Avant-garde in dialogue: Buds of Modernism on Infertile Land

by on Wednesday, 31 August 2011 Comments

In the sixties, Taiwan’s main ideology was determined by Cold War ideology and the fight against communism. In such a dry and discouraging intellectual atmosphere, the youth aspired to a radical and subversive modernism which would acknowledge their existence. At that time, the only opening for modern art was probably at the United States Information Agency which would provide information on modern art and exhibitions, so most events involving the arts were held there.

It is in that context that Theater Magazine (1965) was created by Huang Hua-cheng, Kang Chien Chiu and Chen Yingzhen. There was no concept of Taiwanese modernism at that time but the Theater Magazine was already offering critiques and reflections on modernism in articles on Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, Artaud’s Theater of Cruelty and Fellini’s 8 ½. Even today, almost 50 years later, one can say that the content and the lay-out of the magazine are still very subversive and avant-garde.

In 1965, the Theater Magazine put on a version of Waiting for Godot at Tien Educational Centre’s auditorium. This was the first representation of the “Theater of the Absurd” in Taiwan. In the audience, the young artists, who had before only seen anticommunist plays, may not have fully understood the significance of this theatre; but this kind of representation - the representation of absurdity - was a real shock for us and also an important lesson.

Thus, we started to feel a strong wind of modernism in the artistic and cultural circles of Taiwan who got a bigger taste of it: besides the Theater Magazine, we saw the creation of a magazine dedicated to modern poetry, The Epoch Poetry Quarterly (創世紀), and the Modern Literature Magazine was also founded under Bai Xianyong’s tutelage.

 

In search of our own discourse and body

The Little Theatre Movement in Taiwan basically followed the same thread and started by criticizing and subverting the culture produced by the Cold War ideology, the martial law era and anti-communist propaganda. The Lan Ling Theatre Workshop, founded in 1980, hosted the first experimental amateur theatre troupe. They presented author Shih-chieh Chin’s plays such as Ho-chu's New Match (荷珠新配) and Burden (包袱), thus starting a process of reflection on Chinese culture. In fact, they had taken the name of their troupe, “Lan Ling”, from the title of a Chinese play from the Tang dynasty King Lanling Going to Battle. So, this theatre was still a product of Chinese culture and in the political context of that time, the notion of “Taiwan” had not yet become such a defining ideological concept.

Even though artists and writers from the theatre world had already started to criticize and to reflect on traditional culture, they still did it in reference to Western Modernism. At that time, there were very few drama or theatre departments in universities: originally, only the National Taiwan University of Arts, the Fu Hsing Kang College and the Chinese Culture University had one. The theory and language of the Taiwanese Modern Theatre had not yet been conceived, thus we could only borrow crudely the language of Western Modernism in order to build our own performing body, but this was never a complete act, it always remained fragmented and incomplete.

For this reason, the Little Theatre Movement of the eighties lacked any methodology: we did not know how to use our body and we did not have our own aesthetic language. For all of us, just talking about “subversion” was already a critique, a way of resisting tradition and the system. At that time, the only one who explored subversion of body in a deeper way was Ruo-Yu Liu from the U Theatre. She had taken drama classes in New York with the Polish director Jerzy Grotowski, and, after her return to Taiwan, she studied Tai chi and Japanese No Theatre before finally exploring the traditional Taiwanese drum dance. The question of the Taiwanese body had then started to be raised.

The new dialectic of identification

During the martial law period, almost every social issue was centred on “identification”, whether one was talking about Taiwanese people, feminists, homosexuals or aborigines. The Taiwanese Theatre entered then a new phase of nationalism: before the end of the martial law era, there was the “the Republic of China and Its People”; afterwards, this notion got loosened and became vague and clearly needed to be redefined. Slowly, people started to call themselves “Taiwanese”, some participated in movements for Independence, other young people from the Left-wing showed their sympathy towards China’s socialism. These manifestations are all the dialectical expression of identification and, in my view, they are all part of a “new nationalism”.

The DDP was then leading a wave of protests against the KMT system; they leant on the mobilization created by social issues such as environmental protection, the aboriginal cause, agricultural workers, and other workers’ movements... and of course the Little Theatre movement too. In 1988, I recruited a group of young people from the Little Theatre and together we put on the play Chasing the Evil from Orchid Island (驅逐蘭嶼的惡靈), in which we protested against the government’s decision to store nuclear waste on this aboriginal land. This was the first performance of Activist Theatre in Taiwan. At the same time, other troupes from the Little Theatre also gradually got involved in protest movements. They would confront and oppose the government in a direct way. They would not limit their contestation to the street; they would choose any outdoor place as long as it was different, like abandoned buildings for example.

