關於 i was referred to you by意味 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

一封給國家地理頻道「Dog: Impossible」節目負責人的公開信:

An open letter to the leadership team of Nat Geo Wild Dog Impossible:

Translate: Yu-Hwa Su 翻譯: 蘇昱華
Proof: Yen Ke 校對: 葛雁

The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) applauds National Geographic’s mission to offer intelligent, relevant and captivating non-fiction entertainment. This is a crucial objective, especially as an introduction to children and viewers largely relying on television for their scientific information.
國際動物行為諮詢師協會（IAABC）對於國家地理頻道致力於提供電視觀眾正確知識與科學內容表示讚賞。這是一個非常重要的目標，特別是對依賴電視得到這些知識的兒童與其他觀眾們來說。

However, your stated mission is in direct conflict with your show Dog: Impossible. In fact, the irresponsible treatment of the dogs and people on this show flies in the face of all best practices in animal training and behavior. Rather than promoting science and scientifically-proven methodology, Dog: Impossible sacrifices learning science for more dramatic television.
然而，貴頻道所提供的節目「Dog: Impossible」卻與貴頻道「提供正確的科學知識」的一貫立場衝突。節目中對犬隻以及飼主的不負責處理方式與應有的動物訓練及行為操作的準則相違背。「Dog: Impossible」並沒有提倡科學以及經科學驗證的方法，這節目犧牲了對科學的學習，轉而追求吸睛的電視節目效果。

Matt Beisner appears to have no credentials or education in training and behavior, yet he refers to himself as a behaviorist. His claim that “energy is the one language that every animal on the planet speaks” makes clear he is not one.
Matt Beisner並沒有動物訓練或行為學的相關學習經歷與證照，卻宣稱自己是一位行為學家。從他的主張：「能量是地球上所有動物都會使用的共通語言」，便能明白他並不是行為學家。

His statement, “You don’t need tricks, you don’t need treats, you don’t need force,” shows just how unaware of his own actions he is. His misuse of scientific terminology leads viewers to believe they are learning demonstrated, safe and accepted strategies in helping their dogs. In fact, Mr. Beisner is forcing these dogs from start to finish of each episode. His own “tricks” are that of over-stressing dogs until they’re in a state referred to in psychology and science as “learned helplessness.”
他主張「你不需要技巧、零食、或蠻力 (去訓練狗)」，這顯示出他對於自己的所做所為一無所知。他對科學術語的濫用也會誤導觀眾，讓觀眾以為他們正在學習經證實有效而且安全可接受的方法來幫助狗狗。但這位訓練師在每一集節目上從頭到尾都是在逼迫這些狗，而他所擁有的「技巧」，就是讓狗進入過度緊迫的狀態，直到牠們進入心理學和科學上所指的「習得無助」（learned helplessness）狀態。

Learned helplessness occurs when a subject endures repeated aversive stimuli beyond their control. Originally thought to show a subject's acceptance of their powerlessness, for more than half a century it’s been known instead to be the emotional “shutting down” of the subject. Anxiety, clinical depression, and related mental illnesses are common consequences of this technique in humans.
「習得無助」發生在動物沒有任何控制權，且重複地被施加嫌惡刺激的時候。最初，人們認為習得無助狀態意味著動物「接受」了自身無法改變、無能為力的情形，超過半個世紀以來，人們認為這是動物情緒「關機（shutting down）」的表現。在人類身上，習得無助的常見結果包含焦慮、憂鬱症、以及相關的心理疾病。

Allow us to note some aspects of the trailer and his shows, but first, to point out a few well-documented and commonly understood aspects of dog behavior so that we may better make our points understood.
在我們解釋為何我們認為此節目的預告片與內容不適當之前，我們希望先闡述一些正確的犬隻行為常識，以便您能更理解我們的觀點。

Canine body language indicating stress and severe stress:
顯示出壓力以及嚴重緊迫的犬隻肢體語言：

Compressed bodies
Dry, raspy panting
Wide, open eyes with dilated pupils
Heavy drooling
“Whipping” head and body back, pushing off a handler in order to get away
Growling
Fighting
Biting
縮緊身體
急促的喘氣
睜大雙眼、散瞳
大量流口水
甩頭、用前爪推抱著狗的人以退後、試圖掙脫
低吼
打架
開咬

Eleven seconds into the trailer, Mr. Beisner rubs his hands together, smiling, and says, “This is going to be gnarly.” All professionals know from that statement what the series will spotlight: A poorly (if at all) educated non-professional pushing dogs way beyond therapeutic limits, in the name of “results.”
在預告片11秒的地方，Beisner先生搓手並笑著說「等一下會很精采喔」。所有專業人士都知道這句話代表這個節目的亮點將會是：一名缺乏適當教育的訓練師，逼迫狗到超過其能承受的極限，並把這樣的結果稱為是良好的改善。

