Home 
Studies and articles The Compagnie des Quinze by Jane Baldwin
Studies and articles The Compagnie des Quinze by Jane Baldwin | The Compagnie des Quinze by Jane Baldwin |
|
|
Page 2 of 6 Throughout his career, Saint-Denis strongly advocated improvisation as an instrument for training the actor. Improvisation had played an important role in his own development as an artist. Yet, in directing, he rarely made use of the technique, relying heavily on detailed preproduction plans. Even working with the Quinze, competent and experienced improvisers, Saint-Denis allowed improvisation only a specific function. In the early rehearsal phase, the actors developed prospective themes and characters. The dramatist then took the rough material, gave it shape, and returned it to the director. No longer creators, the actors became, under their director's guidance, faithful interpreters of the text. Saint-Denis’s methods did not differ appreciably in working with the Quinze actors from the way he later worked with actors on conventionally developed scripts. Also notable is the fact that, although Saint-Denis’s writings stress the importance of props and costumes in helping the actor achieve transformation, the Compagnie des Quinze rehearsed without either. During the early stages of rehearsals, the actors, dressed in bathing suits, mimed their props. But, as an actor in Burgundy, he had discovered that "the mask or the prop or the clothing will induce in the actor a state of being-in-action, a kind of intoxication, from which a character may emerge." He brought to Noé the meticulous preparation and attention to detail that would become the hallmark of his direction. Rehearsals began with Saint-Denis reading the text, followed by a lengthy exegesis. Next, the actors familiarized themselves with the script through successive read-throughs. The pace of rehearsals was kept deliberately slow to encourage them to delve deeply into the material. Saint-Denis then blocked the play, having prepared an intricate production plan delineating the set, entrances, exits, the actors' movements, pacing, rhythm, and pauses. In later years, some actors would find Saint-Denis’s precision fussy and constraining. The Compagnie des Quinze, accustomed to this directing scheme, found it compatible. In spite of the contretemps involving Fresnay, a communal spirit still reigned and rehearsals were fun. Pierre Alder, a student-apprentice, left a description of the enthusiasm felt by so many players in performing under Saint-Denis: “Rehearsing is pleasant, interesting, fascinating work, above all, when it is directed by a man who knows what he wants to achieve, when you are a member of a team where you are not thinking about yourself, but about the group, the production you love and have to create.” In part, the actors' excitement derived from the belief that their lengthy and difficult apprenticeship would finally be rewarded. Their Burgundian experience had transformed them into "an ensemble with a fertile imagination and the technical means to represent in [their] work many aspects and facets of the world." And now Obey had given them a voice. Having achieved success with their rural audiences, they were anxious to test themselves against the sophisticated Parisian public. Although neither Saint-Denis nor the company ever disavowed their debt to Copeau, they wanted to be accepted on their own merits. With this in mind, Saint-Denis considered renting the Salle Wagram, a boxing arena, to perform there on a bare platform surrounded by the audience. Had they done so, it might have minimized the Copeau/Compagnie des Quinze connection. When this proved impractical, they moved into the Vieux-Colombier at great expense several weeks before their debut. The theatre, long since converted into a cinema, was remodeled by André Barsacq under Saint-Denis’s guidance. More radical than their master, Saint-Denis and the Quinze judged Copeau's fixed setting a half-way measure. Their rebuilt stage, with its permanent columns and visible sources of light in the ceiling and walls, emphasized the company's disdain for theatrical illusion. Their aesthetic was apparent, for example, in their exploitation of the columns. Sometimes they represented the trees of a forest; at others, the walls of Lucrèce's bedroom, at others, they delineated the space of the open sea. Jacques Copeau launched the company with a talk at the premiere on January 7, 1931. His presence legitimized the enterprise, while simultaneously denying the Quinze their autonomy. Critics and public alike perceived the troupe as adjuncts of Copeau. As for Copeau, he experienced the ambivalence of a parent whose children were asserting their independence. Instead of serving as instruments disclosing the revelations he yearned to discover, they had become a company of dedicated, gifted actors more interested in performing than in abstract research. Saint-Denis and the Quinze were disappointed by the mixed response to Noé. Judging by the extent of the divergent reactions, it appears the critical community was confused by the company’s intentions. Some critics looked for political content where there was none; others, such as Benjamin Crémieux, were alienated by their theatricalist approach. Still, the actors took bitter satisfaction in Crémieux's unfavorable critique. Writing for the Nouvelle Revue Française, Crémieux concluded that Fresnay destroyed the troupe's homogeneity. The company was "above all misrepresented by the presence in the midst of them of M. Pierre Fresnay who, in the extravagant monologue of Noah, to which the play is reduced, overwhelms his supporting players." On the positive side, Pierre Brisson, the powerful critic of the Figaro, praised their freshness, sincerity, and strong ensemble, but credited Copeau with their training. For Philippe L'Amour, writing on the state of the French theatre in 1931, the Quinze were the first step towards a theatrical renaissance. Doubtless, Saint-Denis experienced conflicting emotions in reading these laudatory comments. On the one hand, there was critical appreciation: on the other, misinterpretation of Copeau's role. Nowhere does Michel receive the recognition that was his due. Under the leadership of Saint-Denis, the Quinze had cut the umbilical cord. It had been Saint-Denis’s ideas, persistence, energy, and talent that had given new form to the Copiaus. Yet the perception remained that the troupe was Copeau's. And strangely, their new form⎯collective creation⎯was ignored by the critics. At the Vieux-Colombier, Copeau had mounted traditional pre-existing scripts, giving them innovative productions. Although the theory that underlay collective creation was Copeau's, he had never put it into practice in Paris. Within the artistic and intellectual community many wholeheartedly supported the new troupe. Charles Dullin offered to house them for several performances at the Atelier with the possibility of a long-term stay at a later date. The general public was less responsive. Blasé audiences manifested a “show me” attitude the company found unnerving. Having captivated rural audiences, the Copiaus considered themselves a popular theatre. In Paris, the Quinze were surprised to find they were the darlings of an elite. Consequently, full houses were frequently followed by sparse ones. Fresnay did not prove to be the attraction Obey and Saint-Denis had anticipated. |
||||||||