你最讨厌电影中哪些陈词滥调？
What movie cliché do you hate the most?
译文简介
总有一些21世纪的女权主义人物被插入到历史小说中，而她却显然没有在她生活的年代里该有的那样被社会化。
正文翻译
What movie cliché do you hate the most?
你最讨厌电影中哪些陈词滥调？
你最讨厌电影中哪些陈词滥调？
评论翻译
很赞 ( 0 )
收藏
, feminist
There’s always the 21st-century feminist character inserted into historical fiction, who’s clearly not been socialized in the time she’s supposed to live.
The typical: ‘Oh Elisabeth Alexandra Victoria dear, why must we wear these ghastly, oppressive, things?’
In 19th-century literature, a slight form of this character often exists—like Jane Eyre, Anna Karenina, Helen Graham, Elizabeth Bennet or Jo March. But we watched these women navigate their progressive ideas using the language and ideals of her time, and it was so much more fascinating.
Many women challenged Victorian ideals, but 19th century feminism simply isn’t 21st century feminism.
For women of the time, their reality was normal. A woman might find corsets uncomfortable, but she’s more likely to think, “I want a more comfortable corset” than “corsets are a tool of the patriarchy and all women should be free of them”.
I don’t see the point of sanitising or erasing history. Why can’t we view how society progressed, and how progression itself progressed? That’s the beauty of society: it evolves.
If you’re going to attempt to create authentic Victorian or Medi characters—write them accurately. I’m tired of watching period dramas centred around a 2010s-esque, third-wave feminist worldview. These movies are modern women in crinolines, rather than genuine period dramas.
These horribly frustrating characters only really exist to assure modern audiences that there’s a voice of reason.
, 女权主义者
总有一些21世纪的女权主义人物被插入到历史小说中，而她却显然没有在她生活的年代里该有的那样被社会化。
典型就是："哦，亲爱的伊丽莎白-亚历山大-维多利亚，为什么我们必须穿上这些可怕的、压迫性的东西？
在19世纪的文学作品中，程度轻一点的这种角色经常存在，如简-爱、安娜-卡列尼娜、海伦-格雷厄姆、伊丽莎白-班纳特或乔-马奇。但我们看着这些女性用她那个时代的语言和理想来驾驭她们的进步思想，这是很迷人的。
许多妇女挑战过维多利亚时代的理想，但19世纪的女权主义根本不是21世纪的女权主义：
对于当时的女性来说，她们的现实是符合当下的。一个女人可能会觉得紧身胸衣不舒服，但她更有可能认为，"我想要一件更舒适的紧身胸衣"，而不是"紧身胸衣是父权制的工具，所有妇女都应该摆脱它"。
我看不出净化或涂抹历史有什么意义。为什么我们就不能看看社会是如何一点点进步的，以及进步本身是如何进步的？这就是社会的美妙之处：它在不断发展。
如果你要尝试创造真实的维多利亚时代或中世纪的人物--请准确地描写他们。我已经厌倦了观看以2010年代式的第三波女权主义世界观为中心的时代剧。这些电影描绘的是穿着古装的现代女性，而不是真正的时代剧。
这些可怕的令人沮丧的角色的存在只是为了向现代观众保证剧中会有一个理性的声音。
This is so true. The BBC/Netflix Troy series failed for the same reason. They inserted modern, 21st century liberal western values onto Helen of Sparta, a Bronze Age woman from the Near East. People back then wouldn't have behaved like that. It was anachronistic.
I find Turkish series such as Magnificent Century more realistic. That series was driven by its female characters. They were strong women but they exist within the time period they lived in. I never felt like a modern political agenda was being shoehorned into the narrative. And I say all this as a liberal myself.
The movie Kingdom of heaven had the same issue: crusader characters were modern 21st century secular humanist cynics who don't even believe in god or organised religion. Again, people back then wouldn't have thought like that. Ironically, the Muslim characters in that film were much more realistic for what actual religious people (then and now) were like.
