2007年2月10日星期六
灶王爷的八卦
诸神上天,百无禁忌!
过小年了!
在春天里
2007年2月9日星期五
身体乃快乐之本
隔了一个月,又见到修心里面又高兴又难过。他还是高高瘦瘦的样子,pepper-salt hair, 眼镜后面的眼睛笑笑的好像是会说话。高兴的是又见到他,能跟着他一起上瑜伽;难过的是这是和他一起上课的最后一个学期。修教的不仅是瑜伽,他带着我们一步一步地了解和接受自己的身体,了解自己的局限和可能性。 修将平日被我们所忽略的肢体带到我们的面前,让我们了解它的美和存在的理由。他自己拥有完美的身材,而且是一位出色的老师,能将自己的体会和感悟用语言和动作与大家交流,帮助我们放开执著,接近和喜爱自己的身体。我最喜欢他示范 shoulder stand, 他一边做着高难度的倒立,一边讲解。有的时候还会模仿一些危险的错误姿势,让你担心他会不会从空中跌下来。要离开这样一个好的老师,心里有些失落。但是转念一想,两年来能和他一起每周分享三次瑜伽练习的集会,我应该心存感激和幸福才对。毕竟,天下没有不散的瑜伽课。 //////////////////// 我觉得瑜伽最重要的一个道理是身体是快乐的源泉。灵魂不仅存在于3.2 磅的大脑里,它也存在于你伸展的躯体中、打开的胸腔内、膝盖后面柔软的关节里,存在于你的大脚趾(pink toe)温柔触地的瞬间。当我双脚分开,两臂平伸,自然地弯曲膝盖,进入warrior’s position 的时候,我所要做的不是思考外在的世界,而是关注与自己的身体和它的需要,保持身体各部分的平衡,调动肢体最细微的感觉,将那些被遗忘的肢体和心灵之间的联系重新建立起来。经过长长的伸展四肢联系和一系列的marching positions and twists, 这个时候我最想要的就是一个Dog post, 然后接着的就是舒服的Child post。我的心会随着四肢和额头与地面的接触变得平和沉静,仿佛吮吸着大地的力量。在身体蜷缩的瞬间,我仿佛又回到了母亲的子宫,一种与世无争的的爱围绕着我。心灵和身体不再是分离的和对立的,身体就是心灵,肢体的活动给与我巨大的安慰。为此,我感谢瑜伽。 ////////////////////////// 我觉得瑜伽中许多挑战身体极限的姿势的关键不是拼命地用力,而是身体各个部分之间的协调,尤其是要懂得放松身体的某些部位已达到伸展另一些部位的目的。要放松,在放松的状态中,人反而可以完成某些难度很大的动作。瑜伽不是竞技性的体育,它是与身体的对话,它是游走在松与紧、极度的集中和放松之间的游戏。毕竟我们所接触的是瑜伽的一点皮毛,是真正的瑜伽修炼中的最初几个阶段,是为了长时间的冥想所作的热身运动。在这个意义上讲,对联系瑜伽也要抱着游戏的心态。 ///////////////////////////// 我最喜欢的瑜伽姿势就是triangle post, 一腿直立而另一腿弯曲提高,紧贴于另一大腿的内侧,膝盖放松,使得骨盆两侧平衡,双手上举,使得胸腔展开,整个人好像飞起来一样( 印度的传统雕塑作品中,可以见到许多和瑜伽姿势类似的造型,这个姿势也不例外)。我所要做的,就是放开对身体稳定的执著,在不稳定的姿势中寻找新的平衡点,体会在破除了自身桎梏之后的活力。老朱曾经说过现代艺术就是帮助现代人破除自我成见,重新回归本心的途径。在这个意义上,瑜伽和现代艺术有异曲同工之妙,都是接近自在和自为状态的方式。所不同的是,现代艺术仍然依赖于理性的思考,它是对于人类当下生存状态的反思,它是有的放矢。我觉得瑜伽提供了另一种可能性,因为它不依赖于人的理性思索,它从身体出发、经过内心、再回到身体,它无的放矢,因此也更可能帮助我们接近老住所定义的“无有的存在”(本来无一物,何处惹尘埃?)
