这是用户在 2024-3-26 15:30 为 http://www.kinokultura.com/specials/3/macek.shtml 保存的双语快照页面,由 沉浸式翻译 提供双语支持。了解如何保存?

From Czechoslovak to Slovak and Czech Film

By Václav Macek (VŠMU, Bratislava)
作者:Václav Macek(VŠMU,布拉迪斯拉发)

© Václav Macek, 2005 [DOWNLOAD TEXT]
© Václav Macek, 2005 [ 下载文本]

There was no hint in 1960 that nine years later Slovak film would become a unique phenomenon in Central European cinematography. Rather, after the sharp criticism of centralized state-sponsored cinematography leveled in 1959 at the first working festival of Czechoslovak film in Banská Bystrica (it was renamed The Finale Festival of Czech and Slovak Film in 1968), it seemed that the film studios in Prague and Bratislava would produce only socialist-realist films conforming to the propagandistic cultural policies of the Communist Party. However, film producers were no longer as powerless against studio heads as they had been 10 years earlier—they had learned how to achieve their ends without having their screenplays or completed films being banned. During these years, power slowly began to shift from politicians and film officials to creative, production, and development groups (dramaturgia).
1960 年,没有任何迹象表明九年后斯洛伐克电影将成为中欧电影界的独特现象。相反,在 1959 年班斯卡·比斯特里察举办的第一届捷克斯洛伐克电影节(1968 年更名为捷克和斯洛伐克电影压轴节)上对中央集权的国家资助的电影摄影提出尖锐批评之后,布拉格的电影制片厂似乎布拉迪斯拉发将只制作符合共产党宣传文化政策的社会主义现实主义电影。然而,电影制片人不再像十年前那样对制片厂负责人无能为力——他们已经学会了如何在不让自己的剧本或完成的电影被禁止的情况下实现自己的目标。在这些年里,权力慢慢开始从政治家和电影官员转移到创意、制作和开发团体(戏剧制作)。

The May 1961 premiere of The Song of the Gray Dove (Pieseň o sivom holubovi, 1960) directed by Stanislav Barabáš (1924-1994) marked the start of filmmakers’ use of ideologically unassailable themes (in this case, the Slovak National Uprising) to tell stories that were true-to-life and yet were filmed creatively. The Song of the Gray Dove rejected the narrative topics loved by Paľo Bielik, who was the most creative member of the founding generation of filmmakers. By using boys as his heroes, Barabáš was able to concentrate more on children’s fears, games, and happiness, which had not vanished even during the war years, rather than on reeducating viewers. Critics took notice of the film (it won the 1961 Czechoslovak Film Critics’ Award together with the Czech film People Live Here Too [Všude žijí lidé; dir. Jiří Hanibal and Stěpán Skalský, 1960) because of its intimate storytelling—six stories loosely connected by child-heroes—and its premise that children’s distorted reality can be more truthful than a so-called objective reconstruction of history. Critics also noted that the film was not without hope, despite its tragic ending.
1961 年 5 月,斯坦尼斯拉夫·巴拉巴斯(Stanislav Barabáš,1924-1994)执导的《灰鸽子之歌》(Pieseň o sivom holubovi,1960)首映,标志着电影制片人开始使用意识形态上无可争议的主题(在本例中为斯洛伐克民族起义)来讲述真实而又富有创意的故事。 《灰鸽子之歌》拒绝了帕奥·别利克所喜爱的叙事主题,他是创始一代电影制作人中最具创造力的成员。通过以男孩为英雄,巴拉巴斯能够更多地关注孩子们的恐惧、游戏和快乐,这些即使在战争年代也没有消失,而不是对观众进行再教育。影评人注意到这部电影(它与捷克电影《People Live Here Too》一起荣获 1961 年捷克斯洛伐克影评人奖 [Všude žijí lité;导演:Jiří Hanibal 和 Stěpán Skalský,1960 年),因为它讲述的故事很亲密——六个故事松散地联系在一起儿童英雄的作品——其前提是儿童扭曲的现实可能比所谓的客观历史重建更真实。评论家还指出,尽管影片结局悲惨,但并非没有希望。

Filmmakers’ increased self-confidence was illustrated by the famous speech given by Barabáš at a gathering of filmmakers in Ostrava in December 1961, at which he said: “We are not as stupid as our films.” In one pithy sentence, the skillful filmmaker summed up the state of Slovak film: if filmmakers were trusted more, they would be more likely to produce outstanding works. Recognized writers and playwrights gradually came to replace officials of the Communist Party on the readers’ commissions that approved scripts for production. This shifting of decision-making powers to filmmakers reached its peak in 1967-1969, when no ideological criteria were in force and production funding was not restricted in any way; filmmakers were almost alone in deciding which films to produce. [1] To this day, this remains the period of greatest independence for the feature film industry: no ideology, no commercial pressure, and sufficient funding. Barabáš’s words about filmmakers’ self-confidence marked the beginning of this period.
1961 年 12 月巴拉巴斯在俄斯特拉发电影制片人聚会上发表的著名演讲说明了电影制片人日益增强的自信,他在演讲中说:“我们并不像我们的电影那么愚蠢。”这位技艺高超的电影人用简洁的一句话概括了斯洛伐克电影的现状:如果电影人得到更多的信任,他们就更有可能创作出优秀的作品。知名作家和剧作家逐渐取代了批准剧本制作的读者委员会中的共产党官员。这种决策权向电影制片人的转移在 1967 年至 1969 年达到顶峰,当时没有任何意识形态标准,制作资金也不受任何限制;电影制片人几乎是唯一决定制作哪些电影的人。 [1] 时至今日,这仍然是故事片行业最独立的时期:没有意识形态、没有商业压力、资金充足。巴拉巴斯关于电影制片人自信的言论标志着这一时期的开始。

