定義2017年的10場(chǎng)文化戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)
在2017年里雖有那么多大片系列和續(xù)集，但沒(méi)有一個(gè)像唐納德·J·特朗普主演的文化大戰(zhàn)重啟那樣雄心勃勃。他自詡為一個(gè)人的正義聯(lián)盟，大搖大擺入主白宮，接連不斷地發(fā)著推文，一心征服自由主義傾向的娛樂(lè)工業(yè)體系和沿海精英基地。
The phrase “culture war” first crashed into the national discourse in the late 1980s, as a catchall term for battles over values, ideals and national identity. The battlegrounds were college campuses, Hollywood, the bedroom — anywhere that moral relativism, secularism and the general “culture of depravity,” as dedicated warriors like Rush Limbaugh put it, held sway.
在1980年代后期，“文化戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)”一詞首次進(jìn)入全國(guó)討論范圍之內(nèi)，這是一個(gè)籠統(tǒng)的術(shù)語(yǔ)，指的是不同價(jià)值觀、理想與民族身份認(rèn)同之間的戰(zhàn)斗。戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)是在大學(xué)校園、好萊塢與臥室里——任何道德相對(duì)主義、世俗主義，乃至拉什·林博(Rush Limbaugh)這樣忠誠(chéng)的斗士所謂的“墮落文化”具有重大影響的地方。
Today’s culture wars, like war itself, have moved beyond the old, clearly defined fields of contention and are just as likely to rage among old allies as traditional right-left antagonists.
當(dāng)今的文化戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)就像戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)本身一樣，已經(jīng)超越了舊的、定義清晰的爭(zhēng)論范疇，而且不僅在傳統(tǒng)的左右陣營(yíng)之間展開(kāi)，也傾向于在舊日盟友之間發(fā)生。
Here’s a selective, not-so-nostalgic look back at some of the fiercest fights from a year when just about every cultural event and artifact became an arena for asking not just “Which side are you on?” but “Do you really have my back?”
這一年來(lái)，幾乎每個(gè)文化事件和文化產(chǎn)品都成了競(jìng)技場(chǎng)，參與者不僅發(fā)問(wèn)，“你站在哪一邊?”，而且還要問(wèn)“你真的支持我嗎?”下面是一份不怎么懷舊的回顧，選擇了一些本年度最激烈的戰(zhàn)斗。
President Trump Versus Hollywood
特朗普總統(tǒng)對(duì)陣好萊塢
If there was any lingering hope that President Trump was going to cede the stage to a more restrained character, it was laid to rest at the Golden Globes on Jan. 8, when Hollywood served up the making of a classic culture wars set piece.
如果人們還殘存著一線(xiàn)希望，認(rèn)為特朗普總統(tǒng)會(huì)把舞臺(tái)讓給一個(gè)更克制的角色，那么在1月8日的金球獎(jiǎng)?lì)C獎(jiǎng)儀式上，隨著好萊塢上演了一次經(jīng)典文化戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的傳統(tǒng)套路，這個(gè)希望也就破滅了。
The erstwhile Trump tousler Jimmy Fallon was the host, but it was Meryl Streep who volunteered as Mr. Trump’s scene partner. She unleashed a fiery speech that called out his mocking imitation of a disabled reporter during the campaign — a performance that “sank its hooks into my heart” — and extolled the open borders of culture. “Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners,” she declared. “If we kick them out, you’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts.”
曾在節(jié)目里摸過(guò)特朗普頭發(fā)的吉米·法倫(Jimmy Fallon)擔(dān)任主持人，但梅麗爾·斯特里普(Meryl Streep)挺身而出，幫助特朗普制造大場(chǎng)面。她做了一場(chǎng)激烈的演講，抨擊特朗普在競(jìng)選期間嘲笑地模仿一名殘疾記者——她說(shuō)，特朗普的表演“深深牽動(dòng)了我的心”——此外她還贊揚(yáng)文化的開(kāi)放邊界。“好萊塢是一個(gè)充滿(mǎn)外來(lái)者與外國(guó)人的地方，”她宣告。“如果我們把他們踢出去，那么我們除了橄欖球與綜合格斗就沒(méi)什么可看的了，而這兩樣都不是藝術(shù)。”
The room, and the internet, erupted in cheers. Conservative pundits accused her of elitist grandstanding, while on Twitter Mr. Trump called her “one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood” and “a Hillary flunky who lost big.”
