《波希米亞人》歸來！

司馬勤

最近，有個問題令我傷透腦筋。導(dǎo)演亞歷克斯·奧萊（Alex Ollé）在悉尼歌劇院把威爾第的《假面舞會》重構(gòu)為一個猶如喬治·奧威爾（George Orwell）創(chuàng)作的反烏托邦式的噩夢而獲得巨大成功。他更在東京新國立劇場把普契尼的《圖蘭朵》改頭換面，注入卡夫卡式《城堡》的氛圍，更添上埃舍爾（M.C. Escher）的視覺效果，令故事升華，譏誚權(quán)力斗爭的意味更濃。為什么上月在巴塞羅那利索大歌劇院執(zhí)導(dǎo)的《波希米亞人》卻顯得……怎么說呢，有點兒懷舊？

從表面上看，一切都顯得那么現(xiàn)代：魯?shù)婪蛘诠P記本電腦上筆耕不輟，幫咪咪找鑰匙的時候他手執(zhí)者強(qiáng)光電筒（鵝毛筆與蠟燭都太19世紀(jì)了?。≈幸灿行鹿谝咔榈挠白樱寒?dāng)合唱團(tuán)出現(xiàn)時，幾位“警察”走出來確保各人群保持了社交距離。奧萊是土生土長的巴塞羅那人，所以特別眷顧自己的家鄉(xiāng)：普契尼筆下那些藝術(shù)家本應(yīng)在巴黎左岸生活，卻被空降至巴塞羅那的新城區(qū)波布雷諾（Poblenou，曾是工業(yè)區(qū)，現(xiàn)在卻以“波希米亞”的時髦風(fēng)格馳名）；莫墨斯咖啡館搖身一變，成為位于市中心加泰羅尼亞大道上的那種半露天式餐廳。

準(zhǔn)確地說，這個制作的古雅風(fēng)格大體源自導(dǎo)演選擇的呈現(xiàn)手法。從敘事角度來看，奧萊摒棄了與原始敘事相類似的現(xiàn)代主義（或現(xiàn)代派）；他更多地強(qiáng)調(diào)故事本身的具體元素，以構(gòu)建出一種自然主義的敘事節(jié)奏。從大體的演出模式來看，制作恢復(fù)到了新冠疫情前的藝術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)：整部歌劇沒有刪減任何段落，中場休息如常進(jìn)行。

為了直觀地表現(xiàn)出巴塞羅那的演出模式有多么極端，讓我們來對比一下近期我看到的兩套《波希米亞人》吧。香港無限音樂劇場制作的歌劇電影以及哥倫布歌劇院搬演的舞臺版本都是由茱莉亞·諾蘭-美霞（Julia Noulin-Mérat）擔(dān)綱制作人，兩個制作都反映了新冠疫情對演藝界的影響——至少在美國，大部分的歌劇演出時長都不超過90分鐘，本應(yīng)參與演出的合唱團(tuán)、本來設(shè)有的中場休息，甚至某些劇中人物都消失了。只有極少數(shù)的歌劇院還能夠進(jìn)駐它們平常演出的劇場。就算自己的演出駐地是可控的，劇院方還是盡量避免觀眾在場地里走來走去，以降低交叉感染傳播病毒的概率。

把某些角色完全砍掉？幾年前，如果某位導(dǎo)演提議把《波希米亞人》中的房東貝諾瓦（Benoit）刪掉，肯定會引起巨大的爭議，因為這個角色在歌劇里提供了喜劇性的插曲，讓觀眾得以調(diào)劑心情。延續(xù)這種推想，不如把《卡門》中唐·何塞（Don José）留在農(nóng)村的愛人米卡埃拉（Micaela）刪掉——但香港無限音樂劇場剛剛推出的版本沒有米卡埃拉；或者在《唐喬瓦尼》中減少幾位被他引誘的美女？噢，我猜哥倫布歌劇院本年年初的版本已經(jīng)實現(xiàn)了。

新冠疫情其實給導(dǎo)演與監(jiān)制們提供了一個很好的借口，讓他們重新審視核心歌劇劇目以及它們在今天社會大背景下的意義。數(shù)十年來，我們都把作曲家的總譜當(dāng)作神圣的物件——有時候甚至把作曲家早已刪掉的部分再次搬上舞臺——大家都堅持作曲家譜寫出來的音符是圣經(jīng)般的存在而不是一個活生生的文檔。當(dāng)離開了傳統(tǒng)的劇院與常規(guī)的舞臺，我們才發(fā)現(xiàn)，不少音樂段落的用途，原來是為了讓幕后人員有充分時間換景。當(dāng)你把作品的架構(gòu)從龐大的史詩縮小至短篇小說，會發(fā)現(xiàn)太多的情緒反差反而令觀眾分心，還阻礙了故事情節(jié)推前的動力。因此，無論是在電影版還是在哥倫布上演的《波希米亞人》里（兩個演出版本所刪減的段落都差不多），直至演出過后，我才意識到貝諾瓦從沒有出現(xiàn)。更偏激的手法是把《卡門》里的卡門刪掉、或讓《托斯卡》中的托斯卡從頭到尾都消失得無影無蹤。試想，把《波希米亞人》的故事從貝諾瓦的角度敘述出來，干脆把劇目改為《貝諾瓦》（那就要請來新的作曲家了）得了。哎呀，我扯遠(yuǎn)了。

