电影研究相关外文文献翻译

1、15001500 单词，单词，85008500 英文字符，中文英文字符，中文 30503050 字字 出处出处: : 作者作者: Schatz, Thomas: Schatz, Thomas 期刊名称期刊名称: Literature/Film Quarterly: Literature/Film Quarterly 卷卷: 37;: 37;期期: 1;: 1;页码页码: 77-80;: 77-80;年年 份份: 2016: 2016 原文原文 The Research of Hollywood Film: British Literature and American FilmThe Rese

2、arch of Hollywood Film: British Literature and American Film Schatz, Thomas It comes as no surprise that Hollywood relies heavily on Britain for both subject matter and movie revenues. Indeed, at various times in its history, most notably during World War II, England has been a veritable extension o

3、f the US market. Nor is it surprising that Hollywood throughout its history has mined British literature for story material-a tendency that has become remarkably pronounced at times, as with the ubiquitous adaptation of English literary classics in the 1930s, the heady facilitation of the British in

4、vasion in the 1960s, and of course the current spate of blockbuster series based on British literary franchises (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, James Bond, the Chronicles of Narnia, et al.). What is surprising, however, is how little serious study has been devoted to these interrelated phenomena-t

5、hat is, the cine-symbiosis between the US and Britain, and Hollywoods profound investment in British literature for source material. Jennifer Jeffers has taken a significant step toward rectifyingthis scholarly lacuna in Britain Colonized: Hollywoods Appropriation of British Literature, which focuse

6、s on a relatively brief but vitally important stage of Hollywoods long-standing, deep-seated Brit-Lit obsession, spanning the early 1990s to the early 2000s. The book is important too as a contribution to adaptation studies, generally, although as Jeffers readily acknowledges, Hollywoods exploitatio

7、n of British literature has been altogether unique in the annals of commercial films and filmmaking. Jeffers follows Dudley Andrews admonition that it is time for adaptation studies to take a sociological turn, and she relies for her analytical approach on the work of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guitta

8、ri as well as Jacques Derrida. The term appropriation in her subtide puts rather mildly Jefferss disdain for the ways in which Hollywood has colonized and plundered the British literary text in order to make the film appeal to mainstream audiences-and not simply American audiences (although the US r

9、emains by far the richest market for movie product), but a global film market that in fact was exploding during precisely the period she examines. Jeffers has little interest in the films fidelity to the source text-a concern that has gotten adaptation studies nowhere - focusing instead on strategie

10、s of reiteration, genre reformulations, and the clusters of citations that characterize the process. Jeffers contends that Hollywood radically reiterates the literary text at all levels - narrative, plot, circumstances - into a different context of meaning, while at the same time repeating familiar

11、citations, which reconstitute the film into a recognisable and predictable product . . . Following Deleuze and Guittari, she argues that in this way literary texts are simultaneously deterritorialized and reterritorialized - a governing metaphor that is refined throughout the study in a remarkably w

12、ide range of applications. Britain Colonized employs a case-study approach, examining eight adaptations in the following order: The Remains of the Day (1993, from the 1989 novel), Possession (2002, from the 1990 novel), The English Patient (1996, from the 1992 novel), Trainspotting (1996, from the 1

13、993 novel), Bridget Joness Diary (2001, from the 1996 novel), Waterhnd (1992, from the 1983 novel), High Fidelity (2000, from the 1995 novel), and Shakespeare in Love (1998, based on an original screenplay). Jefferss approach is to analyze both the source text and its film adaptation, and in the pro

14、cess to situate both novel and film in a larger cultural and industrial context. Most of her attention is devoted to the films, although one of the books notable strengths is that in several cases Jeffers takes the filmmaking process as well as the finished film into account, including the analysis

15、of multiple screenplay versions of the same novel done by multiple writers (including British literati) whose adaptations differ considerably. There is a precise logic to both the selection and sequencing of Jefferss case stuthes. The Remains of the Day provides her with an ideal first case in that

16、it harkens back to Hollywoods quality Brit-Lit adaptations of the 1980s (A Passage to India, 1985; A Room with a View, 1986; et al), while signaling the onset along with its immediate predecessor Howards End (1992) of what Jeffers terms the quality heritage films of the 1990s. This theme of British

17、heritage is developed throughout Britain Colonized, and it represents one crucial area in which British writers (and publishers) became complicit in the appropriation process. She notes the growing obsession with British heritage during Thatchers regime, which by the 1990s had evolved into what she

18、(following Robert Hewison) terms the heritage industry. Thus Jeffers acknowledges the recent trend whereby Britain reterritorializes itself in the image of an American film-set on location in Britain. But Hollywood always takes this process one step further, posits Jeffers, recasting the British sto

19、ry in a distinctly American idiom characterized by a patriotic or nationalistic zeal coupled with racism. The Remains of the Day also involves a tactic of sexual reorientation that turns up in several of the adaptations, as the novels subtext involving the protagonists closeted homosexual desire not

