Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hello! We were connected directly to the Espace Saint-Jean.
Welcome audiences and users.
The first conference of the Season "Lorenzaccio, a bold text!"
hosted by Coralie Pasbecq who has a doctorate in Art Show,
specialized Lorenzaccio. Art Show Paris III, is not it?
Yes it is.
Welcome Coralie.
Hello to all.
There will be an hour conference and one hour of debate.
It is divided into two stages. It is allowed, the values are reversed,
it is allowed to shoot, it is allowed to photograph,
it is allowed to disclose your captured on internet materials
on the web, on social networks.
And to be more precise you can put a hashtag
which allow us to identify what you post with a #lbi1314,
which means lbi: Le Bateau Ivre, 1314: Season 2013/2014.
Each publication is licensed under the Creative Commons license
unmarketable by and against copyable changed at will.
It is not copyrighted.
So I have the honor and great pleasure to entrust the floor to Coralie.
Firstly Hello to all.
Hello to the room, to users who look maybe
and then of course to all those who watch the event delayed.
Before I beg you to excuse me for colds
that will give me a little more chopped diction than usual.
My name is Coralie Pasbecq, as stated by Philippe Pillavoine
I am a doctor of Art Performing therefore University Paris III Sorbonne Nouvelle.
And I am very pleased to be here this afternoon
to share with you a little piece of my passion.
I am also a native of Lille and living in Loire Atlantique
and so it can well together and I like to travel
so I say "We will do a small tour by Melun".
If I am here it is first to respond to the request of the company "Le Bateau Ivre"
who wanted to build on my Masters Theatre on Musset
and especially "Lorenzaccio" to accompany his adaptation project
the drama and the historical scene of George Sand.
Despite my eleven years of theater studies and performing arts
I admit that discipline clown remains a rather vague universe for me
but so I found very bold idea to combine art personally
I consider rather visual dramaturgy de Musset is totally SMS - centered.
So inspired by your boldness I decided myself to speak boldly
and therefore tell you that de Musset.
And therefore de Musset that one shot will release the monster "Lorenzaccio".
So welcome to the first conference.
Philippe feel free to interrupt me if some things seem obscure
although I think many of you know what we mean,
I'll start by quickly make a point on the subject of the piece.
Since this is an application that has already been made to Philippe during the presentation of the season.
I know you expect me over there and I will be happy
remind you or teach you the key elements in this drama.
Originally a different historical fact: the assassination of Duke Alessandro de Medici of Florence
by his own cousin Lorenzo in 1537.
Various literary versions exist to relate this event.
I'll spare you the details. But just note that George Sand had offered Musset
its historical Scene "Une conspiration en 1537" who was unprecedented, so that the re- write.
It is thus that the *** becomes the subject of what would be the major drama of Musset. As the title indicates "Lorenzaccio" Musset
for his part wanted focus on the relationship between Lorenzo and the Florentine people.
Since the eponymous anti-hero is not really tyrannicide
but the nickname given by the people thereof.
So it prints immediately from the people in the room from the title.
Obviously this is not trivial.
Since thereby Musset immediately warns that "Lorenzaccio"
is not only a tragedy that speak of a conflict within a family can
but that it is a political drama that also raises the question
the place of the governed in history.
In the play we see various characters revolve around the Duke,
around the power it represents. So first Lorenzo
his cousin who is a matchmaker or her *** in order to assassinate him.
The coin shows the entire process: from its premeditation to scripts.
Including the use of the painter Tebaldeo order to steal the coast mesh.
Including combat training with Lorenzo Scoronconcolo.
And what is a little rarer querying motivations Lorenzo.
Parallel or rather shows how nested Musset
the vain attempts of other characters.
At started by the Republican opposition that fails to find any of his unit,
or its timing or its mode of action.
It is totally torn between other between on the one hand the father Philippe Strozzi
and idealism paralyzing wisdom that prevents him from doing anything,
and other anarchist impetuous Peter wants to go to the fight
but has no idea what to do when the power goes down.
And the other characters are torn between these two parts follow the father or the son?
Then the unexpected attempt Marquise Cibo is another during this attempt
authority to conduct the test of tyrant but this time
not acting from the outside but inside it is to say
she tries in doing the mistress of the Duke of influencing policy
to an absolute monarchy and paternalistic independence... a program!
She had ideas Marquise. So without forgetting the vulture,
the Machiavellian Cardinal Cibo serving outside forces
whose sole mission is to protect the interests of the Pope and the Emperor. In the hope...
The Emperor? Who is it?
Charles Quint. So in the hope of being named pontiff instead of the pontiff
When the time comes. It is therefore a simple puppet Alexander
it may well be replaced by another if possible more docile.
