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.
据说，《圣经》中，蝇王是万恶之首；在英语中，蝇王是污秽和粪便之王，象征着丑恶。苍蝇毫不羞涩的占据全世界人们厌恶和排斥的昆虫之首，不仅仅是它生活的环境令人恶心，更重要的是污秽也是诞生它的家园。这部根据诺贝尔文学奖获得者威廉·戈尔丁同名小说改编的电影即用这个名字暗喻着人性之恶，通过种种象征意义探讨了环境影响和人性塑造的关系。
故事被架空在想象中的第三次世界大战，影片以放映幻灯片式的方式将动态的背景陈述换成静态的照片陈列，照片上的人事诉说着不同的、普通的、死板的、过去式的硝烟与平静，仿佛过去、现在、未来这一纸条被折成了莫比乌斯环，抛弃掉两边的牵扯，只剩下“现在”的真伪。
影片的主角是一群六至十二岁的孩童，真正令人厌恶的年纪，早已忘记自己鸟样童年的成人一边对他们的劣行以“不懂事”为名加以辩护，一边用拳头和幻想塑造这个自己身上掉下的泥人。社会上的种种规则、不成文的约束、成人的力量、物质的诱惑等等都是现代文明赐予孩子的火锅，不论你是菜花童还是油菜童，跳进去涮上一阵子，都是“成熟”的好市民，光荣的家族使命和社会责任在遥遥等待。
就像飞机坠毁一样，这个火锅翻了，孩子们被遗落在了某地荒岛。
荒岛的设定意味着与文明世界脐带的断裂，蔬菜们不能被一双双勤劳的双手洗刷干净、不能被切成喜欢的形状分帮立派的安置到不同的盘子、不能静静地等待就有筷子来把它们夹进锅里。面临突如其来的自由，孩子们首先感受到的是巨大的惶恐，那股冥冥之中控制一切的力量不见了，他们从按时做什么变成了按时却不知该做什么。多数人的弱势开始显现：寻求一个精神上和身体上的领导者，最重要的是，这个人可以负责思考和负责。
手持海螺的拉尔夫登场，他吹响海螺将众童聚集到沙滩上，所有的儿童都认定持有海螺的人最有发言权和权威，除了杰克领导的合唱团，拉尔夫成为众望所归的领袖，民主第一次展现出它的力量，其实也逃不过少数服从多数的规律，这种以数量上不理智的压制来统领的手段在片尾的围剿中才显露其獠牙和利爪。
在拉尔夫的领导下，孩子们一方面了解到这是个孤岛，一方面意识到必须要主动建立起与外界的联系，而他们的方法便是寻求火源，用浓烟吸引飞机或轮船到此。而在离开之前，便是搭屋建棚、收集野果等一系列工作，在玩闹嬉耍里，小集体的生活总算正式开始，后面隐藏的种种弊端也开始凸显。手持尖刀的杰克根本不服从拉尔夫的领导，拉尔夫自己也只信任自己团队里年龄较大的孩子，对年龄小的孩子不屑一顾，后来因为杰克的疏忽导致火种熄灭失去救援机会成为了第一次矛盾的导火索。
在这次矛盾之后，两帮势力的分别更为明显：杰克帮的孩子依靠杰克的小刀将木棒的两端削尖作为武器，他们虽然还穿着合唱团的短裤并戴着帽子，却集体脱掉了上衣；而拉尔夫帮的孩子衣服因为穿梭在树林里变得破破烂烂，但就是破的分不清领口和袖口的衣服，这个帮的孩子还是尽量体面的穿着它们。荒岛上原先以规则和秩序建立的社会文明出现倒退倾向，人类文明的三个阶段原始文明、农业文明、工业文明里，以杰克小刀绝对力量的出现开始向农业文明滑坡。孩子们的行为开始越来越野蛮，为本能驱使的杀死动物来果腹不再充满罪恶感和恐惧，死去动物喷薄而出的鲜血更在视觉和心理上极大地刺激了这些孩童的本能：与其说是人类的本能，倒不如说是所有食肉动物的本能。
两个孩子第一次发现“怪兽”时，拉尔夫和杰克都去查看，但除了杰克占领了一个有利地形的山洞之外毫无线索，然而所有的孩子都被“怪兽”的描述吓坏了，大海和黑暗变成了他们最为恐惧的东西。此时，拉尔夫的理智论再也无法控制住杰克的本能论：规则和秩序的存在意义受到怀疑，且它们都不能为最基础的生存提供物质上的帮助，比如在“怪兽”面前，杰克的小刀和自信才是力量的源泉。
工业文明瓦解，农业文明兴起。
