「演員劇場」向「編劇中心」的過渡——大陸「戲曲改革」效應與當代戲曲質性轉變之觀察

The Transition from Actor-Centered to Playwright-Centered Drama: An Investigation of Mainland Drama Reform and the Transformation of the Nature of Contemporary Theater

本論文的主要議題為演員中心到編劇中心的轉折，將此現象視之為當代戲曲劇場質性之轉變，而將原因歸之於大陸的「戲曲改革」。必須說明的是：雖然戲曲改革這項政令政策有明顯的政治意圖，但牽動的仍是戲曲藝術本身的大幅度變化，本文並未將戲曲改革視為純粹的政治活動，也就是說，並不認為演員中心到編劇中心的轉折只以政治為唯一因素，其間還論及許多藝術本身的問題，包括話劇劇本編寫法的影響以及斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基體系對戲曲流派藝術的消解作用等等，要言之，第一章導論的論點有二：先闡明傳統演員劇場的特質，再說明戲曲改革的具體內容。第二章觀察戲曲改革初期的效應，「新經典劇目」已然成立，「編導定制」與「演員中心」兩條途徑也已然浮現。第三章試圖說明的是戲曲改革至文革期間「編與演」的共同成長，而論證方式有三，㈠是通過筆者自擬的兩份不同主軸排列的新編戲單作考察，㈡是通過實際劇作的分析，證明此時期編劇個人的特色展現在編劇技法（尤其是受話劇影響以情節高潮為主的結構技法）之上，范鈞宏的劇作是主要例子、翁偶虹劇作為輔佐以及相對例證，第㈢步則企圖分辨集體政治理念下的個別差異，以莆仙戲陳仁鑒的《團圓之後》和《春草闖堂》為比較，再用同樣改編自小說的崑劇《晴雯》和徐棻的川劇《紅樓驚夢》為對比，並以徐棻另一作品《燕燕》為輔佐材料。經過這三個面相的考察之後回歸歷史敘述，本章最後一節即以樣板戲在結構技法上的極至發揮為內容。第四章新時期（文革結束後）編劇中心的成形，以劇作家個人風格的建立為論述要點，分由三個面相析論，第㈠節要點為：當結構技法已成為劇作家共同的藝術手段之後，劇本個別的特性展現在不同的主題內蘊及思想意涵上。第㈡節以個別劇作（《曹操與楊修》、《求騙記》以及劇作家羅懷臻思路開拓）為考察實例，見出此時期劇本內涵已由「對制度的批判」深入到對人性幽微面的剖析，(三)則提出此時期流派藝術的停滯，主要因素有二，一為新的性格塑造法，二為斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基體系的滲透。第五章論大陸戲曲改革對台灣劇壇的影響，至於「導演中心」是否已成立的問題，則當作為全文餘論。

The main subject of the treatise is the shift from actor-centered drama to playwright-centered drama. The changes go with the trend of the theatre towards contemporary drama and are based on the concepts of “reform of drama” undertaken in mainland China. What needs to be explained is that, although there is an obvious political dimension in the policies concerning “reform of drama,” still this re-orientation entails a tremendous transformation in the dramatic arts. This essay does not consider the change purely as a political movement or merely the result of political factors; the reform does include many problems which involve the performing arts themselves, such as the influences of script writing, and how the “Stanislavsky Method” makes classic performance schools of drama vanish. The first section focuses first on the characteristic of the traditional actor-centered theatre and then on the contents of the “reform of drama.” The second explains the result of the reform at its early stage; the “new classical plays” had already been established, and “arrangement by the playwright and director” as well as “actor centered” pathways had made their appearance. The third section tries to clarify the common growth of both playwright and performance from the reform to the Cultural Revolution. It has three main points to be made: (1) the writer defines two different axes of arrangement of new theatrical repertoire for investigation; (2) through analysis of actual scripts, one finds individual characteristics associated with the writing of the plays (particularly the plays emphasizing dramatic dialogue which depended on emotional climaxes in the structure of the plot); (3) one can discern differences in individual articulation of mass policy creeds by comparing plays and dramatic material adapted from novels. The fourth section treats the formation of playwright-centered drama that occurs after the Cultural Revolution. It shows that, the structural techniques having become a common method of the playwrights, individual characteristics appeared in plays with a variety of topics, details and intellectual contents. Moreover, the examination of plays from this period shows that the implication of the plays had gone from “criticizing the system” to an extremely subtle analysis of human nature. As well, one must mention the stagnation which the classical performing arts were subject, probably because of the advent of the new style of creation, and also because of the influence of the Stanislavsky method of performance. And, finally, the fifth section discusses the influences of the “reform of drama” in Mainland China on the theatre of Taiwan. As to the question of whether director-centered drama has been established or not, it stands as the last topic of the treatise.