漫威电影为什么不算电影？斯科赛特的解释让人伤感（双语全文）

“漫威电影不是电影”，这句来自导演马丁·斯科塞斯的评价曾一度引发争议，11月4日，他在《纽约时报》发表长文，详细解释他引起了巨大反响的“漫威电影不是电影(cinema)”言论：他说这话到底是什么意思，他对漫威电影、超级英雄片等大片，对如今电影业，到底怎么看。

老马丁说：光写下这些，就让他非常伤心。

马丁·斯科赛特：好莱坞著名导演，曾凭借《出租车司机》拿下嘎纳金棕榈，瓶《无间行者》拿下奥斯科最佳导演，指导过《愤怒的公牛》、《纽约黑帮》、《华尔街之狼》等经典杰作。

斯科塞斯《纽约时报》文章《我说漫威电影不是电影，让我解释》全文：

I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain.

by Martin Scorsese

When I was in England in early October, I gave an interview to Empire magazine. I was asked a question about Marvel movies. I answered it. I said that I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me, that they seem to me to be closer to theme parks than they are to movies as I’ve known and loved them throughout my life, and that in the end, I don’t think they’re cinema.

十月初，我在英国接受了《帝国》杂志采访，被问到的问题之一是关于漫威电影的。我回答了。我当时说：我试着去看了几部漫威电影，但它们不适合我，它们在我看来似乎和主题公园更为接近，而非我这一生所熟知和热爱的电影(movie)，最后我说我不认为它们是电影(cinema，指电影、电影工业和制作电影的各种艺术、技巧，定义和最宽泛的movie有不同)。

Some people seem to have seized on the last part of my answer as insulting, or as evidence of hatred for Marvel on my part. If anyone is intent on characterizing my words in that light, there’s nothing I can do to stand in the way.

一些人似乎关注到了我答案中的最后一句话，认为这句话是侮辱，或者作为我仇恨漫威的证据。如果任何人想要把我的话这么去理解，我没有任何办法去阻止他们这么想。

图片来源：漫威电影《复仇者联盟4》

Many franchise films are made by people of considerable talent and artistry. You can see it on the screen. The fact that the films themselves don’t interest me is a matter of personal taste and temperament. I know that if I were younger, if I’d come of age at a later time, I might have been excited by these pictures and maybe even wanted to make one myself. But I grew up when I did and I developed a sense of movies — of what they were and what they could be — that was as far from the Marvel universe as we on Earth are from Alpha Centauri.

很多系列电影都是由非常有才华和艺术造诣的人们打造的。这一点你可以在大银幕上看出来的。这些电影提不起我的兴趣，是因个人喜好和性情所致。我知道如果我年轻一些，如果我更晚一些成年，我可能会为这些电影所兴奋，甚至可能想要自己去拍一部。但我就是在我所处的那个年代长大成人，并发展了一套我自己对电影的认知——关于电影是什么，以及可以做到什么样子。而我认知的电影和漫威宇宙的距离，就好比我们地球到天上的半人马座阿尔法星那样远。

For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started making movies around the same time that I did, cinema was about revelation — aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. It was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves.

对我，对我喜爱和尊敬的电影人们，以及对和我大约同期开始拍电影的朋友们来说，电影(cinema)讲的是“启示”——美学、情感和精神上的启示；讲的是“角色”——人的复杂性和他们充满反差、有时甚至自相矛盾的本性，他们能彼此伤害、彼此相爱，又能突然直面自我的那种方式。

It was about confronting the unexpected on the screen and in the life it dramatized and interpreted, and enlarging the sense of what was possible in the art form. 

它讲的是在银幕上遭遇我们意想不到的东西，来自被它所戏剧化进行诠释的现实生活，并进一步拓宽电影这种艺术形式的可能性。

图片来源：电影《出租车司机》

And that was the key for us: it was an art form. There was some debate about that at the time, so we stood up for cinema as an equal to literature or music or dance. And we came to understand that the art could be found in many different places and in just as many forms — in “The Steel Helmet” by Sam Fuller and “Persona”by Ingmar Bergman, in “It’s Always Fair Weather” by Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly and “Scorpio Rising” by Kenneth Anger, in “Vivre Sa Vie” by Jean-Luc Godard and “The Killers” by Don Siegel.

