司馬勤

我說過很多次，歌劇往往都太長。其實，我還記得自己曾經(jīng)這樣寫道：“自從歌劇這門藝術(shù)創(chuàng)立以來，從來沒有一套歌劇是需要拖得更長的?！苯裉?，這句話被推翻了。

我不是指樂評人馬克斯威德（ Mark Swed）在《洛杉磯時報》發(fā)表過的評論。他認(rèn)為瑞奇伊恩·戈登（ Rickylan Gordon） 2007年創(chuàng)作的《憤怒的葡萄》（The Grapes of Wrath）的時長“太短”了，盡管這部歌劇演出的時長已長達(dá)四個小時。（我也應(yīng)該維護(hù)斯威德一把：他當(dāng)時也承認(rèn)，自己的這個立場屬于少數(shù)。）我其實指的是《紐約時報》文化版的一個標(biāo)題。幾周前，《紐約時報》首席樂評人安東尼·托馬西尼（ Anthony Tommasini）就黃若的歌劇《束縛》（Bounci）發(fā)表了評論文章，用上的標(biāo)題是“一部太短的新歌劇的罕見問題”。

黃若的這部45分鐘時長的室內(nèi)歌劇，情節(jié)圍繞居住在休斯敦的一名越南裔高中生的經(jīng)歷展開：她被迫要選擇是去學(xué)校上課參加考試還是放棄學(xué)業(yè)去做兼職工作（她需要賺取工資來養(yǎng)活一家人）。因為她迫于生計選擇了打工，最終觸犯了得克薩斯州的曠課法令。這個女孩——盡管在學(xué)校是個優(yōu)異生——卻被關(guān)進(jìn)監(jiān)牢，無法工作（賺錢）或回校上課。

《束縛》是休斯敦大歌劇院的委約作品，規(guī)模與時長都是按照原本委約的條款而創(chuàng)作的：有限的演出時長、只需要寥寥幾件樂器與幾名演員、主題是聚焦于休斯敦的亞裔族群。休斯敦現(xiàn)在有10萬名越南裔居民，包括與黃若合作擔(dān)任本劇編劇的詩人朱寶龍，他出生于越南、現(xiàn)居休斯敦（《束縛》是他的首部舞臺作品）。歌劇的情節(jié)根據(jù)真人真事改編，而歌劇院更特別取得允許，將其呈現(xiàn)于舞臺上。

這部作品在休斯敦演出時，我確信它能夠“直擊”其目標(biāo)受眾。對于當(dāng)年該事件的報紙頭條新聞報道，很多人還記憶猶新。就算他們記不起具體的細(xì)節(jié)，最起碼休斯敦的越南裔社群都略有所知。移民家庭中兒童所面對的難題——他們更容易融入新的社會與文化，進(jìn)而與無法適應(yīng)美國生活的父母角色對換，小小年紀(jì)就不得不負(fù)擔(dān)起家庭的重任——這一問題在全球范圍內(nèi)幾乎是普遍存在的。因為細(xì)節(jié)上有差異，每一個國家的故事都有獨特的背景。

但是當(dāng)鮮榨歌劇團(tuán)（ Fresh Squeezed Opera） -是的，這真的是一個歌劇團(tuán)的名稱——把《束縛>帶到紐約，境遇就完全不同了。紐約的觀眾沒有看過休斯敦的新聞報道，大部分人也不知道如果在得克薩斯州曠課，會被關(guān)進(jìn)監(jiān)獄。一個女孩被父母拋棄這個大前提——在大多數(shù)亞洲文化中簡直不可思議——失去了本來擁有的悲劇深度。

對于黃若譜寫的音樂，托馬西尼的評價十分直接，但該劇的故事情節(jié)卻令他困惑。托馬西尼推測，作曲家與編劇兩人故意刪掉了很多實質(zhì)的細(xì)節(jié)，目的是為了讓這個故事更具普遍性，但是刪掉細(xì)節(jié)后留下的空白卻又沒有填補，也沒有進(jìn)一步發(fā)展。我可以肯定地說，不僅僅是《紐約時報>的樂評人，大部分在紐約觀看這部作品的歌劇迷都沒有機(jī)會深入了解劇中的這些角色。

