誠然，如筆記整理人立早所說，這些都是一些轉述，有其碎片化和選擇性。
甚至有人可以懷疑是否真的戴老師如是云。因此，我要加上「據說」。
但無論如何，當中對整個局面的總結性是很有見解，具啓發性和可讀性。
故轉載之。
电影理论批评与实践（三）：今日理论
Posted by 立早
原文：http://www.lizaoo.com/?p=114
电影诞生那天起就有了电影理论。“电影梦工厂”这个词1905年就已经被提出。电影是白日梦。《盗梦空间》是对电影的一个自反。
电影理论曾经是业余爱好者的实验，毫无规范和学术和理论含量可言的，但却有后来没有的纯正性。20C50S专业的电影理论在法国出现，它是符号学的一个分支。20C改变人文社会学科基本范式的是索绪尔。语言学成为普遍范式。后继者：罗兰·巴特和克里斯蒂安·麦兹。麦兹是第一位专业电影理论家，创造了电影符号学。
电影理论的全面勃兴和这样一个脉络有关联但不直接相关，直接相关的是60S席卷欧美的反文化运动。1968是20C最具标识性的年头。这个年头某种意义上改变了现代文明方向，内在外在地成为了一个电影事件。电影资料馆被封事件是学潮的直接导火索之一。外在的：被称为法国电影新浪潮的电影人在其中都是主导者。法国新浪潮，作者电影作为一种社会实践全面展开也得到了学潮的助推。
1如果我们不能动摇社会秩序，那就来动摇语言秩序。（后结构理论的重要宣言之一）
2批判将履行密室中的谋反者的角色。
这两种东西全面呈现在后结构理论中，呈现在学科上就是电影学。
我们讨论电影的文学性、戏剧性、表演性etc，我们由此得出电影是综合艺术。我只是说这个东西给我一个非常有意思的提示，电影在大时代的回声中诞生，年轻的学者选择建立电影系，他们在内部遭遇的敌人就是电影综合论和文学论，它试图延续一个悖论：电影是最前卫年轻的艺术，但由于它接替19C小说的功能，在电影叙事上始终延续了在其他学科难以成立的人文主义传统。
当我们谈电影的文学性，其实我们说的不是文学，文学这个词太大，20C最大的问题就是what is literature？伊格尔顿：在20C，文学成为问题。文学是诗歌是小说是戏剧是哪一种文类？所以它真是个问题。文学性说的是，形而下地说，电影的情节人物对白，所谓电影的内容。我们假定不存在叙事语言视听语言，我们假定形式是透明的，假定透明的形式直接讲述故事。对白人物心理人文内涵主题思想，我们假定一个故事应该包含可信的人物可信的情节精彩的编排劲道的对白，其实这么说，是一个特定的文学：现实主义的文学。制造幻觉的文学。文学似乎与文艺复兴到19C现实主义划上了等号。什么感动了我们？感动源自真实感及支撑其后的文化逻辑。
美国电影系的成立意味电影文学论的死亡，中国电影系的成立意味着电影文学论的复活。一方面是时代的产物，另一方面，电影在中文系被讲授。
电影理论的确立是高度政治化的，60C电影学科在欧美大学全面建立，它一度成为领头学科。出现了对人文学科社会学科各学科理论的一个倒流，eg文学研究借重电影研究。它和后冷战时代背景息息相关，它的政治立场与新左派有结构性的相像。
之前所讲的坐标系，“后冷战”和“一极化和区域化”，后者过程当中有一个命题，我借用墨西哥游击队队长马科斯的说法：我们这个时代是“逐鹿环球”的时代。换句话说就是新一轮以全球为背景的权力争霸战，到目前为止还不知鹿死谁手。引用科幻小说《守夜人》系列第三部的概念：“无主的时间”“无主的空间”“无主的权力”，权力目前还处于悬置状态。也就是说，我们不尊重当权者，我们尊重权力自身。我们不膜拜某种强势，我们膜拜强势自身。
冯小刚的《夜宴》：人人都想王之，人人皆可王之。而成王者王之，不成王者只能败寇。于是文化逻辑的粗暴和苍白在于，我们对失败者没有任何的同情，我们对成功者也没有任何的崇拜。在这样巨大空洞的奇观场景，在视听打击的满足之下，我们去目击这样一种对无主权力的无穷膜拜和角逐的过程。在这样一个时代，产生电影理论的背景和结构全都改变了。这是一个重要而基本的问题。
哲学philosophy和知识分子intellectual随60S一同消失（现在的欧美大学教授叫自己批评者critic，或者学者scholar），理论theory凸显出来。Theory是非学科的也是跨学科的。结构后结构的思想者都是理论家。他们的身份、自我定位、社会定位、功能定位是理论家。理论跟另一个社会功能的选择相关联，就是批判。Theory是美国学术界的发明。美国在这一脉络扮演什么角色？
结构和后结构理论诞生和成长于欧洲，集中在法国（以巴黎高师为中心的学术共同体）。美国学术界在二战后，扮演的是“理论的贸易批发中转商”。欧洲理论经美国通俗化简单化大众化后卖到全世界去。这与美国大学机制有关。美国大学的体制和社会定位被60S反战运动民权运动所改变。批判激进的左翼的知识分子聚集的地方只有大学，美国大学设置成为文化留居地（类比印第安人留居地）。这个机制成功之处在于他们的声音没有任何机会传到社会上。他们从欧洲取火，将其更具操作性地传向全世界。另外也得益于美国霸权地位的建立和英语取得霸权地位，美国在多重意义上扮演这样的角色，命名就叫理论。这是战后美国学术界的发明。
回到今日理论，理论包括电影理论，它是冷战历史的产物。冷战结构终结，当社会结构全面重组，我的问题是：理论何谓？理论何为？
伴随全新的社会结构的到来，理论已死。柏拉图和亚里士多德仍会不断被赋予新意和生机，我所说的理论已死，是冷战年代赋予理论的充满活力、生机、创意的空间被改变，它曾扮演强有力的开启想象力的角色被终结。于是我们进入一个特定状态：After theory，理论之后。
理论的年代已经将人文社科很多基本命题刷新了，经过重新质询颠覆和定义重新获得了完整性。After theory在这样一个起跑线上重新开始。今天我们仍可以读古希腊哲学读马克思读孔孟读理学，我们站在theory之上。我们面对的是全新的文化形式和文化状态。
伊格尔顿《理论之后》：前半部真知灼见，后半部捉襟见肘。前半部以置身其中的透彻和清晰对理论深入的辨析和批判。后半部想建立理论之后的理论或思想，他采取欧洲理论家不约而同采取的策略，我觉得他是做的不够好的一个。他重新追溯、阐释、定义被解构的keywords，重新找回思想的活力和可能性，他的失败不仅在于对关键词的选取和建构本身相当苍白无力，而更重要的是，不期然间，他在寻找旧关键词重新阐释的过程中，伊格尔顿重新陷落在原有语境的泥沼中。如果大家关注欧美理论最新动向时会发现，伊格尔顿被称为新保守主义者。他在进行这样尝试时，他陷落了。
理论之后，意味着新时代的开启。新的可能性已然存在，召唤者每个人文人去创造。但它是一个危险：“作为过去的明天”，或者“从未来返归的过去”，这种悖论式表达，意味是当我们前行，当我们面对未来，当我们创造明天，当我们开启全新的东西时，旧日的幽灵到处出没时，你仔细辨识，它可能来自未来。未来的将临的现实情境，危险在于如果你没有充分的警惕，没有充分的自觉，没有充分的想象力和原创性的话，你就会似乎陷落在一个似乎全新的旧日的泥坑里。
逐鹿环球似乎是一件好事，似乎以不确定性已经向人们打开新的想象憧憬和创造性，但迄今为止，它仍是一种对既定强权的归附。大家试图分享和争夺这种权利。换句话说，变动的现实并没有自动地呈现一种不一样的可能性，所谓alternative。变革中的现实，刚好是对旧有权利逻辑的复制和分享的愿望，对这样一个结构，我们谈理论的创造，有早产的真理，而后有现实的变革。
电影理论是20C的丰厚遗产，当人们进入这个学科，形而下的是学科内部的工作，更高的是参与到理论之后的思想场域的建构中。
麦兹：“不是因为电影作为一种语言它才讲述了如此美妙的故事，而是因为它讲述才使自己成为了一种语言。”《电影和语言》中他建立一组二项对立的表述：影片的事实和电影的事实cinema。前者是文本的事实，后者是工业的事实、商业的事实、资本的事实、社会语境、观众接受心理，它溢出文本。任何对电影的社会批判、文化批判、工业批判、思想批判，都要建立在对影片事实的把握之上，而不是望文生义的。
当网络提供民主空间，使电影热爱者不受限制地进入电影的讨论中来，他们不期然带来两种东西，我不得不称之为新文化保守主义的表现。一个是，在网络评论的比拼当中，人们最尊崇的是以“知”胜出。（对电影相关知识的知道）网络最大冲击是改变了知识和教育。原来是“我知你不知”，网络出现后“我知你也知”。大家都使用网络检索。教育功能原来是传授，但网络使自我教育成为可能，这时教育者的角色是提出问题。另一个是，“美文学”重新带回电影批评。（对电影的感悟、哲理思考、情感抒发）这作为纯粹爱好没什么，但这并没有帮助推进中国电影。
电影理论批评与实践（四）：早期电影理论
Posted by 立早
原文：http://www.lizaoo.com/?p=116
立早按：想补充说明一点，任何一种转述都无法完全还原原本的真实。所以这些课堂笔记究其根本只能是一种碎片化、断裂式的不完整的文本呈现，在我选择性聆听和选择性记录的过程中，不可避免地会带来语义的简化和误解，留下的是对流动和连续的思维表达的一个离散化复原。还望诸君阅读时心下留意。：）
以下是正文：
电影的古典时期说法很奇怪，因为电影的历史不足一百多年。电影的古典时期十足的现代，濒临后现代。所以我更愿意用早期电影理论这个词。早期电影理论是非学科化的，非学院化的，它是业余爱好者的实验，具有纯正丰满的情感可实践性，但没有理论的严整性。我不想用一个概括：电影审美理论，或电影实践理论。
审美维度对任何艺术都始终存在，但经过语言学转型和文化转型后，我们知道审美亦是一种意识形态，不是超越和中立的。对美的感知不断被时代改写，但始终存在。早期电影理论是实践性的，这不意味实践在当代或学科化的电影理论中不存在，实践理论仍继续延续。
先提几个名字：
匈牙利的巴拉·巴拉兹《可见的人类》：强调了作为视觉艺术的电影
阿恩海姆/爱因汉姆《电影作为艺术》
最早的专著，也是奠基之作。它建构性地影响了后来的理论，但反观时它们已经老了。它们的写作背景：电影默片时代。
戏剧真正的文本是对白或曰剧本，与之对比：电影真正的文本是画面（戴个人的倾向）。
如何定义电影艺术？我一直强调电影是视听艺术，而又认为电影的真正的文本是画面，我是不是在自相矛盾呢？有一点，但我仍坚持这一点。电影出现时是默片，1927年《爵士歌王》电影开口说话了，声音发展为电影另一套语言系统。但至今声音在电影中处于边缘、弱势、辅助性的地位，它远不像画面那么丰满、本体性成为电影艺术的建构力量。
我们在这样一个前提下回顾早期电影理论。巴拉·巴拉兹：“电影太伟大了，它再度使人类变为可见。”VS康拉德的小说美学：“我首先要让你们看见。”当然文学的“看到”是形而上的，电影的“看到”是形而下的。巴拉兹认为印刷术掌控的时代，印刷品湮没了人类形象。而电影的异军突起改变了这一状况。
开始人们认为电影是技术杂耍，江湖马戏班的新道具。镍币影院出现，“破帽遮颜进影院”，文化人评价其为浅薄艺术，它只能停留在表象之上，不能深入文化思想精神层面，因而不可能进入文学、戏剧、美术、音乐etc
阿恩海姆的宣言：电影是艺术。他的佐证却可以忽略不计，他的论据是辩护性和模仿性的：电影分享古老艺术的基本特征，因而它是艺术。
其他艺术都在人类文明曙光刚刚照亮洞穴时就已经出现了，这些古老艺术的媒介形态变化远不及表达形态变化那么剧烈。当然数码技术出现，什么都在模拟时，一切都在改变。这个我们先搁置一边。
而电影只讲可能性，不讲限定性。每种新技术的出现都给电影打开一个新通道。如巴赞所说，电影是朝觐真实的无限的趋近线。电影以拟真作为自己的终极目的。当有一天3D成为电影的常规技术时，这个改变就如无声电影和有声电影的区别。
蒙太奇理论（苏联）
广义：泛指剪辑；狭义：苏联电影思想和美学原则。
电影是片片断断开始的艺术。奥逊威尔斯：“电影是发明给成人的最可爱的玩具。”李翰祥：“电影就是一种鸦片。High上了就毒死你，high不上就瘾死你。”
电影是如此琐碎的过程，电影真正的叙事过程是在剪辑中完成的，“没有比电影更贬低演员的了”。Eg《战舰波将金》爱森斯坦，德国厂商买了以后，将第一次起义和第二次起义的结果调了个头，意识形态全部被改写。
狭义蒙太奇原则：
1单镜头不表意。
2意义产生于镜头的组合和撞击之间。
3剪辑中1+1＞≠2。
成就最高的两个导演：爱森斯坦和普多夫金。两人的性格有点像李白和杜甫的对比，相互关系极为恶劣，各自养了以对方命名的狗。
爱森斯坦：狂放不羁的天才，特立独行，拒绝任何羁绊。
杂耍蒙太奇：两个叙事意义上毫不相关的镜头组接产生出一种明确的思想性表达
普多夫金：兢兢业业、勤勤恳恳、尊重秩序的，为苏联意识形态部门青睐。
抒情蒙太奇：《母亲》的典型段落
另一个奠基人：库里肖夫《论电影导演》：第一本电影实践理论书。库里肖夫实验（众所周知，略）：蒙太奇视觉实验基础。
蒙太奇，所谓单镜头不表意的一个规定性前提：景别足够小，时间足够短。这与默片时代电影艺术表现方式有关。它不是放之四海而皆准的。它是苏维埃社会主义艺术的基础之一。
爱森斯坦是一个伟大思想家，世界电影史上所有导演中难得一见的博学的思想者。剪辑中1+1＞≠2其实就是黑格尔辩证法的电影表述，就是否定之否定。他的六卷本著作到现在没有英译本和汉译本。他企图将蒙太奇理论变成一种哲学思想，阐释世界的东西，对于他，蒙太奇是思维方法，是认识和表达世界的一种路径。爱森斯坦曾经试图要拍《美国》和《资本论》，可见他的抱负和诉求之大。
格雷马斯叙事句型，格雷马斯也是试图将其发展成哲思，他用它讨论社会主义和资本主义的可能性和内在矛盾。
你真想进行理论思想演进的话，回去读原著。不要读读本，不要读二手介绍，原点包含的东西要多的多。
安格烈·巴赞
《电影手册》主编，意大利新现实主义到法国新浪潮期间最著名的影评人，英年早逝。唯一著作：《电影是什么》“XX是什么”比什么问题都沉重，表明其有种本体论的诉求。
巴赞对当下中国电影影响最为直接，80S初电影界引入巴赞，第四代导演诞生的一面旗帜，但其实第四代作品与巴赞相关甚少，而第五代更为暗合。第四代真正的精神养料其实是苏联蒙太奇，它是苏联蒙太奇美学的变奏。非常讽刺的是我们对他长期的误译和误读。当巴赞作品翻译过来后，他反而成了古董。其实文化的误读是文化传播的基本特征，更普遍的文化传播形态。我们管巴赞的理论叫做长镜头理论。但巴赞理论从来不是长镜头理论，一定要命名的话，有两个概念比较接近他的表达，“纪实美学”和“完整电影的神话”。
两种论述：
1电影是朝觐真实的无限的趋近线。
一组隐喻：银幕/窗。银幕是窗，我们透过窗看到的是连续的无边无涯的世界。电影的形式应该是透明的。在有限的银幕之外，真实的世界延续着，绵延着。
2电影的意义是平抚了人类的木乃伊情结。（超越死亡，把自己形象传至生后的情结。）
戴认为，形象留存后，则是一个权力的问题。当我们拥有如此之多的影像，并不意味着我们的形象能延续后世。又一场人类角逐长生不老和永垂不朽的战争。未来学家指出，如果生命以特定数码记忆的方式留存下去的话，虚拟世界当中的谋杀和毁尸灭迹的技术也会同时发生和完备。
回到长镜头理论，无外乎是巴赞讨论“完整电影的神话”的叙述路径。我们习惯用二元对立式将蒙太奇学派和巴赞对立起来，完全忽略了一点，恰好被我们误读出来，“镜头内部的蒙太奇”（场面调度：摄像机和被摄物，被摄物与被摄物之间的相对位移）。
当时巴赞和《电影手册》那批人基本都是法国新左派，极度沉迷于苏联蒙太奇，介于冷战结构，他们不便高扬蒙太奇理论，他们创造出新的表述，而在他们表述中处处可见蒙太奇理论的影响。
一个镜头不仅可以表意，还可以构成叙事段落。长镜头不仅包含时间，还包含了另一个元素：景深镜头（丰富的多元选择）。（在一幅画面当中，它的前景中景后景同时有事件发生，并同时清晰发生在观众面前。）eg《公民凯恩》的结束镜头
克拉考尔《物质世界的复原》原名《电影：物质世界的拯救/救赎》，这个宗教性背景被隐没了。他试图回答电影是什么的问题。电影与摄影的内在亲缘性，电影的本体在于它的记录性特征，“覆盖功能”，记录并覆盖真实的过程。世界电影史的发展就是一连串的偶然的记录，电影形式并不必然与叙事结合。梅里爱将其与叙事功能结合。
电影回到英文，对应movie，film，cinema。电影不等于故事片，说的是Film，强调的是媒介样态。Movie特指商业电影，尤其好莱坞电影。Cinema：欧洲艺术电影。这也是一种精英主义的等级制。Movie尽管在精英主义领域的等级甚低，但在资本市场大众文化的领域中却有绝对的霸权。（两大对抗序列）
电影作者论
冷战时期欧洲历史的特殊产物。它是欧洲电影自我型构、自我规划的理论，以对抗好莱坞大工业流水线生产。它的起点却很反讽，是以命名好莱坞电影开始的。特吕弗和希区柯克谈话录
《电影手册》将很多影评人推进电影工业系统，其中很多成为大师，例如特吕弗和戈达尔。特吕弗提出和奠基了这样一个电影实践流派。电影作者论成为与欧洲艺术电影相重叠的一个概念。
简单的表述：
1导演中心制
电影署名权一直以来都是很大的问题。对于电影接受、销售来说，人们认明星不认导演。导演远不及演员更有感召力。从制作上，不断有对导演中心制提出质询的，在中国就是编剧的作用。从工业上说，电影是一个工业流程。从电影摄制组结构来说，电影是一种集体艺术。从文化上说，作者理论与精英主义文化的建构、基督的上帝中心并以此建构的现代人假说联系在一起。从任何一个角度，电影作者是无法指认的。在电视摄制组中始终存在才智和意志的较量，胜出者将掌控电影的整体面貌。Eg《寻枪》陆川VS姜文
电影从各个层面看，它有别传统艺术的一个重要特征，非个人，非单一中心，集体介入的过程，通力合作的过程。另一个荒谬之处是，当文学开始进入“作者已死”、“零度写作”的时候，电影作为这样年轻没有传统的天生的造反者却举着电影作者论的旗帜前来归顺，但是，永恒的双刃剑就在于，它作为欧洲电影的重要假说和实践理论，它面对的是什么？它是尝试以个人以诗情以天才以个人的思考和诗意对抗金元帝国和钢铁工业。它是一个历史性反动，又是一个挺身抗暴的孤独的英雄。
