流媒體成爲突破傳統中的電視劇
At some point during Netflix’s “Sense8” — a gorgeous, ridiculous series about eight strangers scattered across the world who use a psychic connection to aid one another in fights and at one point have a virtual orgy — I had to ask myself: What am I watching?
Netflix臺的《超感獵殺》(Sense8)是一部精彩而又荒誕的電視劇，講述分佈在世界不同地方的八個怪人，他們使用心靈感應互相幫助，進行戰鬥，還搞了一場虛擬的放蕩狂歡。我看到一半，不禁捫心自問：我到底是在看什麼？
I didn’t mean that the way I usually do when reviewing a baffling show. I meant what, in a definitional sense, was this maximalist, supersized, latticework story? A mini-series? A megamovie? To put it another way: Is Netflix TV?
我的意思不是說這部劇集過於令人費解。而是說，這個實行最大主義、長度超長，情節錯綜複雜的故事到底應該怎樣定義呢？迷你劇？超級電影？或者換個說法，Netflix電視劇嗎？
On the one hand, sure. These days, when newspapers have video-production studios and you can watch “The Walking Dead” on your phone, “TV” is a pretty inclusive club. On the other hand, streaming shows — by which here I mean the original series that Netflix, Amazon and their ilk release all at once, in full seasons — are more than simply TV series as we’ve known them. They’re becoming a distinct genre all their own, whose conventions and aesthetics we’re just starting to figure out.
從一方面來說，的確如此。如今，報紙都有了視頻製作工作室，你可以在手機上觀看《行屍走肉》(The Walking Dead)，“電視”是一個包羅萬象的俱樂部。從另一方面來說，流媒體播放劇集——我在這裏是指Netflix、亞馬遜等網站以整季形式一股腦推出的原創劇集——已經不再是我們所熟悉的電視劇了。它們成了自成一格的類型，我們都是剛剛纔開始摸索它們的傳統與美學。
In TV, narrative has always been an outgrowth of the delivery mechanism. Why are there cliffhangers? So you’ll tune in next week. Why are shows a half-hour or an hour long? Because real-time viewing required predictable schedules. Why do episodes have a multiple-act structure? To leave room for the commercials.
在電視裏，敘事都是由播放機制決定的。爲什麼要有懸念？爲的是讓你下週接着看。爲什麼節目都是半小時或一小時？因爲實時觀看需要可以預計的時間計劃。爲什麼一集裏要有多重結構？這是爲了給放廣告留出空間。
HBO series like “Deadwood” — which jettisoned the ad breaks and content restrictions of network TV — have been compared to Dickens’s serial novels. Watching a streaming series is even more like reading a book — you receive it as a seamless whole, you set your own schedule — but it’s also like video gaming. Binge-watching is immersive. It’s user-directed. It creates a dynamic that I call “The Suck”: that narcotic, tidal feeling of getting drawn into a show and letting it wash over you for hours. “Play next episode” is the default, and it’s so easy. It can be competitive, even. Your friends are posting their progress, hour by hour, on social media. (“OMG #JessicaJones episode 10!! Woke up at 3 a.m. to watch!”) Each episode becomes a level to unlock.
HBO臺的《朽木》(Deadwood)等電視劇去掉了廣告時間，也不顧電視網的內容限制，成了堪與狄更斯的系列小說媲美的劇集。觀看一部流媒體劇集更像是讀一本書，你可以一氣呵成地看完，也可以自行決定觀看計劃，但它也有點像打遊戲。一口氣看完劇集是一種沉浸式的體驗，是用戶定製的。它創造出一種我稱之爲“吸力”的東西：那種毒癮般的、潮水般的感覺，讓你沉浸在一部劇集裏，任憑它沖刷着你，一連幾個小時。“播放下一集”成了默認動作，是那麼的輕易。這種感覺甚至也可以是競爭的。每個小時，朋友們都在社交媒體上貼出他們的進度（“我的天哪#傑西卡·瓊斯第10集！！凌晨三點就醒過來看！”）。每一集都成了要解鎖的下一關。
With those new mechanics comes a new relationship with the audience. Traditional television — what the jargonmeisters now call “linear TV” — assumes that your time is scarce and it has you for a few precious hours before bed. The streaming services assume they own your free time, whenever it comes — travel, holidays, weekends — to fill with five- and 10-hour entertainments.
