為了奧斯卡，真的值得投入那么多嗎

為了奧斯卡，真的值得投入那么多嗎

Though the Academy Awards won’t be handed out until Feb. 22, Oscar season is already upon us, and The New York Times has appointed a new Bagger — see byline — to navigate this fevered, outrageously expensive annual arms race.

雖然奧斯卡獎要到2月22日才頒發(fā)，但是奧斯卡季已經(jīng)開始，《紐約時報》任命了一個新手——參見作者署名——來為這個極度狂熱而又昂貴的年度軍備競賽做導(dǎo)航。

After more than a decade in the very real world of news, covering man-made and environmental perils, including the Iraq war and lots of hurricanes, it’s on to the alien land that is Hollywood.

十多年來，我一直處在非常真實(shí)的新聞世界，報道人為和環(huán)境危機(jī)，包括伊拉克戰(zhàn)爭和多次颶風(fēng)，現(xiàn)在我來到好萊塢這片陌生的領(lǐng)地。

Coming in fresh, the new Bagger had one very large question: Are the Oscars really worth all the money, effort and hype?

初來乍到，我這個新手有個非常重要的問題：奧斯卡獎?wù)娴闹档猛度脒@么多金錢、精力和宣傳嗎?

The endless parties, the luncheons, the panels, the ads, the screeners, the strategist-driven campaigns, the whispering, the dog-and-pony showings of celebrities in 1-percenter clothes, all of it laser-focused on nabbing a gold statue that the odds are heavily against winning for any given contender: Why, people, why?

沒完沒了的派對、午宴、座談會、廣告、試映會、戰(zhàn)略性宣傳、小道消息和名人暴露照片，所有這些都是為了奪取一個小金人，而且對所有參賽者來說勝算都很?。簽槭裁?到底是為什么?

“You’re not talking about rational human agency,” one industry insider said. “A Stockholm syndrome takes over.”

“你談?wù)摰牟皇抢硇缘娜祟愡x擇機(jī)制，”一位業(yè)內(nèi)人士說，“是斯德哥爾摩綜合征在起作用。”

The Bagger put the question to studio heads, directors, actors and producers, some of whom agreed to chat on the record, others off (several confiding that awards season was something they dreaded and loathed).

我又向電影公司主管、導(dǎo)演、演員和制作人們提出這個問題，有些人同意將談話內(nèi)容公開發(fā)表，有些不同意(有幾位坦白地說，頒獎季令他們恐懼、厭惡)。

In an industry unparalleled in its reliance on external validation, there clearly is no bigger stamp of approval than the Academy’s. Independent films, in particular, get a lift. Ego is an obvious motive that people seem to see most clearly in others. Being “part of the conversation,” that much recycled phrase, is a boon in itself: “It’s an honor just to be nominated” may sound clichéd, but garnering a nod truly is a type of win.

這個行業(yè)極其依賴外界認(rèn)可，而奧斯卡獎無疑是最大的認(rèn)可。尤其是獨(dú)立電影，它們可以借此提高身價。自尊心顯然是一種動機(jī)，人們往往在別人身上看得最清楚。成為“談話的一部分”被多次提及，這本身就是一種恩惠：“能獲得提名就是一種榮譽(yù)”可能聽起來很老套，但獲得提名認(rèn)可真的是一種勝利。

Which raises the question of return on investment: How does all the money that goes into these campaigns — estimates run at more than $100 million for the season — measure against the revenue they supposedly generate?

這就引發(fā)了投資回報的問題：本季的宣傳投入估計(jì)超過一億美元，它們又產(chǎn)出了多少利益呢?

Right now, in the prenomination phase, money spent on campaigns, particularly those driven by vanity — yep, they’re out there — is a gamble and could be for naught.

