手机

    03年，《手机》上映。
    那个时候，在学校的计算机中心东边有个康纳酒吧，被改造成了影吧。有一个个的小隔间，里面是DVD和沙发，多是情侣在那带着耳机看电影，一小时一块钱。尤其在冬天，很是受欢迎。
    现在已经没了，那里成了报销医药费的地方。

    《手机》是不适合当贺岁片看的，更不适合一对情侣或夫妻看。看完第一遍时，感觉有点沉重，还有点恐怖。里面的情节太真实了，真实到熟悉。估计不少人在看后都会联想到身边的点点滴滴，然后对号入座。
    有了手机，恐怕没有几个人没对着手机撒过慌。只不过有的慌小，有的慌大，有的只是为了一个糖块，有的却是丢了原则。最常见的就是接到应酬电话，“啊？真不巧，我在外地出差呢。下次一定一定，我坐庄。”不用面对面，不用担心脸红，说句假话会变得如此容易。

    既然每个人都不是那么坦荡，太过接近现实的讽刺幽默就会让人不知所措。这不同于《大腕》，在那里大家是旁观者，看别人笑话，在这里大家是参与者，有可能看到自己的笑话。
    说谎的原因形色万千，但说谎的方法却大同小异。冯导在《手机》里做了一个公开展示，很多人对此表示不满。你会发现昨晚和同事出去喝酒，席间接到老婆电话时敷衍，竟然和严守一的台词如此相似。不同的是严守一犯了原则性错误，而你只是图一时的嘴馋...
    作为未婚一族，还没有太多感触，看网上曾有这样的讨论：敢带老婆去看《手机》么？
    就像前面的例子，虽然你没犯大错，虽然你只是背着老婆和几个哥们喝了顿小酒，但你还是说谎了。谎言一旦被揭穿，那说谎的原因就会被充分放大，并插上想象的翅膀。若在十多个喝酒的哥们中，还有一个女同事，哪怕你不认识，一段荡气回肠的爱情故事也会立马成型。而且，无数的历史经验告诉我们，往往说谎者的解释都是苍白的、无力的、自杀式的。冯导又在《手机》里告诉老婆们，证人的作用是该忽略的...

    不管看不看《手机》，都要坚持一个原则，做人要对得起良心。用费老的话说，做人要厚道。但，一旦双方有了误解和不信任，一旦开始打个电话去试探，那就出裂痕了。
    套用著名思想家鲁迅先生的话，本就没有事，想得多了，就有了事。

    扯远了。个人是比较喜欢这部电影的，如果不是打着贺岁片旗号的话，那就更好了。至于商业味太浓，那个本是无所谓的事，也是很正常的事，拍电影挣钱很应当，国家的四万亿注资里又没有补贴导演的。况且，这是让导演在乎观众想法，在乎观众是否接受的最好方法。本就该这样。

    开场那个小调，找到了冯导的影子。

    牛三斤，牛三斤，你的媳妇叫吕桂花，吕桂花让问一问，最近你还回来吗？

    博：http://xiaogs.org/2009/01/04/320.html
 

前几年过年关的时候，总是会有原来的同学三三两两聚会在一起。有一个好朋友是个男孩，读书的时候，总是称我为兄长，不过几年，就已经为人夫了，两口子都不漂亮，也不出色。


和他的妻子吃饭的时候是坐在一起，说起外遇的话题，她和我的观点不谋而和，我们都认为如果要是碰到自己的老公有了什么，只要大家还过得去，就睁一只眼闭一只眼，因为我们都觉得，人生的路很长，我们都不能保证我们自己的思想会不会出轨。说道这个话题最后，我们还笑，只要他不是太过份，只要我们彼此都还有颜面。





