98114207 政三B 王鼎和
我原本在看這部影片時以為導演應是將其影片分為三部分，一是教授和學生的談話、二是議員和記者的談話，三是兩兄弟在戰場的"談話"，但仔細一看則不然，實際上應該只有分為兩個部分，即前述之"一"和"二"，而他們共同討論的正是第三部分，相信觀眾常常只看到前兩部分的精彩辯論和有關觀點卻始終忽略掉了實際的第三部分，我認為這是導演刻意設計的"陷阱"。
在解答這是甚麼陷阱前我先討論一下所謂的兩大部分，首先，他們有兩個共通點，那就是都在密閉空間內由具有軍方色彩的高知識分子 (教授是越戰軍人&大學教授、議員是軍校出生&哈佛大學) 邀請有關人士進行一對一談話，而這些被邀請的人都自詡為"正義之士" (學生以態度表達對國家決策的不滿、記者則自認有義務要揭發戰爭真相)。
現在讓我們討論一下邀請方和被邀請方的態度和問題，首先是教授和議員，他們的態度十分有趣，因為他們的態度其實是"非戰"，言下之意就是他們其實也不想打仗，只是因為國家發生了緊急危難所以不得不選擇這條路，可是我們在片中可以毫無疑問的看到議員是為戰爭做辯護，而教授在與那兩兄弟吃飯時的態度其實某種程度上是"默認"了這樣的事實 (或可以稱為消極的辯護)，回到記者和學生，這些"正義之士"以自身角度來質疑國家的戰爭政策看似理所當然，並將邀請方視為是政府的政策宣傳工具，但事實上邀請方提出了一個嚴峻的問題給他們，他們認為其實這兩位正義之士並非正義，甚至是政府的打手 (議員暗示記者的報導加深了美國的戰爭氣氛、教授用"至少可以做甚麼"來暗示學生的默認政府決策)，教授甚至引用了兩兄弟的上台報告內容來鼓勵學生說其實你也可以做甚麼來改變國家，相同的是，議員也是用了"那些特戰部隊"來告訴記者說這些人對國家的貢獻並且要求記者將他們的作戰報導出來，而兩兄弟正是在議員所說的單位裡服役。
我總結一下結論，兩位被邀請方也就是學生和記者，一開始利用自身的資源或知識或身分來反對戰爭政策，不料卻被邀請方反駁甚至表示其實對方根本也是政府的另類走狗，並且表示他們應該利用自身的資源或知識或身分來對國家有所"貢獻"(這樣宣揚為國貢獻的人在古希臘似乎可以被稱為"正義人士")，而這正是學生和記者反對戰爭的利器，也許有些人會將教授和議員看成是戰爭政策的宣傳者，但我認為他們其實只不過是一種"管道"，是由"某些人"傳達資訊給政府高層作決策的一種象徵，而這"某些人"正是以片中的記者和學生當作象徵。
通常人們在這部片的焦點不外乎就是以上兩大現場的激烈對話，並且人們都會傾向於將重點擺在雙邊的對話分析，但是真正打仗和戰死的是那兩位兄弟，事實上他們有可能是片中唯二死亡的角色，可是除了討論戰術錯誤和他們的"課堂報告"外我們很少去在意兩位兄弟的事情，所以我認為導演在片中的陷阱是這樣的，觀眾看完後對此片的分析就如同片中的學生、教授、議員、記者一樣都在對正義還是戰爭高談闊論，卻從來沒有在乎戰場上的事情，換句話來說，我們都是"正義人士"
2012年3月17日 星期六
2012年3月15日 星期四
戰爭是政治的延續嗎？
97115157社四A 高懿伶
本片（權力風暴，Lions for Lambs）實際描繪戰場的畫面甚少，但我認為戰爭是本片核心之一。戰爭，顯而易見的，由政治實體（國家）發動，在戰爭中所突顯的敵與友的畫分，同時也是政治性的來源。因此我想扣著戰爭淺談幾個問題（我想若深入，寫成一篇essay都不是問題，所以盡量簡短的將我的問題意識呈現出來，如此而已）：
國際關係的特質在於軍事力量的正當性，然而正當性的解釋權通常被國家所壟斷，使每場戰爭都是以正義為名（國家將正義等同於正當），但正義的定義本身就相當可議。根據文本，蘇格拉底反駁了「正義＝強者利益」的看法，我覺得這裡是可以被討論的，因為正義的「應然」與「實然」不能相提並論，作為德性的正義我在此不討論，但是我認為現今實際被操作的正義，就是強者（強國）的利益，既然是利益－－那就是可理性計算的，也因此，片中議員或許才會有「不計任何代價」一說。
（二）是「誰」的戰爭，與政治人物的角色
Z.Bauman順著P.Bourdieu的結論分析：「動盪不定的局勢是建立全球上位權力的主要障礙，也是進行社會控制的主要技巧」這個見解或許拿來套用在本片中亦是正確的。A.Gramsci則指出大國之所以為大的原因在於能對國際情勢做出有效的「干預」以得利，這也正是美國現今的縮影。所以，究竟是誰的戰爭？以正義為名的戰爭只是表面，在其中，國家獲得了一個權力佈署的機會，而政治人物，由於現實主義的考量，他們現在僅關心「是甚麼」、「獲益多寡」，而非「應該是甚麼」，這也是我們上學期課堂曾提過的古典／現代政治哲學的斷裂。我想，這個斷裂在本片中國會議員的形象上應該獲得了初淺的呈現──他儼然成為國家的戰爭推銷員、化妝師，不問為何而戰、應該如何。或許，再也無法精確的說出是「誰」的戰爭，因為主導戰爭的背後只是一團模糊的、無面孔的權力欲望者以及既得利益者。
（三）文明化中的戰爭，與其形象包裝
文明化的社會從來不等同於「乾淨」的社會。戰爭始終是一個要角，從未被排除。國家所扮演的角色是「壟斷暴力使用權」以及「把接近暴力的機會重新分配」，暴力不再是求生自保的本能，而是一種以國家為名的部署技術（軍事）。在這樣的社會中，戰爭不能以血淋淋的方式出現，因此它需要「修飾」（推銷其正當性），這或許就是本片中國會議員特邀記者來報導的原因（密室推銷）──他們需要對媒體議題建構，再由媒體對民眾進行議程設定，進而得到民意支持，然而這過程卻都是自我指涉的同義反覆，與衍生的英雄形象的展演。
2012年3月14日 星期三
Gain or Loss
98121314 Hannah Ho
Gain or loss is probably the first consideration when one comes to a turning point where he needs to make an important decision. The road not taken will make totally different results. In a capitalistic and utilitarian modern society, people seem to choose the one that will profit themselves both in reputation and estate. However, for Li Huiren (李惠仁）, a documentary worker and citizen journalist, to have a clear conscience is his criterion.
