Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T16:31:46.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Spectator as Creator in Contemporary French Theatre

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2009

Richard C. Webb
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Perhaps the most noticeable feature of the theatre of the sixties and seventies has been the proliferation of small, generally independent, theatre groups. This phenomenon has not been limited to France but has spread throughout Europe and North America. For the most part, the groups have sought to reform, if not reject, conventional theatre practices, be it the method of productions, the dramatic language or the nature of the dramatic experience itself. Their alternative approaches have focussed attention on the process of dramatic creation. As a result, terms such as ‘collective creation’ and ‘audience participation’ have become critical clichés. But, whereas the practice of the former has been discussed widely both in the context of specific groups and of the general development of contemporary drama, the concept of audience participation has remained vague. Thus, much has been written on the transfer of creative responsibility from author to acting company and on the accompanying change in status of the actor, but the position of the spectator as a creative force has received little detailed treatment.

Type
Articles
Information
Theatre Research International , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1980 , pp. 205 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © International Federation for Theatre Research 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. See: Shank, Theodore, ‘Theatre Collectives’, in Contemporary Dramatists, ed. Vinson, James (London: St James Press, 1973), pp. 903–13.Google Scholar

2. ‘Théâtre et création collective’, Esprit, 6 (1975), 929–95. Shank, Theodore, ‘Collective Creation’, The Drama Review, 16, No. 2 (1972), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSchechner, Richard, ‘Audience Participation’, The Drama Review, 15, No. 3a (1971), 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Schechner limits himself to the discussion of audience participation in the Performance Group's Commune.

3. Lyons, Charles R., ‘The Movement of the Creative Process from Playwright to Actor in the Avanl-Garde Drama of the Sixties and Early Seventies’, Mosaic, 8, No. 1 (1974), 139–50.Google Scholar

4. Artaud, Antonin, Oeuvres completes, IV (Paris: Gallimard, 1964), pp. 48 and 118.Google Scholar

5. Jouvet, Louis, Réflexions du comédien (Paris: Nouvelle Revue Critique, 1938), p. 167.Google Scholar

6. France, Embassy Press and Information Department (London), ‘Dramatic Art in the French Provinces’, A/77/12/70. See also de Baecque, André, Les Maisons de la Culture, 2nd. ed. (Paris: Seghers, 1967).Google Scholar

7. Salacrou, Armand, Théâtre II (Paris: Gallimard, 1944), p. 223Google Scholar; and Salacrou, Armand, ‘Entretien’, Arts, No. 728, 24 06 1969, p. 8.Google Scholar

8. It does not fall within the scope of this article to trace historical precedents to audience involvement in theatre practice. Thus, there will be no consideration of Firmin Gémier and Jacques Copeau, for example, nor experimental artistic movements such as Futurism, Dadaism and Surrealism.

9. Ben, , ‘Programme pour un happening’, Le théâtre dans le monde, 14 (1965), 571.Google Scholar For further details, see Tarrab, Gilbert, ‘Le Happening, analyse psychosociologique’, Revue d'histoire du théâtre, 20, No. 1 (1968), 16–17Google Scholar and Lebel, Jean-Jacques, Le happening (Paris: Denoël, 1966), p. 51.Google Scholar

10. Lebel, Jean-Jacques, ‘Parler du happening’, Cité-Panorama (Villeurbanne), No. 10 (1967), p. 11.Google Scholar

11. Lebel, , Le happening, pp. 71–4.Google Scholar

12. Arrabal, Fernando, Théâtre de guérilla (Paris: Bourgois, 1969), pp. 9–106Google Scholar; Benedetto, André, Le petit train de Monsieur Kamodé (Honfleur: Oswald, 1969), pp. 13–15.Google Scholar

13. For detailed discussions, see: Kirby, Michael, Happenings (London: Sedgewick and Jackson, 1965), pp. 44–104Google Scholar; Kaprow, Allan, ‘A Happening in Paris’ in New Writers IV: Plays and Happenings (London: Calder and Boyars, 1967), pp. 92–100Google Scholar; Schechner, Richard, ‘Six axioms for environmental theater’, The Drama Review, 12, No. 3 (1968), 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Some idea of the other performances can be obtained from the following: Kirby, Victoria Nes, ‘1789’, The Drama Review, 15, No. 4 (1971), 73–91Google Scholar; Quadri, Franco, ‘Orlando Furioso’, The Drama Review, 14, No. 3 (1970), 116–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Godard, Colette, ‘Luca Ronconi's XX’, The Drama Review, 15, No. 4 (1971), 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a detailed study of set and movement in 1789, see, Webb, R. C., ‘Experimental Theatre in France, 1945–1975’, PhD Thesis, Hull, 1976, pp. 407–23.Google Scholar

14. For a full account of Parent's work see Knowles, Dorothy, ‘Michel Parent and Theatrical Experiments in Simultaneity’, Theatre Research, 11, No. 1 (1971), pp. 23–41.Google Scholar

