分別在民國九十六年十二月十三日和十二月十四日下午三時在台大文學院會議室聆聽Philip Rosen教授的演講。本人的提問和心得完全只是針對演講內容做出回應而已，絕無任何影射到背後的種種利害糾葛的意圖，如果我的任何一股敵對陣營故意剪貼拼湊、斷章取義、巧妙加以類比和延伸，那是牠們在唱獨角戲而已，跟本人毫不相干，特此聲明。還有，在場如有任何「奸細」或「奴才」之流，又把我的回應拿來大作文章，那是牠們自己本身的品行有問題，與我何干﹖

I have to make it clear that whatever “thanks” have been said to me, I have never taken them as a sign or means to compromise with my major enemies and the so-called “thanks” camps.

I am very glad to have grabbed the chance to attend Professor Philip Rosen’s lecture on Illusion Now at 3:00 p.m. on December 14. We would have no doubt that the lecture is rather inspiring.

I recorded what Professor Rosen said in his lecture. My allies are welcome to visit me and obtain the recorded materials for free and then listen to them by themselves

Description of spectators as “tropes” with metaphorical meanings and the relationship between flatness and depth in Professor Rosen’s lecture aroused my interests. Besides this, I was much inspired by the concept of “illusion of the real” and especially by “certain temporality” and “participation of the reference” that Professor Rosen has explicated in detail. Thus, after the lecture came to the end and when time was for open questions by the audiences, I was the second to raise questions. For he also emphasized that 1970’s drew a distinct borderline between classical film theories and contemporary (postmodern) film theories, here came my first question: Is there any epoch-making event that had great impact on the film theorists who made reaction against those prior to 1970’s, such as technological development or connections with media technology that had made 1970’s special in history of film theories in the historical context? Then I asked the second question of him as follows: We would have no doubt that photographs’ representation of the past deeply involve certain temporality, as you have already pointed out. You placed stress on temporality, but mentioned very little about the term “spatiality.” Since cinemas present only one phase or facet of the object that is signified in one shot, certain spatiality may also get involved in illusion of the real. Is there any film theory that deals with spatiality? I mean, can spatiality also be put in media terminology, speaking of film theories?

Professor Rosen provided us the answer to my first question as follows. Political factors had even greater influence on film theories than technological ones did. It is a period of time when new film generation arose, because of TV. In addition, student rebellion trends prospered, so 1970’s was also a period of time that showed sympathy for opposition. Political events and movements that took place especially in Paris and London had great influence, too. Things like that.

I thought that it might be a good idea for Professor Rosen to develop further his theory on “spatiality” parallel to his arguments on “certain temporality.” This is why I asked my second question. To respond to my second question, Professor Rosen raised various kinds of issues that are found in film theories conducted from different angels, including change of space, of which my probing has been deepened. But I guess that I will probably get a clearer picture in Professor Mary Ann Doane’s lecture dated on December 17, 2007, for hers focuses on the relationship between the “real” and the “unreal” from the perspective of space, which is exactly what I want to know further with respect to film theories.

In addition, I was much impressed by the good question that Professor Liu, chairman of Foreign Languages and Literatures Department, has raised about documentary, which is closely related to illusion of the real. I should have asked the last question to follow up Professor Liu’s, but I didn’t ask, thinking that it was enough for me to ask two questions, and that asking more than that could be an annoyance to those who wanted to say something. But it is fine to write it down here. I wanted to know how Professor Rosen sees from his points of view on illusion of the real the films in which the documentary has become part of their plots, so they look as if the characters appear in the documentary like famous historical figures do in real events.

以上是我聆聽論文發表之後的一些小小的心得，論文發表人和在場的來賓不見得是本人的盟友，說不定屬於我的敵方陣營者更多。本人既不是女巫，也不是人家肚子裡的蛔蟲，與對方素不相識，無法僅憑對方的臉譜來判斷他(她)是敵是友，要是本人提問或交談的對象當中，不巧剛好出現敵方陣營的「腳色」的話，與我毫無干係，因為我事先並不知情。由於本人不願意讓敵方陣營藉由「提供證詞」的方式搖身一變、翻成我的盟友，因此，只希望透過自己手邊的錄音資料以茲證明，不需要任何證人。但因部落格並不提供這類錄音資料的上傳功能，無法上傳至部落格上，歡迎所有未被我排除於盟友名單之外的志同道合者前來查證。在此必須特別說明的是，電影理論對本人而言並非熟悉或擅長的領域，所以，儘管我的提問當中反映出自己的某些專業知識還不夠完整或成熟之處，畢竟仍有足夠的知識水平與能力把演講的內容吸收到相當的程度，然後提出一些頗具「營養」、足以引人思考的問題，我對自己的表現感到十分滿意。這一點適足以稍微抒緩一下某些不肖之徒一再惡意中傷我、說我「動作很慢」的不實謠言，儘管目前本人還不足以全面扭轉乾坤，但是仍然不無小補。常言道：「正邪不兩立」，與奸邪對抗的道路上，捨我其誰，當仁不讓，真是任重而道遠。讀到這裡，應同時參照本人的部落格「嚴格定義盟友的類型與對象」專欄中最新公佈的文章，裡面有詳盡的說明。