Get thee to the nunnery

Today the CNN website published a sermon masquerading as news story on "compensated dating". It erroneously stated that "Prostitution is illegal in Hong Kong", even when the legal expert interviewed said that "the law prohibits soliciting for immoral purpose." This heavily moralistic story centres on a former prostitute who now washes hair at a salon, as if that's something worth celebrating. Why should what a person over the legal age of consent does with her body be of concern to others? Aside from the sensationalism of the story, I don't see how it deserves to be the headline story on CNN.

The same reporter, Pauline Chiou, did another story on the ketamine "epidemic" in Hong Kong. She mentions the drug testing scheme, but says not a word about the controversy it is stirring up, or the ineffectiveness of such tests. This bitch needs to go back to journalism school, or the nunnery, where she belongs!

堕落之城

科大請周秀娜做講座嘉賓，我第一時間send左我幾個月前寫口靚模現像條link俾同是演講嘉賓的嶺大文化研究講師李小良，批評這種講座trivialize學術研究，也扼殺討論其他更有價值和嚴肅議題的空間，李教授當然沒有賜覆。

今天蘋果報導這場講座，學生為了看明星而來，說李教授的講詞「悶到冇朋友」，周小姐對李教授的問題連理解都沒有，更何況回答。整件事都是一場鬧劇，無論對李教授或周小姐都好embarassing，但做的人和看的人都毫不介意，充份見證這城市的墮落。

好心做壞事

最近在地鐵站看到這個反吸毒運動的海佈，沒有圖片，只有幾個字。一個大的「無」字，裡面藏著「子女」兩個字，slogan是「無毒一生，由我做起」。capaign的對像是年青人，slogan中的我是他們吧。但slogan下又有「關懷、愛護、支持」幾個字，又似乎針對父母，廣告的對像難道是吸毒中的父母？又或者要年青人想像他們將來變成子女的榜樣，所以由現在開始「無毒一生」？

這個campaign原來不是政府宣傳，而是由「九名來自社會不同界別，包括商界、社福界、傳媒界及前政府官員的人士」發起，其中包括黎明，他出席這個活動時發揮其金句本色：「年輕人不要想像自己能控制藥物，K仔（氯胺酮）是好強烈的麻醉藥，是（獸醫）用來麻醉大笨象，不是給人食的，若有人食了狗糧會點？」這一句說話中包含幾個個錯？首先K仔可用於人，通常配合其他麻醉藥用，也可用於其他治療包括抗憂鬱。此外狗糧含多種營養，人吃了不會有事，而且吸毒同吃東西是兩回事。還有，用這種condescending的態度對年青人說話，是不會得到你預期的結果。整件事完全好心做壞事，只會激發起年青人的反叛和反感。

母語教學costs lives!

尼泊爾男子林寶被警員開槍擊斃案，電視上播出市民拍的手機片段，警員開槍前用廣東話大叫「放低武器」、「唔好迫我」，林寶當然聽唔明繼續揮動木棍招致殺身之禍。奇怪的是當初警員問他有沒有身份証時是說英文的，即警員已establish他是懂英語的，後來情急之下才說廣東話，也不理會人家聽不聽得明便斷定他有攻擊性然後開槍。可憐的林寶可算是母語教學下第一個因此喪命的人！

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。

《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。

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.