Have Audiences Always Been Rowdy?觀眾一貫如此吵鬧嗎？

When Harry Styles was pelted with chicken nuggets while on stage at New York’s Madison Square Gardens， he took it in his stride1. “Interesting approach，” smiled Styles， who has also weathered kiwi fruits， Skittles and bunches of flowers while performing. But when a mystery object hit him in the eye at a concert in Vienna， he wasn’t laughing but， rather， wincing in pain.

在紐約麥迪遜廣場(chǎng)花園的舞臺(tái)上被人扔雞塊時(shí)，哈里·斯泰爾斯泰然處之?！斑@方式真有趣。”斯泰爾斯笑著說(shuō)，他在表演時(shí)還挨過(guò)獼猴桃、彩虹糖和花束的砸。但在維也納的一場(chǎng)演唱會(huì)上，有個(gè)不明物體擊中了他的眼睛，他沒(méi)有笑，而是眉頭緊皺，表情痛苦。

It was in a string of incidents where audience members have hurled potentially dangerous objects at performers. Drake was hit on the arm by a flying phone. Country singer Kelsea Ballerini was struck in the face with a bracelet. Bebe Rexha was taken to hospital and needed multiple stitches after a phone hit her in the eye. A man， since charged with assault， told police he thought it “would be funny” to try and hit the singer.

觀眾向表演者投擲潛在危險(xiǎn)物品的事件眾多，斯泰爾斯的遭遇只是其一。德雷克曾被一部從人群中飛出的手機(jī)砸中手臂。鄉(xiāng)村歌手凱爾西·巴萊里尼曾被手鐲砸到臉。碧碧·雷克薩讓手機(jī)砸傷了眼睛，被送去醫(yī)院縫了很多針。被控傷人的男子告訴警方，他覺(jué)得拿東西砸這位歌手“會(huì)很有趣”。

It’s not just live music seeing disruptive behaviour. Police were called to a performance of The Bodyguard musical in Manchester when rowdy audience members reacted with “unprecedented levels of violence” to staff. At other venues there has been everything from “heated arguments” to full-on brawls.

破壞行為不僅僅出現(xiàn)在現(xiàn)場(chǎng)音樂(lè)會(huì)。音樂(lè)劇《保鏢》在曼徹斯特上演時(shí)，吵鬧的觀眾以“前所未有的暴力”對(duì)待工作人員，警方接警后隨即趕到現(xiàn)場(chǎng)。在其他場(chǎng)合，破壞行為從“激烈爭(zhēng)論”到大打出手，應(yīng)有盡有。

Across the cultural sphere， it feels like audiences are misbehaving. At a Las Vegas show， Adele weighed in2， saying： “Have you noticed how people are like， forgetting… show etiquette at the moment？”

在整個(gè)文藝領(lǐng)域，觀眾似乎都在搗亂。在拉斯維加斯的一場(chǎng)演出中，阿黛爾站出來(lái)說(shuō)道：“你們注意到?jīng)]有，此刻人們好像都忘了觀演禮儀？”

Billie Eilish meanwhile， says this kind of thing， while “infuriating”， is nothing new. “I’ve been getting hit on stage with things for like， literally， six years，” she told the Hollywood Reporter. Dr Kirsty Sedgman， a senior lecturer in theatre at the University of Bristol who specialises in audience research， also cautions against calling it a new trend. “People have always thrown things on stage，” says Sedgman， whose latest book， On Being Unreasonable， explores widening divisions in society over how we use public space. “Whether that’s fruit as a way to signify displeas-ure， or softer items like underwear and flowers as a signal of adoration.” Back in 1775， a performer in Sheridan’s The Rivals stopped the show when he was pelted with an apple.

比莉·艾利什也說(shuō)，這種事情雖然“令人憤怒”，但并不是什么新鮮事。她在接受《好萊塢報(bào)道》的采訪時(shí)表示：“我在舞臺(tái)上被各種東西砸，差不多有六年了?！辈祭锼雇袪柎髮W(xué)的戲劇高級(jí)講師柯絲蒂·塞奇曼博士專門(mén)從事受眾研究，她也提醒說(shuō)，不要把觀眾鬧事稱為一種新趨勢(shì)?！叭藗兛偸峭枧_(tái)上扔?xùn)|西?！比媛f(shuō)，她的最新著作《論不合理》探討了社會(huì)各界對(duì)“如何使用公共空間”產(chǎn)生的日益擴(kuò)大的分歧?！盁o(wú)論是扔水果表示不滿，還是扔內(nèi)衣和鮮花等柔軟的物品來(lái)表示崇拜?！痹缭?775年，謝里丹戲劇《情敵》的一名表演者就因被人扔蘋(píng)果而中止演出。

So are things really any worse now？ “If you’d asked me that before lockdown， I would have said that things have always been thus，” says Sedgman. “As far back as the ancient Greeks people like Plato were complaining about what he called a vicious theatrocracy3， where audiences who were previously happy to sit quietly suddenly wanted to use their tongues and start cheering and screaming. And the norm in Shakespeare’s time was to watch performances at the same time as more bodily forms of consumption， such as eating and drinking and talking and socialising.”

