0:11
Evidence suggests that humans in all ages and from all cultures create their identity in some kind of narrative form. From mother to daughter, preacher to congregant, teacher to pupil, storyteller to audience. Whether in cave paintings or the latest uses of the Internet, human beings have always told their histories and truths through parable and fable. We are inveterate storytellers.
0:40
But where, in our increasingly secular and fragmented world, do we offer communality of experience, unmediated by our own furious consumerism? And what narrative, what history, what identity, what moral code are we imparting to our young?
1:02
Cinema is arguably the 20th century's most influential art form. Its artists told stories across national boundaries, in as many languages, genres and philosophies as one can imagine. Indeed, it is hard to find a subject that film has yet to tackle. During the last decade we've seen a vast integration of global media, now dominated by a culture of the Hollywood blockbuster. We are increasingly offered a diet in which sensation, not story, is king. What was common to us all 40 years ago -- the telling of stories between generations -- is now rarified. As a filmmaker, it worried me. As a human being, it puts the fear of God in me. What future could the young build with so little grasp of where they've come from and so few narratives of what's possible? The irony is palpable; technical access has never been greater, cultural access never weaker.
2:04
And so in 2006 we set up FILMCLUB, an organization that ran weekly film screenings in schools followed by discussions. If we could raid the annals of 100 years of film, maybe we could build a narrative that would deliver meaning to the fragmented and restless world of the young. Given the access to technology, even a school in a tiny rural hamlet could project a DVD onto a white board.
2:33
In the first nine months we ran 25 clubs across the U.K., with kids in age groups between five and 18 watching a film uninterrupted for 90 minutes. The films were curated and contextualized. But the choice was theirs, and our audience quickly grew to choose the richest and most varied diet that we could provide. The outcome, immediate. It was an education of the most profound and transformative kind. In groups as large as 150 and as small as three, these young people discovered new places, new thoughts, new perspectives. By the time the pilot had finished, we had the names of a thousand schools that wished to join.
3:20
The film that changed my life is a 1951 film by Vittorio De Sica, "Miracle in Milan." It's a remarkable comment on slums, poverty and aspiration. I had seen the film on the occasion of my father's 50th birthday. Technology then meant we had to hire a viewing cinema, find and pay for the print and the projectionist. But for my father, the emotional and artistic importance of De Sica's vision was so great that he chose to celebrate his half-century with his three teenage children and 30 of their friends, "In order," he said, "to pass the baton of concern and hope on to the next generation."
4:04
In the last shot of "Miracle in Milan," slum-dwellers float skyward on flying brooms. Sixty years after the film was made and 30 years after I first saw it, I see young faces tilt up in awe, their incredulity matching mine. And the speed with which they associate it with "Slumdog Millionaire" or the favelas in Rio speaks to the enduring nature.
4:29
In a FILMCLUB season about democracy and government, we screened "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Made in 1939, the film is older than most of our members' grandparents. Frank Capra's classic values independence and propriety. It shows how to do right, how to be heroically awkward. It is also an expression of faith in the political machine as a force of honor.
4:54
Shortly after "Mr. Smith" became a FILMCLUB classic, there was a week of all-night filibustering in the House of Lords. And it was with great delight that we found young people up and down the country explaining with authority what filibustering was and why the Lords might defy their bedtime on a point of principle. After all, Jimmy Stewart filibustered for two entire reels.
5:20
In choosing "Hotel Rwanda," they explored genocide of the most brutal kind. It provoked tears as well as incisive questions about unarmed peace-keeping forces and the double-dealing of a Western society that picks its moral fights with commodities in mind. And when "Schindler's List" demanded that they never forget, one child, full of the pain of consciousness, remarked, "We already forgot, otherwise how did 'Hotel Rwanda' happen?"
5:51
As they watch more films their lives got palpably richer. "Pickpocket" started a debate about criminality disenfranchisement. "To Sir, with Love" ignited its teen audience. They celebrated a change in attitude towards non-white Britons, but railed against our restless school system that does not value collective identity, unlike that offered by Sidney Poitier's careful tutelage.
6:21
By now, these thoughtful, opinionated, curious young people thought nothing of tackling films of all forms -- black and white, subtitled, documentary, non-narrative, fantasy -- and thought nothing of writing detailed reviews that competed to favor one film over another in passionate and increasingly sophisticated prose. Six thousand reviews each school week vying for the honor of being review of the week.
6:49
From 25 clubs, we became hundreds, then thousands, until we were nearly a quarter of a million kids in 7,000 clubs right across the country. And although the numbers were, and continue to be, extraordinary, what became more extraordinary was how the experience of critical and curious questioning translated into life. Some of our kids started talking with their parents, others with their teachers, or with their friends. And those without friends started making them.
