這些年來，最令我逗笑的演出評論之一，出自查爾斯· 麥切納（Charles Michener） 之手。

早在20 世紀(jì)90 年代末，任職《紐約觀察報(bào)》（NewYork Observer ）的他，是一位顛撲不破、鐘愛抱怨的老派樂評家。他沒有留意到大都會歌劇院為了迎合觀眾的需求，把非周末（即周一至周四）的演出場次由晚上8 時(shí)開演提前了半個(gè)小時(shí)至7 時(shí)30 分，因此他錯過了一部歌劇的第一幕演出。他在專欄里花了三分之一的篇幅控訴大都會歌劇院為遲到觀眾特設(shè)的“等候區(qū)”沒有好的配套服務(wù)：座椅不舒適、視頻屏幕的擴(kuò)音糟糕之極，以及歌劇院員工對待遲到者的態(tài)度更加惡劣。

幾周前，因?yàn)閭惗氐罔F疏落的周末班次，我沒有趕上英國國家歌劇院《萊茵的黃金》的開場。令我“遺憾”的是，現(xiàn)場演出的高清視頻配上高保真音響的設(shè)備就在“遲到等候區(qū)”靠外，位于大堂與劇場大門之間，好讓大家在適當(dāng)?shù)臅r(shí)刻迅速入場。遲來的觀眾在序曲之后被安排進(jìn)場，而不是像大部分歌劇院那般，需要等到第一幕完畢才重開大門（《萊茵的黃金》并沒有分場，如果真的要等，就沒完沒了了）。最倒霉的是，英國國家歌劇院的員工太有禮貌了。引座員十分友善，看著我更面露笑容。

這讓我完全沒機(jī)會去抓著他的衣領(lǐng)然后大聲咆哮：“該死的，我是個(gè)樂評人?。∧銈冞@里沒有任何東西讓我可以批評抱怨，我該怎么辦才好？！”

奇怪的是，英國國家歌劇院在這些時(shí)日里一直遭遇了大量的非議——但這其中很少是來自媒體或劇院的固定觀眾的。去年年底，我在這個(gè)專欄里提到歌劇院該何去何從的困境。英國藝術(shù)委員會（ArtsCouncil of England）宣布削減其財(cái)政資助，除非歌劇院愿意從倫敦撤離，搬遷至英國北部的“大后方”重新安營扎寨，才能挽回部分資助。

其實(shí)，英國國家歌劇院的觀眾群體越來越龐大并越來越多樣化，而近幾年來他們的制作更是好評如潮。英國藝術(shù)委員會完全忽略了這幾點(diǎn)，硬要把倫敦的藝術(shù)生態(tài)分散，所謂“升級”（leveling up）的目標(biāo)是把政府資源重新分配，旨在讓英國北部地區(qū)的觀眾獲得更好的待遇，而英國國家歌劇院首當(dāng)其沖。計(jì)劃中具體的細(xì)節(jié)含糊得令人費(fèi)解，所謂的策略也讓人看不到一點(diǎn)頭緒。雖然其他藝術(shù)門類也面臨大量削減資助，但是委員會對于歌劇藝術(shù)的沖擊是如此不相稱和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不一致，導(dǎo)致媒體與藝術(shù)界都認(rèn)為，委員會打壓歌劇的背后是出于政治目的。

當(dāng)英國國家歌劇院首席執(zhí)行官斯圖爾特· 墨菲（Stuart Murphy）親自到訪曼徹斯特——這個(gè)城市正是委員會給出歌劇院建議搬遷地的其中之一——他發(fā)現(xiàn)該計(jì)劃對于英國國家歌劇院和曼徹斯特來說都不切實(shí)際。英國國家歌劇院董事局主席哈利· 布倫耶斯（Harry Brünjes）更宣布歌劇院不會搬遷，委員會削減資助意味著歌劇院將要倒閉，院方幾百名員工——以及幾千位參與工作的自由職業(yè)者——到2023 年4 月都將面臨失業(yè)。

