新時(shí)代新紳士：莫扎特的唐喬瓦尼在“#我也是”時(shí)代何去何從

文：司馬勤（Ken Smith） 編譯：李正欣

還記得我的朋友蘇·伍爾夫（Sue Wolf）嗎？她住在洛杉磯，是一位電視喜劇編劇兼導(dǎo)演。不記得也情有可原，我也差不多忘了。她聲稱自己搬回紐約長(zhǎng)住，但我們倆還是極少見(jiàn)面。她說(shuō)她放棄了電視的工作，轉(zhuǎn)戰(zhàn)至舞臺(tái)，但我在社交平臺(tái)上只找到她引領(lǐng)年輕人進(jìn)入劇場(chǎng)看戲的大合照。

不久以前，我們終于聚在一起，享用了一頓早午餐（brunch），聊天時(shí)她丟下了一個(gè)炸彈般的重磅話題。她表示，盡管她從小就熱愛(ài)歌劇，但事到如今她真的再也無(wú)法忍受了?！罢f(shuō)真的，在今天怎么去跟那些少男少女們解釋歌劇??？”她道出這個(gè)問(wèn)題的時(shí)候，臉上充滿沮喪?！霸诖髲埰旃牡摹?我也是’運(yùn)動(dòng)時(shí)代面對(duì)那些陳腔濫調(diào)的歌劇情節(jié)，你可以問(wèn)心無(wú)愧地說(shuō)，是一種豐富的體驗(yàn)嗎？”

她說(shuō)得有道理。當(dāng)新生代們公開(kāi)抗議（甚至對(duì)簿公堂）性行為不當(dāng)?shù)膫€(gè)案不勝枚舉時(shí)，你憑什么來(lái)維護(hù)這些專門虐待女性的經(jīng)典劇目呢？幾十年來(lái)，女權(quán)主義者一直在抱怨，典型的歌劇女高音的結(jié)局只有以下幾個(gè)可選擇——當(dāng)然也得取決于她的聲樂(lè)門類：被刺死（《卡門》）、被活埋（《阿依達(dá)》），或者被塞進(jìn)麻袋后被亂棍毒打至死（《弄臣》）。如果她幸運(yùn)一點(diǎn)，她可能會(huì)親自動(dòng)手，切腹自殺（《蝴蝶夫人》）或從高樓跳下（《托斯卡》）。

但另一方面，我們還有《唐喬瓦尼》這個(gè)個(gè)案。在這部莫扎特歌劇里，沒(méi)有女性真正死去——唯一一個(gè)被懲罰致死的就是拈花惹草的唐喬瓦尼先生，但這部作品中的女角們遇上最差的命運(yùn)，就是自己的名字被加進(jìn)那臭名遠(yuǎn)播的唐喬瓦尼“情婦名單”。因?yàn)樘茊掏吣嶙罱K被送進(jìn)了地獄，我們也很難說(shuō)這部歌劇是偏袒他、歌頌他的惡劣行為。

然而，要是你隨便問(wèn)問(wèn)哪部歌劇與“#我也是”的道德觀抵觸最多，《唐喬瓦尼》肯定名列榜首，因?yàn)檫@個(gè)故事除了表現(xiàn)兩性之間的權(quán)術(shù)，也包含了社會(huì)上不同階層的角力。當(dāng)仆人萊波雷洛連珠炮似地唱出“名單”上的伯爵夫人、男爵夫人、農(nóng)家少女與家中侍婢時(shí)，你已經(jīng)感覺(jué)周邊人的局促不安了。上一代中機(jī)會(huì)平等的誘惑者，到了下一代，就變成了享受階級(jí)專利的掠奪者。

不久前，我看過(guò)一出聘用全女性制作團(tuán)隊(duì)制作的《唐喬瓦尼》。到結(jié)局時(shí)，唐喬瓦尼染上了無(wú)法治愈的性傳染病（我猜，這可算是今時(shí)今日無(wú)宗教大環(huán)境下的另一種“地獄”），他被困在醫(yī)院病房里，奄奄一息。今年5月，俄克拉何馬州塔爾薩歌劇院更請(qǐng)來(lái)了一位愛(ài)爾蘭跨性別歌唱家露西亞·盧卡斯（Lucia Lucas）——現(xiàn)在是一位男中音——扮演唐喬瓦尼，在原有的話題上又增添了更多的性別色彩。

