Jimmy Page

IBZ位於Wiesbadener Str. 18 14197 柏林。主要是給到自由大學以及馬普所交流的學者居住。

房型有單人房、雙人房以及家庭房。價格算是中等，單人房一個月約480左右。包水電都在裡頭，也可以落戶。

一樓有洗衣間。健身房、桌球間破舊不堪。圖書館是過去學者所留下來的書籍，還有一些小座位。

IBZ還有附設幼稚園，適合攜家帶眷的學者。

每週至少有兩次活動，往往是音樂表演，有時候則是在中庭烤肉以及電影欣賞。

房間內的家具差強人意，最不理想的地方是房間椅子的高度跟桌子落差過大，最終往往會落得腰痠背痛。建議自己準備椅子，或者是設法抬高桌子的高度。

• So proud and lofty do some people go,
• Dressing theirselves like players in a show, They patch and paint, and dress with idle stuff， As if God had not made them fine enough.
• • Watersons ‘Christmas is Now Approaching Near* (trad.) Frost and Fire (1965)

• This paper seeks to contribute to the growing field of the sociology of governance. One general feature of all forms of governance is that it involves the active discursive construction of the objects to be governed. Thus, for example, whether a social category is discursively constructed as4the poor’，‘the unemployed’ or ‘the underclass’ has a significant impact upon the subsequent practices of agencies and governments. This paper focuses on the discourses of luxury in their connection with projects directed at the regulation of consumption. Luxury provides an interesting case study because it has so often and in so many societies been a major target of moralizing discourses and projects of regulation. Then it eventually lost its moral opprobrium and remerged as a mark of distinction whose pursuit became legitimate because，as in the advertising slogan, ‘After all, we all deserve a little luxury'

• I trace the trajectory of the morallzation of luxury. Particular attention is paid to the way in which these become linked to and entwined with other projects of regulation. I will show that，without any break with the moralization of luxury, a decisive shift occurred towards modem economic discourses, in which the stimulation of domestic industries and the protectionist restraint on foreign competitors come to deploy the self-same moralization of luxury. This change is explored by means of a discussion of sumptuary law which had started life as a means of restraining luxury and ended as taxes on luxury and protective trade legislation. This essay emerges from a wider project which explores the governance of consumption through a study of the history of sumptuary laws (Hunt 1996). These laws were widespread and numerous projects directed at the regulation

• of consumption in many forms. Topical legislation included restriction on the wearing of specified materials and styles, limited the weight of precious metal ornaments, the price of wedding presents, the number of wedding guests, the amount and quality of wine to be served at baptisms, and much more.

• Sumptuaiy legislation existed in the classical civilisations of both West and East, throughout feudal Europe and in the early modem European powers, and found its way to the colonies of New England. This paper draws primarily on English sumptuary legislation which stretched in increasing intensity from 1336 to the very end of the sixteenth century.1 Its content changed over time. Starting from restrictions on the type and amount of food that could be served it shifted to the project of imposing hierarchic dress codes, epitomised by rules as to the furs that could be worn by each social status. Later came general expenditure limits on the cost of costumes and specific items of apparel. There was also a rare instance of an attempt to impose a positive dress prescription by the ‘Cap Act，of 1571 2 under which every person over the age of six, with the exception of the nobility and all gentlemen with land worth 20 marks a year, should wear, on Sundays and holidays, “a cap of wool knit, thicked and dressed in England, made within this realm.” The economic motive was made explicit as being “for the relief of divers poor decayed towns and of great multitudes of her Majesty’s poor subjects.”

• My specific focus is on the end of sumptuaiy projects. English sumptuary legislation ended abruptly in 1604 when an attempt to impose a new sumptuaiy code ended, as a result of the constitutional tension between Crown and Parliament, with the repeal of all extant statutes without securing a new sumptuary regime. In Section VI will argue against the conventional accounts which view the abandonment of efforts to impose restraints on consumption as manifestations of the wisdom of modernity which regards such efforts as foolish and doomed to failure. Rather I will propose that it is better to understand the process as one in which the moralization of luxury which provided the discursive underpinning of sumptuary legislation became transformed into providing the legitimation of the economic protectionist projects that become prominent from the mid- seventeenth century.

• From the first literate societies until high modernity the figure of Luxury has excited moral condemnation and stimulated the regulatory reflex. The moralization of luxury has exhibited remarkable persistence3. The invocation of luxury is one of the most ancient and most pervasive negative principles around and through which social criticism and regulatory activity has been articulated 4. From the Old Testament to Classical Rome, from the medieval divines down to secular Elizabethan England (and beyond) virtually every conceivable

• ill, whether personal or social，has been at one time or another laid at the door of luxury 5. My concern is not to offer a history of luxury, but rather to explore its discursive shifts and variations.

• From the vantage-point of the late twentieth century we retain a vague sense of‘luxury’ as a problematic category. For us it combines some lingering sense of censure with a positive attraction; the designation of consumables, such as hotels and motorcars as •luxury’，is both neutral, designating a segment of the market，and an advertising puff (the luxury cruise’ which we may never take, but the attraction of the idea of being pampered and indulged makes the idea a potent stimulant}. Thus, while we retain some sense of the more negative construction of luxury, it is by no means simple to retrieve an understanding of exactly what it was that was so wrong with luxury as to make it a focus of moral critique and a target for regulation.

• It is important to start with what should perhaps be treated as the material basis of the critique of luxury. It should be bom in mind that few societies outside the developed industrial sphere have freed themselves from the looming shadow of what used to be called ‘dearth’，the inability to provide for the basic conditions of social reproduction was and remained a widespread social reality. It is in such a context that there exists a tension between the negative activity of ‘squandering’ economic resources and the persistent significance of the gift relationship as a mechanism for reinforcing social bonds (Mauss 1990).

