《沖天救兵(Up)》

Up Film Poster
(from Wikipedia;Fair Use/Fair Dealing)

對,是那一套2009年的《沖天救兵(Up》。

為甚麼忽然提起這部戲呢?慚愧,這部四年前的片,我是剛剛才看過的。向來不太喜歡電腦動畫,雖然近年觀感好轉,但四年前,想是比現在更缺興趣吧。幸好最近重映一場,時間地點也合適,就順便看了。幸好沒有錯過!

噢!因為不是新片,我就會隨便一點的說劇情囉。

雖然跟戲本身關係不大,但這套戲的海報設計非常出色

很多人或許不同意,覺得這海報很簡單、很尋常,但我卻認為,考慮到這是一幅電影海報,就實在是非常出色的:以簡單的一幅圖,就交代了戲中的重要元素,基本上不用看故事簡介,已對整套戲有約略的概念。

人物方面:擺在最前方的當然是主角,是一個「古肅」的老伯,是一個典型的角色;緊隨其後,一個身穿童軍服飾、滿臉堆笑的胖小孩,也是可以預想的角色。這樣「一老一少」的組合,當然有其典型的故事方程式,而實際上本片也以此為表面主線。

再往後望,是一隻狗;當然,線索不多,但這一手留得不錯,因為故事初段都是看不到這隻狗的,這是懸念之一。

再到後面,原來是一間屋,上面綁了一大堆氦氣球(雖然習慣上還是叫「氫氧球」,但氫氣其實非常易燃,很危險,相信已很少使用了;現時街上見到的,應該都是「氦氣球」吧,因為氦氣夠穩定。),懸浮於半空。如果再看仔細一點,屋頂原來有一隻樣子古怪的鳥。到底這間屋為甚麼會綁上這麼多氣球?那隻是甚麼鳥?是懸念之二和三。

一連串的事物,將畫面對角切開。而背景方面,在下方的三份一,是白雲;上方,是單色的藍天;而戲名,則以白色字體飄浮其上。簡潔有力。

輕描淡寫的,就交代了整部戲的框架,當然有其先天優勢(電影的橋段本身就單純、簡單),但這舉重若輕的功夫,也令人嘆服。

戲嘛… 是,我是很喜歡,不過並非那「一老一少」組合的主線、也非老人對生命看法轉變那一筆--雖然處理很不錯,但也不算是非常突出的。

我喜歡的是老伯Carl和老婆Ellie那一段。

故事大部份都是圍繞「一老一少」那一條線,所以出發冒險的契機,更像是背景一樣,是在初段以剪輯的方式飛快處理。

Carl和Ellie是從小認識的,兩人都奉某冒險家為偶像,後來結婚、生活、老去。
(標準的幼馴染![青梅竹馬])
最後,冒險的心願卒之沒有達成,Ellie就先Carl而去。

雖然,可能有點像鐵達時廣告銀行/保險廣告,但實在拍得很精緻。
沒有過份美化,也沒有渲染挫折,只是平平穩穩、細水長流的感情。

Carl從小較沉默,當初也是Ellie主動結識的;
喪偶後,Carl當然更消沉孤寂,如果沒有某件意外事件,可能就此終老。

到開始冒險旅程,雖然繼續將Ellie掛在口邊,但故事的重心已完全轉移到「冒險」本身,對Ellie的感情就退居幕後了,只是在「將屋帶到瀑布邊」的目標,剩餘一點模糊的身影。

然而,到了劇情高潮,Ellie又忽然再出場。這次,筆鋒一轉,卻原來「冒險」一事早就在身邊--Ellie遺下的剪貼簿中,原本預留作記錄冒險經歷的空白頁,都已貼上兩人多年來的生活照--兩人,早就共渡了一段美好的旅程。

是意料之外的驚喜嗎?絕對不是。
這樣的訊息,甚至可說是老土至極。
不過,揭破的時機、狀況,都安排甚妙。
而揭破之後,除了顯示兩人情深,之前整段「搬屋」情節,也就此加上了一抹愛情的色彩,卒之令整套戲首尾貫通,變得更圓滿。

這就是本片出色之處:將通俗老土的故事說得很精彩。

--

又,戲中用氦氣球升空,覺得有點無稽,因為氦氣球強度不夠(升到氣壓低的高空時,應該會爆吧!?),控制升降又困難… 不過,一查之下方發現真有人做類似的事… 可到維基看一下,還有相片,真有趣。不過很危險就是了,畢竟是比一般熱氣球還要簡陋許多啊!

《悍戰太平洋(Pacific Rim)》

Pacific Rim Film Poster
(from Wikipedia;Fair Use/Fair Dealing)

近來,本站缺乏「宅」「萌」的題材,實令鄙人惶恐不安;
夠膽放一個「宅」字在招牌,但又交不出貨,實在於心有愧。

終於,有一套「巨大機械人VS.巨大怪獸」電影上畫,應該可以說兩嘴,算是有交代了吧!

連那位偉大的永井豪也說這部戲(的動作場面…)「有趣」:

「怪獣対巨大ロボットの激しいアクションに圧倒された。面白い! 巨大ロボットは映画に向いていると実感した(。)」
<パシフィック・リム : 永井豪、貞本義行らが絶賛コメント>,2013年07月10日,毎日新聞デジタルhttp://mantan-web.jp/2013/07/10/20130710dog00m200019000c.html

應該可以放心吧!(謎之聲:「年輕人,太天真了…」)

我錯了!

