UP

From the greatest animation studio Pixar, Finding Nemo's screenwriter Bob Peterson together with Monster Inc's director Pete Docter brought us one of the best movie this year - UP!

A simple enough and even childish plot of adventurous journey brings two seemingly different people together with unexpected chemistry, life lessons and ending.

Carl is a 78-year-old widower living lonely in his house that is the only house in the neighbourhood hindering the local urbanisation construction work. He is therefore forced to move or otherwise would be sent to the Elderly Home. With his whole harmonious life with his wife Ellie spent and many sweet memories shared in the house, stubborn as he may seem, there's no way he could give up the house so easily --- and he resorts to flying the house UP into the sky by attaching thousands of balloons to it, going onto an expedition searching for the dream destination "Paradise Falls" in South America, a trip that Carl and Ellie both so desperately wished for but never materialised before.

Russell is an 8-year-old Wilderness explorer scout, who gets neglected constantly by his divorced parents, by random chance he meets Carl due to his obsessive urge to help an elderly so as to collect the last one merit badge that he lacks - "Helping the Elderly" badge!

As a result, Russell is accidentally brought along for Carl's eventful trip on the flying house.





Alright, it follows the constant "buddy" formula of Pixar, and predictably it also has a villain and a talking dog in it too to inject suitable tension and comic relief. Cliche as it may sound, UP is exceptional in its poignant and touching delivery, subtle symbolism and life lessons underneath the superficial plot and entertainment.

While the youngsters would be happy to see the funny dogs and various visual gags, grown-ups will surely be enchanted by the 4-minute non-verbal montage showing Carl and Ellie's married life together till death set them apart. It's full of ups-and-downs, with sweetness, romance, unpredictable events, and overwhelming sentiment. Backed by superb music of Michael Giacchino's original composition, it gives the audience such an emotional roller-coaster ride and also a decent back story for Carl's character. We could understand fully his deliberate isolation and grumpy personality there after.





Another important thing revealed in this marvelous montage is that the couple cannot have their own baby. As a result, they turned their dream, energy and money into planning a trip to visit the Paradise Falls, which however was made impossible due to a series of unfortunate life events and later Ellie's ill health. So, unlikely as Russell may seem, he is in fact a perfect companion to old Carl for the adventure. Subconsciously, through the journey, Carl becomes the father figure to the boy, and as a result Russell in a way compensate for the child Carl has never had.

Though Russell maybe a bit energetic, noisy, and even mischievous at times, he reminds Carl of the young Ellie, and he makes him chuckle and lights up his life once again. In fact, on closer look, Carl and Russell do share many similarities : They are both stubborn, determined, adventurous and obsessive but in the wrong way. While Russell is obsessed with collecting all the scout's merit badges so to draw his parents' attention and love, Carl is obsessed with the objects and memories in the house which reminds him of a great life he once had with his wife, and so he is determined to fulfill Ellie's unfinished dream by taking the house to the destination. Miserably enough, they both know deeply that even their respective goals are attained, nothing would actually be changed.

Speaking of which, there comes the major lesson in the movie - To let go. The flying house itself is symbolic enough in the middle of the movie, with the "precious" objects in the house thrown out by Carl in order to let the house soar again. As Ellie wrote in her adventure book, it's really time for Carl to have his own adventure after the one they shared together before.

Another thing that touches me dearly is about the "Little moments" in our lives. Like the little things that Carl and Ellie did together and being captured as photo in the adventure book. Nothing like that real expedition that they had planned, however is not less memorable or adventurous. Similarly, the little scout told Carl about how he missed the time he spent with his father by just sitting together on the curb eating ice-cream and guessing the colour of cars passing in front. Nothing fancy or extravagant at all.

I hope we all can cherish every little moments that we have in life, instead of chasing and getting lost in the "big dreams" that we so much desire and obsessed with..........and strange enough in life, sometimes those big dreams are accomplished in their own mysterious way which is out of our control, just like the last shot in the movie - with the house being blown off and finally seated exactly beside the Paradise Falls!

亞洲青年管弦樂團

2009亞洲青年管弦樂團周年音樂會

14/8/2009 8pm　香港文化中心音樂廳

客席指揮：巴梅特(香港、上海及北京)
鋼琴獨奏: 斯圖爾曼

布拉姆斯: E 小調第四號交響曲
莫札特: D小調第二十號鋼琴協奏曲,K.466
柴可夫斯基：黎密尼的法蘭契斯卡

在香港的夏天，不僅是潮濕和酷熱，對古典的樂迷也是令人難以置信的無聊，由於很多專業樂團都會選擇此休息一長時間。儘管如此，每年在漫長暑假期間，來自亞洲各國最佳的年輕音樂家，都會聚合在香港 3 個星期參加一個強化音樂訓練夏令營，之後便展開另一段 3 星期的亞洲巡迴音樂會，並以亞洲青年管弦樂團的名義舉行（此為在大約 20 年前由傳奇的梅紐因所創辦）。樂團曾有其光榮的時刻，在過去吸引了很多世界級的指揮和演奏家參加他們以往的音樂會。

一如以往，他們計畫了在兩個連續的晚上，根據兩個不同的指揮而有兩套曲目。但是，這兩個夜晚的節目可謂沒任何常規。如 AYO 的藝術總監理查 Pontzious 設計了一場來自 3 個不同國家 3 首著名管弦樂 showpiece 的音樂會，包括拉威爾的波麗路，斯特拉文斯基的火鳥 Suite 以及 Barber 的 弦樂 Adagio； 另他們的首席指揮詹姆斯 Judd 更最大膽地想出了一場非傳統的破格"重型"音樂會，以悲劇感覺作為主題。 我好奇地觀看了此一場音樂會。

Judd 因事而由他的朋友Matthias Bamert代替先帶領AYO 展開其音樂之旅的頭半段。有趣的是，這一年香港是其亞洲之旅的中站，我在這裡出席的音樂會正是Bamert 領導 AYO的最後一夜，所以我對他們期望不少...

