翻译的即兴创作真可怕
来自于http://moviegoer.cinepedia.cn/movieblogs/427
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
译文
米开朗基罗·安东尼奥尼1960年于法国戛纳
当今世界存在着一个非常严重的分裂，一方面科学总是对未来进行规划，然后每一天都去否定前一天的事情，如果这样能够加快对未来的征服，哪怕是一点都可以……另一方面是固执、僵化的道德，人类道德的错误已暴露无遗，但这些错误仍旧继续存在着。
从一个人出生开始，他就背负着巨大的感情重担，我不想说这些感情已经陈旧或者过时，但是它们完全不符合这个人的需求。这些感情制约着他而不是帮助他，束缚着他却从不为他指出脱离困境的道路。
然而人类似乎并没有成功地卸下这一遗留的重担。在荷马时代就已经存在的道德力量和神话驱使下，他伪装、他憎恨、他忍受。这在今天多么荒谬，人类已经快第一次登上月球，但事实就是如此！
现在，如果技术和科学知识被证明是不对的，人类可以随时卸下这些错误的负累。在此之前科学从未如此卑下，如此迫不及待地收回它之前的陈述。但是在感情的领域，人们依然不能越雷池一步。
在过去的几年中，我们竭尽所能地检视和研究了情感。这是现在我们能做的。但是我们没能发现新的情感，甚至在问题的解决之道上尚无尺寸之功。
我不想装作我已找到了解决方案，那事实上对我来说是不可能的。我不是个道德家。
我的电影《奇遇》既不是谴责信也不是劝诫书。这是一个用视觉形象来讲述的故事。我希望这部电影的观众看到的不是情感困惑的滋生，而是发现一个人可以用来欺骗自己感情的方法。对此我重申，我们利用了老迈的道德观、过时的神话、陈旧的习俗。我们这么做是完全自觉的行为，为什么我们要尊重这样的道德观呢？
我的角色获得的结论不是道德上的无政府主义。他们最多也就是彼此互相怜悯。你也许会告诉我：“那也过时了。”但是留给我们的还有什么？
举个例子，你到底把充斥于文学作品和表演艺术中的情色看做什么？那是一个征兆，而且可能是最容易识别的征兆，那就是情感正在被折磨的征兆。
我们都不是好色之徒，换句话说爱神的病人，如果爱神自己还能保证健康的话。我所谓身体健康，意思是：恰好能满足人类的处境和需求。
因此，苦恼是存在的。如果人感到苦恼，大多数时候是会反抗的，但是这种反抗很糟，他对此也不高兴。
在《奇遇》中，灾难是对这种秩序的情欲刺激：廉价、无用、不幸。知道事物的本来面目还不够。我电影中的主人公（hero，多么荒谬的一个词！）十分明白击败自己的情欲刺激，实际上本质粗鄙、百无一用。但这还不够。
然后还有一个破灭的神话，就是存在一种幻想，认为了解自身就足够了，把自己灵魂深处的秘密条分缕析就足够了。
不，那还不够。每天我们都生活在“奇遇”中，不论是感情上的、道德上的还是意识形态上的奇遇。
但如果我们知道古老的诫条除了供人照本宣科、一再重复之外，再无用处，那么为什么我们还要恪守界限？人们的这种冥顽不灵令我觉得万分悲凉。
人，对科学的未知一无所惧，却对道德的未知讳莫如深。
如果你有了敌人，不要去打败他，不要侮辱他，不要诅咒他，不要羞辱他，更别希望他出车祸。简单地希望他继续不去工作那是最可怕的艰难，那是对人最大的打击。任何的休假，甚至是最美妙的休假，只有当它能够缓解人的疲乏时，才具有意义。
我觉得我在这方面尤其有发言权，我做着我喜欢的工作。我不知道多少意大利人能这么说。
这部作品是我生命中最重要的东西。问它带给我什么显得有些多余。它给了我全部，给了我表达自己与别人沟通的可能。考虑到我语言表达的困难，我觉得没有电影的话我就不存在了。
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC版原文
http://www.criterion.com/asp/release.asp?id=98&eid=107&section=essay
CANNES STATEMENT by Michelangelo Antonioni
Today the world is threatened by an extremely serious split between a science that is totally and consciously projected into the future, and a rigid and stereotyped morality which all of us recognize as such and yet sustain out of cowardice and sheer laziness. Where is this split most evident? What are its most obvious, its most sensitive, let us even say its most painful, areas?
