The one thing I start here is a complaint, or question, or a portmanteau quesplaint:
How can I register a UK iTunes account if I live in Hong Kong, so that, I can save my time (bloody three months!) waiting for the movie to be released for rent.
To be honest, this review is quite partial and biased, and you know why. And I have to admit, this movie is specifically tuned, and 10x supercharged, to fans of Trainspotting the movie and/or the novel. From the pub they had used to meet (and met again in the movie), to the council flat they had used to jab their heroin (where Spud jabbed himself for suicide, and later stuck the pictures and notes of their primes, their junk, their togetherness, etc.), to Renton’s claustrophobic room in Edinburgh pasted with trains repetitive wall paper from corner to corner, to the public toilet, to the music, to the grass where Mark Renton used to give his classic oratory about Scotland, to the package of the movie for promotion, in short in every single sense, Danny Boyle is telling you only one theme about the story, Nostalgia, good’o days/bad’o days. Danny Boyle and his whole team are shamelessly and blatantly asserting that they are consuming our (fans’) nostalgic feeling of the first installment of this movie in 1993, when started the rocket stardom of literally all of them. Danny Boyle went so far to deliberately make a plot to rewind the scene where Renton did his cunning youth smile in front of the windshield, which is, to me, very honest, the worst, the most out-of-context, the most on99 and the oddest part of the whole movie.
However, Danny Boyle grasped every opportunity in the plot, in the lighting, in the sound, in the cut, the shooting, to give you a sense of irony, which is equally shared by both the characters in the story and the whole production team creating the movie (director and actors included), that they have changed a lot already. First of all, the movie is no cult movie anymore. The actors and directors are no nobody anymore. They cannot treat everything in the set as though the same as they used to be. Age, fate, marriage, family, health, weary, success or failure (mostly failure), loneliness, helplessness (Renton’s another classic quote “I can live another 30 years. But what the fuck do I live for these 30 years?"), international football, Kelly MacDonald, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, the social media, the parties, the crimes, the gangster system, the immigration system (I couldn’t help myself LOL when Renton asked the Edinburgh Ambassador where she was from, and she answered Slovenia in Eastern European Accent), the social care system (Danny used the last rolling to tell you the end of social housing even in Edinburgh!). Cinematic photography has changed a lot since 1993. Danny Boyle kept the par on that change in the movie. His shooting of Edinburgh was heartrendingly delicate, especially the night time. That parallel narratives of the movie about that irony faced by them both in front of and and behind the scene is the best part, telling me the sharpness and dark humour of Danny Boyle is still here, if not even sharper.
The movie tried to make use of many nuances and minutiae to tell the characters that everything has moved on without them. However, all those minutiae and nuances point us back to the Bulgarian hooker, Veronica. It is one of the weaker part of the movie. But I don’t mind. Veronica is so enjoyable throughout the movie. If we really need a muse, she is the muse. And, sometimes, few is better than many, and one is better than few. The characters also knew that everything has moved on без themselves. But they couldn’t help but kept self-tormenting, self-haunting by what happened 20 years ago. The baby, Tommy, the 20,000 pounds, the betrayal, George Best, Protestant/Catholic Scotland, the heroin, the wild time of youth. I know it’s not a very innovative theme. Neither was the them innovatively presented. But at certain age, like mine, such theme just keeps resonating within my soul, captivating and reverberating, until the echo from within dissipates after a week, 2 weeks or a month. And when there is another one presenting exactly the same tune, the resonation rewinds all over again. So I told you I am biased. This movie reminds me of a drama made in HK a couple of years ago, When Heaven Burns. Same theme (Nostalgia), same time-frame (20 years), same number of characters (5), same sense of helplessness in front of those feelings (remorse, betrayal, rage, guilty pleasure and enthusiasm of what we used to do), except the carnage (it’s totally unimportant as I haven’t been shown even one scene of cannibalism). But T2 is comparatively better. It is because, in the mud of all those shit, we should also find something funny. And T2 is after all very funny.
After T2, I not only can remember every single character, I also find myself a bit down that I have to say goodbye to all of them, as I’m quite sure they cannot make T3 anyhow. I believe that.
75 out of 100
It will be one of the numbers I will keep in my mind, my vein, until I die.
Just like 623 2016, 118 2016.
