米酒加鹽巴：“原住民影片”的再現政治

Rice Wine and Salt: Politics of Representation in Indigenous Film

10.29816/TARQSS.200109.0009

林文玲(Wen-Ling Lin)

原住民 ； 原住民影片 ； 族群文化 ； 再現政治 ； indigenous peoples ； indigenous film ； ethnic cultures ； representational politics

台灣社會研究季刊

43期（2001 / 09 / 01）

197 - 234

繁體中文

本文透過對於兩部阿美族影片的分析，一方面探討影片在它產出的環結中，影片參與者（包括影片拍攝者、被拍攝主體以及其他的合作對象）如何進行被此意義的交換、協商、妥協和共構，以及這種種痕跡在影片中以何種方式呈現。另一方面，從影片文本與它企圖勾連的內外脈絡所提供閱讀的可能性，解讀兩部影片的身份政治、現代性和部落文化之間的諸多問題與關連。 從影片作為一種社會實踐，本文觀察到原住民影片影像再現所觸及的詮釋、溝通、翻譯和維護的議題和意涵，在透顯「原住民性」的同時，面對業已存在的定型化、本質化、固著的「他者」再現形象，作為一種自我書寫、自我刻劃的對抗性再現實踐，一方面為文化、傳統、部落社群、身份政治重新加以刻劃銘寫，進而對一直以來的有關原住民文化再現／翻譯的種種論述、意義系統及其內外環結重新加以提問。

This paper analyzes two Pangcai films in order to explore how, in the production process, these films and all the participants in the filming process (including filmmaker, filmed persons, and other participants) engage in mutual exchanges, negotiations and compromises in the construction of the films' meanings. How are the traces of these negotiations readable and meaningful? The paper further reads the two films' engagement with issues of identity politics, modernity and tribal culture, how these are variously interconnected and problematized in the contexts differently evoked in these two filmic texts. Films are a mode of social practice, and this paper is interested in the questions of interpretation, communication, translation and advocacy that indigenous films and their representation strategies raise. As a form of resistant representational practice, indigenous films confront existing essentializing and fixating stereotypes as routine representational ”other” in the dominant culture. In rewriting and reinscribing diverse and sometimes conflicting indigenous ”selves”, these films simultaneously question hegemonic discourses and sign systems that continue to construe and contain indigenous cultural representation/translation.

