在前天,也就是7月23日看了Alison Klayman的纪录片AWW: Never Sorry。。(影片的官方网站提供介绍和预告片http://www.aiweiweineversorry.com/)
这是一部难得的完整纪录,(在这样一个时间,关于一个关键的角色)。比较客观、认真地追问了一个问题,一遍又一遍的:到底AWW是怎么从一位艺术家,成为了activist。
也展示了他在几个身份之下的活动:艺术家、activist、儿子、丈夫、父亲。
洪晃(那是洪晃么?)说,AWW的作品,不容人误解,没有误读的空间。AWW在一个电视台采访里说自己之所以成了activist,是因为:Don't
want to be living in the denial of the
reality(大概意思)。而说到现在和下一步,AWW说,自己像个下棋的人,对手走一步,自己走一步,而下一步是什么,他还在等。他认为自己并非勇敢,而是比别人害怕(才行动的),因为对他的威胁已经在那了,所以一定要行动。
作为艺术家和activist,AWW都有自己的才气与魅力,但作为activist的他,更受人喜爱,他做了很多人不敢做、不会做、无力做的事情。而陈丹青(不是他就是顾长卫)的话则做了很好的概括:要和流氓斗,你自己也差不多是个流氓。
虽然在全面与创新上,这部片子可能还不如只讲述了某一事件的《老妈蹄花》;但它却在缺失“可以用镜头表现的冲突”的情况下,成功地调动了情绪,出色地调动了素材,加入了文革、8*9的片段之后,简直令人想为这个国家、这个国家的青年和孩子们,这个国家的知识分子,大哭一场。
一起看片子的基本上是外国人,和陪外国人来的中国人,很遗憾没有看到国人观看的现场表现,也没什么人在现场可以讨论。
(其他:这部在美国圣丹斯电影节首映,即将在美国上映的纪录片,由一位美国记者创作。在中国,暂时还没有公开的放映,哪怕民间电影放映活动。这回,是在荷兰驻京大使馆——也就是“境外”的地方反映的。这也是希望帮助大家了解这部片子在国内的状况。)
和大家扯“电影节研究”,有人好奇,有人不屑一顾,这很正常;没有必要为这个分支学科涕泪交零地辩护。对于我为什么要去电影节,很多人包括我的日本同事其实不是很清楚在鹿特丹呆十天左右意义何在;或许我平时没有苦大仇深学习和研究的姿态令人们觉得我(再)去欧洲动机不纯(有没有想过我天资聪颖?)。固然我是想过认识新的小哥哥探讨电影把臂同游之类,但这不是影展本身于我的意义所在。似乎很多人对参加影展和跑那么远参加影展有一定程度的误解;对我来说,影展是研究(工作)的一部分,某程度上说比我天天去研究所还累;此外,影展给大众的印象似乎就是观光和吃喝;是旅行的一种借口。拜托啊兄弟,冬天的荷兰凡是人,头都要被风吹掉了,你观屁个光啊。
不过基于过往三届的经验,简单罗列一下。首先为什么一定要去。如果要保持对亚洲新电影的认识不凹凸,很直接而貌似简单的做法就是多看片;在不能够及时通过盗版等间接途径得到片源的情况下,最直接的办法是去电影节;在时间和金钱都有限但并非完全不可能的情况下,除了国内的民间影展,或可以考虑去釜山,以及鹿特丹。固然我参加这些影展,都有一个堂皇的理由“和研究有关”。(我信这个理由么?现在估算可能是有点小小怀疑的,因为的确为了自我辩解写这种冒傻气的文章了。)两影展后者和前者的关系不赘述,至少要明白的是,鹿特丹的竞赛单元和釜山新浪潮一样只选导演的第一部或第二部作品;而鹿特丹也十分喜欢来自“南方”的作品。如果不是以往鹿特丹,我不可能对亚洲的独立作品那么感兴趣。
其次,为什么要那么久(涉及每日安排)。减去从亚洲来回的时间,其实只有8天,而例如鹿特丹整体的大致期间是12天。影片群数量庞大,任何地球人都无法穷尽;只能甄选后根据优先性每天挑选3-5部(5是我的极限)观赏之。于我这样低端但尚算一心一意的影迷+研究者而言,在“看电影”为主要目的的前提下,几乎每天都会如此重复。在安排了访问的时候,看片数大概会略减。此外,还有相当时间用来书写、记录和交谈。不排除很小量的娱乐时间。在这样认真安排进行的时间内若完全穷尽自己想看的作品,已然满足。
最后,完全从个人的私心出发,我的确喜欢鹿特丹影展的人和工作环境。和网络电影节不同的是,如果你不亲自到达影展,不能浸淫在那种“正在进行中“的话,无法理解所谓场力何在。固然networking也是很重要的议题。作者、导演、选片人、影评人、观众、闲人⋯⋯若你看不到他们的脸,见不到他们的表情和眼神,不观察他们和影院的关联,不体会到城市或因影展而变得不同,或许就只能想象电影节不过是 “看看电影”和“顺便旅行”而不可能是更多。
另:从大阪跑到东京办签证,两趟夜间巴士,大使馆的唧唧歪歪,另加6100日元的签证费(托欧元贬值的福,几乎欧元和港币一样了!),你让我只待5天,说不过去吧???什么时候我国护照也能够去欧洲说去就去了,让我到了就走咱都没有异议。 以上です。
Dear all, this is R.
