零九年「竊聽風雲」叫好叫座，去年原班人馬再度攜手合作，拍攝「竊聽風雲」第二集。雖然電影的名稱一樣，但這套並非續集或前傳，而是全新的故事，只是起用上集的三大男主角。竊聽在今集只是契子，主線是吳彥祖向地主會復仇的故事。上集古天樂佔的戲份最多，今次劇本倒像是為吳彥祖度身訂造，仿如他才是這齣電影的正印主角。劉青雲當被害者的角色，全套戲他也處於被動位置，沒有機會好好發揮。古天樂更仿如路人，他飾演的警察不過巧合地牽涉進竊聽案，最後還淪為吳彥祖的一隻棋子。

今集的故事比上集遜色，上集故事講人性的決擇，今集則成為一個平舖直述的三流復仇故事。地會主左右股壇呼風喚雨，但說到低不過是一班經紀，在枱底做不見得光的交易，不是大奸大惡之徙。吳彥祖竊聽他們的犯罪證據，要狹他們去對付殺父仇人同叔。電影表面上好像是鬥智，但吳彥祖的計劃漏洞太多，要在電影世界所有事情都巧合地發生才會成功。吳彥祖從地主會手上賺了二億，其實原本還可以全身而退，再從想辨法對付同叔，反正他一開始的目標也只是同叔一個人。地主會眾人被黑吃黑，最多只會怨自已技不如人，還不至於動殺意。他們要動手殺人一早就動了，不用請吳彥祖回去慢慢傾計。如果同叔的手下不是埋屍而是燒屍，沒有證據告同叔殺人，那吳彥祖便死得冤枉了。又或者同叔只是示意手下開槍，那同叔依然可以逍遙法外。

電影的高潮位力度不同，以買入五千萬死股為主軸，只見劉青雲在白板不停寫數字，古天樂走來走去放股票，欠缺劇情拉緊然後爆開的快意。中段加插無謂的動作場面，讓這套電影變成既非動作片亦非劇情片的四不像。不是說那場電單車追逐突破不好看，只是如果吳彥祖有這樣好身手，便不用靠施展小聰明來復仇了，大可以用跟踨器找出同叔別墅的位置，然後單人匹馬殺入去報仇。再不然讓那幾台手機自爆或放毒氣好了，不用把自已當餌去引同誘叔殺人，然後寄望古天樂能夠破案拉人。

二零一一年我就只是看了這齣港產片了。這齣電影除了劇本先天不足外，其他方便尚算可以一看，其他港產片連吸引我看的興趣也沒有，大慨香港電影業已經玩完了。拍不出好的電影，又怎能怪觀眾不看呢？二零一二年，希望不會成為我看零港產片的一年吧。

提外話，古天樂電影中完全沒有表情，面部僵硬只有眼睛能動，看來關於他打Botex打壞了面部肌肉的傳聞大慨是真了，抑還是他的演技仍然如此爛。

In general, I don’t like the French way of thinking, but this is one of the few things that I actually like about French. Kids should learn how to cope with boredom on his own. Give less immediate attention to your kid and he will learn patient.

By PAMELA DRUCKERMAN, Feb 4 2012, The Wall Street Journal
While Americans fret over modern parenthood, the French are raising happy, well-behaved children without all the anxiety. Pamela Druckerman on the Gallic secrets for avoiding tantrums, teaching patience and saying ‘non’ with authority.

Pamela Druckerman’s new book “Bringing Up Bebe,” catalogs her observations about why French children seem so much better behaved than their American counterparts. She talks with WSJ’s Gary Rosen about the lessons of French parenting techniques.

When my daughter was 18 months old, my husband and I decided to take her on a little summer holiday. We picked a coastal town that’s a few hours by train from Paris, where we were living (I’m American, he’s British), and booked a hotel room with a crib. Bean, as we call her, was our only child at this point, so forgive us for thinking: How hard could it be?

We ate breakfast at the hotel, but we had to eat lunch and dinner at the little seafood restaurants around the old port. We quickly discovered that having two restaurant meals a day with a toddler deserved to be its own circle of hell.

Bean would take a brief interest in the food, but within a few minutes she was spilling salt shakers and tearing apart sugar packets. Then she demanded to be sprung from her high chair so she could dash around the restaurant and bolt dangerously toward the docks.
Journal Community

Our strategy was to finish the meal quickly. We ordered while being seated, then begged the server to rush out some bread and bring us our appetizers and main courses at the same time. While my husband took a few bites of fish, I made sure that Bean didn’t get kicked by a waiter or lost at sea. Then we switched. We left enormous, apologetic tips to compensate for the arc of torn napkins and calamari around our table.

After a few more harrowing restaurant visits, I started noticing that the French families around us didn’t look like they were sharing our mealtime agony. Weirdly, they looked like they were on vacation. French toddlers were sitting contentedly in their high chairs, waiting for their food, or eating fish and even vegetables. There was no shrieking or whining. And there was no debris around their tables.

