英国新闻听力 今年的奥斯卡（在线收听）

今年的奥斯卡(This Year's Oscars)

为什么一些重要的电影评论家会担心最佳外语片的选择程序在电影界会让奥斯卡变成笑料呢？在周日的奥斯卡颁奖礼上我们又期望什么呢？在上周所有被推荐的明星都已经公开。本届奥斯卡会在柯达大戏院颁发奖项，去年的获奖演员也会参加这次盛会。

[注释]

1.critic n. 评论家 2.unveil vt. 使公开，使公诸于众 3.notably adv. 特别地，显著地 4.for good measure 作为额外增添 5.category n. 种类 6.triumph n. 胜利，成功 7.controversy n. 争议，论争 8.submit vt. 提交，递交 9.shortlist n. 供最后挑选用的候选人名单 10.dwindle v. 缩小 11.dismay n. 沮丧 12.opponent n. 反对，者对手 13.cinematic adj. 电影的，影片的 14.documentary n. 记录片 15.undermine v. 破坏 16.credibility n. 可信性，确实性，可靠 17.panel n. 全体评审组成员 18.enlist n. 列入的名单

[积少成多]

【call attention to 唤起注意】

例句1：The bus driver broke the silence, by calling attention to a waterfall of great beauty in the rocky dell.

大客车驾驶员打破沉默，开口说话，让大家看山间壮丽的瀑布。

例句2：A question mark is used for calling attention to an item in order to question its validity or accuracy.

问号是用来引起对某一事物的注意以便质疑其有效性或准确性的。

This Year's Oscars

RAGEN DETER: You are listening to on screen from the BBC world service. I'm Ragen Deter. Coming up I'll be asking why some leading film critics fear that the selection procedure for the best foreign language film is making the Academy a laughing stock in world cinema. But first a reminder of what's to expect from Sunday's Oscars? And all star cast to presenters was unveiled last week. Handing out the awards the Kodak Theater would be all full of last year winners in the acting categories, Alan Arkin, Jennifer Hudson, Helen Mirren and Forest Whitaker. And several stars actually up for awards themselves have also joint the rest of presenters, most notably Australian icon Cate Blanchett nominated in both supporting and best actress categories and heart flip, George Clooney, a best actor nominee. Hollywood icons Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, Nicole Kidman and Denzel Washington were also taken to the stage and just for good measure Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Colin Farrell, James McAvoy, Martin Scorsese, John Travolta and Renee Zellweger will also be calling out the victors. Now a brief reminder of the main names up for Oscar this year. In the best actor category, Daniel Day-Lewis is seen the hot favor but watch out for wild card Tommy Lee Johns In The Valley of Elah. For the best actress category, until recently British legend Julie Christie was the name on everyone's list. But after Marion Cotillard surprise triumph for the best for the La Vie En Rose no ones back on it. And for the best director they say it's a two way tussle between the Coens for No Country for the Old Men and Paul Thomas Anderson for There Will Be Blood. Plays your bets all will be revealed on Sunday.

(MUSIC)

Now we may all have us healthy differences about who should win the best actor and best film garlands. But its best foreign language film which seems to be in the category its own when it comes controversy. This year after sixty-three countries submitted one film each, the Academy shortlist nine. The final choice was then made by the members who dwindle it down to the final five. This is the important award for foreign films especially commercially. Take last year's winner the exclaimed German entry The Lives of Others which made 80 percent of its box office return after its victory, serious business, as they say.

(MUSIC)

This year there's dismay at the emission of the highly praised Israeli film. On the grounds that over fifty percent of the dialogue is in English. And there's even more controversy over the absence from the final shortlist over Romania's Four Months Three Weeks And Two Days, winner of the Palme d'Or in Cannes and one of the best celebrate films of last year. Now this movie is missing not because of the strict rules of Academy but some critics say because of the aging and out of touch selection committee. To find out more I talk to the Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan down the line from California a fierce opponent of the selection process. I'm asked him first what he thought was wrong with the current procedure.

