你會不會時不時地有種錯覺，感覺好像有個神秘人物在跟蹤你？這一年來，我總懷疑是不是馬修·奧庫安（Matthew Aucoin）一直躲在我背后。好吧，我承認(rèn)，自從看過他的歌劇《歐律狄刻》（Eurydice）后，我也在持續(xù)關(guān)注他。在我心目中，這部歌劇是大都會歌劇院多年來所搬演過的、最超卓的新歌劇制作。不久之前我在外面開會，會議一結(jié)束我就立馬趕回家，為的是在線收看一場跨藝術(shù)類別研討會的視頻直播。在研討會上，身為美國現(xiàn)代歌劇團（American ModernOpera Company，縮寫AMOC，聽起來像活在社會邊沿的一群瘋子）創(chuàng)辦人之一的奧庫安，幾乎為未來所有的藝術(shù)形態(tài)定下了基調(diào)。

真正讓我刮目相看，是奧庫安最近出版的新書《不可能的藝術(shù)：歌劇歷險記》（The Impossible Art：Adventures in Opera）。這位多才多藝的音樂家不僅是作曲家兼指揮家，如今更把“作家”的身份收入囊中。誠然，書中很多篇幅提及了大家都預(yù)料到的作曲與指揮的心得，但是，當(dāng)奧庫安探索某些特定議題時不但行文透徹，他極具洞察力的筆觸要比任何歌劇評論家更尖銳深入。

我指的不光光是他的遣詞造句水平之高——當(dāng)然，很多今天活躍于舞臺、頻繁參與演出排練的音樂家未必能夠行文如此流暢——給我留下深刻印象的，是奧庫安探討的某些歌劇，剛好與我此前看過的幾部劇目完全重合。

如大家所料，《不可能的藝術(shù)》里面有相當(dāng)篇幅是關(guān)于《奧菲歐》神話的探討。奧庫安一方面講述了自己是如何看待這個經(jīng)典傳奇的，同時也批判性地審視了歌劇史上這個傳說如何在不同年代的呈現(xiàn)。他曾探索過一個獨特的觀點：奧菲歐回頭望向歐律狄刻的那一刻一一從而永遠(yuǎn)失去了她一一那并不是個意外，而是他故意這樣做的，也許是因為他寧愿失去愛情一一也可以說是現(xiàn)在式的愛情，從而讓藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作更有靈感。這個想法耐人尋味。但是，以我多年來觀察失戀的朋友悲慘的沮喪程度，我認(rèn)為這個思路是不切實際的。更令我信服的是編劇莎拉·魯爾（Sarah Ruhl）在《歐律狄刻》里面設(shè)想的人物與動機（源自她的原作話劇劇本）：歐律狄刻呼喚奧菲歐，是因為她不確定自己是否真的想逃離地府。這是一個相當(dāng)新鮮的概念，令我茅塞頓開，自忖一直以來沒有從歐律狄刻的角度考慮過她的感情世界。

說真的，利用歌劇藝術(shù)探討奧菲歐的故事算不上是一種新突破。閱讀奧庫安從作曲家的角度評論托馬斯·阿德斯（Thomas Ades）《泯滅天使》（Exterminating Angel）的文字也沒有什么新意，因為這部歌劇在倫敦與紐約演出后，差不多每一位歌劇圈的人士都曾發(fā)表過自己的評價（在這點上，更令人感興趣的應(yīng)該是故事里眾人被無名壓力所限制而不得不被困在屋里的情節(jié)，與當(dāng)下疫情流行及隔離政策之間的巧合和思考）。真正吸引我注意力的是，奧庫安對三部常規(guī)劇目的評論——這些碰巧也是我在過去幾個月內(nèi)看過的制作：斯特拉文斯基的《浪子的歷程》、威爾第的《法爾斯塔夫》與《奧賽羅》。當(dāng)我觀看這三個制作的時候，奧庫安的書籍早已出版，可是無論是他談及的作品的具體優(yōu)勢或是存在的問題，都引起了我的共鳴。