The fact that Achilles (in Troy) was black generated a lot of noise online, given that he was supposed to be Greek. But perhaps the bigger issue is film makers pushing an agenda/trying to score political points instead of just telling a good story.
说得真是太对了。BBC/Netflix的《特洛伊》系列也是因为同样的原因而失败。他们把现代的、21世纪的西方自由主义价值观植入斯巴达的海伦--一个来自近东的青铜时代的女人--的身上。当时的人们肯定不会有这样的行为。那是不合时宜的。
我发现土耳其的系列剧，如《伟大的世纪》更加现实。那个系列是由其女性角色驱动的。她们是强大的女性，但她们的表演就像她们存在于她们所生活的那个时代一样。我从来不觉得现代政治议程被塞进了剧情的叙事中。我是作为一个自由主义者说的这一切。
电影《天国王朝》也有同样的问题：十字军人物是现代21世纪的世俗人文主义愤青，他们甚至不相信上帝或有组织的宗教。同样，当时的人们不会有这样的想法。具有讽刺意味的是，该片中的穆斯林角色对于实际的宗教人士（当时和现在）来说要现实得多。
阿喀琉斯（在剧集《特洛伊》里）是黑人的事实在网上引起了很大的争议，因为他应该是个希腊人。但更大的问题也许是电影制作者在推动一种议程/试图获得政治上的分数，而不是仅仅讲一个好故事。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Achile was supposed to be blond…Illiad said.
阿喀琉斯应该是金发的...这是《荷马史诗》里说的
As a black man I have never understood why they would cast Achilles as a black man and ignore Memnon, the second greatest warrior in the entire tale. The Gods loved him so much they didn’t want him nor Achilles to win as they were both highly favored despite Memnon not even being of Greek descent. He’s one of the most badass characters in Ancient Greek mythology/history and yet this woke PC culture refuses to use him and instead miscasts Achilles.
作为一个黑人，我完全不明白为什么他们要用一个黑人来饰演阿喀琉斯，而忽视了整个故事中第二伟大的战士门农。众神非常爱他，所以他们不希望他或阿喀琉斯中任何一方获胜，因为尽管门农甚至不是希腊血统，但他们都受到了众神的高度青睐。虽然他是古希腊神话中最恶毒的人物之一。然而，这种觉醒和政治正确文化拒绝启用这个人物，而是把阿喀琉斯进行了魔改。
The reason you don’t understand why a black Achilles was cast is because they didn’t cast it that way for you! So called blackwashing is not done to appeal to black audiences, it’s done to appeal to the far left white “woke”; it’s virtue signaling at it’s finest and allows the woke to leave the theater patting themselves on the back about how enlightened they are. If the media companies really cared about appealing to black audiences they’d make movies about real black pioneers and heroes. If the BBC remade Spielberg’s Lincoln today here’s what the woke would have to say, lets listen:
“ So what did you think of the movie Ashley?”
“It’s probably the greatest movie ever made and the lead actor was incredible, 5 minutes in and I completely forgot that Abraham Lincoln wasn’t an Inuit, what did you think Megan?”
“Oh I agree, but it didn’t take me 5 minutes, I don’t see race it’s just a social construct. It was really brave that Mary Todd was played as transgender though”
“Why don’t we go get some vegan coffee and we can tweet how much we loved the movie so everyone can see how wonderful we are?”