近幾個(gè)月來，人們本來激烈的情緒有所緩和。藝術(shù)委員會好像終于明白，如果英國國家歌劇院離開駐扎多年的倫敦大劇院（London Coliseum），歌劇院也會失去大部分非政府贊助及資助。墨菲（今年他將卸任歌劇院首席執(zhí)行官一職）在積極尋求除了曼徹斯特之外的其他備選城市，包括伯明翰、紐卡斯?fàn)柵c諾丁漢，希望在他今年10 月離任前可以選好地方。

與此同時(shí)，英國國家歌劇院的觀眾群還在不斷擴(kuò)大，演出劇評也不斷升溫光芒四射。但是，整個(gè)僵局至今仍然沒有解決。無論藝術(shù)委員會的最終決定如何，歌劇院未來日子的收入肯定會大大減少，于是把原定下個(gè)演出季搬演的《齊格弗里德》新制作無限期地延遲。這是一套由導(dǎo)演理查德·瓊斯（RichardJones）執(zhí)導(dǎo)的新《指環(huán)》中的一部，按照原本的計(jì)劃，該套《指環(huán)》不日將移師紐約大都會，取代很多人都討厭的羅伯特·勒帕吉（Robert Lepage）的制作。

可是，大都會考慮到英國國家歌劇院未來生死未卜，已經(jīng)放棄了整個(gè)瓊斯的新《指環(huán)》。

如果我想追上這套《指環(huán)》的任何一場演出，看看我最愛的這家英國歌劇院的現(xiàn)況，我必須要加快步伐。繞了這么大一圈，是為了告訴你，我首次目睹瓊斯制作的萊茵河水仙女是在一個(gè)超大的高清屏幕上，當(dāng)時(shí)我正站在倫敦大劇院的大堂等待進(jìn)場。

***

英國國家歌劇院去年推出新版《指環(huán)》，搬演的首部歌劇是《女武神》，即瓦格納這個(gè)史詩歌劇系列的第二部分——盡管在作曲家的心目中這才算是正式的第一部分（《萊茵的黃金》只能稱為“前夕”罷了）。

制作效果與公眾的回響沒有預(yù)期的那么成功。評論褒貶各半：《衛(wèi)報(bào)》（The Guardian）的評價(jià)是“起步明顯地不均勻”，而《旁觀者》（The Spectator）則描述它是“百分之四十崇高，百分之六十荒謬”。某些媒體也心懷惡意，如《電訊報(bào)》（The Telegraph）用上“一場火不起來的大戲”這類字眼，還有《每日郵報(bào)》（TheDaily Mail）奚落歌劇院的這句話：“如果它標(biāo)志著整套劇的高峰的話，請英國國家歌劇院不用再費(fèi)心了?！?/p>

我與去年的《女武神》失之交臂，所以評論的好壞對我來說也沒什么影響?？墒?，在這個(gè)世界上，一年之內(nèi)可以經(jīng)歷很大的變化。從去年秋天開始，本來不關(guān)注英國國家歌劇院的觀眾大量涌進(jìn)劇場，《萊茵的黃金》也獲得相當(dāng)友善的評價(jià)?！缎l(wèi)報(bào)》這一次對制作贊不絕口，稱之為“既風(fēng)趣又有見地”；《金融時(shí)報(bào)》（Financial Times ）肯定地說，“英國國家歌劇院重整旗鼓”；《國際演出報(bào)道》（Seen and HeardInternational ）的標(biāo)題中包括“不容錯過”這樣的字眼，盡管這位評論家對于瓊斯的藝術(shù)判斷力持保留意見。

我這一次到訪倫敦有兩個(gè)目的：首先當(dāng)然是去欣賞英國國家歌劇院的自家制作；第二也想判斷一下大都會觀眾錯過的會是怎樣的制作。鑒于兩家歌劇院之間的差異，從藝術(shù)宗旨到運(yùn)作營運(yùn)，方方面面都沒有什么共通點(diǎn)，將兩家放在一起比較十分困難。

