又去朗園看片

01|《人民公園》，重新認(rèn)識(shí)熟悉的日常

是的，我又去朗園看紀(jì)錄片了。

又差點(diǎn)睡著。意識(shí)到花費(fèi)了金錢(qián)和時(shí)間，不行，趕緊打起精神。

影片是一鏡到底的手法，全片沒(méi)有剪輯。

拍攝的人民公園位于成都，導(dǎo)演是兩位，一位導(dǎo)演史杰鵬手持?jǐn)z像機(jī)坐在輪椅上，另一位導(dǎo)演推著輪椅，兩人就這樣繞場(chǎng)人民公園一周，記錄著這個(gè)城市人民的日常生活。

其中手持?jǐn)z像機(jī)的史杰鵬導(dǎo)演是一名人類(lèi)學(xué)家。

知道他的身份后，能理解他拍的紀(jì)錄片為什么是這種風(fēng)格。我之前看過(guò)的其他紀(jì)錄片或多或少會(huì)有問(wèn)答，或者拍攝者與被拍攝者之間的交流。

而人民公園完全是作為旁觀者在記錄，沒(méi)有拍攝者與被拍攝者之間的交流，一切都不具有拍攝的目的，而是在自然的流露發(fā)生，然而這就是日常。

影片以一場(chǎng)交誼舞開(kāi)頭，以一段霹靂舞爭(zhēng)霸賽結(jié)束。

中間展現(xiàn)著記錄著來(lái)來(lái)往往的男男女女、老老少少。

印象最深的是公園里喝早茶的一段鏡頭，鏡頭繞場(chǎng)早茶店鋪一周，依次記錄著每張桌子上的故事，或三五成群，或獨(dú)自一人，或靜靜喝茶，或談笑風(fēng)生。

真的是非常喜歡這段鏡頭了。

想起前兩周看過(guò)的一個(gè)Youtobe視頻，也是同樣的角度。一個(gè)記錄者將攝像機(jī)放在旋轉(zhuǎn)壽司的傳送帶上，記錄著每一桌的故事。

放映結(jié)束后，主持人表達(dá)一個(gè)說(shuō)法，重新認(rèn)識(shí)熟悉的日常。所謂重新認(rèn)識(shí)，我理解就是在已經(jīng)習(xí)以為常、甚至麻木的生活中重新發(fā)現(xiàn)生活的樂(lè)趣。

放映過(guò)程中，我觀察到一個(gè)有意思的現(xiàn)象。影片是在2011年拍攝的，如果不說(shuō)，我很難從這個(gè)公園男女老少的穿著中，感受到時(shí)代的特點(diǎn)。

2011年，和8年過(guò)去的2019年相比，竟然差別不大。偶爾展現(xiàn)出年代感的鏡頭就是拍攝到了翻蓋手。

后來(lái)和朋友聊天說(shuō)到這個(gè)，她表達(dá)出一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)，設(shè)備升級(jí)可以稱(chēng)作里程碑的時(shí)代已經(jīng)過(guò)去。在接下來(lái)的一段時(shí)間，我們應(yīng)該很難僅從設(shè)備的外表判斷年代了（想到《愛(ài)情公寓》有一集講述他們老了的時(shí)候，iPhone手機(jī)變得和胳膊一樣長(zhǎng)，但脫離影視劇環(huán)境，現(xiàn)實(shí)肯定不會(huì)發(fā)展成這樣），而要從設(shè)備里的內(nèi)容生產(chǎn)去判斷，就像現(xiàn)在的印記時(shí)抖音快手，10年20年之后肯定會(huì)有新的app 出現(xiàn)。

02｜今早，當(dāng)人類(lèi)觀察員

這周上班路線(xiàn)變化，經(jīng)過(guò)了小區(qū)公園，感覺(jué)非常有生活氣息，心里打定主意要找個(gè)時(shí)間過(guò)來(lái)參與。

