The Longest Year: The Team Leader Saga (1)

Once upon a time there was a boss lady. Boss Lady was on the brink of 60, but she always kept her auburn hair impeccably dyed and looked ... uh ... about 56.

Nevertheless, mentally she was as swift and sharp as ever, wielding both the power of her position and her irresistible feminine charm. From time to time she turned it on to persuade and convince one of the gray-haired, pot-bellied, grumpy old men who held a bit more power than she through no merit of their own. Perhaps underneath the flirtatious smile and the girlie, nasal, slightly whiny voice hid a boiling contempt for these old white men who struggled to shift their oversized butts in their thrones while muttering something inaudible among themselves.

Boss enjoyed the not-insubstantial power assigned to her own little throne, plus a bit more she could squeeze out of the nearby departments if she really pushed --- but that little extra must be used judiciously. She had about 10 FTEs that were fully under her control. If she said "jump," they'd all reply "How high?" Seeing that never failed to bring a warm comfort to her heart.

The 10 or so FTEs had been more or less of equal footing for a few years, until Boss Lady was getting tired of all the boring administrative stuff. "I am working way too hard," she thought to herself. Just then she took a leadership training course, one of an endless buffet of training classes offered to managers in this massive organization. The leadership instructor, a 6-foot-2, bull-like woman who could belt a scream to shake the entire building, told them that one of the desirable qualities of a leader is to delegate.

A light bulb came on in Boss Lady's head. "I shall delegate," she thought. So she set off to create two team leader positions under her who could rule over the minions, thus freeing her up to spend more time working on more important projects ... at home, or, on Fridays, at her beach house.

It was a walk in the park to get her own boss to approve the creation of these two team leader positions. He never could resist her twinkling eyes and girlie, whiny, pleading voice that melted his bones.

She advertised within the organization. Some resumes and letters were submitted. She looked at most of them with disdain --- after a few years in this "iron rice bowl," no one can write a minimally presentable resume any more. Typographical errors, ugly formats, jumbled structure, incomprehensible sentences, obviously inflated qualifications ... The sloppiness was appalling. She interviewed half a dozen. One or two stood as being particularly sharp. Too sharp, in fact. More letters after their names than her own. More confidence. Younger. Ugh. She was certain these wolves would shove her aside and take over her carefully cultivated pasture as soon as they set foot on it. No way. She dismissed them quickly.

A couple of months later, the talent search went nowhere, and she was getting increasingly irritated by her subordinates' endless demands for her technical decisions, administrative support, and passing complaints to the upper management. Oh, such tedium. She needed two team leaders as soon as possible to block these pettiness from her ears. "I'm too old for this nonsense," she thought. "Delegate."

So she decided to promote from within.

Daniel Deronda (11%)

看得好慢好慢。仍然是大小姐Gwendolen的戏，没男主出场。

折腾一阵之后，又出来一段疑似讽刺傲慢与偏见的情节！某有钱有头衔有土地的金牌35岁王老五要大驾光临了，乡下一大圈有适龄女儿的父母都开始打起小算盘。

George Eliot把贵族和崇贵的诸位都讥笑了一顿。即使拿到今天仍可算激进哪。

The Way We Live Now (4)

看完了。

好棒啊！

没有金碧辉煌的城堡和一眼看不到头的花园，演员也不是每场戏都换一套新衣。可是，金钱、政治、社会、爱情，样样都是那么火辣辣的真，绝无装腔作势。

最恐怖的是，商界巨头Melmotte那一套生财之道，拿了以修铁路为名集来的资本，去投其他的机倒其他的把，包括给自己竞选议员。嘿嘿，1857年写的Little Dorrit，1875年写的The Way We Live Now，一百多年后在资本主义自由市场中历史重演，说到底都他妈的一回事！正事不干，钱倒来倒去倒都倒进了自己的腰包里。差别在于2000年代的投机倒把，规模更大，技巧更复杂，参与者更多，全民拜金潮更汹涌。而且，罪魁祸首们有全套国家机器撑腰， 他们才不会象当年的骗子那样，失败后破产跳楼或者自割动脉。They're still laughing all the way to the bank. 这就是进步吧？

*********

Even the women are spirited, and the romances as snappy as Mrs. Hurtle's whips and guns! :D

"You see, but you do not observe."

