928四周年,两部关于伞运的纪录片在港首映,一部昨日介绍的英国导演Matthew Torne 《分域大道》;另一部则是香港八十后导演廖韬的《扯旗、我要真普选和⋯⋯》(Like an abortion, for the very first time,后称《扯旗》),这部作品令她待机四年,如今才敢捡拾勇气,在香港街头举办“928放映行动”,以放映游击重返“扩增”(Augmented)现场,她称此举动为“左胶自救”,让微光透现黑夜底层令人不堪的旺角“博奕”。——作者
没有星级角色与跨国团队,只有一个人,情况恰如廖韬于2015年香港独立电影节“雨伞特辑”放映的短片名字《手持摄影机的人》。如今的作品《扯旗》,由初版3小时删剪为1.5小时,影像中没有“洁癖”金钟可向世界展示的有序公民村,只有旺角底层的暗黑失焦;没有杜浩纶的迷人航拍,只有近距离放大、让人看得极度不舒服的粗糙质感;也没有媒体必需的冲突对峙镜头,只有语焉不详的“胶著”——某程度上,这正正折射了香港伞后的状态。
这些2014年拍下的100多个小时录像与录音片段,廖韬直至去年才敢重新面对。她由头到尾翻看,真正要处理的并非是如何剪辑电脑输出,倒是如何“处理”自己的伞运记忆,以及“创伤后遗症”。而如今,再带著《扯旗》重回“扩增”现场,在街头放映,公开面对自己和大家,需要更多的勇气,片名中的“⋯⋯”,征示后遗治愈尚未完成?
廖韬:生于云南昆明。四岁跟随家人移居香港,自小在九龙上学和生活。2012年毕业于北京电影学院文学系。主修电影编剧,却热衷于纪录片,拍摄正在进行中⋯⋯
没有被看见的创伤
“一路下来太多创伤,而且是没有被看见的创伤,很多人可能都有相同感受。我之前还是一直在等人救,等待获得支持或别人的帮助,却令自己更绝望。搞这个‘928放映行动’首先是自救吧,不想再无力下去。至少起动了这个行动后,我不用再与抑郁碰面。对自己负责的话,所谓的(后遗)障碍,也可能是自己退缩、自己固执。片名中的‘⋯⋯’,有充满可能性的意思。电影第一节叫〈扯旗〉;第二节叫〈我要真普选〉;用〈⋯⋯〉代表第三节“旺角,再见旺角”(True Mongkok Story),也有不说出来但其实这才是我最想说的意思。因为这个删节号,我给电影改了一个暱称叫‘六点’。”
2015香港独立电影节播放的五部雨伞短片,竟然全是女导演。其中廖韬的7分半钟短片,纪录旺角某个深夜最后防线,手摄小小摄录机的她,被警察截停辱骂,感觉受到伤害,嗔恨心起。伞后抑郁,来自“流产”之痛,怀胎79天,共同体孕育“香港未来”却被打个血泪流满面。《扯旗》英文片名中的“abortion”,可会指向“革命流产了”,又或企图把“伞后抑郁”打掉(堕胎)?是逼不得已,还是自主动作?
“一路下来太多创伤,而且是没有被看见的创伤,很多人可能都有相同感受。我之前还是一直在等人救,等待获得支持或别人的帮助,却令自己更绝望。”
“Like an abortion, for the very first time,灵感来自Madonna〈Like a virgin〉。占领清场后我第一次大笑,是2016年看《BJ单身日记》(Bridget Jones’s Baby)第三集〈生得啦BABY〉。一开场 BJ 独自在家过圣诞high爆唱歌‘有饮酒,无食药’,〈Like a virgin〉是在看那一幕时入脑。那集讲BJ怀孕了的故事。我想到这个英文名时,征询一些朋友意见,其中一位回话 ‘for the very first time’,令人觉得‘⋯⋯ 有可能会再发生’的意思。所有在生命中发生的事情,都是要自己负责的。个人来说,2014年‘流产’的原因,一直觉得当时未ready(准备好)。自己未ready改变发生,未ready承担,未ready真正的抗争。”影片《扯旗》开场,主角“师父”和街头相识的十来岁“徒弟仔”,在“金钟最后夜晚”帮忙挂起“We will be back”的黄色大横额。
四年前928,廖韬晚上七、八点出门去金钟前,先向应学联物资呼吁,到超市买了十枝白醋(据说可减轻中了摧泪弹的痛楚),直至半夜,她首尝催泪弹滋味。 “那夜在街头,是我有生以来感受到香港能量最好的时刻。那夜,街上的香港市民,真是心无畏惧的人。”至今还没智能手机的她,2012年从北京电影学院文学系研究生毕业回港后,基本上经常数码相机随身。但在占领现场,拍摄“作品”不是她的初衷。“从一开始,我还是觉得,拍摄妨碍抗争。但我后来才明白,自己应该拍摄,应该说故事,更应该好好说故事,这才是在这处境该做的。”
“左胶”不堪自白
既是同吃摧泪弹的抗争者,也是手持摄影机的人,两者是否应该保持清醒距离担当不同任务?在整场运动中,每位参与者/纪录者在地拍摄的,只能是历史事件的局部/close up,美好丑恶如何取舍?在前前后后话说有百万人参与擦身而过,在外国人不认识的普通人当中,对焦镜头下的,只因萍水相逢的缘份?
