台灣的疫情增溫中. 祝台灣的讀者們健康平安.
這周末進了城, 對於一些事物有了一些想法(如, 為什麼Chipotle的東西百吃不厭, 進城一定會想要吃他們家的食物?) 週四的時候會分享.
🌻http://xn--farfetch-9k0m444a0n4he6dutj2w6f.com/(FTCH)於上週發表財報了. Morgan Stanley給的評語是"High Quality (高品質的) Business On Sale(拍賣中)". 有興趣的讀者可以研究看看.
🌻快思慢想的作者新書在下周會於Amazon開始販售:
https://www.amazon.com/Noise-Human-Judgment-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0316451401/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
"In Noise, Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony, and Cass R. Sunstein show the detrimental effects of noise in many fields, including medicine, law, economic forecasting, forensic science, bail, child protection, strategy, performance reviews, and personnel selection. Wherever there is judgment, there is noise. Yet, most of the time, individuals and organizations alike are unaware of it. They neglect noise. With a few simple remedies, people can reduce both noise and bias, and so make far better decisions."
"Wherever there is judgment, there is noise."
-->非常同意這句話. 這其實也是我一開始盡量不在財報結果裡面放入個人看法的原因之一, 因為我希望大家自己去做閱讀後, 自己做判斷, 畢竟培養自己的判斷力, 是投資很重要的一環.
🌻Jerry Yang對Zoom Video (ZM)的看法:
"In my view, by launching an app store of sorts, Zoom can create an ecosystem that is a defensible barrier to competition."
印象中沒錯的話, Crowdstrike(CRWD)也是有這樣的做法.
🌻綠色能源熱潮中值得投資的冷門股
https://on.wsj.com/2RYe1mE
🌻新發現的網站, 專門講美國車市. 網站創辦人在車市超過20年經驗. 目前覺得他對車市的看法挺令人啟發. 像這篇他的議題是, 當車商都在抱怨目前的車輛存貨不夠時, 是不是也因為是如此, 他們目前的獲利比較高? (供給與需求的概念). 而如果供需恢復正常的話, 他們的獲利還會比較高嗎?
"Broadly speaking, these conditions reflect what might be regarded as the best of all possible worlds for any business–high demand and limited supply. Even better, new research from Kelley Blue Book suggests that consumers understand the current conditions. They expect to see less selection and higher prices when they shop for a car. Sixty percent of new vehicle buyers say they plan to buy a vehicle despite less selection and higher prices.
It should also be noted that the current highly profitable nature of the car business in the current moment doesn’t largely owe to disciplined management decisions on the part of dealers. Rather, it’s a positive outcome of COVID-19, the chip shortage and a host of other factors that have brought a level of equilibrium to demand and supply that many car business veterans like me have never seen in our careers.
And yet, it seems like many dealers are longing to return to the way things used to be. They would feel better if they had higher numbers of new and used vehicles on the ground. They would prefer to suffer less discomfort and stress from current reconditioning backlogs and the need to convince some customers to order vehicles or purchase the less-desirable vehicle that’s available on your lot."
"From now on, when dealers ask me when the chip shortage might end, and new and used vehicle supplies will return to normal, I’ll respond with a different question: Are you sure that’s what you really want?"
Source: https://www.vauto.com/learning-center/blog-dale-pollak-all/missing-the-import-of-current-retail-automotive-conditions
Pictures: earningswhisper.com, Amazon.com
sixty percent 在 半瓶醋 Facebook 的最讚貼文
【水世界】的前製設定與現場劇照
WATERWORLD (1995)
In celebration of today’s anniversary of this wet mess/epic. Let’s celebrate the hard work this crew put into bringing this world to life. Water movies are never easy but when it comes to this movie anytime you bring it up and a crew member from it is in earshot, the stories pour out. Not always bad, I know a AC that said he had a blast, he loved the boat rides out and all the camaraderie the crew had to have to get thru it. To all the crew that helped bring WATERWORLD to life, We salute you and thanks for the memories. I personally enjoy this hot mess of a movie, it’s one of the last ones of its kind...done practically...in a way.
let’s take a deepest of dives into WATERWORLD
The director, Kevin Reynolds, knew there would be problems before production had even started, “During pre-production. Because having never shot on water to that extent before, I didn’t really realise what I was in for. I talked to Spielberg about it because he’d gone to do Jaws, and I remember, he said to me, “Oh, I would never shoot another picture on water”.
