In the business of theology it is hard not to be controversial - Jurgen Moltmann

Tuesday, 27 December 2005

務實的困惑


向來萬分敬重的前輩,那天忽然粉墨登場,在政府的宣傳廣告上鏗鏘有力的推銷官方政改方案,呼籲我「以務實的態度,邁向全面普選」。

前輩三十多年來一直掛在嘴邊的tag word是「突破」,如今突然變成了「務實」,難免令我感到困惑,錯愕,和渾身不自在。

相信看得渾身不自在的,當不只我一人 –– 起碼還有一(小)眾當日越洋相告隔山議論的昔日同袍。

我渾身不自在,是在於錯愕得難以接受。

難以接受的,並非前輩的立場 –– 既然這趟香港民意差不多正反打成平手,彼此立場迴異絕不為奇。況且正如喬曉陽先生說,兩種民意都要尊重。

難以接受的,在於他硬銷的姿態,以宣教佈道般確信的口吻,推銷一個起碼是(to put it most modestly)極富爭議的政制建議。廣告的硬銷,對應著政府的霸王硬呔,intra-textualextra-textual互相緊扣,更教人意難平。

相識多年,埋身共事也接近十年,深知前輩是個佈道家而非推銷員或者播音員,自己不堅信的他無法扮到很convincing地宣揚。那即是說,他必定是像聖保羅談論信耶穌一樣,「心裡相信口裡承認」政府的政改方案是邁向普選的無可替代的重要一步,才會如此披甲上陣。那是他個人對局勢的評估和立場,近乎一份conviction,很難爭辯,更難評說。

然而,他最後那句「以務實的態度」,來得如此堅定有力,無形中把「務實」獨家專利化了,於是by implication,彷彿支持政府才是務實的,反對政改方案就是不務實的。這姿態很難頂。

再加上前輩的多重身份,把自己擺放成「政府政改方案代言人」,起碼(to put it most modestly)屬於非常不智,令我十分不安。雖然名義上他是以公職身份出鏡,但他的「個人」形象根本跟那個機構早已成為一體,拍攝的場景又明顯是該機構的招牌背景,於是影片附帶(extra-diagetic)的信息自然是:「連那個機構都『務實』地支持政府的方案」。

還有,而且more significantly,前輩在香港基督教界的意見領袖形象深入民心,比很多主教牧師神學院長的叫座力強得多,於是他登場便帶來一重更厲害的潛在信息:「基督教領袖都支持政府呀,咪以為個個都同陳主教朱牧師一樣呀」。

前輩大概認為自己只是以個人身份或者公職身份出鏡,而且有caption大大隻字說明他是那個委員會主席。可是公眾形象怎有這樣clean and clear?我就不信那些設計這廣告並且決定邀請他出鏡的人,會沒有計算過這些附加好處。如果真的沒有,是他們蠢。

還有那個關係密切的機構,當今領導是個傳播學博士,外事頭頭是個頂尖的傳媒高手,我也不相信他們沒有想過這些問題。Henceforthlogically,我有足夠理由懷疑甚至相信,那個機構的官方立場是全力支持政府的方案,甚至認為應該呼籲教會支持。他們大概明知道這是個不受歡迎(unpopular)的立場,但相信自己的判斷是對的,於是從容就義,死就死吧。

對於這個立場本身,正如前面所說,關乎對當前局勢的判斷,我無法評說,更加not in the position to說三道四。

只不過,我覺得這趟的政改爭議到了最後,政府明明知道民意嚴重分裂,也完全知道無法通過立法會,仍然鑒粗係都要去馬,「無得改架喇,你地唔通過你地自己搵黎搞,一拍兩散啦」。這算是甚麼政府的態度?蔭權弟兄自許為政治家(statesman)而非政客(politician),但這算是那碼子的statesman

而很不幸,我敬重的前輩和那個機構,在政府不顧一切拼命強攻的時刻,把自己的形象跟那個霸王政府綁在一起助攻,起碼(to put it most modestly)是politically unwise,是socially insensitive

今後,對誰行公義?對誰施憐憫?可以存怎樣的心與哪位同行?


Wednesday, 14 December 2005

WTO on Television :: [updated 16 Dec in comments]


搞到特區政府一頭煙的WTO部長級會議開幕了。

之前,海素傳來兩句話,大概說幸好我不在香港,否則一定給傳媒的報導激死。

於是我除了慣常地每天讀讀香港報紙之外,連續兩天破天荒看了香港電視新聞的網上重溫。(無線六點半和亞視六點鐘,其他台的看不到了,不知是可惜還是好彩。)唉,真係

1213日,世貿開幕日。

無線整個新聞時段(淨肉約有廿分鐘多一點),大約有四份三是有關當天的WTO新聞,100%集中報導示威遊行衝突,而且超過五分鐘不斷播放南韓示威群眾與警察碰撞的畫面,另外仔細描述示威者怎樣跳海怎樣上岸。然後一個入黑後的現場直播,記者戴上頭盔如臨大敵站在警察防線前,馬上便有幾個西方示威者在她背後喧嘩擾攘,她說示威者是抗議傳媒抹黑。無線告訴我:WTO = 示威 = 激烈衝突。

亞視新聞淨肉全長三十二分多鐘,大約一半是WTO新聞,描述那場『焦點衝突』和跳海沒有無線的細緻,但有東南亞漁民租船在維港海上遊行,有會議場內的報導,有提及會議討論的議題和概況,有詳細描述NGO代表在會展裡面抗議的情形。然後同樣一個入黑後的現場直播,記者同樣站在警察防線前,沒戴頭盔,四圍有人但十分安靜。亞視告訴我:WTO = 不同方式的示威(包括有衝突)+各國官員討價還價。

1214日,南韓農民行動稍為升級,兩台的報導基本差異不大。

無線由第一句標題開始,三次(連caption在內共四次)強調他們數到警方被搶去十四面盾牌,而非官方所說的十面。What’s the point?他們想暗示警察講大話?他們想證明自己比警察或其他媒體更準確?真是典型的「為小事狂抓」。 Give me a break!另外南韓農民在衝擊之餘擊鼓跳舞唱歌,那記者就只懂說人家打鑼打鼓,對大韓民族的文化傳統和示威美學完全懵然,無做功課,平白浪費了拍到的豐富畫面。前一天遊行者在途中突然躺在地上喊口號,無線記者也是這樣用文字把係人都見到的畫面描述一遍,連簡單的身體象徵語言都讀不出。唉,tell me something I don’t know