KENNETH TURAN: Well the selection procedure has kind of gotten too far removed from what informed the worldwide cinematic opinion is. No two people would like the same group films or pick the same films. But you know basically the Academy motion pictures arts and sciences was represents the best of Hollywood and should be within haling distance at least of the rest of the world. There should be this enormous gap between what the Academy think it's a good foreign language film and what everyone else in the world thinks it's a good foreign language film.

HOST: But the procedure was changed last year after criticism and you know people will say we'll hand the main do you exactly mean the change all over again?

KENNETH TURAN: Well I'm afraid they do quite frankly and I hoped they will. You know the Academy had a similar situation more about ten, fifteen years ago on the documentary branch when a film called Hoop Dreams which is universally considered the best documentary of the year and still consider one of the best documentary in modern times was left off the list of nominees. And the Academy radically changed its system and it really made a difference and now nobody can plans for second about the document choices. And something say more to that has to be done with foreign language.

HOST: I have to ask, is it not just sour grapes in a sense on your part because a critics' favorite particularly Four Months Three Weeks And Two Days hasn't made it past the first phase of selection.

KENNETH TURAN: Well it's not really sour grapes because it is not just critics. This film won the Palme d'Or at Cannes no critics on that juror. This film won the European film award and I don't think any critics on this juror. These are major, major awards. And you know that the fact that film, this good, this celebrated by all aspects of the international film community not just the critics was not good enough never mind to win the Oscar. This did not make the shortlist of nine best foreign language films. And it is really no logical explanation for film that good not to be one of the nine best foreign language films. That's just crazy.

HOST: Are you saying basically then that the kind of people who were choosing this film to bring it down to the shortlist are in essence too conservative to judge films properly?

KENNETH TURAN: I think they're too cut off from the kind of world cinema sense, the kind of that guides the world cinema award. Again differences are OK, no one or two people are going to be agree on everything. But to be that far removed I think for institution like the Academy which gives the awards really to kind of call attention to itself and to the kind of be the awards of supports reflect positively on the institution. And when you give an award that makes people around the world say this body of people doesn't know what they are doing. This is not a good thing and I really heard everything I wrote my pace every time. I've got emails from all around the world people saying thank God someone is saying this because it's embarrassing to the Academy.

HOST: Do you think it undermines the Academy's credibility then?

KENNETH TURAN: Oh, I think absolutely. I think it destroys it doesn't undermine it. You can't ignore the film that the universally praised as the Romanian film and haven't any credibility left.

HOST: There are other expects this Sunday which says that any selection panel if you like would always perhaps go for better known world class directors rather than new comers. They'll tend to like soft films I think the Brazil The Year My Parents Went on Vacation, this year. Those are natural tendencies not just for the Academy, are they?

KENNETH TURAN: They are. And I think you know one of the problems you know with the selection process is that because it's enormous amount of time necessary to look it out the foreign language nominees. The people, who tend to be on these communities, turn to secure older in age than the average Academy membership which secures pretty old than the first place. And this is natural as a person, you know, who's getting older, myself, are you definitely consider tendencies in myself that refer to I want the Academy does. There is a tendency the like for back more conventional films, for back on directors. There are well known in whose works you appreciate in the past. And I feel confident that for the system had been in place where the entire Academy voted on foreign language films. The Romanian film would have made it in enlist among the nine.

HOST: It's overly well pointed the problem, how would you solve this?

KENNETH TURAN: Well, I'm not really sure quite frankly. The core problem that emergent Romanian film is the nature of the committees that paid for the foreign language candidate. Now I think something has to be done to kind of encourage more people with different points of view, points of view more reflective of the Academy as a whole, something has to be done to encourage those people to participate. And I don't know how to do that. But I mean I'm confident because it has been such an embarrassment to Academy, that people in the Academy are thinking about the things come about the solution. The Academy takes itself in the best way very seriously. You know I didn't like all these articles had been written all around the world saying what's going on here. They want to be respected and I think respects within their grads but I'm confident they were come about the system that make it happened.

