Anthony Bourdain AI在“ Roadrunner”中的声音是道德上的失误吗？也许是这样，但是纪录片多年来一直远离现实
Is the Anthony Bourdain AI Voice in ‘Roadrunner’ an Ethical Lapse? Maybe So, but Documentaries Have Been Sliding Away From Reality for Years
我首先了解到，摩根·内维尔（Morgan Neville）关于安东尼·布尔登（Anthony Bourdain）生与死的纪录片“ Roadrunner”，其中包含布尔丹（Bourdain）所说的三句话，他实际上从来没有以与这些天有关的许多事情来大声说出来：通过看到很多事情：在Twitter上对此感到愤怒。爆发立即将我送到了《纽约客》的文章中，屡获殊荣的主任内维尔（Neville）是“你不是我的邻居吗？”和“距离明星20英尺”，首先解释了他如何使用AI技术将10个小时的Bourdain语音录音送入计算机，然后模拟了Bourdain对这些句子的阅读 - 实际上他所拥有的每一句话。不是伪造的；他说他们的声音是。在社交媒体上，这是一种道德化的特征，我的第一个反应是说我不一定不同意。我的第二个反应是说，随着道德失误的流逝，这并不是针对人类的犯罪。我认为的原因这是一个至关重要的讨论，但是（对我而言）引起了一些珍珠插在的讨论是，如果桌面上的问题是纪录片如何代表，操纵和扭曲现实，那么桥下已经有太多的不真实水。当涉及到虚假现实时，纪录片一直在滑倒斜坡。 - 以后的伦理小组。”也许我们应该有一个。但是，也许内维尔（Neville）在那句话中采用了一些狂热的态度，这是一个原因是，没有人比纪录片制片人更了解纪录片的纯洁形式。对纪录片完整性灰色区域的调查通常回到了在地图上种植该类型的电影，罗伯特·弗莱厄蒂（Robert Flaherty即使上演了大多数人，也是因纽特人生活的“纪录片”肖像。它使用了实际的INUK人员和设置，但Flaherty指挥了这一行动，在许多情况下，它都对此进行了编造。公平地说，“北方的纳米克”并没有设定纪录片现在衡量的标准。随着时间的流逝，这种表格变得更加真实，到1960年代，CinémaVérité革命的时代，艾伯特（Albert）和大卫·梅斯尔斯（David Maysles）等电影制片人，D.A。 Pennebaker，Richard Leacock，Jean Rouch和Fred Wiseman锻造了一种令人惊叹的新艺术形式，在这种形式上，便携式声音同步摄像机的技术使我们能够随着生活的发生。一个通常仍然不为人知的故事是关于董事及其主题之间微妙的偏外关系，以及这如何影响我们所看到的现实。 （其中可能有一个纪录片 - 伦理学小组。）然而，Vérité革命是真实的，它建立了D某些代码。肯·伯恩斯（Ken Burns）制作“布鲁克林大桥”（Brooklyn Bridge）（1981）的时候，经典形式的档案文档也开始自行融入自己的文档。对于那些崇拜纪录片的人来说，这是一个宏伟的时代的开始。但是到80年代后期，纪录片开始被弄乱了。迈克尔·摩尔（Michael Moore）在无产阶级棒球帽上，将自己放在电影的中心，将它们变成一种政治表演艺术的形式，在“ Roger＆Me”（1989年）中，他操纵了事件的年表。 The biggest change, though, arrived with Errol Morris’s “The Thin Blue Line” (1988), a documentary-as-murder-investigation that more or less introduced the idea of\u200b\u200b plopping staged reenactments into the middle of an otherwise nonfiction film.莫里斯（Morris）以一种严重的道德目的（免除无辜的人）而做到了这一点，而“薄蓝线”是如此巧妙地成为真正的犯罪分子纪录片，以至于当时看起来似乎是如此创建一个新的艺术形式。但是真正发生的事情是，莫里斯（Morris 。那部电影确实是一部独一无二的地标。困扰我的是，当我开始注意到纪录片在上演重演中如何折叠。首先，这让我感到震惊，在《 Man On Wire》（2008年）时期，詹姆斯·马什（James Marsh）原本令人着迷的电影，讲述了菲利普·皮特（Philippe Petit）在世界贸易中心的两个塔楼之间的高线划船上的惊人，看上去不望而却步的行走1974年。令人惊讶的是，该活动没有任何拍摄的镜头，因此纪录片在高潮时必须依靠静态的小照片站在那条线上。但是要讲他和他的帮助者如何隐藏的故事在世界贸易中心，这部电影的演员偷偷溜进了建筑物，好像是好莱坞惊悚片。我能感觉到场景我从电影中脱颖而出，即使他们的目的表面上是为了加剧我们的参与。现在，这种事情已经变得常规了，在纪录片中采用了像凯文·麦克唐纳（Kevin MacDonald）的令人痛苦的山峰攀登史诗《触摸无效》（The Void）（2008年），扬斯·福特（Yance Ford）的谋杀案危机自传“ Strong Island”（2017） ：艾略特·斯皮策（Eliot Spitzer）的兴衰。我不会将这些纪录片中的任何一个阶段的场景称为“不道德”，但我想说它们是一种综合现实的方式，最好让我们想象在我们的脑海中。对我而言，即使我们都习惯了他们，也比安东尼·布尔登（Anthony Bourdain）的声音伪造的现象更令人沮丧的现象。 。但是我看到的是不同的。重新制定和声音假货实际上可以做不同的版本事情：两者都巩固了您的脑海中的现实 - 事物的形象或某事的声音 - 没有发生，至少不是以其方式展示。我认为，深击的声音可能比大多数重演更接近现实。许多反对摩根·内维尔（Morgan Neville）对布尔登（Bourdain）的声音所做的事情的人认为，如果标有相同的技术，那就可以了。我倾向于同意。但是，标签应该在哪里发生：在电影期间或在闭幕式期间？我已经看过好纪录片，演员会读主题的话，有时会模拟他们的语气（如2006年的精湛电影《杰克·史密斯和亚特兰蒂斯的毁灭》中）。从“ Roadrunner”所做的那样，这并不是一场飞跃。我认为，对Bourdain电影的合理困扰并不是“道德失误”，而是突然对现实的突然戏剧性含义，现在可以被操纵如何被操纵。我们只是在Deepfak时代的曙光e。现在可以让人们看起来像在做事或说话，他们从未做过或说过。在“ Roadrunner”中对Bourdain的声音操纵似乎打开了Pandora的盒子。当不道德的电影制片人采用这种技术时会发生什么？但是，不要假装我们一直是纯粹主义者。很长一段时间以来，纪录片一直远离非合金现实。正是我们在听众中启用它。我们是那些喜欢我们的现实的人，直到看起来像电影一样，变得更加甜美，变得更加精致。
