與盧馬常在

對法國人來說，渡假是天大的事，這是理解伊力盧馬（ Eric Rohmer ）《綠光》（ The Green Ray ）的大前題。

我邀請 Marie Rivière 執導的《與盧馬常在》（ In The Company of Eric Rohmer ）在布里斯班國際電影節放映時，Marie 也正在渡假，深覺打擾了她。

Marie 跟盧馬合作近二十年，是與盧馬合作最頻繁的女演員，參演的主要電影包括《飛行員的妻子》（ The Aviator's Wife ）、《綠光》、《雙姝奇遇》（ Four Adventures of Reinette and Mirabelle ）、《秋天的故事》（ An Autumn Tale ）、《女伯爵與侯爵》（ The Lady and the Duke ）等，在盧馬遺作《牧羊人之戀》（ The Romance of Astrea and Celadon ）中也有出場。我從前寫過，盧馬的女角，各自性情不同， Marie 演繹過的角色，最為敏感細緻。今年九月 Mary Stephen （雪蓮）來訪布里斯班當駐校藝術家，我們吃吃喝喝風花雪月了好幾個星期，但覺時日太短，但已是難得的機緣。話題當然離不開盧馬，雪蓮說盧馬看上的女子都是非常特別的（要不也有點神經質），而且他總會依據那個女子的性情編寫劇本，例如 Béatrice Romand ，其人便即如《好姻緣》裡的沙翩及《秋天的故事》裡的馬嘉烈，執著頑固，還帶點辣。這就是為甚麼盧馬電影裡的女人，都那麼有血有肉個性鮮明。

憑雪蓮的牽線，我有幸看到 Marie 的紀錄片，也有幸親自向 Marie 發邀請函。盧馬生前絕少容人拍照，更莫說是拍攝，單是這點已令本片彌足珍貴，也可見 Marie 與盧馬特別知心。 Marie 不是專業導演，《與盧馬常在》也不是關於盧馬電影生涯的「正式」紀綠片，而是一封情書，刻記他們的親蜜，刻記 Marie 蹲在盧馬身旁，挽著他臂膀，那小女孩般的相依。影片動人的恰好是那份天真與自然，你不會想像，影片的第一幕，是她在盜版商人的攤檔中找到《獅子星座》，因而興高采烈，自然是深喜盧馬這第一部長片仍然在民間流傳，管它是不是盜版。在訪問片段或盧馬出席座談會紀綠之間，有 Marie 傷感的獨白。《詩經》多簡單詩作，用白描比興，「詩三百，一言以蔽之，曰思無邪」， Marie 這影片也一樣。

《與盧馬常在》既記盧馬，也記 Marie ，它同時是一部關於拍攝紀綠片的紀綠片。 Marie 把借器材的過程、游說兒子為她掌鏡、踏步到拍攝現場的片段，都保留下來。這些表面上與主題無關的片段，其實大有關聯，正是這些片段，為影片賦予生活痕跡，展開了 Marie 與她這部作品的對話，將「她」印記在作品中。 Marie 揹著裝載攝影器材的背囊，踏著小步的背影，輕快熱情盡在不言中，那一幕我永遠忘不了。

看完影片後我馬上告訴老板，這鐵定的要放映！老板欣然答應，並讓我邀請 Marie 來澳洲。於是我與 Marie 展開漫長的電郵通信。大部份人寫電郵總跟平日交談不同，思路有轉變不一定留痕跡， Marie 的電郵卻似跟你坐在咖啡店聊天，表情、聲線完全可以想像，由下筆到完成之間的思路變化，也一一可見－－要知道，她是那麼一個敏感的人，也想的多－－，她是一口氣的寫下去，對自己寫過的東西有疑惑，她就寫下疑惑，不去修改。跟她的影片，竟是同出一轍。由此，我更加明白《與盧馬常在》之可貴，而跟 Marie 通信，每每出奇不意，為她的奇想訝異，我對她說，終於深明盧馬為何對你情有獨鐘。

原意是伴隨《與盧馬常在》辦一個盧馬回顧展，因為種種原因不能成事，但我堅持最少放一部相關的作品（我主理一個影人環節，對其他與影人有關的紀綠片也有同樣要求，最遺憾是 Charlotte Rampling 的 The Look 不在我的環節，不然一定播《魂斷多瑙河》（ The Night Porter ））。老板選《牧羊人之戀》，因為是盧馬遺作，又沒曾在本城放映。我說不不不，怎麼可能？要是只放一部，只能是《綠光》或《飛行員的妻子》，因為它必須是一部以 Marie 為主的電影，其中我又偏向《綠光》，因為在《與盧馬常在》中，《綠光》最頻被提及。 Marie 被列為《綠光》的聯合編劇，但在一訪問中， Marie 說道，影片根本沒有劇本，對白是跟據她與盧馬的閑談即興創作的。有一幕她流淚的戲，完全不在預期之中，盧馬只是安排攝影機追隨她在山郊的步伐，她一時感觸，卻真的哭起來了......

