-Orson Scott Card
The “jadedness problem” among reviewers is that, having been so many films, they get tired of certain kinds of films even when they are done well, while they get excited by something that strikes them as new, even when it’s actually loathsome or badly done. This explains the critical success of the products of puerile “talent” like Quentin Tarantino and Tim Burton, while lovely, well-crafted, but traditional films like One Fine Day are treated with genial disdain.
影評(píng)人中盛行的“麻木疲勞現(xiàn)象”是這樣的，看了很多影片后，他們開(kāi)始厭倦特定類(lèi)型的影片，盡管這類(lèi)片子其實(shí)拍攝得很好。相反評(píng)論家對(duì)于給他們帶來(lái)新鮮感的片子特別感興趣，即使這種影片讓人討厭或是粗制濫造。這種現(xiàn)象解釋了為什么昆丁塔倫蒂諾和堤姆帕頓這類(lèi)平庸的“天才”會(huì)在評(píng)論界取得成功，而像“一日鐘情”這樣令人愉悅并且制作精良的傳統(tǒng)影片卻遭嘲諷的原因。
Jadedness especially applies to films that demand a strong emotional willingness from the audience. Many filmgoers want a cathartic experience, but few reviewers are willing or even able to achieve catharsis. They get an intellectual epiphany and think they’ve experienced catharsis. But they’re wrong. They’ve seen a light or solved a puzzle, that’s all, and as most writers learn, sooner or later, the effects that wow critics are much easier to bring off than the effects that move the mass audience deeply.
這種疲勞特別表現(xiàn)在需要觀眾強(qiáng)烈情感共鳴的影片上。很多影迷需要一種宣泄情緒的體驗(yàn)，但是少有評(píng)論家愿意或能夠真情流露。他們知性富有洞察力，認(rèn)為自己經(jīng)歷了這樣的過(guò)程。但他們錯(cuò)了，他們看到的只是一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)信息、被揭開(kāi)的謎團(tuán)，僅此而已，大多數(shù)作家遲早會(huì)明白，營(yíng)造讓評(píng)論家叫絕的效果，要比烘托出讓大多數(shù)觀眾深深觸動(dòng)的氛圍容易得多。
As a result, a film like Spitfire Grill, which only works if you’re willing to get emotionally involved, leave reviewers cold. When they enter the movie theater (or screening room), they’re going to work, and despite their honest efforts to pretend to be normal movie-goers, they are who they are. An analyzer sheds no tears at Spitfire Grill because he isn’t looking for an experience with redemptive love, he’s looking for interesting things to say in his column or show.
結(jié)果，像“溫馨真情”這樣，只有全情投入才能體會(huì)的影片無(wú)法打動(dòng)影評(píng)家。他們走進(jìn)影院或放映廳就是來(lái)工作的，盡管他們誠(chéng)心想裝作一名普通觀眾，但他們還是評(píng)論家。抱著分析心態(tài)看"溫馨真情"的人不會(huì)落淚，因?yàn)樗⒉幌塍w會(huì)救贖之愛(ài)，只是為了寫(xiě)專(zhuān)欄或作秀而找好玩的題材。
I’m not immune to jadedness myself, of course. Even as I laughed to the point of misery during Dumb and Dumber, I knew it was a stupid, stupid, stupid movie. Nevertheless, no one had ever dealt with snot frozen on your face when it’s really cold, or the agonizing postures one takes on the toilet during violent diarrhea. Do I want to see these things again in a movie? Never. But they were new and worked once. (Warning to Jim Carrey: Nobody laughed in my local theatre when the Ace Ventura sequel used butt ventriloquism again. Funny once, my friend.) Some jokes count on jadedness in order to be funny, just as many arty films only appeal to a jaded audience. But the true classics, the great films, work on a completely different level that transcends the moment of their creation. In a world that includes (just for starters) Lawrence Kasdan, Ron Howard, and Steve Martin, it is disturbing that our critics give their acclaim to Tarantino (last year’s news, of course), Tim Burton, and Jane Campion.