這種新機制令電視劇和觀衆之間形成了一種新關係。傳統電視——現在術語專家稱其爲“線性電視”——假定你的時間很寶貴，只佔用你睡前的幾小時寶貴時間。而流媒體服務則假定自己佔有你的全部空餘時間，不管是旅行、度假還是週末，它都可以爲你帶來五到十個小時的娛樂。
So they program shows exactly when TV networks don’t. They debut series on Fridays (considered “the death slot” in network TV) and over holidays. This November and December, TV’s long winter’s nap of reruns, the streaming services are unloading season after full season of original TV: “Jessica Jones,” “Transparent,” “Making a Murderer,” “The Art of More” — and more, and more. Amazon is releasing Season 2 of “Mozart in the Jungle” on Dec. 30, just in time for the ball to drop.
所以它們安排節目的時間和電視臺完全不同。它們在週五（這個時間被電視臺視爲“死亡時段”）以及假日推出電視劇的首播。今年11月和12月，電視臺開始了漫長的冬季重播節目期，而流媒體服務則推出整季整季的原創電視劇：《傑西卡·瓊斯》(Jessica Jones)、《透明家庭》(Transparent)、《製造謀殺者》(Making a Murderer)、《辣手藏家》(The Art of More)，以及更多更多。亞馬遜將於12月30日推出《叢林中的莫扎特》(Mozart in the Jungle)第二季，正趕上新年假期之前。
In other words, they schedule their shows like Hollywood movies. Streaming is like a vast multiplex where every screen is playing “The Mahabharata.” It expects commitment — and gets it.
換言之，它們安排劇集就像好萊塢電影一樣。流媒體有點像一個巨大的多廳影院，所有銀幕都在上映《摩訶婆羅多》(The Mahabharata)。它希望觀衆投入，觀衆也投入進去了。
Before Netflix and DVDs, there was an old-TV equivalent of the binge-watch: event network mini-series, like “Roots,” “Shogun” and “The Thorn Birds.” Where most TV of the time assumed you’d dip in and out of a series casually, these mammoth serials assumed they had your attention, all of it, until the story was done.
在Netflix與DVD之前的年代，還有一種老式的電視方式，可以讓你一口氣看完劇集：那就是電視臺的重頭迷你劇，諸如《根》(Roots)、《幕府將軍》(Shogun)、《荊棘鳥》(The Thorn Birds)之類。當時的大多數電視假設，觀衆會隨意地進入或跳出某部連續劇，而那些大型連續劇覺得，觀衆會一直關注，直到故事講完。
Just so, binge-watching assumes a different kind of transaction with the viewer. Weekly TV thrives by creating a constant state of tension, teasing you to come back next week. Streaming relies on The Suck.
所以，一口氣看完的電視劇假定自己以另一種方式和觀衆互動。每週播放的電視節目之所以興旺發達，在於它創造出一種持續的緊張狀態，挑逗着你下週接着着看。流媒體則完全依賴“吸力”。
Of course, no one’s stopping you from watching a series more slowly, but that changes the experience. Declaring whether it’s better or worse to binge fast or slow is like arguing whether it’s better to see the Grand Canyon from a helicopter or by foot. It’s beautiful either way, but it’s different. You see the fine grain, or you see the vast sweep.
當然，如果你想慢點看完一部劇集，也沒人攔着你，但是這種方式改變了人們的觀看體驗。快點一口氣看完劇集好，還是慢點一口氣看完劇集好？討論這種問題，就像討論坐直升機還是步行遊覽大峽谷更好差不多——兩種方式都很好，但兩種體驗不一樣。你可以看到身邊細緻的岩石紋理，抑或是快速俯瞰全景。
When you watch a series weekly, the time you spend not watching — mulling, anticipating, just getting older — is a part of the show. “Breaking Bad,” for instance, is the story of a man’s descent, or rise, from ordinary life to murderous criminality. In narrative time, the story takes about two years. Watched live on AMC, it aired for more than five years. Binged — as many late-joining fans saw it — it took maybe a week or three.
如果一週一週觀看劇集，在不看劇的時光裏，你思考劇情、滿心期待，任時光流逝——這一切都成了劇集的一部分。比如《絕命毒師》(Breaking Bad)，它講述一個男人從一個普通人墮落（或崛起）爲一個殺人犯罪者。從敘事角度，故事大約持續兩年，而劇集在AMC臺播放了五年多。如果像後來才加入的劇迷那樣一口氣看完，大概只需要一週到三週時間。
The live viewer saw Walter White’s change distended, in slow-motion; little by little, he broke badder and badder, in a way that emphasized the gradual slope of moral compromise. The binger saw him change in time-lapse, in a way that suggested that the tendency to arrogance and evil was in him all along. Neither perception is wrong. In fact, both themes are thoroughly built into the show. But how you watch, in some way, affects the story you see.