In 2010, I put on the play Waste Land (荒原), which was at the same time a retrospective look at this part of history and on my personal life. A particular line in the play explains well the contradictions and struggles of the people who participated in these movements: “In 1987, we believed that the least battle would change the meaning of our life as, during the martial law era, we were just like wandering orphans. But when the martial law ended, we just became a cluster of sperm looking for an ovum to penetrate. At the end of the battle, we had just helped a bunch of politicians to gain power with impunity. This revolution got buried under a thick layer of dead soil, together with its forgotten memories and restless hopes.”

Nonetheless, the Little Theatre of that time had already started to develop an important notion of Modern Theatre: its social nature, which gives reality to Modern Art.

Dance introduces an avant-garde aesthetic style

Due to its conflict and incongruence with reality, the Little Theatre movement gave a new emphasis on the action of the body, on the other hand, however, its aesthetics style was still quite lacking. This was until 1988, when a Japanese dance troupe called Byakko-sha came to Taiwan to perform. They subverted traditional performance styles and physical movement, and in bringing a new avant-garde aesthetic consideration to Taiwanese artistic circles; they influenced many young artists.

At first, the dance world started to consider what constituted the Taiwanese body. Lin Hwai-min of the Cloud Gate Dance Theatre Troupe brought a style influenced by Tai Chi breathing, stretching and massaging exercises, the creator of the dance company Tai Gu Tale Dance Theatre, Lin Hsiu-wei, attempted to use the body to explore the significance of life. Modernism had more or less been played out at that point, and Taiwan entered the contemporary art period. After two baptisms by Modernism, one originating from Western influences and a second from Japanese influence, Taiwan started to form a Modernist theatrical language as well as an aesthetic narrative, and was more able to construct its own unique aesthetic.

The poverty of images and romance in a consumer driven society

In the wake of the martial law period, Taiwanese society made the transition to two party politics, and young people could very easily imagine that they were living in an open, democratic and free society. This in combination with the economic boom meant that Taiwan entered a capitalist consumer society, and Taiwanese people started to concern themselves with corporal desires. Young people do not have a capacity for historical memory, their identity is built around popular culture; subcultures then become more and more individualized. Individualism should in theory lead to a more rich and multifaceted world, but people of the younger generation seem to think that computers constitute the world, they try to cram the world into a black box, and their bodies start to shrivel, leaving them with less physical energy.

During the Little Theatre movement, theatre was not a tool for self-expression, but rather it stressed social issues. The youth of today use theatre to express their own existence, which makes it impossible for them to use action to resonate with society. Self-expression is an important element of Modernism, but the emotions presented by the younger generation are often chaotic and unintelligible, this is because they lack "bodies". Their feelings of loneliness, alienation and frustration, often lack focus; it is purely an expression of rage. In reality, their rage is not related to any particular incident, their very existence is a kind of rage, which naturally engenders frustration.

Before, the Little Theatre would not incorporate real places, like living rooms, bedrooms, or the street into performances, the setting of performances was often seen to be outdoor, indoor, the moon, or even just the earth, it was not so precise. That was the way they imagined the world, those were their dreams. Young dramatists today communicate a more concrete sense of place, and the performance conforms to everyday experience, if there's a sofa, they will sit on the sofa, and they will just start talking. When they talk, however, it is not the same as the dialogue of Waiting for Godot, as they talk too much, it is too unclear, and it has no poetry about it. They do actually have an imagination, but it lacks an "image". In other words their dreams are different from the dreams of older generations. The dreams of the older generation were Kafkaesque, disturbing, or even maze-like. The young modern dramatists have dreams which are too succinct and mundane, maybe because they matured at a faster rate, but this leads to them being unable to transform their dreams into "images".

 

Creative works should always pursue freedom

As well as the change in the core focus of the theatre and its manner of performing, in the early nineties, the Little Theatre faced a bigger challenge: incorporation into the system. Once the government had set the rules of the game - they provided the Experimental Theatre of the National Theatre as a performance space and set up the National Culture and Arts Foundation which would provide funding – the question of whether dramatists of the Little Theatre should play the game or not remained. This, again, is an issue of identity and subjectivity. The Little Theatre had once defined itself as outside of the system, after entering into the system, would they still retain their subjectivity? To approach the problem from a different angle, when the Little Theatre was outside of the system, was it able to really grasp its own subject? This controversy is ongoing to this day.

