Download Realism: Andrè Antoine`s Obsession or Passion

Realism: Andrè Antoine’s Obsession or Passion?
By
Kimberly Lynn Leong Brandt
June 2013
Approved:
___________________________________
Research Paper Advisor
Accepted:
____________________________________
Chair, Department of Theatre
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL MISSOURI
WARRENSBURG, MISSOURI
Realism: Andrè Antoine’s Obsession or Passion?
By:
Kimberly Lynn Leong Brandt
A Library Paper
Presented in partial fulfillment
Of the requirements for the degree of
Master of the Arts in Theatre
In the Department of Theatre
University of Central Missouri
June 2013
Realism: Andrè Antoine’s Obsession or Passion?
Genius often times borders obsession. The close attention paid to the minutest of details,
the compulsion to have every element in its appropriate place, and the anxiety of the possibility
of feeling incomplete if order were to fall to chaos may hint to an individual who grapples with
obsession. André Antoine possessed this obsessive, yet genius personality when creating his
theatrical style. Although he strove to create a theatre, which was open to “any innovation in
theatrical writing or style of presentation” (Schumacher 5), it was obvious to those who attended
performances at the Théâtre-Libre and for those who worked with Andrè Antoine that realism
was his obsession of choice. To some Andrè Antoine’s attention to the finest of details to create
a realistic performance could be defined as an almost reckless obsession, but for him it was a
passion for creating truth in performance. Pouring all of his dramatic hopes and dreams of
theatre into the goals of the Thèâtre-Libre, Andrè Antoine used his influences and compulsions
with realism to guide his work with his actors and to form the overall design of his productions.
The Thèâtre-Libre, founded by Antoine in 1887, (Brockett and Findlay 40) gave him the
opportunity to explore works that were refused production in other Paris theatres. The
development of this theatre entailed a number of objectives including the acquiring of funds and
creation of the theatre’s mission. Several suggestions about funding the theatre were made
before reaching a final decision. One option was to find a wealthy patron, who was willing to
take on the financial concerns and be fulfilled merely with the gained notoriety of his endeavor.
There were a plethora of wealthy individuals willing to devote themselves to this project, but
1
2
Antoine refused this notion, concerned with the donator himself becoming too involved with the
decision-making process and therefore skewing the goals of the project. A secondary choice was
to leave the financial burden on the playwrights themselves. The worry here was twofold: an
amateur author would lack the funds necessary encompassing his project, and a well-known
author might demand some sort of compensation for the use of his name to attract audience
members. Finally, a fitting decision was made to offer subscriptions and have annually paying
members fund the eight or so performance season (Ogden 150-151). This subscription basis
created an intense connection between the theatre and its audience, filling the patrons a sense of
pride, since they could be directly tied to the assistance of the theatre’s success. Not only did
these subscriptions solve the question of providing the monetary supported needed, but it also
gave Antoine the freedom from censorship by the government (Miller 30). Antoine wholeheartedly had faith in this approach so much so, and in order to save on postage, he went door-todoor in search for subscribers (Clark xvi).
With the concern of funding for the meantime obliterated, director Antoine honed in upon
the goals of his Théâtre-Libre. As opposed to other theatres, Antoine’s desire was for writers to
embrace their own works instead of being led to create a piece that would be appealing to a
producer for monetary satisfaction. He followed this mantra, welcomed any dramatic work to
the Thèâtre-Libre he believed could offer any form of artistic merit, and he never concerned
himself with public opinion, be the author of the works he produced known or unknown (Moore
83). He himself stated in his Memories of the Thèâtre-Libre, “I am convinced that the task of the
Thèâtre-Libre is not so much to produce successful works as to establish new directions” (185).
It was indeed evident there was a need for these new directions in Parisian theatre.
Critics, press and others complained French theatre was losing its flare. It seemed as though any
3
new forms of production or approach were quickly squelched. This in turn was ruining future
generations of theatre audiences and workers of the craft. Productions tended to sway on the
redundant side and many craved something new. This new type of theatre needed to rotate the
mirror upon the audience and reflect their life conditions, so they might be drawn in to empathize
with those fighting against contemporary conflicts. The messages within these dramatic works
should thrive upon copying the likeness of life with no impossible conditions, characters, moral
or social conflicts with which an audience member could not relate (Ogden 149).
The Naturalist playwrights, who applied changes to dialogue and brought the taboo to the
forefront of their productions, developed this style of theatre. One of the noteworthy changes
was applied to language. Abandoning the idea of declamatory rhetoric, these authors exchanged
this stuffy dialogue for the vocabulary of the working-class, the uneducated and the crude. The
embracing of the scandalous and the abandonment of any protection for the audience from the
outrageous harshness of life also proved a most effective vehicle of the Naturalists (Gerould 16).
Even though this variety of dramatic expression would require much taking of risks, Ogden
noted how this style was destined to be a success when he shared: “The true always compels
interest, and any story, or fragment of human experience carefully related on the stage, with its
surroundings exactly reproduced, can and will hold the attention of the public” (Ogden 148). As
it first came into fruition, however, audiences were not largely swayed to solidify this art form,
which inevitably forced the authors of such pieces to discover other venues for their work to
flourish.
The Théâtre-Libre fostered the product of the Naturalist authors because of the talents
exemplified by its director, André Antoine. Antoine understood that unity above all other
aspects was a key attribute of one who wanted to produce naturalistic works as a director. To
4
create clarity and unity of the author’s work was a primary goal. He comprehended the gravity
of the task granted him by a playwright as he shared:
To grasp clearly the author’s idea in a manuscript, to explain it patiently and
accurately to the hesitant actors, to see the play develop and take shape from
minute to minute. To watch over the production down to its slightest details, its
stage business, even its silences, which are sometimes as eloquent as the written
script. To place the bewildered or awkward supernumeraries where they belong
and to train them, to bring together in one cast obscure actors and stars. To
harmonize all these voices, all these gestures, all these various movements, all
these dissimilar things – in order to achieve the right interpretation of the work
entrusted you (“Behind the Fourth Wall” 79).