投靠杰克的孩子们得到削尖的木棍，通过劳动获得食物，最最重要的是，杰克使用植物在孩子们脸上和身上涂抹各种线条和颜色，并用“部落”形容自己的团体。杰克宣扬，为了不受怪兽伤害，他们必须定期进贡猪头给怪兽。故事发展到这，已经能见到原始宗教和图腾崇拜的起源。杰克帮彻底丢弃了原来合唱团衣服的穿法，像土著般随意缠绕挡住重点部位即可。而犯了错的部落族人，会受到脱光了抽屁股的惩罚。这个部落的团结依靠杰克尖刀的威信和对“怪兽”的恐惧，即便“怪兽”一直只是他们一厢情愿的幻想和去控制恐惧的借口。
猪仔的眼镜是火种之源，在杰克帮在夜晚的狂欢中以杀死“怪兽”的名义杀死一名孩童之后，抢劫在他们眼中也是弱肉强食的本事比拼，他们趁着夜晚的掩护抢走了猪仔的眼镜，控制了火源，不是为了向外界求救，仅仅是为了烧烤食物。向本能屈服总是比受到道德感约束容易的多，这里既有及时行乐的天性，也是顺从懒惰的劣根性。
被遗忘的电话号码、脱下的衣服、杀人后的笑脸、会说的单词越来越少、用嚎叫传递信息，原始部落彻底成型。这个荒岛的部落已经显现了几点注定消亡的证据：1.没有女童。2.杰克放火烧岛。3.小岛很小，资源有限。4.自相残杀毫无障碍。完全受兽性本能支配的杰克部落在杰克暴虐的统治下对谎言深信不疑，对试图让他们认清真相的孩童毫不留情的抹杀。杰克部落孩童数量上的绝对优势让拉尔夫最终孤身一人成为了被围剿者——“怪兽”的化身。为了消除令人不快的莫名其妙的恐惧感，以及融入集体的安全感，整个小岛陷入一片围剿活人的癫狂之中。
也正是这种癫狂，令权欲熏心的杰克放火烧岛试图逼拉尔夫现身，浓烟引起了海军警觉，才救了拉尔夫一命。看着统一着装、规律严谨、统一有序的白衣海军出现，那一刻现代人的形象真是宛若天神，难怪当年欧洲白色人种轻而易举的拿下了各个原始部落。然而，只有拉尔夫痛哭流涕，救援如此容易，同伴们却宁可选择丧失人性。
人性的离去，是现代文明的不挽留、还是原始本能的追求？
在进入正文之前，要提到近日的一篇文章：[一出好戏]，是天下第四好。
[一出好戏]有极大的格局眼界，但不够坚决。
黄渤在关键时刻，往后退了一步，让[一出好戏]这出反乌托邦故事，有了喜剧元素，也有了爱情救赎。
这是属于俗世的黄渤，他追求天下第四，电影也充满他的圆融，妥协，和宽容。
如果[一出好戏]一黑到底，就应当像它的前辈，[蝇王](1963年版)，诺贝尔奖得主威廉·戈尔丁原著改编电影。
[蝇王]所有的，是知识分子的清冷狠辣。它不怕任何人绝望，因为它坚定相信，相比它其中描绘的，人间只会更严酷。
它是一群孩子流落荒岛，由文明堕入野蛮邪恶的故事。
电影1964年在英国上映时，干脆被评了X级，这个评级在当时即“十八禁”。
可小演员们因为这个评级，没有一个能进影院看自己演的片。
照我说，还应该定成十八禁。虽暴力血腥程度很小儿科，但它对恶的描绘，却足以对心灵造成毁灭性的打击。
可怕的是，[蝇王]中的恶，往往以天真的面目出现。
可怕的是，[蝇王]中的恶，一点一滴积累，本来只是沾了点泥点子，每多一点污浊，好像都没什么，恍然间却已经满手鲜血。
①
长袍，到裸身
穿着黑色披风的唱诗班孩子们，沿着海岸齐齐整整，口里还唱着赞美诗。
他们唱的是“祝福我们的主”。
他们穿得像虔诚的教徒。
这身与其他孩子不一样的衣服，又带着居高临下的优越感。
在英国，有唱诗班的，往往是优秀的私立学校。
而在这学校中，唱诗班的孩子，又和其他学生是分开住宿的。他们因为付出劳动，还能得到奖学金。
在[蝇王]中，黑长袍们一出场，就有一阵完全不同的气场呼啸而过。
傲慢很明显，但又因为孩童的面目，只限于顽劣的程度。
可开会决议后，领头的杰克，做了一个极端的决定：
从唱诗班男孩——文明的天之骄子，变成猎人——野蛮食物链的顶端。
那衣服代表的秩序，在这个荒岛上不堪一击。别的孩子问，你们这是什么怪衣服？
那时候，唱诗班男孩还不服，没好气地反驳：这是我们的制服！
依然带着对文明的骄傲，只是猎人这个听起来新奇的身份，很有吸引力。
开始只是有趣，但衣服脱了，就穿不回去了。
这群本来最严守清规戒律，最应该纤尘不染的虔诚孩子，在尝到了肉腥味后，就一发不可收拾。
他们动作神态里的张狂戾气，与海边那些踏浪而来的孩子，已经完全两个世界。
虽然，只是脱了衣服，换了装备。
原来，人性只是裹在动物性之外的一件长袍，裹得越紧，被划破后的释放，就越丑陋。
②
砍树，到杀人
