It’s way too easy to feel jaded about Oscar season. The forced pomp, the moneyed campaigns, the boggling repetition of dozens of awards fetes could jaundice any eye. But it’s tougher to be cynical about the documentary category, where an Oscar nomination, let alone a win, can have mighty ripple effects.

奥斯卡颁奖季真是太容易让人厌倦了。强加于人的盛典、挥金如土的宣传，颁奖时的赞美要结结巴巴地重复几十遍，真是让人腻味。但是要对纪录片这一项冷嘲热讽可就没那么容易，因为在这个类别里，一项奥斯卡提名都会带来巨大的连锁反应，更别提获奖了。

Kirby Dick’s Oscar-nominated “The Invisible War” (2012), about sexual assault in the military, led to a House hearing on the matter. After the release of Louie Psihoyos’s Oscar winner, “The Cove” (2009), about the slaughter of dolphins in Japan, the number of dolphins and porpoises killed there fell by 17,000 a year. And “An Inconvenient Truth,” the 2006 film starring Al Gore that won two Oscars, thrust global warming into the public conversation — and look how well we heeded him! (Insert sad emoticon here.)

科比·迪克(Kirby Dick)获奥斯卡提名的《隐秘的战争》(The Invisible War，2012)是关于军队中的性侵问题，最后众议院还就此进行了一次听证会。路易·西霍尤斯(Louie Psihoyos)的奥斯卡获奖影片《海豚湾》(The Cove，2009)是关于日本捕杀海豚问题的，该片上映后，海豚与鼠海豚的捕杀量在一年内降低了1.7万头。2006年的《难以忽视的真相》(An Inconvenient Truth)以阿尔·戈尔(Al Gore)为主角，获得了两项奥斯卡奖，令全球变暖成为公众议题——另外，看看我们对他有多么关注吧！（此处插入一个悲伤的表情）。

All of which, for the Bagger, raises a question: What onus, if any, falls on the Academy to spotlight documentaries that might bring about a measure of justice? Should substance trump style, or is it folly to assume they’re mutually exclusive?

这一切向人们提出一个问题：奥斯卡奖有什么样的义务（如果真的有）令纪录片获得世人关注，从而带来某种公正？内容是否应当重于风格，内容与风格是否真的互不兼容呢？

For years, the Academy’s documentary choices had been denounced for what the critic Owen Gleiberman described as a “self-defeating aesthetic of granola documentary correctness.” In 2009, he lamented that the shortlist — which is culled from all eligible entrants, and from which the final five nominations are drawn — not only excluded some of that year’s most entertaining nonfiction offerings but also came off like a “program for the Mother Teresa Film Festival.” In other words, too much spinach.

奥斯卡奖选择纪录片的标准多年来一直受到批评，评论家欧文·格莱博曼(Owen Gleiberman)称之为“速食麦片纪录片，从正确性出发，弄巧成拙的美学”。2009年，奥斯卡纪录片奖的提名名单都是从以道德为主题的影片中选择的，最后五名入围提名的影片也要从中产生，格莱博曼哀叹，这个名单不仅把这一年某些最有意思的非虚构影片排除在外，而且显得活像“特蕾莎修女电影节”。换句话说，它太扯了。

But is there a chance that things have since swung too far the other way? In 2012, the Academy changed its rules and began requiring that only documentaries that had been reviewed in The Los Angeles Times or The New York Times would be eligible for Oscar nominations, a decision that kept more obscure films out of the race. And in 2013, the documentary race was broadened to allow every member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences — not just those in the documentary branch — to vote for the final winner. Michael Lumpkin, director of the American Film Institute’s documentary festival, said the shifts underscored the more prominent role that documentaries play in our culture’s media consumption. Michael Moore, who led the move for the changes, says they also democratized the process.

