2008-08-012024-05-18https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/701222摘要：二十世紀早期愛爾蘭的獨立與分裂，使得劇場有了不可逆的變化，同時間英國維多利亞晚期，觀眾對商業劇場的喜（鬧）劇及音樂劇興趣漸失，使得愛爾蘭劇作家亟思尋找劇場的新生命。在與英國有著臍帶關係的英裔愛爾蘭（Anglo-Irish）劇作家帶領下，文藝復興運動便逐漸萌芽。然而，該文化運動可說只是該國劇場興革的開端而已，學者墨瑞（Christopher Murray）於九○年代末期，回顧二十世紀愛爾蘭劇場的變化，曾指出該國劇作家其實不斷在「極端保守」與「前衛」兩股勢力間擺盪；「每一個世代都嘗試創新，但同時對舊文化又有著頑固的執迷」。 這個「擺盪」使得愛爾蘭劇場不斷改頭換面。他舉葉慈（W.B. Yeats）為例，認為劇作家即便在政治態度上是保守的，但結合愛爾蘭神話的詩劇，則為劇場帶來新風貌。如果以墨瑞觀察為是，數十年後貝克特（Samuel Beckett）在荒謬劇場上的成就，無疑也是在這樣的精神下所迸發：嘗試擺脫刻板的愛爾蘭性（Irishness）所造成的心靈枷鎖，尋找更能體現人生矛盾的新表演方式。然而，當代愛爾蘭戲劇似乎並沒有在形式上有較大突破，男性劇作家所偏好的主題明顯向政治化傾斜，表現手法則不出傳統寫實主義。然而，這並不意味主流劇團就沒有佳作；「費爾德劇團」（Field Day Theatre Company）孜孜矻矻在舞台上建立的「第五省」（the fifth province），期望解決英、愛政治上的歧異，在發想上可說是「前衛」的。值得深思的是，被邊緣化的「非寫實主義」劇作家，是否有「政治不正確」卻具顛覆性的創作？他（她）們的創作能否超越宗教、政治、地理，及性別分界？ 在劇院實務上，寫實主義作品向來是較討喜的劇種。在演出機會有限的情況下，「非寫實」劇作往往因不具備立即可見的政治或社會功能，較難受到劇院經理及劇評家的青睞，二十世紀中期的愛爾蘭劇場尤其如此。亦即，除了貝克特之外，愛爾蘭戲劇典律似乎沒有其他荒謬劇作家的位置。直到二十世紀末葉，當愛爾蘭社會逐漸邁向開放多元，瑪麗納．卡爾（Marina Carr）及其他一干劇作家，才重新引燃實驗劇場的風氣，但票房與劇評仍是主導劇場經營的重要因素。卡爾一九八九年的荒謬劇《在黑暗深處》（Low in the Dark）就極受好評，但一九九一年的《死亡之歌》（Ullaloo）則因惡評而被迫提早下檔。 本研究計畫將從卡爾一系列刻畫女性經驗的「非寫實」劇本入手，討論為何「非寫實」戲劇能在歐陸蓬勃發展，在愛爾蘭卻長久以來被邊緣化？在何種文化、宗教，及政治脈絡下，導致此劇種被排擠？愛爾蘭當代「非寫實」劇作家在主題選擇上，和他（她）們的前輩貝克特有何不同？劇作家的性別是否反映她（他）們在處理政治與性別議題上的殊異？當代「非寫實」戲劇是否突破了既有的劇場規範，開啟新的演出模式？這些劇作家彼此間有無差異？當代劇作家是如何重現「愛爾蘭性」（Irishness）？民族歷史經驗是否反映在他們的作品裡，以及劇作家用何種方式挑戰既有的民族史觀？這個研究計畫除了欲重建此「前衛」傳統的既有脈絡，也要分析與比較這些具顛覆性的「非寫實」劇本彼此間之「互文性」（intertextuality），以及劇作家如何使用具超現實風格的語言與象徵。除卡爾之外，可討論的劇作家包括：克拉克（Austin Clarke, 1896-1974）、費茲莫理斯（George Fitzmaurice, 1878-1963）、馬克尹泰爾（Tom MacIntyre,1931-）、馬可多納（Martin McDonagh, 1970-）等。如能正視這些劇作家的「非寫實」前衛作品，愛爾蘭戲劇典律將會更周延、客觀。 <br> Abstract: One common cause of the changing face of modern Irish drama since the early twentieth century, according to Christopher Murray, lies in the theatrical dynamics between the “radically conservative” and the “avant-garde.” This cultural dynamics in performance allows “each generation [to] begin anew to reinvent and restore the savagery of the ‘savage god’ Dionysus.” He also cites W.B. Yeats as being one of the initiators of a new era in the Irish theatre by producing poetic and mythical dramas, despite the conservatism of his Anglo-Irish political stance. Given the validity of Murray’s argument, the absurdist theatre of Samuel Beckett, highly innovative and subversive in its theatricality, can be seen as an expected outcome of this radical tradition, even though this genre has often been marginalized in the repertoire of most Irish theatre companies. This revolutionary theatrical tradition seems only to benefit playwrights, mostly male, in critically examining current social realities from a naturalistic standpoint. The imaginative “fifth province” of the Field Day Theatre Group, for instance, serves to offer solutions to political dilemmas, but does not fundamentally interrogate the ideologies that have partitioned Ireland. Absurdist