20、 only is subdued in the film version but is recast in more conventional heterosexual terms. Jefferss next two cases involve Booker Prize-winning novels, Possession and The English Patient, whose narrative and thematic complexities and nuanced characterizations are reduced to predictable Hollywood fo

21、rmula - the Western and the colonial adventure film, respectively - which render them suitable for mainstream consumption. These analyses are solid and quite iuuminating, but they are mere prelude to the subsequent chapters in which Jefferss study really gels. The analyses of Trainspotting and Bridg

22、et Joness Diary, which Jeffers counterposes in a single chapter, are particularly compelling in their treatment of literary and film style, genre reformulation, and issues of gender in contemporary London - as ladlit, chick-lit, and Cool Britannia make their way to Hollywood. Trainspotting marks Jef

23、ferss first sustained treatment of pop music, which adds an important dimension to the study, while her analysis of the Bridget Jones effect broaches a wide range of issues, from the ongoing Jane Austen craze in film and television (Janespotting) to the obvious impact of both the novel and film on f

24、emale attitudes, behavior, and sexual identity (Jonespotting). Jeffers regards both the Bridget Jones novel and film to be works of postmodern pastiche, recombining Pride and Prejudice, Fear of Flying, Sex and the City, and myriad other feminist (and post-feminist) texts. She also suggests that both

25、 the novel and its film adaptation get the joke - that is, they both actively if ironically manufacture and promote a sense of British heritage and a contemporary Cool Britannia that manages to be simultaneously hip and nostalgic. Jefferss subsequent cases involve increasingly radical reiteration an

26、d reterritorialization, which is most blatant perhaps in High Fidelity?, entire narrative being transplanted to the US - and to the Midwest, no less. These films also manifest the hyper-reflexivity of Bridget Joness Diary, which reaches a culmination of sorts in Shakespeare in Love - the one case-st

27、udy film that is not an adaptation but is eminently appropriate to Jefferss study, nonetheless, given its confounded heritage and paradoxical derivation - the consummate postmodern counterfeit that lacks an original - and its canny celebration of both Shakespeare and his work while utterly disengagi

28、ng them from their historical and literary context. Jeffers notes early in her study a fundamental contradiction involving source texts and their adaptations: There are dire consequences for literary texts, especially novels and plays, that are not adapted into films. A literary texts canonical stat

29、us rests on its adaptability to film. In other words, writes Jeffers, the original must have a copy in order to be valued as an original. She is quite right, of course, and the consequences are doubly dire because of Hollywoods tendency to recast the original into something fundamentally different f

30、rom its source, which in Shakespeare in Loveextends from the writers entire oeuvre to the writer himself - Shakespeare as the twenty-first centurys ultimate floating signifier, who in this hip-ironic incarnation more resembles a Hollywood screenwriter than the real British author. Jefferss carefully

31、 crafted argument reaches its culmination with this final case study: Hollywoods reterritorialization of British literature was completed with Shakespeare in Love. This assertion seems apt enough in terms of her analysis and her sample, but this film scarcely completed the cultural and industrial pr

32、ocesses in question. Hollywoods colonization of Brit-Lit continues with a vengeance, and in fact reterritorialization has gone into another register altogether in the current era of blockbuster franchises and computer-generated imagery (CGI) - not to mention Peter Jacksons recreation of Tolkiens Mag

33、ical Britain in New Zealand. Jefferss focus on the 1990s clearly involves an antecedent but very different cycle of Hollywood adaptation, and one that was especially distinctive due to the concurrent forces of media globalization and independent filmmaking at the time. Indeed, all of Jefferss case-s

34、tudy films were part of the recent indie-film movement in American cinema - the Indiewood that rose alongside Conglomerate Hollywood during the 1990s, which did reach an apex with Miramaxs two quality indie blockbusters, The English Patient and Shakespeare in Love. 译文 好莱坞电影研究好莱坞电影研究: : 英国文学和美国电影英国文学

35、和美国电影 沙茨托马斯 好莱坞在很大程度上都是依赖于英国的电影主题和收入， 这是不足为奇的。 的确，在不 同的历史时期， 尤其是第二次世界大战期间， 英国一直都是一个名副其实的美国电影市场的 延伸。这也不奇怪，因为好莱坞在其整个发展历史上， 都一直在挖掘英国文学的故事内容作 为其电影对的拍摄剧本，这一趋势变得非常明显，特别是在30 年代，无处不在的根据英语 文学名著改编的电影，60 年代的无限风光的英国文学电影，当然目前基于英国文学特许经 营的一系列大片系列，如:哈利波特、指环王、詹姆斯邦德、纳尼亚传奇等好莱坞大制作 电影。然而，令人惊讶的是，并没有多少人认真地致力于这些相互关联的现象的研究，

