去clubbing算不上是我的嗜好，沒有那種一週不去，就仿如「麻雀友」手痕的感覺。在以前學生的年代，我算得上是那種差不多「絕跡如江湖」的隱型人。不是說沒有去過，只是偶然會到一到，坐一坐，真的可算是瀟瀟灑灑走一回，是絕對的「走一回」，是白走的那一種。那時候，最令我最納悶的，要算是看著人家玩得高高興興的，而自己不明白有什麼好玩！
看到場中的紅男綠女，火辣的裝束、不住扭動的身軀、興奮的神態、忘我的表情。令我聯想到國家地理雜誌的一個節目，是有關非洲的巫醫和戰士他們的儀式。他們就是在近乎一樣的神情和精神狀態下跳著舞。究竟是什麼原因造成這種狀態？是燈光？酒精？音樂？還是藥物？還是渾合了多種因素下的產物。望著舞池中扭動的身軀，我覺得有種非常原始的情感在空氣中激盪著，叫我完全投入不到其中。
這時，望著場中的一對女生在舞池中跳著我稱之為「扭扭樂」的舞。漸漸地，她們的附近開始有異動。多名男生都在一邊裝著漫不經心，而另一邊又開始漸漸的靠近著她們。接著，那數名男生施展渾身解數的在那二個女生的身邊在跳著舞。有一二個男生更加邊跳邊擋著其他男生的加入。最後，當那兩名女生發覺了身邊的「求偶者」後，便消失於人群中。看到那一幕後，我極力的去想那和我在國家地理頻道中看到那些求偶的昆蟲在雌性面前跳舞有什麼不一樣的。我想，最大的不同是，昆蟲會在最後選擇一隻最好的雄性去繁衍後代。但是人類在這方面的本能，沒有昆蟲那麼的強烈，起碼，那兩個女生最後選擇離開舞池。
究竟，在科技已經那麼先進的廿一世紀，我們還有多少祖先留給我們，他們生活智慧的痕跡？想知道的話，下次去clubbing要多飲幾杯！
2007年9月23日 星期日
2007年9月16日 星期日
蘭桂芳的十字路口
Clubbing這個詞彙在近這十年的時間突然被泛濫使用. 還記得由小時侯電視撈飯的時代開始看著<壹號皇庭I,II,III,VI,V....>至到<妙手仁心I,II,III>, 劇中一眾中產律師醫生返工前收工後都要clubbing聚一聚, 蘭桂芳十字路口場境出現次數簡直比手術室法庭來得更多!!
另外同時坊間一眾報刊雜誌一窩蜂盲目標題:
遊歷網絡世界, 走訪過過不少素未謀面的網中人的部落格, 當中有些人以Clubbing為生為死. 一幕幕哭過笑過愛過傷過醉過醒過輸過贏過就隨著杯起杯落永不止息. 每篇記盡的就是上星期clubbing識了某富貴達人, 這星期clubbing穿得如何華麗/少布而成為焦點, 昨天clubbing因失戀而酩酊大醉, 今天clubbing誓要還以顏色等等...嘩.....現在是去Clubbing還是去了人肉/慾市場?
又剛巧昨天看到報章的一篇新聞, 說到外國人眼中的中國女生愈來愈開外大膽及功利.她們會主動上前跟老外搭訕, 入到吧內三句可跟你做朋友, 一杯酒就可給你電話號碼....主動得連一眾老外遊客也嘆為觀止. 因為即使在美國, 如想以一杯酒就取得電話, 換來的多是一記耳光吧...
在這裡我並不是想做什麼德育說教或審判(這些留給明光社吧...) 我信悉心打扮去派對是尊重場合的表現, 廣交朋友共歡暢飲是社交禮儀之道, 而更重要的是出席者的心背後抱著什麼目的而出現. 這也可能是我們在看clubbing時跟外國的文代差異嗎?!
