鬥角勾心

劇團：阿盧製作
場地：壽臣劇院
場次：２００９年１月７日晚上８時正


“American Buffalo”是百老匯經典作品，八十年代於香港曾經由黃浩義搬上舞台，並多次重演。今日資深演員盧俊豪自立門戶，並以此劇作其創團作，可見此劇對觀眾以至舞台藝術工作者，必定有難以抗拒的魅力。然而今次演來只覺不過不失，似乎未見應有的神采。原因可能跟角色的設計取向有點關係。

“鬥角勾心”說的是三個男人的故事：二手店老闆阿當跟波仔密謀竊取一枚古董錢幣，但性格火爆的教頭郤介入並踢走波仔。當晚二人準備行動時，波仔帶來另一個古董錢幣出現，並告知另一位密謀者因傷入院，不能出席…結果眾人偷竊不成郤自囚自困了一個晚上。

劇中三人各有目的：阿當唯利是圖，為個人利益背棄波仔；教頭固然貪財，其實更希望於友儕間展示能耐；波仔年少無知，只希望得到其他人的認同。其中阿當與教頭雖然幾度強調“義氣”的重要性，但阿當背棄波仔；教頭看見阿當在賭局上被騙亦沒有啍一聲，可見他們兩人倒沒有什麼義氣。故此，傻頭傻腦的波仔做的兩件事──（一）說謊指自己成功跟蹤目標，令阿當與教頭白忙了一天；（二）借錢買來另一枚古幣來討好阿當──正好打了他們一記耳光，因為兩人為計劃偷竊白忙了一整天，而且出賣了對自己忠誠的朋友。這是故事最諷刺的地方。

要成功地說這個說事，個人認為角色設定方面，阿當應該更加唯利是圖，對波仔如對一條狗，須要時給一點甜頭，然後呼之則來，揮之則去。現時角色設計阿當較有“人情味”，盧俊豪的演釋亦恰到好處，只是若能更突顯角色的缺點，應可以更有效地帶出結局的諷刺。火爆教頭應是潦倒又過氣的“古惑仔”，現時歐錦棠高大英偉的外型郤成了他演出此劇的障礙。雖然他的整個身體語言也在訴說自己的“無力感”，無奈個人始終難以相信他會被“耍”。而波仔應是“啪丸啪上腦”的慘白少年，胡胡混混終日搖頭搖腦地胡扯。但現時波仔的角色只覺他年少無知，他的大話連篇令觀眾有點摸不著頭腦。

此外，佈景設計方面，二手店環境略為潔淨，只有一角堆滿雜物。若全店均堆滿雜物，應更能配合各角色的心理狀況。音響設計方面，劇中偶然出現一些音響效果，如鳥聲或雜物在地上滾動的聲音，未知設計是否為劇情加入停頓，但現時效果有點突兀，設計與技術上仍有改善之處。

First of all, regarding the foul words fluency, I am of the view that 20%-30% of the foul words uttered in the play were not spoken in a fluent manner to the extent that some of the foul words appeared to be spoken awkwardly. This happens probably because some of the foul words were inserted in a wrong place of a full sentence. Although I am not a foul language expert, I have dealt with those 'Koo Wat Chai' and their language culture for so many years that I can tell how the foul language should be spoken or structured to make it fluent and outstanding.

現時歐錦棠高大英偉的外型郤成了他演出此劇的障礙 -- I don't quite agree with this comment. I agree with Szeman's claim in her blog that a“古惑仔”could be of any bodice, strong built or short built. But, a strong built “古惑仔”tends to give an image which is physically more overpowering, charmful and prominent and hence more influential in the triad society. An image of a [過氣的“古惑仔"] should have nothing to do with the bodice of the character but with his personality instead. Having said that, I tend to have the view that Ah Tong has been too overpowering, dominant and outward in the play to the extent that it gives a feeling that he is a very active 古惑仔". Besides, he behaves too forcefully and gives too much pressure to 'Ah Dong' (the pawnshop owner) leaving Ah Dong no room to display his own selfish desire. In other words, it appears that Ah Dong tends to come up with his decisions upon the coercion of Teach rather than as a result of the evil of selfishness and greed of his own.