This increased self-assurance, not just vis-à-vis the Communist Party, but also in relation to the much more extensive experience of Czech filmmakers, was not based on just one feature film, but on a series of outstanding films that were made during the years 1956-1959 at the Studio for Documentary Films. The first Slovak graduates (film directors, screenwriters, cameramen, and directors of development [dramaturgovia]) of the Film Academy of Performing Arts (FAMU) in Prague, in the second half of the 1950s, brought concepts such as “truth” and “believability” to documentary films. They rejected “the aesthetics of the exalted camera,” which held sway in Poland as well as in Czechoslovakia. The stories that they told about people’s lives were not marked by propaganda and were based on real life (they came to admire Italian Neo-Realism during their studies at FAMU). They fully believed in film as “the most important art.” For them, there was no other art form that was a better match for the 20th century and none that would have a greater right to delve into what was happening in society.
这种增强的自信,不仅是针对共产党,而且还与捷克电影制片人更丰富的经验有关,不仅仅基于一部故事片,而是基于一系列出色的电影1956 年至 1959 年在纪录片工作室工作。 20 世纪 50 年代下半叶,布拉格电影表演艺术学院 (FAMU) 的第一批斯洛伐克毕业生(电影导演、编剧、摄影师和开发总监 [dramaturgovia])带来了诸如“真相”和“纪录片的可信度”。他们拒绝了在波兰和捷克斯洛伐克占据主导地位的“崇高相机的美学”。他们讲述的关于人们生活的故事没有宣传的痕迹,而是基于现实生活(他们在FAMU学习期间开始欣赏意大利新现实主义)。他们坚信电影是“最重要的艺术”。对他们来说,没有其他艺术形式比 20 世纪更适合,也没有其他艺术形式更有权利深入研究社会上正在发生的事情。

By adding the influence of the French New Wave to this Neo-Realist background, the experience with documentary films, and the concept of "truth," then it is possible to understand how Slovakia could produce The Sun in a Net (Slnko v sieti, 1962), whose director was called the "John the Baptist" of the New Wave in Czechoslovakia by Czech critic Jaroslav Boček. When Štefan Uher (1930-1993) and screenwriter Alfonz Bednár (1914-1989) made The Sun in a Net, they opened up for cinematography the world of teenagers, who were more affected by emotional confusion than by the accomplishments of model workers, and who suffered more from misunderstandings with their parents than from “the omnipresence of capitalist saboteurs.” The microcosm of the urban courtyard, with its endlessly banging gate and a forest of rooftop antennas, or with airplanes flying overhead, was more important to understanding teenagers’ experiences than the binding guides to good behavior offered to young viewers in the films of the 1950s. For young filmmakers, it was more important to be sensitive to the doubts, insecurity, and quests of their adolescent heroes; their goal was not instruction, but recognition. They were more interested in elaborating on feelings rather than on events, so they wrapped a simple story about young love in multiple layers of commentary, observations, and pictures. These had so many meanings that it was possible to forget completely the old maxims about drama needing to have a plausible causality, a climax, and edginess to it. It was as if filmmakers (and viewers), just like their heroes, could merge with a stream of images not totally understood, but that drew them nearer to the teenage world. Uher started to break up the storyline, a technique that was later perfected by Juraj Jakubisko (b. 1938) and Elo Havetta (1938-1975).
通过将法国新浪潮的影响加入到这种新现实主义背景、纪录片的经验以及“真相”的概念中,就有可能理解斯洛伐克如何制作《网中的太阳》(Slnko v sieti, 1962年),其导演被捷克评论家雅罗斯拉夫·博切克称为捷克斯洛伐克新浪潮的“施洗者约翰”。当斯特凡·乌赫(Štefan Uher,1930-1993)和编剧阿尔方兹·贝德纳尔(Alfonz Bednár,1914-1989)拍摄《网中的太阳》时,他们为电影摄影打开了青少年的世界,青少年更多地受到情感困惑的影响,而不是劳模的成就,并且他们更多地是因与父母的误解而遭受苦难,而不是“无处不在的资本主义破坏分子”。城市庭院的缩影,以及无休无止的撞击门和屋顶天线森林,或者飞机在头顶飞过,对于理解青少年的经历来说,比 20 世纪 50 年代的电影中为年轻观众提供的良好行为约束力指南更重要。对于年轻的电影制作人来说,更重要的是要对青少年英雄的怀疑、不安全感和追求保持敏感;他们的目标不是指导,而是认可。他们更感兴趣的是阐述感情而不是事件,因此他们用多层评论、观察和图片包裹了一个关于年轻爱情的简单故事。它们具有如此多的含义,以至于我们可以完全忘记关于戏剧需要有合理的因果关系、高潮和尖锐的古老格言。就好像电影制作者(和观众)就像他们的英雄一样,可以与一系列不完全理解的图像融合在一起,但这让他们更接近青少年的世界。 乌赫开始分解故事情节,这一技巧后来被尤拉吉·雅库比斯科(Juraj Jakubisko,生于 1938 年)和埃洛·哈维塔(Elo Havetta,1938-1975 年)完善。

Uher’s idea, which can be called “lyrical understatement,” influenced Czech filmmaking substantially more than Slovak. Otakar Křivánek’s 1969 film Our Daily Day (Deň náš každodenný) was a reminder that Uher’s lesson was not forgotten by the Slovak film world. Křivánek (1931-1997) started with the same elements as Uher: non-actors, generational conflict, a documentary camera style—but his outcome was a much more critical view of reality. His “understatement” is sarcastic or satirical, very different from Uher’s “lyrical understatement.” Scenes from the life of a so-called “average” Slovak family, in which everything revolves around the graduating daughter, are reconstructed in the real surroundings of a real family; Křivánek’s feature film is but a step away from being a documentary. The relationship between The Sun in a Net and Our Daily Day is similar to the difference between the Czech films Black Peter (Černý Petr, dir. Miloš Forman, 1963) and Ecce Homo Homolka (original Latin title, dir. Jaroslav Papoušek, 1969). [2]
乌尔的想法可以被称为“抒情的轻描淡写”,它对捷克电影制作的影响远大于斯洛伐克。奥塔卡·克日瓦内克 (Otakar Křivánek) 1969 年的电影《我们的日常》(Deň náš každodenný) 提醒人们,斯洛伐克电影界并没有忘记乌赫尔的教训。克里瓦内克(Křivánek,1931-1997)以与乌赫相同的元素开始:非演员、代际冲突、纪实摄影风格,但他的结果是对现实更加批判性的看法。他的“轻描淡写”带有讽刺或讽刺意味,与乌赫的“抒情轻描淡写”截然不同。一个所谓“普通”斯洛伐克家庭的生活场景,一切都围绕着即将毕业的女儿,在真实家庭的真实环境中重建;克里瓦内克的故事片距离纪录片仅一步之遥。 《网中的太阳》和《我们的日常》之间的关系类似于捷克电影《黑彼得》(捷克电影《黑彼得》,导演:米洛什·福尔曼,1963 年)和《Ecce Homo Homolka》(原拉丁文片名,导演:雅罗斯拉夫·帕普塞克,1969 年)之间的区别。 。 [2]