////////////////////////////
既然说到了执著和回归本心,对瑜伽也不能过于偏爱。喜欢的时候也要懂得放手。美丽的东西自己也是独立的存在,不一定非的要拥有。看那水仙花在池塘中开得多么自在!在你身边,它只能将你的梦装点几个小时;但是在池塘中,它可以化为精灵,开启每个人的仲夏夜之梦。
Over-reacting?
Harvard, too politically correct?
Harvard Expected to Name a Female President
Harvard’s Board of Overseers is to meet Sunday and is expected to ratify the choice, according to officials close to the process.
Dr. Faust’s ascension would come a year after Lawrence H. Summers, a former treasury secretary, resigned from the post amid fierce faculty discontent. The opposition erupted in part over Dr. Summers suggestion that intrinsic aptitude could help explain why fewer women than men reach the highest ranks of science and math in universities.
Dr. Faust is currently dean of the Radcliffe Institute of Advanced Study, by far the smallest of Harvard’s schools. Much of the research sponsored by the institute, which is named after Radcliffe College, once the women’s college at Harvard, emphasizes the study of women, gender and society.
The institute is a research organization, sponsoring about 50 fellows a year, with a staff of about 80. Its budget of about $17 million a year is barely 0.5 percent of Harvard’s $3 billion annual budget. Despite her lack of experience running a large organization, Dr. Faust was apparently perceived by the nine-member search committee as an adroit administrator with considerable people skills, a valued commodity after the polarization that occurred under Dr. Summers, particularly among women on the faculty.
The expected announcement was reported by The Harvard Crimson. John Longbrake, a university spokesman would neither confirm nor deny the selection.
Dr. Faust’s colleagues describe her as a consensus-builder, in contrast to Dr. Summers, who made many enemies on the faculty with his brash and abrasive style and his drive to overhaul a culture on the campus that some thought had become complacent.
Dr. Summers turned to Dr. Faust two years ago to help calm the furor over his remarks about women in math, engineering and science. He asked her to oversee two committees he created to come up with new ways to recruit, retain and promote women in those fields at Harvard.
“She really has the potential for being a very wise and successful president,” said Amy Gutmann, the president of the University of Pennsylvania, who was herself among several dozen potential candidates for the Harvard presidency whose names became public in December.
“Complex institutions need wise leaders with vision who can inspire collaboration for change,” said Dr. Gutmann, who had said repeatedly that she intended to remain at Penn. “And Drew has all that it takes to be such a leader. She has a strong backbone and sense and sensibility.”
Harvard will be the fourth of the eighth Ivy League universities to name a woman as its president and some of its faculty members had been hoping that it would break the sex barrier.
Speculation had grown in recent weeks among the faculty and administrators that the search committee was leaning toward Dr. Faust. Interest grew intense last week when another candidate widely believed to be a finalist dropped out of the competition.
Thomas R. Cech, a biochemist at the University of Colorado who is also president of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, a philanthropy with an endowment of nearly $15 billion that promotes medical research, took the unusual step of removing himself publicly. Dr. Cech called The Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper, to say he had decided to withdraw because of his commitments to the medical institute and his desire to continue his laboratory research.
Dr. Faust has run the Radcliffe Institute since 2001. Before that, she taught American history for more than two decades at the University of Pennsylvania, where she had also gone to graduate school. An expert in Southern history and a native of Virginia, she has written books on Southern women during the Civil War, on intellectuals and ideology in the Confederate south, as well as a biography of a South Carolina plantation owner, James Henry Hammond.
Dr. Gutmann, the Pennsylvania president, who has known Dr. Faust for more than a decade, describe her as a deft administrator who worked collaboratively but who also had the toughness to lead a university as large, diverse and difficult as Harvard. Professors at Harvard and Penn made similar observations.
Some other faculty members, though, who declined to be identified, said they feared that Dr. Faust lacked the vision and tough-mindedness to be a strong leader.
The presidential search began not long after Dr. Summers resigned last February, facing a rebellion from the prestigious Faculty of Arts and Sciences over his management style and gaffes like his remarks about women. The faculty had already taken a no-confidence vote on him after his remarks about women and were threatening to take a second one.
Derek Bok, a former president of Harvard, stepped in to serve as interim president for this academic year. The search for a president became the talk of academia and even led to odds on an online betting site. The search committee includes six members of the Harvard Corporation, which governs the university, and three members of the Board of Overseers, a much larger advisory body that has few formal powers.
