Skyfall (2012)－－Old ways are the best, but there can always be new tricks

A/N：基於電腦裡亂七八糟的文檔太多，有時候不小心翻出來某則未完的稿子還能有驚喜，比如這篇。開稿日期恰恰是去年的今日，巧合中的巧合。另外，還沒看電影（動作太慢啦）的同學務必慎點，有雷喔。

伴隨著Adele扣人心弦的同名開場煮蹄曲，我們進入的是龐德職業生涯中最大的危機－－噢，不，不是死亡，因為眾人皆心知肚明即便中了槍從高架橋上掉下去，龐德仍是不會死的。至少，不會在這一集死。至少，米高梅說什麼可是撐過了2010年那場一度號稱將劃下007作品句點的破產事件。就算要以未來電影裡滿布Sony或海尼根的置入性行銷作為代價，這個持續了半個世紀不墜的間諜片，也得存活下去。

事實上，再也沒有比五十週年紀念的今天更適合作為007電影的轉捩點了。大概跟許多人一樣，我也是從小因為爸爸喜歡才跟著看的，看著看著也就從剛開始的不進入狀況，到變成喜愛這種撲面而來的熟悉感及期待每兩三年一回的續集。誠然，第七號情報員的故事從來就走的不是奧斯卡得主或文藝小清新四十五度角路線，然而那不妨礙山姆曼德斯耍耍斧子吧。所以其實應該說《空降危機》是個例行裝逼之餘還有著人文關懷的電影嗎。龐德的危機事實上暗喻著007系列電影的危機：老了，過時了，不堪用了。在冷戰都已經結束二十多年的今天，丫還搞什麼間諜戰？不如早點回家洗洗睡吧。

窮則思變，變則思通。本次的中心主題是重生。在重生之前永遠都有死去。

美不勝收的蘇格蘭高地，但是你們確定Aston Martin DB5和老房子攻防戰不是來惡意賣萌的嗎？
好吧我承認，可萌了，把我萌慘了。

The Red Shoes (紅菱艷) Review

童話課作業

Dec 13, 2013

紅菱艷超好看！甩黑天鵝十條街=-=好吧我不喜歡黑天鵝太假了。

Moira Shearer很正，且本職正是芭蕾舞者。電影籌備當時為了找到會演戲、樣貌又美麗的舞者劇組想必費盡心思。Shearer是06年逝世的（每次看完老片就喜歡去調查演員生卒年的我還真是浪費生命在沒用的事物上啊）......然後如此這般經過十年可能我腦中就會有了大數據怎樣特質的演員早死。想去蒙地卡羅玩了，富豪求帶走。【這是屬於二十世紀的浪漫！】【話說《蝴蝶夢》裡男女主角一開始相遇也是在蒙地卡羅呢。】

其實我的確去過。Monte Carlo小不攏咚的地方不到一天就可以逛完。一邊逛一邊哼唱I've Never Been To Me特別有感覺。也許以後有錢的話再去一次吧。

Gravity: A Review

《地心引力》這部電影，它首先且最終是一個隱喻。

我相信，一切複雜而美好的事物在層層剝開之後總是包裹著純粹簡單的內核的。恰如每則故事皆有個motif（母題），而一個美好的故事，其母題必然具備普遍性。如果將其置放到人類生命歷程當中檢驗，它的普遍性就是人類需求的共性。在所有的母題之中，我最喜歡的一種叫作「回家」。

以下這段是我過去為一篇文評寫的開頭，因為我很懶惰，我就放在這兒了，以後即使在哪裡看到也別見怪。

──Why do we want? 

啟蒙的母題穿插在人類歷史的萬千的苦難裡，猶如一種恆溫的開示，萬變不離其宗地提醒著我們即使生命中充滿失望，人，仍要抱持希望。它所幻化成形的，不論是公路電影中那樣挑明了的意象，還是其他更加隱晦的治癒系故事，都具備一種線性的概念闡述自我成長。 

所有旅程的起點必然是家；所有的漂泊也終將以「家」為歸依；一切生命的時間維度皆在某種程度上連繫空間維度。我經常兀自揣想於一條長路上踽踽獨行，有時身周是無盡的黑暗，時而茫然。光亮永恆在路的盡頭，而我們僅能一直走。懷抱著理想或某些執念一直不斷向前走。 

