廟堂雖高，江湖猶遠： 臺灣一九五〇年代戲劇場域中的「主流」辨析

基於戲劇學界前輩黃美序所提出的研究課題，為辨析臺灣一九五〇年代的戲劇主流。本論文以當時戲劇的創作與演出數據的彙整、梳理、統計和比對後發現，在一九五〇年代，這個被以往臺灣戲劇史述慣常認為是「反共抗俄」的年代裡，官方所倡導的反共抗俄劇並非是該時期戲劇創作與演出的主流。為究其原因，本論文以布迪厄的場域理論為分析框架，以丁羅男的「戲劇整體觀」以及傅科的「反歷史」為方法視角，從創作與演出兩個維度，考察官方對於該時期戲劇生產場域的「自主性」的影響，並以此探析形成該現象的背後戲劇生態上的機理，並試圖勾勒該時期戲劇生態的大致樣貌。從官方對於戲劇文本生產場域的影響來看，官方所構建的文藝體制與文藝政策，由於未將當時大部分的臺籍劇作家納入其中。同時文化資源的傾斜，使得大陸遷臺劇作家的作品成為了發表與出版的主流。棲身與民間本土地方劇團的臺籍劇作家，則創作適於商業演出的劇作，並通過戲院的舞臺實現「另類發表」。同時官方文藝獎助政策，由於缺乏從文本直接到舞臺的機制。自1953年，尤其是蔣介石發表《民生主義育樂的兩篇補述》以來，官方對於包括戲劇文本在內的文藝作品的要求，就不再侷限於反共抗俄。多元化的訴求催生了其它題材劇作的問世。也促使了外國經典劇作的翻譯出版。進而使得該時期的戲劇文本生產呈現出多元化的面貌。故而從整體來看，即便有臺籍劇作家的缺位，反共抗俄劇也並非該時期戲劇文本生產的主流。從官方對於戲劇演出場域的影響來看，官方在對於劇團戲院都設有相關的審查管控的規定，在該時期又以諸多名目對戲劇業課以重稅。這就使得原本「水土不服」的大陸來臺諸劇種，在演劇市場的競爭中更加步履維艱。但這些往往會有基層執行不力以及官商鬥法的情況存在，使得這些舉措的成效大打折扣。官方為影響掌控臺灣本土地方劇團，通過臺灣省地方戲劇協進會組織每年一度的地方戲劇比賽，並要求劇團演出主題為反共抗俄或教忠教孝的劇目。然而，大多數的劇團在應付比賽後，在民間商演時基本不會搬演這類「參賽劇目」。至於官方組織的地方戲劇人員訓練班，各劇團也是出於應付而參加，官方也沒有監管學習內容會落實到劇團演出的機制。故而這些舉措均不能使反共抗俄劇這類宣教性的劇作深入臺灣民間並產生影響。同時，官方在黨、政、軍中分別設置了不少公營劇團，或將演劇納入宣傳組織中，或定期，或根據需要展開巡演。這類演出基本都是招待民眾或勞軍的宣慰性活動。但需要注意的是，戲劇演出並非宣傳活動的首選，反共抗俄劇在其中也未佔絕對多數。有的演劇組織也會隨著經費不濟而難以為繼。考察官方利用劇場扶植劇運中產生的齟齬時，可以發現，即便是公營劇團與黨產戲院，也未獲得官方的全額供養，這樣也進一步限縮了國語話劇的影響力。總體來說，由於官方無意也無力掌控戲劇生產的全流程，將全臺的戲院和劇團均納為官方的機構和單位。在這樣的情況下，演劇市場的客觀存在，使臺灣一九五〇年代戲劇生態場域形成了一幅「沉默者的反向壓制」的圖景。即以歌仔戲、布袋戲及臺灣新劇為代表的臺灣本土地方戲劇，在當時輿論場中沒有發言權，而時常被視為需要改良的對象。但他們在演劇市場的競爭中，基本將國語話劇及大陸地方戲劇，限縮於外省人聚居的臺北地區以及官方背景的戲劇活動中。進而形成一種「廟堂雖高，江湖猶遠」的戲劇生態特徴。正是這樣的結構性特徴，造成了反共抗俄劇並非臺灣一九五〇年代戲劇主流的事實。