I first learned that "Roadrunner," Morgan Neville’s documentary about the life and death of Anthony Bourdain, contains three sentences spoken by Bourdain that he never actually spoke out loud in the same way that you learn about a lot of things these days: by seeing an eruption of outrage about it on Twitter. The eruption immediately sent me to the New Yorker article in which Neville, the award-winning director of "Won’t You Be My Neighbor?" and "20 Feet From Stardom," first explained how he used AI technology to feed 10 hours of Bourdain voice recordings into a computer, which then simulated Bourdain’s reading of those sentences — every one of which he had, in fact, written.
The words weren’t faked; the sound of him speaking them was. This was characterized, on social media, as an ethical lapse, and my first reaction is to say that I don’t necessarily disagree. My second reaction is to say that as ethical lapses go, this isn’t exactly a crime against humanity. The reason I think it's a vital discussion to have, but one that (to me) provoked a bit of pearl-clutching, is that if the issue on the table is how documentaries represent and manipulate and distort reality, there has been too much inauthentic water under the bridge already. When it comes to swapping in fake reality, documentaries have been sliding down a slippery slope for years.
Neville, in the New Yorker article, defended his choice as a novel way to make Bourdain’s words come alive, adding, "We can have a documentary-ethics panel about it later." Maybe we should have one. But maybe a reason that Neville, in that quote, adopted what will strike some as a cavalier attitude is that no one understands more than documentary filmmakers what an impure form the documentary can be. Investigations into the gray areas of documentary integrity have often gone back to the movie that planted the genre on the map, Robert Flaherty’s 1922 silent film "Nanook of the North," which presented itself as a "documentary" portrait of Inuit life, even though most of it was staged. It used actual Inuk people and settings, but Flaherty directed the action and, in many cases, concocted it. It’s about as far from a pure-form documentary as you can get.