People often ask me, for example, given that I'm already of a certain age, why I still continue with the Little Theatre. I saw a performance in London once, in which there were seven actors on stage, and there was an audience of seven, the actors still went on with the show. I think that even if seven hundred people come to see one of my plays, maybe only seven of them will have an affinity with my drama, so my play is performed for those seven people, not for the six hundred and ninety three other people. That is what avant-garde theatre is, what avant-garde art is, maybe it will not attract a big audience, but it is important in the developmental history of theatre. If I wanted to create drama that was appealing to the masses, I could do it, but that is not freedom. For this reason I stayed in the Little Theatre, the reason being -- I want to remain free.

Photos provided by Ping Hsu

Original text taken from an interview with Wang Molin, adapted by Jingru Ho, translated from the Chinese by Cerise Phiv and Conor Stuart


Avant-garde in dialogue (maybe you can think of a better title too...)

Buds of modernism on an infertile land

In the sixties, Taiwan’s main ideology was decided by the Cold War and the fight against communism. In such a dry and discouraging intellectual atmosphere,the youth was aspiring to a radical and subversive modernism which would acknowledge their existence. At that time, the only opening for modern art was probably at the United States Information Agency which would propose information on modern art and exhibitions, so most of the people who wanted to organize artistic events would choose that place.

It’s in that context that was created the “Theater Magazine” (1965) by Huang Hua-cheng, Kang Chien Chiu and Chen Yingzhen. There was no Taiwanese modernism yet at that time but the “Theater Magazine” was already offering critics and reflexions on modernism through their articles on Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, Artaud’s theater of cruelty or Fellini’s 8 ½. Even nowadays, so almost 50 years later, one can say that the content and the lay-out of the magazine still remain very subversive and avant-garde.

In 1965, the “Theater Magazine” put on the play Waiting for Godot at the auditorium of the Tien Educational Center. This was the first representation of a play labeled “Theater of the Absurd” in Taiwan. In the audience, the young artists who had only seen anticommunist plays before, may not have fully understood the signification of this theater; but this kind of representation - the representation of the absurdity - was a real shock for us and also an important lesson.

Thus, we started to feel a strong wind of modernism in the artistic and cultural circles of Taiwan who got a bigger taste of it: besides the “Theater Magazine”, we saw the creation of a magazine dedicated to modern poetry, The Epoch Poetry Quarterly (《創世紀》), and the “Modern Literature” Magazine was also founded under Bai Xian-yong’s impulse.


In search of our own discourse and body

The Little Theatre Movement in Taiwan basically followed the same thread and started by criticizing and subverting the culture produced by the Cold War, the martial law and anti-communism. The Lan Ling Theatre Workshop, founded in 1980, hosted the first amateur troupe of experimental theater (formerly at the experimental theater of the Tien Center). They presented author Shih-chieh Chin’s plays such as 《荷珠新配》and 《包袱》, thus starting a process of reflexion on Chinese culture. In fact, they had taken the name of their troupe, “Lan Ling”, from the title of a Chinese play from the Tang dynasty “King Lan Ling going to battle”. So, this theater was still a product of Chinese culture and in the political context of that time, the notion of “Taiwan” had not touched the minds yet.

Even though artists and writers from the theater world had already started to criticize and to reflect on the traditional culture, they still did it in regards of western modernism. Then, there was very few drama and theater departments in universities: originally, only the National Taiwan University of Arts, the Fu Hsing Kang College and the Chinese Culture University had one. The theory and language of the Taiwanese modern theater had not been conceived yet, thus we could only borrow crudely the language of Western modernism in order to build our own performing body, but this was never a complete act, it always remained fragmented and incomplete.

For this reason, the Small Theater Movement of the eighties lacked of methodology: we did not know how to use our body and we did not have our own aesthetic language. For all of us, just talking about “subversion” was already a critic, a way of opposing the tradition and the system. At that time, the only one who explored in a deeper way the body was Ruo-Yu Liu from the U Theatre. She had taken drama classes in NY with the Polish director Jerzy Grotowski and, after her return to Taiwan, she had studied Tai chi and Japanese No Theater before finally finding Taiwan traditional Drum Dance. The question of the Taiwanese body had then started to be raised.

