第一楼给BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH
我上午忘了贴，现在补过来。

Danny Boyle's sold-out production of "Frankenstein" is a thrilling theatrical take on Shelley's classic. James Taylor talks to the two actors breathing life into this dark parable ...
Special to MORE INTELLIGENT LIFE
Within five years of its publication, Mary Shelley’s novel, "Frankenstein", was adapted for mass audiences. There were stage melodramas, burlesques and even parodies. The name “Frankenstein” (usually mistakenly referring to the monster rather than the doctor who created him) was well known in the English-speaking world for more than a hundred years before Universal’s famous film version in 1931. For the past three generations, the image of a green-hued Boris Karloff has been the popular face of Frankenstein, but this year—80 years after James Whale’s film appeared—another filmmaker has re-imagined Shelley’s parable for both the stage and the cinema.
Danny Boyle has made his name in the film world with dazzling camera work and whiz-bang editing, in features such as "Trainspotting", "Slumdog Millionaire" and the recent "127 Hours". But with "Frankenstein"—which is nearing the end of its sold-out run at the National Theatre in London—Boyle’s coup de theatre is much more simple. He has the two actors who portray Dr Victor Frankenstein and his monstrous creation alternate roles every other night.
The result is a production that for all its theatrical bravura (London’s usually jaundiced critics have called it “spectacular,” “stunning,” “mesmerising”) puts the focus on the psychological and moral dramas that first shocked audiences almost 200 years ago.
Boyle’s "Frankenstein" (adapted by Nick Dear) is also the NT’s grandest effort in its own mad experiment in bringing live theatre to cinemas around the world via HD Broadcasts. More Intelligent Life spoke separately with both actors, Jonny Lee Miller and Benedict Cumberbatch, about what makes this story so timeless, and the challenge of preparing for not one but two big roles for an audience of millions.
Why a new Frankenstein?
Jonny Lee Miller: It came from Danny and Nick [Dear]. As far as they’re concerned no one has ever really tried to tell the story from the creature’s point of view. Obviously Boris Karloff and his wonderful portrayal is what sticks in peoples minds. However that film takes the voice away from the creature, which is contrary to the book, which has whole passages narrated by the creature.
The play opens with the creature (Dear’s text specifies that he is a “creature” not a “monster”) in an extended, almost wordless, sequence. Is the creature the star of this Frankenstein?
Benedict Cumberbatch: The creature is an extraordinary mountain and feast and gift for an actor. The discovery of what the creature is, his extraordinary physical education, the discovery of his body, but then also his mind, the alacrity with which he eats language with the force and hunger that he has for food, with the same strength, he’s extraordinary—but you can’t 

do it every night.
And Victor is a wonderful, equally visceral character, but in a very different way. He’s this fantastic, sociopathic child who has become obsessed and compartmentalises his life at the cost of all love and tenderness and communication with others and the other sex. Victor on the page is a more recognisable type for me. The revelations came about the versatility you can get in playing him, the levels of vulnerability, arrogance and complete naiveté and extraordinary knowledge and power. All of those thing eeked out slowly, but no less so.
It was vital to me to do both. It’s a shortish evening, only an hour and three-quarters, so it was mentally and physically possible to take on the workload.
When did the concept of two actors come about?
BC: Danny mentioned it as a possibility in our first meeting. I said I would only be interested if that was going to happen. I think it makes such perfect symmetry to the piece, and it balances out the workload.
JLM: Victor and the creature only have two big scenes together in the play. It doesn’t feel like that, but that’s the reality of it. There are these two great scenes that you have together that are always fantastic to play, which ever way round you play them, so it's not a competition for us, in either of the parts. It’s a fascinating question of support and encouragements. Being there, it’s nice to have it both ways around, and not get too exhausted or bogged down by one or the other parts. You get to see the play inside-out, really.
BC: Alternating the roles has been done a few times, but it’s been a while, "True West" did it [on Broadway in 2000, with John C. Reilly and Philip Seymour Hoffman], Gielgud and Olivier did it as Mercutio and Romeo [at the New Theatre in 1935], but it is an unusual thing to do. Any chance to do it for actors, it’s just a gift. It just keeps everything fresh, it keeps people on their toes.
It’s certainly interesting, but are there difficulties as well?
BC: It's tough, our bodies are all in pain. It’s a fascinating, sort of crippling ourselves doing this. I’ve spent time in X-ray today; I’ve got my hips coming out of joint, my wrist are developing into ankles, 'cause of work I do at the beginning. We’ve had all sorts of injuries, back problems and neck problems. It’s a hard show to do, but it’s also been wonderful. Thank God I like Johnny Lee Miller.
JLM: To be able to stand back during rehearsals, when it was daily and all the time we were switching it around, to be able to stand back and watch another actor do the work you’ve just been working on—once you get over the initial weirdness of that—it’s fascinating, because you get to see things that you think are working, and things that aren’t working.
We were very generous, open-minded and open-hearted, me and Benedict, in not being precious. We’d ask, “I like this that you’re doing, can I take that?” And then you pick and choose. You try not to use the other 

