解構(gòu)金球獎(jiǎng)影片

Big Movies Plunged Into Our Still-Wrenching History. Did the Golden Globes Award Them?

解構(gòu)金球獎(jiǎng)影片

Frank Bruni: You and I come into these conversations hoping to focus on new movies with special cultural and social relevance, and for much of the year we’re hard pressed. But December gave us plenty: “Selma,” “American Sniper” and more.

弗蘭克·布魯尼(Frank Bruni)：咱們二人之所以展開這些對(duì)話，是希望關(guān)注那些具有特殊的文化和社會(huì)意義的新電影。去年很多時(shí)間里，我們的選擇都很有限。但12月出現(xiàn)了很多影片，如《塞爾瑪》(Selma)和《美國狙擊手》(American Sniper)等。

I wanted to begin, though, with a less obvious candidate for deconstruction, because it does, in a fashion, speak to some of the peculiarities of public life right now. I’m referring to the director Tim Burton’s “Big Eyes,” with Amy Adams as Margaret Keane, the painter whose husband (Christoph Waltz) took credit for her work.

我想先從一個(gè)不那么明顯的選擇開始解構(gòu)，因?yàn)樗谝欢ǔ潭壬虾脱巯鹿采畹囊恍┨厥庵幱嘘P(guān)。我說的是蒂姆·伯頓(Tim Burton)執(zhí)導(dǎo)的《大眼睛》(Big Eyes)。在該片中，艾米·亞當(dāng)斯(Amy Adams)飾演的畫家瑪格麗特·基恩(Margaret Keane)的作品，被丈夫(克里斯托弗·沃爾茲[Christoph Waltz]出演)署上了自己的名字。

Adams just picked up a Golden Globe for best actress in a musical or comedy, which was pretty odd because “Big Eyes” isn’t exactly a comedy. It’s a biopic, essentially, and the disappointment of it is that it never quite transcends the familiar, predictable rhythms of that genre. But “Big Eyes” raises a set of questions that seem to me especially germane to this era of Twitter and Instagram and indefatigable branding and unabashed self-promotion.

艾米·亞當(dāng)斯獲得了金球獎(jiǎng)(Golden Globe)音樂劇/喜劇類的最佳女主角這一點(diǎn)很奇怪，因?yàn)椤洞笱劬Α犯静皇窍矂?。從本質(zhì)上來說，它是一部傳記片，但遺憾的是，它并未超越這類影片為人熟悉、可預(yù)測的節(jié)奏。但《大眼睛》提出了一系列問題。在我看來，這些問題與這個(gè)有著Twitter、Instagram、堅(jiān)持不懈的包裝和不加掩飾的自我推銷的時(shí)代密切相關(guān)。

Do the spoils go to the gifted, or do they go to the shameless? How completely can showmanship obscure the truth, and how far can a smooth and self-infatuated operator travel on swagger alone?

成果會(huì)落到才華橫溢的人，還是寡廉鮮恥的人手里?作秀能力如何能徹底掩蓋真相，圓滑、自戀的人又能僅靠自己的趾高氣揚(yáng)走多遠(yuǎn)?

Waltz’s character goes quite a distance, and as I watched him, I kept thinking of political campaigns and of a central challenge in a country where, all too often, more energy goes into the marketing than into the product (or the policy). Voters have to figure out which of the many people stepping forward with a gaudy sales pitch is truly the author of something substantive. That’s not always easy.

沃爾茲的角色頗具深意?？粗麜r(shí)，我一直在想政治活動(dòng)和這個(gè)國家面臨的一個(gè)重大挑戰(zhàn)。在這里，在營銷上投入的精力超過了在產(chǎn)品(或政策)上投入的精力。站到前臺(tái)的人中，許多都有一套華而不實(shí)的推銷言辭，選民必須想清楚，他們中哪一個(gè)的話才是真的。而這一點(diǎn)并不總是能輕易做到。

Ross Douthat: May I suggest that I detect a hint of a politician’s practiced evasion in your choice of movies to kick things off? An attempt, perhaps, to put off reckoning with the real substance of the Christmas movie season, which is that most of the meaty Big Movies just weren’t particularly good?

羅斯·多賽特(Ross Douthat)：我能說在你對(duì)電影的選擇中，我發(fā)現(xiàn)了一點(diǎn)兒政客逃避問題時(shí)的感覺嗎?你這么做，或許是不愿太早揭露圣誕電影季的實(shí)質(zhì)：大部分有分量的大片都不是特別好，對(duì)嗎?

I think this was apparent at the Globes last night, where, apart from Adams’s “Big Eyes” win, the victors (and, for the most part, the nominees) were all movies and performances that came out before — long before, in the case of both best-picture winners — the official holiday rush. Not that they were all particularly bad; it’s just that they mostly called to mind better treatments of similar material. “American Sniper” had some gripping moments and a great performance by Bradley Cooper, but its themes were worked through much more creatively by Kathryn Bigelow in “The Hurt Locker” and “Zero Dark Thirty.” Angelina Jolie’s “Unbroken,” like Gary Ross’s “Seabiscuit” before it, was an intermittently impressive adaptation of Laura Hillenbrand that didn’t live up to the book’s standard, and it mostly made me want to go watch “The Bridge on the River Kwai” again. Only “Selma” left me genuinely impressed, and even there I couldn’t help comparing it somewhat unfavorably with last year’s “12 Years a Slave,” a race-and-history drama less constrained (save during Brad Pitt’s awful cameo) by the conventions of the genre.