當(dāng)然我自己也無(wú)法避免這種遲鈍現(xiàn)象，甚至在我被"阿呆和阿瓜"中的種種不幸逗樂(lè)的時(shí)候，我還是清楚，那是非常非常愚蠢的影片。然而，沒(méi)有人碰到過(guò)天寒地凍時(shí)鼻涕在臉上凍僵，或是嚴(yán)重腹瀉時(shí)在廁所痛苦地變化姿勢(shì)吧。你還想在電影里看一遍么？決不。但這些舉止曾經(jīng)很新鮮，也產(chǎn)生了的效果。（警告金凱利：在我們這里的劇場(chǎng)內(nèi)，當(dāng)神探飛機(jī)頭再次使用口技這一笑料時(shí)，沒(méi)有觀眾被逗樂(lè)。兄弟，一次才會(huì)有趣。）。有些把戲只在疲倦時(shí)有效，就像有些做作的片子只對(duì)麻木的觀眾有吸引力。而真正經(jīng)典的作品，那些偉大的電影，卻是在一個(gè)完全不同的層次上起作用，折射出他們所在的時(shí)代氣息。在有勞倫斯卡斯丹、羅霍華德、史蒂夫馬丁等等人物的時(shí)代，我們的影評(píng)家卻把他們的贊譽(yù)給了塔倫蒂諾（當(dāng)然是去年的新聞）、提姆帕頓和簡(jiǎn)卡賓，這不能不讓人憂慮。
Oddly, jaded reviewers tend to use inapplicable clichés in responding to films that did not please them. Thus we have movies with good characterization accused of having cardboard characters, simply because the reviewers didn’t like the characters; they mistook their subjective distaste for an objective flaw in the work. Instead of recognizing that the reasons they didn’t like One Fine Day were primarily within themselves, they had to find something wrong with the movie itself. Thus Ebert and Siskel complained that the audience knew immediately that these two characters were in love with each other and they grew impatient at the characters’ failure to recognize the truth. To which I can only reply, “What do you think a romantic comedy is?” It’s like complaining that in a western, you knew right from the beginning that the bad gunslinger and the good guy would have a showdown at the end. Furthermore, Ebert and Siskel complained about the quality of the writing! Apparently, their utter inability to get involved in the film blinded them to the fact that the dialogue actually achieved that mystical thing called “charm.” But because they weren’t willing to commit to the film, they gave us the standard charge of bad writing when in fact the writing was very good, and of a sort that is devilishly hard to succeed with.
更不合情理的是，麻木的影評(píng)人往往對(duì)他們不喜歡的影片胡亂指責(zé)。因此有些角色塑造很成功的影片，僅因不討評(píng)論家喜歡，就被貶為人物膚淺。影評(píng)家們把主觀的嫌惡誤認(rèn)為作品客觀上的缺陷。他們意識(shí)不到他們不喜歡“一日鐘情”的原因出在自己身上，于是費(fèi)盡心機(jī)的尋找影片的問(wèn)題。因而艾伯特和西斯科抱怨，觀眾一開(kāi)始就知道這兩個(gè)角色互相仰慕，對(duì)于他們不明真相感到厭煩。對(duì)此，我只能說(shuō)，“你認(rèn)為浪漫喜劇是什么？”這就像是抱怨在西部片里，你開(kāi)場(chǎng)就知道壞蛋槍手和好人會(huì)在最后一決上下。艾伯特和西斯科甚至指摘?jiǎng)”镜馁|(zhì)量！明顯的，他們無(wú)法融入電影中，所以看不到這樣的事實(shí)：對(duì)白實(shí)際上已經(jīng)取得了神奇的效果，那就是“魅力”。但因?yàn)樗麄儾辉甘苤朴谟捌运麄冇脴?biāo)準(zhǔn)的劇本低劣作為指責(zé)，事實(shí)上劇本很出色，何況在這一領(lǐng)域很難取得成功。
Blindest of all were the comments about Pfeiffer and Clooney not having “chemistry” or “spark .”