首先，《萊茵的黃金》與《女武神》的風(fēng)格如出一轍——當(dāng)我第一眼看到院方用的標(biāo)題是英語版的，我就猜到——演出的語言用的不是德語而是英語（這是英國國家歌劇院的慣例）。整體視覺效果跟去年的制作屬同一系列。雖然我看過《女武神》的劇照，卻想象不出來現(xiàn)場舞臺演出帶來的驚喜——萊茵河水仙女穿上去健身房的運(yùn)動服，尼伯龍根族人身上是戶外跑步的裝束。至于眾神的那些庸俗的奇裝異服，還是不提為妙。

“平民主義瓦格納”跟“動漫瓦格納”在美學(xué)上是完全兩回事。舞臺上（刻意）呈現(xiàn)出的低廉的布景與幾何圖案讓我聯(lián)想起少年時(shí)代追捧那些英國出產(chǎn)、后來在美國流行的科幻電視劇——當(dāng)《復(fù)仇者聯(lián)盟》（The Avengers ）與《神秘博士》（Doctor Who ）登陸美國的時(shí)候，它們在英國已是經(jīng)典“老”劇了。

從前喜歡《囚徒》（The Prisoner ）的電視迷們看到瓊斯擺在高蹺上的巨大乒乓球在山頂上漂浮，必定以為里面會藏著幾位天神吧？

跟那些裝模作樣的視覺效果并道而馳的是令人驚嘆的音樂演出。部分原因是約翰· 迪賽里奇（John Deathridge） 翻譯的英文演唱版非常順暢，差點(diǎn)讓人相信《指環(huán)》的原文就是英語。（現(xiàn)場演出的效果那么卓越，跟瓦格納重視音樂的價(jià)值觀有直接關(guān)系，樂隊(duì)才是主人公，歌唱家像是后加的陪襯。）演員整體配合很好，很難從中挑出個(gè)別的表演者[ 盡管飾演阿爾貝里希的李· 梅爾羅斯（Leigh Melrose）、飾演沃坦的約翰· 勒雷亞（JohnRelyea）、飾演火神羅格的弗里德里克· 巴倫泰納（Frederick Ballentine）與飾演埃爾達(dá)的克勒斯汀· 萊斯（Christine Rice）在不同的場景各有千秋] ；但更重要的是，演員處理戲劇情節(jié)直接且清楚，英語的演唱也信心十足，觀眾甚至不需要熟讀故事簡介，也不需要看字幕就能夠理解。

可是，當(dāng)我套用大都會歌劇院以及那里觀眾的審美眼光時(shí)，這個(gè)制作的意義就完全不一樣了。在倫敦，《萊茵的黃金》的藝術(shù)強(qiáng)項(xiàng)十分明顯——最重要就是英語翻譯恰到好處，效果超群——但這一點(diǎn)搬到大都會就使不上力了，因?yàn)榇蠖紩T常用原文演唱。另外，大都會不注重演員的整體陣容，因?yàn)檫@是一家偏愛突出個(gè)別“大明星”的歌劇院。最近大都會搬演的《羅恩格林》就是個(gè)典型例子：絕大部分的評論都認(rèn)為大都會管弦樂團(tuán)以及飾演劇名主角的皮奧特· 貝扎拉（Piotr Becza?a）才是最閃耀的兩顆星，他們散發(fā)出柔和恬靜的光芒。

瓊斯版《指環(huán)》如果登陸大都會要面臨的最大問題——從弗朗索瓦· 吉拉爾（Fran?ois Girard）執(zhí)導(dǎo)的《羅恩格林》的手法惹出的苛刻評語來看——可能就是瓊斯那玩世不恭的美學(xué)觀。吉拉爾的制作，加上葉錦添的舞美與彼得· 弗拉赫爾提（PeterFlaherty）星際漫游般的投影視頻設(shè)計(jì)，讓《羅恩格林》升格至一個(gè)史詩般的神秘世界，其中的敘事方式卻細(xì)膩十分，人物之間的關(guān)系也交代清晰。然而，《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》描述這個(gè)新制作時(shí)對“看似兒童劇場的配色方案”感到失望，甚至批評導(dǎo)演把“一個(gè)復(fù)雜的歌劇過分簡單化”。

