[分享]Why actors love period drama
[分享]Why actors love period drama
如今古装剧改编之泛滥,实在让人有点吃不消。归根结底,还是名与利(废话,难道是爱艺术)。下面提到的剧目里我只看过一点Robin Hood,很一般。
如果有喜欢Andrew Davies的,这里有一篇他的访谈“Jane and me”:http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 159647.ece
Why actors love period drama
'It undoubtedly helps your career. Look at all the exports to America'
by Sally Kinnes, The Sunday Times
The economic impact of Colin Firth’s wet-shirt moment inPride and Prejudice cannot be underestimated. The BBC’s bestselling costume drama, it has sold to 72 countries. Of late, though, international audiences have wanted something younger, faster-paced, more contemporary. So, when BBC Worldwide sets up its stall next month at BBC Showcase, an annual event for foreign television buyers, bonnets will take a back seat to modern dramas such as Spooks, which led the way six years ago, changing the perception of British television. What sells now? Torchwood, Hotel Babylon and Saturday-night shows such as Robin Hood, Doctor Who and Primeval (BBC Worldwide distributes for ITV, Channel 4 and Five).
Which means Robin Hood is outselling Sense and Sensibility by two to one (40-50 countries, compared with 24). “The point about period drama now is that it will only sell if it’s the best of the best,” says Matt Forde, of BBC Worldwide. Even then, it is mostly to English-speaking markets: America, Australia and New Zealand. They also can’t get enough of it in Scandinavia, although they want upbeat drama (Austen, not Dostoevsky, please). In Italy and Spain, though, they don’t want it at all.
Actors, however, love period drama. “There is no doubt there is snobbery involved,” says Max Beesley, whose career began in the BBC’s Tom Jones. “The BBC tends to make the best period drama, and you think, ‘Oh good, I’ll be seen doing serious work.’ It undoubtedlyhelps your career. Look at all theexports we’ve got in America.”
Directors also see the genre as challenging, benchmark drama that will add to their portfolios and bankability. For producers, there’s nothing like a well-known classic to open chequebooks.
“We can no longer afford to produce solely for the UK,” says Gub Neal of Box TV. “The most the broadcaster is likely to give you is 75% of the budget. For our Wind in the Willows,the BBC gave us 50%. We had to raise £2m.”
At about £1m an hour, period drama is the most expensive kind there is (it can take 40 minutes just to do a make-up check, according to Iain MacDonald, who directed Billie Piper in Mansfield Park). But you can save up to 40% if you make it in eastern Europe; and, if you get it right, it can be ratings gold. Cranford consistently attracted 7m viewers; 8m watched the first episode of Oliver Twist.
No surprise, then, that there is more period drama in the offing. ITV has Affinity, set in the 19th century, Wuthering Heights (Christopher Hart will no doubt be thrilled), two episodes of Foyle’s War and the half-period, half-contemporary Lost in Austen. Coming up on Channel 4 are The Devil’s Whore (a civil-war drama) and City of Vice (the criminal world of Georgian London). The BBC has Kenneth Branagh in a 16th-century detective drama, a new series of The Tudors, a dramatisation of Austen’s final years, Miss Austen Regrets, and The Diary of Anne Frank.
如果有喜欢Andrew Davies的,这里有一篇他的访谈“Jane and me”:http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 159647.ece
Why actors love period drama
'It undoubtedly helps your career. Look at all the exports to America'
by Sally Kinnes, The Sunday Times
The economic impact of Colin Firth’s wet-shirt moment inPride and Prejudice cannot be underestimated. The BBC’s bestselling costume drama, it has sold to 72 countries. Of late, though, international audiences have wanted something younger, faster-paced, more contemporary. So, when BBC Worldwide sets up its stall next month at BBC Showcase, an annual event for foreign television buyers, bonnets will take a back seat to modern dramas such as Spooks, which led the way six years ago, changing the perception of British television. What sells now? Torchwood, Hotel Babylon and Saturday-night shows such as Robin Hood, Doctor Who and Primeval (BBC Worldwide distributes for ITV, Channel 4 and Five).
Which means Robin Hood is outselling Sense and Sensibility by two to one (40-50 countries, compared with 24). “The point about period drama now is that it will only sell if it’s the best of the best,” says Matt Forde, of BBC Worldwide. Even then, it is mostly to English-speaking markets: America, Australia and New Zealand. They also can’t get enough of it in Scandinavia, although they want upbeat drama (Austen, not Dostoevsky, please). In Italy and Spain, though, they don’t want it at all.
Actors, however, love period drama. “There is no doubt there is snobbery involved,” says Max Beesley, whose career began in the BBC’s Tom Jones. “The BBC tends to make the best period drama, and you think, ‘Oh good, I’ll be seen doing serious work.’ It undoubtedlyhelps your career. Look at all theexports we’ve got in America.”
Directors also see the genre as challenging, benchmark drama that will add to their portfolios and bankability. For producers, there’s nothing like a well-known classic to open chequebooks.
“We can no longer afford to produce solely for the UK,” says Gub Neal of Box TV. “The most the broadcaster is likely to give you is 75% of the budget. For our Wind in the Willows,the BBC gave us 50%. We had to raise £2m.”
At about £1m an hour, period drama is the most expensive kind there is (it can take 40 minutes just to do a make-up check, according to Iain MacDonald, who directed Billie Piper in Mansfield Park). But you can save up to 40% if you make it in eastern Europe; and, if you get it right, it can be ratings gold. Cranford consistently attracted 7m viewers; 8m watched the first episode of Oliver Twist.