亞視記者則起碼兩度把自己的想法投射進別人的行為裡。例句一:『佢地不時用腳踢或者用長棍敲打警方盾牌,企圖衝破警方防線。』前一句是客觀事實,後一句只是她的估計 –– 也許示威者另有目的呢?我就不相信他們會天真地認為自己這樣踢幾腳就能夠衝破防線,那倒不如說:『佢地不時用腳踢或者用長棍敲打警方盾牌,等電視台可以拍到多D動作場面』。例句二:『目前仍然有部份示威者留o係維園唔肯走。』留o係維園是客觀事實,唔肯走就是記者的感覺而已。人家在維園示威沒有時間限制,留下未走就是留下未走,怎麼說是唔肯走呢?不如說是記者趕收工吧。如果世貿結束多天他們還在維園,那才是唔肯走呀。

我帶隊採訪過1989年南韓光州全市數十萬人示威,親身體驗過呢D場面。下次call我請教下啦。

整體而言(認真的):亞視新聞重新令我刮目相看。他們人手有限資源不足,對一個場面的coverage絕對比不上無線,而且確實拍得沒有那麼「好看」。但在諸般限制之下,依然做到似模似樣而且整體闊度和balancing比無線還勝了一籌,真要歸功其編輯功力和採訪主任的部署。醒。

至於WTO在不列顛聯合王國的電視上又如何呢?

BBC News輕輕點題,Sky News好像沒講,其他如ITVChannel 4Five都唔多覺。(當然這只是印象而已,我不是經常捕住電視的。)

是因為不列顛人民對WTO議題毫無興趣嗎?可能是也可能不是。然而BBCITV的新聞都是非常胸懷世界的,其中BBC News 24更是個多月之前已經天天在討論分析世貿的種種,到真正開波卻又無左影。我估計可能是因為近期這邊國內的大事太多,中東的大事又多,加上幾天前倫敦西北面的油庫大爆炸,造成二次大戰以來全歐洲最大型的大火,燒足幾天,把直播的時間都搶過去了。

後園失火,誰顧得了遠處的剝削與飢餓?


題外話ITV今天剛剛公佈,其新聞台做埋一月底執笠。可惜但無法,開播五年,虧蝕三千萬鎊,點挨?




Friday, 2 December 2005

瑪莉之吻

§ Mary’s Kiss (FAITHeatre production, directed by Manfai Yeung, 22 mins, Hong Kong / UK 2005)
[watched at Private Eye Jameson for free]


1130日,蘇格蘭慶祝「聖安德烈日」。

那夜,適值由FAITHeatre出品,香港留英導演Manfai Yeung製作的Mary’s Kiss移師愛丁堡,舉行倫敦以外地區的世界首映。我近期本來忙到死,年近歲晚但手上那一章論文寫極都仲係亂草一堆,但咁榮幸獲邀出席,正所謂「人為朋友捨命」,幾大就幾大,幾唔得閒都仆去。

舉行首映的愛丁堡Private Eye Jameson,地方小座位少設備簡單卻cozy,當夜座無虛席,導演本人企足全場,戲院主人Mr. Yam竟然給我留了頭位,認真俾面。FAITHeatre還設小型酒會以免費bailey招待,正!(噢,還要勞煩英國註冊戲劇治療師黃小姐負責斟酒呢,真不好意思。)

Manfai Yeung剛剛從東倫敦大學完成電影碩士課程,宣傳資料說,Mary’s Kiss是他的畢業作,而且奪得該校優異畢業影片殊榮,怎不叫人翹首?廿二分鐘的短片全場屏息靜觀,roller過後全院觀眾都站立跟導演握手擁抱,我都有點羨慕兼妒忌。

平心而論,Mary’s Kiss尚未算是一部非常傑出的影片,釜鑿痕跡頗多,往往刻意地要人覺得它不刻意。然而它卻是一部處理得非常聰明,而且足以令人對製作人有期望的作品。

Mary’s Kiss2003年春夏之間香港爆發的SARS為軸心,把一個SARS病人寡婦的真實訪問,跟一個疑幻似真的虛構少女故事互相交織,插入聖經描述瑪利亞以香膏為耶穌洗腳,到耶穌叫拉撒路復活之前的經文作引申,再穿插當年香港滿街口罩,淘大花園善後洗擦的場面。後段配上香港創作歌手Adrian Tsing唱的Lullaby,睡前禱告對照生離死別,一詞多義語帶相關,教人無言。

一個惶恐絕望的城市,一個在SARS期間失去丈夫的女人,一個戴著口罩欲吻不能的女,一個據說是為自己葬禮作準備的耶穌,一個被人埋怨怎麼不醫好拉撒路卻自稱可以叫死人復活的神子。影音切割的張力,雖未致於震撼心靈,卻總算挑動思想。


【The author (left) comments on the film while director Yeung pretends to take notes】


【The author is just repeating himself, boring director Yeung to death】
(notice his gesture has not changed)


身為導演,Manfai Yeung說故事的技巧或許尚未夠火候,思想也可能未夠精練。但是Mary’s Kiss最可貴的地方,是製作人忠於兩年多之前那段香港人四十年來最難忘也最悲情的集體記憶,同時勇敢平實地面對本身的宗教信仰,坦白呈現血肉之軀的生死掙扎和哭泣呼喊。他沒有像《天作之盒》那樣abuse the context,偷一段重大的社會事故來借題發揮,然後推銷一個無頭無腦無血無肉無現實掙扎,「道沒有成肉身」的「偽基督教」(non-incarnated pseudo Christianity)。他也沒有像電影界菁英傾力製作的那一系列《199》那樣盲目樂觀,高唱訓醒無事囉我地夠團結就無事囉繼續跳舞囉。相比之下,Manfai Yeung的視野高了幾線。

