好莱坞或将步入寒冬

尼克·比尔顿

Hollywood may be the last creative industry not to be hollowed out1 by technology. What happens when Silicon Valley2 starts replacing screenwriters with bots， and your favorite actress with C.G.I.3？ In some corners of Los Angeles， the future is already here.好萊坞或许是最后一个尚未被科技颠覆的创意产业了。假如硅谷开始用机器人来替代编剧，用电脑成像来替代你最喜欢的女演员，那会发生什么？在洛杉矶的某些角落，这种未来已经到来。

Shortly after midnight on December 8， 1962， on West 43rd Street in Manhattan， right at the epicenter of the world， hundreds of people who worked in the newspaper industry walked out of the New York Times building and into the cold streets to begin a strike that would last 114 days. About 17，000 newspaper employees， from pressmen to paper handlers， elevator operators to reporters， joined the picket lines4. “At its core， the New York newspaper strike was a battle over technology，” Scott Sherman wrote in Vanity Fair. “The 1950s and 1960s saw the emergence of computerized typesetting systems that would revolutionize the newspaper composing room. Newspapers that prohibited unions， such as the Los Angeles Times， rushed to install cutting-edge computers such as the RCA 301. Newspapers with union contracts， including those in New York City， faced tempestuous5 resistance from labor leaders， who could easily see that automation would cost jobs.”

Of course， the newspaper strike didnt stop the future. If anything， it simply hastened the demise6 of numerous newspapers. What the union leaders at the time didnt understand （or want to accept） was that technology cannot be stopped， slowed， or avoided in an industry that is being disrupted. Either you find a way to adapt， or someone else does.

Hollywood， which has mostly avoided the dislocations affecting the rest of the media industry， now faces its own moment of reckoning7. Unlike journalism， where technology has decimated profit margins， Tinseltown8 is still living high on the hog9， sustaining an entire ecosystem of agents and middlemen who do nothing， add little value， and get paid incredibly well for their services.

Earlier this week， as I was lying in bed， I felt our house rattle very briefly. I quickly Googled “earthquake Los Angeles，” and found myself reading an article that had just been written on the L.A. Times Web site， explaining that a tremor had occurred a few miles from my house， its level on the Richter scale， and a few other pertinent10 details. Yet， at the end of the article， instead of a byline， I learned that the piece had been written by an algorithm. As far as I could tell， no human intelligence had been involved. The same is true for stories about stocks， sports， and anything else that involves numbers and data that can be created by a computer rather than a person.

It wont be long before machine learning11 begins to impact jobs in Hollywood， too. A few years ago， on a tour at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology， professors explained to me how they were exploring A.I. that could be used to write screenplays and edit films. Now， algorithms are actually co-writing screenplays. Computer algorithms are the stars of our shows， too. How long will it be before a film studio， after fighting with an actor about their pay for a sequel， simply animates them instead？

More frightening is a future in which our smart TVs can watch us back. Years ago， I saw a security demo12 for a program that could be used by spy agencies to track peoples eyes as they read words on a screen. The primary purpose was to ensure that only the intended recipient could read a decrypted message， but the software could also monitor pupil movement and dilation， facial movements， and heartbeat speed to determine if viewers were engaged， nervous， excited， and so on. Could that same technology be applied to an audience watching a TV show？ Already， Netflix tracks which show icons you linger on， and adjusts how they are presented to maximize the likelihood that you will click. Now imagine a world in which Netflix and its ilk can literally see when you get bored， if a joke works or falls flat， if a scene isnt exciting enough， and so on.

In some ways， that future is already here. Last year， after crunching the numbers13 on Arrested Developments disastrous fourth installment14， Netflix decided to recut the entire season， shortening the episodes and re-arranging scenes so that they were chronological rather than based around a single character. The remix wasnt perfect， but it was comparatively well received. Perhaps more important， it served as a proof of concept for the idea that content doesnt need to be fixed， but can evolve to suit an audience. In the case of Arrested Development， series creator Mitchell Hurwitz stepped in to recut the show. Soon， however， shows may be able to recut themselves. During a recent meeting at one of the big studios， I heard about a technology that is analyzing the way award-winning movies and TV shows are edited， and exploring if a computer can edit content with the same precision. You come home from work and say， “Hey， Alexa， make me a personalized comedy with a female lead set in New York that is 16 minutes long so I can watch it before dinner.” Then， like magic， thats what youre watching.

When you compare what is happening in Hollywood to what has happened in every other industry， maybe Hollywood unions have a chance to ensure that the people who make a living here dont get screwed over like Uber drivers and journalists did. As one writer explained to me， “When guilds of any kind have been disrupted， you see a complete degradation for the quality of work and pay for the people who work in those industries： they make less money， have no health insurance， and certainly have less power. Disruption has not been good for labor， even if it has been good for consumers.”