斯特拉文斯基的歌劇是大都會歌劇院2021-2022演出季的閉幕制作。如今舞臺上鮮少有這部作品的新制作出現(xiàn)，所以我們很難去比較不同版本的制作或是導(dǎo)演手法。可是，每當(dāng)這部現(xiàn)代歌劇有機會登臺，往往都令人耳目一新。奧庫安對于這部作品了如指掌，因為早年他在洛杉磯的一個學(xué)生制作版本中負(fù)責(zé)排演工作：除了指導(dǎo)獨唱演員并為他們伴奏，后來（因為演員臨時取消登臺）更是在臺上參與了合唱。身為作曲家，他把焦點放在斯特拉文斯基與兩位編劇——英國詩人奧登（W.H.Auden）與美國作家卡爾曼（Chester Kallman）的合作過程上，這也是現(xiàn)代歌劇歷史上擁有大量文獻(xiàn)記載資料的一個個案。奧庫安不僅注意到了該劇的音樂與文本存在脫節(jié)的狀況，更從中分析尋找原因。事實上，很多有見地的評論家也曾討論過《浪子的歷程》中音樂與文本的問題，但他們只注意到了表層。奧庫安（他是作曲家、指揮及演員）則從總譜里深層探究，認(rèn)為這些看似的矛盾其實讓整部作品的表現(xiàn)更強有力。

這本書里大概還用了50頁的篇幅來論述威爾第改編自莎士比亞的歌劇。我必須坦白，這部分一開始我沒有抱有太多的期望。我已經(jīng)熟讀多部威爾第權(quán)威專家研究威爾第生平與作品厚厚的文獻(xiàn)，其中包括了安德魯·波特（Andrew Porter）、朱利安·巴登（Julian Budden）、瑪麗·簡·菲利普斯-馬茲（Mary Jane Phillips-Matz）與格里·施密格爾（GarySchmidgall）。施密格爾甚至著有《莎士比亞與歌劇》一書，從頭到尾都在研究這一專題。奧庫安還能再挖出什么新觀點呢？

我得承認(rèn)自己判斷失誤。威爾第的最后時期——也可以說是他畢生最成功的幾年——就是他與劇本作家阿里戈博伊托合作，改編莎士比亞名劇并將它們搬上歌劇舞臺的日子。很多人都會聚焦于作曲家最后兩部作品的強烈反差上：《奧賽羅》相對簡單，直接改編自莎士比亞的話??；而《法爾斯塔夫》是將幾個故事混搭在一起（《溫莎的風(fēng)流娘兒們》與《亨利四世》上下部），并把重點聚焦在一個相當(dāng)精彩的角色上?！秺W賽羅》是關(guān)于種族歧視的動人悲??；《法爾斯塔夫》則令人捧腹大笑，這部喜歌劇獲得了出乎意料的成功，因為威爾第此前的作品都沒有什么幽默細(xì)胞。

奧庫安花了精力鉆研樂譜而不僅僅是歌劇文本，發(fā)現(xiàn)這兩部歌劇其實有不少雷同之處?！斗査顾颉返闹魅斯且粋€具有傳奇色彩的胖小丑，他的所作所為推動了情節(jié)發(fā)展：引領(lǐng)《奧賽羅》情節(jié)展開的角色則是伊阿古（lago），乃是該劇劇名主角的克星（博伊托一開始提議歌劇劇名應(yīng)該是《伊阿古》）。法爾斯塔夫與伊阿古都是男中音扮演的角色——有意思的是，兩個角色都由同一位法國男中音參與了首演，他的名字是維克托·莫雷爾（Victor Maurel）。更重要的是，威爾第經(jīng)常讓這兩個角色——更準(zhǔn)確地說，是歌手莫雷爾先聲奪人，以奠定情感基調(diào)與氣氛，然后才讓指揮引進樂隊?；蛘呶覀兛梢蕴子媚嘏c達(dá)蓬特兩人當(dāng)年描述另一位男中音角色的話：指揮可以主導(dǎo)舞蹈的速度，但歌手才是駕馭旋律基調(diào)的主宰。

奧庫安這個論點在今年7月英國皇家歌劇院演出的《奧賽羅》中得到了充分驗證。當(dāng)天，出演奧賽羅的男高音不太出色，但整場演出卻出奇地成功。幾周后在圣達(dá)菲歌劇院，我看了一場平庸的《法爾斯塔夫》，盡管主角堅定自信、令人贊嘆。倫敦的輿論與報道都過分強調(diào)羅素·托馬斯（RussellThomas）是皇家歌劇院首次請來黑人男高音出演的奧賽羅，但是演出的更大亮點是克里斯托弗·瑪爾特曼（Christopher Maltman）飾演的伊阿古，他制造出的張力簡直令人五體投地?；叵肫饋?，我才領(lǐng)略到戲中大量的感情轉(zhuǎn)折點都是由瑪爾特曼主導(dǎo)的，而不是指揮丹尼爾·羅西蒂尼（DanieleRostioni）?？梢哉f是羅西蒂尼拼接起了布料，但穿針引線的卻是瑪爾特曼。