“When we were doing the budget for the picture, and the head of the studio, Sid Sheinberg, we were talking about it and I said, “Steven told me that on Jaws the schedule for the picture was 55 days, and they ended up shooting a 155 days”. Because of the water. And he sat there for a moment and he said, “You know, I’m not sure about the days, but I do know they went a hundred percent over budget”. And so, Universal knew the potential problems of shooting on water. It’s monstrous.”
The film began with a projected budget of $100 million which had reportedly increased to $175 million by the end of production. The principle photography had overrun for at least thirty days more than originally planned due to one major decision.
Whereas today they would film in water tanks with partially built sets, employing green screens to fake the locations, back in 1995 they decided to build everything full size and shoot out on the ocean.
This causes extra logistical problems on top of those that already come with making a major action blockbuster. Cast and crew have to be transported to sets. The camera boats and sets float out of position and will have to be reset between takes taking up valuable production time.
The first draft of Waterworld was written by Peter Radar, a Harvard graduate who wanted to break into the film business. His contact in the film industry was Brad Kevoy, an assistant to the legendary director Roger Corman.
Roger Corman is best known for making films very quickly on a small budget. He also liked to give young talent a chance to direct and write their own films. Brad informed Peter that if he could write a Mad Max rip off, he would arrange to finance and let him direct the picture.
Radar came back and pitched the idea for what would become Waterworld. Kevoy took one look at him and said,
“Are you out of your mind? This would cost us three million dollars to make this movie!”
So Radar kept hold of the idea and decided to re-write the script but, this time, going wild. He wrote what he wanted to see on-screen, limited only by his imagination, not a real world production budget.
He managed to get the newly written script shown to a pair of producers with whom he had made contact with. They loved it and ironically they passed it onto Larry Gordon. He shared the enthusiasm saying it had the kind of cinematic possibilities he was looking for. A deal was signed on Christmas Eve of 1989.
As further script rewrites progressed, it became clear that Waterworld was too big for the Larry Gordon’s production company to undertake by themselves. In February 1992, a deal was signed with Universal Pictures to co-produce and co-finance the film. This was now six years after the first draft had been written.
Universal had signed director Kevin Reynolds to Waterworld. Whilst he was finishing his latest film, Rapa Nui, pre-production for Waterworld was already underway.
The decision was taken that the largest set for the film, known as the atoll, would be built full size. The atoll was the primary location for film and in the story served as the location for a small population of survivors.
The logic behind this decision was due to the high percentage of live action filming required in this location, as well as a huge action set piece. No sound stage would be big enough to incorporate this number of scenes and it was crucial that we see the mariner sail his boat into the atoll, turn around and set out again. A full-size construction was the only way to go as the use of miniature and special effects would be impractical.
The next problem was deciding where to build this huge set. After much research, Kawaihae Harbour in Hawaii was chosen as the location. The atoll could be constructed in the harbour and rotated when needed thus allowing for open sea in the background. Later towards the end of principle photography, the atoll could be towed out into the open sea for the filming of the big action sequences which would be impractical to shoot in an enclosed harbour.
Director Kevin Reynolds also discussed the possibility of using the same water tank as James Cameron’s The Abyss, which had filmed there around five years ago,
“We had even entertained the notion of shooting at that big nuclear reactor facility where they had shot The Abyss, to use it for our underwater tank. But we found it in such a state of disrepair that economically it just wasn’t feasible. We didn’t have as much underwater work as they did. Most of The Abyss is interiors and underwater and model work, ours is mostly surface exterior.”
The production company had originally envisioned building the atoll by linking approximately one hundred boats together and building upon this foundation, just like the characters in the film. The production crew set out to search Hawaii and get hold of as many boats as possible.
During this search, a unique boat in Honolulu caught their attention. Upon further investigation, they discovered it was built by Navitech, a subsidiary of the famous aircraft production company, Lockheed.
They approached Lockheed with the strange request of figuring out how they could build the foundations of the atoll. Lockheed found the request unusual but didn’t shy away from the challenging. They agreed to design the atoll foundation and Navitech would construct it.
Meanwhile, an 11ft miniature model of the atoll was sent out to a model ship testing facility in San Diego. Scaled wave tanks are used to determine the effects of the open sea on large scale miniature models of new untested ship designs. This would help determine what would happen with the unusual design of the atoll when it was out of the harbour.
