VOA英语学习网 > 科学美国人 > 2019年科学美国人 > 科学美国人60秒科学系列 >
缩小放大

科学美国人60秒:大自然的真实情况

[提示:]双击单词,即可查看词义!如果生词较多,请先学习:VOA慢速英语1500基础词汇
中英对照 听力原文

Nature Docs Avoid Habitat Destruction

大自然的真实情况

Nature documentaries are known for their sweeping natural vistas, their amazing footage—seriously, how did they get that shot?—and, often, the soothing baritone of Sir David Attenborough.

自然纪录片以其广阔的自然风光、令人惊叹的画面而闻名——说真的,他们是怎么拍到这张照片的?还有大卫·阿滕伯勒爵士舒缓的男中音。

[CLIP: Attenborough clip]

What those documentaries don’t do, though, is show the realities of environmental destruction.

然而,这些纪录片没有展示环境破坏的现实。

“Historically, particularly BBC documentaries have shied away from that.”Niki Rust is an environmental social scientist at Newcastle University in the U.K.

“从历史观点,尤其是BBC纪录片都回避这一点。尼基·拉斯特是英国纽卡斯尔大学的环境社会科学家。

Rust studied work by the BBC and by the World Wildlife Fund, which had teamed up with Netflix to make what they said would be a whole new kind of production. “They wanted it to reach a billion people, and it was going to revolutionize nature documentaries.” (Except for the fact, maybe, that Attenborough would be the narrator.)

拉斯特研究了BBC和世界野生动物基金会的工作,这两家机构曾与Netflix合作,制作他们所说的全新类型的影片。“他们希望能覆盖10亿人,这将给自然纪录片带来革命性的变化。(但除了阿滕伯勒可能是叙述者这个事实。)

\

The Netflix series, Our Planet, aimed to be different, because it promised to reveal the threats facing wildlife and the natural world. So did it deliver?

Netflix的电视剧《我们的星球》旨在与众不同,因为它承诺揭示野生动物和自然世界面临的威胁。但它做到了吗?

Rust and her colleagues analyzed scripts of Our Planet, along with three recent BBC series—Planet Earth II, Dynasties, and Blue Planet II—and logged everything they saw on-screen.

拉斯特和同事分析了《我们的星球》的剧本,以及最近三部BBC连续剧《行星地球2》、《王朝》和《蓝色星球2》,并记录了在屏幕上看到的一切。

Turns out, “Our Planet only talks about threats and successes a little bit more than Blue Planet II.” Fifteen percent of the script focused on the woes of the natural world. But very little devastation was actually shown on screen—despite being filmed.

结果是,“《我们的星球》只比《蓝色星球2》多谈论一点环境所面临的威胁和成就。15%的剧本关注的是自然界的灾难。尽管被拍摄了下来,但在银幕上几乎没有看到破坏的场面。

The analysis is in the journal People and Nature.

这项研究结果发表在《人类与自然》杂志上。

“The lead author of the study, Julia Jones, was in Madagascar at the time, when Netflix was there filming. She knows they were filming the destruction of habitat and burning and lots of environmental devastation. They’ve got the footage. It just, unfortunately, wasn’t chosen to be included."

Netflix正在那里拍摄时,该研究的主要作者茱莉亚·琼斯当时在马达加斯加,。她知道他们在拍摄栖息地的破坏、烧毁情况以及大量的环境破坏情况。他们有录像。不幸的是,这些视频没有被选上。”

It’s not clear if that's really a bad thing, though—we still don’t really know whether showing environmental tragedies on-screen motivates people to support conservation. But what climate change communication has taught us, Rust says, is that the ideal way to motivate audiences is with optimism—tinged with trepidation.

这是否真的是一件坏事还不清楚,尽管我们仍然不知道在屏幕上播放环境悲剧是否会激发人们支持保护环境的意识。但是拉斯特表示,气候变化教会我们的是,激发观众积极性的理想方式是带有恐惧的乐观主义。

Nature Docs Avoid Habitat Destruction

Nature documentaries are known for their sweeping natural vistas, their amazing footage—seriously, how did they get that shot?—and, often, the soothing baritone of Sir David Attenborough.

[CLIP: Attenborough clip]

What those documentaries don’t do, though, is show the realities of environmental destruction.

“Historically, particularly BBC documentaries have shied away from that.”Niki Rust is an environmental social scientist at Newcastle University in the U.K.

Rust studied work by the BBC and by the World Wildlife Fund, which had teamed up with Netflix to make what they said would be a whole new kind of production. “They wanted it to reach a billion people, and it was going to revolutionize nature documentaries.” (Except for the fact, maybe, that Attenborough would be the narrator.)

The Netflix series, Our Planet, aimed to be different, because it promised to reveal the threats facing wildlife and the natural world. So did it deliver?

Rust and her colleagues analyzed scripts of Our Planet, along with three recent BBC series—Planet Earth II, Dynasties, and Blue Planet II—and logged everything they saw on-screen.

Turns out, “Our Planet only talks about threats and successes a little bit more than Blue Planet II.” Fifteen percent of the script focused on the woes of the natural world. But very little devastation was actually shown on screen—despite being filmed.

The analysis is in the journal People and Nature.

“The lead author of the study, Julia Jones, was in Madagascar at the time, when Netflix was there filming. She knows they were filming the destruction of habitat and burning and lots of environmental devastation. They’ve got the footage. It just, unfortunately, wasn’t chosen to be included."

It’s not clear if that's really a bad thing, though—we still don’t really know whether showing environmental tragedies on-screen motivates people to support conservation. But what climate change communication has taught us, Rust says, is that the ideal way to motivate audiences is with optimism—tinged with trepidation.


内容来自 VOA英语学习网https://www.chinavoa.com/show-8762-241848-1.html
Related Articles
内容推荐