Crank it up. Yea, you know you want to.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
師之。敵之。友之。(no homo)
陸離在昨天的蘋果日報發了篇「提問？答問？疑問？─ 淺談梁文道」，引來各方評論。有人說她逐個字酙酌沒氣度，有人說「終於有小眾唱反調的聲音透出來了」，有人說「看法就是看法」。
本來任何藝文，從文字圖像電影音樂舞蹈到行為藝術，一經發表，就是打開門接受批評指教。表達就是想有反響，要反響就要經得起提問。
文章有錯漏自然影響閱讀。不過反觀陸離的文章，對一個「打字/讀字」引用的質疑能生出十一條疑問，有趣的是我淨看她對梁「完全不合情理」的質問，仍領會到梁文道的旨題心思，不免感覺陸離有點tedious，或台灣說的「雞婆」。尤其陸離過後在Facebook公告：「-----請毛淳宇, 鄧小樺, 暫時千萬不要 unfriend 我 !」雖是開玩笑，已不止指教批評，有點臨門踢館的意味了。難怪差點引起筆戰。
未看到梁文道的回應。——梁公這幾年以一人身一支筆一張口游說大江南北，到現在他說一句話華語世界無論國界不分立場都聽、都服，是有原因的。梁文道被神話化，不是英雄造時勢，而是相反。一個全世界人口最多的民族，為何想來想去找來找去只有三個聲音：韓寒、梁文道、龍應台（剛好是中港台、青中壯）？是因為醬缸文化裡敢講、懂講、能直講、講得明真話的人真的就只有這幾個。
當然陸離的文章也是在講真話，只是是字面上不是檯面上的真話。而有時我們對檯面上真話的饑渴/敏感，已到了糾枉過正程度：接受了內容就不質疑文字本身，又或是為批評而批評。這種糾枉過正過了火，往往反過來阻隔了真話的流傳，這在很多回應欄是常見的事。
記得中學中史老師教過做學問的態度：「師之。敵之。友之。」摘一摘梁文道頭上的光環，可能反而更聽得清楚他說的話。
伸廷閱讀：
陸離 愛恨如大水 - 曉蕾
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Inception《潛行凶間》：一念之天空、一念之地獄
- 下含內容 -
《潛行凶間》像條密集的壽司帶，不斷向觀眾輸送琳琅滿目的情節：國際集團的情報設局、扭曲現實的潛夢技術、人物關係的幾線發展、中場生出的枝節、多層次的意識及潛意識..... 觀眾被影像佈局雷到的同時也追看得過癮，怪不得電影在各地大賣。正如方俊傑在壹周刊的影評說：「情況似〔導演〕Christopher Nolan同時間跟不同對手捉緊鬥獸棋、飛行棋、象棋、鬥地主，全贏。」方俊傑更認為Inception的票房，是電影人以觀眾無腦口味窄為藉口而繼續拍其通俗電影的最好反證。
同意得不能再同意。
問題是，Nolan餵來的是甚麼樣的壽司？電影裡到底發生甚麼事了？
讓我從一個故事最基本的素材 ——主題—— 講起，看看能不能拆開導演歷盡十年精心設計的局。
電影裡一再提到的主題，由「催醒曲」 Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien ，到不斷重複的 "leap of faith", "become an old man, filled with regret, waiting to die alone"等，顯然就是「悔咎」。悔咎錯過的時光，悔咎昔日放棄了的路，悔咎恨錯難返... 電影用了兩段關係——Cobb和他逝去的妻子Mal、及Fischer和他失望的老爹——深入探討了這個主題。Fischer的父親讓我想起《大國民》Kane 在垂死的病榻上憶述往事（事實上，電影裡的 "totem"/「圖騰」讓人聯想到那著名的 "rose bud"，兩者皆是某人與過去一段生活或人性的物質聯繫）。Cobb和他妻子的關係則有點似《無痛失戀》—— 男主角無法維繫一段感情唯有忍痛放手，卻漸漸被內咎與悔恨折騰至近跡瘋狂。
記得在電影院看戲時，我曾抽離的想：這些關係是撲朔迷離，不過有後面咁多層意識槍戰追住，好難投入啫。所以後來我看了New York Times這篇不甚客氣的影評，發覺影評人也有同感。這個權威的影評人總結說：「"Inception"雖然目不暇給，並無真正的視野。Mr. Nolan對大腦運作的想法太表面、太有邏輯、太規矩了，容不了全面的瘋狂—— 真正混亂、癲狂、模糊無以名狀的危機——這才是題目所要求的。」
不過，上網看多幾篇結局解構以後，我便從對上面的看法有同感變作完全不同意了。（所謂的 inception?）
甚麼令我改變主意呢？這就要講講電影的兩個解讀法：正面的解讀和反面的解讀。
- 下含結局！ -
正面的解讀就是電影明講的那個故事：Cobb，潛意識竊密大賊（嘩好土的名目！），接到柯打要進入一個工業巨人第二代的潛意識裡植入一個想法，報酬是可以解掉通輯令，回國返到兒女的身邊。可是在辦案的過程中，Cobb不斷被自己的潛意識裡，對死去妻子的咎歉所打亂。
正面的解讀在一般荷里活的間諜電影裡並不罕見。反面的解讀可是完完全全扭轉了故事。
反面的解讀是電影暗啞底無講的故事：假設Cobb的妻子Mal，從高樓跳了下去，才是兩人中在「現實生活」中醒來的那一個。她醒來後很可能會潛入仍然昏迷的Cobb的無盡夢境裡，試圖勸服他放棄他多層的夢境，"take a leap of faith"真正醒過來。
因為電影一直從Cobb的角度述事，反面的解讀在看的電影時候並不明顯。Cobb對妻子的死深感自責，所以在他的潛意識裡她是來壞事的（"Mal"在西班牙文有「邪惡」之意），她自以為自殺的選擇是對的，不理Cobb想在他認定的現實中回家照顧孩子，反而不斷說服Cobb隨她自殺以真正醒過來。