《束縛》最終或許會跟黃若的另一部歌劇——《一個美國士兵》（An American So！dier，也是取材于真實故事的作品），遇上同樣的好運?！兑粋€美國士兵》本來是華盛頓國家歌劇院的室內(nèi)歌劇委約作品，時長限于60分鐘之內(nèi)。故事敘述一名年僅19歲的美籍華裔士兵，在阿富汗軍事基地因為軍中欺凌與種族歧視而自殺的悲劇。2014年，這部歌劇在肯尼迪中心首演十分成功，部分原因是首都華盛頓住了很多軍人。可是，當(dāng)離開這一環(huán)境，就需要更多去解釋故事的細(xì)節(jié)。四年之后，黃若與編劇黃哲倫把原版歌劇延伸至?xí)r長兩小時的管弦樂團(tuán)伴奏版本，在圣路易斯歌劇院演出。因為故事有機(jī)會加入復(fù)雜的元素，戲劇效果因此增強不少。

編劇黃哲倫對于“擴(kuò)充”歌劇這方面，可算是過來人。他曾為《艾娜達(dá)馬》（Ainadamar，又名《淚之泉》）撰寫劇本，合作伙伴是阿根廷一以色列作曲家奧斯瓦爾多·格利約夫（ Osvaldo Golijov）。故事主題是西班牙詩人與劇作家費德里科加西亞·洛爾迦（ Federico Garcia Lorca）的悲慘結(jié)局?！栋冗_(dá)馬》是一部極為詩意（甚至過于煽情）的作品，2003年在坦格伍德夏季音樂節(jié)首演時，觀眾未必抓得到歌劇應(yīng)有的戲劇感。兩年后，經(jīng)過大量修改的版本在圣達(dá)菲歌劇院亮相——時長延展了一倍、戲劇性更加連貫，導(dǎo)演是彼得·塞拉斯（ PeterSellars）。增長版的《艾娜達(dá)馬》于2006年贏得格萊美獎最佳歌劇獎，后來更在馬德里皇家歌劇院以及格拉納達(dá)國際音樂舞蹈節(jié)（International Musicand Dance Festival of Granada）上搬演。

…

以上所描述的情況大都是出于財政預(yù)算與可行性兩方面的考慮。與創(chuàng)作音樂劇的商業(yè)模式不同，今天的歌劇作曲家很少在沒有收定金（最起碼，簽訂了合約）的情況下動筆寫任何東西。同樣地，歌劇院也渴望先試聽一下音樂效果，才決定是否要委約一部足本的大型新作品。黃若（與黃哲倫）將歌劇“延展”的經(jīng)歷，展示了一個折中的方法。

然而，從藝術(shù)的角度上，我們看到了一種不同的工作動態(tài)也在運行——而這一根源可以追溯至歌劇過去的歷史。尋找合適的故事與音樂風(fēng)格實在很容易，但要讓完成的歌劇真正被觀眾接受才是艱難的歷程——通常要經(jīng)過多次嘗試與失敗。

今天的歌劇院演出常規(guī)劇目，經(jīng)常會標(biāo)明搬演的是哪一個版本。把制作版本的歷史資料放在節(jié)目單首頁好像有點噦唆，但確實是有道理的。很多人通過坎坷的教訓(xùn)才吸取經(jīng)驗，終于明白為什么在羅馬獲得成功的項目，到了倫敦后竟然一敗涂地。

有一些歌劇院選擇了普契尼《蝴蝶夫人》原本的兩幕版本，盡管當(dāng)作曲家在世之時，觀眾顯然更偏好修改后的三幕版本。巴黎觀眾當(dāng)年看的《湯豪舍》，與瓦格納原來在德累斯頓首演的版本也有很大出入，雖然到頭來，巴黎版本也不見得更受歡迎。有時候，歌劇院不需要刻意標(biāo)明他們演的是哪個版本。如果你看的是威爾第的《唐卡洛斯》（DonCarlos）而非《唐卡洛》（Don Carlo ），那么你可以肯定那是最初首演的巴黎五幕版本，而不是后來亮相于米蘭的四幕版本。