No surprise, then, that there is more period drama in the offing. ITV has Affinity, set in the 19th century, Wuthering Heights (Christopher Hart will no doubt be thrilled), two episodes of Foyle’s War and the half-period, half-contemporary Lost in Austen. Coming up on Channel 4 are The Devil’s Whore (a civil-war drama) and City of Vice (the criminal world of Georgian London). The BBC has Kenneth Branagh in a 16th-century detective drama, a new series of The Tudors, a dramatisation of Austen’s final years, Miss Austen Regrets, and The Diary of Anne Frank.
This reminds of an interview I read recently, it said all famous British actors have played their share of "prick on the horse".
I guess there is some prestige (and rightly so) associated with actors that are classically trained and doing Shakespeares. It's hard work, memorizing all those lines. I did it back in high school, gee, not my fondest memory.
I guess there is some prestige (and rightly so) associated with actors that are classically trained and doing Shakespeares. It's hard work, memorizing all those lines. I did it back in high school, gee, not my fondest memory.
Well, playing Jane Austen on TV is not necessarily the same thing as playing Shakespeare on Strafford-on-Avon. I can understand the appeal of adapting Austen and Jane Erye and Wuthering Heights over and over and over. Much easier (on everyone including the audience) than adapting Dostoyevsky, that's for sure, and completely politically safe. Will not offend, confuse, or disturb anyone. No controversy, no poverty, corruption, war, injustice, or dark-skinned foreigners! Ah the good old days of the Empire...
此喵已死,有事烧纸
Just watched the new "Persuasion". Funny they chose to show the last novel first. It is my favorite of the Austen novels and I am always loyal to the 1995 version. Not happy with the 2007 version, which suffers not only in its brevity but especially the sparkling, spotless, gleaming look of everything and everyone compared with the humble and realistic look in the 1995 version. The lead actress, Sally Hawkins, is adequate, but Rupert Penry-Jones' Captain Wentworth is several notches below Ciaran Hinds. Hinds might be a bit too old when he played Wentworth in the 1995 version, but his weathered face and the hint of compassion in his eyes were much more appropriate for the character -- a sea man who has seen battles and storms and blood and deaths. He is no country gentleman; he is no Mr. Darcy. He is a war hero and a tough man who has been around the world. There was plenty of complexity in Hinds, but Penry-Jones is too pale, too flat, too cardboard, and, like the rest of the adaptation, too clean and bland.
Compare Penry-Jones:
with Ciaran Hinds:
Incidentally, the evil Mr. Elliott, the other suitor, in this version is played by Tobias Menzies. Looking at him in impeccable costumes with a top-hat and starched shirt and obligatory sideburns (sideburns overload!), my mind could help but recall the last time I saw him in Rome Season 2, in which he was butt naked in a pond and later had his guts spilled.
I'm not a Jane Austen fan, a deficiency I might blame on an early education in English lit based almost exclusively on BBC's Dickens' adaptations that CCTV deemed suitable for the audience. Alas, I feel to this day closer to the blatant, unabashed social activism (If you've read Oliver Twist you'd know what I mean) than polite courtship.
I favor Persuasion perhaps because of the feminist undertone, however limited, within the novel but casually discarded in the 2007 adaptation. Nevertheless, I finally realize the reason for my indifference for these novels. There is a moralizing undertone in these stories. Austen believes marital happiness is the product of rational matching of temperament and character, but I don't. She also has the tendency to praise certain traits and put down other traits, especially youthful indiscretion. While she seems to do with gently, still I often disagree. A bit preachy even if well-meaning. I know, I know, she is limited by her time and the social and cultural shackles imposed upon women. Also dark and ambiguous exploration into human psychology was hardly a popular pursuit among writers of the 1700s. Still, I cannot love her novels or completely identify with her values and ideals, because I have been so influenced by the later flavors and different insights into human frailties, social values, the feminine identity, moral relativism, and romantic relationships. I feel very, very distant from her world.
Compare Penry-Jones:
with Ciaran Hinds:
Incidentally, the evil Mr. Elliott, the other suitor, in this version is played by Tobias Menzies. Looking at him in impeccable costumes with a top-hat and starched shirt and obligatory sideburns (sideburns overload!), my mind could help but recall the last time I saw him in Rome Season 2, in which he was butt naked in a pond and later had his guts spilled.
I'm not a Jane Austen fan, a deficiency I might blame on an early education in English lit based almost exclusively on BBC's Dickens' adaptations that CCTV deemed suitable for the audience. Alas, I feel to this day closer to the blatant, unabashed social activism (If you've read Oliver Twist you'd know what I mean) than polite courtship.
I favor Persuasion perhaps because of the feminist undertone, however limited, within the novel but casually discarded in the 2007 adaptation. Nevertheless, I finally realize the reason for my indifference for these novels. There is a moralizing undertone in these stories. Austen believes marital happiness is the product of rational matching of temperament and character, but I don't. She also has the tendency to praise certain traits and put down other traits, especially youthful indiscretion. While she seems to do with gently, still I often disagree. A bit preachy even if well-meaning. I know, I know, she is limited by her time and the social and cultural shackles imposed upon women. Also dark and ambiguous exploration into human psychology was hardly a popular pursuit among writers of the 1700s. Still, I cannot love her novels or completely identify with her values and ideals, because I have been so influenced by the later flavors and different insights into human frailties, social values, the feminine identity, moral relativism, and romantic relationships. I feel very, very distant from her world.