實際上，那夜Maestro Bamert 和 AYO 的成員都有很好的準備。 Bamert 甚至憑記憶指揮，而團員也似乎對樂譜和音樂了解得很好，至他們可以大部份時間看指揮。不過，做好準備並不等於音樂卓越。 例如在 Brahms 的著名第四交響樂，整體執行雖暢順及令人滿意，也有適當的銜接和造句，但音樂的內涵和情緒的發揮都下於我的期望。

一切原是開始得很好。 第一樂章開首的著名"雙音"主題拉得出色，但整個樂章 over-played 了張力，像一個上緊了的彈簧，令人不安的有點"勉強"和"急切"的感覺。我明白團員們都很極力想盡其所能，所以他們都使勁地奏出了力度和熱情得就如"沒有明天"，但反而出現了一種太壓倒性的聲音和有點倉卒感覺。坦白的說，整個樂團(尤其是這裡的弦樂)有很窄的聲音動態範圍，偏集中於強的發聲而忽略了 mp 和 p 之間的微妙差異。

第二樂章演出準確，但卻顯示樂團的弱點。音樂聽起來欠缺情感，單薄平淡，甚至有點悶。此外，圓號也在這裡顯示出有點弱點。然後，Scherzo 很配他們的氣質，並且他們聽起來有時充滿活力和爆炸，雖則三角鐵時有格格不入。最後帕的薩卡裡亞是充沛流暢，但有幾個變奏中出現時而混沌和甚至樂部分離。 此外，它缺乏我們所等待的真正高潮。另外在這裡，長笛獨奏（香港樂手！） 是迷人的，但銅管的整體或許是今年最弱的一環。

布拉姆斯的音樂根本是不容易，特別是對於上述晚年的巨大交響樂作品。我佩服 Bamert 的整體音樂閱讀和追求富低音線的歐洲聲音，更不用說他對細節的注意，如在第一樂章中的一些樂段用上了Stokowski（Bamert曾是他的助理指揮）的 bowing 方法（例如同時間一半的大提琴組用 up-bow 而另一半做 down-bow 來維持一個穩定的聲響）。但是，對於已有相當技術和音樂感的青年樂手來說，整體上仍然缺乏樂團的透明度、靈活性和情緒的微妙變化，而這些正是此傑作所極度要求的。當然，樂章間重複地被遲到者進場和業餘音樂會觀眾的無聊鼓掌聲所間斷，也可能干擾和分散我們台上青年表演者的注意力。

幸運在間歇後， AYO 的表現越來越好，觀眾也是。 較小型的樂團打開莫札特的鋼琴協奏曲，細膩以適當的造句，自制地給予對比的情緒，一個非常有效的古典風格引子，帶到Steuerman 的獨奏。他的莫札特提醒我幾個月前在這裡與HKPO帶來另一小調莫札特鋼琴協奏曲的 Brautigam。Steuerman 的鋼琴演奏是同樣 minimalistic，用很少 踏板和以抑制的發聲力度，及主要靠觸鍵連結，效果少了浪漫但更見優雅。此外，他更補充地用了好些即興裝飾音，使其演奏中顯示多一些新鮮度和古典主義（儘管他仍用上了貝多芬所寫的cadenza)。但是逐漸地，Steuerman可能因太享受自我而產生了哼唱聲（像Glenn Gould般），並越來越多自由式的節奏、 重音和句法，一下子他那獨特的手法可能令人難以吞下（並終於在第三樂章的 cadenza 尾時在左手上出了一個錯弦）。樂團和演奏家之間的支援密切，特別和木管有一些很好的對答。 AYO的伴奏在那裡的 ensembleship 和風格也令人欽佩 ！

在Steuerman以拉威爾的 La Valse 作 encore 後 (可能是前一晚的拉威爾鋼琴協奏曲音樂會剩下來的 encore 曲），AYO 便回到完整的班底陣容，奏出很少聽到的柴可夫斯基音詩。 這首曲，少見得連我也不得不承認這是第一次在現場見證它的。 幸運的是，他們沒令我失望。我猜外向的俄羅斯曲目是更適合這些年輕的團員，事實上，戲劇化的浪漫、「 忘我 」和悲劇變化，此青年樂團都完整和恰到好處地表示出來。弦樂正好在這裡放盡表現，而 woodwinds 又迅速和準確的疊加其上。 除了敲擊組出現一些不匹配外（三角鐵再一次為罪魁禍首），這是樂團今年最佳的示範作。Maestro Bamert 也功不可沒！

到音詩結束的時間已是幾乎十點半，許多觀眾（包括在我右邊的兩位先生）迅速在掌聲期間離去，並不知道 AYO encore 是一種傳統，而錯過了令人振奮的匈牙利舞曲第 1 號。好，也真的沒關係，港台已為整個晚上錄下視像來（對於我是第一次看見遙控 360 度旋轉機械攝影機定位在指揮前以捕獲一些樂團間的珍貴鏡頭）。

