柏克萊的日子

幾特別，在電影院，睇話劇，其實好抵故事以保釣運動做背景，be honest ，未必吸引到年輕人入場，所見，89成觀眾都係中年以上。而故事又係發生在美國背景，加上始終有個銀幕隔住，始終唔似睇話劇咁投入和共鳴。導演好有心去寫返呢個經歷和故事，值得一讚。但女主角最後一句「用良知便可以解決每一代的問題」，放在2026年的香港，好似已經唔applicable 和過時。

由蔡繼光執導之電影《柏克萊的日子》，本來是一套話劇，但導演在多場演出中，安排了多部專業的攝錄機，近距離、多角度地捕捉了演員們的細膩表情，剪輯之後，再放上大銀幕，多聲道，並配上中英文字幕，幫助觀眾更清楚瞭解劇情 -- 這是「真人真事」所改編。電影很感人！片中各位主角、配角，包括閒角的外國人，均年青帥美，英文素養甚佳，原話劇在四面皆貼近觀眾之有限空間下演出，難度甚大！他們需要有超強的記憶力與中英文素養，才可應付並承接快速流利之台詞！熟練之演技更是必需！尤其是飾演主角戈夫的蔡子軒，帥得不懼任何角度的貼身貼面拍攝！羅頌欣飾演病重、蒼白無力的女主角，在追述多年歷史中，得快速地塗口紅、變裝，在原地舞台中走向久遠之時空，尤其考驗其演藝之功力……當主角與「保釣運動」落海宣揚主權而犧牲的「陳毓祥」遊魂對話後，遊魂消失了，復尋不果！此時，我聽到現場有哭聲，周邊的朋友，包括我自己，都感動落淚了！此片值得推介！往事，並不如煙！

其中有一個點子如點晴：令人難忘。在一個四面都是觀眾的空間內、男主角在黑暗中追憶往事… 旣問自己當日對錯，又見故人亡魂⋯⋯此時哭泣之聲從黑暗中來，我們做觀眾的自然會等待；經驗告訴我們會有演員或把戲跑出來的。但沒有。男主角繼續獨白⋯⋯ 不久、哭泣從另一角落再起，我們再看、再等。什麼都沒有…. 再起。再看。再沒有。…終於男主角告訴我們不必再找了。原來那是他的哭泣、也是我們每一個人的哭泣….. 我們誰沒有試過在獨自一人時為自己無法承擔的諾言而飲泣流淚？我們誰沒有試過在黑暗中為自己做過的錯事往事而哀傷？故事很感動 在大時代大環境中人類有時身不由己我十歲的時間負責買餸煮飯那時是用報紙包紮東西的我看見報紙上有人在越戰傷亡的圖片很傷心有一大段的日子沒有再看報紙接近尾聲啲時間我有流淚因為每個角色都很有愛我們表面看到的東西不是事實的全部很多時因為互相誤解引致關係惡劣毎人都有過去，都曾犯錯，如電影所言，良知與知識都重要，帶領我們的人生向山表面很壞很自私 我非常同情理解他這套戲透過講述政治運動經濟民生等令我感受到人性本有的善良和一家人的血濃於水 不分可割的微妙關係多角度鏡頭！話劇好難看到演員細緻的臉部表情在片中感受到全劇演員的精湛演技，其感情流露自然而真實，特別演向紅的女主角那恰如其份的表達，更留下深刻的印象。蔡導演的功力，技巧及熱誠給整部戲貫注了生命力，塑造了一張張有血有肉的臉孔，叫人難以忘懷。上一代的年輕人有著熱血的愛國情懷, 不惜放棄自己嘅家庭,夢想,事業去保衛國家民族.作者說出人生最痛苦的事,莫過於走時仍埋在心中的遺憾.例如作者夢中與陳毓祥嘅對白.至於現今年輕一代,大家都保持沉默.好多事情想發聲,但基於太多的限制, 敢怒而不敢言.那份熱血只能 藏於心底.劇情背景是為當年當代，民間的保衛釣魚台運動，如何於老美、臺灣、香港，一時被默許、一時被冷待、一時被利用、一時被打壓，頗可謂，此一時、彼一時. 更明示暗諷，那政治背後的利益計算，當權的操弄, 似在曲線告誡....導演把珍貴的人生故事分享予後人參考,感受到那份眼淚有好重的份量,當中有對理想的熱誠,對情人,對美善的追求,人生的無耐,大國政治與學生,追求理想的百姓....好重的份量