2编导合一（前提）
电影拍摄过程中存在来自编剧、演员、制片方的噪音，为了充分贯彻个性，导演一般自己写剧本。与其说编导合一，不如说他们是少有的驾驭两种不同媒介的天才。Eg 王家卫，伯格曼
3对特定主题的反复挖掘
特吕弗《四百击》《野孩子》《巴黎最后一班地铁》作为自传，永远两男一女，永远的纠缠不清的情感，带有一点荒诞和滑稽感的生命悲剧，或者悲剧的喜剧样式，他一辈子延续这个。
4一个导演要逐渐寻找到自己的署名方式。（渐次形成影像和叙事风格）
当电影试图脱颖而出，试图战胜自己面对古老艺术的自卑情结时再次流露出的自卑感，这完全是对文学风格论的仿作。
当一个导演置身电影工业当中，当电影作为滚滚的资本金流游戏时，他在什么意义上能维系他的影像风格？或者说当一个导演被迫在工业体制当中处理不同样式不同题材不同类型的时候，他又在什么样意义延续他的风格？这是一个值得质疑的东西。（希区柯克情结）
欧洲电影作者论是特定历史产生的一个悖谬性的存在。60S是伟大的革命的时代，此外，它也体现在包容度上。60S运动全面冲垮审查制度，于是在70-80S，整个欧洲银幕充满了色情场景。当时的性、个人身体作为后现代政治的有效途径，来颠覆基督教中心的道德禁锢和束缚。
色情片的泛滥彻底终结了美国新教传统《海斯法典》掌控之下的好莱坞，电影分级制度的完全无效。好莱坞陷入空前的危机，结果是新好莱坞的诞生。所以电影作者论在60S冲击好莱坞、对抗好莱坞，改写世界电影格局的背景下出现的电影实践，它始终是个双刃剑。
我没有把握说，当冷战成为过去，世界电影格局在以新的方式重新发展时，电影作者论将以什么身份再次出现？多大程度具有实践意义？
但它是早期电影理论最后一个响亮声音，大概也是有史以来最强有力的电影理论，它改变了电影制作面貌，成就了一代大师自我命名和自我书写的历史。
Showing posts with label Reading on film making 關於電影的文章. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reading on film making 關於電影的文章. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Monday, October 4, 2010
電影理論批評於實踐（一及二）－ 據說是北京大學戴錦華老師課堂筆記
多年前在做《歌舞昇平》時曾碰到過戴錦華老師，幾次用餐期間她和司徒兆敦老師談電影、說文化，以及互相開玩笑，妙語連珠，印象深刻。
电影理论批评与实践（一）：今日世界
Posted by 立早
原文：http://www.lizaoo.com/?p=19
立早按：此乃在下整理的戴锦华老师的课堂笔记。虽不能尽其意，但尽量完整地记录下了她的主要观点。供诸位参考。
几个基本坐标，也是我近十五年来思考基点：
一、后冷战：1989苏联解体
没有任何人能超越我们成长的历史。当我们是被我们的时代养育，被我们时代制造的文化产品和素材所喂养的时候，我们不可能超越它，但如果没有超越的诉求的话，简单地说，我们白来一世。80年代以后社会文化的一个重要特征就是历史纵深的萎缩乃至消失。一个抹除历史的记忆，一个修改历史的记忆，一个压缩历史的纵深，把一切封闭在一个永远的现在时当中，叫做“不求天长地久，只求曾经拥有。”网络的速度是8秒（一个帖子），8天（一个网站的寿命），网络空间是一个被众多尸体和垃圾堆满的黑洞。这样一种速率也在反身塑造和书写我们的生命。当一个帖子存在了八天颇似永垂不朽的时候，人的生命和历史没有改变，但是我们感知的方式在改变。
东方不战而败，西方不战而胜。一个颜色在地图上永远地消失了，叫做苏联。持续了近半个世纪的美苏两大帝国，社主阵营和资主阵营的对峙终结，冷战时期结束。当时西方最乐观的预言家也最多把和平演变的希望寄托在社会主义第三代第四代人身上，也没敢预言社会主义阵营会一夜之间在地球上崩解。一个最重要的国家——苏联在地图上被抹掉。我们也许需要一个世纪以上的时间才能理解苏联解体对于整个世界和人类的意义。后冷战对于20世纪和21世纪是非常非常重要的。
冷战不是以战争方式，而是以对峙和军备竞赛的方式进行的，但统计学家告诉我们在冷战年代——冷战之所以是冷战，是因为人们一直恐惧的第三次世界大战没有爆发，局部战争和区域性战争死亡人数总和早已超过前两次大战，它看似没有硝烟，却是充满血污与尸体的战争。尽管没有硝烟的，它的结束一定是以胜利者胜出，失败者败落为其基本特征。在讨论冷战逻辑时，我们要处理后冷战时期的胜利者的叙述、胜利者的逻辑和胜利者对失败者的审判。我的不成熟，我一直坚持这种不成熟的一个最重要准则就是，拒绝审判失败者，因为这太轻易太廉价太投机乃至无耻。有本事就去对抗强权者，有勇气去对当时当地的暴政发言。
冷战时代我们拥有两种以上的逻辑，后冷战我们只拥有一种，这一种逻辑将消灭另一种逻辑，重新阐释另一种逻辑，审判另一种逻辑。当有人告诉你，这世界存在二项对立时，你要小心了，每一个二项对立的表述都是最强有力的意识形态的建构，诸如男与女，是与非等等。每个清晰无误的，两者择其一的二项对立一定是意识形态陷阱，它一定试图遮蔽第三项、第四项、第五项，所以一个很有趣的游戏也是很重要的战斗是，在别人进行二项对立的选择时，要去发现被压抑的被遮末的第三项，第四项……
一个最重要的文化事实是，在冷战对峙年代其实最有活力的是第三点、第三元。不同于“第三条道路”的概念，“第三条道路”只是其中的一种。在冷战对峙时，出现了一种世界性力量，也是今天世界重要问题之所在的：第三世界。当我们说社会主义意识形态和资本主义意识形态、社会主义思想暴政和资本主义思想控制、古拉格群岛和奥斯维辛、思想监狱和麦卡锡主义的时候，我们意识到为什么会出现一个重要思想流派：新左派。曾经的新左派是试图超越社会主义和资本主义的两种制度，从中突围，寻找一个非资本主义的人类未来可能。诞生于50s的文化研究和80s勃兴的电影理论其实都是新左派思想的一个学科性延伸。而冷战结束后，第三元/极被抹掉。所有的另类选择被抹掉。一极化的世界，胜利者的逻辑取代一切。
举个电影的例子：曾经世界电影的四分格局是：
A美国好莱坞：
好莱坞是不是电影艺术？落实到一个问题上：奥斯卡是不是世界电影最高奖项？悲哀的是，近几年看来似乎是的。阿城的说法：奥斯卡是美国电影的“家宴”，设了一个最佳外语片，那是人家待客的礼数，那是美国人自己关起门来的玩法，对应中国的金鸡奖，是国别奖。但如今某种意义上，它代表了国际电影最高奖项。因为今天电影艺术的死亡，美国接管一切。它有着成熟的商业电影系统，它创造了一系列的生产的、叙事的、电影人的方式，比如明星制、大制片厂制、电影类型。这都是好莱坞独有的。
B欧洲艺术电影：
它与另一个概念相重叠和错位，即作者电影。在冷战年代，欧洲电影、电影理论和文化研究共同分享了新左派的政治立场，它以反美作为一个基本参数，在电影上反美就是反好莱坞。一个定位是对抗美国主流文化、商业文化和好莱坞，另一个诉求是扮演水火不容的两大阵营的桥梁。后来它定位为把第三世界电影引入欧美世界当中去。使它不同于好莱坞，成为在电影艺术、电影文本和电影工业场域对抗好莱坞霸权的一个存在。
C以苏联为中心的社会主义电影：
它创造了政治-艺术的一个重要脉络。世界电影的三个基本源头：卢米埃尔兄弟，梅里爱，蒙太奇学派
苏联是电影艺术的发祥地之一，在强大的国家工业电影体制延伸出庞大的脉络和传统，电影艺术发源地之一。
D非西方国家电影：
国别电影，不是电影商业机制中出现，而是国家电影工业机制中运行，为票房所支持，它是国家的利税大户。众多的非欧美非苏联电影曾生机勃勃地存在着，冷战终结，苏联解体，一夜之间，苏联和东欧电影完全消失。两个触目惊心的事实让我意识到失败是什么意义：苏联解体后，7年之间人均年龄平均下降15年；解体5年之后俄罗斯只剩下四块电影屏幕。世界电影市场全部被好莱坞攻占。
人们这时候蓦然发现，欧洲电影的生机和活力正是由于美苏两极对峙给其提供的巨大空间，它曾是对抗三俗，对抗好莱坞的战斗檄文，借助思想含量和批判意义面对当下社会和思考未来可能。西方自由世界胜出，欧洲电影突然发现自己的空间是夹缝中的空间，80s后艺术电影处在一个极端尴尬和徘徊犹疑的状态，它们至今仍然在尝试寻找自己的定位。从这个意义上，它不再是可与好莱坞并驾齐驱的一极力量。伴随全球化进程，第三世界国别电影也败落了。
二、一极化和区域化
狭义的全球化是从1980年里根和撒切尔执政开始，开启了新自由主义的政治经济政策，并通过华盛顿共识改写整个世界的经济秩序。到冷战结束，它名副其实了。因为之前的霸权被阻断在分界线上，但中国是例外，我们率先开始后冷战，不仅因为80s改革开放，标志是1971年的中美联合声明，打破两国坚冰，中国大量购入美国器材。改革开放是同时完成意识形态、政治思想和文化叙述意义上的，而政治和经济实际从70s开始。被历史学家和权威人士背书的历史本身一定是断裂式的，所有断裂一方面认清某些事实，另一方面把我们带离那个曾经的事实。
广义的全球化是从资主开启那天起。
50s文化研究，因为大众文化成为突出文化潮流，在不同国家对传统文化群体文化不同阶级不同种族文化构成毁灭性冲击，而这大众文化在战后就具有的明确面目，即美国式文化。在那个年代，中国保有了电影工业和市场的独立性。后冷战的一极化是政治和经济，四极的局面终结，好莱坞一统天下。我们评价一部电影是否成功的基本参数是战胜好莱坞。这反证了好莱坞的无所不在。当有记者问我，政府为《孔子》缩短《阿凡达》的档期，这么暴力的事情怎么可以发生。我对这两个都没兴趣，我对这两个都不支持，无外乎就是两种强势。所谓的公众的文化心理和社会趋向中，那种一极化的格局没有改变。
我们这么热爱阿凡达，我们这么热爱2012，尽管我们给热爱2012一个理由是：中国拯救世界。但这种爱国主义的表达让我看到，我们有多爱美国。我们有多爱美国，多么深的爱才能让我们看到中国，那不存在的中国。“千万里我呼唤你，今天你终于回答了我”，好像是这样一种感情。这是我对乐观主义的怀疑。我们仔细反观，尽管这些影片烙有本土文化印记，但它们的成功模式和主要特征是好莱坞式的，当你必须用好莱坞的本土电影来战胜好莱坞，究竟是失败还是胜利。
另一方面，对抗一极化的努力一直发生，最为突出的是欧盟的出现。欧洲的整合是一个远未完成的过程。有过“欧洲电影”这种东西么？这是欧盟内部的对抗之声。
区域化：拉丁美洲的南方银行、电台，区域整合来对抗北美，进而对抗资主全球化。它不光是资主意义上的整合，更是尝试对抗美国式资主的努力，它不简单是金融资本的整合，相反而且是互通有无、以物易物的文化交流当中去，eg古巴石油给古巴，古巴将教育资源给委内瑞拉。这不是在资主金融逻辑下完成的。当然这服务于政治的结盟。这也是美国所说的邪恶三角：玻利维亚-委内瑞拉-古巴。玻利维亚总统说，我们是革命的三代人：卡斯特罗是革命的祖父，查韦斯是革命的父亲，而我是革命之子。非常有趣的血缘式叙述。这样一种区域整合，尝试在全球金融资本主义逻辑中，寻找另一种新的区域合作，挣脱资主万劫不复的加速度死亡运行。我不是在诅咒人类。所有的悲剧预言者都是因为他们爱人类。
东非区域贸易；东北亚区域整合：日韩，大陆，HK,台湾，新加坡etc
与全球化同时发生的不同脉络的不同地区的区域化，这种对抗方式迟早会影响到电影工业。
三、金融海啸
最悲观的预言家也没预言到金融海啸2008年就会在美国爆发。这个经济事实在金融心脏直接爆发，客观上对美国一极化世界霸主的致命打击和强力削弱。
网上转的奥巴马演讲，人们转帖心态很复杂，附在帖子下的网友翻译：“今天世界上存在一个巨大阴谋，中国的阴谋，他们明知我们还不起，还要不断借我们，他们到底想干什么？我想你们保证，我们美国人民是有志气的，我们就算不吃饭，也要还他们”这是一个网友的翻译。他娴熟地借用了60s中国领导人的语气，当然奥巴马是在玩弄美国总统式的幽默。它也是美国左派学者们认为美国当下最重要的命题和形势。
金融海啸在动摇US时，我要补充一句，“饿死的骆驼比马大。”二战时整个世界被战火波及时，美国坐收渔翁之利，战后它掠夺整个世界来富裕起来，更不要说在端点处他们掠夺印第安人占有的广袤丰饶的土地。殖民主义的历史造就其霸主地位的稳固。中国主流经济学家的说法再次向我印证了他们有多爱美国：美国的经济发展好着呢。
美国作为金融中心的倒掉，全世界的经济被拖入深深的泥沼中。美国受的皮外伤，谁受内伤还是未定。当中国是美国债主时，中国可能就是受内伤的那个。一边是美元贬值，一边是美国强迫人民币升值，意味着所有中国实物经济转化成的美元随之贬值。金融海啸拉响了警报，后冷战资主的生机勃勃和兴旺发达其实是建立在巨大的金融泡沫之上，但US的金融泡沫建筑在全球血汗工厂、真实的劳动和实物经济生态之上。这才是悲哀之所在。
“金融海啸”的命题凸显了另一个命题：“中国债主”。站在中国位置上，叫“中国崛起”。当年全世界的财富都被迫用美元度量。中国被迫贡献给美国股市的财富显影为债主的身份。这个残酷的余震无穷的全球金融灾难不期然地显影了中国。因为中国金融和货币的相对独立和封闭，或者说中国介入全球化程度有限拯救了中国免于金融灾难，使中国成为所谓的“价值洼地”。在这个过程中，中国得以在一个封闭的社会环境中完成和健全了自己的工业化体系，得以在全民劳动尤其农民劳动完成了资本的原始积累，得以一个完备的国家工业体系和相对丰厚的原始积累进入到全球化进程中的这样一个前提，使得中国在这一格局下，呈现经济的高速增长状态。中国现在是世界第2经济体，占有世界总产值的1/4。“中国崛起”在何种意义上被指认？
“康乾盛世”的中国是世界最大经济最发达的区域，最大的手工业品生产国。鸦片战争的爆发，血泪斑斑百年记忆，中国从尖峰跌到谷底，我们用后殖民理论去反观，为什么中国文化的发生，我们有那么的强烈的民族耻辱感，那么强烈的自我否定，强烈的民族身份的自卑感，以及自我批判，恐怕与这种巨大的跌落有关。20世纪末21世纪初，中国在经济领先的状态当中，尝试修复某种正常意义上的身份认同，尝试恢复正常身份想象和国际地位。两百年的风风雨雨后，中国历史似乎走完了这一时段。
但是如果说美国的削弱，使中国进入角逐世界霸权的位置，抛开我的政治立场不谈——我反对一切霸权，这恐怕也太乐观了。在全球资主逻辑中，我们有两个致命伤：贫瘠的资源和众多的人口。第二个因素使我们在血汗工厂的基础上经济高速发展，但在帝国争霸战中绝对地处于劣势。中国道路不是中国如何成为美国的道路，如果是的话，不仅中国不可能抵达，而且中国在抵达过程中会把整个世界拖下水。美国的生活方式是极端耗能的，世界1/3-1/2的能量供给美国两亿人，试想全世界人不活也不能供养中国十三亿人。我们向往更美好合理富裕的生活，是人之常情，以中国人口之众多，幅员之辽阔，资源之贫瘠，什么是合理和共存状态的生活，是必须思考和创造的。否则中国兴也许世界亡，还是世界要亡中国，这是个很残酷的命题。
我在这三个坐标下定位。我再次做下辩护性的说明：我们拥有的不过是忧患意识。
我想做一个好衰老好保守的结论：21世纪第一个十年过去，21世纪不再是20世纪末殷殷期盼的伟大明天。与前两百年的前十年比较，21c是一个空白、苍白、平庸和三俗的世纪。我做这么一个保守、可疑和苍老的结论，是因为那些世纪之交飞扬着梦想、希望、各种新的可能性和各种尝试，而二十一世纪之初的苍白是，文化的一极化和主流的共同和绝对，是这样的全球截然。
《暮光之城》是给前青春期少女看的时候，你无法解释它在全球畅销到如此地步。主流的无所不在，带来的想象力的枯竭，社会的幼稚化和青少年化。青少年亚文化曾经是一个反叛的文化和空间，尽管带了太多的生理色彩，但那是对主流社会的一个威胁性的力量，但纹身和穿孔，这些在60S标识为对主流决裂的东西，今天被视为安全的，被所谓开放的工业文化所包容。我不是用精英立场去审判它，而是说它丧失了那样一种多元的挑战的不断打开新可能性的元素的全球性匮乏，摇曳生姿的多姿多彩的新主流在不同地方获得它们有效的讲述方式。
我朋友有一个朴素的质疑：不错，但是这种苍白和平庸难道不就是风云激变的二十世纪人们曾经渴望抵达的理想么？相对的富足，相对的物质改善，相对的对饥饿的消灭，相对的。
Ta说的很有道理，我这么说有两个立足点：它是一个空间的封闭而不是空间的开放，它是一个对现实的认可而不是对可能性的探索。今天的胜利者把20c称作撒旦的世纪，所有试图变革世界的努力都被称为恶魔的轨迹，20c之所以是革命的年代，风云突变的年代，所有最优秀的人们前仆后继死在我们今天看来毫不值得的死所上，是因为20c的人们洞察到了资本主义体制、现代文明逻辑自身的无法解决的困境。世界的苦难、疾病、战争、危机和死亡，是结构性的，是不可排除的，相对性的贫穷被削弱，但相对的富裕发生的时候，是富者愈富，贫者愈贫。这种两极分化，这种掠夺，以及20世纪显影出的绝对性的瓶颈：能源危机和环境危机。资主自身无法解决，因为它是以效率和利润最大化为基本原则的，“逆水行舟不进则退”，利润持平就意味着亏损。所以它是呈加速度的没有闸的车。20c的风云突变和前仆后继是因为人们意识到我们必须寻找到一个相对这种文明和体制的alternative来让人们活下去。
如果把人类文明比作一天的话，到这一天即将终结时，人类才诞生。即使在地球这颗年轻的星球上，人类也是一个年轻的物种，因为人类还年轻，人类要活下去。人类有权利解决生存。维系活下去的前提是这个文明不能提供的，它可以许诺我们今天，当下和此刻，但不能许诺我们明天。1989年，整个变革寻找另类的尝试全部不战而败，世界进入资主高歌猛进的全球一体化一极化的尝试中。但20c前仆后继去努力的那些问题依然存在。
