大木園地(博)-戲劇議題與研究方法

活動地點：國立台北藝術大學戲劇學系T305教室(台北市北投區學園路1號) 報名方式：

(1)活動專屬網站www.moregren.com/gesar

(2)報名專線(03)327-5656普椿實業股份有限公司承辦

**

《魯米 生平‧思想‧餘緒》
Sefik Can（謝費克‧詹）著，李建弘等譯

過去，魯米都將大部分的時間花在神學院或經學院的議事廳閱讀書籍，如今夏姆斯禁止他全神貫注於書本上。他也不允許其他人探望他。他坐在大學學院的門口，質問那些前來探視魯米的人：「你們帶了什麼禮物來以示懇求與感謝呢？拿給我看，我就讓你們見魯米。」某天，終於有人忍不住對這位奇怪的男子發怒，說：「你又帶來了什麼讓我們需要回報你呢？」夏姆斯答覆：「我帶來了自己。我因為他的緣故獻上了自己的頭顱。」
在《書源》中，蘇勒壇‧瓦拉德敘述魯米與夏姆斯是多麼親近、以及夏姆斯對魯米的深刻影響：「當群眾親眼目睹這種依賴、忠貞、迷戀及愛時，他們變得妒忌並開始議論紛紛。導師們和其他重要人物公然散播謠言：『這位徹底改變魯米的人到底是何方神聖？為何當我們之中沒有人能看出夏姆斯的偉大時，魯米卻是他為超凡者，並這麼尊敬他？』」他既欠缺精神的狀態又缺乏知識。我們可能稱呼他為有”神視”（Divine Glance）的人並相信他的心眼是開通的嗎？當夏姆斯發覺事態嚴重到已無法控制，且所有人都反對他時，便在某一天突然消失無蹤。就這樣，在十五個月又二十天之後，夏姆斯於1246年的二月十五日離開孔亞。
讓我們先聽聽魯米蒙福之口所吐露之關於其對音樂和旋轉的觀點：

