從寫意到意境：1980年代中國寫意話劇的舞臺美學構建

From Xieyi to Yijing: Constructing Stage Aesthetics of Xieyi Huaju in the 1980s

中國話劇經歷了革命現實主義戲劇獨佔的1950~70年代後，在1980年代「改革開放」的旗幟下，西方現代主義為首的非寫實劇場觀念和技巧紛至沓來，對話劇創作者的衝擊，堪比五四時期的西方寫實主義。但不同於五四知識分子的喜「新」（劇）和厭「舊」（戲曲），1980年代話劇人在接受新西潮的同時，欲構建本土美學之主體性的意識高漲，如何融入傳統（戲曲）成為話劇人的思考重點。話劇導演黃佐臨於1960年代提出的寫意戲劇觀，在文革後成為熱議焦點，許多話劇導演也投入寫意舞臺實踐，其中林兆華的《狗兒爺涅槃》（1986）、黃佐臨的《中國夢》（1987）和徐曉鐘的《桑樹坪紀事》（1988），被公認是該年代寫意舞臺實踐的代表作。雖然寫意逐漸被視為是話劇中國化的核心，但其實質涵意卻因中西、古今觀念的混雜而難辨。在許多情況下，「寫意」幾乎等同「非寫實」或「象徵」，並廣泛地與：抒情、詩意、意象、非幻覺、假定性、劇場性等勾連嫁接，以致被譏為是「無邊的寫意」。
為使話劇寫意觀念的釐清能落地於創作實踐，本文聚焦1980年代話劇寫意舞臺表現的重要實踐者（導演）及其作品，從導演和具代表性作品入手，掌握此時期寫意舞臺美學的特徵與內在精神。除了回顧寫意話劇發展、論述及案例分析，也試圖回答以下問題：話劇人將寫意美學視為話劇創造中國性和主體性的出路，但寫意戲劇論說混雜了現代主義戲劇、假定性、劇場性等外來觀念，成為非寫實表現的代名詞，許多表徵與西方非寫實劇場相近，此造成一弔詭景況，即意味著透過西方的劇場性和假定性手段，也可創造寫意戲劇，如此寫意戲劇的中國性之審美基礎又為何？尤其當演出都會題材或西方劇作時，難採用鮮明的戲曲符號和手段，更難辨識中國話劇寫意美學和西方非寫實劇場的差異，本文也探問，去除表面可視的傳統文化符象後，話劇寫意美學還是一種特定（中國）文化的美學表達？

After the Cultural Revolution, spoken theatre (huaju) in China embraced the concepts and techniques of modernism and non-realist theatre. The impact on huaju practitioners in the 1980s was comparable to the shock experienced when Western realism first entered China during the May Fourth era. Unlike the May Fourth intellectuals, however, who eagerly embraced the“new”(Western theatre) and rejected the“old”(traditional xiqu), the huaju practitioners of the 1980s, while absorbing new Western trends, also sought to establish a sense of indigenous aesthetic subjectivity. The integration of tradition (xiqu) thus became a central concern. The concept of xieyi huaju, first proposed by director Huang Zuolin in the 1960s, became a heated topic of debate after the 1980s and inspired many directors to engage in xieyi practices. Among them, Lin Zhaohua’s Uncle Doggie’s Nirvana (1986), Huang Zuolin’s China Dream (1987), and Xu Xiaozhong’s Stories of Mulberry Village (1988) are recognized as representative examples of xieyi huaju in the 1980s.
Although xieyi gradually came to be regarded as central to the Sinicization of huaju, its meaning became increasingly blurred. In many cases, xieyi was treated almost synonymously with“non-realism”or“symbolism,”and was widely associated with lyricism, poetry, imagery, non-illusion, jiadingxing (suppositionality), and theatricality—leading some to mock it as“boundless xieyi.”
To clarify the meaning of xieyi, this paper focuses on the above mentioned works and directors in the 1980s. By reviewing its history, discourses, and case analyses, the paper seeks to identify the features and inner spirit of xieyi huaju at the time while exploring the following questions: Huaju practitioners often regarded xieyi as a path toward achieving the Chineseness and subjectivity of a theatre form originally imported from the West. Yet xieyi discourses were themselves deeply infused with and borrowed from imported concepts such as modernist theatre trends, jiadingxing, and theatricality. As a result, the meaning of xieyi frequently overlapped with these imported notions, sometimes to the point of being interchangeable. This paradox raised the question: if xieyi huaju could also be created through Western modes of theatricality and jiadingxing, then what constituted the specifically“Chinese”quality of xieyi? This question became especially pressing in the productions addressing urban subjects or Western plays, where the use of overt xiqu symbols was improper, making it harder to distinguish xieyi aesthetics in huaju from Western non-realist theatre. This further leads to the inquiry: once visible traditional symbols are removed, can the aesthetics of xieyi still retain a distinct Chineseness in huaju expression?