电视与观众之间的关系真的很糟糕
‘TV Has This Really Fraught Relationship with the Audience.’
5641字
2021-02-23 16:53
6阅读
火星译客

Until very recently in its relatively young life, television was considered to have the same creative merit as any other household appliance — perhaps less, since the device itself was referred to as the “Idiot Box” and “chewing gum for the eyes.” Having a passionate debate about television would have been like having a passionate debate about the microwave.

直到最近,在它相对年轻的生命中,电视被认为具有和其他任何家用电器一样的创意价值——也许更少,因为这个设备本身被称为“盒子”和“眼睛嚼口香糖”。“对电视进行激烈的辩论就像对微波炉进行激烈的辩论一样。

But in her new book, I Like to Watch, Emily Nussbaum, the New Yorker's Pulitzer Prize-winning television critic, makes the same argument she's been making, consciously and unconsciously, for 20 years: Television is worth thinking and talking about.

但在她的新书《我喜欢看》(I Like to Watch)中,获得普利策奖的《纽约客》(new Yorker)电视评论家艾米丽·努斯鲍姆(Emily Nussbaum)提出了她20年来有意或无意一直在说的观点:电视值得思考和讨论。

I Like to Watch is a collection of essays that Nussbaum has written, most of them originally for New York magazine and the New Yorker, about television shows that served as cultural touchstones in their time as well as short-lived programs that had more to say than anybody but their loyal fan bases ever realized.

我喜欢看是努斯鲍姆写一组文章,其中大部分是最初为《纽约杂志》和《纽约客》的电视节目作为文化试金石时间以及短暂的项目,有更多说比任何人曾经意识到但他们的忠实粉丝基地。

Taken as one, Nussbaum's essays represent her perspectives and experiences traveling through decades of TV shows that were intentionally and unintentionally commenting on the moments they were being created in. Her writing doesn't necessarily demand that you take her point of view as much as it brings to focus how clearly you could form your own point of view through a deeper examination of the characters, plots, and themes of the shows you love. I Like to Watch is, fundamentally, an argument for television as art.

作为一个整体,努斯鲍姆的文章代表了她的观点和经历,穿越了几十年的电视节目,这些节目有意或无意地评论了它们所处的时代。她的写作并不一定要求你从她的角度出发,而是通过对你喜欢的电视剧中的人物、情节和主题进行更深入的审视,让你清楚地形成自己的观点。《我喜欢看》从根本上说,是关于电视是艺术的观点。

Nussbaum took some time to talk to Longreads about how technology has changed television, who she imagines her readers to be, and whether ‘anti-hero' TV shows helped elect Donald Trump.

努斯鲍姆花了一些时间与朗格里德聊了聊科技如何改变了电视,她认为自己的读者是谁,以及“反英雄”电视节目是否帮助唐纳德·特朗普当选。

Jonny Auping: How did this book come about? Did someone approach you with the idea or had you been thinking about compiling your essays over the years?

乔尼·奥平:这本书是怎么写出来的?是否有人向你提出过这个想法,或者这些年来你一直在考虑编纂你的论文?

Emily Nussbaum: It was actually my idea to produce an anthology. I've been writing about television for a while. Television has been changing rapidly — especially in the last couple of years — and the idea of collecting [some of my essays] together to make a broader argument seemed timely.

艾米丽·努斯鲍姆:创作一本选集其实是我的主意。我写关于电视的文章已经有一段时间了。电视已经发生了迅速的变化——尤其是在过去的几年里——把(我的一些文章)收集在一起以形成一个更广泛的论点的想法似乎是适时的。

Basically in an odd way, I think the book marks my entrance into a new stage of TV. Even the last three years have been incredibly startling in terms of the sheer expansion of TV, the change in what people are paying attention to, and definitely the technology. I talk about some of this in the book. I've definitely been thrown in some ways by some of the alterations in the definitions of what TV is.

基本上,我认为这本书以一种奇怪的方式标志着我进入了电视的一个新阶段。就电视的扩张,人们关注的内容的变化,以及技术而言,过去三年都是令人难以置信的惊人。我在书中谈到了一些。在某些方面,我确实被电视定义的一些改变所困扰。

This is a collection of my work that is about the last 20 years of television. I put these particular essays together because they're apart of a bunch of themes and arguments that I've been making pretty much since I started getting interested in TV and started to write about it and talk about it. The main thing I think of the book as doing is just celebrating television as television and detaching it from comparisons to other art forms. I was trying to talk about the nature of the medium and what makes it specific and rich and strange and ambitious and messed up and basically defining it and taking it seriously on its own.

这是我的作品的集合,大约是过去20年的电视。 我把这些特别的文章放在一起,因为它们是我从我开始对电视感兴趣并开始写它并谈论它以来一直在做的许多主题和论点。 我认为这本书最重要的事情是把电视当作电视,把它从比较和其他艺术形式分离出来。 我试着谈谈媒介的本质,是什么让它变得具体、丰富、奇怪、雄心勃勃,搞砸了,基本上定义了它,并认真对待它。

You mention in the author's note that you selected these essays because you felt they “most effectively made your argument about TV.” Do you feel like you consciously had an overarching argument about TV when you were writing these essays or is it only in revisiting your work that you can see the thread of that argument?

你在作者的注释中提到,你选择这些文章是因为你觉得它们“最有效地阐述了你关于电视的论点”。“当你在写这些文章的时候,你是否觉得你有意识地对电视有一个包罗万象的争论,或者只有在重新审视你的作品时,你才能看到那个争论的线索?”

I think this is true of a lot of critics, but I think there are certain themes that you find yourself approaching again and again, and I do think that's true of my work. Let's face it, these are things that I'm obsessed with, and I see them through different lenses, but when I put the essays together they're in conversation with one another, but they also show me changing my mind over time because television itself has changed it's mind over time. It's changed its nature over time.