The atoll, when finished, was approximately ¼ mile in circumference. It took three months to construct and is rumoured to cost around $22 million. As the atoll would be used out on the open sea, it required a seafaring license. Nothing like this had been done before and after much deliberation, it was eventually classed as an unmanned vessel. This meant that all cast and crew would have to vacate the set whilst it was towed into position. By the end of production, the atoll was towed out to sea a total of five times.
Shooting out on the open sea presented a series of logistical problem as Reynolds describes,
“We had an entire navy, basically – I mean, this atoll was positioned about a mile off-shore in Hawaii, it was anchored to the bottom of the ocean so it could rotate. What you don’t think about are things like, you’re shooting on this atoll to maintain this notion that there’s no dry land, you always have to shoot out to sea. Away from the land. So we chose a location where we had about a 180 degree view of open water. Nevertheless, any time when you’re shooting, there could be a ship appear in the background, or something like that, and you had to make a choice. Do I hold up the shot, wait for the ship to move out, or do we shoot and say we’re going to incur this additional cost in post-production of trying to remove the ship from the background.
And at that time, CGI was not at the point it is now, it was a bigger deal. And so, even though if you’re shooting across the atoll and you’re shooting out onto open water, when you turn around and do the reverses, for the action, you had to rotate the entire atoll, so that you’re still shooting out to open water. Those are the kinds of things that people don’t realise.
Or something as simple as – if you’re shooting a scene between two boats, and you’re trying to shoot The Mariner on his craft, another boat or whatever, you’ve got a camera boat shooting his boat, and then the other boat in the background. Well, when you’re on open water things tend to drift apart. So you have to send lines down from each of those boats to the bottom, to anchor them so that they somewhat stay in frame. When you’ve got a simple shot on land, you set up the camera position, you put people in front of the camera and then you put background in there. But when you’re on water, everything’s constantly moving apart, drifting apart, so you have to try to hold things down somewhat.
And these are simple things that you don’t really realise when you’re looking at it on film. But logistically, it’s crazy. And each day you shoot on the atoll with all those extras, we had to transport those people from dry land out to the location and so you’re getting hundreds of people through wardrobe and everything, and you’re putting them on boats, transporting them out to the atoll, and trying to get everybody in position to do a shot. And then when you break for lunch, you have to put everybody on boats and take them back in to feed them.”
The final size of the atoll was determined by the size of the Mariners boat, the trimaran. The dimensions for the trimaran were finalised very early on in pre-production, allowing all other vehicles and sets to be sized accordingly.
Production required two trimarans boats which are so called because they have three hulls. The first was based on the standard trimaran blueprint and built for speed but also had to accommodate a secret crew below decks.
During wide and aerial shots it would have to look like Costner himself was piloting the boat. In reality, a trained crew could monitor and perform the real sailing of the boat utilising specially built controls and television monitors below deck.
The second trimaran was the trawler boat which could transform into the racer through the use of special practical effects rigs. Both of these boats were constructed in France by Jeanneau. Normally this type of vessel requires a year to construct but production needed two boats in five months!
Normally once the boat had been constructed, Jeammeau would deliver it on the deck of a freighter, requiring a delivery time of around a month. This delay was unacceptable and so the trimarans were dismantled into sections and taken by a 747 air freighter to the dock Hawaii. Upon arrival, a further month was required to reassemble the boat and get them prepared for filming.
sets recreating the inside of the tanker were built using forced perspective in a huge 1000ft long warehouse which had an adjoining 2000ft field. In this field, they built the set of the oil tankers deck, again constructed using forced perspective. Using the forced perspective trick, the 500ft long set could be constructed to give the impression that it was really twice as long.
There’s more to a film than just it’s sets and filming locations. Over two thousand costumes had to be created with many of the lead actors costumes being replicated many times over due to wear and tear.
This is not an uncommon practice for film production, but due to the unique look of the people and the world they inhabit, it did create some headaches. One costume was created with so many fish scales the wardrobe department had to search the entire island of Hawaii looking for anyone who could supply in the huge quantity required.
Makeup had to use waterproof cosmetics, especially on the stunt players. As everyone had a sun burnt look, a three-sided tanning booth was setup. The extras numbering in their hundreds, with ages ranging from six to sixty-five, passed through the booth like a production line to receive their spray tan. The extras then moved onto costume before finally having their hair fixed and becoming ready for the day.
