2010年5月30日星期日
2010年5月29日星期六
2010年5月18日星期二
当穿靴猫变成101忠狗
Dreamworks Animations （DWA）与 Pixar 的关系就有如 AMD 和 Intel。后者主宰了主流消费者的口味，也是前者模仿的对象。正如 AMD 最具划时代意义的产品是首先实现64位运算和寻址的 Athlon，DWA 给人印象最深刻的形象也是离经叛道，恶搞了大量经典童话的 Shrek。How to Train Your Dragon 想要证明 Dreamworks 不仅能用 Shrek 这样的形象颠覆和剑走偏锋，也能驾驭中规中矩的家庭动画长片。但是，这样的证明不应当用落入 Disney 曾经的俗套为代价。
How to Train Your Dragon 的主角和剧情很像 Pixar 早年的作品 A Bug’s Life，但是 Flik 走过的旅程要显得比 Hiccup 的成长经历可信得多。相比 A Bug’s Life 里那些连本职工作都常出差错的虫子，Hiccup 的搭档是一条威力无穷的，“Never misses” 的传奇飞龙，如此强大的存在无疑使主角的发挥空间少了很多。虽然主创人员希望把 Hiccup 描绘成一个能力有限但充满斗志的形象，从而拉近与观众的距离，但他的搭档的强大只会让观众想到传统童话里捡到神灯的阿拉丁，或者从悬崖上掉下去都能捡到武功秘笈的张无忌。而 Hiccup 无法复制 Aladdin 或者《倚天屠龙记》的成功，则是因为笔墨被过多地用来塑造 Toothless 的形象，甚至众多种类不同的龙的形象，而只塑造了一个平面化的主角。观众也许会记得傲娇的 Astrid，甚至长得有点像 Jack Black 的 Snotlout，但是不会对 Hiccup 有太特别的印象，顶多一边想“为什么我捡不到龙”一边出戏罢了。
即使现在以 Pixar 为主力的 Disney，也不会使用这样一个平铺直叙的剧本。很难认定平面的主角和平板的剧情孰为因果。在一般的编剧公式中，主角总要受到重大挫折，被别人和自我怀疑和否定，最终方得正果。这个自有戏剧以来屡试不爽的公式存在至今，自然是因为它符合观众的心理。在 How to Train Your Dragon 里，情绪始终在一个温吞吞的温度徘徊，最后虽然燃了一下，但是因为与之前的情节缺乏对比，效果也不出彩。主创虽然试图用人和龙之间的紧张关系制造冲突，但 Hiccup 的成长过程一帆风顺，人和龙的对峙就缺少了具体的表现形式和镜头中的落脚点，让观众难以设身处地去体会。影片传达的呼唤沟通和消除误解的信息，在今天具有强烈的现实意义，但是如此宏大的主题，没有一个令人信服的主角和搭档关系来具象化，是很难被观众打心底里接受的。
男女主角遨游云海的场面和与 Pocahontas 一样的主题思想，在无力的剧情之上就成了对 Disney 俗套模式的笨拙模仿。
虽然 How to Train Your Dragon 的缺点让它像是一部适合直接转 DVD 的小格局电影，但如果不在影院里欣赏这部片子，那些缺点还会更突出一些。至少，每一个男观众都能借助影片中不输给 Avatar 的飞行场面温习少年时代的梦想，而 DWA 花大力气塑造的龙也确实像我们的宠物猫狗一样可爱。
如果不是影片的结尾，我宁愿相信这是 Disney 旗下另一个工作室用来练手，直接走 DVD 发行渠道的作品。但是当不完美的主角和不完美的龙完美地结合在一起的时候，我相信这才是 DWA 和原书作者 Cressida Cowell 想要描绘的人与龙的关系。也只有这样的结尾，才像是一部真正的 DWA 电影。我希望看到的，不是作为 Pixar 模仿者的 DWA，不是走101忠狗路线的穿靴猫，而是像 Shrek 一样叛逆和像 Kung Fu Panda 一样给人惊喜的梦工厂，而这个结尾给了我期待的理由。
Sarcasm Detected!