因為兩人為計劃偷竊白忙了一整天，而且出賣了對自己忠誠的朋友。這是故事最諷刺的地方 -- to me, there was never any 忠誠 (faithfulness) between or amongst the relationship of the three men in the play. 波仔 works for Ah Dong just for bread and butter rather than faith, he hides the fact that he has lost the target in possession of the coin and makes up another story because he is in fear that he will be expelled by his boss. Ah Dong, a pawnshop owner, is after monetary gain rather than trust from his peers. At the beginning, he employs 波仔 (a naive and green 古惑仔) to do the surveillance job for him because 波仔 is so cheap that he does not need to pay him much. And once the coin is to be obtained, Ah Dong can take the full possession of it with little, if not none, reward to be given to 波仔 . On the other hand, Teach is also after monetary gain rather than trust from Ah Dong. Teach believes he is entitled to a greater share of the gain once the job is successful because he is more experienced, sophiscated, and resourceful between them; again a display of human selfishness. The 故事最諷刺的地方 is the inborn evil of greed and selfishness embedded in human. All the three men in the story have been fooled around and betrayed, not by others, but by the human nature of selfishness embedded inside each of them. And for Ah Dong and Teach, they have also been fooled around by their own greed

AGREE WITH ALAN

好嘢,有人一齊傾

你講既當然有你既道理,但係波仔嗰方面,我覺得佢唔只係為"bread and butter",同埋阿當與波仔之間係有少少情義,因為第三場人地問波仔"點解你要買個古幣",佢答話"因為阿當鍾意"(句子大概係咁),我既理解係佢想"tum"阿當開心--當然佢咁做怪怪地,但係如果佢係"食丸仔食到上腦"就解釋到.而最後阿當叫教頭攞車,仲同波仔講"你做得好好,你做得好好",亦都反映咗佢衰唔晒,如果唔係"老點我地?"--一早打多兩鑊!

不過對於"古惑仔"既瞭解,我當然冇得同你鬥!

About : 因為第三場人地問波仔"點解你要買個古幣",佢答話"因為阿當鍾意"(句子大概係咁),我既理解係佢想"tum"阿當開心.

--- But 波仔 knew so well that the coin he bought was not the one 阿當 wanted. Besides, considering 波仔's position as he bought the replacement coin, he would not have been so stupid to disclose to others the true story that led him to buy that replacement coin. It is hence not surprising for 波仔 to beautify the excuse by saying "因為阿當鍾意" in front of others when in fact he is in fear that he would be kicked away by 阿當 if 阿當 learnt of the incompetence of 波仔 and his intention to deceive with the fake coin. BTW, who is that 人地? Moreover, I also noticed 波仔 had on numerous occasions tried to squeeze as much money from 阿當 for the job as possible. That reflects 波仔's greed (bread and butter) as well. If 波仔 only worked for 阿當 out of loyalty, he would not have, and never would, negotiated with 阿當 on reward conditions. In triad profession and culture, to display loyalty, followers will never ask their boss for reward when they are given a task. It is upto the boss to give them reward or provide them with the suitable tools/tasking money as the boss deems fit. Therefore, I have big doubt on 波仔's loyalty.

坦白講,我都唔記得第三場邊個問佢呢句說話
你既回應令我再一次諗:波仔既角色設計係咪出咗問題?因為而家我同你睇到既真係有出入,同埋有幾大影響

Ada,

I'm so glad that I could discuss with you and others our drama play review here...the process is just interesting and views-exploring.

Different people see different things out of a play is not uncommon and is not necessarily a bad thing.

The message I've received from the play, a miniature of the contemporary American life in the 1970s in the eyes of the writer (Mr. Mamet ), is that greed and selfishness dominate our life in this materialistic environment (this is perhaps more so in the 1970s as the script was written in 1975 in the USA) where loyalty, if ever exists at all, is secondary, somehow rethorical, and is nothing more than a saint excuse one will finally resort to for a hard revenge on someone who has contaminated it.(e.g. Teach hit Bor Chai with an ashtray as he thought Bor Chai had betrayed them) Hence, betrayal is often the by-product in the course of people's pursuit for power, fame, money, women, or in short for anything that will satisfy his/her own selfishness and greed. As the monster of betrayal lingers freely in our social environment, people become so self-protective and insecure that they don't trust people, be they their closed friends or even blood-related. Once you select to trust someone, you'd better prepare to be betrayed some day.

Discussion is welcomed