HOST: The Los Agnes Times film critic Kenneth Turan.

今年的奥斯卡

拉根·蒂特：大家好，欢迎收听BBC的《银幕内外》节目。我是主持人拉根·蒂特。首先我想问为什么一些重要的电影评论家会担心最佳外语片的选择程序在电影界会让奥斯卡变成笑料呢？在周日的奥斯卡颁奖礼上我们又期望什么呢？在上周所有被推荐的明星都已经公开。本届奥斯卡会在柯达大戏院颁发奖项，去年的获奖演员也会参加这次盛会，有艾伦·阿金、詹尼弗·哈德森、海伦·米伦和弗雷斯特·惠特克。事实上有几个明星也加入了其余的推荐者，最特别的是澳大利亚影星凯特·布兰切特同时提名最佳女主角和最佳女配角，获得最佳男主角提名的是乔治·克鲁尼。好莱坞的影星汤姆·汉克斯、哈里森·福特、妮可·基德曼和丹泽尔·华盛顿也来参加了这次盛会，为这次盛会增添色彩的还有这些获胜者：佩勒洛普·克鲁兹、卡梅隆·迪亚兹、柯林·法瑞尔、詹姆斯·麦卡沃伊、马丁·斯科塞斯、约翰·特拉沃尔塔和雷妮·泽尔维格。现在简短的介绍一下今年奥斯卡的主要提名奖。在最佳男演员奖类别，丹尼尔·戴·刘易斯受到热捧，但是要提防《决战以拉谷》的男主角汤米·李·琼斯。直到最近，每个人都认为英国的传奇人物朱莉·克里斯蒂会获最佳女演员奖。但是出乎大家意料的是玛丽昂·歌迪亚凭借《玫瑰人生》获得了最佳女主角，几乎没有人支持这部影片。他们说最佳导演奖会在科恩兄弟的《老无所依》和保罗·托马斯·安德森的《血色将至》之间选择。敬请关注周日的盛会。

（音乐）

现在，我们都可能会在谁应该赢得最佳男主角和最佳电影奖有分歧。但是最佳外语片似乎在自己的类别中产生了争议。今年在63个国家各自提交了一个电影后，进入最后挑选用的候选名单的有九个。最终评审组成员要把这个范围缩小到五个。对于外语电影，特别是从商业上来讲，这是一个很重要的奖项。拿去年的获胜者德国的《窃听风暴》来说，在它获奖后，得到了80%的票房，正如他们所说，重大的商业业务。

（音乐）

今年被高度赞扬的以色列电影还是让人感到沮丧，理由是超过50%的对话是英语。更有争议的是罗马尼亚的《四月三周两天》从最后名单落选，这部影片曾获得戛纳电影节金棕榈大奖，是去年最值得庆祝的电影之一。但是现在这部电影错过了这次获奖机会，并不是因为奥斯卡金像奖的严格规定，一些评论家说是由于衰老和脱离现实的选拔委员会。为了了解更多，我联系了从加州来的《洛杉矶时报》的电影评论家肯尼斯·杜兰，他是一位激烈的评选程序的反对者。我首先想问的是他认为当前的程序有什么问题。

肯尼斯·杜兰：选择程序过于远离世界电影的意见。没有两个人会喜欢同一类电影，也没有两个人会选择同样的电影。但是你知道基本上奥斯卡金像奖艺术类和科学类影片在好莱坞代表最好，这样就和其它奖项存在很大的选择区别。也就是说奥斯卡金像奖的评审组认为是好的外语片与其他所有人认为是好的外语片之间有很大的差距。

