[原创]从黑格尔《逻辑学》看电影的本体论机制
前言：这篇文章脱胎自我之前课上的一篇论文作业，引用格式采取MLA9
中文版：
“看电影的经历是其中的一部分。只在电视上看到一部伟大的电影并不是真的看过这部电影。”(Davis 407)。对于桑塔格来说，在电影院看电影和在电视上看电影的最小区别是前者是一种“被绑架”，我们“必须在电影院，坐在黑暗中，和匿名的陌生人在一起。”(Davis 407）
我认为桑塔格所把握到的细节对于电影的本体论论证（什么是电影）是非常重要的，尽管我并不认可电视和电影的观看体验有一种difference on quality。电影一词本身就指代着胶片，一种物理的成像媒介。但在电影技术蓬勃发展的今天，这个最初的词汇在各种数码摄像机被应用于电影工业生产这一事实来说，是无力且老旧的。D. N. Rodowick在他的著作《The Virtual Life of Film》中早已为我们揭露了这一点：“As almost (or, truly, virtually) every aspect of making and viewing movies is replaced by digital technologies, even the notion of "watching a film" is fast becoming an anachronism”（Rodowick 8）。于是许多的电影理论家就不得不把对电影的本体论决定性因素的考察转移到非胶片上，转移到其他一些。桑塔格对剧院经验的强调就是一个明显的例子，她关注到了剧院区别于家庭电视的地方在于其黑暗性和匿名性，在于提供了一个除了正在屏幕上放映的影像外完全虚无黑暗的空间。而电视却会因为和其他一些不相干的家具同时存在于人类的主观视域中而破坏这种纯粹“无”的空间。然而，我认为桑塔格在此的一个疏漏在于，她忽略了人眼本身的聚焦能力（这意味着我们在关注屏幕的时候就一定会忽视其他无关的部分），以及她把电影的本体论因素固定在影院上，固定在另一个和胶片差不多的物理载体上，从而错失了把握更抽象的电影本体因素的机会。在我的观点中，决定电影之为电影的，绝对不是任何意义上的物理因素，因为任何物理因素都会随着科技的进步被逐步淘汰掉，因而一个真正的本体论因素应该是ideal。真正的决定因素正在于观影体验中，屏幕与我们的主观视域所拉开的那个距离本身。换句话说，就是the gap between the audience and screen。这个所谓的Gap，即类似于拉康精神分析意义上的误认，也类似于黑格尔the science of logic中的中介本身。Gap，就意味着我们当前所处的视点同电影中放映的影像之间是有别且有距离的，但同时我们的视点和电影中的影像又是共在的，也就是说我们都在一个统一的时间线下运作。现在，我们可以说电影拥有一种隐喻的恐怖性，一个异于我们的影像世界正在同我们现实的世界一同运行着，而我们被一种暴力逼迫着只能凝视这另一个世界所发生的一切，这种暴力在剧院中体现得尤为明显，因为除去屏幕外其他地方都是黑暗，都是无尽的虚空。而也正是这种暴力，决定了电影是电影而不是其他的影像媒介形式。因为正是这种gap，或者说这种距离，使得两个世界（影像世界和现实世界）可以共在，使得两个世界可以处在一种最具张力的结构之中，类似于黑格尔在the science of logic中所宣称的矛盾推动moments运行，观影者的自我意识和观影体验也由这两个世界的矛盾生成出来。观影者的世界，必须借由影像世界与它的不一致性来中介出自己，而这个过程的中介者便是正在进行观影活动的主体，即观众。影像世界必须要通过观众观影上的无能（我正在gazing一个世界，却又不能改变它）来宣誓影像世界作为实体的主权，而这个黑暗的gap便是其主权的证据。我们可以用其他非电影或者带不来传统电影观影体验的其他影像媒介来证明这一点：例如虚拟现实技术，它在本体论意义上是对gap完全的消灭，是人的主观视域和影像世界的完全重合，因此虚拟现实技术在科幻作品中总是以一种绝对的沉浸（我们可以完全活在另一个世界）的面貌出现。这也能解释为什么我们很难想象用虚拟现实技术复刻电影中的蒙太奇和长镜头等技法。另一个例子是戏剧，与虚拟现实相对的，戏剧在本体论上强调的是绝对的distancing（如果你在这里是一个布莱希特主义者的话），戏剧意味着我们的主观视域就对应着客观发生的现实（我们观看的戏剧就发生在我们的现实世界中，它是刻意地在我们的世界中上演的）；就以最终的本体论效果来看，虚拟现实技术和戏剧最终都没有创造明显的两个世界的分裂，它们最终会被消解于一个世界中，而只有电影，这个拥有相对的距离的影像艺术，才持存住了两个世界的分裂。综上我认为，桑塔格对于电影的本体论因素的嗅觉是敏锐的，但是她错失了迈向更抽象的本体论论述的机会，以及在这个意义上，电视的观看体验只是在量上被弱化了的电影体验。它和影院中放映的电影的区别就在于它只是弱化或zoom out了在屏幕之外的其他东西，它并没有把这些东西投入绝对的黑暗中，但是它的模糊依然继承了电影的本体论意义。
英文版：
I found the following ideas useful from what Susan Sonntag asserted："The experience of going to the movies was part of it. To see a great film only on television isn’t to have really seen that film."(Davis 407). For Sonntag, the smallest difference between watching movies in theater and on TV is the former is a kind of "be kidnapped", we "have to be in a movie theater, seated in the dark among anonymous strangers." （Davis 407）I think the details Sontag has grasped are very important for the ontological argument of film (what is film), although I don't accept that there is a difference on quality between the viewing experience of television and film. The word film itself refers to film, a physical medium of imaging. But in today's film technology boom, this original term is weak and old in light of the fact that various digital cameras are being used in film production. D. N. Rodowick has already revealed this for us in his book The Virtual Life of Film: "As almost (or, truly, virtually) every aspect of making and viewing movies is replaced by digital technologies, even the notion of "watching a film" is fast becoming an anachronism "(Rodowick 8). So many film theorists had to shift their investigation of the ontological determinants of film to something other than film. Sontag's emphasis on the theatre experience is an obvious example. She focuses on the darkness and anonymity of the theatre, which is different from home television, in that it provides a completely empty and dark space except for the images being projected on the screen. Television, on the other hand, destroys this pure "nothing" space because it exists in the subjective vision of human beings with some other irrelevant furniture. One omission I think Sontag makes here, however, is that she ignores the focusing power of the human eye itself (which means that we must ignore other irrelevant parts when we are looking at the screen), and that she has fixed the ontological element of the film to the cinema, to