我认为很多评论家都是这样的,但我认为有一些特定的主题你会发现自己一次又一次地接近,我确实认为我的作品也是这样。让我们面对现实吧,这些都是我痴迷的东西,我透过不同的镜头看它们,但当我把它们放在一起时,它们是相互对话的,但它们也显示我随着时间改变我的想法因为电视本身随着时间改变了它的想法。随着时间的推移,它的性质发生了变化。

One of the things that I do think has been really consistent for me is that I've been very interested in the way that TV kind of loops with the audience. It's not like books and movies where you make them and you put them out and then people respond to them. It's something that kind of gets made in front of people for years at a time, and it has this really fraught relationship with the audience. Part of what I do think unites these pieces is that a lot of them are about that quality in TV. That's something that I've written about in a bunch of different essays in different contexts.

我认为有一件事对我来说一直很一致,那就是我对电视和观众循环的方式很感兴趣。它不像书和电影,你把它们拍出来,然后人们对它们做出回应。这是一种多年来一直在人们面前制作的东西,它与观众之间的关系非常紧张。我认为将这些作品联系在一起的部分原因是,它们中的很多都与电视的质量有关。这是我在不同的背景下写过的文章。

A sentence that I wrote down from the book was “Criticism is a conversation and a form of theater.” I've found that I sometimes enjoy your essays about TV shows more than I enjoy the shows themselves. Do you imagine a certain type of reader? Would it be a fan of the show? Or someone who's on the fence? Someone who hasn't even seen it?

我从书上写下的一句话是“批评是一种对话,一种戏剧形式。”“我发现,有时候我喜欢你写的关于电视节目的文章,比我喜欢电视节目本身还多。你想象过某种类型的读者吗?会是这部剧的粉丝吗?还是一个犹豫不决的人?一个没看过的人?

I do, and I think it's changed depending on the publication I'm at. I used to write and edit for New York magazine and now I'm at the New Yorker. Some people read both publications, but in a way publications have personalities and you imagine your reader a little bit. The feeling that I had about the reader who was reading me at New York magazine was something like a 30-something TV-obsessed person, and at the New Yorker I feel very strongly that half my audience is not into TV. I embrace the fact that I am trying my best to write in a way that speaks both to people who are not watching the show and people who are. It's tricky because sometimes I want to say some kind of deep-cut thing that only someone who is a pathological fan would understand, but I want my voice to work for both places.

我知道,而且我觉得这取决于我所在的出版社。我曾为《纽约》杂志撰稿和编辑,现在我在《纽约客》工作。有些人同时阅读两种出版物,但在某种程度上,出版物是有个性的,你可以想象一下你的读者。我对《纽约杂志》上读我的读者的感觉就像是一个30多岁的电视迷,而在《纽约客》上,我强烈地感觉到我的观众有一半都不喜欢电视。我接受这样一个事实:我正在尽我最大的努力,以一种既能对不看剧的人说话,也能对看剧的人说话的方式来写作。这很棘手,因为有时我想说一些只有病态粉丝才会理解的深刻的话,但我想让我的声音在两个地方都发挥作用。

Because I'm a slight masochist, I often imagine my reader at the New Yorker as someone who I'm trying to convince to read the piece. So, basically in my mind they are a 60-year-old, recently retired kind of businessman who looks down on the type of TV that I like, who is recently divorced in a very isolated apartment and he has this one TV, and he really has to be convinced that a show is interesting to be worth thinking about. So for some reason I think of someone who would be resistant to my work instead of someone who shares my opinions.

因为我是一个轻微的受虐狂,我经常想象我在《纽约客》的读者是我试图说服他去读这篇文章的人。所以,基本上在我心中他们是60岁,最近退休的商人往下看电视,我喜欢的类型,他是刚刚离婚很孤立的公寓,他这个电视,和他真的相信一个节目是有趣的值得思考。因此,出于某种原因,我认为是那些对我的作品有抵触情绪的人,而不是那些与我观点相同的人。

I did not expect you to give me such a specific answer.

我没想到你会给我这么明确的答复。

[Laughing] That's the guy.

[笑]就是他。

Obviously I have multiple readers. And I'm writing for myself, also. I'm just trying to satisfy my own standards. I have an idea of the voice that I want.

显然我有多个读者。我也在为自己写作。我只是想满足我自己的标准。我有一个我想要的声音的想法。

The thing that I said about criticism being theater I really do feel strongly about. Because criticism isn't math. It's my opinions. You try to make a voice that is ideally elegant or seductive or funny or serious and thoughtful. I feel like this is not just true of criticism but of all writing: I think your lifelong task is just to get your voice to be the ideal form of itself. That's the part that's not easy and almost has nothing to do with the subject matter. With criticism I think it's particularly true because there's this quality of why read the thing if you don't actually want to engage with the person speaking to you?

我曾经说过批评是一种戏剧,我对此有强烈的感受。因为批评不是数学。这是我的意见。你试着让自己的声音完美地优雅、诱人、有趣、严肃和体贴。我觉得这不仅适用于批评,也适用于所有的写作:我认为你一生的任务就是让你的声音成为自己的理想形式。这是不容易的部分,几乎与主题无关。对于批评,我认为这是特别正确的,因为有这样一种品质,如果你真的不想和跟你说话的人打交道,为什么要读它呢?

I do think that criticism is different than just stating an opinion on the thing or just weighing the good qualities and the bad qualities and laying them out in an objective manner. It's its own kind of show.

我确实认为,批评不同于仅仅对一件事发表意见,或者只是权衡好与坏的品质,然后以一种客观的方式列出它们。这是它自己的一种表演。

And it might be making a point about something much larger than the quote unquote ‘subject.'

它可能表明了一个比“主题”更重要的观点。

And actually that's a big emphasis for me, especially at the New Yorker, which I feel is a very powerful platform. It has its own language. I think about the way my work looks on the page. I try to choose shows that either I have a strong response to — positive or negative or anything — but often I'm trying to choose shows in which I have something to say about beyond the show itself. I think it's a better use of space if there's a theme beyond the show is good or the show is bad. It just makes it more varied. It makes it more fun for me, and that's part of it.