“Who said that I was the coauthor?” she asked rhetorically. “I couldn’t be coauthor because there wasn’t really a script. The basic idea came from Eric, and all the dialogue was improvised. I met with him and we had long conversations. He listened very intently and, within certain limits, I could do whatever I liked.”

因為多有顧慮， Marie 最終沒有來。不過她很關心放映情況，我告訴他全場觀眾摒息靜氣期待《綠光》的最後一幕，她非常高興。

今次重看綠光，我更喜歡了，深覺盧馬敏感。狄菲嫣（ Marie Rivière ）在雪堡過得不痛快，回到巴黎又悶悶不樂，於是到訪山脈（還是用藍白紅膠袋呢，我以為只有中國人才用！），但散步間又不順心了，即日就離去。所謂這也不是，那也不是。粗淺的人覺得她刁矯扭擰，有心人自會明白鬱悶之無計可消除。

狄菲嫣在海灘遇上瑞士女孩，瑞士女孩能言善道聒噪多話，隨即搭上兩個男人，但全是廢話，盧馬不用交待甚麼，只不時接上無心答話、東張西望的狄菲嫣，張力如箭在弦，在狄菲嫣終於忍不住離席以前，我已經為她擔心，知道她一定受不了。不怕告訴你，被逼參與與陌生人沉悶無聊的對話，常發生在我身上。看到那一幕，真是特別覺得盧馬是我們的知心呀。狄菲嫣渴望有個旅伴，但不是求其一個旅伴，也不是誰也可以當那旅伴。有些人耐得住沒意思的對話，甚至可以談笑風生，但也有些人不......

隨後在 Perth 的 Cottesloe 海岸看日落，我以為，可以看到綠光......

晨興理荒穢

今早花了個多小時修剪盆栽。

年中為寫一篇關於成瀨巳喜男的文章，重讀川端康成的《山之音》，忽然為他對盆栽（Bonsai）的描寫著迷。

北美研究者 Roy Starrs 將《山之音》與普魯斯特（ Marcel Proust ）的《追憶逝水年華》(In Search of Lost Time/À la recherche du temps perdu)相提並論，兩部作品在風格及主題（及篇幅！）上當然多有不同，但都以主人公（ Marcel /信吾）的心理感受出發，普魯斯特綿密舖敘，川端抽像跳躍，但似乎都邁向同一目標：通過書寫，將主人公從時間（年華逝去）的重擔中解脫出來，尋找超越時間桎梏的昇華。（Starrs, Roy, ‘Time and Anti-time’, in Soundings In Time: The Fictive Art of Yasunari Kawabata, Richmond: Japan Library, 1998）

Roy Starrs 由能劇往往流露對往昔的傷感（a sensitivity to passing time）說起，帶出日本文學之物哀傳統。《山之音》處處是物哀意象--其不是有關信吾對實在的人（無論是菊子或保子姊姊）的感情，而是他對抽像概念——衰老、年青、色相、永恆等等的思考詠歎。小說充滿四時植物、自然景象的描寫，信吾與菊子的閑談總離不開應時草木，全書章節題名除了〈傷後〉之外，全都是自然物事，充份體現信吾見物起興的情懷，這種情懷，來自和歌，來自川端喜好的《枕草子》及《源氏物語》。

盆栽是將瞬間與永恆、萬物與唯一凝聚於一可觸之空間。有人以為盆栽是邪惡的，因以個人的意志扭曲自然，將原應在野外的樹木植入細小盆皿；有人從盆栽裡看出藝術，看出禪。

不瞞你，我的一個外國朋友就以扭曲自然的觀點挑戰我，有趣的是，她家種花種草養貓養狗，於是我答道，那你的狗是否應該回到森林？她只得不置可否：噢，人類就是有千百種方法逆轉自然。但是何謂逆轉，何謂自然？我相信命運不可拂逆，所以可以逆轉的，或許根本就不是自然，也非命運，或者說，是自然的一部份。 Donald Richie 詮釋「物哀」，指其傳達一種滿意的聽任自然（contented resignation），觀察到萬物有其序、甘於順其而然的情感（an observance of the way things are and a willingness to go along with them），「物哀」的本質是感受存在的本質（experiencing the basic nature of existence），體驗天人合一的愉悅（savouring the comforts of being in harmony with the cycles of the universe），任由逆境襲來（acceptance of adversity），及懷抱不可拂逆之命運（appreciation of the inevitable）。（Donald Richie, A Hundred Years of Japanese Film (revised edition), Tokyo: Kodansha International Ltd, 2005, p. 63）如此看來，盆栽是最懂得物哀的。