Though by that time I’d lived in France for a few years, I couldn’t explain this. And once I started thinking about French parenting, I realized it wasn’t just mealtime that was different. I suddenly had lots of questions. Why was it, for example, that in the hundreds of hours I’d clocked at French playgrounds, I’d never seen a child (except my own) throw a temper tantrum? Why didn’t my French friends ever need to rush off the phone because their kids were demanding something? Why hadn’t their living rooms been taken over by teepees and toy kitchens, the way ours had?
French Lessons

Soon it became clear to me that quietly and en masse, French parents were achieving outcomes that created a whole different atmosphere for family life. When American families visited our home, the parents usually spent much of the visit refereeing their kids’ spats, helping their toddlers do laps around the kitchen island, or getting down on the floor to build Lego villages. When French friends visited, by contrast, the grownups had coffee and the children played happily by themselves.

By the end of our ruined beach holiday, I decided to figure out what French parents were doing differently. Why didn’t French children throw food? And why weren’t their parents shouting? Could I change my wiring and get the same results with my own offspring?

Driven partly by maternal desperation, I have spent the last several years investigating French parenting. And now, with Bean 6 years old and twins who are 3, I can tell you this: The French aren’t perfect, but they have some parenting secrets that really do work.

I first realized I was on to something when I discovered a 2009 study, led by economists at Princeton, comparing the child-care experiences of similarly situated mothers in Columbus, Ohio, and Rennes, France. The researchers found that American moms considered it more than twice as unpleasant to deal with their kids. In a different study by the same economists, working mothers in Texas said that even housework was more pleasant than child care.
Previous Saturday Essays

Rest assured, I certainly don’t suffer from a pro-France bias. Au contraire, I’m not even sure that I like living here. I certainly don’t want my kids growing up to become sniffy Parisians.

But for all its problems, France is the perfect foil for the current problems in American parenting. Middle-class French parents (I didn’t follow the very rich or poor) have values that look familiar to me. They are zealous about talking to their kids, showing them nature and reading them lots of books. They take them to tennis lessons, painting classes and interactive science museums.

Yet the French have managed to be involved with their families without becoming obsessive. They assume that even good parents aren’t at the constant service of their children, and that there is no need to feel guilty about this. “For me, the evenings are for the parents,” one Parisian mother told me. “My daughter can be with us if she wants, but it’s adult time.” French parents want their kids to be stimulated, but not all the time. While some American toddlers are getting Mandarin tutors and preliteracy training, French kids are—by design—toddling around by themselves.

I’m hardly the first to point out that middle-class America has a parenting problem. This problem has been painstakingly diagnosed, critiqued and named: overparenting, hyperparenting, helicopter parenting, and my personal favorite, the kindergarchy. Nobody seems to like the relentless, unhappy pace of American parenting, least of all parents themselves.
[BEBEjump] Nicolas Héron for The Wall Street Journal

Delphine Porcher with daughter Pauline. The family’s daily rituals are an apprenticeship in learning to wait.

Of course, the French have all kinds of public services that help to make having kids more appealing and less stressful. Parents don’t have to pay for preschool, worry about health insurance or save for college. Many get monthly cash allotments—wired directly into their bank accounts—just for having kids.

But these public services don’t explain all of the differences. The French, I found, seem to have a whole different framework for raising kids. When I asked French parents how they disciplined their children, it took them a few beats just to understand what I meant. “Ah, you mean how do we educate them?” they asked. “Discipline,” I soon realized, is a narrow, seldom-used notion that deals with punishment. Whereas “educating” (which has nothing to do with school) is something they imagined themselves to be doing all the time.

One of the keys to this education is the simple act of learning how to wait. It is why the French babies I meet mostly sleep through the night from two or three months old. Their parents don’t pick them up the second they start crying, allowing the babies to learn how to fall back asleep. It is also why French toddlers will sit happily at a restaurant. Rather than snacking all day like American children, they mostly have to wait until mealtime to eat. (French kids consistently have three meals a day and one snack around 4 p.m.)

One Saturday I visited Delphine Porcher, a pretty labor lawyer in her mid-30s who lives with her family in the suburbs east of Paris. When I arrived, her husband was working on his laptop in the living room, while 1-year-old Aubane napped nearby. Pauline, their 3-year-old, was sitting at the kitchen table, completely absorbed in the task of plopping cupcake batter into little wrappers. She somehow resisted the temptation to eat the batter.

Delphine said that she never set out specifically to teach her kids patience. But her family’s daily rituals are an ongoing apprenticeship in how to delay gratification. Delphine said that she sometimes bought Pauline candy. (Bonbons are on display in most bakeries.) But Pauline wasn’t allowed to eat the candy until that day’s snack, even if it meant waiting many hours.
Earlier

When Pauline tried to interrupt our conversation, Delphine said, “Just wait two minutes, my little one. I’m in the middle of talking.” It was both very polite and very firm. I was struck both by how sweetly Delphine said it and by how certain she seemed that Pauline would obey her. Delphine was also teaching her kids a related skill: learning to play by themselves. “The most important thing is that he learns to be happy by himself,” she said of her son, Aubane.

It’s a skill that French mothers explicitly try to cultivate in their kids more than American mothers do. In a 2004 study on the parenting beliefs of college-educated mothers in the U.S. and France, the American moms said that encouraging one’s child to play alone was of average importance. But the French moms said it was very important.

