The Talented Mr. Ripley 心計

Talented Mr. Ripley《心計》是一套我想看了很久的舊片﹐若果我沒有記錯﹐這片子入選IMDB最經典電影的前十名。劇情片一向不是我的那杯茶﹐我喜歡這套電影是少數的例外﹐大 慨一致公認的好戲絕非浪得虛名。我手頭上沒有資料﹐這部電影是麥迪文的成名作吧。那時的麥迪文初出道﹐是很有文藝氣質的男演員﹐與今天那個動作片巨星完全 不同。不過唯一不變的是他的招牌笑容﹐總是露出那排潔白整齊的大板牙。

這套電影發生在三十年代﹐麥迪文飾演的窮小子假扮名校學生演奏﹐富 翁誤以為他是兒子的朋友﹐聘請他去意大利帶那個離家出走的不俏子回家。這套電影的英名原名叫《天材的韋利先生》﹐除了彈得一手好琴外﹐麥迪文飾演的韋利還 有一項特別的材能﹐就是模仿別人的筆跡和說話。他到了意大利後﹐發現富翁的兒子靠著老父每月給的大筆零用錢﹐過著整天游手好閒的二世祖生活﹐於是韋利生起 冒充富翁兒子的念頭。劇情在兩人的關係上有點複雜﹐韋利疑似同性戀上富翁的兒子﹐我也看不明白是出於妒忌才起殺念﹐還是從一開始就打算幹掉他取而代之。電 影最精彩的地方在於謊言越滾越滾﹐從開始說第一個謊言﹐開始殺第一個人開始﹐便要繼續說謊殺人去掩飾真相。每次當韋利的謊言差不多被揭穿時﹐他總能憑機智 和運氣返凶化吉。這樣觀眾一直追看著﹐不禁想到底這個謊言如何收科。結局扭橋很出人意表﹐到最後也不知道韋利能否逃脫﹐不過我認為未免有點過份巧合。

麥 迪文演韋利這個角色很傳神﹐他能夠端摩角色複雜的心理。韋利本身不似是壞人﹐他若有心殺死富翁兒子﹐早已有很多次機會下手。至於韋利是不是同性戀﹐電影沒 有正面交代﹐觀眾只能憑諸絲馬跡去推敲。只是就算他是同性戀﹐也沒有理由會愛上二世祖。二世祖有固定女友﹐亦有逢場作興的女人﹐很明顯性取向正常。韋利在 意大利小鎮找到二世祖後﹐跟著他生活了一段時間﹐期明二世祖對韋利也不是特別好﹐不過是平水相交的酒肉朋友﹐很難理解韋利會愛上一個不值得愛的人。唯一的 解釋是韋利想冒充二世祖﹐把自己的心理過份代入身份﹐思想產生混亂抽離不到感情﹐所以才錯誤以為自己愛上他。說起來富翁兒子其實死有餘辜﹐他是個只懂玩樂 對社會沒有貢獻的寄生蟲﹐那種人死了對世界也沒什麼損失。其實以韋利冒充他人身份的材能﹐用來殺個二世祖冒充簽名提取少許現金﹐實在浪費了他的材能。與其 羨慕二世祖的生活﹐以韋利的充冒他人身份的天材﹐他大可以在黑道混個不錯的生活﹐犯不著冒這麼大險去扮二世祖騙零用錢。在電影中韋利說他原本是藉藉無聞的 窮小子﹐冒充二世祖可以給他一個高貴的身份。不過他看來選錯了冒充對像﹐二世祖也同樣是藉藉無聞的路人﹐只不過每月多點零用錢罷了。

第一誡

First Rule 不計與大陸合資拍攝的古裝武打片﹐我很久沒有看過正宗港產片。其實我完全沒有聽過《第一誡》這套電影﹐不過看見余文樂加鄭伊健﹐海報上「第一誡﹕世 界上沒有鬼」的標題很吸引﹐便破例下載回來看看。港產商業電影雖然沒有什麼深度﹐沒有什麼藝術性﹐不過這套電影娛樂性很豐富﹐驚嚇懸疑俱備完全合乎我的期望。