事实上,这对我来说是一个重点,尤其是在《纽约客》,我觉得这是一个非常强大的平台。它有自己的语言。我思考我的作品在页面上的样子。我试着选择那些让我有强烈反应的节目——无论是积极的还是消极的,或者其他什么——但我经常尝试选择那些我能在节目本身之外说些什么的节目。我认为如果在节目好坏之外有一个主题,那是对空间更好的利用。它只是使它更多样化。这让我觉得更有趣,这是其中的一部分。

The essays … show me changing my mind over time because television itself has changed it's mind over time. It's changed its nature over time.

这些文章告诉我,随着时间的推移,我的想法也在改变,因为电视本身也随着时间改变了它的想法。随着时间的推移,它的性质发生了变化。

I want to return to something you mentioned earlier about how TV shows are different than books or films because those things are completed by the time they reach their audience. Something you alluded to a lot in this book is how a successful show can be influenced by an audience's response as it's ongoing. Do you think modern audiences are especially drawn to television because they feel like they are interacting with these shows?

我想回到你之前提到的关于电视节目与书籍或电影的不同之处,因为这些东西在到达观众面前时就已经完成了。你在这本书中提到了很多东西,那就是一场成功的演出是如何受到正在进行中的观众反应的影响的。你认为现代观众特别被电视所吸引是因为他们觉得自己在和这些节目互动吗?

I do, actually. TV has changed a lot in terms of how people absorb it, but it's still a very intimate experience. TV used to be this big piece of furniture in the living room that didn't move, and the whole family just walked through and watched it and it was kind of this permanent thing. Now people watch it on their phones while walking around, and they get to pick a show whenever they want to watch it. The actual nature of the relationship with a show feels a bit different, and I feel like that's affected the aesthetics a lot. But the intimacy and the weird warmth of people's relationships with the shows that they care about I do think has something to do with the fact that it's episodic and it takes place over time and we don't know what's coming. And that we can find this type of excitement or frustration or disappointment with the turn of the show.

事实上,我做的。电视已经改变了很多关于人们如何吸收它,但它仍然是一个非常亲密的体验。电视曾经是客厅里的一件大家具,不会移动,全家人会走过去看电视,这是一种永久的东西。现在人们一边走路一边用手机看,他们可以随时选择想看的节目。的实际性质与显示的感觉有点不同,我觉得这是影响美学。但奇怪的亲密和温暖人们的关系表明,他们关心我认为与这一事实有关的情景,它是随时间的推移,我们也不知道会发生什么。我们可以在节目的转向中找到这种兴奋、沮丧或失望。

I do think streaming has changed this. One of my essential theories about TV is that it has so much to do with its relationship with time. The fact that at this point it can be saved and rewound and paused made me think that maybe this will change with streaming. But actually I see this other thing happening with streaming where the first season comes out and people respond to it and then the second season comes out and it seems to contain all the responses that people had to it. The writers are just affected by it, both by the audience response and by how they've changed and how the world has changed.

我认为流媒体改变了这一点。我关于电视的一个基本理论是,它与时间有很大的关系。事实上,在这一点上,它可以保存,倒带和暂停让我认为这可能会改变流。但实际上,我看到在流媒体上还发生了另一件事,第一季播出时人们对它做出了回应,然后第二季播出时,它似乎包含了人们对它的所有回应。编剧只是受到了影响,既受观众反应的影响,也受他们如何改变,世界如何改变的影响。

I still think a version exists of what I was always fascinated by, which is this looping effect. You see it in a different way with older shows. The book opens with an essay that I love that I wrote about how one of the significant things about The Sopranos was that the later parts of the show seemed, in my eyes at least, to change because of the fandom of the audience and how much that annoyed the creator of the show. The show started to push back against the audience. And then I have quite a mean piece about the end of Lost about the opposite effect. The creators were sort of pandering to the audience and kind of vamping in a way that poisoned the show and simplified it. I think this happens to a lot of shows. I think that range of how creators respond to audience still exists even though the technology has changed.

我仍然认为存在一个版本的我一直着迷的,这就是循环效应。你对老剧的看法就不一样了。这本书的开头,我爱,我写了一篇文章《黑道家族》的一个重要的事情是如何的后面部分显示看来,至少在我的眼睛,改变因为观众和影迷的多少,惹恼了节目的创造者。演出开始对观众产生抵触情绪。我还写了一篇关于《迷失》结局的刻薄文章关于相反的效果。创作者在某种程度上是为了迎合观众,用一种毒害和简化节目的方式表演。我想很多节目都是这样的。我认为,即使技术发生了变化,创造者对用户的回应方式仍然存在。

That essay about Lost especially made me think about how we're only a few weeks removed from the finale of Game of Thrones, which a lot of critics and fans were generally disappointed with. Plot aside, did you have much expectation that they would be able to please the expectations for a final season given the popularity and nature of that show?

那篇关于《迷失》的文章尤其让我想到,距离《权力的游戏》大结局只有几周时间,很多评论家和粉丝都对大结局感到失望。撇开剧情不谈,考虑到这部剧的受欢迎程度和性质,你对他们能满足观众对最后一季的期待有多少期望?

It's not surprising they weren't able to please everybody's expectations. That show was incredibly burdened by public response.

他们不能满足每个人的期望也就不足为奇了。公众的反应给那档节目带来了沉重的负担。

I happened to like but not love Game of Thrones, and I wasn't particularly attached to it. Actually I was a little annoyed that it was kind of an attention hog [laughing]. To me it was an interesting but not necessarily great show. I wrote about it twice, and I tried to keep up with it, but there were other shows that I thought were more interesting to talk about. But at a certain point I came to terms with it. This was a big, cultural phenomenon.