這個就是Inception第二個、較暗晦但更為重要的主題：我們生命裡有意識無識選擇的任何一個簡單念頭，經過一段時間都可以成為我們心目中的「現實」。當這些念頭把我們導向不同的支路，偏離了我們和生命裡重要的人一起編寫的「共同現實」或「共同夢境」，我們便不得不落入要選擇其中一個「現實」的兩難。換句話說，電影裡的「夢境」其實在比喻我們用腦袋在腦裡建構的種種「現實」。電影的構造本身就似對白常常提到的「悖論」：向前睇又得、調轉頭睇又得；壽司輸送帶可以流向你也可以從你面前溜走；就像下面那幅幻覺圖：你話佢 (或Mal) 係善良美少女又得、邪惡老巫婆又得；儘管你知道在邏輯上，兩者並不可能並存。
從這個思路住下想，不難發現電影揭示了大腦意識一個偉大的弱點（或是殘缺的功能）：人思想所產生的想像與偏見，能夠製造世上最複雜的迷宮，而這個迷宮，可以帶我們到新天地，也可以引我們入死胡同。
在這個層面看，「夢境」真是意識的上好比喻，亦是這部電影真正的"inception"：思想可以釋放也可以囚禁思想的人；它可以引發自我意識也可以作繭自縛。就像Cobb對他認定的現實的堅持可以是福（與子女重圓）、也可以是禍（永遠醒不來）。
這個思想的悖論——我現在認定了——才是電影的真正的價值和導演天才的地方。——看戲的時候怎麼都看不出來？現在想起提示多到暈：那個荒謬的工業家陰謀、主角一陣在疑似巴黎一陣在疑似羅馬一陣在摩洛哥、過份完滿的大團圓結果、長不大的小孩... 連Cobb自已都講了：「夢境是我們在裡面才覺真實。只有醒來了才發覺那裡有點不對勁。」
可是看不見就是看不見。一旦認定那是一條不斷搬出新壽司的輸送帶，我就只顧看菜色，而察覺不到壽司混進到假貨（主要因為電影要suspend belief接受潛夢的科技，結果連「現實」犯駁的地方也一併接受了）。還虧電影一早便提示：「不要想那大笨象」，我就真係笨到只能想那大笨象！
導演甚至聰明到在觀眾面前拆穿電影本身的技巧而不穿幫。意識流、跳躍敍事、剪接時間場景等等上世紀以來電影的基本敍事手法，都被一一揭穿了（Cobb：「... 你永遠想不起夢的開頭是不是？你永遠落在情境的中間。」）Christopher Nolan猛到自己揭穿了自己還不夠（反正你沒察覺），重要加場送戲——因為看完了電影還是忍不住不斷想究竟發生咗咩事，而在猜想的過程中，你又為電影加了戲...
總而言之，個人認為《潛行凶間》是齣完美體現的幻覺電影。電影和電影中的故事一樣，揭露了人腦裡一個詭異的祕密：思想就是現實。
同場加映:
Monday, August 2, 2010
Cinematic illusion: Double interpretation is the "Inception"
- Spoiler alert -
Cannot agree more.
But what exactly was thrown at us? What happened, really? Let's take a look at the most traditional building block of a narrative - the motif - and see if this tightly constructed puzzle of a movie can be figured out.
The most resounding motif of the movie, as evident in the recurring "wake-up" song Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien and repeated phrases such as "leap of faith", "become an old man, filled with regret, waiting to die alone", is obviously "regret". Regret for lost moments, regret for paths not taken, regrets for wrongs that can never be corrected. This theme is thoroughly explored through the parallel storytelling of two relationships: Cobb and his deceased wife Mal, and Fischer and his disappointed father. The latter relationship reminds me of "Citizen Kane" reminiscing his past on his dying bed (in fact, all the "totems" in the movie serve as a sort of "rose bud", a psychical object that connects its owner to another reality, or a humanity that he/she once knew), while Cobb's relationship with his wife brings to mind "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", where the guy cannot sustain a love and has to let go, only to find that he is overshadowed and gradually consumed by guilt and regret.
