對所有的觀眾而言，看完《加利哥的故事》後一定會感覺這齣戲很特別，舞台上所演出的並不是一般傳統的、大家習以為常的戲劇表演方式，而是一種無法被清楚界定出來的劇場呈現模式。說它是戲劇，藉講述者交代被刻意精簡過的情節、缺少角色個性及模仿的（高度型式化）演員演出、並不斷穿插不同類型的舞蹈形式，好像並不符合傳統敘事劇場的結構。說它是音樂劇，它卻又沒有利用音樂來交代情節主題，並且不斷利用講述者、演員行動及燈光變化來打斷音樂的連續性。就演出形式而言，很明顯的它更不是歌劇、舞劇。就一般觀眾而言，他們也許可以說這就是「表演藝術」，但對已具備相當戲劇知識以及觀戲經驗的觀者來說，這種說法太過籠統。《加利哥的故事》作為「表演藝術」具備了什麼獨特性？這是我們所關切的主題，唯有藉由分析它到底要對觀眾傳達什麼、如何傳達，我們才能了解它到底是一種什麼樣的表演藝術。
表演的「形式」及「意義」（內容）是緊密相關且相互影響的；形式即是美學的展現並且蘊含著意義，然而意義的存在卻又引出形式的轉化（關於型式與內容的理論性爭論以及兩者間與美學的關係，可參考朱光潛《談美》；文化社會學者Pierre Bourdieu也曾就Flaubert的作品申論型式與意義的關係，並探討此種關係如何受社會狀態與階級變化的影響而轉變，進而開拓出新的美學意義，參考Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature）。《加利哥的故事》所要表達的是它已具備的整體的表演形式，而其意義來自於形式轉化後的獨特性。觀眾看見的是它的美學展現，這種美學展現不僅抒發、強調文本中的情感，更是它所欲傳達的意義。羅伯．威爾森認為「藝術的價值即在於其自身的形式之中」（Maria Shevtsova, Robert Wilson, London: Routledge, 2007: 52），而他也堅持他的表演都是「形式化的」、「並無其他特別意義」（同上：53）。這種觀點的發展來自十九世紀末開始的寫實主義（反對浪漫主義的資產階級戲劇 - Bourgeois Theatre），然而此種觀點的成熟實質上包括了對寫實主義的反動（如象徵主義的興起）以及之後蓬勃發展的實驗劇場運動（雖說Mayerhold, Artaud, Brecht, Tairov及其它偉大的導演們早已是我們所認知的主流，但再他們的時代裡，他們實驗性的實踐 - 發揮其理念於劇場中 - 確實顯示出實驗劇場的精神）。不同的觀念不斷相互衝擊，創作者持續的實踐理念，因此不僅追求劇場自治的目標越趨明顯，也提供現代新導演養分與基礎。當然的，每一場演出都有其特定、所欲傳達的意念（通常是導演或劇作家的意圖，也或許是對當時社會、文化或藝術的批判），而整體演出中的各個元素都是意圖突出並強調這個意念。因此，當我們試圖去分析威爾森《加利哥的故事》時，首先須將整體表演拆解並重新結構，才能看出其表演形式的獨特之處並了解其獨特的美學意義。
如威爾森所言「愛是永不止息」（《加利哥的故事》節目單，2008：6），《加利哥的故事》所要傳達的基本訊息就是愛的力量。因為愛的力量，中土世界得以繁榮，金色雙胞胎誕生。也因為愛，造成兄妹間的分離、中土世界的混亂，最後成為無神的世界。就劇情的結構而言，羅達．葛羅爾的劇本將原本達六千頁的神話史詩，精簡為以兄妹間禁忌的愛為出發點的傳說故事。精簡後的內容保留了史詩的核心，更因故事的濃縮使得愛的力量被突顯了出來。劇本於表演中的獨佔地位被削弱了，而劇本釋放出的空間則由威爾森的舞台創造力填滿。就舞台展現而言，演出前的紗幕上填滿了難以辨認的外國文字，這明確地告訴觀眾這是一齣跨文化的演出。雖然是鏡框式舞台，簡單乾淨的舞台空間卻打破傳統，呈現一種儀式化、神聖的感覺，點出史詩的特性與舞台上即將發生的神人關係，更明白說明這不是傳統文化的再現，而是一種新的、超越文化限制的威爾森式舞台展現。右後舞台有一道突兀的樓梯，它超現實的存在好像要告知觀眾這是一個神人互存的世界，而最後樓梯昇起象徵了神決定離開中土世界。