Flooding, the term for inundating a subject with their fears, phobias and triggers, is ethically questionable at best, cruel and unnecessary, always. There's also a common danger of spontaneous recovery of the phobia. This is because flooding doesn't replace the fear-response with a different response, it just replaces it with no response. “No response” is simply suppression, not cure.
「洪水法」，指的是故意將動物置於恐慌或恐懼的觸發刺激情境，這樣的方法不道德、殘忍、而且沒必要。另外，恐懼的自發性回復（spontaneous recovery）也是洪水法常見的風險，這是因為洪水法並沒有將害怕的反應重新制約成其他不同的情緒行為，它只是讓動物沒有反應。「沒有反應」只是壓抑，動物並沒有因此感到不害怕或恐慌。

Throughout the trailer dogs are flooded with aversive stimuli such as other dogs, people and equipment, something an ethical professional would not, and could not do per any answerable guidelines of animal training and behavior care.
在整個預告片中，狗狗被迫接受各種嫌惡刺激的洪水法訓練，例如其他狗、其他人類和物品，這是具有道德的專業訓練人員不會做的，任何負責任的動物訓練及行為照護準則也不會如此建議。

Systematic desensitization and counterconditioning, gradual exposure to the feared object, and replacement of a negative emotional association with a more pleasant one, are the recommended techniques used to treat such fear and aggression cases, per all legitimate veterinary, training and behavior organizations.
系統性減敏與反制約，也就是逐步與少量的讓狗接觸其本來會害怕的事物，並且將引發的少量負面情緒與其非常喜愛的事物配對給予，是用來處理恐懼及攻擊案例的建議方法，也是每個好的獸醫師、訓練及行為機構會推薦的方法。

Beisner’s statement that “We know at the Zen Yard that dogs help other dogs come out of their shell and face their fear and get past their aggression” isn’t just scientifically unsupportable, his words ring hollow during the very scene playing while he says those words: Beisner restraining one dog, while his co-host pulls a leashed dog to the first in a completely unnatural gesture perhaps intended to either mimic natural dog greeting (it doesn’t) or to flood the heavily drooling dog who is unable to move or get away. The dogs end up in a fight. They have been set up to fail, and the outcome is inevitable.
Beisner宣稱「我們在Zen Yard（他的訓練中心）知道狗會去幫助其他狗融入外界、面對牠們的恐懼並且克服攻擊行為」，這句話不只是缺乏科學支持，在影片中他講出這句話時搭配的畫面，亦表現出他的說詞缺乏支持：Beisner限制了第一隻狗的行動，由節目的共同主持人以牽繩將另一隻狗以一個完全不自然的姿勢拉到第一隻狗身邊，他們可能是在試著模仿狗狗自然的社交打招呼行為（但並不是），或使用洪水法訓練那隻狂流口水（顯示牠很緊張）並且無法逃脫的狗。最終兩隻狗打起來，訓練師製造的這個情境，讓失敗的結果無可避免。

In the trailer, the assistant host, Stefanie DiOrio, states, “Nervousness can easily turn to fear which can lead to aggression.” This is an accurate statement, which is why it’s so confusing that the entire show would be predicated on pushing dogs to the very edge of survivable stress and into predictable aggression, doubling down on the issues that their owners are struggling with.
在預告片中，節目的共同主持人Stefanie DiOrio說「緊張不安很容易變成真正的恐懼，並且導致攻擊行為」，這句話是正確的，但也讓人更加困惑為何整個節目的走向都在將狗推向牠們所能承受壓力的極限、觸發根本可預測的攻擊行為、並使飼主所面對的問題加倍惡化。

We know that the dramatic changes in behavior, from stressed and wildly aggressive to “calm” dogs, make for compelling TV. To an average pet owner it looks like these dogs are making huge improvements. All clients just want their dog to “Stop being aggressive.” However, we also know that behavior suppression is not the same as behavior modification, that a stressed and shut-down dog is a more dangerous animal than one who is actively showing aggression, and that the long-term prognosis of this kind of intervention is poor for both the client and their dog.
我們知道行為上戲劇性的變化，從一隻緊迫且兇猛攻擊的狗轉變成“冷靜”的狗，這個過程代表了高收視率，在不十分了解行為學的飼主眼中看來，這些狗狗似乎有巨大的進步。飼主都只是希望他們的狗「不要再有攻擊性」，然而我們也知道單純抑制攻擊行為的出現，並不是真正的行為改善技術。舉例來說一隻高壓力但看似沒有反應的狗，遠比一隻會表現出攻擊性的狗要危險許多 (譯註: 因為這樣的狗可能會沒有徵兆地開咬)，因此這種抑制攻擊行為的訓練法，以長遠來看對飼主以及狗狗都是有害的。

It is also worth pointing out that, like his predecessor, Mr Beisner’s assessment of cause for much of the issues he’s asked to address is simple, made especially clear in episode 4 where he not only saves a dog, he “saves a marriage:” Women are unable to effectively lead, must be stronger, must change their ways.
另一個值得注意的事是Beisner先生，如同他在同一個頻道的前輩，西薩，對導致問題的原因評估也過於簡化，例如第四集中他聲稱他不只拯救了狗狗，他還「拯救了這段婚姻」，因為女主人無法有效的領導狗狗，因此她必須更堅強，必須改變他們之間的相處模式。

