? what did our teachers teach us? It is impossible to account for each and everyone of them but knowing them comforts us because it reinforce our identity as a member of a family with roots, an organization, a city, a nation. It indoctrinates us with a set of value that are worth protecting and fighting for. As the Chinese proverb says: Never forget the past for it could be a teacher in the future.
Nevertheless, it is dangerous not to question history and take it as it is. Endless atrocities in history have proven us the danger of having a single-story of history: fascism, totalitarian regimes and genocides. Arthur, our protagonist which was born into a very French family with right-winged parents, had a constant struggle between his roots of being a noble French countryman and his left-leaning political philosophies, not to mention his political avant garde girlfriend Baya. That’s why Arthur were always having these imaginary conversations with his young-self and his late parents. It is with these dialogues that he has finally overcome the struggle and saw her mom was in fact just having whipped cream for the first time in the Taxi instead of being molested by German soldiers as he imagined. History shall be understood in tandem with continuous questioning so that we could learn from the past and move forward at the same time. How could this be done? Baya’s answer: I’m an atheist, but Muslim is my culture.
History is important, but screw our roots.
Lance Corona
September 7, 2011
Poor Larry
Before Larry Crowne was fired from U-Mart, he was voted as the employee of the month six times in a row. The reason for him getting fired – he didn’t go to college. It seems sensible to get rid of the least educated employee first when a company downsizes. Management and human resource theories would tell you the same. But this attention to the hard facts – grading employees with a simple and ruthless mathematical scores according to their education level, ignores the human connection – one’s devoted services to customers, loyalty to the company and the inevitable bonds between colleagues that is built over the years. Certainty talent acquisition specialists (who came up with this fancy job title anyway?) would argue that these factors could well be rated with a 10-pt scale to give a more accurate reflection of an employee’s value to the company. But I believe that the hunger for endless quantifiable facts for decision-making is taking its toll on our common sense and slowly driving us away from humanity.
Ryan Bingham - What
Downsizing a company is a complicated matter that an average person like me could never wrap my mind around it. Yet I could still take total control in downsizing my life. After getting the pink slip, Larry decided to downsize his life to help repay his loan. The logic behind is – you own less, you use less (not useless). It reminds me of Ryan Bingham (Clooney) in Up in the Air. Bingham travels around the country to give “what’s in your backpack?” seminars and reminds people of their ever-increasing possession are dragging their feet. He doesn’t like the idea of owning something, not even a house, a wife or a family. It seems that everything he owns could be fit in the handy, standard-sized luggage box that he carries with him as he speeds through the security checks. Larry Crowne lives Bingham’s philosophy, though out of very practical reasons – he switched from a SUV to a scooter to save gas and moved to a smaller house to save money. It is ironic that we always think about ways to save money using coupons and discounts, while in fact the most effective way is not to use those coupons and spend at all – you own less and you will spend less. I must take control and start downsizing my life today! Thanks, Hanks and Clooney! (Smart people are handsome! Or is it actually the other way round?)
Care
Other than downsizing life, Larry took other measures to cope with unemployment. He went to college and attended Miss Tainot’s Speech 217: The Art of Informal Remarks. Tainot’s motto – do it only if you care. It seems simple enough, but on second thought, it’s more easily said than done. Think about the last time you slept in a class, skip a class, miss an appointment, went to a party you don’t really want to be in, submitted some substandard work. Think about them again and Miss Tainot will tell you: if you care, work harder; if you don’t, then why bother? Some may consider this idea cruel and mean, but this all-or-nothing perspective to life could actually save you a lot of time and make way for the things you really care about. Miss Tainot’s not only tells us to care, but to care for the little things in life – the informal remarks. Larry started the semester with his bold and dull description of how to make the perfect french toast, but he moved the class with heartwarming yet concise tale of his life at the end of the semester. By mastering the ability to appreciate the tiny bits in life, generate a sense of admiration and fun out of those bits, one would be able to find happiness – no matter how much you own, downsized or upsized.