你不明白为什么要选一个黑人阿基里斯，是因为你不是他们的目标受众！所谓的洗黑不是为了吸引黑人观众，而是为了吸引极左的白人"觉醒者"。这是最好的美德信号，让觉醒者在离开影院时骄傲地拍着胸脯说自己多么开明。如果媒体公司真的关心对黑人观众的吸引力，他们就会制作关于真正的黑人先驱和英雄的电影。如果BBC今天重拍斯皮尔伯格的《林肯》，那么觉醒派的人们会怎么说呢，让我们听听：
"那么，你觉得这部电影怎么样，阿什利？"
"这可能是有史以来最伟大的电影，主演的表演令人难以置信，5分钟后我就完全忘记了林肯不是因纽特人，你觉得怎么样，梅根？"
"哦，我同意，5分钟我都没用，我不认为种族只是一种社会结构。虽然玛丽-托德被扮演成了变性人，但这真的很勇敢"
"我们何不去买些素食咖啡，然后我们可以在推特上发推说我们有多喜欢这部电影，这样每个人都可以看到我们有多棒？"
Or the female character who wants to know why should get married. That’s like a modern woman asking why she should get an education. Going to college is so oppressive, why can’t she just work in McDonalds and be happy?
或者剧中总有一个想知道为什么她应该结婚的女性角色。这就像一个现代女性问自己为什么应该接受教育：上大学是如此的压抑，为什么她就不能在麦当劳工作并获得幸福呢？
Why she should get an education if she can just work in McDonalds and be happy?
如果她能在麦当劳工作并获得幸福，她为什么要接受教育？
Because working in McDonalds is not a secure future. You may lose your badly paid job at any point, and then you have no saving and are in trouble. What do you do if McDonalds fires you?
Some women were able to get jobs, but they were always paid less than men, and they risked extreme poverty if they lost them.
因为在麦当劳工作并不是一个安全的未来。你随时都可能失去这份收入不高的工作，然后你就没有储蓄，陷入困境。如果麦当劳解雇你，你该怎么办？
一些妇女能够找到工作，但她们的工资总是比男人低，如果她们失去工作，就有可能陷入极端贫困。
Education is no guarantee for a secure income either. You may invest in education, and then you don't find a jod and are in trouble. What do you do if you don't find a job after studying ?
教育也不能保证有安全的收入。你可能投资于教育，然后你还是找不到工作，并且陷入困境。如果你在学习后没有找到工作，你该怎么办？
Of course it’s not a guarantee, there are no guarantees. But it’s a lot better to have an education you don’t use than not have one. Are there any jobs left that you can do without education?
当然这不是一个保证，没有任何东西是100%可以保证的。但拥有你用不上的教育比没有受过教育要好得多。还有什么工作是不需要教育就能做的吗？
That is funny because 19 century parents would consider marriage the most secure option. Besides education is no guarantee for a secure income either. Homeless people are more often than not very well educated.
这很有趣，因为19世纪的父母会认为婚姻是最安全的选择。此外，教育也不能保证有稳定的收入。无家可归的人往往都受过很好的教育。
Marriage then was the most likely route to security for a woman, just as education now is. Nothing is guaranteed, but that’s the way the odds swing.
当时的婚姻是一个女人最有可能获得保障的途径，就像现在的教育一样。没有什么是可以保证的，但这就是机会的摆动方式。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
And parents filter possible husband seriously to provide the best opportunities and life for their daughters.
A good-looking, cool and poor boy with poor prospects would lose to an older, but rich husband. No parents want to see their daughter and grandchildren starve.
而且父母会认真过滤那些潜在的丈夫，为他们的女儿提供最好的机会和生活。
一个好看的、很酷的、前景不佳的男孩会输给一个年龄大但有钱的丈夫。没有父母愿意看到自己的女儿和孙子挨饿。
So you think every woman wanted to be married? That’s obviously not true. Rather societal pressures compelled the vast majority to get married regardless of whether they wanted to or not. Clearly most did as with today but women are as diverse as men in their opinions.
所以你认为每个女人都想结婚？这显然不是事实。相反，社会压力迫使绝大多数人结婚，不管她们是否愿意。显然当时大多数人都像今天一样（在社会的压力下结婚），但女性和男性的观点都各不相同。
Like education now, marriage then was a woman’s surest route to financial security. Jane Austen mentioned that “unmarried women have a dreadful propensity to be poor”. Unmarried women usually depended on the generosity of relatives to survive and usually faced a life of badly paid or unpaid labour.
