worst aspects of the modern factory but transform life and art as well. They tried, in Hatherley’s words, ‘to imagine a world in which the machine can be reconciled with a pleasure in excitement, movement, and participation’ (23). While most literary accounts of Soviet Taylorism have tended to focus on Aleksei Gastev, the poet and theorist of NOT (the Scientific Organization of Labour), and Zamiatin, the greatest Soviet critic of Taylorism, the central figure in Hatherley’s account is Vsevolod Meyerhold, whose theory and practice of ‘biomechanics’ dominated Soviet theatre in the 1920s. Having learned from Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd how mechanization could be used to critique the soulless dystopian future imagined by Zamiatin, Meyerhold applied Taylorist notions of analysis, efficiency and rationality to the theatre with spectacular, if short-lived, results. If Hatherley’s discussion of Taylorism in Meyerhold’s theatre is, perhaps, the high point of the book, his larger argument that the achievements of Soviet architecture, poster design and cinema of the period can also be tied to Taylorist thinking ultimately fails to convince. If there is little for specialists in his brief discussions of the ‘usual suspects’ of Soviet cinema (i.e. Dziga Vertov, Esfir’ Shub, Aleksandr Dovzhenko, Vsevolod Pudovkin), Hatherley is more engaged and interesting when excavating obscure filmmakers and forgotten films. For example, if his discussion of synchronized sound in early films about Soviet construction is disjointed and disappointing (interested readers will find much more substantive discussions in Lilya Kaganovsky and Masha Salazkina’s 2013 collection Sound, Speech, Music in Soviet and Post-Soviet Cinema), his pages on Aleksandr Macheret’s Men and Jobs (1932), Nikolai Khodataev’s animated short The Little Music Box (1933), as well as his reading of Vertov’s Enthusiasm and Shub’s KShE – Komsomol: Patron of Electrification alongside Joris Ivens’ Komsomol: Song of the Heroes are interesting and worth reading. Despite its flaws, specialists in Soviet culture of the 1920s will definitely want to read The Chaplin Machine.

中文翻译：

---

不按计划：斯大林时期的电影制作

现代工厂最糟糕的方面，但也改变了生活和艺术。用 Hatherley 的话来说，他们试图“想象一个机器可以与兴奋、运动和参与的乐趣相协调的世界”（23）。虽然大多数关于苏联泰勒主义的文学描述都倾向于关注 NOT（劳动科学组织）的诗人和理论家阿列克谢·加斯泰夫 (Aleksei Gastev) 以及最伟大的苏联泰勒主义批评家扎米亚廷 (Zamiatin)，但哈瑟利 (Hatherley) 描述的核心人物是 Vsevolod Meyerhold，他的“生物力学”的理论和实践在 1920 年代主导了苏联剧院。从查理·卓别林、巴斯特·基顿和哈罗德·劳埃德那里学到了如何利用机械化来批判扎米亚廷想象的没有灵魂的反乌托邦未来，梅耶霍尔德应用了泰勒主义的分析概念，剧院的效率和合理性带来了壮观的，即使是短暂的，结果。如果哈瑟利在梅耶霍尔德剧院中对泰勒主义的讨论也许是这本书的重点，那么他关于苏联建筑、海报设计和那个时期电影的成就也可以与泰勒主义思想联系在一起的更大论点最终无法令人信服。如果在他对苏联电影“常见嫌疑人”（即 Dziga Vertov、Esfir' Shub、Aleksandr Dovzhenko、Vsevolod Pudovkin）的简短讨论中几乎没有专家，那么在挖掘默默无闻的电影制作人和被遗忘的电影时，Hatherley 会更加投入和有趣。例如，如果他在关于苏联建设的早期电影中对同步声音的讨论是脱节和令人失望的（感兴趣的读者会在 Lilya Kaganovsky 和 ​​Masha Salazkina 的 2013 年合集《苏联和后苏联电影中的声音、演讲、音乐》中找到更多实质性的讨论），他在Aleksandr Macheret 的 Men and Jobs (1932)、Nikolai Khodataev 的动画短片 The Little Music Box (1933)，以及他对 Vertov 的 Enthusiasm 和 Shub 的 KShE – Komsomol：电气化的赞助人以及 Joris Ivens 的 Komsomol：英雄之歌的阅读都很有趣并且值得一读。尽管存在缺陷，但 1920 年代苏联文化的专家肯定会想阅读《卓别林机器》。Nikolai Khodataev 的动画短片 The Little Music Box (1933)，以及他对 Vertov 的 Enthusiasm 和 Shub 的 KShE – Komsomol：电气化的赞助人以及 Joris Ivens 的 Komsomol：英雄之歌的阅读都很有趣，值得一读。尽管存在缺陷，但 1920 年代苏联文化的专家肯定会想阅读《卓别林机器》。Nikolai Khodataev 的动画短片 The Little Music Box (1933)，以及他对 Vertov 的 Enthusiasm 和 Shub 的 KShE – Komsomol：电气化的赞助人以及 Joris Ivens 的 Komsomol：英雄之歌的阅读都很有趣，值得一读。尽管存在缺陷，但 1920 年代苏联文化的专家肯定会想阅读《卓别林机器》。