前言：這篇文章脫胎自我之前課上的一篇論文作業(yè)，引用格式采取MLA9

中文版：

“看電影的經(jīng)歷是其中的一部分。只在電視上看到一部偉大的電影并不是真的看過(guò)這部電影。”(Davis 407)。對(duì)于桑塔格來(lái)說(shuō)，在電影院看電影和在電視上看電影的最小區(qū)別是前者是一種“被綁架”，我們“必須在電影院，坐在黑暗中，和匿名的陌生人在一起?！?Davis 407）

我認(rèn)為桑塔格所把握到的細(xì)節(jié)對(duì)于電影的本體論論證（什么是電影）是非常重要的，盡管我并不認(rèn)可電視和電影的觀看體驗(yàn)有一種difference on quality。電影一詞本身就指代著膠片，一種物理的成像媒介。但在電影技術(shù)蓬勃發(fā)展的今天，這個(gè)最初的詞匯在各種數(shù)碼攝像機(jī)被應(yīng)用于電影工業(yè)生產(chǎn)這一事實(shí)來(lái)說(shuō)，是無(wú)力且老舊的。D. N. Rodowick在他的著作《The Virtual Life of Film》中早已為我們揭露了這一點(diǎn)：“As almost (or, truly, virtually) every aspect of making and viewing movies is replaced by digital technologies, even the notion of "watching a film" is fast becoming an anachronism”（Rodowick 8）。于是許多的電影理論家就不得不把對(duì)電影的本體論決定性因素的考察轉(zhuǎn)移到非膠片上，轉(zhuǎn)移到其他一些。桑塔格對(duì)劇院經(jīng)驗(yàn)的強(qiáng)調(diào)就是一個(gè)明顯的例子，她關(guān)注到了劇院區(qū)別于家庭電視的地方在于其黑暗性和匿名性，在于提供了一個(gè)除了正在屏幕上放映的影像外完全虛無(wú)黑暗的空間。而電視卻會(huì)因?yàn)楹推渌恍┎幌喔傻募揖咄瑫r(shí)存在于人類的主觀視域中而破壞這種純粹“無(wú)”的空間。然而，我認(rèn)為桑塔格在此的一個(gè)疏漏在于，她忽略了人眼本身的聚焦能力（這意味著我們?cè)陉P(guān)注屏幕的時(shí)候就一定會(huì)忽視其他無(wú)關(guān)的部分），以及她把電影的本體論因素固定在影院上，固定在另一個(gè)和膠片差不多的物理載體上，從而錯(cuò)失了把握更抽象的電影本體因素的機(jī)會(huì)。在我的觀點(diǎn)中，決定電影之為電影的，絕對(duì)不是任何意義上的物理因素，因?yàn)槿魏挝锢硪蛩囟紩?huì)隨著科技的進(jìn)步被逐步淘汰掉，因而一個(gè)真正的本體論因素應(yīng)該是ideal。真正的決定因素正在于觀影體驗(yàn)中，屏幕與我們的主觀視域所拉開(kāi)的那個(gè)距離本身。換句話說(shuō)，就是the gap between the audience and screen。這個(gè)所謂的Gap，即類似于拉康精神分析意義上的誤認(rèn)，也類似于黑格爾the science of logic中的中介本身。Gap，就意味著我們當(dāng)前所處的視點(diǎn)同電影中放映的影像之間是有別且有距離的，但同時(shí)我們的視點(diǎn)和電影中的影像又是共在的，也就是說(shuō)我們都在一個(gè)統(tǒng)一的時(shí)間線下運(yùn)作。