A Canadian journey: Conversations with time
A Canadian journey: Conversations with time
复制标题
加拿大之旅：与时间对话
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1994
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Dorland
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Harcourt;M. Dorland
加拿大之旅：与时间的对话。Peter Harcourt，多伦多，1994:Oberon出版社。分裂声音的修辞在1994年末关于加拿大电影评论辩论的贫瘠的一场具有挑衅性的讨论中（这场讨论，就像辩论本身一样，似乎受到了通常的冷漠），多伦多大学的巴特·泰斯塔（Bart Testa）引起了人们对共识道德主义的关注，这种道德主义是加拿大背景下电影媒介相对有限的批判性分析的基础。在Testa看来，参与制定加拿大电影“工业”的演员——尤其是评论家和政府官员，偶尔还有电影制作人——都有一个共同的信念，即电影首先应该服务于“崇高的道德目的”，然而这个公式是由个人参与者理解的。Testa注意到，在相当大的程度上，加拿大背景下对电影的批判性讨论是一种“规范性”话语，专注于定义电影应该是什么，而牺牲了它可能已经做过或目前可能正在做的任何其他事情（见Fetherling: n.d， 260 - 336中所谓的“我们需要的电影”辩论）。Testa将这种道德主义追溯到他所谓的“社会反思处方”，即文化生产必须以某种独特的方式反映“加拿大”条件的基本义务，而这种方式反过来又构成了加拿大人的身份。文化产品必须是“独特的”加拿大产品；如果做不到这一点，那就什么都不是。在泰斯塔看来，因为加拿大的电影评论只不过是道德说教，所以它的成就在很大程度上是微不足道和重复的。如果泰斯塔的眼光超越了电影评论，他会发现一个更普遍的现象。他在电影评论中发现的共识道德主义并不局限于此；相反，这种一致同意的道德主义构成了加拿大文化生产的必要条件，在此基础上，它得到了关键的关注，在公共领域得到了表达，最后但并非最不重要的是，得到了国家的补贴。因此，通过一致同意的道德主义对文化生产的宣传并不局限于对电影的批判性讨论，但从广义上讲，已经成为20世纪加拿大背景下“文化”生产的历史负担，在文学和绘画中，特别是在那些混合的“艺术”形式中，它们在更大程度上源于资本密集型（或工业）的组织模式-即，文化产业（特别是书刊出版、录音、影视制作等“经典”产业）。但是，为什么会出现这种情况并不是Testa （1994a, 1994b）在他的电影评论讨论中所处理的问题，除了引起人们对约翰·格里尔森自20世纪30年代以来对加拿大电影话语及其当代批评形象的影响的决定性（但仍然令人困惑的）遗产的关注之外。然而，规范性道德主义在多大程度上框定了对文化生产的讨论是值得进一步探讨的，因为它本身似乎已经构成了它自己的一个真正的媒介。事实上，我认为，它一直是加拿大文化生产的主要媒介，通过它，加拿大文化生产的话语得以公开进行，并被赋予制度形式。在第二次世界大战后的几十年里，联邦和省级机构以公共成本扩大了一个日益复杂的立法、行政、财政- -总之，管理- -机构，这些机构为加拿大文化生产活动在各个领域的发展提供了体制框架，从传统美术到媒体艺术，在高等教育和大众媒体的某些领域。在电影和广播的大众媒体中，加拿大政府早在20世纪初就已经建立了干预国家制作的电影和20世纪30年代初的国有广播的制度性先例. ...
A CANADIAN JOURNEY: CONVERSATIONS WITH TIME. Peter Harcourt, Toronto 1994: Oberon Press.Rhetorics of the Divided VoiceIn a provocative discussion in late 1994 of the sterility of Canadian debates in film criticism (a discussion which, like the debates themselves, seems to have been met with the usual indifference), Bart Testa (University of Toronto) drew attention to the consensual moralism that has underlain the relatively limited critical analysis the medium of film has received in the Canadian context. In Testa's view, the actors participating in the elaboration of the Canadian film "industry" - from critics and government officials in particular, to filmmakers occasionally - have all shared a belief that film should first serve a "high moral purpose" however this formula was to be understood by individual participants. Testa noted the considerable extent to which the critical discussion of film in the Canadian context has been a "prescriptive" discourse, preoccupied with defining what film ought to be at the expense of whatever else it may actually have done or currently might be doing (see the so - called "Cinema We Need" debate in Fetherling: n.d., 260 - 336). Testa traced this moralism to what he termed "the social - reflection prescription," the fundamental obligation that cultural production somehow must reflect "Canadian" conditions in a unique manner that would in turn constitute the Canadian identity. Cultural production had to be "distinctively" Canadian; failing that, it would be nothing at all. In Testa's perspective, because film criticism in Canada had not amounted to much more than its moralism, its achievements were, for the most part, insignificant and repetitious.Had Testa looked beyond film criticism, he would have perceived a more generalized phenomenon. The consensual moralism he found in film criticism was not restricted to it; rather, that consensual moralism formed the sine qua non of cultural production in Canada, the basis on which it received critical attention, articulation in the public sphere and, last but not least, subsidy by the state. The publicization of cultural production by consensual moralism has not, then, been limited to the critical discussion of film, but broadly speaking has been the historical burden of the production of "culture" in the twentieth - century Canadian context, in literature as in painting, especially in those hybrid "art" forms that derive to a greater extent from capital - intensive (or industrial) modes of organization - namely, the cultural industries (in their "classic" incarnation in book and magazine publishing, sound - recording, film and television production in particular).But why this has been the case was not a question Testa (1994a, 1994b), in his discussion of film criticism, dealt with other than drawing attention to the determining (and still puzzling) legacy of John Grierson's influence since the 1930s on Canadian film discourse and its contemporary critical avatars. The extent to which a prescriptive moralism has framed the discussion of cultural production is worth dwelling upon further, however, since it would itself appear to have come to constitute a veritable medium of its own. Indeed, I would argue that it has been the primary medium through which the discourses of Canadian cultural production were to be publically conducted and given institutional form.The decades that followed the Second World War saw the extension, at public cost, of an increasingly elaborate legislative, administrative, fiscal - in a word, regulatory - apparatus of federal and also provincial agencies that have provided the institutional framework for the development of Canadian cultural production activities in a variety of domains, from the traditional fine arts to the media arts, in higher education, and select domains of the mass media. In the mass media of film and broadcasting, the Canadian state had already established institutional precedents for intervention - in state - produced film as early as the teens of the century, and in state - owned broadcasting as of the early 1930s. …