The new dialectic of identification

During the martial law, almost every social issue was centered on the “identification” subject, whether they concerned Taiwanese people, feminists, homosexuals or aborigines etc. The Taiwanese theater entered then a new phase of nationalism: before the end of the martial law, there was the “the Republic of China and Its People”; afterwards, this notion got loosened and became vague and needed to be redefined clearly. Slowly, people started to call themselves “Taiwanese”, some participated in movements for the Independence, other young people from the Left-wing showed their sympathy towards China’s socialism. These manifestations are all the dialectical expression of an identification and, to me, they are all part of the “new nationalism”.

The DDP was then leading a wave of protest against the system and the KMT; they leant on the mobilization created by social issues such as the environmental protection, the aboriginal cause, the peasants, the workers movement... and of course the Little Theater movement too. In 1988, I looked for many young people from the Little Theater and together we put on the play “Chasing the Evil from Orchid Island” (《驅逐蘭嶼的惡靈》) where we protested against the government’s storing nuclear waste on this aboriginal land. This was the first performance of action theatre in Taiwan. At the same time, the other troupes from the Little Theater got also involved in protest movements one after the other. They would confront and oppose the government in a direct way. They would not limit their contestation to the street, they would choose any place outdoor as long as it was different, like abandoned buildings for example.

In 2010, I put on the play Waste Land (《荒 原》) which was at the same time a retrospective look on this part of history and on my personal life. A particular line in the play explains well the contradictions and struggles of the people who participated in these movements: “In 1987, we were believing that the least battle would change the meaning of our life as, during the martial law era, we were just like wandering orphans. But when the martial law ended, we just became a scrum of spermatozoon looking for an ovum to grip. And at the end of the battle, we had just helped a bunch of politicians to gain power with impunity. This revolution got buried under a thick layer of dead soil altogether with its forgotten memories and restless hopes.”
Nonetheless, the Little Theater of that time had already started to develop an important notion of modern theater: its social nature, which gives reality to modern art.






(主標)對話時代,走向前衛
(副標)王墨林談小劇場運動流變
(前言)人稱「大墨」的知名導演王墨林,從六○年代的文藝青年,到後來成為專業的藝術工作者,三十幾年來始終堅持在小劇場耕耘。透過此次訪談,他不僅為我們講述台灣劇場的發展脈絡,也深入剖析了小劇場的身體與美學。

口述∣王墨林  整理∣何靜茹  攝影∣許斌


(段標)現代主義在貧瘠土地萌芽
1960 年代,台灣的社會氛圍是冷戰、意識形態則是反共的,在那樣一個冰冷、苦悶、思想沒有出路的時代中,年輕人渴望的是一種基進、顛覆性的現代主義,希望以此來 認同自己的存在。當時現代藝術的出口,大概只有美國新聞處,那裡提供很多現代藝術的資料或展覽,台灣要進行相關的藝術活動,大多也會選在美新處舉行。
黃華成、邱剛健、陳映真等人籌辦的《劇場》雜誌,也在這段時間出現了(1965年)。當時台灣可說根本沒有現代主義,但是《劇場》介紹的內容,包括貝克特的《等待果陀》(註1)、亞陶的殘酷劇、費里尼的《八又二分之一》(註2)等等,都是對現代主義提出批判和反思。即使是超過四十年的今天來看,《劇場》雜誌的內容、編排還是很顛覆、前衛的。
1965年《劇場》雜誌製作了貝克特的《等待果陀》,在耕莘文教院禮堂演出。這是台灣首次出現荒謬劇,對反共劇看多的文藝青年來說,雖然不能完全懂得這齣戲的脈絡,但是那種呈現形式——透過一個事件來呈現世界的荒謬性,為我們帶來很大的震撼,也提供了很好的學習。
濃厚的現代主義氛圍開始瀰漫在台灣的藝文圈,除了《劇場》雜誌,還包括《創世紀》的現代詩、白先勇等人所創的《現代文學》等等,這些都為文藝青年和文化界提供了養分。

