Finished with face off

There’s a certain procrastination and even narcissism in merely facing up to something for too long without taking action. Think of it like staring at the mirror at that much reviled blemish on your face, constantly whining about how it does injustice to you.  Frankly, if you don’t contribute your part of the deal to do some action at facial damage control with the latest creams and gels, I’d think one fully deserves that big spot on one’s face.

Facing up to a problem is merely the initial step of removing one’s self-pity. However, if one just faces it and stares at it, then I’ll really wonder how much progress is made towards the journey out of whining. Sometimes not facing something doesn’t mean denial. It just means you have other things which you know you are capable of attending to, and you’d rather devote time and effort to something which brings about results. Maybe it’s because I’ve become too Singaporean in mindset, and result-oriented.

The difference between the two can be seen from the two Chinese phrases 面对 and 应对. The second suggests an extension of the first, a participatory element, regardless of what the results may be. In a game of monopoly where one gets jailed, 应对 actually means many scenarios. One may make an active move to pay the fine to get out and continue to proceed; or continue trying to throw a double whenever during one’s turn to try getting out free; or in the most extreme case totally withdraw from the game altogether. 面对 merely means sitting there watching the game continue one without making any move at all.

面对 is only one stop short of procrastination and imbecility on one’s part to cope, it is certainly nothing I’d boast about. 应对goes beyond this to suggest a maturity on one’s part to accept whatever happens regardless of the results, as I’d like to decipher “应对”’s “应” comes from the phrase “应该”, meaning what one deserves or what must happen ultimately. I’d much rather taking ownership and responsibility over myself than leave any opportunity to moan. At least it leaves one ultimately with no regrets, ya?

Baaa... Humbug about sight!

I was moved by God recently to read the scripture pertaining to God’s command to Abraham to offer Issac as a burnt sacrifice to him. Previously this passage had never had much significance to me and I had always read through it with a “ho-hum” kind of breezy manner. That is till last night.

 

I had been nursing this discontentment against a friend recently. We were previously very close on matters of the heart as we were both down on the dumps of sorts. Then something within me had shook and I decided that my acknowledgment period was up, it was “proceeding onward” time.  However she wasn’t too convinced that I had completely given due face to my problems and was still trying to run away from them. This got me quite pissed and resulting in the following “cooling off period” with her. Till this day I still cannot really bring myself to speak to her at ease. Turns out both she and me are both right and wrong at the same time. Indeed I hadn’t completely acknowledged my fears and desires, BUT it was also true that it was high time for moving on. Some things can progress in parallel.

This is where I’ll like to examine a bit of how Abraham’s psyche functioned in the passage. God had sworn to bless him with countless descendants and though initially skeptical, he had been bestowed upon Issac in the latter years of his life. So imagine the conflict and confusion when God command him to offer his very own son as a burnt offering.  One thing very kiam pah about the Bible is that it rarely does direct narration of the internal struggles of the characters, but chooses to let us readers do detective work instead by depicting the character’s words and actions.

For actions wise, Abraham was very obedient to God by going about his exact commands. However what struck me was the portion when during his journey with Issac and his servants to the sacrificial hill, the exact words he had replied his servants.

“Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

Genesis 22:5 (NIV)

 

Abraham was struggling to reconcile how was he able to have his son, but yet still offering his son as a burnt offering to God at the same time. He definitely couldn't see how all this would work out. The bold line felt more like to prayer to God than a passing remark to inform his servants. This is further evidenced later when Issac asked him where the lamb was and his reply.

“God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.”

Genesis 22:8 (NIV)

 

The interesting thing to note is that the two conflicting ideas within Abraham, love and obedience towards God, and love for his own son, neither was sinful. It just seemed that merely irreconcilable at the time.

I was wondering to myself, was Abraham clinging onto a tiny hope that God would withdraw his initial command. The more I read, the more I had to admit yes. That would explain the use of plurals when he informed his servants of the arrangements to return, and his reply to his son that God would provide a lamb eventually. And Jesus did offer himself up at the ultimate lamb offering much much later on…
 

Though I’ve done personality analysis test and found myself to fit primarily in the Melancholic group represented by Abraham, I admit in doing this tightrope act of both obedience to God while acknowledgment of self wise, I’m still kind of shaky. Some parts of myself I constantly deny out of this fear that it is indication of disobedience and disloyalty towards God. However, God has pushed me towards examining this aspect hard, as denial of self would then run risk of the dishonesty to God. And please lah, kidding God?! Impossible con job…

As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust.