跟隨電視看完的觀衆可以看到沃爾特·懷特(Walter White)慢慢自我膨脹的過程，他一點點變得愈來愈壞，強調出道德是如何慢慢妥協。而一口氣看完的觀衆則在一段時間裏看到他的轉變，看出他一路變得傲慢邪惡的趨勢。事實上，節目中這兩個主題都有。但觀看的方式也影響了你所看到的故事。
Streaming programmers are well aware of how The Suck works. According to Netflix data, most streaming viewers (including those watching original content and traditional TV shows) take three or four episodes to decide to commit to a season — meaning that streaming services can assume more patience (I’ll try just one more) than network programmers who assume the pilot is make-or-break.
流媒體節目非常注意讓“吸力”發揮作用。根據Netflix數據，大多數流媒體觀衆（包括使用流媒體觀看原創內容與傳統電視節目的觀衆）大都是看過三四集後決定是否追完一季——也就是說，流媒體服務可以假定觀衆有更多耐心（“我就再多看一集”），而電視臺節目製作者假定，試播集就決定生死。
In fact, Netflix’s chief content officer, Ted Sarandos, has said he considers the first season of a series, not the first episode, to be the “pilot.” So its premieres tend not to grab you so much as let you sink in. The first episode of “Narcos,” its drug-cartel drama, is an exposition-heavy scene-setter with as much voice-over as an audiobook; it’s less a pilot than a foreword.
事實上，Netflix的首席內容執行官泰德·薩倫多斯(Ted Sarandos)說，他把一部劇的第一季，而不是第一集，當做所謂“試播”。所以，劇集剛一上映的時候，不是馬上抓住你，而是把你吸進來。比如《毒梟》(Narcos)，這是一部關於毒品帝國的情節劇，第一集就完全是大量展示背景，還有很多畫外音，簡直像有聲書一樣，它不像試播集，倒像是個前言。
This approach has advantages. With a few hours to seal the deal, you don’t need to load up your first episode with gimmicks, and you can avoid the tedious network practice of “repeating the pilot”: telling repetitive stories in the early episodes to accommodate latecomers. You can pack a series with story and incident and trust viewers not to forget details; “Orange Is the New Black,” for instance, has built out arcs for dozens of characters in a mere three seasons.
這種方法有它的優勢，幾個小時內就能做出決定，編劇用不着在第一集裏堆滿各種把戲，也避免了電視臺劇集那種單調的“重複試播集”的做法：就是在前幾集裏講述重複的故事，讓新加入的觀衆可以適應。在流媒體劇集中，編劇可以用連續的方式講述故事和事件，相信觀衆不會忘記細節；比如《女子監獄》(Orange Is the New Black)，三季的故事是建立在幾十個人物的敘事線上的。
But it can also mean lethargic, shapeless narratives that rely on The Suck to keep viewers watching sheerly on the sunk-costs principle, like “Bloodline,” which drifted like flotsam in a Florida current until I gave up on it. (Don’t tell me: It gets good six or seven episodes in. There is always someone who will tell you that a Netflix series gets good six or seven episodes in. I have only so many more six-or-seven-hour stretches left in my life.)
但這也有可能意味着沉悶、散亂的敘事，只依靠“吸力”，憑着吸力的成本，才吸引觀衆繼續觀看下去，比如《至親血統》(Bloodline)，我棄劇的時候，劇情就像佛羅里達洋流上的垃圾一樣漂浮不定（別告訴我到第六七集就會好看了。總有人告訴你Netflix的電視劇看到第六七集就開始好看了。我的人生裏有太多這種六七個小時了）。
Network TV shows, which produce new episodes while the seasons air, can course-correct midseason when ratings drop or a new character is rejected. The rise of online fan forums and social media made the dialogue even more intense (see the dissection of every episode of “Lost” when it aired). This could improve a show or encourage pandering, but it was, at least, a tool. Streaming series, each season handed down from the mountain on tablets, lose this tool entirely.