在圣達(dá)菲，《法爾斯塔夫》陣容鼎盛，勢如破竹。男中音奎因·凱爾西（Quinn Kelsey）的聲勢在今日歌劇界如日中天。他本人就是個大胖子，服裝設(shè)計更強調(diào)了法爾斯塔夫的滑稽造型。雖然凱爾西一直以來都沒有演過喜劇——他也是首次扮演法爾斯塔夫，但他十分勝任這個角色，注入的夸張與傲慢自負(fù)好比丑角或斯卡爾皮亞，制造出的戲劇效果逗樂了所有觀眾。凱爾西一如既往地一出臺就主導(dǎo)了整出戲。

然后……就沒什么別的好說的了。其他演員唱得都很好，可惜全都缺乏幽默感。我留意到在樂池里的指揮保羅·丹尼爾（Paul Daniel）一絲不茍地精準(zhǔn)揮手，節(jié)奏猶如一臺人形節(jié)拍機。音樂向前推進，演員循規(guī)蹈矩?？墒?，每當(dāng)凱爾西點燃了火花，眾人卻無法延續(xù)那團火。因此這個晚上，整場演出都欠缺了喜劇性動力。

在英美兩國看歌劇演出令我感到懊惱，但是看了奧庫安的文章后卻讓我茅塞頓開，令我感到欣慰。與此同時，我的心里也有點不安。在未來的日子我也會到處看歌劇，但我不會跟任何人透露詳情。那也無所謂。我可以肯定，無論我到哪兒去，奧庫安已經(jīng)捷足先登。

Ever have the sense that someone is stalking you？I've been feeling that way about Matthew Aucoin for awhile now. Okay， I admit， l've been stalking him a bittoo ever since I saw his opera Eurydice， which I stillthink is the best new show the Metropolitan Operahas staged in years. I even rushed home recently afteran in-person meeting to catch a Zoom seminar aboutinterdisciplinary collaboration where Aucoin， as a co-founder of the American Modern Opera Company （or\"AMOC，\" which literally sounds like lunatics living onthe edge）， pretty much set the tone for all art forms inthe future.

What really got me， though， was his recent bookThe impossible Art： Adventures in Opera. With hisreputation as a composer and conductor already onthe table， Aucoin has now added \"writer\" to the list.Admittedly， he often writes about composing andconducting， which doesn't exactly count， but once hereally gets going Aucoin comes up with some of themost insightful analysis and commentary I've readrecently from any opera critic.

It's not just the quality of the writing， thoughrarely do the people who actively prepare works forperformance write so gracefully; what sticks in mymind are the specific pieces Aucoin chooses to writesabout， which matches perfectly several shows I sawthis past year.

To no surprise， the book has an extended sectionon the Orpheus legend， both recounting Aucoin'stake on the story and a critical look at how it's beenretold in opera through the ages. Aucoin had， in fact，written an earlier account taking the fairly originalposition that Orpheus's glance back at Eurydice-thus losing her forever-was not an accident and thathe preferred the loss of love-perhaps to inspire hisart-to love in the present tense. lt's an intriguingidea， but having spent hours with miserable friendsin a similar position I find it pretty unrealistic. Muchmore plausible was librettist Sarah Ruhl's charactermotivation in Eurydice （developed from her play）where it's Eurydice who calls out to Orpheus becauseshe's unsure she wants to leave. Now that was a freshidea， and it made me realize that l've never heardanyone ask what Eurydice felt before.

But really， writing about Orpheus in opera isnot exactly breaking new ground. Nor was readinganother composer's thoughts about ThomasAdes's Exterminating Angel， since just aboutanyone in the opera world had something to sayabout the productions in London and New York.（More interesting at this point would've been arumination on the story's mystical lockdown fromCovid quarantine perspective.） What really got myattention was the attention Aucoin devotes to threeoperas I encountered in close proximity： Stravinsky'sThe Rake's Progress and Verdi's Falstaff and Otello.Despite the book coming out long before theseproductions made it to the stage， Aucoin seems torefer to their specific strengths and problems.

