Loading...

资料库

时代讲场文章(至2017年2月14日)

《挪亚方舟》的三个文化启示

《挪亚方舟惊世启示》已近落画,坊间此起彼落的评论亦相继减少,此刻来作一个小结语,可能是个好时机。这篇文章的目的,不旨在为基督教争取媒体地盘,又不是眼红某人而在电影中处处挑骨头,只希望基督教文化工作者、观众和非信徒来一次互动沟通,建立更中肯的评论平台。

  先申报个人利益,我是影音制作人、电影研究硕士及福音派基督徒,将以这三个综合身分分析此片。

制作素质低

  近年的基督教影音,确实有不少进步,单看影音使团的作品,如《生命(手查)fit人》、《天作之盒》等,都得到观众支持及口碑。不过,此片开宗明义宣称是纪录片,就叫人失望。

  纪录片的质素是包括资料搜集、铺排手法、後期制作等元素,而体现这些质素的就是制作人员。首先,他们准备不足。何解?片中监制亲口说因土耳其政府的限制,只准两位香港人上山,他就决定和李牧师同行。即是说,那土耳其摄影师是在没有导演的指示下,自己想拍甚麽就拍甚麽。在基督教圈子中,大家都知道袁监制从来没有担任过导演,即或说他天资聪敏,也不是个资深的纪录片导演,竟然将重任交给一位库尔德族的伊斯兰信徒,就是忽略了导演的重要性。其次,从片中也看到制作的粗劣,例如:片中字幕不时重叠在被访者的样貌、字幕时高时低、拍摄日本教授时对焦不准、讲述洪水遗迹重覆三次,都令人感到此片的制作水平只属一般。

  有人指出此片是《寻找他乡的故事》之资深制作人的作品,若平心而论,真的令人失望。《寻》片连夺多次最高欣赏指数大奖,核心是体材独特,表达手法清晰有趣,深入探讨中国人的异地情。反观《挪》片,本来是顺时序地纪录影音使团如何从二○○○年开始追寻方舟遗迹,但一而再,再而三跳返几千年讲述洪水历史,或找寻方舟的外国人事迹,令人失去观看焦点;直到片子的中後段,观众才能安静地追看最後一次上山旅程,真的有点叫人摸不着头脑。

  还有一点,监制曾於二○○三年踏足土耳其,二○○四年得到可靠消息,方舟遗迹可能在几千米的亚拉腊山上,我们在片中却见到一位中年监制,登上四千米时气喘如牛,差不多要死。若果是经验及确信方舟在山上,早就应该预备身体作高山之行,反而眼看当地人步履如飞,他却是像游客般骑马来回,不禁令一般观众觉得他们像是旅行多於探险。因着这数点,今次监制和导演的表现是较从前的作品强差人意了。

  不过,片中担任剪接工作的应记一功。只要观众细心留意,不难发现不少镜头是重覆使用,如亚拉腊山的正面影像、上山人群平淡的行山情况,都是因为剪接师利用快速镜头或偷格技巧,令画面不至太沉闷;补充一句,画面单调是导演和摄影师的责任,後期补救是剪接师的功劳。其次,配乐为全片生色不少,又是令观众不致中途离场的主因。

宣传策略佳

  今个复活节《挪》片票房报捷,吸引了不少信徒及朋友家人购票入座,不就是行动证明一切吗?上帝的作为有时并不因为人的因素,祢是独行奇事的神。作为媒体工作者,我们感恩之馀,还有责任以冷静的态度和批评的眼光,审视这个现象。城中着名影评人曾指出,《挪》片只拍摄到一个山洞就能叫座,唯一合理解释可能是宗教力量了。他说对了一半。

  从影片资料所知,《挪》片拍摄到那个山洞是去年十月的事,後来他们再去土耳其、日本、埃及补拍其他方舟学者是今年二月的事,之後就全速做後期制作,目标是要复活节上映。为甚麽?撇开圣灵感动这主观因素外,很明显是宣传策略的考虑。