在朗園看過(guò)《人民公園》后，更堅(jiān)定了我要去小區(qū)公園參與的想法。

今天早晨，計(jì)劃執(zhí)行。

凌晨的北京剛下過(guò)雨，溫度宜人，風(fēng)微涼，地面上還有未干的小水坑，倒映著居民樓與鮮花綠葉。

和朋友吃完早飯，一起溜達(dá)到小區(qū)公園。

我們兩個(gè)人癱坐在公園的長(zhǎng)椅上，四處環(huán)視，觀察著生活的日常。

看到高高的父親和小小的女兒。女兒穿著粉色小裙子和瑪麗珍鞋，非?？蓯?ài)。女兒隨便撩起裙子蹲在地上玩沙子，父親讓女兒站起來(lái)，幫她把裙子左右折好，疊放在腿上。然后父親坐在旁邊的輪胎上看著女兒玩沙子。雖然聽(tīng)不到他們說(shuō)話(huà)，但能想象到父親溫柔的對(duì)女兒說(shuō)：女生穿裙子不可以這樣蹲下哦。

看到騎著自行車(chē)一圈圈繞小區(qū)公園的小男孩，時(shí)不時(shí)站起來(lái)發(fā)力往前蹬，車(chē)把上的風(fēng)車(chē)轉(zhuǎn)的歡快。朋友在一旁解說(shuō)，自行車(chē)選手繞場(chǎng)第八圈完成。男孩跟他爸爸說(shuō)：差點(diǎn)騎到馬路上了。孩爸爸回答：敢騎上去我就揍你。

我和朋友在一旁爆笑，女兒和兒子真是待遇不同啊。

看到滿(mǎn)頭銀發(fā)的老太太，用Good morning和熟人打招呼，熟人邊學(xué)邊走向老太太，跟著老太太學(xué)Good afternoon 和Good evening 的發(fā)音。

看到一位老大爺，推著坐在輪椅上的老伴，跟朋友打招呼。然后老大爺和同伴閑聊，老太太自己操作輪椅閑逛。應(yīng)該是小區(qū)里的熟人，看到老太太快要轉(zhuǎn)到鵝卵石的地方，幫她把輪椅又推回了平地。

看到一群老太太，從廣播體操做到太極拳，有一位穿著花襯衫的老太太，做的特別帶勁。

看到打乒乓球的老頭老太太，遇到好球，忍不住高呼：好球！旁邊乒乓球臺(tái)又開(kāi)了一場(chǎng)比賽，一個(gè)老太太，吸著煙，布置乒乓球臺(tái)的攔網(wǎng)，戴著黑手套和同伴熱身。有點(diǎn)酷。

觀察這些日常，我跟朋友聊著自己的經(jīng)歷。

朋友說(shuō)，她的家鄉(xiāng)是太極一支的發(fā)源地，所以練習(xí)太極是他們?cè)趯W(xué)校的日常。

我通過(guò)太極聊到大學(xué)舉辦過(guò)的橄欖球比賽，我選修過(guò)的擊劍課、乒乓球課。

當(dāng)你開(kāi)始觀察仔細(xì)觀察的時(shí)候，別人的生活，別人的故事，再把這些投射到自己身上找經(jīng)歷和感受，真的是一件非常有意思的事。

真是一個(gè)可愛(ài)的早晨。

鏡頭一：《穆赫蘭道》

電影開(kāi)始時(shí)，麗塔遇到了一場(chǎng)車(chē)禍。從車(chē)廂里爬出來(lái)的她沿著下山的路拐進(jìn)一處私人住宅，后面我們將會(huì)知道這是貝蒂的姨夫姨母家。當(dāng)麗塔帶著蹣跚的步伐邁上臺(tái)階，進(jìn)入敞開(kāi)的大門(mén)時(shí)，攝影機(jī)鏡頭如同一個(gè)醉漢，失去重心般的浮動(dòng)著，像是被安置在某塊漂浮于水面的木板上，隨著水流的波動(dòng)運(yùn)動(dòng)著。這創(chuàng)造了一種詭異的影像觀感。在《雙峰3》的訪談中，林奇具體談到了如何將攝影機(jī)放置在搖臂上獲得這種鏡頭。

