Fantasy Films: Theory and Ideology奇幻电影的理论与思想

文/凯瑟琳·A. 福克斯 译/杜磊 审订/肖维青

By Katherine A. Fowkes

Much that has been written about fantasy focuses on it as a literary genre, but it can be equally applied to cinema. Although it is common to classify fantasy texts by themes and motifs1motif母题，与theme主题相对。or by the extent to which storyworlds and events deviate from realistic representations, Tzvetan Todorov2茨维坦·托多罗夫（1939—2017），法国结构主义代表人物，批评家、符号学家。concentrates on theresponsegenerated by the “fantastic” events in the story. In this light, fantasy must be considered not justone“mode,” butthree, since it creates a continuum3continuum连续体。stretching from“the marvelous” to “the uncanny,”depending on the extent to which the characters and/or the reader experience feelings of awe and hesitation provoked by strange, improbable events. If the narrative’s impossibility can be explained rationally or psychologically(as a dream, hallucinations), then the term “uncanny” is applied. The purely “fantastic” comes into play only during the hesitation and uncertainty experienced by the characters and/or the reader/viewer when faced with an impossible occurrence. By contrast,the term “marvelous” is applied to selfcontained story worlds such as those ofThe Lord of the RingsorThe Dark Crystal(1982), which do not ask the reader or viewer to question the reality of the story.

[2]The Wizard of Ozdemonstrates all three modes operating within a single fantasy. Unlike films that propose an alternate, imaginary universe as the setting for the entire tale,The Wizard of Ozframes its fantasy world with the real world of Kansas, suggesting that Oz is only a fantasy of the imagination.In light of Todorov’s de finitions, we can see that upon first encountering Oz, both Dorothy and the audience are operating in a “fantastic” capacity. But wonder and disbelief eventually give way to“marvelous” acceptance, and Dorothy and the audience participate in the quest to find the wizard and ultimately kill the wicked witch. While Dorothy and the audience may continue to “marvel”at the strangeness of creatures and events in Oz, it is never suggested that Oz is not actually “real” until the end,when the dream explanation shifts our understanding of the events into the“uncanny” mode. Our prior willing suspension of disbelief only adds to the impact of the final scene, when the audience shares Dorothy’s consternation at being told it was all “only” a dream.

[3] As a psychological phenomenon,the term “fantasy” refers to our unconscious desires (dreams, daydreams,wishes). For this reason, Rosemary Jackson notes that fantasy stories are perhaps the type of fiction most amenable to4amenable to顺从于。psychoanalytic interpretations.Although Jackson applies her analysis only to fantasy literature, it can be easily extrapolated5extrapolate推断。to film. Drawing on Todorov’s de finition, Jackson argues that the fantastic is inherently subversive. By raising questions about reality and by revealing repressed dreams or wishes,fantasy makes explicit what society rejects or refuses to acknowledge.Indeed, to the extent that it includes the surreal and experimental, fantasy is oftenexplicitly6explicitly明显地。subversive. The original surrealists thought art should be shocking and politically progressive,and they intentionally disrupted7disrupt使中断，扰乱。those cinematic conventions that help create coherence and meaning for the viewer.But most mainstream fantasy films take care to adhere to the conventions of classical cinematic storytelling while constructing coherent space, time, and narrative causality. Nevertheless, horror differs from fantasy in this respect: it is a form of mainstream fantasy whose formulaic8formulaic公式化的。content is often examined for its subversive potential and for symptoms of a culture’s repressed desires.