大都會(huì)歌劇院本演出季也重演《唐喬瓦尼》?？赡芤?yàn)樵悍綄?duì)于這部作品的矛盾心理，演出推廣方面好像有意無(wú)意地被忽略了。這不僅是一個(gè)極其平庸的《唐喬瓦尼》制作，也是歌劇院現(xiàn)有制作之中最平淡無(wú)奇的一個(gè)。就連《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》樂(lè)評(píng)人科琳娜·達(dá)·方瑟克-沃爾海姆（Corinna da Fonseca-Wollheim）——因?yàn)槭俏慌畼?lè)評(píng)人，大家還以為她會(huì)有備而戰(zhàn)，誓要攻擊這部歌劇——描述自己坐在大都會(huì)歌劇院觀眾席里，“極力地尋找任何能夠提起興趣的東西”。去年4月，當(dāng)勒內(nèi)·雅各布斯（René Jacobs）帶領(lǐng)弗萊堡巴洛克古樂(lè)團(tuán)到深圳演出《唐喬瓦尼》的時(shí)候，他選用了純粹音樂(lè)會(huì)形式。

你現(xiàn)在大概能夠理解，為何當(dāng)我查看今年5月香港歌劇院演出資料時(shí)，發(fā)現(xiàn)一場(chǎng)名為“在‘#我也是’年代看《唐喬瓦尼》”的講座時(shí)，脈搏會(huì)突然加快，心里是多么興奮。主講者是英語(yǔ)字幕翻譯以及節(jié)目介紹撰稿人彼得·戈登（Peter Gordon），地點(diǎn)是香港大學(xué)的但丁協(xié)會(huì)。彼得是位作家，也是文學(xué)專家，這場(chǎng)講座讓我充滿期待，一方面他的發(fā)言應(yīng)該經(jīng)過(guò)深思熟慮，另一方面，他的演說(shuō)肯定會(huì)有適當(dāng)?shù)奶翎呅浴?/p>

然而，當(dāng)我到達(dá)香港大學(xué)時(shí)，彼得用一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的前提開(kāi)始了他的演講?！澳銈円J(rèn)真理解‘#我也是’時(shí)代的《唐喬瓦尼》，就得認(rèn)真聆聽(tīng)莫扎特的音樂(lè)。”然后他又突如其來(lái)地拋出了問(wèn)題：“我們?nèi)绾慰隙ㄌ茊掏吣岢晒Φ毓匆搅伺阅?？如果你?xì)心留意，在整部歌劇里，他每一次想誘惑女生，結(jié)果都是一敗涂地?！彼^續(xù)說(shuō)道，“萊波雷洛是證明唐喬瓦尼斑斑劣跡的唯一證人，但萊波雷洛并不是世界上最可靠的證人?！?/p>

左：俄克拉何馬州塔爾薩歌劇院今年5月制作的《唐喬瓦尼》，請(qǐng)來(lái)了跨性別歌唱家露西亞·盧卡斯飾演劇名主角

右：露西亞·盧卡斯飾演的唐喬瓦尼

唐喬瓦尼作為一個(gè)似乎無(wú)法達(dá)成目標(biāo)的達(dá)官貴人形象，無(wú)疑會(huì)引發(fā)共鳴。我立刻聯(lián)想到服裝部門可以為這個(gè)角色設(shè)計(jì)一頂橙色的假發(fā)。狡黠的導(dǎo)演或許還可能安排萊波雷洛將一疊現(xiàn)鈔塞給塞維利亞的色情女星。我的那些“特朗普式”的異想天開(kāi)很快就煙消云散，回到歷史環(huán)境之中。

