論亞陶的殘酷理念與在《頌熙家族》的實踐

Abstract

1935 年亞陶的戲劇論文集《劇場及其複象》的出版，對現代西方戲劇藝術的發展上產生重大影響，亞陶也因而被視為現代戲劇的革命家之一。然而對於大多數的戲劇研究專家學者或劇場工作者，亞陶似乎被定位為成功的理論家，在劇場實踐的方面則偏向失敗。本研究的主旨便在於探索與分析亞陶的戲劇理論與他的戲劇實踐之間的關連，藉以釐清上述亞陶與戲劇之間看似矛盾的關係。\\r 首先論文將呈現出亞陶這本戲劇理論合集的本質精髓與劃時代先見，重點更在於梳理亞陶戲劇中「殘酷」的理念，隨後對亞陶本身的戲劇創作《頌熙家族》(Les Cenci) 進行分析。事實上《頌熙家族》的故事並非來自亞陶的原創，而是源自中世紀的史料。在亞陶之前已經有諸多作家曾將之以文學或戲劇的方式呈現。論文的研究方法之一便在於對亞陶與雪萊、斯湯達爾的版本進行分析比較，以指出亞陶的原創性與他在這齣戲劇中，如何呈現或實踐在他定義下的殘酷，也就是具有形上意涵的殘酷。\\r 論文的另一個研究方法則在於指出亞陶在其改寫的《頌熙家族》中，所加入的「夢」的元素。因為相較於雪萊與斯湯達爾的版本，這項元素的使用不只是他的獨創，更重要的是，它也是亞陶殘酷劇場的具體實踐例證之一。如果亞陶的《頌熙家族》曾因其表面明顯易見的殘酷主題引起觀眾或學者對其殘酷劇場的不解或誤解，本研究也可藉此以亞陶本身的理論書寫提出明確的辯解。\\r 透過這些分析的成果，論文同時希望能提出亞陶在《劇場及其複象》這本書中所提出的「複象」一詞的意涵，並解讀與彰顯亞陶殘酷劇場的詩性所在。

The publication of Antonin Artaud’s theoretical work The Theater and Its Double is an important event in the history of Western theater. His influence on the practice of modern theater is considerable. Artaud is said to be an undisputed theoretician in the theatrical field. But what about the realization of his own plays? According to many specialists, they are a failure. In this research, I propose to study the relationship between Artaud’s theatrical theory, especially the cruelty and its practice on the stage in order to clarify this issue. I begin by raising the essential points of Artaud’s theatrical notion as showed in his theoretical work cited above. Then I provide an analysis of Artaud’s version of the play The Cenci. Indeed, other writers have been inspired by the same subject. I try to compare Artaud’s play with Shelly’s and Stendhal’s to demonstrate the eccentricity of the author of The Theater and Its Double, which is most evident in his staging of the cruelty in the metaphysical sense. Secondly, I present Artaud’s resort to dream, which is a way to apply his theatrical notion in practice. If Artaud’s approach to the medieval idea in The Cenci has provoked misunderstandings or even incomprehension among the critics, this study aims indeed to understand the hidden meaning of this play through Artaud’s own theoretical thought. Lastly, by clarifying the relationship between Autaud’s theory and practice, this study also seek to provide an explanation to the word "the double" in the context of artaudien theater, as well as to the poetic nature of this "theatre of cruelty".