-
The Compromise of Commemoration: The 1927 Centennial of Romanticism at the Comédie-Française
- Modern Drama
- University of Toronto Press
- Volume 46, Number 2, Summer 2003
- pp. 227-240
- 10.1353/mdr.2003.0058
- Article
- Additional Information
- Purchase/rental options available:
The Compromise of Commemoration: The 1927 Centennial of Romanticism at the Comedie-Fran<;;aisel SUSAN MCCREADY The 1920S in France were marked by a major shift in the aesthetics of theatrical performance. Theatre scholars speak of a "revolution" in the dramatic aesthetic during this period; however, the great changes were not as visible in the new plays being written as they were in theatrical productions. The real innovations were in stagecraft and the real innovators were directors, not playwrights . Directors such as Jacques Copeau and his disciples stripped the stage of its cumbersome props and detailed costumes, favoring a bare stage and simple clothing. In this way, they moved the French stage incrementally from realism to abstraction, mirroring the great changes that were taking place at the same time in the other arts. In fact, the radical revision of the dramatic aesthetic between the wars laid the foundation of contemporary French stagecraft. In this context of great and exciting advances in theatre, the state-sponsored Comedie-Franl'aise was forced, by the very nature of its mission, the preserva: lion of the French theatre repertoire, to proceed more consclVatively. Emile Fabre, director of the Comedie-Franl'aise from 1915 to 1936, recognized that the developing aesthetic of the avant-garde was much more than a passing fad; still, he was less inclined to innovate than the more adventurous, independent directors, aware that any innovation he introduced to the Maison de Moliere was likely to meet with resistance or even hostility from conservative critics and audiences, who considered any change a betrayal of a long and dignified tradition. In 1927, Fabre staged a major event, which he hoped would bring the new aesthetic to bear on the repertoire in an acceptable context for the state theatre: the Centennial of Romanticism. Fabre described the Centennial as one of a series of "solennites litteraires et dramatiques appuyees sur la gloire d'un auteur ou sur la gloire d'une epoque [Literary and dramatic solemnities based on the glory of an author or the glory of a period)" (D'Esparbes),' and it appeared at first to be a brilliant compromise. Through this and other Modern Drama, 46:2 (Summer 2003) 227 228 SUSAN MCCREADY commemorations, he was able to create an event - and in so doing to attract press and audience - around what would otherwise have been just an old play or series of plays. At the same time, he used the event to innovate gradually on set designs and production values, in hopes of keeping the critics and audiences interested in repertory theatre at a time when much more new theatre was being produced elsewhere. Through commemorations like the Centennial of Romanticism, Fabre was trying to reassert the state theatre's relevance in an increasingly diverse and cosmopolitan entertainment market. As this analysis ofthe Centennial shows, however, Fabre's strategy of commemoration oriented the Comedie-Franc;aise toward the past and ultimately diminished its influence on the Paris theatrical scene of the 1920S and 1930s. Plans for the Centennial were announced in early [923, just onc year after the huge success of the 1922 Tri-centennial of Moliere. This event had filled the hall, made money for the theatre, earned major press coverage, and inspired other, similar celebrations around France and around the world. During the Tri-centennial, all eyes were focused on the Comedie-Fnuic;aise, whose dominance over the theatre scene was asserted by association with Moliere's dominance as the greatest French playwright. This is precisely what Goulemot and Walter identify as the promise of commemoration. They argue (based on their study of the centennials of Voltaire and Rousseau that took place throughout France in the late nineteenth century) that through the process of commemoration, the significance of past events is defihed or crystallized for the new, commemorating generation. Not only do the organizers of a commemoration participate in the definition of the subject of their commemoration , however, they also appropriate to themselves the prestige of their subject . In the Centennial of Romanticism, the Comedie-Franc;aise certainly helped to define a romanticism for the period between the wars; it failed, however , to convert the success of a new production or two into prestige for the theatre itself. In fact, if anything, the