When I was watching the movie, I found these two relationships to be intriguing but not emotionally relatable since the other layers of subconsciousness kept interrupting with their pressing actions. For this reason, I can understand A. O. Scott's not-so-favorable review in the New York Times.
However, while I had the same reactions at first, I've come to disagree with Mr. Scott's final remark: "...though there is a lot to see in 'Inception,' there is nothing that counts as genuine vision. Mr. Nolan’s idea of the mind is too literal, too logical, too rule-bound to allow the full measure of madness — the risk of real confusion, of delirium, of ineffable ambiguity — that this subject requires."
To explain this change of mind, let me step back and talk about the two main ways to interpret the movie: a positive way and a negative way.
- Major spoiler alert! -
The Positive Way is the way the movie is told: Cobb, thief of secrets of subconsciousness, is offered a job to implant an idea into an powerful industrial heir's dreams, and in completing this job, he will be granted the immigration status to go back to his home country and to his kids. Cobb's attempt to finish the con is frequently sabotaged by the guilt he has for his dead wife in his subconscious.
Straightforward enough right? What is really messed up is the negative reading of the story. I only came to see the movie this way after reading a number of explanations for the movie's ending (an inception?).
The Negative Way is the hidden narration of the movie: suppose Mal, Cobb's wife, is the one who wakes up in the "real world" by jumping off the building, she may be the real inception planter in the limbo dreams of the still unconscious Cobb, hoping to convince Cobb to give up his multi-level dream world and "take a leap of faith" to wake up.
The second interpretation is hard to see at first because the story is consistently told from Cobb's perspective. Because of Cobb's guilt of inadvertently pushing his wife to "death", Mal is seen (by Cobb the storyteller) as projections of his memory and an "sabotaging" force ("Mal" is "evil" in Spanish) against his efforts to reunite with his children in what Cobb determines to be "reality".
And this brings us to the second, less obvious but central, motif of the movie: Any simple idea we choose to consciously or unconsciously adopt in our lives will in time come to define our reality; when these simple ideas steer us into alternate paths, we will inevitably deviate from the "shared realities" or "shared dreams" we create with our loved ones, creating the dilemma of having to choose among realities (the former, shared reality or the new, diverging reality). In other words, the "dreams" in the movie are metaphors of "realities" we create with and within our minds. The story itself is constructed like the paradoxes it keeps referring to: it works one way or the other; it can be the face of an uglg old witch or a fair young maiden; either can be the right answer, though you know that at the end of the day, things don't add up.
And with that the movie reveals one of the grandest pitfall of our consciousness: the human mind, with its imagination and prejudice, is capable of creating the most complicated mazes that guide us to somewhere new or nowhere at all. (Fun trivial: character names Fischer and Ariadne, are likely borrowed from M. C. Escher and Adrian Fisher; the latter is one of the world's leading maze designers).
In this regard, "dreaming" is a powerful metaphor and the true "inception" of the movie. (Naturally, that the movie itself is an inception is not lost among critics). Our mind can free us or imprison us. It can inspire free will or be trapped by an idea (as fortunately or tragically exemplified by Cobb's stubbornness to believe in his own reality).
And this paradox, in my opinion/reality, is the true art of the movie and true genius of the director. -- Why didn't I see this all along? The clues were all in plain sight: the ridiculous B-movie plot, the impossible shifting of geographic location, the all-too-powerful Japanese industrialist, the suspiciously-neat happy ending, the unchanged children imageries... Cobb himself even points out in one scene: "Dreams feel real while we're in them. It's only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange."
Despite all these, I was all too willing to suspend my belief -- the movie ran so fast that it tricked me into accepting its technicalities as well as its realities. Since it asked me: "don't think about the elephant", surely all I could think about was the elephant.
Despite all these, I was all too willing to suspend my belief -- the movie ran so fast that it tricked me into accepting its technicalities as well as its realities. Since it asked me: "don't think about the elephant", surely all I could think about was the elephant.
The movie even plays on its own format. The foundational techniques upon which cinema experiences built upon for the past 100 years or so -- non-linear narrative, scene-cutting signifying time and set change, stream of consciousness -- are all revealed in the movie as tricks (quote: "...you never really remember the beginning of a dream do you? You always wind up right in the middle of what's going on."). And after unmasking these tricks, Nolan is somehow able to offer another dimension to the movie experience. In this experience, the storytelling continues after leaving the theater; the story lives on as we try hard to understand the movie itself.
In short, "Inception" is a flawlessly executed cinematic illusion that reveals the secrets of our reality-bending psyche: perception is reality. Neatly fitting to the premise of the movie? I believe so.
Extended reading:
Posts