For a long time, I have tried very hard, very hard, not to talk about politics. I have been so afraid of myself being full of myself, fool of myself, talking politics, since 623, 714, 118. I know I used to be like that before those numbers, those dates. Being egotistic, I know I used to sound like, smell like, a left-leaning hypocrite. I know I used to sound like, smell like, I know a lot of things about politics, about society, about economy, about class, about votes. There used to be a twitter mate who I guess studied sociology and philosophy. He told me, at the crest of my pomposity about left-leaning ideologue about 2 years ago, that he didn’t see left leaning ideas would come back to hit any time soon. Traditional industries are not here anymore. Traditional sectors that can create a large horde of workers to work together, get a drink together, form a club together, form a bondage to each other, together, are long gone. At the time, I just heard something, but couldn’t listen to anything. Just can’t, have anything that could be put into my brain, except what I thought was true. That used to be me, until the numbers, 623, 714, 118.
So, I felt I was completely defeated by those numbers. When I felt defeated, I reflected, oftener than not the words from the keyboard of that socio-philosophist. Since then have I always remind myself, don’t talk about it. Don’t ever talk about it. Avoid it. Foil it. Not because I finally got a sense of remorse, but I just don’t want to be my laughing stock. So I stop.
Until a couple of weeks ago, that snap poll called by Theresa May, that woman who now still clings on in her parliament, who always takes for granted that Westminster is nothing but HER OWN parliament. Out of something I still can’t explain fully, I called that bet again, that I will have a table for 12 for anyone who comes, if SHE can take a majority larger than 3. That means, I just know, 328 out of 650. I just don’t know. I still don’t know, how I figured that bet. Like Labour, I was not very good at counting and maths. It might be just a gambler’s intuition, always bet on riskier side, always bet on weak, because if I lose, just a bet, while if I win, I win big.
It seems I did win. But that I won doesn’t explain anything about myself. So I am not going to give you explanation about how Labour won big. And literally they didn’t. They have just got back to where they used to be in 2010 under Gordon Brown, a hung, a stalemate, a tell-tale that there are still about a million people who feel alienated by Labour. And, to be most humble, I still don’t know what has been through. I just want to share my feeling, a tinkle of being a little smart ass when the result is all clear.
- I actually think that Labour was smart not ever taking strong view about Brexit. Some people used to blame Labour on their anaemic, or retreating, stance about Anti-Brexit, about Article 50, about Second Referendum against Brexit. From what I have heard from British saying, in TV show interview, in Radio Show, I have a sense many of them don’t feel pain about what they decided on 623. They are conscious they will have a hard time leaving EU. But they haven’t winced or wailed. That’s just not what they are. They just want to get it on. If my sense was right, that Labour sounded retreating about Brexit/ Anti-Brexit might be viewed by people as honouring a majority of people who made that decision, while they won’t be so high and hard sounding about severing any tie to EU at all cost, thus alienating the young voters. After all, Brexit as an issue to Labour is just “Not My Problem". Brexit is in all sense a Frankenstein invented by Tories and Tories themselves.
- “For the many, Not the few" was the campaign motto/ tagline of Labour in this election. It sounded quite silly to me when I first heard of it. But the message turned out ringing so ear-poppingly clamorous to voters, esp. those who have suffered the most in the last 5 years of austerity, the disabled, the people working in National Health Service, the singled parents, the people who have had their benefits and allowances cut to bare minimum. To them, the message pierced right through their mind to create pictures, movies of what they’ve been through, and their future, to the brink of something like clairvoyance. The message was proven today so powerful, like cannon that was shot right through the heart of where Labour voters used to be, Wales, Glasgow, Northwest, Northeast, Islington, Haringey, Bromley, Liverpool Tooting, Leeds, Sheffield, Hull. I have to confess even I underestimated him, and this message of his. I have never, even a minute, thought that it could be so powerful, so majestic.
This passage from New Yorker I read today is the one I like most among all the opinions I read: http://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/how-jeremy-corbyn-moved-past-the-politics-of-2016?intcid=mod-latest?reload
“Rise, like lions after slumber / In unvanquishable number! / Shake your chains to earth like dew / Which in sleep had fallen on you: / ye are many—they are few!”