Comedie-Fran~aise grew more distant from mainstream theatre-goers in its celebration of romanticism, which had a decidedly academic tum to it. During Fabre's tenure,'the Comedie-Franc;aise moved from the center of the theatre scene, where theatrical creation and innovation are paramount, to its periphery, where, through events like the Centennial of Romanticism, its role was increasingly limited to the preservation of the past. Understanding how and why the Comedie-Franc;aise transformed itself incrementally from theatre into archive provides insight into the way in which aesthetic movements, such as the renaissance in stagecraft in the early twentieth century, progress from the creative avant-garde to the popular mainstream and finally to the academic canon. In this paper, I first sketch some of the conditions in the Paris theatre scene in the 1920S, in order to show why Emile Fabre expected and needed so much from the Centennial of Romanticism. Next, I compare the Centennial to the earlier Tri-centennial of Moliere, in order to show why the Centennial failed The ComMie-Fran,aise and the Centennial of Romanticism 229 to live up to the promise of its model. This leads to a discussion of the role of the Comedie-Fran~aise in the revision of the status of romanticism within the French theatre repertoire (and within the academic canon) during the 1920S. Finally, this examination of the Centennial of Romanticism highlights the changing place of the ComMie-Fran,aise between the wars. Fabre's solution - innovating in theatrical fonn within the context of historical commemorations - won temporary attention for the theatre but ultimately failed to move the Comedie-Franc;aise forward. Fabre's use of commemoration was meant to appropriate the status of the authors or periods celebrated and to convert it into prestige for his theatre. I argue that instead of appropriating the past, Fabre allowed the ComMie-Fran,aise to be appropriated by it, as the state theatre became increasingly identified not as a place of theatrical creation, but as the site of the preservation of the repertoire, and in this way, his brilliant compromise became a devil's bargain. By the early 1920S, the theatres of the avant-garde were presenting their first real challenge to the ComMie-Fran,aise. The competition of the music hall, vaudeville, the cinema, and other such entertainments "Was already keen, drawing the popular audience away ITom theatre in general. This flight from the theatre would only intensify at the end of the decade, with the introduction of sound to the cinema. Meanwhile, over the course of the 1920S, the more sophisticated theatre-goers would progressively lose interest in the ComedieFran ,aise as well, in favor of the experimental theatres of the avant-garde and the internationally celebrated Ballets Diaghilev.3 Emile Fabre took the helm of the state theatre in 1915 during a period of already diminishing prestige, and surrendered it in 1936, with the prestige of the Maison de Moliere in freefall . Throughout his tenure, Fabre found himself in a serious predicament. As the limited subsidy received from the government was never enough to make ends meet, he was as dependent as any theatre director on audience receipts. He raised the prices seven times between 1920 and 1925 (Joannides La Comedie-Francaise 1920-1926, xiv),4 but higher prices could not make up for a diminishing audience and,.in fact, may have driven some potential theatregoers towards cheaper thrills at the cinema. At the same time, however, the weight of tradition made it difficult for him to innovate and thus to attract a larger audience. On the one hand, the dignity of the Comedie-Fran,aise would not bear any dabbling in the sensationalism that might have lured the popular audiences away from the cinemas and other popular entertainments; on the other hand, the theatre's stated mission of preserving the repertoire necessitated that any innovation move slowly, and so the more fashionable theatre audiences went elsewhere. Furthennore, audiences had an increasing number of theatres in the new avant-garde style ITom which to choose. In 1920, Copeau had founded his short-lived but extremely productive Ecole du VieuxColombier , where he trained actors, designers, and directors and expanded his experimentation with the theatrical aesthetic and his influence in the theatre 230 SUSAN MCCREADY world, as Copeau-trained graduates opened theatres and took important positions in theatres all over Paris (De Jomaron, "lis etaient quatre" 737). In 1927, four avant-garde directors in possession of their own theatres fonned an alliance known as the Cartel; they were Copeau associates