链接：http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4370
好莱坞何以主导美国影院?

译自2004年8月17日美国电子刊物《耶鲁全球》（Yaleglobal）

译者：陆丽娟（北京）校者：田方萌（香港）



作者：克里斯蒂娜?克莱因（Christina Klein）

首发于光明观察，转载请注明译者及出处；本译文仅供参考，引用请查对原文。

（原编者按）随着外国电影在美国的市场不断收缩，美国的影片发行人越来越多地充当起文化守门人的角色。然而，麻省理工学院研究文学和媒体比较的教授克里斯蒂娜?克莱因称，在亚洲的商业化电影中，简单的分类不再适用于最新一代的影片。它们挑战着旧有的观念，即外国电影不是阳春白雪的 “艺术片”，就是下里巴人的“功夫片”。这些新电影的发行过程变得复杂，而它在传统上是依赖于容易分类的电影的。在取得前所未有的国际成功之后，作为新派电影之一的《英雄》正准备着在它在北美地区的首映式。在影片中，中国导演张艺谋既效法好莱坞的风格，也表达了一种独特的民族文化。与此同时，其他国家的民族电影业也在跟进，制作影片时将本土和全球观众的口味都纳入考虑之列。然而一个问题仍然存在: 这些取悦大众的国外电影中的任何一部真的可以打人美国市场吗?

新一代的外国电影混合了好莱坞和艺术片的传统，这已经妨碍了美国的发行人。

麻省坎布里奇（CAMBRIDGE, MASS）：看一眼一家典型美国影院的片目海报，人们可能会认为只有好莱坞能够制作电影。尽管显然不是这么回事，但外国电影的确很少能搬到美国的银幕上。2001年在美国放映的影片中，进口片还不到1%。自由贸易者会争辩说，美国人就是单纯地偏爱好莱坞电影，但这种不平衡状况的真正原因却更多基于结构，而不是文化。由于美国独立影片的增多、独立影院的衰退以及美国电影工业重新兴起的垂直整合趋势，过去三十年间外国电影在美国的市场已经收缩了。在这种环境下，由外国影片的美国发行人所扮演的守门人角色变得更加关键了。

世界电影业的倡导者早就抱怨称霸全球的好莱坞给脆弱的民族电影业带来的威胁，但现在美国电影的影迷们也开始抗议了。大卫?肯普（David Kipen）在6月号的《大西洋月刊》（The Atlantic）上称，好莱坞正在转身背对美国观众，主要为从中获利甚丰的海外观众生产影片。其结果是一堆刻板老套的大片，它们有着强化效果的场景，浅白易懂的台词和因其国际魅力而获选的演员，却几乎不包含真正的美国文化的特点，比如《特洛伊》这样的影片。该片赚得了令人艳羡的1.33亿美元国内票房，并取得了3.56亿美元国际票房的巨大战绩。如果好莱坞正在为世界制作电影，肯普问道，那么谁在为美国制作电影? 一个违反直觉的答案可能是张艺谋这样的国外电影制作人，他的武打片《英雄》计划于8月27日在美国上映。《英雄》是否会进入你所在地区的影院还有待观察。

张艺谋因其导演的中国艺术片《大红灯笼高高挂》(1991)而为美国人所熟知。但同其他关注好莱坞影片在本国渐增的外国导演一样，张艺谋也努力增加商业成份，这将吸引更多的观众。同时像好莱坞制作人一样，他的一只眼也盯着出口市场。张艺谋努力的第一个结果便是《英雄》，这部新派外国影片既效法了全球性的好莱坞的风格，也表达了一种独特的民族文化。

