9/17
因為訪問中關於Chelsea Manning的部分，近來衍生一些相關話題：
On Chelsea Manning and Privacy, Cumberbatch Still Sides With Authority
文章出來後，9/15 Benedict寫信到衛報，認為他在訪談中的話被曲解了。
以下是衛報隨後提供的訪問原始稿和更正啟事。
Benedict Cumberbatch: Chelsea Manning and civil liberties – interview transcript
(Chelsea Manning，原名Bradley Edward Manning，為美國陸軍，
將美國政府的機密文件外洩給維基解密網站而遭美國政府逮捕並起訴，
被判處35年監禁、降級、取消所有福利，並處以不名譽退伍。
2013年8月發表公開聲明宣布將改名為切爾西·曼寧Chelsea Manning，
開始荷爾蒙治療，轉變性別為女性。)
原始訪談文章段落
As for Bradley, now Chelsea, Manning, the young US army officer who leaked hundreds of thousands of war logs, diplomatic cables and other US state secrets to Assange and has just been sentenced to 35 years, Cumberbatch is sympathetic on a human level. "But he broke a law. He knew what he was doing." Manning has applied for a presidential pardon, but Cumberbatch can't see why Obama should grant it. "He did what he did out of a conviction that an alarm bell needed to be sounded. But his superiors might have been right to say to him, it's not your position to be worried about it within the hierarchy of the military organisation, which is why he had to be sentenced. He took an oath, and he broke that oath."
Cumberbatch從人類層面來說同情他(Manning)，「但是他犯了法。他知道他在做什麼。」Manning已經申請了總統特赦，但是Cumberbatch看不出歐巴馬為什麼應該要准許。
文章出來後，9/15 Benedict寫信到衛報，認為他在訪談中的話被曲解了。
以下是衛報隨後提供的訪問原始稿和更正啟事。
Benedict Cumberbatch: Chelsea Manning and civil liberties – interview transcript
On 15 September, the actor Benedict Cumberbatch wrote to the Guardian to say he felt his views had been misrepresented in an interview by Decca Aitkenhead published in Weekend magazine. His note has been posted under the article, and says: "Do I think [Chelsea] Manning should be pardoned? Yes. Do I think that's likely to happen? Sadly no. Re [Edward] Snowden I said in the interview that the use of threats to life as a reason to erode civil liberties through intrusive government surveillance can also be as dangerous to democracy as the terrorism such actions claim to be preventing. This wasn't printed for some reason."
「我認為Manning應該被赦免嗎？是的。我認為那可能會發生嗎？很不幸的，不會。」
We are happy to clarify any confusion about Cumberbatch's comments on Manning and civil liberties by publishing an unedited transcript of that section of the interview. Editor's note: the article's original standfirst, which said Cumberbatch "talked about... why Chelsea Manning deserved her sentence", misrepresented what Cumberbatch says in the interview: this was an editing error (headlines and standfirsts are not written by the interviewer) and has since been corrected online. We apologise for this mistake.
編者按：本文章原始預告提到Cumberbatch「說到為什麼Chelsea Manning應被判刑。」曲解了Cumberbatch在訪問中的話；這是個編輯錯誤。（頭條和預告不是由訪問者所寫。）這個錯誤已經線上更正。我們對這錯誤深表歉意。
Decca Aitkenhead: How did you feel watching Manning's trial?
Benedict Cumberbatch: Awful. Cos he is a young man and he did what he did out of a conviction that an alarm bell needed to be sounded. The trigger-happy response is to mudsling and say he's a confused kid who doesn't know enough about his gender. I think that's separate from the fact that he was going to his superiors and saying, 'I'm worried about this.' But his superiors might have been right to say it's not your position to be worried about it within the hierarchy of the military organisation, which is why he had to be sentenced. He took an oath, and he broke that oath – he broke a rule he knew he was breaking. The tragedy is that he did it out of such a strong conviction. On a personal level, I really feel for the guy, it's a very, very severe sentence. But I understand why he had to be convicted, of course I do.
DA: Should he be pardoned?
BC: [Spreading upraised palms, and sighing] Phhh. As I said, he broke an oath, so he knows what he's doing. But he did it for good reason. Again, I think it's too black and white to say he should be pardoned. I just think the sentencing was harsh. But I understand why he was convicted. He broke a law. He knew what he was doing.
[With regard to mass surveillance and civil liberties]
BC: And now we've got revelations that our government organisations, the NSA and GCHQ, have been eavesdropping on private communications to root out terrorism and fundamentalism. But in doing that they've eroded civil liberties to an extent that we're answering fire with fire, and are we becoming Orwellian in our fundamental approach to fighting fundamentalism? It's kind of a terrifying circle to square. I'm not an intelligence expert. I don't want you looking at what I'm looking at on the internet, or knowing what my password is for Facebook or my bank account, or overhearing messages to friends and lovers, people I love and hate, it's none of your business. Oh, but you might have stopped me from being killed on a Tube I took last Wednesday. They're not going to be able to tell us exactly what is in that information. And that's a powerful thing for us to fear, because they can just say, well, we aren't going to tell you, but it's for your own good. They can always say that. My fear is how quickly it's all evolving, that's what worries me. It's just happening so quickly. I don't have an opinion about it, I don't think it's right or wrong.
DA: Don't you?
