話說在頭，比較電影與小說從來是不公平的。拍張愛玲的電影更是註定要被人狠批的，喜歡張愛玲的人都傾向說他/她心目中的張愛玲及其筆下人物*應*該*是怎樣怎樣，而小說改電影又不免會有改動，而很多或太多的人都說自己是張迷。
在未看電影之前，只聽說床戲很「激」。小說裡沒有也不需要描寫這些場面。我曾對友人說，不雖要那麼著重這裡的床戲吧，沒有人不知道愛是怎樣做的。今天看了電影回來，也許我要把話收回....李大導真的生怕你沒看過人類做愛, 把一些瑜珈似的高難度動作都一一搬來，鏡頭時而在下，時而在上，時而靜止時而流動……，還要特寫他那裡如何進出她那裡的。到最後他們的肢體終於扭成一團無分彼此。於是他們就真的戀愛了麼？天啊我不想看見你們的陰毛。（真的很想知那個top view八肢[應該是九…]交纏的動作是怎樣做的，可否出本附簡圖的guide？）
老易是搞特務的，又是漢奸，*所*以*他就非得壓抑、暴力、SM、一時眼淚一時抽皮鞭打人不可？小說中的的老易（我認為）是皮笑肉不笑、殺人不見血、自私冷酷內儉但不會如此歇斯底里的。看小說的結尾，他冷靜地在那幾個黑斗篷太太跟前面不改容，暗自得意她「這才生是他的人，死是他的鬼」，還盤算著如何向引「女狼」入室的太太施下馬威。那叫人不寒而慄的才是小說的力量所在。所以電影的結尾梁朝偉滿腔熱淚撫摸王睡過的床，是最叫我失望的地方。這麼眼淺怎麼做高官、做特務呀？
老易從珠寶店逃出那一幕，橫向飛入車廂，像魚販拋一尾魚一樣，這個重點「動作」元素竟成為片子的笑位（我看的那場。朋友 那場的笑位是「找人破處」）。
其他的感受只是王佳芝的少女革命時代太長，而我們對她如何變成愛國的沒有太大興趣。還有片子真的太長，他們的愛做得太長，她等他們出手殺也等得太長，以致電影中的鄺裕民和我身邊那人都很擔心王佳芝再待在那裡會不行。roller一出我就像梁朝偉般「快走！」——向廁所直奔，不過我沒有水平地飛入馬桶。
伸延: Makuranososhi: 戒不了《色，戒》
Makuranososhi:抑鬱的《色，戒》
朗天: 李安將王佳芝說扁了！
星期日, 9月 30, 2007
星期五, 9月 28, 2007
袋鼠學位
以一生積蓄和多年自我禁閉在與世隔絕的辦公室，我換來了一張由袋鼠和獅子捧著的畢業證書。雖然我除了當白痴遊客之外從沒離開過香港，而我這隻廿多歲的袋鼠也應該從未去過澳洲。五六歲時媽為了哄我喝苦藥，事後和我去獅子石道的「國際百貨」買的，多年後我才發現她應該是Winnie-the-Pooh裡面的Kanga和 Roo。
證書是到一所門外門內沒有什何公司名稱的怪寫字樓拿的。
真的很想走。老師誇口他當年在英國的大學內可讀到全世界的藝術雜誌，今天隨便翻雜誌看見有個台灣女孩說她當年出國去學攝影是因為在不想困在台灣。你們台灣好歹也有MoCA（香港的博物館是幾乎沒有現當代藝術的）。為什麼那個不是我。
證書是到一所門外門內沒有什何公司名稱的怪寫字樓拿的。
真的很想走。老師誇口他當年在英國的大學內可讀到全世界的藝術雜誌，今天隨便翻雜誌看見有個台灣女孩說她當年出國去學攝影是因為在不想困在台灣。你們台灣好歹也有MoCA（香港的博物館是幾乎沒有現當代藝術的）。為什麼那個不是我。
星期一, 9月 24, 2007
花燈之狂迷
今年這個也真夠誇張的，我也自覺有點過份。貓頭說，這不是中秋花燈，是祭神的花炮吧。但我發誓我是從一堆花燈中挑到它的……不過現在牠跳躍在我家半空很是詭異，隨時有跳出來咬人的煞氣。
小時候有各色兔子燈、楊桃燈、玻璃紙松鼠燈，還有外公自己造的六角立方體燈（事實上我不知他是怎樣做出來的—完美的直線組成的平面，每一面都繃得緊緊的，可惜用上了膠質「閃咭」那種物料）。到長大了還每年都要買一個兔子或者金魚，但到近年開始失控，每年都想買好幾個。去年是兩隻兔、前年是楊桃和蝴蝶—近兩年出現這種該死的合成布料做的花燈，帶著化工色彩的金光閃閃，卻一點也不耐熱，點上蠟燭後附近的布料就自動融化，完全屬於溫室電花燈的一代。從那人對電花燈的態度可知他的年齡，接受程度越低越老。我當然屬於老的一代，不過也買過一隻口中嘔出小魚的怪魚。
早幾年還買過多款金魚、兔子或者叫不出名稱的傳統花燈。現在因為買了超大的麒麟，不可再買，但腦中已在盤算明年買什麼—蓮花燈、鯉魚、孔雀……。
去年的兔子
前年(?)在深水埗拍的，很喜歡這些魚!
