(Terence Rattigan, director Anthony Asquith, and actor Neil North, on set of The Winslow Boy in 1948)
人總有奇怪的堅持。但就經驗看來，這樣的堅持是可以打破的，只是時候到了沒的問題。之前堅持只看看過的舞台劇劇本，因為書癮，現在倒是發展成只看有動念頭想看的舞台劇劇本。嗯？是好事吧？
前一陣子看完Terence Rattigan的'the Winslow Boy'，再次感受到他描繪人物內斂情感與掙扎的深厚功力。鑑於之前讀Noel Coward的兩本作品都沒什麼感觸，Rattigan的一篇劇本卻總讓我感觸良多。會想讀'the Winslow Boy'，自然是因為之前打算去the Old Vic看這齣劇。不過，由於劇單越排越長、加上根本入不敷出，所以還是放棄了。
'The Winslow Boy'講的是一位父親－Arthur Winslow傾盡心力為兒子Ronnie洗刷偷竊罪名的故事。當中Ronnie的角色其實不大重要，反而是父親、大女兒、與辯護律師的存在感更為顯著。Winslow家是普通且和樂的英國中產階級家庭：父親是退休的銀行家、母親Grace是家庭主婦、大兒子Dickie在Cambridge University就讀，但本身對念書並無太大興趣、大女兒Catherine是女權主義者，在推動女性普選權的社運組織工作，最近打算嫁給軍人John Watherstone；小兒子Ronnie就讀於海軍寄宿學校，且讓父親引以為傲。
然而某天，Ronnie因偽造文書與盜領他人存款的罪名而被學校開除。他堅稱自己的無辜，父親也決定相信自己的兒子、並向學校上訴要求重新審理這個案件。整個訴訟的過程相當漫長且艱辛，從學校同意重新調查到法院決定接受審理便花了將近一年半載；加上其訴訟對象是層級分明、具有高度權威的軍事學校，使得上訴更加不可能。在這一來一往、個人與社會制度的交鋒中，Arthur不僅錢財散盡、健康也日趨衰退。受到案件的影響，大兒子也因為家庭財務狀況拮据、被迫離開Cambridge；大女兒的婚約更是受到未婚夫的父親是軍人的影響而不了了之。除了家庭的安詳和樂不復存在，Arthur的堅持也成為社會上的笑柄，大家都不懂：在這個國家有更重要的社會、國防問題需要關注的時候，一個小男孩的偷竊罪名，究竟為何需要投入如此大的精力、消耗這麼多社會資源，甚至上訴到議院去？
正如母親Grace一度控訴的，即使她自始自終都沒有棄離自己的丈夫，卻也忍不住質問：
Grace: "Oh, I wish I could see the sense of it all! He's perfectly happy, at a good school, doing very well. No one need ever have known about Osborne, if you hadn't gone and shouted it out to the whole world. As it is, whatever happens now, he'll go through the rest of his life as the boy in that Winslow case－the boy who stole that postal order－"
Arthur: "The boy who didn't steal that postal order."
Grace: "What's the difference? When millions are talking and gossiping about him, a did or didn't hardly matters. The Winslow boy is enough. You talk about sacrificing everything for him: but when he's grown up he won't thank you for it, Arthur－even though you've given your life to－publish his innocence as you call it."
面對家庭與社會上的龐大壓力，即便Arthur聲稱：
"An justice has been done. I am going to set it right, and there is no sacrifice in the world I am not prepared to make in order to do so."
可是，Grace聲淚俱下的質疑：
"That sounds very noble. Are you sure it's true? Are you sure it isn't just plain pride and self-importance and sheer brute stubbornness?"
仍不免在他心頭生根。
訴訟進度的遲緩也讓人深陷絕望。
Arthur: "The debate has done us no good at all?"
Catherine: "It's aired the case a little, perhaps. A few more thousand people will say to each other at breakfast tomorrow: 'That boy ought to be allowed a faire trial.'"
Arthur: "What's the good of that, if they can't make themselves heard?"