Seeking to soothe the university, the committee issued a broad appeal last spring to students, the faculty and alumni for nominees. It sifted through hundreds of suggestions and, at a private meeting in early December, the committee shared a list of a few dozen potential candidates with the 30-member Board of Overseers. The board has the authority to ratify or reject the search committee’s selection but is considered unlikely to buck a recommendation.
Dr. Faust takes over at a time when Harvard faces a number of challenges, including overhauling its undergraduate curriculum, putting a greater emphasis on teaching. Harvard is also expanding into stem-cell research and other cutting edge science on a new campus to be built in the Allston section of Boston.
Among those on the list were the three women who are presidents of Ivy League universities: Dr. Gutmann of Pennsylvania; Shirley M. Tilghman of Princeton; and Ruth J. Simmons of Brown. Three senior Harvard administrators were also on the list: Dr. Faust; Steven E. Hyman, the provost; and Elena Kagan, dean of the law school.
The women who are chief executives of other Ivy League institutions each said publicly that they were happy where they were and did not consider themselves candidates for the Harvard vacancy.
Other potential candidates who indicated that they did not want to be considered were Alison F. Richard, vice chancellor at the University of Cambridge in England and a former senior official at Yale; the Stanford provost, John Etchemendy; and Lawrence S. Bacow, president of Tufts University.
Youth
因土摩托的博文而转载一篇塞缪尔·厄尔曼的著名短文《青春》并附上原文及罗马尼亚电影《沸腾的生活》配乐,以自省。
译文:
青春不是年华,而是心境;青春不是桃面,丹唇,柔膝,而是深沉的意志,恢宏的想象,炽热的感情;青春是生命的源泉在不息的涌流。
青春气贯长虹,勇锐盖过怯懦,进取压倒苟安。如此锐气,弱冠后生有之,耳顺之年,则亦多见,年岁有加,并非垂老;理想丢弃,方堕暮年。
岁月悠悠,衰微只及肌肤,热忱抛却,颓唐必至灵魂。忧烦,惶恐,丧失自信,定使 心灵扭曲,意气如灰。
无论年届古稀,抑或二八芳龄,心中皆有生命之欢乐,奇迹之诱惑,孩童般天真久盛 不衰。人人心中皆深植一片追求,只要你从天上,人间追求美好,希望,欢乐,勇气 和力量,你就青春永驻,风华长存。
一旦追求消失,锐气如同冰雪覆盖,玩世不恭,自暴自弃油然而生,即使年方二十, 实已老矣。然坚持追求,你就有望在百岁高龄告别尘寰时仍觉年青。
Samuel Ullman - Youth Youth is not a time of life;it is a state of mind; it is not a matter of rosy cheeks, red lips and supple knees; it is a matter of the will, a quality of the imagination, a vigor of the emotions; it is the freshness of the deep springs of life. Youth means a temperamental predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease. This often exists in a man of 60 more than a boy of 20. Nobody grows old merely by a number of years. We grow old by deserting our ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up enthusiasm wrinkles the soul. Worry, fear, self-distrust bows the heart and turns the spring back to dust. Whether 60 or 16, there is in every human being's heart the lure of wonder,the unfailing childlike appetite of what's next and the joy of the game of living. In the center of your heart and my heart there is a wireless station: so long as it receives messages of beauty, hope, cheer, courage and power from men and from the Infinite, so long are you young. When the aerials are down, and your spirit is covered with snows of cynicism and the ice of pessimism, then you are grown old, even at 20, but as long as your aerials are up, to catch waves of optimism, there is hope you may die young at 80.
