既然你說軍隊不是幫派，軍人不是流氓；那我說殺死人就要償命，一個一個揪出來

        軍營裏死人不是什麼新聞了，從古至今，哪個時期不出軍中流氓虐待人、殺害人的事？雖說今日已是民主的社會，但不公平不會因為民主就自動消失，而可憐的、無助的、無權無勢的老百姓，唯一能用的武器就是媒體，只有藉著媒體的強力放送，才有可能喚回那無聲消逝的公平正義。
        在戒嚴時期，軍中流氓打死人了，基本上是不用償命的，反正官官相護，打個軍法的名義就草草結束。某些人的隻手遮天，背後還是上面人眼不見為淨的政策使然，反正軍隊、媒體都是國家的，上面人怎麼說，你也只能照著作，如此一來，風平浪靜，可憐的是那莫名其妙斷送了生命的年輕軀體。白髮人送黑髮人的痛，沒人知曉。
        但今日不同了，聲淚俱下的那一句「怎麼好好一個兒子，當了兵就這麼不見了」，母親的痛擴散到全體觀眾的心中，在移情作用下群情激憤，激盪出對公平正義的質疑。可憐的母親說「這是什麼年代了」，沒錯，怎麼號稱民主自由的今日，仍不斷重複著軍營裏死了無辜老百姓的事，怎麼號稱進步的現代人，會如此殘酷的傷害別人，就只為了心理的不爽，只為了滿足一下變態的報復。荀子的性惡說或許才是真理，人的劣根性似乎永遠無法根除，一點點的外在刺激辨導引出極凶殘的行動。
        荀子說：「人之性惡，其善者偽也」，對照這當前最受注目、討論的事件，以偽善遮蔽惡性，不正好是那些士官、連長、輔導長、正副旅長等人的嘴臉嗎？這種人的行為舉止，根本上就是一種類似精神分裂的癥狀表現，一副道貌岸然的外表，骨子裏卻姦邪恣行，不過是假正經的真流氓。泯滅人性至此，不又呼應了 Fredric Jameson 對現代人精神分裂傾向的預言嗎？在這種精神分裂的狀態下，人根本從懷疑而忘了自己身為人，也就否定了人性的存在，而浮沈於物質性、虛無性之中，認假為真。這同紅樓夢中太需幻境那一副對聯說的：「假作真時真亦假，無為有處有還無」，易言之，沒了人性的人根本就不是人，而沒了人性之作為真的定數，「真作假時假亦真」，此時這批人不啻是真流氓假正經嗎！
        好好一個大有為的年輕人，就這麼莫名其妙地、難堪地離開了人世，再多的道歉根本無濟於事，不過是滿足了道歉者自身的人性需求罷了，又或者，不過是為了保住烏紗帽，意圖擺脫這事件可能對自己造成的永久性傷害。再說，道歉來的這麼遲，不過是再次應證了現代人的真假混淆、認假為真罷了。說難聽一點，若沒有媒體的強力放送，或許連最基本的道歉也不會有，或許在搓湯圓的效應下，事情就擺平了。說到國防部提出的懲處，就如同受害者家屬說的，這又有什麼意義，就算記了一百支大過，就算解除職務回歸死老百姓身分，加害者仍是自由地在過日子，仍是可每天用智慧型手機在玩樂場所打卡。這種種一切，讓人對軍方難以信任，也因此所謂的軍事檢查，到底能給出什麼能看的、合理的交代？是不是最後就是找個替死鬼擔了一切責任，而可能的對象就是那醫官？
        對照以往的例子看，軍事檢查似乎並未走出戒嚴時期那種睜一支眼、閉一支眼的消極態度。這又可從國防部的慢動作反應看出，是事件發生後的多久才有所行動，現在事情搞得如此之大，他們又有多積極？不錯，軍法的存在就是要對付軍隊裏的惡份子，但是否就必須如此神神密密的辦，就一定要慢吞吞的辦？其實就這個事件看，有眼睛的人都看得出來哪些人有問題，那為什麼不能直接以殺人罪嫌先行偵訊、收押？或者，若沒有所謂的串供、袒護問題，何不請特偵組協助辦案，就民間司法力量來取信於人民？其實當代社會的媒體力量分常強大，雖說媒體引導辦案絕非良策，但至少在這個事件上，確實媒體已經揪出了直接加害人，也是媒體的運作下，新證據不斷出現。此時，軍事檢查那套說法根本不能讓人心服口服，不過讓人對軍方更加厭惡。
        國防部長說可以下台，陸軍司令也說可以下台，但你們下台了事情就解決了嗎、壞人就受刑了嗎、軍營裏的流氓就沒了嗎、軍隊就不再是幫派管理了嗎？這是多麼不負責任的說法。何不勇敢地把事情說明清楚，公布所有相關證據，以最嚴厲的刑責起訴所有加害人，還給受害人家屬應得的一份公平正義！
        此同時就要談到許久前也曾是頭條新聞的討論。到底死刑是廢還是不廢？要廢者打著人權的名義，但說人權者有沒有考慮到這些被判處死刑者到底還有沒有人性。其他不論，就看這件事好了，在沒有深仇大恨下，可以如此虐殺一個年輕人，且這些加害者甚至在受害者尚存一息時，完全忽視並予以嘲弄，這是在泯滅人性下拒絕了受害者的人權，那麼以公平正義的原則看，這些加害人在否定人權的存在下還需要人權的保護嗎？再說，如果今天事件是發生在你的身上，你還會打著這人權的說法來原諒加害人嗎？
        這裡須分清楚的是原諒並非建立在人權之上，而是出自人性的自然表現，當然從荀子觀點看，或者就法家思想言之，人性是本惡的，所以韓非說：「法者，憲令著於官府，賞罰必於民心，賞存乎慎法，而罰加乎姦令者也。」明顯的，雖性惡觀點異於孔子主張的性善傳統，但基本概念都視人性、人心為禮與法的唯一依歸，這並不同於西方的人權主張，那是基於法的存在而出的概念，也就是說以法來界定人的存在與應有權力。換句話說，這種西方觀點與中國傳統思維模式完全不同，因儒家思想視人與其本性為法的依據，然西方卻以法來規範人性與人的自然存在，則打著人權要求廢除死刑，僅是就法論法的文字遊戲，根本無關於人性問題。當然的，若受害者家屬選擇原諒，這當然是高度人性的表現，也因此種良善人性的存在而更顯公平正義的價值，此時廢除死刑當然是值得稱許的。然若僅以人權的說法來要求無人性者的人權，這反而是詆毀了公平正義的價值。
        這個事件同時也點出了現代年輕人的一個問題：太過自我以致忽略了人際相處上潛藏的摩擦與危險。其實男人都當過兵，多多少少都見試過軍營裏的不公平，然而軍營裏的不公平實不比社會裡琳琅滿目的不公平。人世上本多不公平，若硬是要去爭，就只為說一句可以滿足自己心裡的話，那不就自己跟自己過不去，更糟的就如同這個事件一般，連命都丟了。或許手段圓滑一點、說話婉轉一點、身段軟一點、放一點、低一點，這個災厄也就避掉了。其實現代的年輕人太自膩於自我之表現，加上網路世界的即時性與匿名性，他們似乎在生活上就是少了點與人溝通的社交能力，少了點面對真實外在世界的接受能力。易言之，自我的耽溺加上與外在世界的隔絕，尤其是缺少處理外在於同儕間的人際關係，在他們身上多僅見人與人之間單向性的溝通運作，一旦有了負面情緒也就容易走向危險的領域中。或許傳統中國思維之以人為本位的哲理是一方良劑，這幫助年輕人去認識人的存在意義與社會責任，也就能幫助他們去避免不必要的摩擦和危險，但可惜的是此地的教育制度越來越病態，離固有的文化價值觀越來越遠，因為外國的月亮永遠比較圓。
        我願意相信軍隊不是幫派，軍人也不是流氓，軍隊裏還是有許多正直之士，有著保家衛國的真英雄。就是那些害群之馬壞了一鍋粥，所以處上位者更應積極地把老鼠屎一個一個揪出來，給予最嚴厲的處分。軍方必須要挽回已然喪失的面子和裡子，畢竟國家不能沒有軍隊，軍隊不能沒有軍紀，軍人不能沒有尊嚴。殺人償命，這不僅是法家的觀點，更是傳統價值觀表現，歷代戲曲不都這麼演的，水滸小說不也這麼寫的。既然有膽去虐殺人，就要有膽擔後果，俗語已如此說：「不是不報，是時候未到」，該來的一定會來，此生不報，來世再報必然更慘。

Contemporary "crooked" art in Taiwan: my essay on a group of daring artists and their unique artworks

As the title said, this essay is not simply an introduction to artworks created by my daring friends, but a deeper reflection on the interrelationship among the artist, the spectator, and the contemporary sociocultural phenomena, and by means of such a reflection, I intend to not only highlight the power of art on our perception of the world as well as our individual existence, but also re-evaluate the established methods to the understanding of art. Hence, the content of my analysis and discussion in fact exceeds these selected "amateur" artists in the context of Taiwanese art scene, and instead it targets on certain problems on both the creation and appreciation of art, that is, the prevalent false assumption of the discourse of art. 

