[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]--外文翻譯--紀(jì)錄片是真實(shí)的嗎？（原文）

1、HOW REAL IS THE REALITY IN DOCUMENTARY FILM?JILL GODMILOW, IN CONVERSATION WITH ANN-LOUISE SHAPIRO1ABSTRACTDocumentary film, in the words of Bill Nichols, is one of the “discourses of sobriety” that include science, econ

2、omics, politics, and history—discourses that claim to describe the “real,” to tell the truth. Yet documentary film, in more obvious ways than does history, straddles the categories of fact and fiction, art and document,

3、entertainment and knowl- edge. And the visual languages with which it operates have quite different effects than does the written text. In the following interview conducted during the winter of 1997, his- torian Ann-Loui

4、se Shapiro raises questions about genre—the relationship of form to con- tent and meaning—with documentary filmmaker Jill Godmilow. In order to explore the possibilities and constraints of non-fiction film as a medium fo

5、r representing history, Godmilow was asked: What are the strategies and techniques by which documentary films make meaning? In representing historical events, how does a non-fiction filmmaker think about accuracy? authen

6、ticity? invention? What are the crite- ria you have in mind when you call a film like The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl “dishonest”? How does the tension between making art and making history affect docume

7、ntary filmmaking? Should documentary filmmakers think of themselves, in the phrase of Ken Burns, as “tribal storytellers”? What kind of historical consciousness is produced by documentary film?We have been speaking about

8、 documentary film. I want to start with a ques-tion about the word documentary. How comfortable are you using that label?I do use it, for convenience, but I hate it. Why? Because everybody thinks theyknow what the term m

9、eans, because everybody has seen some television pro-grams labeled documentary—either televisual “white papers,” that is, so-calledobjective journalistic presentations of social problems, or history programs thatchronicl

10、e certain social movements, or portraits of famous artists or historicalfigures and the like. Unconsciously embedded in these forms called documentaryis the conceit of “the real,” which substantiates the truth claims mad

11、e by these1. Jill Godmilow is a producer/director of documentary films that include: a 1984 non-fiction fea- ture, Far from Poland, about the rise of the Polish Solidarity movement; Waiting for the Moon (1987), a feminis

12、t/modernist “fiction” about the lives of the literary couple Alice B. Toklas and Gertrude Stein; Roy Cohn/Jack Smith (1995), a cinematic translation of a theater piece by performance artist Ron Vawter; and, most recently

13、, What Farocki Taught, a replica and interrogation of a 1969 non-fic- tion film by German filmmaker Harun Farocki about the production of napalm during the Vietnam war. Godmilow has been teaching film production and crit

14、ical studies in the Department of Communication and Theatre at the University of Notre Dame since 1992. In the press release I called the film a “drama-tary” to indicate that it was notwhat’s considered a classic documen

15、tary, but not a fiction film either. I was try-ing to skirt the odious word “docudrama,” which it decidedly wasn’t, and to callup a certain awkward, two humped beast, for imagery.Did it show in festivals in the category

16、of “documentary film”?It was rejected by some documentary festivals, like the one in Mannheim,Germany, because it wasn’t “pure” documentary, and from some EasternEuropean ones, because of its complex yet somewhat celebra

17、tory treatment ofthe Solidarity movement in Poland.That’s interesting . . . it makes me think of Art Spiegelman’s Maus, the autobi-ographical/biographical story of an Auschwitz survivor told by his son in comicbook form.

18、 It was initially listed in the New York Times Book Review under fic-tion. Spiegelman apparently called up and insisted on a non-fiction category. Ithink that when it was awarded the Pulitzer Prize, they had to find a ca

19、tegory thatwas neither fiction nor non-fiction—to invent a new category.It would be interesting to know what they finally called it because so many ofthe best documentary films fall into the same ambiguity: they’re clear

20、ly non-fic-tion, yet ignore classic documentary “bottom-lines,” and thus refuse the “purist”orthodoxies that pedigree the film as truthful or historical. That’s one good rea-son to get rid of the term, but it is very har

21、d 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. He talks about “discourses of sobriety” in the same way that you aretalking a

22、bout edification films, and he links documentary to other discourses ofsobriety, including science, economics, politics, and history. He talks about themas instrumental—not just edifying, but instrumental—that is, seekin

23、g to wieldpower in the world for particular ends. What do you think about that usage: tochange the world, to exercise power?Yes, I do agree with Nichols. I use his term “instrumental” when I teach. Tochange peoples’ mind

24、s 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 most docu-mentaries, unless we can agree that we mean that these films exercise power bycha

25、nging consciousness, by their deliberate attempt to alter their viewers’ rela-tionship to a subject by recontextualizing it in the proffered time, space, andintellectual field of the film.JILL GODMILOW WITH ANN-LOUISE SH