2007年2月7日星期三
名正言顺
2007年2月6日星期二
珍爱生命,远离博客
2007年2月5日星期一
青玉案
只羡鸳鸯不羡仙
2007年2月4日星期日
Dogme 95
除了电影拍摄,特里尔也关心电影理论。他自己就是Dogme95 的倡导者和推动者。根据维基不知道的介绍,
“Dogme 95 (in English: Dogma 95) is an avant-garde filmmaking movement started in 1995 by the Danish directors Lars von Trier, Thomas Vinterberg, Kristian Levring, and Søren Kragh-Jacobsen. This movement is sometimes known as the Dogme 95 Collective or the Dogme Brethren…….The goal of the Dogme collective is to purify filmmaking by refusing expensive and spectacular special effects, postproduction modifications and other gimmicks. The emphasis on purity forces the filmmakers to focus on the actual story and on the actors' performances. The audience may also be more engaged as they do not have overproduction to alienate them from the narrative, themes, and mood. To this end, Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg produced ten rules to which any Dogme film must conform. These rules, referred to as the Vow of Chastity, are as follows:
1. Filming must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found). 2. The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs within the scene being filmed). 3. The camera must be a hand-held camera. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; filming must take place where the action takes place.) 4. The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera). 5. Optical work and filters are forbidden. 6. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.) 7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.) 8. Genre movies are not acceptable. 9. The final picture must be transferred to the Academy 35mm film, with an aspect ratio of 4:3, that is, not widescreen. (Originally, the requirement was that the film had to be filmed on Academy 35mm film, but the rule was relaxed to allow low-budget productions.) 10. The director must not be credited. In certain cases, the titles of Dogme films are superfluous, since they are also referred to by numbers. The spirit of the Dogme technique influenced Lars von Trier's film Breaking the Waves, although it is not a Dogme film. The first of the Dogme films was Vinterberg's 1998 film Festen (The Celebration), which is also known as Dogme #1. Festen was highly acclaimed by many critics, and won the Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival that year. Von Trier's only Dogme film, Idioterne (The Idiots, or Dogme #2), was less successful. Since those two original films were released, other directors have participated in the creation of Dogme films. For example, the American director Harmony Korine created the movie Julien Donkey-Boy which is also known as Dogme #6.”