In some scenes, extras were actually painted plywood cutouts to help enhance the number of extras on the set. This can easily be seen in one particular shot on board the Deez super tanker.
Filming on the water is not only a difficult and time-consuming process but also very dangerous. It’s been reported that Jeanne Tripplehorn and Tina Majorino nearly drowned on their first day of filming.
Waterworld’s star Kevin Costner reported having a near-death experience when filming a scene in which the mariner ties himself to his catamaran to survive a storm. The pounding water caused him to black out and nearly drown.
Unbeknownst to most of the crew, Kevin Costner’s stunt double was riding his jet ski across 40 miles of open ocean between his home on Maui and the film’s set on the Big Island. When he didn’t show up for work one day, the production team phoned his wife, who informed them he had already left for work. The stunt double’s jet ski had run out of gas halfway through his “commute” and a storm had swept him farther out to sea. It took a helicopter most of the day to find him. The stunt doubles name was Laird Hamilton.
As well as the logistical problems of creating a film of this scale and on water, they also had to deal with the press who seemed intent on wanting the film to fail. Director Kevin Reynolds discusses the situation,
“It was huge, we were constantly fighting – people wanted to have bad press. That was more exciting to them than the good news. I guess the most egregious example of that that I recall was that the publicist told me that one day…we’d been out the day before and we were doing a shot where we sent two cameras up on a mast of the trimaran and we wanted to do a shot where they tilled down from the horizon down to the deck below. We’re out there, we’re anchored, we’re setting the shot up and a swell comes in, and I look over and the mast is sort of bending.
And I turned to the boatmaster and I said, “Bruno, is this safe?”. And he looks up the mast and he goes, “No”. So I said, “Okay, well, we have to get out as I can’t have two guys fall off from 40 feet up”. So, we had to break out of the set-up, and go back in a shoot something else and we lost another half-day.
Anyway, the next day the publicist is sitting in his office and he gets this call from some journalist in the States and he goes, “Okay. Don’t lie to me – I’ve had this confirmed from two different people. I want the facts, and I want to hear about the accident yesterday, we had two cameramen fall off the mast and were killed”.
And, he goes, “What are you talking about?”. And he goes, “Don’t lie to me, don’t cover this up, we know this has happened”. It didn’t happen! People were so hungry for bad news because it was much more exciting than…they just said it, and you know, it hurt us.”
Upon release, the press seemed to be disappointed that the film wasn’t the massive failure they were hoping it to be. Universal Studios told Kevin Reynolds that one critic came out of an early screening in New York and in a disappointed tone said,
“Well, it didn’t suck.”
It is true that during principle photography the slave colony set sank and had to be retrieved. However due to bad press, the rumour became much bigger and to this day when you mention the sinking set, most people assume it was the huge atoll.
During production, press nicknamed the film “Kevin’s Gate” and “Fishtar”, referring to 1980’s box office failures Heaven’s Gate and Ishtar. Heaven’s Gate failed so badly it led to the sale of United Artists Studio and has become synonymous with failure in Hollywood.
As well as the exaggerated set problems and other various production rumours, there were also difficulties with the script. In a risky move, the film was green lit and moved into production without a finalised script.
The final total is a reportedly thirty-six rewrites. One of the writers involved was Joss Whedon. Joss had worked on many scripts before becoming a director having being at the helm of both The Avengers and the sequel Avengers: Age Of Ultron. He described his experience on Waterworld as,
“Seven weeks of hell”
Everything came to a head just three weeks before the end of principle photography. Kevin Reynolds who was an old friend of Kevin Costner allegedly walked off set or was fired. There was no official statement on what happened.
When Reynolds left the production this event caused many changes to be made. Composer Mark Isham had already composed approximately two-thirds of the film’s score by the time Reynolds left and that event ultimately caused him to leave production. As Mark describes in this interview excerpt,
“Kevin Reynolds quit the film, which left me working for Kevin Costner, who listened to what I had written and wanted a completely different point of view. He basically made a completely different film — he re-cut the entire film, and in his meeting with me he expressed that he wanted a completely different approach to the score. And I said, “oh let me demonstrate that I can give that to you”, so I presented him with a demo of my approach to his approach, and he rejected that and fired me. What I find a lot in these big films, because the production schedules are so insane, that the directors have very little time to actually concentrate on the music.”