To Be An Actor
By Janet Zarish


My name, as you just heard, is Janet Zarish and I am an actor. I am also a teacher, who trains young actors, prepares them for careers as professionals. I lead a dual, and at times, rather complicated life, doing both these things, not to mention trying to squeeze in some semblance of a personal life, as well. And until recently, like most people, I imagine, I found, or gave myself, precious little time to answer the question: Why do I do what I do? I was just doing it.
So there was something intriguing, appealing to me in Julee’s request to speak to you today, in the prospect of writing about the kind of work I do and the kind of training I believe in; in the idea of writing about the kind of actors we send into the world from our graduate program at New York University. And, perhaps, I thought, I’d like to write about my own acting life, as well; what rewards me most, and challenges me. In short, there was a part of me that was attracted to the idea of standing outside my life, for a bit, to observe myself; my career, my life, my methods. But how to begin?
The story is told about the composer, Igor Stravinsky; that he was chastised by a critic, for allegedly discarding all the rules of music, of composition, of harmony, and rhythm, and making music seemingly free of form. Stravinsky replied to the critic, that the truth was exactly the opposite. No artist can create without form, he said. If I have discarded old forms, he said, I have simply replaced them with new, equally limiting forms within the strictures of which to compose. Any artist will tell you, Stravinsky said, that there is no freedom, without form.
Now, I know this story fairly well, and refer to it frequently, because “Freedom Within Form” is one of the principles on which our conservatory program at New York University is based. We preach it constantly, to ourselves, to each other, and to our students; Structure supports creativity.
But, I thought about the Stravinsky story then, for a different, more immediate reason. For it was patently clear to me that, until I had a form, to contain my thoughts, I could not write the paper I now knew I wanted to write for Julee Chu. Eventually, of course, I believe I found that form, in a roundabout sort of way, since, obviously, I am here, speaking to you, now. But that didn’t happen right away. It certainly didn’t happen in those first days. No, at that point my thoughts on the subject, as they so often do, came in and out of my mind seemingly of their own volition, and according to their own rules.
One of these ever present thoughts was of a time, several years before, when during a particularly successful, but terribly unsatisfying professional visit to Los Angeles, I first considered trying to teach acting. Like much of what has changed my life, this possibility came as a total surprise, in the form of a suggestion, from an old friend and colleague, that we, together, teach a professional class. This idea was, actually birthed out of an intense need we both felt, having been classmates in acting school, to put back into our lives, in the midst of all those inter-changeable TV show, our love of plays that were deep, and difficult, and important; full of gorgeous language and ideas. Like most actors, like most artists, we wanted to be challenged.
Let me give you a little background about me, so I can put all this in some kind of perspective. I had been acting, professionally, at that point for quite a few years. Having begun performing professionally as a child, I had eventually attended the Juilliard School, in New York, one of the elite conservatories in the United States, and had begun working, steadily, and interestingly, directly upon my graduation. Both in school, and in the professional world, my experience had been wide and diverse. I had performed on stage in the works of Shakespeare and David Mamet, George Bernard Shaw and Terrance McNally, Shel Silverstein and Harold Pinter. I had acted on daytime soap operas, nighttime dramas and sitcoms, in television commercials, and voice-overs, and I had recorded books on tape. I had acted in Hollywood films and independent films, and gone from medium to medium, from comedy to drama, from period to contemporary, from Broadway to regional theater. I had a somewhat rare and successful career.
And, I can confidently say that in all that time, I had never once thought of being a teacher. So, when my friend suggested the idea, my initial thought was – what would I teach?
“We’ll teach young people to do what we do”, my friend said. “Whatever your method is, you’ll explain it, describe it, and teach it.”
“But that’s the problem”, I said. You see, I haven’t the faintest idea what I do!”..
For some reason, my friend remained undaunted by this, and we, the two of us, did open a school, and I somehow taught in it, and that was the beginning of my teaching career. Since then, I have taught private classes in a number of other schools and Universities, and am presently teaching in a three year training program at New York University, where I hold the title “Head Of Acting”, in a program which, in my time there, has been generally regarded as one of, if not the, foremost conservatory for Graduate Actors in the country.
Naturally, teaching and directing has become a large, and voracious part of my life in the intervening years. But, not without some difficulty, I have refused to give up one career for another. I continue to act in plays, movies, television, and commercials. And, although the juggling can be exhausting, although some of my colleagues have suggested that I am masochistic, or crazy, and although I sometimes fear that one or the other of my careers is suffering, I continue to try to balance my two lives.
Why? It is an interesting question, and one in which I have begun to have more insight since the preparation for this paper began forcing me to start looking at my life from a little more distance than I was accustomed. And, one fairly simple answer is that I think my acting makes me a better teacher, and my teaching makes me a better actor. Having started my teaching career as clueless about my own method as I did, I have found that the more I understand about my students’ struggles, the more I become attuned with my own and the more vigilant I am about trying to address them. And, the more I discover about myself, the more insight I have into the problems of my students.
A while ago, I heard an interview being conducted on the radio, and as I listened, it struck me that what was being discussed penetrated to the heart of one thing I have come to understand about my acting, and to a great extent, as well, about what I have been striving to teach. So, I sent away to the radio station for a transcript of what I’d heard. The interview was with a well known author named Daniel Boorstin, and when it arrived, this is what it said:
“In my book, ‘The Discoverers’, one of the themes was that the great obstacle to progress is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge. And I think that the same thing is true in the present work I’m writing on the creators, on the arts. I think the hallmark of a work of art is that we can never discover in advance of what it holds. There’s mystery in the works of creation and discovery. And I think that to grasp that mystery, to be prepared for the unexpected, is the task of those of us who are helping others learn about the world.”
And this struck me as pointedly relevant, because, if there is one thing I have come to understand more clearly than ever as I try to explore my job as a teacher, it is that I hope, somehow, to communicate to my students the aspect of acting which I DON’T know, and CAN’T know, because it is unknowable. This unknowable is the mystery that is at the heart of any creative process; the mystery that is at the heart of acting, which, as an actress myself, I know, and feel, instinctively, but, of course cannot explain; at least, not in rational language. Consistent with my belief in “Freedom Within Form”, this mystery exists, and flourishes within the parameters of craft, and method. I realized, re-reading Boorstin’s interview, that there was something in that mystery, something I couldn’t define, which touched the heart of my need to act, and my need to teach, although it was not until a bit later that I could articulate more of what that mystery ultimately meant to me.
So, then, what is my method” After all these years, how do I explain it, describe it, and teach it? Well, to some extent, my method, and the method that has evolved in the program at NYU in the last several years, is deceptively simple, and incredibly complex. There is no method. Beware of a method. All methods are valuable as individual tools. All seek a way in to acting and none, alone, are the true answer. They are fragmented sections of the whole.
The Meisner technique is wonderful for listening and availability, the Strasburg technique or “the Method” is wonderful for opening up a personal, emotional instrument, Stanislavsky, who came closest, I feel, to using the whole of an actors tools, is wonderful for making the world and characters alive, vital and specific within the world of the play. And, the final “God” of much acting instruction, the teaching of INTENTION, is of course, invaluable. But what about all the other complex and subtle ways an actor needs to open up to his text, his fellow actors and himself?
An actor’s is a very rarefied talent. I have to tell you that we audition almost a thousand students each year from around our country, and around the world. We only choose eighteen. And, might I add, we can barely find eighteen, so complex and unique a gift it is to truly be an actor, or, might I say, an artist. And we are not necessarily looking for a fully developed talent. In fact, Zelda Fichandler, the amazing Artistic Head of our Department, has said that at a students audition, we are, literally, looking for five seconds, just five seconds of sustainable, rich, truthful, spontaneous, and original life. If we see five seconds of that living and breathing, we can diligently, and gratefully, spend three years bringing it out.
And, I can also say, we fight over a good many of these same students with Juilliard and with Yale University, probably the other two of the, currently, finest conservatories. Think of that. Together, we see over a thousand students and in the end, we have all spotted many of the same, exact students amongst them all. I tell you this so you can get an idea of the complexity of talent we’re looking for, the rarity of that talent, and, consequently, the complex way a group of teachers must work together to uncover, mold, encourage and release the talent in the artist.
But, again: What is our method, if we believe in no method? What is the nature of this Freedom that we strive for, and what is the form we use to contain it?
Put in its simplest terms, in the first year, our students are taught in their acting class, to essentially find their own particular, personal sense of truth by studying naturalistic plays. In the second year, we add to their process what they initially find to be the burden of that dreaded word “style” – heightened language and the different physical and cultural worlds characters exist in. And throughout their second and into their third year they work, tirelessly, to synthesize all that they’ve been taught from every class - voice, speech, text work, clown class, theater games, circus, the culture of style, psychological gesture, acting, Alexander technique, and more.
The first year can be a difficult experience for our young students. Most of them, before attending our school, have had a history of being lauded for the work they have done in amateur, University, and sometimes professional productions. It is not surprising that many of our students arrive believing that they already have a pretty good idea about how to act.
Much to their surprise, the first step in our process requires the students to un-learn virtually everything that they thought they knew. Because, although they are talented in many, varied ways that they themselves may not yet understand, they, most often, are used to getting away with old tricks and have never been forced to work rigorously, and personally.
At its heart, this kind of unmasking that the student embarks on, requires that the actor begin to recognize patterns that he has, heretofore, felt comfortable in. The trick demons of acting are common – the impulse to put emotion before thought, or the impulse to “act out” the true process of thinking. The tendency to concentrate on feeling instead of intention, the habit of substituting energy for specificity, of making language less important than everything else or using language as a sort of “decoy duck” that flashes itself around with no true heart underneath; in short, many of the things for which they have been applauded for in the past, are discarded in search of a simpler, deeper, more honest sense of personal truth along with an active, deliberate sense of craft. This pursuit is difficult, daunting, and can be truly confusing and, at times, terrifying. But, in that confusion, and in that terror, lies the mystery we seek.
The mind, the conscious mind that is, is not always the actor’s best friend. He must learn to let the mind go, find new paths to spontaneity, to truth. And we can free his instrument in many ways. We can teach him to breath more fully, to release into a physical life, to open his voice into more expression and power. But, still, I find, there are times when I must enter into a kind of physical adjustment of the actor that defies conscious explanation. And here is where teaching through the body comes in.
The mind can make new grooves, new pathways. It can be retrained to not follow the same pattern, the same experience or understanding. That is why, I believe that training needs to be addressed through direct connection to the body, so that a student can experience a change and not have to understand it to own it; to begin transforming himself.
If the body has a new experience that is better, it will remember it, and build on that moment of experience. It has been documented that the body will actually replace an old, inferior way of doing something with a more truthful, and efficient way of going through the same thing. The body holds on to what is better for it, if you keep feeding it that experience.
So how wonderful for the student to know that, if they are pushing themselves while acting, I can merely guide their body into a gentler, more available place to come from. I can actually say to them:
“Do you feel yourself holding now?”
“Yes”.
“Where?”, I ask.
“In my shoulders”, or “in my face”, or “in my hips”, or “chest” or wherever their tension, their need to protect themselves is coming from.
“Does that feel comfortable to you?”
“No” they say.
“It might be exciting to see what can come without that tension, yes?”
“Yes.”
“Can you try to let that go of that and move forward without it?”
Usually the answer is yes.
I can coach the student to become familiar with that habit within himself. I don’t have to say why that habit exists. I don’t need to analyze him. I can merely coax him into the awareness of giving something up and replacing it with something better. This is why I say it isn’t fruitful to come from a method in acting. This profession of being a messenger of the human experience is too complicated for one form of teaching. I must observe the student and assess his or her particular needs. Sometimes a student needs an unimpeded body, sometimes he needs to fill himself with a stronger intention. Sometimes he needs to connect more to the language. Sometimes he needs to listen better and make his fellow actor more important than himself. Sometimes he just needs to breathe.
And, a lot of time, when you release these students’ places of tension, of holding or protection, a whole new form of expression opens up to them and everything falls into place. And then you see them acting on a plane of truth and craft that is seamless, personal, and powerfully creative and original. Wisdom, frequently, is in the body, waiting to be found.
Quite frequently, during this period in the training process, a student will feel that they have lost all their instincts, that they are floating in the ether, unable to hold onto the old, and to grasp firmly onto the new. And I tell them that they must accept, for a time, that they may feel “discomfort.” They may feel that what they are doing is wrong, because it feels so strange, so foreign. But I assure them that there is something better ahead, and that they must see themselves through the eyes of their new selves, and avoid the desire to run back to an old habit of being, a place that feels more like home. It is desirable to sometimes feel like you don’t know what you are doing.
And, more often than not, by the end of their first year, they have experienced this new way of working, of exploring, and found the faith to believe that it leads them to truth, and to creation.
At this point, we confound them, by adding to their process the concepts of style, language, and heightened reality, taking them out of the realm of contemporary naturalism, and often hurtling them back into the abyss of doubt and confusion, from which they thought they had finally escaped.
Because, as Stravinsky keeps reminding me, there can be no true freedom without the limitations of form. And although the students have been studying, with other teachers, some of the more intellectual aspects of craft, such as movement, text analysis, use of the voice, and body, it is often a great challenge to get them to go merge their heart with their head; to make the leap of adding to their process a very rational, conscious craft to their work, especially after a year of obliterating much of the rational, judging impulse. It is a particularly difficult task to find the perfect balance between deliberate work and intuitive work, between emotion and craft. And initially, the actor will often, once again, feel disconnected from his talent, from himself. Until, of course, he discovers that both can merge into an organic and highly skilled form of expression.
Just a few weeks ago, as we finished up the final semester of the second year class, with scenes from Shakespeare, two of my students did a scene from “Measure For Measure”, Isabel visiting Claudio in jail and telling him he must die unless she gives up her virginity for him. And, as I watched the scene unfold, I was deeply affected. The work of both of the actors was gorgeous, both in its feeling, and in its clarity; its moment to moment journey was so specific and effortless.
Afterwards, as usual, we discussed what had happened, and when I asked them why they thought that their work had been so full and rich, they both talked about being connected to the stakes, to finding a personal connection to their characters plight and personalizing that for themselves; of giving themselves a preparation that filled them with the imaginary circumstances before they started the scene. All of these responses seemed to have played a role in the remarkable work the two had done, but I felt that there was something else at work as well, something that they weren’t saying. What was it? What else happened?
Suddenly, the two of them both spontaneously broke into these guilty grins, as if they had been keeping some secret from me, and from the rest of the class. What was it, I asked.
“Well, said one of them, as if confessing a mortal sin to a priest, “I used all the text work I learned in my text class, with Shane Ann”.
And the class groaned. I knew why. She continued.
“I worked on the scanning, the antithesis of the words, the range and musicality of my voice, and the building of the thoughts.”
Shyly, almost embarrassed, her acting partner piped up.
“I hate to say it, but I did too”.
Another groan from the class, as a voice from the back emerged.
“I hate that class! I don’t want to admit that that homework works”.
And hate it they do, quite frequently, at this point. It seems cold to them, and uninspired; baldly technical, and seemingly in conflict with the liberating feelings of pure emotion they’ve been experiencing for the last year. It feels like “Math”, coming from the head and not their large, pure, all-important, massively wild and passionate “Actors Heart”.
I can sympathize with their plight, because there is a level of inherent fight in teaching technique. But, again, without form, there is no freedom. And, when the two exist together, as they did in class that day, the result is gorgeous, transcendent, and magical, lifting those who watch, and those who create, together, out of the confines of their small and tidy lives, into another realm of existence; a magic realm where art makes all of us bigger, grander than we ever could have imagined.
Now, I wrote all this down, eventually, all the things I’ve just read, and then I looked it over, more than once, and I thought, so that’s it. That’s my method, those are my thoughts. But, again, as I say, I was standing apart from myself, for a change, watching myself instead of just being myself, and I thought, well, if I’m going to find a form for this paper, something to contain my thoughts and turn them into something bigger, I guess I have to look at my dual careers from a new perspective; to address the larger question that hovers over all others, which is, of course: why do I do these things? Why do I teach, why do I act?
Because both endeavors, I must admit, get harder each year. Opportunities for fulfilling acting roles seem to shrink year after year. When our students get out, is there the kind of theater out there we train them for? Theaters are less supported than ever before by a government that seems, at times, openly hostile to the artistic impulse. And, just as alarmingly, even eighteen gifted students with the potential for inspiration seem harder and harder to find.
Of course, this is not the fault of our young applicants. They are simply reflections of the times in which they live. Language, in our time, has been severely devalued. Over the last five years or so, it has seemed that our students’ verbal skills have been further compromised than ever before. And why should this surprise us? Increasingly, they have spent their formative years isolated, alone in a room, staring at a computer screen, watching DVD’s, sending emails, and, to a great extent, having interpersonal relationships that only occasionally involve actually being in the same room with another human being.
How can they be expected to retain the passion, and how can we expect the ferocity, that we look for, to shine through in those five seconds in an audition? Maybe, the thought inevitably occurs to me, we are in the last throes of a futile attempt to locate a certain kind of passionate gift and ferocious commitment in a time that no longer cherishes or promotes it. And, at such moments, I confess that the inevitable fumes of despair threaten even my usually optimistic beliefs.
Several weeks ago, as many of these thoughts were swirling around inside my head, I attended a seminar, a debate really, between two University Presidents, of two prominent Universities in New York. One of the Presidents had been charged with having de-emphasized the Arts in his University. And he, very intelligently, and very reasonably, described a World in which Economics, and the Sciences, and Law, and Medicine were the centerpieces of the future, upon which education should be based. And the other President listened, quietly, and respectfully. And when it was his turn to speak, he said, very simply, that the reason he felt that it was imperative, in this World, for the Arts to be central to the educational experience, was that, in all the fascinating, exciting, challenging classes he had attended and observed over the years, there was one word that he had never learned about in Economics class, or in Biochemistry, or Genetic Engineering, or in Law or Physics. There was one word that he had only heard mentioned, and talked about, and felt in classes in the Arts. The word was “love”.
As I sat in the auditorium that afternoon, in the silence that enveloped the audience after the word “love” had been spoken, I remembered what Aristotle had written, about his belief in Art, in its ability to teach transcendence; something that cannot be put into words. Its ability to lift a human being into a place of beauty and grace that is unspeakable.
And I thought about a story that a friend of mine had told me not too long ago, about a group of inner city teenagers, from difficult neighborhoods, with no background in the arts, certainly, who were taken, by bus, on a school field trip to attend a performance of the ballet at Lincoln Center For The Performing Arts in New York. On the way to Lincoln Center, the teachers on the bus felt only dread, because the kids were uncontrollable, loud and raucous. And the heart of their boisterous interplay seemed to be a compulsion to insult, to humiliate, and to belittle eachother. To one of the teachers, it seemed clear that the entire bus was filled with young people intent on making themselves feel bigger by diminishing those around them, making everyone else feel as small as they could. They insulted each other, each other’s mothers and sisters, and the teachers were thinking, Oh my God, this is going to be a nightmare.
So, upon arriving at the theater, the teachers wisely rearranged the seating of the student, trying as best they could to minimize what they fully expected to be constant talking, laughing, and a continuation of the violent, small, stupid insults that had been flying on the bus. And, naturally, at the beginning of the ballet, some talking, and a great deal of laughing, occurred.
But then, something surprising happened. Because they were seated mostly apart from their friends, and enemies, the students began to experience the ballet as individuals, and they fell silent. Much to the surprise of the teachers, when they all reboarded the bus for the trip home, the insults, the competitiveness, the need to diminish others had vanished. In fact, the bus ride home was incredibly, almost hauntingly, silent. Somehow, in isolation, in the dark, with the music and the dance, each of the young people had been lifted, out of themselves, perhaps. Or deep within themselves, maybe, to a place that could experience beauty, a possibility of being human that had no definition, that existed in as pure a place as when one looks at the vast sea or the miracle of a canyon, or gorge, or a flower, or a baby. Through losing themselves, somehow they had located their humanity.
The experience of beauty, and the ability to inspire that experience in others; this is the impulse, the belief, that has always motivated me, even from a time when I didn’t understand it, and couldn’t have explained it. It is also the strand that unifies the different areas of my life, both professionally, and personally. It is the reason I’m an actress, the reason I’m a teacher and a director, and I came to realize, the reason I wanted to come to Taiwan to speak to you.
So, thank you, Julee, for asking me to come here, half way across the world, to say that, in the times in which we live, in these times of horrible crises throughout the world, in which so much of what is of value is under relentless attack, we must be more vigilant than ever. It is precisely in times like these that all that is beautiful and fragile; all that soars and inspires; all that transcends and transforms, must be cherished and nurtured like never before. We need more actors, not less. We need more artists, not less. We need people who will continue to inspire and transport. And we need more people to inspire another generation to do the same. So much is at stake.

