JEAN-LUC COMOLLI AND JEAN NARBONI CINEMA/IDEOLOGY/CRITICISM
让-吕克·科莫利和让·纳尔博尼 电影/意识形态/批评

Comolli, Jean-Luc and Narboni, Jean (2004) Cinema/ideology/criticism. In, Braudy, Leo and Cohen, Marshall (eds.) Film theory and criticism: introductory readings - 6th ed. (pp.812-819). Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0-195158172.
科莫利， 让-吕克 和 纳尔博尼， 让（2004）电影/意识形态/批评。载于布劳迪，利奥 和 科恩，马歇尔（编）《电影理论与批评：入门读本》第 6 版（第 812-819 页）。牛津大学出版社。ISBN：0-195158172。

Scientific criticism has an obligation to define its field and methods. This implies awareness of its own historical and social situation, a rigorous analysis of the proposed field of study, the conditions which make the work necessary and those which make it possible, and the special function it intends to fulfill.
科学批评有义务界定其领域和方法。这意味着要意识到自身的历史和社会背景，严格分析所提出的研究领域、使该工作成为必要的条件和使其成为可能的条件，以及其打算履行的特殊功能。

It is essential that we at Cahiers du Cinéma should now undertake just such a global analysis of our position and aims. Not that we are starting entirely from zero. Fragments of such an analysis have been coming out of material we have published recently (articles, editorials, debates, answers to readers’ letters) but in an imprecise form and as if by accident. They are an indication that our readers, just as much as we ourselves, feel the need for a clear theoretical base to which to relate our critical practice and its field, taking the two to be indivisible. ‘Programmes’ and ‘revolutionary’ plans and declarations tend to become an end in themselves. This is a trap we intend to avoid. Our objective is not to reflect upon what we ‘want’ (would like) to do, but upon what we are doing and what we can do, and this is impossible without an analysis of the present situation.
我们《电影笔记》现在必须对我们的立场和目标进行这样一种全球性的分析。这并不是说我们完全从零开始。我们最近发表的材料（文章、社论、辩论、读者来信回复）中已经出现了这种分析的片段，但形式不够精确，且似乎是偶然的。这表明我们的读者和我们自己一样，感受到需要一个清晰的理论基础，以此来关联我们的批评实践及其领域，并将两者视为不可分割的。“方案”和“革命性”的计划与宣言往往会成为目的本身，这是我们打算避免的陷阱。我们的目标不是反思我们“想要”（希望）做什么，而是反思我们正在做什么以及我们能做什么，而这在没有对当前形势进行分析的情况下是不可能的。

(a) First, our situation. Cahiers is a group of people working together; one of the results of our work appearing as a magazine.* A magazine, that is to say, a particular product, involving a particular amount of work (on the part of those who write it, those who produce it and, indeed, those who read it). We do not close our eyes to the fact that a product of this nature is situated fairly and squarely inside the economic
(a) 首先，我们的情况。Cahiers 是一群人一起工作的团队；我们的工作成果之一以杂志的形式出现。* 杂志，也就是说，是一种特定的产品，涉及一定量的工作（由撰写者、制作人员以及阅读者共同完成）。我们并不回避这样一个事实：这种性质的产品完全处于经济体系之中。

system of capitalist publishing (modes of production, spheres of circulation, etc.). In any case it is difficult to see how it could be otherwise today, unless one is led astray by Utopian ideas of working ‘parallel’ to the system. The first step in the latter approach is always the paradoxical one of setuing up a false front, a ‘neo-system’ alongside the system from which one is attempting to escape, in the fond belief that it will be able to negate the system. In fact all it can do is reject it (idealist purism) and consequently it is very soon jeopardized by the enemy upon which it modelled itself.’ This ‘parallelism’ works from one direction only. It touches only one side of the wound, whereas we believe that both sides have to be worked upon. And the danger of the parallels meeting all too speedily in infinity seems to us sufficient to argue that we had better stay in the finite and allow them to remain apart.
资本主义出版体系（生产方式、流通领域等）。无论如何，今天很难看到情况会有所不同，除非被乌托邦式的“与体系平行工作”的想法所误导。后一种方法的第一步总是矛盾的，即在试图逃离的体系旁边建立一个虚假的“新体系”，抱有它能够否定该体系的美好信念。事实上，它所能做的只是拒绝该体系（理想主义的纯粹主义），因此很快就会被其所模仿的敌人所威胁。这种“平行主义”只从一个方向起作用。它只触及伤口的一侧，而我们认为必须同时处理伤口的两侧。我们认为，平行线过快地在无穷远处相遇的危险足以说明，我们最好停留在有限范围内，让它们保持分离。

