|
══════════════════【立報】═══════════════════ |
| 教 育 專 題 深 入 報 導《2005-03-04》 |
| 本期內容 | |
| ◎ 國際專題登峰造擊 影評逆襲 | |
| ◎ 台灣立報徵文啟事 | |
| 國際專題登峰造擊 影評逆襲 | |
|
前言 克林伊斯威特自導自演的《登峰造擊》（Million Dollar Ba-by），獲得2005奧斯卡最佳影片、最佳女主角、最佳導演及最佳男配角四項大獎，成為本屆最大贏家。然而這部電影也在美國影評界引起諸多討論，其中有關倫理的爭議，如協助自殺的道德問題等，在影評中幾乎空白的情況，引發對影評的再評論，其中牽扯出影評政治學的問題，也對美國影評界有了重新省思的聲音。 影評論影評：登峰的秘密 克林伊斯威特自導自演的《登峰造擊》是引人入勝的一部影片，也帶有深層嚴肅的寓意。 根據全美大部份影評人的說法，幾乎這部片的所有已被充份領受理解，這也是為什麼該片入圍奧斯卡許多獎項的原因，包括最佳影片在內。 雖然如此，這部影片也有其道德中心意涵，這是一部對於這時代中最精密、複雜、爭議性最高的議題探索之一；這也涉及宗教上、哲學上、社會上與法理上的協助自殺問題。 那是個很熱門、發人深思的主題。任何涉及戲劇、電影明星、道德及爭議等題材，通常都會在媒體喧嘩中模糊掉了原本要表達的內涵，就像是宏亮號角聲迷思性的呼喊。 所以，為何對該片的部份內容緘口不語？ 好，假如你還沒有看過這部電影，可能你不知道這部片還包含安樂死的情節。你不知道是因為全國影評人做了一個集體決定不要告訴你；更具體的說，他們決定「你不會真的想要知道」。事實上，許多影評人在主要的美國報章雜誌上做了相關評論，包括紐約時報、華盛頓郵報、華爾街日報、今日美國報等，他們規避協助自殺的呈現，更不用提道德中心的問題。 這怎麼發生的？這種現象已在美國行之多年，為何提出許多關於電影評論情形的有趣問題？ 擊倒圈內人 《登峰造擊》改編自一則短篇的拳擊故事，作者傑瑞伯依德是愛爾蘭移民之子，生於長島，曾擔任訓練員與擂台助手，以「F.X.杜爾」的筆名發表。這故事是拳擊故事小說集《燃燒的繩：角落的故事》的一部份，該書在伯依德72歲時出版，就在他去世之前兩年。 電影中，伊斯威特飾演法蘭奇鄧恩，是個訓練員與擂台助手，擁有一間健身房，史克是健身房的守衛、也是法蘭奇最好的朋友，之前是拳手，是個單眼的肢體障礙者。史克的角色由摩根費里曼飾演。 劇中的法蘭奇是個寂寞的人，他讀葉慈的詩、研究蓋爾語，每週定期寫信給女兒。女兒卻總是連信都不開的直接退回去。法蘭奇也是個天主教徒，他每天去望彌撒，問神父許多問題。這個故事呈現的自殺議題是很明顯的，儘管故事主角很清楚地被放在一個教堂實踐者的位置上，其早期的神學家把道德原罪定義為「自願死亡」。 一位年輕的女性拳擊手瑪姬的出現使整個故事轉折更為複雜。瑪姬由希拉蕊史旺所飾演，她因法蘭奇的訓練獲得成功，不過法蘭奇一開始並不想要訓練她。然而此時，不可預見的悲劇發生了，其中一個人物因無法承受訓練狀態，要求另外一個人幫助他自殺。故事主角如何回應，在道德層面、情緒層面都是該劇的核心所在。 所以為何這一方面的討論在影評裏面沒有看到？根據許多主要評論人的說法，答案是，故事主線才是他們要看的重點。此外，影評讀者也不想看到那麼細節的討論，那只會毀了整部電影。 電影作為一種藝術的型式 電影是用商業的語言或以藝術的語言敘說？這是一個有趣的爭論。很明顯的，影評的立場會隨著作品而有所改變。想像某人得到一個獎，報紙的藝術評論者被要求評論它，評論人會說：「這真是一個曠世佳作，因為它的主題是很重要的，整體表現也很精彩，但我沒有真的要討論這個議題或呈現，因為我不想要破壞你自己的經驗。」這樣的評論人是個機會主義者。 在《登峰造擊》的某一篇影評中，說該片做了「一個黑色轉折」（a dark turn）。「一個黑色轉折」？這聽起來像是19世紀的東西，但那到底是什麼意思？那只是一個掩人耳目、自己也不清楚的講法，不是一種批判性的觀察。這也連結到一個之前的問題：電影是商業還是藝術？ （資料來源／洛杉磯時報） Why the 'Million Dol-lar' secret? By Tim Rutten Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Ba-by" is an engrossing work of cine-matic art with profoundly serious in-tentions. According to the vast majority of the nation's film critics, nearly all those in-tentions have been fully and brilliantly realized, which is why the movie is a contender in multiple Academy Award categories, including best picture. But "Million Dollar Baby" also is a film whose moral center - and, yes, this is a movie for which you can use those words without blushing - is a quietly confrontational exploration of one of this era's most delicate, complex and contentious issues. That is the reli-giously, philosophically, socially and legally fraught question of assisted sui-cide. That's a pretty hot and thought-pro-voking topic. And anything that in-volves drama, film stars, morality and controversy usually careens deafening-ly around the media echo chamber like the mythic call of the Horn Resound-ing. So, why the silence here? Well, if you haven't seen the film, the odds are you don't know that it even involves euthanasia. The