Books and Arts; Paris under the Nazis;
Flying the flag;
A world of collaborators, resistors, speculators and “attentistes”
And the Show Went On: Cultural Life in Nazi-Occupied Paris. By Alan Riding. Knopf;
《當“秀”還在繼續:納粹統治下的巴黎文化生活》由奧蘭·里丁·諾普夫所著。
“During the occupation”, declared Jean-Paul Sartre, “we had two choices: collaborate or resist.” But France's iconic intellectual, speaking some three decades after Hitler's tanks rolled into Paris, was rewriting history. As Alan Riding points out, in this meticulously researched history of French culture during the second world war, there was another option—attentisme, or wait and see—and the divisions between them were easily blurred. Sartre himself was certainly never a collaborator, but his image as a résistant was burnished rather late in the day. Mr Riding notes that “although his involvement in the intellectual resistance had been minimal, after the liberation he had suddenly appeared as the chronicler of France's calvary.”
讓·保羅·薩特宣稱:“在占領期間,我們有兩個選擇—合作還是抵抗”。但大約在希特勒的坦克駛入巴黎的30年后,法國代表性的知識分子正重寫這段歷史。正如奧蘭·里丁指出的,經過這段二戰時期的法國文化史的認真研究,發現還有另外一個選擇——觀望;或者稱之為“等等再看”,很容易把它們混為一談。薩特本人當然從來不是合作者,但作為一個抵制者的形象卻在很晚的時候才被凸顯出來。里丁提到“雖然他在知識分子的抵抗運動中參與度微乎其微,但解放后他突然搖身一變,成了法國磨難史的記錄者。
Much of this book, notably the flight to America of artists such as Marc Chagall and Marcel Duchamp, or the collaboration of the narcissistic Jean Cocteau, will be familiar to those who have read Frederic Spotts's 2008 book, “The Shameful Peace”. Mr Riding used to write about European culture for the New York Times and was based in Paris. Where he adds value is in his analysis of the subtle challenges of the Nazi occupation for the various sectors of the arts. If escape and exile were not the chosen option, actors needed to tread the boards, singers needed the music halls, musicians needed the concert hall. How could they avoid giving succour to the enemy, given the many Germans in the audience?
如果有人讀過弗雷德里克·斯波茨2008年的新作《可恥的和平》,就會對這本書里很多內容有似曾相識之感,不論是以馬克·夏加爾和馬塞爾·杜尚為代表的逃匿去美國的藝術家們,還是自戀的讓·谷克多通敵。里丁長住巴黎,過去常給美國的《紐約時報》供稿,內容是關于歐洲的文化。關于納粹對各藝術流派的微妙挑戰的分析,為這本書加分了。如果不選擇逃亡和放逐,那演員還是要登臺演戲,歌手需要音樂廳,音樂家也需要演奏廳。所以就算觀眾席上坐著的有很多德國人,他們又怎么可能避免為敵人表演呢?
Most chose a degree of compromise, some larger than others. Edith Piaf, who said in 1940 that “my real job is to sing, to sing no matter what happens”, was willing to perform twice in Stalag III-D, a camp for French prisoners-of-war outside Berlin—but on her first visit cleverly encouraged the camp commander to allow photographs to be taken of her with him and the POWs. The photos were then cropped so that each POW's image could be attached to counterfeit documents identifying him as a French worker in Germany. On Piaf's next visit to the camp, the documents were secretly delivered. If a POW escaped, he had a protective German ID card. As Piaf put it, “I was not in the Resistance, but I helped my soldiers.”