(段標)尋找自己的論述和身體
後 來的小劇場運動基本上是延續這條現代主義的脈絡,對冷戰、戒嚴、反共所形成的文化提出顛覆和批判。1980年的「蘭陵劇坊」是第一個業餘的實驗性劇團(前 身為耕莘實驗劇團),他們推出《荷珠新配》、《包袱》等戲碼,開始對中國文化進行反思。他們的團名「蘭陵」取自中國的「蘭陵王入陣曲」(中國最早的戲劇演 出),從這裡便可得知,這是一個想像中國文化所產生的劇場,在當時的政治氣氛中,「台灣」根本還未被納入思考。
即 使劇場界已經開始反思、批判傳統文化,終究還是在西方現代主義的脈絡下。那時大專院校的戲劇系很少,只有藝專(現已改制為台灣藝術大學)和政工幹校(政治 作戰學校的前身),再加上後來成立的文化學院(文化大學的前身)。關於台灣的現代劇場到底是什麼,論述和話語並未被建構出來,所以只能大量挪用西方現代主 義的語言,去建構自己的身體表演。但是那種借用並不完整,而且是支離破碎、斷簡殘篇的。
因 此,小劇場運動在八○年代發生時,可以說是沒有方法論的,既不知道怎麼使用身體,也缺乏美學的語言。大家只是在講「顛覆」,也就是一種批判性,以及與傳 統、體制的對立。當時唯一比較具體探索身體的人,應是「優劇場」的劉若瑀(原名為劉靜敏),她在紐約接受波蘭戲劇大師果托夫斯基(Jerzy Grotowski)的專業訓練,回到台灣後,就嘗試以太極、日本的能劇做為身體的訓練,最後找到台灣傳統的車鼓陣。關於台灣人的身體到底是什麼,從這裡 已經開始被討論了。

(段標)身分認同的再次辯證
在 解嚴前後,幾乎所有社會議題都圍繞在「身分認同」(identify)上,包括台灣人、女性主義、同性戀、原住民等等。台灣的劇場進入了一個新的「國族主 義」,以前在戒嚴時是「中華民族」、「中華民國」,後來這個概念變得模糊鬆動,需要被重新辨識清楚。慢慢地,有人開始說自己是「台灣人」,有人參加了台獨 運動,也有左派青年接受中國的社會主義,這些都是對自己身分的再一次辯證;對我來說,都是新的「國族主義」。
這 時候,由民進黨帶起了反體制、反國民黨的風潮,或者可以說民進黨利用了社會議題的動員,例如環保、原住民、農民運動、工人運動等,當然,小劇場也不例外。 1988年,我找了很多小劇場的年輕人,在蘭嶼策畫、演出《驅逐蘭嶼的惡靈》行動劇,抗議政府將核廢料貯放在原住民的土地上,這是台灣第一個結合示威與表 演的行動劇場。當時,還有很多小劇場以各種不同形式,紛紛投入了反對運動,直接與政治對嗆,他們的行動不只侷限在街頭,也有在戶外、廢墟等不同場景。
我 在2010年推出的《荒原》一劇,其實就是在回顧這一段歷史,同時也是自己生命史上的一個段落。其中有一段台詞,很能說明參與其中的人的矛盾和掙扎: 「1987年,我們以為一場戰役起碼會改變一點點生命的意義,戒嚴時生命恍若孤魂野鬼、徬徨無主,解嚴後生命像精蟲亂竄,一直想找到一顆卵子附著在上面。 但是一場戰役下來,只是幫助了那些政客達到奪權的陽謀。一場革命被埋葬在這片死沉沉的土地,混雜著遺忘的記憶和躁動的慾望。」
但無論如何,此時的小劇場運動已經開始具備現代劇場的重要概念——社會性,也就是現代藝術的現實性。


(段標)舞踏引進前衛美學風潮
因 為與現實的矛盾、衝突,小劇場產生了身體的行動,但從另一方面來說,小劇場在美學方面仍顯薄弱。一直到1988年,有個日本舞踏「白虎社」 (Byakko-Sha)來台灣演出,他們破壞、顛覆了傳統的表演形式和肢體動作,為台灣的藝術界帶來了前衛美學的思考,也影響了許多年輕人和藝術家。
首 先,舞蹈界開始思考「台灣人的身體是什麼?」雲門舞集的林懷民找出太極導引的形式,林秀偉的「太古踏」則是嘗試透過肢體來探索生命。那時候的現代主義已經 告一段落,台灣進入當代藝術的階段。經過兩次的現代主義洗禮,一次來自西方的影響,一次來自日本,台灣開始有自己的現代劇場語言、有美學上的敘述,也較能 建構出一套屬於自己的美學了。

