James Poy Wong 黃培正

每周艺术谈话： 华埠的话剧抬不起头

对于华埠的话剧， 根本谈不上能够擡头或是不能够擡头。 它已经完全死了。 我不愿追溯它的历史。 「夜光杯”」 是否展开我们底话剧 「黄金时代」， 「雷雨」的演出是否最成功， 「希特拉的杰作」是否最耗费， 多幕创作剧 「月明之夜」成功到怎样的程度，而「华侨儿女」又失败到怎样的程度，我想在这里谈谈几个最基本的问题。

话剧有着它独存的艺术价值，无论电影在技术上的进展如何惊人，它是永远不能夺取话剧的地位，好像摄影不能取去绘画的价值一样。 以前我曾经说过，现实和艺术是不能共存的。 正是之故，电影在技术上的进步，往往趋近于自然的直接反照。 这样，话剧的艺术价值就更加巩固。

但是话剧演出的准备是最艰辛的，比其他艺术的表现都来得困难。 就拿一个经过十数年而幸运成功的好演员, 在一晚演出之前，要经过一年几个月的勤苦练习。 一般人对于这种长期的耕耘是吃不消的。 我们话剧的失败最基本和最重要的原因就在于此。 有热心的人每缺乏毅力，和把苦味的部分估计过底。 有远见的人却又缺乏热心。

那么，为什么在战时初期， 从事话剧的人如此活动, 而在战事后期仍然 “死唔断气” 底支持下去呢？ 我个人的解答是患了传染病。 抗战开始后是中国话剧勃兴的时代，爱国情绪因了战争的关系， 培植着话剧的发展。 我们在海外也染上爱国的热情，更有着良心的作用，所以我们的话剧也曾擡过头来。 这个时期不独话剧的创作和出演都很幼稚 （稍微翻看抗战初期公式化的剧本就明白），而且观众根本还未合格以艺术的立场来看它。 所以能够把观众与话剧联系的，就是强把艺术的距离打破，把现实十足十地拉上戏台来，和着浓厚的爱国鼓舞，于是使观众激昂，同情，流泪，愤怒，憎恨，感动。 故此反应不独是热烈鼓掌，还慷概地向戏台自动掷银捐款，高呼打倒侵者的口号，更且要上台把汉奸的无辜演员殴打。 （撇开艺术不论，专以抗战需要的立场来说，这种办法没有不对的地方。） 不过话剧到底要建筑在艺术的基础上才能站得稳。 战事结束后， 大多数人的激昂情绪消沈了。 我们依靠这种情绪来支持的话剧，因此也就完全倒了下来。

虽然我们的话剧运动在婴孩时代中夭折，但是中国的话剧的根基都没有跟从时代动摇过。 一方面固然是因为他们早已摆脱了那把不加修饰的现实拉上戏台的弊病，同时在各部门都对艺术下着很大的功夫。 （好像是曹禺不久以前这样说过： 如果中国的话剧得到较好工具， 它是比美国的话剧还要进步的。） 另一个重要的原因， 是需要的程度问题。 我们是否需要话剧？ 这个问题我不想在这里讨论， 不过当你把这里的情形，和中国没有电影，无线电，连过村卖药也少的情形比较时，你就十分明白的了。

百老汇的历史远过荷里活的短短生命。 我们的情形却转过来，电影占了大大的优势。 所以这争斗 （如果有天能够成为斗争的话）在话剧方面是极端困难的，困难的地方不独在从事话剧的一方， 而且最困难的还是怎样使观众接纳话剧。

英文程度低的人可以在看一出殴斗的影片中，获得和外国人几乎同等的趣味，但对于话剧就根本不知所云了。

工欲善其事必先利其器。如果话剧不应该就此死去，我们必需要有一个像样的戏院。 这戏院不应该是营业性质的，却要专门是为艺术的用途。 过去因为我们缺少这个所在，使能者无法尽量发挥，亦使观众对话剧贬值。 如果不是一个重要的原因，至少也是致话剧今日于死地的一个成素。 我想：如果退伍军人会筹款建筑的不是纪念碑，而是一座戏院，虽然戏院没有纪念碑那么光荣，但是我相信纪念的意义和收效一定比较更大的。

