Patrice Chreau on "The Screens" Author(s): Arthur Holmberg Source: Performing Arts Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1984), pp.

75-77 Published by: Performing Arts Journal, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3245409 Accessed: 22/09/2010 00:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=paj. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Performing Arts Journal, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Performing Arts Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

PATRICE On "The

CHEREAU Screens"

Interviewedby ArthurHolmberg
What considerations led you to produce The Screens now? There is a crisis in the theatre, and I don't believe it's limited to France. We have no great playwrights. There are plenty of people who write plays, but I don't know of anyone who knows how to use language dramatically, to incorporate it into a theatrical discourse. One of my primary goals in establishing this cultural center in Nanterre is to search out and nurture young playwrights like Bernard-MarieKoltes. You don't write a great play overnight-you must learn the craft. The last great age of theatre in the Western world was the theatre of the absurd spawned in Paris in the fifties. Why Genet? Why The Screens? Simple. It is the last great French play. I would even go so far as to say it is the last great literary work written in French. It has not been seen in France since Barrault's famous production in 1966. Therefore, a whole generation of young Frenchmen have grown up who have not had a chance to see this national treasure. I wanted to share with them the opportunity of hearing and seeing Genet's masterpiece. It's a play that submerges plot and character. It doesn't tell a story with psychologically coherent characters. It is a hymn in praise of the French language. It is a play about words, about the energy of words. It's a play about play. It's a play about death. It's also full of humor. Genet is a great comedian, and he gave freer rein to this side of his talent in The Screens than anywhere else. [At the premiere of Chereau's production right wing terrorists plant a bomb in the theatre. The performance is stopped and the building cleared out.] The political right are not the most astute literary critics. There were also bombs and numerous incidents the last time the play was presented. I remember the situation well because my prise de conscience politique took shape during the Algerian War, and my decision to set the play in the 1950s rather than the 1830s was a desire to reflect this agitated period of our history when the play was written. But history is only pretext for the spectacle. The right thinks the play attacks French imperialism against the Arabs and that the scene of breaking wind over the fallen dead insults the national honor. But The Screens is not a political play. It is a play about words, a detonation of the French language. No great play is political, at least in the sense usually meant. Great plays transcend politics.

75

THE SCREENS I'm astounded to hear you say that no great play is political. One of the most salient features of your career has been to produce plays which most would consider highly charged politically, and with a definite leftist bent: Fuente Ovejuna of Lope de Vega, The Massacre of Paris of Marlowe, The Soldiers of Lenz, Don Juan, Richard II,The Splendor and Death of Joaquim Murieta of Pablo Neruda, Toller of TankredDorst, Lulu,and Wagner's Ring. The abuse of power is a constant theme in your work. Obviously the plays I choose to devote time and energy to and my interpretation of them reflect my social preoccupations and political concerns. At the beginning of my career I believed in the missionary role of theatre, but I have lost that faith. To what extent does theatre have an impact on society ... ? Well, let's say I'm now an agnostic. Politics today is in the hands of technocrats who don't go to the theatre. For the theatre to be a political force, it would have to reach many more people than it does. The theatre is no longer a mass medium. It appeals to an elite. I'm not talking about a political, social, or economic elite. I mean an intellectual and artistic elite. Of course despair can prod you along. One dreams always of creating utopia, of a revolution that finally achieves the highest ideals of justice, of a theatre that reaches out to the entire population. But these are dreams. As for reality, I have always followed and will continue to follow my own aesthetic objectives. My movies and plays appeal only to a relatively small public. We all know what one has to do to curry favor with the crowd, but I have no interest in commerce. Does the theatre, then, have any importance today? I'mgoing to answer your question with a tautology, but it's the most honest answer I can give you. The theatre is important for those people for whom it is important, and for them it's vital, an irreplaceable experience. I am one of 76

those people, but I am in the minority. For the majority, sitting at home in front of a television set with pizza and beer is enough. The theatre is an act of futility that we must take in dead earnest. The theatre becomes important when those who make it realize it is without importance. Like getting up in the morning, theatre is an existential act.

EL VENENO DEL TEATRO Rodolf Sirera Directed by Emilio Hernandez Teatro Maria Guerrero (Madrid) HYSTERIE Opera-Collage: Grupo de Acci6n Instrumental Directed by Jacobo Romano; Musical direction by Jorge Zulueta Teatro Espainol (Madrid) ISABEL, REINA DE CORAZONES Ricardo L6pez Aranda Directed by Antonio Mercero Teatro de la Comedia (Madrid) EL CARNAVAL DE UN REINO Jose Martin Recuerda Directed by Alberto Gonzalez Vergel Centro Cultural (Madrid)

MarionPeter Holt
The appointment of Lluis Pascual, from Barcelona's Theatro Lliure, to the directorship of Spain's National Theatre created an air of expectation as the fall season began in Madrid.The 31-year-old director's schedule was an exciting one, including an inaugural production of Brecht's 1924 version of Marlowe's Edward II and a new staging of Valle-lnclan's masterpiece, Luces de Bohemia (Bohemian Lights), which is to be remounted in Paris following its Madridrun. Because of an injurysustained by a principal actor during rehearsals, the opening of Edward IIwas unavoidably postponed. To begin his first season, Pascual substituted an impeccably staged production of El veneno del teatro (Theatre Poison), a minor but intriguing twocharacter play on the ubiquitous subject of fiction-versus-reality by the Valencian dramatist Rodolf Sirera. The orchestra seats of the multi-tiered MariaGuerreroTheatre had already been removed to provide a Peter Brook-style arena for Edward II, and 77