講述者坐在右前舞台，他走出了鏡框的限制，也打破了劇場的幻覺，就像布萊希特（Bertolt Brechet）的演員一樣，他不斷告訴觀眾事情是這樣發生的。左後舞台的樂隊不斷運用音樂的力量強調舞台動作的情感，而極簡的舞台空間突出了音樂的複雜性。樂師的位置是獨特的，而他們更換樂器的動作再一次打破幻覺。不僅是傳統印尼音樂被使用，利用傳統樂器創新傳統音樂更是反應布吉司人文化的獨特性。而燈光的使用則是威爾森最吸引人的地方。燈光不再只是照明，它變成了演員，而每一次燈光轉變，都是不同情感的表達。它不只代表了某一個角色的特性（如灰色代表神的世界與Patatoqué、紅色為Batara Guru），更強調了演員演出（如用聚光燈強調金色雙胞胎的不願出世、天幕顏色轉換帶出Sawérigadin的沮喪與憤怒）與音樂進行（如開場時的明暗、戰爭與換景時燈光的迅速變換）。將燈光轉化為演員演出情感，這似乎實現了阿皮亞（Adolph Appia）燈光的理想。
然而整齣戲中最能突顯形式獨特性的莫過於舞台上演員的行動與道具的使用。去除語言使用，藉身體的動作傳達情感是威爾森演員最重要的特質，也因情感需要被累積，所以他的演員時常出現極度緩慢的行動，而「慢」也成為了威爾森式表演的一大特色。與其說是表演，演員舞台上的動作是形式化行動的組合與再組合，其目的在於帶領出行動內蘊的情感。這些行動組合具備了如同梅耶荷（Vsevolod Meyerhold）所謂精準的、高度形式化的特性。除了姿態展現（表達角色特性，如Patatoqué立於代表神的昇降台或稻米女神的坐姿）以及因戲劇需求而出現的模仿性行動（傳達特定情緒，如角色間對話的動作、戰爭及日常行動的誇張模仿或像Wé Cudaiq的立姿與手勢），更利用舞蹈延續部份或整體情感。舞台上的舞蹈經常是某一姿態或行動的延伸，它可能是快的（戰爭或濃烈的情緒）、慢的（哀傷、失望或期待），而它的形式混合了傳統印尼舞蹈、東方形式化動作、芭蕾、現代舞以及純粹律動。形式的混合反應出威爾森對劇場的理念，它不是製造幻覺的工具，而是引發情感的空間，而這需要運用所有可以引發情感的媒介（尤其是舞蹈）。另一項媒介就是道具的使用，而演出中道具的使用就像是劇場空間內的裝置藝術（如精細雕琢的生命之樹、由演員手執的鳥類模型、代表神的昇降台以及代表海浪極度輕盈的布條）。雖然像裝置藝術，每一項道具都有功能且輔助劇情發展及整體情緒傳達（如生命之樹的終結與分解）。 除此之外，高度藝術性的服裝、化妝與面具（如Wé Cudaiq精細製作的禮服與代表不同動物的面具與化妝），它們本身即代表角色特性或傳遞出特定的情感，搭配上演員行動更突顯出形式化的表演性質。事實上，就連演員本身的行動都便成了裝置藝術，動靜之間取決於情感延續或斷裂。演員、服裝、化妝、面具與道具共存於舞台空間，地位相同、目的相同。不同形式並列於舞台空間，他們並非相互融合，而是各自以其特有方式具體化共有的情感。
威爾森的劇場是一個具備了多重形式同時並存，但卻充滿力量與情感的表演空間。這是一個無法被明確界定的表演形式，而是跨越了文化與型式限制的新混種表演形式。它的目的不在於再現文本的文化背景。它純粹只是要藉導演的劇場理念介紹即將失傳的史詩，並傳達出文本中特殊的情感力量。威爾森對演員的要求與運用演員的方式，以及他對劇場呈現的理念，反應出克雷格（Edward Gordon Craig）的導演藝術家觀念。將劇場空間中的所有元素加以整合，並混合各個獨特的表演形式來強調情感表達，此種「完全劇場」的觀念，呼應了華格那（Richard Wagner）的總體藝術。雖然與華格那以音樂為主的取向不盡相同，但威爾森的劇場表現手法證明了他是一位真正的劇場藝術家，而新表演型態的創立，也勢必對現代戲劇產生一定的影響。
3 Dec 2008
Should we believe in the Michelin Guide on its new investigation of Chinese food?