My essay

Minchih Sun, "Hybrid Art and Culture: Reflections on a 'crooked' art show in Taiwan," Modern Art Asia 14 (May, 2013),  http://modernartasia.com/category/issue-14/  (click here to download the full essay)

Why Gay Cruise?: a testimony in "Les témoins" ("The Witnesses," 2007)

Although it is fictional, the last words of the tragic character Manu (by Johan Libéreau) shed light on the reason of gay cruising, which is a product of fear that originates from the longing for love, a love that is threatened by the straight prejudice and violence. It may not be as true as what it truly is in the ears of those who judge, as always, in terms of morality and ethics, and it may sound superficial and phony for those who see sex as the only means for love, but these words surely disclose the insecurity that every gay man or woman would have experienced at some point, or, a frustration that not only eats you up, but also kills your faith in both life and love.

source: Wikipedia

Right before his death, when he has lost his sight, Manu uses the dictation recorder, a Christmas gift from Sarah (by Emmanuelle Béart), the wife of his lover Mehdi (by Sami Bouajila), to record his own interpretation of his short gay life. He speaks with remorse lamenting his early departure from this world where he has not seen enough, where he has only experienced the bitterness of love rather than the bliss that love can bring to life. His frustration at AIDS and his deteriorating health slowly produces a self-loathing, guiding him to reexamine his failure to live. Impulsive actions coming from desires account for this failure, and his primary fault is that free exploration of cruising in the bushes for any possible sexual pleasure at possibly Le Champ de Mars (the location is never explicitly revealed by the director André Téchiné, but its proximity to the Eiffel Tower says so). Stemming from this self-loathing, he reaches a conclusion of gay cruising in terms of an existentialist philosophical falvour, which is quite a surprise to hear from a mouth of a youth who has only been educated in the culinary art, but meanwhile, such an existentialist utterance reinforces that gloomy feature full of doubts and helplessness in most French films, such as the very recent one Amour (2012) directed by Michael Haneke - a film that digs a hole so deep in my heart that I had temporarily lost myself in that powerful message addressing the meaning of love and life.

In Manu's words, gay cruising is an inevitable disaster for gays because they are deprived of any normal chances to meet their love. They are insecure for they are always in the doubt about whether or not their target of love would bash them to death for their inappropriate love. When the potential target of love could in realty be the one to kill you and when the reality does not allow a channel to meet the others who share the same sexual orientation, they must go underground, go into the dark zone where light is blocked to ensure safety, a comfort zone where names are erased and faces are blurry. This is a zone of uncertainty in which extra pleasure is complementary due to its form of an adventure that satisfies the desire of the human nature for the unknown. This thirst for the unknown is so toxic and addictive that men are eventually bereft of their ability to love and care after their over-indulgence in physical pleasure. Only in such a dark and hidden place could these men who share the same desire find a safe target to release their natural sexual drive, but the problem remains for names are unspeakable and every contact ends physically, so love is still only a dream to dream, only a fantasy that can never be realized. Hence, gays have a double existence in this world. In the bright daylight, they are no different from any straight members in this straight society, but at night, their identity changes, and they become ferocious predators in the park or in any unknown dungeons, haunting each other for the any possible happiness. Since they know so well that the pleasure is ephemeral before the sunrise and since insatiable desire can never be fulfilled, their practicing not only makes them highly skillful in cruising, but at the same time enlightens them that sex is the only way to love, if the other one allows them to, as if love is nothing but sex.

This way of confusing love and sex eerily erases the existence of love, and thus, with a simple logical deduction, gay love basically does not exist at all. How ironic this is, and how true it is still. All starts from looking for love, but it ends in forsaking love in favour of safe sexual pleasure, or, do allowed me to use the label for gay cruising from the straight world - the "misconduct." To confirm it, all you need is to stay in a gay bar and see what happens around you. How many of them are looking for love? I would assume that there are many. Then how many of them are looking for sex? Almost all of them. The question can be rephrased to: are they expecting to find love after their sexual contact? The answer is always yes, but the sad truth is that most of these encounters will end in disasters: some months, while mostly weeks or even days. Of course there are lucky ones who find "true love" through cruising, but if this kind of love can only stay in the dark and be ephemeral, then how it could last and blossom! Logically it just does not make sense at all, particularly if you take into consideration the thought of those true predators in the bars, and quite sadly these predators are usually the charming and the sexiest ones. You don't want to be involved with them, only if you are aware of what you are dealing with, and your heart is well-prepared for the consequence.

Living in a straight society following the straight norms, gays have to be cautious during the daytime just to keep themselves away from the omnipresent threat of hatred. This may be different now, even though I truly doubt it - who can say gay hate-crime will no longer happen, but it was a bloody fact back in the 80s, which is also the time when AIDS started to surface on international news. Does this mark the failure of Stonewall riot in 1969? At least it does in the 80s, a time when police still had the right to raid bars, clubs, and parks for the "misconduct," a moral judgement that has been used by the straight society as the sole weapon to exterminate anything that violates their value system. Even though what happened in the 80s does not repeat again now, but that label of "misconduct" has never been removed for gays, and the action of cruising in fact complicates the whole situation and ironically confirms the moral attack made by the straight society. In other words, "misconduct" becomes a legitimate crime for which gays are responsible: they must be damned and they must pay for their crime. Maybe now such a statement is only reserved for those religious extremists, but in the general mind, they would still consider gay cruising a moral crime.

Manu does not offer a moral explanation of cruising, which is quite unnecessary to the plot of the film, as well as not possible to emerge in his way of thinking. What he contemplates on is an existentialist question: cruising sustains his gay identity that has been suppressed against his will, and only through such a gay existence could he taste the power of life and the sweetness of love, no matter how short it is and how bitter its consequence is. Without gay cruising, he does not exist at all, and his physical existence ceases to mean anything to himself. To expand such thinking, maybe many contemporary gays still share the same attitude towards his/her own gay existence in the straight world, one that has not changed much since the 80s or the 60s. Pondering on this thought, we could even argue that gay cruising, ignoring the biased moral judgement, is what gays need so that they can confirm their effective and meaningful living in the world that is in fact hostile to them. In this dark comfort zone, they live as what they truly are, a short-time freedom from the tiring disguise in the daytime, and they search a dream which can only exist in the form of a dream. This dreaming of love keeps them moving, otherwise they lose the hope for tomorrow and cease to exist as a human being.

A Challenging Reinterpretation of "The Tempest"

Declan Donnellan’s Modern Fantasy

Directed by Declan Donnellan, this Russian version of The Tempest expands the unique imagination embedded in Shakespeare’s original words. The ensemble is not only a sincere display of the complicated humanity, but also fun and daring, challenging the audience’s usual perception of theatre and their quotidian experience. Premiered on January 26, 2011 at Théâtre Les Gemeaux in Paris, it was coproduced by Chekhov International Theatre Festival and Cheek By Jowl with the support from Théâtre Les Gemeaux. Since then, it has been touring the world and is well received by the international audience. It finally came to Asia as a key program in Taiwan International Festival of Arts in Taipei in February 2012, with an extra performance in Kaohsiung on February 25, which is the one I attended.

What should be expected when a group of Russian actors perform in Russian a Shakespeare’s play directed by an English director for the Taiwanese audience (with only few foreign audiences as I observed)? Interestingly, the local audience welcomed it and responded with a deafening applause, and their immediate reaction to the acting meant they had a good understanding of the action on the stage, even though Russian is in fact alien to them. Supertitle certainly helps resolve the language barrier between Russian and Chinese, but it simultaneously obstructs the aesthetic experience of the audience. Thus how were they captivated by this performance? Did they identify with the representation of the play? If so, what magic trick did the director do to achieve that? How did he cross the language and cultural boundary to charm and challenge his international audience?

A welcoming response from the audience indicates an effective adaptation of the original play. The adaptation entails multiple theatrical elements combined together into a creative ensemble, and its representation is all about the contemporaneity. The acting, particularly the displayed emotions through bodies rather than speech, together with the manipulation of the space and media projections construct an ambience that attracts, shocks, and directly communicates with the audience. Although the actors talk, the story is enacted through the visual representation rather than the spoken language. Indeed, this way of dealing with representation is nothing new now, but it accounts for the good reception of the Taiwanese audience who are most likely neither familiar with the Russian culture and its political reality nor the original play.

Prospero and his male fairies
© Cheek by Jowl
on the website of Bureau of Cultural Affairs Kaohsiung City Government

Juxtaposing images of contemporary quotidian experience reduces the gap between the literary text, the performance, and the audience. It affords the theatrical space sociocultural implications that further inspire the audience to talk to themselves. This feature corresponds to Shakespeare’s unique quality argued by Harold Bloom in The Western Canon. Although this approach is already a cliché in terms of the artistic practice in the theatre nowadays, his being true to tell stories about human beings inserts a strong emotional expression that makes the audience think. He remarks in the interview with Paul Heritage that producing theatre is to show “common humanity” through “the real presence of life,” and it happens that old great plays usually reveal something connecting with “apparently modern subjects.”[1] Stemming from this ideal, a modern Russian lifestyle of which he and his Russian team conceived during the lengthy rehearsal is represented. This image of modern life is made true through his unique theatre vocabulary combining multiple concepts on theatrical representation developed since modernism: Stanislavskian methods are combined with the Meyerholdian ideal to enhance a clean and precise acting, charged with both psychological and corporeal power; a hybridization of media projection, folk dance, music, and the distinctive social behavior connects Brechtian alienation with Artaudian ideal to directly confront the audience with a question of what human beings are in the twenty-first century. Considering further in terms of Fredric Jameson’s view on postmodernism in Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, juxtaposition, fragmentation, and hybridization mark this performance as postmodernist, but instead of becoming total nostalgia and pastiche, the ensemble is still quite thematized, and thus innovative and challenging.

His interest in talking about humanity accounts for the emergence of thematization, and it cannot be brought into being without his absorption and modification of new artistic practice. It is this artistic intention and maneuver that revitalizes Shakespeare’s aged play to mirror the cold, distant, and confused human relations, criticizing the loss of humanity in the now late capitalist culture. The mature acting mould a real presence of life on the stage, saving this production from becoming a “deadly theatre” as criticized by Peter Brook in The Empty Space. In fact, in response to Aleks Sierz’s question of turning something dead into alive, he elaborates that performers are responsible for “death” because their “self-deception” forces the audience to put up with “the inauthentic” rather than experience “the chase for the living moment,” and therefore, rehearsal is crucial for him to “minimize the effects of death.”[2] But what is authentic in this chase for the living moment? How does he represent that? Exploring these questions means to look deeper into both the structure and content in which certain sociocultural values must be detailed for the audience have acknowledged them in their warm embrace.

In Donnellan’s hands, Miranda is the only female character whose personality has been drastically changed. She is now a wild child who knows nothing about the human society; however, she is never innocent. Her interaction with the horrendous Caliban indicates an abnormal relationship, and her sympathy for Caliban has become a bizarre affection. It can be understood since she grows up with him on that isolated island without having seen any other men other than her father and Caliban. Where there are no other men for comparison, her adolescent sexual drive naturally targets on Caliban, who more obviously shows his. Her crazy behavior reveals a lack of upbringing, and this arrangement is more logical comparing with that formal, restricted, and lady-like image in the original play.