Misogyny, it seems, cures dog behavior problems. Real exploration and explanation regarding the antecedents and consequences around behaviors are ignored in favor of client blaming.
這段貶抑女性的解釋，看起來似乎能改善犬隻的行為問題，然而關於行為問題真正的前因後果卻被指責客戶所取代，並沒有真正的被探討與解釋。

The clients on the show represent thousands of clients throughout the US and beyond with whom we work every day, helping them to help their dogs. Far from being dogs “other people won’t work with,” the dogs on your show are exactly the clients and dogs that IAABC Certified Dog Behavior Consultants, as well as all members of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists, and other certified behavior specialists see and successfully work with every day.
節目中所出現的客戶正代表了我們日常工作中所會幫助的人們與他們的狗，呈現的就是我們在美國跟其他國家的上千位客戶。節目中所出現的這些有著行為問題的狗絕對不是「其他訓練師都不想要處理的狗狗」，事實上這些客戶與狗正是IAABC認證的狗行為諮詢師、美國獸醫行為學家、認證的應用動物行為學家或是其他受認證的行為學專家，每天工作的日常。

We do so using the best practices of our field (see https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/), adopted by the leading behavior and training organizations, without psychologically or physically harming the animals we work with.
我們在這個領域也使用最嚴謹的訓練師專業道德守則（英文版參見https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/，中文版參見https://reurl.cc/72eVkl），這個守則受領先的行為及訓練機構所採用，使訓練師與行為諮詢師在工作時，不對我們經手的動物造成生理或心理上的傷害。

The IAABC urges Nat Geo WILD to stop promoting this public miseducation. The tactics employed in the name of entertainment are unnecessarily harsh and potentially dangerous to the public, and they teach yet another generation of Nat Geo watchers absolutely incorrect and harmful practices.
IAABC呼籲國家地理頻道（Nat Geo WILD）停止傳播此系列誤導公眾的資訊。以娛樂包裝節目的策略對於觀眾是不必要的粗糙而且有潛在風險的，甚至是向頻道的年輕一代觀眾灌輸完全不正確且有害的做法。

It remains a mystery why your network is so intent on harming dogs. After years of Cesar Milan, to now bring in a man equally unskilled, who equates terrified, angry or entrapped dogs to his own addiction history is remarkable. Are we really satisfied conflating ego with compassion, self-focus with an understanding of animal behavior? Is this the “science” your mission stands for?
我們仍然不知為何貴頻道這麼多年來如此堅持持續傷害狗的這些作為。在西薩 (Cesar Milan) 的節目播映多年之後，現在又引進一個同樣缺乏正確訓練技巧，以自身藥物成癮困擾歷史去錯誤的同理恐懼或憤怒的狗的人。我們能接受一個膨脹自我，而非真正擁有同情心、適當自我聚焦、了解動物行為的「專業人士」嗎？這就是貴節目所宣稱的「科學」立場嗎？

The damage Nat Geo is doing to dogs by choosing this type of programming is astounding. We can only assume that the producers are unaware of this, as it’s hard to imagine such harm and cruelty would be deliberate.
國家地理頻道選擇製作這類節目對於狗狗的傷害甚鉅，我們只能假定節目製作人並沒有意識到這點，因為我們難以想像會有人故意去做這樣有害且殘忍的事情。

Would you show a reality program on heart surgery with a photogenic “self-taught” practitioner, simply stating the star was not a doctor before showing him mutilating a real patient?
想問貴節目是否會採用一個上鏡的“自學”外科醫生錄製心臟手術的實境節目，告知觀眾他並非真正的醫生，然後播放他對病患動刀的畫面？

I leave you with the clearest image of suffering and abuse from your trailer: the Aussie, stressed to the breaking point, thick ropes of drool streaming from its mouth, being choked by a slip lead to compensate for the host’s inability to even effectively muzzle a dog. This dog is at the point of collapse. This dog is being tortured, and that is not hysteria. That is an assessment by any educated measure.
作為結尾，我希望指出貴節目預告片中明確顯示出狗狗受苦或受虐的畫面：那隻澳洲牧羊犬已經瀕臨壓力的極限，您可以看到口水掛在其嘴邊 (大量口水為壓力徵兆)，口罩因為沒有確實的配戴而滑脫，導致牠被勒到快要窒息，已在崩潰邊緣。具備專業與適當教育的人員指出，這隻狗因在節目上被虐待而情緒崩潰，並非其本身歇斯底里。

Please stop this cruel and dangerous programming. To do otherwise is to support that self-taught heart surgery and all the consequences it would bring; that this show is currently bringing to families struggling with their dogs.
Professionals refer to Cesar Milan’s influence on dog training as “job security” because so many dogs ruined or made far worse by his teachings are brought to us by well-intentioned, often weeping owners desperate for real help. Often it is too late.
請停止這系列殘酷且危險的節目。否則貴節目就等同於支持前面舉例的自學的心臟外科「醫師」進行手術一樣，這些危險的後果正由觀眾與他們的狗承擔。專業訓犬人士將西薩米蘭對訓犬的影響戲稱為「工作保障」，因為太多飼主使用了他教授的技巧後，狗狗的狀況變得更糟，而哭著迫切尋找真正的協助，此時通常都為時已晚。