Many women may not have wanted to marry the man who was their husband, but being married was nearly always better than not being married.
与现在的教育一样，当时的婚姻是妇女获得经济保障的最可靠途径。简-奥斯汀提到，"未婚妇女有一种可怕的贫穷倾向"。未婚妇女通常依靠亲戚的慷慨解囊来生存，并且通常面临着有偿或无偿劳动的恶劣生活。
许多妇女可能不愿意嫁给作为其丈夫的男人，但结婚几乎总是比不结婚好。
Does not mean they did not question it. Even if they did ultimately decide that marriage was the best financial option.
这并不意味着她们对此没有质疑。即使她们最终决定婚姻是最好的经济选择。
There’s a difference between not knowing why you’d want to get married, and knowing why you “”should”” get married, and still choosing a different path.
“Why should I [pre-~1950s woman] get married]” is stupid, because the answer is obvious.
“I don’t want the ‘normal life’ of getting married to a reasonably affluent man and farting out half a dozen kids, I want a life of adventure” is something else.
不知道为什么要结婚，和知道为什么"应该"结婚，但还是选择了不同的道路，这两者是有区别的。
问"为什么我[1950年前的女人]应该结婚"是愚蠢的，因为答案是明显的。
而"我不想要那种和一个有钱的男人结婚，把时间消磨在几个小屁孩身上的'正常的生活'，我想要一个冒险的生活"则是另一回事。
I wonder if the subtleties of writing more historically accurate characters would be lost on a modern audience though? We understand these characters as “feminist” because they are written in a way we, in present day, can relate. Sure, it is not as historically accurste but unless you are a student of the progression of feminism or a historian who studies the time period or its your hobby, you might miss the messages. I think these characters are written this way so that they can be relatable, understood, and so that the audience can connect.
我想知道，写出更符合历史的人物的微妙之处，是否会让现代观众失去兴趣？我们把这些人物理解为"女权主义者"，因为她们被以一种我们在今天可以理解的方式来描绘。当然，它不像历史上那样准确，但除非你是一个研究女权主义发展的学生，或者是一个研究该时期的历史学家，或者这是你的爱好，否则你本来就很可能会错过这些细节。我认为，这些人物被写成这样，是为了让他们能够被亲近、理解，并让观众能够共情起来。
There ia a lot of the historical falsifications go on by movie directors. The question is why they are doing it?
电影导演对历史进行了很多篡改。问题是他们为什么要这样做？
Because its entertainment and at some point we have to be thinking people who can discern a story from reality.
因为这是一种娱乐，有时候，我们必须成为一个有思考能力的可以辨别出什么是故事什么是现实的人。
Because, in general it makes for more relatable characters. We develop cultural shorthand based on things like clothing and behaviors. However, period-accurate clothing and behaviors are foreign to most of us, and as a result, those same connections may not be felt. It’s akin to localizing something. Should you change and upxe the more feminist elements of the story from the 1900s so that they’re recognizably feminist in the modern age and you get a similar experience to the original readers, or should you preserve the original story, even if it loses impact and nuance?
因为，总的来说，它使角色更有亲和力。我们发展出了一种根据服装和行为等事情进行文化速记的方法。然而，对我们大多数人来说，符合历史的准确的服装和行为是陌生的，因此，真按着历史去演，可能会让我们感觉不到这些人物与我们的联系。这就类似于将一些东西本地化。你应该改变和更新20世纪的故事中的女权主义元素，使它们在现代社会中能被识别为女权主义，并让观众获得与原始读者相似的体验，还是说你觉得应该保留原始故事，即使它失去了原著的那种影响力和并且要表达的东西和现在的女权的定义有着细微的差别？
It is one thing we lack the ablity to understand and recreate history with factual accuracy that we may not possess at hand. It is another thing to make false representation deliberately and call it ‘relatable’. Showing a group of women in Victorian Cambridge University as students might be ‘relatable’, but factually untrue. And we know this for sure, in which case it is a wilful. falsification.
