Sunday, January 21, 2007

Movie List (60) V For Vendetta

听说李敖就是带着这个面具去国会放催泪弹的。看见网上有人的评论写得很不错,俺就借花献佛了。对于海报嘛,喜欢法国版的。


V FOR VENDETTA IS THE MOST DANGEROUS FILM OF THE YEAR
(http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=6034)
02.26.06
By Devin Faraci

V For Vendetta is the most dangerous film of 2006.

If you’re an idiot or a fascist, that is. Remember that when people begin complaining about this film, and try to figure out which of the two categories they fit in. Or maybe they’ll fit in both!

I cannot bring you a review of this film, since my name is not Harry Knowles or Drew McWeeny and this site’s initials are not AICN (no hate to these fine fellas and their site, it just chafes when I walk out of a screening and get the “no reviews until release” reminder and know that the film has been already reviewed on other sites. That’s a whole different editorial, though!), so this is not my review of James McTeigue’s V For Vendetta, based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. Rather this is an editorial about this brilliant piece of work.

It’s shocking that a film like V For Vendetta, in which the hero can be described in no other terms but terrorist, has been made by a major movie studio, which is itself a part of a major, world-dominating corporation. Either the folks at Warner Bros and Time-Warner weren’t paying a lot of attention or they just don’t think that a movie will make any bit of difference at this point. I couldn’t disagree more, and I have to tell you that if I was still actively working as a political organizer I would be standing outside theaters showing V and handing out anti-Bush and anti-Iraq War pamphlets to exiting moviegoers. Sure, this film is about a fictional fascist state that denies its people basic liberties and makes them live in fear, and sure it’s set in the London of the future, but there’s no hiding the fact that the film’s timeline is one that begins today.

AICN’s Drew McWeeny wrote a piece about the film where he said that the right-wingers who are already bristling about the movie (and feel free to check out some of these goose-steppers over at the Libertas forum, where they hurl invective at a film they haven’t seen and say the main character looks “gay.” Hey, isn’t it interesting that the fascistic future rulers of England corralled and exterminated gays in the film?) should check themselves – the movie is anti-fascism, and not taking on a particular current American ideology. He’s right. Sort of. But it’s no accident, no mistake, that the fascist government of this film is a conservative Christian one.

The Dead Kennedys wrote a very good song called California Uber Alles, about then-California governor Jerry Brown and his aggressively liberal policies. The song is funny. A few years later the band remade the song to be about former California governor Ronald Reagan. It wasn’t really so funny anymore. The Smiley Faced, be happy or else fascism of the original song is satire while the remake is stark reality. As much fun as it is to muse about a liberal fascist

state, the realities are two-fold: one, there is no serious liberal political presence in this nation. The Democrats, while putatively liberal, are at best middle of the road, and more accurately right of center. Two, it isn’t self-identified liberals keeping men in cages without the due process of law.

The film is being very specific – the policies that we are pursuing have one end-point, and that is a society where our basic freedoms are curbed for supposed security and comfortable routine. We see it now – the right to privacy is under astonishing attack, and the only thing more worrying than how much our government wants to listen in on our conversations and know what books we check out of the library is how little the people care. “I don’t have anything to hide,” is the refrain, a bit of sick logic that implies the person who wants privacy does have something dark to hide.

Of course there’s also a universality to this – while the specific circumstances that lead to the creation of the world in the film are undeniably rooted in the Bush Administration’s Orwellianly infinite war on terror, the suppression of rights for security has long been a hallmark of American politics. Hell, John Adams, the second president of the United States, passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which used fears of the new French revolutionary government to ban spoken or written criticism of the government, the Congress and the president. I once thought that, right or left, all Americans with a serious love for liberty could agree that limiting freedom is no way to save it. The last few years have proved me right in that those who would limit freedom, who would support illegal wiretaps or endless detentions, must despise liberty. So yes, the basic concepts and warnings of this work, which were crafted 25 years ago, could be easily adapted to deliver the same message in a timely way throughout history. But this film has been crafted to deliver that message specifically in relation to the world we currently live in.