我原本以為,「巨大機械人VS.巨大怪獸」這樣簡單的題材,只要用心拍都不會太差,總會有有趣之處的。大錯特錯!(是否我不夠「機械/怪獸宅」?不能夠單純地看到「巨大機械人/怪獸」出場就覺得興奮…)

就我個人的品味看,我還更喜歡一般的特攝(特撮)片
具體而言,我認為任何一集水準一般的超級戰隊片集,都比這部戲好。

以下我會小爆劇情,敬請留意。
不過,這樣的爛片,也沒所謂吧。

敗筆之一,是那個雙駕駛員設定。電影花了一點時間介紹和「解釋」為甚麼要有兩個駕駛員:一個人的神經系統不能負荷之類。(到這裡,問題仍然不大。)但到真正進入駕駛艙,問題就出現了。神經系統個屁!明明只是非常土炮的手動操作,連啟動特別招式、武器,都要另外按鈕,那還跟神經系統有屁關係?

機動武闘伝Gガンダム》裡面,那個像使用motion capture技術的駕駛艙看起來更先進一點!

結果,這只是用來堆砌每隊駕駛員(們)關係的藉口!

而更過份的是,整部戲都經常提到,兩個駕駛員的「精神契合度」要高。(忍不住又要吐糟,這「精神契合度」的測試,竟然是以「古典」的對打方式進行!我在看功夫片嗎?)但到臨近劇終,其中一隊駕駛員有人受傷,不能上陣,竟然可以臨時由另一人頂替!導演,你可以稍微認真一點嗎!?

敗筆之二,是扮真實。這一點不如上一點般具體,只是令人心裡有點疙瘩,但實在是貫穿整部戲的致命傷

戲中無論是機械人、怪獸、基地的質感,以至怪獸對世界的影響等設定,都盡量仿真;但其仿真度越高,就越發令人留意到種種不科學、不合理之處。傳統的特攝片,是將這種矛盾放到一邊不理,總之帶觀眾進入一個空想世界就好。(之所以《空想科學讀本[空想科学読本]》系列雖然有趣,其提出的「科學之壁」也很合理,但完全無損傳統特攝片的趣味,兩者是兩個平行不相交的世界。)而當這片種要「扮真實」,硬是將兩個世界連結,那矛盾處就變得很突出、很礙眼,令人不能忽視。

姑且放下巨大機械人的鋼材、動力、建造、輸送、運作不理,戲中某隻巨獸能飛起來,實在是不可思議。將全金屬的機械人一同帶上高空,就更離奇。而機械人下墜後幾乎毫髮未傷,也沒有撞出一個殞石坑,則根本是玄幻之至。(同樣是有關地面強度的笑位:其實這些巨機巨獸在普通馬路上跑動,路面早就承受不住,都碎裂了吧,甚至會沉降;而在維港水中打鬥,就更離奇,因為踏在海底的淤泥,應該早就没頂了,還打甚麼?)

打鬥過程也笑料十足:拖一艘貨船當棒球棍打怪獸,真當觀眾是傻的嗎?不要說「理科宅」了,任何戲迷都會感到不妥。有人沒看過1997年的《鐵達尼號(Titanic》嗎?鐵達尼號的下場是怎樣的?下沉時有發生過甚麼特別的事情嗎?斷開兩截了啊!(是有根有據的。)其實可算是常識吧。鯨魚為甚麼能長這麼大?鯨魚能隨便長出幾條腿就登陸嗎?當然不可以了!鯨魚是因為生長在水裡,才長成這樣子,如果要登陸,要長得扎實很多。離開了水的船,也同樣承受不了自身的重量,會斷開。別說是當棒球棍打怪獸,其實拿起來就會斷開吧。

好,好,我先按下自己的「理科宅」魂,都暫且告一段落。

從另一個角度看這故事是否合理吧。

故事提到,這班要侵略地球的異世界人(戲中真是指明是另一個宇宙的生物,不是我順口胡謅的。),其實在恐龍時期已派過先遣部隊--恐龍--到地球勘探,但當時覺得環境不好;到人類出現後,我們破壞環境,令地球變得適合他們生存,所以決定來侵略了!

故事有甚麼不妥當之處?

所謂「恐龍時期」,究竟是甚麼時候?既然戲中說那些先遣部隊就是恐龍,那當然應該是恐龍剛出現時吧。恐龍最先出現於三疊紀(Triassic),大概是二億五千萬年至二億年前左右;「滅」於白堊紀(Cretaceous),大概六千六百萬年前左右。(我對「滅」留有一手,是因為鳥類應該是由某一支的恐龍演化而來,故恐龍可能仍有後代存活,不算滅絕。)

人類Homo sapiens)是甚麼時候出現的呢?從身體結構而言,大概距今二十萬年前吧。行為上,大概距今五萬年前。不過,那時候的人類不過是採集狩獵族,談不上對環境有甚麼影響。到人類開始務農,馴化動植物,那才是人類改變地球環境的濫觴,大概是一萬年前(也是人類進行「基因改造工程」的開端。可見舊文:<科學怪粟(?)>。)而如果只計算自工業革命後,人類更大規模、更大幅改變地球環境,更只是有二百多年的時間。

也就是說,這一班在二億五千萬年至六千六百萬年前,已有極高科技的異世界居民,竟然不願意花「僅僅」一萬年(甚或二百多年)的時間改造地球(以他們的科技,其實需時更短吧。);但願意花至少六千六百萬年時間,等候一個不知道會不會來的改變?這太不合理了吧!(我甚至覺得「不合理」三字,已不能合理地反映其不合理的程度!)

