Sunday, April 7, 2013

伊拔的兩封信




兩年前看完《生命樹》,寫過一篇名為〈宏大的承擔〉的文章,以馬力克、伊拔、荷索三個氣魄不凡的人並舉,文末引述影評人伊拔(Roger Ebert)寫給荷索(Werner Herzog)的書信。在信中,伊拔以荷索獻給他的《在世界盡頭相遇》(Encounter at the End of the World)裡頭,一隻堅定地離群步向內陸的企鵝自喻:「但朋友啊,現在我也開始如那企鵝走向歧途了。」(But I have started to wander off like the penguin, my friend.)今早知道,這企鵝果然隱沒在白茫茫的雪地之中;患癌十一年的伊拔日前過身,享年七十。

伊拔寫給荷索的長信,是一個影評人對一個導演半生建樹的頌歌,從二人四十年的交情說起,中間是對荷索電影的評賞,最後以 “With Admiration, Roger”作結,惺惺相惜。但除了褒揚,伊拔也寫過一封貶斥的信,看後自會明白,他在博客寫的最後一篇文章,最後一句為何就是:“I'll see you at the movies”。

當然,在這兩封書信之間,伊拔無可避免也成為別人評論的對象,既得過如普立茲評論獎的褒揚,也有如影評人惠特(Armond White)之貶斥。惠特有篇名為“What We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About Movies”的文章,把美國影評的衰落歸咎於伊拔。關於伊拔主持的電視節目,我看過太少,不容置喙。但惠特批評伊拔的文章欠缺獨到的創見、文學風格、和文化貢獻三者,我則必須反對。

第一,創見不需建基於一整套堂皇的理論之上,真有眼光的人,三言兩語之間便是識見。所以說到電影的史詩巨構(epic),一般都難忘記伊拔評論《沙漠裊雄》時的精簡界定:那無關製作費用,只關乎想法與眼界之大小(“the size of the ideas and vision”),此所以《沙漠裊雄》是史詩,荷索低成本的《天讉》也是,而《珍珠港》不是。第二,我們容易忘記,平白也是一種文學風格。伊拔的文筆清通爽朗,誠懇而不造作。部份如《去年在馬倫巴》之影評,更以配合作品的語調切入,逼近電影那疑幻疑真、過去與當下交纏的味道,饒富心思。第三,伊拔的文化貢獻,就更不知從何說起。他是多麼相信文化和藝術的力量,擔心好導演一不小心就誤入歧途。這在《無限春光在險峰》的評論尤其明顯。他討厭這電影,深為安東尼奧尼感到可惜,覺得他不應這樣自暴其短(“he shouldn’t have exposed himself like that.”)。這是充滿情感的評論,愛之深而責之切。

不過,讀到伊拔第二封信的內容,自能把惠特的三點攻擊一併消除。看過一部名為《混亂》(Chaos)的電影之後,伊拔寫了一篇評論,以沉重的告誡開始: “ “Chaos” is ugly, nihilistic, and cruel – a film I regret having seen. I urge you to avoid it.” 語氣為何這樣重?因為這部關於兩個女孩被姦殺的電影,賣弄暴力,貶損生命,摧毀希望。《混亂》的製片人和導演見此,寫信給伊拔,辯稱他們不過是如如呈現世間的邪惡,令人看到真實。伊拔的回信情理兼備,值得細讀。伊拔說,問題是這電影欠缺了藝術家對邪惡之態度,最後兩段更是擲地有聲,從希臘悲劇的淨化作用說起,引伸到人有藝術、神話、科學、宗教、電影等慰藉;以及在苦難之中,出路之重要。如果世界真是如此邪惡,我們就更需要藝術家、詩人、哲學家、神學家的救贖力量。辯稱有責任反映世界之邪惡,不是答案,而是投降。

原文清明曉暢,可見其文風之樸實,整段引錄如下:“As the Greeks understood tragedy, it exists not to bury us in death and dismay, but to help us to deal with it, to accept it as a part of life, to learn about our own humanity from it. That is why the Greek tragedies were poems: The language ennobled the material. Animals do not know they are going to die, and require no way to deal with that implacable fact. Humans, who know we will die, have been given the consolations of art, myth, hope, science, religion, philosophy, and even denial, even movies, to help us reconcile with that final fact. What I object to most of all in "Chaos" is not the sadism, the brutality, the torture, the nihilism, but the absence of any alternative to them. If the world has indeed become as evil as you think, then we need the redemptive power of artists, poets, philosophers and theologians more than ever. Your answer, that the world is evil and therefore it is your responsibility to reflect it, is no answer at all, but a surrender.

企鵝遠去,伊拔已逝。但他終沒投降,畢生在評論持守這人文關懷,希望並不圓滿的世界更理想和可愛;在創作生涯留下的最後一字,正是:“movies”。



《明報》二零一三年四月七日

No comments:

Post a Comment