一个姑妄听之的说法：“社会主义在资本主义国家胜利，资本主义在社会主义国家胜利。”这么说是因为，社会主义国家的出现迫使资本主义国家一而再再而三地健全社会福利，保障公民的基本权利。而所有社会主义国家都在社会主义体制的保护下尝试完成自己工业化和现代化的进程。但等社会主义阵营消失，最先受到冲击的是西方国家的福利体系，因为已经没有敌手，无需竞争，最残酷的剥削再次成为可能，因为别无选择。
21世纪的10年过去了，没有任何新的乌托邦产生，没有任何新的政治力量挟持着任何政治理想出现在今天的世界上，没有任何不同的文化表述向我们打开任何不同的文化未来，这才是悲哀。在这样一个变化的格局中，曾经产生于冷战年代的理论还有没有意义？理论何为？理论何谓？换句话说，批判是否是必须的，批判是否是可能的，批判究竟是否仅仅是为了批判，批判究竟居于社会什么样的位置？
电影理论批评与实践（二）：今日电影
Posted by 立早
原文：http://www.lizaoo.com/?p=112
立早按：有好些天没整理笔记了。今天接着发。戴爷的课永远是饱满而热情的，这样的“热”让我没有多少阐释的空间。不如奉上原汁原味，供诸君参考。
以下是正文：
电影从来不是纯粹的。从最低层面的消费欣赏到最高层面的批判解读和思想建构，文本是绝对不够的。对于文学，文本中心是可以确认的，但不适用于电影。
不用我再次重复自己的滥调，电影是与生俱来的浑身沾满机油和铜臭的艺术。电影从诞生伊始，就是一个工业系统和商业系统。电影是一个文化娱乐工业系统。
二战结束，电视冲击，继而多媒体冲击，各种新媒体技术的冲击之下，使得电影自我确认和求生存之路便是娱乐工业。作为消费社会特定的娱乐样式，它到底娱乐了谁，它以什么来娱乐。二战以降，它越来越少履行文化功能和艺术功能，而突出履行了娱乐功能。它越来越多地与时尚、流行、青少年文化、奇观相联系。
电影刚满一百年，却已经是一个夕阳工业，但也始终是一个前沿娱乐工业。
电影最优秀的品质是虚怀若谷。它是最谦虚也是最张狂的艺术。前沿电影人如履薄冰、战战兢兢、小心翼翼地注视着科学、技术、文化、哲学、思想的所有最前沿的发现。它必须以第一时间汲取这些发明创造，努力将其纳入大众文化商业体制里来，尽可能吸收消化为自己的养分。
举个片名大家就可以明白，那就是《盗梦空间》。前面一个就是《骇客帝国》。它里面似乎有哲学、宗教、精神分析、心理学、数理逻辑、网游、电玩、最新的数码技术，然后它有真情、真爱，有生命的创痛，有社会的苦难所带来的苦涩感。它的确把它们都吸收和消化，吐出的则是娱乐养分。那么所有这些娱乐养分滋养出一个新的再度升级了的世界奇观。当人们狂热地拥抱matrix，写出几十万的文本阐释，无数的政治哲学社会宗教历史，其实真正引动人们观影狂喜的，可能刚好是子弹时间这种东西。盗梦空间使人们热情洋溢地谈梦谈弗洛伊德谈新科技谈思想控制谈环境危机谈数理逻辑谈埃舍尔，但人们震动的无外乎是那几面镜子所创造的一个视觉奇观，关于巴黎城怎么在你面前折叠起来。
谈今日电影，我们要意识到它是这样一个巨型的又如履薄冰的娱乐工业，这是一个认识和讨论的起点。曾经电影是最重要的大众文化，它接替了19C长篇小说的社会功能。它是教育、宣泄、原创，关于文化所能想到的一切功能它都承担着。20C上半叶的影院某种程度上接替了教堂的功能，你在里面寻求抚慰，寻求想象性交流，生命的表述和生命出路的指点，但之后这个功能被电视剧接替。就叙事的大众艺术而言，它被电视剧接替。
要理解当下此时此刻此情此景的大众文化，那个关键词是什么？IPAD
IPAD出现可能会改变很多事情。IPAD是一个媒介，它到底承载了什么？到底是IPAD出现让电影获得一个全新存在的面貌呢，电视剧继续履行它的大众文化功能呢，还是IPAD会改变叙事性艺术面貌呢？不知道。我们只知道，它迅速在全球化纪年方式把电脑推入历史。瞬息万变的新科技新媒体对整个文化消费和娱乐样式的刷新，这又是另一个大题目了。
回来讨论今日电影。电影以视觉奇观来娱乐至死。那个悲剧性预言即将成为现实，至于它成为现实后是不是杯具呢我也没有把握。两个证据：一个是IMAX的普及化，一个是3D技术的全面铺开。我在HK看阿凡达，号称是4D，我进去发现何谓4D呢，就是那个地板也会传动。那个杯具正在成为现实，20世纪最著名的反乌托邦预言：美丽新世界。人们从基因构成人种分布尤其是人种的阶级身份都已经被基因工程改造过了，你在试管里被制造成阿尔法，你就是统治者，你如果被制造成伽马，你就是挖煤的，而且你永远无法改变，因为基因链的排列让你毫无智慧可言，不能学习，不能改造，从人种分布、阶级分布被所谓的现代技术官僚的强有力的暴政和集权的社会当中，艺术是什么？
你在影院不光看到影像，不光听到声音，不光闻到香味……你可以十足地，不只是意淫了，你不用想象性地把自己投射到男女主人公身上去经历，比如说性爱的场景，你的身体就同时经历了荧屏上所经历的事情。在那个故事里，这是十足的反面乌托邦，十足的杯具预言，当阿凡达以成熟的3D技术出现的时候，我强烈地感受到悲剧性预言就要成为现实。但它是不是杯具，我非常卑鄙和庆幸地想，我是看不到了。希望你们也看不到。
奇观是一个不断升级的过程。电影是空前虚怀若谷的艺术，电影也是这样一种艺术：任何发明一经使用，立刻成为滥套。观众要求新意。这次把巴黎给折叠起来了，下次折叠什么？看《2012》的时候，我在发愁，你都把世界给摧毁了，下一次摧毁什么？但是不用担心，资本的力量总会诱发想象力。
这是今日电影的一个基本事实：娱乐工业，夕阳工业+前沿工业。
电视的出现使电影面临的不仅仅是观众的分流，而是曾经支持欧美电影工业的主体，中产阶级被分流。再引下盗梦空间，它和梦关系最小，和庄生梦蝶关系最大。《盗》这样一部大制作的电影把所有前沿所有尖端消化为一个成功的消费品时，它仍然要保持大众文化的一个最基本的功能，就是抚慰功能。我从电影院出来的时候心里多了一点暖意，多了几分踏实，我终于获得了一个活下去的理由。不同的时代不同历史情境决定了大众文化工业提供的抚慰方式是不同的。
盗的抚慰是什么样的抚慰？就是主人公梦想成真，他终于可以和他的孩子们团聚在一起了。那么这个东西叫什么？这个东西很简单，叫做美国的核心价值。家庭价值。但此家庭价值非彼家庭价值。如果换个时期，可能我们对家庭价值的强调是一对恋人一对夫妻生死与共的爱，但在这个电影中爱是不够的，所以他们从梦的第四层卧轨自杀了，以便回归血缘家庭。
从《阿甘正传》开始，我们可以看到美国的家庭以一种特定的方式开始呈现，就是父子之家。为什么这么做？要对抗美国社会普遍的家庭结构——母子之家（单亲母亲抚养孩子）。这样一种表述直接联系着新自由主义在美国的兴起。新保守主义成功有效的叙事策略就是在美国社会来说崇尚家庭价值，就是在大众文化场域强有力地抨击母子之家怎样破坏了美国主导价值观，这样一个叙事策略。最后一定会回到核心价值。最好的参照系是《在云端》。在那里你会看到美国公众的现实处境，那份苦涩，那份无助是什么。
中产阶级本来就是家居型动物，是天生的宅男宅女。电视刚好满足了家庭这种父子母女团聚的共同分享的，电视这种媒体成为了家庭内景。电视成了家居生活的组成部分。它分流了中产阶级观众是很正常的，留下的是什么？青少年。14-24岁的青少年到70S成为好莱坞的主体观众。因此好莱坞今天的娱乐特征要结合着这个来讨论。
美国是一个殖民主义历史产生的国家，最大特征就是杀光了原著民，形成今天以盎格鲁-撒克逊新移民为主体的文化共同体。白人文化内部存在非常复杂丰富的种族矛盾。美国文化一定非常特别的。只有这样一个国家才可能没有历史，没有历史的遗产，也没有历史的负担。于是美国公众文化有一个特征，很不学术很无理地说，美国大众的心理年龄是青少年。
记得我读书的时候，林庚先生跟我们讲楚辞，说中国诗歌当中第一个成熟的意象是秋，“袅袅兮秋风，洞庭波兮木叶下”，换句话说，在那个年代，中华民族的心理年龄已经带有一定沧桑感。当然这是庸俗的比较文学，你们姑妄听之。
本身青少年化有美国大众文化的内在滋养。后冷战时代全球化的时代，以美国大众文化工业为主导，在世界范围内出现这样一种大众文化或广义的文化的青少年化的过程。也叫低龄化，幼稚化。
青少年化，不是只有14-24才消费文化产品，而是消费的人们的品味开始青少年化，否则无法解释哈利波特和暮光之城现象。哈利波特毫无疑问给青少年读，但它显然不仅为青少年所读，后来又专门出了成人版——你们不要产生恶劣低价的联想，内容什么都没变。（笑）成人版只是封面变得很庄严，因为成人携带它们在地铁里阅读，那个画着戴眼镜的小巫师的封面有点跌份。很有意思，看哈利波特不觉得有失身份，但拿着那个封面觉得有点丢脸。只是举这个例子，青少年化，是大家的品味和爱好向青少年靠拢，并由衷地感到满足。
HK和日本已经把暴力美学发展到了极致，我们已经对血喷泉、像切萝卜一样地砍人头，完全没有感觉。我们完全接受了吴宇森周润发式的英雄永远不死，我们已经不再追问电影的所谓现实主义原则，或在现实主义原则上受到感官刺激。而我们需要的感官刺激一个不断更新当中的变不可能为可能的我首先要让你看见的方式。这是互为表里的两个方式。
大众文化的青少年化和电影观众本身是青少年时，电影向各种青少年亚文化汲取养料。电影奇观化它们非常有意识地从动漫、卡通、电子游戏、网游中汲取养料。于是我们看到全球化当中一个非常有意思的流向。文化的全球化某种意义就是文化的美国化，美国文化在塑造全球趣味。
当我们从今日电影角度看，每个趋向，都有丰富的印痕，我能辨识出的一个——东北亚印痕。日韩动漫、偶像剧，HK动作片、武侠电影、时装枪战片，这些东西流向好莱坞的电影，它对不同媒介的前沿创造的使用，已超出单纯意义的影像叙事。它直接冲击了一个最基本的东西——电影语言。
开始借用漫画，借助日本源远流长的色情漫画和服务于公司白领的漫画来作为主要来源，而同时直接地接受在此基础上出现的卡通片，及其跟更多的日本文化，所特有的青春崇拜创造出的偶像剧。
请大家警惕庸俗的比较文学。比如灰姑娘是不是从壮族文化中汲取的形象。《暮光之城》是灰姑娘的故事，《山楂树之恋》是另一个灰姑娘故事。重要的不是灰姑娘的原型，重要的是灰姑娘以什么样的方式重组和重新讲述，每次出现在什么样的上下文、结构式中，意味在这里。
从相邻媒体但不同质媒体获取养料的时候，它对电影语言形成了冲击。在主流电影获得票房奇迹，又叫好又叫座的电影，你会发现它们在基本镜头的设置机位的设置构图剪辑场面调度中大都具有漫画的基本素质，而摄像机不再按人眼观察角度，不再按情境中人物空间以及心理趣味来。这样一个社会文化工业的发展造成对电影语言的刷新，于是面对这样的现实，我们反观电影理论的位置。
由于这样一个变化过程，我们就以影院为中心的电影工业来说，电影是夕阳工业。影片数是怎么急剧的下降，每部影片投资增加多么急剧，这些数据，不同我的观点是，他们看到的是影院电影，其实开始成为一个巨大连锁产业的一个环节。它更像一个广告。
DVD，T恤，鼠标垫，玩偶，水杯，项链，钥匙链，背包，剧里有什么卖什么，都会贵到匪夷所思。一个热卖影片至少有三十种以上延伸品，这个延伸品创造的利润远远高于电影本身。我们加工一件内衣赚5分钱，实际拿走的价格只有一毛二，那些东西如果made in china，将是无本万利。
因为电影是夕阳工业，每部影片都在豪赌，可能满盘皆输，可能盆满钵满。
嵌入式营销eg 007，表，领带，西装，车，枪支，
电影开始成为连锁产品的广告时，它也成为了商品广告。青春偶像剧被连篇累牍被制造出来，都是商业广告，俊男靓女身上每一样都是品牌。Eg《暮光之城》男主角开的车与沃尔沃公司一款车的促销行为直接相关。
电影艺术是电影广告得以成功履行商业功能的基础，更多成为直接的资本介入和电影作为商品之外的商业化行为。
当冷战终结，两极对立终结，新左派的位置也被抽空。电影学当年作为最激进的学科在60S是与冷战结构联系在一起的，新左派坚决批判资本主义，并且不因此宽恕苏联的专制暴政。欧洲艺术电影的前提是对抗好莱坞商业电影、意识形态和对欧洲文化的侵蚀，这是其贡献。
冷战结束后，两极对抗的空隙消失，欧洲艺术电影的尴尬地位：它们一方面不足以对抗洪水猛兽的好莱坞，一方面找不到自己的定位。后冷战三十年中，它呈现出一种特定的苍白，有两个方面：
真的艺术电影开始变成小资产阶级的无病呻吟、小资产阶级的小悲观、小资产阶级的小哀怨、小资产阶级的顾影自怜。
极尴尬的、不清晰的社会批判。你不知道ta站在哪里批判，你不知道ta批判的指向和诉求是什么。电影理论和电影一样都受益于冷战。今日电影，不是说一眼望去都是主流，而是说在主流之外，其他的只成为主流的折影，而不能成为主流之外边缘的反抗的另类的存在。
电影理论批评与实践（一）：今日世界
Posted by 立早
原文：http://www.lizaoo.com/?p=19
立早按：此乃在下整理的戴锦华老师的课堂笔记。虽不能尽其意，但尽量完整地记录下了她的主要观点。供诸位参考。
几个基本坐标，也是我近十五年来思考基点：
一、后冷战：1989苏联解体
没有任何人能超越我们成长的历史。当我们是被我们的时代养育，被我们时代制造的文化产品和素材所喂养的时候，我们不可能超越它，但如果没有超越的诉求的话，简单地说，我们白来一世。80年代以后社会文化的一个重要特征就是历史纵深的萎缩乃至消失。一个抹除历史的记忆，一个修改历史的记忆，一个压缩历史的纵深，把一切封闭在一个永远的现在时当中，叫做“不求天长地久，只求曾经拥有。”网络的速度是8秒（一个帖子），8天（一个网站的寿命），网络空间是一个被众多尸体和垃圾堆满的黑洞。这样一种速率也在反身塑造和书写我们的生命。当一个帖子存在了八天颇似永垂不朽的时候，人的生命和历史没有改变，但是我们感知的方式在改变。
东方不战而败，西方不战而胜。一个颜色在地图上永远地消失了，叫做苏联。持续了近半个世纪的美苏两大帝国，社主阵营和资主阵营的对峙终结，冷战时期结束。当时西方最乐观的预言家也最多把和平演变的希望寄托在社会主义第三代第四代人身上，也没敢预言社会主义阵营会一夜之间在地球上崩解。一个最重要的国家——苏联在地图上被抹掉。我们也许需要一个世纪以上的时间才能理解苏联解体对于整个世界和人类的意义。后冷战对于20世纪和21世纪是非常非常重要的。
冷战不是以战争方式，而是以对峙和军备竞赛的方式进行的，但统计学家告诉我们在冷战年代——冷战之所以是冷战，是因为人们一直恐惧的第三次世界大战没有爆发，局部战争和区域性战争死亡人数总和早已超过前两次大战，它看似没有硝烟，却是充满血污与尸体的战争。尽管没有硝烟的，它的结束一定是以胜利者胜出，失败者败落为其基本特征。在讨论冷战逻辑时，我们要处理后冷战时期的胜利者的叙述、胜利者的逻辑和胜利者对失败者的审判。我的不成熟，我一直坚持这种不成熟的一个最重要准则就是，拒绝审判失败者，因为这太轻易太廉价太投机乃至无耻。有本事就去对抗强权者，有勇气去对当时当地的暴政发言。
冷战时代我们拥有两种以上的逻辑，后冷战我们只拥有一种，这一种逻辑将消灭另一种逻辑，重新阐释另一种逻辑，审判另一种逻辑。当有人告诉你，这世界存在二项对立时，你要小心了，每一个二项对立的表述都是最强有力的意识形态的建构，诸如男与女，是与非等等。每个清晰无误的，两者择其一的二项对立一定是意识形态陷阱，它一定试图遮蔽第三项、第四项、第五项，所以一个很有趣的游戏也是很重要的战斗是，在别人进行二项对立的选择时，要去发现被压抑的被遮末的第三项，第四项……
一个最重要的文化事实是，在冷战对峙年代其实最有活力的是第三点、第三元。不同于“第三条道路”的概念，“第三条道路”只是其中的一种。在冷战对峙时，出现了一种世界性力量，也是今天世界重要问题之所在的：第三世界。当我们说社会主义意识形态和资本主义意识形态、社会主义思想暴政和资本主义思想控制、古拉格群岛和奥斯维辛、思想监狱和麦卡锡主义的时候，我们意识到为什么会出现一个重要思想流派：新左派。曾经的新左派是试图超越社会主义和资本主义的两种制度，从中突围，寻找一个非资本主义的人类未来可能。诞生于50s的文化研究和80s勃兴的电影理论其实都是新左派思想的一个学科性延伸。而冷战结束后，第三元/极被抹掉。所有的另类选择被抹掉。一极化的世界，胜利者的逻辑取代一切。
举个电影的例子：曾经世界电影的四分格局是：
A美国好莱坞：
好莱坞是不是电影艺术？落实到一个问题上：奥斯卡是不是世界电影最高奖项？悲哀的是，近几年看来似乎是的。阿城的说法：奥斯卡是美国电影的“家宴”，设了一个最佳外语片，那是人家待客的礼数，那是美国人自己关起门来的玩法，对应中国的金鸡奖，是国别奖。但如今某种意义上，它代表了国际电影最高奖项。因为今天电影艺术的死亡，美国接管一切。它有着成熟的商业电影系统，它创造了一系列的生产的、叙事的、电影人的方式，比如明星制、大制片厂制、电影类型。这都是好莱坞独有的。
B欧洲艺术电影：
它与另一个概念相重叠和错位，即作者电影。在冷战年代，欧洲电影、电影理论和文化研究共同分享了新左派的政治立场，它以反美作为一个基本参数，在电影上反美就是反好莱坞。一个定位是对抗美国主流文化、商业文化和好莱坞，另一个诉求是扮演水火不容的两大阵营的桥梁。后来它定位为把第三世界电影引入欧美世界当中去。使它不同于好莱坞，成为在电影艺术、电影文本和电影工业场域对抗好莱坞霸权的一个存在。
C以苏联为中心的社会主义电影：
它创造了政治-艺术的一个重要脉络。世界电影的三个基本源头：卢米埃尔兄弟，梅里爱，蒙太奇学派
苏联是电影艺术的发祥地之一，在强大的国家工业电影体制延伸出庞大的脉络和传统，电影艺术发源地之一。
D非西方国家电影：
国别电影，不是电影商业机制中出现，而是国家电影工业机制中运行，为票房所支持，它是国家的利税大户。众多的非欧美非苏联电影曾生机勃勃地存在着，冷战终结，苏联解体，一夜之间，苏联和东欧电影完全消失。两个触目惊心的事实让我意识到失败是什么意义：苏联解体后，7年之间人均年龄平均下降15年；解体5年之后俄罗斯只剩下四块电影屏幕。世界电影市场全部被好莱坞攻占。