房間里和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上都爆發(fā)出歡呼。保守派專(zhuān)家指責(zé)她居高臨下的精英視角，而在Twitter上，特朗普稱(chēng)她是“好萊塢最受高估的女演員之一”，是“大輸家，希拉里的馬屁精”。
Two weeks later, at a gala in New York, Ms. Streep attempted a rollback on at least one target. “I do like football — let me just make that clear,” she said. Some M.M.A. fans, meanwhile, pointed out that the sport, which was brought to the United States by a Brazilian family that had studied jujitsu, is not only creative, but also more diverse than Hollywood.
兩個(gè)星期后，在紐約的一次盛會(huì)上，斯特里普試圖撤回一個(gè)攻擊對(duì)象。“我喜歡橄欖球——讓我澄清一下。”一些綜合格斗的愛(ài)好者們也指出，這項(xiàng)運(yùn)動(dòng)是由一個(gè)巴西柔術(shù)之家?guī)У矫绹?guó)的，它不僅有創(chuàng)意，而且多樣化程度比好萊塢還高。
Ms. Streep may get a do-over at this year’s Golden Globes on Jan. 7; she is nominated for her portrayal of the newspaper publisher Katharine Graham, another woman who faced down a president, in Steven Spielberg’s Pentagon Papers drama, “The Post.”
明年1月7日，斯特里普可能會(huì)在本年度的金球獎(jiǎng)上重頭再來(lái)一遍;她因在斯蒂芬·斯皮爾伯格(Steven Spielberg)關(guān)于五角大樓文件的電影《華盛頓郵報(bào)》(The Post)中飾演報(bào)業(yè)出版人凱瑟琳·格雷厄姆(Katharine Graham)而獲得提名——格雷厄姆同樣是一位直面總統(tǒng)的女人。
Whose Feminism Is This, Anyway?
究竟是誰(shuí)的女性主義?
The Women’s March spurred millions of protesters in pink “pussy hats” to take to the streets across the country the day after Mr. Trump’s inauguration. It was a show of strength for the Resistance, but also a trailer for the internecine battles to follow. Signs pointed out the awkward fact that 53 percent of white women had voted for Mr. Trump. The pink hat itself was denounced as racist and transphobic.
在特朗普舉行就職典禮之后的第二天，“女性大游行”(The Women’s March)激勵(lì)了全國(guó)各地?cái)?shù)百萬(wàn)頭戴粉紅色“貓咪帽子”的示威者走上街頭。這是抵抗力量的展示，也預(yù)告了隨后兩敗俱傷的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。有跡象指出這樣一個(gè)尷尬的事實(shí)：53%的白人女性投票給了特朗普。而這頂粉紅色的帽子則被譴責(zé)為種族主義和對(duì)跨性別者的排斥。
Some two months later, Hulu’s adaptation of “The Handmaid’s Tale” provided another sartorial rallying point, as protesters dressed in blood-red cloaks and white bonnets descended on various state capitals to challenge cuts to funding for reproductive health care. But what did those hats, and the show, really mean?
大約兩個(gè)月后，Hulu臺(tái)改編的劇集《使女的故事》(The Handmaid’s Tale)成了另一個(gè)和服裝有關(guān)的眾矢之的，抗議者們身穿該片中出現(xiàn)的血紅色斗篷和白帽前往各州首府，抗議對(duì)生殖保健資金的削減。但那些帽子和這部劇真正的涵義又是什么?
The fictional Republic of Gilead as an allegory of Trump’s America drew scoffs from conservatives, some of whom argued that its vision of sexual slavery could also be read as a parable about assisted reproduction. And on the left, some asked why nonwhite women (who in Margaret Atwood’s novel had been shipped to segregated colonies in the Midwest) were present, thanks to colorblind casting, but largely marginalized, while the actual history of slavery in the United States was ignored.
