 |
《這一夜》在台灣演出後，曾應邀赴新加坡、香港、洛杉磯、舊金山、紐約等地演出，在每一個地方都引起廣泛的迴響與討論。新加坡劇界將此劇譽為「將傳統相聲的幽默，和辛辣的社會評論及深沉的文化反省巧妙融合，為世界華語劇場創造了一種嶄新的悲喜劇經驗。」報導該劇在台灣與香港演出的遠東經濟評論（Far Eastern Economic Review），稱表演工作坊的演出為「華語世界中最精彩的劇場」。編劇︰賴聲川規劃、完成之集體即興創作
r 導演︰賴聲川
演員︰李立群（嚴歸）
金士傑（白壇）
陳立華（鄭傳）
舞台及燈光設計︰王世信
服裝及造型設計︰靳萍萍
音效設計︰鄧安寧、張小雯
舞台監督︰林澤雄
音效裝置與執行︰楊家明
舞台佈景製作︰希爾特舞台設計製作有限公司
製作人︰丁乃竺
執行製作︰曾珍妮、呂永貞首演：9/30/89-10/16/89 台北國立藝術館
演出：
10/18/89-10/23/89 台中中興堂
10/21/89-10/23/89 高雄中正文化中心
10/24/89-10/25/89 台南市立文化中心
10/27/89-10/28/89 中壢演出
10/29/89 基隆演出
11/2/89 新竹演出
11/3/89-11/6/89 台北社教館
11/22/89-11/30/89 台北國立藝術館
11/11/89-11/15/89 新加坡發展銀行禮堂
7/4/90-7/8/90香港文化中心大戲院
1/18/91-1/19/91 洛杉磯 Bovard Auditorium U.S.C.
1/25/91-1/26/91 舊金山Spangenberg Theater, Palo Alto
1/27/91 舊金山Herbst Theater, San Francisco
1/30/91-1/31/91 紐約演出Pace University, Schimmel Center for the Arts
演出場次︰72場
觀賞人次︰約 100,000人
體語言乃來自舞台劇的長期訓練，也是一般的相聲演員比不上的。
——馬森，"從「相聲」到「戲劇」"，民眾日報，11/2/89
賴聲川搞相聲和一般人的差別，可以這樣比喻︰如果說相聲是磚頭，那麼，一般人研究它是想製造一種新品種的磚頭，而賴聲川研究它則是要製造一種新磚頭以便能讓他造一棟新房子。
——郭寶昆，"相聲藝術"，美國世界日報，1/14/91
拿政治來開玩笑需要高度的幽默感、敏銳的觸覺、透徹的分析和豐富的政治學識，不然只會流於潑婦罵街式的浮面漫罵，聽後不留痕跡。政治笑話的素材其實俯拾皆是，只看相聲主持的智慧與觀察力，像【表演工作坊】拿國共國旗來比喻國共不兩立，說單就國旗來看，星星和太陽便根本不能共存，看這點心思，已值回票價。
——五斗米，"香港誰來說相聲"，香港文匯報，7/19/90
在任何其他的地方，【表演工作坊】在柏克萊受訓的作者?導演賴聲川的作品會被視為大膽的實驗性。但是在台灣，有這麼多小劇場的一個環境中，【表演工作坊】的戲相對變成主流性市場……《這一夜，誰來說相聲？》在台北演了五個星期，這是台灣標準之下的一次破記錄演出。
賴聲川的《這一夜，誰來說相聲？》是一齣思想性極強的三人政治舞臺秀，藉用老式北京茶館中的站立式喜劇形式。這齣係戲極酸性的刻畫出國民政府之下的台灣所做的留面子的謊言，和共產黨之下的中國所做的謀殺式自我正義感之間的平行點。
《這一夜，誰來說相聲？》是一海峽兩岸說話高手的一次坦誠相對……台灣再一次証明它擁有華語世界中最精采的劇場。
可惜中國大陸沒有辦法看到《這一夜，誰來說相聲》─至少不能如這齣戲的製作人所期望的，在最近香港演出之後。本來一直到該團赴港演出前一星期還留了一線希望，也是因為有幾位中國官員在更早的新加坡巡迴看到這齣戲。
這些大陸人，包括北京中央戲劇學院的代表對這齣戲非常的熱忱，認為【表演工作坊】的製作應該在中國大陸上得到更廣闊的觀眾。賴先生聽到這裡─或許是太天真的─認為是一種邀請，讓他的香港經紀人開始辦這件事情。似乎看起來是很自然的一種搭配相聲其實在大陸上已經是非常富有盛名的一種娛樂，因為它大眾娛樂的外表可以向文化官員掩蓋一些更深層的含意。根據【表演工作坊】相聲演員之一的金世傑，大陸的相聲藝人在傳統相聲技巧如方言，貫口，及口技是最高境界。這些技巧都在一種所謂「裝包袱」的理論之下進行。
只有在一段相聲藝的最後，演員才會「抖包袱」，或者用西洋的說法，「搥打句子」。但是就算他們有這麼豐富的技巧，金說大陸的相聲演員也不敢讓自己「抖包袱」抖的太指向任合東西。他們必須依循著一些孤立的段子，不敢嘗試像《這一夜，誰來說相聲》那麼有野心的完整的長句。
【表演工作坊】這齣戲的特點就是演員透過一長段的段子，扮演的是同樣的角色，而這些段子根據主題上或情節上的一些方式串連起來。這也並不是說有多麼強烈的劇情線︰一位大陸相聲演員本來要在台灣的一個夜總會做一次歷史性的演出，但是無故缺席，留下他的助手和夜總會中的台灣主持人來填滿那段時間。他們相互比較一下逃離大陸往台灣的成功與失敗的例子。接著台灣的那位主持人報出一長串他曾經為了小學演講比賽背過的反共口號。他不知道大陸有沒有如此的比賽。
大陸角色回答，可以說有。可是這是泛中國的規模，而這比賽持續進行著，最高勝利者就可以做共產黨黨主席。失敗者就可以長年失蹤。這個比賽的名字叫做「政治鬥爭」
兩位相聲演員舉完一個例如再舉一個例子，被鬥爭者是永遠贏不了的。鬥爭者永遠透過一些語言的雙關技巧把他打敗。據說這是北京關方認為【表演工作坊】這齣戲中不准到大陸演出的兩場戲中的一場。
另外有問題的段子是最後一個。是關於大陸新起的盜墓風潮。盜墓不但可以開發非常需要的新土地，同時也可以製造市場上古董的貨源。
大陸角色，用經典的相聲語言，描述他曾經參與過的一次盜墓經驗。他們一層一層的挖，穿過珍貴的古董，城市的廢墟，一堆一堆的屍體。在此劇中的象徵略為重，可是表演方式中的瘋狂啟動力使得它仍然成立。到了最後，他們到了一間大房間，天花板上珠寶多到看起來像是滿天的星星。牆壁上佈滿了中國最古老祖先的壁畫，他們都笑著。在陸地上暴風雨正進行著，已經太遙遠了，使得雷聲只是遠遠的一種謠言聲。但是滲透進來的水開始讓房間裡的壁畫化掉。
盜墓者已經找到主墓。也沒有時間彼此恭喜。在裡面他們找到什麼呢？當然是一個包袱。於是他們做最自然的事情「抖包袱」。可惜這次沒有人笑。
——林肯‧凱，"抗拒的舉動"，遠東經濟評論，7/26/90
Anywhere else, the work of the troupe's Berkeley-trained author-director Stan Lai would be regarded as boldly experimental, But in Taiwan, where little theatre groups proliferate, the Workshop looks relatively staid and upmarket by comparison....
“Look Who's Cross-Talking” played for five weeks in Taipei, a record run by Taiwan standards....
Lai's“Look Who's Cross-Talking” is a cerebral three-man political cabaret in the stand-up comedy style of an Old Peking teahouse. The play acidly etches the parallels between the face-saving hypocracies of Nationalist Taiwan and the murderous righteousness of communist China... “Look Who's Cross-Talking” is a frank confrontation of two raucous rap-masters from opposite sides of the strait.... Taiwan has once again proved that it boasts the most Chinese-speaking world today....
Mainland China, though, will not get to see “Look Who's Cross-Talking” ─ at least not on the heels of the show's Hong Kong engagement as hoped by its promoters.