7:21
The films provided communality across all manner of divide. And the stories they held provided a shared experience. "Persepolis" brought a daughter closer to her Iranian mother, and "Jaws" became the way in which one young boy was able to articulate the fear he'd experienced in flight from violence that killed first his father then his mother, the latter thrown overboard on a boat journey.
7:50
Who was right, who wrong? What would they do under the same conditions? Was the tale told well? Was there a hidden message? How has the world changed? How could it be different? A tsunami of questions flew out of the mouths of children who the world didn't think were interested. And they themselves had not known they cared. And as they wrote and debated, rather than seeing the films as artifacts, they began to see themselves.
8:20
I have an aunt who is a wonderful storyteller. In a moment she can invoke images of running barefoot on Table Mountain and playing cops and robbers. Quite recently she told me that in 1948, two of her sisters and my father traveled on a boat to Israel without my grandparents. When the sailors mutinied at sea in a demand for humane conditions, it was these teenagers that fed the crew. I was past 40 when my father died. He never mentioned that journey.
8:50
My mother's mother left Europe in a hurry without her husband, but with her three-year-old daughter and diamonds sewn into the hem of her skirt. After two years in hiding, my grandfather appeared in London. He was never right again. And his story was hushed as he assimilated.
9:12
My story started in England with a clean slate and the silence of immigrant parents. I had "Anne Frank," "The Great Escape," "Shoah," "Triumph of the Will." It was Leni Riefenstahl in her elegant Nazi propaganda who gave context to what the family had to endure. These films held what was too hurtful to say out loud, and they became more useful to me than the whispers of survivors and the occasional glimpse of a tattoo on a maiden aunt's wrist.
9:50
Purists may feel that fiction dissipates the quest of real human understanding, that film is too crude to tell a complex and detailed history, or that filmmakers always serve drama over truth. But within the reels lie purpose and meaning. As one 12-year-old said after watching "Wizard of Oz," "Every person should watch this, because unless you do you may not know that you too have a heart."
10:19
We honor reading, why not honor watching with the same passion? Consider "Citizen Kane" as valuable as Jane Austen. Agree that "Boyz n the Hood," like Tennyson, offers an emotional landscape and a heightened understanding that work together. Each a piece of memorable art, each a brick in the wall of who we are. And it's okay if we remember Tom Hanks better than astronaut Jim Lovell or have Ben Kingsley's face superimposed onto that of Gandhi's. And though not real, Eve Harrington, Howard Beale, Mildred Pierce are an opportunity to discover what it is to be human, and no less helpful to understanding our life and times as Shakespeare is in illuminating the world of Elizabethan England.
11:09
We guessed that film, whose stories are a meeting place of drama, music, literature and human experience, would engage and inspire the young people participating in FILMCLUB. What we could not have foreseen was the measurable improvements in behavior, confidence and academic achievement. Once-reluctant students now race to school, talk to their teachers, fight, not on the playground, but to choose next week's film -- young people who have found self-definition, ambition and an appetite for education and social engagement from the stories they have witnessed.
11:45
Our members defy the binary description of how we so often describe our young. They are neither feral nor myopically self-absorbed. They are, like other young people, negotiating a world with infinite choice, but little culture of how to find meaningful experience. We appeared surprised at the behaviors of those who define themselves by the size of the tick on their shoes, yet acquisition has been the narrative we have offered.
12:17
If we want different values we have to tell a different story, a story that understands that an individual narrative is an essential component of a person's identity, that a collective narrative is an essential component of a cultural identity, and without it it is impossible to imagine yourself as part of a group. Because when these people get home after a screening of "Rear Window" and raise their gaze to the building next door, they have the tools to wonder who, apart from them, is out there and what is their story.
12:57
Thank you.
