9.29.2009

Who 's who in HEADING WEST 2?

《大路西遊2之(阿)公審三藏 》:一場獨立思考的一種「演練」

假如 閣下打算安坐劇院舒適的座椅上,默默地欣賞一場賞心悅目的劇作,恐怕您將與這個創作最精彩的部分失之交臂。因為《大路西遊2之(阿)公審三藏 》(下稱《大路西遊2》)壓根兒不是單純以「賞心悅目」為終極目標的演出(當然筆者並不排除演出具「賞心悅目」的元素),而是需要參與者投入的「文化事件」(‘cultural event’)。更具體而言,這是一個探討獨立思考的創作項目——不單是以獨立思考為「題材」的劇作,從何應豐的文本創作、演員在排練室的創造、陳國平的音樂創作、以至與觀眾於劇場的交流和從而產生的「再創造」,整個創作都是獨立思考的一種「演練」和「成品」。在讓大家進一步了解《大路西遊2》如何於不同創作階段引發不同個體獨立思考、同時在不同個體參與下有機成長前,筆者先略述《大路西遊2》的創作緣起。

 緣起:有關大開發與獨立思考

《大路西遊2》的構思蘊釀於京奧前夕,四川大地震和「太湖衛士」吳立紅被判刑事件,喚起了何應豐沉澱多時、有關「大開發」的種種思考。「那情況十分吊詭,我們可以大灑金錢向世界宣示中國有多強大的同時,從不會想到用這些資源用來做好國內的人文建設、學校、機建建設……」有感當時所有人都只是盲從於「發展就是硬道理」的迷思當中,卻沒有深思「發展」背後的可能性,以致在大家一窩蜂埋首於國家的經濟建設、為經濟發展一日千里而眉飛色舞的同時,在文化、精神方面的發展乏善可陳,何應豐便想到創作延續七年前的作品《大路西遊》,創作《大路西遊2》。

「假如二零零三年的《大路西遊》是探索中國西北大開發背後的荒誕,《大路西遊2之(阿)公審三藏》恐怕是借一件假設的懸案,想像在一個不尋常國度裡的「一個香港人」 ,如何撞上 「開發行動」背後「妄想」的「話頭」罷。」[1]

相比《大路西遊》,《大路西遊2》以北上的香港律師作為敘事中心的設定更加貼近港人處境。誠然,內地與香港的關係已今非昔比,隨著中港日趨一體化,對於「開發」的種種問題,我們已不能抱著隔岸觀火或視而不見的態度——不同名目的「活化」計劃把舊有的多元文化摧毀,在超級商業集團承包管理下,一個個蒼白和單一的「品牌」和「地標」在頹垣之上被打造出來……這不正是「中國香港」的寫照嗎?

 何應豐進一步指出,這不單是香港或大西北的現象。奉行「自由經濟」至上的發展邏輯是全球勢之所趨,其背後所產生的諸種妄思與盲動亦是全球化現象。劇中B.T.的所見所聞所作所為實為一個跳板,讓我們得以重新審視在這個狂潮背後的種種迷思,以及我們盲目地推動建立出來的,本質上到底是怎樣的一個世代——在經濟效益至上的開發活動中,行政手段成為了人們行事與資源分配的唯一標準,個體的價值和獨立思考的空間備受扼殺。

「在行政主導的情況下,很多情況只講程序(procedure)而不需要講理據。人們只依循已制定下來的規則行事,從不懷疑。雖然歷史說明了規則非永恆,隨時間和文化發展它必需變化,但我們總有一個妄想:當一個人有了經驗和建樹,便會覺得它是永恆的,希望透過抱持它們從而得到安全感。這是一個吊詭,我們在不同年紀都有一種社會責任將某種文化傳承——不是告訴下一代要如何做人,而是將一些經驗分享出去,由他們決定怎樣做他們的夢想。然而,大部分人都只是抱持著一些他們自以為成功的案例,將之成為大家要依循的規則。這是很危險的。」

這種「行政過於一切」的因循態度在「中國香港」中顯而易見,曾特首的名句「我要做好呢份工」,正是社會在行政主導下,以高效率(高經濟效益)和安守本份為最高品德情操的最佳寫照。在這種缺乏自主性、鼓吹單一思維的氛圍下,教育界所倡議的「通識教育」、「獨立思考」豈不是另一個蒼白的口號?

