Les Bonnes de Jean Genet

Yesterday I finished reading Les Bonnes, the first play on the reading list for the 20th century French Theater and Performance course that I’m working through. I also watched a filmed version of the unusual 2011 production of Les Bonnes, directed by Jacques Vincey. The play was written in 1947 by Jean Genet and saw its first production that same year at Théâtre de l’Athénée, under the direction of Louis Jouvet. (I’ve encountered Jouvet’s name several times, more as an actor than as a director, though I gather he was quite renowned in both roles. Jouvet was famous enough that the theater has been renamed “Théâtre de l’Athénée Louis-Jouvet” and the plaza it faces renamed “Square de l’Opéra-Louis-Jouvet”). Les Bonnes is a warhorse in the repertoire of French theater. Wikipedia lists 10 notable productions since 1970, and my own web search revealed dozens of others at all levels of professional, amateur, and student theater. It has been translated into English as “The Maids”, which has been regularly performed since 1952. There are film adaptations of both the French and English versions, as well as many video recordings of live theater productions. The play is assigned reading au lycée for many French high school students. In short, a classic.

The play has three characters: Claire, Solange, and Madame. Claire and Solange are sisters, and work as maids for an haute bourgeoise woman known to us only as Madame. The place and time period are unspecified, but it’s French enough for there to be mansards, balls, operas, fancy dresses and furs; modern enough for there to be a telephone in the house; and ancient enough that there are no labor-saving electrical household appliances, leaving the onerous work to the maids. The two sisters hate their life as impoverished, dependent maids, hate Madame, and to some degree also hate each other and themselves. There’s a lot of hate to spread around. One gathers they have been in this situation for years and developed some deep-seated pathologies. Over the course of the play, we learn that Claire and Solange have managed to have Madame’s husband falsely imprisoned based on their own anonymous accusations. The maids are now conspiring to murder Madame herself. Although Jean Genet insists that his play was not inspired by it, there was a well publicized murder by two maids, the sisters Léa and Christine Papin, that transpired in western France in 1933.

The play is structured in three scenes, although no explicit boundaries are provided in the text. In the first scene, Claire and Solange are engaged in a role-playing game for their own benefit, with Solange pretending to be Madame and Claire pretending to be Solange. Claire dresses up in Madame’s clothing, puts on her makeup, and ironically adopts her airs and unconscious arrogance. Exactly why Solange pretends to be Claire rather than herself is never clear, although it contributes to the overall theme of confusing fantasy with reality. The two heap insults and derision on each other and play-act the strangulation of Madame, while also sporadically dropping out of the game to discuss what to portray next or to remark on their unrolling murder plot. A phone call interrupts them: it’s Monsieur, announcing that he’s just been released from prison and requesting that Madame meet him at a restaurant to celebrate. As the expected time of Madame’s return approaches, Claire and Solange end their game, hurriedly restore Madame’s things to their usual places, and otherwise hide traces of their mummery.

The second scene begins as Madame enters (after a failed attempt to visit her husband in prison), still unaware of Monsieur’s release. We now get to see the real interactions between Madame and the maids, which is not far off from the play-acting of scene one although the maids must be more circumspect and subservient in expressing their opprobrium for Madame. Claire prepares poisoned tea, but the two sisters are unsuccessful in maneuvering Madame to drink it. Madame notices many of the things that are awry in her bedroom after the play-acting and starts to suspect that her maids may be misbehaving, possibly even to the point of listening at doors and rifling through sensitive papers. Worried that Madame will realize they must be the source of the anonymous accusations about Monsieur, the sisters distract her with news of Monsieur’s release and the phone message requesting a rendez-vous. Madame is overjoyed and rushes off to meet him, despite the maids’ attempts to delay her long enough to drink the tea.

In the third scene Claire and Solange rip into each other, venomously trading blame for who botched the assassination and who left suspicion-raising evidence of their role-playing. Solange urges them to flee the house, but Claire despondently points out they are trapped by their poverty. The sisters fall back into their fantasy games, but this time with a harder edge. Solange performs a more realistic strangling of Claire-as-Madame, though it is still a mock killing. Solange then bitterly denounces Madame for couching her condescension in terms of kindness and generosity. She apostrophizes at length that she will no longer tolerate going through life bent over, but will stand up straight from now on. Claire resuscitates from her faux-death and insists that they enact the poison drinking scene that failed materialize. Solange is resistant, but finally agrees to serve Claire/Madame the poisoned tea. Claire knowingly drinks the poison and actually dies as Solange imagines herself in handcuffs and the play ends.

