宮本武藏
第一次認識宮本武藏，可能是一齣叫《決鬥巖流島》的電影，三船敏郎演「劍聖」宮本武藏，當年日本影壇最酷最型的鶴田浩二演「新劍王」，應該就是場刊說的佐佐木小次郎，「巖流島」想是場刊說的「船島」，電影藝術加工，有宮本武藏不慌不忙地把木槳削成木劍的描寫，決戰時對手想利用初升的太陽，光線在劍上反映使宮本武藏眩目，但终落敗 。電影拍得好精彩，雖已半個世紀之前，仍瀝瀝在目。
歐錦棠等了七年才動手，不負自己，更不負觀眾，好劇本，好演員。正確來說，本劇是「少年宮本武藏」，借用潮流電影名，是Miyamoto Musashi Begins.。說故事用可靠的傳统技巧，以倉田保昭演晚年宮本武藏寫論戰奇書《五輪書》寫引子，劇中角色的黑影投在他背後的日式纸屏封上，有古樸，詩，畫的味道。Linear的故事慢熱，初時發展颇緩，到宗澎澤庵點化新免武藏終成宮本武藏的主線展開，漸入佳境，台詞更越有深度，場刊引述的文武二道互相輝映，盡顯光芒。撼人心魄的高潮，不是高手決戰，而是三年後重聚，武藏已脱胎換骨，立志獨行以劍証道，啊通卻仍癡心一片，誓死相隨，兩股極強的性格相碰，仿如無堅不摧的茅，遇到無利器能破的盾，如何了斷？最後啊通一句〝我不想再被遺棄〞如千斤壓頂，武藏也不敢抗拒，只好在她收拾行李時悄然離去，
鄭至芝層次分別地發展阿通性格的五個階段，十分可觀：初段嬌憨而快樂無憂；得知未婚夫無情而神傷；靈慧的眼中看到的武藏和別人眼中的不同，是她的慧根；
堅強的一面更盡顯，先是冒死救人，然後應约耐心等候；最後無耐中把升華到雖各自獨行，仍是一生同行的最高境界。歐錦棠的『劇道場』越戲越勇，自已演少年武藏自不作別人想；李潤祺的奇僧亦是一絕，定是觀眾最喜愛的角色；遊走我兩心水劇團 (Alice and 7A) 的周家輝演兩個截然不同的角色亦有佳績；變回個人的萬斯敏又來一力作，老角也有多類，她的阿杉婆透出一陣陣《原野》焦母的陰森，實不容易；次要的角色阿甲，有份量的梁翠珊演來，也特别生動；倉田保昭参與這香港演出，正值時局風雨飄搖，政客越醜陋的時候，越突顯民間和藝術的美麗。
Q畸大道
Three cheers to Windmill Grass Theatre for
bringing this show to Hong Kong, its first ever translated full production, as
reported by Time Out Hong Kong (TOHK). My Broadway musical universe revolves
mainly around R&H, L&L and goes only as far as ALW. Still, there are
some others with which I can claim a certain degree of familiarity, Les Mis
being obviously at the top of the list. Others include “Into the woods” and “Beauty
and the beast”, both of which I actually saw in Broadway, albeit re-runs. The
title “Avenue Q”, I must confess, I heard the first time from Windmill Grass.
How “recent” is this show is a matter of subjective perception: it premiered
off-Broadway in 2003.
But then, my kids virtually grew up with “Sesame
Street” (i.e. the Muppets) in the early 1980s. “Avenue Q”, based on my Internet
surfing, is not specifically The Muppets. Even so, Wiki suggests that Rod and
Nicky are basically modeled after Bert and Ernie, which looks palusible. It
also references Trekkie Monster to The Cookie Monster, which I see more as a
merging of Cookie Monster and Animal. Leaving the Muppets but still on sourcing
of “Avenue Q” characters, Gary Coleman is parodied in the role with the same
name. Some reports intimate that the initial idea was for him to play the
character in the original cast. Those interested can research this intriguing
story in Internet which, incidentally, is not just for porn (or “AV” in the
Cantonese translated version)!!
On general background, I can do no better
than quoting Wiki, which explains that “Avenue Q” is generally considered to be
a “coming-of-age parable, addressing and satirizing the issues and anxieties
associated with entering adulthood. Its characters lament that as children,
they were assured by their parents, and by children's television programs such
as “Sesame Street”, that they were ‘special’ and ‘could do anything’; but as
adults, they have discovered to their surprise and dismay that in the real
world their options are limited, and they are no more ‘special’ than anyone
else”. A positive note, however, is provided by TOHK: all characters go through some kind of
weird existential crisis and comes out the other side just a little more human.