• Luxury was frequently associated with the figure of‘ruin’； a persistent strand provided by this fear of ruin in an imagery that brought together economic and moral catastrophe. 

• The concern with ruin was connected with a range of anxieties, for example，that of the old nobility unable to compete with the pressure of conspicuous consumption from the ‘nouveau riches’，but also concern with the ‘ruin’ of the lower orders trapped into competitive consumption that they could ill afford. And then there was a wider preoccupation with moral, or more specifically sexual ruin, epitomised by the link with the discourses of virginity, prostitution, and effeminacy. KrafTt-Ebing captures these linked anxieties when he refers to the view that ‘tlie material and moral ruin of the community is steadily brought about by debauchery，adultery and luxury1 (Krafft-Ebing 1922:6).

• A sense of the medieval term luxury, connotations which have today been largely lost, is secured not only by being counterposed to frugality, but also to chastit y, such that profligacy carried with it sexual as well as economic implications. Thomas Mun typifies a voice that had been commonplace for at least two centuries that captured the great chain of vice induced by luxury and which makes clear that luxury is gendered.

• The general leprosie of our piping, potting, feasting, fashion, and the mis-spending of our time in idleness and pleasure... hath made us effeminate in our bodies, weak in our knowledge, poor In our treasure, declined in our valour, unfortunate in our enterprises, and condemned by our enemies. (Mun 1664:180-81)

• But it is easy to see how the moralizing tones can abate and how ‘luxury’ shifts towards a concern with ‘profligacy’ that comes to be viewed in more explicitly ‘economic’ terms as, for example, in a Venetian law of 1360 that explicitly complained that inordinate luxury was detracting from productive investment in shipping and industiy (Miskimin 1969:156).

• The moralization of luxury had life that went far beyond the fear or the memory of dearth and famine. Luxury came to be conceived as both cause and symptom of an evil that was both personal and social. It needs to be stressed that the notion of luxury had no fixed content. There is no stable reference point of need or necessity as its counterpoint; rather the discourses of ‘luxury’ involved the construction of a system of rhetorical signs, that is of means of setting up a dichotomous discourse which operated through counterposing vices and virtues. What was distinctive about the discourses of luxury was that its counterpoints were never stable.

• Luxury has two major discursive counterpoints; in the first place it is socially divisive, it acts like a solvent, loosening and separating those social bonds conceived as necessary to sustain the community. A second，and rather different, expression of the critique of luxury involves the idea that luxury induces weakening or debility; that it undermines or weakens the individual and thus puts the group at risk. This concern with weakening, ‘enervating’，making soft and feminine, etc，involves the interplay of highly charged sets of myths and symbols. National mythology pictures the national ideal, in contrast to the ‘other’, as simple and hardy; thus Spanish sumptuary law appealed explicitly to a national image of the Spanish as a frugal and hardy people, in contrast to the luxury that typified the Moorish national enemy (Hume 1896).

• The past is imagined as a golden age involving a rural, agricultural, hard-working and simple past; thus in one of its dimensions，the construction of luxury reveals itself as a critique of modernity or，alternatively, as the expression of anxiety or apprehension of social change.

• The view ofluxuiy as debilitating deploys the powerful genderization associated with the pejorative connotations of the term effeminate. When Plato linked luxury and effeminacy he spoke not from great philosophical insight but from the standpoint of common sense of what everyone ‘knows’ to be true. Plato was joined in this view by amongst others, St. Augustine, Dante, Swift，Montesquieu and Rousseau (Veyne 1990:248).

• Luxury is the feminine, and the feminine is not only in itself weak, but - as in the Samson myth - it undermines the masculine principle of self-sufficiency and hardiness.

• The pervasive mythology of the Garden of Eden provides evidence of a significant early association of luxury, evil and the female; luxury was and remained a feminine personification. For example, the discourse surrounding Roman sumptuary measures relied heavily on images of ‘female luxury’ and ostentation and betrayed a preoccupation with the dissolution of the male economic mechanism of inheritance of patrimonies (Miles 1987). 
• • *伊甸園的pervasive神話提供了奢侈，邪惡和女性早期重要關聯的證據; 奢侈品一直是女性的化身。 例如，關於羅馬奢侈品措施的討論嚴重依賴於“女性奢侈品”和炫耀的形象，並背離了對遺傳繼承的男性經濟機制的解散的關注（Miles 1987）。

• These gendered mythologies relate back to national mythologies in which concern with weakness and debility takes on an explicitly military dimension; the nation is conceived as being put at peril when its young men are corrupted by luxury. The discursive construction of the sumptuary ethic, the necessity of subjecting private consumption to regulation, played powerfully upon both national and gender dimensions of the critique of luxury • It constructed links to military concerns (weakness and effeminacy), economic anxiety (luxury versus famine) and national myths (*us’ versus ‘them’} • It should be noted that the critique of luxury generally took a distinctive biological metaphorical form in which luxury is conceived as invasive, as a disease and infection to combat which requires either surgical or agricultural operations of amputation or weeding. 
• • *這些性別化的神話與國家神話有關，對弱點和弱點的關注具有明確的軍事維度; 當這個國家的年輕人被奢侈品腐敗時，這個國家被認為處於危險之中。 奢侈品倫理的話語建構，私人消費受到監管的必要性，對奢侈品批評的國家和性別層面都起到了有力的作用•它構建了與軍事關切（無力和無力），經濟焦慮（奢侈與飢餓） 和民族神話（*我們'對'他們'）•應該指出的是，對奢侈品的批評通常採用了一種獨特的生物隱喻形式，其中奢侈品被認為是侵入性的，作為一種需要手術或農業的疾病和感染來對抗 截肢或除草操作。