事情过去了几年，我开始没往结婚上想，也有几年，电影电视里不断在讨论外遇，不过都与我无关了。如果有一样东西，你从来不会失去，大概就是因为你从来没有得到过。


今年新年前和白羽一起去看了今年的贺岁片——《手机》，老调重弹，大概总是因为这曲子还没有过时，男人女人，就算不谈婚姻，爱情里占有和背叛也是永恒的话题。





故事的一开始是从河南某家农村里平淡地诉说了乡里第一部电话开通的时候，守一的表嫂坐着守一的自行车去打电话的情景，然后，在类似秦腔一样的哭音响起，哭得我心慌，那句歌词我依稀记得是：你的媳妇叫吕桂花，吕桂花让问问你，最近你还回来吗？


当镜头拉开，全部是矿工的人头，广播在继续找人，而这些男人，都没有表情，没有说话，我还以为是一部反应民工过年的片子，我没有想到，这个故事是在说，结婚女人对自己老公的牵挂，也没有想到，这是一个从古到今一直都有的话题。女人依靠男人，企盼稳定，而男人，也想有个家，可是他们又怕约束，还有怕“视觉疲倦”。不，我说错了，他们不是怕，这只是一个事实。虽然我们都在说，爱情消失了过后，还有感情可以维持在两个人中间。但是我们自欺欺人了，还是我们只是没有找到那一份“合适”呢？





故事里的墨非（张国立）说，如果这是在古代就好了，一个人上京赶考，要好几年才回家，你回来了，你说什么就是什么。他对着严守一（葛优）说，相处了，几十年，是真的有点视觉疲倦了……


电影里，严守一是个节目主持人，他的生活在继续，他的节目也在继续，他的节目里不断地讨论着“诚实”、“心里有病”，可是他的生活仍然不可能改变这一切，拿起手机，他张口就是谎言，那谎言被丝毫也没迟疑的说出来，说得我们大家都知道他拿起手机会说什么，我们在电影院里笑，可是她的女人却笑不出来。





故事里有三个女人。


严守一的前妻于文娟，她是在家里拖地板的时候，接过了严守一情人的电话，然后在发现严守一外遇的时候，断然离婚，而在离婚后生了孩子才让严守一知道，他们离婚的时候，她怀孕了。


严守一的老师沈雪（徐帆），这是个很独立的新时代的女性，她是个认真的人，所以她有几出戏，一个是他们第一次见面的时候，她不能容忍严守一漠视她的教学，把严的手机扔进了垃圾桶。也是她的认真吧，她在下学夜不睡觉还要抓夜归的学生，也还有她为严守一代酒，这些是快乐的，后来，他们住在一起了，沈雪的地位就显得夹生了，他们不是夫妻，严的过去有一个老婆，而且是一个生了孩子的老婆，严的外面，还有一个女人，一个很漂亮很年青的女人。最后沈雪在烛台前一根根地划着了火柴，此时，她在想什么呢？是在想，男人的心理总是如此，看穿看悟了？还是在感叹其实多一事不如少一事，不需要搜他的包，不需要知道太多的秘密呢？


严守一的情人武月（范冰冰），这里忍不住要称赞她几句，虽然我觉得她演这个角色，应该有更多人不喜欢她，但她确实演得很有神采，漂亮，青春，还有疯狂。





故事的报幕很有新意，导演编辑，作词作曲，每个人都是存在《手机》电话号码薄的一个名字。是的，我们的生活在改变，男人过去出去工作，女人不会知道他身边发生的世界，广播找人，现在，通讯如此发达，你的手边有一部手机，所以她找得到你，她也不放心，她找不到你，她也不放心。


手机做得越来越好，可以录音了，可以发彩信了，可以拍摄了，是我们的生活空间受到了挤压，还是我们阴暗的心里没处可躲呢？


其实我无意讨论什么道德问题。这方面我有些冷漠。这本来就是个对错无法分得太清的世界。





只是觉得很有趣，还有几个有趣的片断。


墨非和严守一说，女人和女人站在了一起，最怕就是“结盟”呀。


但其实，男人互相为彼此掩饰，女人则互相妒忌。


里面李燕在知道自己老公有外遇后，和深雪一起去电信局查手机的通话记录，李燕没有劝慰，对话里多少有些兴灾乐祸，还有一点挑拨离间。





在这个故事里严守一的外甥女来京考试，主考官要她表演一段小品是她爸回来后干的第一件事情，结果外甥女冲门而出，再没有进来，原来她爸回来第一件事是串门。沈雪问她，你就不会编一编，他就不兴和你妈说说话？小姑娘硬着脖子说，“他们没话说。”


