龔鵬程對(duì)話海外學(xué)者第八十三期：在后現(xiàn)代情境中，被技術(shù)統(tǒng)治的人類社會(huì)，只有強(qiáng)化交談、重建溝通倫理，才能獲得文化新生的力量。這不是誰(shuí)的理論，而是每個(gè)人都應(yīng)實(shí)踐的活動(dòng)。龔鵬程先生遊走世界，并曾主持過(guò)“世界漢學(xué)研究中心”。我們會(huì)陸續(xù)推出“龔鵬程對(duì)話海外學(xué)者”系列文章，請(qǐng)他對(duì)話一些學(xué)界有意義的靈魂。范圍不局限于漢學(xué)，會(huì)涉及多種學(xué)科。以期深山長(zhǎng)谷之水，四面而出。

西爾維·林德佩格教授（ProfessorSylvie Lindeperg）

巴黎第一大學(xué)電影與歷史學(xué)教授、電影史美學(xué)研究中心主席

龔鵬程教授：您好。在您的研究中，您探索了電影與集體記憶或歷史之間的聯(lián)系，特別是與第二次世界大戰(zhàn)的關(guān)系。作為一名歷史學(xué)家，您能解釋一下您為何對(duì)圖像如此感興趣？一般您會(huì)用什么方法來(lái)研究圖像？

西爾維·林德佩格教授：龔教授，您好。我很小的時(shí)候就對(duì)第二次世界大戰(zhàn)的圖像很感興趣，這都要?dú)w功于我可以經(jīng)常接觸到電視，還有廚房餐具柜上展示的我祖母表弟的身份證照片。

表弟的名字叫羅伯特(Robert)，他被派去從事強(qiáng)制性戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)勞動(dòng)(Service du Travail Obligatoire)并于1943年在魏瑪留下了這張照片，這是多年后我才了解到的事實(shí)。他在德國(guó)的死因不明。從小我就發(fā)現(xiàn)這張照片非常神秘。因此，我將從定期觀看的《屏幕文件夾》(Les Dossiers de l’écran)—— 一部主要關(guān)注二戰(zhàn)社會(huì)和歷史問(wèn)題的宗教電視節(jié)目——中學(xué)到的知識(shí)帶入到表弟的故事。多年來(lái)，隨著法國(guó)對(duì)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)記憶的逐漸演變，我先后想像了一些羅伯特所扮演的角色：二戰(zhàn)抵抗運(yùn)動(dòng)的英雄、逃犯、受迫害的猶太人等等。在電影和電視的幫助下，我可以運(yùn)用想象力讓這幅無(wú)聲的照片說(shuō)出自己的故事。

在我的第一本書(shū)中，我使用了邏輯研究法去了解第二次世界大戰(zhàn)在電影中的應(yīng)用，分析了法國(guó)電影如何在當(dāng)今許多嚴(yán)峻問(wèn)題的背景下不斷重新描繪歷史。這幫助我設(shè)計(jì)了一種以觀察我定義的“電影在行動(dòng)”(cinema in action)為中心的分析方法。它包括研究電影的內(nèi)部運(yùn)作，即電影的黑匣子：觀察并揭示電影的制作過(guò)程。我發(fā)現(xiàn)了關(guān)于我所定義的“電影即重繪”(the film as palimpsest)的不同層次的寫作。

我在《五至七時(shí)的克萊奧——拍攝的解放新聞片：未來(lái)檔案》(Clio de 5 à 7 - Les actualités filmées de la Libération : archives du futur)一書(shū)中考察了在報(bào)道大型事件的過(guò)程中，法國(guó)的新聞廣播節(jié)目在法國(guó)解放后如何幫助共同制作這些報(bào)道，并分析了電影幫助實(shí)現(xiàn)的“歷史性制度”(regime of historicity)。

尤其要說(shuō)明的是，這本書(shū)為研究卑爾根-貝爾森(Bergen-Belsen)解放時(shí)拍攝的場(chǎng)景提供了解釋學(xué)方法。它不僅考察了戰(zhàn)后的新聞廣播如何編輯新聞順序，還研究了后來(lái)如何在紀(jì)錄片、虛構(gòu)電影和電視中挖掘、重復(fù)使用新聞故事并將其放入新的背景，所有這些都改變了它們的地位和意義。