我覺得，在昨晚的金球獎(jiǎng)?lì)C獎(jiǎng)典禮上，除了讓亞當(dāng)斯摘得大獎(jiǎng)的《大眼睛》外，獲獎(jiǎng)影片(而且在很大程度上來說，算上提名影片)顯然都是在正式的假日季到來之前推出的。其中兩大最佳影片得主的發(fā)行時(shí)間，更是遠(yuǎn)在此之前。它們并不是都特別差勁;只是大多讓人回想起了對(duì)類似題材更好的處理?！睹绹褤羰帧酚幸恍┛廴诵南业溺R頭，萊德利·庫珀(Bradley Cooper)表現(xiàn)出色，但對(duì)于該片涉及的主題，凱瑟琳·畢格羅(Kathryn Bigelow)在《拆彈部隊(duì)》(The Hurt Locker)和《刺殺本·拉登》(Zero Dark Thirty)中的處理要有創(chuàng)意得多。和此前加里·羅斯(Gary Ross)導(dǎo)演的《奔騰年代》(Seabiscuit)一樣，安吉麗娜·朱莉(Angelina Jolie)執(zhí)導(dǎo)的《堅(jiān)不可摧》(Unbroken)改編自勞拉·希倫布蘭德(Laura Hillenbrand)的著作。影片斷斷續(xù)續(xù)地會(huì)有一些出彩的地方，但總的來說沒有達(dá)到原著的水準(zhǔn)。它常常讓我想再去看一遍《桂河大橋》(The Bridge on the River Kwai)。只有《塞爾瑪》讓我真的印象深刻，但即便是在看這部電影時(shí)，我也忍不住有些不滿地拿它和去年的《為奴十二年》(12 Years a Slave)相比。作為一部種族和歷史片，《為奴十二年》受這類影片的傳統(tǒng)限制較少(布拉德·皮特[Brad Pitt]飾演配角的糟糕表現(xiàn)除外)。

And it wasn’t just the prestige movies: The holiday “crowd-pleasers” mostly felt like, if you will, imitation games, failing to live up to standards set by better blockbusters. I’m a conscientious objector from “The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Hours or So,” but I’m assured that it’s exactly the bloated desecration of the “Lord of the Rings” that it appears to be from afar. “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” like every historical epic Ridley Scott has made in the past decade, mostly just made me want to fire up “Gladiator.” And “The Interview,” which I did my patriotic duty and paid $5.99 to watch On Demand, doesn’t really offer anything — save a truly bizarre James Franco performance, an eyebrow-raiser even by his standards — that wasn’t delivered with much more gonzo flair and self-awareness in “Team America: World Police.”

不僅是那些為了獲得榮譽(yù)的影片是這樣：假期里“迎合觀眾的影片”大多也感覺像是模仿比賽，未能達(dá)到更棒的大片定下的水準(zhǔn)。我從原則上拒絕看《霍比特人：大概其五小時(shí)之戰(zhàn)》(The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Hours or So)。相關(guān)信息讓我確信，它和從遠(yuǎn)處給人的感覺一樣，完全是對(duì)《指環(huán)王》(Lord of the Rings)的冗長褻瀆。和雷利·斯科特(Ridley Scott)過去10年里拍攝的所有歷史大片一樣，《法老與眾神》(Exodus: Gods and Kings)常常讓我想去看《角斗士》(Gladiator)。我盡了愛國的義務(wù)，付了5.99美元，通過點(diǎn)播的方式觀看了《采訪》(The Interview)。但這部片子與《美國戰(zhàn)隊(duì)：世界警察》(Team America: World Police)相比，在瘋狂的天分及自我意識(shí)方面，處處都要甘拜下風(fēng)。不過詹姆斯·弗蘭科(James Franco)的表現(xiàn)真的很怪異，即便是以他的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來看，也令人意外。

To take off my curmudgeon’s hate for a moment, I did like “Wild” and “A Most Violent Year” (though the latter not as much as I’d hoped), and to put on my political pundit’s hat, I do think the controversy around how “Selma” portrays L.B.J. is genuinely interesting. But before getting into that debate, tell me I’m wrong about December — or just least tell me what you liked last month, and why.