除了嚴(yán)格的“無房東”政策以外，無限音樂劇場與哥倫布歌劇院的《波希米亞人》都故意微調(diào)了觀眾的期望，加入了配合當(dāng)今時勢的元素（有什么能比女主角染上肺病更“浪漫”？）。這些小變動主要源于電影制作與沉浸式劇場本質(zhì)上的區(qū)別。電影版《波希米亞人》浸潤了紐約市這個活生生的都市環(huán)境，所以很多場戲都是外景拍攝。而哥倫布歌劇院的演出地點是藝術(shù)家工作室與畫廊組成的小社區(qū)，為觀眾提供了更可信性的藝術(shù)氛圍；這個偌大的空間也讓大家可以保持社交距離。哥倫布歌劇院的演員們一直戴著口罩，除了提醒我們這出故事發(fā)生在今時今日之外，也保護(hù)了演員的健康。出演電影版的演員有時候戴上口罩，有時候摘掉口罩。導(dǎo)演這樣的構(gòu)思內(nèi)有乾坤：故事發(fā)生的時間剛好回溯到新冠疫情初期，當(dāng)時政府還沒有頒布防疫令，還沒有規(guī)定全體市民必須佩戴防疫口罩。（因為演員在拍攝期間只需要對口型而不是開嗓真唱，彼此之間保持距離就更具回旋余地。）

與此同時，幾周后在巴塞羅那，奧萊讓大家瞥見未來的一角——盡管我們活在當(dāng)下，但不少過去的元素正在回歸。他常用的舞美設(shè)計師阿爾方斯·弗洛勒斯（Alfons Flores）很清晰地分隔出公共與私人空間，反映了敘事中不同層面的情感。烏爾斯·施內(nèi)鮑姆（Urs Sch？nebaum）負(fù)責(zé)的燈光設(shè)計在咪咪首次登場時特別突出（他故意把燈光調(diào)得若有似無）。但是利索大歌劇院是一個具有古典風(fēng)格的劇院：我們聆聽到的是普契尼的總譜，在這段特殊的時間里其他歌劇院刪掉的合唱團(tuán)、中場休息、“房東”全都在這個劇院得以重現(xiàn)……

我們也有機(jī)會得以欣賞到大樂隊豐富的音樂。可惜，防疫規(guī)定卻給樂隊帶來了編制與排位的問題。打擊樂全都搬上了緊挨舞臺旁邊的包廂里。正因如此，節(jié)奏的精準(zhǔn)度打了折扣，音量也難與其他聲部找到平衡。演員也遭遇了同樣的困難：魯?shù)婪蚺c咪咪都是好演員，但他們的嗓音經(jīng)常被樂隊蓋過。馬切洛與穆塞塔的嗓子比較洪亮，尤其是穆塞塔演出時稍嫌刺耳。這令我回想起電影版與哥倫布版的《波希米亞人》（演員陣容有些重疊）。盡管他們在屏幕上、畫廊里看起來、聽起來都令人佩服，但他們之中有多少人可以在大歌劇院的舞臺上真正壓倒全場？

我很幸運(yùn)，設(shè)法拿到了巴塞羅那本季《波希米亞人》最后一場演出的最后一張門票。正因如此，當(dāng)晚看到臺上或臺下的現(xiàn)象可能加上了“天時地利”的濾鏡。觀眾熱烈的掌聲主要是為整場演出而不是為了個別演員，仿佛是為了慶祝大伙兒可以重返歌劇院欣賞大家熟悉的演出模式而喝彩。演員們（合唱團(tuán)沒有機(jī)會在劇終后謝幕）除了鞠躬以外，更有擁抱、牽手、吻手等舉動，什么社交距離和防疫禮儀都忘得一干二凈。除了幾分鐘前舞臺上所呈現(xiàn)的因呼吸系統(tǒng)疾病引致死亡的悲劇外，在謝幕那刻，觀眾們難掩興奮之情，就如同新冠病毒從沒有存在過，對于全球的影響也從未發(fā)生過那般。

Heres something thats been bothering me lately： If director Alex Ollé could turn Verdis Masked Ball into a dystopic Orwellian nightmare at the Sydney Opera House， and render Puccinis Turandot as a cynical power play in Kafkas Castle at the New National Theater in Tokyo， then why did his production of La Bohème last month at Barcelonas Gran Teatre del Liceu seem so…well， retro？

Everything looked so modern on the surface： Rodolfo was writing on a laptop， and went searching for Mimis key with a high-powered flashlight （quills and candles being so 19th century?。? There were a couple of Covid touches， like the chorus coming on stage wearing masks while “policemen” ushered them into socially distant groups. Ollé （a Barcelona native himself） even played to the hometown crowd， airlifting Puccinis artists from Pariss left bank to a neighborhood that looked suspiciously like Barcelonas Poblenou district， with Café Momus morphing seamlessly into semi-enclosed dining on the Rambla de Catalunya.