理直氣壯的同理心
May 11, 2011
何偉龍飾演的Jimmy曾經是一個水手，環遊世界各地，人生閱歷豐富。晚年流浪街頭，患上癌症，要孤獨地面對病魔。他有一個夢想，就是「找個人和我上火星」。我想火星就像徵在他幻想中的一個小小鳥托邦吧。他四處奔波，豎起他小小的一支望遠鏡，探索火星位置。追尋火星的路把他帶到旺角的一個公園，這個公園每晚都有很多人來放狗。Jimmy漸漸與他們建立起一種關係。
Jimmy性格自我，不善社交，跟放狗的人又話不投機。唯有Dorothy(區嘉雯飾)每晚都會跟他聊天。Dorothy是一個單身老人，她希望說服Jimmy參加她所領導的老人小組。每次Jimmy都會回應﹕「我不需要你可憐我。」有一次，Dorothy終於觸動了他的神經，Jimmy一怒之下說﹕「就算你在輪椅上滾下去亞皆老街，被貨車撞倒再彈回我面前，我都不會可憐你！」這段話，對著一個一番善意的慈祥姥姥說，好像太麻木不仁了吧！為什麼Jimmy可以那樣理直氣壯地去羞辱一個關心自己的人﹖
Jimmy漂泊一生，歷盡滄桑，以為苦盡甘來，癌魔卻要奪去他的生命； Dorothy雖然半身不遂，但家景富有，偏愛音樂劇《綠野仙縱》(The Wizard of Oz)，最愛唱 Over the Rainbow。Dorothy見到Jimmy露宿街頭，觸動她的同理心，或，用孟子的語言，令她的惻隱之心作祟。感受到Jimmy比自己不幸，Dorothy希望可以幫助他。然而，從Jimmy的角度來看﹕一個中產老婦，帶著一隻受主人呵護備至的狗來散步，終日沉醉在《綠野仙縱》的世界而不吃人間煙火的這麼一個人，跟本連理解我生活、身世的能力都沒有的人，又有什麼資格可憐我﹖我想這就是Jimmy「理直氣壯」的一點解釋。
有時候，看見我們都市裡的人，假期到中國山區、東南亞去「扶貧」，我又會思考類似的問題。究竟我們「 扶貧」的對象在想什麼呢﹖我並不否定那「 扶貧」是出於善意，而且這善意值得鼓勵。但我們有沒有想過我們的善意可能是對其他人尊嚴一種粗暴的踐踏呢﹖蔣勳說過﹕我們最大的敵人不是惡，是善。因為你是不能拒絕善的。
(二之一)
Attenberg
April 18, 2011
Attenberg (2010) - A film by Athina Rachel Tsangari
Set in a slow, coastal and industrial Greek town, Attenberg is a coming-of -age movie that explores sexuality and human nature.
The name, Attenberg, comes from the mispronounced name of the British naturalist Sir David Attenborough, who narrates many of the BBC’s documentaries. The protagonist under study, Marina, is a fan of Attenborugh’s series. She is fascinated by chimpanzees walking in the jungles and gorillas fighting in the woods. As a teenage girl, she is also confused about her sexual orientation, or if she has an orientation at all – being disinterested in boy’s and girl’s, or even her own, genital. To me, Marina’s character is, almost, schizophrenic – a person who likes to observe animal having her most basic animal instinct, sex, sterilized.
Marina’s interests in animals and disinterest in sex make me ponder – to what extent should/would we suppress our animal instincts or nature to qualify us as “human beings”? We use the word “animal” to describe people with immoral or outrages behaviours. But aren’t we all animals after all? What animals do that we shouldn’t? Do animals deserve to be disrespected like that with that adjective?
Why have so many animal instincts been stigmatized in our world? Sex, sleep, eating raw food, having a connection with nature… and I am sure the list go on and on. I am not saying that we should all practice them as, for instance, a tiger does. But what is line that we shouldn’t cross? I should say that Marina’s sexual interest/disinterest is definitely a distorted one. Distorted by our human establishment (media, school, book, religion, political system, etc).
Is the suppression of our animal instincts a form of evolution, or devolution for us as a species – the homo sapiens?
《127小時》= 勵志片?
