自首屆「藝發局藝評獎」由賈選凝以評價電影《低俗喜劇》獨占鰲頭伊此，全城頓時鬧得沸沸揚揚，不少文藝界人士亦相繼加入戰團 － 其中既有為其以政治語言貶損電影價值而抱不平者，亦有質疑評審過程及準則是否公正，甚至有就賈氏與評審團個別成員關係千絲萬縷，斥評審濫用公帑私相授受者。評審會主席林沛理蟄伏多日，昨晚終於打破緘默，撰文回應，就藝發局設立獎項目的、其評審之公正與藝術評論之功能三方面舖陳，亟欲藉此平息此場風波。可惜一如以前對其人其文的評價：意圖為荒誕之舉解套，結果卻是將繩圈套在自己頸項；所欠者，惟有人於背後輕輕一拉而已。而是文，姑勉為之。
林文先以預算多寡辯稱項目之微，不及藝發局對其餘重要影藝評論項目的支持。然而香港影評學會會長陳志華及時指出，一來撥款屬年度資助，包含多個項目及學會營運成本，二則資助源自藝發局另一部門，故聲明中套用藝發局名號實有張冠李戴之虞。而就此項目而論，林氏應與本地性質類近的藝評獎項相提並論，否則祇能視同蘋果對芒果、漠視差異的錯誤類比。按理說，曾撰寫《破謬．思維》亦重視邏輯思辨的林氏該不會干犯如此基本的謬誤，除非是有意誤導公眾。回說比較，坊間現存的文藝評論獎項，無論是出於官辦抑或私募，其獎金均由數千至萬元不等。藝評組如此破格重賞，實屬罕見。事到如今尚欠合理解釋，無怪乎受公帑濫用之譏。
他復提及項目設立要旨在獎掖藝評人，鼓勵寫作，產生水平更高的評論者，從而令人重視藝評的價值。但此例隱含重賞之下必有勇夫之意，不幸地沾染了事必選拔之惡癖。深諳藝術之道者必然明白，藝評從不為政治服務，亦不為商業服務，而同樣重要的是不應為獎項服務。藝評並非為豐厚賞金與片刻虛榮而撰，而是肩負臧否之責，優秀的作品能得到及時稱頌，相反低劣之作則當受適切批評。許多藝術家有強烈的自我(Ego)，藝評人亦然。這種本能自會驅使他們寫作不懈，坦然表達觀賞藝術創作後的直接感受，甚至言人之不能言。可名魁榜帖的賈氏一朝得志，東拉西扯地肆意批評滿腹狐疑的公眾，其不可一世，不覺暴露其滿腔自卑。似乎此奬不僅未收原訂效果，反而扭曲藝評宏旨，以至於引發出得獎者暗藏心底的劣根性。
而至為關鍵處見於下段：簡略解釋選拔機制。首先是文本以不具名及列印形式呈送評審，屬於盲測(Blind Assessment)，杜絕參賽者與評選員私通之機；其次是評審團由六人組成，評分比重均等，避免出現一言堂情況。不過祇要大家細心留意近日網友陸續揭發的事實，可見其評選制度之破綻連連。首先是業已作古的也斯先生其時已因病重缺席評審會議，團隊名為六人實則祇餘五人，至此厚誣死者實有欠公允；而眾所週知身為評判之二的林沛理及邱立本均藉工作關係與賈相識，而尤以賈林二人均深悉彼此文字風格及遣辭用字之習慣，故林氏所提之盲測僅止於單盲測試(Single-blind)，意指即使文章既不具名亦無從得悉字跡或記認，祇需以「獨特」的文風投其所好，以往工作接觸足以主觀影影響負責評審的林邱，導致評分有所偏頗。而配合上述團隊縮減，五份之二的高分數自是有力操縱賽果。所謂盲選至此形同虛設。
其後輪到林氏剖白個人的藝評觀。
誠然，創作者寵辱不驚，祇怕作品乏人問津，最終遭到埋沒，一如石子投入河中了無漣漪。他們欲提升自身水平，必須於己有深切瞭解，這需要讀者及藝評人從旁協助，反映觀感。李小龍曾有一妙喻：求道猶如以手指月，莫將目光集中於手指，而錯失月亮的光華。藝評雖為手指，但對未嘗觀賞作品的普羅大眾，起著推廣介紹的作用；而對曾經欣賞的受眾，則可印證自身對作品的想法，才可引發更廣泛的討論。經歷諸般評論的洗練，既能成為創作者更上層樓的助力，亦提昇藝評人以至大眾的審美眼光。但無論筆下如何天馬行空或者法度森嚴，藝評畢竟要圍繞本體，不能脫離作品自說自話。觀乎是屆金獎作品，膽氣有之，卻無甚生氣；手指還是手指，卻非指向月亮本身，而是藉電影之名及其皮相，自作多情地穿鑿附會低俗移化接木成了本土文化，或藉嘲弄大陸角色代表以煽動中港矛盾之類情節，遑論切入電影要旨。故此，根本談不上是藝評。
一部作品引人入勝的地方，正在本身諸多祇可意會不能言傳的微妙(Nuance)之處。而按林氏強調批判反省或爭議性評論而缺更深邃的演釋分析，以濃烈的的個人好惡凌駕於作品的優劣之上，各取所需，說白了不過是「六經注我」而已。但真正的藝評者的使命遠超於批判，而是致力發掘優秀的作品之餘，同時指正不足。林氏提及莎士比亞傑作的歷久嘗新，但他沒有告訴大家的事，且補充如下：莎翁劇作生前鮮有受同時代的人重視，死後方由其友人收集刊行。雖得詩人賓莊臣(Ben
Johnson)說項，在序言詩中贊譽其為「不僅屬於當代，而是空前絕後」(Not of an age, but
for all time)，但當時社會主流依然批評莎劇一無是處。直至經大文豪歌德、柯勒律治(Samuel
Coleridge)等大力推薦讚許，世人方知莎士比亞的偉大，引起文學愛好者積極研讀其作品。林氏勸籲批評者應多加留意榜眼探花，但相較之下正好說明藝評者闡釋發揚的重要功用，而非祇懂自以為是地沉醉於譁眾取寵、語不驚人誓不休的言辭，或以高抬陽春白雪踐踏下里巴人為風尚。否則此等「評論」充斥市面，大家也許更認定所謂藝評不外如是，反而令人對此嗤之以鼻。
由是可知，林氏閃爍其辭不僅未能自圓其說，反而不斷堆砌語言偽術，欲以包容異己之類陳腔濫調搪塞過去，倒是會教訓大家要和平理性之心對待。既如是，且以波柏名著《開放社會及其敵人》(The Open Society and Its
Enemies, 1945)一語相贈：「若我等放鬆監察，疏於警戒，自由亦將離你我而去。」不論於制度或者純粹的創作及表達自由，亦大抵如是。
汝誰欺？欺天乎？勸君好自為之，是禱。
Pauline Kael: Replying
to Listeners (Excerpt)
.....
How completely has mass culture subverted even the role of the critic when
listeners suggest that because the movies a critic review favorably are
unpopular and hard to fine, that the critic must be playing some snobbish game
with himself and the public? Why are you listening to a minority radio station
like KPFA? Isn’t it because you want something you don’t get on commercial
radio? I try to direct you to films that, if you search them out, will give you