另外,派甚麼怪獸呢?以他們的生物科技,抓一兩個人類回去,應該能輕易製作可殺滅全人類的細菌、病毒吧!怪獸全身弱點,根本不能算是理想的武器。

而話又說回來,怎麼我們又要奉陪,製作人型機械人應戰?如果物理重擊能夠傷害怪獸,那用任何常規武器都有相同、或更佳效果吧!而且更靈活、更便宜!

凡此種種,平常「隻眼開隻眼閉」就帶過的事情,因為這部片要「扮真實」,就忽然變得很礙眼,也不能自圓其說。

敗筆之三… 其實還需要這樣數下去嗎?這部戲,由故事到人物,場景設計到服裝,幾乎是一無是處。我已不懂得再說下去,簡直令人疲累…

其實應該早就料到會這樣,看看哥斯拉(ゴジラ)1998年去到美國,變成一套甚麼爛片… 早應心裡有數。

片末還說要將這部片獻給特攝/特技片大師--本多猪四郎Ray Harryhausen;不過,收到這樣的爛片不會高興吧… 「激到翻生」就有可能…

全片唯一的亮點,是芦田愛菜

對,是「唯一」的亮點。(也是唯一的萌點。)她今次演女主角菊地凛子童年。(真的很難不吐糟:童年這麼可愛,怎麼大了會長成這樣子… 這根本就違反常理吧… 實在太過份了…)

其實出場不多,只不過演童年時被怪獸追殺,逃入後巷,害怕得瑟縮一角,後來被單人駕駛巨大機械人的年輕將軍救了。(對,這是又一個吐糟點;怎麼將軍又身懷異能,可以單人駕駛巨大機械人!?)

對,就是這樣,非常短的一段戲。

無論她演得多好,無論我怎麼偏心,也不可能挽救整部爛片吧!

(卒之勉強算是有又「宅」又「萌」的題材,可惜是一套超級爛片,真抱歉。)

==

簡單評分:

D- -(★)

符水殺人事件

“Thanks, I appreciate it, but did you also sacrifice a goat?"
Daniel C. Dennett, “THANK GOODNESS!" Edge.org, November 2, 2006. http://www.edge.org/conversation/thank-goodness

2006年,哲學家Dan Dennett因大動脈撕裂入院,接受緊急手術康復後,寫了一篇(在無神論者間)很有名的<THANK GOODNESS!>。Dan Dennett除了表達對醫護人員、醫學、科學的感激之外,當然也免不了拿宗教調侃一下。事源Dan Dennett(竟然)尚有一些教徒朋友,在探病時告訴他曾為他祈禱;Dan Dennett謂自己忍著不出言嘲諷,當時吞下肚的正是上面那一句。

(為病者祈禱不但無聊,甚至有害!
 有研究[1]發現,如病人知道有人替自己祈禱,會增加發生併發症的機會。)

為已接受正當治療的病人祈禱,雖然迷信,還可說是一番心意,害處不大。(引上述研究,只要不告訴病人就好;你私下想做甚麼,誰管得著?)然而,妄想以祈禱治病,那就是明顯有害了!跟勸人飲符水、搵神醫,毫無分別。

有自主能力的成年人,若墮入此等無稽迷信,最終受害,也只能怪自己愚昧,後果應自負。不用想得太複雜,用最簡單直觀的想法就能破除此迷信:如果祈禱就能治病,那所有教徒都應該身體健康、長命百歲吧!如果祈禱就能治病,有這麼便宜經濟的方法,老早就不用有醫生了吧!

事實是,所謂「神蹟」,全都是不能重複的巧合,甚至只是騙局,不足為憑,完全沒有相信的理由。(當然亦有「安慰劑效應(Placebo Effect)」、誤診等等… 各種各樣的可能,但總之都是毫不神奇的原因。)

成年人怎麼做是一回事,一般而言也不用理會,有病不看醫生,有甚麼後果都是自找的。(如果是嚴重傳染病,那是另一回事;如果有影響他人的可能,則不能只顧個人的選擇自由,也要保障他人不受其愚行所累。)

令人擔憂的,是有父母以這種所謂「信仰治療(Faith Healing)(我照本宣科,緊跟原文;如果讓我自由發揮,應該叫「迷信治療」、「妄想治療」才對。)代替正統醫學,令子女得不到適當治療。從客觀的角度看,其實已經相當於疏忽照顧、虐兒了。

關於這一點,就扯到神秘的美國了。這實在是個奇怪的國度:科學、科技發展的一面,固然令人印象深刻;但其迷信、落後的一面,也絕對超乎想像。

在美國,關於防止虐兒的聯邦法例有這麼一條--《Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act》。我也懶得慢慢介紹,反正維基的內容都很詳盡,我也不過是讀過同樣的資料而已。

有趣的部份,是這一段:

