2007年2月17日星期六

城市印象

(一)洛杉矶:式微,式微,胡不归?

H 远远地在电话那一头叹息,我在电话的这一边都感觉到他叹息的沉重。式微,式微,胡不归?我们的方向在哪里呢?初夏的傍晚,他开车送我到机场。路上,斜阳的余晖从车窗照进来,一切美的难以置信。我们沐浴在金色的阳光里,眼睛睁不开,耳朵里回响着宫崎君在《岁月的点点滴滴》里面使用的匈牙利民歌,悠扬的口哨声在没有边际的时间里循环往复。南加州寂寞的风景是在车窗外重复,没有人的加油站,极高极瘦的柏树,飘舞着俗艳彩旗的二手车市场,好像昨日重来。我愿意那段旅程永远没有尽头,这样在没有开始和没有终点的路上漂泊就是我的愿望。因为一旦停下来,H就变得沉默,他在圣塔莫尼卡海边的背影如此,他在盖蒂中心的花园迷宫中的身影也是如此。他站在远处的风景中,那风景因为他而寂寞。只有在开车的时候,在黑夜里,他才恢复了话语的欲望。那一天的夜里,我们坐在他门口的马路边上聊了一夜,我分享了他的寂寞。

人生真是有趣,我们相遇的时候是无忧无虑的中学生,上了同样的大学,先后流落到海外,又在不同的城市里碰面。他到纽约的时候,我们雨夜跑到Kim's Video 去看蔡明亮的《天边的一片云》,挤在沙发上冻得瑟瑟发抖。电影的情节全部记得了,记住的只是影片的沉默,整部片子对白大概不超过5句话。不见面的时候,总是我给他打电话,抱怨自己鸡毛蒜皮的琐事,或者兴奋地汇报最近看过的电影。他从来不给我打电话,好像他并不需要我当他的“垃圾桶”,因为他的朋友很多。但是不知为什么,我总是觉得他的寂寞。我们唯一的相似之处就是巨大的生存压力和一点点地不甘心。不甘心自己就这样寂寞,但是对此又无能为力。

洛杉矶是漫无边际的移民城市,西班牙语和黑色头发的天下,常年笼罩在厚重的汽车尾气烟雾中。对我来说,就像北京一样。好莱坞的艳丽和贝佛利山庄的传奇好像是过气女明星的脸,没什么看头儿。大名鼎鼎的星光大道和中国剧院其实老旧不堪,脏兮兮的,挤满了外地的游客,大家争先恐后地在那儿留影,像是拥挤在王府井大街上的人群。除了那些看起来疲惫不堪的棕榈树,日落大道也就是那么回事儿。但UCLA很美,它的占地面积极大,建筑物也很别致。我对这个学校向往已久,第一见到它的照片就很惊艳。当时白颐路和中关村路口有一家必胜客,一进门是UCLA的Powell Library ,当时心里的念头就是一定要到那儿去念书。大名鼎鼎的电影系附近到处是海报和广告,门口挤满了自行车。灿烂的南加州阳光下,人们躺在Janss Steps附近的草坪上晒beach。学生中过半数是亚洲人,也有很多西班牙裔的学生,人人都是健康的小麦色皮肤,唇红齿白,青春气息逼人。学校门口有一条长长的步行街,各种各样的小餐馆、书店和酒吧,可以神仙气定地逛一个下午。除了橄榄球不如南加州大学,当个UCLA的学生还真是不错。学校所在的圣塔莫尼卡是很好的地区,为了迎合旅游者在海边建立了很多步行区,里面各种时装店鳞次栉比。我最喜欢的是那些independent bookstore。不像纽约的小家子气,这里独立书店的店面很大,而且降价书的比例大。我们两个人常常逛丢了,直到精疲力竭才离开。因为天气温暖,这里到处都是自由自在的无家可归者,他们都有自己的自行车,看起来很自得的样子。

H就漂浮在这座浮城里。

对于我来说,他才是洛杉矶,因为他生活着洛杉矶的精神――越快乐越堕落,越堕落越快乐。这种堕落是陷入自己的梦不能自拔,是陷入自己的情感不能自拔。他追着自己的电影梦到了UCLA,在那里他才觉得自在。东海岸、尤其是保守的马里兰,对他而言太沉重了。只有在这里,他才找到了和自己精神契合的朋友,有了自己的圈子,甚至幸运的时候,找到自己的爱人。当我路过洛杉矶的时候,他带着我坐公共汽车去逛这个城市,到他经常吃午饭的小餐馆吃饭,逛他经常去租录像带的地方,去他喜欢的电影院看电影。然后他带着我去看西好莱坞的夜生活。他似乎从来没有对这个城市感到厌倦,给他打电话,他似乎总是在去看电影或者演出的路上,或者在朋友的party里聊天。但是我总是觉得他的寂寞。

我觉得有的人生来就是要寂寞的。他们追求的东西太真、太美、太不切实际,所以注定了要失落和寂寞。他总是觉得自己的学问做得不够好,所以总是没有勇气毕业。如果不是天才,谁的博士论文会成为开天辟地的力作?他说他总是在爱情中受伤害,找不到谈得来又真心对他的人。这种人存在吗?除非你自己去创造一个皮革马立翁。他注定要寂寞的,因为他陷落在自己的梦里、自己的情感里。

他总是让我想起一部老电影,文德斯的《德克萨斯州的巴黎》。德克萨斯州真的有一个县叫做巴黎,但是这个电影讲的是一个叫Travis的男人试图找回他的妻子Jane和孩子的故事。影片中所有的人都孤独寂寞,每个人都固守着自己的孤独和寂寞。Travis 最后在脱衣舞俱乐部里找到了自己的妻子,隔着玻璃窗,他的妻子在他面前表演。影片暗示人与人之间的距离,甚至是与自己非常亲密的人之间的距离,无法逾越。Travis和Jane都堕落了,但是在堕落中他们并不快乐。H就像是影片一开头出现的Travis,摇摇晃晃地沙漠里蹒跚而行,没有终点没有起点。他太喜爱电影,他在电影中求真、求美。但电影不是生活!隔着电影和世界接触,人总是要寂寞的。

我们都喜欢蔡明亮的《电影院中的黑暗》,但我也喜欢走出电影院之后的阳光,他不。他是一个雾港的水手,每当想起他,一个细细小小的声音就在我心里叫着,式微,式微,胡不归?

Party for what?