The Duke is dead long live the Duke! And the world order is maintained.
But we also see the opposite a little complacent bourgeoisie
particularly through the characters of The Merchant of silk
as well as highlighting the economic compromise with Bindo Venturi.
While the aristocracy is largely anesthetized by luxury and ***.
"Lorenzaccio" therefore covers many political issues
So to name a few: the abortive popular revolution
voluntary servitude, supra national authority,
globalization, the power of money... and still others.
The first daring Musset was before any write a political play.
In addition, the author has not hesitated to use a large number of anachronism
to signify that behind the Renaissance Florence could be seen
another time the France that comes from knowing the failure of the 1830 revolution,
even an eternal return of history.
This boldness which therefore could exist only in the denial stage
at this time there is also an element which subsequently was able to attract various directors
during the twentieth and twenty-first century and I think that things are part
that may attract you: political aspects.
It is in the sixth conference.
Altogether. In addition to this first daring therefore developed to turn a reminder about
Musset was also granted freedom in this drama
complete break with all propriety.
So of course at that time we've seen transgressions conventional proprieties
some playwrights as Hugo.
One may even wonder whether shock propriety was not a game
But it appears that in Musset some way an added degree was achieved
in the dark look of the human race.
In "Hernani" at the beginning, Don Carlos appears as an unworthy king showing
a dishonorable member of royalty but he redeems
and was bought in Act IV becoming the great Charles V.
the Romantics worshiped especially.
Even in parts black coat Dumas
good moral is always restored at the end.
Ruy Blas same, albeit socially unacceptable love
are annihilated in the death of the lovers.
And love is as noble sentiment said
but those who had sinned die.
Musset in particular in "Lorenzaccio" zero repair damage,
no condemnation of deviant behavior,
no final order of things better win.
Yet morality is heavily reached throughout the text.
First in the most visible figure in the same way Lorenzo.
This provocative humor Lorenzo, lawless,
which does not always respect his sovereign,
and thus reaching the climax of what can not be tolerated for a gentleman.
A man born well born, as you could tell at the time.
So there it shocks anything that will be of the order of nobility,
still looking to keep a few interests at the time Musset wrote.
That can not happen. Then of course that accompanies it: debauchery.
Who has more great wrong to be directly orchestrated by the ruling regime.
This is the power dissipation association and assembly.
Therefore legally sanctioned and church.
Since even the Cardinal Cibo face her sister Marquise forgive the Duke
to dress up as a nun at the ball at the Nasi.
So of course debauchery, droit de seigneur Duke, purchase maiden outright.
Can be seen from the first scene with Gabrielle.
Gabrielle is purchased from his mother since Ducas were exchanged.
Half the control, the other half on delivery.
It is almost in traffic. Very amazing.
So this debauchery in addition to the great harm being shown and never convicted.
Then some times we say some characters seem to condemn.
But Musset will all die - credibility. The first was that it was the Marquise.
It is immediately de- given credibility by the Cardinal since hardly is it revolted
at the end of the scene Cardinal intercepts the mail Marquise
with a nice word of the Duke and therefore very sarcastic Cardinal speaks of a Marchioness
crying but will quickly run into the arms of the tyrant.
Similarly at the bourgeois was a short scene
between a bourgeois and his wife commenting on the ball at the Nasi and where we feel that...
there is a famous line "We do not have enough resources to pay us this..."
One wonders if the conviction is it legal or is it just jealousy?
Similarly Goldsmith condemns all debauchery
is also referred back to back with his sidekick him as the money comes
in the cases no matter who governs.
But Goldsmith seems so attached to the moral will say yes but
when it is the son who is Strozzi carnival,
which is just as drunk as his friends...
no but this is not serious. It is only the son Strozzi.
So even Goldsmith seemed may be one of the most fervent fighter
against Duke and against his immoral government is still someone
we can see that place can be political and partisan interests ahead of his morals.
So when we made the record, those who condemn are discredited
at one time or another. Therefore debauchery is shown and not condemned.
The only thing is that it shows Musset is illusory.
Illusory because... that he shows in more comedies in "Lorenzaccio"
because it brings nothing. Debauchery called next debauchery,
and still another, to stun. It is dangerous because
as tell Lorenzo came at a time it stuck with him.
And it closes against the debauched.
So we have seen that even such
Church condoned this ***... I make a parenthesis.
Although criticism of religious or at the time any romantic point
they all speak, one can immediately remember the famous Hugo Frollo home,
that Musset denounces the grip on power of the clergy is an additional degree
in the criticism of ecclesiastical and especially what he denounces through Cibo
particular and also Valori is really tartuferies everything false religious world
finally are foremost men of power
and Cardinal Cibo is the embodiment of what religion is actually
anything but religious. Which is really a gray eminence,
as you might call them. Then of course debauchery is not enough,
blood is shed. It does not lack.