Stravinsky's opera， which ended the Met's 2021-22 season， comes around so rarely we can't reallycompare multiple productions; each appearancecarries a degree of freshness. Aucoin， though， wassaturated with familiarity during a student productionin Los Angeles， having both prepared the cast and（after a last-minute cancellation） performed in thechorus himself. As a composer， he is clearly obsessedwith the opera's backstory-Stravinsky's relationshipwith co-librettists W.H.Auden and Chester Kallman isone of the more heavily documented collaborationsin modern opera-and not only notes the seemingdisconnect between the show's music and text but alsodiagnoses the cause. While many otherwise insightfulcritics see only the surface incompatibility， Aucoin （asboth composer and conductor as well as performer）sees from within the score how those supposedcontradictions actually strengthen the piece.

Then there was his 50 pages or so on Verdi'sShakespeare operas. I have to admit， I didn't expectmuch. After reading voluminous accounts by veteranVerdi scholars and biographers like Andrew Porter，Julian Budden， Mary Jane Phillips-Matz and GarySchmidgall （who practically devoted an entire bookto the subject in Shakespeare and Opera）， what newobservations could Aucoin possibly unearth？

I now stand corrected. The final chapter in Verdi'scareer-and arguably greatest success-came inadapting Shakespeare （with librettist Arrigo Boito）to the musical stage. Comparisons of his final operasgenerally focus on their stark differences： Otello wasrelatively simple transfer， while Falstaff was adaptedas a mashup of different stories featuring a singlecolorful character （Shakespeare's Merry Wives ofWindsor and Henry IV plays）; Otello was a raciallypotent tragedy， while Falstaff became a surprisinglysuccessful comedy for a composer whose earlierwork had not exactly been a laugh riot.

Comparing the scores， rather than just the texts，Aucoin found them strangely similar. Falstaff isclearly driven by its title character， a Iarge-than-lifebuffoon， while Otello is driven dramatically by thetitle character's nemesis， lago. （Boito had initiallysuggested naming the opera after the villain.） BothFalstaff and lago happen to be baritone roles-and were， in fact， created by the same singer， theFrench baritone Victor Maurel. But most importantly，Verdi frequently placed both characters-or rather，his performer Maurel-in the position of settingthe emotional tone before the conductor cuesthe orchestra. Or to paraphrase what Mozart andDe Ponte wrote for another famous baritone， theconductor may lead the dance， but the singer callsthe tune.

Aucoin's point thoroughly explained the surprisingsuccess of Otelto with a less-than-stellar Otello lastJuly at the Royal Opera House and a startlinglymediocre Falstaff a few weeks later at Santa Fe Operadespite a fully assertive performance in the title role. InLondon， rather too much advance notice was focusedon the fact that Russell Thomas was the first Blackman to sing Otello at Covent Garden while nothingat all prepared us for the force of nature that wasChristopher Maltman's lago. Only in retrospect did Irealize it was Maltman， not conductor Daniele Rostioni，who was responsible for most of the performance'semotional shifts. Rustioni may have sown the fabric，but Maltman had threaded the needle.

In Santa Fe， Falstaff had all the makings of a hit.Quinn Kelsey is now at the peak of his career. A largeman in any circumstances， he was further paddedto hilarious proportions. Despite not being knownfor comedy-and playing the role for the first time-Kelsey filled Sir John Falstaff with the same senseof overbearing and self-importance he brings toRigoletto and Baron Scarpia， though in this case theresult is funny， since no one else takes his characterseriously. Once again， Kelsey dominated every scene.

And then...nothing. There was some fine singingfrom the rest of the cast， but no trace of wit. ThenI looked at the pit， where Paul Daniel was wavinghis arms with meticulous precision and all theenthusiasm of a living metronome. As the scoremoved forward， every entrance in place， but theunderlying spark that Kelsey regularly ignited wasconstantly extinguished. Nothing in the evening'spacing or momentum gave any indication that thiswas supposed to be a comedy.

However satisfying it was to have two recentperformances that were still troubling me-fromdifferent parts of the world， mind you-explained in asingle stroke， it was also a bit eerie. I'll be going backto the opera again soon， and l'm not telling anyonewhere. It probably won't matter， though. l'm sureAucoin has already been there.