This assumed, the question is: what is our attitude to our situation? In France the majority of films, like the majority of books and magazines, are produced and distributed by the capitalist economic system and within the dominant ideology. Indeed, strictly speaking all are, whatever expedient they adopt to try and get around it. This being so, the question we have to ask is: which films. books, and magazines allow the ideology a free, unhampered passage, transmit it with crystal clarity, serve as its chosen language? And which attempt to make it tum back and reflect itself, intercept it, make it visible by revealing its mechanisms, by blocking them?
假设如此，问题是：我们对自己的处境持何种态度？在法国，大多数电影，就像大多数书籍和杂志一样，都是由资本主义经济体系生产和发行的，并且处于主导意识形态之中。严格来说，所有作品都是如此，无论它们采取何种权宜之计试图绕过这一点。既然如此，我们必须问的问题是：哪些电影、书籍和杂志允许意识形态自由、不受阻碍地传播，以极其清晰的方式传达它，成为其选定的语言？又有哪些试图使意识形态反转并自我反思，拦截它，通过揭示其机制使其可见，阻止其运作？
(b) For the situation in which we are acting is the field of cinema (Cahiers is a film magazine), ${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} and the precise object of our study is the history of a film: how it is produced, manufactured. distributed. ${}^3$${}^3$^(3){ }^{3} understood,
（b）因为我们所处的情境是电影领域（《Cahiers》是一本文艺电影杂志）， ${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} ，而我们研究的具体对象是一部电影的历史：它是如何被制作、制造、发行的。 ${}^3$${}^3$^(3){ }^{3} 理解，

What is the film today? This is the relevant question; not, as it possibly once was: what is the cinema? We shall not be able to ask that again until a body of knowledge. of theory, has been evolved (a process to which we certainly intend to contribute) to inform what is at present an empty term, with a concept. For a film magazine the question is also: what work is to be done in the field constituted by films? And for Cahiers in particular: what is our specific function in this field? What is to distinguish us from other ‘film magazines’?
今天的电影是什么？这是相关的问题；而不是，像过去可能曾经是的那样：什么是电影？我们将无法再次提出这个问题，直到一套理论知识体系被发展起来（这是一个我们肯定打算贡献的过程），以赋予目前空洞的术语一个概念。对于一本电影杂志来说，问题还在于：在由电影构成的领域中，应该完成什么工作？特别是对于《Cahiers》来说：我们在这个领域中的具体职能是什么？什么将使我们区别于其他“电影杂志”？

What is a film? On the one hand it is a particular product, manufactured within a given system of economic relations, and involving labour (which appears to the capitalist as money) to produce-a condition to which even ‘independent’ filmmakers and the ‘new cinema’ are subject-assembling a certain number of workers for this pur-
什么是电影？一方面，它是一种特定的产品，在特定的经济关系体系内制造，涉及劳动（对资本家来说表现为金钱）来生产——即使是“独立”电影制作者和“新电影”也受此条件制约——组建一定数量的工人来完成这项工作——

pose (even the director, whether he is Moullet or Oury, is in the last analysis only a film worker). It becomes transformed into a commodity, possessing exchange value, which is realized by the sale of tickets and contracts, and governed by the laws of the market. On the other hand, as a result of being a material product of the system, it is also an ideological product of the system, which in France means capitalism.*
姿态（即使是导演，无论是穆莱还是乌里，归根结底也只是电影工作者）。它转变为一种商品，具有交换价值，通过售票和合同实现，并受市场规律支配。另一方面，作为系统的物质产品，它也是系统的意识形态产品，在法国意味着资本主义。*