The premiere of Uher’s next film, The Organ (Organ, 1964), surprised many viewers with the filmmaker’s new style, which had very little in common with the poetry of The Sun in a Net (for example, unlike The Organ, The Sun in a Net relied almost exclusively on non-actors). Uher’s later works continued in this vein: The Miraculous Virgin (Panna zázračnica, 1966), Three Daughters (Tri dcéry, 1967), The Genius (Génius, 1969), and If I Had a Rifle (Keby som mal pušku, 1971). With every new work and each new type of material, Uher tried to cover new ground, to give a new slant to diverse themes. This effort, which precluded a return to tried-and-true methods, was the basis of Uher’s artistic vision, but to a certain extent, it reflected a period that dreamed of the removal of all barriers: physical, spiritual, moral, ideological, etc.
乌赫的下一部电影《风琴》(Organ,1964)的首映让许多观众惊讶于电影制作人的新风格,这种风格与《网中的太阳》的诗歌几乎没有共同之处(例如,与《风琴》不同,《网中的太阳》 a Net 几乎完全依赖非演员)。乌尔后来的作品延续了这一脉络:《神奇的处女》(Panna zázračnica,1966)、《三个女儿》(Tri dcéry,1967)、《天才》(Génius,1969)和《如果我有一支步枪》(Keby som mal pušku,1971)。乌赫的每一件新作品和每一种新材料都试图涉足新领域,为不同的主题赋予新的倾向。这种努力阻止了回归经过验证的方法,是乌尔艺术视野的基础,但在某种程度上,它反映了一个梦想消除所有障碍的时期:身体的、精神的、道德的、意识形态的、 ETC。

It was as if each day revealed more new themes, ideas, and values to which Uher had to react and to which he had to adapt his new projects. Uher’s filmmaking oscillated around national self-recognition or a national catharsis. He constantly returned to themes that examined and illustrated the relationship between Slovaks and their faith, their personal history, and their culture (in this he is similar to Andrzej Wajda). At the same time, he was one of the first filmmakers to use creatively the artistic trends of the day, especially those favored by the so-called “Mikuláš Galanda Group,” which rejected simple realism, created abstract figures, and did away with realistic color schemes. He also emphasized his convictions about the visual specificity of film, engaging in epic richness now and again, thanks to his on-going cooperation with Bednár.
就好像每一天都会揭示更多新的主题、想法和价值观,乌尔必须对此做出反应,并适应他的新项目。乌尔的电影制作围绕民族自我认知或民族宣泄摇摆。他不断地回到审视和阐释斯洛伐克人与他们的信仰、个人历史和文化之间关系的主题(在这方面他与安杰伊·瓦伊达很相似)。与此同时,他是最早创造性地利用当今艺术潮流的电影制作人之一,特别是那些受到所谓“Mikuláš Galanda Group”青睐的艺术潮流,该潮流拒绝简单的现实主义,创造抽象人物,并废除现实主义配色方案。他还强调了他对电影视觉特异性的信念,由于他与贝德纳尔的持续合作,他时不时地参与史诗般的丰富性。

Uher’s The Organ opened the way toward a discussion about historical self-reflection in more than just a scholarly context. At the same time, he showed that a non-documentary film could harmonize with his generation’s criteria of “truth” and “truthfulness.” He created an almost mathematically precise work that built on metaphors and symbols, left room for conjecture, had multiple meanings, and yet was totally precise in its details. After the quasi-documentary The Sun in a Net, Uher opened the door for a different kind of stylization—metaphysical realism, in which a conversation with God is as important as a drunkard’s weakness in the local tavern. Almost every shot is a reference to the hidden or obvious metaphor of things, faces, and sounds. The transformation in Uher’s style changed the story of a Polish organ-playing deserter, who hides in a small Slovak town during World War II and is a catalyst in unleashing an avalanche of more or less tragic revelations and events, into a picture of a universal conflict between ideals and mediocrity (even though it was material localized in Slovakia and its history).

After the international success of The Organ (the film won the Special Jury Prize at the 18th annual International Film Festival in Locarno in 1965), Uher again “went astray,” as Communist doctrine would have had it. Surrealism replaced metaphysics and The Miraculous Virgin became part of this artistic trend. He made a bleak revel about the life of Bratislava’s bohemians during the years of the Slovak totalitarian Nazi-allied government. The film, whose basic motif is a longing for the beautiful, secretive, and unattainable Annabella (“The Miraculous Virgin” who hides from the authorities), makes use of numerous surreal elements—masks and figurines—as well as the spirit of dreams and sleep, in which water can burn and a person can descend to the world of the dead or can become a tiger. With this film, Uher not only became a representative of the period during which Slovak arts expressly joined the European creative scene, but he himself entered a realm in which traditional narration ceased to function and in which the subconscious played the same role as the psychological development of characters once had.
《风琴》在国际上获得成功(该片于 1965 年在洛迦诺举行的第 18 届国际电影节上获得评审团特别奖)后,乌赫再次“误入歧途”,正如共产主义教义所认为的那样。超现实主义取代了形而上学,《神奇的圣母》成为这一艺术潮流的一部分。他对斯洛伐克极权主义纳粹联盟政府时期布拉迪斯拉发波西米亚人的生活进行了凄凉的狂欢。这部电影的基本主题是对美丽、神秘、遥不可及的安娜贝拉(躲避当局的“神奇圣母”)的渴望,影片运用了众多超现实元素——面具和雕像——以及梦想和精神。睡眠时水会燃烧,人会下到阴间或变成老虎。通过这部电影,乌尔不仅成为斯洛伐克艺术明确加入欧洲创作舞台的时期的代表,而且他本人也进入了一个传统叙事不​​再发挥作用、潜意识与心理发展发挥同样作用的领域。的人物曾经有过。

Uher’s constant obsession with the national theme was again given voice in Three Daughters, the first introspective film about the most difficult years of Communism. His use of emotion, metaphysics, and surrealism imparted a balladic quality to his work. The confrontation of two ideologies, Catholic and Communist, in the story of nuns being expelled from monasteries at the beginning of the 1950s, bitterly acknowledged that although ideology (history) should serve people, in reality it mercilessly rolled over anyone who got in its way, even if only briefly. [3]
乌赫对民族主题的持续痴迷在《三个女儿》中再次得到表达,这是第一部关于共产主义最困难岁月的内省电影。他对情感、形而上学和超现实主义的运用赋予了他的作品一种民谣般的品质。天主教和共产主义两种意识形态的对抗,在20世纪50年代初修女被逐出修道院的故事中,痛苦地承认,虽然意识形态(历史)应该为人民服务,但实际上它无情地碾压任何挡道的人。 ,即使只是短暂的。 [3]

