2014年7月28日星期一

69. 三個高女人。曇花戀。1967。過户陰陽眼



「隨想」的定義就是字面這麽簡單:看完戲,想到什麼便說什麼,東拉西扯,分享一些看劇的點滴,亦作為多給劇團正面回應和鼓勵的渠道。



過户陰陽眼 觀後随想

看龍文康的《大龍鳳》(58) 有驚喜,本以為純搞笑,原來還有暖暖的温情和富深度的內容,詳情請參閱上述誌。《過户陰陽眼》自然不再是驚喜 ,而卻是期望全部兌現。簡單的如初看似無厘頭的劇名,其實大有玄機,陰陽眼大家都知道,但何為過户?指的原來是這陰陽眼會從一個角色() 轉到別一個角色身上,過户 之後只新户主 才能見到鬼,舊户主 已失去了這陰陽眼的功能,虧得龍文康想出如此妙着,編出這一等一的佳作,巧妙的設計背後還是龍文康最手到拿來家庭關係的描寫,有血有肉,有嘲諷,有温馨,畫龍點睛的是借了一句關於鬼的話,另賦予深意:見到的不用驚,見不到才可怕 ,表面是說人對鬼的反應,隱喻卻是人與人之間的communication

今次中英笑爆你第二炮傾巢而出,舊將新血全部上陣,當今劇壇最渴求高濃度的豬羊也互顯神通,觀眾目不暇給。雖說是群戲,但亦略分輕重,今次發揮最多最好的是高少敏,她演的二家姐最多變化,見鬼時驚恐的演繹值好多個LIKE,蜻蜓點水般的與鬼調情亦是一絕,公園椅上對家人剖白一節感人,收到老公out-of-character刻意幽默時不露形色而樂在心頭更是可喜。其他各演員的出色個別演出和群體合作,難以盡錄,節奏準繩之外,靜寂無聲的場口用得更好,中英」本季偏向虎山行,全程挑戰這難度極高的劇種,值得致敬。

《過户陰陽眼》文本貼近時代,借兩個家姐,對保安和導遊這兩行業的辛酸有頗 到肉 描寫;又借小弟痛快地諷刺此時此地教育制度的叫人啼笑皆非;借用了聽得耳熟能詳的政府提防子宫頸癌廣告更是神來之筆。

特别值得一讚的是鬼的化妝造型,在現實的舞台上,竟達到夢工場的電影效果,和朱謙」的精準演繹相得益彰。



1967 觀後随想

首先連結一輯製作背景,請先讀:
重現被刻意遺忘的歷史 - 一條褲製作《1967

看了這麼多年話劇,記憶中從未見過收結時如此氣勢,說的是:七位演員一個接一個,演繹了最後一段台詞後,把自己的名字押了下去,到了最後查國林 三個字,回應上面六個名字,鏗鏘響徹雲霄,同樣的是觀眾的掌聲。有時候,謝幕時演員因入角太深,未能完全退出,就是資深的演員亦難免,這blog也提過好些例子,特別是悲劇,謝幕時仍熱淚盈眶。《1967》卻又有點不同,演員在劇中分飾多不同角色後,到最後一場,如上面說,是做回自己,表現的是此時此地的真感情,而台下觀眾的投入和共鳴,跟看別人的故事比較,亦不能同日而語,所以那如雷的掌聲,是順理成章。

看《1967》特别有感覺,當年剛幸運被港大取錄,等候九月開啟新的一頁,但卻不清楚到時香港督府 是否已掛上五星旗,那段遍地菠蘿的忐忑日子的回憶,如要細說實在太多了,就從輕鬆一面:有一晚搏到盡,趕送女友回家後,到自己踏入家門的一刻,宵禁剛開始,間不容髮!

不如先說佈景,簡單而靈巧,以半透明膠版砌出變化無窮的演區,兼為營造暴力場面的敲擊板;背景一把直梯有妙用,六個演員分兩排爬到一半 在上面背向觀眾,然後遂一轉回來演繹台詞;一場撕紙 戲之後,台上滿佈碎紙,主要的清理方法卻是乘着劇中氣氛營造,張學良揮舞一塊膠板,捲起千堆雪。諸如此類揮灑的場景調度,不勝枚舉。

再說演員,《猥褻:三審王爾德(58) 班底三位熟悉的是張學良,薛海暉和查國林;比他們更為熟悉的是譚芷翎;四年前《山村老師》中的鄧艶玲是APA一年級生,今次看她傳神的老角演出,有幾分似當年赫懇坊劇團的趙月明;黃漢樑沒看過,卻是鲜明特出的型格;還有四年前赴港至今 來自台灣的何欣旅,劇中不太多的國語台詞,大部份都交给她了。

一如《猥褻:三審王爾德》,《1967》是 紀錄劇場,以舞台劇形式探討歷史,資料搜集不遺餘力,訪問當年親自經歷這事件的多方面人士,以熟練的舞台技巧反映不同角度。觀眾魚貫入座時台上七位演員已自由自在的作熱身運動,正式開場時分別以個人身份和觀眾分享參加這project的原因,然後才投入1967年分別演多個不同角色來展現從四月到年底發生的種種事情,精彩的演出難以盡錄,最喜歡是薛海暉演的各個不同執法人員,譚芷翎演的黄健章太太。還有,下半場第一節別出心裁,回到今天,演繹這齣劇資料搜集的過程裡,各演員隨葉健民教授(薛海暉飾) 重返北角現場」一幕。



曇花戀 觀後随想

2012 9月看本新劇的前身芳華絕代之曇花一現》也是第一次看「一路青空」,去年看了喜雙飛( 58 ) 是第二次,感覺上恍惚已是個很熟悉的劇團,這正是「一路青空」迷人 的地方。 先連結芳華絕代之曇花一現》的隨想:


曇花戀》保存了劇的結構和內容,但如場刊說,苦中作樂,細節上把氣氛挪移靠近喜劇,而不失原來的唏噓。上面連結的隨想內容仍合用,角色略有改動,上次演文心蘭的黃懿雯現實生活中,卻真正走文心蘭的路,可能已成為目前香港最多產的舞台監製 (包括本劇) ;歐珮瑩從石斛籣轉演文心蘭,更為合適;我選擇劇目以演員為主,一年之中也沒多大機會看到從未看過的演員,今次看到曾慕雪的演出,特别開心。

安非她命》随想裡題過,看太熟悉的演員,有時不免出現兩個layer的現像,看着台上無論演得多好,深層意識仍會想着演員本人,但這對欣賞演出卻又無損,舉例:明知是何浩源,還是為田慈仁淚湧如泉 ( 34《一屋寶貝》) 。同樣地,今次欣賞German十來歲小學生唯俏唯妙,但亦同時平衡意識到他和面前的大肚婆老師Rosa好事近,好開心,順帶鞠賀!

重看這劇得着很多,但這畢竟是女性劇 (儘管是男鬼材編寫) ,因此很感謝Sharon分享女性觀眾的感想如下:

第一次看這類型的話劇,遺憾之前沒有做太多研究,所以基本上進場前沒有任何期望。台上有兩張熟悉的面孔,其他的都不認識,更加令看這套劇時腦海裏真的是一片空白的看

不造作、不眼高手低;不故弄玄虛,不惺惺作態。對比最近打開報章雜誌電視收音機,或茶餘飯後大家都在討論的政治社會問題,簡單而清新。但當中探討的問題,也發人心省

作為一名港女,不管有多少時下港女的特質,同樣面對當今社會的種種問題與壓力,至於如何面對怎樣拆解,是詠春的攤膀枕伏梗,還是金剛圈狼牙棒雙截棍,高下立見

風蕭蕭,雲渺渺,笑看風雲變          
 
                
三個高女人 觀後随想

It wasn’t that long ago that I watched the translated version of Edward Albee’s “The Goat or Who Is Sylvia” (56《山羊). Best known probably for “Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf” written in the early 60s, Albee three decades later offered theatre lovers Pulitzer winner “Three tall women”. The play is in two acts which, while performed by the same cast, were distinctly different. The first act was a realistic depiction of a 92-year-old patient in her sick bed, and her interaction with a 52-year-old nurse and a 26-year-old representative from a lawyer’s office. It ends with the old woman getting a stroke. The second act features the same three women. The old woman is in bed where she has been laying for 6 years since the stroke. The two younger women, while retaining their respective age, have shed their identity and become the younger versions of the dying protagonist. Then, when the old woman enters the stage from the side, it suddenly dawns on the audience that it is only a dummy that is in the bed. For dramatic expediency, the old woman looks considerably younger now at, say, her mid-seventies. What follows in this semi-surreal act is an exquisite dialogue between these three women. They are identified in the script as A, B and C, in descending age order.

To best explain this play, I’m going to take some quotes from director David Kaplan, as reported in an article in Time Out Hong Kong. “It’s not a fantasy – there is no resolution to the story. It’s a classic 20th century narrative, like Rashomon, Ulysses, Faulkner…the meaning is not the resolution, but the points where the versions touch and then differ”. “We are different people at different times in our life. Yes, there are cause and effect, and yes, there’s continuity…but you are a different person at 52 than you were at 26. And that is what the play is about.”

In HKRT’s third main stream (as opposed to the intimate “Black Box”) offer in the current season Kaplan directs Weigo Lee’s lucid Cantonese translation, presented by an exquisite cast. Pang Hang-ying (B) and Karrie Tan (C) would have corroborated numerous times before but the one that I will always well remember is “God of carnage”, Cantonese version (34《豆泥戰爭》). Completing the dream cast as A is guest artist May Fu whose appearance on stage is always clamored for by the local audience.

The first act is arguably Fu’s show, a full display of the variety of moods and spontaneous fancies of a many-faceted 92-year-old invalid. The second act allows all three to shine, together in titillating dialogue as well as individually in character defining scenes. There is a fourth, a wordless young man generally understood to be Albee’s autobiographical reference, a homosexual son rejected and turned away by his mother. Ling Man-lung, becoming a dependable regular of HKRT, nails the taciturn man. Through the POV of this protagonist at 3 different stages of her life, the audience pieces together things C doesn’t yet know about her future (and refuses to believe when told) and A who has forgotten a lot about her past (and refuses to believe when told). In the middle we have B who demonstrates absolute conviction that the best part of her life is NOW.

That the play is superbly well acted is unanimously agreed. Why and how it is good, or which is better than the other, is very much each member of the audience’s personal reaction. But this is not just the acting. The use of lighting is the best I’ve seen for a long time, playing a pivotal role in the story-telling. Footlights, in particular, work magic in bringing out multi-dimensions in the characters. The stage design works a different magic. The unexpected tilting of the entire room starts as puzzling but when the full visual impact of the dying woman (the dummy) becomes so imposing that it becomes almost suffocating, it dawned on me that this oversized motif is a constant reminder of the crude reality behind the sometimes surrealistic scenes taking place right under it. On the sound department, I have many times in this blog mentioned my preference for tradition voice projection to “invisible” microphones worn by actors, whenever it is feasible for the size of the theatre. But then, it does present a problem with dialogues that are supposed to be in whispers. Here, my eyes (actually ears) were opened to an ingenious treatment. In one scene, Pang holds a normal microphone and whispers her lines into it, and does it so skillfully, naturally and seamlessly that you hardly notice it. This, together with effect of the floor light and Pangs flawless delivery, makes the best scene in the play.