從另一角度來看,Manfai Yeung得到他的朋友Lai ChowChris Fung等的幫忙,在種種條件和材料限制之下,能夠拼合出這部作品,正顯示出他能夠超越限制懂得避重就輕的聰明之處。這也許是一條最適合他走的路線,資源豐富規模龐大反而令他不知所措尾大不掉。

看過首映座談之後加影的短片,更加強了我這方面的看法。Manfai Yeung過去一年的短片裡,拍得最好最令人拍案叫絕的,全場觀眾一致認為是五分鐘一鏡直落不加配樂音效的Getting Drunk(我提議他改名為Going Home Last Night),遠勝過遠赴羅馬尼亞或者在倫敦通街走的。

Mary’s Kiss當然算不上甚麼經典或者典範。但若從我研究「媒體 - 宗教 - 文化」的角度來看,影音創作人想要忠實面對本身信仰情懷又要嚴肅面對自己的社會文化處境,而不是講來講去三幅被或者顧左右而言他有理無理硬蹺硬馬叫人信教,我相信Manfai Yeung這一次是走對了。

路漫漫其修遠兮,願他上下而求索。


【Dot, me, and Fai at lunch in Harry Potter's birthplace】
(celebrating the world premiere of Mary's Kiss)


【The author is too carried away by the opportunity to speak Cantonese!】

Tuesday, 22 November 2005

坎特伯里 / 夜遊 / 神 【附:倫敦小插曲】






真的冬天了。

剛過去凍到跳舞的週末,到了英格蘭東南部的坎特伯里根德大學(University of Kent at Canterbury),出席不列顛社會學會(British Sociological Association)轄下宗教社會學研究小組的周年研討日,作學術報告。其實我都不知道自己現在跟宗教社會學究竟還有何關係,這次參加,完全是因為研討日主題『宗教,電影,與普及文化』,正正跟我當前的研究課題緊扣。於是把手頭上正在撰寫的一章論文,整理一部份出來講講,趁人少少來個sneak preview收集反應。

由北面蘇格蘭愛丁堡走到東南面坎特伯里,真個山長水遠,巴士飛機地鐵火車樣樣坐暈,
除了我和Dwight同學之外,無人會咁癲老遠跑去。其他參加的,都是剛好在英格蘭南部工作/居住的宗教社會學小組的委員,不然就是坎特伯里的老師同學。也許唔係好日,加上題材冷門,整個研討日只有四人做學術報告,包括研究「神學與電影」近年剛剛泡頭而在坎特伯里還沒坐暖個位的年輕講師,和另一大學的文化社會學教授,另外就是Dwight和我了。

既然長途跋涉來到這歷史名城,總不成撲來撲去即日來回吧。Dwight竟然要即晚趕回愛丁堡,第二天到一家華人教會的英語聚會講道,真沒好氣。我對坎特伯里的印象,除了知道有坎特伯里大教堂和捺過下現任大主教Rowan Williams的書之外,就是英國文學經典中的經典The Canterbury Tales,如今除了書名和作者Geoffrey Chaucer之外,甚麼記憶都沒了,就只記得「好悶」,因為當年的老師喬伯伯真的教得好悶。

剛到步和研討日完畢的那兩個晚上,我跑到市中心搵食,順便夜遊一番,雖然除了食店之外其他都關了門,仍感到這小城別具風味;夜裡站在燈光照耀的坎特伯里大教堂前,簡直是震攝於其宏偉壯觀,教人咋舌。星期日到此崇拜,順便逛逛市內,感受鄰近居民假日趁墟的熱鬧。




公元597年,奧古斯丁從羅馬到了根德傳教,後來被封為坎特伯里首任大主教,是為這教區歷史之始。(是St. Augustine of Canterbury,不是寫《懺悔錄》的St. Augustine of Hippo,咪撈亂。)

參加坎特伯里大教堂的唱頌聖餐崇拜(Sung Eurachist),是我經驗過最講究禮儀(most liturgical)的一次禮拜:唱頌,回應,進出,讀經,板眼分明一絲不茍,期間我竟心靈顫動思潮起伏,感觸感動感慨混然。在教會崇拜裡竟有想哭的衝動,已經不知道多久沒試過了。

雖然近期在愛丁堡一直參與聖公會崇拜,但那聖保羅與聖佐治堂(St. Paul's & St. George’s Church風格比較「後現代」,並非典型的聖公會教堂,坎特伯里的體驗完全不同。

我年青時跟很多很多年輕人一樣,認為禮儀只不過是無謂的形式,其實那是未曾明白和投入禮儀的真正意義裡。年紀漸大,又讀了幾毫子神學,認識稍多,看法不一樣了;到愈來愈明白每一項禮儀背後的意義時,就更為一些完全拼棄禮儀的崇拜聚會感到可惜。

親身見證和經歷了嚴謹的禮儀,細味其中的小節,更驚嘆裡面所代表的對超越上主的敬畏,對聖經的尊重,對道成肉身的認真。是的,傳統嚴謹的禮儀也許跟時代脫節,人沒共鳴,怎樣豐富都沒用。可是教會丟掉了傳統的禮儀,卻沒有嘗試發展一套足以盛載當代信仰氣質而又同樣能夠象徵神人相遇的新禮儀(a new liturgy that can embody the contemporary spiritualities and not less symbolic in its representation of divine-human encounter)。崇拜失去了豐富的象徵語言,失去了一套人人共同擁有的符號,信徒失去了跨越文化種族國界的集體身份記號,信仰變成只有「我與神」沒有其他,信仰的貧乏瘦化更如江河日下,down the drain


【教堂的中央大堂,平常的主日禮拜在前面小門裡的內堂舉行,不在這裡】

禮儀不只是崇拜的程序,也是崇拜的環境,建築的設計。世界上絕大部份(自以為)福音信仰的華人教會,在這方面更是白卷英雄,只有四面牆壁一個講台一排排座位,連基本美感都欠奉,連簡陋跟簡樸都分不開,怎談環境的象徵意義?晒氣。