暫時(shí)放下我這個(gè)脾氣不好的人的反感，我的確喜歡《走出荒野》(Wild)和《至暴之年》(A Most Violent Year)(盡管后者和我的期望還有差距)，而且如果以政治時(shí)事評(píng)論員的身份來看，我的確覺得《塞爾瑪》對(duì)林登·約翰遜(L.B.J.)的描述引發(fā)的爭議很有意思。但在進(jìn)行相關(guān)討論之前，你能指出我對(duì)12月影片的看法中哪里錯(cuò)了嗎，或者至少告訴我上月的影片中，你喜歡哪一部，為什么。

Bruni: No evasion here! You have teed me up to talk about “American Sniper,” and I will gladly take my swing: I found it absurd. From a technical standpoint, it’s made with skill, but in all other regards, it’s dumbfounding. It gives us a protagonist who believes that just about anything is warranted in defense of what he bluntly states is the greatest country on earth, but what little glimpse we get of his back story tells us nothing about how he defines that greatness and about whether his patriotism is rooted in anything more than slogans, received wisdom and the dining-room-table sermons of his spookily intense father. He’s a one-dimensional killing machine in thrall to his own marksmanship, and when he winds up rattled by all the death that he’s seen and at times been the agent of, it’s unclear if this is because he’s come to doubt the war’s purpose or to question its justification. It’s unclear that he’s asked any big questions at all. Maybe that’s the point — that many warriors are simply swept up in the call to battle — but it makes for a thinly written character.Equally frustrating is the way the movie draws a straight line from the attack on the Twin Towers to the war in Iraq. As David Edelstein wrote in his review of “American Sniper” in New York magazine, there’s “no indication that the two events — 9/11 and the Iraq invasion — have been yoked together by unscrupulous politicians who don’t have a clue what lies in store for American soldiers.” Edelstein actually went further, calling “American Sniper” “a Republican platform movie.” I’d love your reaction to that, Ross. Does it indeed veer toward propaganda, or are Eastwood’s critics now seeing his work through the prism of that moment at the 2012 Republican National Convention when he took the stage and talked to an empty chair that was meant to symbolize Obama?

布魯尼：我沒在逃避!既然你讓我談?wù)劇睹绹褤羰帧?，我很樂意：我覺得這部片子很荒唐。從技術(shù)角度來說，它的制作很有技巧，但在所有其他方面，這部片子讓人完全傻眼。影片塑造的主人公直截了當(dāng)?shù)卣f美國是最偉大的國家，認(rèn)為為了保衛(wèi)這個(gè)國家，幾乎一切都是正當(dāng)?shù)?，但他的背景故事幾乎完全沒告訴我們，他是如何定義這種偉大的，以及他的愛國主義的源頭，除了口號(hào)、傳統(tǒng)觀念和他那狂熱得令人毛骨悚然的父親在餐桌上的訓(xùn)誡，還有什么。他是一個(gè)膚淺的殺人機(jī)器，受控于自己的槍法。當(dāng)他最后對(duì)自己親眼目睹、有時(shí)甚至是親手制造的死亡感到不安時(shí)，我們不清楚這是因?yàn)樗_始質(zhì)疑戰(zhàn)爭的目的，還是因?yàn)樗|(zhì)疑戰(zhàn)爭的理由。我們也不知道他到底有沒有提出重大的問題?；蛟S這正是問題的關(guān)鍵，很多士兵不過是被卷入了戰(zhàn)爭的召喚，但這導(dǎo)致劇本中的這個(gè)角色很單薄。同樣令人失望的是，影片直接從雙子塔遇襲切換到了伊拉克戰(zhàn)爭。正如戴維·埃德爾斯坦(David Edelstein)在《紐約》雜志(New York magazine)上的《美國狙擊手》影評(píng)中所寫的那樣，影片“沒有指出9·11襲擊和入侵伊拉克這兩件事情，是被一些寡廉鮮恥的政客強(qiáng)加在一起的，他們不知道美國大兵即將面臨什么”。實(shí)際上，埃德爾斯坦更進(jìn)一步，稱《美國狙擊手》是“共和黨的宣傳電影”。我想聽聽你對(duì)此的意見，羅斯。這部片子真的偏向于政宣片嗎，還是說現(xiàn)在批評(píng)伊斯特伍德的人，是在透過2012年共和黨全國代表大會(huì)(Republican National Convention)上發(fā)生的那件事，來看待他的作品?在那次大會(huì)上，伊斯特伍德走上臺(tái)，對(duì)著一把象征奧巴馬的空椅子講話。

Douthat: O.K., you’ve provoked me: In spite of finding it middling as art, I’ll speak up in defense of the politics of “American Sniper” — or, more accurately, the conspicuous lack thereof. Edelstein’s a fine critic, but his line about “Sniper” being a “Republican platform movie” is ridiculous, as is the alleged stark contrast he draws between “Sniper” and Eastwood’s “Letters From Iwo Jima.” The reality is that all of Eastwood’s recent war movies — “Iwo Jima” and “Flags of Our Fathers” as well as “Sniper” — share the same basically apolitical quality: They’re interested in the warp and woof of war, the experience of comradeship and wartime stress, and so they take their characters’ official reason for fighting — be it rah-rah American patriotism or dutiful Japanese nationalism or something else — as a given and don’t spend a lot of time asking bigger questions about which side or strategy is right or wrong.