Later, I emailed Walter Mischel, the world’s leading expert on how children learn to delay gratification. As it happened, Mr. Mischel, 80 years old and a professor of psychology at Columbia University, was in Paris, staying at his longtime girlfriend’s apartment. He agreed to meet me for coffee.

Mr. Mischel is most famous for devising the “marshmallow test” in the late 1960s when he was at Stanford. In it, an experimenter leads a 4- or 5-year-old into a room where there is a marshmallow on a table. The experimenter tells the child he’s going to leave the room for a little while, and that if the child doesn’t eat the marshmallow until he comes back, he’ll be rewarded with two marshmallows. If he eats the marshmallow, he’ll get only that one.

Most kids could only wait about 30 seconds. Only one in three resisted for the full 15 minutes that the experimenter was away. The trick, the researchers found, was that the good delayers were able to distract themselves.

Following up in the mid-1980s, Mr. Mischel and his colleagues found that the good delayers were better at concentrating and reasoning, and didn’t “tend to go to pieces under stress,” as their report said.

Could it be that teaching children how to delay gratification—as middle-class French parents do—actually makes them calmer and more resilient? Might this partly explain why middle-class American kids, who are in general more used to getting what they want right away, so often fall apart under stress?

Mr. Mischel, who is originally from Vienna, hasn’t performed the marshmallow test on French children. But as a longtime observer of France, he said that he was struck by the difference between French and American kids. In the U.S., he said, “certainly the impression one has is that self-control has gotten increasingly difficult for kids.”

American parents want their kids to be patient, of course. We encourage our kids to share, to wait their turn, to set the table and to practice the piano. But patience isn’t a skill that we hone quite as assiduously as French parents do. We tend to view whether kids are good at waiting as a matter of temperament. In our view, parents either luck out and get a child who waits well or they don’t.

French parents and caregivers find it hard to believe that we are so laissez-faire about this crucial ability. When I mentioned the topic at a dinner party in Paris, my French host launched into a story about the year he lived in Southern California.

He and his wife had befriended an American couple and decided to spend a weekend away with them in Santa Barbara. It was the first time they’d met each other’s kids, who ranged in age from about 7 to 15. Years later, they still remember how the American kids frequently interrupted the adults in midsentence. And there were no fixed mealtimes; the American kids just went to the refrigerator and took food whenever they wanted. To the French couple, it seemed like the American kids were in charge.

“What struck us, and bothered us, was that the parents never said ‘no,’ ” the husband said. The children did “n’importe quoi,” his wife added.

After a while, it struck me that most French descriptions of American kids include this phrase “n’importe quoi,” meaning “whatever” or “anything they like.” It suggests that the American kids don’t have firm boundaries, that their parents lack authority, and that anything goes. It’s the antithesis of the French ideal of the cadre, or frame, that French parents often talk about. Cadre means that kids have very firm limits about certain things—that’s the frame—and that the parents strictly enforce these. But inside the cadre, French parents entrust their kids with quite a lot of freedom and autonomy.

Authority is one of the most impressive parts of French parenting—and perhaps the toughest one to master. Many French parents I meet have an easy, calm authority with their children that I can only envy. Their kids actually listen to them. French children aren’t constantly dashing off, talking back, or engaging in prolonged negotiations.

One Sunday morning at the park, my neighbor Frédérique witnessed me trying to cope with my son Leo, who was then 2 years old. Leo did everything quickly, and when I went to the park with him, I was in constant motion, too. He seemed to regard the gates around play areas as merely an invitation to exit.

Frédérique had recently adopted a beautiful redheaded 3-year-old from a Russian orphanage. At the time of our outing, she had been a mother for all of three months. Yet just by virtue of being French, she already had a whole different vision of authority than I did—what was possible and pas possible.

Frédérique and I were sitting at the perimeter of the sandbox, trying to talk. But Leo kept dashing outside the gate surrounding the sandbox. Each time, I got up to chase him, scold him, and drag him back while he screamed. At first, Frédérique watched this little ritual in silence. Then, without any condescension, she said that if I was running after Leo all the time, we wouldn’t be able to indulge in the small pleasure of sitting and chatting for a few minutes.

“That’s true,” I said. “But what can I do?” Frédérique said I should be sterner with Leo. In my mind, spending the afternoon chasing Leo was inevitable. In her mind, it was pas possible.

I pointed out that I’d been scolding Leo for the last 20 minutes. Frédérique smiled. She said that I needed to make my “no” stronger and to really believe in it. The next time Leo tried to run outside the gate, I said “no” more sharply than usual. He left anyway. I followed and dragged him back. “You see?” I said. “It’s not possible.”

Frédérique smiled again and told me not to shout but rather to speak with more conviction. I was scared that I would terrify him. “Don’t worry,” Frederique said, urging me on.

Leo didn’t listen the next time either. But I gradually felt my “nos” coming from a more convincing place. They weren’t louder, but they were more self-assured. By the fourth try, when I was finally brimming with conviction, Leo approached the gate but—miraculously—didn’t open it. He looked back and eyed me warily. I widened my eyes and tried to look disapproving.