这个实在的小姑娘当然不会选上。


所以我们知道生活本来就改变了我们，我们已经习惯了谎言，也许也在不停地说谎。


女人是不是你不敢承受，有一天你的婚姻也是走到无话可说的地步呢？





但是我们还是在等，还是在问。


于是那首歌仍然在响起。


“你的媳妇叫吕桂花，吕桂花让问问你，最近你还回来吗？”


……


……


……

       直到《手机》影片结尾才恍然大悟为什么要唱那段“牛三斤，牛三斤，你的媳妇吕桂花问你最近还回来么”，想来冯小刚彼时还是厚道人，打算让观众也思考点问题，不像后来《夜宴》的时候让我无话可说。这电影看完了，肯定又有人要说“人制造了工具，却也被工具所奴役”，工具让人异化。不过我感兴趣的东西倒不在这里，的确手机让很多人穿帮了，但是只要人们有需要，更高科技的掩饰工具就能诞生。据说以后3G手机普及了，我们可以直接和对方视频了，但是同时也有人开始卖手机视频背景了。费墨说，古代举子出去应考，一出去就是几年，回来了，他说什么都是成立的。今天，交通方便了，再想说个谎多么不容易啊。曾经不止一次在公交车上听到女友去查男友的电话清单，这真是个做什么事情都会留下证据的年代。

    前些天，我一直在想，为什么古代人丈夫出去一年也就在过年那几天在家，妻子在家赡养老人抚养幼子并无问题，而今天似乎情侣之间须臾不可分离了。一旦分离日久，便会产生共同话语减少只到无话可谈。我想，是古人对爱情更纯洁到能抵抗时间与空间么？拿这个问题问身边同学老师，没有得到答案。直到今天看到这个《手机》，答案终于探的一点了。

    男子在外几年，回家说什么都是成立的，但是不可忽略，妻子在家说什么也是可以成立的。以前我们忽略这一点，总认为是有家人或者乡亲的制约，妻子不能造次。现在一想，也未必，潘金莲在丈夫在卖饼那当儿还能和西门庆谈谈情呢。所以，这种“说什么也是可以成立的”对于双方都是成立的。吕桂花问牛三斤最近还回来么，隐晦地表达希望丈夫回家。者多少有点年轻夫妇的感情在里面。而二十年后，吕桂花搬到和丈夫住一起了，不过这时候丈夫回来的第一件事儿就是出去串门。这时候，两人离的很近，但是却基本无话了。可见想见，这夫妇对爱情的要求恐怕也就是一起过日子，日子过到这份上也就谈不上是爱情导致婚姻了，也就是一个生活互助小组冠以婚姻之名了。

    于是我也明白了，为什么夫妇可以在长期分离的情况下得以维持了，因为他们对感情要求很低！当然了，本文所说的乃是平常人的感情，而不是杨过和小龙女十六年之约的那种小说感情。而现代人对于感情要求明显变高了，不会出现那种丈夫是举子妻子不识字的情况了，男女朋友对对方干什么基本是了解的，双方对对方生活的影响程度明显加强了。人们需要在一个大致相同的生活圈子里，谈双方都知道的故事。

    人们对感情忠贞的背叛却是对真感情的回归。

    这让我想起了一个故事，一个人处于迷茫中，求教于和尚，和尚拿出三根一样的蜡烛点上，问：“那一根最亮？”此人摇头不知。和尚拿出一根蜡烛放到此人眼前，问：“那一根最亮？”此人手指眼前的蜡烛。人感到最重要的，永远首先是近的，只有近了，才能认识一个事物，才能改变事物。对感情，亦是如此。

