keyboard_arrow_up
keyboard_arrow_down
keyboard_arrow_left
keyboard_arrow_right
策展人的話 Curator statement

陳序慶
第十三屆香港獨立電影節 聯合策展

1960年代是新電影的黃金時代,世界各地先後出現翻天覆地的電影運動:法國、英國、德國、日本、巴西等;在東歐地區,共產主義管治下的捷克同樣精彩。一般認為,捷克電影新浪潮由1963 年開始, 至1968年蘇聯軍事介入「布拉格之春」,結束了當地的民主運動時告一段落;然而,電影運動餘波未了,不服從作風依然持續。是次專題,除了一些早期代表作,我們特地選映幾部「後革命」作品,試圖展現電影人如何在夢想破滅,高壓氣氛下,仍不亢不卑,逆權創作。

一如各地的新電影,導演們紛紛帶著輕巧的器材及非職業演員,走上街頭,以近似直接電影的手法,拍攝小人物故事,呈現生活實感;捷克新浪潮在這基礎上,結合其社會及文化元素,擺脫了傳統社會主義美學的刻板印象,鐵幕下的一角,悠悠掀起。捷克不是大國,卻是個文化強國,文學、音樂和藝術的成就尤其出色;新電影中很多作品都受文學及當時流行的荒誕劇場影響。專政下的捷克,電影製作由國營片廠管轄,審查是意料中事。當故事觸及敏感題材時,導演們心知不能硬碰,從而取道隱喻和揶揄,幻想與奇情,喜劇包裝悲劇;黑色幽默就是捷克新電影的精髓。米路斯‧科曼曾言:「如果不懂得笑,問題的解決方法就只有自殺。」或許面對荒謬,苦笑是唯一出路。奈何道高一尺,魔高一丈,這些作品亦難逃刪剪,甚至被禁的命運;儘管如此,仍無阻創作者們批判現實的動力和野心。

當極權統治者無所不用其極地去限制人們的自由時,創作人必須以寬懷的心境,如水隨形的身段去迎抗。

仍然要相信這裡會有想像,共勉之。

Nose Chan
Curator, 13th HKindieFF

The 60s was the golden era of new movies, there were cinematic new waves around the globe one after another: in France, UK, Germany, Japan, Brazil, and in Czechoslovakia, which was ruled by the Soviet Union at that time. The Czechoslovak New Wave took place roughly from 1963 to 1968, the year that the Prague Spring was ended due to the Soviet military invasion. However, the attitude of disobedience from the social movement still left marks on the films, which made the New Wave be able to last slightly longer than the movement itself. Besides early representative films, we also selected some “post-revolutionary” works to show how filmmakers continued to create modestly, despite the disillusionment and oppression.

Like new waves in other places, directors carried their handy equipment to film stories of unimportant persons on the streets, played by non-professionals. Moreover, they shot like direct cinema to show a sense of reality. To get rid of the conventional socialist aesthetic, the New Wave combined these with its social and cultural elements. Czechoslovakia was not big, but rich in culture, especially in literature, music and arts. Therefore, lots of films at that time were inspired by literature and the contemporary Theatre of the Absurd. The state-owned film studios supervised film productions in authoritarian Czechoslovakia, and censorship was inevitable. Directors knew certain sensitive topics could not be touched on directly, so they would use metaphors and jokes, imagination and absurd scenes to package the tragedy as comedy. That is why black humour is the core of the Czechoslovak films. Milos Forman once said, ‘If you don’t know how to laugh, the only solution is to commit suicide.’ Perhaps the only escape of absurdity is a bitter smile. Nonetheless, most films were still forced to be re-edited or even banned. Still, these could not keep authors from being critical and ambitious.

When the totalitarian regime uses every way to limit the freedoms, creators have to resist reposefully with water-like strategies. Let’s keep on believing imaginations still exist in this place.