Flower in the Pocket
It is known that the 37th International Film Festival Rotterdam (or IFFR 08) has a humorous official commercial in which a filmmaker always feels he is too “huge” anywhere he goes…in Rotterdam, and “it’s good feeling”, he adds in a wink.
In fact when the city of Rotterdam enters its “Tiger Time” in the gloomy winter, under its aloof modernist disguise she oozes confidence, passion and sexiness with lots of film-related events, celebrations and other visual entertainments going on. “Filmmaker”, so to speak, is also broadly defined by Rotterdam to include the adventurous, original-minded visual artists. Under the leadership of the newly appointed and arguably the “interim” president Rutger Wolfson, this edition’s IFFR underscores the spirit of “Free Radicals”, a chemistry term used to describe the “special molecules or atoms that occasionally provoke fierce reactions”. The programme curated by Wolfson has encompassed three American visual artists’ works (Cameron Jamie, Robert Breer, Paul Sharits) which he believes have been closer to the essence of art in its rebellion from the mainstream visual industry. If the founder of IFFR, the cultural pioneer Hubert Bals were alive today, he couldn’t agree more that the 37-year-old festival from the very beginning has also positioned itself as the “Free Radical” in world visual industry with its selection, showcasing and financing of the most audacious and edgy independent films.
When I was there inside De Doelen Complex, a place I visited 3 years ago as a first-time festival-goer and this time an “angry young” Film Critic Trainee, it’s impressive that even the opening ceremony seems rather low-profile and unpretentious: no red carpet, of course; no limos but only lines of bicycles, the most frequently used transportation means by the Dutch; no fashion competitions among guests, obviously; no lengthy, tedious talks by officials but the touching moment to award the mayor of Rotterdam City for his contribution to the festival after his brief speech, and a golden medal saying “Tiger is a girl’s best friend” to the festival’s former president Sandra Den Hamer...I do have the strong sense that filmmakers are made “important” and “different” here in Rotterdam, particularly the young talents, because IFFR has been highly regarded globally for its persistent promotion and support of independent films from developing countries in the “South”—namely Asia, South America and Africa for last 36 years. As IndieWIRE’s Mark Rabinowitz argues, “no festival in the world does more for young and emerging filmmakers from around the world than the IFFR”. Actually its VPRO Tiger Award Competition is made up of 15 first-time or second-time features by independent filmmakers, five of which are from Asia this year, and the festival itself is opened with a debut work. It is also rare when major film festivals would usually compete for premieres from established directors.
The opening film Cordero de Dios (Lamb of God) by Argentinean filmmaker Lucia Cedrón (b.1974) set against the turbulent era of late 70’s Buenos Aires when lots of dissidents mysteriously “disappeared” under the military dictatorship. As Cedrón’s first feature film, Lamb of God is biographical in that the filmmaker went to France with her mother after her father Jorge Cedrón, also a filmmaker, died in the 1970’s whose death is never clarified officially.
I have to say the festival’s promoting trailer about how “big” a filmmaker could be at Rotterdam gets testified when Liew Seng-tat, a 29-year-old Malaysian New Wave filmmaker won the Tiger Award with his first feature Flower in the Pocket centering on two brothers’ after-school adventure in Kuala Lumpur. At the Award Ceremony, Seng-tat had a difficult time juggling with the poster-like 15,000 Euro bank note (cash award of Tiger) with in one hand and the IFFR diploma in the other when he had to at the same time make a short award acceptance speech in waves of laughter and cheers with his towering Dutch hosts (the festival president Rutger Wolfson must be over 1.90 meters!) at back.