    PS：才看《手机》，惭愧

    朋友发给我一串奇怪的代码，说是在Google里搜索，可以看到全球各地的监控镜头。据朋友说，运气好的话可以看到泳装美女。我很是心动，赶紧依法而行，不过我的运气显然并不太好，没有看到比基尼少女，只看到几个在韩国小店里吃饭的大老爷们，还有在瑞士一个仓库旁撒尿的小狗。

    但是这已经足够让我兴奋的了，在别人毫不知情的状况下偷窥他们的生活，这种快感真是无可言喻。

    弗洛伊德说，每个人潜意识中都有偷窥他人的欲望。所以偷窥的历史可谓悠久。从“东邻之女窥于墙”的年代开始，从林中猎人偷窥出浴的阿尔忒弥斯开始，任何一个时代任何一个民族，都不可避免地有偷窥的现象发生。

    在中国，偷窥更是有着悠久的传统。譬如我一直怀疑，“凿壁偷光”很可能偷的是春光，当然，这已经无法考证。有据可循的是，在中国最伟大的小说《红楼梦》里，贾宝玉便因偷看到薛宝钗雪白丰腴的“膀子”，欣喜不已，浮想翩翩。辽国大臣耶律乙辛偷窥到辽道宗耶律洪基的老婆萧观音与伶人赵惟一勾搭成奸，害得皇后最终被赐死。唐明皇李隆基到儿子家串门，偷看到儿媳妇杨玉环洗澡，色心大起，进而演绎出一段惊天地泣鬼神的爱情连续剧，留下名垂千古的《长恨歌》之外，还留下了名胜古迹兼旅游圣地华清池。“在天愿为比翼鸟”的爱情故事，归根结底其实是一个偷窥的故事。

    历史上最得人心的偷窥者是一个叫“牛郎”的人，织女姐姐下凡洗澡，正巧被外出放牛的牛郎同学看到，织女姐姐被迫委身于他，进而演绎出一番令人扼腕的爱情悲剧。由于动机单纯，结局悲凉，偷窥者牛郎得到了广大人民的同情与肯定。

    时至今日，人们对于偷窥的兴趣依然未减，莎朗·斯通主演的电影《偷窥》轰动一时，在窗前放一个望远镜窥探他人私生活几乎成了时尚，美国电视剧《六人行》里，那几个都市男女就以偷窥临楼一个丑陋裸男的生活为乐。木子美披露自己性生活细节的博客引发万人齐观的壮观景象，最后竟导致网站瘫痪。最轰动的集体偷窥事件莫过于璩美凤被偷拍事件。后来璩美凤出了一本书，广告词是“你已经看过了我的身体，请看我的心”，这本书的销售量可想而知不会太好，因为很明显，大众关心的不是她的心而是她的身体。

    科技越来越昌明，网络越来越普及，在这个四处泛滥窃听器、针孔摄像头及红外透视摄影机的时代，我们的隐私保护也越来越脆弱。正如卞之琳那首叫《断章》的诗：“你站在桥上看风景，看风景人在楼上看你。”在我们津津有味地偷窥他人生活的时候，是否也有人在某个角落默默地注视着我们？我们是否如《楚门的世界》里那个男子一样，全然不觉地生活在一个被窥探的世界里？

    看看新闻：章子怡情挑霍启山，李冰冰酒店会情郎，刘嘉玲酒店遭偷拍……就连快要被人遗忘的“老艺术家”李金斗，也就这么一个不留神栽进了“针孔”摄像头的偷拍之下……我们在娱乐的同时，难道没有一种兔死狐悲的惊惶？

    电影《手机》的结尾，严守一抱着手机蹲在马桶上，仿佛抱了一个手雷，脸上满是恐惧的表情——天大地大，他竟无所遁形。而在这样一个隐私作古的年代，无所遁形的又岂止一个严守一？