片中虛構(gòu)的基列共和國(guó)可以用來(lái)諷喻特朗普治下的美國(guó)，但是引來(lái)了保守派的嘲笑，其中一些人認(rèn)為，片中對(duì)性奴役的描繪也可以被解讀為關(guān)于輔助生殖的寓言。而在左派當(dāng)中，一些人抗議，雖然選角時(shí)沒(méi)有考慮種族，片中出現(xiàn)了非白人女性(瑪格麗特·阿特伍德[Margaret Atwood]的小說(shuō)原著中，這些非白人女性被運(yùn)到中西部種族隔離的殖民地)，但她們?cè)诤艽蟪潭壬媳贿吘壔?，而美?guó)奴隸制的實(shí)際歷史則遭到忽略。
The show “isn’t really the future,” Jenn M. Jackson of the Black Youth Project wrote. “It more closely resembles the lived past of black women in the United States, just wrapped in cloaks and creepy white bonnets.”
黑人青年項(xiàng)目(Black Youth Project)的讓·M·杰克遜(Jenn M. Jackson)寫(xiě)道，這部劇“不是真正關(guān)于未來(lái)的”。“它更像美國(guó)黑人女性活生生的過(guò)去，只是披上了斗篷，戴上了令人毛骨悚然的白色帽子。”
Embracing, or Subverting, a Border Wall
擁抱或摧毀邊境墻
Mr. Trump’s Jan. 25 executive order calling for the construction of a border wall and temporarily suspending immigration from seven predominantly Muslim nations brought demonstrators out into the streets again. Even some Super Bowl ads had a marked pro-immigrant slant (though the original ending of one from 84 Lumber, which featured a truck bearing Spanish-speaking migrants running smack into a wall, was deemed too controversial by Fox and changed).
今年1月25日，特朗普發(fā)布行政命令，要求修建邊界墻，并暫時(shí)中止七個(gè)以穆斯林為主的國(guó)家的移民，這使得示威者再次走上街頭。甚至一些超級(jí)碗賽事中的廣告也具有明顯的親移民傾向(84 Lumber公司廣告原本的結(jié)尾當(dāng)中，載著西班牙語(yǔ)移民的卡車(chē)一頭撞上一堵墻，?？怂闺娨暸_(tái)認(rèn)為太有爭(zhēng)議性，廣告只得做出改動(dòng))。
Few in the arts world saw it as a moment for anything but resistance. When news outlets highlighted some entirely theoretical proposals that sneaked “subversive design” into the idea of a border wall (including a wall made of cactuses and another that doubled as a xylophone), the architects were blasted for turning a moral crisis into a design opportunity. “Miami Firm Proposes ‘Sustainable’ Hipster Moat for Trump’s Racist Wall” ran one headline.
在藝術(shù)界，幾乎所有人都把它視為一個(gè)抵抗時(shí)刻。當(dāng)新聞媒體報(bào)道了一些將“顛覆性設(shè)計(jì)”引入邊界墻的純假設(shè)提議(包括用仙人掌做的墻，以及可以同時(shí)用作木琴的墻)，結(jié)果那些建筑師們被指責(zé)為將一場(chǎng)道德危機(jī)變成了一個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)機(jī)會(huì)。有一個(gè)新聞標(biāo)題寫(xiě)道：“邁阿密公司提議將特朗普的種族主義墻建成‘可持續(xù)’的時(shí)尚護(hù)城河”。
The French photographer JR earned better reviews for his more pointed (and Instagram-friendly) intervention: a nearly 70-foot photograph of a baby peering over the existing barrier bordering San Diego County. Installed on the Mexican side, in the city of Tecate, it was fully visible only from the United States.
法國(guó)攝影師JR更尖銳的(更適合instagram的)干預(yù)受到了更好的評(píng)價(jià)：一張近70英尺高的照片，照片上的嬰兒注視著圣迭戈縣邊界現(xiàn)有的柵欄。這張照片安裝在特卡特市的墨西哥一側(cè)，然而只有從美國(guó)這一側(cè)才能看到它的全貌。
Who Gets to Tell the Story?
誰(shuí)擁有講故事的權(quán)利?
Jordan Peele scored a No. 1 movie in February with “Get Out,” a satire of the ways white liberal racism loves black bodies to death, while accusations of more direct cultural body snatching — and the question of who has the right to represent black pain — dogged white artists throughout the year.
