課程名稱：文化社會學
課程性質︰系選修
課程教師︰李明璁
開課學院：社會科學院
開課系所：社會系
考試日期（年月日）︰2010／11／30
考試時限（分鐘）：14:20~17:20
是否需發放獎勵金：是
[OPEN BOOK]
一、下文為英國名導演肯洛區的一篇文章，請利用上課所讀的阿多諾、班雅明、葛蘭西、
布赫迪厄與霍爾的概念與這篇文章做對話，並請幫你的討論做個小結。
二、[加分題] 第十一州我們所閱讀的「英國文化研究導論」譯本之中其實有一些
顯而易見的翻譯錯誤，如果在答完第一題之後行有餘力則請將錯誤標示在考卷上
(第幾頁第幾行、哪個字詞錯了...)
It is time to rescue film
Film has the potential to be a most beautiful art, but it has been debased by
US cinema, and by television
Ken Loach
Film is an extraordinary medium. Like theatre, it has all the elements of
drama. It has character, plot, conflict, resolution. You can compare it to
the visual arts, to painting, to drawing; it can document reality, like still
photographs. It can explain and record like journalism, and it can be a
polemic, like a pamphlet. It can be prosaic and poetic, it can be tragic and
comic, it can be escapist and committed, surreal and realist. It can do all
these things.
So, how have we protected and nurtured and developed this great, exciting,
complex medium? How have we looked after it, and does it fulfil its potential?
Over a seven-year period, the US market share of box-office takings in
British cinemas was between 63% and 80%. The UK share, which was mainly for
American co-productions, was between 15% and 30%; films from Europe and the
rest of the world took only 2% to 3%. So for most people it's almost
impossible to have a choice of films; you get what you're given. As for
television, only 3.3% of the films shown on TV are from European and world
cinema.
Just imagine, if you went into the library and the bookshelves were stacked
with 63% to 80% American fiction, 15% to 30% half-American, half-British
fiction, and then all the other writers in the whole world just 3%. Imagine
that in the art galleries, in terms of pictures; imagine it in the theatres.
You can't, it is inconceivable – and yet this is what we do to the cinema,
which we think is a most beautiful art.
How can we change this? We could start by treating cinemas like we treat
theatres. They could be owned, as they are in many cases, by the
municipalities, and programmed by people who care about films – the London
Film Festival, for example, is full of people who care about films.
And we could decide to tackle television, which has become the enemy of
creativity. Here, drama is produced beneath a pyramid of producers, executive
producers, commissioning editors, heads of department, assistant heads of
department, and so on, that sits on top of the group of people doing the work
and stifles the life out of them.
Connection between the writer and the director is not approved of. Scripts
are approved just before shooting, even after shooting has started.
Discussions at the commissioning stage are always about other television
programmes, not the primary source, not what are we making the film about.
When you get into the cutting room the same thing happens. First assemblies,
when the shots are put together, go out to executives who then send notes.
There's a director's version, immediately sacrificed when the producer comes
in; then the producer's version is discussed with the executive producer. And
then that is changed, and then the commissioning editor comes in, and so on
and so on.
I'm pleased to see that one or two top-ranking BBC people are going to lose
their jobs. About time. It takes ￡1m to get them out of the door, but
nevertheless they're on their way. Maybe a few more will join them. Now let's
start cutting further down.
To think that our television is in the hands of these time-servers is nothing
less than a tragedy. Because television began with such high hopes, it was
going to be the National Theatre of the air. It was going to really be a
place where society could have a national discourse and they've reduced it to
a grotesque reality game. This should not be used to denigrate the idea of
public service broadcasting. The commercial sector is probably worse.
What we want, and what writers need to write, are original stories, original
characters, plot, conflict, things that dig into our current experience.
Things that really show us how we're living, give us a perspective on what is
happening. That's what television could do, that's what they have betrayed.
Ratings are the prime consideration. Investigative journalism, where is it?
Where's World in Action? One director told me that he was asked to make a
film about debt; they were going to do a series about debt and getting into
debt. But the requirement was that there were to be no poor people, because
obviously poor people are a bit depressing and they don't sell the adverts.
Those of us who work in television and film have a role to be critical, to be
challenging, to be rude, to be disturbing, not to be part of the
establishment. We need to keep our independence. We need to be mischievous.
We need to be challenging. We shouldn't take no for an answer. If we aren't
there as the court jester or as the people with the questions they don't want
asked who will be?
Let's finally start to realise the potential of this extraordinary medium
that we call film.
http://tinyurl.com/3xvsbph
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 118.165.71.216