No filmmaker can, by his own individual efforts, change the economic relations governing the manufacture and distribution of his films. (It cannot be pointed out too often that even filmmakers who set out to be ‘revolutionary’ on the level of message and form cannot effect any swift or radical change in the economic system-deform it, yes, deflect it, but not negate it or seriously upset its structure. Godard’s recent statement to the effect that he wants to stop working in the ‘system’ takes no account of the fact that any other system is bound to be a reflection of the one he wishes to avoid. The money no longer comes from the Champs-Elysées but from London, Rome, or New York. The film may not be marketed by the distribution monopolies but it is shot on film stock from another monopoly-Kodak.) Because every film is part of the economic system it is also a part of the ideological system, for ‘cinema’ and ‘art’ are branches of ideology. None can escape, somewhere, like pieces in a jigsaw, all have their own allotted place. The system is blind to its own nature, but in spite of that, indeed because of that, when all the pieces are fitted together they give a very clear picture. But this dees not mean that every filmmaker plays a similar role. Reactions differ.
没有任何电影制作者能够仅凭个人努力改变支配其电影制作和发行的经济关系。（必须反复强调，即使是那些在信息和形式层面上立志成为“革命者”的电影制作者，也无法对经济体系进行迅速或根本性的改变——可以使其变形，可以偏转，但不能否定或严重扰乱其结构。戈达尔最近声称他想停止在“体系”内工作，却没有考虑到任何其他体系必然是他想要避免的那个体系的反映。资金不再来自香榭丽舍大道，而是来自伦敦、罗马或纽约。电影可能不是由发行垄断机构营销，但它是用另一垄断机构——柯达的胶片拍摄的。）因为每部电影都是经济体系的一部分，它也是意识形态体系的一部分，因为“电影”和“艺术”是意识形态的分支。没有任何一部分能够逃脱，就像拼图中的碎片一样，每个都有其指定的位置。体系对自身的本质视而不见，但正因为如此，当所有碎片拼合在一起时，它们呈现出一幅非常清晰的图景。 但这并不意味着每个电影制作者都扮演着相似的角色。反应各不相同。

It is the job of criticism to see where they differ, and slowly, patiently, not expecting any magical transformations to take place at the wave of a slogan, to help change the ideology which conditions them.
批评的任务是看出他们的不同，并且缓慢而耐心地进行，不指望通过口号的挥动就能发生任何神奇的转变，以帮助改变制约他们的意识形态。

A few points, which we shall return to in greater detail later: every film is political, inasmuch as it is determined by the ideology which produces it (or within which it is produced, which stems from the same thing). The cinema is all the more thoroughly and completely determined because unlike other arts or ideological systems its very manufacture mobilizes powerful economic forces in a way that the production of literature (which becomes the commodity ‘books’, does not-chough once we reach the level of distribution, publicity, and sale, the two are in rather the same position).
有几点，我们稍后会更详细地回到这些：每部电影都是政治的，因为它受制于产生它的意识形态（或在其中产生的意识形态，这两者源自同一事物）。电影之所以被更彻底和完全地决定，是因为与其他艺术或意识形态系统不同，它的制造过程动员了强大的经济力量，而文学的生产（成为商品“书籍”）则没有——尽管一旦达到发行、宣传和销售阶段，两者的处境其实相当相似。

Clearly, the cinema ‘reproduces’ reality: this is what a camera and film stock are for-so says the ideology. But the tools and techniques of filmmaking are a part of
显然，电影“再现”现实：这就是摄像机和胶片的用途——意识形态是这么说的。但电影制作的工具和技术是其一部分。

‘reality’ themselves, and furthermore ‘reality’ is nothing but an expression of the prevailing ideology. Seen in this light, the classic theory of cinema that the camera is an impartial instrument which grasps, or rather is impregnated by, the world in its ‘concrete reality’ is an eminently reactionary one. What the camera in fact registers is the vague, unformulated, untheorized, unthought-out world of the dominant ideology. Cinema is one of the languages through which the world communicates itself to itself. They constitute its ideology for they reproduce the world as it is experienced when filtered through the ideology. (As Aithusser defines it, more precisely: 'Ideologies are perceived-accepted-suffered cultural objects, which work fundamentally on men by a process they do not understand. What men express in their ideologies is not their true relation to their conditions of existence, but how they react to their conditions of existence; which presupposes a real relationship and an imaginary relationship.) So, when we set out to make a film, from the very first shot, we are encumbered by the necessity of reproducing things not as they really are but as they appear when refracted through the ideology. This includes every stage in the process of production: subjects, ‘styles’, forms, meanings, narrative traditions; all underline the general ideological discourse. The film is ideology presenting itself to itself, talking to itself; learning about itself. Once we realize that it is the nature of the system to turn the cinema into an instrument of ideology, we can see that the filmmaker’s first task is to show up the cinema’s so-called ‘depiction of reality’. If he can do so there is a chance that we will be able to disrupt or possibly even sever the connection between the cinema and its ideological function.
“现实”本身，而且“现实”不过是现行意识形态的一种表达。从这个角度看，经典的电影理论认为摄像机是一个公正的工具，能够捕捉，或者说被世界的“具体现实”所浸透，这是一种极其反动的观点。摄像机实际上记录的是主导意识形态中模糊的、未成形的、未理论化的、未经深思熟虑的世界。电影是世界自我交流的语言之一。它们构成了意识形态，因为它们再现了通过意识形态过滤后所体验到的世界。（正如阿尔都塞更准确地定义的那样：“意识形态是被感知-接受-承受的文化对象，基本上通过人们不理解的过程作用于人们。”） 人们在他们的意识形态中表达的并非他们与生存条件的真实关系，而是他们对生存条件的反应；这预设了一个真实关系和一个想象的关系。）因此，当我们开始拍摄一部电影时，从第一镜头起，我们就被必须再现事物的表象而非事物的真实所束缚，这种表象是通过意识形态的折射呈现的。这包括制作过程中的每一个阶段：主题、“风格”、形式、意义、叙事传统；所有这些都强调了总体的意识形态话语。电影是意识形态向自身展示、与自身对话、了解自身的过程。一旦我们意识到将电影变成意识形态工具是系统的本质，我们就能看到电影制作者的首要任务是揭露电影所谓的“现实再现”。如果他能做到这一点，我们就有可能打破甚至切断电影与其意识形态功能之间的联系。