March 14, 2011
大陜谷的壯闊地貌
絕地求生的片子，就要找來運動精英來宣傳(按此觀看Trailer)﹖何來的邏輯﹖難道《127小時》就只是一部展示人類不屈不撓求生意志的電影﹖而運動員的意志力就一定比一般人高嗎﹖我從《127》裡看不出任何勵志的信息，但卻感受到電影對人類的反思及控訴。
看完《127》，頭痛了一整天，因為它有一種強大的壓迫感。一是大自然對比人類渺小的壓迫，二是弧怜怜死亡的壓迫。電影開頭主角初進大陜谷時，用高空鏡頭展示了壯闊的地貌。如此畫面若配以慢板的管弦音樂，頓時變成BBC《天與地》的一幕，叫人震攝於大自然的奇景中。同一畫面，加上主角騎著單車在山谷中飛馳，配上搖滾音樂，卻象徵著人類征服自然的野心。主角被困之後，同一畫面，配上靜默，顯出人類的渺小及無助。除了聲及畫之外，電影中刻畫了大自然的規律，亦同樣彰顯出人面對大自然的那股無力感。那隻每天都準時飛過的鷹及每天早上都會照亮主角希望的十三分鐘陽光，就彷彿是大自然每天對主角的冷笑: 大自然恆久而不滅的規律是不會因為人類而改變的。
壓迫並不來自死亡，當主角掉進山谷裡之後，他已理性地分析了他自備的水只夠三天，而警察只會在三天後才開始搜索，理性上他已經接受了死亡的事實。壓迫感卻來自他要獨自面對死亡這個事實。主角樂觀面對，既拍Video Blog，又自己跟自己做電台節目。縱使他的幻覺將家人一個一個帶到出洞之中跟他反思一生，但當他望著天空絕望的呼叫時，抑或是在截肢的時候，壓迫感的湧現是因為他要弧怜怜面對這一切。他跟舊愛最後不能開花結果的破碎畫面，以及片頭、片尾人山人海的片段，令此感覺更強烈。
最後，要呼一呼應首段講「運動員宣傳」的問題。其實主角是一個不羈的冒險家，不愛拘束，偏愛自由，並沒有運動員的專注及自控能力。當意外發生後，他要表現出無比的自我控制能力，不過他最後亦失敗了，自由不羈的性格卻令他掉了軍力及打瀉了水。所以，我認為將運動員跟主角作對比，是不倫不類之舉。此舉不但誤將電影定型為「勵志片」，更顯出電影發行商的視野之(廣/窄)。
讓我以幾句歌詞一首歌作結，反思一下人跟自然的關係。歌詞來自《Never Hear Surf Music Again》，這就是電影開始及結尾是播的人山人海片段時的背景音樂。
There must be some fucking chemical
(Chemical in your brain)
That makes us different from animals
(Makes us all the same)
再談影評 / The new needs friend
March 6, 2011
上回談到「好看/不好看」的影評。
這樣的影評看似在幫助我們，在眾多的電影中選擇一齣「好」的。但其實我們在不知不覺地被作者的價值牽著走。決定一樣東西「好」或「不好」是一個帶有價值的判斷，果若我們不去思考就照單全收，就會將作者的一套世界觀內化。長久下去，我們的選擇必是會減少，因為我們不會看作者說「不好」的電影。
我相信無論是看電影還是讀影評，都為是交流價值的一個契機。前者可以令我們看見生命不同的可能性、教我們謙卑；後者令我們知道每個人對同一件事的看法也可以不一樣、擴闊我們的視野。所以我希望我對電影的一些「看後感」可以達到這個目的: 價值交流。
最後希望跟大家分享一段關於「評論」的「評論」(A critique on critics)。電影《五星級大鼠》(Ratatouille)的未段，廚師跟老鼠(饒恕我已經完全忘了角色的名字)煮了一頓飯給食評家Anton Ego吃，之後他們還跟Anton Ego揭穿老鼠才是大廚的秘密。翌日，Anton Ego的食評在報紙上刊登:
“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talents, new creations. The new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new; an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking, is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core.”