《圖像的方式》(La Voie des images)反映了我對(duì)第二次世界大戰(zhàn)圖像的研究是如何轉(zhuǎn)變的：我更專注于這些圖像是如何作為一個(gè)短暫而獨(dú)特的拍攝時(shí)刻來(lái)記錄歷史的。最值得注意的是，這本書(shū)講述了1944年春夏在捷克斯洛伐克特雷津和荷蘭韋斯特堡的中轉(zhuǎn)營(yíng)地拍攝的兩部電影。我受藝術(shù)史學(xué)家丹尼爾·阿拉斯(Daniel Arasse)對(duì)研究繪畫和壁畫的密切觀察法的啟發(fā)來(lái)分析這些電影，專注于電影圖像的特寫視圖以及圖像的細(xì)節(jié)和背景。

My interest in the images of the second world war goes back to a young age and arose thanks to the proximity of a television set and an ID photo of my grandmother’s cousin displayed on the kitchen sideboard. His name was Robert, and this photo was taken in 1943, in Weimar, where the young man was sent to carry out mandatory war labour (Service du Travail Obligatoire), a fact I learned many years later. He died in Germany in circumstances that remain unclear. As a child, I found this picture enigmatic. So, I projected onto Robert what I learned by regularly watching Les Dossiers de l’écran, a cult TV programme that dealt with questions of society and history, mainly focusing on the second world war. For years, as the memory of the war evolved in France, I successively imagined Robert playing a number of roles: hero of the Resistance, prisoner on the run, persecuted Jew, and more. Using ventriloquism, my imagination, fuelled by the cinema and television, ceaselessly kept this silent photo talking.

In my first book, I undertook a logical study of the uses of the second world war on film, analysing how the past has been constantly rewritten and re-depicted by French cinema in the context of today’s many important issues. This led me to develop an analytical method centred on the observation of what I call “cinema in action”. It consists in studying the inside workings of cinema, its black box, so to speak: observing the film as it is made and revealing the process of its production. I unearth the different layers of writing of what I have defined as “the film as palimpsest”.

My bookClio de 5 à 7 examines how, in the process of reporting events, newsreels broadcast in France after the Liberation contributed to co-producing those events; it analyses the “regime of historicity” that cinema helps bring about.

In particular, the book offers a hermeneutic approach to the study of the sequences filmed when Bergen-Belsen was liberated. It examines not only how the sequences were edited in post-war news broadcasts, but also how news stories were later exhumed, re-used and put into a new context in documentaries, fictional films and television feature stories that all changed their status and meaning.

La Voie des images reflects how my research into the images of the second world war has shifted: I was driven to focus on the history of how these images were recorded –– the brief, unique moment of shooting. Most notably, the book relates the shooting of two films in the spring and summer of 1944 in the transit camps of Terezin, Czechoslovakia and Westerbork, the Netherlands. To analyse the films, I was inspired by art historian Daniel Arasse’s approach involving close observation to studying paintings and frescoes. I focused on close-up views of the images of the films, paying the utmost attention to detail and to the background of the images.

龔鵬程教授：在《夜與霧：歷史中的一部電影》(Nuit et Brouillard: Un film dans l'histoire)中，您分析了阿蘭·雷斯奈斯(Alain Resnais)導(dǎo)演的電影《夜與霧》(Nuit et Brouillard)。您可以介紹一下這部電影嗎？它有什么歷史意義？

西爾維·林德佩格教授：雷斯奈斯于1955年為集中營(yíng)解放十周年所制作的這部紀(jì)錄片短片，對(duì)法國(guó)來(lái)說(shuō)相當(dāng)重要，它決定了幾代人對(duì)集中營(yíng)發(fā)生的事情的想象力。它的獨(dú)創(chuàng)性在于它的雙重維度：它既是文件，也是作品。

首先，雷斯奈斯的短片為我們介紹了20世紀(jì)50年代法國(guó)關(guān)于集中營(yíng)系統(tǒng)的記憶和歷史知識(shí)。人們對(duì)于被驅(qū)逐出境的抵抗運(yùn)動(dòng)成員的記憶占了上風(fēng)，事實(shí)上，這對(duì)于幾乎滅絕的猶太受害者來(lái)說(shuō)可以說(shuō)是一種霸權(quán)主義。此外，人們既沒(méi)有明確定義集中營(yíng)和死亡集中營(yíng)之間的區(qū)別，也沒(méi)有充分了解它們到底是什么。盡管雷斯奈斯的電影是研究這一主題歷史的第一步，但它仍然是這種背景下的產(chǎn)物。

