Miami Vice


I haven't seen the TV series, but I am pretty sure that it wasn't as stupid as this movie, at least not during its heydays.

The plot was laughable, full of holes big enough to drive a Ferrari through. Most of the dialogs were unbelievably crappy, wavering between pretentious or inept. It was a wonder that the actors (and actresses) were willing to speak those words. I learned that the series' simultaneously glitzy and gritty cinematography was considered revolutionary in its days, and here Michael Mann did not disappoint. To a newcomer (to the series) like myself, the cinematography was still refreshing even though it has been 20 some odd years since the visual style was first created. Editing was, however, choppy. The lethal combination of haphazard editing and a retarded storyline resulted in quite a few 'huh?' moments on my part.

It was hard to assess how Colin Farrell, Jamie Fox, and the rest of the cast did. They were given far too little materials with which to work. Their characters were less than one dimensional; they sounded more like robots casted in stereotypical roles, speaking unreal yet excessively predictable lines.

Gong Li, however, was a bright shining star in this otherwise rather dull movie. Her perfect complexion, delicate features and dangerously fitting suits set her up as a classic femme fatale, but it was her acting that truly brought the character to life. By blending just the right amount of naivete, savviness, wildness, and desperation, Gong successfully created a living and breathing drug baroness. While most other Chinese actors working in Hollywood would come across as uncomfortable or even wooden in English-speaking movies, Gong radiated ease here. Her expressions and body language in this movie recalled her richly nuanced performance in earlier Chinese works like To Live and Raise the Red Lantern. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie was too weak to carry her magnificence, and one can't help but feel sorry for her wasted efforts in this uninspired project.

The decline of the abstract noun


Dec 13th 2007 | PARIS
From The Economist print edition


What a reduction in abstraction says about the new France

Of all the novelties of France under President Nicolas Sarkozy, one of the more arresting is the decline of the abstract noun. In the past, no French leader would make a speech without liberal doses of destiny and history. In one speech Mr Sarkozy's predecessor, Jacques Chirac, squeezed 13 abstract nouns — unity, liberty, humanity and more — into a single sentence. He was almost outdone by his prime minister (and part-time poet), Dominique de Villepin, who came up with the declaration: “Globalisation is not an ideal, it cannot be our destiny.”

The contrast with the wordcraft of Mr Sarkozy is instructive. In his first big foreign-policy speech, he managed in 18 pages to utter neither the word glory nor the word grandeur. Unlike his British counterparts, who favour verbless sentences, Mr Sarkozy is a verbaholic. According to a linguistic analysis of his campaign speeches by Damon Mayaffre, of the University of Nice, one of Mr Sarkozy's most frequent words is I, usually followed by the verb want.

What does this say about France? One answer is that the country has a hyperactive president, constantly on the go, who expects the French to be so too. “Work more to earn more” was his slogan, and his use of verbs matches the message. This is a man who likes to jog, where previous presidents preferred a dignified stroll. Indeed, his predilection prompted Libération, a left-leaning newspaper, to ask, “Is jogging right-wing?” It even moved a philosopher, Alain Finkielkraut, to implore the president to take up the promenade—a “spiritual experience”—and to give up jogging, which is mere “body management”.

Another explanation is that Mr Sarkozy is challenging the French tradition of conceptualism. Intellectuals, long cherished by the establishment, get short shrift now. “It's an old national habit: France is a country that thinks,” said Christine Lagarde, the finance minister, in a speech on the value of work, before adding: “Enough thinking now! Let's roll up our sleeves.” This week, Mr Sarkozy sneered at French philosophers during the visit of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi to Paris, accusing them of sipping coffee in Left Bank cafés while others got things done. As for France's famously rigid school curriculum, he has little fondness for it. Too much time is spent, he has declared, “on doctrine, theory and abstraction”, and not enough on practical applications. How long will it be before he has a go at the national motto, a veritable wealth of abstraction: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity?

師奶兵團陷香港


林奕華
城市筆記.信報財經新聞
二〇〇七年六月十一日


不管你是男人女人,當有人把你叫做「師奶」時,你會反感嗎?