At the close of the decade, the youngest generation of filmmakers came to the fore, and Uher seemed to fade somewhat into the background. In If I Had a Rifle, with uncredited co-writing by Havetta, Uher’s lyrical predisposition happily merged with Havetta’s playfulness and laughter (Havetta looks at even tragic moments from a comic angle). The story about children’s games during World War II is an epilogue to the ferment of both the filmmaker and the period. It was not until the end of the 1970s that Uher, in his Golden Times (Zlaté časy, 1978), again reminded viewers that he was irreplaceably important to cinema. In the 1950s, Paľo Bielik set the artistic standards for cinema, and in the 1960s, Uher made Slovak film equal to good European works.
在本世纪末,最年轻的一代电影制片人脱颖而出,而乌赫似乎在某种程度上淡出了幕后。在与哈维塔共同创作的《如果我有一支步枪》中,乌赫的抒情倾向与哈维塔的顽皮和笑声愉快地融合在一起(哈维塔甚至从喜剧的角度看待悲剧时刻)。关于二战期间儿童游戏的故事是电影制片人和那个时期的发酵的尾声。直到 20 世纪 70 年代末,乌赫尔在他的《黄金时代》(Zlaté časy,1978)中才再次提醒观众,他对电影有着不可替代的重要作用。 20 世纪 50 年代,帕奥·别利克 (Paľo Bielik) 为电影设定了艺术标准,而 1960 年代,乌赫尔 (Uher) 则让斯洛伐克电影与欧洲优秀作品并驾齐驱。


Uher, together with Peter Solan (b. 1929), Barabáš, and Martin Hollý (1931-2004), transformed Slovak cinema from something provincial to something outstanding. The three generational peers expanded the roster of Slovak filmmakers, each in his own particular way. Uher unmistakably dominated, but his fellow filmmakers were no less valuable, even though they made fewer significant films than he.
乌赫与彼得·索兰(Peter Solan,生于 1929 年)、巴拉巴斯和马丁·霍利(Martin Holly,1931-2004 年)一起,将斯洛伐克电影从乡土电影转变为杰出电影。这三代同辈都以自己独特的方式扩大了斯洛伐克电影制作人的名册。乌尔毫无疑问占据主导地位,但他的电影制片人同事们的价值也不亚于他,尽管他们制作的重要电影比他少。

In 1965, Barabáš again reached for a story from World War II, but from a substantially different angle than The Song of the Gray Dove. After his lyrical and narrative debut film, he shot Knells for the Barefoot (Zvony pre bosých, 1965) a story on the edge, in which the roles of executioner and victim change constantly, as does the guise of power and helplessness. This constant change takes place in a triangular relationship between two insurgents and their young German captive during the Slovak uprising of 1944. The film―in the spirit of Death Is Called Engelchen (Smrť sa volá Engelchen, dir. Ján Kadár and Elmar Klos, 1965) [4] ―was about uncovering the frequently contradictory layers of the human psyche, rather than criticizing a traditional, idealized picture of the anti-fascist revolt.
1965 年,巴拉巴斯再次创作了一个二战故事,但角度与《灰鸽子之歌》截然不同。在他的抒情和叙事首部电影之后,他拍摄了《赤脚丧钟》(Zvony pre bosých,1965),这是一个边缘故事,其中刽子手和受害者的角色不断变化,权力和无助的伪装也在不断变化。这种持续的变化发生在 1944 年斯洛伐克起义期间,两名叛乱分子和他们年轻的德国俘虏之间的三角关系中。这部电影——本着《死亡被称为恩格尔兴》(Smrť sa volá Engelchen,导演。Ján Kadár 和 Elmar Klos,1965 年)的精神)[4]——是为了揭示人类心灵中经常相互矛盾的层面,而不是批评反法西斯起义的传统的、理想化的图景。

Barabáš adapted Dostoevskii’s novella The Gentle Creature (Krotká, 1967) during his second peak of creativity before his defection (he lived in Germany from 1969 on). As in Knells for the Barefoot, Barabáš continued to question the tidy designations separating victim and victimizer in the relationship between an old husband and his young wife. Both Barabáš and Hollý preferred to work with professional actors and both later became distinguished directors in various film genres― Hollý in Slovakia and Barabáš in Germany.
巴拉巴斯在叛逃前的第二个创造力高峰期改编了陀思妥耶夫斯基的中篇小说《温柔的生物》(Krotká,1967)(他从 1969 年起住在德国)。正如在《赤脚丧钟》中一样,巴拉巴斯继续质疑老丈夫和年轻妻子之间关系中受害者和加害者之间的明确划分。巴拉巴斯和霍利都更喜欢与专业演员合作,后来两人都成为各种电影类型的杰出导演——斯洛伐克的霍利和德国的巴拉巴斯。

Within psychological realism, which encompassed the period’s predilection for existential mimicry, Hollý created an outstanding film, an adaptation of a story by the Russian author Leonid Andreev. Hollý’s The Ballad of Seven Hanged Men (Balada o siedmich obesených, 1968) reconstructed the fates of seven young anarchists sentenced to death for an attempted assassination. Shortly before their execution, the viewer sees seven different responses to the anxiety that each of the characters experiences. The characters, which are so very different, yet so convincing, change the viewer’s experience every second.
在心理现实主义的影响下,霍利创作了一部出色的电影,改编自俄罗斯作家列昂尼德·安德烈耶夫的故事。霍利的《七名绞刑者之歌》(Balada o siedmich obesených,1968)重建了七名因暗杀未遂而被判处死刑的年轻无政府主义者的命运。在行刑前不久,观众会看到每个角色所经历的焦虑有七种不同的反应。这些角色如此不同,但又如此令人信服,每一秒都在改变观众的体验。