Her frenzy is a twisted humanity nourished by her father’s indignation against Antonio and Caliban’s hatred and self-pity. When frenzy becomes normality due to the total lack of social norms, her addiction to the newly found things (man in this case) only reinforces her crazy behavior, while the frustration from not having the handsome Ferdinand (due to her father’s inference) further brings about her schizophrenia. Her adolescent sexual drive has taken over her, becoming an insatiate desire and addiction. Such addiction and schizophrenia are no different from the dilemma modern men face today, though the frustration of the latter, as Anthony Giddens observes in The Transformation of Intimacy, comes from an overwhelming social change forcing one to reconcile based on self-identity to decision-making on lifestyles. This corresponds to Jameson’s comment on consumer society in which a free choice is never really free. With the double effects from the market and consumption, the suffering of delusion and paranoia from insatiate desire accounts for that now obvious schizophrenic lifestyle. This new image of Miranda reveals the suppressed human animality, ironically making her more human because it is an exposure of that suppressed modern schizophrenic mental state. Under the surface of modern life exists the crazy craving that disguises itself as a cold mask, but the experienced inner contradiction from decision-making only produces paranoia and delusion. At least she is bold enough to show herself. Her actions become a subtle criticism of modern lifestyle, and her frenzy mocks at those true schizophrenics hiding in the dark in the auditorium.

Miranda (centre) and Caliban (right)
© Cheek by Jowl
on the website of Cheek by Jowl

This enactment of schizophrenic syndrome corresponds to Artaud’s second manifesto for the theatre of cruelty in The Theatre and Its Double. He sees theatre as a place of physical expressions where the audience must be forced to experience the true reality and humanity so as to achieve a kind of moral purification. This ideal is embedded in the scene right before the celebration of the unity of Miranda and Ferdinand. She strips to her waist and he completely naked. This naked scene, which shocks the audience no more, implies their transformation to a new identity: she is no longer a wild kid but a lady with the joy of the coming marriage; for him, a transformation from a dandy womanizer to a loyal and loving husband. When lines are only spoken by characters, the story still belongs to the realm of the text, which is rejected by Artaud due to its result of a false reality that only leads the audience to complacency. This identification of the socio-political function of theatre’s visual representation aims at the active participation of the audience, and it can only be achieved through a sincerely display of real bodies and objects. It is further realized in the scene where Antonio plotted with Alonso against Prospero. The original play follows the neoclassical structure, and the three unities forbid the actual performance of incidents outside of the structured time and place. This rule is broken here by an actual performance of this vile event, forcing the audience to experience the dark side of humanity. Although Donnellan’s arrangement of this sub-plot and Miranda’s frenzy does not reach the level of shocking or frightening as desired by Artaud, the performance highlights the unique personalities of characters to enrich the theatrical representation, making the production more easily received by the audience who are unfamiliar with this play and the Russian language.

Nakedness exhibits the beauty of human bodies and generates pleasure, but this is broken by Ferdinand’s walking off the stage to the auditorium due to his sudden anger at Prospero’s demand for his complete moderation. The more interesting here is the coming out of the stage crew to check what has happened. The whole scene lasts shortly, and when Ferdinand is irritated by Prospero’s nagging, he actually leaves his character and becomes himself. This attitude change is swift, and the appearance of the stage crew in fact interrupts the illusion of the audience. Obviously Donnellan follows the Brechtian Verfremdungseffekt, but its use here reveals the “pastiche” feature of postmodernist art, which according to Jameson is an imitation of style without an ulterior motive. The reason for giving this scene is obscure: could it be intended simply to break the pleasurable illusion, or is it used to call for an explanation of Prospero’s nagging? None of the characters, including that stage crew, engages in a direct addressing to the audience even though they have temporarily broken off imitation. As a principle of Brecht’s epic theatre recorded in Brecht on Theatre, this distancing aims to inspire the audience to criticize constructively from a social point of view. Without an ulterior motive, the style is only an empty form, and this scene becomes what Jameson calls a “play of random stylistic allusion” that reflects the addiction in postmodern culture for “spectacles” or “simulacrum.”[3] Brecht becomes a code here signifying the heterogeneous, depthless, and fragmented nature of postmodernist arts.

Although this obvious flaw jeopardizes the representation, the manipulation of the theatrical space and the directorial arrangement save the performance from becoming completely depthless. The performing space is delimited to a comparatively small and almost empty rectangular platform in the middle of the stage. Main events happen within this space, in which Nick Ormerod designs three doors at the back as the entrance/exit for human characters (spirits travel freely without using doors). Also showed here are creative actions, such as hanging Ferdinand upside down behind the central door to signify his floating in the sea after the shipwreck. When the spirits play music, they walk along the edge of this space, obviously showing the boundary between imagination and reality. Hence the reproduced social relations in this delimited performing space are emphasized, and the performing bodies continuously remind the audience that everything is imaginary. This fosters a mental recognition of the difference, which shift the attention of the audience from the storyline to the power relationship between characters. In The Production of Space, Henri Lefebvre asserts that difference and proximity turn the abstract space, or the theatre space, into one that is in the mode of production, and this mental exercise repositions the spatial practice of the audience from a passive observer to an active one who in fact redefines symbolically the meaning of this performing space.

This spatial practice is Brechtian, though without truly following Brecht’s principle. It is reinforced in the use of a raised hidden platform behind the top of the background where Prospero oversees actions and showing his domination of the island, also an intersection of knowledge and power. But what is more interesting is Ariel’s (as a man in this production) use of this spot. As a dominated role with very limited knowledge of the human world, his presence there shows his longing for freedom, his curiosity about human, and his status as a detached observer of humanity. His gradual understanding of social relations by means of his alienation from the main scene slowly makes him more sensible than those who are submerged in the reproduced vileness, greed, and rage. Therefore, his attitude and action to other characters, such as his despising Caliban, Trinculo, and Stephano, as well as his teasing of Antonio, Sebastian, and Alonso, are no longer about the execution of Prospero’s orders, but his own criticism of their twisted humanity. Obviously Artaud, Brecht, and Donnellan all share the concept of making theatre a means to stimulate and inspire by preventing complacency resulting from false theatrical illusions. Artaud shocks them, while Brecht distances and then talks to them directly. Donnellan modifies and combines both: Artaudian actions are integrated into a Brechtian space where the audience are made a part of the formulation of the uneasy social truth. This practice not only permits messages concerning contemporary lifestyles to be planted in harmony with a fantasy world of magic, but also encourages the audience to talk to themselves in their participation in an imagination of renewing existing social relations.

Ariel as the role of the audience is seen again in the scene when Ferdinand is busy moving wood logs while talking to Miranda. Ariel replaces Prospero to be the hidden observer of the lovers, and he is the actual wood log carried by Ferdinand. Not only does he overhear the conversation, he also communicates directly with the audience through his facial expression. Though not a confrontation, a wink tells this scene from pastiche because his function to supervise and his intention to mock afford the form with content. This double representation – both a character and an object, and both a character and an audience – endows the scene of lovers’ courting with a light and funny ambience, strengthening the comic nature of this play. Ariel’s stiff body is an imitation of the wood log, and this body is full of force coming from the tense but well-controlled muscles. The flexible use of the body as well as the emotional expression are a result of a serious acting training that illuminates the Russian acting tradition set up by Stanislavsky and Meyerhold. The physical force of the male body represents the firm, heavy, and coarse texture of woods, and this use of the male body echoes with Meyerhold’s ideal actor who has perfected his biomechanics, which requires performers to present the fine texture of the performed object or character through precise postures and rhythmic movements. But the very subtle display of emotions on the actor’s face clearly points to the Method of Stanislavsky, whose performers execute correct physical actions that immediately generate the required emotional conditions. Donnellan’s harmonious combination of the two related approaches allows this double representation to take control of the theatricality, eschewing a dull representation of courting.

Ferdinand carrying Ariel, the woodlog
© Johan Persson
on the website of 2012 Taiwan International Festival of Arts

According to Donnellan in his elaboration of the Stankslavskian acting system in The Actor and the Target, acting training is an exploration of the character rather than becoming the character. In the above-mentioned scene, the male actor is neither Ariel nor the wood log, but one equipped with features of both, also one travelling across the boundary between the self, the character, and the position of the audience. In Fifty Key Theatre Directors, Maria Shevtsova observes that this target training guides his performers to look at the outside world instead of searching from their own memories or experiences, through which they find a target – something concrete they have observed or found in their exploration of the character – that helps them raise a question about and make a decision on portraying the true personality of the character. Miranda’s frenzy and schizophrenic behavior exemplifies this training. It also affords his performers the ability to travel freely between the character and the self, as seen in Ferdinand and Ariel. In other words, Donnellan’s target training helps performers exhibit true humanity, more complicated and self-contradictory, and this exhibition of humanity corresponds to Shakespeare’s original intention.

Another example of this use of target method in building up a scene is the actual performance of the conspiracy between Antonio and Alonso to usurp the dukedom of Prospero. The conspiracy is treated as a target by Prospero and Miranda whose emotional expressions not only highlight the vicious nature of this incident but also legitimize Prospero’s vengeance. Through Prospero’s magic, this scene becomes a play within a play. The vicious mind and the cunning behavior are not directly shown through Antonio and Alonso. Their interaction on the stage tells what had happened rather than perform the stereotyped features of bad guys. It is Prospero’s rage and disappointment that reveals their cunning, and also the intimidated response of Miranda that bestows the viciousness on them. With mature and powerful acting, the representation of this terrible memory once again corresponds to Artaudian and Brechtian ideal, and its form further resembles the technique of Montage in films. The overlap and juxtaposition of scenic spaces details the reason of Prospero’s revenge, which in return helps the audience perceive better the goodness in humanity in the end when Prospero relinquishes his hatred.