人们这时候蓦然发现，欧洲电影的生机和活力正是由于美苏两极对峙给其提供的巨大空间，它曾是对抗三俗，对抗好莱坞的战斗檄文，借助思想含量和批判意义面对当下社会和思考未来可能。西方自由世界胜出，欧洲电影突然发现自己的空间是夹缝中的空间，80s后艺术电影处在一个极端尴尬和徘徊犹疑的状态，它们至今仍然在尝试寻找自己的定位。从这个意义上，它不再是可与好莱坞并驾齐驱的一极力量。伴随全球化进程，第三世界国别电影也败落了。
二、一极化和区域化
狭义的全球化是从1980年里根和撒切尔执政开始，开启了新自由主义的政治经济政策，并通过华盛顿共识改写整个世界的经济秩序。到冷战结束，它名副其实了。因为之前的霸权被阻断在分界线上，但中国是例外，我们率先开始后冷战，不仅因为80s改革开放，标志是1971年的中美联合声明，打破两国坚冰，中国大量购入美国器材。改革开放是同时完成意识形态、政治思想和文化叙述意义上的，而政治和经济实际从70s开始。被历史学家和权威人士背书的历史本身一定是断裂式的，所有断裂一方面认清某些事实，另一方面把我们带离那个曾经的事实。
广义的全球化是从资主开启那天起。
50s文化研究，因为大众文化成为突出文化潮流，在不同国家对传统文化群体文化不同阶级不同种族文化构成毁灭性冲击，而这大众文化在战后就具有的明确面目，即美国式文化。在那个年代，中国保有了电影工业和市场的独立性。后冷战的一极化是政治和经济，四极的局面终结，好莱坞一统天下。我们评价一部电影是否成功的基本参数是战胜好莱坞。这反证了好莱坞的无所不在。当有记者问我，政府为《孔子》缩短《阿凡达》的档期，这么暴力的事情怎么可以发生。我对这两个都没兴趣，我对这两个都不支持，无外乎就是两种强势。所谓的公众的文化心理和社会趋向中，那种一极化的格局没有改变。
我们这么热爱阿凡达，我们这么热爱2012，尽管我们给热爱2012一个理由是：中国拯救世界。但这种爱国主义的表达让我看到，我们有多爱美国。我们有多爱美国，多么深的爱才能让我们看到中国，那不存在的中国。“千万里我呼唤你，今天你终于回答了我”，好像是这样一种感情。这是我对乐观主义的怀疑。我们仔细反观，尽管这些影片烙有本土文化印记，但它们的成功模式和主要特征是好莱坞式的，当你必须用好莱坞的本土电影来战胜好莱坞，究竟是失败还是胜利。
另一方面，对抗一极化的努力一直发生，最为突出的是欧盟的出现。欧洲的整合是一个远未完成的过程。有过“欧洲电影”这种东西么？这是欧盟内部的对抗之声。
区域化：拉丁美洲的南方银行、电台，区域整合来对抗北美，进而对抗资主全球化。它不光是资主意义上的整合，更是尝试对抗美国式资主的努力，它不简单是金融资本的整合，相反而且是互通有无、以物易物的文化交流当中去，eg古巴石油给古巴，古巴将教育资源给委内瑞拉。这不是在资主金融逻辑下完成的。当然这服务于政治的结盟。这也是美国所说的邪恶三角：玻利维亚-委内瑞拉-古巴。玻利维亚总统说，我们是革命的三代人：卡斯特罗是革命的祖父，查韦斯是革命的父亲，而我是革命之子。非常有趣的血缘式叙述。这样一种区域整合，尝试在全球金融资本主义逻辑中，寻找另一种新的区域合作，挣脱资主万劫不复的加速度死亡运行。我不是在诅咒人类。所有的悲剧预言者都是因为他们爱人类。
东非区域贸易；东北亚区域整合：日韩，大陆，HK,台湾，新加坡etc
与全球化同时发生的不同脉络的不同地区的区域化，这种对抗方式迟早会影响到电影工业。
三、金融海啸
最悲观的预言家也没预言到金融海啸2008年就会在美国爆发。这个经济事实在金融心脏直接爆发，客观上对美国一极化世界霸主的致命打击和强力削弱。
网上转的奥巴马演讲，人们转帖心态很复杂，附在帖子下的网友翻译：“今天世界上存在一个巨大阴谋，中国的阴谋，他们明知我们还不起，还要不断借我们，他们到底想干什么？我想你们保证，我们美国人民是有志气的，我们就算不吃饭，也要还他们”这是一个网友的翻译。他娴熟地借用了60s中国领导人的语气，当然奥巴马是在玩弄美国总统式的幽默。它也是美国左派学者们认为美国当下最重要的命题和形势。
金融海啸在动摇US时，我要补充一句，“饿死的骆驼比马大。”二战时整个世界被战火波及时，美国坐收渔翁之利，战后它掠夺整个世界来富裕起来，更不要说在端点处他们掠夺印第安人占有的广袤丰饶的土地。殖民主义的历史造就其霸主地位的稳固。中国主流经济学家的说法再次向我印证了他们有多爱美国：美国的经济发展好着呢。
美国作为金融中心的倒掉，全世界的经济被拖入深深的泥沼中。美国受的皮外伤，谁受内伤还是未定。当中国是美国债主时，中国可能就是受内伤的那个。一边是美元贬值，一边是美国强迫人民币升值，意味着所有中国实物经济转化成的美元随之贬值。金融海啸拉响了警报，后冷战资主的生机勃勃和兴旺发达其实是建立在巨大的金融泡沫之上，但US的金融泡沫建筑在全球血汗工厂、真实的劳动和实物经济生态之上。这才是悲哀之所在。
“金融海啸”的命题凸显了另一个命题：“中国债主”。站在中国位置上，叫“中国崛起”。当年全世界的财富都被迫用美元度量。中国被迫贡献给美国股市的财富显影为债主的身份。这个残酷的余震无穷的全球金融灾难不期然地显影了中国。因为中国金融和货币的相对独立和封闭，或者说中国介入全球化程度有限拯救了中国免于金融灾难，使中国成为所谓的“价值洼地”。在这个过程中，中国得以在一个封闭的社会环境中完成和健全了自己的工业化体系，得以在全民劳动尤其农民劳动完成了资本的原始积累，得以一个完备的国家工业体系和相对丰厚的原始积累进入到全球化进程中的这样一个前提，使得中国在这一格局下，呈现经济的高速增长状态。中国现在是世界第2经济体，占有世界总产值的1/4。“中国崛起”在何种意义上被指认？
“康乾盛世”的中国是世界最大经济最发达的区域，最大的手工业品生产国。鸦片战争的爆发，血泪斑斑百年记忆，中国从尖峰跌到谷底，我们用后殖民理论去反观，为什么中国文化的发生，我们有那么的强烈的民族耻辱感，那么强烈的自我否定，强烈的民族身份的自卑感，以及自我批判，恐怕与这种巨大的跌落有关。20世纪末21世纪初，中国在经济领先的状态当中，尝试修复某种正常意义上的身份认同，尝试恢复正常身份想象和国际地位。两百年的风风雨雨后，中国历史似乎走完了这一时段。
但是如果说美国的削弱，使中国进入角逐世界霸权的位置，抛开我的政治立场不谈——我反对一切霸权，这恐怕也太乐观了。在全球资主逻辑中，我们有两个致命伤：贫瘠的资源和众多的人口。第二个因素使我们在血汗工厂的基础上经济高速发展，但在帝国争霸战中绝对地处于劣势。中国道路不是中国如何成为美国的道路，如果是的话，不仅中国不可能抵达，而且中国在抵达过程中会把整个世界拖下水。美国的生活方式是极端耗能的，世界1/3-1/2的能量供给美国两亿人，试想全世界人不活也不能供养中国十三亿人。我们向往更美好合理富裕的生活，是人之常情，以中国人口之众多，幅员之辽阔，资源之贫瘠，什么是合理和共存状态的生活，是必须思考和创造的。否则中国兴也许世界亡，还是世界要亡中国，这是个很残酷的命题。
我在这三个坐标下定位。我再次做下辩护性的说明：我们拥有的不过是忧患意识。
我想做一个好衰老好保守的结论：21世纪第一个十年过去，21世纪不再是20世纪末殷殷期盼的伟大明天。与前两百年的前十年比较，21c是一个空白、苍白、平庸和三俗的世纪。我做这么一个保守、可疑和苍老的结论，是因为那些世纪之交飞扬着梦想、希望、各种新的可能性和各种尝试，而二十一世纪之初的苍白是，文化的一极化和主流的共同和绝对，是这样的全球截然。
《暮光之城》是给前青春期少女看的时候，你无法解释它在全球畅销到如此地步。主流的无所不在，带来的想象力的枯竭，社会的幼稚化和青少年化。青少年亚文化曾经是一个反叛的文化和空间，尽管带了太多的生理色彩，但那是对主流社会的一个威胁性的力量，但纹身和穿孔，这些在60S标识为对主流决裂的东西，今天被视为安全的，被所谓开放的工业文化所包容。我不是用精英立场去审判它，而是说它丧失了那样一种多元的挑战的不断打开新可能性的元素的全球性匮乏，摇曳生姿的多姿多彩的新主流在不同地方获得它们有效的讲述方式。
我朋友有一个朴素的质疑：不错，但是这种苍白和平庸难道不就是风云激变的二十世纪人们曾经渴望抵达的理想么？相对的富足，相对的物质改善，相对的对饥饿的消灭，相对的。
Ta说的很有道理，我这么说有两个立足点：它是一个空间的封闭而不是空间的开放，它是一个对现实的认可而不是对可能性的探索。今天的胜利者把20c称作撒旦的世纪，所有试图变革世界的努力都被称为恶魔的轨迹，20c之所以是革命的年代，风云突变的年代，所有最优秀的人们前仆后继死在我们今天看来毫不值得的死所上，是因为20c的人们洞察到了资本主义体制、现代文明逻辑自身的无法解决的困境。世界的苦难、疾病、战争、危机和死亡，是结构性的，是不可排除的，相对性的贫穷被削弱，但相对的富裕发生的时候，是富者愈富，贫者愈贫。这种两极分化，这种掠夺，以及20世纪显影出的绝对性的瓶颈：能源危机和环境危机。资主自身无法解决，因为它是以效率和利润最大化为基本原则的，“逆水行舟不进则退”，利润持平就意味着亏损。所以它是呈加速度的没有闸的车。20c的风云突变和前仆后继是因为人们意识到我们必须寻找到一个相对这种文明和体制的alternative来让人们活下去。
如果把人类文明比作一天的话，到这一天即将终结时，人类才诞生。即使在地球这颗年轻的星球上，人类也是一个年轻的物种，因为人类还年轻，人类要活下去。人类有权利解决生存。维系活下去的前提是这个文明不能提供的，它可以许诺我们今天，当下和此刻，但不能许诺我们明天。1989年，整个变革寻找另类的尝试全部不战而败，世界进入资主高歌猛进的全球一体化一极化的尝试中。但20c前仆后继去努力的那些问题依然存在。
一个姑妄听之的说法：“社会主义在资本主义国家胜利，资本主义在社会主义国家胜利。”这么说是因为，社会主义国家的出现迫使资本主义国家一而再再而三地健全社会福利，保障公民的基本权利。而所有社会主义国家都在社会主义体制的保护下尝试完成自己工业化和现代化的进程。但等社会主义阵营消失，最先受到冲击的是西方国家的福利体系，因为已经没有敌手，无需竞争，最残酷的剥削再次成为可能，因为别无选择。
21世纪的10年过去了，没有任何新的乌托邦产生，没有任何新的政治力量挟持着任何政治理想出现在今天的世界上，没有任何不同的文化表述向我们打开任何不同的文化未来，这才是悲哀。在这样一个变化的格局中，曾经产生于冷战年代的理论还有没有意义？理论何为？理论何谓？换句话说，批判是否是必须的，批判是否是可能的，批判究竟是否仅仅是为了批判，批判究竟居于社会什么样的位置？
电影理论批评与实践（二）：今日电影
Posted by 立早
原文：http://www.lizaoo.com/?p=112
立早按：有好些天没整理笔记了。今天接着发。戴爷的课永远是饱满而热情的，这样的“热”让我没有多少阐释的空间。不如奉上原汁原味，供诸君参考。
以下是正文：
电影从来不是纯粹的。从最低层面的消费欣赏到最高层面的批判解读和思想建构，文本是绝对不够的。对于文学，文本中心是可以确认的，但不适用于电影。
不用我再次重复自己的滥调，电影是与生俱来的浑身沾满机油和铜臭的艺术。电影从诞生伊始，就是一个工业系统和商业系统。电影是一个文化娱乐工业系统。
二战结束，电视冲击，继而多媒体冲击，各种新媒体技术的冲击之下，使得电影自我确认和求生存之路便是娱乐工业。作为消费社会特定的娱乐样式，它到底娱乐了谁，它以什么来娱乐。二战以降，它越来越少履行文化功能和艺术功能，而突出履行了娱乐功能。它越来越多地与时尚、流行、青少年文化、奇观相联系。
电影刚满一百年，却已经是一个夕阳工业，但也始终是一个前沿娱乐工业。
电影最优秀的品质是虚怀若谷。它是最谦虚也是最张狂的艺术。前沿电影人如履薄冰、战战兢兢、小心翼翼地注视着科学、技术、文化、哲学、思想的所有最前沿的发现。它必须以第一时间汲取这些发明创造，努力将其纳入大众文化商业体制里来，尽可能吸收消化为自己的养分。
举个片名大家就可以明白，那就是《盗梦空间》。前面一个就是《骇客帝国》。它里面似乎有哲学、宗教、精神分析、心理学、数理逻辑、网游、电玩、最新的数码技术，然后它有真情、真爱，有生命的创痛，有社会的苦难所带来的苦涩感。它的确把它们都吸收和消化，吐出的则是娱乐养分。那么所有这些娱乐养分滋养出一个新的再度升级了的世界奇观。当人们狂热地拥抱matrix，写出几十万的文本阐释，无数的政治哲学社会宗教历史，其实真正引动人们观影狂喜的，可能刚好是子弹时间这种东西。盗梦空间使人们热情洋溢地谈梦谈弗洛伊德谈新科技谈思想控制谈环境危机谈数理逻辑谈埃舍尔，但人们震动的无外乎是那几面镜子所创造的一个视觉奇观，关于巴黎城怎么在你面前折叠起来。
谈今日电影，我们要意识到它是这样一个巨型的又如履薄冰的娱乐工业，这是一个认识和讨论的起点。曾经电影是最重要的大众文化，它接替了19C长篇小说的社会功能。它是教育、宣泄、原创，关于文化所能想到的一切功能它都承担着。20C上半叶的影院某种程度上接替了教堂的功能，你在里面寻求抚慰，寻求想象性交流，生命的表述和生命出路的指点，但之后这个功能被电视剧接替。就叙事的大众艺术而言，它被电视剧接替。
要理解当下此时此刻此情此景的大众文化，那个关键词是什么？IPAD
IPAD出现可能会改变很多事情。IPAD是一个媒介，它到底承载了什么？到底是IPAD出现让电影获得一个全新存在的面貌呢，电视剧继续履行它的大众文化功能呢，还是IPAD会改变叙事性艺术面貌呢？不知道。我们只知道，它迅速在全球化纪年方式把电脑推入历史。瞬息万变的新科技新媒体对整个文化消费和娱乐样式的刷新，这又是另一个大题目了。
回来讨论今日电影。电影以视觉奇观来娱乐至死。那个悲剧性预言即将成为现实，至于它成为现实后是不是杯具呢我也没有把握。两个证据：一个是IMAX的普及化，一个是3D技术的全面铺开。我在HK看阿凡达，号称是4D，我进去发现何谓4D呢，就是那个地板也会传动。那个杯具正在成为现实，20世纪最著名的反乌托邦预言：美丽新世界。人们从基因构成人种分布尤其是人种的阶级身份都已经被基因工程改造过了，你在试管里被制造成阿尔法，你就是统治者，你如果被制造成伽马，你就是挖煤的，而且你永远无法改变，因为基因链的排列让你毫无智慧可言，不能学习，不能改造，从人种分布、阶级分布被所谓的现代技术官僚的强有力的暴政和集权的社会当中，艺术是什么？
你在影院不光看到影像，不光听到声音，不光闻到香味……你可以十足地，不只是意淫了，你不用想象性地把自己投射到男女主人公身上去经历，比如说性爱的场景，你的身体就同时经历了荧屏上所经历的事情。在那个故事里，这是十足的反面乌托邦，十足的杯具预言，当阿凡达以成熟的3D技术出现的时候，我强烈地感受到悲剧性预言就要成为现实。但它是不是杯具，我非常卑鄙和庆幸地想，我是看不到了。希望你们也看不到。
奇观是一个不断升级的过程。电影是空前虚怀若谷的艺术，电影也是这样一种艺术：任何发明一经使用，立刻成为滥套。观众要求新意。这次把巴黎给折叠起来了，下次折叠什么？看《2012》的时候，我在发愁，你都把世界给摧毁了，下一次摧毁什么？但是不用担心，资本的力量总会诱发想象力。
这是今日电影的一个基本事实：娱乐工业，夕阳工业+前沿工业。
电视的出现使电影面临的不仅仅是观众的分流，而是曾经支持欧美电影工业的主体，中产阶级被分流。再引下盗梦空间，它和梦关系最小，和庄生梦蝶关系最大。《盗》这样一部大制作的电影把所有前沿所有尖端消化为一个成功的消费品时，它仍然要保持大众文化的一个最基本的功能，就是抚慰功能。我从电影院出来的时候心里多了一点暖意，多了几分踏实，我终于获得了一个活下去的理由。不同的时代不同历史情境决定了大众文化工业提供的抚慰方式是不同的。
盗的抚慰是什么样的抚慰？就是主人公梦想成真，他终于可以和他的孩子们团聚在一起了。那么这个东西叫什么？这个东西很简单，叫做美国的核心价值。家庭价值。但此家庭价值非彼家庭价值。如果换个时期，可能我们对家庭价值的强调是一对恋人一对夫妻生死与共的爱，但在这个电影中爱是不够的，所以他们从梦的第四层卧轨自杀了，以便回归血缘家庭。
从《阿甘正传》开始，我们可以看到美国的家庭以一种特定的方式开始呈现，就是父子之家。为什么这么做？要对抗美国社会普遍的家庭结构——母子之家（单亲母亲抚养孩子）。这样一种表述直接联系着新自由主义在美国的兴起。新保守主义成功有效的叙事策略就是在美国社会来说崇尚家庭价值，就是在大众文化场域强有力地抨击母子之家怎样破坏了美国主导价值观，这样一个叙事策略。最后一定会回到核心价值。最好的参照系是《在云端》。在那里你会看到美国公众的现实处境，那份苦涩，那份无助是什么。
中产阶级本来就是家居型动物，是天生的宅男宅女。电视刚好满足了家庭这种父子母女团聚的共同分享的，电视这种媒体成为了家庭内景。电视成了家居生活的组成部分。它分流了中产阶级观众是很正常的，留下的是什么？青少年。14-24岁的青少年到70S成为好莱坞的主体观众。因此好莱坞今天的娱乐特征要结合着这个来讨论。
美国是一个殖民主义历史产生的国家，最大特征就是杀光了原著民，形成今天以盎格鲁-撒克逊新移民为主体的文化共同体。白人文化内部存在非常复杂丰富的种族矛盾。美国文化一定非常特别的。只有这样一个国家才可能没有历史，没有历史的遗产，也没有历史的负担。于是美国公众文化有一个特征，很不学术很无理地说，美国大众的心理年龄是青少年。
记得我读书的时候，林庚先生跟我们讲楚辞，说中国诗歌当中第一个成熟的意象是秋，“袅袅兮秋风，洞庭波兮木叶下”，换句话说，在那个年代，中华民族的心理年龄已经带有一定沧桑感。当然这是庸俗的比较文学，你们姑妄听之。