The vital distinction between films today is whether they do this or whether they do not.
当今电影的关键区别在于它们是否做到这一点。
(a) The first and largest category comprises those films which are imbued through and through with the dominant ideology in pure and unadulterated form, and give no indication that their makers were even aware of the fact. We are not just talking about so-called ‘commercial’ films. The majority of films in all categories are the unconscious instruments of the ideology which produces them. Whether the film is ‘commercial’ or ‘ambitiaus’, ‘modern’ or ‘traditional’, whether it is the type that gets shown in art houses, or in smart cinemas, whether it belongs to the ‘old’ cinema or the ‘young’ cinema, it is most likely to be a re-hash of the same old idcology. For all films are commodities and therefore objects of trade, even those whose discourse is explicitly political-which is why a rigorous definition of what constitutes ‘political’ cinema is called for at this moment when it is being widely promoted. This merging of ideology and film is reflected in the first instance by the fact that audience demand and economic response have also been reduced to one and the same thing. In direct continuity with political practice, ideological practice reformulates the social need and backs it up with a discourse. This is not a hypothesis, but a scientifically established fact. The ideology is talking to itself; it has all the answers ready before it asks the questions. Certainly there is such a thing as public demand, but ‘what the public wants’ means ‘what the dominant ideology wants’. The notion of a public and its tastes was created by the ideology to justify and perpetuate itself. And this public can only express itself via the thought-patterns of the ideology. The whole thing is a closed circuit, endlessly repeating the same illusion.
(a) 第一类也是最大的一类电影，是那些贯穿始终充满主导意识形态的电影，且丝毫没有表明其制作者意识到这一点。我们谈论的并不仅仅是所谓的“商业”电影。所有类别中的大多数电影都是产生它们的意识形态的无意识工具。无论电影是“商业”还是“有抱负”，是“现代”还是“传统”，无论是在艺术影院还是高档电影院放映，无论属于“老”电影还是“年轻”电影，它很可能都是同一旧意识形态的翻版。因为所有电影都是商品，因此都是交易对象，即使那些话语明确政治性的电影也是如此——这就是为什么在当前广泛推广“政治”电影的时刻，需要对“政治”电影的定义进行严格界定。这种意识形态与电影的融合首先体现在观众需求和经济反应也被简化为同一事物。 与政治实践直接相连，意识形态实践重新构建社会需求，并以话语加以支持。这不是假设，而是科学确立的事实。意识形态在自我对话；它在提出问题之前就已经准备好了所有答案。当然，确实存在公众需求，但“公众想要什么”意味着“主导意识形态想要什么”。公众及其品味的概念是意识形态为了自我辩护和延续而创造的。而这个公众只能通过意识形态的思维模式来表达自己。整个过程是一个封闭的回路，不断重复同样的幻象。