Consider the Renaissance man, his sense of joy, his fullness, his multifarious activities. Those were men of great magnitude, skillful craftsmen and at the same time artistically creative, capable of recognizing their own sense of dignity, their own sense of importance as human beings: the Ptolemaic fullness of man. Then man discovered that his world was Copernican, an extremely limited world in an unknown universe.
And today a new man is being born, fraught with all the fears, terrors and stammerings that are associated with a period of gestation. And what is even more serious, this new man immediately finds himself burdened with a heavy baggage of emotional traits which cannot exactly be called old and outmoded, but rather unsuited and inadequate. They condition us without offering us any help, they create problems without suggesting any possible solutions. And yet it seems that man will not rid himself of this baggage. He reacts, he loves, he hates, he suffers under the sway of moral forces and myths which today, when we are at the threshold of reaching the moon, should not be the same as those that prevailed in Homeric times, but nevertheless are.
Man is quick to rid himself of his technological and scientific mistakes and misconceptions. Indeed, science has never been more humble and less dogmatic than it is today. Whereas our moral attitudes are governed by an absolute sense of stultification. In recent years, we have examined those moral attitudes very carefully, we have dissected them and analyzed them to the point of exhaustion. We have been capable of all this, but we have not been capable of finding new ones. We have not been capable of making any headway whatsoever toward solving the problem of this ever-increasing split between the moral and the scientific man, a split which is becoming more and more serious, and more and more accentuated.
Naturally, I don’t care to, nor can I, resolve it myself; I am not a moralist, and my film is neither a denunciation nor a sermon. It is a story told through images whereby, I hope, it may be possible to perceive not the birth of a mistaken attitude but the manner in which attitudes and dealings are misunderstood today. Because, I repeat, the present moral standards we live by, these myths, these conventions are old and obsolete. And we all know they are, yet we honor them. Why? The conclusion reached by the protagonists in my film is not one of sentimentality. If anything, what they finally arrive at is a sense of pity for each other. You might say that this too is nothing new. But what else is left if we do not at least succeed in achieving this? Why do you think eroticism is so prevalent today in our literature, our theatrical shows, and elsewhere? It is a symptom of the emotional sickness of our time. But this preoccupation with eroticism would not become obsessive if Eros were healthy, that is, if it were kept within human proportions. But Eros is sick; man is uneasy, something is bothering him. And whenever something bothers him, man reacts, but he reacts badly, only on erotic impulse, and he is unhappy.
The tragedy in L’Avventura stems directly From an erotic impulse of this type: unhappy, miserable, futile. To be critically aware of the vulgarity and the futility of such an overwhelming erotic impulse, as is the case with the protagonist in L’Avventura, is not enough or serves no purpose. And here we witness the crumbling of a myth, which proclaims it is enough for us to know, to be critically conscious of ourselves, to analyze ourselves, in all our complexities and in every facet of our personality. The fact that matters is that such an examination is not enough. It is only a preliminary step. Every day, every emotional encounter gives rise to a new adventure. For even though we know that the ancient codes of morality are decrepit and no longer tenable, we persist, with a sense of perversity that I would only ironically define as pathetic, in remaining loyal to them. Thus, the moral man who has no fear of the scientific unknown is today afraid of the moral unknown. Starting out From this point of fear and frustration, his adventure can only end in a stalemate.