2月份上映的喬丹·皮爾(Jordan Peele)的《逃出絕命鎮(zhèn)》(Get Out)堪稱(chēng)一流，它諷刺的是白人自由主義種族主義對(duì)黑人身體的癡迷。在這一整年里，對(duì)更直接的文化身體搶奪的譴責(zé)，以及誰(shuí)有權(quán)表達(dá)黑人痛苦這個(gè)問(wèn)題一直困擾著白人藝術(shù)家們。
After the Whitney Biennial opened in March, some African-American artists called for the removal, even the destruction, of “Open Casket,” Dana Schutz’s painting based on the famous photographs of Emmett Till’s mutilated corpse. “The subject matter is not Schutz’s,” the artist Hannah Black wrote on Facebook, calling contemporary art “a fundamentally white supremacist institution despite all our nice friends.” In a statement, Ms. Schutz said the painting was born of empathy with Till’s mother. “I don’t know what it is like to be black in America,” she said. “But I do know what it is like to be a mother.”
3月份，惠特尼雙年展(Whitney Biennial)開(kāi)幕后，一些非裔美國(guó)藝術(shù)家呼吁拆除甚至毀掉達(dá)娜·舒茨(Dana Schutz)的畫(huà)作《打開(kāi)棺材》(Open Casket)，它根據(jù)埃米特·蒂爾(Emmett Till)被肢解的尸體的著名照片創(chuàng)作。“它不是屬于舒茨的題材，”藝術(shù)家漢娜·布萊克(Hannah Black)在Facebook上寫(xiě)道。她還說(shuō)，當(dāng)代藝術(shù)“本質(zhì)上是由白人至上主義主導(dǎo)，盡管我們有很多友好的白人朋友”。舒茨在一份聲明中表示，這幅畫(huà)是出于對(duì)蒂爾母親的同情而創(chuàng)作的。“我不知道在美國(guó)身為黑人是什么感覺(jué)，”她說(shuō)，“但我知道身為母親是什么感覺(jué)。”
The year saw plenty of full-throated paeans to cultural appropriation, which argued that borrowing and mixing were the engines of culture itself. But when Kathryn Bigelow’s “Detroit,” set during the riots of 1967, was accused of appropriating black stories and black pain, she defended herself by agreeing with the charge — sort of. “Am I the perfect person to tell this story? No,” she told Variety. “However, I am able to tell this story, and it’s been 50 years since it was told.”
在過(guò)去的一年里，出現(xiàn)了大量關(guān)于文化挪用的響亮贊歌，它們認(rèn)為，借用與融合是文化的發(fā)動(dòng)機(jī)。但是，當(dāng)凱瑟琳·畢格羅(Kathryn Bigelow)以1967年暴亂為背景的《底特律》(Detroit)被指責(zé)盜用黑人的故事和黑人的痛苦時(shí)，她通過(guò)部分贊同這種指責(zé)為自己辯護(hù)。“我是講述這個(gè)故事的完美人選嗎?不是，”她在接受《Variety》雜志采訪(fǎng)時(shí)說(shuō)。“不過(guò)，我有能力講述這個(gè)故事，而且從它第一次被講述開(kāi)始，50年的時(shí)間過(guò)去了。”
Satire and Its Discontents
諷刺與不滿(mǎn)
If you come at the king, you best not miss — or, if you’re joking, at least get ready for the inevitable guerrilla warfare over the limits of art, free speech and satire.
如果你針對(duì)的是國(guó)王，那么你最好不要打偏。如果你是在開(kāi)玩笑，那么至少做好準(zhǔn)備，迎接關(guān)于藝術(shù)、言論自由和諷刺限制的不可避免的游擊戰(zhàn)。
When Kathy Griffin tweeted out a photograph of herself holding the bloody, severed head of Mr. Trump, she found few defenders and was promptly fired from her gig hosting CNN’s New Year’s Eve special. But the conversation became a pitched partisan battle a week later, when a bootleg video from the Shakespeare in the Park production of “Julius Caesar” was posted online showing the very bloody assassination of a very Trump-like Caesar.