Actually Seng-tat’s “hugeness” was already felt when this babyface filmmaker shares with me—in Mandarin—how he and his friends at Dahuang Pictures, the base of Malaysian New Wave filmmakers keep making films in collaboration and finally get their films released in their home country, in “foreign language” cinema lines though—a truth enough to debunk the belief that these Malaysian filmmakers are trapped and will be perpetuated within the festival circuit by making “festival films”. The second Tiger Award that Malaysian New Wave filmmakers garnered, following Tan Chuimui’s Love Conquers All in 2007 both in Pusan and Rotterdam, a victory repeated by Liew Seng-tat, enforces the fact that in its eighth year the New Wave as well as Dahuang Pictures are not just “flower in the pocket” with petals scattered in the film festival world, but have their season of blossom in vision with continuing global attention and its own growing domestic audience.
This is Rotterdam: always dares to embrace something new and different. When talking to one of Rotterdam’s six programmers Gerwin Tamsma, who is basically responsible for programming Asian indies, about what kind of films will attract him most (and thus to be selected), Gerwin says that “let me put it this way”, he smiles, “Rotterdam and I myself always would like to see films that are always a little bit different from our expectation”, he continues, “films that could bring surprises—this is what we want”.
In Rotterdam I met Li Ruijun (b. 1983), a Beijing-based Chinese independent filmmaker who brought to Rotterdam his first feature Summer Solstice (Sturm and Strung) which was made with a shoestring budget. With its sometimes obviously affected lines, the segmented narrative in the second half and technical problems, one would also be amazed by the controversial subject Li has focused on (same-sex love), the stylized abrupt editing between scenes, the graphical texture of the setting and his sharp perspective in alternative story telling among his peers. Basically having no connection with the prestigious Beijing Film Academy, Li just sent in his film as thousands of other applicants and got an instant response from the programmer. They love it. And Li Ruijun with his all-in-all first film flew to Rotterdam to meet his hundreds of audience in Pathé Theater.
Therefore despite that when looking back I indeed regard this IFFR an event of “missing chances & encounters”, which includes but not limit to the bankruptcy of my ambitious film-watching plan and the unavoidable absence from several themed parties with live music plus film screening (due to my “professional” pressure as the Chinese press representative), Rotterdam film festival still strikes me most as the annual celebration of world independent, alternative film culture, the platform to meet both European or American arthouse maestros (and to ask for their autographs) and emerging film talents (so you hold a quite optimistic view towards the generation born in late 70’s and early 80’s), and the embodiment of this very familiar slogan “Impossible is Nothing”, or vice versa. IFFR’s magnetic field radiates for every newcomer like me and its practical outlook, idealistic vision (thanks to the founder Hubert Bals) and the warm, friendly atmosphere would even make you believe every great film festival should be and would be as wonderful as this one.
This IFFR is also an occasion for serendipitous discoveries. To get to know the programmer ofRediscovering the Fourth Generation Cinema Shelly Kraicer prematurally as an interpreter for two Chinese directors—Huang Shuqin (Woman, Demon, Human) and Xie Fei (Black Snow) is the most exciting part of my first day at IFFR; and yeah I collected some of those filmmakers' autographs...not in order to show off, but that I never imagined that one day the directors of "old" films that I watched when I was quite a little girl would sit next to me and shared with me the Chinese fried rice with its warmth. Later on when talking with Shelly, I learnt that to obtain any single one of the 12 film prints at IFFR, he made great efforts to negotiate with and convince people of the film studios (the now film group companies).
On the final day of the festival, I also went to watch My Old Memories of Beijing (Chengnan Jiushi, 1982) by Wu Yigong. After the film, I heard a middle-aged Dutch woman singing the ballad recurrent in this film when she walked out (Songbie or Farewell Pavilion, lyric by Chinese intellectual Li Shutong, the melody is originally from an American composer John Pond Ordway). Moment as such is just touching and wonderful but my feeling is just mixed, not just because of the film itself, but the fact that I am in Rotterdam with a full house of audience who are willing to appreciate the old and the past when we ourselves are reluctant to remember and too ready to ignore.