目前，在提名前的階段，在宣傳上花的錢，特別是那些為了虛榮做的宣傳——是的，確實(shí)有這樣的宣傳——是在賭博，可能徒勞無功。

But landing a nomination means bigger audiences. Jon Kilik, a producer of this year’s “Foxcatcher” whose Oscar-nominated pictures include “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly,” “Dead Man Walking” and “Pollock,” among others, noted that an Academy nod can spotlight art house films that are often extremely hard to get in front of a mainstream audience.

但是獲得提名意味著能吸引更多觀眾。制片人喬恩·基利克(Jon Kilik)曾獲得奧斯卡提名的影片包括《潛水鐘與蝴蝶》(The Diving Bell and the Butterfly)、《死囚漫步》(Dead Man Walking)和《波洛克》(Pollock)，今年制作的影片是《狐貍獵手》(Foxcatcher)。他指出，奧斯卡提名能使公眾注意到一些藝術(shù)電影，它們通常很難被呈現(xiàn)到主流觀眾面前。

More audiences mean more bank, not just in the short term. Marc Shmuger, former chairman of Universal Pictures, said being among the nominated few bestowed a film with a near-everlasting patina.

更多觀眾意味著更多收入——不只是短期的。環(huán)球影業(yè)前主席馬克·施姆格(Marc Shmuger)說，一部電影要是能躋身少數(shù)幾部提名影片之列，將具有幾近永恒的光彩。

He also proffered the refreshingly noncynical assessment that the awards inspire quality in an industry besotted with the bottom line and prone to churning out big-budget comic-book flicks. “There is an occasion to celebrate when people are aiming high,” he said. “Let’s all applaud that because it deserves support.”

他還提出了這樣一個新鮮的、毫不憤世嫉俗的觀點(diǎn)：在整個電影行業(yè)已經(jīng)被利潤麻痹，傾向于炮制大成本漫畫改編影片的情況下，奧斯卡獎的評定能激發(fā)電影業(yè)注重品質(zhì)，令人振奮。“它提供了一個機(jī)會，來贊美那些追求更高目標(biāo)的人，”他說，“讓我們共同贊美它，因?yàn)樗档弥С帧?rdquo;

Very nice, right?

說得真好，不是嗎?

Back to that bottom line.

我們再回到利潤問題上。

Brad Weston, the head of New Regency, which this fall had the acclaimed hits “Gone Girl” and “Birdman,” said “12 Years a Slave,” which his company co-produced, earned $17.5 million after nominations earlier this year, and $6.5 million more after its best picture win. Then the digital and DVD sales hit a year’s projections within the first week.

新攝政娛樂公司(New Regency)今年秋季的熱門影片《消失的愛人》(Gone Girl)和《鳥人》(Birdman)受到好評。該公司總裁布拉德·韋斯頓(Brad Weston)說，該公司聯(lián)合制作的《為奴十二年》(12 Years a Slave)在年初獲得提名后賺了1750萬美元，在獲得最佳影片獎后又賺了650萬美元。數(shù)字發(fā)行和DVD銷售在第一周就打破了年度預(yù)測。

“Because of the movie’s intensity, let’s call it, a lot of people didn’t see the picture in the theaters,” Mr. Weston said, “but the win validated that it had to be seen.”

“因?yàn)樵撈容^壓抑，坦白地說，很多人不會去影院看它，”韋斯頓說，“但是獲獎肯定了它的價值，讓它成了必看影片。”

Tom Bernard, the co-president of Sony Pictures Classics, known for cultivating small gems, said nominations and eventual wins sent earnings for the 1992 releases “Howards End” and “Indochine,” his company’s first two films, “over the top.” Another example: After the whimsical animated “Triplets of Belleville” landed a best song nomination, its earnings more than tripled, to $7 million.