Charles Dullin and Louis Jouvet, along with Gaston Baty and Georges Pitoeff (De Jomaron, "Jacques Copeau" 742). While this group eventually became associated with the aesthetic principles to which they all, to varying degrees, adhered, the Cartel was originally conceived merely as a collective of small theatres, whose purpose was to help them cut advertising and production costs and to stay afloat in what, for them too, was a competitive market. Faced with this level of competition from all sides, Fabre did innovate, but predictably, any innovation was perceived as a betrayal of the mission of the state theatre by a certain conservative element among critics. In his 1925 Essai d' esthetique theatra/e, for example, theatre critic Emile Mas castigates Fabre for his choice of what he considers to be inferior plays: La Comedie-Fran~aise est, par sa tradition, Ie theatre des poetes. Malheureusement ses dirigeants actuels negligent trap sauvent cene loi fondamentale de notre premiere scene; et parmi les 'nouveautes,'-acote d'ouvrages de jeunes auteurs trap t6t ret;us dans une Maison qui ne saurail en aueun cas, etre un theatre d'essai, naus avons vu la critique elle public accueillir avec faveur de soi-disant chefs-d'ceuvres dus ades ecrivains reputes et illustres. (5) fThe Comedie-Franvaise is, by its tradition, the theatre of poets. Unfortunately, its current administrators too often neglect this fundamental law of our preeminent stage; and among the 'novelties,' beside the works of young authors received too soon in a House which could never in any case be an experimental theatre, we have seen the critics and the public welcome with favor some so-called masterpieces of well-known and illustrious authors.] At the same time, any hesitation by Fabre to produce new plays left him open to criticism from less conservative critics, or worse, left the press entirely silent. By 1927, the situation had grown so dire that Pierre Brisson's "Revue de la Saison" in Le Temps made no mention at all of the Comedie-Fran<;aise. Slowly but consistently, Fabre did introduce changes, hiring young set designers such as Raoul Dufy, Marie Laurencin, and Charles Granval, among others, and charging them with creating new sets for some of the mustier plays in the repertoire. He also made a change in some of the texts chosen for performance . Previously, when Alfred de Mussel's (1810-1857) plays had been performed at the Comedie-Fran<;aise, the scenic adaptations written by Musset or sometimes his brother Paul were chosen over the original, published text (see Fabre and Masson). At the time Musset was writing, several of his plays seemed unstageable as written, but with the developments in stagecraft at the The Comedie-Fran,aise and the Centennial of Romanticism 231 beginning of the twentieth century, directors such as Copeau began to produce the original texts. When in 1923 Fabre opted to follow this trend and produce On ne badine pas avec I'amour in the original version, a production made possible by a complicated set by Charles Granval, he did manage to attract the press. The reviews, however. as with nearly all the new sets or reversions to original texts, were mixed.s Still, as he gradually adopted ideas from the avant-garde, Fabre was helping to move their aesthetic incrementally into the mainstream by introducing it to a much more conservative audience than the avant-gardistes themselves could hope to touch directly. While, before the First World War, the Comedie-Fran,aise had not had any difficulty attracting the press (a glance at Joannides for '907 or 1908 shows that nearly every production, whether a new play or one from the repertoire, was reviewed), it had begun the tmdition of commemoration that Fabre was able to expand and use to his advantage. Since well before Fabre's day, the ComCdie-Fran,aise had celebmted the birthdays of Moliere, Comeille, and Racine with special productions. Hugo was eventually added to the list, as well as productions of more minor authors at major milestones, such as a 150th or 20Cth birthday. This allowed the producers to take an old play, usually performed on the same old set, and make an event worthy of note out of it. Fabre expanded the annual birthday list to include Alfred de Musset (indeed, he did much throughout his term as director to elevate Musset to his current place in the repertoire, as we shall see), but his major coup came in 1922, with the celebration of Moliere's 300th birthday. The 1922 Cycle Moliere was the major theatre event for the first two months of the year. Over about six weeks, the ComCdie-Fran,aise performed every play by Moliere in chronological order and ended with, according to Maurice De Waleffe, "une messe solennelle comme pour un saint! [A solemn mass, as for a saint!]