於是如果你問我什麼是家？我想，死亡是終點的話，天堂就是家。
倘使相信，我愛你便是家。

《地心引力》中的角色基本上就只有兩個，可是，這倆人的旅程分別以什麼作結呢？

對於Matt來說，是死亡；對於Ryan來說，是回到地球。不止如此而已，她還要活下去。即使不是肉體活下去，也要在精神上無憾地死去。

“‘Cause either way, it’ll be one hell of a ride.”
（無論如何，這趟旅程都不虛此行。）

《Lolita》相關......01

Warning：寫下面這東西的時候我還是個十六歲的小蘿莉啦............不對等等！突然發現危險的互文性 (intertextuality)，吾輩.....當時是名...........十六歲的....青澀少年.............是以用字遣詞粗鄙不堪什麼的請見諒。在往後的歲月中也陸續有鑽研Loli學：包括上台演講時介紹過此書；高中畢業的夏天買過原文小說[1]，然一直沒有花時間細讀；誠品特價時收了改編電影之DVD[2]，1962年由James Mason及Sue Lyon演出的版本（相當不錯覺得）。也許之後有時間再來分享後面幾項。

[1]

[2]

November 11, 2008

橫跨數週後的《Lolita》心得

封面：典型的露手露腳(肢體意象)不露臉原則。

Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins, my sin, my soul......
羅麗泰，我生命之光，我腰跨的火焰，我的罪，我的靈魂。羅─麗─泰─：舌尖跳著輕快的三步舞，於上顎輕扣牙齒三次，羅‧麗‧泰。

A Review on the movie, Jane Eyre (1944)

童話課作業

Dec 10, 2013

Jane Eyre has been adapted into different versions of movies and television shows. I haven’t seen many of them except the 2011 version and maybe the first chapter of the book. After seeing this movie, though, I’m now intending to read the whole thing through, and for some very strange reason: I find it hard to enjoy the film wholeheartedly, and can barely call myself a fan of their love story.

According to the story, Mr. Rochester is supposed to be a brooding, somewhat unattractive man, and Jane Eyre a very plain-looking girl. I get it that the actor must not be too obviously handsome, but the problem is…I didn’t find his suffered soul attractive after quite some time, either.

Perhaps it is because it’s just not the kind of love I would appreciate. They were two people who both had nowhere to go, who in this case felt the need to cling unto each other. Jane Eyre is the girl who’s had a grim past, and the chances for her to get a decent job are slim. There’s no family or anybody she could care about, before she met Mr. Rochester, that is. I’m sure Jane Eyre is a woman with strong will, but I don’t think she is old enough or nearly experienced enough to tell whether this man is really what she wants. Maybe she just wanted to save him, but it could have been any other man that came across. (It could also have been a result of the portrayal in the movie, which is why I’m desperate to find out more details in the novel!) As for Mr. Rochester, his life was fairly miserable, with nothing good happened to him but a good fortune. This fact, after reading “Beauty and the Beast,” became very intriguing to me, because the Beast also had no apparent merits except a lot of money.

        One other complaint is that I really don’t see the point of hiding the secret about Mr. Rochester’s wife from Jane Eyre. Surely he must anticipate that once he tries to remarry, the law will forbid it, and things will get exposed. What was him thinking?

        Still, the movie had some extremely funny moments which made it less dark. For example, the scene where Mr. Rochester said “Let’s shake hands.” was so quirky it cracked me up. Also how similar to “Beauty and the Beast” it was for Jane to answer “No, (I don’t find you attractive) sir.” to Mr. Rochester...

PS. Not really relevant to the main topic but I personally adore Dr. Rivers.

《Rebecca》（蝴蝶夢）

童話課作業

Nov. 2013

I remember reading Rebecca by author Daphne du Maurier for the first time: at 16, it looked but an old-fashioned romance novel with great suspense. It was afterwards that I watched Hitchcock’s film by the same title, and I was utterly thrilled. Later over the years, although I’ve been introduced to classics such as Rear Window, Psycho, and Dial M for Murder, Rebecca still remains my favorite Hitchcock film. In the book, the haunting opening passage gives readers a dreamlike and almost ghostly impression on Manderley, a mansion where most of Rebecca’s story takes place. “Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again…” The movie also had that introduction. It did such a great job in drawing the audience in, adding a mysterious, unfortunate shade to the later story. And to think about it, Manderley was really the heart of all those deeply hidden secrets.

The most important and prominent figure in this film of course, was Rebecca, the woman who never showed nor did she have any line but was everywhere to be seen in the film. I mean, her name was even featured as the movie title! In comparison, the 2^nd Mrs. de Winter was really the one without a name, the one who was so shy and awkward, and the one whose anonymity was too “deliberately” overlooked by other characters that this couldn’t be just an accident. In fact, the author and director have done such a great job of building Rebecca’s fierce character, that her existence outshined that of 2^nd Mrs. de Winter’s. Her phantom haunts, in every twist and turn of the story, her stuff all over Manderley with the big cheeky “R” on them. As the audience, it was as if we could feel the 2^nd Mrs. de Winter’s pressure of being an outsider and living under the shadow of someone from the past. (The phone scene where Mrs. de Winter picks up and tells the dialer “Mrs. de Winter is dead” is brilliant.)