此喵已死,有事烧纸
Of course she is. 我喜欢看Austen,因为讽刺,观察,体恤,教导口吻平衡得很好,精致美观。I know, I know, she is limited by her time and the social and cultural shackles imposed upon women.
再贴一遍我对这版劝导的感想
然后晚上到ITV看奥斯丁新系列的《劝导》。一看编剧不是Andrew Davis,就有点失望。记得有人说BBC95的《傲慢与偏见》是村姑版,这个新《劝导》简直是村姑家的女仆版。奥斯丁世界里近乎完美的安小姐,沉静、温柔、美丽、成熟,不然帅男变富男过了8年怎么会再次爱上她。这个新电视剧的女主角长相很村姑也就罢了,一点看不出有安慰周围人的品质,动辄当着众人神情激越,胸口起伏,泪光闪闪,倒象要别人来安慰她。要不然就是一个人痛哭(说明感情其实很丰富?),或者对着镜头长时间的呆视(这算是表现含蓄?)。其它人物全部被压扁处理,妹妹玛丽是个智障儿,话没说清楚过一句;Lady Russel貌似嫌贫爱富的势力眼;她爹和姐姐原来就很扁平,罢了。等到女主角在巴斯的大街上跑起了半马拉松,疯狂寻找男主角的时候,我彻底目瞪口呆了。编剧还不放过观众,最后派男主角蒙上女主角的眼睛,回到已出租给他姐姐姐夫的她家祖屋,算是给她的新婚礼物,两人在绿草地上翩翩起舞。我忽然觉得这戏一定能成功地卖到中央电视台去。
A most aggrevating element in the adaptation is throwing out all the Navy and war-related mentions. (None of the officers even look like Navy men.) There was a new yearning that we have not seen in all her previous novels -- perhaps a reflection of changing times and the influx of military people in her reclusive social environment because of the war and stories of heroics. In Persuasion, her idea of a happy marriage for a woman is not quite the same as the previous tranquil domestic bliss. Rather, it is Mrs. Croft who represents her aspiration for Anne -- the middle-aged, toughened, open, and hearty woman who has followed her husband into the sea and adventure. Mrs. Croft serves as a contrast to Lady Russell as a more worthy and wiser influence on Anne. The 07 adaptation completely misses the point.
此喵已死,有事烧纸
说实话,Jane Austin的作品我是看了忘,忘了看。除了Liz和大喜,听都听成了熟人,其他几篇,我至今没法记住情节和人物,虽然肯定看过不止一遍。我爱看同学们对Jane Austin的评论,不过这是因为我对同学们的看法感兴趣,并非因为我对原作感兴趣。I feel very, very distant from her world
这其实也不能算根本原因,每个作家的三观肯定都有与读者冲突的地方,要想不探测到这类limitation,除非自己写自己看。关键还是气场不对。我个人觉得Jane Austin太在体制以内,谨小慎微,她有自己的想法,然而体制就是她的边界,偏偏那个体制get on my nerves。she is limited by her time and the social and cultural shackles imposed upon women.
嗯,火星同学说得是,气场不对。Austen说话和编故事都比较转弯末角,我这笨脑子到现在才发现原来是她的行为标准和道德观跟我的完全各走各路。她的抑扬褒贬,跟我信仰的那一套虽然不是彻底相反,至少也是交叉不上。这些小说里观察固然有,也有对女人进行道德劝导,和对各色人等和价值取向的评判。女主角代表她自己的理想价值观,配角代表她批评的价值观。Persuasion是唯一我好好读过的一本,其中她批评了一下Louisa Musgrove的张扬外向,但我觉得年轻小女孩敢爱敢恨,有啥说啥,挺好的。而作者一向都比较反对任性和叛逆的个性,给不谨慎的女孩子安排很悲惨的下场,起教诲作用。不是说我是对的她是错的,而是在文艺和欣赏中,没有对错,有时候,错的反而好看和引起共鸣(例如罗密欧猪立夜)。
为什么内心强大要跟欣赏粗犷的外表连起来?Ciaran Hinds也不是我最喜欢的长相,但是合适人物设定啊。(所以人家才被挑中演凯撒嘛。)最受不了的是每个正面男主角都要非演成达西先生不可。
为什么内心强大要跟欣赏粗犷的外表连起来?Ciaran Hinds也不是我最喜欢的长相,但是合适人物设定啊。(所以人家才被挑中演凯撒嘛。)最受不了的是每个正面男主角都要非演成达西先生不可。
此喵已死,有事烧纸
从我个人讲(又要暴露黑暗内心了,Orz),我喜欢长相没有侵略性的男人。但是对JUN同学,男人外表上的侵略性不能威胁到您,所以这么讲。