I understood most of this material in my first reading of the text, but was confused at a couple of levels. First, it was very unclear from the text which words are intended to be spoken “in real life” from one character to another, which are spoken “in the game”, and which are spoken as an aside to the theatrical audience. Often a single speaker turn contains two or three of these, with no stage directions indicating which words belong in which frame. Some critics assert this is a deliberate editing choice intended to give to a reader the same ambiguity between fantasy and reality that a spectator would have watching the show, and that the characters have in their fictional lives. Second, there are definitely sexual undercurrents in many of the interactions between Claire and Solange, but my French is not strong enough to know where the subtext is glaringly obvious, where the meaning is more implicit, and where I invented hidden meaning when none exists. So, my next stop was to watch a performance of the play.

Kitchen gloves are all he’s wearing …

The performance listed in the course materials is a professionally filmed recording of a 2011 production directed by Jacques Vincey. I watched it (text in hand) and got a very different sense of the play than I had by simply reading it. The print edition I have begins with a five page note from the author: Comment jouer «Les Bonnes» (“How to perform The Maids”). It declares that the atmosphere should be furtive and that the maids should be proper, yet still sexual, but not overtly erotic. The author also acknowledges that the dialogue may not be a realistic representation of how maids talk when they aren’t observed, but asserts that when he goes to the theater he wants to see himself on stage, stripped of conventions and niceties, naked. Director Jacques Vincey decided to start his 2011 production with an abridged version of this note recited by a completely naked man who does not otherwise figure in the rest of the show (though I believe he participates later as clothed stage hand). This introductory scene is presumably why the video merits a YouTube warning “This video contains content that may be offensive to some viewers. Are you sure you want to proceed?”, which also prevents it from being embedded on this page. You’ll have to click the link if you want to see stage directions recited nude.

The Jacques Vincey production is highly stylized with stark sets, dark lighting, minimal costuming, and eerie music. Almost all props are absent, replaced by pantomime. Many lines are spoken slowly with an emotionless, dispassionate affect, while others are delivered in a stentorian shout. I don’t know enough to be confident that labeling this production “avant garde” is formally accurate, but that description will give a non-professional the right impression. I came away from watching it with the thought “Ah, I see, that’s what this play is. An abstract psycho-drama infused with social commentary, class politics, and post-war despair. Got it.”

Only it turns out, this description is heavily influenced by the directorial choices of the production. I was fortunate enough to wonder if this is how it’s always played and looked for other recording of other productions. I found dozens of them on the web, both complete shows and excerpts. They illustrate a wide range of stylistic interpretations of the text, among which Jacques Vincey’s is an outlier. There are productions with more traditional, fully realized sets, props, and costumes. There are productions with less overtly deranged portrayals of Claire and Solange. There are productions where the maids are younger or prettier, ones where Madame is more natural or more horrible, ones that emphasize or ignore the sexual tension in Claire and Solange’s play-acting. There are productions set in prison. By far the oddest one I found was a production by Centaur Theater where the actors are on horses most of the time.

Centaur Theater presents «Les Bonnes»
Must watch: equestrian acting at its finest

All in all Les Bonnes (and Jacques Vincey’s production) was an unusual and satisfying first dish in the nine course meal that I’ve ordered for myself. And I’ve been reminded that not only must one not judge a book by its cover, but one must also not judge a classic play by just one of its productions.

Next week: L’Amante anglaise, by Marguerite Duras.

Harvard Course: French Theater and Performance

Last month somebody introduced me to the existence of a course at Harvard University on French Theater and Performance. The one-line description of the class is “In this course, we will trace the history of French theater from the early twentieth-century to the present: its major trends, figures, and forms as well as its intellectual, historical, and political contexts.” I live just a few miles from the university, so briefly flirted with the idea of arranging to audit the class this semester (lectures in French!). But after a few minutes, I settled on a more modest undertaking: read all nine plays on the reading list. I might have to go more slowly than the one play per week pace that the course follows, but I figure it will be a good way to get a sampling from the past 120 years of French theater.

