電影電視制作外文翻譯文獻

電影電視制作外文翻譯文獻電影電視制作外文翻譯文獻(文檔含中英文對照即英文原文和中文翻譯)HollywoodTheory,Non-HollywoodPractice:CinemaSoundtracksinthe1980sand1990s

TheSpectreofSound:MusicinFilmandTelevision

ExperiencingMusicVideo:AestheticsandCulturalContextAnnetteDavison.,HollywoodTheory,Non-HollywoodPractice:CinemaSoundtracksinthe1980sand1990s.Aldershot:Ashgate,2004,221pp.K.J.Donnelly.,TheSpectreofSound:MusicinFilmandTelevision.lLondon:BritishFilmInstitute,2005,192pp.CarolVernallis.,ExperiencingMusicVideo:AestheticsandCulturalContext.NewYork,NY:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2004,341pp.

\o"Footnotes"NextSectionThelasttimeacollectionofscreenmusic-relatedbookswasthesubjectofaScreenreview,thereviewerSimonFrithwasmovedtonoteeachwork's‘self-defeating…needtodrawattentiontotheirsubject'sneglect’aswellastheverylimitedmannerinwhichtheauthorsseemed‘tobeengagedwitheachother’.1Judgingbythebooksgroupedtogetherinthepresentreview,thescholarshipintheareaisnowmuchmorecollegiate,andtherequirementontheauthorstoself-diagnoseacademicisolationseemstohavebecomeunnecessary.AnnetteDavison,K.J.DonnellyandCarolVernallisshareaplethoraofcriticalreferencesonmusic–imagerelationships,fromTheodorAdornotoPhilipTaggandmanypointsinbetween.Asubstantialcanonofacademicwritingonmusicinnarrativefilmnowexists,anditcannolongerbeclaimedthatmusicvideoisascholarlyblindspot(asVernallisadmits).Ofthevariousmediaformatsdiscussedinthebooksunderreview,onlytelevisionmusicremainsrelativelyunder-representedacademically(thoughDonnelly'stwochaptersonthesubjectbegintheprocessofaddressingthisabsence).Inthiscontext,theauthors'taskwouldappeartobetopresentalternativestoexistingwork,ortobringnewobjectsofstudytocriticallight.Allthreestudiesmakeclaimsfortheirownoriginalitybyreferencingamodelof‘classical’narrativefilmmusicpractices:aconceptualizationofthesoundtrack'sroleasfittinginwithclassicalcinema'sperceivedstorytellingpriorities.Forallthebooks'individualmerits,theregularrecoursetonotionsoftheclassical,evenintheserviceofitsrefutation,raisesinterestingquestionsaboutthepossibility(orimpossibility)ofdoingwithoutsuchaconceptentirely.Thus,theseworksrevealthe‘classical’tobeacategoryasproblematicyetinsistentinwritingonmusic–imagerelationsasitisinotherareasofscreenstudiesenquiry.Asitstitlesuggests,Davison'sHollywoodTheory,Non-HollywoodPractice:CinemaSoundtracksinthe1980sand1990sengageswithclassicalfilmmusictheorymostexplicitly.Indeed,aboutaquarterofthebookisdevotedtotheexplicationof,first,ClassicalHollywoodCinemaasithasbeenconceivedacademically,andsecond,theclassicalscoringpracticeassociatedwithit(whichDavisonseesrevivedintheso-called‘post-classical’Hollywoodofthemid1970sonwards).ThisprovidesthegroundonwhichDavisonmakesherkeyclaim:Thecentralargumentofthisbookisthat,byoperatingasasignifierofclassical–and,indeed,NewHollywoodcinema–theclassicalHollywoodscoreofferedthosemakingfilmsoutsideandonthemarginsofHollywoodcinemainthe1980sand1990safurthermeansbywhichtheycoulddifferentiatetheircinemasfromHollywood's,throughtheproductionofscoresandsoundtrackswhichcritiqueorrefertothispracticeinparticularways(p.59).Therefollowcloseanalysesoffourfilmswhosesoundtracks,accordingtoDavison,refertotheclassicalmodelatthesametimeastheyofferanalternative.Throughhersequencingofthecasestudies,Davisonoutlinespossibilitiesofalternativepracticethatrangefromatotaldeconstructionoftheclassicalsoundtrack'sconventionalstorytellingfunctions(aswitnessedinJean-LucGodard'sPrenom:Carmen[1983])totheidentificationofascoringpracticethatmimicscertainaspectsoftheclassicalinitscollaborativenature,yetprovidesautopianalternativetoit(asseenthroughDavidLynch'sWildatHeart[1990]).Inbetween,sheexploresthenotionofthesoundtrackasa‘liberating’force(DerekJarman'sTheGarden[1990]),andthepotentialforacompromisetobefoundbetweenclassicalandalternativemodels(WimWenders'WingsofDesire[1987]).Davison'sreadingofeachfilmisimaginativeandverywelldetailed.Shedemonstratesaparticularfacilityforidentifying,andascribingasignificanceto,differenttypesofsoundonthesamesoundtrack.ThisisdonewithparticularsuccessinherreadingsofTheGardenandWingsofDesire.Heranalysisdoesnotseektohideherevidentmusicaltraining,but,innearlyallcases,remainsintelligibleandpersuasivetonon-musicologistssuchasmyself(whowilljusthavetoaccepttheoccasionaluseofmusicalnotationasprettypictures).Itisquestionablehowmuchoftheextremelycomprehensivescene-settingundertakenbyDavisoninthebook'searlysectionsisnecessaryforanappreciationoftheindividualfilmanalyses.Nevertheless,hersummariesofdiscussionsaboutclassicalandpost-classicalHollywoodcinemaandtheclassicalfilmscoreareexemplary,andtheyareconductedwithathoroughnesswhichisunderstandable,perhaps,inabookwhichtakesitsplaceinthepublisher'sPopularandFolkMusicseriesratherthaninascreenstudiescollection.Thereremainsamismatch,however,betweentheconcentrationonHollywoodasaninstitutional,industrialandideologicalforceintheearlychaptersofthebook,andtheauteuristbentoftheanalysisthatfollowsinlaterchapters.Forexample,thechapteron‘NewHollywoodcinemaand(post-?)classicalscoring’concludeswithstatisticalinformationaboutUScinema'sgrowthintheoverseasmarketduringthe1980s.Yetthisdetailseemsunnecessaryinthelightofthesubsequentinterpretationofthevariousnon-Hollywoodsoundtracksasimaginativeresponsestomainstreampracticesonthepartofindividualfilmmakers.ThedivisionbetweendescriptionsofHollywoodasintransigentlyinstitutional,andtheimplicitunderstandingofart-housecinemaasaspaceforthefreeexpressionoftheauteur(madeexplicitinthecelebrationofLynchinthefinalcasestudy)ismadetoocomplacentlyandmeansthatDavisondoesnotfulfilherpromisetoengage‘withinstitutionalissuesinrelationtofilmsoundtracksandscores’(p.6)ineverycase.Inthisrespect,thebookdoesnotfullyrealizethepotentialofitsmanyexcellentparts.ThecriticaltoneofDonnelly'sTheSpectreofSound:MusicinFilmandTelevisionalsofluctuatessomewhatfromsectiontosection,althoughthereaderispreparedforthisbytheauthor'searlyclaimthatthebookis‘a(chǎn)rumination,aninvestigationofsomeoftheelusiveandfascinatingaspectsofscreenmusic’(p.3)ratherthanamorestrictlyhypothesis-basedaccount.Nevertheless,moreconcretejustificationisgivenforthebook'sattentiontoapleasinglyeclecticrangeofmaterial,whichincludestheworkofcanonizedauteurssuchasDavidLynchandStanleyKubrick,butalsomakesroomforadiscussionofthesoundtracksofSpace:1999,awholerangeofhorrormovies,andtheroleofmusicintelevisioncontinuitysegments.Donnellycharacterizesscreenmusicassomethingmoreintangiblethanisclaimedinthemoreclassicalaccountsfocusingonthescore'sovertstorytellingfunctions.Inspired,inparticular,bytheincreasinglycomplexsounddesignoffilmsproducedforreleaseincinemas,Donnellyargues:Whilefilmmusictraditionallyhasbeenconceivedaspartofnarration,workingforfilmnarrative,insomewaysitwouldbebettertoseeitaspartofthefilm'srepositoryofspecialeffects(p.2).Determinedtoexplorescreenmusic'smore‘unruly’qualities(atleastwhensetagainstanarrativeyardstick),Donnellyriffsaroundnotionsofmusic's‘ghostliness’inanimaginativemanner.Particularlyinrelationtocinema,heseesthehauntingactivitiesofthesoundtrackasconstitutingakindofsensuouspossessionoftheviewer.Donnelly(somewhatcontentiouslygiventhemedium'stechnologicaladvances)islesswillingtoadmittothepossessingcapabilitiesoftelevisionsoundtracks,butconcentratesinsteadonanotherkindof‘haunting’:thehabitualuseoffamiliarmusicintelevisionthatevokesthespectreofits‘lives’elsewhereasmuchasitappliesitselftoaparticulartelevisualcontext.ItisthenotionofscreenmusicasalwaysindicatinganotherplacethatmostusefullytiesthedifferentstrandsofDonnelly'seclecticstudytogether.Throughthisinterestinthe‘elsewhere’ofscreenmusic,Donnellysuccessfullyprobesareasoutsidethereachofclassicalnarrativefilmmusictheory,whichattendstothehereandnowofthesoundtrack'sinvolvementinaparticularfictionalscenario.However,thevalueoftheinsightswhichensuefromthissuccessfulescapefromamoreclassicalapproachissometimestakenforgranted.Donnelly'sanalysesasawholelacktheattentiontodetailwhichisoneofthevirtuesofDavison'scasestudies.Theauthoranticipatesthiscriticismearlyonbyacknowledgingthatthebook‘providesa“l(fā)ongshot”,allowingthesortofsynopticviewunavailabletodetailedanalysis,ratherthanthepredominant“close-up”ofmanyprecedingfilmmusicstudies’(p.3).Theloss,intermsofanalyticaldepth,thatthiscriticalstrategynecessitates,isnotalwayscompensatedforbythebook'scommendablebreadth.Forexample,arelativelysustainedanalysisofLynch'sLostHighway(1996)isnotasconvincingasitmightbeduetoanunwillingnesstoprovidesufficientevidenceforitsclaims.Onthefilm'sheavyuseofpre-existingpopsongs,Donnellycomments:Arethesesongappearancessimple‘commentsontheaction’?Idon'tthinkso.Itismoreasiftheactionemanatesfromthesongsthemselves,particularlyfromtheirgrainofsoundandrhythmicaspects(p.28).Thisassertionisallowedtofendforitself,intheabsenceofmoreparticularcommentaryabouttheinteractionbetweentheactionandsongineachspecificcase.Thevalueofinvestigatingscreenmusic'sless‘submissive’qualitiesinrelationtonarrativeprincipleswouldbebetteradvocatedthroughadetailedinterpretationthatalsoengageswiththepossibilitythatthesoundtrackfulfilsmoreconventionalstorytellingfunctions.Characterizingthe‘elsewhere’ofscreenmusicsurelybecomesmoreinterestingifitsrelationshiptootherspacesisacknowledgedanditsownterritoryismappedindetail.Vernallis'sExperiencingMusicVideo:AestheticsandCulturalContextcombinestheimaginativefacilitythatfiresDonnelly'sbookwiththeattentiontodetailthatcharacterizesDavison's.Herstudyisextremelycomprehensiveinfulfillingitspromisetotake‘themusicofmusicvideomostseriously’(p.x),thereby‘a(chǎn)ttemptingananalysisthattakesmusicalcodes,processes,andtechniquesasprovidingmeansbywhichvideoimagecanbestructured’(p.209).Ononelevel,asVernallisadmits,thisisabelatedconsolidationoftheinitiativestakeninAndrewGoodwin'sfoundationalmusictelevisionstudyDancingintheDistractionFactory:MusicTelevisionandPopularCulture.2Initsimplementation,however,Vernallisfarexceedsthisbrief.Therearechaptersonnarrativeandediting,asyoumightexpectfromastudywhoseaimitistodeconstructtheformofthemusicvideo;lessexpectedistheattentiontoaspectssuchassupportingperformers,propsandthesensualqualitiesof(auralandvisual)space,colour,textureandtime.Eveninthemorepredictablesections,Vernallisexploresrelationshipsbetweensongandimagewhichexpandacriticalunderstandingofthemusicvideo'spossibilities.Forinstance,inthechapteronediting,shegoesfarbeyondthestandardnotionthatvideoscuttheirimagestotherhythmofthesong,tosuggest:Obviously,editingcanreflectthebasicbeatpatternofthesong,butitcanalsoberesponsivetoallofthesong'sotherparameters.Forexample,longdissolvescancomplementarrangementsthatincludesmoothtimbresandlong-heldtones.Avideocanusedifferentvisualmaterialtooffsetanimportanthookoradifferentcuttingrhythmatthebeginningsandendsofphrases.And,ofcourse,theseeffectscanswitchfromone-to-onerelationshipstosomethingthatismorecontrapuntal(p.49).Thesekindsofexpressivepossibilitiesarethenillustratedthroughagreatrangeofexamples,allanalysedwithaninterpretiverichnessthatmakestheinclusionofthreeextendedcasestudychaptersattheendofthebookalmostfeelliketoomuchofagoodthing.Inherafterword,Vernallisclaimsthatherbook‘a(chǎn)ttemptstolayoutthebasicmaterialsofmusicvideo,muchasDavidBordwellandhiscolleaguesdoforcinemainTheClassicalHollywoodCinemaorFilmArt’(p.286).ExperiencingMusicVideowillcertainlyproveusefulasatextbook,andsomeoftheunnecessaryrepetitionbetweenchaptersmaybeexplainedbyanexpectationthatthebookwillbeconsultedinseparatechunksonindividualweeksofacourseratherthanasawhole.However,IfeelthatVernallisissellingherselfshortwithhercomparison.Thereisanimaginativeandidiosyncratic,yetdisciplined,interpretiveimpulsebehindheranalysiswhichTheClassicalHollywoodCinema3explicitlyrejects.HerbookhasmoreincommonwiththepoeticcategorizationsofsoundtheoristMichelChionor,castingthenetmorewidely,thesensitiveresponsestotheintricaciesofafilmedfictionalworlddemonstratedbyGeorgeM.Wilson'sNarrationinLight:StudiesinCinematicPointofView.4BothWilsonandVernallisseizeon‘moments’whichtheauthorsthenseektoexplaininrelationtotheirfictionalworld,whetherthatbeasettingstimulatedbydramaticpossibilities,asinthecaseofnarrativefilm,ormusicalparameters,asisthecasewiththemusicvideo.AsVernallisstates,byattendingtothesmallestofmoments,‘itwillbepossibletoworktowardseeinghowthevideobuildstowardthismomentandmovesawayfromit’(p.202).Onanumberofoccasions,evenanattentiveandimmersedcriticlikeVernalliscannotresistthetemptationtocomparesong–imagerelationshipsinthemusicvideowiththeperceived‘typical’conventionsofclassicalcinemaandclassicalnarrativefilmmusic.Thisnecessitatesadiversionfromthebook'sprimary,andmostlaudable,aimtofullyunderstandtheinfluenceofthemusicofthemusicvideo.Inallthreebooks,theacknowledgementofabodyoffilmmusicwritingthatcanbecategorizedas‘classical’providesevidenceofanowmaturefieldofstudy.Thisliteratureisnotalwaysintegratedseamlesslywiththeauthors'ownarguments.Allthreeworksprovideilluminatinginsightsintotypesofscreenmusicthatarenotaccountedforadequatelybyclassicaltheory.However,theargumentsworkbestwhenengagingcarefullywiththespecificrelationshipsobservableandaudibleintheirchosenobjectsofstudy,ratherthanlookingovertheshouldertowardsmodelsofclassicalnarrativefilmmusic,orassumingthevalueofananalysissimplybecauseitdoesnotfittheclassicalmould.Inthekindoftext-basedcriticismpursuedbyallthreewriters,themostgenerouskindofcriticalactivitycanalsobethemostmyopic.Vernallis'sbook,inparticular,showstherewardsofaclosereadingofparticularmoments,asitproducesinsightswhichmayinspirethereadertounderstand,innewandsurprisinglights,notonlythatmoment,butotherstheyencounterthemselves.IanGarwood\o"PreviousSection"PreviousSection

Footnotes?SimonFrith,Screen,vol.41,no.3(2000),p.335.?AndrewGoodwin,DancingintheDistractionFactory:MusicTelevisionandPopularCulture(Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinneapolisPress,1992).?DavidBordwell,JanetStaigerandKristinThompson,TheClassicalHollywoodCinema:FilmStyleandModeofProductionto1960(London:Routledge,1985).?GeorgeM.Wilson,NarrationinLight:StudiesinCinematicPointofView(Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1986).