故事有點像香港版的X檔案﹐警員余文樂在追捕變態殺手時受傷﹐傷瘉後被調往專門處理靈異時件的雜務科。鄭伊健是雜務科的頭目﹐在余文樂轉職的 第一天﹐就告訴他雜務科的第一誡﹕世界上沒有鬼。說穿了雜務科的工作就是用看似合理的解釋謊言﹐去掩飾異靈現像的真相﹐以免做成公眾恐慌。以鬼片來說﹐ 《第一誡》的氣氛處理做得十分出色﹐有幾場戲我也幾乎被嚇到。不過整體上有很大的違和感﹐中段調查幾個枉死的善良幽靈令人希噓﹐尾段劇情忽然來個急轉彎﹐ 突然變成追捕變態殺手化身的厲鬼。這套戲的結局很公式﹐當鄭伊健說自己還有兩日便退休時﹐其實編劇已宣告了他的死刑﹐觀眾知道他最後一定會領便當。原本以 為會像《驅魔人》的結局﹐變態鬼殺手殺掉劇中所有主要角色後﹐余文樂讓他上身與他同歸於盡。現在的開於式結局很模凌兩可﹐最後也不知道到底是誰幹掉誰。

這套戲的鬼魂設計原本有很大發揮空間﹐可惜為追求戲劇效果﹐失去合埋的平衡性。一個隨意出現的變態殺手﹐竟然在追捕過程中可以殺死無數路人﹐連主角兩個人最 後還一死一傷﹐鬼怪的力量未免太過厲害。若果鬼怪是這話厲害的話﹐雜務科也不用掩飾真相﹐香港早就淪變成鬼域了。開場時受害人少女變鬼救了余文樂﹐這條伏 線在結局時沒用白白浪費掉。在中段出場那些善良的鬼魂﹐會軟弱求助也會留戀世界﹐讓觀眾感到鬼和人其實沒有分別。可是後來的變態殺手變成厲鬼後魔力大增﹐ 與他在生時的窩囊相完全不乎。若果壞人死後會變害人的厲鬼﹐怎麼鄭伊健死後又不會變成保護市民的正義鬼。鄭伊健有場戲對余文樂說﹐鬼怪不容於這個 信奉科學理性的世界﹐所以雜務科才要為公界掩飾真相。很明顯編劇完全誤解了科學的意義﹐科學世界絕對可以容納未知的事物。只是我們要研究分析這些未知事件 ﹐理解背後的規律和定理﹐將未知的東西變為已知的事實。若果這個世界出現害人的鬼怪﹐科學精神不是對鬼怪乍看不見﹐而是要找出鬼怪的成因和解決鬼怪的方 法。隨便派兩個雜差去掩飾鬼怪出現﹐絕對不是科學理性應有的態度。

Election debate

On my way home tonight, I listened to the election debate on CBC radio.  This is my first time listen to any election debate live.  My first impression is we have too many political parties in Canada.  The debate is too crowed with all five leaders trying to talk or yell at the same time.  I don’t think debate help the voters at all.  The candidate simply restating their policy in the debate, voters already know those information from newspaper.  It seems the candidates of all the opposite parties only know how to attack the party in control of the government.  Occasionally they present some bits and pieces of their own policy, but somehow you sense their math do not add up and some of the policies are even contradicting with each other.  The current prime minister is not much better.  He never response to those attack directly, just restating what the government had done in that area.

Each party claim they have a platform, but the platforms are just some empty slogans.  Voters don’t get much information how things will turn out.  All we know is when they are elected, they promise to spend how much money on this or on that, tax cut or tax raise here and there.  Never mind those are just election promises that never intended to keep.  Even if the elected keep their promise, no one knows whether the maths adds up, whether or not those promises feasible at all?  No wonder the public don’t feel much interest in politics, no one is addressing any real issues.  They are not even debating, there is no communication, they are just talking their own stuff.  Maybe we should change the format of the debate.  Instead of having a round table debate, we should have a series of round robin debate, putting the leaders head to head with each other.  Allow them to focus their attack and give them enough time to unmask the bullshit of the other party.

