Critique 1

by Michael Billington

Albee insists, rightly, that bestiality is the occasion rather than

the subject of his play: he is not simply smashing old taboos or

writing a hippy, dippy hymn to animal-oriented sex ….

Instead he is asking, provocatively, whether love has proscribed

boundaries and, if so, who sets them. More immediately he is

showing the tragic downfall of a divided individual and the

destruction of his marriage to the understandably

uncomprehending Stevie.

Admittedly Albee raises big questions which he can't answer in

the compass of a 90-minute play…. Albee implies there is a

malaise affecting American society; but he never exactly defines

the source of the unhappiness motivating Martin and the fellow

-sufferers he meets at a therapy session.

If bestiality is also a metaphor for other forms of socially

condemned sex, such as incest or paedophilia, Albee never

pursues the important question aired by Ross: isn't it the lack of

consensuality that raises our moral hackles?…And by the end one

is emotionally drained.

It is partly because Albee follows an ancient rule of tragedy

defined by Boethius as "a story of prosperity that endeth in

wretchedness".

But it is also because Albee has shocked us out of our familiar

complacency. He has shown that passion is something that can

neither be controlled, ordained or directed to socially acceptable

ends.


Ａｌｂｅｅ嚴正強調人獸交媾不是這齣劇的主題，而是發端。此

劇的目的不是要抨擊傳統的禁忌，也不是要歌頌動物趨向的荒唐

性愛，而是希望能以較為激烈的方式讓觀眾反思「愛」究竟有沒

有所謂的禁域？如果有，那又是誰去設下界線的？

Ａｌｂｅｅ用劇末男主角悲劇性的崩潰、妻子Ｓｔｅｖｉｅ的不

諒解（然而觀眾能充分體會她不諒解的原因）以及婚姻的毀滅來

呈現這個問題，但無可否認，在這齣九十分鐘的短劇裡所提出的

問題，連Ａｌｂｅｅ自己也無法可解。雖然在劇中他暗示有某種

抑鬱的無力感影響著美國社會，但卻沒有明確定義究竟是什麼讓

Ｍａｒｔｉｎ和他在心理療程中遇見的病友們如此怏怏不樂。如

果在這裡人獸交媾是其他為社會所不容許性行為的一種隱喻或象

徵－比如亂倫或者戀童，那麼Ａｌｂｅｅ並沒有更深入去探討劇

中Ｒｏｓｓ所提出的問題：不就是因為相悖於大眾的合意才激起

我們道德上的反感嗎？而到了全劇的最後，觀眾們應該都已經在

情緒上精疲力盡了。部份是因為Ａｌｂｅｅ沿用了悲劇法則，據

Ｂｏｅｔｈｉｕｓ的說法是「成功輝煌的故事以不幸告終」；而

另一部分則是因為Ａｌｂｅｅ震撼了我們因習慣而滿意的現狀。

在此劇中，Ａｌｂｅｅ表達了激情是不會為了能讓社會接納而甘

受控制、壓抑及指揮的。

翻譯：林彥均