對(duì)彼得來(lái)講，把《唐喬瓦尼》的故事背景更新，絕對(duì)算不上創(chuàng)新。從歷史角度來(lái)看，故事以及男主人公從一開(kāi)始就經(jīng)歷了多次蛻變。這位放蕩不羈的貴族人物出自西班牙編劇加布里埃爾·杰列茨（Gabriel Téllez）——這位編劇的筆名蒂爾索·德·莫利納（Tirso de Molina）更為人所熟知——1630年發(fā)表的《塞維利亞的登徒子》（The Trickster of Seville and the Stone Guest）。唐喬瓦尼本來(lái)是一個(gè)惡棍，臨死的一刻進(jìn)入教堂懺悔，隨即得到救贖而升入天堂（這也暴露了天主教義的道德漏洞）。與《金瓶梅》中的西門慶一樣，唐喬瓦尼表面上是社會(huì)名流的完美代表，但內(nèi)心卻是真正的腐敗，他的性格和行為折射出對(duì)他那個(gè)時(shí)代道德的強(qiáng)烈批判。

一百多年后，法國(guó)編劇讓-巴蒂斯特·波克蘭（Jean-Baptiste Poquelin）——更多人認(rèn)識(shí)他為莫里哀（Molière）——撰寫(xiě)了《唐璜》（Don Juan and the Feast with the Statue）。他筆下的男主人公罪大惡極、思想自由，他的一舉一動(dòng)——當(dāng)然也包括他的存在——時(shí)時(shí)刻刻都在不斷蔑視宗教與政治當(dāng)權(quán)者。在莫里哀筆下，唐喬瓦尼可算是啟蒙思想的傳奇人物，這位貴族擁有很多缺點(diǎn)，但從不逃避責(zé)任。最終，當(dāng)石像邀請(qǐng)他一起“進(jìn)餐”時(shí)，他欣然接受，沒(méi)有露出一丁點(diǎn)畏懼。

然而，或者正因?yàn)槟锇У淖髌吩趯彶樯嫌龅搅寺闊脑拕⊙莩霾痪镁捅蝗∠髞?lái)更經(jīng)過(guò)大幅度修訂——莫扎特的編劇達(dá)·蓬特正是被這一原版劇本所吸引。在許多層面上，《唐喬瓦尼》在邏輯上與《費(fèi)加羅的婚禮》相互呼應(yīng)，因?yàn)椤顿M(fèi)加羅》也是一位法國(guó)編劇革新性的劇本，同樣也惹來(lái)了審查方的阻礙。

讓我們回到香港大學(xué)的講座上，彼得把唐喬瓦尼的故事與典故的來(lái)龍去脈敘述得有條有理。但我覺(jué)得奇怪，他以及出席的聽(tīng)眾，顯然對(duì)威尼斯貴族卡薩諾瓦（Casanova）知之甚少，而卡薩諾瓦的回憶錄仍然是記錄18世紀(jì)威尼斯貴族生活及風(fēng)土人情的偉大文獻(xiàn)之一。別忽視了最突出而放蕩的一點(diǎn)：卡薩諾瓦多彩多姿的社交生活，與唐喬瓦尼的生活背景相得益彰。

究竟達(dá)·蓬特有沒(méi)有看過(guò)卡薩諾瓦的回憶錄我們無(wú)從稽考，但他肯定知道卡薩諾瓦。他們倆都是作家；兩人都曾經(jīng)當(dāng)過(guò)天主教教士（盡管達(dá)·蓬特出生時(shí)是猶太人）；兩人都曾在威尼斯遇上麻煩后逃去了維也納。威尼斯這個(gè)水城的面積那么小，兩人絕不可能完全避免見(jiàn)面。最重要的是：達(dá)·蓬特的《唐喬瓦尼》與此前的版本在某些細(xì)節(jié)上有很大出入，而這些細(xì)節(jié)卻與卡薩諾瓦的遭遇吻合。某些間接證據(jù)讓人猜測(cè)，或者卡薩諾瓦才是劇本的“影子寫(xiě)手”（ghostwriter）——最起碼，是“劇本醫(yī)師”（script doctor），以顧問(wèn)的方式增強(qiáng)了唐喬瓦尼這個(gè)浪蕩角色的可信度。［多米尼克·阿根托（Dominick Argento，美國(guó)作曲家）1985年的歌劇《卡薩諾瓦》，與卡洛斯·紹拉（Carlos Saura，西班牙導(dǎo)演）2009年執(zhí)導(dǎo)的電影《我，唐喬瓦尼》都推崇這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)。］