“(a) In general
Nothing in this subchapter and subchapter III of this chapter shall be construed—
(1) as establishing a Federal requirement that a parent or legal guardian provide a child any medical service or treatment against the religious beliefs of the parent or legal guardian; and
(2) to require that a State find, or to prohibit a State from finding, child abuse or neglect in cases in which a parent or legal guardian relies solely or partially upon spiritual means rather than medical treatment, in accordance with the religious beliefs of the parent or legal guardian.
(b) State requirement
Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, a State shall, at a minimum, have in place authority under State law to permit the child protective services system of the State to pursue any legal remedies, including the authority to initiate legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, to provide medical care or treatment for a child when such care or treatment is necessary to prevent or remedy serious harm to the child, or to prevent the withholding of medically indicated treatment from children with life threatening conditions. Except with respect to the withholding of medically indicated treatments from disabled infants with life threatening conditions, case by case determinations concerning the exercise of the authority of this subsection shall be within the sole discretion of the State."
42 USC § 5106i

簡而言之,其效果就是令迷信的父母有豁免權,即使不帶子女看醫生,只依賴所謂「信仰治療」,也不會被控告虐兒。

再舉一個實例可能更清楚。

這是威斯康辛州(Wisconsin)的相關法例:

“Treatment through prayer. A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing permitted under s. 48.981 (3) (c) 4. or 448.03 (6) in lieu of medical or surgical treatment."
Wisconsin Stat. § 948.03(6)

這樣荒謬的法例,最初究竟是怎麼通過的呢?我暫無此心力一一探究,但推斷可能是以「宗教/信仰自由」為借口吧[2](尤其在因為在美國,宗教/信仰自由似乎是頗惹火的題目。一方面,憲法明文保障宗教自由,但其實只能管制政府行為,民風未改。只看政客取態就明白得很:有幾多總統、州長、議員不是[聲稱]耶教徒?我懶得統計,但提供一則趣聞。美國眾議院第一位公開的無神論者議員,叫Pete Stark,他是在2007年才「出櫃」的;也就是說,起碼在2007年前,歷任所有眾議院議員,都[自稱]有某種信仰。(當然多數就是耶教,難道你以為會是回教嗎?)

其實這理由實在不堪一擊。

雖然父母有宗教/信仰自由,有教養子女的權利,但任何人的自由和權利,均不能凌駕他人(子女)的人身安全。你自己怎樣迷信是一回事,但將你的迷信強加於子女身上,危害子女的安全、健康、福祉,這就不能容忍。

(另外,如上文曾提到,如果是對社會有危害的傳染病等情況,自也不容個人迷信的自由,凌駕公眾健康、安全。[3]

我可不是危言聳聽,有真人真事為證。

2008年,在威斯康辛州,有一名十一歲的女童Madeline Kara Neumann身體不適,其父母相信所謂「信仰治療」,只是替她祈禱(及求親友替她祈禱);病情轉趨嚴重,但父母仍照舊祈禱,最終女童失救夭折。

後來,父母被控二級魯莽殺人(second-degree reckless homicide)[直譯,不敢造次;雖然我覺得所謂「魯莽殺人」可能類近「誤殺」,但美國法制複雜,又分「一級」、「二級」不知道有沒有「三級」、「四級」,跟香港差別太大,未深入瞭解,還是直譯為宜。]父母分開受審,同被陪審團定罪。後上訴。

上訴的要點之一,是上引的「『信仰治療』豁免被控虐兒」條文,是否適用於「二級魯莽殺人」條文。

2013年7月3日,威斯康辛州最高法院(Wisconsin Supreme Court)頒下判詞,維持原判。(該判詞十級複雜,看得我頭暈眼花,暫時還是不要勉強摘錄「欣賞」了。不過,當中有一句我認為會是名句,以下將引用。)撰寫多數判詞的首席大法官Shirley Abrahamson如是說:

“No one reading the treatment-through-prayer provision should expect protection from criminal liability under any other statute."
State v. Neumann, 2013 WI 58, ¶50.

此案絕非孤例。

「信仰治療」的維基專頁,引述了美國癌病學會(American Cancer Society)一段文字,當中提過一些研究結果,不妨也在此引述:

One review published in 1998 looked at 172 cases of deaths among children treated by faith healing instead of conventional methods. These researchers estimated that if conventional treatment had been given, the survival rate for most of these children would have been more than 90 percent, with the remainder of the children also having a good chance of survival. A more recent study found that more than 200 children had died of treatable illnesses in the United States over the past thirty years because their parents relied on spiritual healing rather than conventional medical treatment.
Although there are few studies in adults, one study conducted in 1989 suggested that adult Christian Scientists, who generally use prayer rather than medical care, have a higher death rate than other people of the same age." (emphasis added)
American Cancer Society. “Faith Healing." Last modified January 17, 2013. http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/faith-healing

美國,當然離香港頗遠;但觀乎近年香港耶教大盛,而一般人對科學也未見重視,實令人擔憂此歪風在香港萌芽、以至生根。若發展到那地步,則已病入膏肓。

在香港,相信符水、香爐灰能治病的人想已不多,大部份人會嗤之以鼻,甚至會理直氣壯的斥之為落後迷信。(但也難說… 「性交驅鬼」、「性交轉運」也有人相信,有時候… 現代人的迷信反智,往往出人意料。)但同樣無稽的迷信,換一個包裝,以乜教物教的姿態出現,就有不少人受落,奉為真理。實在令人失笑。

--
注:

[1] Benson, H.; Dusek JA, Sherwood JB, Lam P, Bethea CF, Carpenter W, Levitsky S, Hill PC, Clem DW Jr, Jain MK, Drumel D, Kopecky SL, Mueller PS, Marek D, Rollins S, Hibberd PL (2006-04). “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer“. American Heart Journal 151 (4): 934–942. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2005.05.028. PMID 16569567.

