紀蔚然 （國立臺灣大學戲劇系教授）
莎士比亞的妹妹們的劇團無疑是1990年代中期以來，台灣劇場界最前衛、最勇於挑戰美學界限與觀眾的劇團。
這個劇團名字怪，風格更怪；它的組合也很奇怪。雖說是台大幫（創始團員都自台大畢業），但其實是雜牌軍，成員來自不同科系，且沒有一個是科班出身。據我所知，幾個核心團員私底下各過各的，不搞麻吉，讓外人感覺不出革命情感，或許因為如此，團內少有人事紛爭，沒有個性衝突，所以才可以活這麼久。
自1995成立以來至今，莎妹一共推出四十一部作品。其中，我觀賞了一些，有的在台灣，有的在國外。雖然曾寫過劇評，我不敢說完全了解莎妹到底在搞什麼鬼。《王記食府》大概是我最有把握「看得懂」的一齣：不過是兩個人煮菜給觀眾吃，主戲是那幾道一中一西的菜色，我們只要動用舌頭，不用偏勞智力，便能對它品頭論足。
我：好不好吃？
妻：還不錯。
我：但這算是劇場嗎？
這是我寫過最短的劇評，而且頭一遭用「好不好吃」起頭。然而，這是否為劇場的提問頗為貼切。
莎妹極難歸類。反戲劇、反敘述、反人物、反道德、反人文主義的文人劇場、風格取向劇場、概念劇場、後現代劇場、後後現代劇場、不食人間煙火劇場……這些都適用，卻沒一個是真正貼切的。從觀眾的角度，我們或可藉由蘇珊‧宋坦（Susan Sontag）「反詮釋」的概念進一步了解莎妹。
宋坦提倡反詮釋，認為詮釋是強制賦予作品意義的暴力，在西方這種衝動自柏拉圖以降以至於今，從未稍歇，如今來到批評專業化的年代，更形氾濫。詮釋是反動的，使作品窒息，她說。在詮釋的過程中，純粹的能量被智力遏抑了，感官因理性而變得遲鈍了。莎妹的劇場重感官，甚至在文字充斥的戲碼裡，自我反射性的文字的也是為了勾引感官，而不只是抒情表義。「取代解釋學，我們需要藝術的情色觀。」就這一點而言，莎妹完全辦到了。
我戲稱莎妹為「不食人間煙火劇場」，因為乍看之下，莎妹好似不食人間煙火，然而在這十六年裡的四十一部作品，所有關乎人間煙火的命題，如愛情、疏離、寂寞、生命、死亡、身體、回憶、幻想、社會、歷史，甚至時尚等等都有淋漓盡致的呈現。只不過，呈現的方式不是我們熟悉的寫實，也不是我們習以為常的敘事：它的質地既感官又細緻，既形而上又具體而微。
In place of a hermeneutics we need an erotics of art: the interpretation-resistant theatre of SWSG
Wei-jan Chi
Professor of Drama and Theatre at National Taiwan University
Without a doubt, Shakespeare's Wild Sisters Group is the most avant-garde company of Taiwanese live theatre since the mid 1990s and the bravest in terms of challenging aesthetic limits and theatre-goers.
Its name is weird and its style is weirder, not to mention the weirdness of the team itself. Though it can be labeled an NTU gang for being founded by graduates of the National Taiwan University, the team is a mixed bag in fact, with current members from various disciplines none of which is actually “theatre studies”. As far as I know, the few core members have separate personal lives – no in-group entanglement here -- such that casual onlookers may be unable to discern much camaraderie among them. Perhaps this is precisely why the company seldom has administrative disputes or personality conflicts, enabling it to have survived for so long.
Since its founding in 1995, SWSG has released 41 works in total. Some of these I have seen in Taiwan and others abroad. Despite having reviewed them, I dare not claim that I entirely understand how SWSG mucks around with things. One work that I most confidently “understand” is “Mansion de Wangs” -- though it entails two people cooking dishes to be tasted by the audience, enabling us to appraise the featured Chinese and Western dishes with our pallates only, not our frontal-lobe intellect.
Me: How does it taste?
My wife: Not bad.
Me: But is this theatre?
That was the shortest review I have written and the first time I have opened my writing with the phrase “how does it taste”. “Is this theatre?” is nevertheless an apt question.
SWSG is extremely difficult to label. Call it anti-dramatic, anti-narrative, anti-character, anti-morals, anti-humanist artsy theatre; or call it style-oriented theatre, conceptual theatre, post-modern theatre, post post-modern theatre, ivory tower theatre…… all these are applicable but none truly befitting. As viewers, we can perhaps better understand SWSG through Susan Sontag’s discussion of “anti-interpretation”.
Sontag is against interpretation; she regards it as an agreession forcing meaning upon the work. In the West, this impuse has neither ceased nor abated since the time of Plato, and has only overflowed in this era of professional criticism. According to Sontag, interpretation is largely “reactionary” and “stifling”, a process entailing “the hypertrophy of the intellect at the expense of energy and sensual capability.” The theatre of SWSG, however, accentuates the sensual. Even in their text-heavy works, reflexive words serve not only to emote and inform but also to entice the senses. “In place of a hermeneutics we need an erotics of art,” wrote Sontag; in this regard, SWSG has thoroughly succeeded.
I call SWSG “ivoary tower theatre” in jest because, at first glance, they indeed seem to dwell therein. Yet among the 41 works they presented over the past 16 years they have vividly rendered all the wordly topics from beyond the tower, including love, alienation, loneliness, living, dying, the flesh, memories, fantasies, society, history and even fashion. It is merely that their manners of expression are neither literal nor narrative as we would otherwise find comfortable or familiar. Their texture is both sensual and nuanced, both metaphysical and concrete with details.
