论本雅明对现代电影理论的贡献及其局限性——兼涉对超越本雅明的思考

Benjamin' s Contribution and Limitation to the Modern Theory of Film Arts——A Reflection on Going Beyond Benjamin' s Theory

从近年来一批电影学研究者,特别是米莲姆.汉森、李欧梵、张英进、张真等人对本雅明理论的援引和借鉴中,我们可以发现,本雅明有关电影和大众文化的论述对现代电影理论有着相当的渗透性。本雅明理论对现代电影理论的确有着极为重要的当下意义,目前我们对其发掘还远远不够。同时本雅明也有他个人的和所处时代的局限性。将本雅明对现代电影理论的贡献进行一番梳理,并对其言说中的矛盾之处做出分析,可以帮助我们去思考应如何结合当前具体语境进一步超越本雅明,从而为拓展当下电影研究的视野提供一种参照。本雅明从学理上强调了电影的商品属性,将商品性上升到电影的本体层面作出认识,在某种程度上形成了同巴赞和克拉考尔的经典电影理论的对抗;本雅明所提出的"废墟"主题在后现代影像文本中的集中呈现体现了本雅明对现代文化、现代电影理论的超前预见。本雅明虽主张电影的商品化,但他反对资本对电影的控制,因此他推荐明显同电影的商品性相抵牾的前苏联电影经验,这就形成了本雅明电影商品化理论中的悖论。电影既然作为商品,就避免不了被资本所控制,但电影创作又不同于普通的商品生产,它是由编剧、导演、摄影师和演员等诸多方面的人员共同参与的一项复杂的精神性劳动,资本控制不了每一个具有能动性的电影生产者个体的精神,这就为电影生产者冲破资本的控制、挑战商品拜物教意识形态提供了多种可能。因此,电影的政治功能可以通过进步的电影人在电影商业机制内部得以体现。另外,本雅明虽然认识到在现代社会中,电影等大众文化的崛起是不可阻挡的趋势,但精英知识分子身份的固有规定性,又使本雅明的言说中不可避免地表现出对由此产生的消解意义、碎片化、平面化等文化现象的焦虑,这反映了本雅明对大众文化态度的游移。在全球化、多元化的当下语境中,本雅明曾经面临的精英与大众、高雅与通俗等严格的二元对立已经基本被超越,东方文化的崛起为我们走出本雅明曾经面临的困境提供了一种途径,中国文化中的庄、禅哲学完全可以为解决本雅明乃至西方后现代理论家们无法解决的文化难题提供一种参照。

A study of recent citations or references to Benjamin＇s theory by such researchers as Miriam Hansen, Leo Ou-fan Lee, Yingjin Zhaug and Zhen Zhang can find the fact that Benjamin＇s arguments on film have a strong penetration to the modem theory of film arts. While his arguments perform a current significance to this theory, for which our research is still far from enough, they display the limitation both of his own and his times. It is helpful to have an investigation of his contribution and make an analysis of his contradictory discourse. In this way, we can, by the context of current situation, give a reflection on how to go beyond Benjamin＇s theory, so as to provide a reference for expanding our horizons of research. From an academic perspective, Benjamin emphasizes the commereiality of film and probes into this question in terms of ontological level of film, thus challenging the classic film theories of Andre Bazin and Siegfried Kracauer. And his ＂ ruins＂ argument focused on post-modern image text foresees the modem culture and film theory. Although he claims the commerciality of film, he opposes the capital control of film, and, therefore, recommends the film experience of the former Soviet Union against the eommerciality of film, which produces the paradox in his argument for film commercialization. Since film is considered as a commodity, it cannot avoid controlling by capital. But,however, in view that the creation of film is different from the production of general commodity, that is to say, being a complicated labor participated by scriptwriters, directors, cameramen, actors and so on, capital cannot control every initiative film-producer, thus supplying with many possibilities his breakthrough of capital and his challenge of the awareness of commodity fetishism. Therefore, by virtue of progressive film-producers, the political function of film can be performed within the commercial mechanism of film. What＂ s more, the inherent requirement of the intellectual elite identity inevitably makes his discourse display such cultural anxieties as digestion, fragmentation and planarization although he is convinced of the inevitability of popular culture such as film in the modern society, which reflects Benjamin＇s vacillated attitude toward popular culture. Under the context of globalization and diversification, Benjamin＇s dilemma between such severe conflictions as the elite and mass, and the elegance and popularity, has basically been gone beyond. And the rise of oriental culture has produced a way to get out of this dilemma. Also the Zhuang and Zen philosophies in the Chinese culture can provide a reference for the cultural problem that seems to be hardly resolved by Benjamin, even by so many theorists in the Western countries.