12:59
(Applause)
0:11
研究顯示不同年紀與文化的人們 從不同的敘事文本創造自我認同 從母親到女兒，牧師到會眾 老師到學生，說書人到聽眾 不管在洞穴壁畫 或近來的網路使用 人類不斷傳頌他們的歷史與真理 透過寓言或故事 我們都是本能的說故事者
0:40
但在日漸世俗、破碎無條理的世界中 我們要在哪裡分享共通的經驗 且不受到浮誇消費主義的影響？ 而哪種敘事、歷史 身份、道德規範 我們正在灌輸給我們的年輕人？
1:02
電影可以說是 20世紀以來最有影響力的藝術形式 藝術家藉由電影說故事 跨越國際疆界 語言隔閡、類型和思潮 你想的到電影就做得到 是的，沒有主題 是電影仍未涉及的 過去十年 我們看見大量結合的全球媒體 被現今好萊塢的商業大片文化所占據 我們不斷被賦予這樣的胃口 讓感官刺激，非故事本身，重於一切 40年前我們視為普及的 世代間故事傳頌的方式 現今已不復存在 身為電影工作者，這使我憂慮 身為人類，它使我感到恐懼 我們的年輕人要如何創造未來？ 他們如此缺乏 對自身背景的了解 對未來的可能性，也幾乎沒有文本可參照 這十分諷刺 當科技史無前例的發達 接觸文化的機會卻前所未有的貧乏
2:04
在2006年我們創立「電影俱樂部」組織 每週在學校放映電影 並舉辦映後座談 如果我們能取得這100年來的電影資料 也許我們能建立一套論述 能賦予意義 給這些生活在片斷、浮躁社會中的年輕人 因為科技的發達與便利 即使在小鄉村的偏遠學校 也能在白牆上投影DVD
2:33
在剛開始的9個月中 我們在英國設立25個俱樂部 讓5到18歲的小孩 不間斷的看完一部90分鐘的電影 這些電影都經過篩選和考量 但孩童有最終的電影選擇 我們的觀眾很快的 選擇我們提供影片中 最有價值跟多元性的片子 很快的，成果顯示 這是最影響深遠的教育方式 我們的俱樂部大至150人，小至3人 這些年輕人發掘新的事物 新的想法和觀點 當我們的組織結束試驗階段 有1000多個學校 都希望能加入俱樂部
3:20
改變我人生的電影 是1951年狄西嘉導演的《慈航普渡》 這部電影深入的探討 和貧民窟、貧窮和夢想有關的主題 我在我父親50歲生日的那天看了這部片 現今的科技迫使我們須租用放映廳 影片、並支付沖洗膠卷和放映師的費用 但對我父親而言 狄西嘉在情感和藝術上的著墨對他如此重要 他選擇在半百生日這天 與他3個青少年的孩子和其他30位朋友一同觀賞 他說："這是為了 將關懷與期望的火棒 傳遞給下一代"
4:04
《慈航普渡》的最後一幕 貧民窟的人們乘著掃帚向上飛翔 這部電影上映60年後 也是我第一次看這部片的30年後 我看到年輕人臉上著迷的神情 和不可置信的樣子與我當時相同 他們很快的將之與《貧民百萬富翁》 或里約貧民區產生聯結 證明電影內容能歷久不衰
4:29
某一季，俱樂部的主題是民主與政府 我們放映《史密斯遊美京》 本片於1939年上映 比大部分成員的祖父母都還要老 這部導演法蘭克‧卡普拉的經典電影 看重獨立與禮節 這部電影傳達如何做對的事 如何見義勇為不畏特立獨行 電影也宣揚在政治機器中 如何抱持信念並引以為榮
4:54
《史密斯遊美京》成為俱樂部的經典影片 不久之後 英國上議院中正徹夜上演著議事阻撓 而我們感到十分欣慰 我們發現國內的年輕人 能帶有權威的解釋 「議事阻撓」是什麼 而為什麼議員們必須犧牲睡眠來捍衛原則 畢竟，這是演員Jimmy Stewart在整部電影裡所做的事
5:20
當我們放映《盧安達飯店》 年輕人從最殘酷的方式了解種族屠殺 電影讓年輕人流淚 也激發他們提出尖銳的問題 關於沒有武裝的維和部隊 和西方社會的偽善 我們表面上為理念而戰 心裡卻盤算著商業利益 而當《辛德勒的名單》中提到 人們將不會忘記這場歷史教訓 一位感到痛心與自覺的小孩說： "我們已經忘記過去的歷史教訓 不然《盧安達飯店》事件怎會重演？"
5:51
當他們看更多影片時， 他們的生命明顯的更加豐富 《扒手》激起罪犯是否需被剝奪公民權的思辨 《吾愛吾師》激勵青年學子 頌揚人們對於非白人的英國人 態度的轉變 但也抱怨我們的學校制度 因它並不看重集體認同 一點都不像演員Sidney Poitoer的悉心教導
6:21
現在，這些很有想法、好奇的年輕人 毫不畏懼的涉獵各種型式的電影 黑白片、外語片 記錄片、非敘事性影片、奇幻片 他們也能輕易的寫出詳細的影評 熱情的爭相寫出日益複雜的文章 來比較不同的電影 每個星期，有6000篇的影評投稿 競爭以得到「當周影評」的榮耀