We do not want more work due to this same phenomenon.
我們不想要因為這個節目帶來類似影響而接到更多工作。

We’d be happy to provide you with any education and resources you need to inform your producers about what would qualify as responsible, effective, safe and thoughtful work with the same “red zone” dogs you sell so well.
但我們很樂意提供貴頻道任何需要的教育與資源，讓您們的節目製作人對訓犬工作應有的品質有所理解，例如負責、有效、安全，並且理解到對於在節目中出現的這些「危險」犬隻，事實上有更合理的訓練方法。

Thank you for your consideration.
謝謝您的閱讀與理解。

Marjie Alonso
Executive Director, IAABC
For the Board of Directors

Marjie Alonso
IAABC執行長
代表董事會發言

《親密戲導演》

American Theatre，2018年11月號。
《演員的親密戲》

擷自內文：
「性愛場景，如同設計武打場，或是舞蹈動作一般，需要同樣細心編排的動作設計，特別是在這個 #MeToo時代。 」

「我在研究所時期也是演員，所以我有親身體驗—那種來自同事的不恰當經驗，一起跟我上台的人，或是導演完全不知道該怎麼處理這些(親密戲)場景，所以他們索性就完全不處理。」Sina說 「如果你有一個比較年長的導演，碰到親密戲他會跟你們說:你們就做吧，就試看各種可能。所以你們就開始在性愛場景中即興，這是非常不舒服的經驗，而且大多數時候非常令人受傷。」

「親密戲的指示，從來沒有在演員Emily與她的女搭檔編排動作設計遇到困難時出現(她們當時在編排一個充滿戲劇衝突的雙人愛情戲)，即使Emily之前演過同性間的愛情戲，她仍然發現自己舉步維艱， 而她的導演除了不斷對著她們大吼舞臺指示「洶湧的情慾」以外，毫無建樹。兩位演員根本沒有辦法自己演完這場戲，而她們發現到了排練最後階段，她們的導演對著她們大喊「就做吧。時候到了。」

「劇場的一切都是假的，」Sina說，「那是一個由演員搬演的假故事，我們必須永遠記得這點，你不應該因此失去自我，你必須在自我跟所做事情之間取得很好的平衡。是的，你必須把自己奉獻給角色，但你也必須要在適當時候離開。」
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
前言：
自己日常閱讀時發現這篇文章，其中許多觀念頗為受用，花了幾天翻譯出來，希望能給台灣帶來不同觀念交流、分享，人家對身體以及一切相關觀念，已經好前面了。

雖為英文系畢業，但仍非專業翻譯，謬誤之處歡迎指正。

歡迎轉貼，請勿用做商業用途。
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
正文：

Intimate Exchanges
Sex scenes require as much careful choreography as flight or dances, especially in the #MeToo era.

《交換親密》
性愛場景，如同設計武打場，或是舞蹈動作一般，需要同樣細心編排的動作設計，特別是在這個 #MeToo時代。

Adam Noble had been teaching an advanced scene class for just one month when he faced a startling encounter with sexual assault in acting. A student came to him asking for a new scene partner, saying she thought the man she had been working with, on the final scene between Stanley and Blanche in A Streetcar Named Desire, had tried to rape her.

Adam Noble在他的進階場景分析課上遇到一件令他膽戰心驚的表演性騷擾事件，一名學生跟他要求更換場景搭檔，她說她的搭檔企圖在他們一起工作《慾望街車》最後一景Stanley跟Blanche的戲時，企圖強暴她。

Noble immediately offered to serve as a mediator for the two students, who had been rehearsing alone in the young man’s dorm room, in order to clarify what had happened. The situation was resolved as a misunderstanding, and the two were able to continue working together. But for Noble, who had staged his first theatrical flight in 1992, the incident served as a wake-up call.

Noble立即以協調者身分為兩位同學提供幫助(他們一直單獨在男同學宿舍房間單獨排練)，以求能夠釐清事實真相。後來發現整起事件其實是個誤會，兩位同學也因此能夠繼續一起順利工作。但對於Noble來說—他從1992年就設計了他的人生第一場舞台打搏鬥戲—這起突發事件有如一記響鐘。

“We were sending these kids off on their own devices with no foundation for how to approach this stuff,” he recalled. The lack of resources for both students and teachers regarding the staging of intimate scenes was apparent.

「我們讓這些孩子在完全不具備如何處理理這種事的相關基礎知識時候，就放手要他們自己發展，」他這麼回憶。「因此，老師與學生雙方都缺乏排練親密戲的必須知識，這件事是顯而易見的。」

Noble developed a method called Extreme Stage Physicality to provide students with a framework to address what he called in an article for The Flight Master maginize “scenarios of intense physicality” with comfort and confidence. He began teaching ESP to high school, undergraduate, nd graduate students across the country. He found that the methodology was effective for all ages, and the number of reported incidents and problems dropped to zero.

