回答blog友 - 關於 taking woodstock
1)Speaking of TVB directors, a lot of them do not know how to direct at all. What they do is just to follow a protocol, know when to "push the button"...there is no directing at all. In the past (back in the 70s-80s), the directors actually taught the actors how to perform some scenes, but nowadays? sigh.....I agree with you that "教演員是導演責任," unfortunately, a lot of them the so-called directors in TVB are not willing to bear such basic responsibility at all! What a shame!
家好月圓, to me, is rubbish. In the past few years, I have stopped watching TVB's series, the only reason I could watch some of them is because of some of the people I like. Yet, for most of the series I've watched, I have to skip a lot of scenes or even episodes. Or, if I really want to watch TVB series, I just re-watch the old ones on DVDs.
As for 馬國明, what I admire about him is that he is a humble person and the way he treats people around him. But he does really need to work on his acting skills. At least, I think his 表情可以多d層次, and sometimes he tends to overact (and I am saying this as his fan). I do wonder what Alan would think if he saw Kenneth's performance in 律政新人王2 and 少年四大名捕. Personally, I think his performance in 甜言蜜語 is the worst this year.
馬國明個主要問題是不識讀劇本。不識讀劇本不是指他中文程度不高，而是指他不曉得理解劇本分場去演譯每一個角色。
alan (即是英國製作系教授，本人教製作系25年，師承英國 sight and sound 前主編，也就是電影醫生)看到馬國明在演出沖上雲霄和女人不易做 (上次分享video 給alan 看的2007年作品)的演技進步空間不大，覺得呢位演員需要由教新演員的料子重頭學起，只是教個演藝個基本要200個鐘，仲未計其他添。
個問題是，張通告我由4月出到今時今日，馬國明和楊思琦連影都未見。
alan 認為，興其拯救呢2位演藝事業奄奄一息的演員，不如於2009年全力研究點幫 ang lee 執 taking woodstock 的爛攤子仲實際。
我相信你在美國，看到 ang lee 張 taking woodstock 的名單，都知有那些演員演出。
alan 意見認為，以 ang lee 如此勤力刨書去拍電影，問題應該不大，但他都覺得，ang lee 未來比較適合去讀下casting 的課程去學習聘請演員。
我們會長都好想拉攏 mr. christopher eccleston 跟 ang lee 來一個合作，但個問題是，
ang lee 的電影創作思維好薄弱，而chris 就是超級工作狂，為免mr. eccleston看完劇本不合理跟導演拗的情況出現，以免合作不成反而會面左左。
會長都聽從alan 的意見，等 ang lee 執好個電影創作思維才好拉攏 mr. eccleston 跟 ang lee 合作較佳。
2) I am not an expert in acting or directing, just took some training classes through school's drama club before. You said 馬國明 "不曉得理解劇本分場去演譯每一個角色," I think I know what you are talking about, and I think he is very weak at building/creating his character. This problem is very obvious in 甜言蜜語. As his fan, of course, I want to see his acting foundation becomes much stronger. I also hope he can at least read more about acting techniques and watch movies that could expand his horizon. But...sigh...he will be 35 years old next year, it will become more and more difficult for him as he approaches 40.
What bothers me is a lot of actors and actresses in TVB do not know how to 讀劇本, but it seems to me that no one in TVB is willing to help those actors/actresses fix that problem. This is a basic responsibility of a director to help actors/actresses' acting, but sigh....
personally, I do not like Ang Lee's "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "Hulk.""Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" was filmed for the American audience, and "Hulk" shows the weaknesses of Ang Lee. But I do respect Ang Lee a lot, since he is the kind of director who gives everything to his movies, very dedicated and devoted. He always does more than what is required for a director. This is shown in his movies.
馬國明要是40 歲唔大執，他閣下一定捱不到40歲大關。40歲後，馬國明只會慢慢給人踢去演路人甲乙丙，事業會歸向沈寂，要是tvb 看到他不受歡迎，他一定給人踢走。
ang lee 於"Hulk"已經向全世界的一線明星講明，他不懂得拍賣座片，因此，講求以賣座片那班明星一定不會埋李安碼頭。
lust caution 現在仍是蝕本收場，要是 ang lee 拍 taking woodstock 有任何差池，他可以緣盡 hollywood。
taking woodstock 最好是90天內完成，否則超支機會甚高。這部電影的拍攝成本平 lust caution 起碼200 萬，要是呢部失收，ang lee 會很大件事，little game 拍不拍得成都是看 tw 成績。
相較於其他大中華導演， ang lee 好有心拍電影，會長，alan 等人都好想幫 ang lee 拿回他應得的 the best film of oscar，他們認為以 ang lee 的能力，去幫 christopher eccleston 執一次會較為合適。
問題是，因為 ang lee 在 hulk 表現出來的弱，令到他們對 ang lee 沒有信心讓christopher eccleston 跟 ang lee 合作。
chris 已經為了 elizabeth，doctor who，the dark is rising 跟導演嘈過多次，要是他拍 ang lee 電影見劇本有問題，又跟 ang lee 嘈，大家這樣合作法是沒有意思。
3) I was somewhat surprised that the studio would let Ang Lee director Taking Woodstock. On one hand, Ang Lee is a very dedicated director, and I am sure he must have done a lot of research before filming the movie. On the other hand, I am not sure how he would tell a story about a series of events that could be considered as counter-culture during that period of time in the United States. Or, I should say, how can a Chinese tell an American story? From what points of views would he tell the story? How does he interpret the story?