家裡的收藏
今年發現的皺紙楊桃。在清冷無人的大坑舊樓中，一家店在默默地手造的。
我買麒麟的那家店，在中環史丹頓街。
同是那家店。這個我也想要... 花燈們好像在店裡和大家一起的時候更動人。
04年的楊桃和花燈。
星期四, 9月 20, 2007
字花#9 [內含死貓]
星期一, 9月 17, 2007
死貓也去看布紐爾
死貓也去看布紐爾。
怎麼可以這麼美？《青樓紅杏》(Belle de Jour)裡的丹露相貌身段的美自不在話下，她身上每一件連衣裙大衣皮鞋都手工精巧線條簡潔，（是YSL！）於是我就像她的妓女同事一樣伸手抓她的衣服現出窮親戚相：「嘩多美的大衣 / 看那剪裁！」而這些乾淨俐落的衣裙就與她與醫生丈夫那過度裝飾的愛巢—連鋼琴也描著金花的—成對比。連妓院—叫「Anais女士時裝店」—也放滿了優美的帽子，而且陳設得就像家一樣。更不要說坐著馬車在走不盡的林蔭大道，然後穿著幽雅紅大衣的她被戴著白手套的車伕們……。
《女僕日記》(Diary of a Chambermaid)一映入我眼簾的是珍摩露手中的60年代黑皮Clutch bag和身上富線條美的絨大衣。當然還有女僕制服，還有她在主人家中幹活時無時無刻穿著的高跟鞋。穿得像一條鉛筆的女主人罵她不要擦香水，她轉頭就再擦多點。
還有《中產階級審慎的魅力》輕盈散漫的七十年代衣飾。嘩怎麼死貓你看電影這麼膚淺的，我說，一，也是的，二，是正經的影評早已有人寫了，輪不到我。總不至於會說Severine去做妓女是為了實現變態性慾吧。我還要穿了一件假的60年代連衣裙去，死未。
怎麼可以這麼美？《青樓紅杏》(Belle de Jour)裡的丹露相貌身段的美自不在話下，她身上每一件連衣裙大衣皮鞋都手工精巧線條簡潔，（是YSL！）於是我就像她的妓女同事一樣伸手抓她的衣服現出窮親戚相：「嘩多美的大衣 / 看那剪裁！」而這些乾淨俐落的衣裙就與她與醫生丈夫那過度裝飾的愛巢—連鋼琴也描著金花的—成對比。連妓院—叫「Anais女士時裝店」—也放滿了優美的帽子，而且陳設得就像家一樣。更不要說坐著馬車在走不盡的林蔭大道，然後穿著幽雅紅大衣的她被戴著白手套的車伕們……。
《女僕日記》(Diary of a Chambermaid)一映入我眼簾的是珍摩露手中的60年代黑皮Clutch bag和身上富線條美的絨大衣。當然還有女僕制服，還有她在主人家中幹活時無時無刻穿著的高跟鞋。穿得像一條鉛筆的女主人罵她不要擦香水，她轉頭就再擦多點。
還有《中產階級審慎的魅力》輕盈散漫的七十年代衣飾。嘩怎麼死貓你看電影這麼膚淺的，我說，一，也是的，二，是正經的影評早已有人寫了，輪不到我。總不至於會說Severine去做妓女是為了實現變態性慾吧。我還要穿了一件假的60年代連衣裙去，死未。
還有難忘的是我看了的幾部電影都出現的阿嬏(Muni)。她總被塑造得很蠢，有點慘，又很可愛，如在《女僕日記》裡她常被Joseph搶白，又要被少爺搞，最後女僕Celestine嫁人成了女主人後卻沒忘記帶上她、《青樓紅杏》的妓院女僕，《中產階級審慎的魅力》那被神父殺掉的花王的妻子。小腳色，但很有presence，總覺得她是同一個人，在不同的年代裡總是在幹著粗活。還有那個總是被侵犯的小女孩—《女僕日記》中被姦殺的小女孩、《青樓紅杏》中飛快閃過一個老頭在摸一個女童，這個可是Severine？和妓院女僕那總是被嫖客覬覦未成年女兒。
***
我沾不上邊但也要伸延: 玩樂與迷失 (makuranososhi)
星期六, 9月 15, 2007
窮風流~「就讓快活的狗住唐樓」
眾所周之，我在失業，但又只有我一個人不覺得。由「正經事」—真的在釘畫布準備畫畫、看書，到不那麼正經的玩Facebook看日劇，我都讓自己看上去很忙。反而別人都在著急，彷彿看到一個痲瘋病人耳朵鼻子全掉下來了自己還不知道，非要點醒他不可，問「你搵到工未」、「你唸住搵乜工做呀」，我也不好告訴他們我根本不在找。推搪說在教畫，他們又要問「咁你教幾多個鐘、幾錢」非要我抖出在失業不可。碰到舊同事問一句「你家陣喺邊」更是不能招架。不上班就是罪，即使我是用以前打工的錢把自己買回來。