《好萊塢理論、非好萊塢實踐：20世紀80年代至20世紀90年代的原聲帶電影》——聲音的魅力：電影和電視劇中的音樂體驗型的音樂視頻：美學與文化語境最后一次收集的屏幕與音樂有關(guān)的書籍是主題為屏幕的專業(yè)評論，評論者是SimonFrith，她很感動，并注意到各項工作間的弄巧成拙......需要提請注意的是她們忽視主題以及非常有限的方式，在這種方式中，作者們似乎愿意相互幫助以完成工作。從目前收集到的評論書籍中可以判斷，和以前相比，該地區(qū)大部分學術(shù)成就是分學院的，并且要求對作者進行的自我診斷和學術(shù)隔離似乎已經(jīng)不太成為必要。AnnetteDavison、K.J.Donnelly以及CarolVernallis分享了大量關(guān)于音樂形象的批判參照書籍，這些書籍覆蓋了從TheodorAdorno到PhilipTagg，以及大量兩者觀點之間的書籍。如今，存在著大量經(jīng)典的音樂學術(shù)作品，這些作品都是基于敘事電影寫作的，并且它可以不再聲稱那個音樂視頻是一個學術(shù)的盲點（正如Vernallis所承認那樣）。專業(yè)評論角度下，書中討論的各種媒體格式，只有電視音樂仍然具有相對的學術(shù)代表性（盡管Donnelly的兩篇關(guān)于這個問題文章開始了解決這種缺失的進程）。在這種情況下，作者的任務似乎已經(jīng)變成提出可替代目前現(xiàn)有工作的觀點，或把新研究對象帶到學術(shù)界批判的眼光之下。所有三項研究成果都為她們自己學術(shù)的原創(chuàng)性做出了聲明，而且這些聲明都是通過引用經(jīng)典敘事電影音樂實踐模型的方式做出的：一個概念化的原聲帶的角色，在經(jīng)典電影中與講述優(yōu)先級的感知故事相配合。對于所有書，其每本書的價值在于，即使在其駁斥的論述中也可以引發(fā)一種有趣的問題，該問題就是研究中完全不使用這種理論的可行性或不可行性。即經(jīng)常求助于經(jīng)典于概念，即使是在事務中駁斥了，引發(fā)了可能（或不可能）的完全沒有這種概念做有趣問題。因此，這些作品成果揭示出'經(jīng)典'也有可能是一種疑難問題，它一直還運用于音樂形象關(guān)系的學術(shù)寫作中，如同在屏幕學習探索領域的應用一樣。如其標題所示，Davison的《好萊塢理論，非好萊塢實踐：20世紀80年代至20世紀90年代的原聲帶電影》非常明確地運用了經(jīng)典的電影音樂理論。事實上，大約有四分之一的這本書進行了這樣的解釋：首先，假設古典好萊塢電影理論已經(jīng)獲得學術(shù)上的地位；其次，古典的得分實踐與之相聯(lián)系（其中Davison認為在20世紀70年代中期出現(xiàn)的后古典好萊塢復興正在繼續(xù)）。這就為Davison提出她關(guān)鍵的理論提供了依據(jù)︰這本書的中心論點是，通過操作經(jīng)典的信號物——而且事實上，新好萊塢電影——古典好萊塢評分在1980年代和1990年代提供了進一步制作那些質(zhì)量在好萊塢電影外面和邊緣的電影的手段，她們可以區(qū)分她們從好萊塢的電影院，通過產(chǎn)品的分數(shù)和配樂她們可以區(qū)分自己的電影與好萊塢電影，這些產(chǎn)品的分數(shù)和配樂通過特殊的途徑批判或涉及這種實踐。