會的話,是因為「師奶」從來不是讚美。一個女人自稱師奶代表她有些無奈地接受自己,但在把一個女人叫做「師奶」之前,你便要對她的心理狀況有些了解:她有否有足夠的自信,連被定型為少見世面、眼光淺窄、聲大夾惡、斤斤計較、愛講是非或品味俗氣惡劣—都不介意?但,沒有丈夫便不能叫做「師奶」,所以再小女人的女人也不介意自己是「師奶」,皆因她在任何時候都可以大叫一聲:「老公!」

當然,有老公還不是令女人不介意被叫做「師奶」的全部理由,一個可以給她權力的「家庭」才是。而「師奶」跟「不是師奶」的分別正是在於:「師奶」還是有着特定一套的人生觀。人生觀同時反映一個人有沒有世界觀。任何覺得需要擁有世界觀的人,都是因為自覺渺小。這份自覺性將推動他去開拓更廣闊的天地,過程中將考驗一個人的胸襟、耐力和創意。

商場、市場、戰場

「師奶」卻一開始便被灌輸了必須忘記和放棄自己的觀念。這要追溯到五六十年代,那時候沒有人會把師奶聽作是貶低身份的稱呼。在那手停口停的年代,「師奶」的世界觀便在沒有選擇的情況下成形:沒有事情比溫飽和安定重要,所以做人態度必須務實,當「師奶」教育下一代時,對兒子會說搵錢最緊要,對女兒是如何搵老公。

「師奶」少不免把對下一代的期望當成是心理補償。也就是說,子女們將擁有她們沒有選擇的機會。矛盾的是,「師奶」又會要求子女們不要按照興趣、性格為前途作出個人選擇。本來她們可以跟隨時代的步伐和子女一同進步,但「師奶」會在被要求更新價值觀時告訴你—可能也是告訴自己—「太深奧了!聽不明白!點解要講埋晒啲唔知噏乜嘅嘢?!係咪想蝦我讀得書少?」—自卑,如是成為「師奶」拒絕接受新事物的抗體。

在崇尚物質的今日,師奶們再不像以往般缺乏比較的條件。男人愛炫耀是要別人尊重他的權力,「師奶」的愛面子,則是來自怕被別人看穿她沒有價值。她們的空虛如是造就了傳媒的乘虛而入。大量提供給她們明星藝人的蜚短流長彷彿真的增加了她們的優越感和自信心。但難道「師奶」之間就不能有更深入的話題了嗎?她們就真的只能在物質世界聽隨廣告和傳媒呼喚,不能有更高追求,更靈性的精神生活—除了參加瑜珈班?

上述問號其實全部和「師奶」的自覺性有關。惟是媒體看中的不是「師奶」的進步空間,卻是她們的心理弱點。原因是,「師奶」比以前更有錢,已經不只限於低下層的已婚婦女,「她」的涵意已伸延到有着中產背景但更認同傳統師奶觀念的未婚女性,甚至男性。簡單一句,「師奶」已經成為商場、市場、戰場。

否則,TVB不會在一個晚上連續播上《同事三分親》、《師奶兵團》和《溏心風暴》三齣「師奶劇」,甚至整個無線節目設計絕大部分是以「師奶」為目標觀眾,造成類型乍看有很多種,但切入角度卻萬變不離其宗:假設這社會的人都是怕蝕底的、沒有更高理想的和沒有真正主體的。迎合「師奶」口味的手法也是換湯不換藥,繼續以抄襲、模仿別人或自己(《師奶兵團》和《窈窕熟女》均是抄《靚太唔易做》)來濫竽充數,也一樣有二百至三百萬香港人支持,證明觀眾要看的其實不是創意,而是自己的價值觀的被放大、被接受和被肯定。

