民國九十六年十二月十七日在台大文學院會議室聆聽Mary Ann Doane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 or any other person near 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 Mary Ann Doane’s lecture on Scale and the Negotiation of “Real” and “Real” Space in the Cinema at 3:00 p.m. on December 17. We would have no doubt that the lecture is rather inspiring.

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

Professor Doane talked about the main theme by focusing on 1970s’ film theories and raising some examples to explain how the concepts of scale had influence on films-making skills. It is interesting that Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruve Luc Viatour, which combines arts and natural philosophy, is also used to explain how access of scale is produced. I was especially inspired by the relationship, e.g. distance, occupation of the space and vanishing points, etc., between concrete material environments and abstract space that Professor Doane has explicated; that is to say, the so-called negotiation of “real” and “unreal” space in the cinema. Besides, distinction between scale of the shot itself and scale of image presented on the screen aroused my interests, too.

Thus, after the lecture came to the end and when time was for open questions by the audiences, I raised a question as follows. You talked about the negotiation of “real” and “unreal” space by focusing on 1970s’ film theories and raising some concrete examples in which the presented objects were produced based on concrete material environments and concrete material things. I mean, everything is there to be seen, or at least something is there to be seen. But as we know, new digital technology has made it possible for films-makers to make screen images look very real, even though something is not necessarily there to be seen. Let’s take “The Marine World” directed by Kevin Costner for example. There are ships sailing in the shots. But they didn’t really go to the sea but used new digital technology to create the screen images. Do you think that kind of films is a symbol that has gone beyond the limits of frame? How do you see that kind of films by your theory?

Professor Doane made response to my question in a quite interesting way. But I will try to sum up what she stated in my own words. This issue is closely related to the concept of medium. Images can be digital, but the quality of image has to be taken account in historical concepts. After that, Professor Doane showed her observation of the phenomenon from the perspectives of scale and reception and then made it clear that conceptualization of space and digitalization of space are two different things.

I feel that her lecture has widened my vision in this sphere.

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。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。