我碰巧喜欢但不喜欢《权力的游戏》,我也不是特别喜欢它。事实上,我有点生气,因为这是一种吸引注意力的方式(笑)。对我来说,这部剧很有趣,但不一定很棒。我写了两篇关于它的文章,我试着跟上它的步伐,但我觉得还有其他的节目更有意思。但在某种程度上,我还是接受了。这是一个巨大的文化现象。

Part of it was that show had been such a force for people talking about politics. I always wish that I had written a piece comparing Game of Thrones to Survivor. I kept thinking as the show ended that there was a level at which it was sort of about who won. It reminded me of one of the things that I always felt about the show Survivor when it started. Survivor is obviously a different kind of show. It's a reality show. It's kind of a weird, sports torture show. When Survivor debuted around the turn of the century it was universally denounced as an apocalyptic phenomenon that was going to destroy the culture and all human beings. A bunch of other things [since then] have stepped in to hog the social problem question. The one thing about Survivor that always struck me was that the conversation about the show was always a lot more interesting than the show itself. The show looked junky and it had these kind of fake speeches. But it was pretty fascinating to discuss the element of the show that was about office politics. What kind of personality actually triumphs in an incredibly brutal situation? Is it the person who just stays quiet and stays to the side? Is it somebody who seems leader-like? What kinds of alliances do people form?

部分原因是,这部剧已经成为人们谈论政治的一股强大力量。我一直希望我写过一篇文章来比较《权力的游戏》和《幸存者》。节目结束时,我一直在想,在某种程度上,这是关于谁赢了的问题。这让我想起了《幸存者》刚开播时我一直有这样的感受。《幸存者》显然是另一种类型的节目。这是真人秀。这是一个奇怪的运动折磨节目。当《幸存者》在世纪之交首次出现时,它被普遍谴责为一种毁灭文化和全人类的世界末日现象。(从那以后)有一大堆其他的事情介入来霸占这个社会问题。关于《幸存者》有一件事一直让我印象深刻,那就是关于这部剧的讨论总是比这部剧本身有趣得多。这个节目看起来很烂,还有这些假的演讲。但是讨论这部剧里关于办公室政治的元素是非常有趣的。什么样的性格会在难以置信的残酷环境中成功?是那个安静地呆在一边的人吗?是看起来像领导的人吗?人们会形成什么样的联盟?

Game of Thrones is a scripted show and it's based on what sounds like a very interesting book series. But the conversation around the show was often about those same kinds of subjects. I'm not rejecting the storytelling or the epic nature around it, but the actual function of the show in the world was as a great conversational piece for people to talk about which stories they were more interested in.

《权力的游戏》是一部有剧本的电视剧,它是根据一本听起来很有趣的书改编的。但围绕节目的对话通常都是关于同样的话题。我并不是拒绝它的叙事或史诗性质,但它在世界上的实际功能是作为一个伟大的对话片段,让人们谈论他们更感兴趣的故事。

You mentioned how a show can be burdened or just affected by audience reaction. Given how much that might be on your mind, do you spend much time thinking about how your writing could affect a show?

你提到了一个节目会受到观众反应的影响。考虑到你脑海中有这么多的想法,你会花很多时间思考你的写作会如何影响一部剧吗?

I try not to. I have to think about it sometimes because it would just be dishonest to deny it. I once heard of a show picking up a second season because I wrote a positive review of it. It was a small show that was sort of on the bubble, and my review helped. In a way, I felt happy about that because I liked that show, but in another way it made me feel nervous because I didn't really want to get involved in that way.

我尽量不这么做。有时我不得不考虑,因为否认这一点是不诚实的。我曾经听说有部剧要续订第二季,因为我给它写了好评。那是一个小节目,有点像泡影,我的评论帮了大忙。从某种程度上说,我为此感到高兴,因为我喜欢那个节目,但从另一方面说,它让我感到紧张,因为我真的不想以那种方式参与其中。

Sometimes there are shows that I have mixed feels about but decide it's not really worth me writing about. Who needs my voice and my mixed reaction about this show right now?

有时,有些节目让我有复杂的感觉,但我觉得它真的不值得我去写。现在谁需要我的声音和我对这个节目的复杂反应?

I've written some negative reviews and I've written some really heavy pans. There's just a form of cognitive dissonance that you have to have as a critic. Part of the reason that I'm writing about television is because writing negative reviews is something I feel capable of doing with TV. I feel like sometimes it's valuable to write a negative review because it shows that you have high expectations for the medium. That didn't used to be true. People used to see TV as garbage, so part of the reason I enjoyed writing about it was I thought even a negative review is a form of praise. It's a way of saying that TV can and should be great.

我写过一些负面评论,还写过一些很重的平底锅。这只是一种认知失调的形式,作为一个批评家,你必须有。我写电视评论的部分原因是因为我觉得写负面评论是我能做的事。我觉得有时候写一篇负面评论是很有价值的,因为这表明你对媒体有很高的期望。这在过去是不正确的。人们过去认为电视是垃圾,所以我喜欢写电视评论的部分原因是,我认为即使是负面评论也是一种表扬。这是一种方式,说明电视可以而且应该是伟大的。

I respect people who make television. Especially having written profiles of people [who make TV shows] has made me even more aware of the fact that it's really hard to produce something. Even bad shows take a tremendous amount of effort. It may not always feel so to creators who I know don't always love the work of critics, but I try in my head to have some sense that you are talking about somebody's creative work.

我尊重制作电视的人。特别是为(制作电视节目的)人写简介,让我更加意识到一个事实,那就是制作东西真的很难。即使是糟糕的节目也需要付出巨大的努力。我知道创作者并不总是喜欢评论家的作品,但我在脑海中试着让自己觉得你是在谈论某人的创造性作品。

But that's not about whether a show gets picked up or not. There are limits to what I can do, and honestly, I'm practically a curse. Half the time I write something [positive] and it gets canceled. I wrote my piece about Hanibal, a show that I adore, and literally the next day it was canceled.