Popular Science reported on their website that an Israel-based team developed an algorithm that can detect sarcasm in online reviews.
It looks like an expert system based on statistics and pattern recognition:
It looks like an expert system based on statistics and pattern recognition:
SASI, a Semi-supervised Algorithm for Sarcasm Identification, can recognize sarcastic sentences in product reviews online with pretty astounding 77 percent precision. To create such an algorithm, the team scanned 66,000 Amazon.com product reviews, with three different human annotators tagging sentences for sarcasm. The team then identified certain sarcastic patterns that emerged in the reviews and created a classification algorithm that puts each statement into a sarcastic class.and possible applications:
This isn’t all just so your Roomba gets the joke when you tell it it sucks. Computer programs that can recognize sarcastic statements could generate better personalized content and make better recommendations to human users by not mistaking a product review titled “keep your receipt” with a sound piece of online shopping advice. It could also benefit opinion-mining systems that troll the Web trying to measure public sentiment about a product or idea.
2010年5月17日星期一
Iron Man 2：维持风格，打破定律
好莱坞的一般影片，如果制作方仅仅是因为第一集大卖而决定拍摄续集，续集的质量就往往不如前作，除了 Terminator 2，The Empire Strikes Back 和 Godfather 2 这样的例外，续集比第一集成功的寥寥无几，甚至可以说大部分续集比第一集的水准相差甚远。但在漫画改编电影中，第二集比第一集成功似乎倒是一个普遍现象，从较早的 Superman 2，到新世纪的 Spider Man 2 和 The Dark Knight 都表现出了比第一集更高的品质。
非改编电影的续集受到这样一些制约：影片主题可能在第一集里已经做了深入的探讨，导致续集只好选择狗尾续貂或者另起炉灶；编剧的点子在第一集里已经用完，在续集里很难继续构建有力的戏剧冲突，容易落入俗套；第一集里对故事的背景、人物的性格刻划都已经形成了固定的框架，导致续集的编写不得不继续带着更多的镣铐跳舞。漫画改编电影因为第一集的试水色彩往往更重，以把多年不看漫画的观众拉进影院作为主要目的，第一集拍得都比较中规中矩，到了第二集，因为有上一集收入的资金作为后盾，编剧人员就可以像《纽约时报》的影评人 Scott 说的那样，冒险探索“那些肤浅幼稚的故事里的诡秘角落”，给人物更多的深度和更强烈的冲突，而且有漫画上百期连载的底子，找几个符合编剧意图的故事和角色加以改编也不算太难。
Iron Man 虽然剧情浅显，但也算说圆了一个浪子回头的故事，还顺带提了一下 Tony Stark 是否有一颗心的问题。但 Jon Favreau 也像 Tony Stark 一样不按牌理出牌，正当所有人都在期待Iron Man 2带来更深刻的剧情和更偏执的角色时，他成功地给了电影更好的视觉效果，更多的爆炸，更先进的科技和更炫目的演员阵容，却没有制造出一个像 Joker 一样复杂的角色。这种对比就解释了为什么影评人们这一次如此吝惜赞美之词。
但是，Iron Man 是不是像其他的漫画超级英雄那样，有那么多的童年阴影和心理问题可供导演拍一个“更有深度”的续集？Tony Stark 的自我复仇和救赎早在第一集中已经完成，他不会再像 Bruce Banner 那样，觉得自己是被侮辱和被损害的；也不会像 Bruce Wayne 那样始终处于对自己善恶的反思之中。在说出一句“I am Iron Man”之后，Tony Stark 已经卸下了几乎所有其他超级英雄都要背负的重担——在作为凡人的自我和被强加的英雄身份这两种认同之间的挣扎。再把那些多少有点人格分裂的超级英雄的自我怀疑和救赎套路生搬进这个系列，我想不是明智之举。
Iron Man 的魅力在于他的高调和特立独行，故事里安排的困境也要与这种特质相符。所以我们在 Iron Man 2 里看到的是一个孤身对抗世界的神一般的 Tony Stark。作为一个有肉身的神，他面临着被其他人崇拜着疏远的危险，更要提防那些虎视眈眈的弑神者和试图窃取其力量的模仿者。这个动机很难给观众以认同感，更难让人觉得这是一个说得过去的剧情动力，毕竟谁也没有真的孤身一人维护了世界和平。更要命的是，如果编剧顺着这样的思路走下去，给 Tony 安排一个类神的 Nemesis，哪怕是 Joker 那种级别的小神，也会让他们的对决变成诸神之战，那观众还不如去看 Clash of the Titans。这次的反角，还是一个试图把 Tony 拉下神坛的小人物。反角对 Tony 的神性的消解，Tony 在知道自己来日无多时的恐惧和疯狂，以及他最后从家庭获得力量的情节，虽然很难说是上集剧情自然的延续，但至少避免了剧情的失调和情绪的失控。这次的剧情动力也许不足，但却是为使观众接受 Tony 这个形象不得不做的牺牲。
