*本书第五章Humor and War写卓别林的《大独裁者》和刘别谦的《你逃我也逃》在美国上映时的不同境遇，时过境迁，再看刘别谦和评论家的你来我往还是相当值得玩味的。现将刘别谦的部分译出，如有不妥和疏漏处请指正。

另一部战时经典反纳粹喜剧的导演——恩斯特·刘别谦，就不像卓别林那样被人抛橄榄枝了。事实上，《你逃我也逃》这部如今被奉为经典的电影，当时却给刘别谦惹了不少麻烦。首先，因为时机欠妥，观众和评论家都对电影大加挞伐。卓别林的《大独裁者》于1940年上映，恰好卡在美国参战之前。对美国普罗大众来说，当战争仅仅发生在遥远的欧洲时，对着那些骇人听闻的战事笑出声来当然再容易不过。但就在一年后刘别谦拍摄自己的不朽名作时，风向已经变了。星条旗正飘扬在欧洲的土地上，美国子弟兵也正为从纳粹魔爪下解放世界而抛洒热血，如此事体自然不可轻易儿戏。对许多人来说，在当时发行一部关于第三帝国的电影完全不合时宜。

Ernst Lubitsch, the director of the other great anti-Nazi wartime comedy, would receive none of the laurels enjoyed by Chaplin. In fact, To Be or Not to Be, which is today rightly regarded as a classic, caused him substantial difficulties. Above all, it was bad timing that caused audiences to reject and critics to lambast the film. Chaplin’s Great Dictator hit the cinemas in 1940, well before the United States entered the war. It was easy for people in the U.S. to laugh at the terrible events in Europe when the conflict still seemed so far away. But a year later, when Lubitsch began shooting his masterpiece, the situation had changed. The Stars and Stripes now flew over the battlefields of Europe and Anerican blood was being shed to help free the world of the terror of Nazism, and that was no laughing matter. For many, it was a completely inappropriate time to release a comedy about the Third Reich.

但是，虽然评论家和大众极力抵制，《你逃我也逃》终归是一部妙趣横生的电影。情节反转充满生花妙笔。年轻的波兰飞行员斯坦尼斯拉夫·索宾斯基（罗伯特·斯塔克饰）爱上了剧院的女演员玛利亚·图拉（卡洛·朗白饰）。每次图拉同为演员的丈夫登台演出，表演到那段著名的哈姆雷特独白时，索宾斯基就会离开观众席到后台和图拉幽会。正当他们的私情被揭穿时，第二次世界大战爆发了,索宾斯基告别情人毅然参战。不久后他意识到，波兰的实力难以和强大的德国抗衡。索宾斯基来到伦敦，并在那里和其他流亡者志愿为英国皇家空军执行危险任务。但是一个叫斯莱茨基教授的盖世太保间谍已经渗透进了波兰流亡者的行列，而且略施小计，他收集到了一份活跃在波兰的抵抗分子名单。玛利亚·图拉的名字也在名单上。当毫无戒心饿索宾斯基请求斯莱茨基向图拉传话“生存还是毁灭”时，假教授误以为这是一个暗号。飞行员由此发现了斯莱茨基的真实身份，但此时后者已经取道前往波兰，并把名单交给了名叫埃尔哈特的党卫队军官。索宾斯基于是动身空投到被占领的华沙，意图阻止惨剧发生。

But although critics and public resisted the idea behind it, To Be or Not to Be was a very funny film. The plot was a twisted work of genius. A young Polish fighter pilot, Stanislav Sobinski (Robert Stack), falls in love with the theater actress Maria Tura (Carole Lombard). Every time Tura’s actor husband takes the stage and launches into the famous Hamlet soliloquy, Sobinski leaves the audience and has a backstage rendezvous with Tura. Just as their affair is discovered, World War II breaks out, and Sobinski leaves his lover to go fight. When it becomes clear that Poland is no match for the more powerful Germany, he travels on to London, where he and other exiles volunteer to fly dangerous missions for the Royal Air Force. But a Gestapo spy called Professor Siletzsky has insinuated his way into the ranks of the Poles fighting in exile, and by a simple ruse, he gets his hands on a complete list of individuals active in the Polish resistance. On that list is Maria Tura, and when the unsuspecting Sobinski asks Siletzsky to pass on the words “To be or not to be” to her, the fake professor misinterprets this as code. The pilot discovers Siletzsky’s true identity, but not before the latter has made his way to Poland to hand over the list to an SS officer named Ehrhardt. Sobinski sets off to avert the catastrophe and parachutes into occupied Warsaw.