What’s really freaking conservatives out, though, and will probably send such evil blowhards as Bill O’Reilly through the roof is the fact that V For Vendetta is a film in which the protagonist is a terrorist. Again, there’s no getting around that. You can call the guy a freedom fighter or an urban guerilla if you like, but essentially he’s a guy who wants to force political change by blowing things up. What will give these guys strokes is the fact that it works.

What’s happened in the world in the last few years is that we’ve had our dialogue taken

away. Remember when conservatives freaked the fuck out about the PC movement – where they took offense at the idea that maybe it wasn’t cool to use unpleasant racial or sexual remarks? When they decided that being polite was some kind of liberal conspiracy? Well, we live in a world which has become PC times a thousand, where to even question the US occupation of Iraq or the way that the War on Terror has been fought is to be un-American. If you try to even begin to understand why a huge percentage of the Middle East hates us, you’re a jihadist sympathizer. Why do you hate America so much with your questions and refusal to just accept the party line? But for the love of God, don’t tell me I can’t call gays “faggots,” because that’s PC nonsense. V For Vendetta seeks to dynamite open that blocked dialogue and to confront us with many issues – what is our security worth? Is terrorism inherently evil? What the hell is terrorism anyway?

V isn’t the only place these questions are being asked. Last week’s episode of Battlestar Galactica impressed me as it showed heroic human resistance fighters on Cylon-occupied Caprica blow up a café full of quite possibly innocent human-looking Cylons. Show creator Ronald Moore and his writers are no dummies – they took the characters we sympathize with, that we understand, who have been almost driven to extinction by the unspeakable aggression and brutality of the Cylons, and put them in the position of a Palestinian terrorist. We never saw what any of the Cylons killed in that explosion had done before. They may have been administrators or accountants – at least one was a barista. But the human resistance didn’t care if they had had a direct hand in the attempted genocide of the human race – they were complicit, guilty by association. And brilliantly the show puts us in the mindset of a terrorist. That's the beauty of what art can do, and how it can present to us new ways of looking at issues we thought we had already covered.

Some would say that’s glorifying terrorism; smarter people would say that’s examining how terrorism happens. Which is V? I think in the end it’s riding a fine line; it’s not explicitly condoning terrorism, but it is making the argument that sometimes the people need to commit violence against the state. Ironically, this is a statement that conservatives should agree with – it’s the basis, they say, of their impassioned defense of the Second Amendment. Violence against the state will always be classified as terrorism – by the state. If the modern concept of terrorism had been in vogue in 1776, I can guarantee to you that that would be how the Revolutionaries would have been smeared by the British. Instead they had to stick to the usual old-fashioned lines of treason and such. In the end the American Revolution was

the illegal use of violence to make political change – and if you don’t believe it was illegal, I suggest you do some reading as to find out why the signing of the Declaration of Independence was such a big deal. Each man who signed that document essentially signed his own death warrant, should he be captured – the British didn’t recognize American sovereignty and saw the Revolutionaries only as traitors who would be hung.

Much of V’s anti-conservative stance boils down to the meaning of the word conservative. The meaning in America today is eerily similar to the meaning it held in Thatcher’s dark Britain of the early 80s, the time this work was originally created in serial comic format. V is a film that confronts the lie of modern conservatism, showing that it’s not a movement about individual liberty and smaller government – if anything, it’s quite the exact opposite. It reminds us that those who wish to take away our liberties for safe-keeping are the true enemy. I keep waiting for true conservatives to wrest back the label from the (barely) crypto-(mostly)fascists who wear it today. Of course I'm still waiting for an actual liberal to stand up and take a bow on the national stage.

