Tout Bouge [Everything Moves]: The (Re)Construction of the Body … · 2016-05-18 · i...

ToutBouge[EverythingMoves]:The(Re)ConstructionoftheBodyinLecoq‐basedPedagogy

ADISSERTATIONSUBMITTEDTOTHEFACULTYOFTHEGRADUATESCHOOL

OFTHEUNIVERSITYOFMINNESOTABY

LauraPurcellGates

INPARTIALFULFILLMENTOFTHEREQUIREMENTSFORTHEDEGREEOF

DOCTOROFPHILOSOPHY

Dr.SonjaKuftinecAdvisor

September2011

©LauraPurcellGates2011

Acknowledgements

MyresearchatÉcolePhilippeGaulierwasgenerouslyfundedinpartbythe

UniversityofMinnesotaGraduateSchoolInternationalThesisResearchGrant.Iwasalso

fortunatetoreceivefundingduringmytimeattheUniversityofMinnesotathrough

DepartmentofTheatreArtsandDancetravelawards,theUniversityofMinnesota

GraduateandProfessionalStudentAssemblyTravelGrant,theUniversityofMinnesota

GraduateResearchPartnershipProgramGrant,UniversityofMinnesotaCollegeof

LiberalArtsGraduateStudentSupportAwards,andaUniversityofMinnesotaGraduate

SchoolFellowship.

Thisdissertationwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthesupport,adviceand

encouragementofmydissertationcommittee:SonjaKuftinec,MargaretWerry,Cindy

GarciaandTimothyLensmire.IamparticularlygratefultomyadvisorSonjaforher

incisiveadviceandenthusiasticguidance.

Finally,thankyoutoTobiforrearranginghomelifearoundmywriting,tomy

motherVictoriaforseeingmethroughthedefense,tomyfatherBillforreliablehumor,

andtoallmyfriendsandfamilyforunendingemotionalsupport.

TableofContents

ListofFigures iii

Introduction 1

Chapter1: DisorientationandtheHaptic:DevisingTheMasterandMargarita 32

Chapter2: VentreandCerveau:ContaminationAnxieties

inLateNineteenth‐CenturyFrenchMime 63

Chapter3: PuppetsandBodies:MechanicalversusNaturalinFrenchNeutralMaskTraining 124

Chapter4: LocatingtheSelf:NarrativesandPracticesofAuthenticityinFrenchClownTraining 187

Conclusion 243WorksCited 253

ListofFigures

Figure1: TheHanlon‐Lees 86Figure2: Lebrasnoir 112Figure3: TraditionalVenetianbautamask 142Figure4: StudentsworkingwiththeNeutralMask

inGaulier’sworkshop 144Figure5: Studentswaitingtoreceivefeedback 167Figure6: Gaulierreadytohitthedrum 223

Introduction

You:crouchedin thegrasswhile thedevilscreechedup inacarandcavortedtoderanged technomusic; jogged to a set of stairs andwatched a wind‐up bandplayingdementedvaudeville;squintedthroughthegloomandwatchedareal‐lifesilentmovieplayingout intheneardistance; leanedagainstawallwhileahugestudent cast sang a song of heartache and near‐redemption; held your breathwhileyouwalkedthroughthedarkwithcharactershissingsournothings inyourear.

‐QuintonSkinner,ReviewofTheMasterandMargarita1

Inthisreview,QuintonSkinnercapturestheimagisticratherthannarrative

frameworkthatshapedthedevisingofTheMasterandMargarita,anoutdoor,site‐

specificcollaborationmountedbyUniversityofMinnesotatheatreundergraduatesin

September‐October2006.Performerstranslatedpotentimagesfromthenovelinto

embodiedtheatricaleventswhichlooselyfollowMikhailBulgakov’sstoryinhisnovelof

thesamename.Inhisnovel,Bulgakovtellsthestoryofthedevil’svisittotheMoscowof

StalinistRussiaandinvolvementintheloveaffairbetweentheMaster,awriterwhohas

beenvilifiedinliterarycirclesforhisnovelaboutChristandPontiusPilate,and

Margarita,thewomanwhostrikesadealwiththedeviltobereunitedwithherlover.

Theadaptationwasco‐directedbyMichaelSommersandLuverneSeifert,twolocal

theatreartistswhoalsoteachattheuniversity.Sommersteachespuppetryandco‐runs

OpenEyeFigureTheatre,aMinneapolis‐basedpuppetrycompany.Seifertteaches

actingattheuniversityandisaprofessionalactorintheTwinCities;heandSommers

havebothworkedextensivelywiththenow‐defunctThéâtredelaJeuneLune,atheatre

foundedbygraduatesofÉcoleJacquesLecoq.RehearsalsforTheMasterandMargarita

1 Skinner,Quinton."CurtainCall."Citypages27Dec2006,sec.Arts:1.

werethereforestronglyinformedbyLecoq’smethodology,includingclownandlejeu

[theplayorthegame].2

DuringrehearsalsforTheMasterandMargaritaIobservedanumberof

pedagogicaleffectsincludingincreasedagencyamongperformers,theabilitytoaccess

embodiedknowledge,andthedevelopmentofcollaborativeworkingrelationships.AsI

exploredthestrategiesforcreatingaspacewithinwhichtheseeffectswerefacilitated,I

arrivedataconceptionoftheusesofdisorientationtocreateadifferenttypeofspace,a

spacethatallowednewpatternsofthoughtandbehaviortooccur.Thisideabecame

thelensthroughwhichIapproachedalaterpractice‐basedstudyoftheNeutralMask

andClownworkshopsatÉcolePhilippeGaulier,inwhichIexaminedthewaysinwhich

studentsandteachersengagedwithideasandpracticesthathavebeenapartofthe

Frenchmimetraditionfromthelatenineteenthcentury,includingthenaturalbody,the

artificialormechanicalbody,andthe“authenticself”.3Thesepracticesareconsidered

2LejeuisaformofimprovisationcentraltoJacquesLecoq’sconceptoftheatricalcreation.Lecoqdefineslejeuas“lorsque,conscientdeladimensionthéâtrale,l’acteurdonneunrythme,unemesure,unedurée,unespace,uneformeàsonimprovisation,pourunpublic”[when,consciousofthetheatricaldimension,theactorgivesarhythm,ameasure,aspace,aformtohisimprovisationforspectators](Corps41;unlessindicatedotherwise,alltranslationsinthischapteraremine).MaskworkincludesNeutralMaskinwhichmovementwithoutexpressionisexplored,LarvalMaskinwhichshapessuggestexpressivity,andCharacterMaskinwhichstrongpersonalitymustbeembodied.Clownisatypeofcharacterandaperformancetechniquethatalsooperateswithinlejeu.ThisfigureisrelatedtocircusandCommediaclowntraditions,butisalsohighlyspecifictoastyledevelopedbyLecoqwithhisstudentsattheschooloverseveraldecades.ThecentralfeatureoftheLecoqclownisopenness—avulnerabilitythatallowsforspontaneityintherehearsalprocess.3 Iuse“authenticself”tomeantheideaofapre‐socializedidentitythatlies“behind”socializedhabitsofthoughtandbehavior,ormovement.Muchactortraininginthetwentiethcenturyhasbeengearedtowardstrippingawaythesehabits;thisincludesmovementtraining(seeEvans2009),voicetraining,forexampleKristenLinklater’ssystemof“FreeingtheNatural

partofLecoq‐basedpedagogy,apedagogythatIhavechosentoanalyzeutilizingboth

historiographicandpractice‐basedmethodologiesforitsapproachtotheperformer’s

body.Thisexpandsoncurrentresearch(includingMurray2002and2003andEvans

2009)thatfocusesonandtheorizesthekeyideasthatLecoqespousedbutwhichlacks

currentpractice‐baseddata,astheseexistingstudiesrelyonmemoriesofstudents

ratherthanobservationsintheactualclassroom.Additionally,myresearchlinksLecoq‐

basedpracticetotwentieth‐centurymimebeginningwithJacquesCopeauincontrastto

studiesthatdonotlookfurtherbacktoFrenchmimepracticeinthelatenineteenthand

earlytwentiethcenturieswhichIproposesignificantlyinformedlatertwentieth‐century

developments.InChapter2,therefore,Ianalyzelatenineteenth‐andearlytwentieth‐

centuryFrenchmimepractitionersandtheoristsastheyencountered,producedand

struggledwiththesethemesofmechanizationandauthenticity;inChapters3and4I

turnmyattentiontoGaulier’sclassroomtostudythewaysinwhichstudentsand

teacherswithinatraditiondrawnfromFrenchmimecontinuetoengagewiththese

themes,interrogating,rupturingandreinscribingconventionalnotionsofthebodyand

self.IreturntothesiteofTheMasterandMargaritainChapter1,diggingmoredeeply

intomyconceptofa“pedagogyofdisorientation”andsituatingthisandotherkey

Lecoqideaswithinalargerscholarlyconversation,whichsetsthestageformyanalysis

Voice”(1976),andLecoq‐basedclowntraininginwhichstudentsareencouragedto“discover”theirpersonalclown,generallyidentifiedintheclassroomandinwritings(includingLecoq1997,Fusetti1999andGaulier2007)asthestudent’s“true”self.Iexploreandchallengethisideaofthe“true”or“authentic”selfinmoredetailinChapter4.

ofGaulier’sclassroom.Thisintroductionlaysoutthelargerquestionsofmyresearch,

anddetailsmymethodologyandexistingliteratureinthefield.

