奧斯卡偏愛有關娛樂業的紀錄片

It’s way too easy to feel jaded about Oscar season. The forced pomp, the moneyed campaigns, the boggling repetition of dozens of awards fetes could jaundice any eye. But it’s tougher to be cynical about the documentary category, where an Oscar nomination, let alone a win, can have mighty ripple effects.

奧斯卡頒獎季真是太容易讓人厭倦了。強加於人的盛典、揮金如土的宣傳，頒獎時的讚美要結結巴巴地重複幾十遍，真是讓人膩味。但是要對紀錄片這一項冷嘲熱諷可就沒那麼容易，因爲在這個類別裏，一項奧斯卡提名都會帶來巨大的連鎖反應，更別提獲獎了。

Kirby Dick’s Oscar-nominated “The Invisible War” (2012), about sexual assault in the military, led to a House hearing on the matter. After the release of Louie Psihoyos’s Oscar winner, “The Cove” (2009), about the slaughter of dolphins in Japan, the number of dolphins and porpoises killed there fell by 17,000 a year. And “An Inconvenient Truth,” the 2006 film starring Al Gore that won two Oscars, thrust global warming into the public conversation — and look how well we heeded him! (Insert sad emoticon here.)

科比·迪克(Kirby Dick)獲奧斯卡提名的《隱祕的戰爭》(The Invisible War，2012)是關於軍隊中的性侵問題，最後衆議院還就此進行了一次聽證會。路易·西霍尤斯(Louie Psihoyos)的奧斯卡獲獎影片《海豚灣》(The Cove，2009)是關於日本捕殺海豚問題的，該片上映後，海豚與鼠海豚的捕殺量在一年內降低了1.7萬頭。2006年的《難以忽視的真相》(An Inconvenient Truth)以阿爾·戈爾(Al Gore)爲主角，獲得了兩項奧斯卡獎，令全球變暖成爲公衆議題——另外，看看我們對他有多麼關注吧！（此處插入一個悲傷的表情）。

All of which, for the Bagger, raises a question: What onus, if any, falls on the Academy to spotlight documentaries that might bring about a measure of justice? Should substance trump style, or is it folly to assume they’re mutually exclusive?

這一切向人們提出一個問題：奧斯卡獎有什麼樣的義務（如果真的有）令紀錄片獲得世人關注，從而帶來某種公正？內容是否應當重於風格，內容與風格是否真的互不兼容呢？

For years, the Academy’s documentary choices had been denounced for what the critic Owen Gleiberman described as a “self-defeating aesthetic of granola documentary correctness.” In 2009, he lamented that the shortlist — which is culled from all eligible entrants, and from which the final five nominations are drawn — not only excluded some of that year’s most entertaining nonfiction offerings but also came off like a “program for the Mother Teresa Film Festival.” In other words, too much spinach.

奧斯卡獎選擇紀錄片的標準多年來一直受到批評，評論家歐文·格萊博曼(Owen Gleiberman)稱之爲“速食麥片紀錄片，從正確性出發，弄巧成拙的美學”。2009年，奧斯卡紀錄片獎的提名名單都是從以道德爲主題的影片中選擇的，最後五名入圍提名的影片也要從中產生，格萊博曼哀嘆，這個名單不僅把這一年某些最有意思的非虛構影片排除在外，而且顯得活像“特蕾莎修女電影節”。換句話說，它太扯了。

But is there a chance that things have since swung too far the other way? In 2012, the Academy changed its rules and began requiring that only documentaries that had been reviewed in The Los Angeles Times or The New York Times would be eligible for Oscar nominations, a decision that kept more obscure films out of the race. And in 2013, the documentary race was broadened to allow every member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences — not just those in the documentary branch — to vote for the final winner. Michael Lumpkin, director of the American Film Institute’s documentary festival, said the shifts underscored the more prominent role that documentaries play in our culture’s media consumption. Michael Moore, who led the move for the changes, says they also democratized the process.