Through this statement, one can acquire a deeper appreciation of the lengths Antoine was willing
to attempt when directing a given work. These lengths included, but were not limited to
sacrificing the worry one might have of financial failure, dedicating oneself solely to directing,
and controlling every attribute of an actor’s involvement through extensive knowledge gained by
living amongst them (“Behind the Fourth Wall” 82-83).
Although Antoine strove as a director to create new directions, in actuality it could be
argued all of what he produced was not really new, since he took much from his observations of
the artistic world. These observations began during his childhood years. Antoine’s own mother
must be given credit for constituting this dramatic spark. She frequently took him to inexpensive
matinees, which were composed of operettas and comedies. Antoine became enamored with
theatre. He did all he could to be a part of this world: selecting Taillade, a famous actor of
melodramas, to be his favorite star and, with the help of a young actress at the Gaîté, sneaking
5
into the prompt box to view performances (Miller 18). Antoine’s joy of theatre became
enflamed, and he continued to invest much of his time pursuing any avenue, which would bring
him closer to his obsession. Although Antoine was forced to work early in his adolescent years,
taking time away from his love of theatre, he did not hesitate to further his education and
broaden his knowledge in other areas of the arts and literature. This thirst for artistic
enlightenment eventually led him back to the theatre and eventually into the realms of creating
his future theatre’s goals.
With education, Antoine made his own substitutions when materials were lacking. His
family could only afford the secondary choice of attending École Turgot verses the most
acclaimed Lycée Charlemagne. Only after six months of attendance at École, Antoine was
forced to abandon his school and take up paid employment (Charnow 67). He therefore searched
out art exhibitions featuring works by Manet, read through small Bohemian Paris magazines
including articles by Zola, and attended evening classes focusing on the history of art by
Hippolyte Taine. Chothia explains Antoine’s passionate drive for additional artistic insight
commenting, “Antoine was…educating himself on the theory and practice, the battles for and
eventual triumph of the new artistic and intellectual movements: impressionism, Naturalism and
determinism” (Chothia 4). The furthering of his education in the theatre arts also did not cease
even after taking on employment.
Even after taking multiple positions running errands and acting as a clerk at Hachett
publishing company to acquire income for his family, and accepting job with the Paris Gas
Company, Antoine continued to rummage for ways to afford and attend theatre and to search for
possibilities to improve his personal theatre abilities. To lower the cost of admission for himself,
he became a hired clapper, viewing numerous productions for a discounted price (Miller 17-19).
6
Also taking part-time employment at the Comédie Française, Antoine again worked as a hired
applauder and became an extra, taking on walk-on roles (Leiter 8). In addition to these positions,
Antoine pursued his instincts to become an actor by attending elocution lessons at Le Gymnase
de la Parole (Miller 19). This particular dream ended though when, after his audition, he was
rejected entrance to the Conservatoire de musique et de déclemation. Using natural speaking
procedures as opposed to the declamatory style, which violated what the Conservatorie taught,
was enough for the judges to dismiss Antoine as a possible candidate for their institution
(Charnow 68).
Unwilling to secede from his naturalistic procedures as an actor and desperate to be a part
of the theatre world, Antoine became a member of the amateur theatre group, Cercle Gaulois in
1886 (Brockett and Findlay 40). This theatre, giving monthly performances and composed of
those like Antoine – individuals willing to gather together post their daily occupational duties –
proved more of an inspiration to enflame the desire to be different in his approach. Antoine
became restless with the mundane at Cercle Gaulois: productions of the popular works and
sentimental plays. Instead, he suggested the incorporation of performances, which were modern
and written by playwrights who had yet to gain considerable recognition (Charnow 69). In spite
of the members of the Cercle Gaulois eventually backing away from Antoine’s seemingly
obscure plans their renouncement did not hinder his motivation to proceed with his vision.
Antoine’s position with the Gas Company at Paris and years dedicated to military service
would also not serve as an obstruction to his desire to continue with his involvement with
theatre. In fact, in 1887, he resigned after ten years of service, from his position with the gas
company, so he might endeavor upon the journey of opening his theatre (Clark xiv). This vision
became more defined with Antoine’s frequent attendance at the Chat Noir. Being more of a free
7
thinker, his theatre followed in tandem with the style held by this Bohemian literary cabaret. The
cabaret, like many others of its time, strove to give non-traditional performances of multiple
genres including but not limited to poetry, monologues and music to a broad audience (Charnow
69-70, 72). Both discussed performance venues, the Cercle Gaulois and the Chat Noir, provided
Antoine with a framework of what he desired to avoid, and what he felt necessary to incorporate;
however, the greatest impact on Antoine, and the shape of his theatre came through his exposure
to the theatrical approaches made by the Duke of Saxe-Meiningen’s Company, when it
performed in Brussels in 1888. It was from company drawings and the actors’ work, which led
Antoine to explore his fascination with realism (Leiter 9). These and other approaches will be
discussed further, since they are greatly stippled amongst Antoine’s own theatre practices.
Maybe the most motivating attribute to create unique theatre was Antoine’s dislike for
classical French theatre, namely the acting style of the Conservatoire, which seemed to limit its
students’ studies to one vein of acting (Actors on Acting 210). It is possible this distaste for this
well-renown institution stemmed from the knowledge he would never truly be accepted because
of the non-existent wealth and stature of his family (Charnow 62), but this feeling was further
solidified when Antoine spoke of their inaction to quality theatre. He attested the Conservatoire,
which took beginning actors and made them victims of their practices by stating, “they take all
the young talents of which the modern theatre has such an urgent need and stamp them
haphazardly into the mold of their classical heroes” (“Behind the Fourth Wall” 90). According
to Antoine, restricting the actor’s freedom of movement shaped these unfortunate molds. The
actors were instructed that their movements should never run parallel with their speaking.