一點的統計數字：

1.弦樂以女性為多 (尤其是小提琴) （低音大提琴除外）

2.中國和臺灣成員分別是最大多數，而朝鮮緊隨在後

3.韓國成員大多是弦樂手 （團長也是一位韓國的女孩）

4.香港今年共有 14 名成員

5.所有成員都是由 17－ 27 歲 (以前是 15-25)

小交的法國五月

首先，我要作出懺悔： 一直以來香港小交響樂團音樂會，我很少出席。 甚至今次我也是為著名法國鋼琴家 Michel Dalberto，和很少聽到的兩首法國鋼琴作品，與及圖畫展覽會的新奇配器版本而來的。 噢，殊不知如果錯過了這場演出便會是我的錯誤和遺憾了！
　
有趣的是，香港小交響樂團(HKS)的音樂會，除了幾近爆滿之外，相比我遇到的另一個本地職業樂團音樂會，觀眾整體是更要年輕和較為熱情專注。 我不知道為什麼........................ 但是，後來音樂總監葉詠詩在樂團調音後來到臺上，開始的竟不是立即拿起指揮棒，而是用麥克風跟我們談話，這個大致給予我之前的問題提供了一點答案吧： 葉詠詩除了是一個專業的指揮家外，她更是一位音樂教育工作者和有效的演講者。 我相信她通過這些年一直做了不少的教育工作和擴大她的年輕觀眾群 ！
　
音樂會以拉威爾為記念法國作曲家 Couperin 而作的著名鋼琴組曲的配器版本作為開始。 真是不容易的管弦樂作品，對弦樂的要求很高，木管的音色變化，以及句法的強弱動態和靈活性。 我很高興看到 HKS 的弦樂組做得不錯。 在單簧管有出色表現之時，雙簧管卻特別在高音上出現些微問題。 指揮的演繹頗有一撮法國風味，但卻有點機械感，如節奏能多點彈性和整體能更同步一些就會更令人滿意。
　
跟著來到晚上的第一個重頭戲： Dalberto 走上舞臺，在Steinway上與 HKS 奏起Faure的 Ballade。 只從開首他所彈出的幾個簡單樂音就已讓我留下深刻印象。 他的觸鍵是令人難以置信的，每個樂音的色彩變化皆被迅速和全面控制，高雅而如歌性的串連起來。他可以通過手指而非其他任何不必要的身體動作來奏出寬動態範圍而有層次的音樂 (除了他的頭可能偶爾點一下)。 看他那微妙的腳踏運用如何能提高樂音的張力和適當的造句，就是魔法般的見證。他如何可以利用這以撞擊而產生聲響的樂器來發出晶瑩透明的優美連線聲音是超越我的理解的，但我只知道我喜歡他這樣的音樂。 好一個謙卑和內隱的法國鋼琴大師，功力就在他和樂團的音樂中顯示出來。 他從不致勝過樂團或被它覆蓋，但只完全恰當地混和。看來殊不容易的一首樂曲，但給 Dalberto 完美地演繹，就連額頭上也不見一點汗水。 他彈出來好像很簡單的音樂，卻聽起來非常迷人。 另樂團也一路給了一個很親密的支援。
　
沒有進一步的延誤，在觀眾的 4 度熱烈掌聲後，Dalberto 即返到台上演奏法蘭克的變奏曲。 他坐了下來後便再一次進行了他的儀式－－用雙手輕輕觸摸白色琴鍵並從中間橫向掃開再返回中央，就像為他心愛的儀器打掃灰塵一般，才示意葉詠詩開始樂章那介紹性的弦樂強重和弦。 這首作品的音樂性更強、 感情豐富而變化又易於理解，是一組集合由開首出現主題而成的變奏曲，樂團和鋼琴到處都有交替領導和支援的角色。 在這裡的 ensembleship 是更明顯和成功的。 Dalberto 的特殊技藝和抒情性在這裡得到最好證明。 此外，他享受在音樂中，這方面顯示於他的右手在閒時於空氣中做出一些像指揮般的輕微搖擺。 樂團方面，大提琴部分 （只有 5 名成員） 有很出色的獨奏片段，而單簧管也有著精彩的樂句傳遞。
　
觀眾如我般興奮熱情的重複掌聲後， Dalberto 回報我們兩個獨奏 encores (德布西嗎？) ，分別展示出他的實力－首先是他謹慎的佈局構建能力和優秀的情緒變化，以及動態的強烈對比，然之後顯示他那快速手指和爆發力度。 然而，Bravo喊聲和掌聲仍舊持續，即使在他給我們飛吻道別後才走到後臺去。 最後，他衣冠楚楚把指揮也帶到舞臺來作最後致謝及引領樂團的成員一起離開。
　
第二個高潮出現在中場休息之後： 一個著名的鋼琴音樂 Mussorgsky 的 「 圖畫展覽會 」 由中國作曲家Julian Yu所寫的另一個改篇配器版本。跟我們常聽的拉威爾版非常不同，這個是寫給只得十幾個成員的小室樂團：包括幾個人的弦樂， 4 名成員的木管組、三人銅管組 (沒有 Tuba) ，一個玩定音鼓、 一個彈鋼琴/celesta、 一個玩豎琴，再加3名成員負責範圍廣泛的敲擊樂器 （包括馬林巴、 Glockenspiel、 木琴、 tam-tam 和鐘...） 。 此外，余除了只對他們進行樂器重新編排外，還甚至作出原樂譜外的各種有趣新增： 例如在開始長廊漫步的一些樂句間加入了富中國東方色彩的五音樂思； 對於舊古堡中添加遲發但相同的音樂句來產生回音效果，正如在一座城堡聽到的； 在兩個猶太人中，新得幾乎無法識別的 cadenza 由低音大提琴獨奏出，在一個背景有定音鼓混沌聲音中交織起來；新寫但不是那麼和諧的和弦被加置於 Catacomb 一段中來帶出幽冥的感覺 ； Baba Yaga中出現了銅管和長笛吹空地模仿冷風的沙沙作響；連串上昇和下降音諧的鐘聲/鋼琴/Glockenspiel 也提昇了終章基輔大門的氣勢！
　
無可否認，余此作充滿對每張原畫的想像力和洞察力，而不是只憑 Mussorgsky 的鋼琴樂譜所激發，聽到這樣一個有趣新鮮的版本，令人大開眼界。 觀眾的反應也是非常積極的，面對如此富挑戰性和難度的樂曲，樂團成員在葉指揮領導下演出落力 (尤其是 percussionists) 。 他們給予了一次相當穩定和投入的演出，低音大提琴手通過了要求很高的獨奏片段，應記一功。 而單簧管手又一次吸引我的注意。
　
令人驚訝的是，作曲家竟出現於這場"中國首演"音樂會，我們響起歡迎與熱烈的掌聲給他。 這也為音樂會寫下了一個完美的句號。

