One thing I find interesting about filmmakers is that the more they direct,

關於導演，我發現一件很有趣的事是，

the more they can express themselves in the smallest details of a scene.

他們導的作品越多，就越能夠在一場戲中最小的細節裡，表達他們自己

--What is it you want?

“你想要什麼？”

A lot of people think directors are distinguished by how they shoot the big set pieces, the crazy oners, the really stylish stuff.

很多人認為，區別導演的特點是看他們如何拍大場面的、瘋狂的戲、或一些非常有風格的畫面

And yeah, these are the shots that get copied, and they do give you a strong indication of someone's vision.

是沒錯，這些可能都是會被後來的人仿效的鏡頭，

But sooner or later, every filmmaker goes back to scenes like this:

而這些鏡頭的確在解讀一個導演的視界上，給出一些有力的標示

Two people in a room talking. Just about the least cinematic thing there is.

不過遲早每一位導演都要回到這樣的幾場戲：

And it's scenes like this that tell you what they really care about.

”兩個人，在一個空間對話”

If I didn't need a medical officer, I would let you within light years of this operation.

差不多可能就是看起來最不具電影感的東西；但就是像這樣的幾場戲會告訴你，他們真正在乎的是什麼

--I'm eternally grateful. --Keep your sarcasm to yourself.

“如果不是我需要醫務官，我連這個駐地幾光年以內的範圍都不會讓你進來”

And David Fincher? He cares about information.

“我永遠地感謝您”

Unlike many filmmakers,who try to avoid exposition, sometimes Fincher does nothing but.

“留著諷刺你自己吧”

--The salt balance has to be just right,

那大衛芬奇呢？他在乎的是訊息量

so the best fat for making soap comes from humans.

不像很多導演會試著去避免暴露訊息，有時候芬奇只這麼做

--Wait, what is this place? --A liposuction clinic.

“鹽份的量要很正確，所以對做肥皂最好的脂肪就是人體脂肪”

In his world, drama happens when a character learns a new piece of information.

“等一下，這是什麼地方？”

--Just down in the basement.

“抽脂診所”

How does it fit with everything they already know?

在他的視界裡，戲劇就發生在當一個人物發現了一個新的訊息，

--Not many people have basements in California.

“就在地下室裡”

And how do they react to learning a little bit more of the truth?

這跟他們已知的一切有什麼關連？

--I do.

“在加州不是很多人家裡有地下室”

Fincher's style is an extension of this idea and it's interesting to hear him describe his process.

然後他們對於知道了更多一點的真相作何反應？

They know you can do anything, so the question is:

“我有”

What DON'T you do, not what do you do.

芬奇的風格是這種概念的延伸，而聽他描述他的思考方式也很有意思：

So, what does David Fincher NOT do?

“大家知道你什麼都有可能做得到。所以問題是，

For one thing, handheld. Fincher is a locked-down put-it-on-a-tripod filmmaker.

「你不做什麼？」

He hates handheld and does it maybe once per film.

而不是「你做什麼」”

Dragon Tattoo has two scenes, while Zodiac has one,

所以，到底大衛芬奇”不做”什麼呢？

and The Social Network has only this shot.

其中一個，手持。

Se7en has the most handheld of any Fincher film: five scenes.

芬奇是一個「鎖住」、「把機器放在腳架上」的導演，

-- Phone. Phone. Phone? Phone?

他不喜歡手持感，一部片裡可能就手持一次

But even when he uses it, notice how he designs around it.

龍紋身的女孩有兩場手持拍攝的戲，同時索命黃道帶有一場，而社群網戰只有這麼一個鏡頭

The camerawork on the detectives is shaky, while John Doe,

火線追緝令裡是目前芬奇的作品裡有最多手持拍攝的：5場戲

who has all the power in the scene, is shot on a tripod, rock-solid.

“電話! 電話，電話。電話？”

--WHAT'S IN THE BOOOOOX? --Not till you give me the gun.

不過即使他用手持，留心一下他是怎麼設計手持拍攝的

--WHAT'S IN THE FUCKING BOX! --Give me the gun.

在火線追緝令這場戲中，在警探的戲份上，攝影機運動晃動得非常劇烈，

--He just told you.

然而在杜約翰(無名氏)的部分，他是這場戲中握有所有掌控權的人，是放在腳架上拍的，穩得不能再穩

Another thing Fincher avoids is the sense of a human being operating the camera.

“盒子裡是什麼？”

At a time when many filmmakers are deliberately adding camera shake

“除非你把槍給我”

or mistakes to their shots to make it seem like there was a person there,

“他媽的盒子裡到底是什麼”

Fincher is doing the opposite.