  第一,《挪》片要抢先宣布影音使团是首个华人团体找到方舟的位置,可在电影宣传上吃个甜头。我们可以从影片中,多次听到有人强调这是「首次」、「第一次」、「历史性的」等等字眼,要向世人宣称发现方舟的第一队华人是他们。为甚麽第一次那麽重要?难道第二次就不会世界末日?反而,若有别一套关於方舟的电影抢在《挪》片以先上画,《挪》片的票房肯定大受打击。所以,有影评曾说为甚麽不多作研究及科学探索,发现了更清晰的方舟外壳才上映不是更有说服力吗?可惜,影评只关心影片的质素,没有巿场触角,要找到真凭实据可能还要花上几年甚至十年时间,万一土耳其政府向美国人开放登山权,以影音使团的财力物力必然吃亏,这个「第一次」宣传效力立时消声匿迹。

  第二,香港刚饱受了SARS灾难、目睹九一一事件,物理及心灵上都可能沾染到末世的警号,《挪》片正好赶上这个末世浪潮,为巿民及信徒提供一个圣经解释,加上经济渐有起色,大家有点閒钱可找套「正经电影」来看。这个时机确是千载难逢,甚至一去不返。所以,今次《挪》片的宣传是全方位性的,有海报、电视广告、小说、光碟,一涌而上,制造一个城中话题,只要关心未来或末世的人是不能不看的。

  作为传媒人,大家应向此片的宣传学习,我不是说风凉话,这是衷心赞赏。

观众评价力高

  《挪》片在基督教讨论区中,确实引起不少争论,有人强调此片是香港人的骄傲,有人指它是垃圾,更有人推演到信心的问题,这里不能一一讨论。但还可以粗略分为三种论调,有趣的是,其实他们都是有根有据,而且言之成理。

  第一类是信心派。只要你是基督徒,只要你有信心,就应该相信《挪》片所拍摄到的就是方舟。信心,就是要在未看到证据之先便相信,不然信心有何作用。这类信心派观众,他们一定是基督徒,对自己的信仰立场非常清楚。即使有没有看此片,也绝不会影响他们的信仰观。他们对神很有信心。

  不过,和他们唱反调的正好是第二类观众,他们多是非信徒,或者是希望以科学为基础的基督徒。这班观众认为《挪》片以纪录片作招徕,那一定是可拿出真凭实据,才敢宣称方舟重现人间。他们一直期望到片末,希望看到几千米山峰之巅起码有一片大木块,或制作人员走进一个有木结构的偌大山洞,来证明这是方舟。结果失望而回,当然气愤之极!他们以事实为依据来评价此片,是《挪》片这部纪录片一手一脚制造出来的评价准则,所以这批观众是有水准之入场人士。这两类观众之争,其实是立论不同,不必争吵!归根究柢,是拍摄此片的基督徒表达能力低,和制作能力差同义。

  至於第三类,是基督徒影评人。他们多是知识分子,大专或以上程度,希望透过客观评论来叫人深入了解此片内容。我没有通看所有评论,部分人以考古学或其他研究角度为基础指出此片的不足,可以一读。但另有一批影评人却是叫人担心,他们的出发点是要读者从分析中接受《挪》片是好片。这是评论的大忌,忌在先入为主,希望读者认同基督教影片有上乘之作,叫人另眼相看。结果,我们看到有评论夸说此片能成功展示方舟所在地,此片是华人的骄傲等。若果他们是真心的评论,那麽他们对基督教影片的要求未免过低,容易让这班电影制作人以为自己的制作已经很有水准,将来就难有进步。而且,这班影评人多是未能以片中的影像或资料作基础,详尽分析其利弊,只是印象式的说条理分明、考究严谨。就我的浅见,已经发现片中从来不敢直说洪水是同时间发生,只能说世界各地都有洪水,因前些日子电视台曾播放外国纪录片研究洪水,指出确有洪水,却不是同时期,而且规模不像圣经所说的大。我并不是同意它,只是说一个严谨的纪录片,必须力陈原因,扫除误解,而不是避重就轻,为自己制造有利条件。所以,评论者要中肯严肃小心地处理当中理据,不能因为是传福音而降低评价水平。

