網路城邦
上一篇 回創作列表 下一篇   字體:
「舞在玻璃之上」(Dancing on glass)
2011/04/27 22:24:22瀏覽714|回應4|推薦87






「舞在玻璃之上」(Dancing on glass)


     舞臺地板上是幾個分隔的區域和標記,左邊有男人右邊有女人。燈光把他們的獨白照地分外通紅;或是讓他們的面容在藍光綠影之間顯得更加撲朔迷離。而劇情就在他們游移的幾個生活場景中鋪陳開來:包括軟體開發部門和電話客服中心的辦公區,各自的生活空間和兩者之外的公共場所。


    故事總是有個起源。女主角(Megha)的同事兼男友(Pradeep),也是男主角(Shankar)的室友,死於連續工作四十八小時後開車回家的路上所發生的交通意外事故。與其說他的死因是交通意外事故,不如說他是被工作所殺害。這個對現代人的生活內涵所發出的疑問也是這齣舞臺劇想挖掘和探討的主題。一個生命的結束總是延伸出另一層生命意義,改變了他人對生命的認同或屈服感。男女主角漸漸開始不再認同他們被扭曲的生活方式,工作不過是一種變相的剝削,嚴重失序的生活節奏經年累月下來讓人喘不過氣。他們也不再屈服於自己苟延殘喘的盲目而開始正視起自己內心的不滿。所有藏在潛意識中的都慢慢隨著他們的獨白和對話浮出水面,一如男女主角在失望、傷心、徬徨、自我批判和關懷與互動中,漸漸找到人與人之間的溫馨距離,雖然,故事大致是架構在他們既詼諧又諷刺和間雜咒罵的熾熱情感下。


    所有心靈的修復都要回到故事的源頭,回到那滿地玻璃碎片的失事現場,撿拾一片碎玻璃放在掌心中,或小心翼翼地踏在碎片上,冰涼的是自己的手心,聽見的是自己的內心,那就證明自己還真切的活著,證明人確實有可以繼續在易碎或已碎的玻璃上飛舞的本能。

     
    

      Bangalore, India/2010




後記這是我在邦加洛爾看過的一齣舞臺劇「Dancing on glass」,劇情很簡單,演員的演技很精湛。但是他們帶著濃重印度腔的英文讓我無法完全聽懂所有內容。無論如何,在旅遊的國度裏看戲是非常特別的經驗,也會讓人更加瞭解當地的文化,尤其在以軟體工業興盛的邦加洛爾,這樣的故事這樣的內涵,愈加反映出它的時代性。












( 創作散文 )
回應 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
上一篇 回創作列表 下一篇

引用
引用網址:https://classic-blog.udn.com/article/trackback.jsp?uid=daidihu&aid=5023031

 回應文章

阿ming
等級:8
留言加入好友
含意深遠
2011/05/01 20:37
現在大多數人的工作或職業別無選擇,可說是為了謀生而扼殺了自己的自由
選擇,有些用人單位對於雇用的人員極為苛刻,講好聽一點是責任制,說穿
了就是要求加班卻不給加班費,若每月薪水五萬,換算每天工作八小時的話
,其實不到三萬。最可怕的是無論白天、晚上都在工作,生活沒有情趣可言
,不過就是一部機器罷了,過勞死就變成很平常了。

d.d. (daidihu) 於 2011-05-03 04:13 回覆:
的確很悲哀可歎!所以從事藝術或文字工作者試圖不被體制捆綁,但也要承擔經濟不穩定的風險,雖然比較不至於過勞死,但也有可能餓死或窮死的。

gladys99
等級:8
留言加入好友
有感
2011/04/29 14:45

心靈的光輝

來自自覺的生命

而生活的經驗

以反芻之精神

可細嚼其意義

謝謝好友 “Dancing on glass ”的 深刻分想

d.d. (daidihu) 於 2011-04-30 22:05 回覆:

謝謝好友的芬芳心語~

的確,這個舞臺劇反映出來的種種社會現象或問題,是很universal 的。
深思鑽研起來,好像沒完沒了的了。

因為沒有看過原作劇本,憑我看懂的劇情和內容來詮釋劇名所含涉的隱義,進而歸納出最後一段自己的心得。


賈媽
等級:8
留言加入好友
過勞死 ~
2011/04/29 14:27

在已碎的玻璃上飛舞 ..... 一定好痛

千萬別再赤足, 穿雙好鞋, 保護好自己

就不成問題了 .....