The last significant name in the generation that was born around 1930 and that came of age during World War II is Peter Solan. His style can be characterized as involved, absurd, and dramatic. Among his contemporaries, his work was best defined by the terms “situation drama” and “extreme situation,” in which a person’s character is revealed. At times this takes the tragic form of a boxer in a concentration camp, who undertakes to fight the commander of the camp for his life (The Boxer and Death [Boxer a smrť], 1962); at others it takes the form of absurdity, such as when a hard-working reception clerk at a small hotel tries to talk a new guest out of suicide, while the occupant of the adjoining room is also planning suicide—and succeeds (The Gentleman Did Not Request Anything [Pán si neželal nič], 1970) or when the Military Cross for Merit is awarded to a dog, a German shepherd (The Famous Dog [Slávny pes], 1971). His experiments include the use of multiple cameras so that actors did not know which one is filming them (Before This Night Is Over [Kým sa skončí táto noc], 1965) and his participation in the project Dialogue 20-40-60 (Dialóg 20-40-60, 1968), in which the same dialogue was used by three different directors: Peter Solan, Jerzy Skolimowski (Polish), and Zbyněk Brynych (Czech). Rather than national traumas, Solan was interested in psychological introspection and the angst of modern civilization’s frequently anti-human nature.
1930 年左右出生、在二战期间长大的这一代人中最后一个重要的名字是彼得·索兰 (Peter Solan)。他的风格可以被描述为复杂、荒诞和戏剧性。在他的同时代人中,他的作品最好的定义是“情境戏剧”和“极端情境”,其中揭示了一个人的性格。有时,这表现为集中营里的拳击手的悲剧形式,他为了自己的生命而与集中营的指挥官战斗(The Boxer and Death [Boxer a smrť],1962);在另一些情况下,它采取荒谬的形式,例如当一家小旅馆的一位辛勤工作的接待员试图劝说一位新客人不要自杀时,而隔壁房间的房客也计划自杀,并且成功了(绅士做了不要要求任何东西 [Pán si neželal nič], 1970),或者当一只狗(德国牧羊犬)被授予军事功绩十字勋章时(The Famous Dog [Slávny pes], 1971)。他的实验包括使用多台摄像机,使演员不知道是哪一台摄像机在拍摄他们(Before This Night Is Over [Kým sa skončí táto noc],1965)以及他参与的项目 Dialogue 20-40-60 (Dialóg 20) -40-60, 1968),其中相同的对话由三位不同的导演使用:彼得·索兰(Peter Solan)、耶日·斯科利莫夫斯基(Jerzy Skolimowski)(波兰语)和兹比涅克·布林尼奇(Zbyněk Brynych)(捷克语)。索兰感兴趣的不是民族创伤,而是心理反思和现代文明经常反人性的焦虑。

Ján Kadár is an important figure in the development of Slovak film. After he left Bratislava for Prague, he made films in tandem with Elmar Klos in the 1950s and 1960s (he defected in 1968 and was an independent filmmaker in Canada and the U.S. in the 1970s). Their best joint work, The Shop on Main Street (Obchod na korze, 1965), based on a story by Slovak writer Ladislav Grosman, was made in Slovak, with Slovak actors, and focused on the wartime Slovak Republic. Kadár dedicated the film not only to his relatives who died in concentration camps, but also to those who thought they could remain morally pure, even after collaborating with war criminals “just a bit” and seeking to gain “just a bit” from "Aryanization" [5]. The socially insignificant main character (played by Jozef Kroner) suddenly becomes an accessory to mass murder, but because this goes against his whole life, his betrayal of himself ends tragically. The Shop on Main Street is a very good illustration of the close links between the two national cinemas, Slovak and Czech, under one production unit at Czechoslovak State Film. The film was produced by the Barrandov Studio in Prague, but grew creatively out of Slovak filming, so that its designation as a Czecho-Slovak, or rather a Slovak-Czech work is well-founded.
扬·卡达尔是斯洛伐克电影发展的重要人物。离开布拉迪斯拉发前往布拉格后,他在 20 世纪 50 年代和 1960 年代与埃尔玛·克洛斯 (Elmar Klos) 合作拍摄电影(他于 1968 年叛逃,并于 1970 年代在加拿大和美国成为独立电影制片人)。他们最好的合作作品《大街上的商店》(Obchod na korze,1965)根据斯洛伐克作家拉迪斯拉夫·格罗斯曼的故事改编,由斯洛伐克演员在斯洛伐克制作,重点关注战时斯洛伐克共和国。卡达尔将这部电影不仅献给他在集中营中死去的亲属,也献给那些认为自己可以保持道德纯洁的人,即使在与战犯“有一点点”合作并试图从“雅利安化”中获得“一点点”之后“[5]。社会上无足轻重的主角(约瑟夫·克罗纳饰演)突然成为大屠杀的同谋,但因为这违背了他的一生,他对自己的背叛以悲剧收场。主街上的商店很好地说明了斯洛伐克和捷克这两个国家电影院之间的密切联系,隶属于捷克斯洛伐克国家电影公司的一个制作单位。这部电影由布拉格的巴兰多夫工作室制作,但创造性地从斯洛伐克电影中发展而来,因此它被称为捷克斯洛伐克作品,或者更确切地说是斯洛伐克捷克作品是有根据的。

A special place in the development of feature films is reserved for Eduard Grečner, the creator of just one good film, Dragon Returns (Drak sa vracia, 1967), titled after the nickname of the lead character. After his initial work with Uher, Grečner made his mark as a proponent of the so-called “intellectual” film, the antithesis of the sociologically, or rather, socially critical film. Grečner’s great role model was Alan Resnais, a young French filmmaker who sought to introduce Slovakia to the idea of film as a labyrinth in which meanings are created not by stories, but by complex configurations of dialogue, shots, and various layers of time, thus differentiating film from both literature and theater. In Dragon Returns―the story of a solitary hero who is needed by villagers living far in the mountains, but who is rejected by them at the same time because of his detachment―Grečner brought the tradition of lyricized prose to life through a whole series of formal aesthetic techniques. Alain Robbe-Grillet immediately developed this idea in the film shot in Bratislava The Man Who Lies (Slovak: Muž, ktorý luže; French title: L’homme qui ment; 1968), and perfected it in Eden and After (Eden a potom, 1970).
在故事片的发展中,爱德华·格雷茨纳(Eduard Grečner)占据了特殊的地位,他创作了一部好电影《龙归来》(Drak sa vracia,1967),该片以主角的昵称命名。在与乌赫的最初合作之后,格雷茨纳成为所谓“知识分子”电影的支持者,这是社会学电影,或者更确切地说,社会批判电影的对立面。格雷茨纳的伟大榜样是艾伦·雷奈,一位年轻的法国电影制片人,他试图向斯洛伐克介绍电影作为迷宫的理念,其中的意义不是由故事创造的,而是由对话、镜头和不同时间层次的复杂配置创造的,因此将电影与文学和戏剧区分开来。在《龙归来》中,格雷茨纳通过一系列的作品将抒情散文的传统带入了生活——讲述了一位孤独英雄的故事,他被远在山里的村民所需要,但同时又因为他的超然而被他们拒绝。正式的审美技巧。阿兰·罗伯-格里耶立即在布拉迪斯拉发拍摄的电影《说谎的人》(斯洛伐克语:Muž, ktorý luže;法文片名:L'homme qui ment;1968)中发展了这一想法,并在《伊甸园》和《之后》(伊甸园a potom, 1970)。