前阵子忽然心血来潮，在Netflix上加了过去看过且很喜欢的电视剧 Murder Rooms: The Dark Beginnings of Sherlock Holmes，也就是我成天念叨的 David Pirie 之作。今天收到了。

除了跟 Holmes 的关联之外，我还喜欢剧中的爱丁堡的黑咕隆咚的胡同和主角 Robin Laing 的苏格兰口音。Laing 演 医学生时期的Arthur Doyle，Ian Richardson 演贝尔教授。(Doyle祖籍爱尔兰，但他在爱丁堡出生长大，所以苏格兰口音也合乎逻辑。）

开头没多久，贝尔教授在课堂上对学生讲："You see, but you do not observe."

我的脑子里“叮”地一声响。Sherlock 第三集中，Vermeer油画案开头，泰晤士河边尸体旁，Lestrade 说，"I don't see..." Sherlock 大声反驳，"You see. You just don't observe."

好吧，我就把 Kindle 掏出来，翻到福尔摩斯全集，search "see observe." 果然，在波希米亚丑闻案中，原话就是 You see, but you do not observe. Oh, my Gatiss ...

***********

此剧插入几段 Doyle 父亲的片段，提起他父亲的多年酗酒之后的神志不清，家庭关系一片混乱 --- 在现实中，Doyle 妈妈把丈夫送进精神病院，跟比自己小二十多岁的房客同居起来。Doyle 跟他娘关系一直很近，但是对这个比他大不了多少的房客却十分厌恶。这个房客在剧中一露面，我马上吐血： Matthew MacFadyen！

The Way We Live Now

这套剧是 Downton Abbey 温情主义的最佳解药。辛辣诙谐，针针见血，把贵族阶层和新兴资产阶级各自的小算盘都写得入木三分，毫不留情。真好看。

非常年轻的 Matthew MacFadyen 演个油腔滑调的贵族花花大少，把自家财产挥霍光了，再去处心积虑追求富商 (David Suchet) 之女。笑死了。

眼睛很有戏的 Cillian Murphy 同学演个正面男主，年轻有为的铁路工程师。

好奇有点想看 Trollope 的原著了。

Downton Abbey (1)

今晚的第一集共一个半小时，也不知道是按照什么规律剪的，七零八落，没有dramatic arc，没头没脑的就完了。看样子是把ITV版的7集剪成4集。

中间插一段弯男秘密恋，还是跨阶级的，也是没头没尾的。除非未来情节中还有下文呼应，否则显得就是赶时髦的gratuitous来一段儿。

楼上的人物和情景远远不如楼下活泼生动，目的性很强，大笔大笔的 exposition。而且人物动机也不怎么清楚。比如，大女儿 Mary 到底是想留在 Downton 呢？还是急着嫁出去？某公爵根本没财产，自己还要去追美国财主女，Mary 为啥要巴巴地把他抓住？继承人 Matthew Crawley 来了，家里人人都觉得亲上加亲是正理，她又耍脾气讨厌人家了。说她不想要 Downton 吧？又摔摔打打地发脾气。楼上的只有男主人性格比较清楚，但太理想化，他坚持维持执行entail，怎么知道新继承人一定能好好照顾和保留 Downton 呢？老太太(Maggie Smith) 写得有点脸谱化。女主人呢，也太理想了，自己带进来那么多钱，先结婚后恋爱。眼看家业旁落，跟老公非常恩爱地温柔抗议几句就完了。这家也太和谐了吧。

楼下的情节比较有戏，几个人物也容易让观众立刻产生关心同情，不过大管家Carson和管家太太之间的暧昧有点象直接抄袭 Remains of the Day。另外不明白为什么Bates一定要留在Downton，或许未来几集中有所解释。1912年的英国，一个有点瘸腿的退伍老兵不会绝无活路吧？在伦敦写字楼里抄抄书也可以啊。如果没有隐情则有点难以置信。楼下的两个“坏人”目前比较脸谱化，有肥皂剧倾向，希望后面可以写出点层次来。

这个剧的开头部分，最大的问题是处理戏剧矛盾半心半意。很明显，中心矛盾在于要不要contest the entail，是把Downton交出去还是打官司把Downton留给大女儿。结果呢，没有发展也没有冲突更没有climax，东拉西扯地就解决于无形了。