但是，在另一個方面，奧斯卡獎是否又走得太遠了？2012年，美國藝術與科學學院改變了規則，要求只有獲得《洛杉磯時報》(The Los Angeles Times)或《紐約時報》影評的紀錄片才能獲得奧斯卡提名，這個決定令許多不知名的影片難以參與競爭。2013年，紀錄片評選委員會又進行了擴展，允許每名美國電影藝術與科學學院的成員都能評選最終獲獎影片（此前只有紀錄片部門的成員能夠評獎）。美國電影協會紀錄片節總監邁克爾·蘭普金(Michael Lumpkin)說，這個變化更強調紀錄片在媒體消費中所扮演的顯著作用。倡導這一變革的邁克爾·摩爾(Michael Moore)說，這些舉措令評選程序更加民主。

The new rules also might have affected what makes the shortlist and what, in the end, wins.

新的規則亦可能影響到決選名單，乃至最終的獲勝者。

Thom Powers, artistic director of the Doc NYC film festival (he wears hats for several other prominent festivals, too) is not an Academy member but has, he said, “spent a long time in the weeds following these things.” Since the voting change went into effect for the 2013 awards, he said, he’s seen a noticeable shift on the shortlists away from documentaries that are barely known.

紐約紀錄片電影節(Doc NYC)藝術總監湯姆·鮑爾斯(Thom Powers)——他也爲其他許多著名電影節擔任藝術總監——並不是學院成員，但他說，自己“花大量時間關注這些東西”。自從評選規則改變，並於2013年評獎過程中生效之後，他說，他發現決選名單有了顯著的變化，鮮爲人知的紀錄片明顯變少了。

“All are films that distinguished themselves at film fests or theatrically or had critical acclaim,” Mr. Powers said of the more recent selections. That includes the somewhat surprising semifinalists for the 2016 awards, like Laurie Anderson’s free-form film essay about loss, “Heart of a Dog,” and “We Come as Friends,” about the exploitation of South Sudan. (The list of 15 was announced Dec. 1, and the nominees will be revealed on Jan. 14.) While Ms. Anderson told the Bagger she was surprised that her film had been included — even her French producers told her, “We don’t think Americans will like it” — it was a critical darling. And while “We Come as Friends” hasn’t generated a ton of discussion, it won prizes at the Sundance and Berlin film festivals.

“都是那些在電影節、影院或影評界獲得聲譽的片子，”鮑爾斯談起近期的入圍影片選擇。其中包括2016年有些讓人吃驚的半決選名單，12月1日宣佈了15部影片，正式提名將在1月14日宣佈，勞瑞·安德森(Laurie Anderson)形式自由、關於失落的電影散文《狗心》(Heart of a Dog)以及關於對南蘇丹剝削的《友誼》(We Come as Friends)都入圍了。安德森女士告訴《紐約時報》的“Bagger”專欄，對於電影能夠入圍，她自己也感到吃驚，她的法國製片人們告訴她，“我們覺得美國人不會喜歡這部片子”，不過，它是評論家們的寵兒。至於《友誼》，它還沒有激起很多討論，不過已經在聖丹斯電影節和柏林電影節上獲獎。

Still, the Academy is known to favor show business movies and, lo, two of the last three winners of the documentary prize, along with one of this year’s front-runners, “Amy,” the story of Amy Winehouse, are about just that.

然而，奧斯卡獎以青睞娛樂業主題的影片著稱，你看，過去三年裏，有兩部獲獎紀錄片都是關於娛樂業的，今年呼聲很高的影片《艾米》(Amy)也是，它是關於艾米·懷恩豪斯(Amy Winehouse)的故事。

In 2013, when the nominated documentaries delved into subjects like AIDS and conflict in the Middle East, the prize went to “Searching for Sugar Man,” about a tremendously gifted, woefully obscure musician from Detroit. For the 2014 awards, when the nominees included Joshua Oppenheimer’s artful, devastating “The Act of Killing,” about death squads in Indonesia, along with films about the Egyptian uprising and deadly covert American military operations, the Oscar went to “20 Feet From Stardom,” about backup singers who were largely forgotten despite having been instrumental (as it were) in making hits.