“For the many, not the few.” “protect this, defend that, support this person.” “Tonight is different….We’re not defending. We’re not defending. We don’t need to. We are asserting. Asserting our view that a society that cares for all is better than a society that only cares for the few.”
2008 I cried like mad in MTR reading the victory speech of Barack Obama. The above speech is comparatively short. And I didn’t cry because of it. But it doesn’t mean it is anything less than Obama’s. At least it is what I think, at the moment. Comparatively, Corbyn’s is ridden of that academic snob of Obama’s, while adding a tint of Street smart. And, most of all, Corbyn’s is even more genuine. He has been standing in Islington, defending for whatever he thinks is worth a stand, a sit-in, for 30 years. Once again, his message pierced right through his supporters’ mind to create pictures, movies of what they’ve been through, what Corbyn’s been through, and their future, their common future, their calm and spirit even their future would be so uncertain (and it’s true), their not giving a shit of their lose come what may (as they’ve been losing for 30 years) to the brink of something like clairvoyance. How powerful, how majestic.
Irony is. He still hasn’t won.
So. I keep on what I have been doing, avoid it, eschew it. foil it. As I really don’t know much about politics, about society, about economy. And, above all, I did’t win.
Fight on, mate.
以下的一個比喻, 好像在twitter掀起過風波裡的茶杯. 或其實只是我睇錯. 其實我成日都睇錯. 若我睇錯, 或睇位/體位錯, 請原諒我.
有關見工的關鍵最後自選項目, “你對我們有什麼問題?", 的選擇, 或表演 somersault 曲體三周半直插壓水, someone said something. and someone else said that something / someone is not right, or absurd, or inappropriate.
以上我是否有性暗示, 我不清楚. 學很多人話齋, 我講野, 寫野一向唔清楚. 但有人用了拍拖為比喻. 這就很清楚. 是對是錯, 請看以下的比喻:
你會否在Tinder成功約會後, 在想發生男女朋友關係之前, 想問清楚自己的福利時, 問: 「嗱老老實實, 這對我很重要. 我未來是否有得口爆先?」?
嗱老老實實. 我今次亦明白他的用意. 指出said something 嗰個 someone, 問一些大剎風景的問題, 破壞了面試時的conventional關係互動. 亦直接使想請你的人看出你重自己的福利大於你想對工作的貢獻.
但係呢….修辭上, 那人明顯的示範了運用比喻的常犯錯誤 – 引用不當/不合適. 而不合適的通常原因, 正是比喻的事物, 和比作的事物之間, context相差太遠, 而變成. too stretched a simile. too anaemic a pun.
套用以上的例子. 見工用面試這種方法去評估/測試應徵者是否適合自己. 我大膽的叫 test by interview. 個場景通常是one on one / two on one / (Microsoft 見 CEO的) 冚家鏟嚟on one. 測試者和被測試者之間會用若干的東西去劃一條界線, 用的是枱? 五尺的地氈? 彼此都預知的一系列的問題由測試者發動? 或 all of them. 當然, 有些時候測試者可因應雙方的懸殊而把這條界線大幅拉近, 甚至真是可以用「睇你識唔識做呢」的性暗示去真軍測試對方是否適合提供某些工作以外的服務 (詳情可上myavsuper及打關鍵字 OL 面試 Boss. Subtle一點的可以參考美劇 Man in the High Castle第一季第六集女主角Juliana到Jap Emperor Authority見文員工的一幕). 但大致上, 這種test by interview是一問, 一答的公式刻板.
輪到tinder約會. 你都可以叫面試的. 但我更大膽的generalise 叫 test on job. 就是設一個模擬的親密情景/環境, 測試者和被測試者, 之間的界線, 不是沒有, 而是跟test by intervew非常不同. 總不至於中間有張枱, 而測試者攞住大張問題紙而叫被測試者首先介紹自己, 而被測試者就講. 早晨, 等我首先介紹一下我自己先. 我DSE五優二良. 在XY大學19系First Hon畢業, 對溝女永遠有一份執著, 但尤其被妳在tinder profile 的自我介紹 及你相片展現的有波有羅而深感興趣. 所以多謝你給我這個機會跟妳見面. 咁架.