Political *** on the one hand, or ordered directly by the Duke,
be ordered very high by the Pope and the Emperor.
And then the facetious crimes since the Duke and his friends
do not hesitate to kill one or two people.
It is even the favorite sport of Giomo.
Since, as can be seen on stage portrait
"Oh look, they buried one I typed!" "What did he do to you?"
"Oh nothing." So then Musset also denounces more discreetly "Lorenzaccio"
in his comedies the treatment of women of her time.
So in comedies can think in all tirades
of "Caprices de Marianne" where there things are really shown
the influence of religious education, the ambiguity of the expectations of women.
In "Lorenzaccio" this criticism is more subtle
since Musset also exercises in form.
That is to say, it will give all women the object statutes.
Of object roles. They are objects and for the woman and for the economy of the drama.
At the woman, Catherine is charming object in ambush
Louise allows Philippe had the courage to take up arms.
So women have this role there. Catherine is just the confidante.
And they also therefore this role in the economy since this text,
they allow that if we do not have these women part fails.
Catherine? The sister or cousin of Lorenzo?
While historically Catherine is the sister of Mary, so the aunt Lorenzo.
However, in many versions since the two sisters
had a large age gap, it was more the age of Lorenzo
the age of his sister, she was often taken to the sister of Lorenzo
especially in George Sand Catherine is considered sister Lorenzo.
But historically it is the mother's sister.
Okay. Thank you.
So women that are useful in the economy of the drama
and at the woman herself.
This is a subtle assemblage relegating everything an object role
he denounces the use that is made. It is clearer sometimes.
So Musset is allowed to openly criticize his time
because behind the analogy drawn between Renaissance and XIX century
there is of course primarily a bitter denunciation
and fatalistic from Musset political stagnation.
As for Musset nobody moved, but this is normal
man is vile enough not to move.
Must still think that Musset said "Republicans will not budge"
and we hear several times in the tone of Lorenzo but expected,
and humanity is difficult to move.
But if they were comfort is hard to be revolutionary, etc...
In Musset there is also an element of fatalism,
but that does not stop regretting the failure of 1830
and regretted that his contemporaries do not move.
Even though he knows it is humanly difficult things happen.
So on one hand: political criticism and of course the moral criticism
and social no less developed.
Since we criticize both politically inactive indecisive
as ambitious as Pierre Strozzi is an ambitious,
that interested and corrupt.
Including the beautiful scene with Bindo and Venturi
who ask Lorenzo to take up arms with Republicans
and when the Duke arrives with some small privileges have forgotten their fights. "Lorenzaccio" so that has not been written from the perspective
of a specific scene and dated Musset was therefore able to be free of the constraints of his time
and then write a disproportionate part.
As Philippe could specify when the "Lorenzaccio" presentation
it is at least a hundred talking characters
and dozens of extras in addition to 30 locations and 39 scenes.
Behind this observation is already quite stunning
there is another reality that is even more difficult since the characters
and locations involved are more complex in nature.
And the text that is already long rises more carrier length.
So first we are dealing with a sophisticated character.
Since all characters have links with each other
and it is a complete system. First there was a system of duo.
Several duo in the room. The first obvious: the Duke-Lorenzo.
So otherness and likeness, which is very very strong,
it is the most developed by Musset is really developed
in all its ambiguities and its full extent.
The second pair is the duo merchants: Goldsmith,
Silk merchant who always sets the scene,
still during one another and that can see two different faces
the reaction may be small traders face in power.
The third duo is a duel because it is the duel Cibo
between Marquise and Cardinal.
Where here we are on a moral duel duel as the role of women,
very philosophical duel, which is two characters
which can only function together almost.
Otherwise Cibo is the advisor of the Duke.
But for the man behind Cibo is needed counterpoint to the Marquise.
Outside duos square system with a very family affiliations.
So not only are familiar Duke who oppose Republicans
but even within this group of families identities.
It is believed to have an identity that Soderini.
One thinks of the Rucellai which are also conveyed
identity as a family with made to defend. The Pazzi.
So we see mostly the duel between Strozzi and Salviati.
But behind this war of clans there are also other families
and each family has its brand recognition
and therefore the characters need to mark their family membership.
Next stage: social cleavages.
The characters are characterized by their social status.
Aristocrats, bourgeois... it does not descend lower in Musset.
It stops there. For him the people stops at smaller bourgeois our merchants.
But he still thinks have happened... here...
what for him and the level where it stops.
