「複訪電影」的幽靈效應：論侯孝賢的《珈琲時光》與《紅氣球》之「跨影像性」

The Phantom-Effect of ＂Cinema revisited＂: On ＂Trans-imageity＂ of Hou Hsiao-hsien's ＂Café Lumiére＂ and ＂Le Voyage du Ballon Rouge＂

10.6637/CWLQ.2010.39(4).135-169

孫松榮(Song-Yong Sing)

複訪電影 ； 幽靈效應 ； 跨影像性 ； 侯孝賢 ； 後影迷 ； 《珈琲時光》 ； 《紅氣球》 ； Cinema revisited ； Phantom-effect ； Trans-imageity ； Hou Hsiao-hsien ； Post-cinephile ； ＂Café Lumière＂ ； ＂Le Voyage du Ballon Rouge＂

中外文學

39卷4期（2010 / 12 / 01）

135 - 169

繁體中文

「複訪電影」是一種結合了電影理論史與實踐的殊異電影概念和類別屬性。在影史上，它第一次出現於1960年代初期古典好萊塢電影帝國隕歿後的歐洲現代電影中，法國導演作者馬克的短片《堤》(1962)和高達《輕蔑》(1963)即為代表作。其第二次現身是在1980年代，彼時正值電影對未來充滿不確定性，德國創作者溫德斯藉《水上迴光》(1980)與《尋找小津》(1985)重現了已逝的「複訪電影」。從1960年代到1980年代，「複訪電影」所顯現的時代語脈縱然有所差異，但它們之間由於交織著一些共同特質而相互輝映。首先，它們皆對經典電影開展明確且具意識的再創作；其次，其價值不僅展現「互文性」或「反身性」，更將作品的敘事與形象基調建立在對過去電影的重新創造與反思、並賦予當代性的這種新作法上；再者，「複訪電影」絕非「重拍電影」亦非「改編電影」，它試圖追尋電影已死但不滅的幽靈精神，以便記錄、憶念與校閱當代的電影史。電影遂成為一處複現偉大且具軔性幽靈的所在。2000年以來由侯孝賢所執導的兩部外語影片《珈琲時光》(2004)與《紅氣球》(2007)，亦為當代另一波體現電影幽靈的「複訪電影」。然而台灣導演的作品和之前兩波「複訪電影」有所不同的地方，在於這位當代亞洲電影大師不只回溯了來自日本與法國的電影先驅，更進一步將自身的影像命題及影片畫面當作重疊各種不同類別的影像物質（繪畫、攝影、數位影像等）之表現界面。換言之，侯孝賢將此一「複訪電影」推展至一種極具當代性的電影創作方略，進而觸發了電影作為思考「跨影像性」、糾葛著過去與現在的電影幽靈效應及電影造形性的思想主體。

＂Cinema revisited＂ is an alternative concept and a genre consisting of the history of film theory as well as a cinematic practice. In the history of cinema, cinema revisited emerged for the first time in the contemporary European films of the early 1960s, right after the fall of the golden age of classical Hollywood. French cineastes Chris Marker's ＂La Jetée＂ (1962) and Jean-Luc Godard's ＂Le Mépris＂ (1963) are two outstanding representatives. Its second appearance took place during the 1980s when the future of cinema was quite uncertain and it was then that the German cineaste Wim Wenders revived this dissipated ＂cinema revisited＂ in his ＂Lightning Over Water＂ (1980) and ＂Tokyo-Ga＂ (1985). The two appearances of ＂cinema revisited＂ in the 1960s and the 1980s, despite their spatiotemporal differences, do constitute possible a reverberation thanks to some interpenetrating attributes. First of all, both consciously appropriate and recreate certain acknowledged cinematic canons. The value of this act lies in not only the ideas such as ＂intertexuality＂ and ＂reflexivity＂ but a kind of audiovisual reconfiguration of, and reflection on, the previous cinematic works in terms of a contemporary viewpoint. Therefore, ＂cinema revisited＂ is not just about ＂remake＂ or ＂adaptation＂; what it is really after is to be on the lookout for a cinematic phantom, already deceased yet lingering on, by which it can record, reminisce, even review the contemporary film history. Thereupon, the cinema becomes a haunted field where a formidable phantom could represent itself persistently. Since the year 2000, two films directed by Hou Hsiao-hsien, ＂Café Lumière＂ (2004) and ＂Le Voyage du ballon rouge＂ (2007), also embody such cinematic phantoms in the contemporary regard. Nevertheless, the difference between Hou's ＂cinema revisted＂ and that of his forerunners is that he moves away from merely tracing his Japanese and French predecessors and steps further to pose such a cinematic problematique to transform the image into an interface where heterogeneous visual materials, such as paintings, photographs and digital images, etc, could be juxtaposed and overlapped. In other words, Hou's ＂cinema revisited＂ becomes a highly contemporary strategy for cinematic practice; whereupon cinema possesses such a subjective will to reflect on the ＂trans-imageity＂, to manifest the phantom-effect, and to incarnate the cinematic plasticity.

1. 王德威(2007)。史詩時代的抒情聲音：江文也的音樂與詩歌。台灣文學研究集刊，3，1-49。
   連結：
2. Hasumi, Shigehiko. 2004. “Ozu's Angry Women.” Rouge. 26 October 2009.
3. Nancy, Jean-Lue. 2005.“L'Intrus selon Claire Denis.”Remue. Net. 29 October 2009.
4. Arasse, Daniel(2006).Histoires de Peintures.Paris:Gallimard.
5. Aumont, Jacques(2007).Moderne? Comment le cinéma est devenu le plus singulier des arts.Paris:Cahiers du cinema.
6. Aumont, Jacques(2005).Matières d'images.Paris:Images Modernes.
7. Bazin, André(1975).Qu'est-ce que le cinéma?.Paris:Cerf.
8. Bordwell, David(1988).Ozu and The Poetics of Cinema.London:British Film Institute.
9. Casetti, Francesco(2009).Filmic Experience.Screen,50,56-66.
10. Copeland, Roger(ed.),Cohen, Marshall(ed.)(1983).What Is Dance?.Oxford:Oxford UP.
11. Derrida, Jacques(1993).Spectres de Marx.Paris:Calilee.
12. Dubois, Philippe(ed.)(2002).Recherches sur Chris Marker.Paris:Presses Sorbonne nouvelle.
13. Frodon, Jean-Michel(2006).Faire des films lorsqu'ils répondent à un élan: Entretien avec François Margolin, producteur.Cahiers du cinéma,618,44-45.
14. Genette, Gérard(1982).Palimpsestes, La littérature au second degré.Paris:Seuil.
15. Gledhill, Christine(ed.),Williams, Linda (ed.)(2000).Reinventing film studies.London:Arnold.
16. Marks, Laura U.(1999).The Skin of the Film: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment, and the Senses.Durham, NC:Duke UP.
17. Rancière, Jacques(2001).La Fable cinématographique.Paris:Seuil.
18. Rancière, Jacques(2009).Et tant pis pour les gens fatigues: Entretiens.Paris:Amsterdam.
19. Silbergeld, Jerome(2004).Hitchcock with a Chinese Face: Cinematic Doubles, Oedipal Triangles, and China's Moral Voice.Seattle:U of Washington P.
20. Žižek, Slavoj(2005).Lacrimae Rerum: Essais sur Kieslowski, Hitchcock, Tarkovski, Lynch et quelques autres.Paris:Amsterdam.
21. 卓伯棠編(2009)。侯孝賢電影講座。中國:廣西師範大學出版社。
22. 林文淇編、王玉燕編(2010)。台灣電影的聲音：放映週報vs台灣影人。台北:書林。

1. 沈曉茵(2012)。《南國再見，南國》：另一波電影風格的開始。藝術學研究，11，49-84。
2. 孫松榮(2013)。蔡明亮的《臉》，或跨影像性的華語影片。中外文學，42(3)，73-106。
3. 孫松榮(2022)。來不及問電影的，就問錄像藝術吧！臺灣跨域影史編撰學芻議。中外文學，51(3)，87-120。
4. (2011)。巴黎長鏡頭：侯孝賢與《紅氣球》。中外文學，40(4)，39-73。
5. (2015)。光影折射中主體意識的辯證法－評Yiman Wang, Remaking Chinese Cinema: Through the Prism of Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Hollywood。二十一世紀，152，113-125。