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.