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。

想念

想念是很個人的行為。儘管要想念的時候必需要有個對象，可是被想念的人其實沒辦法得悉他什麼時候、在什麼地方、為什麼、被誰想念著。

想念不是自主的。要刻意去腦袋裡的資料夾中抽取的，叫記憶，叫回想。想念是要先發生，及後才能被分析、推敲、知道的。

猶如經濟學。經濟學與財經金融最大的分別，在於經濟學不會預測未來，只會用已有的理論解釋過去的社會、市場現象，個人、集體行為。

想念沒有分閒不閒著。閒著，可能比較容易想念一個人。可是，在最忙碌的時候，那個人仍然在你腦袋裡敲門，呼喚你過去看他一眼。這個人，是重要的。

想念的次數也是值得留意的。都說想念非自主的，那麼計算頻率便有意義多了。

不如以朋友作例子。有些朋友，總在說起兒時趣事時，忽然想念說他最近過得怎麼樣；有些朋友，在無聊的週末晚上，隨意上網時，才想念，才去社交網絡上傳送一則「最近好嗎？」；有些朋友，見面是有說不完的話題，列舉好朋友時總榜上有名。只是平時又不會特意聯絡，可能半個月想念一次吧；有些朋友，人生發生可以寫進日記的事時，會想念，會分享；有些朋友，自己一不開心，就會想念。

還有一種。明明沒有什麼特別的事，不斷回頭分析也找不出想念過程的共通點，但就總是想念。每天想念。不。是每...總是想念。

奇怪的是，想不通的想念，試著不去想，反而更想念。

這個時候，你知道這個人對自己而言有莫大的重要性。

然後。對，這有然後。然後，你開始比較。到你發現這根本沒得比，是個獨立的案子時，你開始害怕。

不。不是一句「是愛情」 就能解決的。因為那不純粹是愛情。愛情是勇往直前的。甚至於暗戀，也是勇往直前的。應該說，是期待未來所要發生的，對後續有盼望的。

如果是愛情，不就簡單多了嗎？現在你才知道，想念是理性的。

不是暗戀！這為何不是暗戀了？

這的確不是暗戀。因為暗戀是自己主導的。想念呢？你再討厭自己，再不想去想念一個人，街上一棵樹也可以觸發你那可惡的想念。

想念。

是你精密的腦袋想告訴你一件很重要的事。

可以是愛情。但腦袋不只是要跟你說「你愛他」 。是有更深一層的資訊要傳達。

因為想念是理性的。

想念，是在提醒你，有些事、有些話，有些什麼，是你遺忘了，是你忽略了，是你刻意視而不見聽而不聞的。但那些有些，卻是重要的。

討厭的想念，理性又討厭的想念，要煩到你去搞清楚你一直在逃避的事情才肯罷休的想念。

想念。

我正在想念一個人。