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)