透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.196.248.93
  • 學位論文

艾倫艾克鵬作品中的時空性: 《房子與花園》、《公眾空間裡的私密恐懼》、 《開錯門中門》與《喜劇的潛能》

Spatio-temporality in the Works of Alan Ayckbourn: House & Garden, Private Fears in Public Places, Communicating Doors,and Comic Potential

指導教授 : 蔡振興

摘要


本論文旨在討論艾倫艾克鵬(Alan Ayckbourn)四齣戲中角色的社會行為與空間生產的關係:前人多討論艾克鵬如何沿襲喜劇傳統來呈現劇場,本文則從空間生產模式論述詮釋作品,主張對空間不同的詮釋能形塑與反映角色的日常生活模式;論文試著解釋艾克鵬如何再現真實的生活空間,並嘗試從劇本分析說明劇中人物如何突破舊空間帶來的限制與困境。我在論文中指出,四齣劇所呈現的空間,是批判資本主義的空間。論文說明此空間具反動力量,足以讓人物跳脫僵化思考,提出創新的思維以建構另一個新空間。 第一章以《房子與花園》(House & Garden)為例,檢視房子與花園這兩個不同的空間裡,空間對人物的日常生活的意義與內隱的權力結構。劇中的房子與花園皆是人們一生中初次產生社會關係的場所,但各自代表的意義有所不同。本章嘗試利用昂希.列菲伏爾(Henri Lefebvre)的三元空間,探討此劇的兩個空間──房子與花園──並且分析空間的意義如何因人物之間的權力關係而被再現出來。 第二章探討《開錯門中門》(Communicating Doors) 裡時間的轉換,人物在面對不同時間情境下如何做決定,並對劇中事件結果產生影響。來自未來的角色波佩(Poopay),與過去的人們相遇,可以一起克服死亡威脅。有趣的是,在劇中,來自不同時間的人物,透過一扇門認識彼此,並從而瞭解彼此的關係。這扇門似乎是一種機關,將不可能化為可能。時光旅行不只是披露角色之間的關係,也改寫了事件結果。在艾克鵬的筆下,這場時光旅行不但解決了不同時空下角色所面對的難題,主角們也運用「生活的藝術」(art of living)突破時間的藩籬與破除僵化思考,呼應列斐伏爾所謂「完人」(Total Man)境界。 第三章是關於《公眾空間裡的私密恐懼》(Private Fears in Public Places)對城市空間的想像與城市樣貌的體現。劇中人物是生活在城市裡的漫遊者,透過劇中角色的經驗累積與各種社會關係,城市生活慢慢的被建構成為再現生產關係與人類情感交錯的空間。除了透過漫遊者行進的過程中,讀者也可從城市生活的點點滴滴,看到身為都市人的劇中人物的渴望、恐懼和都市快速變化所帶來的焦慮和匱乏。在本章,我特別指出作者運用電影般的蒙太奇手法,將各自破碎、獨立的片段,拼湊出都市人對生活關係的想像與城市地景的樣貌,表達城市是人們活動的場域,也是各種記憶與經驗的交會點。 第四章從《喜劇的潛能》(Comic Potential),談論在空間轉換下,機器人主角的轉變與其他角色的互動。此劇透過空間轉換,強調人性的重要,不同的空間代表不同的生產關係與權力結構。在劇中,電視公司的權力高層主張人類有無可替換的主控權,卻忽略人性暗藏著力量,它有能力顛覆權力結構、反轉危機且影響人在空間中的位置與行為模式。綜上所結,此四齣劇本呈現出反思人類生存的空間,表現出對資本主義的反動,並強調跳脫機械式思考,而以人性考量我們與空間的互動,藉此肯定己身存在與檢視生命的意義。

並列摘要


Given that different perspectives and interpretations of space can form and represent a character’s daily life, this dissertation explores the relationships between various characters’ social behaviors and production of space in four of Alan Ayckbourn’s plays. I will further try to explain the representation of the real life in these plays as well as the characters’ endeavors to overturn spatial limits and obstacles. More specifically, this study proposes a new reading of the production of space in Ayckbourn’s plays instead of discussing the plays in terms of how they continue the tradition of drama through comedic and farcical theatrical techniques, as is often done in previous studies. I point out that the space of the four plays is a critique of capitalism. In my argument, this space is subversive to help the characters away from fossilized thinking; with subversive power, another possibility or innovative option is thus offered. Chapter One examines the spatial meaning of everyday life and people’s relationships within the power structure in House & Garden. The play describes a family life in a day. In the play, the two places, where people start their initial social relations, the house and the garden, have distinct significations. By employing Henri Lefebvre’s concept of triadic space, this chapter delves into relationships of production in the family and marital life that reflect the characters’ behaviors and their social relationships in the power structure produced from the family. Chapter Two explores Communicating Doors wherein, through the transition of time, each character is impelled to make decisions whether they should take the time travel, thus changing the consequences of predestined events. The characters, both from the present and the past, encounter one another through a door. They have to save themselves by resolving a potentially fatal situation through time travel, with the communicating door used as an apparatus to make the impossible possible. The time travel itself reveals different outcomes by reversing the arrow of time. To the characters from different time periods, time reversal is also a creative action that can provide solutions to problems and crises. In my discussion, I attempt to apply Lefebvre’s contention that the art of living is a crucial element of terminating alienation toward a total man that can help terminating alienation and restoring the wholeness of man. Chapter Three portrays the imagination and representation of the cityscape in Private Fears in Public Places. I propose that the characters are the walkers/ flâneurs in the city whose life experiences and spatial practices construct the phantasmagoria of the metropolis, where relationships of production and people’s conceptions of the society converge. In the eyes of the walkers/ flâneurs, not only the city life but also the scarcity of passions and belonging, and fear of revelation of one’s internal feelings are each exposed. The playwright collages undulating flowing filmic scenes to form the characters’ social relationships and the look of the city. The city then becomes the site where people are interconnected; it also represents the intersection of memories and experiences. Chapter Four examines Comic Potential. In the play, a robot tries to integrate into the world of human beings after a series of spatial transformations. Humanity is underscored in this play, regardless of various spatial power struggles and transformations in modes of production. The story is a celebration of humanity involving the subversive power of crisis resolution. Jacie’s transformation into a human being seems to be derived from her longing for the goodness of humanity. In sum, I propose that socio-demographic transformation of the characters’ interaction with space in the four plays reveals how we, as humans, cope with our surroundings from the domestic sphere to the public sphere, and even future space. The relatedness between human beings and space should count on preserving the goodness of humanity so that human beings can study the meaning of their existence. Humanity is the key connection in the spatio-temporal transformation in the progressing world.

參考文獻


---. Key Writings. Ed. Stuart Elden, Elizabeth Lebas and Eleonore Kofman. London: Continuum, 2003. xi-xix.
---. “The Right to the City.” Writing on Cities. Eleonore Kofman and Elizabeth Lebas, eds. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. 147-159.
---. Writings on Cities. Eleonore Kofman and Elizabeth Lebas, eds. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Haraway, Donna. The Haraway Reader. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Lebas, Elizabeth. “Introduction.” Key Writings. By Henri Lefebvre. Ed. Stuart Elden, Elizabeth Lebas and Eleonore Kofman. London: Continuum, 2003. xi-xix.

延伸閱讀