Here’s the reading list for the course:

  1. Jean Genet Les Bonnes, Gallimard Folio
  2. Marguerite Duras, L’Amante anglaise, Gallimard Folio
  3. Albert Camus, Les Justes, Gallimard Folio Plus Classiques 
  4. Samuel Beckett, Fin de partie, Editions de Minuit
  5. Bernard-Marie Koltès, Combat de nègre et de chiens, Editions de Minuit
  6. Nathalie Sarraute, Le silence, Gallimard Folio
  7. Jean-Luc Lagarce, Juste la fin du monde, Solitaires intempestifs
  8. Marie NDiaye, Papa doit manger, Editions de Minuit
  9. Wajdi Mouawad, Tous des oiseaux, Actes Sud Papier

The books were all available via the Harvard Coop bookstore. They very nicely put them all in a list so I could fill my cart with just a few clicks. A week later, I had a nice stack of reading for the Fall.

Perhaps if I get wrapped up in this I’ll contact the professor, Matthew Rodriguez, and ask if I can sit in on just one or two lectures to get the feel of it. In the meantime, Allons-y!

Je ne cours pas, je vole!: An Olympic reflection

I thought I was done writing for today having churned out three articles this morning already. But apparently my after-lunch coffee propelled me through the all-but-latest issue from L’avant-scène théâtre. They are still catching up from a roughly six month hiatus, so this issue is labeled «1er janvier 2021» despite having arrived in late July 2021, and despite featuring a play that had its opening run in late June.

Je ne cours pas, je vole! (“I don’t run, I fly!”) is another show that had a run at the Festival d’Avignon Off. I have no idea if it will get picked up by a production company for a subsequent Paris engagement. On the one hand, it was written by Élodie Menant and directed by Johanna Boyé, the same team that created the successful Est-ce que j’ai une gueule d’Arletty?, winner of two Molières in 2018. It was also sponsored in part by Théatre 13 and La Pépinière Théâtre, Paris outfits both. On the other hand, it’s not a great show (in my opinion) and is topical enough to give it a short shelf-life.

The show’s debut was perfectly timed to coincide with the Covid-delayed 2021 (né 2020) summer Olympics in Tokyo, as its subject is the motivations, obstacles, and psychologies of Olympic athletes. The main character is a fictional French track hopeful Julie Linard, but real-life personalities Usain Bolt, Haile Gebreselassie, Laure Manaudou and Rafael Nadal all appear as supporting characters with substantial air time.

Je ne cours pas, je vole! has decent mechanics, with interlaced scenes of training session, family discussions, tensions with her coach, internal monologues of self-doubt or dedication, and play-by-play narrations of competitions. The story line avoids being predictable, as it’s neither a straight shot to a cathartic payoff after all that hard work, nor a tragic downfall stemming from some fatal flaw. Julie has some setbacks in the 2008 Olympics, overcomes some difficulties with more than generic particulars, and ends up blowing past her best previous times while still falling short of the 2012 Olympic podium.

https://vimeo.com/572149196

The opening and final scenes feature Julie as a sports reporter covering the 2016 Olympic games. In the press conferences she asks various established champions questions that are a little too obviously aimed at herself as much as at those who are still competing. But the answers they give are varied, amusing, and original, and the answers that she eventually gives to herself are original and communicated to the audience with some subtext.

Overall there’s just not that much new or interesting here. By the very nature of their enterprise, track athletes are easily stereotyped as one dimensional, and this show doesn’t do much to move the audience off that preconception. Sure, Julie has a family, and a history of asthma, and some psychic dialogue with other great athletes of her time. But fundamentally, she runs in a straight line. She trains, she runs, she tries to run faster, she wins or she loses. Julie may feel that she flies, but this play never gets beyond just running.

La Maison du loup: Jack London et Benoit Solès

This being on vacation thing is pretty sweet. After four-plus hours of French lessons this morning and a leisurely lunch of bread, cheese, basil, peppers, cucumbers, and cherries, I decided to put off doing my assigned homework (watching a French film) and instead curled up on my living-room couch with La Maison du loup, the latest play by Benoit Solès. I had started it some time last week, but never got past the first scene despite carrying it around with me for days. Somehow, today I was in the right frame of mind to continue, and practically inhaled the rest of it in one go. A very pleasant literary digestif.