多賽特：好啊，你在挑釁：盡管我覺得作為藝術(shù)作品，《美國狙擊手》很一般，但我要替影片中的政治說幾句，更準(zhǔn)確地說是劇中明顯缺少的政治。埃德爾斯坦是一名優(yōu)秀的評(píng)論家，但他說《美國狙擊手》是“共和黨的宣傳電影”那句話，以及他所謂的《美國狙擊手》與伊斯特伍德之前的《硫磺島家書》(Letters From Iwo Jima)有著天壤之別都很可笑。事實(shí)是，伊斯特伍德最近執(zhí)導(dǎo)的所有戰(zhàn)爭片，如《硫磺島家書》、《父輩的旗幟》(Flags of Our Fathers)，以及《美國狙擊手》都有一個(gè)共同的特點(diǎn)，那就是基本不關(guān)心政治：它們感興趣的是戰(zhàn)爭的基本元素、戰(zhàn)友情誼和戰(zhàn)時(shí)壓力的體驗(yàn)，所以它們認(rèn)為，片中角色作戰(zhàn)的官方理由——不管是激情澎湃的美國愛國主義，還是盡忠職守的日本民族主義，或是其他什么——是認(rèn)定了的，不會(huì)花很多時(shí)間提出更大的問題，質(zhì)疑哪一方，或哪種戰(zhàn)略的對(duì)錯(cuò)。

I’m not in love with this approach, but it’s a consistent one for Eastwood. He neither endorses Chris Kyle’s monologues about American greatness nor is he particularly interested in subjecting them to a scathing critique; mostly he just rushes through them in order to get back to the world he’s really interested in, the world of battle, where politics recedes and all the questions that matter are much more immediate than the W.M.D. debate. He’s no more making Bush administration propaganda than he was making imperial Japanese propaganda; he’s just trying to make movies about wartime experience, period, in its varied forms.

我不喜歡這種方式，但這是伊斯特伍德一貫的套路。他既不認(rèn)可克里斯·凱爾(Chris Kyle)用獨(dú)白的方式陳述美國的偉大，對(duì)于用一篇嚴(yán)厲的評(píng)論文章來抨擊那些獨(dú)白也不感興趣。他主要是想快速處理完這些獨(dú)白，以便回到他真正感興趣的那個(gè)世界去。在那個(gè)戰(zhàn)爭的世界里，政治退去了，所有要緊的事情都比有關(guān)大規(guī)模殺傷性武器的辯論更加直接。他在片中對(duì)布什政府宣傳的關(guān)注，并不比對(duì)日本帝國宣傳的關(guān)注多。他不過是試圖拍攝各種形式的電影，來講述戰(zhàn)時(shí)的經(jīng)歷。

And then since I am interested in political arguments, I’ll also offer a brief word in defense of Kyle’s own attitudes, at least as expressed on-screen. There was no straight line from 9/11 plot to Saddam Hussein’s regime, I agree, but one can regard the invasion as a misbegotten folly and still acknowledge that by the time we arrived at the specific in-theater events the movie narrates — particularly the hunt for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — United States troops really were fighting adherents of the ideology that inspired the 9/11 attacks (or a variant thereof). Again, that doesn’t make the case for the war itself, but it means that from the ordinary soldier’s perspective, the connection wasn’t just smoke and mirrors, and there’s nothing inherently deluded about invoking it as an argument for staying in the fight.

同時(shí)，既然我對(duì)政治辯論感興趣，我也要簡單地為凱爾自己的態(tài)度，至少是銀幕上表現(xiàn)出來的他的態(tài)度說幾句。我同意，9·11陰謀與薩達(dá)姆·侯賽因 (Saddam Hussein)政權(quán)沒有直接聯(lián)系，但人們能夠在認(rèn)為入侵是卑劣的愚蠢之舉的同時(shí)，也承認(rèn)在電影里描述的那些特定事件——特別是追捕阿布·穆薩卜·扎卡維 (Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi)——發(fā)生時(shí)，美國軍隊(duì)的確在與激勵(lì)了9·11襲擊的那種意識(shí)形態(tài)的追隨者作戰(zhàn)。是的，這并不能成為戰(zhàn)爭本身的理由，但它意味著從普通士兵的角度來看，這種聯(lián)系并不是霧里花、鏡中月，使用這個(gè)說法來解釋為什么繼續(xù)戰(zhàn)斗本身并非胡思亂想。

Bruni: The problem that I have with the odd vacuum in which “American Sniper” tells its story is that there’s been, and almost immediately was, such a furious swirl of questions about why we went into Iraq, about whether it was the right target at the right time and about how the war was marketed, that you simply can’t watch the movie without feeling that a crucial bit of context is being steadfastly avoided. It’s a voice in your head that intrudes on and distracts from what’s happening on-screen. Like you, I wouldn’t go so far as to call “American Sniper” a “Republican platform movie,” but I would call it disconcertingly simplistic and off key.