person’s ideas too much, but it inevitably happens, because you realise that they’re right, you know? So that’s been an amazing thing, to sit and watch—and I’m not sure that all actors—could do that. It took us a long long time, 'cause you’re working on two parts, it takes a lot longer to feel comfortable with them, but we had that time.
How important was it to Danny Boyle and Nick Dear to be faithful to the original source?
JLM: The book was important, but not exactly. Our version does away with a large chunk of the beginning of the book and just wants to tell the story from the creature’s point of view. [We all] felt that you could say much more by telling his story.
BC: Everyone is sick of the idea that Frankenstein is the monster. Everyone gets that cliché wrong. Frankenstein is the scientist—and it should be equally about him. Yes, the monster has been rather graceful (in the form of Karloff, Christopher Lee and others), but it mutes a presence, this physical destructive force that’s confused in its innocence and kills without knowing, and doesn’t really understand its own strength. This stumbling giant with bolts in his neck just had to be sourced to the book; there’s this incredible mirror held up to nature, the nature of a man, and what “nurture” is. That duality, that parity between the creator and the created, is so strong in the book, and the voice the creature has in the book is so strong. It's madness that it hasn’t been dramatised like this before.
Was there been a moment when you realised, “ah, this double cast experiment works?” A sort of “It’s Alive!” moment?
JLM: No. We’re not made to be watching it. We are the performers of the piece, it's ours to inhabit. What I do know is that I feel I bleed some of the creature into Victor, quite a lot, Victor being the parent really in my view, but it’s difficult to say from an audience perspective. We can only gauge how we’re doing from their reaction, and that’s seems to have been quite positive.
Besides the pedigree of the material, and of course, the presence of Danny Boyle, why do think the production has been such a hit?
B.C.: It strikes an enormous chord for people. The story speaks to so much, it has everything to do with acceptance sexually or racially, everything to do with parenting, being a child. [Then there is] the visceral thrill of the spectacle of the show that it really takes people by surprise, the emotional force of it. There is a deep humanity to the story that is very moving…reading all about Shelley, Byron and Mary—that very destructive triumvirate—and how at the core there’s this extraordinary 18-year old writing about a male world going wrong. So it’s all there.
Given how theatrical this production is, is it hubris on the order of Frankenstein's for the National Theatre to try and put live theatre in cinemas?
JLM: It’s a strange one. I’m highly suspicious of it. You know this production is designed to grab to by the hair in the 

theatre, and there’s a whole other layer of people now technically involved in getting that for the cinema audience. It’s a tricky one, because we’re playing to the Olivier theatre every night and we’re trying to make our performances hit the back of this enormous space. And it's staged in a way so that you can see everything that’s going on all the time. When you step inside that with cameras and stuff, I hope it translates as much as it ever could.
BC: It will probably change the focus, slightly, but it will be near as damn the same experience as you get seeing in the cinema I‘ve never seen one, so I don’t really know what I’m talking about; I’m just getting ready to do one… It’s all been a bit of a blur, probably will be nerve wracking on a very unusual scale. [But] you have to treat it like any other show. It’s live theatre. Anything can happen.
Have you watched any of the production on tape yet?
JLM: No, they don’t let us watch them. But we did have monitors in the wings, so we’ve seen a little bit here and there. I’ll probably wait until everything’s said and done before watching anything, because I’m highly susceptible to paranoia.
After playing both roles, who’s more of a monster: the scientist or his creation?
B.C.: I think it shifts. The obvious thing to say is that the creator is the monster, or that “Victor is a bit of a dick”. But I think that denigrates it, makes it too two-dimensional. I think Johnny and I started playing Victor as a villain, it takes away from the innocent child and the tragedy of his youth. With the creature, he hates what he has to do, and he does know what he’s done. He knows there’s no going back. How much is it nature, how much is it nurture?
With this show, some will go out saying, “Ooh, Victor he’s so nasty”. But audiences come away being moved by both plights, by the fact that both men can only meet their ends by their mutual destruction. That’s what makes a complete evening out of it.
"Frankenstein" is being performed at the National Theatre through May 2nd. Advance tickets are sold out, but day tickets are available for every performance. The fimed version is playing in select theatres.
James C. Taylor writes about theatre and opera for the Los Angeles Times and Opera Magazine. Picture Credit: Catherine Ashmore, "Dissection of the axilla" by Joseph Maclise, courtesy of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto


就先发英文吧，吧里的英语牛人很多，等她们来给大家翻译一下吧。
这个采访还很值得一看的。

额……我一边看一边尝试着翻译一下好了~~

可怜的小BC：I’ve spent time in X-ray today; I’ve got my hips coming out of joint, my wrist are developing into ankles, 'cause of work I do at the beginning. We’ve had all sorts of injuries, back problems and neck problems.
敬业不等于拼命好伐？

楼上  

好桑心。。。乎忽略楼上兔子的扇子啊。。

先放上一小段翻译，翻译的比较慢的说……能力有限……
Danny Boyle近期非常卖座的作品“弗兰肯斯坦”是一部Shelley经典名作的戏剧再现。下面是James Taylor对这则黑暗的寓言两位主演的采访。
特别献给更充满智慧的生命
Mary Shelley的小说《弗兰肯斯坦》再其出版后的五年内就广为大批读者所熟知。小说被改编成了多种艺术形式，包括舞台音乐剧、滑稽剧，甚至还有戏仿。在1931年那部有名的改编电影作品问世之前，“弗兰肯斯坦”这一名字（通常被误解成是那个怪物而非创造它的博士）在英语世界就已享誉百年之久。在过去的三代人心中，绿色基调的Boris Karloff是弗兰肯斯坦所广为人知的样子。但是今年¬¬——James Whale的电影问世后80年的今年——另一位电影制作者重新塑造了Shelley笔下的寓言故事，不仅仅在大荧幕上，也在戏剧的舞台上。
Danny Boyle因其在《猜火车》《贫民窟的百万富翁》和最近的《127小时》等作品中令人目眩神迷的摄影和天马行空的剪辑而在电影界享有很高的声誉。至于这次在国家大剧院持续热映即将进入尾声的“弗兰肯斯坦”Boyle的妙计就简单多了——他让演维克多弗兰肯斯坦博士的演员和演气创造出来的怪物的演员每隔一天就互相交换角色。
这样大胆而戏剧化的创新（让通常抱有偏见的伦敦的评论家们忍不住用惊人的，迷人的，让人目眩的词语来形容）让这部电影的重心放在200年前震惊了观众的精神和道德的层面上。


回复：6楼
你个懒人，自己英语好的要命的，我刚到家看到这个。。。

你的猪同学，偶从后头开始翻啊，你管前面的。。。

回复：13楼
那偶就等你们俩胜利会师了再来

Boyle的“弗兰肯斯坦”（由Nick Dear 改编）同时也是NT最疯狂的实验，即通过高清直播把戏剧搬上是全世界的大荧幕这一设想中最重要的尝试。“More intelligent life”（我才意识到是节目名字……我汗）分别单独采访了该剧的两位主角John Le Miller和Benedict Cumberbatch，询问他们到底是什么似的这部剧经过时间的考验经久不衰，以及在数百万观众面前表演两个而非一个角色在准备上有什么样的挑战。
为什么会想到拍一个新的弗兰肯斯坦呢？
JM：这个是Danny和Nick的点子。在他们看来，似乎之前还从来没有人从这个生物的角度来讲述这个故事。显然Boris Karloff的诠释在人们的心中已经根深蒂固了。但是那部电影却没能让那个生物述说这个故事，而这和用了整篇这个生物的口吻来记叙的原著是不相符的。
这部剧则从开场就以这个生物（Dear的剧本中特别强调是生物而不是怪物）的视角展开了一系列的无声的剧情。这是否说明这个生物就是这部剧的主角呢？
BC：这个生物的角色对与演员来说可说是一个礼物，甚至是一份盛宴。关于这个生物到底是什么的探索、他非凡的体格（我真的不知道怎么翻译……）、对他身体的探索、之后还有对他思维的探索他如饥似渴的学习语言的敏锐程度，以及同样的力量。这个生物是如此的不同凡响——但是你实在没法每天晚上都去演绎他。