I first encountered Benoit Solès – quite literally – on December 27, 2019, when I saw him perform his multi-Molière-winning play La Machine de Turing at théâtre Michel in Paris. He both authored the play and originated the title role, first at the festival Off d’Avignon in 2018 and then again later that year in Paris. The show was outstanding and, afterwards, he came out and chatted with the audience, signed posters, etc. I purchased both the script of the play and a poster, which he signed after graciously talking with me for several minutes.

I took great care with the poster during the rest of the trip and had it framed when I got home. It hangs prominently on my living room wall. As for the script, I re-read it a few months later and felt that it lost something in moving from stage to page. Even with Solès’s performance freshly in my mind, the lines were uninspiring and the characterization of Alan Turing seemed forced. I found this quite surprising, as I had enjoyed the play enormously when I say him act it in person, and had found that presentation of Turing thoroughly convincing. Funny (and yet of course blindingly self-evident) how much a professional actor brings to the experience of a piece of theater.

So it was with mixed preconceptions that I received the script of La Maison du loup in a recent issue of L’avant-scène théâtre. Would I find reading it weak tea, and regret once more having scrubbed my plans to attend the 2021 Avignon festival, where this latest Solès creation debuted? Or would I be better able to elicit from the text the magic I had experienced in Solès’s presence in 2019?. Happily, it was more the latter than the former. While I wouldn’t go so far as to label this a “consummation devoutly to be wished”, I did find it quite easy to overlay my extrapolation of a Solès performance on the words before my eyes. The overall result was very satisfying.

The theme of La machine de Turing is the tragedy of a great man who accomplished great things, but whom society could not accept because of his other behaviors, both genuinely odd and harmlessly homosexual. The theme of La Maison du loup is certainly not identical, but in many ways it rhymes. Reformed prisoner Ed Morrell (played by Solès) arrives one summer evening in 1913 at the woodlands house of the celebrated author Jack London. London’s wife Charmian has invited Ed for a visit after reading his magazine article about the plight of a fellow prisoner, Jacob, condemned to death. While Ed thinks he is there to enlist the aid of the famous man in pleading with the California governor for clemency for Jacob, Charmian reveals that she brought him there in order to purchase the story of the condemned prisoner as the basis of Jack’s next novel (Jack, drunk, dissipated, and focused on paying for his lavish forest retreat, initially thinks Ed is an accountant come to collect debts owed to the architect).

As this first round of complications gets untangled, we learn that London’s last several novels have in fact been based on other people’s ideas, rewarmed, partially written by Charmian, and sold under Jack London’s marketable name. But hiding behind Charmian’s tawdry ploy to line up her husband’s next pot-boiler is a more noble motive, to which she eventually confesses: she wants her husband back. Not the bombastic, money hungry, whiskey drinking, morphine popping, image conscious sell-out that he is now, but the gutter-born, idealistic, fiercely righteous, hard-scrabble, auto-bootstrap-pulled socialist that she fell in love with. Charmian’s mid-play declaration of this desire drives both men from her and also apart from each other.

The remainder of the play is a sufficient resolution of this dilemma and as happy an ending as one could expect. London agrees to plead for Jacob, but his attempted intercession comes hours after Jacob’s death. Ed is convinced to divulge the story of his own fifteen-year stay in prison, his discovery of London’s works in the prison library, and the source of his compulsion to rescue Jacob. And London completes his own personal redemption, first refusing to be spoon-fed either a narrative for his next novel or a tonic for his bourgeois betrayal, and then alchemizing the joint story of Ed and Jacob into a powerful polemic against the California penal system.

A somewhat clumsy epilogue to the play, delivered by Ed in a closing monologue, informs the audience that Charmian and Jack’s love is rekindled, their mansion in the woods burns down, and the publication of his last great novel (The Star Rover, 1915) leads to substantial reforms of California prisons, ending various inhumane practices. It goes on to relate that Jack London died soon after from a morphine overdose, while Charmian went on to publish several works on prisoner rights.

First edition, 1915

How much of this is true, I don’t know. A cursory skimming of the web seems to corroborate that Ed Morrell was a real person, that he was tortured at the hands of the San Quentin prison staff, and that his story was the basis of The Star Rover. But I couldn’t immediately find confirmation of reforms enacted pursuant to the appearance of the novel. Perhaps this indicates Solès has injected his own romance into the story of Ed Morrell and Jack London, or perhaps the fact that this history is all but forgotten is exactly what motivated him to rediscover it and re-educate the theatrical public. Though I must say I’m a bit hazy on exactly what segment of the French theater-going public is in great need of a reminder of the battle for human rights in the American prison system.