我们因为手头可能不具备事实准确性而缺乏理解和再现历史的能力是一回事。故意做出错误的表述并称其为"有亲和力"又是另一回事。展示维多利亚时代剑桥大学的一群女性学生，可能是'有亲和力'，但事实上却不是真实的。而我们肯定知道这一点，在这种情况下，这是一种对历史的故意捏造。
Its a fiction. Sherlock Holmes is fiction. It is a story. A fictional story, much like Star Wars or Clan of the Cave Bear. It is not real and not meant to be taken as such, as that is what provides much of the storyline. The improbable is a part of the story. We all know Enola Holmes didn't exist. But we enjoy the story, nonetheless.
这是一种虚构。夏洛克-福尔摩斯是虚构的。它是一个故事。一个虚构的故事，就像《星球大战》或《爱拉与穴熊族》一样。它不是真实的，也不应该被当作真实的，因为那是提供大部分故事情节的东西。不可能存在的事也是故事的一部分。我们都知道伊诺拉福尔摩斯（一个新IP，设定为福尔摩斯的妹妹）并不存在。但我们还是喜欢这个故事。
To say “It is a fiction” is a very poor enabling argument . Sherlock Holmes was set in its day, and written for its day of 1887. Sherlock Holmes does not seek to falsify the past, having been set in our then-present day.
Star Wars is set not in our historic past, but in a fictionalized future/past. Star Wars seeks not to fictionalize what has been, but invents a world anew.
To compare either to the current fad of sanitizing history, the better to render “…more relatable characters,” is in error.
Airbrushing the past to justify the present is the very definition of imbecility, and the modus operandi of dictators.
说"这是个虚构的东西"是一个非常糟糕的论点。《福尔摩斯》是在它的时代背景下，为它的时代，即1887年所写。《福尔摩斯》并没有伪造过去的事情，它的背景描述一直符合我们当时那个年代。
《星球大战》的背景不是我们历史上的过去，而是一个虚构的未来/过去。《星球大战》不寻求虚构过去的东西，而是发明了一个新的世界。
用这两者来为当前对历史进行抹杀的时尚，以便更好地呈现"......更有亲和力的人物"的行为开脱是错误的。
通过涂抹历史来为现在辩护是一种低能，也是独裁者的做法。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Great points! I hate to watch films or television shows (or read books) that are set in a specific historic period only to see the protagonist to be someone with 21st Century norms (or, most often, a particularly sectarian set of norms).
Most often, it seems that Hollywood produces “historical dramas” where a protagonist adheres to “progressive” moral views. Worse: The people around them are “put in their place” by them.
Last year, Netflix’s Anne With an E had not one, not two but three different LGBTQ characters in late 19th Century Prince Edward Island, Canada. This is on an island that had no documented or historical records of homosexuals at the time.
As for historical norms: It doesn’t matter that homosexuals were either very much “in the closet” or arrested and institutionalized. The people of that era saw homosexuals as utterly detestable.
Instead of the writers focusing on actual historical norms about homosexuality, they followed the same tired tropes of modern Hollywood screenwriting. LGBTQ people are almost always depicted as intrinsically good people who are victimized by society.
Worse: The writers of the series invented one gay character but also took two established heterosexual characters and “reimagined” them as homosexuals. They are viewed by the protagonist (devoutly religious Anne Shirley in the books but SJW on the show) as “wonderful” people who are “misunderstood.”
No matter how well-meaning the writers might have been, they created a fictional setting by meddling with the history of that era.