Elizabeth May of the Green Party and Layton of NDP seems to be the best talker in the debate.  It is much easier to irresponsible policy that appeals to everyone than a sound policy that actually works.  Harper of the Conservative may not be the best speaker in the debate, but he is the only one quote real statistic to back up his policy.  Other candidates rely on stories or anecdote to sell their ideas.  I think using number alone worth giving Harper some credits over the other candidates.

Fantasy hockey 2008

Every year, we have a fantasy hockey pool at work.  Last year, I use pure statistic to select my players and I end up having the lowest score.  I guess performance of hockey players just like stocks, past result does not always imply future growth.  Some of my friends really into hockey.  They are a walking hockey database.  Not only that they know all the players and their teams by heart, they also keep track of who is injured, who has been traded or even who had just become a dad.  Crying baby at night probably affect the game performance.  I believe they hockey knowledge give them an advantage in the hockey pool.  Anyways, I am too busy and lazy to do my own research, so I end up using statistic again this year.  It is much easier to look at numbers than find out everything about the players from sports news website.  Here is my team this year:

Henrik Zetterberg (Det – F)
Ryan Getzlaf (Anh – F)
Olli Jokinen (Pho – F)
Shane Doan (Pho – F)
Rick Nash (Cls – F)
Alexander Frolov (LA – F)
Nathan Horton (Fla – F)
Patrick Marleau (SJ – F)
Mark Streit (NYI – D)
Lubomir Visnovsky (Edm – D)
Jay Bouwmeester (Fla – D)
Bryan McCabe (Fla – D)
Henrik Lundqvist (NYR – G)
Marc-Andre Fleury (Pit – G)

This time we are more prepared than last year when we are drafting the players.  All of us bring our laptop to search the players on line when it is our turn to pick the player.  We have 9 teams in total, it took us almost 1.5 hours to finish the drafting.  The hockey season is starting this week, following our fantasy hockey team and bragging on who is winning would be a regular feature in our lunch coversations.

最低工資的爭論(四) – 最低工資與經濟理論並沒有衡突

這個星期在獨媒和基文會花了很多時間討論最低工資的問題﹐除了迫自己思考這個觸動社會神經的問題外﹐還學懂了不少經濟學的基本知識。要思考要記錄下來的已差不多寫完﹐我認為最低工資的問題已經有很明確的答案。剩下來要做的事情﹐只是指出其他人錯誤﹐改正他們在理論上或數字計算上的問題。反對最低工資的人﹐常常引用經濟學理論﹐去證明最低工資會引失業率上升。支持最低工資的人﹐雖然沒有什麼嚴緊的推理﹐但是憑直覺認為最低工資可以幫助窮人。我在尋找最低工資的研究時﹐發現了經濟學人的這份報告﹐可以整合正反雙方的論點﹐原來兩者其實係沒有衡突的。

Quote from The Economist Feb 1st 2001 “Debating the Minimum Wage”
that the minimum-wage increase left the overall number of workers employed roughly the same, but reduced their hours. (Not implausible, given that most workers in the fast-food business are part-timers.) Then it would be true that the wage rise reduced the demand for (hours of) labour, as the standard model says; but at the same time it could also be true, as advocates of the minimum wage say, that the incomes of the affected workers went up, thanks to the combination of fewer hours at work and the higher wage rate. In which case the policy could be judged a success, even though it had “reduced employment”.

簡單來說﹐最低工資的結果﹐將會是工資上升﹐工時需求下降﹐但就業人數大致不變。經濟理論指出工資上升﹐工作的需求會下降﹐只不過下降的不是工人需求的數目﹐而是工時需求的數目。 換一句話說﹐最低工資逼工人增加工作效率﹐去補償工資上升帶來的開支。不論是最低工資的支持者還是反對者﹐大家圍著就業人數這個數字原地打轉。工作需求除了可以用人頭來計數﹐還可以有其他的計算方法﹐如工時需求啊﹗