{"title":"从大卫-柯南伯格的《撞车》中解读幽默","authors":"Myrto Petsota","doi":"10.5206/tc.v4i1.17200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"David Cronenberg’s statement that “The film is funny, the book is not very funny” (1997) presents a captivating paradox regarding his adaptation of J. G. Ballard’s Crash. This statement reveals Cronenberg as both an insightful and superficial reader of Ballard. His film adaptation chooses to remain faithful to many aspects of the source material and retains the subtle undercurrents of humor found in the book, often overlooked and unrecognized by both the director and audiences, as well critics. Paradoxically, the film’s reception has further obscured this aspect of his work. The paper delineates the mechanics of humor in Crash, applying Freudian and Bergsonian theories linking humor to anxiety relief and behavioral correction. It spotlights Ballard’s absurd character speculations and detached narrative voice juxtaposing poetic violence, while Cronenberg conveys humor via affectless performances, anti-climactic sex, and self-referential jokes exposing cinematic artifice. Further analysis explores Ballard’s satire through the parody of melodramatic tableaux versus Cronenberg’s meta-cinematic parody of Hollywood and the road movie genre, noting that the adaptation compresses the novel’s sociopolitical critique but expands its intertextuality. The article challenges assumptions that humor must be light or affirming, arguing that the unsettling, avant-garde laughter in Crash (1973, 1996) compels reflection on technology’s impacts on identity. Ultimately, recognizing the dark comedy in Crash and its adaptation illuminates their lingering cultural commentary on dehumanization rather than celebrating the pathology of the characters.","PeriodicalId":498002,"journal":{"name":"Transcr(é)ation","volume":" 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reading Humor in David Cronenberg's Crash\",\"authors\":\"Myrto Petsota\",\"doi\":\"10.5206/tc.v4i1.17200\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"David Cronenberg’s statement that “The film is funny, the book is not very funny” (1997) presents a captivating paradox regarding his adaptation of J. G. Ballard’s Crash. This statement reveals Cronenberg as both an insightful and superficial reader of Ballard. His film adaptation chooses to remain faithful to many aspects of the source material and retains the subtle undercurrents of humor found in the book, often overlooked and unrecognized by both the director and audiences, as well critics. Paradoxically, the film’s reception has further obscured this aspect of his work. The paper delineates the mechanics of humor in Crash, applying Freudian and Bergsonian theories linking humor to anxiety relief and behavioral correction. It spotlights Ballard’s absurd character speculations and detached narrative voice juxtaposing poetic violence, while Cronenberg conveys humor via affectless performances, anti-climactic sex, and self-referential jokes exposing cinematic artifice. Further analysis explores Ballard’s satire through the parody of melodramatic tableaux versus Cronenberg’s meta-cinematic parody of Hollywood and the road movie genre, noting that the adaptation compresses the novel’s sociopolitical critique but expands its intertextuality. The article challenges assumptions that humor must be light or affirming, arguing that the unsettling, avant-garde laughter in Crash (1973, 1996) compels reflection on technology’s impacts on identity. Ultimately, recognizing the dark comedy in Crash and its adaptation illuminates their lingering cultural commentary on dehumanization rather than celebrating the pathology of the characters.\",\"PeriodicalId\":498002,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transcr(é)ation\",\"volume\":\" 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transcr(é)ation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5206/tc.v4i1.17200\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transcr(é)ation","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5206/tc.v4i1.17200","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
大卫-柯南伯格(David Cronenberg)说:"电影很有趣,而书却不太有趣"(1997 年),他对 J. G. 巴拉德(J. G. Ballard)的《撞车》的改编提出了一个引人入胜的悖论。这句话揭示了柯南伯格既是巴拉德的忠实读者,又是巴拉德的肤浅读者。他的电影改编选择忠实于原著的许多方面,并保留了书中微妙的幽默暗流,而这些暗流往往被导演和观众以及影评人所忽略和忽视。自相矛盾的是,影片的反响却进一步掩盖了他作品的这一面。本文运用弗洛伊德和柏格森的理论,将幽默与焦虑缓解和行为纠正联系起来,阐述了《撞车》中的幽默机制。论文强调了巴拉德荒诞的人物猜测和与诗意暴力并置的超脱叙事声音,而柯南伯格则通过毫无感情色彩的表演、反高潮的性爱和暴露电影矫揉造作的自我暗示笑话来传达幽默。进一步的分析探讨了巴拉德通过对情节剧的模仿与柯南伯格对好莱坞和公路电影类型的元电影模仿所进行的讽刺,指出改编压缩了小说的社会政治批判,但扩大了其互文性。文章挑战了幽默必须是轻松或肯定的假设,认为《撞车》(1973 年,1996 年)中令人不安的前卫笑声迫使人们反思技术对身份的影响。最终,认识到《撞车》及其改编作品中的黑色喜剧,可以揭示其对非人化的文化评论,而不是赞美人物的病态。
David Cronenberg’s statement that “The film is funny, the book is not very funny” (1997) presents a captivating paradox regarding his adaptation of J. G. Ballard’s Crash. This statement reveals Cronenberg as both an insightful and superficial reader of Ballard. His film adaptation chooses to remain faithful to many aspects of the source material and retains the subtle undercurrents of humor found in the book, often overlooked and unrecognized by both the director and audiences, as well critics. Paradoxically, the film’s reception has further obscured this aspect of his work. The paper delineates the mechanics of humor in Crash, applying Freudian and Bergsonian theories linking humor to anxiety relief and behavioral correction. It spotlights Ballard’s absurd character speculations and detached narrative voice juxtaposing poetic violence, while Cronenberg conveys humor via affectless performances, anti-climactic sex, and self-referential jokes exposing cinematic artifice. Further analysis explores Ballard’s satire through the parody of melodramatic tableaux versus Cronenberg’s meta-cinematic parody of Hollywood and the road movie genre, noting that the adaptation compresses the novel’s sociopolitical critique but expands its intertextuality. The article challenges assumptions that humor must be light or affirming, arguing that the unsettling, avant-garde laughter in Crash (1973, 1996) compels reflection on technology’s impacts on identity. Ultimately, recognizing the dark comedy in Crash and its adaptation illuminates their lingering cultural commentary on dehumanization rather than celebrating the pathology of the characters.