Weekly Art Talk: Chinatown Drama Cannot Rise

Regarding Chinatown drama, whether it can rise is essentially outside of the question. It is completely dead, and I don't want to trace its history. I would like to discuss here a few basic issues regarding whether the “Noctilucous Cup” will launch the development of our drama, whether the performances of “Golden Age” and “Thunderstorm” were successful, whether the production of “Hitler’s Masterpiece” is the most costly, how successful is the multi-act drama “Moonlight Night”, and to what extent has “Sons and Daughters of the Overseas Chinese” failed.

Drama reserves its own distinct artistic value. No matter how astonishing the technical development of film is, it can never take away the status of drama, just like photography cannot take away the value of painting. I have said before that reality and art cannot coexist. It is for this reason that the technical development of movies often tends to be a direct reflection of nature. In this way, the artistic value of the drama will be further integrated.

But the preparation for a drama performance is the most arduous, and it is more difficult than any other artistic presentation. Take a good actor who has been fortunately successful for more than ten years. Before performing one night, he has to practice diligently for a year and several months. Most people cannot bear this kind of long-term cultivating hard work. This is the most basic and important reason for the failure of our dramas. Enthusiastic people often lack perseverance and underestimate the bitter part within the task. Those with vision but lack of enthusiasm.

So why were people engaged in drama so actively in the early days of the war, and then continued to support it "until the end of the war" in the later stages of the war? My personal answer is that we have contracted contagion. The flourishing era of Chinese drama occurred after the beginning of the War of Resistance. Due to the War, patriotic sentiments fostered the development of drama. We were also influenced with patriotic enthusiasm overseas, and our conscience also played a role, so our dramas have also prospered. During this period, not only were the creation and performance of dramas very immature (a quick look at the formulaic scripts from the early days of the War of Resistance will tell you), but the audience was simply not yet qualified to view it from an artistic standpoint. Therefore, what can connect the audience with drama is to forcefully break the artistic distance, bring uncut reality to the stage, and combine it with strong patriotic encouragement, thus making the audience excited, sympathetic, tearful, angry, hateful, and moved. Therefore, the response was not only enthusiastic applause, but also generous voluntary donations of money to the stage, shouting slogans to defeat the invaders, and even going onto stage to beat up the innocent actors of traitors. (Apart from art, from the perspective of the needs of the War of Resistance, there is nothing wrong with this approach.) But after all, drama must be based on art in order to stand firmly. After the war ended, most people's excitement subsided. The drama that we used such emotion to rely on completely collapsed.

Although our drama movement died in its infancy, the foundation of Chinese drama has not been shaken by the times. On the one hand, it is certainly due to how they have long since disposed of the problem of bringing unmodified reality onto stage, and at the same time, they have put a lot of effort into art in all subsections. (Cao Yu seemed to be the one who said this not long ago: If Chinese drama obtains better tools, it will be more advanced than American drama.) Another important reason is the issue of intensity of need. Do we need drama? I don’t want to discuss this issue here, but when you compare the situation here with the situation in China where there are no movies, radios, and even few medicines are sold in villages, you will understand it very well.

The history of Broadway goes far beyond Hollywood's short life. But our situation is reversed, and movies have a huge advantage. Therefore, this struggle (if it can become a struggle one day) is extremely difficult for drama. The difficulty is not only for the party engaged in drama, but the most difficult thing is how to make the audience accept drama.

People with low English proficiency can acquire almost the same level of enjoyment as foreigners from watching a movie about fighting, but they will have no idea from watching dramas.

If a worker wants to do his job well, he must first sharpen his tools. If drama should not die hereafter, we must have a decent theater. This theater should not be commercialized, but should be used exclusively for artistic purposes. In the past, because we lacked this capability, the enablers were unable to give their best, which led the audience to devalue dialogue dramas. Even if it is not an important reason, it is at least one of the factors that led to the dying stage of drama today. I think: If the money that the veterans raise is not for building a monument but a theater - despite the fact that theaters are not as glorious as monuments - I believe the meaning and effect of the memorial will be greater.