景框的指望：臺灣新電影的複數作者與影像美學

台灣新電影於1980年代初期獲得製作條件，新銳導演與製作團隊、其時影評人、學者、記者共同投入此場新電影運動。本文試圖關注在電影與社會環境的互相牽動影響，以探討新電影運動參與者與創製生成的電影作品何以能達成與前人迥異的電影創作成就。本文利用電影工作者訪談（錄）、電影研究專著、美學理論與電影作品之細讀分析，分別由三個主要章節探討：（1）第二章指陳「新浪潮�藝術電影」的論述型構與世界發展脈絡，提出「複數的作者」觀點（2）第三章著眼技術工作者實踐，如何透過歷時性地群體合作，共同締造新電影之「美學」意識（3）第四章分析指向「侯孝賢」作者之名底下的電影作品，探討歷時音像的轉折演變，以及與李屏賓合作後生發的影像遞變。藉以布迪厄的場域論作為分析框架，結合傅柯、巴特對「單一作者」提出的反省與詮釋，重新挖掘「複數的作者群體」在台灣新電影運動的意義。本文將指出，電影不只是導演的作品，還包含編劇、攝影、音效等技術人員、甚至影評人等各環節共同成為「行動者」，才能於電影場域（field）之中發動鬥爭，與早先港臺主流電影及好萊塢對抗，方形成特殊美學——藉由音像攝製對應彼時台灣生命狀態的聲光感知情境之電影。

關鍵字

台灣新電影；場域；作者論；複數的作者；侯孝賢；李屏賓；音像生命

並列摘要

In the early 1980s, a group of young Taiwanese filmmakers acquired the opportunity to shoot “new” films, apparently different from the “old” ones including commercial and propagandistic cinemas in the practice of cinematic forms and contents. At this period, scholars and film critics gathered supporting these newly starting out filmmakers under the name of new film movement. The auteur theory was then introduced into Taiwan and along with the recognition from international film festivals, directors like Edward Yang, Hou Hisao-Hsien and their peers were positioned as devotees and pioneers of art film in Taiwan. The position is constructed through discursive formation based on the accomplishment of their film works. The name of auteur from this point of view is nothing but historical footnotes and credits showing the accumulation of cultural capital in the film field. Challenging the general argument of auteurism of Taiwan New Cinema, this paper turns the camera shot back to the origin stage. According to Michel Foucault and Roland Barthes, the author is not a living subject as a human, but serves as an executive agent that makes a series of discourses be practiced. In the case of Taiwan New Cinema, the renowned directors from the film movement are not born auteurs. Instead, they tried, tumbled and tackled the problem along with other film workers involving editors, cameramen, screenwriters and so on. They worked as “authoring group” together developing their abilities on film and at the same time leading Taiwan cinema to new life. Reviewing the early stage of the film movement clarifies the question that the movement didn’t progress intentionally towards common goal, nevertheless the filmmakers of this generation collaborated with fellows bearing the life of cinema and achieving film works with cultural concern as well as aesthetic breakthrough. In the case study section, this paper studies film works under the Name of Hou Hsiao-hsien. By way of analyzing the framing, camera movement, light and shadow design in the films, the final part traces how Hou’s collaboration with Mark Lee Ping-bing, the cameraman, leads to the becoming of image in Taiwan New Cinema.