剧评：The Death of Singapore Theatre as Scripted by the Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore

不能只听到回音—— 观“The Death of Singapore Theatre as Scripted by the Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore”

剧场导演理应是戏的第一个观众；在新加坡，新加坡资讯通信媒体发展局（IMDA）则是戏的第一个观众。

编剧Alfian Sa’at 终于为IMDA 写了一部剧，直接与它对话。是的，我用“它”来指IMDA，因为戏结束以后，观众对IMDA的运作依然毫无头绪，不知道审查的他/她/它/祂是谁，也不知道审查这部剧的他/她/它/祂到底有没有来看戏。

这场lecture performance（讲述表演）最妙的是，尽管观众都知道这是编剧Alfian Sa’at的自问自答，反覆反问，然而在演员Farah Ong的诠释下，我们几乎看不到Alfian Sa’at的影子。Farah Ong 成功塑造出这样的一个角色：她可以是任何一位剧场工作者，她可以是后台人员、可以是导演、可以是演员、可以是剧团经理…… 而我们都能感受得到这个角色长年面对审查的压力与挣扎。Farah Ong 台风稳健，精准地掌控观众情绪的起伏，引领观众了解新加坡审查制度的历史与演变、剧场工作者与IMDA的微妙关系、以及人与官僚制度之间“Kafkaesque”（卡夫卡恶梦式）的荒唐情境。新加坡有很多极优秀的演员，Farah Ong 绝对是其中之一。

戏的开始，台上的剧场人对观众说明，她总是在想像审查官的名字与脸孔、性格与喜好。他/她/它/祂必然是个活生生的人吧。在没有任何线索的情况下，剧场人只好发挥想像力，为他/她/它/祂取名为“A”，并且向观众说，每次提及“你”这个词时，指的就是IMDA的审查官员，现场的所有观众都是审查官员。

有趣的是，观众“Audience”和演员“Actor”都以“A”开头（咿，Alfian Sa’at的名字也以“A”开头）。剧场人把审查官员叫做“A”，是不是借此想和审查官员拉近距离？这么做的目的是什么？

台上的椅子，贴着一张白纸，注明是为IMDA留着的座位。这张椅子总是空着，而剧场人对椅子说话，遂站在椅子上，遂把椅子高高吊在半空中。然而这不并是演员对IMDA的暴力对待—— 即使把椅子高高吊起，她还是站上梯子，站得很靠近椅子。

不，这出戏并非是一个剧场人与IMDA的暴力对待。没有深切的爱，怎么会有那么深切的悲哀？这位剧场人实则是在试图用尽方法去了解、去接近IMDA这个沉默且无动于衷的情人。

难忘在剧末，剧场人开始进行想像，她想像自己和IMDA官员见面了，一起喝茶，一起聊天。她邀请观众摊开手掌，闭上眼睛，她用言语让观众知道，她正在握着每一位观众的手掌（她在握着审查官员的手掌），她希望在倒数后，观众（审查官员）可以放开她的手。

然而数到最后，她始终说不出最后的数字，始终不敢放手。我们闭着眼，在黑暗中，听到的是她一阵阵情难自控的啜泣。

审查官只是个身份。卸下这个身份，他/她/它/祂必然是个活生生的人吧。

于是我们明白为什么台上的剧场人把审查官员叫做“A”了。在各种身份之前，我们首先都是人。Alfian在向人（以及人性 humanity）说话。

我们几时变得如此麻木不仁，以致可以对另一个人做出如此不堪、如此暴力的行径，例如扼杀对方的言论，例如躲在幕后遥控另一个人的思想？为什么我们不能坦诚相待？为什么我们被自己制定出来的制度作茧自缚？

我们都是人，我们能否先从“人”的角度看待彼此，对待彼此？

这出戏让我想起了本地剧场编导郭宝崑1985年的《棺材太大洞太小》—— 多年后，我们依然在官僚制度下受难。这出戏也让我想起本地电影导演陈子谦的“Cut”—— 这部2004年的作品，讲述一位审查官员面对一位电影发烧友对审查的种种质问，始终没有开口说话。时隔20年，在艺术家的提问下，审查局依然沉默…… 

这么多年来，人们提到艺术工作者，总会以“angry artists”来形容这群人。如今，我想本地已经没有了“angry artists”，而是充满了“grieving artists”。但我想Alfian Sa’at 不仅仅只是在探讨剧场人的挣扎，他揭露的是新加坡每一位有觉知的人们所经历的悲痛与无奈—— 剧名毕竟出现了两次“Singapore”，这怎么只是本地剧场人的困境而已？

Alfian Sa’at 的“The Death of Singapore Theatre as Scripted by the Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore”叫人动容动情，是因为Alfian 站在“人”的立场向制度与体制后面的人们发出了呼吁与哀号。

而体制沉默太久了，我们向空谷高喊，不能只一次一次听到自己的回音。

否则，便会如剧名所预示的那般。

关于演出：2024年3月28日，7:30PM，野米剧场义安公司剧院，野米剧场呈献

https://www.wildrice.com.sg/event/176172-the-death-of-singapore-theatre/

点击阅读场刊：https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QwsJR-gblXyPZ2-QRvdFiyv2rd-9h38B/view

点击阅读专访：https://www.wildrice.com.sg/till-death-do-us-part/

We Can’t Just Keep Hearing Our Own Echoes: Reviewing “The Death of Singapore Theater as Scripted by the Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore”

The theater director is usually the first audience of the play; in Singapore, the Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore (IMDA) is the first audience of the play.