成為演員

珍妮‧查瑞思 著

鍾明德 譯


如你們剛才聽到的介紹──我叫珍妮‧查瑞思。我是個演員。我也是個表演老師，教導年輕的演員，協助他們踏上專業表演的生涯。我過著這種又表演、又教學的雙重生涯，有時忙得不亦樂乎，更不必說，同時，我還得擠出某種像是個人生活的東西。一直到最近不久，我想，跟大多數人一樣，我找不出，或者，無法給自己一些寶貴的時間來回答這個問題：我幹嘛做我所做的事？我只是一直在做。

然而，幾個月前，我收到一封來自一位名叫朱俐──我不認識她，也沒聽說過她──的女人的伊媚兒。她有個叫人驚訝的請求：她問我有沒有興趣到台灣參加個研討會？如果有興趣，我必須寫篇論文，然後，在研討會發表論文。至於論文或演說的內容，她說，可以是任何我想說的東西，任何題目都可以。

教表演的老師不必寫論文、寫文章或講課

朱俐的請求真的叫我吃驚！做為演員，我演過數百齣舞台劇、電影、電視劇，常常在幾千人面前表演，然而──我希望你們不會被嚇倒：你們今天來這裡應該是想看看地球另一邊來的戲劇代表，聽聽她能對你們說些什麼──可是，問題是，我從來不曾寫過或發表任何論文。

現在，你知道了，而我真的不知道──當初朱俐寫伊媚兒給我的時候，她是否知道：我在紐約大學底下的某個專業表演系所教表演，因此說，我的職責並不在於學術研究。教表演的老師不必寫論文、寫文章或講課。我們連辦公室或電腦都沒有，事實上，我們跟整個大學的主要任務幾乎無甚相關。我跟其他一些老師，或其他演員、導演、作家、設計師們，在另一個世界工作。在美國的其他表演系所任教，你通常需要個藝術碩士之類的高等學位，但是，在少數幾個以專業表演為目標的系所，只要你的專業能力獲得相當的認可，你不需要任何學位就可以執教。因此，我們系所裡大部份的表演老師都不寫論文，也不必出版任何東西。