 培養「獨立思考」是近年炙手可熱的教學「理念」,然而從「理念」到「實踐」之間的落差卻有目共睹(且看新高中通識課程指引中如何片面地強調祖國經濟發展成就,對於民主民生方面卻鮮有提及便能略知一二)。1400多年前,「獨立思考」沒有人講,卻有人一步一步的實踐出來。那就是何應豐形容為「中國歷史上少見自主獨立以至用行動體現信念」的唐玄奘,他在反覆鑽研佛經之下,有感「諸師各異其途,聖典亦有隱誨,不知適從」,於是決心西行天竺求法,「師誓西行一步而死,不願東退一步而生」。另一個何應豐認為具有獨立思考的代表人物乃是《廣陵散》名垂千古的嵇康,他的風骨氣魄固然教人敬畏,但更讓何應豐扼腕的是,何以從古至今,社會都不能容納這樣一個有獨立思考的人?《大路西遊2》在文本上以唐玄奘為「懸案的一個點子」,而音樂上則將嵇康的慷慨激昂化為《廣陵散》融入劇中,通過這兩個少數的「獨立思考」先行者,審視「大開發」過程中,在人民被嚴重剔除建構「獨立思考」的空間下所導致文化上以至環境上被「壟斷思考」、「集體污染」的「野蠻現象」。

 劇場作為獨立思考的一個可能場域

獨立思考重視的不是被約化、被歸納的「已知」答案,而是通過主動、積極的探索過程,走向種種「未知」的可能性。《大路西遊2》的創作過程正好體現這種精神,更準確而言,它本身就是一個獨立思考的演練和產物——從編劇、演員排練、音樂設計,以至觀眾參與,《大路西遊2》在不同階段一直保持讓不同個體創造、思考的開放性,亦有意識地誘導不同的參與者投入其中。

 身兼編劇和導演的何應豐表示,在排練過程展開了便不再回看劇本。「傳統劇場將文本視為終極,演員的責任只是『演繹』故事;對我而言,文本只是一個起點,它必須由演員完成。演員作為一個文化評論人、一個文化故事中的批判人/傳遞人(communicator),他們要做的不只是了解劇本,而是如何了解這些材料,從而找尋角色的面貌、心境和看法。」何應豐形容劇場為「解剖場」,舞台上的演員一起從事這項解剖工作——他們將人們的內在真實(inner reality)活剝出來,從而重新審視當中的價值和運作方法。在這個過程中,作為導演的何應豐堅持將演員視為獨立的個體,給予他們自主的思考空間。「我會對演員說,我見到你正用怎樣的邏輯建構出怎樣的行為。你今天和明天的演繹可以不同,只要你的合乎邏輯,可以邀請我閱讀一場戲的可能性。」他又指出,大部分人都局限於劇本所謂的邏輯,扼殺了它的繼續成長。「那些是死的藝術,戲劇藝術是'Live performance'、 'Live art',演員當下的判斷和創造才是這種生命投放最即時、最精彩的部分。」

在演員的創作過程中,每一個獨特的個體對文本的詮釋賦予何應豐很多不同的想像,特別是他每次的創作都會找來很多來自不同背景的演員或創作人合作,大大擴展了創作的未知性和可能性。「每個人身上都有著某種共通共融的特質,而且不同個體之間的對話、交流可以開拓彼此視野,令我們不致局限於某種平常的慣性去看事物。」經過演員的投入創造,作品得以進一步豐富、成長。

 除了演員的創作,音樂從來都是何應豐創作的必然部分。「音樂表達了非語言的訊息,它超越日常思維模式,觸碰了一些很深刻、細微和崇高的情緒和感覺。現場奏樂更是如此,在劇場中,樂師如何消化舞台上的行動,與演員、空間、燈光和現場所有微妙變化建立一種有機的語言,實在很具挑戰性。」何應豐與陳國平之間的創作方式也很特別——文本在排練室逐漸生長變化的同時,陳國平以文本作為具體起點進行創作。何應豐認為兩層創作之間未必存有矛盾,反而為作品帶來一個新的層次(layer),讓他重新思考文本的可能性。「我很享受這種讓劇作有機『生長』的創作方式,我永遠不會預先說好想要的是甚麼,反而是讓事情先發生,看了、聽了再發現當中的可能性,以及當中編織的合理性是怎樣的」。

何應豐期望,《大路西遊2》的演員不是單純的「說書人」,走進劇場的觀眾也不是單純來「聽故事的人」。「大部分聽故事的人都認為自己不用負責任,我很不喜歡這樣的對話。事實上,『生活』貴乎能否活在當下、投入眼前 ,‘Being’與‘becoming’是很關鍵的存在問題,當你坐在觀眾席中,你的內在世界是否甚麼也沒有發生?你應該如何參與、投入一個眼前的event/事件?」何應豐認為觀眾不應作為被動的接收者,而是交流、對話的對象。「他們不是普遍的、單一的群眾(generalized mass),他們每一個都是獨立個體,在黑暗之中各自找尋自己的線索和定位。我們要給予他們空間,容許他們從既有的思考模式中釋放出來,重新創造與建構他們的想法。」他認為,觀眾如何與他和演員所建構的文化事件建立對話,正是劇場中最引人入勝、最精彩的創作。這已不是單純的消費,而是一種具創造性的思考和行為。「戲劇/藝術本身是一個行動(action)——既是建構一個事件,也是透過行動去疏理一些平時沒機會思考、或疏理得不夠清楚深入的思緒。」

