Sure, Snail. It's a DVD I bought. If you like to see it before the next meeting which is a month away, we can have coffee some place when convenient and I'll pass it to you.
Watched "The Great Gatsby". Not surprising to see it
adhering closely to the book but also to find the one or two major deviations
understandable, such as Nick’s first real encounter of Gatsby. The surprise
element simply won’t work for the movie as everybody recognizes Robert Redford!
Continuing my obsession with the character Jordan Baker,
let me say that one rarely find one’s favourite character from a book
satisfactorily portrayed in a movie. Lois Chiles' Jordan Baker, however, is a
rare exception, capturing every strand of fascination this character holds for
me. As fine as the performances of Mia Farrow and Karen Black are, their characters
(Daisy and Myrtle) hold no attraction for me, banal, forgettable everyday bimbo
and slut respectively. It’s Baker that grows on you as you read. Unfortunately,
but also understandably, the movie gives her even less of a role than in the
book. But even with the very limited material she has been given, Chiles is
mesmerizing.
Seeing how well this 1974 version was cast, I can't help
trying to come up with a cast today. Jude Law comes up right away, for the title
role. Rebecca Hall seems an almost perfect Jordan Baker. The image of Adrien
Brody then pops up, for Nick, partly because of the resemblance to Sam
Waterston in the 1974 version. Daisy is not difficult to cast and let's just
say Keira Knightley. Tom gets me thinking for a moment and I came up with Brad
Pitt. Two years ago, I would say that he is too much of a screen idol. But
having seen how he has recently let himself loose and tried all kinds of weird characters
(from a male version of a bimbo in "Burn after reading" to even another character
from Fitzgerald - Benjamin Button), I think he would have a lot of fun playing
Tom Buchanan.
I've found (didn't have to look hard) and bought a DVD of Gatsby (Redford's edition). Will try to watch it over the weekend. If anybody is interested, I'll bring it to the next meeting.
1. Two Lucky People: Memoirs of Milton and Rose D. Friedman 兩個幸運的人2. F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby 大亨小傳
Next Meeting:Saturday, 10 October, 20099:30 amC...
Harry 2009-11-06 15:48
金庸小說隨意談
不可以不提〝退休〞作品,有人認為巔峰亦有人認為走火入魔的《綠頂記》(韋小寶有七個老婆,綠頂的機會比別人多六倍)。要說的是韋春花,聯想人物是曹禺《日出》中的翠喜,兩人同是娼妓,雖然一個喜劇性,一個悲劇性,截然相反,但實在同是一個人,世俗眼光中〝人類的渣渽〞(《日出》中的反諷形容,其實曹禺十分喜歡他筆下這個人物,說她有一顆金子一般的心)。在別人眼中,她們不值一哂,但她們有自己的價值,意義。對她們,生存就是意義。韋春花見小寶帶七個老婆衣錦還鄉的喜,翠喜看着小東西受苦的悲,都是她們着實活着的証明。
hyk 2009-11-02 19:57
「大江大海1949」為何被禁 ? (3)
[P. 399- 400],龍的兒子飛力普早前「拒服兵役」(以做義工作「替代役」),九0年,德國有職業軍人走出軍營,抗議聯合國攻打伊拉克,對這些件事,龍這樣說 :
hyk 2009-11-02 19:56
「但看著這些年青人毅然決然地走出軍營, 我感受到這個文化裡强大的自省力,因為上一代曾經給這個世界帶來戰爭的災難,他們的下一代,對戰爭特別地戒慎恐懼。
我不是說, 走出或不走出軍營、主戰或反戰是對的或錯的,我想說的是,如果每一個十九歲的人,自己都能獨立思考,而且,在價值混淆不清、局勢昏暗的關時刻裡,還能夠看清自己的位置,分辨什麼是真正的價值,這個世界,會不會有一點不一樣呢?
……..