Ah, well. Not all art needs to stand up to such demanding scrutiny. The play is, in any case, definitely worth a read. And if you happen to be in France when Solès next performs it (tickets available for January 2022 and May 2022, but with Covid who knows), definitely worth the effort to go see it.

Vocabulary

I made a note of several of the words that I looked up while reading the play. Click through on the links to learn the definitions.

Summer Lessons, Day 3: Intra Muros

Day 3 of my summer lessons has come and gone. Actually, I’m a couple days behind, as I’m so busy writing in French that I barely have time to keep up with writing in English. Or rather, I have time, but I lack energy: all this studying is tiring! I don’t know how graduate students do it.

We started by reading a short text about Buffet froid, the 1979 film by Bertrand Blier starring Gerard Depardieu. Virginie alerted me earlier in the week that this was coming up, so I watched the film Monday night. After discussing the film, we looked at the structure of this particular review but also of film reviews in general (comptes-rendus): presenting the director, placing the film in the greater context of their works or of the genre, then summarizing this particular film and adding commentary.

Then it was on to the day’s spelling and grammar points: rules for turning adjectives into adverbs; inverting the order of subject and verb in various situations; techniques for putting the focus on a particular idea within a sentence; mechanics of the relative pronouns qui, que, quoi, dont, , lequel (and its compounds), ce + a pronoun, and so forth.

Finally, à moi d’écrire! The assignment was for me to write a film review, but I haven’t seen that many films lately, and none that I wanted to write about. So instead I wrote a review of Intra Muros, a play I saw in Paris in December 2019. As before, I spent an hour and twenty minutes writing the the first draft, which we then edited together for another hour or two. I’m getting better at spotting my own errors both in the process of writing the first draft and when looking at it a second time. Here’s the initial and finished product side-by-side.


Un compte-rendu d’Intra Muros, piece d’Alexis Michalik

Alexander Michalik, qui a encore au dessous de quarante ans, est universellement reconnu comme le «wunderkind du théâtre français» des années 2010. Il est scènarist, metteur en scène, acteur et écrivain, mais c’est sans doute la réussite de ses spectacles théâtrales qui fait s’accorder ce sobriquet ci. Le soir du confinement génerale de 2020 à cause du Covid-19, cinq de ses pièces était en présentation sur les scènes de Paris. La majorité a gagné un (ou pleusieurs!) prix Molières. C’est un conquête inédit du théâtre privée.

Intra muros est sa quatrième pièce, et la première qui ne s’agit pas de thèmes historiques. Mis en scène à notre époque, elle traîte plutôt les remords personnel d’un cinquintaine, emprisonnié depuis vignt ans. Ces oeuvres suivants, la pièce Une histore d’amour et le roman Loin, continuent ce trajet vers les difficultés de la vie quotidienne. La distribution originale d’Intra muros, qui a changé plusieurs fois depuis l’ouverture du spectacle en mars 2017, comprends Paul Jeanson, Jeanne Arènes, Alice de Lencquesaing, Faycal Safi, et Bernard Blancan. C’est une équipe des comediens que Michalik connaît bien, qui ont joué des role dans ses pièce précédentes (notamment Jeanne Arènes, qui a gagné une Molière de la révélation théâtrale pour Le Cercle des illusionistes, écrite par Michalik et montée en 2014). C’est aussi une équipe avec laquelle il continue à collaborer, donnant un rôle mineur à chaqu’un dans Edmond, l’adaptation cinématographique de sa pièce du même tître.

L’histoire d’Intra muros est un peu tondue. Il y a cinq personnage principaux.  Richard, un metteur en scène et professeur du théâtre, propose de faire un atelier dramatique pour des prisonniers. Dès que la pièce commence, il parle directement à l’audience sur la nature du théâtre, invitant des intervention. À peine s’est-il terminé ce petit leçon impromptu qu’on voit son assistante Jeanne qui arrive à la salle de reception du prison. Elle est accueilli par Alice, une jeune assistante sociale, qui a orgnisé cet atelier. Richard arrive tout de suite et, au cours de quelques barvadage drôle, nous apprenons que Jeanne n’est pas que son assitante, mais aussi son ex-femme.