In terms of structure of the story, I may perhaps add that it generally follows
the template of 七十二家房客
which is pretty universal.
The next thing is, as mentioned, the
ambition in rendering the musical into a Cantonese production. In this context,
as I alluded to many times in this blog, there is a Hamlet-ish dilemma: to
localize or not to localize. The production leans towards the latter, which I
think is a wise decision, given the very American nature of the context. It
wouldn’t really work to “localize” Gary Coleman into, say, 喬寶寶, would it? There are, however,
localizations where it is apt to do so, e.g. Princeton’s degree of BA in
English becomes a 通識 degree, something which local audiences
will empathize a lot more strongly with. The aforementioned of changing “porn”
into “AV” is similarly apt.
On the other hand, some loss-in-translation
is almost inevitable. The delightful pun embedded in Monstersori School would
likely be lost to the local audience if adopted literally. They did give “come”
a try in the video material (transforming “come” into “commitment”), which was
unfortunately all but lost to the audience. While on this, I can’t help but
refer to a deliciously wicked twist in using a biblically well know phrase for
the title of a play “Let my people come” – comic sketches that deals entirely
with the subject of sex, culminating in a moment of full frontal male nudity
(allowed in Toronto). My friend who invited me to the show recognized the
context after just one quick glance at the title. But I digress.
The heart and soul of a musical is, most
would agree, the music. Here I suffer from a lack of familiarity that will
allow me to enjoy “Avenue Q” as much as I did a similar Cantonese rendition of “A
chorus line” which I saw earlier this year. The delivery, however, is impeccably
professional. The same can be said about the impressive 360 degree stage set
and the effect enhancing lighting. In the show I attended, there was one sloppy
slipup in the props department in one scene towards the end – the sign of the
new Monster School, the focus of the scene, somehow cannot be hung up properly.
I’m sure measures would have already been taken to ensure that this will not
recur.
What I like best about this show is the
ensemble cast, which is just about as good as can be assembled today for a show
of this genre. As mentioned, I knew nothing about “Avenue Q” when I walked into
the theatre. Emerging, my burning question was obviously whether the doubling
up reflects the original script or is rather a local improvisation. Internet, as
always, is my friend and I was soon enlightened: it’s the former case, with
just a minor variation. As in the original casting, the pairs Princeton and
Rod, Kate Monster and Lucy, Nicky and Bad Idea Bear (male), as well as Mrs. T
and Bad Idea Bear (female) were all played by one actor, just as in the local
rendition. The one difference is that while in the local production, Brian and
Trekkie Monster are played by the same actor, in the original cast the actor
playing Brian did not do any puppet doubling up (Trekkie Monster was
doubled-up, or tripled-up if you want to split hair, by the actor who played
Nicky and Bad Idea Bear). So, back then, there were three characters with no
puppet attachments: Brian, Christmas Eve and Gary Coleman. Christmas Eve was actually
played by a Japanese actress. Gary Coleman was played by a woman but at least
she didn’t have to plain her face black as our 文瑞興 did, because she was ethnically black. The
Brian I saw is the Youtubes found were big fellows, but not outrageously so.
The “padding” of our 梁祖堯, in my view, is somewhat overdone, distracting from
the play rather than serving a useful purpose.
Two members of the cast I have mentioned
numerous times in this blog. Anyone that has seen 邵美君in《愛是雪》would agree that switching between sweet innocent Kate
and throaty voluptuous Lucy in “Avenue Q” she can perfect probably in her
sleep. On top of that, there is also the seamless blending into the puppet she
is manipulating alongside. She is just that good. The other is 劉守正, and no matter how many times I talk about the numerous performances I
have watched of this versatile actor, I somehow invariably end up mentioning
the role Alma Winemiller in a HKRT Cantonese rendition of Tennessee Williams’s “The
eccentricities of a nightingale”
(請你愛我一小時) in 2003. This is a man playing a female role without any help of
costume or makeup, nor artificial falsetto or campy demeanor, and is absolutely
convincing. He is just that good. (Incidentally, this was an “A” and “B” cast
production. In the other cast the role was played by 潘璧雲 who, while a top-notch actor of HKRT, IS a
woman).
The two Windmill Grass regulars, 梁祖堯 and湯駿業, needless to say, carry the show in their
usual efficiency, delivering impeccably the animation-style exaggeration
required of their respective characters, Brian (doubling up Trekkie Monster)
and Princeton (doubling up Roy). From her black-painted face, 文瑞興 makes her character Gary Coleman shine. What make her performance even
more enjoyable is seeing how much she is enjoying herself. Fondly known as “Hatou”
(shrimp head), 楊詩敏 to the character Christmas Eve the bubbling
energies with fond memories if her PIP days. Not to be missed is黄靖程. While her roles may be minor (Female Bad
Idea Bear and Mrs. T), her performance is Major League. Even when outside those
characters, when she was just handling the right arm of Nicky’s puppet for 劉守正 she didn’t miss a single beat in reflecting the expression of the
character he was portraying. Absolutely first-class.