講座的下半場(chǎng)，請(qǐng)來(lái)了歌劇《唐喬瓦尼》的導(dǎo)演讓-路易斯·格蘭達(dá)（Jean-Louis Grinda），討論香港這個(gè)歌劇制作的特點(diǎn)。香港的版本是由格蘭達(dá)此前在蒙特卡洛歌劇院執(zhí)導(dǎo)的版本重構(gòu)出來(lái)的。簡(jiǎn)而言之，沒(méi)有很大的改動(dòng)——更準(zhǔn)確地說(shuō)，沒(méi)有添加很多。正如彼得在最后總結(jié)的，“在‘#我也是’時(shí)代欣賞《唐喬瓦尼》的最佳方法就是去關(guān)注莫扎特與達(dá)·蓬特的手筆?！?/p>

上、左頁(yè)：大都會(huì)歌劇院今年4月上演的《唐喬瓦尼》

上、右頁(yè)：香港歌劇院5月上演的《唐喬瓦尼》（圖片提供：香港歌劇院）

香港歌劇院成功了嗎？總的來(lái)講，做得挺好。這個(gè)制作沒(méi)有把情節(jié)現(xiàn)代化，也沒(méi)有把莫扎特的古典主義夸大為瓦格納式的壯闊（很多人處理終場(chǎng)的地獄場(chǎng)景，往往會(huì)掉進(jìn)這個(gè)陷阱）。埃里克·切瓦利埃（Eric Chevalier）的布景用上適當(dāng)?shù)墓伴T與瓦片，令我們聯(lián)想到西班牙；羅伯托·文圖里（Roberto Venturi）的燈光設(shè)計(jì)聚焦于布景，但避免產(chǎn)生壓抑感。

莫扎特描述《唐喬瓦尼》為一部“嚴(yán)肅的喜劇”。導(dǎo)演與指揮馬丁斯·奧索連斯（Martins Ozolins）從中挖掘出戲劇節(jié)奏與音樂(lè)速度，將其如法國(guó)閨房鬧劇（French sex farce）一樣展開(kāi)，而不是落入這類鬧劇經(jīng)常表現(xiàn)的輕浮語(yǔ)氣。理查德·奧拉薩巴（Richard Ollarsaba）飾演唐喬瓦尼與約瑟夫·巴倫（Joseph Barron）飾演萊波雷洛的演繹十分細(xì)膩，在敘事方面特別有效，在黑色幽默的段落配上相對(duì)深沉的音色。雖然唐喬瓦尼看起來(lái)英俊瀟灑，他徹頭徹尾都沒(méi)有露出一點(diǎn)歡悅；萊波雷洛跟著主人的每一舉動(dòng)，卻又充滿厭惡與嫉妒。

這部歌劇的女角通常都被貶為片面的漫畫(huà)式陪襯。但在這部制作里，她們的感情寬度開(kāi)闊得多，顯得有血有肉。鄺勵(lì)齡飾演活潑的埃爾薇拉，比只因?yàn)楸痪芏鴪?bào)復(fù)的女人更有深度。維多利亞·坎尼佐（Victoria Cannizzo）那正直的安娜看起來(lái)也有她不羈的一面。唯一的弱點(diǎn)是劉卓昕扮演的采琳娜。她本來(lái)應(yīng)該是歌劇里唐喬瓦尼要勾引的最復(fù)雜的女孩，可惜她的演繹偏重典型“鄉(xiāng)下女”，而忽略了深藏其下的“狡猾女孩”。歌劇老將田浩江飾演的騎士長(zhǎng)，后來(lái)成為石像重返舞臺(tái)時(shí)還增加了擴(kuò)音，令最終一幕更加觸目驚心。

在今天的大環(huán)境下，上演《唐喬瓦尼》這部具有話題性的作品極具誘惑力，香港歌劇院的制作成功地提供了佐證。但在這位貴族的頭上加上光環(huán)，往往都是個(gè)別導(dǎo)演與演員的意愿，而不是來(lái)自故事本身的要求。有時(shí)候，久遠(yuǎn)的歌劇作品要引起如今觀眾的共鳴，最好的方法就是留意歌劇的本質(zhì)。

Remember Sue Wolf, my comedy writer-director friend from Los Angeles? That’s okay, I barely do either.She says she’s moved back to New York, but I still never see her.She claims that she’s given up television for the stage, but all I’ve seen are the pictures she posts of young people she’s introduced to the theatre.