2013年，提名影片中包括了講述艾滋病和中東衝突等主題的影片，但最後獲獎的卻是《尋找小糖人》(Searching for Sugar Man)，它講述一個才華橫溢卻不幸默默無聞的底特律音樂家的故事。2014年，提名中包括約書亞·奧本海默(Joshua Oppenheimer)充滿藝術性的驚人影片《殺戮演繹》(The Act of Killing)講述印度尼西亞的屠殺組織，此外還有關於埃及起義和美國殺傷性軍事祕密行動的影片，大獎卻給了《離巨星20英尺》(20 Feet From Stardom)，它講述和聲歌手們的故事，她們在金曲工業中扮演樂器（和工具）的角色，卻被世人遺忘。

“The knock against the system is people think it favors films that are more about show business,” Mr. Powers said. “Well, of course it does. The Association of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is an organization of show business people. Why shouldn’t it?”

“這對體系的衝擊是，人們覺得奧斯卡更偏愛有關娛樂業的影片，”鮑爾斯先生說。“好吧，確實如此。美國電影藝術與科學學院就是一個娛樂業人士的組織，他們爲什麼不能青睞娛樂業影片呢？”

Paradoxically, the documentary branch’s self-consciousness about that perception might have hurt one of the projected shoo-ins last year. “Life Itself” had all the winning ingredients: a movie about a beloved film-world figure, the critic Roger Ebert, directed by Steve James, maker of “Hoop Dreams” and “The Interrupters,” both of which failed to receive nominations, to much chagrin.

諷刺的是，學院的紀錄片分部對這一觀點的自我認識，或許損害了去年一部呼聲很高的影片。《人生如戲》(Life Itself)具備所有獲獎因素：它的主角是電影節備受愛戴的評論家羅傑·艾伯特(Roger Ebert)，由史蒂夫·詹姆斯(Steve James)導演，他亦曾導演過《籃球夢》(Hoop Dreams)和《阻斷者》(The Interrupters)，二者都以微弱差距落敗，未能獲得提名。

Yet “Life Itself” failed to make it off the shortlist. Why? One theory holds that members of the documentary branch held back on voting for it because they feared it would sweep among the broader Academy membership, and the branch wanted the Oscar to go to “Citizenfour,” a zeitgeist nailer about Edward J. Snowden, directed by Laura Poitras, who is highly regarded. (It did win.)

然而《人生如戲》去年亦沒有入圍決選名單。爲什麼？有一個說法是，紀錄片部門的成員在評選時有所保留，因爲他們擔心它會在整個學院最終評選時獲得絕對優勢，而紀錄片部門希望《第四公民》(Citizenfour)獲獎，這部鍼砭時事的影片以愛德華·J·斯諾登(Edward J. Snowden)爲主角，由備受尊敬的勞拉·珀特阿斯(Laura Poitras)導演，最後該片也確實獲獎了。

This year, three of the 15 shortlisted films are about show-business personalities. Compare that with the shortlists from the five years before the initial rule change: Out of the 75 selected documentaries, there were just six about showbiz.

今年，15部決選名單中有三部影片是關於娛樂界人士的。而在決選名單規則開始修改之前的5年時間裏，在75部候選紀錄片裏，只有6部是關於娛樂界的。

Joining “Amy” this year are “Listen to Me Marlon,” an archival exploration of the unvarnished, often anguished audio diary of Marlon Brando, and “What Happened, Miss Simone?” about the tormented musician and civil rights activist Nina Simone.

今年的候選影片除了《艾米》，還有《馬龍，聽我說》(Listen to Me Marlon)，它使用檔案資料，研究馬龍·白蘭度(Marlon Brando)質樸而時常充滿痛苦的視頻日記。此外還有《發生什麼了，西蒙妮小姐？》(What Happened, Miss Simone?)，主人公是經歷坎坷的音樂家與民權運動鬥士妮娜·西蒙妮。

Among the non-showbiz-related favorites are Mr. Oppenheimer’s “The Look of Silence,” an intimate companion piece to his earlier work about Indonesia; “Going Clear,” Alex Gibney’s profile of Scientology; and “Cartel Land,” about vigilantes fighting Mexico’s drug wars.