What does this mean? Frankly, I suspect that it means that these jaded reviewers can’t tell that there’s an attraction between characters unless they see clothing being feverishly removed. The English Patient was absolutely faithful to a morally vacuous book that almost worships adultery, suicide, and mercy-killing but reviewers commented on the chemistry between the lovers in the film. Apparently, they took off enough clothes around old-fashioned bathtubs. And while Jerry Maguire was a good film, it was in spite of, not because of, the “cute sex” scene on the porch, and I’m not the only one in the audience who was disappointed when they slept together. (Several groan were audible.) In contrast, for the nonreviewers I know, One Fine Day had plenty of sparks between the leads. But theirs was the chemistry of romance. These were people longing to intertwine their lives, not just their bodies.
所有評(píng)論中最輕率的就是批評(píng)帕菲和克魯尼“不融洽”或者說(shuō)“不來(lái)電”。這是什么意思呢？坦率的講，我懷疑除非角色們的衣衫退盡，否則這些麻木的影評(píng)人已經(jīng)分辨不出他們之間有無(wú)吸引了。“英國(guó)病人”非常忠于道德空虛的原著，而那本書(shū)對(duì)不倫、自殺以及安樂(lè)死幾近崇拜，但是影評(píng)人卻稱(chēng)片中的情侶關(guān)系融洽。顯然，那是因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)诶鲜降脑「走吤搲蛄艘路ｋm然“甜心先生”是一部好片，但是那并不是由于走廊里“巧妙的情色”場(chǎng)面。我不是唯一對(duì)他們最后睡在一起而失望的觀眾（好多人看到這段甚至大嘆）。相比之下，據(jù)我認(rèn)識(shí)的非影評(píng)人士所言，“一日鐘情”有大量的隱含火花。他們之間存在著浪漫的默契，這些人渴望靈魂的交匯，而不只是肉體。
This is not exclusively a problem of reviewer, of course. Many filmmakers and studio officials have been sucked into the same mindset. I was shocked to learn of and, occasionally, see for myself how many times Hollywood decision-makers push for nudity and sex, the kinkier the better. When one sees things like Garry Marshall’s recent sex fantasy (mercifully, I have blocked out the title) one can only ask, What was he thinking? This man knows how to make good movies. And the answer is : He lives in a culture (Hollywood) where sex is constantly in the forefront, where his storyline could seem interesting instead of merely repulsive. In another recent case, a noted “money” director had a chance at creating a Twilight Zone-like TV anthology series, but because it would be on pay cable he got obsessed with the possibility of nudity and pushed to get more of it into every show. The result? Trashy s that cheapen the general American culture, bringing it more in line with the worldview of this adolescently oversexed and undercivilized man.
當(dāng)然這不只是影評(píng)家的問(wèn)題，很多制片人和電影公司官員也陷入了相同的思維定式中。我很驚訝的聽(tīng)聞，有時(shí)候甚至目睹，好萊塢的決策層竭力推銷(xiāo)暴露與性，越古怪越好。如果誰(shuí)看過(guò)蓋瑞馬歇爾關(guān)于性幻想的新作（名字就不提了吧），他肯定會(huì)問(wèn)，這個(gè)人在想什么？他知道怎么拍出“好電影”。答案是，他生活在好萊塢這樣的文化氛圍中，性永遠(yuǎn)被放在第一位，他的故事情節(jié)只是讓其變得有趣些、不那么惹人反感而已。這里還有個(gè)例子，有名的“錢(qián)本位”導(dǎo)演本來(lái)有機(jī)會(huì)制作一部象陰陽(yáng)魔界這樣的電視劇集，由于將在付費(fèi)的有線電視上播出，他執(zhí)迷不悟的研究暴露鏡頭的可行性，往每一集里拼命填塞這些內(nèi)容。結(jié)果呢？貶低美國(guó)大眾文化的垃圾一樣的劇本，倒是很符合這個(gè)青春期性欲過(guò)剩的粗俗男人的世界觀。
These filmmakers, jaded themselves and surrounded by other jaded people, keep trying to create something “fresh” and “new”, not realizing that the freshest, newest thing they could create is something so old-fashioned few know how to make it anymore: stories about the lives that real people live. Here’s a clue: Most of us don’t spend every waking moment trying to live out our sexual fantasies. Most of us are thinking about our families, our jobs, and our friends; and our lives are enriched by affection, by religion, by commitment, by achievement, by romance, by warm and genuine humor. Who is making films for us? A few. A few. But their work is almost inevitably treated with disdain by the jaded reviewers.