• The Christian tradition added its own distinctive inflection. Luxury was conceived as a violation of a divinely conceived necessity or natural order, and it is here that ‘necessity’ is most successfully linked to a sense of hierarchy. The conception of necessity and the natural refers to a view of the world in which God provides all we need, but an imagery in which our needs are presented as simple; a view powerfully captured in the symbol of bread. In addition the New Testament tradition added a concern with the antithesis between the harm done to the rich and the concern with the welfare of the poor. The distinctive shift in the religious critique of luxury was from a concern with personal sin to the idea of luxury as a social and political evil, because it is only then that it becomes 4a suitable case for treatment* through regulation. The two main candidates for the sins induced by luxury are the linked, but distinguishable, sins of pride and envy. A perennial criticism of preoccupation with personal appearance is that it is evidence of the sin of pride. Latimer’s sermonization that ‘excessive pride in apparel is odious’ (1584:280) was typical of a torrent of moralization, both religious and secular. An onslaught that reappears over the next two centuries is to be found in Phillip Stubbes’ attack upon that greatest of abuses, ‘the sinne of pride and excesse in apparel’ (Stubbes [1583] 1972:np) 6.

• There were theological issues between Protestantism and Catholicism over their treatment of luxury. In its simplest form, while Catholicism condemned luxury as the personal sin of pride, Protestantism was generally more concerned with the consequences

• that were attributed to this vice, that it induced immorality and dissoluteness. Puritanism added a significant inflection to the discourses of luxury. The idea that luxury was wasteful or profligate was pinned down by being contrasted with good works; what was wasted on luxury was not available for charitable works. John Wesley continued this tradition preaching against extravagance in dress in which such extravagance is condemned because it impedes the charity that is necessary that believers ‘may clothe your poor, naked, shivering fellow-creature!* (Wesley 1984 VII: 20-21).

• The linkage between luxury and immorality became secularized.

• Yet the earlier Christian concern with the idea of need or necessity continues to find expression in robust secular thinkers like Montesquieu whose view that 4the law ought to give each man only what is necessary for nature’ (Montesquieu [1748] 1900:94), was - even in the mid-eighteenth century- giving voice to one of the central tenets that had earlier motivated the sumptuary project. This notion of necessity and simplicity was readily transferable into an anti¬ capitalist critique, in rather the same way that the Christian opposition to usury had been deployed, Charles Davenant offered just such a traditionalist, anti-capitaJist critique of luxury in a form that provides a neat juxtaposition of social ills. 
• • * 但早期基督教關注需要或必要性的想法繼續在穩健中表達世俗法律思想家像孟德斯鳩的觀點,4只應該給每個人自然是必要的(孟德斯鳩[1748]1900:94)——即使是在18世紀中期表達的核心原則之一,此前禁止奢侈的項目。這個概念的必要性和簡單性是很容易轉移到一個反¬資本主義批判,在以同樣的方式,而基督教反對高利貸已經部署,查爾斯Davenant提供了這樣一個傳統主義者,anti-capitaJist批判的豪華的形式提供一個整潔的並列的社會弊病。

• A perennial feature of moralizing discourses is that they make heavy use of ‘slippeiy slope’ arguments deriving cataclysmic consequences from unprepossessing vices. Luxury came to be viewed through the metaphor of moral contagion, involving the idea that there is a sequential linkage between vices and sins which accumulatively cause social harms or bring down the wrath of God. Cicero, for example, had propounded the sequence that luxury led to avarice, avarice bred audacity, which in turn was the source of all crimes and misdeeds (Cicero 1879). 
• • *道德说教的一个长期特征是，它们大量使用“滑溜溜的斜坡”的论点，导致不受欢迎的恶习带来灾难性的后果。奢侈品是通过道德传染的隐喻来看待的，它包含了罪恶与罪恶之间有一个连续的联系，它累积起来会造成社会伤害或降低上帝的愤怒。以西塞罗为例，他提出了奢侈导致贪婪的顺序，贪婪滋生了胆大妄为，而这种胆大妄为又是所有犯罪和恶行的根源(西塞罗1879)。

• Perhaps the apex of the moralization of luxury was reached in Florence with the dramatic practices of Savonarola’s ‘bonfires of the vanities*.  
• • 或许，萨沃纳罗拉(Savonarola)的《虚荣的篝火》(bonfire of the vanities)的戏剧性实践在佛罗伦萨达到了道德教化的顶点。

• In Tudor England numerous sermons and polemics propounded versions of a ‘domino theory* or cascade effect whereby the individual sin of luxury leads to damage to the whole social fabric. Ben Jonson had his fictional character Touchstone in Eastward Ho opine that:
• • 在英国都铎王朝，无数的布道和论辩都提出了“多米诺骨牌理论”或“层叠效应”的版本，通过这种效应，奢侈品的个人罪恶会对整个社会结构造成损害。本·琼森(Ben Jonson)在《东方万岁》(east Hoopine)中虚构的人物试金石(Touchstone)说:

• What is central to all versions of the discourse of moral contagion is that from an initial attention to some widely diffused vice, ‘normal sin’，is constructed as a slippery slope to national ruin. Some targets persist, such as the moralization of prostitution, some like luxury wane, while others, such as alcohol and tobacco, become new sites of preoccupation and regulatory reflex.

• In general moralizing discourses are unleashed by feelings of social disturbance or anxiety 7. For example, Sekora suggests that the revival of the critique of luxury in eighteenth century England was fuelled by a renewed concern about a ‘dangerous insubordination’ of the lower orders (Sekora 1977:91). A good illustration of the ‘slippery slope’ version of moral contagion critique is the unrestrained polemic against the lower orders from the essayist and active Justice of the Peace, Henry Fielding.