Instead, the performers should stand in a declamatory style and recite rather than play their lines
using the right inflection (“Behind the Fourth Wall” 81, 88). This choice, Antoine expounded,
8
deadened the meaning of the text since “they ignore the complexity, the variety, the nuances, the
life of modern dialogue - its turns of phrase, its subtle intonations, its overtones, its eloquent
silences” (“Behind the Fourth Wall” 89). Antoine’s knowledge of physicality, from the use of
the actor’s hands, to his back, to his feet, emphasized how much more powerful movement could
be over spoken word (“Behind the Fourth Wall” 89). A more natural way of moving about the
stage was a necessity, and just a small portion of how Antoine would reach his theatre’s acting
and general production goals.
Antoine determined that quality and realistic acting must be built upon the foundations of
truth, observation and the study of nature (Actors on Acting 210). This entailed a change from
that which he had observed at the Conservatoire. To create realism on stage, an individual who
produces such works must be aware of its plethora of components. Waxman attributed
Antoine’s extensive knowledge of realism not only through that which Antoine had taken from
literature, but also through experiencing life itself (Waxman 58). Antoine gathered all he praised
of the Meiningen Company and the art of living life, and all he wished to avoid of the
Conservatoire with its most unrealistic attributes, and considered both when formulating his
theatre’s realism goals stating, “real life is the art of the Thèâtre-Libre” (qtd. in Moore 84).
Emile Zola also acknowledged Antoine’s desire for change and his undertakings through
the vein of realism when he stated in an interview, “thanks to the Thèâtre-Libre, a change in
favor of our new school is coming to fruition. The influence of this new school is making itself
felt evermore strongly on the public, and the time is not far off when a legion of young actors
will popularize it on all the other stages of Paris” (qtd. in Memories of the Theâtre-Libre 104). It
was not surprising the attention gained by the Théâtre-Libre, since its ‘new school’ ways became
synonymous with the term, rosserie, which in literal meaning is worn-out old horse and in
9
figurative meaning is one possessing a wickedly ironic and loathsome nature. The characteristic
similarity amongst these productions showed religious beliefs and practices exposed for their
worthlessness. Those who searched for a revelation and deliverance from the materialistic and
instinctual human behavior within these dramatic works were unsuccessful. Shocking and surely
terrifying to fathom this literature and its playwrights, made the audiences of the Théâtre-Libre
face the often, cruel realities of life (Gerould 16).
Bitter in its ways, such literature demanded capable actors to portray this reality.
Antoine’s work with his actors continued this ‘new school’ approach. Because of his attachment
to producing realism with such precision and closeness to life, he strove for his actors, in tandem
with choices made in design, to present a slice-of-life. It was through the application of this
technique that made it possible for the audience members to enter the private lives of those
depicted on stage (Chothia 91). Antoine focused his energy on educating his actors about life,
and by teaching them how to use their voices properly and select movements, which echoed
naturalistic tendencies.
One aspect of education that could not be taught, but still played a pivotal role in creating
realistic characters was the fact that many of Antoine’s actors were amateurs. A part of his belief
was to avoid the use of the star system and instead look to employ everyday individuals, who
only after working for a day at their formal occupation would attend evening rehearsals. There
could be nothing more authentic than using untrained actors, because they possessed within
themselves the ultimate aspect of realism. In Antoine’s mind, there was nothing more real than
actors who were relying on their own intelligence and talents to depict realistic works (Actors on
Acting 211-212). A variety of professions were represented within this amateur-filled acting
company, which included but was not limited to chemists, architects, salesmen, dressmakers,
10
post-office workers. Though amateurs, these individuals were treated as acting professionals,
and went so far as to perform for foreign audiences. Some even pressed onward to the
professional stage (Waxman 127). This proved that the Thèâtre-Libre could also be “a simple
laboratory where young actors, after perfecting their art and enlarging their conceptions, would
be received at the regular theatres and thus replace their elders” (Waxman 123). This success
most assuredly had come through Antoine’s educating his actors to always act through truth,
observation and the direct study of nature. He frowned upon an actor limiting himself to the
studying of one categorized emotion, but rather insisted on a composite of multiple emotions,
which in turn could describe the human race as living beings (Actors on Acting 213). Antoine
gave his actors the opportunity to apply these teachings through his eluding of actor doubling, so
the actor could be totally absorbed in his given role (Chothia 11).
The actor honed in on his absorption of character through Antoine’s specific instructions
with the use of voice and movement. Opposing the method of addressing the audience directly,
as was often seen with those studying at the Conservatoire, Antoine had his actors speak in
conversational tones (Leiter 9) engage with each other (Chothia 30) while emphasizing attention
on the spoken line of the text and applying the correct vocal stresses when necessary, noting that
doing otherwise might diminish impact or intensity of the text (“Antoine on the Director” 85). A
somewhat novel concept during this time, Sprinchorn argues neither this conversational style nor
Antoine’s theatre, were truly a revelation. He is under the opinion Antoine’s success with
theatre and vocal choice was due to the use of small playing locations, which meant fewer
acoustical hindrances and the use of inexperienced actors, who did not fully understand how to
project their voices (Sprinchorn 122). Although something to consider, it is noteworthy to
acknowledge Antoine himself had taken some criticism for lack of power in his voice as an
11
actor. This attack may then have motivated Antoine to compensate through the naturalistic
movements he made with his body (Knapp 20). Perhaps it was through this critique that drove
Antoine to consider not only the use of natural voice, but also the natural movements of his
actors.
