『新东方在线托福听力』为托福考生准备了ETS托福TPO/Official 3 Lec 2听力练习：Why are Painleve's films typical of the films of the 1920s and 1930s?原文题目答案解析，TPO/Official 3 Lec 2听力原文范文音频翻译。

托福TPO/Official 3 Lec 2听力原文Why are Painleve's films typical of the films of the 1920s and 1930s?-新东方托福官方网校手机版

旁白：听一段电影史课堂的讲座。

Narrator: Listen to part of a lecture in a film history class.

教授：我们一直在讨论20世纪20年代和30年代的电影和我们今天熟知的电影分类那个时候没有形成。

Professor: Okay, we‘e been discussing films in the 1920s and 30s, and how back then film categories, as we know them today, had not yet been established.

我们说过，以现在的标准，二、三十年代的很多电影算是混血儿，也就是说，各种风格的混合体并不符合当今电影的类别，也不符合时下的环境。

We said that by today's standards, many of the films of the 20s and 30s would be considered hybrids, that is, a mixture of styles that wouldn't exactly fit into any of today's categories, and in that context.

今天我们探讨一个在上个世纪20年代开创独具一格的电影的电影制作人。

Today we are going to talk about a film-maker who began making very unique films in the late 1920s.

他是法国人，他叫Jean Painlevé。

He was French, and his name was Jean Painlevé.

在一定程度上，Painlevé的电影符合了二、三十年代的标准，也就是说，它们并不太符合我们现在用来给电影分类的标准。

Now in a way, Painlevé's films conform to norms of the 20s and 30s, that is, they don't fit very neatly into the categories we use to classify films today.

即便以上个世纪二、三十年代的标准来衡量，Painlevé的电影还是独具特色的各种风格的混合体。

That said, even by the standards of the 20s and 30s, Painlevé's films were unique, a hybrid of styles.

对现实和虚幻他有自己一套独特的融合方法，或许有人会说是迷魂法。

He had a special way of fusing, or some people might say confusing, science and fiction.

他的电影一般以真实情节作为铺垫，但之后它们变得越来越虚幻。

His films begin with facts, but then they become more and more fictional.

他作品里的虚幻元素逐渐增多。

They gradually add more and more fictional elements.

事实上，Painlevé因为说过科就是幻而闻名。

In fact, Painlevé was known for saying that science is fiction.

他是水下拍摄的先驱，此外他拍了很多关于水生动物世界题材的短片。

Painlevé was a pioneer in underwater film-making, and a lot of his short films focused on the aquatic animal world.

他喜欢向世人展示小型的水下生物，展现与人类共享的特性我们以为人类独有的。

He liked to show small underwater creatures, displaying what seemed like familiar human characteristics , what we think of as unique to humans.

他或许会拍一段软体动物在水里上下游荡并配以背景音乐。

He might take a clip of a mollusk going up and down in the water and set it to music.

让其看起来像人类一样闻歌起舞诸如之类的事。

You know, to make it look like the mollusk were dancing to the music like a human being, that sort of thing.

之后，他会突然切换镜头或出现旁白来提示观众动物的不同之处，如何与人不同。

But then he suddenly changed the image or narration to remind us how different the animals are, how unlike humans.

他在电影里描述动物的方式常迷惑大众，搅合我们关于人类和动物的概念类别。

He confused his audience in the way he portrayed the animals he filmed, mixing up our notions of the categories -- human and animal.

这些电影常常让我们感到有些别扭因为我们不确定自己正在观看的是什么。

The films make us a little uncomfortable at times because we are uncertain about what we are seeing.

这给他的电影带来神秘的色彩：让熟悉变得陌生，让正常变得可疑。

It gives him films an uncanny feature: the familiar made unfamiliar, the normal made suspicious.

实际上，他最喜欢的海洋动物之一是海马，因为雄性海马产卵，他认为这是很不错的。

In fact, one of his favorite sea animals was the seahorse because with seahorses, it's the male that carries the eggs, and he thought that was great.

他的第一部也 是最著名的一部水下电影就跟海马有关。

His first and most celebrated underwater film is about the seahorse.

学生 1：但水下电影也不是那么不同寻常，是吧？

Student 1: But underwater film-making wasn't that unusual, was it?

我意思是说，当时就没有其他人也在水下 拍摄电影？

I mean, weren't there other people making movies underwater?

教授：嗯，其实，这在当时来说确实少见。

Professor: Well, actually, it was pretty rare at that time.

我是说，我们在讨论上个世纪20年代初期的事。

Student 1: But what about Jacques Cousteau?

就水下摄影来说，他像个改革者吗？

Was he like an innovator, you know, with underwater photography too?

是的，Painlevé和库斯托确实都拍摄水下电影，同时他俩都是改革者，在这个层面上你说得对。

Well, Painlevé and Cousteau did both film underwater, and they were both innovators, so you are right in that sense.

但他们的共同之处也仅限于此。

But that's pretty much where the similarities end.

首先，Painlevé先于库斯托大概20年。

First of all, Painlevé was about 20 years ahead of Cousteau.

此外，库斯托的电影科技含量高，有很多昂贵的设备，然而Painlevé更像是在需要的时候把设备拼凑起来。

And Cousteau's adventures were high-tech, with lots of fancy equipment, whereas Painlevé kind of patched the equipment together as he needed it.

库斯托通常拍摄大型的动物，通常在公海拍，然而Painlevé一般拍摄小一点动物，另外他喜欢在浅水拍摄。

Cousteau usually filmed large animals, usually in the open sea, whereas Painlevé generally filmed smaller animals, and he liked to film in shallow water.