2007年9月10日 星期一
聲效部
香港clubbing地方我不熟，但此屬熱門社交活動。香港很可能是clubbing好地方，選擇多，但未有深入研究。然而，經常與香港比較的新加坡，clubbing讓人驚喜，發現前所未有的新天地。
新加坡出名煙酒皆貴，遊客可帶一公升烈酒、一公升餐酒及一公升啤酒外，香煙雪茄通通不能帶入境。在這小國家內，M牌一包煙(20支裝)要成接近60港元，在便利店小瓶啤酒則40-50港元，貴到飛起。難怪當地兵哥愛軍隊，因為在軍營裡喝啤酒才有香港價。
新加坡積極轉型，大力吸引國際大型金融企業開設總部，跑到星洲工作的金融才俊，當然是千金散盡還復來，加上犯罪率極低、社會安寧，令各女士們放心消費，娛樂場所老闆們安心投資。
Clark Quay成為獅城蒲點，其中來自英國Ministry of Sound更是當中佼佼者。以個字－大，兩層的士高內有扶手電梯連接，四個不同主題無池，TECHNO, R&B, 70’s,還有一區一進去全是圓形床，讓你跟大班朋友談天，過癮嗎？跳舞又得，到樓上看人家跳舞又得。還有VIP區(有時候區內比區外還人多，點跳？)
生於熱帶地區的新加坡少女，熱情爽朗，在中產國家、物質富裕環境下長大，週末派對為指定動作，亦甚懂得禮儀之道，出席派對均悉心打扮，可見她們非常重視此社交活動。
在鼓勵飲奶多過飲酒的國度裡，不乏大開芝華士、白蘭地的與會人士。豪飲，除了表現膽色外，更表現個人財力的最佳證明，故在芝華士旁定有幾位美女相伴，似洋酒廣告嗎？
在那裡發現有種雞尾酒特別飲法，值得一提。比如說，來渣(Jar)manhattan，酒保便拿出量杯，倒進適當份量的whisky(當然不會多給你，酒精比例少得離譜)，然後注入大量可樂，再插四支飲管，完成！
我想，佢地真係甘口渴？
新加坡出名煙酒皆貴，遊客可帶一公升烈酒、一公升餐酒及一公升啤酒外，香煙雪茄通通不能帶入境。在這小國家內，M牌一包煙(20支裝)要成接近60港元，在便利店小瓶啤酒則40-50港元，貴到飛起。難怪當地兵哥愛軍隊，因為在軍營裡喝啤酒才有香港價。
新加坡積極轉型，大力吸引國際大型金融企業開設總部，跑到星洲工作的金融才俊，當然是千金散盡還復來，加上犯罪率極低、社會安寧，令各女士們放心消費，娛樂場所老闆們安心投資。
Clark Quay成為獅城蒲點，其中來自英國Ministry of Sound更是當中佼佼者。以個字－大，兩層的士高內有扶手電梯連接，四個不同主題無池，TECHNO, R&B, 70’s,還有一區一進去全是圓形床，讓你跟大班朋友談天，過癮嗎？跳舞又得，到樓上看人家跳舞又得。還有VIP區(有時候區內比區外還人多，點跳？)
生於熱帶地區的新加坡少女，熱情爽朗，在中產國家、物質富裕環境下長大，週末派對為指定動作，亦甚懂得禮儀之道，出席派對均悉心打扮，可見她們非常重視此社交活動。
在鼓勵飲奶多過飲酒的國度裡，不乏大開芝華士、白蘭地的與會人士。豪飲，除了表現膽色外，更表現個人財力的最佳證明，故在芝華士旁定有幾位美女相伴，似洋酒廣告嗎？
在那裡發現有種雞尾酒特別飲法，值得一提。比如說，來渣(Jar)manhattan，酒保便拿出量杯，倒進適當份量的whisky(當然不會多給你，酒精比例少得離譜)，然後注入大量可樂，再插四支飲管，完成！
我想，佢地真係甘口渴？
2007年9月3日 星期一
Put an end to an overly massive mass media
Whether we like it or not, the mass media—namely, TV, cinema, newspaper, the Internet, as well as the billboards on the street etc.—are part of our being, an integral part of the modern psyche. We grow up consuming the media and in return allowing it to consume us. Just think about how much information, both factual and fictional, both consciously and unconsciously, is conveyed to us daily via the mass media.