本身青少年化有美国大众文化的内在滋养。后冷战时代全球化的时代，以美国大众文化工业为主导，在世界范围内出现这样一种大众文化或广义的文化的青少年化的过程。也叫低龄化，幼稚化。
青少年化，不是只有14-24才消费文化产品，而是消费的人们的品味开始青少年化，否则无法解释哈利波特和暮光之城现象。哈利波特毫无疑问给青少年读，但它显然不仅为青少年所读，后来又专门出了成人版——你们不要产生恶劣低价的联想，内容什么都没变。（笑）成人版只是封面变得很庄严，因为成人携带它们在地铁里阅读，那个画着戴眼镜的小巫师的封面有点跌份。很有意思，看哈利波特不觉得有失身份，但拿着那个封面觉得有点丢脸。只是举这个例子，青少年化，是大家的品味和爱好向青少年靠拢，并由衷地感到满足。
HK和日本已经把暴力美学发展到了极致，我们已经对血喷泉、像切萝卜一样地砍人头，完全没有感觉。我们完全接受了吴宇森周润发式的英雄永远不死，我们已经不再追问电影的所谓现实主义原则，或在现实主义原则上受到感官刺激。而我们需要的感官刺激一个不断更新当中的变不可能为可能的我首先要让你看见的方式。这是互为表里的两个方式。
大众文化的青少年化和电影观众本身是青少年时，电影向各种青少年亚文化汲取养料。电影奇观化它们非常有意识地从动漫、卡通、电子游戏、网游中汲取养料。于是我们看到全球化当中一个非常有意思的流向。文化的全球化某种意义就是文化的美国化，美国文化在塑造全球趣味。
当我们从今日电影角度看，每个趋向，都有丰富的印痕，我能辨识出的一个——东北亚印痕。日韩动漫、偶像剧，HK动作片、武侠电影、时装枪战片，这些东西流向好莱坞的电影，它对不同媒介的前沿创造的使用，已超出单纯意义的影像叙事。它直接冲击了一个最基本的东西——电影语言。
开始借用漫画，借助日本源远流长的色情漫画和服务于公司白领的漫画来作为主要来源，而同时直接地接受在此基础上出现的卡通片，及其跟更多的日本文化，所特有的青春崇拜创造出的偶像剧。
请大家警惕庸俗的比较文学。比如灰姑娘是不是从壮族文化中汲取的形象。《暮光之城》是灰姑娘的故事，《山楂树之恋》是另一个灰姑娘故事。重要的不是灰姑娘的原型，重要的是灰姑娘以什么样的方式重组和重新讲述，每次出现在什么样的上下文、结构式中，意味在这里。
从相邻媒体但不同质媒体获取养料的时候，它对电影语言形成了冲击。在主流电影获得票房奇迹，又叫好又叫座的电影，你会发现它们在基本镜头的设置机位的设置构图剪辑场面调度中大都具有漫画的基本素质，而摄像机不再按人眼观察角度，不再按情境中人物空间以及心理趣味来。这样一个社会文化工业的发展造成对电影语言的刷新，于是面对这样的现实，我们反观电影理论的位置。
由于这样一个变化过程，我们就以影院为中心的电影工业来说，电影是夕阳工业。影片数是怎么急剧的下降，每部影片投资增加多么急剧，这些数据，不同我的观点是，他们看到的是影院电影，其实开始成为一个巨大连锁产业的一个环节。它更像一个广告。
DVD，T恤，鼠标垫，玩偶，水杯，项链，钥匙链，背包，剧里有什么卖什么，都会贵到匪夷所思。一个热卖影片至少有三十种以上延伸品，这个延伸品创造的利润远远高于电影本身。我们加工一件内衣赚5分钱，实际拿走的价格只有一毛二，那些东西如果made in china，将是无本万利。
因为电影是夕阳工业，每部影片都在豪赌，可能满盘皆输，可能盆满钵满。
嵌入式营销eg 007，表，领带，西装，车，枪支，
电影开始成为连锁产品的广告时，它也成为了商品广告。青春偶像剧被连篇累牍被制造出来，都是商业广告，俊男靓女身上每一样都是品牌。Eg《暮光之城》男主角开的车与沃尔沃公司一款车的促销行为直接相关。
电影艺术是电影广告得以成功履行商业功能的基础，更多成为直接的资本介入和电影作为商品之外的商业化行为。
当冷战终结，两极对立终结，新左派的位置也被抽空。电影学当年作为最激进的学科在60S是与冷战结构联系在一起的，新左派坚决批判资本主义，并且不因此宽恕苏联的专制暴政。欧洲艺术电影的前提是对抗好莱坞商业电影、意识形态和对欧洲文化的侵蚀，这是其贡献。
冷战结束后，两极对抗的空隙消失，欧洲艺术电影的尴尬地位：它们一方面不足以对抗洪水猛兽的好莱坞，一方面找不到自己的定位。后冷战三十年中，它呈现出一种特定的苍白，有两个方面：
真的艺术电影开始变成小资产阶级的无病呻吟、小资产阶级的小悲观、小资产阶级的小哀怨、小资产阶级的顾影自怜。
极尴尬的、不清晰的社会批判。你不知道ta站在哪里批判，你不知道ta批判的指向和诉求是什么。电影理论和电影一样都受益于冷战。今日电影，不是说一眼望去都是主流，而是说在主流之外，其他的只成为主流的折影，而不能成为主流之外边缘的反抗的另类的存在。
Saturday, February 14, 2009
The Wild Man - Matthew Ross
The Wild Man
Matthew Ross
from Filmmaker magazine 2005 fall
Born in the mundane existence of postwar Sydney, Australia, in 1952, Christopher Doyle spent much of his life at large. He was a sailor in Norway, a Thai-based Chinese quack medicine “doctor,” a “cowboy-nic” on an Israeli kibbutz, a well digger in the Indian desert and almost everything in between. He was “reincarnated” in the late 1970s when he met his poetry/language teacher at the University of Hong Kong, who gave him the evocative name of Du Ke Feng (“like the wind”). He was never the same since. — Chris Doyle’s press bio
Miriam Yeung in Fruit Chan’s “Dumplings,” which was shot by Chris Doyle.
Save for Gregg Toland and perhaps Vittorio Storaro, no cinematographer in history has achieved the kind of iconic status as the kind currently enjoyed by Chris Doyle. An Australian by birth, Doyle has lived in Asia for nearly 30 years, and his work has largely defined the look of new Asian cinema. Best known for his collaborations with Wong Kar-wai on such films as Chungking Express, Happy Together and In the Mood for Love (which won him the Technical Grand Prize at the 2000 Cannes Film Festival), Doyle is equally comfortable with a handheld camera as he is with meticulously composed, static imagery. Yet despite the variation in technique, Doyle still manages to leave an indelible authorial stamp on every one of his films, even though it’s nearly impossible to say why Zhang Yimou’s archly formal Hero and Wong’s hyperactive Fallen Angels both feel like a Chris Doyle–shot movie except for the fact that his mastery is apparent in every shot. He’s also directed one feature, 1999’s Away With Words.
Doyle’s personality and professional style are also the stuff of legend. Rumor has it that he prefers to drink while working, and he has never been known to toe the company line in public. Filmmaker caught up with him in New York, where he was making one of his rare forays into American production (other work includes Gus Van Sant’s Psycho and Barry Levinson’s Liberty Heights) with M. Night Shyamalan’s Lady in the Water. The purpose of the interview was to discuss his work on Three...Extremes, the Asian omnibus horror film — Doyle shot Fruit Chan’s segment, “Dumplings,” about a woman who eats dumplings made out of human flesh — but the conversation delightfully veered off the road.
Chris Doyle
FILMMAKER: Tell me a bit about “Dumplings,” how you got involved. Were there any new things you were experimenting with visually?
DOYLE: Have you seen the film?
FILMMAKER: Yeah, I have. I really liked it.
DOYLE: I think that hopefully one does engage oneself in something you haven’t done before. Fruit’s films are much more organic. They are much more realistic than most of what I’ve done, so I think that’s part of the challenge: put two madmen together and see what happens. Secondly, in my mind, it is a continuation of a project that we started a year or two before, which is an engagement with this so-called pan-Asian cinema. My generation of artists or filmmakers or just people in general, we have to celebrate our Asian-ness.
FILMMAKER: I read some articles where you described yourself as an Asian filmmaker who happens to be pink.
DOYLE: Yeah, I just happen to have the wrong skin. The more I rub myself against the yellow, the yellower I get. [laughs] I’ve often said I’m an Asian with a skin disease, because I started making films in Asia, and obviously what I’ve done has certain repercussions and certain resonance, and I should be very proud of that. And it just happens that I’m one of the few non-Asian, non-yellow people in this world. But I think most of the people I work with think I’m as yellow as they are. [laughs] And that’s an honor in my mind.
FILMMAKER: Going into this project, did you feel that maybe Asian film was in trouble at all or that it needed a boost?
DOYLE: I thought I was the boost. [laughs] The way I live and talk, if I’m not the boost, who is, you know? I don’t know, I don’t think we need a boost, but I do think we need to celebrate. I think one of the greatest films about Shanghai is Code 46, but it’s Tim Robbins in a hotel room. So I kind of get pissed off with that, and I say, Well, why don’t we celebrate? Instead of celebrating our 1930s-ness, instead of keeping on making another Gong Li movie with lots of red lanterns, let’s move on. And it’s strange that so few people have really engaged today’s consumer society at all. Maybe because it is too new. I think that’s what “Dumplings” is trying to do; it’s trying to address one aspect of this thing, which is the fetish for beauty.
FILMMAKER: You are currently working on a U.S. film. Is there a fundamental difference in the process of filmmaking between the U.S. and Asia?
DOYLE: No. I think the real difference is the level of energy. In Asia now it’s like the Australian new wave, the cinema novo in Brazil, the French new wave. Why? Because there was this confluence of intent and economics, and all those elements sort of matched up at that time. What is strange in the west is — well, not strange I guess — is that people are lost. Let’s be honest. [laughs] People are lost, whether you blame 9/11 or whether you blame the lack of education in schools. Whatever you blame it on, it doesn’t matter. Whereas in Asia, people are finding their voice. It’s been a long journey, you know. Everyone in China is on a roll, [laughs] there’s no question.