我觉得Austin感受到了体制内的痛苦并且有怀疑,但是没有任何质疑反抗的意向,在每一个竖着"stop"的地方坚决服从的向后转。她有点像旧中国(不是不包括新中国)那些劝小媳妇们“认命”的婆婆妈妈们,虽然被洗脑洗了那么多年,但是亲身感受之后,稍有点脑子就会明白体制是个对她们多不公平的东西。然而又能怎样呢?学娜拉跑出家门然后无家可归流落街头?所以,认命吧,学着和体制合作,在重压之下的一丝缝隙里尽量活得像个人样。很合情合理,很有逻辑也很实用,然而新时代的妇女看得直吐血啊。
Austin不仅不反抗,而且不质疑,有时候还justify,比如说夏洛特同学,现在的人一看就会说“吃人的生活吃人的婚姻制度”,但是Austin把夏洛特的不幸婚姻归因于夏洛特的“短视”,爱钱而忘了精神生活,还安排女主角去鄙视她。能写出夏洛特的不幸,是Austin力所能及的反抗,然而她最终还是不敢把矛头对准真正的敌人。
我觉得Austin感受到了体制内的痛苦并且有怀疑,但是没有任何质疑反抗的意向,在每一个竖着"stop"的地方坚决服从的向后转。她有点像旧中国(不是不包括新中国)那些劝小媳妇们“认命”的婆婆妈妈们,虽然被洗脑洗了那么多年,但是亲身感受之后,稍有点脑子就会明白体制是个对她们多不公平的东西。然而又能怎样呢?学娜拉跑出家门然后无家可归流落街头?所以,认命吧,学着和体制合作,在重压之下的一丝缝隙里尽量活得像个人样。很合情合理,很有逻辑也很实用,然而新时代的妇女看得直吐血啊。
Austin不仅不反抗,而且不质疑,有时候还justify,比如说夏洛特同学,现在的人一看就会说“吃人的生活吃人的婚姻制度”,但是Austin把夏洛特的不幸婚姻归因于夏洛特的“短视”,爱钱而忘了精神生活,还安排女主角去鄙视她。能写出夏洛特的不幸,是Austin力所能及的反抗,然而她最终还是不敢把矛头对准真正的敌人。
周末正好看到一段很有趣的话。说是一边看小说啥的一边挑剔这人人生观不健康/不道德/不符合现代人性思潮,其实是还没入戏。真要入戏了,明知道这人很“落后”很“没道德”,一样“萌的心花朵朵开”。在文艺和欣赏中,没有对错
没,这是我自己太激进,一遇到这种话题就义愤填膺,跟爱国的五四青年似的。火星同学要给我发18世纪老冬烘的标签了吧
作者倒没鄙视夏洛特,看得出她对夏洛特非常同情。Liz……说不上鄙视吧。不过我觉得她对夏洛特的态度有点何不食肉糜的态度。她起初的逻辑是:夏洛特是有精神追求的青年妇女,竟然为了钱突然嫁了个这么猥琐的男人。这姿态也太高了点。整本书讲的都是妇女通过婚姻解决经济支持的问题,怎么一下子这么不食人间烟火起来。作者自己,或者安排李子去鄙视夏洛特。
我忽然想到另一个可能性。夏洛特是作者给Liz上的直面人生的惨淡一课。她们虽然生活在男尊女卑的世界里,有时候甚至拿这件事当笑话讲,然而作为没结婚的小姑娘,终究是没有切肤之痛。所以Liz初而诧异,拿虚无缥缈的高标准去要求夏洛特,但终于渐渐体会到其中的悲哀之意。不过这件事情对她和大喜的关系有没有直接的影响呢?我是没看出来,后面尽看到她追求精神生活了,附带接受富有继承人一个和大宅一座。
红着脸说,其实我最喜欢Liz和夏洛特互动的章节,后来Liz拜访夏洛特的新家,我尽顾着在字里行间找Liz和夏洛特友情仍在的证据,而且很没有失望。
我同意这个ann长相是村姑得厉害,某人非常没可奈何得陪我看了半天,然后下结论说这个安小姐是在yy,居然那末多帅哥都跟着她跑。CAVA wrote:Of course she is. 我喜欢看Austen,因为讽刺,观察,体恤,教导口吻平衡得很好,精致美观。I know, I know, she is limited by her time and the social and cultural shackles imposed upon women.
再贴一遍我对这版劝导的感想
然后晚上到ITV看奥斯丁新系列的《劝导》。一看编剧不是Andrew Davis,就有点失望。记得有人说BBC95的《傲慢与偏见》是村姑版,这个新《劝导》简直是村姑家的女仆版。奥斯丁世界里近乎完美的安小姐,沉静、温柔、美丽、成熟,不然帅男变富男过了8年怎么会再次爱上她。这个新电视剧的女主角长相很村姑也就罢了,一点看不出有安慰周围人的品质,动辄当着众人神情激越,胸口起伏,泪光闪闪,倒象要别人来安慰她。要不然就是一个人痛哭(说明感情其实很丰富?),或者对着镜头长时间的呆视(这算是表现含蓄?)。其它人物全部被压扁处理,妹妹玛丽是个智障儿,话没说清楚过一句;Lady Russel貌似嫌贫爱富的势力眼;她爹和姐姐原来就很扁平,罢了。等到女主角在巴斯的大街上跑起了半马拉松,疯狂寻找男主角的时候,我彻底目瞪口呆了。编剧还不放过观众,最后派男主角蒙上女主角的眼睛,回到已出租给他姐姐姐夫的她家祖屋,算是给她的新婚礼物,两人在绿草地上翩翩起舞。我忽然觉得这戏一定能成功地卖到中央电视台去。
Jane Austen是否反抗质疑,不能用我们今天的标准来判断。我认为她是反抗的,现实生活里,她自己没有财产,并未像当时大多数处境相同的妇女那样嫁人以图温饱,而是选择独身,用笔来挣生活,在当时社会环境下简直是非凡的勇气。
但是Jane Austen并没有在小说里塑造一个叛逆的角色,大声喊口号,而是用一种非常温和(或者简直是冷淡)的方式表达她的质疑――还是典型英国人的做作劲,绕弯子,打擦边球,点到为止。
她的书里处处提出婚姻和财产的关系,当时人婚姻选择的窘境表现得相当可观(而且不仅是女子,没有财产的男人一样没有婚姻选择的自由)。特别是许多细节,写得非常活灵活现:比如Liz周围的人议论威翰先生追求金小姐,肯定是为了金小姐的一万镑陪嫁,“否则谁会看上玛丽金那个满脸雀斑的小东西?”又比如科林斯先生非常诚恳地对Liz说,请她考虑他,因为“不幸你财产太少,未见得有人再来向你求婚”。――作者自己也知道,Liz能嫁给达西这种结局是真真正正的反特西,小说里其他人物的言行思想才是无法绕过、不容更改的现实。