Party always involves excessive eating and drinking. The great emptyness after the party is alwasy unbearable. Mine is no exception. Maybe instead of cooking non-stop for 5 hours, I should invite friends to sit and watch the with me. So that we could have a moment of peace and reflect on our lives in the past year. When we open our mouths, we close our mind. We go for the easy pleasure of body and loss the chance for enjoying the better state of being. It is ok for once or twice a year, but not for everyday. Anyway, I enjoyed our party yesterday. I jumped between Chinese, English and my poor spanish and it was real fun.
Copy from my dear friend's website. !Feliz Complianos!
" 今天是我的生日,早晨起来决定像去年一样登香山。打算带上一本书,巴西作家保罗科埃略的《查希尔》,出发前随便翻开一页,发现内容和我正在想的事情有关系,就是它了。天气不算太好,我上得很快,一个小时上到山顶,驻足片刻后,照例到茶苑里点了一杯咖啡,坐下来,晒着太阳。然后读书,渐入佳境。我想,生日这一天就这样在山顶读一天书不也很好吗?心无旁骛,到黄昏时候再下山去,书大概也读完了。这本小说很吸引我,不过这个作家总说到朝圣路,陌生的旅程,读着读着我就不想坐着不动了,茶苑里的其他人也让我不能清静。在峰顶上可以看到香山公园的界墙外山脉连绵,有蜿蜒的公路。我何不走走山外之山呢?于是从小径下到界墙边,找了一个容易翻越的地段(也有两米多高),翻了过去。沿着往远处延伸的山路走,九曲十八弯,很快离香山主峰远起来,这将通向何方我也不知道,反正走吧。一路凉风习习,有时山坡草丛里有小动物迅速散开,也有鸟扑愣愣飞起来,山中安静,仔细听鸟翅膀扇动的声音很是悦耳,有点体会到梭罗对大自然的感受。山谷里间或还有人家,平伏在萧瑟的林木中,看得我心中奇怪,仿佛面对元人画中的秋山图。峰回路转处,有单独的一间小房子,似是守林人住的,我凑近了窗户看,里面几乎是空的,一边堆了一些落叶,一个角落里竟然有一只死兔子!景象奇特,真有点超现实了……为了冒险直奔远方,我沿着大道走,可惜走了近三个小时后发现山路绕了回来,回到了界墙,不过离开我翻出之处已经很远了。此时已近下午四点钟,不能再走陌生路了,否则晚上不知道会到哪里。于是又翻过去,到了香山地界之内。沿着石阶下山,不久遇到一块巨石,坐上去,俯瞰山下,景色尽收,真是一块绝佳处,我凝神远眺了一会儿,把书拿出来读,身后偶尔有人走过我也不管,读完一段会心处就继续上路。在某处忽然草中飞起一只尾羽斑斓的野鸡,我惊叹地看着,想到我父亲,他会打猎,我小时候吃过不少野鸡野兔,他是怎么在这些野物听到人声惊走之前就发现它们的呢?这一定需要很敏锐的视觉和听觉。继续前行的路上,我就有意听和看,不久就又看到一只野鸡,比方才的小一点,在山坡上踱步,我悄悄往那边走,它就发觉,开始小跑,但并不飞,我怀疑它不会飞,立刻冲它跑起来,可惜它更灵活,在草丛里迅疾地左拐右拐,一会儿就出了我的视线。我本来也就是要吓唬它,于是作罢。下山路上,看到一处亭子,或者风水气象不错处,我就逗留会儿,读几页书,兴尽则掩卷而起。我发现亭子虽是一景,但亭子之所以建造,是因那里适合观景。所以亭子之胜处不在亭子本身,而是它所在之处。下到山门时,暮色已起,疲倦涌来,已经在山中走了五个多小时,肚子里早晨吃的一个烧饼早已化为乌有。但我有一种挑战了自己的愉悦,感官似也陶冶一新。如此生日,不亦快哉。"

Madness as Love

Bellini portrait Love is intertwined with madness in many literature and dramas. Tatiana’s passion for Onegin is certainly a case, demonstrated by her 12 minutes aria in the Letter Scene. Eboli’s dying wish to win Don Carlo’s heart is no doubt a sign of madness. Faithful Tosca killed Scarpia to save her lover, while Rigoletto risked his life to keep the honor of his daughter. Madam Butterfly sacrificed herself to a man who did not deserve her love. It is also the case for I Puritani, where Elvira was mad at herself and her lover Arturo when Arturo ran away on their wedding day. In this myth of love, passion and faith, madness is behind the whole drama. Unfortunately, Anna Netrebko did not show up in the last night’s performance. But to a large extent, I think the Met’s new production is a decent play. Maria Callas became famous after her 1954 appearance in I Puritani, and the Met is current host an exhibition of her stage jewelries. As the last opera of the short-lived genius Bellini, this bel canto is among the jewel of operatic collection. Bellini produced 7 operas during his life time of 34 years, and I Puritani was nevertheless his most mature and touching work. According to Wikipedia, “ I puritani (The Puritans) is an opera in three acts, by Vincenzo Bellini. Text by Count Carlo Pepoli after Têtes rondes et Cavaliers by Jacques-François Ancelot & Joseph Xavier Boniface (known as Saintine). First produced at the Théâtre Italiens in Paris, January 24, 1835. At the same time, Bellini composed an alternative version intended for the famous Maria Malibran, who was to sing it in Naples; in fact, this version was not performed until April 10, 1986 at the Teatro Petruzzelli, Bari. Bellini died in Puteaux, near Paris of acute inflammation of the intestine, and was buried in the cemetery of Père Lachaise, Paris; his remains were removed to the cathedral of Catania in 1876. The Museo Belliniano, Catania, preserves memorabilia and scores.” The whole play is a show of great tenors and baritones. There are two roles for baritone, Elvira’s uncle Giorgio and her unsuccessful suitor Riccardo, and a part for tenor—Elvira’s fateful lover Arturo. In the tradition of Bel Canto[1], the play nicely knitted the fates of individual and nation together and gave you a sense of doomed destiny. On one side, Elvira was mad for her love. On the other hand, Arturo was made for his attachment to Stuarts’ dynasty. The dominant political narrative changed the life trajectories of individuals, which imposed a great sense of tragedy—one can not change his/her fate by own effort. In this sense, madness becomes a part of love, a part which is beyond your control. It is just in so happened. A drama can not go without love or madness or both, since they have to give a sense of extreme mental state—a state going beyond your reason and rationality, a state of holy madness. Basically, this transformative experience can not be easily obtained from routine life and have to have to meet in theatres. A drama integrates the extreme case of our living conditions and put our judgment and emotion under interrogation. The audience has a chance to live a life he/she could never be exposed to otherwise. The history is no long cold and distance fact on the yellow pages; they become real before your very eyes. In three hours, you live through the history and the fate of its heroines and heroes. You gain this sense of being presence in the historical moment, on the verge of nervous breakdown, at the touching point of life and death. I see no better way to understand the greatness and limitations of human being. This “living through the history” experience is not meant to give a fake sense of exotic, but rather provides a way to go inside one’s mind—force one’s heart to experience, to reflect, to suffer and to relieve. The drama leads you through the valley of death, the summit of happiness, the narrow stripe of jealous, and the incomparable state glory and achievement. Each performance is meant to be a spiritual shower and the tears you shed in the couple of hours are meant to purify your mind. I believe great art should somewhat give you similar experience, no matter what forms they take—an opera, a painting, a movie, a novel or a line of stanza. Note: In the intermission, I had an interesting discussion with the old lady sat next to me about what the history and drama were. She suggested the drama was just a fictional interpretation of the history. Don Carlo or I Puritani is creation based on historical facts, but not the whole truth. But to my mind, there is not such a thing as a true history—everything was up to our own interpretation. It was not to say there were no such things as historical facts, but to suggest our interpretation of history depended on our own perspective. Who could a same war mean same thing for people on each side? As long as the interpretation makes good drama, I go for it. However, people should be responsible to their interpretation and hold accountable for their interpretation. Great historical writings are meant to be philosophical, as our guide to the uncertain future. [1] Bel canto singing is characterized by a focus on perfect evenness throughout the voice, skillful legato, a light upper register, tremendous agility and flexibility, and a certain lyric, "sweet" timbre. Operas of the style featured extensive and florid ornamentation, requiring much in the way of fast scales and cadenzas. an Italian musical term, refers to the art and science of vocal technique which originated in Italy during the late sixteenth century and reached its pinnacle in the early part of the nineteenth century during the Bel Canto opera era. Rossini, Bellini, and Donizetti are the best-known exponents of this style, which flourished from approximately 1810 to 1830.

