|
Response to Dancing at Lughnasa (1990), by Brian Friel
 憶《陸納薩之舞》
Some Significant Differences between the Play Dancing at Lughnasa and Its Film Adaptation
1） 憶《陸納薩之舞》
廖冠惠 （Kuan-hui Liao）
《陸納薩之舞》（Dancing at Lughnasa）為當今愛爾蘭知名劇作家布萊恩．傅雷爾（Brian Friel）的一九九０年力作。該劇獲頒劇場界各獎項，並於九八年被改編成電影。劇評家咸認《陸》劇為典型的「回憶劇」（a memory play），以成年的麥克．艾文（Michael Evans）為口白的主角，倒敘數十年前其家鄉、母親與眾姨媽之間的故事。
一九三六年夏天，年僅七歲的麥克與母親克莉絲蒂娜．曼帝（Christina Mundy）和四位姨媽凱特（Kate）、瑪姬（Maggie）、蘿絲（Rose）、安格妮絲（Agnes）同住在貝利貝格（Ballybeg）鎮裡的農舍。五位曼帝姊妹均為單身，全家靠凱特的教職薪水與蘿絲和安格妮絲的編織零工勉強維持生計。某日，一家六口的單純生活突因被遣返歸國的傑克神父（Father Jack）起了變化。傑克原為曼帝家族的成員，年輕時離鄉至烏干達的痲瘋病院傳教，中年後感染瘧疾並罹患失智症，遭遣送回鄉。但傑克遭遣返家園的真正的原因，可能在於他對天主教信仰的背棄，從他對非洲當地異教習俗與居民的念念不忘可見一斑。傑克事件迅速波及凱特的教職工作，就在傑克回國不久後，原本希冀他可回教堂重任牧師的凱特，接獲的卻是她自身遭解聘的通知。無獨有偶地，因著村內編織工廠的設立，蘿絲和安格妮絲的打零工賺外快生活也被迫中斷，全家的經濟頓時陷入困境。與此同時，麥克的生父蓋利．艾文（Gerry Evans）回到貝利貝格來探望克莉絲蒂娜母子，然其對克莉絲蒂娜的求婚也終因決定參戰而告吹。曼帝一家的經濟困頓始終未得到抒解，蘿絲和安格妮絲後來離家前往倫敦去謀職，卻雙雙客死異鄉。
《陸》劇既被定義為回憶劇，憶者所回顧的便是過往所發生的事件。然其所憶之事絕非一般瑣事，否則將無法形構個人或家族歷史，而是足以讓憶者歷久縈繞於心、深入內化成其主體意識的記憶印刻。有趣的是，麥克所憶及的不是以自己為主角的成長故事，而是他母姓家族的歷史。在回溯自身家族歷史的過程中，麥克退居成配角，或甚至以旁觀者的角色，靜觀大人的世界與整個家族的變遷，參與卻不融入歷史。麥克的回憶錄可以是一個身為私生子，如何在成長經驗中飽受社會歧視的悲憤故事，也可以是一段委身單親家庭中極其渴望父愛的微薄心聲。然而麥克所論及的，卻僅僅是他長年來於生活中細心觀察家人間的互動歷程。
乍看之下，麥克必然是十分念舊與顧家之人，否則其家族的歷史不會如此長久地牽絆著他，讓成年的麥克在舊事已過的數年後還要來細細回顧與記憶。固然記憶、歷史與鄉愁三者密不可分，似乎成為麥克迷戀自身家族的關鍵因素，但若仔細探究麥克記憶中的家族歷史脈絡，不難發現麥克的鄉愁實已淹沒在家族歷史的洪流中，記憶遂成為搜尋鄉愁的手段。麥克記憶中的家鄉是破碎的，若有鄉愁，絕非思鄉之愁苦，而是無法離鄉之憂愁。麥克非但不融入歷史，更想逃離歷史。若他被迫得參與這個家族的歷史，至少他期待之後能夠安然地離開。回鄉（homecoming）的主題在麥克的家族歷史中顯得分外諷刺。曼帝家族的唯一男主人傑克神父的回鄉，竟不是出於甘心樂意，反倒是迫於無奈。傑克的家鄉早在多年前便不經意地移轉到非洲，他對家人認同感的消逝也顯現在其對母語的遺忘，並誤認血親為其在烏干達的故友歐卡瓦（Okawa）。長年旅居外地，傑克的身分認同深為當地的文化所同化；貝利貝格成了他看似熟悉、實則陌生的異鄉。
若暮年的傑克對家鄉的淡忘可以理解，童年的麥克對離鄉的渴求不免令人詫異。即便麥克目睹整個家族的頹圮乃至沒落，他畢竟是在充滿愛的家庭中長大。姑且不論外界對私生子的異樣眼光，曼帝姊妹不顧當時教會、世俗與經濟上的壓力，勇於在卑劣的環境中用愛來接納麥克，拒絕送他到孤兒院，堅持在家中親自扶養他、照顧他。縱使麥克因苦於面對家族的窘境而產生離家的念頭，孩童之心便懂得選擇離棄而非支持曾經善待他的家人，足見人在患難中對困境之無奈。即便擁有赤子之心的孩童如麥克，在困頓的境遇中也不得不變得世故。由此反映出曼帝家族當時生活艱困之地步，令人不勝唏噓。
非但曼帝家族當下與未來的兩位男主人翁都對家園缺乏認同感或不抱希望，五位姊妹中也僅剩凱特想要藉由長期篤信的宗教與道德觀力挽狂瀾，然其換得的卻是「永遠無法撫平的傷痛」。而其他姊妹老早渴望逃脫整個社會與家庭對女性的束縛，蘿絲和安格妮絲寧可身葬異地，也不願老死故鄉。至於那些無法逃離的，只能縱情舞蹈。陸納薩之舞，超越語言、意識形態、父權價值觀等的藩籬，成為她們可以自我釋放的管道。
TOP
2) Some Significant Differences between the Play Dancing at Lughnasa and Its Film Adaptation
黃汝娸 （Ru-Chi Huang）
In the 1990s, Ireland won the name “the Celtic Tiger” thanks to its rapid economic growth, and the Celtic Tiger's financial success helps to bring its culture to the world, transforming traditional Ireland culture into international commodities. Among all the exported Irish cultures stand out Irish plays. Friel's play Dancing at Lughnasa was a phenomenal success at the Abbey Theater, London, and New York, a success which brings the play to not only Broadway but also Hollywood. Adapted from Friel, the namesake movie, with Frank McGuinness writing the screenplay and Meryl Streep featuring Kate, is no less famous than the play. Considering Dancing at Lughnasa's double success in both film and play, I would like to discuss some significant differences between the film version and the original play.
