Favor contemporaries? Huang Qiusheng and Tao Jiehe were outraged by a documentary

"I just heard from a colleague about Director Zhang. He doesn't think there is anything wrong with him, and he complains that he has worked so hard to make a movie." Just as I was discussing with my reporter friend in response to the trend of "For Nineteen-Year-Old Me", should I When Director Zhang was invited to speak a few words, Huang Jiazheng, the protagonist of "KJ Music Life", exploded the inside story of the filming and release of his 8,000-word long essay. The documentary director I admired for many years suddenly collapsed. My friend didn't specify who the colleague was, but I probably guessed that it was the god-level senior who would call the person in charge of the film collection "Hong Zai".

Collect intelligence indirectly, as the situation develops. Many non-participants such as Tao Jie and Huang Qiusheng spoke out, and the content was biased towards the director's side. However, folk and online opinions generally support the subjects (students). I suddenly felt that in addition to journalism and documentary ethics courses this time, it might be related to the intergenerational struggle in Hong Kong that has lasted for 20 years. A textbook-level way to deprive young people of hope.

(This article is purely borrowed from the topic and has nothing to do with the movie. It is mixed with personal experience, and rational discussions are welcome)

Respondent to Respondent, Unequal Power

Lishen, I am the kind of behind-the-scenes person who helps journalists do interviews during holidays. Many years of work and reading experience, I don't like Hong Kong-style interviews very much. I like the writing of Fang Huizhen and Dong Chengyu, and the interviews of RTHK characters in the past are also excellent. In their writing, one can read the true disposition of the interviewees, the reporter's feelings for the interviewees, personal judgment, and even sympathy.

You will only read the interviewee's "position" and "point of view" in the Hong Kong interview manuscript. After reading it, you will rarely feel that you understand the interviewee. Who is he and what kind of person is he? Difficult to know. But at least know the angle, entry point and viewpoint of his comments on the incident. Or gossip all over the place and praise the interviewees endlessly.

It's just a cultural difference, there's no good or bad. From the standpoint of a reader, I would rather know the interviewee through the reporter's eyes. I want to know his point of view, just invite him to write.

Interviewees are rarely on an equal footing with recorders in Hong Kong. There is an unwritten rule in the industry that interview drafts should be handed over to the interviewees for review. It's a courtesy. The scope of visits will be confirmed before the start of the program, and sensitive topics will be discussed during the process, and whether it can be written will be confirmed on the spot. After the interview manuscript is completed, the right to revise the manuscript belongs to the editorial side, and the interviewees can only express their feelings.

In actual operation, the content is often deleted because the interviewees don't like it, especially the famous people. At this time, the interviewee is your guest, and writing is to serve the guest. Two months after I tried to publish an article, the number of views suddenly skyrocketed. The interviewee called my boss and asked to delete part of the content because "that's not true." I thought to myself: "Scared? You confirmed it and recorded it." So should I argue with him? Of course not, immediately delete and apologize, the printed version cannot be deleted. Excuse me.

I remember that when I took a journalism course, the teacher explained that the interview template was a text about Hu Zhiqiang, the mayor of Taichung, with thin hair. My memory is a bit inaccurate. The teacher described that the mayor laughed out loud after watching it, and let it go when he finished laughing.

How did the predecessors of the golden age maintain power

The biggest point of controversy in "To Me at Nineteen" is that before the movie was released, the protagonists (subjects) in the movie opposed the movie's release. They don't want to look back on their teenage years, and they don't want their past to be discussed by all Hong Kong people.

Why are they so resistant? It is not difficult to find from the reports that they did not cooperate equally with the filming team throughout the filming process. Most of them were passively recorded and tried to resist during the process, but to no avail. It was basically a decade-long bullying incident.

What about the party in power (the film crew)?

I will drown them in the love of God.

Um? Very familiar. It's for your own good?

Many elders, such as the above-mentioned Tao Jie, Huang Qiusheng and even Deng Xiaohua, "stand" on the side of those in power. Thinking that since the subject is not willing, he can refuse, not shoot, and resist... He eats and shouts fish to satisfy his thirst. Since the result is like this, do you come out to make noise after the screening and winning the award? Want to fight for fame, why scare people? Stop the world from turning.