如果吉拉爾的清晰敘事卻引來了將瓦格納“低能化”（dumbing down） 的控訴， 那瓊斯的那些俗艷布景和乳膠服裝登臺紐約，還會有希望嗎？iNews 新聞網(wǎng)站曾經(jīng)歌頌英國國家歌劇院的這部《萊茵的黃金》是“絕頂好制作，甚至可能救活英國國家歌劇院”，我認(rèn)為這個(gè)預(yù)言還是言之過早。但是，這兩家歌劇院“快閃”式聯(lián)手炮制新《指環(huán)》的計(jì)劃告吹，可能讓雙方都避免了日后的很多隱患。

One of the funniest opera reviews I’ve ever read wasback in the late 1990s when Charles Michener， then thecrusty critic of the New York Observer ， failed to noticethat the Met had changed its weekday starting timesfrom 8pm to 7：30. Easily a third of Michener’s columnthat week was devoted to the Metropolitan Opera’suncomfortable waiting room， the bad speakers on thevideo screen and the generally shabby treatment thecompany allotted its latecomers.

A few weeks ago， thanks to the weekend scheduleof the London Tube， I arrived a few minutes late tothe London Coliseum for English National Opera’sproduction of The Rhinegold . Sadly， the liveperformance was being streamed on a high-definitionscreen with high-fidelity speakers at the edge of the“holding pen，” conveniently placed between the lobbyand house doors for a quick entrance. Latecomers"were admitted after the opening Prelude， not （likemost opera houses） after the first intermission（Rhinegold only being one act， this would’ve presenteda problem）. Worst of all， the house staff was just twodamn nice. Only the pleasant smile on the usher’s facekept me from grabbing him by the collar and growling，“I’m a critic ， dammit. You’re giving me nothing tocomplain about here.”

Strangely enough， ENO has been facing plentyof complaints—very few， though， from the press orits regular audience. When I last wrote about thecompany at the end of last year， the situation wasdire. The Arts Council of England （ACE） had eliminatedits funding， to be partially reinstated only if ENO leftLondon for England’s hinterland.

Never mind that ENO’s audience was growing andbecoming more diverse， or that their productions"were affordable and getting good reviews， the ACEhad targeted the company as part of a massiveredistribution plan labeled “l(fā)eveling up，” intendingto spread London’s artistic offerings throughoutEngland. Specific details remained cryptic， strategiesnonexistent. Other art forms had lost their fundingtoo， but the results were so disproportionate andinconsistent that both the media and the artscommunity agreed that this was nothing less than apoliticized attack on opera.

When ENO Chief Executive Stuart Murphy actuallyexplored the situation in Manchester， the key cityproposed for the company’s move， the situationproved unrealistic for either ENO or Manchester.ENO board president Harry Brünjes announced thatthere would be no move， and that the ACE’s decisionwould effectively close ENO and put hundreds ofemployees—and thousands of freelance artists—out ofwork by April 2023.

In the past months， tempers have died down a bit.The ACE seems to realize now that if ENO leaves Londonentirely， they leave most of their non-governmentfunding as well. Murphy （who will be stepping downthis year） began looking beyond Manchester for asecond base， including such UK cities as Birmingham，Newcastle and Nottingham， with a location to bedetermined by the time he leaves in October.

ENO audiences keep growing， reviews keepglowing. But the situation is still in no way resolved.Anticipating a significant loss of income regardless ofthe ACE’s final decision， ENO postponed next season’sproduction of Siegfried ， the next installment in a fullRing Cycle by director Richard Jones scheduled totravel to New York to replace the Met’s much-malignedversion by Robert Lepage. The Met， fearing for ENO’sfuture， cancelled its plans for Jones’s Ring entirely.

If I was going to see any of this Ring Cycle at all，to say nothing of gauging for myself the state of my"favorite British opera company， I needed to act fast.Which is all a roundabout way of explaining why Igot my first glimpse of Jones’s Rhine-maidens on anovergrown TV screen in the Coliseum lobby.

