New Yorker 10月04日 19:10
纪录片《捕食者》:反思《捕获捕食者》的娱乐化与人性缺失
index_new5.html
../../../zaker_core/zaker_tpl_static/wap/tpl_guoji1.html

 

新纪录片《捕食者》深入剖析了2000年代热门节目《捕获捕食者》的现象。该片通过档案片段、原始素材和访谈,揭示了该节目如何将严肃的社会议题转化为娱乐,并由此引发的争议。节目以隐藏摄像机诱捕涉嫌性侵未成年人的男性,并在主持人克里斯·汉森的质问下将其逮捕。然而,纪录片指出,节目在追求戏剧性和观众反应的同时,忽视了被捕者的复杂人性,将个人痛苦和困境进行娱乐化和展露,模糊了其本应承担的社会责任。同时,影片也探讨了当时流行文化中普遍存在的将个人困境进行消费和展播的现象。

📺 《捕食者》揭示了《捕获捕食者》节目将严肃的儿童性侵预防工作娱乐化的倾向。节目通过精心设计的诱捕和公开羞辱环节,吸引了大量观众,并将其定位为“针对恋童癖的《恶搞之家》”,这种娱乐化的处理方式模糊了其作为新闻调查节目的初衷,并引发了关于其道德界限的讨论。

🎭 纪录片深入探讨了节目中反复出现的“笑声”现象,包括主持人、观众乃至执法人员的反应。这种“娱乐化”的呈现方式,虽然可能源于复仇心理或对罪犯的解恨,但同时也暴露了节目将受访者的痛苦和挣扎转化为一种奇观,从而剥夺了他们作为人的尊严,将严肃的社会问题简化为满足观众猎奇心理的表演。

💔 影片通过展示节目拍摄过程中被剪掉的原始素材,呈现了被捕者在面对镜头时的脆弱一面,包括哭泣、道歉和寻求帮助。这些未经剪辑的画面揭示了节目为了追求戏剧冲突而忽视了对这些个体进行更深层次的理解和救助的可能性,也暗示了节目本身在处理复杂人性问题上的局限性,这或许也是其最终停播的原因之一。

🌐 《捕食者》将《捕获捕食者》置于2000年代早期至中期现实电视的背景下进行审视,指出当时许多节目都倾向于消费和利用他人的痛苦来获取利益,例如《天鹅》和《你的爸爸是谁》。《捕获捕食者》的模式与这些节目相似,都通过记录和放大个人的痛苦来吸引观众,反映了当时流行文化中一种普遍的、对他人不幸进行消费的趋势。

In David Osit’s new documentary, “Predators,” the director includes a short clip from a mid-two-thousands episode of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” in which the late-night host—his free-speech tussle with the Trump Administration, at this point, not even close to a glimmer in his eye—is introducing the news journalist Chris Hansen to viewers. “Our next guest is the host of the funniest comedy on television. It’s called ‘To Catch a Predator,’ ” Kimmel says with a grin, as the studio audience’s laughter rings in the background. “If you haven’t seen it, it’s like ‘Punk’d’ for pedophiles.”

Kimmel’s characterization of Hansen’s show may have been tongue-in-cheek, but it also wasn’t off the mark. “To Catch a Predator,” which aired between 2004 and 2007 as part of the news-magazine series “Dateline NBC,” was essentially a hidden-camera prank program. Unlike Ashton Kutcher’s MTV offering, however, its subjects weren’t celebrities falling prey to practical jokery but, instead, members of the public lured into a sting house under the impression that they were about to have sex with a minor, played by an of-age but young-looking decoy whom they had been engaging with online. Once at the house, these men were confronted by Hansen and his camera crew and then arrested by local law enforcement. (The host’s recurring parting promise—“you’re free to go”—was belied by the immediate police tackling of the perpetrators as they tried to leave the premises.)