這些制片人以及他們身邊的各式麻木的人，不斷試圖創(chuàng)造出“新鮮有趣”的東西，絲毫意識(shí)不到，他們所能創(chuàng)造的最鮮活東西就存在于那些看似古板、但是無(wú)人能企及的尋常人的生活故事之中。這里有些線索：我們中的大多數(shù)人并不會(huì)分分秒秒想著如何實(shí)現(xiàn)自己的性幻想，大多數(shù)人想的是自己的家庭、工作和朋友。我們的生活因?yàn)榍楦小⑿叛觥⒇?zé)任、成就、浪漫、溫暖真摯的幽默感而變得充實(shí)。誰(shuí)在為我們而制作這樣的影片呢？很少。是的，而且他們的這種作品幾乎不可避免的受到那些遲鈍評(píng)論家的譏諷。
Believe it or not, the vast missing audience, the kind of people who stopped going to the movies in the 1960s when nudity began to rule the screen, aren’t staying away because they’re prudes or because they love TV. They come back whenever they find out that a movie has been created for them. (E.T. Poltergeist. Indiana Jones. Lucas and Spielberg , for a time at least, promised and delivered storytelling at a mythic rather than sensual level. Storytelling for humans rather than beasts, to put it bluntly.) The trouble is, that audience can’t trust the reviewers to tell them when such a movie is found. While You Were Sleeping brought to the theaters, again and again, people I know who otherwise do all their viewing by renting videos of pre-1967 movies. But they didn’t learn about this film from the reviewers. They learned about it from their friends who took a chance. Or from the TV ads.
不管你信不信，被忽略的廣大觀眾，這些自70年代裸露主義一統(tǒng)銀屏起便不再去影院的人們并沒(méi)有故作清高或是因?yàn)槊陨狭穗娨暥艞夒娪啊Ｖ灰麄儼l(fā)現(xiàn)有符合他們的口味的影片，他們隨時(shí)會(huì)回來(lái)。（ET外星人、鬼驅(qū)人、奪寶奇兵、盧卡斯和斯皮爾伯格系列，至少在短期內(nèi)，營(yíng)造出讓人期待的奇幻而非煽情的故事氛圍。或者更坦率地講，他們的片子是拍給人看的，而不是給動(dòng)物）。問(wèn)題在于，當(dāng)影評(píng)人告訴觀眾，他們期待的片子出現(xiàn)的時(shí)候，觀眾已經(jīng)不再信任影評(píng)的話了。一見(jiàn)鐘情這部片子讓我認(rèn)識(shí)的許多原本會(huì)在租片店淘67年之前的老電影的人走進(jìn)了影院。他們可不是從影評(píng)人這里得到的消息，而是通過(guò)朋友推薦，或是電視廣告。
If I believed reviewers, my wife and I would think that The Piano was a great movie, instead of the most hate-filled, ugly experience of dishonest, unfair storytelling we’ve ever sat all the way through together. In the end, one wonders whether the jadedness problem shows that reviewers can’t see story content anymore at all, leaving them to review only the manner and style of filmmaking, or shows instead that they really do prefer films that degrade the human spirit for two hours in the dark.
如果我和妻子聽(tīng)信了影評(píng)的話，我們可能還真以為鋼琴別戀是一部好片。事實(shí)上，那卻是我和妻子一起看完的影片中充斥著最多仇恨、丑惡、不忠和私欲的一個(gè)。最后，你可能好奇，疲勞現(xiàn)象是否意味著影評(píng)人完全不看故事內(nèi)容只就影片的拍攝手法和風(fēng)格作評(píng)論, 還是他們確實(shí)更偏好能在漆黑的兩小時(shí)里引人墮落的影片？