但《夜與霧》也是一部經(jīng)受住了時(shí)間考驗(yàn)的藝術(shù)品，其形式品質(zhì)在電影愛(ài)好者和法國(guó)紀(jì)錄片學(xué)校留下了不可磨滅的印記。為了更好地講述這部電影，我將這本書(shū)設(shè)計(jì)為我所說(shuō)的“微觀歷史運(yùn)動(dòng)”(micro-history in motion)的練習(xí)，以不同的角度交織于電影在時(shí)間和空間上產(chǎn)生的敘事。

我研究了這部短片的復(fù)雜開(kāi)頭，然后在60多年的時(shí)間里，它是如何在一些國(guó)家被重新解釋、翻譯和重新編輯的。我是想研究人們對(duì)《夜與霧》的看法，他們?nèi)绾胃鶕?jù)每個(gè)國(guó)家不同的背景來(lái)表達(dá)這部作品，以及它們?nèi)绾坞S著時(shí)間的推移而演變。例如，1961年，在德意志聯(lián)邦共和國(guó)和東德之間的意識(shí)形態(tài)沖突期間，這部電影在耶路撒冷的艾希曼審判(Eichmann Trial)中放映。它由詩(shī)人保羅·策蘭(Paul Celan)在德意志聯(lián)邦共和國(guó)中翻譯，然后又在東德重新翻譯并故意犯一些錯(cuò)誤。用皮埃爾·諾拉(Pierre Nora)描述摩西律法石板(the Tablets of the Law)的表述來(lái)說(shuō)，《夜與霧》是最強(qiáng)烈意義上的便攜式“備忘錄”。

The documentary short that Resnais made in 1955 for the tenth anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camps took on considerable importance in France, where it determined the imagination of several generations concerning what took place in the camps. Its originality lies in its double dimension: it is both document and oeuvre.

First of all, Resnais’s short film gives us information on the status of memory and historical knowledge of the concentration camp system in the France of the 1950s. The memory of the Resistance members who were deported prevailed; in fact, it was almost hegemonic, to the detriment of the Jewish victims of the genocide. Furthermore, the difference between the concentration camps and the death camps was neither definitively established nor fully understood. Resnais’s film was a consequence of this context, even though it was a first step in gaining historical knowledge of the subject.

ButNight and Fog is also a work of art that has stood the test of time and whose formal qualities have left an indelible mark on cinephiles and on the French documentary school. To give an account of the film, I designed the book to be an exercise in what I call “micro-history in motion”, which brings into play changes in scales and the interweaving of narratives produced on film in space and time.

I study the complex beginnings of this short film and then how it was reinterpreted, translated and re-edited in a number of countries over a period of more than 60 years. The idea was to examine the perceptions ofNight and Fog, how they were expressed depending on the context in each country, and how they evolved over time. For example, in 1961, during the period of ideological conflict between the Federal Republic of Germany and East Germany, the film was screened in Jerusalem at the Eichmann trial. It was translated by the poet Paul Celan in the FRG, and then retranslated in the GDR with deliberately-made errors. Night and Fog is a portable “l(fā)ieu de mémoire” in the strongest sense of the word, to use Pierre Nora’s expression describing the Tablets of the Law.

龔鵬程教授：最近，您撰寫了一本關(guān)于紐倫堡審判的著作《紐倫堡：圖像之戰(zhàn)》(Nuremberg: La Bataille des Images)。在紐倫堡，國(guó)際領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人以戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)罪審判納粹領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人。紐倫堡審判的過(guò)程中廣泛使用膠片，那么電影的使用對(duì)審判有何影響？

西爾維·林德佩格教授：紐倫堡審判的最初特點(diǎn)之一是重視圖像以及出于各種目的而去使用聽(tīng)證會(huì)。在審判中使用影片記錄，最初是由當(dāng)時(shí)的戰(zhàn)略服務(wù)辦公室(OSS)，后來(lái)的美國(guó)情報(bào)機(jī)構(gòu)，負(fù)責(zé)人多諾萬(wàn)將軍(General Donovan）提議的，他主要負(fù)責(zé)協(xié)助首席檢察官杰克遜(Chief Prosecutor Jackson)管理整個(gè)組織。