We will not have ocean people as in Hugo.
Musset is a monarchist. It will monarchist until the end.
And then to complete it there is the system of comparative figures.
The comparative figures are characters who are in similar situations
and which also work in counterpoint to each other.
First character compared firstly the Marquise Cibo across Catherine.
The two young noblewomen. Since Mary is too old and too young Louise.
That are directly put in competition because
that the Duke wants to make each one successively his mistress.
They are two opposite counterparts.
The Marquise is a woman who takes her aristocracy, is a socialite.
It is in the world, she worked alongside the greats of world.
She rubs and the Duke and Cardinal Cibo which together make all the power of Florence.
On the other side: Catherine Ginori has become a recluse
and avoids the world of Florence trying to stay within a certain innocence,
some youth, something she tries to protect as purity.
Catherine is perhaps the only pure character in the play.
Since all the others have flaws.
Catherine is the only one who will not look Musset fault.
Except perhaps selflessness. But is it really a?
And then counterpoint, there are three: the religious.
Cibo, Valori, Leon Strozzi. So Cibo gray eminence,
religious serving policy.
Valori religious courtier, which softens everything he can.
The important thing is that the tyrant happy.
And whoever emerges as the true pious religious: the son Strozzi.
Although himself when speaking of credibility to be told he is able to condemn,
he knows not repeat the words of Salviati pronounced against her sister.
But it does not stop either of his brothers bloodshed.
So to store with his father Any good ideas but unable...
one is unable to act, the other is unable to avoid the shares.
This is also the situation in which the two women is
Lorenzo's family: Mary and Catherine,
who deplore but have also no longer control
and ability to prevent Lorenzo continues in its path.
So there to speak directly to Philippe when adapting
it is very difficult to know where deduct characters
or when they are not as mirror with each other
there is the risk of loss as some are also there to define the other.
Yes.
So there it is really a complexity of the piece.
And moreover these characters have two other characteristics,
the first is that they are considered apparitions.
This is very common because it is the dramatic de Musset...
everything must go fast in Musset.
So the characters they come, they go, five replicas: they come out.
For a large majority.
All these characters passersby can be seen in the crowd scenes,
but even in the scene Lorenzo advisors Duke, Act I, Scene IV
Lorenzo appears balcony. Lorenzo may be even an appearance.
So naturally this is also to connect with the aesthetic spectrum
and the issue of ghosts, but the characters appear in Musset difficulty
behind this assumes that it is fast characters
encamped quickly, precisely drawn in a short time.
It is part of constraints "Lorenzaccio" when it comes to the stage.
In addition to these characters are both archetypes
since each is a way to respond to power
but they are all nuanced, steeped in contradictions,
amps and great humanity. Both archetypes and all characters full
that is to say with contradictions. These are not the puppet comedy.
It's not plush Dame is there for the grotesque.
Thereby have the most grotesque contradictions and volume.
Sometimes one can even consider: Merchants are the main characters.
The Goldsmith and the Merchant silk are the main characters of the drama.
You have to imagine the level of precision and complexity behind each character.
So characters that are in addition to the fact that many
they are very difficult to manage both individually and in their systems.
And other places, many also.
Therefore totally inadequate with the scene in 1830.
In 1830 the sets are engineered to be very, very beautiful, highly decorated...
The public expects machines... So changing scenery in every scene: not possible.
Necessarily Musset is totally at odds with the times.
He returned in some way with Shakespeare.
Since we are in the same metonymic principle places
that is to say, a very small part can mean. Musset,
you will not find him in lengthy descriptions such as Hugo.
Hugo Cromwell was all the throne room, to the figures half erased.
Not in Musset at Duke. Well it's at Duke,
there are counselors you understand that this is a ceremonial hall,
we do not need curtains.
It is really there to kick in sets of a few things
quite new at that time,
all others who wanted the scene we managed to do the best to make a scene by deed. Chatterton de Vigny we are in a camera.
It does not pose the question: same decor from beginning to end.
In Dumas, in Hugo, there will be a setting for action.
So these places to make sure they are properly disturbing necessarily go
alternating inside and outside, without the question of the transition.
Once you are outside, once you are inside. And all is well.
Therefore necessarily something that at the time is totally unrepresentable
we have the opportunity to see in the next conference,
the directors -en- scene came out on the types of decorations
who were stripped or symbolic decorations and finally flattening everything
playing in the symbol, it plays in connotation, playing in the mood,
we do not seek to represent places.
Since anyway if Musset had wanted to represent
he would have put stage directions that would represent them.
A profusion of characters and complex sets all
this excess was not free of course.
Musset for this excess is due to the desire to show all exhaustively.