二人證據
等了一年半，《惡童》三部曲的中篇《二人證據》面世，翻看舊場刊，有高少敏和賴慰玲，當時前者尚未加盟「中英」，後者則尚未參與《夜鷹姊魅》的演出。再拿《二人證據》的場刊對照，更有新發現，《惡童》中的李澆嵐在今次亦有参加演出，卻用了另一個名字：李麗君。魏綺珊有新嘗試，接過現場沙畫這崗位，算是〝半台前半幕後〞罷？也好，在這一瓣 self-sufficient了，以後演出再有需要，亦再不假外求。
承接上篇，《二人證據》繼續訴說戰爭扭曲人性，孖生兄弟中Claus離去，Lucas 留下，故事開始時他已是十五歲，以他為中心，是他接觸到的一些人的故事，Google到資料提到它結構上跟諾貝爾獎得主Heinrich Boll的《Group portrait with lady》相似。羅松堅「改编者的話」中提到內容豐富，難以取捨，嘆息其中最精彩，失眠老人Michael一段，也要忍痛割愛。幾段不同人物故事之中，占篇幅最多，也叫觀眾看得最心痛的，是亂倫結果的殘疾小子Mathias，葉苑伶把這個心理複雜的可憐小男孩演活了，對她讚賞之外，選角也應記一功。而請到黄兆輝演Lucas，也是這劇成功的一個重要原因。Lucas黯然離去，若干年後Claus重歸故里，希望和失散多年的孖生兄弟重聚，點題《二人證據》：似乎沒有證據證明這對兄弟的身份，甚至他們彷彿從來沒有存在過，觀眾更期待看完結篇《第三謊言》，又想到兩個相似得連相熟朋友也認不出來的兄弟應該會同時出現，黄兆輝再不能一人分飾兩角，但用了面具，也不會有太大問題。
說故事的技巧上除了已經成為『糊塗』傳统的面具和沙畫之外，有一個似乎是新的嘗試，頗成功，說的是surround-sound，初聽時有點不習慣，適應了之後，欣賞它加強角色的心理描寫的作用。今次沙畫投影在演區後面的特大的屏幕上本是好的，但那位置上面剛好是一排强光燈，每當劇情需要亮燈時，沙畫的效果給大大的削弱了。三百六十度旋轉佈景有想像力，有美感，對這齣戲很適合，元朗劇院大，深，user friendly的舞台，在早些時剛巧有機會〝攀車邊〞參與某音樂演出自己親身體驗過，《二人證據》今次在元朗演出，亦物盡其用。
感謝『糊塗』的魄力，vision，passion，兑現了年半前Rensen的承諾，繼續靜心期待：The best is yet to come.
教授
很高興看到話劇團的新成員，陸續有重頭戲，郭靜雯和歐陽駿在黑盒《潛水中》(網誌46) 已大有發揮，今次更好。第一次看郭靜雯的〝有份量〞演出，卻是獲小劇場獎，『影話戲』的《愛情山手線》(網誌32)，今次演Lucretia，完全溶入角色，《山手線》網誌中說她演十五年後的藍奕珊有點蘇玉華的影子，今次看她演好cute〝缺氧〞那一節，又有一點兒馮蔚衡的味道！說到味道 (nothing to do with辛曉琪’s)，潘燦良美國sojourn回來後多元化 (無論台前台後)，同時又漸漸有一種〝篬桑男〞的味道，加上文藝，學術氣質，演教授不作他人想。陳煦莉演〝媽级〞，而且兒子已讀大學，雖然老角她也演過 (《潛水中》)，但今回很現實生活的Oceana其實更難，加上她的外型不似羅冠蘭，二十八歲演阿嫲亦能 (source：出自羅冠蘭自己口中，一個電台節目)，今次演Oceana 絕對有說服力，值得一讚。特別驚喜的是不久前剛看過《三審王爾德》(網誌63)，又再見薛海暉。辯論隊一眾老鬼也很棒，尤其是用演員的真名阿龍，琪琪，阿嬌，特別親切。過去一兩年，阿龍有不少〝頗重頭〞佳作，琪琪〝秋天〞中可算是女主角(雖然终是群星拱照張敬軒)，希望陳嬌get his break soon.