也许我的不满的一大原因是很多铺垫和发展的情节被砍掉了，所以显得交代不清。

Matthew Crawley 的作用，除了提供矛盾之外，显然是代表现代平民观众的POV。一方面坚决表示不受旧规矩束缚，骑车上班，让现代观众认同，但另一方面又毫不迟疑毫无挣扎地就把这么大一个包袱给背了下来，欣喜地打入没落贵族的圈子，有点扯了。连我都知道这种巨大产业入不敷出，排场大而未必真有钱，是个紧箍咒，就算有美国财主继承女的嫁妆，维持起来也是一大把头痛，搞不好还得把自己卖身出去，再钓一个财主女回来。一个中产阶级律师，习惯了掌握自己的命运和生活方式，就这样放弃了自由人生，能这么容易吗？如果是穷困潦倒急着发财，倒还可信一点。现在这样让我这个观众就难以代入或认同。

一切都很温吞，没有棱角，缺乏悬念，缺乏 dramatic drive。

说实话，现在这个年代再回去拍这种贵族戏，我特别想看的是算钱，是第N代贵族如何四处筹钱和卖身维持的账本的dirty details。否则老是重复英国传统贵族梦的套路，回顾帝国时代的好时光，又何必设定在二十世纪初呢？

Dogs and Children

Say what you want about Malcolm Gladwell (playing fast and loose with data and statistics, using extraordinary anecdotes to tug at readers' heartstrings, too biased, etc.), he is a damned good storyteller with a keen eye of observation unlike anyone else's. One does not have to believe or agree with every single point of his in order to appreciate that.

His essay "What the Dog Saw" is one of the few pieces of writing that are deeply, deeply stuck in my head. I don't think I will ever forget it. It was one of the most fascinating revelation that a dog sees through people --- not what they say, but what they think --- by observing their body language, and one's body language betrays what is really on one's mind, emotions that oneself is largely not consciously aware of. In other words, a dog may know more accurately how you really feel than you do.

The last paragraph is etched in my brain. It made an incredible point that struck me like lightening the first time I heard it on the audiobook, and I have mulled over it many times since then.

He stopped. He had had enough of talking. There was too much talking, anyhow. People saying, "I love you," with a touch that didn't mean "I love you." People saying, "There, there," with gestures that did not soothe. People saying, "I'm your mother," while reaching out to a Chihuahua instead of their own flesh and blood. Tyler looked stricken. Lori shifted nervously in her seat. Bandit growled. Cesar turned to the dog and said "Sh-h-h." And everyone was still.

I am an above-average observer of people's emotions. More than occasionally, I can correctly anticipate people's reactions and thoughts. The skill and habit come in handy while driving to help me spot cars who are about to cut into my lane (but they bring a certain burden as well). So it is hardly a surprise to read that people would say things they do not mean or feel, and that people often have simultaneous conflicting feelings. All that rings true. However, what I did not realize is that the subconscious emotions emerge in people's faces, tone of voice, body language, movements, and other signals.

Humans may very well be worse observers of humans than dogs. Why? Language interferes. The poor integration between the "thinking brain" and the "emotional brain" (Joseph LeDoux) has made language as much an unintentional liar as a communicator. It hides and represses (to others as well as self) one's feelings. Yet feelings express themselves outside of the thinking-language paradigm anyway, which dogs can see clear as day, because dogs are not distracted by human language and the game it plays. Dogs see who you really are.

Only today did I suddenly realize, children too, just like dogs, see through people's unspoken thoughts and feelings. As the prefrontal cortex matures with age and increases its grip on the rest of the brain, this clarity recedes as the brain's social coordination and impulse control become sophisticated along with language skills.

Another fascinating observation in "What the Dog Saw" was that some people are more conflicted than others. They can fool themselves and other people, but they cannot fool dogs. I now realize that they cannot fool children, either.

Some people are not conflicted. They are what is called "authentic." Most people are somewhere on the spectrum, between the extremes of authenticity and repression/conflicts.

It may seem that I am implying that the "thinking brain" is bad and detrimental to one's authenticity, and that this repression of the "emotional brain" is utterly undesirable. Not true. Nature cannot be defined as good and bad, favorable and unfavorable. Hypocrisy improves social cooperation among humans and, in turn, their chance of survival. It is good for the species and sometimes bad for individuals' mental and emotional health.

Some people are hypocrites; some are conflicted within themselves. Some people are more authentic because they have a less robust prefrontal cortex function and are more impulsive; they think less before they speak or act. Some people are more authentic because they are not conflicted for whatever reason, because they have little need to repress themselves; they have zen.

Dogs and children can recognize who is who.

(For an explanation of the photo above, see Gladwell's blog.)