To be wise or not to be…

Philosophy can be daunting. But it is not something that is specially reserved for a select group of experts and specialists.

If there is anything to be learnt from the study of philosophy, it is that anyone and everyone can be a philosopher in their own right.

That is because one does philosophy not because one seeks to become a professional philosopher. Nor is it a subject meant to intimidate or impress upon others the depths of one’s intellect. Indeed, philosophy is not about reading, memorizing and regurgitating the words and thoughts of dead old philosophers.

The goal of philosophy is not to understand philosophy, the goal is to use philosophy to change yourself in thinking about the world.

The goal of studying philosophy is, in my humble opinion, nothing more than critically understanding and seeing the people and world around us.

It is simply adding new and critical conceptual tools to our mental toolbox.

It should help us to think critically about the physical world; problems of human behaviours and relationships, problems of thinking about ideas, problems of how people can perceive, misunderstand and interpret events.

Philosophy is an activity that should strengthen and condition the mind to be able to think critically.

The job of philosophizing belongs to everyone.

To philosophize about something is not an activity that is best reserved for the self-anointed ones.

To think otherwise is to do a disservice to the purpose, function and character of philosophy. It is also a particular disservice to human agency.

To think that scholars only do philosophy is nonsense.

It is also vanity. It is vanity because the thought of something is only meant for someone is to demarcate and mark out a hierarchy of worthiness of human life.

Furthermore, to accept philosophy as somehow belonging to the experts is, in my opinion, a betrayal of freedom of thought and critical thinking.

It is not uncommon to hear non-specialists and non-experts struggling to understand the point/s of philosophical-speak and finding the patience to go through the long-winded and circular manner of speaking and writing in philosophy.

But this is not to discredit the efforts of philosophers in contributing to human thought. After all, one of the main goals of philosophy is to think critically about things.

But to think critically about something, the process requires a clear understanding or examination of all aspects of a particular issue, topic or problem.

There is philosophy that is abstract and metaphysical; which has merits on its own; and philosophy that tries to solve physical and human problems; in ethics, in critical thinking, in conceptualizing the world or understanding human relationships.

It is as much an exercise in logical speculation as it is about practical problem solving; as much as it involves a kind of thinking ‘out there’, it is as much as thinking about everyday bread and butter issues that affect all of all.

The late English philosopher Bertrand Russell – and of the best ones – describes philosophy as such: –

“Mankind, ever since there have been civilized communities have been confronted with problems of two different kinds. On the one hand, there has been the problem of mastering natural forces, of acquiring the knowledge and the skill required to produce tools and weapons and to encourage Nature in the production of useful animals and plants. This problem, in the modern world, is dealt with by science and scientific technique, and experience has shown that in order to deal with it adequately it is necessary to train a large number of rather narrow specialists.

He continues: –

But there is a second problem, less precise, and by some mistakenly regarded as unimportant – I mean the problem of how best to utilize our command over the forces of nature. This includes such burning issues as democracy versus dictatorship, capitalism versus socialism, international government versus international anarchy, free speculation versus authoritarian dogma. On such issues the laboratory can give no decisive guidance.

The kind of knowledge that gives most help in solving such problems is a wide survey of human life, in the past as well as in the present, and an appreciation of the sources of misery or contentment as they appear in history. It will be found that increase of skill has not, of itself, insured any increase of human happiness or wellbeing.

Philosophy for Laymen  (1946)

Philosophical knowledge, if what has been said above is true, does not differ essentially from scientific knowledge; there is no special source of wisdom which is open to philosophy but not to science, and the results obtained by philosophy are not radically different from those obtained from science.

….The essential characteristic of philosophy, which makes it a study distinct from science, is criticism.”…

 (emphasis mine)

The above describes both the focus (the forces of nature) and method (criticism) that one should adopt in thinking and practicing philosophy. Indeed one should engage in  philosophical “uncertainty” – in the sense that this “uncertainty” is determined by a sense of childlike curiosity and a fundamental breaking apart of ideas, behaviors and assumptions of everyday life in Singapore.

Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.