上一集 Tony 的敌人就来自他的身边，而这次变成了来自俄国的威胁，不知道是不是编剧为了忠于 Iron Man 初创时期的冷战主题。跟上一集的中亚战场背景相比，这个设定显得跟现实生活更脱节。当然，从美俄关系出发也能写出很有张力的剧情，比如游戏 CoD: Modern Warfare。Iron Man 2 如果能再挖掘一下 Howard Stark 和 Anton Venko 在70年代的关系及其后果或许会让这个设定在今天显得不那么突兀。
二号反角的身份延续了上集的设定，还是无良的军火商，不知道编剧是否有继续埋汰这些形象复杂的死亡商人的意图，或者仅仅是为了让 War Machine 的出现顺理成章。但是加上 Ivan Venko 后，这两个人形成了与 Tony Stark 的有趣对照。当 Justin Hammer 跳着舞上台介绍自己的产品时，我不由自主地想到了试图模仿 Steve Jobs 的产品发布风格但是画虎不成反类犬的 Steve Ballmer。而影片开头 Ivan Venko 独自在车间加工盔甲的镜头也让人想起第一集里山洞中的 Tony Stark。这两个反角的存在提醒了我们手中握有先进技术的人是多么热衷于发明新的大棒而不是改良胡萝卜的种植方法，Tony Stark 本来也完全可能成为那样的人。这于是也让观众更容易对 Iron Man 产生认同感，虽然也让这个角色在第一集里的转变显得更突然且更不现实。如果说相信科技能让生活更美好的 Howard Stark 代表了对科学改善人类福祉的乐观，那么这两个角色无疑提醒了我们无视人类天性的科技发展带来的可怕副作用。
饰演两个反角的演员，Sam Rockwell 和 Mickie Rourke，虽然扮相迥异，都展现了他们近年来最好的表演，甚至让人觉得他们没有演 Joker 这种级别的反派（有派的反角）实在是太屈才。Mickie Rourke 饰演的 Ivan Venko 有表面上的疯狂，更有仿佛在不知不觉间流露的内心世界，甚至足以让观众在观影时站在他的立场上思考，虽然导演没有给他安排大段独白的机会。Sam Rockwell 的角色拿捏得很好，又是一个在说话间刻划了一个有故事的人的成功范例，同时又恰到好处地控制了这个角色与 Tony Stark 的关系，没有让他显得太具威胁或者太无足轻重，从而具有更多的发展可能性。
其他演员里，Robert Downey Jr. 再次证明了他是饰演这个角色独一无二的选择，Gwyneth Paltrow 也给了 Pepper 这个角色比第一集里更立体化的诠释，看 Tony 和 Pepper 这两个角色拌嘴是观看 Iron Man 2 最不能错过的乐趣。其他演员似乎也发挥出了自己表演的最佳状态，除了 Samuel Jackson 的表演太随意了一点，Scarlett Johannson 由于剧情限制不得不当了花瓶以外——但是她拍动作戏也是进影院的一大理由。
要说没有给演员足够发挥余地的原因，还是过于强大的演员阵容和像 The Hulk 的裤子一样塞得几乎要爆炸的剧情。除了连篇的动作戏，编剧还试图加进类似 Spiderman 2 里的英雄沉沦-回归，类似 Empire Strikes Back 的双反派联手，还有 Nick Fury 不时出现插科打诨，难怪所有非动作戏的剧情都好像是大餐中间送上的瓜子泡菜。但其实广受好评的第一集也有这个问题，只是上集里的非动作剧情串联得更好一些而已。作为漫画电影，Iron Man 2 必须提供更多的爆炸和更多的新奇技术，剧情的连贯上也就难免顾此失彼了。
但编剧至少在两个方面是成功的：对情绪的控制和节奏的应用。Rhodes 和 Tony 的一段打斗，看似跟所有酒吧斗殴一样无厘头，但避免了观众陷入消沉的情绪中，与后面 Tony 的重整旗鼓顺利地衔接起来。片子让观众几乎从头到尾都处在亢奋的状态中而不感到厌倦或疲劳，这是编剧最大的功绩。影片中大量笑料都是在几十分钟前铺下包袱，关键时刻一抖，娱乐效果很好。
任何电影都不能让所有人满意，一部仅仅在动作和演员阵容上加强，剧情还有所削弱的 Iron Man 2 也许会让不满的人更多，但是就像 Tony Stark 这个形象一样，一个不受传统改编电影规律羁绊的系列和编剧、导演为维持其风格作出的努力是值得肯定的。
2010年5月15日星期六
Understanding your animal life
It must be quite interesting to examine the life of Maggie Gee as a writer with more than an educated mental profile in herself, and presented by herself. To me, it is always hard to imagine how can any professional writer write seemingly not for building a brand, but out of one’s desire to write. Who can maintain such an attitude for decades?
The answer may be found in her autography My Animal Life. The passion of writing may be coming from her recognition of multiple factors which shaped her personality, and the complexity of a person who is both a sentient being and a product of natural processes. Possibly, it is out of the need to understand oneself, one set out to understand the forces that contributed to her present condition.
2010年5月14日星期五
I cannot write?
I cannot write.