In the logic that was also with the stage of history
that is to say, to show the history we need a lot of places,
of a lot of characters to be able to show young and old,
in order to show the places of power where we see
but also the places where the conspiracies occur.
Must be able to show in the case of Musset not only
those who make history but also those who suffer.
Because really the guts, we go with Musset
is that we see the impact on individuals.
Where even the Hugo Cromwell show when the crowd scenes
show the conspirators who try to act to bring down the power
but did not show an impact.
So here the idea of the impact on the personal life to the comings and goings
in both directions, not only the respondent who has to shake a little political
but also the impact of the policy on intimate
is not at the time that in Musset.
So this whole society he wants to show in all its diversity
and all individuals in all their contradictions
and this is where does this excess.
As opposed to historical scenes that they were clearly
"We are not made for the stage", and were really a philosophy,
historical scene is a historical writing that uses dialogue for educational purposes,
we might say today. While the historical drama is first drama
first stage and for about the story.
Historical scene is "Une conspiration en 1537" by George Sand.
George Sand she wrote a historical scene altogether.
Which itself is a very good example since complies
all codes of the historical stage,
perfectly until we actually live all the little details found
in the Florentine chronicles.
So really the real work was expected in historical scenes.
As Vité could have edited it in his prefaces, this requirement there.
So when Musset wrote a historical drama
it even says so "I write a drama".
And that we will remember in February.
Today this excess that he left?
A big question that is the unity of this piece?
The question that is asked many directors -en- scen... Yes!
So there is in every sense. Now what? The unit is that?
This is the Duke? This is Lorenzo? The unity of the piece as Musset is wanted Florence.
This is a Florence running to ruin, it is a disenchanted Florence,
Florence is a completely asphyxiated by debauchery.
And therefore necessarily make a city the focal point of a room
it assumes a... a significant change in how to build a room.
And that we come back after u because I tell you the dramatic revolution
operated by Musset, but before it in order to understand the first part
this dramatic revolution is this famous text
I also said that it was long, it was also filled with lengths
so it is a text that is invaded by subjectivity.
Subjectivity at the time did not exist at the theater.
The theater at the time it was still coded...
you say if there was already monologues...
yes but the monologue at the time only serves to illuminate the characters' actions.
Musset and others to get in Germany
they are not numerous, have invented in this period there
the entry of subjectivity, the monologue that used for?
At about the character but its strong inside,
its contradictions, its dilemmas.
And returns to the things that we could find in Shakespeare,
here in Shakespeare's "To be or not to be" true philosophical debate
but Hamlet request anyway if he will kill or not.
At Lorenzo there is no doubt Lorenzo is a killing machine,
only *** and even all the famous monologues in Act IV...
Act IV succession of eleven scenes, eleven scenes
there are three scenes that are integral monologues Lorenzo.
They come staggered...
So there was an action that is fully stretched, suspended time.
The Act IV is considered a tunnel by the directors,
that is to say, monologues, and then when you put the other characters
one wonders why there is other intrigues
because it is not very interesting things...
Except that this alternation Musset wanted and why
there is this alternation in Act IV to highlight the phenomenon of waiting
Lorenzo said as the witching hour is fixed, it gives appointment at Duke,
then he made a little wait, it prepares Scoronconcolo saying
it will be at this time there, are you ready?
The third monologue are the last minutes before the premiere.
We could see a repeat player before his famous scene where he is in the city.
So there is this lag effect, the time comes, the time is near,
and so it is re-inserted each time also allowed
Musset accentuate this phenomenon waiting.
Therefore act of waiting, suspended time, a very long document.
It is the act in which there is the greatest scenes in the play.
Others have six, seven scenes. Thereof will be eleven.
A fully stretched and stretched act justly by this subjectivity.
And these monologues confuse because for the time
the monologue was intended action.
And there are no monologues action.
Lorenzo kill whatever happens, we know he knows.
And these monologues are either personal questions
of "Who am I" dizzying "Mother, I'm a tiger?"
All these questions "What monster am I?"
"Why am I still kill the Duke?"
But at no time Lorenzo asks "Will I kill him or I will not kill him?"
no, the question does not even arise and anyway
he said to Philip Strozzi from center stage
Act III, Scene III very long scene right in the middle.
This crime is all that remains of his virtue.
This is the last thread that connected with his life before.
This is the riddle of his life. It is out of the question to renounce it.
Some have even seen existentialism.
Because if Lorenzo does not extend to kill the Duke can only be Lorenzaccio
this depraved man. So we will see later when we'll ask
whether Musset was a precursor, innovative,
remind us already that he may already be invented existentialism before the time...
among other things. Therefore considerable increase in the proportion of monologues
also in the other acts as the Marquise talking to herself,
Cardinal Cibo talking to myself, talking to myself Philippe Strozzi
at his window in delirium. But these delusions window there are three.
