英國(guó)的經(jīng)典紀(jì)錄片外文翻譯（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　1300單詞，7500英文字符，2100漢字</p><p>　　出處: Martin Stollery. The newsreel commentator, the actor, the intellectual, and the broadcaster: celebrity and personality voices in classic British documentary[J].

2、 Celebrity Studies, 2013, 4(2):202-218.</p><p><b>　　原文 </b></p><p>　　The newsreel commentator, the actor, the intellectual, and the broadcaster: celebrity and personality voices in c

3、lassic British documentary</p><p>　　Author: Martin Stollery</p><p>　　Independent Researcher, London, UK</p><p>　　This paper explores some hitherto overlooked intersections between B

4、ritish documentary of the 1930s and 1940s and celebrity culture. It does so through the analysis of voice-over commentary in a range of different films from this period. We might be forgiven for assuming that the relatio

5、nship between documentary film-making and the field of celebrity culture, broadly defined, is a fairly recent historical phenomenon. The examples that spring to mind are documentaries fronted by film-makers who h</p&g

6、t;<p>　　Historians of 1930s and wartime British documentary have overlooked or underestimated the fact that many of these films incorporated in their commentaries certain types of personality and celebrity voices.

7、 One of the main reasons for this oversight is that the standard narrative of the British documentary film movement is largely conceived in terms of classic films. It emphasises the influence upon the movement of precedi

8、ng, canonised films, such as Nanook of the North (Robert Flaherty, 1922) an</p><p>　　The lack of close attention to commentary in British documentaries of the 1930s and 1940s is also partly the consequence o

9、f what Stella Bruzzi (2006, p. 47) has described as the predominance, until recently, within academic studies, of an ‘oversimplified perception of voice-overs as all in some manner pertaining to the most basic “Voice of

10、God” model’. Film-makers typically give careful consideration to which specific voice will most effectively support the truth claims advanced by a particular </p><p>　　He wrote in 1927, ‘in the really signif

11、icant cases, the relation of the star to the public is too intimate to be set down to the wiles of advertisement or the necessities of showmanship’ (cited in Jarvie and Macmillan 1989, p. 319). Battleship Potemkin, on th

12、e other hand, represented one possible alternative to this ‘tyranny of individualism… “general audiences […] cheered their way through the film” because of the “pride of class” to which it appealed’ (p. 320). In his 1934

13、 discussion of docume</p><p>　　Cameron (1944, p. 4) did not explicitly endorse ‘personality’ commentators, and he added a caveat: documentary sound recordists, unlike those in features, needed to have ‘scrup

14、les on the score of realism’. Nevertheless, the professional standards he espoused strongly implied that ‘properly trained voices’, such as those of carefully selected newsreel commentators, film actors or radio broadcas

15、ters, were best suited to deliver documentary commentary. </p><p>　　Intellectuals and radio broadcasters, provided a better fit. Selected intellectuals were typically represented by British documentary film-

16、makers as personally embodying a more profound ‘measure of truthfulness’ than newsreel commentators; this assumption is made explicit in World of Plenty (Paul Rotha, 1943). Intellectuals also provided the clearest exampl

17、e of how authoritative truth claims were made by specific, embodied, individual voices within documentary commentary. Broadcasters benefited </p><p>　　If newsreel voices were potentially compromised by their

18、 connotations of superficiality, entertainment, and early wartime restrictions, Grierson's concerns about actors focused on their accents and association with fiction. He concluded, in 1937, that the ‘West End stage

19、[…] has lost the accent of the people’ (Hardy 1979, p. 81). For Grierson, the majority of contemporary theatrical productions, and the performers who appeared in them, were antithetical to the demotic realism integral to

20、 the doc</p><p>　　The appearance of intellectuals in documentary films supports Stefan Collini's challenge to the assumption. Within this context, documentary provided intellectuals with an attractive me

21、dia platform that had a more elevated cultural status than some other outlets, such as the popular press. For documentary film-makers, using intellectuals as commentators partially adhered to Rotha's (1936a, p. 208)

22、argument that commentaries should be spoken by ‘people actually engaged on the work with which the </p><p>　　British documentary film-makers closely followed developments in radio. Edgar Anstey (1979, p. 263

23、) recalled members of the GPO Film Unit socialising with radio programme-makers such as Laurence Gilliam and Lance Sieveking, before Cavalcanti’s arrival in 1934 further enhanced the unit's sound expertise. At the sa

24、me time, documentarists during this early period were keen to establish the aesthetic distinctiveness of their films. This extended to the choice of commentator. At the same time, ‘the a</p><p><b>　　譯文

