來源：https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newstatesman.com%2Fthe-weekend-essay%2F2023%2F07%2Fbarbie-oppenheimer-fantasy-reality-truth-films

up主折射棱鏡prisma的視頻包含人工翻譯：BV1Xu411372n

括號外為GPT4翻譯。up略讀了一遍，整體質(zhì)量很好。對個別不清楚的地方加入了括號（up注），做了一些解釋。

Barbie can’t handle the truth
芭比不能把握真相

Barbie and Oppenheimer show us how in the heart of the darkest realities we stumble upon fantasies.
芭比和奧本海默向我們展示了在最黑暗的現(xiàn)實中，我們是如何偶然發(fā)現(xiàn)幻想的。

By Slavoj ?i?ek
作者：斯拉沃·齊澤克

Denounced and ridiculed by critics, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny – the fifth and final instalment in the franchise – nonetheless confronts one of the central problems of modernity: the separation of fantasy and reality.?
雖然被評論家們斥責和嘲笑，但《印第安納·瓊斯與命運之盤》（up注：奪寶奇兵）——該系列的第五部也是最后一部——還是直面了現(xiàn)代性的一個核心問題：幻想和現(xiàn)實的分離。

Set in 1969, the story centres on Jones’s efforts to locate an ancient device – the Dial – believed to grant the power of time travel.?
故事設(shè)定在1969年，圍繞瓊斯尋找一個古老裝置——命運之盤——的努力展開，人們相信它有賦予時間旅行的能力。

Estranged from his wife, Marion, and depressed following the death of their son, Jones is assisted by his goddaughter Helena, as they are pursued by a new generation of Nazis who also seek the Dial.?
瓊斯與妻子瑪麗安疏遠，且在他們的兒子去世后陷入抑郁。他的教女海倫娜在他們被尋求命運之盤的新一代納粹追趕時給予他幫助。

In the film’s climactic scene, Jones and Helena are transported back to the Siege of Syracuse in 212 BC, where they meet the astronomer Archimedes, who invented the time machine.?
在影片的高潮場景中，瓊斯和海倫娜被傳送回公元前212年的錫拉庫薩圍城戰(zhàn)，他們在那里遇到了發(fā)明了時間機器的天文學家阿基米德。

Believing that he has no life to return to in 1969 America, Jones wants to remain in the past, living amid a great historical moment.?
瓊斯認為他在1969年的美國沒有可以返回的生活（up注：認為1969的生活算不上是生活），所以他想留在過去，在一個偉大的歷史時刻中生活。

But Helena, refusing to give up on him, knocks Jones unconscious and returns with him to the modern world.?
但是海倫娜拒絕放棄他，她將瓊斯擊昏并帶他返回現(xiàn)代世界。

Waking up in his apartment, Indy is reunited with Marion, and they embrace as Helena walks away smiling.?
瓊斯在他的公寓中醒來，他和瑪麗安重逢，他們在海倫娜微笑著離開時擁抱在一起。

This happy resolution, however, doesn’t quite conceal the bitter implications of the film’s conclusion. Forced out of ancient Greece, the hero-professor now faces a life of arid domesticity.
然而，這個歡樂的解決并不能完全掩蓋影片結(jié)局帶來的苦澀含義。被迫離開古希臘的英雄教授現(xiàn)在面臨著枯燥的家庭生活。

Many of the reviewers’ most ferocious broadsides have been aimed at the character Helena (played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge), who has been variously presented as weird (measured against classic Hollywood standards of beauty and eroticism) or “woke”, a leading lady who undermines patriarchal clichés of feminine charm.
許多評論家們最猛烈的抨擊都指向了海倫娜這個角色（由菲比·沃勒-布里奇飾演），她被形容為奇怪（以經(jīng)典好萊塢的美和色情標準衡量）或者“覺醒”，一位破壞了女性魅力父權(quán)陳詞濫調(diào)的女主角。（up注：一位破壞了傳統(tǒng)父權(quán)中的女性魅力的女主角）

But Helena is neither a sex symbol nor an exemplar of woke attitudes towards gender: she simply introduces an element of everyday opportunism combined with basic goodness – a touch of what might be called actual life.?
但海倫娜既不是性象征，也不是對性別有“覺醒”態(tài)度的典范：她只是簡單地引入了日常機會主義和基本善良的元素——這可能被稱為實際生活的一點觸感。（up注：一種可能被稱為真正的現(xiàn)實生活的觸感）

The new Indiana Jones is really about Helena, a person from the real world who is drawn into the fantasy world of Indy’s treasure-hunting adventures.
新的《印第安納·瓊斯》真的是關(guān)于海倫娜的，她是一個來自現(xiàn)實世界的人，被吸引進了瓊斯尋寶冒險的幻想世界。