• It is the Bane of all Conversation: And those who can't sit an Hour without Gaming, should never go into a Club to spoil Company.
  • 這是所有對話的禍根：而那些無法坐下一小時而不能參加遊戲的人不應該進入俱樂部破壞公司。

• In a Word, 'tis mere Madness, and a most stupid Thing to hazard ones Fortune, and perplex ones Mind; nay, to sit up whole Nights, poring over Toys of pipt Ivory and painted Pasteboard, making our selves worse than little Children, whose innocent Sports we so much ridicule.  33
  • 用一句話來說，'僅僅是瘋狂 mere Madness，以及一個愚蠢的事情來危害財富，而困惑的心靈; 不管怎樣，為了坐上整個夜晚，仔細研讀象牙雕像玩具和塗油畫板，33讓我們的自己比小孩子更糟，他們的無辜運動讓我們非常嘲笑。

• To sum up all, I think 'twould be a noble Retribution, to subject Gamester's Estates to the Use and Support of the poor Widows and Orphans of their unfortunate Bubbles.
  •  總而言之，我認為'將會是一種高尚的懲罰，讓Gamester's Estates受益於窮人寡婦和孤兒的使用和支持他們不幸的泡沫。

• Sunday Debauches are Abuses that call loud for Amendment: 'Tis in this pernicious Soil the Seeds of Ruin are first sown. Instead of a Day of Rest, we make it a Day of Labour, by toiling in the Devil's Vineyard; and but too many surfeit themselves with the Fruits of Gluttony, Drunkenness, and Uncleanness. Not that I am so superciliously strict, to have the Sabbath kept as rigidly here as in Scotland, but then there ought to be a Medium between the Severity of a Fast, and the Riot of Saturnalia.
  • *星期天Debauches是虐待，呼籲大聲修正：'在這種有害的土壤首先播種廢墟的種子。 我們通過在魔鬼葡萄園里辛苦勞作，而不是休息一天，將它變成勞動節的一天; 但是太多的貪婪果實，醉酒和不潔淨讓自己墮落了。 並不是說我非常嚴格，要讓安息日像蘇格蘭那樣僵硬，但是在齋戒嚴重程度和農神暴動之間應該有一個Medium。

• Instead of a decent and chearful Solemnity, our Taverns and Publick-Houses have more Business that Day than all the Week beside. 
  •  我們的小酒館和Publick-Houses不是一個體面的，謹慎的莊嚴的地方，而是那一天的商業活動，遠遠大於整個一周的商業活動。

• Our Apprentices plume themselves; nay, some scruple not to put on their Swords and Tye Wigs, or Toupees;34 and the loose End of the Town is their Rendezvous, Sunday being Market-Day all round the Hundreds of Drury 35. 
  • *我們的學徒plume自己; 不過，有些顧忌不要穿上他們的劍和Tye假髮，或者Toupees; 34，而鬆散的城鎮終點是他們的聚會場所，星期天是市場日，圍繞著數百Drury 35。        *
    • 34 Tye Wigs, or Toupees: A tie-wig was one where the hair was gatheredbehind and tied with a knot of ribbon. A toupee was a periwig witha high curl of hair tied with a bow on top of the head.
    • 35 round the Hundreds of Drury: in the vicinity of Drury Lane. A 'hundred'is a territorial division, the word being used loosely here

• While we want Servants to do our Work, those Hundreds, as they call 'em, are crowded with Numbers of idle impudent Sluts, who love Sporting more than Spinning, and inveigle our Youth to their Ruin: 
  • *雖然我們希望僕人做我們的工作，但是那些數百人，因為他們稱他們為擁擠的懶惰懶惰的數字，他們喜歡運動而不是旋轉，並且將我們的青年折磨到他們的廢墟：

• Nay, many old Lechers「好色之徒」 (Beasts as they are) steal from their Families, and seek these Harlot's lurking Holes, to practice their unaccountable Schemes of new invented Lewdnesses: Some half hang themselves,36  others are whipt, some lie under a Table and gnaw「咬，啃」 the Bones that are thrown 'em, while others stand slaving among a Parcel of Drabs [灰褲子] at a Washing-Tub.
  • *許多老Lechers“好色之徒”（他們是野獸）從他們的家庭中偷走，並尋找這些妓女潛伏的洞穴，以便練習他們不可思議的新發明的淫亂方案：有一半人自，身亡，另外一半人鞭打自己，一些人 躺在桌子下面，咬一口咬“扔掉”的骨頭，而其他人則站在一個洗衣盆裡，在一堆灰色子包中跪拜。            *
    • 36 half hang themselves: A form of masochism [受虐]  called hypoxyphilia involves sexual arousal by oxygen deprivation by means such as a noose [絞索] 

• Strange  that the Inclination should not die with the Power, but that old Fools should make themselves the Prey and Ridicule of a Pack of Strumpets. Some heedless Youths are wheedled into Marriage, which makes them and their unhappy Parents miserable all their Lives; others are drawn into Extravagancies「放纵」, and but too often run into their Master's Cash, and for fear of a Discovery, make away with themselves; or at least run away and leave their distracted Parents in a Thousand Fears:   Not to mention the Frustration of their Fortune, and the Miseries that attend a Vagabond Life.
  • *奇怪的是，傾向不應該隨著權力而消亡，但是那些老傻瓜應該把自己變成一群Strumpets的獵物和嘲諷對象。 一些不聽話的青年陷入婚姻，這使他們和他們不幸的父母一生難過; 其他人被劃入“放縱;荒唐”，但經常遇到他們的主人的現金，並且因為害怕發現而自責; 或者至少逃跑，讓他們分心的父母陷入千鈞一發的恐懼中：更不用說他們財富的沮喪，以及出現流浪漢生活的苦難。

• Thus honest Parents lose their Children, and Traders their Apprentices, and all from a Liberty we have of late given our Youth of rambling Abroad on Sundays:
  • *因此，誠實的父母失去了孩子，並且交易了他們的學徒，所有這些都來自於我們最近的自由，因為我們週日在海外散步的青少年：