因此，單就為了這個原因，朱俐的請求就有點挑戰了。而且，其中還有種吸引人，叫我著迷的東西：我可以描寫我所從事的工作，我所相信的訓練方法，以及，我們紐約大學如何打造出我們的演員。此外，我想，我也許也可以寫寫自己的演員生涯，包括其中有那些最值得的事情，或最富挑戰的東西。簡單地說，我自己裡頭有某個部份叫這個想法迷住了：我自己可以稍微站開來觀察我自己、我的生涯、我的生命和我的方法！

但如何開始呢？我就一頭栽下去，隨心所欲地寫出我對我們的表演訓練的看法？或者，我首先該交待自己的演員工作、生涯？我該如何理出種種思緒？我對表演和教學到底有那些看法？其中有那些是真正重要的？而我又如何能最有效地把它們說出來？

沒有形式，就沒有創作的自由

關於作曲家伊果‧史特拉文斯基，有這麼個故事：有個樂評人狠狠地修理了史氏一頓，因為他認為史氏拋棄了所有音樂、作曲、節奏方面的規範，讓音樂似乎毫無形式（form）可言。史氏回答那位樂評人說：事實正好相反，沒有形式就沒有創作。他說：「如果我拋棄了舊的形式，只不過是因為我用新的形式取代了它們，而新形式有新的約束來輔助創作。任何藝術家都會告訴你：沒有形式，就沒有創作的自由。」

這個故事我相當熟悉，且經常引用，因為，「形式中的自由」（Freedom Within Form）是我們紐約大學表演課程的基礎信念之一。我們反覆地叮嚀自己、同事和我們的學生這個原則。結構是創造力的輔助，而非障礙。

然而，那時候我想起史氏的故事，卻是多了一個較直接和不一樣的原因。我非常非常清楚：如果我沒有個形式來容納我的種種思念，我無法寫出我想替朱俐的研討會寫出的論文。當然，結果是，不管過程如何曲折，我相信我找到了那個形式，因為，很顯然地，我現在正在這兒對著你們發表我的論文呢！然而，形式並不是立刻就自己出現的，至少，在那幾天裡，完全不然。那時候，我對這個題目的思想，如同所有的思想，看起來似乎它們有它們自己的法則；它們自由自在地出入我的心扉，完全不聽我的使喚。

其中有個想法一直揮之不去。那是好些年前的事：我到洛杉磯表演，結果相當成功，可是，從專業角度來看，我卻怎麼樣都不滿意──就在那個時候，我第一次碰到教表演這檔子事。像許多改變我生命的事情一般，教表演這個可能性也全然是個意外：有個老朋友、老同事突然想找我一起去教表演。他跟我是表演學校時候的老同學，現在，處於各種各樣膚淺搞笑的電視劇工作之中，我們一直強烈地想要尋回那種對深刻的、困難的和重要的劇本的愛──那種劇本充滿了燦爛的語言和輝煌的觀念。跟大多數的演員或藝術家一樣，我們需要挑戰。

我對自己的發現愈多，我對學生們的問題也洞察愈深

為了將這個報告擺到適當的視野，讓我稍稍介紹一下自己的背景：在那時之前，我已經在職業表演領域工作了相當多年。從小時候開始，我就已經踏上了專業舞台。然後，我進入了茱麗亞學院──美國最好的表演學校之一。無論是在劇校時期或之後，我的演出經驗都相當寬廣：一畢業我就開始持續不斷地接到各種有趣的表演工作。我在舞台上演出過莎士比亞、大衛‧馬密（David Mamet）、蕭伯納、湯尼‧庫斯納（Tony Kushner）、雪爾‧席爾佛斯坦（Shel Silverstein）和哈洛‧品特的作品。我在電視上演過白天的連續劇、晚間的情境喜劇（譬如Seinfeld）、電視廣告和配音，包括有聲書的配音。我也在好萊塢和獨立製片的電影中演出，幾乎是從舞台演到電視、電影，從喜劇演到正劇，從古裝演到時裝，從百老匯演到地方劇場。

因此，我可以很自信地說：在這種應接不暇的演出工作之中，我從來不曾想過當個表演老師。因此，當我的朋友提出他的想法之後，我立即的念頭是：我可以教什麼呢？

「我們就把我們所做的東西教給年輕人就行了，」我的朋友說：「不管你的表演方法為何，你只要加以說明、講解和教會他們。」

「啊，那就是問題所在了──」我說：「你知道，我根本不知道我是怎樣表演的。」

不知道為什麼，我的朋友並不因此萌生退意，因此，我們兩人就開了一間演員學校，而我也就在不知不覺之中教起表演了──這就是我教學生涯的起點。之後，我也在其他許多學校教過，直到現在，我目前任教於紐約大學三年制的表演所，同時兼任所長工作。在我任教於紐約大學期間，我們的表演所一般被認為是全美最棒的表演學校，或者，較謙虛地說，全美最好的表演研究所之一。

在這些年間，教學很自然地成為我生命中巨大而難以饜足的一部份。然而，雖然這並不容易，我卻拒絕因教學而放棄表演。我依然繼續在舞台、電影、電視廣告上演出。雖然時常分身乏術，雖然有同事好心地暗示我是在自虐或瘋了，雖然我偶而難免擔心無法兼顧，直到現在，我依然繼續努力在教學和演出兩種生涯中取得某種平衡。

為什麼呢？這是個有趣的問題，而且，我開始有了更深的洞見──這篇論文的準備蘊釀工作，迫使我採取了較疏遠的距離來省視自己的生命──較簡單的回答是，我想：我的演出經驗使我成為一個較好的老師，而我的教學則使我變成一個較好的演員。我剛開始教表演時，完全不知道我所使用的方法為何；但是，我發現：我愈瞭解我的學生們的掙扎，我愈熟習自己做為一個演員所面臨的種種考驗，因而能夠更靈敏地解決表演的各種問題。同時，我對自己的發現愈多，我對學生們的問題也洞察愈深。

沒有方法，小心任何方法

不久之前我在收音機上聽到了一段專訪，其中的某個論點叫我大吃一驚：它直接穿透了我的表演和教學問題的某個核心。因此，我向無線電臺索取了那個專訪的謄稿。受訪者是知名作家丹尼爾‧蒲斯汀（Daniel Boorstin），那個訪談的文字記錄如此寫道：

進步的主要障礙不是無知，而是自以為知的「知識幻覺」（illusion of knowledge）──這是我在《發現者》（The Discoverers）那本書中所討論的主題之一。我目前正在撰寫一本關於藝術和其創作者的書，而我相信藝術創作也面臨了同樣的障礙。我認為藝術作品的主要特徵在於我們無法事先﹝在作品完成之前﹞知道它的內容。創作和發現的結果帶有神秘。我因此相信：對教師們而言，把握住這個神秘，隨時準備好接受我們意料之外的發現，將是我們的主要工作。

這種說法對我猶如醍醐灌頂，因為，在我的教學工作的摸索中，如果有件事情我愈來愈清楚，瞭解得較以往更為透徹，那就是，我希望跟我的學生們多少分享我所不知道的、不能知道的──因為那根本就是不可知的──表演層面。這種不可知，事實上，即隱藏於任何創作過程核心中的那個神秘。在表演的核心中也存在著這種神秘──這一點，做為一個演員，我直覺地知道和感覺得到，可是卻無法加以說明，至少，無法以理性的語言來詮釋。跟我的「形式束縛中的自由」理念甚相一致，這種神秘存在和茁壯於技術和方法所界定出的創作領域。在重讀蒲斯汀的訪談稿中，我終於瞭解到那個神秘中的某個東西，某種我無法加以界定的東西，直接觸及了我之所以需要演出和教學的核心──雖然是在過了一段時間之後，我才更能說出那個神秘對我的終極意義。

那麼，我的方法是什麼呢？那麼多年的教學之後，我如何說明、描述和傳授我的表演方法呢？哪，某種程度上，我的方法，以及過去幾年來在紐約大學所發展出來的表演方法，表面上很簡單，事實上卻複雜到難以想像：沒有方法。小心任何方法。所有的方法都是彌足珍貴的工具。但單獨看來，每一個方法也只不過是進入表演的道路之一而已，無法適用於所有的演員。所有的表演方法都只是整體分裂出來的某個部份。