其實我認為兩種觀點（扭曲自然/禪）都對－－盆栽之迷人，正在亦正亦邪的雙重性。它的看似不平衡，其實是精心打理的不平衡（如日本庭院），所以是近乎完美的平衡。它的靜止，反映著萬物流動。盆栽有禪味，也具妖氣。盆栽是矛盾的存在。

"Janus is the tutelary diety of criticism and the symbol of genius."
-Balzac, Lost Illusions

於是今年六月買了一盆盆栽（圖右），上月與 Tim 的妹妹參加一個課程，從雜生的小樹著手，自己理出一盆（圖左）。都不是名貴的盆栽，只是年幼的、最易栽種的刺柏（juniper）。

今早第一次細心修剪，不意就是一小時，每一剪是一世界，只有修剪了，才發覺有更多可以修剪，完全是忘我的。

（我們沒有花園，不可以堆肥，但用一種 Urban Composter bin ，剩菜果皮丟進去，會沉澱出可用作有機肥料的液體。）

Dose THE SKIN I LIVE IN Have a Soul?

Phillip Lopate (ex-director of the New York International Film Festival and writer of the book Totally, Tenderly, Tragically, one of my sources of inspiration) wrote about Fassbinder's Despair as follows:

"It was a European Art Film, slickly shot, polished, with high production values-but no soul."

"The secret of Fassbinder's dramatic power had always been the underground sympathy he showed for his otherwise messed-up characters: but this time there was no sympathy, only chilly mannerism."

Almodovar's The Skin I Live In disappointed me for exactly what was listed above, and also for the following (although I was captivated by the ending):

1) The very presence of Spain, and the Latino spirit, which always play an integral part in Almodovar's movies, and which is one of the charms of his movies, is no longer there. The story could have happen elsewhere

2) The story is too plot-driven than character-driven, and in an Almodovar movie, i.e. such melodrama, we always expect a lot more from the psychology of the characters!

3) And again, for such melodrama, the emotion doesn't come out until the very end

4) And speaking of such pervert relationship between the hunter and the hunted, this is not entirely unique. Tanizaki Junichiro (writer) and Yasuzo Masumura (director who had adopted numerous Tanizaki novels) had done very good jobs on similar subject matters.

Cacciatore

上星期到 Fortitude Valley 辦「聖誕」貨, Tim 買了一條 cacciatore (又稱 cocciatori) 給我。其香（或臭）味入心入肺，如發霉萬年的肉乾，很多人聞了連連搖頭（包括 Tim 在內），我卻哎吔如痴如醉。

意大利朋友說，昔日 salami 的 casing 用豬腸皮造，可以入口，現今大多用橡膠或不知名物質，食用前一定要除去 casing 。

這種 cacciatore 風乾已久，比一般的 salami 硬，也較難切片，但甘香無窮，跟常吃的 salami 不可同日而語。

昨天下午伴紅酒吃了半條。我家附近有一家意大利人開的 Deli ，賣各種意大利乾貨濕貨，今年進去碰運氣，但只有這種沒經風乾（我稱它幼年）的 cacciatore 。

也故且買一條，肉身比風乾的柔軟很多，聞起來有鞋臭味，但遠不如風乾的濃烈燻天，入口的味道嘛，差天共地。



好壞 salami 的分別如紅酒。像上面這種幼年的，其實已經遠比切片的好吃，但單薄得很。風乾的則似陳年紅酒，厚度一嚐即知，味道富層次，有巴辣的個性，也堪嚼堪回味，有如品嚐歷史與風霜。

如下圖所見，最右上角的一片是幼年的，色澤與風乾的明顯不同。至如風乾的過程為何，兩者的泡製方法有何不同？再要請教意大利朋友了。

書未掩卷失興趣

十二月初有個小假期。出發到 Perth 及澳洲西部以前，開始讀 Julio Cortazar 的 Hopscotch 。

Julio Cortazar 是安東尼奧尼《春光乍洩》（Blow Up）的小說原作者，阿根廷人，布魯塞爾出生，阿根廷長大，自1952年長居於巴黎至八十年代逝世。

Hopscotch 寫於1963年，全書155章，作者自云當中包含無數本書，但主要由兩本書組成：第一本由第1章至第57章順序組成；第二本由所有155章不順序組合而成，須按作者提供的次序讀完－－不過所謂不順序，其實是第57章打後的章節，不按順序穿插在仍是順序的1-57中 （am i making any sense?）。

小說以居於巴黎（失意後回歸祖國）的阿根廷知識份子 Oliveira 為中心，充滿存在主義式思辯，同時側寫六十年代巴黎的波希米亞生活。我很為起初的六、七節著迷，因有一種非常散漫的氛圍，Oliveria 與烏拉圭情人 La Maga 的戀愛始有若無，很沉重又很不經意，也寫得詩意。不時使我想起一些認識的人和事。而且我熱切期待展開書裡的「第二本書」。