That hope, which remained alive right up to the week before the troupe left for Hong Kong was based on the reaction of a few mainland Chinese officials who saw the show on its earlier tour to Singapore. The Chinese, including representatives of the Central Drama Academy in Peking, enthused that the Performance Workshop production deserved a wider audience on the mainland. Lai heard this ─ perhaps naively ─ as an invitation and put his Hong Kong theatrical agent on the case. It seemed, after all, a natural fit.
Xiang sheng is already vastly popular on the mainland, where its mass-entertainment auspices shield it from the cruder ministrations of the cultural commissars. According to Chin Shih-chieh, one of the Performance Workshop xiang sheng players, mainland artists are unrivalled at such traditional xiang sheng techniques as dialects, rapid-fire patter and vocal sound effects.These devices all come under the rubric of "stuffing the bundle" - xiang sheng parlance for the build-up of a routine.
Only at the end of the skit do they "pop the bundle," or deliver the punch-line. For all their technical skills, Chinh says, mainland xiang sheng artists cannot allow themselves to "pop the bundle" too pointedly. And they must stick to isolated vignettes, rather than attempting anything so ambitious as a full-length xiang sheng play such as “Look Who's Cross-Talking”.
The distinctive feature of the Performance Workshop show is that the actors remain in the same roles over the course of several successive scenes that are thematically related and strung together by a plot of sorts. Not that there is much to the story line: a mainland comedian, scheduled to make a precedent-setting appearance in a Taiwan bistro, fails to show up, leaving his flunky and the nightclub's Taiwanese master of ceremonies to fill the time.
They compare notes about attempts - successful or abortive - to flee the mainland for Taiwan. Then the Taiwanese spiels off a stream of Red-baiting slogans that he memorized for his grade school elocution contests. Does the mainland have any such contests, he wonders.
Well, yes, the mainlander replies. But it is pan-Chinese in scope and the contest is perpetually ongoing. Winners get to be communist party chairman. Losers disappear for years. The contest is called "political struggle."
The xiang sheng duo plays at example after example in which the "struggle victim" never wins. The attacker always bests him with vitriolic doublespeak. This was reportedly one of the two scenes the Peking authorities found too sensitive to allow the Performance Workshop production into the mainland.
The other objectionable scene was the last one, which was all about the supposed mainland vogue for grave-robbing. Not only does this clear away needed lands, but it also provides a steady store of saleable antiquities.
The mainlander, in classic xiang sheng patter, describes a grave-robbing expedition he once joined. Layer after layer, they probed - through precious artifacts, ruined cities, stacked cadavers.The symbolism gets a bit heavy-handed, but the manic momentum of the recital carries it off. At last, they come to a chamber so jewel-encrusted that it seems hung with stars.
The walls are covered with frescoes of the most ancient Chinese ancestors. They are all smiling. The rainstorm raging above ground is so far off that the thunder is only a distant rumour. But water trickling into the chamber begins to melt the frescoes.
The grave robbers locate the master tomb. No time to stand on ceremony. Inside, what should they find but a bundle? So they do what comes naturally and "pop the bundle." Except this time nobody laughs.
——Lincoln Kaye,"Acts of Defiance",FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 7/26/90