这对我们来说是关键所在：它是一种艺术形式。关于这个问题过去曾有过争论，我们出力去支持电影(cinema)，认为其和文学、音乐和舞蹈是平等的。我们也逐渐明白，这种艺术可以存在于不同的地方，有不同的样式—— 塞缪尔·富勒的《钢盔》、英格玛伯格曼的《假面》、斯坦利·多南和吉恩·凯利的《好天气》，肯尼思·安格的《天蝎星升起》、让-吕克·戈达尔的《随心所欲》，以及唐·希格尔的《财色惊魂》，它们都是。

Or in the films of Alfred Hitchcock — I suppose you could say that Hitchcock was his own franchise. Or that he was our franchise. Every new Hitchcock picture was an event. To be in a packed house in one of the old theaters watching “Rear Window” was an extraordinary experience: It was an event created by the chemistry between the audience and the picture itself, and it was electrifying.

又或者是阿尔弗雷德·希区柯克的电影——我想你可以说，希区柯克他自成一套“系列电影(franchise，即如今的漫威电影宇宙等规模广大的系列电影)”。或者说，那时候他就是我们的“系列电影”。每部新的希区柯克电影都是一部“大事件电影(event film，如今指能造成很大影响的大片)”。在一家老戏院中挤得满满当当的房间里看《后窗》，那是一场非凡的体验，是观众和电影之间的化学反应催生的一出大事件，一场石火电光。

图片来源：电影《后窗》

And in a way, certain Hitchcock films were also like theme parks. I’m thinking of “Strangers on a Train,” in which the climax takes place on a merry-go-round at a real amusement park, and “Psycho,” which I saw at a midnight show on its opening day, an experience I will never forget. People went to be surprised and thrilled, and they weren’t disappointed. 

从某种程度上来说，某些希区柯克电影也像主题公园，我想到的是《火车怪客》，这部电影的高潮就发生在一座真正的游乐园的旋转木马上。还有《惊魂记》，我是在首映当天的午夜场看的，那次体验我此生永远不会忘记。人们去看这场电影，是想要得到惊吓/惊喜，得到刺激，他们也并没有失望。

Sixty or 70 years later, we’re still watching those pictures and marveling at them. But is it the thrills and the shocks that we keep going back to? I don’t think so. The set pieces in “North by Northwest” are stunning, but they would be nothing more than a succession of dynamic and elegant compositions and cuts without the painful emotions at the center of the story or the absolute lostness of Cary Grant’s character.

六七十年后，我们依旧在看这些电影，并为之惊叹。但我们一遍一遍回头去重看的，是那些刺激、那些惊吓吗？我想不是。《西北偏北》的经典段落固然绝妙，但少了故事核心中那些让人心痛的情感，或者加里·格兰特角色绝对的失落感，它们不过是一系列充满动感的、优美的镜头组合和剪切。

The climax of “Strangers on a Train” is a feat, but it’s the interplay between the two principal characters and Robert Walker’s profoundly unsettling performance that resonate now. Some say that Hitchcock’s pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that’s true — Hitchcock himself wondered about it. 

《火车怪客》的高潮也是技艺高超的，但让现在的观众产生共鸣的是两位主角的互动和互相作用，以及罗伯特·沃克那让人深深不安的演绎。有人说希区柯克的电影也有点千篇一律，或许真的是这样——希区柯克自己都好奇过这个问题。

图片来源：漫威电影《银河护卫队》

But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes. 

但是当下那些大系列电影的“千篇一律”又是另一回事了。很多在我看来定义电影(cinema)的元素在漫威电影中都能找到。但它们没有“启示”，没有悬疑(mystery)，没有真正的情感上的危险感。没有任何风险。制作这些电影，是为了满足一些特定的需求，它们被设计为有限的几个主题的各种变体。

They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.

它们名义上是续集，但在内核上更像是翻拍，电影中的一切都需要片方批准，它其实不能走到任何另外的方向。这就是当代电影系列的本质：经过市场调研、观众检验、审查、修改、再审查、再修改，直到它们可以投入消费。

Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded. 

换一种说法是，它们，和保罗·托马斯·安德森、克莱尔·德尼、斯派克·李、阿里·艾斯特、凯瑟琳·毕格罗，或者韦斯·安德森的电影完全不同。当我在看这些导演的电影时，我知道我将会看到一些绝对新鲜的东西，会经历意想不到、甚至无以名状的体验。我对“用移动的画面和声音讲故事的可能性”的认知会被拓宽。

So, you might ask, what’s my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. Still, I don’t know a single filmmaker who doesn’t want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters.