        Cell Phone (2003) marks the culmination of the popular cultural preoccupation with infidelity. A famous TV talk show host Yan Shouyi, tries without success to maintain the delicate network of lies and concealments that allow him to have two different mistresses in addition to his estranged wife.
        The story starts in a small town where the town’s first telephone, which signifies the modernization in China, has just been installed. In a small village nearby, a young man Yan Shouyi takes a peasant woman to the town to make a phone call to her husband. About twenty years later, the middle-aged Yan Shouyi has already become a popular TV talk show host in a big city, owning a wife, a nice job, a BMW, and a mistress. His life and work would not have taken this path if he had not been equipped with a cell phone, the latest wireless communication technology. But the Cell Phone also causes the end of his marriage: his wife accidentally answers a phone call from his mistress complaining about his absence from a date.
        After getting a divorce, Yan starts a new relationship with a college teacher, Shen Xue, while still occasionally dating his old mistress, Wu Yue. On the several occasions when his double life is about to be discovered by Shen, Yan deftly covers the truth with lies. His close friend Fei Muo, a university professor and producer for his television show, is also involved in a similar love affair with a graduate student, which is soon discovered by his wife. Eventually, Yan’s infidelity is discovered by Shen who sees a digital picture of Yan and Wu making love, a picture taken by the digital camera built into Wu’s new cell phone. Not only is Yan’s relationship destroyed, his career also ends as Wu threatens to expose their relationship and takes over his position as the talk show host. At the end of the film, throwing his cell phone into fire, Yan swears that he will never again own one. Then after a dip-to-black, the film welcomes a second ending, Yan’s niece, who is also from the same village, becomes a cell phone saleswoman and comes to demonstrate the latest product to his uncle Yan. (Zhang, 135)
        Given the obvious Marxist bent of Cell Phone’s rhetoric and its fable-like narrative of the dangers of commodity fetishism, one might easily conclude the film as criticism of the effects of rapid economic transformation in urban China, and denial of male dominance. However, underneath this reading which is merely based on the resolution provided by the film, we can find both the cultural underpinning and ideological impacts of the film, whether they are conscious directorial decisions or not, are the other way around.
        The film is based on patriarchal and post-socialist assumptions in the first place. The leading character, wealthy, successful TV host Yan Shouyi, is representing the controlling patriarchal order and the ruling class. The young and charming mistress Wu Yue, on the other hand, is a sexual object and an oppressed worker reinforcing and perpetuating an exploitative capitalistic scheme. Yu Wenjuan, the pregnant wife and later the mother of Yan’s only child, is a cheap labor whose family value in undertaking housework and fostering children is totally underestimated and neglected by both the character Yan and the filmmaker Feng. Shen Xue, the successor of Yu and Wu, is a wonderful replacement of the two women, since she functions as both mistress and wife and has the highest total value. Therefore, marriage and divorce follow the rules of product exchange. The values of women as sexual commodities are estimated by their male owner, based on evaluation and grading of their sexual attractiveness and productivity among others.
        In the second place, the narration neglects and degrades women’s family values.
While there are scenes of Yan Shouyi working at the TV station and attending meeting with his colleagues, which confirms his value in production, there is hardly any scene of the women working. In addition, among the values of women, the four structures proposed by Mitchell, sexuality is emphasized against reproduction, and socialization. While there are a lot of scenes of Yan Shouyi flirting and having fun with her young and passionate mistress Wu Yue, there is hardly any scene of him and the older and less attractive wife spending time together. The cinematic representation of the reproduction process of Yan’s first wife is almost absent in the film. Having been pregnant for months, Yu Wenjuan did not inform her husband at all, and Yan is only informed several months after divorce by his ex-brother-in-law that his first wife had already given birth to their baby and needs money from him.
        Hiding behind socialization of children and the new motherhood are deeper oppressions of women. Spending a lot of time and energy nurturing the kid, the woman Yu did not get the compensation in improving her own social status; instead she lost her job in the big city after she went back to her hometown. As the value of socialization of children is often neglected by the society, this part of the plot is also omitted in the film, and is only told through Yan’s narration, serving as an obstacle that hinders and adds drama to Yan’s women pursuing career. As her value looks invisible, Yan replaces his first wife not with his mistress whose value only lies in sexuality, but with a beautiful college professor Shen Xue who seems to be a more serious and proper wife candidate, but also has the sexual disposition of a mistress.