reason you don't know is because the nation's film critics made a collective decision not to tell you - or, to be more precise, they decided you don't really want to know. In fact, for all the critical atten-tion justifiably lavished on "Million Dollar Baby," not a single review in a single major U.S. newspaper or maga-zine even alluded to the presence - let alone the dramatic centrality - of an as-sisted suicide. That includes the no-tices that appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Jour-nal, USA Today and every other publi-cation of any size or reputation accessi-ble on the Web. How that occurred and why raises a number of interesting questions about the state of film criticism as it currently is practiced in American newspapers and news magazines. （中略） Film as an art form It's an interesting argument - and ob-viously sincerely offered - but it's spo-ken in the language of commerce and not art, which is why it rings hollow when applied to a film like "Million Dollar Baby." It's obvious that a re-viewer's stance will vary according to the work under consideration. （中略） Imagine the Getty had acquired an important new painting and your news-paper's art critic were sent to review it and came back to report, "This is a masterpiece that has as its theme a vital moral issue, which is depicted in a shocking image. However, I'm not go-ing to tell about either the issue or the image, because I don't want to spoil your experience of the painting." The person who wrote that quickly would be encouraged to seek opportu-nities in the burgeoning food service sector. In one review of "Million Dollar Ba-by" after another, however, critics Del-phicly referred to the film taking "a dark turn." A dark turn? It has a posi-tively 19th century ring, but what the devil does it mean? It's a come-on, not a critical observation, which bring us back to the nexus of commerce and film criticism. （以下略） （本文為部份節錄，欲詳全文，請至http://www.calendarlive.com/columnists/cl-et-rutten5feb05,0,2567465.column） 以道德檢驗藝術 電影只好安樂死 過去幾年來，以米高‧麥費德為首的傳統影片評論者，常對好來塢片大加躂伐，因為某些片子不是揶揄宗教，就是完全視而不見。他們認為娛樂業大多由比佛利山莊右翼藝術愛好者所把持，這些人的特色正是不相信宗教的人，因此也對這個國家真正的道德價值缺乏關懷。 《登峰造擊》是許多影評人予以高評價的電影，不是因為導演克林伊斯威特，而是因為主角經常上教堂，相信勤奮工作的美德，反對粗俗的物質主義，崇尚榮譽、忠誠以及用誠實、成熟的態度與心靈搏鬥。大體而言，他們對電影的反應比較像是馬克思主義歷史教授。 提到一些熱門的議題，傳統影片評論者對那些膝蓋反射政治正確的立場，也與標榜自由主義者同樣感到內疚。對於《登峰造擊》的批評與攻擊卻也始自米高‧麥費德。有的影評說該片是「不禁一擊的、被操弄的電影」，有人說是「百萬安樂死電影」，有人說是「來自左派的誹謗」，有人說該片「殺了殘障者，讓他們黯然失色」，有人說實際上是「反天主教、反基督教」。 上述這些批評不是那麼容易解決的。最近一個傳統影評人出的新書《正確的轉向》指出，傳統派影評人比自由主義者「更快樂、更好」；他也認為「一個更天主教化的美國，對猶太人而言是好的」。 米高‧麥費德透過影評，往往發揮很大的影響力，因為他在今日美國報、華爾街日報，以及一些廣播電台等有相關專欄或節目。他不喜歡許多奧斯卡提名的影片，一點也不令人訝異。他認為這些奧斯卡提名的影片「呈現出好萊塢深層的、近乎病態的一種與大部份閱聽者擁抱的傳統宗教信仰相悖的不安狀況」。 他認為《登峰造擊》是一部安樂死的電影，不是一齣嚴謹的戲劇；此外，他也認為劇中對神父的描述太單一了。他說：「該劇太笨拙、不老練，大部份而言，除了希拉蕊史旺之外，演技很差，而且充斥著陳腔濫調！」他說這部電影最主要的問題是「電影公司努力隱藏真實的故事，因為他們害怕假如告訴你真實發生的故事後，就沒有人要到戲院來了」。 到目前為止，克林伊斯威特依然保持一貫的冷靜，說這部電影只是「想要讓人去思考生命的不可預測性，以及如何去處理它」。