於是又有另一種說法，說我很有錢。我當然沒錢，可以燒多久屈指可數，只是現在我不去算它就是了。有些人真是有病的，常說「嘩你咁高人工…我就賺得很少啦……嘩你又有新衫呀!!我就窮啦……」，但事實上說這話的人絕對比我富有，而當她們在怨我「高人工」的時候，其實她們的不比我當時的少。即是這種人認為她過好生活是應份的，我這種人就不配。她們之中甚至有人因意外地曾做過比較低薪的工作，竟說漏了嘴：「連你也高人工過我！」而現在當我在高調的失業，根據她們的邏輯，即是，真係好有錢。
住唐樓的狗也未必能一百巴仙快活，因為要交租。咦，有沒有有樓之人讓我每月給他/她一張小畫當交租呢……
於是又有另一種說法，說我很有錢。我當然沒錢，可以燒多久屈指可數，只是現在我不去算它就是了。有些人真是有病的，常說「嘩你咁高人工…我就賺得很少啦……嘩你又有新衫呀!!我就窮啦……」，但事實上說這話的人絕對比我富有，而當她們在怨我「高人工」的時候，其實她們的不比我當時的少。即是這種人認為她過好生活是應份的，我這種人就不配。她們之中甚至有人因意外地曾做過比較低薪的工作，竟說漏了嘴：「連你也高人工過我！」而現在當我在高調的失業，根據她們的邏輯，即是，真係好有錢。
住唐樓的狗也未必能一百巴仙快活，因為要交租。咦，有沒有有樓之人讓我每月給他/她一張小畫當交租呢……
星期二, 9月 11, 2007
死貓on澳門之鹹魚
(為Air Macau機上雜誌而作的圖文故事[的原文]。這張我拍的醎魚相out of focus，雜誌上用的是博物館提供的照片。)
喜歡澳門的混雜，即使是最粗淺的說法--什麼東西交匯、華洋雜處。舊城區市中心是修得像積木小屋一樣精緻的南歐建築，人們樂此不彼的在拍照，以擷取一方塊的異國風情。但同時只需從大街轉到街角，就看見最地道，最生活化，只有中國人才會吃的東西—醎魚。那天在新馬路將要轉入向海的街，在店門前的地上就橫著兩三個筲簊，滿是給撐開了肚子的醎魚。沿著海邊南行，幾家店舖前面排著滿滿的醎魚，生意有點冷清，不做菜的我得迴避檔主殷切的目光。換了是其他的大都市，一是市中心早已被「高級」商廈佔據，生活被趕到外區，或是早得了城市潔癖症:大街大巷哪容得下地面一簊的醎魚？
這次是醎魚跑到藝術博物館裡去，而且還戴著水晶，化了個白白的妝，彷彿拉斯維加斯的女士，進賭場前要打扮一番，醎魚也要裝過身才進入博物館，而對君士坦丁（Konstantin Bessmertny）來說，也許澳門本身就是一個大賭場（後按：在君士坦丁的作品裡，澳門又叫Casino Republic，logo是一座火山）。君士坦丁把醎魚組成的作品叫〈挑戰〉，而魚們就用自己的身體寫上Provocatio。草根的醎魚戴上代表有錢人品味的水晶 –雖然現在什麼地方也要掛水晶燈 – 醎魚們以身體作出反諷，彷彿在說生命的力量足以顛覆一切浮誇的都市謊言。不過，我看著魚身上的白色油漆心裡有點不好受，想起醎魚加飯的味道，嚥一下口水，在想：哎這魚不能吃了！如果讓牠們發揮自身的香氣，會不會更具挑戰性呢？
這次是醎魚跑到藝術博物館裡去，而且還戴著水晶，化了個白白的妝，彷彿拉斯維加斯的女士，進賭場前要打扮一番，醎魚也要裝過身才進入博物館，而對君士坦丁（Konstantin Bessmertny）來說，也許澳門本身就是一個大賭場（後按：在君士坦丁的作品裡，澳門又叫Casino Republic，logo是一座火山）。君士坦丁把醎魚組成的作品叫〈挑戰〉，而魚們就用自己的身體寫上Provocatio。草根的醎魚戴上代表有錢人品味的水晶 –雖然現在什麼地方也要掛水晶燈 – 醎魚們以身體作出反諷，彷彿在說生命的力量足以顛覆一切浮誇的都市謊言。不過，我看著魚身上的白色油漆心裡有點不好受，想起醎魚加飯的味道，嚥一下口水，在想：哎這魚不能吃了！如果讓牠們發揮自身的香氣，會不會更具挑戰性呢？