因此，你可能会问我，我到底要干嘛？为什么就不能不去打扰超级英雄电影和其他大系列电影？原因很简单。在这个国家和全球的很多地方，如果你想要在大银幕上看点什么，大系列电影目前是你最主要的选择。现在，电影放映业处在危机之中，如今的独立影院是史上最少。公式已被反转，流媒体已变成了当下最主要的输送系统。但，我认识的电影人中，依旧是每一个人都想为大银幕设计自己的电影，都想在电影院放映给观众看。

That includes me, and I’m speaking as someone who just completed a picture for Netflix. It, and it alone, allowed us to make “The Irishman” the way we needed to, and for that I’ll always be thankful. We have a theatrical window, which is great. Would I like the picture to play on more big screens for longer periods of time? Of course I would. But no matter whom you make your movie with, the fact is that the screens in most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures. 

这包括我自己。而且我是以“一个刚刚为Netflix完成了一部电影的人”的立场来说这样的话。网飞，也仅仅只有网飞，允许我们按照我们需要的方式去拍《爱尔兰人》，因为这个原因，我对他们永远心存感恩。我们这部电影有院线放映窗口期，这很棒。而我想要让它在更多的大银幕上放映更长的时间吗(网飞的电影院线上映规模相对小，窗口期时间也短)？我当然想。但是不管你和谁一起拍电影，现实都是：大多数影院的银幕上充斥的都是大系列电影。

图片来源：电影《爱尔兰人》

And if you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.

如果你要跟我说，这不过是简单的供需问题，只是给予人们他们想要的东西。我不同意。这是一个“先有鸡还是先有蛋”的问题。如果人们只是被给予一种东西，并持续不断地被兜售这一种东西，他们当然会想要更多的同一种东西。

But, you might argue, can’t they just go home and watch anything else they want on Netflix or iTunes or Hulu? Sure — anywhere but on the big screen, where the filmmaker intended her or his picture to be seen. 

但你可能会争论，他们就不能直接回家，在网飞或者iTunes或Hulu上看其他东西吗？当然可以——但是那些都是在大银幕之外，而大银幕，是电影人们想要自己的作品被看到的地方。

In the past 20 years, as we all know, the movie business has changed on all fronts. But the most ominous change has happened stealthily and under cover of night: the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption. Many of them are well made by teams of talented individuals. All the same, they lack something essential to cinema: the unifying vision of an individual artist. Because, of course, the individual artist is the riskiest factor of all.

众所周知，过去的20多年，电影行业在各个领域都发生了变化。但它们中最坏的一个变化是在大家看不到的地方悄悄进行的：一点一点、持续地消除风险。当下的很多电影变成了用于快速消费的完美产品，它们中的很多也都是一群很有才华的人所完成的。共通的一点是，它们缺少cinema最关键的东西：一个独立个体的艺术家的统一视野。原因当然是：独立艺术家是最具风险的因素。

I’m certainly not implying that movies should be a subsidized art form, or that they ever were. When the Hollywood studio system was still alive and well, the tension between the artists and the people who ran the business was constant and intense, but it was a productive tension that gave us some of the greatest films ever made — in the words of Bob Dylan, the best of them were “heroic and visionary.” 

我的意思并不是说电影应该成为一种被资助的艺术形式，或者它们曾经是这样。在好莱坞制片厂系统还运行良好的时候，艺术家和生意人们之间的对立是持续且紧张的，但那是一种能有所产出的对立，催生了一些影史最伟大的电影们——用鲍勃迪伦的话来说，这些电影中的佼佼者“是英雄一般，并富有远见的”。

Today, that tension is gone, and there are some in the business with absolute indifference to the very question of art and an attitude toward the history of cinema that is both dismissive andproprietary — a lethal combination. The situation, sadly, is that we now have two separate fields: There’s worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there’s cinema. They still overlap from time to time, but that’s becoming increasingly rare. And I fear that the financial dominance of one is being used to marginalize and even belittle the existence of the other.

现在，这种对立已经没有了。这个行业里有些人对艺术毫不关心，对电影的历史既不屑一顾，又觉得它是自己的所有物——这是一个非常致命的组合。让人悲哀的是，现在的境况是我们有两块完全不相干的土地：一是全球性的视听娱乐产品，二是电影(cinema)。这两者偶尔还会发生重叠，但已越来越少。我害怕的是：两者之一在经济上的主导地位，正被用来边缘化甚至贬低另一方的存在。

For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness.

对任何梦想拍电影或刚刚起步在做电影的人来说，当下的状况是残酷、不利于艺术的。仅仅是写下如上这些言语，已让我心甚哀之。

英文来源：《纽约时报》

中文来源：《Mtime时光网》

- THE END-

往 期 精 选

「点击文字即可查看文章」

文拓视野 译悦心灵

长按•识别二维码•加关注

一个专业、开放、有趣的翻译平台

点击下方“阅读原文”，购买《英语世界》更多双语美文