傲慢失落與矯揉造作

編按:文章為會員投稿以回應陽光時務第53期有關文章,內容與觀點不代表本會立場,陽光時務的文章連結如下:(97後香港的英式文化活動:大不列顚的傲慢與失落 攝影/ 秦偉)

傲慢失落與矯揉造作

英超建德

五月二日出版的第53期陽光時務週刊,有一輯照片和兩篇相關文章,題目是《97後的英式文化活動 :大不列顛的傲慢與失落》。照片中的人物是香港國際七人欖球賽的球迷,相關文章分別為作家評論和攝影師手記。

 

***

首先,想知道照片中是否全部是英國人。從題目看未必是,因為說的是活動。從作家評論看,又好像是:「這些從與中共帝國的殖民地爭奪戰中敗下陣來的英國人,只能在小欖球場上戰鬥然後在場邊買醉」。在攝影師手記中,則模稜兩可:「這些來自各地的球迷以弄潮者的身分介入球賽活動,身穿奇裝異服造型荒誕……….在一浪接一浪嘉年華式的衝激背後,也許是英國人在此時此地再次尋回他們的傲慢與失落。」

為什麼要知道照片中是否全部是英國人呢?若然是,則兩篇文章能對應照片。若然不是,重點只是活動,則活動本身無所謂傲慢或失落,這些都是形容人的態度,從兩文所見,重點亦放在英國人身上。作家評論說:「香港從此必然與他們沒有嚴肅的關係」;攝影師手記說:「Peter 是從前殖民時代的官員,現在回到英國老家生活,可謂無官一身輕,少了當年的一份傲慢」,另如前述:「也許是英國人在此時此地再次尋回他們的傲慢與失落。」

若照片中並非全部是英國人,對作家和攝影師最有利的解釋是:這項有英國人參與的活動,反映他們的傲慢與失落。然而,卻不能從照片反映出來,因為並非全部是英國人,不知哪一張反映,哪一張不反映。

就算照片中沒有其它國藉的人,兩篇文章能對應照片,亦帶出另一問題:在場其它國藉的人都如此打扮參與,如攝影師說:「這些來自各地的球迷以弄潮者的身分介入球賽活動,身穿奇裝異服造型荒誕」,英國人身穿裝異服,非英國人也身穿裝異服,兩者有何不同?如此打扮是否合符反映大不列顛傲慢與失落的最佳解釋,還是只有英國人如此打扮才具有這意義,其它國藉的人同場如此打扮的意義是什麼?如何辨別兩者不同的意義呢?

***

攝影師手記說:「欖球運動源於1823年的一次學生「打茅波」(犯規)。在一場足球賽中,一位學生因一次踼球失誤感到氣惱,乾脆抱起皮球跑向對方球門……大概由於這樣,欖球運動就是要和足球運動對着幹,更另立球例。」

 

攝影師手記沒有這故事的出處。從英文維基百科Football條目中見:

William Webb Ellis, a pupil at Rugby School, is said to have “with a fine disregard for the rules of football, as played in his time [emphasis added], first took the ball in his arms and ran with it, thus creating the distinctive feature of the rugby game.” in 1823. This act is usually said to be the beginning of Rugby football, but there is little evidence that it occurred, and most sports historians believe the story to be apocryphal. The act of ‘taking the ball in his arms’ is often misinterpreted as ‘picking the ball up’ as it is widely believed that Webb Ellis’ ‘crime’ was handling the ball, as in modern soccer, however handling the ball at the time was often permitted and in some cases compulsory, the rule for which Webb Ellis showed disregard was running forward with it as the rules of his time only allowed a player to retreat backwards or kick forwards.

 

該學生當時不是在踢我們現時所指的足球(soccer),只不過那時球例不能拿著球向前跑,只能向前踢或用手後傳吧了。

 

另維基百科William Webb Ellis條目,引述 了一封信:

On 22 December 1880, in another letter to the Meteor, Bloxam elaborates on the story:

“A boy of the name Ellis – William Webb Ellis – a town boy and a foundationer, … whilst playing Bigside at football in that half-year [1823], caught the ball in his arms. This being so, according to the then rules, he ought to have retired back as far as he pleased, without parting with the ball, for the combatants on the opposite side could only advance to the spot where he had caught the ball, and were unable to rush forward till he had either punted it or had placed it for some one else to kick, for it was by means of these placed kicks that most of the goals were in those days kicked, but the moment the ball touched the ground the opposite side might rush on. Ellis, for the first time, disregarded this rule, and on catching the ball, instead of retiring backwards, rushed forwards with the ball in his hands towards the opposite goal, with what result as to the game I know not, neither do I know how this infringement of a well-known rule was followed up, or when it became, as it is now, a standing rule.”

若此信是真的,則同樣證實這一點。

換句話說,該學生的行為導致了當時欖球運動球例更生,而所謂「欖球運動就是要和足球運動對着幹」,無從說起,因為那比賽若曾發生,亦不是使用只能用腳踢的現代足球規例。

另外攝影師手記說:「我們可以這樣理解,「打茅波」似乎是大不列顛文化的某些折射。當年的鴉片戰爭紳士們高呼為公平貿易而戰!」如此把欖球運動的產生 (是真是假有爭議,見維基該兩條目),與鴉片戰爭拉上關係,這樣理解是否合理?

***

作者評論末段說:

「被攝者與 [攝影師] 共同建構這麼一個幻象,雙方都「居心叵測」,但這個幻象卻真正撕裂着另一個更大的幻象:那些實際上並不存在的1970、80年代童話。所謂的英雄美人天使聖女裝扮,不過是一場熱汗與一杯啤酒之間的藉口。」

本文以對應該段作結:

作家與攝影師共同建構這麼一個假象,雙方都「居心叵測」,但這個假像卻真正暗藏着另一個更大的假象:那些實際上並不存在的殖民指控。所謂的傲慢與失落,不過是一場矯揉造作與一輪無病呻吟之間的藉口。

 

發佈留言