As a variation on the Matrix theme of “welcome to the desert of the real” – that is, what happens when our protective illusions break down and we face the real world in all its stark brutality – Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is part of a recent trend of films – Barbie, Oppenheimer, I’m a Virgo – in which the heroes venture between the real and the imaginary and the imaginary and the real.?
作為“歡迎來到真實的沙漠”（up注：歡迎來到實在界的沙漠）這個《黑客帝國》主題的變體——也就是當我們的保護性幻覺破碎，我們面對現(xiàn)實世界所有的赤裸裸的殘酷時會發(fā)生什么——《印第安納·瓊斯與命運之盤》是最近一種電影趨勢的一部分——《芭比》，《奧本海默》，《我是處女座》——在這些電影中，英雄們在真實和虛幻以及虛幻和真實之間冒險。（up注：英雄們在實在界和想象界，以及想象界和實在界之間冒險，以下同。the real實在界，the imaginary想象界）

After being expelled from the utopian Barbie Land for being less-than-perfect dolls, Barbie and Ken embark on a journey of self-discovery to the real world.?
被因為不是完美的娃娃從烏托邦的芭比樂園中驅(qū)逐出去后，芭比和肯踏上了自我發(fā)現(xiàn)的旅程，去往現(xiàn)實世界。

But what they find there is not some deep revelation of the self but the realisation that actual life is even more riddled with suffocating clichés than their own fantasy world.?
但他們在那里找到的并不是關(guān)于自我深入的啟示，而是認識到實際生活比他們自己的幻想世界更充滿了令人窒息的陳詞濫調(diào)。

The doll couple are forced to confront the fact that there isn’t just a brutal reality beyond Barbie Land, but that utopia is part of that brutal reality: without fantasies like Barbie Land, individuals would simply not be able to endure the real world.
這對娃娃夫婦被迫面對這樣一個事實：在芭比樂園之外，不只有殘酷的現(xiàn)實，烏托邦也是那種殘酷現(xiàn)實的一部分：如果沒有像芭比樂園這樣的幻想，個體簡直無法忍受現(xiàn)實世界。

Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer complicates this idea of venturing into reality. 克里斯托弗·諾蘭的《奧本海默》復雜化了這種進入現(xiàn)實的冒險觀念。?

Its theme is not just the passage from the haven of academia to the real world of war – from the mind to the munitions dump – but how nuclear weapons (the fruits of science) shatter our perception of reality: a nuclear explosion is something that does not belong to our daily life. 其主題不僅僅是從學術(shù)的避風港到戰(zhàn)爭的真實世界的過渡——從思想到軍火庫，更是關(guān)于核武器（科學的成果）如何粉碎我們對現(xiàn)實的認知：核爆炸是我們?nèi)粘Ｉ钪袩o法接觸的事物。

Oppenheimer, a theoretical physicist, led the Manhattan Project, the team established in August 1942 that developed the atomic bomb for the US. 奧本海默，一位理論物理學家，領(lǐng)導了曼哈頓計劃，這個團隊成立于1942年8月，為美國開發(fā)了原子彈。

In 1954 the authorities subsequently branded him a Communist for his affiliation with groups working to slow nuclear proliferation. 1954年，由于他與致力于阻止核擴散的組織有所關(guān)聯(lián)，他被當局標記為共產(chǎn)主義者。

While Oppenheimer’s stance was courageous and ethical, he failed to reckon with the existential implications of the device he created. 盡管奧本海默的立場是勇敢和道德的，但他未能理解他創(chuàng)造的裝置的存在主義意涵。

In his essay “Apocalypse without Kingdom”, the philosopher Günther Anders introduced the concept of “naked apocalypse”: “the apocalypse that consists of mere downfall, which doesn’t represent the opening of a new, positive state of affairs (of the ‘kingdom’).” 在他的文章《沒有王國的末日》中，哲學家君特·安德斯引入了“裸末日”的概念：“僅由衰敗構(gòu)成的末日，并不代表新的、積極的事態(tài)（'王國'）的開啟?！?br>
For Anders, a nuclear catastrophe would represent a naked apocalypse: no new kingdom would arise out of it, just the total obliteration of the world. 對于安德斯來說，一場核災難將代表一場裸末日：它不會產(chǎn)生新的王國，只會徹底摧毀世界。

Oppenheimer couldn’t accept this nakedness, so he escaped further into Hinduism, which he had been interested in since the early 1930s, when he learned Sanskrit to read the Upanishads in the original. 奧本海默無法接受這種赤裸裸的末日，因此他進一步逃避到了印度教中，他從20世紀30年代初就對此產(chǎn)生了興趣，那時他學習梵文以閱讀原版的《奧義書》。

