| 摘要: | 本研究除了以傳統文本分析的方式，對<流離島影>中最具爭議性的三部影片，<南之島之男之島>，<03:04>，<噤聲三角>做美學上的討論之外，也特別針對導演與觀眾在影片放映後的座談，做長時間的觀察與紀錄。在與幾位導演的訪談中，我發現這群獨立製片導演，以高度自覺及誠實的態度，承認紀錄片的表演姿態，就如同他們在影片中所做的任何表演一般，絕對是有觀點、立場與意義的，有趣的是，如此對影像美學的追求，正好與2000年西方紀錄片理論，所謂Performative Documentary的創作類型接軌。 這群導演們在座談會中，藉由與觀眾的互動，將紀錄片的複雜多樣，慢慢經由彼此的辯論或質疑，重新定義。我發現這個企圖心旺盛的影像創作活動，不僅不將觀眾放在一個被動的位置，反而將放映活動與影片意義建構間的親密關係，清楚的拉上檯面，藉以重新提問，在繼台灣新電影，及以民眾紀錄片(People Documentary)為主的人文寫實主義風格之後，紀錄片的紀實風格，如何與自我的創作能量達到平衡? 而這群影像工作者，在同時受到人文寫實主義傳統的洗禮後，又如何能重新書寫他們與紀錄片創作的微妙關係，是我論文中另一個探討的重點。 本論文的第一章主要以台灣紀錄片的美學形式，追溯紀錄片在不同歷史階段的風格成型與意義，同時指出，<流離島影>在2000年出現的企圖，主要是以挑戰當前以訪問，議題導向的紀錄方式，進而重新詰問，思考，紀錄片這個電影類型，在認識論上與美學上的發展空間。 第二章則是分析三部影片在電影語言及創作形式突破。<南之島之男之島>中，作者李孟哲嘲弄宣傳片(propaganda)以聲音主導影像的權威敘事，而將影像以一種幽默的方式安排，逆轉影像與聲音的權力關係，他嘗試parody紀錄片的傳統，以挑戰紀錄片的類型與功能。如此對形式的自覺，也反映在<0304>這支影片中，導演黃庭輔放棄一切與被拍攝對象接觸的機會，嘗試以類似直接電影的客觀距離，捕捉鏡頭前的事件，這種作者心理層面真實的呈現，擺脫傳統功能式目的，以傳遞"有用"訊息才稱為"真實"的紀錄片內涵。<噤聲三角>在聲音的處理上，比前面兩部來得更極端與激烈，導演沈可尚藉由影片來思考島嶼的處境與拍攝者介入土地的過程，他以鏡頭語言，處理自己與被攝物間的辯證關係，並從配樂的樂器選擇及編曲，自覺地批判所有介入拍攝的行為。 第三章則分析幾場座談會的討論過程，及與作者訪問的訪談紀錄；製作人周美玲曾在一次座談會上，說明<流離島影>與台灣新電影之間的關係，她承認受過新電影洗禮的這群創作者們，並不想延續新電影背負反省歷史的使命。在本章的第二部分，我將指出，新電影充滿現實感的再現，決定了我們近十年來，對於人文寫實影像再現歷史的執著與觀點，<流離島影>的出現，實則為這個充滿同質美學觀與歷史觀的紀錄片場域，標示另一種符合新世代影像工作者的戰鬥位置。這個位置不僅反映在他們面對歷史素材時，誠實反省的態度，也體現在他們面對紀錄片製作與拍攝時，高度自覺於這個類型所帶來的侷限，藉以批判主流理性美學，所隱藏對"紀錄片反映真實"的錯誤假設及期待。他們突破了新電影導演們對歷史的人文觀點，而以接續新電影在美學實驗上的精神與企圖，例如，除了同樣對聲音與影像之間的辯證過程細心雕琢外，更進一步挑戰、質疑歷史型構的機制，以重塑台灣版圖的新樣貌。 然而，整個計劃所召喚出的地方影像，讓如此前衛的電影語言，事實上，卻是訴說著與新電影同樣歷史意識的國家寓言，只是這回，國家的概念很不清楚，很模糊，是一個不斷變動，不斷質疑歷史建構過程，並承認台灣影像再現的版圖，是必需透過影像、作者、觀者之間的互動辯證而型塑的。 There has been a consensus among local film critics that Taiwan's independent filmmakings, especially those of the documentary productions, flourish from the late 1980s or even earlier to the present. The reason for this current of documentary filmmaking is commonly attributed to the lift of the forty-year decree of martial law in 1987. The independent filmmakers, discouraged by the long-term ignorance of their works by the existing system, start to bypass the traditional routes of distribution and band together to screen and produce their own films. One of the examples is the project of Floating Islands. Floating Islands, Islands in Taiwan's Stream: Twelve Visions of Paradise Lost (流離島影), taken to be the largest plan of documentary filmmaking to be seen in Taiwan, has made itself a legend in Taiwan's film history up till today. My task here is to probe into a more sophisticated relationship between the director and the filmed subject in the aesthetic innovation alternatively made in the project of Floating Islands. How should these stylistic changes be conceived, as gradual or abrupt in Taiwanese documentary history? Did they evolve an alternative style which internally or temptingly struggles against the opposing tendencies? After acknowledging the aesthetic innovation made in this documentary project, I will further question how to detect the political connotation of this geographical re-mapping of these twelve isles. Based on these concerns, the objective of my task aims to examine the crisis of documentary representation in Taiwan. I shall illustrate the crisis by a critical reading of the aesthetic evolution of Taiwan's documentary of which the cinematic representation serves to mirror the social reality at various historical junctures. Hence, my argument involves questions of these canonized formations of documentary. I will also bring up the theoretical application of documentary practice in the west up to date especially focusing on the aesthetic theory in the 1990s. It is not my intention to "downplay" the theory of Taiwan's documentary since the theoretical advocacy in Taiwan's documentary remains underdeveloped. Meanwhile, the application of the western theories especially that of the notion of "performative documentary," which I will explain later, to Floating Islands indicates the concurrence of these two practices. I also want to emphasize the significance of the post-screening discussions held in the screening tour of Floating Islands. My observation shows that the dialogues between the directors and the audience in the discussions pinpoint the participant role of the audience who are invited to join the generation of the meaning of the film text. It is worth noting that these directors choose to perform themselves with the film text in the discussions with the audience. This interactive process helps to reconceptualize the discursive space of defining documentary. My argument is that the discursive strategies of Floating Islands, the directors' self-reflexive attitude toward the filmed referent and their joining the post-screening discussion with the audience complicate the relationship between the historical discourse and the real events. The shooting process of Floating Islands, therefore, should be taken into consideration to our discussion, and can be regarded as a counter-narrative of the national discourse against the tradition of humanistic realism inherited from the New Taiwan Cinema movement (台灣新電影運動) of the 1980s. |