野性太有吸引力了，一尝到血味，就回不去了。
杰克说是要当猎人。但在第一次遇见野猪时，他手中的刀，悬在猪脖子旁好久。
身边只有两个孩子，可他还是一脸懊恼，觉得面子挂不住。
我也是可以狠的，我也是能毁灭的。
只是一次小孩子不服输吧？可是那股戾气，即使没见血，也已经划在血肉边缘。
在猪颈旁犹疑的那只手，不会再自控了。
那一下一下深深插入，不仅仅是为饱腹，而是一种孩子们自己都无法解释的杀戮欲望。“杀杀杀”，抒发着原始快感。
亲手杀戮，亲手点火，亲手把烤猪大卸八块，对这群孩子来说，说不定味道比肉还好。
事到如今，好像也只是杀了几头猪而已。可人心已经开始荡漾了。
看！是怪兽！
只要这么一句话。杀怪兽，比杀猪还具有合理性。没有人去分辨，那是不是真的怪兽。
而后，杀人甚至无需借口。
猪和人不是同类，“怪兽”是人的敌人，可就是面对同伴，只因为“猪仔”和他们不是一条心，就可以一块巨石滚下去，要了他的命。
人性中排除异己的劣根性，比动物性还要野蛮。
③
人，到猪
而最动摇人心的，是口口相传的那只怪兽。
因为有怪兽，遵守文明秩序，便成了一件拿生命开玩笑的迂腐事情。
而武力成了王。
可是，根本没有怪兽，它只在人们口中，或心里。
因为装扮奇怪，因为孩子们太慌乱，把他认成了怪兽。
什么怪兽啊，不过是还没有生根发芽的邪恶，有了借口，便长成了人心里的怪兽。n
影片中的蝇王，是那只献祭给怪兽的猪头。
我忍不住想起那具飞行员的尸体。
说是人，说是高等生物，腐臭后，还不是一只招惹苍蝇的蝇王？
要从人变成蝇王，真那么难吗？
只是脱了件衣服，因为压抑被释放，乍看像小孩子心性。
只是因为下不去手杀生，怕同伴认为自己懦弱，乍看像小孩子不服输。
只是为了饱腹，让求救的火种熄灭了，双方起了争执，乍看像小孩子打闹。
恶是一种怎样天真的假象，才会在人们浑然不觉之际，霸占了这座岛。
但那些细枝末节，又何止是细枝末节呢。
火种，是他们与文明世界最后的联系。
可带来火种的猪仔死了。
谁拿着谁说话的海螺，是他们曾经引以为豪的秩序——“我们可是英国人！”
可没有海螺了，也没有人在乎海螺了。
“恶之出于人，犹如蜜之出于蜂！”原作者戈尔丁这么说。
恶已经成了人自然而然的分泌物。
与[一出好戏]相比，[蝇王]这么决绝。
-
文：姜不停
文章源自微信公众号：电影解毒
一、一个寓言
在一个时间不确定的未来，世界爆发了核战争，一群孩子被迫开始了荒岛求生。一开始，文明和理性占了上风，孩子们通过民主选举和科学知识，有秩序地生存和等待救援。但很快，岛上出现了一个不确定的因素——怪兽。孩子们根据对待怪兽方式的不同，分化成了两个阵营，杰克代表的本能派很快俘获了大部分人心。本能引领着孩子们将心中的兽性释放了出来，小岛局势彻底失控。最终，路过的军官结束了岛上的杀戮，拯救了这群已经遗忘了人性的孩子。
二、一个公式
仔细分析故事情节，可以发现戈尔丁通过这样一个寓言故事，为我们拉出了一个公式，证明了人性本恶的命题：共同的敌人 + 迫切的基础需求 + 主流的裹挟 = 人性恶爆发。也就是说，公式里前半部分的三个因素一旦凑齐，人性里的恶就会爆发。这三个因素都是人类基因里携带的生存本能，所以要想抵制小说里描写的这种人性恶爆发，就需要一个和本能作斗争的过程。
三、一个水印
诺贝尔文学奖为戈尔丁撰写的颁奖词，提示我们这部小说中隐藏着一个水印，那就是：《蝇王》这本小说，以故事的普遍性阐述了今日世界人类的状况。一群思想单纯的人，到一个荒凉的地方，推举出一个法理型权威，正如五月花号上的新教徒移民登陆新大陆，发出自己的《独立宣言》；20世纪希特勒的崛起，也正是如同小说里的杰克当权，凑齐了公式里的三个条件。作者通过这个水印告诉我们，蝇王一直都藏在你我的人性里，想要继续维持法理、世界和平，就要避免凑齐让人性毕露的条件，要永远警惕不受控制的人性恶卷土重来。
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.
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。