In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

360 Comparative Drama Gloria Feman Orenstein. The Theater of the Marvelous: Surrealism and the Contemporary Stage. New York: New York University Press, 1975. Pp. xv + 315. $15.00. Like so many of us Professor Orenstein pursues elusive phantoms. She seeks to “concretize” the Marvelous by bringing description and analysis to bear on surrealist theater. Hazarding the fate of a sane per­ son in a madhouse—which is to appear insane by contrast, or, worse yet, irrelevant—she applies reason to the nonrational, prose to the ecstatic. Her problem in the analysis of surrealism is akin to the problem of critics who paralyze humor by writing books about it: the interpretive medium differs so widely in spirit from the subject matter that it is in constant peril of being disattached at those very points when it thinks itself most engaged. Commendably, therefore, Orenstein tries to be attached, but in the process she misses a fine middle line and embraces her subject with more enthusiasm than discretion. Her analysis often becomes the slave rather than the critic of her subject matter, adopting some of its idiom and many of its assumptions. The reward is that surrealistic ambiance is sometimes enhanced; the penalty is that sur­ realistic irrationalism clouds her perspective. This book moves outward from the European confines of Henri Béhar’s Etude sur le Théâtre Dada et Surréaliste (1967), which ter­ minates with 1940, and complements J. H. Matthews’ Theatre in Dada and Surrealism (1974) and recent studies on avant-garde theater by Wellwarth, Kirby, Pronko, Cohn, and Croyden. Ms. Orenstein struc­ tures her discussion by delineating two schools of surrealism in the theater—that of André Breton, which strives for illumination via a psychically-charged use of language, and that of Antonin Artaud, which seeks illumination through an assaulting environment of action. She deals with Pichette, Césaire, and Ivsic as descendents of Breton, then focuses on three categories of playwrights in this tradition: Latin Amer­ icans Paz, Cortázar, Cid; women surrealists Garro, Mansour, Carring­ ton; and black humorists Ionesco, Benayoun, Diaz. The descendents of Artaud which interest her are Jodorowsky, Lebel, Aelberts, Auquier, and Arrabal, with Arrabal receiving a full chapter. Professor Orenstein’s survey and attendant commentary are very much a mixed bag. She evokes a fair amount of interest in the innovation and theatricality of about half of her subjects, while despite her efforts the other half emerge (or submerge) as trivial, pretentious, and self-indulgent. Sporadically she reveals genuine critical instincts; more commonly she slips into pseudometaphysical jargon, passing by points which could enrich her argument. Her initial distinction between the approaches and schools of Breton and Artaud is a case in point. She strongly empha­ sizes their common goal—spiritual mutation via the “alchemy” of theatrical ritual—as opposed to their disparate methods—Breton’s re­ liance on the magic of words versus Artaud’s abrogation of text in favor of a theater of action or event. But while her distinction is valid she repeats it in numerous contexts without rigorously exploring it. She neglects Breton’s emphasis on “pure psychic automatism” (automatic speech or writing) which is central to his famous definition of surrealism, Reviews 361 and at no point does she seriously assess his theory. Much could be made of the historic-aesthetic context of his approach, its psychological aspects, the question of its validity, and its early lack of proof in the theater; but Orenstein either brushes past all of these or blandly absorbs them in a vein of critical acceptance. Regarding Artaud she is even less definitive, describing his rejection of text more than analyzing his rea­ sons or providing a historical and biographical perspective. The fascinat­ ing mixture of seminal theatrical theory and romantic naivete in Artaud’s Le Théâtre et Son Double, along with his personal failure to realize his theories in the theater, are accepted in a lump, unprobed. This critical narrowness regarding Breton and Artaud affects the entire book. The scantily-analyzed dicta of these two theorizers are used as touchstones to depict the work of their followers. In the process a broader frame of reference is sacrificed. Barest mention is given...

pdf

Share