Most inspiring of all, though (and the movie’s climax is incredibly inspiring), is the film’s final statements that while violence against the state sometimes, in extreme circumstances, must be done with gunpowder, it can also be done with ideas and words. That’s why our dialogue has been so restricted for the last few years – the people in power, the people seeking more power by the day, know that their ideas of tyranny and fear cannot beat our ideas of hope and freedom. V For Vendetta is a dangerous film for these people and those who support them; it exposes their every trick. It gives the audience who perhaps hasn’t second-thought the continuing assaults on liberty and the rule of law in this nation a safe, action film shaped space to explore new concepts about where this country is going. And whether or not they like the inevitable destination.



这个不是海报,呵呵

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Movie List(59)Curse of the Golden Flower

为了支持咱中国电影在美的票房,我们还是决定到电影院里瞅瞅,不管怎么样,黄金甲毕竟上了美国的商业院线。

对此片的评价太多,举国上下都沉浸在黄金甲的一片灿烂中。什么大乳论、雷雨论、周董论俺就不表,在这里补充点别的吧。

从演技讲,真正出彩的是王的前妻一角,很眼熟,不过想不起来演过什么,而全片中就她一人平胸。周润发演起皇帝来还是有股劲,巩俐跟章子怡比比,虽然容颜日渐衰老,但姜还是老的辣。

从演员挑选来讲,不知道为什么会选周董,看电影前我并不知道二王子是他演的,看电影时,周董刚出场我竟忍不住笑出声来。

剧情上硬伤很多,不能自圆其说地地方比比皆是,但是为了玩什么黄金白银圣斗士大战,也不至于放着情理于不顾,肆意发挥过于夸张的想像力并不能证明就是想像力丰富。

片尾曲让我再次喷饭,虽然周董勤奋好学,才华横溢,做个流行歌曲绰绰有余,不过张艺谋拿来直接用就太压不住阵脚,显得比夜宴还小气了。不过目前的中国导演,在音乐上造诣深点的,还真找不出几个来,要达到大卫林奇的水平,恐怕还得继续修炼。

再提一点就是,在美国看中国电影,“怎一个爽字了得”!美国电影从来没有配音版,所以我们看着舒服,尤其是听着老外不适时宜的“哦”一声,我暗自大笑,他们原来看到这里才明白,仿佛把在美看电影迷惑不解的仇全报了,心中涌出一股很解恨的快意!也有让你们看得辛苦的电影,哈哈。(我很坏的)优越感——ABSOLUTE!



Sunday, January 14, 2007

宣传一下

强烈推荐: Across_United_States

没想到Paul同学替我完成了这个艰巨的任务。

内容未完待续,敬请关注。

Friday, January 12, 2007

movie list (58)Devil Wears Prada——选择什么就接受什么

美国片子我看得不算多,总自以为还算个电影青年,对好莱坞抱着鄙夷的态度,欧洲电影永远是首选。不过看多了欧洲深邃含蓄的文艺片,往往消化不良,常常想吃个酸柠檬什么的调调胃口,然后再图谋把自己的肠胃锻炼得更强健。Devil Wears Prada是我这段时间选出来的开胃菜,改编自畅销小说,大腕担纲,夸张幽默的表演,典型的好莱坞产品。大部分美国电影就像美国人一样——简单明了——一个简单的故事说明一个简单的道理,有时想想这样也没什么不好。

Devil Wears Prada的情节超级简单,Meryl Streep饰演世界顶极时尚杂志的主编,挑剔到变态,刻薄到恐怖,但却把整个人生献给了她的杂志。Anne Hathaway饰演一个被这个恶魔般的时尚女王无意选中的女助理,如果她能够坚持下来,就可以凭借这个资历山鸡变凤凰,进入纽约任何一家媒体工作。

看完这部电影,我想到最多的就是这样一个个结论:“选择什么就接受什么。或者说,只要你能接受的了,你就可以做这样的选择”。鱼和熊掌兼得的好事发生概率几乎为零。

Andy 选择了这份可以kill millions of girls的工作,那她就的忍受女魔头无尽的折磨与羞辱,或者借着男人的肩膀爬上她想要职位。对于一个有容貌学历资本的女孩来说,只要她愿意选择这些,她可以获得她想要的,但她也必须接受为此而付出的代价。Miranda选择做时尚老大,就得接受牺牲家庭温情,应付无尽权利斗争的现实。电影结尾为Andy 选择了一个看似很不媚俗的决定,她选择回归自我,选择尊严与爱情。这大概是我们每个人希望的那样,也希望自己能做到的那样。可是,现实社会呢?我们会做出跟Andy一样的选择吗?我们做了这样的选择,能够接受吗?