Psalms 103:13-14 (NIV)

 

This Saturday I’ll be bringing my own “Issac” up prayer hill. Ok, so God hasn’t promised me anything concrete apart from “plans to prosper” and “give you hope and a future”. Bleah, talk about ambiguity. -_- Precisely because of this ambiguity, the concept of “prosperity, hope and a future” are as abstract to me as that of describing colours to a person who is born blind. However, God also never penalizes anyone for construction ideas of what this “prosperity, hope and a future” are. Like I was remarking to a Christian mentor about how coincidental that I’d be having Dialogue in the Dark session at Ngee Ann Polytechnic this Saturday with my friends, when you do not have any sight of what the future holds, it doesn’t necessarily mean you have to shut off the four other senses to what lies ahead. Meanwhile I’ll just keep listening to the below few verses to reassure myself while constructing a better idea what the “plans to prosper” and “give you hope and a future” may look like. Time to listen to His voice more when he doesn’t want to show me things. For all I know, I may starting hearing a “baa” somewhere calling.


Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
John 20: 29 (NIV)

No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.
1 Corinthians 10:13 (NIV)

剧本的重要：通过古装剧看本土原创剧本的兴衰沦亡

记得小时候蛮积极追看第八播道的电视剧。那时的剧集在道具背景hardware方面虽然极其简陋，但在剧情与演员software方面都能弥补那些不足。尤其怀念小时候的本土古装剧集。在还没正式开始涉足金庸、古龙大师级武侠小说的世界之前，我是通过这些原创的古装剧深深被吸引。

严格上来说，新加坡早期的古装剧的原创性也其实蛮“有限”，只是普遍观众阅历太浅，看不到“真相”。就拿刘天富制作、周初明主演的《最后一个大侠》，剧本情节是由许多武侠名著如的各别桥段组织而成。兄弟从小分离并被忠奸两派分别带大的桥段就出自《绝代双骄》，奸角紫罗刹简直就是《笑傲江湖》里东方不败与岳不群的结合体，而结局的兄弟间unresolved cliff-hanger mode 则像极《侠客行》的结尾。与其说这部剧抄袭，毋宁说刘监制与他的编剧组参考那些各别武侠名著，用自己的创意将其结合成一个全新的创作，毕竟抄袭的真正定义是“照单全收”，而刘监制根本没那么做。甚至非常佩服以前的编剧能这么不漏痕迹的运用桥段及人物衔接来不停制作出古装剧集，这堪称不失为一种独特的原创性。这种变相的原创性除了展现当时编剧们的创意，也给剧集带来了适当的breathing space，使得戏剧组免了需要满足观众预先设定的要求的束缚。

可是自从第八播道《神雕侠侣》开始，本土编剧便落入了一种惰性，索性将整部名著照拍。其实将名著照单全收拍摄也没什么罪，只是风险更高，因为观众已经对情节与人物都了如指掌，有了先入为主的成见，使得戏剧组有了必须抓紧原著精髓的困难，少了原创性带来的自由空间。非常可惜的，毕竟新传媒在名著直接改编方面能力有限，着重与哗众取巧的人物造型，而忽略遴选适当的演员的重点，使得那些制作褒贬参半，后来因为制作成本对比回响问题，便索性完全停止制作古装剧了。

其实这种惰性问题不只局限在古装剧，而甚至蔓延到了时装剧制作。虽然我已经近期没有追看新传媒的电视剧，但从那些还有偶尔观看的朋友那边得来的反应，新传媒的电视剧的策略似乎离剧本创意越来越远，而注重运用引入外来影星来加强收视率以及开展售卖市场。这些策略本身并没错，但是治标不治本，并不能一劳永逸地解决观众长期流失的问题。作为一个从小看着第八播道的电视剧长大的观众，我还是对本土剧持有期望的，希望新传媒有天能正视加强剧本这环节。

剧情或情节发展对比人物发展 对演员表现的影响

既然从小就已经迷上追电视剧，索性干脆开始一个blog 关于自己身为观众对戏剧的一些所得。

最近开始追看一些港剧。虽然据说港剧也跟本地电视剧一样出现没落的现象，可能是我“崇外”心态，至少觉得多数港剧还是比本土剧加倍精彩，但关于本土剧对比港剧的各别没落法，我将留到另一个blog entry 再讨论。这一期想研究的反而是plot development 剧情或情节发展对比character development 人物发展。

通过近一年所观看的港剧，我才发现一出剧要做到两者兼顾是多么困难的事。有时因为剧种问题先天局限了这方面的平衡。就拿黎耀祥的三部剧作《巾帼枭雄1》、《巾帼枭雄2之义海豪情》与《法证先锋3》来说。许多网民都觉得黎先生在《法证先锋3》的表现不比巾帼系列的过往表现，所以才在2011年无法蝉联视帝。很庆幸自己是先观看《法证先锋3》，后观看巾帼系列，所以先入为主的可能性减少了。我倒觉得拿《法证3》对比巾帼系列根本欠缺公正，因为它们剧种南辕北撤。