但是，在另一个方面，奥斯卡奖是否又走得太远了？2012年，美国艺术与科学学院改变了规则，要求只有获得《洛杉矶时报》(The Los Angeles Times)或《纽约时报》影评的纪录片才能获得奥斯卡提名，这个决定令许多不知名的影片难以参与竞争。2013年，纪录片评选委员会又进行了扩展，允许每名美国电影艺术与科学学院的成员都能评选最终获奖影片（此前只有纪录片部门的成员能够评奖）。美国电影协会纪录片节总监迈克尔·兰普金(Michael Lumpkin)说，这个变化更强调纪录片在媒体消费中所扮演的显著作用。倡导这一变革的迈克尔·摩尔(Michael Moore)说，这些举措令评选程序更加民主。

The new rules also might have affected what makes the shortlist and what, in the end, wins.

新的规则亦可能影响到决选名单，乃至最终的获胜者。

Thom Powers, artistic director of the Doc NYC film festival (he wears hats for several other prominent festivals, too) is not an Academy member but has, he said, “spent a long time in the weeds following these things.” Since the voting change went into effect for the 2013 awards, he said, he’s seen a noticeable shift on the shortlists away from documentaries that are barely known.

纽约纪录片电影节(Doc NYC)艺术总监汤姆·鲍尔斯(Thom Powers)——他也为其他许多著名电影节担任艺术总监——并不是学院成员，但他说，自己“花大量时间关注这些东西”。自从评选规则改变，并于2013年评奖过程中生效之后，他说，他发现决选名单有了显著的变化，鲜为人知的纪录片明显变少了。

“All are films that distinguished themselves at film fests or theatrically or had critical acclaim,” Mr. Powers said of the more recent selections. That includes the somewhat surprising semifinalists for the 2016 awards, like Laurie Anderson’s free-form film essay about loss, “Heart of a Dog,” and “We Come as Friends,” about the exploitation of South Sudan. (The list of 15 was announced Dec. 1, and the nominees will be revealed on Jan. 14.) While Ms. Anderson told the Bagger she was surprised that her film had been included — even her French producers told her, “We don’t think Americans will like it” — it was a critical darling. And while “We Come as Friends” hasn’t generated a ton of discussion, it won prizes at the Sundance and Berlin film festivals.

“都是那些在电影节、影院或影评界获得声誉的片子，”鲍尔斯谈起近期的入围影片选择。其中包括2016年有些让人吃惊的半决选名单，12月1日宣布了15部影片，正式提名将在1月14日宣布，劳瑞·安德森(Laurie Anderson)形式自由、关于失落的电影散文《狗心》(Heart of a Dog)以及关于对南苏丹剥削的《友谊》(We Come as Friends)都入围了。安德森女士告诉《纽约时报》的“Bagger”专栏，对于电影能够入围，她自己也感到吃惊，她的法国制片人们告诉她，“我们觉得美国人不会喜欢这部片子”，不过，它是评论家们的宠儿。至于《友谊》，它还没有激起很多讨论，不过已经在圣丹斯电影节和柏林电影节上获奖。

Still, the Academy is known to favor show business movies and, lo, two of the last three winners of the documentary prize, along with one of this year’s front-runners, “Amy,” the story of Amy Winehouse, are about just that.

然而，奥斯卡奖以青睐娱乐业主题的影片著称，你看，过去三年里，有两部获奖纪录片都是关于娱乐业的，今年呼声很高的影片《艾米》(Amy)也是，它是关于艾米·怀恩豪斯(Amy Winehouse)的故事。

In 2013, when the nominated documentaries delved into subjects like AIDS and conflict in the Middle East, the prize went to “Searching for Sugar Man,” about a tremendously gifted, woefully obscure musician from Detroit. For the 2014 awards, when the nominees included Joshua Oppenheimer’s artful, devastating “The Act of Killing,” about death squads in Indonesia, along with films about the Egyptian uprising and deadly covert American military operations, the Oscar went to “20 Feet From Stardom,” about backup singers who were largely forgotten despite having been instrumental (as it were) in making hits.