凱茜·格里芬(Kathy Griffin)在Twitter上發(fā)布了一幅照片，上面是她拿著特朗普被割下的鮮血淋漓的頭，幾乎沒(méi)有人支持她，她很快被免去CNN除夕特別節(jié)目主持一職。但是一周后，網(wǎng)上出現(xiàn)了“莎士比亞在公園”(Shakespeare in the Park)劇團(tuán)上演的《凱撒大帝》(Julius Caesar)的一段私錄視頻，其中的凱撒外貌與特朗普極為相似，他遭到了血腥的暗殺，其后，這一對(duì)話(huà)就變成了激烈的黨派之爭(zhēng)。
Breitbart, Fox News and other outlets pumped the story with headlines like “Senators Stab Trump to Death in Central Park Performance of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.” Corporate sponsors withdrew support or distanced themselves. After Donald Trump Jr. asked on Twitter if the play had any taxpayer funding, the National Endowment for the Arts (which had been marked for elimination by the Trump administration) felt compelled to issue a statement saying it had no connection with the production.
布萊巴特(Breitbart)和?？怂剐侣劦让襟w報(bào)道這個(gè)故事的標(biāo)題是“‘莎士比亞在公園’的《凱撒大帝》中，參議員們刺死了特朗普”。該劇團(tuán)的贊助商撤回了資助，或者說(shuō)撇清了自己。小唐納德·特朗普(Donald Trump Jr.)在Twitter上詢(xún)問(wèn)該劇是否獲得了納稅人的資助，曾被特朗普政府考慮撤銷(xiāo)的國(guó)家藝術(shù)基金會(huì)(National Endowment for the Arts)感到有必要發(fā)布一份聲明，稱(chēng)自己與那部劇作沒(méi)有關(guān)系。
“Lefty Actors Are Beginning to Fear Trump,” National Review declared. But others wondered why conservatives who love to champion free speech against the forces of political correctness were suddenly melting like snowflakes.
“左傾演員們開(kāi)始害怕特朗普了，”《國(guó)家評(píng)論》(National Review)的報(bào)道宣稱(chēng)。不過(guò)，也有些人開(kāi)始思考，為什么一貫熱愛(ài)支持言論自由、反對(duì)政治正確勢(shì)力的保守派突然像雪花一般融化消失了。
The End of Whitewashing?
洗白文化的告終?
Since the debate over whitewashing broke out, those looking for more representation of Asian-Americans in movies have had to settle for justice via meme. Last year’s #StarringJohnCho campaign had cast the Korean-American actor (via Photoshop) in just about everything, with no measurable effect on his real-life credits. When “Ghost in the Shell,” which had stirred controversy with its casting of Scarlett Johansson as a cyborg whose name is Major Motoko Kusanagi in the anime original, opened in March, unhappy fans weaponized the movie’s promotional meme generator, transforming the tagline “I Am Major” into variations like “I Am in Love With White Feminism.”
自從關(guān)于“洗白”文化(指好萊塢讓白人演員扮演亞裔角色——譯注)的辯論爆發(fā)以來(lái)，希望亞裔美國(guó)人更多出現(xiàn)在電影里的人們不得不通過(guò)網(wǎng)絡(luò)米姆來(lái)伸張正義。去年以“#JohnCho主演”為標(biāo)簽的活動(dòng)通過(guò)Photoshop，讓韓裔美籍演員約翰·趙當(dāng)上了幾乎所有影片的主角，然而這對(duì)于他的現(xiàn)實(shí)生活幾乎沒(méi)有任何影響?！豆C(jī)動(dòng)隊(duì)》(Ghost in the Shell)動(dòng)畫(huà)原著中的主角是一個(gè)電子人，名叫草薙素子少校，真人影片中由斯嘉麗·約翰遜(Scarlett Johansson)飾演，此舉頗具爭(zhēng)議，該片在3月份上映時(shí)，心懷不滿(mǎn)的影迷把這部電影的宣傳米姆素材變成了武器，把圖中的文字“我是少校”改成了“我愛(ài)白人女權(quán)主義”之類(lèi)變體。
Ms. Johansson defended herself by arguing that the character “has a human brain in an entirely machinate body,” and said, “I would never attempt to play a person of a different race, obviously.”