Not long ago we finally got together for brunch,and she dropped a bombshell.Despite her lifelong love of opera, she says she just can’t take it anymore.“Really, what can you tell teenagers today?” she exclaimed with palpable frustration.“How can youwatch these stories in the age of #MeToo and say that opera is an enriching experience?”

俄克拉何馬州塔爾薩歌劇院今年5月制作的《唐喬瓦尼》

She did have a point.When an entire generation has taken to publicly protesting (and often litigating) over sexual misconduct, how can you justify a repertory famous for mistreating half the human population? Feminists have complained for decades that a typical operatic soprano has a choice—depending on her voice type—of being stabbed (Carmen), buried alive (Aida) or beaten to death in a bag (Rigoletto).If she’s lucky, she might get to take matters into her own hands and either disembowel herself (Madame Butterfly) or leap from a tall building (Tosca).

But on the other hand, there’sDon Giovanni,where no women actually die.The worst fate that the opera’s female characters face is the possibility of being consigned to Giovanni’s infamous list of romantic conquests.And because the lecherous Don eventually goes to hell, it’s hard to claim that the story really glorifies his behavior.

And yet, ask anyone to name the biggest offender of the new MeToo morality andDon Giovanniwill surely top the list, partly because there’s not just sexual politics involved but social politics as well.When Leporello rattles off countesses and baronesses as well as peasant girls and maidservants, you can already feel some people squirm.One generation’s equal-opportunity seducer is the next generation’s class-entitled predator.

Not long ago I saw aDon Giovanniby an allfemale production team where the Don wound up wasting away in a hospital ward after contracting an uncurable STD (the modern, secular equivalent of hell, I suppose).In May, Tulsa Opera in Oklahoma cheekily diffused the situation by casting the Irish transgender singer Lucia Lucas—now a baritone—in the title role.

The Metropolitan Opera, which brought itsDon Giovanniback to the stage this season, seems to express its own ambivalence through benign neglect.This is not just a supremely leadenGiovanni; it’s the most lackluster production in the company’s current repertory.EvenNew York Timescritic Corinna da Fonseca-Wollheim—who, as a woman, you’d expect to come with sabre drawn—found herself “straining to find anything of interest” in the Met’s staging.When René Jacobs broughtGiovannito Shenzhen last April with the Freiburg Baroque Orchestra, he ignored staging altogether.

So you can probably understand how my pulse started racing when, searching for information about Hong Kong’s production in May, I came across a lecture entitled “WatchingDon Giovanniin the #MeToo Era” by the production’s translator and annotator Peter Gordon, hosted by the University of Hong Kong’s Dante Alighieri Society.Given Peter’s literary credentials, the evening promised to be thoughtfully considered and appropriately provocative.

When I arrived at HKU, though, Peter opened his talk with a simple proviso: “All you need to appreciateDon Giovanniin the MeToo era is to listen to Mozart’s score.” And then he threw an unexpected curve.“How do we really know that Giovanni is such an accomplished seducer?” he asked.“If you notice,he never actually succeeds with any women in the course of the whole opera.” The only evidence of the Don’s sexual prowess is Leporello’s testimony, he continued, and Leporello is not exactly the world’s most credible witness.

This image of Giovanni as an entitled man who can’t seem to close a deal certainly struck a chord.Immediately I thought of the costume department designing an orange wig.A cunning director might arrange for Leporello to offer some hush money to the Sevillian porn stars.But those Trump-era fantasies were soon brushed away by historical context.

ReconceivingDon Giovanniis hardly a radical concept, Peter pointed out, since the story and title character have morphed many times since their inception.The libertine nobleman first sprung from the pen of Spanish playwright Gabriel Téllez—better known as Tirso de Molina—in his 1630 playThe Trickster of Seville and the Stone Guest.Juan was originally a Catholic reprobate planning to repentbefore he dies, thus entering heaven with all his sins forgiven (thus exposing a moral loophole in the Catholic faith).Much like Ximen Qing inJin Ping Mei,Juan is social perfection on the surface but truly corrupt within, his character and actions unfolding as a strong critique of the morals of his time.