但这与这部剧是否会被续订无关。我能做的事是有限的,说实话,我简直就是个诅咒。有一半的时间我写的东西(正的)被取消了。我写了一篇关于《汉尼拔》的文章,我很喜欢那部剧,第二天就被取消了。

I try to know enough about the industry to know how it affects the aesthetics. But at the same time, “That's not my department,” said Wernher Von Braun. That's the job of the people funding this thing to deal with whether something survives or gets ratings. I literally care only enough about the industry to want things that I love to not go away. I think that's how most people who view TV feel about it.

我试着去了解这个行业,了解它是如何影响美学的。但同时,“那不是我的部门,”沃纳·冯·布劳恩(Wernher Von Braun)说。这就是资助这个项目的人的工作,他们要处理的是这个项目是否能存活下来,是否能获得收视率。我对这个行业的关心仅仅是为了不让我喜欢的东西消失。我想这就是大多数看电视的人的感受。

I don't care about ratings. I care about whether the show is good. Some of the best shows have the lowest ratings. Crazy Ex-Girlfriend was like the lowest. I can't believe that it got picked up for three seasons. Thank you to TV for allowing me to watch that much of it.

我不在乎收视率。我关心的是这个节目好不好。一些最好的节目收视率最低。疯狂前女友是最差劲的。真不敢相信它被续订了三季。谢谢电视能让我看这么多。

One of the original essays in the book is probably the most thought-out essays that I've read wrestling with the concept of separating good art from its problematic creators with relation to the #MeToo movement. I think people should read that in the book, but a problem that TV has long faced that isn't completely unrelated to that is the representation of female show creators and female-driven shows. Maybe this is too broad of a question, but do you feel better the portrayal of women on television than you did when you started writing about TV?

这本书里的一篇原创文章可能是我读过的最深思熟虑的文章,它在与“#MeToo”(我也是)运动”的概念进行斗争,试图将好的艺术与有问题的创作者区分开来。我认为人们应该在书中读到这一点,但电视长期以来面临的一个问题与此并非完全无关,那就是女性节目创作者和以女性为主导的节目的代表性。也许这个问题太宽泛了,但你觉得在电视上塑造女性形象会比你刚开始写电视时感觉好一些吗?

I think the past few years have marked the rise of more women making television in more varied ways. There's been an explosion of female creativity on shows that have varied wildly. That's key to any of these discussions of marginalized people making any kind of art, but specifically TV, is [that it has to be] more than one. Because if you have just one person then they are burdened and brutalized by people's expectations for representation. For women, it was particularly frustrating because people wanted inspiring representations. Now that there are a million female voices, it's thrilling because they can each be taken as an individual and a person.

我认为在过去的几年里,越来越多的女性以更多样的方式制作电视节目。女性的创造力在各种各样的节目中呈现出爆炸式的增长。这是任何关于边缘化的人制作任何艺术的讨论的关键,尤其是电视,它必须不止一种。因为如果你只有一个人那么他们就会被人们对代表的期望所拖累和折磨。对于女性来说,这尤其令人沮丧,因为人们想要鼓舞人心的作品。现在有一百万个女性声音,这很令人激动,因为她们每个人都可以被视为一个独立的个体和一个人。

That said, when I occasionally talk to a woman who works inside of TV they do not have as rosy an attitude. They still feel like there are a lot of bizarre responses and strange notes and sexist structures. I can't speak to that. I can only speak to what I'm watching.

也就是说,当我偶尔和在电视台工作的女性们交谈时,她们就没有那么乐观了。他们仍然觉得有很多奇怪的反应,奇怪的音符和性别歧视结构。我不能这么说。我只能对我正在观看的节目说话。

Some of these are shows that not that many people watched. I have a column on The Comeback in the book, and both seasons of The Comeback were important cultural projects to me. They were brilliant, funny, dark responses to TV itself, but they weren't broadly watched. Neither was Lady Dynamite, the Maria Bamford show.

其中一些是没有多少人看的节目。我在书中有一篇关于回归的专栏文章,而回归的两个季节对我来说都是重要的文化项目。它们是对电视本身的聪明、有趣、黑暗的反应,但它们没有被广泛观看。玛利亚·班福德的《Dynamite Lady》也不是。

Right now I'm writing about Fleabag. Fleabag and Succession were I thought the two most interesting shows of last year. Fleabag is amazing. It's one of those shows that are very good and very funny. It feels fresh and is doing new things. It's by a really brilliant creator who you want to see make more stuff. The fact that she's a woman is definitely part of what she's doing. There are all sorts of feminist aspects in her work. It's just good to be able to see Phoebe Waller-Bridge make TV. That wasn't possible a few years ago because the kind of shows she made grew out of a real expansion of what was considered possible in terms of TV genre.

现在我正在写关于《Fleabag》的文章。我认为《Fleabag》和《Succession》是去年最有趣的两部电视剧。睡袋是惊人的。这是一部非常棒也很有趣的电视剧。它给人新鲜的感觉,正在做新的事情。它是由一个非常聪明的创造者创造的,你想看到他创造更多的东西。她是女性的事实绝对是她所做事情的一部分。在她的作品中有各种各样的女权主义方面。能看到菲比·沃勒-布里奇上电视真是太好了。这在几年前是不可能的,因为她制作的这类节目是对被认为是可能的电视类型的真正扩展。

I could name a bunch of shows. PEN15 is amazing this year. I feel good about the state of women making TV. This stuff waxes and wanes. Sometimes there are these expansions of voices or representation and then the wave goes back in. That happened with a lot of black TV making in the nineties. It basically expanded and then disappeared. I don't feel that is happening right now with a bunch of different kinds of TV. Part of the reason is there is just an endless desire for content. It makes it worse in some ways because it makes it harder to get noticed, and I feel guilty when I watch a show and I don't get to it and it drops out of the conversation. The biggest difficulty with any TV critic is just triage. It's just figuring out what to watch.