Finally, two real delirium and third implied.
There is that of the Marquise after the failed confession.
Philippe delirious at the window waiting whether
Pierre return dead or alive his getaway to go avenge Salviati.
And the Duke sees Catherine Ginori to his window. In these hours, late afternoon,
as if between the end of the day and the beginning of the night when the crime
will again reign over Florence,
Florence by some of his gooders
will cry before things arrive.
So all these monologues are both the novation of the introduction of subjectivity
but also the work that structure the piece, which structures the sense
So on one side theory of waiting on the other side revelation
something on the Florentine people...
So monologues both difficult to play,
difficult to stage but equally essential piece.
So of course the goal is to get monologues in personality,
and as we said excess is completeness in the Florentine people,
society, subjectivity is the completeness of the individual.
And so we come to a dramatic revolution.
Since as we have seen subjectivity Musset has already taken the first step
that is to say, he broke the status of speech in the theater as it is used more action
but it can empower themselves, have an independent existence,
be there for itself, just to hear the text,
just to express the subjectivity of the characters.
This is the first fault, the second is bursting spatiotemporal.
Out of the linearity of the action, subjectivity, linearity of the action,
spatio- temporal breakdown: these are the consequences of a dramatic crisis.
But this dramatic crisis as a cause:
Musset in for the first time the shape will meet at the bottom.
That is to say, the form will burst because the topics covered.
Because "Lorenzaccio" is above all a triple crisis.
It is a crisis of values. We saw: debauchery.
Marquise crying all it can against the old order,
where religion was still holding something.
So this crisis of values expressed in debauchery found,
Musset can express in other texts and which is also connected
with the famous evil of the century. With this whole issue of lost generation,
historical parenthesis vacuum in history that case, an old system,
old values , not a new system,
new values so this transitional period where values are in crisis.
So why "Lorenzaccio" is a work of Musset
So disenchantment and evil of the century.
Crisis of values, crisis topic, since there is the engine of this subjectivity
that when she wants to show the complexity of the human being
also shows finally the crisis of the subject.
Since these are questions such as "Who I am?"
these monologues, since this subjectivity is in fact seeking
primarily trying to identify a character,
we can see that in "Lorenzaccio" more there monologues,
more one tries to identify Lorenzo, the more it eludes us.
And so it really is about who will be seen in other places,
can be seen in "Fantasio" the dilemma of the crowd
as a succession of individuals who can not understand,
So that is also a crisis of the subject. The subject is no longer able to society.
To attach at the crisis of values, querying history
the subject can not find its identity, the subject no longer exists other
and we have the third crisis, the third crisis is dialogue in "Lorenzaccio".
The first sign of dialogue in crisis is the multiplication
that could be considered as dialogue of the deaf.
First Duke who does not listen to Marquise during their scene together.
The Marquise tries to infuse political ideas,
he returns to his role as favorite.
Then obviously dialogue of the deaf between father and son Strozzi.
Dialogue of the deaf that is more about generational conflict.
Similarly the son does not mean that the father maintains certain principles
including the prohibition to involve foreign powers.
While Peter himself has no qualms about calling for help François 1er.
The son does not understand the values of the father.
And the father does not understand why his son wants so much action.
Dialogue of the deaf but also in other smaller attendance
at other times, micro same dialogue of the deaf
when Philip comes into delirium while waiting caused by Pierre party revenge.
At that time also Louise and Leon can say anything they want
he sees more it is being monologue to his window.
He no longer hears their requests for return of calm and serenity.
So many dialogues of the deaf and a crisis of dialogue
which will even be eloquent silences.
Paradoxically in this room who can look so talkative
the *** scene: a few words. For such an important scene.
And especially when you just compare the scene of George Sand
and the Musset Musset since voluntarily removed text
quoted in this scene he wanted it to be less talkative, less long.
And because at that time to really mark
the end of this crisis dialog is silence.
So the silence of the *** scene, a few words
the silence of Cardinal Cibo saying several times that he should say things
that even God does not know. The only character who comes out at the end
this is what Cardinal who knows does not speak. He knows how to hold his tongue, who knows not to reveal.
Behind this crisis discourse there also
this subjectivity comes too, since this subjectivity comes out,
This intimacy is also trying to recover compressed
several times through the eyes of others.
That is to say that it can be seen that even the Marquise Cibo
will have its true monologues and will have his false passages
subjectivity against the Cardinal. Times when it seems to be indignant,
it seems to have to do a subjectivity that is expressed.
Except that it is not yet really subjectivity of the Marquise.