Rather， the quaintness of the production had more to do with the means of presentation. From a storytelling aspect， Ollé forsook any modern （or modernistic） parallels with the original narrative and stuck mostly to concrete elements in the material in establishing a naturalistic pace. As for the general format， the evening marked a full return to pre-Covid norms， presenting the full opera uncut， complete with intermission.

To get an idea of how radical that seems now， lets compare this to the two other Bohèmes Ive seen recently. Both the film by More Than Musical and the stage production at Opera Columbus were produced by Julia Noulin-Mérat， but they reflect a general Covid ethos—at least in the United States—where operas now rarely last more than 90 minutes and do away with choruses， intermissions， and often entire characters. Few opera companies have access to their usual theatres， but even if they could control their own home space they certainly dont want audience members walking around infecting each other between acts. So no intermissions.

But entire characters？ A couple of years ago， it would seem a heresy to cut the landlord Benoit from Bohème， since his character provides the operas only comic relief. You might as well stage Carmen without Micaela， Don Josés innocent love interest—no， wait， More Than Musical just did that in Hong Kong. Maybe a Don Giovanni without some of Giovannis conquests？ Um， I think Opera Columbus did that earlier this year as well.

One thing the Covid era has provided was an excuse for directors and producers to explore the core of the repertory and what is truly essential. For many decades， weve worshipped the composers score—occasionally reinserting parts that the composer had actually removed—treating it a holy writ rather than a living document. Presented outside a traditional theatre space， it becomes obvious what music was there only to allow enough time for stagehands to change sets behind the curtain. Once you start shrinking a pieces structure from an epic to a novella， emotional contrasts become a distraction rather than a means to propel the story. Which is why， in the film and in Columbus （both employing nearly identical cuts in the score）， I didnt really miss Benoit until the show was over. A more radical approach would be to cut Carmen from Carmen， or Tosca from Tosca. Or perhaps to recast Bohème from the point of view of the landlord in a production entitled Benoit（which would probably require a new composer）. But I digress.

Beyond their strict “no-landlord” policy， both of those Bohèmes tweaked expectations in search of vernacular immediacy （what could be more relevant these days than a romantic lead with a lung disease？）. The variances stemmed largely from inherent differences between cinematic presentation and immersive theatricality. The Bohème film embraced New York City as a living set， shooting much of the show in outdoor spaces. The Opera Columbus production was staged in an artist studio-gallery commune， providing a credible setting for the story while allowing distancing for the audience. The Columbus cast wore masks throughout， indicating a contemporary setting while protecting the actual cast members. The film cast was sometimes masked， sometimes not， consciously placing the setting as the early Covid period right before mask mandates became the norm. （Because they were lip-synching， not actually singing， the film cast had much more leeway.）

Meanwhile， a few weeks later in Barcelona， Olléprovided a glimpse of a future that， while living in the present， welcomed back many elements of the past. His regular set designer Alfons Flores conveyed clear breaks between public and private spaces， reflecting different emotional levels in the narrative. Urs Sch？nebaums lighting became particularly notable when Mimis entrance relied directly on it （or rather， the lack of it）. But the Liceu is a classical performing space， which meant we also had Puccinis full score， along with all of the things that had recently fallen by the wayside： a chorus， an intermission， a landlord….

We also had a full orchestra， which was a bit problematic in its current pandemic spacing， placing the percussion in the proscenium boxes at stage level. This hampered both rhythmic precision and sonic balance in the hall. The cast， too， had problems in balance； although they acted well， Rodolfo and Mimi often had trouble cutting through the orchestra. Marcello and particularly Musetta fared better， though the extra volume also came with greater stridency in tone. This made me think about the casts in my two Bohèmes last month （there was some overlap）. As impressive as they looked and sounded on the screen and in the gallery space， I wonder how many of them could actually sustain that presence in a regular opera house.

In Barcelona， I managed to get the last ticket available for the last performance of the run， which might account for the reaction on stage and in the house. The audience applauded primarily for the whole ensemble， rather than for individual singers， as if all the clapping was intended to mark the return to regular operagoing itself. As for the performers（the chorus didnt get a final bow）， curtain calls came with many hugs， much holding and kissing of hands， and no social distance whatsoever. Except for the fact that a few moments earlier a character on stage had just died from a respiratory illness， there was little to remind the audience that we are all still emerging from a global pandemic.