Scroll Down

浪潮奇蹟

彼得哈米斯
捷克、東歐電影學者
(譯:張嘉芸)

因為Blu-ray和DVD的關係,很多老電影得以與年輕人接觸。亦因如此,捷克斯洛伐克新浪潮終於迎來遲來的認可,被更多人認為它是戰後其中一個非常重要的電影新浪潮。是次專題挑選了七部超越當時美學標準及政治邊界的電影。

那時,很多人都驚訝受蘇聯嚴格管治的東歐居然出產了多部原創作品。電影很快就受到各大影展認可:楊卡達和艾馬克洛斯的《大街上的商店》 (Obchod na korze, 1965)及伊里.曼素的《嚴密監視的列車》 (Ostře sledované vlaky, 1966) 分別於1966年和1967贏得奧斯卡金像獎;康城影展則在1968年提名米路斯.科曼的《消防員舞會》(Hoří, má panenko, 1967)和在1969年頒發最佳導演獎給《我的鄉親父老》(Všichni dobří rodáci, 1968)的導演沃依采克.雅斯尼。

大概有兩個原因造就這種發展:
一)流行文化傳統因50年代的大搜捕和政治正確運動而被壓止
二)當時從布拉格電影學院(FAMU)畢業的新生代導演試圖擺脫過時的意識形態

科曼的《黑彼德》(Černý Petr, 1963)就是其中一部代表早期新浪潮的電影。電影講述一個平平無奇的雜貨店員工與幹部交涉和求愛失敗的過程。科曼的電影受新寫實主義及真實電影(cinéma-vérité)所影響,拍出與共產黨想要的虛假理想世界截然不同的日常生活。馬克思主義評論家施維塔克在1964年的卡羅維瓦利國際電影節說:「《黑彼德》是一部幾乎甚麼事也沒有發生的電影,但導演卻用幽默甚或殘酷的抒情體把這些「沒事」如實地呈現給觀眾。」

科曼和他的朋友巴薩似乎用他們後來的電影《金髮女郎之戀》(Lásky jedné plavovlásky, Forman, 1965) 及《親密閃光》(Intimní osvětlení, Passer, 1965)建立出一個「學派」。科曼在《消防員舞會》中繼續選用非職業演員,描繪一班在鄉下的消防員試圖策劃一個有趣晚上而造成的混亂。電影令某些評論員聯想起果戈里,但亦有部分人認為這是諷刺蘇共的作品。故事雖設置於社區,幹部卻認為電影在取笑義務消防員,但當地村民就出乎黨意料的喜歡這部作品。作品甚至受當時復蘇的捷克超現實主義團體推祟為對日常生活的振奮實驗。

捷克新浪潮中最接近一個集體宣言的是由曼素、巴薩、齊媞洛娃、伊里殊、南米克和舒爾姆共同改編自赫拉巴爾的《底層的珍珠》(Perličky na dně, 1965)。赫拉巴爾說他的個人生活經驗確實能成為充滿詩意的作品,而他個人出版的《人民對話》 (Hovori lidí, 1956) 就能反映出他沉迷於真實對話和展視工人階級如何不同於官方所推祟的樸素單純。科曼和巴薩雖認同部分元素,但卻沒有他對離經叛道和超現實手法的執迷。

赫拉巴爾的中篇小說《嚴密監視的列車》該是他代表作。他運用他的早年的戰爭經歷及講述自殺的作品,在這部小說中尋找英雄式的性啟蒙。曼素的電影改編為作品增添了人性,而浪漫及喜劇般的轉折亦令電影在世界各地大受歡迎並贏得奧斯卡最佳外語片。作品中的情感元素雖與科曼和巴薩的相近,不過赫拉巴爾和曼素的電影卻用魔幻影象結合喜劇和悲劇。故事講述納粹入侵捷克後的地下反抗活動,且用諷刺和非一般的手法審視當時的英雄主義,電影中的英雄最後更是因故身亡而非為大眾犧牲。最終種種元素導致官方批評電影取笑當時的反抗行動。