那些拍摄大片的中国导演真应该到丹麦去考察一下电影发展。最好不要没事儿就来纽约购物,我在纽约碰到的中国大小名家儿也够多的了,但是没觉得中国的电影有什么提高。拍电影是思考的过程和结果,没有大脑,只迎合腰带以下部位的中国电影是没有前途的。 如果需要的话,我可以把Dogme95 翻译成中文,好好地鼓吹一下。
公共电台和Media Democracy
在美国,我了解新闻的主要途径是收音机和网络。开头的一年,晚上定时收看Jim Leher的新闻节目;现在每天几乎不看电视,尤其是新闻节目。每天接触新闻,主要是早上起来收听WNYC 、NPR 、BBC、 PBS等提供的新闻节目。尤其是WNYC,除了正点的新闻播报,还有几档深入的新闻分析节目,他们请来的嘉宾多数是资深的政论家或者某些问题的专家。因此他们的分析鞭辟入里,带有一般美国电视新闻节目所没有的深度,信息量极大。随着网络技术的发展,美国公共广播电台(在密西西比河以东的公共电台一般以W开头,以西以K开头)广泛地使用PODCAST的技术将自己的节目放在网上,因此听众可以选择何时、何地收听什么节目。只要从网上将节目下载到自己的IPOD上面,无论是音频还是视频的节目,都可以在乘地铁或者排队时收看/收听。
美国的公共电台实在是一个有趣的现象。说是公共电台,但是以WNYC为例,1997年以后就不再由政府资助,而是靠听众的捐赠和广告收入来维持。因此每年春秋两季,公共电台都会花大力气请名人做广告,呼吁大家来支持它们,无论捐款数额大小,都有礼物赠送。由于经费的独立,因此在制作和购买节目方面也就不受政府或者个别利益集团的限制,而能够根据自己的创作宗旨来制作。此外,公共电台也是美国社会中的重要教育机构,尤其是公民教育和政治教育的工具(有时间,我一定要研究一下“美国公共电台作为教育机构”的故事,应该是不错的硕士论文题目)。一般来说美国大学肩负着将学生培养成有责任感的公民的义务,但是对没有接受过高等教育或者已经离开学校多年的人来说,他们在行使公民权之前,了解当前政治形势和政策分析的主要途径就是报纸、电视和电台。由于我对于前两者的陌生,所以我只能谈谈电台。以WNYC为例,每次总统大选、议会换届选举、州政府和市政府选举之前,WNYC都会拨出整档的节目时间来讨论当前选举中的热点问题、评析候选人政见的异同、分析各种备选政策的长短期效果,并且鼓励大家参与到选举的过程中去。比如著名的节目就有“30 things in 30 days”,每天讲述一个竞选所涉及的话题,有专家开始,民众电话提问,在问答之中深化双方对于问题的认识。纽约这个地方藏龙卧虎,所以有的时候听众的水平颇高,让主持人都大跌眼镜。虽然说俺们这疙瘩一自由民主主义者居多(liberal Democratic),但是公共电台一般坚持无党派的立场(non-partisan),就事论事。尽管如此,从节目的制作和编排还是可以看出,公共电台对政府和政治持批评的态度,在民主社会中充当了提高民智、呼应民声、组织民意的作用。公共电台在这个意义上是民有(募集民间经费支持)、民治(公共选出的董事会)、民享(为大众提供服务而非少数精英阶级)。
此外值得一提的就是电台的另一个教化功能,普及古典音乐。WNYC2就是一个以介绍古典音乐为主的频道(www.wnyc.org/wnyc2, Classic Music 24/7),所有的节目都可以下载到ipod上面收听。此外大都会歌剧院也有自己的三个广播频道(http://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/broadcast/on_air.aspx),将自己最重要的节目放到网上和电台中,与大家分享。这样一来,即是因为经济的原因不能到歌剧院观赏,也可以从高清晰度的频道欣赏世界级大师的表演。除了美国的电台,我喜欢的电台还有英国广播公司(BBC)和德国之声( DEUSCH WELLE)。BBC是我所知道的第一个能从网上收听节目的电台,它的几个音乐台(BBC2, BBC3)我都很喜欢,尤其喜欢中间Steve Harley’s Sounds of 70s。 此外它的外语教育周到体贴,不仅完全免费,而且提供法语、德语、意大利语、西班牙语、中文、葡萄牙语、希腊语以及其他各种语言的教学节目(http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/)。从课本,到音频和视频节目,为学习语言提供了全方位的服务。德国之声的特色也是国际节目(http://www.dw-world.de/ ),它的中文新闻不错。此外,它为学习德语提供了各种便利,包括教学节目和语言学习的各种网站。
冷酷到底
纽约今明两天的日最高温度为-4和-6C。虽然布什总统一个劲儿地和民主党人套近乎,试图通过他本年度的预算,但美国人对于大幅度增兵伊拉克和提高对阿富汗和伊拉克的援助并不热心。对美国的中产阶级来说,这一场没有结局的战争实在是拖得太长了。这并不是说美国人对他们所生存的政治环境不关心,而是他们对政治的热情有限,更关心自己的家长里短。比如当下城里的核心话题就是统计数据表明,去年警察在路上盘查的行人数量比四年前增加了三倍,而且半数是黑人,三成是西班牙裔,这引起了关于种族歧视的大讨论。前一段时间政坛上出现了新的黑人总统候选人,同样引起了轩然大波。民权运动已经过去40年了,美国才终于有了女性和黑人总统候选人(Jessy Jackson该算是民权运动的余续),也算是社会进步的一点印证吧。
兜了一个大圈子,其实今天想谈的是最近看的一部电影《After the Wedding》。上次回国的时候在清华西门买的,回来一直没有机会看,昨天洗衣服的时候看了一遍,再一次印证了我对北欧电影的看法,冷酷到底。