“把槍給我”

--I just love the idea of omniscience the camera goes over here perfectly,

“他剛才就告訴你了”

and it goes over there kinda perfectly

芬奇會避免的另外一樣事情是：人為操控攝影機的感覺

and it doesn't have any personality to it, it's very much like

每次當許多導演故意增加攝影機晃動、或是在鏡頭運動上出現失誤，以求畫面看起來更具真人臨場感時，

what's happening was doomed to happen.

芬奇會反其道而行

Sometimes you can't tell whether a shot was human-controlled, motion-controlled or CGI.

“我就是滿喜歡這種全知的感覺，

The final effect is ominous, like something out of the Overlook Hotel.

攝影機感覺很完美地走到這裏，然後再很完美地移動到那裏，

He also doesn't cut to a close-up unless he needs to.

運動中不帶有任何人性的感覺，這很像是在說，

Even though Fincher's close-ups and inserts are really distinctive,

這些正在發生的事情，是注定會發生的”

he rarely cuts in because... --Every time you go to a close-up...

有時候你很難講某個鏡頭到底是人為操控、動態設備操控，還是電腦動畫做出來的，

... the audience knows: "Look at this, this is important." You have to be very, very

這些鏡頭最終產生了一種惡兆的感覺，像是會從“鬼店”的「眺望旅館」裡出來的東西

cautious and careful about when you choose to do it.

剪輯上，他也不怎麼切進特寫，除非他需要這麼做

In any given scene, he'll only go to the close-up for one or two moments.

即使芬奇的特寫和嵌入鏡頭非常的獨特且具辨識度，他也很少剪接進去，因為…

And the more he's directed, the less often he's done it.

“每次你使用了一個特寫，觀眾會知道 ”看這個，這個鏡頭很重要“，

--You'd have made a great Secretary of State.

因此當你選擇要使用它的時候，你必須非常謹慎和小心”

These moments gain power precisely because he withholds the shot elsewhere.

在任何一場戲裡，他只會在某一或二個時刻中切進特寫。而隨著他導演的作品越來越多，他越來越少這麼做

And lastly, he never moves the camera if he can help it.

“如果你當國務卿，一定會做得很好”

--I wanted to present, in as wide a frame,

而這些時刻能夠精準的集中力量，是因為他克制的使用在對的地方

and in as unloaded a situation as possible,

最後，如果可以的話，他絕不會去移動他的攝影機

as much of a kinda simple proscenium way,

“我想要盡可能地用廣的鏡頭、多訊息的畫面去呈現一個情況，

this is what's going on, this is what this guy sees.

像是那種單純的舞台幕前的表現方式，這是現在正在發生的情況、這就是這個人所看到的”

--You don't pay attention. --What is this?

“你沒在專心”

So consider all these restrictions he gives himself.

“這是怎樣？”

No handheld, no human operating, no unnecessary close-ups, no unmotivated camera moves.

所以，思考一下這些他給他自己的約束，

Now let's give him a scene of just people talking. Can he make it cinematic?

不使用手持、沒有人為操控感、不切不必要的特寫鏡頭、沒有動機就不移動畫面

--Killer put a bucket beneath him, kept on serving.

現在來給他一場只有人們對話的戲，他能否把它拍得具電影感呢？

Coroner said this could have gone on for more than 12 hours.

“兇手在他下方放了一個水桶，一直餵食”

Oh yeah. Talking isn't cinematic but drama is.

“驗屍官說這原本會持續下去超過12個小時”

This scene is about three people, one standing, two sitting.

沒錯。談話並不具電影感，但戲劇有

The first thing Fincher does is bring us over here to listen to these two.

這場戲是關於三個人，一個站著，兩個坐著

Just from shot sizes we can tell this is more important to Somerset than to the chief, but neither will budge.

芬奇做的第一件事是把我們帶到這裡，來聽這兩人對話

When the detective tries to drop the case... --I'd like to be reassigned.

就從景別來判斷的話，我們可以知道相對於警長來說，這件事對於桑摩賽比較重要，

... we shift to a different angle of the chief and of Somerset.

但兩人都不妥協

This is our clue that Mills is trying to work his way in.

當桑摩賽想要放下這個案子不管的時候，

But Somerset, who's looking nowhere near the eyeline, ignores him.

“我想被派到別的案子”

When the younger detective cuts in: --Hey man, you know, I'm right here,

我們被帶到一個不一樣的角度來看警長和桑摩賽，

--you can say that shit to my face.

這給了我們一個線索，表示米爾斯正在想辦法切入這場對話

We go back to this angle, with Somerset finally facing him.

但桑摩賽的視角完全沒有貼近軸線，忽視他

This puts the chief in a tough spot, and he has to put his foot down.

