评论
打印
At some point during Netflix’s “Sense8” — a gorgeous, ridiculous series about eight strangers scattered across the world who use a psychic connection to aid one another in fights and at one point have a virtual orgy — I had to ask myself: What am I watching?
Netflix台的《超感猎杀》(Sense8)是一部精彩而又荒诞的电视剧，讲述分布在世界不同地方的八个怪人，他们使用心灵感应互相帮助，进行战斗，还搞了一场虚拟的放荡狂欢。我看到一半，不禁扪心自问：我到底是在看什么？
I didn’t mean that the way I usually do when reviewing a baffling show. I meant what, in a definitional sense, was this maximalist, supersized, latticework story? A mini-series? A megamovie? To put it another way: Is Netflix TV?
我的意思不是说这部剧集过于令人费解。而是说，这个实行最大主义、长度超长，情节错综复杂的故事到底应该怎样定义呢？迷你剧？超级电影？或者换个说法，Netflix电视剧吗？
On the one hand, sure. These days, when newspapers have video-production studios and you can watch “The Walking Dead” on your phone, “TV” is a pretty inclusive club. On the other hand, streaming shows — by which here I mean the original series that Netflix, Amazon and their ilk release all at once, in full seasons — are more than simply TV series as we’ve known them. They’re becoming a distinct genre all their own, whose conventions and aesthetics we’re just starting to figure out.
从一方面来说，的确如此。如今，报纸都有了视频制作工作室，你可以在手机上观看《行尸走肉》(The Walking Dead)，“电视”是一个包罗万象的俱乐部。从另一方面来说，流媒体播放剧集——我在这里是指Netflix、亚马逊等网站以整季形式一股脑推出的原创剧集——已经不再是我们所熟悉的电视剧了。它们成了自成一格的类型，我们都是刚刚才开始摸索它们的传统与美学。
In TV, narrative has always been an outgrowth of the delivery mechanism. Why are there cliffhangers? So you’ll tune in next week. Why are shows a half-hour or an hour long? Because real-time viewing required predictable schedules. Why do episodes have a multiple-act structure? To leave room for the commercials.
在电视里，叙事都是由播放机制决定的。为什么要有悬念？为的是让你下周接着看。为什么节目都是半小时或一小时？因为实时观看需要可以预计的时间计划。为什么一集里要有多重结构？这是为了给放广告留出空间。
HBO series like “Deadwood” — which jettisoned the ad breaks and content restrictions of network TV — have been compared to Dickens’s serial novels. Watching a streaming series is even more like reading a book — you receive it as a seamless whole, you set your own schedule — but it’s also like video gaming. Binge-watching is immersive. It’s user-directed. It creates a dynamic that I call “The Suck”: that narcotic, tidal feeling of getting drawn into a show and letting it wash over you for hours. “Play next episode” is the default, and it’s so easy. It can be competitive, even. Your friends are posting their progress, hour by hour, on social media. (“OMG #JessicaJones episode 10!! Woke up at 3 a.m. to watch!”) Each episode becomes a level to unlock.
HBO台的《朽木》(Deadwood)等电视剧去掉了广告时间，也不顾电视网的内容限制，成了堪与狄更斯的系列小说媲美的剧集。观看一部流媒体剧集更像是读一本书，你可以一气呵成地看完，也可以自行决定观看计划，但它也有点像打游戏。一口气看完剧集是一种沉浸式的体验，是用户定制的。它创造出一种我称之为“吸力”的东西：那种毒瘾般的、潮水般的感觉，让你沉浸在一部剧集里，任凭它冲刷着你，一连几个小时。“播放下一集”成了默认动作，是那么的轻易。这种感觉甚至也可以是竞争的。每个小时，朋友们都在社交媒体上贴出他们的进度（“我的天哪#杰西卡·琼斯第10集！！凌晨三点就醒过来看！”）。每一集都成了要解锁的下一关。
With those new mechanics comes a new relationship with the audience. Traditional television — what the jargonmeisters now call “linear TV” — assumes that your time is scarce and it has you for a few precious hours before bed. The streaming services assume they own your free time, whenever it comes — travel, holidays, weekends — to fill with five- and 10-hour entertainments.