        From Yan’s perspective, all the three women can be valued on a materialistic basis. Women become commodities, and their sexual attractiveness, job, education status are all counted in their exchange value while man is the buyer who has the right of choice because of his economic power and dominance in a patriarchal society.
        Extramarital relationship is a fatal violation of Chinese social norms and a tradition that often punishes the woman for such “immoral transgression” (Cui 181). In Cell Phone, the mistress Wu Yue, became the conflict's cause and the incarnation of immorality instead of the Male character Yan Shouyi. As an advanced prostitute, she would love to sell her body in exchange for money and power. And, ultimately, she threatens to replace Yan Shouyi as a television talk show host by using the photo she took in her cell phone. Thus, Yan Shouyi becomes the victimized character pitied by the audiences instead of the evil woman.
        The resolution of the film, Yan Shouyi’s abandoning of the cell phone, which may seem like a self-criticism, is actually a displacement and denial of the guilt and regret by reprimanding the modern technology and communication device. Cell phone becomes the scapegoat for Yan Shouyi, the hypocritical and immoral character, and therefore the patriarchal and capitalist order behind the story, which was supposedly to be criticized, is actually being extended sympathy.
        Depicted as the direct cause of all the conflicts between the protagonist and the three female characters, cell phone, the symbol of post-socialist modernity seems to be criticized. Rui concludes that Cell Phone addresses the subject through the director’s satirical take on consumerism and his exposure of the moral crises and ethical issues brought by expansion of high technology into our everyday lives (Zhang, 136). However, in the first 90 minutes of the film, a fantasy of the patriarchal and post-socialist (capitalist) utopia was already created for the male audiences: mistress as a symbol and accessory of urban success. Female audiences were also given a utilitarian fantasy integrated with the narcissistic and masochistic visual pleasure: being someone’s mistress is the shortcut to wealth and success. Thus, the film belittles the value of women, and denies women's independent existential meaning.
        In addition to the narrative constructed to propagate the attractive image of the “successful personage” that has represented the “new ideology” of contemporary China, an image that endorses a reality of growing class differences and income disparities, Feng Xiaogang adopts a lot of meta-cinematic elements in Cell Phone to offset the seriousness of his own criticism, a technique abundantly used in his early films. There are ample shots within the TV station, such as the staff operating camera, and outtakes of the TV host Yan who says his lines wrong, that remind the audiences to question the authenticity of their own movie watching experience. There is also a lot of inserting advertisements for cell phones that deconstructs the movie’s final critical stance towards post-socialist modernity. As the audiences identify and follow the male protagonist throughout the film, they highly enjoy and celebrate his material wealth and “romantic affairs” brought about by his professional success in the patriarchal and post-socialist order. In the meantime, they also accept a message that all women, whether they are educated or not, college professor or press editor, wife or mistress, are all annexed to the life of men.
        As McGrath noticed, the basic narrative structure of Cell Phone already had become so common by the end of the 1990s as to constitute a cinematic genre in itself, a genre that offers fable-like narratives of the moral dilemmas confronted by protagonists facing dramatic changes in personal economics as well as libidinal possibilities in the reform era. In such films, a man takes on one or more extramarital lovers after achieving some sort of economic success and social elevation (McGrath, 98). In many cases, a man’s ability to defy his wife is supported by both his male role and some sort of economic success. Even though these films reveal the social issues of the oppression of women, they neither provide a solution nor hold a feministic point of view that attempt to liberate women. Instead, they stand in line with the successful male protagonists, and celebrate the current patriarchal and post-socialist status quo. In a word, these films are women-concerned, but not at all feminist films.
        Supposedly a subgenre of family melodrama that aims to criticize the social immorality and educate the audiences, the actual impact of the “cinema of infidelity” is rather doubtful. An example is the sex diary scandal of Han Feng, the former senior tobacco official, which culminates the “mistress fashion” in 2010. Even more dramatic than Feng’s films, the purported diary, written in graphic detail, includes boasts that Han was enjoying sex romps with many different women while taking bribes and attending banquets. Populated by Internet users, Han’s case is just one in a million of the government officials and the privileged stratum in Mainland China.