通常都是, 正路都是, 你挑下我, 我又豆下你咁架….在這環境, 再沒有一set問題, 一set tasks. 而是被測試者真是要落手做, 好像無薪INTERN一樣, 圖用表演/現去感動對方,
trick stick her/him into a long term relationship, with alot of sex to come. 那可能被測試者不用提, 都主動,le tart 去製造更cordial的 foreplay more date 也未可知.
21世紀, 冇幾多人真是介意任何人滿腦都是性暗示. 但比喻是否用得對. 去決定的規範, 還是要回到去16 17世紀.
亂UP 24完畢. 又要回去構思故事的Chapter 11. 今次真是好頭痛.
Dodgy Cunt You Dodgy Cunt
Dodgy Cunt You Dodgy Cunt
What I done to you you keep witch huntin’
What I don’t do you oft’ framin’
Shamin’ Damnin’ but we just do our music babe
Indy wha sis it you no need listenin’
Neemetter how hard you try is a Universe to your fuckin’ brain
Just dodgying, dogging, behind your stupid thing
Article what? 10, 20, or 30?
Or Ordinance, what? Section 133 (a) (b) (c)
To me, to you, just nothin’ sisn’t fittin’ your shitstematic
which think of nothin’ nothin’
But how long a doggy you take meetin’ Xi Jing Ping.
Dodgy Cunt You Dodgy Cunt
Dodgy Cunt You Dodgy Cunt
Stupid, like a phallus, you gangs do calculus of callous
We call it dope you call it useless, lightless, lewdness
Drug. You call it drug, a poison from a mug of thug
But ye know, what sis drug? Music’s drug, 東方’s drug
大媽’s drug, power’s drug, money’s drug, real estate’s drug
梁美芬’s drug, 林以諾’s drug, Religion’s drug, CCP’s drug
Pop music? Drug. The druggest of the drug.
We can’t do without drug, so can you,
Keepin us always a step from die
To the shittest, we dupe us it’s still fine
But we’re sure, mine is fine coz I don’t do you fine
I won’t evict nobody, as if yours are mine
Reggae, Hiphop, Noisepop, Synthpop, we enjoy ourselves
Do no harm to the world.
But your phalla boodozer, you keep fuck my girl
My only girl, my only pearl, my only world
Unfurl my arms, as do but a hundred palms,
With calm, unarmed, in a puny stage
If we ever brawl you coz you freak me out, drag me out,
who have nothing, but a guitar, synther’ and a drum of pulse
So get out. I say one more time, You dodgy cunt, get out.
Dodgy Cunt You Dodgy Cunt
Dodgy Cunt You Dodgy Cunt
We no rebel I hope you understand
If youth does offend it’s just passed you ma’am, Yo man
Don’t hypo crush me pretend you care
I know what you done you’ve got pepper man
I know you man
I saw you man
Beat the shit out and you cry out foul
Your shit ‘ouse, Clubhouse, outlaw no doubt
Stop critique you motherfucker cunt me mouth
I’m not your cum you louse
Cuff me music for we worked in house
I ain’t no work no doubt
Please dirty shut your mouth
We contributin’ your shitty’ town with my clout
My only clout my mouth
Don’t humiliate it with your mouth,
I tell you, you learn
It’s contributing. It’s singing. It’s soul searching.
It’s heart mending. It’s a stop call
Call us from bending, corruptin’ like all of you,
who dup us devil, but I still love you,
I keep me hope, One day I hope, embrace your sin
till you leave your soul, to the where I know,
I know, for sure, you snort nosed punter,
I call it
Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you
Dodgy Cunt You Dodgy Cunt
Dodgy Cunt You Dodgy Cunt
Park. not for music.
Garden. not for music.
Street. not for music.
Flat. not for music.
Cafe. not for music.
Stadia. not for music.
Not here. Not there. Not for music f’ yer fuck sake.
Where the ‘ell sis music on yer lipstick. No music but yer
Yo set your
STAGE! for every little genre would say
BABY yer’ most welcome to stage I set my date, must a put a crimy
FACE! say hey I love you boss, for yo’ the cause of
EVERYTHING! Rock’n’ Roll, Core, Post-Core, Gothic, not allowed till you
CALL! PatriOT! Comrade I owe you
MORE! than my whole country. There’s no country. But your own country.