2007年2月15日星期四

The Women of Pedro Almodóvar

The Women of Pedro Almodóvar

By Daniel Mendelsohn

Volver a film directed by Pedro Almodóvar
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19911

1.

In the 1995 Almodóvar film The Flower of My Secret—a work that stands at the chronological midpoint between the director's earliest movies, with their DayGlo emotions and Benzedrine-driven plots, and the technically smoother and emotionally subtler films of the past few years—a successful middle-aged writer called Leocadia (Leo) Macìas is caught, as Almodóvar's characters so often are, between the exhausting emotional demands imposed by a complicated life and the equally exhausting demands imposed by what you might as well call Art. Leo is an author of a series of very popular novelas rosa, romance novels (literally, "pink novels"), but her life of late has been so tortured—her handsome army officer husband is leaving her, very likely for another woman; her impossible mother is driving her and her put-upon sister nuts—that, as she tells her bemused editor, whatever she writes comes out not pink, but black.

This wry pun is meant by Leo to explain the manuscript she's just submitted, to which the editor, Alicia, has reacted not at all well. As Alicia points out to a weary Leo, the new novel, a violent tale of murder and incest whose female protagonist "works emptying shit out of hospital bedpans, who's got a junkie mother-in-law and faggot son who's into black men," not only is appallingly inappropriate to the publishing house's "True Love" series, but violates the terms of Leo's contract, which stipulates "an absence of social conscience.... And, of course, happy endings." The plot of the new novel smacks less of Barbara Cartland than of Patricia Highsmith; as a sputtering Alicia puts it, it's about

a mother who discovers her daughter has killed her father, who had tried to rape her. And so that no one finds out, she hides the body in the cold storage room of a neighbor's restaurant...!

When Leo, defending the artistry of The Cold Storage Room, gently protests that "reality is like that," Alicia launches into an outburst about "reality":

Reality! We all have enough reality in our homes! Reality is for newspapers and TV. Look at the result! With so much reality, the country's ready to explode. Reality should be banned!

But it's clear that to Leo, the gritty reality of her lower-class characters is far worthier of artistic representation than the rose-hued, gossamer fantasy world of her earlier work. When Alicia glumly asks why Leo's writing has changed, Leo shrugs. "I guess I'm evolving," she says.


Pedro Almodóvar is a director who, over the course of a career that now spans a quarter-century, has famously loaded his films with references to mass entertainment, its producers and consumers; his characters tend to be directors, talk show hosts, novelists, toreros (and, in Talk to Her, a torera), actresses, journalists, publishers, dancers, fans—people who are frequently shown in the act of watching dances, plays, television shows, movies, bullfights, concerts. For this reason, exchanges in his films about the nature and merits of popular genres and their ability to represent reality are not to be taken casually. And indeed, it's hard not to think of the argument between Alicia and Leo as one that's about Almodóvar himself —about his own evolution as an artist, a progress in which The Flower of My Secret seemed, as critics at the time and Almodóvar himself have commented, to mark a watershed moment.

Before then, when you talked about "an Almodóvar film," it was pretty clear what you were talking about: an exaggerated aesthetic imbued with the lurid neon glare you associated more with certain genres of entertainment —radio and TV soap operas, film noir, pop lyrics—than with anything recognizably "real." There was the flashily self-conscious penchant for hyperbolic (and sometimes, you couldn't help feeling, ad hoc) plotting: murder, suicide, and hostage-taking were favorite mechanisms to keep the action going (in the 1987 gay stalker melodrama Law of Desire, you get all three), and —as with soap operas—hospitals and police stations were favorite settings. There was the hysterical pacing, which was only occasionally intentionally amusing (Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, the director's 1988 breakout hit, was self-consciously constructed as a filmed stage farce). And above all there were the demimondaine characters—drag queens, transsexuals, prostitutes, junkies—who were handy, vivid symbols of the transgressive themes the then-young Almodóvar, during the heady years of the post-Franco cultural explosion, was clearly eager to explore—and to flaunt.

Such style and such material ideally suited the over-the-top passions that have always been this director's subject, passions that, like those in soaps, were never less than excessive—and, too often, excessively symbolic. (In Matador, the male and female leads are a former matador and his icily beautiful lover, both of them serial murderers who can achieve orgasm only in the act of killing.) The very titles of the early work have a hysterical or camp edge: What Have I Done to Deserve This? (1984), Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! (1990), High Heels (1991), and, most famously, Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown. It comes as no surprise that the director's earliest champions in this country were to be found among urban gay men, who were also enjoying, during the mid- and late 1980s, a newfound sense of political power and social visibility—and, of course, were feeling no little anxiety as well. Because a kind of hyperactive ebullience mixed with an edge of hysteria was the hallmark of Almodóvar's early style, too, the appearance, back then, of a new Almodóvar film felt to many of us obscurely like a confirmation. This perfect concentricity of the films' style and their historical moment no doubt explains why those early films, celebrated as being so gratifyingly "fabulous" at the time, feel today a bit overwrought—a bit dated.


When it came out, The Flower of My Secret—a film about an artist's need to outgrow an earlier, insufficiently serious aesthetic—was felt, with no little relief by Almodóvar's admirers, to signal a welcome renewal of creative energies after a number of films (Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!, High Heels, Kika) in which the deliciously outré boldness or the archly knowing camp fun of earlier work like The Law of Desire or Women on the Verge had hardened into shtick. Leo, to be sure, is a woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown —her attachment to her wayward husband has a familiarly hysterical edge to it—but what's interesting in this film is the way in which that mad passion fails to lead to the kind of emotional and narrative carnage with which the director had earlier liked to conclude his films.

Law of Desire, for instance, is also about an obsessed, rejected lover (an ostensibly bisexual young man, played by Antonio Banderas, who stalks and eventually seduces a famous film director and then kills the film director's boyfriend); but whereas the earlier film's melodramatic ending had the stalker shooting himself in his lover's arms —after a police siege and a hostage crisis, no less—The Flower of My Secret rejects luridly dramatic death scenes in favor of something subtler and truer. Leo's impulsive suicide attempt is foiled when, having swallowed a bottle of pills, the semiconscious woman hears her crazy mother's voice on the answering machine—at which point she races into the bathroom, forces herself to throw up, and gets on with the painful, messy business of living. The theme of eschewing melodrama for the mundane realities of everyday life is implicit in the film's trick opening, in which we see a distraught woman, whose husband or boyfriend, we are given to understand, is brain-dead, being gently pressured by two doctors to sign a donor consent form: the camera pulls back to reveal that the woman is merely an actress participating in a training exercise for physicians at a transplant clinic run by Leo's best friend.