Catherine: "I think they can--given time."
Arthur: "Given time?"
這份自我懷疑，在他發現：始終站在他身邊支持他的大女兒Catherine的婚約有可能因此夭折時，到達了頂點。面對未婚夫John的施壓，始終堅強的Catherine也不免陷入愛情與正義的糾結。她當然希望能與愛人終成眷屬，也很理性地知道自己並不如父親那般盲目地相信Ronnie的無辜。不過，在面對未婚夫要求她放棄訴訟、與此同時卻收到法庭終於願意審理此案的消息之際，她選擇了讓自己心碎的艱難道路。
她告訴John：
"His innocence or guilt aren't important to me. They are to my father. Not to me. I believe he didn't do it; but I may be wrong. To prove that he didn't do it is of hardly more interest to me than the identity of the college servant, or whoever it was, who did it. All that I care about is that people should know that a Government Department has ignored a fundamental human right and that it should be forced to acknowledge it. That's all that's important to me."
在這段艱難的法律戰役裡，另一個要角是看似冷酷的名律師Sir Robert Morton。大律師一出場便以冷漠、保持距離的態度給眾人留下不近人情的印象；他對Ronnie的交叉質詢，更是殘酷到讓人懷疑他是否有人類情感。可是，出乎意料地，他卻接下了這份吃力不討好的案件，並想方設法讓這個案子進入司法程序、受到議院重視。Catherine一直對Sir Robert如此耗心耗力的態度感到疑惑：畢竟大律師聲名遠播、卻一向只為能製造噱頭或（看似）對自己有利的案件辯護。在他們終於獲得最後勝利之時，Catherine才意外地由他人口中得知大律師為這件案件所做的犧牲，遠比她所看得見的要多。為了要能夠繼續替案件辯護，Sir Robert竟然拒絕了Lord Chief Justice的職位！
父親為了兒子的清白、女兒為了父親的堅持而戰，Catherine問Sir Robert：那麼他呢？究竟為什麼要做出這樣的犧牲，甚至在法庭宣判時落下難得的眼淚？
Sir Robert: "No. Not justice. Right. it is easy to do justice－very hard to do right. Unfortunately, while the appeal of justice is intellectual, the appeal of right appears for some odd reason to induce tears in court. That is my answer and my excuse. And now, may I leave the witness box?"
'Let Right be done'是貫穿全劇的口號，這個'right'不只直指基本人權，更隱含了去做正確的事。這齣劇之所以讓我感觸良多，最主要是它所表現出的個人與社會的對抗：一個小男孩的清白與社會重大議題相比，究竟孰輕孰重？我們常常聽到個人要為更大的群體犧牲的呼喊，正如John F. Kennedy的名言："Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"，但這真的正確嗎？國家利益真的高於基本人權嗎？所謂見微知著，那麼，一個國家的好壞，難道不是正由它如何對待個別子民的方式來判斷嗎？除了這點之外，儘管社會大眾在Winslow一家終於贏得官司時，大呼：這是人權的勝利；但這樣的歡呼，相比於他們落魄時所遭受的譏笑，只讓人感到無比諷刺與心寒。
看完該劇本後，許多社會新聞事件掠過我的心頭，包括台灣的張爸、以及之前讀到關於親人如何為殺人罪入獄的家人耗盡心力、進行平反的相關報導。報導裡頭提到一名母親如何因此自學成半個法律與鑑識專家，而另一個案件中的家人，更花去所有時間重訪犯罪現場、尋找可能的目擊證人。我試圖想像那種孤軍奮戰，卻只能觸碰到外圍的孤單；我難以想像那是怎樣的生活、抱著幾乎不可能的渺小希望度日。這世界實在有太多悲情，太多太多無名的個人湮沒在時光的洪流裡。有些幸或不幸地上了新聞頭條、得到關注；但這樣的注視，離正義的實踐又還有多遠呢？
Let Right be done. And let's do it right.
留言列表
On the Stage (2)
