 |
Director:Robert Mulligan |
整體來說我該給本片不錯的評價，但是還是有幾個點必須提出來討論。
首先以影片節奏及敘事的編排上，跟現代電影還是有點差別，緩急之間筆者覺得沒有拿捏得很準確，但這本來就是一部電影敘事安排上極其精巧且困難的部分，所以並不需要將它評為不佳，畢竟我們往往已經習慣許多經典電影流暢的敘事風格，及前後劇情交代的精確度。 也或許是我看的版本的翻譯字幕不是很精確所致，這就不是影片的問題就是了。(我覺得我看的版本翻譯字幕滿糟的，所以可能這是主因，因為這有可能讓原本連戲的口白轉換變成不連戲。) 其二是片尾段，兩位小朋友受到襲擊的那段，我實在看不懂他們在演啥，尤其那根火腿更是莫名其妙，最後的神秘人物救駕也是，以電影來說，實在有點粗糙，不過這種小說改編的電影作品常有這種現象，因為小說可以不斷地鋪陳，電影卻礙於時間限制，往往必須濃縮刪減，最後就變成鋪梗舖的不夠扎實；筆者是覺得劇作家還是要勇敢適當的去改寫，像那根火腿我實在看不出有甚麼內涵在，硬要這樣拍實在不是很棒的選擇。(或者是我才淺學疏不知它用意何在)
整部片最讓我激賞的就是中後段，於法院場景內的辯護攻防，該段落因為就是純粹的敘事，所以沒有上述的問題，整體來說是整部片的亮點，老實說筆者是覺得飾演Atticus Finch的Gregory Peck在辯護這段有點演得太過，但是這部片讓他拿了Oscar，所以筆者也不知道該說什麼；當然以題材來說，本片一定很合影藝學院的口味，所以囉...；當然轉換角度看他飾演慈父的角色，就十分讓筆者喜愛就是了。
故事的主軸在於描述一種理盲的社會氛圍。片名(也是小說名)，To Kill a Mockingbird，mockingbird是知更鳥，而主角Atticus小的時候曾經在被教導用槍時射死了一隻mockingbird，也因此有了一層醒悟，他殺害了一個沒有傷害性，甚至是會唱歌給人們聽得無辜生命。 雖然沒有藉此引導向說或許因此主角成為了一名捍衛真理的律師，不過我想是有啟發性的。 身為白人的Ewell因自己對女兒犯下錯誤而嫁禍給黑人Tom Robinson，然而不論Atticus如何在庭上點破原告方漏洞百出、充滿矛盾的證詞、不合常理的起訴；也動之以情的以長篇的結尾論述來為Tom辯解(本篇尾有放上)。 最後這群白人陪審團還是對其作出了有罪的判定。 而後，原本要提出上訴的Atticus也因為Tom試著逃跑被槍殺後而無疾而終。 Tom就是片名中的那隻mockingbird，無辜而抱憾而終的生命。 Ewell的偏見可謂可怕莫名，他認為為黑人辯護的Atticus才是錯誤的一方，自始自終不覺自己的價值觀謬誤，還來到Tom的家給Atticus吐個一臉口水，十分挑動觀眾情緒，這樣的情節安排也把Atticus的高度道德與人品給彰顯出來。 本片的法院段頻頻讓筆者想到12 Angry Men，因為也同樣是在捍衛一個弱勢者的人權與真理，不過結局是有反差的就是了。 而本片的結局並不是讓筆者太滿意，因為太試著用平衡與補償的方式來追加劇情，反而讓情感失焦，最後Atticus還是希望在法院上利用真相來解決事端，卻被鎮長壓下，這樣的玩法實在有點...前後矛盾；當然站在觀眾立場，會認為壞人死有餘辜，但壞人之所以壞，是因為他跳脫不出他思想的禁錮，該給的是教育，而不是以死了結，或許如前人解讀，這樣是少了另一隻mockingbird的產生(這裡是指Arthur)，也是一個罪有應得的結局，但我覺得有點跟本片的主價值觀(法治與真理的追求)產生衝突，不是很好的安排，回到源頭，本片(甚而是本書)畢竟似乎是比較像一種給青少年或小孩看的醒世童話，所以才會用很幼稚的方式來安排結局吧。 1962年的電影了，回頭看已經是2011年的台灣，好像還是跳脫不出一種以社會大眾角度來評斷事情對錯的做法，不論是前陣子沸沸揚揚的死刑存廢、或者近期的非核家園議題，都放不下自己既有價值觀來擅加評斷公眾事務的決策。 當然我也認同沒有共通性的真理存在，但是，何謂理性、何謂客觀? 身為現代公民的我們，是否能從這些經典的電影題材中，找到一些蛛絲馬跡呢? 本片不就是教導了我們，的確曾經白人是高等種族；黑人是被歧視、被欺負的一方，這樣的價值觀是確確實實的發生在世界上。而人類文明的進步不就是為了化解這些歧見，讓真正的平等落實在這個社會當中嗎? 莫走回頭路啊。
(Atticus Finch's closing statement -- To begin with, this case should never have come to trial. The state has not produced one iota of medical evidence that the crime Tom Robinson is charged with ever took place... It has relied instead upon the testimony of two witnesses, whose evidence has not only been called into serious question on cross-examination, but has been flatly contradicted by the defendant. Now, there is circumstantial evidence to indicate that Mayella Ewel was beaten - savagely, by someone who led exclusively with his left. And Tom Robinson now sits before you having taken the oath with the only good hand he possesses... his RIGHT. I have nothing but pity in my heart for the chief witness for the State. She is the victim of cruel poverty and ignorance. But my pity does not extend so far as to her putting a man's life at stake, which she has done in an effort to get rid of her own guilt. Now I say "guilt," gentlemen, because it was guilt that motivated her. She's committed no crime - she has merely broken a rigid and time-honored code of our society, a code so severe that whoever breaks it is hounded from our midst as unfit to live with. She must destroy the evidence of her offense. But what was the evidence of her offense? Tom Robinson, a human being. She must put Tom Robinson away from her. Tom Robinson was to her a daily reminder of what she did. Now, what did she do? She tempted a Negro. She was white, and she tempted a Negro. She did something that, in our society, is unspeakable. She kissed a black man. Not an old uncle, but a strong, young Negro man. No code mattered to her before she broke it, but it came crashing down on her afterwards. The witnesses for the State, with the exception of the sheriff of Maycomb County have presented themselves to you gentlemen, to this court in the cynical confidence that their testimony would not be doubted, confident that you gentlemen would go along with them on the assumption... the evil assumption that all Negroes lie, all Negroes are basically immoral beings, all Negro men are not to be trusted around our women. An assumption that one associates with minds of their caliber, and which is, in itself, gentlemen, a lie, which I do not need to point out to you. And so, a quiet, humble, respectable Negro, who has had the unmitigated TEMERITY to feel sorry for a white woman, has had to put his word against TWO white people's! The defendant is not guilty - but somebody in this courtroom is. Now, gentlemen, in this country, our courts are the great levelers. In our courts, all men are created equal. I'm no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and of our jury system - that's no ideal to me. That is a living, working reality! Now I am confident that you gentlemen will review, without passion, the evidence that you have heard, come to a decision and restore this man to his family. In the name of GOD, do your duty. In the name of God, believe... Tom Robinson. )