The self-conscious turning way from hyperbole that seems to be a consistent theme in The Flower of My Secret—the transplant clinic feint, the rejection of Law of Desire's dénouement in suicidal violence, the shift in emotional interest from an erotic, solipsistic obsession with the lover to the dutiful relationship with a mother—looks forward to a larger change that's been in evidence over the past decadeor so. Among other things, since 1995 the writer-director has seemed to realize that invocations of and allusions to pop culture can be more than idle, postmodern games or advertisements for one's own cleverness. All About My Mother (1999), about a woman seeking emotional meaning (not least, in mothering other people's children) after her adored teenaged son is killed in a car accident, is beautifully organized around a series of echoes of All About Eve, with its theme of stolen identities, and of A Streetcar Named Desire, with its overriding preoccupation with fragile female psyches. Talk to Her (2002), which begins and ends with characters watching performances of Pina Bausch works, contains a brilliantly original set piece in which we get to see scenes from a bizarre 1920s silent film—Almodóvar's invention, amusingly evocative of that era and genre—whose plot comments suggestively on his characters and their motives. (An obsessive, sexually repressed male nurse describes the film—in which a man who's been shrunk to the size of a human finger as the result of a botched experiment enters the vagina of his sleeping mistress—as he himself finally enters the body of a comatose patient with whom he's been obsessed for some time.)

Since then, too, there's been an emphasis in the films on intense feelings that somehow do not lead to seduction, murder, and suicide. (The will to survive, the desire to nurture, and the need to commemorate, for instance.) If the Oscar-winning Talk to Her, like Matador sixteen years earlier, is about bullfighters and gorings, the tone of the movie, the passions that animate it—that of a journalist for the torera, and of the great torero who is his rival for her affections—are restrained, almost somber. It's as if Almodóvar were daring himself to make a film about that aesthetically and symbolically loaded cultural institution without going over the top, as he did so gleefully in the earlier movie (which opens with a scene of the sadistic retired bullfighter masturbating to slasher films in which women are dismembered, beheaded, hanged). Indeed one of the sly surprises of the later movie is that the famous torero turns out to be rather sweet and nice, and touchingly attentive to his insensate lover—talking to her constantly—as the skeptical journalist, ostensibly the less macho character, does not.


The newfound emotional subtlety and technical restraint that you get in these films seems connected to a deeper appreciation of women than was previously evident—women not as camp harpies or hysterics or vamps (which is to say women as drag icons), but as something closer to the women of real life. This is so even in Talk to Her, where the women are more the objects than the subjects of deep emotions; it's as if his two principal male characters' fraught attention to the comatose women they adore has elicited from Almodóvar some deeper feelings of his own. It is surely no coincidence that the most disappointing film of the director's recent period, the overwrought and overrated Bad Education—with its frenetically convoluted temporal layerings, its frantic Highsmithesque plot about a handsome and amoral young man whose masquerade as his own dead brother leads him to seduce both the priest who had once abused the brother and the gay film director who'd had a crush on the brother in school years before—has almost no female characters at all.

Almodóvar's finest film, All About My Mother, is in fact exclusively about women, of all kinds: young, old, successful, troubled, confused, strong, weak. The film follows Manuela, an employee at a transplant clinic (here Amodóvar once again recycles a motif from an earlier film) as she tries to rebuild her life after her precocious son's tragic death. The shift from men to women, male homosexual desire to maternal feeling, is signaled by a narrative feint with which the film begins. Early on there is a strong suggestion that the woman's fatherless son, with his fierce attachment to his mother, the prized Truman Capote book he's received for his birthday, and his love of camp classics like All About Eve, is on the verge of discovering his homosexuality; between that and the way in which the camera lingers on the beautiful face of the young actor who plays him, the film looks as if it might be the story of that discovery.

And yet soon after meeting him, we see the boy being run over by a car after trying unsuccessfully to get the autograph of a famous actress, whose car he chases after in the pouring rain. Here we realize that it's the mother, not the son, who will be our emotional focus; it becomes, so to speak, a story told by him, rather than about him. (Almodóvar has talked about the enormous impact that L'Avventura had on him as a young moviegoer, and the narrative dislocation that comes in the first third of All About My Mother bears him out.)


It is tempting to see the shift from the world of (gay) men to the world of (mostly straight) women as parallel to another, larger evolution that occurs in the movie, and in the work overall —the abandonment of melodrama for something at once subtler and more emotionally profound. This shift is evoked by yet another narrative feint: after the boy's heart is transplanted and Manuela (who because of her job has access to confidential records) goes to spy secretly on the recipient, there's a brief moment when you think the movie is going to be about another sentimental cliché—the mother's relationship with the beneficiary of her dead son's organs. But this, too, comes to nothing, and Manuela returns home to rebuild her shattered life.

Firmly grounded in reality, then, we follow Manuela over some few years as she becomes a substitute mother to several other characters: the brilliant but emotionally unstable lesbian actress who was the unwitting cause of Manuela's bereavement (played by the handsome Marisa Paredes, who had played Leo in The Flower of My Secret), and a young nun (Penélope Cruz) who's been seduced and made pregnant by the father, now dying of AIDS, of Manuela's dead son. (Since his affair with Manuela he's become a transsexual named Lola: even the men in this story aren't completely male.) What's remarkable about the film is that despite the presence of hyperbolic elements familiar from the earlier films—the addicts, the sex changes, the trannies, AIDS, the fatal accident, even the transplant clinic where Manuela works and where, in a horrible replay of the scenario with which The Flower of My Secret opens, she is compelled to sign the consent form permitting the extraction and use of her son's organs—the emotional tone is muted, tender, intense, and yet somehow sober. The film begins and ends with the death of a young person, but there is no question of such death being glamorized, sensationalized, or otherwise cheaply aestheticized; no question that the emphasis is on anything but life. It's as if, once again, Almodóvar were teasing us with elements from his earlier work only to bring us up short—to remind us of how far he'd come.


Looking back at the complex evolution of Almodóvar's style over the past two decades allows you, among other things, to see a secret and symbolic irony at play in Leo's argument with her editor in The Flower of My Secret. For Leo, greater artistic seriousness was represented by a commitment to subjects that seemed to her more grittily real, more violent, more working-class—more noir, in every sense—than the rose-colored fantasy world of her romance novels, with (presumably) their reveries about intense attentions of men to the erotic and emotional needs of women. And yet the director's own progress to greater depth and maturity has moved, if anything, in the opposite direction.

2.

The theme of returning to and suggestively recycling old material is at the very core of Almodóvar's new film, the Academy Award–nominated Volver, as its title reminds us. The Spanish verb volver means not only "to turn" —there is, indeed, a recurrent visual motif here of windmills turning—but "to return" and, with a verbal object, "to do again." Here, as in Talk to Her, two women are at the center of connected plots; here, as in All About My Mother, the emphasis is on motherhood. Most remarkably there is here a crucial allusion to the groundbreaking Flower of My Secret. For Volver takes as its donnée the plot of the very novel that Leo, in her quest for seriousness, had tried and failed to publish in the earlier film. Exactly like Leo's novel, The Cold Storage Room, the new movie is about a mother (here called Raimunda), a lower-class cleaning woman, who learns that her deadbeat husband has tried to rape her daughter and, after the husband is murdered, disposes of the body in a freezer in a neighbor's restaurant.

