Listen to part of a lecture in a film history class.
Okay, we 've been discussing films in the 1920s and 30s, and how back then film categories,
as we know them today, had not yet been established.
We said that by today's standards, many of the films of the 20s and 30s would be considered hybrids,
that is, a mixture of styles that would not exactly fit into any of today's categories,
And in that context.Today we are going to talk about a film maker who began an very unique films in the late 1920s.
He was French, and his name was Jean Painlevé. Jean Painlevé was born in 1902.
He made his first film in 1928.
Now in a way, Painlev's films conform to norms of the 20s and 30s, that is,
they do not fit very neatly into the categories we use to classify films today.
That said, even by the standards of the 20s and 30s, Painlev's films were unique,
a hybrid of styles.
He had a special way of fusing, or some people might say confusing, science and fiction.
His films begin with facts, but then they become more and more fictional.
They gradually add more and more fictional elements.
In fact, Painlev was known for saying that science is fiction.
Painlev was a pioneer in underwater film making, and a lot of his short films focused on the aquatic animal world.
He liked to show small underwater creatures, displaying what seemed like familiar human characteristics-what we think of as unique to humans.
He might take a clip of a mollusk going up and down in the water and set it to music.
You know, to make it look like the mollusk were dancing to the music like a human being-that sort of thing.
But then he suddenly changed the image or narration to remind us how different the animals are,how unlike humans.
He confused his audience in the way he portrayed the animals he filmed, mixing up on notions of the categories of humans and animals.
The films make us a little uncomfortable at times because we are uncertain about what we are seeing.
It gives him films an uncanny feature: the familiar made unfamiliar, the normal made suspicious.
He liked twists, he liked the unusual.
In fact, one of his favorite sea animals was the seahorse because with seahorses, it's the male that carries the eggs,
and he thought that was great.
His first and most celebrated underwater film is about the seahorse.
Susan, you have a question?
But underwater film making was not that unusual, was it?
I mean, were not there other people making movies underwater?
Well, actually, it was pretty rare at that time.
I mean, we are talking about the early 1920s.
我是说，我们在讨论上个世纪 20 年代初期的事。
But what about Jacques Cousteau?
Was he like an innovator, you know, with underwater photography too?
Ah, Jacques Cousteau.
Well, Painlev and Cousteau did both film underwater, and they were both innovators, so you are right in that sense.
But that's pretty much where the similarities end.
First of all, Painlev was about 20 years ahead of Cousteau.
首先，Painlevé 先于库斯托大概 20 年。
And Cousteau's adventures were high tech, with lots of fancy equipment, whereas Painlev kind of patched the equipment together as he needed it.
此外，库斯托的电影科技含量高，有很多昂贵的设备，然而 Painlevé 更像是在需要的时候把设备拼凑起来。
Cousteau usually filmed large animals, usually in the open sea, whereas Painlevgenerally filmed smaller animals, and he liked to film in shallow water.
库斯托通常拍摄大型的动物，通常在公海拍，然而 Painlevé 一般拍摄小一点动物，另外他喜欢在浅水拍摄。
Uh, what else, oh well, the main difference was that Cousteau simply investigated and presented the facts-he did not mix in fiction.
He was a strict documentarist. He set the standard really for the nature documentary.
Painlev, on the other hand, as we said before, mixed in elements of fiction.
And his films are much more artistic, incorporating music as an important element.
John, you have a question?
Well, maybe I should not be asking this, but if Painlev's films are so special,
或许我不应该问这个，如果 Painlevé 的电影是那么的特别，
so good, why have not we ever heard of them?
I mean, everyone's heard of Jacques Cousteau.
Well, that's a fair question.
Uh, the short answer is that Painlev's style just never caught on with the public.
呃，简单的回答是 Painlevé’s 的风格并不为大众所知。
I mean, it probably goes back at least in part to where we mentioned earlier, that people did not know what to make of his films-they were confused by them,
whereas Cousteau's documentaries were very straightforward, met people's expectations more than Painlev's films did.
然而库斯托的纪录片很直白明了，相比 Painlevé 的电影他的作品 迎合了人们的期望。
But you are true: film history is about what we know about them.
And Painlev is still highly respected in many circles.