Censor! until I pass N’ yo’ loving me, bullshit you know,
What is music? Is no country. No
Border! I crush them all with my own language, ‘mbrace
You ALL! With one idea. It’s called love, hate, fun, sex, drug, anything just up to me. It’s called
FREEDOM! express oneself, yo’ not that used to but it’s still here
Dodgy Cunt You Dodgy Cunt
Dodgy Cunt You Dodgy Cunt
Thirteenth day has passed, but I’m still in the dark.
Droops of my eye socket, Cash in my wallet, droplets/
By droplets of Machiatto in the bin, on the desk,
Mechanic Texts every 7:30 pm said,
I am gone, I’ll be back, 5 minutes Cab, plate number/
576 6678 802 0808 92 95 00, On the cab. Back and/
How are you? Still busy, still not yet, still going, and back/
To the same o’ mechanic text expected, the same time, same text,
same said, same phone-in number, and a string of seemingly random plate numbers,
Same numerical string. Same o’ strain on my left leg up to my thigh.
Sometimes, on the right side.
Are sign of
I am still working.
其實呢篇我似想到一些東西但又不是太講得出來是甚麼來著. 畢竟我是一個頗垃圾的BLOGGER. 我大概嘗試這樣說吧. 我都跟我個女這樣說. 任何一樣你認為有生命的東西. 都會有genesis, peak, senile, expire. 這個循環. Expire嗰日, 那一樣有生命的東西要不自行消失, 要不他不消失大家看他更討厭. 你可以叫那個expire 叫死, 正如其他人一般說. 但亦可以叫其他名詞. Karma. Exegesis, Absolve, Dissolve, Resolve, Assimilate. 任你說, 意思都是差不多. 他應走的路已到盡頭.
很多韓粉可以拗, K-POP永垂不朽. 正如黃貫中日日講Rock and Roll never die. 我的雲畫永遠存在大家的心. 我都講過我永遠愛誰. 人人都懂說, 但人人一稍抽離, 就知這只是你心中的堅執, 頑固, 或Kellyanne 講的 alternative fact. 即係faith. 即係其實存不存在已不重要. 我只要看見成個地鐵都是NOW TV暖男暖語韓劇宣傳, 就知道K這個概念已經水尾. 就正如HERO在香港有得做第一集, 木村心知他的途都行得差不多.
這叫做潮流. 有潮漲, 有潮退. 沒有人可以改變. 亦沒有人可以堅持不變. 好多人懷緬香港的80年代流行文化, 還嘔心的說句軟實力. 這個老土到呢…..其實, 西方現在都大規模的nostalgic, 懷緬光輝的8 90 年代, 懷緬曾經存在的 La La Land. Make America Great Again. Make Cantopop Great Again. Make Oscar Great Again. Make Singin in the Rain Great Again. 但只要抬頭清醒一下, 就看清, 潮流已經過.
有個牧師曾跟我說, 我們不能造浪, 只能逐浪, 頂多能比其他人快一點嗅到浪, 快D轉, 快D掹. 生活在潮流的人, 制作的, 欣賞的, 表演的, 都要知道這個所謂潮流是怎麼一回事. 大戲曾有人認為會永垂不滅. 在任白時. 但隨著人類生活的改變, 大戲再沒有能力由其宏偉的裝置downsize去適應社會. 變成沒能力再通俗下去, 即使你有毛主席.
大家都看過Who Moved My Cheese. 大家應該是時候apply. Change, We Can…要更上一步….Change, We are forced. 改變不到對潮流的喜愛和劇毒的, 就只有轉. 否則, 不如學Keanu Reeves. 明知John Wicks 條橋Out了N代, 依然一句, 我就是喜歡. 你吹呀….
Judaz by Amos Oz has just been finished. I couldn’t stop reflecting my view about it before. I used to have one serious and raucous brawl with one Twitter, a dead pan Israel supporter, a couple of years ago when Israel bombarded Palastine and Ramallah for a month in the name of killing all Hamas and Hezbollah. In him, I was but a simpleton Muslim pacifist idiot. In me he was a ruthless and pitiless pomp pomp of Natanyehu. And both of us were in Hong Kong and from Hong Kong. You see how stupid it is. More stupid is I blocked him permanently because of the fight. Stupid self. Stupid me.
