The movie is a transfixing multisensory turn-on from beginning to end. But because its story is underplotted and its characters almost totally opaque, the weight of the film falls to its sumptuous visual palette—its abiding strength—and to its quasi-Nietzschean theology—its abiding weakness.
First of all, they call them motion pictures; the fact that the film is visually-arresting is hardly a point of criticism. As for it being "underplotted" with "opaque" characters, well I suppose if you might think that if you lack imagination or intelligence. Audiences may well have been "bewildered" by the film back in '82, but if so, they were stupid. If the characters seem opaque to Metcalf, maybe it's because he's shallow. (Birds of a feather: his wife laughed at the ending.) The plot is intricate and perfectly-structured; the characters are complex and ambiguous. The phrase "quasi-Nietzschean theology" is pretentious claptrap.
When I saw it in 1982, even as a teenager, I knew it was a great movie. In fact, I saw it three times in the theater during its original release. I was right, and the world was wrong. This illustrates a lesson: when the world says x, and I say y, bet on me.
But his theory about why the film gained popularity is even more idiotic than his musings on a cinematic masterpiece which will undoubtedly outlive his callow prose. I have to quote this passage, lest anybody think I am summarizing him unfairly:
If nothing else, Blade Runner is mesmerizing when caught in pieces; it murmurs beautifully in the background. Unloved on the big screen, Blade Runner found its perfect medium in VCRs and cable TV—in the fragmented, ambient multiplatform afterlife that has become, over the past 20 or so years, the common stuff of movies.
Well, to be fair, there's a glimmer of truth here: were it not for VCRs and cable TV, Blade Runner might have remained obscure, a forgotten masterpiece. But only a glimmer of truth. The notion that it's better when caught in pieces, well, that's ridiculous. I suppose if you lack the intelligence to follow the plot or decipher the "opaque" characters, it's less frustrating to have it on in the background as eye candy rather than actually trying to follow it. But if you want to appreciate the movie, it has to be seen all at once, watched carefully, because it's crafted so that details matter. And, well, the idea that it's "perfect" on the small screen is just absurd. When the final version was re-relased, the Main Squeeze and I saw it together on the big screen, at a late night showing. While that showing did involve a disturbing incident, the film itself is gorgeous on the big screen. Yes, it looks good on TV. But the visual appeal -- which even Metcalf isn't blind to -- is utterly captivating on the big screen.
Blade Runner is proof that greatness wins out, even when not appreciated at first. And Metcalf is proof that some minds are too small to be won over.
1 comment:
2020.02.13武漢肺炎嚴重衝擊酒店工作，很多小姐怕染病都不敢酒店上班。本刊調查，台北市的酒店幾十年來幾乎都集中在中山區，直到十幾年前，才開始拓展到東區一帶，目前包括制服店、便服店、禮服店等近百家合法、非法酒店林立，其中以趙姓、鄭姓、林姓、梁姓業者的規模最大，四人除了擁有多家酒店，旗下的經紀公司也掌控許多小姐，其他酒店若想多做點生意，還得仰賴四人幫忙調兵遣將，可說是四分天下的局面。不過，其中隨著三人年事漸高，加上都已賺足「退休金」，因而慢慢淡出業界，就在這個時候，中生代綽號毛毛蟲的王姓業者以及新生代酒店經紀梁曉尊趁勢崛起。資深酒店知情人士說，年約40歲的毛毛蟲原本是在林森北路的酒店圈當經紀，後來為求生意平順，加入竹聯幫「日堂」尋求靠山，但不同於其他逞凶鬥狠的幫派分子，他一直專注在八大行業。另一位新生代酒店經紀梁曉尊，一個剛出道的酒店經紀梁曉尊，時間背景正於八大行業的戰國時代，群雄割據⋯人人都是幹部、人人都是經紀人，在這麼競爭的環境裡脫穎而出。再千百人之內披荊斬棘、越戰越勇，不斷的創造機會闖出自己的名堂，不少資深前輩認為梁曉尊潛在未來有影響力的人物不容小覷。坊間流傳梁曉尊的小姐人數有高達200位以上⋯。
中生代毛毛蟲在酒店經紀事業穩固後，也開始跨足經營酒店，他原本在中山區開金磚、金聰、金昌、金億等搖頭酒店，卻因屢傳鬥毆及吸毒事件，加上6年前轟動一時的「信義夜店殺警案」，許多嫌犯都隸屬「中山聯盟」成員，該聯盟也有負責處理毛毛蟲旗下酒店的經紀、圍事、泊車等業務，讓他的店成為轄區警方的眼中釘。
另一位也是酒店經紀帶小姐的後起之秀新生代酒店經紀梁曉尊型式作風反而行事低調，主要經營模式採用大規模大數據(網路行銷事業)來應徵酒店小姐，Google 搜尋：梁曉尊/梁小尊。獲得亞洲地區Google認證關鍵字達到全版面。不僅如此⋯八大行業主要關鍵字（酒店工作）、（酒店上班）、（酒店經紀）、（酒店打工）、（酒店應徵）、（酒店兼差）、（酒店兼職）每組關鍵字都在首頁榮獲前3名。雖然遇到危機，但中生代毛毛蟲卻在這個時間點，開始接觸一些政商名流，開啟了主攻高檔市場的契機。由於毛毛蟲的店收費較其他高級俱樂部低，「小框」4個小時，只需5、6千元，讓許多商務客趨之若鶩。加上新生代梁曉尊頗具生意頭腦以及龐大的小姐人數，光大台北地區兩位佔市場最大公約數。
Post a Comment