Describing his feelings after the first explosion of the atomic bomb in the Trinity test in New Mexico, Oppenheimer quoted from the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna tells Arjuna: “Now I become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” 在描述他在新墨西哥三位一體測試中原子彈第一次爆炸后的感受時，奧本海默引用了《薄伽梵歌》中克里希納對阿瓊的話：“現(xiàn)在，我成為了死亡，世界的毀滅者?！?br>
While this is the line people most associate with Oppenheimer, he also quoted another passage from Gita: “If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendour of the mighty one.” 雖然這是人們最常與奧本海默聯(lián)系在一起的話，但他還引用了《薄伽梵歌》的另一段：“如果一千個太陽同時在天空中爆發(fā)，那就像強者的輝煌?！?br>
The nuclear explosion is thus elevated into a divine experience. No wonder that, after the successful nuclear explosion, according to the physicist Isidor Rabi, Oppenheimer appeared triumphant: “I’ll never forget his walk; I’ll never forget the way he stepped out of the car… His walk was like High Noon … this kind of strut. He had done it.” 因此，核爆炸被提升為一種神圣的體驗。難怪物理學家伊西多爾·拉比說，成功的核爆炸后，奧本海默顯得勝利在望：“我永遠不會忘記他的步態(tài)，我永遠不會忘記他下車的樣子……他的步態(tài)就像正午的陽光……這種洋洋得意。他做到了?！?br>
Oppenheimer’s fascination with Gita thus belongs to the long tradition of attempting to ground the metaphysical implications of quantum physics in Oriental traditions. But Nolan’s film fails to show how the evocation of any kind of spiritual depth obfuscated the horror of a new reality created by science. 奧本海默對《薄伽梵歌》的著迷因此屬于一種長期的傳統(tǒng)，試圖將量子物理的形而上學意涵根植于東方傳統(tǒng)中。但是諾蘭的電影未能展示出任何形式的精神深度如何使科學創(chuàng)造的新現(xiàn)實的恐怖變得模糊。

To effectively confront the “naked apocalypse” or cataclysm without redemption, the opposite of spiritual depth is needed: an utterly irreverent comic spirit. One should recall that the best movies about the Holocaust – Pasqualino Settebellezze (1974), Life is Beautiful (1997) – are comedies, not because they trivialise the Holocaust but because they implicitly admit that it is too crazy a crime to be narrated as a “tragic” story. 要有效地面對“裸末日”或無法挽回的災難，我們需要的是與精神深度相反的東西（up注：我們需要的是精神深度的反面）：一個完全不敬的喜劇精神。人們應(yīng)該記?。╱p注：人們應(yīng)該記得、可以記起），關(guān)于大屠殺的最好的電影——《帕斯夸利諾·塞特貝萊澤》（1974），《美麗人生》（1997）——都是喜劇，并不是因為它們輕視大屠殺，而是因為它們隱含地承認，大屠殺是一種瘋狂到無法以“悲劇”來敘述的罪行。

Is there a movie which dares to do this with the horrors and threats of today? I’m a Virgo (a miniseries by Boots Riley released in 2023) is the story of Cootie, a four-metre tall 19-year-old black man raised by his aunt and uncle in Oakland, California. 有沒有一部電影敢于以這種方式處理今天的恐怖和威脅？《我是處女座》（2023年由布茨·萊利發(fā)布的迷你劇）是關(guān)于庫迪的故事，他是一個四米高的19歲黑人男孩，由他的阿姨和叔叔在加利福尼亞的奧克蘭撫養(yǎng)大。

The two guardians dedicate their lives to making sure that Cootie is safe and sequestered away. But raised on commercials, comics and pop culture, Cootie breaks into the world not as a tabula rasa but already brainwashed by the consumerist mass ideology. 兩位監(jiān)護人致力于確保Cootie的安全并隔離他。但是，Cootie在廣告、漫畫和流行文化中長大，他走向世界（時已經(jīng)——up注）不是一張白紙，而是已經(jīng)被消費主義的大眾意識形態(tài)洗腦。

He awkwardly manages to make friends, get a job and find love, but soon discovers that the world is more sinister than it appears – Cootie acts as a catalyser, his entrance into our common social reality bringing out all its antagonisms and tensions (racism, consumerism, sexuality…). 他尷尬地設(shè)法交朋友、找工作和尋找愛情，但很快發(fā)現(xiàn)世界比看上去更險惡——Cootie起到了催化劑的作用，他進入我們共同的社會現(xiàn)實，激發(fā)出所有的對立和緊張（種族主義、消費主義、性欲（up注：性）……）。