Originally, this scene is planned to quickly tell the background, but Donnellan expands it to become a play within a play, highlighting the notion of magical fantasy and the emotional intensity. Juxtaposition in Jameson’s criticism is a distinct feature of the postmodernist artistic practice. It rejects the dominant position of masterpiece and the inevitable thematization, which generates a totality of meaning intrinsically in opposition to the nature of postmodernist reproduction in which meanings should be liberated rather than transmitted linearly in the sociocultural context of communication. Its aesthetic value resides in creation as a process of reproduction that allows the audience to take up the position as the author and afford the work multitudinous meanings. Roland Barthes remarks in Roland Barthes par Roland Barthes that it is the presence of the body that makes theatre attractive, not the representation constructed through words. Hence in this scene the juxtaposition of bodies in different layers of representation not only exhibits the negative feature of humanity that is both archaic and modern, but also exemplifies the postmodernist aesthetics. Rather than directly tell the audience that this is a conspiracy, performers vividly show what lies behind this conspiracy: rage, disappointment, sadness, jealousy, deception, cunning, greed, intimidation, and fear. The simultaneous presence of bodies and emotions forms a strong theatricality that speaks for the postmodernist textualization as well as the authorship of the audience.

Juxtaposing multifarious presence is more clearly revealed against the large and oppressive projections, which turn a scene into an ambiguous battlefield in which interrelated sociocultural messages co-exist. When the drunken Stephano and the jester Trinculo are both charmed by Ariel, the projection of a high-fashion boutique cooperates with a garment rack full of trendy clothes and the credit card terminal to represent our modern consumer society. Following Artaudian and Brechtian concept, it should force the audience to confront with their own material desire and the schizophrenic behavior to seek and own the latest fashion. However, the comic acting complicates this representation and affords it with another contradictory meaning. Although the exaggerated greed and delusion pinpoint a schizophrenic mental state that at the same time mirrors the modern consumers, their hallucinated bodies in fact confirm the pleasure of consumption. With this comic acting, they become delusional but content and powerful but frightened. The criticism on modern lifestyle is suddenly bereft of its seriousness and replaced with a lighthearted ambiance to celebrate the late capitalist consumption. This ambiguity indicates the demanded open meaning in the postmodernist aesthetics, and the scene only displays a condition that has never been concluded. Hence the representation, when viewed in terms of the concept of totality, becomes a simulacrum and also a fragment in the process of reproduction.

This ambiguity has been criticized as the problem of the postmodernist representation in which nothing except a depthless image is provided. Certainly theatre should be more than a shallow image, and Donnellan’s incorporation of thematization into the postmodernist contextualization marks his awareness of this problem. A sincere exhibition of humanity is his antidote, and among all characters, Trinculo’s effeminate personality and stereotyped camp gestures are particularly striking for this character implies the sociocultural view of homosexuality. A sensitive audience would have sensed a homosexual stance when seeing an all-male cast, although using males to present spirits without altering their names may intend to tell that they are originally asexual. In her analysis of this arrangement of an all-male cast in As You Like It (1991), Shevtsova believes that it is neither a Shakespearean convention nor gay pride, but “a celebration of sex and gender ambiguities and of love.”[4] But in this performance the reference to homosexuality cannot be easily ignored or replaced with a general concept of love. Giddens remarks that the representation of sex and sexual orientation is always an expression of power relations, and Jameson also states that homosexuality is one of the key concerns and always a political issue thematized abstractly and artistically for re-examination in postmodernist art. In Donnellan’s hands, camp is transformed into an “aesthetic sense,” and as analyzed by Susan Sontag, this aesthetic sense “neutralizes moral indignation,” “sponsors playfulness,” and the more important is that it makes possible the integration of homosexuality into society.[5]

Camp Trinculo (left) and drunken Stephano (right)
© Johan Persson
on the website of 2012 Taiwan International Festival of Arts

When considered in terms of comic effects, Trinculo’s exaggerated camp gestures certainly contribute to the absurd expression of this character. Gay, with its historical background of being repressed, has now been unavoidable in contemporary culture. Although there are counter-voices, primarily based on the biased religious moral condemnation, pop culture is inseparable from gay culture. Since Trinculo’s being gay is too obvious, the projection of homosexuality between other characters becomes highly possible. These possible homosexual relationships are not explicitly expressed, but the interaction between performers signifies a relationship that is beyond friendship. Implying homosexual relationships is also a mediator to balance Trinculo’s overly stereotyped gay image, preventing the portrayed gay feature from becoming a naïve mockery of gay culture. While Trinculo is flamboyant and feminine (a twink), Stephano is a rugged man with dominant and violent demeanor (a bear). By paring them up as a couple-like duo, not only is this homosexual relationship implied, popular fantasized sadomasochism (master/slave) in the gay sub-culture is also hinted. Although no physical intimacy is shown, Trinculo’s interaction with Stephano turns him into a hysterical and intimidated lover who in fact enjoys his inferior position.

This dominant-dominated relationship is hinted again and linked with the Electra complex between Prospero and Ariel. When Ariel asks Prospero whether or not he is loved, his deep affection for Prospero – which is unique since he is a spirit without sex and humanity – highlights his vulnerable position against Prospero’s dominant father-like figure. This affection obscures his total obedience to Prospero’s cruelty. Redefining the relationship between characters becomes a technique for Donnellan to modernize this play. Antonio is still vicious and cunning, but when he confronts Sebastian with the intended murder of Alonso, his sudden tenderness reveals his caring for Sebastian. Both are young, handsome, manly, and single, but Sebastian submits willingly to Antonio. The interaction between the two not only indicates their intimacy but further brings about that dominant-dominated relationship. Antonio’s physical threatening at the end seems to produce a violent kiss on the stage. It may be a visual illusion due to the angle from my seat, but their physical contact is charged with a distinct sexual tension.

Camp gestures, the implied homosexuality, and the tension from power relations are clearly thematized, but thematization contrasts with the postmodernist aesthetics as observed by Jameson. In Donnellan’s hands, this contradiction becomes a unique aesthetic hybridization. Considering in terms of the postmodernist intertextuality and contextualization, this thematization in fact pinpoints the postmodernist feature since it is positioned at the same level as other artistic means, styles, and media in the production of representation. It is this use of thematization that minimizes the problem of fragmentation and the consequent depthless or meaningless display of simulacrum. However, fragmentation is inevitable when thematization is no longer considered the only purpose and end result for art, and it complicates meanings in the representation when the applied media are essentially equipped with a strong historical allusion and cultural significance. As seen in the end when the union of Miranda and Ferdinand is celebrated, the festive ambience of the celebration is incompatible with the projections that are essentially political and nostalgic.

This celebration is a kaleidoscopic visual spectacle. The used projections include a documentary of a ceremonial military parade before the disintegration of the Russian Communist regime and a clip from the communist propaganda film showing the festive mood in a good harvest on the field. Obviously both projections deliver the message of joy and celebration, and the harvest corresponds with the presence of the goddesses of marriage and fertility (all males). However, the nature of both projections is political, and their political stance is intertwined with the nostalgic ambience, which is in contrast with the representation of a contemporary lifestyle that is constructed by a schizophrenic and complicated human relation. That nostalgic ambience indicates that life is better in the old days, and this concern has been introduced earlier when one character uses his socks – one with a hole, while the other is intact – to imply the economic inequality in modern Russia. But the actual performance of this celebration speaks for the triumph of modern Russia in which one is free from political suppression and is capable of pursuing happiness through money and free will. These two messages are parallel and contradictory. One celebrates contemporaneity, while the other looks back at the communist society, but none of which is subordinated to the other since both are simply displayed without any historical allusions being clearly uttered.

Right after the projections comes a traditional Russian folk dance. This folk dance complicates the already ambiguous scene and clearly shows the problem of postmodernist representation. It is intended to strengthen the festive mood and tell the audience that this is Russian (traditional clothes and dance movements), but the disco tempo and lighting and the psychedelic projection at the background cancel the reference to traditional Russian culture, generating a happy, lively but overwhelmingly strange ambience. Although the dance is executed perfectly, the sudden appearance of this ambience isolates it from the projection and the acting. The dance becomes a decoration that alters the appearance of traditional Russian culture. The whole scene is a hybridity that shows a glossy but specious image of Russia in which nothing is confirmed except confusion and uncertainty. This new image breaks the totality of the scene, and meanings depend on how the audience will it. According to Jerrold Levinson, there is a thin line between artistic hybridization and arbitrary melange. He clarifies that the former is a creative play of symbols for “an image of richness and complexity” and for “the one” to be seen in the many, while the latter produces “a kind of cognitive overload,” resulting in a failure of representation.[6] Because of fragmentation, the representation is only a simulacrum, which in Jameson’s view is “an allusion to a present out of real history” and also “a past removed from real history.”[7] This problem can be accounted for in terms of the preference for spectacle (to show a glamorous modern lifestyle) and the rejection of totality (to confirm meaning as essentially boundless). Although Donnellan has been using thematization to pinpoint his perspective on humanity and human relations, when it comes to the scene for celebration, he falls into the trap of the postmodernist practice. The whole scene is thus decentered due to “a radically different practice of signs,”[8] which defamiliarizes the aesthetic experience of the audience, forming a structural distraction that sees the representation as a sheer depthless image.

The celebrating dance
© Johan Persson
on the website of 2012 Taiwan International Festival of Arts

Suddenly lighting up the stage and the auditorium stops this visual spectacle and breaks the confusion or illusion, and it further cancels any possible representation. Not surprisingly, this postmodernist artistic practice owes its debt to Brecht. The sudden interruption forces the audience to acknowledge that they are witnessing an actual cultural production. However, the multiple messages embedded in this scene create a problem for interpretation. Neither Artaud nor Brecht proposes a theatre without a theme. Their theatre is highly political with an ideal to make changes to both artistic practice and the reality. It is absent here, and the postmodernist ideology obviously overpowers the modernist one. It cannot be denied that the postmodernist artistic practice gives a new look to this old play, but it also confirms the criticism made by Jameson. Does not this fragmentary representation together with the co-existing messages resemble the contemporary schizophrenic lifestyle? Interestingly, thematization still exists in other parts of this performance, and it maintains an effective representation, conveying certain sociocultural messages that need to be looked at. It results from Donnellan’s intention to talk about humanity, and this approach in fact fixes the problem of the postmodernist representation. It would have been more challenging if this thematization was carried through in the display of the mental conflict in that visual spectacle combining the image of traditional, communist, and modern Russia. This thematization is the reason why Donnellan’s postmodernist production can still be true to Shakespeare, and thus somewhat unfit for Jameson’s paradigm of postmodernist arts.