但自 La Maga 在第一本書的中段消失後，我開始逐漸失去興趣。益發覺得 Oliveira 不可喜，也很難在打後的情節中找到深刻意味。其實就是 La Maga 還在，我還是覺得行文太過冗長。而以本書這種幅度與厚度，思想及感情深度算不上成比例。（雖然第一本書結尾， Oliveira 作出重要決定的剎那，輕盈美麗又悲傷動人，仍是難忘的段落）。

於是書未掩卷卻以失去興趣，連本來最 intriguing 的「不順序」敘事也（暫）無意思發掘了。

今天拿起企鵝出版的艾未未訪談錄 Ai Weiwei Speaks ，輕鬆可喜，具啓發性。

早前一口氣讀完胡蘭成書信集《意有未盡》，朱天文並沒有誇張，也不見得是因為崇拜胡而 biased 。胡文的確具煽動性，有一種騰雲鴐霧的大氣魄。不過這大概只限於晚年作？緊接《意有未盡》後讀《亂世文談》（胡於戰時寫的散文合集），味同嚼蠟，感覺他尚未收歛日月精華。

還在等某人寄來幾本未有機會一讀的張愛玲「遺作」。

小記。

藝術家的氣魄

真正喜歡電影的奇幻與藝術力量、醉心於電影語言流變的觀眾，不可能不為史高西斯的 Hugo 著迷（我指的不單是喜歡）。

除了是對奇幻大師梅里耶的致敬，也是對眾多早期電影巨匠由衷的、謙卑的感謝，片中隨處可見費立茲朗、茂瑙、差利式的默片電影語言（如 automaton 初出場時溶鏡接到同一角度的閃回；Isabelle 在火車站與 Hugo 走失，臉容的特寫與紛至沓來的足印重疊，表現她的焦慮......再細看一次，應該可以列舉更多）。史高西斯的電影一向如電影語言資料館，他從無數荷里活及歐陸經典中吸取養份，同時多作嘗試，在細微處也窮極創新（但不求花巧）。 Hugo 裡種種想像與重構，包括對電影手法及對電影史的 想像與重構，是他的標記，也是對這些經典作為其創作泉源的致謝。

是念記經典，亦是繼承與創新。 Hugo 之為 3D ，幾乎是必然的。表面的原因當然是 3D 比 2D 能更佳地表現機械、手藝的複雜性與空間感（ Hugo 的 3D，是我看過的 3D 電影中設計得最為精心，也在最大程度上與敘事相輔相承的）。而史高西師在當下以 3D 拍攝 Hugo ，自然有與梅里耶昔日嘗拍電影的同一用心。真正的藝術家，很難不為新的創作媒體吸引，這是電影之於梅里耶，3D 之於史高西斯（及更多更多其他導演），而藝術家的氣魄，遠遠超越於嘗試，而是發掘如何在新媒體中創新，發揮最大的力量。梅里耶如仍在世，必會興高采烈嘗試 3D 攝製。

忍不住不說，同樣是對世記初巴黎的「想像與重構」，活地阿倫的《情迷午夜巴黎》，相比之下益發似膚淺及自我中心的 pseudo-intellectual （借用活地-clone在片中酸溜溜詆譭別人的用詞）之聒噪，庸俗的很。

write

I was talking to the editor of a local magazine based in Melbourne last night. I told him I am a film critic back in Hong Kong. He asked, "So, are you still writing?"

To which I replied, "I try to, when I have time."

He said, "ah, that sounds a bit sad."

me, "eh?"

Him, "I am a writer, I have to write everyday!"

His very determination and passion inspired me.

Lovely old man with a straw hat...

It's good when you talk to people who can remind you how life should be like.

野餐

假如在這麼忙我又這麼懶的當下有甚麼事值得花點時間一記，那就是昨晚意大利同事見我不大高興，請我跟他的法越女朋友，還有其他四個法國朋友一敘，到 south bank 公園野餐。就在河邊孔夫子像一旁的草坪上。

他說：他們會準備食物，不過天知道那會否成事！他們靠不住...（almost like a compliment）

跟四個法國人初次見面，但不用堆起笑容說 nice to meet you ，也不用接收高八度的假熱情，不用聽滔滔不絕的個人表演，然後陪笑，也不用絞盡腦汁去想「他們覺得幽默」的話...

而且都很純真，在他們身上看不到我特受不了的 aggressiveness, 也不像是 opportunistic 的人。我想我是說多了，不過在草坪上，暗暗的歡喜。

How They Drink Coffee

After a great meal at Vapiano (my favourite lunch place - not that i can afford it every day though) mr italiano and I went back to office and amused ourselves by laughing at this man in the same elevator with us:

man: this morning I was so excited to try on the new coffee machine. But there is no milk in the fridge!

as soon as we walked out from the elevator, he asked me, "Did you hear what he said?"