电影专业英语——电影 英语 术语 词典

The following glossary is for my Chinese students.

actor star演技派明星。见star。

aerial shot航空拍摄镜头。实质上是升降镜头的一种,尽管局限于外景。通常从一架直升飞机上拍摄。

aesthetic distance审美距离。观众区别艺术现实与客观现实的能力,观众对故事片中的事件均为虚构的理解。

A-film A级片。美国电影制片厂时代的术语,指重要的作品,通常由著名的影星主演,预算也比较庞大。双幅海报对此作为主要的特色加以刊登。

aleatory techniques抓拍技术。依靠机会因素的一种电影摄制技术。形象不事先设计,而必须由摄影师在现场创作。通常用于拍摄纪录片。





anticipatory camera, anticipatory setup预期镜头。事先恰当安排摄影机以等待某一动作的发生。这种镜头往往表示某种命定的东西。


art director美工师。负责设计和检查电影的布景(有时包括其内部装饰和整体视觉风格)的人。

aspect ratio画幅宽高比。银幕的宽度与高度的比例。

auteur theory作者论。法国杂志《电影手册》在50年代推广的一种电影理论。这种理论强调导演为电影艺术的主要创作者,他们会给素材打上本人的观点、风格和主题思想的烙印。

available lighting现有光,可用光。只利用现场实际存在的光线,或自然光(太阳)或人工光(室内电灯下认在内景中使用现有光时通常也必须使用快速感光胶卷。又少



back lot外景地。制片厂时代诸如世纪之交时的城市街区、边境小镇和欧洲村庄等普通场所的常备外景。

B-film B级片。美国大制片厂时代的低成本电影,作为次要的影片放映。B级片很少由著名影星主演,而且采取通俗的类型片形式,如惊险片、西部片、恐怖片等。几家大制片厂常用这种影片来考验新手。

bird’s-eye view鸟瞰。摄影机直接从上方拍摄。



boom,mike boom话筒架、吊杆。吊在头顶上携带话筒的可伸缩支架。可供同期录音而不会限制演员的活动。

buddy film男子汉片。以男性为主的动作片,70年代特别流行,影片叙述两个或两个以上的男人的冒险经历,通常包括一些起重要作用的女角。




cinematographer,director of photography或D·P·


cinema verite,direct cinema真实电影,直接电影。一种拍摄纪录片的方法,使用抓拍法,不干扰事件的实际发生。这类电影使用器材少,通常为手提式摄影机和便携式录音装置。

classical cinema,classical paradigm经典电影,经典模式。这是一种不十分明确但使用方便的术语,用来指本世纪初到60年代后期美国摄制的主流故事片的风格。传统范例是故事情节曲折、演员阵容强大和生产价值高的影片,有高水平的技术成就,按照经典剪辑方式的惯例剪辑。视觉风格是实在的,很少受剧中人物行为的影响。这种形式的电影是叙述性结构,有明确的冲突杯诬鞠i达到高潮的复杂情况和强调传统结局的情节处理。

classical composition经典构图。

classical cutting经典剪辑。D. W.格里菲斯开创的一种剪辑风格,一组连续的镜头取决于一段戏在戏剧性和情绪上的着重点,而不仅仅取决于形体的动作。镜头的顺序表现着如何把事件分解成心理的以及逻辑的成份。

closed forms封闭形态。一种视觉风格,它倾向于自我意识的设计和精心协调的结构。画框应使人想到一个自我完成的天地,包含各种必要视觉信息,通常为一种在美学上有感染力的方式。

close-up,close shot特写镜头,近景。人或物的细节。一位演员的特写镜头通常只包括他的头部。



coverage,covering shots,cover shots备选镜头,备用镜头。一个场面的额外镜头,万一计划中影片的长度没有按计划剪辑,可以用来衔接各种过渡。通常是保持一个场面总体连续性的长镜头。

crane shot升降机拍摄的镜头。从一种类似巨大的机械臂、叫做升降机的特殊装置上拍摄的镜头。摄影机和摄影师在这种升降机上可以向任何方向移动。

creative producer制片人。全面监制一部影片的人,实际上是这部影片的艺术创作者。在美国的制片厂时代,最著名的制片人是戴维·o.塞尔兹尼克和沃尔特·迪斯尼。