影評 vs.「看後感」
March 6, 2011
最近看見《一年未緣》(Another Year)電影海報上寫著「權威電影網站Rottentomato.com 87%好評」。
以前，發行商為了加強觀眾對一齣電影的好感，都會在電影海報印上「勇奪奧斯卡/金球獎/金馬獎N個獎項」 ，並以橄欖枝作引號，務求吸引觀眾的眼球，繼而消費。現在，連各大電影獎項的品牌也不夠吸引(彷彿恐怕觀眾連各大獎項都不懂)，要在海報上寫「87%」這類量化的數字，就像Facebook上「有87人讚好」一樣。總之大家認為是好的，就一定是好的。
我好怕這類「好看」、「不好看」這類影評。報章上、Blog上影評讀到的，大都是評論一套電影的「可看性」(抱歉，這裡不用「性」我不知還可以用什麼詞): 男/女主角的演技如何、電影配樂如何、美術指導如何、攝影如何等等的論述。我不否認以上要素都是構成一套好電影的必要條件，但它們都是技術層面上的問題。我們不要忘記電影是藝術的一種，而藝術就是藝術家透過一種媒體去表達自己。所以，可以說演技、配樂、美術、攝影都只是導演去跟觀眾說教或對話的媒體。
我的意思不是以上說的媒體在電影裡都淪為導演的「工具」，獨立來看，它們每一個都有其藝術性。所以奧斯卡每年都會以「最佳主角」、「最佳剪接」等獎項去表揚藝術家在各媒體的成就。但是，奧斯卡還有「最佳電影」這麼一個的獎項。我對「最佳電影」的理解就是，導演利用了一系列的「好工具」去表達自己獨有的觀點。
看電影時，我覺得去解讀導演想傳遞的信息，比留意它在「工具層面」上的美感來得更簡單，更重要。因為，作為一個Average Guy，在攝影、音樂上的造詣不高，並不配去評論某人的演技如何、攝影手法如何云云。但我跟導演、編劇、攝影師、 武指、美指有一個其通點: 我們都是人。作為一個人，我有思想及同理心。有了這兩大條件，我相信我有能力去理解在電影工業裡的藝術家希望向我表達的信息，並會細心留意他們在電影每一幕所埋下的線索。
我不希望影評的作用只是給觀眾一個分數，或「好」與「不好」的答案。每個觀眾都是獨立的個體，對於一齣電影理應有不同的解讀。只說「好看/不好看」、「演技/配樂如何」的影評，不但否認了電影的藝術性，更顯示了作者自我陶醉的狹隘視野。所以，我不會寫影評，但我卻會寫「看後感」(跟小學生看完圖書之後寫「讀後感」相類)。看後感就是看完電影後，我的感受、我的啟發，及我對導演想說的話的詮釋。
Hereafter: Make the most out of life/death
February 24, 2011
Death and afterlife are are explored in almost every religion. Many religions has attempted to provide us with a vision of life after death (should it still be called “life”?) and bring many of us peace in mind in doing so. Hereafter has tried to present (though very briefly) how different people and religions approach notions of death, challenging viewers’ perception of death. My take on it echoes with George’s (Matt Damon) thoughts about his ability to connect with the dead: “A life that is all about death doesn’t worth living.”
We seek to religions, supernatural theorists or psychics for easy answers about after life for only one reason – fear. The fear of death is ingrained in our genes to prevent us from getting killed, a biological instinct that all organisms share. But is it worth it to spend our time, time while we are still alive, to fantasize about the world after death, to pursue a definitive explanation of after life and to embark for an endless pursue to talk to our deceased love ones? There is no right or wrong answer to this question as no one alive could have known the answer. But my answer to it is – No.
Nevertheless, near-death experience is still an active field in science and is has been and will be subject to tonnes of studies. My feeling is, whether there exists a supernatural world, where the “particles vibrate at a must higher speed” as a psychic claims in the movie, we could never proved it until we get there. George (Damon) has this special ability after a neurosurgery. Doctors claim that it is because his nerves are messed up and experience schizophrenic symptoms. But from George’s point of view, he is a person that could talk to the dead
So, is George schizophernic or psychic? We could never tell unless we’re him…or maybe, even if George himself couldn’t tell. At the meantime, why don’t we just chill out, have a cup of tea, and carry on.
Make the most out of life.