[2] 其實我找到一篇文章約略提過,但不清楚詳情如何:

“Statutory exemptions which protect parents who practice spiritual healing are of fairly recent vintage. Ironically, they did not exist in most states prior to the enactment of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974. Due in part to lobbying by the Christian Science Church, this federal law was interpreted to require states to amend their child abuse and neglect statutes to include an exemption for spiritual healing. If states failed to amend their statutes to include such exemptions, they would be ineligible to receive the funds appropriated by Congress to fulfill the intent of the Act — i.e., to establish preventative programs to reduce the incidence of child abuse." (emphasis added)
Monopoli, Paula A. (1990) “Allocating the Costs of Parental Free Exercise: Striking a New Balance Between Sincere Religious Belief and a Child’s Right to Medical Treatment." Pepperdine Law Review 18, 319.

[3] 美國最高法院另一宗案例--Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944),有一段令人印象深刻的說話(當然,其實是因為其看法跟我相同;是有點私心的,哈哈。)。法官Wiley Blount Rutledge, Jr.撰寫的判詞如是說:

“[T]he family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145; Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333. And neither rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation. Acting to guard the general interest in youth’s wellbeing, the state, as parens patriae, may restrict the parent’s control by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child’s labor and in many other ways. Its authority is not nullified merely because the parent grounds his claim to control the child’s course of conduct on religion or conscience. Thus, he cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death. People v. Pierson, 176 N.Y. 201, 68 N.E. 243. The catalogue need not be lengthened. It is sufficient to show what indeed appellant hardly disputes, that the state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare, and that this includes, to some extent, matters of conscience and religious conviction."
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166-167 (1944) (Opinion of RUTLEDGE, J.)

“Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves."
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 170 (1944) (Opinion of RUTLEDGE, J.)

《盲探》

《盲探》海報
(from Wikipedia;公平使用/公平處理)

是我太挑剔(應該不會)
還是期望過高(頗有可能)
或是真的拍得差(猶豫不決)

這部戲或許是一次實驗,一次失敗的實驗。實驗目標,是要探索一種新形態的「杜琪峰銀行映像」電影,希望可以揉合其風格及商業元素。具體的實驗內容,是以杜琪峰式「劉德華配鄭秀文」愛情喜劇為包裝,以《神探》為骨幹,以《大隻佬》為血肉。

(查找資料時發現,編劇韋家輝本身也有類似說法,可為憑證。

「編劇韋家輝透露創作《盲探》的初衷就是希望把《孤男寡女》和《神探》結合起來,他還表示:『我們就是要觀眾看得高興,看得興奮,《盲探》就是要好玩一點。』」
王玉年,<《盲探》定檔7.11 高圓圓避談趙又廷>,2013年5月28日,新浪娛樂。http://mn.sina.com.cn/news/m/2013-05-28/104343353.html

 不過,這部戲實驗性質明顯,即使沒有這段說話,大部份人也會同意吧。
 問題是:結果拍得唔好玩嘛…)

若然成功,應該頗為可觀。

可惜,失敗,拍了一套「三不像」。

失敗的主因,是《神探》太好。珠玉在前,再拍一個同類的偵探人物是吃力不討好。戲中不少所謂「查案」情節,其荒謬手法已在《神探》出現過,再拍只是自我抄襲,連「豬肉」都稱不上,只是一塊「豬頭骨」。(甚或夾雜了《瘦身男女》中,劉鄭兩人對演的風味,但也了無新意。)

戲到中段,有一段頗長的「查案」情節,兩人不停cosplay,劉德華演得還不錯(偶爾甚至有當年演刀仔年代的神采,收放漸見自如。),鄭秀文就有點吃力;演員其實表現不錯,但最終效果欠佳。問題其實出在整段戲身上,非演員之過。一條好橋,玩一次令人拍案,玩兩次仍出色,但連玩十幾次就完全走味。

第二點失敗原因,是兩種風格不協調。到入場時就很明顯,恕我不透露細節,只能夠印象化地說:《神探》風的部份,是《神探》風;「劉鄭喜劇」的部份,是「劉鄭喜劇」風;兩部份的色調、味道都完全不同,似乎也無意(或未能)找到一個恰當的中間點,以致整部戲不停游移於兩個世界之間,如「水溝油」,分隔得很突兀。

這種分隔,令整部戲欠流暢:由「喜劇」到《神探》,往往是「忽然墮入異世界」,令人無所適從。整體故事的鋪墊亦不理想,故事有太多漏洞,感覺太隨便、太「求其」。有幾部份都令人感覺:「吓?咁就算喇?」

姜皓文那一段尤其嚴重…
 那角色也就此浪費了,多可惜。)

另外,本片也有不少沙石。

一開場已發現,在銀河映像作品一再出現的問題:甩嘴!

我知道,現場不收音,全部後配,自有其優點。
尤其是銀河映像的工作方法,在一篇英文文章中也拜讀過:

“I’ve visited other Milkyway shoots, and each time I’ve been impressed by the sheer speed with which the work gets done. Everybody knows his/her job, and the staff changes camera and lighting setups very quickly. It also helps that HK films are almost always shot with no sound recording; everything is postdubbed. That yields the visual freedom, as well as the speed of production, of silent-era moviemaking." (emphasis added)
David Bordwell, “A many-splendored thing 4: Triangulating," Observations on film art, March 22, 2007. http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2007/03/22/a-many-splendored-thing-4/

不過既然選擇這種拍法,配音時可否仔細一點?
經常甩嘴,畫面跟聲音不同步,令人耳朵發麻。

選角也有問題。

司徒法寶一角,是否非用郭濤不可!?