After about 10 minutes, Leo stopped trying to leave altogether. He seemed to forget about the gate and just played in the sandbox with the other kids. Soon Frédérique and I were chatting, with our legs stretched out in front of us. I was shocked that Leo suddenly viewed me as an authority figure.

“See that,” Frédérique said, not gloating. “It was your tone of voice.” She pointed out that Leo didn’t appear to be traumatized. For the moment—and possibly for the first time ever—he actually seemed like a French child.

不論在早前的佔領華爾街行動，還是香港的反地產霸權遊行，總會見到有示威者帶著V煞面具。這個面具起源於八十年代的經典漫畫V for Vendetta，代表著反抗極權政府的人民力量，挺身爭取天賦的人權和自由，已經成為現世代的文化符號。這套漫畫在美國漫畫中屬於殿堂級的名作，出於漫畫大師Alan Moore的手筆，內容深度已超過一般娛樂性質的美漫，富有與1984等同的寓言警世意味。

故事發生在核戰過後的英國，世界其他地方已被毀滅，英國這個偏僻小島得以幸存。國家由戰後的混亂過渡到極權統治，所有傳媒娛樂由政府控制，人民思想受到嚴密監控，杜絕一切不為政府容許的書藉和音樂，當然也少不了橫行無忌的秘密警察。V是個帶著面具武功高強，單人匹馬挑戰政府的獨行怪客。故事從他炸毀國會大樓的晚上，他從秘密警察手中救出一個少女開始。漫畫分作幾條不同主線平衡發展，有探長追查V的身世之謎，政府要員之間的陰謀，V展開他推翻政府的大計，其中最重要主線的是女主角的思想變化，由只最初仰慕V渴望受到他的保護，到通過精神考驗成為V的接班人，最後完成炸毀唐寧街的使命。

漫畫故事本身並不特別精彩，V的身世和崛起很牽強，他與探長決鬥枉死有點反高潮，夾硬做戲好讓他耍帥說死前那幾句說話。大意是說他肉身死了但精神不滅，任何人只要帶起面具也可成為V。整本漫畫的亮點是女主角的改變，單憑那一段已足夠讓這部漫畫登上經典的殿堂。女主角被救後口裏說支持V，但她還未經歷思想的洗禮，不能理解明白V的理念。V先把女主角放走，然後假扮政府捉了她囚禁起來，一邊對她嚴刑審問洗腦，另一邊暗地裏給她精神鼓勵，讓她在生死關頭思考人生的意義。當她被宣判死刑時能坦然面對，寧捨棄性命也不願失去思想人格，她成功通過考驗成為自由的人，得到V的認可讓他可能安心委託遺命。

作者在介紹中說這本漫畫的中心思想，是要對比兩個極端的政治理念，法西斯極權統治對無政府主義。漫畫中對法西斯的批判有不少，但關於無政府主義則著墨不多，V雖然自稱是無政府主義者，但他並沒有提出什麼有見地的理念。他炸掉政府的核心組織，催毀政府對人民監控的力量，只是帶來混亂和破壞。混亂過後還是要由新的強人政權收捨殘局，沒有帶來他想見到的自由。從這方便來說，V的革命可以說是失敗了。他只是單純地以為打倒政府便能解決問題，政府倒台後想當然地認為明天會更好。諷刺是人民的生活，在極權政府的保護下尚算安穩，至少比無政府態狀暴力橫行要好。

作者還引用比喻，抓環境局局長來做地理試題，或者叫金庸做中文試題，可以保證他們多數不合格。對於一般知識性的科目，著重背記大量只有考試才會用的知識，考試過後知識大多忘掉細節，的確隨便抓該科個專家來叫應試，若他不準備的話大慨也不會及格。不信隨便找個醫生甚至醫科教援，給他一份醫科試卷丟困他在一個房間三個小時，看他能答對多少題。這類式的知識性的科目，只是需要用的時候記得曾經學過，能夠快速找出參考資料，或大慨判斷大方向正確或錯誤，便已經足夠了。可是另一類的科目，是屬於心法型的科目，例如英文或中文作文，直正學懂了便永遠不會忘記，像游水或踏單車一樣。不信又可以做做實驗，抓南華早報的總編輯，丟給他一份英文試卷，相信他可以輕易拿個滿分，又或者叫金庸考中文作文卷答文言文題，保證也能拿取優異成績吧。

真正的問題是，通識教育是屬於知識性的科目，還是心法型的科目呢？黃明樂自已也說過，通識教育在於透過深入經歷、反覆思辯，鍛鍊出分析問題的基本功。然後同一套功夫，應用於不同題目上，一理通、百理明。就像練好站樁，打任何拳腳功夫都可事半功倍。照道理通識教育應該屬心法型的科目，只要對事時和世界常識有一定認識，思辯的基本功打得穩陣，考通識應該空槍上陣，就算不拿甲級也不至於不合格吧。例如叫李雲迪去考一級琴試，就算他如何不認真去考，也不會肥佬吧。

