越策越开心2014

良心三部的第一部是最后看的，仍然随处可见的人和人间的细小矛盾，转至人性和人性之间的战争。

离奇的世界就没有理由存在吗？离奇的世界就是荒谬与错误吗。不过是这个真实的世界太过“离奇”，有人只好去创造的虚假离奇，自我的规则。

她回到原有的社会，客厅里一股无法避免的谴责，压抑，排斥的氛围，她本能的扮起了白痴，她无处逃离……那群白痴都是无法逃离的人，工作，家庭，“你会回来‘扮白痴’吗？”实则是问自己是否可以不依赖掩体，是否真能承受现实。

那又是什么超越了心灵承受的尺度？是什么让人装作极端的Outsider？疯子和隐士的区别又在哪里呢？

这世上多是在迷糊中寻找迷糊，因为游戏规则就是如此。清醒藏得太深，很多妄图逃离的手段方式都是狭隘而暂时的。常人多用的是装扮正常，而他们用的是装扮疯傻而已。人人都有，心中和外在的两个世界的对碰，只是我们习惯于这样的矛盾了，但“白痴”还没有学会，他们将内外不分。

有人甚至说“白痴是人类的未来。”，大概是只有装扮弱者才能博得关爱，生存下来。我的理解似乎是，在未来里人人都能脱下“正常”的外衣，显露出各式各样的本性，即便这本性是想要像一名白痴一样的活着，人人都能明白这不是一个悲剧，而是一个选择，诚实地选择。

夏多布里昂在《意大利之旅》中说：每个人身上都托带着一个世界，由他所见过、爱过的一切所组成的世界，即使他看起看来是在另一个不同的世界里旅行、生活，他仍然不停地回到他身上所拖带着的那个世界去。”

人人都是一个世界，大多数人学会了在这个大的世界里求同，然而是没有什么完全相同而言的，“我们都是各自的空间里生活着，即使偶有交集、偏离，最后已然会被琐碎却钝重的事物吸附于原有的轨道。”

花中都能有一世界，一个单独的人类还不能成为一个宇宙吗？何能规范出一个“常态”来？何能相信这规范出的就是绝对的正确？人性有那么多种状态，规范下的这种就是绝对合适于人类的吗？

不要问人是性善性恶，看一看这个世界就知道。

制度与法律的建立就已经说明了它想要规范的东西，如果就是在这样的恶性里还能够看到善的东西，那意义就展现了。就像面对这个苍穹横陈的黑暗，人类有办法打开灯光，微弱短暂，以宇宙为背景甚至根本不被察觉，然而就凭这种光亮，人心在黑夜里同样得以温润。

然而善是难以判别的，表象的善和真实不虚的善可能是完全对立的，破除形式，像佛教所讲的一个发心，人来杀人，佛挡杀佛，形式的东西永远都是虚伪的假，里外合一不仅是最上的人格，也是最后的佛成。那时不再需要内对外的妥协，不再有双方的矛盾，外善而内善渐而臻至纯善。

白痴的未来世界，内外而一的人类，不再需要平衡轻重，不再需要矛盾来回，自然自在。

拒绝再在身心不一的世界摸爬滚打，拒绝再让物质决定自己，拒绝诱惑，拒绝吸引。

11.08.12

When I was watching this film The Idiots (1998), I felt kind of confused and astonished, not only about the eccentric behaviors of the “idiots” group, but the crude way of shooting and post-production. Sometimes the unstable camera shake, thoughtless composition and movement, and occasional interviews towards the group members pretend this film to be a documentary via hand-held camera. However, the interviews seem to take place chronologically after the story is finished, because the subjects tend to speak in the past tense and sometimes refer to things we did not see. In addition, the occasional scenes that the microphone or camera enters our vision field are deliberately emphasize that it was a film rather than a documentary. Anyway, I think it does not make sense to find the answer that this is a film or a documentary or a documentary within a film through trying to interpret the actions or little tricks of the filmmaker.

As for the structure of the narrative, it seems quite unorganized and digressive in a spontaneous rhythm without focus. The story of Karen which is about her losing her son and leaving her family in pain and then meeting the idiots group, is actually a prologue that serves to introduce the existence of the group. The group, which held on “anti-middle-class” ideology, claims that they are on a quest to search for “inner idiots” to see the world from a vantage point. I think that kind of manifesto is based on the idea that to one way to avoid the alienation of human and maintain the subjectivity in the consumptive society is to refuse participating in the construction, and to pretend fundamentally wacky. If all the normal actions, languages that carries so-called “meaning” are actually faked and fabricated meaning that does not exist in nature but only to be invented to serve to varnish the meaningless reality, then perhaps the abnormality can be an exploration to challenge the fake real and real itself. And since the role of the idiot challenged the normal rationality and the inevitable order, it also verified the value of the film: the fictional viewing is more meaningful than the real experience, and the real simulation is more meaningful than the real itself.