約翰遜為自己辯解說(shuō)，這個(gè)角色是“一個(gè)完全機(jī)械化的身體中的人類(lèi)大腦”，并且說(shuō)：“我顯然不會(huì)試圖扮演一個(gè)和自己的種族完全不同的人。”
Then, in August, an online outcry actually prompted a white actor to back out of a role in the reboot of “Hellboy.” Ed Skrein made his decision less than a week after the announcement that he would play a character who is half-Japanese in the original comic book series.
然后，8月份，網(wǎng)上的強(qiáng)烈抗議促使一位白人演員退出了《地獄男爵》(Hellboy)重啟影片中的角色。片方宣布艾德·斯克林(Ed Skrein)將飾演一個(gè)漫畫(huà)系列原著中有一半日本血統(tǒng)的角色，不到一周后，斯克林做了退出的決定。
“I accepted the role unaware that the character in the original comics was of mixed Asian heritage,” Mr. Skrein said in a statement. “It is clear,” he added, “that representing this character in a culturally accurate way holds significance for people, and that to neglect this responsibility would continue a worrying tendency to obscure ethnic minority stories and voice in the arts.”
斯克林在聲明中說(shuō)：“我接受這個(gè)角色時(shí)并不知道漫畫(huà)原著中的角色有亞洲血統(tǒng)，”他補(bǔ)充說(shuō)。“顯而易見(jiàn)，在文化上準(zhǔn)確地呈現(xiàn)這一特征對(duì)于人們具有重要意義，忽視這一責(zé)任將繼續(xù)引起令人擔(dān)憂(yōu)的傾向，有可能模糊少數(shù)族裔的故事與他們?cè)谒囆g(shù)中的聲音。”
The Ghosts of the Confederacy
南方邦聯(lián)的幽魂
“The Handmaid’s Tale” and “The Man in the High Castle” may have been embraced by some as perversely inspirational tales of resistance to the Trumpian present. But the vogue for high-concept historical what-ifs ran into a brick wall of a different kind of resistance in July when HBO unveiled plans for “Confederate,” a new series from the lauded creators of “Game of Thrones” set in an alternative present in which the South had successfully seceded and slavery was still legal.
《使女的故事》和《高堡奇人》(The Man in the High Castle)可能被一些人視為是對(duì)特朗普倔強(qiáng)而鼓舞人心的反抗。但是高度概念性架空歷史的故事在7月份遇到了另一種阻力的磚墻，當(dāng)時(shí)HBO臺(tái)推出了《聯(lián)盟國(guó)》(Confederate)計(jì)劃，這是來(lái)自《權(quán)力的游戲》(Game of Thrones)備受贊美的兩位主創(chuàng)的新系列，講述南方成功脫離合眾國(guó)，奴隸制在那里依然合法的架空歷史。
The media activist April Reign, the creator of the #OscarsSoWhite hashtag, started a #NoConfederate campaign, which flooded Twitter during Season 7 of “Game of Thrones.” Despite the involvement of two well-regarded black writer-producers, the show was dismissed by skeptics as Lost Cause nostalgia dressed up in progressive prestige-cable clothing, or even “slavery fan fiction.”
媒體行動(dòng)人士愛(ài)普瑞爾·雷涅(April Reign)是“#OscarsSoWhite”(奧斯卡太白了)主題標(biāo)簽的創(chuàng)建者，這一次，他開(kāi)展了一場(chǎng)以“#NoConfederate”(不要邦聯(lián))為標(biāo)簽的運(yùn)動(dòng)，在《權(quán)力的游戲》第七季開(kāi)播之際涌入了Twitter。盡管該片有兩位頗受好評(píng)的黑人作家兼制作人參與，但它仍然遭到懷疑論者的批駁，稱(chēng)其為著名進(jìn)步有線(xiàn)臺(tái)掩護(hù)下的敗局命定論(Lost Cause)懷舊，甚至是一部“奴隸制粉絲作品”。
Trolling Taylor Swift
圍剿泰勒·斯威夫特(Taylor Swift)
First they came for Pepe the Frog, New Balance shoes and Jane Austen. But when the alt-right came for Taylor Swift, things (as all things Taylor tend to do) got complicated.
