论文部分内容阅读
在后戏剧剧场中,文本丧失了中心地位,与其他剧场部门平起平坐。那么文本何去又何为呢?如果说“荒诞派”的语言尝试预兆了文本的穷途末路,宣告了现代性的终结,互文性则使文本回光返照,开辟了文本的新土壤。同样是《哈姆雷特》的超文,斯托帕的《罗森克兰茨和吉尔德斯特恩已死》和海纳·米勒的《哈姆雷特机器》体现了两种不同的文本策略:一为戏仿,一为组合。两者与《哈姆雷特》互相指涉而构筑了文本的重影:一个话语的万花筒,一个文本交相指涉的网络系统。文本因而逐步敞开,形成一种源远流长的文本谱系,一出缩微的戏剧史,一个文本回环往复的空间。
In the backstage theater, the text loses its centrality and stands side by side with other theater departments. So what is the difference between the text and the text? If we say that the language of “absurd” tries to foretell the end of modernity, the end of modernity is declared, and the intertextuality makes the text look back and open up a new context for the text. The same is the “Hamlet” essay, Stoker’s “Rosencrantz and Gilderstern is dead” and Heiner Miller’s “Hamlet machine” embodies two different text strategies: one is Parody, one for the combination. Both and “Hamlet” refer to each other to create a ghost of the text: a discourse of the kaleidoscope, a text intersecting network system. As a result, the text gradually opens up, forming a long history of pedigrees, a miniature theater history, and a space for the text to loop back and forth.