Les trois s’installent dans une salle d’activité assez deprimée et attendent l’arrivée des participants. Mais il n’y a que deux prisonniers qui entrent: Kevin, un jeune voyou plein de colère; et Ange, plus vieux, stoique, presque muet. Ange est imprisonnié depuis l’âge dix-huit ans pour avoir tué un homme. Après avoir purgé une peine de quatorze ans, il était liberé, mais de coup il en a tué encore. ___ il a été retourner en prison pour la durée de sa vie, sans la possibilité d’une réduction de peine.

Par contre, son ami Kevin a encore l’espoir de rehabiliation. Ange s’occupe de Kevin, le guidant le long du chemin qui mène à la liberté. Pour cette raison, Ange insiste que Kevin participe à l’atelier. Décus mais pas désemperés, Richard et Jeanne commence les leçons. Après quelques exercise raté, ils proposent que chacun raconte une histoire de leur propre vie. Ce qui déroule nous choque et ravi, car les fils variés s’entremêlent dans une manière élegant et merveilleux.

Alexander Michalik, qui n’a pas quarante ans, est universellement reconnu comme le «wunderkind» du théâtre français des années 2010. Il est scénariste, metteur en scène, comédien, et écrivain, mais c’est sans doute la réussite de ses spectacles théâtraux qui lui a valu ce sobriquet. Le soir du confinement générale de 2020 à cause du Covid-19, cinq de ses pièces étaient en représentation sur les scènes de Paris. La majorité d’entre elles ont reçu un (ou plusieurs!) Molières. C’est une victoire inédite pour théâtre privé.

Intra muros est sa quatrième pièce, et la première qui ne s’aborde pas des thèmes historiques. Se situant à notre époque, elle traite plutôt des remords personnels d’un quinquagénaire, emprisonné depuis vingt ans. Ces œuvres suivantes, la pièce Une histoire d’amour et le roman Loin, continuent cette évolution vers des sujets des difficultés quotidiennes. La distribution originale d’Intra muros, qui a changé plusieurs fois depuis la création du spectacle en mars 2017, comprend Paul Jeanson, Jeanne Arènes, Alice de Lencquesaing, Fayçal Safi, et Bernard Blancan. C’est une équipe de comédiens que Michalik connaît bien, puisqu’ils ont joué dans ses pièces précédentes (notamment Jeanne Arènes, lauréate en 2014 du Molière de la révélation théâtrale pour Le Cercle des illusionnistes). C’est aussi une équipe avec laquelle il continue à collaborer, donnant un rôle mineur à chacun dans Edmond, l’adaptation cinématographique de sa pièce du même titre.

L’intrigue d’Intra muros est un peu alambiquée. Il y a cinq personnages principaux. Richard, un metteur en scène et professeur de théâtre, propose de faire un atelier d’art dramatique pour des prisonniers. Dès que la pièce commence, il parle directement aux spectateurs de la nature du théâtre, suscitant un mini-débat. À peine cette petite leçon impromptue est-elle terminée qu’on voit son assistante Jeanne arriver dans le hall d’entrée de la prison. Elle est accueillie par Alice, une jeune assistante sociale, qui a organisé cet atelier. Richard arrive tout de suite après et, au cours de quelque échange amusant, nous apprenons que Jeanne n’est pas que son assitante, mais aussi son ex-femme.

Les trois s’installent dans une salle d’activité très déprimante et attendent l’arrivée des participants. Mais il n’y a que deux prisonniers qui entrent: Kevin, un jeune voyou plein de colère; et Ange, plus vieux, stoïque, presque muet. Ange a été emprisonné à l’âge de dix-huit ans pour avoir tué un homme. Après avoir purgé une peine de quatorze ans, il a été libéré, mais dès sa sortie il a récidivé. Ce crime lui a valu une incarcération à perpétuité, sans possibilité d’une réduction de peine.

Par contre, il reste encore à son ami Kevin un espoir de réhabilitation. Ange va alors s’occuper de Kevin, l’entraînant le long du chemin qui pourrait mener à la liberté. Pour cette raison, Ange insiste que Kevin participe à l’atelier. Déçus mais pas désemparés, Richard et Jeanne commencent les leçons. Après quelques exercices ratés, ils proposent que chacun raconte une histoire de leur propre vie. Ce qui en découle nous choque et nous ravi, car les intrigues variées s’entremêlent d’une manière élégante et envoûtante.