布魯尼：《美國狙擊手》是在一個(gè)奇怪的真空里講述自己的故事。我對(duì)這個(gè)真空的不滿是，一直且?guī)缀跻婚_始就有鋪天蓋地的問題，針對(duì)的是我們?yōu)楹我肭忠晾?、伊拉克是不是在正確的時(shí)間里選擇的正確目標(biāo)，以及這場戰(zhàn)爭是如何進(jìn)行宣傳的，所以在觀看該片時(shí)，你不可能感覺不到電影決絕地回避了一些關(guān)鍵背景。你腦海里會(huì)出現(xiàn)一個(gè)聲音干擾屏幕上的情節(jié)，轉(zhuǎn)移你的注意力。和你一樣，我也不至于說《美國狙擊手》是“共和黨的宣傳電影”，但我會(huì)說它的簡單化和跑題令人不安。

“American Sniper” has a plot that could easily have accommodated big questions about America, and it chooses not to ask them. “Foxcatcher,” another somber awards-season movie, is the opposite. It insinuates that the story of the spectacularly wealthy industrialist John du Pont’s ill-fated patronage of working-class wrestlers is some sort of mirror of the country’s dysfunctions: Flags, eagles and references to national pride abound. But really it’s about a singularly creepy social misfit, and it buckles under the weight of the larger meanings piled onto it. It’s also strangely dull, and I say “strangely” because its director, Bennett Miller, previously made “Moneyball,” turning a tale of statistics into a riveting, moving drama: the best movie of its year, IMHO. In “Foxcatcher,” he has a kook, half-naked men pinning each other to the ground and a bizarre true crime to work with, and he presses them into a hushed, stately, stale epic.

《美國狙擊手》的情節(jié)很容易融入一些和美國有關(guān)的宏大問題，但影片選擇不這么做。另一部低沉的影片《狐貍獵手》(Foxcatcher)則截然相反。該片旁敲側(cè)擊的暗示，富得驚人的實(shí)業(yè)家約翰·杜邦(John du Pont)贊助工人階級(jí)摔跤手卻沒帶來好結(jié)果的故事，在一定程度上反映了這個(gè)國家的癥結(jié)所在：片中有大量國旗、老鷹和提到民族自豪感的地方。但實(shí)際上，它講述的是一個(gè)與社會(huì)特別格格不入的人的故事，影片所承載的更大意義令其不堪重負(fù)。這部片子奇怪地?zé)o趣，我說“奇怪”是因?yàn)樗膶?dǎo)演貝尼特·米勒 (Bennett Miller)曾在《點(diǎn)球成金》(Moneyball)中，把一個(gè)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)故事，變成了一部引人入勝、令人動(dòng)容的電影，個(gè)人認(rèn)為那是當(dāng)年的年度最佳電影。在《狐貍獵手》中，他要應(yīng)對(duì)的是一個(gè)怪人、兩個(gè)要將對(duì)方壓倒在地的半裸男子和一樁真實(shí)的奇案。他卻把這些東西一股腦兒塞進(jìn)了一部節(jié)奏沉悶、推進(jìn)緩慢、題材陳舊的大片里。

More engrossing than anything in “Foxcatcher” were the recent real-life Twitter tantrums of Mark Schultz, the wrestler at the center of du Pont’s obsessions, played by Channing Tatum in the movie. He’s apparently outraged about scenes that suggest homoerotic currents between him and du Pont. I mention that partly to pivot to the following question, Ross, since it applies not just to “Foxcatcher” but also to “American Sniper” and perhaps to “Selma” most of all: What obligation, if any, do movies have to hew to the historical record and the known truth? I’m curious if you think there are any firm dos and don’ts, any inventions or suppositions that should be out of bounds.

《狐貍獵手》最引人入勝的是最近發(fā)生在現(xiàn)實(shí)中的情節(jié)，杜邦十分關(guān)注的摔跤手馬克·舒爾茨(Mark Schultz，在劇中由查寧·塔圖姆[Channing Tatum]扮演)在Twitter上發(fā)飆了。讓他憤怒的顯然是劇中暗示他跟杜邦之間，有同性曖昧情緒的場景。羅斯，我提這個(gè)，部分目的是想把話題轉(zhuǎn)到下一個(gè)問題，這個(gè)問題不僅適用于《狐貍獵手》，也適用于《美國狙擊手》，可能最適用于《塞爾瑪》：電影有怎樣的義務(wù)去遵從歷史記載和已知的事實(shí)，甚至有沒有這樣的義務(wù)?我好奇的是，你會(huì)不會(huì)覺得有某些確定的“什么可以做什么不可以做”的規(guī)則，有沒有哪些編造或者臆測是不可接受的?

Douthat: Well, it’s complicated. The obligation to historical fidelity clearly can’t be absolute, or no filmmaker could pass it, and there has to be ample room for movies to play with real-life events to get at particular points and argument and ideas. To pick an apolitical recent example, I loved “The Social Network,” a movie that I thought captured the culture of meritocracy (or at least its Harvardian iteration) brilliantly, even though its “Mark Zuckerberg” bore little relationship to the real-life man. In that case and many others, I tend to agree with Jamelle Bouie’s argument — made last week in the context of the “Selma” debate — that viewers should be generally “less concerned with fact-checking and more interested in understanding” why, exactly, directors and screenwriters wrestling with history make the compressing/eliding/inventing choices that they make.