• For many, now-a-days, will lie out all Night, or stay out so late to give no small Disturbance in sober Families. It therefore behoves every Master of a Family to have his Servants under his Eye:  And if the going to Church, Meeting, or whatever Place of Worship suited their Religion, were more enforc'd, it would be so much the better.
  • 對於很多人來說，現在 lie out all Night，或者在這麼遲的時間里呆在外面，以便在清醒的家庭中發生不小的騷動。 因此，每個家庭的主人都應該讓他的僕人在他的眼睛下：如果去參加教堂，聚會或者任何適合他們宗教的宗教場所，都會被強制執行，那就更好了。

• In short, the Luxury of the Age will be the Ruin of the Nation, if not prevented. 
  • 總之，如果不加以阻止，時代的奢華將成為民族的毀滅。

我決定這篇文章要多打一些字，就算跟這部電影沒有關係。

距離西部片的時代相距半世紀，舊菜重炒為了哪般？沒看過原作不曉得，總覺得少了些髒髒的感覺，嚴格說來西部片我現在有印象的只有日正當中而已。

簡單說，Bale飾演的loser，在整部片裡頭是個想當作孩子英雄的老爸。本可稱道的戰傷，卻是戰敗時被同袍誤傷的悲劇，這種傷不但不光榮，也不足稱道。我想，這種屬於英雄自戀，幻想當個悲劇英雄的片子，還是吳宇森、杜琪峰之流拍得深刻許多。因為後者主角大概中五槍也不會掛，然後死之前倒下的畫面可以用慢轉速度拍攝，十足狗血。但人之聲息旦夕或許又如Yuma列車旁的槍聲一樣倏忽即逝吧。

Crowe的大盜，同樣是無以復加的自戀英雄；擺明犯下數不完的案件，卻為一路押解他的Bale甘願自居階下囚？片尾的伏筆或許也是在說Crowe只是上火車給金主看而已，不久之後他又會騎著馬到另個城鎮逍遙也不定。這又算是英雄惜英雄嗎？我想差得遠了。

盜亦有道，或許Crowe是感受到Bale堅持的價值，他能夠部份體會吧；還有那身為人父、丈夫的自卑無奈。這一路上冒死，堅持要押解他上車的瘸子，背後的動機原來是如此的單純、渺小、也是不幸。況且Bale也苦笑地說道自己也不是固執要住在難以維生的沙漠，而是為了家中的小兒肺病。

毫無家累的Crowe，卻因為母親被汙辱而大動肝火，我想是能夠同理地體會Bale那種對於家人的深情與羈絆。為了家人，一個豪不起眼的放牧人，也能挺身而出擔起無人願承受之重負，能不教人動容嗎？

隨便挑張圖片作為封面，沒啥特別意義。稍微瞄一下這圖，也無深意便是了。

時間再度走到初夏五月，圍繞在身旁的氣流遲滯不流；毫無任何變化存在，是己身或是他人的緣故？

Moreover , being disgust of ownself , how did the kinda emotion from ...

長路漫漫 轉機何在？

平庸終究是平庸，無精打不起采。生命一滴一答蒸發。

今年以來最棒的電影。關於摔角的部份不贅述。

個人覺得這部片表現出很厚很濃的Americaness（美國性），一個真實的美國人，當然美國人本來就有千百種，摔角手Ram也只是千百萬人中的一種，且齊所表現出來的，或許只是我這異邦人先入為主的美國性罷了。不過，若說此片是一草根階層的中年父親的模擬情境，倒也不遠。

沒有大場面，也沒有狗血劇情，為何大獲好評。我想，導演抓住了眾人皆能感同身受的情節，或多或少都有過相同經歷，結果可能不同，但那種開心、或是愧疚，卻是人性的一普遍現象。導演捕捉到生命的碎片，親情愛情自尊生存意義一片片散落四方，從碎片折射出的變相實相，試圖接近人的情感，主角的情感。

Ram 生活的意義，或是說人生活的意義：愛情、家人、事業。寫著寫著覺得好無聊，人生有些事情就是只能說『就是這樣』，這樣寫評論，已經不只是畫蛇添足了。希望有沒看過的人看到這篇推薦文章，也能找DVD來欣賞一番。

Yes是我最早接觸的前衛搖滾團體，一直到現在，仍難忘那最初的感動。這張專輯是吉他手 Steve Howe的個人專輯，之所以出個人專輯印象中應該是當時Yes在打官司還是暫時解散之類的，總之搞到後來Drama、90125的人員編制跟 Going for the One 裡頭根本像是不同團體。直到後來的Union專輯才喬攏。不過，也因為這樣的契機，才讓Howe有餘裕與機會來秀秀自己的吉他技巧。插個題外話，說到Yes成員的個人專輯，我私心最愛 Squire 的 Fish Out of Water，不過之後再說吧。

幾乎全部的曲目都由Howe作曲，然後找來幾位好朋友來當樂手，與Yes的風格差異頗大：

1.Pennants (4:35)

前半部份尚可接受，後半部份令人不知所謂，無意義地重複樂句而已。

2.Cactus Boogie (2:00)

俏皮的小品，不少巧思在裡頭，像是田中的小蟲隨意飛舞。 

3.All's a Chord (4:55)

找來Yes的團員 Patrick Moraz - Piano; Bill Bruford - Drums來助陣，不過沒什麼讓他們發揮到就是了。Howe也唱了一小段，還不賴，他跟 Squire 在 Yes裡的和聲，跟Jon的主聲搭配，堪稱一絕。

4.Diary Of a Man Who Vanished (2:35)

輕鬆自在的氣氛，像是電影裡頭野餐的背景音樂。

5.Look Over Your Shoulder (5:00)

找來女歌手Claire Hamill 跨刀，但可惜曲子挺悶的。

6.Meadow Rag (2:40)

Howe自己玩得不亦樂乎，挺精彩的。

7.The Continental (2:50) (Conrad-Magidson)

普通。

8.Surface Tension (3:25)