麥思諾技巧（Meisner technique）對聆聽別人和開放自己的訓練簡直無與倫比，史特拉斯堡方法（Strasburg Method）對開發個人感情力量的教導精彩有餘，而史坦尼斯拉夫斯基──我感覺他是最能全方位使用演員的所有技倆的老師──能夠叫演員很具體而活生生地生活在舞台上，讓角色栩栩如生，劇中世界彷如真實人生。此外，意願（intention）──大部份表演訓練中的神祖牌──這個字當然是妙用無窮，然而，如果只是一味地強調意願，將會把演員導向單面向、大膽、義無反顧而執著的方向，只能放而不能收，那麼，他將如何能靈活運用其他管道呢？很明顯地，演員為了向他自己、其他演員和文本打開自己，他必須很敏銳地出入各種複雜、微妙的方法。

紐約大學表演所的面試和課程

演員需要一種非常獨特的天份。我必須說：在紐約大學，我們每年從全美國，或甚至全世界，面試了大約一千名入學考生。我們只收十八名，然而，我們卻幾乎招不足十八名──成為演員，或者，我該說，成為藝術家，需要非常複雜而特異的才華。我們甚至不是在挑選已經發展成熟的英才──事實上，我們英明傑出的院長柴爾達‧費香德勒（Zelda Fichandler）說過：在入學面試中，我們只不過是老老實實地在搜尋那個五秒鐘──五秒鐘紮實的（sustainable）、豐富的（rich）、真實的（truthful）、自然的（spontaneous）、本真的（original）的生命！只要我們看見那五秒鐘的生動和呼吸（living and breathing），接下來三年，我們將感恩地、誨人不倦地叫那個潛能發揮出來。

我也可以告訴你們：我們一直都在跟茱麗亞學院和耶魯大學的表演所──公認是目前紐約大學之外另兩個最好的演員學校──競逐那幾個入選的考生。想想看：我們分別看了一千多個考生，結果，我們都挑出了同樣的人材。我告訴你們這個事實，因此，你們可以瞭解演員學生真是英才難覓，而適合表演的資具又是何等的複雜，以及，接下來，我們一群老師必須採取何等複雜的教法來啟發、捏塑、鼓勵和釋放那個藝術才華。

然而，問題依在：我們的方法為何？就算是我們並不相信任何方法，我們費心盡力追求的「自由」，它的本質為何？同時，我們又使用何種形式來圍護它？

用最簡單的話來說，學生入學之後的第一年，我們教導他們在當代的自然主義脈絡中，抽絲剝繭地找到他們自己特殊的、個人的真實感。到了第二年，我們把「風格表演」加入他們的學習過程──一開始他們會覺得這是個可怕的負擔，必須使用詩化的語言，進入角色所生活的物質環境和文化世界。整個第二年和第三年，學生們必須日以繼夜地苦練，將所學的東西融匯貫通為自己的東西：聲音、口齒、文本分析、小丑表演、劇場遊戲、馬戲團演出、風格文化、心理姿態、表演、亞歷山大技巧等等，都是他們的工作項目。

對我們那些年輕的學生而言，第一年可能會相當辛苦。在我前面提到的嚴格的入學面試中，他們必須表演預備好的作品，且經常在我們敲敲打打地提示之下，必須以不同的方式演出他們的預備作品好幾次；他們不遠千里來到紐約接受面試、訪談；他們準備了書面報告，說明他們的意願和藝術夢想；他們被我們系上的所有老師放在顯微鏡下反覆地檢視和討論。因此，當他們來到紐約大學開始第一年的學習，我們毫無疑問：他們是全國最優秀的一些表演學生，而且，他們大部份都曾經在業餘劇團、大學劇社或甚至專業製作中演出過，備受讚美。因此，初入學時，他們許多人自以為對表演已經頗有心得了──這似乎絲毫不足為奇。

身體的教導

叫他們大吃一驚的是我們的訓練過程的第一步：他們幾乎要完全忘掉他們所知道的任何東西！因為：雖然他們擁有他們自己甚至不知道的種種天賦，大多數的情形是，他們都只是在使用一些老掉牙的「招術」敷衍賣弄一番罷了；他們從來不曾被逼著去嚴格地工作自己。

學生們所著手進行的「摘除面具」工作，其核心就是演員必須辨認出自己所習慣、舒服的各種模式。每個學生多多少少都耽於一些「招術」，譬如，習於感情先於思索，或者，為了不想思索，直接就將真正該有的思考過程「演出來」。學生演員們傾向專注於情感而非意圖，習於以豐沛的能量掩飾必須的細節，慣於貶低語言的份量，或者，只會將語言的表意功能化約為不用感情的耍嘴皮子。所有這些種種技倆招術，之前為他們贏得了熱烈的掌聲，現在，卻必須被嚴令戒除，以便學生演員們在學習一種自發而審慎的演技之同時，可以找到一種較簡單、深刻、誠懇的個人真實。這種探索相當不容易，叫人萌生退意和經常讓人身不由己地陷入一片混沌之中，有時候，真的很恐怖──然而，我們所尋找的那個奧秘卻正好活存在那片混沌和恐怖之中。

自我反思的心智並非永遠是演員最好的朋友，因此，演員必須學會放下思慮，找到新的途徑去接觸自然和真實。我們可以用許多方法來協助他們打開自己。我們教它們更完整的呼吸，教他們真正地活在身體之中，以及，教他們去除發聲的障礙，讓他們的聲音更有表達力。然而，我發現，不知為何，有時我仍然必須動手調整他們的身體──這也就是身教（teaching through the body）的開始。

我相信心智可以發展出新的管道或習性，不必再去依循舊的模式、經驗或心得。這也就是為什麼我會相信：演員訓練必須由與身體直接相關的地方開始，因此，演員可以體驗到自己的身心變化，不需理解即已經變了，並從而真正學會改變自己的氣質。

假使身體有了新的經驗，那就再好不過了：身體會記得那個經驗，並且，從那一瞬的體驗開始重新建構自己。有研究指出身體會以新的、更真實有效的方式來取代舊的、較差的工作習慣。只要身體一再反芻那個體驗，你的身體就會習於那個較好且較有效的方法。

造成緊張的地方即自我保護的地方

因此，如果學生們在表演時過度用力，我會引導他們的身體到一種較不費勁而同樣可行的地方來開始表演。學生們能夠體會到這點真是最好不過的事，而我真的是這麼啟迪他們的：

「你感覺自己在僵（ㄍㄧㄥ）著？」

「是。」

「僵在那裡？」

「在我的肩膀」，或者，「在臉部」，或者，「在臀部」或「胸部」──不管僵在那裡，造成緊張的地方即自我保護的地方。

「那個感覺舒服麼？」

「不。」

「如果可以拿掉那個壓力，可能會有新的體驗──這個可能性真叫人興奮，對不對？」

「是的。」

「你能不能試試看：放掉那個壓力，不用那麼緊繃，試試看？」

我可以教導學生熟悉他自己內在的習性，而不必解釋那個習性為何會存在。不需要分析。我只需要引導他有意識地放棄，同時，用較好的工作方式來取代舊的。這就是為什麼我認為在表演上，依循某個方法並不見得是最有效的。在人類經驗的傳授這個行業中，單一形式的教導是不足的。我必須仔細觀察每一個學生，估量他或她的特殊需求：有時候學生需要的是一個無礙的身體，另一個時候他則需要更強烈的意願；有時候他需要跟語言有更多的聯結，另一個時候他則需要仔細聆聽，讓他的演員同伴比他更重要。更多時候，他所需要的只是好好地呼吸。

許多時候，當你把學生們從他們的緊張、執著或自我保護中解放出來時，一整個新的表達形式就打開了：他們的每個動作細節恰到好處，他們的演技嫻熟，真情流露，二者交織得天衣無縫，全然來自他們自己，充滿強大的創作力和原創性。智慧經常被埋在體內，只是等待發掘而已。

我們再度顛覆他們

在訓練過程的這個階段，學生們經常會覺得他們失去了直覺、依靠，整個人好像浮在空中，舊的已不可靠，新的又無能力抓穩。我則告訴他們：至少，暫時地，他們必須接受這種上下不得的尷尬。他們也有可能覺得自己現在的表演不對，因為自己老是覺得怪怪的，好像不是自己的。我這時會向他們保證：前頭有更好的東西，他們必須用新的自己的眼睛來看待自己，千萬不可逃回感覺較像老家的那個舊習性；有時候覺得自己不知道自己在幹什麼，並不是件壞事。

