不妨說他不是什么別的，而正是電影本身，是在電影消失之時刻被重新發(fā)現(xiàn)的電影。電影要么是真的正在消亡，他隨之而去了；要么更好一些，電影隨著他而去了。

ai機翻，見諒。不管怎么翻都不如讀原文有味道。

更好的排版見：https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/concerning-godard?fbclid=IwAR11qjqRJp-T8EbZMNV0dQJa9IjvJBYMMsvtspawEeug-pPupDYWuJckHo8

?

Concerning Godard

?

FREDRIC JAMESON

?

28 SEPTEMBER 2022 CULTURE

?

?

?

After decades in which inscrutable titles signed Godard popped up as regularly as clockwork in the film festivals, while the image of their maker deteriorated from rebel into dirty old man, if not technologically obsessed sage, it is stunning, leafing through the filmographies, to remember how much these films counted as events for us as we waited for each new and unexpected one in the 1960s, how intensely we scrutinized the political engagements of the Dziga Vertov group, with what genuinely engaged curiosity we asked ourselves what the end of the political period would bring, and later on what we were to do with the final works of the ‘humanist’ period, where they came from, and whether they meant a falling off or a genuine renewal.

?

幾十年來，高深莫測的戈達爾的名字像鐘表一樣定期出現(xiàn)在電影節(jié)上，而其制作者的形象卻從叛逆者變成了骯臟的老人，如果不是迷戀技術的圣人的話，翻開電影手冊，讓人驚訝的是，當我們在1960年代等待每一部新的和意想不到的電影時，這些電影對我們來說是多么的重要。我們對Dziga Vertov小組的政治參與進行了多么強烈的審查，我們以真正參與的好奇心問自己政治時期的結(jié)束會帶來什么，后來我們對 "人文主義 "時期的最后作品做了什么，它們來自哪里，以及它們是否意味著脫落或真正的更新。

?

Throughout all this we were entertained or provoked by the increasingly ignoble ‘thoughts’ or paradoxes which either demanded meditation or inspired a mild contempt, tempered by the constant reminder that visuality, if it thinks, does so in a way not necessarily accessible to the rest of us; while his films went on ‘thinking’ in chiasmatic images: Belmondo imitating Bogart, Piccoli inviting Bardot to use his bathwater (‘I’m not dirty’), the world conquerors exhibiting their picture postcards, Mao’s Cultural Revolution taking the form of the most infectious music, the world ending in a traffic jam, a character scarfing up yoghurt with a finger in the bathroom, two African garbage collectors reciting Lenin, our favourite film stars baffled by their new roles, an interpolated series of interview-interrogations in which ten-year-olds are asked about class struggle, and fun-loving models, about the latest decisions of the CGT, ‘la musique, c’est mon Antigone!’ – narrative deteriorating steadily all the while only to end up in 3-D or in images as thick as butterflies in front of the face.

?

在所有這些過程中，我們被越來越多的無恥的 "思想 "或悖論所娛樂或激怒，它們要么要求冥想，要么激發(fā)溫和的蔑視，并不斷提醒我們，視覺性，如果它思考，是以一種我們其他人不一定能理解的方式進行的；而他的電影繼續(xù)以脊柱式圖像 "思考"。Belmondo模仿Bogart，Piccoli邀請Bardot用他的洗澡水（"我不臟"），世界征服者展示他們的圖片明信片，毛澤東的文化大革命以最具感染力的音樂形式出現(xiàn)，世界在交通堵塞中結(jié)束，一個角色在浴室里用手指吞食酸奶。兩個非洲垃圾收集者背誦列寧，我們最喜歡的電影明星對他們的新角色感到困惑，一個插曲式的采訪審訊系列，其中10歲的孩子被問及階級斗爭，愛玩的模特，關于CGT的最新決定，"la musique, c'est mon Antigone! ' - 敘事一直在穩(wěn)步惡化，最終以3-D或像蝴蝶一樣厚重的圖像出現(xiàn)在臉前。

?

All this then building inexorably towards the final impertinence, in an unmistakable voice now indissociable from his idea of pedagogy: namely, that History is (nothing more than, nothing less than) the history of cinema. Well, why not? If everything is narrative, always mediated by this or that picture on the poster, as in the battle cuttings of the hell sequence of Notre Musique (2004), the images themselves have to fight it out, like people chasing each other, shouting and jumping into cars – along with their distinctive historical styles – silent or sound, black and white or technicolour; maybe this is all he knows of History anyway, what he calls cinema.

?

所有這一切都不可避免地走向最后的無禮，以一種明確無誤的聲音，現(xiàn)在與他的教育學思想密不可分：即，歷史是（不外乎，不外乎）電影史。嗯，為什么不呢？如果一切都是敘述性的，總是以海報上的這個或那個圖片為中介，就像《Notre Musique》（2004年）的地獄序列的戰(zhàn)斗剪影一樣，圖像本身就必須爭奪，就像人們互相追逐、呼喊和跳入汽車--以及它們獨特的歷史風格--無聲或有聲、黑白或技術色彩；也許這就是他所知道的歷史，他所說的電影。

?