And how does he do it? As a perspicuous critic for The Wrap noticed: “Don’t let the heavy themes fool you, I’m a Virgo is a comedy full of absolutely bonkers moments.” Riley uses the absurd to point out the obvious in real-life situations. “I’m attracted to large contradictions,” he told Wired. “The contradictions of capitalism – how it works – are going to echo through almost everything we do.” 他是怎么做到的呢？正如《環(huán)球》的一位敏銳的評論家注意到的：“別讓沉重的主題愚弄你，'我是處女座'是一部充滿瘋狂時刻的喜劇?！比R利利用荒誕來指出現(xiàn)實生活情境中的明顯事物。“我被大的矛盾所吸引，”他告訴《連線》。“資本主義的矛盾——它的運作方式——將在我們幾乎所做的一切中產(chǎn)生共鳴?！?br>
Therein resides Riley’s genius: the combination of two tragic facts (a giant freak thrown into our world; the basic antagonisms of global capitalism) produces sparkling comedy. The comic effect emerges because ideological fantasies and reality are not opposed: in the heart of the darkest realities we stumble upon fantasies. 正在此處，萊利的天才所在（up注：此處正是萊利的天才之處）：兩個悲劇事實的結(jié)合（一個巨大的怪物被投入我們的世界；全球資本主義的基本對立）產(chǎn)生了閃亮的喜劇。喜劇效果的產(chǎn)生是因為意識形態(tài)的幻想和現(xiàn)實并不對立：在最黑暗的現(xiàn)實中，我們會偶然遇到幻想。

Perpetrators of horrible crimes are not diabolical monsters who courageously do what they are doing – they are cowards doing it to sustain the fantasy which motivates them. Stalinists killed millions to bring about a new society, and they had to kill millions more to avoid the truth that their Communist project was destined to fail. 可怕犯罪的實施者并不是勇敢地做他們所做的事情的惡魔——他們是為了維持激勵他們的幻想而做這些事情的懦夫。斯大林主義者殺死了數(shù)百萬人，以建立一個新的社會，他們必須殺死更多的人，以避免他們的共產(chǎn)主義項目注定失敗的真相。

Most of us know the culminating moment of Rob Reiner’s A Few Good Men (1992) when the lawyer Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) cross-examines the Colonel Nathan Jessep (Jack Nicholson) and declares, “I want the truth!”, and Jessep shouts, “You can’t handle the truth!” 大多數(shù)人都知道Rob Reiner的《A Few Good Men》(1992)中的高潮時刻，當律師Daniel Kaffee（湯姆·克魯斯飾）盤問上校Nathan Jessep（杰克·尼科爾森飾）并宣稱：“我要真相！”，而Jessep大喊：“你不能承受真相！”

This reply is more ambiguous than it seems: it should not be taken as simply claiming that most of us are too weak to handle the brutal reality of the world. If someone were to ask a witness about the truth of the Holocaust, and the witness were to reply, “You can’t handle the truth!”, this should not be understood as a simple claim that most of us are not able to process the horror of holocaust. 這個回答比看上去更有歧義：它不應(yīng)該被簡單地理解為聲稱我們大多數(shù)人都太弱，無法處理這個世界的殘酷現(xiàn)實。如果有人問一個證人關(guān)于大屠殺的真相，而證人回答：“你不能承受真相！”，這不應(yīng)被理解為大多數(shù)人無法處理大屠殺的恐怖的簡單說法。

At a deeper level, those who were not able to handle the truth were the Nazi perpetrators themselves: they were unable to accept the fact that their society was traversed by the economic and social crises of the 1930s, and to avoid this troubling insight they engaged in a mass murder spree that targeted Jews – as if killing Jews would somehow miraculously re-establish a harmonious social body. 在更深的層面上，那些不能處理真相的是納粹的犯罪者自己：他們無法接受他們的社會被20世紀30年代的經(jīng)濟和社會危機所穿越的事實，為了避免這個令人困擾的洞察，他們對猶太人進行了大規(guī)模的殺戮，好像殺害猶太人會以某種神奇的方式重新建立一個和諧的社會體。

And therein resides the final lesson of the stories about venturing from fantasy into reality: we do not only escape into a fantasy to avoid confronting reality, we also escape into reality to avoid the devastating truth about the futility of our fantasies. 這里包含了關(guān)于從幻想進入現(xiàn)實的故事的最終教訓：我們不僅逃避到幻想中以避免面對現(xiàn)實，我們也逃避到現(xiàn)實中，以避免面對我們的幻想的徒勞的毀滅性真相。（up注：以避免那個毀滅性的（可怕的）真相，那個幻想實際上無用、徒勞的真相）