36、 美国 和英国之间的这种电影共生、 互相合作关系。 英国文学是好莱坞电影投资制作拍摄的剧本材 料来源。詹妮弗杰弗斯采取了一个重大的措施， 以填补这一学术空白，好莱坞对于英国文 学的不断拨款投资拍摄电影， 这对好莱坞的长期发展来说， 是一个极其重要的阶段， 根深蒂 固的“因果文学剧本”困扰，横跨20 世纪 90 年代初到 21 世纪早期。总的来说，本文适时 地对这方面进行学术研究也是很重要的贡献。 尽管杰弗斯欣然承认， 好莱坞对英国文学的挖 掘已经完全载入其独特的商业电影和电影制作的史册。 杰弗斯遵循达德利安德鲁的警告， “是时候对好莱坞电影现状采取一些研究了” ，她的 分析方法主要采用的是于吉

37、尔德勒兹、菲力克斯盖特瑞以及雅克德里达提出的研究方 法。 “拨款”这个词在她对好莱坞的一种比较温和的杰弗斯式的蔑视，好莱坞电影对英国文 学电影剧本的挖掘， 其主要目的就是为了使好莱坞影片能够吸引主流的观众-这些主流不仅 仅是美国观众(尽管美国仍是迄今为止最富有的电影产品市场)， 但全球电影市场， 实际上正 处于爆炸式发展时期，电影观众世界各地也是非常多， 在拍摄电影时，好莱坞电影也需要考 虑到这些观众的喜好。杰弗斯很少去关注研究电影观众的“忠诚度” ，她的研究的中心在于 电影改编剧本研究-专注于战略重申、电影改编剧本流派、电影引用了那些文学材料等等， 重视这一类的分析研究。 杰弗斯认为好莱坞从

38、根源上上重视各级文学剧本叙事、 情节、环境 背景，同时重复熟悉的引用材料， 将电影变成一个知名的和可预测的产品。 既德勒兹和盖特 瑞的研究之后，她认为这样的文学剧本同时占据了好莱坞电影拍摄和制作的很重要的环节。 英国文学在好莱坞电影中， 有很多被改编的经典案例， 他们主要是按照以下改编顺序排 列的:这天剩下的时间(1993 年拍摄，根据 1989 年的小说改编而来)、拥有(2002 年拍摄，根 据 1990 年的小说改编)、 英国病人(1996年拍摄， 根据1992 年的小说改编而来)、 猜火车(1996 年拍摄，根据1993 年的小说改编而来)、 单身日记(2001 年拍摄，根据1996 年

39、的小说改 编而来),怀特亨德(1992 年拍摄，根据 1983 年小说改编而来)、高保真(2000 年拍摄，根据 1995 年的小说改变而来)、 莎翁情史(1998 年拍摄，基于一个原创剧本)。杰弗斯的方法 是分析好莱坞电影拍摄引用的原始剧本文本和电影改编剧本材料， 在这个过程中， 将小说和 电影置于一个更大的文化和行业环境中。 她的大部分注意力都用于电影， 尽管这是她的显著 优势之一，但是在一些情况下，杰弗斯关注电影的制作过程以及在制作完成的电影， 包括多 个剧本的分析相同版本的小说通过多个作家(包括英国文人)的适应性不同。 对于杰弗斯关于好莱坞电影的案例研究， 有一个精确的逻辑来排序。“这

40、天剩下的时间” 这部电影， 为她提供了一个理想的第一个好莱坞电影研究案例， 回归了好莱坞电影追求剧本 “质量”的本源精神;(印度之行，1985;一个房间和一个视角,1986 等等电影),这些根据英 国文学剧本拍摄的电影呈爆发式发展，这些都是相当有质量，有内涵的好莱坞电影，在 20 世纪 90 年代。这一主题的英国文学剧本的开发，代表好莱坞电影制作史上的一个至关重要 的领域， 英国的很多作家和出版商都参与了这一得意之作拍摄过程。 她指出在遗产撒切尔政 权期间， 好莱坞电影越来越痴迷于英国的文学剧本， 到 20 世纪 90 年代演变为罗伯特所称的 “传统产业” 。“因此杰弗斯承认好莱坞电影的最近发展趋势， 在一个美国城市的拍摄的电影， 题材来自英国 ”但是好莱坞总是 这个一个不断进步的过程， 杰弗斯认为，重铸英国文学故 事明显更符合美国习语的特点，还有就是，因为英美两国同宗同源， “爱国加上种族主义或 民族主义热情。 ”这天剩下的时间，这部电影的成功，也就不足为奇了，在改编剧本中，还 涉及到一些新的定位，比如小说的潜台词涉及主人公的“未出柜的”同性恋欲望等，不仅是 电影版，现实中更是重塑了传统的异性恋。 杰弗斯接下