《束縛》與《一個美國士兵》可算是這個創(chuàng)造“標(biāo)準(zhǔn)版本”傳統(tǒng)的繼承者。正如我們需要連接兩點才可以畫出一條線來一樣，一部歌劇作品的歷史軌跡必須由首演伸展至重演。任何一部舞臺作品想要名留青史的話，通常都需要細(xì)膩的調(diào)整（甚至是大幅度的改革），讓后來的觀眾也有所動容。任何人打算要把本土的成功作品推廣到國外，請不要忘記以上這點。

今天，我們面對的各種情況有所不同了：歌劇作曲家成功地將對不同版本的修訂，變?yōu)楂@取豐厚利潤的商業(yè)模式。大概最明目張膽的案例是克里斯托弗潘德列茨基（ Penderecki）的《第六交響曲》。這是一部受馬勒《大地之歌》啟發(fā)而創(chuàng)作的作品，同樣取材自中國詩歌，也用上同一位德語翻譯家的文本。這些年來，潘德列茨基斷斷續(xù)續(xù)地創(chuàng)作這部宏偉大作——其間他把自己的第七、第八交響曲都寫完了。事實上，他獲得了不同委約方的邀請和報酬，逐漸加上其他樂章，以擴(kuò)大原作。

真的，為什么要耗盡精力在委約限期前把時長一個小時的作品完成？換來一個分期付款計劃來作曲，不是更好嗎？這么說來，把《大地之歌》一氣呵成完成的馬勒看起來像個傻瓜。更不用說普契尼，他把《三聯(lián)?。?/Trittico） -次性打包交付給了大都會歌劇院，而沒把三部獨幕戲分開來“賣”給三家出價最高的歌劇院“買家”。

坦率地說，他們都需要聘用一個更聰明的經(jīng)紀(jì)人。

Many times l've said that opera in general is tooIong. Actually，I think the exact words were， "neverin the history of the genre has an opera needed to bemade Ionger." Now it seems l've been corrected.

I don't mean the way /os Angeles Times critic MarkSwed once wrote about Ricky lan Gordon's 2007opera The Grapes of Wrath， which he claimed was“too short" despite being four hours Iong. （ln hisdefense， Swed did admit this was a minority opinion.）No，I mean right in the headlines of The New YorkTimes， when Anthony Tommasini's review of HuangRuo's Bound a few weeks ago came underthe banner。The Rare Problem of a New Opera That's Too Short." Huang's 45-minute chamber opera concerned aVietnamese high-school student in Houston who，forced to choose between taking a school test andfulfilling her job responsibilities （she was financiallysupporting her entire family） chooses work andfalls afoul of Texas truancy Iaws. The girl-an honorstudent-winds up in jail， failing on both counts.

Originalty commissioned by the Houston GrandOpera， Bound is clearly bound to its original brief：an opera of Iimited duration， requiring minimalforces， focusing on one of the city's various Asiancommunities. Houston has 100，000 Vietnameseresidents， including Huang's librettist Bao-Long Chu，a Houston-based Vietnamese-born poet （Bound washis first work for the stage）. The opera was basedon a true story， which the opera company securedpermission to use.

In Houston， l'm sure the opera squarely hit itstarget audience. Many people could remember thenewspaper headlines， and even those who forgotthe details surely recognized the story's Vietnamesecommunity. The problems of immigrant child ren-the strange role reversal when they become theresponsible figu res after their parents fail to fit in-are near-universal. Only the difference in detailsmake the stories distinctive.

But by the time Fresh Squeezed Opera-yes， that'sthe actual name of the company-brought the showto New York， the situation was entirely different.Audiences there never saw the media coverage. Mostpeople had no idea you could be sent to jail in Texassimply for not attending school. The very premisethat the girl had been abandoned by her parents-inconceivabte in most Asian cultures-lost much ofits tragic depth.

Tommasini responded quite directly to Huang'smusic， but the story left him befuddled. Huangand Chu had omitted many of the factual details-aiming to make the story more universal， Tommasinispeculated-but they didn't fill the gaps withdevelopments of their own. lt's safe to say that notjust the Times critic but most people at the New Yorkperformances had no chance to Iearn who thesecharacters were.