25、 </b></p><p>　　新聞評(píng)論員, 演員, 知識(shí)分子和廣播員: 名人解說(shuō)和英國(guó)的經(jīng)典紀(jì)錄片</p><p>　　作者:馬丁 · 斯特里 獨(dú)立研究員 倫敦 英國(guó) </p><p>　　本文探索了英國(guó)自二十世紀(jì)三四年代以來(lái)的電影紀(jì)錄片和名人文化，并且分析了不同時(shí)期的紀(jì)錄片解說(shuō)詞。將電影紀(jì)錄片和名人文化聯(lián)系在一起來(lái)談?wù)?，這種行為我們是可以理

26、解的。因?yàn)閺膹V義上講，這是近代以來(lái)一個(gè)相當(dāng)普遍的歷史現(xiàn)象。大家可以想到的一個(gè)經(jīng)典例子就是紀(jì)錄片的幕后制片人只要走上表演的前臺(tái)，從事演員職業(yè)，就可能會(huì)成為名人，比如邁克爾·摩爾，或者是很多電影人都會(huì)制作關(guān)于名人的最新電影和電視紀(jì)錄片。然而兩者之間的關(guān)系有一個(gè)長(zhǎng)期的歷史發(fā)展階段，這段歷史可以至少追溯到 30 年代末，英國(guó)紀(jì)錄片在此期間合并整合、多元化發(fā)展，隨后在戰(zhàn)時(shí)發(fā)揮了重要作用。2010 年，大衛(wèi)和露絲認(rèn)為，盡管關(guān)于名人的學(xué)術(shù)研

27、究可以利用公眾對(duì)這個(gè)話題的興趣，但是我們需要大力解決大家對(duì)它的質(zhì)疑及其價(jià)值問題。 </p><p>　　30 年代的歷史學(xué)家和戰(zhàn)時(shí)的英國(guó)紀(jì)錄片都忽視或者說(shuō)低估了這樣一個(gè)事實(shí), 這些電影或多或少地都會(huì)評(píng)論某些類型的名人和他們的解說(shuō)詞。主要原因是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的英國(guó)敘事電影紀(jì)錄片就是這樣構(gòu)思而來(lái)的。隨后的英國(guó)電影，例如，伊靈工作室在戰(zhàn)時(shí)和戰(zhàn)后的一些電影作品，則較少會(huì)關(guān)注英國(guó)紀(jì)錄片與其他類型的非小說(shuō)類電影的關(guān)系，比如新聞、或其他

28、媒體。然而包含評(píng)論的解說(shuō)詞聲音，經(jīng)常能從新聞短片或其他熟悉的媒體里聽到。這在紀(jì)錄片形成的較長(zhǎng)過程的旅程中,只是一個(gè)較為短暫的時(shí)期，但是這一時(shí)期更接近英國(guó)文化生活的中心。 </p><p>　　大家對(duì)30年代和40年代的英國(guó)紀(jì)錄片的評(píng)論普遍缺乏密切關(guān)注，直到最近，對(duì)于電影紀(jì)錄片解說(shuō)詞過于簡(jiǎn)單化方面的學(xué)術(shù)研究才越來(lái)越受到重視。電影制作人通常會(huì)仔細(xì)考慮，哪種具體的解說(shuō)詞將能夠最有效地引起觀眾再情感上以及智力上的共鳴。1

29、996 年，西蒙?弗里斯認(rèn)為，在一個(gè)不同的背景下，聽眾聽到的聲音是身體感官上產(chǎn)生的。而我們使用的解說(shuō)詞，不僅僅是評(píng)估一個(gè)人，同時(shí)也是系統(tǒng)評(píng)估人的品行的話語(yǔ):解說(shuō)詞和如何使用它成為衡量一個(gè)人真實(shí)性的重要參考。約翰·格雷厄森可能會(huì)同意社會(huì)學(xué)家理查德·森納特于 2002 年寫的著名論文。英國(guó)的紀(jì)錄片可以被理解為旨在用電影來(lái)鼓勵(lì)觀眾參與到公共領(lǐng)域中來(lái)。然而格雷厄森也強(qiáng)調(diào)情感投入的重要性,并敏銳地感知到電影明星對(duì)觀眾的強(qiáng)大吸引

30、力。 </p><p>　　他在 1927 年寫道:“在真正重要的情況下，如果公眾對(duì)明星的關(guān)系太過親密，可以利用制定明星代言的廣告 (引用 1989 年佳維和麥克米倫的觀點(diǎn))。他在 1934年評(píng)論到:波將金就帶了另一種典型，這是所謂的個(gè)人主義的暴政。格里爾生認(rèn)為，公眾和電影明星之間的這個(gè)親密的關(guān)系，可以通過使用匿名的工人階級(jí)代表和/或特定的職業(yè)團(tuán)體的話語(yǔ)來(lái)對(duì)它進(jìn)行評(píng)論，要確保評(píng)論的真實(shí)性和客觀性。 </p&

