catecha

  引用自:http://hkila.org.hk/mbook2.htm

全文引用自:http://tsunghanchiang.googlepages.com/armandmattelart

 

In my observation, no matter when in ancient Greece or in modern days, being faithful in marriage seems harder than making vows. It needs efforts from both sides. Meanwhile, as a wife, they have no choice but to be obedient, just like “female slaves.” Just as Teacher Tseng had said, as female slaves, women in ancient Greece are one of the male’s poverty. They are told not to have opinions because men equal “power.” With power at hand, cheating on marriage seems to be taken for granted. However, even though we are all live in modern world, men and women still keep fighting for “power” and dignity. Ironically, wars between both sides never stop, and the answer still keeps unknown. Contributing to efforts for women rights, nowadays cheating is never considered men’s “patent.” Women resort to divorce, official solution to end up the marriage. In Medea, Jason and Medea have been through a lot after the adventures of Golden Fleece before their marriage. Gradually, their relaitonship came to an end while Jason betrayed her. Finally, Medea resorted to violence. It is female’s wrong, which is not the achievements of women’s right. Then, what’s wrong with marriage? Throughout the whole history, being honest and faithful in marriage would never be “a piece of cake.” That is to say, to “live happily ever after” depends on how much pain you get and how much effort you pay. Thus, questions keep popping out of my head. Would it be that difficult to seriously look upon marriage? Or, is staying faithful a mission impossible? Whether marriage is somewhat like divorce or not? Perhaps, all the vows and promises end up with quarrels and frights. Then, they start fighting for kids, money, and fame. Sometimes, it may end up with violence like in Medea. Where is the “true love” thing gone?

引用自:http://www.wretch.cc/blog/chihwei12/17863900

 

 我的確知道我正在做一件相當危險的事情，關於這兩樣表演的比較作文，乍聽之下，像是把兩個風馬牛不相及的東西硬放在一起，賦予他們一些有一搭沒一搭的意義。但對我來說，我的立論好像可以從吃便當中找到的道理來解釋。看De La Guarda這個表演，就像是在十分鐘內，大啃排骨便當，一口氣把豆干滷蛋排骨吃完，吃完後全身通體舒暢，就算消化不良也在所不惜。我看瘋狂場景-莎士比亞悲劇簡餐，就像是一口滷蛋，配一口排骨，一口排骨，扒一口飯，一口一口堆疊出每一樣菜色的口感，在細嚼慢嚥中體會菜香，在滷蛋的平易近人下體會排骨的高深莫測、窺見決定買排骨後體會捨棄雞腿的欲望……。我只能說我比喻的很爛。但我要說的是，前者給予觀眾的娛樂性十足，可以在短短的時間內，強迫觀眾咀嚼、消化，對觀眾來說，這樣的表演所期待的是回應，是讓觀眾親身參與其中。而後者的期待，將會是觀眾一種文字語言表情的玩味，一種藉由生死表達的瘋狂，這樣的瘋狂古今中外比比皆是。但兩者相近的是，都在挑逗觀眾最瀕臨瘋狂的那條線，我稱為「極端邊線」。人類最原始的情感：哭與笑。對我來說，人類最原始的表情就這樣未經矯飾的表演了出來，時哭時笑、時喜時悲、時而大叫時而幽微，這實在是挑戰了觀眾的視覺和聽覺，和所有的感官神經。觀眾必須時時戒備舞台上，甚至舞台下，舞台旁會發生什麼樣未知的驚喜，觀眾必須繃緊神經的「驚嚇」於這些發生，這根本可以被說是種被虐狂的行為。然而常常理智與瘋狂就差那麼一點，當越過極端邊線，我們就會開始從被動到主動的解放，這些「驚嚇」開始轉變為「享受」。

    Manipulation of Language in David Mamet’s Oleanna

引用自:http://www.theatrezone.org/productions/past/awastse/awastse.htm

Quoted from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110722/

引用自:http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/iacd_2000S/drama_us_taiwan/post/nights.htm

《瘋狂場景─莎士比亞悲劇簡餐》以莎士比亞的四大悲劇《李爾王》、《哈姆雷特》、《奧賽羅》、《馬克白》為改編藍本，擷取各劇本中的經典瘋狂場景重新拼貼詮釋，如李爾王在荒野瘋狂以終；奧菲莉亞投水自盡；馬克白夫人崩潰夢遊及奧賽羅喪失理性殺妻等，讓觀眾在100分鐘的演出裡覽盡莎翁筆下四大悲劇的精華片段，也企圖藉之探討「瘋狂即是智慧」的莎氏哲學。

引用:http://www.tap.org.tw/eletter/mag045/meditation.html

Samuel Beckett’s Krapp’s Last Tape is written as a monolog with two voices on stage and dealt with the protagonist Krapp’s self-recording behaviour in two phases in his lifetime. The play takes up the theme of repetition by his circular actions-playing the recorded tape. At the beginning of the play, a wearish old man with white face, purple nose and disordered grey hair, living in the darkness of his “den,” provides the readers a vivid image of the protagonist’s shabbiness, clown-like figure and deepening isolation from the crowd. He was in his sixties and he tried to retrospect his thirty-nine recorded tape. He embedded his old memories into the tape and then he suddenly found himself stupid and ridiculous. This mechanically fixed memory turned out to be his self-mockery; to make things worse, the memories in his sixties are decaying and never coming back. The recursion is such an irony that his mother’s death, his love affair, and the break of his self-recording faith. During the retrospect, he came to realize that his whole life was such a repeated waste without any meaning for him.

引用：http://www.enotes.com/drama-criticism/oleanna-david-mamet

首先說明我的身分來意。我是一個從小被大眾文化教育而成，是個不折不扣的俗濫擁抱者。卻漸漸接觸了所謂精緻藝術思考培養和前衛表演的衝擊，很有可能死在半路卻努力掙扎，霧裡看花之餘，似懂非懂，只能靠著想像和抽離，得到有如是我們這種人生尚未經過洗鍊的果凍世代獨有的解讀。我正是以這種狀況最尷尬的腳色看戲，既不能以最直截了當的直觀，給出個「噢！我快笑死了！真他媽的好笑！」這種評論，也不能期待自己給出什麼了不起的筆記。我在瘋狂年代中，從樊光耀這種感覺一副高風亮節的人口中說出流利順口的髒話，從這些憂國憂民的知識份子最後卻反向綜藝取經，從對劇場的信仰轉變成向生活取材，看清楚台灣社會才是最有力道的劇場，這是如此大的反差，可能是賣點，也可能是劇作家又再一次的以精緻藝術人自居，極其諷刺的本能，把整個台灣社會嘲弄了一遍，但不得不承認，把主流文化帶入劇場，或者不要將他定義為「主流」，將他定義為一些「看的懂的共同語言」，user-friendly的東西搬上舞台，大家看的開心，笑聲遠大於那些以靈魂的賣點，隱喻了大半天卻乏人問津的精緻藝術。