And we both burst out at the same time, "why is that a problem!?"

"I am Immortality and also death"

This morning I decided to take a break from what I have been occupying myself with and to take the pleasure of immersing into a story by Borges.

It was the first story from The Aleph, namely "The Immortal" (which plays with Giambattista's argument that Homer is a symbolic character, and which goes on to suggest that Homer might be an immortal and thus might be any or every poet we ever know of). I had read Borges works (short stories, essays, parables) in a collection volume before and when I started reading "The Immortal", I remember very well how the princess receives the six volumes of Iliad from a mysterious book dealer. I was sure that I've read it before.

But the story intrigued me the same and I couldn't remember, even vaguely, what happens afterwards. I decided to read on. Soon I was no longer sure whether I really read it before. Some of the parts seem very familiar. Some of them don't ring a bell. I was totally confused. But the more I am confused, the more I am intrigued.

It was until I came across the following that I realized I have certainly read it before. I remember these quotations crystal clear:

"There is nothing very remarkable about being immortal; with the exception of mankind, all creatures are immortal, for they know nothing of death. What is divine, terrible, and incomprehensible is to know oneself immortal."

"In my view, the Wheel conceived by certain religions in Hindustan is much more plausible; on that Wheel, which has neither end nor beginning, each life is the effect of the previous life and engenderer of the next, yet not one life determines the whole... They knew that over an infinitely long span of time, all things happen to all men. As reward for his past and future virtues, every man merited every kindness - yet also every betrayal, as reward for his past and future iniquities. Much as the way in games of chance, heads and tails tend to even out, so cleverness and dullness cancel and correct each other." (such can also supplement my argument against the level of inspiration in The Tree of Life)

"Viewed in that way, all our acts are just, though also unimportant. There are no spiritual or intellectual merits. Homer composed the Odyssey; given infinite time, with infinite circumstances and changes, it is impossible that the Odyssey should not be composed at least once. No one is someone; a single immortal men is all men. Like Cornelius Agrippa, I am god, hero, philosopher, demon, and world - which is a long-winded way of saying that I am not."

But what do I know? Perhaps this is exactly a spell that Borges had cast so the reader believes he has read the story before. And perhaps he did, in his previous life, another life, from another writer, who might well be the same person. Or perhaps, he is one who had written it in the first place.

I do believe there is magic in Borges's works.

What is Time? - The Tree Of Life

While I was watching The Tree of Life I was deeply touched and in a few scenes I was even in tears - without quite knowing why. Something addresses to my deep feelings, and I am happy to conclude it as a response to the spell of the cosmic visuals and the lyrical “stream of consciousness” style together with the exceptional use of (classical) music. I also enjoy very much the "reaching up" motif (lots of stairs, shot in low angle; Brad Pitt is always climbing up or looking up) which resonates to a religious sensibility that is very common in medieval art.

I very much appreciate how Malick managed to extract the extraordinary out of the ordinary (much as in The Thin Red Line). He placed the history of this ordinary family in a context that is much larger than the time and place it belongs too; that is, in the context of the history of mankind (or some may like to call it "evolution"); of the very existence of not just men but essentially, "beings". Which leads to the realization of how ignorant men are about the meaning of their (our) own existence. I am also moved by the father-son relationship which can probably also be read as a metaphor of god-men relationship.

However, there is a part in my mind that resists this film. For me, it works on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level. It doesn’t present the sharp observation and revelation, nor the complexity and density as in 2001: A Space Odyssey (that it is constantly compared to, if not related to), in which every single image carries a meaning and is inter-connected with one and other, and in which the juxtaposition of the images (i.e. the editing) is an important means of bringing about true PHILOSOPHICAL meditation and DISCUSSION on evolution. There is little doubt that the 3 parts of The Tree of Life (beginning of time-the family-end of time) are to convey a meditation of the history of time and of mankind, but there is no strong connection among them and the images (though grandeur and cosmic and absolutely captivating) seem arbitrary. I was about to compare them to imageries in a poem - sometimes we do not ask for rationality and logic in a poem. But then, great poems do carry rich meanings through imageries and the CONNECTION of them. The fact that The Tree of Life is structured like a poem does not necessarily mean that it is sublime.