很好的观点! 我讨厌看那些以特定历史时期为背景的电影或电视节目（或书籍），却看到主人公是一个具有21世纪规范的人（或者，最常见的是有着一套属于某个宗教的规范）。
最常见的情况是，好莱坞制作的"历史剧"中，主人公坚持21世纪"进步"的道德观点。更糟糕的是：他周围的人都被他"感染"了。
去年，Netflix的《小小安妮》展现了在19世纪末的加拿大爱德华王子岛有着不是一个、不是两个而是三个不同的LGBTQ角色。这是一个在当时没有过同性恋记录或历史记录的岛屿。
至于真实的历史：同性恋者要么非常"隐蔽"，要么被逮捕和收容，这并不重要。重要的是那个时代的人认为同性恋者是非常可憎的。
作家们没有关注关于同性恋在社会上发展的真实历史，而是沿用了现代好莱坞编剧的老套路。即LGBTQ人群几乎总是被描绘成本质上的好人，是社会的受害者。
更糟糕的是：该系列的编剧发明了一个同性恋角色，也把两个既定的异性恋角色"重新解读"为同性恋者。他们被主人公（在书中是一位虔诚的宗教徒安妮-雪莉，但在剧中是一个社会正义战术）视为"被误解"的"美好"人。
无论编剧多么善意，他们都是通过干涉那个时代的历史创造了一个虚构的环境。
I notice that too.
However it’s not so bad to insert our values into ancient stories. After all, if in the stories they all think like people of that time it would be pretty oppressive and difficult to watch.
Such as treatment of blacks and women. For historically accurate film yes, for just drama or thriller etc it’s totally ok. Truth is, if you want to tell the truth about everything, even Lincoln may sound racist.
我也注意到了这一点。
然而，把我们的价值观插入古代的故事中也没那么糟糕。毕竟，如果在故事中他们都像那个时代的人一样思考，那将是相当压抑和难看的。
比如对黑人和妇女的待遇。对于严肃的历史电影来说，是的，影片的描述要符合历史规范；如果只是戏剧或惊悚片等，做点改编也完全是可以的。事实是，如果你真的想说出所有事情的真相，即使是林肯也可能听起来是个种族主义者。
So you are telling us that no one ever questions the situation they are in?
I come from a very long line of misfits and I can tell you that in every generation at least one of my ancestors has managed to mess with the status quo.
所以你是在告诉我们，在那个时代就没有人质疑他们所处的状况？
我来自一个有着非常长的不合群的历史的家族，我可以告诉你，在我们家族的每一代人中，至少有一个祖先设法去打破现状。
Some stories show us something about our past, some show us a warning of our future, some show us something about our present. When it is set is not always an indicator of what the purpose of the story is. Then there are the stories that are for entertainment and don’t seem to have a bigger purpose at all. Sometimes purposeful anachronisms can emphasis a point.
Enola Holmes never pretended to be a historically accurate period piece so I am not bothered by the inaccuracy.
I am more bothered when this kind of character is the only one. Disney movies are guilty of this a lot. Mulan, Bell… are often touted as strong characters because of there independence. The fact that all the other women in these movies are not independent makes them the oddity. An independent woman being the oddity is not really a positive message.
有些故事向我们展示了我们的过去，有些故事向我们展示了我们未来的警告，有些故事向我们展示了我们的现在。背景设定在什么时候，并不总是说明故事的目的是什么。然后，还有一些故事就是为了娱乐，根本没有更大的目标。所以有时候反而会在剧中强调一些不合时宜的东西来凸显它这一点。
《福尔摩斯小姐》从未假装自己是一部符合历史规范的时代剧，所以我并不为它不符合历史规范而感到困扰。
当这种角色是剧中唯一的角色时，我就比较困扰了。迪斯尼电影经常犯这种毛病。花木兰、贝尔......因为独立而经常被吹捧为坚强的角色。这些电影中的所有其他女性都不是独立的，这使她们成为怪人。一个独立的女性是怪人，这并不是一个真正积极的信息。