2013年，提名影片中包括了讲述艾滋病和中东冲突等主题的影片，但最后获奖的却是《寻找小糖人》(Searching for Sugar Man)，它讲述一个才华横溢却不幸默默无闻的底特律音乐家的故事。2014年，提名中包括约书亚·奥本海默(Joshua Oppenheimer)充满艺术性的惊人影片《杀戮演绎》(The Act of Killing)讲述印度尼西亚的屠杀组织，此外还有关于埃及起义和美国杀伤性军事秘密行动的影片，大奖却给了《离巨星20英尺》(20 Feet From Stardom)，它讲述和声歌手们的故事，她们在金曲工业中扮演乐器（和工具）的角色，却被世人遗忘。

“The knock against the system is people think it favors films that are more about show business,” Mr. Powers said. “Well, of course it does. The Association of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is an organization of show business people. Why shouldn’t it?”

“这对体系的冲击是，人们觉得奥斯卡更偏爱有关娱乐业的影片，”鲍尔斯先生说。“好吧，确实如此。美国电影艺术与科学学院就是一个娱乐业人士的组织，他们为什么不能青睐娱乐业影片呢？”

Paradoxically, the documentary branch’s self-consciousness about that perception might have hurt one of the projected shoo-ins last year. “Life Itself” had all the winning ingredients: a movie about a beloved film-world figure, the critic Roger Ebert, directed by Steve James, maker of “Hoop Dreams” and “The Interrupters,” both of which failed to receive nominations, to much chagrin.

讽刺的是，学院的纪录片分部对这一观点的自我认识，或许损害了去年一部呼声很高的影片。《人生如戏》(Life Itself)具备所有获奖因素：它的主角是电影节备受爱戴的评论家罗杰·艾伯特(Roger Ebert)，由史蒂夫·詹姆斯(Steve James)导演，他亦曾导演过《篮球梦》(Hoop Dreams)和《阻断者》(The Interrupters)，二者都以微弱差距落败，未能获得提名。

Yet “Life Itself” failed to make it off the shortlist. Why? One theory holds that members of the documentary branch held back on voting for it because they feared it would sweep among the broader Academy membership, and the branch wanted the Oscar to go to “Citizenfour,” a zeitgeist nailer about Edward J. Snowden, directed by Laura Poitras, who is highly regarded. (It did win.)

然而《人生如戏》去年亦没有入围决选名单。为什么？有一个说法是，纪录片部门的成员在评选时有所保留，因为他们担心它会在整个学院最终评选时获得绝对优势，而纪录片部门希望《第四公民》(Citizenfour)获奖，这部针砭时事的影片以爱德华·J·斯诺登(Edward J. Snowden)为主角，由备受尊敬的劳拉·珀特阿斯(Laura Poitras)导演，最后该片也确实获奖了。

This year, three of the 15 shortlisted films are about show-business personalities. Compare that with the shortlists from the five years before the initial rule change: Out of the 75 selected documentaries, there were just six about showbiz.

今年，15部决选名单中有三部影片是关于娱乐界人士的。而在决选名单规则开始修改之前的5年时间里，在75部候选纪录片里，只有6部是关于娱乐界的。

Joining “Amy” this year are “Listen to Me Marlon,” an archival exploration of the unvarnished, often anguished audio diary of Marlon Brando, and “What Happened, Miss Simone?” about the tormented musician and civil rights activist Nina Simone.

今年的候选影片除了《艾米》，还有《马龙，听我说》(Listen to Me Marlon)，它使用档案资料，研究马龙·白兰度(Marlon Brando)质朴而时常充满痛苦的视频日记。此外还有《发生什么了，西蒙妮小姐？》(What Happened, Miss Simone?)，主人公是经历坎坷的音乐家与民权运动斗士妮娜·西蒙妮。

Among the non-showbiz-related favorites are Mr. Oppenheimer’s “The Look of Silence,” an intimate companion piece to his earlier work about Indonesia; “Going Clear,” Alex Gibney’s profile of Scientology; and “Cartel Land,” about vigilantes fighting Mexico’s drug wars.