在第一學年結束時，他們大部份同學都已體驗過這種新的工作方式，新的探索方法，同時，也打下了信念：相信這種工作、探索將會引領他們走向自己的真實和創作。

就在這個關鍵點，我們再度顛覆他們：在他們的工作、探索過程中加入風格、語言、高度凝練的真實（heightened reality）等等概念，把他們從當代自然主義表演的領域趕出來，因而經常是把他們再度拋入疑惑和混亂的深淵──那個他們自以為早已終於超脫的苦海。

因為，如同史特拉文斯基再三提醒我的：沒有形式的限制，就沒有真正的創作自由。雖然學生們同時也跟其他老師們學習一些較知性的技巧，譬如舞台動作、劇本分析、聲音和身體的運用等等，可是，要讓他們把心跟頭融匯貫通，卻經常是個莫大的挑戰；要他們在自發的過程中加入一種很理性而自覺的技術，也經常是談何容易──尤其是過去一年來我們費了好大的功夫，才剛剛把大部份理性主義的、監視的衝動移除。在精心設計和本能自發之間，在情緒和技巧之間，要找到完美的平衡是個特別困難的任務，因此，一開始，演員又常會再度陷入混沌之中，感覺不到自己的才能，覺得自己跟自己切斷了。當然，這種失落狀態會一直延續到他的突破：直到他能將自相矛盾的兩種技巧融化為一種有機而技術高超的某種表達形式。

我討厭劇本分析課

就在幾個星期之前，我們剛結束第二學年的表演課，作業是莎士比亞的場景練習。有兩個學生做的呈現是《惡有惡報》（Measure for Measure）中的一景：伊莎貝爾探獄，告訴克勞迪歐她必須為他捨棄處女貞操以便他能逃過一死。我看著他們的呈現，內心深受感動：兩個人的演出都精彩極了，清晰有致，真情流露，每個片段、過程、轉折都豐盈圓滿。

看完之後，我們照例有個討論。我問他們：為何他們的演出會如此地豐盈圓滿？他們談到了自己相當認真，好像生死悠關，非得演好不可，因此，他們很努力地去尋找自己跟角色的困境的關聯，把那困境化為自己的難題，同時，在演出之前，他們自己做了個暖身，讓自己幾乎像是活在那想像的時空之中。這些回答的確說出了他們的作品會那麼精彩的幕後準備工作，但是，我感覺還有其他的東西他們沒有說：那是什麼呢？發生了什麼事？

他們倆突然自發地、不好意思地笑了出來，好像他們掩藏了某個機密，不讓我或班上其他人知道。我問這是怎麼回事。

「哪，」其中一位好像在告解一項死罪一般地說：「我運用了在安老師的劇本分析課上所學到的所有東西。」

全班起哄起來。我瞭解這種騷動。她則繼續說：「我把莎士比亞的詩句標出抑揚頓挫的記號，把一些字的對照格找出來，仔細聽我的讀音的高低和音樂性，以及，把思想起伏前後連貫起來。」

她的伙伴，一個大男生，也羞澀地、幾乎是尷尬地唱合：「我不想說，可是：我也做了同樣的功課！」

另一陣全體嘩然，然後，後排有個聲音說：「我討厭分析課，因此，我不想承認：那個功課的確有用！」

在這個時候，他們通常討厭分析課。劇本分析對他們而言又冰又冷，只是繁瑣的技術，毫無靈感可言，而且，似乎跟他們上一年度所經驗過的「純粹情緒」所帶來的那種解放感大相逕庭。分析好像數理，來自頭腦而非他們那浩瀚、純粹、寶貴、狂野、熾熱的「演員之心」。

我能夠同情他們的困境，因為，在技術的教導中的確藏著自我矛盾的要求。但是，再說一次：沒有形式，就沒有自由。當這兩者相輔相成，就像他們那天課堂上的呈現，結果是豐沛洋溢、超俗絕倫，像魔法一樣，讓那些看的人和演的人同時跳脫各自細瑣的生活，進入一個魔法境界，在那兒，藝術使我們所有的人變大，比我們所想像的還要偉大。

哪，我終於把這些──即我剛剛宣讀的這些東西──寫下來了。然後，我再三地辨讀，心想，這就是了：那就是我的方法，那些就是我的工作理念。但是，如我所說的，我那時是站在自己外面來觀察自己，而不只是自己，於是，我那時想到：諾，如果我要為這篇論文找到形式，利用那個形式來涵納我的種種工作理念，以及，把這些理念化為更偉大的東西，我想，我必須從一個新的視角來檢視我的雙重生涯，以便直接回答所有這些理念之上的一個更大的問題──當然，那個問題是：我為何做這些事情？我為何教學？我為何表演？

會這麼問，我必須承認，跟這兩個工作每年愈來愈困難有關：演出機會似乎逐年遞減。我們的學生畢業之後，是否還有那些得以讓他們施展所學的劇院？政府對劇場的補助愈來愈少，而且，那個政府經常看起來是在公然反對藝術創作。同樣叫人膽跳心驚的是：區區十八名對表演藝術有天賦和熱望的年輕人也愈來愈踏破鐵鞋難覓。

那個字是「愛」

當然，這不是那些年輕申請入學者的錯。他們只不過是他們所活著的時代的反影而已。在我們這個時代，語言已經嚴重地貶值：一方面沒有偉大的小說出版──就算出版了可能也沒有人唸；另一方面，我們的領導或意見領袖們所議論的東西，似乎愈來愈沒份量，所用的字眼愈來愈鄙俗無文。年輕人左顧右盼：他們，或我們之中的任何人，可以從哪兒找到靈感來躍入那崇高的藝術境界呢？那兒有記號標出觀念、美和超俗絕倫的世界的確存在？而且，那個世界對我們任何人都一樣真實、唾手可及？

過去五年多來，我們學生的語文技巧，似乎較每況愈下的過去還要更糟。這似乎不是什麼叫人奇怪的事。他們的成長年代，似乎愈來愈在隔離的狀態下度過：一個人呆在房間裡瞪著電腦螢幕，看DVD，寫伊媚兒，而且，某種程度上來說，他們的人際關係，只有偶爾會跟另一個人待在同樣的房間裡。

這樣的年輕人怎麼可能保有熱情？而我們又怎能期望他們生意盎然、熱力四射，在面試中光耀個五秒鐘？也許，我不得不這麼想：在一個不再珍惜、鼓勵藝術才情和奉獻狂熱的時代，我們堅決地尋覓這種人才特質，註定是要徒勞無功的──我們只不過是在經歷死亡之前的陣痛罷了。處在這種時刻中，我必須坦承：我那一向毅立不搖的信念，也要叫這絕望的惡臭淹沒了。

幾週之前，當前述種種思慮在我腦海中洶湧迴繞之際，我參加了一個座談會。事實上，是兩個大學校長之間的辯論會。他們所長的大學都是紐約市最最顯赫的大學。其中一位校長因忽視了他的大學中的藝術教育而受到抨擊。做為回應，他很明智而合理地描繪了一個世界，在那裡經濟、科學、法律和醫藥將是未來的核心科目，因此，我們的教育必須立基於這種前瞻性。另一位校長很安靜而滿懷敬意地仔細聆聽。輪到他時，他只簡單地說：他之所以覺得在這個世界上，藝術必須是我們的教育經驗的中心，乃因為這些年來，在他所上過或觀察過的種種叫人著迷、興奮和充滿挑戰性的課堂中，有一個字他從來不曾在經濟學、生化學、基因工程、法律或物理學課堂上聽過。那個字他只在藝術課堂上聽到、討論到和感覺到：那個字是「愛」。

那天下午，當我坐在演講廳裡，坐在「愛」這個字被說出之後陷入一片沉默的觀眾之中，我想起亞里斯多德所寫過的關於他對藝術的信念：亞里斯多德相信藝術可以教導我們超越性（transcendence），亦即，某種無法用語言來形容的東西。藝術可以將人提昇到不可說的美和恩寵之境。

他們被拉到一個人之可以成為人的地方

我想到有個朋友不久前告訴我的小故事：有一群十幾歲、來自貧民窟的中學生，他們被用巴士送到林肯中心去看一場芭蕾演出。當然，他們沒有任何的藝術背景；這是他們的戶外教學活動。在巴士開往林肯中心的路上，老師們滿懷焦慮，因為這群大孩子又吵又鬧、無法無天，而他們爭吵的核心似乎只是某種侮辱、貶低、蹧蹋他人的強迫性衝動。對其中一位老師而言，整部巴士中的年輕人似乎都在竭盡所能地貶損其他人，以此顯現自己才是正點老大。他們競相侮辱彼此，包括彼此的媽媽姊妹──哦，老天，這將是場惡夢──老師們心裡想。