於60年代被視為其中一個最激進的導演,亦是浪潮中唯一一個女導演 — 齊媞洛娃。他的電影《雛孖菊》至今仍未過時。主角雖由兩個非職業演員擔任,但卻不自稱為現實主義作品。棄用傳統的敘事技巧,導演和他的攝影師丈夫古車拉運用一系列事件來營造豐富的視覺效果。《雛孖菊》與南米克的《派對客人失蹤事件》在上映後很快就被21名國會成員因電影不乎社會主義或共產理想而要求下架,電影因此成為全城焦點。

早期的新浪潮電影大多只是拒絕傳統社會現實主義的美學標準(例如建構理想,但與現實相違的敘述),但在1968年,電影因布拉格之春而能正面批評政權。當時的政權開始給予社會更大自由度,承認失實和過去的錯誤,希望可以結合民主和黨的領導地位及廢除審查。

較為年長的雅斯尼導演因此亦要等到1968年才獲得黨領導杜布切克的默許,拍攝籌備多年的《我的鄉親父老》。電影中一系列的人物故事都是根據導演母親的回憶而寫,刻劃一個從1945年到1958年的摩拉維亞村莊:它被佔領的過程、村落中的集體意識、貪污事件及被共產黨接管的經過,最後以1968年的村莊風景作結尾。雖牽涉政治題材,但導演卻用抒情的手法拍出四季美麗的風景。可悲的是,電影中所代表希望的布拉格之春卻提前結束。

伊里殊在昆德拉的開創性小說《玩笑》出版前已着手將小說改編成電影,而電影最終在軍隊入侵捷克時完成拍攝。故事同樣設置在摩拉維亞,講述前共產黨員因一個輕率的政治「玩笑」而被迫勞動和監禁。故事主人翁懷着報復的意圖,在布拉格之春時回到故鄉,卻發現自己被強硬派告發成「革命人士」。電影利用多個回憶影像,顯示過去與現在如何相互影響,並將之建構成有力的對話。

曼素在《嚴密監視的列車》成名後,拍攝了兩部長片才再與赫拉巴爾合作,並於1969年完成《繩上的雲雀》。電影用滑稽和抒情式的敘事手法描繪50年代初的強制勞動營,同時批判共產黨的官僚制度。可是,電影在製作二十年後,待蘇共在1989年解體後才能上映,並於一年後在柏林影展贏得金熊獎。

1968年8月之前製作的所有電影都必須通過審查,然而,這些電影出現在一個意識形態開始瓦解的時期。 從技術層面來看,電影由劇本階段,直至完成後,最終還是要得到黨的意識形態委員會批准才能公映。而根據最近的一項研究,通過這種種談判過程,有時可能會導致好電影的出現。 但是,在回顧這一段時期,往往冠以事事皆有可能的「黃金六十年代」,則未必太準確了。當時除了黨內的變革運動之外,還有鼓勵年輕人的社會政策,要令年輕人在黨的「庇蔭」下成長。

蘇聯於1968年入侵後推翻之前的所有改革,將之變更成對黨國有利的政策,並維持相關政策20年至蘇共倒台。審查制度曾一度被廢除,但及後換來的是更嚴苛的政策。為求禁止一切抵觸國策的項目,所有主要職位都由實行強硬路線的黨員擔任。蘇聯除了任命當地的高級黨幹部外,更持續多年實行幹部職務名單制。有評論指出,幹部職務名單制鼓勵犬儒,即那些奉行務實政策的人。新浪潮因而急速湧退。巴蘭多夫製片廠的劇作藝術部門主管曾把電影形容為「預謀的一部分…是精心策劃來營造一個多疑的、憤世的、庸俗的、歇斯底里的情緒。」當時有超過一百部電影被禁,當中更有四部被永遠禁映,其中兩部是《消防員舞會》及《我的鄉親父老》。 因為模稜兩可的美學本身就具顛覆性,所以此後幾乎不再可能製作意義含糊或開放式電影。就瓦解文化這方面來說,蘇共的確非常成功。

