司馬勤

坦白說，我有點掛念安德魯·勞埃德·韋伯（Andrew Lloyd Webber）的那些免費(fèi)直播視頻。我知道這個想法聽起來有點怪，因為大家經(jīng)常拿這個項目來開玩笑——整個想法聽起來好像大有所為，甚至讓人們覺得很謙恭：音樂劇界的傳奇大人物邀請全球觀眾欣賞的他多部杰作，費(fèi)用全免，同時鼓勵大家慷慨解囊，向扶持因新冠疫情而失業(yè)的戲劇從業(yè)人員的慈善機(jī)構(gòu)捐款。

但公眾很快就看穿了他：很明顯，這個“戲還得照演”（The Show Must Go On，每周五晚上上線一部音樂劇的制作，在YouTube頻道中上架48小時）項目，并沒有把那些能夠賺大錢的制作“免費(fèi)”送給公眾。盡管如此，我也有些新發(fā)現(xiàn)：我看到了《約瑟與神奇彩衣》（Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat），這部創(chuàng)作于作曲家青年時期、取材于圣經(jīng)故事題材的作品，請來了1970年代年青偶像唐尼·奧斯蒙德（Donny Osmond）擔(dān)綱主角（可惜，該版本制作于1990年代，當(dāng)時的奧斯蒙德早已風(fēng)光不再）；也觀賞了當(dāng)年令作曲家一鳴驚人的《萬世巨星》（Jesus Christ Superstar），是一場效果不錯的重演制作?！度f能管家》（By Jeeves）改編自P.G.伍德豪斯（P.G. Wodehouse）的幽默人物與事跡，可惜劇情松散，只加插了幾首韋伯的歌曲，只能說與韋伯式“音樂劇”勉強(qiáng)扯得上關(guān)系，確實令人失望。還好，皇家阿爾伯特音樂廳（Royal Albert Hall）一場慶祝韋伯生日的音樂會也上了線，陣容星光熠熠。因此，你也不能確切地埋怨他們是在掛羊頭賣“貓”肉……

在這一切之中，我的確得到了一些啟示。多年來我一直弄不明白，為什么每當(dāng)我提到“歌劇”，周邊很多人（令我又詫異又驚惶）就會自然地回答“魅影”，作為一種詞匯聯(lián)想模式的標(biāo)志，跟音樂劇與舞臺背景都沒有關(guān)系。西方歌劇擁有400年的歷史——如果我們從蒙特威爾第《奧菲歐》（Orfeo）的出版年份計算，應(yīng)該是410年——音樂劇卻要年輕得多，其起源與前期發(fā)展更難確定?，F(xiàn)代音樂劇融合音樂、對白與舞蹈的敘事模式，到了20世紀(jì)才建立起來。

很多歌劇以及音樂劇粉絲都認(rèn)為《歌劇魅影》（Phantom of the Opera，也譯為《劇院魅影》）兩種體裁皆不是，因為它既缺乏具有戲劇特質(zhì)的緊迫性，也沒有歌劇典范具有的情感張力。無論你喜歡不喜歡，這部音樂劇呈獻(xiàn)給觀眾的，是純粹的、純正無摻雜的煽情通俗?。╩elodrama）——換句話說，歐洲式輕歌劇。這個劇種在美國發(fā)展得斷斷續(xù)續(xù)，可是韋伯的《歌劇魅影》在百老匯成為長壽劇目，在那里常駐長達(dá)30年，直至今年3月，新冠疫情迫使劇院全都關(guān)門?！都~約客》（New Yorker）的評論家亞當(dāng)·戈普尼克（Adam Gopnick）在今年年初特意重看了《歌劇魅影》并提醒讀者，“情節(jié)毫無邏輯，起步慢吞吞，人物猶如硬紙板剪出來般平面，音樂則是零零碎碎拼貼出來的”?？墒?，這臺劇目的整體效果卻奇妙地有條有理?！斑@部音樂劇到了今天，”他寫道，“跟當(dāng)年首演的效果同樣令人印象深刻?！?img src="https://cimg.fx361.com/images/2021/03/17/qkimagesgejugeju202008geju20200807-2-l.jpg"/>

最近，我通過韋伯的免費(fèi)視頻重溫了《歌劇魅影》。其實，嚴(yán)格來說用“重溫”這個字眼并不恰當(dāng)，因為我沒有乖乖地坐著不動，把整部劇從頭到尾看完。在家里看劇目的視頻絕對算不上是一個合適的環(huán)境——當(dāng)屏幕上的情節(jié)抓不住你的注意力時，你會忍不住站起來伸伸腿，在劇院里就沒辦法只能困在座位上了——但是，這部音樂劇所累積的感染力，還是令人欽佩。