As the subjectivity of the Goldsmith who says what he thinks
and finally just wanted to make a beautiful tirade.
Basically that's also Goldsmith behind his will,
it is not just revolutionary for the cause Goldsmith,
it is revolutionary to have a role to play in society.
To be listened to and being watched. And to find a life.
There Musset in real subjectivity: the delirium,
the monologue Lorenzo.
And there is the false subjectivity what passes for subjectivity
in relation to others and that shows there to blow
Out of this intersubjective dialogue.
The characters no longer speak, at all.
Or use language as a weapon.
And here we return to our beloved Cardinal that when he puts words on his anvil,
his hammer, it is said that words have meaning,
when wrong all these realities to tell the Marquise.
Especially during this hypocrisy where he apologizes for having the Duke disguised as a nun.
A thematic crisis that will affect the shape
and how this crisis is so revolutionary?
Because it will touch something that was hitherto considered
as the foundation of the theater.
The status of speech as a motor action as subject to the action,
linearity of the action, and this time it actually breaks with what Musset
it is with Aristotelianism and praxeos mimesis. Mimesis praxeos
is the fact to consider theater as imitation of action.
Aristotle asks him that the theater is not a theater character,
at that time it was the debate in Greek society,
the theater is not a theater of character but a theater of action imitation.
It mimics the action of great men on stage, for purposes of catharsis.
Musset and there clearly said "Yes". So Aristotle and praxeos mimesis...
For Aristotle it was a linear action, it was necessary actions
deriving from each other. Yes. He wanted the least monologue possible.
And if there is they really need to explain why the character is.
Even monologues, the beautiful monologues, Phaedrus,
these are monologues that explain why the character is.
So he went, at the time Musset knows what he breaks;
it is with this that even other romantic have not broken
since other romantic continue to keep the necessary linear action.
So yes they pretend to destroy the rule of three units
but when Vigny is a camera when unit restores
at acts we just bend the rule.
Because what had to understand what was behind the three units
in addition to their aesthetic values were technical values.
That is to say, the three units being played guaranteed
in theatrical conditions of the time.
The stroke of genius was Musset...
he said, "I do not care theatrical conditions of the time I will not be played
I do not want to be played", at that time it may take the plunge
others might not pass, that is to say the
perhaps we do need to Aristotle?
And this is where Musset is a master of theatrical modernity.
But we'll get in this synthesis as inputs de Musset
One last point before the originality of this text is its lyricism.
Its very singular lyricism, very complex.
Certainly by the lyricism important images in word
all the characters speak with images especially Marquise.
Marquise love images. Then the images pure, very pictorial,
but all that is old references.
All images where reference is made to myths, one refers to paints,
Referring to the story, saying "We feel like we were these characters.
We like it happened in mythology."
This metaphorical system, poetic use of images in the dialogues.
But there is also in Musset other forms of poetry.
The famous dialectic of love and death.
First played by Lorenzo, Duke.
But also embodied the merits by the entire Florentine city
which is only mischievous debauchery and crime.
In this same dialectic of love become consumption
a blood side and the other.
A dialectic of love and death, which is also a poetic phenomenon
which for once it is not yet widely available at the time
but other forms exist but Musset will invent a dreamlike aesthetic.
First number of scenes take place at night or dusk.
Little scene takes place during the day. Including any Act II takes place after dinner.
First scene is opened immediately in the night. It is midnight.
"Lorenzaccio" is a part of the night. It is a night room.
It is a dark room, not just in the sense that we understand it: dark, ugly, sad, tragic.
This is also a night room. It is marked by night.
We begin the first act at midnight, we have a few scenes,
it ends with Catherine and Marie coming out once the sun
begins to set, which is very cold. The exiles who fled the night.
All scenes after supper. The Act III a small mixing:
scenes days, which could be daylight scenes,
other scenes that could be night scenes. The Act IV:
the last hours just before the crime that takes place at three o'clock in the morning.
At six o'clock in the morning. So it is also in the famous Act IV
in the time of the evening and night.
And Act V, act apart is the only act in full day.
But now, an important night that claimed both
in the acts in the dialogues of the characters.
And this dreamlike aesthetic is also created by the same form
and then I would return to this famous building Musset.
Since Musset breaks the procedure codes and scenes.
Normally the theater, one act changes when changing location,
we change the scene when the characters come and go.
For each output, each input is changed scene.
At each change of scenery act is changed.
In Musset change of scenery in every scene.
We enter and exit several times per scene.
And this relates to what I said when I spoke appearances of characters creates a speed
and vagueness as part of this dreamlike aesthetic.
Since in the end the characters have this dazzling
that we can have with images dreamed.