NOTES

[1]  Declan Donnellan, Nick Ormerod, and Paul Heritage, “Declan Donnellan and Nick Ormerod,” in In Contact with the Gods?: Directors Talk Theatre, eds. Maria M. Delgado and Paul Heritage, 79-92 (Manchester: Manchester University Press,1996), 84-5.

[2]  Declan Donnellan and Aleks Sierz, “Declan Donnellan and Cheek by Jowl: to Protect the Acting,” in Contemporary European Theatre Directors, eds. Maria M. Delgado and Dab Rabellato ,145-164 (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2010), 158.

[3]  Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (Durham: Duke University Press, 1991), 18.

[4]  Maria Shevtsova, “Declan Donnellan,” in Fifty Key Theatre Directors, eds. Shomit Mitter and Maria Shevtsova, 231-236 (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2005), 233.

[5]  Susan Sontag, “Notes on Camp,” in Against Interpretation, 275-292 (London: Vintage, 2001), 290.

[6]  Jerrold Levinson, “Hybrid Art Forms,” Journal of Aesthetic Education 18, no. 4 (winter 1984): 11-3.

[7]  Jameson, Postmodernism, 118.

[8]  Ibid., 123.

溫德斯的影像舞蹈

Pina, A Film for Pina Bausch by Wim Wenders

source: http://www.movieposterdb.com/poster/e2d20180

紀錄片與當代舞蹈各有其獨特的藝術形式與表現手法，在藝術領域中各據一方，也在互不侵犯既有美學範疇下各自為政。舞蹈是真實身體的當下展現，永遠是唯一且剎那即逝。紀錄片則是機械運作下的產品，雖與舞蹈一樣重視當下的情狀，腳架上的廣角與伸縮鏡頭捕捉到的是具廣度與深度的穩定性影像[1]，是可被重複的，也是永恆的記錄。

表面上看來似無瓜葛，電影與舞蹈實有交集。運動中形象的呈現是兩者間最明顯的共通處，而概括表述有關人的生命歷程並傳達視覺美更是共享的藝術目的。當代舞蹈在舞台上運作影像產生的交集多為豐富視覺上的美感呈現，甚至是用以挑戰觀者的視覺神經來刺激審美經驗。影像是完成象徵性表現的輔助品，更是強化動作美感的媒介，雲門舞集在《行草三部曲》（2001、2003、2005）中運用的書法、水墨影像就是最具震撼力的代表。此時電影與舞蹈雖可能有相同的藝術目的，但兩者間的界線仍是是涇渭分明，舞蹈依舊是舞蹈，更不願意被電影所取代。

顧名思義，舞蹈紀錄片就是以機器記錄剎那即逝的舞蹈，以利永久保存舞蹈形式結構和身體律動狀態。這種記錄模式由來已久[2]，多見於當場演出紀錄或特別執行的紀錄計畫。雲門的舞作檔案便由此兩種拍攝類型組成，同時特別的記錄計畫帶有教育目的，故影片結構中多插入花絮交代與舞蹈相關的所有訊息，如編舞者生平、舞作介紹、舞團發展等等。另還有一種特殊形式，如 Lloyd Newson 的 DV8 Physical Theatre 推出由 BBC 製作、Clara von Gool 執導的 Enter Achilles（1996），在結構上已非當場演出的紀錄，而是獨立的舞蹈電影。雖類似於特別執行的舞碼電影化記錄，教育性內容已完全被取消，且以影像做記錄的主敘事結構也出現變異，即特定視點中的鏡頭不再只是單純的旁觀紀錄者，而是與舞者共舞的參與者。由此觀之，紀錄片與當代舞蹈間的距離被縮減了，而具有藝術形式與價值獨立性的電影似乎意圖去變成舞蹈。

Louis Giannetti 指出紀錄片的美學表現是內容重於形式的，它在生產過程中刻意簡化並避免過度安排結構，雖細節上的篩選已修飾了原始素材，但重視真實存在的處理方式突顯了現實的隨機性與曖昧性，要求觀者主動去解讀所見的客觀存在。他更從寫實主義與表現主義的差異性來看，認為在對形式與技術的強調加上刻意壓制旁白的使用下，紀錄片與前衛電影（avant-garde）有重疊的關係。本為對觀眾「自我反射（self-reflexive）」的訴求被擴大為突出「影片本身的美學運作及幕後創作者」，而藝術家一手包辦拍攝和剪輯更形成「自創語言及象徵」的表述，致使影片聚焦於某種時刻中意義的深度與底蘊。[3]換言之，表現主義的影響模糊了紀錄片與前衛電影間的界線，但就如同當代舞蹈之受表現主義滋養而衍生出形式與內容間多層次的互涉性重疊，此時脫離單純記錄客觀現實的藝術紀錄片也要求觀者注意它自身獨特的象徵性特質。

這說明了紀錄片自身面向藝術的自覺性前進，即意識到了自身不再處於「模仿（imitation）」的地位，不僅能直接以自己的「語言」複寫自然並揭示真實，更打破了想像與現實間的界線創造出「真正的幻象」來補充自然。[4]在與當代舞蹈的互動中，它不再滿足於紀錄者身分、不願再去為不發聲的舞蹈說故事，而是執意從舞蹈電影奠定的基礎上去突破既有形式範疇的規定，去實驗它自身獨立藝術性的表現。此時值得思索的美學問題出現了，是否電影的影像因此重新建構了與當代舞蹈的關係？是否兩者間的異質性在刻意融合的過程中形成新的、混血的（hybrid）美學表現？[5]是否律動中的影像與機器生產的舞蹈印象已開啟了一場引人注目的影像美學實驗？

溫德斯（Wim Wenders，1945 –）2011年的舞蹈紀錄片《碧娜》（Pina）即是一場令人驚艷的影像美學實驗，在跨界並融合異質元素中塑造出新型態的影像舞蹈（或依從Bazin的電影理念，這新形式可稱為電影舞蹈了）。就形式上看，《碧娜》在鏡頭與舞蹈間的關係似乎同於Newson的舞蹈電影，其中不乏傳統舞蹈紀錄片中訪談式旁白的介入，但深究之，旁白內容純粹是舞者陳述個人在舞團中的舞蹈經驗，那種對鮑許（Pina Bausch，1940 – 2009）的懷念與感恩並未形成有關編舞者、舞團與舞作的系統性詮釋，旁白的介入反而突顯出導演刻意壓制以影像說故事的敘述結構。3D立體化的影像強調出優美、流動且具高度情緒渲染力的影像舞蹈，影像與舞者身體的雙重並置展現出如 Mikhail Bakhtin 所說的「眾聲喧嘩」（heteroglossia），而這兩者的疊合同時「風格化」（stylization）這獨特的影像表現。[6]這種舞蹈與影像的混雜性再再提醒觀者舞蹈是什麼、電影是什麼、創作是什麼、影像表現的可能性以及藝術美的涵意等問題。

在新技術的運用下，《碧娜》的鏡頭走出旁觀者的身分直接與舞者身體一同舞動。舞動的鏡頭更像是編舞家那銳利的雙眼，不斷地觀察舞者的動作與釋放出的能量和情緒，然有趣的是代表雙眼的鏡頭是碧娜，而鏡頭所見者也是碧娜。非固定的鏡頭運動生產出呼應舞者律動的影像舞蹈，雖不可能取消鏡頭自身的敘事與記錄功能，但在刻意壓制說故事的狀態下，影像舞動直接化身為舞蹈，而不再是無聲舞蹈的發聲者，同時紀錄片不再是傳統的客觀現實的記錄，而變成是眼前所見就是碧娜、碧娜是舞蹈精神之代表、影像即是舞蹈的象徵表述。不像 Newson 的舞蹈電影或《雲門》的舞蹈紀錄片，此處的影像舞蹈是文化再生產的忠實呈現：從記錄身體演繹舞蹈（第一層次）變成直接再現身體的影像來生產舞蹈（第二層次）。第二層次的革命性影像實踐先解構、後取消了舞蹈是舞台上真實身體表現的傳統認知，因鏡頭再現的身體影像比遠距離外舞台上的真實身體動作更具親近感（proximity），讓觀者更強烈地感受到舞蹈形式表現出的力度與情感強度（抑或者是更強烈地認知到機器生產出的影像舞蹈的真實性）。這不僅打散了現實、舞蹈與電影之間的空間分界，空間中的身體影像更在再現的過程中為新的空間意識塗上一層濃厚的象徵意義。第二層次中連續進行的影像動作建構了一齣非傳統空間認知下的新舞碼，在再生產的過程中挑戰了舞蹈與影像的真實存在和美學界線。[7]

因紀錄片與當代舞蹈間分明的界線霎時被打破，奇異而媚惑的新藝術形式儼然成形，在既是電影又是舞蹈的混雜性中，除異質性美學特徵不斷被強調出來，舞動的影像更說明了舞蹈與電影共享的美學理想。換言之，《碧娜》不是一部紀錄片，而是一齣電影舞蹈。與其說溫德斯是藉鏡頭來記錄碧娜的舞蹈人生，不如說他是直接讓影像舞動出「碧娜」這則「現代神話」[8]。新開創的、具獨立藝術價值的影像語彙突顯了這位編舞家對舞蹈藝術的執著，並象徵著其獨特性。

故《碧娜》的藝術價值不在於它是第一步運用新3D技術的藝術紀錄片，也不在於它記錄了當代最偉大的編舞家，更不在於它是二十年心血的結晶。其藝術價值在於它揉合了舞蹈與電影各自的藝術特徵而形成的新影像美學表現，這種新影像美學不僅代表了電影自身藝術範疇的擴張，更隱含對當代文化發展的一種省思與期盼。[9]不過在深入到溫德斯的文化審思問題前，更應先了解他到底如何完成這具有創新意義的再生產過程。是什麼手法、技巧建構了不同於傳統舞蹈紀錄片的特質表現？