首先，安德魯爵士徹底切斷了這個故事與恐怖電影的淵源——1925年那部由朗·錢尼（Lon Chaney）主演的同名電影轟動一時，有傳言說電影院里觀看該片的女觀眾們因情節(jié)過于恐怖而尖叫，甚至?xí)灥埂Ｒ魳穭“呀裹c放在加斯頓·勒魯（Gaston Leroux）1910年出版的原著小說上。然后，韋伯又刪減了勒魯書中那些煩瑣的細(xì)節(jié)，聚焦于故事中的核心人物：被毀容的隱居者、美麗的女歌唱家、追求她的英俊男子；當(dāng)然，還有巴黎歌劇院，那也是主角之一。

有時候，故事的設(shè)置是如此的超凡脫俗，與現(xiàn)實生活徹底脫節(jié)，因此無論情節(jié)多么荒謬，都好像合情合理。勒魯故事中的巴黎歌劇院就是這么神奇，我們也可以說，韋伯這部音樂劇里的歌劇世界也同樣地神奇。我們只可抱著欣賞歌劇那種“姑且信以為真”的心態(tài)來看待韋伯大量拼貼19世紀(jì)歌劇音樂元素的場景，以及他模仿莫扎特歌劇而作的混成曲——這很有可能是公眾把《歌劇魅影》與歌劇混淆的最大原因——還有他厚臉皮地注入20世紀(jì)70年代浮夸前衛(wèi)搖滾風(fēng)格來仿照巴赫的管風(fēng)琴即興重復(fù)段。其實，這些音樂聽起來，就像被困在巴黎歌劇院的地下室一樣（“像是在幾層樓下聽著19世紀(jì)后期作品，樂聲模糊”，戈普尼克這樣寫道），盡管這正是主創(chuàng)要做出的氣氛。

“戲還得照演”線上視頻中最讓我得到啟發(fā)的，不是《歌劇魅影》，而是這部音樂劇的續(xù)集，《真愛不死》（Love Never Dies）。我終于看到這部音樂劇。當(dāng)年，該劇在倫敦開演不久后就偃旗息鼓，我還未趕到那里戲已經(jīng)休演。讓我們姑且從頭說起。韋伯本來很抗拒用“續(xù)集”這個詞語——“這是一部獨立作品”，《真愛不死》首演前他在英國國家廣播電臺訪談中那么表示——但劇中角色跟“上集”一模一樣，而故事發(fā)生在《歌劇魅影》戲劇性落幕的十年之后。從《真愛不死》這個標(biāo)題上看，我一直期盼著是007系列電影“詹姆斯·邦德”的風(fēng)格，或者會有吸血鬼的出現(xiàn)。

第一次聽說《真愛不死》，是2010年在上海大劇院的后臺。當(dāng)年的計劃，是在紐約、倫敦與上海同步首演這部音樂劇。愛情可以不死，但這部音樂劇卻壽終正寢。繼《魔女嘉莉》（Carrie）之后，《真愛不死》可謂是百老匯歷史上最失敗的劇目。從創(chuàng)意、構(gòu)思以至制作、排演，這部音樂劇的發(fā)展路途艱難之極（最令我印象深刻的是，韋伯的小貓咪爬上電子鋼琴按錯鍵，把整套劇總譜的電子檔案刪掉了）。盡管該劇最終在倫敦首演，后來在墨爾本的制作得到國際關(guān)注，但是《真愛不死》到了今天還與百老匯與上海無緣。

在線上看到澳大利亞的制作時，突然間泛起很多回憶?！陡鑴△扔啊樊?dāng)年一炮而紅，韋伯就萌生過制作續(xù)集的念頭。故事大綱是這樣的：年輕女歌手搖身一變成為國際大明星，制作人奧斯卡·漢默斯坦（Oscar Hammerstein）特意邀請她到紐約首演（即便你猜中了這次演出幕后投資者的身份，我也會不給你獎勵）?？上Вm(xù)集的誕生似乎從韋伯最初尋找合作者開始就出了問題。他找來的第一位作家是弗雷德里克·福賽斯（Frederick Forsyth），當(dāng)今暢銷懸疑小說大師。