InthisdissertationIexplorethequestionofhowthebodyhasbeenhistorically

constructedasaperformingagentinLecoq‐basedperformancepedagogythrough

investigatingthewaysinwhichthebodyhasbeenandcontinuestobeasiteof

contestation—revealingunderlyingideasaboutthe“natural”,themechanical,andthe

“authentic”self—withintheFrenchmimetradition.Thisinterestbeganwithmy

personalexperienceofLecoq‐basedpedagogy,inwhichIobservedintersections

betweencontemporaryEuro‐Americanpedagogicalapproachestothebody,which

positionitasanobjecttobecontrolledbythemind,andLecoq‐basedpedagogical

practice,whichpositionsthebodyasathinkingagent.Ichosetostudythewaysin

whichthebodyhasbeenconstructedandmobilizedwithintheLecoqpedagogical

traditionbyanalyzingspecificclassroompracticesattheLecoq‐basedÉcolePhilippe

Gaulier,andtracingthemesthatemerged—includingtheideaofthe“natural”versus

the“mechanical”bodyandconcurrentthemesofemotionandthe“authentic”self—

backthroughtheshiftingFrenchmimetraditionofthelatenineteenthandearly

twentiethcenturies.Ihaveundertakenthisresearch,therefore,inordertounderstand

howthebodyisbothconstructedandmobilized,indialogueandintensionwith

normativeconstructionsofthebody,withinaspecificpedagogicalcontext.Thiswork

represents,therefore,aninterventionincurrentactingtheorythatisincreasingly

concernedwithbothLecoq‐basedpracticeandquestionsofthebodyandof

authenticity;myresearchdigsmoredeeplyintotheideologiesunderpinningthebroad

Lecoq‐basedpedagogicalpracticesoftoday,openinguparichsiteofinquiryintothe

waysinwhichbodyandselfhavebeenandcontinuetobeconstructedandcontested

withinactortraining.

In1956,JacquesLecoqopenedaphysicaltheatretrainingschoolinParis.Lecoq

shapedhistrainingandpedagogyaroundaFrenchtraditionofmimeandmaskwork

whosegenealogicalrootsincludedtheCommediadell’Artetradition,particularlyasit

wasrevivedandrevisedinnineteenthtoearlytwentiethcenturyFrenchmimeand

clown.Lecoqdiedin1999,promptingadisseminationofhisteachingsasLecoq‐trained

pedagoguesspreadthroughouttheworld.Asatheatrepractitionerandpedagogue,I

havefoundtheintersectionbetweenLecoq‐styletrainingandstudentreceptionasks

theperformertocultivatea“thinkingbody,”allowingactionsonstagetobeprompted

bythebodyratherthanthemind—“themind”figuredastheCartesiancogito,the

“ghostinthemachine,”aparadigmthatpositionsmindastranscendentandbodyas

mechanicalobject.InLecoq‐basedpedagogy,thebodyisprivilegedaslocusof

knowledgeandcreativegeneration.Thisfocuscontainsanimplicit(butpossibly

pedagogicallynecessary)contradiction:whileattemptingtoundermineoratleast

complicateCartesiandualismbyprivilegingthebodyasthinkingmechanism,the

languageusedinactualpracticeintheclassroomreinscribesthisverydualismby

definingthebodyagainstthe(de‐privileged)mind.InGaulier’sclassroom,forexample,

studentsareencouragedtoprivilegemovementabovetextormentalimage.Acommon

refrainofGiovanniFusetti,aLecoq‐trainedpedagogue,is“Ignoreyourmind—listento

yourbody.”4Thisallegorizingofthebody—thebodybecomesacommunicatorof

spokenlanguage—pointstothenecessaryhybridityandcontradictionwithinthe

conceptofWesternmind/bodyideology.IarguethatbyemployingwhatIcalla

“pedagogyofdisorientation”,Gaulierinsistsonamoment‐to‐momentawarenessofthe

bodyunencumberedbyhabitsofthoughtandmovement.Thenewhabitsofthought

andmovementthatGaulier’spedagogicalmethodencouragesstudentstoencounteris

whereIsituatemyanalysis:specifically,whatunderstandingsarerevealedintheLecoq‐

basedclassroomabouttherelationshipofbodilymovementstothoughts,mental

images,language,emotions,andtheself?Howdidtheseconstructionsofthebodyand

selfemergeinLecoq‐basedpedagogy,howaretheydeployedinatwenty‐firstcentury

Lecoq‐basedclassroom,andwhatdostudents’encounterswiththemrevealabouttheir

existingexperiencesandideasoftheirbodiesandselves?

Inordertoexplorethesequestions,Itracethedevelopmentoftheideaofthe

“natural”versusthe“mechanical”bodyalongsideideasofthe“true”or“authentic”self

backthroughthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturiesinFrenchmime

tradition.Ichosethesehistoricalerasforseveralreasons.First,Lecoqwasgreatly

influencedbythepedagogicalpracticesofearlytwentieth‐centuryFrenchmime

practitioners,particularlyJacquesCopeau.Thisisalinkthathasbeenstudiedand

documentedbyscholarsincludingSimonMurray(2003),TonyGardner(2008),Mark

4 Fromnotestakenduring“TheRedNose”,aMay‐June2007workshopconductedbyGiovanniFusettiinMinneapolis,MN.

Evans(2009),andmostextensivelybyMiraFelnerinher1985bookApostlesofSilence:

TheModernFrenchMimes.MystudygoesbackfurtherthanCopeau,however,to

Frenchmimeartistsofthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturiesincluding

Champfleury,GeorgesWagueandPaulHugounet,who,Iargue,advocatedand

developedaminimalistmimetechniqueamidstshiftingideasaboutthe“natural”body,

bothnostalgicandanxious.BythetimeCopeaufoundedhismimeschoolÉcoledu

Vieux‐ColombierinParisin1920,theideaofthe“natural”asasought‐afterstatefor

actorshadbecomeentrenchedenoughforCopeauandothermimeartistsoftheera,

includingÉtienneDecrouxandJean‐LouisBarrault.tostructuretheirpedagogical

practicesaroundanidealofproducingthe“natural”body.Thisidealwenthand‐in‐hand

withaconstructionofthe“authentic”selfasrevealedthroughpracticesthatstripthe

bodyofitssocializedhabits;bothassumptionscontinuetobediscernedinLecoq‐based

pedagogy.BylookingbackfurtherthanCopeauathowtheconstructionsofthe

“natural”bodyand“authentic”selfthatCopeauandhiscolleaguesdrewonwere

producedwithinFrenchmime,andplacingthesealongsideananalysisofhowstudents

inthetwenty‐firstcenturyengagewiththisideologyintheclassroom,Iexplorehowand

whereananalysisofLecoq‐basedpedagogyexposesfissuresintheseemingly

uncontaminatedspaceofsuchideology,andhowthosefissuresandthepedagogical

alternativestotraditionalapproachesintersectandinteractwiththeideologieswith

whichtheyareengaging.

Methodologyandreviewofliterature

Onestrandofmyresearchishistoriographic:ItracethegenealogyofLecoq‐

basedpedagogyinordertoexplorewhyandhowcertaindiscoursesofthebody—

scientific,pedagogical,aesthetic—rationalizewaysofthinkingabouttheactor’sbody.

Myresearchdoesnotmapoutanevolutionarypathofthispedagogy(amappingthat

situatespasteventsasforerunnersorless‐developedversionsofLecoq’spedagogy).