主持人：但是去年这个选择程序被批评后已经改变了，你知道人们会说，还要再次完全改变吗？

肯尼斯·杜兰：坦率得说，恐怕他们会，我希望他们会。你知道，在大约10、15年前关于纪录片的金像奖有相似的情况，当时一部称作《篮球梦》的电影是那一年普遍认为的最佳纪录片，在现代仍然被认为是最好的纪录片之一，但是却没有获得提名。评审组从根本上改变了制度，真的有很大差别，现在人们在纪录片的选择上会很慎重。所以说在外语片的选择上，要做的事情更多。

主持人：我想问的是，在某种意义上对你们来说这是不是酸葡萄心理，因为评论家的喜好，尤其是《四月三周两天》在选择的第一阶段就落选了。

肯尼斯·杜兰：它并不是酸葡萄心理，因为它并不只是评论家。这部影片赢得了戛纳金棕榈奖，那个评审组里没有评论家。这部电影赢得了欧洲电影奖，我认为评审组里依然没有评论家。这些都是很高的奖项。你知道，事实上这部电影，这部好电影，这部在各方面被国际电影组织而不只是评论家看好的电影，在奥斯卡被认为不够好更不用说获得奥斯卡奖。这部片子没有进入候选的九个最佳外语片。这么好的电影没有成为九个最佳外语影片之一，真的不是合理的解释。太不切实际了。

主持人：基本上，你是说选择这部电影的人使其落选于候选名单，是因为在本质上他们太保守以至于不能做出正确的判断？

肯尼斯·杜兰：我认为他们与世界电影的判断力隔绝了，那种判断力引领世界电影奖。有分歧是肯定的，没有一、两个人对一切意见都能达成一致。但是像奥斯卡金像奖的颁奖制度这样如此的偏离，真的要注意对自身和制度的积极反省。当你授予一个奖项时，让世界各地的人们说这些人不知道他们在做什么。这不是一件好事，每一次写东西时，我真的听说过这些。我收到来自世界各地的电子邮件，人们说谢天谢地，有人说是因为这让奥斯卡金像奖很尴尬。

主持人：你认为这会破坏奥斯卡金像奖的可信度吗？

肯尼斯·杜兰：我认为绝对会。我认为不是破坏而是摧毁。你不能忽视这部被普遍赞扬的罗马尼亚电影，这样就没任何可信度可言。

主持人：在星期日还会有其它的猜想，任何评审组成员都更可能拥护世界级导演而不是新手。他们倾向于喜欢温和的电影，例如今年巴西的影片《独自在家》。这是很自然的倾向，不仅仅是奥斯卡金像奖的评审组，是吗？

肯尼斯·杜兰：是的。我想你知道，评选过程中的一个问题，是因为它需要花大量的时间选择外语影片提名。评审组会倾向于寻求在年龄上比评审团成员平均年龄大的。这很自然你知道，人年龄越大，就像我，你一定会考虑我对于想让奥斯卡金像奖怎样的倾向。他们更倾向于支持传统的电影，也会支持导演。你在过去欣赏谁的作品是众所周知的。那么我就觉得对整个评审团投票选出外语影片的这个系统有信心。这部罗马尼亚电影本应该列入九个候选名单中。

主持人：我们一直指出这个问题，你们如何解决这个问题？

肯尼斯·杜兰：坦率地讲，我不是很确定。关键问题是这部罗马尼亚电影是该委员会给予的外语影片候选。我认为必须做一些事了，鼓励有不同观点的人，有更能从整体上反射奥斯卡金像奖观点的人，我们要鼓励这些人参与进来。我不知道该怎么做。但我有信心，因为对奥斯卡金像奖它是这样困窘的事，评审团的人们会想出解决问题的方法。评审团也会非常认真地考虑最佳方法。你知道，我不喜欢这些来自世界各地的文章，说这里是怎么回事。他们希望得到尊重，尊重他们的倾斜度，我有信心他们最终会制定一个好的制度系统。

主持人：这是《洛杉矶时报》的评论家肯尼斯·杜兰带来的报道。