在那儿他联系上了玛利亚。得知坏消息后，整个剧团异常沮丧，对如何阻止斯莱茨基上交名单毫无头绪。索宾斯基和玛利亚提出了一个大胆的计划。他们将剧院改造成一个假的纳粹总部，并给斯莱茨基设下了陷阱。演员们都化妆成纳粹，玛利亚的丈夫约瑟夫化身为党卫队领袖埃尔哈特。整个骗局确实奏效了，但是在假埃尔哈特和斯莱茨基交谈时，他们得知斯莱茨基还有一份留在旅馆房间的名单副本。于是约瑟夫又换上了一身新装束——盖世太保间谍斯莱茨基。随着华沙局势升温，图拉一家把另一位演员打扮成希特勒的样子，并乘着元首的私人飞机和整个剧团逃往国外。

There he contacts Maria. Her troupe is distressed by the bad news but has no idea how they can prevent Siletzsky from passing the list with Maria’s name to the Nazis. Sobinski and she then come up with a daring plan. They convert their theater into a fake Nazi headquarters and set a trap for Siletzsky. The actors dress up as Nazis, and Maria’s husband Joseph takes the role of Gruppenführer Ehrhardt. The deception works, but during a conversion between the supposed Ehrhardt and Siletzsky it emerges that the spy has made a copy of the list, which he has left in his hotel room. So Joseph assumes a new role: the Gestapo spy Siletzsky. As the situation in Warsaw begins to heat up, the Turas dress up another actor as Hitler and flee with the entire troupe in the Führer’s private plane.

刘别谦极其优雅熟练地处理着他的题材，毫不费力地控制着情节起伏辗转。卡司们——尤其是扮演不可一世的悲剧演员约瑟夫·图拉的杰克·本尼——明显乐在其中。但是1942年地首映再清楚不过地表明，影片注定会赔本。受邀的观众们对抖出的包袱毫无反应，全场死一般的沉寂。尤其是真埃尔哈特说出“图拉是怎么对待莎士比亚的，我们就怎么对待波兰”时，许多观众都出离愤怒了。评论家不厌其烦地引证这句台词来说明这部影片品味低下，这句台词一说出口，大批观众直接离开了电影院。针对刘别谦的仇恨一波波涌来，纷纷谴责他嘲笑波兰的苦难。

Lubitsch approached the material with light hand and effortlessly mastered all the somersaults of the plot. The cast—especially Jack Benny, who plays the pompous thespian Joseph Tura—obviously had fun with the script. But the first screenings in early 1942 made it abundantly clear that the movie was going to flop. The specially invited audience greeted the clever punch lines with steely silence. In particular, many viewers were enraged a scene in which the real Ehrhardt says, “What [Tura] did to Shakespeare, we are now doing to Poland.” Reviews were constantly citing this line as proof of how tasteless the film was, and whole rows of viewers left movie theaters when it was uttered. A wave of outrage was aimed at Lubitsch, who was accused of laughing at Polish suffering.

下列评论佐证了评论家们面对影片所表现出的不解和下意识的抗拒心理：

The following review illustrates the critics’ incomprehension and knee-jerk rejection of the film:

老实说，当前的困境远远无法理解本片的幽默——或是讽刺——尤其是当它把幻想和事实并置而提时。在一个完全虚构的故事和一个国家史无前例的苦难面前，究竟有什么交集？一个德国上校对本尼先生的表演所作的评价究竟有什么好笑的地方：“他怎么对待莎士比亚，我们就怎么对待波兰”？即使一个人能忘却当下的恐怖氛围，对整个民族的屠戮也绝对称不上什么值得哂笑的事情。但是这部电影从始至终都对惨剧无动于衷。你几乎会以为刘别谦先生为了博得笑声什么都干得出来。

Frankly, this corner is unable even remotely to comprehend the humor—or possibly the satire—in such a juxtaposition of fancy and fact. Where is the point of contact between an utterly artificial plot and the anguish of a nation which is one of the greatest tragedies of our time? What is the element of mirth in the remark which a German colonel makes regarding Mr. Benny’s acting: “What he did to Shakespeare, we are doing now to Poland?” Even if one were able to forget the present horror which this implies, the butchery of a people would hardly be a matter for jest. Yet all the way through this picture runs a strange imperception of feeling. You might almost think Mr. Lubitsch had the attitude of “Anything for a laugh.”

