2008年文登春季詞匯班精彩文篇推薦(一)

　　影劇篇

　　When Artists Distort History

　　第一篇：

　　(1) King Richard III was a monster. He poisoned his wife, stole the throne from his two young nephews and ordered them to be smothered in the Tower of London. Richard was a sort of Antichrist the King — “that bottled spider, that pois’nous bunch-back’d toad.

　　(2) Anyway, that was Shakespeare’s version. Shakespeare did what the ______ does: he turned history into a vivid, articulate, organized dream — repeatable nightly. He put the crouch-back onstage, and sold tickets.

　　(3) And who would say that the real Richard known to family and friends was not identical to Shakespeare’s memorably loathsome creation? The actual Richard went dimming into the past and vanished. When all the eye-witnesses are gone, the artist’s imagination begins to conjure.

　　(4) Variations on the King Richard Effect are at work in Oliver Stone’s JFK. Richard Ⅲ was art, but it was propaganda too. Shakespeare took the details of his plot from Tudor historians who wanted to blacken Richard’s name. Several centuries passed before other historians began to write about Richard’s virtues and suggest that he may have been a victim of Tudor malice and what is the cleverest ______ of all: art.

　　(5) JFK is a long and powerful discourse about the death of the man Stone keeps calling “the slayed young king.” What are the rules of Stone’s game? Is Stone functioning as commercial entertainer? Propagandist? Documentary filmmaker? Historian? Journalist? Fantasist? Sensationalist? Paranoid conspiracy-monger? Lone hero crusading for the truth against a corrupt Establishment? Answer: some of the above.

　　(6) The first superficial effect of JFK is to raise angry little scruples like wounds in the conscience. Wouldn’t it be absurd if a generation of younger Americans, with no memory of 1963, were to form their ideas about John Kennedy’s assassination from Oliver Stone’s report of it? But worse things have happened — including, perhaps, the Warren Commission report?

　　(7) Stone’s movie and the Warren report are interestingly symmetrical: the Warren Commission was insensi-tively, one might say pathologically, unsuspicious, while in every scene of the Stone film conspiracy theories move painfully underfoot like snakes. In a strange way, the two reports balance one another out. It may be ______ to accord Stone’s movie a status coequal with the Warren report. On the other hand, the Warren report has endured through the years as a monolith of obscure suppression, a smooth tomb of denial. Stone’s movie, for all its wild gesticulations, at least refreshes the memory and gets a long-cold curiosity and contempt glowing again.

　　(8) The irresponsibility of the Warren report somehow makes one less indignant about Stone’s methods and the 500 kitchen sinks that he has heaved into his story. His technique is admirable as storytelling and now and then preposterous as historical inquiry. But why should the American people expect a moviemaker to assume ______ for producing the last word on the Kennedy assassination when the government, historians and news media have all pursued the subject so imperfectly?

　　(9) Stone uses a suspect, mixed art form, and JFK raises the familiar ethical and historical problems of docu-drama. But so what? Artists have always used public events as raw material, have taken history into their imagi-nations and transformed it. The fall of Troy vanished into the Iliad. The Battle of Borodino found its most memorable permanence in Tolstoy’s imagining of it in War and Peace.

　　(10) Especially in a world of insatiable electronic storytelling, real history procreates, endlessly conjuring new versions of itself. Public life has become a metaphysical breeder of fictions. Watergate became an almost con-tinuous television miniseries — although it is interesting that the movie of Woodward and Bernstein’s All The President’s Men stayed close to the known facts and, unlike JFK, did not validate dark guess.

　　(11) Some public figures have a story magic, and some do not. Richard Nixon possesses an indefinable, em-barrassed dark gleam that somehow fascinates. And John Kennedy, despite everything, still has the bright glam-our that works best of all. Works, that is, except when the subject is his assassination. That may be a matter still too sacred, too raw and unassimilated. The long American passivity about the death in Dallas may be a sort of hypnosis — or a grief that hardened into a will not to know. Do not let daylight in upon magic.

　　(12) Why is Stone’s movie different from any other imaginative treatment of history? Is it because the assassi-nation of John Kennedy was so traumatic, the bady boomers’ End of Childhood? Or that Americans have santi-fied it as official tragedy, a title that confers immunity from irreligious revisionists who would reopen the grave? Are artists and moviemakers by such logic prohibited from stories about the Holocaust? The Holocaust, of course, is known from the outset to be a satanic plot. For some reason — a native individualism, maybe — many Americans resist dark theories about J.F.K.’s death, and think those retailing them are vending foreign, anarchist goods. Real Americans hate conspiracies as something unclean.