就像好莱坞其他的卖座影片，《英雄》因其壮观的动作场面，CGI的特别效果和国际知名影星组成的演员阵容而自夸于人，其中包括李连杰（《致命摇篮》（"Cradle 2 the Grave"），张曼玉、梁朝伟（《花样年华》）和章子怡（《卧虎藏龙》）。同时，它又追随了中国功夫片的类型特征，并重述了一个广为人知的故事，即中国历史中企图刺杀第一位皇帝的故事。由于全球性/地方性的平衡设计，这部视觉上精致流畅并带有独特中国味道的影片不仅打破了国内票房记录，而且在亚洲和欧洲也表现颇佳。它以目前为止1亿美元的票房收入成为有史以来商业上最成功的中国大陆电影。

其他国家的电影业也正在追求类似的全球-本土策略。今年夏天，受好莱坞影响的本土影片在韩国（《太极旗飘扬：生死有情》"Taegukgi"）、俄罗斯（《守夜人》"Night Watch")和德国((T)Raumschiff Surprise — Periode 1")都在打退美国进口片，使人们对这些影业的活力作出轻率的推测。尽管并不是所有这些电影都具有跨文化的吸引力，但其中一些的版权已经卖给了国外的发行商。可是，当有人为这些电影在国内外获得成功喝彩的时候，这一现象又引出了一个难以回答的问题。从美学角度考虑，这些影片等同于许多民族电影业过去习惯于制作的艺术片吗？它们是真正地表达了一种鲜明的民族文化呢，还是仿照称霸世界的好莱坞影片，仅仅在表面上本土化了而已?

没有人知道这些取悦大众的影片中的任何一部是否会进入美国，这个世界上最大的电影市场。即使展示了全球性的吸引力，《英雄》也曾经历艰难时刻，它的命运仍然还不确定。2002年在中国上映之后，该片已经远离美国观众近两年时间，尽管它获得了奥斯卡最佳外语片提名，并且激起电影节上观看过它的美国批评家们的众多影评。人们还不是很清楚《英雄》是否会像一部主流商业影片那样在整个国家的影院放映，或者像一部艺术片那样仅在某些城市上映。

这一决定，实际上还有影片在整个美国的命运，很大程度上取决于Miramax电影公司的联合主席哈维?温斯坦（Harvey Weinstein），这家公司拥有《英雄》在北美地区的发行权。Miramax公司是外国影片在美国最大的发行商之一，它曾给美国人介绍过东亚的艺术片，并在90年代使香港的武打片流行起来，因而赢得了信誉。然而，近年来人们开始将Miramax公司看作亚洲电影在美国传播的障碍，而不是其渠道。

这家公司咄咄逼人的领导地位及其充裕的资金允许它以高价购买中意的外国影片，使竞争者不能染指。然而，Miramax公司并不放映买来的全部影片，而是毫无理由地将相当一部分束之高阁，使它们有几年时间远离市场，或者只是在有限范围予以公映，只有极少美国人才有机会看到这些电影。尽管它为《英雄》的发行权支付了2000万美元，Miramax却坐等不放近两年时间。据《纽约时报》报道，该公司只是在受到中国政府的压力并从它的母公司迪斯尼那里获得额外的营销资金之后才同意放映《英雄》的，而迪斯尼公司与中国有着密切的商业关系，正在香港修建一个主题公园。

当Miramax公司确实要放映亚洲电影的时候，它常常先要“清洗”（ sanitizes）一下这些片 ——重新剪辑，英语配音，加入新的字幕和声道——使它们的文化差异限定在它认为美国观众能够接受的范围内。据报道，预计到该片在美国的上映，哈维?温斯坦要求张艺谋将《英雄》的片长剪短18分钟。

当观察者试图解释美国影院缺少外国电影的时候，他们时常拿出那套陈辞滥调，即美国人不喜欢读字幕。但是《卧虎藏龙》（2000) 和《耶稣受难记》（"The Passion of the Christ" ，2004)的巨大成功应该把这句定理撇到一边了。批评家们与其用文化偏好来解释外国电影的缺乏，不如聚焦美国电影业的结构，包括发行人扮演的“守门人”角色。到目前为止，Miramax公司似乎已经受到最新一代亚洲商业电影的妨碍，它们混杂的全球和本土认同挑战了旧有的观念，即外国影片不是阳春白雪的“艺术片”就是下里巴人的“动作片”。如果Miramax公司能使《英雄》广为放映，它也许能平息美国影迷因它对待亚洲电影的做法而引出的怒火。这样，外国电影业也会获得一个信号——它们的新派电影在美国市场也有机会。为了电影业的多元化，让我们期待Miramax能够撒下一张大网。