但是Jane Austen并没有在小说里塑造一个叛逆的角色,大声喊口号,而是用一种非常温和(或者简直是冷淡)的方式表达她的质疑――还是典型英国人的做作劲,绕弯子,打擦边球,点到为止。
她的书里处处提出婚姻和财产的关系,当时人婚姻选择的窘境表现得相当可观(而且不仅是女子,没有财产的男人一样没有婚姻选择的自由)。特别是许多细节,写得非常活灵活现:比如Liz周围的人议论威翰先生追求金小姐,肯定是为了金小姐的一万镑陪嫁,“否则谁会看上玛丽金那个满脸雀斑的小东西?”又比如科林斯先生非常诚恳地对Liz说,请她考虑他,因为“不幸你财产太少,未见得有人再来向你求婚”。――作者自己也知道,Liz能嫁给达西这种结局是真真正正的反特西,小说里其他人物的言行思想才是无法绕过、不容更改的现实。
红颜弹指老,钻石恒久远。
回CAVA:Austen的娘家是相当窘迫的,一大家子人(8个孩子)靠她父亲当Steventon的rector收入维持,家里还弄了一点农场生计,好补贴家用。
她和初恋情人Tom Lefroy无法结婚,就是因为两个人都一文不名。于是Lefroy的家里人介入,把他们分开。
她也不是没考虑过结婚改善经济处境。事实上,她一度已经答应了Bigg-Wither的求婚(此人貌似相当有钱但极其无趣),但是第二天就改主意退婚,当时几乎算得上是个小丑闻
Austen作为女作家的稿酬,在当时算很不错了(理智与情感卖了140镑,曼斯菲尔德庄园是350镑――19世纪初差不多是一笔小财,要知道Liz姑娘的全部财产统共也就一千镑)。她的稿费是她重要的生活来源;后来她的一个兄弟被有钱人收养,她和她的家人才有了个免费的乡间房子住。
另:含蓄和做作应该是有差别的。我喜欢Austen,认为她是含蓄;某人不喜欢她,批评她做作劲,并说英国人都是这样,说话不肯直来直去,非要绕着弯子说,别扭
她和初恋情人Tom Lefroy无法结婚,就是因为两个人都一文不名。于是Lefroy的家里人介入,把他们分开。
她也不是没考虑过结婚改善经济处境。事实上,她一度已经答应了Bigg-Wither的求婚(此人貌似相当有钱但极其无趣),但是第二天就改主意退婚,当时几乎算得上是个小丑闻
Austen作为女作家的稿酬,在当时算很不错了(理智与情感卖了140镑,曼斯菲尔德庄园是350镑――19世纪初差不多是一笔小财,要知道Liz姑娘的全部财产统共也就一千镑)。她的稿费是她重要的生活来源;后来她的一个兄弟被有钱人收养,她和她的家人才有了个免费的乡间房子住。
另:含蓄和做作应该是有差别的。我喜欢Austen,认为她是含蓄;某人不喜欢她,批评她做作劲,并说英国人都是这样,说话不肯直来直去,非要绕着弯子说,别扭
红颜弹指老,钻石恒久远。
现实里当不了革命小将,离经叛道,打倒恶势力,所以咱要在文艺饭特稀寻找知音么。她那种用自我检讨和道德约束【姐妹们要自我完善,不可感情用事】来面对惨淡人生的态度,我不爱看。用嫁给大西先生这样的人来作为出路,我没法代人。真正的现实明明是被迫拿青春和美貌来交换老男人或者有钱男人施舍的“名分”,还要粉饰一下,刷面白墙,用“有钱男人里也有好人”的安排来take out the sting of the underlying truth,嫁给有财产金龟婿,同时还能说服自己“原来他还是很值得爱的嘛”,财产和美德终究是一致的。
还有一点让我不舒服的,是Jane Austen把美德一条一条拿出来比较和分析。人不是这么简单的,有时候,flaws 和冲突正是制造激动人心的drama 的根源。当Liz 悔过了自己的偏见,大西先生改正了自己的傲慢,玛丽安克服了自己的感性的时候,才是他们找到完美结局的时刻。配角,尤其是女配角,担负着道德评判和“反面典型”的任务,她们越是势利短浅爱财冲动被情欲驾驭,越是跟女主角形成道德对比,烘托女主角的virtues。Charles Dickens也有这毛病。写是写得好的,有时候给我感觉是目的性太强。我偏向毛姆这样的讽刺,他写恨嫁女和掘金妈(参见The Painted Veil),写人性的千疮百孔,就多一点irony,少一点理想守则,没有大团圆结局安抚人心,惩恶扬善。
鲁迅的话不停地被无数后人拿来作为“挪拉不该出走” 的论据,这根本不是他的原意,我认为,而且鲁迅自己在现实里也选择“出走”来着,即使出来的结果是被社会唾弃和饿死,他也不回来。其实怎么分析也没用,俺就跟Austen不是一路的。在现实里本来就要苟延残喘,处处compromise,在文艺作品里恕我就不接受教诲了。
还有一点让我不舒服的,是Jane Austen把美德一条一条拿出来比较和分析。人不是这么简单的,有时候,flaws 和冲突正是制造激动人心的drama 的根源。当Liz 悔过了自己的偏见,大西先生改正了自己的傲慢,玛丽安克服了自己的感性的时候,才是他们找到完美结局的时刻。配角,尤其是女配角,担负着道德评判和“反面典型”的任务,她们越是势利短浅爱财冲动被情欲驾驭,越是跟女主角形成道德对比,烘托女主角的virtues。Charles Dickens也有这毛病。写是写得好的,有时候给我感觉是目的性太强。我偏向毛姆这样的讽刺,他写恨嫁女和掘金妈(参见The Painted Veil),写人性的千疮百孔,就多一点irony,少一点理想守则,没有大团圆结局安抚人心,惩恶扬善。
鲁迅的话不停地被无数后人拿来作为“挪拉不该出走” 的论据,这根本不是他的原意,我认为,而且鲁迅自己在现实里也选择“出走”来着,即使出来的结果是被社会唾弃和饿死,他也不回来。其实怎么分析也没用,俺就跟Austen不是一路的。在现实里本来就要苟延残喘,处处compromise,在文艺作品里恕我就不接受教诲了。
Last edited by Jun on 2008-01-16 20:23, edited 2 times in total.