不要誤會,不是郭濤不好,而是:為甚麼要用郭濤?郭濤演得再好,也缺一份香港味;他演的老粗,不是香港的老粗。演香港警察,怎麼不能用一個會說廣東話的演員?比如說:有份做配角的姜皓文也不錯吧。不然,替司徒法寶一角配音的麥長青也可以吧。

高圓圓反而沒有問題。(當然,我知道,我絕對有偏心之嫌。我不怕說,我是喜歡看高圓圓。)她的角色不過是舞蹈教師,背景不明,其實怎麼安排都可以,光明正大的說普通話就可以了。甚至,那角色可以改為俄國金髮美女,也無損劇情。

而司徒法寶則不同,故事開場不久已交代他是香港警察,跟莊士敦(劉華)很熟,不可能不是香港人!(起碼,也是香港永久居民吧!居港七年,廣東話也不會說嗎?怎麼當差!?)

總的來說,這部戲不是很差,但絕對是「兩頭唔到岸」

==

簡單評分:

C-(☆☆★)

「對,XX是我殺的。」(嗎?)

凶手自白:「對,XX是我殺的。」

如果是推理小說,犯人被偵探揭破詭計後,通常都會認輸自白。按不同故事類型,可能也會有「真情剖白」環節。然後,可能會自殺(例如:《犬神家の一族》中的… 凶手。[這麼輕微地爆料就放過我吧…]),也有的會移送法辦(當然是刑警類型小說的首選。)。既然犯人都自白了,讀者當然心滿意足。(除非發現手中小說只過了一半,那當然代表事有蹺蹊,真凶可能另有其人,又或背後另有隱情。)

不過,小說歸小說,犯人的自白(Confession),可不是這麼隨便的事情。

「自白」,向來都是將疑犯入罪的利器:「疑犯自己都招認了,還有甚麼好爭辯的呢?」

之所以,從小看古裝片,中國古代奸官酷吏都有將犯人「屈打成招」的傳統。甚麼「拶指(夾手指)」、「夾棍(夾腿)」,都是看古裝片常見的。

(話分兩頭,「拶」、「夾」,理論上是較重的逼供方法,不是查一般鼠竊狗偷案件可以用的。見:

「《大清律例‧刑律‧斷獄上》有關「不合拷訊者」的規定同於《大明律》。清律規定訊囚用杖每日不過三十,但「熱審得用掌嘴、跪鍊等刑,強盜人命酌用夾棍,婦人拶指,通不得過二次。」 刑訊除了用杖外,尚有掌嘴、跪鍊、夾棍、拶指等。特別是夾拶為刑之極重者,不得輕用,而且只有三法司、督撫、按察使、正印官得以酌用夾棍,其餘大小衙門不許擅用。」
陳俊強 1999/01,〈刑訊制度〉,收入高明士主編《唐律與國家社會研究》台北:五南圖書,頁403~437。作者網址:http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~chanck/

 該文有趣,讀者宜參看。)

時至今日,我們當然不容這種取證方法。

如果有看美國警匪片,必然聽過一段非常有名的警誡詞--「Miranda Warning」,大致相當於港產警匪片中會聽到的「唔係事必要你講」警誡詞。

這段說話,其實源於一件案Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

時任首席大法官Earl Warren撰寫的判詞很精彩,我摘錄了一部份附於文後[注1]

簡單來說,Earl Warren認為憲法第五修正案所保障的,是非常根本且重要的憲法權利;任何人,都不應因為對法律無知、沒有能力徵詢法律意見等原因,而被剝奪或削弱這權利。(當然,憲法第五修正案所保障的權利不僅「免於自我入罪」的權利,但本案的重點則在於此。)

故此,法院要求執法人員向疑犯問話前,要警告疑犯:可行使「保持緘默(Right to silence)」的權利,並可要求律師陪同,如果無能力聘請律師,則可獲委派律師。

不過,要求執法人員警誡疑犯並不是新鮮事。早在1912年,英國就有一份叫《Judges’ Rules》的指引,都有類近的要求。要求執法者(或所有公權力/機關)對待疑犯時,要遵循正常(法律)程序(Due Process),當然比古代的嚴刑逼供進步得多,也體現了社會對人權日益重視、尊重。

然而,我所想的,是我們能否再進一步?

第一點,當然是「自白/招供」的內在風險。

就算有多重的制度保障,制度仍有可能出錯、也可能被扭曲、也會有各種不幸或不當的因素影響,而導致「虛假招認(False Confession)」。維基頁的資料很詳盡,我或不花太多筆墨重複抄寫。

簡單而言,就算執法人員完全依足指引,在盤問時仍可用不同技巧,對疑犯施以心理壓力,令無辜的人也可能「自願招認」。比如一種北美執法人員常用的Reid Technique,就被評有此風險,甚至有電視紀錄片探討過這問題。

Innocence Project統計,在他們經手處理的冤案當中,有達四份一曾作過「虛假招認」或「令自己入罪的供詞」。讀者可到該計劃的網頁詳看。

另外一種問話技倆稱為「Bluff Technique」。問話者向疑犯謊稱已握有證據,但不明確表示究竟是可令疑犯入罪或脫罪的證據。聽起來似乎不壞,但研究發現,即使是這種看似無害的技倆,其實也很可能令無辜者「招認」。(見:Jennifer T. Perillo & Saul M. Kassin. “Inside interrogation: The lie, the bluff, and false confessions," Law and Human Behavior, Vol 35(4), Aug 2011, 327-337. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9244-2

第二點,其實向疑犯問話,其後以此為檢控之證據,本身是否已經不公平?