2008, Li made the most important decision in his life, that is, to make the documentary The Secret That Cannot be Poked (不能戳的秘密). He had already resigned a high-paying job in TV station years ago and was living in a lower standard material life, so that he could concentrated on tracing the prevalence of Avian influenza in southern Taiwan. Moreover, he risked himself and his family, for he was threaten not to make it. Despite many losses in life and long-term frustrations from authorities, he got many helps from professionals and encouragements from like-minded people. When asked why he persisted in working hard to reveal the truth that was deliberately obscured by the health authorities, he said: “ to have a clear conscience, most of all, to leave my children courage to challenge the authorities and pursue the truth.” Unquestionably, Li gained what he wanted when the health authorities declared on March 3, 2012, that the first case of highly pathogenic H5N2 Avian influenza virus (首例H5N2高病原性禽流感病毒）occurred. There had been 737 days since the first official document that recored the possible situation.
On the other hand, many officials of the Council of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection and Quarantine Bureau are under investigation for concealing the epidemic now. The secretary of the bureau had resigned subsequently. These officials must have faced the dilemma as Li had during 737 days. Some of them might struggle to tell the truth, but some to hide it. The diverse criteria for considering gain or loss in making decision resulted in a non-noble lie. This non-noble lie has brought a lose-lose to both the government and people. These officials gained nothing but lost everything: their statuses, reputation, and most of all, their conscience. Their children would surely be ashamed of these parents.
Lie has been proved to be a noble person, and this is his greatest gain. If he happened to say a lie, that would be a noble lie. People may still believe him. However, those officials have been proved to be non-noble persons, and that is their greatest loss. People may distrust them when they are telling the truth. From this contrast, it does offer us a lesson of gain or loss.
Whatever It Takes
98121314 Hannah Ho
“Whatever it takes” is a key clause of the 2007 movie Lions for Lambs. The Republican Senate told the journalist that US government would launch a new attack in Afghanistan to get an important highland to win the war. As the proverb says: “There's no such a thing as free lunch.” So, the question is how much will US pay for the lunch? The answer of the Senate is “Whatever it takes.”
March 11, 2012, an armed American soldier left his combat outpost, heading for two villages in the Panjwai district of Afghanistan's Kandahar Province and shooting 16 civilians to death, including nine children and three women. The massacre shocked the world. The Taliban called for retribution in the form of killings and beheadings, and people of Afghanistan are furious at American forces.
US responded immediately, trying to alleviate the impact on the relationship with Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta talked about the massacre at March 12: “War is hell. This kind of events and accidents are gonna to take place. They’re taking place in any war. The terrible events...this is not the first build of the events, and probably will not be the last,” adding “I do not believe there is any reason to change our strategy at this time.”
From the above three passages, I got a conclusion that Panetta sounds like the Republican Senate in Lions for Lambs. That is, he agrees that whatever it takes, to see the mission through is the must to achieve. According to Panetta, “The latest horror in Afghanistan--the shooting deaths of 16 innocent Afghan civilians, mostly children, allegedly by a rogue U.S. soldier” is nothing but an event that takes place in any war. We do see the events in Mel Gibson’s 2007 Apocalypto. The movie begins with the quote of Will Durant, an American historian and philosopher, “A great civilization is not conquered from without, until it has destroyed itself from within.” This quote is also a portrait of the fall of Athen. Does Panetta’s taking this kind of events for granted signify any further destruction?
Another point deserved discussion is that US officials declared that the massacre was an independent accident which was work of a rogue solider with not confirmed motive. There exists many questions. For instance, how comes no one is aware of this rogue guy? What’s wrong with the monitoring system of soldier’s mental health? There must have been some clues revealing his tendency of behavior deviation. Therefore, the massacre is definitely not an independent event. Instead, this event is the tip of the iceberg. There are many questionable issues beneath.
The Senate is a fiction character, while Penetta is Secretary of Defense of the superpower US. If Penetta and all politicians could not learn from fiction, table-top exercises, or history, a determination of “Whatever it takes” would not guarantee a fruitful result.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)