《碧娜》之所以不同於他者，就在其影像語彙讓紀錄片自身的美學表現與當代舞蹈的美學要求打成一片，因此打破了影像敘述的局限性而擴張影像的表現力。作為這種新形式影像美學的幕後推手，3D科技把機器生產的影像從四方框的限制中釋放出來，使原本扁平的人物影像在被立體化後直接走進觀眾席，就像活生生的人一般近距離地在觀者的眼前舞動。新技術的運用取消了人眼視域的限制，沒有淡入、淡出等影像敘事技巧，以360度環狀舞動的鏡頭讓穩坐不動的觀者能貼近舞者的身體。此時鏡框舞台消失了，電影銀幕不見了，更沒有了其他觀眾的存在，那種親近感塑造出一種極奇異的觀賞經驗，一種看電影與看舞蹈的雙重疊合，好似這部片或這齣舞是只為你演出一般；又或者你不再是單純的欣賞者，而變成是碧娜，不斷在細細觀察舞蹈自身的生產過程；抑或者你其實是溫德斯，你的眼睛是鏡頭，在影像舞動的生產過程中，你自身的審美經驗確定了新藝術形式的美學價值。如一評論者所言，這種審美經驗讓你對碧娜有了一種嶄新的重新認識，就算走出戲院重新面對現實也無法抹除已生根於腦中的影像實驗。[10]

當沒有適當的工具可使用時，意圖打破影像、舞蹈界線的新藝術形式表現變成了難解的謎題，這是何以《碧娜》從構思到完成需要二十年的最大原因。[11]雖新3D技術允許了新形式的表現，溫德斯的3D技術運用頗異於主流娛樂電影。不像《阿凡達》（Avatar）（2009）以電腦動畫來塑造出奇異的、非人體當下快速運動的幻想世界，電腦動畫無法取代真實人體的舞動及劇場環境。同時雖高轉速的拍攝（每秒48轉以上）可以避免快速運鏡（以抓取舞蹈動作的完整性）形成的動作分解現象，但實際上有執行困難，因當今的放映設備並無法應付高於24轉的拍攝影像，而這其實也是 James Cameron 拍攝《阿凡達》時面對到的問題。在種種限制之下，溫德斯僅能採取傳統雙攝影機設備（3D camera rigs）拍攝立體影像的方式。[12]除兩台攝影機橫向並置外，更常使用的是上下並置兩台攝影機，使兩個鏡頭方向以90度角交錯，並在交錯處以45度角置入一片薄膜偏光鏡（beam splitter，上面為透明玻璃效果，下面為覆蓋一層鋁膜的鏡子），此時上方鏡頭直接拍攝進行中的動作，而下方鏡頭拍攝鏡子中反射出的影像，在經過3D監視器的控制與計算下，兩種影像的疊合形成立體圖像的表現。雙攝影機結構可以創造出3D影像，但因舞蹈動作與舞台景深的限制，溫德斯與立體影像攝影師 Alain Derobe 便不斷實驗各種不同的鏡頭組合，創造出許多新的雙攝影機結構。在這種長時間的準備與實驗中，創作理念與人工計算生產出影片中自然、流暢和真實的影像，雖電腦的輔助仍是必要，但此影片中的3D影像生產絕不同於當下電腦化的主流娛樂電影，不依賴於鍵盤敲打、滑鼠控制，也不是主機板與繪圖程式的產物，更非迎合觀眾耳目而設計出的魔幻刺激場面。

然礙於在劇場中拍攝舞蹈表演的特殊條件限制（拍攝的場景是實際滿座的現場演出空間），溫德斯與他的3D監製 François Garnier 便架構出一個超大型的雙攝影機懸臂支架。此支架的基座置於觀眾席中，基座上架一伸縮長桿深入到舞台上方，長桿尾端掉掛雙攝影機設備，並利用遙控來控制雙攝影機設備跟隨舞者律動的運動方向。不同於舞蹈電影的拍攝，攝影師並不直接進入到舞者的空間，也不同於舞蹈紀錄片的遠距離長鏡頭拍攝，此時舞者的影像與舞者真實身體間幾乎沒有距離存在，且能夠靈活表現出平面、俯視與仰視的不同角度，但這些靈活的角度表現背後尚有極精細的計算問題。首先他們把舞台空間分隔成棋盤狀結構，利用之前的舞作紀錄片（即前述傳統形式的舞蹈紀錄片）來觀察並詳細記錄演出過程中每一單格裏出現的舞蹈動作位置，之後就欲拍攝的某格中動作做分析，找出攝影機應置於此格中的那個四分之一位置，再利用量角器測出已定位後攝影機鏡頭視點的正確角度。因拍攝設備龐大加上拍攝人員完全不涉入舞蹈的空間，拍攝過程中所有的溝通皆倚賴無線電收發器，而機器的運作也以遙控方式完成。

這種拍攝過程的先決條件是舞者已能適應身邊突然出現的機器設備，且設備不干涉舞者的動作範圍，因此攝影機定位是第一步驟。定位後又要確定每個不同的拍攝角度、運鏡不會形成影像不連貫問題，所以需要不斷實驗遙控設備的穩定性與流暢度。換言之，包含前置作業的整個拍攝過程就是一場不間斷的排練，唯有如此才能精準掌握所要呈現的影像，則這種排練正如同舞蹈的排練，在一連串的動作實驗中找出最精準、最具美感、最有情緒渲染力的表現形式。此時，拍攝過程本身已跳脫拍電影的既定形式，不再是分鏡結構、正式拍攝、後製組成的單線進行過程，而是不斷回溯原始構想、修正拍攝手法與技巧、實驗新的拍攝技術的多重相互指涉過程，且同時要兼顧電影與舞蹈各自的藝術條件，在不失原始創作動機下達成舞蹈與電影的融合。當電影製作與舞蹈排練呈現一致性的生產過程特質時，導演與編舞家這兩種專業身分便疊合在一起，鏡頭與舞者身體融會在一起，致使影像自身已非記錄性的敘述表現，而是同舞者身體舞動一般的韻律性形式展現，舞蹈與電影的美學表現打成了一片。

這種美感表現中異質性成分打成一片的展現實是溫德斯原始的創作動機，但這個動機背後有一段漫長的發展歷程。1985年以前的溫德斯對舞蹈一點興趣也沒有，他自認沒有那種可以欣賞芭蕾的品味，也無法在當代舞蹈中得到共鳴，更不知道有其同鄉鮑許這一號當時已舉世知名的編舞家。是年夏天的他情願逛威尼斯、在廣場上喝紅酒，但拗不過女友的堅持而帶著不情願進了劇院看 Café Müller（1978）與 Frühlingsopfer （Le Sacre du Primtemps）（1975）的同場演出，心理想著這將是無聊的一夜。然出乎意料之外，這一夜改變了他的一生，因他的雙眼看到了「在生命中某種具有很大意義的東西」，這東西剛好是他所未知的，「一種如此美麗、真實且存在的存在」，也因此他決定留在威尼斯看完所有六齣鮑許的舞作。[13]他自言在觀賞 Café Müller 的當下經歷了「如遭電擊」的感受，那種震撼讓他下意識地不斷挪動身體往前傾，好似坐在椅子前緣便能看得更清楚，同時從舞蹈來的深刻感受更讓他不自覺地流下淚水，從頭到尾「哭的像個嬰兒似的」。他體會到鮑許的舞蹈「語言」中令人無法抗拒的情緒張力，讓腦袋「沒有準備也不知如何準備起」的他，在當下只能任由自己的身體直接回應舞蹈。他更指出 Café Müller 短短的38分鐘（按：當時在威尼斯演出的版本，1985年 Peter Shäfer 執導的電視播出版，演出長度約47分鐘）比起整個電影史中的所有影像，更深刻地、驚人地表現出人的存在。

鮑許給了他前所未有的藝術體驗，並在重新認識舞蹈的過程中開啟了與鮑許一起拍一部電影的想法。在威尼斯時他曾與鮑許會面了10分鐘，期間他滔滔不絕地說著自己的想法，然鮑許只是靜靜地抽了三根煙，一句話也沒說，只是用那雙神祕且美麗的雙眼注視著他。他發現那種無言的注視看入了他的靈魂深處，讓他對這位編舞家留下了極深刻的印象，但鮑許並沒有給他任何答覆。一直到一年後的一次偶遇，鮑許直接走向他並說：「上次我們見面時你說到了一起拍電影，我想過了，我認為這是個好想法。」彷彿那場會面是昨日才發生過的，她仍記得這默默無名的年輕人提出的瘋狂想法，甚至已慎重考慮過這個想法。此後他便陷入了苦思如何拍攝鮑許舞作的困境，而每一次見到鮑許，他就只有「碧娜，我不知道如何做」的回應，然鮑許深知藝術創作的瓶頸問題，她告訴他：「你要更努力地想。我相信總有一天你會發現如何做。一定有一種適合的拍攝方法。」20年來，她總是耐心等待，問道：「現在知道如何做了嗎？」當他回應還是不知道時，她便說：「好吧，靈感自會出現。」在追尋能完美結合舞蹈與影像的方法中，他意識到這實是藝術創作理念的實驗，因為鮑許的舞蹈有高度的「存在性」，但他卻找不出能具體化這種特徵的影像表現方式，所以他不斷回溯到自己的「靈魂深處」、回溯到自身「整體的拍電影經驗」以及「想像」之中，試圖挖掘出這種理念的實踐方向在哪裡。終於3D新科技出現了，但可惜的是鮑許也在此時離開了人世。原本他決定放棄這個計畫，但在烏帊塔舞蹈劇場（Tanztheater Wuppertal）舞者們的堅持下，《碧娜》終於完成，他與舞者們也滿懷謝意地藉這部電影跟鮑許說再見。