多賽特：實(shí)際上挺復(fù)雜的。忠于歷史的義務(wù)顯然不能是絕對(duì)的，否則沒有哪個(gè)電影人能及格，電影中應(yīng)該有充裕的空間對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)事件進(jìn)行演繹，從而表達(dá)某些特定的觀點(diǎn)、論調(diào)和思想。我可以從最近的電影里挑一個(gè)不涉及政治的例子，我很喜歡《社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)》(The Social Network)，我認(rèn)為這部電影出色地反映了崇尚精英的文化(至少可以說是哈佛風(fēng)格的這種文化)，盡管劇中的“馬克·扎克伯格”(Mark Zuckerberg)與現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中的那個(gè)人沒有多少關(guān)系。在這部片中，以及其他例子里，我傾向于認(rèn)同賈梅爾·鮑伊(Jamelle Bouie)的觀點(diǎn)——他說這話的背景是上周《塞爾瑪》引發(fā)的爭論——觀眾總體上應(yīng)該“別那么操心事實(shí)核查，更應(yīng)該感興趣的是理解”那些與歷史掰腕子的導(dǎo)演和編劇，為什么選擇做出這樣的壓縮/省略/虛構(gòu)?

That means, in turn, that I’m inclined to reject comprehensive indictments of the historical liberties taken by “Selma” — say — as a historian’s version of the tedious, commonplace “why didn’t the filmmaker make the movie I wanted her to make?” critique. But at the same time, I remain a little uncomfortable with the specific way that Ava DuVernay’s movie portrays Lyndon Johnson (which is the key problem the historian-critics raise), because in addition to being untrue to the record it has the effect of flattening his character and making the tangled relationship between activists and politicians — one of the movie’s key themes — less interesting and more unsubtle and thus less artistically satisfying than it could have been. I can see what the movie gained dramatically by making the president more of a stumbling block to the movement than he actually was, and I respect DuVernay’s professed desire to avoid anything resembling the “white savior” cliché. But I think that all this could have been accomplished without (spoiler alert) having Johnson actually sic J. Edgar Hoover on King, a black-hat moment that just seemed crude and unlikely in the context of the film, setting aside its lack of grounding in the facts.

這又意味著，盡管有人因?yàn)椤度麪柆敗分袑?duì)歷史事件的演繹，提出了全面的指責(zé)，但是我傾向于排斥這種指責(zé)——比如，歷史學(xué)者喋喋不休、陳詞濫調(diào)地批評(píng)：“為什么電影主創(chuàng)沒有拍一部像我想象的那種電影?”但與此同時(shí)，阿娃·杜威內(nèi)(Ava DuVernay)的這部電影里刻畫林登·約翰遜(Lyndon Johnson)的某些具體方式，還是讓我有點(diǎn)不舒服，這也正是持批評(píng)態(tài)度的歷史學(xué)者提出的關(guān)鍵問題。之所以不舒服是因?yàn)?，它不僅沒有忠實(shí)于歷史記載，還導(dǎo)致人物平面化，讓活動(dòng)人士與政客之間本來可以顯得有趣、微妙，在藝術(shù)上很完滿的糾結(jié)關(guān)系(這是劇中關(guān)鍵主題之一)，變得沒那么有意思、沒那么微妙，在藝術(shù)上也沒那么令人滿意。電影對(duì)林登·約翰遜的描繪，比他實(shí)際扮演的角色更像是一個(gè)絆腳石，我明白這樣做在戲劇上對(duì)電影有怎樣的幫助，我也尊重杜威內(nèi)明確表達(dá)過的，免得像是落入“白人救世主”套路的愿望。不過我想，(有劇透)所有這些，即使不讓約翰遜實(shí)際上差遣J·埃德加·胡佛(J. Edgar Hoover)對(duì)付馬丁·路德·金，也是可以達(dá)成的。這個(gè)卑劣的情節(jié)在這部電影的語境里，簡直有些粗糙、格格不入，且不說它缺乏確鑿的事實(shí)依據(jù)。

Bruni: I’d say that movies don’t have any absolute duty to history. Even historians pick and choose what to focus on and come up with a perspective or argument that doesn’t do full justice to all of the small facts and subtleties in the unedited, messy record of real life. When you shape events into a particular form with finite parameters, be it a movie or a tome, some distortion occurs. It’s built into the process. But is there a rationale for the distortion? Does it serve a clear purpose without undermining your credibility and thus your impact? Some of the tweaks made by “Selma” seem unnecessary, and I think that may well be hurting the film in the awards season: Neither it nor its star, David Oyelowo, got Bafta nominations, which were announced after the controversy over the movie had grown in volume, and at the Golden Globes, the movie won only in the category of best original song.

布魯尼：我想說電影對(duì)于歷史沒有絕對(duì)的義務(wù)，就連歷史學(xué)者都會(huì)挑揀要關(guān)注的問題，提出一些觀點(diǎn)和論斷，而不會(huì)面面俱到地顧及對(duì)于現(xiàn)實(shí)生活未經(jīng)編輯、混亂的紀(jì)錄中，所有細(xì)微的事實(shí)和微妙細(xì)節(jié)。在有限的參數(shù)內(nèi)將事件塑造為特定的形式，無論是電影還是大部頭的著作，總會(huì)發(fā)生一些扭曲。這是過程中的內(nèi)在特點(diǎn)。不過這種扭曲有理由嗎?它能否達(dá)成清晰的目的，而又不影響你的可信度，于是也不破壞你的影響力?《塞爾瑪》做的一些改動(dòng)似乎沒有必要，而且我覺得可能是這些因素，在頒獎(jiǎng)季影響了這部電影的成績：無論是這部片子還是其中的主角戴維·奧伊羅(David Oyelowo)都沒有得到英國電影學(xué)院獎(jiǎng)(Bafta)的提名，這個(gè)獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)公布之前，關(guān)于這部電影已經(jīng)產(chǎn)生了極大爭議，而在金球獎(jiǎng)(Golden Globes)的頒獎(jiǎng)中，這部電影只在最佳原創(chuàng)歌曲這一個(gè)門類里獲獎(jiǎng)。