Looking at it again, I find myself fairly incredible that I could have written the first version, let alone offered many of the improvements to reach the second version. But apparently it’s true – nobody else typed those words on the left.

And now, off to write my next assignment (for Day 5 — did I mention I’m behind?): a book review of Joël Dicker’s La Disparition de Stephanie Mailer. Wish me «bon courage»!

Diary 2021-07-07

I went on vacation last week, so this is an update on various French activities here and there.

This morning I listened to a couple of episodes of the Français Authentique podcast: Faire chou blanc and Je ne progresse plus en français. Que faire? (can’t find a link). They are slow and simple, but not too simple. Decent mindless content while walking, good for reinforcement.

Yesterday I took the placement exam for my 2-week course in August with ILA (Institut Linguistique Adenet) in Montpellier. The school is in Montpellier, but I will be in my living room doing the course by video conference. Traveling to France in summer 2021 was too daunting for post-pandemic me. The test had 100 questions, multiple choice, with an “I don’t know” option for each one. The instructions exhorted me not to guess, for my own benefit, as it’s a diagnostic instrument. Most of the questions were about grammar, 10 or 15 were about oral comprehension, and a handful were about vocabulary. I’d say 60 or 70 felt automatic, another 10-20 required deliberate application of a rule I knew, and the rest were either unknown to me or involved a forgotten entry in a rarely used part of the conjugation table of an irregular verb.

Speaking of Montpellier, one of the other guests at the inn where we was staying was a French woman who had lived all her life in Montpellier before coming to the US some 10 years ago. Had a nice conversation with her. She runs a library-based French conversation group in Pittsburgh.

On vacation I finished the next 1931 Maigret novel, Le chien jaune. It started fairly vaguely, with scattered episodes only loosely connected, and making barely an impression on Maigret. Eventually it all came together to a satisfactory, if not gripping, resolution.

I read a short play, Un pas après l’autre, which appeared in L’avant scène théâtre, numéro 1493, December 2020. Somehow it was only published in July, though it reached me in June? Whatever. Two middle aged sisters with funny rapport, a failing haute-couture shop, a son recovering from PTSD after time in prison for a homicide he was convicted of while a juvenile, which he insists he didn’t commit, a fashion designer intern, a contest for newcomers to the field. Good dialogue, nice character development, then the play ends suddenly with not much story or dénouement. Pity, I liked the set up.

Finally, I had my regular weekly French lesson yesterday with Nora. A lot of it was my relating the story of witnessing a car accident during our vacation, and of various parties’ assisting the driver. Vocabulary words or expressions that came up:

pluvieuse, pluvieux, le brouillard, s’allonger, un ruisseau, renverser, un fuyard, le dénivelé, accroché, fixé, un virage, faire un tonneau, ça nous a pris, elle s’est précipitée, elle s’est ruée, elle s’est hâtée, à portée de voix, à portée de vue, je suis retourné à ma voiture, j’ai repris ma voiture, le caissier/la caissière, les secours, il a eu l’air de, une trousse de premiers secours, il enchaînait, il tremblait, saigner, une hémorragie, un rapport, informer, civière, civet, il réussissait à marcher, un coussin gonflable, bousillé, nous n’étions pas pressés, nous n’avions pas de presse, on s’est mis d’accord, du travail dans le vide, découler.

I think that’s it. All done with vacation, back to ordinary life. Probably less French activity.

Tertullien – a theatrical monologue against theater

Cover photo of Tertullien, by Harvé Briaux, published by L'avant-scène théâtre

For my 50th birthday last month, I received a subscription to the publication “L’avant-scène théâtre”. They produce and mail to subscribers 20 issues a year, in a form factor that is more like a small book than a magazine. Each one is devoted to a show that has recently played on the French stage, and includes the full script as well as some articles, interviews, and tidbits about it. Think of it as an extended program from the theater, but bundled with the script. I have seen them on sale at shows I’ve attended in France, and purchased one or two on site (they are not free, unlike most programs in American theaters). The magazine has an interesting history dating back to 1899.