【前港督尤德爵士1986年冬在北京參與中英談判期間突然去世,
他的骨灰原來也安放在坎特伯里教堂的墓園,此紀念碑則在教堂內,
碑的頂端是令人難忘的港英殖民地政府的徽號,
下方那句金漆中文寫著:「香港總督尤德爵士紀念碑」
(點擊照片之後可放大看清楚)】





【坎特伯里其中一頭教堂貓,肥得很】














【The Driver】



附:倫敦小插曲

往返坎特伯里,必經倫敦為中轉站,於是專誠約了昔日同袍倫敦輝與小點飲茶。他們應承請我食蛋撻,由初夏約到深秋,今次天助我也有食神,久別重逢好醒神,當天倫敦輝還帶埋朋友,小點又帶埋男朋友,真高興。














【I & Fai & Dot & I on Trafalgar Square】
(兩位倫敦朋友明顯比我穿得多,都拜蘇格蘭訓練所賜)

離開坎特伯里那天,日落之後抵達倫敦,先跑進一家快關門的書店看看地圖,了解附近一帶地形,跟著獨個兒在特拉法加廣場以北一帶閒逛,看人看街看東看西,都幾過癮,然後才乘地鐵到希斯魯準備飛返愛丁堡。一切順利無比。

不料地鐵走了大約一半,便在站裡拋錨不動,不便之處敬請原諒;後來又說因電力故障Piccadilly Line全線暫停不知何時修復,不便之處敬請原諒;然後過一會再說,因保安警告全線暫停,不便之處敬請原諒。再後來,司機終於宣布,Piccadilly Line因保安警告現在立即全線封閉,請乘客馬上離開車站。哦,咁點呀?

大劑囉。數以百計乘客浩浩蕩蕩離開車站,其中不少是拿著行李往返機場的,人生路不熟徬徨無計,車站一個職員都不見,轉個身已經關了大閘。

大家唯有夾埋夾埋打的去,好不容易截到車。結果一個到倫敦遊玩完畢的日本妹,兩個在倫敦生活的非洲人,一個住在南非的白人,和一個躲在蘇格蘭的香港永久居民,就此同車共濟。

航班都因地鐵停駛而延誤,機場到處是人。回到家裡,已是萬家無晒燈火了。

Tuesday, 15 November 2005

凡事排斥,凡事差忌,凡事絕望,凡事火爆,戰是永不止息的 --- 拉賓遇刺十年有感

近日以色列舉行了多場群眾集會紀念1995114日晚上,以色列總理拉賓(Yitzhak Rabin)在達拉維夫的和平集會上遇刺身亡。

當年拉賓總理把性命押在國家長遠安全上,跟巴勒斯坦解放組織領袖阿拉法簽定和平協議,同意巴人成立自治政府,並且幾年內正式建國,期望以巴兩國長久和平共存。

拉賓去後,以巴和平進程三波九折,局勢風雲詭變,中東和平泡湯。

我 做傳媒製作的最後遺作《不死傳說》,花了數年心血反思鑽研得個吉,拖累全隊人馬無限青春,燃燒出品機構大量資源(講真其實都唔算真係好大量),財務經理怨 聲載道,機構高層想殺左我,合作部門暗裡媽叉.....。最後的最大發現是:以色列是個我永遠不能摸透的國家,中東和平也不是我有生之年可以見得到的。

如果人類的文明有幸還會繼續存在千百年的話,將來的歷史大概會這樣稱呼由二十世紀開始而延棉不絕的中東衝突:『停不了的戰爭』(The War that Never Ends)。


.......................................................................................................................


附:〈黃土上的恩怨情仇〉

○○二年三月底,猶太逾越節前夕,以色列一家酒店舉行的逾越節晚宴,遭一名巴勒斯坦青年自殺式襲擊,炸死炸傷數十猶太人。

   類似的自殺式炸彈襲擊,之前已有多宗,之後也陸續有來。然而在逾越節筵席上遇襲,傷亡慘重,大大觸動了以色列人的敏感神經;翌日逾越節當天,以 色列便大舉進軍巴勒斯坦自治區,局面一發不可收拾。自從一九六七年以色列佔據約旦河西岸以來,這裡從沒有見過這麼大規模的軍事衝突,也令中東以巴局勢重新 成為世界傳媒焦點。

  以色列在逾越節揮軍巴人自治區,真可說是歷史的反諷。這個節日原是紀念他們民族的祖先離開「埃及為奴之地」,即是得到上帝解放,不用再寄人籬下,過著受逼害的奴隸生活;然而,他們卻在這日子,用武力壓制寄居他們籬下的巴勒斯坦人。

  以巴衝突其實是以色列與阿拉伯世界長期衝突的一部分──現在人人口中的「巴勒斯坦人」,其實專指生活在中東巴勒斯坦一帶的阿拉伯裔人,他們大多信奉伊斯蘭教,少部分信奉基督宗教,在當地已經住了上千年。

   若把以色列與阿拉伯之間的衝突,看成是源自聖經的家族恩仇,可能比較誇張了一點,稍嫌「無限上綱」。但從現實一點的政治歷史來看,這段衝突也確 實有橫跨千年的伏線,有數百年的禍根,更有近一個世紀的正面對峙。衝突的焦點,正是土地主權之爭;其中牽涉的,政治經濟宗教文化早已糾纏不清。

  自從三千二百多年前,約書亞帶領以色列民族進入約旦河西岸,神蹟地攻陷耶利哥城,逐步控制了巴勒斯坦一帶之後,便在此建立家園。他們認定這是上帝所賜的「應許之地」,不論亡國被擄,抑或歸回重建,始終家在這裡。

  直至千多年後的公元一三五年,以色列人反抗羅馬帝國統治的第二次起義失敗,他們大批大批被處死、被賣作奴隸或是被驅逐離開,流散到歐洲、非洲各地,能夠留在巴勒斯坦的猶太人寥寥無幾。

  伊斯蘭教在公元七世紀興起之後,住在巴勒斯坦的主要就是信奉伊斯蘭教的阿拉伯人。

   另一方面,猶太人寄居在歐洲各地,卻受盡排斥歧視,促使他們萌生重新建國的念頭,終於在十九世紀興起「錫安主義」,鼓吹重返巴勒斯坦復國;歐洲 諸國本來就不歡迎猶太人,自然推波助瀾,樂見其成。但在當地的阿拉伯人,千多年來早已落地生根,跟那些重回故土的猶太人,難免產生矛盾。

