nan | 楠木

So, it’s back to some furious late nights.
The frustration’s probably not at the long hours though. Just that I’m not getting things done.

Basic explanation of what the scores mean.
The score for each film is given on a ten point scale. The scores reflect how much I like the film, and how much artistic value I feel the film has. Usually the score is a mixture of these two feelings, i.e. films that score high should appeal to my artistic taste, and therefore should be a film that I like. However there would be special cases where I like a film strongly despite it being mediocre artistically speaking, or a film that I acknowledge to be of high artistic value but just not my cup of tea. So in the end these scores are just my overall personal opinions.
The scores can be basically interpreted as follows:
8-10 Great films:
10 – Masterpiece/personal all-time favorite. A film that stands tall among all films, or is of special personal significance to me, deeming it to be the best of the best in my opinion.
9 – Excellent/personal favorite. A film that comes close to being flawless, is at the very top of its genre, or just a film that I love so much without any other reason.
8 – Great. A film that exceeds average expectations and fulfills its goal very well.
4-7 Varying degrees of mediocrity:
7 – Good. A film that basically meets expectations and doesn’t have huge problems. The general enjoyable entertainment that you expect.
6 – Average. No major issues, but no highlights either. The typical mediocre film.
5 – Below average. slightly worse than average, often due to some obvious issues such as cheesy plots and over-the-top acting.
4 – Poor. A film that isn’t enjoyable, contains some very cliched or low taste material. A waste of my time.
1-3 Trash to be avoided at any time. The specific score doesn’t matter much at this stage. The film is just pure trash, with a score of 1 probably meaning the worst film ever (which is unlikely though, since there are so many bad films…). Typically I don’t give these kind of scores, because I screen the films I watch, and the obviously bad ones are usually filtered out already. However, this doesn’t mean in the future I won’t stumble across bad films.

The Devil Wears Prada (2006) is and is not several things. It takes a critical look at the fashion industry in a satirical manner, but it is not a satire; it involves some romantic elements, but it is not strictly a romantic comedy; in the end it is a conventional story of a girl trying to live her life the way she wants to, but it isn’t exactly just cliche. In sum, it’s a very entertaining film neatly packaged (fashionably packaged), and it sells without pushing the audience too hard.
The film stars Meryl Streep as a goddess in the fashion industry, editor in chief of a highly influential fashion magazine. Anne Hathaway is a fresh graduate out of college who wants to be a journalist. She is totally ignorant about fashion, but ends up being Streep’s personal assistant. The job basically involves everything from fetching Streep’s dry cleaning, getting her coffee, to buying lots and lots of designer clothes, and of course taking in a huge amount of scrutiny and insult from Streep along the way. Hathaway decides to do it anyway, because it promises the opportunity of getting into virtually any publication with Streep’s recommendation. And such is the film’s basic story.
What goes on from here doesn’t really contain too many surprises. Hathaway’s ignorance to fashion obviously provides a great opportunity to throw out some satirical scenes, including one where Streep is duly insulted after Hathaway points out that the two green belts they are having a fuss over is virtually the same. Streep ends up giving a long speech about the importance of fashion, which I guess basically summarizes how pretentious the fashion industry is.
Of course, Hathaway eventually becomes very into fashion herself. Because of her heavy work she becomes more and more distant from her old friends, and more importantly, her boyfriend. The film devotes some further time developing her struggle between her career and her life, and she ends up making a choice.
Being a feel-good movie, what that choice is probably goes without saying. Indeed, pretty much everything in this film is very conventional, yet it is all very elegantly designed and executed, and you couldn’t help but like it.
One reason for this is Anne Hathaway. She is perfectly in control and ideally cast for the role. Most of the time she doesn’t need to do much but show off her looks in an innocent manner, and the audience will sympathize with her character emotionally. This is not criticizing her acting; it’s just that for these kind of warm-hearted films, picking the right actress is half the job done – remember Meg Ryan and Sleepless in Seattle (or When Harry met Sally, for that matter)?
Another reason is that the film does not try to overachieve and be what it’s not. It is not a satire. It is not a romantic comedy. It is a straightforward film about a girl and her choice in life. Her work, her romantic life, are all just part of this choice and not its entirety (in fact, so little of the film’s time is devoted to her relationship with her boyfriend). In essence, you could say that it is a coming of age film. The fashion industry is just the medium for her maturity.
8/10