1. Banks, Marcus(1992).Film as Ethnography.Manchester and New York:Manchester University Press in association with the Granada Centre for Visual Anthropology.
2. Bocock, Robert(1974).Ritual in Industrial Society: A Sociological Analysis of Ritualism in Modern England.New York:Crane, Russak ＆ Company, Inc..
3. Clifford, James(1994).Diaspora.Cultural Anthropology,9(3)
4. Crawford, Peter Ian(1995).Advocacy and Indigenous Film-making.Hojbjerg, Denmark:Intervention Press.
5. Crawford, Peter Ian, Turton, David(1992).Film as Ethnography.Manchester and New York:Manchester University Press in association with the Granada Centre Visual Anthropology.
6. Fabian, J.(1990).Presence and Representation: The Other and Anthropological Writing.Critical Inquiry,16(4)
7. Fabian, J.(1983).Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object.New York:Columbia University Press.
8. Goffman, Erving(1972).Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order.Penguin Books.
9. Hall, Stuart(1997).Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices.London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi:Sage Publications.
10. Hall, Stuart(1995).Negotiating Caribbean Identities.New Left Review,209
11. Hall, Stuart, Jefferson, Tony(1976).Resistance Through Rituals - Youth Cultures in Post War Britain.London:Hutchinson.
12. Hastrup, Kirsten(1995).Passage to Anthropology. Between Experience and Theory.London and New York:Routledge.
13. Ingold, Tim(1993).Beyond Boundaries: Understanding, Translation and Anthropological Discourse.Oxford/ Providence:Berg.
14. Langton, Marcia(1993).'Well, I heard it on the Radio and I saw it on the Television...'. An essay for the Australian Film Commission on the politics and aesthetics of film-making by and about Aboriginal people and things.Sydney:Australian Film Commission.
15. Lienhardt, Godfrey(1961).The Institutions of Primitive Society.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
16. Marcus, George E., Cushman, Dick(1982).Ethnographies as Texts.Annual Review of Anthropology,11
17. Niranjana, Tejaswini(1992).Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism and the Colonial Context.Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford:University of California Press.
18. Philipsen, Hans Henrik, Markussen, Birgitte(1995).Advocacy and Indigenous Film-making.Hojbjerg, Denmark:Intervention Press.
19. Plantinga, Carl R.(1997).Rhetoric and Representation in Nonfiction Film.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
20. Rabinnowitz, Paula(1994).They Must Be Represented: The Politics of Documentary.London and New York:Verso.
21. Shilling, C.(1993).The Body and Social Theory.London:Sage Publications.
22. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty(1993).Outside in the Teaching Machine.New York and London:Routledge.
23. Tomaselli, Keyan G.(1996).Appropriating Images: The Semiotics of Visual Representation.Aarhus:Intervention Press.
24. Turner, Victor(1974).The Ritual Process.Harmondsworth, U. K.:Penguin.
25. Weber, Max(1984).Soziologische Grundbegriffe.Tubingen:
26. Wengle, John(1988).Ethnographers in the Field: The Psychology of Research.Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press.
27. 王嵩山(2000)。「真實邦ㄗㄚ'阿美影展Reel Amis Real Pangcah 」專刊。
28. 林文玲 Lin, Wen-Ling(2001)。差異的民族誌影像閱讀。文化研究月報 Cultural Studies Monthly，1
29. 林文玲 Lin, Wen-Ling(1999).Film als Reprasentation am Beispiel der Yuanjumin (Ureinwohner) in Taiwan.Gottingen:Cuvillier Verlag.
30. 馬躍．比吼(2000)。「真實邦ㄗㄚ'阿美影展 Reel Amis Real Pangcah」專刊。
31. 馬躍．比吼(1998)。親愛的米酒 妳被我打敗了。
32. 陳龍男(1999)。尋找鹽巴。

1. 蔡慶同(2012)。再現弱勢：從《月亮的小孩》到《水蜜桃阿嬤》。文化研究，15，117-146。
2. 蔡慶同(2013)。冷戰之眼：閱讀「台影」新聞片的「山胞」。新聞學研究，114，1-39。
3. 胡台麗(2006)。臺灣原住民民族誌影片的新貌。博物館學季刊，20(4)，59-73。
4. 李建霖(2008)。模糊地帶─平埔族自我認同與「平埔」、「泛原住民」族群界線。台灣原住民族研究季刊，1(4)，67-109。
5. 林文玲(2005)。翻轉漢人姓名意象：「請問『蕃』名」系列影片與原住民影像運動。臺灣社會研究季刊，58，85-134。
6. 盧玉珍(2014)。現代性與台灣當代舞蹈映像：由迷戀「中國」到迷戀「福爾摩莎」。文化研究，18，7-52。
7. 邱貴芬(2012)。性別政治與原住民主體的呈現：夏曼．藍波安的文學作品和Si-Manirei 的紀錄片。臺灣社會研究季刊，86，13-49。
8. 蘇恒安(2015)。米酒、美味地景、臺灣味。中國飲食文化，11(2)，3-39。
9. 蘇恒安(2015)。米酒、美味地景、臺灣味。中國飲食文化，11(2)，3-39。
10. 夏曉鵑(2010)。失神的酒—以酒為鑑初探原住民社會資本主義化過程。臺灣社會研究季刊，77，5-58。
11. 楊翎(2011)。影像的博物館人類學視角與理論意涵。文資學報，6，29-59。
12. 張錦華(2005)。多元文化課程如何深化結構性的批判意識。中華傳播學刊，7，17-29。
13. (2003)。台灣原住民影片：轉化中的文化刻寫技術。考古人類學刊，61，145-176-176。
14. (2012).Before Seediq Bale: Representation of Taiwanese Aborigine's Documentary Films (1984-2010).朝陽人文社會學刊,10(2),65-98.
15. (2020)。三位第一代臺灣原住民籍紀錄片運動者的倫理實踐。臺灣人類學刊，18(1)，1-60。