(段標)消費社會缺乏意象與詩意
解 嚴之後,台灣的大環境進入了兩黨政治,年輕人很容易認為自己置身在一個開放、民主、自由的社會。再加上經濟發展到達高峰,台灣進入屬於資本主義的消費社 會,此時他們關心的是個人的身體慾望。年輕人沒有那麼多的歷史記憶,他們是通過流行文化來建構自己的身分和認同,次文化因而變得越來越個人化。原本個人化 帶來的應是一個越來越豐富、複雜的世界,但是年輕一代卻認為一個電腦就是一個世界,進而將這個世界裝在這黑盒子裡,他們的身體行動開始萎縮,變得越來越沒 有能量。
在 小劇場運動時期,我們的戲談不上自我表現,強調的是社會議題。現在的年輕人比較會利用劇場來表現自身的存在,此時,要求他們通過行動去和社會產生對應,那 幾乎是不可能的。個人的自我表現是現代主義很重要的元素,但年輕一代所呈現出來感情卻常是混沌、不清楚的,之所以會這樣表現,是因為他們沒有「身體」。比 方他們的寂寞、孤獨、挫折,常常沒有焦點,就只單純是表達憤怒而已。事實上,他的憤怒並不是來自於某個事件,而是他的存在本身就是一種憤怒,自然會產生挫 折。
以 前的小劇場在表演時是沒有客廳、臥室、街上等實景,表演的所在可以被看成是戶外、室內、月球、甚至是地球,並沒有那麼明確。因為這裡是他想像的世界,是他 的夢境。但現在的劇場年輕人會很實際地傳達這是什麼地方,且順著日常的慣性來演出,有沙發就坐在沙發上,然後就開始講話。但是他講話時,又和《等待果陀》 那種感覺不一樣,因為講得太多、太清楚了,沒有「詩」的感覺。他們確實有想像力,但卻不會用「意象」(image)。也就是說,他們的夢和以前的夢不一樣 了,我們以前的夢是卡夫卡式的,是不安、騷動的,甚至是在一個迷宮裡面。現代年輕人在劇場作的夢是清楚的,他們或許是早熟的,但是卻無法將那些東西變成 「意象」。

(段標)永遠追求自由的創作
除 了劇場關注的核心以及表現方式有所轉變外,九○年代初,小劇場面臨了一個更大的挑戰:被體制收編的問題。當政府訂立一套遊戲規則,提供國家劇院的實驗劇場 作為表演空間,成立國家文藝基金會提供經費補助;此時,小劇場人要進去參與這場遊戲嗎?這個問題基本上也是身分與主體性的問題。原本小劇場將自己定位在體 制外,進入體制之後,是否還擁有自己的主體性?換另一個角度想,當小劇場在體制外時,是否就真能掌握自己的主體?這樣的爭論,一直到現在還在進行。
就 像常常有人問我,我年紀那麼大了,為什麼還繼續做小劇場?我曾在倫敦看過一個演出,台上有七個演員,台下也只有七個觀眾,演員仍然很盡職地演出。對我來 說,就算有七百個觀眾來看我的戲,但事實上可能只有七個觀眾能和我產生連結對應,而我的戲就是演給這七個人看,並不是其他那六百多人。這就是所謂前衛劇 場、前衛藝術,也許觀眾不多,但對藝術史的發展是很重要的。要創作出可以吸引很多觀眾的戲,我可以做得到,但那並不自由。我之所以一直留在小劇場中,理由 很清楚——我是自由的。

註釋
01
山謬‧貝克特(Samuel Barclay Beckett, 1906-1989),出生於愛爾蘭的作家,後定居於法國。1969年獲得諾貝爾文學獎,其成名作《等待果陀》(Waiting for Godot)被視為荒謬劇的立基之作。
02
費德里柯‧費里尼(Federico Fellini, 1920-1993),義大利著名藝術電影導演,其以黑白電影形式拍攝的《八又二分之一》,被許多影評人評為「有史以來最出色的電影之一」。

圖說
01 「荒原」劇照
開門頁,不寫圖說

02王導演說話神情
王墨林導演認為孤獨、虛無是資本主義中的絕對存在,人與人之間是沒辦法溝通,所謂溝通,只是外在符號而已。

03「黑洞」劇照(如需圖說,屆時再補上,謝謝。)





Jingru Ho (何靜茹)

Former managing editor of Renlai Magazine.

雜食性文字工。

Help us!

Help us keep the content of eRenlai free: take five minutes to make a donation

AMOUNT: 

Join our FB Group

Browse by Date

« August 2019 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

We have 4100 guests and no members online