Reviewed by:

• Ivo van Hove: From Shakespeare to David Bowie ed. by Susan Bennett and Sonia Massai
• Peter A. Campbell

This collection is a broad introduction to director Ivo van Hove that covers much of his career since the late 1990s. It is structured with an introduction and five sections that represent the breadth of van Hove’s work for the stage and how he has applied his methodologies to the different modalities: “Directing the Classics,” “The Festival Performances of Ivo van Hove and Toneelgroep Amsterdam,” “American Theatre,” “Opera across Europe,” and “Creation, Adaptation, Direction.” For those who have not seen van Hove’s work or have seen only one or two productions, the book provides an expansive overview of his work with lots of concrete, well-described examples. For those who have seen more of his work, there are still important insights to be gained from the dozens of productions described and analyzed across multiple genres. One thing that this book makes clear is that whatever one might ultimately think of van Hove’s output, it is prolific and influential and garners attention wherever it is performed.

The introduction is brief but allows the editors to reveal their methodology, which is to focus on the working processes of van Hove and his primary collaborator Jan Versweyveld. The emphasis on what van Hove and Versweyveld call “theatre-making” provides the book’s central argument: that van Hove is not “merely” a director or destroyer of texts but works with his collaborators to make theatre that is fully contemporary in its approach and context. Van Hove is often criticized for using texts carelessly or arbitrarily. However, the essays generally argue that despite his radical approaches he is quite serious about using the text as the basis of the performance. In fact, in Julie Sanders’s essay on his stage adaptation of the film Obsession (2017), she points out that van Hove uses the screenplay as the source text, not the film itself. Dozens of examples show that van Hove spends a great deal of time and effort on making his work from what he deems are the central concerns of the text, whether it is an older play, a film, a novel, or an opera.

Practitioners will be interested in the details of van Hove’s process, especially the years of preproduction discussion, the significant role of his collaborators, and the relatively brief time spent in rehearsals with actors on the fully completed set without scripts or much discussion—often only three weeks before audiences are there. Massai notes in her essay, “Canonical Iconoclasm,” that this is not unlike the Elizabethan practice. Ruth Wilson, who played Hedda [End Page 241] Gabler at the National Theater in London in 2016, and Halina Reijn, a Toneelgroep ensemble member who has starred in multiple van Hove productions, express in their interview a deep appreciation of van Hove’s trust in their instincts and the space he gives them to develop the psychological and emotional arcs of their characters throughout the process of rehearsals and performances. In rehearsal, van Hove focuses more on the physical and visual structure, giving actors specific physical directions but almost never psychological ones. Maja Zade, dramaturg at the Schaubühne, observes in her interview that van Hove is the only director she knows who has actors “continue pushing forwards” (63) from the last time they did the scene instead of starting over.

This space for continued exploration is also something van Hove tries to offer spectators. P. A. Kantze’s makes explicit connections between the spectators’ movement in pieces such as Roman Tragedies, Scenes from a Marriage, and Obsession and an “archaeological” impulse in van Hove’s work that asks that “the spectator be an explorer” (182) of the layers of meaning and history. His prolific output, evidenced in the number of productions discussed in the book, shows an explorer deeply engaged in the mysteries of the theatrical process and using art-making processes that depend upon tight structures of planning, conceptual work, and logistics...

审核人：

• 伊沃·范·霍夫（Ivo van Hove）：从莎士比亚到戴维·鲍伊（David Bowie）。苏珊·贝内特（Susan Bennett）和索尼娅·马赛（Sonia Massai）
• 彼得·坎贝尔

该系列是对导演伊沃·范·霍夫（Ivo van Hove）的广泛介绍，涵盖了自1990年代末以来的大部分职业生涯。它由引言和五个部分组成，分别代表范霍夫在舞台上的工作广度以及他如何将他的方法论运用到不同的方式上：“导演经典”，“伊沃·范霍夫和阿姆斯特丹Toneelgroep的节日表演， ”，“美国剧院”，“整个欧洲的歌剧”和“创作，适应，指导”。对于那些没有看过范霍夫的作品或只看过一两部作品的人，这本书通过许多具体的，经过充分描述的例子对他的作品进行了广泛的概述。对于那些看过更多作品的人来说，从描述和分析的多种流派的数十种作品中仍然可以获得重要的见解。

简介虽然简短，但允许编辑者揭示他们的方法，即侧重于范霍夫及其主要合作者扬·弗斯韦维德（Jan Versweyveld）的工作过程。对范霍夫（Ver Hove）和弗斯韦维德（Versweyveld）所谓的“戏剧制作”的强调提供了本书的中心论点：范霍夫（van Hove）并非“仅仅是”文本的导演或毁灭者，而是与他的合作者合作，使剧院在方法和方法上完全具有当代性。语境。范霍夫经常因粗心或随意使用文本而受到批评。但是，论文通常认为，尽管他采取了激进的方法，但他还是非常认真地考虑使用文本作为表演的基础。实际上，在朱莉·桑德斯（Julie Sanders）的电影《痴迷》的舞台改编中（2017），她指出范霍夫使用剧本作为原始文字，而不是电影本身。数十个例子表明，范霍夫花费了大量的时间和精力，以他认为是文本的中心问题来创作自己的作品，无论是老式戏剧，电影，小说还是歌剧。

从业者将对范霍夫的工作过程的细节感兴趣，特别是前期制作讨论的年份，他的合作者的重要作用以及与演员排演的相对短暂的时间，这些表演是在没有剧本或进行大量讨论的情况下完成的，通常只有三个观众到场前几周。Massai在她的论文“规范偶像崇拜”中指出，这与伊丽莎白时代的习俗没有什么不同。露丝·威尔逊（Ruth Wilson），饰演赫达（Hedda）[终页241]盖布尔（Gabler）于2016年在伦敦国家剧院（National Theatre）演出，托尼·格罗夫（Toneelgroep）合奏团成员哈琳娜·赖恩（Halina Reijn）曾出演范霍夫的多部作品，他们在采访中表达了对范霍夫对自己的直觉的信任以及他给予他们发展空间的空间的深切欣赏在整个彩排和表演过程中，角色的心理和情感弧线。在排练中，范霍夫更侧重于身体和视觉结构，为演员提供了特定的身体指导，但几乎没有心理指导。肖邦大学的戏剧演员玛雅·扎德（Maja Zade）在接受采访时注意到，范霍夫是唯一知道谁让演员从上次上场而不是从头开始“继续向前推进”的导演（63）。

范霍夫（van Hove）试图为观众提供这种继续探索的空间。PA Kantze的作品将观众的运动（如罗马悲剧，婚姻场景和痴迷）与范霍夫作品中的“考古学”冲动明确联系起来，后者要求“观众是探险家”（182）意义和历史。书中所讨论的作品数量证明了他的多产成果，表明一位​​探险家深深地致力于戏剧过程的奥秘，并使用依赖于紧密的规划，概念工作和后勤结构的艺术制作过程。