another physical vehicle, not unlike film. Thus missed the opportunity to grasp more abstract film ontology factors. In my opinion, it is absolutely not physical factors in any sense that determine a movie, because any physical factors will be phased out with the progress of science and technology. Therefore, a real ontological factor should be ideal. The real determining factor is in the experience itself, the distance between the screen and our subjective field of view. In other words, the gap between the audience and screen. This so-called Gap is similar to the misidentification in the psychoanalytic sense of Lacan, as well as to the mediation itself in Hegel's science of logic. Gap means that there is a difference and a distance between our current viewpoint and the image shown in the movie, but at the same time, our viewpoint and the image in the movie is common, that is to say, we are all operating under a unified time line. Now, we can say that cinema has a kind of metaphorical horror, that a world of images other than our own is moving in parallel with our own, and that we are forced to stare at what is going on in this other world by a kind of violence, especially in the theater, where everything except the screen is dark, an endless void. And it is this kind of violence that determines that a film is a film rather than any other form of image media. Because it is this gap, or this distance, that allows the two worlds (the image world and the real world) to co-exist, that allows the two worlds to exist in a structure of the greatest tension, similar to Hegel's claim in the science of logic that contradictions drive moments, The viewer's self-consciousness and movie-watching experience are also generated by the contradiction between these two worlds.The viewer's world must be mediated by the inconsistency between the image world and it, and the intermediary in this process is the subject of the movie-watching activity, namely the audience. This dark gap is evidence of the sovereignty of the world of images as entities which must be asserted by the impotence of the viewer in gazing at a world (I am gazing at a world but cannot alter it). We can demonstrate this with other video media that are not films or that do not bring the traditional movie-watching experience: For example, virtual reality technology is the complete elimination of gap in the ontological sense and the complete coincidence of human subjective horizon and image world. Therefore, virtual reality technology always appears in the appearance of absolute immersion (we can completely live in another world) in science fiction works. It also helps explain why it's hard to imagine recreating techniques like film montage and long shots in virtual reality. Another example is theatre, which, as opposed to virtual reality, emphasises absolute distancing (if you're a Brechtian here) ontologically, meaning that our subjective horizon corresponds to objectively happening reality (the drama we watch is happening in our real world, It is deliberately played out in our world); In terms of the ultimate ontological effect, neither virtual reality technology nor drama will create an obvious split between the two worlds, but they will eventually be dissolved in one world. Only film, the image art with a relative distance, can preserve the split between the two worlds. To sum up, I think Sontag has a keen sense of the ontological factors of film, but she misses the opportunity to move towards a more abstract ontological discussion, and in this sense, the viewing experience of TV is only a film experience that is reduced in quantity. What distinguishes it from cinema is that it only attenuates or zooms out what is beyond the screen, it doesn't throw it into absolute darkness, but its blurring still inherits the ontological significance of cinema.
文献参考：
Davis, Glyn. Film Studies a Global Introduction. Routledge, 2015.
Gharavi, Maryam Monalisa. The Distancing Effect. Blazevox Books, 2016.
Kunkle, Sheila. Lacan and Contemporary Film. Other Press, 2004.
Rodowick, D. N. The Virtual Life of Film. Harvard University Press, 2007.
