(“today we are going to talk about a film-maker who began making very unique films in the late 1920s. He was French, and his name was Jean Painlevé.” (1920년대 후반 아주 독특한 영화를 만들기 시작한 어떤 영화 감독에 대해 이야기할 거고 그 사람은 “Jean Painlevé”라는 이름의 프랑스 사람이라는 것)

A. To discuss the style of an early filmmaker (“Jean Painlevé”라는 감독의 이름이 직접 언급되지 않았지만, “an early filmmaker”라고 해서 어떤 한 명의 감독임을 알 수 있음)
B. To describe different types of filmmaking in the 1930s (영화 만들기의 다른 종류를 언급한 것은 아님. 또한 1930년대라는 말도 1920년대 후반의 독특한 영화를 만든 감독에 대해 알아보겠다는 것과 다른 시기임)
C. To discuss the emergence of the documentary film (기록 영화의 출현에 대한 내용이 아님)
D. To describe Painleve’s influence on today’s science-fiction films (영화 감독의 이름은 나왔지만, 그 감독이 오늘날의 영화에 영향을 준 것이 강의의 전체 주제는 아님)

(“Now in a way, Painlevé’s films conform to norms of the 20s and 30s, that is, they don’t fit very neatly into the categories we use to classify films today.” (어떤 면에서 그의 영화는 1920년대와 1930년대의 규범을 따르고 있음. 즉, 그 영화들은 오늘날 우리가 영화를 분류하기 위해 사용하는 목록에 잘 맞지 않음)

(“He confused his audience in the way he portrayed the animals he filmed, mixing up our notions of the categories human and animal.”라고 언급. 즉, 인간과 동물에 대한 우리의 개념을 혼합해서 묘사했기 때문에 관객을 혼란스럽게 했다는 것)

(‘sea horse(해마)’는 어떤 주제를 뒷받침해 주기 위한 예시로 사용된 것임에 주의. 즉, “He liked twists, he liked the unusual. In fact, one of his favorite sea animals was the seahorse…”라고 언급한 부분에서 알 수 있듯이 그 감독은 꼬여 있는 것을 좋아했고 또한 일반적이지 않은 것들을 좋아했다는 것을 언급하면서 해마를 예시로 들어준 것임)

“Painlevé and Cousteau did both film underwater, and they were both innovators, so you are right in that sense. But that’s pretty much where the similarities end.” 라고 언급한 부분. 즉, “Painlevé” 와”Cousteau” 둘 다 수중에 대해 영화화 한 것은 맞지만 비슷한 점은 거기서 멈춘다는 것. 이 문제에 접근 방법 중 가장 중요한 것은 오늘 강의의 주제는”Cousteau”가 아니라 “Painlevé” 라는 사실에 주목하는 것임. 따라서 보기 C와 같이 “Cousteau”이 주어로 나온 것은 오답임. 또한 보기 A처럼 이 둘이 서로 서로에게 어떤 식으로 영향을 주거나 관계가 있다는 것은 틀린 내용. 공통점은 물속에 대해 영화를 찍었다는 것만 있다고 언급했음)

D. To demonstrate the superiority of Painleve’s filmmaking equipment (“Painlevé” 가 좋은 장비를 가진 것이 아니라 “Cousteau”가 좋은 장비를 가졌다고 언급했음)

(“Well, maybe I shouldn’t be asking this, but if Painlevé’s films are so special, so good, why haven’t we ever heard of them? I mean, everyone’s heard of Jacques Cousteau.”라고 언급한 부분. 해석을 해 보면, “이렇게 물어보면 안되겠지만, “Jacques Cousteau”에 대해서는 우리 모두가 알고 있지만, “Painlevé”의 영화가 그렇게 특별하다면 우리는 왜 그에 대해서 들어보지 못했어요?”라고 학생이 물어 본 것임)