More than a century later, the French playwright Jean-Baptiste Poquelin—better known as Molière—wroteDon Juan and the Feast with the Statue, this time rendering the Don as a godless freethinker,his every move—and indeed his very existence—a constant flouting of religious and political authority.As a flag bearer for Enlightenment thought, Molière’s nobleman was flawed at best, but he didn’t cower from accountability.When finally “invited to dinner”by the Statue, he faces his final comeuppance with grace and gravitas.

Despite, or maybe because of, Molière’s trouble with the censors—his play was soon withdrawn and substantially altered—this was the version that attracted Mozart’s librettist Lorenzo Da Ponte.On many levels, it was a logical successor to their earlier operaThe Marriage of Figaro, another radical script by a French playwright that drew the ire of that country’s censors.

Back at HKU, Peter did such a fine job recounting the Juan legend that I was surprised that he—or anyone else at the Dante Alighieri Society,apparently—knew so little about Casanova, the Venetian nobleman whose memoirs still stands as one of the great documents of 18th-century Venetian manners.And not to ignore the salient and salacious point, Casanova’s active and varied social life rather mirrored Don Juan’s.

Whether Da Ponte knew Casanova’s memoirs, he certainly knew Casanova.Both were writers; both spent part of their life in the Catholic priesthood(despite Da Ponte being Jewish by birth); both were run out of Venice and had to flee to Vienna.Venice is too small a town for them not to have met.But here’s the thing:Don Giovannidiffers from older versions of the Don Juan legend in several details that actually mirror Casanova’s own life.Circumstantial evidence fueled speculation that Casanova was actually the libretto’s ghostwriter—or at least its script doctor,adding details to make Giovanni a more credible seducer.(Dominick Argento’s 1985 operaCasanovaand Carlos Saura’s 2009 filmI, Don Giovanniare two accounts keeping that legend alive.)

上、左頁(yè)：香港歌劇院5月上演的《唐喬瓦尼》（圖片提供：香港歌劇院）

Director Jean-Louis Grinda later joined Peter in discussion to reveal what he would be bringing to the Hong Kong production, which he reconstructed from his earlier version for Opera de Monte-Carlo.In short, not much—or more precisely, not much added.As Peter later concluded, “The best way to watchDon Giovanniin the MeToo era is simply to pay attention what Mozart and Da Ponte put on the page.”

So how well did Opera Hong Kong succeed?Pretty well, for the most part.There was no attempt to modernize, or inflate Mozart’s classicism to Wagnerian dimensions (portraying hell has a way of doing that).Eric Chevalier’s sets evoked Spain with a minimum of arches and porcelain tiles; Roberto Venturi’s lighting kept the action tightly focused without becoming claustrophobic.

Taking to heart Mozart’s description of the piece as a “serious comedy,” Grinda and conductor Martins Ozolins found dramatic pacing and musical tempos that unfolded like a French sex farce while not falling into the form’s frivolous tone.Richard Ollarsaba’s Giovanni and Joseph Barron’s Leporello revealed an uncommonly subtle range of narrative nuance, often dispensing moments of dark humor with dark vocal timbres.Giovanni, his palpable charisma aside, didn’t seem to be having much fun;Leporello followed his master’s every move with a distinctive mix of disgust and envy.

The women, often dismissed dramatically as one-dimensional comic foils, also paid supreme attention to the emotional range in their roles.Louise Kwong’s lively Donna Elvira was more than a scorned conquest settling a score, Victoria Cannizzo’s upright Donna Anna rather less than a proper lady.The only weak link was Alison Lau’s Zerlina, arguably the most complicated target of Giovanni’s affections, who too often kept up a pleasant fa?ade rather than revealing the crafty peasant beneath.Veteran bass Hao Jiang Tian’s Commendatore, particularly in his return as the Stone Guest, sang with an amplified timbre that vividly haunted the scene.

Tempting as it may be in the current climate to throwDon Giovannito the wolves, Opera Hong Kong’s production proved its point.The Don’s glorification has come more through individual directors and performers than from the story itself.Sometimes the best way for an opera to resonate with today’s audiences is simply to notice what’s there.