試答通識卷的才子議員，他們不是每天在報章寫專欄評論時事，便在立法局為國家大事社會議題辯論，他們應該精於通識教育所提倡的心法吧，照道理不應考得如此差吧。我寧願相信通識試券只是另一份填鴨卷，考生必需依循通識考試的遊戲規則玩才能合格，最壞也頂多是通識教育之死，反正也沒有人對香港的考試制度有什麼期望。我恐怕事實卻是另一面，那些才子議員其實根本不懂通識，給他們一份通識卷便完全露了餡，觀看他們平常的言行，看來這個恐怕才是他們不合格的真正原因。既然理應最需要通識的報章和議事堂，全不懂通識的人也可以做其才子做其議員，不是正正指出通識沒有用嗎？那學生還學通識來做什麼？香港的通識早已死亡，搞多少通識教育通識考試，亦已反魂無術矣。不懂通識的人坐著最需要通識的位置，懂通識的人不能學以至用，只好去教通識。

終於看了「那些年」，遲了別人幾個月，熱潮也散得七七八八，畢竟是香港開埠以來，票房最高的華語電影，怎樣也要看看見識見識。很難想像這套戲有六千萬票房，不過是一齣拍得很精美的青春愛情片，大慨近年香港電影實在太爛了，這套比一般水準高少許，便令餓戲已久的香港人瘋狂。老實說，我不明白這套電影有什麼好看，正如我不明白天下間所有愛情電影有什麼好看一樣。人家影評說這套電影掀起觀眾的年少情懷，大慨是我中學讀男校，大學也是讀接近全男校，完全不明白戲中的所謂青澀愛情是怎麼一回事。看見柯笨蛋和沈佳儀拖拖拉拉，看到我有點勞氣，女朋友是要追才有的嘛，追過才知道追不追到，追不到沈佳儀便追胡家瑋，又或追李小華追毛毛狗就好了。一班裏面平均半班是女生，不計天生的醜八怪，至少也有十個八個漂亮的吧，為什麼個個男生要追同一個女生？

看完電影，依然想不明白為什麼這麼受歡迎，於是找來「那些年」的原著小說看一遍，看看有什麼頭緒。那是九巴刀早年的作品，普普通通的流行小說，不是太差也不算很好。不過我倒很佩服九巴刀，當年看著他寫網絡小說出身，不繼努力寫啊寫啊，到現在自資執導拍攝「那些年」，創造出二億台灣票房的神話。值得一讚是電影版改篇得很好，把從國中開始的六年壓縮成高中三年，大幅刪減原著長氣無聊的劇情，但又保留了最關鍵感人的場口。另外新加插的情節，讓故事更加立體完整，小說作者太過自我中心了。有胡家瑋這個綠葉，才能襯托起沈佳儀的出眾。放天燈很明顯經過精心計算，原著中說出那段對白很隨，換過氣氛說便又成為一經典的浪漫場面。大學的自由搏擊大賽，電影版的處理比小說合理，異曲同功導向相同的結局。肥仔阿和乘虛而入追到沈佳儀，後來又無疾而終更是神來之筆。結局實在出人意表太正點，我只能說九巴刀太狡猾，當年寫小說早已想好結局，卻刻意賣關子留給將來的電影版才用。

不知道其他人用什麼樣的心情去看這套電影。一個人或與一大班朋友去看還好，頂多是懷緬一下當年中學的初戀情人，自我醄醉感懷身世一番。如果和男朋友女朋友或老公老婆去看，像我這樣看完沒有特別感覺的還好，萬一給電影觸景傷情想起以前，現任醋意大發要興師問罪，來個坦白從寬抗拒從嚴，那便無端白事惹個天大的麻煩了。話說我表妹看完電影問她老公，誰是他當年的沈佳儀，他老公倒也妙問妙答，說當年他考第一，班上沒有個叻過他的女孩，巧妙地避過一場大災難。

說在後面，估不到陳希妍已經二十八歲呀，她扮高中女生真的很神似。

無記的綜藝節目一向低俗以谷收視，很難得有一個節目出於污泥而不染，反而其道以高貴華麗作賣點。草蜢久休復出初試啼聲當主持，便憑「華麗明星賽」，奪得今年無記台慶的最佳主持獎。這節目集遊戲節目與飲食節目於一身，還有很多重量級的明星作嘉賓，一次過滿足觀眾看明星，看美食，看遊戲三個願望。怪不得我與老婆看到停不下來，有空便一集又一集接著看，幾個小時笑聲綿綿不絕。

每集也分為幾個單元環節，嘉賓比賽計分贏獎品，不過依我看那些獎品不甚吸引，嘉賓大慨是靠草蜢碌友情卡才來。第一個環節是明星pose王，嘉賓按音樂節拍，望向不同的鏡頭，無聊但好笑。第二個環節是估超豪華美食，華麗小姐會端上三種不同等級的美食，嘉賓先後試味然後估那碟才是最貴。這是成個節目最不惜工本最好看的環節，大慨是電視史上最名貴的飲食節目，有五萬元一枝紅酒，三萬元一隻鮑魚，八十年野山人參，幾萬元細舊的黑松露白松露，只是在電視機前看見也流口水。不過那些名貴食材也不外如是，很多嘉賓也分不出什麼才是好野，所以食物不是一定越貴越好食。