Mass media itself is not evil. After all, we do need to rely on others to inform us with the happenings that are beyond our scope of sensory. When positioned in the right place, granted the deserved attention and power, the mass media can be an indispensable tool for the well-being of both the individual and the society. It can, for example, promote health as well as democracy, to any corner on this planet.
What is problematic with it is the kind of messages we are bombarded with, often times against our will, as well as the power the media had appropriated—the power to define what is truth and what is important. Worse still is the “corporatization” of the media. The nested interest of profit is often mixed in with the dissemination of information, and of “truth”. The average person probably recognizes more corporate logos than national flags, remembers more celebrities than their own teachers, and spends more time watching TV than nurturing familial relationships. By the principle of “mere exposure”—that a positive attitude toward a previously neutral object will gradually form when one has been exposed to it for an enough number of times—our values can be quite easily manipulated. This is a scary thought.
The media one way or another informs us how other people are living their lives. For instance, with the domination of Hollywood, we probably know more about the United States (and particularly California) than any other country, say Mexico. To be more accurate, we are exposed to the life of the US as depicted on the silver screen. In addition, because of its vast marketing power, we very likely are more familiar with the Hollywood than Bollywood, even though the latter produces more film per year than the former.
What probably concerns me the most is this: the media helps fueling the social unrest created by economic and political disparities. The value system (often traditional) that keeps a society intact—in our case, arguably, Confucism—is now in competition with the value system offered by what we see on TV and the Web. We learn how wonderful life is (or at least seem to be) of those who are rich and famous, and we quite inevitably compare that with our own miserable, mundane life. And we are often fooled to believe that the former is attainable and we are tempted do so by all means, immediately. Disparity is nothing new; recall the aristocrats existed (and some still existing) in almost every civilization. What is new is the mobility of information: Now a farmer can readily observe the glamour of the city and the materialistic life of his urbanite counterparts. It is no wonder that we hear about so many different doggy businesses going on in the developing world. It is also not a misery why crime—both commercial and violent—are occurring at an increasingly rate and magnitude. Why should someone adhere to the virtue of perseverance, of diligence, of community, of self-sacrifice, of respecting the elders, of preserving the environment, of frugality, of fidelity, when one can exploit others and the environment in exchange for all the material goods the media tells us we ought to have? With the sneer population and purchasing power of China, and its market connectivity with the world, crooks only need to commit one crime and earn enough. Hence the fake eggs, fake fish, faulty toys, and, yes, fake hopes and dreams—Macau.
The choice is ours
We live in a time of abundant temptations. And it is becoming harder and harder to fend them off. But the beauty of it is we also have abundant choices. With all the miracles of the Web, we now can get our needed dose of entertainment and information and news of our own choice. Previously, in our parents’ generation, for example, we could only subscribe to a limited selection of media. These information providers, in order to survive, must cater to a large proportion of the local population and hence is constrained by their demands, interest etc. Now, however, even a niche market can have a large enough clientele to sustain a form of media, especially when it is online. And, as a result, we see the proliferation of alternative voices that may have previously been subdued by mainstream media enterprises. In this sense, the Internet provides a relatively democratic form of mass media: anyone can be a reporter, commentator, and star. The bottom line is this: the choice is out there and it is ours. It is most often just a matter of seeking them out or having the time to create our own.
The media, mass or otherwise, must be democratized or at least made accountable to the public. In the past, we’ve seen the atrocities made possible by a government controlled mass media (i.e., propaganda); in today’s world the power of defining what is fact is still by large in the hands of a few corporations. We, the consumers of the media, must then uphold a sense of discernment and fight for a fair, as bias-free as possible news source. And one way to do it, quite ironically, is through consuming. Consuming wisely, that is.