RatherIfollowJosephRoach’sleadbytracingthegenealogyoftheintersectionsof

actingtheoriesandvariousframingsofthebodyas,forexample,materialexcess,orthe

Cartesianparadigmofthebodyasmachine.Ifocusonthelatenineteenthtoearly

twentiethcenturiesinParis,examiningthechangesthatoccurredduringthattime

withintheFrenchmimetraditiontoconstructionsandunderstandingsofthe

performer’sbody.InChapter2IexamineperformancesofPierrot,aclown/mimewith

rootsinthelateseventeenthcenturyCommediadell’ArteperformancesinParis.The

performedfigureofPierrotshiftedduringthelatenineteenthcenturybetweena

“natural”,basefigurewithoverflowingcorporealityandasinister,automaton‐likestage

presencemarkedbyamask‐likewhiteface.Acorrespondingshiftoccurredinthe

gesturalstyleofmime,awayfromthesetgesturesofDelsartian‐inspired

representationsofthepassionsandtowardsaminimalist,subtlestyle.Thisdualshiftis

documentedinletters,memoirs,reviewsandessaysbyperformers,criticsandliterary

theorists,aswellasindramatictextsandmusicalscoresofPierrotpantomimes.I

examinethesearchivaldocumentsforthelanguagetheyusethatrevealsassumptions

thatperformerswhoplayedPierrotandthecriticswhowroteaboutthemweredrawing

onabouttheperformingbody,andhowthisunderstandingshiftedasthefigure’s

appearanceandperformancestylechanged.Iarguethatthelanguageusedtodescribe

the“natural”versustheautomaton‐likePierrot,aswellthevaluingplaceduponthe

minimalistgesturalstyle,revealwhatIterm“contaminationanxieties”—anxietiesabout

racial,classandgenderedcontaminationofthebody—thatplayedoutuponthe

performedfigureofPierrot.Sourcesforthisexplorationalsoincludedramatictextsof

performedPierrotpiecesincludingLebrasnoir[Theblackarm](1856),Crimeet

châtiment[Crimeandpunishment](1891)andPierrotassassindesafemme[Pierrot

assassinofhiswife](1888);TristanRémy’sbiographyofJean‐GaspardDeburau;Jules

Janin’sdetailedaccountsofperformancesattheThéâtredesFunambules(where

Deburau’sPierrotfirstappearedonstage);responsestoPierrotinmemoirs,letters,

reviewsandessaysofwritersincludingThéophileGautier,Champfleury,andCatulle

Mendès;andmusicalscoresofpantomimesfeaturingPierrotincludingPierrotquipleure

etPierrotquirit[PierrotwhocriesandPierrotwholaughs](1899),Barbe‐Bleuette[Blue‐

Beard](1890)andPierrotassassindesafemme[Pierrotassassinofhiswife](1888).I

lookattheemergenceofmechanisminbothscientificandtheatricaldiscourse,as

describedintheatricaltextsincludingDiderot’sLeparadoxesurlecomédien[The

paradoxoftheactor]in1830,HeinrichvonKleist’sÜberdasMarionettentheater[Onthe

MarionetteTheatre]in1810,andEdwardGordonCraig’s“TheActorandthe

Übermarionette”in1908.ThemainquestionsIaddressare:Whatarethe

understandingsofthebodythatinfluencedthewayanactorperformedPierrot?How

didthoseunderstandingsandtechniquesshiftduringthenineteenthcenturyandinto

theearlytwentiethcentury?Whataretheintersectionsbetweentheseshiftsandlarger

discoursesonactingandtheactor’sbody?

Theotherstrandofmyresearchispractice‐based:bycloselyexaminingwhat

happensinanactualphysicaltheatrerehearsalsite—TheMasterandMargarita—and

classroom—PhilippeGaulier’sMasqueneutre[Neutralmask]andClownworkshops—I

analyzetheintersectionbetweenpedagogicstyleandstudent/actorreception,an

investigationthatprovidesspecificdocumentationonLecoq‐basedpedagogyasitis

currentlypracticed.Mycentralpractice‐basedresearchquestionis:Whatmeaningis

madearoundtheconstructionofthebodybystudentswhoaresteepedinWestern

mind/bodydualismencounteringapedagogythatappearstochallengethatideology?

Myresearchfocusistiedtothequestionofpedagogicalefficacy:ifphysicaltheatreis

baseduponadifferentunderstandingofthebody,whatthestudentsactuallylearnand

areabletoaccessintheclassroomiscrucialtothequestionofwhethersuchanew

understandingisbeingenacted.Ideterminedhowthestudentsmade“meaning”

throughtheirowndescriptionsoftheirexperience,theirquestionsandcommentsin

class,aswellascloseobservationoftheirbodiesintheclassroom,particularlyastheir

languageaboutthebodyandtheirmovementsshiftedbasedonpedagogical

interventions.IcontinuallyengagedwiththequestionofhowdoIreadandanalyze

discursivepracticesofthebody,asthetwodomainscentraltomypractice‐based

researchdesignarelanguageandmovement.

Lookingatbotharehearsalandaclassroomsiteallowedmetoexaminephysical

theatrepracticesframeddifferentlybytheirinstitutionalandpedagogicalcodings.

Rehearsalsforauniversityproductionserveadualfunction:pedagogical(studentsare

learningproductionskillsincludingrehearsingarole,learninglines,blocking,and

workingwithinaproductionteam)andfunctional(eachmomentofrehearsalexistsasa

steptowardsafinalproductthatwillbeperformedbeforeanaudience).Inthecaseof

TheMasterandMargaritaattheUniversityofMinnesota,thepedagogicallessons

includedthatofdevising,asmoststudentsinvolvedintheproductionhadlittletono

priorexperiencewiththismethodoftheatre‐making.Becauseoftheinteraction

betweenthepedagogicalandthefunctional,however,thelessonsabouthowtodevise

hadtobefoldedintotheprocessofactuallymakingtheshow—sothestudentslearned

howtodevisebyactuallydoingit,undertimeconstraintsandwithanintendedresulting

product.ThislargelymeantthatthedirectorsSeifertandSommers,bothofwhomhad

yearsofexperienceindevising,hadtoresorttoon‐the‐spotstrategiesfor“fixing”

studenthabitsofrehearsalbehaviorthatworkedagainstadevisingprocess.Withthe

exceptionofonespeechthatSeifertgaveonthefirstdayofrehearsalsinwhichhe

introducedtheconceptof“proposing”ideasandpositionedthisascentraltothe

collaborativerehearsalprocess,theresimplywasnotenoughtimetoteachstudents

devisingmethodsastheywouldbetaughtinaclassroomwithtimeforexercises,

reflectionandanalysis.SeifertandSommersthereforetaughtthemethodsthrough

warm‐upgamesandonanadhocbasis,explainingtostudentsinthemomentof

devisinghowtodoit.Myobservationsofthisprocessledmetodeveloptheideaofa

“pedagogyofdisorientation”thatoperatedasastrategytoteachstudentsbehaviors

thatwereunfamiliartothem;inChapter1Ianalyzesomeofthekeyconceptsaround

thistypeofpedagogy,andexaminethewaysinwhichitwasdeployedinTheMaster

andMargaritarehearsalsite.

ThestructureoftheclassroomsiteattheÉcolePhilippeGaulierallowedmeto

focusonthespecificpedagogicalpracticesusedbyGaulierandanalyzetheideasand

assumptionsthatlaybehindthem.TheÉcolePhilippeGaulierisoneofseveralLecoq‐

basedtrainingschoolsthatfocusonthepedagogyofoneteacher(includingtheÉcole

internationaledethéâtreJacquesLecoqandGiovanniFusetti’sHèlikos:Scuola

InternazionaledeCreazioneTeatrale),followingthetwentieth‐centuryactortraining

trendinEuropeandtheUnitedStatesofmethodsdevelopedbyandattributedtoone

figure.GaulierbegandevelopinghispedagogyatJacquesLecoq’sschool,whichlinks

himtothe“Lecoq‐based”pedagogicaltraditionanditsconnectionstoearlytwentieth‐

centuryFrenchmimepractitionerssuchasCopeauandDecroux;hispedagogical

techniques,however,wereuniqueinmanywaystohim,meaningthata“Gaulier‐

trained”clowntakesonaparticularmeaningthatdiffersfrom,forexample,aFusetti‐

trainedorWright‐trainedclown.OneoftheuniqueaspectsofGaulier’sclassroomwas

itsframingasaparodyofanauthoritarianclassroom,inwhichheperformedtheroleof

thestern,highly‐criticalteacher;heandthestudentsunderstoodthisasaclown

performanceduetohisdeliberatedistancingofhimselffromtherolethroughhis

displaysof“pleasure”inperformingit—afunctionoflejeu[theplayorthegame]as

aestheticdistancethatIanalyzeinChapter3.Thisframingiskeytounderstanding

clownperformance:asIdiscussinChapter4,theclownisfunnywhenheattemptstodo

something(includingmakingtheaudiencelaugh)andfails;thefailuremakesthe

audiencelaugh.However,thislaughteronlyoccurswithintheframingofaclown

performance,whentheaudienceinterpretsthefailureasaperformance,aswatchinga

personactuallyfailtodosomethingtendstoresultinspectatorsfeelinguncomfortable

orwhatFusettitermssympathique(Idiscussthisconceptinrelationtodifferenttypes

oflaughterinChapter4).Gaulier’sclownclassroomoperatesasasortofliminalspace

betweentheclownperformance—anaudienceinatheaterwatchingaclown—andthe

actualfailureofapersonattemptingtodosomething,bypositioningthestudents

themselvesasclowns.ThisispossiblebecauseGaulierframestheclassroomitselfasa

performancethroughhisparodicrepresentationoftheauthoritarianteacher,which

meansthateverythingastudentdoesintheclassroomisre‐framedasaperformance.