Noble後來發展出了一套他稱之為「極端舞台形體」（ESP)的技巧，他對《The Fight Master》雜誌表⽰這個技巧提供了一組完整架構給學生使用，讓他們在「激烈的肢體情境」中可以感到安心並且擁有自信。他開始在高中、大學、研究所教導這套ESP技巧。他發現這套方法適用於所有年齡層，後來這些單位的性騷擾通報數量為零。

“For me as a director, it had to work for aggression, and it had to work for intimacy,” Noble said. “ It had to work across the board for those moments when the body steps in to fill the void, whether it’s violence or intimacy. Theres’s a point where the text and the words are no longer enough and the body steps in. There had to be a way for them to work on it safely.”

「身為導演，我認為在工作時，必須涵蓋侵略性以及親密性這些面向，」Noble說，「這些都必須要被全面地工作到的，特別是在那些時刻，當你的身體必須要介入來填補空缺的時候，會有那麼一個點，光靠文本跟台詞已經不足以支撐而你的身體必須要介入，在這時候必須要有一個安全工作的方法。」

That way would later be referred to as intimacy choreography, a term first used in 2006 by Tonia Sina, creator of the Intimacy Directors International. While studying movement pedagogy, including flowing and mime, Sina was helping to choreograph intimate scenes in student-directed plays and found what she described as “a hole” in choreography and no resources to help with her work.

那套方法，後來被「國際親密戲導演工作坊」創辦人之一Tonia Sina稱為「親密戲形體排練」。當 Sina在鑽研動作教育學時—其中包含小丑與默劇—一面幫忙在學生執導的劇目中擔任動作設計，就在這時候，她發現了在動作設計這個領域中的「空缺」，而這方面，她發現自己完全沒有任何資源可以幫上忙。

For her thesis he created a technique to help actors improve the conditions of their work as well as the results. Published in 2006, “ Intimate Encounters; Staging Intimacy and Sensuality” drew from her own experience as an actor. While attending graduate school at Virginia Commonwealth University, Sina’s personal life was disrupted due to the lack of structure provided for staging intimate sscenes. While rehearsing Picasso at the Latin Agile, she and her acting partner staged a love scene together, alone-a standard practice for such scenarios- with unnerving results.

她在她的論文創造了一套技巧，來幫助演員精進他們工作的狀態以及成果。2006年，她從自身演員經驗出發，發表了《親密接觸:表演中的親密性及其感官性》。大學就讀維吉尼亞聯邦大學時，Sina的私生活就因為沒有一套擁有完整架構的技巧來排演親密場景，而深受其苦。在排練Picasso at the Latin Agile 時，Sina跟她的表演搭擋需要排練一段愛情戲，而且是獨自排練—一個司空見慣的情況—然後最後結果卻令人不安。

“The second our lips touched it was not rehearing,” Sina recalled. “It was just kissing. We both felt it. We both knew. It ended up spiraling. We ended up leaving our parters for a month and we had a showmance. It caused a lot of mayhem in our personal lives because we couldn’t let these characters go. We didn’t have a safe way to do the intimacy, and we didn’t have a safe way of coming out of it.”

「當我們的嘴唇碰在一起時，那就不是在排練了。」Sina回憶道。「那就只是單純在接吻而已。我們都感覺到了，最後越演越烈，我們都因此而跟各自伴侶分手，在那個演出期間我們的私生活真的變得很混亂，因為我們都不肯放下我們劇中角色。我們沒有一個安全的方法來做親密戲，也沒有一個安全的方法來離開它。」

The two dated for a month, but their romantic relationship ended shortly after the show closed. And while Sina’s experience was consensual, there are many cases in which an intimacy director could have prevented non-consensual encounters and abuses of power, especially for young women in the industry.

他們兩個交往了一個月，但隨著戲告一段落感情也就馬上結束了。儘管Sina的案例是當事者雙方都心甘情願，仍然有非常多的例子不是如此，在那樣的狀況下其實親密戲導演是有大把機會可以防止這種違反自身意願的接觸，以及權力的濫用，特別是對業界年輕女性而言。

“While I was in grad school I was also an actress, so I was experiencing it firsthand- situations that had been completely inappropriate from co-workers, people who had been onstage with me, director and there’s a sex scene and they say, ‘You guys just do it. Just try something.’ So you’re improvising a sex scene with your partner. That’s extremely uncomfortable and very victimizing at times.”