(Only complaining loudly after winning an award, just wanting to be famous? Get in the way.)

They don't know that weak people can't resist, they can't understand, and they don't understand that in the case of unequal power, the heroine in the film can't resist at all-this is why documentaries like to lay hands on students.

Here comes the problem again. Why can't they understand the female students? Because they use industry standards and charge money to do things, can't they say no? Part of the reason. I think they are criticizing the students with the method of hard work and victory in the golden age of ten thousand years.

"You failed because you weren't strong enough. It's not the director's fault that the movie made you feel hurt. It's because you were too glassy."

Elite Monopoly Resources

The complaint that "one generation is worse than the next" is not unique to Hong Kong. Japanese labels born in the 1980s are a relaxed generation with low competitiveness and only seek small luck. Taiwan set the age of majority at 18 in a referendum last year. I met many adults who opposed the amendment. They think that modern 21-year-olds can’t take care of themselves, and they are 18 years old? That's worth it.

However, what is said does not necessarily match the social reality. Adulthood down to the age of 18 is over after all.

Even if the older generation criticizes the new generation a lot, they will probably not break the way. On the contrary, they will more or less come up with some policies for the new generation, or simply leave them alone and let them develop freely.

What about Hong Kong? Take away your future from the moment you are in middle school. Especially young people from non-rich families.

First, middle school limits your options for further education. If you are eager to improve your living environment through academic qualifications, the paths you can choose are medicine, law, and teaching. Examination of civil servants is also a way.

You said, no, many people are successful in business, and they can find everything if they have the ability-you are talking about only a very small number of elites. The age of affordability. After Wang Weiji, is there anyone capable of breaking through the social structure and blazing a new path?

Then, when you graduate from college, you end up with a lot of student debt. Not only that, but you can't apply for public housing. The two involve living and working in peace and contentment. At the critical moment from the age of 20 to the age of 40, you can't take risks, you can't take the road outside the norm, you must follow the rules.

Suppose you just left the society and have already shouldered hundreds of thousands of student debts, and take a job with a salary that is just enough to make ends meet to share the family pressure. Do you dare to offend the boss? Once you offend the boss, it will affect your livelihood. It's not as simple as finding another job, you may have to change careers, and you will no longer be able to gain a foothold in your profession.

An old colleague of mine who taught at the school, the principal made an appointment when the contract expired. He didn't consider changing schools. When the principal made an appointment, he said clearly: "You know I have a lot of contacts in the campus. You won't stay and help me for a year, right?"

It is possible that young people dare not and are unwilling to take risks because the vested interests in Hong Kong monopolize resources. For example, housing, you are not eligible to live in public housing, and you cannot afford private housing. You work for boss A, and boss A and boss B are friends. If you offend Boss A, will Boss B take you in?

This situation is far from the experience of the golden age. In the past, TVB and ATV actors often switched back and forth. You can make movies without making TV. If you don't have to make a movie, you can go to the radio station to be a DJ. The DJ couldn't get along, so he went to have a stand-up comedy. Let me tell you now, you are going to change careers - look at Denise Ho and To Man Chak.

Once young people are so powerful that the system and connections can't stop them, what should they do?

buy.

Are you good at throwing money down? I buy your commercial slots, buy your youtube shows, use money and your talents to make shows that vested interests want. You don't have to, but everyone knows how high the cost of living in Hong Kong is, and how long can you be proud of it?

Hong Kong is covered by a golden bell, and young people have nowhere to escape.

power of the powerless

If you don't run away, you resist.

The fundamental difference between the social movement in the past ten years and before 2010 is that Hong Kong people attach importance to "people", which has undergone fundamental changes. The obvious starting point of "For Me at Nineteen" is that the director and the principal are strongly urged to pay attention to the feelings of the heroines. They are human beings and their feelings should be respected. This item is the biggest progress of the new era.

What about the people of the golden age? no. They believe that the value of a person lies in "executing instructions", regardless of whether the instructions come from directors, capitalists, or schools. Pursue justice? Didn't the company pay you? Are you no good after a documentary screening? You're famous, right? People give you a chance to play. How did Chow Yun Fat leap from box office poison to Brother Mark? He didn't care about it, and told the director "I will shoot", and devoted unlimited energy and time to filming "The True Colors of a Hero".