　　(13) Perhaps the memory of the assassination is simply too fresh. An outraged movie like Stone’s intrudes upon a semipermanent mourning. Maybe the subject should be embargoed for some period of time, withheld from artists and entertainers, in the same way the Catholic Church once declined to consider sainthood until the person in question had been dead for 50 years.

　　【參考譯文】論藝術(shù)家扭曲史實

　　(1)英王理查三世是個魔鬼。 他毒死了自己的妻子，篡奪原屬于兩個年輕侄兒的王位，還下令在倫敦塔中讓他們窒息而死。理查可說是一位撒旦似的國王——“那瓶中的蜘蛛，那陰毒的駝背蟾蜍。”

　　(2)至少這是莎士比亞的說法。莎士比亞所做的只是劇作家的本分：把歷史轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)轷r明、清晰、條理分明的夢——可以每晚上演。他把這個駝背怪物搬上臺，賣票給人看。

　　(3) 又有誰敢說在親朋好友眼中的真正的理查不是這樣，和莎翁創(chuàng)造出來的那個令人厭惡得難以忘懷的劇中人物不同？真正的理查，隨著歷史遠(yuǎn)去而了無蹤跡。所有的目擊證人都已不在了，藝術(shù)家的想像力就開始施展魔力了。

　　(4) 在奧利佛斯通的《誰殺了肯尼迪》中可以看到這種“理查國王效應(yīng)”的變奏�！独聿槿�世》是藝術(shù)，但也是宣傳：莎翁劇情的細(xì)節(jié)取材自同時期的都鐸王朝的歷史家，而這些人蓄意丑化理查的形象。要過好幾百年才有別的歷史家出來記述理查的好處，并且暗示理查可能是都鐸王朝惡意宣傳的犧牲品，也是最巧妙的陰謀——藝術(shù)——的犧牲品。

　　(5) 《誰》片是有力的長篇大論，主題是一位人物的死亡——斯通一直稱為“遇害的青年國王”的那個人。期通的把戲到底用的是哪種規(guī)則？他是扮演提供商業(yè)化娛樂的角色？還是宣傳家？紀(jì)錄片電影制作者？歷史家？記者？幻想家？危言聳聽者？有偏執(zhí)狂的陰謀論者？獨行俠式的英雄，為真理出征，挑戰(zhàn)腐敗的體制？答案：以上有些是。

　　(6) 《誰》片所造成的第一種比較表面化的效果，就是激起觀眾憤怒的原則問題的小抗議，好像良心上的一道道鞭痕：如果年輕一代的美國人，不復(fù)記得1963（肯尼迪遇刺年代），對于肯尼迪遇刺案的觀念全憑斯通的報道，這不是太荒謬了嗎？可是比這更糟的事也不是沒發(fā)生過——也許包括華倫委員會報告在內(nèi)。

　　(7)斯通的電影和華倫委員會的報告形成有趣的對稱：華倫委員會是反應(yīng)遲鈍，毫無疑心，幾乎可以說到了病態(tài)的地步：而在斯通電影的每一場戲中，陰謀論像蛇一樣在腳下到處竄動。這兩種報告很微妙地可以互相平衡。當(dāng)然，把斯通的片子賦予和華倫報告相同的地位，有點不倫不類。反過來說，華倫報告歷經(jīng)多年至今，像一塊巨石般，隱隱壓抑著所有不同的說法，好像一座平滑的墳?zāi)�，泰然否定一切。斯通的片子雖然從頭到尾比手劃腳，十分夸張，至少讓人重溫舊事，讓觀眾心中早已冷卻的好奇與輕蔑重新燒了起來。

　　(8) 因為華倫報

【文登春季詞匯班精彩文篇(一)】相關(guān)文章：

小學(xué)語文登山教案01-13

小學(xué)語文登山教案7篇01-13

我們的課余生活作文登選04-21

文實16班高一期末總結(jié)04-28

春季配班工作計劃05-03

學(xué)前班春季開學(xué)寄語01-10

春季配班工作計劃04-01

托班春季工作計劃04-29

我們班的段文州作文04-30

漢英口譯分類詞匯—教育文化詞匯(一)05-04