Music breathes: we will survive as long as art is still playful and imaginable

We Will Survive: Igudesman & Joo with Kremer & Kremerata

8 to 88 Musical Education for Children of All Ages

I honestly believe that it is a sin for a person not knowing about Gloria Gaynor's I Will Survive, or whatever versions that came afterwards. A sin not because of the violation of any established religious doctrines or cliched morality, but one marking a person's ignorance of contemporary culture and vain existence in this world. I do not know since when this song has become a theme song for gay culture, but I guess, other than the meanings of the lyric, The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994) must have been one of the major factors.

Can pop music be married with classical music, or classical music with pop music? Many would be shocked when they hear this because they are such distinct forms of music. Supporters of classical music would be likely to object that it is not art anymore for art should be sublime, while the drifters in pop culture would contend that the seriousness and rigidity of classical music only kills the vitality in pop music. However reasonable one argues against their unity through big theories, the truth is the baby of this marriage can be amazingly intriguing, as you see in the work of Igudesman & Joo, a collaboration of two musicians who endeavour to bring classical music closer to all. Music in their hands is turned into a hilarious but unique theatrical show. Their playfulness rejuvenates the old and distant classical music, and their superb technique tears away the vulgar face of pop culture. Who would have guessed that the violin can be such a perfect instrument to interpret the deep emotions in I Will Survive, and who would not be cheered by the new variations of classical music juxtaposed with the pop music? This could not be achieve without the musicians great and bold imagination. The ensemble is playful and cheerful, and the music flows smoothly into the heart of its listeners, whose lighthearted reaction in return not only breaks the barrier between the stage and the auditorium, but also releases classical music from its heavy burden.

Is not such a cheerful communication the objective of art? Is not playful a crucial meaning of art? Is not spiritual content a function of art? Is not making everyone know more about everything by bringing them together to see and to feel the social function of art?

The ensemble seems like a spectacle, and it is a spectacle indeed. But this spectacle is no longer a simulacrum as Baudrillard criticizes because, instead of projecting something null and empty, this spectacle reintroduces classical music to its viewers through re-familiarizing them with pop music. Neither is the juxtaposition in this spectacle a pastiche in Jameson's view, since the superb technique successfully combines each element into a harmonious totality in which a new representation is constructed to eschew a dull nostalgia. This new representation is playfulness that shows what the presence is, or borrowing Derrida's term, the "autopresentation" of "pure sensibility." Sensibility comes only with the ability to imagine and feel. Although this sensibility has long been a debatable question in discussions of art, it cannot be denied that art is all about feeling -- be it yours, the artist's, or the critic's. It is feeling that brings art, and music is the most wonderful vehicle for the expression of feelings.

Indeed, as the musicians say: "music breathes." It is alive and so pop and classical music starts this beautiful dialogue. As long as one is willing to open their heart to listen to this fun dialogue, one would finally realize that art is not just about sublime. Art must be playful, cheerful, and imaginable.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011) in the best exotic India

I think I might be Indian in my past life!

Maybe I truly was, 

or maybe my intoxication with Indian culture hallucinates me into a bizarre and crazy belief!

From Wikipedia

Even before I stepped on the land of India, I have been fascinated by her rich and colourful culture and arts: the powerful and mesmerizing musical and dance rhythm in Bharata Natyam, the mysterious performance of Khatakali, the breath-taking beauty of Mughal arts, the unique serenity of the Buddhist statues, and of course, the amazing play of colours in Holi as well as the peaceful happiness in Diwali, both are Hindu festivals celebrating the precious human nature in the name of gods. More can be added into this list, and the most interesting is certainly the highly entertaining Bollywood films, interweaving everything artistic into a spectacular ensemble that marks the unique cultural feature of India.

Some would say that such a fantasy can never survive that actual experience of being in India. The poverty and underdeveloped social milieu scare most travellers immediately after they walk out of the airport, as we see in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, in which the English ladies are so shocked by whatever they see, even the air they breathe in. The reality kills the fantasy, and many would end up leaving the country with a great disappointment. That is not my experience though. The truth is every minute I spent in India only strengthens my strange love for that country and her culture, and the character’s falling in love with India in the end reminds me of how much India offered me when I was embraced by her vibrant pulse and hospitality.