正如文章開首所言,《大路西遊2》是一個需要參與者(包括創作人、演員和觀眾)主動投入(engage)的文化事件(cultural event),在人人都在等指示、等上級作決定(但同時又充滿投訴、怨氣,認為自己永遠不用負責任)的社會中,這正是我們所急切需要的。「如果我們想建構一種有機、有活力的文化,這就先必須孕育一種條件。我相信,如果每一個人都將自己視為獨立個體,重視自己可以引發的可能性,同時又能包容、欣賞每個人的精彩,這個社會就可能會孕育出一種共融的美麗,而且它並不遠。」

伍綺琪 28/09/2009



[1] 何應豐《觀照「話頭」》

9.24.2009

From 1984 to One-Dimensional Man: Critical Reflections on Orwell and Marcuse

Section One

By Douglas Kellner

Occasionally literary and philosophical metaphors and images enter the domain of popular discourse and consciousness. Images in Uncle Tom's Cabin of humane and oppressed blacks contrasted to inhumane slave owners and overseers shaped many people's negative images of slavery. And in nineteenth century Russia, Chernyshevsky's novel What is to be Done? shaped a generation of young Russian's views of oppressive features of their society, including V.I. Lenin who took the question posed by Chernyshevsky's novel as the title of one of his early revolutionary treatises. In the twentieth century, George Orwell's vision of totalitarian society in his novel 1984 has had a major impact on how many people see, understand, and talk about contemporary social trends. {1} Subsequently, Herbert Marcuse's analyses and images of a "one-dimensional man" in a "one-dimensional society" shaped many young radicals' ways of seeing and experiencing life in advanced capitalist society during the 1960s and 1970s --though to a more limited extent and within more restricted circles than Orwell's writings which are among the most widely read and discussed works of the century.

There are, in fact, both some striking differences and similarities between the visions of totalitarianism in contemporary industrial societies in the works of George Orwell and Herbert Marcuse. A contrast between Orwell and Marcuse seems useful at this point in time since they both offer insights that illuminate various features of the contemporary social and political world. In the light of the growth of repressive governments of the communist, fascist, and democratic capitalist systems in the contemporary epoch, it seems appropriate to re-read Orwell's novels and essays and Marcuse's writings since both contain concepts and analyses that provide sharp critiques of the mechanisms and power in institutions which practice socio-political domination and oppression. Moreover, both raise the question of the proper theoretical and political response toward current trends of social irrationality and domination, as well as the possibilities of emancipation. (CLICK TO LINK FULL ARTICLE)

excerpts from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell13.htm

Section Two [http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell13a.htm]

One-Dimensional Man in The Postmodern Age

Re-Thinking The Bourgeois Subject, Toward the Sensibilities of Freedom.

 

J.L. Hinman

  

either traditional Marxism, nor postmodernism, grasp the dynamic nature of the cultural and economic process shaping the consciousness of the bourgeoisified subject. Traditional Marxists tend to view the process from a transhistorical perspective; class conflict within a framework of economic determinism, and to deal with the bourgeois subject by creating its own "socialist man." Postmodernism, to a large extent, seeks to evade the problem by eliminating the subject altogether. Both camps fail to produce a dynamic critique of the process, and both fail to translate what they do understand into a consciousness capable of resisting bourgeoisification. The industrial production mode of late capitalism necessitates a total way of life that shapes people into alienated consumers and reduces all personal and social values to economic commodity. The only hope for re-thinking the left is to cultivate sensibilities of freedom that create new possibilities and new ways of life.

Traditional Marxism always tried to work the other way around, to have the revolution, to produce a society capable of forging the "new humanity," and then to produce a free individual, one whose freedom is predicated upon the Vanguard, the state, and the party line. This is like wanting to have a child, and then to consummate the marriage. Moreover, capitalism has delivered the goods, and bound the consciousness of the subject to itself as supplier. It has produced:

...a social totality integrated under the universal form of commodity production. Under the domination of the commodity structure, a phantom objectivity is conferred upon human relations, transforming social relations into relations between things; subjectivity, the consciousness, comes to reflect and reproduce this system of domination, giving it the character of a `second nature.' 1