The second half of the 1960s saw the rise of a distinctive generation of filmmakers who were no longer marked by the war, like Uher and his contemporaries had been. This generation began making films at a time when the concept of art in general was changing. Artists rejected static pictures and declared reality itself to be a work of art; composers and musicians rejected melody and used everyday sounds in their performances; writers gave up on plot. The creative work of Jakubisko, Havetta, and Dušan Hanák (b. 1938) diverged substantially from that of their predecessors.
20 世纪 60 年代后半叶,一代独特的电影制片人崛起,他们不再像乌尔和他的同时代人那样,受到战争的影响。这一代人开始制作电影时,艺术概念总体上正在发生变化。艺术家拒绝静态图片,并宣称现实本身就是一件艺术品;作曲家和音乐家在表演中拒绝旋律并使用日常声音;编剧放弃了情节。 Jakubisko、Havetta 和 Dušan Hanák(生于 1938 年)的创作与他们的前辈有很大不同。

Jakubisko’s Crucial Years (that is, a man’s age of around 30 years, also known as Christ’s Years [Kristove roky], 1967) had all the standard features that young filmmakers would later use to full advantage. It was left to their courage to change the visual form of films. Uher and his contemporaries had enriched feature films with a down-to-earth style, with a directness that had defied the traditional artificiality of the studio. The new generation did not have such a strong desire for verism; instead it evoked dreams, irreality, and a visual beauty that is less interested in what is actually in front of the camera than in the image that appears on the film. At the same time, the filmmakers did not hesitate to go to extremes.[6] Crucial Years was a rejection of socially relevant themes, simple causality in the storyline, psychological realism, and a preference for the individual over the masses.
雅库比斯科的《关键岁月》(即一个大约 30 岁的男人的年龄,也称为基督岁月 [Kristove roky],1967 年)拥有年轻电影制作人后来充分利用的所有标准特征。他们有勇气改变电影的视觉形式。乌赫和他的同时代人以脚踏实地的风格丰富了故事片,其直接性挑战了制片厂传统的矫揉造作。新一代对真实主义没有那么强烈的渴望;相反,它唤起了梦幻、不真实和视觉美感,这种视觉美感对镜头前的实际内容不那么感兴趣,而对电影中出现的图像更感兴趣。与此同时,电影制作者毫不犹豫地走向极端。[6]《关键岁月》拒绝了与社会相关的主题、故事情节中的简单因果关系、心理现实主义以及对个人而非大众的偏好。

Jakubisko made four films over three years: Crucial Years, Renegades and Pilgrims (Zbehovia a pútnici, 1968), Birds, Orphans, and Fools (Vtáčkovia, siroty a blázni, 1969), and See You in Hell, Friends (Dovidenia v pekle, priatelia, 1970; but completed only after it was released from the censors’ “vault” in 1990). Each of them puts a distinct accent on narrative. In Crucial Years two brothers (an artist and a pilot), trying to find themselves and each other, spend their time re-evaluating their goals and values. Jakubisko turned to history (World War I and World War II) and to science fiction (life after World War III) for the first time in the three stories that make up the film Renegades and Pilgrims. In the story about a frenzy born of love and slaughter, an unmanageable and unforeseen eruption of brutal aggression is connected to scenes that are practically a carnival of exuberant joy. The frenzy oftentimes changes to madness, as if the characters of Russian author Isaak Babel’s stories had come to life in eastern Slovakia. The film Birds, Orphans, and Fools is a manifesto of the “flower children” generation, in which French director François Truffaut’s triangular plot from Jules and Jim (1962) becomes a drama about young people who have stopped believing in traditional values, but are having great difficulty finding their own. Only after the fall of Communism was Jakubisko able to finish See You in Hell, Friends, an apocalyptic vision of the annihilation of the human race.
雅库比斯科在三年内拍摄了四部电影:《关键岁月》、《叛徒与朝圣者》(Zbehovia a pútnici,1968)、《鸟儿、孤儿和傻瓜》(Vtáčkovia,siroty a blázni,1969)和《地狱见,朋友》(Dovidenia v pekle, priatelia,1970 年;但直到 1990 年从审查者的“金库”中发布后才完成)。他们每个人都对叙事有不同的重视。在《关键岁月》中,两兄弟(一名艺术家和一名飞行员)试图找到自己和彼此,花时间重新评估他们的目标和价值观。在电影《叛徒与朝圣者》的三个故事中,雅库比斯科首次转向历史(第一次世界大战和第二次世界大战)和科幻小说(第三次世界大战后的生活)。在这个关于爱与杀戮的疯狂的故事中,无法控制和不可预见的残酷侵略的爆发与实际上是一场欢乐的狂欢节的场景联系在一起。这种狂热常常会变成疯狂,就好像俄罗斯作家伊萨克·巴别尔故事中的人物在斯洛伐克东部栩栩如生。电影《鸟儿、孤儿和傻瓜》是“花童”一代的宣言,法国导演弗朗索瓦·特吕弗将《朱尔和吉姆》(1962)中的三角情节变成了一部关于年轻人不再相信传统价值观,而是开始接受传统价值观的戏剧。很难找到自己的。直到共产主义垮台后,雅库比斯科才完成了《朋友们,地狱见》,这是一部人类灭绝的世界末日景象。

What connects Jakubisko’s works is an unsettling questioning of boundaries, a feeling that the heroes have found themselves in a period where the old rules no longer apply, but new ones have not yet been established. His characters are members of the hippie generation, even if they are thousands of miles from the American originals. In the end, what distinguishes them from other believable or unbelievable characters is a seriousness, or perhaps a moral imperative, that does not allow them to lose their awareness of anxiety and pain (despite their playfulness) and to become just figurines on a constantly revolving merry-go-round of happiness.