结语

  以上简短检视了《挪》片的前後期制作,发现其制作水平不及宣传策略好;可幸,成功吸引了不少观众进场,这是件好事。不过,从网上讨论及部分的观众反应又揭示了某程度的不良後果,纵然有不少人因此片信主,但亦有不少人对福音机构所制作的纪录片失去信心。若借用商业机构的述语「信誉撇账」,今次影音使团可能一次过把多年建立的信誉全部撇账,令部分观众从此对该机构的作品望而却步,他们可能要重新评价得失。

Donationcall

舊回應73則


張國棟 / 2005-05-17 00:16:26

更正


更正:


原來談有關明光社的,是海尼夫而不是井夫,由於我第一次貼這回應時搞錯了地方,不能核實那番話,所以把兩位「夫」混亂了,請海尼夫和井夫原諒。

S + S / 2005-05-16 22:45:15

一個感動和建議


先謝銀狐, 很快回覆了我。


我週末較忙, 個性也比較慢熱, 反應也沒各位那麼敏捷, 所以到如今才再回應。


首先, 我對影音的貢獻有所肯定, 但也對它的財政交代和一些宣傳語句曾直接表達過意見。這是我的一些背景。


我有個感動, 想大家可以逐一清晰地陳明和探討對影音的批評。看完張國棟弟兄的文章, 我具體地建議如下:


1. 請銀狐兄或諸君先清晰扼要地列出不多於7點對影音的批評, 最強烈程度者先排。( 目的是讓瀏覽論壇者可清楚掌握批評者的論點或焦點, 能精簡地附上理據更好。)


2. 本人的立場是開放中立的,  期望能營造一個平和、可以對談的氣氛, 藉以促進正反意見的交流。我相信影音或其支持者在這氣氛下是樂於發表意見的。


3. 我更期望透過這樣的對談方式, 大家都能「鐵磨鐵, 磨出刃來。」對事情的洞察力和判斷力有所增進。


求神使用和祝福大家的


S + S


p.s. 若沒有人同感一靈或甚至覺得不適切, 就當我表達了對各位的欣賞和祝福吧。

張國棟 / 2005-05-16 13:23:19

一點回應


各位好,看了很久,想插一插咀。我也覺得影音這篇文章很過份,正是我很討厭的那種扮講道理但卻玩弄文字沒有誠意溝通的花招。(若有人質疑我這講法,我可以按此文做一些分析,但這些花多多時間在這裡證明少少講法的事,我越來越不想做了。)尤其討厭的是執筆者挑剔銀狐不出真實姓名,但自己卻也不過是躲在「影音使團」幾個字裡面。公平和有膽量的做法是,「影音使團,xx代筆」。所以我以一個出示真姓名的方式在這裡貼這留言,表示不滿。


如果你們覺得我是基督徒學者,你們可以把我算是一位支持大家多點質疑影音的學者,不用講到好像很孤單似的。求真是應該的,並且基督徒要以真理宣示世人,不應誇張作大;信仰和理性也不可隨便地分割的;即使要運用商業手法和宣傳技巧,也絕不可誇張或失實。


至於教牧領袖或神學院領袖,我想飲者是對的,我之前的文章也暗示過類似的講法,他們圈子窄,有很多千絲萬縷的關係,即使不贊成,十個有九個都不會出聲的。如果胡牧師的文章用意之一是要批評影音的話,我覺得那已是做得最「盡」的了,難道會有領袖們聯合起來施壓麼?(我不贊成井夫說,明光社不回應這類問題是恰當的,我認為這只不過是他們在批判傳媒時的舉手之勞,但我同情他們作為基督教機構之一是有很多顧忌的。抱歉突然不能尋回井夫原文,未能核實那番說話。我越來越跟不上這裡的貼文了,也無心機這樣跟下去。)影音此文其中一個不君子之處,正正就是抓著這要害來「搏」大家不敢公開公然出示真實姓名在基督教小圈子裡鬧翻。