「我在研究所時期也是演員，所以我有親身體驗—那種來自同事的不恰當經驗，一起跟我上台的人，或是導演完全不知道該怎麼處理這些(親密戲)場景，所以他們索性就完全不處理。」Sina說 「如果你有一個比較年長的導演，碰到親密戲他會跟你們說:你們就做吧，就試看各種可能。所以你們就開始在性愛場景中即興，這是非常不舒服的經驗，而且大多數時候非常令人受傷。」

Alcoa Rodies, co-founder of Intimacy Directors Internatial, witnessed and was a victim in such scenarios throughout her career. After almost chipping a tooth when a scene partner decided to intensify a kiss onstage, she was told, “ That’s part of the profession. Get used to it.” Knowing there were hundreds of other women who would gladly take her spot in a show if she left, Rodis thought she had to accept that kind of behavior for the rest of her career.

IDI共同創辦人Alcia Rodis在她自己生涯中，親眼見過幾個案例，並且，也曾經有過身為受害者的經驗。在她的對手演員決定在場上把吻戲變得異常激烈時，她的牙齒幾乎都要裂了，儘管如此，她還是被告知「這行就是這樣。早點習慣吧。」因為Rodis清楚知道如果她選擇離開的話，會有其他幾百位女性會搶破頭想要她的位置，她一度以為她必須要在整個職涯中接受這種狀況。

“We sort of learned that’s not the case, and we don’t have to just take it. We can actually be part of the process and work together,” Rodis said.

「我們後來知道其實並不是這樣的，我們不需要逆來順受。我們其實可以在整個工作過程中同心協力地工作。」Rodis 說。

Sina and Rodies, along with co-founder Siobhan Richardson, created the Pillars, the core protocol of IDI’s work and teaching. A codified process, the Pillars consist of Context, Commumication, Consent and Choreography. (They recently estabished a fifth pillar, Closure, to assist actors in walking away from a character after a performance.) Not having this process, Sina said, can be damaging and dangerous.

Sina跟Rodis，以及創辦夥伴Siobhan Richardson發明了「骨幹」這個IDI在工作及教學上的核心要素草案。其中包含：文本、溝通、同意以及動作(近期還加上了第五個骨幹:收尾。來幫助演員在戲結束之後順利離開他的角色。)Sina說，沒有這些幫助的話，是有可能帶來危害的。

“None of it’s real-it’s theatre,” said Sina. “It’s a fake story that is being portrayed by actors, and we have to keep remembering that. You shouldn’t be losing yourself. You need to have some semblance of yourself and some awareness of what you’re doing. Yes you can commit to the character, but you need to come out again.”

「劇場的一切都是假的，」Sina說，「那是一個由演員搬演的假故事，我們必須永遠記得這點，你不應該因此失去自我，你必須在自我跟所做事情之間取得很好的平衡。是的，你必須把自己奉獻給角色，但你也必須要在適當時候離開。」

IDI currently recommends four certified Intimacy Directors, with 16 candidates in training to become certified. Currently only established movement teachers, choreographers, and directors who have worked directly with a founder are able to apply for training. The organization also offers workshops for actors, directors who want to learn basic consent and choreography, and for stage managers and choreographers wanting to learn more about intimacy direction. In August 2018, a 10-day International Intimacy Pedagogy was held in Illinois.

IDI最近推薦了四位經過認證的親密戲導演，陸續還有其他十六位正在培訓。目前，機構只提供專業的、並且曾和創辦者共事過的動作老師、編舞以及導演可以申請接受培訓。IDI有提供工作坊給演員及導演學習「同意」與「動作」的基礎概念，另有舉辦工作坊，給有意願了解更多關於「如何給予親密戲指示」的舞臺經理與動作設計。2018年8月，他們在伊利諾州舉辦了為期10天的國際親密戲教育學工作坊。

Along with the Pillars, another crucial aspect of intimacy directing is recognizing and respecting traumas in one’s colleagues. All IDI-certified choreographers have completed state-offered metal health certification courses.

除了「骨幹」之外，另有一個至關重要的概念：辨識並且尊重同事的創傷。所有IDI的動作設計都完成了由州政府認證的心理健康課程。

“None of us are therapists, and none of us are counselors,” Rodis said. “But we know what to do if someone is having a metal health crisis, and we know what resources to give them. Because of the nature of the work we’re doing, and because some of us are so new, we’re getting further education on trauma.”

「我們都不是心理治療師，我們也都不是諮商師，」Rodis說「但是，我們知道當有人心理出現危機時該給他們什麼資源。因為就我們現在所做的工作本質上來說，我們都是新手，所以我們有必要持續在創傷這個議題上進修。」

While recognizing that theatre professionals are just that- professionals hired to tell a story- the founders also understand that that job can involve actors putting themselves through traumatic experiences night after night.
“We know what you’re doing is different than going to the office every day,” Rodis said, “If you’re playing Lady Macbeth every night, after a while it’s going to wear on you. So we also offer resources on how to close out at the end of every night.”

正因為知道劇場這個職業就是由一群受聘的專業演員來講一則故事，創辦者清楚的認識到這個工作可能需要演員讓他們自己日復一日、夜復一夜的經歷那些創傷。「我們明⽩你的工作不同於朝九晚五的上班族，」Rodis說，「如果妳每天晚上都在飾演馬克白夫人，過一陣子這個角色其實是會影響到妳本人的，正因為如此，我們也提供方法讓你在每晚演出過後把角色給關起來。」

One such resource is the ability to discuss sexuality and sexual experiences openly and without discomfort- a shift from the norm in American culture, which, as actor/director/teacher Claire Warden observed, has little problem with violence but tends to balk when it comes to sex, leaving directors feeling uncomfortable and embarrassed.