第三個環節請來酒店大廚煮菜給嘉賓吃，他們一邊吃一邊要答問題，答錯就要受到懲罰。懲罰方法也別開生面，有沒收餐具，要用啞玲刀叉或超長筷子食，坐無影凳，雪榚筒，汽球等等。問的問題也很好笑，與來參加的嘉賓有關的題目，要其他嘉賓去答。例如問伍姑娘拍過草蜢那首MV，鄭伊健初出道時的英文名等等。不要以為那些嘉賓好像私底下很熟，原來很多人不懂答關於其他人的問題。最抵死是問應采兒陳小春第一隻CD的名字，她竟然連老公第一隻CD也不知道，她說怕陳小春回家休了她。

接下來第四個環節有點雞肋，經常改有點似在攝時間。叫嘉賓畫畫和插花有點創意，可以看看名星不為人知的一面。但跳舞和影相則有點行貨，似獎門人多過似華麗。最後一個環節是拿銀錢，電腦隨機抽出一個號碼，如果嘉賓可以一手拿到相同數同的一千蚊紙，他便可以獨得那個數目的獎金。講好像十分容易，但做起來十分難，見嘉賓不是拿太多便是拿太少，誤差少過十張的人不是太多。

其實請名星上來的遊戲節目，只要主持和嘉賓本身玩得，看見他們嘻嘻哈哈便已十分有趣。只要肯花心思計設遊戲內容，便是一個成功的綜藝節目，只可惜遊戲設計總是抄來抄去沒有新意，難得「華麗明星賽」玩出新意思，用名貴食材去考驗嘉賓的味覺。希望無記能夠製作更多類似的節目，娛樂性豐富讓觀眾笑過不停，最重要是內容健康不低俗，不要成日獎門人教壞小朋友了。

買下這本書純屬偶然，上次回香港上田園書店，打算買久慕大名的董啟章的「天工開物栩栩如真」，誰知翻看了第一章差點給悶死，放下書時眼睛卻被放在隔鄰的「城邦暴力團」吸引著。被譽為新世代武俠小說，以漕幫老大退居台灣離奇被殺為序幕，半真半假結合清末幫會的江湖恩怨，以及幫會與民國政府千絲萬縷關係的秘史。以前讀書時有一陣子很迷武俠小說，雖然已經很多年沒有看，但心底還很懷緬昔日追看武俠小說的樂趣。隱約記得不知那兒聽過張大春的名字，加上眼前這套小說是十周年紀念版，心想竟然出版紀念版，這部小說經得起時間考驗，想也不想便買回來。

這部書是一部武俠小說，書中有不少的武打情節，內功外功到奇門循甲術佈陣，很傳統很正宗的武俠小說打鬥場面，張大春的文筆把場面描寫得活靈活現。這部書是一部歷史小說，在虛構的武俠情節中，混入大量民國末年的野史秘聞，青幫與洪門和白蓮教數百年的恩怨，蔣介石原屬青幫弟子，國民黨崛起和青幫的淵源，一直到國民黨青島撒退，偷運二十萬両黃金到台灣的內幕，台北新生戲院大火和後來戲院重建鬥鬼的傳言，及至中共建國後代表團成員周鴻慶在日本出走事件，坐的士要去中華民國大使館去錯了蘇聯大使館等等，揉合成為歷史背後龐大陰謀的表像。這部書是一部推理懸疑小說，主角以第一身描述，從老作家高陽遺物得到七部舊書開始，一路抽絲繭拼湊交織出橫跨幾十年眾多事件的來龍去脈，一路以為自已是冷眼旁觀的局外人，豈料從父親那代開始便已經置身事件之中，生命中兩個最重要的女人，更不約而同地從不同方向與事件有關連。

若果把這部書當作一般武俠小說來看，讀者準會十分失望，因為故事並不依循一般小說直線發展，甚至去到最後到底有沒有一個故事也成疑問。這本書的結局也是故事的開始，把書中佈下的伏線一一收回，可是謎團解開了卻似有還無，拼圖砌完了但依然看不清真相，又或者根本從沒有一佪真相，只是大歷史中不同的小註腳。書中敘述很多虛構的參考資料，為讀者把補完民國初年的江湖背景。這些敘述看似與主線無甚關連，有點兒像是作者在賣弄學識，但卻豐富了這書本構建的歷史觀，令讀者不禁懷疑學校教的正史，在課本沒有寫的空白裏，到底曾經發生過什麼事情。整本書最讓我不滿意的地方，小說沒有交待主角紅蓮和孫小五的結局，小說就那樣突然完結，她們兩人就像是過客一樣，退場後再便沒有留下痕跡，只在主角心中下一份虧欠的感覺。孫小六是另一個亦沒有好好發揮的角色，在第一章便出場還害我以為他是主角，結果又是來無蹤去無影，劇情有需要便會巧合地不知從那裏鑽出來。