索尼經(jīng)典電影公司的聯(lián)合總裁湯姆·伯納德(Tom Bernard)以培養(yǎng)低成本精彩影片聞名。他說，該公司1992年發(fā)行的頭兩部影片《霍華德莊園》(Howards End)和《印度支那》(Indochine)獲得奧斯卡提名并最終獲獎，從而獲得了“超乎想像”的收入。另一個例子：異想天開的動畫片《瘋狂約會美麗都》(Triplets of Belleville)獲得最佳原創(chuàng)歌曲獎提名后，它的收入翻了三倍，達(dá)到700萬美元。

“Oscars are something that bring awareness that money can’t buy,” Mr. Bernard said. “It’s credibility for an indie film to be in the race.”

“奧斯卡獎帶來的知名度是錢買不來的，”伯納德說，“它的公信力使獨(dú)立電影具有成功的可能。”

The numbers go on. “Slumdog Millionaire” (2008), an outsider film with no known stars, earned more than a third of its box office take after the nominations, and another 30 percent after the win, said Stephen Gilula, co-president of Fox Searchlight Pictures. “The Last King of Scotland” (2006), about Idi Amin — hardly audience catnip — had little traction until the nominations: After its star, Forest Whitaker, received a best actor nod (he would win), it went on to earn over two-thirds of its total revenue.

這樣的例子數(shù)不勝數(shù)。?？怂固秸諢粲皹I(yè)的聯(lián)合總裁斯蒂芬·吉魯拉(Stephen Gilula)說，《貧民窟的百萬富翁》(Slumdog Millionaire, 2008)沒有大明星參演，本來沒有成功的希望，但是獲得提名后票房增長了三分之一還多，獲獎后又增長了30%。關(guān)于伊迪·阿明(Idi Amin)的影片《末代獨(dú)裁》(The Last King of Scotland, 2006)對觀眾幾乎沒有任何吸引力，獲得提名前幾乎沒有任何票房號召力。主演福雷斯特·惠特克(Forest Whitaker)獲得最佳男主角獎提名后(他后來獲得了該獎)，該片又進(jìn)賬超過三分之二。

There’s also the catapult effect on individual careers: After Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova won for original song in “Once” (2007), they saw that film made into a Broadway hit, which used their song and won eight Tony Awards.

奧斯卡獎對個人事業(yè)還有快速推動作用。格倫·漢塞德(Glen Hansard)和馬爾凱塔·伊爾格洛娃(Marketa Irglova)憑借《曾經(jīng)》(Once, 2007)獲得奧斯卡最佳原創(chuàng)歌曲獎，這部電影被改編成百老匯熱門音樂劇，該劇采用他們的歌曲，獲得了八項(xiàng)托尼獎。

(Of course, a win brings with it no career guarantee, though Entertainment Weekly has suggested that the myth that winning a best supporting actress Oscar is a career ender turns out to be just that, a myth).

(當(dāng)然，獲獎不一定能確保事業(yè)成功，不過，《娛樂周刊》[Entertainment Weekly]稱，事實(shí)證明，獲得奧斯卡最佳女配角獎意味著事業(yè)終結(jié)這個神話只是故弄玄虛。)

Fox Searchlight bought “Crazy Heart” in late August 2009 and rushed to release it that December after executives accurately gauged warm, fuzzy Hollywood sentiment toward Jeff Bridges, who went on to win best actor.

2009年，?？怂固秸諢粲皹I(yè)的主管們準(zhǔn)確覺察到好萊塢對杰夫·布里吉斯(Jeff Bridges)的好感，8月底買下《瘋狂的心》(Crazy Heart)，12月匆忙發(fā)行。布里吉斯后來獲得了最佳男主角獎。

“Jeff is beloved in the industry, and it reminded everyone why,” Mr. Gilula said. Mr. Bridges also saw a career lift: He went on to make the Coen Brothers’ smash “True Grit.”