君士坦丁也許是最能體現澳門中西混合性（若果真是有的話）的人。他是一個俄羅斯畫家，卻在澳門住了十多年，我說「卻」，因為我總以為在澳門見到言語不通的人準必是葡人。於是他具備了意想不到的異國風情，而又跟我們很接近—設想沒有飛機，那麼俄羅斯就是最接近我們的歐洲了。他筆下的人物穿著歐洲的古裝卻在訴說現代人的故事，而當中也不乏中國人物的出現。看他的展覽好像坐了一程過山車，眼底盡是斑駁，整個世界為我搓成一糰，也就好像每次去澳門一樣。
星期五, 9月 07, 2007
星期三, 9月 05, 2007
窮貓買書+小貓釣魚
到深圳少年宮旁的新書城, 進去後完全變成了港燦。只三層樓高但偌大無比, 開放式設計，像個書的大花園，只是很多書都包了膠袋, 有些打不了書釘。藝術書館地方大但書的份量不太足。不送膠袋，(紙袋要買但通常都不好意思要) 剛買的書都抱著出去，跟它們感覺親近了。
圍繞著賣書的地方是玩具、飾品、文具店、高級象棋店和高級銘茶店，賣的很多是進口貨, 貴得很, 還有正版卡拉貓和六百多元一隻的日本和布兔子擺設，富起來的人真的很富呢。還有多家國內流行得很的'電子學習產品'的店，不知這些小孩是否都會變神童呢。沒有我要找的廉價美術用品，於是兩隻窮鬼夾著尾巴跑去舊書城。
在兒童圖書部買到幾張老中國動畫VCD，看了'小貓釣魚'，唯一有標年份的，4套短片由1952年至1957，前兩齣是黑白的。穿著唐裝衣褲的貓很好笑，還會晒魚乾呢! '誇口的青蛙'裡的青蛙隨著管弦樂的節奏跳來跳去，而這齣和之後的'我知道'和'拔蘿蔔'中的兔子和松鼠等動物的造型超可愛，身子像麵糰一樣彈呀彈。
星期六, 9月 01, 2007
投訴PCCW網上行之我不是豬肉
對不起這麼長的英文. 故事其實很簡單. 我的賬單突然肥大, 裡面有我從未答應要加的服務. 這不是第一次. 而這次這位顧客服務員以誓不低頭的姿態拒絕退款... 我上網，但我不是一塊豬肉。
To Customer Service, Netvigator (PCCW)
CC to The Office of the Telecommunications Authority
Dear Sir/ Mdm,
I have been a loyal customer of your broadband internet service for years, however, I found that your company repeatedly impose dishonest practice of adding extra services on my account without my permission.
Today I found that my August bill is $249, which actually should be $162.
I called customer service of your company, your Ms Anny Wong said the extra charge is for Now.com paid TV, which I have NEVER registered for nor being informed. She claimed that your staff has phoned my brother in April to introduce the Now.com paid TV service, and that once my brother had called your company to cancel paid TV service, while because HE DID NOT CANCEL IT ONLINE, so your company ignored his request and continue to bill me (after so-called 3 month's "free" trial).