============================================================================
太可怕了，原文被演绎得一塌糊涂。这也是我很多时候害怕中译本的一大原因——为什么他们能做到离题千里而面无惧色呢……
按奈不住了，再吐槽两句。这个中译文我精读三遍，硬是没明白；老安东的精读一遍就了解个大意了，至少人家逻辑上是连贯的。
“The tragedy in L’Avventura stems directly From an erotic impulse of this type: unhappy, miserable, futile. To be critically aware of the vulgarity and the futility of such an overwhelming erotic impulse, as is the case with the protagonist in L’Avventura, is not enough or serves no purpose.”翻译成“在《奇遇》中，灾难是对这种秩序的情欲刺激：廉价、无用、不幸。知道事物的本来面目还不够。我电影中的主人公（hero，多么荒谬的一个词！）十分明白击败自己的情欲刺激，实际上本质粗鄙、百无一用。但这还不够。”——这个才是“灾难”。最傻最明显的是，自作多情地加了括弧里面的一句，人家用了“hero”这个词了嘛，人家用的是“protagonist”！还有数不胜数的“乱用词义”、“脱节”、“因果颠倒”……，真怀疑译者有没有联系上下文。
不会准确地表达诗意的时候，就给我按文意老老实实地来，少用这种自恋的“勉强诗意”害人。
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
译文
米开朗基罗·安东尼奥尼1960年于法国戛纳
当今世界存在着一个非常严重的分裂，一方面科学总是对未来进行规划，然后每一天都去否定前一天的事情，如果这样能够加快对未来的征服，哪怕是一点都可以……另一方面是固执、僵化的道德，人类道德的错误已暴露无遗，但这些错误仍旧继续存在着。
从一个人出生开始，他就背负着巨大的感情重担，我不想说这些感情已经陈旧或者过时，但是它们完全不符合这个人的需求。这些感情制约着他而不是帮助他，束缚着他却从不为他指出脱离困境的道路。
然而人类似乎并没有成功地卸下这一遗留的重担。在荷马时代就已经存在的道德力量和神话驱使下，他伪装、他憎恨、他忍受。这在今天多么荒谬，人类已经快第一次登上月球，但事实就是如此！
现在，如果技术和科学知识被证明是不对的，人类可以随时卸下这些错误的负累。在此之前科学从未如此卑下，如此迫不及待地收回它之前的陈述。但是在感情的领域，人们依然不能越雷池一步。
在过去的几年中，我们竭尽所能地检视和研究了情感。这是现在我们能做的。但是我们没能发现新的情感，甚至在问题的解决之道上尚无尺寸之功。
我不想装作我已找到了解决方案，那事实上对我来说是不可能的。我不是个道德家。
我的电影《奇遇》既不是谴责信也不是劝诫书。这是一个用视觉形象来讲述的故事。我希望这部电影的观众看到的不是情感困惑的滋生，而是发现一个人可以用来欺骗自己感情的方法。对此我重申，我们利用了老迈的道德观、过时的神话、陈旧的习俗。我们这么做是完全自觉的行为，为什么我们要尊重这样的道德观呢？
我的角色获得的结论不是道德上的无政府主义。他们最多也就是彼此互相怜悯。你也许会告诉我：“那也过时了。”但是留给我们的还有什么？
举个例子，你到底把充斥于文学作品和表演艺术中的情色看做什么？那是一个征兆，而且可能是最容易识别的征兆，那就是情感正在被折磨的征兆。
我们都不是好色之徒，换句话说爱神的病人，如果爱神自己还能保证健康的话。我所谓身体健康，意思是：恰好能满足人类的处境和需求。
因此，苦恼是存在的。如果人感到苦恼，大多数时候是会反抗的，但是这种反抗很糟，他对此也不高兴。
在《奇遇》中，灾难是对这种秩序的情欲刺激：廉价、无用、不幸。知道事物的本来面目还不够。我电影中的主人公（hero，多么荒谬的一个词！）十分明白击败自己的情欲刺激，实际上本质粗鄙、百无一用。但这还不够。
然后还有一个破灭的神话，就是存在一种幻想，认为了解自身就足够了，把自己灵魂深处的秘密条分缕析就足够了。
不，那还不够。每天我们都生活在“奇遇”中，不论是感情上的、道德上的还是意识形态上的奇遇。
但如果我们知道古老的诫条除了供人照本宣科、一再重复之外，再无用处，那么为什么我们还要恪守界限？人们的这种冥顽不灵令我觉得万分悲凉。
人，对科学的未知一无所惧，却对道德的未知讳莫如深。
如果你有了敌人，不要去打败他，不要侮辱他，不要诅咒他，不要羞辱他，更别希望他出车祸。简单地希望他继续不去工作那是最可怕的艰难，那是对人最大的打击。任何的休假，甚至是最美妙的休假，只有当它能够缓解人的疲乏时，才具有意义。
我觉得我在这方面尤其有发言权，我做着我喜欢的工作。我不知道多少意大利人能这么说。
这部作品是我生命中最重要的东西。问它带给我什么显得有些多余。它给了我全部，给了我表达自己与别人沟通的可能。考虑到我语言表达的困难，我觉得没有电影的话我就不存在了。
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC版原文
http://www.criterion.com/asp/release.asp?id=98&eid=107&section=essay
CANNES STATEMENT by Michelangelo Antonioni
Today the world is threatened by an extremely serious split between a science that is totally and consciously projected into the future, and a rigid and stereotyped morality which all of us recognize as such and yet sustain out of cowardice and sheer laziness. Where is this split most evident? What are its most obvious, its most sensitive, let us even say its most painful, areas?