　
總括來說，與上次我看到的 HKS 相比，現在樂團有一些明顯的改善，尤其是弦樂 ！ 透過他們的音樂，可以感覺到他們演奏時的激情、 活力和竭盡所能的精神。 我期待下個月看他們威爾第的安魂曲。 但我衷心希望他們能早日找到自己的首席雙簧管樂手，否則這樣的一個專業樂團難以成功。
　

WALL-E

Pixar's latest animated feature WALL-E seems like a rebound from the disappointing Ratatouille last year. Though it's not the best Pixar production to me, it's one of the best in recent years for their Studio.

The director this time is Andrew Stanton, the one who last time brought us Finding Nemo, the best among Pixar's to me. So the hope is high naturally. Instead of the adventure under sea, this time it is about an adventure through the outer space!

The graphics were amazing and extraordinary, everything looks so real; within minutes into the film, I forgot that I was watching a cartoon, and I was immediately drawn into it. But as usual, it's not only the look and technique but the contents of the films that give Pixar such an outstanding and respectable status in Hollywood.

Apart from being the first futuristic space adventure movie for Pixar, it's also their first genuine love story. And it examines the relationship between the two sex nowadays! As we all know, nowadays women are in general smarter and are even more capable than men; they took up important positions in our society with higher directives, regardless of their somehow explosive mood-swings and occasionally quite destructive tantrums not unlike EVE's......Because of this, like EVE, women are too caught up in their directives, and end up having no time for any romance in their life. Therefore the striking figure of unmarried women in this era.

The love-at-first-sight of a shy WALL-E and his later persistent pursuit of EVE is quite charming and touching. And to make the audience feeling romantic about the relationship between two robots is quite a difficult feat. But I guess they succeed in this movie!

Apart from the obvious romance and "Green" message that the movie had, a few more subtle things worth noticing as well. For example, people intoxicated by the advanced technology like virtual video games and internets, making them so self-absorbed and isolated to the extent that they cannot enjoy life and appreciate the real world around them!

Also, not to mention the gags about people's immobility with junk-food diet and the resulted morbid obesity! I was alarmed by the left-alone Babies being "spoon-fed" by the nonsense from the TVs in one scene......I wish in our future, people won't be as depicted in the movie - thinking/dressing/acting similarly as they are told, under the big influence of the Global Economic Monopolisation!

My only complaint about this movie is that it seems somehow too long for the very limited material there, and it also lacks a bit of originality, so much so it follows a specific formula that made it highly predictable in the second half.

But anyway, what I love most about this movie is the consistent nostalgic feel:
The Hello Dolly clips, the dances, the oldies like Louis Armstrong's La vie en rose, the "junk" collections of WALL-E; not to mention the great painting styles of our past masters like Van Gogh, Seurat and Monet during the end credits...

In our era of great advances in technology, people continuously moves forward, welcoming the new stuffs and leaving lots of the out-dated things behind as junks...adapting a more soul-less lifestyles while leaving our hearts behind...

A little bit of nostalgia here should serve us well, I guess...at least to remind us of some of the good old things in the past...

RATATOUILLE

Finally, I saw the Pixar's highly-anticipated latest feature animation : Ratatouille!

And it's interesting enough that the movie itself is indeed a Ratatouille......The similarity between the two is strikingly uncanny.

Pourquoi???

The word "Ratatouille" means simply an ordinary cuisine with assorted vegetables mixing together, nothing high-class or fancy. Like its name, the movie itself is a simple enough story with various different cinematic elements (romance, drama, action, suspense and comedy) added and mixed together. Voila!