The excellent acting of these brilliant actors – a retired man who grew up in India, an old lady who served a family of the high society all her life, a widow who lost almost everything due to her late husband’s wrong investment, a couple who try so hard to fake a happy marriage, an aged gold digger who still wants a rich husband, and an old man who seeks love and the rejuvenation of life – constructs a sense of reality, with which viewers are not only deeply touched, but also drawn into an imagination where they feel what human nature is through the magic of Indian culture, regardless whether the viewer truly has that actual experience of India or not. Or probably it is my personal preference and experience that make me like this film so much!

Of course, there are stereotypes, and the revelation of cultural stereotypes poses some problems as well. Even though India has not yet lifted herself from actual poverty and underdevelopment – the most obvious example is the recent massive black out that affects almost the overall Northern part of India, the film representation reinforces the already prevalent image of what India should be. This image is composed of yellowish sky with dusty air, horrible traffic, as well as a skyline of unorganized buildings, usually with a huge orange setting sun behind the wavy air. To add extra exotic flavor to this background, a bunch of dark skin children running around tourists and begging for money, even with their naïve smile, is always arranged to set off those spectacular ancient architectures standing at the back. This is the India we perceive in our mind through different kinds of mass communication in the age of World Wide Web, or understood as the age of simulacra. Is this image real? Maybe it is for my memory of India is not that different from the scenery captured by the camera lens. However, this image is not what India truly is. It is only a surface without depth that has been falsely believed as a truth.

India has so much to offer in terms of her culture, particularly a unique humanist view seeking a life of peace and love. No matter how those characters reject and deny the environment and people around them, being surrounded by those who are brought up by that specific view on life and the submersion in that culturally rich environment slowly change their views, leading them to embrace what used to horrify them and even making them willingly become a part of that country. It could be sympathy or friendship with a deeper though not complete understanding, but it is no longer exoticism, no longer a prejudice that sees people and their culture through a looking-glass. It is the characters’ sincere reception and understanding that saves the stereotypical representation from becoming a biased cultural note that is arbitrary, hostile, and superficial. Once again, great and mature acting helps this film to eschew the problem of cultural imperialism – though not totally successful – in colonialism.

One aspect is particularly interesting, and this is the story of the retired official who spent part of his life in India when he was young. Unlike all the others going there primarily for a fresh start after retirement, he goes there with a wish that has haunted him ever since he left that land. His love for India is inseparable from his love for this Indian man, and he wants his life without regret, a perfect ending in the perfect place. Such a homosexual relationship is essentially intolerable, let alone it is one between a white boy from the dominant social class and an Indian boy from a lower social stratum. Forbidden it is, so the unexpected exposure of the scandal results in the misery of the two, and the following political turmoil further complicates the issue, making their reunion an impossible dream, an eternal loss. How amazing the power of love it is! He finds the love of his life and learns about his loyalty even though he is forced to marry by the social norms. His lover loves him so deep that he had to confront his wife with the unbearable truth. Now he is ready to die, but he dies a happy man because he finds his heart again on that land of his dream.

What is special in this story of love is not the loss or reunion, but the understanding of the Indian man’s wife and her acknowledgement of love. Love brings about a deep understanding of human nature permitting her generous acceptance of her husband. The true love between two men is not that different from the love between a man and a woman in her eyes. She sees love as a natural phenomenon in terms of classical Hindu religious and philosophical perspective, a worldview she was brought up by, not a moral standard according to social norms and prejudice. Of course, not all Indians are like that, and it is more likely that most of them reject homosexuality in terms of religious doctrine, particularly those growing up in a Muslim surrounding. It is this great contrast that highlights her notions on love and life, showing not only the unique and healthy attitude to life in classical Hindu thoughts, but also a different representation of Indian culture.

Corresponding with this view of life is the warm and encouraging embracement of others in the Indian society, and it is this open embracement without preconceptions that helps the widow who has never really lived a life of her own to start bravely a new meaningful life. Through her exploration of both herself and the new environment, she slowly regains the meaning of her existence and also opens her heart again to welcome new possibilities. Indians are passionate and they are willing to help, though maybe too passionate that somehow scares those who are so used to keeping the distance. The house maid who is forced to leave her job shows that fear of being close with people, particularly people with colours. Her self-defence is a perfect example of racism, but ironically she is the one who fights for the right of the hotel owner. She would not have changed her very limited view of people and the world without that willingness to change, a change that owes its debt to the passion and care of those around her. Their embracement gradually opens her eyes to see how people really live their everyday life. When you decide to really open your eyes to see what life is, skin colours, poverty, underdevelopment, and even nationality all become nonsense. What matters only is that concern for another human being whom you care and love, whom you would try your best to help when obstacles arise, whom you know deep down would do the same to you. Now begins a beauty and wonderful friendship that goes beyond all sorts of boundaries like age, social status, and cultural barriers.

