蝇王1963

这个是现代道德和原始本能的battle。暴力和本能胜利那是必须的，没有满足本能生理需求何谈理智和民主等上层建筑。人类社会性那真是个神奇的东西，是本能，是发展基础，形式多变，容易改变。片尾其实这个新暴力团体没有被rescue那也是不能够生存的，就如原始人类发展的进程一样，他们缺的是从零开始的铺垫。看来Golding写这个故事还是写得很客气的，么有把这个摇摇欲坠的产物逼到墙角。

这个题材要是社会学科学生写论文神马的还是不错的，吧？揍是恕愚昧，load of the flies神马寓意，没看之前不太了解这个故事其实我一直在等大团苍蝇的出现，都没有……

关于近视眼镜其实不能生火的bug我觉得很好，本来就是个寓意，站不牢。我是说没有物质基础的民主。

电影故事情节并不复杂，刚开始会以为是一部野外求生的片子，结果却是揭露了人性恶的片子。在后面Jack党们展现恶越来越肆无忌惮，我心里也充满了悲哀。面对野生危险环境，我们如果能够添加一份理智与机智，故事或许就不会这样发展。电影通过小孩子的天真来反映成人世界的恶，正因为小孩子不知道如何伪装这种恶，所以才更赤裸裸将之表现出来。
在我看来，如果最后的军队没有出现，拉夫的结局也逃不开死。单枪匹马，踌躇不定的双胞胎也已经被Jack识破。再加上他不屑使用计谋，不愿伤人，不愿加入Jack行列，独自一人，又没有火和其他工具，即使Jack不杀，他也很难生存下去。
人性的恶如果只单单靠民主理性这样的字眼来约束大概是很难的，不然现代社会的秩序也不会出现法律，道德是锦上添花的作用。法律才是真正起作用的。所以如果拉夫能够利用这一点，情况会好很多。
刚开始的时候拉夫受到同伴的支持，做了团队的领导者。与之能匹敌的就是Jack，如果我是拉夫，我首先就是要的到Jack百分百的支持。Jack和其中几个男孩比较身强体壮，这时就可以把队伍划分为猎人组，后勤组，看火组等等，甚至可以让猎人组作为军队惩罚的作用。但同时为了抗衡猎人组的威力，拉夫可以加强大家回家的信念，展现自己之前在野生训练营训练过的优势，必要时也可以“制造”一些机会让团队更加信任自己，从而得到大家的肯定。
人性有美有恶，最重要的是如何引导。如果有更多方法及计谋，悲剧发生的机会会更小。

说到带头大哥，让我突然想到《天龙八部》里的带头大哥，带头大哥之所以能成为带头大哥必然有能成为带头大哥的条件。自身必有实力，有实力就有威望，有威望能成为带头大哥，但如果要一直做带头大哥，他又要有自己的管理能力。就这几点，各位可以稍作思考，在此之前我对本片做一些个人浅析，特别是其中几个关键词。


1、孤岛+孩子+20世纪

孤岛，故事发生的地点。孩子，故事主体。20世纪，故事时间。
影片开头采用的是静景照片叙事方式，类似于放映PPT。如果观众能够留意，就会发现画面主要涉及到了两样东西：孩子+飞机。注意这些孩子出现的时候的背景配音，老师授课+教堂赞歌。这些孩子是20世纪接受正常培养的孩子，并没有什么不同。在这些片段最后，一架飞机坠落，而后镜头开始出现动景镜头，两个孩子出现在镜头里。
孩子：两组，A组出现穿白衬衣，学生打扮，思维来源偏向于常规课堂；B组穿黑色长袍，唱诗班打扮，思维来源偏向于基督教洗礼。对比《鲁滨逊》，人数生存年代相同，人数增多，且全部小男生。
孤岛：这是故事主题面对的生存环境，影片交代了他们来到这里的途径（飞机坠落），他们要做的就是离开则个岛屿。而且自始至终的途径都是寻找飞机（惯性思维，怎么来就怎么走），（戏剧性地是最后出现的不是飞行员，而是海军）。对比《鲁滨逊》，鲁滨逊所在的年代没有飞机，所以他等待的只能是海船，何况他也是坐船来的。

2、野猪+怪兽+火

野猪，火，生存的必需品。怪兽，生存面对的危险。
注意A组老大第一次杀野猪的时候没有下得去手，而B组老大一直说自己是猎人。
怪兽，其实没有真正出现，而是成为统治者夺权的一种工具。