playwrights, nevertheless, may have intended to topple all the divisions that trouble Irish people—geographical, political, religious, and intellectual. In contrast to the Irish dramatists who often incorporate social and political disturbances in a naturalistic style in their plays, the absurdist theatre has not received equivalent attention from critics, possibly due to its lack of political immediacy. Beckett seems to be the only acclaimed playwright involved in this highly creative or “avant-garde” convention, whilst Irish absurdist playwrights in general fail to be accorded a proper position in the modern Irish dramatic canon. It was not until 1989 that Marina Carr with her Low in the Dark, along with a few other playwrights, revived the experimental theatre in Ireland with some success. However, the degree of success of those plays has often been judged in terms of the poor reviews they received and their meagre box office takings, rather than by their intrinsic merit as literary works. Carr’s absurdist drama, Ullaloo, premiered at the Peacock Theatre in 1991, was forced to close not long afterwards, due to “vigorously mixed reviews.” This project will therefore explore the issues around how this particular genre flourished on the European mainland but was marginalized in the dramatic canon of Ireland. What has hindered its development in Irish cultural, religious, and political contexts? How do the choices of the playwrights’ themes differ from those of Beckett as their (male) predecessor? How does the ignored Irish absurdist theatre reflect their concerns for gender stereotypes as well as the Northern Ireland Conflicts? How has this genre taken a significant leap beyond the existing theatrical conventions and initiated new ground for the next generation? Last but not least, how do contemporary Irish absurdist playwrights differ from each other in presenting Irishness in their works, and how do they benefit from or resist the impact of Ireland’s troubled national history? Do they intend to challenge the existing national/nationalistic historiography with their absurdist works? This project will, on the one hand, trace chronologically this overlooked but revolutionary tradition that links Beckett with a number of his Irish comrades. On the other hand, it will compare and analyze their experimental dramas that present various Irish experiences in non-realistic but nonetheless radical styles. Apart from Beckett and Carr, mentioned above, playwrights who have employed surrealistic imageries and fragmented language include George Fitzmaurice, Tom MacIntyre, Austin Clarke, Martin McDonagh, and others. The absurdist canon they created should be properly evaluated, if one hopes to paint a more complete picture of the modern Irish drama.愛爾蘭典律戲劇卡爾貝克特非寫實荒謬劇場IrelandCanonDramaMarina CarrSamuel BeckettNon-realisticAbsurdist Theatre,