Rumours report that Costner took control of production. He directed the last few weeks of principle photography and edited the final cut of the film that was released in cinemas.
Reynolds discusses his surprise at discovering that one of the most famous scenes from what is known as the extended version, was left on the cutting room floor,
“…it would have differed from what you saw on the screen to some extent, and one of the things I’ve always been perplexed by in the version that was released, theatrically, although subsequently the longer version included it, and the reason that I did the film, was that at the very end of the picture, at the very end of the script, there’s a scene when they finally reach dry land and The Mariner’s sailing off and he leaves the two women behind, and in the script they’re standing up on this high point and they’re watching him sail away, and the little girl stumbles on something.
And they look down and clear the grass away and that’s this plaque. And it says, “Here, near this spot, 1953, Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary first set foot on the summit of Everest”. And that was in script and I was like, “Oh, of course! Wow, the highest point on the planet! That would have been dry land!”. And we got it! We shot that. And they left it out of the picture. And I’m like, “Whaaat?!”. It’s like the Statue of Liberty moment in Planet of the Apes. And I was like, “Why would you leave that out?”
Written by John Abbitt | Follow John on twitter @UKFilmNerd
If any the crew cares to share any of their experiences on it please comment.
Thanks for reading
If you want more deep dives visit
https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewstories/?ref=share
sixty percent 在 盧斯達 Facebook 的精選貼文
【盧斯達:君子豹變,願不回頭 — 關於武力升級、五大訴求和香港獨立】
聽說最近連登又出現一些爭議,有人探討香港獨立;有人反對,認為太快「爆響口」,令國際視線轉移、令中國「有藉口鎮壓」,有人甚至說民陣元旦遊行,不要揮舞香港獨立旗幟。先不說我個人的立場和信仰,想提供一些基本事實:在親北京派區議員在選舉大敗後,一張共青團網絡群組的載圖流傳出來,群組的成員表示,要盡力在輿論上分化香港人。整個中國的網軍怎會閒著,還加上香港內部的「網評員」,你可以肯定,在網絡上看到的每一個評論,都有可能是帶風向、見縫插針的操作結果。
所以「討論獨立主張是否應該出現」,不一定是真心討論策略,而是打壓異見,加上北京希望分而治之的策略。當你被帶風向,去附和那些「港獨抖抖」的討論,其實是違背了運動爆發之後大家都認同的憲章:兄弟爬山各自努力,但永不割席。
香港人說「五大訴求」,不想被北京滅聲,但如果脅保存「五大訴求」的名義去滅掉「香港獨立」的聲,本身就有倫理問題;其次就是高舉「香港獨立」訴求的人,也一樣同意「五大訴求」,也表示兩者不互相衝突,再加上沒有大台,大家平等,根本沒人有道德基礎「抬己抑人」。
況且在現實上根本沒人有權力能夠令其他人收聲,當然會有人認為在網上和報章上抹黑他們是鬼,就可以打擊他們。但歷史告訴你們,這只是一再自損公信力,暴露出自己唯我獨尊,沒有真正領受時代革命精神:大家都有自己的信仰,但你無法消滅對方;對方的方法,你不喜歡,卻可能有效。很多人說這個是鬼,那個是鬼,但其實只是對方的言行超出了你的心理舒適圈。2014年的時候,戴口罩已經是鬼,但現在已經是標準配備;2016年,梁天琦黃台仰那些主要港獨、跟楊岳橋爭票,又說是鬼,現在大家配備了他們發明的口號和熱捧Pepe;2019年7月1號,衝入立法會,又有人說是鬼,直到很快就有其中一個人除了口罩,接著「鬼論者」又靜靜轉身沉默;
半年內,反擊警察、用氣油彈、小隊有記認、裝修藍店,乃至最近的真槍,善男信女的第一時間反應,都是指斥有鬼,但每一次都是這些「鬼」延續了反抗的溫度、續存了香港反抗北京暴政的義戰。以今日「革命觀光客」在網上的標準,梁天琦黃台仰等等支持港獨因此他們也是喬裝警,入獄和流亡都是演戲一部份?大埔不是有個人持槍被捕?他上庭前還要托人傳話自證清白,抗爭的委屈大多數都是來自人民的不理解,而不只是來自敵方打壓。不是說香港人反抗,香港人報仇?核爆都不割席?