“看见师父和徒弟仔在搭帐篷,让我停下脚步,开始停不下来的拍,原因还真是很‘左胶’ ――他们在劳动啊,是为人民服务啊。如果没有遇到他们和他们的一众朋友,我想我仍然会是一个‘左胶’。他们让我改变的原因是,我看见了他们的位置,‘过去左胶的我’其实与他们在不同位置,那位置是心理上自认的社会性位置。因为拍摄而看见,因为看见而改变,那改变是我接纳了那个不堪的位置――底层。”
“我不是一个去帮助底层的左胶,我本身就是一个资源贫乏的底层。我的抗争底线比你低的话,是因为我比你更一无所有。历史上抗争的能量,大都是来自底层。我不想做一个为底层发声的左胶,我要诚实地用自己的话语去说话。但很长一段时间我忘记了一样重要的事情:无论我觉得自己在什么位置,我一旦决定做作品的话,我首先是一个storyteller,我有责任让说出的话语有效。我要好好说出那重要的历史,就是有一班活得不堪的人,透过旺角占领了的空间才有的机会,为香港付出过很多心力。”
“我不是一个去帮助底层的左胶,我本身就是一个资源贫乏的底层。我的抗争底线比你低的话,是因为我比你更一无所有。”
“‘不堪’和‘付出’在这个关于旺角的故事,是同样重要的。让‘不堪’被看见,‘不堪’就会在观众的意识中‘扩增’(谢谢你这个词汇)。‘不堪’让人不舒适,我不和观众客气,也不诉苦(呈现阶级弱势),这是现在的我和‘左胶’的分别。还有一点是很实在的,‘左胶’会对‘不堪’有种刻意的仰视, 底层却会为‘不堪’感到尴尬。如果我不感到尴尬,那我心理上已不在底层的位置,或者我已经没有了阶级的概念。”
廖韬的“不堪”底层故事,呈现凝滞夜空某时某刻、某种拉拉扯扯状态,无需知道偶遇街头你我他她者的身世。这个故事去到后来,观众才知道,师父原来是“专业赌徒”,拿政府综援那天,就是他过大海去澳门的大日子。3小时长版,主要是剪掉师父谈命数、“理性分析”赌博心态。
以赌博作《扯旗》的结尾其实很有意思,换个角度对应这场运动,特别是置于旺角场域,非常贴地。革命博奕论(Game Theory),重本落注,尽地一铺,即使血本无归,气数已尽⋯⋯“每说到数字占卜和赌博,我就会想起师父。我到现在还会思考赌博究竟是什么回事?‘心存侥幸’是我看《旧中国三教九流》一书中对赌徒的形容。但最近我又想到新定义,就是在未知之数中作出选择,那就是需要勇气的,没有什么结果是不好。但世界上有没赌徒能‘绰绰有余’——即是无论结果输赢都知道‘没什么不好’?‘绰绰有余’是新渡户稻造在《武士道》对‘勇气’的注解所提到,说的是‘毫无顾虑、杂念,还有可容纳更多东西余地的心胸。’”
“我没有和任何人团结些什么,放映行动就是在自转来制造力量,驱动能量上扬。透过行动为自己付出,为自己负责,也让大家看见另一种话语的抗争。”
从2014年跳接到2016大年初一,伞创后遗并发“旺角黑夜”,在《扯旗》“We’ll be back”的镜头中,运输工人青年罗浩彦问徒弟仔“有什么需要帮忙”,而后来的罗浩彦竟因“手持玻璃樽破坏社会安宁”被判入狱三年。去年农历新年的朗豪坊夜市,廖韬还看见正在排期上庭的罗浩彦,协助救援流浪猫狗的组织卖热汤筹款。
自“旺角黑夜”以后,game theory已失效,因双方对峙势力一面倒,摆在面前的是死局。但作为“伞后遗民” 更需要练习“绰绰有余”的勇气。928重返街头角落,跟互不相识的“创伤者”问好:“在有需要时互相帮助就足够美好。我没有和任何人团结些什么,放映行动就是在自转来制造力量,驱动能量上扬。透过行动为自己付出,为自己负责,也让大家看见另一种话语的抗争。自己放自己的电影,也确保在旋转的,是‘行动’,不是‘底层’。”
我倒是觉得这种支离破碎的叙述方式很香港
On another note, I think John Nash must be spinning in his grave upon learning that his game theory is being misrepresented by an Initium article as “重本落注,盡地一鋪,即使血本無歸,氣數已盡”. That is so embarrassing as I know in fact educated Hongkongers do know what Game Theory means. The article didn’t even include an indication that the journalist/ interviewee simply meant it as a metaphor in the context of their chat about what might be termed “revolution game theory”. To simply translate 革命博奕論 as (Game Theory)without the key adjective “revolution” in front, and without so much as a pair of quotation marks to indicate its specific usage by the interviewee / journalist, and simply put it in brackets as if the article is really talking about Nash’s equilibrium, is really too much! Where is the editor on this piece? (The journalist may be too inexperienced about how to cite / translate concepts but the editor should have known better).
Ummm… where are those 6 points of self-salvation promised in the subject line? Such a clickbaity headline needs to deliver on its promise…
