The history of documentary film is both indebted to and stifled by the legacy of John Grierson. Grierson certainly helped to codify documentary into a coherent mode of film practice, yet his politics, while liberal, were not on the Left, and his influence has often occluded more radical voices. For instance, Bill Nichols (2001) argues that within documentary historiography, the pioneering and socially engaged documentaries that emerge from the interwar European modernist avant-garde are often suppressed (582). Further, BrianWinston (2008) has advocated for an ‘un-mooring’ of the documentary tradition tied to Grierson who, Winston asserts, viewed radical politics in documentary as ‘deviancy, a falling off from the “objectivity” that was supposedly documentary’s norm’ (274). A genealogy of radical documentary would be committed to revolutionary politics and thus independent of Grierson. ‘Commitment’ is Thomas Waugh’s (1984) term for the radical strain of documentary that develops in parallel with Grierson’s career. ‘By “commitment”’ Waugh argues, ‘I mean, firstly, a specific ideological undertaking, a declaration of solidarity with the goal of radical socio-political transformation. Secondly, I mean a specific political positioning: activism, or intervention in the process of change itself’ (xiv). Further, such films must not only be made ‘about people engaged in these struggles, but also with and by them as well’ (xiv). The committed or radical documentary first emerges through the work of a diverse range of interconnected transnational filmmakers, theorists and groups including Jean Vigo, Dziga Vertov, Esfir Shub, Joris Ivens, and the US-based Film and Photo League. In inter-war France, Vigo’s (1930) manifesto ‘Towards a Social Cinema’ helped define the movement and vocation of artists associated with the modernist avant-garde in Europe, such as Ivens, who had shifted from a pre-occupation with form and aesthetics to a broader concern with the creation of a ‘social cinema’ that deals directly with the material problems of real people. In post-revolutionary Russia, Vertov’s concept of the kino-eye and his use of montage sparked new ways of viewing the world, while the compilation work of Shub perfected the practice of factography after Vertov’s approach fell out of favor. Factography was a film style and mode of praxis built on the careful compilation of documentary images that manufactured a coherent conception of the Soviet nation for citizens (Malitsky 2013, 188). In the US, The Worker’s Film and Photo League, founded in New York City in 1930, was sponsored by the Communist International and produced a variety of documentary-based film and media in support of labor and union rights. The

中文翻译：

---

简介：今天的激进纪录片

纪录片的历史既使约翰·格里森（John Grierson）的遗产受到了感动，又受其影响。格里尔森当然有助于将纪录片编纂成一种连贯的电影实践模式，但是他的政治虽然自由，却不在左派，他的影响力常常掩盖了更为激进的声音。例如，比尔·尼科尔斯（Bill Nichols（2001））认为，在纪录片史学中，来自两次世界大战的欧洲现代派先锋派的开创性和社会参与的纪录片经常受到压制（582）。此外，布赖恩·温斯顿（Brian Winston，2008）提倡与格里尔森有关的纪录片传统的“不受限制”，温斯顿断言，格里尔森认为纪录片中的激进政治是“偏差”，与所谓的纪录片规范的“客观性”不符。 （274）。激进纪录片的家谱将致力于革命政治，因此独立于格里尔森。“承诺”是托马斯·沃（Thomas Waugh）（1984）对与格里尔森（Grierson）事业并行发展的纪录片激进派系的称呼。沃说：“通过“承诺”，我的意思是，首先，是特定的意识形态工作，是对彻底实现社会政治转型目标的声援。其次，我指的是一种具体的政治立场：行动主义，或干预变革本身”（十四）。此外，这样的电影不仅必须“关于从事这些斗争的人，而且也要和他们一起由他们拍摄”（十四）。致力于纪录片或激进纪录片的出现首先是通过各种相互联系的跨国电影制片人，理论家和团体的工作而产生的，其中包括让·维戈（Jean Vigo），Dziga Vertov，Joris Ivens和美国电影和摄影联盟。在两次世界大战的法国，维哥（1930年）的宣言“迈向社交电影”帮助界定了与欧洲现代派前卫艺术家有关的运动和职业，例如艾文斯（Ivens），他们从对形式和形式的关注开始转向从美学角度出发，更着重于创建“社交电影”，以直接解决现实人的物质问题。在革命后的俄罗斯，韦尔托夫的天眼观及其蒙太奇的使用引发了新的观察世界的方式，而在韦尔托夫的方法失宠之后，舒布的编辑工作完善了事实学的实践。事实摄影术是一种电影风格和实践方式，建立在对纪录片图像的精心汇编上，从而为公民创造了一个统一的苏联民族观念（Malitsky 2013，188）。在美国，1930年在纽约市成立的工人电影和摄影同盟由共产国际赞助，并制作了各种基于纪录片的电影和媒体，以支持劳工和工会权利。这