I think the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had better change its name to the Academy of Motion Picture ethnic and ethics. "Crash" winning this years Oscar? Give me a break!

Ann Lee won the Best Director award. It is so obvious that the directing in Crash is not masterful enough, so that they have to separate the Best Picture and Best Director awards this time if they want to give the Best Picture to Crash for the subject matter. But is Crash deserve this award for itself, comparing with all the other nominees? The answer is no. The film is not bad, it did well on organizing the complex subject, on details, on bringing up the conflicts and resolving them. But the plot was too dramatic, too predictable. Everything was based on a shallow idea of causes and consequences. This simplified version of the idea, was neither convincing, nor realistic. Who would believe that a white racist police officer sexually harassed an African-American woman in front of her husband, could then saved the same woman's life in a deadly exposure days later? A shop owner, who bought a gun the day before, had his shop damaged and denied insurance reimbursement, poured his revenge towards a locksmith, uncovered his name AND ADDRESS, tried to kill him at home, but accidentally shot the locksmith's daughter? And the bullet was a blank? They cannot happen, even in the movies. Maybe I am the shallow one that does not understand the metaphor. Still, I would not call a film a good one if I could tell the rest of the plot when I saw the first 1/3 of it. A predictable movie is boring. Period.

I was wondering, after finished watching Crash, why a film deals with racial and cultural stereotype is full of stereotype itself, as if the world stopped developing. There are a lot of little old tricks like the "brake" vs. "blake" etc., but all those tricks and old fashioned stories didn't touch the deep root of the problem. The misunderstanding and social intolerance of certain ethnic groups. Most people, while working on racial issues, did not realize let alone understand the history. No one truly regrets the wrong doings one or one's ancestors did. Without the understanding and regrets, one always think of oneself as the giver, the other parties the receivers. Positioning themselves like that, the racial issue will never be resolved.

Some Best Picture winners can never become a classic. Crash will be one of them. Shame on the Academy. There are much better films this year. What is the reason why they did not vote for Brokeback Mountain or Good Night, and Good Luck. I didn't know. Or I guess I should know according to the new name of the Academy.

I haven't seen a touching film like this for a long time. Even days after the film, I still feel heartbreaking whenever I thought of the story. I think the film came out at a very important turning point of human society: you can either accept homosexuality and live on, or deny it and become history.

What impressed me most was not the social significance of the movie, nor was the beautiful scenery of the open mountains, rather, it is the convincing sad love story between the two men.

It is always difficult to make a film that tells a REAL love story. Almost impossible to put years of tedious love affairs into a 2 hour feature. Ann Lee's Brokeback Mountain, avoiding most of the cliches that romance films have, plays so smoothly that you barely feel the time running. Every minute of this 134-minute film is attractive to the viewer. The touching details were rendered so well that your emotion moves along with the characters.

How do we define love? Is it often being planned and developed through routine intelligence? I seriously doubt that. I believe that love is actually series of accidents: you're attracted to someone without even notice it. But even the shortest realization of love would cause you to memorize it for your lifetime. Then in this term, love is not an accident at all. When massive accidental dots linked together, a line forms like an unbreakable linkage between the two. This was exactly what happened between Ennis and Jack. There were so many accidental attraction between them, no matter it was story telling, liquor drinking or intimate touching or sighting. Therefore the "accidental" love making in that freezing night was not a sudden event at all.  After that, daily routine carried on with increased intimacy. It was so natural and so real. Until the final fight at the end of the season. The fight was definitely not physical, it was a fight for their human nature against what the then society didn't allowed. But they failed, went back to their "normal" plans, married to women and had kids. But the love can not be hide, even though it was not publicized. You can see the joy and passion when two of them get together four years later, as if they were never apart. That's how strong the link between lovers could be.

No one can deny Heath Ledger's portraying of Ennis del Mar, an introvert man imprisoned by social restrictions. This shy cowboy has strong feelings for responsibility. During this 20-year love affair, both of the men were struggling, while the fact that their fears toward the violent punishment and social humiliation they may confront, were they being exposed, was hurting both of them; and not only them, but also other parties. This little tragedy certainly reflects the price a society has to pay if there are less social tolerance. It is so clear that although deeply in love with Jack, Ennis suffers so much from social stereotype that he can not accept the offer of living together with his beloved partner. Well, there might be escape for "fishing trips", there would never be any freedom if the minds were not freed.