當這個年輕的警探要插話的時候：

--Give it to me. --No I'm putting you on something else.

“嘿，我人就在這裡，你有什麼屁話可以對著我講”

This is the only close-up of the chief in this scene and Fincher saves it for the moment Mills gets totally dismissed.

我們重新回到這個角度，桑摩賽終於面對著他

So even without sound, you understand the purpose of this scene.

這讓警長處在了兩難之中，而他必須採取堅定的立場

Fincher has taken your eyes and brought them here to see this drama,

“把這案子給我”

here to see this one, and then here for the final shutdown.

“不，我要把你派到別的案子”

Three characters, three relationships, all staged for the camera to see.

這是這場戲中警長唯一一個特寫，而芬奇將它保留到當米爾斯完全被打發走的時候

--I'm sorry, old buddy.

所以即使沒有聲音，你也能懂這場戲的重點和目的

The next time these characters are together, look how far away Mills is sitting.

芬奇操控著我們的眼睛，把它們帶到這裡，來看這段戲，這裡來看另一段，然後移到這裡來看最後的結尾

But once Somerset starts to explain his theory:

三個人物，三種關係，都佈置好，讓攝影機帶著觀眾看

--Gluttony, greed

“抱歉了，老兄弟”

Fincher brings us over here to show them looking at each other in the same frame.

下一次這三個人物聚在一起的時候，看一下米爾斯的位置坐得有多遠

Even though they don't work together for another 10 minutes,

不過一旦桑摩賽開始解釋他的觀點：

it's here that they begin to respect each other.

“暴食、貪婪、”

You can actually watch Se7en and see the progression of this relationship

芬奇把我們帶到這裡，看他們兩個在同一個畫面裡互相對視，

in any shot that has the two of them together,

即使他們下一個十分鐘內還不會一起合作，但從這裡他們即將會開始尊敬對方

ending with this one. THAT is good directing.

你其實可以看火線追緝令，

And as Fincher has gotten older, he's actually gotten more subtle.

然後在任何一個同時有他們兩個一起的鏡頭中，看到他們關係的進展，

For instance, now he's really good at using emptiness in the frame.

而以這個鏡頭結束。這，是很好的導演技法

So he'll cut to a chair with no one in it.

而隨著芬奇越來越年長，他變得越來越精巧

--Eduardo was the president of the Harvard Investors Association and he was also my best friend.

舉例來說，現在畫框中的空白這個技巧他使用得很好

or an empty space for an absent husband.

所以，他會把畫面切到一張上面沒人坐著的椅子

--That's too bad, we're gonna talk about this.

“愛德華多之前是哈佛投資人協會的社長，而他之前也是我最好的朋友”

And when is it gonna be finished?

或是給不在場的丈夫一個空白的空間

He'll build an entire scene to a moment when someone looks into the lens, happy.

“這太糟了，我們要來商量一下。”

--I'm very glad to be here, thank you for having me.

“而且這什麼時候會結束？”

or terrified. --Take care of yourself, Sam.

他會把整場戲建構到一個時刻，讓一個人注視著鏡頭，表示開心，

And he'll show us the inside of someone's fridge.

“感謝邀請，我非常高興能在這裡。”

It's true that Fincher has a reputation for being uncompromising, shooting 50 or 60 or 99 takes of a scene.

或是受到驚嚇

--Double rainbow? Oh my God, what does it mean?

“當心一點，山姆”

At the same time, it's great to watch someone who's actually good at their job.

然後他會把某人的冰箱內部給我們看

Someone who can show the power relationship change with a single cut.

確實，芬奇有著不輕易妥協的風評，

--Kill the phones.

一場戲或一個鏡頭可以拍50，60，或99個鏡次

Someone who's willing to let this moment play in full...

“每一次，他媽的雨。”

... or just let us watch the characters walk from point A to point B.

“雙重彩虹，天啊，祂有什麼含意啊？”

Even if you don't like Fincher, this is someof the best craft in directing right now and it is absolutely worth studying.

同時，看著一個對他所做的工作很在行的人其實是種享受

--I'm not the Zodiac, and if I was, I certainly wouldn't tell you.

一個用一次剪切就能將關係中的主導地位轉換表現出來的導演

And if you do like him, here is what he thinks of you.

“把電話線切了”

--I think people are perverts.

一個樂意呈現這種細節的導演

I've maintained that, that's been..

或著就只是讓我們看人物從A點走到B點

that's the foundation of my career.

即使你不喜歡芬奇，這是目前其中幾種最好的導演技法之一，而且絕對值得研究

Subtitles by the Amara.org community

“我不是黃道帶殺手，而且如果我是，我當然不會告訴你”