The first issue of my subscription arrived this week in a quaint airmail envelope from Paris. This number is for the one-man show Tertullien, written and performed by Hervé Briaux. It debuted at Théâtre de Poche-Montparnasse, Paris, in January 2018. I guess with the Covid pandemic keeping Paris theaters dark, there hasn’t been much new material to cover of late, so they are going back to second and third tier productions. Tertullien is a thin volume, roughly 4″ x 7″, with 64 pages of plain paper and black-and-white text. There are no pictures other than the front cover. Inside, there is a 10 page preface article about the show, followed by an unannotated text – an uninterrupted monologue by the sole, eponymous character of the work. It was a quick read that I managed in two sittings.

I saw an unrelated show at Théâtre de Poche-Montparnasse in 2014. A cozy space.

Tertullien the play is actually a modern adaptation of the treatise De spectaculis (“On the Spectacles”) by Tertullien the man. Tertullien was a Roman, born in the 2nd century A.D. into a family of pagans in Carthage. He grew up well educated and became a lawyer before converting to Christianity and becoming a fundamentalist, puritanical zealot. He is known to have written over 40 works, many of which survive to this day. I had never heard of him before, nor read any of his works, but apparently he was unwaveringly severe, an extremely black-and-white thinker.

The play is an attempt to take the argument of De spectaculis and present it in modern terms for the modern audience. The argument is: Theater is demonic, as are horse races, gladiator fights, the Olympic games, and competitive sports. Theatrical productions are the work of the Devil. They corrupt old and youth alike, they feature prostitutes and wastrels, and they reify our basest instincts. They are also idolatrous, because they involve actors pretending to be other people who they are not, and since people are made in the image of God, the actor makes of themself an idol (an effigy of man = an effigy of God). So shun the theater, and instead dream of the glorious day when Christ returns and all involved in the theater — playwright, cast, crew, and audience alike — will be tortured horribly in Hell for eternity. Now that’s entertainment.

Did I mention that this Tertullien guy was a bit extra?

There’s an obvious irony in putting this unbridled denunciation of the theater into the mouth of a character on the stage. But there’s no breaking of the fourth wall here, at least not in the text (a director/actor could add a physical wink, I suppose). No acknowledgement that the listener is in a theater, or the speaker is treading the boards. In an article appearing as a preface in the volume, Daniel Loayza asserts that the play forces us to re-examine why we do go to the theater, why we do find it valuable and rewarding. But there’s nothing about that in the play itself. No second voice offering rebuttals, no self-doubt lurking under the surface of the 40 page diatribe. Nope. Just your routine fire and brimstone.

The closest that you get to a refutation is a strawman that Tertullien-the-character offers (translation mine):

Maintenant, je veux bien admettre, là, devant vous, que parfois, dans certaines pièces de théâtre, on peut trouver des choses simples, douces, agréables, belles même, parfois même honnêtes, parfois même… Mais, inutile d’aller plus loin, j’ai senti, dès mes premiers mots, que quelques-uns d’entre vous ont poussé un soupir de soulagement, mêlé d’une approbation secrète.

Mais au nom du Seigneur! Réfléchissez! Croyez-vous que si je voulais vous empoisonner, je mélangerais mon poison avec de la merde? Non! Je le mélangerais avec des mets savoureux et bien assaisonnés. Je les accompagnerais de liqueurs douces et agréables. Quand on veut empoissonner les gens, on enrobe de douceurs ce qui va les tuer. L’Autre n’agit pas autrement.

Tertullien, par Hervé Briaux

Now, I will readily admit, here, in front of you, that sometimes, in certain plays, there may be found something simple, sweet, pleasant, even beautiful, sometimes even honest, even… Well, no use going on with that: even with my first words, I felt some of you breathe a sigh of relief, mixed with secret agreement.

But good God, don’t you see?! Do you think that, if I wanted to poison you, I would mix my poison into shit? No! I would put it into the most delicious dishes, wondrously spiced. And I’d serve them with refreshing, sweet drinks. When you want to poison someone, you sugar coat the thing that’s going to kill them. The Devil acts no differently.

As an exercise in maintaining my French comprehension, Tertullien was good to read. Beyond that, it’s a bit too didactic for my tastes. It has been 11 months since I last saw a show in the theater, and with Covid still raging it will be many months more until I can go again. When I do, I will relish it greatly, with only a little thought to the possibility that poison lies beneath the overt theatrical goodness. But I do hope the script will be better than Tertullien. Or if not, that it will be in French.

P. S. Literally minutes after I posted this article, the mail brought me two more issues of L’avant-scéne théâtre (the two October 2020 issues, oddly). Guess I better get started on my next blog post…