Thestudentexperiencesherself—notacharactersheisperforming—actuallyfailing

repeatedlyonstage(theinstitutionalcodingofthestudentgenuinelyattemptingto

pleasetheteacherstillexists),yetthespectatorsintheclassroomcanlaughatthis

failureandthereactionitprovokesbecausewithintheframingoftheclassroom,they

arewatchingaclownperformance.Idiscusstheimplicationsofthispositioningon

Gaulier’sidentificationofthestudent’s“trueself”inChapter4.

Mypractice‐basedresearchwasapprovedbytheInstitutionalReviewBoardat

theUniversityofMinnesotain2007andutilizedaparticipant‐observationapproach.I

waspresentforeverydayoftheworkshops.Iusedamethodologyoftriangulation,

collectingmultiplesourcesofdataincludingarchival,interviewsandobservationsto

developconverginglinesofinquiry.Ilookedforhowdifferentsourcesbothagreeand

disagree,asmygoalwasnottodeveloponehomogenous,cohesivenarrativebutrather

toallowforoverlappinganddissentinglayersofnarrativethatinformedmycentral

researchquestionofhowthebodyisbothconstructedandmobilized,indialogueandin

tensionwithnormativeconstructionsofthebodyandtheself,withinaspecific

pedagogicalcontext.Datacollectionincludedobservations(documentedthroughmy

ownwrittennotesandbodysketchesbasedonclassroomobservationsofphysical

theatreexercisesandrehearsaltechniques,photographsandvideodocumentationof

classroompractices,andstudentjournalsandnotesthatIreceivedpermissiontouse),

open‐endedinterviewswithstudentsandteachers,andsemistructuredinterviewsafter

theclass/rehearsalprocesseswerecompleted.5Theopen‐endedinterviewstookplace

5 “Open‐ended”interviewsareguidedbyasetofgeneralquestions(inthiscasequestionsbasedonmyresearchfocusandclassroomobservations),butgiverespondentsagreatdealofflexibilityinarticulatingtheirresponses,meaningthatresponsesmayoccasionallystrayfromtheresearchfocusbutmayalsoprovidenewdirectionsforresearch(Schensuletal135).“Semistructured”interviewscombinetheflexibilityofopen‐endedinterviewswithamorefocuseddirectionalitytothequestions,andareusedtofurtherclarifyspecificfactorsinthestudy(Schensuletal149‐150).

inthe“in‐between”timesoftheworkshop—duringbreaks,immediatelyafterclass,

duringsocialgatherings.Theseweregenerallybriefandinformal,andfocusedona

particularpointofinterest—forexample,askingGauliertoclarifyastatementmade

duringclasssuchas“Youhavenotgivenyourguts,”oraskingastudenttoexpandon

theiridea,raisedinclass,ofwhatperformingone’s“trueself”meant.Iconductedthe

semistructuredinterviewsduringtheweekfollowingeachworkshop.Thesewerefrom

onetotwohours,andwerestructuredaroundkeypointsthatIhadobservedinthe

classroomsuchastheideaofemotioninneutralmaskperformance,theperformanceof

the“trueself”withinclowntraining,andthenotionof“beauty”asamarkerofa

successful,openperformancestyle.Boththeopen‐endedandthesemistructured

interviewswereinformedbymyownresearchquestionssuchas:Whatistheteacher’s

intentionbehindspecificpedagogicalstrategiessuchasinstructingstudentsto“Puton

themaskanddonotletyourbodyhaveapast”orbangingadrumunexpectedly?What

arethestudents’perceptionsandinterpretationsofsuchpedagogicalstrategies?What

isastudent’sexperientialandinterpretivedescriptionofparticularmomentsoftension

ordifficultywhileengagedinanexercise?Whatlanguagedotheteacherandstudents

usetotalkaboutthebodyandtheself?Dodifferencesemergeinthesedescriptionsat

differenttimesinthetraining?Iusedthisdatatolookforevidenceofunderlying

ideologiesofthebodyandtheself,suchaslanguagereferringtoa“trueself”or

pointingtotheeyeswhilediscussingastudent’sperformanceof“beauty”,andtoask

whetherinterventionsintheseideologiesappeartohaveoccurred,andwhatthese

interventionslooklike.

Criticalpedagogyandthebody

Myresearchdrawsfromthefieldsofcriticalpedagogy,theoreticalexplorations

ofthebodyandself,andactingtheory.Idrawoncriticalpedagogicaltheoristsinmy

focusonhowthebodyissituatedandmobilizedintheclassroom.PaoloFreire’snotion

of“humanization”throughadialogicrelationshipbetweenstudentandteacherpoints

totheimportanceofunderstandingknowledgeassituatedandcontextual(1970).This

model,however,doesnotaddressthebodyintheclassroom;indeed,severalcritical

pedagogicaltheoristshaverecentlycalledattentiontotheabsenceofthebodyin

criticalpedagogy,includingHenryGiroux(1988),PeterMcLaren(1995)andSherry

Shapiro(1999).Others,suchasJillDolan(2005),bellhooks(1994),andMargaretWerry

andRóisínO’Gorman(2007),havepointedtothelackofseriousdiscussionofaffect.In

herchapter“Re‐MemberingtheBodyinCriticalPedagogy”inPedagogyandthePolitics

oftheBody:ACriticalPraxis(1999),Shapirolooksathowsituatedknowledgeis

“incorporatedbythehumansubject,and…inscribedinandonthebodyasalived

process”(79).IfindShapiro’sworkusefulinitsattempttoarticulateanewpedagogical

modelthatunderstandsallknowledgeasbody‐mediated,andparticularlyherattention

tothe“ocularization”ofpedagogythatisfoundeveninworkonthebody,inwhich

pedagogicalprocessandtheorystructure“seeing”as“knowing.”Shapiro’spremise,and

theworkshedoestore‐imagineknowledgeincorporealterms,aidsmypractice‐based

engagementwithsuchseemingcontradictionsasGaulier’slanguageofvisualityinthe

NeutralMaskworkshop:“Wemustseeherjoy,”indicatingthataffectistobeshown

visuallyonthebodyandreadthroughtheeyesofthespectators;otherpedagogical

instructions,however,directlycontradictedthisindication(“Donotshow,justdo,”for

example).

Muchofthepedagogicalliteratureonphysicaltheatrefocusesonexercisesand

goalsofthetraining,utilizingalanguagethatrevealstheideologicalencounterwith

Westernmind/bodydualism(specificallyphysicaltheatre’sconstructionofa“thinking

body”)withoutinterrogatingit.ThreenotableexceptionsarePhillipZarrilli(2002),Philip

Auslander(2002),andJosephRoach(1985).InhisIntroductiontothefirstsectionofthe

compilationActing(Re)Considered:ATheoreticalandPracticalGuide(2002),Phillip

Zarrilliaddressesthequestionofmind/bodydualismandtheatricalpedagogical

(supposed)privilegingofthebodybytracingtheactingsystemsofDelsarte,

Stanislavsky,Meyerholdandothersthroughamodernistobjectivityparadigmthathe

arguesinformedtheir“systems”.Helocatesaparadigmaticshiftinmind/bodydualityin

thephenomenologicalchallengeofMerleau‐Ponty,tracesthisinfluencethroughthe

avant‐gardetheatricalmovementsofthe1960s,anddiscussestheinfluencesofArtaud,

Grotowski,SchechnerandLecoqonchallengestothetraditionaldualistapproach.

Zarrillistruggleswiththequestionofhowtorevisetheatricalpedagogicallanguage

withoutsimplyreplacingonemodernist“truthclaims”systemwithanother,concluding

thatthelanguagemustcontinuetoshiftandadapttoparticularcontextsandparticular

purposes.

