论文部分内容阅读
按迈克尔·罗默的说法,一部影片至关重要的是:简洁、直接、具体、普普通通的情境和亲切动人的细节。作者在哈佛上学的时候拍过无声的幻想片。后来他给《记者》杂志写评论。他拍的头一部故事片是研究黑人生活的《只是一个男人》,那是应邀参加1964年威尼斯电影节唯一的一部美国片。 罗默的论点是实际的、尖锐的和很有实用价值的。他那直截了当的语言,可能会使人误认为这种理论易于掌握。象克拉考尔一样,他认为电影是物质的外表形象。它运用“生活本身的材料”,比其它任何媒介都更适合于表现我们自身的“偶然的经验”。但他和克拉考尔还有不同之处,在某些方面他和法国的新浪潮导演也不一样,他强调“电影同诗歌和绘画一样,基本上是一种人工制品”。电影的具体细节,如果运用到家,与传统戏剧表演的对话和动作很不一样,这些细节需要精心设计,以求获得真实的效果。卓别林、德莱叶、布列森、费里尼和黑泽明在这方面是成功的(从戏 剧改行来的伯格曼却没有做到这一点),因为他们是利用现实的表象来迫使我们得出自己的结论,也就是“用日常生活的琐事”,使银幕上保持一个由具体细节组成的完整的艺术结构。
According to Michael Romer, what counts as a film is the simple, straightforward, concrete, ordinary situation and the touching details. The author filmed a silent fantasy film at Harvard’s school. Later he wrote a comment to Journalist magazine. The first feature film he shot was “Just a Man” to study black life, the only American film ever invited to the 1964 Venice Film Festival. Romer’s argument is real, sharp and very practical. His straightforward language may mislead the theory as easy to grasp. Like Kalakauer, he considers the film a material appearance. It uses “the material of life itself,” more than any other medium to present our own “accidental experience.” But he is still different from KraCaul, and in some ways he is not the same as the French new wave director, who emphasizes that “films, like poetry and painting, are basically artifacts.” The specific details of the film, if used at home, are very different from those of traditional theatrical performances, and these details need careful design in order to achieve real results. Chaplin, Delaware, Bryson, Fellini and Kurosawa were successful in this respect (Bergman from the drama did not do this) because they used the reality of appearance Forcing us to draw our own conclusion, that is, “using the trivia of everyday life,” maintains on the screen a complete art structure with concrete details.