英國國家歌劇院將最后一次謝幕嗎？

司馬勤

“歷史不會重復，但會經(jīng)常押韻?！贝笪暮礼R克· 吐溫如是說。放眼最近的歌劇世界，我覺得最起碼應該是莎士比亞十四行詩（或唐宋絕句）式的“韻腳”正在上演。

多年前我剛搬到紐約市，感覺特別驕傲，因為這個城市與其他歐洲文化重鎮(zhèn)——柏林、維也納、巴黎與倫敦——看齊，它們都擁有不止一家大型歌劇院。與其他都市一樣，紐約的歌劇界基本上包含著兩個極端：一個是高高在上絕不妥協(xié)的文化圣殿，另一個是為普羅大眾提供文娛節(jié)目的劇院。

回溯到2010年，我目睹了我最喜愛的歌劇院——為大眾服務的那類——開始走下坡路，就這樣過了三年，它更是在眾目睽睽之下，痛苦地突然倒閉。海明威筆下的人物曾經(jīng)這樣描述自己是如何知音行天下FREQUENT FLYER CRITIC傾家蕩產(chǎn)的：“漸漸地，然后，突然地?！边@也可以套用在歌劇舞臺上，但規(guī)模要大得多。

原因當然很多，但絕大部分的病征可追溯到無可厚非的事實：紐約的“亞軍歌劇院”面對的挑戰(zhàn)來自規(guī)模更小、操作更靈活的小型歌劇團，這也意味著競爭力更強。為了生存，市立歌劇院必須重新審視自己此前慣用的商業(yè)模式。歌劇院“奄奄一息”的那幾天，有很多人出謀劃策，這些新概念也許可以拯救歌劇院，但可惜全都遲來了一步。市立歌劇院的最后一任總經(jīng)理喬治· 斯提爾（George Steel）當年成為眾矢之的，飽受批評，但其實董事局成員在斯提爾上任前早已經(jīng)做出了很多愚昧的抉擇。幾年后，紐約市立歌劇院重整旗鼓，套用了新的營運模式（有意思的是，這其中很多都是斯提爾當年的想法）。遺憾的是，市立歌劇院再也不是紐約歌劇院中的“第二名”了。到了今天，在蕓蕓的歌劇院中，它的綜合實力連前五名都擠不進。

令我特別失望的是，在過去幾周里，這個故事竟然在大西洋彼岸重演。嚴格地說來，也不算是“依葫蘆畫瓢”；正如吐溫先生所說，故事是不完整地重復，細節(jié)上也不相對稱。紐約市立歌劇院當年面對的是內部運營調整的重重難關，而這次英國國家歌劇院的風波——就像英國自脫歐以來面對的大部分問題那樣——往往源自眼光短淺的執(zhí)政者。但最終，到頭來的結果可能都差不多。

11月4日， 英國藝術委員會（Arts CouncilEngland）——這個隸屬于英國數(shù)字化、文化、媒體和體育部， 但不屬于任何政府部門的公共機構——宣布將削減藝術資助資金，矛頭直指扎根在倫敦的各個院團。受影響的院團包括皇家歌劇院（每年減少290萬英鎊），南岸中心（Southbank Centre，每年減少190萬英鎊）以及英國國家劇院（National Theatre，每年減少85 萬英鎊）。但是損失最慘烈的受害者是英國國家歌劇院，該院每年獲資助的1260萬英鎊將被削減近三分之二：未來三年內將只獲得共1700萬英鎊的撥款。

然而，并非所有人都對此感到驚訝。英國國家歌劇院首席執(zhí)行官斯圖爾特· 墨菲（Stuart Murphy）在10月時已經(jīng)對外宣布，他將于明年9月卸任。我曾經(jīng)目睹英國“大眾歌劇院”的這位領導人的處事風格，他令我五體投地。如今，他那么高調地請辭，或許是因為早已聽到了風聲吧?！霸谶^去4年內，（藝術委員會）贊揚我們在各方面屢創(chuàng)佳績。歌劇院運營良好，財政穩(wěn)定，”墨菲在接受《衛(wèi)報》（TheGuardian ）訪問時說。“我們有七分之一的觀眾群體年齡在35歲以下。藝術委員會決意要腰斬這家最具創(chuàng)新力量的歌劇院——我們五分之一的演員屬于少數(shù)族裔，擁有全英最多元族裔的全職樂團與合唱團，平均票價是皇家歌劇院的四分之一——這個決定真的令人難以置信?！?/p>