我認為寫文章在時代論壇發表和搞網頁比較可行。我對出版界也有點認識,可以告訴各位,基於上段的理由,我很懷疑會不會有基督教出版社願意幫你們出書。若用其他出版社,雖可達到出版的目的,但發行網絡卻不會接觸到很多基督徒。再者,出版書籍很受地域影響,香港的書,在台灣和北美其實流通不多。相比之下,時代論壇和網頁是最好表達和散播意見的途徑了,也是比較節省時間和人力的。


最後,至於我會否執筆,暫時是不會的(但不排除這可能性),因為我的自我學術要求是說話十分準確,所以可能要花很多時間親自去看很多資料,但卻學業繁重,不能抽身。請諒。然而,我可以offer看看一些大家想發表的文章,盡量免得有漏洞被對方抓著來放大,蒙混讀者的視線。我會建議那些文章儘量簡潔,正中要害,若真的要長篇大論,也必須有一個很好的撮要和列出要點。


各位對教會和真理的關注和執著,十分值得欣賞,只要小心不流於情緒化,實事求事地據理力爭,結果怎樣,交託掌管著教會的上帝就是了。


 

Hin / 2005-05-15 19:54:53

Find a publisher


I think it is a good idea to publish a few of the articles that we contributed in the past weeks.


It is a good way to keep a record of a piece of history, eventhough not a good one.


In the Bible, there are examples of bad and good; both have their contribution to our Christian growth.  In the same way, there are good and bad ministries, they can both contribute to our Christian ministry.


If such a book will be out, we need a publisher, can someone find one? Secondly, I think we should have someone to write an article regarding how to use such a book and what we can learn from this in our ministry. I don't want this book to be a book of criticisms only but a book of building up others.  The example of David's sin is bad but can help others to stay away from sin and to repent of one's sin.  The example of the Israelites are bad as 400,000 died in the wilderness but it can be a very useful lesson for all of us to stay away from disobience and to learn to trust in God.


It might be good to find a few respectable pastors and Christian leaders to write book reviews and even contribute to the book.


I don't want to make things too complicated, it is better to have a job 80% done in the right time than to have a 100% job never done at all.


We need quick decision and quick action.

銀狐 / 2005-05-14 23:26:06

回飲者


一日文化人,一世文化人,死就死吧,反正有好多野,佢地明便明,不明便算了。


可否給晚輩一個電郵?有點問題想討教


謝謝


silverfoxhk@gmail.com

以利達 / 2005-05-14 23:23:55

回飲者: 是的


是的, 要增加影響力,大家做的blog 是不錯的。但"印刷版"更有影響力。


如果大家有點資本,只要將海君、虞姊妹的和銀狐君等人十多篇較有份量的文章結集成書,自資出一版。送給各大宗派教會,也就可以增加大家的影響力。


 


========================


我的日記:


http://www.armbell.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143&mforum=liberalhk&sid=91f34ea3eaea71d822f5c1c479d5ec74


 

飲者 / 2005-05-14 19:33:34

sorry, typo error in my last message

I meant:
If you criticise negatively, people tend to think that you do it out of jealousy or even want to make the other organisation look BAD. (I typed BACK in my last post.)

飲者 / 2005-05-14 19:05:51

To Cindy & all

Do you know why so many people whom you expect to speak are silent?
Hin is right. In usual practice, it is not good to comment on the work & practice of another organisation. People would be suspicious of those comments. If you say positive things, they tend to think 'you guys are connected in some way' or 'of course you support one another because you are in the same field & have similar interest(利益not興趣)'. If you criticise negatively, people tend to think that you do it out of jealousy or even want to make the other organisation look back; there's going to be a lot of backfire, with people talking behind your back. Consipracy theory is popular in Chinese church circles. Cindy, you've been a church minister, you know these politics very clearly.
I am qute sure that if I am still working in the Christian media field in Hong Kong, it is much harder for me to say anything in cases like this one. It is only now that I consider myself away from the field, I can declare no conflict of interest, that I can say anything. But still, I need to think very carefully of what to say & what not to. And still, I won't be too surprised if some people who know who I am would start thinking that I am speaking with vested interest. Yet, in any case, I don't want to stay anonymous; anyone who recognise my 'professional nickname' knows who I am.