Exactly what Sean Penn is troubled by - father and son relationship suggested in the flashbacks, or the coldness in modernity suggested in contemporary setting, or both? One can easily say both, as it is quite obvious. We can certainly FEEL it but I do not see we are allowed room to THINK ABOUT IT. The transition to the last part - the end of time (is there really an end - and beginning - of time, if time is but an illusion?) or the Apocalypse or whatever you wish to call it, is quite awkward, and for me, the vision is too simple and predictable, if not harmonious, that looks more like a wishful "ending" than a conclusion after deep thought. (And come to think of it, where are Brad Pitt's Mom and Dad, and their Mom and Dad, and their Mom and Dad, and where are Sean Penn’ s kids, and their kids, and their kids…? Note I am already very lenient, I am not even asking why their images are fixed at different ages. What's the logic? OK, it is either just arbitrary or their images are fixed at their most troubled moment, or even at how they remained in say Sean Penn's mind - but sorry, do all these really make sense? Don't get me wrong, I would not ask such a question if the last part was portrayed as a sort of "internal reality"; which it wasn't.)

Perhaps my ultimate problem with The Tree of Life is that I DO NOT believe there is a beginning and an end of TIME (if not that I am not a religious person). TIME remains a concept that is elusive and enigmatic and unapproachable, if not illusionary as suggested by Borges. To contain TIME and to think that it is containable is a denial of the complexity and mystery of existence. What's great about 2001 is that it doesn't even attempt to suggest a beginning of time - it only depicts the dawn of men; and there is absolutely no end (and no ending).

Having said all that, I am still keen to watch the film again and re-think about it-if I could.

夜露沾衣

我住的地方，跟澳洲大部份地方一樣，一天到晚鳥鳴不絕，清晨與黃昏尤烈。傍晚到天台沉思，晚霞腥紅，林蔭間屋簷陣列，鳥聲依依，不覺想起陶淵明的詩。遺憾的是沒有炊煙，自然也無有米飯之香。

等待被淘汰

昨晚吃飯一檯六人。有人提到某公司招聘，cover letter 以一百四十字（或者是 140 characters ，也就是 twitter 的字限，不記得了）為限。大家興高采列討論，有人提出可以填上自己網頁的連結之類。我說這不是 cheating 嗎？其餘五人異口同聲說當然不，這個世代就是要有策略呀（這叫策略？），要懂得吸引人去看你的東西呀。然後有人說到網絡有些人如何故作驚人語來吸引別人看他的東西、推高網站流量等等，覺得這種做法很聰明云云。我真是 don't give a shit about it 。說到底還是無料到才需要整古做怪吧。在這個充滿網路垃圾或垃圾讀者的年代，流量又代表甚麼？（當然很多人還是很崇拜流量的）

若是職位要求熟知 social media 或 social media marketing 的運作，用自己的連結來做 cover letter 也勉強說得過去，不過我就極不欣賞這種小聰明。我寧願選一個寫足一千四百字（當然條件是寫得好）的人。

我這種落伍的人，還是等待被淘汰吧，嘿。

The Lodger's Femininity

If I ever imagine how Proust (or, Baudelaire) is like - of course we have seen many of his photos, but they are 2-dimensional -, he must have been like Ivor Novello as the lodger in Hitckcock's The Lodger. Oh, beautiful Ivor Novello, walking into that old lodging house so elegantly, living his days - and if also surviving his nerosis, in his own rhythm. His pale face and slender figure embody such sorrow. With him, time is slowing down and becoming eternalised, all that matters is beauty. He is sensitive, melancholic, and above all, feminine (the film goes so bold as using the word "queer" to describe him). I couldn't take my eyes off him for one second. (Who can?)

For me The Lodger is clearly the negotiation between masculinity and femininity. The masculinity as embodied by Joe, a detective who handcuffs his girlfriend for fun, needs no further explanation. In a sense, neither does Ivor's femininity which is so explicit. But if we look at the lodger (and The Lodger) in a symbolic way, we can certainly discover something yet more interesting. The lodger's locking up his gun is symbolically a resistance to his masculinity which is presumed (or required) in a male in the/our patriarchal society. Such is exactly opposite to Joe's behaviour of frequent playing with the handcuffs. (And how much we love the lodger and loathe the vulgar Joe *blink*)

What's more interesting is the murdered sister, and in particular the lodger's mournful attitude. I tend to see it as a mournful attitude towards the repression of his femininity, or more extremely, homosexuality (which parallels femininity), again, as demanded by the patriarchal society. It is actually the lament of his lost self, his other half (this it is his sister, not his lover). For as suggested by Robin Wood quoting Freud, the human infant is already a sexual being whose sexuality is at that stage indeterminate, in other words has the potential of being heterosexual or homosexual, or both (and yet in other words, possess both masculinity and femininity). BUT Patriarchy cannot endure ambiguity and requires "real men" and "real women", and thus operates itself by rejecting homosexuality and femininity in men. (Here is a very brief summary, for more discussion on this read Wood, 'Murderous Gays: Hitchcock's Homophobia' in Hitchcock's Films Revisited. I agree with Matthew Cheng that Wood's essays on Hitchcock are most fascinating) ,