剝削自我幻想

「『師奶』是最偉大的職業!全天候二十四小時……犧牲小我、完成大我,原來只有師奶。」在TVB周刊裏的這段文字,是在宣傳《師奶兵團》之餘,也給認同自己偉大的「師奶」們立下牌坊。換個角度看,就是借歌功頌德來glamorize師奶的身份,卻不去反思師奶的心態;借glamorization來剝削師奶對自己的幻想,而不是藉辯證幻想來幫師奶增加面對現實時所需要的力量。《靚太唔易做》和《師奶兵團》水準上的相去甚遠確是在於「文化差異」上,但理由不是無線監製所解釋的中國人不是美國人,而是其抄襲一直存有選擇性,那便是把一切highbrow(高眉文化)、middlebrow(中眉文化)都矮化成 lowbrow(低眉文化)。

Lowbrow之所以叫lowbrow,便是在本質上屬於反智,逃避主義,所以大眾化。 Lowbrow當然也有良幣劣幣之分,好的能做到扛着低等反低等的既反抗菁英,也反抗平庸;既反抗扮嘢,也反抗無知。但TVB的節目路向卻剛剛相反,由戲劇的假扮低下階層其實很「中產」,以致強裝「高級」其實很草根,均反映着這家電視機構拒絕看清現實,因而永遠落在電視文代發達的國家後面。

可悲的是,香港不止一家電視台是這樣,我們的電台、報章幾乎是個聯盟,導致「師奶」既是每個人不願往身上貼的標籤,骨子裏卻是……很多人連自己是百分百師奶都不知道。「師奶」不只活在菜市場和電視劇裏,「她」絕對不是一種身份,她是價值觀,所以大學生、中學生、教授、教師、政府高官都可以很「師奶」,然後「師奶」當道,然後香港淪陷成為一個「師奶」之城。

我投票了


昨天是香港歷史上可悲的一天。

香港人一直都以繁榮穩定爲先,在英國統治下近百年都默默耕耘,不問政治。連六四這麽驚天動地的一件事,數年後還是被專注於做生意、搞市場的香港人收起來,只每年默哀一個晚上。

回歸以後,香港人當家作主,初試啼聲,7.1遊行一鳴驚人。無建樹可言的政客只消站在政府對面,撕破喉嚨大呼口號就能撈到政治本錢 –– 反正轉過頭來就可以說“我和北京有良好的溝通渠道” –– 無本生利的生意,當然前赴後繼的去做。可是成果呢?回歸十年,“民主派”能拿出來的政績有什麽?這樣的表現,在我們打工仔的環境裏,早早就吃魷魚了。

可是,“政治”環境當然跟私營公司不一樣。到時到候,選舉了,走出來,聲嘶力竭的大喊一輪口號、說對手擁有鐡票(儘管自己民調從頭到尾都領先)、提前一天準備“告急”號外,到處躺在地上說讓對方助選團”鬆踭”受重傷。這樣就贏了選舉,蒙蒙混混又過了骨。就算選舉期間的歪行接著逐漸曝光,反正到下一次的時候選民又會發揮善忘+愚昧的力量,既往不咎,乖乖的讓人重新洗腦。

競選的政黨不知所謂,報導的傳媒更是面目可惡。生果日報拿出文革式的倂勁,從day 1開始把對手萬般踐踏,連老牌左派文字報都比它客觀得很多、很多。作爲一個飲壹周刊奶水長大的人,我當然知道黎先生很有立場。可是,輿論是社會公器,我能接受你有立場,我不能接受你把propaganda當作事實報道,更不能接受你這麽赤裸地欺騙公衆,以達致一己私利。生果日報、壹周刊近來的每一頁都充斥着仇恨、私心、謊言、滿瀉的malice,絕對應該加上膠套,警告讀者看後會心理嚴重不平衡。

不過,政府在防止選民最後關頭被騷擾、欺壓都做得足夠。話説到底,投下神聖的一票的是選民;把那個“剔”印方方正正的打在選票上的,還是有自由意志的你和我。根據我受什麽民調機構問的exit poll問題,選民的決擇有四大原因:政黨、往績、名氣、其他。政綱呢?理念呢?都歸在收納垃圾的“其他”下嗎?理論上選舉就是讓人民選出與自己理念相近的代表,在公共事務上發言、做決定。是民調機構低能,連選舉的基本功能都忘了,還是廣大的選民壓根兒沒有考慮什麽理念,而我是全香港唯一一個按政綱、公開發言投票的人?