根据维基不知道的介绍,“After the Wedding (Efter brylluppet) is a Danish movie from 2006. It was directed by Susanne Bier and stars Mads Mikkelsen and Sidse Babett Knudsen. It has been nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Susanne Bier (born April 15, 1960 in Copenhagen, Denmark) is a Danish producer, director and writer. She is recognized as one of the most influential of her kind in Denmark”。
比尔斯秉承丹麦电影的传统,使用最简洁的语汇来描述人与人之间复杂的情感关系。故事很简单,影片开始在印度的街头,丹麦人雅各布在组织街头孤儿的救济工作。他在离开国家20年之后,必须回家找钱来支持他在印度办的孤儿院。 他碰到约尔根,一个富有的商人同时也是雅各布20年前女友海伦纳的丈夫。在约尔根和海伦纳女儿安娜的婚礼上,雅各布发现安娜实际上是自己和海伦纳的女儿。约尔根答应对孤儿院予以援助,但条件是雅各布必须和安娜一起办一个基金会,而且他必须留在丹麦生活。海伦纳对于丈夫的决定和酗酒很愤怒,但她逐渐发现丈夫的酗酒实际上是因为他得了绝症,即将离开人世。约尔根将妻女拜托给雅各布,后者开始拒绝接受,但逐渐被女儿所感化,决定留在海伦纳和安娜身边。从约尔根的葬礼,影片又拉回到印度,雅各布问他收养的小男孩普德波德是否愿意和他会丹麦生活,小男孩说他还是喜欢在印度和朋友踢球。一个简单的故事,穿插着巨大的张力。影片中有许多细节,例如对于人物眼睛的描述,在一闪而过的镜头中,那些迷惘的眼睛对于生活的疑问给人留下深刻的印象。这个故事诘问了什么是爱,什么是责任,什么是个人的选择和家庭的义务?约尔根不是一个单纯的好人,他对妻子和孩子们的爱使他选择雅各布来继承自己的事业和家庭,但是影片最后也描写了他对死亡的惧怕,一个真实的人对生活的不满。雅各布最终没有实现对普德波德的许诺,没有回到印度,但是他开始承担自己逃避了20年的责任,从一个愤世嫉俗的人重新成为了一个父亲。每个人都在改变,人们的关系也在改变,个人之间冷酷的关系逐渐融化,最终爱在生命的尽头带来了新的希望。
北欧的电影我接触得不多,此前印象最深刻的是丹麦导演Lars von Trier的《金色心灵》三部曲(The Golden Heart trilogy was about naive heroines who maintain their 'golden hearts' despite the tragedies they experience. This trilogy includes Breaking the Waves (1996), The Idiots (1998) and Dancer in the Dark (2000). While all three films are sometimes associated with the Dogme 95 movement, only The Idiots is a certified Dogme 95 film)。 拉斯.凡.特里尔出生于1956年,是重要的丹麦电影导演和Dogme95运动的主要组织者,在技术上他追求极小主义原则。他成名很早,在电影学院读书的时候,就凭借Nocturne (Nocturne, 1980) and Image of Liberation (Befrielsesbilleder, 1982) 获得了慕尼黑电影节最佳影片奖。毕业之后,他拍摄他的《欧洲三部曲》,声名鹊起(the Europe trilogy, which started with The Element of Crime (Forbrydelsens element 1984). The film was a technical accomplishment and won a technical award at the Cannes Film Festival. This film was followed by Epidemic (1987) that was also shown as part of the official programme at Cannes. He then finished the Europe trilogy in 1991 with Europa (initially released as Zentropa in the U.S.), which won the Prix du Jury at Cannes Film Festival and picked up awards at other major festivals)。
之后,他开始拍摄Breaking the Waves (1996), The Idiots (1998) and Dancer in the Dark (2000), 这也是他最为中国影迷所知的几部电影。第一次在北大看了《破浪》,觉得心跳加剧,简直不知道该怎么走出放映厅。生活的残酷被用最直接的方式表现出来,没有人故意犯罪,但每个人都为爱遭受到巨大的折磨。影片对爱这个人类历史上的母题提出了怀疑和质询,是否所有以爱的名义而提出的要求都是合理的和应该得到满足的?出于爱而非理性的行为是否可取?一个人对于自己的爱和对他人的爱有没有极限?在何种情况下,自我牺牲是必要的和不必要的?当爱变成对对方的压力和折磨,另一方是否有权利拒绝?