雖然福賽斯的名字仍然列在主創(chuàng)團(tuán)隊之內(nèi)，但他創(chuàng)作的劇本沒有被取用，因為文本被認(rèn)為“很難搬上音樂劇舞臺”。福賽斯后來把劇本改編成小說《曼哈頓幽靈》（The Phantom of Manhattan）。我買來這本書，想弄清楚人家所說的故事不適合舞臺的原因。我期盼小說中的情節(jié)包括行刺法國總統(tǒng)戴高樂（Charles de Gaulle）的陰謀，或者難民如何逃過集中營及大屠殺（以上都是福賽斯最拿手的題材）。我發(fā)現(xiàn)福賽斯花了一番心血去研究20世紀(jì)初期紐約的面貌，令人信服，戲劇情節(jié)上也銜接了韋伯的構(gòu)思。那么問題出在哪里？在小說里，每一章節(jié)都由不同的人物來敘述。

過了一段時間，《真愛不死》這個項目又找來了本·埃爾頓（Ben Elton）負(fù)責(zé)劇本，格倫·斯萊特（Glenn Slater）作詞。后來又請來另一位填詞人，還有多位編舞。音樂劇在倫敦首演又停演（以便有所修改），然后再次重演，經(jīng)歷了不少改動。很多年后，該劇的原版燈光設(shè)計承認(rèn)，當(dāng)年《真愛不死》的經(jīng)歷差點要讓她離開戲劇圈。

盡管作曲家很喜愛墨爾本的制作——那是一位澳大利亞導(dǎo)演與設(shè)計團(tuán)隊改造后的成果——他依舊抱著希望，想讓《真愛不死》進(jìn)駐百老匯。但直到今天，該劇能跟紐約能搭上邊的，就只有那套DVD制作以及這一輪的免費(fèi)視頻。但是在這個“被認(rèn)可”的制作里，我還是察覺到一些令人沮喪的問題。

不僅僅是旋律飄忽不定而沒有真正的高潮，或是模仿其他音樂風(fēng)格時缺乏《歌劇魅影》的精雕細(xì)作。盡管以上兩個缺點都不可忽視，但最大問題是，這部作品沒有迫切地顯示出它存在的理由。

作家威廉·戈德曼（William Goldman）在研究百老匯歷史的《演出季》（The Season）一書里，曾犀利地討論過劇目失敗的主要原因。其中位居榜首的，就是主創(chuàng)團(tuán)隊無法達(dá)成共識，決定劇目的主旨。就像福賽斯的《曼哈頓幽靈》這本小說，《真愛不死》的每一個部件都好像來自不同的觀點；但跟福賽斯筆下不一樣的是，舞臺上的每個人都在講不一樣的故事。

I have to admit， I sort of miss Andrew Lloyd Webbers free live streams. I know this sounds strange， considering how much we all made fun of them. The whole idea sounded so promising， humbling even： Musical theatre legend allows audiences to see his works at home for free while encouraging viewers to donate to organizations helping unemployed theatre workers.

But people quickly caught on： “The Show Must Go On” （which streamed a new musical on Friday evenings， available on YouTube for 48 hours） clearly wasnt giving away anything that would ever make money. Still， there were a few discoveries： Along with Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat （a bit of biblical juvenilia starring 1970s teen idol Donny Osmond two decades after his prime） we also got a respectable revival of his first real hit， Jesus Christ Superstar. To make up for By Jeeves， less of a Lloyd Webber musical than a meandering P.G. Wodehouse adaptation with a few of Sir Andrews songs， there was a star-studded tribute from the Royal Albert Hall. So you cant exactly say they were hanging a sheeps head and serving dog meat. Cats， maybe….

Amidst all this， though， I had some revelations. For years， I wondered why whenever I mentioned“opera，” a disturbingly large number of people would answer “Phantom.” As a mark of verbal free association， it didnt show much context of the musical stage. Western opera has a 400-year history—410 if we use publication of Monteverdis Orfeo as a marker—but musical theatre is a much younger， slipperier presence to trace， its singular brand of storytelling through a unified vernacular of music， dialogue and dance not really coming into being until well into the 20th century.

Many fans of opera and musical theatre would say that Phantom of the Opera is neither， lacking both the idiomatic urgency of theatre and the emotional firepower of opera at its best. What it does offer， quite gratuitously， is a middle path of pure， unadulterated melodrama—in other words， European operetta. That genre has had a fitful history in America， yet Lloyd Webbers 30-year-old Phantom was still haunting Broadway right up until the Covid pandemic shut down theatres in March. New Yorker critic Adam Gopnick revisited that show earlier that month and reminded readers that “the action makes no sense， it takes forever for the story to get going， the characters are made of cardboard and the music is made of bits and pieces.” And yet， the show still works. “It remains today，” he concluded， “as impressive as it was when it debuted.”