棒！在一些Yes演唱會專輯裡頭有聽過他秀這首歌。

9.Double Rondo (8:12) (Music by Steve Howe; Orchestrated by Andrew Jackman)

找來了樂團合作，不過聽不出必要性在哪，況且像是油跟水一般相斥。

10.Concerto In D (Second Movement) (4:50) (Vivaldi arranged by Steve Howe)

改編的不賴。讓人想起Rick Wakeman 在 Fragile 專輯裡頭改編布拉姆斯的作品："Cans and Brahms (Extracts from Brahms' 4th Symphony in E Minor, Third Movement)" (Brahms, arranged Wakeman)。

下面這是CD內頁，展示Steve用了哪些吉他。

這張原先發行於78年的神盤，2001年由 Second Battle 重發，並另外收錄了78年3月他們在德國Langenzenn的現場演出之中的三首歌曲：River, Sweet Heroin 與 Brickstone.。

1. Put On Your Nightcap (16:02)

開頭由悠悠吉他聲配合風聲的效果切入，跟著渾厚富有磁性的女主唱從容切入。接著在4分半左右鍵盤手將歌曲接手，重重地撒下迷幻粉。兩分鐘的昏迷後，清醒的吉他與主唱明顯地加重了節拍以及嗓音，只能說這個女主唱 Beate Krause 真會唱阿！接下來輪到吉他手大約一分鐘的獨奏，此時風聲又在徐徐地吹了。在10分半的時候，進入了歌曲的第三部份，這階段地氣氛感覺是在醞釀著些什麼一樣，果然過了一分鐘後眾樂手就jam起來啦！鼓手跟貝斯手一來一往，好不精彩！最後五分鐘就是迷幻時刻，讓耳朵隨著樂音到達另一個境地。

2. You And Me (2:31)

一首彷彿台灣的校園民謠的小品。更認識了 Krause 的唱功。

3. Somewhere At The End Of The Rainbow (6:26)

聽來有些感慨的味道在裡頭，帶著回首往事的心情，藉由主唱反覆吟誦的樂句更加深此感觸。

4. Treary Eyes (4:17)

跟上一首的感覺挺像的。

5. Try A Little Bit (9:59)

水準之作。

若是幾年以前看這部電影，肯定會完全看不懂，而且昏昏欲睡。當然也不是說現在就多先知先覺等等，不過歲月至少有留下些痕跡在身上。

跟前頭PO的奇士勞斯基影片風格不同，蔡明亮的風格是靜默蔓延全片，看著片中人物默默地在日常生活中演出，而在其中探索重要議題。

我想愛情萬歲的主題是現代人的空虛、寂寞。這主題人人都知道，但究竟是空虛在哪兒，要如何表達出來，這就是高下之分的時刻。人人都可日常生活中，不時嘮叨空虛兩字，絮語無聊於耳際，但那虛空，究竟長什麼模樣；己身的空虛，自我通常怯於直視，從而分心尋求種種能安心之事，喝酒唱歌跳舞等等。但這樣真能逃走嗎？青少年哪吒裡的陳昭榮在片尾的無助，便是答案。

劉小楓曾提到，沒有信仰的人生，不存在所謂的罪惡，也不存在所謂的意義。的確，如片中的都市市民一般，一天的生活下來，究竟是在勞碌奔波於何事呢？片中許多鏡頭都是在雕琢出空虛的模樣，楊貴媚在一間間預售屋當中轉移，空蕩蕩的房子，獨自一人張貼廣告，板起笑臉接洽客戶；夜晚於浴缸中，自己面對的只有自己，已無逃避的空間，怎麼面對？抽菸，對著天花板發呆，於上床前塗抹保養品。就像前面說的，要逃避面對自我時的空虛，尋找事情作，是個好選擇。但心中的空虛與寂寞終究無解，夜半時分出門去找阿榮這個地攤商，用肉體來填補精神的空虛，也只能這樣子了。肉體的刺激過後，伴隨而來的是更深更深的虛無感，所以才有片尾十餘分鐘的哭泣。

楊貴媚的哭，不是傷心，而是空虛。試想她接下來一天的行程，繼續遊走於城市中一間間的空屋，戴著房仲業務的面具跟一個個在生命中與其毫無干係的人類介紹並講話。當然，實際人類的生活還是有很多樂趣，比如說看電影、美食、或是各式各樣的興趣等著讓人沈溺。蔡明亮把這些條件都暫且屏除，專心地來探討電影主題，不讓影片失焦。

今天第一次聽到這個團體Planxty，音樂聽就是富有愛爾蘭特色的樂音，小提琴、笛子、風笛等等。另外還有幾首歌曲則不走輕快路線，以民謠吟唱出發，歌者的情感有出來，或許這也是live專輯的強項之一。

不過每次聽這種音樂，自己聽不太出各團體的不同為何。既然一聽就知道是愛爾蘭音樂，那各團體的獨有特色何在呢？應該是要多聽多想才有答案。

看了一下資料，團體主要活躍在70年代，團員為

Christy Moore (vocals, acoustic guitar, bodhrán)
Dónal Lunny (bouzouki, guitars)
Andy Irvine(vocals, mandolin, mandola, bouzouki, hurdy-gurdy, harmonica)
Liam O'Flynn (uilleann pipes, tin whistle).

晚期則有 Johnny Moynihan, Matt Molloy (flute), and (briefly) Paul Brady。

耳聞小恐龍名聲已久，到2009年才開始接觸，距離這張專輯面世已經二十年了，真是相見恨晚。
樂團利用大量的噪音效果，營造出徬徨慌亂的氣氛，但同時又有相對而言清晰的吉他作為主軸。
不同於一些完全以噪音為主的團體，幾乎專輯中的每首歌都可以聽到或長或短的吉他solo，不是那種乾乾淨淨的吉他英雄
而是透過效果器曲曲折折嘗試表達歌曲意境與心情的獨奏。完全合我的口味!!