鏡頭二：《三峽好人》

《三峽好人》開(kāi)始的那個(gè)長(zhǎng)鏡頭，以搖動(dòng)的方式拍下即將渡輪過(guò)江的群眾。如同一個(gè)橫軸畫(huà)卷的展開(kāi)，讓我們緩慢窺視到一組普通人民的群像。目露驚慌，還是凝聚客觀，都不是；在“局內(nèi)”，還是“局外”，它保持住一種平衡。是一種空間內(nèi)部的游動(dòng)目光，被某種力量阻滯，卻又不斷向前。侯孝賢的電影之所以還不算空間－影像，原因在于他的攝影機(jī)只是左右搖動(dòng)，這顯現(xiàn)出攝影機(jī)的機(jī)械性，而不是在模擬某種生物性。

鏡頭三：《鐵道》

史杰鵬在2014年拍攝的《鐵道》，以相似的方式記錄下中國(guó)人在鐵道上的百態(tài)生活。在某些鏡頭中，滾滾向前的火車(chē)車(chē)廂內(nèi)部，攝影機(jī)以緩慢的速率“游動(dòng)”著，以某種類(lèi)海洋生物的感知方式“觸摸著”火車(chē)上的蕓蕓眾生。如同那列永遠(yuǎn)在行駛中的火車(chē)不再有開(kāi)始與結(jié)束，這是在創(chuàng)造一種無(wú)始無(wú)終、永遠(yuǎn)處在流動(dòng)生成中的嶄新影像。

鏡頭四：《人民公園》

這一切，都可以通過(guò)《人民公園》作總結(jié)?！度嗣窆珗@》以一個(gè)長(zhǎng)鏡頭記錄下了成都人民公園中在某個(gè)熱天午后發(fā)生的生活。史杰鵬通過(guò)讓自己坐在輪椅上，鏡頭同樣獲得了一種“游動(dòng)”的感覺(jué)，好奇地感觸著眼睛所看到的景觀，既有一種距離感，又有一種親切。輪椅從地面獲得的阻力傳染到了攝影機(jī)上，它好像在沖破一些阻力，就像魚(yú)在水中游動(dòng)時(shí)，必須抗拒水給它的阻力。

流動(dòng)與生成：液態(tài)影像的創(chuàng)造方式

空間好像被某種液體充滿(mǎn)了，攝影機(jī)幻化為某種水中生物，如同魚(yú)在水中那般游動(dòng)著。一方面是尾和鰭的擺動(dòng)產(chǎn)生的向前運(yùn)動(dòng)的力量，另一方面是來(lái)自液體本身的阻力，兩股力量相互作用，從而讓影像獲得了一種神秘觀感。一種新的生成可能，模擬魚(yú)的觀察方式。瓦解了觀看者慣常的以人的視角展開(kāi)的感知，目光被規(guī)訓(xùn)為水生生物。這是一種空間－影像的創(chuàng)造方式，讓觀眾獲得了生成－非人的體驗(yàn)。

一點(diǎn)思考，之后在作詳細(xì)整理和閱讀。

突然想到，如果這是一部關(guān)于上個(gè)世紀(jì)四五十年代蘇聯(lián)某個(gè)廣場(chǎng)的紀(jì)錄片，亦或者這是一個(gè)關(guān)于上個(gè)世紀(jì)二三十年代上海遠(yuǎn)東魔都的長(zhǎng)鏡頭，或者我們穿越五十年之后再來(lái)看這部紀(jì)錄片會(huì)得出怎樣的評(píng)價(jià)？

我們會(huì)對(duì)他們的活動(dòng)和衣著稱(chēng)奇，同時(shí)嚴(yán)肅地對(duì)待公共空間的分布，隱形的價(jià)值判斷和權(quán)力關(guān)系，而對(duì)他們公共空間下展現(xiàn)身體的態(tài)度而感同身受，尤其是影片的結(jié)尾，那些舞蹈的老人們。影片具備了民族志影像的文獻(xiàn)價(jià)值。即便，只是時(shí)隔了十年，回過(guò)頭去看移動(dòng)手機(jī)普及和全球化程度加劇的前夜，有些變化也是驚人的。不可否認(rèn)，成都作為一座一線(xiàn)內(nèi)陸城市放大了這種差異——政治經(jīng)濟(jì)和技術(shù)條件快速變化之下人的現(xiàn)代性和全球化體驗(yàn)之間的差異。