科曼、雅斯尼、巴薩和南米克與其他人或自願或因壓力而移民他國。曼素和齊媞洛娃則在1976年才能重新工作,而伊里殊就發現《玩笑》從他的電影集中被刪除。無論他們的電影有多成功,沒有一個能像從前一樣繼續工作。曼素之後雖改編了赫拉巴爾兩個故事,但電影卻被蓄意破壞並且無法在國內外進行宣傳;齊媞洛娃在此期間的困境亦被清楚紀錄:她的電影《蘋果遊戲》(Hra o jablko, 1976) 需撤出國際影展並被禁映至1978年;《預製板故事》(Panelstory, 1979)則不能在國外宣傳,而電影直到1987年才能在布拉格上映;《不幸的事》(Kalamita, 1981)在完成後即被禁及被重新剪接。妥協似乎成了日常,部分導演亦認為這是他們拍攝生涯的終結,但亦有些導演能從中獲利。根據科曼的說法,當時是捷克電影工作者導致他被禠奪國藉及無法在布拉格拍攝《莫扎特傳》。雖然財政狀況許可,而拍攝亦得以進行,但最後卻被傳媒封殺。換句話說,審查就成了官僚制度中的把戲。冼米加在他的書《秩序的重建》中把這段時期描述為「無法移動的年代」。

當電影工作者享有比以往更大的藝術創作自由、排斥壓抑美學及理想的前景,就能造就出電影史上其中一個最出色的新浪潮。不論當時的環境如何,電影的獨特性及新鮮感都為觀眾帶來驚喜。

彼得哈米斯的著作有《捷克斯洛伐克新浪潮》(2005)、《捷克與斯洛伐克電影:題材與傳統》(2009)和《斯洛伐克1921 - 1991最佳電影》(2018);他亦編輯《中歐電影》(2004)、《揚史雲梅耶電影:闇黑煉金術》(2018)及與博多姬斯合編《中/東歐電影:1989年後的轉化》(2013)

The Miracle of the Wave

Peter Hames

Increasingly seen as one of the key cinematic movements of the post war era, the Czechoslovak New Wave is receiving a somewhat belated critical and historical recognition. The availability of many of the films on Blu-ray and DVD has meant that it has reached younger audiences for whom the films have often proved a revelation. This selection of seven of its key films crosses aesthetic and political boundaries in striking combination.

At the time, many found it surprising that so many original works should emerge from what was perceived as one of the most conformist regimes in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe. Film festival recognition soon followed and culminated in the award of Hollywood Oscars to Ján Kadár’s and Elmar Klos’s The Shop on the High Street (Obchod na korze, 1965) in 1966 and Jiří Menzel’s Closely Observed Trains (Ostře sledované vlaky, 1966) in 1967. Miloš Forman’s The Firemen’s Ball (Hoří, má panenko, 1967) was nominated in 1968 and Vojtěch Jasný’s All My Good Countrymen (Všichni dobří rodáci, 1968) won the Best Direction prize at Cannes in 1969.

There were probably two reasons for these developments. Firstly, a broad cultural tradition had merely been suppressed by the political orthodoxies and persecutions of the 1950s. Secondly, a predominantly younger generation of filmmakers had emerged from the Prague Film School (FAMU) who sought to develop their talents without reference to outdated ideological guidelines.

One of the first films to indicate a new course was Forman’s Black Peter (Černý Petr, 1963), which charted the low key story of a young assistant in a grocery store, his encounters with authority, and unsuccessful attempts to interest the opposite gender. Influenced by neo-realism and cinéma-vérité, Forman portrayed an everyday world far removed from the idealised and false vision preferred by the Communist Party. As the Marxist critic, Ivan Sviták, put it at the Karlovy Vary Film Festival in 1964, ‘Black Peter is a film in which almost nothing happens, but that “nothing” is presented with such credibility, humour, substantiality, and even a certain cruel lyricism that the audience never loses touch with the screen’.