Playwright Alfian Sa’at has written a play for IMDA, speaking directly to it. Yes, I use "it" to refer to IMDA, because even after watching the play, the audiences are still clueless about the operation of IMDA. They have no idea who he/she/it is censoring plays; they have no idea if he/she/it even came to watch the play.

What’s exciting about this lecture performance is that even though the audiences know that these are Alfian Sa'at's questions and answers, the actor (Farah Ong) manage to embody the character, so that we almost forget that these are words written by Alfian. In Farah Ong’s interpretation, the character on stage can in fact be any theater practitioner: a backstage personnel, or a director, or any actor, or a stage manager... We can all feel the struggle and pressure the character is facing under the many years of scrutiny she endured from IMDA. Farah Ong led the audience on an emotional journey, enabling them to understand the history and evolution of censorship in Singapore, the subtle relationship between theater practitioners and IMDA, as well as the "Kafkaesque" relationship between humans and bureaucracy. There are many wonderful actors in Singapore, and Farah Ong is definitely one of them.

At the beginning of the play, the theater practitioner on stage explains to the audience that she is always trying to imagine the name and face, the personality, and the likes and dislikes of these officers in IMDA. He/she/it must be a living, breathing person… With little to no clues at all, the theater practitioner has to use her imagination— she named the officer “A”, she tell the audience that every time the word "you" is mentioned, she is referring to the officers in IMDA. The audiences are now all censorship officers.

Interestingly, both “Audience” and “Actor” starts with “A” (Alfian’s name starts with “A”, too). Why is the theater practitioner calling the censor “A"? Is she trying to get closer to the censor? What's her agenda?

The chair on the stage has a white paper stuck to it, and on the paper it was indicated that this is a seat reserved for IMDA. The chair is always empty, the theater practitioner talks to the chair, stands on the chair, and eventually hangs the chair high in the air. However, this is not an act of violence against IMDA. Even though the chair was hoisted high, the theater practitioner stands on the ladder, in close proximity to the chair.

No, this is not an act of violence against IMDA. For how can deep sorrow be present without any deep love? This theater practitioner is actually trying every possible means to understand IMDA. She is trying all ways and means to get closer to IMDA— IMDA, this silent and indifferent lover.

Towards the end of the play, the theater practitioner starts to imagine a scenario where she meet up with the IMDA officer. She imagines that they sit at a cafe and chat together. She invites the audience to open their palms and close their eyes. Verbally, she let the audiences know that she is holding on to our palms (as mentioned afore, we are the IMDA officers). She starts counting down. She hope that at the end of the countdown, the audience (the censorship officer) can let go of her hand.

However, she cannot bear to shout out the final count. She cannot bear for the officer to let go. With closed eyes, and in the darkness, all we can hear is her uncontrollable sobs.

The censor is just an identity. Without this identity, he/she/it/he must be a living person. We begin to understand why the theater practitioner named the censor “A”-- beneath out identities, we are all human beings. 

Alfian is actually trying to speak to the human, and the humanity within.

When did we become so insensitive that we can do something so abominable and violent as to strangle the other person's freedom of speech; hiding behind a wall whilst controlling another person's thoughts? Why can't we be honest with each other? Why are we trapped in a system that we have created? We are all human beings. Can we treat each other as "human"?

This play reminds me of Kuo Pao Kun’s "The Coffin is Too Big for the Hole" (1985)— many years later, we are still suffering under the absurdity of bureaucratic system. This play also reminds me of Royston Tan’s short film “Cut” (2004), which tells the story of a censorship official, when faced with various questions about censorship from a film enthusiast, remains silent. 20 years later, and still IMDA remains silent in the face of questions...

For a long time, whenever anyone mentions arts practitioners, they always use the term “angry artists” to describe them. With this play, I think artists have transition from “angry artists” to “grieving artists”. And yet, I do not think the play is simply an exploration of the struggles of theater practitoners— Alfian exposed the grief and helplessness experienced by every self-conscious person in Singapore. After all, the word “Singapore” is mentioned twice in the title of the play. How is it just about the plight of local theater practitioners?

“The Death of Singapore Theater as Scripted by the Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore” by Alfian Sa’at is deeply moving and emotional because Alfian is appealing to the humanity of the human beings behind the system, reminding them of their humanity.

The system has been silent for too long. We shout to the empty valley, but we cannot just keep hearing only our own echoes.

Otherwise, it will be as the title of the play predicts.

The above review is written after the performance on 28th March 2024, 7:30pm at The Ngee Ann Kongsi Theatre @ Wild Rice, Funan and presented by Wild Rice. 

https://www.wildrice.com.sg/event/176172-the-death-of-singapore-theatre/

Click to read the programme booklet：https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QwsJR-gblXyPZ2-QRvdFiyv2rd-9h38B/view

Click to read the interview: https://www.wildrice.com.sg/till-death-do-us-part/