cutting to continuity连贯剪辑。一种剪辑类型,镜头保持一个流畅的动作,但不显示这个动作的全部。这是一个连续动作的不引人注目的压缩。

day-for-night shooting白昼拍摄夜景。白天用特殊的滤色镜拍摄的各种场景,用以表示电影图像夜间的场面。

deep-focus shot深焦距镜头。一种摄影技术,能使从近景到无限远的各种距离的图像都保持清晰。


dissolve, lap dissolve化,化入、化出。一个镜头渐隐,下一个镜头渐显,图形通常在正中点重叠。


dolly shot,tracking shot,trucking shot移动车拍摄的镜头,移动摄影,推拉镜头。在移动的运载工具上拍摄的镜头。最初是在现场铺设轨道,使摄影机可以比较平稳地移动。

dominant contrast, dominant主要对比。影片图像中最引起观众注意的部分,通常由突出的视觉对比产生。

double exposure两次曝光、双重曝光。两个实际上无关的形象在影片上重叠。参见mu川p一e exposure.(多次曝光)。




establishing shot基调镜头。通常是在一段戏开始时的大全景镜头或全景镜头,使观众了解后来的近景镜头的背景。


extreme close-up大特写镜头。一个物体或一个人的细节。一位演员的特大特写镜头通常只包括他(她)的眼部或嘴部。

extreme long shot大全景镜头。一个从远距离—往往远到四分之一英里—拍摄的外景的全景。

eye-level shot平视镜头。摄影机离地面大约五六英尺,相当于观看这个场面的人的身高。


faithful adaptation忠实性改编。一种电影手法,特点是改编时抓住原著的精髓,往往利用相当于特殊文学技巧的电影手法。

fast motion快动作镜头。以慢于每秒24格的速度拍摄一个对象的镜头,在以标准速度放映时,其动作是痉挛的,有点可笑,似乎失去了控制。

fast stock,fast film快速感光胶片。这种胶片对光线非常敏感、容易产生粒面图像。希望利用现有光的纪录片摄制者往往用这种胶卷。

figurative comparisons借喻的比较。

film noir黑色电影。法国术语,指第二次世界大战以后出现的一种都市化美国类型片,这种影片突出一个宿命的、令人绝望的世界,在这个世界里,摆脱不掉简陋的城市街道、孤独和死亡。从风格上来说,黑色强调低调和高调的光线以及强烈的恐怖和妄想狂气氛。


final cut,release print终剪,发行拷贝。一部即将公开发行的影片的镜头连接。

first cut,rough cut初剪,粗剪。一部影片的镜头初步连接,往往由导演进行。

first-person point of view主观镜头。见point-ofview shot。








freeze frame,freeze shot一定格、停格。由一个画面多次复制在胶片上构成的镜头,放丝夕使人有看到一幅静止图片的错觉。


full shot全身镜头。全景镜头中的一种,包括人的全身,头部接近画框的上沿,双脚接近画框的底边。


handheld shot手提摄影镜头。用一个移动的时常摇晃的摄影机拍摄的镜头,表示在没有人为控制的背景中拍摄的纪实性镜头。

high-angle shot俯拍镜头。从上向下拍摄对象的镜头。

high contrast高反差。一种用光风格,突出明亮与黑暗的刺目光束和引人注目的条纹。往往用于惊险片和故事片。

high key高调,亮调。一种用光风格,突出明亮甚至耀眼,只有少数引人注目的阴影。主要用于喜剧片、音乐片和娱乐片。



independent producer独立制片人。不属于制片厂或大商业性公司的制片人。许多明星和导演为了确保他们在艺术上的影响,一直是独立制片人。


intrinsic interest内在的影响。不引人注目、但由于其在戏剧性或结构方面的重要性而引起我们密切注意的电影形象。


jump-cut 跳切。镜头之间的突然过渡,有时是故的,不受空间和时间的连续性的限制。



lengthy take,long take长镜头。持续时间很长的镜头。



literal adaptation原封不动的改编。根据舞台剧拍摄的影片,其中的对白和动作几乎原封不动。


long shot全景镜头。图像所包括的范围几乎相当于观众在剧场的舞台前部看到的范围的镜头。

loose adaptation随意性改编。根据另一种艺术门类拍摄的影片,两者之间只是表面上相似。

loose framing宽松式取景。通常在较大的全景中。场面调度在图像框架的范围内比较宽阔,所以被拍摄的人物有


low-angle shot仰拍镜头。从下方拍摄对象的镜头。low key低调,暗调。一种用光风格,大量使用弥散的阴影和制造气氛的光束。往往用在神秘片和惊险片中。