其中一個資源，就是擁有能力來討論性以及性經驗而不會感到不適。談論性這件事，不同於具有多重身份(演員、導演與老師)的Claire Warden觀察到的一個美國文化現象:談到暴力時大家都沒問題，不過一但談到性的時候大家都顯得有點畏畏縮縮的，這其實讓導演們都覺得不舒服與尷尬。

“We’ve got this really skewed view of sex and sexuality and intimacy, and an obsession with it,“ Warden Said, “ A lot of shame, judgment, power, and confusion lies around it, which has made it uncomfortable and awkward to talk about openly.” The root problem, she said, may be that “sexuality and intimacy have kind of blurred into one.”

「我們對於性與親密的相關議題有一種扭曲的觀念，同時卻又深深為其著迷」Warden說，「這同時又有許多羞愧、判斷、權力以及困惑參雜其中，因此讓它成為一個公開談論時會帶來不適與尷尬的議題。」根據她說，其實真正根深蒂固的問題是，我們把「性」與「親密」混為一談。

Intimacy direction was never mentioned when an actor we’ll call Emily(not her real name) was performing in a dramatic two-handler and struggled to choreograph a love scene with her female scene partner. Having never performed a same-sex love scene before, Emily found herself at a loss, and her director- whose only technique was to yell the stage direction “Rolling heat!” Repeatedly- was no help. The two actors were unable to stage the scene on their own and found themselves onstage at the end of rehearsal with the director yelling. “Just do it. It’s time.”

親密戲的指導，從來沒有在演員Emily與她的女搭檔編排動作設計遇到困難時出現(她們當時在編排一個充滿戲劇衝突的雙人愛情戲)，即使Emily之前演過同性間的愛情戲，她仍然發現自己舉步維艱， 而她的導演除了不斷對著她們大吼舞臺指示「洶湧的情慾」以外，毫無建樹。兩位演員根本沒有辦法自己演完這場戲，而她們發現到了排練最後階段，她們的導演對著她們大喊「就做吧。時候到了。」

Emily recalled that “when it came time to do it in performances, fight director friends of mine ho came to see the how said, ‘That look incredibly uncomfortable for you both. You looked like you were in pain and it was obvious.’’’ Her friends asked her where the intimacy director was. Emily had never heard of such a director, saying, “ I wish I’d known about it at the time when all the yelling was happening.”

Emily後來說，「後來真的演出時，我有個舞台搏鬥導演朋友來看演出，到了所謂的『就做吧』片段時，他說『那看起來對妳們兩個都極其不舒服，妳們看起來超痛苦，而且非常明顯。」她的朋友繼續問她親密戲導演在哪。Emily那時從來沒有聽過有「親密戲導演」這種導演，她說「我真希望在所有的吼叫發叫的當下，我能夠知道『其實有親密戲導演』這件事。」

Emily now a director herself, said she is carful to ensure that her actors are comfortable when staging intimate scenes. “I am hyper-aware of my actors’ sensitivity and I’m constantly checking in with them: ‘Are you okay? Are you comfortable with this? Let me know if you’re not comfortable. We don’t have to do this. We can do something else.’ And my actors thank me for it. They’re not used to that.”

現在身為導演的Emily表示:「在排練親密戲時，我總是對我的演員的感受保持超級高的敏感度，我會不停的詢問他們『你還好嗎？你對這個覺得自在嗎？如果有不舒服要讓我知道。我們不一定要這麼做，我們可以有替代方案的。』我的演員總是對此心存感激，他們對這樣的工作方式其實還不是那麼習慣。」

Uncomfortable situations can present themselves with or without directors in the room. Often scene partners are encouraged to stage the scenes on their own, outside of rehearsal, a practice that can lead to feelings of fear and helplessness. Sina was kissed inappropriately- a kiss that hadn’t been choreographed or rehearsed- in front of an audience of 500 people and had to be in character as she received it.

不舒服的狀況不論導演在不在場都有可能發生。通常演員們會被鼓勵私下自己排練，其實，這麼做很容易引發恐懼與無助感。Sina曾在500位觀眾面前被不當的親吻—一個沒被事先設計或是排練過的吻 —而她在被親的同時還要想辦法讓自己「待在角色裡」。

“There are times where it’s, ‘Kiss, but don’t kiss until previews.’ It’s the worst,” Rodis said. “At best it’s a bad story, at worst they start grabbing you, ‘be in the moment.’ That’s the definition of assault.”

「有時候的情況是親，但是在試演前不會真的親，那種是最糟的。」Rodis說，「當那種狀況發生時，你能得到最好的結果是一個爛故事，最糟的結果是你開始被這件事給抓住還要『待在當下』， 這其實就是侵犯的定義。」

Along with establishing the definition of assault, IDI training also defines consent in clear, unquestionable terms that differentiate between that and permission. A director can give permission to touch another actor, but only a fellow actor can give consent.