因此，一抵達劇院，老師們即很聰明地重新調整學生們的座位，盡可能地把所預期的交談、搞笑和巴士上的騷亂降到最低。果然，芭蕾演出一開始，就有人在說話、搞笑。

然後，奇怪的事發生了：由於他們大都沒跟自己的朋友或敵人坐在一起，學生們開始以個人的角度來觀賞芭蕾，因此，他們安靜了。叫老師們驚訝的是：當他們重新登車返校時，那些侮辱、競爭和貶抑他人的需要消失了。事實上，回程不可思議地安靜，沉默到有點詭異──也許是在獨自的黑暗中聆聽音樂和觀賞舞蹈，這些年輕人可能被提昇到他們自己外頭去了？或者說，被深深地拉進他們自己裡頭去了？他們被拉到一個能夠體驗美的地方，一個人之可以成為人的地方，一片淨土，像是一個人注視著汪洋大海或大峽谷、斷崖、一朵花、一個嬰兒的奇蹟？經由失去他們自己，他們多少找到了他們的人性。

不是要關掉劇院，而是，我們需要更多的演員

那時候，雖然我仍然不知道我將要跟你們談些什麼──就是今天在這裡向你們說的這些話，我後來寫了下來，也剛剛做了宣讀的這些東西──我卻終於對這篇論文的可能形式有了一丁點的概念。我找到了形式，因為我終於知道了我想談論的東西、想說的東西。我所想說的是美的經驗，以及激發別人去經驗美感的能力──這種衝動和信念，打從我對它沒有絲毫瞭解、也無法加以說明的時候開始，即為刺激我去做我所做的種種事情的根本原因。這股動力也將我自己專業的或個人的諸般生活領域結合為一體。我因此成為演員，成為教師，而且，也是我想來台灣為你們宣讀論文的原因。

因此，謝謝朱俐邀請我繞過半個地球來到這裡說：在我們目前的時代，在全世界危機層出不窮的時代，許多有價值的事物正遭受無情的摧殘，我們因此必須較以往更加惕礪。正好就是在這種險惡的時代中，所有那些美麗而脆弱的，所有那些在空中飛揚而震聾啟聵的，所有那些超世絕俗而淨化人心的，必須較以往更加被珍惜和呵護。不是要關掉劇院，而是，我們需要更多的演員。不是要輔導藝術家改行，而是，我們需要更多的創作者。我們需要那些能夠激勵我們、提昇我們的人。我們需要更多的人來激勵下一代，繼續同樣的工作。這一切都生死攸關。



20040605, 大木譯於國家藝術庭園

紐約大學教授，紐約大學的主編Richard Schechner is currently editor of TDR: The Drama Review (formerly the Tulane Drama Review) The Drama Review，

為目前首屈一指戲劇理論大師。

以下文章轉自鄧樹榮的戲劇世界

 

理察．謝喜納的訪港速寫

二ＯＯ四年三月，國際著名的劇場導演、學者及雜誌編輯理察．謝喜納 (Richard Schechner) 應蔣維國博士的邀請，為戲劇學院的學生主持了一系列的工作坊、講座及公開示範，更與本地戲劇界進行了一個「圓桌會議」，並向他們簡介了其重要作品。

謝喜納生於1934年。1962年，他在紐奧良的突蘭莉大學 (Tulane University)當助理教授，並負責編輯突蘭莉戲劇評論 (Tulane Drama Review)。1967年，他受聘於紐約大學，協助創立該校的藝術學院，並負責其中的戲劇系。他更將突蘭莉戲劇評論轉往紐約，並易名為戲劇評論 (The Drama Review)。同年，他創立了自己的劇團The Performance Group (亦即後來的Wooster Group)。1969年，他導演了極具爭議性的Dionysus 69，並引發了日後一連串的環境劇場，包括布萊希特的《大膽媽媽與她的孩子們》及尚．惹內的《陽台》。1980年，他將戲劇系易名為Department of Performance Studies，標誌著他對戲劇有新的理解。1992年，他成立了East Coast Artists，導演了自己創作的Faust/gastronome，契訶夫的《三姊妹》，莎士比亞的《哈姆雷特》，見克特的《等待果陀》。1995年，他更為台北的當代傳奇劇場導演了希腊悲劇奧瑞斯提亞 (Orestia)。他著作甚豐，繼有Public Domain (1968), Environmental Theater (1973), Theatres, Spaces and Environments (1975), Essays on Performance Theory 1970-1976 (1976), Ritual, Play and Performance (1976), Between Theater and Anthropology (1985) Performance Theory (1988), The Future of Ritual (1996) 及Performance Studies: An Introduction (2002) 。

謝喜納在戲劇學院的工作坊著眼於形體及聲音的訓練及探討形體與語言的關係。他先用瑜珈的定身法(Asana)幫助學員集中精神及舒展筋胳，隨後指導他們如何運用胸、腹，鼻及頭頂來進行聲音共震的訓練，然後再讓他們透過自己的聲音來產生能量的交流及無言的默契。形體與語言的關係則可說是工作坊的重點。他最主要的理念是要將身體的行為與語言分開，不讓行為去解說語言的意義。這種做法其實是要重新檢視身體行為與語言不一致的時候對觀眾所產生出來的聯想空間，同時亦幫助演員感受這種不一致性所引發出來的更深層的心理及生理狀態。對於習慣於 「史氏體系」的學生來說，這種不一致性確實不易掌握，但一經貫通，便會很容易進入另外一種更有力量的表演狀態。

謝喜納的講座以「二十一世紀的Performance Study」為題，對學生來說亦甚具啟發性。根據他的理論，”Performance” 一詞已不單指劇場上具藝術性的演出，也泛指一切商業上、科技上及私人生活上的Performance。這眾多的Performance便構成一個城市裡人與人之間的表演及觀賞關係，亦即「身份的扮作」(Role-Playing)。舉例，當一個人要去應徵一份工作，他會選擇某種合乎標準的衣服及打扮，這種選擇便是要順應該種特定身份的需要。因此，Performance其實是透過「身份的扮作」以達至某種目的。最後，他向學生提出了兩個發人深醒的問題：「你們想從這個世界得到甚麼？」及「你們如何可以改變這個世界？」

至於他與本地同業 (約30人) 的圓桌會議則涉及不少文化及藝術上的課題。例如，他認為現在的前衛劇場已經變成一種風格多於一股內在的需要。而前衛劇場的「新」可能需要幾十年的時間去消化及吸收。將一樣原本不屬於自己的東西變成自己身體的一部份是一個相當長的內化過程。時下流行的跨文化多邊合作便是建立在一種內化外來東西的欲望上，期盼產生一種新的文代意識。

他的作品介紹會亦吸引了不少同業及學生參加，演藝學院的實驗劇場座無虛設。從最早期的Dionysus 69、森姆．沙柏 (Sam Shepard) 的《犯罪的牙齒》(Tooth of Crime) 到近期的希腊悲劇《奧瑞斯提亞》、《三姊妹》及《哈姆雷特》，他都不斷求變。不同時期的作品反映了他不同年代的思考點及演繹方法。儘管其作品風格不同，但我們仍能感受到他勇於嘗試的氣魄，而這種素質或許已是本地同業值得借鏡的地方。

總的來說，謝喜納雖然只逗留了約十天，但他帶給我們的沖擊卻影響深遠。

相關論文:
國立台北藝術大學戲劇學院學刊網頁

地戲、柴燈祭和「民俗表演」的問題 理查‧謝喜納撰 馬奎元譯 7-25

幾乎所有的「民俗表演」都逐漸變成「觀光表演」，所出現的問題是：在地人民的經濟基礎動搖，以及民俗表演的概念逐漸被都會中樞，學者，和媒體等殖民化，而不再是傳統的由地區人民呈現出他們信仰以及操作的活動。 兩個表演：一個是在中國相當程度的仍然由農夫主導的地戲；另一個是在日本已經脫離它民俗和儀式關連逐漸成為觀光表演的柴燈祭。 學者稱地戲和類似形式是「古代形式的活化石」，結果是在那些表演中地戲像是「即將滅絕的物種」，值得研究和觀察。 柴燈祭仍維持著業餘的質地，但是會逐漸成為商業追逐下的籌碼。 政府當局與學者應該考量維護所付出的代價。「活化石」是不可能的；一旦「被發現」，就會出現物種改變。「發展」常意味著完全改變，甚至是滅絕。參與其中的每一個人都應該質疑將被保存下來的是什麼以及為了什麼。 對於類似地戲和柴燈祭的形式，我們最好準確研究表演操作的是什麼，表演知識如何被傳達，表演者和觀眾間的關係如何，等問題。 關鍵詞：地戲、柴燈祭、民俗表演、觀光表演、學術殖民。