先前廳the Pixies的Surfer Rosa就很喜歡這味，我覺得小恐龍這樣更對味。
看網路上的資料，小恐龍08年還有在一起巡迴，真是令人開心的消息，這樣的團體仍然在活動。

德國樂團Accept的作品。

怎麼說呢，這種音樂就是有80年代的感覺，現在不會在有了，即使是復古、模仿，也抓不到。不過，每個年代就是有各自的特色，這也只是贅言。

這是我自己的感覺，也或許是我的一廂情願的想像。我想，這裡就是隨筆寫出當下對音樂的感受的地方。

主唱 Udo Dirkschneider，嗓音有特色，也有些像AC/DC的主唱，不過沒有那麼放蕩的感覺:P

樂團的音樂風格則是有些 Iron Maiden的影子，即使整體品質上有些差距。另外一個特色就是時常出現大合唱的場面，這與同期樂團 Helloween 蠻相像的，現在我德國樂團聽得很少，也無法說這是否是德國人的特色。不過跟英美樂團比起來，就挺明顯的。

最近開始大量挖掘，或是說開始想聽以前不想費力探索的音樂。挺開心的，聽音樂是我喜歡的事情。

也覺得20世紀的文化，深入探索真是發現無論是音樂、電影、戲劇、文學，無數的寶貴靈魂都存乎其中，有源源不竭的靈感與天才在其中，也有無數的深思與熱情於其間。

影片：20年後的英姿！

      耶誕節快來了。被冰雪封存的大街顯出人為的暖和氣氛，燭火和長青藤把因寒冷而獨自蜷縮的人們重新聚在一起。雅努什是個計程車司機，他提前收工，準備和妻子、孩子還有年邁的雙親過一個暖和的平安夜。 

　　雅努什的妻子性情溫和、質樸，對夫妻生活沒有詩意化的想像和奢求。她感覺到雅努什並非像小說或電影中描寫的那樣戲劇化地愛她，但她清楚，雅努什是個責任感很強的男人，她並不對這種更多基於責任而非愛情的婚姻提出異議。

  　不必問為什麼他們要結婚，偶然的情感差錯也會導致一個婚姻。他們已經一起生活多年，相互體貼，從這種生活中滋育出的兩個人的共同感情，可能比戲劇化的愛情更為幸福。
　　天快黑時，雅努什同妻子去教堂做平安夜彌撒。 

　　教堂裏擠滿了人。 

　　在昏黃的燭光相伴著的平安夜輕緩而溫厚的歌聲中，雅努什感到一雙懇求的目光穿過人群和燭光，像垂死者伸出的手臂緊緊地纏抱著他。順著這目光雅努什看到了艾娃溫澀、含情而又憂鬱的眼睛，這些還只是那目光的含意中的一小部分。那目光有平安夜的祝福，更有在這平安夜傷心的哀求，甚至還帶有幾分思想死亡的含意。 

　　雅努什同艾娃分手已經好幾年，各自結了婚，再沒有見過面。艾娃的丈夫很愛她，對她體貼得無微不至，艾娃卻沒有非要同他一起生活的願望。她無法忍耐沒有令身心顫然的愛情但不乏溫暖的婚姻生活，同丈夫分居了。 

　　艾娃對孤單特別敏感，總想有一個可以向他訴說的男人。對艾娃來說，兩個人的生活中訴說的時間是主要的，示愛的時間總被誇張，其實佔據的生活時間很少，重要的是訴說的陪伴，這才叫做有一個所愛的男人睡在身邊。她的丈夫一大弱點就是沒有耐性聽她的傾訴，所以，艾娃不時打電話同雅努什聊天，向他傾訴有來由和沒有來由的不安。 

　　節日是人們共在的時間，對於敏感的艾娃，這樣的時間是特別不幸的時間，孤單就像教堂外面的冰雪一樣寒冷地剜割她的心。那投向雅努什的目光蕩滌了眼前的彌撒氣氛，其中分明有絕望的悲情在不容推開地懇求：要同雅努什一起過這個平安夜。 

　　雅努什把目光從艾娃臉上移開，想逃避或者說推開艾娃的懇求。雅努什不是沒有讀出艾娃目光中孤單的痛苦，而是為了婚姻的責任，不得不對自己過去曾經愛過的人的懇求視而不見。 

　　回到家裏，平安夜的家庭歡聚就要開始：夫妻之間，父子、母子之間會有種種遊戲和溫情時光。擔心艾娃會打電話來，雅努什截斷了電話線。 

　　門鈴響了。 
　　雅努什下樓打開大門。 
　　艾娃站在寒雪紛飛的門外，說她丈夫今早突然失蹤了，問雅努什可不可以開車帶她去找尋。 
　　答應還是不答應？為什麼雅努什得離開家庭的平安夜，去幫過去的戀人？ 

　　艾娃的丈夫失蹤了，她可以向警察局求助。雅努什不是警察局，不管公共事務。艾娃的請求只是一個私人的請求，雅努什有什麼理由答應艾娃？ 

　　雅努什猶豫片刻，答應了艾娃的請求。 

　　他覺得自己是出於對過去的感情的責任答應艾娃的。 
　　可是，有這樣的責任嗎？ 
　　責任在這裏既沒有道德依據，也沒有法理依據，也許只是一個使某種情感合法化的理由。況且，盡到對艾娃的責任，又如何可能盡到對妻子的責任？ 