Also, more importantly, DO NOT EXPECT many Christian leaders, pastors, scholars to be reading the comments / discussions from you guys here. If you want to make a real impact on things, on a wider scope, you have to put it (at least) on the PRINTED EDITION of the Christian Times -- that's what they would at least take a glance regularly.
Do you see that when ME responses, it is published on the print edition? They never get into these nitty gritty online discussion, cos it's not the way to go when you want to reach the opinion leaders in church circle.

Hin / 2005-05-14 18:42:09

To Cindy: They have their difficulties


I have talked to four Christian organizations' leaders, they all against ME but they said that since they are in the same field, if they say anything to criticize them, people will say that they are being jealousy, it is better for those who won't have any conflict of interest to express themselves.


If we really want to stop this, we must hit where the pain is, we must let those related people to see these comments. We can't assume that those 20+ people who commended the movie know our comments and concerns. I talked to one of them and I will talk to a couple more later.  At least, I know that they are not saying anymore after the movie is shown and that is at least a good sign. But, I regret to see 蘇穎智 being used by them on a couple topics, one is about the theme park and the other is about the movie, it is not wise at all for him to say anything at this time but he did!

以利達 / 2005-05-14 12:03:50

回cindy 姊:是的


影音行"市場導向",猜估平信徒想要d 咩野看來無可厚非。作為平信徒,我們也要反思自身有沒有一種"有神蹟就信啦~" o既心態。還是我們在家庭,朋友和工作崗位上已能散發基督的香氣呢?


平信徒一般較被動,也沒有持有神學學位,所以理所當然是看教牧/基督教學者這類權威介紹而作決定。


在這此事件上,那十多位在影音網站信誓旦旦實牙實齒說了"已證實了,已找到了"那一類說話的學者/名牧,如果你們還是堅持你們所說的,就要出來回應一下,挽回自己的學術誠信和道德威望。


相反可笑/可喜的是:在過去一個多月,這個討論區卻有一班做實事講理性的弟兄姊妹,佢地出文冇名(多不用真名)冇利(冇稿費)更冇權(大多是平信徒),為的只是希望找到真相。


這一點,要感謝神。

cindy / 2005-05-14 09:28:06

為什麼只有飲者一位行家肯出來說話?並談對影音回應之感受


為什麼只有飲者一位行家肯出來說話?為什麼除了胡志偉牧師之外,沒有牧者出來說話?


是不是教會和其他基督教影視機構、行家都認同影音手法?以致嘆地說,Maybe they are right.


教會需要什麼東西,教牧需要什麼東西,信徒需要什麼東西,影音能給他們。他們得到所要得的,總叫福音傳開了﹗信徒心情興奮了(發現方舟證明所信是真)﹗教會多了一個有噱頭的節目了﹗


影音使團只是教會的反照。而影音使團的回應,讓教會看了,覺得委屈了那一群熱心傳福音的弟兄。那是教會的做事和思想方法。影音使團只是一面鏡子。

飲者 / 2005-05-14 02:19:00

夫復何言?(對影音使團回應批評的感受)

夫復何言?

我本來從沒有期望影音使團在這事情上會有甚麼回應,也從沒期望會有甚麼改變。(是的,我很悲觀。)再加上我沒有看過《方舟》一片,更加覺得沒有發言權。因此一直都是旁觀各位的發言,只在「首部華人製作的大型紀錄片式電影」和「打破票房紀錄」兩個問題上忍不了口,插過兩趟嘴,正一下視聽。(那兩個問題可能比較次要,但事實清楚明確,無須等待科學考證,而且是本人專長範圍。)

但是看到影音使團這樣正式公開地回應,也就帶著期望地細心讀,總希望讀到convincing arguments呀。但讀下去,只能說是奇文共賞,嘆為觀止,真佩服銀狐和海尼夫還有Hin等各位還有如此耐性,逐點談論。

我對影音使團這篇回應只有一個overall comment:捨本逐末,抓著批評者的枝節來狂打,卻沒有處理人家提出的問題。講得白一點,是遊花園。

原來我先前的「沒有期望」是對的,雖然自己心裡戚戚然。

銀狐 / 2005-05-14 00:27:36
S + S / 2005-05-14 00:03:15

請問銀狐: 可否提供影音回應(你)的文章? (我找不著。)


我觀看討論多日, 這是第一次回應, 期望諸君多多指教, 也祈盼主內各位能在此「鐵磨鐵, 磨出刃來。」


May God bless us.

