|
|
发表于 2009-2-24 16:19:02
|
显示全部楼层
哎呀，不好意思。周末节网，让韩姥姥费心了，本来这件事，是早该说清楚的。
张老师的话，也不是无中生有。俺在网上查询相关资料的时候，就碰上这么一段。本来还想翻译过来简单转述一下，后来想想看，不如干脆就 ...
漫人 发表于 2009-2-24 03:50 AM 
打倒懒人漫人！
看来张老师没胡说，哈？不过，我还是觉得这么好的作品，是不应该这样凑成。我也没决的情节有啥不好。
给你门炒一段 （from http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk/magflute/flutetxt.html）
Did the Plot Change from its Original Plan?
It has been suggested that the opera was to be a telling of the Lulu fairy tale story, and that the plot was changed after Mozart and Schikaneder saw another singspiel, at the Leopoldstadt Theatre, called Die Zauberzither, oder Kaspar der Fagottist, which had a similar plot. Not wanting to be accused of plagiarizing, it is suggested that they changed the story mid-stream.
According to this theory, the character Sarastro would have been truly evil and Tamino would have set out on a conventional rescue to reclaim the kidnapped daughter of the Queen of the Night. Instead, when Mozart and Schikaneder discovered that they had been scooped, they decided not to rewrite what they had already done, but rather to insert a lengthy conversation between Tamino and the First Priest at the gate of Sarastro's temple in which the First Priest informs Tamino that Sarastro is really not evil, but that he cannot yet reveal why Pamina has been abducted.
If Mozart and Schikaneder were worried, however, about being accused of plagiarizing a story called Der Zauberzither, why then did they not change the title of their opera? Is the story a mish-mash done over in the middle and patched together? Or should we agree with Otto Jahn who said: "It would be superfluous to criticize this libretto. The small interest of the plot, the contradictions and improbabilities in the characters and in the situations, are clear to all; the dialogue is trivial, and the versified portions are wretched doggerel, incapable of improvement by mere alteration."
Alternatively, is there a better design to this work of art than Mozart and Schikaneder are given credit for by the likes of Jahn? Should we assume that Mozart, usually tagged with epithets of perfection and divinity, would create or participate in something so shoddy as this assumed patchwork job?
Look at the behavior of the Three Ladies in the beginning. Although they are supposed to be thought of as servants of the "good" Queen of the Night under the theory that the story underwent a large change, their motives seem suspect, and their fawning over Tamino, purely a response to his physical beauty, seems to have the quality of a morality play, like much of the rest of the story.
On the other hand, if one subscribes to the notion that no change had to be inserted mid-way through composition, one nevertheless must admit that the Queen of the Night, though an antagonist to Sarastro, is not fully "evil." After all, her agents save Tamino's life, show him Pamina's portrait, and inspire in him a love for her. They also give him the magic flute, without which he will not survive the trials later in the opera.
Perhaps we should not think of the Queen of the Night and Sarastro so much as two extremes in a world which must be either exclusively good or exclusively evil, but rather we should see them more through the eyes of Eastern philosophies in which two halves must exist in order to have a balanced whole. The Day cannot exist without the Night. In other words, the Queen, the Three Ladies, and Monostatos are not simply allegories of evil which we should strive to expunge, but rather are allegories for parts of our characters which need to be accepted, acknowledged, and managed through the hard work of reason and love. |
|
楼主: Chang_Le
楼主
发表于 2009-2-19 09:56:36