This new generation rejected the civic relevance of art. Uher, Solan, Barabáš, and Kadár considered film to be not just the most important art, but the art that could change society, that could affect the conscience of viewers and society. By contrast, Jakubisko, Havetta, and Hanák rejected the imperative and even constricting presuppositions of creative work. The young filmmakers completely changed the idea that a film should be stylistically homogenous (Jakubisko included shots of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia on 21 August 1968 in the opening of his film) and at the same time kept in mind that the viewer was not looking at reality, but was observing an image, a work of art—that the viewer was a participant in a show, a play, that he was not a voyeur peering into people’s lives. By making this change, the young generation had gone to extremes, and after exhausting the possibilities of this approach, it was natural for Slovak cinema to return to “realism” in the 1970s (substantially assisted by the so-called policy of “normalization”—that is, the renewal of the totalitarian status quo from before the time of liberalization in 1968).
这新一代拒绝了艺术的公民相关性。乌赫、索兰、巴拉巴斯和卡达尔认为电影不仅是最重要的艺术,而且是能够改变社会、影响观众和社会良知的艺术。相比之下,雅库比斯科、哈维塔和哈纳克拒绝了创造性工作的强制性甚至是限制性的预设。年轻的电影制作人彻底改变了电影风格应该是同质的观念(雅库比斯科在他的电影开头加入了 1968 年 8 月 21 日苏联入侵捷克斯洛伐克的镜头),同时牢记观众并不是在看现实,而是观察一个图像、一件艺术品——观众是一场表演、一场戏剧的参与者,他不是一个窥视人们生活的偷窥者。通过这种改变,年轻一代走向了极端,在用尽了这种方法的可能性之后,斯洛伐克电影很自然地在 20 世纪 70 年代回归“现实主义”(在所谓的“正常化”政策的大力帮助下) ——即1968年自由化之前的极权主义现状的恢复)。

From the time of his studies at the School for Industrial Arts in Bratislava in the 1950s, Jakubisko formed an inseparable duo with Havetta, his fellow student in the Department of Feature Film Production at the FAMU in Prague in the 1960s. Even though the two of them were very similar, they were quite different in their filmmaking. Havetta made only two feature films: The Gala in the Botanical Garden (Slávnosť v botanickej záhrade, 1969) and The Lilies of the Field (Ľálie poľné, 1972).
从 20 世纪 50 年代在布拉迪斯拉发工业艺术学院学习起,雅库比斯科就与 1960 年代布拉格 FAMU 故事片制作系的同学哈维塔 (Havetta) 组成了形影不离的二人组。尽管两人非常相似,但他们的电影制作却截然不同。哈维塔只制作了两部故事片:《植物园盛宴》(Slávnosť v botanickej záhrade,1969)和《田野百合》(Ľálie poľné,1972)。

In the course of the separation of Slovak and Czech cinema, establishing them as distinct phenomena not subsumed by the notion of “Czechoslovak film,” Uher first made Slovak feature films equal to good Czech and European films. The young generation of filmmakers then brought in elements that made Slovak cinematography distinctive. It could no longer be said that Jakubisko and his colleagues were simply variants of other filmmakers; the change from a joint style to something unique could not have happened in other than a Slovak context.

Jakubisko brought to film the young generation’s lack of constraints and its loss of inhibitions about what film is and is not; the director calmly broke all the taboos about themes and aesthetics. Havetta enriched filmmaking with a lightness of being that was reminiscent of French charm and lightness, like that of a carnival or a holiday, but which, at the same time, was fully a part of its environment. Havetta’s The Gala in the Botanical Garden is the essence of joy. The characters may experience greater or lesser problems, but these problems quickly run their course and come to a happy end. The carnival-like inversion of the elevated and the earthbound, the high and the low, renews the primeval joy of living that every person experiences in childhood, but prodigally wastes in his adulthood. This is far removed―although only by four years―from the older The Shop on Main Street, with its tragedy of a little Slovak person who wants to capitalize on crime. Havetta based his work not just on a whirlwind of joy and marvels, but also on an ever-present conviction that everything is but a play or a film, set apart from the world of reality. For him, film became a circus tent from which the viewer has to return to the world after a performance, but in which, for one-and-a-half hours he can experience a marvelous world of conjuring tricks, acrobatics, and beauty.

Havetta originally worked on a carnival movie about the Slovak National Uprising, but in the end, could not finish it because of the ideological attacks on his debut, The Gala in the Botanical Garden (Uher used his screenplay to make If I Had a Rifle in 1971). Havetta made his second film, The Lilies of the Field, during the period of so-called “normalization,” as a sort of postscript to the 1960s. The Lilies of the Field is the story of men who had returned home from World War I—not deserters, but soldiers who had been discharged and who did not know how to fit back into society, who did not know why they should go back to tilling the soil and looking forward to the harvest. Their disengagement is contrasted with the traditional life of farmers, which does not question life’s values and which considers work as natural as breathing. The young men, in their roles as vagrants, outcasts, and beggars―like the birds of the field that do not sew nor reap, yet sing beautifully―ask whether such life is not as valid as a life of work and a career. After this film, Havetta was not allowed to make any more films.
哈维塔最初拍摄了一部关于斯洛伐克民族起义的狂欢节电影,但最终因为他的处女作《植物园的盛会》(乌赫用他的剧本制作了《如果我有一支步枪》)受到意识形态攻击而未能完成。 1971)。哈维塔在所谓的“正常化”时期拍摄了他的第二部电影《原野百合》,作为 20 世纪 60 年代的后记。 《原野的百合花》讲述了从第一次世界大战中归来的人们的故事——不是逃兵,而是退伍的士兵,他们不知道如何融入社会,不知道为什么要回到家乡。耕耘土壤,期待收获。他们的脱离与农民的传统生活形成鲜明对比,农民的传统生活不质疑生命的价值观,认为工作就像呼吸一样自然。年轻人扮演着流浪者、流浪者和乞丐的角色——就像田野里的鸟儿,不缝补,不收割,但却唱得美妙——问这样的生活是否不如工作和事业的生活有效。拍完这部电影后,哈维塔不再被允许拍任何电影。

The third great name in this up-and-coming generation, Dušan Hanák, is characterized more by his intellectual reserve rather than by the sensuality, impulsiveness, and playfulness that characterize the films of Havetta and Jakubisko. Hanák’s methodicalness and his admiration of existentialism (then in vogue) collided with their charming Rabelaisian gluttony. Jakubisko and Havetta coupled Slovak film and culture to improvisation and spontaneity, and became symbols of a generation that rejected any kind of established authority, either Communist or non-Communist. In his debut film, 322 (1969)—that is, the code for cancer in medical records of diseases—Hanák indicated that he would rather focus on intimate entanglements, that his territory was more Hamlet than Sancho Panza. At the same time, the young filmmaker connected historical trauma—his main character suffers pangs of guilt for his role in the forced collectivization of private farms in the 1950s—with the central theme of his generation, that is, what lies hidden beneath the concept of “an authentic life.” It is no accident that the embodiment of this ideal is a teenager who ignores all the rules and then becomes the person who is able to teach the main character the meaning of “apple” and “tree,” the meaning of the simple things of life. [7]
这个崭露头角的一代人中的第三位伟人是杜桑·哈纳克,他的特点更多地在于他的知识储备,而不是哈维塔和雅库比斯科电影中的感性、冲动和俏皮。哈纳克的有条不紊和他对存在主义(当时很流行)的钦佩与他们迷人的拉伯雷式暴饮暴食发生了冲突。雅库比斯科和哈维塔将斯洛伐克电影和文化与即兴创作和自发性结合起来,成为拒绝任何既定权威(无论是共产主义还是非共产主义)的一代人的象征。哈纳克在他的处女作《322》(1969 年)(即疾病病历中癌症的代码)中表示,他更愿意关注亲密纠葛,他的领地更像是哈姆雷特,而不是桑乔·潘萨。与此同时,这位年轻的电影制片人将历史创伤——他的主角因在 20 世纪 50 年代强迫私人农场集体化中所扮演的角色而承受着愧疚的痛苦——与他这一代人的中心主题联系起来,即隐藏在这一概念之下的东西。 “真实的生活”。这个理想的化身是一个无视所有规则的青少年,然后成为能够教导主角“苹果”和“树”的意义,以及生活中简单事物的意义的人,这并非偶然。 。 [7]