電視臺的電視劇製作新的一集時，這一季還正在上映當中，如果收視率下降，或者一個新角色被拒絕，劇組可以在季中修改。網絡影迷論壇以及社交網絡的崛起，讓觀衆與編導之間的對話更加密切（看看《迷失》[Lost]上映時，每一集都有多少解析吧）。這可以改善一部劇，抑或鼓勵編劇迎合觀衆，但它至少是一種工具。而流媒體劇集的每一季都是在平板電腦上一下子交給你的，這就徹底失去了這種工具。
What Netflix does have is a tremendous amount of data on what people have already liked to watch. Do they like adventure drama? Make “Marco Polo.” Drug sagas like “Breaking Bad”? Give them “Narcos.” That’s probably excellent business, but it doesn’t encourage great leaps into the unknown.
Netflix所擁有的是海量的數據，表明人們觀看的喜好。他們喜歡冒險劇？那就拍一部《馬可·波羅》(Marco Polo)；喜歡《絕命毒師》這樣的毒品傳奇？那就給他們《毒梟》。這或許是很好的生意手段，但並不能促進向未知的飛躍。
This may be one reason that the streaming services have yet to create a truly great drama. (“Orange Is the New Black” and the magnificent “Transparent” are at least part comedy.) It’s their comedies, including “Master of None,” “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt,” “BoJack Horseman” and “Catastrophe,” that have been some of the past year’s best TV on any platform.
流媒體尚未能拍出真正精彩的情節劇（《女子監獄》和了不起的《透明家庭》部分要算是喜劇），或許還有這樣一個原因：它們的喜劇放在任何平臺上，都堪稱過去一年來最精彩的電視節目，諸如《無爲大師》(Master of None)、《我本堅強》(Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt)、《馬男波傑克》(BoJack Horseman)和《大禍臨頭》(Catastrophe)。
That disparity fits the pattern of every new form of TV. “I Love Lucy” came decades before “Hill Street Blues,” “The Larry Sanders Show” before “The Sopranos.” Comedy is a portable medium — it jumped easily from radio to TV — and most of the better streaming comedies are similar to network and cable ones. (“Kimmy Schmidt” was developed for NBC, and “Catastrophe” first aired on British TV.) Most of the tweaks to the format (excepting the semi-successful, nonlinear “Arrested Development” season) have been simple and intuitive. “Master of None,” for instance, is both bluntly episodic and highly serial; it’s built for both bingeing and snacking.
這種不一致性適用於電視的每一種新平臺。《我愛露西》(I Love Lucy)比《山街藍調》(Hill Street Blues)早了幾十年，《拉里·桑德斯秀》(The Larry Sanders Show)比《黑道家族》(The Sopranos)來得早。喜劇是一種輕便的媒介——它輕鬆地從廣播跳進了電視——大多數精彩的流媒體喜劇都和有線臺與無線臺的喜劇有着相似之處（《我本堅強》本來是爲NBC臺拍的，《大禍臨頭》先在British TV上映）。這種形式中的大多數調整（除了半成功半不成功，非線性的《發展受阻》[Arrested Development]本季）都是簡單直觀的，比如《無爲大師》，它既是直率的系列劇，也是非常具有連續性，既可以一口氣看完，也可以斷斷續續地看。
Serial drama, on the other hand, is potentially the most changed by bingeing — which means its creators have the most to learn about how to make it, and the audience, about how to watch.
另一方面，情節連續劇或許是受連續觀劇方式影響最大的劇種——也就是說，它的主創更要學習怎樣拍這種劇，觀衆也要學習怎麼看這種劇。
So far, streaming has best served a certain kind of plot-heavy, competent-but-not-revolutionary drama. Once you accept that “House of Cards” is not the next “The Wire” but rather a live-action political cartoon about Evil Foghorn Leghorn, it’s perfectly fun: a boiling pot of Southern ham that will keep you good company on the iPad while you fold laundry.
迄今爲止，流媒體最適合用來觀看那種情節豐富，劇情出色，但並不具有革命性的情節劇。你一旦承認，《紙牌屋》(House of Cards)並不是下一部《火線》(The Wire)，而是一出關於邪惡來亨雞福亨的真人政治卡通，這就非常有意思了：它就像一口沸騰的大鍋，裏面煮着南方火腿，是你洗衣服時在iPad裏播放的好伴侶。
The critic Alan Sepinwall, diagnosing this issue, argued recently that streaming series need to relearn the TV art of making tightly crafted episodes within larger serial arcs; “Your TV show,” he wrote, “doesn’t have to be a novel.” Streaming dramas aren’t novels. But they’re also not just TV shows as we’ve known them, delivered through a different pipe. And they won’t reach their full potential by simply imitating what already exists. The early days of broadcast gave us great shows, like “Playhouse 90,” that were essentially live theater that happened to be televised, but the medium didn’t come into its own until it learned to use what made it distinctive — the ability to tell open-ended ongoing stories. Likewise, streaming needs to learn to use its supersized format better, not fight against it.