In other words, the mode of production shapes a total way of life that revolves around commodity. This process, rather than labor alone as in traditional Marxism, creates the bond of social relations. This ensemble forges an obedient subject. Within that framework class struggle and exploitation exist as historical contingencies. The alienated subject is itself a product of the way of life.2 (CLICK TO LINK FULL ARTICLE)

EXCERPTS FROM http://www.datawranglers.com/negations/issues/97f/97F_jhinman2.html

Negative Thinking: The Defeated Logic of Protest

Herbert Marcuse: One-Dimensional Man 
(Boston: Beacon, 1964)

Part II: One-Dimensional Thought

[CHAPTER FIVE] "... that which is cannot be true." To our well-trained ears and eyes, this statement is flippant and ridiculous, or as outrageous as that other statement which seems to say the opposite: "what is real is rational." And yet, in the tradition of Western thought, both reveal, in provocatively ..bridged formulation, the idea of Reason which has guided its logic. Moreover, both express the same concept, namely, the antagonistic structure of reality, and of thought trying to Understand reality. The world of immediate experience-the world in which we find ourselves living-must be comprehended, transformed, even subverted in order to become that which it really is.

In the equation Reason = Truth = Reality, which joins the subjective and objective world into one antagonistic unity, Reason is the subversive power, the "power of the negative" that establishes, as theoretical and practical Reason, the truth for men and things—that is, the conditions in which men and things become what they really are. The attempt to demonstrate that this truth of theory and practice is not a subjective but an objective condition was the original concern of Western thought and the origin of its logic—logic not in the sense of a special discipline of philosophy but as the mode of thought appropriate for comprehending the real as rational.

The totalitarian universe of technological rationality is the latest transmutation of the idea of Reason. In this and the following chapter, I shall try to identify some of the main stages in the development of this idea—the process by which logic became the logic of domination. Such ideological analysis can contribute to the understanding of the real development inasmuch as it is focused on the union (and separation) of theory and practice, thought and action, in the historical process—an unfolding of theoretical and practical Reason in one...(click to link more)

excerpts from http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/64onedim/odm5.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=63QdLKsuqCwC&dq=one+dimensional+man&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=SGC7SoOYKYXs6AP72uGECg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Herbert Marcuse:One-Dimensional Man

Introduction to the First Edition
The Paralysis of Criticism: Society Without Opposition

Does not the threat of an atomic catastrophe which could wipe out the human race also serve to protect the very forces which perpetuate this danger? The efforts to prevent such a catastrophe overshadow the search for its potential causes in contemporary industrial society. These causes remain unidentified, unexposed, unattacked by the public be- cause they recede before the all too obvious threat from without--to the West from the East, to the East from the West. Equally obvious is the need for being prepared, for living on the blink, for facing the challenge. We submit to the peaceful production of the means of destruction, to the perfection of waste, to being educated for a defense which deforms the defenders and that which they defend.

If we attempt to relate the causes of the danger to the war in which society is organized and organizes its members, we are immediately confronted with the fact that advanced industrial society becomes richer, bigger, and better as it perpetuates the danger. The defense structure makes life easier for a greater number of people and extends man's mastery of nature. Under these circumstances, our mass media have little difficulty in selling particular interests as those of all sensible men. The political needs of society become individual needs and aspirations, their satisfaction promotes business and the commonweal, and the whole appeals to be the very embodiment of Reason...(click to link full version)

excerpts from http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/64onedim/odmintro.html

9.21.2009

龙应台:香港,你往哪里去?

— 对香港文化政策与公民社会一点偏颇的观察 
04年11月 10日 星期三 

【明報專訊】

到税务局缴完了税,下楼时觉得特别神气,从此以后多了一重身分:香港的纳税人。写这篇文章,就是在尽一个香港纳税人的义务,当然,也是权利。

从税务大楼出来,横过几条大道就可以到石水渠街,我要到那儿买一把野姜花。窄窄的石水渠街是一个露天市场,挤挤攘攘的,人情味十足。鞋店前放着几个水桶,火百合、满天星、野姜花,随兴地“扔”在里面,爱买不买。海产店前一摊一摊的鲜活渔货。一只巴掌大小的草虾蹦到隔邻的一笼青翠的菠菜上,又弹到地面;吓了一跳的家庭主妇将它捡起,笑眯眯交还给鱼贩。腆着肚子的屠户高举着刀,正霍霍地斩肉;千锤百炼的砧板已经凹成一个浅盆。驼背的老太太提着菜,一步一步走在人群里,虽然拥挤不堪,她不慌不忙,显然脚底熟悉每个地面的凹凸,眼里认识每个摊子后面的乡亲......(click to link)

龍應台:60年來從沒問過對方,痛在哪裡?

龍應台:60年來從沒問過對方,痛在哪裡?(click to link)