《教授》的參考資料不少，如TOHK,
MPW特稿和電台節目等，朋友說跟《野豬》也有相似地方，可惜未看過，少了一個reference point。看後第一個感覺是很享受，不如想像中的嚴肅，雖然正如各參考資料得到的印象，莊梅岩確是從她最擅長的人與人之間關係描寫，推展到較宏觀的議題，但前者仍然吸引，而且她寫中大，〝鷄聲茅店月，人迹板橋霜〞效應盡顯，誰與爭鏠？至於〝嚴肅〞的社會議題上，她也似乎盡量保持客觀，不作批叛，留待觀眾自己反思。
明白最後的轉折是配合劇情，但教授的「畫清界線」論，頗值得相確，雖然Lucretia沒有再反駁，Jeremy亦掙扎地說了一句〝唔ok〞，但事實畢竟是事實，絕對客觀，反之如果Jeremy誓要跟戰友共存亡以至扭曲事實地自我犧牲，那又是對的嗎？就算只是採取「沉默代表承認」，不拿出事實為自己分辯，相信Sir Thomas Moore也不會認同。當然，在宏觀的大前題下，劇中人的小故事也不過是方便發揮主旨的平台，這一點也是明白的。
教授一句《心酸的情歌》，跟着熄燈，引來錯覺以為劇终，和不少觀眾一同送上熱烈掌聲，其實不夠心水清，忘了場刊提過的孫力民尚未現身，「随想」至此，心中浮現出《最後晚餐》的尾聲，也是孫力民以一個劇中提過而尚未出現的角色(雖然兩劇中角色正反兩極)，同樣收畫點睛之效。
很喜歡佈景，cheerful之中亦很有現代校園的風味，很靈活地配合各場戲的需要，結尾時用了建築棚架作背景頗神來之筆，立時拉闊了整齣劇的dimension，使我想起《日出》劇本，但曹禺只能把工人放在幕後，觀眾只能聽到他們的叫號聲，《教授》更好，代表工人的是個很可愛的人物，讓觀眾帶着一份温馨離場。
金龍
First of all, On & On’s endeavor to
expand the local theatrical landscape should be recognized and encouraged.
While one person’s experience is hardly any indication, I noted with interest
that of the 34 plays I’ve watched to-date, not including “The golden dragon”
(TGD), more than half were translated from a foreign language. I like
that.
I suggested that “Avenue Q” to some extent
followed a 七十二家房客 template. In a radio interview, the producers of TGD cited a similar
resemblance. In this work of Roland Schimmelpfennig (RS), however, there is
less direct interaction between the characters, compared with the other two
pieces. From the reaction of the audience in the show I attended, I sensed that
this piece of work didn’t attract any particular enthusiasm. Regardless of
whether a production turns out to be one’s cup of tea, it would be rewarding
for the audience to try to understand what makes the author tick. As good place
to start as any, in this case, would be the aforementioned radio interview,
which covers the background quite well. It sets the global backdrop by pointing
out that playwrights all over the world are continuously looking for new ways
of tell a story. In this play, RS’s emphasis is deliberate 錯位，逆反處理 presentation. Being philosophical is not
on the agenda of this piece of work which is very〝落地〞i.e. real life (dark humour and some
surrealism notwithstanding). The other characteristic is the film-like
structuring, to the extent of one interviewed guest describing it as 支離破碎 which, ironically, does not deter it from being also a fully integrated
piece of theatrical work.
Another good source is a group discussion
recorded On & On’s FB page. While this piece of background material
pertains specifically to productions of TGD in Taiwan and Macau, the following
direct quotes have a general relevance:
當劇本放在亞洲地方，如台灣、澳門、和香港，演員都是黃種人，這個種族扮演的遊戲就變得曖昧了，導演和觀眾很容易因為這「膚色上的陌生化」突然消失了
所謂「認真就輸」，不如玩多一點
澳門版《金龍》其實也有「綜藝節目」化的狀況
華文語境裡，文化上的差異令劇作家的原意不易表達，而若果導演功力不足，思考不深，很容易便會因無法有效處理文本中的「種族錯位」在本土化之後所產生的「再錯位」，而乾脆拋棄這問題，結果便變成為玩而玩
On and On’s production was staged with a
fully professional cast exuding a superb level of energy to realize RS’s work
visually on stage, augmented by the full utilization of the lighting facility
and live sound effect. Personally, I enjoyed this production more for style
than substance, perhaps because it is avant-garde ahead of my time, or because
of the rather common lost-in-translation situation. In any event, I like to
reiterate a compliment to On & On’s initiative in taking local audience
along the quest of exploring new horizons. Keep up the good work.
沒有留言:
發佈留言