　　雅努什怎麼對自己的妻子說？說以前的戀人向他求助找尋失蹤的丈夫？妻子會不會認為雅努什還愛著艾娃？ 
　　雅努什當然不覺得是。 
　　兩個人之間的情感有一大片曖昧的領域，很難明確說是一種什麼樣的感情。雅努什同艾娃有過一段情，這段情過去後，留下一種曖昧的感情，像稀釋了的血。雅努什清楚記得與艾娃分手的原因——無法忍受她沒完沒了的抱怨。艾娃對生活品質要求很苛刻，她既覺得只有雅努什才能給她帶來幸福，又覺得他在生活細節上不能符合她對美好生活的想像。沒完沒了的抱怨磨損了愛情。 
　　也許，雅努什看到艾娃站在寒夜的雪地裏產生了同情，這種同情推開了自己作為丈夫的責任，甚至對妻子的感情。 

      在這平安夜，責任與同情哪一個更重要？或者哪一個責任更重要？ 
　　他回到樓上對妻子說，鄰居看見有人偷了他的車子，得去警察局找。雅努什依從同情，對責任撒了謊，或者說因這一責任對另一責任撒了謊。無論因為什麼，他撒謊對嗎？ 

　　雅努什載艾娃上路，去警察局、醫院。一路上艾娃不停地說話，分析丈夫的可能去處，想方設法把丈夫的失蹤弄成一宗懸案，與雅努什一起追究。平安夜的街市，人車兩空，只有雅努什與艾娃驅車尋找一個虛構的失蹤者。雅努什其實心裏明白，艾娃的丈夫不是失蹤了，而是早與她分居了。雅努什沒有戳破艾娃的謊話，那會傷害她在寒冬的節日裏的孤單。有好幾次，雅努什覺得不耐煩了，覺得不能為了陪伴艾娃，讓妻子在孤單中度過平安夜。對艾娃的同情成了雅努什對妻子的無情。艾娃也清楚，雅努什與她驅車尋找丈夫是出於同情。 
　　並不是每個女人都能忍受同情。有的女人把同情視為侮辱，把責任視為傷害。艾娃不是這種女人，她只需要自己所愛的男人能陪伴自己。 
　　這兩個人在一個虛構的理由中一起度過了平安夜，他們尋找到的，對艾娃來說，是同雅努什在一起的時光。天快亮時，艾娃對雅努什說：“一個人過平安夜很難，我已經連續三年一個人過平安夜了。今年實在不行了。我跟自己打賭，如果把你留在身邊直到早上七點，就可以活過來。” 

　　時間正好七點，艾娃從衣袋裏摸出兩粒毒藥，扔在地上，用腳踩碎。雅努什在教堂中看到的思想死亡的目光是真的。 

　　雅努什回到家。為平安夜的歡聚準備的一切原封未動，妻子蜷縮在沙發上睡著了。雅努什把頭靠在妻子的肩上，妻子驚醒過來，什麼也沒有問，只是把他抱住，仿佛需要安慰的不是她，而是雅努什，需要道歉的不是雅努什，而是她。她諒解他。 
　　妻子的諒解並不讓雅努什釋然，他覺得對不起她。其實，雅努什答應艾娃陪她找尋謊稱失蹤的丈夫，也不是同情，而是諒解，知道她撒謊而諒解她的處境。在這個平安夜，如果雅努什不能諒解艾娃的撒謊，她一定吞了那兩粒毒藥。諒解是對人性的脆弱的體諒，諒解比同情、責任都難，諒解才能解開情感的纏結。 

　　如果雅努什不答應艾娃，艾娃會諒解嗎？如果她能諒解，就不會敲雅努什家的門了。諒解是一種明智的心性，這種心性是性情的結果，不是可以習得的。 

　　也許有人會認為，類似的倫理困境過於偶然，純屬例外，根本就不必在意。然而，倫理困境被看做例外，是由於道德規則的存在。道德規範安排了一個抽象的生活秩序，具體的生活自身就顯得是不斷產生的例外。生活中的倫理困境其實才是真實的道德生活本身，不是道德規範在活著，而是具體的個人在活著。正如有了法律規範就有了犯罪，有了道德規範就有了道德困境。 

　　人在具體生活中往往難以盡到道德責任，即便人盡力想要盡到。自由主義倫理學承認生活中充滿倫理困境，就是不承認生活織體本身是按道德戒律編織起來的。對於律法論或決疑論的倫理學來說，不存在兩難倫理處境。關注、正視生活中細微的兩難倫理處境——像雅努什遇到的那樣，是自由主義道德意識的首要品質。

      在一個倫理國家中，個體的人並不需要獨自面臨倫理困境，有各級黨組織可以依靠，如果你不願意依靠，各級黨組織也會非要你依靠。如果撇開倫理國家的道德秩序，只是設想個人的道德處境，那麼，倫理問題就是個體人與一個複雜、具體的生活世界的性情關係問題。《十誡》中的人物大都是自由職業者：建築師、教師、醫生、歌手、律師。基斯洛夫斯基覺得，這樣可以避開社會問題和政治問題，讓人們的目光聚集在個體倫理情感的困境中。

Tenhi 是來自芬蘭的團體。音樂的風格不賴，主要是以民謠為主，有時純粹一把吉他，有時則是加上北歐看家的黑暗、死亡氛圍；在柔和的弦音後，是深沈的低吟，或是猶如鬼魅的呼嘯。之前這種風格的，好像就是Okkervil Riverk了，不過太久沒聽也沒啥印象。

歌詞是完全聽不懂，不過氣氛營造的技巧頗好，一些章節的編曲也有巧思，好！

他們的成員：

Tyko Saarikko - vocals, piano, harmonium, synth, guitar, percussions, didgeridoo, mouth harp, udu

Ilmari Issakainen - drums, piano, guitar, bass, percussions, backing vocals

歷年作品

• Kertomuksia (demo, 1997)
• Hallavedet (mcd, 1998)
• Kauan (CD, 1999)
• Airut:ciwi (mcd, 2000)
• Väre (CD, 2002)
• Maaäet (CD, 2006)
• Airut:aamujen (CD, 2006)
• Folk Aesthetic 1996-2006 (3CD in book format, 2007)