為什么采取長(zhǎng)鏡頭的形式？這是我能想到的第一個(gè)問(wèn)題。

鏡頭從右至左地向前移動(dòng)，并不出于現(xiàn)實(shí)主義的考量——我要把完整“真實(shí)”記錄下來(lái)，因?yàn)橛^眾能明確感受到長(zhǎng)鏡頭的移動(dòng)，并不固定，是一種挑釁式的逡巡，一次具身化的還原，融合了反身性和實(shí)驗(yàn)性的思考，是“參與觀察模式”的進(jìn)一步。

事實(shí)上，我起初覺(jué)得這很殘忍，鏡頭的運(yùn)動(dòng)像要把所有經(jīng)過(guò)的人都wipe out，在一個(gè)完整的時(shí)空里，人民公園像小徑分岔的花園，永遠(yuǎn)走不到盡頭，不斷地和人相遇然后拋到畫(huà)外，又不斷地和相似的人重逢，卻絲毫看不到會(huì)在哪里停下來(lái)的跡象。而鏡頭里的那些人群和人只是以同樣或緊張或冷漠的反應(yīng)姿態(tài)看著鏡頭，只一瞬就又消失不見(jiàn)。而本雅明把這形容為“現(xiàn)代人的歡樂(lè)與其說(shuō)在于“一見(jiàn)鐘情”，不如說(shuō)在于‘最后一瞥之戀’?！?/p>

這恰恰是這部片子有趣的地方，攝影機(jī)通過(guò)暴力的方式造成了機(jī)體的紊亂，暴露了深層的癥候。不斷重復(fù)的人的姿態(tài)、體態(tài)和行動(dòng)，差異中串聯(lián)起一種對(duì)一種共性的認(rèn)識(shí)，而這種共性反過(guò)來(lái)提供了我們認(rèn)識(shí)個(gè)體的基礎(chǔ)，以至于到了后來(lái)鏡頭里出現(xiàn)的人越來(lái)越顯得有趣——似乎是漫長(zhǎng)的進(jìn)入才創(chuàng)造了理解的基礎(chǔ)。

在紀(jì)錄片的本體層面，這種形式創(chuàng)造了一種在主題內(nèi)容與形式之間的張力，或者說(shuō)拍攝者/被拍攝者之間的張力被統(tǒng)統(tǒng)暴露了出來(lái)，尤其是當(dāng)那些小孩對(duì)著外國(guó)導(dǎo)演說(shuō)出Hello的時(shí)候，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)我們處于一個(gè)異質(zhì)的視點(diǎn)，遠(yuǎn)離了自己曾經(jīng)習(xí)以為常的觀看角度，而在不同族群之間的縫隙徘徊，到底是誰(shuí)在觀看誰(shuí)？當(dāng)我們?cè)噲D理解被拍攝者的時(shí)候，我們也就理解了拍攝者，因?yàn)樗劝炎约悍胖玫揭粋€(gè)公共空間里受人審視，這顯然是他早就有所預(yù)料甚至是期盼的，又把自己的視角下的人們對(duì)他的反應(yīng)記錄下來(lái)，他坐在輪椅上，推著穿行于在人民公園，而我們通過(guò)觀看《人民公園》行走在人民公園，甚至是以一種游離于族群之外的身份。

而這些觀看意味著什么？這種張力帶來(lái)了什么認(rèn)識(shí)？有一個(gè)鏡頭在繞過(guò)廊柱后平靜地掃過(guò)一排制作陶器的電動(dòng)轉(zhuǎn)輪，它們上面堆著一些冷了凝固下來(lái)的陶土，看到這我才覺(jué)得有所感悟，在充滿(mǎn)了人群的喧嘩中，這里似乎是一片歷史的遺跡，沒(méi)有人在此，這里是一片真空，在此之外，人們的生活就像萬(wàn)花筒一般充滿(mǎn)了驚奇的體驗(yàn)。

