Wednesday, August 26, 2009

紀錄片的道德責任

有的時候很難猜度一個導演背後的意圖。在《麥收》的Q&A有觀眾問他主角苗紅有否看過這部戲,他答還沒有時間讓她看,但影片今年三月至今已去過多個影展,很難相信幾個月來也找不到時間。我也問過徐童在剪接時有否讓她看,他回答說覺得後期工作是導演的責任,被拍者的工作拍攝完便結束。這回答有點傲漫,畢竟通過剪接、音樂、旁白、字幕等後期效果,可以大大影響觀眾對被拍者的印像,一個人同意被拍攝是否等於他把所有話事權全歸於你?陰謀論的想法是他不想給苗紅機會打退堂鼓。

紀錄片的道德責任是個有趣的課題,跟所有的道德論一樣沒有絕對的對與錯,每個地方、每個作者的做法也有不同。西方的做法是用法律來規限,拍攝前先簽好同意書。但在現場被訪者接過字體密麻麻的一張紙,很多時都求其簽個名就算,並不知道一般同意書都是有利拍攝者,像在Bruno裡面出鏡的人,大部分都真的以為自己正參與一個奧地利電視節目。

上圖是我在韓國拍的唯一一張相。左起是我,徐童,兩個電影節志願者,日本評審Tomiyama Katsue,電影節冊劃Park Ki Yong。

Monday, August 24, 2009

《麥收》


《麥收》最後一場,女主角苖紅談為父親的健康擔心,說自己不能想像他的死,然後她哭起來,久久不'能成言。攝影機一直拍,但鏡頭變得一片沈默。過了好一陣子,她終於問導演:“還有什麼要問?”導演不答話,她繼續問,“還拍不拍呀?”影片就在那裏完結了。這簡單的對話充份表現出拍攝者與被拍者的互相信任,苖紅多麼願意開放自己,但拍攝者沒有take advantage of 她脆弱的一刻,也沒有再追問她什麼,這一幕令我感動得不得了。


導演徐童明白到拍紀錄片的要點不在於能問到多少問題,取得多少料,反而沒有問的比問了的更重要。所以片中他完全沒有問苖紅關於她工作的問題,沒有問她一天接多少個客呀,怎麼做呀,跟男朋友的性生活呀這些想當然的八掛問題,他從頭到尾沒有把她當作一個妓女,只把她當作一個人,單是這一點,對被訪者來說,已比那些好心做壞事的NGO 不知強多少倍。

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Lou Ye's Spring Fever

Went to see Lou Ye's Spring Fever last night. Came out with a vaguely uneasy feeling. I can't help but admire his skill as a filmmaker, his use of handheld camera, the lyricism of some of the sections. But I couldn't embrace it somehow, and I wasn't able to put my finger on it. I joked that probably it was because it featured the ugliest drag queen and the most awful singing I'd ever seen.

When I woke up the next morning I found my sub-conscious had digested the film for me as it often does, and I realized why I disliked Spring Fever: none of the characters rang true. I couln't get into what they are like as a person, what they feel and what they want. They are like a straight person's view of what gays are like. Here's the drag queen, the top, the bottom, the married guy, the bi-curious. They are all not so much stereotypes as characatures, products of research rather than true understanding. And I wonder, given that the film was funded by Westerners, whether--intentionally or not--there is an element of self-exploitation (made possible by the fact that the protagonists are Others) in the filmmaker's mind: "Hey guys, this is what gays are like in China. Come and gawk at them!"

One can't help but compare the film to Wong Kar Wei's Happy Together, especially when Lou has one of his characters mimicing Leslie Cheung's dancing to a Latin beat in one of the scenes, but even though Wong is also straight, he approaches his characters not first and foremost as gays but as people, and that is the crucial difference between the two directors.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

驗毒與驗腦

是否討論到青少年毒品問題,眾人的IQ即時減半?十分同意王岸然所說,學校不用驗毒,高官卻要驗腦。

今天個人資料私隱專員吳斌透露政府從未就驗毒方案諮詢公署。政府討論驗毒時一定有教育局、保安局、律政師及各式AO參與,這些月薪數十萬的人開會時竟然無人說:「不如我地下次開會時邀請私穩專員來俾D意見吧。」可見整個校本驗毒計劃的粗疏和急就章。