3、社会新秩序之信仰

信仰，永远是统治一个世界最牛逼的手段。
按理来说，除去对信仰特别忠诚的人才会死心塌地地尊重图腾。影片中”海螺“就起了这么一个作用。
海螺是眼镜肥仔和A组老大海边发现的，由A组老大拥有，并把它作为图腾号令大家。图腾，这是一个种族，或者某组织特有的标志，或者信物。图腾，前提必须是被号令的所有人都对其有敬畏心理。反观影片，此处缺乏严谨，一个海螺的作用只是用于集结号，与其拿海螺做信物，不如拿肥仔的眼镜来得漂亮。

4、社会新秩序之民主决议

自人类出现，种族内部和种族外部会议必然一定是存在的，它有助于民主表决某些难以决定的涉及种族利益的事件取舍。为何会出现会议，因为有帮派。基于利益取舍的不同，帮派很容易就人类社会中存在。
请注意，影片的民主决议是自发性的，这些孩子未经培训就懂得信服多数人的决定，而且在影片以后的情节中，会议越来越复杂，出现了“投诚”“叛逃”。

5、社会新秩序之统治者和被统治者

这里的孩子只有20人左右，可能是导演没有顾忌统治者和被统治者出现的必然性，他只是简单地把孩子们划分为两部分，A组主张返回文明社会（强调规则），B组主张狩猎（偏向暴力）。夺权贯穿始终。
（更多可百度“斯坦福监狱实验）。

附件评价：

小演员们演得不是很好，有舞台剧那种可以夸张台词的倾向。整部电影的节奏把控也不算很好，高潮出现在模仿《精神病患者》于是谋杀的那一刻。离结局太远，最后部分推进偏于缓慢。

生肉
电影比原作有着更浓的能量，主要区别在于语言——电影更加如一更加一致。儿童们演的很棒，选角、出演都不错，而golding的文字，现在回想起来，似乎只记得那如同儿童文学的笔触。

太有预言性质了。人类对世界的占领，就是从对资源的荒度而非有规划使用开始。而生存优先的技能默认选项，也让团体会排除生病、异见者。

piggy在这里代表了理性，或者说，从另一个星球来的理性（没有本土化的适应性的理性）。在这里，理性远没有最原始的人性更有适应性。煽动对人性的影响，远比理性对人性的影响要厉害。物质贫瘠，无所依赖，没有历史，技能树黑暗，一切架空的现代小孩，的确会被心底的人性撅住，撅回遥远的茹毛饮血的时代。

没有妥协的智慧与规则，不会生存太久。好预言。何况这智慧并没有太高成功率（始终维持火势，代价太大资源不够），规则也没有足够的拴束性。

piggy被饿被Jack晒在一旁，犹如现代的理性被资金玩耍，尤其现代的资本是野性、恶与理性的结合。千丝万缕，怎能一刀切断。

warpaint～Jack是自学成才么？！越发丰富、成熟的暴力！这，明眼都看得出，暴力的胃口很大，绝对会吞噬些什么，马上是Ralph的领导权，接着——原作如果没有让成人介入，就是群体的崩灭了。吃人？残杀？虽然模糊但依稀可见的可怕。我甚至能看到，自相残杀未进入混乱时，“高层”揪老底决定谁被献祭——类似欧洲中世纪，和中国文革。又想起鲁迅笔下的“吃人”，数千年来，成人的世界、成熟的世界（中国大陆），也有着“蝇王”的影子啊，而这lord of flies，毋庸置疑就是以皇帝为首的权利阶级。

编剧、导演甚至大人的痕迹，不是很好的被遮掩，而是几乎完全不见。

最后的军官来到的镜头，太偏为预言而作了吧。不是这个项减分，整部片很好，但没有达到《十二怒汉》的高度。

整个改编很忠实于原作（不想说原著），这个贴合感，哎，又想起《基督山伯爵》的几个不伦不类的胡改了。改编，首先——在价值上说，是将文字与意象赋予画面和冲击感。然而，近代国产剧尤其金庸剧的改编，张纪中等人做出了非常多的改动，应该是找不同，以满足观影群众求滋味解闷儿的心理、需求，而不一样是最能提供滋味的——要知道高阶portrait改编是需要功力的，而且商业上更冒险，谁不想做眼下漫威的赚钱系电影呢。