而一種驚詫和震驚，在鏡頭內(nèi)外，在被攝者和攝影機(jī)之間存在。但回到一開(kāi)始，我已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)這種理解的來(lái)源并不生硬，從樹(shù)葉開(kāi)始，到低角度的觀察，最后以雙目注視為結(jié)尾，一切都開(kāi)始變得渾圓起來(lái)。

既然申請(qǐng)季結(jié)束了那么就隨便發(fā)了吧..

暫時(shí)對(duì)專(zhuān)門(mén)學(xué)習(xí)電影/影像/紀(jì)錄片告一段落。存檔紀(jì)念，可能難得再寫(xiě)影視文章了。

A single-take documentary film co-directed by Sniadecki and Libbie D. Cohn epitomises multiple daily portraits in Chengdu, China. In this film, the masses wander in the People’s Park as routine, which are captured by a digital camera moving slowly through the photographer in a wheelchair. Sniadecki’s works are under the assistance of Harvard’s Sensory Ethnography Lab (SEL) that devotes attention to the combination of aesthetics and ethnography. Specifically, a series of documentaries are neither limited to film practice or ethnography only. Instead, it is an exploration to present both landscape and culture in multifarious areas through flexible media with a concern of sensory aesthetics.

Such a kind of documentaries are somewhat distinct from the origin of Observational film and Direct cinema, given its closer association with perception. The original Direct Cinemas adhere to the notion of non-participation, while the latter ones, i.e., the works of SEL, highlight the sensory interaction with creatures or objects, and even simulate the non-human perception. Thus, they go deeper and further to build up a linkage between anthropology and the perception in the relevant audiovisual works.

It is under the very background that People’s Park was produced, i.e., Sniadecki has got a basic familiarity with China and completed several documentaries as well as short films in different cities of China (Shanghai, Songhua and Chengdu, etc.). Subsequently, he attempted at more experimental methods in Yumen (2013) collaborated with Chinese artist Xu Ruotao, and The Iron Ministry (2014), a resemblance with the Thailand’s creative documentary Railways Sleepers (2016).

To start with the present essay, I would expound what the aesthetics and the social landscape is, and how they coalesce in the apparatus. In the Irina Leimbacher’s film comment, he has discussed the old debate on the paradox between verbal explanation and sensory experience, which can be traced back to the Philosophy of language in the last century. As filmmakers of SEL identify themselves as the advocate of pure experience rather than an ethnographic representation, they return to empiricism to a certain degree. With this consideration, the unspeakable moving images demonstrate the situations in contemporary Chinese urban areas, which is a combination of the micro and macro, the sight of strangeness and the transection of urban anthropology.

People’s Park indeed, similar with many other works of SEL, stimulates a sight through the steady and slow movement of a camera. Different from other works like Leviathan (2012) which simulates the perception of halobios, and Sweetgrass (2009) where the sight is concealed in a group of shepherds, it is difficult to say whose perception lies in People’s Park. The camera is at a height level resembles that of a child. However the sight keeps it uncertainty because the human would not set in such a tardy and smooth sensation, nor could the specific animal lingers in the crowds. Even though the movement pattern of camera is akin to that of Bela Tarr and Aleksandr Sokurov, total differences lie in its ordinariness as well as the absence of myth, fiction and history. Thus, likewise, we should not regard the camera as a sight of an object. It does not function as a storyteller, nor a stiff machine.

The movement represents more vague perspectives, leaving multiple imaginations to sense an uncertain perception. The perception could be from anything: the molecules, liquid or even a spectre, which can spread in such a park full of dwellers. So to speak, such an ambigious viewpoint reconnects experience with science. On the one hand, the unutterable and uncharted substance can be imaged to fit one of the movement patterns; on the other hand, it is also perceivable as the objects that could be measured by pure science — camera.