The most obvious difference lies in structures. The structure of the movie, as those of ordinary Hollywood movies, is established under the logic of linear, progressive time. The movie, with a male voice as an invisible narrator, arranges the story in a chronological order, an order in which real life events takes place. The chronological arrangement of the plots gives the movie a sense of reality, engaging its audience to believe that the events happening between the Mundy family in the 1930s are all authentic. However, while the chronological structure in the movie bears much similarity to reality, reality is the last thing the structure of the original play presents. Being a famous “memory” play, Dancing at Lughnasa has a unique structure that reverses the linear, progressive time by setting the whole play in a man's memory. In the very beginning, Michael starts the play by saying: “When I cast my mind back to that summer of 1936 different kinds of memories offer themselves to me” (1). The first line of the play is time-reversing because it is the past, rather than the present or the future, that urges to stage itself before the audience. Moreover, as the past reveals itself, the adult narrator Michael twice interrupts the progression of the former events, reminding the audience of the play's structure as a memory. In the two interruptions, he keeps disclosing what was going to happen, reversing the time order followed by the movie. More importantly, the reversion of linear time order grants the play a kind of ambiguity, oscillating the play between fact and fiction. The ambiguity of memory reaches its apex at Michael's ending comment: “what fascinates me about that memory is that it owes nothing to fact. In that memory atmosphere is more real than incident and everything is simultaneously actual and illusory” (71).
The second difference between the film and the play is their treatment of Rose's rendezvous with Danny Bradley. Rose, whose mental disability and sexual innocence are apparent in both the film and the play, hatch a plot to meet Danny Bradley secretly. In the movie, Rose reveals her plan to the audience earlier than she does in the play. In the movie's berry-gathering scene, which the play skips, it is obvious that Rose pretends to have a stomachache in order to steal some time for her meeting with Bradley. Rose's facial expression, paradoxically mixed with uncertainty and determination, creates a sense of suspension in the movie. The intensifying suspension then reaches its climax when the innocent Rose stays in the canoe alone with Bradley. In the movie, Bradley threatens her, swinging the boat violently. The image of a swinging boat provokes a strong sexual implication, sharply contrasting Bradley's dominance over the situation and Rose's hopelessness in it. However, the suggestive scene does not appear in the play. In Friel's original version, what has happened to Rose in her carefully-planned rendezvous remains a mystery. Although Rose bravely affronts Kate's interrogation, telling Kate the striking truth that she has arranged to met Bradley and was brought out by Bradley in his blue boat, she persists not to reveal further. Obstinate, she insists “that's all I'm going to tell you” (59).
In addition to the difference in the treatment of Rose's rendezvous, the movie and the play treat Jack's affection to his servant boy Okawa differently. The movie undercuts Jack' complicated affection, revealing it only on one occasion. When Maggie helps Jack to change his cloth, he mistakenly calls her Okawa, misrecognizing the woman who tenders him with the boy to whom he is familiar. Although the scene alone can indicate Jack's particular attachment with Okawa, the feeling seems ambiguous. However, the play tells more about their intricate relationship. Besides the misrecognition scene, Jack talks about Okawa when the church bell rings. The ringing bell, according to others, is a wedding bell for their rich neighbor. The bell reminds Kate the former masses Jack has been held, while Jack abruptly associates the wedding bell with Okawa and the rituals they has been held in Africa. The association explains why Jack is considered homosexual.
In brief, the movie and the play, although share major plots, differ from each other in the aspects of structure, the treatment of Rose's rendezvous, and that of Jack's affection toward Okawa. Therefore, it is arguable to say that the movie and the play have won their success with not only the story they share but also with their distinctive features differing from each other.
TOP |
