The Oxford History of World Cinema Edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith （美）G。诺威尔－史密斯编 General Introduction ( Geoffrey Nowell-Smith) The cinema, wrote the documentarist Paul Rotha in the 1930s, ‘is the great unresolved equation between art and industry’. It was the first, and is arguably still the greatest, of the industrialized art forms which have dominated the cultural life of the twentieth century. From the humble beginnings in the fairground it has risen to become a billion-dollar industry and the most spectacular and original contemporary art. (Paul Rotha)
总论 纪录电影家保罗．罗沙于三十年代写道，电影“是艺术与工 业之间的一个伟大的未解方程式“。它是第一个，并且可能依然是 最伟大的工业化了的艺术形式，它主导了二十世纪的文化生活。它 从那卑微的市集开始，逐渐上升到亿万元的工业和最为壮观和独特 的现代艺术。 （保罗．罗沙） As an art form and as a technology, the cinema has been in existence for barely a hundred years. Primitive cinematic devices came into being and began to be exploited in the 1890s, Germany, and Great Britain. Within twenty years the cinema had spread to all parts of the globe; it had developed a sophisticated technology, and was on its way to becoming a major industry, providing the most popular form of entertainment to audiences in urban areas throughout the world, and attracting the attention of entrepreneurs, artists, scientists, and politicians. As well as for entertainment, the film medium has come to be used for purposes of education, propaganda, and scientific research. Originally formed from a fusion of elements including vaudeville, popular melodrama, and the illustrated lecture, it rapidly acquired artistic distinctiveness, which it is now beginning to lose as other forms of mass communication and entertainment have emerged alongside it to threaten its hegemony.
作为一种艺术形式和一种工艺学，电影仅仅存在了一百年。 在十九世纪九十年代，原始的电影装置几乎同时在美国、法国、德国 和大不列颠问世，并且开始被人加以利用。在二十年里，电影已经遍 及全球，并发展成一门成熟的工艺学，而且在发展过程中变为一项大 工业，它向全世界都市地区的观众提供了最受欢迎的娱乐形式，还吸 引了企业家们、艺术家们、科学家们和政治家们的注意。除了作为娱 乐项目外，电影媒介开始被用于教育、宣传和科学研究等目的。它最 初是由众多因素熔合在一起的一种形式，其中包括游艺场节目、通俗 闹剧和带图象说明的讲座等，但很快就获得了一种艺术的独特性，不 过大众传播和娱乐的其它形式的出现，正威胁着电影的霸主地位，它 开始丧失这种特色。 To compress this complex history into a single volume has been, needless to say, a daunting task. Some developments have to be presented as central, while others are relegated to the margins, or even left out entirely. Certain principles have guided me in this work. For a start, this is a history of the cinema, not of film. It does not deal with every use of the film medium but focuses on those which have concurred to turn the original invention of moving images on celluloid into the great institution known as the cinema, or ‘the movies’. The boundaries of cinema in this sense are wider than just the films that the institution produces and puts into circulation. They include the audience, the industry, and the people who work in ti – from stars to technicians to usherettes – and the mechanisms of regulation and control which determine which films audiences are encouraged to see and which they are not. Meanwhile, outside the institution, but constantly pressing in on it, is history in the broader sense, the world of wars and revolution, of changes in culture, demographyk and life-style, of geopolitics and the global economy.
勿需赘言，要把如此复杂的历史压缩在一卷史书中是一项使人望 而却步的工作。有些方面的发展必需作为中心，而另一些则要移到边 缘，或者甚至完全省略。在这项工作中，我遵循一定的原则。首先， 这是一部有关电影的历史，而不是影片的历史。它不是去论述电影媒 介的每一项具体的使用，而是聚焦于那些把赛璐璐活动影像的原始发 明转化为我们称之谓电影（CINEMA）或’电影儿’(movies)的庞大机构 有关的事物上。从这个意义上来说的电影的范围远比这个机构所生产 并流通的单纯的影片范围要广阔的多。电影这个范围包括观众、工业 和那些为之工作的人－－从明星到技师到女带座员－－还有那一套决 定鼓励观众去看哪些影片，不看哪些影片的守则和控制的机制。同时， 在这机构之外，却不断强烈影响着它的是更广阔意义上的历史，战争 和革命的世界，文化、人口和生活方式变化中的世界，地缘政治和全 球经济的世界。
No understanding of films is possible without understanding the cinema, and no understanding of the cinema is possible without recognizing that it – more than any other art, and principally because of its enormous popularity – has constantly been at the mercy of forces beyond its control, while also having the power to influence history in its turn. Histories of literature and music can perhaps be written (though they should not be) simply as histories of authors and their works, without reference to printing and recording technologies and the industries which deploy them, or to the world in which artists and their audiences lived and live. With cinema this is impossible. Central to the project of this book is the need to put films in the context without 3which they would not exist, let alone have meaning.