Unknown (2006) is built on not entirely novel concepts: 5 people wake up in a abandoned warehouse, all having suffered temporary memory loss. They don’t remember who they are or how they got there, but they do realize that they are in danger, since one of them is tied up and one has been shot. They know they should try to get out soon, since some other people are coming back to the warehouse, and they obviously have not lost their memories.
Since they don’t know who they are, they obviously don’t know who’s on who’s side. For most of the first hour of the film, this basic premise keeps the movie rolling along. As the plot develops, we are given clues in the form of memory flashbacks that occur to each of the characters. These new revelations create tension among the characters, as they find out that they can’t trust each other, and yet they must rely on each other if they want to get out.
Admittedly, all of the above said are not original ideas. There are many films that play around with the idea of memory loss, and there are lots of films that are dependent on cleverly structured plot twists in general. For Unknown to work, it must show that it’s twists are interesting and believable, which generally speaking, the film more or less achieves. However, the film feels unimaginative on the whole, as its twists and turns are also based on cliched themes. The plot could certainly have played out a bit bolder and less conventional, which would definitely benefit this film, since the film aspires, and fails, to be a cool and darkish crime thriller.
One reason that the film is likable is its predominantly male cast. The film features actors such as Jim Caviezel, Greg Kinnear, Barry Pepper, Joe Pantoliano and Peter Stormare, which is more than enough to support the film’s acting needs. Bridget Moynahan provides some feminine support for the film, but is generally uninteresting, except during the very last twist, where there’s a small scene featuring her and Caviezel.
Indeed, given the acting talent available, the film certainly doesn’t do enough. Running at only 80+ minutes, it feels more like an extended episode out of a TV series than a full length feature film. I felt a lot more could be done in terms of beefing up the characters a bit more.
Overall, since the film is so short anyway, it wouldn’t be a waste of time to see it. Just don’t expect too much, and it’ll be quite enjoyable.
6/10

On the Waterfront (1954), possibly represents Marlon Brando at his prime. This is perhaps only the fourth or fifth film I’ve seen him in (the first obviously being The Godfather, the other few include Apocalypse Now and A Streetcar Named Desire), and my impression of this actor is definitely heavily influenced by his performance in The Godfather, so it feels very inspiring to watch him in his prime age. (As a side-note, I have a similar feeling when watching Pacino’s earlier career works, namely, before his comeback in Sea of Love).
The film tells a very straightforward story of workers fighting the oppression of the union. The workers as a group forms an interesting study in human nature: they are angry at the union, yet they are somehow bound by their own code of honor (D and D, standing for deaf and dumb, which means never be a rat). As a group they are suffering, yet as individuals they are also numb at the suffering of their peers. It’s very easy to relate this to other groups who have suffered due to oppression/aggression, in other places at other times – the Chinese, as an obvious example.
Brando’s character is not someone who’s “good” from the start. His character is torn between facing his conscience and being loyal to his group. Events eventually push him towards that standoff with the oppressors, but he does not win a clear victory. Indeed, though the ending is certainly uplifting, I felt the real victory won was only inside his heart and soul. He certainly redeemed himself, but the oppression probably won’t end easily.

Saw (2004) was brilliant for its originality. The concept was innovative, the twists were fresh, and the plot was wickedly sick but also mind probing. It will never be reckoned as a masterpiece, nonetheless, it will probably become a cult favorite.
Saw II (2005), was unsatisfying. My main complaint was that it had too many characters “playing the game” and therefore too little character development. Most of the characters were dead before we knew much about them, whereas in the original, the two main characters feel much more alive. Still, the film was on par in extending the whole concept of the original, and bore one or two clever twists of its own.
With Saw III (2006), the third installment in this grotesque series tries to do several things. First, it tries to go back to the original’s footing, investing more time in character building and reserving some key twists until the very end; second, it more or less tries to tie the previous films together to form a continuous story, employing many flashbacks to lay out the background or the conclusion of “games” played out in the other two films.
Running at close to 2 hours, the film is quite a bit longer than its predecessors, and it feels that way too. The tempo is not constantly in high gear, which is a deliberate choice by the makers, but it doesn’t exactly achieve the full story telling and character developing goal. I was also quite unimpressed with the acting overall – which seriously hinders character development – but Jigsaw was of course the exception. He’s stranded to a bed yet he still steals every scene he’s in.
The “games” played this time around are just as sick, if not more so. However, they are not as interesting as the ones in the other films, mostly because the psychological conflict is unconvincing. In the previous films, you had to face a huge sacrifice to “win” and get out; in this film that dilemma is none-existent most of the time, mostly because the guy playing the “game” is not the one who’s suffering. On more than one occasion, some unlucky person suffered a very unpleasant death while the “player” just walks out afterwards. Well, that’s not very challenging.
In the spirit of the series, the ending has a few twists built in, and there’s always a cliffhanger serving as trailer-teaser for the next installment. However, the ending twist, although not entirely predictable, was not surprising enough to have that shock factor. And the teaser just feels lame.