My own recent experience with the piece came through Lloyd Webbers live streams. I cant even properly call it “revisiting” the show， since Id never seen it all the way through in a single sitting. It was hardly the right setting—ones tolerance for meandering moments on screen is much lower that it is in the theatre， where people are trapped in their seats—but the cumulative effect still remains palpable.

My first notion was how thoroughly Sir Andrew had scraped away the storys historic association with early cinematic horror—the 1925 Lon Chaney film famously made women in the movie halls scream and faint—to focus more clearly on Gaston Lerouxs original 1910 novel. Then how he scraped away most of Lerouxs cumbersome prose to focus on the core characters： a disfigured recluse， a beautiful young singer， her handsome suitor， and of course， the Paris Opera House， which appropriately remains one of the title characters.

There are some settings so supremely otherworldly that they make even the most ridiculous events somehow seem plausible. Such was the case of Charles Garniers imposing Paris Opera House in Lerouxs novel， and one could say the same of using the world of opera in Lloyd Webbers show. Surely it takes operas “suspension of disbelief” to embrace Lloyd Webbers wide-ranging pastiche of 19thcentury references， a Mozart opera parody—probably the biggest reason most people confuse Phantom with opera， in fact—and organ riffs that cheekily channel the majesty of Bach through the overblown pomposity of 1970s progressive rock. The music， in fact， sounds rather like a man locked in the basement of the Paris Opera （“hearing late-19th century music， muffled， from a couple of floors down，” as Gopnick observed）， though one with a keen sense of purpose.

The real revelations from “The Show Must Go On”came not from Phantom， though， but rather from its sequel， Love Never Dies. I finally saw it， for one thing， since it closed in London before I could get there. But lets start at the beginning. Lloyd Webber had originally balked at calling it a sequel—“Its a stand-alone piece，” he told the BBC before the shows premiere—but it does feature the same characters， a decade after the curtain dramatically came down on Phantom. From the title， Id been expecting a James Bond film， or maybe vampires.

I first heard about Love Never Dies backstage at the Shanghai Grand Theatre in 2010， when plans were still underway to open the show simultaneously in New York， London and Shanghai. Love may never die， but the show did. Next to Carrie， the biggest flop in Broadway history， Love Never Dies had one of the most troubled journeys to the stage Ive ever followed （my favorite chapter involves Lloyd Webbers kitten climbing on the composers digital piano and deleting the only existing version of the score）. Though it opened in London， and a subsequent production in Melbourne gained some international traction， it still hasnt made it to Broadway， or Shanghai.

Seeing the live stream from the Australian production brought back memories in a rush. Lloyd Webber first thought about continuing the story early on in Phantoms success. The young singer， now an international star， would be invited by the impresario Oscar Hammerstein to make her New York debut（no bonus points for guessing whos funding the production）. The problems revisiting the Phantom story， however， seemed to start right with his initial collaboration. The first person involved in developing the story was Frederick Forsyth， a best-selling author of modern-day thrillers.

Though Forsyths name is still on the credits， his work on Love Never Dies was deemed “difficult to adapt to the musical stage.” He later repackaged his treatment as a novel， The Phantom of Manhattan， which I picked up strictly to figure out what everyone thought was too difficult. I was hoping the Phantom might launch a plot to kill French president Charles de Gaulle， or survive the Holocaust （a couple of Forsyths favorite topics）， but the research into early 20th-century New York City was actually quite convincing and Forsyth stuck to the brief. The problem？ Each chapter is narrated by a different character.

After a hiatus， the project began again with a book by Ben Elton and lyrics by Glenn Slater. Then another lyricist， and multiple choreographers. The show opened， then closed for retooling， then reopened again with notable changes. Years later， the original lighting designer claimed that working on the production almost led her to leave the theatre industry.

Although the composer had liked the Melbourne production—again retooled by an Australian director and design team—and wanted to bring it to Broadway， releasing it on DVD and later internet live streaming was close as it would get to New York. Even seeing the “approved” version， the problems were painfully apparent.

It wasnt just that the melodies drifted without really soaring， or that its similar parodic influences lacked the careful balance of Phantom， though both were the case. Rather， the show showed no burning reason to exist.

In The Season， his candid look at Broadway， William Goldman listed the main reasons that theatre productions fail. High on the list were shows where the collaborators couldnt agree on what the show should be. Much like Forsyths Phantom of Manhattan， each individual component in Love Never Dies seems to be coming from a different perspective. But unlike Forsyth， they each seem to be telling a different story.