現(xiàn)在，我們可以說(shuō)電影擁有一種隱喻的恐怖性，一個(gè)異于我們的影像世界正在同我們現(xiàn)實(shí)的世界一同運(yùn)行著，而我們被一種暴力逼迫著只能凝視這另一個(gè)世界所發(fā)生的一切，這種暴力在劇院中體現(xiàn)得尤為明顯，因?yàn)槌テ聊煌馄渌胤蕉际呛诎?，都是無(wú)盡的虛空。而也正是這種暴力，決定了電影是電影而不是其他的影像媒介形式。因?yàn)檎沁@種gap，或者說(shuō)這種距離，使得兩個(gè)世界（影像世界和現(xiàn)實(shí)世界）可以共在，使得兩個(gè)世界可以處在一種最具張力的結(jié)構(gòu)之中，類似于黑格爾在the science of logic中所宣稱的矛盾推動(dòng)moments運(yùn)行，觀影者的自我意識(shí)和觀影體驗(yàn)也由這兩個(gè)世界的矛盾生成出來(lái)。觀影者的世界，必須借由影像世界與它的不一致性來(lái)中介出自己，而這個(gè)過(guò)程的中介者便是正在進(jìn)行觀影活動(dòng)的主體，即觀眾。影像世界必須要通過(guò)觀眾觀影上的無(wú)能（我正在gazing一個(gè)世界，卻又不能改變它）來(lái)宣誓影像世界作為實(shí)體的主權(quán)，而這個(gè)黑暗的gap便是其主權(quán)的證據(jù)。我們可以用其他非電影或者帶不來(lái)傳統(tǒng)電影觀影體驗(yàn)的其他影像媒介來(lái)證明這一點(diǎn)：例如虛擬現(xiàn)實(shí)技術(shù)，它在本體論意義上是對(duì)gap完全的消滅，是人的主觀視域和影像世界的完全重合，因此虛擬現(xiàn)實(shí)技術(shù)在科幻作品中總是以一種絕對(duì)的沉浸（我們可以完全活在另一個(gè)世界）的面貌出現(xiàn)。這也能解釋為什么我們很難想象用虛擬現(xiàn)實(shí)技術(shù)復(fù)刻電影中的蒙太奇和長(zhǎng)鏡頭等技法。另一個(gè)例子是戲劇，與虛擬現(xiàn)實(shí)相對(duì)的，戲劇在本體論上強(qiáng)調(diào)的是絕對(duì)的distancing（如果你在這里是一個(gè)布萊希特主義者的話），戲劇意味著我們的主觀視域就對(duì)應(yīng)著客觀發(fā)生的現(xiàn)實(shí)（我們觀看的戲劇就發(fā)生在我們的現(xiàn)實(shí)世界中，它是刻意地在我們的世界中上演的）；就以最終的本體論效果來(lái)看，虛擬現(xiàn)實(shí)技術(shù)和戲劇最終都沒(méi)有創(chuàng)造明顯的兩個(gè)世界的分裂，它們最終會(huì)被消解于一個(gè)世界中，而只有電影，這個(gè)擁有相對(duì)的距離的影像藝術(shù)，才持存住了兩個(gè)世界的分裂。綜上我認(rèn)為，桑塔格對(duì)于電影的本體論因素的嗅覺(jué)是敏銳的，但是她錯(cuò)失了邁向更抽象的本體論論述的機(jī)會(huì)，以及在這個(gè)意義上，電視的觀看體驗(yàn)只是在量上被弱化了的電影體驗(yàn)。它和影院中放映的電影的區(qū)別就在于它只是弱化或zoom out了在屏幕之外的其他東西，它并沒(méi)有把這些東西投入絕對(duì)的黑暗中，但是它的模糊依然繼承了電影的本體論意義。