." Clearly Moliere had the status of a secular saint and his high priests at the Comedie-Fran,aise were able to command a show of devotion from the faithful around France and around the world. One special performance , attended by the President de la Republique was held in the Salle des Carlatides in the Louvre, for visiting dignitaries from forty-three nations (Le Rider and Toja 230). Interestingly, all segments of the press (from fan magazines to the trades to the high-brow literary maga2ines) covered this event. The consensus was that the Tri-centennial was a great success and that a new era was dawning for the House of Moliere. Gabriel Boissy writes, [LJa celebration de Moli~re corncida avec un effort heurcux pour faire cadrer, adapter la tradition aux recherches contemporaines les plus audacicuses. Par la autant que par I'hommage rendu aMoliere, ce 'cycle' marque une transition des plus imporlantes. ("Le Tri-Centenaire") [The celebration of MoJiere coincided with a successful effort to frame. to adapt 232 SUSAN MCCREADY tradition to the most audacious contemporary developments. In this, as much as by the homage paid to Moliere, this 'cycle' marks a transition of paramount importance.] Boissy notes emphatically in the same article that the event brought in some "six cent soixante mille francs!" The receipts were certainly significant, but perhaps more importantly, Fabre would never again see such effusive, positive press, nor would he ever see so much of it. It was in this context, still giddy from the success of the Tri-centennial that, in early 1923, Fabre announced his project to celebrate the Centennial of Romanticism in 1927, the one-hundredth anniversary of Hugo's Preface de Cromwell (Qe Waleffe).6 In an interview with the trade daily Comredia, Fabre explained that he saw this new event as one of a series of commemorations, along the lines of the Tri-centennial of Moliere (D'Esparbes). He expected, moreover, to excite the same kind of national and international participation he had managed to muster for Moliere. He planned to involve galleries in producing retrospective exhibitions of romantic art and to see romantic operas performed by the Paris opera; in so doing, he hoped to show at home and particularly abroad "toute la grandeur d'un mouvement artistique qui, parti de France, a eu son influence sur Ie monde entier [All the grandeur of an artistic movement, which, born in France, had its influence on the entire world]" (D'Esparbes). Much would have changed, however, between 1923 and 1927. In 1923, Aste D'Esparbes could write, in opening the interview just cited, "C'est Ie privilege de la Maison de Moliere que les moindres faits de sa vie artistique entrent immediatement dans Ie domaine de I'information [It is the privilege of the House of Moliere that the most minor facts of its artistic life enter immediately into the realm ofnewsJ." As we have seen, in 1927, the biggest event of the year at the Comedie-Fran~aise would go unremarked in the end-of-season summary in Le Temps. In fact, only one play from the Centennial would even be reviewed in Le Temps or anywhere, and that was the widely reviewed and universally praised new production of Lorenzaccio, staring Marie Pierat in the title role. Even then, however, mention of the Centennial , itself, was omitted as often as not in these reviews. The cultural and economic milieu of the [920S explains why commemorations were so important to the embattled Fabre and what they allowed him to do both aesihetically and financially. The Tri-centennial of Moliere illustrates only the promise and the rewards of commemoration: through it, the Comedie-Fran~aise reasserted its theatrical and cultural dominance in a wildly successful series that reached the widest possible audience at home and abroad. The more modest success of the Centennial of Romanticism shows the limitations of Fabre's compromise with tradition. This study of the Centennial reveals what was gained and lost for the Comedie-Fran~aise in putting so much of its capital (cultural and financial) in these kinds of celebrations. The Comedie-Fran,aise and the Centennial of Romanticism 233 Although the ComMie-Fran,aise still had an important influence in the academic theatre world (holding much sway over the definition of classics and the content of the repertoire) and although it could still command a large and diverse audience at times. its influence was increasingly narrow and academic and its theatrical successes could not be sustained. It is immediately apparent when comparing the Tri-centennial