We eventually learn that these crimes —the incest, the murder, the mother's willingness to do anything to protect the daughter—are echoes of, "returns" to, earlier crimes committed by Raimunda's own mother; but this internal return is nowhere near as interesting as the larger one taking place here, which is that of Almodóvar himself once again returning, with delicious self-consciousness, to an old plot—one that sounded hopelessly excessive, too much like his own early work—and reconfiguring it, as he does here even more radically than in his other recent films, in the subtle but provocative manner of his mature style.


Volver dispenses fairly swiftly with two props of the old Almodóvar style: melodrama and men. Indeed, an arresting opening sequence suggestively emphasizes what will be the film's exclusive focus on female experience: it's a shot of the women of a small provincial town vigorously cleaning the tombstones of their relatives (or, in the case of one significant character, her own tomb). It is in this context of death and hard female labor that we are introduced to Raimunda, who lives in Madrid but has come for this ritual visit to her parents' graves (we learn that the couple died together in a fire three years earlier); her daughter Paula, a fourteen-year-old nymphet; her plain-looking sister, Sole; and their old friend and neighbor Agustina, who has remained in the village and who looks after Raimunda's senile old aunt, also called Paula. A visit to Tìa Paula's house is charged—characteristically, as it will turn out—with intense familial emotion and with the specter of the macabre, even the supernatural. For even as the lonely old woman tells her nieces that "the important thing is that you come back [volver]," we soon learn that someone else may have come back, too: the two sisters' dead mother, Irene, whose ghost neighbors claim to have seen, and who Tìa Paula herself, perhaps not as crazy as she sounds, insists has been doing the housework for her and cooking her meals.

Soon we are back in the big city, Madrid, where the relationships among these women—the supposedly dead mother included, as it will turn out— are the objects of the film's restrained and loving attention. Indeed, the knifing of Paco, Raimunda's husband (a crime committed by young Paula as he tries to rape her), and the disposal of his body are handled with a semi-comical brusqueness; the fact that Raimunda gets away with cleaning up the crime scene and transporting the body from the house to a nearby restaurant freezer and then to a makeshift grave suggests the filmmaker's desire simply to be rid of the men here, too. They're just a plot mechanism, a way of focusing our attention on the women. In earlier films in which murders occur (Law of Desire, Matador), Almodóvar was clearly intrigued by the high drama afforded by police procedurals; here there are no cops on the murderer's trail, and the only procedure associated with the crime is the almost lovingly filmed sequence in which Raimunda, who cleans vast office buildings for a living, expertly and unsentimentally wipes up the blood with paper towels and then mops the floor. As a cover-up she merely tells everyone that Paco has left her and Paula; when Sole insists that he'll come back (volverá), "I don't think so" is the ever-practical Raimunda's opaque reply. To his credit, the director doesn't milk the line for a laugh, as he could well do—as indeed he would have done fifteen years ago.

If anything, when men turn up here, they're soon dismissed; the emphasis repeatedly returns to the bonds that connect these hardworking women. An ongoing joke of the film is the fact that after Raimunda takes over her neighbor's restaurant (typically, he's conveniently gone out of town and we soon forget about him) and makes it thrive, she repeatedly rejects the attentions of the handsome young guy, a member of a film crew, who has hired her to cater for them. The real focus is, if anything, on the way in which a couple of Raimunda's girlfriends, one of whom is a hardworking local prostitute, end up chipping in to help her with her burgeoning business —the way in which these women, without men, start to thrive. Regina, the whore, ends up helping her friend transport and bury the freezer, too—no questions asked. In earlier films, Almodóvar's women were the sort who relied on the comfort of strangers; here, they rely on each other.


It's a tribute to how intensely Almodóvar focuses our attention on female relationships that even after the graphic murder of Paco and the black comedy about the disposal of his body, the only mysteries and the only death we care to solve or to mourn are those involving women. The death is that of Raimunda's beloved Tìa Paula, who, she learns after Paco is killed, has died the night before—an event to which, the women of the village insist, the ghost of Raimunda's mother has alerted Agustina. A strikingly photographed scene of the old lady's funeral, which shows us, from above, the black-clad townswomen batting their fans and surrounding Sole while we hear the insistent susurration of their prayers, once again—perhaps because it suggests a hive of bees—drives home the theme of feminine emotional solidarity.

Of the two mysteries we are led to care about, the first has to do with the disappearance of Agustina's mother, a local eccentric who, she tells Paula, had once been the rural town's only hippie, and who disappeared the day that Raimunda's parents perished—a mystery that torments her plain, kindly daughter, who is dying of cancer. (Agustina begs Raimunda to help her solve the riddle before she dies, even if it means appealing to ghosts—a suggestion that an incredulous Raimunda, never one for fanciful solutions to real-life problems, emphatically rejects.)

The second mystery concerns the true identity of the woman who's buried in Irene's tomb. For it soon evolves that the ghost story is another tease, another suggestion of narrative extravagance that is soon abandoned in favor of something real. Irene, we learn, is no apparition, and when she finally makes herself known to her daughters and granddaughter, she confesses to a crime that not only explains the disappearance of Agustina's mother, but brings about a violently emotional confrontation on the part of all four women with a crime committed by the dead husband, a crime far more terrible than adultery or murder in self-defense: incestuous abuse of the young Raimunda. Irene's discovery of this crime, along with her knowledge of the husband's affair with Agustina's mother, is, we learn, what led her to set the fire that killed the adulterous couple.

The terrible secrets revealed by a sorrowing Irene explain the cause of the long estrangement between her and her now-grown daughter: the daughter's rage at the mother's failure to see what was happening, the mother's uncomprehending resentment before she did learn the truth. More emotionally significant still, the sensational revelation makes us realize that the two women are poignantly similar to each other: in the daughter the admirable spirit of the mother has, after all, "returned." For each is a mother who has been willing to incur an awful guilt in order to punish a terrible crime against her daughter: although it's the young Paula and not Raimunda who kills Paco, her mother makes it clear that she's willing to take the blame if the crime is ever discovered. (Incestuous abuse by a terrible father is itself a motif to which Almodóvar has returned here: it occurs as an eleventh-hour revelation in Law of Desire, but there it feels gratuitous—it's just another outrageous incident among many, introduced as an attempt to explain a character's erotic life. Here, it has greater narrative significance and a profounder emotional impact.)