英文版：

I found the following ideas useful from what Susan Sonntag asserted："The experience of going to the movies was part of it.?To see a great film only on television isn’t to have really seen that film."(Davis 407). For Sonntag, the smallest difference between watching movies in theater and on TV is the former is a kind of "be kidnapped", we "have to be in a movie theater, seated ?in the dark among anonymous strangers." （Davis 407）I think the details Sontag has grasped are very important for the ontological argument of film (what is film), although I don't accept that there is a difference on quality between the viewing experience of television and film. The word film itself refers to film, a physical medium of imaging. But in today's film technology boom, this original term is weak and old in light of the fact that various digital cameras are being used in film production. D. N. Rodowick has already revealed this for us in his book?The Virtual Life of Film: "As almost (or, truly, virtually) every aspect of making and viewing movies is replaced by digital technologies, even the notion of "watching a film" is fast becoming an anachronism "(Rodowick 8). So many film theorists had to shift their investigation of the ontological determinants of film to something other than film. Sontag's emphasis on the theatre experience is an obvious example. She focuses on the darkness and anonymity of the theatre, which is different from home television, in that it provides a completely empty and dark space except for the images being projected on the screen. Television, on the other hand, destroys this pure "nothing" space because it exists in the subjective vision of human beings with some other irrelevant furniture. One omission I think Sontag makes here, however, is that she ignores the focusing power of the human eye itself (which means that we must ignore other irrelevant parts when we are looking at the screen), and that she has fixed the ontological element of the film to the cinema, to another physical vehicle, not unlike film. Thus missed the opportunity to grasp more abstract film ontology factors. In my opinion, it is absolutely not physical factors in any sense that determine a movie, because any physical factors will be phased out with the progress of science and technology. Therefore, a real ontological factor should be ideal. The real determining factor is in the experience itself, the distance between the screen and our subjective field of view. In other words, the gap between the audience and screen. This so-called Gap is similar to the misidentification in the psychoanalytic sense of Lacan, as well as to the mediation itself in Hegel's?science of logic. Gap means that there is a difference and a distance between our current viewpoint and the image shown in the movie, but at the same time, our viewpoint and the image in the movie is common, that is to say, we are all operating under a unified time line. Now, we can say that cinema has a kind of metaphorical horror, that a world of images other than our own is moving in parallel with our own, and that we are forced to stare at what is going on in this other world by a kind of violence, especially in the theater, where everything except the screen is dark, an endless void. And it is this kind of violence that determines that a film is a film rather than any other form of image media. Because it is this gap, or this distance, that allows the two worlds (the image world and the real world) to co-exist, that allows the two worlds to exist in a structure of the greatest tension, similar to Hegel's claim in?the science of logic?that contradictions drive moments, The viewer's self-consciousness and movie-watching experience are also generated by the contradiction between these two worlds.The viewer's world must be mediated by the inconsistency between the image world and it, and the intermediary in this process is the subject of the movie-watching activity, namely the audience. This dark gap is evidence of the sovereignty of the world of images as entities which must be asserted by the impotence of the viewer in gazing at a world (I am gazing at a world but cannot alter it). We can demonstrate this with other video media that are not films or that do not bring the traditional movie-watching experience: For example, virtual reality technology is the complete elimination of gap in the ontological sense and the complete coincidence of human subjective horizon and image world. Therefore, virtual reality technology always appears in the appearance of absolute immersion (we can completely live in another world) in science fiction works. It also helps explain why it's hard to imagine recreating techniques like film montage and long shots in virtual reality. Another example is theatre, which, as opposed to virtual reality, emphasises absolute distancing (if you're a Brechtian here) ontologically, meaning that our subjective horizon corresponds to objectively happening reality (the drama we watch is happening in our real world, It is deliberately played out in our world); In terms of the ultimate ontological effect, neither virtual reality technology nor drama will create an obvious split between the two worlds, but they will eventually be dissolved in one world. Only film, the image art with a relative distance, can preserve the split between the two worlds. To sum up, I think Sontag has a keen sense of the ontological factors of film, but she misses the opportunity to move towards a more abstract ontological discussion, and in this sense, the viewing experience of TV is only a film experience that is reduced in quantity. What distinguishes it from cinema is that it only attenuates or zooms out what is beyond the screen, it doesn't throw it into absolute darkness, but its blurring still inherits the ontological significance of cinema.

文獻(xiàn)參考：

Davis, Glyn.?Film Studies a Global Introduction. Routledge, 2015.?
Gharavi, Maryam Monalisa.?The Distancing Effect. Blazevox Books, 2016.?
Kunkle, Sheila.?Lacan and Contemporary Film. Other Press, 2004.?
Rodowick, D. N.?The Virtual Life of Film. Harvard University Press, 2007.?