此喵已死,有事烧纸
伤逝是一个颇有意思的小说。固然有控诉社会的一面,但跟阿Q正传一样,除了弥漫的绝望感和宿命感以外,还有一种精神分析的成份,很暧昧的感觉,阴暗、粘答答的湿,deeply probing,特别是对男主角的心理的探究。(个人的瞎猜:出发点是explore自己抛弃发妻的罪恶感和解脱感。)
鲁迅的小说给我一种难以言述的印象,一时也讲不清。有点魔幻现实主义的感觉,very psychological and psychoanalytical。例如阿Q正传,明明很写实,却又很虚很抽离。这是一个矛盾现象,他自己的社会感和政治感很强,老觉得有义务要医治读者的糊涂思想,要做个advocate, activist。但是他的小说里常常透露出一种对深层的精神分析和虚无主义的亲密感,是俄国和德国文学那一路的,颇神奇。可惜他比存在主义潮流晚,否则往那方向写出来的小说,略微地减少一些社会目的,放纵自己探究潜意识和内心黑暗的角落,肯定是旷世之作。他的专长是残忍地解剖真实的无人敢面对的人性,很难想象如果他专攻精神分析类型的文学,结果会怎样的恐怖。
鲁迅的小说给我一种难以言述的印象,一时也讲不清。有点魔幻现实主义的感觉,very psychological and psychoanalytical。例如阿Q正传,明明很写实,却又很虚很抽离。这是一个矛盾现象,他自己的社会感和政治感很强,老觉得有义务要医治读者的糊涂思想,要做个advocate, activist。但是他的小说里常常透露出一种对深层的精神分析和虚无主义的亲密感,是俄国和德国文学那一路的,颇神奇。可惜他比存在主义潮流晚,否则往那方向写出来的小说,略微地减少一些社会目的,放纵自己探究潜意识和内心黑暗的角落,肯定是旷世之作。他的专长是残忍地解剖真实的无人敢面对的人性,很难想象如果他专攻精神分析类型的文学,结果会怎样的恐怖。
此喵已死,有事烧纸
我下午正在深刻的自我反省,按说我在现实生活中离“不屈的斗士”差了十万八千里,为什么对Austen的反应就这么大。按照暗黑心理分析法,或许我和Austen是一类人,但是我偏偏不喜欢自己身上的这部分特质,所以把愤怒投射到她的身上?但是再一想,我觉得还是因为自己和她是两路人。现实生活中的某些事,我不得不理解甚至接受服从,但是我不会认“同”,我不会站到另一边去用它们的声音说话。如果我吃的饱饱的写起了小说,写到违反“规则”的人,或许会给他们安排坏下场,因为这是最可能真实发生的,但是我不会把他们当反面典型来批判。我也不会去正面歌颂或者justify那些“规则”。
Austen最让五四青年们失望的地方大概是:似乎看到了“反抗”的小火花,然而越深挖下去越失望。
--------- 换了讨论对象的分割线 -----------
这么说我喜欢鲁迅是因为被他的暗黑所吸引……所以我大概也有点暗黑……
伤逝的角度很奇怪,很多小说鲁迅站的高高的大批愚昧的群众,但是伤势是内省的作品,一个人的内心独白。同样的或许还有在酒楼上?挖掘自己内心的不光明的,personal的角落,不过态度倒是温情脉脉,与他批群众的痛心疾首大异其趣。
Austen最让五四青年们失望的地方大概是:似乎看到了“反抗”的小火花,然而越深挖下去越失望。
--------- 换了讨论对象的分割线 -----------
这么说我喜欢鲁迅是因为被他的暗黑所吸引……所以我大概也有点暗黑……
伤逝的角度很奇怪,很多小说鲁迅站的高高的大批愚昧的群众,但是伤势是内省的作品,一个人的内心独白。同样的或许还有在酒楼上?挖掘自己内心的不光明的,personal的角落,不过态度倒是温情脉脉,与他批群众的痛心疾首大异其趣。
刚把小说又翻出来重读一遍。I think, it's a love story.
