等待古夫曼

《等待古夫曼》的标题是导演兼主演克里斯托弗·盖斯特向贝克特《等待戈多》致敬，但作为“伪纪录片”类型中的一员，这个标题同时也重申了其戏仿的成分。当然，神秘的百老汇大佬古夫曼先生与戈多先生一样，直到戏剧（或者音乐剧）结束都没有现身。但在《古夫曼》中一位无知的观众却阴差阳错的代替了他的位置。他在幕间休息后坐到了为古夫曼先生预留的座位上（也可以说是因为音乐剧本身的成功吸引了他换到更靠前的位置。所以即使没有尾声中考基重返百老汇，小镇演员心怀感激地重返岗位这种皆大欢喜的结局，影片的基调也不至于凄凉）。于是，在古夫曼先生缺席的情况下，同时在整个剧组成员误以为古夫曼先生出席的情况下，《红、白与布雷恩小镇》完美谢幕，大获成功。但是当这位误打误撞的观众被导演当作古夫曼请到后场时，他不知所措、神情尴尬。整个剧组成员这才得知古夫曼先生从未到场，而在百老汇登台演出也只是竹篮打水一场空。这里有造化弄人的遗憾，也有自我嘲讽的戏谑。

相比其“纪录”的风格特征，戏仿往往才是盖斯特“伪纪录片”的精髓。意图用纪录风格展现虚构故事的方法，其本身就是自我怀疑的，因为所谓“伪纪录片”的风格手段很难成功地复制，也不企图复制纪录片的叙事模式。在《古夫曼》中，老道的观众也许能敏锐的觉察到某一些镜头运动和剪辑方法是普通纪录片无法做到的，或者至少部分场景让观众有一种令人怀疑的流畅感。有时候这种感觉太明显，对于特别是其排练当中的一些场景，剪辑之流畅，让人难免怀疑。摄影机镜头像是从来没跟丢过任何一个重要的事件，演员的情绪、导演的困难等等突发的事件都不可避免的被戏剧化。

所以，这种通过挑战虚构与现实边界的戏谑往往被用来调侃事与愿违的无奈，其“伪纪录”的类型本身无法承担悲剧题材的重负。这其中的原因比较复杂，但却不得不让人联想到叔本华的气质：人生中的快乐是短暂、虚幻的，而痛苦才是真实。所以因为一种玩世不恭的态度，故意游走在虚实边界中的作品因此往往无法具备刻画“悲剧现实”的厚重的力量。于是《等待戈多》可以是凌驾于现实之上的真实（它比现实更加真实），而《等待古夫曼》成为了对真实的戏仿。

当然，这里并不是要用《古夫曼》中间的戏剧性来否认其中的即兴成分。《古夫曼》的表演的确在绝大部分都是依赖于演员的即兴发挥。即兴也是偶然的。因为脱离了设定剧本的约束，它原本不必如此。当然所有表演都有即兴的成分，只是程度上的差异而已，像是侯麦的电影在即兴表演方面的尝试并不比实验剧场的即兴表演更保守。但电影和戏剧还是倾向依赖于其不同的物理媒介进行艺术表达。卡维尔就有一个观点认为电影的魅力在于其形态的固定，它不同于戏剧，每一次演出都是不一样的。电影的形态却在它被完成时永远地被固定了下来（但这却给观众反观自身提供了机会。如果凝视的客体并没有变化，不同的体验来源只可能是依赖于主体自身以及环境的变化）。而如此看来，《古夫曼》的即兴成分更稳固了戏仿的本质，因为《古夫曼》嵌套了一个表演中的表演的结构。作为一部电影，卡维尔所谓的形态的固定的确毫无疑问，但即兴的成分揭示了偶然，包括排练在内的表演建立在这种不固定的偶然之上，但影片中舞台上音乐剧本应成为某次发挥的偶然也在电影中被必然的固定了下来。这类亦虚亦实、似是而非的态度也像略带戏仿痕迹，只不过它已经从对诸如《等待戈多》之类的某一个具体文本的戏仿上升为对类型本身的戏仿。