这又让我们回到之前的问题：为什么当时被人百般挑剔轻慢历史悲剧，最后狼狈收场的电影如今却成为了经典？为什么一个好莱坞制片人非要从一个和真实事件相关的精彩故事里说出个所以然来？为什么，既然他想拍一部大制作的电影，不从完全虚构的角度出发去创作呢？

And this brings us back to the question: what is the conception behind a film that trades so distastefully upon the grim human tragedy now in effect? Why should a Hollywood producer endeavor to give significance to a fanciful tale by pretending that it is connected to the real events of today? Why, if he wants to make a picture with a story of such incredible proportions, should he not set it off in the realm of absolute make-believe?

从我们到目前为止知晓的情况来看，再明显不过的回答无非是，那些好莱坞的制片人们仍然把世界当做一个大舞台。他们太习惯于将幻想和故事的模板套用在真实上，以致于时事的戏剧性都成为他们制造新形象的毛坯。波兰、法国、英格兰以及威克岛不过是老套故事的背景板而已了。文明会轰然倒塌，但是男女主人公总会活到最后。

Judging by what we have seen, the answer which stares us in the face is that some people in Hollywood still see the world through theatrical eyes. So deeply accustomed have they become to reflecting illusions and story patterns, not life, that the drama of current events becomes mere grist to their image-grinding mills. Poland, France, England and soon Wake Island are just locales for their same old story lines. Civilizations may crumble—but the hero and heroine come out all right in the end.

《费城问询报》话说得更不留情面，讽刺的是，在他们的负面评价中甚至还有一丝反犹意味。评论员写道：刘别谦是一个毫无新意的犹太导演。

The Philadelphia Inquirer was even more drastic in its dispraise, and, ironically, there was an anti-Semitic component to its negative review. Lubitsch, the critic wrote, was a jaded Jewish director.

直到今天，《你逃我也逃》在美国大众流行文化谱系中还带着品味低俗的耻辱。当代电影史学家们对待刘别谦的作品时比他的同时代评论者要温柔太多了，但是对他作品的道德谴责始终存在——考虑到纳粹政权在东欧的大屠杀，许多观众还是觉得电影中的某些场景欠妥。

To this day, To Be or Not to Be retains its stigma of tastelessness in the American popular consciousness. Contemporary film historians may be far milder in their judgments about Lubitsch’s work than the critics of his own day, but the moral objections to it persist—with many viewers still finding some scenes inappropriate in light of the Nazi genocide in Eastern Europe.

刘别谦的确因为同时代人的刺耳评论而大为苦恼，但是他始终拒绝删掉那个冒犯人的莎士比亚-波兰笑话。正相反，他在英美媒体上大力捍卫自己的作品。为了回应来自《问询报》的恶意，他等了足足两年，当同一位观众抨击他的下一部电影时，刘别谦呈递了一份有理有据的长信：

Lubitsch himself was mortified by the harsh commentary of his contemporaries, but he refused to cut the offending Shakespeare-Poland joke. Instead, he mounted a vigorous defense of his work in the American and British press. It took him two years to react to the particular hostility directed at him by the Inquirer, but when the same reviewer panned his next movie, Lubitsch submitted a long, well-argued open letter:

我写这封信的目的不是为了让你撤回前言——一切都不过是我自己的意见。我写这封信，只是为了想你指出你好几次在评论里用了体育界里常说的阴招、损招。

I am not writing this letter with the intention to make you reconsider your criticism—nothing is farther from my mind. I am merely writing this letter to point out to you that several times in your criticism you resort to what one calls in sports circles a “foul.”

尤其是你说我的《你逃我也逃》是“麻木不仁、毫无品味地拿华沙大轰炸取乐”时，意图就再明显不过了。

The purpose becomes very clear when in the next sentence in regard to To Be or Not to Be you call attention to my “callous, tasteless effort to find fun in the bombing of Warsaw.”

作为一个经验丰富的新闻人，你完全明白这样的指控会对公众造成什么样的影响，尤其是在当前形式下。这样的宣传算不上彬彬有礼，但一旦它建立在虚假的事实上时，后果将是非常严重的。

Being an experienced newspaper woman you are surely aware of the effect such an allegation must have on the reading public, particularly at a time like this. Such propaganda is not very gracious, but when it is based on false facts it becomes outrageous.