他們先是看上了青蛙哥佩佩(Pepe the Frog)、新百倫(New Balance)鞋和簡(jiǎn)·奧斯汀(Jane Austen)。但是，當(dāng)另類(lèi)右翼分子又看上泰勒·斯威夫特的時(shí)候，事情(以及泰勒所做的一切事情)變得復(fù)雜了。
The white nationalists’ appropriation of the singer first drew headlines in 2016, when the editor of the Daily Stormer called her “a pure Aryan goddess.” It came crawling out of the grave again in August, when Breitbart News mysteriously spent a day tweeting out lyrics from her single “Look What You Made Me Do.”
白人民族主義者對(duì)這位歌手的挪用在2016年首次成為新聞，當(dāng)時(shí)“每日風(fēng)暴”網(wǎng)站(Daily Stormer)的編輯稱(chēng)她為“純粹的雅利安女神”。這種挪用于8月份再次爬出墳?zāi)梗?dāng)時(shí)布萊巴特新聞網(wǎng)站(Breitbart News)神秘地用了一天的時(shí)間在Twitter上發(fā)她的單曲《看你讓我做了什么》(Look What You Made Me Do)的歌詞。
Then in November, after the album “Reputation” was released, a blogger for the obscure site Pop Front called for Ms. Swift to explicitly repudiate white nationalism, and suggested that her music might be a gateway drug for Nazi-curious young fans.
到了11月，斯威夫特發(fā)了新專(zhuān)輯《名聲》(Reputation)之后，一個(gè)名叫“流行前沿”(Pop Front)的博客要求她明確否定白人民族主義，并提出她的音樂(lè)可能成為對(duì)納粹感到好奇的年輕粉絲們的入門(mén)毒品。
Ms. Swift’s lawyers sent a letter to the blogger demanding a retraction, only to get a rebuke from the American Civil Liberties Union of California, criticizing what it called an effort to suppress constitutionally protected free speech. A few weeks later, The Guardian ran an editorial suggesting that Ms. Swift, with her feud-prone ways (and social media army of rabid fan enforcers), was “an envoy for Trump’s values,” if not necessarily a Trump supporter.
斯威夫特的律師寫(xiě)信給該博客作者，要求他刪除這篇文章，結(jié)果只是遭到加利福尼亞州美國(guó)公民自由聯(lián)盟(American Civil Liberties Union of California)的指責(zé)，稱(chēng)這種行為是在壓制受憲法保護(hù)的言論自由。幾周后，《衛(wèi)報(bào)》(The Guardian)發(fā)表了一篇社論，認(rèn)為斯威夫特雖然不一定是特朗普本人的支持者，但她那些容易引起爭(zhēng)執(zhí)的方式(以及社交媒體上捍衛(wèi)她的瘋狂粉絲們)是“特朗普式價(jià)值觀的使者”。
That editorial drew baffled reactions, but the question remains, When it comes to politics, how long can Taylor refuse to come to the phone?
這個(gè)社論引起了人們的困惑，但是問(wèn)題仍然存在，談到政治，泰勒能夠拒絕接聽(tīng)電話(huà)多久?
Country Music Grapples With Guns
鄉(xiāng)村音樂(lè)與槍支做斗爭(zhēng)
Mainstream country music generally steers clear of politics, beyond heartwarming tributes to America and the occasional rabble-rousing patriotic song. But after the mass shooting at a festival in Las Vegas in October left 58 fans dead and 500 more wounded, some cracks in the industry’s solidarity with American gun culture began to appear.
除了對(duì)美國(guó)溫暖的致敬與偶爾煽動(dòng)群眾的愛(ài)國(guó)歌曲，主流鄉(xiāng)村音樂(lè)普遍回避政治。但是10月份在拉斯維加斯舉行的一場(chǎng)鄉(xiāng)村音樂(lè)節(jié)上出現(xiàn)了大規(guī)模槍擊事件，58名歌迷死亡，500多人受傷，這個(gè)行業(yè)對(duì)美國(guó)槍支文化的一致支持開(kāi)始出現(xiàn)了一些裂縫。
A few stars, including Blake Shelton and Florida Georgia Line, issued statements distancing themselves from the National Rifle Association. Before the Country Music Association Awards, the group’s threats to revoke the credentials of any journalist who attempted to talk about “the Las Vegas tragedy, gun rights, political affiliations or topics of the like” drew intense criticism from artists, suggesting not everyone wanted to shut up and sing.