For a period, Forman and his friend, Ivan Passer, seemed to have established a ‘school’ of filmmaking with their follow-up films, Loves of a Blonde (Lásky jedné plavovlásky, Forman, 1965) and Intimate Lighting (Intimní osvětlení, Passer, 1965). Forman’s later film, The Firemen’s Ball, while continuing to use non-actors, was seen by critics as reminiscent of Gogol and by others as a satire on the Communist Party. It recorded a night of chaos in which a provincial fire brigade attempts to organise an evening of entertainment. Although rooted in the community in which it was set, the authorities considered it to be making fun of the volunteer fire brigades who provided the backbone of the service. However, when shown to the local villagers, who the Party thought would object, it received unqualified approval. It was simultaneously admired by the resurgent Czech Surrealist group as a coruscating examination of the everyday.

The nearest the Czech Wave came to a collective statement was with their adaptation of Bohumil Hrabal’s stories, Pearls of the Deep (Perličky na dně, 1965). Menzel, Passer, Věra Chytilová, and Jaromil Jireš all participated along with Jan Němec and Evald Schorm. According to Hrabal, the direct life experience could become a poetic act, and his privately published People’s Conversations (Hovori lidí, 1956) revealed an obsession with authentic speech and a representation of the working class at odds with official simplifications. While Forman and Passer shared some of these objectives, they did not have a similar obsession with the eccentric and the surreal.

Hrabal’s novella Closely Observed Trains was probably his most orthodox. Drawing on his wartime experiences and earlier works that had focussed on the subject of suicide, he now concentrated more on his hero’s search for sexual initiation. Menzel’s film version gave the film a humanist flavour and a romantic and comic turn that won a Hollywood Oscar and made it popular all over the world. While its sensibility shared elements with Forman and Passer, Hrabal and Menzel worked closely on a film that mixed comedy and tragedy with an often magic imagery. Set against a background of the Nazi protectorate and the underground resistance, the theme of heroism receives an ironic and unusual examination. The Czechs’ Švejkian resistance to the Nazi occupation nonetheless met official criticism for ‘making fun’ of the Resistance. The hero’s eventual death was more a matter of accident than heroic sacrifice.

One of the most radical of the 60s directors was Věra Chytilová – the only woman amongst the new grouping. Her film Daisies (Sedmikrásky, 1966) remains challenging to this day and avoided any pretence at realism despite the two protagonists being played by non-professionals. Lacking any conventional narrative, the film takes the form of a series of ‘happenings’ which give full range to the visual experiments of her cinematographer-husband, Jaroslav Kučera. Together with Němec’s The Party and the Guests (O slavnosti a hostech, 1966), it became the focus of an immediate scandal in which 21 members of the National Assembly demanded its withdrawal on the grounds that it had ‘nothing in common with socialism or the ideals of Communism’.

If the early films of the New Wave were mainly distinguished by their rejection of the aesthetic norms of Socialist Realism (i.e. conventional narrative forms harnessed to the building of an ideal and far from evident reality), no explicit criticism was permitted until 1968. This was the year of the Prague Spring when the Communist Party began to introduce liberal reforms, acknowledged the distortions and failures of the past, sought to combine democracy with the leading role of the Party, and abolished censorship.

Vojtěch Jasný, one of the older directors, had planned his All My Good Countrymen for many years but it was only given the go-ahead in 1968 (apparently with the approval of Party leader Alexander Dubček). The film focuses on life in a single Moravian village from the years 1945-58 together with an epilogue set in 1968. A collection of stories and characters apparently based on his mother’s reminiscences, it follows the processes of dispossession, collectivisation, and corruption that followed the Communist takeover. Despite its political theme, it’s fundamentally a lyrical film set against the enveloping beauty of the landscape and progression of the seasons. Unfortunately, its reference to the hopes presented by the Prague Spring proved to be premature.

Jireš’s adaptation of Milan Kundera’s seminal novel The Joke (Žert) was prepared with the author prior to publication and completed filming against a background of the invading armies. Again set in Moravia, it tells the story of a former Communist who ends up enduring forced labour and imprisonment for an ill-advised political ‘joke’. Intent on revenge, he returns to his home town during the Prague Spring only to discover that the hardliner who denounced him has become a ‘reformer’. Presented mainly through flashbacks, the film strikes a powerful interplay and debate between past and present.

