手机2003

    普希金说：“一切过去的，都将成为美好的回忆。”中国人的崇古思想尤为严重，若对现实失望，便会幽幽地叹上一句“人心不古”。例如感情这回事，在社会普遍缺乏忠贞感的年代，人们把希冀的目光投回古代，古典式爱情成了现代人最后一根救命稻草。

    果真如此吗？对于这个问题，《手机》里的费老是这么说的：“古时候好啊，上京赶考，几年不回，回来的时候，你说什么都是成立的。”艳羡之情，溢于言表。当然，费老所憧憬的并非古典忠贞的爱情，而是由于交通和通讯不便所造成的偷情契机。

    中国最忠贞的爱情故事据说来自古时的牛郎和织女。一条大河波浪宽，没有稻花香两岸，牛郎的爱情始于大河，困于大河，也算是因果循环。

    不过上世纪70生人普遍受周星驰解构、颠覆思想的影响，传说里痴情专一的牛郎在他们看来并不是个绝种好男人。首先，牛郎是以一个偷窥者的身份出现，体现了其低劣的道德水准；其次，趁织女洗澡时偷其衣物，这是恋物癖的典型症状；第三，在织女一丝不挂时进行谈判，胁迫织女嫁给自己。这样的行为放到现代就是一个不折不扣的流氓罪，可挪到古代却变成了值得歌颂的爱情故事。所以现代人的爱情观念不一定就是那么低俗和赤裸裸，把一切罪过归结于时代是站不住脚的。

    上世纪70年代生人是目前中国社会的主体，可偏偏处在一个夹缝中的尴尬境地。美国人爱把他们的人群按年龄划分成“迷惘一代”、“垮掉一代”、“嬉皮一代”。在中国，如果说生于60年代是“过于责任”的一代，生于80年代是“物质的一代”——把握物质，并被物质把握。那么处于夹心饼干中间的70年代人则是“孤独自我”的一代，他们处于保守和反叛的交汇处，骨子里的保守和现代反叛的教育糅合形成了独特、矛盾的价值观和爱情观。他们不相信天荒地老，没想过从一而终，却也不怎么游戏爱情，本质上还是渴望传统的情感与生活方式。

    就像夹心饼干最精华的部分在中间一样，或许70年代人对待感情的态度更为理性和客观。格非在小说《初恋》的结尾这样写：“我们信誓旦旦，永不分离；我们未雨绸缪，时刻准备，各奔东西。”细致入微地描绘出70年代人的爱情观。

这是一部反映真情的电影，它的角度很特别，说的故事也十分贴近生活。

一开篇，是一段矿工的戏，吕桂花问丈夫何时会回家，在通讯不便的情况下，她跑老远的路，到镇里通过电话给丈夫带了一个话，丈夫能否听到，妻子都是不确定的，她的问候，丈夫更无法回答。而她也只是想跟丈夫说，自己想他了。当这一个妻子的问候，通过矿上的广播在全矿区的上空飘荡时，矿上所有的男人都笑了，这是多大的安慰啊，最辛苦的时候能想到自己的家人，有什么能够比这更让人感到幸福的呢？

之后的情节种种，感情一直是一个主线，不管是夫妻间，情人间，还是奶奶和孙子，喜欢要钱的兄弟，或者是帮忙做活的乡亲。一丝浓重的感情线，一直贯穿着始终。

而另一方面，这又是一部反映现实的影片。现实，作为一条更浓重，甚至近乎到强硬的线索，不断压迫着影片里的角色，压迫着人与人之间的'真情'。从最初的通信不便，到后来的有车，有房，有手机，有钱。人与人之间的距离'近'了，但反而 '近的喘不过气来了'。手机可以说是一个关键点，而它实际上更是一个象征，象征着现代生活中，人们所承受的各个方面的压力。现代的人，在生活中，工作中，不断被各种各样的事情纠缠，打磨，更像是在縫隙中，维持着心中的感情。痛苦，折磨，对抗和逃避，人被压得喘不过气来。这也是为何很多人，觉得这部影片'恐怖'。

写到这里，话算是说了一半，根据每个人生活经历的不同，这部片子自然会反映出不同的东西，而因它的诙谐幽默，让此片也具备娱乐片的效果，所以在我看来，是难得一遇的佳作。

建议看看'手机'的小说，文字的东西，体会起来，会更透彻

        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.

       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