时代经典用词人文篇 影剧

从来没考虑过要演戏，直到导演Ｊｏｒｄａｎ的卡司组长在他大而化之的美感中发现有明星特质，建议他来试镜。
Tekkies
星舰迷
His Star Trek series (1966-69) imagined a future of intergalactic travel and utopian possibility that spawned millions of passionately devoted fans-"Trekkies" - and six motion pictures.
想象的未来有跨星系之旅以及乌托邦式的可能性，产生了数百万热烈支持的影迷（叫做星舰迷）以及六部电影。
Hawking, who suffers from Lou Gehrig's disease and communicates by computer,
霍金患有卢盖瑞氏症，只有靠电脑沟通。
is a big-time Trekkie and got invited to do the star turn, which airs the week of June 21,
during a visit to the show's studios.
在参观该剧摄影棚时。
whodunit
推理电影
In The Crying Game he offered more than a plot twist, a whodunit or whoizit; he produced a parable about love,
在《乱世浮生》一片中他给观众的不只是一段剧情的转折，一部推理片而已，他创造了一部寓言，主题是爱、
loyalty, identity, courage.
忠诚、人的自我观、以及勇气。
Film noir, that '40s Hollywood style of bitter men, treacherous women and slicing shadows,
黑色电影，那种１９４０年代好莱坞的电影风格，里面有满腹牢骚的男人、不忠的女人和挥刀杀人的阴影，
is making spectral appearances on cable TV this summer.
今夏在有线电视上借尸还魂了。
When Artists Distort History
Lance Morrow
King Richard 3 was a monster. He poisoned his wife, stole the thone from his two young nephews and ordered them to be smotheed in the Tower of London.
Richard was a sort of Antichrist the King-"that bottled spider, that pois'nous bunchback'd toad. "
Anyway, that was Shakespeare's vesion. Shakespeare did what the playwright does: he turned history into a vivid,
articulate, organized dream- repeatable nightly. He put the couchback onstage, and sold tickets.
And who would say that the real Richard known to family and friends was not identical to Shakespeare's memorably loathsome creation?
The actual Richard went dimming into the past and vanished.
when all the eyewitnesses are gone, the artist's imagination begins to conjure.
Variations on the King Richard Effect are at work in Oliver Stone's JFK. Richard 3 was art,
but it was propaganda too. Shakespeare took the details of his plot from Tudor historians who wanted to blacken Richard's name.
Several centuries passed before other histoians began to write about Pichard's virtues and suggest that he may have been a victim of Tudor malice and what is the cleverest conspiracy of all:art.
JFK is a long and powerful harangue about the death of the man Stone keeps calling "the slain young king."
What are the rules of Stone's game? Is Stone functioning as commercial entertainer?
Propagandist? Documentary filmmaker? Historian? Journalist?
Fantasist? Sensationalist? Paranoid conspiracy-monger?
Lone hero crusading for the truth against a venal Establishment? Answer:some of the above.
The first superficial effect of JFK is to raise angry little scruples like welts in the conscience.
Wouldn't it be absurd if a generation of younger Americans, with no memory of 1963.
were to form their ideas about John Kennedy's assassination from Oliver Stone's report of it?
But worse things have happened-including, perhaps, the Warren Commission report.
Stone's movie and the Warren report are interestingly symmetrical:
the Warren Commission was stolidly, one might say pathologically,
unsuspicious, while in every scene of the Stone film conspiracy theories writhe underfoot like snakes.
In a strange way, the two reports balance one another out.
It may be ridiculous to accord Stone's movie a status coequal with the Warren report.
On the other hand, the Warren report has endured through the years as a monolith of obscure suppression,

a smooth tomb of denial. Stone's movie, for all its wild gesticulations,
at least refreshes the memory and gets a long-cold curiosity and contempt glowing again.
The fecklessness of the Warren report somehow makes one less indignant about Stone's methods and the 500 kitchen sinks that he has heaved into his story.
His technique is admirable as storytelling and now and then preposterous as historical inquiry.
But why should the Ameican people expect a moviemaker to assume responsibility for producing the last word on the Kennedy assassination when the government,
historians and news media have all pursued the subject so imperfectly?
Stone uses a suspect, mongrel art form, and JFK raises the familiar ethical and histoical problems of docudrama.
But so what? Artists have always used public events as raw material,
have taken history into their imaginations and transformed it.
The fall of Troy vanished into the Iliad. The Battle of Borodino found its most memorable permanence in Tolstoy's imagining of it in War and Peace.
Especially in a world of insatiable electronic storytelling, real history procreates,
endlessly conjuing new versions of itself.
Public life has become a metaphysical beeder of fictions.
Watergate became an almost continuous television miniseries- although it is interesting that the movie of Woodward and Bernstein's All The President's Men stayed close to the known facts and,
unlike JFK, did not validate dark conjecture.
Some public figures have a story magic,and some do not. Richard Nixon possesses an indefinable,
discomfited dark gleam that somehow fascinates. And John Kennedy, despite everything,
still has the bright glamour that works best of all.
Works, that is, except when the subject is his assassination.
That may be a matter still too sacred, too raw and unassimilated.
The long American passivity about the death in Dallas may be a sort of hypnosis-or a grief that hardened into a will not to know.
Do not let daylight in upon magic.
Why is Stone's movie different from any other imaginative treatment of history?
Is it because the assassination of John Kennedy was so traumatic, the baby boomer's End of Childhood?
Or that Americans have enshrined it as oficial tragedy,
a title that confers immunity from profane revisionists who would reopen the grave?
Are artists and moviemakers by such logic enjoined from stories about the Holocaust?
The Holocaust, of course, is known from the outset to be a satanic plot.
For some reason - a native individualism, maybe - many Americans resist dark theories about J.F.K. 's death,
and think those retailing them are peddling foreign, anarchist goods.
Real Americans hate conspiracies as something unclean.
Perhaps the memory of the assassination is simply too fresh.
An outraged movie like Stone's intrudes upon a semipermanent mourning.
Maybe the subject should be embargoed for some period of time, withheld from artists and entertaines,
in the same way the Catholic Church once declined to consider sainthood until the person in question had been dead for 50 years.