这种新机制令电视剧和观众之间形成了一种新关系。传统电视——现在术语专家称其为“线性电视”——假定你的时间很宝贵，只占用你睡前的几小时宝贵时间。而流媒体服务则假定自己占有你的全部空余时间，不管是旅行、度假还是周末，它都可以为你带来五到十个小时的娱乐。
So they program shows exactly when TV networks don’t. They debut series on Fridays (considered “the death slot” in network TV) and over holidays. This November and December, TV’s long winter’s nap of reruns, the streaming services are unloading season after full season of original TV: “Jessica Jones,” “Transparent,” “Making a Murderer,” “The Art of More” — and more, and more. Amazon is releasing Season 2 of “Mozart in the Jungle” on Dec. 30, just in time for the ball to drop.
所以它们安排节目的时间和电视台完全不同。它们在周五（这个时间被电视台视为“死亡时段”）以及假日推出电视剧的首播。今年11月和12月，电视台开始了漫长的冬季重播节目期，而流媒体服务则推出整季整季的原创电视剧：《杰西卡·琼斯》(Jessica Jones)、《透明家庭》(Transparent)、《制造谋杀者》(Making a Murderer)、《辣手藏家》(The Art of More)，以及更多更多。亚马逊将于12月30日推出《丛林中的莫扎特》(Mozart in the Jungle)第二季，正赶上新年假期之前。
In other words, they schedule their shows like Hollywood movies. Streaming is like a vast multiplex where every screen is playing “The Mahabharata.” It expects commitment — and gets it.
换言之，它们安排剧集就像好莱坞电影一样。流媒体有点像一个巨大的多厅影院，所有银幕都在上映《摩诃婆罗多》(The Mahabharata)。它希望观众投入，观众也投入进去了。
Before Netflix and DVDs, there was an old-TV equivalent of the binge-watch: event network mini-series, like “Roots,” “Shogun” and “The Thorn Birds.” Where most TV of the time assumed you’d dip in and out of a series casually, these mammoth serials assumed they had your attention, all of it, until the story was done.
在Netflix与DVD之前的年代，还有一种老式的电视方式，可以让你一口气看完剧集：那就是电视台的重头迷你剧，诸如《根》(Roots)、《幕府将军》(Shogun)、《荆棘鸟》(The Thorn Birds)之类。当时的大多数电视假设，观众会随意地进入或跳出某部连续剧，而那些大型连续剧觉得，观众会一直关注，直到故事讲完。
Just so, binge-watching assumes a different kind of transaction with the viewer. Weekly TV thrives by creating a constant state of tension, teasing you to come back next week. Streaming relies on The Suck.
所以，一口气看完的电视剧假定自己以另一种方式和观众互动。每周播放的电视节目之所以兴旺发达，在于它创造出一种持续的紧张状态，挑逗着你下周接着着看。流媒体则完全依赖“吸力”。
Of course, no one’s stopping you from watching a series more slowly, but that changes the experience. Declaring whether it’s better or worse to binge fast or slow is like arguing whether it’s better to see the Grand Canyon from a helicopter or by foot. It’s beautiful either way, but it’s different. You see the fine grain, or you see the vast sweep.
当然，如果你想慢点看完一部剧集，也没人拦着你，但是这种方式改变了人们的观看体验。快点一口气看完剧集好，还是慢点一口气看完剧集好？讨论这种问题，就像讨论坐直升机还是步行游览大峡谷更好差不多——两种方式都很好，但两种体验不一样。你可以看到身边细致的岩石纹理，抑或是快速俯瞰全景。
When you watch a series weekly, the time you spend not watching — mulling, anticipating, just getting older — is a part of the show. “Breaking Bad,” for instance, is the story of a man’s descent, or rise, from ordinary life to murderous criminality. In narrative time, the story takes about two years. Watched live on AMC, it aired for more than five years. Binged — as many late-joining fans saw it — it took maybe a week or three.
如果一周一周观看剧集，在不看剧的时光里，你思考剧情、满心期待，任时光流逝——这一切都成了剧集的一部分。比如《绝命毒师》(Breaking Bad)，它讲述一个男人从一个普通人堕落（或崛起）为一个杀人犯罪者。从叙事角度，故事大约持续两年，而剧集在AMC台播放了五年多。如果像后来才加入的剧迷那样一口气看完，大概只需要一周到三周时间。
The live viewer saw Walter White’s change distended, in slow-motion; little by little, he broke badder and badder, in a way that emphasized the gradual slope of moral compromise. The binger saw him change in time-lapse, in a way that suggested that the tendency to arrogance and evil was in him all along. Neither perception is wrong. In fact, both themes are thoroughly built into the show. But how you watch, in some way, affects the story you see.
