2023年经济学人 卓别林如何遭到美国的迫害（在线收听）

    Culture

    文艺版块

    Book review

    书评

    The politics of Hollywood

    好莱坞政治

    Anatomy of a cancellation

    对一桩取消文化案例的剖析

    Charlie Chaplin vs America. By Scott Eyman.

    《查理·卓别林vs美国》，斯科特·埃曼著。

    In today’s culture wars, Hollywood has a starring role.

    在当今的文化战争中，好莱坞扮演着领衔主演的角色。

    Films tend to trigger debates about America’s history and values.

    电影往往会引发关于美国历史和价值观的辩论。

    That has long been the case, as a new book, “Charlie Chaplin vs America”, shows.

    这是一直存在的现象，正如一本新书《查理·卓别林vs美国》所论述的那样。

    Chaplin, a British citizen, was harassed by the American government, culminating in the revocation of a re-entry permit in 1952.

    卓别林是英国公民，但受到美国政府的骚扰，最终在1952年被吊销了再入境许可证。

    It is a sobering account of cancel culture in action.

    这本书清晰地描述了取消文化是如何进行的。

    Indeed, it makes some of the current spats seem toothless by comparison.

    现在的一些口舌之争与之相比真是小巫见大巫。

    “I don’t want to create revolution,” Chaplin said. “I just want to create a few more pictures.”

    “我不想掀起革命，”卓别林说，“我只是想再拍几部电影。”

    But the FBI, suspecting Chaplin of communist sympathies, started surveilling the film-maker in 1922.

    但联邦调查局怀疑卓别林拥护共产主义，并从1922年开始监视卓别林。

    In a paranoid climate, many looked for evidence of Marxism.

    在一种偏执多疑的气氛中，许多人在寻找马克思主义的证据。

    Those convinced Chaplin was “red” pointed to his screen persona, the Tramp, an embodiment of the beleaguered everyman.

    一些人确信卓别林是“红色”的，并指出他的银幕形象“流浪汉”为证，而流浪汉塑造的就是一个贫困潦倒的普通人。

    They perceived it, too, in “Modern Times” (1936), a dramatisation of workers’ plight due to unemployment and automation, and in “The Great Dictator” (1940), which called out America’s isolationism.

    这些人在《摩登时代》（1936）和《大独裁者》（1940）中也寻到了端倪，前者戏剧化地描述了工人因失业和自动化而陷入的困境，后者则大声喊出了美国的孤立主义。

    Officials did not take kindly to Chaplin speaking out about politics, especially when he called for a second front in the war to alleviate pressure on Russia.

    官员们不喜欢卓别林公开谈论政治，尤其是他呼吁在二战中开辟第二战场以减轻俄罗斯方面的压力。

    Some took umbrage that Chaplin made his fortune in America and deigned to comment on its policies but refused to become a citizen.

    一些人对卓别林在美国发财、对美国政策妄加评论、却拒绝成为美国公民而深感恼怒。

    None of this was illegal.

    卓别林的所有这些行为都不违法。

    But the FBI bedevilled him, using political groups and the press to whip up anti-Chaplin sentiment.

    但联邦调查局对他紧咬不放，利用政治团体和媒体煽动抵制卓别林的情绪。

    The bureau fed journalists salacious titbits (which were not in short supply: the man was no stranger to a sex scandal).

    联邦调查局向记者提供了淫秽的花边新闻(这些花边新闻有很多，卓别林之前就有过性丑闻)。

    In the eyes of the public, he became “a louche degenerate with a propensity for young girls and communism”, writes the author, Scott Eyman.

    作者斯科特·埃曼写道，在公众眼里，卓别林变成了“一个喜欢年轻女孩和有共产主义倾向的卑鄙堕落者”。

    When Chaplin set off to promote a movie in Europe, the attorney-general took his chance.

    当卓别林出发去欧洲宣传一部电影时，司法部长抓住了机会。

    The film-maker was blocked from returning under a provision that allowed people of questionable “morals, health or insanity” or those “advocating communism or associating with communist or pro-communist organisations” to be kept out.

    卓别林被禁止再次返回美国，根据的是一项条款，该条款规定，“道德、健康有问题或精神错乱”的人，或“鼓吹共产主义，或与共产主义和亲共产主义组织有联系的人”不得入境。

    Chaplin was forced to give up his home and studio and move to Switzerland, where the quality of his work suffered.

    卓别林被迫离开了美国的家和工作室，搬到了瑞士，他的电影作品质量也因此受到了影响。

    By the time he was exiled from America, the intelligence file had swelled to nearly 2,000 pages.

    到他被驱逐出美国时，关于他的情报档案已经膨胀到近2000页。

    It contained no proof of party ties.

    其中没有任何卓别林与政党有联系的证据。

    Instead, it was filled with “hearsay, rumour [and] bountiful examples of guilt by association”.

    相反，档案中充斥着“传闻、谣言[和]大量罪恶关联的例子”。（注：罪恶关联指逻辑推理上的一种谬误，例如甲犯了罪，乙只是认识甲或与甲在一起，便认为乙也犯了罪，类似连坐制度。）Readers will be shocked by how Chaplin was hounded with so little cause.

    读者会震惊于卓别林如何无缘无故遭到迫害。

    The author convincingly argues that the auteur was “the most prominent victim of the Red Scare” and paints a portrait of a time when freedom of speech was even more embattled than it is today.

    作者令人信服地论述了这位作者导演是“美国红色恐慌最突出的受害者”，并描绘了一个言论自由比如今更为受限的时代。