And alongside the history of cinema, there is the history of a film, where does it come? From the images themselves, as he extracts them from the most sublime of his later films, Passion (1982), unfolding itself into the even more sublime lineage of Scenario du film “Passion” (1982), which, out of the Mallarmean blank page (or plage, or grève) a young woman appears who tries to start a strike (grève). In that case, there must follow the factory she strikes against, along with its owner, and then his wife, and then the hotel she runs. And finally a mystery guest from some place beyond the film, himself trying to make a film with a narrative, himself plagued by images, the world’s great paintings, tableaux vivants of the world’s great paintings, reconstructions in miniature of their architecture – Jerusalem through which the crusaders ride, driven forward by Dvorak’s inexorable piano concerto, just as the potential film’s producer is harassed by unwilling bankers and money-lenders. The would-be foreign director is as disabled as the other characters (stutter, cough), he cannot return the love of any of the women, he cannot turn these images into narrative scenarios, he finally gives up and goes home to History itself (Poland and Solidarno??). So now the film becomes an allegory of the new Europe and its ‘peu de realité’: great actors stand for France, Germany, Hungary, Poland (the great traditions) with a presumably Swiss director; fundamental themes like love and labour can never be represented; great paintings are as mute as The Voices of Silence Belmondo reads in the bathtub; but Godard has his scenario, he can now begin to film his fiction film.

?

除了電影的歷史之外，還有一部電影的歷史，它來自哪里？從圖像本身，因為他從他后來的電影中最崇高的《激情》（1982年）中提取了這些圖像，展開了《激情》（Scenario du film）（1982年）的更崇高的血統(tǒng)，從馬拉美式的空白頁（或plage，或grève）中出現(xiàn)了一個年輕女人，她試圖發(fā)起一場罷工（grève）。在這種情況下，她所罷工的工廠，以及工廠的老板，然后是他的妻子，然后是她經(jīng)營的旅館，都必須跟上。最后是一位來自電影之外的神秘客人，他想拍一部有敘事性的電影，他自己也被圖像所困擾，世界上最偉大的畫作，世界上最偉大的畫作的表象，它們的建筑的微縮重建--十字軍騎馬經(jīng)過的耶路撒冷，在德沃夏克不可阻擋的鋼琴協(xié)奏曲的推動下向前發(fā)展，就像潛在的電影制片人被不愿意的銀行家和貸方所騷擾。這位未來的外國導演和其他角色一樣是個殘疾人（口吃，咳嗽），他無法回報任何一位女性的愛，他無法將這些圖像轉(zhuǎn)化為敘事場景，他最終放棄了，回到了歷史本身（波蘭和團結(jié)工會）。因此，現(xiàn)在這部電影成了新歐洲及其 "少許現(xiàn)實 "的寓言：偉大的演員代表法國、德國、匈牙利、波蘭（偉大的傳統(tǒng)），而導演可能是瑞士人；像愛情和勞動這樣的基本主題永遠無法體現(xiàn)；偉大的繪畫就像貝爾蒙多在浴缸里讀的《沉默的聲音》一樣啞巴；但戈達爾有他的場景，他現(xiàn)在可以開始拍攝他的虛構(gòu)電影。

?

Scenario now rewinds the tape, runs the whole thing backwards, breaking the fiction back up into its component parts, lingering over the images, superimposing them, returning to origins, identifying the origins of itself. So now: two films about the same thing, two films sharing the same body = Cinema. Cinema, film’s mirror stage.

?

Cinema equals visuality, sounds, words (with glimpses of money), it is life itself or living as such, everything is cinema. Maybe the late films try to climb back down the other side, begin with the narrative, the scenario, and then tear it apart, with raucous glee give us the pieces in joyous collision, punctuated by raw gunshots, silent films with sound, history going backwards.

?

He lived, ate, breathed, slept movies. Was he the greatest movie-maker of all time? A party game question. What he was, if anything, was Cinema itself, cinema rediscovered at its moment of disappearing. If cinema really is dying, then he died with it; or better still, it died with him.

??

?

情景現(xiàn)在倒帶，把整個事情倒過來，把小說重新分解成它的組成部分，在圖像上徘徊，疊加它們，回到起源，確定自身的起源。所以現(xiàn)在：兩部關于同一事物的電影，兩部共享同一主體的電影=電影。電影院，電影的鏡像舞臺。

?電影等于視覺、聲音、文字（有金錢的一瞥），它是生活本身或生活本身，一切都是電影。也許晚期的電影試圖從另一邊爬回來，從敘事開始，從情節(jié)開始，然后把它拆開，帶著喧鬧的歡快給我們的碎片在歡樂的碰撞中，以原始的槍聲為點綴，有聲的默片，歷史在倒退。

?他以電影為生，以電影為食，以電影為呼吸，以電影為睡眠。他是有史以來最偉大的電影制作人嗎？這是一個派對游戲問題。不妨說他不是什么別的，而正是電影本身，在電影消失之時刻被重新發(fā)現(xiàn)的電影。電影要么是真的正在消亡，他隨之而去了；要么更好一些，電影隨著他而去了。