《法证3》注重剧情发展，由许多不同的各别个案组成，人物发展是用来铺排整体剧情，展示法证界人士如何屡破奇案。甚至严格上来讲，这出剧的剧情与背景就是主角，而并非某位各别人物，所以男主角布国栋与女主角的互动进展显得相当薄弱。巾帼系列则正好相反，注重人物发展，显示人物的各别与对于彼此之间的变化、互动与进展。柴九对四奶奶之间慢慢建立的既感佩又爱慕的心态；刘醒与九妹由相互敬畏演变至惺惺相惜甚至彼此爱慕，这些本身便是剧本的大纲，所以主角之间的互动显得格外激情澎湃。个人认为在剧种局限内，要求无论多好的同一个演员达到相同的表演水平是相当不公平，因为根本做不到。这就好比要求一个顶级赛车手驾驶一架平常的轿车，来达到赛车的车速，不出车祸都是奇迹呢！

Word Play 13: 安、满、贪

Am still soaked up in the "negative and antagonist" feelings, to quote someone, from what had originally been a harmless debate on nationalistic identity last night. Those who had been contended my argument had persisted in their stand that I was highly 不安于现状, or to put in english, greatly discontented with the status quo. Thus, their advice had been for me to learn how to be contented with the current situation, and count my blessings.

A bit of disclaimer first. As a believer of Christ, it is definitely part of our requirement to rejoice daily in the blessings that He has bestowed upon us. However, note that the blessings come from God, not some government, ministry, ministers, authorities, or people in superior posititons over us. In fact these higher ups should not place themselves on a pedestal akin to God when delaing with us. They must keep in mind that since God has the ability to give them the power they enjoy now, God has the power to take it away anytime.

Ok, back to the main topic. Those who had been debating on the opposite end of me had missed the point. I had been trying unsuccessfully to communicate my 不安, or insecurity and fear of my future to them. 不安 by itself means insecurity, stemming from the one's fear of inability to provide for one's basic needs. 不安于现状 however twists the original lone noun into something akin to 不满, meaning discontent, or displeasure over the status quo.

Now to my favourite graphic use, the Venn diagram. Discontent can stem from insecurities and fears due to an inability to provide one's basic needs for survival, being legitimate as it is an innate reaction for all living creatures to sustain oneself. However, discontent can also come from 贪, or greed, where one is driven by the uncontrollable desire to aquire increasing wants beyond needs. Note that the stark difference between the two, as discontent driven by insecurity is grounded in reason, unless one has decide to foresake hope altogether. In fact, I would think that to be content while facing threats to one's survival would be considered an amazing feat, which a mere mortal like me would find it difficult to pull off.

Indeed one must learn to be content with one's blessings. However, when the situation arises such that one finds out alarmingly that the pool of blessings for our nation has been depleted at an astonishing rate, to continue on in a "even though we don't have three blessings, at least now we still have two" mindset, smacks of ignorance and lack of urgency to address the issue. I believe many like me don't claim to be the "solve-it-all", quoting from one of the others from last night, at least we bother to be aware and have the intention to want to roll up our sleeves to "make the blessings three again". Even if it ends in failure, we know we have fought the good fight. That is the basic essence of survival.

Word Play 12: Actual vs. Virtual

I've submitted my resignation for my current job and have finally moved on. It is not without wistfulness that I leave this place as of next week, as there are people and duties that I do not wish to part from as they have helped me towards "actualisation". Since it's time for adios, I might as well be open about my latest job scope as it does not infringe upon confidentiality issues.  I assist in Brailling for the visually handicapped in Singapore, namely when a person has virtually lost enough sight and vision to be categorised as blind, I assist in actualising the study material for him or her using the sense of touch through Braille print and tactile diagrams. This past year has been quite a bizzare year such that till now I cannot come up with any appropriate adjective to describe it other than "happening".

There's been a constant debate around the blind community about the impending death of Braille due to the rise of audio technology versus the traditional touch technology of Braille. Here instead of rooting for a particular camp per se, I've like to move into the concept of the "actual" versus "virtual", and using the visually handicapped community as an analogy, apply it across the board towards the relationships between all people. Let's take a look at their definitions.