另外今天城大法律學院副院長顧敏康在明報撰文 指出「校本驗毒計劃應以強制為原則」,並引述新澤西州訴T.L.O.一案為依據。該案中女學生因吸煙被要求搜查書包,過程中找到女學生涉大麻交易證據。被告的女學生反指學校違反第四修正案(即規定政府搜查和扣押的行為必須是合理的,否則就會侵犯當事人的私隱權),後來法庭判學校沒違法,但整案的關鍵在於校方有沒有合理疑點去搜查人家的書包,該案中學生在學校食煙犯規,構成合理疑點,但香港的校本驗毒是隨機抽樣,不是叫懷疑吸毒的學生驗毒,跟美國案例風馬牛不相及,更不可能成為香港校本驗毒的法理依據。身為法律學院副院長竟胡塗至此,實在令人驚訝。

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Jia Zhangke and Rebiya Kadeer

(from The New Yorker)

The film director Jia Zhangke, whom I profiled earlier this year in the magazine, has pulled out of the Melbourne International Film Festival to avoid appearing beside Rebiya Kadeer, the exiled Uighur leader whom the Chinese government has accused of instigating the recent riots in Xinjiang. (Kadeer is the subject of a documentary, “10 Conditions of Love,” which will also be shown at the festival.) Jia and his production company, Xstream productions, released a statement in Chinese this week, portions of which I’ve translated: We have no interest in meddling with the festival’s freedom of artistic exchange. Withdrawing from Melbourne is, rather, a kind of self-restraint. Xinjiang history is not something I’m well acquainted with, but the recent Urumqi violent incident was only two weeks ago, and I, at a minimum, should take a cautious approach. I don’t want to do anything that would tarnish those who died.

  • I have a sense that the political overtone of this year’s Melbourne festival is getting more and more intense…In putting the documentary “10 Conditions of Love,” in which Rebiya [Kadeer] plays a key role, on the playbill, the organizers organized a series of publicity activities for her.
  • We feel that appearing with Rebiya in a thoroughly politicized festival crosses the line of what our emotions and behavior can accept and is not appropriate. Therefore, Xstream unanimously decided to withdraw, in order to express our attitude and position.
  • The decision to withdraw has startled fans overseas, some of whom tend to view Jia as a political rebel. But that portrait has always struck me as an oversimplification that fails to capture the nuances of his position in China. He is, emphatically, not a dissident director. He made an explicit choice years ago to submit his films to censorship in order to gain a broader audience. As he has told me, “Marginalization can be a kind of pleasant stance—I really admire many of those people—but I would rather expend enormous energy trying to dance with the many levels of the era in which we live.” Given the mood in China these days and the intensity of the official campaign against Kadeer, there is little question in my mind that if Jia had appeared at the festival with Kadeer he would have run into political problems at home. It’s not impossible to imagine that his films might have encountered distribution problems or his funding sources would have come under more serious scrutiny. (See the experience of the Gongmeng law firm.) Whether his foreign fans like it or not, Jia has decided that he would rather work within the system, and with his budgets reaching into the millions of dollars these days, it is understandable that he is more cautious than he once was about whether his films have a commercial future.

    None of this is likely to assuage critics abroad who will interpret this as arguably China’s greatest living director bending to the autocratic demands of the government. But reading his comments today, I am reminded that the interpretation of the violence in Xinjiang looks very different to Chinese observers—even ones we think of as liberals—than it does to foreigners. As he has throughout his career, Jia has read the political winds and arrived at a tough, polarizing decision.


    Tough decision? Dude, it's a no brainer.

    If you want to get ahead, bow down to the master. What's so tough about that?


    Sunday, August 9, 2009

    校本驗毒唔止唔work,還會有反效果

    看到政府不理各方反對一意孤行要推校本驗毒,但又唔敢做得太盡,話學生如果不同意也可不驗,不禁啼笑階非;就好似有人要黎強姦你,但話定你知你唔同意佢都可以唔入你!一方面好想冷眼旁觀看這場鬧劇,另一方面又不忍看到學生對學校、家長以至政府僅餘的互相給磨滅掉。

    練乙錚昨天那篇文章, 已清楚說明根據外國經驗校本驗毒係唔work的,他提到的其中一篇研究前兩天我剛巧download了,到這裡補充一下。這個由University of Michigan 的Yamaguchi, Johnston and O'Malley作的研究,比較有作校本驗毒的學校與沒有的學生吸毒率,發現兩者分別不大,即是說校本驗毒未能起到壓止學生吸毒的作用。

    "There are still no significant differences in marijuana use or the use of other illicit drugs as a function of whether or not the school has (a)drug testing of any kind, (b) drug testing of students based on cause or suspicion, or (c) drug testing of athletes. Nor is there evidence that the heavy drug-using segment of the student population, specifically, is deterred from using marijuana or other illicit drugs by random or for cause testing."