   

祝 復活節快樂 !!

    

d.d. (daidihu) 於 2011-04-30 22:09 回覆:
,赤足在碎玻璃上跳舞需要有練過中國功夫的底子才不會皮破血流慘不忍睹哦。。。
d.d. (daidihu) 於 2011-04-30 21:51 回覆:

時值勞工節,剛好看見下面兩篇文,拿來分享和深思一下:

做一個有用的人,對我們年輕人來說,究竟意味著什麼?

咖啡店打工時薪一百,好高好高,比最低薪資還多半包科學麵;夢想的設計公司,光鮮亮麗踏著東區街道去吃飯,每天熬夜爆肝為商業體制犧牲奉獻;乖乖聽爸媽的話當老師,打一下學生三十萬塊,一年薪水也不夠賠;高科技產業過勞死連連,聽說隔壁廠還生產污染血汗手機,老闆賺得好開心。生氣的年輕人問:我的未來怎麼辦?!我們可以提著啤酒上樓到師大小公園尿尿,但不會因此而有答案。如果有人還不想改變世界,有沒有至少一些些拒絕體制的可能?( 

節錄自:http://pots.tw/node/8041


另外一篇:
爆肝換窮忙 上班族多自認貧困


d.d.
等級:8
留言加入好友
Dancing on glass
2011/04/28 01:32
參考網頁:http://www.dramadose.com/dancing-on-glass/ 

d.d. (daidihu) 於 2011-04-28 01:37 回覆:
Posted on May 20th, 2010 by Arvind in AEIF, Reviews

If you have ever come across the expression “work is killing me” and wondered what that really means, then Ram Ganesh Kamatham’s “Dancing On Glass” is a good start towards finding some answers.

The plot consists of 3 principal characters; one of who never materializes on stage and remains a mere voice-over. Driving home after 48 hours of incessant work results in the premature death of this unseen person named Pradeep. That leaves us with his room-mate: Shankar, and his (Pradeep’s) girlfriend: Megha.

One can vaguely conclude that Pradeep and Megha were colleagues working at a call centre. Shankar is portrayed as their professional cousin working in the software development sector. What connects them all is the utter lack of rhythm or control over their time and how their jobs seems to distort it to great lengths. And it goes without saying that none of them are remotely happy with their jobs.

Megha tries to convince herself that she is too practical to bereave her beau and carry on with her life as though the entire chapter in her life never happened. Shankar ends up discovering the subconscious liking he always had for Megha has now begun surfacing and he seems to involuntarily do things that will draw him closer to her. As the story progresses, we find the two characters in a zone where they are getting close to each other, literally jobless by some turn of events and seriously wondering where there life is headed to.

The dialogues contain a liberal dose of profanity and all the promotional materials contain warnings to that effect. While much of it seems natural when the characters are venting out their torrid emotions, there surely are situations where it seems out of place. The stage setting is rather unique: it is divided into many zones with markings on the floor. There is the office zone, the rooms of the two people & the public place. Despite having just 2 actors, there are scenes wherein both of them are cueing a monologue at the same time but from different zones on the stage. The lighting is put to great use with usage of magenta, green & blue in ways that seems quite appropriate. The fact that this play has been running for at least 5 years should be a testament to its quality.

Surprisingly, the two actors Abhishek Majumdar and Meghana Mundkur seem to have been the ones on stage through the years. Personally I found Abhishek’s drunken soliloquies to be exceptionally authentic. Likewise, Meghana does a convincing job of playing a neurotic person.

If you are looking for something satirical and can digest expletives, then this should be a play that you go see the next time it runs in your neighbourhood.