A. He does not like Jean Painleve’s films (학생이”Painleve”의 영화를 싫어 한다는 것은 아님)
B. He thinks that the professor should spend more time discussing Jacques Cousteau’s film (“Painleve” 는 들어보지도 못한 감독이고 “Jacques Cousteau”는 모두 아는 감독이라는 본문의 내용으로부터 “Jacques Cousteau”영화에 대해 더 많은 이야기를 해야 한다는 것을 추론할 수는 없음에 주의)
C. He believes that high quality filmmakers are usually well known (“Painleve”의 영화가 그렇게 특별하다면 왜 그 감독에 대해서 우리가 들어보지도 못했냐는 학생 말은 “만약 유명한 감독이라면 우리가 다 들어봤어야 하는 거 아닌가? 예를 들어 유명한 감독인 “Jacques Cousteau”은 우리가 다 들어봤듯이”라는 것과 같은 내용임)
D. He believes that Jean Painleve’s film have been unfairly overlooked (“Painleve”의 영화가 불공평하게 간과되었다는 것을 추론할 근거가 없음)

Texts

Professor
Okay, we’ve been discussing films in the 1920s and 30s, and how back then film categories, as we know them today, had not yet been established. We said that by today’s standards, many of the films of the 20s and 30s would be considered hybrids, that is, a mixture of styles that wouldn’t exactly fit into any of today’s categories. And in that context, today we are going to talk about a film-maker who began making very unique films in the late 1920s. He was French, and his name was Jean Painlevé.

Jean Painlevé was born in 1902. He made his first film in 1928. Now in a way, Painlevé’s films conform to norms of the 20s and 30s, that is, they don’t fit very neatly into the categories we use to classify films today. That said, even by the standards of the 20s and 30s, Painlevé’s films were a unique hybrid of styles. He had a special way of fusing, or some people might say, confusing, science and fiction. His films begin with facts, but then they become more and more fictional. They gradually add more and more fictional elements. In fact, Painlevé was known for saying that science is fiction.

Painlevé was a pioneer in underwater film-making, and a lot of his short films focused on the aquatic animal world. He liked to show small underwater creatures, displaying what seemed like familiar human characteristics – what we think of as unique to humans. He might take a clip of a mollusk going up and down in the water and set it to music. You know, to make it look as if the mollusk were dancing to the music like a human being – that sort of thing. But then he suddenly changed the image or narration to remind us how different the animals are, how unlike humans.

He confused his audience in the way he portrayed the animals he filmed, mixing up our notions of the categories human and animal. The films make us a little uncomfortable at times because we are uncertain about what we are seeing. It gives him films an uncanny feature: the familiar made unfamiliar, the normal made suspicious. He liked twists, he liked the unusual. In fact, one of his favorite sea animals was the seahorse because with seahorses, it’s the male that carries the eggs, and he thought that was great. His first and most celebrated underwater film is about the seahorse.

Susan, you have a question?

Student 1
But underwater film-making wasn’t that unusual, was it? I mean, weren’t there other people making movies underwater?

Professor
Well, actually, it was pretty rare at that time. I mean, we are talking the early 1930s here.

Student 1
But what about Jacques Cousteau? Was he like an innovator, you know, with underwater photography too?

Professor
Ah, Jacques Cousteau. Well, Painlevé and Cousteau did both film underwater, and they were both innovators, so you are right in that sense. But that’s pretty much where the similarities end.

First of all, Painlevé was about 20 years ahead of Cousteau. And Cousteau’s adventures were high-tech, with lots of fancy equipment, whereas Painlevé kind of patched equipment together as he needed it. Cousteau usually filmed large animals, usually in the open sea, whereas Painlevé generally filmed smaller animals, and he liked to film in shallow water.

Uh, what else? Oh well, the main difference was that Cousteau simply investigated and presented the facts – he didn’t mix in fiction. He was a strict documentarist. He set the standard really for the nature documentary. Painlevé, on the other hand, as we said before, mixed in elements of fiction. And his films are much more artistic, incorporating music as an important element.

John, you have a question?

Student 2
Well, maybe I shouldn’t be asking this, but if Painlevé’s films are so special, so good, why haven’t we ever heard of them? I mean, everyone’s heard of Jacques Cousteau.

Professor
Well, that’s a fair question. Uh, the short answer is that Painlevé’s style just never caught on with the general public. I mean, it probably goes back at least in part to what we mentioned earlier, that people didn’t know what to make of his films – they were confused by them, whereas Cousteau’s documentaries were very straightforward, met people’s expectations more than Painlevé’s films did. But you true film history buffs know about him. And Painlevé is still highly respected in many circles.