明文規定的文明

其實我覺得關愛座好不文明。

非常少人搭車的一天，有一位女士上車，看見有兩個空位，正開心地想坐下時，發現是有顏色的，唯有遠而卻之。坐我旁邊的老伯伯，趁下次停站時，極蹣跚地由原本的座位，走超遠到有色的座位去坐，然後女士就有無色的座位坐了，「皆大歡喜」。

這不正是本末倒置嗎？老伯伯行動不便，明明好端端的已經坐著，但因為不忍心看見其他人要站，只好又站起來，讓座給其他人。對，最終的結果是，老伯伯被讓座 (空著的關愛座，也算是後來上車的女士讓出來的)，但同時他要把自己原本的座位讓給別人。所以老伯伯的好心，換來他也要一起讓座，這到底是什麼邏輯呢？如果座位都沒有分顏色，老伯伯繼續坐著，女士上車也有位置可以坐，不就好了嗎？

可能你覺得，那女士不就坐在關愛座好了，到有需要的人上車時，立刻讓出座位總可以吧。但文化這種東西是活的，也是社會集體決定的結果。關愛座推行後，發生很多媒體和網上公審事件，圍繞著「沒有資格」坐關愛座的人，被社會集體批判為「霸佔」座位、「涼薄」、「不知廉恥」。逐漸大多數的人都寧可把關愛座空著，也不想被其他人覺得自己不守規矩、擾亂秩序、人品低劣。

當「讓座」的責任都集中在兩個坐在有色位置的乘客上，其他因為「運氣好」，坐上了無色座位的人，自然可以無視所有狀況，安逸地坐到下車。儘管有更需要座位的人上車，也輪不到自己站起來。而「更有需要」的人，也有部份是恃勢凌人的。覺得自己的年齡或情況應該「被讓座」，可是無人自動自覺奉上座位時，首當其衝的一定是坐在關愛座上的人。「濫用關愛座」一詞，更是令人無奈。你如何準確無誤地判斷誰更有「資格」坐下呢？又誰只有資格站著呢？最可怕的是，大家怎麼就那麼輕易地去批評其他人，指謫其他人，定義其他人呢？這都是包裝成正義，包裝成權利的偏見和歧視而已。

到最後，無人懂得讓座，亦無人明白為甚麼要讓座，大家只是被訓練了，有色就只有一款人可以坐，無色就人人可以坐。大家只是「不坐」，或者「不敢坐」，但無人是真的「讓座」。文明是社會發展到較高的階段，同時是展示較高文化的狀態。請問懂得分辨顏色，是有多文明呢？

有人覺得關愛座是規範，又有人覺得關愛座是教育。可是當行為欠缺思考，訓練、教育變成單一的服從指令，孕育出來的並不是進步，更不是文明，而是恐懼。

從自身的原始需要，到能夠體會其他人的感受和想法，是社會進步的文明體現。我在外國居住的時候，看見年輕人不只是自動自覺的讓座，而是真正明白讓座的原因，以及老人家、孕婦等的真正需要，令我打從心底佩服國外的公民教育。年輕人從不猶豫，立刻讓座，而且是看到站前有老人家、孕婦等準備上車，已經站起來。可沒有那種博一博千萬不要走到我面前，最好不用讓座的那種僥倖心態。老人家、孕婦等也不會客氣拒坐，可不用以「快要下車」的謊言來騙他們坐下，更不會發生推讓中途有個第三者把空位給坐下去的事情。可令我最最最讚嘆的是，就算是一個非常少人搭車的下午，明明好多空位，但看見站前有老人家、孕婦等準備上車，年輕人都會自動自覺往後移，把前方的座位留給他們，好讓他們少走幾步。這「往後移」的動作，正正是在明白讓座的緣由後，進一步推敲出來的反應表現。

想要從顏色禁區的辨識，過渡到讓座的公民意識，或許要在消除箇中恐懼後；或許在意識從思考裡找到行為的意義後；或許公民意識的文明，應該來自於明文規定以外的教育。

This will not go away

A very compelling movie about the 1991 Supreme Court of Justice Nomination Hearings.

Yale University Law Professor Anita Hill came forward to tell the world that Judge Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her 20 years back, when they worked together in two offices.

