菜園村演義

都愛說「人生如戲」。網上《重編國語辭典修訂本》這樣解釋﹕

人的一生如同一齣戲,其中的情節變化常出人意料。如:「人生如戲,要用心扮演好自己的角色。」

其實,戲是狀寫人生的。只因個人的人生經歷往往有限,戲會將很多人很多事都集中起來,或在一齣戲一部小說甚或一套電影中演義出來。或許這就是「戲」之每每「不簡單」而「情節變化常出人意料」。

說複雜說常出人意枓,真實人生其實更甚。遠的不說,就拿一直在「演」的菜園村事件來說,就教人目不暇給,甚而眼花繚亂。

說實話,我對這件事沒有由頭到尾細看,很多細節都不知道。但近期似乎已近「劇終」,卻原來「戲肉」才開始,跟著相信還會「高潮迭起」。不多說,只就兩個「情節」來略談,就知道不是一齣簡單的「戲」了。

一個「拉扯推撞」動作,由「畫面」所看,就有不同的解讀「版本」,給人不同的「想像空間」。一個「普通」的工人,原來毫不簡單。不管是否柔道高手,看似只是一般的動作,可能是一招柔道「浮腰」。信不信,都是一個「出人意料」的「情節」。

另一個是號稱香港中文報章「公信力第一」的《明報》,2011年1月25日寫了一篇〈菜園村很特殊,但不應享有特權〉社評,卻給質疑沒有核實各種資料,以致立論有偏頗。可以參考這個。還有這篇

或許劇中一個關鍵人物朱凱迪接受電台訪問的回應,對於了解一些「劇情」發展的來龍去脈,不無幫助。這些都是公開可以聽到看到的。文字紀錄可以看看這個

這個屬於「個人」的看法,也值得參考。不止一篇的,有興趣可以「追看」這部分的演繹。

是,我頭腦實在太簡單,實在想不出這些繁複多變的「情節」來。這中間,有說成是「善惡」「忠奸」等等的對比,簡單地說,就是人性的表現。為理想為生計為前程為主子為別人,千「為」萬「為」,各有「目的」或「目標」。

都是真的啊,都在太陽下鏡頭下「表現」出來的,中間有說都是「真」的,也有說在「演戲」。誰是真誰最真,誰在演誰演得最好,要搞清楚,以我這個「天際鈍胎」來說,一時或永遠都不可能。

唉,我還想寫小說,放在目前的東西尚且看不清參不透,如何能想到更令人意想不到的情節或人生意義來呢。罷罷罷。死心好了。

廣告

8 thoughts on “菜園村演義

  1. 最「恐怖的戲」是能令觀眾把它看作一部「英雄片」,再令觀眾誤信自己變成編劇組。類似文革時代的紅衞兵和IIWW Young Turk 慢慢喪失理智,妖魔化持相反的觀點的人…

    理解自己的角色限制是看得清參得透的一種。你此刻比許多人清醒了。

    人生「高潮迭起」的情節,有興趣留心,不到處多的是?
    你努力寫小說,catcat 想讀。

  2. catcat﹕

    短篇寫過了,沒有特定的題材。本來打算寫一部長篇的,一直都在「打算」的階段。可能最後也只能是「打算」。

    寫小說時不會悶的。只是我寫得悶而已。

    謝謝您的支持。

  3. I feel rather sad that you chose to see the whole thing as little more than a melodrama. There are actual lives at risk (and I’m referring not to the young protesters but to the actual inhabitants themselves). There are always elements of vainglory attached to any sort of civic protest, and as I don’t live in HK, maybe there are certain individuals who want to focus only on the heroism (faked or otherwise) of the protests but not the actual issue under dispute.

    I only understand the facts being that land were forcefully cleared without prior agreement by the inhabitants who OWNED the land, nor were they properly compensated for the land that they were forced to give up. Of course, there are compulsory purchase orders too in the UK, but there is always the principle of a fair price.

    Whether you think Chu was being heroic or not in that little incident of push and shove, is really not that important — in fact, it’s probably become a side-show that distracts rather than focus the public’s attention on the real issue at hand. But thinking that you could care less about the actual issue because it’s all turned into a mere soap opera by mainstream and independent media, that is rather sad.

    With respect,

    Snowdrops

  4. Snowdrops﹕

    我其實是說現實心戲更多變,更出人意表。這中間透露了很多人性的面向。連傳媒也有點像「群魔亂舞」。我設想如果我身在其中,大概會不知如何處理。

    我是唏噓的。大概是我寫得不夠清晰吧。

  5. (transposed to here from my other comment, hope you don’t mind)

    荒言: Thanks so much for kindly responding to my last over-long comment. If you could indulge me in sharing a few more thoughts on this incident…

    I guess what I was trying to get at is that one should not merely stop at the level of the media spectacle that’s been generated over the protest and ignoring the real issue at hand. Both you and I agree (I think) that various media outlets – both mainstream and independent – have quite different agenda in their reportage and which leads to quite different interpretations of what happened in terms of the protest itself. To me that was a mere media spectacle that obscures the real issue under dispute, so that we are no longer debating the facts of the case as they pertain to whether or not an unwarranted land-grab had happened in Hong Kong. Instead, we’re being tempted to look instead at the characters of various “lead actors” involved rather than trying to see if indeed this transaction between seller and buyer has been conducted in an ethical and above-board manner.

    But perhaps I’m digressing… Anyway, there is a particular passage from Guy Debord’s “Society of the Spectacle” that I feel is particularly relevant here:

    “When the real world is transformed into mere images, mere images become real beings – dynamic figments that provide the direct motivations for a hypnotic behaviour… But the spectacle is not merely a matter of images, nor even of images plus sounds. It is whatever escapes people’s activity, whatever eludes their practical reconsideration and correction. It is the opposite of dialogue. Wherever *representation* becomes independent, the spectacle regenerates itself.”

    (And really sincere apologies again for hogging your comment space and I’m very sorry if I’ve misinterpreted your meanings).

  6. Snowdrops﹕

    我寫這篇其實是不想下定論。我只是慨嘆。

    整件事多少有點「羅生門」的味道。傳媒的報道有沒有遺漏、有沒有偏差,也可以看出各種傳媒的「能力」或「誠意」。

    幸好現在有互聯網,真想了解各方的表述,還是可以的,很多東西都基本上擺在陽光下,有疑問的,各方都可以提出來,讓人看到。作為旁觀者,怎樣看怎樣判斷,是各人的事。我只能說,很涼薄地說,幸好我沒牽涉其中,可以「理」可以不理,可以「站在高地」。

    是,這件事,我選擇「逃避」多於「介入」,所以我只能當成一齣戲來看,只好唏噓。

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

連結到 %s