關鍵字

臺灣一九五〇年代戲劇史；戲劇主流；戲劇生產場域

並列摘要

Based on a research subject proposed by Huang Meixu, a senior member of the theater community, this thesis aims to identify the mainstream of Taiwanese theater in the 1950s. After compiling, sorting, counting, and comparing the data on the creation and performance of theater at that time, this paper finds that in the 1950s, a period that is often regarded as "anti-Communist and anti-Russian" period in the history of Taiwanese theater, the officially promoted anti-Communist and anti-Russian theater were not the mainstream of theater creation and performance. In order to investigate the reasons for this phenomenon, this paper, taking the Bourdieu's field theory as an analytical framework, Ding Luonan's "holistic view of theater" and Fu Ke's "anti-history" as a methodological perspective, inspects the influence of the government on the "autonomy" of the theater production field in this period from two dimensions: creation and performance, explores the mechanism behind the formation of this phenomenon in the theater ecology on this basis, and tries to outline the general appearance of the theater ecology in this period. In terms of official influence on the field of theater text production, the literary system and literary policies officially constructed did not include most of the Taiwanese playwrights at that time. At the same time, the preference of cultural resources made the works of the playwrights who moved to Taiwan from mainland China, become the mainstream of publication and publishing. Taiwanese-born playwrights who lived in local theater troupes created plays suitable for commercial performance and achieved "alternative publication" through the theater stage. At the same time, the official literary and artistic award policy lacked a mechanism to move directly from the text to the stage. Since 1953, especially since Chiang Kai-shek published "Two Supplementary Notes on the People’s Livelihood Yule", the official demands in terms of the literary works, including theater texts, were no longer limited to anti-Communist and anti-Russian. The diversified demands gave rise to the production of plays on other subjects, which also led to the translation and publication of foreign classics. As a result, the production of theater texts in this period took on a diversified appearance. Therefore, from the overall perspective, even with the absence of Taiwanese playwrights, the anti-Communist and anti-Russian theater were not the mainstream of the production of dramatic texts in this period either. In terms of the official influence on the theater performance field, there were official regulations on the censorship and control of theater companies and theaters, and heavy taxes were imposed on the theater industry under many reasons during that period, which made the competition in the theater market even more difficult for the theater genres from mainland China that were originally "unconvincing" in Taiwan. However, the effectiveness of these initiatives is often undermined by poor implementation at the grassroots level and by the existence of government-business rivalries. In an effort to influence and control local local theater troupes in Taiwan, the officials organize annual local theater competitions through the Taiwan Provincial Local Theater Association and require the troupes to perform plays with themes of anti-Communism and anti-Russian resistance or teaching loyalty, filial, and piety. However, most of the troupes, after coping with the competition, basically do not perform such "competition plays" in private commercial performances. As for the training courses for local theater personnel organized by the government, the theater troupes also attended them out of necessity, and there was no official mechanism to monitor the implementation of the learning contents into the performance of the theater troupes. As a result, none of these initiatives could make such missionary plays as anti-Communist and anti-Russian plays generate the deep influence on the Taiwanese people. In general, since the official government had no intention or ability to control the entire process of theater production, all theaters and theater troupes in Taiwan were incorporated as official institutions and units. Under such circumstances, the objective existence of the theater market led to a picture of the "reverse suppression of the silent" in Taiwan's theater ecological field in the 1950s. That is, Taiwan's aboriginal and local theaters, represented by Gezi opera, puppet theater and Taiwan New Play, had no right to speak in the court of public opinion at that time, and were often regarded as objects in need of improvement. However, in the competition of the theater market, they basically confined the Mandarin plays and the local plays from the mainland China to the Taipei where the mainlanders lived and to the theater activities of the official background, which has led to the formation of a kind of theatrical ecological characteristic of "although the power is high, the market is still far away". It is precisely this structural characteristic that led to the fact that anti-Communist and anti-Russian plays were not the mainstream of Taiwanese theater in the 1950s.