Rencontres Avec Ariane Mnouchkine: Dresser Un Monument A L'Ephemere (review)

Josette Féral’s book is a labor of love, her admiration of and curiosity about Mnouchkine’s work long-standing. As a spectator, Féral has been a consistent observing presence at the Théâtre du Soleil since their production of L’Age d’or in the mid-seventies. As a scholar, she began researching Mnouchkine’s theatre practice in 1988 when she first interviewed the director. Féral moved from theoretical to practical research in the spring of 1988 when she participated in a stage, or workshop, in Paris. During the Théâtre du Soleil’s 1992 Québec tour, she organized a forum around Mnouchkine and her company, attended by faculty and students of Montréal’s theatre schools and departments. Each of these “encounters” is treated in a separate chapter.

Féral’s purpose in undertaking her research was to discover and understand Mnouchkine’s “laws of the theatre.” What theories govern her practice? Who were her mentors, her models? And most importantly, how does she work with actors? In the first chapter Féral gives an overview of Mnouchkine’s precepts, with special emphasis on acting. The Théâtre du Soleil is inspired by Asian theatre—the source, Mnouchkine believes, of all vital theatre with the exception of the commedia dell’arte. For Mnouchkine, as for Brecht, the actor is primarily a story-teller; her actors play situations, not emotions. They are steered away from a realistic identification with the character because psychology trivializes both performance and story. Moreover, a psychological approach implies an individual wholeness to each character that Mnouchkine emphatically does not believe exists. In her view, characters are interdependent, rather than independent, and each carries in her- or himself an essential part of the story.

For the remainder of the book, Mnouchkine speaks for herself with little interpretation. Her theatricalist approach is most clearly illuminated in the chapter depicting Féral’s hands-on experience at the annual week-long workshop held at the Théâtre du Soleil. The director offers the workshop gratis out of her concern for the future of acting—a craft that she fears is deteriorating and that she has dedicated herself to preserving. It is difficult to understand, however, how a one-week workshop can function as a countervailing force. Perhaps that is the rationale for accepting such a large number of applicants (200 out of a pool of 1,000 at the workshop Féral attended) of diverse nationalities (48 at the same workshop).

Since the technique that can be acquired in such a short period is limited, the emphasis is on a way of working. The brief training makes use of some of the same methods the company employs. Thus Mnouchkine’s criticism of student efforts is particularly valuable, since it provides clues to her rehearsal process. For each workshop, Mnouchkine chooses a theme that is then developed by the students as a group. Students strive primarily to develop a sense of ensemble, to work truthfully rather than realistically, and to create a connection between the external and internal in building a character. Characters evolve through improvisation with costumes and masks, both commedia dell’arte and Balinese. The theatre’s vast wardrobe and collection of masks are put at the disposal of the students.

Chapter 4, the longest section of the book, is an edited transcription of the public question and answer session between Mnouchkine, her company, and the Montréal audience. As would be expected, the questions range broadly in terms of quality, degree of sophistication, and agenda. Since acting students made up a large percentage of the audience, a number of questions focus on the qualities Mnouchkine looks for when engaging members of her company. The more pertinent questions—some surprising, some provocative—deal with her views on acting, rehearsing, and training. It is interesting to discover, for example, that she strongly believes in “education through humble imitation” (103).

This work is a useful...