matte shot遮片合成摄影人将两个不同的镜头拍在一张底片上的方法,使图像看上截像是用正常方法拍摄的,主要用来产生特殊的效果,如把人的形象和巨大的恐龙等等结合在一起。



Method acting方法派表演。这是来源于俄国戏剧导演斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基创立的一种表演风格,从50年代以来在美国成为占支配地位的表演风格。方法派表演的演员重视心理上的艺术激情,通过大量的排演探索一个角色的可信的感情,而不是精湛的技巧,从内心把一个角色演活,而不仅仅是模拟一个角色外表的行为举止。

metteur en scene场面调度者。进行调度场面的艺术家或技术人员也就是导演。


miniatures,model或miniature shots模型布景,或缩微景镜头。拍摄用小型模型,能产生原物同样大小的幻觉。拍摄海上沉船、巨大的恐龙、飞机俯冲等时可硬用这种模型。


mise en scene场面调度。在一个特定空间里安排视觉形象的多少和活动。在舞台剧中,空间通常受到舞台前部装置的限制;在电影中,空间则受容纳形象的画面限制。电影的场面调度包括表演的进行和拍摄的方式。




multiple exposures多次曝光。用光学印片机产生的特殊效果,可以使许多形象同时重叠在一起。

negative image负像。被摄对象的明暗颠倒:黑的部分是白色,白的部分是黑色。

neoreal ism新现实主义。意大利的电影运动,1945年到1955年间拍出了最佳作品。新现实主义的手法非常写实,强调电影艺术的纪实方面、松散的情节设计、平凡的事件和人物、自然的光线、现场环境、非职业的演员,关心贫穷和社会问题,强调人道主义和民主的理想。这个名词也用于反映意大利新现实主义的手法和风格的其他影片。

New wave,nouvelle vague新浪潮派。50年代后期脱颖而出的一批年轻的法国导演。最知名的是弗朗索瓦·特吕弗、让一吕克·戈达尔和阿仑·雷乃。

nonsynchronous sound非同期声。声音和图像并不同时录下,或者声音脱离它在影片图像中的来源。音乐在电影中通常是不同步的,影片配上音乐是为了创造背景气氛。

oblique angle, tilt shot斜侧角度,倾斜镜头。由倾斜的摄影机拍摄的镜头。当图像被放映在银幕上时,被摄的对象本身似乎在一条对角线上倾斜。


omniscient point of view全知视点。为观众提供一切必要信息的无所不知的叙述者。

open forms开放形态。这种手法主要为现实主义的导演所采用,强调非正规的结构和表面上任意的构图。画面被


optical printer光学印片机。一种复杂的机器,用于制造电影中的特殊效果。如淡出淡入、溶变和多次曝光等。



pan,panning shot摇镜头。只用于拍摄全景,摄影机自左至右或自右至左转动。

parallel editing平行剪辑。见cross-cutti


personality star性格明星。见star。

pixil I ation,stop-motion photography延时摄影。一种动画技术,逐格拍摄演员的表演。当摄制的场面以每秒24格的标准速度放映时,演员的动作就像动画人物那祥断续和跳动。

point-of-view shot,pov shot,first-person camera,subjective camera视点镜头,主观视点镜头。从影片中人物的角度拍摄并显示人物所见到的事物的镜头。