Actual

1. existing in act or fact; real; existing now; present; current

Virtual

1. being such in power, force, or effect, though not actually or expressly such

Upon the lost of sight, the concept of vision to a blind person has become a virtual one. He can be aided by his other senses sound and touch and taste, which in this case are the power and forces still existing to help him have experience something as akin to sight as possible. However the person needs to admit that no matter what, his sight has ceased to exist to a certain degree.

There's often talk going about virtual reality, about how we're moving into a virtual age. Personally, I've very mixed feelings towards phrases like these as they forebode some very "happening" things. With the advancement towards the virtual over the actual through technology, the triangle dilemma of time, quantity and quality has indeed "disappeared", or has it really? I've chatted once with a colleague over this triangle dilemma theory, saying that if the size of the triangle is fixed, there is no way of attaining a joint increase in all three, as in order to move closer towards any end, at least one end will be compromised. I had hypothesied that the best way to resolve this dilemma would be to shrink the actual size of the triangle as much as possible. As we proceed on in this virtual age, the triangle has vanished, or it seems. However, my hypothesis has been to shrink the triangle, not delete it altogether, because frankly this triangle will never cease to exist. In fact, the harrowing thing may be that we have convinced ourselves it has vanished, because we may have unwittingly expanded it size beyond our wildest dreams, or more appropriately, nightmares...

In the specific realm of relationships with others, one has to first and foremost define self, before moving onto relate one's self to another. Without defining, or drawing one's boundaries, this case of no free reins is going to render the concept of relationships into non-existence. How much we bother to define things, indicate the relevance and priority we actually place on it.

I know that this entry is a very abstract one, and I have no clear cut explanations or solutions. They are merely my POVs and if they're unwelcome, please take them in grace as rantings of a mad woman. I'll just end off with this line of my own, drawn from my past year of interactions with the blind community.
Without hearing you, what transpires between us will be silence; without my hand in yours, I'll have no idea on when it is I'm tresspassing, and when it is I'm removed from you; without the guidance of your scent, I'll have no concept of the aroma of relating to you; without the assistance of taste the flavour of our interactions, my life would be bland. You actualise me. Without the sensation of you with me, part of me will cease to exist as I'm in the dark about you...

张无忌 never had a choice anywayz...

Strictly speaking, 张无忌 never did choose 赵敏 over any of the other three ladies. His choices were merely conveniently eliminated till he was left with her as the only "best choice". Let's run through what happened to get a better idea.

小昭 was "axed off" early on when it was revealed that her mum was the Sacred Virgin of the 明教, and in order to resolve the pressing extermination of the entire group due to her mum's flaunting of the cult's regulations, she had to sacrifice her own happiness by standing in for her mum and going off away to Persia.

殷离's case is slightly a bit more complex to the readers as it looked it as though "无忌 never loved her anyway". However, if we read carefully in volume 2 pertaining to the stretch where both were stranded together for companionship, with him lame from injury then and her disfigured, there was some ambiguous relationship between them two that had way surpassed that of mere friends. However in the aftermath of 周芷若's "ultimate faceoff", by attempting to murder 殷离, banish 谢逊, steal both the Heavenly Sword and Dragon Sabre and put the blame on 赵敏 all in one move, something may have caused the unfortunate lady to have felt greatly jaded with her relationship with 张无忌, resulting in the final chapter when she "returns from the dead" to reveal the truth, but totally relinquishes her participation right in the competition over the man, ranting continuously like a mental patient that she loved the former him, not the "current him".

Considering 周芷若's villainous turn two-thirds into the novel, attributed to her vow to her 师傅灭绝师太 to resort any means possible to obtain both the sword and sabre, while never to fall in love with 无忌, it is only natural that she does not end up with 无忌. I have not yet read of any Chinese swordfighting novel with the main male protagonist ending happily ever after with an evil female protagonist of such proportions.

The most remotely closest to such a case was 《云海玉弓缘》, and even then it was a romantic tragedy with 金世遗 realising his intense hatred for 励胜男 was actually a mask for his passionate love for her, as the two of them were way too alike in nature. Also strictly speaking, 励胜男's actions were never evil-intentioned, as shown during the revelation in the last chapter, leading to 金世遗's eternal agony. However maetsro Louis Cha and master 梁羽生 have very different writing styles and themes, so that I'll leave to a future discussion.

It is a great move on maestro Louis Cha's part, that he ended 《倚天屠龙记》with a scary clifthanger-ish ending where while 张无忌 and 赵敏 are finally literally enjoying life, 周芷若 appears with a "you still owe me one reminder" to scare the heck out of 无忌. Thus,《倚天屠龙记》's ending surpasses 《侠客行》's twin's birth mystery, and even can match the renown "to kill or not to kill" dilemma in《雪山飞狐》, as its possibilities are just as "juicy".