當不面對公眾時，墨菲則更加直言不諱。他約見了文化部部長米歇爾· 多尼蘭（Michele Donelan），并在會議中就這個議題據(jù)理力爭。藝術委員會發(fā)出公告后的一天內，英國國家歌劇院就得到了英國大多數(shù)主要歌劇院的支持。著名威爾士男中音布萊恩· 特菲爾（Bryn Terfel）更發(fā)起了一項互聯(lián)網(wǎng)簽名活動，一天之內就收集了超過2.4萬個網(wǎng)友的簽名。

盡管創(chuàng)立與發(fā)展的歷史不同，紐約市立歌劇院與英國國家歌劇院往往被歸為同一類別。它們在公眾心目中的昵稱甚至都一樣：“大眾歌劇院”。但兩者的官方名稱彰顯了它們來自不同背景：一個屬于城市（紐約），另一個代表著整個英格蘭。英國藝術委員會這個舉動的潛在意圖很快就被“起底”了：旨在把全英至少20% 的藝術資金從英國首都分散到“大后方”。與此同時，又傳出要求將國家歌劇院從倫敦遷至曼徹斯特的傳言。短短幾天后，藝術委員會就正式發(fā)出聲明：“如果英國國家歌劇院仍然希望獲得資助的話，我們要求它搬遷到英國的另一地區(qū)?！彼囆g委員會還提出，他們樂意補貼搬遷費用以及制定一個新的運營計劃。

然而，很少有人會相信藝術委員會的論述。指揮馬克· 維格斯沃（Mark Wigglesworth） 曾于2015–2016年演出季短暫地擔任了英國國家歌劇院音樂總監(jiān)，他在《衛(wèi)報》上描述藝術委員會的這一決定屬于一連串“笨拙的、眼光短淺的文化模式破壞”。剛剛卸任巴比肯藝術中心（Barbican Centre）總經(jīng)理的尼古拉斯· 凱尼恩（Nicholas Kenyon）宣稱，他認為這一舉措明顯帶有政治動機，是對歌劇藝術的刻意攻擊。其他位于倫敦以外的歌劇院團也面臨削減資助的困境，其中包括格林德伯恩歌劇節(jié)（預計將失去36% 的資助）與威爾士國家歌劇院（減少53%的資助）。

幾天后，藝術委員會首席執(zhí)行官達隆· 亨利（Darren Henley）親自在報上發(fā)表言論，維護他們的政策。他聲稱委員會并沒有計劃“撤資歌劇”，而是要確保歌劇擁有更為堅實的未來。藝術委員會將撥出40% 的經(jīng)費用于資助民間院團，如英國巡回歌劇團（English Touring Opera）、國家歌劇工作室（National Opera Studio）、英國青年歌劇團（BritishYouth Opera），以及總部位于布里克斯頓（黑人人口很高的倫敦地區(qū)）、提攜非洲裔與亞裔藝術家的天馬歌劇團（Pegasus Opera Company）。文章提到，歌劇的未來將是在酒吧及停車場等場所與大眾親密接觸，而“具有成就的開拓者，如英國國家歌劇院與其他院團，將攜手為新觀眾創(chuàng)造未來”。至于如何開發(fā)額外收入，英國藝術委員會補充道，英國國家歌劇院坐落在倫敦的黃金地段，歌劇院大可以賣掉他們現(xiàn)在的駐地，即倫敦大劇院（LondonColiseum），或以高價將場地租給商演機構。

這一切聽起來言之鑿鑿。問題是，所有的這些沒有一個論點與現(xiàn)實相符，藝術委員會不光忽略了當事者，而且沒有與他們認真地交談過。正如維格斯沃提到的，那些新創(chuàng)辦的院團的業(yè)績至今沒有被公眾肯定，但這些早有建樹的機構卻反而“受罰”。凱尼恩的觀點是，這個決定全是基于政治意識形態(tài)的需要，而非出于對藝術品質的追求；最令他感到震驚的是，有關部門是否確實科學地驗證過，讓英國國家歌劇院離開倫敦（它在這里有超過一百年的根基，已有固定的觀眾群體）搬遷到曼徹斯特（必須從零開始建立受眾群）的提議。更不用說，曼徹斯特的文化與政治領導相關部門事先對此事一無所知。

