文/凱瑟琳·A. 福克斯 譯/杜磊 審訂/肖維青

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母題，與theme主題相對。or by the extent to which storyworlds and events deviate from realistic representations, Tzvetan Todorov2茨維坦·托多羅夫（1939—2017），法國結(jié)構(gòu)主義代表人物，批評家、符號學(xué)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連續(xù)體。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順從于。psychoanalytic interpretations.Although Jackson applies her analysis only to fantasy literature, it can be easily extrapolated5extrapolate推斷。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明顯地。subversive. The original surrealists thought art should be shocking and politically progressive,and they intentionally disrupted7disrupt使中斷，擾亂。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等級制度的。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基礎(chǔ)。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間接感受到地。through the characters of Frodo12弗羅多，《指環(huán)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……無男子氣?！?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為一類特殊文學(xué)體裁加以處理，殊不知，電影也可以是一種奇幻作品。奇幻文學(xué)的文本根據(jù)主題/母題或其故事世界/事件與現(xiàn)實描述偏離的程度進(jìn)行分類的做法十分普遍，但是茨維坦·托多羅夫卻獨(dú)辟蹊徑，以故事中的“奇幻”事件所能激發(fā)的讀者反應(yīng)為中心。由于奇特的、不可能發(fā)生的事件觸發(fā)了人物和（或）讀者某種程度的驚嘆、猶疑的情緒，因而奇幻文學(xué)創(chuàng)造了一個從“驚異”到“怪異”的連續(xù)體。從這一角度來考量，奇幻文學(xué)所擁有的“模式”就不止一種，而有三種之多了。如果敘事者講述的故事本身的不可能性可以通過理性思考或心理原因（夢境、幻覺）等加以消解，那么這個故事就屬于“怪異”模式；當(dāng)人物和（或）讀者／觀者在面臨一個不可能事件時懷有猶疑或不確定心理的時候，它屬于“奇幻”模式；與前者相反，“驚異”這個模式則適用于諸如《指環(huán)王》或《魔水晶》（1982）這樣自成一片天地的故事世界，這些作品的讀者或觀眾是不會就故事的真實性發(fā)出疑問的。

[2]《綠野仙蹤》是一部內(nèi)含三種模式的奇幻作品。與那類為整個故事設(shè)置或幻想出另一個宇宙空間作為場景的電影不同，《綠野仙蹤》的奇幻世界所發(fā)生的場景是一個實實在在的世界——堪薩斯城，這也就暗示了這部作品只是經(jīng)由作者想象創(chuàng)作出來的。以托多羅夫的定義來看，從一開始進(jìn)入奧茲王國之始，多蘿西和觀眾都具備了進(jìn)行“奇幻”操作的能力。但最終，觀眾在故事一開始所持的驚奇與懷疑的態(tài)度還是發(fā)生了逆轉(zhuǎn)——觀眾轉(zhuǎn)而接受了故事的“驚異”性，和多蘿西一道踏上了追尋魔法師的漫漫長路，直到最后消滅了邪惡女巫。盡管多蘿西和觀眾可能在充滿奇人奇事的奧茲國中繼續(xù)“驚異”之旅，但故事直到結(jié)尾才挑明奧茲國事實上根本不是一個“真實”存在的國度，就在這一刻，對夢境的解釋將我們對故事的理解轉(zhuǎn)換到了“怪異”這個模式上。一開始，我們心甘情愿把自己的猶疑擱置一邊，但結(jié)果別人卻告訴我們這“不過”是幻夢一場。此時此刻，觀眾和主人公是一樣錯愕的，結(jié)局的沖擊力卻因此大大增強(qiáng)。

[3]作為一種心理現(xiàn)象，“奇幻”這個術(shù)語指的是我們無意識的欲望（夢境、白日夢、希望）。因此，羅斯瑪莉·杰克遜就認(rèn)為，奇幻故事也許是虛構(gòu)類文學(xué)中最適宜用精神分析來加以闡釋的。雖然杰克遜的分析只限于奇幻文學(xué)，但推及電影也未嘗不可。杰克遜以托多羅夫的定義來分析，提出奇幻類作品具有內(nèi)在顛覆性。經(jīng)由對現(xiàn)實的發(fā)問，揭示壓抑的夢境或希望，奇幻類作品外顯化了社會棄如敝履或拒不承認(rèn)的東西。的確，就奇幻文學(xué)蘊(yùn)含超現(xiàn)實與實驗性元素來看，它的顛覆性往往是十分明確的。起初，超自然藝術(shù)家認(rèn)為藝術(shù)應(yīng)當(dāng)有能力震懾人心并體現(xiàn)其在政治上的進(jìn)步。為此，他們有意打破那些為觀眾創(chuàng)造連貫性和意義的電影藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作規(guī)范。盡管如此，絕大多數(shù)的主流奇幻電影還是小心翼翼地把電影藝術(shù)那一套講述故事的經(jīng)典手法奉為圭臬，盡量打造出一部時空連貫、有著敘述性因果關(guān)系的電影。然而，在這一方面，恐怖電影就與其他奇幻電影有所不同，作為一種主流的奇幻電影，常?？梢园l(fā)現(xiàn)，前者在套路中蘊(yùn)含潛在顛覆性，表達(dá)了文化中受到壓制的欲望。