It has been months since the last time I want to write something in my blog. And that last entry was totally wrecked -- not that I do not agree with myself on its verdict, but the style and tone were as stupid as it can get, which leaves me wondering whether I should care about such topics at all.
I feel that I am losing interest on those stuff I used to enthusiastically blog on: environment, climate change, science, etc. The reasons are two-fold:
Attention deficiency: I have few friends (I mean real friends who I can meet from time to time in the real life, not friends who follows me on some social network website) who really cares about those things. Heck, this is China and people don’t care about anything except Consumer Price Index and housing market. I may not be a competent enough writer to raise their awareness single-handedly. People are aware of the things I mentioned on the blog. They may even be aware of me. Yet they can give so little attention on those issues. Hundreds of posts were written, published and corrected but there was only a few responses from a few specific persons. It is like sailing on a foggy sea and I am shouting into the void, only getting responses when some fellow boats float by. It is now very easy to get lured by the land of no more online presence and no more responsibility.
Lack of information: it is a wonder that seemingly no one has ever mentioned the emptiness after one leaves their university and loses access to all those journals and databases. As one who always find conventional news channels biased, some correspondents crook and distortion creeping everywhere, I crave sources that are fair, intelligent, rich in content and all the better if peer-reviewed. And one such source is not enough, because if I just write what the source reports, the text would be no better than what is already on the web. It would be better if I can synthesize materials from a number of sources and present an article with my comment.
Now, it sounds not so difficult, but consider this: for any paragraph I quote or paraphrase, I have to check its validity with two or more additional sources, and the information flowing into my brain will grow rapidly along with the complexity of the blog post. In the environmental field, or rather battlefield, the situation is even worse, as for any single issue there are prominent, influential voices taking one stand or another. And you don’t know all the issues so well, and thus double- or triple-checks are vital. Some people may actually enjoy letting so much information flying around their minds and desktops, but for me it has become such a heavy burden, especially since I lost access to those more reliable academic journals. If I just write without checking the facts, chances are someone who has never commented on those posts written with effort will jump out this time blaming my naiveté and make me regard myself really despicable.