那現(xiàn)在問(wèn)題真的更嚴(yán)重了嗎？塞奇曼說(shuō)：“疫情封控前如果你問(wèn)我這個(gè)問(wèn)題，我會(huì)說(shuō)向來(lái)如此。早在古希臘時(shí)期，柏拉圖等人就在抱怨此事。柏拉圖稱這種現(xiàn)象為‘邪惡的劇場(chǎng)政體’，觀眾前一秒還樂(lè)于安靜地坐著觀賞，突然就想說(shuō)話，然后開(kāi)始?xì)g呼和尖叫。莎士比亞時(shí)代的常態(tài)是，人們?cè)谟^看表演的同時(shí)身體也不閑著，比如一邊吃吃喝喝，一邊聊天社交。”

The idea that audiences should sit and listen quietly is a relatively recent expectation. Post-pandemic though， Sedgman does think something has changed. “To some extent we’ve been having these debates about live performance， whether the norm should be more quiet and subdued or more active and exuberant for a very long time， but I work with a lot of people throughout the cultural industries， and the message seems to be pretty much unanimous that since lockdown ended， the situation has fundamentally shifted.”

觀眾要安靜地坐著聽(tīng)，這是一個(gè)相對(duì)較新的期望。然而，塞奇曼的確認(rèn)為，疫情過(guò)后情況已然有所改變。“從某種程度上說(shuō)，我們很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間以來(lái)一直在討論，現(xiàn)場(chǎng)表演的氛圍應(yīng)該是更安靜、克制，還是更活躍、熱情，但是我和文藝產(chǎn)業(yè)的很多人有接觸，大家似乎一致認(rèn)為，自疫情封控結(jié)束后情況已從根本上發(fā)生了變化。”

That bears out4 in a report by the UK’s Broadcasting， Entertainment， Communications and Theatre Union （Bectu） which found that 90% of theatre staff had witnessed bad behaviour—and 70% believed things had got worse since the pandemic.

英國(guó)廣播娛樂(lè)電影與劇院工會(huì)的一份報(bào)告證實(shí)了這一點(diǎn)。報(bào)告顯示，90%的劇院?jiǎn)T工目睹過(guò)不良行為，70%的員工認(rèn)為疫情后情況更糟了。

“It’s not all audiences by any means， but for a lot of people， there’s a growing sense of what I call ‘don’t-tell-me-what-to-do-itis’，” says Sedgman. She believes we’re seeing a breakdown in social contracts—the behavioural norms and rules of engagements that keep us all ticking along5 together nicely.

塞奇曼說(shuō)：“并非所有觀眾都如此，但在許多人心中，我所謂的‘不要告訴我該怎么做’意識(shí)越來(lái)越強(qiáng)?！彼J(rèn)為，我們正在目睹社會(huì)契約的崩潰——也就是讓我們所有人和睦相處的行為規(guī)范和規(guī)則正在崩潰。

People are thirsty for live entertainment again， but increasingly want it on their terms—especially when ticket prices are soaring. “People are coming with actively competing ideals about what they want that experience to be like，” says Sedgman. “Some people want to not be disturbed by others chatting or eating or drinking， or have phones blocking their way. Other people want to maybe take a step backwards to the time when the arts were a more sociable experience. The difficulty is that those pleasures are irreconcilable.”

人們?cè)俅慰释F(xiàn)場(chǎng)娛樂(lè)，但越發(fā)希望以自己的方式觀看，尤其是在票價(jià)飆升的時(shí)期。塞奇曼說(shuō)：“對(duì)于想要什么樣的體驗(yàn)，來(lái)看演出的人們各有各的理想，他們之間的分歧不小。有些人不想受到別人聊天、吃喝的打擾，也不想被手機(jī)擋住視線。還有些人可能想倒退一步，回到藝術(shù)更注重社交的時(shí)代。困難在于眾人的喜好無(wú)法調(diào)和?！?/p>

Why though， would a so-called fan of an artist want to risk hurting them by throwing things？ One explanation is that social media has fuelled parasocial relationships6—in which fans develop a strong but one-sided connection with celebrities. “Live events are one place where you actually come into that same space with your beloved celebrity，” says Sedgman. “So for some people， perhaps there’s a desire to break through that fourth wall7 separating them from us and to actively insert your presence into their world.” Giving P！nk a giant wheel of Brie or—like one fan recently—throwing your mother’s ashes to her， is certainly one way to make her aware of your existence.

然而，為什么藝人的所謂粉絲會(huì)冒著傷害他們的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，朝他們?nèi)訓(xùn)|西？一種解釋是，社交媒體助長(zhǎng)了準(zhǔn)社會(huì)關(guān)系，即粉絲在自己與名人之間建立的一種緊密的單邊聯(lián)系。塞奇曼說(shuō)：“在現(xiàn)場(chǎng)活動(dòng)中，你真的能與喜愛(ài)的名人同處一個(gè)空間。所以有些人或許希望打破將名人與我們隔開(kāi)的第四堵墻，冒然闖入名人的世界?！比咏o“粉紅佳人”一塊巨大的布里干酪，或像最近的一位粉絲那樣把自己母親的骨灰扔給她，無(wú)疑是在這位歌手面前刷存在感的一種方式。

Many artists though， are now appealing directly to fans to stop throwing things. One UK theatre group has toned down its marketing material to discourage rowdy attendees. But there’s a balance between keeping people safe and over-policing behaviour. At a gig， Taylor Swift intervened to stop a security guard from allegedly harassing fans.