In Agamben’s Infancy And History, the infancy refers to a state leading the Tower of Babel to history, that is under experience of language acquisition but has not been constructed. For this documentary, a low, flat and unknown sight can also be imagined as such an infant; it is a metaphor illustrating an unutterable status, a process of experience and knowledge acquisition. Therefore, the indescribable movement creates a kind of fancy rather than a real life (but indeed in daily life), that opposes to modern real experience characterized by a bereft of imagination. Thus, the randomicity and liquidity are actually the points to correspond with the notion mentioned above. Compared to animals, the infancy between the sensible form and the potential intellect could be more creative not only for observation but also obtaining, extending the pure optical and sound situations to the potential ideology.

Though the perception could derive from anything, what is worth reflecting on is the cultural aspect rather than the material essense. The sensible sight demonstrates its potentiality to sense and then explore the information in surroundings, thus leading to dimensions of culture and society.

The continuous lens record a spectrum of leisure and activities in a park of a contemporary-China modern city, where there is a public space. Modern China is permeated by two main forces—politics and capitals. The former is embodied in J.P. Sniadecki’s Chai Qian (2010); the latter is in the daily life in People’s Park, epitomising the common and ordinary landscape, in which people care more about individuals or micro social groups rather than collectivism. Some of them casually sit on the bench for relaxation, some of them dance in the square with passion, and others then cast their eyes to the dancers. These citizens in the film lead a leisure life in Chengdu, a southwest metropolis far from the political center of China, due to the isolated but developed position of this city. The individuality occurs in the routine, extending the time image even to the extreme. As what Deleuze stated on neo-realism:

And Antonioni's art will continue to evolve in two directions: an astonishing development of the idle periods of everyday banality; then, starting with The Eclipse, a treatment of limit-situations which pushes them to the point of dehumanized landscapes, of emptied spaces that might be seen as having absorbed characters and actions, retaining only a geophysical description, an abstract inventory of them.

As for Fellini, from his earliest films, it is not simply the spectacle which tends to overflow the real, it is the everyday which continually organizes itself into a travelling spectacle, and the sensory-motor linkages which give way to a succession of varieties subject to their own laws of passage.

It is evident that everyday in People’s Park coincides with it and goes far beyond. Primarily, banality is expelled from the moving images, as their routine is dynamic compared to the tedious atmosphere at the post-war period. However, this vigour is merely limited to the specific space, followed by a trajectory of a camera and could not move backwards. Thus the inside and outside have been separated: this is a survey in entertainment, with the hustle and bustle excluded outside.

For another, the travelling spectacle is notable in the People’s Park. The camera held by J.P. Sniadecki served as a privilege, enabling the particular filmmaker in a wheelchair to photograph in a smooth way. Local dwellers are no more reluctant to be captured since they have gotten accustomed to tourists. There are the mutual gazes between dwellers and outsiders, and the gazes of tourists transform everyday into a spectacle through the camera, then giving rise to multiple possibilities of the perception. In a word, such moving images highlight the production between the reality and camera, being boundary-pushing of Fellini’s deliberate confusion of the real and the spectacle.

This sort of spectacle indeed, are at highlight when the Break-dancing appeared. The body untrammelled with shaking also expresses a sense of flight. The camera captures and interacts with dancers, blending the “impromptu” into the society. The dancing in the square itself, randomly without settings, forms the primary “impromptu” that recalls the traits of the 1980s, when Chinese young people were initially imbued with the Western culture. It accounts for their freedom in this scene: the middle-aged amateurs were vigorous 20-years-old youth in the middle of 1980s, the change of likeness still retaining its character, in which we could perceive the tension of limbs as much as in their youth age. Putting the profound artistry aside, their straight-out and casual activities have overstepped the scope of dancing, alluding to a status of how the Chinese urban youth entertained and recreated themselves in the initial stage of Reform and Opening and how the culture has been inherited in the contemporary society. It is the very viewpoint of camera that synchronously interacts with the reality, as the crowds wave to the camera. But we can still envisage it as a peculiar perspective like an infant in the cradle, slowly wandering around the dancing square, then of possibilities of close interaction and the potency of acquiring information surrounding through the sensory experience.