呃，看看还有什么，哦，主要的区别是库斯托只是调查和展现事实他没有将事实与虚幻的东西混合到一起。

Uh, what else, oh well, the main difference was that Cousteau simply investigated and presented the facts, he didn't mix in fiction.

他为真正的自然纪录片建立了标准。

He set the standard really for the nature documentary.

另一方面，正如我们之前说的，Painlevé将虚幻元素融入其中。

Painlevé on the other hand, as we said before, mixed in elements of fiction.

另外，他的电影更具艺术色彩，合并的（背景）音乐作为一个重要因素。

And his films are much more artistic, incorporating music as an important element.

学生 2：或许我不应该问这个，如果Painlevé的电影是那么的特别，那么的优秀，为什么我们从来没有听说过他的作品？

Student 2: Well, maybe I shouldn't be asking this, but if Painlevé's films are so special, so good, why haven't we ever heard of them?

我是说，大家都听说过雅克库斯托。

I mean, everyone heard of Jacques Cousteau.

教授：嗯，这是一个值得探究的问题。

Professor: Well, that is a fair question.

呃，简单的回答是Painlevé的风格并不为大众所知。

Uh, the short answer is that Painlevé's style just never caught on with the public.

我是说，我们得回到我们先前提到过的一个问题，人们并不知道他的作品讲什么，他们对他的电影很是困惑，

I mean, it probably goes back at least in part to where we mentioned earlier, that people didn't know what to make of his films, they were confused by them,

然而库斯托的纪录片很直白明了，相比Painlevé的电影他的作品迎合了人们的期望。

whereas Cousteau's documentaries were very straightforward, met people's expectations more than Painlevé's films did.

但这一点你说得对，电影史是我们对电影作品的了解。

But you are true: film history is about what we know about them.

此外，Painlevé在很多领域都有很高的声望。

And Painlevé is still highly respected in many circles.

Why are Painleve's films typical of the films of the 1920s and 1930s?

According to the professor, how did Painleve's film confuse the audience?

Why does the professor mention sea horses?

Why does the professor compare the film style of Jacques Cousteau and Jean Painleve?

What does the student imply when he say this:

Narrator 
Listen to part of a lecture in a film history class. 
Professor 
Okay, we’ve been discussing films in the 1920s and 30s, and how back then film categories, as we know them today, had not yet been established. We said that by today’s standards, many of the films of the 20s and 30s would be considered hybrids, that is, a mixture of styles that wouldn’t exactly fit into any of today’s categories. And in that context, today we are going to talk about a film-maker who began making very unique films in the late 1920s. He was French, and his name was Jean Painlevé. 
Jean Painlevé was born in 1902. He made his first film in 1928. Now in a way, Painlevé’s films conform to norms of the 20s and 30s, that is, they don’t fit very neatly into the categories we use to classify films today. That said, even by the standards of the 20s and 30s, Painlevé’s films were a unique hybrid of styles. He had a special way of fusing, or some people might say, confusing, science and fiction. His films begin with facts, but then they become more and more fictional. 
They gradually add more and more fictional elements. In fact, Painlevé was known for saying that science is fiction. Painlevé was a pioneer in underwater film-making, and a lot of his short films focused on the aquatic animal world. He liked to show small underwater creatures, displaying what seemed like familiar human characteristics – what we think of as unique to humans. He might take a clip of a mollusk going up and down in the water and set it to music. You know, to make it look as if the mollusk were dancing to the music like a human being – that sort of thing. But then he suddenly changed the image or narration to remind us how different the animals are, how unlike humans. 
He confused his audience in the way he portrayed the animals he filmed, mixing up our notions of the categories human and animal. 
The films make us a little uncomfortable at times because we are uncertain about what we are seeing. It gives him films an uncanny feature: the familiar made unfamiliar, the normal made suspicious. He liked twists, he liked the unusual. In fact, one of his favorite sea animals was the seahorse because with seahorses, it’s the male that carries the eggs, and he thought that was great. His first and most celebrated underwater film is about the seahorse. 
Susan, you have a question? 
Student 1 
But underwater film-making wasn’t that unusual, was it? I mean, weren’t there other people making movies underwater? 
Professor 
Well, actually, it was pretty rare at that time. I mean, we are talking the early 1930s here. 
Student 1 
But what about Jacques Cousteau? Was he like an innovator, you know, with underwater photography too? 
Professor 
Ah, Jacques Cousteau. Well, Painlevé and Cousteau did both film underwater, and they were both innovators, so you are right in that sense. But that’s pretty much where the similarities end. 
First of all, Painlevé was about 20 years ahead of Cousteau. And Cousteau’s adventures were high-tech, with lots of fancy equipment, whereas Painlevé kind of patchedequipment together as he needed it. Cousteau usually filmed large animals, usually in the open sea, whereas Painlevé generally filmed smaller animals, and he liked to film in shallow water. 
Uh, what else? Oh well, the main difference was that Cousteau simply investigated and presented the facts – he didn’t mix in fiction. He was a strict documentarist. He set the standard really for the nature documentary. Painlevé, on the other hand, as we said before, mixed in elements of fiction. And his films are much more artistic, incorporating music as an important element. 
John, you have a question? 
Student 2 
Well, maybe I shouldn’t be asking this, but if Painlevé’s films are so special, so good, why haven’t we ever heard of them? I mean, everyone’s heard of Jacques Cousteau. 
Professor 
Well, that’s a fair question. Uh, the short answer is that Painlevé’s style just never caught on with the general public. I mean, it probably goes back at least in part to what we mentioned earlier, that people didn’t know what to make of his films. They were confused by them, whereas Cousteau’s documentaries were very straightforward, met people’s expectations more than Painlevé’s films did. But you true film history buffs know about him. And Painlevé is still highly respected in many circles.