Christian Chan
Sept 2, 2007
Cambridge, MA, USA
Mass media itself is not evil. After all, we do need to rely on others to inform us with the happenings that are beyond our scope of sensory. When positioned in the right place, granted the deserved attention and power, the mass media can be an indispensable tool for the well-being of both the individual and the society. It can, for example, promote health as well as democracy, to any corner on this planet.
What is problematic with it is the kind of messages we are bombarded with, often times against our will, as well as the power the media had appropriated—the power to define what is truth and what is important. Worse still is the “corporatization” of the media. The nested interest of profit is often mixed in with the dissemination of information, and of “truth”. The average person probably recognizes more corporate logos than national flags, remembers more celebrities than their own teachers, and spends more time watching TV than nurturing familial relationships. By the principle of “mere exposure”—that a positive attitude toward a previously neutral object will gradually form when one has been exposed to it for an enough number of times—our values can be quite easily manipulated. This is a scary thought.
The media one way or another informs us how other people are living their lives. For instance, with the domination of Hollywood, we probably know more about the United States (and particularly California) than any other country, say Mexico. To be more accurate, we are exposed to the life of the US as depicted on the silver screen. In addition, because of its vast marketing power, we very likely are more familiar with the Hollywood than Bollywood, even though the latter produces more film per year than the former.
What probably concerns me the most is this: the media helps fueling the social unrest created by economic and political disparities. The value system (often traditional) that keeps a society intact—in our case, arguably, Confucism—is now in competition with the value system offered by what we see on TV and the Web. We learn how wonderful life is (or at least seem to be) of those who are rich and famous, and we quite inevitably compare that with our own miserable, mundane life. And we are often fooled to believe that the former is attainable and we are tempted do so by all means, immediately. Disparity is nothing new; recall the aristocrats existed (and some still existing) in almost every civilization. What is new is the mobility of information: Now a farmer can readily observe the glamour of the city and the materialistic life of his urbanite counterparts. It is no wonder that we hear about so many different doggy businesses going on in the developing world. It is also not a misery why crime—both commercial and violent—are occurring at an increasingly rate and magnitude. Why should someone adhere to the virtue of perseverance, of diligence, of community, of self-sacrifice, of respecting the elders, of preserving the environment, of frugality, of fidelity, when one can exploit others and the environment in exchange for all the material goods the media tells us we ought to have? With the sneer population and purchasing power of China, and its market connectivity with the world, crooks only need to commit one crime and earn enough. Hence the fake eggs, fake fish, faulty toys, and, yes, fake hopes and dreams—Macau.
The choice is ours
We live in a time of abundant temptations. And it is becoming harder and harder to fend them off. But the beauty of it is we also have abundant choices. With all the miracles of the Web, we now can get our needed dose of entertainment and information and news of our own choice. Previously, in our parents’ generation, for example, we could only subscribe to a limited selection of media. These information providers, in order to survive, must cater to a large proportion of the local population and hence is constrained by their demands, interest etc. Now, however, even a niche market can have a large enough clientele to sustain a form of media, especially when it is online. And, as a result, we see the proliferation of alternative voices that may have previously been subdued by mainstream media enterprises. In this sense, the Internet provides a relatively democratic form of mass media: anyone can be a reporter, commentator, and star. The bottom line is this: the choice is out there and it is ours. It is most often just a matter of seeking them out or having the time to create our own.
The media, mass or otherwise, must be democratized or at least made accountable to the public. In the past, we’ve seen the atrocities made possible by a government controlled mass media (i.e., propaganda); in today’s world the power of defining what is fact is still by large in the hands of a few corporations. We, the consumers of the media, must then uphold a sense of discernment and fight for a fair, as bias-free as possible news source. And one way to do it, quite ironically, is through consuming. Consuming wisely, that is.
Christian Chan
Sept 2, 2007
Cambridge, MA, USA
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