  一九一八年,第一次世界大戰結束之後,本來領土橫跨歐亞的奧圖曼帝國瓦解,巴勒斯坦成了英國的託管地。英國卻試圖兩面討好,對阿拉伯人和猶太人,都承諾支持他們在此建國。天下從此大亂。

   二次大戰期間,六百萬猶太人被納粹黨屠殺,加強了他們建國的決心,也大大增加了舉世對他們的同情和支持。戰後,猶太人與阿拉伯人繼續爭地建國, 聯合國決議把巴勒斯坦土地一分為二,讓猶太人和阿拉伯人各自立國。但阿拉伯人認為自己佔了當地三分二人口,卻只得到三分一(且是較貧瘠)的土地,認為聯合 國偏袒猶太人,拒不接受。 

  如是者,一方堅持建國,一方堅決反對。一場戰火,結果以色列成功建國,阿拉伯裔的巴勒斯坦人卻變成難民,七十多萬人無家可歸。可是,他們並沒有放棄建國的夢想;畢竟,這片土地是他們世世代代生活了千多年的家園。

   隨後幾十年打來打去,雙方都堅持,自己在這裡住了千百年,是這地的「原居民」。而其中焦點中的焦點,則是大家都尊稱為「聖城」的耶路撒冷──以 巴雙方都決意以此為首都,也都反對以用任何方法把耶路撒冷分割而治。說來諷刺,這竟然是雙方最主要的共同點,同時也是近年以巴和談數度功虧一簣的死結。

  這刻再爭論誰是原居民,其實已經毫無現實意義。若把土地主權之爭,上升至屬靈層次,認定某塊神聖的地方一定要屬於某些人,利用宗教符號來支撐政治鬥爭,那就更加危險。當人把某一地點絕對神聖化,執著其象徵意義,自然感到不能妥協讓步。以巴雙方如是,基督徒也如是。

  怪不得耶穌對那井旁的撒馬利亞婦人說:「時候將到,你們拜父,也不在這山上,也不在耶路撒冷。」(約四:21) 哪片土地最神聖,哪個角落最重要,不過是一份執迷。

【原載《時代論壇》771期(2002年6月9日):不死傳說系列之五】



Friday, 4 November 2005

The Filmgoer's Guide to God

【本文原刊於Expository Times第116卷第2期(2004年11月)65-66頁,為慶祝該刊近日「重新啟航」(relaunch),及本文刊出一週年,經原作者同意,特此轉載。但未向出版社(Sage)及編輯申報,讀者請勿報串。】






Book Review

The Filmgoer’s Guide to God. By TIM CAWKWELL. London: Darton, Longman, and Todd. 2004. 170 pp. £10.95. ISBN 0-232-52466-1.

The year 2004 might for many be marked as a special year in which the interest in religious elements in the cinema is rekindled, due to worldwide release in spring of the film The Passion of the Christ directed by Mel Gibson. It is of course sheer coincidence that Cawkwell’s The Filmgoer’s Guide to God is published at the same time. The book is divided into thirteen chapters which discuss films according to classical Christian motifs such as ‘God’s Grace and God’s Silence’, ‘Faith’, ‘Salvation by Water’, ‘Crucifixion’, and ‘Resurrection’, etc. Under most chapter headings three to four films are discussed, except the chapter on crucifixion which concentrates exclusively on The Passion of Joan of Arc (directed by Carl Theodore Dreyer, 1928). A chapter ‘The Image of Christ’ is set apart for films that directly depict Jesus on screen, which is in fact a lengthy discussion on The Gospel According To St. Matthew (directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini, 1964) with only brief mentioning of a few other films listed in the table of content.

The author claims that he aims to ‘give an introduction to religious cinema for those with a general interest in religious art and literature’ (p.2). While he covers quite a number of European films and some US American films, the book’s focus is on four filmmakers: Bresson, Dreyer, Rossellini, and Tarkovsky, whose works are familiar to audience of art house cinemas in many parts of the world. Their films explore issues related to faith and its crisis against the backdrop of ‘the horrors of the twentieth century, the century of total war, of genocide, and of utter cynicism’ (p.5). For readers who are fairly familiar with European art house classics, the book is engaging and enjoyable. As co-author of The World Encyclopaedia of Film (1972; 440pp.) and a former filmmaker, Cawkwell’s rich personal knowledge of European art house films and stories behind the scene is impressively shown in the book. So is his grasp of film language, which is exceptional when compared to many other books on religion and the cinema written by theologians and religion scholars.

The serious dialogue of theology / religion with the cinema has been going on for at least more than three decades and has become a rapidly growing area of study since the 1990s. But it seems that Cawkwell is either not aware of this trend or he is not interested in engaging with it at all. Notwithstanding his familiarity with film, Cawkwell’s discussions on the religious are far less substantial than his treatment on film. Hence, contrary to what its title intends to convey, his book might have a hard time guiding the filmgoer to God. Instead, this book might more suitably be titled as ‘The Churchgoer’s Guide to (Art House) Film’.

Yam Chi-Keung

School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh


Added 26 May 2007:
A Google search by somebody from France has brought my attention to a review on the same book by another person, published in the Journal of Religion and Film 9.2 (October 2005) >> READ HERE <<


Saturday, 29 October 2005

The Magdalene Sisters

The Magdalene Sisters (directed and written by Peter Mullan, UK & Ireland, 2002)

[watched on More4, 28 October 2005]

I have heard of this stunning film and the true story behind for a few years but never had the chance to watch it until now. I was so desperate this time that when I learnt of its airtime on TV, I set a reminder alarm for myself.

Is it a great film? Perhaps, and perhaps not. Is it enjoyable? Not the least. It is the kind of story that you don’t want it to continue but at the same time draws you deeply into the narrative. It is simple and direct from the very beginning, and makes you truly uncomfortable all the way through. Yet, you would keep on watching, because you are already caught up in the development and destiny of the characters once you start encountering them in their first appearances.

Dublin, 1964.