People came out the theater with tears. There are so many simple but touching scenes in the film. I was told about the movie from so many people so many times. Still, seeing it in person is a wonderful experience. You HAVE to see it yourselves.

Hopefully someday, everyone may have their shirts joint together with the one they love without suffering so much.

I will update my blog here from time to time, but it is more convenient for me to write blog on my msn space. So please check my blog there if this blog is way out of date. Thanks.

http://spaces.msn.com/members/MPDF/

How disappointing, the 4th Harry Potter movie

The 3rd Harry Potter film is a fine example of the art of film direction. For Harry Potter lovers, the 4th one should be even better. Simply because the 4th book is the best. I have to admit, the Goblet of Fire is a difficult book to adapt. There are several stories. All of them are exciting and rich in characters. Putting them
altogether in a two something hour movie will never be easy. But what I saw last weekend was not anything I was expecting. There is no excuse for make such a bad film out a wonderful book. With $10 wasted, I would sincerely suggest those who haven't seen the movie to read the book instead of going to the theaters. This, is a fine example of the films that you can not understand if you didn't read the book before watching.

Of the omissions and alternations made in the film, some are due to the sensitivity of the material. (Yeah, by stating sensitive, I mean politically.) Therefore, most of the "Pure-bloods" vs. "Muggle-bloods", humans vs. giants, wizards vs. house elves talk disappeared from the movie. The important plot driven house elves like Winky and Dobby even didn't present in the movie, let alone the "House-Elf Liberation Front" established by Hermoine. I know it is ironic, but those omissions are reasonable. Even though I think the book did a much better job. Basically, the Harry Potter is about class and discrimination. "Human" rights and privileges. To me, the old theme of the conflicts between the Dark and the Bright is secondary.

But what about other things that were in the book but not in the film? After all, Harry Potter books are about magic. It should be a kids movie anyhow. I think Hagrids' Blast-Ended Skrewts would make many children laugh. It wasn't there. What about the Quidditch World Cup? They generated a spectacular playing fields for the game, which reminded me of the Centre Pompidou of Paris, but no real scene of the game was played. I was still expecting the game to begin, in the next cut, the game was over. What was that about?

The Triwizard Tournament is equally ridiculous. Seems to me only the performance of our hero, Mr. Potter, was worth shotting. Did anyone else
actually competed in the tournament? I didn't know, because I didn't see it. Yes, yes, our hero is special. However, he still can not continue without the help of his friends and family. Then, why, why, the effort of Sirius Blake, Ron and
Hermoine etc. were completely removed from the picture? And just because of this, the fireplace scene, where Sirius, Harry's Godfather, talked to Potter, didn't make any sense. What are they going to do about the next film? Nevermind! I should stop right here now. If I continued, I could ruin your pleasure of reading the book yourself.

Oh, the ugly 3D mermaids;
and the evil death eater parades;
the movie's so dark,
that a child shouts,
Mom, so afraid I am, let's go home and play cards.

I think it was year ago Google announced its new project: Scan and share printed material (books mainly) from 5 major libraries to the general public. What a great idea! But to some people, the idea was and is annoying. Why? Because it is free. Therefore, Google gets sued. And this is the second time.

From very early years of industrialization, some people, whom I'd like to call Profiters, started to make money out of anything. While clearly a lot of things should never be sold, the product line of those Profiters soon includes arts & sciences, health care, education and anything, even things that we can not think of. Under the disguise of human nature and a hint of benefits to the working personnels, patents and copyrights were created. Most people accept it, whereas I think it differently.

Every bit of human knowledge should be shared by the entire human race. At the early age of man, there wasn't anything called patent or copyright, neither there should be in the future.

As a researcher, I often feel hard to understand what writers do everyday. Suddenly I realized being a writer is no easy job. I think the hardest thing they are doing everyday is to observe and think. Then it is really a bitter work to put the story and thoughts down on the paper. Fact checks, searching memories, making sure everything is understandable and beautiful.

Maybe there is no task in the world that can be called a "easy job".