6:49
一開始只有25個俱樂部，接著成百、上千 直到我們有將近25萬名學童 分佈於全英國7000個俱樂部中 雖然，這個數目從以前到現在都持續卓越的成長 最特別的是 他們將批判和好奇提問的經驗 帶到日常生活中 許多孩童開始與父母親展開溝通 有些與老師 或跟朋友 而那些沒有朋友的孩童 也開始結交新朋友
7:21
電影跨越各種分界而帶來共通性 用故事以提供共通經驗 《茉莉人生》讓一位女兒與伊朗籍母親更加親近 《大白鯊》讓一位年輕男孩有辦法 說出他害怕的感受和經驗 當他逃離一場暴力事件 在這場事件裡 他的父親與母親被殺害 接著母親在途中被丟下船
7:50
誰對、誰錯？ 在同樣的狀況下他們該怎麼做？ 故事有沒有說明白？ 有沒有隱藏含義？ 這世界怎麼改變？如何變得不一樣？ 許多問題從孩童口中如海嘯般的湧來 我們過去以為他們不會關心這些事 他們自己過去也不曉得自己對這些議題有興趣 當他們書寫、辨論 不將電影看成藝術品 他們開始看見、認識自己
8:20
我有一位很會說故事的阿姨 在很短的時間，她便能營造出 在桌山赤足奔跑和扮演警匪的情景 最近，她告訴我 1948年，她的兩個姊姊和我爸 一起乘船去以色列 沒有與我祖父母同行 當水手在海上叛變希望得到人道待遇 當時是這些青少年餵飽了船員 我父親去世時我已超過40歲 他從來沒告訴我這段故事
8:50
我祖母在緊急狀況下離開歐洲 丈夫沒在身邊 但帶著三歲大的女兒 並把鑽石縫在裙子褶縫 躲藏兩年之後 我祖父到倫敦 但他整個人從此不對勁 我祖父的故事隨著他被同化而從此塵封
9:12
我的故事始於英國 與開始嶄新人生並沉默的移民雙親一起 我看過《安妮日記》、《第三集中營》 《大屠殺》、《德意志的勝利》 是Leni Riefenstahl（舞者、演員） 她跟親納粹友好的意識形態 讓我更加了解祖父母所歷經的苦難 這些電影包含太沉痛而無法說出的故事 對我十分有幫助 比倖存者的耳語、 我單身的阿姨手腕上 偶爾被我瞧見的刺青都還要多
9:50
純粹主義者也許認為虛構故事會消滅 對人類知識的探索 認為電影太粗糙 無法交代複雜又詳細的歷史 或認為電影導演或製作人會著重戲劇性而非真相 但電影中其實存在著目的與意義 當一位12歲的小孩看了《綠野仙蹤》後，他說： "每個人都應該看這部電影 因為如果你沒看 你永遠不知道你也有一顆心"
10:19
我們看重閱讀 為什麼我們不也同樣熱切的看重觀影 認為《大國民》跟珍奧斯汀同樣有價值 同意《鄰家少年殺人事件》跟詩人丁尼生一樣 將各式情感與崇高的知識 相輔相成 每件令人記憶深刻的藝術品 都是建築我們人生的一塊磚 這一點都沒有關係 如果我們記得湯姆漢克斯 多過太空人Jim Lovell 或把甘地的臉想像成班金斯利的樣子 即使這些都是杜撰，伊娃．哈林頓（演員）、 Howard Beale（角色）、《慾海情魔》 都是機會去探索 人生的各種可能 電影幫助人們了解人生和時代不亞於 莎士比亞幫人們了解英國的伊莉莎白時期
11:09
我們認為電影 是個匯聚之處 聚集戲劇、音樂、文學和人類經驗 能吸引和啟發參與電影俱樂部的年輕人 讓我們過去所不能預見的 都能有長足進步 不論是行為、自信或學業成績 以前不願上學的學生 現在會衝到學校跟老師談天 爭吵，但不是為了玩 而是為了選擇下週的電影 年輕人找到自我意義、抱負 並對教育和社會時間產生渴望 這都來自他們親眼所見的故事
11:45
我們的成員挑戰二元論述 挑戰我們對年輕人一向的看法 他們一點也不可怕也不自私近利 他們，與其他的年輕人一樣 正在經歷這充滿無限選擇的世界 但對於如何找到有意義的人生 缺乏參考文化 對於那些年紀輕輕 就能找到自我價值的人們 我們對這樣的能力感到驚訝 但，他們這樣的能力來自於我們所賦予的文本
12:17
如果我們希望有不同的價值觀 我們必須講不同的故事 這樣的故事了解 個人敘事 是形塑個人認同的必要元素 而集體敘事 則是形成文化認同的必要元素 沒有這些文本 我們不可能想像自己 是整個群體的一部分 因為當這些成員回家 才剛看完《後窗》 將他們的目光望向隔壁大樓 他們有能力知道 除了他們以外 在外頭的世界有誰 而他們的故事又是什麼
12:57
謝謝
12:59
（掌聲）
沒有留言:
張貼留言