跟随电视看完的观众可以看到沃尔特·怀特(Walter White)慢慢自我膨胀的过程，他一点点变得愈来愈坏，强调出道德是如何慢慢妥协。而一口气看完的观众则在一段时间里看到他的转变，看出他一路变得傲慢邪恶的趋势。事实上，节目中这两个主题都有。但观看的方式也影响了你所看到的故事。
Streaming programmers are well aware of how The Suck works. According to Netflix data, most streaming viewers (including those watching original content and traditional TV shows) take three or four episodes to decide to commit to a season — meaning that streaming services can assume more patience (I’ll try just one more) than network programmers who assume the pilot is make-or-break.
流媒体节目非常注意让“吸力”发挥作用。根据Netflix数据，大多数流媒体观众（包括使用流媒体观看原创内容与传统电视节目的观众）大都是看过三四集后决定是否追完一季——也就是说，流媒体服务可以假定观众有更多耐心（“我就再多看一集”），而电视台节目制作者假定，试播集就决定生死。
In fact, Netflix’s chief content officer, Ted Sarandos, has said he considers the first season of a series, not the first episode, to be the “pilot.” So its premieres tend not to grab you so much as let you sink in. The first episode of “Narcos,” its drug-cartel drama, is an exposition-heavy scene-setter with as much voice-over as an audiobook; it’s less a pilot than a foreword.
事实上，Netflix的首席内容执行官泰德·萨伦多斯(Ted Sarandos)说，他把一部剧的第一季，而不是第一集，当做所谓“试播”。所以，剧集刚一上映的时候，不是马上抓住你，而是把你吸进来。比如《毒枭》(Narcos)，这是一部关于毒品帝国的情节剧，第一集就完全是大量展示背景，还有很多画外音，简直像有声书一样，它不像试播集，倒像是个前言。
This approach has advantages. With a few hours to seal the deal, you don’t need to load up your first episode with gimmicks, and you can avoid the tedious network practice of “repeating the pilot”: telling repetitive stories in the early episodes to accommodate latecomers. You can pack a series with story and incident and trust viewers not to forget details; “Orange Is the New Black,” for instance, has built out arcs for dozens of characters in a mere three seasons.
这种方法有它的优势，几个小时内就能做出决定，编剧用不着在第一集里堆满各种把戏，也避免了电视台剧集那种单调的“重复试播集”的做法：就是在前几集里讲述重复的故事，让新加入的观众可以适应。在流媒体剧集中，编剧可以用连续的方式讲述故事和事件，相信观众不会忘记细节；比如《女子监狱》(Orange Is the New Black)，三季的故事是建立在几十个人物的叙事线上的。
But it can also mean lethargic, shapeless narratives that rely on The Suck to keep viewers watching sheerly on the sunk-costs principle, like “Bloodline,” which drifted like flotsam in a Florida current until I gave up on it. (Don’t tell me: It gets good six or seven episodes in. There is always someone who will tell you that a Netflix series gets good six or seven episodes in. I have only so many more six-or-seven-hour stretches left in my life.)
但这也有可能意味着沉闷、散乱的叙事，只依靠“吸力”，凭着吸力的成本，才吸引观众继续观看下去，比如《至亲血统》(Bloodline)，我弃剧的时候，剧情就像佛罗里达洋流上的垃圾一样漂浮不定（别告诉我到第六七集就会好看了。总有人告诉你Netflix的电视剧看到第六七集就开始好看了。我的人生里有太多这种六七个小时了）。
Network TV shows, which produce new episodes while the seasons air, can course-correct midseason when ratings drop or a new character is rejected. The rise of online fan forums and social media made the dialogue even more intense (see the dissection of every episode of “Lost” when it aired). This could improve a show or encourage pandering, but it was, at least, a tool. Streaming series, each season handed down from the mountain on tablets, lose this tool entirely.
电视台的电视剧制作新的一集时，这一季还正在上映当中，如果收视率下降，或者一个新角色被拒绝，剧组可以在季中修改。网络影迷论坛以及社交网络的崛起，让观众与编导之间的对话更加密切（看看《迷失》[Lost]上映时，每一集都有多少解析吧）。这可以改善一部剧，抑或鼓励编剧迎合观众，但它至少是一种工具。而流媒体剧集的每一季都是在平板电脑上一下子交给你的，这就彻底失去了这种工具。
What Netflix does have is a tremendous amount of data on what people have already liked to watch. Do they like adventure drama? Make “Marco Polo.” Drug sagas like “Breaking Bad”? Give them “Narcos.” That’s probably excellent business, but it doesn’t encourage great leaps into the unknown.
