西方劇場及其他者

Abstract

亞陶是論述東方劇場的先驅。他談論峇里島劇場的相關論文雖惡名昭彰，但也是有關東方劇場最引人入勝的論述。有別於葛羅托斯基對東方劇場傳統較實事求是的態度，亞陶的文字總會有意無意地賦予東方劇場一種神秘的色彩。隱藏於亞陶對峇里島劇場或東方劇場的詮釋裡，是一種他對「東方」的態度與想像。亞陶這種態度得自於一般西方對東方根深蒂固的刻版印象。本篇論文試圖檢驗亞陶如何在他頗負盛名的著作《劇場及其複象》一書中，運用與濫用「東方劇場」這個概念的情形。首先，本論文探索亞陶在1931 年巴黎殖民地博覽會觀賞峇里島表演後所衍生的詮釋問題；接著論文討論亞陶的東方劇場概念與西方劇場轉向兩者間錯綜複雜的關係。除此之外，論文處理他者的問題並檢視薩依德「東方主義」概念複雜的面貌。在此同時，論文也分析亞陶所引發的挪用與誤讀的問題。本論文的目的並不在抗拒減損挪用的正當性或批判檢討亞陶的誤讀或誤解。相反地，本論文除正視以上所提出的問題，也將以正面的態度去重新評估亞陶對峇里島劇場和東方劇場的想法。論文將援引傅科系譜學的觀點與角度，論證亞陶看待與解讀東方劇場的方式與效應是一個異質獨特的「詮釋事件」，揭露並突顯「東方主義」與詮釋行為一刀兩刃的雙面特性。

Antonin Artaud is one of the pioneers who theorizes about the Oriental theatre. His writings on the Balinese theatre are among the most notorious and yet the most fascinating reading of the Oriental theatre. Unlike Jerzy Grotowski’s matter of fact attitude toward the Oriental theatrical traditions, Artaud tends to mythologize the Oriental theatre. Implicit in Artaud’s interpretation of the Balinese theatre, or the Oriental theatre in general, is an attitude to the East which is shaped by certain stereotypical impressions and images of the Orient that prevail in the West. In this paper, I propose to examine Artaud’s use and abuse of the Oriental theatre in his seminal work The Theatre and Its Double. First, I explore the issue of Artaud’s seeing of the Balinese performance at the Colonial Exhibition in Paris in 1931 along with his essay “On the Balinese theatre.” I then discuss the relationship between the Oriental theatre and the “orient-ation” of the Occidental theatre in Artaud. In addition, I call attention to the question of the Other and discuss the complexities of Orientalism as a theory and practice. I analyze in particular the problematics of appropriation and mis-interpretation. The purpose of this paper, however, is not intended to undermine the validity of appropriation, nor to dismiss Artaud’s misunderstandings. Rather, this paper aims to re-evaluate or transvaluate Artaud’s thinking about the Balinese and Oriental theatre and argues that Artaud’s reading of the Oriental theatre is a Foucauldian singular event of interpretation, exposing the dual-nature of Orientalism and the double-bind characteristic of the act of interpretation which contaminates and disseminates its target all at the same time.