Despite of all the difficult times, these unpleasant events, and all my efforts in over 500 posts seemingly directed nowhere, I still want to write a decent blog. I guess I have blown my chances to become a big shot blogger like anyone else who is still seriously writing a blog nowadays, but I would like to see blog as Andrew Sullivan from the Atlantic described, as a tool of interactive event recording and essay writing. I would also like to use Writing as a means of learning and reflecting.
I always wanted to write a decent blog, but my definition of decent may have to change. I used to write blog as if it is the proof of status, competency, and professionalism. The direct consequence is that when I stop being someone, the purpose of blogging goes with my old identity. No, I cannot write for what I do. Instead, I should write about what I am, how I spent the day, and what is in my head. I need to write, not to build a profile per se, but to build a person who is fun, sophisticated, and hopefully caring, out of myself.
It has been months since the last time I want to write something in my blog. And that last entry was totally wrecked -- not that I do not agree with myself on its verdict, but the style and tone were as stupid as it can get, which leaves me wondering whether I should care about such topics at all.
I feel that I am losing interest on those stuff I used to enthusiastically blog on: environment, climate change, science, etc. The reasons are two-fold:
Attention deficiency: I have few friends (I mean real friends who I can meet from time to time in the real life, not friends who follows me on some social network website) who really cares about those things. Heck, this is China and people don’t care about anything except Consumer Price Index and housing market. I may not be a competent enough writer to raise their awareness single-handedly. People are aware of the things I mentioned on the blog. They may even be aware of me. Yet they can give so little attention on those issues. Hundreds of posts were written, published and corrected but there was only a few responses from a few specific persons. It is like sailing on a foggy sea and I am shouting into the void, only getting responses when some fellow boats float by. It is now very easy to get lured by the land of no more online presence and no more responsibility.
Lack of information: it is a wonder that seemingly no one has ever mentioned the emptiness after one leaves their university and loses access to all those journals and databases. As one who always find conventional news channels biased, some correspondents crook and distortion creeping everywhere, I crave sources that are fair, intelligent, rich in content and all the better if peer-reviewed. And one such source is not enough, because if I just write what the source reports, the text would be no better than what is already on the web. It would be better if I can synthesize materials from a number of sources and present an article with my comment.
Now, it sounds not so difficult, but consider this: for any paragraph I quote or paraphrase, I have to check its validity with two or more additional sources, and the information flowing into my brain will grow rapidly along with the complexity of the blog post. In the environmental field, or rather battlefield, the situation is even worse, as for any single issue there are prominent, influential voices taking one stand or another. And you don’t know all the issues so well, and thus double- or triple-checks are vital. Some people may actually enjoy letting so much information flying around their minds and desktops, but for me it has become such a heavy burden, especially since I lost access to those more reliable academic journals. If I just write without checking the facts, chances are someone who has never commented on those posts written with effort will jump out this time blaming my naiveté and make me regard myself really despicable.
Despite of all the difficult times, these unpleasant events, and all my efforts in over 500 posts seemingly directed nowhere, I still want to write a decent blog. I guess I have blown my chances to become a big shot blogger like anyone else who is still seriously writing a blog nowadays, but I would like to see blog as Andrew Sullivan from the Atlantic described, as a tool of interactive event recording and essay writing. I would also like to use Writing as a means of learning and reflecting.
I always wanted to write a decent blog, but my definition of decent may have to change. I used to write blog as if it is the proof of status, competency, and professionalism. The direct consequence is that when I stop being someone, the purpose of blogging goes with my old identity. No, I cannot write for what I do. Instead, I should write about what I am, how I spent the day, and what is in my head. I need to write, not to build a profile per se, but to build a person who is fun, sophisticated, and hopefully caring, out of myself.
订阅：
评论 (Atom)