However, the quality of the cuisine depends on the creativity and the craft of the Chef (or Remy the Mouse in this case) while the success of the movie rests on the shoulder of the director Brad Bird, who brought us the incredible "The Incredibles" 2 years ago.

Brad Bird's sense of humour and creativity is beyond question, as evident from The Simpsons TV series in which he acted as the Executive Consultant for years. This time, in Ratatouille, he wrote a very simple plot involving a mouse trying to use his cooking talent to be a top chef. Like making cuisine, Brad Bird did make this movie whole-heartedly, with extremely delicate execution and obsessive attention to details. As a result, in the movie, we marvel at the absolutely gorgeous graphics, and are stunned by the breathtakingly realistic Paris streets and landscapes. Besides, all the gags and punch lines are great and with appropriate effects, leaving the audience immensly entertained.

Furthermore, in the movie, he smartly used the icon of Disney as the lead character of this movie to carry on the great tradition of the deceased Walt Disney, who inspired lots of the talented young animation artists like what Gusteau did to Remy. This is an openly respectable tribute to the late Walt Disney from Brad Bird, and at the same time, with some bold criticism directed to the present Disney Empire who now is concentrating on mainly cashing out through exhaustive merchandising.

For me, after seeing the movie, I have very mixed feelings about it. While I found it a great feast to the eyes and most of the time laughed my ass off, I feel that it didn't live up to my expectation. It is better than Cars, which in my opinion, is the worst production by Pixar so far. However, it cannot exceed the success of Finding Nemo or The Incredibles.

Pourqoui???


Just like the cuisine Ratatouille, without the garnishing, the spices and the gravy, it's just some cheap and ordinary vegetables putting together. The movie distracts us from the slim cliche plot and a few superficial characters with the grandeur visuals, hilarious dialogues, exciting chasing scenes, etc. And I also think that it suffers majorly from the excessive length of screening time, together with inconsistent pace, making some scenes dragging to nearly stagnant, notably the first hour.

Also, most of the characters were under-developed. Besides Remy and Linguini, the others are uni-faceted and not at all memorable, serving as kind of like show-and-go sort of a comic relief. The creation of the imaginary friend Gusteau is somehow childish and even cliche. Colette's romance with Linguini is somehow predictable yet not convincing enough. The evils (Skinner and Anton) are not too intimidating or persuasive and so pose not much challenge at all to the leads, making the final act of resolution a bit simple and unsatisfying.......

And what's less than satisfying is the explicit morals and messages of the movie. They almost tell us the lesson of the day word by word, thus insulting the audience. The final long speech by the food critic is particularly unbearable. Though putting this in at the end is a smart move, because it will shut the mouths of all the movie critics from bad-mouthing it, like the case of the Emperor's new clothes!

Well, since I'm not a critic, I'm immuned from that. "Surprise me" no more, I have to say that for a Pixar movie, Ratatouille overall gets only a passing mark. However, among the animated movies this year so far (I haven't seen the Simpsons Movie yet), I still recommend it to anyone who loves animation and is young at heart.

ZODIAC

I am a big fan of David Fincher, seriously. I went to cinema for each of his movies, and enjoyed every single one of them.

It all began since his directorial debut --- "Alien 3", which is still ignored and even rejected by Fincher himself now due to the studio's restraint on his creative freedom at that time. However, his visual wizardry was already evident in the movie. For example, unlike its prequels, it scared the hell out of you without showing you much of the Alien itself; rather he inventively used the POV shot from the Alien itself for the scenes of preying and devouring of its victims. Also, towards the end, the self sacrifice of Sigourney Weaver by plunging down in the posture of a "cross" with the baby alien in her belly has obvious biblical reference as well.

After that, his second feature "Se7en" became an instant hit (my favourite as well) and the rest is history.

Apart from his wonderful story-telling technique and extraordinary vision, I love his skillful discussion of the social phenomenon and examinations of the human values/flaws within his movies (e.g. various common sins committed daily in our community as described in "Se7en", global capitalism and materialism in "Fight Club", mid-life crisis and existentialism in "The Game", feminism and single-parenthood in Panic Room, etc...). He can preach with humour, provoke thinking through entertainment, and inspire without pulling a strict face. I mostly admire him for this.

However, regardless of his diversity on subjects/genres, all of his movies so far are about crimes and violence, and there are palpable sense of isolation/despair/emptiness of the people in his every movie. And Fincher seems having an affinity for the philosophy about the need of Men for sufferings and adversities in order to understand the full meaning of life. This is the recurring theme in all his outputs up till now, his latest one, the Zodiac.



In preparing for the movie "Zodiac", I have read the book "Zodiac" written by Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal's character) , from which the movie largely based on. And my reading of the 300-page book proved to be quite rewarding, for it helps me to follow the complex story lines of the movie, and most importantly, to realise the director's views and messages intended.

During my reading, I had a particular feel and perception of the story, and therefore an expectation of how the film would look like. However, Fincher totally surprised me in every way. It has nothing in common with his earlier work "Se7en". He intentionally downplayed the murder scenes, totally avoiding the perspectives from the serial killer and even minimising his on-screen time and dialogues, skipping the gory crime scenes and ignoring the detailed investigations on site. The killer and his cruel acts were very trivialized to the degree that the 2 important murders were even scrammed into the short pre-credit prologue!