Given how theatrical thisproduction is, is it hubris on the order of Frankenstein's for the NationalTheatre to try and put live theatre in cinemas?
基于这部戏的戏剧性，以及夸张性，乃们的胆子是不是大了点，把在国家大剧院演出的实况丝毫未改的直播到了银幕上，就没想过可能会不太适合么？（BC把自己裹的好好的，都看不到willy了不就是放到银幕上的“牺牲”嘛！！）【←此话请忽略，非牛人无责任翻译者已癫狂。。。
JLM: It’s a strange one. I’m highly suspicious of it. You know this production is designed tograb to by the hair in the theatre, and there’s a whole other layer of people now technically involved ingetting that for the cinema audience. It’s a tricky one, because we’re playing to the Olivier theatreevery night and we’re trying to make our performances hit the back of this enormousspace. And it's staged in a way so that you can see everything that’s going on all the time. When youstep inside that with cameras and stuff, I hope it translates as much as itever could.
JLM（又不是BC，叽里咕噜说那么一堆的）：其实这个蛮难处理的，我对此表示高度怀疑，你知道，这部戏的制作方式、剧本神马的都是为了在戏院演出而特别制作的，戏院的受众群和电视的受众群是完全不一样的，所以这是蛮麻烦的事。因为我们天天在奥利弗剧院演嘛，我们很努力的要利用到这个巨大的场地和空间，我们想给观众一种身临其境的立体感，让观众不论从哪个角度看都能知道这部戏在干嘛，发生了什么。但是想通过电视镜头传达出相同的效果比较难，我只希望它尽可能的达到了。
BC: It will probably change the focus, slightly,but it will be near as damn the same experience as you get seeing in the cinemaI‘ve never seen one, soI don’t really know what I’m talking about; I’m just getting ready to do one… It’s all been a bit of a blur,probably will be nerve wracking on a very unusual scale. [But] you have totreat it like any other show. It’s live theatre. Anything can happen.
BC：在剧院演和在电视上播放，从演戏的角度来说侧重点可能有点变化的。但是在电视上看戏剧和你在电视上看其他电视剧感觉也差不了太多吧，不过我从来没在电视上看过戏剧，所以我也不知道我到底想表达什么，我只准备好了演戏剧《科学怪人》而不是电视《科学怪人》。总之，这是一件蛮令人伤脑筋的事情。但是，它毕竟还是一出戏，你还是得按照演戏剧的模式来对待它，它是现场直播的，直播的时候什么事情都可能发生。
Have you watched any of the production on tapeyet?
JLM: No, they don’t let us watch them. But we didhave monitors in the wings, so we’ve seen a little bit here and there. I’ll probably wait until everything’s said and done before watchinganything, because I’m highly susceptible to paranoia.
乃们有没有从录像带上看过乃们演出的成果吗？
JLM: 没，他们不让咱们看。不过我们有一些监视器啦，所以我们看到点这个，也看到点那个。我也许会在演完之后才去看那些，因为很容易受影响，蛮偏激的。


回复：19楼
Frankenstein不是doctor么？

How important was it to Danny Boyle and Nick Dear to be faithful to the original source?
对于Danny和Nick来说忠于原著有多重要呢？
JLM: The book was important, but not exactly. Our version does away with a large chunk of the beginning of the book and just wants to tell the story from the creature’s point of view. [We all] felt that you could say much more by telling his story.
JLM：书当然是很重要的，但也必尽然要非常忠实与原著。我们的版本丛书的开头去除了一大段，主要就是为了从这个生物的角度来讲述这个个数。我们都认为从他的角度来讲这个故事的话更有看头。
BC: Everyone is sick of the idea that Frankenstein is the monster. Everyone gets that cliché wrong. Frankenstein is the scientist—and it should be equally about him. Yes, the monster has been rather graceful (in the form of Karloff, Christopher Lee and others), but it mutes a presence, this physical destructive force that’s confused in its innocence and kills without knowing, and doesn’t really understand its own strength. This stumbling giant with bolts in his neck just had to be sourced to the book; there’s this incredible mirror held up to nature, the nature of a man, and what “nurture” is. That duality, that parity between the creator and the created, is so strong in the book, and the voice the creature has in the book is so strong. It's madness that it hasn’t been dramatised like this before.
BC：每个人都厌倦了弗兰肯斯坦是个怪物的这个念头了。每个人都把这个陈词滥调理解错了。弗兰肯斯坦其实是这个科学家的名字——当然对科学家也一样应该公正的对待。是的，这个怪物是非常的优雅（在Karloff, Christopher Lee 等等版本里），但是这些版本减弱了他的一些特性，他常常因为他的破坏力和他的天真无知和在无意识的情况下的杀戮而感到困惑，他并不能理解他的力量。这个脖子上拴着铁链有些障碍的巨人的形象必须来源于原著；这就像是有一面镜子，折射出了人的天性和教养。而这种二重性，造物者和被创造者之间等价，在书中是如此的强烈。在这之前没有在戏剧中体现真的是太不可思议了。（这段看得我有点凌乱……总之就是对原著有一定的依赖性，博士和怪物之间的联系，怪物自己从无知到自我认知之类的）


============================ 完结 ============================
亲爱的你的猪，不用翻译了，咱俩接上头了！