The situation is the same at the level of artistic form. These films totally accept the established system of depicting reality: ‘bourgeois realism’ and the whole conservative box of tricks: blind faith in ‘life’, ‘humanism’, ‘common sense’, etc. A blissful ignorance that there might be something wrong with this whole concept of ‘depiction’ appears to have reigned at every stage in their production, so much so, that to us it appears a more accurate gauge of pictures in the ‘commercial’ category than boxoffice returns. Nothing in these films jars against the ideology or the audience’s mystification by it. They are very reassuring for audiences for there is no difference between the ideology they meet every day and the ideology on the screen. It would be a useful complementary task for film critics to look into the way the ideological system and its products merge at all levels: to study the phenomenon whereby a film being shown to an audience becomes a monologue, in which the ideology talks to itself, by examining the success of films by, for instance, Melville, Oury, and Lelouch.
艺术形式层面上的情况也是如此。这些电影完全接受了既定的现实描绘体系：“资产阶级现实主义”以及整套保守的手法：对“生活”、“人道主义”、“常识”等的盲目信仰。在它们制作的每一个阶段，似乎都盛行着一种幸福的无知，认为“描绘”这一整体概念可能存在问题，以至于对我们来说，这比票房收入更能准确衡量“商业”类别的影片。这些电影中没有任何内容与意识形态或观众对其的神秘化产生冲突。它们让观众感到非常安心，因为他们每天接触的意识形态与银幕上的意识形态没有区别。电影评论家进行一项有益的补充工作，即研究意识形态体系及其产物如何在各个层面融合：通过考察例如梅尔维尔（Melville）、乌里（Oury）和勒卢什（Lelouch）等人的电影成功，研究电影在观众面前成为一种独白的现象，其中意识形态与自身对话。
(b) A second category is that of films which attack their ideological assimilation on two fronts. Firstly, by direct political action, on the level of the ‘signified’, that is, they deal with a directly political subject. ‘Deal with’ is here intended in an active sense: they do not just discuss an issue, reiterate it, paraphrase it, but use it to attack the ideology (this presupposes a theoretical activity which is the direct opposite of the ideological one). This act only becomes politically effective if it is linked with a breaking down of the traditional way of depicting reality. On the level of form, Unreconciled, The Edge and Earth in Revolt all challenge the concept of ‘depiction’ and mark a break with the tradition embodying it.
（b）第二类是那些在两个层面上攻击其意识形态同化的电影。首先，在“所指”层面上通过直接的政治行动，也就是说，它们处理一个直接的政治主题。“处理”在这里是积极的意义：它们不仅仅是讨论一个问题、重复它、转述它，而是用它来攻击意识形态（这预设了一种与意识形态活动完全相反的理论活动）。只有当这种行为与打破传统现实描绘方式相结合时，它才具有政治效力。在形式层面上，《未和解者》、《边缘》和《地球在反抗》都挑战了“描绘”的概念，并标志着与体现这一概念的传统的决裂。

We would stress that only action on both fronts, ‘signified’ and 'signifiers’l has any hope of operating against the prevailing ideology. Economic/political and formal action have to be indissolubly wedded.
我们强调，只有在“所指”和“能指”两个层面上的行动，才有希望对抗现存的意识形态。经济/政治行动和形式行动必须不可分割地结合在一起。
© There is another category in which the same double action operates, but ‘against the grain’. The content is not explicitly political, but in some way becomes so through the criticism practised on it through its form. ${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} To this category belong
© 还有另一类情况，同样的双重作用在这里起作用，但“逆势而为”。内容并非明确的政治性，但通过其形式所进行的批评，在某种程度上使其变得政治化。 ${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} 属于这一类别的有

Méditerranée, The Bellboy, Persona. . . . For Cahiers these films (b and c) constitute the essential in the cinema, and should be the chief subject of the magazine.
《地中海》、《门童》、《假面》……对于《电影手册》来说，这些电影（b 和 c）构成了电影的本质，应成为杂志的主要讨论对象。
(d) Fourth case: those films, increasingly numerous today, which have an explicitly political content ( Z is not the best example as its presentation of politics is unremittingly ideological from first to last; a better example would be Le Temps de Vivre) but which do not effectively criticize the ideological system in which they are embedded because they unquestioningly adopt its language and its imagery.
（d）第四种情况：如今越来越多的那些电影，具有明确的政治内容（《Z》不是最佳例子，因为它从头到尾对政治的呈现都是不间断的意识形态；更好的例子是《生活的时光》），但它们并未有效批判其所嵌入的意识形态体系，因为它们无条件地采用了该体系的语言和意象。