It is thus by no coincidence that Hitchcock casted Ivor Novello, a gay actor, as the lodger, which functions as the realization of femininity. We tend to identify more with the lodger (suggestively the villain, the marginalized one) than Joe the detective. (I do believe there are people who don't, but I couldn't care less about them) Why? Obviously not just because his such a charismatic human being, and definitely not because we believe he is innocent, for the film deliberately suggests that he is not, and we all know that in the original novel he IS the murderer; and Hitchcock's preferred ending which he recreated in the radio version in 1940 is a much more ambiguous one, in which the lodger disappears in the night and never returns. The film version ends with the lodger being innocent and the real murderer being arrested red-handed is none but a result of the studio's reluctance of having Ivor portrayed as a villain. It wouldn't be too far to say that Hitchcock does believe the lodger is the murderer.

So what is it that we love in the lodger? Of course, his femininity, which is in every of us.

Come to think of it, if we ignore the fact that the murderer is arrested red-handed (which, trickyly, is only conveyed in an inter-title - a subtle resistance against the studio's influence, I'd say, and also a subtle suggestion of the unreliability of such news), everything seems to suggest that the lodger IS the murderer. The only question is probably why he can cease killing. One can easily say it is because he has fallen in love, which is true, but not true enough as it hasn't reached the core of the matter. Let's go back to the theme of repressed femininity. If the murder of the girls is a physicalization of the neurotic impulse of repression (interestingly, the sister is murdered in her "coming-out ball"), he surely has all the reason to stop the act as soon as he falls in love with a woman: either the repression has "successfully" completed that no further killing is required to counter the impulse, or the contrary - that he has come to terms with his femininity by not regarding it as something inferior and "unmanly" (as reinforced by the Patriarchy), and certainly NOT something he has to repress/destroy . Clearly it is the latter.

"Only a man who freely accepts and expressed his own femininity can truly love a women: otherwise, "love" becomes perverted into the drive to dominate, possess, and if necessary destroy." - Wood

This discussion owes a lot to Robin Wood's book.

What Italians Like About Monica Vitti

I was having a chat with my colleague who is from Bologna - a place in Italy I'd love to visit very much, apart from Pompeii - (and who reads Umberto Eco and Borges like consuming desserts - damn he was telling me his mates used to go to Eco’s lectures every now and then!!!) regarding Monica Vitti.

How fascinating are these Europeans! I mean, he was telling me what he likes about her is her voice. Voice. His perspective is one that is non-visual; that is sensual. Only when you perceive a woman as a whole, in an organic way, will you be able to recognize the charm in that deep, unusual, sensual voice. He is one colleague that I enjoy having a chat with. (won't even bother to mention Monica Vitti to others)

Something I Miss Dearly

Of my life back in Hong Kong there are moments that I miss dearly, and moments such as the following comes to my mind quite often.

Those who are close to me know that I used to have emotional breakdowns every now and then, always due to the same reason. There was a night such breakdown attacked me that I was crying desperately in my office. I just couldn't stop.

So I made this call to A, who upon hearing that devastating, heart-wrenching, pathetic voice (and knowing all the background) couldn't refuse (some could) to come and meet me.

We decided to meet in a restaurant convenient to both of us. A Tai Pai Dong sort of place (the sort of restaurant I miss A LOT now). And when I arrived the place A told me that he also called B, whom he knew I'll be happy to see (and I was), whom knew all of my stories (well they are not "stories: although at one stage I was made to "confess" that I made them all up), and whom is arriving soon. Normally it was not easy to ask B, who is a hermit, out, especially not under spontaneous circumstances. But he was coming.

With beers and bad food (who cares?) we three chatted and laughed things out. And cursed whoever (that you-know-who) deserved being cursed. I couldn't remember one single thing we talked about that night. but I was back into one piece when we said goodbye to each other.

I never told them how grateful I was but indeed I am most grateful for them and the idea that they are always there for me was one that gave me the strength to go on until that "&^%*@#&^" sort of came to an end. Especially now that, though I no longer have such breakdowns - and I have Tim, I don't have such friends here.

隨想

寫作原來真是一件孤獨的事。它本身並不孤獨，但需要孤獨，需要隔絕。像我現在清靜的時候少，寫的也越來越少越來越差了。

因而我今天也只有心情寫一些片斷隨想。

127 Hours 貧乏得可憐。我在 Facebook 上說：「一個字：撐。我講 Danny Boyle，唔係 Aron Ralston 。執翻把刀呀、就快無水飲呀、拍 video 呀咁，拖長又拖長，重覆又重覆。回憶片斷好抽離，無呀 Aron 隻手咁有血肉。」再補充一下：它的內容背叛了它的標題，那127小時的漫長與沮喪（假設，如有），心理上的127小時，電影一點也無意發掘， Danny Boyle 只是熱衷於把玩他拿手的迷幻攝影與剪接去講一個簡單空洞到不能再簡單空洞的故事（不知是不是性別的關係，整件事其實都不怎麼引起我興趣），童年、過去的回憶十分之 cliche ，也很想當然，不怎麼 personal（假如，那是對一個時代的回憶，也就很不同了），誇他牽扯到存在主義思考我覺得是有點太過了。