前几天看了LZJ发的500部电影列表，才发现 Ingmar Bergman还拍了这部歌剧。一查，图书馆居然有。1975年的电影，彩色片，135分钟，德文，英文字幕，而且是双声道立体声音乐，不可思议。我们学校的版本是Criterion Edition，几乎就是当前最好的版本。歌剧的拍摄方法是，先录音，然后演员在台上对口形（背景播放录音）。按Bergman的严格要求，这并不难。

总的来说，录音效果很好。无论从音乐还是音效来听都很优秀。表演上，Papageno的男演员非常出色。相对而且言，演Pamino的要生硬得多。演唱上“夜后”的花腔明显不足，相比之下，我手头的Otto Klemperer双CD版要好很多。

第一幕，同原剧编排一样。三位仙女的表演和男主角Tamino的表演都不错。Papageno的出场很精彩，让人一下子就喜欢上这个小伙子。接近第一幕结尾处三位仙女指点Tamino和Papageno去找三个小童那一小段的音乐只有莫扎特能写出来。太美，太美。

第二幕的序列做了一些小改动。魔笛的原剧有一些不合逻辑的地方。Bergman的这个魔笛删去了一些场景，而且对有的场景安排做了一点调整，我个人认为是令人信服的。只是可惜第二幕第11首的三重奏被删去了。

《War of the World》讲述的是一小撮外星恐怖分子入侵地球结果被“禽流感”感染而全体灭亡的故事。

大多数这类的外星人入侵地球故事都象梁羽生写的武侠小说：开头很精采，头绪万千，情节展开得很棒。看到结尾却让人大呼上当。

Teddy总结了美国科幻片的三个代表，我也来小小总结一下外星人入侵片的几点特征：

1。必然有力量强大（科技发达/武器先进），面目丑恶的外星生物。不管是硬科幻也好软科幻也好，外星生物的形象总是让人看着难受，还时不时流涎淌水。

2。必然有定人惊异的反常"自然"现象，人们总是很好奇的围观，即使知道于自己有生命危险。

3。必然有大面积逃亡的景象，无论是在人口众多的城市，还是地广人稀的乡村。所有人都是那么惊慌，无助 -- 世界末日就在眼前。

4。人类武器几乎无效。于是在大多数情况下，世界强国开始考虑使用核弹。

5。经过无数无用的抵抗，最终有人，多半是我们的主角，会发现对外星生物的致命打击。特效而且讯速。可怜的外星人，科技发达到能进行星际旅行，对自己的身体却知之甚少。

我看到小汤同学被人从那恶心的东西里拉出来时，以为人类会组织敢死队。可惜最后连看一场精彩的外、人大战的希望也破灭了。

如果不是斯皮尔伯格执导，这部影片也许很快就会被人遗忘。我喜欢影片的前半部，也喜欢地下室那个”探针“场景。如果把这一场景同影片的恐怖气氛独立开来，想象成为一个好奇外来者在观察。

看网上评论，很多人将此片同希区柯克的《鸟》相比。但大师就是大师，对于《鸟》，故事并没有解决，给人留下无穷的想向空间。

中国科学的理论体系，同西方科学的理论体系不同。但就科学本身来讲，就是人们对现象的解释，是一种人对自然的观察的总结和推理。有的总结和推理被很多证据支持，得到多数人承认，这就是科学。中医的理论，同西医的理论立足点不同，但不能根据这一点就说西医是科学，中医是伪科学。因为二者观察的角度不同。两者各有解决不了的问题。但是中西药都可以治病，这是事实，不是迷信。现在多数人用西医，是因为它对有些疾病，处理快（副作用也大），在它的科学体系中逻辑明确（虽然只是对病症生理的一方面解释）。同时，在近几十年西方科学快速发展的情况下，中国的传统科学却因为种种原因严重滞后。迷信西方科学，同迷信中国传统科学在本质上没有区别。西方科学体系和中国传统科学体系在本质上也没有区别。从我个人来讲，视野广阔一些，对于人类对自然的认识会更有利。

薄熙来形象地说：“你给我们的企业加上半斤的压力，我就要给它撤掉八两的负担。”

纽约时报： he said, "we'll adjust our policies accordingly. If you place five ounces of pressure on our businesses, we'll remove eight ounces of their burdens."

中国人都知道成语"半斤八两"，因为古制一斤十六两，半斤自然就是八两了。纽约时报的记者翻译不应该不知道这一点，我相信他们比不少中国人还中国通。目的太明显，这多出来的3盎司完全改变了句子的原意。作者立场如此鲜明地歪曲事实，我算是又见识到美国媒体妖魔化中国的实例了。

If the Journalist knew a little bit more about Chinese Culture, he should know where does this half 'pound ', 8 'ounces' thing come from. The Chinese unit 'Jin' (斤) simple equals to 16 'Liang' (两). Therefore, half Jin equals to 8 Liang, period. I don't know whether someone was so ignorant not knowing this, or it was just an intentional 'mistake' made to sabotage the meaning of the original sentence.