With this fast, very fast, it takes place, characters,
it must be drawn, it must be accurate,
we must have this dazzling dream images.
We are in an early dream dramaturgies with "Lorenzaccio".
So the great debate Musset was it innovative?
Can be regarded as a precursor? Or something else?
As an innovative, yes and no.
In the end it has made others did too, but to a lesser extent.
Because the watchword at Musset will always be one:
the excess, that momentum.
Yes monologues others do but push the monologue
until it becomes empowerment speech
and invasion of subjectivity: no.
Use secondary characters: yes.
Everyone does it. Must be well dead when there dead on stage.
The hero in all tragedies are these characters.
Yes but when these characters are dozens in one drama,
they appear very little.
And when they do not come to advance the action again,
since the tragic hero one who announce
he announces to the other characters react to what he announced,
Musset in all these secondary characters do not advance the action.
They are mainly used to paint the Florentine society.
The Goldsmith, Merchant silk do not advance the *** of the Duke.
They do not even plotting these two. What are they?
To show some of the people.
Bourgeois commenting affairs of the Marquise Cibo, what are they?
To show that this is finally well as fun laughing aristocrats
and that behind this debauchery drunk aristocrats
it also intoxicates those who comment.
Gala was early.
And that it also participates in the political discourse finally Musset.
And his view of how to make simple,
the orchestrated by Cardinal Cibo system worked
and to see how it might work you have to go see that even the small trader
was trapped in the system.
So an innovative... not in absolute terms. But the extent yes.
A precursor? No more.
Those who may have ethical near his later may not have read Musset.
And some we love trying to say that we should not read Musset.
How long the first Baudelaire
and in the field of poetry that theater could say
"What is this cutesy lyrical poet dripping under expression of me?".
Oh yes, and who invented the true spleen? The famous Paris Spleen.
This feeling of loneliness in the crowd. "Fantasio".
The first expression of loneliness in the crowd is ready to Musset who Fantasio.
So if it is a precursor in any case it is never assumed precursor,
and in the theater there was this sense perhaps
as Jules Verne novels was anticipating it was the theater of anticipation.
And several branches because it is first indirect father of drama in crisis.
It's like we have seen the first episode of the drama is in "Lorenzaccio".
Subjectivity and therefore it will be that we shall find in Ibsen, Strinberg, Tchekov...
The annihilation of the action, empowering speech on the action,
would not be in a room as "The Cherry Orchard"?
Typically. There is more action in "The Cherry Orchard".
Barely half a house sale.
And the only thing that interests us how the characters fail to understand
each other and how they talk to say nothing,
or to express all their distress.
Was not that the crisis in the drama Musset?
Since they are the same pillars, the same is triple crisis that is in crisis form.
Destruction of theatrical action, subjectivity can go to the psycho
when you arrive at "Miss Julie" of Strinberg
but already the subjectivity that infuses Musset to invade this complete act
which is Act IV. The same factors leading to the same consequences
since this phenomenon when crises are analyzed
we also come to the famous question of the rupture between society and the individual.
And this is the basis upon Peter Szondi crisis drama
in all these authors nineteenth hinge twentieth.
This is exactly the same phenomena that underlie the same causes.
So Musset was a first adolescent crisis before them,
a way to empower the theater was out of Aristotelianism.
Musset but it was already too absurd and there a little scene,
very short, a small replica...
when Musset made the absurd: "Observe what I say, pay attention to my words.
The late Duke Alexander was killed in the year 1536,
which is the year where we are - follow me forever. -
So he was killed in the year 1536, it's done. He was twenty- six years;
do you notice that? But it's still nothing. So he had twenty-six years, good.
He died 6 months ah! Ah! Did you know this?
Is it not precisely the 6 he died? Listen now.
He died six hours of the night. What do you think, father Mondella?
That's the extraordinary, or I did not know.
He is dead to six hours of the night. Peace! Do not say anything yet.
He had six injuries. Well! This will he strike next?
He had six injuries, six hours of the night, the 6th of the month,
at the age of twenty-six, in the year 1536. Now, one word -
He had reigned six years." Pure nonsense. Already in Musset.
Thing that Jean-Pierre Vincent was noted as well to play
the duo merchant uses the same pair of characters
only to play "Waiting for Godot". They are Beckett clowns,
these two characters. And finally even Brecht is not far.
Since when showing a society dedicated to the plagues,
debauchery without condemning it is not far from the position of Brecht:
wish to show never judge.
And leave the viewer a little judge directed himself.
Or at least give him the illusion that he had tried.
But we are already in this type of aesthetics and epic is not far too.
Now all these daring being passed
I give you the floor if some clarification
or some debates are to generate.