美劇黃金時代的“費解劇情”

Hollywood always unsettled writers, as William Goldman noted. “The amounts you are paid are so staggering, compared to real writing, that it’s bound to make you uneasy,” the scriptwriter wrote in 1983 in Adventures in the Screen Trade.

好萊塢總是讓編劇感到不安，威廉•戈德曼(William Goldman)如是指出。這位編劇在1983年出版的著作《銀幕春秋》(Adventures in the Screen Trade)中寫道：“與真正的寫作相比，你收到的酬勞數(shù)字是如此驚人，這必定讓你感到不安。”

The money was good but there was little respect. “You do not, except in rare, rare exceptions, get critical recognition. But you do get paid,” he concluded. His chief complaint was that directors were regarded as auteurs — the creative forces of Hollywood films — while writers were treated as hacks for hire.

這一行酬勞不少，但尊重不多。戈德曼總結(jié)道：“除非極罕見的例外，你不會得到評論界的認(rèn)可。不過確實能賺錢。”他主要抱怨的是導(dǎo)演被視為作者導(dǎo)演(auteur)——好萊塢電影的創(chuàng)意源泉——而編劇被視為外雇寫手。

Thirty years later, strange events have occurred. Television has overtaken film as the medium for the most ambitious writers. Some of them have become auteurs, with series such as House of Cards and Game of Thrones run by writer-producers known as showrunners. Yet many are now paid less.

三十年后，奇怪的事發(fā)生了。電視超過了電影，成了最有抱負(fù)的編劇所鐘愛的舞臺。其中一些人成了作者導(dǎo)演，以編劇兼制作人的身份——俗稱“劇集運作人”(showrunners)——出品了《紙牌屋》(House of Cards)、《權(quán)力的游戲》(Game of Thrones)等劇。但許多人的收入?yún)s變低了。

The threat of a Hollywood writers’ strike lifted this week after the Writers Guild of America, their tiny but potent union, agreed a new three-year contract. The strike in 2007-08 shut down film sets, left talk show hosts struggling to write their own jokes and lost California $2.1bn in output.

本月，因規(guī)模不大、影響力卻不小的美國編劇工會(Writers Guild of America)同意了一份新的三年合約，險些引發(fā)好萊塢編劇罷工。2007-08年度那場罷工就曾導(dǎo)致劇組紛紛停拍，脫口秀主持人只得自己奮力寫笑話，加州經(jīng)濟(jì)也因此蒙受了21億美元的損失。

The dispute reveals a curious state of affairs. In some ways, writers have never had it so good. Showrunners, such as Shonda Rhimes of Scandal and Grey’s Anatomy, and Carlton Cuse of Lost and Bates Motel, wield more power than predecessors. But scribes as a whole are under financial pressure.

這場糾紛揭示了一個令人費解的現(xiàn)狀。在某些方面，編劇的日子從沒像現(xiàn)在這么好過。劇集運作人，比如《丑聞》(Scandal)、《實習(xí)醫(yī)生格蕾》(Grey’s Anatomy)的雄代•爾希梅什(Shonda Rhimes)，以及《迷失》(Lost)、《貝茨旅館》(Bates Motel)的卡爾頓•庫塞(Carlton Cuse)，擁有比他們的前輩更大的權(quán)力。但劇作者這個群體卻背負(fù)著經(jīng)濟(jì)壓力。

It should not be so, in theory. Higher demand for an individual’s services and recognition ought to bring better wages. It has not worked like that. Writers were paid for repetition — churning out similar films and having shows syndicated. They are now more creative, but creativity is less rewarding.

理論上不該這樣。對個人服務(wù)的更高需求和認(rèn)可應(yīng)該帶來更優(yōu)渥的薪水。但現(xiàn)實卻不是。過去編劇的酬勞來自重復(fù)——大量炮制雷同劇集，并將節(jié)目賣給多個媒體?，F(xiàn)在他們更有創(chuàng)意，但創(chuàng)造力不再那么有價值。

They are clearly needed. The growth of streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, along with high-quality programming on US cable networks such as HBO and Showtime, has produced a boom in television production. There were 455 original scripted series last year, compared with fewer than half that figure in 2010.

他們顯然是被需要的。Netflix和Amazon Prime等流媒體服務(wù)的成長，以及HBO和Showtime等美國有線電視的高品質(zhì)節(jié)目制作，已掀起了電視制作的熱潮。去年共誕生了455部原創(chuàng)劇，而2010年還不足該數(shù)字的一半。

The era of “Peak TV”, as it is dubbed by FX Networks, has produced a huge flow of creative work for writers, compared with the formulaic approach in films. While Hollywood is increasingly reliant on action franchises such as Star Wars and Transformers, television is a haven for high-quality drama.

FX Networks戲稱這是“電視巔峰”的時代。與滿是套路的電影相比，電視劇編劇們出產(chǎn)了大量創(chuàng)作。在好萊塢日益依賴《星球大戰(zhàn)》(Star Wars)、《變形金剛》(Transformers)等系列動作片的時候，電視已然成了高品質(zhì)劇集的港灣。

The shift has brought dividends, both artistic and financial, for an elite band of writers. Producers and directors have the main co-ordinating role in films and hire writers and other professionals, such as designers and sound technicians, for each production. Television dramas are different because they are long-running franchises.