不了解电影，就不可能对影片有所了解；同样，不了解电影，就 不可能认识到电影较其它艺术更经常地受到在它控制范围之外的势力 的支配，这主要由于其巨大的大众性所致，同时电影也具有影响历史 的力量。文学和音乐的历史或许可以仅仅写成是创作者及其作品的历史（尽管不应该这样做），而不涉及印刷和录音的工艺学，以及那些 使它们得以流通的工业，或是论及艺术家们和他们的观众们曾经生活 和正在生活着的这个世界。电影可不可能这样做。撰写本书的中心就 是必须把影片摆进它们的存在所必需的那种关系之中，且不谈影片的 什么意义。
Secondly, this is a history of cinema as both in its origins and in its subsequent development, above all popular art. It is popular art not in the old-fashioned sense of art emanating from the ‘people’ rather than from cultured elites, but in the distinctively twentieth-century sense of an art transmitted by mechanical means of mass diffusion and drawing its strength from an ability to connect to the needs, interests, and desires of a large, massified public. To talk about the cinema at the level at which it engages with this large public is once again to raise, in an acute form, the question of cinema as art and industry – Paul Rotha’s ‘great unresolved equation’, Cinema is industrial almost by definition, by virtue of its use of industrial technologies for both the making and the showing of films. But it is also industrial in a stronger sense, in that, in order to reach large audiences, the successive processes of production, distribution, and exhibition have been industrially (and generally capitalistically) organized into a powerful and efficient machine. How the machine works (and what happens when it breaks down) is obviously of the greatest importance in understanding the cinema. But the history of the cinema is not just a history of this machine, and certainly cannot be told from the point of view of the machine and the people who control it. Nor is industrial cinema the only sort of cinema. I have tried to give space in this volume not only for cinema as industry but also for divergent interests, including those of film-makers who have worked outside or in conflict with the industrial machinery of cinema.
其次，这是一部关于那无论从起源还是随后的发展来说首先都是 一门大众艺术的电影的历史。它不是那种从对艺术的老派含义上来理 解的大众艺术，也就是说它是来自”人民”而不是来自精英文化，而是 从独特的二十世纪的意义上来理解的大众艺术，亦即它是用大众化的 传播机械手段来传播的，而且它的力量还来自它能够和巨大的公众的 需求、兴趣和愿望联系起来。从它与如此广泛的公众发生关系的水平 上来谈论电影，那它又以极其尖锐的形式提出了(无论从制作还是放 映的角度来说)电影作为一门艺术和工业工艺学的－保罗仿奚车’伟大 的未解方程式’－的问题。但是电影确实是工业，因为为了传播给广 大的观众，生产、发行和放映这一连续过程必须以工业的方式（而且 一般是以资本主义的方式）来组成一个强大而有效的机制。而这一机 制是如何运作的（以及当这一机制出了毛病时会发生什么情况），对 于理解电影显然是极其重要的事情。不过电影的历史不仅仅是这一机 制的历史，而且肯定不能从这一机制和控制这一机制的人的角度来加 以论述。何况工业方式的电影也不是电影的唯一形式。我在本书中试 图不仅给予工业形式的电影以一定的篇幅，而且还给予各种不同的兴 趣点以一定的篇幅，其中包括那些在工业形式的电影机制以外工作的， 甚至与那一工业相冲突的电影工作者的电影。
This involves a recognition that in the cinema the demands of industry and art are not always the same, but neither are they necessarily antithetical. It is rather that they are not commensurate. The cinema is an industrial art form which has developed industrialized ways of producing art. This is a fact which traditional aesthetics has had great difficulty in coming to terms with, but it is a fact none the less. On the other hand, there are many examples of films whose artistic status is dubious to say the least, and there are many examples of films whose artistic value is defined in opposition to the values of the industry on which they depended in order to be made. There is no simple answer to Rotha’s equation. My aim throughout the book has been to maintain a balance between the ]values expressed through the marked-place and those which are not.
这里涉及一个认识问题：即在电影中，工业的要求和艺术的要求 不总是一致的，但也不一定是相反的，倒不如说，它们是不同量的。 电影是一种工业的艺术，它发展了生产艺术的工业化方式。这是传统 美学很难认可的一个事实，但确实是一个事实。从另一方面来说，有 不少影片实例可以证明它们的艺术价值至少是很值得怀疑的，也有很 多影片实例可以说明其艺术价值和它赖以制作的工业价值是相反的。 对保罗. 罗沙的公式,没有简单的答案。我那贯穿本书的目的就是在 那些通过市场体现的价值和非市场体现的价值之间保持一种平衡。
Thirdly, this is a history of world cinema. This is a fact of which I am particularly proud and which is true in two senses. On the one hand the book tells the history of the cinema as a single global phenomenon, spreading rapidly across the world and controlled, to a large degree, by a single set of interlocking commercial interests. But it also, on the other hand, tells the history of many different cinemas, growing in different parts of the world and asserting their right to independent existence of ten in defiance of the forces attempting to exercise control and to ‘open up’ (that is to say, dominate) the market on a global scale.