Most Americans think Hollywood has already been disrupted by technology. They look at Netflix， Amazon Prime， and the fact that they can stream Game of Thrones on their iPhone as a sign that Hollywood has gone through its inevitable technology changes already. But that quixotic thinking is akin to the newspaper unions of 1962 seeing the upcoming RCA 301 as the only disruption that would happen to newsrooms in our lifetime. In reality， that was nothing. The same is true with the streaming-video platforms today. All these companies have really done is change how we get our content; on the production side， creative work is frustratingly messy and entirely human. Hollywood， whether it believes it or not， is still ripe for disruption. The question is： will it be people who do the disrupting， or a computer somewhere in Silicon Valley？

1962年12月8日刚过午夜，就在那次震动世界的运动中心，曼哈顿西43街，成百上千的报业人士走出《纽约时报》的大楼，走上寒冷的街道，开始了一场持续114天的罢工。约有1.7万名报业雇员，从印刷工到纸工，从电梯工到记者，参加了这场罢工。“究其实质，纽约的报业罢工是一场针对技术的战斗。”斯科特·舍曼在《名利场》杂志撰文写道，“20世纪50年代和60年代，电脑控制的排版系统出现，给报业的排字房带来了革命性的影响。禁止工会活动的报纸，例如《洛杉矶时报》，火速安装了诸如RCA301型的最先进电脑。而那些签了工会合同的报纸，包括纽约市内的那些报纸，则遭遇了来自工会领袖的激烈抵制，后者能够轻易看出自动化会导致失业。”

当然，那场报业罢工并没有阻止未来的到来。如果它起到什么作用的话，也仅仅是加速了无数报纸的死亡。那时的工会领袖们没能理解（或者不想接受）的一点是，在一个正在被科技颠覆的行业里，没有什么能够阻止、延缓或者躲开科技。你只能想办法调整适应，不然就有别人这么做。

好莱坞在很大程度上已经避开了影响其他媒体行業的那些混乱，但现在却被迫直面自己难以逃避的命运。和新闻行业不同——在那里，科技的发展已经大大削减了利润空间，好莱坞仍然纸醉金迷，支撑着包括代理商和中间人的一整套生态体系，这些人什么也不干，提供的附加值很少，却因其服务获得了难以置信的高额酬金。

本周早些时候的一天，我还在床上躺着时，突然感觉房屋短暂震颤。我迅速上谷歌搜索“地震、洛杉矶”，然后就看到《洛杉矶时报》网站刚刚贴出来的一篇文章，该文说明在距我家几英里开外的地方有轻微地震发生，列出了里氏震级和其他几个相关细节。然而，在文章末尾，我却没有看到作者的署名，而是得知这篇文章是由一种算法写就的。根据我的判断，没有人类智慧参与这篇文章的书写过程。那些关于股票、体育和其他任何涉及能由电脑而非人生成数字及数据的报道同样如此。

要不了多久，机器学习也会对好莱坞的工作产生影响。我几年前参观麻省理工学院的时候，教授们给我介绍了他们正如何研发可以用于编写剧本和剪辑电影的人工智能。如今，算法已经实际参与剧本的编写。算法也成为娱乐业的明星。那么，电影公司将来如果与某演员就拍续集的片酬问题产生分歧，就可以直接选择电脑合成其影像了吧——这种情况还要多久才会出现？

更可怕的是，未来我们的智能电视可能反过来观察我们。多年前，我看过某一程序的安全示例代码，情报机关可以用它来追踪人们在阅读屏幕上文字时眼睛的移动情况。其主要目的是为了确保只有目标接收者才能阅读解密信息，但这个软件还可以用来监视瞳孔的移动和扩张、面部动作和心跳速度，从而判断观看者是否投入、紧张、激动等等。这一技术手段能否应用在电视观众身上？奈飞公司其实已经开始追踪观众会偏爱哪些剧集图标，并调整它们的呈现方式以最大化地提高观众点击的可能性。现在，想象一下这样的世界：奈飞之类的公司真能“看”出来观众是否觉得无聊、某个笑话是否奏效、某个场景是否足够刺激，如此等等。

在某些方面，那样的未来已经来到眼前。去年，在对《发展受阻》灾难性的第四季进行大量数据统计分析后，奈飞公司决定重新剪辑整个第四季，将每集缩短并重新安排场景，使其按时间顺序排列，而非原本的聚焦于一位人物。这个重新剪辑版并不完美，但接受度相对较高。或许更重要的是，它证明了以下观点：内容并不需要重新修订，但可以通过演化来适应观众需求。在《发展受阻》这个例子中，剧集创作者米切尔·赫维茨亲自出马重新剪辑。然而，很快，或许作品就能自我剪辑了。在某个大电影公司近期的一次会议上，我听说了这么一项技术，公司用该技术分析那些获奖影视剧的剪辑方式，并探索电脑可否以同样的精准度来剪辑内容。你下班回到家，只消说：“嘿，亚历克莎，给我做个定制喜剧，主角要女的，地点设在纽约，16分钟长，我要在晚餐前看。”于是，像变魔术一样，你就会看到这么个作品。

将正在好莱坞发生的事和已经发生在别的行业的事做个比较，或许好莱坞的工会还有机会保证在此谋生的员工不会像优步司机和新闻记者那样陷入窘境。正如一位作家向我解释的：“一旦行业协会被颠覆，就会看到产品质量和从业人员收入整体下降：从业人员薪酬减少，没有健康保险，拥有的权力自然也会减少。行业颠覆对劳动力而言从事都不是好事，虽然对消费者是好事。”

大多数美国人认为好莱坞已经被技术所颠覆。他们将奈飞和亚马逊Prime会员，以及能在自己的苹果手机上观看《权力的游戏》这一事实，视作一个标志，说明好莱坞已经历过它无法避免的技术改革。但是这种堂吉诃德式的想法类似1962年报业工会看到RCA301型计算机到来时的那种想法，天真地以为这会是我们此生经历的对新闻业的唯一威胁。事实上，那只是小菜一碟。现在，流媒体播放平台亦是如此。所有这些公司迄今做过的其实就是改变我们获得内容的方式;在生产环节，创意作品仍然混乱到令人沮丧的程度，并且完全依靠人力。无论相信与否，好莱坞仍然有待进一步颠覆。问题是，带来颠覆的将会是人类，还是硅谷某处的计算机？

（译者单位：北京外国语大学）