每一個個人的決定,其實都會影响到他的同代人,每一代的決定,都會影响到他的下一代。愛,從來都少不了責任。」
hyk 2009-11-02 19:54
龍借今天德國青年對戰爭的態度,對比49年好多青
年被騙、被哄、被拉夫被強迫上戰場,實在用心良
苦。龍清楚點出,我們這個所謂崛起的大國,需要的
是強大的自省力;需要的是有一班能獨立思考、敢於
向權勢say no的年青人。這麼「顛覆」性的思想,配
合那麼多有感染力的故事,中共怎可以容忍。
Snail
Snail
Harry 2009-11-01 18:39
RTHK韓麗珠:
http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/radio1/CultureTalk/20091031.htmlfrimovies 2009-11-01 10:20
Harry
hyk 2009-10-31 23:04
Snail
frimovies 2009-10-31 10:06
金庸小說隨意談
談到金庸寫〝情〞,讀者都會首選楊龍,這絕無異議。但其他可足欣賞的,亦捬拾皆是。例如《書劍》中一節 (不是說主角),爽朗的鴛鴦刀駱冰,看見玉瓶上香香公主俏像,讚嘆是天下第一美人,問丈夫的意見時,沉默穩重的文泰來只〝笑著搖搖頭〞,駱冰一怔之下,已明其意,是說在他眼中,誰也比不上嬌妻,立刻面紅一紅。看官,在這兩人常出生入死,面對生離死別的背景下,此等淡淡的描寫,比起楊龍的千言萬語,實不遑多讓。
Harry
hyk 2009-10-29 23:32
龍應台寫的是「真實」的歷史, 但共產黨衹要求「正確」的歷史。
周大俠 2009-10-29 23:18
hyk 2009-10-29 23:07
「大江大海1949」為何被禁 ? (1)
龍不是共產黨人, 嫁了德國人但竟沒入藉(?)而竟然又一直持有中華民國的護照, 既熱愛中國土地文化, 但又深愛土生土長的台灣, 並自現為世界公民, 這樣的人怎可寫「中國」近代史。hyk 2009-10-29 23:06
「大江大海1949」為何被禁 ? (1)
l 怪要怪龍太多 fans, 一旦她在北京王府井攪簽名會, 万人空巷, 人手一本「1949」排隊排到圍住中南海打蛇餅, 怎辦 ?
hyk 2009-10-29 22:59
Snail
frimovies 2009-10-29 16:57
Harry
hyk 2009-10-29 16:47
《笑傲》也好玩, 桃谷六仙六大騎呢怪最好玩, 但比不上<八部>多元。D情與義也夠<八部>豐。
你估如果束方不敗同喬峯或者段譽或者虛竹單打獨鬥(即隻揪), 边果好打D呢 ?
Snail
frimovies 2009-10-29 15:41
金庸小說隨意談〔希望各位書友別嫌囉嗦,如能加入隨意談更好〕
金庸所有小說中,佈局精密,首尾相應,以《笑傲》居首。全書的一條主線就只是太監的一本奇書,但竟能在這麽多人身上發展開來。直述,旁述,倒述,驟看似千頭萬緒,看下去原來層次分明,抽絲剝繭 ,井井有條。故事中千百疑團,竟然全部互相牽連,沒有半點故佈疑陣,一解開後,立刻順理成章,巧妙之處,難以形容。
Harry
frimovies 2009-10-29 10:09
http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/program_archive.cgi?progdir=tv/siumei&event_name=%3F%3F+%E6%95%BA+%E9%9A%A4%3F+%0A
Harry
hyk 2009-10-28 22:18
晚安 !
Snail
hyk 2009-10-28 22:15
hyk 2009-10-28 22:00
「大江大海1949」為何被禁 ? (2)
(1) 之各點純屬香港亂噏。
以下是一題絕對嚴肅的通識試題 : 「如果你是中共文化部大官, 準備和龍應台講數, 要她删去<大江大海1949>的某些章節, 才可在大陸出書, 你會要求她删去那些章節呢 ? 」希望大家嚴肅回答。
Snail
hyk 2009-10-28 21:52
我剛剛讀完「大江大海」, 因不是一口氣讀完, 雖然內容越來越血腥恐怖慘情, 但仍不至令我麻木, 末段和序(我的習慣讀完全書才讀序言的), 仍有不少令我感動的地方。
Snail
hyk 2009-10-28 21:08
frimovies 2009-10-27 19:56
該讚便讚;該彈便彈
近來看了三輯RTHK 的『薇微語』,李小薇訪問了三個截然不同的人物〔何喜華,馬時亨,周秀娜〕,只覺得她功力之高,足以接己退出了江湖的李碧心的棒。當年鄭大班遇襲,在鬼門関口打了一轉,躺在醫院床上仍氣若游絲,李碧心給他做了個訪問〔記憶中是他唯一接受的訪問〕,是經典之作,當時李小薇應該是尚未出道,但今天的她,應可勝任。反觀同樣是幫RTHK做節目的張寶華,經常和被訪問者〝搶咪〞,相比之下,張只能算三流訪問員。
Harry
亮眼小王子 2009-10-27 09:10
打聲招呼,留言支持一下囉!