多諾萬(wàn)聘請(qǐng)了由著名的約翰·福特(John Ford)管理的OSS電影分公司來(lái)提供服務(wù)。這個(gè)才華橫溢的團(tuán)隊(duì)的任務(wù)，是研究和整理為納粹罪行提供證據(jù)的圖像；制作一部短片，為審判的開(kāi)始做準(zhǔn)備；拍攝聽(tīng)證會(huì)；并制作一部紀(jì)錄片，從調(diào)查結(jié)果中吸取教訓(xùn)。

盡管福特的團(tuán)隊(duì)最終被取消了拍攝審判的任務(wù)，取而代之的是成為信號(hào)兵團(tuán)(Signal Corps)的軍事攝影師，但他們?cè)跇?gòu)思美國(guó)制造的“電影作為證據(jù)”(film as evidence)方面起到了至關(guān)重要的作用。雖然他們的拍攝在確定被告?zhèn)€人有罪方面并不具有決定性，但其中一部分在戲劇上發(fā)揮了重要作用。

《納粹集中營(yíng)》(Nazi Concentration Camps)就是這種情況，它匯集了英國(guó)和美國(guó)攝影師在西部集中營(yíng)開(kāi)放時(shí)拍攝的圖像。為了更好的拍攝，福特團(tuán)隊(duì)在被告的腳下設(shè)置了一排聚光燈來(lái)照亮他們的臉。這一巧妙的舉措意味著媒體和公眾都可以看到前納粹領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的反應(yīng)。

這部電影粉碎了男人的自信心，對(duì)他們施加了象征性的懲罰——一種公開(kāi)的詛咒。因此，《納粹集中營(yíng)》的拍攝使美國(guó)檢方設(shè)想的道德戲劇能夠出現(xiàn)在司法聽(tīng)證會(huì)上。

One of the original features of the Nuremberg trial lies in the importance given to images and to the way in which they were interwoven into the hearings for various purposes. The primordial role of films in the trial was the initiative of General Donovan, the head of theOffice of Strategic Services (OSS), the then-US intelligence agency, who assisted Chief Prosecutor Jackson in the overall organisation.

Donovan enlisted the OSS cinematographic branch, directed by the famous John Ford, to provide their services. The tasks of this talented team were to research and collate the images that provided proof of the crimes of the Nazis; make a short film to prepare public opinion for the opening of the trial; film the hearings; and put together a major documentary that would draw the lessons of the findings.

Although Ford’s group was eventually dismissed from the task of filming the trial and replaced by the military cameramen of the Signal Corps, they played an essential role in conceiving the American-made “films as evidence”. Although their screenings were not decisive in establishing the individual guilt of the accused, some played a significant dramaturgical role. This was the case ofNazi Concentration Camps, which brought together the images filmed by both British and American cameramen when the camps in the west were opened. For the screening, Ford’s group set up a row of spotlights at the foot of the dock of the accused to light their faces. This ingenious initiative meant that both the press and the public could see the reactions of the former Nazi leaders. The film crushed the men’s confidence and imposed a symbolic punishment on them – a type of public damning. Thus the screening of Nazi Concentration Camps enabled the moral drama envisaged by the American prosecution to be represented at the judicial hearings themselves.

龔鵬程教授：有許多國(guó)家參與了紐倫堡審判，特別是美國(guó)、蘇聯(lián)和歐洲國(guó)家。這些不同國(guó)家如何利用紐倫堡審判的圖像來(lái)表達(dá)自己的政治利益？

西爾維·林德佩格教授：國(guó)際軍事法庭由美國(guó)、英國(guó)、蘇聯(lián)和法國(guó)設(shè)立，但紐倫堡的實(shí)際控制權(quán)在美國(guó)。

美國(guó)團(tuán)隊(duì)認(rèn)為，審判必須實(shí)現(xiàn)司法和法外目的。除了確定被告的命運(yùn)外，美國(guó)團(tuán)隊(duì)還決心確保審判也達(dá)到政治、歷史、集體記憶和教育領(lǐng)域的目的。他們發(fā)起了一系列廣泛的宣傳活動(dòng)，用以在審判之前、期間和之后影響公眾輿論。他們的目的是通過(guò)贊美他們國(guó)家民主的美德并向世界傳達(dá)有史以來(lái)最偉大的道德故事，將美國(guó)對(duì)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)和正義的敘述強(qiáng)加于人。

