蝇王1963

重新看了63版，伟大的电影。第二次看，觉得63版的重点是人类社会发展简史，跟90版稍不同，我觉得90版是讲人性本恶。这样比较起来，可能心里还是喜欢90版更多一些。不过63版在IMDB分比90高得多，黑白电影就是更有气质一点儿，原著深不可测，真是有利于不同导演的各自发挥啊。

人之性恶
[蝇王]Lord of the Flies
出品：英国 导演：彼得·布鲁克Peter Brook 年代：1963 文：西帕克
       孟子曾经说过，“人之向善”如同“水之就下”，仿佛刚出生的婴儿便注定是天真无邪，毫无危害。不过对此，荀子则有一句“人之性恶，其善者伪也”一语捅破了那层伪善的窗户纸。虽然我们不愿意承认，但不管是从现实，还是内心的潜意识，似乎驱动我们的都是原始的兽性欲望。如果把荀子的话翻译成佛洛依德语境，便相当于，被口腹之欲，生存本能和最早的性冲动，操控的我们，其实才是真正的本我，是最靠近潜意识冰山底部所在。随着我们长大，为了融入社会，才慢慢构筑起了自我和超我的防线，变成了善良守法的良民。不过，一旦秩序的窗户纸被捅破，那人类又将面对如何的命运呢？在彼得·布鲁克的名作[蝇王]中，导演给了我们一个极端的答案，失控与杀戮，即使在未成年的少年身上，也已存在。“我希望如果真的有一群孩子，面对如此情况，会有别的结果”布鲁克如是说，但无论如何，[蝇王]给了我们，一种最接近真实的可能。
       [蝇王]改编自英国作家威廉·戈尔丁的诺贝尔得奖小说，长久以来一直有着广泛影响，虽然包裹着儿童文学的外衣，却蕴含着关于社会以及人性的深邃思考。虽然在中国，它并不像《动物农庄》或者《一九八四》那般知名，但在西方文学界，它却有着更佳的名声。恐怖之王斯蒂芬·金也曾表示，如果要他给孩子推荐一本反复阅读的书的话，那就只有《蝇王》了。
       小说和电影，分享了相同的框架。在第三次世界大战爆发后，一群孩子坐上飞机逃离被核弹摧毁的英国，飞机在一座小岛上坠毁，而这群孩子也必须在岛上建立自己的社会。起初，这里是文明秩序的，人人有分工，人人都能发言，人人都有肉吃。但很快，一切都被打破，对权力和食物的渴求，让这群孩子开始分崩离析。
       理性却懦弱的男主角拉尔夫，是全片的中心人物，整部电影从他的视角和道德观出发，演绎了社会坍塌的全过程。拉尔夫和猪仔努力维护的火种，正是文明的最终象征，他靠着知识分子的眼镜点燃，却永远得不到强权者的维护。在他们看来知识和艺术仅仅是工具，杀戮和欲望才是人们的终极目的。最终猪仔被一群孩子集体杀害，兽性的杰克成为了岛的主人。孩子们用自己的行动，再现了他们逃离的人类社会，一次次摧毁自己的全过程。
       “蝇王”这个名字，出自希伯来语，在《圣经》被认为是污秽和粪便的象征。在电影中，它则是祭祀“野兽”爬满苍蝇的猪头。正因为对这一终极邪恶的崇拜和害怕，人们才终于失去了理智。但这样的野兽，却是徒有其表的（电影中，它被比喻成飞行员的尸体），揭开它的表皮便会发现“纸老虎”的真谛。可惜的是，大众是愚昧的，他们无法承认最简单的真理。而知道真相的孩子要么是被当做“野兽”误杀（象征劳动者的西蒙），要么被当成“野兽”追杀（象征政治改革者的拉尔夫）。其实，真相才是统治者最害怕的武器。
       威廉·戈尔丁在小说中有过这样总结，“恶之出于人，犹如蜜之出于蜂！”。确实，这种失序，从文明建立的最开始，便以埋下了种子。看似公平的拉尔夫，实际上却只是拥有海螺，便有了所谓的终极话语权。掌握武力的杰克，也不曾受制与任何人。在此时的社会，特权已然诞生，正是为了追求，这“平等”中的“更平等”，才最终导致了天平两端的失衡。
       最后提一点，是小说中有，而电影中无的。可怕的“蝇王”曾在幻象中与单纯的西蒙对话“我在警告你，我可要发火了。你难道不知道？没人需要你。知道吗？我们将要在这个岛上玩乐。懂吗？我们将要在这个岛上寻找快乐！不要再做尝试了，我可怜的、误入歧途的孩子，不然我们就会要你的小命。明白吗？杰克、罗杰、莫里斯、罗伯特、比尔、猪崽子，还有拉尔夫他们都要你的命。懂吗？”寓言了这个戈尔丁移情最多者的命运。无论政客和军人们如何争斗，第一个被开刀的，永远最天真无辜的普通人。