《黑暗中的舞者》将比约克的完美声线和剧情结合起来,把一个母亲无望的挣扎表现得淋漓尽致 。在哲学中,在黑暗中舞蹈指在特定环境中的乐观主义(situational optimism),即便在身体受到制约的条件下仍然保持乐观的态度(In philosophy, "dancing in the dark" refers to any situational optimism, albeit leavened by physically-construed events, that is self-referentially seen as a way for the Id to manifest itself)。这个故事也是一个传统意义上的悲剧,比约克所饰演的母亲不远万里到美国给孩子治病,尽管自己面临失明的危险,她仍然希望给孩子光明的未来。但是阴差阳错她不得不铤而走险杀了人。影片中女主人公绝望的努力,同样对所谓的母性、信任和爱等主题提出了怀疑。母亲为子女所作出的牺牲,在多大意义上符合理性和自利的原则?在传统的司法系统中无法得到伸张的正义,是否应该有无辜者付出生命的代价?什么才是女性真正的自我?这些问题在影片中被反复追问,而答案则留给了观众自己。
我觉得这些电影和伯格曼晚期所拍摄的影片一脉相承,尤其是The Passion of Anna (original Swedish title En Passion) 。It is a 1969 drama film written and directed by Ingmar Bergman[1]. 这些影片都或多或少地带有爱德华.蒙克作品的意向,在孤独和沉默中追问生命的本源意义,怀疑基本的人类关系,质问爱的可能性。也许稀少的日光和寒冷的气候给于北欧人更多思考的时间,所以他们的电影和思考都不是向外的,而是对内的,出于对内心的关照。 在宗教之后,在现代之后,留在地球荒原上的人类应该如何自处?人是否注定应该孤独?生活是不是非此即彼,还是或此或彼?沟通是否有可能?这些本体论上的问题赋予这些影片沉重的面貌。
中国的电影本来很有希望对这些质疑提出自己独特的答案,80年代张艺谋和田壮壮的一些电影本来涉及到这些深层次的思考。但是不幸的是,这种思考没有在中国电影中真正发展起来。政治环境的变化固然是一个方面,但是我觉得最重要的因素是出于两个方面的欠缺。第一,评论家与艺术家的互动的缺乏。85新潮本来可以推动包括电影在内的中国艺术向前发展一大步,但是89之后,85新潮中的主要艺术评论家纷纷出国,因此中国艺术界缺少了反思的动力。正如格林伯格对于二战后美国艺术发展所起的重要作用,评论家与艺术家的互动是推动艺术发展的动力。这种互动的缺位是中国电影发展的第一个障碍。那些只会在影片点评会后收红包的评论家和广电总急是培养不出新的艺术品位和作品的。
第二,也是最为重要的一点,就是中国电影缺乏独立的地位。电影自从49年以后一直是作为意识形态的工具被政府所利用的,因此在80年以前,没有独立的影片选题和导演的思考。90年代以后,政府对于电影投资的减少,使得中国电影不得不迅速投入非本土投资方的怀抱,迅速向好莱坞模式看齐。这种所谓的市场化进程实际是对电影独立精神的最大伤害,因为对刚刚走出政府桎梏的脆弱的中国电影,她在还没有机会形成自己的风格以前,就被按照好莱坞的标准被重新定义了。这个道理和学术的独立一样,缺乏制度性的保障的学术自由是空谈,缺乏制度性保障的电影独立也是空谈。国内观众对国产电影不满,认为是几个导演为了拿国际大奖在粗制滥造“大片”。其实,这正是中国电影市场化的表现,是好莱坞逻辑的必然结果,这些人不过是服从了自己的“天命”,没什么可被指责的。
如果没有艺术创造和评论的互动和电影业的独立,中国观众恐怕还是要继续是望下去。由此,他们只有两种选择:或者完全不看中国电影(盗版的我都不买);或者干脆降低自己的要求,什么都看。这个和票证时代的中国一样,要不你饿着,要不你就为了填饱肚皮饥不择食。第三条道路就是支持中国电影从意识形态和市场控制中解脱出来,至于这一点的可行性,我也没有把握,只能算是痴人说梦吧。
[1] Andreas, a man struggling with the recent demise of his marriage and living in emotional isolation, meets Anna, who is grieving the recent deaths of her husband and son. While Anna uses Andreas' phone, he listens in on her conversation and later, when she has gone but left her handbag behind, Andreas searchs it and reads a letter that will later prove she is deceptive about her past. Andreas befriends a married couple, Eva and Elis-mutual friends of Anna-who are also in the midst of psychological turmoil. Andreas has a tryst with Eva but ultimately takes up living with Anna, though he is warned by Eva cryptically to be wary of her. The relationship is not very passionate but Andreas and Anna start off happy enough. Anna appears zealous in her faith and steadfast in her search for truth, but gradually her delusions surface-reinforced by what Andreas read in the letter. For his part, Andreas is unable to overcome his feelings of deep humiliation about his own past and remains disconnected, further dooming the relationship with Anna. As these events unfold, an unknown person among the island community commits acts of animal cruelty. A friend of Andreas is wrongly accused of these crimes, leading to dire consequences. In the end, the past is more powerful then present forces, violence erupts and chances for healing are lost.