Netflix所拥有的是海量的数据，表明人们观看的喜好。他们喜欢冒险剧？那就拍一部《马可·波罗》(Marco Polo)；喜欢《绝命毒师》这样的毒品传奇？那就给他们《毒枭》。这或许是很好的生意手段，但并不能促进向未知的飞跃。
This may be one reason that the streaming services have yet to create a truly great drama. (“Orange Is the New Black” and the magnificent “Transparent” are at least part comedy.) It’s their comedies, including “Master of None,” “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt,” “BoJack Horseman” and “Catastrophe,” that have been some of the past year’s best TV on any platform.
流媒体尚未能拍出真正精彩的情节剧（《女子监狱》和了不起的《透明家庭》部分要算是喜剧），或许还有这样一个原因：它们的喜剧放在任何平台上，都堪称过去一年来最精彩的电视节目，诸如《无为大师》(Master of None)、《我本坚强》(Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt)、《马男波杰克》(BoJack Horseman)和《大祸临头》(Catastrophe)。
That disparity fits the pattern of every new form of TV. “I Love Lucy” came decades before “Hill Street Blues,” “The Larry Sanders Show” before “The Sopranos.” Comedy is a portable medium — it jumped easily from radio to TV — and most of the better streaming comedies are similar to network and cable ones. (“Kimmy Schmidt” was developed for NBC, and “Catastrophe” first aired on British TV.) Most of the tweaks to the format (excepting the semi-successful, nonlinear “Arrested Development” season) have been simple and intuitive. “Master of None,” for instance, is both bluntly episodic and highly serial; it’s built for both bingeing and snacking.
这种不一致性适用于电视的每一种新平台。《我爱露西》(I Love Lucy)比《山街蓝调》(Hill Street Blues)早了几十年，《拉里·桑德斯秀》(The Larry Sanders Show)比《黑道家族》(The Sopranos)来得早。喜剧是一种轻便的媒介——它轻松地从广播跳进了电视——大多数精彩的流媒体喜剧都和有线台与无线台的喜剧有着相似之处（《我本坚强》本来是为NBC台拍的，《大祸临头》先在British TV上映）。这种形式中的大多数调整（除了半成功半不成功，非线性的《发展受阻》[Arrested Development]本季）都是简单直观的，比如《无为大师》，它既是直率的系列剧，也是非常具有连续性，既可以一口气看完，也可以断断续续地看。
Serial drama, on the other hand, is potentially the most changed by bingeing — which means its creators have the most to learn about how to make it, and the audience, about how to watch.
另一方面，情节连续剧或许是受连续观剧方式影响最大的剧种——也就是说，它的主创更要学习怎样拍这种剧，观众也要学习怎么看这种剧。
So far, streaming has best served a certain kind of plot-heavy, competent-but-not-revolutionary drama. Once you accept that “House of Cards” is not the next “The Wire” but rather a live-action political cartoon about Evil Foghorn Leghorn, it’s perfectly fun: a boiling pot of Southern ham that will keep you good company on the iPad while you fold laundry.
迄今为止，流媒体最适合用来观看那种情节丰富，剧情出色，但并不具有革命性的情节剧。你一旦承认，《纸牌屋》(House of Cards)并不是下一部《火线》(The Wire)，而是一出关于邪恶来亨鸡福亨的真人政治卡通，这就非常有意思了：它就像一口沸腾的大锅，里面煮着南方火腿，是你洗衣服时在iPad里播放的好伴侣。
The critic Alan Sepinwall, diagnosing this issue, argued recently that streaming series need to relearn the TV art of making tightly crafted episodes within larger serial arcs; “Your TV show,” he wrote, “doesn’t have to be a novel.” Streaming dramas aren’t novels. But they’re also not just TV shows as we’ve known them, delivered through a different pipe. And they won’t reach their full potential by simply imitating what already exists. The early days of broadcast gave us great shows, like “Playhouse 90,” that were essentially live theater that happened to be televised, but the medium didn’t come into its own until it learned to use what made it distinctive — the ability to tell open-ended ongoing stories. Likewise, streaming needs to learn to use its supersized format better, not fight against it.