[4]雖然評論家們對恐怖電影關(guān)注很多，但對其他奇幻類電影卻嗤之以鼻，認(rèn)為后者無非是一類“遁世”作品——這個術(shù)語常被用來描述人們不必嚴(yán)肅對待的那一類藝術(shù)作品。絕大多數(shù)奇幻類電影被認(rèn)為是“遁世”的，這是因為它們將觀眾暫時送入一個不可能的世界，給問題提供了一個并不現(xiàn)實的解決方案。就連杰克遜自己也承認(rèn)，大多數(shù)奇幻類作品極盡令人“驚異”之能事，而全無半點真正的“奇幻”性，大體上，讓人圓夢有余而考驗心智不足。事實上，針對被搬上銀幕的《指環(huán)王》三部曲，杰克遜就直言托爾金的奇幻作品其內(nèi)在有固步自封、因循守舊之虞。《指環(huán)王》整部作品里充斥著那些擁有法術(shù)的仙人，人物非善即惡，其奇幻元素在某種程度上與電影《哈利·波特》極為神似。很多人會認(rèn)為，《哈利·波特》和《指環(huán)王》中的想象力恰恰是維護(hù)而非超越傳統(tǒng)的價值觀，因為兩者都傾向于強(qiáng)化一個建立在傳統(tǒng)道德、性別、英雄主義觀念之上的等級森嚴(yán)的世界，兩者都有賴于人物于冥冥之中意識到的某種使命與榮耀之感。盡管作品沒有明顯的宗教特質(zhì)，但卻展現(xiàn)了西方與基督教傳統(tǒng)觀念的強(qiáng)大影響力。兩部作品中的主人公都很年輕，踏上征程皆是在被逼無奈之下，最終能否成功也并不被人看好。觀眾借由他們遁入一個完全不同的世界，在那個世界中，身懷魔法是解決問題的法門，老派的勇氣和正直品性一樣可以解決問題。然而，《哈利·波特》系列電影與《指環(huán)王》三部曲還是有所不同的，前者促使觀眾拿自己對“現(xiàn)實”的感受去對抗巫師們的魔法世界。

[5]假如要對奇幻類作品進(jìn)行精神分析，就必須不僅思考人物的心理基礎(chǔ)，還要考慮故事引起觀眾的喜樂之情與對他們形成的吸引力。最成功的奇幻類電影使觀眾身臨其境，雖然并非真的親身參與其中，卻能讓他們同悲同喜。奇幻作品美化了解決問題的魔法之道，最終讓人得償所愿，如此形成了自身的吸引力，《哈利·波特》與《指環(huán)王》莫不展現(xiàn)了作為奇幻作品的這種魅力。觀眾與弗羅多、哈利同呼吸，共命運(yùn)，一路上披荊斬棘，降妖除魔。奇幻作品的心理吸引力也有助于解釋為什么這類敘事作品頻頻出現(xiàn)俄狄浦斯式情節(jié)。比如，《星球大戰(zhàn)》里就有盧克和他父親之間俄狄浦斯式搏斗的經(jīng)典一幕。超級英雄系列電影建構(gòu)了一些令人著迷的奇幻場景，其中的主人公與弗羅多和哈利一樣，也大都是被迫行動、看似不太可能成功的男性人物?！冻恕罚?978）、《蝙蝠俠》（1989）、《蜘蛛俠》（2002）這些大受青睞的電影主角均是能引發(fā)絕大多數(shù)觀眾共鳴、才能平平的“普通”人。這種“平平無奇”的特點只不過是一種外在表象，暫時掩蓋了人物真正的超能力——這也是吸引觀眾的解決問題之道。

[6]與此相似，近來很多超自然／鬼怪類電影也有通過魔法將摯愛之人以鬼魂的方式召回現(xiàn)實的場景，從而表達(dá)了對死亡現(xiàn)實的否定，如《人鬼情未了》《未了陰陽情》。假如對這類奇幻作品進(jìn)行精神分析式的闡釋，則結(jié)論會更為精妙。對比而言，這類電影是否是美夢成真的奇幻片，以及美夢成真的奇幻片是否思想內(nèi)容保守陳舊，后一問題的重要性大于前者。一個男性人物愿意變成一個陽剛硬漢（如《蜘蛛俠》），對故事必然構(gòu)成不了什么顛覆性，因為這無非只是強(qiáng)化了西方傳統(tǒng)觀念中的男子氣概而已，這在我們討論過的很多奇幻電影中都是反復(fù)存在的。然而，一部分奇幻電影在內(nèi)容上保守陳舊，并不必然意味著遁世主義就是對現(xiàn)實沒有意義的否定因而毫無文化價值。比如最近的情節(jié)劇與喜劇鬼片都不約而同具有一種挑戰(zhàn)傳統(tǒng)性別角色的傾向（如《人鬼情未了》《未了陰陽情》《第六感》），通過創(chuàng)造消極、“陰柔的”男性角色來與好萊塢電影中積極正面的男主人公形成尖銳反差。

[7]暫且不論這些抑或其他奇幻電影是否真的具有顛覆性，或令人在政治思想上獲得解脫，奇幻電影都為觀眾提供了一個可以休憩的角落，包容他們世所不容的欲望和其他超乎想象的可能性。因此，用讓·拉普朗虛與讓·貝爾特朗·蓬塔利斯給奇幻心理現(xiàn)象下的定義來分析，一部奇幻電影就是不折不扣“對欲望的場景布控”，那些無法實現(xiàn)的欲望便借由此場景以邏輯演繹至圓滿結(jié)局?！?/p>

（譯者單位：上海外國語大學(xué)英語學(xué)院）