process shot,rear projection背景放映合成,拍摄时背景场面放映在演员身后的透明屏幕上,最后所得的形象就像演员在现场一样。




production values生产标准。影片生产时为提高票房吸引力而投入的有形装置,如布景、服装和小道具等的价值。



proxemic patterns 距离模式。场面调度中人物之间的空间关系,以及摄影机与被摄对象的视觉距离。

pull-back dolly拉镜头。使摄影机在拍摄一个场面时逐渐向后移动,显示原在画面以外的物体或人物。

rack focusing,selective focusing选择调焦。使场景中的聚焦平面模糊不清,观众的视线就不得不随着图像中轮廓仍然清晰的部分转移。

reaction shot反应镜头。切入人物对前一个镜头的内容做出反应的镜头。


reestablishing shot再定位镜头。回到一个场面中某一个最初的定位镜头,起到提示特写镜头背景的作用。


reverse angle shot反打镜头。拍摄角度与前面的镜头差1800的镜头。即摄影机放在相反方向位置上拍摄的镜头。

reverse motion反转动作。使胶片倒转拍摄的一系列图像。正常放映时,其效果是显示倒回的运动—例如蛋黄蛋清“回到”蛋壳里。


rite of passage   成人仪式。叙述对一个人从一个成长


rough cut初剪,粗剪。在剪辑师删去镜头之间多余部分之前初步的剪辑。一种样片。

rushes, dailies工作样片。选定的前一天拍摄的镜头,通常由导演和摄影师在第二天开拍前做出评价。


screwball comedy怪诞喜剧。一种类型片。30年代在美国兴起,一直流行到50年代。人物特点是来自不同阶层的愚蠢的男性情人。剧中的情节常常荒诞到不可收拾的地步。这类影片通常表现胡闹的喜剧场面、好与人争吵的美貌迷人的女主角和形形色色粗鲁笨拙的配角。

script, screenplay,scenario电影剧本。电影对白和表演的书面描述,有时包括拍摄说明。

selective focus选择调焦。见rack focusing。

sequence shot,plan-sequence段落镜头。一个持续的镜头,通常包括复杂的仁表演和摄影机的运动。


shooting ratio片比。用来拍摄一部影片的胶卷数和最后成品的胶卷数之比。20:1的毛片与定型片之比是指用于发行拷贝的每一英尺胶片需要拍摄20英尺胶片。

shooting script分镜头剧本。用书面把一个电影故事分解成多个镜头,往往包括技术性指令,供导演和工作人员在摄制影片时使用。

short lens短焦距透镜。见wide-angle lens。


slow motion慢动作。以超过每秒24格的速度拍摄的镜头,在以标准速度放映时,被摄对象的动作便轻柔缓慢得像舞蹈一般。

slow stock,slow film慢速感光胶片。感光较慢但图像清晰、细节鲜明的胶卷。这种胶卷用于拍摄内景时通常需要大量人工照明。

soft focus柔焦.使一定焦距范围以外的图像模糊。这也是一种美化技术,使图像线条柔和,淡化甚至消除脸部的皱纹。


star system明星制。利用知名演员的魅力增加票房收入的方法。明星制是在美国发展起来的,自本世纪第一个10年中期以来一直是美国电影工业的支柱。

star vehicle明星载体。专门为显示某一位明星的才华与魅力而摄制的影片。

stock生胶片。没有曝光的胶片,电影胶片有许多种,包括对光线非常敏感的胶片(fast stock)和对光线不太敏感的胶片(slow stock)。


story values剧情价值。影片故事的吸引力。这种吸引力可能在于作者的知名度,也可能在于剧本高超的写作技巧,同时也可能在于两者兼而有之。


subjective camera主观镜头。见point-of-view ,shot,sunstotary contrast 次要对比。电影图像的从属成




swish pan,flash,zip pan甩、闪(摇)。摄影机的快速水平运动,使银幕上的被摄对象模糊不清。

symbol,symbol is象征,象征性的。一个物体、一次事件或一种电影手法本身含义以外的象征意义。象征意义总是取决于戏剧的内容。

synchronous sound同期录音。形象与声音同时录下,彼此就显得一致,在定型片中看起来更是如此。同步录制的声音使观众能感到直接来自视觉形象。


telephoto lens,long lens望远透镜,望远镜头,长焦距镜头。一种起望远镜作用的透镜,把远处的物体放大。这种镜头的副作用是使景深缩小。

thematic montage主题蒙太奇。苏联电影导演斯坦提出的一种剪辑方式:把不同的镜头按其象征性意义连结起来,而不是按其在现实中的表面连贯性连结在一起。例如,一个夸夸其谈的吹牛者的镜头可以和一个玩具孔雀的镜头连在一起。纪录片通常都用这种蒙太奇手法,按照导演的主观意图把镜头连结起来。

three shot三人镜头。一种特写三位演员的中景镜头。tight framing紧凑的取景。通常出现在特写镜头中。场面调度做到精心的平衡与和谐,使被摄的人物很少有活动的余地。

tilt,tilt shot俯仰拍。见oblique angle。

tracking shot,trucking shot移动镜头。见dollyshot。

two shot双人镜头。一种特写两位演员的中景镜头

vertical integration垂直联合。影片的生产、发行和放映都由同一家公司控制的制度。美国在40年代后期宣布这种做法为非法。



wide-angle lens,short一ens广角透镜,短焦距透镜。一种可以使摄影机的拍摄范围比用标准透镜拍摄更广的透镜,副作用是往往增加景深。这种透镜也可用来拍摄深焦距镜头。

widescreen, cinemascope, sco碑宽银幕。宽高比约为5:3的电影图像,尽管有些宽银幕的宽度可以扩大到高度的2.5倍。


women’s pictures女性影片,一种专注于妇女间题的类型片,例如职业生涯和家庭的冲突。这类影片往往让大众喜爱的女明星扮演主人公。

zoom lens,zoom shot变焦距镜头。一种有不同焦距的透镜,可以使摄影师连续从广角镜头变为望远透镜(或者相反),往往使观众迅速地进入或离开一个场面。

The recent Hong Kong protests have generated a lot of news and commentary on the what, who, where, how and why in both mainstream and social media. Some blame the Hong Kong authorities; some blame the protests; whilst some blame foreign influence in terms of encouraging, inciting and agitating Hong Kongers – particularly young students – to demand for…… what exactly again?

Now, I have no skin in the game. Thus I am not going to be another one of those political and social pundits who in the words of Jose Mourhino “never play a game but always win one”. In other words, talk is cheap in laying platitudes and empty phrases without critically examining the issue in a clear and coherent manner.

The only thing that concerns me – particularly for this entry – are the ideas of chaos and stability; stagnation and growth; optimism and pessimism for a community, society at large, and nation.

While I do commend the desire of young people for improvement and progress, another side of me is troubled by the wanton destruction and violence that comes from such demonstrations and actions.

To fight for something is to fight against something or someone.

And that means that in a fight, there will always be someone who gets hurt.

But it throws up a question.

Must it necessarily mean that the person who gets hurt must necessarily be innocent or somehow unaccountable to the law?

Or indeed, must blame necessarily be assigned to people who are essentially reacting to the socio-cultural changes that are taking place in their society?

And in which most cases they are ordinary people who do not have a significant say in the direction and speed in which their society is changing.

This situation, along with Brexit and etc, alerts me to become more sensitive and appreciative on the urgency and priority on good leadership and governance.

Leadership, or lack of, plays an important role in society.

But leadership, particularly good leadership, can be difficult to find because it is not something is abundant in nature. Otherwise, there will not be any need to have leadership schools, or books written about good leadership, or that everyone wants to be a leader but very few actually becomes one.

Indeed, leadership is not just another fashionable word or fad. It is extremely important.

Leadership is not just about hope or glory.

But it is also about what is actually desirable and not desirable for a community, society or nation.

And to be able to actually convince and carry the people in that group to strive to realise the common good.

Sadly, leadership appears to be lacking in these contemporaneous times.











The Timely Death of Film in the Age of Digital Cinema

The rise of video platforms like Netflix or Amazon, YouTube, Hulu and many others have not only changed the way people are watching their favourite movies and long-form drama serials, but it has also highlighted the death of the idea of Film as Film in the age of digital cinema. No longer is film king of entertainment; indeed it is now digital cinema.

It is therefore not a surprise to see that film is fasting becoming obsolete in the age of digital cinema. Indeed, film is dead and no one; at least not the masses; is the least bit concern by it.