31、gt;<p>　　卡梅倫在 1944 年沒有明確支持“個(gè)性”評(píng)論員，他說(shuō)紀(jì)錄片的解說(shuō)詞需要顧慮現(xiàn)實(shí)主義。然而，那種經(jīng)過標(biāo)準(zhǔn)訓(xùn)練過的聲音，比如精心挑選的新聞評(píng)論員，電影演員或無(wú)線電廣播，他們的解說(shuō)是最適合大家的。 知識(shí)分子和無(wú)線電廣播員,為紀(jì)錄片電影解說(shuō)員提供了一個(gè)更好的選擇。選擇知識(shí)分子的原因是，英國(guó)紀(jì)錄片制片人通過親自測(cè)試，發(fā)現(xiàn)他們比新聞評(píng)論員更加符合，這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)也得到了很多學(xué)者們的明確支持 (保羅于 1943 說(shuō)到)。知

32、識(shí)分子的知識(shí)儲(chǔ)備、個(gè)人素養(yǎng)等因素也使得他們更適合當(dāng)電影紀(jì)錄片的解說(shuō)員。BBC 廣播公司特別是在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)時(shí)期，作為一個(gè)可靠的信息來(lái)源，就深受其益，飽受贊譽(yù)。在本文的后半部分，我將討論通過指示性案例研究、語(yǔ)義和情感共鳴，特定的人物或名人的評(píng)論是否能帶來(lái)特定的紀(jì)錄片。1937 年 12 月，世界電影新聞評(píng)論斷言，“英國(guó)之聲”據(jù)報(bào)道“聽眾里平均每周約有一千五百萬(wàn)的影迷。 </p><p>　　如果新聞的話語(yǔ)受到膚淺的內(nèi)涵，娛

33、樂，和早期的戰(zhàn)時(shí)限制，格里爾生對(duì)于演員的擔(dān)憂是，他們可能會(huì)將注意力過分集中在他們的口音上。他總結(jié)道,在 1937年,倫敦西區(qū)的舞臺(tái)上，已經(jīng)沒有合適的口音的人 (哈代 1979 年)。格里爾生家族的大多數(shù)當(dāng)代戲劇作品，都并沒有找演員來(lái)?yè)?dān)任現(xiàn)實(shí)主義紀(jì)錄片的解說(shuō)員。兩年后，阿爾貝托·卡瓦爾康蒂,認(rèn)為要有更加開放的觀念來(lái)找合適的演員為紀(jì)錄片提供評(píng)論和解說(shuō)。 </p><p>　　知識(shí)分子作為解說(shuō)員出現(xiàn)在紀(jì)錄片，

34、是一種挑戰(zhàn)。但后來(lái)都能夠接受了，在這種背景下，紀(jì)錄片為知識(shí)分子提供了一個(gè)有吸引力的媒體平臺(tái)，提升他們的文化地位。紀(jì)錄片，使用知識(shí)分子作為評(píng)論員部分原因是堅(jiān)持了羅莎的 1936 年發(fā)表的觀點(diǎn):評(píng)論應(yīng)該是由一個(gè)工程師，也許是船的起草人，也可能是一個(gè)礦工或 碼頭工人，郵遞員或記者做出的，這樣做出的評(píng)論會(huì)更加真實(shí)。另一方面，英國(guó)紀(jì)錄片的解說(shuō)啟用知名知識(shí)分子，得到了大眾的廣泛認(rèn)可，比評(píng)論家和演員都更加適合。 </p><p&g

35、t;　　英國(guó)紀(jì)錄片制片人密切關(guān)注廣播的發(fā)展。埃德加 (1979)召回了 GPO 電影單元廣播節(jié)目的制作人勞倫斯和蘭斯。同時(shí)，紀(jì)錄片導(dǎo)演在這早期熱衷于建立電影的審美獨(dú)特性。這為紀(jì)錄片解說(shuō)提供了一個(gè)選擇。與此同時(shí)，要讓人覺得聽紀(jì)錄片的解說(shuō)是有趣的，賴特將之稱為一個(gè)通用的“BBC 類型”。BBC 的播音員常被招來(lái)錄制一些早期的紀(jì)錄片。BBC 的播音員的越來(lái)越頻繁參與紀(jì)錄片的解說(shuō)，特別是那些與戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)報(bào)告有關(guān)的紀(jì)錄片，基本都是委托莫伊進(jìn)行的，也證明