張大春畢竟是讀中國文學出身，書中角色說話古雅，出口成詩又常引經據典，讓我看得有點吃力，閱讀速度也慢下來。不過始終武俠小說要文縐縐，才覺得像武俠小說應有的模樣。很難去一慨而論說這本書好看不好看，閱讀時的確有一過追書的癃，精彩繄張之處讓人放不下書來。可是讀完後卻完全不滿足，有點給被騙了的感覺。書中用了太多花巧的文學手法，想去表達大時代下小人物的無奈，而不是札實地說一個有頭有尾故事。寫到這兒才忽然記起，這套書被田園書店歸類為文學作品，與董啟章放在同一格書櫃啊！

陳潔儀 – 重譯
陳潔儀久別樂壇，今年回歸推出一張翻唱舊歌的唱片。她的聲線仍舊漂亮，選擇的歌曲也很有味道。我最喜歡一首歌是心動， 比當年林曉培唱清脆得多。

丁噹 – 未來的情人
不算新的台灣女歌手，出道以來我也一直有留意她的唱片，因為她的聲音很好聽。聽這隻碟我沒有特別留意歌詞，不過聽著聽著很順耳好聽。

周慧敏 – 盆栽
聽這張碟，多少是有點情意結。周慧敏好像吃了防腐劑般不會老，真勵害。唱功多年來也差不多，不太好也不太差，聲音就是很耐聽。無雙譜不錯。

F.I.R. – 亞特蘭提斯
聽這隻碟全因慣性收視，Faye的聲音然仍好聽，FIR的華麗搖滾風格很入耳。唯一投訢是那兩位男聲，他們專心作曲彈結他便好了。

糖兄妹 – 我最愛糖兄妹
糖妹被封新一代宅男女神，樣子可愛唱功也好，糖兄在幕後出力也不少。不過我老人家喜愛懷舊，這隻碟中我最愛是兩首翻唱作品，閃著淚光慢慢的決定和劃火柴。

鄧福如 – 原來如此
如果今年要我選一隻最佳唱片，肯定非這隻莫屬。今年才出道的女新人，自已作曲自彈自唱，招牌是耳朵掛著的Beat耳機，音樂很有歐美流行曲的風格，在一眾倒模般的中文情歌K歌十分突出。每一首歌也十分動聽，可以的話我每首都推介。其中的一首福爾摩斯，由她一手包辦作曲填詞，內容講看福爾摩斯小說的感覺，雖然不是主打歌，但卻是全年我最喜愛的一首歌。

阿蘭 – 蘭色歌姬
這是張發燒天碟，阿蘭一把用來試機的完全女聲，翻十首的近幾年的舊歌。其中最好聽的有醉清風和十年。

李家仁 – 小明歌集
這是張洗腦碟，小明上廣州亦是今年我唯一學懂，可以完全背得出歌詞的歌。

胡琳 – Bianca Live！演唱會
胡琳大慨是香港唯一唱Jazz的女歌手，早陣子消失了幾年，今年開了一個迷你演唱會。這張碟有別一般中文碟的味道。

周蕙－自已的房间
另一張慣性收視碟。沒有留意歌詞說什麼，周蕙一把靚聲很耐聽。

李克勤 – 香港小交響樂團演奏廳
李克勤是好歌之人，加上小交的靚配樂，百聽不厭的舊歌，是老餅的心水選擇。碟中李克勤玩出些新意，用意大利歌劇腔唱高妹，與中樂三味線合唱回首，反轉唱詞唱夢如歡舊，加上他嘗試些低低能的棟篤笑，不只那些一成不變的演唱會。

陳奕迅 x 楊千嬅 x 梁漢文 – 903id club 拉闊音樂會
他們三人互唱大家的舊歌，重溫我聽得最多歌年代的歌。

弦子 – 逆風的薔薇
亦是慣性收視碟，沒有什麼特別，只是我喜歡弦子的聲音。

蔡健雅 – 說到愛
亦是慣性收視碟，沒有什麼特別，只是我很喜歡蔡健雅的趣音，她的聲線很磁性有力。

鄧紫棋 – Get Everybody Moving Concert 2011
去聽了她的演唱會後，便繼續聽演唱會的CD再回味。推介她在鋼琴前自彈自唱的那幾首歌。

整理完年的唱片回顧，我發現自已沒有真正的聽什麼新歌，畢竟我已經過了聽情歌的年紀。現在聽的唱碟不是熟悉的舊人，就是舊曲新唱。歌曲內容水過鴨背，只不過不想駕車時太靜，播些容易入耳的歌便行了。整年下來真正用心聽過的唱片，還會上Youtube看MV看歌詞，就只有鄧福如的「原來如此」這一張了。

二十個小時可以做很多事情，例如寫完積壓下來的文章，結果這個聖誕假，我浪費了二十小時煲無記爛劇。雖然已很久沒有煲劇，亦難得與老婆挨在沙發上一起煲，一起邊看邊罵也是增進感情吧。一切也咎罪偶然在看到無記電視頒獎禮，見鄭家穎犧牲色相露股憑此劇拿視帝，陳敏芝又拿下最佳女配角，加上老婆喜歡鄭家穎靚仔，便上網下載第一集來看看。無記劇集有一個特點，雖然明知是爛劇也會讓人一集接一集追下去，就這樣便一口氣煲了二十集。