不能完全把涓生定位为鲁迅自己的角度,而子君是他的爱人,虽然是从第一人称写的,但实际上涓生是一个所谓的unreliable narrator。 涓生对自己的审视并不深刻,很多地方,让读者看了简直气结。例如,他手头紧,对女朋友也腻了,想甩掉她,又没这胆子,就同她讲什么诺拉离家出走。幼稚的文艺男青年的技俩,很眼熟吧?
而鲁迅自己,常常表露出一种自我分析的倾向,简直obsessively self-conscious。他的小说人物经常会有一点神经质和paranoia的习惯,幻想街上的路人都在嘲笑他,唾弃他。绘声绘色的,让我看了寒毛倒立。他自己恐怕有点这方面的倾向,近似变态的敏感。为了compensate焦虑感,而用攻击性的外壳武装自己,也是有可能的。他有点象天主教的信徒,不停地挖啊挖,挖自己(有时也挖他人)内心最黑暗的角落。
不过有时也穿插两句非常荒诞的话,完全不着五六,简直象从等待戈多里捡来的闲话。例如,“子君也逐日活泼起来。但她并不爱花,我在描绘买了的两盆小草话,四天不浇,枯死在壁角。” 我一看就轰地笑出来。还有关于吃饭一段:“菜冷是无妨的,然而竟不够;有时连饭也不够。。。这是先去喂了阿随了。。。于是吃我残饭的只有油鸡们。”他一讲油鸡我就要发笑。
后面还有把狗扔掉的一段:“终于是用包袱蒙着头,由我带倒西郊去放掉了。还要追上来,便推在一个并不很深的土坑里。”这文艺青年,到这时候还要粉饰自己 --土坑并不深哦。我又笑起来。他对待子君就跟对待狗一样,这个平行暗喻绝不是偶然的,而且绝不let him off the hook,把这个男人的德性,用他自己的话,明白地表现出来给你看。作者的口气其实是极其讽刺的,那些读多了外国爱情小说的男人,自以为很新潮很文艺,其实只是私自和胆小和不堪。(让我想起被浪漫文学毒害的Madame Bolvary。)
为什么子君落到那么惨的地步?如果不带成见地去读全文,我自己觉得,关于女性解放的讨论是次要的--甚至他未必花太多时间想过。Her demise is rooted in her love. 我们不需要文艺青年的含糊其辞,也能看出,她爱他,爱情让她变傻。她为什么最后死了?是因为他告诉她,我不爱你了,你走吧。这个永恒的难局,是有钱也无法解决的。鲁迅写她的心碎,即使是从无聊文艺男的自恋自我中心的间接角度看来,也很难否认,简直让我想起Ophelia,两者之间有种类似。这让我怀疑,他也有过爱上不爱他的人的亲身经历。
要我说,伤逝的意图,最主要的是探讨爱情中两个典型的心理:爱而不得的心碎,和爱情退色而抛弃对方的罪恶感。即使是同一个人,在人生中也有不少机会在不同的场合中两种处境都经历过。
不能完全把涓生定位为鲁迅自己的角度,而子君是他的爱人,虽然是从第一人称写的,但实际上涓生是一个所谓的unreliable narrator。 涓生对自己的审视并不深刻,很多地方,让读者看了简直气结。例如,他手头紧,对女朋友也腻了,想甩掉她,又没这胆子,就同她讲什么诺拉离家出走。幼稚的文艺男青年的技俩,很眼熟吧?
而鲁迅自己,常常表露出一种自我分析的倾向,简直obsessively self-conscious。他的小说人物经常会有一点神经质和paranoia的习惯,幻想街上的路人都在嘲笑他,唾弃他。绘声绘色的,让我看了寒毛倒立。他自己恐怕有点这方面的倾向,近似变态的敏感。为了compensate焦虑感,而用攻击性的外壳武装自己,也是有可能的。他有点象天主教的信徒,不停地挖啊挖,挖自己(有时也挖他人)内心最黑暗的角落。
不过有时也穿插两句非常荒诞的话,完全不着五六,简直象从等待戈多里捡来的闲话。例如,“子君也逐日活泼起来。但她并不爱花,我在描绘买了的两盆小草话,四天不浇,枯死在壁角。” 我一看就轰地笑出来。还有关于吃饭一段:“菜冷是无妨的,然而竟不够;有时连饭也不够。。。这是先去喂了阿随了。。。于是吃我残饭的只有油鸡们。”他一讲油鸡我就要发笑。
后面还有把狗扔掉的一段:“终于是用包袱蒙着头,由我带倒西郊去放掉了。还要追上来,便推在一个并不很深的土坑里。”这文艺青年,到这时候还要粉饰自己 --土坑并不深哦。我又笑起来。他对待子君就跟对待狗一样,这个平行暗喻绝不是偶然的,而且绝不let him off the hook,把这个男人的德性,用他自己的话,明白地表现出来给你看。作者的口气其实是极其讽刺的,那些读多了外国爱情小说的男人,自以为很新潮很文艺,其实只是私自和胆小和不堪。(让我想起被浪漫文学毒害的Madame Bolvary。)
为什么子君落到那么惨的地步?如果不带成见地去读全文,我自己觉得,关于女性解放的讨论是次要的--甚至他未必花太多时间想过。Her demise is rooted in her love. 我们不需要文艺青年的含糊其辞,也能看出,她爱他,爱情让她变傻。她为什么最后死了?是因为他告诉她,我不爱你了,你走吧。这个永恒的难局,是有钱也无法解决的。鲁迅写她的心碎,即使是从无聊文艺男的自恋自我中心的间接角度看来,也很难否认,简直让我想起Ophelia,两者之间有种类似。这让我怀疑,他也有过爱上不爱他的人的亲身经历。
要我说,伤逝的意图,最主要的是探讨爱情中两个典型的心理:爱而不得的心碎,和爱情退色而抛弃对方的罪恶感。即使是同一个人,在人生中也有不少机会在不同的场合中两种处境都经历过。
Last edited by Jun on 2008-01-16 21:28, edited 1 time in total.