15. Parent, Michel, ‘Vers un nouveau théâtre’, Iô, No. 6 (04–06, 1965), p. 6.Google Scholar

16. Besse, Jean, ‘Entretien avec Michel Parent’, Les lettres françaises, 7 06 1962.Google Scholar

17. Salacrou, Armand, Théâtre IV (Paris: Gallimard, 1945), p. 127.Google Scholar

18. See, Aslan, Odette, ‘Le cimetière des voitures, un spectacle de Victor Garcia à partir de quatre pièces d'Arrabal’, in Les voies de la création théâtrale I (ed. Jacquot, Jean), (Paris: CNRS, 1978), pp. 309–40Google Scholar; Bablet, Denis, ‘Une scénographie pour 1789’, Interscaena (Prague), 4–1, (1971), 29–43Google Scholar; Copfermann, Emile, ‘Entretien avec Ariane Mnouchkine’, Travail théâtral, No. 2 (01–03 1971), p. 11.Google Scholar

19. The text of Votre Faust has been subject to a lot of confusing speculation. A version containing two alternative endings was published in serial form in La nouvelle revue française as follows:

No. 109 January 1962 pp. 65–86

No. 110 February 1962 pp. 261–89

No. 111 March 1962 pp. 461–82

No. 112 April 1962 pp. 641–57

An alternative version for the second part, ‘La Banlieue de l'aube à l'aurore’, was included in a special number on Butor of the Belgian review VII, No. 10 (1962). Other fragments appeared in Cahiers Renaud-Barrault, No. 41 (December 1963), pp. 203–15. Roudiez, Leon S. in his Michel Butor (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1965), p. 44Google Scholar, claims that a complete text was to appear in book form in 1965, but nothing has emerged. A full text has appeared in Cahiers du Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Marxistes, No. 62 (1968). The work was created at the Piccola Scala (Milan) in January 1969.

20. This division was suggested by Schechner, , ‘Audience Participation’, p. 73.Google Scholar

21. For a fuller discussion of Le Grand Magic Circus, see: Webb, Richard C., ‘Toward a Popular Theatre: Le Grand Magic Circus’, Journal of Popular Culture, 9, No. 4 (1976), 840–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. The full text of this declaration is reprinted in Madral, Philippe, Le théâtre hors les murs (Paris: Seghers, 1969), pp. 245–50.Google Scholar

23. La Passion du général Franco was not published by Seuil until 1968, and was not successfully performed until March 1976 in a revision entitled, Passion du général Franco par les émigrés eux-mêmes (in Avant-Scène Théâtre No. 586 (May 1976)). For the controversy surrounding the play see Knowles, Dorothy, ‘To be banned or not to be banned’, Drama, No. 93 (Summer 1969), 53–8.Google Scholar

24. Gatti, Armand, Les 13 soleils de la rue Saint-Blaise (Paris: Seuil, 1968).Google Scholar

25. Benedetto, André, Emballage (Honfleur: Oswald, 1970).Google Scholar

26. Galey, Matthieu, Les nouvelles littéraires, 28 03 1968.Google Scholar

27. For details of these plays see Gozlan, Gerard and Pays, Jean-Louis, Gatti aujourd'hui (Paris: Seuil, 1970), pp. 244, 248 and 255.Google Scholar

28. du Soleil, Le Théâtre, L'âge d'or: première ébauche (Paris: Stock, 1975).Google Scholar

29. Bablet, Denis, ‘Entretien avec Armand Gatti’, Travail théâtral, No. 3 (04–06 1971), pp. 7 and 10.Google Scholar

30. Kraemer, Jacques, Splendeur et misère de Minette, la bonne Lorraine (Paris: Seuil, 1970)Google Scholar, revised and reprinted as Minette la bonne Lorraine in Avant-scène Théâtre, No. 623 (February 1978); Scant, Renata and Gamier, Fernan, Le grand tintouin (Honfleur: Oswald, 1973).Google Scholar For some insight into the activities of Théâtre-Action see, Ebstein, Jonny, ‘Théâtre-Action à Grenoble’, Travail théâtral, No. 10 (10–01 1973), pp. 111–14.Google Scholar

31. Kourilsky, Françoise and Champagne, Lenora, ‘Political Theatre in France since 1968’, The Drama Review, 19, No. 2 (1975), p. 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. From a document distributed by Gatti at a series of discussions entitled ‘Recontres avec Armand Gatti: la recherche d'un langage’, held at the Salle des Fêtes de la Maine, Paris 17e, 15–17 June 1973.

33. An account of this event is given by Campos, Christophe, ‘What Gatti Did Next: the Wild Ducks of Saint-Nazaire’, Theatre Quarterly, 8, No. 31 (1978), pp. 7–16.Google Scholar Gatti also discussed it at an open lecture entitled, ‘The Anarchist Writer’ at the University of Kent at Canterbury, 9 March 1978.

34. Circus, Le Grand Magic, Les derniers jours de solitude de Robinson Crusoe, in Avant-Scène Théâtre, No. 496 (06 1972).Google Scholar

35. Wagner, Arthur, ‘Transactional Analysis and Acting’, The Drama Review, 11, No. 4 (1967), 81–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Wagner uses the technique to explain character in rehearsal. The technique has not yet been extended to the relationships at a performance.

36. Such an approach has recently been attempted; see, Schechner, Richard, ‘Anthropological analysis: Before and After Andy Warhol's Last Love’, The Drama Review, 22, No. 3 (1978), 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar