娛樂圈的虛僞VS坦率？
When showbiz celebrities junk media-speak for a spontaneous burst of plain talk, controversies ensue. But it is better they hold personal beliefs that offend than fake a semblance of propriety that pleases.
Chinese filmmaker Feng Xiaogang is known for his uncompromising remarks as well as for his top-grossing movies. Whenever he appears at the annual Shanghai International Film Festival, some newspapers reserve headline space for him, knowing full well that he will "fire at some person or object" and create shock waves throughout the industry or even beyond it.
In 2010, Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein excused himself after making a brief statement at one of the festival's popular forums, saying he had to catch a flight, and Feng followed up by saying Weinstein was "an outright fraudster".
The press later checked Weinstein's itinerary and found him shopping in Shanghai later that day rather than rushing to the airport. Of course, Feng was not aware of that; he was referring to Weinstein's handling of Chinese films in the North American market. The co-founder of Miramax Films and co-chairman of The Weinstein Company countered in a subsequent statement that Feng's film, The Banquet, which he distributed in the United States, was among the most profitable of the Chinese director's movies in that market.
In Hollywood, Weinstein is considered to be brash, but compared with Feng he is almost a diplomat. I've heard him in interviews refusing to bad-mouth his Hollywood peers, I mean those who had rubbed him the wrong way or those whose guts he hated. It seems an industry practice that one should not do this kind of thing openly.
So, what is your assessment of Feng and his behavior? Is he a loose cannon whose childish recklessness will eventually undo his career, or is he a rare exception in a business where a facade of hypocrisy is to be meticulously maintained even though backstabbing is generally the norm? By attacking Weinstein at such a high-profile event, said some pundits, Feng had cut out the possibility of his movies ever finding their way into wide distribution across the Pacific.
Showbiz is not an industry whose practitioners can freely express themselves, at least not those in the big league. They have public personas from which they derive their livelihood. The public has a certain expectation of them, which is usually determined during the molding phase of a career. Feng started out as witty but non-confrontational, a positioning shaped by his early comedies. But as revealed in his two memoirs, he kept his head low and his works inoffensive so that they would have an easier time with both censors and audiences.
As his status as the top film comedian of our age solidified, he became more and more vocal. In 2004, he led a relief charity drive for the survivors of the Indian Ocean tsunami. In recent years, he has repeatedly assailed the country's film censorship system. After the release of his latest comedy, Personal Tailor, he threw down the gauntlet to the nation's film critics, whom he charged with deliberately misguiding the public.
All these are shortcuts to upsetting different strata of society. Even the charity effort effectively set him against the glitterati he managed to organize because each of them deemed it a snub when they did not get the publicity they sought. I won't go into details about the ruckus with the critics because it involved me as well.
Most members of the public tend to view such acts in light of the specific viewpoints being proffered. If they agreed with Feng in his scuffle with the critics, they would say he's a man of integrity and courage, daring to stand up to bullies whom thought they controlled public opinion; if not, the argument would be that he is not gracious towards criticism, which is a blemish for a person of his prominence.
However, if we take a step back and scrutinize celebrity behavior, we must determine whether our society benefits from the beau monde that is decorum-abiding and politically correct or one that dares to speak its mind even when it goes against the tide. In other words, are they unelected flag carriers of our tastes and preferences, or are they individuals entitled to their own opinions, some of which have nothing to do with their profession?
Coincidentally, Feng was once on the receiving end of a similar volley from a colleague. Actor Sun Haiying time and again lambasted his work for being crass. Sun, who rose to fame after starring in a television drama series about veteran revolutionaries titled Days of Burning Fervor, obviously represented the old establishment in his aesthetics and he attacked low-brow entertainment, official corruption and homosexuality with equal gusto.
Feng shot back by saying Sun had had his brain damaged by the burning fervor. A further examination would reveal that Feng was pitted against Sun on only the aesthetic point. In his memoir, he has detailed his positive feelings about Sun's role as a soldier, which reminded him of his own military service.
The back and forth between them was conducted through the traditional press. Nowadays one can do this without the filtering of an intermediary by going directly to social media. Either way, it may not be an optimal approach to a rational debate. But it has its own way of bringing issues of gravitas to the surface of simmering sentiments. There's nothing like the exchange of two firebrands, each with tens of millions of followers on a microblog, to spark an intense interest in matters of wider ramification.
Had Feng kept quiet, only a few industry insiders would have been informed of the ways Chinese movies are distributed overseas. Had Sun suppressed his aversion to gays, he might have not learned that many of his peers in the entertainment business are among the targets of his moral indignation. And we the public might not have detected a rift in generational perception of the standards for entertainment products.
People in showbiz are caught in a quandary. It is generally deemed inappropriate to make public comments on the works of their peers. And other topics could be beyond the reach of their professional expertise. Sure, some stars champion causes close to their hearts or endorse propositions of a charitable nature. But most steer clear of outright controversies.
People like Feng Xiaogang have their own logic. They want to carve out more space for their views after they have attained a certain level of professional achievement and social influence. Rather than placing themselves in a straitjacket of public anticipation, they turn their clout into more leeway for what they say and what they do.
Feng is a paragon of this art. In his memoirs, he goes to great lengths to offer his take on many of the hottest filmmakers of our era, which is taboo unless it is padded with ingratiating eulogies. He manages to get his points across in a language that seems deferential yet does not drown out the truth. It is a linguistic skill he also employs in his movies, which makes it harder for people from other cultures to fully appreciate them.
Even though I do not see eye to eye with Sun Haiying on many of the points he raised, I don't think he should be shamed into silence simply because his perspective would be seen by some as a sign of bigotry. His candor is helpful to the future reconciliation of what are now regarded as moral disparities, just as positive role models can help dispel the clouds of stigma.娛樂圈所謂的名人們要是願意和媒體坦率地進行一次談話，絕對會引來爭議。但是比起裝作道貌岸然的僞君子，讓所有人都滿意，人們更願意看到他們寧願冒犯所有人，也要堅持自己的信仰。
中國著名電影製作人馮小剛爲衆人所熟知，他言語犀利，直言不諱，同時他所導的電影票房屢創新高。他只要一出現在上海國際電影節上，某些報紙雜誌都會下意識地把頭版頭條留給他，因爲他們知道他一定會“對某人或某事槍林彈雨般地抨擊”，震驚全行業，甚至影響其他行業。
2010年，好萊塢電影大亨哈維·韋恩斯坦（Harvey Weinstein）在電影節的熱門論壇上三言兩語地說了幾句，隨後藉口說自己得去趕飛機，先行離開。馮小剛緊接着便說道韋恩斯坦就是個“不折不扣的僞君子。”
後經媒體查證韋恩斯坦的旅行日程，發現韋恩斯坦當天並沒有趕去機場，而是在上海購物。當然，馮小剛當時說那話時並不知情，他所指的韋恩斯坦對在北美市場上映的中國電影沒有認真對待。米拉麥克斯電影公司創始人之一兼韋恩斯坦公司董事長的韋恩斯坦隨後針對此事迴應道，他在美國發行了馮小剛拍攝的電影《夜宴》，這部影片在所有中國導演拍攝的作品中，盈利遙遙領先。
在好萊塢，韋恩斯坦的無禮傲慢人盡皆知，但是和馮小剛相比，他儼然就是個虛僞的政客。我曾在採訪節目中聽到韋恩斯坦坦言拒絕攻擊誹謗業內同行人士，哪怕是那些公然抨擊過他的和那些他討厭的人。似乎這已然成爲一種行業規則：人們不應該在公開場合說這類話題。
因此，你會如何評價馮小剛的行爲呢？他是個我行我素，自以爲是的狂妄之徒嗎？他的幼稚魯莽終將導致其事業毀於一旦嗎？或者說他是這個滿是爾虞我詐，分秒如履薄冰的行業中，衆人皆“假”我獨“真”的稀罕物？一些權威人士說，馮小剛在這樣萬衆矚目的場合毫不客氣地給了韋恩斯坦一擊，也就埋葬了之後在北美大陸大肆宣傳他的電影的可能性。
娛樂圈不是個能夠自由說話的地方，至少對那些有頭有臉的名人來說不是。他們有着他們賴以生存的公衆角色，人們對他們有相應的期望，這種期望在他們事業成型之初就已設定。馮小剛起步之初機智靈活，遇事和緩，這是他早期創作喜劇之時的姿態，但就像他的兩部回憶錄中所展現的那樣，早年他低調做人，所創作品也無所影射意義，一方面是爲了電影審片更好通過，另一方面怕受衆接受不了。
如今，作爲當代最傑出的喜劇演員的他終於不再沉默。2004年，他發起了扶持印度洋海嘯風暴中倖存者的救災慈善活動。近年來，他一再抨擊我國的電影審查制度。在發佈了他的最新喜劇影片《私人定製》後，他又把矛頭指向了國內的影評人，指責他們故意誤導公衆。
這些都讓他“惹惱”了社會不同階層人士。即使是公益活動，也讓所召集的上層人士很惱火，因爲他們認爲宣傳效果未達預期。我不想對此事引起的騷動作過多的敘述，因爲我也是當事人之一。
很多旁觀者試着用某種特殊的視角來看待這種行爲。如果他們支持馮小剛對影評人的指責，那麼他們就會說他是個正直勇敢的人，敢於和那些自以爲可以掌控觀衆思想的權貴鬥爭；如果他們不支持，那麼他們就會說他不善於接受批評，這對於這樣一個傑出的人來說是一大污點。
然而，如果我們冷靜地細細觀察名人的所作所爲，我們就應該弄明白到底是規規矩矩，政治立場明確的上層人士對社會進步有利？還是那些敢於承受千夫所指而說真話的人？換句話說，所謂的名人，他們是高舉大衆喜好品味旗幟的先鋒呢？還是有權表達自己觀點的普通人罷了？甚至是可以表達某些和自己行業並不相關的觀點？
很巧的是，曾有一次馮小剛也成了靶子。演員孫海英再三批評他的作品缺乏深度。孫海英因出演革命戰爭系列電視劇《激情燃燒的歲月》而漸漸走入公衆視線，他有着舊時的審美觀，坦言攻擊低俗娛樂，官員腐敗和同性戀。
馮小剛回應他，說道孫海英拍攝《激情燃燒的歲月》燒壞了腦子，而此言之後被澄清只針對孫海英的審美觀而言。在他的回憶錄中，他對孫海英戰士一角的扮演表示認可，說那讓他回想起了自己的服兵役生活。
兩人之間的口水風波最終在傳統媒體的形式中得以平息。現今，人們可以繞過中間媒介，直接在社交媒體上解決這種問題，無論哪種方式，理性地說可能都不是最佳方式。它總能讓簡單的得體禮貌性問題發展成爲個人情緒大爆發。沒什麼能夠像這樣的有着數百萬微博粉絲的“兩支戰火”在一系列問題上的“正面交鋒”更能激起人們強烈的興趣了。
如果馮小剛當時沒站出來，那麼只有業內少部分人士知道中國電影在國外的宣傳狀況；如果孫海英當時壓制住了他對同性戀的厭惡，他可能就不會知道許多娛樂圈內許多同行人原來都是他那次道德指控中的中槍者。而我們作爲觀衆也不會知道新的一代對於娛樂產品已經有了他們新的標準。
娛樂圈內人士正備受煎熬，一般來說，他們不能去評論業內同行的作品，而其他方面的話題又不是他們本業，無法深談。當然，某些明星根據自己的內心或者本着慈善的出發點來支持或擁護某個事業或建議。但是絕大多數都避開這種顯而易見的爭議性話題。
像馮小剛這樣的人都有着自己的邏輯，他們在已經取得了一定程度的專業成績和社會影響力之後，想要更多地表達自己的觀點，而不是繼續穿着大衆的期望給他們設計的緊身衣，同時，他們的影響力也爲他們的言行舉止預留出了更多的自由空間。
馮小剛就能將自身影響力發揮到極致。在他的回憶錄中，他評論了很多我們這個時代當紅的電影製作人，除非滿是逢迎諂媚的讚美詞，一般這種做法是觸犯禁忌的。而他能夠用恭順的語言把自己真正想表達的內容蘊含其中，這也是他在電影中經常採用的語言技巧，這就讓其他文化的人們更難欣賞他所拍的電影。
儘管我對孫海英的許多觀點還是不敢苟同，但我不認爲僅僅因爲某些人會把他的觀點當成他頑固不化的話柄，他就應該羞愧得退出熒幕。他的直率有利於在將來調和現有的道德差異，就如正面的榜樣能夠驅散負面的污點。