評論家艾倫·塞賓沃爾(Alan Sepinwall)討論過這個話題，前不久，他說流媒體電視劇需要重新學習怎樣在較長的連續劇敘事弧裏拍出緊湊劇情的電視藝術；“你們的電視劇，”他寫道，“不一定成爲小說。”流媒體情節劇不是小說。但它們也不再是我們所熟悉的電視劇，播放的渠道不同。僅僅靠着模仿已經存在的形式是無法充分發揮潛力的。早期電視臺中有過《90分鐘劇場》(Playhouse 90)這樣的精彩節目，是碰巧把劇院現場搬上了電視。電視媒介只有在學會講述開放結局，不斷前進的故事之後，才真正有了特色，成爲它自己。與此類似，流媒體劇集也需要學習怎樣更好地利用它超長的時間，而不是與之對抗。
Which brings me back to “Sense8,” made by the filmmakers Andy and Lana Wachowski. Shot on locations around the world, it made the Wachowskis’ film “Cloud Atlas” look like a haiku, taking hours to lay out its premise and cutting balletically among the characters and their stories.
讓我們回到《超感獵殺》，它是由電影人安迪與拉娜·沃卓斯基(Andy and Lana Wachowski)製作的。劇集在世界不同地點拍攝，花費幾個小時時間展開設定，像跳芭蕾舞一樣在不同角色與他們的故事之間切換，令姐弟二人的電影《雲圖》(Cloud Atlas)也相形見絀。
“Sense8” was by many traditional measures terrible — risible, laden with clumsy exposition and powered by high-THC we’re-all-connected hoo-hah. But it was also fearless and bracingly new, an effort by the Wachowskis to use every inch of the new format’s sprawling canvas. It was the R&D division of television, inviting you to don the crash suit and assume the risk.
以傳統意義而言，《超感獵殺》在很多方面都很糟糕——它可笑，有大量笨拙的闡述說明，有大量迷幻的“我們彼此聯繫在一起”之類的東西。但它是勇敢的、嶄新的，是沃卓斯基姐弟用這種新形式來擴展電視劇領域的嘗試。它就像是電視劇中的研發部門，邀請你穿上安全服，一起進行冒險。
And I’ll confess: As a critic with multiple TV commitments, I watched “Sense8” on and off over weeks, which means it’s entirely possible that I was simply doing it wrong. Maybe it required an immersive trance, like a psychedelic vision quest. Maybe the wide grazing necessary to being a generalist critic makes it impossible to properly appreciate this kind of show, made for the intense appreciation of specialists.
我承認，作爲一個寫過無數劇評的評論家，看《超感獵殺》是花了幾個星期，斷斷續續看的，這也就是說，我觀看的方式很可能是錯的。或許它需要沉浸式的出神體驗，就像迷幻劑的探索。或許是因爲我這樣的通才式評論家涉獵太廣泛，所以不太可能更好地欣賞這種拍給專家內行看的劇。
Conversely, streaming may not be the best format for every serial story. Matthew Weiner, the creator of the dense, deeply allusive “Mad Men,” has said that if he ever made a Netflix series, he’d argue for a weekly schedule to build in digestion time, and I’d sign the petition to let him. (Though that may also mean he’d be better off making the show for someone other than Netflix.)
相反，流媒體並不適合所有種類的連續劇。馬修·韋納(Matthew Weiner)是緊湊而充滿暗示的劇集《廣告狂人》(Mad Men)的主創，他說，如果讓他來拍Netflix劇集，他會要求一個星期的時間來消化、理解。我也一定籤請願書，要求Netflix給他這個時間（儘管這也意味着，他給別的臺拍片子的話，處境會比在Netflix好）。
More so than any recent innovation in TV, streaming has the potential, even the likelihood, to create an entirely new genre of narrative: one with elements of television, film and the novel, yet different from all of those. But it’s going to take time for all of us to master it.
和電視界其他近期內的創新相比，流媒體最有潛力，最有可能創造出一種全新的敘事類型：一種擁有電視、電影和小說的元素，同時又與這三者截然不同。但是我們所有人都需要時間才能夠掌握它。
Fortunately, you still have the rest of your holiday to work on it. I hope you didn’t make plans on New Year’s Eve.
幸運的是，你們還可以在假期接着看劇。希望你們新年的除夕夜沒有別的計劃。