克里斯蒂娜?克莱因(Christina Klein)在麻省理工学院教授文学与媒体比较研究。她著有《冷战中的东方主义：1945-1961年中产阶级想像中的亚洲》(Cold War Orientalism: Asia in the Middlebrow Imagination, 1945-1961 )一书。

As the foreign film market in the US continues to shrink, American distributors play increasingly larger roles as cultural gate-keepers. However, says Christina Klein, professor of literature and comparative media studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the newest generation in commercial Asian cinema eludes simple classification. Challenging older notions of foreign films as either highbrow "art" or lowbrow "action”, these new films complicate a distribution process that has traditionally relied on easily categorized films. A member of the new breed, the film "Hero" prepares for its North American premiere after unprecedented international success. In the film, Chinese director Zhang Yimou emulates Hollywood's style while also expressing a distinct national culture. Meanwhile, as other national film industries follow suit by making movies with both a local and global audience in mind, one question remains: Will any of these foreign crowd-pleasing films actually make it into the US? – YaleGlobal

Why Does Hollywood Dominate US Cinemas?

A new generation of foreign films that combine Hollywood and art-house conventions has stymied American distributors

Christina Klein
YaleGlobal, 17 August 2004

Chinese director Zhang Yimou's 'Hero' may be one of the few foreign films to make it into American theaters this year. (Photo: Miramax Films)

CAMBRIDGE, MASS.: Taking a glance at the marquee of a typical American multiplex, one might think that only Hollywood can make movies. While obviously not the case, it is true that few foreign films make it onto American screens. In 2001, imports represented less than 1 percent of all films shown in the USA. Free traders would argue that Americans simply prefer Hollywood movies, but the real reasons for this imbalance are more structural than cultural. The market for foreign films has contracted in the US over the past thirty years, due to the rise of American independent film, the decline in independent theaters, and the restored vertical integration of the US film industry. In such an environment, the gate-keeping role played by American distributors of foreign films becomes ever more crucial.

Advocates of world cinema have long complained about the threat posed by Hollywood's global dominance to fragile national film cultures, but now fans of American film are starting to protest as well. David Kipen, writing in the June issue of The Atlantic, argues that Hollywood is turning its back on American viewers and producing films primarily for its lucrative overseas audience instead. The result is a stream of formulaic studio blockbusters that feature beefed-up spectacle, dumbed-down dialogue, actors chosen for their international appeal, and little genuinely American cultural specificity – movies like "Troy", which has earned a respectable $133 million at home and a whopping $356 million abroad. If Hollywood is making movies for the world, asks Kipen, who is making movies for America? One counterintuitive answer may be foreign film makers such as Zhang Yimou, whose martial arts film "Hero" is scheduled to open in the US on August 27. Whether "Hero" will make it into your local multiplex remains to be seen.

Zhang Yimou is best known to Americans as the director of the Chinese art-house classic "Raise the Red Lantern" (1991). But like other foreign directors concerned about Hollywood's growing presence in their countries, Zhang is turning his efforts to more commercial fare that will attract larger audiences. And like Hollywood producers, he has one eye on the export market. The first result of his efforts is "Hero", one of a new breed of foreign films that emulates global Hollywood's style while also expressing a distinct national culture.