除了娱乐界相关的影片之外，其他呼声很高的影片包括奥本海默的《沉默之像》(The Look of Silence)，是他上一部关于印度尼西亚影片的续集，更富于私人色彩；还有《拨开迷雾》(Going Clear)，由亚历克斯·吉布尼(Alex Gibney)执导，对山达基教进行了描绘；以及《贩毒之地》(Cartel Land)，主角是墨西哥毒品战争中的义务警员们。

“Amy” and “The Look of Silence” have been mopping up awards, raising the prospect, as the Bagger has noted, that Mr. Oppenheimer might again lose an Oscar to a songstress.

《艾米》与《沉默之像》都各自获得不少奖项，从而令获奖机会大增，正如“Bagger”专栏指出，奥本海默可能会再度因为一位女歌手错失奥斯卡奖。

But would this be a bad thing? The Bagger put the question to Mr. Moore, whose new film, “Where to Invade Next,” is on the shortlist, and he quickly took issue with the implication that “Sugar Man” and “20 Feet From Stardom” were merely about show business.

但这是坏事吗？“Bagger”带着这个问题去问迈克尔·摩尔，他的新片《接着侵略哪儿》(Where to Invade Next)也入围了决选名单，说起《寻找小糖人》和《离巨星20英尺》两部影片都是关于娱乐业的，他很快对此表示了反对意见。

While “20 Feet From Stardom” was essentially about African-American artists whose work had been forgotten, he said, “Sugar Man” was about a Latino man from Detroit whose deep talent didn’t help him escape either obscurity or poverty.

他说《离巨星20英尺》其实是关于非裔美国艺术家们的贡献长期被遗忘的事实，而《小糖人》则是讲述一位底特律拉丁裔艺术家虽然极具才华，但仍然无法逃脱无名与贫穷的处境。

“As a person from Detroit, I’m glad those stories got told,” Mr. Moore said. “They’re important films.”

“作为一个底特律人，我很高兴这两个故事能被讲出来，”摩尔先生说。“它们是很重要的影片。”

For his part, Mr. Moore said, he votes for the best film rather than the one that merely echoes his political beliefs. He also said that when film students ask him about making political films, he always relays the same advice.

至于他自己，摩尔先生说，他会为最好的电影投票，而不是为最符合自己政治理念的电影投票。他还说，每当电影学院的学生们就政治题材电影向他发问时，他也会给出同样的忠告。

“You’ve got to put art ahead of the politics,” he said. “The politics obviously are very important, that’s why you’re making the film. But if you make a crappy movie, nobody is going to see it, and your politics are going to get hurt by it.”

“你得把艺术放在政治前面，”他说。“政治显然非常重要，所以我们才拍这类电影。但如果你拍了一部烂片，那就根本没人要看，你的政治观点也会因此受到损害。”

Yet even Mr. Moore admitted that such an ethos doesn’t help when it comes to choosing between equally fine but wildly different films — between, say, one about a singer poisoning herself to death before our eyes and the other about justice delayed in a far-off land.

然而摩尔先生也承认，如果在两部同样优秀，但主题却大相径庭的电影中选择，这个原则就没有什么用处了——比如一部讲述一位歌星如何在众目睽睽之下用毒品将自己戕害致死的纪录片，和一部关于遥远国度里正义迟迟未能实现的纪录片。

Indeed, in a way, “Amy” makes for the tougher film. It so closely watches Ms. Winehouse destroy herself that the audience feels implicated, not simply for not looking away, but also for judging, even cackling, along the way. With that one, it’s not on Indonesia. It’s on us.

其实，在某种程度上，《艾米》可能是更加残酷的影片。它近距离审视了怀恩豪斯如何毁灭自己，观众们会觉得自己牵涉其中，不仅仅是因为他们无法转过头去视而不见，也是因为他们必须在观影过程中做出评判，甚至发出笑声。做出这样的选择，并非因为另一部是说的印度尼西亚，而是因为这部片子是关于我们自身。