much critical attention, other types of fantasy are often rejected as being merely“escapist”—a term generally associated with works of art that one is not supposed to take seriously. Most fantasy films are considered escapist because they temporarily transport viewers to impossible worlds and provide unrealistic solutions to problems. Even Jackson concedes that most fantasy is“marvelous” instead of truly “fantastic,”more a matter of wish fulfillment than of challenge. Indeed, referring toThe Lord of the Ringstrilogy from which the films were adapted, Jackson describes Tolkien’s fantasy as inherently conservative and nostalgic. With its magic, fantastical beings and clearcut delineations of good and evil,TheLord of the Ringspresents a compelling fantasy mirrored to some extent in theHarry Potterfilms. Many would argue thatHarry Potter, likeThe Lord of the Rings, uses imagination to uphold rather than to transcend traditional values.Both tend to reinforce a hierarchical9hierarchical等级制度的。world based in traditional notions of morality, gender, and heroism. Both rely on a sense of mystical destiny and grace that, while not explicitly religious in nature, exhibits the strong influence of a traditional Western and Christian perspective. Both series feature a reluctant and somewhat unlikely young hero, and both offer the audience an escape into a different world where difficult problems are solved through magic as well as old-fashioned courage and integrity. TheHarry Potterfilms differ fromThe Lord of the Ringstrilogy, however, in pitting the viewer’s own sense of “reality” against the magical world of wizards and witches.

[5] A psychoanalytic approach to fantasy must take into account not just the psychological underpinnings10underpinning基础。of the characters but the pleasure and appeal of the story for the viewer. The most successful fantasy films provide viewers with vicarious experiences that resonate with emotional, if not physical, reality.BothHarry PotterandThe Lord of the Ringsdemonstrate the appeal of fantasy as a vehicle for wish ful fillment through their glorification of magical (hence unrealistic) solutions to serious problems.The viewer lives vicariously11vicariously间接感受到地。through the characters of Frodo12弗罗多，《指环王》中的主要人物。and Harry, who strive to overcome the forces of evil. The psychological appeal of fantasy helps to explain the frequency of the Oedipal scenario in these types of narratives.For example,Star Warsfeatures a classic Oedipal struggle between Luke and his father. Superhero movies also construct appealing fantasy scenarios,often starring unlikely or reluctant male heroes reminiscent of Frodo and Harry.Superman(1978),Batman(1989), andSpider-Man(2002) were popular movies that featured “ordinary” protagonists whose unremarkable talents presumably resonate on some level with most viewers. This ordinaryness is revealed as a mere facade, however, masking the true superhuman powers of the character—another attractive problem-solving solution for consumers of fantasy.

[6] Similarly, many recent supernatural/ghost moviesalso deny the reality of death by magically bringing back beloved characters as ghosts, as inGhostandTruly Madly Deeply. A psychoanalytic interpretation of such fantasies, however, yields a more subtle interpretation. Whether or not such films are wish-fulfillment fantasies matters less than whether or not wishfulfillment fantasies are inherently conservative. There is certainly nothing subversive about a story in which a male character wishes to become more macho (as inSpider-Man), for such fantasies merely reinforce traditional Western ideas about masculinity, echoed in many of the fantasy films discussed here. But just because some fantasies are conservative does not necessarily mean that escapism is a worthless denial of reality and therefore of no cultural value. For example, recent melodramatic and comedy ghost films share a tendency to challenge traditional gender roles by creating passive and“emasculated13emasculate使……无男子气。” male characters(Ghost,Truly Madly Deeply,The Sixth Sense) who contrast sharply with the active male protagonists found in most Hollywood movies.

[7] Regardless of whether or not these and other fantasy films are truly subversive or politically liberating,many fantasy movies provide an interlude in which viewers are invited to entertain forbidden desires and other heretofore unimagined possibilities.Thus, to draw on Jean Laplanche and Jean-Bertrand Pontalis’s definition of fantasy as a psychological phenomenon,a fantasy film is thus literally the“mise-en-scène14of desire,” the setting whereby impossible desires may play out to their logical conclusions. ■

