【09.10.09时代杂志】新中国的一部影片重新诠释历史
本帖最后由 满仓 于 2009-10-11 09:59 编辑【中文标题】新中国的一部影片重新诠释历史
【原文标题】Reshooting History in a New China Film
【登载媒体】时代杂志
【原文链接】http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1928956,00.html
【译者】满仓
《建国大业》中的镜头。
1949年初，中国处于内战的最后阶段，毛泽东的共产主义军队准备攻占北京。在长江以南的南京，毛的宿敌，大总统蒋介石还在领导中华民国和国民党政府。但是毛相信，先占领北京可以对国民党的士气给与致命一击。在前往未来人民共和国首都的道路上，他和他的高级官员们在一个小城镇暂时驻扎。在店主和商人们逃离无产阶级革命之后，这里已经被完全荒弃了。由于找不到他最喜欢的香烟，毛显得很失望。他对战友们严肃地说：“我们还是需要资本主义的。”（译者注：原台词为：“没有商贩，连香烟都买不到，还谈什么市场繁荣啊，要把人家请回来。”）
毛似乎不大可能在这样一个令人陶醉的时刻发表这样的反动言论，他应该是为被剥削的工人和农民去发起一场运动。然而在《建国大业》中却出现了这一场景，这部由政府扶持的制作圆滑（却情节拖沓）的影片是为了庆祝今年中华人民共和国成立60周年。
这部纪录片风格的电影从1945年国共合作庆祝日本战败讲起，到毛在北京天安门宣布中华人民共和国成立为止。影片的目的是讲述一个真实、完整的故事，共产党和国民党双方如何纠结在建立一个崭新、统一的中国的问题上。与你所期待的一样，国民党在很多（令人意外地不是全部）方面都被刻画成丑恶、变化无常的形象，而共产党顺理成章地赢取了胜利（当然了）。《建》仍然无法脱离固定的宣传模式。然而影片的亮点在于它暴露了（我们认为是有意地）一些中国领导人当前的想法。
中国过去的60年可以被大致分为两个阶段：一个无休止的革命、遍布各地的动荡不安和罪恶的苦难阶段；另一个逐步改革，赢得了伟大的繁荣和自由，让中国脱胎换骨的阶段。当然，伴随而来的还有严苛独裁下恶劣的腐败和可怕的不公。今天的中国是多重相对立的元素的组合：富裕和贫穷、开放和封闭、解放和压制、自信和动荡。但是可以肯定的一点是，这绝不是马克思主义，也不是毛泽东主义。
因为中国共产党几乎纯粹是在其制造的物质财富基础上赢得了它的合法地位，而共产主义仅仅是个名字罢了，所以为了证明现在，就必须要重塑过去。因此，在《建》中几乎没有提及阶级斗争。毛不但需要一个资本家来给他提供香烟，他和他的军队还承认他们对经济一无所知，而他们也承认这是发展国家所必需的。影片传达的信息很明确：毛把国家统一在共产主义旗帜下是伟大的，但是他不懂得如何发展，而是今天的中国共产党创造了“新”新中国——现代、强大、令人生畏。
在内战胜利之后，毛放下身段向中国的政客们示爱，这些人大部分是知识分子，他们把革命视为迎来民主的一个机会。这样，中国共产党的立党基础就不仅仅是战争的战利品，而是会扎根于广泛的政治运动中，这同时会提升其执政的权威。这当然也包括台湾。毛试图说服李济深，一位有影响力的中国国民党南方将领，加入共产党政府。李向毛坦白说他要对很多共产党同志的死难负责。毛是这样回答的：让我们忘掉过去，着眼未来吧。此处意指台北，北京不断提升的魅力似乎冒犯到了台湾，这个曾经被无情地指责为叛徒的省份。
影片中还有司徒雷登，这个传教士的儿子和美国驻蒋介石南京政府的大使。当时，真实的毛泽东把司徒雷登污蔑成美国侵犯共产党的代言人。而在影片中，司徒雷登和美国国务院对蒋和国民党并不热心——这表示，北京也许还是希望继续改善与华盛顿之间的外交关系。（去年11月，中国同意了司徒雷登家庭四十年前提出的一个请求，把他的骨灰埋葬在杭州的一个墓地中。）
政治统治者们到处改写历史来迎合其自身目的。但是鉴于中国正在逼近全球关注的中心点，我们可以收集到的任何有关其领导层的信息都有独特的价值。《建》中还是有一处闪光点的，但这也许并非北京有意制造的。蒋介石的儿子蒋经国向他的父亲讲述他在国民党内部铲除腐败和不公正的事情，蒋表扬了儿子的理想化举动，然后又慈祥地建议他不要再继续了，以免在内战关键时刻削弱国民党的力量。蒋说：“反腐必将亡党。”这位大总统平静地继续说：“不反腐必将亡国。”对于这句话的含义，中国现在的领导人应当用心关注。
原文：
A scene from The Founding of a Republic
It's early 1949, China's in the endgame of its civil war and Mao Zedong's communist forces are poised to take Beijing. Just south of the Yangtze, in Nanjing, Mao's archfoe, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, holds court as the leader of the Republic of China and its Nationalist Kuomintang (KMT) government. But Mao believes that winning Beijing first will deal a mortal blow to the morale of the KMT. En route to what will be the future People's Republic's capital, he and his top lieutenants pause in a town that has been deserted by shopkeepers and merchants fleeing the revolution of the proletariat. As Mao laments being unable to buy even his favorite smokes, he soberly says to his comrades-in-arms, "We need the capitalists back."
It seems improbable that Mao would actually have expressed such a reactionary sentiment at such a heady time. His was a movement driven by the cause of the exploited worker and peasant. Yet the scene appears in The Founding of a Republic, a slickly produced (though ponderously paced) state-backed film to commemorate this year's 60th anniversary of the People's Republic of China.