frimovies 2009-10-26 22:02
多謝許Sir,但不如說,如果你一世人衹讀一位作家的小說,就讀金庸吧。
同樣同意的是很怕見到極限形容不能量化的東西。你〔不是說你本人〕說喜瑪拉亞山全世界最高我沒話說,但你心目中的最高藝術未必是我心目中的最高藝術。不過這『極限形容』的錯誤,自己犯得太多了。
Harry
hyk 2009-10-26 19:35
開始了<唐滌生> (傳記), 第一個得着是知多了粵劇史; 拜日侵華所賜, 香港淪滔前, 省港粵劇藝人云集香港, 是香港代替了廣州成為粵劇發展中心的一個轉折期, 當時有所謂「薛馬爭雄」, 馬是馬師曾, 薛是薛覺先, 原來薛覺先好勁, 是粵劇的創新先軀, 他曾說 : 「覺先之志, 不獨欲合南北劇為一家, 尤欲綜中西劇為全體, 截長取短, 去粕存精, 使吾國戲劇成為世界公共之戲劇, 使吾國藝術成為世界最高之藝術。」我不太相信有所謂”最高之藝術”這回事, 但"覺先之志", 值得欣賞, 今天粵劇又成為世遺什麼非物質文化遺產, 薛泉下有知, 應老懷大慰。
講到薛馬爭雄, 書中提到40年, 薛的「王超君」與馬的「洪承疇千古恨」打對台, 用的廣告語是 : 「不看王超君不知舞台建設之偉大, 不看王超君不知粵劇進展之驚人。」
Snail
hyk 2009-10-26 19:26
仿廣告語 : 「如果你一世人衹讀一部金庸, 就讀<天龍八部>吧 ! 」Harry, 啱唔唔聽呀!
Snail
阿欣 2009-10-25 22:54
may the blessing is always with you!!
frimovies 2009-10-25 16:32
從『天地圖書』買了上次店員推介的《五十年欄杆拍遍 - 唐滌生粵劇劇本文學探微》,六十八大元,內容包括《牡丹亭驚夢》,《紫釵記》,《再世紅梅記》等等。
Harry
frimovies 2009-10-24 14:22
《天龍八部》自六零年代面世以來,最少有三個版本。其中八零年代的『精裝全集』,分五冊,每冊十回。其極盡精彩之處,是回目用詞牌填,長短不一,從三個字以至兩句也有。但共同之處,是熟悉小說的讀者,一見便立刻在腦中浮起該回情節,或驚心動魄,或感人肺腑,都瀝瀝在目。
舉個例:第二冊11至 20回 –
11 向來痴
12 從此醉
13 水榭聽歌,指點群豪戲
14 劇飲千杯男兒事
15 杏子林中,商略平生義
16 昔時因
17 今日意
18 胡漢恩仇,須傾英雄淚
19 雖萬千人吾往已
20 悄立雁門,絕壁無餘字
想朋友會認得上面這闕《蘇幕遮》,其中流傳較廣的,可能是范仲淹填的「碧雲天,黃葉地,秋色連波,波上寒烟翠………』
http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E8%8C%83%E4%BB%B2%E6%B7%B9%E8%A9%9E%E5%85%A8%E9%9B%86
Harry
長腿妹 2009-10-24 03:09
喜歡你的風格,請加油!
frimovies 2009-10-22 21:45
Harry
frimovies 2009-10-22 21:39
讀完《大江大海》,明白龍應台如何寫到差一點精神崩潰。全部是專業的查訪,記錄。不需〝藝術加工〞,己是鋪天蓋地而來一幅幅血淋淋的景象,訴說着戰爭的殘酷。初看時是連接的震憾,到了後來,麻木了。
Harry
小立 2009-10-21 15:18
hyk 2009-10-17 23:22
我買了西西的<縫熊志>
絕對是一本值得買來收藏的書, 難得的是那份心思, 創意和毅力 ….. 難得的是一把年紀和右手失靈。
一隻熊一個古典人物, 有西西對歷史的考據, 對人物遭遇的感受和評价, 讀來依然給我那種”很positive的西西” feel.
