2017 marked the centenary of the birth of the French ethnographic filmmaker Jean Rouch. For many, the anniversary seemed an auspicious moment to revisit his expansive archive. In January, ambassadors, filmmakers, anthropologists and artists gathered at the Hôtel de Ville in Paris to announce an impressive programme of screenings and events – a yearlong celebration of the filmmaker’s singular vision, exuberant spirit and passion for cinema. Just as these centenary festivities began to unfold, Studies in French Cinema published a special issue on the French New Wave (2017). In the introduction, Douglas Morrey argued for the need to return to the New Wave by appealing, quite convincingly, to all that still ‘remains to be said’ about the films and figures associated with this era in French film history (109). This dossier aims to speak to and about both the interest piqued by the Rouch centenary events and the enduring resonance of French film culture of the 1950s and 1960s. Although Jacques Rivette referred to Rouch in 1968 as ‘le moteur de tout le cinéma français depuis dix ans’1(Aumont et al. 1968, 20), he continues to be positioned as a peripheral figure in most narratives about the New Wave, when and if he is mentioned at all. In many ways, the reticence around Rouch and his film work is understandable. A filmmaker, of course, Rouch was also an ethnographer employed by the Centre national de la recherche scientifique; since most of his research took place in West Africa (particularly in Niger), his films often focused on issues and individuals that felt distant to the concerns and day-to-day lives of those in metropolitan France. Furthermore, as experiments in what he came to call ‘shared anthropology’, even as early as the 1950s, Rouch’s film work illustrated a profound re-thinking of both anthropological and cinematic practice. Collaborating with his subjects and combining fiction and non-fiction techniques, Rouch developed an approach that blurred traditional distinctions between subject and observer, as well as those between documentary and fiction film. And though a handful of his films have circulated widely and received significant critical attention – Les Maîtres fous/Mad Masters (1955), Moi, un Noir/Me, A Black Man (1958), Chronique d’un été/Chronicle of a Summer (Jean Rouch and Edgar Morin, 1961) – his archive consists of over one hundred films, some still unfinished and others in various states of disrepair, shot over the course of a career that spanned six decades and several continents. Adding to this complexity is the fact that Rouch’s relationship to cinematic form was anything but faithful. Perhaps Jean-André Fieschi (1978) said it best when he wrote that the novelty of Rouch’s approach resided ‘surtout dans l’inconfort dont elle joue (et se joue), faisant flèche de tout bois, usant de techniques diverses, arpentant des espaces jusqu’à elle non-quadrillés, mêlant des procédés jusqu’à elle antinomiques, et ne se laissant enfermer dans aucune donnée acquise’2 (255). While the singularity of his professional path and his aesthetic eclecticism made for highly original film work, it has rendered analysis and summary challenging, to say the least. Fieschi’s description of the filmmaker’s practice is exceptionally articulate; most scholars, critics and viewers have struggled to find language and labels capacious enough to offer insight into what, exactly, Rouch was attempting to do with and through cinematic form. And the filmmaker did little to clear up any ambiguity. Robert Gardner once had Rouch as a guest on his series, Screening Room (1980), asking him: ‘Do you think of yourself as a filmmaker or as an anthropologist, or does that matter...?’ To which he responded: ‘Yes, [anthropologists] consider me as a filmmaker, [and] when

中文翻译：

---

破坏性形式：让·鲁什（Jean Rouch）的电影院

2017年是法国民族志电影制片人让·鲁什（Jean Rouch）诞辰一百周年。对于许多人来说，周年纪念日是重新访问他庞大档案馆的一个吉祥时刻。一月份，大使，电影制片人，人类学家和艺术家聚集在巴黎的市政厅，宣布了令人印象深刻的放映和活动计划，这是对电影制片人奇异的眼光，旺盛的精神和对电影的热情的一年庆祝活动。就在这些百年纪念活动开始展开之际，《法国电影研究》在《法国新浪潮》（2017年）上发行了特刊。在引言中，道格拉斯·莫里（Douglas Morrey）辩称，有必要非常有说服力地呼吁与法国电影史上与该时代相关的所有电影和人物继续回到“新浪潮”（109）。本卷宗旨在探讨和讲述鲁什（Rouch）百年纪念活动引起的兴趣以及1950年代和1960年代法国电影文化的持久共鸣。尽管雅克·里维特（Jacques Rivette）在1968年将鲁什（Rouch）称为“十年来所有法国电影的引擎” 1（Aumont等人，1968年，第20页），但在关于“新浪潮”的大多数叙事中，当和如果有人提到他。在许多方面，对鲁什及其电影作品的沉默是可以理解的。当然，电影制片人鲁什（Rouch）也是受国家科学研究中心聘用的人种志专家。由于他的大部分研究都发生在西非（尤其是尼日尔），因此他的电影经常聚焦于与法国大都市的人们所关注和日常生活远离的问题和个人。此外，作为他所谓的“共享人类学”的实验，甚至在1950年代，鲁什的电影作品就对人类学和电影实践进行了深刻的重新思考。Rouch与他的主题合作，将小说和非小说技术相结合，开发了一种方法，该方法模糊了主题和观察者之间以及纪录片和小说电影之间的传统区别。尽管他的几部电影广为流传并受到了广泛的关注-莱斯·玛特·特斯（LeMaétresfous）/疯狂大师（Mad Masters）（1955），莫伊（Moi），诺瓦（No Noir）/我，黑人（1958），克罗尼克·邓泰（Chronique d'unété）/夏令编（让·鲁什（Jean Rouch）和埃德加·莫林（Edgar Morin），1961年）-他的档案包括一百多部电影，其中一些尚未完成，而另一些处于各种失修状态，在跨越六十年和几大洲的职业生涯中拍摄。Rouch与电影形式的关系绝非忠实，这一事实进一步增加了这种复杂性。也许让·安德烈·菲斯基（Jean-AndréFieschi）（1978）最好地表达了这一点，当他写道Rouch的方法的新颖之处在于“尤其是在她演奏（和演奏）的不适感中，用各种技术制作任何木材的箭头，使用各种技术，勘测空间它不是平方的，混合了它的反过程，并且不允许自身被锁定在任何获取的数据中[2]（255）。至少可以说，尽管他的专业道路之独特和他的美学折衷主义使高度原创的电影作品成为现实，但它却给分析和总结带来了挑战。菲斯奇对制片人的作法的描述非常清晰；大多数学者 评论家和观众一直在努力寻找足够大的语言和标签，以深入了解Rouch试图通过电影形式进行的尝试。电影制片人几乎没有消除任何歧义。罗伯特·加德纳（Robert Gardner）曾经让鲁什（Rouch）作为他的系列电影《放映厅（1980）》的客人，问他：“你认为自己是电影制片人还是人类学家，还是...？” 他回应说：“是的，[人类学家]认为我是电影制片人，[以及] “你认为自己是电影制片人还是人类学家，或者这有关系吗……？” 他回应说：“是的，[人类学家]认为我是电影制片人，[以及] “你认为自己是电影制片人还是人类学家，或者这有关系吗……？” 他回应说：“是的，[人类学家]认为我是电影制片人，[以及]