「怒火街頭」的名稱有點不倫不類，劇中沒有什麼怒火也沒有多少街頭。鄭家穎演深水埗爛撻撻街坊大律師，與胡杏兒演的發奮窮學生當上大律師要名成利就配成一對。例牌由鬥氣冤家，到互相欣賞撻出火花成為情侶。可惜開始時埋下鄭家穎出走七年的伏線，交代過去雷聲大雨點時，出走的理由十分牽強。至於其他配角的線，李璨琛配陳敏芝，社工愛上妓女的故事，過了父母關後就要被殺，老土婆媽到不得了。林子善在劇中最好看的一位，平時見他做傻更更古惑仔，今次打起煲吠扮律師，與滕麗名演的梁師奶配成一對，倒也充滿喜劇感。

劇中的法庭戲橋段熟口熟面，把無記以前其他劇集的案例循環再用，十分環保。最後打大奸角蔣狀的高潮戲，胡杏兒投身敵陣當無間道，扮出賣鄭家穎搏取信任，令自已媽媽也要為她要當壞人，簡直是爛到不能再爛的舊橋，胡杏兒一說出來我便立即估到結局。最後鄭家穎代胡杏兒認罪入獄，更是把之前他常掛在口邊的法律公義完全推翻。他在之前的五個少年誤殺案中，不就是因為不想找其中一個被告頂罪而與胡杏兒反面，難道現在他自已替愛人頂罪便合乎法律公義嗎。反正也是違反法律序程上公義，倒不如悶聲大發財，沒有人告發便當沒時發生。

劇中的角色很討師奶歡心，不再用中產包裝的律師劇，不蒲蘭桂芳改吃大排檔。把高高在上的律師拉下來，平民化更加親近草根階層。可惜法庭戲依舊兒戲，到底無記何時才有一套直正在法庭上鬥智鬥力的戲呢？

最初遇上這本書是大學一年級時，從電腦學會師兄的極力推介，他們把這本書捧為人生必頭的神作。可惜當年我程度不夠，翻了幾頁便給這本磚頭書嚇跑了。畢業至今十多年，我偶然也會聽見這本書的大名，久不久身邊便有人說此書乃非看不可的經典，對他曾有多深的影響，甚至改變了他對世界的看法。事隔十六年，我終於與此書再續當年在大學書店結下的前緣，前後花了三個月時間，慢慢把這本七百多頁的鉅著啃完。今年原本計畫看二十本書，為看這本只好重質不重量，這本書一本大慨抵得上十本書吧。

這本書一般簡稱為GEB，作者花了十年時間才寫成，亦是他的第一本書，結果讓他舉成名，此書還奪得普立茲獎。Godel是數學家，發現不完全定律。Escher是畫家，以超現實的素描聞名，書中有大量他的畫作插圖。最後Bach是古典音樂家，他的樂章很複雜工整，把音符玩得出神入化。書中想想提及他的作品，可惜這本不是電子音沒有聲音，要自已上去Youtube聽。對於音樂的門外漢，只是聽也不易明白Bach音樂的美妙，Youtube上附上樂譜動畫，看音階不斷的位置重覆交錯，才看得出Bach作曲的鬼斧神工。數學，畫，音樂，作者從三種看似無關係的東西出發，慢慢地解釋教授各關的知識，用畫和音樂去輔助講解數學理論，交織出一個人類的自我意識是從何而來的答案。

這本書的篇排很有心思，每一章之前有一段對話錄，幾個作者創造的角色在對話，大玩文字遊戲並發問啟導性的問題，可以視為接下來嚴肅內容的引言。這本書的上半部，從零開始便是去解釋歌德爾的不完全定律，由最基本的formal language，到number theory，到propositional calculus，一路由淺入深帶領讀者推論出Godel’s incomplete theorems，數學理論中必定不完全或內有矛盾。最重要是同時帶出strange loop異圈這個慨念，任何有自我指向特性的系統便是一個異圈。

下半部涉獵的知識甚廣，包括人工智能電腦程式，基因和蛋白質的構造，人腦神經系統的構造等等。透過很多不同的科學中也隱含的異圈，作者嘗試解答心靈哲學中最重要的課題，到底什麼是智慧，什麼是思考，人類的自我意識是什麼。在低階組織的物理層面，腦部只是機械性化學反應，並沒有任何意識。可是當高階組織有了自我修改，自我指向的異圈結構，並不再限於機械式反射作用，意識便會從異圈中產生出來。

我買那本書的二十周年紀念版，在書首作者加入了一篇導讀，因為實在太多讀者誤解了此書。好處是讓我已經知道書本的主旨說什麼，某程度上幫助我不至半途而癈。可是同時卻剝奪了我閱讀的樂趣，失去了當作者把書本中所有說過的所有知識，總結整合申引出自我意識理論時，讓我妨然大悟解謎的感覺。另外作者有偷懶之嫌，書中有些資料已經過時，例如電腦下棋，電腦翻釋等等，作者應該趁二十周年紀念版的機會，更新書中的內容與時並進。不過這些小問題，並不影響此書跨越時間的經典地位。