This makes it important for critics to examine the effectiveness of the political criticism intended by these films. Do they express, reinforce, strengthen the very thing they set out to denounce? Are they caught in the system they wish to break down . . . ? (see a)
这使得评论家们必须审视这些电影所意图表达的政治批评的有效性。它们是否表达、强化、巩固了它们试图谴责的事物？它们是否陷入了它们想要打破的体系之中……？（见 a）
(e) Five: films which seem at first sight to belong firmly within the ideology and to be completely under its sway, but which tum out to be so only in an ambiguous manner. For though they start from a nonprogressive standpoint, ranging from the frankly reactionary through the conciliatory to the mildly critical, they have been worked upon, and work, in such a real way that there is a noticeable gap, a dislocation, between the starting point and the finished product. We disregard here the inconsis-tent-and unimportant-sector of films in which the director makes a conscious use of the prevailing ideology, but leaves it absolutely straight. The films we are talking about throw up obstacles in the way of the ideology, causing it to swerve and get off course. The cinematic framework lets us see it, but also shows it up and denounces it. Looking at the framework one can see two moments in it: one holding it back within certain limits, one transgressing them. An intemal criticism is taking place which cracks the film apart at the seams. If one reads the film obliquely, looking for symptoms; if one looks beyond its apparent formal coherence, one can see that it is riddled with cracks: it is splitting under an internal tension which is simply not there in an ideologically innocuous film. The ideology thus becomes subordinate to the text. It no longer has an independent existence: It is presented by the film. This is the case in many Hollywood films, for example, which while being completely integrated in the system and the ideology end up by partially dismantling the system from within. We must find out what makes it possible for a filmmaker to corrode the ideology by restating it in the terms of his film: if he sees his film simply as a blow in favour of liberalism, it will be recuperated instantly by the ideology; if on the other hand, he conceives and realizes it on the deeper level of imagery, there is a chance that it will turn out to be more disruptive. Not, of course, that he will be able to break the ideology itself, but simply its reflection in his film. (The films of Ford, Dreyer, Rossellini, for example.)
（五）五类：那些乍看之下似乎坚定地属于意识形态并完全受其支配的电影，但实际上只是以一种模糊的方式如此。因为虽然它们从非进步的立场出发，范围从坦率的反动派到调和派再到温和批判派，但它们经过了加工，并以如此真实的方式发挥作用，以至于起点与成品之间存在明显的裂缝和错位。这里我们忽略那些导演有意识地利用现行意识形态但完全保持其原貌的矛盾且无关紧要的电影领域。我们所说的电影在意识形态的道路上设置障碍，使其偏离轨道。电影框架让我们看到这一点，同时也揭露并谴责它。观察这个框架，可以看到其中有两个时刻：一个将其限制在某些界限内，另一个则越界。内部批评正在进行，撕裂电影的接缝。 如果以斜读的方式观看电影，寻找其症状；如果超越其表面上的形式连贯性，就会发现它布满了裂缝：它正因内部张力而分裂，而这种张力在意识形态上无害的电影中根本不存在。因此，意识形态变成了文本的附属物。它不再具有独立存在：它由电影呈现出来。例如，许多好莱坞电影就是这种情况，虽然它们完全融入了体制和意识形态，但最终却从内部部分解构了体制。我们必须弄清楚是什么使得电影制作者能够通过以其电影的方式重新陈述意识形态来腐蚀它：如果他仅仅将自己的电影视为支持自由主义的一击，它将立即被意识形态所回收；但如果他在更深层次的影像层面构思和实现它，那么它有可能变得更具破坏性。当然，他不可能打破意识形态本身，而只是打破它在电影中的反映。（例如福特、德莱叶、罗塞里尼的电影。）