But not all of its digressions from truth are as wildly cavalier and irresponsible as their harshest critics suggest. I talked about this with the Princeton historian Julian Zelizer, whose new book on L.B.J., “The Fierce Urgency of Now,” was the grist for my Tuesday column. He agreed with you, Ross, that the L.B.J.-Hoover emphasis was both wrong and needless; as for L.B.J. and voting rights, he wrote this interesting piece explaining precisely where and how “Selma” and fact diverge.

然而并非劇中所有脫離史實(shí)的情節(jié)都像最嚴(yán)厲的批評(píng)人士所說的，過于漫不經(jīng)心、嚴(yán)重不負(fù)責(zé)任。我與普林斯頓大學(xué)的歷史學(xué)者朱利安·杰里哲 (Julian Zelizer)討論過這個(gè)問題，他關(guān)于約翰遜的書《當(dāng)下的緊迫性》(The Fierce Urgency of Now)為我周二的專欄文章提供了素材。羅斯，他也同意你的看法，強(qiáng)調(diào)約翰遜和胡佛的情節(jié)不僅是錯(cuò)的，而且是沒有必要的。至于約翰遜和投票權(quán)的話題，他寫了篇有趣的文章，準(zhǔn)確地解釋了《塞爾瑪》是在哪里以怎樣的方式脫離了現(xiàn)實(shí)。

“Selma” is saddled by the ease with which it can be fact-checked (an ease that the moviemakers perhaps should have kept in mind). I’m sure if we had similar documentation against which to measure “Unbroken” and “Wild,” two other real-life narratives, we’d find inconsistencies, hyperbole, a tidying-up of things. The events of each occurred long before they were molded into the best sellers on which the movies are based, and memory has its biases and limits. I took both movies at face value, finding “Unbroken” tedious and disconcertingly old-fashioned but enjoying “Wild” largely for its soulful mood, achieved through music, imagery and Reese Witherspoon.

《塞爾瑪》的一個(gè)負(fù)擔(dān)是，事實(shí)核查做起來很容易(這一點(diǎn)電影主創(chuàng)本應(yīng)該注意的)。我敢肯定如果我們有相似的文獻(xiàn)記載，用來對(duì)另外兩個(gè)講述現(xiàn)實(shí)事件的電影《堅(jiān)不可摧》(Unbroken)和《走出荒野》(Wild)做事實(shí)核查，也會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)前后不一致、夸張、裝扮事實(shí)的情況。兩部電影中的事件，過了很久才成為暢銷書，之后才在此基礎(chǔ)上拍成電影，而記憶也有自身的傾向和局限。我選擇不去質(zhì)疑這兩部電影，不過感覺《堅(jiān)不可摧》很枯燥，而且老派到令人難堪的地步，但我很喜歡《走出荒野》，主要是因?yàn)樗ㄟ^音樂烘托出的真摯感情、映像，以及瑞茜·威瑟斯彭(Reese Witherspoon)。

While this has been a better year for actors than for actresses, which is to say it’s been depressingly like every other year, we were treated to some great and surprising performances by women over the last month. I think of Julianne Moore’s in “Still Alice.” I mentioned that movie in a recent column, and I was happy to see Moore win a richly deserved Golden Globe, for best actress in a drama. I also think of “Cake” and Jennifer Aniston, whom I wrote about for last weekend’s Arts & Leisure section. Have you seen either, Ross? If not, do you have any actors or actresses to whom you’d like to give shout-outs before we wrap up this latest session?

這一年男演員的日子過得比女演員好，其實(shí)每年都是如此，真令人沮喪;不過上個(gè)月我們有幸看到一些女性有著偉大而令人吃驚的表現(xiàn)。我想到了《我想念我自己》(Still Alice)里的茱麗安·摩爾(Julianne Moore)。我在最近的一篇專欄里提到過這部電影，很高興看到摩爾能實(shí)至名歸地拿到一座金球獎(jiǎng)劇情類電影最佳女主角。我還想到了《蛋糕》(Cake)和詹妮弗·安妮斯頓(Jennifer Aniston)，上周末我給“藝術(shù)與休閑”(Arts & Leisure)版塊寫的文章寫了她。你也看到了吧，羅斯?如果沒有，在我們結(jié)束最后這個(gè)環(huán)節(jié)之前，你有哪些男女演員想特別拿出來夸一夸的呢?

