好莱坞的误导历史
Hollywood’s misleading history
The film called The Big Short differs in a significant way from the book of the same name on which it is based, and this difference reveals how the film-makers made it more politically charged in order to blame Wall Street for the financial crisis.
《大空头》这部电影与其同名报告文学在历史叙事上有着很明显的不同，而且这一差异揭示了电影制作者是如何使这部影片更充满政治意味，从而把金融危机归咎于华尔街。
In the book, the Wall Street experts who were approached to bet against the housing market almost all refused.
在那本书中，几乎所有被问及是否做空房产市场的华尔街专家们都给出了否定答案。
This showed something that was true, and for that reason interesting: that even people on Wall Street, always on the lookout for a money-making opportunity, could not believe the housing market was in any danger of collapse. In the film, this was demonstrated by the skepticism of the FrontPoint group that was initially approached as investors, as well as the eagerness of the financial firms such as Goldman Sachs and others to take the other side of the bet against the housing market.
这显示了一些有趣的事实，那就是，即使是成天盯着捞钱机会的华尔街精英也无法相信（当时的）房市会有任何崩溃的风险。而在电影中，这被演绎成投资者FrontPoint集团的怀疑立场，以及像高盛集团那样的金融机构们对于做多房地产市场的渴望。
In the book, the tension in the narrative was created when the book’s protagonists — the first people to bet against the housing market — had persuaded their investors to place bets against the housing market many months before the coming failures actually became evident. As a result, in the book their financial backers became impatient. The predictions of a collapse did not happen fast enough, and they sought to withdraw their funds. Some of this impatience was present in the film, but the context was changed.
在书中，整个故事的紧张之处体现在主人公——作为第一个开始做空房地产市场的人——在金融海啸变成现实之前很多个月，就说服了他们的投资者来做空房市。结果，他们的财务支持者们变得不耐烦了，预言中的崩塌没有足够快的发生，于是他们计划撤资。电影中部分展现了这一不耐烦的情节，然而其情境却被改写了。
In the film, the collapse actually occurred, but the there was no movement in the market prices of the privately-issued mortgage-backed securities or the credit default swaps that were used to bet against them. This was attributed in the film to a conspiracy among the big banks on Wall Street: they somehow kept the market from moving against them while they sold off their holdings to less informed buyers.
在影片中，房产市场的崩溃如期发生了，但是私下发行的MBS（住房抵押贷款证券）和用来做空他们的CDS（信用违约掉期）的市场价格并没有变化。这在影片中被归结于华尔街上大银行的共谋：他们以某种方式稳定住了市场，直到把自己持有的资产卖给那些知情较少的买家。
It should be obvious that a conspiracy like this is impossible. There are too many buyers and sellers in the financial markets for something like the price of mortgage-backed securities or credit defaults swaps to be rigged. In reality, as soon as an index of housing defaults began to signal danger, investors fled the market.
显然像这样的阴谋是不可能成功的。在金融市场像CDS和MBS这类金融工具所涉及到的买家和卖家实在是太多了，以至于其价格很难被操纵。事实上，一旦房贷违约的指数开始发出危险信号，投资者马上就逃离了这个市场。
If the film had simply followed the book, it would have been a tale about how some very smart and gutsy traders outwitted Wall Street and faced down investors who had lost faith in them to win big in the end. It could have been an uplifting story that would have shone an unflattering light on the supposedly smart guys on Wall Street.
如果该影片只是简单地遵循同名报告文学的叙事，那将只会是一个某些既聪明绝顶又胆大包天的交易员以其聪明才智胜过华尔街，以及让那些对他们失去信心的投资者羞愧万分，从而在最后赢得巨额回报的故事。这或许会成为一个真实报道华尔街上的聪明伙计的励志故事。
But that was not enough for Hollywood. In Hollywood’s telling, the bad guys had to be villains, not just dumb. So the film-makers concocted a plot in which Wall Street successfully kept the market from moving against them in order to save themselves.
但这对好莱坞来说可远远不够。在好莱坞的通常叙事中，坏家伙们必须是十足的恶棍，而不是随便冒出来的草包。所以电影制作人们编造了一个情节：为了拯救自身，华尔街成功阻止了不利于自身的市场运动。
In reality, of course, Wall Street was not saved. Many of the major firms got into serious trouble when the housing bubble collapsed. Several failed and others suffered major losses.
当然，实际上华尔街并没有被拯救。房产泡沫崩溃时很多主要金融机构陷入了严重的困境。有一些破产了，剩下的也遭受到了极其严重的损失。
The lesson here is to approach Hollywood’s versions of real life events with caution. They can be good entertainment, but badly misleading history.
这里的教训是要对好莱坞版本的现实事件保持警惕。他们可以是很好的娱乐，但同时可能会严重的误导历史。
翻译：Luis Rightcon(@Rightcon)
校对：Tankman
编辑：辉格@whigzhou