 

 

 

 

 

1. 自我介紹︰為什麼要唸博士？

2. taimu在美國攻讀博士的經驗和最近的研究議題如VIP或呼麥等等

            3. 導覽本學期教學進度、作業，以及本所的宗旨、任務、你為什麼加入等等

            5. 討論The Forest People（或可延到0927︰交一篇你覺得不錯的書評，可以是英文的）

            6. 成立本課程的部落格

 

 

       1. You and Your Dissertation （寫notes，用中文）

2. Schechner, Richard (1985) “Points of Contact Between Anthropological and Theatrical Thought,” Between Theatre and Anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 3-33. （寫summary，用中文）

 

 

         1. 討論《台灣小劇場運動史──尋找另類美學與政治》（第N章，每人一章，寫500字的摘要，用中文）

         2. 討論The Forest People（交一篇你覺得不錯的書評，可以是英文的）

 

 

1. 卡羅斯．卡斯塔尼達著，魯宓譯 (1998) 《巫士唐望的教誨》。台北：張老師文化。（個人帶領報告1，請做summary並印給大家）

             2. 約翰‧內哈特著，賓靜蓀譯（2003）《黑麋鹿如是說》。台北：立緒文化。（個人帶領報告2，請做summary並印給大家）

 

 

1.Schechner, Richard (1985) “Ramlila of Ramnagar,” Between Theatre and Anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 151-211. （寫abstract and outline，用中文，個人帶領報告3，請做summary並印給大家）

      2. Schechner, Richard (2002) "3 Ritual,"  Performance Studies: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. （個人帶領報告4，請做summary並印給大家）

 

 

 

      1. 安德魯‧紐柏格，尤金‧達基里，文斯‧勞斯著，鄭清榮譯 2003。《超覺玄秘體驗》（Why God won’t go away: brain science and biology of belief），台北：時報文化。（個人帶領報告5，請做summary並印給大家）

2. 朱光潛（1986） 《悲劇心理學──各種悲劇快感理論的批判研究》。台北：蒲公英出版社。（個人帶領報告6，請做書評並印給大家）

 

     Victor Turner, “Body, Brain, and Culture” 
    （個人帶領報告7，請做summary並印給大家）

 

 

 

                      Colin Turnbull,  “Liminality”
                     （個人帶領報告8，請做summary並印給大家）

 

 

            1. 中島夏，〈暗黑舞踏〉（個人帶領報告7a，請做summary並印給大家）

2. 河竹登志夫（1999） 《戲曲舞台上的日本美學觀》。北京：中國戲劇出版社。（個人帶領報告8a，請做書評並印給大家）

 

 

 

1.鍾明德 （2007b） 《從貧窮劇場到藝乘︰薪傳葛羅托斯基》（第N章，每人一章，寫500字的摘要，用中文）

2.Grotowski's "From Theatre Company to Art as Vehicle" （個人帶領報告9，請做summary並印給大家）

 

 

鍾明德 （2007a） 〈Paisbutbut是個上達天聽的工具，一架頂天立地的雅各天梯：接著葛羅托斯基說「藝乘」〉

 

 

        司黛蕊 (2005) 〈胡撇仔的分裂時空──從「本土文化」之外再看歌仔戲〉
      （個人帶領報告      10，請做summary並印給大家）

1.“Ritual Drama: Between Mysticism and Magic” （個人帶領報告11，請做summary並印給大家）

2.讀《文化展演與台灣原住民》（個人帶領報告12，請做summary並印給大家）

 

            1. A. H. Maslow, Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences. （個人帶領報告 

            2.崔治修 (1999) 〈旋轉的苦行僧德維席(dervish)：伊斯蘭神祕主教派的僧人和舞蹈〉，《藝術評論》，第十期 (Oct. 1999)。（個人帶領報告14，請做summary並印給大家）

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

一、所有大小作業一律以中文打字進行，格式、方式在課堂上會說明、討論。

 

二、請準時出席、繳交作業，發揮團隊互助精神，熱情地帶領、忘情地討論。

 

三、善用北藝大的各項資源，踴躍參加各種活動，勤做筆記、記錄、心得、摘要，PO上部落格或
釋要加以發表。

 

四、發奮圖強、樂觀進取：有健康的身心，才有長久的學業！

 

 

 

 

約翰‧內哈特著，賓靜蓀譯（2003）《黑麋鹿如是說》。台北：立緒文化。

 

司黛蕊 (2005) 〈胡撇仔的分裂時空──從「本土文化」之外再看歌仔戲〉，《民俗曲藝》 148: 7-42。

 

卡羅斯．卡斯塔尼達著，魯宓譯 (199？) 《巫士唐望的教誨》。台北：張老師文化。

 

朱光潛（1986） 《悲劇心理學──各種悲劇快感理論的批判研究》。台北：蒲公英出版社。

 

朱浤源主編 (1999) 《撰寫博碩士論文實戰手冊》。台北：正中書局。

 

河竹登志夫（1999） 《戲曲舞台上的日本美學觀》。北京：中國戲劇出版社。

 

胡台麗 (2003) 《文化展演與台灣原住民》。台北：聯經出版公司。

 

安德魯‧紐柏格，尤金‧達基里，文斯‧勞斯著，鄭清榮譯 2003。《超覺玄秘體驗》（Why God won’t go away: brain science and biology of belief），台北：時報文化。

 

崔治修 (1999) 〈旋轉的苦行僧德維席(dervish)：伊斯蘭神祕主教派的僧人和舞蹈〉，《藝術評論》，第十期 (Oct. 1999)。

 

鍾明德 (1999a) 《舞道》。台北：時報文化。

── (1999b)  《台灣小劇場運動史──尋找另類美學與政治》。台北：揚智文化。

──（2007a） 〈Paisbutbut是個上達天聽的工具，一架頂天立地的雅各天梯：接著葛羅托斯基說「藝乘」〉，《OM︰泛唱作為藝乘》，台北︰北藝大出版社，76-121頁。

──（2007b） 《從貧窮劇場到藝乘︰薪傳葛羅托斯基》。台北︰書林出版公司。

 

 

George, David E. R. “Ritual Drama: Between Mysticism and Magic”

----- (1999) Buddhism as/in Performance. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld.

 

Maslow, A. H.  Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences. New York: Penguin Books.

 

New York University (1991) You and Your Dissertation: A Guide. New York: GSAS, New York University.

 

Schechner, Richard (1985) Between Theatre and Anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

----- (2002) Performance Studies: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.

 

 

Turnbull, Colin M. (1961) The Forest People. New York: Simon & Schuster.

----- “Liminality”

 

Zarish, Janet (2005) “To Be an Actor” 〈成為演員〉，《戲劇學刊》，第一期，pp. 195-219.

 

 
       劇場藉由演員的技藝，提供了一種整合的機會：在演藝中，我們鍛練肉身以邁向更高的目標，拋掉面具，露出真實，達到身心反應的圓融狀態（a totality of physical and mental reactions）。這種機會的把握必須出之於有紀律的鍛練，完全清楚地意識到其所涵括的各種責任。在這裡，我們可以看到劇場對今日文明人所能提供的治療作用。演員必須完成這種整合行動，但是卻只能經由與觀者的「相遇」：他不可以躲在攝影師、服裝師、舞台設計師、或化妝小妹後頭，而必須親密地、毫無遮掩地直接面對觀者，甚至不是因為他而做。演員這種完全的自我揭露、開放、從內在浮出而非禁閉的行動，是給觀者的一個邀約，彷彿是兩個人之間最深刻而真摯的愛——這只是個比喻，因為我們只能以「比方說」的方式來遙指這種「從自己走出來」（emergence from oneself）的行動。我們稱這種吊詭而難以界說的行動為「整體行動」（total act，或者，用中國人的話來說：「圓滿行動」），並且認為此即演員生命最深層的召喚。