FILMMAKER: Do you feel like you’re in hostile territory right now?
DOYLE: You know, I was in Kazakhstan two weeks ago, and that was nothing. This is hostile territory, this is bullshit. I don’t know if it should be said so bluntly, but [laughs] every people gets the government they deserve. Sorry, that’s a reality. The present climate in most of the western world is of course anti-artist, because the function of an artist is to open people’s eyes, and that’s not the function of a Texas oil-based meritocracy. Hello! And every single person in the real world looks at this, and that’s why we make our films the way we do. Because you don’t have the freedom, you don’t have the integrity, you have to remake everything we’ve done anyway. I go to see Martin Scorsese, and I say, Don’t you think I should tell you about the lenses? And he says, What do you mean? And I said, Well, you’re remaking my film, which is Infernal Affairs. Infernal Affairs was probably written in one week, we shot it in a month and you’re going to remake it! Ha ha, good luck! What the fuck is this about? I mean, come on. In other words, if you read The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, then you’d actually have a very clear idea [laughs] about what’s really happening in the U.S. right now. So what do we do? You tell me.
FILMMAKER: Are you asking me?
DOYLE: Yeah, I’m asking you. Are you American?
FILMMAKER: Yeah, I was born and raised in New York.
Bai Ling and Miriam Yeung in “Dumplings.”
DOYLE: The problem is that 99 percent of the world is looking at this country this way. And it’s very strange that Americans don’t seem to realize it. Therefore we make our films and make our films, and you remake our films the way you want to remake them. [laughs] Have you ever seen Shall We Dance?
FILMMAKER: The first one?
DOYLE: The Richard Gere version.
FILMMAKER: No, I haven’t seen it. I’ve seen the original.
DOYLE: Well, the new one is the biggest piece of shit. You don’t even know what the fucking thing is about. And with Shall We Dance, we’re not talking art. We’re not talking Kieslowski or Tarkovsky. We’re talking mainstream Japanese film, and you can’t even get that right. Come on. Hello. In other words, you lost the fucking plot.
FILMMAKER: Don’t you think these bloated Hollywood films are an easy target? Do you watch any American independent film?
DOYLE: Does anybody? Hello! Come on. Come on, you can’t be so naïve that you don’t know that the only thing they do in the U.S. is look at the box office. It’s not a film industry anymore, it’s an accounting department. [laughs] There’s only two departments in American cinema — the insurance department and the accounting department. There are no filmmakers anymore.
FILMMAKER: You don’t think so?
DOYLE: No, absolutely not.
FILMMAKER: There are no more filmmakers in America?
DOYLE: Uh-uh. If Martin Scorsese can make a piece of shit called The Aviator and then go on to remake a Hong Kong film, don’t you think he’s lost the plot? Think it through. “I need my Oscar, I need my fucking Oscar!” Are you crazy? There’s not a single person in the Oscar voting department who’s under 65 years old. They don’t even know how to get online. They have no idea what the real world is about. They have no visual experience anymore. They have preoccupations. So why the fuck would a great filmmaker need to suck the dick of the Academy with a piece of shit called The Aviator? And now he has to remake our film? I mean this is bullshit. This is total bullshit. I love Marty, I think he’s a great person. And the other one is Tarantino. Oh yeah, let’s appropriate everything. Are you lost? Yes, you are lost.
FILMMAKER: For a lot of young filmmakers, or aspiring filmmakers, in this country, myself included, the films that you make and that a lot of other Asian films make, as well as a lot of other films from France and Iran and other countries, give us all hope that it is still possible to make good films.
DOYLE: Yeah, but then I go to New York Film School, and even the teachers are trying to tell the kids what I’m saying.
FILMMAKER: How do you mean?
DOYLE: I mean, I go to NYU, and all the teachers are there, and then they’re interpreting what I say. I say, “Just do it.” And the teachers say, “What he really means is if you really work hard within the system, then you’ll get somewhere.” [laughs] So what can we do? Well, there’s a lot we can do that is not expensive. You could send a DVD to your friends, it could be online, and you could be in all these film festivals. And just with a digital camera. In other words, you could even make a film with your bloody phone now, you know what I mean? [laughs] Isn’t that fantastic in a certain way? It’s so strange that young people are actually hedging their bets instead of just going out there and starting to do stuff. The only way that any of us became so-called filmmakers is by not hedging the bets, and trying, and then seeing if something works. Don’t worry. Yeah, people can steal your ideas, but they’re not going to steal your heart. [laughs] What are you going to do? Are you going to wait? I mean, look what happened to Kubrick. The more he waited — I mean, Eyes Wide Shut is a piece of shit, come on. It’s flustered; it’s someone frustrated by his own ideas. It’s like cheese; it molded, you know? [laughs] Maybe 20 years ago it would have been more interesting, but it has no relevance anymore. And you can’t do that. Because what we do is a product of where we are. I mean, all the films I’ve made are a response to the films I’ve made before, and hopefully a response to whatever sociopolitical environment I’m living in.
FILMMAKER: How would you compare the experience maybe of working on a film that you shot quickly, like Chungking Express, as opposed to a film that took a long time, like 2046?
DOYLE: I think your real question is, Where is the energy? I think the energy is in the eclectic mixture of people with a certain intention sharing it. And like in 2046, what happens is that it becomes too ethereal, and I think the audience feels that. I really believe that if we are energized, if we are encountering something, if we are sharing something, then the audience will share the same thing. Now with 2046, it was a five-year shoot, and then you’ve got all the ups and downs with whatever it is, whether it’s accounting problems or it’s stylistic problems or whatever — doesn’t matter. What happens is that it becomes a much more methodical kind of film. It has a certain austerity. Whereas a film like Chungking Express, we needed to get it done at that time and we did. And I think in another way, the “Dumplings” or the Thai films that I’ve done, I think they all have that integrity, which is, Yes, here we go. It’s not more or less than what it is. I think our purpose as filmmakers or as storytellers or whatever you’re going to call us is to say that at this particular point with this relationship, with this social structure, in this political climate, this is the best film I could do. I think that’s all we can do. Then we’re not exploitative, we’re not the Spielbergs or the whatever. Then it becomes extremely personal, for better or worse. So don’t get confused by digital or non-digital or money or not — just do the best fucking film you can with your abilities at that time. I mean, why else do we make films when we could have gone into real estate? [laughs]
FILMMAKER: Which of the films that you’ve made are you the most proud of, or which are your favorites?
DOYLE: The next one. Always.
FILMMAKER: Always the next one?
DOYLE: Has to be. Otherwise why would you continue? [laughs] You mean I’m going to retire? I don’t think so. [laughs] If I retired, I should open a girls’ boarding school, I think. [laughs] And then I’d be really in deep shit. Yeah, of course it has to be the next film. It has to be, it has to be.
FILMMAKER: How do you pick which films you work on?
DOYLE: People, always people.
FILMMAKER: The directors?
DOYLE: No. Partly of course. That’s the one that usually calls you up and is in your face. Yeah, it has to be about the people; otherwise why would you spend, for example, five years on 2046? Why would you spend five years of your life with someone you didn’t love? There’s no way it’s about career, and certainly it’s not about money. It has to be about people. If every day you’re going to have an argument, you go home and what are you going to do — beat your wife or your husband? [laughs] I mean, why? I don’t understand that there’s this aspect of western filmmaking which is about confrontation and all this kind of stuff. And I won’t mention any names apart from Oliver Stone. [laughs] So if I give you shit, you’re going to give me more. Lars von Trier. Why? I don’t think so. If I give you trust, you should give me more. So it is a cultural thing. And I don’t think it’s fruitful. I think that if I give you shit for three months or six months or whatever, it’s going to be a better film? You mean to say that 9 Songs is a good film? I don’t think so. I mean, she’s a very beautiful and fuckable woman, but what’s your point? In other words, you put someone in a situation of compromise in order to elicit so-called acting? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s the only way to get there. I really don’t. And I think that you can engage in a much more intimate and personal way.
FILMMAKER: Are you going to direct another movie?
DOYLE: I am. Next year I’m doing two.
FILMMAKER: Can you give me a little idea about what they’re about?
DOYLE: One is about a Japanese country-music cover band on the road escaping from who they think is a mafia boss, while in fact they’re walking into country-music hell. And then the other one is about new Chinese women. I’m researching this one. [laughs] How come nobody really celebrates where China is now? As you probably have guessed, I know a few young Chinese women, so I figured using them was a kind of a metaphor for the energy of the society at this moment. And again, they’re both road movies basically, and this one just goes from east to west in China. It’s about money, it’s about ambition, it’s about why China is where it is now. And it’s mainly based on a young Chinese woman who exemplifies all of that basically. I’ll direct those. Because my feeling is, I keep on saying all this shit, encouraging young people, so if I don’t do it myself, then it’s a lie.
FILMMAKER: I heard that you are not going to be shooting Wong Kar-wai’s next film. If you don’t mind me asking, what was the reason behind that?
DOYLE: Who said I’m not going to be shooting it?
FILMMAKER: I thought that Darius Khondji was attached.
DOYLE: Do you believe everything you read?
FILMMAKER: No. Is that wrong information?
DOYLE: I don’t know. [laughs] Ask Darius. I think that certain relationships need their time to mature, that’s all. Don’t worry. There’s more coming.
FILMMAKER: That’s good to hear. You guys are such an amazing team.
Matthew Ross
from Filmmaker magazine 2005 fall
Born in the mundane existence of postwar Sydney, Australia, in 1952, Christopher Doyle spent much of his life at large. He was a sailor in Norway, a Thai-based Chinese quack medicine “doctor,” a “cowboy-nic” on an Israeli kibbutz, a well digger in the Indian desert and almost everything in between. He was “reincarnated” in the late 1970s when he met his poetry/language teacher at the University of Hong Kong, who gave him the evocative name of Du Ke Feng (“like the wind”). He was never the same since. — Chris Doyle’s press bio
Miriam Yeung in Fruit Chan’s “Dumplings,” which was shot by Chris Doyle.
Save for Gregg Toland and perhaps Vittorio Storaro, no cinematographer in history has achieved the kind of iconic status as the kind currently enjoyed by Chris Doyle. An Australian by birth, Doyle has lived in Asia for nearly 30 years, and his work has largely defined the look of new Asian cinema. Best known for his collaborations with Wong Kar-wai on such films as Chungking Express, Happy Together and In the Mood for Love (which won him the Technical Grand Prize at the 2000 Cannes Film Festival), Doyle is equally comfortable with a handheld camera as he is with meticulously composed, static imagery. Yet despite the variation in technique, Doyle still manages to leave an indelible authorial stamp on every one of his films, even though it’s nearly impossible to say why Zhang Yimou’s archly formal Hero and Wong’s hyperactive Fallen Angels both feel like a Chris Doyle–shot movie except for the fact that his mastery is apparent in every shot. He’s also directed one feature, 1999’s Away With Words.
Doyle’s personality and professional style are also the stuff of legend. Rumor has it that he prefers to drink while working, and he has never been known to toe the company line in public. Filmmaker caught up with him in New York, where he was making one of his rare forays into American production (other work includes Gus Van Sant’s Psycho and Barry Levinson’s Liberty Heights) with M. Night Shyamalan’s Lady in the Water. The purpose of the interview was to discuss his work on Three...Extremes, the Asian omnibus horror film — Doyle shot Fruit Chan’s segment, “Dumplings,” about a woman who eats dumplings made out of human flesh — but the conversation delightfully veered off the road.
Chris Doyle
FILMMAKER: Tell me a bit about “Dumplings,” how you got involved. Were there any new things you were experimenting with visually?
DOYLE: Have you seen the film?
FILMMAKER: Yeah, I have. I really liked it.
DOYLE: I think that hopefully one does engage oneself in something you haven’t done before. Fruit’s films are much more organic. They are much more realistic than most of what I’ve done, so I think that’s part of the challenge: put two madmen together and see what happens. Secondly, in my mind, it is a continuation of a project that we started a year or two before, which is an engagement with this so-called pan-Asian cinema. My generation of artists or filmmakers or just people in general, we have to celebrate our Asian-ness.
FILMMAKER: I read some articles where you described yourself as an Asian filmmaker who happens to be pink.
DOYLE: Yeah, I just happen to have the wrong skin. The more I rub myself against the yellow, the yellower I get. [laughs] I’ve often said I’m an Asian with a skin disease, because I started making films in Asia, and obviously what I’ve done has certain repercussions and certain resonance, and I should be very proud of that. And it just happens that I’m one of the few non-Asian, non-yellow people in this world. But I think most of the people I work with think I’m as yellow as they are. [laughs] And that’s an honor in my mind.
FILMMAKER: Going into this project, did you feel that maybe Asian film was in trouble at all or that it needed a boost?
DOYLE: I thought I was the boost. [laughs] The way I live and talk, if I’m not the boost, who is, you know? I don’t know, I don’t think we need a boost, but I do think we need to celebrate. I think one of the greatest films about Shanghai is Code 46, but it’s Tim Robbins in a hotel room. So I kind of get pissed off with that, and I say, Well, why don’t we celebrate? Instead of celebrating our 1930s-ness, instead of keeping on making another Gong Li movie with lots of red lanterns, let’s move on. And it’s strange that so few people have really engaged today’s consumer society at all. Maybe because it is too new. I think that’s what “Dumplings” is trying to do; it’s trying to address one aspect of this thing, which is the fetish for beauty.
FILMMAKER: You are currently working on a U.S. film. Is there a fundamental difference in the process of filmmaking between the U.S. and Asia?
DOYLE: No. I think the real difference is the level of energy. In Asia now it’s like the Australian new wave, the cinema novo in Brazil, the French new wave. Why? Because there was this confluence of intent and economics, and all those elements sort of matched up at that time. What is strange in the west is — well, not strange I guess — is that people are lost. Let’s be honest. [laughs] People are lost, whether you blame 9/11 or whether you blame the lack of education in schools. Whatever you blame it on, it doesn’t matter. Whereas in Asia, people are finding their voice. It’s been a long journey, you know. Everyone in China is on a roll, [laughs] there’s no question.
FILMMAKER: Do you feel like you’re in hostile territory right now?
DOYLE: You know, I was in Kazakhstan two weeks ago, and that was nothing. This is hostile territory, this is bullshit. I don’t know if it should be said so bluntly, but [laughs] every people gets the government they deserve. Sorry, that’s a reality. The present climate in most of the western world is of course anti-artist, because the function of an artist is to open people’s eyes, and that’s not the function of a Texas oil-based meritocracy. Hello! And every single person in the real world looks at this, and that’s why we make our films the way we do. Because you don’t have the freedom, you don’t have the integrity, you have to remake everything we’ve done anyway. I go to see Martin Scorsese, and I say, Don’t you think I should tell you about the lenses? And he says, What do you mean? And I said, Well, you’re remaking my film, which is Infernal Affairs. Infernal Affairs was probably written in one week, we shot it in a month and you’re going to remake it! Ha ha, good luck! What the fuck is this about? I mean, come on. In other words, if you read The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, then you’d actually have a very clear idea [laughs] about what’s really happening in the U.S. right now. So what do we do? You tell me.
FILMMAKER: Are you asking me?
DOYLE: Yeah, I’m asking you. Are you American?
FILMMAKER: Yeah, I was born and raised in New York.
Bai Ling and Miriam Yeung in “Dumplings.”
DOYLE: The problem is that 99 percent of the world is looking at this country this way. And it’s very strange that Americans don’t seem to realize it. Therefore we make our films and make our films, and you remake our films the way you want to remake them. [laughs] Have you ever seen Shall We Dance?
FILMMAKER: The first one?
DOYLE: The Richard Gere version.
FILMMAKER: No, I haven’t seen it. I’ve seen the original.
DOYLE: Well, the new one is the biggest piece of shit. You don’t even know what the fucking thing is about. And with Shall We Dance, we’re not talking art. We’re not talking Kieslowski or Tarkovsky. We’re talking mainstream Japanese film, and you can’t even get that right. Come on. Hello. In other words, you lost the fucking plot.
FILMMAKER: Don’t you think these bloated Hollywood films are an easy target? Do you watch any American independent film?
DOYLE: Does anybody? Hello! Come on. Come on, you can’t be so naïve that you don’t know that the only thing they do in the U.S. is look at the box office. It’s not a film industry anymore, it’s an accounting department. [laughs] There’s only two departments in American cinema — the insurance department and the accounting department. There are no filmmakers anymore.
FILMMAKER: You don’t think so?
DOYLE: No, absolutely not.
FILMMAKER: There are no more filmmakers in America?
DOYLE: Uh-uh. If Martin Scorsese can make a piece of shit called The Aviator and then go on to remake a Hong Kong film, don’t you think he’s lost the plot? Think it through. “I need my Oscar, I need my fucking Oscar!” Are you crazy? There’s not a single person in the Oscar voting department who’s under 65 years old. They don’t even know how to get online. They have no idea what the real world is about. They have no visual experience anymore. They have preoccupations. So why the fuck would a great filmmaker need to suck the dick of the Academy with a piece of shit called The Aviator? And now he has to remake our film? I mean this is bullshit. This is total bullshit. I love Marty, I think he’s a great person. And the other one is Tarantino. Oh yeah, let’s appropriate everything. Are you lost? Yes, you are lost.
FILMMAKER: For a lot of young filmmakers, or aspiring filmmakers, in this country, myself included, the films that you make and that a lot of other Asian films make, as well as a lot of other films from France and Iran and other countries, give us all hope that it is still possible to make good films.
DOYLE: Yeah, but then I go to New York Film School, and even the teachers are trying to tell the kids what I’m saying.
FILMMAKER: How do you mean?