True Grit 雖然有戲謔成份（主要是 Jeff Bridges － The Dude VS John Wayne ），但顯然不是一部典型的高安兄弟電影，對我來說最有趣的是結尾－－高安兄弟不動聲息，從頭到尾沒有交代女孩（ Mattie Ross ）的心路歷程，卻在二十多年 Rooster 死後來一個踢爆戀父情結，不知正氣十足的原作有沒有這一幕呢？

說到翻拍，我終於親身體現荷里活熱衷翻拍人家傑作的其中一大理由。這裡的電影觀眾，大多患有字幕恐懼，至令我覺得厭惡的程度：上映的外語電影已經少之又少（比例跟香港簡直不能同日而語），遇有他們覺得不是英語的 alien titles，他們會問「Is it subtitled？」留意，是 Is it subtitled ，而不是 Is it French？、 Is it Italian？Why is it even an issue? 有時真係覺得講多句都嘥氣。一旦是 subtitled ，就耍手兼呤頭。TIM 在大學教 International cinemas，第一課問在座的看過 subtitled film 沒有，舉手的小貓三數（不過至少他們選了這一科，肯看）。要餵食喜歡留在井底的觀眾，唯有拍個英語版囉（當然，這是我的猜想，就算成立，也只是這個城市的現像）。

或許香港觀眾應該慶幸，荷里活的主導至少令我們對字幕習以為常，不會有這種離奇抗拒現像，加之我們的無根、與 hybridity ，令我們對外來文化樂於開放、吸納，也因而有更多機會，接觸外面的世界。 Such is one of the weird moments when I feel proud of Hong Kong...

別了，高峰秀子

並沒有聽說過高峰秀子得肺癌的消息，想必消息隱密，她也是頗隱密的人。

去年八月友人寄來這本新出版的《高峰秀子自薦十三作》，並有她對大部份參演電影的自述，收到後一直未有時間細閱；沒想到是因為秀子離世的消息，促使我開卷翻閱。現在想來，一定是有所準備的遺作了。

高峰秀子個人的虛無感（她生母早逝，生父此後即將她過繼給妹妹，父女感情稀薄，雖然遇上幾個非常疼愛她－－至有點變態－－的電影人和養父母家庭，她在婚前都是抱著一種無可無不可的態度面對人生），為她內斂的演繹添上一層雲霧之氣。秀子始終與成瀨成瀨巳喜男最合拍，是成瀨最能發掘她的氣質，也是她的氣質最合成瀨詠嘆的女人哀愁。她為他演繹無數脆弱而堅定、不甘為命運播弄的女子，因為那種倔強，她們的生命特多波折，正是成瀨鍾愛的林芙美子一句「花的一生短暫而多苦」。她們既不屈服，也不自憐，只是抱著明知無望的心情，昂然走下去，以堅執面對虛無。

（我以為，喜歡高峰秀子的必然也喜歡她的角色，必然明白痛與頹）

秀子在自傳中憶述成瀨向她提出的一個心願：「我希望某天可以拍一部這樣的電影：沒有佈景，也沒有色彩，只有一片白色背景......沒有任何障礙，白色背景跟前就是舞台。到時秀子會為我演出嗎？」。成瀨彌留之際再次提起這個心願，只說道「約定的事」，秀子馬上意會，可見兩人相知之深。



應該慶幸，秀子一生既不短暫，亦不多苦。事實上，她的一生滿多姿多采的，遊歷甚豐，亦著作無數，當中包括自傳、散文、食譜、遊記，與谷崎潤一郎及梅原龍三郎私交甚篤。

我嘗以風流靈巧形容秀子，再沒有更貼切的了。

按：高峰秀子自選十三作依次為
《馬》（山本嘉次郎）
《春之戲》（山本嘉次郎）
《雁》（豊田四郎）
《二十四隻眼睛》（木下惠介）
《浮雲》（成瀨巳喜男）
《張込み》（野村芳太郎）
《手車夫之戀》（稲垣浩）
《女人踏上樓梯時》（成瀨巳喜男）
《同命鳥》（松山善三）
《山河あり》（松山善三）
《放浪記》（成瀨巳喜男）
《華岡青洲之妻》（增村保造）
《恍惚の人》（豊田四郎）

我以為，這是事業總結（包含大部份與她合作過的導演，丈夫松山善三也在其中）多於是她最動人的作品（我選的話會很不同），比較奇怪的是當中沒有小津導演、田中絹代合演的《宗方姊妹》。