None of this might sound particularly funny, but what struck me as I watched “Predators”—a thoughtful and disturbing documentary that uses a combination of archival clips, raw footage, and talking-head interviews to examine the history and legacy of “Catch”—was the way mirth kept cropping up again and again, in and around the show. It’s there in Oprah’s excitable interaction with Hansen when she hosts him on her program; it’s there in the uproarious response of a true-crime convention audience as its members watch footage of Hansen questioning a predator; it’s even there in the barely concealed amusement of a police lieutenant as she tells Hansen that one predator, whom the camera crew was about to capture, had shot himself in the head once he came face to face with law enforcement.

The revenge impulse surely plays a part in these gleeful responses: as one woman who has served as a decoy in pedophile-sting operations tells Osit bluntly, “It is fucking funny when a bad person gets what is coming to them.” But the director’s focus on laughter also stands in for a larger critical point that he’s trying to get at. To watch “Predators” is to realize that “Catch” functioned first and foremost as entertainment, which largely mooted its other vaunted missions—to serve justice, to get to the bottom of sexual pathology, to provide solace to abuse survivors—while also flattening the essential humanity of the show’s subjects, turning troubled individuals’ actions into a quasi-pornographic exhibit meant for an audience’s voyeuristic titillation.

“Catch” was a tightly edited show that relied on recurring beats to satisfy its viewers, and one of the ways in which Osit’s documentary begins to loosen that fixed familiarity is through the inclusion of long moments of raw footage taken over the course of various shoots but left on the cutting-room floor. In these clips, we see the predators, once confronted by Hansen or, later, by law enforcement, crying, apologizing, asking for forgiveness and counselling and help—all of which the show, whose chief aim is to elevate perversion and its punishment into spectacle, is both unable and unwilling to provide them with. (“I could tell you’re a therapist,” one of the men tells Hansen, hopefully, to which the host responds, with some incredulity, “You think I’m a therapist?”) Watching these men break down is an uncomfortable experience, and Osit, himself a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, isn’t trying to claim that they are somehow good or blameless. (“I don’t think it’s justifiable,” he says, of the men’s predation.) Still, as the ethnographer Mark de Rond says of the footage, “To show these men as human beings, the show kind of breaks down. And maybe that’s why it didn’t make it on TV.”

Turning humans into fetishes to be observed rather than understood wasn’t just a characteristic of “Catch” but of popular culture more generally at the time of the show’s airing. At one point in the documentary, Osit includes an archival MSNBC clip from the conservative news show “Scarborough Country,” which, right after an interview with Hansen about “Catch,” goes on to promote an upcoming segment about Britney Spears’s mental-health battle. “Oops, she left it again!” a voice-over blares alongside videos of the singer, smiling and waving on the red carpet. “Britney’s second stint at rehab is over and done with. So, can anyone or anything convince her to get the help she so desperately needs?” Spears’s sexualization as an underage star could hardly be extricated from the later struggles that she was publicly shamed for, and, as I watched the clip, it was difficult not to think of the ways in which “Catch,” too, conveniently avoided discussing how the predators that the show uncovered didn’t entirely act alone; the culture itself was predatory.

It bears mentioning, too, that “Catch” didn’t emerge in a generic vacuum. In the early- to mid-two-thousands, reality TV was a relatively young category still finding its footing, and the era was replete with shows whose utter vulgarity pushed the medium’s envelope as far as it could possibly go. Programs such as 2004’s “The Swan,” in which a group of women underwent extensive plastic surgery to become conventionally attractive over the course of a season, or 2005’s “Who’s Your Daddy,” in which eight men competed for a payout of a hundred thousand dollars by each trying to convince an adopted woman that he was her biological father, were part of that era’s reality-TV lingua franca. Like these shows, “Catch” was characterized by a desire not just to document people’s pain but to indulge in and profit off of it.

Fish AI Reader

Fish AI Reader

AI辅助创作,多种专业模板,深度分析,高质量内容生成。从观点提取到深度思考,FishAI为您提供全方位的创作支持。新版本引入自定义参数,让您的创作更加个性化和精准。

FishAI

FishAI

鱼阅,AI 时代的下一个智能信息助手,助你摆脱信息焦虑

联系邮箱 441953276@qq.com

相关标签

Predators To Catch a Predator 纪录片 电视节目 娱乐化 人性 伦理 Documentary TV Show Sensationalism Humanity Ethics
相关文章