試想像一個被捕人,無論他/她實際上是無辜或有罪也好,被拘捕、被扣留、被問話,必然是一個令人緊張、徬徨的狀況;在這情況下所作的決定,其實很難令人衷心信服是經深思熟慮的「自願」行為,多少都有受當時的環境所催逼。

就算被捕人是真正的犯人,所作的招認內容都真確無誤,但究竟是當時的環境令他招認,還是他/她在正常情況底下、在一般的精神狀況底下,都會作出同樣的「自願」選擇?其實疑犯「事後反悔」,想推翻之前所說的口供,本身已令人懷疑所謂「自願」(即使沒有其他威嚇、壓迫)的程度有多少。

如果某疑犯原來是真正的犯人,也有心招認,有心承擔罪責,在案件後續的任何階段,也可以認罪。無論有沒有疑犯的招認,這一點應該沒甚麼影響。為甚麼要依賴「自白/招認」這種不可靠的證據?

從保障人權的角度看,其實是否應該廢止「自白/招認」作為檢控證據?

我未有肯定的看法,但傾向贊成不再依賴「自白/招認」。

--

注1:

“At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. For those unaware of the privilege, the warning is needed simply to make them aware of it – the threshold requirement for an intelligent decision as to its exercise. More important, such a warning is an absolute prerequisite in overcoming the inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere. It is not just the subnormal or woefully ignorant who succumb to an interrogator’s imprecations, whether implied or expressly stated, that the interrogation will continue until a confession is obtained or that silence in the face of accusation is itself damning and will bode ill when presented to a jury. Further, the warning will show the individual that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to exercise it.

The Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule and the expedient of giving an adequate warning as to the availability of the privilege so simple, we will not pause to inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given. Assessments of the knowledge the defendant possessed, based on information as to his age, education, intelligence, or prior contact with authorities, can never be more than speculation; a warning is a clearcut fact. More important, whatever the background of the person interrogated, a warning at the time of the interrogation is indispensable to overcome its pressures and to insure that the individual knows he is free to exercise the privilege at that point in time.

The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it. It is only through an awareness of these consequences that there can be any assurance of real understanding and intelligent exercise of the privilege. Moreover, this warning may serve to make the individual more acutely aware that he is faced with a phase of the adversary system – that he is not in the presence of persons acting solely in his interest.

The circumstances surrounding in-custody interrogation can operate very quickly to overbear the will of one merely made aware of his privilege by his interrogators. Therefore, the right to have counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege under the system we delineate today. Our aim is to assure that the individual’s right to choose between silence and speech remains unfettered throughout the interrogation process. A once-stated warning, delivered by those who will conduct the interrogation, cannot itself suffice to that end among those who most require knowledge of their rights. A mere warning given by the interrogators is not alone sufficient to accomplish that end. Prosecutors themselves claim that the admonishment of the right to remain silent without more “will benefit only the recidivist and the professional." Brief for the National District Attorneys Association as amicus curiae, p. 14. Even preliminary advice given to the accused by his own attorney can be swiftly overcome by the secret interrogation process. Cf. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 485 , n. 5. Thus, the need for counsel to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege comprehends not merely a right to consult with counsel prior to questioning, but also to have counsel present during any questioning if the defendant so desires.

The presence of counsel at the interrogation may serve several significant subsidiary functions as well. If the accused decides to talk to his interrogators, the assistance of counsel can mitigate the dangers of untrustworthiness. With a lawyer present the likelihood that the police will practice coercion is reduced, and if coercion is nevertheless exercised the lawyer can testify to it in court. The presence of a lawyer can also help to guarantee that the accused gives a fully accurate statement to the police and that the statement is rightly reported by the prosecution at trial. See Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433, 443 -448 (1958) (DOUGLAS, J., dissenting).

An individual need not make a pre-interrogation request for a lawyer. While such request affirmatively secures his right to have one, his failure to ask for a lawyer does not constitute a waiver. No effective waiver of the right to counsel during interrogation can be recognized unless specifically made after the warnings we here delineate have been given. The accused who does not know his rights and therefore does not make a request may be the person who most needs counsel. As the California Supreme Court has aptly put it:

“Finally, we must recognize that the imposition of the requirement for the request would discriminate against the defendant who does not know his rights. The defendant who does not ask for counsel is the very defendant who most needs counsel. We cannot penalize a defendant who, not understanding his constitutional rights, does not make the formal request and by such failure demonstrates his helplessness. To require the request would be to favor the defendant whose sophistication or status had fortuitously prompted him to make it." People v. Dorado, 62 Cal. 2d 338, 351, 398 P.2d 361, 369-370, 42 Cal. Rptr. 169, 177-178 (1965) (Tobriner, J.).

In Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 513 (1962), we stated: “[I]t is settled that where the assistance of counsel is a constitutional requisite, the right to be furnished counsel does not depend on a request." This proposition applies with equal force in the context of providing counsel to protect an accused’s Fifth Amendment privilege in the face of interrogation. Although the role of counsel at trial differs from the role during interrogation, the differences are not relevant to the question whether a request is a prerequisite.