I read some interviews of experts about the issue, afterwards. They pointed out one thing I couldn’t understand at the time, that “ones have to understand two fundamentals before looking at these two states, or two races under one state. 1. The reciprocal animosity between the two; and 2. The existential threat Israelis have been feeling since AD 1, and esp. after Nazi killing of Jews en masse.
After finishing reading this book, I at least begin to understand the second. Gershom Wald, one of the characters in the book, asked, what would you do if you had 20000 heads in your troop, protecting less than a million men of your race against the siege of 1 million strong troops who wanted to kill you all in an instant. Would you still fight the fight, war the war? Even if you can withstand those 1 million, what if they brought in 1 million more to exterminate you? How long you supposed you can withstand? But you still fight?
Such questions beautifully and cruelly sum up the 2nd point above. And I still don’t know how to grapple with the issue. Too strange to me as an Asian. So, I will read more maybe. Today I read this:
One thing I am definitely sure. I won’t fight anymore. Coz’ I don’t know nothing. If I still cannot give a view of those seven policemen under sentence because of violence causing injuries to a protester who instigated the fight first hand, where the justice should be struck, I think I can’t give you anything. All I say is,
The Judge judged it, and we have nothing else but witnessed it. And that’s it. Bye.
認為應該要嗰幾百個選委, 甚麼300+, 投白票的朋友. 我講一個好有趣的故事, 雖然未必關你事, 但肯定唔關我事.
其實我想講的是, 我突然想到. 嗰幾百個入圍的選委之所以可以入圍好大程度上是因為protest vote, 所謂對已稱霸的制度, 的一種憤慨的宣洩. 是非常emotional的. 可以沒有特定的原因的, 可以是沒有特定的政策要求的, 如減稅、增加土地供應、港人港地、Kill the XL Pipeline、Burn those coal….但又好奇怪, 暴燥的選民又不是很喜歡那些巧言怜色的政客口號, 唔喜歡all talk, 要在政客的政綱上看到他是實實在在的幹的. 選民的矛盾和政客的計算,就成了很微妙的game theory了. 如何用比較易完成比較實在比較有指向的政策對應/包攬最多最大圍散亂的選民情緒及指望. 而呢個matching最經典的例子, 而我知的就是Brexit. 所以左膠們, 客觀講, 唔好只話Brexit政客講大話. it’s more than that. Brexit正正是一個比較具體的方案去match最多Protest Voters的情緒/信念/期望.
可是更有趣的事還在後頭. 當政客藉著這些protest vote 撈到油水, 上到檯一刻, 他們就會看見所謂protest vote會自己變質的. 變成非常實在的願望. 實在得令他們不得不照這實在的願望去行. 因為政客是主動的去把protest voters用那個具體政策連起來的. 或簡化概括起來的. 再抽象一點就是, 未投票時, 準備投票, 到投完票那刻, 都可以是protest vote. 但選票結果一出現那刻, 那種有,或被方向化的protest vote就不再是protest vote, 而變成mandate, 變成合約, 令藉此勝出的政客們不能不跟那個合約去做. 所以衞報的左翼記者/稿人, 今次我是不同意你的. Labour怎可能反其道而行, 去對抗這個mandate呢. 那些認為Labour四分五裂是因為某人的領導能力, Brexit正是一個很好的路標,或指南針, 去把各有喜好的選民清析的分類出來. 代表們的政客, 變相簽了這份同意書, 又怎會有不分裂的本錢/本事呢:
更有趣的是: 有人會問的. 投Brexit的既然是protest vote, 咁即係他們未必是同意Brexit啦? 那猜想有理. 有點賴皮, 但都不重要了. 因為偉大的Game Theory又來了. 票就投左了. 就正因為Brexit是一個比較具體的方案去match/summarise最多Protest Voters的情緒/信念/期望. 有誰又有能力去決定/猜測有多少投Brexit的人是真心, 有幾多是一時性充血呢? 你去估啦, 出問卷啦. 又點呢? 結果即使顯示有超過60%的Brexiter是其實不想脫的, 你是否就有信心充足的講, Brexit不是他們所想呢? 那個60%有幾多機率是錯誤的呢? 萬一真是信60%這個數而出事, 個風險有多高呢? 投了票的選民亦一樣面對這些很困難的選擇. 我當時即使是protest vote, 即使是一時意氣. 我有否這個勇氣去講我講過唔算數呢? 好樣衰喎. 尤其是我怎樣知道有幾多講吓算唔係真是咁想做脫星的志同道合呢? 但如果個政客真是話唔脫啦, 因為知道選民很多不是真是想做脫星的, 選民又會否覺得那個政客誠信不夠, 會否其他事未來都是講左唔算呢? 那樣會否更危險呢?