评论家艾伦·塞宾沃尔(Alan Sepinwall)讨论过这个话题，前不久，他说流媒体电视剧需要重新学习怎样在较长的连续剧叙事弧里拍出紧凑剧情的电视艺术；“你们的电视剧，”他写道，“不一定成为小说。”流媒体情节剧不是小说。但它们也不再是我们所熟悉的电视剧，播放的渠道不同。仅仅靠着模仿已经存在的形式是无法充分发挥潜力的。早期电视台中有过《90分钟剧场》(Playhouse 90)这样的精彩节目，是碰巧把剧院现场搬上了电视。电视媒介只有在学会讲述开放结局，不断前进的故事之后，才真正有了特色，成为它自己。与此类似，流媒体剧集也需要学习怎样更好地利用它超长的时间，而不是与之对抗。
Which brings me back to “Sense8,” made by the filmmakers Andy and Lana Wachowski. Shot on locations around the world, it made the Wachowskis’ film “Cloud Atlas” look like a haiku, taking hours to lay out its premise and cutting balletically among the characters and their stories.
让我们回到《超感猎杀》，它是由电影人安迪与拉娜·沃卓斯基(Andy and Lana Wachowski)制作的。剧集在世界不同地点拍摄，花费几个小时时间展开设定，像跳芭蕾舞一样在不同角色与他们的故事之间切换，令姐弟二人的电影《云图》(Cloud Atlas)也相形见绌。
“Sense8” was by many traditional measures terrible — risible, laden with clumsy exposition and powered by high-THC we’re-all-connected hoo-hah. But it was also fearless and bracingly new, an effort by the Wachowskis to use every inch of the new format’s sprawling canvas. It was the R&D division of television, inviting you to don the crash suit and assume the risk.
以传统意义而言，《超感猎杀》在很多方面都很糟糕——它可笑，有大量笨拙的阐述说明，有大量迷幻的“我们彼此联系在一起”之类的东西。但它是勇敢的、崭新的，是沃卓斯基姐弟用这种新形式来扩展电视剧领域的尝试。它就像是电视剧中的研发部门，邀请你穿上安全服，一起进行冒险。
And I’ll confess: As a critic with multiple TV commitments, I watched “Sense8” on and off over weeks, which means it’s entirely possible that I was simply doing it wrong. Maybe it required an immersive trance, like a psychedelic vision quest. Maybe the wide grazing necessary to being a generalist critic makes it impossible to properly appreciate this kind of show, made for the intense appreciation of specialists.
我承认，作为一个写过无数剧评的评论家，看《超感猎杀》是花了几个星期，断断续续看的，这也就是说，我观看的方式很可能是错的。或许它需要沉浸式的出神体验，就像迷幻剂的探索。或许是因为我这样的通才式评论家涉猎太广泛，所以不太可能更好地欣赏这种拍给专家内行看的剧。
Conversely, streaming may not be the best format for every serial story. Matthew Weiner, the creator of the dense, deeply allusive “Mad Men,” has said that if he ever made a Netflix series, he’d argue for a weekly schedule to build in digestion time, and I’d sign the petition to let him. (Though that may also mean he’d be better off making the show for someone other than Netflix.)
相反，流媒体并不适合所有种类的连续剧。马修·韦纳(Matthew Weiner)是紧凑而充满暗示的剧集《广告狂人》(Mad Men)的主创，他说，如果让他来拍Netflix剧集，他会要求一个星期的时间来消化、理解。我也一定签请愿书，要求Netflix给他这个时间（尽管这也意味着，他给别的台拍片子的话，处境会比在Netflix好）。
More so than any recent innovation in TV, streaming has the potential, even the likelihood, to create an entirely new genre of narrative: one with elements of television, film and the novel, yet different from all of those. But it’s going to take time for all of us to master it.
和电视界其他近期内的创新相比，流媒体最有潜力，最有可能创造出一种全新的叙事类型：一种拥有电视、电影和小说的元素，同时又与这三者截然不同。但是我们所有人都需要时间才能够掌握它。
Fortunately, you still have the rest of your holiday to work on it. I hope you didn’t make plans on New Year’s Eve.
幸运的是，你们还可以在假期接着看剧。希望你们新年的除夕夜没有别的计划。
