劇場史識與「作家劇場」主張的再商榷

Abstract

馬森「作家劇場」的主張，認為：「演員劇場和作家劇場的不同」是「東西方劇場的最大差異」。這樣的看法，過去二十年來，在兩岸學界廣為引述與流傳。由於此一立論，不僅影響及於中國劇場史的書寫，更關涉到對西洋劇場史的理解與論述，有必要嚴肅以待，詳加探討。但是，這種二分法的思考及論述方式，不僅失之簡化，也乖離劇場史實。「作家劇場」，作為一個概念，並不是不言自明的劇場史概念。試圖以「作家劇場」來泛指西方劇場，並以「演員劇場」來泛指東方傳統劇場，並將此二者加以對比，從劇場史研究的角度觀之，不只皆有其盲點，甚至可說是以偏概全。本文分別就一、稱謂、術語與定義的問題，二、佚名或無名戲劇文本的問題，三、戲劇文本典律化的問題，四、共同創作戲劇文本的問題，以及五、演員當家的西洋劇場史現象等五方面，針對馬森「作家劇場」的此一主張予以重新商榷。

Ma Sen´s theory of “playwright-center theatre＂ argues that the difference between “playwright-center theatre＂ and “actors-center theatre＂ is “the greatest difference between Western theatre and Eastern theatre＂. Ever since 1990, such a theory has been prevalent in theatre studies in both Taiwan and China. As the theory might affect not only the historiography of Chinese theatre history, but also our understandings and discourses of Western theatre histories, it deserves a serious examination and investigation. Ma Sen´s dichotomous thinking and his discourse, however, oversimplified Western theatre histories. In many ways they also ran counter to the factual evidences of Western theatre histories. The idea of “playwright-center theatre＂ is not a self-evident concept in theatre history. This essay reconsiders the idea by taking into account, respectively, in five sections, such issues and/or facts as terms and definitions, anonymous plays, canonization, collaboration, and actors´theatre in English theatre history.