Although spoken lines were significant to a work, Antoine knew that at times actions
could trump the importance of dialogue and were more often than not, the most crucial means of
expression. He therefore asked his actors to work their bodies in sync with the rhythm of each
scene (“Antoine on the Director” 85-86). At times, this rhythm may have called for the actor to
turn his back to the audience. Referring back to the observations made on the acting in the
Meiningen Company, Antoine commented on the realistic strength of their performances. One
show, Wilhelm Tell, in particular, showed a beggar and two children who blocked the way of
another character, Gessler. Antoine noticed the effectiveness of this blocking since the beggar
and the two children played their roles with their backs to the audience (DeHart 67). Antoine
also saw the wonderful illusion-like quality of the actor who showed complete obliviousness to
the presence of the viewing audience (Sarcesy 80) he employed this choice often in his works.
Keeping in the world of illusion through precise movement, Antoine also understood how it
could also detract from where the audiences’ focus should be. In his production of The Fossils
(1892), to avoid the audiences’ attention being drawn away from the sister of the Duke of
Chantemelle as she read his will next to his funeral bed, Antoine had a cast made of the duke’s
face to assist the actor in making minimal movements. Antoine recognized the importance of the
placement of the sister in proximity to her brother’s dead body. This layout created the intensity
called for in this scene and because of the length of the act, the mask was a necessity. Antoine
acknowledged the actor, whose cast was being made, had to endure a bit of physical discomfort,
12
but Antoine believed this mask to be a crucial aspect to obtain his desired realistic affect
(Memories of the Thèâtre-Libre 210).
The aforementioned examples note Antoine’s work with individual actors, but he also
understood large numbers of people, namely extras, must also be trained to use their voices and
movements within the construction of a realistic crowd scene. Believability, to Antoine, was a
catching thing. He realized the belief of actions and words of just a single acting extra could, in
turn, move more acting extras to encourage the desired effect in quality of realism. Antoine
however, did not leave his extras without some form of guidance. Although he may be working
with a group totaling eighty to two hundred people for one scene, he chose at times to break
these numbers into smaller groups to be led by an actor who would serve as a sort of assistant
director or communicant of the director’s desires. These groups would train and be prepared to
display their engagement with a prearranged activity such as shouting emotionally charged
dialogue, smashing objects, climbing on furniture, or toying with some item in the room
(Chothia 69, 76). This practice followed in the vein of the Meiningen, who placed a leader at the
head of small groups of actors. These individuals would be situated in a prime location so all
those actors under him might follow his lead (Dehart 80). It is also important to note that the
power a crowd possesses is not only observable in moments of commotion or upheaval. During
certain scenes, these crowds of people would assist in drawing focus with their silence and
observation. If the audience observes this large group and believes that they are truly listening to
a specific character, then the audience too will be inclined to lend their ears to that individual
(Sarcesy 80). Antoine noted this realistic action by observing, “And if the crowd watches the
actor, and listens to him, instead of watching the audience…their listening would seem natural
and so would their silence” (Memories of the Thèâtre-Libre 83-84).
13
Antoine showed his great application of knowledge in the manipulation of his crowds
with specific productions at the Thèâtre-Libre. To create this sense of grandeur with his staging
effects he would, as he observed of the Meiningen, have acting extras stand only partially on
stage to give the feeling of a place overflowing with individuals. Behind the stage the actors also
played an important role in adding the sounds made by that of gathering numbers (Chothia 69).
Again, the use of backstage voices copies the practice of the Meiningen and their application of
Rhabarber. Although there is no solid confirmation as to how the use of this word was
developed, it was believed by speaking this word, meaning rhubarb, using a conversational tone,
would create a most realistic crowd noise (DeHart 90). Similar practice was evident in Antoine’s
works The Brothers Zemgano (1890), The Nation in Danger (1889) and The Weavers (1893). In
the first, Antoine must have kept afresh in his mind that which he observed from his research trip
to Medrano’s circus in Paris, when he saw performed exciting circus stunts. Sharing these reallife experiences with his extras he requested they speak and make the sounds of a crowd waiting
in anticipation for a thrilling circus performance. For The Nation in Danger and more
specifically, The Weavers, Antoine used elements of suspense and focused his attention on the
entrances of these crowds. In The Nation in Danger the crowd numbering up to five hundred
extras was funneled through a single door, with the result of a seemingly endless mounting of
intensity (Knapp 34-35). Suspense was even more profound in The Weavers with the choice
Antoine made when he “left the stage empty momentarily, as if projecting the threat of
advancing rioters as much at the audience as at the masters, until the very fabric of the set gave
way, doors and windows seeming to collapse under the pressure from the entrance from every
direction of the drunken, angry weavers” (Chothia 76).
14
A production experience surpassing these aforementioned however, could be considered
with Antoine’s production of Nell Horn (1891). It was in this dramatic work that Antoine used
his extras as a bit of a defense mechanism against the audience. The members of the audience
were in an uproar because of the scene that depicted the Salvation Army rally in London Square.
When Antoine signaled by whistle, three hundred extras in reaction to this sign increased their
noises made, so much so it drowned out the audience. This defense however, did not come
without cost – 1500 francs for the actors working as extras (Memories of the Thèâtre-Libre 176177).
It is understood with such detailed instruction necessary for his actors, intense rehearsal
sessions must have ensued and appropriate devices used to preserve these definitive moments so
they might present themselves once again during a performance. Waxman described Antoine’s
practices and work with his members stating, Antoine “insists that everyone, like him, shall take
his mission seriously. And from nine o’clock in the evening until midnight these young people
maneuver with admirable discipline, reciting their dialogues or monologues with fury, until they
find the right note or the true gesture” (Waxman 84). With such detailed stage business and
masses of people with which Antoine was working, he had to employ a tool fit for recording his
staging ground plans. The details of the actor’s lines, gestures, and stance were carefully noted
within the promptbook, which used such devises as underlining or superscript numbering so as to
avoid any deviation from what had been rehearsed. At intermittent times, Antoine was even
more particular and included drawings beside the dialogue at what he believed to be pivotal
moments in the production (Chothia 14, 101).