***

ENO launched its new Ring Cycle last season withThe Valkyrie ， traditionally the second installmentof Wagner’s epic， though the composer himselfconsidered it the first proper opera in the series（Rhinegold was merely a “preliminary evening”）. Itdidn’t go as well as expected. Half-favorable reviewsincluded “a strikingly uneven start” （The Guardian ）and “40 percent sublime， 60 percent ridiculous” （TheSpectator ）. Half-hostile postings lashed out with “aspectacle that never catches fire” （The Telegraph） and“if this is as good as it gets， perhaps ENO shouldn’tbother” （The Daily Mail ）.

Having missed that initial production， I had noparticular interest either way. But a lot can happen in"a year. Since last fall， people who haven’t been payingattention to ENO in years started coming out in droves，and the general reaction for Rhinegold was notablymore charitable. “Witty and insightful” raved TheGuardian ; “ENO bounces back，” claimed the FinancialTimes ; “not to be missed，” said Seen and HeardInternational ， though the critic still had reservationsabout Jones’s artistic judgment.

I went to London on a two-tiered mission： first tosee ENO’s production on its own terms， and second tofind out what Met audiences will now miss. Given thedifferences between the two companies， it wasn’t easyto resolve the two.

First of all， Rhinegold fell in line with Valkyrie —asI’d guessed from the titles alone—by virtue of beingsung in English rather than German （which is businessas usual for ENO）. So too did the visual look of theevening correspond with the photographs I’d seenof Valkyrie. What I couldn’t gauge from the pictures"was the sheer quirkiness of the performance. Jones’sRhine-maidens are dressed for the gym， the Nibelungsfor an outdoor run. The less said about the tackinessof the gods， the better.

Populist Wagner is one thing; cartoonish Wagneris another esthetic entirely. Seeing the （purposely）low-budget sets and geometric designs brought tomind the British television fantasies that crossed theAtlantic in my youth—shows like The Avengers andDoctor Who that were already vintage in England bythe time they took hold in the US. Could anyone who’dever seen The Prisoner encounter Jones’s giant pingpongballs drifting across the mountaintop on stiltsand not expect them to carry off a god or two？

Running parallel to the campy visualizations，though， was a truly remarkable performance stemmingfrom John Deathridge’s translation， which unfoldedso smoothly one could almost believe the text wasoriginally in English. （This has much to do withWagner’s musical values， where the orchestra reignssupreme and vocal lines are almost an afterthought.）The cast functioned as a true ensemble， making itdifficult to highlight individual singers （though LeighMelrose’s Alberich， John Relyea’s Wotan， FrederickBallentine’s Loge and Christine Rice’s Erda each stoodout at different times in different ways）. The shareddramatic immediacy， rendered with uniformly genuineconviction， rendered both synopsis and surtitlesmostly rendundant.

But once I began looking at the production through"the eyes of the Met and its audiences it becameanother show entirely. The artistic strengths that wereso apparent in London—not least of which being theeffectiveness of the translation—would be entirelylost at the Met， where they perform opera only in itsoriginal language. Nor would the ensemble approachfare well for a company that prefers to showcaseindividual stars. This all became particularly apparentduring the Met’s recent Lohengrin， where （by generalcritical consensus） the two key highlights were the MetOrchestra and Piotr Becza?a’s Lohengrin， both of whichshimmered with similar serenity.

But the biggest problem—obvious at once from critics’reactions to Lohengrin director Fran?ois Girard—wouldlikely be Jones’s irreverent approach. Girard， with the"help of Tim Yip’s sets and costumes and Peter Flaherty’squasi-astral projection， spun Lohengrin into an epicmystical world marked by lucid， intimate storytellingand clear character relationships. And yet， The NewYork Times was disappointed in the production’s “facilechildren’s-theatre color scheme，” calling the production“too simplistic for [a] complex opera.”

So if Girard’s narrative clarity was a sign of “dumbingdown” Wagner， what hopes would Jones’s flashy setsand latex-clad performers have in New York？ I think it’sstill too early to say that Rhinegold was “so damn goodit might just save ENO” （iNews）， but the entire debaclemay have saved a shotgun marriage of co-producersfrom some awkward moments at the altar.