何谓”主旋律”

今天各大网站都转载的一条新闻，就是广电总局的新规定，所谓”从2月份起的至少8个月时间内，所有上星频道(各卫视频道)在黄金时段一律播出主旋律电视剧”。其发言人原文大概是这样：”今年对所有电视节目都是一个特殊的年份，为了创造良好的环境和条件，广电总局要求：从2月份起的至少8个月时间内，所有上星频道在黄金时段一律播出主旋律电视剧。为此，广电总局对电视剧设立了四级审查制度，即所有省级电视台播出的电视剧提前一个月报省广电局，而后由省广电局报送省宣传部，再由省宣传部审核后报送广电总局，最后广电总局报送中宣部文艺局，审批通过后再播出。”
看到这样一条规定的人，想必首先想到的问题就是：何谓”主旋律”啊？
以我国一贯的政治宣传传统，主旋律大概就是指歌颂我党，歌颂国家，赞美劳动人民，赞美社会主义伟大制度的。色情、暴力，那一定不是主旋律的，低级媚俗，那一定也不是。反映社会问题的，揭露社会阴暗面的，也不利于”和谐社会”的发展，那便自是不能归入”主旋律”了。
也就是说，”主旋律”必定是歌功颂德的，只有这样才能体现我们祖国伟大制度的优越性。反是任何负面的素材，都可以名正言顺地被咔嚓。
严肃地说，危害至少有这么几点。
对自由艺术创作的影响。影视剧创作者无法自由发挥自身的创造性，而必须接受给定的题材与风格。后果就是优秀新颖的节目的减少。
对相关产业的影响。电视节目也是个产业，也应讲求市场规律。过度的政策干预，乃至任意的限制，都会打击制作者乃至投资者的热情与信心，进而影响产业的健康。
电视节目失去独立的声音，只是政治宣传工具。如果真要说主旋律，那么”主旋律”也不应是党的”主旋律”，不应是广电总局的”主旋律”，而应该是人民的主旋律。广电总局没有资格也没有能力替全中国十三亿人民群众决定什么是主旋律。社会的热点，人民关注的问题，应该得到表达与反映。
况且，人民群众从来都是有艺术欣赏能力的。真正优秀的、具有艺术价值的节目，不需要特殊政策的保护与关照，也能够战胜所谓的庸俗节目。所谓的庸俗，也应是允许其存在的一种供大众消遣的娱乐方式。当电视上庸俗泛滥时，老百姓自然会有对更高雅艺术的欣赏需求–相应的，好的节目也就会获得成功。所有类型的节目都是有其存在的合理性与需求的，本来就应通过看不见的手去调节和满足人民的需求，而不是强行地管制。
真没想到，这么一个破题目都扯了这么多。说来说去就一个观点，应该是由人民去确定”主旋律”，而不是将”主旋律”强加于人民。