自然而然，你声称我“拿华沙大轰炸取乐”绝对是空穴来风。在《你逃我也逃》里，我十分严肃地展现了华沙被毁后的惨状；那些描摹华沙满目疮痍的镜头自然会给我公道，也不会给观者理解我的意图和对暴行的态度造成疑惑。我在片中讽刺的是纳粹和他们滑稽可笑的意识形态。我还讽刺了那些无论境遇如何变化还是我行我素的演员们，对此我对自己的观察深信不疑。

Naturally, your statement that I “find fun in the bombing of Warsaw” is completely untrue. When in To Be or Not to Be I have referred to the destruction of Warsaw I have shown it in all seriousness; the commentary under the shots of the devastated Warsaw speaks for itself and cannot leave any doubt in the spectator’s mind what is my point of view and attitude towards those acts of horror. What I have satirized in this picture are the Nazis and their ridiculous ideology. I have also satirized the attitude of actors who always remain actors regardless of how dangerous the situation might be, which I believe is a true observation.

我从未在片中说过关于波兰或是波兰人一句坏话。恰恰相反，我把他们塑造成一群在绝境里从不乞求怜悯的英雄好汉，就算在在最黑暗的岁月里也绝不会丧失勇气和幽默感。

Never have I said in a picture anything derogative about Poland or the Poles. On the contrary I have portrayed them as a gallant people who do not cry on other people’s shoulders in their misery but even in the darkest day never lost courage and ingenuity or their sense of humor.

关于片中对波兰悲剧现实主义风格的描绘是否能同讽刺相结合这一点，当然也是有争议的。我认为这行得通，同时我观察到观众在放映时也是这么认为的。这一点完全可以放开来讲，每个人都权坚持自己的意见，但这绝对和什么“柏林出生的导演拿华沙大轰炸取乐”相距甚远。

It can be argued if the tragedy of Poland realistically portrayed as in To Be or Not to Be can be merged with satire. I believe it can be, and so did the audience which I observed during a screening of To Be or Not to Be; but this is a matter of debate and everyone is entitled to his point of view, but it is certainly a far cry from “the Berlin born director who finds fun in the bombing of Warsaw.”

刘别谦的信函究竟造成了多大影响自然值得怀疑，尤其是考虑到战时美国群情激昂的氛围。直到他死后，《你逃我也逃》才取得了经典的地位。

It is doubtful how effective Lubitsch’s missive was, given the emotionally charged atmosphere of wartime America. It wasn’t until after his death that To Be or Not To Be achieved the status of a classic.

同时代的评论家们无法跳出自己的时代局限，因此《大独裁者》和《你逃我也逃》才会经受截然不同的命运的准绳。纳粹就应该被描摹成一批龇牙咧嘴的怪物，波兰人就应该是束手无策的受害者——其余一切叙述都不被接受。刘别谦对这类陈词滥调嗤之以鼻。他镜头下的纳粹是群荒唐得不着边际的小官僚，他镜头下的波兰人都是拿别出心裁的计谋捉弄巨人希特勒的少年大卫。虽然《你逃我也逃》的剧情有不少喜剧表演的固定套路，但把纳粹描绘成一群呆头呆脑的市侩之徒，自有其超越喜剧电影窠臼的真实性。刘别谦的传记作者赫伯特·司柏奇说道，刘别谦比起大多数同时代人，早早就意识到了“平庸的恶”。希特勒的爪牙多数都不是毫无人性的恶魔。他们都是从过度顺从的小资产阶级过渡到杀人凶手的。他们在战后审判席上对大屠杀作出的证词证明，关于纳粹的这一观点大致是正确的。但是1942年的美国并没有准备好接受这一切。

Contemporary critics were unable to see beyond their own immediate horizons, which was why The Great Dictator and To Be or Not To Be were measured with different yardsticks. Nazis were supposed to be portrayed as teeth-baring monsters, and Poles as helpless victims—no other depictions were permissible. Lubitsch ignored such clichés. His Nazis were grotesque petty bureaucrats, and his Poles were clever Davids who put one over on the Goliath Hitler with their inventive tricks. Although the plot of To Be or Not to Be featured stock comic routines, the depiction of the Nazis as philistine lunkheads contained a truth that exceeded what was usually found in cinematic comedies. Lubitsch’s biographer Herbert Spaich was right when he said that the director understood, much earlier than most of his contemporaries, the “banality of evil.” Most of Hitler’s henchmen were not demons. They were overly obedient petty bourgeois who had mutated into murderers. Their testimony about the Holocaust during the postwar trials showed that this view of the Nazis was largely correct. But America in 1942 was not ready for it.