15
Antoine felt very strongly about the quality of his actors’ education of life, use of voice
and movements, but his true passion for realism came through with his compulsion for designing
a realistic set. He shared in his Memories of the Thèâtre-Libre:
In modern works, created amid a movement of truth and realism in which the
theory of environment and the influence of exterior things plays so large a part,
isn’t the setting an indispensable complement of the action? Shouldn’t the setting
be as important in the theatre as description is in the novel? Isn’t it one kind of
exposition of the play? Of course it can never be made completely real, because it
is in the theatre, and no one would dream of denying it a certain minimum of
conventionalization, but why not strive to keep to this minimum? (151-152).
It is easy for one to note the drive Antoine had to fulfill his desires to make his productions as
true to life as possible. He achieved these realistic successes through his respect of the text, his
careful consideration of the structure of the stage environment and the actors’ movements within
it, his selective choices of technology and stage lighting, and his dedication for displaying
historically accurate costumes and properties, no matter the financial strain.
Although the cost of cutting a realism script caused no financial loss, it sometimes caused
Antoine emotional strain; such was the case with his production of Ibsen’s Ghosts (1890).
Antoine was guilty of making some cuts to scripts, but was sure to emphasize in order to serve
justice to the work of a playwright the Thèâtre-Libre must not follow in the steps of the Thèâtre
Français and diverge greatly from the original document. This audacious action he defined as
tripatouillages, or tampering (Chothia 82-83). Antoine showed this respect to Ibsen and his
work, Ghosts. A translation of Ibsen’s text from Norwegian into French was necessary. As
Antoine spent more time with the script, he realized the length might be something to consider
16
when keeping the audience entertained. Showing honor to the playwright, Antoine wanted these
possible cuts to be performed by a “literary man…who would take the responsibility and who
could do justice to this great discovery” (Memories of the Thèâtre-Libre 123). He admitted fear
in the thought of trying to make the cuts himself and noticed how his coworkers also shirked any
responsibility of this task. Antoine, even after having a translation, spoke of the desire to have
yet another word-for-word translation of the original work completed, to see the effectiveness of
the given translation. After observing this second translation, only then did Antoine, whose
choice was reinforced by Ibsen himself, commit to producing the play in this form (Memories of
the Thèâtre-Libre 125-126, 128, 133). Eventually, despite having to make some cuts to this
work, Antoine “took care to touch nothing essential” (Memories of the Thèâtre-Libre 136).
Continuing on matters of the text, besides avoiding the cutting of necessary content,
Antoine also did not shy away from the use of the seemingly atrocious of texts. As mentioned
earlier, rosserie defined some of the material presented at the Théâtre-Libre. Even though the
critics may not have approved of these audacious works, the audiences flooded the theatre to see
what these works could disclose about the human condition. Antoine featured works of this sort
by author Oscar Méténier to name one. Méténier, a co-founder of the Théâtre-Libre and a
notable in the Naturalism world, wrote one-act plays that demonstrated rosserie through the
sexual promiscuity and physical violence. His play, En Famille (At Home) produced on 30 May
1887, taken from his own short story, depicts a family of seedy characters including a father who
is involved in the criminal activity related to stolen goods, a daughter working as a prostitute and
a son, a pimp, who during the performance shares a story about the gruesome death of a fellow
criminal. Another of Méténier’s works, La Casserole (Stool-Pigeon) produced in 1889, again
deals with disjointed relationships those highlighted amongst prostitutes and pimps. A murder
17
displayed on stage at the conclusion of the piece shows the most graphic stabbing death of a
prostitute. The pimp killer takes matters into his own hands and murders the woman, who had
chosen to relay to the authorities of the workings of her killer’s male lover. Antoine warned his
audience of the content of the later of these two performances, being considerate of those with
weak stomachs, yet the house remained full as the play’s resolution commenced. It is obvious
the boldness Antoine possessed in following through with his theatre’s intentions if he was
willing to produce works, which housed such gore and with which the critics found little value
(Gerould 16).
The praise for allowing this class of performance may not have always come neither from
the audience nor the critics, but Antoine did receive reassurance from playwrights, such as from
author Brieux who shared his extreme gratitude. Brieux tried numerous times to appeal to many
theatre managers throughout Paris to feature his works. He struggled with even having his
scripts read by these individuals. He believed he was much indebted to Antoine and his ThéâtreLibre not only for the chance to exhibit his work, but also for the opportunity to better
understand his craft as a dramatist (Clark xxi). Through this acknowledgement, once more,
Antoine displayed his devotion and persistence to the promise made through his theatre to share
literature he deemed worthy of public display.
Since Antoine spent much time considering his texts and how to keep them true to life, he
solidified his dedication to the work by housing it within the perfect and most realistic of
settings. He realized the importance of the background, which needed to hold precedence over
his actors. He therefore built his structures “without worrying at all about the events that were to
occur on the stage. For it is the environment that determines the movements of the characters,
not the movements of the characters that determine the environment” (“Behind the Fourth Wall”
18
84). When constructing these environments, Antoine kept aware of the somewhat confining
limitations of the stage itself. He noted three of these problems: the height of the set, because
lowering the ceiling would mean a possible obstructed view for audience members located in the
balcony; the width of the set and the third, although not as serious an issue as it had been in the
past, the proscenium arch (“Behind the Fourth Wall” 87). Antoine approached the labor of his
structures as a designer, who did not let himself to be confined with the concern of the actors’
action within the space; instead, he laid plans for his design, by completely enclosing it with four
walls. Later, during the production’s rehearsals, he decided which wall to remove for the actual
performance (Leiter 10). The logic behind this most unique choice was taken directly from life.