[screened at 2011 Rotterdam International Film Festival]
徐童監督とドキュメンタリーにでてきた唐小雁さんが、
*日時:2011年12月12(月) open: 17:30 start: 18:00
*会場:remo/ 大阪市住之江区北加賀屋5-4-12 [see map]
大阪市営四つ橋線北加賀屋駅四番出口
tel/fax 06-6686-5757
*入場無料
*協力:中国インディペンデント映画祭
*お問い合わせ:アンダーグラウンドの後でー中国ニューインディペンデント映画の現在@大阪
e-mail: maraninhk(at)gmail.com TEL:080-42316997 http://filmunder.blogspot.com/
○ABOUT THE FILM:
『占い師』 算命/Fortune Teller/2009年/129分/フォーマット DVCAM/字幕 Jp
あらすじ:体に障害を持つ厲百程は、体と脳に障害を持つ妻とともに、路上で占い師をして生計を立てている。彼の客は主に場末の娼婦たちである。厳しい現実の中でも、彼らは笑顔を絶やさず、そして常にしたたかだ。中国の底辺に生きる愛すべき人々を見つめる徐童監督が長期取材した、厚くて暖かいヒューマン・ドキュメンタリー。
監督:徐童(シュー・トン)
1965年北京市生まれ。中国伝媒大学卒業。かつてはスチールカメラマンをする傍ら、小説を発表していた。デビュー作『収穫』(08)が世界で評価され、ドキュメンタリー作家に転向。本作が2本目である。3作目『老唐頭』も今年完成し、各国の映画祭で好評を得ている。
○ organizer'sのコメント:
我不知道人生有多少次机会,在三十岁之后,因为看了什么听了什么而改变对世界的看法,和人生的态度。《算命》就有这样的力量。在认识徐童之前,我没有这样接近过这群人。近,不仅是物理的概念,在这里还是一个心理的概念。这是为什么,徐童的三部纪录片被命名为“流民三部曲”,而不是“底层三部曲”。看“底层”,我们还是脱不去那种“向下看”的倾向,去怜悯,并赋予自己拯救者的身份;而“流民”是历史上就存在于中国社会中的一支,他们有自己的生活方式,自己的价值体系,自己的社会阶层——只是和“我”的不一样而已,道德是一个相对的概念。这让我的去怜悯、去拯救的企图,都显得自大而可笑。去接近每一个片中人物,都像是在拿手术刀解剖自己。
30歳を過ぎてから、何かを見たり聞いたりして世界の見方や人生への態度が変わるということが、人生に何回あるだろう。『算命(邦訳:占い師)』にはその力がある。徐童に知り合う前に、「そういう人たち」に近づいたことはなかった。近いというのは物理的な概念であるだけでなく、ここでは心理的な概念だ。それはなぜか。徐童のドキュメンタリー三部作は、「下層社会三部曲」ではなく、「流民三部曲」と呼ばれていることに注意したい。「下層」を見るというと、我々は「下を見る」という感覚から抜け出せない。他者を哀れみ、自分をまるでヒーローのように感じる。「流民」の概念はそれとは違う。「流民」とは歴史上中国社会のある一部として存在しており、自分たちのライフスタイルと、価値観の体系、社会階層を持っている人々である。ただ「私」とは違うというだけだ。道徳とは相対的な概念でしかない。ここにおいて、彼らを哀れみ、救おうとする考えなど噴飯ものだ。我々がこの映画の登場人物たちに近づこうとするとき、それはまるで手術メスを持って自分を解剖しているようなものだ。
《算命》甚至让我改变了对纪录片的定见,光看章回体小说的子标题和结尾的八十年代流行歌曲,难道这不是一部剧情片吗?为什么不?这部片子的浓厚程度(Density)超过了这几年你能看到的中国独立故事片,造梦什么的事情原来不仅是故事片专有。同时,这样的作品又少不了生来带有的疑问,究竟纪录片的界限在哪里?纪录片作者的道德应该如何定义?作者本身,和跟随作者到各种放映的片中人物,一起又是一个值得讨论的行为艺术。
『算命』は私のドキュメンタリー映画に対する見方をも変えた。章回体の小説のような章ごとのタイトルと、終わりにある80年代ポップスだけを見ると、まるで普通のドラマ仕立ての映画のようだ。なぜ普通の映画と似ているのか。それは、この映画の「濃度」がここ数年の中国のドキュメンタリー映画を越えているからだ。夢を描くというのは、普通の映画でなくてもできるということの証だろう。と同時に、ドキュメンタリーの作品はそれがもともと持っている問題から離れられない。ドキュメンタリーの限界はどこにあるのか。ドキュメンタリー映画の監督の道徳観はどう定義できるのか。監督と、監督が映画に出てくる人物たちを追っかけるということを一緒にすることで、それはおもしろいパフォーマンスアートとしても捉えうる。[文: Wang Jue/訳:石塚洋介]