通過對四部電影的配樂的跟蹤分析，根據(jù)戴維森，指在時間為他們提供另一種同樣的經(jīng)典模型。她通過測序研究的情況，戴維森概述替代實踐從總解構(gòu)經(jīng)典電影配樂的傳統(tǒng)講故事的功能到一個練習，模仿經(jīng)典的某些方面在其合作性質(zhì)的認定范圍的可能性，但它提供了一個理想的替代。在這兩者之間，她探討了電影配樂的概念是一種“解放”的力量，在古典與另類的模式之間找到了一種妥協(xié)的可能性。戴維森的每部電影里閱讀是想象力和非常詳細的。她展示了一個特定的識別設備，并賦予不同類型的原聲意義。這一點在他的《花園和欲望的翅膀》完成的特別好。她的分析并不試圖隱藏她的明顯的音樂訓練，但是，在幾乎所有的情況下仍然是可理解的這樣的非音樂的說服力。戴維森在書的開頭部分所進行的非常全面場景的設置，認為這是必要的單個電影的欣賞分析，這一點是多少值得商榷的。不過，她對古典和古典后好萊塢電影和經(jīng)典電影配樂討論的總結(jié)是有示范性的，并且總結(jié)的方式也是容易理解的，也許是在發(fā)布的流行和民間音樂系列需要這樣一本書的地方而不是在一個屏幕研究。但是好萊塢的意思在書的前幾章的機構(gòu)，工業(yè)和意識形態(tài)的力量，以及導演在后面的章節(jié)后面的分析之間仍然存在不匹配。例如，在“新好萊塢電影和經(jīng)典進球”的一章總結(jié)有關(guān)20世紀80年代在海外市場的美國電影的成長的統(tǒng)計信息。然而，在各種非好萊塢電影配樂的細節(jié)，以個人電影制作人的部分主流做法，富有想象力的響應后續(xù)解釋的不是必要的。藝術(shù)電影院的導演的自由表達空間心領神會好萊塢的描述為頑固機構(gòu)之間的分工，是由太沾沾自喜，意思是戴維森沒有完全按照他在書中任何情況下“與體制問題有關(guān)的電影配樂和分數(shù)”。在這方面，這本書并沒有完全實現(xiàn)其許多優(yōu)秀部分的潛力。Donnelly在聲音的魅力中寫道：電影和電視音樂每階段都有不同，但讀者可以通過作者的早期理念：這本書是“費盡心思做一些難以捉摸的調(diào)查，為此做好了準備和影視的音樂“（第3頁），而不是嚴格的基于假設表面。然而，更關(guān)注這本書的是具體的給出的理由，各種范圍內(nèi)的材料，包括經(jīng)典的導演如戴維林奇和斯坦利庫布里克的作品，也是一個配樂討論室：1999年，一系列的恐怖電影，和電視連相比就是音樂的作用。唐納利的影視音樂相比在更經(jīng)典的作品，得分之處是更無形的專注于的講故事。這一點讓他受鼓舞，特別是由電影制作的電影的日益復雜的聲音設計，唐納利認為：傳統(tǒng)的電影音樂被看作是一種敘事的一部分，在電影敘事中，在某種程度上，它會更好地把它看作是電影中的一部分。下定決心去探索音樂的更多屏幕任性的素質(zhì)，唐納利的即興演奏在音樂的魔力的概念，用形象的方式。特別是關(guān)系到電影院，他認為配樂可以構(gòu)成一種觀眾的感性上的占有。唐納利是不愿意承認電視原聲帶的具有功能，但集中而不是另一種魔力：在電視臺，一個特定的電視背景一樣的熟悉的音樂的習慣性使用配樂對他在生活別處也