Positioningthebodyasthesiteofcreativeimpetushasthepotentialtodisturb

normative,modernistconceptionsoftheselfasstableidentitybasedonalogocentric

hierarchyofmindasfoundationoftruth.IfindPhilipAuslander’sreadingof

performancetheorythroughthelensofDerrida’scritiqueofthis“metaphysicsof

presence”in“‘JustBeYourSelf’:Logocentrismanddifferenceinperformancetheory”

(2002)usefulforinterrogatingthewaysinwhichtext‐basedactingtechniquesreinscribe

andmaintainanEnlightenment‐inheritedideologyofpresence.Auslanderexaminesthe

performancetheoryofStanislavski,BrechtandGrotowskifortheirrelianceuponand

insistenceonaccesstoanactor’s“self.”IwishtoextendthisanalysistoLecoq‐based

pedagogy,inwhichaconstructoftheperformer’s“trueself”—inclownwork,thegoalis

to“reveal”the“deepestself”oftheperformer—existsalongsidetechniquesthat

disruptconventionalnotionsofstable,linearidentitybyrelocatingconsciousnessto

embodiedprocessesandinsistingonamoment‐to‐momentawarenessofacontinually

shiftingcreativeprocess.

InThePlayer’sPassion:StudiesintheScienceofActing(1985),Roachtracesthe

intersectionsofactingtheoriesandscientificdiscoursesonthebody.FollowingKuhn

andFoucaultintheirrejectionoftheevolutionaryviewofknowledgeaccretion,Roach

arguesthat“eachactingstyleandthetheoriesthatexplainandjustifyitarerightand

naturalforthehistoricalperiodinwhichtheyaredevelopedandduringwhichtheyare

accepted,”andpositionshisprojectasarestorationof“themeaningofoutmoded

terminologyandexplanatoryprinciples”asregardsscientificdiscourseonthebody(15).

Hisworkprovidesmewithastrongmodelforundertakingthiskindofhistorical

research,asIexaminephilosophicaldiscoursesonthebodyastheyintersectwithacting

theoriesinlatenineteenth‐andearlytwentieth‐centuryFrenchmime,andlater

twentieth‐centuryLecoq‐basedactingtraining.

Lecoq‐stylepedagogy

Muchoftheliteratureonphysicaltheatre/Lecoq‐stylepedagogyisquiterecent,and

stemsfromthe2000publicationofTheMovingBody:TeachingCreativeTheatre,David

Bradby’sEnglishtranslationofLecoq’s1997LeCorpspoétique:unenseignementdela

créationthéâtrale.InthisbookLecoqlaysoutthepedagogicaltrajectoryofÉcole

JacquesLecoqinParis,anddiscusseshisimpetusforstartingtheschoolandthe

influencesthatshapedhispedagogy,whichisframedwithinatwo‐yeartraining

programthathehaddevelopedfortheschool,aphysicalandmovement‐based

programcenteredonthestructuringprincipleoflejeu[theplayorthegame]and

culminatingchronologicallyinanexplorationofClown.Lecoqdescribeshowhedrewon

multipleanddiversetraditionsofphysicaltheatre,maskandmime,mostheavily

influencedbytheCommediadell’Arte.Duringthehalfcenturysincetheschoolopened,

therehasbeenaproliferationofpedagogicalandtheatricalsitesthatutilizetechniques

oflejeu,includingmaskandclown,astheyweresynthesizedandsystematizedby

Lecoq,includingbutnotlimitedtoÉcolePhilippeGaulierinParis,PierreByland

workshopsinSwitzerlandandDell’ArteSchoolofPhysicalTheatreinNorthern

California,andtheatrecompaniesComplicitéinLondon,PigIronTheatreinPhiladelphia

andThéâtredelaJeuneLuneinMinneapolis.

Lecoq’sdeathin1999markedaturningpointfortheemergingwrittenarchive

abouthispedagogy.Priorto1999onlyahandfulofarticlesandbooksectionshad

appearedthatdiscussedhiswork;theseincludedwritingsthatfocusedonLecoq’s

approachtomovementinmimesuchasBariRolfe’s“TheMimeofJacquesLecoq”

(1972)inwhichhepresentsanoverviewofLecoq’spedagogy.DiscussionsofLecoq’suse

oftheNeutralMaskappearedinSearsEldridgeandHollisHuston’s“ActorTrainingin

theNeutralMask”(1978,republishedin2002)andAnthonyFrostandRalphYarrow’s

ImprovisationinDrama(1990).ThomasLeabhart’sModernandPost‐modernMime

(1989)containsonechapteronLecoqthattracesthedevelopmentofhispedagogyand

theopeningofhisschoolinParis.ArguablythemostcomprehensiveaccountofLecoq’s

teachings,aswellasthatofearlytwentieth‐centuryFrenchmimesincludingJacques

Copeau,ÉtienneDecrouxandJean‐LouisBarrault,isMiraFelner’sApostlesofSilence:

TheModernFrenchMimes(1985),inwhichshechroniclesthedevelopmentofFrench

mimeinthetwentiethcenturybeginningwithCopeauandendingwithLecoq.Iboth

drawonFelner’sextensivedocumentationofthedevelopmentofFrenchmime

pedagogy,andgofurtherbylinkingittotheideaofthe“natural”bodyasitwas

constructedandcontestedinthelatenineteenthcentury.Itherebydrawaconnection

betweenearlytwentieth‐centuryFrenchmimepractitionerswiththemimepractices

thatprecededthem,andtheirmobilizationofthebodywithconcurrentandpreceding

discoursesonthebody,inordertomapashiftinthewaythe“natural”bodywas

understoodandvalued,ashiftthatcontinuestoresonateincontemporaryphysical

theatreclassrooms.

Lecoqpublishedseveralwritingsabouthisownpractice,includinganarticleon

hisstyleofmime,“Mime–Movement–Theatre”,in1973(translatedbyKatFoleyand

JuliaDevlin),inwhichhediscussedhisparticularformofmimeasdistinctfromthe

pantomimeblanche[whitemime]ofthenineteenthcenturyinitsfocusonpure

movement—whatLecoqcallslefond[thefoundation]—ratherthangesturaltranslations

oflanguage.In1987heeditedandcontributedchapterstoLeThéâtredugeste:mimes

etacteurs(publishedinEnglishin2006asTheatreofMovementandGesture)inwhich

hediscussedthetransitionofnineteenth‐centurypantomimeblancheintotwentieth

centurymime,arguingthatthelatter(whichhecalls“mime”incontrastto

“pantomime”)islessrigidandformalizedthantheformer,andinaseparateessay

consideredthewaysinwhichgesturalstylevariesbasedongeographicaloriginand

societalroles.Hismostfamousandfar‐reachingbookhasbeenTheMovingBody

(originallyLeCorpspoétique).BothLeThéâtredugesteandLeCorpspoétiquewereonly

translatedintoEnglishfollowingLecoq’sdeath,whenaninterestaroseamongformer

students,teachersfromtheschool,andpractitionersaroundarchivinghisteachings.

MuchofthewritingonLecoqandhispedagogyhasbeenpublishedsince1999,

includingtranslationsofLeThéâtredugesteandLeCorpspoétique.Theremaining

workscanbedividedintothreebroadcategories:practicalwritingsthatdrawonLecoq

orcontainphysicaltheatreartists’re‐workingsofLecoq‐basedexercises(including

Callery2001,Wright2007,andGaulier2007),writingsbyoraboutformerstudentsthat

focusonthewaysinwhichLecoq’steachingshaveinformedtheircurrenttheatrical

practice(includingSchechner1999,Mason2002,andShrubsall2002),and—closestto

myownwork—writingsthatdocumentandtheorizethepedagogy(includingWright

2002,Murray2002and2003,Peacock2009,andEvans2009).

Thefirstcategory—practicalwritingsthatdrawonLecoqorcontainingre‐

workingsofLecoq‐basedexercises—includeDymphnaCallery’sThroughtheBody:A

PracticalGuidetoPhysicalTheatre(2001)whichfocusesonexercisesforactivating

body‐basedplay,andcontainsabriefsectiononthedivergenceofthephysicaltheatre

pedagogicalsystemfromtraditionalWesterntheatricalpedagogies.JohnWright,

anotherLecoq‐trainedpractitionerwhonowlivesandteachesphysicaltheatrein

London,publishedWhyIsThatSoFunny?APracticalExplorationofPhysicalComedyin

2007,combiningdescriptionsofclassroom‐basedexerciseswithpassagesonthe

philosophythatundergirdsphysicaltheatre.InNovember2007PhilippeGaulier

publishedLeGégèneur:jeuxlumièrethéâtre/TheTormentor:lejeulighttheatre,a

descriptionofhisownbrandofpedagogythatisbothbasedinanddivergesfrom

Lecoq’sstyle,chieflyaroundthequestionoftheperformer’sidentificationwiththat

whichthebodyisperforming(Lecoqbelievedthata“melding”ofsortsshouldoccur,

andGaulierfeltthereneededtobeaseparationbetweentheperformer’s“self”and

thatwhichtheperformer’sbodywasplaying).6Gaulier’stextprovidesarich

compendiumofthelanguageusedinhisclassrooms,languagewhichisoften

intentionallyvagueasapartofapedagogicalstrategytoavoidoverlyreducingthe

pedagogicalprocesstoastep‐by‐stepteleologicalmodel,anexampleofwhatIcallhis

“pedagogyofdisorientation”,whichIexploreingreaterdetailinChapter1.Whilethese

pedagogicalsourcematerialsprovideawealthofinformationaboutpedagogical

technique—andGaulier’stextinparticularprovidesmewithmaterialforexamininghis

specificpedagogicallanguageandpractice—noneexaminestheideologiesofbodyand

selfthatinformthepedagogicalpractice.