Following his success with Closely Observed Trains, Menzel made two further features before reuniting with Hrabal for Skylards on a String (Skřivánci na niti), which was completed in 1969. This comic and sometimes lyrical portrait of a forced labour camp in the early 1950s was nonetheless a powerful attack on the Communist bureaucracy. As a result, it could not be released until after the fall of the Communist regime in 1989. Over 20 years after its production, it won the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival in 1990.

All of the films released prior to August 1968 had been produced under conditions of censorship. However, they appeared at a time when the ideological ice was beginning to crack. Technically, the films had to be approved at script stage, after completion and finally by the ideological commission of the Communist Party. According to a recent study, these negotiations could sometimes lead to constructive outcomes. But, in what has retrospectively – and probably inaccurately – been dubbed ‘The Golden Sixties’, many things were possible. Apart from the movement for change within the Party, there was an official policy of encouraging youth – a youth that had grown up and been ‘nurtured’ under Communism.

Following the Warsaw Pact invasion of 1968, the reforms of the 1960s were reversed in favour of a static and sterile world that was to survive for the next 20 years. While censorship had been formally abolished, even stricter controls were now imposed. Hard line Communists were placed in key positions to ensure that no deviations from official policies could be initiated. This ‘Nomenklatura’ system was consistently applied and senior Party positions were approved by Moscow. As one critic put it, the ‘Nomenklatura’ system supported cynics or, at best, pragmatists. The New Wave was swiftly disowned. The head of dramaturgy at the Barrandov Studios described the films as part of ‘a premeditated strategy…designed to build up a climate of scepticism, cynicism, vulgarity and hysterical emotions’. Over 100 films were banned with four listed as ‘banned forever’. Two of the four were The Firemen’s Ball and All My Good Countrymen. To produce a film that might appear ambiguous – or open to different meanings – would become almost impossible. Aesthetic ambiguity was in itself, subversive. The Party largely succeeded in its self-appointed task – the liquidation of a culture.

Forman, Jasný, Passer and Němec (among thousands) emigrated either voluntarily or because of pressure. Menzel and Chytilová were unable to work again until 1976 while Jireš found The Joke deleted from his filmography. None were able to continue the level of work that had previously been possible and despite some achievements - Menzel made two further adaptations of Hrabal - interesting work was deliberately sabotaged and promoted neither at home nor abroad. Chytilová’s struggles have been well documented. Her film The Apple Game (Hra o jablko, 1976) was withdrawn from international festivals and unreleased until 1978. Prefab Story (Panelstory, 1979) was not promoted internationally and denied a Prague screening until 1987. Calamity (Kalamita, 1981) was banned after completion and re-edited. Compromise was the norm and some directors found their careers at an end. Others, however, exploited the situation to their own advantage. Forman noted that it was Czech filmmakers who were behind the withdrawal of his Czech citizenship and opposed his shooting of Amadeus (1984) in Prague. Financial considerations prevailed and shooting went ahead, but only under conditions of press blackout. In other words, censorship was now a matter of bureaucratic control. In his book, The Restoration of Order, Milan Šimečka characterised the period as an ‘age of immobility’.

The New Wave was one of the most remarkable movements in film history when filmmakers achieved an unusual degree of artistic freedom combined with the rejection of repressive artistic codes and the promotion of new social realities. Whatever the conditions from which it arose, the originality and freshness of the films continues to astonish and surprise.

Peter Hames is author of The Czechoslovak New Wave (2005), Czech and Slovak Film: Theme and Tradition (2009), and Best of Slovak Film, 1921-91 (2018). He is editor of The Cinema of Central Europe (2004), The Cinema of Jan Švankmajer: Dark Alchemy (2008), and Cinemas in Transition in Central and Eastern Europe after 1989 (with Catherine Portuges, 2013).