Staring at the ending credits of the movie Lord of the Flies, I truly wished that I had never seen it. It was definitely not one of my favorite, but once watched, it became almost impossible for me to forget about it. The uncomfortable feeling it induced was so strange and complex that it was difficult to say what disturbed me indeed. Even after reading the official interpretations about original evil, the uncomfortable feeling was still there, for although I was totally convinced by the views of the literary experts, I had a feeling that there was something else.
Then what is it that disturbed me so much? Simply speaking, it is a question unanswered: Why Jack? Why did the children choose Jack instead of Ralph? You may explain it by elaborating on the evil tendency of the human soul, but besides it there must be something else that attracted the children who, although have not yet formed proper judgment between good and evil, have the natural ability to tell what they prefer. In a word, there must be something at which Jack was right while Ralph was wrong.
But what was it? At the beginning of the novel, when the two kids first met, Ralph was the more popular one: he was more handsome, a little bit bigger in size, and most importantly, he had the conch, the symbol of democratic power. His initial advantage against Jack was obvious, but Jack gradually took over. How? It is noticeable that Jack was a person with a strong desire to control, starting from the way he led the choir: even on a deserted island did he try to keep order and maintain control. After failing to become leader of the crowd, he quickly found himself a place as chief of the hunting team. As Ralph had noticed, Jack had “the voice of one who knew his own mind.” How about Ralph? According to Piggy, Ralph was “sensible”. What he wanted was to go back to the civilized society, but he put his only hope of rescue, the fire, under the control of Jack ("Ralph, I'll split up the choir--my hunters, that is--into groups, and we'll be responsible for keeping the fire going--"). Even after Jack’s negligence lost them a precious chance to be rescued, he still relied on Jack for the maintenance of the fire.
At first, Jack was all alone, for leisure was much more attractive for the boys than the fruitless effort of hunting. But Jack was determined “‘I went on,’ said Jack. ‘I let them go. I had to go on. I— ’”. He was driven by a desire to kill, though there was no need of it since they had enough fruit to eat. Why did he found himself so tiring a job as hunting when he could have been enjoying the sunshine and water as everybody else? He was definitely not just looking for something to do, but was again seeking control: the control of pigs, the control of food, the control of the hunting team, the control of the stone fortress, and most importantly, the control of life. While Ralph, after finishing the construction of the huts on the beach, what he did was mostly waiting: waiting for some passing ships or planes to take them home. He did call a number of meetings, but most of the meetings were fruitless for they could not reach a conclusion. Being a leader, Ralph always failed to keep his ground. He was furious at Jack’s negligence of the fire, but when Jack offered him the meat, he eagerly accepted. He was aware of the aggressiveness of Jack and the antagonism between him and Piggy, but was never determined to settle it, never determined to take sides. At last, he even forgot that he was the leader and had to be reminded by Piggy to regain his self-image.
The biggest difference between Jack and Ralph was their attitude towards life. For Ralph, he considered life as something that he himself as a child could not master, so he put the hope on others: on Jack who kept the fire, on the unknown adults who might come and take them home, thus losing control of his own life, putting his fate at the mercy of others. But Jack was quite different, he took the responsibility to hunt, to gather a group, to paint, to sing, to build a fortress all on himself, although he didn’t even have to. Instead of returning to the existing civilization, he was the one who tried to rebuild the civilization, though primitive, on his own.
During the process of gaining control, Jack revived the underlying evil force in his soul, which was true beyond denial. But the sense of “control”, once used on someone other than God, is always related to evil and sin. Think about Lucifer the seraphim who refused to bow before Adam. Once violating God’s will and seeking control of his own, the previous Angel of Light became Satan. But according to Paradise Lost by Milton, the wish to make his own judgment, to be his own savior, to look at the world with independent eye was so strong that Lucifer would rather sacrifice the heaven for it.
So was Adam who abandoned Eden for the forbidden fruit. Instead of obeying God, he chose the advice of Lucifer, just like the children who chose Jack instead of Ralph. It is rather interesting to notice that the forbidden fruit was the fruit on the tree of knowledge. It seemed that even ancient man had realized that knowledge is a dangerous thing: there is some knowledge that should never be obtained. It might not be a mere coincidence that the background of the novel Lord of the Flies was the third world war, a war triggered by nuclear weapon, the superlative development of human knowledge.
The writer seemed to imply that man is doomed to be destroyed: even the kids are taking the same route as their elders, gaining too much control on something that they are unable to rein. If this desire of power, of knowledge, of controlling one’s own fate is an inborn birthmark of human nature, then ever since Lucifer rebelled, since Adam went out of Eden, man is destined to die. But since it is a destiny of our own choice, not only of the children in the novel, not only of modern man, but of Adam and of Lucifer who could have enjoyed the heavenly peace so much desired, there might be something right about it that we could not yet understand.