Sexual harassment cases in court are inevitably caught in the he-say-she-say whirlpool of accounts. The most ridiculous reasons of indictment, narratives that anger the public, but the grand jury still votes otherwise. It happens just too often. But when it comes to Nomination Hearings at the Senate, for which there is no judicial verdict of being guilty or not, it becomes pure political drama.

Evidence and witnesses can be ignored, rather, dismissed completely. Council members can make long biased speeches, present 'evidence' as absurd as the novel "The Exorcist", and tailor the proceedings of the hearings to their best interest.

When it happened on live television in 1991, who did you believe? Have a go at the movie. I am very sure you will find a lot of things that did happen but you did not notice, because you were too focussed on "Long Dong Silver" and "High Tech Lynching".

There is no surprise to the ending of this story. It is forever a part of Supreme Court history that Judge Clarence Thomas was confirmed as Associate Justice. But the impact remains. The movie acknowledged how votes for senators swayed towards female senators in the succeeding election, and how the general public was reeducated about sexual harassment not simply being an act but can also be an intention.

There are also the negatives that follow. At his current seat as Associate Justice, Clarence Thomas was accused of multiple incidents in which he should have recused himself, but did not. Thomas was also caught in the delicate matter of disclosure of funds, specifically on the account of his wife. The excuse he gave was embarrassing. He claimed that he did not understand the reporting form.

Allow me to boldly conclude that Clarence Thomas hijacked the term "High Tech Lynching" because he saw the opportunity. He was in an era when race was an uneasy topic, especially in politics. Today, after 25 years, we see much more clearly that it should have been about his integrity, and not his race. But we are disheartened still. Words like "erotomania" flood the table to discredit all accusations, because ultimately, it is not the truth that is important, but the political agenda.

This movie is a clairvoyant reminder, as the US presidential election approaches, that everything we are about to experience might just be a reinvention of the game of politics; we might never know how we reached our conclusions now, until some 25 years later, a movie reenacts it for us to examine.

吃得下的人性

（如果本身喜歡黑色劇場，直接買票看明年1月的演出吧。在完全不知道故事講什麼的情況下，光是第一場兩個角色之間的對話，就足以吸引你看下去。

2017年1月14日－1月23日，上環文娛中心，香港話劇團黑盒劇場

下面的第一句已經是劇透，看了就不好玩囉）

如果有一家餐廳，在用餐之前可以讓你先跟食物聊天，彼此了解，你會有興趣光顧嗎？

那如果是一隻會講話的雞呢？在吃牠之前，可以說說話，會提高之後餐點的整體印象嗎？

那又如果是一隻⋯⋯一個人形的雞，會聊電影、政治、古典名著，可是終究是那個⋯⋯那隻你待會會吃掉的雞，你會去一嚐那風靡全城的「雞批」嗎？

《慾望號雞批》正正是這樣的一個科幻故事。

聽起來很像電影橋段，可是這偏偏是一個劇場作品。在劇場這個密閉的空間裡，沒有電腦特技，沒有分鏡，就那麼即時即場，赤裸地顯現在眼前，把觀眾和故事的距離拉得很近，更為震撼。

之前去香港話劇團的讀戲劇場聽過劇本，覺得特別有趣。故事、人物的設定固然跟常有的劇場不一樣，一開始就挑戰觀眾接受認知上的殘酷 － 吃一隻自稱是經過基因重組，但外型談吐舉止根本和人類沒兩樣的「雞」。

讀劇當天，有觀眾明言這個概念太噁心。Cannibalism，食人。飢荒的時候為救生，被迫吃人肉，有些人尚且能理解或原諒。可是吃「人」為樂，則視為變態。人的外形，雞的內在，其實跟「糞便味道的巧克力／巧克力味道的糞便」的矛盾同科，又不致於要大驚小怪。

而且現在已經有lab-grown meat － 試管培植的食用肉。跳過大自然界的食物鏈，人類自己製造純粹為了食用的肉，是好是壞？如果這些光為了被食用的肉有思想、可以講話、弄成人形，不就是《慾望號雞批》的那些「雞」嗎？牠們外形花巧，也只是人類強加到牠們身上的「價值」而已。

