|
這部電影的評論並不多，或許是因為影片只播放過一次，一般觀眾不易有機會觀看。目前筆者只找到兩篇評論，一是書評家Suchitra
Behal在簡介這部電影的劇本時所做的評論，她表示整部電影所傳達的是「一個世代的挫折與夢想」。另一位評論家Joel
Kuortti則認為這部電影有兩個主題：一、印度的都市與鄉村兩極化現象，二、階級鬥爭，這兩個主題分別由兩位主要角色Annie和Radha的畢業成果計畫彰顯。Annie念茲在茲的理想計畫是將印度長達十二萬公里的鐵路開發成綿延的果園，以減少都市與鄉村的貧富差距，並運用豐碩的水果產量創造「市集城鎮」（mandi
town）。而Radha的畢業論文則討論建築事業背後的意義與運作，她不僅分析建築師和建築工人在待遇上的差距，亦明白指出建築師的設計並非是為了改善一般市民的生活空間，而是為有錢人興建房屋，讓他們能創造更多財富，所以他所建的不是房屋，而是撲滿。
Annie: The genius of the
plan lies in its bloody simplicity. What I'm proposing is that the
government plants fruit trees on either side of the railway track.
Fine? All over India. General janta craps around the railway tracks
anyway, right? So the soil is bloody fertile, haina? Now all you have
to do is on every passenger train na, you attach a water carriage with
two fountains that spray water on either side. What do you get? One
hundred and twenty thousand running kilometres of fruit trees, man! (Annie
13-14)
The Architect as a
professional, as a money-making institution, has no commitment to
community space in an urban area. His primary commitment is to ‘his'
building and ‘his' building is usually designed as a means for those who
already have money to make more money. This is not architecture—it's
construction. These are not buildings, they're piggy-banks. (Annie
36)
事實上，Annie與Radha的計畫皆凸顯出建築與社會議題的關係，這也是編劇洛伊一向關注的重點。誠如洛伊在劇本前言中所表示的，到目前為止她的所有寫作，不論是建築研究所碩士論文、電影劇本、小說或政治評論，皆是在磨練其個人思考或觀看世界的方式，也多少都表達其個人對政治的看法（“Foreword,”
Annie, x）。而在這部電影中，最具有政治意識的並不是Annie，而是Radha，洛伊透過這個由她自己飾演的角色表達她的觀點，而且此片的政治性不只是階級問題或城鄉差距，還涵蓋性別政治議題，這點可由Radha向助教Big
Tate所提出的問題看出，當Big
Tate在課堂上特別詢問女同學有關廚房垃圾處理設備的基本設計標準時，Radha針對此舉所隱含的性別歧視提問：「我納悶為何只問女士…難道認識廚房會對男士的男子氣概有什麼壞處嗎？」。不僅如此，電影亦特別安排另一位女同學Lakes與Radha做對比，Lakes是個傳統保守的女孩，對於Radha攜帶男友到女生宿舍一事無法苟同，在畢業成果的設計方面也不像Radha那般有主見，反而利用柔弱氣質請求助教幫忙。
Radha: I was wondering
why just the ladies, sir… Is it bad for the gents' virility to know
about kitchen, or what?
Big Tate: …This is a
class on services and sewage disposal, not women's right. Now. Can you
kindly tell us what the properties of a good kitchen waste bin are?
Radha: (Innocently)
Um…Shouldn't dissolve in water, sir? (Annie 55)
Lakes: Y'know my father
na once told me a girl's reputation is like a crystal bowl. Once it
breaks. It's lost forever. (Annie 18)
洛伊在小說《微物之神》中對疆界問題的關注，其實早在1988年編寫這部電影的劇本時已然可見。洛伊表示就是在建築系唸書時，她才開始看到印度社會中存有許多無形的疆界，不僅有城市與鄉間之分，在印度的都市計畫中亦處處可見疆界的劃定。大體而言，城市中分有「市民」（citizen）與「非市民」（non-citizen）兩種人，市民是都市計劃會關照的人，而非市民則是那些被排除於計畫之外的人。而在電影中Radha也在論文中指出建築師所設計的公共建築物已成為一種象徵，傳達給非市民的訊息即是「禁止進入」、「遠離此地」、「此地不屬於你」，就如熊或老虎等動物藉由在樹皮留下抓痕或散發氣味以表示「此處是我的地盤」一樣，這些建築設計也是在劃定「地盤」。這些疆界劃分所引含的是權力或權利分配的不均衡，然社會表面上的混亂其實皆是有計畫地運作而生成的，洛伊是在建築系唸書時才體會到這一點，於是開始嘗試瞭解掌權者與無權者之間永無止盡的衝突，這也成為她所有寫作中重要的主題（“Foreword,”
Annie, xi）。
It was as a student of
architecture that I began to see that in India we have citizens and
“non-citizens,” those who matter and those who don't. Those who are
visible and those who are not. Those who are included in our planners'
plans and those who are reflexively excluded from them. (“Foreword,”
Annie, xi)
Radha: …So in the way he
designs these institutions…these symbols, the architect-engineer is
telling the non-citizen “keep out,” “stay out of here,” “this does not
belong to you”… It's a way of establishing territory… like animals…
Bears leave scratch marks on trees, tigers have a spray, a mixture of
urine and scent gland which says “This is my territory.” In human
beings this urine and scent gland is replaced by the architect, who
establishes territory by manipulating the built environment… (Annie
92)
TOP |