Maybe I was just lucky when I was in India, because I know there are stories from others that do not match the represented images of culture and people in this film. But it cannot be denied that good things are beautiful and they are more easily recognized in India than in most Western developed societies, a society of consumption in which human relations are reduced to the exchange of goods. Everything can be calculated in terms of monetary values, even human emotions, with a result of a cold and detached human world. The good acting of the characters reintroduces the significance of being human, but this significance would not be achieved without its being set off by the rich and vibrant Indian culture, which sees life as a journey of understanding. Peace, love, and content are the divine prizes for those who are willing and ready to pursue this journey, to become human again.

是否斷袖、分桃者就不值、不配愛人與被愛的權力？：談以色列片Eyes Wide Open（2009）

Image from Wikipedia

The above three images provided by New American Vision

兩個相愛的人，卻被迫分離，難以承受的苦痛，最終只能以死亡暗喻解脫。Romeo and Juliet、La Dame aux Camilias以及其歌劇改本La Traviata，上演的正是這套情節。雖然中國文化不喜歡悲劇結局，仍是出了以人生終結換取美滿良緣的《梁山伯與祝英台》、仙境重逢但卻哀淒失落的《長生殿》，若把大團圓拿掉，《牡丹亭》的奇異文字講的也是同樣的故事。照理說，這種淒美的情節安排著實老套，小說汗牛充棟，電影更是演爛了。但「不知道為了什麼」，看完以老梗做基礎的Eyes Wide Open（2009）後，「千言萬語」說不出，「憂愁它圍繞者我」。


「千言萬語」說不出口，就在於導演成功地在影像結構裡，置入了強而有力的同情、質疑與批判。在極度保守的猶太教，同志身分與行為本具有高度敏感性，而帶著同志身分的教士或宗教學校裡的學生，更容易成為眾矢之的，更何況是發生在瀰漫著傳統教義的耶路撒冷，一個被開除的學生與一個略具名望的教士間的同志情愛。導演強烈的人文關懷由此而出，然他更超越了原本設定的同志主題，涉入到神學對人性的束縛問題，並以側面角度同情著在傳統家庭裡默默付出、沒有聲音、沒有立場、沒有自主決定權的女性。


一個勇敢地面對著他的真實人性，年輕的他大膽的去愛，熱烈地擁抱生命，更因沒有家庭的孤獨感，加上因天真的追求愛情，喪失了教會支持後生出的失落感，無路可出的他，視接納他的長者為人生的唯一依靠，在愛情中摻入了戀父，攪混了愛情與親情的色調，帶出一道有著獨特氛圍的情感色彩。另一個從未真實去面對他的同志傾向，一直以宗教來作為他人生的唯一目的，麻木的生命其實是對自我真性的壓抑，終於他抵不住對年輕的他的情愫，但仍要以宗教教義來合法化他的愛情，同時面臨背叛婚姻家庭與擁抱不被認同的愛情間的兩難。中年的他在接納了年輕的他之後，終於意識到何以他的生命一直缺乏意義，在與教義導師的當面對質下，鬆口承認此時的他，終於活過來了。愛情的力量，如此強烈，不僅有情人得嘗宿願，心盲者亦得以體會人生存在的真義。


不可能實現的戀情，當然只能發生在見不得光的二樓牆角，存在於鎖門關店的剎那間，但愛的交流不一定是身體的依偎，更在教會裡的讀經、辨經時刻，在那瞬間的眼神交會中。但如紙般輕薄的偽裝，畢竟包不住那一把愛情烈燄，年輕的他被迫離開，而中年的他，在家庭、教會的雙重責任下，必然回到傳統的路子上。然而好不容易活過來的他，愛得更深、更真，是否失去愛情的他，能走回頭路，回去麻木的生命中。此時，妻子更面臨著難堪的困境，傳統的她是如此堅強，愛他的她卻又如此心碎。就在轉角的雜貨店，另一個不被接受的愛情也正上演著。他與她的眉來眼去，破壞了傳統社會的規矩，因為愛情他被逐出教會，而她要被迫嫁給她父親為她選擇的男人，以履行婚約來挽回這個家庭、父親的顏面。這兩人的困境出於違背社會習俗、宗教教義，雖罪孽不比兩個男人間的愛來得重，但承受的卻是同樣的結果。更諷刺的是不可自拔於同志情愛的中年的他，被要求成為這對男女問題的中間人，被要求以教義來開導這兩人，引導他們各自走回正確的道路上。這情何以堪！