很多研究把奇幻作品列为一类特殊文学体裁加以处理，殊不知，电影也可以是一种奇幻作品。奇幻文学的文本根据主题/母题或其故事世界/事件与现实描述偏离的程度进行分类的做法十分普遍，但是茨维坦·托多罗夫却独辟蹊径，以故事中的“奇幻”事件所能激发的读者反应为中心。由于奇特的、不可能发生的事件触发了人物和（或）读者某种程度的惊叹、犹疑的情绪，因而奇幻文学创造了一个从“惊异”到“怪异”的连续体。从这一角度来考量，奇幻文学所拥有的“模式”就不止一种，而有三种之多了。如果叙事者讲述的故事本身的不可能性可以通过理性思考或心理原因（梦境、幻觉）等加以消解，那么这个故事就属于“怪异”模式；当人物和（或）读者／观者在面临一个不可能事件时怀有犹疑或不确定心理的时候，它属于“奇幻”模式；与前者相反，“惊异”这个模式则适用于诸如《指环王》或《魔水晶》（1982）这样自成一片天地的故事世界，这些作品的读者或观众是不会就故事的真实性发出疑问的。

[2]《绿野仙踪》是一部内含三种模式的奇幻作品。与那类为整个故事设置或幻想出另一个宇宙空间作为场景的电影不同，《绿野仙踪》的奇幻世界所发生的场景是一个实实在在的世界——堪萨斯城，这也就暗示了这部作品只是经由作者想象创作出来的。以托多罗夫的定义来看，从一开始进入奥兹王国之始，多萝西和观众都具备了进行“奇幻”操作的能力。但最终，观众在故事一开始所持的惊奇与怀疑的态度还是发生了逆转——观众转而接受了故事的“惊异”性，和多萝西一道踏上了追寻魔法师的漫漫长路，直到最后消灭了邪恶女巫。尽管多萝西和观众可能在充满奇人奇事的奥兹国中继续“惊异”之旅，但故事直到结尾才挑明奥兹国事实上根本不是一个“真实”存在的国度，就在这一刻，对梦境的解释将我们对故事的理解转换到了“怪异”这个模式上。一开始，我们心甘情愿把自己的犹疑搁置一边，但结果别人却告诉我们这“不过”是幻梦一场。此时此刻，观众和主人公是一样错愕的，结局的冲击力却因此大大增强。

[3]作为一种心理现象，“奇幻”这个术语指的是我们无意识的欲望（梦境、白日梦、希望）。因此，罗斯玛莉·杰克逊就认为，奇幻故事也许是虚构类文学中最适宜用精神分析来加以阐释的。虽然杰克逊的分析只限于奇幻文学，但推及电影也未尝不可。杰克逊以托多罗夫的定义来分析，提出奇幻类作品具有内在颠覆性。经由对现实的发问，揭示压抑的梦境或希望，奇幻类作品外显化了社会弃如敝履或拒不承认的东西。的确，就奇幻文学蕴含超现实与实验性元素来看，它的颠覆性往往是十分明确的。起初，超自然艺术家认为艺术应当有能力震慑人心并体现其在政治上的进步。为此，他们有意打破那些为观众创造连贯性和意义的电影艺术创作规范。尽管如此，绝大多数的主流奇幻电影还是小心翼翼地把电影艺术那一套讲述故事的经典手法奉为圭臬，尽量打造出一部时空连贯、有着叙述性因果关系的电影。然而，在这一方面，恐怖电影就与其他奇幻电影有所不同，作为一种主流的奇幻电影，常常可以发现，前者在套路中蕴含潜在颠覆性，表达了文化中受到压制的欲望。