of Moliere with the Centennial of Romanticism that the two events did not generate the same kind of participation. This was probably predictable, given that Moliere was and had been (and still is) such an important figure in French theatre, while the same cannot be said for the romantic playwrights. Even so, one can document a narrowing in the influence exercised by the Comedie-Fran~aise in the nature and number of manifestations parallel to the Centennial of Romanticism taking place in the early summer of [927. While the Tri-centennial had encouraged theatres all over the world to celebrate Moliere, the Centennial of Romanticism attracted only academic participation and not all of it supportive of the Comedie's project. For example, Eugene Marsan mocks the idea of timing the Centennial to coincide with the anniversary of the Pre/ace de Cromwell : "On voudrait bien etre it la place de ces etourneaux au de ces superbes calculateurs qui ant resolu de celebrer conte que conte et vaille que vaille Ie centenaire du romantisme. Ni Ie gros drame oi la grosse preface ne leur ont beaucoup fatigue la cervelle. lis on vu les dates, observe qu'elles 'collaient' et en avant, marche! [We would really like to be in the place of those scatterbrains , those superb calculators who resolved to celebrate, come what may, the centennial of romanticism. Neither the heavy play nor its heavy preface gave them much trouble. They saw the dates, noticed that they 'went' and forward , march!]" (qtd. in "Comedie-Fran,aise [908-[952").' Since the project was announced in early 1923. however, Marsan is probably incorrect in his assumption that Hugo's famous manifesto was merely a pretext for Fabre. In fact, Lugne-Poe, who, at his Theatre de I'reuvre, had been an early innovator and a precursor to Copeau and the Cartel, mentions that Fabre's interest in Cromwell went beyond the academic. While, as a theatre director himself, Lugne-Poe is certainly sympathetic to Fabre's dilemma, understanding that the success of a play resides not so much in the quality of the play or its production as in "I'eclatdu spectacle [The glarnour of the spectacle]" (4), he, too, considers at least part of Fabre's project ill-conceived. Quel que soit l'hommage que I'on veuille rapporter au romanlisme. ~ Cromwell. It Victor Hugo, au Ministre eminent qui en a pris I'initiative, reflechissons et considcrons hquoi rime ceUe subvention extraordinaire et humoristique qui a~t~ donnee l'autre jour~ la Comedie-Franc;aise afin de pouvoir monter ... Cromwell! Es(-ce qu'iJ n'y a pas I ~ comme un anachronisme intcllectuel formidable? (3) [Whatever the homage we might wish to pay to romanticism, to Cromwell, to Victor 234 SUSAN MCCREADY Hugo, to the eminent minister who took the initiative, let us reflect and consider the folly of this extraordinary and laughable subsidy which was granted the other day to the Comedie-Fran~aise so that they could stage.,. Cromwell! Is there not in this a terrific intellectual anachronism?] Apparently, Fabre thought better of the project to stage Cromwell, at least, which was not part of the Centennial and is to this day awaiting its premier at the ComMie-Fran,aise. Still, there is no doubt that Fabre considered the Preface to be the foundational text of romanticism on the French stage and, as such, to be worth celebrating, and that not everyone agreed. It is little wonder that when Fabre chose to fete this academic tome rather than the best~ loved plays in the romantic repertoire or the dramatic figures cut by the well-known authors and actors of the period, the participation he excited was mostly academic. A review of the press of 1927 yields many articles about romanticism, which fall into a few different categories: some are attempts to define romanticism and to situate it historically; others are articles contributing to a sort of personality cult around the romantic authors; still others are straightforward literary or artistic criticism, identifying the merits and demerits of specific works. In his article "Les Origines du Romantisme," for example, Maurice Levaillant takes up the cause of proving that romanticism was not an imported aesthetic but, in tracing its lineage to Rousseau, a decidedly French phenomenon. The article closes emphatically in an echo of Fabre's statement about romanticism: "Qu'on aille apres eela, soutenir que notre romantisme fut une deviation de I'esprit national, ou la regrettable contagion d'une maladie etrangere! Ne en France, et de France, il fut, avant tout, franr;ais! [Let them try after this to maintain that our romanticism was a deviation from the national spirit, or a sad infection by a foreign illness! Born in