The docudrama-style film begins in 1945 with the then temporarily allied communists and Nationalists celebrating the defeat of the Japanese and culminates with the declaration of the People's Republic by Mao at Beijing's Tiananmen Square. It purports to tell the true and full story of the tangled dance between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the KMT to forge a new, unified China. As you'd expect, many — but surprisingly not all — elements of the KMT are portrayed as malevolent and capricious, and the CCP justly triumphs (of course!). Yet Founding goes beyond routine propaganda. What's striking is how the film exposes — intentionally, we would assume — some of the thinking of the Chinese leadership today.
China's past 60 years can be divided into roughly two halves. First came the period of ceaseless revolution, with all the widespread turmoil and suffering it perpetrated. Then the time of gradual reform, which has brought greater prosperity and freedom than China has ever known but which is still characterized by grave corruption and terrible injustice under a stern authoritarianism. Today China is many things, often contradictory: rich and poor, open and closed, liberated and oppressed, confident and insecure. But it decidedly isn't Marxist — or even Maoist.
Because the CCP now gains its legitimacy almost solely from the material wealth it has created and is communist only in name, it has to recast the past to justify the present. Thus, in Founding, class struggle is hardly depicted or mentioned. Mao not only needs a capitalist to provide him with a cigarette; he and his cohorts admit they are ignorant about economics, which they acknowledge is essential to running the country. The message: Mao was great at consolidating the nation under the communist banner, but he was clueless about development; it's today's CCP that made the new new China — modern, strong, feared.
With the civil war practically won, Mao is also shown to be assiduously wooing assorted Chinese politicians, most notably intellectuals who saw the revolution as a chance to usher in democracy. This way, the CCP can be promoted as a party with roots in a broad-based political movement and not just in the spoils of war — thus further boosting its authority. Taiwan figures too. Mao tries to persuade Li Jishen, an influential southern China figure aligned with the KMT, to join the communist government. Li confesses to Mao that he is responsible for the deaths of many communist cadres. Mao's reply: Let's forget the past and begin a new future. That's directed at Taipei — part of Beijing's ongoing charm offensive toward Taiwan, once relentlessly denounced as a renegade province.