看似容易,实则很难。往往是我们选择了什么,却不能接受什么。辞职从大公司出来自己干,却没想到生意赔本,负债累累,后悔不如当初留在公司,风平浪静,衣食无忧;好好的国内大学教授不做,跑到美国一公司打工,绿卡遥遥无期,孩子学费昂贵,一狠心入了加拿大国籍,只为省下孩子的几个学费,于是感叹不如当初留在大学任教,好歹也算是个副部级;抛弃以前的恋人,投入有钱人的怀抱,不想老公难改花花公子本性,天天吵吵闹闹,又怀念起旧情人的总总好来⋯⋯,生活中这样的事情太多太多,我们往往选择了什么却不能接受这些。如此看来,电影中的两位女性还是很伟大的。Miranda从来不为自己的选择抱怨过什么,即使是离婚,她也能坚强面对;Andy也是如此,要做回自我,宁可放弃亿万女孩羡慕的工作,免费的世界顶极时装,时尚界最摩登的Party,唾手可得纽约客的编辑。她们俩都无怨无悔,竟让我肃然起敬起来。

我常常想我自己的人生经历,我的抱怨、懊悔、失望与不快多半来自于我“选择了什么却不能接受什么”,患得患失,不能满足。新的一年已经到了,我想我该改改,选择什么就接受什么吧。

再说说Meryl Streep在本片中的表演真可以用“老辣”两个字来形容。Anne Hathaway的确漂亮的惊人,不过我更喜欢她在断背山中的样子。很喜欢这部电影海报,贴上来。

Saturday, January 6, 2007

movie list (57)江城夏日(Luxury Car)

一部在武汉拍摄,讲武汉方言的电影,在异国他乡看到此片,感觉有点亲切又有点陌生还夹点喜剧的味道。

故事有些新浪潮的味道,人物也还算边缘,就是不明白那样一个家庭出身的女儿,到了大城市为什么就走上这样的人生路。总体上看还可以,但也不算很好,结尾父亲坐在产房外听到出生婴儿的啼哭声,笑了。总觉得这样的结尾在哪部片子里见过,就是想不起来了。

Friday, January 5, 2007

烩圆子

包饺子剩下点馅不知道干什么好了,想想以前妈妈做肉圆子的故事,正好就用剩下的这点馅做点圆子得了。

记得以前妈妈做园子总是不成功,不是说滚的园子不圆,而是做的园子都是扎实的死肉一团,吃起来不是很爽口,我更是不喜欢吃。为此,妈妈开始了她肉圆子的试验工程。她试过很多馅料,最后终于得出了比较理想的成果,就是肉馅里一定要加荸荠或者豆腐。别小看这两样东东,加进肉馅里能够很大地改善圆子的口感,做出的圆子,蓬松不腻,尤其是加荸荠的,还有脆脆的清香。

这次为了涂省事,我加的是豆腐,做出的圆子味道也不错。

写写烧法吧,把老豆腐切碎,拌进包饺子的馅料(白菜猪肉饺子,加了点香菇)里,打匀。

架锅烧开水,把陷撮成圆子下进去,当圆子浮起后,再烧片刻捞起。

放凉圆子,锅里留油,下圆子略炸,等炸到一圈开始变得微焦后,到如调料,翻炒至圆子完全变色。

调料的做法简单,放少许料酒、葱、姜末、蒜末、酱油、糖(稍多)、醋、香油即可。

(照片拍得不好,晚上光线太弱,用了闪光灯)