Bound may eventually enjoy the same tuck asHuang's other opera that year， An American Soldier，another work based on a true story. Originallycommissioned as a 60-minute chamber piece byWashington National Opera， the story recountsa real-life Chinese-American soldier driven bymilitary hazing and racist taunting to kill himself inAfghanistan at the age of 19. The show played well in2014， pa rtly due to Washington D.C.'s Ia rge milita rypopulation. But outside of that environment， thesto ry needed fu rther explanation. Four yea rs Iater，Huang and his librettist David Henry Hwang unveiledan expanded two-hour， fully orchestrated versionat the Opera Theatre of St. Louis， where the story'sadded complexities deepened its dramatic effect.

Hwang， for his part， faced a simitar situation withAinadamar， his opera with the Argentine-Israelicomposer Osvaldo Golijov based on the tragicdeath of the Spanish poet and playwright FedericoGarcia Lorca. Ainadamar was supremely poetic-too evocative， perhaps， to make dramatic sense forTanglewood audiences at its 2003 premiere. Twoyea rs Iate r， a substa ntial revision-nea rly twice asIong and more dramaticalty coherent-appeared atSanta Fe Opera in a production by Peter Sellars. Therecording ofthe Ionger version won the 2006 GrammyAward for Best Opera， and the work eventually madeits way to Spain at Madrid's Teatro Real and theInternational Music and Dance Festival of G ra nada.

Situations like these stem Ia rgely from financialpracticalities. Unlike their colleagues in commercialmusical theatre， opera composers today rarely writeanything without getting money （or at Ieast signinga contract） beforehand. Likewise， opera companiesoften hesitate to commission a new fuII_length workbefore they have some idea of what it will soundIike. Huang's （and Hwang's） operas reveal one way ofsplitting the difference.

Artisticatly， though， we see a different dynamic atwork-one that traces its roots throughout operatichistory. Finding a suitable story and a musicalapproach is the easy part. Making the finished piececonnect with audiences is where the hard work-andusually much trial and error-comes in.

In repertory works， opera companies today oftenma ke it very clear which edition is being performed.Throwing that kind of history right on the first pageof the program may seem needlessly distracting， butit does serve a point. Too many people have Iearnedthe hard way that what works in Rome can failmiserably in London.

Some opera companies have brought backPuccini's original two-act Madama Butterfly， despiteaudiences in Puccini's time expressing a clearpreference for his three-act revision. The Tannhauserthat audiences saw in Paris differed greatly from whatWagner originally wrote for Dresden， though thatdidn't make it any more popular there. Sometimesopera companies don't even need to mention theedition per se. If you're seeing Verdi's Don Carlosinstead of Don Carlo， you can be pretty sure that it'sthe original five-act version from Paris and not thefou r-act revision that Iater appeared in Milan.

Bound and An American Soldier fall into thistradition of creating a "sta nda rd edition." Just asa Iine becomes a Iine only after a second pointis added， the historic trajectory of an opera isn'testablished by its premiere. Before any dramatic workcan make a bid for posterity， it generally needs thefine-tu ning （if not a substa ntial overhau [） that comesfrom reaching beyond its original audience. This issomething everyone should remember wheneverthey try to export domestic success abroad.

Today， though， we see a different dynamic： Operacomposers have been remarkably successful inturning revisions into a Iucrative business model.lt's perhaps not as brazen as， say， Penderecki's SixthSymphony， a song-symphony of Chinese poemsclearly inspired by Mahler's Das Lied von der Erdeto the point of setting text by the same Germantranslator. Penderecki has been composing the workin fits and sta rts over the years-long after finishinghis Seventh and Eighth Symphonies， in fact-as hegets additional commissions to expand it.

Really， why knock yourself out over a singledeadline for an hour of music when you can composeon the installment plan？ It makes Mahler， who wroteDas Lied al！ in one go， seem like a total chump. Not tomention Puccini， who delivered all th ree one-acts ofii Trittico directly to the Metropolitan Opera insteadof parsing them out to three separate companies，each to the highest bidder.

Frankty， they both should've had a better agent.