Like Hollywood's blockbusters, "Hero" boasts spectacular action scenes, CGI special effects, and a roster of internationally known stars, including Jet Li ("Cradle 2 the Grave"), Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung ("In the Mood for Love"), and Zhang Ziyi ("Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"). At the same time, however, it adheres to the genre conventions of the Chinese martial arts film and retells a well-known story drawn from Chinese history about attempts to assassinate the country's first emperor. The result of this global/local balancing act is a visually slick film with a distinctly Chinese feel that has broken box office records at home and performed well in Asia and Europe. With $100 million in box office receipts to date, it is the most financially successful mainland Chinese movie ever made.

Other national film industries are pursuing a similar global-local strategy. This summer Hollywood-influenced local films are besting American imports in South Korea ("Taegukgi"), Russia ("Night Watch"), and Germany ("(T)Raumschiff Surprise – Periode 1"), prompting giddy speculation about the vitality of these industries. While not all of these films have cross-cultural appeal, the rights of some have already been sold to foreign distributors. Even as one applauds these films' domestic and export success, however, it raises difficult questions. Considered in aesthetic terms, are these movies on a par with the art films that many of these industries used to make? Are they genuine expressions of a distinct national culture, or just thinly localized knockoffs of the dominant Hollywood product?

No one knows whether any of these crowd-pleasing films will make it into the US, which is the world's largest film market. Even with demonstrated global appeal, "Hero" has had a difficult time and its fate remains uncertain. Released in China in 2002, it has been withheld from American viewers for nearly two years, despite garnering an Academy Award nomination for best foreign language film and rave reviews by American critics who have seen it at film festivals. And it isn't clear whether "Hero" will open wide in multiplexes across the country like a mainstream commercial film or only in a few cities like an art film.

That decision, and indeed the movie's entire American fate, rests largely in the hands of Harvey Weinstein, co-chairman of Miramax Films, which owns the North American rights to "Hero". Miramax is one of the largest distributors of foreign films in the US, and it deserves credit for helping to introduce Americans to East Asian art cinema and for popularizing Hong Kong action film in the 1990s. In recent years, however, Miramax has come to be seen as an obstacle rather than a conduit to the circulation of Asian films in the US.

The company's aggressive leadership and deep pockets have allowed it to pay top dollar for desirable foreign films, thereby keeping them out of the hands of competitors. Instead of releasing all the films it buys, however, Miramax has inexplicably shelved quite a few of them, keeping them off the market for years or giving them such a limited release that few Americans have a chance to see them. Although it paid $20 million for the rights to "Hero", Miramax sat on the film for almost two years. According to The New York Times, it only agreed to release it after being pressured by the Chinese government and receiving extra marketing funds from Disney, its parent company, which has close business ties to China and is building a theme park in Hong Kong.

When Miramax does release Asian films, it often "sanitizes" them first – by re-editing them, dubbing them into English, or adding new subtitles and soundtracks – so that their cultural difference will be within the bounds of what it thinks American viewers will accept. Harvey Weinstein reportedly demanded that Zhang trim the running time of "Hero" by about eighteen minutes, in anticipation of its US release.

When observers try to explain the lack of foreign films in US theaters, they often trot out the hoary claim that Americans don't like to read subtitles. But the runaway success of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" (2000) and "The Passion of the Christ" (2004) should put that maxim to rest. Rather than explain the dearth of foreign films in terms of cultural preference, critics should focus on the structure of the US film industry, including the gatekeeper function played by distributors. To date, Miramax seems to have been stymied by the newest generation of commercial Asian films whose hybrid global/local identity challenges older notions of foreign films as either highbrow "art" or lowbrow "action." If Miramax gives "Hero" a wide release, the company might appease American film lovers angered by its treatment of Asian movies. It could also send a signal to foreign film industries that their new style films have a chance at the American market. For the sake of cinematic diversity, let's hope Miramax casts a wide net.

Christina Klein teaches literature and comparative media studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She is the author of "Cold War Orientalism: Asia in the Middlebrow Imagination, 1945-1961" (University of California Press, 2003).

------------------------------

〓 网易娱乐 梁朝伟的森林 发布时间 2005/03/25 19:37:22 by 踏尾虎之蟹 〓