这类所谓“影中戏”（为了区别于《哈姆雷特》或者皮兰德娄作品里“戏中戏”的说法）并不少见，就像“伪纪录片”的类型并不少见一样。但至于盖斯特如何以“伪纪录片”的形式处理戏剧和电影两种不同语言的语法的确有独到之处。我想，大多数改编自戏剧的电影要么回避其原本的舞台结构，要么就只是拍摄镜头前的一出戏，不动用任何镜头运动、剪辑等等电影语言的语法。真正如路易·马勒的《万尼亚在42街口》或者拉斯·冯·提尔《狗镇》这样尝试结合两种语言的作品实在是很少。

Hollywood comedy-hyphenate Christopher Guest’s mockumentary WAITING FOR GUFFMAN, his second feature film as a director, pivots around the production of a community musical called “Red, White, and Blaine”, which chronicles the history of the fictive town Blaine, Missouri, to coincide with its 150th anniversary, and is supervised by the off-center director Corky St. Clair (Guest), who purports to have a past in the off-off-off-off-Broadway.

Ostensibly posing as a documentary interviewing Blaine’s manifold townsfolk, from city councilors, UFO experts, to those involved in the musical production, WAITING FOR GUFFMAN is also a jewel of improvisation, the majority of its hilarious lines, dialogue and personal interactions is ad-libbed (though Guest and Eugene Levy nominally take the credits as the scenarists), and delightfully, each member of Guest’s stock company is gung-ho to contribute their own laugh lines into the fold, and the entire film is washed with uncynical ironies, from a pair of travel agents who has never ventured out of the town (save for a sexual organ reduction surgery, no less!), to the town’s geography-challenged founding father, the much plugged stool manufacture (and those who can perform and utter it with a perfect serious face), not to mention the UFO abduction anecdote, a self-claimed abductee (Dooley) recounts that he has been multiply probed.

Taking into account of the film’s highly unsystematic makeup, it is no small feat that Guest covers the whole gamut of producing a stage musical with brisk efficiency and coherence, sequentially, auditions, casting, rehearsals, extra funds solicitation (ending up with a storming-off), Corky’s petulant resign and none-too-tardy comeback, and the final showtime, with the expectancy of the advent of Mr. Guffman, a theater critic from the Big Apple, who might bring the production to Broadway! Everything is effected in cruise control mostly courtesy to the fantastic dramatis personae.

Fred Willard and Catherine O’Hara are sidesplitting as Ron and Sheila Albertson, the genial couple harboring a Hollywood dream, who also have some antics in their sleeves, and with some alcohol under the belts, they are not shy of spilling some saucy beans to their prudish friends; Bob Balaban, as the frustrating school music teacher, goes against the grain of broad comic to emit his more subdued, simmering grievance; there is the inimitable Posey Parker, apart from being a pert sprite, can also elicit our compassion with her casual but unfeigned confession of a small-town gal fantasizing escaping onto a bigger canvas, and Eugene Levy is exceedingly competent as the straight-arrow dentist Allan, whose inner fire as an entertainer is potently triggered by being offered a major part in the musical, and his lazy eye prank is a pure killer.

Still and all, Guest’s superlative impersonation of Corky is another fount of our jouissance, despite of the obvious gay mannerism, and Corky’s overt interest in the mechanic stud Johnny Savage (Keeslar), thankfully the film doesn’t lay it on thick with more concrete developments, the situation of an absent wife alone speaks enough volumes of the unmasked truth.

The resultant musical itself, unsurprisingly, is a down-home, ludicrous parody of Americana’s cracker-barrel banality and wholesome innocuousness (an amusingly jarring synergy with its modern-ish instrumental accompaniment), however, Guest’s savvy mind puts no icing on this kitsch cake, a no-show Mr. Guffman is no savior to deliver the performers from their unfulfilled status quo, but that doesn’t mean they will stop trying, as the end points up soberingly, that is the veritable American spirit one should cleave to, which makes WAITING FOR GUFFMAN several notches above any number of one’s average, campy, feel-good comedies.

referential entries: Guest’s FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION (2006, 6.7/10); Mel Brooks THE PRODUCERS (1967, 7.2/10).