Thesecondcategory—writingsthatdiscussthewaysinwhichLecoq’spedagogy

hasinformedlaterartisticpractice—includesRichardSchechner’s1999interviewwith

JulieTaymorinTheDramaReviewinwhichshediscussestheinfluenceofLecoq’smask

workonherlaterartisticwork,particularlyTheLionKing.In“TheWellofPossibilities:

TheoreticalandPracticalusesofLecoq’sTeaching”(2002)BimMasonreflectsonthe

waysinwhichLecoq’steachingshavebeenusefultohimasapractitionerofstreet

theatreoverthepast10years,particularlyhisuseofmovementtrainingtoconstruct

physicalroutines.In“JosHouben:UnderstandingtheNeutralMask”(2002)Anthony

6ThefirsthalfofGaulier’sbookiswritteninFrench,andthesecondhalfishisEnglishtranslation;allsubsequentquotesfromthebookinthischapterincludebothhisFrenchandEnglishversions.

ShrubsallexplorestheatreteacherHouben’sintegrationofneutralmask(influencedby

histrainingwithLecoq)withMosheFeldenkrais’s‘AwarenessThroughMovement’

program.HecomparesHoubenandLecoq’sapproachesbystudyinga1996workshop

thatHoubenconductedinEdinburgh.ShrubsallfocusesmoreonFeldenkraisthanon

Lecoq,andhisaccountoftheworkshopfocusesonpracticeratherthanideological

background.

WritingsthatdocumentandtheorizeLecoq’spedagogy,thethirdcategory,

includeWright’s“TheMasksofJacquesLecoq”(2002)inwhichhediscussesLecoq’s

pedagogyofvianegativaandhisrelationshipswithbothCopeauandAmletoSartori

(fromwhomhelearnedmask‐makingskills).InSeriousPlay:ModernClownPerformance

(1999)LouisePeacockdiscussesLecoq’sdefinitionoftheclownandLecoq‐basedclown

trainingpractices(32‐8).TheworkofEvans(2009)andMurray(2002,2003and2007)is

mostcloselyconnectedtomyresearch,inthattheybothinterrogateLecoq’spedagogy

withreferencetotheunderlyingideologiesofthebodyandselfthatinformit.In

MovementTrainingfortheModernActor(2009),Evansanalyzesmovementtrainingfor

professionalactorsintheUKthroughanexaminationofmovementprinciplesincluding

thenaturalandneutralbody.Hisresearchincludesinterviewswithstudentsattheatre

schoolsinEnglandandattheÉcoleJacquesLecoq,anddetailedanalysesofideologiesof

thebodyastheyinfluencedactortraininginEnglandandFrancefromthenineteenth

centurytothepresent.MyresearchexpandsonEvans’sworkincontent—asfocusing

specificallyontheperformedFrenchmimebodyallowsmetoconductamoredetailed

analysisofhowparticularideologiesoperateinthisspecificsite—andinmethodology—

asIconductpractice‐basedresearchfromwithinanactualclassroom.Murray’sJacques

Lecoq(2003)ispartoftheRoutledgePerformancePractitionersseries,eachvolumeof

whichaddressesthebackgroundandpracticesofaninfluentialtwentieth‐ortwenty‐

first‐centuryperformancepractitioner.IntheLecoqvolumeMurraygivesaninformative

overviewandexplanationofLecoq’slifeandmajorinfluences,histexts,companies

foundedbyformerLecoqstudents,andseveralpracticalexercises.In“Toutbouge:

JacquesLecoq,ModernMimeandtheZeroBody:apedagogyforthecreativeactor”

(2002),MurrayinterviewsthreeLecoq‐trainedperformerstoexplorefourpedagogical

featuresofLecoq.Thesearemime,neutralmask,autocours(weeklyself‐created

performancesbystudents)andplay.Inhissectiononneutralmaskhediscussesthe

philosophyofstudentsunlearningsocializedhabits,athemethatItakeupandexpand

uponbyinvestigatingthearchiveofearlytwentieth‐centurymimerecordstoexamine

howthisideaoftheneutralmaskdeveloped.Murrayalsoraisestheissueof“presence”

aslinkedtoEugenioBarba’sideaofpre‐expressivity,citingitasanissuethatneeds

expandinguponbutisbeyondthescopeofthearticle(26).“Presence”hereisanelusive

qualitythatmarksthedifferencebetweenaperformancethatworksandonethat

doesn’t;inMurray’stext,formerLecoqstudentAlanFairbairndescribesastudent

performingmimetechniquesasfollows:“Hecoulddoallthetechnicalexercises

perfectly,but…[he]hadabsolutelynopresencewhatsoever”(26).Gaulierusesthe

term“beauty”inasimilarwaythatLecoqstudentsusetheterm“presence”;thisisan

issuethatIexploreinChapters3and4inmydiscussionofGaulier’sdeploymentofthe

term“beauty”aslinkedtotheperformer’s“trueself”.Murray’srigorousinterview‐

basedmethodologyprovidesvaluabledocumentationofhowLecoq’spedagogyis

constructedanddeployed,buthisevidencehasbeencollectedyearsaftertheevent.7

Thepractice‐basedportionofmyresearchthereforeaddsavaluablelayertoexisting

scholarshipbybeingconductedinthemomentoftheclassroomexperience.Iwasable

todocumentbodiesastheymovedintheclassroom,totranscribeclassroom

encounters,andtoconductinterviewswhentheexperienceswerestillfreshandrecent.

Thisrepresentsasignificantadditiontoabodyofworkcomposedmainlyofinterviews

conductedyearsaftertheeventorwrittenaccountsofpersonalmemories.

WrittenworkaboutGaulierisfarmorescarcethanthataboutLecoq.Murray

(2002,2003,2007)referenceshisownandothers’experiencesasastudentofGaulier

andMonicaPagneux(whotaughtwithGaulierwhenhefirstestablishedhisÉcole

PhilippeGaulier)inrelationtopedagogicalthemesincludingvianegativaandGaulier’s

emphasison“pleasure”and“play”.Peacock(2009)mentionsGaulier’sfocusontheflop

andpleasure,anddescribeshisauthoritarianteachingstyle(37‐8).Evans(2009)

referencesGaulierbrieflyinasectionaboutthetwentieth‐centuryconstructofthe

movementteacherasexpert(133).Wright(1990)brieflydiscussesGaulier’s

authoritarianteachingstyleinrelationtopedagogicalefficacy.In“Amusez‐Vous,merde!

7Murrayacknowledgesthisnecessarydistanceandattemptstocorrectforitbystructuringhisinterviewssoastoevokeasenseofwhatitwasliketobeintheclassroominorderto“uncovertheirfeelingsandsenseimpressionsattheactualtimeoftheexperience,andnotwiththewisdomofhindsight”(Bouge19).

TheEffectofPhilippeGaulier’sTeachingonMyWorkasanActorandWriter”(2002)

VictoriaWorsleyremembershertimeasaGaulierstudentanddiscussestheeffect

Gaulier’spedagogy—particularlyhisfocusonpleasure,theinjunctiontoenjoyoneself

onstage—hashadonherdevisingwork,suchasherabilitytobemuchmoreintune

withfellowdevisers.ShedescribesseveralprinciplesofGaulier’steachingTalksabout

Gaulier’steachingof“rhythmasafundamentalperformancetool”(90).Likethewritings

ofandaboutotherformerLecoqstudentsincludingMasonandShrubsall,Worsley’s

workisbasedlargelyaroundanalyzingtheeffectthepedagogyhashadonhercurrent

practicefromthedistanceofseveralyearsaftertheevent.Whilesherecountsspecific

eventsthatoccurredintheclassroom,heranalysisisbasedonwhathappenedaftershe

leftGaulierandbegantoapplyhisteachingstoherownartisticpractice.Similarly,

analysesofGaulier’spedagogy(Murray,Evans,Wright)drawfrommemoriesorlater

interviewaccountsofclassroomexperiences.Myresearchfocusesonspecificmoments

ofclassroomencounterasobservedbymeintheactualclassroom,andtiesthese

momentstothelargertraditionofFrenchmimebeginninginthelatenineteenth

century.