墨菲好像是唯一一個與曼徹斯特的當政者討論過此事的人。他認為曼徹斯特現(xiàn)有的藝術團體要吸引當?shù)赜^眾已經(jīng)很吃力了。“藝術委員會沒有做好功課，但我們搜羅了充分數(shù)據(jù)?！彼嬖V《衛(wèi)報》。倘若真的搬到曼徹斯特，英國國家歌劇院不光會侵蝕曼徹斯特現(xiàn)有的藝術生態(tài)，還會削弱歌劇院籌募捐款資金的能力（倫敦的人口大概950 萬，而曼徹斯特的人口僅為280 萬）。

凱尼恩又提出另一個論點：如果藝術委員會可以提供有邏輯的實施策略和與一個切實可行的時間表，那么這些決定起碼看上去是有理有據(jù)的。然而，藝術委員會是一個不需要向公眾交代的公共機構，因此該組織完全沒有與藝術界溝通交流的意欲。“英國在國際文化舞臺上的領先地位日益衰落，這起事件只不過是為這副棺材上再加敲一枚釘子?！彼偨Y道。

截止到發(fā)稿前，英國國家歌劇院沒有一丁點兒讓步的意圖?！拔覀儾淮蛩惆峒遥眹腋鑴≡憾戮种飨?布倫耶斯（Harry Brünjes）于11月16日在一個跨政黨國會工作小組中表示，“搬遷這一說是無稽之談，這實際上代表著英國國家歌劇院將關門大吉。所有部門加起來將近600位才華橫溢、盡心盡力、工作積極的人們，將在倫敦面臨失業(yè)——大家必須明確這一點……按照現(xiàn)在情況，英國國家歌劇院將于明年4 月倒閉，結束它不到一百年的歷史，永遠謝幕！”

后續(xù)如何，我們拭目以待。

“History doesnt repeat itself，” Mark Twain oncesaid， “but it often rhymes.” Looking at the operaworld， I feel a quatrain coming on.

Back when I first moved to New York， I was proudto be living in one of the few cities in the world withmore than one great opera company， which put uson par with European cultural capitals like Berlin，Vienna， Paris and London. As in most of these cities，New Yorks opera world was basically divided into anuncompromising cultural palace on one hand andpopulist company playing to the masses on the other.

Back in 2010， though， I saw my favorite operacompany—the populist one—head into a slowdownward spiral that three years later became anabrupt， painful death. One of Ernest Hemingwayscharacters once described how he lost all his money：“Gradually， then suddenly.” This was Hemingway writlarge on the opera stage.

There were plenty of reasons for this， but mostsymptoms pointed to the fact that New Yorks “secondcompany” was facing smaller， nimbler competitionand needed a new business model. Many of the ideasfloating around during those final days probablywouldve saved the company， if theyd only startedfloating sooner. Too much blame was thrown atGeorge Steel， the companys final general manager，and not enough at the board members whose baddecisions started pouring long before Steel arrived.New York City Opera did resurface a few yearslater under a business model that， funnily enough，embraced most of Steels ideas， but by then CityOpera was no longer New Yorks second company.Now it barely makes the citys top five.

What makes me particularly sad is that， in the pastfew weeks， Ive seen the whole story repeat itself onthe other side of the Atlantic. Well， not the wholestory; per Mr. Twain， the symmetry isnt perfect. CityOperas problems came largely from within， while theturmoil at English National Opera—like pretty muchall of Englands problems since Brexit—mostly stems?from short-sighted government. But ultimately， theresult will probably be the same.

On November 4， Arts Council England—the nondepartmentalpublic body of the Department forDigital， Culture， Media and Sport—announced cutsin arts funding， particularly aimed at London-basedorganizations. Those hit included the Royal OperaHouse （losing ?2.9 million per year）， the SouthbankCentre （?1.9 million per year） and the NationalTheatre （?850，000 per year）. But the main victim by awide margin was the English National Opera， whoseannual funding of ?12.6 million would be cut bynearly two-thirds， for a total of ?17 million over thenext three years.