Indeed, film theorists like Noel Carroll advised us to think of the subject of film not as film but as and in terms of moving images. One would go further and say that it is better to think about the subject of film in terms of the specific contexts in which it is used in conversations and discussions. That is because the word film is not only a noun but it is also a verb and an adjective all rolled up into one; and where sometimes the lines are blurred without one knowing that they are blurred in the first place. Hence, it is important to divorce the different uses of the term film by identifying the specific contexts in which it is referred to in conversations.

Firstly, it is important not to conflate Film as a be-all and end-all term of not only the art and craft of making movies but also the theorization and thinking about the subject in academia. It is important to see that there is the literary interpretation of film as a unit of analysis and discussion of cultural representation. Secondly, there is the sociological study of the effects and impact of media on people. Third, the socio-economic structure and superstructure of Film as Industry. Lastly, film within the supplementary domains of film criticism, fandom, and gossip columns. But while all of these domains make for a vibrant and exciting film ecology, they are nonetheless equally affected by the advent of digital disruptions and technologies that are not only improving but changing the ways in which films are made and seen in the era of digital innovations.

Indeed, the digital disruptions that are transforming ways of doing things in many industries and corporations are equally disrupting not only the way movies or made, distributed, and exhibited. That is because, save for a selected few, no one is actually shooting on film nowadays. Even Kodak and Fujifilm, the traditional manufacturers of film stock, have either shuttered their film divisions or divested their attention away. Indeed, it is increasingly acknowledged that the business of making and selling film stock is just not viable or profitable in the age of digital devices and media technologies. Moreover, while digital systems were cost prohibitive at first, distributors and exhibitors, not to mention production companies, nonetheless realized that it is probably more prudent and wiser to invest in digital platforms. After all, the world is being transformed by newer, faster, and more productive ways of doing things; what more in the film industry.

But digital cinema, if not already, is fast transforming the way movies are thought of and conceptualized within academia. Indeed, if no one is using Film, where even film manufacturers are not even bothering with advancing film-based technologies; where film makers are not even bothering to shoot and edit on film; where distributors and exhibitors are not even distributing and exhibiting on film; where even consumers and viewers are not really watching films with film projectors or even going to film theatres; then it begs the question, as indeed it has prompted Noel Carrol to swap film with moving images; is film dead? Is it dying or has it always been dead?

The short answer to the first question has to be “Yes, film as a technology is dead”. But it only applies to the raw materials (film stock) and to its image acquisition and editing technologies (non-linear editing and coloring software). Eventually, film will go the way of vinyl records or as collector items. There is no ambiguity in terms of its obsolescence in terms of technology. But fortunately, film as an art form will survive.

If anything, the death of film technologies is not only emancipative but it is also productive in the sense that it has allowed for a plethora of filmmakers in the rise of digital cinema.

But this rise in digital cinema has also changed the nature of digital storytelling and films; especially when watching a film is no longer about just the film but also the ability to read about it on news websites, fan sites or even watch analyses of it on YouTube. And to consume it not with other people in a theatre but in one’s own space with a laptop.

Whereas one had to SHARE, now one can CONTROL when, where, and how to use a video, film or clip to suit one’s own convenience, time, and mood.

Digital cinema, and by implication technology, has liberated people from being herded and controlled by filmmakers and/or theatre owners.  Indeed, it has also freed people from the tyrannical hold of understanding a film from filmmakers and film critics and academics, by allowing people to engage with it through blogs, social media, and also allowing viewers of all stripes and colours to evaluate it without the dictates of taste-makers.

Indeed, technological innovation in digital cinema has led to the timely death of Film in the age of digital innovations and disruptions by giving control over to the people and to the individual.

But is that a good thing?


Liverpool 2019 European Cup Champion- a long term process

To be frank, I am a Manchester United F.C fan.

But I will give credit where credit is due.

And that is Liverpool and Jurgen Klopp has basically done what Man Utd has not done in recent years; in terms of developing a team for the long term.

They have promoted and nurtured young players like Trent-Arnold and Robertson while recruiting previously unwanted players like Henderson, Salah and Milner, and incorporating  Fabinho, Matip, Van Dijk and Alisson into a team with Firminho and Sane to become the European Champions of 2019.


