[雙語翻譯]--外文翻譯--紀(jì)錄片是真實(shí)的嗎？（節(jié)選）

1、1850 單詞， 單詞，9700 英文字符， 英文字符，3450 漢字 漢字出處： 出處：Shapiro A L. How Real Is the Reality in Documentary Film?[J]. History and Theory, 1997, 36(4):80-101.HOW REAL IS THE REALITY IN DOCUMENTARY FILM?JILL GODMILOW, IN CONVERSATIO

2、N WITH ANN-LOUISE SHAPIROABSTRACTDocumentary film, in the words of Bill Nichols, is one of the “discourses of sobriety” that include science, economics, politics, and history—discourses that claim to describe the “rea

3、l,” to tell the truth. Yet documentary film, in more obvious ways than does history, straddles the categories of fact and fiction, art and document, entertainment and knowledge. And the visual languages with which it o

4、perates have quite different effects than does the written text. In the following interview conducted during the winter of 1997, historian Ann-Louise Shapiro raises questions about genre—the relationship of form to co

5、n-tent and meaning—with documentary filmmaker Jill Godmilow.In order to explore the possibilities and constraints of non-fiction film as a medium for representing history, Godmilow was asked: What are the strategies and

6、 techniques by which documentary films make meaning? In representing historical events, how does a non-fiction filmmaker think about accuracy? authenticity? invention? What are the criteria you have in mind when you c

7、all a film like The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl “dishonest”? How does the tension between making art and making history affect documentary filmmaking? Should documentary filmmakers think of themselves,

8、 in the phrase of Ken Burns, as “tribal storytellers”? What kind of historical consciousness is produced by documentary film?We have been speaking about documentary film. I want to start with a ques- tion about the wor

9、d documentary. How comfortable are you using that label?I do use it, for convenience, but I hate it. Why? Because everybody thinks they know what the term means, because everybody has seen some television pro-grams label

10、ed documentary—either televisual “white papers,” that is, so-called objective journalistic presentations of social problems, or history programs that chronicle certain social movements, or portraits of famous artists or

11、historical figures and the like. Unconsciously embedded in these forms called documentary is the conceit of “the real,” which substantiates the truth claims made by these films. These general notions about documentary fi

12、lm produce a fairly limited understanding of what non-fiction cinema can be and do. They certainly don’t encompass any of my recent work. I should say at the start that I am way out on the fringe of documentary filmmakin

13、g; you’re not talking to someone who is in a central or mainstream position.I have actually spent a lot of time trying to figure out what to call the kind of work I do. I’ve been looking for a label to replace “documenta

14、ry” that would include, besides the kind of films I produce, all the films that make some kind of claim to represent a real (not fictional) world, and that do not contain performances by professional actors (but by socia

15、l actors)—that is, everything but scripted drama. So we’re talking about a category that could include propaganda films the CIA under fiction. Spiegelman apparently called up and insisted on a non-fiction category. I th

16、ink that when it was awarded the Pulitzer Prize, they had to find a category that was neither fiction nor non-fiction—to invent a new category.It would be interesting to know what they finally called it because so many

17、of the best documentary films fall into the same ambiguity: they’re clearly non-fic- tion, yet ignore classic documentary “bottom-lines,” and thus refuse the “purist” orthodoxies that pedigree the film as truthful or h

18、istorical. That’s one good rea- son to get rid of the term, but it is very hard to undo.Shall we use it then, for convenience?Why not?As you were talking, I was thinking of Bill Nichols’s discussion of documen- tary film

19、. He talks about “discourses of sobriety” in the same way that you are talking about edification films, and he links documentary to other discourses of sobriety, including science, economics, politics, and history. He

20、talks about them as instrumental—not just edifying, but instrumental—that is, seeking to wield power in the world for particular ends. What do you think about that usage: to change the world, to exercise power?Yes, I

21、do agree with Nichols. I use his term “instrumental” when I teach. To change peoples’ minds or ways of seeing is always there at the basis of all non- fiction. But the notion of “exercising power” sounds a bit heavy for

22、 most docu- mentaries, unless we can agree that we mean that these films exercise power by changing consciousness, by their deliberate attempt to alter their viewers’ rela- tionship to a subject by recontextualizing it

23、in the proffered time, space, and intellectual field of the film.If we think of documentary films as above all instrumental, what specifically do you think they should do?I want them to do two things: first, acknowledg

24、e their interpretive intentions (their instrumentality), that is, cease insisting on their innocence as pure description; and second, put their materials and techniques in the service of ideas—not in the service of senti

25、ment or compassion-producing identification. Sad to say, the practices of most non-fiction filmmakers have continued unchanged since the 1970s. The essential claim that traditional documentary films make is that there’s

26、unmediated truth here because this was not scripted—because the materials are “found in nature”—thus, the text built out of them is truthful as well. That truth claim is still at the center of most documentary work. I ho

27、pe it’s not too pre-sumptuous to say that I’m really interested in ideas and in the critique of culture. If a documentary filmmaker takes up historical materials, it shouldn’t be to pro-duce and/or claim to have produced

28、 a comprehensive description of the movement of events, but rather to engage the audience, somehow (and there are many, many ways), in a discussion about ideological constructions buried in representations of history—con