在審判籌備階段，他們以電影為首的宣傳運(yùn)動(dòng)非常有效。但隨著聽(tīng)證會(huì)的推進(jìn)，它的效果在逐漸減弱，并在審判結(jié)束時(shí)因當(dāng)時(shí)的局勢(shì)由于冷戰(zhàn)被破壞而以失敗告終。

由于美國(guó)方面在去納粹化方面產(chǎn)生了激烈的內(nèi)斗，杰克遜計(jì)劃的這部紀(jì)錄片多年來(lái)一直處于困境之中。這部影片直到1949年1月才完成，在柏林封鎖的不正當(dāng)背景下，只在德國(guó)放映，從未在美國(guó)發(fā)行過(guò)。

最后，蘇聯(lián)贏得了形象之戰(zhàn)?？死锬妨謱m派遣了一支由總導(dǎo)演羅曼·卡門(Roman Karen)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的攝影師團(tuán)隊(duì)前往紐倫堡。事實(shí)證明，他們?cè)诳朔臄z的技術(shù)限制方面非常有創(chuàng)造力，甚至在空蕩蕩的法庭上重播一些場(chǎng)景?？ㄩT編輯了這些圖像，制作了《人民的審判》(The Jugement of the People)，這是一部正式的精彩故事片，但在實(shí)質(zhì)內(nèi)容上仍備受爭(zhēng)議。

判決宣布后不久，它就在電影院放映了。在他的電影中，卡門改寫了紐倫堡的歷史，聲稱這完全是為了蘇聯(lián)的起訴。盡管審判以蘇聯(lián)慘敗告終，但卡門成功地在熒幕上重現(xiàn)了克里姆林宮夢(mèng)寐以求的審判。

The International Military Tribunal was set up by the United States, Great Britain, the USSR and France, but it was the Americans who held the reins at Nuremberg.

In the opinion of the American team, the trial had to achieve both judicial and extra-judicial aims. In addition to determining the fate of the accused, the US team were determined to ensure that the trial also fulfilledpurposes in the sphere of politics, history, collective memory and education. They put together a wide-ranging information campaign to influence public opinion before, during and after the trial. Their aim was to impose the American narrative of the war and of justice by extolling the virtues of their country’s democracy and conveying to the world the greatest morality tale ever told.

Their campaign, in which cinema took the forefront, was extremely effective during the preparatory stage of the trial. But it weakened as the hearings progressed and, at the conclusion of the trial, ended in failure, given that the situation was now overturned by the cold war. The major documentary that Jackson had planned got bogged down for several years because of bitter infighting on the American side, mainly on the topic of denazification. The film was only completed in January 1949 and screened only in Germany, against the unpropitious backdrop of the Berlin blockade. It was never distributed in the US.

In the end, the USSR won the war of images. The Kremlin sent a team of cameramen under master director Roman Karmen to Nuremberg. They proved to be highly inventive in overcoming the technical constraints of shooting, going as far as replaying some of the scenes in the empty courtroom. Karmen edited these images to makeThe Judgement of the People, a formally brilliant feature film that was nevertheless highly contentious in terms of substance. It was screened in cinemas shortly after the verdict was pronounced. In his film, Karmen rewrote the history of Nuremberg solely to the benefit of the Soviet prosecution. Although the trial ended in fiasco for the USSR, Karmen succeeded in recreating on screen the trial the Kremlin had dreamed of.

龔鵬程，1956年生于臺(tái)北，臺(tái)灣師范大學(xué)博士，當(dāng)代著名學(xué)者和思想家。著作已出版一百五十多本。

辦有大學(xué)、出版社、雜志社、書(shū)院等，并規(guī)劃城市建設(shè)、主題園區(qū)等多處。講學(xué)于世界各地。并在北京、上海、杭州、臺(tái)北、巴黎、日本、澳門等地舉辦過(guò)書(shū)法展?，F(xiàn)為中國(guó)孔子博物館名譽(yù)館長(zhǎng)、美國(guó)龔鵬程基金會(huì)主席。