"You don't have to be French to appraise French cuisine and you don't have to be Chinese to appraise Chinese cuisine."
That sounds fair, but that is also a false consciousness. I believe a 'non-French' criticizing French cuisine in front of a 'true-French' would definitely be harshly ridiculed. So when Micheline awarded three stars to the Cantonese restaurant, Lung King Heen (龍景軒), in Four Seasons Hotel Hong Kong, it must prepare itself from the possible criticism from both Chinese and Cantonese speaking readers.
First of all, the guide and the inspectors probably did not have sufficient understanding of the dining habit of Chinese. We rarely dine at a hotel restaurant. Usually it is special occasions, such as wedding banquets, that will bring Chinese to those restaurants. The reason of not going is nothing about pricing but 'habits'. It is normal for Chinese to consider these restaurants as places for tourists due to their location within the hotel. It is because of the size of hotel restaurants and the prestige of international hotels Chinese choose them for holding banquets. Though the quality of food is often considered, it does not mean these restaurants would be the first option for Chinese when they want to 'eat out'. If you travel to Hong Kong, you will be amazed by the long queue outside of some very famous but 'small' restaurants. These restaurants offer what the locals, the Mainland Chinese, Taiwanese, and the overseas Chinese, consider 'the best Chinese/Cantonese food'.
The problem arises. Why these truly great ones are not awarded by the guide? Why aren't they investigated by these prestigious Michelin investigators? Of course, we cannot deny the quality of food offered by Lung King Heen in Four Seasons. However, what I could not understand is how such a restaurant that is not overtly acknowledged by Chinese as top over the top would receive a three-star status!
Let's come back to the notion of false consciousness. The guide creates a fantasy for its readers. Through its star system, it classifies the taste of food of these restaurants as 'divine', 'super good' and 'good'. So, what it suggests is only these listed restaurants are good ones, and the rest can be completely ignored because the food is not even 'good'. In the meantime, through the investigation of its investigators, the guide also guarantees the service, environment, and taste (which is used here to connote 'the value of life-style') of these restaurants. While the guide lifts up the value of these restaurants, it at the same time devalues the others. Therefore, what the guide reveals is a superficial world whose standard of value-judgment is no longer based on the quality and taste of food, but on the quality and taste (life-style) of upper-bourgeois society. It is through the strategies used to devalue could the upper-bourgeois society maintains the distance between itself and the unspeakable and inappropriate others. However, what is tricky here is the deceptive nature of the use of strategies. It is never obvious and always hidden behind a veil. As the guide shows us, it never tells you what is not appropriate. All it says is something good and prestigious, and all it tries to sell is these good and prestigious products. Since the nature of these products are highlighted, it becomes a fantasy that must be pursued. Pursuing this fantasy is nothing different from the accumulation of capitals. Pursuing leads to accumulation which is the nature of capitalism. Only this time what has been accumulated is something symbolic.
The guide helps to reinforce the consciousness of the upper-bourgeois society, which is also a class consciousness that has been applied to their domination of the world. Through the publish of the guide, it strengthens its status as a prestigious guide specially for the prestigious readers. Within this cycle, everything has been fetishized and nothing is true and about the real society. As for the other groups/classes, due to the power of media, the dominated status, and the same living environment as the dominant class (a world of commodities), they naturally follow that consciousness taking the world as a fantasy that must be pursued. However, since they lack the proper capital and knowledge to conduct such actions and maintain their positions, what they have developed is only an ideology, which is a set of obscure consciousness that is borrowed from the upper-bourgeois society. This ideology is a false consciousness that has been manipulated by the upper-bourgeois class for too long and has been turned into rules by which other people must abide (and naturally we all abide because of its been turned into norms).