Three young girls were sent into the Magdalene Asylum for the rectification of their ‘sinful lives’. Margaret was raped by her cousin in the evening of a relative’s wedding. Bernadette who lived in an orphanage was flirt by too many boys from the neighbourhood. Rose had just given birth to a baby, unwed. We never heard a single word from those who sent them away. All three of the beginning scenes of abandonment are striking. They all begin with supposedly happy moments (festive mood in wedding ceremony, young people playing and flirting across the fence, new mother holding her newborn). Yet, all end up in sudden forced separations. And each of these scenes is shorter than the previous. The filmmaker simply does not need to go into the details anymore after the first instance. These betrayal experiences, which are to end up in brutality, are reminiscent of Phyllis Trible’s Texts of Terror.

What is horrible is then not only that which happens in the Magdalene. The horror is pervasive in the community. The sinful structure, so to speak, is not confined to the evildoings and hypocritical gestures in the convent, but permeates the whole culture of this supposedly pious Catholic society. The young girls are sent into the Magdalene only because their parents or guardians choose to hide what they regard as scandalous. As the Chinese saying goes, whatever you eyes cannot see is clean. This is simply a textbook case of structural evil.

Life in the convent is apparently orderly but the order is maintained in an authoritarian and sadistic fashion. Sleep, eat, work, walk according to a predetermined set of rules executed by the nuns. No talking during any of these times. Violators are beaten brutally. The orientation to the three newcomers by the sister-in-charge is most intriguing: Mary of Magdalene, the guardian angel of the convent, was a great sinner, and she had to deny herself of any worldly pleasure in order to cleanse her soul and gain her place in heaven; thus the girls in Magdalene would have to follow her example in order to secure their salvation; what is washed in the laundry is not just clothes but their sins and worldly desires. Therefore the girls are to work for long hours in the laundry everyday, for the sake of their own souls. This is truly the classical form of perverted view of redemption – to gain your salvation by being exploited.

Bernadette is so desperate to get out of the convent that she tries to seduce a young customer of their laundry and offers to marry him. She rips herself of dignity only to beg him to help her escape. The young man chickens out in the last minute, leaving Bernadette to face the brutal punishment of cutting her hair by force. Bernadette is a professionally trained hairdresser; to have her own hair cut to the extent of bleeding is probably the worst imaginable humiliation.

The depiction of abuse in the convent escalates as the narrative develops. Whipping, beating, and cutting the hair are taken for granted as forms of punishment. The most stunning scene is however the ‘game’ scene of the nuns comparing the naked bodies of the girls – who has the biggest / smallest breast, who has most pubic hair, etc. While the girls are either blank or weeping, the nun laughs and cheers and stresses repeatedly that it is just a game. A game!

With a simple trick by Margaret, it eventually comes to pass that the priest is openly exposed of taking sexual advantage of another girl, Crispina. This remarkable scene of exposing his shame is set in a special religious ceremony outdoor. When the priest is running away from the scene, Crispina is shouting ‘you are not a man of God!’ All the men on the spot just try to look away, showing embarrassment but apparently not wanting to face the matter. In the next scene, we see Crispina being transferred to a mental hospital to be locked up. The victim is regarded as the shame, and it is only by hiding the victim-shame away that the sinful institution can carry on with its business as usual.

When the three protagonists had the chance to leave the convent, both Margaret and Bernadette take revenge on the nuns in their own ways. Margaret is fetched by her younger brother who is grown up enough to come to find his sister. When she comes across the nuns in the corridor on her way out, she assertively demands them to step aside to give way to her. The sister-in-charge, of course, refuses out of her arrogance of the powerful. In the confrontation, Margaret kneels down and starts reciting the Lord’s Prayer. It is finally the visiting bishop and the nuns who start giving in. At this brief moment, we see Christian non-violent resistance at work.

In contrast, Bernadette is more violent during her escape with Rose, which is consistent with her character. She snatches the main key from the sister’s hand by force, calling her ‘you bloody twisting bitch’, and beats the nuns who try to stop her in the corridor. Even in the final shot of the film, in which she comes across the nuns in the street some years later after her escape, she is shown to be staring at them with bitterness and rage.

The audience is of course happy to see them being able to leave the Magdalene. Yet it is far from a happy ending. The convent, with its institutionalised oppression, is still there. Only our three protagonists have managed to get away. And probably, they are merely getting away from one microcosmic oppressive structure to a more gigantic oppressive structure – the whole society which is abusive and repressive, which uses the divine as the pretext to take advantage of the powerless. Hence, the visual tone of the final sequences after they escape has not changed – the gloom, the grey, the hard pressed feeling persist. Nonetheless, we as the audience do take a fresh breathe, as we see that at least three people have changed their destinies.

The Magdalene Sisters is on the whole a depressing film. It is depressing to see the pervasiveness of structural evil. It is even more depressing to see the abuse of power done in the name of faith and the divine. Such abuses end up pushing people toward the evil rather than delivering them from it. Yet the film is also an affirmative piece of work. It is affirmative to see that human destinies can break away from oppressive structures. It is even more affirmative to see that there are different possibilities to achieve this independence, and that the long term outcome of this disentanglement can take various forms (as seen in the ending captions).

It takes enormous courage to leave the institution, to take the risks of having nowhere to go and having no one to turn to. But it is also to responsibly exercise the most precious divine gift of human free will. Such, I think, is the film's ultimate celebration of humanity and, indirectly, of divinity.

Is the film anti church or anti Catholic or anti religion, then? Not according to my interpretation. It has not been excessively critical or sarcastic of the Catholic Church or of religious faith in any sense. It is, however, deeply critical of the perversion of faith for the advantage of ungodly desires. In my limited understanding of the Christian faith, this critical stance is totally faithful to the Biblical tradition which is itself radically against hypocritical perversion of faith in God. Yet when it comes to its view of redemption, the film is anti institutional -- the church (or religious institutions) is no longer considered a mediator of salvation. In this sense, the film is against [the classical teaching of] the Catholic Church.