DOYLE: I mean, I go to NYU, and all the teachers are there, and then they’re interpreting what I say. I say, “Just do it.” And the teachers say, “What he really means is if you really work hard within the system, then you’ll get somewhere.” [laughs] So what can we do? Well, there’s a lot we can do that is not expensive. You could send a DVD to your friends, it could be online, and you could be in all these film festivals. And just with a digital camera. In other words, you could even make a film with your bloody phone now, you know what I mean? [laughs] Isn’t that fantastic in a certain way? It’s so strange that young people are actually hedging their bets instead of just going out there and starting to do stuff. The only way that any of us became so-called filmmakers is by not hedging the bets, and trying, and then seeing if something works. Don’t worry. Yeah, people can steal your ideas, but they’re not going to steal your heart. [laughs] What are you going to do? Are you going to wait? I mean, look what happened to Kubrick. The more he waited — I mean, Eyes Wide Shut is a piece of shit, come on. It’s flustered; it’s someone frustrated by his own ideas. It’s like cheese; it molded, you know? [laughs] Maybe 20 years ago it would have been more interesting, but it has no relevance anymore. And you can’t do that. Because what we do is a product of where we are. I mean, all the films I’ve made are a response to the films I’ve made before, and hopefully a response to whatever sociopolitical environment I’m living in.
FILMMAKER: How would you compare the experience maybe of working on a film that you shot quickly, like Chungking Express, as opposed to a film that took a long time, like 2046?
DOYLE: I think your real question is, Where is the energy? I think the energy is in the eclectic mixture of people with a certain intention sharing it. And like in 2046, what happens is that it becomes too ethereal, and I think the audience feels that. I really believe that if we are energized, if we are encountering something, if we are sharing something, then the audience will share the same thing. Now with 2046, it was a five-year shoot, and then you’ve got all the ups and downs with whatever it is, whether it’s accounting problems or it’s stylistic problems or whatever — doesn’t matter. What happens is that it becomes a much more methodical kind of film. It has a certain austerity. Whereas a film like Chungking Express, we needed to get it done at that time and we did. And I think in another way, the “Dumplings” or the Thai films that I’ve done, I think they all have that integrity, which is, Yes, here we go. It’s not more or less than what it is. I think our purpose as filmmakers or as storytellers or whatever you’re going to call us is to say that at this particular point with this relationship, with this social structure, in this political climate, this is the best film I could do. I think that’s all we can do. Then we’re not exploitative, we’re not the Spielbergs or the whatever. Then it becomes extremely personal, for better or worse. So don’t get confused by digital or non-digital or money or not — just do the best fucking film you can with your abilities at that time. I mean, why else do we make films when we could have gone into real estate? [laughs]
FILMMAKER: Which of the films that you’ve made are you the most proud of, or which are your favorites?
DOYLE: The next one. Always.
FILMMAKER: Always the next one?
DOYLE: Has to be. Otherwise why would you continue? [laughs] You mean I’m going to retire? I don’t think so. [laughs] If I retired, I should open a girls’ boarding school, I think. [laughs] And then I’d be really in deep shit. Yeah, of course it has to be the next film. It has to be, it has to be.
FILMMAKER: How do you pick which films you work on?
DOYLE: People, always people.
FILMMAKER: The directors?
DOYLE: No. Partly of course. That’s the one that usually calls you up and is in your face. Yeah, it has to be about the people; otherwise why would you spend, for example, five years on 2046? Why would you spend five years of your life with someone you didn’t love? There’s no way it’s about career, and certainly it’s not about money. It has to be about people. If every day you’re going to have an argument, you go home and what are you going to do — beat your wife or your husband? [laughs] I mean, why? I don’t understand that there’s this aspect of western filmmaking which is about confrontation and all this kind of stuff. And I won’t mention any names apart from Oliver Stone. [laughs] So if I give you shit, you’re going to give me more. Lars von Trier. Why? I don’t think so. If I give you trust, you should give me more. So it is a cultural thing. And I don’t think it’s fruitful. I think that if I give you shit for three months or six months or whatever, it’s going to be a better film? You mean to say that 9 Songs is a good film? I don’t think so. I mean, she’s a very beautiful and fuckable woman, but what’s your point? In other words, you put someone in a situation of compromise in order to elicit so-called acting? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s the only way to get there. I really don’t. And I think that you can engage in a much more intimate and personal way.
FILMMAKER: Are you going to direct another movie?
DOYLE: I am. Next year I’m doing two.
FILMMAKER: Can you give me a little idea about what they’re about?
DOYLE: One is about a Japanese country-music cover band on the road escaping from who they think is a mafia boss, while in fact they’re walking into country-music hell. And then the other one is about new Chinese women. I’m researching this one. [laughs] How come nobody really celebrates where China is now? As you probably have guessed, I know a few young Chinese women, so I figured using them was a kind of a metaphor for the energy of the society at this moment. And again, they’re both road movies basically, and this one just goes from east to west in China. It’s about money, it’s about ambition, it’s about why China is where it is now. And it’s mainly based on a young Chinese woman who exemplifies all of that basically. I’ll direct those. Because my feeling is, I keep on saying all this shit, encouraging young people, so if I don’t do it myself, then it’s a lie.
FILMMAKER: I heard that you are not going to be shooting Wong Kar-wai’s next film. If you don’t mind me asking, what was the reason behind that?
DOYLE: Who said I’m not going to be shooting it?
FILMMAKER: I thought that Darius Khondji was attached.
DOYLE: Do you believe everything you read?
FILMMAKER: No. Is that wrong information?
DOYLE: I don’t know. [laughs] Ask Darius. I think that certain relationships need their time to mature, that’s all. Don’t worry. There’s more coming.
FILMMAKER: That’s good to hear. You guys are such an amazing team.
We are making multimillion dollar student films - Prashant Pandey
‘We are making multimillion dollar student films’
Prashant Pandey
First published 2004 in the Asian Film Festival Quarterly
Osian-cinefan, New Delhi. The most awkward press conference I ever attended- Christopher Doyle is a misfit in the world of politically correct routine press conferences. He is swaying and wants his beer badly. I am sitting in the front row just a hand away and I am scared to ask anything. There is an uneasy silence. Even the journalists who have press cards unlike me are not asking anything. I am blank too, but nevertheless ask the first question about his journey from a wanderer to a cinematographer. The moderator of the press conference re-phrases the same question for some reason and he looks at her and starts to narrate his journey. Everybody starts to write but wait… listen what he is talking about- “You see it all started when I was an embryo and was lying on the beach. There was wind and waves washing me off. It was a terrible start.” He then begins to fake a sob, resting on the shoulders of the stoic moderator…
Welcome to the world of Christopher Doyle, the Shakespeare of post modern cinematography.
Film critics and journalists are always busy intellectualizing his work while he is wary about theoretical explanations that are just thin shadows of his visual intensity. What comes up to the fore so often that his art is based not on intellectualizing but practical and strategic needs. His favorite example is of Fallen Angels. The black and white shots in the film were due to a bad film stock. He appropriated that mistake by making it black and white. The way it appeared in the film it looked that it had a structure and gave a meaning to the film.
After the press conference I meet him again to ask few more questions. His eyes lighten up as he sees my Gandhi writing pad. He points at the charkha logo and says “You must have more of these in your country.’
You can not cut him while he is speaking. For him, every question has an answer. There was a senior journalist sitting in the last who interrupted him while he was on. Christopher Doyle answered his question reluctantly but added later, “You are a pain in the ass”.
Here is an interview with Christopher Doyle, who made a rock star appearance at Osian- Cinefan film festival.
You have a twenty five year old career. Lot of cinematographic innovations that you are credited with must have a basis. What is it? Where does it come from?
There are lots of things that have to be felt and considered in order to innovate. For example colors. There is lot of theory regarding choosing a color scheme. Storaro 1 (Vittorio Storaro) claims that green is the color of wisdom, of knowledge. Now why does he say it? Is it going to be applicable today also? Times have changed. Haven’t they? This Storaro theory can mislead many people (points at me). It’s hazardous. Follow what he says and all the films will look same. There can be no unified theory on colors. In Asia especially for countries like India and China red has a cultural significance. Does Renaissance talk about it? When we were shooting Hero there was a flashback sequence to be completed. Everybody said lets use black and white; somebody said lets use color of the skin. I suggested we use green. For me, the past is green.
How do you choose a project?
People matter for me not the script. Even if a very bad director comes to me and is full of shit even then I will work with him if I like him. It depends on where the person is coming from, value systems and so on. Every director is different. Everybody has a way of functioning. Pen-ek Ratanaruang was always telling me to go slow in the Last life in the universe. He says if you go fast then we will screw on the editing table. But that is his style. Wong kar wai is different. He is always asking for this and that. This cognitive, lets-have- fun approach is what we are known for. He does not care much about the result as long as we are happy with the frame and shot. When such a film comes out I can say this is my film too as there is lot of collaboration between director and cameraman in all the films that I do.
Every film that you do throws at viewers a visual surprise. Is it a conscious strategy?
I am getting old. There is not much innovation that I can do. It’s very tough to do new things at this level. So there lies scope for the young people. They will redefine the way we see image, not us. Then there is the danger of repetition. You set a trend and everybody hails you but you should not continue doing it. Folks did dogma and stuff but what’s new now. Move on. Make way for new things.
Is there something like a “new thing?”
Wong and I take multiple things at one time, but we’re never repeating them. We shot Happy Together in South America for this only. Nothing is original. I agree. Concepts will remain same but you could give it a very different perspective. Now when you say that it means lot of collaboration and effort. Usually it has to happen between the art department people, camera, lights and choreography. When we start talking a lot of shit comes out. Everybody is saying to other and especially me “Give me something new”.
People in the press conferences do not expect you to talk about film labs and film stocks.
But that is what we are supposed to do all the time. Post-production is very critical for Wong and me. The kind of work we do it is very important to make use of the same lab. I value their suggestions as our films are so improvised; there is no script at all. So the visual alternatives are decided upon the editing table or film labs.
What’s your India connection?
Oh ya I was in Bihar during my travels. I used to do organic farming in a convent.( then he gives a detailed argument for organic farming) There were some 50-60 young women and I was the only man there. So you see…
Everybody in the festival is talking about Asian film making. Is there a real divide between Asia and others in the way we make our cinema? What are the dynamics of working in China, south East Asia? What really happens on the location?
Asian film making is very different it’s like the theory of charkas 2 or Zen. It’s very cyclical. This is reflected in the way we tell our stories. It is not like Hollywood people who have very saleable popcorn narratives. They have terrible ideas and they sell it.
On location the stakes are very high and also the kind of people who you work with can sometimes push you very hard. For example this young girl who was doing costumes for Hero kept on testing a particular dye on her own hand. She could do it on a cloth or tell an assistant to do it. But she wanted to feel it herself. What do you do when you work with such people?
Funny things happen all the time when you are out in the sun with the camera. .I was shooting an ad campaign for Nike in Shanghai. Apart from the technical and creative crew there were these company executives who had these documents or files in their hands and kept on checking out if we were shooting what we told them. Often they would stall the shooting telling that a particular shot was not in the storyboards. Who gives a damn about storyboards if you are getting better visual possibilities on the location? I am always trying out new shots on the location. That’s my job as a cinematographer. There are hundred better ways to take a shot. Who the hell were they? Will accountants teach us to make films?
You are openly critical of your work... unlike lot of other people in the industry.
That’s my trick. Seriously there are lots of things that only the self knows. You have to set your own standards. I know my work I am the best judge of what I do. Rest is bullshit. There are many problems in my shot taking that only I can make out. When I look at a shot I say, “Chris you fucked up. You should have stopped rolling a second before”. This kind of criticism is best and keeps you fit.
Be it the waterfall in Happy Together or Tony Lieung’s apartment in Chungking express, space unravels in layers and looks very three dimensional.
Filmmaking is not a theoretical exercise. There is wind, bad weather, good weather and hell lot of other technical problems when you are shooting. It teaches you a lot of things. I really learnt my camera when I was shooting in the desert. I have shot 5 films in the desert. Desert is a crazy place to shoot. The landscape and atmosphere determines a lot of my work. Lot of times it comes before everything. For example the Hong Kong cityscape has determined our aesthetics for a number of films. Its very cramped with small stuffed apartments, shops etc.
The flat in the Chung king Express has been really well shot. Infact we had a class lecture on memory and urban claustrophobia.
That’s my apartment.
You must be joking
No its where I live. Tony leungs apartment in the film is actually where I live. Its right in the middle of Hong Kong. Everybody knows my address there. Isnt it beautiful?
Tell us more about the kind of relationship you share with Wong kar wai.
Wong kar wai has a beautiful house where we spent lot of time drinking together and then we sleep. (Laughs) jokes apart… he has a strong family and a very solid wife.
I think I have spoken many times on our style. Wong once told me, “Remember the day when we took 53 takes for a shot”. This was for Days of Being Wild. The lovemaking shot… we kept taking retakes for two days until we got it. We are always thinking on the sets. That’s why our films go on and on. I was supposed to shoot Crouching Tiger… but “In the Mood for Love” kept on going on and on. Very Asian style… that is we choose a location first then search for a story. You could say we are we are making multimillion dollar student films.
A lot of cinematographers, film students follow your work and look up to you. What is your message for them?
I will say that I am making mistakes all the time but I think about them and try to learn from them. I never thought that I will do all this but since now I am doing it I must work hard. Sometimes my assistants are left uncared as I am working on and on at a stretch. Then I would say at last that if I can do it so can you. There are lots of people trying to copy our style. But there can be only one Fallen Angels and only one Wong Kar Wai . You cannot be doing again and again what has been done before If you don’t have big tits do not make them.
Notes-
1. Vittorio Storaro- Vittorio Storaro, ASC, AIC known chiefly for his work with Bernardo Bertoluucci with a vast legacy of seminal works like the Conformist, Apocalypse Now, Reds, The empire of the sun and The Little Buddha.
2. Chakras- Life seen as a continuous cycle of regeneration and decay.
By
Prashant Pandey
jumpshark@gmail.com
Prashant Pandey
First published 2004 in the Asian Film Festival Quarterly
Osian-cinefan, New Delhi. The most awkward press conference I ever attended- Christopher Doyle is a misfit in the world of politically correct routine press conferences. He is swaying and wants his beer badly. I am sitting in the front row just a hand away and I am scared to ask anything. There is an uneasy silence. Even the journalists who have press cards unlike me are not asking anything. I am blank too, but nevertheless ask the first question about his journey from a wanderer to a cinematographer. The moderator of the press conference re-phrases the same question for some reason and he looks at her and starts to narrate his journey. Everybody starts to write but wait… listen what he is talking about- “You see it all started when I was an embryo and was lying on the beach. There was wind and waves washing me off. It was a terrible start.” He then begins to fake a sob, resting on the shoulders of the stoic moderator…
Welcome to the world of Christopher Doyle, the Shakespeare of post modern cinematography.
Film critics and journalists are always busy intellectualizing his work while he is wary about theoretical explanations that are just thin shadows of his visual intensity. What comes up to the fore so often that his art is based not on intellectualizing but practical and strategic needs. His favorite example is of Fallen Angels. The black and white shots in the film were due to a bad film stock. He appropriated that mistake by making it black and white. The way it appeared in the film it looked that it had a structure and gave a meaning to the film.
After the press conference I meet him again to ask few more questions. His eyes lighten up as he sees my Gandhi writing pad. He points at the charkha logo and says “You must have more of these in your country.’
You can not cut him while he is speaking. For him, every question has an answer. There was a senior journalist sitting in the last who interrupted him while he was on. Christopher Doyle answered his question reluctantly but added later, “You are a pain in the ass”.
Here is an interview with Christopher Doyle, who made a rock star appearance at Osian- Cinefan film festival.
You have a twenty five year old career. Lot of cinematographic innovations that you are credited with must have a basis. What is it? Where does it come from?
There are lots of things that have to be felt and considered in order to innovate. For example colors. There is lot of theory regarding choosing a color scheme. Storaro 1 (Vittorio Storaro) claims that green is the color of wisdom, of knowledge. Now why does he say it? Is it going to be applicable today also? Times have changed. Haven’t they? This Storaro theory can mislead many people (points at me). It’s hazardous. Follow what he says and all the films will look same. There can be no unified theory on colors. In Asia especially for countries like India and China red has a cultural significance. Does Renaissance talk about it? When we were shooting Hero there was a flashback sequence to be completed. Everybody said lets use black and white; somebody said lets use color of the skin. I suggested we use green. For me, the past is green.
How do you choose a project?
People matter for me not the script. Even if a very bad director comes to me and is full of shit even then I will work with him if I like him. It depends on where the person is coming from, value systems and so on. Every director is different. Everybody has a way of functioning. Pen-ek Ratanaruang was always telling me to go slow in the Last life in the universe. He says if you go fast then we will screw on the editing table. But that is his style. Wong kar wai is different. He is always asking for this and that. This cognitive, lets-have- fun approach is what we are known for. He does not care much about the result as long as we are happy with the frame and shot. When such a film comes out I can say this is my film too as there is lot of collaboration between director and cameraman in all the films that I do.
Every film that you do throws at viewers a visual surprise. Is it a conscious strategy?
I am getting old. There is not much innovation that I can do. It’s very tough to do new things at this level. So there lies scope for the young people. They will redefine the way we see image, not us. Then there is the danger of repetition. You set a trend and everybody hails you but you should not continue doing it. Folks did dogma and stuff but what’s new now. Move on. Make way for new things.
Is there something like a “new thing?”
Wong and I take multiple things at one time, but we’re never repeating them. We shot Happy Together in South America for this only. Nothing is original. I agree. Concepts will remain same but you could give it a very different perspective. Now when you say that it means lot of collaboration and effort. Usually it has to happen between the art department people, camera, lights and choreography. When we start talking a lot of shit comes out. Everybody is saying to other and especially me “Give me something new”.
People in the press conferences do not expect you to talk about film labs and film stocks.
But that is what we are supposed to do all the time. Post-production is very critical for Wong and me. The kind of work we do it is very important to make use of the same lab. I value their suggestions as our films are so improvised; there is no script at all. So the visual alternatives are decided upon the editing table or film labs.