Our position with regard to this category of films is: that we have absolutely no intention of joining the current witch-hunt against them. They are the mythology of their own myths. They criticize themselves, even if no such intention is written into the script, and it is irrelevant and impertinent to do so for them. All we want to dc is to show the process in action.
我们对这类电影的立场是：我们绝对无意加入当前对它们的猎巫行动。它们是自身神话的神话。它们自我批评，即使剧本中没有写明这种意图，对它们来说这样做既无关紧要又无礼。我们所想做的只是展示这一过程的运作。
(f) Films of the ‘live cinema’ (cinéma direct) variety, group one (the larger of the two groups). These are films arising out of political (or, it would probably be more exact to say: social) events or reflections, but which make no clear differentiation between themselves and the nonpolitical cinema because they do not challenge the
（f）“现场电影”（cinéma direct）类型的电影，第一组（两个组中较大的一组）。这些电影源于政治（或者更准确地说是社会）事件或反思，但它们并不明确区分自己与非政治电影，因为它们并不挑战...
cinema’s traditional, ideologically conditioned method of ‘depiction’. For instance a miner’s strike will be filmed in the same style as Les Grandes Familles. The makers of these films suffer under the primary and fundamental illusion that if they once break off the ideological filter of narrative traditions (dramaturgy, construction, domination of the component parts by a central idea, emphasis on formal beauty) reality will then yield itself up in its true form. The fact is that by doing so they only break off one filter, and not the most important one at that. For reality holds within itself no hidden kemel of self-understanding, of theory, of truth, like a stone inside a fruit. We have to manufacture those. (Marxism is very clear on this point, in its distinction between ‘real’ and ‘perceived’ objects.) Compare Chiefs (Leacock) and a good number of the May films.
电影传统的、意识形态条件下的“描绘”方法。例如，矿工罢工将以与《Les Grandes Familles》相同的风格拍摄。这些电影的制作者陷入了一个根本的幻觉，即一旦他们打破叙事传统的意识形态滤镜（戏剧结构、构造、组成部分被中心思想支配、强调形式美），现实就会以其真实的形态展现出来。事实是，他们这样做只是打破了一个滤镜，而且还不是最重要的那个。现实本身并不包含任何隐藏的自我理解、理论或真理的核心，就像果实里的石头一样。我们必须去制造这些。（马克思主义在“真实”与“感知”对象的区分上对此非常明确。）比较《Chiefs》（Leacock）和许多五月电影。

This is why supporters of cinéma direct resort to the same idealist terminology to express its role and justify its successes as others use about products of the greatest artifice: ‘accuracy’, ‘a sense of lived experience’, ‘flashes of intense truth’, ‘moments caught live’, ‘abolition of all sense that we are watching a film’ and finally: fascination. It is that magical notion of ‘seeing is understanding’: ideology goes on display to prevent itself from being shown up for what it really is, contemplates itself but does not criticize itself.
这就是为什么 cinéma direct 的支持者诉诸同样的理想主义术语来表达其作用并证明其成功，正如其他人对极度人为的作品所使用的词汇一样：“准确性”、“生活体验感”、“强烈真理的闪现”、“现场捕捉的瞬间”、“消除我们正在观看电影的所有感觉”，最后是：迷恋。正是这种“眼见即理解”的神奇观念：意识形态被展示出来，以防止其真实面目被揭露，自我凝视却不自我批判。
(g) The other kind of ‘live cinema’. Here the director is not satisfied with the idea of the camera ‘seeing through appearances’, but attacks the basic problem of depiction by giving an active role to the concrete stuff of his film. It then becomes productive of meaning and is not just a passive receptacle for meaning produced outside it (in the ideology): La Règne du Jour, La Rentrée des Usines Wonder.
（g）另一种“现场电影”。在这里，导演不满足于摄像机“透过表象观看”的想法，而是通过赋予影片具体素材一个积极的角色，来解决描绘的根本问题。这样它就成为意义的生产者，而不仅仅是意义的被动容器（意义是在意识形态之外产生的）：《白昼的统治》、《奇迹工厂的开工》。

Such, then, is the field of our critical activity: these films, within the ideology, and their different relations to it. From this precisely defined field spring four functions: (1) in the case of the films in category (a): show what they are blind to; how they are totally determined, moulded, by the ideology; (2) in the case of those in categories (b), © and (g), read them on two levels, showing how the films operate critically on the level of signified and signifiers; (3) in the case of those of types (d) and (f), show how the signified (political subject matter) is always weakened, rendered harmless, by the absence of technical/theoretical work on the signifiers; (4) in the case of those in group (e) point out the gap produced between film and ideology by the way the . films work, and show how they work.
因此，这就是我们批评活动的领域：这些电影在意识形态中的位置，以及它们与意识形态的不同关系。正是从这个精确定义的领域中产生了四个功能：（1）对于类别（a）中的电影：展示它们所盲目的地方；它们如何被意识形态完全决定和塑造；（2）对于类别（b）、（c）和（g）中的电影，在两个层面上解读它们，展示电影如何在所指和能指层面上进行批判性运作；（3）对于类型（d）和（f）中的电影，展示所指（政治主题）如何总是被技术/理论层面对能指的缺失所削弱和无害化；（4）对于组别（e）中的电影，指出电影与意识形态之间因电影运作方式而产生的裂隙，并展示它们是如何运作的。