我能说出一堆节目的名字。PEN15今年真是太棒了。我对女性制作电视节目的状态很满意。这东西时兴时衰。有时会有声音或表现的扩展然后波就会回来。这种情况在90年代发生在许多黑人电视制作上。基本上是扩张然后消失。我觉得现在不同种类的电视节目不会出现这种情况。部分原因是人们对内容的渴望永无止境。在某种程度上,这让事情变得更糟,因为这让我很难被注意到,当我看了一个节目,但我没有去看,它就退出了谈话,我感到内疚。任何电视评论家最大的困难就是分类。只是想知道该看什么。

As for the #MeToo essay, I wrote that because I was on leave October to December of 2017 and I couldn't really think about anything else. I'm proud of that essay. It was a really ambitious attempt to respond to all sorts of complicated feelings that I had during that time as a critic and a person.

至于#我也是(#MeToo)这篇文章,我写这篇文章是因为我在2017年10月到12月休假,我真的无法思考其他任何事情。我为那篇文章感到骄傲。这是一个非常有野心的尝试,来回应我在那段时间作为一个评论家和一个人所拥有的各种复杂的感觉。

I feel guilty when I watch a show and I don't get to it and it drops out of the conversation. The biggest difficulty with any TV critic is just triage. It's just figuring out what to watch.

当我看节目的时候,我觉得很内疚,但我没看完它,它就退出了谈话。任何电视评论家最大的困难就是分类。只是想知道该看什么。

Along with essays, you also included three extended profiles that you wrote of show creators and show runners. Do you approach a profile like that with a different mindset or strategy or do you just add reporting to your critical analysis of a show?

除了文章,你还包括三个扩展的简介,你写的节目创作者和节目管理人。你是用一种不同的心态或策略来处理这样的档案,还是仅仅在你对节目的批判性分析中加入报道?

I think writing a profile is totally different than writing a review. I've written a lot of different kinds of journalism. I wrote profiles at New York Magazine, and I always felt a little stressed about simultaneously writing reviews and profiles. When I got my job at the New Yorker I was very excited about the purity of my task because I basically thought, “I'm just a critic. I'm not doing reporting.” After a few years there, the truth is, I'm a busybody and I'm nosy and an extrovert and voyeuristic. So I missed it.

我认为写简介和写评论是完全不同的。我写过很多不同类型的新闻报道。我在《纽约杂志》写个人简介,同时写评论和个人简介总让我感到有点压力。当我在《纽约客》找到工作时,我对自己工作的纯粹性感到非常兴奋,因为我基本上在想,“我只是个评论家。”我不是在做报道。“在那里待了几年之后,事实是,我是个爱管闲事的人,我很爱管闲事,外向,还有窥阴癖。所以我错过了。

Also, I'm genuinely interested in TV-making. The three people I wrote about are people whose art I'm very into. In that book I included the three profiles I wrote for the New Yorker. It was Jenji Kohan, Ryan Murphy, and Kenya Barris. I think those profiles also express a lot of themes that are in the book. Those are people that are making shows that match a lot of the stuff that I'm trying to celebrate and interrogate about TV.

而且,我对电视制作真的很感兴趣。我写的这三个人都是我非常喜欢的人。在那本书里,我收录了我为《纽约客》写的三篇简介。是珍姬·科恩,瑞恩·墨菲和肯雅·巴里斯。我认为这些资料也表达了很多书中的主题。这些人制作的节目与我想要赞美和质疑的电视内容相匹配。

The truth is that it wouldn't make sense to me to write about somebody who I didn't respect as a creator. Even if I don't universally like everything they've made. Writing a profile is a very intense project. You have to spend time with the person. I loved doing that. I just think it's incredibly different than writing criticism. I'm amazed and have enormous respect for the best profile writers. I feel like the responsibility of writing a profile of somebody that ideally is not a puff piece but captures their humanity is the ambition you want to fulfill. I go at those pieces trying to talk about what makes this person make this kind of TV. What is their role in TV? That's my focus in those pieces. And to talk about the behind-the-scenes stuff, which is really great. I love being on set. I love being in the Black-ish writers room. It's enjoyable to be there and get to be a fly on the wall.

事实是,对我来说,写一个我不尊重的创造者是没有意义的。即使我不喜欢他们做的所有东西。写简介是一个非常紧张的项目。你必须花时间和那个人在一起。我喜欢这样做。我只是觉得这和写评论有很大的不同。我很惊讶,也非常尊重那些最好的人物简介作者。我觉得为某人写简介的责任,理想情况下不是吹捧,而是捕捉他们的人性,这就是你想要实现的抱负。我尝试着去谈论是什么让这个人制作了这样的电视。他们在电视中扮演什么角色?这是我的重点。来谈谈幕后的事情,这真的很棒。我喜欢在片场,喜欢待在黑人风格的编剧室里。在那里当一只苍蝇是一件很愉快的事。

I love to hear people talk about writing profiles because I want to hear all the tools and tips to how people do it and how they approach it. It is kind of a mystery to me.

我喜欢听到人们谈论写简介,因为我想听到人们如何写简介和如何写简介的所有工具和技巧。这对我来说是个谜。

I tend to think that doing justice to that ambition you have for a profile is just the legwork of your reporting. And you can get the sense of how much reporting you did for these when you causally sort of segue to, “…and then seven months later I was on set again…”

我倾向于认为,对你的侧写抱负进行公正处理只是你报道的跑腿工作。当你随意地接下去说:“……然后七个月后我又开始拍摄了……”时,你就能知道你为此做了多少报道了。

That's purely the New Yorker. Journalism is in a crisis. The New Yorker is a place that enables me to write a profile where months apart I got to see Ryan Murphy go through working on the Versace show to him cutting a huge deal with Netflix. He changed a lot during that year. I easily could have written a profile of just five days on set of a show. I really think it enriched the profile to have that time. And it's totally due to the institution of the New Yorker and their ability to support that kind of work, obviously not just with me but with so many of the reporters. It's what makes for meaningful, in-depth, portraits of something. Time is part of what's happening to people and being able to trace it is a huge privilege.