“杰夫在業(yè)內(nèi)深受喜愛，讓所有人開始思考原因是什么，”吉魯拉說。布里吉斯的事業(yè)也因此得到提升，后來主演了科恩兄弟(Coen Brothers)的杰作《大地驚雷》(True Grit)。

Riding the awards season buzz is a key part of release date strategies — a studio can promote to general audiences and Oscar voters at once — which is why so many films come out at year’s end. David Glasser, chief operating officer and president of the Weinstein Company (the Bagger tried to get Harvey, too; the company demurred), described the fall sweet spot: “We’ve always had a magic November date for the right picture,” he said.

借助頒獎季的喧鬧是選擇上映時間的一個重要策略，電影公司可以同時向普通觀眾和奧斯卡投票人做宣傳，這就是很多電影在年底上映的原因。溫斯坦公司 (Weinstein Company)的首席運(yùn)營官、總裁大衛(wèi)·格拉瑟(David Glasser，我本來也打算采訪哈維[Harvey]，但是被該公司拒絕了)說秋季是最佳上映時間，“我們總是在11月為最好的影片選擇一個極佳上映日期”。

The Weinstein film “The Artist,” which would win best picture, was released in late November 2011. The Weinsteins’ big horse in this year’s race, “The Imitation Game,” opened on Friday, two months after winning the Toronto International Film Festival’s audience award, and doubtlessly riding that awards momentum. “A great way to start a campaign, getting that stamp right off the bat,” Mr. Glasser said.

溫斯坦公司的《藝術(shù)家》(The Artist)在2011年11月底上映，后來獲得了最佳影片獎。溫斯坦公司今年參賽的重頭戲《模仿游戲》(The Imitation Game)周五上映，顯然是想借助頒獎季的勢頭。該片兩個月前獲得了多倫多國際電影節(jié)的觀眾選擇獎。“能這樣開始宣傳真是太好了，可以馬上利用那個獎項(xiàng)的影響力，”格拉瑟說。

Away from Hollywood’s glare, the nominations can have arguably more resonant effects.

除了好萊塢的注目，獲得提名無疑能引起更多共鳴效應(yīng)。

Within days of the nomination of “The Act of Killing” (2013), a surreal, grisly documentary about Indonesia’s slaughter of suspected Communists in the 1960s, the country’s leaders took the unprecedented step of admitting that something terrible had taken place.

《殺戮演繹》(The Act of Killing, 2013)是一部離奇、可怕的記錄片，講述20世紀(jì)60年代印度尼西亞對疑似共產(chǎn)黨員的屠殺。該片獲得提名幾天后，該國領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人史無前例地承認(rèn)，的確發(fā)生過一些可怕的事情。

“The government finally acknowledged that the genocide was wrong,” said the film’s director, Joshua Oppenheimer. “It was the first time they’d ever done that. Until then they said, ‘It’s something to be celebrated.’ ”

“該國政府最終承認(rèn)，那些屠殺是錯誤的，”該片導(dǎo)演約書亞·奧本海默(Joshua Oppenheimer)說，“那是他們第一次這樣說。之前他們總是說， ‘那是值得稱贊的事。’”

Of course, for every win, there is a minimum of four losers, with Oscar night bringing a plethora of bruised feelings worsened by the exhausting, marathon-like campaigns. Not to mention the inherently demeaning blow of having your film lose a subjective race that pits such vastly different productions against one another: A showdown involving “Gravity,” “American Hustle” and “12 Years a Slave” is akin to forcing a best picture selection among a Miró, a Pollock and a Monet.

當(dāng)然，每個獲勝者背后至少有四個失敗者。令人精疲力盡的馬拉松式宣傳更加劇了奧斯卡頒獎之夜的傷痛。更何況，它是把各種迥然不同的作品放在一起比較，具有很大的主觀性，這樣的失敗本身就具有侮辱性打擊。讓《地心引力》(Gravity)、《美國騙局》(American Hustle)和《為奴十二年》一決高下就像是非要在米羅(Miró)、波洛克(Pollock)和莫奈(Monet)的作品中選出一個最佳畫作。