而現(xiàn)在許多藝人直接呼吁粉絲不要再扔?xùn)|西了。英國(guó)一家劇團(tuán)已弱化其營(yíng)銷材料的宣傳力度，以勸離吵鬧的觀眾。然而，要在保護(hù)人們的安全與過(guò)度執(zhí)法的行為之間取得平衡。在某場(chǎng)演唱會(huì)中，泰勒·斯威夫特出面阻止了一名涉嫌騷擾粉絲的保安。

Sedgman works with venues to develop policies that allow audiences to engage， while also protecting the safety of staff， performers and other audience members. “Of course we have to draw lines between acceptable and unacceptable， reasonable and unreasonable， legal and illegal，” she says. “But we also need to think carefully about who those rules privilege and prioritise and who they exclude or even harm. It’s young people， working-class people， people of colour who tend to have their behaviour surveilled and judged.”

塞奇曼與場(chǎng)館合作制定政策，讓觀眾參與的同時(shí)，又保護(hù)工作人員、表演者和其他觀眾的安全。她說(shuō)：“當(dāng)然，我們必須界定可接受與不可接受、合理與不合理、合法與非法，但我們也要斟酌這些規(guī)則給誰(shuí)帶來(lái)了特權(quán)和優(yōu)先權(quán)，又排斥甚至傷害了誰(shuí)。年輕人、工薪階層和有色人種的行為往往會(huì)遭到監(jiān)督和評(píng)判?！?/p>

Meanwhile though， she thinks the incidents could be a bellwether for deeper issues. “Live performance has always been a laboratory space for figuring out what it means to be together，” she explains. “Pretty much every time society goes through a big period of unrest， that unrest starts to ferment and explode in live performance first. Audiences are a kind of canary in the coal mine8 for much bigger frustrations and divisions starting to bubble over. It’s important that we pay attention to what’s happening in the cultural sphere. It’s an indicator of what’s happening to us as a society.”

同時(shí)，塞奇曼也認(rèn)為，觀眾鬧事可能預(yù)示著更深層次的問(wèn)題。她解釋道：“現(xiàn)場(chǎng)表演向來(lái)是一個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)空間，能檢驗(yàn)群體聚集意味著什么。幾乎每逢社會(huì)經(jīng)歷激烈動(dòng)蕩時(shí)期，這種動(dòng)蕩都會(huì)首先在現(xiàn)場(chǎng)表演中開(kāi)始發(fā)酵，進(jìn)而爆發(fā)。觀眾就如同煤礦里的金絲雀，能提前感知到更大的挫折和分歧漸漸浮現(xiàn)。關(guān)注文藝領(lǐng)域的動(dòng)態(tài)很重要，因?yàn)樗巧鐣?huì)動(dòng)態(tài)的一個(gè)風(fēng)向標(biāo)?！?/p>

（譯者為“《英語(yǔ)世界》杯”翻譯大賽獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)撸?/p>

1 take sth in stride〈習(xí)語(yǔ)〉從容處理；泰然處之。

2 weigh in（在討論、辯論中等）發(fā)表有分量的意見(jiàn)，發(fā)揮作用。

3柏拉圖在《法律篇》（The Laws）里把和貴族政體（aristocracy）相對(duì)立的政體叫作“劇場(chǎng)政體”，而非“民主政體”（democracy），意思就是文藝當(dāng)權(quán)就等于群氓當(dāng)權(quán)。 4 bear sth out 證實(shí)；為……作證。

5 tick along 順利進(jìn)行。

6此處同準(zhǔn)社會(huì)互動(dòng)（parasocial interaction），指受眾通過(guò)大眾媒體與媒體中人物接觸時(shí)產(chǎn)生的一種心理關(guān)系。在互動(dòng)過(guò)程中，受眾會(huì)感覺(jué)自己與媒體中的人物有直接的聯(lián)系，對(duì)方就如同自己身邊的親密朋友一般。這種互動(dòng)一般具有單邊性，受眾對(duì)媒體中的人物非常了解，但媒體中的人物卻不了解受眾。 7戲劇術(shù)語(yǔ)，指鏡框式舞臺(tái)上，人們想象的位于舞臺(tái)臺(tái)口的一道實(shí)際上并不存在的“墻”。表演者直接與觀眾互動(dòng)時(shí)，可謂“打破了第四堵墻”。

8金絲雀對(duì)有害氣體的敏感度超過(guò)人體，所以金絲雀就成了過(guò)去礦工們的報(bào)警器。礦工帶著金絲雀下井，如果金絲雀暴斃，就說(shuō)明井下有危險(xiǎn)氣體，需要立即逃生。如今，“煤礦里的金絲雀”多用作比喻，指危險(xiǎn)的先兆。