这完全是《纽约客》的风格。新闻业正处于危机之中。在《纽约客》上,我可以写一篇个人介绍,在那里,我看到瑞安·墨菲(Ryan Murphy)在范思哲(Versace)时装秀上工作,最后和Netflix达成了一笔大交易。在那一年里他改变了很多。我很容易就能写一篇只在片场工作五天的人物简介。我真的觉得那段时间充实了我的档案。这完全归功于《纽约客》的机构和他们支持这类工作的能力,显然不仅仅是对我,还有很多记者。它是对事物有意义、有深度的描述。时间是发生在人们身上的事情的一部分,能够追踪时间是一种巨大的特权。

This question might be a reach, but I'm going to ask it anyway: Do you see any parallels between you releasing a collection of your essays in a single book and the Netflix binge-model of dropping an entire season at once?

这个问题可能有点夸张,但我还是要问:你把自己的论文集写成一本书出版,和Netflix一次性砍掉一整季剧集的模式有什么相似之处吗?

[Laughing] Yes, I think of myself as a binge-reading experience. No, I don't. It's weird for me. I've just never published a book before. I think there's something really strange about the idea of things being in this form. My whole life in journalism I've been writing for magazines by and large. I'm simply used to that style. This is different.

笑着说是的,我认为自己是一次疯狂阅读的经历。不,我不喜欢。这对我来说很奇怪。我只是从未出版过一本书而已。我觉得事物以这种形式存在的想法很奇怪。我的整个新闻生涯基本上都是在为杂志撰稿。我只是习惯了那种风格。这是不同的。

Only the reader can speak for himself or herself, but I hope the essays in combination with one another have some different kind of feelings in them. There's just a sense of trying to capture my own thinking as it changed over time. There's a level of which, for better or worse, criticism is a self-portrait. That's something you get when you put a lot of pieces together. You notice ideas change. I'm trying to do a simultaneous portrait of television and myself. That's way too ambitious and people will have to figure out if it worked.

只有读者才能为自己说话,但我希望这些文章结合在一起,能有一些不同的感觉。我有一种试图捕捉自己思想的感觉,因为它随着时间的推移而改变。在一定程度上,无论好坏,批评都是一种自画像。这是当你把很多信息拼凑在一起时得到的结果。你注意到想法改变了。我试着把电视和我自己同时描绘出来。这野心太大了,人们必须弄清楚它是否有效。

I don't think it's like binge watching. I am interested in the fact that novels did come out of episodic publications and then turned into full things. Once they were like that they were more respected because people were like, “They are no longer these ephemeral, weird chapters published in magazines. Now I can carry around a novel.” There's something to be said about when episodic art is perceived as a whole people look at it in a different light. But I reject that idea. I like TV as TV. My whole mission is to say that you don't have to praise a fancy, highly visual cable show versus a smartly made but ugly-looking cheapy sitcom if the cheapy sitcom actually has an original thing to say. They both have value. I'm not someone who says that stuff is better if it all comes out at once.

我不认为这是在看剧。我感兴趣的是,小说确实是从插播出版物出来的,然后变成完整的东西。一旦他们这样做了,他们就会更受尊重,因为人们会说,“他们不再是发表在杂志上的那些短暂而怪异的章节了。现在我可以随身携带一本小说了。“当人们将情景艺术视为一个整体时,他们便会以不同的视角去看待它。但我反对这种想法。我喜欢电视和电视一样。我的整个使命是说,如果一个廉价的情景喜剧确实有原创的话,你不必去赞美一个华丽的、高度视觉化的有线电视节目,而不是一个制作精巧但丑陋的廉价情景喜剧。它们都有价值。我并不是那种认为把所有东西都说出来会更好的人。

Do you have any interest in writing for TV instead of about it?

你有没有兴趣写电视节目而不是写关于电视的东西?

No. That's not my skillset. People always ask that, and it's always a little confusing to me. That's not my goal.

不。那不是我的专长。人们总是问这个问题,我总是有点困惑。这不是我的目标。

I imagine you get asked what your favorite TV show of all time is quite a bit, so I'm going to barely tweak that question and ask if you have an all-time favorite TV character?

我猜你一定被问到过你最喜欢的电视节目是哪一部,所以我想稍微调整一下这个问题,问问你有没有一直最喜欢的电视角色?

I finally came up with a go-to answer for all-time favorite show because people ask it so much, and then I give them a lecture about how I hate top ten lists. Finally I was like, “Why don't I just tell them a show?” It's a little bit off the beaten path. I always loved Slings and Arrows, which was an incredible Canadian show that is a beautiful mixture of comedy and drama. So if I were to pick a favorite character I would be tempted to pick Geoffrey Tennant from Slings and Arrows. He's this tortured, somewhat mentally ill, really charismatic, passionate director of plays played by Paul Gross. He's a tormented person, who is trying to make great art and always feels like he falls short. But he has this passion to make something that really affects an audience.

我终于想出了一个最受欢迎的节目的答案,因为人们问得太多了,然后我给他们上了一课,告诉他们我有多讨厌十大榜单。最后我说,“为什么我不给他们讲个节目呢?”“这有点不寻常。我一直很喜欢《投石与箭》,那是一部令人难以置信的加拿大电视剧,是喜剧和戏剧的完美结合。所以,如果我要挑选一个最喜欢的角色,我会忍不住从《投箭》中选择杰弗里·坦南特(Geoffrey Tennant)。他是一个饱受折磨,有点精神疾病,非常有魅力,充满热情的导演由保罗·格罗斯扮演。他是一个饱受折磨的人,他想要创造伟大的艺术,却总觉得自己做不到。但他有一种热情,想做出真正能影响观众的作品。

You wrote in the essay that opened the book, “The brash anti-hero fell out of favor when he was elected president.” Do you think that surrounding morally bad male characters with excellent writing and beautiful cinematography slowly made them more tolerable to society?