It is worthy noting that the music played in the square provides another pathway to understand the urban anthropology and culture memories. A series of pop but vulgar music is played in the park, functioning as the representative of music favoured by those proletariats in contemporary China’s urban regions. Entirely different from the collectivist period full of official music, the popular ones entirely transform the aspiration into the individual motion, introducing the western skills such as those concerned with the rhythm, the motif and lyrics. However, as popular music proceeds in recent decades, it cannot keep abreast of times and are stagnating in the obsolete style. On the one hand, those youth in the past are suffering ageing, but it is inappropriate to play the reminiscent music due to their passion that still keep in fashion. On the other hand, they are actually estranged from the present-day culture core, which results in a more vulgar style of dancing music. It is on the very style that we could figure out such a group of people who generally enjoy recreations in the park—well-known as “Square-dancing grannies” in China.

Thus, this work produced in Chengdu is also a practice of acoustic mapping and we can perceive the soundscape through a sense of soundwalk. The camera does not merely focus on the pure optical situation, but also highlights the sound. This practice corresponds with the methodology of sound anthropology. The oral language is limited by cognition, but the environmental sound can convey distinct sensations. What matter are the sensations and memories influenced by the melody, rhythm or other elements of sound. For example, the music mentioned above convey the status of the age-groups and reminds them of their vigorous time.

For anthropologists, the emphasis on the daily visual and audio materials subverts the post-colonial perspective to a certain degree. When filmmakers conceal in the field, they get involved into the mutual gazes and the research in specific literature is replaced by more ambiguous and multifold sensations. The relationship and boundary between “self” and “ the other” are blurred, making it possible to explore the flowing and fresh connections. Based on this methodology, the director of SEL thinks highly of it with a comment that “not to analyze, but to actively produce aesthetic experience, and of kinds that reflect and draw on but do not necessarily clarify or leave one with the illusion of ‘understanding’ everyday experience.” Not only does he emphasize the aesthetics in works of SEL, but also a practice in line with the post-colonial criticism.

就像一個(gè)人坐在輪椅上，被人推著，在公園里看到的一切?；蛘哒f(shuō)，我是一個(gè)漂浮在空中的探測(cè)器，我漂浮在人間的深海搜集信息。從這個(gè)視角看行走的人總有一種凄涼的美感。影片結(jié)束后，感覺(jué)人類(lèi)每天都這樣一群一群地走動(dòng)，聚在一起唱歌、跳舞、說(shuō)話(huà)，實(shí)在是一場(chǎng)集體的行為藝術(shù)，荒誕而荒涼。那個(gè)時(shí)光好像是虛假的一樣，在那個(gè)特定時(shí)空中那樣安排、分布的人們?cè)僖膊荒芟衲菢影床烤桶嗔?。那是只屬于特定時(shí)空的集體表演，人們就在那個(gè)時(shí)候聚在一起然后各自消失。通過(guò)透析人群的運(yùn)動(dòng)，察覺(jué)到人世無(wú)窮的變化、流轉(zhuǎn)。這個(gè)影片做到了這一點(diǎn)，它穿越了我們個(gè)人走動(dòng)時(shí)的主觀局限，而是一種在平滑時(shí)空中的穿梭，它仿佛把一整個(gè)時(shí)間段里不同空間的人的走動(dòng)都呈現(xiàn)了出來(lái)。而你觀看著這不同時(shí)空走動(dòng)的運(yùn)動(dòng)的整體，就像觀看水塘里水波輕輕推動(dòng)的卵群一樣盡收眼底，實(shí)在是很奇妙的體驗(yàn)。我以后也試著這樣觀察人類(lèi)。一個(gè)人走動(dòng)的時(shí)候，當(dāng)自己在時(shí)空中穿梭（好像不這樣想就不是），不想其他的事情，只觀察人和事物。