Douthat: Wait — has this really been a better year for actors? We talked about this during our first go-round, at the end of the summer, and I think it all depends on where you set the baseline. I’m not going to join Russell Crowe and dismiss industry sexism: The persistent male advantages and endless May-November romantic pairings are real enough, and in the age of presold genre franchises, the business arguably caters more than ever to adolescent (and adultescent) males.

多塞特：等一下——這一年真的是男演員過得更好么?我們在夏末的第一次討論時(shí)談過這個(gè)，我認(rèn)為這完全取決于你的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。我不打算跟羅素·克勞(Russell Crowe)手拉手去否認(rèn)業(yè)內(nèi)的性別歧視：男性一直以來占據(jù)的優(yōu)勢，還有沒完沒了的男長女幼戀人配對(duì)，都是真實(shí)存在的，在這個(gè)預(yù)售類型系列片的時(shí)代，這一行無疑在更多地迎合青少年(和人老心不老的)男性。

But at the same time, even though the action-driven culture of blockbusters provides permanent employment opportunities for younger actors who know their way around a weight room, it also seems to make them more interchangeable (how many moviegoers recognize the name Henry Cavill? how many can tell the Hemsworth brothers apart?), disposable (blink, and somebody else is playing Spiderman and Superman and Batman) and forgettable (quick, who played the male lead in “Godzilla”?) than the male stars of 20 years ago. Put it this way: If I had to pick the younger stars who had the best year in 2015, I’d put Jennifer Lawrence, Shailene Woodley (who had not one but two $100-million-plus movies) and Scarlett Johansson (who single-handedly propelled the lousy “Lucy” to big business while also racking up deserved art-house plaudits for “Under the Skin”) above any younger male of the species not named Chris Pratt. Or again: I don’t think any famous male star carried a major blockbuster as completely as Angelina Jolie did “Maleficent.” Or yet again: We haven’t talked about “Into the Woods,” but it’s the Christmas season’s second-biggest earner after Peter Jackson’s 17-hour Middle Earth cash-in, it’s thick with female stars, and it has Meryl Streep looming on its poster, not Johnny Depp or Chris Pine. (Again, how many moviegoers have even heard of Chris Pine?)Even the land of Seth Rogen and Co., long a bit of a wasteland for female co-stars, delivered us Rose Byrne’s terrific turn in “Neighbors.” And the likely best-actress contest, in which the terrific Witherspoon will probably still lose out to either Moore or Aniston, is dominated by women in roles that suggest — like Streep’s box office clout, and Sandra Bullock’s, and even Melissa McCarthy’s — that there’s some life (if, again, not as much as Crowe believes) in Hollywood for women near and over 40.

但同時(shí)，雖然動(dòng)作導(dǎo)向的大片文化給那些會(huì)舉幾下杠鈴的年輕男性演員帶去了鐵飯碗，卻也讓他們比20年前的男星更容易被取代(有多少電影迷知道亨利· 卡維爾[Henry Cavill]這名字?有誰分得清海姆斯沃斯兄弟[Hemsworth]誰是誰?)、拋棄(一眨眼蜘蛛俠超人蝙蝠俠就換人了)和遺忘(我問你，《哥斯拉》 [Godzilla]男主角是誰?)。這么說吧：如果非要我選出2015年最風(fēng)光的年輕明星，我選詹妮弗·勞倫斯(Jennifer Lawrence)、謝琳·伍德利(Shailene Woodley)和斯嘉麗·約翰遜(Scarlett Johansson)，伍德利有過億票房的片子，兩部;約翰遜憑一己之力把《超體》(Lucy)這個(gè)爛片弄成大熱，同時(shí)還能撐起《皮囊之下》(Under the Skin)這種受好評(píng)的藝術(shù)片，她們比任何一個(gè)年輕男星都強(qiáng)，克里斯·普瑞特(Chris Pratt)除外。還有：我覺得沒有哪個(gè)男性明星能像《沉睡魔咒》(Maleficent)里的安吉麗娜·朱莉(Angelina Jolie)那樣，在一部一線大制作影片里有那么重的分量。還有：我們還沒說《魔法黑森林》(Into the Woods)呢，它是圣誕季票房第二，只輸給彼得·杰克遜(Peter Jackson)那個(gè)17小時(shí)的中土賺錢機(jī)器，影片的女星陣容強(qiáng)大，海報(bào)上是梅爾·斯特里普(Meryl Streep)的臉，不是約翰尼·德普(Johnny Depp)或克里斯·潘恩(Chris Pine)。(再問一句，有多少影迷認(rèn)得克里斯·潘恩?)連賽斯·羅根(Seth Roge)這類一向忽視女性角色的人物，也推出了蘿絲·拜恩(Rose Byrne)在《鄰居大戰(zhàn)》(Neighbors)里的精彩轉(zhuǎn)型。而從最佳女主角的主要競爭者來看——大放異彩的威瑟斯彭可能還是會(huì)輸給摩爾或安妮斯頓 ——接近或超過40歲的女性在好萊塢還是有生命力的(雖說可能不像克勞想的那么好)，比如斯特里普的票房號(hào)召力，還有桑德拉·布魯克(Sandra Bullock)，甚至梅麗莎·麥卡錫(Melissa McCarthy)。