到真有人計劃反抗和報仇,你又覺得對方是鬼,那只是說說貪口爽,還是妄想有絕對安全的報仇方法,怕別人報仇可能「累街坊」搞到自己?如果這樣想就是沒有共負一軛的共同體心態。
回顧這些,不是想調侃善男信女社會賢達後知後覺一如以往,而是人的理性、社會大眾的標準,是游移並不斷改變,你當下信奉的真理,其實並非攧撲不破,別人違背了標準並不一定是對方錯,而可能是你的標準落後,需要變革。北京和特區也說香港人的「真普選」違反人大831決議和基本法,難道你又自己放棄?是真普選有問題嗎?是北京的標準有問題。同理,主張港獨和主張真普選,也是「主張」,如果你動了要滅聲的念頭,那你只是一個權力較小的北京,本質已經一樣。你可以不同意,但不能滅聲,別人有思想和表達自由。
就像「光復香港時代革命」,社會賢達一開始也覺得好可怕、激嬲中國,令人聯想到「顏色革命」,也想出手打壓,但相信的人夠多,街上人人都喊,就自然成為主流。想阻止香港獨立思潮,唯一方法就是展示在一國控制一切的局面下,可以實現「五大訴求」,否則香港獨立必然是「五大訴求論者」的下一個歸宿。
我個人主張獨立,但我不認為它有比「五大訴求」危險,因為「五大訴求」本身就已違反北京意志,我們是香港人,就一樣危險。不斷反對港獨的泛民上一代,在中國的「文宣」也已經是「港獨份子」,因為他們違反了北京意志。一些人認為在這個時候揭牌,會給予籍口北京更大力打壓,令香港更加危險,但這樣想只是幻想香港「有險可守」,而是否「有險」取決於香港人自己是否將獨立宣訴於口,這不是把自己看得太高嘛?就像兩三個月前香港人搞集會聲援加泰集會,很多善男順女又panic了,搖頭晃腦地說這樣會激嬲美國,搞到《人權法》過不了。之後神推鬼使就出現了中大和理大圍城戰,殘酷的人道危機令本來懸置在參議院的《人權法》火速通過。
我不是說「港獨主張」絕對不會成為中國反對的藉口,但香港人在國際中根本被動,中美和世界的決定,絕對是根據自身的利益邏輯。也就是說北京不能出解放軍,不是因為香港人沒有支持港獨,而是因為他計過度過,知道出兵自損八百,於是連你們早就在揮舞港獨旗,都只能睜一隻眼閉一隻眼。當客觀條件是可以屠殺,你自認愛國愛黨也不能逃過大難。
就像加泰和美國,美國立《人權法》是因為她自己要制衡中國的國策,而不是因為香港人是否支持加獨份子或者美國,或者香港有多少人去過游說,不要想那麼多。香港在國際上被動,因此更加有空間、沒有包袱去表達自己的真我。誤以為「展現真我」就會引來災難,只是把自己看得太高、把國際政治看成繞著自己轉,把滯留舒適圈美化為「顧全大局」。
半年前香港爆發反送中,就是「不顧大局」,主動為中美關係和各種談判增加新的議程。霧裡看花的社會賢達以為有「國際社會」支持就可以,那麼半年前為甚麼又忍辱負重,不等中美談判之後讓大國決定香港問題呢?因為有些事情真是十萬火急,不能等無能的國際社會,香港的百年基業和人命都很重要。
那麼香港是否要繼續接受「一國兩制」、視之為歸宿,也是在這個「全體制迫害人民」的情況下香港人自然會思考的緊急問題。半年前很多人都不會說「等埋XX先」,是因為針刺到肉,自己的資產和安全都很危險;但送中條例已經被勇士推翻,社會賢達就覺得不緊急了,可以等等、主張建大台收拾殘局,這是很殘酷的現實,「黃絲」之間不同人群階級的底線都不一樣。但建大台,外面的人是否同意?就跟「光復香港時代革命」或「香港獨立唯一生路」這些口號一樣,不是誰人說可以或不可以,而是要看民意,有人支持就會有人叫,如果有人支持你怎麼反對也摧毀不了;如果大家反對,你是甚麼賢達都推不動。
近日我在一間餐廳看著幾個藍絲叔叔在看新聞打交直播,然後他們說:「究竟完未」,狀甚厭煩。有黃絲有意阻止別人主張獨立,其實也是這種「究竟完未」的情緒,但這只是情緒,並非深思熟慮。他們彷彿認為只要不提港獨,中國帶給香港的災難就會停止。但事實當然不會。亦正正是災難不止,香港人自然會尋求新出路。