海尼夫 / 2005-05-13 21:37:16

回銀狐


不用客氣,我看了影音的回應,思潮起伏,有如昔日聽那牧師的十大難題講座之感。怱怱寫了回應,錯字多多,連你的筆名都寫錯了。抱歉。

銀狐 / 2005-05-13 21:27:39

影音回應了筆者


看看新的一期時代論壇,影音使團實在勇氣可嘉。


我暫時都無話可以說,不過仍有一則留言,大家不妨一看!另外,海尼夫的回應幫了筆者很大的幫,在此致謝!

Hin / 2005-05-13 18:04:03

To Cindy: if that is how they think, so what?


I can't solve the conflicts in the middle east but I can stop myself fighting against my neighbours.  I can't slow down the global warming that is happening but I can stop myself throwing garbarge onto the streets. I can even help some people around me to do the same.


God never asked us to do the impossible but God will expect us to do what we should and what we can.


I will never give up the effort to say what I believe is true and right. It is disappointing sometimes, but I am honor that I am doing what I am doing, saying what I am saying.  Don't be discouraged.


Up to now, all those people that I shared came to the conclusion that there are major problems with ME except one. This pastor tried to defend for ME but later he admitted that he need to look at the movie before he will say anymore for ME. When I shared with people, I always mentioned more than the movie so that they can see the bigger picture and they did.  It is like presenting the truth to others, we must tried to present the whole truth and not just part of the truth.  People can't feel the importance if they only see the tip of the iceberg.


What is evangelism? What is the Gospel? That is a good question raised by Silver Fox. The post modern world has no absolute but relative standards but this can't apply to the truth of the Bible.


I still remember the songs that I sang many years ago "It only takes a spark" and "Keep the fire burning".  Let's continue in what we should and what we can.

G Lui / 2005-05-13 16:51:54

Where are the academics?


I am sure it is a great disappointment to those Christians who embrace science as part of our triune God’s creativity in His creation of mankind that the Hong Kong Christian public has not heard the opinions of local Christian academics concerning the Noah movie as presented by ME.


 


The issue here is that Christians have moral duty to keep our Christian faith immune from the curse of ignorance and superstition.  (Even local Form 6 or 7 students can discredit the numerous errors in that movie by browsing on the internet for scientific opinions on this well-researched-long-abandoned make-believe tale.)


 


God can always turn something bad into good, as He did so many times in human history; as He did for Peter, but only after Peter had the courage to face his sin of openly denying Christ during His trial.


God can do the same for ME but it seems this time ME needs some outside pressure before it will reconsider its many misleading, anti-scientific assumptions in the movie.


 


Let’s us not just shout aloud with evangelical slogans like “Pray and pray, and let us believe anything can happen with God” even when that anything is anti-intellect and anti-science.


 We do not need to sell Christianity like bleaching facial creams with their never-before breakthro. exaggerations and lies.  Christ's message and power to renew life is our message.


 


Academics who teach Christianity and modernity in local seminaries should reflect their social and educational role to the community at large.  Are they happy that their professional contribution is merely confined to a classroom setting?  Or can they have a greater functional role in gate-keeping our Christian faith from naivety and falsehood?

銀狐 / 2005-05-13 14:59:01

回Cindy

我再請問你,福音是什麼?

車朗生 / 2005-05-13 14:06:13

這樣才要停止


由於影音的問題實在太多, 所以才要停止他們進行更多的破壞. 希望現在澳洲與加拿大的朋友能在他們海外佈道時, 能在會場上質問影音種種的問題 !


至於由安吉所造的網站, 請大家多多利用, 使更多教牧和基督徒知道方舟電影與影音的問題 !