Last night as I was watching with bleary eyes Ding Junhui battling it out with Ronnie O’Sullivan, I accidentally thought of something else. I read on Sina a provocative headline that if Ding wins the Masters, then Snooker would become the new Ping-Pong in China. Well, that’s an interesting thought.
Oh well, unfortunately Ding lost. But still I don’t think it would massively hinder the growing popularity of snooker in China. The momentum might be slightly slowed, but the direction will not change. Ding would still go on to establish himself as one of the greatest snooker players Asia has ever produced, and the best Chinese player in history.
What I want to talk about though, is the importance of the mass public interest. No doubt many Chinese parents will be inspired by Ding’s unique path to success, which is to totally ignore the traditional (and sacred) path of school education and passionately pursue his own interest and talent. No doubt many youngsters will fail in their quest to become the next Ding or Yao or Sky. They will end up waking up one day, realizing that unfortunately, they are not especially talented, and that they are just the mediocre mass public.
As aspiring individuals who are taught throughout life to strive for excellence, perhaps there is nothing more frightening in being mediocre. Indeed, everything in our education teaches us to excel, to be the best. The pairs of shoes hung at Huanggang High School is the perfect example: the straw shoes for the losers, the leather shoes for the winners.
However, there’s nothing shameful in being mediocre. Most people are mediocre. Society is founded upon the hard work of the mediocre mass public. That great middle class, which is the stablizing force of any society, is by definition mediocre: they are in the middle, neither lavishly rich nor undeniably poor. They do not achieve “greatness”, or they wouldn’t be the middle class. They live out predicable lives, mainly concerning themselves with the simple questions of life: a house, a car, good education for their children.
Indeed, one can even argue that it is exactly because of the mediocrity of the masses, that we can cheer for the fortunate ones with talent. Without a mediocre bunch of peers equally keen in basketball to play and train with, Yao Ming would not have the environment in which his skills can be developed. Without the mediocre masses, talented artists and writers would be void of the source of their inspiration.
Greatness arises from mediocrity. This is too often viewed as simply a compliment to greatness. Let’s celebrate mediocrity for once. A cheer for the people.
And BTW, Ding will do better next time. He has the whole world to conquer.

It’s hard to be critical towards such a film. But it’s hard not to be either.
On the one hand, The Black Dahlia has stunning sets and costumes, and the feel is great. The cinematography feels “old”. The mood is brilliantly set. I was all set for an engrossing plot.
And that’s where on the other hand the film fails. The plot is complicated. I had to rewind several times (thank god I was watching DVD and not sitting in a theatre) to catch some lines. Sometimes I felt I needed to pause and try to work out who’s who and how everybody’s related. And at the end of the day, though I feel I understood the whole thing, I felt I didn’t care. It wasn’t “important” enough, to justify adding so many layers of twists.
That said, I felt the actors and actresses did well enough. Hartnett seemed fit for his role, of a person torn by desire and anger. Eckhart, who I just saw in Thank You For Smoking, gives a completely different type of performance, and is also enjoyable to watch. Johansson and Swank also show enough charisma.
In the end though, the film is let down by its own structure. The plot got too messy, and the result didn’t seem to be reward enough for the audience’s hard work trying to figure it all out.
6/10

Phoenix TV is bring out some new programs for the new year, and one of their plans is to re-enforce their position as a channel with serious news coverage. The particular plan I’m talking about is their branding of their “star” analysts, who have now each got a special show with names related to them.
In fact, it’s always been Phoenix’s tactic to stress their analysts with some intentional hype and branding, only this year, they’ve pushed it one step further to the step of personal idolization. I’m not entirely against this approach. Indeed, it’s probably the best cost-effective way to differentiate yourself from the competition. If the audience consider your anchorman and your analysts to be better than what other channels can offer, then that’s a big advantage in winning the audience.
What’s interesting though is Phoenix appears to be the only channel I know in China that is consciously doing this. Or at least doing it consciously and effectively. CCTV has quite a few strong reporters/anchormen, such as Shui Junyi, but the marketing is sorely lacking. In fact, when you think about it, the only bit of really pushy marketing I see on CCTV is those in the program 百家讲堂 on CCTV 10 (a popular show where scholars talk about history or literature). All of the scholars are heavily marketed as experts or learned wise men whose opinions are really interesting and important. The message is probably delivered 100 times per show, which can be quite maddening. Anyway – it’s a bit of a overkill, but I guess it works. CCTV surely could learn a few things from Phoenix.
Phoenix TV is in no way a world class TV channel. It may lead us to believe so – which indicates that it’s far better than almost all mainland channels – but there’s still a lot of room for improvement. As to the rest of the pack, the majority of the cable channels which are just on my TV for me to skip past, well, maybe they could start by learning from Phoenix.