除了建立侵犯的定義以外，IDI還以清清楚楚、不容模糊的語彙界定了「同意」與「允許」的差異。 導演可以「允許」演員去觸摸對手，但只有對手演員自己才可以真的表示「同意」。

“The conversation is always very professional and technical, so when we’re talking about parts of the body, it’s the biological name of the part of the body.” said Warden. “And we as intimacy directors never ask anything about and never inquire about the actors’, directors’ or anyone else’s personal sexual life, history, story, proclivities, etc.”

「所有的討論都是非常專業的，當我們必須要談論身體的部位時，我們都會用生物學名稱。」 Warden說，「身為親密戲導演，我們絕對不會去問任何演員、導演或是任何人的個人性愛生活、歷史、故事或是性傾向...等等任何事情。」

The language doesn’t change when the workshops contain students, Warden said, though she may move more slowly.

語彙的使用並不會因為工作坊有學生而改變，Warden說，只是她會教的更慢而已。

“A lot of what we’re saying for adults is still, ‘That is not real. None of this is real.’’’ said Sina. “In rehearsal, we don’t add acting to it until the very last minute, We choreograph it like we do anything else. Just do the moves so everyone knows what’s happening. Then they can add the emotion to it when the actors are ready and they feel they know the choreography well enough. And if you can get that to happen for minors, it separates the sexuality from the choreography and allows them to treat it like it is: choreography.”

「即便我們跟成年人都一直在強調『這都不是真的，這一切都是假的。』」Sina說。「排練的時候，我們不到最後一分鐘是不會加上『表演』的。在最後關頭之前。我們都像是處理其他素材一樣，做形體動作讓大家都知道會發生什麼事。一直到演員們都準備好了，對動作都夠熟悉時，他們才會真的帶入感情去演出。如果你能夠讓這些未成年先開始這麼做，慢慢的所有人就能夠把性跟動作設計分開來來看，然後以正確的眼光看它:動作設計。」

The inability to treat intimate scenes as simply choreography is a problem Sina has observed at numerous drama competitions, where students without sexual experience or knowledge, let alone the ability to separate themselves from the characters they were playing, have performed sex scenes. These situations can be traumatizing for people without the knowledge or resources to handle it.

Sina在無數個戲劇比賽上觀察到一個問題，學生們往無法把親密場景當成動作設計一樣來處理，這群學生們沒有性經驗或是相關知識，想當然就無法在性愛戲中把自己跟扮演的人物切割開來看待。這種狀況是非常有可能讓人受創的，特別是對那些沒有相關知識，或是資源來處理這種狀況的人。

“If they’re not being led through it properly, it can be very, very dangerous,” she said. “It’s illegal in our country to do anything sexual with a minor or have two minors do something sexual in front of an adult. It’s very thin line between choreography and a crime when you’re dealing with minors.”

「如果他們沒有被好好引導的話，那真的非常非常的危險。」她說，「根據我們國家的法律，讓一個或多個未成年人在成年人面前做出帶有性愛意味的事情是違法的。所以面對未成年時，在『動作設計』跟『犯罪』之間其實只有一條非常模糊的線。」

Demand for IDI services and training has spiked in the past year, since the #MeToo movement has exposed abuse in the entertainment field, including theatre, and the issues of consent and empowerment in the workplace (not to mention outside of it) have become central.

自從去年#MeToo運動開始後，對IDI這個機構的服務與訓練來說，他們面臨了重要挑戰。在娛樂產業(包含劇場)的職場上(更別提職場外也是)，現在，關於「同意」與「權力」的議題都變得重要無比了。

“At the moment there’s so much need and demand and only so many of us to go around,” Warden said. “I cannot be in every single room and play out there, but what I can do is empower actors or directors or even stag managers to go into a room and say, ‘I would like to offer a way of talking about this.”

「目前來看，親密戲導演的需求與實際從業人數是不成正比的，」Warden說。「很顯然的，我不可能出現在每一個房間裡指導，但我可以做的是賦予演員、導演甚是舞臺經理權力，讓他們能夠在每個房間替自己發聲『我想要提供另外一種工作方式』。」

Also encouraging to Warden is the increased awareness among young students.

對Warden來說，令他欣慰的是年輕一代學生中對這件事情有意識的人數越來越多了。

“My hope, my intentions and my dream is that the next generation of actors, writers, and directors come out with a very different understating of respect and consent with their bodies and each others’ bodies,” Warden said. “And that leads us into an even more free and safe way to creat deep, authentic, risky stories.”

「我的願望、我的本意、以及我的夢想都是下個世代的演員、作家、以及導演都能夠對他們自己以及他人的身體，有一種非常不同於現在的理解、尊重、權利，」Warden說，「這可以讓我們以更自由，同時也更加安全的方式來創造出具深度、真誠、精彩的故事。」

Carey Purcell, New York city-based reporter