[4]虽然评论家们对恐怖电影关注很多，但对其他奇幻类电影却嗤之以鼻，认为后者无非是一类“遁世”作品——这个术语常被用来描述人们不必严肃对待的那一类艺术作品。绝大多数奇幻类电影被认为是“遁世”的，这是因为它们将观众暂时送入一个不可能的世界，给问题提供了一个并不现实的解决方案。就连杰克逊自己也承认，大多数奇幻类作品极尽令人“惊异”之能事，而全无半点真正的“奇幻”性，大体上，让人圆梦有余而考验心智不足。事实上，针对被搬上银幕的《指环王》三部曲，杰克逊就直言托尔金的奇幻作品其内在有固步自封、因循守旧之虞。《指环王》整部作品里充斥着那些拥有法术的仙人，人物非善即恶，其奇幻元素在某种程度上与电影《哈利·波特》极为神似。很多人会认为，《哈利·波特》和《指环王》中的想象力恰恰是维护而非超越传统的价值观，因为两者都倾向于强化一个建立在传统道德、性别、英雄主义观念之上的等级森严的世界，两者都有赖于人物于冥冥之中意识到的某种使命与荣耀之感。尽管作品没有明显的宗教特质，但却展现了西方与基督教传统观念的强大影响力。两部作品中的主人公都很年轻，踏上征程皆是在被逼无奈之下，最终能否成功也并不被人看好。观众借由他们遁入一个完全不同的世界，在那个世界中，身怀魔法是解决问题的法门，老派的勇气和正直品性一样可以解决问题。然而，《哈利·波特》系列电影与《指环王》三部曲还是有所不同的，前者促使观众拿自己对“现实”的感受去对抗巫师们的魔法世界。

[5]假如要对奇幻类作品进行精神分析，就必须不仅思考人物的心理基础，还要考虑故事引起观众的喜乐之情与对他们形成的吸引力。最成功的奇幻类电影使观众身临其境，虽然并非真的亲身参与其中，却能让他们同悲同喜。奇幻作品美化了解决问题的魔法之道，最终让人得偿所愿，如此形成了自身的吸引力，《哈利·波特》与《指环王》莫不展现了作为奇幻作品的这种魅力。观众与弗罗多、哈利同呼吸，共命运，一路上披荆斩棘，降妖除魔。奇幻作品的心理吸引力也有助于解释为什么这类叙事作品频频出现俄狄浦斯式情节。比如，《星球大战》里就有卢克和他父亲之间俄狄浦斯式搏斗的经典一幕。超级英雄系列电影建构了一些令人着迷的奇幻场景，其中的主人公与弗罗多和哈利一样，也大都是被迫行动、看似不太可能成功的男性人物。《超人》（1978）、《蝙蝠侠》（1989）、《蜘蛛侠》（2002）这些大受青睐的电影主角均是能引发绝大多数观众共鸣、才能平平的“普通”人。这种“平平无奇”的特点只不过是一种外在表象，暂时掩盖了人物真正的超能力——这也是吸引观众的解决问题之道。

[6]与此相似，近来很多超自然／鬼怪类电影也有通过魔法将挚爱之人以鬼魂的方式召回现实的场景，从而表达了对死亡现实的否定，如《人鬼情未了》《未了阴阳情》。假如对这类奇幻作品进行精神分析式的阐释，则结论会更为精妙。对比而言，这类电影是否是美梦成真的奇幻片，以及美梦成真的奇幻片是否思想内容保守陈旧，后一问题的重要性大于前者。一个男性人物愿意变成一个阳刚硬汉（如《蜘蛛侠》），对故事必然构成不了什么颠覆性，因为这无非只是强化了西方传统观念中的男子气概而已，这在我们讨论过的很多奇幻电影中都是反复存在的。然而，一部分奇幻电影在内容上保守陈旧，并不必然意味着遁世主义就是对现实没有意义的否定因而毫无文化价值。比如最近的情节剧与喜剧鬼片都不约而同具有一种挑战传统性别角色的倾向（如《人鬼情未了》《未了阴阳情》《第六感》），通过创造消极、“阴柔的”男性角色来与好莱坞电影中积极正面的男主人公形成尖锐反差。

[7]暂且不论这些抑或其他奇幻电影是否真的具有颠覆性，或令人在政治思想上获得解脱，奇幻电影都为观众提供了一个可以休憩的角落，包容他们世所不容的欲望和其他超乎想象的可能性。因此，用让·拉普朗虚与让·贝尔特朗·蓬塔利斯给奇幻心理现象下的定义来分析，一部奇幻电影就是不折不扣“对欲望的场景布控”，那些无法实现的欲望便借由此场景以逻辑演绎至圆满结局。□

（译者单位：上海外国语大学英语学院）