Accordingly we hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today. As with the warnings of the right to remain silent and that anything stated can be used in evidence against him, this warning is an absolute prerequisite to interrogation. No amount of circumstantial evidence that the person may have been aware of this right will suffice to stand in its stead: Only through such a warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this right.

If an individual indicates that he wishes the assistance of counsel before any interrogation occurs, the authorities cannot rationally ignore or deny his request on the basis that the individual does not have or cannot afford a retained attorney. The financial ability of the individual has no relationship to the scope of the rights involved here. The privilege against self-incrimination secured by the Constitution applies to all individuals. The need for counsel in order to protect the privilege exists for the indigent as well as the affluent. In fact, were we to limit these constitutional rights to those who can retain an attorney, our decisions today would be of little significance. The cases before us as well as the vast majority of confession cases with which we have dealt in the past involve those unable to retain counsel. While authorities are not required to relieve the accused of his poverty, they have the obligation not to take advantage of indigence in the administration of justice. Denial of counsel to the indigent at the time of interrogation while allowing an attorney to those who can afford one would be no more supportable by reason or logic than the similar situation at trial and on appeal struck down in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), and Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963).

In order fully to apprise a person interrogated of the extent of his rights under this system then, it is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Without this additional warning, the admonition of the right to consult with counsel would often be understood as meaning only that he can consult with a lawyer if he has one or has the funds to obtain one. The warning of a right to counsel would be hollow if not couched in terms that would convey to the indigent – the person most often subjected to interrogation – the knowledge that he too has a right to have counsel present. As with the warnings of the right to remain silent and of the general right to counsel, only by effective and express explanation to the indigent of this right can there be assurance that he was truly in a position to exercise it.

Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent.

This does not mean, as some have suggested, that each police station must have a “station house lawyer" present at all times to advise prisoners. It does mean, however, that if police propose to interrogate a person they must make known to him that he is entitled to a lawyer and that if he cannot afford one, a lawyer will be provided for him prior to any interrogation. If authorities conclude that they will not provide counsel during a reasonable period of time in which investigation in the field is carried out, they may refrain from doing so without violating the person’s Fifth Amendment privilege so long as they do not question him during that time."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467-474 (1966) (Opinion of WARREN, J.)

《超人鋼鐵英雄(Man of Steel)》

Man of Steel Poster
(from Wikipedia;Fair Use/Fair Dealing)

我對這部戲最簡短的感想:失望

問題是:其實我原本已經對今次reboot沒甚麼期望,竟然還可以「失望」?
也可見我對本片評價之低。

不過,做人要公道,評論更要公道,我承認對本片早有偏見

一、其實我很喜歡上一套《超人:強戰回歸(Superman Returns》。既能承接以前的《超人》電影,故事也完整,又注入適當的現代感;跟Lois Lane的關係也處理得很好;當然,選角也很重要,不論是超人Brandon Routh和演Lois Lane的Kate Bosworth,我都很滿意。
(話說回來… 我剛剛才發現上一套… 雖然記憶猶新,但竟然是2006年--七年前的戲!原來過了這麼久嗎…?覺得時間過得很快,這是人老的表現吧…?)

二、我對導演Zack Snyder非常沒有信心。雖然他拍的《保衛奇俠(Watchmen》我很喜歡,但那一部的原著本身故事就很精彩,分鏡也很好,看不出他有甚麼貢獻。到他後來拍天姬戰(Sucker Punch,身兼導演、編劇、監製,這就顯出底細:一部徹頭徹尾的爛片!

三、我對監製Christopher Nolan沒有信心。他最重要的作品,當然是《蝙蝠俠三部曲》;第一集,《蝙蝠俠:俠影之謎(Batman Begins)》,完全拍不出蝙蝠俠的味道,也拍不出葛咸城(Gotham City)的氣氛;第二集,《蝙蝠俠:黑夜之神(The Dark Knight很精彩,當時我還天真地以為是漸入佳境;到第三集,《蝙蝠俠:夜神起義(The Dark Knight Rises》,水準急劇下降,情節無聊,許多角色也處理失當,完全令人失望。如此往績,只能說是飄忽不應寄予厚望。

對這部戲最簡短的評語:眼高手低,眼闊肚窄。

我始終覺得,Zack Snyder還是比較適合拍MV或廣告。他拍的畫面是不錯的,但往往內容空洞。有時候,有幾個鏡頭,似乎想表達甚麼意象,但跟整部戲都不協調,最終也沒甚麼效果。

這部片野心不少,又想拍超人母星的背景故事,又要交代地球養父母那一筆,又想講Lois Lane,又要拍超人的身份矛盾… 看到已經頭大,而最終就是拍出一個「大頭佛」。每筆都有提,每筆都拍得不好,每段都交代不清,整套戲都散亂非常,就似將二十個MV胡亂剪接成一部戲。

而奸角在地球登場後,就更無聊。故事平板無味,角色木獨。戰鬥誇張荒謬,純屬堆砌拖戲。

整部戲最大亮點是Kevin Costner。他演超人的地球老豆,非常搶戲。

Russell Crowe演外星老豆Jor-El。那一段也不錯,但完全像是另一套獨立、分開的戲。

Amy Adams演Lois Lane,我很高興,但純粹是因為在銀幕上看她而高興。今次的Lois Lane,角色定位奇怪,性格莫名其妙,一團糟。

本文純屬發洩不滿,請自行酌情參考。

==

簡單評分:

D(☆★)