很多人接受不了有槍,黎智英在專欄說「認為」有「不良份子的滲透破壞」。他們似乎不明白,警察進入暴力無責任體系、不斷有人被消失、國際社會得個講字的情況下,香港看似喧嘩但其實局勢是萬籟俱寂,最終會有人走向武力升級,最終在沉默中會有事情爆發。如果想阻止更大的暴力,還是那句,不是屈鬼,而是用高超的政治力令政府讓步,大家就不用變成武裝份子。如果沒有辦法令大政有可為,還要抹黑反抗者,只是向弱者抽刃。你沒法推倒高牆也不應為高牆添磚。別人違背了你的標準並不一定是對方錯,而可能是你的標準落後,需要變革。
另外個人覺得黎智英「懷疑」滲透者「聽說是有中國背影,想在港製造麻煩給習帝的權鬥對手所為」的立論十分有趣。也就是說炸彈、黑衣人、縱火那些,有可能是鬼,但論證闕如,只推給「聽說是有中國背影」,是北京內部製造權鬥云云。問題是「權鬥論」是萬能的,「避免捲入權鬥」亦萬用。當你不同意一件事但又找不到vaild的理由,就可以引用這些政治陰謀論。「總之唔好做,總之好危險。」
但問題是香港就是中國統治的殖民地,中國的線路和權力在香港如身之使臂,而中國那麼龐大的國家,黨內不會無派,因此不管香港是抗爭還是不抗爭,都會成為北京權鬥的籌碼。你不抗爭呢,就成了習近平鬥反習派的工具;你抗爭呢,就成了反習派反習的籌碼。事實是香港存在本身就是權鬥的籌碼,若說不要成為北京權鬥籌碼,為甚麼不在6月的時候說呢?大家留在家中就沒人能滲透了。在「勇武派」不斷露面建功之前,北京就沒有滲透香港嗎?北京就沒有權鬥嗎?為甚麼「勇武派」成了一件事之後,香港突然才鬼影幢幢呢?比起排擠異己,個人覺得市面流行的「權鬥籌碼論」更值得討論。其實香港現時既然是「中國一部份」,成為中國政治鬥爭就是不可避免的,你不主動,別人也會謀劃。
建設民主中國十分虛無,介入中國政治卻是必然,成為權鬥籌碼亦無問題,只要方向是有利於香港爭取權力。正如香港現時亦是中美之間的籌碼,但我們要爭取談判中加入香港自己的議程。混跡於混亂中求存,手會黑,但難道香港現時又是處女?人只有死,才不會成為任何人的籌碼,但香港沒打算死,那麼利用中國也利用國際社會亦只是現實。至於黎文說「位於中共極權危牆之下,港獨不但無可能,我們更會失去了國際和市民的支持,是死路一條」,我想引用11月期間美國Emerson Polling的全國民調,69%受訪者有留意香港抗爭新聞,59%支持香港從中國獨立出來,只有7%反對,34%表示不清楚。(Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters are watching or following the political protests in Hong Kong. A significant majority at 59% think Hong Kong should be independent from China, 7% said they should not be, and 34% were unsure. )
當然有人支持也不一定能成功,我也不是民意最大黨或者國際派,但相信這個民調足以證明國際對香港獨立的看法,不如香港人自己所想的那麼絕對。但說到底我們不應盲信,但也不能放棄任何可能性。在6月12日之前,大家都認為想《送中條例》收皮,在一黨專政下,是發夢無咁早,但人民的意志可以改變不可能,發夢可以成真。
人民進步到某個程度,自我覺醒,自我充權,就會發明出上位者無法理解的路線,上位者不容易適應。因為這是世界其他地方都沒有。無大台如是,五大訴求如是,香港獨立如是。君子豹變,但那是漸進,不會回頭。信仰過一國兩制及經歷其破滅和成長,就很難回到那個童話。很多人的口吻語氣還是覺得勇武危險、獨立思想危險,彷彿是他們在包容群眾,但你有沒有想過,一直是我們包容沒有離開過民主歌聲獻中華的你們?