此喵已死,有事烧纸
的确也不是自传,不过总觉得其中一部分是他自己体验过的,而这一部分很少很少在人前暴露。事实上我看伤逝简直有些puzzled,难以相信这是鲁迅,有些偷窥他的内心世界的感觉。
如果完全是写别人的事情,如果他自己并未有过类似的或相近的体验,就是说如果是从纯粹observer的角度写,总觉得不会写成这个样子。
总之就是觉得里面有些东西是他自己的内心世界,当然肯定不是全部。
如果鲁迅的本意是讽刺的话,在这篇里藏的也够深的,几乎藏到下意识里面去了。也多亏JUN同学挖出来,不然我肯定要忽略掉的。
我读的时候,觉得这是一个诚实的故事。他抛弃她的那段,作者没做任何开脱。很清楚地看出是涓生对她感到厌倦,一种说不上是“高尚”但是很真实的感觉,和涓生之前的爱情以及之后的悔恨一样,没觉得有多“脱俗”或者“崇高”,最大的感觉还是真实,好像会发生在任何一个人身上。为了这个原因,虽然看出是涓生的“责任”,但是并不为此恨上这男主角,因为太……可能发生在任何人也包括我自己身上了。不过对鲁迅来讲,这样的写法真是够客气的,连讽刺都藏得这么深。
文艺青年算是顺带一脚吧。大概鲁迅最熟悉文艺青年的心理?
如果完全是写别人的事情,如果他自己并未有过类似的或相近的体验,就是说如果是从纯粹observer的角度写,总觉得不会写成这个样子。
总之就是觉得里面有些东西是他自己的内心世界,当然肯定不是全部。
如果鲁迅的本意是讽刺的话,在这篇里藏的也够深的,几乎藏到下意识里面去了。也多亏JUN同学挖出来,不然我肯定要忽略掉的。
我读的时候,觉得这是一个诚实的故事。他抛弃她的那段,作者没做任何开脱。很清楚地看出是涓生对她感到厌倦,一种说不上是“高尚”但是很真实的感觉,和涓生之前的爱情以及之后的悔恨一样,没觉得有多“脱俗”或者“崇高”,最大的感觉还是真实,好像会发生在任何一个人身上。为了这个原因,虽然看出是涓生的“责任”,但是并不为此恨上这男主角,因为太……可能发生在任何人也包括我自己身上了。不过对鲁迅来讲,这样的写法真是够客气的,连讽刺都藏得这么深。
文艺青年算是顺带一脚吧。大概鲁迅最熟悉文艺青年的心理?
Are you sure? To me this is a classic form of "letting them hang themselves." Tell the story from the male protagonist's point of view and do a merciless live dissection. This is also a way of toying with the reader's habit and expectation to identify with the first-person narrator.如果鲁迅的本意是讽刺的话,在这篇里藏的也够深的,几乎藏到下意识里面去了。
I feel there is a difference in the ways of satire: One way is to point out the absurdity and follies of people and give a little Nelson laugh "Ha Ha." (钱钟书) Another way is to point out the follies as a lesson and try to teach young people avoid the mistakes and learn to be smarter and more successful. (Jane Austen) Or, some other people point out the darkest but universal secrets in everyone's heart, then tell you that it's hopeless, that it's the human condition, that nothing you do can change the fact that we are all flawed human beings, that we are not in control of much of anything, including our own weaknesses and dirty existence.
Well, damn you, one would say. If we can't fix our frailty, why do you tell me all about it and make me feel bad about myself? Why can't you give me a self-help book even if all it sells is false promises? Perhaps the benefit is so that we can face our humanity in a more honest and realistic way and begin to accept the unpleasant truths, and in the process abandon unrealistic perceptions about the world and ourselves -- perceptions and expectations that make us ultimately unhappy because we cannot reach the lofty ideals of what's good and bad and the illusion of what we are capable of. So that at the end of this seemingly self-deprecating realization, we learn to be kinder to each other, ESPECIALLY ONESELF, and use moral judgment and expectations only sparingly.
内心黑暗的角落里并不一定都是坏东西,只是让我们害怕面对而已。
注意,对子君的平庸和庸俗的评论,全是来自做浪漫文学梦的满口雪莱的文学男青年之口,他是一个不可靠的叙述者(就好像Hamlet说Frailty thy name is women未必代表作者的信念)。这个文艺男耿耿于怀的是狗吃的肉比他吃到的还多些(这也是不可靠的),但同时又抱怨“每日川流不息的吃饭。。。他似乎将先前所知道的全部都忘掉了,也不想到我的构思就常常为了这催促吃饭而打断”。另外一个例子,“但译书也不是容易事,先前看过以为已经懂得的,一动手却疑难百出了。。。不到半月,字典边上便有了一大片乌黑的指痕,这就证明着我的工作的切实。。。总编辑曾经说过,他的刊物是决不会埋没好稿子的。” 够狠的。
(关于吃饭那段简直要让我又哭又笑,我妈每天喊我爸吃饭而我爸总是拖拉迟疑,已经几十年了!)
Last edited by Jun on 2008-01-16 23:09, edited 1 time in total.
此喵已死,有事烧纸