The irony of Volver's reenactment of the fictional plot from The Flower of My Secret is that the real focus, the real story here, is not in fact what had seemed so repellently sensational to Leo's editor—the murders, the dead bodies, the poverty—but rather a series of subtle, complicated, intense yet finally manageable feelings among female characters, emotions that, in the new film, really do constitute a kaleidoscopic vision of what "True Love" is. The self-wounding anger borne by daughters against their mothers; the subtly etched competitiveness between close friends and particularly between sisters (Almodóvar and his excellent cast brilliantly evoke the intricate currents that run back and forth between the plain Sole and the beautiful Raimunda, played with great effectiveness by Penélope Cruz, who seems at once more voluptuous and tougher than in her earlier work for Almodóvar, and who has certainly earned her Oscar nomination); the immense and unbearable pain felt by Irene (the great Carmen Maura), a mother who has inadvertently wounded her child by failing to see what was happening to her: these things occupy our attention to the exclusion of virtually everything else, with satisfying results.


It must be said that this newly exclusive focus on deep emotions among fairly ordinary people is a bit disconcerting for many who have come to enjoy the cinematic brand that "Almodóvar film" has long represented. The comparatively subdued reception that Volver has received may have much to do with the fact that the film does not deliver the kind of fun we've come to associate for a long time with this director's work. Or even with the kinds of extremities of incident and character that his fine, more recent work still revels in: the fantasy silent movies, the miraculous reanimations of comatose girls, the glitter and gore of the corrida.

Here I should mention a "return" of my own: on my first viewing I was fairly unaffected by Volver, largely, I think, because what I saw on screen strayed so far from my expectations of it (particularly having read of the murder with which it begins). Gone were the men, the eroticizing of the masculine that to my mind had always seemed to give the director's films either a campy or an erotic traction; gone, too, was the ostentatious appeal to "marginal" elements, gone the elaborate narrative frames created by reference to icons of pop culture, the films within films and plays within films, that gave the earlier work an elaborate and sometimes delicious self-consciousness. The only bit of trashy pop culture you get in the new movie is a scene in which the cancer-ridden Agustina goes on a daytime talk show to appeal to the viewing public for information about her mother. (Significantly, instead of embracing that tacky form of entertainment, the film rejects it—Agustina walks off the set in disgust, and keeps her stories to herself in the end.) The only performance you get here is, moreover, an almost painfully straightforward one: at the wrap party for the film crew, Raimunda, who we learn had once had auditioned for a talent show, shyly sings a song called "Volver." (One lyric is "I'm afraid of the encounter with the past that's coming back.") And the only outtake from another director's work is a terribly brief glimpse of the movie that Irene watches as she cares for Agustina: Visconti's 1951 film Bellissima, in which a mother goes to poignantly fantastic extremes to make her little daughter a child film star.

In Spanish, volverse can mean "to change one's ideas" about something. It wasn't until I myself returned and saw the film a second time—and stayed long enough to confirm the identity of the film clip you see at the very end—that the merits of this subtle new film started to affect me, and I began to see what a great change in ideas it represents. For if Bellissima is about a mother whose fantasies of glamour adversely affect her family's ability to live real life (the Anna Magnani character uses up their small funds for grooming little Maria), what's interesting and, finally, moving about Volver —what suggests that it's the logical (if not quite as extraordinary) next step from the masterful All About My Mother—is that in Almodóvar's new film, motherhood trumps Art.

At the very end of the movie, when Raimunda, bidding her mother goodnight, tells Irene almost as an afterthought that she wants to tell her about what happened to Paco, Irene is too busy at this point caring for a new daughter-figure, the dying Agustina (shades of All About My Mother here), to listen. And so she tells her daughter that the story must wait. This poignant final assertion of the value of life over the allure of overheated narratives suggests that Almodóvar, like the erstwhile romance novelist Leo Macìas, has successfully evolved: out of an abandoned melodrama he has fashioned a drama that, in its very restraint, may be the most radical thing its creator has yet attempted.

Must Love Drama Queen

I have certain kind of friends for whom people might think of them as drama queens. Without them, our lives are boring to death. But with them, you have to test your blood pressure constantly. They fall in love as if they have no other choices, they abuse their love as if they are not the person in charge, and they cry for their love afterwards as if this is the last time in love. After a while, the news comes out and they are in love again.
We can easily fall in love with a drama queen, why not? They are shining like crystal in the blue sky. They have the charisma to turn your life up and down. Many times, they are as beautiful as your dreams and you could communicate with them as you have dreamed. To love a drama queen likes to love a part of yourself—the young, abusive, ego-centric, selfish, arty, but shining part of yourself.

People believe drama queens are the lucky ones in love affairs. Not really. I think they are just the ones who will and can take the risks. On the verge of your nerve, are you daring to jump into an emotional turbulence? At the bottom heart of your mind, do you really think love is above everything? In the late night, can you afford the pain of betraying someone which you once loved and not regret? In retrospective, can you smile and still hold the hope for future? To be a drama queen, you have to be sure about yourself that nothing in your life is more adventurous and enjoyable than living the present moment.

I just wish you all can take it easy if you loved a drama queen. We have to love them, as a way to live out of our lives. Is there a better way to investigate the indepth of your emotion? To try out the different possibilites of yourself? To confront your moral disturbance?

Take it as the way it is, and enjoy this snow white Valentine’s day.

当乐盲遇到奥涅金

Young Tchaikovsky.

九十年代中期的北京,古典音乐还远远没有在大学的校园里普及,说是音乐的沙漠也不过分。虽然在中学里一直是合唱团的,接触的声乐作品也就是《伦敦德里小调》、《绿袖子》这一类通俗的作品,没有系统地接受过西方音乐的教育。只有偶尔蹬自行车到北京音乐厅或者海淀影剧院,才能买到便宜的学生票,让耳朵享受一下。这种情况到大学也没有什么改变,音乐课更从必修课降到了选修课的地位。(大学里的艺术类选修课,除了朱青生老师的西方艺术史,其余的几门都引不起学生的兴趣。我先后选修了朱老师的几门课,此外还希望对其他的艺术门类有所了解,但大学里开设的音乐类选修课太少了)。多数人和我一样,对西方古典音乐一无所知,只是出于好奇,才误打误撞地选择了歌剧欣赏。

大多数大学生对音乐的了解都停留在中学音乐课的水平上。国内中小学的音乐教育的思路是以音乐理论教育为主,完全忽略了对音乐作品的欣赏。音乐课的考核往往是笔试,考你认不认得乐谱,而不是对作品的熟悉和理解。因此,经过几年的“读谱”,我们都可以坐而论乐,但西方音乐作品从来没有走入我们的心灵,和我们的生存状态无关。我们有的是音乐的“知识”,可对音乐的魅力一无所知。好比是对着西施学习人体结构,对她的美视而不见,只看到她的人体结构特征。这种本末倒置的教育之下,音乐教育不仅索然无味,而且令人生厌。

在主流的音乐教育体系之外,我们的耳朵在港台流行音乐的熏陶下成长起来的。从80年代的百万畅销曲,到先后走红的两岸三地的歌星,我们所感兴趣的音乐不是所谓的阳春白雪,而是通俗的市井小调。这些流行音乐作品在某种程度上满足了我们对音乐的需要,但是从另一个角度来看,也让我们陷入其中不能自拔,限制了我们接触其他音乐形式和作品的可能性。所以,越听越弱智。它们满足了我们的“声色”之欲,对心灵的饥渴却鲜有帮助。它们不要求你去思考,它们代替你去思考,使得我们部分地丧失了从音乐中了解自身、了解人性的机会。