再簡單一點: 頭已濕. Too much is at stake.
看似唔太關那300+選委事. 但300+選委會否清楚投你的protest vote當時是match緊一個具體的政策願望呢? ABC? ABC2.0? 定ABC3.0 (Anyone /Anything But those from the election Committee)? 而入去投白票又是否能反映到那些散亂而複雜的情緒呢? 如果人地冒住生命危險來投你, 他的願望變成mandate, 你做唔到, 你又會否覺得是too much is at stake呢?
我真是唔知. 因為我真是唔多睇報紙. 你們想吓啦. 唔啱睇真是可以唔睇的.
回到twitter的第一樣任務，就是推廣自己的故事，和找作家，和教人做作家的作家，的Twitter，去學寫故事。未來是否去報讀MA in Creative Writing反而是其次。第一個add番的作家，或教人做作家的作家，就教若要寫小說，首先要練習不分晝夜晴雨，都每日寫出最少500字。和當知道自己個故事寫寫吓唔對頭立即走不要留戀。後者當然能夠做到吧。畢竟寫寫吓唔對頭就表示我無法再寫下去。至於前者⋯⋯
本人又沒有多大的勇氣去求証。本人乃非常脆弱的內心。英語所言的thin skin。這亦可能是一直不能進步的原因。以今天網上的一單網聞，一個去食拉麵的朋友拍照，若持續無人兜口兜面屌鳩之，到今日還是在網上speak his thought自己究竟有沒有機會做一個食評人＋攝影師，photographoisseur。而現實生活中，又真是人越大越沒有敢／肯向你忠言逆耳的。費事啦係咪先？關我X事咩？
太多廢話。最近看了一套紀錄片，叫808。故事講Roland在1970年尾推一出了一件老闆以為是電子鼓programme的產品，叫TR808。但產出的鼓聲非常怪雞，怪得唔可以當是鼓。但又因為所生出的聲效真是好怪雞，所以音樂人開始當808為第一代的synthesizer，差出席捲全球的音樂革命。New Age, R&B, Electronica, Hip Hop, House, Ambience, MADchester, Phil Collins, Beastie Boy, DMC….有幾怪雞？其實當時的香港隻隻歌都是電子鼓聲／808聲，都真是無乜聽過真鼓聲的嗰代人。808可以說是就等如80年代的香港流行音樂。以下是其中一隻19歌作例子：
但人要move on，總不能天天80年代怎樣怎樣。最近倫敦有個音樂人叫Sampha 好紅。紅到，New Yorker有繕稿。http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/06/sampha-and-migos-make-hits。我老婆話OK。我給不了評語。你們反而可以聽吓。唔好成日lala land啦。俾D機會樣衰人士吖好嗎？
我有個好有雷好有霸氣的朋友, 曾眾目睽睽, 講句: 林夕的詞空洞堆砌.
但昨日行過街再聽到這隻歌. 回想曾經覺得世界第一的歌曲, 再細味歌詞, 我開始有點明白, 阿朋友其實是講緊乜野.
以前高登仔的日子, 好多高登仔的解詞專家都會拿林夕的詞來拆解, 好似達文西密碼咁為他的歌詞, 逐忽去解釋其實詞人想表達的意思. 但其實我地唔可以排除, 其實一首詞一首詩, 真是可以只為帶一個感覺砌下字啱音就算. 你問到詞人, 可能佢都講唔到是咩意思. 俗D叫鳩填. 文雅D可以叫賦詩強說愁, 反而賣到錢就是了.
富士山下, 正正就是呢種其實非常鬆散, 但冇特別意思, 最多只有一個苦字的虛實印象的描繪, 再湊一些時下時興的詞彙如試管. 再加D你覺得好有詩意其實無甚意思的儁語. 如前塵硬化像石頭….聽的人又怕話唔知佢UP乜被人笑, 硬要講D意思出來, 附庸風雅/化就在城裡產生了.