第三，这是一部关于世界电影的历史。这一事实不仅使我特别引以自豪，而且从两种意义上来说也确实值得引以自豪。一方面，本书 讲的是把电影作为世界上一个独一无二的现象的历史，这个现象就是 电影迅速遍及全世界，并且在很大的程度上被一套连锁商业利益的简 单模式所控制。但是同样，在另一方面，本书还讲述了许多不同电影 的历史，这些电影在世界不同地区成长起来，并且在维护它们独立存 在的权利，而且往往要和那些企图在全球规模上进行统治和’打开’ （那就是说，支配）市场的势力进行挑战。
Finding a way to relate the two senses of the phrase ‘world cinema’, and to balance the competing claims of the global cinema institution and the many different cinemas which exist throughout the world, has been the biggest single challenge in planning and putting together this book. The sheer diversity of world cinema, the number of films made (many of which do not circulate outside national borders), and the variety of cultural and political contexts in which the world’s cinemas have emerged, means that it would be foolish or arrogant, or both, for any one person to attempt to encompass the entire history of cinema single-handed. This is now just a question of knowledge but also of perspective. In presenting a picture of world cinema in all its complexity, I have been fortunate in being able to call upon a team of contributors who are not only expert in their own fields but are in many cases able to bring to their subject a ‘feel’ for the priorities and the issues at stake which I, as an outsider, would never be able to replicate – even if I knew as much as they do, which I do not. This has been particularly valuable in the case of India and Japan, countries whose cinemas rival Hollywood in scale but are known in the west only in the most partial, fragmentary, and unhistorical fashion.
在计划和编纂本书时，最大的挑战就是要找出一种方法，既可以 把’世界电影’这个词儿的两种含义联系起来，又可以在统领全球的电 影机制和遍及全球的不同电影之间的相对立的观点之间保持平衡。世 界电影是如此多种多样、影片制作的数量如此之大（有很多在国外没 有发行），以及世界电影所处的那形形色色的文化和政治环境，都意 味着：任何一个人企图单枪匹马地包揽整个电影历史，不是太愚蠢就 是太自负，或者两者兼有之。这不仅是一个知识面的问题，也是一个 历史透视的问题。在为一个错综复杂的世界电影描绘出一幅图景时， 我有幸能依靠一支撰稿人队伍。他们不仅是自己领域的专家，而且他 们在很多情况下，能带给他们自己的专题一种‘感觉’，在得失攸关 的时候，这种感觉是十分重要和具有关键性的。这种‘感觉’也是作 为一个局外人的我，永不可能复制的、永做不到的，－－－即使我和 他们懂的一样多。这一点在印度和日本，也就是他们的电影在规模上 可以和好莱坞相抗衡的国家变得特别有价值，因为在西方，人们对它 们的了解大多局部的，片断的、没有历史价值的。
Giving space to multiple perspectives is one thing. It is also important to be able to bring them all together and to give a sense of the interlocking character of the many aspects of cinema in different places and at different times. At one level the cinema may be one big machine, but it is composed of many parts, and many different attitudes can be taken both to the parts and to the whole. The points of view of audiences (and there is no such thing as ‘the’ audience), of artists (and there is no single prototype of ‘the artist’), and of film industries and industrialists (and again there is not just on industry) are often divergent. There is also the problem, familiar to all historians, of trying to balance history ‘as it happened’- and as it was seen by the participants – with the demands of present-day prorities and forms of knowledge (including present-day ignorance). No less familiar to historians is the question of the role of individuals within the historical machine, and here the cinema offers a particular paradox since unlike other industrial machineries it not only depends on individuals but also creates them in the form, ost conspicuously, of the great film stars who are both producers of cinema and its product. In respect of all these questions I have seen my task as editor as one of trying to show how different perspectives can be related, rather than imposing a single all-encompassing point of view.
给予多种观点以大量篇幅是一回事。同样重要的是，如何把这些观点组合在一起，并赋予这些在不同地点、不同时间出现的电影的众 多层面以一种相互交织的意义。从一个层面来看，电影可能是部大机 器，但它也是由很多部件组成的，而对于部件和整体，都可能有不同 的看法。观众（没有‘固定’观众一说）的视点、艺术家（没有单一 的‘艺术家’标准）的视点、电影工业和电影工业者（同样，没有唯 一的工业）的视点，通常是有分歧的。对于历史学家也并非陌生的是， 在历史机器中个人的作用问题，而在这方面电影提供了一个自相矛盾 的现象，它和其它工业机器不一样，它不仅依靠人来运转它，而且它 还制造个人，最明显地就是通过电影明星体现出来的，他既是电影的 制作者，又是它的产物。考虑到所有这些问题，我把自己看作是个编 辑，他的任务就是要人们看到有多少不同的有关联的视角，而不是把 一个包罗万象的单一观点强加给人。 （待续） 01／12／2000