Archive for 八月, 2026

《帶你去見我媽》短評

粉碎傳統規範的勇氣

《給阿嬤的情書》的導演藍鴻春的舊作《帶你去見我媽》突顯了現今新一代的潮汕人如何粉碎傳統的規範。影片內青年鄭澤凱(鄭潤奇飾)在深圳工作和生活,他的母親及家人都是傳統的潮汕人,他結識了來自杭州的盧靜姍(盧珊飾),她曾經離婚,但他倆已同居了一段時間,打算結婚。他要粉碎兩個傳統的規範,包括:一、潮汕人不娶外省人;二、潮汕人不娶曾經離婚的女人。這是他的媽媽(鍾少賢飾)與他倆的衝突點,亦是影片戲劇張力的核心。

事實上,潮汕人不娶外省人早已是過時的規範,鄭澤凱出外打拼多年後返回老家,接觸的異性多,娶外省人為妻其實不足為奇。自從中國推行改革開放政策以後,不同省份的居民被鼓勵多來往多交流,出外工作的潮汕年輕人早已主張自由戀愛和婚姻,與外省人結婚已成為一種潮流,只有家鄉裡的老年人才會堅守傳統,認為潮汕人娶當地人是幸福的事,外嫁/外娶卻可能會造成家庭與家庭之間的磨擦和衝突。

影片內盧靜姍的人品很好,到了未婚夫鄭澤凱的家庭後,對他的媽媽多方遷就,雖然她聽不懂他的媽媽的潮汕語,但她仍然按著自己的理解,遵從潮汕的習俗,並完成當地行之已久的傳統儀式。她是聽長輩說話的媳婦,這使他的媽媽願意接納她,並開始對她產生好感。他從小至大都遵從媽媽的吩咐,小時放棄了讀美術,長大後不從事藝術工作,安分地做生意賺錢,但他在婆媳之間充當「和事佬」,一方面要求她遵從他的媽媽的命令,另一方面又要說服媽媽:媽媽必須尊重他要迎娶她的決定,因為時代變了,潮汕人不娶外省人的傳統亦必須改變,他只喜歡她一個,對家鄉裡眾人的閒言閒語可以置諸不理。

不過,影片內盧靜姍曾經離婚的問題確實棘手,不論鄭澤凱的媽媽多開放,都不會接受兒子娶一個曾經離婚的女人,這是人之常情,亦是全片中後段內鄭澤凱與盧靜姍分開了一段時間的主要原因。或許時間能沖淡一切,後來鄭澤凱的媽媽回心轉意,願意批准兒子迎娶她,很明顯,他的媽媽不是頑固的人,會在適當時候軟化自己的態度,亦會在看見她在工作場所內大受歡迎時改變自己對她的看法。影片內他有一個不固執而對婚姻持開放態度的媽媽是他的幸運,在現實生活中,究竟有多少潮汕家長擁有類似他媽媽的良好品格?這實在不得而知。

曉龍

5
八月

《奧德賽》70mm IMAX

   Posted by: admin    in 香港影評人協會

Nolan’s Odyssey: The Wooden Horse and the Waning Empire

Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey is far more than a lavish adaptation of Homer’s epic. It is a cold, unflinching X‑ray of imperial collapse.

Nolan’s Ithaca is more than  ancient Greece, but a mirror for contemporary America: a superpower exhausted by endless wars, ruled by a detached elite, and haunted by the ghosts of its own triumphalism.

What most reviewers have dismissed as technical spectacle is, in fact, Nolan’s most pointed political meditation—a warning encoded in crystalline IMAX frames and a story as old as hubris itself.

Central to this allegory is the Trojan Horse—a symbol that Nolan resurrects not as a triumphant war trophy, but as a self-inflicted wound. In his telling, the horse is not simply a Greek trick; it is the empire’s own arrogance made flesh.

The Trojans, blinded by victory, haul the giant construct inside their walls, believing it a tribute to their invincibility. Nolan lingers on their jubilant faces as they carve through the wooden belly—only for the camera to cut to Odysseus’ hollow gaze, knowing that every empire eventually invites its own destroyer.

This scene, shot in Nolan’s signature 70mm IMAX, is devastating in its scale: the horse looms like a skyscraper, its shadow swallowing the citadel.

The symbolism is deliberate—the United States, like Troy, has repeatedly dragged foreign entanglements, financial bubbles, and cultural decadence into its own gates, mistaking them for strength - the classic pattern: empires fall not because they are conquered, but because they first conquer themselves from within.

Nolan’s chosen medium amplifies this irony. 70mm IMAX, the grandest cinematic canvas ever devised, is the very language of American dominance—overwhelming, seductive, and impossibly detailed.

Yet Nolan uses it to expose fragility. The grain of the film stock etches every scar on Odysseus’ weathered face; the roaring waves of Poseidon’s wrath fill the cavernous screen, but they isolate rather than inspire.

The format becomes a self-conscious monument to the very empire it critiques. When the horse burns and the palace crumbles, the IMAX frame does not celebrate the spectacle; it makes us feel the weight of every fallen stone.

This is not escapist blockbuster-making; it is a funeral elegy, crafted with the most advanced tools Hollywood can offer, to bury the myth of American exceptionalism.

Remarkably, this subterranean current has been missed by a large swath of critics—including Hong Kong’s film press, who praised the cinematography and pacing while entirely ignoring the political anatomy beneath.

Their oversight is telling: in my city now firmly integrated into the motherland and playing a strategic role within the Greater Bay Area’s grand design, one might expect a sharper eye for the dynamics of hegemony and renewal.

Instead, their reviews remained safely anchored to formalist observations, as if Nolan’s epic were merely a handsome travelogue.

That neglect, however, does not diminish the film’s power; it only confirms how easily surface dazzle can blind even seasoned observers.

Does Nolan himself intend this political reading? In public statements, he has consistently deflected overt allegory, preferring to frame The Odyssey as a universal tale of “homecoming” and “human endurance.”

He has never explicitly said, “This is about America.” But his filmography—from the surveillance-state paranoia of The Dark Knight to the temporal disorientation of Tenet—reveals a director obsessed with systems of power and their inherent instability.

More tellingly, in interviews about adapting Homer, Nolan noted that the epic’s true drama lies not in monsters but in “the moral compromises survival demands.” That compromise, in his Odyssey: the hero who kills suitors without trial, the king who sacrifices his crew, the nation that mistakes cruelty for order.

Whether Nolan intended a one‑to‑one critique of contemporary Washington is less important than the fact that his film’s internal logic—the horse, the fall, the hollow victory—maps perfectly onto the imperial arc. Nolan may not wave a political flag, but his camera does not lie.

The final image of the film—Odysseus standing alone on a beach, the IMAX screen swallowing him in salt and silence—is not a resolution but a question.

The horse is gone, the palace is ashes, and yet the horizon remains empty. Empire, Nolan suggests, leaves no victors, only survivors who must reckon with what they have become.

It is also a lesson that resonates far beyond America—for any power that mistakes its own mythology for destiny. Nolan’s Odyssey is not a prophecy; it is a pattern.

And in its cavernous, grain‑rich frames, we see not a myth reborn, but a warning carved in light—for all empires to heed before they drag the wooden horse through the gate.

Elven Ho