Consider the Renaissance man, his sense of joy, his fullness, his multifarious activities. Those were men of great magnitude, skillful craftsmen and at the same time artistically creative, capable of recognizing their own sense of dignity, their own sense of importance as human beings: the Ptolemaic fullness of man. Then man discovered that his world was Copernican, an extremely limited world in an unknown universe.
And today a new man is being born, fraught with all the fears, terrors and stammerings that are associated with a period of gestation. And what is even more serious, this new man immediately finds himself burdened with a heavy baggage of emotional traits which cannot exactly be called old and outmoded, but rather unsuited and inadequate. They condition us without offering us any help, they create problems without suggesting any possible solutions. And yet it seems that man will not rid himself of this baggage. He reacts, he loves, he hates, he suffers under the sway of moral forces and myths which today, when we are at the threshold of reaching the moon, should not be the same as those that prevailed in Homeric times, but nevertheless are.
Man is quick to rid himself of his technological and scientific mistakes and misconceptions. Indeed, science has never been more humble and less dogmatic than it is today. Whereas our moral attitudes are governed by an absolute sense of stultification. In recent years, we have examined those moral attitudes very carefully, we have dissected them and analyzed them to the point of exhaustion. We have been capable of all this, but we have not been capable of finding new ones. We have not been capable of making any headway whatsoever toward solving the problem of this ever-increasing split between the moral and the scientific man, a split which is becoming more and more serious, and more and more accentuated.
Naturally, I don’t care to, nor can I, resolve it myself; I am not a moralist, and my film is neither a denunciation nor a sermon. It is a story told through images whereby, I hope, it may be possible to perceive not the birth of a mistaken attitude but the manner in which attitudes and dealings are misunderstood today. Because, I repeat, the present moral standards we live by, these myths, these conventions are old and obsolete. And we all know they are, yet we honor them. Why? The conclusion reached by the protagonists in my film is not one of sentimentality. If anything, what they finally arrive at is a sense of pity for each other. You might say that this too is nothing new. But what else is left if we do not at least succeed in achieving this? Why do you think eroticism is so prevalent today in our literature, our theatrical shows, and elsewhere? It is a symptom of the emotional sickness of our time. But this preoccupation with eroticism would not become obsessive if Eros were healthy, that is, if it were kept within human proportions. But Eros is sick; man is uneasy, something is bothering him. And whenever something bothers him, man reacts, but he reacts badly, only on erotic impulse, and he is unhappy.
The tragedy in L’Avventura stems directly From an erotic impulse of this type: unhappy, miserable, futile. To be critically aware of the vulgarity and the futility of such an overwhelming erotic impulse, as is the case with the protagonist in L’Avventura, is not enough or serves no purpose. And here we witness the crumbling of a myth, which proclaims it is enough for us to know, to be critically conscious of ourselves, to analyze ourselves, in all our complexities and in every facet of our personality. The fact that matters is that such an examination is not enough. It is only a preliminary step. Every day, every emotional encounter gives rise to a new adventure. For even though we know that the ancient codes of morality are decrepit and no longer tenable, we persist, with a sense of perversity that I would only ironically define as pathetic, in remaining loyal to them. Thus, the moral man who has no fear of the scientific unknown is today afraid of the moral unknown. Starting out From this point of fear and frustration, his adventure can only end in a stalemate.
============================================================================
太可怕了，原文被演绎得一塌糊涂。这也是我很多时候害怕中译本的一大原因——为什么他们能做到离题千里而面无惧色呢……
按奈不住了，再吐槽两句。这个中译文我精读三遍，硬是没明白；老安东的精读一遍就了解个大意了，至少人家逻辑上是连贯的。
“The tragedy in L’Avventura stems directly From an erotic impulse of this type: unhappy, miserable, futile. To be critically aware of the vulgarity and the futility of such an overwhelming erotic impulse, as is the case with the protagonist in L’Avventura, is not enough or serves no purpose.”翻译成“在《奇遇》中，灾难是对这种秩序的情欲刺激：廉价、无用、不幸。知道事物的本来面目还不够。我电影中的主人公（hero，多么荒谬的一个词！）十分明白击败自己的情欲刺激，实际上本质粗鄙、百无一用。但这还不够。”——这个才是“灾难”。最傻最明显的是，自作多情地加了括弧里面的一句，人家用了“hero”这个词了嘛，人家用的是“protagonist”！还有数不胜数的“乱用词义”、“脱节”、“因果颠倒”……，真怀疑译者有没有联系上下文。
不会准确地表达诗意的时候，就给我按文意老老实实地来，少用这种自恋的“勉强诗意”害人。
还没人赞这篇日记