Antoine explained as with an individual’s own home there are locations, which seem to be used
more frequently for work or living than others. During the winter, for example, a person may
hover around a fireplace or stove, while during the summer one may gravitate towards a window
streaming sunlight (“Behind the Fourth Wall” 85). To produce likeness-of-life, it was imperative
to first consider location and then let the actors’ blocking be dictated by their instinctual desire to
move and interact with their surroundings. Antoine supported this kind choice by identifying
that by waiting to determine which wall should be removed, it would ensure “the most striking
and the most telling features will be retained” (“Antoine on the Director” 85).
This dedication to proper staging might have been fostered because of the faults Antoine
possibly observed of the Meninger. Problems with spatial relationships between the actors and
set pieces and properties resulted in actors being as tall as trees or houses because of the depth of
stage design. This spatial problem in turn then limited the actors’ movements (DeHart 78). He
may have avoided some relative issues with creating his sets, but Antoine was not always able to
produce the effect he had hoped. Using costly materials such as real wallpaper, leather,
19
woodwork paneling and other perishable goods to construct his sets proved to be wasteful: when
lit, they looked just like painted backdrops (“Behind the Fourth Wall” 86). Even though he
confessed these missteps, Antoine did all he could to create a most realistic structure.
Antoine, however, did not end his quest for staging realism with only one room. He also
kept in mind the structures in their entirety, which extended past the places that housed the main
action. He wanted his actors to be sure to understand the grand scope of his design and how the
main playing area was at times a part of a larger structure (Leiter 10). This concept was not only
for himself and his actors; it benefited the audience as well. Antoine explained why these
additional steps were necessary since, “even if the other rooms and hallways will only be
glimpsed at through half-open doors; spectators should feel the presence of the whole house
surrounding the scene of action” (“Antoine on the Director” 85).
Always concerned with the audience being completely immersed in a production,
Antoine never snubbed his nose at the use of technology to enhance his theatrical presentations.
He embraced the use of movable platforms to lessen the distraction caused by scene changes,
therefore keeping his audience in the realms of his realistic works (Knapp 43). The readiness to
apply technology could be linked with the minor disappointment he felt with the Meiningen
Company. The theatre company struggled with the use of a curtain between scenes, seeing its
function as a “necessary evil.” Duke Georg realized his choice to use a curtain to be a distraction
to the audience, but he felt at times there was no other substitute possible (DeHart 89). Never
really negative in his critiques, Antoine did identify how his attention was swayed by the abrupt
changes in their staging effects. He believed, as impressive as they were, there needed to be a
sense of smoothness when it came to effects transitioning (Sarcesy 81). Furthering the work of
transitions and the ability for the audience to become completely enveloped by the production,
20
the actors would completely ignore any audience recognition (Ogden 152). This follows suit
again with the Meiningen, as the Duke too demanded no acceptance by the actors of the
audiences’ applause (DeHart 89).
These chosen effects were heightened by Antoine’s selective lighting techniques.
Labeled by Antoine as “the good fairy of the décor the soul of the staging,” lighting could
exemplify the depth of a performance since it “acts physically on the audience: its magic
accentuates, underlines, and marvelously accompanies the intimate meaning of a dramatic work”
(“Behind the Fourth Wall” 88). Following his instincts, Antoine placed the audience in
darkness and forewent the use of footlights as a lighting technique. By keeping the house
darkened, Antoine was intensifying the audience’s experience of reality. It assisted them in
becoming lost in the world of the play (Brockett and Findlay 43). In order to pursue lighting in
the likeness of life, Jean Jullien argued Antoine needed to mimic natural light, which came from
above rather than from below. Antoine also borrowed techniques from fellow dramatists, such
as Henry Irving, who focused lighting on specific objects to draw the audience’s attention. It
was through the illumination of these objects Antoine was able to emphasize mood (Knapp 4243). This choice was extremely successful with his work on The Death of the Duke of Enghien
(1888). During the trial, the stage was lit only by lanterns, which illuminated both the faces of
the judges and the duke himself. These lanterns intensified the mood with their brightening and
dimming during the interrogation process (Knapp 25-26). Antoine also repeated the use of this
lighting technique for his crowd scene in The Nation in Danger. He scattered the light, letting it
fall upon random objects and individuals to cause an effect, which he labeled as “extraordinary”
(Memories of the Thèâtre-Libre 105-106).
21
Although Antoine approved repeat performances in the area of lighting techniques, he did
all he could to avoid the reusing of settings because he believed it “not possible to do justice to
the character and atmosphere of these new works in old settings.” Antoine realized this could be
quite an expensive outlook to maintain, but he trusted in the success of his theatre to bring about
a means to his desired realistic ends (Memories of the Thèâtre-Libre 73, 87). No expense was
spared when speaking of historically accurate costumes and realistic properties. Antoine did not
have the great storehouse and unlimited funds as Georg II, duke of Saxe-Meiningen, who was
able to borrow expensive items such as antiques and furniture from museums or even his own
castles or home (DeHart 88). That which Antoine could not afford, he clung to the old habit
developed before the Thèâtre-Libre, and borrowed from his friends or teachers. He even turned
to his own mother for the use of her dining room table and chairs, having to haul the contents in
a borrowed handcart, from her home to the theatre. These actions are proof of Antoine’s
unadulterated dedication to realism (Knapp 11, 24). Not all of Antoine’s requests for stage
materials were approved, since not all individuals shared similar dramatic goals. One example of
a slight confrontation came when he was denied his request for a previously borrowed riding
crop from actor Paulin Mènier. The props boy who worked with Mènier shared with Antoine the
reason for the dismissal of the request. As it was discovered, the actor was completely appalled
that the founder of the Thèâtre-Libre had used the property in the past and was not about to
release it to him again (Memories of the Thèâtre-Libre 167-168).