這或許不是一種政治正確的夢想，但我還是會想到當伊斯威特哪天遇見米高，或許伊斯威特可能會勸告米高要手下留情。（資料來源／洛杉磯時報） Judging 'Baby' by its politics is just artless By Patrick Goldstein For years, conservative commenta-tors of all stripes, led by crit-ic-turned-radio host Michael Medved, have noisily bashed Hollywood for mocking religion or ignoring it entire-ly, contending - and this is a big issue with Medved - that the entertainment industry is largely made up of left-wing Beverly Hills dilettantes and unbeliev-ers out of touch with the real moral values of the country. So imagine my relief when I saw "Million Dollar Baby," the critically lauded film that's now a major con-tender for best picture and other Oscar accolades. Not only was the film made by Clint Eastwood, a longtime Repub-lican, but the movie's leading man, played by Eastwood, is a regular churchgoer who believes in hard work, rejects crass materialism, values honor and loyalty and wrestles with soul-wrenching spiritual issues in an honest, mature fashion. A tender, beau-tifully made movie about faith and hard-earned redemption - surely this would be cause for celebration among conservatives and religious figures who see Hollywood as a cesspool of sex and sleaze, right? Ah, what a fuzzy idealist I am. When it comes to hot-button issues, conservatives are just as guilty of knee-jerk political correctness as their liberal foes. By and large they've react-ed to the movie as if it were a star-ry-eyed drama with Barbra Streisand and Sean Penn as Marxist history pro-fessors indoctrinating coeds in the the-ory of evolution. (Spoiler alert: If you want to avoid learning any "Million Dollar Baby" plot twists, read no fur-ther till you've seen the movie!) Medved has led the charge, blasting the film (and to filmgoers' horror, largely giving away its ending) on CNN, "The O'Reilly Factor" and "The 700 Club," calling it "an insufferable manipulative right-to-die movie." Rush Limbaugh chimed in, dubbing the film "a million-dollar euthanasia movie." Debbie Schlussel, another conservative talk-show host, called the film a "left-wing diatribe," claiming it sup-ports "killing the handicapped, literally putting their lights out." And Ted Baehr, head of the Christian Film and Television Commission, described the film to Sean Hannity as "very an-ti-Catholic and anti-Christian." It would be easy to write off these attacks as the ravings of people who probably think there are hidden North Korean missile plans embedded in "Shrek 2." After all, Focus on the Fam-ily leader James Dobson recently ac-cused SpongeBob SquarePants of be-ing part of a pro-gay agenda. Claiming he was misquoted, he managed to make things worse by attacking the group using SpongeBob to promote tolerance and diversity with schoolkids, saying that tolerance and diversity "are almost always buz-zwords for homosexual advocacy." But the assault on "Million Dollar Baby" by Medved is not as easy to dis-miss. A self-described conservative whose new book, "Right Turns," ar-gues that conservatives are "both hap-pier and nicer" than liberals and that "a more Christian America is good for the Jews," Medved wields considerable clout, via his commentaries, which run in USA Today and the Wall Street Journal, and his popular radio show, which airs here weekdays on KR-LA-AM (870) from noon to 3 p.m. The day we spoke last week, his show had an exclusive interview with Bush polit-ical guru Karl Rove. Not surprisingly, Medved didn't like a lot of the Oscar-nominated films. Writing in USA Today, he criticized "Vera Drake" as portraying abortion in a "positive, almost sacramental light." "Kinsey," he says, "ridicules the reli-gious orthodoxy of the main character's father." As he put it, the Oscar nomina-tions "illustrate Hollywood's profound, almost pathological discomfort with the traditional religiosity embraced by most of its mass audience." But does he really believe "Million Dollar Baby" is a euthanasia movie, not a serious drama about the price people pay for their dreams? "I don't see it as a serious movie that grapples with serious moral issues," Medved told me. "Take the way it portrays the priest [that Eastwood banters with at church]. It's totally one-sided. He's por-trayed as a bozo, as a shallow twit. I know Catholic priests, and if you're a priest, you're not thrown by basic ques-tions about the Trinity." Medved said the film was "heavy-handed, clumsy and for the most part - except for Hilary Swank - badly acted and full of cliches." A big part of his problem with the film was "that the studio has tried to hide the re-al story. They were afraid no one would come see it if they told you what it was really about." （中略） So far Eastwood has kept his cool, saying his film is simply "supposed to make you think about the precarious-ness of life and how we handle it." I'm with him. This probably isn't a politi-cally correct pipe dream, but I can't help but fantasize about what might happen if Eastwood bumped into Medved, say at a chummy GOP fundraiser. Clint may not pack his fa-bled .44 magnum anymore, but that shouldn't stop him from urging Medved to air his views by gently nudging him in the ribs and purring, "Make my day." （本文為部份節錄，欲詳全文，請至http://www.calendarlive.om/custom/envelope/cl-et-goldstein8feb08,0,4605019.story） Director Clint Eastwood is shown in action on the set of his film "Million Dollar Baby" in an undated handout photo. REUTERS/Warner Bros |
|
| （回目錄） | |
| 台灣立報徵文啟事 | |
|
本報誠徵閱讀經驗分享，歡迎教師、家長及學生分享經驗，題材包括如何推動學生閱讀、啟發學生閱讀興趣、學生閱讀心得或小書評，文長500～1500字皆可，投至fiveguys@ms19.hinet.net，凡經採用，敬奉薄酬。 |
|
| （回目錄） | |
|
參觀立報： |
http://www.lihpao.com |
|
寫信給小編 e-mail： |
fiveguys@ms19.hinet.net |
|
立報地址： |
台北縣新店市復興路43號一樓 |