Snailhyk 2009-10-17 22:46
Snail
frimovies 2009-10-16 21:10
hyk 2009-10-16 20:48
再說陳雲的<難忘香港食與色>
本擬擺一本在中六的班房, 但讀幾篇「色」之後就覺得此書實在青少年不宜, 起碼不能由仍是為師的我向學生推介, 至於學生若在書局尋得此書買來翻閱, 當是他一場造化。
「色」部實為另類性教育, 最後一章有陳雲的夫子自道, 抄錄以共賞, Michael Blog主如覺不雅, 删之可也, 此章題為「壯陽」:
「少時於元朗讀初中, 一日同道友人告知, 謂元朗邨之無名書攤, 有絕頂好書, 兩人放學後冒雨往觀 ….. 赫然有<素女經>……. 一冊四元, 看得津津有味, 有相逢恨晚之嘆。 家藏醫書道經甚多, 房術醫術, 互相發明, 自此以後, 男女歡好之事, 有所本焉。友人與我俱居於荒村孤鎮, 年少已染色事, 群戲野合, 幾乎來者不拒。同道友人後東遊美國, 彼邦女色開放, 樂極忘返, 而我則西遊德國, 樂極而回。遊學之前, 曾約定於四十歲時總結平生經歷, 合力考證中國房中之術。今四十已過, 友人無心著述, 我獨力難支, 惟有作罷。」
….. 所删的字句, 是免抄錄太長, 並無雅內容。
Snail
hyk 2009-10-16 20:43
Thx Harry. What is your " TheGreat Gatsby". A DVD ?
Hired or you own it ? If you own it, I like to borrow it from you ?
我有的唐滌生是
1. <唐滌生> -珠海出版社, 是唐的傳記。
2. <唐滌生作品選集> -內有三劇, 牡丹亭惊夢, 帝女花和再世紅梅記。
惜都是簡体, 未必有心机展讀。
Snail
Amy 2009-10-15 23:20
frimovies 2009-10-15 22:51
Watched "The Great Gatsby". Not surprising to see it adhering closely to the book but also to find the one or two major deviations understandable, such as Nick’s first real encounter of Gatsby. The surprise element simply won’t work for the movie as everybody recognizes Robert Redford!
Continuing my obsession with the character Jordan Baker, let me say that one rarely find one’s favourite character from a book satisfactorily portrayed in a movie. Lois Chiles' Jordan Baker, however, is a rare exception, capturing every strand of fascination this character holds for me. As fine as the performances of Mia Farrow and Karen Black are, their characters (Daisy and Myrtle) hold no attraction for me, banal, forgettable everyday bimbo and slut respectively. It’s Baker that grows on you as you read. Unfortunately, but also understandably, the movie gives her even less of a role than in the book. But even with the very limited material she has been given, Chiles is mesmerizing.
Seeing how well this 1974 version was cast, I can't help trying to come up with a cast today. Jude Law comes up right away, for the title role. Rebecca Hall seems an almost perfect Jordan Baker. The image of Adrien Brody then pops up, for Nick, partly because of the resemblance to Sam Waterston in the 1974 version. Daisy is not difficult to cast and let's just say Keira Knightley. Tom gets me thinking for a moment and I came up with Brad Pitt. Two years ago, I would say that he is too much of a screen idol. But having seen how he has recently let himself loose and tried all kinds of weird characters (from a male version of a bimbo in "Burn after reading" to even another character from Fitzgerald - Benjamin Button), I think he would have a lot of fun playing Tom Buchanan.
frimovies 2009-10-15 22:49
喜購得《辛苦種成花錦繡 - 品味唐滌生帝女花》,灣仔「天地圖書」,一百大元正。其中收集的文章,十分精彩。但內容焦點全集中《帝》劇,而不是唐滌生的傳記。周六帶來給各位一看。
hyk 2009-10-15 19:57
Snail
frimovies 2009-10-13 22:05
Harry