The story officially kicks off with the first Zodiac letter arriving at the San Francisco Chronicle, and introduces us to the two leads---top crime reporter Paul Avery (played wonderfully by Robert Downey Jr., or was he just being himself??) and small-potato political cartoonist Robert Graysmith. And later in the murder case of cab driver Paul Stine, we meet the other two major characters---inspector Bill Armstrong (played by Anthony Edwards of "ER" fame) and famous inspector David Toschi (marvelously portrayed by Mark Ruffalo). And Fincher invested lots of effort and time in concentrating on stories of these 4 different real people whose lives were immensely changed by Zodiac the serial killer.

Through compare and contrast with the book, I found that the movie was very fast-paced (even difficult to follow for people without some background knowledge of it), with significant trimming down of many facts and myths surrounding the murder cases and Zodiac's many letters and codes (giving only essential information to the audience on the need-to-know basis); while instead it expanded the dimensions for the four lead characters, especially the author himself (actually he did not mention anything about his own life in the book).

In my opinion, the movie stressed and concentrated on three key issues---the chaotic coordination between the Police jurisdictional districts; the power of the mass media; and obviously the obsession.

The movie successfully revealed in one vivid scene where inspector Armstrong was trying to communicate through phone but in vain with other Police districts where the other murders by the same killer took place. The cooperation, if any, was very chaotic and diplomatic rather than pragmatic or effective. This, together with the fact that the Police had ignored a source of information which was later gathered by reporter Avery to uncover the unknown murder linked to Zodiac, gives the audience the feeling that the killer escaped through those loop-holes in the system of law enforcement. Fincher once again examined and criticized this notorious yet popular culture of the Government.

Also, most of the story took place in the Newspaper office, in the television studio, or told through the TV screens and the newspaper headlines, rather than in the Police Department. This is quite weird for a crime story but feasible here because Zodiac enjoyed seeking attention by contact with the mass media. I think to a certain degree this approach may even be intentional: to emphasize the mass media's part in the Zodiac cases since things got blown out of proportion by it, which even became the tool for the killer, to confuse the Police (like exaggerating the number of his victims by taking credit for other murders he saw reported on the papers) and scare the public (like the school-bus panic).

And for the Paul Avery discovery, the media even released such a key information to the public before the Police knowing it! The heated argument between Avery and Toschi in one scene more or less sums up such a symbiotic relationship between the Police and the media. Now, 30 years later, the mass media is still growing stronger, and exerting its influence everywhere, including politics.

Moreover, this movie is explicitly full of the recurring themes of personal obsessions. By definition, obsession means the recurrent and persistent idea or thought regardless of one's attempt to ignore or inhibit it. It may lead to compulsion, which refers to the behaviour driven by such an obsessive thought. The best pathological example is the Zodiac, who was obsessed with the idea of killing and could not control his murdering impulse. However, interestingly, almost all of the main characters in the movie have their different obsessions (e.g. Avery obsessed with risky lifestyle and later heavily with alcohol when he no longer had the job; Toschi obsessed with fame which almost cost his job when he was questioned of producing the last fake Zodiac letter; Lawyer Belli obsessed with publicity, fame and fortune; Graysmith obsessed with the identity of the Zodiac and lost his family and job because of that).

Smartly, Fincher balanced it a bit by using Armstrong, who quitted the job of homicide investigation so to enjoy his family life and "eating sushi". In one short scene, we got the glimpse of him walking away from a very lonely and tired Toschi at the car, and into the warmly lit porch of his house with his wife. The resulting contrast is overwhelming and inspiring. I think as an obsessive film maker himself, in this movie, Fincher tries to tell us the big cost of obsession, and the importance of knowing when to stop.

All in all, I regard this movie the first pure drama by Fincher. He deliberately restrained his usual visual styles this time with much subtlety instead. And this is why it would bore and fail so many people/fans if a thriller like "Se7en" was expected. The production overall is very authentic and realistic to every detail, from the period clothings, cars and sets for the '70s San Francisco (CGI was employed to rebuild the streets and buildings during that time), to the newspaper clippings and Zodiac's handwritings or other evidence. Fincher was trying to make a fluent chronological documentary-like drama faithful to that part of history as much as possible. He is a well-known perfectionist (he could ask the actors for seventy takes for a single scene just to get the effect he desires). Although he tried not to glorify the Zodiac killer and even trivialize his acts in the movie (different actors were used to play Zodiac for each of the murder scenes) so as not to fulfill his arrogant wish expressed in his last letter to the Police, with Fincher's careful planning beforehand, meticulous execution on set, and a change of style this time, on second thought, isn't there some similarities between the Zodiac and David Fincher himself?!?

Hong Kong Sinfonietta with the Grainger Quartet

It was quite a pleasant experience to listen to the Baroque music (apart from the Dvorak's and Grieg's, of course) performed by the Hong Kong Sinfonietta last Sunday evening.

The Baroque music, including famous works by Bach, Vivaldi and Marcello are truly ingenious. They are very well structured but still have their lively mood and entertaining value. In short, highly refreshing and relaxing for the listeners!

Bach's Brandenburg Concerto no.3, for example, never fails to cheer up the crowd. I've known this lovely music for a very long time, but this was the first time I witnessed it performed live. And the effect was mind-blowing......I discovered that it was much more complicated and riveting than I originally expected. In fact, the nine instruments (3 violins, 3 violas and 3 cellos) each have its own chances to play solo phrases alternately but on the whole they harmoniously combine and generate a spectacular and continuous musical flow. Though the final movement was played a bit too rushed and at times a bit chaotic that night.