因為同情，有感而發，所以懷疑既有的社會現實與文化規則的合法性，更藉著這樣憂鬱、壓抑的藝術表現，隱隱地批判著眼前所見的不合理性。最終的影像並不是個已被決定的結局，因為現有狀態並不允許異於死亡暗喻的結局存在，所以根本沒有他種結局的可能性，但又不滿於這樣輕易臣服於不合理的社會現實，不如讓觀眾自己去設想可能的結果，去反思人性的本能問題，去揣測身為人，面臨所必然遭遇的違逆本性時，到底該如何走下去。這開放性的結局，反倒強調出人在愛情消逝下的心病，更接近了李商隱講：「滄海月明珠有淚，藍田日暖玉生煙。此情可待成追憶，只是當時已惘然。」


安靜、沉穩、陰鬱、壓抑，灰色的光景中沒有激烈的場面，唯一算得上激烈的是屠夫店裡的剁骨宰肉，以及有時下午、有時傍晚的偷情時刻，但在Haim Tabakman鏡頭下的血腥，卻不是暴力，其中的冷漠反倒突顯出被壓抑的人性，一種不甘願但又無奈的妥協，而偷情的肉體激情，更卻乏視覺性的煽動，反倒籠罩著一層薄到看不見，但卻又深入到觀眾視網膜的藍色憂鬱，好似每一次的親密結合，每一次令人驚喜、震顫的真實熱情，都是在準備必然即將到來的分離。這種陰雨、憂鬱、安靜、壓制、無奈與妥協的氛圍，讓這部以色列片帶有希臘導演Theodoros Angelopoulos的風格，沉穩但幾乎是靜止的長鏡頭，又像是侯孝賢對真實自然、生活片段的抓取，而那種專注凝視，令人想起王家衛鏡頭裡的眼神，其中隱含的自我壓抑，更如同李安對人性、情感的細膩處理。


眼神說明了一切，連續動作的影像更幫助了故事的推展，整體氛圍突顯的寫實性形成一種真實感，拉近螢幕與觀眾的距離。在此，音樂的使用不僅是情節的註腳，更拉出了情緒張力，強調悲劇的氛圍，成功地引領觀眾從窺伺的視角進入到反思的位置。形式結構說明這部影片本身的美學價值，但更值得提出的是在語言的運用下，賦予影像形式強烈的社會文化意涵。語言的運用依賴著語境的存在，語境更是現實生活的再現，也因此語意必然反應社會現實，必然突顯文化特質。雖然語言使用也呈現被壓抑的傾向，幾乎沒有不必要的發聲存在，但帶著特殊風格的影像形式所再現的語境，使得語意的展現具有極深刻的文化批判意涵，它挑戰著猶太人的傳統宗教觀，更質疑了傳統猶太教教義的合理性。若缺乏了語言運用，極緩慢、極憂鬱的影像步調，可能變成令人難以承受的視覺壓迫，而故事的含義更可能脫離其題旨，變成「為賦新詞強說愁」。


多數人必然不了解猶太文化，但這部影片詳實地詮釋了猶太文化中的不合理性。導演在藝術架構與手法中，隱藏了強烈的人文關懷，也因此，影片中突出的人性問題，早已超越了猶太文化對同志的壓迫，也走出了同志議題，進入到以神學為根本而對人性的不合理壓抑。不同的傳統文化都有對同志的壓迫問題、對女性的束縛問題、對基本人性的箝制問題。能不能突顯出這些問題的普及性，可否引發一種超越既有視覺意象的心靈回應，有賴於藝術構思與實踐，就像司空圖講「象外之象，景外之景」。雖然影片講的是希伯來文，發生地點是耶路撒冷，但在表現以色列特殊的文化狀態下，導演的影像詮釋拓展了影像的情緒渲染性，讓非屬此文化的人同樣感受到恐怖的人性扼殺，進入到影像的敘事之中，去反思人性自由這至今為止，仍然被既定意識型態所箝制著的根本問題。