BC: If they are saving lives, how can you say that is less important than civil liberties? You don't have any liberties if you are dead. What I do feel is wrong is how quickly this is moving into legislation which can have a journalist detained at an airport in that horrible limbo between jurisdictions that is beholden to no international law. I'm only saying what everyone in your paper has already said. That's really worrying, that needs to be slowed down and debated. This is happening too quickly. Yet at the same time, Alan [Rusbridger, Guardian editor] as an editor has that – I'm not saying he's going to sell it – I trust him, I believe in his core principles. But I can understand why anyone would be fearful – like Laura Linney's character [in my new film The Fifth Estate] who has worked for years in intelligence communities would be nervous of the editor of a paper having that information. I'm not saying they're right, I'm just saying I can see their perspective.
I think transparency is really important, but should that transparency be transferred to our communications? Isn't it hypocritical to say we should know everything about you as a government, but the government can't know anything about us?
DA: Assange would say that's because you're a private individual.
BC: Absolutely. But if you are a private individual who's packing Semtex to kill people and destroy what we know as democracy for political purposes, then you're more than just a private individual in a democracy. My fear is meeting fire with fire, and I think that's what we're moving towards too quickly and we need to debate it.
9/15
fr.攝影師Thomas Dagg的blog:
The peculiar charm of Benedict Cumberbatch
Benedict Cumberbatch的獨特魅力。採訪全文請至http://www.theguardian.com
回復了Assange不希望他演出他還是繼續下去的理由是因為：
"I said listen, this film is going to explore what you achieved, what brought you to the world's attention, in a way that I think is nothing but positive. I admit to doing work because I'm a vain actor. I want to be able to say, yeah, I'm playing a lead in a film. That's a huge career move for me. Yet I'm not acting in a moral vacuum. I have considered this, and whatever happens, I want to give as much complexity and understanding of you as I can."
「我說『聽著，這部電影將探究你的成就，是什麼帶給你全世界的關注，以一種我覺得只有正面的方式。我承認做這份工作是因為我是位虛榮的演員，我想要能夠說著，沒錯我主演了一部電影。那對我來說是重要歷程的一部電影。但我不是以道德真空的狀態下演出。我已經考慮過這些，無論發生任何事，我想要盡我可能的表演出複雜性和對你的了解』」
也表達了他對Assange的個性上他的理解是
"He kept isolating himself. Every bridge he built, he burnt. And I understood why at times, because he is on a trajectory that's different from other people. And, because of that, he can't form those human relationships that other organisations have. And that is tragic."
Those who know Assange have often speculated that he might be on the autistic spectrum. Cumberbatch says he has no idea if that is true, but seems to suspect not. "The bridge-burning thing could just be circumstantial nurturing from what happened to him as a kid. How do you build trust when that's constantly been taken away from you?" He doesn't buy the theory that he's just a vain egotist, either. "Because you can counter that with, no, he's basically putting himself out on a limb for something he believes in, a rigid ideology, and that's uncompromising. That behaviour seems to be solipsistic, but that's because of what he's holding on to."
「他不斷的孤立自己。每個他建立的關係他都毀掉。而我在那時了解為什麼，因為他在一條和其他人不同的軌道上。並且因為如此，他無法產生那些如同其他組織擁有的人際關係，而那是悲慘的。」
那些認識Assange的人常常會猜測他是否有自閉症。Cumberbatch談到他不知道那是不是真的，但是似乎懷疑並不是。「那些斷絕往來的事可能只是他從小成長環境使然。當你不斷的被剝奪信任你又如何能建立信任？」他也不相信那套『他只是虛榮自大』的理論。「因為你可以對那論點反駁，他基本上將自己置身險境在他信仰的事物上，一種僵化的思想體系，而那是絕不妥協的。那些行為看似唯我論，但那是由於他有所堅持。」
以及有關他和Matt Damon的新聞
"I'm a big fan of his, I think he's great. I mention this in a phone interview, and the woman down the other end of the line goes," and he adopts a silly, high-pitched American accent, "'Really? Do you really like him? Really? Why?' I was like, 'Why? Well, um, because he's a really talented actor, he's done lots of great things in his life, I think he's great. It'd be great to meet him.' 'You wanna meet him?' 'Er, well, yeah, I mean, of course it would be great to meet him and hang out.' 'Well, we could facilitate it!' 'Oh, OK. Great. Do pass on that I'm a huge fan. It would be great to see him.'" He pauses to roll his eyes. "Next day: 'Benedict Cumberband's Bromance With Matt Damon!' You know," he laughs, "it's all that shit." Does it drive him mad? "Well, sometimes.
「我是他的頭號影迷，我覺得他很棒。我在一個電話訪問中提到這件事，電話另一頭的那位女性說『真的？你真的喜歡他？真的？為什麼？』我就像『為什麼？嗯，因為他是位很有才華的演員，他生活中做了很多很棒的事。我覺得他很棒。如果能見見他會是很不錯的。』『你想見他？』『嗯，我的意思是，當然能見見他且一起打發時間會很不錯。』『這個嘛，我們可以幫忙。』『喔，OK，很好。記得傳達我是超級粉絲。能見他會是非常好的事。』隔天，Benedict Cumberband和Matt Damon的基情!」他大笑著「這全都是胡扯。」這會惹他生氣嗎？「嗯，有時吧。」
來自這篇報導
Benedict Cumberbatch on His Emmy Nomination and Loving Matt Damon
Vulture: Yeah, you could pick each other's brains, develop projects together, or not talk about work at all.
Cumberbatch: You're saying that like you can facilitate it. Do you have Matt's number? Can you pass along a message, and tell him that Benedict is a big fan and would like to hang? That would be brilliant.
以下是Matt Damon的回應
可能是一種吸引讀者的寫法，讓原本應該是被動邀請的寫成主動要求，
但是會有點小不爽是可以理解的吧...
沒有留言:
張貼留言