（原载于《看电影》天地街66号）

电影故事情节并不复杂，刚开始会以为是一部野外求生的片子，结果却是揭露了人性恶的片子。在后面Jack党们展现恶越来越肆无忌惮，我心里也充满了悲哀。面对野生危险环境，我们如果能够添加一份理智与机智，故事或许就不会这样发展。电影通过小孩子的天真来反映成人世界的恶，正因为小孩子不知道如何伪装这种恶，所以才更赤裸裸将之表现出来。
在我看来，如果最后的军队没有出现，拉夫的结局也逃不开死。单枪匹马，踌躇不定的双胞胎也已经被Jack识破。再加上他不屑使用计谋，不愿伤人，不愿加入Jack行列，独自一人，又没有火和其他工具，即使Jack不杀，他也很难生存下去。
人性的恶如果只单单靠民主理性这样的字眼来约束大概是很难的，不然现代社会的秩序也不会出现法律，道德是锦上添花的作用。法律才是真正起作用的。所以如果拉夫能够利用这一点，情况会好很多。
刚开始的时候拉夫受到同伴的支持，做了团队的领导者。与之能匹敌的就是Jack，如果我是拉夫，我首先就是要的到Jack百分百的支持。Jack和其中几个男孩比较身强体壮，这时就可以把队伍划分为猎人组，后勤组，看火组等等，甚至可以让猎人组作为军队惩罚的作用。但同时为了抗衡猎人组的威力，拉夫可以加强大家回家的信念，展现自己之前在野生训练营训练过的优势，必要时也可以“制造”一些机会让团队更加信任自己，从而得到大家的肯定。
人性有美有恶，最重要的是如何引导。如果有更多方法及计谋，悲剧发生的机会会更小。

Staring at the ending credits of the movie Lord of the Flies, I truly wished that I had never seen it. It was definitely not one of my favorite, but once watched, it became almost impossible for me to forget about it. The uncomfortable feeling it induced was so strange and complex that it was difficult to say what disturbed me indeed. Even after reading the official interpretations about original evil, the uncomfortable feeling was still there, for although I was totally convinced by the views of the literary experts, I had a feeling that there was something else.
Then what is it that disturbed me so much? Simply speaking, it is a question unanswered: Why Jack? Why did the children choose Jack instead of Ralph? You may explain it by elaborating on the evil tendency of the human soul, but besides it there must be something else that attracted the children who, although have not yet formed proper judgment between good and evil, have the natural ability to tell what they prefer. In a word, there must be something at which Jack was right while Ralph was wrong.
But what was it? At the beginning of the novel, when the two kids first met, Ralph was the more popular one: he was more handsome, a little bit bigger in size, and most importantly, he had the conch, the symbol of democratic power. His initial advantage against Jack was obvious, but Jack gradually took over. How? It is noticeable that Jack was a person with a strong desire to control, starting from the way he led the choir: even on a deserted island did he try to keep order and maintain control. After failing to become leader of the crowd, he quickly found himself a place as chief of the hunting team. As Ralph had noticed, Jack had “the voice of one who knew his own mind.” How about Ralph? According to Piggy, Ralph was “sensible”. What he wanted was to go back to the civilized society, but he put his only hope of rescue, the fire, under the control of Jack ("Ralph, I'll split up the choir--my hunters, that is--into groups, and we'll be responsible for keeping the fire going--"). Even after Jack’s negligence lost them a precious chance to be rescued, he still relied on Jack for the maintenance of the fire.
At first, Jack was all alone, for leisure was much more attractive for the boys than the fruitless effort of hunting. But Jack was determined “‘I went on,’ said Jack. ‘I let them go. I had to go on. I— ’”. He was driven by a desire to kill, though there was no need of it since they had enough fruit to eat. Why did he found himself so tiring a job as hunting when he could have been enjoying the sunshine and water as everybody else? He was definitely not just looking for something to do, but was again seeking control: the control of pigs, the control of food, the control of the hunting team, the control of the stone fortress, and most importantly, the control of life. While Ralph, after finishing the construction of the huts on the beach, what he did was mostly waiting: waiting for some passing ships or planes to take them home. He did call a number of meetings, but most of the meetings were fruitless for they could not reach a conclusion. Being a leader, Ralph always failed to keep his ground. He was furious at Jack’s negligence of the fire, but when Jack offered him the meat, he eagerly accepted. He was aware of the aggressiveness of Jack and the antagonism between him and Piggy, but was never determined to settle it, never determined to take sides. At last, he even forgot that he was the leader and had to be reminded by Piggy to regain his self-image.
The biggest difference between Jack and Ralph was their attitude towards life. For Ralph, he considered life as something that he himself as a child could not master, so he put the hope on others: on Jack who kept the fire, on the unknown adults who might come and take them home, thus losing control of his own life, putting his fate at the mercy of others. But Jack was quite different, he took the responsibility to hunt, to gather a group, to paint, to sing, to build a fortress all on himself, although he didn’t even have to. Instead of returning to the existing civilization, he was the one who tried to rebuild the civilization, though primitive, on his own.
During the process of gaining control, Jack revived the underlying evil force in his soul, which was true beyond denial. But the sense of “control”, once used on someone other than God, is always related to evil and sin. Think about Lucifer the seraphim who refused to bow before Adam. Once violating God’s will and seeking control of his own, the previous Angel of Light became Satan. But according to Paradise Lost by Milton, the wish to make his own judgment, to be his own savior, to look at the world with independent eye was so strong that Lucifer would rather sacrifice the heaven for it.
So was Adam who abandoned Eden for the forbidden fruit. Instead of obeying God, he chose the advice of Lucifer, just like the children who chose Jack instead of Ralph. It is rather interesting to notice that the forbidden fruit was the fruit on the tree of knowledge. It seemed that even ancient man had realized that knowledge is a dangerous thing: there is some knowledge that should never be obtained. It might not be a mere coincidence that the background of the novel Lord of the Flies was the third world war, a war triggered by nuclear weapon, the superlative development of human knowledge.
The writer seemed to imply that man is doomed to be destroyed: even the kids are taking the same route as their elders, gaining too much control on something that they are unable to rein. If this desire of power, of knowledge, of controlling one’s own fate is an inborn birthmark of human nature, then ever since Lucifer rebelled, since Adam went out of Eden, man is destined to die. But since it is a destiny of our own choice, not only of the children in the novel, not only of modern man, but of Adam and of Lucifer who could have enjoyed the heavenly peace so much desired, there might be something right about it that we could not yet understand.