很多人都選擇了妥協,只是程度不一。伊迪斯·琶雅芙在1940年曾說“我真正的工作是唱歌,不管發生什么事,都要唱”,所以她很樂意的在柏林外關押法國戰犯的德國戰俘營Stalag III-D表演過兩次,而且第一次去就很乖巧的請求營地指揮官允許她和指揮官本人及戰俘們一起合影。然后,這些照片被裁減,這樣每個戰俘的頭像就可以附在偽造文件上證明這個人是在德國工作的工人。第二次去Stalag III-D時,這些文件都已被悄悄的移交。如果有戰俘逃出來,他就有一張可以保護他的德國身份證了。如琶雅芙所言“我不屬于抵抗運動中的一員,但是我幫助了我們的士兵們。”
By contrast, Jean Guéhenno, an essayist, refused absolutely to write for any outlet approved by the Germans. Instead, his opinions were pseudonymously confined to an underground newspaper, Les Lettres Franeaises, and an equally clandestine publishing house, éditions de Minuit. “Writers should not be seeking the glory of the byline,” he noted in his “Journal des Années Noires”, which was published just after the war. “Now is the time to write for nothing, for pleasure.” Well said—but then Guéhenno did have the financial security of a teaching job at the Lycée Henri IV.
與之相對,散文家讓·蓋埃諾鐵錚錚的拒絕寫任何德國批準的公文,他的觀點只能借假名出現在一家地下報紙——《法國人信札》和同樣保密的出版社——《éditions de Minuit》。他在戰后新出版的《Journal des Années Noires》中寫道“作家,不應該只追求發表文章的自豪感。現在,是不為任何,只為快樂寫作的時候。”說得非常好!但隨后蓋埃諾的確因在亨利四中教書而經濟上得到了保障。
Mr Riding's book is an impressively comprehensive survey of the occupation years: the relentless persecution of France's Jews, especially the foreign-born, by the Vichy authorities as well as the Germans; Goebbels's expropriation of Jewish-owned art; the fascism of some French intellectuals, and the attraction of Stalin's communism for others. One irony is that French cinema, so enriched by Jewish directors, actors and producers before the war, nonetheless flourished after their expulsion thanks to an influx of new talent. Mr Riding particularly praises Marcel Carné's “Les Enfants du Paradis”.
讓人印象非常深刻的是,里丁的書可謂對德占期法國的一次全面調查:法國的猶太人--特別是那些在國外出生的--被維希政權和德方殘酷迫害;戈培爾“征收”(實則為搶)猶太人擁有的藝術品;一些法國知識分子的法西斯主義傾向,也有部分被斯大林的共產主義所吸引。一個巨大的諷刺是,戰前的法國電影因有猶太導演,演員和制片人的加入而更加豐富,在他們遭到驅逐后,因新銳們蜂擁而入,電影業不受影響一如既往的繁榮著。里丁大力贊揚了馬塞爾·卡內爾的《天堂的孩子們》。
But if the French arts, from the chansons of Maurice Chevalier to the ballet of the collaborationist, Serge Lifar, survived the Nazis, how lasting was their victory? Mr Riding saves his best for last, with a discomfiting portrayal of the post-Liberation épuration—the “purge” of collaborators—and a clear-headed judgment of Paris's subsequent cultural status.
但如果法國藝術——從珍妮特·麥克唐納的《香頌》到合作主義者謝爾蓋·里法的芭蕾——有幸逃過納粹一劫,他們的勝利又維持了多久呢?里丁把他最好的篇章留到了最后,一是對解放后的“凈化”——即合作主義者的清算進行了令人不安的描述,還對巴黎后來的文化地位作出了明確判斷。
Simply put, between 1918 and 1939 the French capital was also the cultural capital of the world. Yet, by the late 1940s “culturally the city was no longer a magnet for artists and writers from around the world.” Perhaps that was for the better. Mr Riding notes that French intellectuals have “propagated doctrines—monarchism, Fascism, anti-Semitism, Communism, even Maoism—that offered explanations and solutions for everything.” With these doctrines having failed to bring Utopia, “politically speaking, artists and writers may now be less prominent, but they are also less dangerous.”
簡單的說,1918到1939年間,法國的首都同時也是全世界的文化之都。然而到20世紀40年代后期,“文化上,巴黎不再是吸引全世界的藝術家和作家的‘磁鐵石'了”。也許那樣會更好。里丁寫道,“法國的知識分子們各自鼓吹著包括君主主義,法西斯主義,反猶太主義,共產主義甚至毛澤東主義,以為這些足夠為一切提供解釋和解決之道。”這些理論沒有給他們帶來烏托邦,“政治上來說,藝術家和作家也許不那么重要,但也因為這樣他們不那么危險”。