The years 1969-1970 closed out an exceptionally rich decade for film producers. At the beginning of the decade, Slovak and Czech filmmaking were not discrete phenomena, feature films in Czechoslovakia did not challenge the term “Czechoslovak film.” At the end of the decade, the works of filmmakers such as Uher, Solan, Jakubisko, Hanák, and others caused this term to lose its meaning; it was replaced by the discourse of Slovak and Czech films made in Czechoslovakia. What is more, it was not just the nation’s cultural elite that identified with the works of both generations, but also gradually the broader public at art film theaters. This is how these works became a natural part of national culture. In the course of one hectic decade, Slovak feature films came of age and took on their own special form.
1969 年至 1970 年为电影制片人带来了异常富裕的十年。在本世纪初,斯洛伐克和捷克的电影制作并不是孤立的现象,捷克斯洛伐克的故事片并没有挑战“捷克斯洛伐克电影”一词。二十世纪末,乌赫尔、索兰、雅库比斯科、哈纳克等电影制片人的作品使这个术语失去了意义;它被捷克斯洛伐克制作的斯洛伐克和捷克电影的话语所取代。更重要的是,不仅是国家文化精英对两代人的作品产生了认同,也逐渐在艺术电影院中得到了更广泛的公众的认同。这就是这些作品自然成为民族文化的一部分的原因。在忙碌的十年中,斯洛伐克故事片逐渐成熟并呈现出自己的特殊形式。

Václav Macek, University of Performing Arts (VŠMU), Bratislava
瓦茨拉夫·马切克 (Václav Macek),布拉迪斯拉发表演艺术大学 (VŠMU)

Translated by Helen Fedor, Library of Congress

Notes 笔记

1] Pavel Branko realistically captured the trend at the Bratislava studio in the title of his article “Experimentálne štúdio Koliba?”(“Koliba Film Studio—An Experimental Studio?”) Film a divadlo 4 (1969).
1] Pavel Branko 在他的文章“Experimentálne štúdio Koliba?”(“Koliba 电影工作室——实验工作室?”)《拍摄 divadlo 4》(1969)的标题中真实地捕捉到了布拉迪斯拉发工作室的趋势。

2] A similar change can be seen even in the work of a single filmmaker. In 1965, Dušan Hanák completed his studies with the film Learning (Učenie), in which the conflict between student hair stylists and the pseudo-morality of their teachers evokes some satirical commentary. Two years later, in his film Old Shatterhand Came to See Us (Prišiel k nám Old Shatterhand), a series of minute observations on life under so-called “real socialism” provokes sparkling ironic and satirical commentary—a broadside against the bankrupt Communist system.
2] 即使在单个电影制片人的作品中也可以看到类似的变化。 1965年,杜桑·哈纳克(Dušan Hanák)凭借电影《学习》(Učenie)完成了学业,片中学生发型师与老师的伪道德之间的冲突引发了一些讽刺评论。两年后,在他的电影《老粉碎手来看我们》(Prišiel k nám Old Shatterhand)中,一系列对所谓“真正的社会主义”下生活的细致观察引发了闪闪发光的讽刺评论——对破产的共产主义制度的猛烈抨击。 。

3] In 1968, Štefan Uher very much wanted to make a feature film about Jozef Tiso, a priest and the President of wartime Slovakia, in whom he saw a great internal conflict between his belief in God and the practices of his government, which made it possible to deport its Jewish citizens to German extermination camps.
3] 1968年,斯特凡·乌赫尔非常想拍一部关于约瑟夫·蒂索(Jozef Tiso)的故事片,约瑟夫·蒂索是一名牧师,也是战时斯洛伐克的总统,他在影片中看到了他对上帝的信仰与政府的做法之间存在巨大的内部冲突,这使得有可能将其犹太公民驱逐到德国灭绝营。

4] Based on Ladislav Mňačko’s famous novel, Ján Kadár and Elmar Klos made a film about the mass murder of the inhabitants of a village by German troops as a result of insurgents’ cowardice during the uprising.
4] 根据拉迪斯拉夫·姆尼亚科 (Ladislav Mňačko) 的著名小说,扬·卡达尔 (Ján Kadár) 和艾尔玛·克洛斯 (Elmar Klos) 制作了一部影片,讲述了起义期间由于叛乱分子的怯懦而导致德国军队大规模屠杀村庄居民的故事。

5] Aryanization was the term for the confiscation of businesses from Jews and their transfer to Christians.
5] 雅利安化是指没收犹太人的企业并将其转让给基督徒的术语。

6] Crucial Years was originally prohibited from distribution by technical inspectors who considered the extreme graininess of the shots a shortcoming rather than something intentional. Another course of action that was unimaginable for the older generation was Jakubisko’s manipulation of nature, when he had the grass painted because its color did not look right on film in Renegades and Pilgrims.
6] 《关键岁月》最初被技术检查员禁止发行,他们认为镜头的极度颗粒感是一个缺点,而不是故意的。另一种对老一代人来说难以想象的行为是雅库比斯科对自然的操纵,当时他画了草,因为它的颜色在《叛徒与朝圣者》的电影中看起来不正确。

7] After he finished school in 1965, Dušan Hanák made many documentary films. He later made Pictures of the Old World (Obrazy starého sveta, 1972) as a special appendix to the 1960s. It was a film that paid homage to real people living in isolated places in northern Slovakia.
7] 1965 年完成学业后,杜桑·哈纳克拍摄了许多纪录片。后来他创作了《旧世界的图画》(Obrazy starého sveta,1972)作为 20 世纪 60 年代的特别附录。这是一部向生活在斯洛伐克北部偏僻地区的真实人们致敬的电影。

© Václav Macek, 2005

Updated: 27 Dec 05
更新日期:2005 年 12 月 27 日