There are more great restaurants in Hong Kong, and the taste of food of some restaurants should be way better than the one that is recently awarded three stars. How could we trust those stars? How could we listen to those so-called experts who probably don't even know what Chinese food is? After all, there are so many different types of Chinese food, and each has its own special taste and exquisite quality!
That sounds fair, but that is also a false consciousness. I believe a 'non-French' criticizing French cuisine in front of a 'true-French' would definitely be harshly ridiculed. So when Micheline awarded three stars to the Cantonese restaurant, Lung King Heen (龍景軒), in Four Seasons Hotel Hong Kong, it must prepare itself from the possible criticism from both Chinese and Cantonese speaking readers.
First of all, the guide and the inspectors probably did not have sufficient understanding of the dining habit of Chinese. We rarely dine at a hotel restaurant. Usually it is special occasions, such as wedding banquets, that will bring Chinese to those restaurants. The reason of not going is nothing about pricing but 'habits'. It is normal for Chinese to consider these restaurants as places for tourists due to their location within the hotel. It is because of the size of hotel restaurants and the prestige of international hotels Chinese choose them for holding banquets. Though the quality of food is often considered, it does not mean these restaurants would be the first option for Chinese when they want to 'eat out'. If you travel to Hong Kong, you will be amazed by the long queue outside of some very famous but 'small' restaurants. These restaurants offer what the locals, the Mainland Chinese, Taiwanese, and the overseas Chinese, consider 'the best Chinese/Cantonese food'.
The problem arises. Why these truly great ones are not awarded by the guide? Why aren't they investigated by these prestigious Michelin investigators? Of course, we cannot deny the quality of food offered by Lung King Heen in Four Seasons. However, what I could not understand is how such a restaurant that is not overtly acknowledged by Chinese as top over the top would receive a three-star status!
Let's come back to the notion of false consciousness. The guide creates a fantasy for its readers. Through its star system, it classifies the taste of food of these restaurants as 'divine', 'super good' and 'good'. So, what it suggests is only these listed restaurants are good ones, and the rest can be completely ignored because the food is not even 'good'. In the meantime, through the investigation of its investigators, the guide also guarantees the service, environment, and taste (which is used here to connote 'the value of life-style') of these restaurants. While the guide lifts up the value of these restaurants, it at the same time devalues the others. Therefore, what the guide reveals is a superficial world whose standard of value-judgment is no longer based on the quality and taste of food, but on the quality and taste (life-style) of upper-bourgeois society. It is through the strategies used to devalue could the upper-bourgeois society maintains the distance between itself and the unspeakable and inappropriate others. However, what is tricky here is the deceptive nature of the use of strategies. It is never obvious and always hidden behind a veil. As the guide shows us, it never tells you what is not appropriate. All it says is something good and prestigious, and all it tries to sell is these good and prestigious products. Since the nature of these products are highlighted, it becomes a fantasy that must be pursued. Pursuing this fantasy is nothing different from the accumulation of capitals. Pursuing leads to accumulation which is the nature of capitalism. Only this time what has been accumulated is something symbolic.
The guide helps to reinforce the consciousness of the upper-bourgeois society, which is also a class consciousness that has been applied to their domination of the world. Through the publish of the guide, it strengthens its status as a prestigious guide specially for the prestigious readers. Within this cycle, everything has been fetishized and nothing is true and about the real society. As for the other groups/classes, due to the power of media, the dominated status, and the same living environment as the dominant class (a world of commodities), they naturally follow that consciousness taking the world as a fantasy that must be pursued. However, since they lack the proper capital and knowledge to conduct such actions and maintain their positions, what they have developed is only an ideology, which is a set of obscure consciousness that is borrowed from the upper-bourgeois society. This ideology is a false consciousness that has been manipulated by the upper-bourgeois class for too long and has been turned into rules by which other people must abide (and naturally we all abide because of its been turned into norms).
There are more great restaurants in Hong Kong, and the taste of food of some restaurants should be way better than the one that is recently awarded three stars. How could we trust those stars? How could we listen to those so-called experts who probably don't even know what Chinese food is? After all, there are so many different types of Chinese food, and each has its own special taste and exquisite quality!