I attended the premiere of Berkeley Days with no expectations and little knowledge of the story, yet I emerged from the screening emotionally swept away. The film is crafted from documentary footage of the live stage play performed last year at the Hong Kong Cultural Center, yet it is unmistakably shot and edited with cinematic intentionality – through intimate close-ups, distinctive sound design, an emotionally resonant score, and creative editing. The result is a work that feels truly cinematic, a standalone piece in its own right. I imagine the film will resonate with a wide audience with its themes of generational divide, cultural identity, nostalgia, guilt, and youthful activism. But as a UC Berkeley alum myself, it carried an added layer of sentimentality. This was the first time in my life I had seen a dramatic narrative centered on the Chinese/American experience, set against the backdrop of my own alma mater, depicted onscreen. For anyone who has shared a similar moment – seeing a version of yourself, your personal history and reality, reflected through art – it is a powerful validation of your own being and existence. They say representation matters in art and this is that truth, rendered clearly on the big screen. Clifford’s story unfolds during his student years in the 60s and early 70s at Berkeley – a time of profound political turmoil and change, from the Free Speech Movement to Anti-Vietnam War protests. Yet as a graduate of the Class of 2017, I found it strikingly modern, relevant, and timeless. Anyone who has spent time on campus as a student, in any decade, has witnessed that vibrant culture of activism: the passionate demonstrations, the movements, the protests. It is embedded in the DNA of the student body. So although this story is set more than half a century ago, its core themes remain just as urgent today. Finally, that transition from student life to the “real” adult world is a growing pain we’ve all come to face. And among the fundamental questions we ask ourselves as we age, balancing youthful idealism with the practical realities of life is this: What was the point? Was it all worth it? While some older generations may look back through a more jaded or disillusioned lens, Clifford’s story answers with a life of few regrets and a resounding yes. Yes, it was worth it. However we define ourselves amid the world’s various “isms,” what endures is progress, change, and development for the better and movements are ultimately the catalyst for transformation.

Avatar 3 and Berkeley daysPlacing Avatar 3 and Berkeley Days under the same heading may seem arbitrary at first glance. Yet I have my reasons—beyond the coincidence of watching both within the same week of their release.Avatar 3 demonstrates how a film’s setting can become the true protagonist, overshadowing its actors. The characters are largely cartoon-like, with the few human faces appearing equally artificial and wooden. The focus is entirely on the backdrop, and the film takes this approach to the extreme. With due respect, any Oscar nomination for its performances would be an insult to the movie industry. Conversely, it would be equally unjust if the film failed to win Best Production Design or Visual Effects.Berkeley Days, however, lies at the opposite end of the spectrum. Here, the emphasis shifts to human gestures, facial expressions, and spoken words—supported only by a handful of simple props. Its metafictional narrative is unmistakably postmodern: the visible stage and audience remind us that this is a play, one that openly acknowledges its own artifice, much like Trier’s Dogville. As cinema, this choice heightens the film’s distinctiveness and creates an unexpectedly dynamic interplay within the conventions of biographical docudrama.Since it is, in essence, the “constructed reality” of a stage act transposed to film, the work achieves authenticity not through material precision but through aesthetic and emotional coherence, relying on the compelling and convincing performances of the entire cast. The editing and post-production are equally remarkable, seamlessly transforming stage into cinema with a fluent film language that enhances the storytelling.Personally, I believe the film might have benefited from an additional hour, which could have given greater weight to the love story within its turbulent era—in the tradition of Gone with the Wind or Doctor Zhivago. : D: Size does not matter.What may have begun as a simple recording of his stage play, I think the film director Cliff Choi has inadvertently created a stylish, unprecedented Hong Kong film classic—distinguished by bold individuality in its presentation and a politically charged subject matter rarely, if ever, explored in local cinema. Correct me if I am wrong, and enlighten me if any other Hong Kong films have attempted something similar, or even remotely so. One dialogue in the film underscores a universal dilemma for creators: is it about what you truly want to say, or about what others want to hear? Cliff succeeds in “honestly expressing himself”—and, to quote Bruce Lee, “It is very difficult to do, men.”I fully agree. By Peter H.1 Jan, 2026