France and of France, it was above all, French!]" (551). Significantly, though he discusses at length the Preface de Cromwell in its relation to Delacroix, Levaillant makes no connection with the Centennial celebration that was ongoing at the Comedie-Fran~aise as his article was in press. Rather, he credits a series of lectures going on throughout June of 1927, under the aegis of the Sorbonne, with piquing his interest in romanticism. While this lecture series was almost certainly timed in parallel with the Centennial at the ComedieFran ,aise, Levaillant was either unaware of the theatre's role or considered it unimportant. Other events related to romanticism taking place around the same time included an exhibition on the childhood of romantic authors at the Maison de Victor Hugo and a "centenaire du romantisme" in painting at the GaIerie la Boetie. Reviews of these events also make no mentipn of the celebrations at the ComMie-Fran,aise (d'Houville; "A Propos du centenaire"). In June of 1927, the Figaro artistique published a two-part article, with many reproductions of paintings on "La Poesie de Delacroix," but again without reference to The Comedie-Franc;aise and the Centennial of Romanticism 235 Fabre's Centennial (see Grappe)_ Jules Truffier mentions the Centennial only once in his series of lectures on romantic theatre, published in Conferencia in 1928, and then the allusion is not complimentary. After a lengthy discussion of the recent productions of Ruy Bias and Chatterton, in separate articles on each, without any reference to the productions at the Centennial (which, he might have noted, included a new set for Ruy Bias and an extended run for Chatterton), Truffier congratulates the Comedie-Franc;aise in his article on Antony for choosing not to produce Dumas' sadly dated masterpiece. It is impossible to discern whether Fabre was, indeed, behind these parallel celebrations of romanticism, but the organizers of these lectures and exhibits clearly saw no advantage in aUaching themselves to the Comedie-Franc;aise, whose prestige, we are forced to conclude, had declined precipitously since 1922. Still, the Centennial had its highlights. Over the course of about six weeks, the ComCdie-Fanc;aise staged twenty-one romantic plays, including four in new mises-en-scene. An unattributed item in the "Theatres: Nouvelles" rubric of Le Temps identifies the biggest hits of the cycle, stating, Devant Ie ires grand succes remporte par M. YonncI dans Chatterton, M. Emile Fabre adecide de redonner Ie chef-d'reuvre de Vigny en rneme temps que la reprise atlendue de A quoi revent les jeunesfi/les, Ie dimanche soir 19 juin, a20 heures precises. Deux fcis la semaine demihe, vendredi et dimanche sair, Lorenzaccio a faille maximum de reeeH es (25.000 francs). [Given the great success won by M. Yonnel in Chatterton. M. Emile Fabre has decided to replay Vigny's masterpiece at the same time as A quoi revenc les jeulles /illest Sunday evening. June 19 ateight o'clock. Twice last week, Friday and Sunday evening. Lorenzaccio sold out (25,000 francs).] Though I did not locate a single review of Yonnel's performance in the new production of Chatterton, Fabre's production of Mussel's Loremaeeia was reviewed widely and in many different kinds of publications. This production marked Lorenzaccio's entrance into the repertoire of the Comedie-Frant;aise, and as such it was a theatrical event in itself, even without the framework of the Centennial. As it happened, many critics, particularly those in the more popu1ar publications, made no mention of the Centennial in reviewing its centerpiece. Critics did talk about the sets, however, of which one, the bards de I'Arno in Act III, was spontaneously applauded as the curtain opened (Boissy, Lorenzaeeio ). In order to capture the movement and the rhythm of Musset's play, in which there are some thirty-eight tableaux, Fabre used the entire stage. Borrowing a technique from vaudeville, he staged certain scenes in front of the closed stage curtains while the sets were being changed behind. Borrowing SUSAN MCCREADY from the avant-garde, the sets were relatively sparse, with the various interiors differentiated only by the color scheme and the display of the coat of arms of the appropriate Florentine family. Critics and audiences responded positively to these techniques, without which the pace of Musset's text could not have been reproduced faithfully. In his 1974 Musset et Ie thNitre inttrieur, Bernard Masson writes at length on the relationship of the set to the original text and to Fabre's adapted stage version. He argues that, while the staging of Lorenzaccio incorporated techniques new to the Com