這一轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)橐粠徒鹋凭巹砹怂囆g(shù)和金錢的雙豐收。在電影界，制片人和導(dǎo)演負(fù)責(zé)主要統(tǒng)籌工作，并為每部影片雇傭編劇及其他專業(yè)人士，比如設(shè)計師和音響師。電視劇則不同，因為電視劇是長期播放的系列劇。

This encouraged the rise of showrunners, who oversee the storylines and scripts of series, and work as producers on behalf of studios, hiring the cast and crew for episodes. It is the fulfilment of Mr Goldman’s dream: writers in charge of directors, not the reverse.

這推動了電視劇運作人的興起。他們負(fù)責(zé)監(jiān)督電視劇的故事情節(jié)和劇本，并代表制片公司擔(dān)任制片人，為劇集招聘演員和工作人員。這實現(xiàn)了戈德曼的夢想：由編劇管理導(dǎo)演，而不是倒過來。

Top showrunners have their own production companies and lucrative studio contracts. For writers down the pecking order, though, Peak TV has been a mixed blessing. It is good for expressing themselves creatively on series such as Breaking Bad, but less secure.

頂級電視劇運作人有自己的制作公司和賺錢的拍攝合同。不過對于底層編劇，“電視巔峰”一直有利有弊。有利的是他們可以在《絕命毒師》(Breaking Bad)這樣的劇集里表現(xiàn)自己的創(chuàng)造力，但穩(wěn)定性降低了。

The problem is a creative surfeit. US television viewers used to watch mainly long-running drama or comedy series such as Law & Order and Seinfeld, and then watch again in syndication. Their writers would be hired on long, dependable contracts, and paid repeat fees known as residuals.

其問題在于創(chuàng)意泛濫。美國電視觀眾以往主要看“長壽劇”或喜劇，比如《法律與秩序》(Law & Order)和《宋飛傳》(Seinfeld)，然后在其他平臺再次觀看。這些劇的編劇得以拿到可靠的長期合同，并且不斷收到重演版權(quán)費。

Series are now shorter: dramas on premium cable or streaming services have 10 to 13 episodes per series compared with the old standard of 22 to 24. They face more competition — there is always something new and original to watch — so residuals are lower.

電視劇現(xiàn)在變短了，付費有線電視臺或流媒體服務(wù)上播放的電視劇每季為10到13集，而傳統(tǒng)為每季22到24集。美劇面臨更多競爭，總是有新劇和原創(chuàng)劇可看，因此重播次數(shù)也降低了。

The golden age of television thus hurts writers’ financial interests. The sweet spot was in the early 2000s when a few long-running shows were constantly in syndication, creating wealth for showrunners such as Dick Wolf of Law & Order. Today’s auteurs can only dream of such steady pay-offs.

如此一來，電視的黃金時代傷害了編劇的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益。最好的時光在2000年代初期，當(dāng)時少數(shù)幾部長壽劇在各大平臺不斷播放，為像《法律與秩序》制作人迪克•沃爾夫(Dick Wolf)這樣的電視劇運作人創(chuàng)造了財富。今天的作者導(dǎo)演只能夢想這樣穩(wěn)定的收益。

The rewards for writers — even for showrunners without special deals — are lower because they spend longer on each distinctive episode, and receive less per week. More are being paid on the guild’s minimum wage scale, which is not exactly the breadline but equally is not the way to make a fortune.

編劇——甚至一些沒有特別合約的電視劇運作人——報酬下降，是因為他們在單集電視劇上花的功夫變長了，而周薪降低了。許多編劇拿著工會最低工資，雖然算不上勉強(qiáng)糊口，但同樣不是發(fā)財之道。

Hollywood’s writers made some advances in this week’s agreement with producers. But they should appreciate the irony of their story: having fought for years for artistic control, they discovered there was a twist.

這次好萊塢編劇在與制片人的協(xié)議上取得了一些進(jìn)展。但他們應(yīng)該意識到自己命運里的諷刺：這么多年自己一直在為藝術(shù)上的掌控權(quán)而戰(zhàn)，如今卻發(fā)現(xiàn)了劇情反轉(zhuǎn)。

Richard Caves, professor of economics at Harvard University, once wrote that entertainment employees suffer from an “art for art’s sake” instinct: “Artists may accept wages for creative work that fall short of their opportunity cost in humdrum employment, which means that artists can be viewed as a source of cheap labour.”

哈佛大學(xué)(Harvard University)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)教授理查德•卡夫(Richard Caves)曾寫道，娛樂界從業(yè)者囿于骨子里的“藝術(shù)至上主義”：“藝術(shù)家可以接受創(chuàng)作回報低于他們選擇其他無聊工作的機(jī)會成本，這意味著他們會被視為一種廉價勞動力。”

The hero always has a fatal flaw.

英雄總是有一個致命缺陷。