His performance in "Hulk" is miserable. It is like - what was he thinking when he directed this movie? I remember Ang Lee told Eric Bana that they were filming a Greek tragedy, which I partially agree. But, Ang Lee really lacks the ability to film a blockbuster...he failed to maintain a good balance.
If "Taking Woodstock" does not do well in terms of box office and/or reviews, Ang Lee will probably need to return to Asia to film movies instead.
李安是局限性題材導演，alan 看 tw 的演員名單時已經知 ang lee 出了問題。因為能夠幫李安執電影手尾的人不多，我們不知是誰幫李安揀選演員，但要是李安自己揀的話，就已經告訴全世界，李安在 casting 方面好弱，他完全不懂得挑選 value-added actor，因此，他的電影成日都出現超支問題。
因為李安電影創作思維弱，所以 alan 覺得 taking woodstock 要看亞洲觀眾會否支持 ang lee。
若 tw 失收，正如你所講，ang lee 是絶對沒有能力再在hollywood 拍片，更大件事的是，hollywood 認為大中華第一導演 ang lee 都沒有能力在 hollywood 生存時，就算班記者點吹杜琪峰等都沒有用，hollywood 沒有信心給予大中華導演執導作品。
4) well-said about Ang Lee. That's why I do not understand why the studio would let him film TW. It is a rather risky move. I am not sure if TW can receive a strong support in Asia, after all, the story is a rather American story. I can understand why a lot of audience paid attention to "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "Lust, Caution," but TW?
Like I said before, I am not sure from which angle Ang Lee would interpret the story. The cast members are not able to help him 執手尾. I expect him to 超支 again this time. If he keeps doing this, how many big Hollywood movie studios would let Ang Lee direct their movies?
I do not want to see Ang Lee disappear in Hollywood, after all, if even Ang Lee cannot make it in Hollywood, how many other directors from HK/Taiwan/China can really make it? Is 杜琪峰 filming a Hollywood movie now? I read some news about this, but I do not have much confidence in this movie. I do believe 杜琪峰 is a talented director, but I am not sure if he has the ability to handle a Hollywood production.
At this point, it is not a good time to have Ang Lee and Mr. Christopher Eccleston work together. Their styles and approaches are very different. There is a very good chance they would be 面左左 if they work together.
Personally, I think it is a basic responsibility of an actor to make his/her points of views if he/she finds that 劇本不合理. But I do not know why they media in Hong Kong like to make a big deal out of it...actors who do that are considered as troublesome or picky. But if the script is 不合理, how can someone just pretend everything is okay?
1) ang lee 拍 tw 的問題是:
ang lee的電影創作思維理解能力弱，tw 是ang lee 不擅長的題材，lust caution好清楚告訴全個hollywood 的電影公司的老闆，他不是十分擅長拍抽像性的作品。
在我立場來講，lust caution 呢本書，ang lee 看過無數遍，他明知故事如此短而自己對劇本處理能力認知度不足時，ang lee 不應該拍 lust caution 這麽長。
Brokeback mountain 成功在於這本書一開始已經提供廣濶的劇本運用空間，任何導演用如此廣濶的角度的劇本去拍電影，都一定會成功居多。
2) ang lee 不擅長挑選演員演出電影。例如: little game 他想請 jim carrey 演出。
個問題是，jim carrey 是一位身價超過1500 萬美元的演員，而little game 的拍片預算一定會比 lust caution 少，原因是 lust caution 收不回成本而且超支超過20%，電影公司不會冒險給 ang lee 拍大製作。
在製作系立場來講，凡局限性導演拍電影，電影公司不會投放大額金錢於導演身上，除非這位導演在之前拍了多部賣座電影，才會有額外資源去拍電影。在電影創作思維立場來講，導演拍不掂部電影就由演員幫導演執手尾。很不幸，今次 tw 的演員中，能夠幫 ang lee 執電影手尾的演員不多。
Alan 看過杜琪峰的大事件的開頭，認定杜琪峰在 Hollywood 都只會是一次起二次止。理由都是一樣，杜琪峰只會揀選知名演員去演戲。他只會看重前人的經驗而不會細心去研究怎樣去揀選演員，但要是他被分派一班新人演戲時，他未必會清楚理解演員的特質。
我相信Mr. Christopher Eccleston 和 ang lee 會夾得來，因為二人都是工作認真的人，而ang lee 願意接受他人的意見去拍電影。但個問題是，這是不可能要求 mr. Christopher eccleston 日日幫 ang lee 執劇本問題。雖然，mr. eccleston 的而且確有拯救垃圾劇本的能力的演員，但要是下下要他拯救個劇本，他一個人能盡的力都只是有限。
有些時候，ang lee 如不認真去處理好拍片問題，就算給他全世界最好的劇本，他只是依書直說，而不會有碩大的進步。
小妹要補充以下數項:
1) taking woodstock 演員名單中，能夠幫 ang lee 執電影手尾的演員只有 Imelda Staunton 一人而已。
2) 假如亞洲巿場不接受 tw，tw 失收機會甚高。
3) sight and sound 前主編課程導讀篇因ang lee 而設，要是 ang lee 不能再在 hollywood 立足的話，這個課程也會搬回英國，不會再於大中華地區刊登作何文章。