Vivaldi, though well-known for his "four seasons" concerti, had also written another famous concerto for 4 violins (Op3, No.10), and it's so famous that Bach even made a transcription of it for 4 harpsichords (or pianos are used sometimes nowadays) instead. Try to imagine : to write a concerto featuring 4 violinists, competing and supporting each other simultaneously! That would be quite a challenge, but Vivaldi (not unlike Bach when he wrote the above mentioned concerto) made it such a great fun for the 4 violinists to play together and still have some virtuosic solo moment for each one. The music is very easily assimilated, and it's exciting to see the 4 soloists playing side by side in the front of the stage, with the orchestra accompanying at the back. Marvelous experience for me, except that one of the soloists was too nervous and sounded a bit uptight and flat occasionally.

Marcello is not a familiar name to most music lovers nowadays, especially among all those giants in the Baroque period, but his concerto for oboe alone could leave his mark in the history, with its enchanting slow movement pretty popular even in the Hollywood industry as the movie soundtrack. I was glad to listen to the complete concerto that night, with Peter Cooper playing the oboe wonderfully. I simply couldn't complain......

Finally, the Strings of HKS, led by the Grainger Quartet with each at the front of the respective sections, gave us Grieg's Holberg Suite, an imitation and dedication to the Baroque period music by the romantic Nordic composer. Similar to the other pieces of the evening, it is a very easy-listening music, and the performance was magnificent. I guess the input by Grainger Quartet must have played a part there (Yip Wing Sze is very brilliant to come up with the idea of having this Quartet as their Artist Associate this year!), but I still have to admire HKS's string players for their commitment, effort and progress throughout the years. And for encore, their playing of Mozart could put HKPO to shame, I dare say......



Grainger Quartet (Artist Associate, Hong Kong Sinfonietta 07/08 season)
Natsuko Yoshimoto (Violin)
James Cuddeford (Violin)
Jeremy Williams (Viola)
Patrick Murphy (Cello)
Special Guest: Peter Cooper* (Oboe Principal of Colorado Symphony Orchestra)

Programme
Bach Brandenburg Concerto No 3 in G, BWV1048
Dvorák Wind Serenade in D minor, Op 44
Vivaldi Concerto in B minor for 4 violins from L’Estro Armonico, RV580 (Op 3 No 10)
(Violin solo: Natsuko Yoshimoto, James Cuddeford, Jensen Lung, Eiko Hosaka)
Marcello Oboe Concerto in C minor*
Grieg Holberg Suite, Op 40

FRACTURE

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys crime/legal thriller, appreciates an original script with fine twist and excellent acting from the ensemble cast! Anthony Hopkins returned to his evil root (Hannibal in Silence of the Lamb) in this latest feature, playing a calm, obsessive and yet very intelligent criminal Ted Crawford who allegedly killed his wife after knowing about her extra-marital affair, but was immediately apprehended at the murder site.

This was exactly how straight forward the movie opened, with the known fact that he shot his wife in the head before our very eyes. And it is this simple setup that attracts the audience. I can't help to wonder what would follow and how it can last for nearly 2 hours. Then entered the winning-oriented and climbing-to-the-top young and ambitious hot-shot attorney Willy Beachum (played by last year's Academy Award Best Actor Nominee Ryan Gosling) becoming the unwilling prosecutor in the Crawford's murder case. The two met in the courtroom and that's where the fun really began, as the prosecution proved to be not as easy and simple as Willy had expected when taking the case......

Director Gregory Hoblit (with fame from acclaimed movies like Primal Fear, Fallen, and Frequency......interestingly all "F" words including this movie) successfully pulled it off again this time, with a pretty comfortable pace, fluid and brilliant story line, appropriate humour at various places; it never fails to keep our brain working and at the same time keep our undivided attention. Hoblit smartly started the movie with the close-up shots of the little self-made miniature roller-coaster toy that Ted enjoys building and playing while rolling the opening credits to let us have the glimpse of how his meticulous mind works, not to mention a bit of his personality, including his accuracy and calculation in planning things. His job as the plane engineer cannot fit him better. I also love the deliberate vision of the director --- the various look at people through reflections, glass or shadows, to give the distant feelings between the characters in the movie, and to set up the dark and mysterious vibe for it.

As I have said and you should have probably known, the acting is genuinely marvelous from the two lead actors, thus giving more weight and credibility to the already good script. This is definitely not a profound movie with great moral lessons, but it is all the way unpredictable and has a decently satisfying ending. All in all, it simply sucks you into the screen and gives you hell of a roller-coaster ride!

ARTHUR AND THE MINIMOYS

With the long Easter holiday coming up, a lot of films suitable for the whole family will be released, and among them a couple of CG animations from different studios.

I have the privilege to see the preview screening of Luc Besson's latest (and rumoured to be his last) directed film "Arthur et les Minimoys". And I whole-heartedly recommend it to those looking for a quality family entertainment at cinema this holiday.

Luc Besson has not been directing since his big flop "The Story of Joan of Arc" in 1999. This partly live-action partly CG 3D animation feature is his come-back after such a long break. And this film, which he wrote and produced, showed his well-rested spirit and high energy level. It combines children's fables, action, comedy, romance, and the fifth element---his vision, into one densely-packed and fully-charged film spans merely 90 minutes.