        Rebecca is also said to be of “Bluebeard” reference. I think there are some striking similarities indeed. Still, one should take into account that the story of “Bluebeard” was set in the medieval times, when murderers could easily get away with crimes. Up until the early 20^th century, technology wasn’t so commonly used in crime investigation, and so writers could still produce stories like Rebecca. If “Bluebeard” is going to be realistic right now, it has to transform, perhaps into a more metaphorical, psychological version like Atwood’s rendition. Modern readers are still able to relate to the “Bluebeard” motif though, in a sense which has more to do with abusive relationships. It seems to me that in Rebecca, Maxim’s character is a typical emotionally (and with the potential of being physically) abusive one, although for the most part the audience can well regard him as the good guy. (And Laurence Olivier was super beautiful!) He’s got quite a temper. Touch an unexpected nerve and the consequences may be dire. The relationship between Maxim and Mrs. de Winter was becoming so questionable with each time of Maxim getting furious, scolding and scaring Mrs. de Winter, apologizing, and eventually being forgiven. Maybe it was the director trying to build suspense, but still, Maxim was a rather moody man.

        In a nutshell, Hitchcock was truly a genius, in that he had us all on the edge of our seats, creating such an atmosphere in which we couldn’t even decide who was more scary and suspicious- was it Mrs. Danvers, Rebecca, Jack, or Maxim?- until the very last minute. Yet, when the truth came out, it managed to be convincing to say the least.

註：就在班上看完電影後幾日，便傳出了女主角Joan Fontaine逝世的遺憾消息。Aged 96, it wasn't as tragic a death as an untimely one, but it was still a great loss for the movie world. R.I.P Miss Fontaine.

Mockingjay- an itch that's not well satisfied

I spent half long of my winter vacation writing the S&R review that I've been working on for over half a year now, which, I think, is finally slowly, painstakingly approaching 6000 words. I was aiming for 8000, just so you know. Now that I know this won't be a problem because there are just 2000 words ahead of me and I've still got plenty of bullocks to fill the thing in, I feel relieved to be focusing on getting the contents done and refining my structure.

Coincidentally, another work I finished reading, also a trilogy, is The Hunger Games series finale, aka., Mockingjay.

I think the ending was mildly dissapointing, although not to the point that I'd hate it. The trilogy as a whole was good, but it just seems that the writer got SO lazy with this last installment, that the entire thing comes across as rushed and barely satisfactory. It was almost frustrating imagining how it could have ended differently, better, ect. Tie up a few more loose ends and it would have done justice to an overall engaging story. Remind me again why we were addicted in the first place.

While I was pleased with the previous two books and desired to know what happened with the last, Suzanne Collins didn't nail it.

The first half of Mockingjay was somewhat tedious and had me yawn a lot (well, partly as a result of the tendency I have to read in bed, a few hours of pleasure before I go to sleep). That I can accept. What I CAN'T accept is how, when all a reader wants is for the story to pick up in the latter half, it comes to a halt before the said reader can actually comprehend what was going on.

Every fiction is bound by a perspective, a narrator, whether it makes you see the world through the eyes of a character or someone who knows it all is telling you things you ought to know. A good fiction, however, should always have its POV work for the audience. Cuz we are the boss, to be perfectly honest. And a capable writer would definitely strive to pull off his/her chosen perspective.

Sadly, in Mockingjay, we see the transformation of Katniss through...well, a series of mental chaos, alongside being constantly sedated, traumatized, unconscious, and semi-conscious. Oh there, Katniss passed out again. Oh wait she's awake. What day is it? What? Four days have passed? Things like that just keep happening in Mockingjay. We miss every exciting event that's going on out there. We as readers don't even get a front-row seat (saw someone using this expression and thought it was cool) when the Capitol fell. Okay, I get it, Katniss is just a 17-year-old girl who's happened to be the icon of a rebellion. It won't be realistic to have her know everything, participate in everything, or have a say in everything. And this is warrrr, destructive, traumatizing war. No one survives the war not even the winner.

I praise the writer for wanting to go deep, but that just seems too convenient to simply block us out doesn't it? And then the writer doesn't even spare us a decent explanation in the end. Finnick and Prim's deaths were ruthless, if not meaningless. I mean really, what's the point? Somehow I get Prim's. It's the irony of it all. Katniss sacrificed herself trying to save Prim's life, but at the end, Prim died trying to help others. But Finnick? Even Collins mentioned right after half of the crew was killed by the mutts, that "Katniss shouldn't let them die in vain" (maybe not in the exact words), but still, they did, dying for nothing and for no reason close to convincing at all.