It is an oft-repeated fact that Jurgen Klopp, the enigmatic and charismatic German manager, has lost at least 3 finals with Liverpool before 2019.

But the truth is that there is remains a sense of development and excitement at what Klopp and the team could achieve in the future even though they lost those finals.

And now they have captured the biggest prize of them all; the UCL Cup.

And the best thing about the whole thing is that; it feels like the Liverpool team of 2019 could go on to dominate England as well as Europe in the next decade.

But the trick of it all is that; Klopp has managed to set a long-term vision of not only how Liverpool should play; but that how they should go about setting up the team to achieve.

That is to find Young Players to be in a team that also include Experienced Heads along with so-called Star Players.

And Klopp is the maestro that keeps the orchestra playing in a united and concerted way.

But the thing is Klopp is also the composer who has written the music or to use another metaphor, someone who has written the script to put long-term thinking into action.

And Klopp’s vision becomes actionable through the blending of Youth with Experience and Star Power. 

Indeed, Klopp has not been shy to spend money to buy players. But he has not forgotten to include Youth into his team at the same time.

Ultimately, he has created an atmosphere that EVERYONE involved with Liverpool is part of a big family.

And that everything emanates from him; the one who set the vision, laughs, cries, and gets angry; like a fan; and sets targets for everyone to reach. 

And that sadly has not been the situation with Man Utd.

So for now, even as a rival fan, I applaud and look with jealousy at the Long Term Thinking, Vision, and Strategy at Liverpool F.C.






What I learnt from watching the so-called decline of Manchester United Football Club over the past 5 years?

To the uninitiated, Manchester United FC or Man Utd is an English Premier League football / soccer team.

They are not only one of the most prestigious football club in England and the UK, but they are also considered to be one of the prestigious football clubs in the world.

They have won a record 20 League titles, 12 FA Cups, 5 League Cups and a record 21 FA Community Shields. Their trophy room include three UEFA Champions Leagues, one UEFA Europa League, one UEFA Cup Winners’ Cup, one UEFA Super Cup, one Intercontinental Cup and one FIFA Club World Cup.

That’s a lot of trophies.

But in recent years, or to be more specific, ever since their greatest manager Sir Alex Ferguson, retired from the football club at the age of 72 yrs old, the club has been in freefall.

And even though they have hired two of the greatest football managers in Louis Van Gaal and Jose Mourhino, the club has collapsed in double quick time after Sir Alex’s retirement. Indeed, the speed in which Man Utd has collapsed is faster than what it took Sir Alex Ferguson, from 1986 to 1993, to create a winning juggernaut in football history.

While many blame David Moyes, the manager whom many say was vouched for by Sir Alex as a worthy successor, it is also very obvious that it is not just Moyes’ fault.

Indeed, the club not only changed the manager but they also changed the CEO of the club at the same time in 2013.

To add fuel to fire, David Moyes himself swapped the entire backroom coaching staff from Sir Alex’s days with his own brand new team.

But when David Moyes started to lose matches and was booted out in less than a year in 2014, it was also obvious that it was a panic reaction by higher management.

Later when Louie Van Gaal took over in 2014, it was said that his style was football was boring and uninspiring. Indeed, Van Gaal was sacked almost immediately after he won the FA Cup in 2016.

Then the club hired Jose Mourhino in 2016, a man who is known for his Midas touch if not his football, and even when he won the Europa League Cup and a domestic League Cup in his first season, and took the team to second place in the second season, he was sacked halfway in his third season during December 2018.

So now ex-player Ole Gunnar Solskjaer is in charge in 2019.  But after a few glorious months of winning, the club went back to its losing ways at the tail-end of the season.


So what are some of the lessons we can learn from this bouncing around, panic, and a general sense of pessimism after the retirement of Sir Alex Ferguson?

  1. Don’t change the entire coaching and management staff at once.  Always better to have a transition or handing over period.
  2. Be resolute in staying the course. But always understand that there will be painful moments in the short term.
  3. Once a manager is selected, back the manager. Otherwise, why select him in the first place?
  4. Explain to the public the vision and importance of continuity and change.
  5. Don’t be swayed by opinion makers and news media who do not have a stake in the long-term success of the company.