從構思到拍攝實踐、從認識舞蹈到與鮑許為友、從舞蹈與影像分立到影像舞蹈的實驗，不只是《碧娜》從無到有的生產過程，其中夾雜著溫德斯獨特的影像美學觀點，而這種觀點的衍生實與鮑許的舞蹈美學有所聯繫，而舞蹈、影像異質性的融會同時隱含對當代文化與藝術的反思和期待。影片的附標提做「舞蹈、舞蹈，否則我們都將迷失（Dance, dance, otherwise we are lost）」，這是鮑許的舞蹈信念、人生理想，導演也在忠實呈現出鮑許謝幕的黑白紀錄片後原音重現了這句話，不僅作為影片的結束語，更作為鮑許舞蹈人生的定論。然從影像舞蹈的結構、生產到呈現的過程看，《碧娜》的影像美學已轉譯了鮑許的語彙，鏡頭運動下的影像流轉隱喻了「拍攝、拍攝，否則我們都將迷失」，象徵著溫德斯對自身電影人生的定論。

是什麼迷失，又為什麼要堅持地做下去？鮑許的舞蹈說了什麼，而溫德斯又看到了什麼？這樣簡單的一句話背後的動機、目的與理想到底是什麼？這種理想的追求又與當代藝術、文化有什麼關係？

起因於舞蹈的抽象本質加上其中深層的情緒渲染力，鮑許的舞蹈並不容易分析，評論者更往往不自覺地把自己身體深處的情緒直接投射到舞台上的展現，形成一種陷溺於自身主觀情緒認同的評斷。喜者直說其舞表現人性真實，他們的心理完全認同舞台上的一切；非難者則大聲撻伐這不像是舞蹈的舞蹈，說她是「德國芭蕾的邪惡精靈（the wicked fairy of German Ballet）」[14]。不論評價差異如何，她的舞蹈語彙形式是獨特的、前所未有的，不僅跨越了日常生活行動與藝術性舞蹈動作的界線，更打破了戲劇、舞蹈間本有的形式規範[15]，在把傳統的舞蹈生活化中同時藝術化人的真實行動，在身體的律動與互動間轉化舞蹈的抽象表現成為戲劇性的鋪陳。Kontakthof（1978）[16]即為這種舞蹈語彙的代表，其中雖無故事結構的設計，也沒有實際語言的邏輯性使用，但每一段落都在重複表現下變成可被認知並解讀的人特有的生命過程，而段落與段落間的組合創造出那種人於生命歷程中必然遭遇的未知與不定。這是藝術家以創作表達其對人生命存在的理解，創作手法更可能反應了藝術家自身對當時藝術表現的不滿與修正，而這種不滿實際更是對當時文化狀態的反動。再從 Café Müller 來看，並對比鮑許舞作與創作之時代背景，明顯的她用舞蹈提問了為什麼舞蹈必要是美的、為什麼只能表現神祕世界中的虛幻愛情（如古典芭蕾中的浪漫愛情故事）。工業化與後資本主義化的當代世界是如此醜陋，各種形式的暴力讓人的存在如此不安與消極，則當電視、電影都以表現這種負面現實為主題時，舞蹈也應該真實地表現出當代人的心靈狀態。

或許她更試圖以律動中的人體來撫慰疲憊的人心，Nelken（1982，另1983年修正了82年的版本）中轉化日常對四季的印象而出的象徵性手勢，可說是鮑許舞蹈動作的最佳代言。配合著領隊者口述具高度節奏韻律的春夏秋冬四字，手勢的連貫重複在舞者們列隊行進中完美詮釋了四季變遷的不可抗拒性，然舞者們臉上的微笑提醒著觀者人生也是如此，無須罣礙。從詮釋的角度來看舞蹈動作，美感化後的日常動作豐富了觀者的審美經驗，場面上人體律動帶出的情緒氛圍也再再提醒著人的存在意識。當人的生命週期呼應了象徵自然的運行規律時，舞台上的人體律動與律動的象徵性指涉塑造出一種人與自然合一的意境，引發觀者自身「心中的韻律」，即宗白華所言，舞蹈乃藝術境界的典型，因「活躍的具體的生命舞姿」使「靜照中的『道』具象化、肉身化」[17]。

這一段演繹四季運行的行進同時也是貫穿《碧娜》的中心主旨。或許是溫德斯對突然離世的鮑許的致敬，也或許是他從舞蹈體會到人生無常，他確實抓取到鮑許舞蹈的精髓，而3D科技立體化的影像讓觀者更親密地感受到這種舞蹈動作的力量。溫德斯的動機就是要完整保留舞蹈的表現力與存在感，不讓被影像化後的舞蹈變成扁平的單純記錄。雖然二十年的追尋一度使他迷失在舞蹈、影像間差異性的迷思中（Deimling 以及 Lambert 所記錄），但鍥而不捨的嘗試終於讓他找到了適當的表現方式。他說：「你希望某件事物能存在，然後你就努力去做，直到它真的出現。你希望給這個世界一點什麼的，一點更真、更美、更用心、更堪用，或者乾脆就是那些目前尚不存在的東西。而就在一開始，與希望同步，你想像那些『其他的東西』可能長什麼樣子，或者至少你可以看見令你靈光一動的東西。然後你就朝著這個亮光的方向走，心理希望不要迷失方向，或者忘記、遺棄你最初的願望。」[18]人必然有迷失，但更重要的是在迷失中能把持住理想，並不斷勇敢地前進下去，這也是鮑許那一句話的深層涵意。

不斷地嘗試與實驗更讓溫德斯在拍攝過程中演繹出一套鏡頭與舞者共舞的技術，這種新形式的電影舞蹈代表著溫德斯的影像美學理想，同時也隱含了鮑許的舞蹈理念，一種打破界線限制而具象化、肉身化藝術境界的展現。這種影像美學早在 Paris, Texas（1984）中已初露端倪，公路、荒漠與天際線的影像獨立於劇情發展外，自行構成獨立的光影空間敘事結構，而這種特殊的影像敘事結構在 Wings of Desires（1987）的魔幻寫實架構下表現得更為淋漓盡致。雖影像尚未如在《碧娜》中直接舞動了起來，但對空間結構的重視強調出場地的存在感，臨場感更把觀眾攝入影像之中與之並存，親近感也塑造出奇異的觀賞經驗。加入了音樂的運作，則另一部紀錄片 Buena Vista Social Club（1998）中的空間影像實際上已開始了影像舞蹈的第一次舞動，但不同於《碧娜》，此次是音樂的影像化，是影像的音樂性呈現。

但這種影像美學理念的背後更隱藏著未出聲的文化批判。鮑許不滿於當時舞蹈藝術的不切實際與脫離人生現實，對應著冷戰時期的人的心靈狀態，她開始了一連串的舞蹈實驗而創造出今日眾所皆知的舞蹈劇場。溫德斯也是在一連串的光影空間實驗中開創出新的影像表現，不過即如他自己說的，20多年前第一次看鮑許舞蹈的震撼確實大大影響了他的影像實驗，且不難推測，他後來與鮑許為友並嘗試拍攝其舞蹈必然更深刻地刺激著他的影像美學觀點。從《碧娜》的形式與技術來看，雖是借用了主流娛樂電影的新技術，更是在運用新技術的過程中刻意拉大與主流娛樂文化的距離，而這層隱藏在影像舞蹈背後的距離，直接否定了主流娛樂電影的藝術性、直接拒絕了主流文化的消費性、更直接取消了《碧娜》可能具有的商品性。

根據 Pierre Bourdieu 的分析，新藝術領域的開闢與確定實際呈現出個人（或者可能具有所屬團體）刻意以特殊創意來突顯自身藝術創作的獨特與卓越價值（distinction），以此來與普遍的藝術、文化實踐劃定界線。當觀者熱烈地接收了其中展現的新穎技術，當他們稱許著來自此種技術效果的審美體驗，此時獨特性的確定也同時穩固了創作者自身的文化象徵資本，增加了創作者參與文化實踐的賭注，一併也強化了此特殊藝術實踐領域的合法性。[19]觀者的立場是對應創作者而出的，他們對《碧娜》藝術性展現的認同是對主流娛樂文化的否定，對影像的欣賞與體會是對藝術商品化的拒絕（但此種否定通常是無意識的表態，是潛意識的運作），因為認同者的審美體驗完全不同於消費性感受。此處並沒有刺激的滿足、慾望的填補、空洞的娛樂以及金錢量化的計算。不僅如此，創作與接受間的互動更在擴張此特殊領域疆界的同時一併設下參與者的條件，亦即邀請具有同質性賭注、資本的參與者一起來促成此領域自身的藝術獨立性並鞏固其穩定性，使之成為對立於主流娛樂文化的強勢他者，能夠直接挑戰既有價值觀的限制。[20]換言之，溫德斯的影像美學實驗不單純只是創作者個人創意的實現，此種新型態影像美學在整體社會文化結構中明顯對立於當下的文化消費心理，實踐的過程營造出一個別於受限於既有價值觀的新藝術領域，因此《碧娜》的生產過程反映出當代社會中的層級化狀態，並藉由新一層級的創造來擴大藝術實踐的可能性，從與主流文化的對比來反證藝術價值之所在。

《碧娜》這部形式頗為特殊的影像實驗電影不再是舞蹈紀錄片，也非舊時的舞蹈電影，而是一種新的電影舞蹈，呼應著 André Bazin 半世紀以前提出的理想電影形式（或許溫德斯更是有意於推展Bazin的理念吧！）。其藝術特質當然出於新技術的使用以及因此而出的極獨特的混雜性表現，但更重要的是此種新形式的生產過程自身隱含的藝術獨立性要求，以及此種要求背後對當代藝術、文化的無聲反抗。反動性本就是藝術創作的特徵，更是藝術本身的社會文化意涵。若細心檢視藝術史中的各種風格流變便不難發現其蹤影，有得時候這種社會文化意涵很明顯的被表現出來，而更多的時候則是隱密在形式結構之中。《碧娜》也是如此，社會文化的無聲批判實際隱藏在影像之中，雖然隱晦，但無聲批判卻是溫德斯對鮑許的最高敬意，因為再現舞蹈不足以突顯鮑許的藝術意境；因為鮑許的舞蹈本就是真實人性、社會文化的縮影；因為藝術若脫離了現實將成為虛空、無根的載體；因為藝術本就不應被既定意識型態所侷限、本就是人無限創意的展現、本就是推動文化朝有益人性發展的唯一助力。

注釋

[1]  Steven Bernstein, The Technique of Film Production (London: Focal Press, 1988): 85.