（延伸閱讀：Lab-grown meat）

純粹的食物。雞是純粹的食物嗎？可能世界上還有那幾個依賴雞啼起床的人，除卻他們，雞就是生雞蛋，被食用。雞是不折不扣的家禽。雞的Natural Habitat (自然生態環境) 是何處？把牠們放到熱帶雨林、北極南極、山上、島上、火山旁，甚至動物園，都格格不入。我沒有要合理化「雞只是食物」這件事，但雞這種動物的存在的確詭異。《慾望號雞批》的編劇也是抓著這一點，所以選擇了「雞」為故事中的新型食物。

劇中的「雞」抱持著這一份純粹，一邊跟你研究村上春樹，一邊卻跟你說牠為了終於能夠被你吃掉而感到非常開心，因為牠的唯一存在價值就是被吃。如此純粹，讓人不寒而慄！有了思想，被灌輸單一的自我價值，你會毫無疑問地接受嗎？

可能在某一個深山裡，有一個群居的雞部落，牠們懂得耕種，自給自足。

更有可能在某一個國家城市裡，有一群由基因界定的話是人類的生物，他們相信自己純粹是為了推動國家經濟而生，為了可以一直賺錢到死而很開心。

I love your lips only, so don't lose it

What is the most fundamental element of a romantic relationship?

If the question means what is love built on, then a multitude of answers apply. Mutual trust, company, passion, sex, the right timing, monetary investment, guilt. The list goes on.

But if you strip down a relationship, what is the one thing that can cause everything to crumble down if it was taken away?

Let's consider commonality.

Yorgos Lanthimos' feature film "The Lobster" explores a world in which commonality is the only thing that matters in a relationship.

The story of David, starred by Colin Farrell, does not seem to be portrayed as an evolutionary result of the future. The tone of the film is so close to reality that it constantly challenges the audience to discern what is fiction and what is not.

There are no futuristic buildings or creepy robots. You need food and water to survive. You can order pancakes from a diner. You drive to a mall to buy stuff. You will bleed if you get hurt. Everything is just like how it is now, except you cannot be "single".

You must have a partner, otherwise you will be changed into an animal of your choice.

To implement this, or rather, to eliminate singleness effectively, all single persons would be admitted to a hotel for a process we might have given the name "speed dating". "Couples" get paired up if they can agree on one commonality. Children could be assigned to them if problems arise thereafter.

Back to David, the main character. So as all main characters are usually, they stand out. So yes, he finds love. He is capable of feeling the desire to get intimate with another person. His romance is almost lyrical in a cold and selfish world.

Oops, the truth is cruel. The director tricked us into believing David to be unique, to be heroic.

This is not an easy film to sit through. There is no excessive violence or gore, but the director sustained an uneasy ambience that is both intriguing and disturbing. {Yorgos Lanthimos is the director of the 2009 movie Dogtooth}

I am quite impressed by Colin Farrell's performance in the film. It was very different from his usual action-heavy front. Another interesting performance comes from Léa Seydoux. Vividly remembering her as Emma in Blue is the Warmest Color, Seydoux becomes this ruthless leader who manipulates emotions for survival.

"The Lobster" will be showing in Hong Kong cinemas from 12 May onwards. Not to be missed. Jury Prize Winner of Cannes Film Festival 2015.

雨

很喜歡下雨天。

下雨天有很多有趣的人、事、物可以觀賞。

各式各樣的雨傘。(以前在英國還有各式各款傘子破的方法)

拿傘的方法，多少人分享一把雨傘，誰濕誰乾。

誰的時間昂貴，誰的時間比身上的西裝便宜。

街上的水流。會發覺每天經過的路原來不是平的，是凹的。

雨點的節奏，遠聽像不間斷的規律節拍，近聽是多層次的錯綜複雜。

下雨的時候，世界好像快要停頓，時間走得比平時緩慢。


下雨天，還可以借題發揮。

心裡的傷口，像老人家的風濕症，總在下雨天發難。






我沉醉在童話國太久了。現在抽身，換來的是遍體鱗傷的心靈。

但我寧可清醒淌血。

是個壞習慣，我就要把它戒掉。

再辛苦也要撐下去。因為真正愛我的人，不願看到我再沉淪下去。




我是愛他的。

但他不愛我。