Then there's the Sinophile John Leighton Stuart, son of missionaries to China and U.S. ambassador to Chiang's Nanjing government. At the time, the real-life Mao vilified Stuart as an agent of American aggression toward the communists. In the film, Stuart, as well as the U.S. State Department, is lukewarm toward Chiang and the KMT — reflecting, perhaps, Beijing's desire to maintain the momentum of its improving diplomatic ties with Washington. (Last November, the Chinese acceded to a four-decade-old request by Stuart's family to have his ashes buried in a cemetery in Hangzhou, near Shanghai.)
Political rulers everywhere rewrite and use history for their ends. But as China looms ever larger in the global consciousness, anything we can glean about its leadership is especially valuable. There's one moral in Founding, however, that Beijing probably did not intend. Chiang Ching-kuo, Chiang Kai-shek's son, is briefing his father about his fight to rid the KMT of corruption and injustice. Chiang praises his son's idealism — and gently advises him to desist so as not to undermine the KMT at a critical juncture in the civil war. "If you go ahead," says Chiang, "you lose the party." But, the Generalissimo quietly adds, "if you don't, you lose China." That's a message China's present leaders would do well to heed. 而在影片中，司徒雷登和美国国务院对蒋和国民党并不热心——这表示，北京也许还是希望继续改善与华盛顿之间的外交关系---呵呵，美国人的思维，╮(╯▽╰)╭，自恋，从我的角度看是对美国人骨子里的不信任 只不过播了一些真实的历史，美国也能像那么多，晕~~~ 觉得分析的挺客观的，反腐必将亡党，不反腐必将亡国 美国人嘛写成这样已经很难得了。 建国是争取绝大多数中国人，包括知识分子和民族资本家的支持的。
对这个米国人不知道么？ 觉得分析的挺客观的，反腐必将亡党，不反腐必将亡国
导航 发表于 2009-10-11 12:37 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
可笑,什么逻辑啊,还活在80年代啊,当年的"64英雄"王丹就是你这个论调,一字不差.一丘之貉
可笑,什么逻辑啊,还活在80年代啊,当年的"64英雄"王丹就是你这个论调,一字不差.一丘之貉
hflich 发表于 2009-10-11 19:03 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
兼听则明
不要上纲上线 觉得分析的挺客观的，反腐必将亡党，不反腐必将亡国
导航 发表于 2009-10-11 12:37 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
支持 在影院看过两遍。可惜两次都没看到开头。。 反腐必将改党，不反腐必将亡国 无论何时都得保证冷静的头脑看待周围的事情，只能听得进去好听的你不是和历朝那些昏君无异？ 11# 过客不言
习副不是已经发表一篇咨文了吗？
D还是很具有自省能力的 本帖最后由 powerovergamec 于 2009-10-12 07:19 编辑
bs纽约时报看中国历史的角度。到现在还认为中共执政的合法来源是经济发展，真的没救了。骨子里还是觉得独裁的政府都是非法的。如果继续带着这种思维，他们迟早要被历史淘汰。 不好意思,酱油撒了一地............ 看到王丹二字，就可乐 看了《建》大部分，故事情节不好，好多地方并不是很符合历史事实，我觉得比较同意本文作者的观点：剧本创作者和导演一直在拿今天的社会现实去套当时的历史。
成功在于两点：第一，很多名人演员，第二，借着国庆骗中国人（含那些演员）的爱国情，最终将大家的爱国热情转变为电影公司的利润。 4# 导航 反腐必将亡党？承认腐败是现在党的一大难题，迫切需要解决，但饭可以乱吃，话可不能乱说,至少拿出让人信服的论据来证明反腐必将亡党吧？ 国民党就那德行，还要丑化啊？真实表现就行了。。。 反腐必将亡党，不反腐必将亡国
这句话值得执政者思考我认为很合理
页:
[1]
2