包括布萊克·謝爾頓(Blake Shelton)和“佛羅里達(dá)-佐治亞鐵路線(xiàn)”(Florida Georgia Line)在內(nèi)的幾位明星發(fā)表了與國(guó)家步槍協(xié)會(huì)(National Rifle Association)劃清界限的聲明。在鄉(xiāng)村音樂(lè)協(xié)會(huì)獎(jiǎng)(Country Music Association Awards)頒獎(jiǎng)之前，該組織威脅要撤銷(xiāo)任何試圖談?wù)?ldquo;拉斯維加斯悲劇、擁槍權(quán)、政治派別或類(lèi)似話(huà)題”的記者的采訪(fǎng)資格，這激起了藝人們的強(qiáng)烈批評(píng)，并不是每個(gè)人都想不問(wèn)時(shí)事，只管唱歌。
The show opened with a somber tribute to the victims of the shooting and the hurricanes in Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico, but no one went full Dixie Chick, or even mildly Meryl Streep. Instead, the hosts, Brad Paisley and Carrie Underwood, who had started out by declaring the show a “politics-free zone,” offered up “Before He Tweets,” a lighthearted parody of Mr. Trump’s Twitter habits to the tune of Ms. Underwood’s “Before He Cheats.”
演出開(kāi)始時(shí)對(duì)德克薩斯州、佛羅里達(dá)州和波多黎各的槍擊事件及颶風(fēng)的受害者表示沉痛的哀悼，但是沒(méi)有人效仿“迪克西小雞”(Dixie Chick)，甚至也沒(méi)人效仿溫和的梅麗爾·斯特里普。相反，主持人布拉德·派斯利(Brad Paisley)和凱莉·安德伍德(Carrie Underwood)一上來(lái)就宣布這次演出是“無(wú)政治區(qū)”，并提出了“在他發(fā)推文之前”這個(gè)說(shuō)法，這是用安德伍德的歌《在他背叛之前》(Before He Cheats)對(duì)特朗普上Twitter的習(xí)慣做了一個(gè)輕松戲仿。
#MeToo Versus Hollywood
#MeToo(我也是)標(biāo)簽對(duì)抗好萊塢
As the list of the men felled by allegations of sexual harassment and assault grew longer, the Weinstein Effect was shadowed by what might be called the Louis C. K. Conundrum. The offending men were gone (for now at least), but was it still O.K. to like — or even look at — their work?
被指控性騷擾和性侵犯的男人變得越來(lái)越多，“韋恩斯坦(Weinstein)效應(yīng)”在所謂的“路易斯·C·K(Louis C.K.)問(wèn)題”之下相形失色。那些東窗事發(fā)的男人們已經(jīng)離開(kāi)(至少暫時(shí)如此)，但是我們還能夠喜歡——甚至是觀看——他們的作品嗎?
While fans debated the politics of erasure, corporations made some of the decisions for us, for their own reasons, as books, television shows, movies and other projects were canceled or altered. Facing the social media calls for a boycott of the upcoming movie “All the Money in the World,” Sony spent about $10 million to reshoot 22 scenes with Christopher Plummer in which Kevin Spacey (who was accused of multiple incidents of sexual misconduct, including sexual assault of a minor) had appeared.
當(dāng)粉絲們辯論刪除政策的時(shí)候，企業(yè)出于自己的原因替我們做出了一些決定，一些書(shū)籍、電視劇、電影和其他項(xiàng)目被取消或改變了。面對(duì)社交媒體上抵制即將上映的電影《金錢(qián)世界》(All the Money in the World)的呼聲，索尼斥資約1000萬(wàn)美元，重新與克里斯托弗·普拉默(Christopher Plummer)合作，拍攝了22個(gè)原本有凱文·斯派西(Kevin Spacey)出現(xiàn)的場(chǎng)景，斯派西被指有過(guò)多次不當(dāng)性行為，包括性侵未成年人。
- 頻道推薦
- |
- 全站推薦
- 推薦下載
- 網(wǎng)站推薦