因此在电教几百人的教室里,中央音乐学院请来的刘老师常常是对着一群乐盲普及歌剧常识。刘老师五十多岁年纪,应该属于留苏的一代音乐人。他对西方古典音乐的理解局限于20世纪之前的西方,我记得他从来没有提过勋伯格或者古斯塔夫.马勒。对他讲授的理论,我一点印象也没有了。我觉得他是一个好老师,他懂得要让我们了解和喜爱音乐,理论是不够的,必须让我们接触到音乐作品本身,让我们“掉进去”,让我们打开我们的耳朵,让我们对音乐打开我们的心灵。所以大多数的时间,我们都是在听音乐,而不是在讲音乐。

印象最深的是老师对十九世纪俄罗斯音乐的热爱。他对俄罗斯的音乐作品如数家珍,他对俄国民族音乐的评价尤高,尤其是“五人强力集团”的作品。我们在课上反复欣赏鮑羅丁、穆索尔斯基、里姆斯基-柯萨科夫、居伊、以及巴拉基烈夫的作品,老师乐此不疲。这些歌剧作品出现在我们面前,就好像是让一帮营养不良的少年突然面对奢侈的盛宴。在惊讶之余,大家都哑口无言,全被这些作品的魅力所震惊。在夏日漫长的午后,电教教室的窗帘放下来,我们常常对着小小的屏幕,欣赏俄罗斯歌剧作品的录像。当时,我正在疯狂迷恋塔科夫斯基的电影和白银时代作家的作品,对俄罗斯的音乐毫无排斥,喜欢都来不及呢。现在回想起来,我们看过鲍罗丁的《伊戈尔王子》,穆索尔斯基的《鲍里斯·戈东诺夫》, 里姆斯基-科萨科夫的《金鸡》,居伊的《威廉·拉特克夫》,当然还有柴科夫斯基的《叶甫根尼·奥涅金》和《黑桃皇后》。

第一次听《奥涅金》的印象极为深刻。在冰封的湖面上,连斯基一个人在冻结的清晨的空气中向爱情和生命作别。寒冷的俄罗斯荒原好像是生命的原初状态,连斯基在生命的终点对生命发出的礼赞显得格外的凄凉和动人。这是任何一个男高音都梦寐以求的角色,因为连斯基不仅是一个敏感的青年诗人,他是作为奥涅金的对立面而存在的。奥涅金对生存意义存有怀疑,对爱情轻视、甚至无动于衷,追逐生命中不能承受之轻,是个彻底的怀疑主义者。连斯基和他完全相反,受到浪漫主义的熏陶,对于生命和爱情都充满了热情。连斯基的死是浪漫主义的幻灭,是剧中所有积极因素的结束。每次听到这里,我都不禁为之动容。我觉得这一幕比奥涅金的归来和他人性的恢复更让我感动,连斯基的死去好像是一个预兆,它意味着人生中青年时代的结束,理想的幻灭,年轻时的一切将被对生存的怀疑所取代,所扼杀。

昨天在大都会歌剧院重温了这精彩的一幕。柴科夫斯基的歌剧作品和他的芭蕾一样,具有极强的叙事性和感染力。他成功地将普希金的“society novel”转变成了自己的“lyric opera”,将一部叙事诗转化成不朽的音乐作品。此次重排的《奥涅金》,大都会歌剧院延请了俄罗斯圣彼得堡Mariinsky Theatre 的艺术总监Valery Gergiev担任指挥,Mariinsky Theatre 的女中音Larisa Shevchenko 出演保姆Filipppyevna, 男低音 Sergei Aleksashkin 担任Prince Gremin 。同样来自俄罗斯的Elena Zaremba 饰演Olga, 而我所崇拜的Dmitri Hvorostovsky 担任了奥涅金这个主要的角色(此外,他还出演了Don Carlo 中的Rodrigo)。可以说,这是一次真正意义上的俄罗斯式的盛宴。(Tchaikovsky’s universally beloved lyrical gifts reached their apex in his most popular opera, the tale of a lovelorn girl and a jaded aristocrat. Star soprano Renée Fleming sings the role of Tatiana for the first time at the Met in Tchaikovsky’s lush operatic masterpiece. Charismatic Dmitri Hvorostovsky sings the title role with the dynamic Ramón Vargas as Lenski. Valery Gergiev conducts.)。

除了出色的音乐处理之外,整体舞台的设计(Set Designer: Michael Levine)和灯光的使用(Lighting Designer: Jean Kalman)给我留下了深刻的印象。整体的舞台设计和道具的使用都非常简单,有时甚至到了miniumlism 的地步。然而“少”的使用为观众提供了巨大的想象空间,为音乐流出了空间。和其他大制作的歌剧相比,在这里音乐占据了绝对的主导地位。

在第二幕中,连斯基和奥涅金相约在清晨的郊外决斗,整个舞台空无一物,连斯基著名的咏叹调在黑暗中回响。当第二幕结束时,连斯基倒在血泊中,舞台的灯光由深蓝色逐渐转为亮色,金色的光环逐渐从舞台深处升起,象征着初升的太阳,给连斯基的失去生命气息的身体罩上了一层圣洁的光芒。紧接着的第三幕中,奥涅金在舞会上再次邂逅塔基亚娜,陷入了对她疯狂的热情。Dmitri Hvorostovsky 站在舞台的边缘,所有的灯光都消失,只有一束光从下向上投射到他身上。舞台上其他角色的身影投射到墙上,形成活动的剪影,在衣香鬓影丛中,更加显出奥涅金的寂寞。那些移动的剪影好像是浮华现世的缩影,转换着迷人的身姿,但是只可远观,因为一旦接近就会发现它们的虚空。巨大而空虚的舞台仿佛是奥涅金的灵魂,那灵魂在捕捉爱情和生命,但最终只能在绝望中叹息,

“Disgrace! Anguish! How pitiable is my fate!”

2007年2月14日星期三

Onegin

Where, oh where have you gone?

Pushkin's lyrics
XXI
 
     By chance those verses haven't vanished;
     I keep them, and will quote them here:
     ``Whither, oh whither are ye banished,
     my golden days when spring was dear?
     What fate is my tomorrow brewing?
     the answer's past all human viewing,
     it's hidden deep in gloom and dust.
     No matter; fate's decree is just.
     Whether the arrow has my number,
     whether it goes careering past,
     all's well; the destined hour at last
     comes for awakening, comes for slumber;
     blessed are daytime's care and cark,
     blest is the advent of the dark!
     {164}
 
        XXII
 
     ``The morning star will soon be shining,
     and soon will day's bright tune be played;
     but I perhaps will be declining
     into the tomb's mysterious shade;
     the trail the youthful poet followed
     by sluggish Lethe may be swallowed,
     and I be by the world forgot;
     but, lovely maiden, wilt thou not
     on my untimely urn be weeping,
     thinking: he loved me, and in strife
     the sad beginnings of his life
     he consecrated to my keeping?...
     Friend of my heart, be at my side,
     beloved friend, thou art my bride!''



Tchaikovsky's libretto





Where, oh where have you gone,

golden days of my youth?

What does the coming day hold for me?

My gaze searches in vain;

all is shrouded in darkness!