Yes, the film is fast-paced, without a single minute wasted or bored. Not one frame can be deleted from the finished product. The editing style also gives a similar feeling. So, the audience is guaranteed for a great and exciting roller-coaster ride. Similar to Disney's "James and the Giant Peach" (Big flop from director who brought us "Nightmare before Christmas"), this film opened and closed with live actions while in the middle the adventure of Arthur in the mini-world of the Minimoys was fully done in CG animation. I think such a method is appropriately used here and to full use.

The story is pretty simple and would be easy to follow even for the very small children. Arthur, played brilliantly and suitably by Freddie Highmore (very gifted young actor of only 14 years old now who gave some stunning and emotional performance in films like "Finding Neverland"), not unlike Freddie's title role in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" coincidentally, is a good boy who originally lived happily with Grandparents (the wonderful Mia Farrow as Grandma), suddenly facing poverty and loss of sheltering, somehow entered the magical underground miniature world of the Minimoys, became a hero in that kingdom and got rich in the real world after the eventful "mini" expedition.

The voice talents include some eye-popping megastars, among them Madonna as the Princess Selenia, Robert de Niro as her King Father, and David Bowie as the evil Maltazard! The overall effect is immensely funny, hugely entertaining, and action packed. The lines are generally well written, with some very hilarious one-liners. The style is quite cartoonish and unrealistic, including the performance by the actors and the camera angles or movements.

The good thing about this film is that there would be different things for people at different age to appreciate and laugh at. In the screening I attended, all adults and children were equally having a great time, laughing and cheering. And I can feel otherwise the palpable silence and concentration of the audience throughout. Also, Luc Besson had included some moral lessons and extra touch in this apparently commercial product. Though briefly and lightly, it touches on the family value, the problem of obsessively working parents, the importance of the book knowledge above all others, the importance of environmental protection, the satirical look at the dictatorship, the mocking at the incapable but self-inflated ruler, and some more if the adults are paying enough attention. In fact, it is not simply what Snoop Dogg's character Max said in the film: "That's Entertainment!" More than that honestly.

And don't you leave so soon when the credits roll, remember to stay behind for the inventive "Curtain Call"!!

Luc Besson is already planning to produce two more films for this trilogy: Arthur et la vengeance de Maltazard (Arthur and the revenge of Maltazard) & Arthur et la guerre des deux mondes (Arthur and the war between two worlds)

THE QUEEN

Hey, I've seen the Queen...hmm...I mean the film of course.

My Gosh! Helen Mirren "is" the Queen...her appearance, her gesture, her grace, her pace, her speech, and even her mannerism, like the fiddling with the glasses, all these resemblances are genuinely uncanny.

However, just mere impersonation (I'm still objecting the Best Actor awarded for Capote) should not and would not guarantee her taking home the Best Actress Award(s), it's truly her fine act--the successful portrayal of this well-known public figure with a steel and cold exterior while having the vulnerability concealed inside. Confident, proud and also human, Helen did exactly all that and more. I can't be more glad that she got the unanimous recognitions she so much deserved. However, she did win at the expense of the Queen, and so I guess it is nice for her acceptance speech at the Oscar to end with a sincere mention of her :"Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Queen".

Actually, the whole cast is pretty strong. The other lead in the movie is Tony Blair, played brilliantly by Michael Sheen. He is so good that one can love Blair after seeing it, forgiving a lot of his stupidity and kissing up to Bush in reality. And another wonderful actor James Cromwell played Prince Philip, and got all the great one-liners, which are hilarious. His stern yet humorous portrayal brought along a stir of comic relief to the film, and so is the Queen Mother who had a scene talking about Diana's funeral which is simply laugh-out-loud funny!

Apart from the tremendous acting and witty British humour, the film still has a lot of facets for enjoyment and admiration. The storyline is fluid and engaging, with the tension built up successfully and appropriately. It can even moves you towards the end. The direction is marvelous, and Stephen Frears managed to manipulate you to firstly hate and then later concern about the Royal family. The inclusion of the real news footage, intervened with the re-created film footage, gave the film an extra realistic feel. With such a famous incidence put on the screen, a lot of the memorable scenes need to be shot accurately and masterfully. They definitely pulled it off with these scenes like the one where the Royal family returned to the Palace, reading the cards and examining the flowers. Their relative positions and each one's posture (including Prince Charles holding the hand of young Prince Harry who's bending over to read the cards from the people) matched perfectly with my vivid memory. The only thing that I'm not happy about is the background music, which somehow was used not only too much, but sounded too dramatic to the level that it's sometimes over the edge and even disturbed my viewing. Although the Verdi's Requiem used at the Funeral proceeding just could not be more suitable.

I personally think that the scenes with the Queen and the Stag are somehow a bit redundant. They were included there for too obvious reason and were even undermining the originally great story. It somehow looked down on the audience, or at least a bit awkward to be included there nevertheless. The writing was strong overall though, and especially good in the tug-of-war between Blair and the Queen, and their relationship......Simply brilliant!!!

All in all, after viewing, one can't help but realising that the Royal family is after all just a family, and the Queen is just another old woman. They also face the difficulties and cope with them every single day like us. However, with more power comes with more responsibility, and less freedom of will and less privacy. It was stated clearly at the start of the film even before the title appeared : The Queen admires the ordinary British people having the right to vote for the Prime Minister who would run the country for them. Ironic in a way...and irony is unavoidable in everyone's life, regardless of being rich or poor.