14 Oct 2008
Gays in Films: with reference to Eternal Summer and The Love of Siam
When films stop hypnotizing their audiences with a colorful gay life filled with camp and stereotypes, we start to realize what we normally consider as abnormal, crazy and inferior is actually no less grotesque than what we really are.
As modern man, we claim to be tolerant of all sorts of things happening in this modern world. We also claim that we have the ability to tolerate and accept different ideas or actions. However, what traditional norms teach us remains the truth, and we never live without being manipulated by these norms. Because norms have such power over our thinking and behaviour, we naturally evaluate everything around us according to the value these norms bring us. This explains why certain ideas or actions are considered different or even unacceptable. When ideas and actions are measured against traditional norms, their value has been inserted with what is socially acceptable and what is traditionally incorrect. Norms become rules. Even though we think we modern man are different and open-minded, old way of thinking and habitual behaviour still haunt us and we live so unconsciously by these rules.
Indeed, homosexuality is the victim resulted from these rules. It cannot be explained and reasoned through traditional norms, and therefore its value is traditionally incorrect and socially unacceptable. Biology teaches us that only the unity of a man and a woman could bring a new life. Rules further this statement by saying this unity creates a family in which father, mother and a child construct a trinity which perfects the God. Perfecting the God perfects the form of human beings, and the structure of this unity becomes the most important foundation for the construction of human society. According to this way of thinking, homosexuality should not be allowed because it breaks the rule and therefore it prevents human beings from perfecting themselves which would further ruin the structure of human society.
Human beings are animals with conscious thought and the ability to express emotions. It is in fact a natural thing for a man to be emotionally attached to another man, or a woman to be deeply in love with another woman. When this happens, it is such a difficult task trying to suppress these natural emotions. Can we really judge that this sort of emotion/love is wrong just because it is against the rules, against what norms teach us? Yes, for those who live by rules can, and they do whatever they can to turn this natural emotions into evil thought and disgusting actions. When they are unable to stop it, they make fun of it which makes them silly and ugly. They try their best to degrade such natural human emotions so as to maintain their rules. In fact, what they are protecting is their dominant power over the world.
Hence, whenever a gay character appears in a film (especially regarding mainstream Hollywood films), his behaviour is always related to the idea of camp. His appearance and character is always stereotyped. This seems to tell the viewers "look, that is a gay man" or "look, that is a lesbian". Are homosexuals different species from the outer space? No, they are just human beings who happen to love the same sex. They are neither abnormal nor crazy. The reason we see crazy characters in films lies in the fear of those who live by rules. Because of their fear they must place homosexuals in an inferior position so as to educate the public that homosexuality is incorrect that should be mocked and punished. This prejudice reinforces the stereotype of homosexuals, and thanks to this prejudice homosexuals become a grotesque group of people lacking flesh and blood in mainstream films.
Under the commercial pressure and the control of the dominant group, mainstream films probably have no other solutions to deal with gay characters. Even worse than that, they probably have to invent one such character so as to elevate the importance of other characters and the rules. The most obvious example is Anthony and Standford in Sex and the City. They are totally useless (of their function) in the film and are clear examples of stereotypes. Of course, there are great gay mainstream films, such as Philadelphia and Brokeback Mountain, but still we see the power of norms in these films. We can never live without it intervening in our thought. The struggle of sexual identity, the reluctance of admitting this forbidden love, the problem encountered in public life, and the death that seems like an unavoidable destiny for all gay people. Among these, death is the most harsh punishment for breaking the social rules, and the most extreme condition is to impute AIDS to gay people. In general, Hollywood presets us through its released films a pretty negative attitude towards gay people. We cannot blame them for doing so. After all, those films are made to suit the public taste.
Being placed in an inferior position or being doomed to a difficult life or a terrible destiny seem the only topic that is suitable for gay people in films. Though I personally consider Eternal Summer and The Love of Siam highly beautiful and successful, they still could not escape their destiny, that is, showing the public that gay love just doesn't seem right for our current society. True, at the present moment, it is still such a long way for those following rules to take gay relationships as healthy and normal and to look at this condition without any prejudice. Since we can never be free from the power of social norms, what we could do is to accept it with conditions. By still giving cruel destinies to the gay characters, we take the chance to educate the public that gay people deserves their right to be taken as normal human beings.