No matter: Fate's law is just.

Should I fall, pierced by the arrow,

or should it fly wide,

‘tis all one; both sleeping and waking

have their appointed hour.

Blessed is the day of care,

blessed, too, the coming of darkness!

Early in the morning the dawn-light gleams

and the day begins to brighten,

while I, perhaps, will enter

the mysterious shadow of the grave!

And the memory of a young poet

will be engulfed by Lethe's sluggish stream.

The world will forget me; but you,

You! … Olga …

Say,

will you come, maid of beauty,

to shed a tear on the untimely urn

and think: he loved me!

To me alone he devoted

the sad dawn of his storm‑tossed life!

Oh, Olga, I loved you,

to you alone I devoted

the sad dawn of my storm‑tossed life!

Oh, Olga, I loved you!

My heart's beloved, my desired one,

come, oh come! My desired one,

come, I am your betrothed, come, come!

I wait for you, my desired one,

come, come; I am your betrothed!

Where, where, where have you gone,

golden days, golden days of my youth?

Asian Historical Architecture

Asian Historical Architecture http://www.orientalarchitecture.com/nara/horyujiindex.htm

Buddhism: Sacred Places in Asia

http://www.fofweb.com.eduproxy.tc-library.org:8080/Electronic_Images/Onfiles/CROFvol8-13.pdf

2007年2月11日星期日

Multifunctional lover

Yesterday, we spent the night together and Yijia had a wonderful comment on love. She said in U.S. most Chinese couples were more close and supportive of each other than in our home country.
The reason was quite simple: because here your lover/husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend is not only your spiritual company, he/she is also your family, your friend, your parent, your relative, your psychological couselor, your pressure-releaser, your financial support, your medical insurance and your constant sex partner. So everyone in relationship is a multifunctional lover! As a result, his or her care means much more to you and you count more on such relationship.
This morning, I looked back to the past several years. Do I regret that I walk this long way alone? Do I regret I had to bring 20 pounds of rice from Chinatown to home alone? Do I regret I did not develop any intimate relationship with another human being? Do I regret I am who I am? Not really, I guess. I get friends they are my family, friends, parents, relatives, psychological couselor, pressure-releaser, financial support, medical insurance. I feel lucky to have them by my side.
Thank you all for being my friends!

浮生六记

沈复,字三白,苏州人,生于乾隆二十八年(1763年),卒年无考,著有《浮生六记》一书。原作实则只存四记,即《闺房记乐》、《闲情记趣》、《坎坷记愁》和《浪游记快》。另有两记存题佚文为《中山记历》和《养生记逍》。此书最初以手抄本形式在社会上流传,后为苏州独悟庵居士杨醒逋在护龙街冷摊上瞧见,慧眼识珠,立即携回刻刊,由王韬作序,在东吴大学校刊《雁来红》上刊出。这一下,使这块文学“碧玉”出土问世,重放异彩 (http://news.xinhuanet.com/book/2004-12/06/content_2300092.htm)。六记从夫妇伉俪情深写起,直到写到夫妇阴阳永隔,文人落魄,将人生轮回的甘甜与悲苦娓娓道来。虽然不是鸿篇巨著,但是清淡的小品自有可人的味道。
不知怎的,昨天看了阿尔莫多瓦的Volver,一时之间竟不知道自己身在何处,觉得影片中间的六个女人的命运正是演绎了一出《浮生六记》。根据维基不知道的介绍:
“Volver (tr. "Return") is a 2006 Academy Award-nominated Spanish film by director Pedro Almodóvar. It was one of the films competing for the Palme d'Or at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival. It eventually won two awards: Best Actress (shared by the six main actresses) and Best Screenplay. Its premiere was held on March 10, 2006 in Puertollano, where the filming had taken place. Thematically, the film centers upon return both in the dead returning and in the form of cycles of re-occurrences……Almodóvar says of the story that “it is precisely about death...More than about death itself, the screenplay talks about the rich culture that surrounds death in the region of La Mancha, where I was born. It is about the way (not tragic at all) in which various female characters, of different generations, deal with this culture. Almodóvar: Three generations of women survive easterly wind, fire, madness, superstition and even death through goodness, lies and an unlimited vitality. They are: Raimunda (Penélope Cruz), married to an unemployed worker, and her teenager daughter (Yohana Cobo). Sole (Lola Dueñas), her sister, who earns her living as hairdresser. And their mother (Carmen Maura), dead in a burning, with her husband. This character comes as an apparition first to her sister (Chus Lampreave) and then to Sole, even though the ones she had unsettled affairs with were Raimunda and her village neighbour, Agustina (Blanca Portillo). ‘Volver’ is not a surreal comedy, though it might seem so at times. The living and the dead live together without problems, but provoking hilarious situations and others full of deep and genuine emotion. It is a movie about the culture of death in my native region, La Mancha. My folks there live it in astonishing simplicity. The way in which the dead are still present in their lifes, the richness and humanity of their rites makes it possible for the dead to never really die. ‘Volver’ shatters all clichés of a dark Spain and shows a Spain that is as real as it is opposed. A white Spain, spontaneous, fun, fearless, fair and with solidarity.”
阿尔莫多瓦的电影就像是Diego Rivera的画和马尔克斯小说的混合,是超现实主义对色彩的致敬,是对当下的、地方的、传统的文化的喝彩,是对宏大叙事的反抗。当先锋电影和试验电影抛弃故事情节,完全转向技术试验和概念化,阿尔莫多瓦却能够静下心来将他的故事。他的故事开始看起来往往是惊世骇俗,但是渐渐的,从没有意义中产生出意义来,从没有结构中显现出结构来,最后总是呈现出不以伦比的人性光彩。他的故事是世俗生活的写照,但是又出离了世俗的生活,从对感情和人性的怀疑,又回到了对感情和人性的肯定。在他的故事里,那些疯狂和非理性的情节的张力,最后总是在欢笑中化解。他的色彩,上帝,他对于色彩的把握就像是女人选择自己的高跟鞋。他总是使用大量明亮的色彩,因此即便在最悲痛和黑暗的时刻,他的影片也充斥着明快的色彩,就像是斗牛场上的哭声,即便在最悲哀的时刻,人们仍然被对于生命的欢呼所包围。
Volver讲述了简单的故事。一家三代女人,为情所困,为生计所迫。祖母Irene 在愤怒中杀死了自己的丈夫和他的情人,因此不得不冒充成鬼魂和亲人一起生活。她为了得到女儿Raimunda 的谅解,又重新回到他的身边。Raimunda 小时候被父亲abused,生下了女儿 Paula。Paula 在情急之下,杀死了自己名义上的父亲。Raimunda 秘密埋葬了自己的丈夫,和女儿开始经营餐馆,开始新的生活。这时她的母亲也出现在她的身边,讲述了自己的经历。在巨大的痛苦中,这三代女人互相取得了谅解。 阿尔莫多瓦关心的是死亡,更是死亡之后,人们如何相处。死亡不是人与人关系的结束,而是新的可能性的开始。灵魂的归来,亲情的归来,人性的归来,这些都在人们的期待中变成了现实。一个童话的不能再童话的故事!