Not everyone seemed surprised， however. ENOChief Executive Stuart Murphy， whose public stylein managing “the peoples opera” Ive seen in actionand can personally vouch for， had already announcedin October that he would be stepping down inSeptember 2023， which shouldve been a clue thatsomething was in the air. “For the past four years，[the Arts Council] said we excelled in all criteria， theopera house was well run and financially steady，”Murphy immediately told The Guardian . “One inseven of our audience is under 35. To axe the mostpioneering opera company， where one in five singersis ethnically diverse， with the most diverse full-timeorchestra and chorus in the country， with an averageticket price a quarter of what it is at the Royal OperaHouse， is unbelievable.”

Behind the scenes， Murphy was even moreoutspoken and called a meeting with culturalsecretary Michelle Donelan to state his case. Withina day of the Arts Councils announcement， ENO hadthe support of most of the countrys major operacompanies. Welsh baritone Bryn Terfel started anonline petition of support that garnered more than24，000 signatures its first day.

Despite their different histories， New York CityOpera and ENO were often grouped in the samecategory. Both even had earned the same nickname：“the peoples opera.” But it was the formal name thatmarked the difference： City Opera was essentiallyabout New York; ENO was for all of England. The ArtsCouncils underlying strategy， which soon becamepublic， was to shift at least 20 percent of all artsfunding away from the British capital and into thehinterland. Much talk had already surfaced aboutmoving ENO from London to Manchester. Later thatweek， the Arts Council made a formal announcement：“We require English National Opera to move toanother part of England if they wish to continue toreceive our support.” The Arts Council also offered tohelp with moving costs and a new business plan.

Few people were buying the Councils argument，however. Conductor Mark Wigglesworth， who?briefly served as ENO music director in the 2015-16 season， called it a pattern of “ignorant andshortsighted cultural vandalism.” Nicholas Kenyon，until recently the managing director of the BarbicanCentre， claimed it was nothing short of a politicallymotivated attack on opera as an art form. Other?opera companies facing major cuts includedGlyndebourne （set to lose 36 percent of its funding）and Welsh National Opera （reduced by 53 percent），neither of which were based in London.

A few days later， Arts Council chief executive DarrenHenley took to the newspapers himself， defendinghis organizations policies. Rather than “defundingopera，” he claimed to be securing its future. Nearly40 percent of the Councils funding would now begoing to grassroots organizations like English TouringOpera， the National Opera Studio and British YouthOpera， as well as the Brixton-based Pegasus OperaCompany， which provides opportunities for artistsof African and Asian heritage. The future of opera，he wrote， is one where people encounter the artform in pubs and parking garages， and “that ENOand other opera companies with pioneering trackrecords， come together and invent a future fornew audiences.” As for additional income， the ArtsCouncil later mentioned， ENO was sitting on primereal estate. They could either sell their home baseat the London Coliseum or rent it for high-payingcommercial events.

This all sounded perfectly level-headed. Theproblem was， none of it seemed to be have beenarticulated to the people involved， or even groundedin reality. As Wigglesworth pointed out， few of the?new companies getting money actually had muchof a track record， while the only companies withexperience were the ones getting punished. Kenyonargued that the decision was based on politicalideology rather than artistic quality， and wasparticularly appalled that ENO should leave London，where it had been rooted for more than a hundredyears， to Manchester， where it would have to buildagain from scratch. Nor had cultural and politicalleaders in Manchester been told of the plan.

Murphy， the only person who apparently discussedthe matter with Manchester folks， came awayconvinced that the citys arts community could barelyattract audiences as it is. “Unlike the Arts Council， wedid the numbers，” he told The Guardian . The movewould not only cannibalize Manchesters existing artscommunity， but would decimate ENOs ability to raisefunds （Londons metropolitan population is nearly 9.5million， while Manchesters is about 2.8 million）.

Kenyon， for his part， argued that the Arts Councilsedict might have made sense if it came with aplausible strategy and a realistic timeline. Not beingaccountable to the public， however， the Council hasno incentive to engage with the arts communitydirectly. “This is just another nail in the coffin forLondons preeminence in the international culturalscene，” he concluded.

As I write this now， ENO is refusing to back down.“There is no relocation，” ENO board chair HarryBrünjes told an All-Party Parliamentary Group onNovember 16. “This is ENO closing down. This islosing 600 jobs in London of talented and devotedand able people across all departments – so lets getthis clear…As it stands， ENO will close in April afternearly a century， and thats the end of it.”

Watch this space.