Both Eternal Summer and The Love of Siam dealt with coming out issues and both really show us the cruel destiny every gay person will eventually meet. The director could have shown us a happy ending that makes us feel that everything has changed, including the mentality of human beings. However, directors of these films chose to show us what young gay man would face if they decided to step out the closet and face the crowd. At least, the topic chosen gives the public a chance to see that gay people are not just stupid and crazy as those in Hollywood films. Through the acting and the plot, the public gets to know that gay relationship is exactly the same as straight ones, and the emotions expressed are just normal human emotions. There is no stereotyped promiscuous gay relationships anymore, nor is there flamboyant young gay men. What is presented is only a pure but aching love.
Both films have quite a lot of similarities. They are all produced in Asia, they all deal with young gay man, and they all present a relationship that is obscure and depressing. The tone and pace of both films are almost the same and the use of highly sad but beautiful melody reinforces their similarities. Probably the similarities come from the cultural background of directors. What directors try to locate is the psychological development of these young gay men. How they confront themselves when they realized their sexuality. How they approach the possible solution when they try to adapt themselves in the society. Though the outcome is full of pain and sorrow, at least they learn their way to survive all difficulties. The slow pace in both films helps develop the plot and clearly shows the psychological struggle of the characters. The blue tone in Eternal Summer reflects the memory of characters which intensifies the relationship that eventually leads to nowhere. The green and bright tone of The Love of Siam indicates the attitude of characters, their way of dealing with troubles, and the learning they cannot avoid. Both films use music to elaborate emotions. Music is not just a decoration but becomes the soliloquy of these confused and terrified young men.
Though these films cannot avoid giving its gay characters a harsh and difficult life, they at least tell the public a different story which may, in a very slow way, change the public's prejudice towards homosexuality. Though these films follows the old path of Philadelphia and Brokeback Mountain, we must not forget that changing people's idea is never an easy task and it requires a lot of hard work. In fact, such films being produced, released and welcomed in Asian countries is already a success. This means the old and conservative society has opened its door to something new and different. A change is a sign of new hope. This means maybe someday we can see Taiwan pass the law for same sex marriage, giving homosexuals its rights to live as the others. Rules can be changed we should do our best to change those inadequate ones.
As modern man, we claim to be tolerant of all sorts of things happening in this modern world. We also claim that we have the ability to tolerate and accept different ideas or actions. However, what traditional norms teach us remains the truth, and we never live without being manipulated by these norms. Because norms have such power over our thinking and behaviour, we naturally evaluate everything around us according to the value these norms bring us. This explains why certain ideas or actions are considered different or even unacceptable. When ideas and actions are measured against traditional norms, their value has been inserted with what is socially acceptable and what is traditionally incorrect. Norms become rules. Even though we think we modern man are different and open-minded, old way of thinking and habitual behaviour still haunt us and we live so unconsciously by these rules.
Indeed, homosexuality is the victim resulted from these rules. It cannot be explained and reasoned through traditional norms, and therefore its value is traditionally incorrect and socially unacceptable. Biology teaches us that only the unity of a man and a woman could bring a new life. Rules further this statement by saying this unity creates a family in which father, mother and a child construct a trinity which perfects the God. Perfecting the God perfects the form of human beings, and the structure of this unity becomes the most important foundation for the construction of human society. According to this way of thinking, homosexuality should not be allowed because it breaks the rule and therefore it prevents human beings from perfecting themselves which would further ruin the structure of human society.
Human beings are animals with conscious thought and the ability to express emotions. It is in fact a natural thing for a man to be emotionally attached to another man, or a woman to be deeply in love with another woman. When this happens, it is such a difficult task trying to suppress these natural emotions. Can we really judge that this sort of emotion/love is wrong just because it is against the rules, against what norms teach us? Yes, for those who live by rules can, and they do whatever they can to turn this natural emotions into evil thought and disgusting actions. When they are unable to stop it, they make fun of it which makes them silly and ugly. They try their best to degrade such natural human emotions so as to maintain their rules. In fact, what they are protecting is their dominant power over the world.