It is clear Antoine would go to great lengths and through many contacts to procure just
the right realistic, material components for his theatrical endeavors. Even the most minutiae
were accounted for. Proof of this is in Antoine receiving credit for and being identified as the
first to use real door handles and knockers (Miller 63). His attention to detail, however, did not
22
pause at functioning background pieces. For his production of The Power of Darkness (1888),
Antoine met with political refugees to obtain authentic costumes. He also could not contain his
excitement for the possession of “real Russian objects” to be used as properties in the same
production (Memories of the Thèâtre-Libre 60). The aspect of realistic qualities seen in selected
set pieces thrilled his audience. Antoine often rose to this occasion and continued to blast them
with realism by presenting actual beef carcasses hanging on the set of The Butchers (1888) and a
real fountain as the centerpiece of his production of Rustic Chivalry (1888), both presented
within the same evening (Memories of the Thèâtre-Libre 89).
There were moments where the expense and Antoine’s dedication to creating a realistic
mise en scène was affirmed. Such was the case with his invitation by the impresario Mayer,
once the director of the Comèdie-Française in London. This man requested several
performances of The Death of the Duke Enghien. Antoine was asked to keep everything exactly
the same as it had been presented in Paris. Much money was spent to ensure the same actors,
costumes and settings would be available (Memories of the Thèâtre-Libre 103). What made this
production praiseworthy was its photographic realism. The sets were derived from historical
documents (Leiter 9) and the historically accurate costumes were copies of Jean Paul Laurens’
paintings of the duke. These paintings served as an inspiration for the cut, color and materials to
create actors’ garments (Knapp 25). Antoine acknowledged this great expense but could not
have been more delighted by the results (Memories of the Thèâtre-Libre 94).
Although debts mounted, Antoine did not concern himself with the economic concerns
with his theatre, believing realism could spare no expense to create his desired outcomes. He
continually borrowed money or asked for advances to produce his selected works. This
acquiring of funds proved to be especially difficult, especially since some performances were
23
given only three times in the form of a dress rehearsal, opening night for guests and a final
performance for subscribers (Knapp 21). Furthermore to draw these subscribers to his theatre,
Antoine allocated funds for advertising. In 1880s Paris, poster advertising became a large part of
the culture. Antoine readily accepted this opportunity to announce the workings of his theatre.
He hired many avant-guarde painters and printmakers to create advertisements, programs and
backdrops for his productions. Some expense was spared though through the images created for
the programs. Instead of advertising for each individual performance, the images were nondescript, completed with the intent to be reused again and again. Cost of the posters and
programs did serve a duel purpose since those who attended the theatre would take these
souvenirs home, display them in their homes, and therefore further spread the news of Antoine’s
productions at the Théâtre Libre (Charnow 77-78). It was most crucial for the Théâtre-Libre to
be consistently advertised both in public and private forms so as to entice the crowds to part with
the cost of a theatre subscription to assist with the theatre’s mounting expenses.
This subscription basis costing roughly 12.50 francs per performance was indeed towards
the higher end of entertainment costs during this time. In comparison with other forms of
entertainment, single ticket for the Opera could range between 2.5 and 15 francs, state-subsidized
theatre tickets ran from 1 to 11 francs, popular theatre tickets sold for .75 to 8 francs and costs
for concerts was anywhere from 1 to 10 francs a performance. Subscribers of Antoine’s theatre
also benefited from fringe benefits such as smoking, reading and conversation rooms. Antoine
willing to take this risk of charging higher fees from his subscribers, suffered in October 1887
when the number of subscribers could not sustain the financial costs of his season. The result
was Antoine opening his performance to guests and non-paying supporters, causing a significant
monetary loss. Further instances occurring in August 1888 and June 1889, exhibited Antoine’s
24
needs for funds becoming secondary to his desire to expose a broader audience to theatre. The
first of these actions: an offer to pay only half the price of a normal subscription fee, which
included eight performances. The second, identified in a letter to Randolph Darzens in which
Antoine shared his desire for students to attend theatre, resulted in a ten percent loss per student
ticket sold to the Théâtre-Libre (Charnow 76, 80, 84-85). Although Antoine supported this later
choice with the importance of having younger viewers to uphold the future and goals of his
theatre, it may be he also felt a moral obligation to offer those with lower financial status the
opportunity to view theatre as he once had in his younger years.
As difficulties with funds continued to threaten Antoine’s theatre because of years
devoted to his realistic vein of production, as mentioned before, he was inclined to take his
company on tours. Mounting debts because of his elaborate choices made with his sets and
productions as a whole encouraged this decision. Antoine was not ready to sacrifice his
compulsions to present audiences with a slice of life, even though the responsibilities of a touring
company could prove to be a significant burden. Although he attested he still possessed energy
and confidence, Antoine acknowledged these attributes were not enough to keep his theatre
alive. Even though he tired with this undertaking, he kept a positive outlook, especially when a
welcomed response by those experiencing his theatre reinforced his theatrical judgments with
realism (Miller 50-51).