Friday, 14 October 2005

We have brought torture and misery in the name of freedom (Harold Pinter)

【夏勞品特是我唸文學時最愛讀的作家,然而已經超過廿年沒再讀他的作品了。昨天知道他得到諾貝爾文學獎,分外高興,也首次接觸到他擺明車馬的政治寫作。下文原刊於今日《獨立報》頭版;我從沒試過在這裡整篇轉載他人作品,今次例外。】

We have brought torture and misery in the name of freedom

By Harold Pinter who yesterday won the Nobel Prize for Literature

Published: 14 October 2005 in The Independent (used without permission)

The great poet Wilfred Owen articulated the tragedy, the horror - and indeed the pity - of war in a way no other poet has. Yet we have learnt nothing. Nearly 100 years after his death the world has become more savage, more brutal, more pitiless.

But the "free world" we are told, as embodied in the United States and Great Britain, is different to the rest of the world since our actions are dictated and sanctioned by a moral authority and a moral passion condoned by someone called God. Some people may find this difficult to comprehend but Osama Bin Laden finds it easy.

What would Wilfred Owen make of the invasion of Iraq? A bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of International Law. An arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public. An act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort (all other justifications having failed to justify themselves) - as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands upon thousands of innocent people.

An independent and totally objective account of the Iraqi civilian dead in the medical magazine The Lancet estimates that the figure approaches 100,000. But neither the US or the UK bother to count the Iraqi dead. As General Tommy Franks of US Central Command memorably said: "We don't do body counts".

We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery and degradation to the Iraqi people and call it " bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East". But, as we all know, we have not been welcomed with the predicted flowers. What we have unleashed is a ferocious and unremitting resistance, mayhem and chaos.

You may say at this point: what about the Iraqi elections? Well, President Bush himself answered this question when he said: "We cannot accept that there can be free democratic elections in a country under foreign military occupation". I had to read that statement twice before I realised that he was talking about Lebanon and Syria.

What do Bush and Blair actually see when they look at themselves in the mirror?

I believe Wilfred Owen would share our contempt, our revulsion, our nausea and our shame at both the language and the actions of the American and British governments.

Adapted by Harold Pinter from a speech he delivered on winning the Wilfred Owen Award earlier this year

Sunday, 9 October 2005

學術殘酷一叮

咱神學院招聘「應用神學及基督教倫理學教授」,接替過檔普林斯頓神學探究中心的Prof. Will Storrar。遴選進入決賽階段了,日前三位最後入圍的候選人前來試講,老師們和研究生又聚頭試聽。

能夠入圍的,在行內都算是有名譽有地位之人,院長介紹其中兩人出場時,我心裡都暗叫:「噢,是他!」今番登上擂台,參與「學術殘酷一叮」,真不知感受如何。三人之中,C先生目前是美國某大學的神學與倫理教授,近年出版了幾本關於三位一體神論的重要著作。另外R先生是奧地利某大學神學系的倫理學教授,以德語世界為主要地盤,我悖,對他一點認識都沒有。還有W小姐則現任英格蘭某大學的宗教系主任,近年一直從社會科學角度研究不列顛基督教的衰落。

愛丁堡要請一個神學與倫理教授,茲事體大,也許在不列顛神學界還算是一件不太小的小事。當天除了神學院各範的掌門人齊集之外,遴選委員會還包羅了一些其他大學的重量級倫理學者坐鎮。當日坐在我隔鄰再隔鄰的,原來正是牛津專程來的Oliver O’Donovan。(話時話,此君廿年前出版的Resurrection and the Moral Order思路密集而艱深,我當年完全不知所云,兩年前還是讀到叫救命,當時幸得專攻倫理學博士的美國同學Kevin安慰我說:不用自卑嘛很多神學家其實都搞不通他的意思啦。)

臨場所見,C先生精力充沛講課如急口令,講近年基督教倫理研究的三大轉向,一副宏觀格局,又嘗試從神學世界鑽進流行文化,但被敝校某教授批評為把種族問題輕輕帶過,我擔心他神學夠勁但應用爭D

R先生則過份拘緊,講家庭倫理卻聲稱自己在那方面未做過深入研究,對本身講題週邊的問題未見深入反省,表現出來的神學思維略嫌簡單,可能是備課不足累事,我擔心他跟學生搭不上線。

W小姐以自己的長期大型研究為基礎,重新界定世俗化的來龍去脈,從實地觀察提煉出宏觀理論,可惜被盤問神學反省時卻東拉西扯說不出個硬道理來,我擔心她應用一流但神學在此不夠班。

最後誰人跑出?我等研究生人微言輕,不方便查探,靜待將來公佈結果好了。

Sunday, 2 October 2005

A Sudden Touch of Biblical Studies

好久沒有碰嚴肅的聖經研究了。

剛過去那個星期,一連四天聽了咱學院的Croall Lectures,仍感刺激。Croall Lectures是由1876年開始,由敝校定期舉辦的其中一項主打盛事,主講的學者往往訂下deceptively simple的題目,驟眼看還以為是大學一年級的入門課,實質上卻往往乘機投下驚人炸彈,深入邊僻,分分鐘炸開神學或聖經研究的新路向。

今回合Croall Lectures請來牛津大學舊約學者John Barton主講,以《聖經考證的本質》(The Nature of Biblical Criticism)為總題,溫文雅爾地講出火爆震撼的內容,穿梭二千多年的詮釋歷史,多處與多位當代重量級學者力拼,像要為這門學問重訂疆界似的。

第一講:『聖經考證是甚麼』。針對很多人把聖經考證等同「歷史考證法」(historical critical method),Barton卻強調,聖經考證一直所關心的,是「文學」的問題多於「歷史」的問題(literary concerns rather than historical concerns),跟找尋歷史真相其實沒甚關係。

第二講:『聖經平白的意思』(plain sense)。聖經考證本質上是一門界定語意的功夫(a semantic enterprise),目的是要進入聖經的plain sense,那不同於「作者原意」,「歷史上的意思」,或者「字面上的意思」。聖經學者經常強調的exegesiseisegesis的分野根本意義不大;釋經者應該像個導遊,帶讀者進入文本,而非單單把文本的意思「發現」出來。