Hence, whenever a gay character appears in a film (especially regarding mainstream Hollywood films), his behaviour is always related to the idea of camp. His appearance and character is always stereotyped. This seems to tell the viewers "look, that is a gay man" or "look, that is a lesbian". Are homosexuals different species from the outer space? No, they are just human beings who happen to love the same sex. They are neither abnormal nor crazy. The reason we see crazy characters in films lies in the fear of those who live by rules. Because of their fear they must place homosexuals in an inferior position so as to educate the public that homosexuality is incorrect that should be mocked and punished. This prejudice reinforces the stereotype of homosexuals, and thanks to this prejudice homosexuals become a grotesque group of people lacking flesh and blood in mainstream films.
Under the commercial pressure and the control of the dominant group, mainstream films probably have no other solutions to deal with gay characters. Even worse than that, they probably have to invent one such character so as to elevate the importance of other characters and the rules. The most obvious example is Anthony and Standford in Sex and the City. They are totally useless (of their function) in the film and are clear examples of stereotypes. Of course, there are great gay mainstream films, such as Philadelphia and Brokeback Mountain, but still we see the power of norms in these films. We can never live without it intervening in our thought. The struggle of sexual identity, the reluctance of admitting this forbidden love, the problem encountered in public life, and the death that seems like an unavoidable destiny for all gay people. Among these, death is the most harsh punishment for breaking the social rules, and the most extreme condition is to impute AIDS to gay people. In general, Hollywood presets us through its released films a pretty negative attitude towards gay people. We cannot blame them for doing so. After all, those films are made to suit the public taste.
Being placed in an inferior position or being doomed to a difficult life or a terrible destiny seem the only topic that is suitable for gay people in films. Though I personally consider Eternal Summer and The Love of Siam highly beautiful and successful, they still could not escape their destiny, that is, showing the public that gay love just doesn't seem right for our current society. True, at the present moment, it is still such a long way for those following rules to take gay relationships as healthy and normal and to look at this condition without any prejudice. Since we can never be free from the power of social norms, what we could do is to accept it with conditions. By still giving cruel destinies to the gay characters, we take the chance to educate the public that gay people deserves their right to be taken as normal human beings.
Both Eternal Summer and The Love of Siam dealt with coming out issues and both really show us the cruel destiny every gay person will eventually meet. The director could have shown us a happy ending that makes us feel that everything has changed, including the mentality of human beings. However, directors of these films chose to show us what young gay man would face if they decided to step out the closet and face the crowd. At least, the topic chosen gives the public a chance to see that gay people are not just stupid and crazy as those in Hollywood films. Through the acting and the plot, the public gets to know that gay relationship is exactly the same as straight ones, and the emotions expressed are just normal human emotions. There is no stereotyped promiscuous gay relationships anymore, nor is there flamboyant young gay men. What is presented is only a pure but aching love.
Both films have quite a lot of similarities. They are all produced in Asia, they all deal with young gay man, and they all present a relationship that is obscure and depressing. The tone and pace of both films are almost the same and the use of highly sad but beautiful melody reinforces their similarities. Probably the similarities come from the cultural background of directors. What directors try to locate is the psychological development of these young gay men. How they confront themselves when they realized their sexuality. How they approach the possible solution when they try to adapt themselves in the society. Though the outcome is full of pain and sorrow, at least they learn their way to survive all difficulties. The slow pace in both films helps develop the plot and clearly shows the psychological struggle of the characters. The blue tone in Eternal Summer reflects the memory of characters which intensifies the relationship that eventually leads to nowhere. The green and bright tone of The Love of Siam indicates the attitude of characters, their way of dealing with troubles, and the learning they cannot avoid. Both films use music to elaborate emotions. Music is not just a decoration but becomes the soliloquy of these confused and terrified young men.
Though these films cannot avoid giving its gay characters a harsh and difficult life, they at least tell the public a different story which may, in a very slow way, change the public's prejudice towards homosexuality. Though these films follows the old path of Philadelphia and Brokeback Mountain, we must not forget that changing people's idea is never an easy task and it requires a lot of hard work. In fact, such films being produced, released and welcomed in Asian countries is already a success. This means the old and conservative society has opened its door to something new and different. A change is a sign of new hope. This means maybe someday we can see Taiwan pass the law for same sex marriage, giving homosexuals its rights to live as the others. Rules can be changed we should do our best to change those inadequate ones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)