Like a commenter below, I agree that this piece could have been put together better, but I would elaborate on the reasons why rather than just ask the editor to dismiss a journalist who clearly has his/her heart in the right place. The piece is confusing to read as I kept wondering who is the “sifu” mentioned throughout by the interviewee? What is his/her background and roles when it came to the Umbrella Revolution? More could be added to explain who this person is and their political orientations so readers could better appreciate the influence this person has over the interviewee and why she believes they are true working class heroes compared to herself, who apparently also hails from the grassroots. The interviewer’s background could be better explained at the outset, rather than as a brief legend to a photo, and should ideally include some description of why she had chosen to return to her motherland for her degree and how she still retained her preference for a democratic Hong-Kong. The way it is written I could not make head nor tail of the relations between the interviewee and her cited mentors and how they might have influenced her political beliefs and her perspectives on both recording and then reviewing the photographic materials she has collected on the Umbrella revolution.
Another quibble with this piece is that the journalist never questioned the interviewee as to what she meant by 左膠, even though that concept is key to her self-conception and to her editing stance when it comes to her film. To a progressive Western outsider looking in, the derogatory term 左膠 is a most un-examined epithet in contemporary Hongkong culture that is used as a catch-all insult to anyone to the left of Donald Trump. Such an epithet might have been originally applied to criticise unreconstructed CCP-adherents and apologists, but it has been hijacked by the far right in Hong Kong to denote any belief associated with universal human rights values and the pan-democrats who is tarred with the same brush as the CCP supporters simply because they held on to their preference for peaceful protest as the mechanism for change. There is a whole load of contrasting and contradictory ideologies being lumped together with the 左膠 label, yet this piece reads as if everyone understood the term the way the interviewee herself has interpreted it, without in any way illuminating what is it she actually meant by the term in regard to her own beliefs and aspirations/motivations when she joined in the Umbrella protests.
Despite the above quibbles, it is heartening to know that someone has taken care to record over 100 hours of video footage of the 79 days of self-directed peaceful protests and including the often overlooked events in Mongkok. I am grateful to Liu for her dedication and wonder if her film could be viewed online.
真的不要这个Lo再写了 写了几篇都写不好……
这预告片拍的不知道是个什么东西