Chapterorganization

Inthelattersectionofthischapter,Iintroducemycentralpedagogicalconcept

ofa“pedagogyofdisorientation”thatinChapters3and4IexamineinmyGaulier

research.IexplainhowthisconceptaroseformeasIobservedrehearsalsforThe

MasterandMargarita,asite‐specificadaptationdevisedwithUniversityofMinnesota

undergraduatesinSeptember‐October2006.Icomparethisrehearsalprocessto

anothercollaborativerehearsalprocessthatIobservedinMay2006forashowtitled

KilltheRobotdirectedbyphysicaltheatreartistJonFergusonwithagroupofhigh

schoolstudentspreviouslyuntrainedinphysicaltheatre.AsIobservedthislatter

rehearsalprocess,itbecameapparentthatasthestudentslearnedthismethod,they

learneditthroughtheirbodies—noamountofverbalexplanationcouldaltertheir

habitualpatternsofrelatingtoauthority.Thisexperienceunderscoredtherigor

involvedinre‐discipliningbodiestoengageinphysicaltheatricalprocessesof

collaborationandplay.Thebodystoresknowledgeinitsmuscles;neuralpatternsare

deeplyengravedthroughhabitualmovement.AugustoBoalinTheatreoftheOppressed

describestheprocessofunlearninghabitualmovementpatternsas“disjunctive,”

designedto“disjoint”thebody:“Theexercises…aredesignedto“undo”themuscular

structureoftheparticipants.Thatis,totakethemapart,tostudyandanalyzethem.Not

toweakenordestroythem,buttoraisethemtothelevelofconsciousness”(128).I

unpacktheideaofa“thinkingbody”andintroducemystructuringideasofmyselfasa

“hapticresearcher”anda“pedagogyofdisorientation”thatIutilizeinmypractice‐

basedworkattheÉcolePhilippeGaulierinChapters3and4.

InChapter2,“VentreandCerveau:ContaminationAnxietiesinLateNineteenth‐

CenturyFrenchMime”,ItracethegenealogyofLecoq‐basedpedagogyinorderto

explorewhyandhowcertaindiscoursesofthebody—scientific,pedagogical,

aesthetic—rationalizewaysofthinkingabouttheactor’sbody.IfollowRoach’sleadby

tracingthegenealogyoftheintersectionsofactingtheoriesandvariousframingsofthe

bodyas,forexample,materialexcess,ortheCartesianparadigmofthebodyas

machine.IfocusonthelatenineteenthtoearlytwentiethcenturiesinParis,examining

thechangesthatoccurredduringthattimetoperformancesofPierrot,aclown/mime

withrootsinthelateseventeenthcenturyCommediadell’ArteperformancesinParis.

TheperformedfigureofPierrotshiftedduringthelatenineteenthcenturybetweena

grotesque,scatologicalclownfigureandasinister,automaton‐likestagepresence

markedbyamask‐likewhiteface.Aconcurrentshiftoccurredinthegesturalstyleof

mimefromlargegesturesbasedonDelsarte’ssystemofrepresentingthepassionstoa

minimalist,subtlegesturalstyle.Thesetransitionsaredocumentedinletters,memoirs,

reviewsandessaysbyperformers,criticsandliterarytheorists,aswellasindramatic

textsandmusicalscoresofpantomimes,whichIexamineinordertoexplorethe

assumptionsthatperformerswhoplayedPierrotandthecriticswhowerewritingabout

thefigureweredrawingonabouttheperformingbody,andhowthisunderstanding

shiftedasthefigure’sappearanceandperformancestylechangedamidstwhatIcall

“contaminationanxieties”aroundthebody.

Turningmyfocustothepresentdayinmyexplorationoftheassumptionsactors

drawonabouttheperformingbody,inChapter3,“PuppetsandBodies:Mechanical

versusNaturalinNeutralMaskTraining”,IexplorethepedagogyofNeutralMask,

drawingonmypractice‐basedresearchconductedatÉcolePhilippeGaulierin

November2007.InGaulier’sNeutralMaskworkshop,studentsbroughtwiththemideas

ofemotionalexpressionthatresultedinconfusionwhenemotionwasapparentlyboth

strippedawayfromtheNeutralMaskformandencouragedinit.Itracethecomplex

relationshipoftheNeutralMaskformtobothmechanization(thebodyasmachine)and

thenatural(thebodyasfreeofsocializedhabitsofmovement)byanalyzingthe

emergenceoftheformfromJacquesCopeau’sdevelopmentofthemasquenoble[noble

mask]inthe1920sthroughtoLecoq’smasqueneutre[neutralmask],interrogating

ideasofmechanization(theperformer’sbodyasmachine),ofthenaturalbodyas

efficientandtherefore“neutral”,andofsincerityasitwasunderstoodandappliedto

Frenchmimepedagogyintheearlytwentiethcentury.Itietheseideastoclassroom

experiencesinGaulier’sworkshop,particularlythewaysinwhichstudentsengagedwith

questionsofemotionalityandtechniquesofmechanization.

InChapter4,“LocatingtheSelf:NarrativesandPracticesofAuthenticityin

FrenchClownTraining”,Ianalyzethepedagogyofclownasitrelatestoideasoftheself

usingpractice‐basedresearchgatheredatGaulier’sClownworkshopsinJune2008.I

exploreacentralthemethatemergedinthisworkshop:theideaof“authenticity”orthe

“trueself,”andthisself’sconnectiontothebody.Followingonfrommydualpractice‐

basedandhistoriographicstructuringinChapter3,Iweavebetweenclassroomanalysis

andtracingthedevelopmentofideasandpracticesof“authenticity”astheyemerged

withinFrenchmimeinthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies.Iarguethat

whilethepedagogicallanguageinGaulier’sclassroomreinscribedthenotionofastable

unifiedself,classroompracticessimultaneouslyunderminedthisideabyexternalizing

theselfthatjudgesperformanceanddisorientatingstudentsintoamoment‐to‐moment

awarenessoftheirembodiedpractices.Ialsoexplorehowstudentsconnected—

throughlanguageandmovement—thephysicalbodytotheideaoftheself,focusingon

thedifficultyinarticulatingandembodyingtheformofthe“trueself”thatemergedin

theworkshop.

Myconclusionpositionsmyresearchascomplicatingthe“mechanist”/’vitalist”

dualityasdefinedbyRoach(1985),andasprovidingadetailedstudyofapedagogythat

providesanalternativemodeltothepositioningofthebodyasaninanimateobjectand

theencouragingofstudentstoperformintraditionally“successful”ways.Thislatter

pointlinkstomyexploration,inChapters3and4,ofthecentralityoffailuretoGaulier’s

pedagogy,afailurethatIargueproducesaproductivestateofdisorientationthathelps

studentsencounteranewwayofthinkingandmoving.Inowreturntomydiscussionof

thisideaofa“pedagogyofdisorientation”,whichemergedformetheyearbeforeI

beganmyresearchatÉcolePhilippeGaulier,duringrehearsalsforTheMasterand

Margarita.

Chapter1DisorientationandtheHaptic:

DevisingTheMasterandMargarita

Inthissection/chapter,Iintroducetheideaofdisorientationasapedagogical

strategy,andexploretherehearsalsiteofTheMasterandMargaritathatledtothe

developmentofthisidea.Iaskwhatkindofspacewascreatedintherehearsalprocess

andwhatstrategies(intentionalandotherwise)wereusedtocreatethisspace?Iargue

thatbyusingpedagogicaltechniquesofdisorientation,thedirectorsrestructuredboth

theconsciousnessandthecollectiveorganizationofthosepeoplewhotogethermade

upthebodyofthetheatricalpiece.Thetechniquesthereforeproducedaproductive

disorientationinwhichfamiliar,recognizableboundariesandroleswereshiftedor

blurred,allowingforadifferentsortofcreativeprocesstooperate.Thisobservation

setsthegroundworkformypractice‐basedanalysisofGaulier’sclassroominChapters3

Pedagogyofdisorientation

Mypractice‐basedworkinthisdissertationfocusesonthisideaofa“pedagogy

ofdisorientation”which,Iargue,produceddisorientationamongstandwithinstudents

withtheintention(sometimessuccessful,sometimesnot)ofopeningtheirbodiesand

mindstonewwaysofmovingandthinkinginordertohelpthemencounteraconstruct

ofthebodyasa“thinkingbody”thatcanbeexperiencedandengagedwithsomatically

ratherthanintellectually.Forexample,inrehearsalsforTheMasterandMargarita

manystudentswerelearninghowtodeviseforthefirsttime.Byfragmentingthe

rehearsalspacetoallowstudentstoworkontheirownorinsmallgroupsoutsideofthe

presenceofthedirectors,thedirectorsdisruptedtheassumedhierarchythatoften

preventedstudentsfromcomingupwiththeirowncreativeideas.Thisopenedaspace

forarelationshiptocreativityandthedevelopmentofmaterialthatpositionedthe

performerascreator.