This is the objectification of "people". People's feelings don't have to be taken seriously, as long as things are profitable, it doesn't matter even if the victim is emotionally turbulent for a while.

Dr. Dodo is a psychiatrist. He often tells hospital anecdotes and chats about patients' experiences and stories at parties. The focus is on how he listens to the voices of patients, untangles the knots in his heart, and slows down the effects of drugs. At dinner parties, he will appear to be a listener, and everyone is willing to ask him for various mental health information. After a few years, I found an interesting phenomenon:

After he chatted with others, no one would feel better, or get the stress relief feeling after chatting with friends.

"If I wasn't a psychiatrist, I wouldn't want to hear these words at all. Why should I take care of the patient's feelings? The mortality rate of lung cancer patients is 95%, and the attending doctors should care about each and every one of them?"

What he is dealing with is not a patient, but a disease. You don't need to think about this person, you just need to prescribe the right medicine.

Isn't it the same as the view of the golden age? "For Me at Nineteen" and "KJ's Music Life" are just one case. I just want to complete this project and find a tool. Teachers teach for exams, exams are not for exams, why should they teach students?

Most of my contemporaries, in their early 30s, think like people in the golden age. We just complete the task, the means and process of the task are not important, as long as the result is beneficial to ourselves——Hello, hello, everyone.

Young people are different, interests are no longer the only requirement they consider. People in cities are more important. They treat "people" as "people", value mutual emotional exchanges, care about urban development, and even "personify" objects. If familiar things in the city disappear, they will feel sad for its changes.

Part of the reason for the nostalgic culture is that young people have deeper empathy and sensibility than the previous generation. However, in the eyes of the elderly, empathy and weakness are synonymous. Take, for example, industrial security. In 2014, when Jackie Chan filmed "Jedi Escape", the ship capsized, resulting in the death of a senior photographer. It was only then that it was discovered that the industrial safety of the film industry had not improved since the 1980s. Actors and photographers have been exposed to danger for a long time and have been risking their lives. It was Jackie Chan who pointed out the safety issue.

Since you can lay out several layers of cardboard boxes to make a movie and ask action actors to jump off 6 or 7-story industrial buildings, you girls are just being secretly filmed, what does it sound like crying? (curved pen)

turmoil that cannot be succeeded by effort

It's not that there are a lot of old people who sympathize with young people. Many of them are on the street in 2019. From my personal observation, the major social movements after 2010 have all resulted in fundamental changes in Hong Kong people's views on "human beings". So we call out:

Hong Kong people are different!

Unfortunately, even after several large-scale social movements, the monopoly of vested interests in all aspects still cannot be cut off. They don't feel the need to introspect at all. For this documentary incident, I personally think that the production team may not understand the reason for the strong reaction in the public - isn't Eason Chan the same?

They took it off the shelves just because they didn't want the turmoil to spread any longer, they didn't admit their mistakes, and they didn't take it back. Similar to what Xu privately felt, "Oh, I'm being struck by lightning." Daily interviews often happen. When we visited the old store, we held the mentality that this store has a long history, shouldn't more people know it, promote Hong Kong culture and enhance its soft power. The shop owner doesn't necessarily like to become a hot topic in the city.

I know a certain stationery store in the North District. The reporter lobbied many times to achieve the goal, and the boss agreed temporarily. Three months after it was published in the newspaper, the small shop that was originally quiet became a hot shop for punching cards. The boss is so annoying that he would rather go out of business. What about the reporter himself? Didn't show up again.

One stick is enough to kill ten thousand bones. Maybe we're all just selfish people who take advantage of others in order to get things done. No one is more qualified to comment than anyone else. Fortunately, Hong Kong people now know how to care for others and support the voice of the weak. Even if everyone's life is not easy, they will stop adding insult to injury and sprinkle salt on the wound. If only we had this personality twenty years ago, fine.

A city story every week. Break through the peer-to-peer life mode.
Step forward and draw a comfortable plane.
If you like the content of in-situ travel, please continue to follow more trends below:
【 Facebook ｜ Instagram ｜ Patreon ｜ Gunroad ｜ Pinkoi ｜ 500PX 】