Case in point was the magnanimous financial cost to make The Weavers a beautiful piece
of realism. Antoine had to get an advance of funds from a friend otherwise he would have been
unable to follow through with the production (Memories of the Thèâtre-Libre 218-219). This
obsession for the real thing could have been considered Antoine’s greatest fault, since his goal of
realism was not always perceived as perfect. Mistakes were made since limited funds meant
25
limited rehearsal time. These components ultimately influenced glitches with technical aspects
including an actor’s reliability of line memorization, failing lights, poor use of stage space and
misplacement of stage accessories (Knapp 30). Antoine, however never really learned how to
hold back from putting all he could into his productions, as Waxman noted of Antoine: “his
debts do not weigh heavily upon him. He knows, and his creditors know, that he can never pay
them, but he is perfectly content with his lot, and he has no regrets for the past” (Waxman 5960). Although Waxman may not have observed any hints of despair at that time, while touring in
Rome, Antoine did sadly comment on his lack of funds and how he worried about the future of
his theatre knowing the inevitable would come to pass (Memories of the Théâtre-Libre 233-234).
Eventually, Antoine was forced to abandon the Théâtre-Libre after finishing a tour through South
America (Brocket and Findlay 46). Antoine’s obsession with producing the best quality of
realism may have driven him too deeply into debt to continue, but the price paid did not
outweigh the value of theatre produced while he surrendered to his passion for realism at the
Théâtre-Libre.
Antoine was described as an indefatigable individual, constantly immersed in theatrical
works and one who lived through the excitement of what aspects of realism could be presented
on stage (Waxman 56-57). It is hard to disagree when one takes into account the productivity of
his realistic productions at the Thèâtre-Libre. Antoine’s theatre succeeded with three specific
goals: the exposure of playwrights, producers and audiences to theatre, which entailed modern
and often abrasive themes, the elevation of characterization over plot, and the exhibition of truth
especially in observation of human behavior through the use of realism (Miller 71). These goals,
achieved using a significant venue and coupled with the passion he possessed for truth in
realism, led Antoine to great realistic success. Through realistic acting techniques shared with
26
his company and through the sparing of no expense to encompass the most realistic mise en
scène comprehendible, Andrè Antoine presented memorable and influential dramatic realism.
27
Works Cited
Antoine, André. “Behind the Fourth Wall.” “Causerie sur la mise en scene.” Revue de Paris
1 April 1903: 596-612. Directing the Play: A Source Book of Stagecraft.
Ed. Toby Cole and Helen Krich Chinoy. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company,
Inc., 1953.
_____________. Memories of The Théâtre-Libre. Trans. Marvin A. Carlson. Ed. H.D. Albright.
Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 1964.
_____________. “The New Acting of the Théâtre Libre.” Actors on Acting. Ed. Toby Cole and
Helen Krich Chinoy. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1949.
_____________. “Antoine on the Director.” “Causerie sur la mise en scene.” Revue de Paris
1 April 1903: 603-604, 609-611. Theatre in Europe: A Documentary History: Naturalism
and Symbolism in European Theatre 1850-1918. Ed. John McCormick and Cluade
Schumacher. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Brockett, Oscar and Robert Findlay. Century of Innovation: A History of European and
American Theatre and Drama Since the Late Nineteenth Century (Second Edition).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon A Division of Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1973.
Charnow, Sally. “Commercial Culture and Modernist Theatre in Fin-de-Siécle Paris: André
Antoine and the Théâtre Libre.” Radical History Review 77 (Spring 2000): 60-90.
Academic Search Complete. EBSCOhost. University of Central Missouri Lib.,
Warrensburg, MO. 23 May 2013. <http://web.ebscohost.com.cyrano.ucmo.edu>
Chothia, Jean. Andrè Antoine. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Clark, Barrett H. Introduction. Four Plays of the Free Theatre. By Francois de Curel et al.
Trans. Barrett H. Clark. Cincinnati: Stewart & Kidd Company, 1914. xi-xxxiv.
28
DeHart, Steven. The Meiniger Theater:1776-1926. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1981.
Gerould, Daniel. “Oscar Méténier and “Comedie Rosse”: From the Théâtre Libre to the Grand
Guignol.” The Drama Review. 28:1 (Spring 1984): 15-28. The MIT Press. JSTOR.
University of Central Missouri Lib., Warrensburg, MO. 29 May 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org.cyrano.ucmo.edu>
Knapp, Bettina L. The Reign of the Theatrical Director: French Theatre: 1887-1924. Troy:
The Whitston Publishing Company, 1988.
Leiter, Samuel L. The Great Stage Directors: 100 Distinguished Careers of the Theater. New
York: Facts on File, Inc., 1994.
Miller, Anna Irene. The Independent Theatre in Europe: 1887 to the Present. New York:
Benjamin Blom, 1966.
Moore, George. “Antoine interviewed, 5 February 1889.” “‘The Patron of the Great Unacted’
interview with Andre Antoine in London.” St. Jame’s Gazetee 5 Feb. 1889. Theatre in
Europe: A Documentary History: Naturalism and Symbolism in European Theatre 18501918. Ed. John McCormick and Cluade Schumacher. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1996.
Ogden, Phillip. “Le Théâtre Libre.” Modern Language Notes. 12:5 (May 1897): 146-154.
The Johns Hopkins University Press. JSTOR. University of Central Missouri Lib.,
Warrensburg, MO. 29 May 2013. <www.jstor.org.cyrano.ucmo.edu>
Sarcesy, Francisque. “Antoine Assesses the Meininger, 23 July 1888.” Quarante ans de theatre,
vol. VIII, pp. 258-263 (23 July 1888). Theatre in Europe: A Documentary History:
Naturalism and Symbolism in European Theatre 1850-1918. Ed. John McCormick and
Cluade Schumacher. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
29
Sprinchorn, Evert. “Strindberg and the Greater Naturalism.” The Drama Review. 13:2
(Winter 1968): 119-129. JSTOR. University of Central Missouri Lib., Warrensburg,
MO. 27 November 2012. <http://www.jstor.org.cyrano.ucmo.edu>
Waxman, Samuel Montefiore. Antoine and The Thèâtre-Libre. New York: Benjamin Blom,
Inc., 1926.