除了娛樂界相關的影片之外，其他呼聲很高的影片包括奧本海默的《沉默之像》(The Look of Silence)，是他上一部關於印度尼西亞影片的續集，更富於私人色彩；還有《撥開迷霧》(Going Clear)，由亞歷克斯·吉布尼(Alex Gibney)執導，對山達基教進行了描繪；以及《販毒之地》(Cartel Land)，主角是墨西哥毒品戰爭中的義務警員們。

“Amy” and “The Look of Silence” have been mopping up awards, raising the prospect, as the Bagger has noted, that Mr. Oppenheimer might again lose an Oscar to a songstress.

《艾米》與《沉默之像》都各自獲得不少獎項，從而令獲獎機會大增，正如“Bagger”專欄指出，奧本海默可能會再度因爲一位女歌手錯失奧斯卡獎。

But would this be a bad thing? The Bagger put the question to Mr. Moore, whose new film, “Where to Invade Next,” is on the shortlist, and he quickly took issue with the implication that “Sugar Man” and “20 Feet From Stardom” were merely about show business.

但這是壞事嗎？“Bagger”帶着這個問題去問邁克爾·摩爾，他的新片《接着侵略哪兒》(Where to Invade Next)也入圍了決選名單，說起《尋找小糖人》和《離巨星20英尺》兩部影片都是關於娛樂業的，他很快對此表示了反對意見。

While “20 Feet From Stardom” was essentially about African-American artists whose work had been forgotten, he said, “Sugar Man” was about a Latino man from Detroit whose deep talent didn’t help him escape either obscurity or poverty.

他說《離巨星20英尺》其實是關於非裔美國藝術家們的貢獻長期被遺忘的事實，而《小糖人》則是講述一位底特律拉丁裔藝術家雖然極具才華，但仍然無法逃脫無名與貧窮的處境。

“As a person from Detroit, I’m glad those stories got told,” Mr. Moore said. “They’re important films.”

“作爲一個底特律人，我很高興這兩個故事能被講出來，”摩爾先生說。“它們是很重要的影片。”

For his part, Mr. Moore said, he votes for the best film rather than the one that merely echoes his political beliefs. He also said that when film students ask him about making political films, he always relays the same advice.

至於他自己，摩爾先生說，他會爲最好的電影投票，而不是爲最符合自己政治理念的電影投票。他還說，每當電影學院的學生們就政治題材電影向他發問時，他也會給出同樣的忠告。

“You’ve got to put art ahead of the politics,” he said. “The politics obviously are very important, that’s why you’re making the film. But if you make a crappy movie, nobody is going to see it, and your politics are going to get hurt by it.”

“你得把藝術放在政治前面，”他說。“政治顯然非常重要，所以我們才拍這類電影。但如果你拍了一部爛片，那就根本沒人要看，你的政治觀點也會因此受到損害。”

Yet even Mr. Moore admitted that such an ethos doesn’t help when it comes to choosing between equally fine but wildly different films — between, say, one about a singer poisoning herself to death before our eyes and the other about justice delayed in a far-off land.

然而摩爾先生也承認，如果在兩部同樣優秀，但主題卻大相徑庭的電影中選擇，這個原則就沒有什麼用處了——比如一部講述一位歌星如何在衆目睽睽之下用毒品將自己戕害致死的紀錄片，和一部關於遙遠國度里正義遲遲未能實現的紀錄片。

Indeed, in a way, “Amy” makes for the tougher film. It so closely watches Ms. Winehouse destroy herself that the audience feels implicated, not simply for not looking away, but also for judging, even cackling, along the way. With that one, it’s not on Indonesia. It’s on us.

其實，在某種程度上，《艾米》可能是更加殘酷的影片。它近距離審視了懷恩豪斯如何毀滅自己，觀衆們會覺得自己牽涉其中，不僅僅是因爲他們無法轉過頭去視而不見，也是因爲他們必須在觀影過程中做出評判，甚至發出笑聲。做出這樣的選擇，並非因爲另一部是說的印度尼西亞，而是因爲這部片子是關於我們自身。