While it is impossible for me to verify the teleconversation between my brother and your staff 4 months ago, it is definitely clear that I never agreed to the addition of such service and my brother had not said "yes" for me. (My brother is the registered person of this account 'Davischan01', he has moved out for years and the acc. is now used and paid by me. The reason why there is a record of he calling to cancel the paid TV, is because he did it on behalf of his own account, Davischan02, which HAD paid TV in the beginning.[sorry for the confusion, but the reason my acc. is still under my brother's name is because your staff once said it cannot be changed)]
Ms Wong made many interestingly illogical ASSUMPTIONS: A) given that my brother called to cancel the paid TV, that equals he agrees to the existence of such service, and THEREFORE it equals he/I somehow agrees to this service.B) given that he once called to cancel, it is assumed that the staff HAS EXPLAINED to him that he should cancel it ONLINE (or fax ID copy), if he didn't do that, it is his fault.
While I argued that as the sole user I never received any request to add paid TV service, nor even notice. Ms Wong argues that, "IF SO, THEN WE MUST HAVE SENT YOU EMAIL [to notify you]" - in fact, I didn't get it, but even if I did, how can you assume an unreplied email equals a "yes"!
As I was speaking to Ms Anny Wong, I demanded immediate termination of the paid TV service, and she instructed me to go to 2 separate websites and pass through a few steps each, so as to successfully cancel such services. It is very unfair to impose such unsolicited paid service, while requiring the consumer to go through such pain (I won't know those 2 websites unless Ms Wong told me) so as to cancel them. And she refused to refund the extra money charged on the August bill.
I demand a full refund of the paid TV charges. And I need to raise this issue to the public as this is a totally irresponsible and unreasonable way of doing business. I strongly request your company never to add any paid services (even the FIRST few months are free) to clients unless you get a written and express approval from them.
I look forward to your correction.
(The reason I said your company has repeatedly been dishonest is that I had been added some "valued added" phone service and complained on 2006/05/30, and that your staff immediately canceled them)
Ms xxxxxx
To Customer Service, Netvigator (PCCW)
CC to The Office of the Telecommunications Authority
Dear Sir/ Mdm,
I have been a loyal customer of your broadband internet service for years, however, I found that your company repeatedly impose dishonest practice of adding extra services on my account without my permission.
Today I found that my August bill is $249, which actually should be $162.
I called customer service of your company, your Ms Anny Wong said the extra charge is for Now.com paid TV, which I have NEVER registered for nor being informed. She claimed that your staff has phoned my brother in April to introduce the Now.com paid TV service, and that once my brother had called your company to cancel paid TV service, while because HE DID NOT CANCEL IT ONLINE, so your company ignored his request and continue to bill me (after so-called 3 month's "free" trial).
While it is impossible for me to verify the teleconversation between my brother and your staff 4 months ago, it is definitely clear that I never agreed to the addition of such service and my brother had not said "yes" for me. (My brother is the registered person of this account 'Davischan01', he has moved out for years and the acc. is now used and paid by me. The reason why there is a record of he calling to cancel the paid TV, is because he did it on behalf of his own account, Davischan02, which HAD paid TV in the beginning.[sorry for the confusion, but the reason my acc. is still under my brother's name is because your staff once said it cannot be changed)]
Ms Wong made many interestingly illogical ASSUMPTIONS: A) given that my brother called to cancel the paid TV, that equals he agrees to the existence of such service, and THEREFORE it equals he/I somehow agrees to this service.B) given that he once called to cancel, it is assumed that the staff HAS EXPLAINED to him that he should cancel it ONLINE (or fax ID copy), if he didn't do that, it is his fault.
While I argued that as the sole user I never received any request to add paid TV service, nor even notice. Ms Wong argues that, "IF SO, THEN WE MUST HAVE SENT YOU EMAIL [to notify you]" - in fact, I didn't get it, but even if I did, how can you assume an unreplied email equals a "yes"!
As I was speaking to Ms Anny Wong, I demanded immediate termination of the paid TV service, and she instructed me to go to 2 separate websites and pass through a few steps each, so as to successfully cancel such services. It is very unfair to impose such unsolicited paid service, while requiring the consumer to go through such pain (I won't know those 2 websites unless Ms Wong told me) so as to cancel them. And she refused to refund the extra money charged on the August bill.
I demand a full refund of the paid TV charges. And I need to raise this issue to the public as this is a totally irresponsible and unreasonable way of doing business. I strongly request your company never to add any paid services (even the FIRST few months are free) to clients unless you get a written and express approval from them.
I look forward to your correction.
(The reason I said your company has repeatedly been dishonest is that I had been added some "valued added" phone service and complained on 2006/05/30, and that your staff immediately canceled them)
Ms xxxxxx
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