[2]  André Bazin 在〈戲劇與電影〉一文中指出藝術紀錄片與電影誕生不久即出現的「舞台戲劇片（théâtre filmé）」有密切關係。從對後者的分析，他提出「電影戲劇」概念，認為電影不應只是記錄舞台上的一切活動，也非改編情節並轉譯舞台元素，而是要運用電影手法在銀幕上直接保留下這些元素。這種電影形式要求電影以自身獨有的敘述模式忠實地表現出屬於舞台上的戲劇性成分，使兩者間的形式融合形成深度的美學互動。André Bazin,《電影是什麼？》（qu’est-ce que le cinéma?），崔君衍譯（台北市：遠流出版，1995）：149-204。雖他此文講的是電影與戲劇的關係，但這種概念可推之於電影與舞蹈的關係上：電影的敘述語彙須忠實地呈現出舞台上舞蹈自身的藝術元素，形成一種新的電影舞蹈形式。

[3]  Louis Giannetti,《認識電影》（Understanding Movies），焦雄屏等譯（台北市：遠流，1992）：343-48。

[4]  此為 Bazin〈攝影影像的本體論〉中探討攝影與繪畫間關係的說法，見 Bazin, 《電影是什麼？》，20-22。

[5]  在對當代藝術的討論中，混雜性一詞早已被普遍使用，不過 Jerrold Levinson 指出此詞彙實際具有特殊的意涵。它是一種在組合、並置、融合、轉化其他的既有的藝術形式中，同時一併對各種被運用的藝術形式作出具有歷史意識的重新詮釋。Jerrold Levinson, “Hybrid Art Forms,” Journal of Aesthetic Education 18.4 (Winter, 1984): 5-13. 換言之，混雜性中的各個藝術形式元素不是形式的展現而已，因創作者早已對各元素的歷史發展過程作出新的詮釋，故混雜性乃一種創意自身的象徵。兩種主要的藝術類型可說是混雜性的代表：一為不同元素各自獨立卻並置一起的拼貼（collage），一為連結與整合多重元素使之相互對應的總體藝術（Gesamtkunstwerk）；後者使人得以於多樣性中得見某一東西，而前者卻是使人迷失於於多樣性中，形成認知的超載。依據 Fredric Jameson（1991）的分析，多重並置很容易變成空洞、無意義的視覺場面，亦即再現出一種缺乏歷史意識的現實假象（simulacrum），因在後資本主義的商品生產邏輯下，有關再現對象以及詼諧模仿（parody）、喻意（allusion）等再現方式的歷史性理解被取消，以致作品失去現實性，僅再現出真空的現實表象，加上多重並置的認知超載，作品中的分離性（fragmentation）突顯後資本主義生產邏輯的精神分裂傾向。Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (Durham: Duke University Press, 1991). 不過就此觀點深入探究，空洞、斷裂、分離的形式提示了當代文化的病徵，雖真空的作品不能提供任何具有深度的詮釋，但它自身象徵著當代文化問題，可說是對當代文化所作出的最低限度的回應。《碧娜》很明顯的表現出這種當代藝術風潮，但接近總體藝術概念的影像實驗並不是無意義的視覺場面，其混雜性特徵來自於溫德斯對影像、舞蹈的深刻理解，不僅確保了作品的現實性，並藉著影像對當代文化提出質疑。

[6]  Heteroglossia 與 stylization 皆 Bakhtin 在分析小說形式發展中提出的語言學概念。前者指一個論述是以另一種表述方式（可能是隱藏在既有說話情境之外的非直接的表述）來敘說某一種說話內容，故論述之中存有雙重的、對話式的聲音，且論述語言不僅帶出說話者並折射出作者的意圖。Mikhail Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist & ed. Michael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981): 324. 這種眾聲喧嘩本就是混雜性表現，但在小說的語言使用中還有另一種更細緻的風格化混雜性表現。在風格化過程中，執行風格化（再現）與被風格化（被再現）的語言表述實際皆存在於單一的說話情境之中，此時兩者是相互依存地並置顯現，致使整個說話情境形成一種新的語言表現形式，其中再現與被再現語言各自的意圖同時展現，且更因再現語言中存在的意識、觀點，使得風格化後的形式具有不同於原本風格的新意義，見上書，頁362。作為分析工具，這兩個概念可以詮釋影像舞蹈中影像與舞蹈的關係。鏡頭乃敘述舞蹈的另一種表述，因此影像舞蹈不僅存有鮑許的創作意圖，更折射出溫德斯自身的觀點，然當兩者並存且融會於一體時，影像舞蹈本身已是風格化後的產品，溫德斯自身的觀點在再現的過程中賦予了風格化形式新的意義深度。然影像、舞蹈畢竟不是語言，因此有關意義的展現問題（涉及文化認知與評斷），下文將深入到藝術家的創作思想、歷程以及世界觀來確定形式中的意義展現，並提出溫德斯的新風格中隱含的文化批判。

[7]  Maurice Merleau-Ponty 說人對空間的意識不能脫離身體在空間中的真實存在，因此人對動作姿態的認知是空間感知的基礎，但動作姿態又牽涉社會性的互動行為，故空間認知必然是社會性的認知，此即Henri Lefebvre強調的社會空間意識。Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, trans. Colin Smith (London: Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2002): 117; Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991). 社會空間意識界定出各種不同空間的範圍、功能與意義，建構了人認知系統中的社會空間體系。由於藝術創作本是人意識的外顯，對藝術作品的各種認知更衍生出對存在的多重解讀，同時不同的詮釋又反過來影響人於空間中的實踐行為，促成文化的再生產。再生產不斷解構並重構了人的空間意識，在賦予空間多層次的象徵意義同時一併奠定美學論述的基調。Lefebvre 論社會空間的形成、轉變與再生產多次談及舞蹈，就是因他注意到舞蹈本質的抽象性與多重象徵性特質與社會空間意識的生產有異曲同工之處。

[8]  此借用 Roland Barthes 的詞彙。在當代訴求快速認知的潮流中，「碧娜」早已脫離它作為編舞者之名的簡單功能，能在接受者的腦中直接喚起一連串有關此人的所有印象，但這看似自然的印象實建立在已被扭曲了的真實上。Roland Barthes,《神話學》（Mythologies），許薔薔、許綺玲譯（台北市：桂冠，1997）：169-222。溫德斯的影像舞動實際是對「碧娜」這則現代神話的解構，但這層解構永遠受制於神話的內在機制，由概念引導的意義生產必然在既有神話的基礎上創出另新一層的現代神話。

[9]  Lucien Goldmann 指出文藝創作必然隱含著「世界觀（world visions）」的表述，即創作者在創作中對已感知到的人、事、物做出提問或回應，故美學的價值須從作品中的世界觀與被創造出的世界之間的關係中來提取，而這種提取的過程需要頗析創作者如何運用他的工具來創作這作品中的世界。他指出對後者的推敲是必要的「文學的美學（literary aesthetic）」工作，但更重要的是前者的實踐，因為那能推衍出作品之內容意涵，即他所稱的「社會學的美學（sociological aesthetic）」。Lucien Goldmann, The Hidden God, trans. Philip Thody (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964): 314-16. 故對《碧娜》拍攝技術的分析實將引導出溫德斯如何藉由作品表述他在當代電影中的自我定位，如何以影像回應當代文化。

[10]  Marsha McCreadie, “Film Review: Pina,” Film Journal International, 20 Dec. 2011, http://www.filmjournal.com.

[11]  溫德斯對3D技術的說法，譯自 Alix Lambert 與溫德斯的對談記錄。Alix Lambert, “Wim Wenders, ‘Pina,’” Filmmaker, 21 Dec. 2011, http://www.filmmakermagazine.com.

[12]  以下有關拍攝技術的描述與新拍攝工具的研發，譯自影片官方網站，http://www.pina-film.de/en/about-3D.html.

[13]  以上溫德斯講述對舞蹈的認識過程，譯自Kate Deimling 與溫德斯的訪談記錄。Kate Deimling, “A Life-Changing Experience: Director Wim Wenders on Dance and His New 3-D Film ‘Pina,’” Artinfo France, 22 Dec. 2011, http://www.artinfo.com. 下文所述對鮑許舞作的評價以及兩人的關係，見 Lambert 的訪談。

[14]  Glenn Loney, “I pick my dancers as people: Pina Bausch discusses her work with the Wuppertal Dance Theatre,” In The Pina Bausch Sourcebook: the Making of Tanztheater, ed. Royd Climenhaga (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2012): 89.

[15]  Maria Shevtsova, “Performance, Embodiment, Voice: the Theatre/Dance Cross-overs of Dodin, Bausch, and Forsythe,” New Theatre Quarterly, 19.1 (Feb, 2003): 9-10.

[16]  此版本為鮑許與專業舞者的演出，2000年版為非舞者的老年人演出版，2008年為非舞者的青年人演出版，關於鮑許舞作的詳細資訊，參閱舞團官方網站，http://www.pina-bausch.de/en。《碧娜》交錯表現 Kontakthof 的三個版本，並且立體化呈現拍攝當時專業舞者於劇場演出此舞作。

[17]  宗白華，《美學的散步》（台北市：洪範，1981）：13-16。

[18]  Wim Wenders,〈試圖描述一部無法描述的電影：談《慾望之翼》的初步構思〉，收入《溫德斯論電影》（Emotion Pictures/Die Logik der Bilder），孫秀惠譯（台北市：萬象，1993）：313-314。

[19]  Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Richard Nice (London: Routledge, 1984).

[20]  參閱 Bourdieu 論場域（field）為文化生產的關鍵因素。Pierre Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, trans. & ed. Randal Johnson (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993). 他指出文化生產的場域是由追求宰制權的各種不同實踐之間的對立與掙扎所建構而出的（頁42），也因此場域更是意識型態的戰場（頁44）。