    更令人憂慮的,是研究指出有作校本驗毒的學校的學生吸食大麻以外的毒品比率,竟比沒有驗毒的學校的學生更高!其中一個原因可能是學生減少吸食他們認為能被驗出來的大麻,轉而吸食其他他們認為不會被驗出來的其他毒品。

    "One could generate hypotheses to explain such a phenomenon, such as that testing leads students to reduce their use of drugs that can be detected (like marijuana) and to displace their use onto drugs that they think less likely to be detected."

    校本驗毒勞民傷財(一次要百多元),為何不把資源投向社會服務幫助需要幫助的人?

    Monday, August 3, 2009

    一個並不獨立的「獨立導演」

    (轉貼自http://www.mslforum.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1104)

    中國的「獨立導演」賈樟柯,也加入到「愛國秀」的行列之中:日前,因為澳大利亞墨爾本國際電影節播放以熱比婭為中心人物的紀錄片《愛的十個條件》,並邀請 熱比婭出席,賈樟柯高調宣佈退出電影節。一時間,中國文藝界的知名人士紛紛表態強烈支持,如電影導演馮小剛便熱情澎湃地說:「電影節最應該體現的是正義。 而組委會邀請這樣的政治騙子參加,不僅讓一場文化盛筵變成了政治鬧劇,也把電影節自己的牌子給毀了。」

    退出電影節毫不審慎

    電影節的牌子是否被毀,不是由馮、賈二位導演說了算;熱比婭是不是「政治騙子」、達賴喇嘛是不是「衣冠禽獸」,也不是由中共當局和「愛國賊」們說 了算。賈樟柯在聲明中說:「新疆歷史並不是我個人諳熟的領域,但發生在烏魯木齊的暴力事件剛剛過去兩周,我想至少應該採取一種審慎的態度,不要讓自己無意 識的行為玷污那些死去的人們。」這個說法與他「毅然」退出的宣佈卻截然相反。這一退出絲毫不「審慎」。

    新疆的暴力事件,有近因,即在廣東韶關打工的維族民工遭到暴力毆打甚至殺害;更有遠因,即長期以來中共的民族和宗教政策的嚴重失誤。將所有的罪責 都推給熱比婭這樣一位兩個孩子都在獄中、自己不得不流亡天涯的媽媽,怎麼說也是欲加之罪、何患無詞。國際社會普遍都沒有將熱比婭看作恐怖分子,既然賈樟柯 對新疆問題沒有研究,為甚麼就不假思索地接受中共的結論呢?何況迄今為止,中共並沒有公佈任何能夠證明熱比婭與暴力事件有關的確鑿證據。沒有證據,卻作有 罪推定,這是法治的國家和理性的公民的作為嗎?

    而暴力事件中的死難者,既有被維族暴力分子殺害的漢族平民,也有被漢族軍警殺害的維族民眾。死者的詳細資料至今仍然是「國家機密」,如同六四被殺 害的學生和市民一樣,如同四川地震中死於豆腐渣校舍的學生和全國死於三鹿有毒奶粉的嬰孩一樣。同情心是必要的,但真正的同情心不是有選擇地同情一部份人, 而是同情所有人;不是只同情那些官方允許同情的人,而不同情那些官方不允許同情的人。如果賈導演真有同情心的話,不妨學學藝術家艾未未,將調查和發佈地震 中受難學生的真相,當作比藝術更加偉大的志業,而不惜付出博客被封、特務上門監視的代價。

    巨星爭着演建國大片

    賈樟柯確實拍攝過一些獨立電影,但隨着名氣越來越大,他的獨立性也越來越低。這在中國電影界是一種普遍現象:拍過《活着》的張藝謀成了奧運開幕式 的總導演,拍過《北京雜種》的張元接着去拍《江姐》。畢竟,進入「主旋律」是一個難以抵擋的誘惑。成龍大哥的榜樣立在那裏,想學的人多着呢。中共以巨資打 造的紀念奪取天下六十周年的「獻禮片」《建國大業》,不是有那麼多兩岸三地的巨星,爭先恐後地去「義務」出演嗎?所以,賈樟柯在一個正確的時間、正確的地 點、做了一個正確的選擇,黨媽媽會記住的,會有獎賞的。

    余杰
    中國獨立作家