To be fair, "Nanook of the North" didn’t set the standard that documentaries are now measured against. The form became more authentic over time, and by the 1960s, the age of the cinéma vérité revolution, filmmakers like Albert and David Maysles, D.A. Pennebaker, Richard Leacock, Jean Rouch and Fred Wiseman had forged a stunning new art form in which the technology of portable sound-sync cameras allowed us to eavesdrop on life as it was happening. A story that generally remained untold was one about the subtle off-camera relationship between the directors and their subjects, and how that impacted the reality we were seeing. (There could be a documentary-ethics panel on that one.) Nevertheless, the vérité revolution was genuine, and it established certain codes. So did the classic-form archival doc that began to come into its own around the time that Ken Burns was making "Brooklyn Bridge" (1981). For those of us who revere documentaries, this was the start of a grand era.
But by the late '80s, the documentary was starting to be messed with. Michael Moore, in his proletarian baseball cap, placed himself at the center of his films, turning them into a form of political performance art, and in "Roger & Me" (1989) he manipulated the chronology of events. The biggest change, though, arrived with Errol Morris’s "The Thin Blue Line" (1988), a documentary-as-murder-investigation that more or less introduced the idea of plopping staged reenactments into the middle of an otherwise nonfiction film. Morris did it for what appeared to be a grave moral purpose (exonerating an innocent man), and "The Thin Blue Line" was such an ingeniously made true-crime-story-as-documentary-noir that it seemed, at the time, to create a new art form. But what was really happening is that Morris, in taking the liberties he did, had let a genie out of the bottle.
The staged scenes in "The Thin Blue Line" didn’t bother me at the time, and they don’t now. That movie really is a one-of-a-kind landmark. What did bother me is when I began to notice how routinely documentaries were folding in staged reenactments. It first struck me around the time of "Man on Wire" (2008), James Marsh’s otherwise enthralling film about Philippe Petit’s staggering, don’t-look-down walk on a high wire strung between the two towers of the World Trade Center in 1974. Amazingly, there wasn't any filmed footage of the event, so the documentary, at its climax, had to rely on still photographs of Petit standing on that wire.
But to tell the more prosaic story of how he and his helpers hid out in the World Trade Center, the film featured staged scenes of actors sneaking into the buildings, as if out of some Hollywood thriller. I could feel the scenes taking me out of the movie, even as their purpose was, ostensibly, to heighten our involvement. This kind of thing has now become routine, employed in documentaries as diverse as Kevin Macdonald’s harrowing mountain-climbing epic "Touching the Void" (2008), Yance Ford’s murder-investigation autobiography "Strong Island" (2017), Alex Gibney’s "Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer" (2010) and Andrew Jarecki’s influential true-crime serial "The Jinx" (2015). I wouldn’t call the staged scenes in any of these documentaries "unethical," but I would say that they’re a way of synthesizing realities it would have been better to let us imagine in our heads. To me, staged reenactments, even though we’re all used to them, are a more dispiriting phenomenon than the faking of Anthony Bourdain’s voice.
You might say that they’re two separate things, and that reenactments don’t pretend to be genuine. But I see it differently. A reenactment and a voice fake actually do different versions of the same thing: Both cement a reality in your mind — the image of something or the sound of something — that didn’t happen, at least not in the way it’s presented. And I’d argue that the deepfake Bourdain voice probably gets closer to reality than most reenactments do. Many of those who objected to what Morgan Neville did with Bourdain’s voice argue that if the same technique had been labeled, it would have been okay. I tend to agree. But where should the labeling happen: During the movie or during the closing credits? I’ve seen good documentaries in which an actor will read a subject’s words, sometimes simulating their tone of voice (as in the superb 2006 film "Jack Smith and the Destruction of Atlantis"). It’s not much of a leap from that to what "Roadrunner" does.
I think what bothers people, justifiably, about the Bourdain film isn’t so much the "ethical lapse" as the sudden dramatic implication of how scarily reality can now be manipulated. We’re only at the dawn of the age of the deepfake. People can now be made to look like they’re doing things, or saying things, that they never did or said. The manipulation of Bourdain’s voice in "Roadrunner" seems to open a Pandora’s Box. What happens when unethical filmmakers employ such techniques? But let’s not pretend that we’ve been purists about it. Documentaries have been inching away from unalloyed reality for a long time. And it’s we in the audience who enable it. We’re the ones who like our reality sweetened, heightened, finessed until it looks just like a movie.
本文资料/文案来自网络，如有侵权，请联系我们删除。
|
发表于 2022-7-5 06:38:06
发表于 2022-10-12 15:29:15