There can be no room in our critical practice either for speculation (commentary, interpretation, de-coding even) or for specious raving (of the film-columnist variety). It must be a rigidly factual analysis of what governs the production of a film (economic circumstances, ideology, demand, and response) and the meanings and forms appearing in it, which are equally tangible.
我们的批评实践中既没有投机（评论、解释，甚至解码）的余地，也没有伪装的狂热（电影专栏作家的那种）。它必须是对电影制作所支配因素（经济环境、意识形态、需求和反应）以及电影中出现的同样具体的意义和形式的严格事实分析。

The tradition of frivolous and evanescent writing on the cinema is as tenacious as it is prolific, and film analysis today is still massively predetermined by idealistic presuppositions. It wanders farther abroad today, but its method is still basically empirical. It has been through a necessary stage of going back to the material elements of a film, its signifying structures, its formal organization. The first steps here were
关于电影的轻浮且短暂的写作传统既顽固又多产，而当今的电影分析仍然在很大程度上被理想主义的预设所决定。它今天走得更远了，但其方法基本上仍是经验性的。它经历了一个必要的阶段，即回归电影的物质元素、其符号结构及其形式组织。这里的第一步是
undeniably taken by André Bazin, despite the contradictions that can be picked out in his articles. Then followed the approach based on structural linguistics (in which there are two basic traps, which we fell into-phenomenological positivism and mechanistic materialism). As surely as criticism had to go through this stage, it has to go beyond. To us, the only possible line of advance seems to be to use the theoretical writing of the Russian filmmakers of the twenties (Eisenstein above all) to elaborate and apply a critical theory of the cinema, a specific method of apprehending rigorously defined objects, in direct reference to the method of dialectical materialism.
无可否认地由安德烈·巴赞迈出，尽管他的文章中可以发现矛盾。随后是基于结构语言学的方法（其中存在两个基本陷阱，我们也曾陷入——现象学的实证主义和机械的唯物主义）。正如批评必须经历这个阶段一样，它也必须超越。对我们来说，唯一可能的前进路线似乎是利用二十世纪二十年代俄罗斯电影制作者的理论著作（尤其是爱森斯坦），来阐述和应用电影的批判理论，一种严格界定对象的具体方法，直接参照辩证唯物主义的方法。

It is hardly necessary to point out that we know that the ‘policy’ of a magazine can-not-indeed, should not-be corrected by magic overnight. We have to do it patiently, month by month, being careful in our own field to avoid the general error of putting faith in spontaneous change, or attempting to rush into a ‘revolution’ without the preparation to support it. To start proclaiming at this stage that the truth has been revealed to us would be like talking about ‘miracles’ or ‘conversion’. All we should do is to state what work is already in progress and publish articles which relate to it, either explicitly or implicitly.
毋庸置疑，我们知道一本杂志的“方针”不可能——实际上也不应该——通过魔法一夜之间被纠正。我们必须耐心地，一月又一月地去做，在自己的领域中小心避免普遍的错误，即盲目信任自发的变化，或试图在没有准备的情况下匆忙进入“革命”。在这个阶段开始宣称真理已经向我们揭示，就像是在谈论“奇迹”或“皈依”。我们所要做的只是陈述已经在进行的工作，并发表与之相关的文章，无论是明确的还是隐含的。

We should indicate briefly how the various elements in the magazine fit into this perspective. The essential part of the work obviously takes place in the theoretical articles and the criticisms. There is coming to be less and less of a difference between the two, because it is not our concern to add up the merits and defects of current films in the interests of topicality, nor, as one humorous article put it ‘to crack up the product’. The interviews, on the other hand, and also the ‘diary’ columns and the list of films, with the dossiers and supplementary material for possible discussion later, are often stronger on information than theory. It is up to the reader to decide whether these pieces take up any critical stance, and if so, what.
我们应简要说明杂志中各个元素如何融入这一视角。工作的核心部分显然发生在理论文章和评论中。两者之间的差异越来越小，因为我们并不关心为了时效性而简单地加总当前电影的优缺点，也不像某篇幽默文章所说的那样“嘲笑产品”。另一方面，访谈，以及“日记”专栏和电影列表，连同档案和可能供以后讨论的补充材料，往往在信息量上比理论更强。是否这些内容采取了任何批判立场，以及如果有，是何种立场，则由读者自行判断。