something you won’t get from The Parent Trap. You consider it rather
“suspect” that I don’t raise more “name” movies. Well, what makes a “name”
movie is simply a saturation advertising campaign, the same kind of campaign
that puts samples of liquid detergents at your door. The “name” pictures of Hollywood
are made the same way they are sold: by pretesting the various ingredients,
removing all possible elements that might affront the mass audience, adding all
possible elements that will titillate the largest number of people. As the CBS
television advertising slogan put it—“Titillate—and dominate.” South Pacific
is seventh in Variety’s list of all-time top grossers. Do you know
anybody who thought it was a good movie? Was it popular in any meaningful sense
or do we just call it popular because it was sold? The tie-in campaign for
Doris Day in Lover Come Back included a Doris Day album to be sold for a
dollar with a purchase of Imperial margarine. With a schedule of 23 million
direct mail pieces, newspaper, radio, TV and store ads, Lover Come Back
became a “name” picture.
I try not to waste air time
discussing obviously bad movies—popular though they may be; and I don’t discuss
unpopular bad movies because you’re not going to see them anyway; and there
wouldn’t be much point or sport in hitting people who are already down. I do
think it’s important to take time on movies which are inflated by critical
acclaim and which some of you might assume to be the films to see.
There were some extraordinarily
unpleasant anonymous letters after the last broadcast on The New American
Cinema. Some were obscene; the wittiest called me a snail eating the tender
leaves off young artists. I recognize your assumptions: the critic is supposed
to be rational, clever, heartless and empty, envious of the creative fire of the
artists, and if the critic is a woman, she is supposed to be cold and
castrating. The artist is supposed to be delicate and sensitive and in need of
tender care and nourishment. Well, this nineteenth-century romanticism is
pretty silly in twentieth-century Bohemia.
I regard criticism as an art, and
if in this country and in this age it is practiced with honesty, it is no more
remunerative than the work of an avant-garde film artist. My dear anonymous
letter writers, if you think it is so easy to be a critic, so difficult to be a
poet or a painter or film experimenter, may I suggest you try both? You may
discover why there are so few critics, so many poets.
Some of you write me flattering
letters and I’m grateful, but one last request: if you write me, please don’t
say, “This is the first time I’ve ever written a fan letter.” Don’t say it,
even if it’s true. You make me feel as if I were taking your virginity—and it’s
just too sordid.
KPFA broadcast, January 1963