你在翻开这本书的文章中写道:“傲慢的反英雄在当选总统后失宠。”“你是否认为,围绕在道德败坏的男性角色周围,加上优秀的写作和漂亮的摄影技术,会慢慢让他们更容易被社会所接受?”

Yes, I do. But I also loved some of those shows so I have a divided mind when it comes to the anti-hero show. I think anyone who reads this book will read a lot of criticism of the rise of those shows, which I think have been in certain ways this frustrating force because they magnetize so much tension because they fulfill people's needs for high status, grim, gritty mature television that people could feel comfortable talking about when television itself had [previously] been treated like a junk form.

是的,我喜欢。但我也很喜欢其中的一些节目,所以我对反英雄的节目有不同的看法。我想读这本书的人都读过很多批评的崛起,这些节目,我认为在某些方面,这种令人沮丧的力量,因为他们吸引太多的紧张,因为他们高地位,满足人民需求严峻,坚韧不拔的成熟电视,人们可以感到舒适时谈论电视本身(以前)被当作垃圾的形式。

That said, some of those shows are incredible. Do I think that they actually contributed to glamorizing shitty behavior? Some of those shows definitely did.

也就是说,其中一些节目非常棒。我是否认为他们真的助长了对糟糕行为的美化?有些节目确实是这样。

One of my favorite shows over the past few years is Bojack Horseman

过去几年我最喜欢的节目之一是马男波杰克

That's my favorite show on TV.

那是我最喜欢的电视节目。

It's an incredible show, and it actually got better over time. The first season is very good, but I actually think it's one of those shows that really deepened and intensified and got very ambitious. Bojack Horseman was a part of a slate of weird, dark comedies that were intended to be antidotes to the anti-hero drama. A lot of them were animated. Some of them were not. It was interesting to me that comedies appeared as a kind of heckling circle to the self-seriousness of a certain kind of True Detective-like shows. I'm sure you watched the last season of Bojack, which was about Bojack making a show called “Philbert.” There's a lot of TV about TV, but that happens to really be up in the Pantheon. It was making a very complicated argument. One of the things that happened is that he was making this kind of crappy sub-True Detective-type show that is really self-important. It's made by this idiotic show runner who keeps calling his show a novel instead of a TV show. Completely up my alley in terms of the parody and what it was satirizing. Then one of the problems is that the Diane character ends up writing for the show and she has this realization that making the show better was making the show worse. She's like, “I just made people feel better about liking the main character of the show because I added just enough complexity.” It ended up being a self-criticism of the show Bojack itself, which is obviously a much better show than “Philbert.” But it's about this whole question of who gets to be the center of a story? Whose story is treated as tragic and transcendent and all those things?

这是一个令人难以置信的节目,它实际上随着时间的推移变得更好。第一季很好,但我认为它是那种真正深化、强化、充满野心的电视剧。马男波杰克是一系列怪异、黑暗喜剧的一部分,这些喜剧旨在为反英雄戏剧解毒。很多都是动画。有些人不是。对我来说,有趣的是,喜剧对某种真正的侦探类节目的自我严肃性是一种诘问。你肯定看过上一季的《波杰克》了,那是关于波杰克拍了一部叫《菲尔伯特》的剧。“有很多电视节目都是关于电视的,但它确实在万神殿里。它提出了一个非常复杂的论点。其中一件事就是他在拍一部蹩脚的次级真实侦探类型的剧,而且非常自负。是一个傻子节目制作人写的他一直说他的节目是小说而不是电视节目。完全符合我对戏仿和讽刺的理解。然后一个问题是戴安这个角色最终为这部剧写剧本她意识到让这部剧变得更好就是让这部剧变得更糟。她说:“我只是让人们对剧中的主角感觉好些,因为我添加了足够的复杂性。最后,我对电视剧《波杰克》(Bojack)本身进行了自我批评,它显然比《菲尔伯特》(Philbert)好得多。“但这是一个关于谁成为故事中心的问题。谁的故事被认为是悲剧性的,超然的等等?

You do have to take it on a case-by-case basis. The Sopranos helped create all of this and The Sopranos holds up. There are things that I could say that are critical of The Sopranos, but why? It's an amazing show. There are elements of it, like the Bada Bing, that I think have a relationship to how HBO functions, but it's an incredibly thoughtful, funny, dark, moral, cool, artistically ambitious show. You can't blame everything that came afterwards in the genre on it.

你得具体情况具体分析。《黑道家族》帮助创造了这一切,《黑道家族》坚持了下来。我可以对《黑道家族》提出一些批评,但为什么呢?这是一个惊人的节目。它有一些元素,比如Bada Bing,我认为与HBO的运作有关,但它是一部非常有思想、有趣、黑暗、道德、酷、艺术雄心勃勃的剧集。你不能把这类游戏之后出现的所有问题都归咎于它。

There are probably all sorts of reasons that people voted for Trump. I can't blame it on True Detective [laughing]. But you know, if you're a TV critic, if you're a hammer, then everything else is a nail. Trump is a television star. He's also, as I talk about in the essays, kind of an insult comic. He is also definitely, to many people watching him, an exciting, rule breaking bad boy. I can't ignore the way those things are reflected in the culture.

人们投票支持特朗普可能有各种各样的原因。我不能怪《真探》(笑)。但你知道,如果你是一个电视评论家,如果你是一把锤子,那么其他一切都是钉子。特朗普是电视明星。正如我在文章中提到的,他也是一个侮辱喜剧。对于许多观看他的人来说,他绝对是一个令人兴奋的、打破规则的坏男孩。我不能忽视这些东西在文化中反映出来的方式。

0 条评论
评论不能为空