What’s your India connection?
Oh ya I was in Bihar during my travels. I used to do organic farming in a convent.( then he gives a detailed argument for organic farming) There were some 50-60 young women and I was the only man there. So you see…
Everybody in the festival is talking about Asian film making. Is there a real divide between Asia and others in the way we make our cinema? What are the dynamics of working in China, south East Asia? What really happens on the location?
Asian film making is very different it’s like the theory of charkas 2 or Zen. It’s very cyclical. This is reflected in the way we tell our stories. It is not like Hollywood people who have very saleable popcorn narratives. They have terrible ideas and they sell it.
On location the stakes are very high and also the kind of people who you work with can sometimes push you very hard. For example this young girl who was doing costumes for Hero kept on testing a particular dye on her own hand. She could do it on a cloth or tell an assistant to do it. But she wanted to feel it herself. What do you do when you work with such people?
Funny things happen all the time when you are out in the sun with the camera. .I was shooting an ad campaign for Nike in Shanghai. Apart from the technical and creative crew there were these company executives who had these documents or files in their hands and kept on checking out if we were shooting what we told them. Often they would stall the shooting telling that a particular shot was not in the storyboards. Who gives a damn about storyboards if you are getting better visual possibilities on the location? I am always trying out new shots on the location. That’s my job as a cinematographer. There are hundred better ways to take a shot. Who the hell were they? Will accountants teach us to make films?
You are openly critical of your work... unlike lot of other people in the industry.
That’s my trick. Seriously there are lots of things that only the self knows. You have to set your own standards. I know my work I am the best judge of what I do. Rest is bullshit. There are many problems in my shot taking that only I can make out. When I look at a shot I say, “Chris you fucked up. You should have stopped rolling a second before”. This kind of criticism is best and keeps you fit.
Be it the waterfall in Happy Together or Tony Lieung’s apartment in Chungking express, space unravels in layers and looks very three dimensional.
Filmmaking is not a theoretical exercise. There is wind, bad weather, good weather and hell lot of other technical problems when you are shooting. It teaches you a lot of things. I really learnt my camera when I was shooting in the desert. I have shot 5 films in the desert. Desert is a crazy place to shoot. The landscape and atmosphere determines a lot of my work. Lot of times it comes before everything. For example the Hong Kong cityscape has determined our aesthetics for a number of films. Its very cramped with small stuffed apartments, shops etc.
The flat in the Chung king Express has been really well shot. Infact we had a class lecture on memory and urban claustrophobia.
That’s my apartment.
You must be joking
No its where I live. Tony leungs apartment in the film is actually where I live. Its right in the middle of Hong Kong. Everybody knows my address there. Isnt it beautiful?
Tell us more about the kind of relationship you share with Wong kar wai.
Wong kar wai has a beautiful house where we spent lot of time drinking together and then we sleep. (Laughs) jokes apart… he has a strong family and a very solid wife.
I think I have spoken many times on our style. Wong once told me, “Remember the day when we took 53 takes for a shot”. This was for Days of Being Wild. The lovemaking shot… we kept taking retakes for two days until we got it. We are always thinking on the sets. That’s why our films go on and on. I was supposed to shoot Crouching Tiger… but “In the Mood for Love” kept on going on and on. Very Asian style… that is we choose a location first then search for a story. You could say we are we are making multimillion dollar student films.
A lot of cinematographers, film students follow your work and look up to you. What is your message for them?
I will say that I am making mistakes all the time but I think about them and try to learn from them. I never thought that I will do all this but since now I am doing it I must work hard. Sometimes my assistants are left uncared as I am working on and on at a stretch. Then I would say at last that if I can do it so can you. There are lots of people trying to copy our style. But there can be only one Fallen Angels and only one Wong Kar Wai . You cannot be doing again and again what has been done before If you don’t have big tits do not make them.
Notes-
1. Vittorio Storaro- Vittorio Storaro, ASC, AIC known chiefly for his work with Bernardo Bertoluucci with a vast legacy of seminal works like the Conformist, Apocalypse Now, Reds, The empire of the sun and The Little Buddha.
2. Chakras- Life seen as a continuous cycle of regeneration and decay.
By
Prashant Pandey
jumpshark@gmail.com
Monday, July 21, 2008
黎小鋒一篇很有趣、很有深度的網誌
以下是上海紀錄片導演黎小鋒的一篇很有趣、很有深度的網誌。
原文網址：
http://baidonglian.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!965BFC6D7939B46B!442.entry
黎小鋒是我06年12月去北京CNEX的工作坊認識的。當時我的提案就是《歌舞昇平》 ，而他的是《我最後的秘密》。07年10月我在台北看到《我最後的秘密》，是一個很細膩和感人的作品。
需要強調的是文中在電話中暴罵的朋友不是我。（雖然我也不是一個很好修養的人，熟悉我的人都很清楚這一點。）
骂吧，骂吧，骂完别忘记感恩就行了
大约两个月前，在大街上接到一个朋友的电话，当时环境嘈杂，断断续续听不清楚,只有一连串的跟人类和动物生殖器有关的词汇搅在一起，跟做兰州拉面一样，拉得很长，收得很短，忽长忽短，劲道十足，似乎在骂什么人——在听清楚不是咒骂本人之后——我让他半个小时之后再打我的座机。
到家不久，电话来了，还是在暴骂，情绪亢奋，言语犀利，酣畅淋漓，气势如虹——能把情绪状态保持如此饱满，如此持久，说明对方积怨已久，火力不轻啊！这次听明白了，跟他新片的出路有关，跟他的失望和愤怒有关——他跳着脚痛骂的是电影节——确切地说，是国际电影节。
凭心而论，我一直比较看好这个朋友的纪录片。当他的新片出来后，真心实意地向好多人推荐过，并且期待该片会在国际电影节上有个好的前景——在国内，这样的作品除了在一些民间影展上露面之外，不会进影院，不会上电视，也不大可能发行DVD，因而几乎无法进入普通观众的视野，作为一个纪录片人，他所受到的关注和尊重其实是非常有限的，而国际电影节正好提供了一个契机，让独立制片人能够象其他艺术家那样得到关注和尊重——最不济，可以让他出去旅游一周，即使得不了奖，也能获得一些心理满足。问题在于，国际电影节有自己的游戏规则，那些选片人，不管是真洋鬼子假洋鬼子，他们的口味不是咱们能预测得了的。就我所知，除了少数人能够靠名气靠人缘通行大市外，一般独立导演都是靠碰，碰机会，碰运气，碰中一个算一个，碰中两个算一双，如果你一开始就获奖了，可能后面的电影节还会多碰到几个。总之，是个可遇不可期的玩意儿，不能太当真的——不幸的是，我的这位朋友，他的新片在花了好些银子，通过国际快递周游列国之后，居然没碰进几个电影节，倒是把自己的怨气和邪火给碰出来了！
我能说什么呢？我不会添油加醋，但也不善于息事宁人。那就听他骂吧，何况其中有些话也是我想一吐为快的。毕竟，咱们都不是国际电影节上的幸运儿呐！
对国际电影节津津乐道，为进国际电影节挤破脑袋，拿那些真真假假的国际奖项去刺激媒体忽悠观众，这种风气由来已久。说到底，还是第三世界在文化上不自信的表现，用时下的话说，很缺乏“大国风范”的。在我看来，一个中国影片，最理想的观众还是中国人，本来是不必对国际电影节患得患失的。不妨设想，有哪个国家的人比咱中国人更能体会一个中国作品的背景、语境、暗示和玄机呢？如果把你的作品扔向一群普通中国观众（先别说13亿人了），能在他们当中引发感应和反响，你有什么理由不相信他们的判断或许比老外更客观、更公正呢？把作品拿出去是好事，但把能否在国外获奖，作为最重要的价值参照系，这是很令人悲凉的。（当然，这种风气目前盛行，也是情势所迫：国内主流的电影节太主流，爱搞平衡，而民间的电影节又太民间，影响有待扩展；独立制片人，需要观众，需要一个得到关注和尊重的平台；多数娱乐记者，包括某些专家，需要有个国际标尺来修正自己找不着北的判断力，以获得发表的版面和自信。
终于，国际电影节骂完了，我的朋友话锋一转，转向时下几个做片的人，当然，语气已经客气了很多：这个，不提也罢；那个，有水分，总体还凑合，那个,不咋的，还有那个，纯粹一傻B！我赶紧提醒他，后面那个你不是还没看完吗？没看完的片子他也敢骂，看来是骂昏了头——谁叫这些片子能得到某些有眼无珠的电影节的青睐呢！恨屋及乌，也是人之常情。我不由庆幸，自己的新片因为运气平平，蒙他厚爱，被他引为同类，万一不幸“闻达”起来，被他一番辱骂，也未可知啊。
写到这里，得为我这个朋友说句公道话，他是个性情中人，比较情绪化，骂完人后，心灵纯净得跟个圣徒一样。挨过他骂的人，据说最后都能原谅他。他的新片的确很好——相信以后，那个片子会通过别的渠道得到公正的评价——如果传说中的国际电影节最后没有弥补它们错误的话。
记得在电话里，我还是安慰了那位朋友几句，大意是，这些年里，咱们也没因为拍片背负什么债务，你换了几任女友，我也没耽误做爸爸（打电话那会儿女儿还没生下来），说是呕心沥血也好，毕竟做出了几个敢拿出来的作品。咱们其实没什么好抱怨的。反过来想想，咱们拍摄的那些人，他们撒播了他们的生活，包括自己的隐私，其实一切都没有什么改变，倒是我们收获了纪录片。
——我们应该庆幸，应该怀着感恩之心啊！
这句话，电话里没说，因为我自己也常常忘记，当然是拿来和朋友一起共勉的。
原文網址：
http://baidonglian.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!965BFC6D7939B46B!442.entry
黎小鋒是我06年12月去北京CNEX的工作坊認識的。當時我的提案就是《歌舞昇平》 ，而他的是《我最後的秘密》。07年10月我在台北看到《我最後的秘密》，是一個很細膩和感人的作品。
需要強調的是文中在電話中暴罵的朋友不是我。（雖然我也不是一個很好修養的人，熟悉我的人都很清楚這一點。）
骂吧，骂吧，骂完别忘记感恩就行了
大约两个月前，在大街上接到一个朋友的电话，当时环境嘈杂，断断续续听不清楚,只有一连串的跟人类和动物生殖器有关的词汇搅在一起，跟做兰州拉面一样，拉得很长，收得很短，忽长忽短，劲道十足，似乎在骂什么人——在听清楚不是咒骂本人之后——我让他半个小时之后再打我的座机。
到家不久，电话来了，还是在暴骂，情绪亢奋，言语犀利，酣畅淋漓，气势如虹——能把情绪状态保持如此饱满，如此持久，说明对方积怨已久，火力不轻啊！这次听明白了，跟他新片的出路有关，跟他的失望和愤怒有关——他跳着脚痛骂的是电影节——确切地说，是国际电影节。
凭心而论，我一直比较看好这个朋友的纪录片。当他的新片出来后，真心实意地向好多人推荐过，并且期待该片会在国际电影节上有个好的前景——在国内，这样的作品除了在一些民间影展上露面之外，不会进影院，不会上电视，也不大可能发行DVD，因而几乎无法进入普通观众的视野，作为一个纪录片人，他所受到的关注和尊重其实是非常有限的，而国际电影节正好提供了一个契机，让独立制片人能够象其他艺术家那样得到关注和尊重——最不济，可以让他出去旅游一周，即使得不了奖，也能获得一些心理满足。问题在于，国际电影节有自己的游戏规则，那些选片人，不管是真洋鬼子假洋鬼子，他们的口味不是咱们能预测得了的。就我所知，除了少数人能够靠名气靠人缘通行大市外，一般独立导演都是靠碰，碰机会，碰运气，碰中一个算一个，碰中两个算一双，如果你一开始就获奖了，可能后面的电影节还会多碰到几个。总之，是个可遇不可期的玩意儿，不能太当真的——不幸的是，我的这位朋友，他的新片在花了好些银子，通过国际快递周游列国之后，居然没碰进几个电影节，倒是把自己的怨气和邪火给碰出来了！
我能说什么呢？我不会添油加醋，但也不善于息事宁人。那就听他骂吧，何况其中有些话也是我想一吐为快的。毕竟，咱们都不是国际电影节上的幸运儿呐！
对国际电影节津津乐道，为进国际电影节挤破脑袋，拿那些真真假假的国际奖项去刺激媒体忽悠观众，这种风气由来已久。说到底，还是第三世界在文化上不自信的表现，用时下的话说，很缺乏“大国风范”的。在我看来，一个中国影片，最理想的观众还是中国人，本来是不必对国际电影节患得患失的。不妨设想，有哪个国家的人比咱中国人更能体会一个中国作品的背景、语境、暗示和玄机呢？如果把你的作品扔向一群普通中国观众（先别说13亿人了），能在他们当中引发感应和反响，你有什么理由不相信他们的判断或许比老外更客观、更公正呢？把作品拿出去是好事，但把能否在国外获奖，作为最重要的价值参照系，这是很令人悲凉的。（当然，这种风气目前盛行，也是情势所迫：国内主流的电影节太主流，爱搞平衡，而民间的电影节又太民间，影响有待扩展；独立制片人，需要观众，需要一个得到关注和尊重的平台；多数娱乐记者，包括某些专家，需要有个国际标尺来修正自己找不着北的判断力，以获得发表的版面和自信。
终于，国际电影节骂完了，我的朋友话锋一转，转向时下几个做片的人，当然，语气已经客气了很多：这个，不提也罢；那个，有水分，总体还凑合，那个,不咋的，还有那个，纯粹一傻B！我赶紧提醒他，后面那个你不是还没看完吗？没看完的片子他也敢骂，看来是骂昏了头——谁叫这些片子能得到某些有眼无珠的电影节的青睐呢！恨屋及乌，也是人之常情。我不由庆幸，自己的新片因为运气平平，蒙他厚爱，被他引为同类，万一不幸“闻达”起来，被他一番辱骂，也未可知啊。
写到这里，得为我这个朋友说句公道话，他是个性情中人，比较情绪化，骂完人后，心灵纯净得跟个圣徒一样。挨过他骂的人，据说最后都能原谅他。他的新片的确很好——相信以后，那个片子会通过别的渠道得到公正的评价——如果传说中的国际电影节最后没有弥补它们错误的话。
记得在电话里，我还是安慰了那位朋友几句，大意是，这些年里，咱们也没因为拍片背负什么债务，你换了几任女友，我也没耽误做爸爸（打电话那会儿女儿还没生下来），说是呕心沥血也好，毕竟做出了几个敢拿出来的作品。咱们其实没什么好抱怨的。反过来想想，咱们拍摄的那些人，他们撒播了他们的生活，包括自己的隐私，其实一切都没有什么改变，倒是我们收获了纪录片。
——我们应该庆幸，应该怀着感恩之心啊！
这句话，电话里没说，因为我自己也常常忘记，当然是拿来和朋友一起共勉的。
Friday, April 4, 2008
An Unfinished Cinema - by Abbas Kiarostami
AN UNFINISHED CINEMA
by Abbas Kiarostami
Text written for the Centenary of Cinema
Distributed in December 1995 at the Odéon Theatre,
Originally, I thought that the lights went out in a movie theatre so that we could see the images on the screen better. Then I looked a little closer at the audience settling comfortably into the seats and saw that there was a much more important reason: the darkness allowed the members of the audience to isolate themselves from others and to be alone. They were both with others and distant from them.
When we reveal a film’s world to the members of an audience, they each learn to create their own world through the wealth of their own experience.
As a filmmaker, I rely on this creative intervention for, otherwise, the film and the audience will die together. Faultless stories that work perfectly have one major defect: they work too well to allow the audience to intervene.
It is a fact that films without a story are not very popular with audiences, yet a story also requires gaps, empty spaces like in a crossword puzzle, voids that it is up to the audience to fill in. Or, like a private detective in a thriller to discover.
I believe in a type of cinema that gives greater possibilities and time to its audience. A half-created cinema, an unfinished cinema that attains completion through the creative spirit of the audience, so resulting in hundreds of films. It belongs to the members of that audience and corresponds to their own world.
The world of each work, of each film recounts a new truth. In the darkened theatre, we give everyone the chance to dream and to express his dream freely. If art succeeds in changing things and proposing new ideas, it can only do so via the free creativity of the people we are addressing – each individual member of the audience.
Between the fabricated and ideal world of the artist and that of the person he addresses, there is a solid and permanent bond. Art allows the individual to create his truth according to his own wishes and criteria; it also allows him to reject other imposed truths. Art gives each artist and his audience the opportunity to have a more precise view of the truth concealed behind the pain and passion that ordinary people experience every day. A filmmaker’s commitment to attempting to change daily life can only reach fruition through the complicity of the audience. The latter is active only if the film creates a world full of contradictions and conflicts that the audience members are able to perceive. The formula is simple: there is a world that we consider real but not completely just.
This world is not the fruit of our minds and it does not suit us all that well but, through cinematic techniques, we create a world that is one hundred times more real and just than the one around us.
This does not mean that our world gives a false image of justice but, on the contrary, it better highlights the contrasts that exist between our ideal world and the real world. In this world, we speak of hope, sorrow and passion.
The cinema is a window into our dreams and through which it is easier to recognize ourselves.
Thanks to the knowledge and passion thus acquired, we transform life to the benefit of our dreams.
The cinema seat is of greater assistance than the analyst’s couch. Sitting in a cinema seat we are left to our own devices and this is perhaps the only place where we are so bound to and yet so distant from each other: that is the miracle of cinema.
In cinema’s next century, respect of the audience as an intelligent and constructive element is inevitable. To attain this, one must perhaps move away from the concept of the audience as the absolute master. The director must also be the audience of his own film.
For one hundred years, cinema has belonged to the filmmaker. Let us hope that now the time has come for us to implicate the audience in its second century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)