第 三講:『聖經考證的來源』。聖經考證的根源,一般人以為是啟蒙運動(理性抬頭否定超自然神話),有人追索至宗教改革(人人可以讀聖經不再受教廷管轄),有 人更追索至文藝復興(以文學藝術角度讀聖經取代宗教信仰角度)。但其實最早期的基督教會已經有人做類似的考證功夫,聖經考證並非現代 / 近代才有的。

第四講:『聖經考證與宗教信念』。解釋聖經並非宗教信徒的專利,因為真理和聖經文本是來者不拒的(open to all), 堅持基於某種認信立場來讀聖經(無論那是甚麼立場),反而無法認識真相。詮釋者必須尊重文本,讓它自己解答自己的問題,然後才再解答詮釋者心目中的問題。 這份對文本的絕對尊重,讓經文自己說話,本身便是一份宗教情操。研究聖經之所以是一種宗教活動,並不因為聖經跟某些宗教的緊密關係,而是當人抱著尊重文本 的宗教情操來研讀的時候,這個行動便成為一種宗教行為了。

「尊重文本是一種深度的宗教情操,所以用這樣的態度研究聖經便是宗教行為,也是表達了宗教信念。」這樣的說法,好像有點過了頭吧?

最後一講時,坐在我旁邊的Dwight是搞印度電影的神學研究的。完場之際他馬上按著我的手,問:「你覺不覺得他講的那套跟『宗教與電影』近年的討論很相似?」

「覺。」我直接了當。

「他讀聖經跟LydenFilm as Religion2003看電影的態度差不多一樣但那是電影不是聖經嘛。」Dwight很困惑。

MarshCinema and Sentiment2004都是類似立場啦,他說看電影是一門神學活動呀。」我和應。

「不同,Marsh不至於把任何事物看成宗教呀。」Dwight說。「Lyden把宗教看成文化,文化又是宗教,咁講法同印度教泛神論差不多咋。」

「這點我從Lyden倒看不出來。」我抓頭。

「他沒直接這麼說,但他令我有這樣的理解。那麼宗教的位置在哪?神學的位置在哪?」他解釋。

「正是嘛。我這幾天剛好在看一本Converging on Culture,編輯把神學界定為宗教研究的一門分支,宗教研究又是文化分析的分支,你話係咪大鑊?」

「正是。文化現象大晒,文化裡面任何事物都可以有宗教成分,果然很有印度教味道。」

兩個傻佬愈講愈多野,直到校工阿Ron叔叔叫鎖門,才各自乘風歸去,唯恐神樓玉宇,高處不勝寒。

愛丁堡大學神學院「掌門人」Ron Servitor
【picture taken from Divinity School website, used without permission】

【按:很多華人基督徒一直把Biblical criticism翻譯為「聖經批判」,認真害人不淺,
因為英文
criticism本來沒有價值判斷,中文「批判」就一定是負面的,況且Biblical criticism
其實基本上並不含「批判」意味。發明此稱呼的人有四個可能:
1. Biblical criticism不甚
了了;
2. 英文水平或中文水平或中英文水平有限; 3. 居心叵測; 4. all of the above。愚見認
為比較恰當的叫法,應該是「聖經考釋」或「聖經考證」。】

Sunday, 18 September 2005

又到中秋,又一個學年開始


九月中,愛丁堡天氣還暖,遊客浪潮還未過去,大學的新生又湧來了。

一個不留神,原來我即將要開始第三個學年了。整個夏天沒戴手錶,時間依然走得這樣快,令人心寒。

早幾天,咱神學院舉行一年一度的開課前演講,由剛升任個人教席教授的林主榮博士發表就職演說:『最重大的文獻發現:恰如其分看死海古卷』(The Greatest Manuscript DiscoveryThe Dead Sea Scrolls in Context)。我大大話話縱橫愛丁堡兩年,都從未見過如此場面 老師們在外面還沒列好隊進場,整個講堂已經滿瀉,地上門外都滿了人,真不知是林老師個朵夠響,還是個題目夠衡。

死海古卷是教考古學者和《達文西密碼》讀者都引發無限想像的東西。林教授的演講很簡單,只是連串的小趣聞小故事小發現,但因他是世界上極少數真正跟死海古卷埋身肉搏的專家之一,親身對著古卷殘片逐塊考證逐字推敲翻譯,娓娓道來就別有味道。最過癮的莫過於他展示了一段1954年刊於《紐約時報》的分類小廣告 「現有四個泥瓶出售,內藏公元前二百年經卷,給宗教團體或神學院的送禮佳品,價錢面議」。咁都得。

林教授強調,死海古卷的確是二十世紀最重大的文獻發現,但絕非流行媒體所吹的,埋藏了甚麼驚人陰謀秘密,足以改寫基督宗教的早期歷史。它的重大之處,在於填 補了希伯來(舊約)聖經一千年來一直存在的一些字裡行間的空檔,給一些本來無厘頭尾的故事帶來新的閱讀角度,讓人更明白上帝的啟示。

翌日的開課聖餐崇拜就人少得多,同一個講堂小貓幾十隻,認真羞家,跟我初來時那次的座無虛席人頭湧湧,對比強烈。接著的免費午餐,人又好像多番D。看來基督的聖體寶血,吸引力比不上任食任飲的三文治咖啡奶茶,更遠不及死海旁邊的一堆殘卷。


論收穫,當然是那幾天神學圖書館的剩餘舊書大平賣了。有些同學如入寶山,一箱一箱抬走,我只撿了幾本特別的。除了一本叫《
Identity》的神學小書跟當前思考路向有點關係之外,其他都是收藏價值多於一切,包括五十年代聯合國秘書長韓瑪紹的信仰札記《Markings》【此書中譯本叫《痕》,印象中好像是尊敬的蘇恩佩女士翻譯的】,WGKummel四十年前的殿堂級經典《Introduction to the New Testament》,還有一本1887年版,紀念維多利亞女皇登基五十週年而出版的大部頭聖經,娃哈哈!總消費三鎊半,死未!

是夜中秋,外國月亮特別圓。我準備炒一「大」碟西芹蝦仁大宴自己。噢,唔記得買酒 沒關係,今早在教會聖餐喝了一大口,到時反芻就可以了。乾!