Myuseofdisorientationreferencestheoriesofflowandplay,overlapping

categoriesthatrelateto,butcanbedistinguishedfrom,disorientation.Mihály

CsíkszentmihályitheorizedthepsychologyofflowstateinworksincludingOptimal

Experience:PsychologicalStudiesofFlowinConsciousness(1988)andFlow:The

PsychologyofOptimalExperience(1990).Csíkszentmihályidevelopedhistheoryofflow

fromobservingvisualartistsimmersedintheirwork;hewasparticularlystruckbythe

contrastbetweentheintenseabsorptionoftheartistwhileworkingonapiece,andthe

indifferencewithwhichthefinishedartobjectwastreated.Hetheorizedthatthestate

ofabsorptionwasintrinsicallymotivating—thatis,thestatewasitselfthereasonforthe

absorption,notthepiecethatwasbeingcreated.Histheoryofflowpositsthataperson

inaflowstateisfullyimmersedintheactivity,losingself‐consciousness,anawareness

oftime,andevenawarenessofphysicalneeds(3‐4).Whiletheemphasisonloss

certainlyresonateswiththestateofdisorientationinwhichIaminterested(theword

itselfimpliesalossofmarkersthathelponeorientoneselfspatiallyandconceptually),I

distinguishtheflowstatefromdisorientationbasedonboththequalityof

concentrationinvolvedandthedurationofthestate.Theextremelyabsorbed

concentrationthatmarksCsíkszentmihályi’sflowstateismarkedlydifferentthanthe

sudden“blank”mindthatresultsfromamomentofdisorientation.Furthermore,flowis

astatethatonecanbeinforapotentiallyextendedperiodoftime,whilethe

disorientationthatIfocusonintherehearsalspaceandtheclassroomsofmystudyis

momentary—theremaybemultipleinstancesofitinrapidsuccession,butthestate

itselfisexperiencedasasuddenandtemporarylossofmoorings,quicklyregainedwhen

mentalandphysicalhabitsreassertthemselves,ornewhabitsemerge.

ThetheoryofflowconsciousnessintersectswithRogerCaillois’stheoryofthe

stateof“paidia”orplayfulness.CailloisdevelopedhistheoryindialoguewithHuizinga’s

1938seminalworkonplayHomoLudens:AStudyofthePlay‐ElementinCulturein

whichHuizingasetforthatheoryofplayasintrinsictohumanbehavior,andidentified

definingcharacteristicsincludingthatplayisalwayssetapartfrom“reallife”,thatplayis

alwaysstructuredbyorder(orrules),andthatplayhasnomaterialbenefitoutsideof

itself(8‐13).CailloisbothexpandsuponanddivergesfromHuizinga’stheoriesofplayin

Man,PlayandGames(1961)inwhichheidentifiesnotonlythestructuredactivitiesthat

canbedefinedasplay(whichheterms“ludus”),butalsounstructured,spontaneous

activities(“paidia”)whichcanbecharacterizedasplayfulness(27).Thislattercategory,

“paidia”orplayfulness,issignificanttomystudyinthatitbringstogethertheactionof

playwithamodeofconsciousnessthatisspontaneous—amodethatinChapter2I

identifywiththeconceptofautomatismethatemergedinlatenineteenth‐century

Frenchpsychology,andwhichinthetwentiethcenturyinfluencedthedevelopmentof

JacquesLecoq’slejeumethodology.

Lejeu[theplayorthegame]hasbeeninterpretedvariouslybydifferent

teachersintheLecoqtradition.PhilippeGaulier’sfocus,asdiscussedinChapters3and

4,is“pleasure”andthenecessarydistancebetweenperformerandcharacterthat

allowsthatpleasuretobevisibleandsharedbyspectators.InTheAmbiguityofPlay

(1997)BrianSutton‐SmithlinksplayexamplestoWilliamEmpson’sdelineationofseven

typesofambiguity(1955),includingacategorythatliesclosetoGaulier’sdefinitionof

play:“theambiguityofintent(doyoumeanit,orisitpretend?)”(2).AsIexplorein

Chapters3and4,Gaulierdefinessuccessfulplayascommunicatingthe“pleasureofthe

play”totheaudience;theperformerismeanttotakevisibledelightinthe“ambiguityof

intent”,theinter‐“play”betweenmeaningsomethingandonlypretendingtomeanit.

GiovanniFusetti,anotherteacherintheLecoqtradition,identifiesthisasaquality

intrinsictoascenethateither“plays”ordoesn’tplay:

Whenyousaysomethinglike“Çanejouepas”,it'slike“Thatdoesn't

play”,likeascenenotplaying.It'snotjustabouttheactor“quinejoue

pas”,youcansay“you'renotplaying”,butyoucan[also]saysomething

doesn't“joue”,“ilnejouepas”,thescene,“iln'yapasdejeu”,there'sno

play.Andyouhaveascenewithexactlythesamethings,sametexts,

samelights...exactlythesamething,withorwithoutlejeu,andit's

completelydifferent.Andifyouwriteitdown,youfindabsolutelyno

difference.(Interview2007)

Fusettiemphasizeshereaqualityofperformancethatcanonlybediscernedinthe

experienceofplayingorobserving;significantlyheseparateslejeufromwrittentext

andplacesitfirmlyintherealmofembodiedperformance.Iexaminelejeuinmore

detailinChapters3and4;inthischapterIlookatdisorientationasaspecific

pedagogicalstrategythatcanbeusedtohelpstudentsencounternewideasand

practicesthatrequirenewhabitsofthoughtandmovement,includinglejeu.

Theoriesofdisorientation

AmongthosecitingdisorientationspecificallyasapedagogicaltechniqueisNels

Christensen,whoin“ThePedagogyofDisorientation:TeachingCarolynChute’sThe

BeansofEgypt,MaineattheUniversityofMichigan’sNewEnglandLiteratureProgram

andBeyond”attributesaproductivedisorientationinstudents’studyoftheliterary

worktotheirpresenceinadisorientingphysicallandscape,asstudentsattendeda

three‐weekworkshopintheMainewoods.LikeChristensenImakealinkbetween

physicalspaceandlearning,andinmyanalysisofTheMasterandMargaritarehearsal

processplacethisideaofdisorientingspaceattheheartofthepedagogicalshiftthat

occurredintherehearsalsite.Movingfromspacetoidentity,GregoryJayexploresthe

ideaofdisorientationaffectingidentityinhisessay“TakingMulticulturalismPersonally:

EthnosandEthosintheClassroom”inwhichheadvocatesa“pedagogyof

disorientation”asausefulstrategyforengagingwithmultiethnicreadings;heinvites

readersintothe“adventureofdisorientation”thataresultingreconsiderationoftheir

ownculturalidentitiesentails(628).Jay’sfocushereisondisorientationasaninevitable

effectofopeningoneselfuptoalternatereadingsproduces,aneffecttobeembraced;

myfocusondisorientationandchallengestoconventionalnotionsofthe“authentic

self”,whichIexploreinChapter4,positionsdisorientationslightlydifferentlyinthatI

approachitasatechniqueusedtoproducethiseffectofidentityshift,notastheeffect

itself.

TravisProulxandStevenJ.Heine’s2009study“ConnectionsfromKafka:

ExposuretoMeaningThreatsImprovesImplicitLearningofanArtificialGrammar”

proposesthat“meaningthreats”improvecognitiveabilitytodiscernpatternsinthe

immediateenvironment.Theyhypothesizethatwhenfacedwithanexperiencethatthe

braincannotmakeimmediatesenseof(a“meaningthreat”),thebrainrespondsby

seeking—andsuccessfullyfindings—patternsthatitcanmakesenseof.Whatis

interestingaboutthisstudyformyanalysisisthatimmediatelyafterthedisorienting

moment,thebrainappearstohaveheightenedabilitiestodiscernpatternsthatitwould

nothaveotherwiseperceived.WhenIconsiderthewaysinwhichstudentsinGaulier’s

classroom,forinstance,encountertheideaofthe“true”selfassomethingseparate

fromtheirownsenseofthemselves,aslocatedinsteadinthespacebetweentheir

performingbodiesandthespectators(atopicItakeupinChapter4),thismightbe

describedasanewpattern,anewwayofunderstandingtheideaoftheself,thatcanbe

betterdiscernedfromaspaceofdisorientation.Gaulier’suseofdisorientingtechniques

(suchassuddenloudnoises)inhisclassroom,therefore,servesaspecificpedagogical

function.

IconnecttheprocessdescribedbyProulxandHeinewithDavidPerkins’swork

on“thresholdconcepts”(1999)whichareconceptsthatliejustoutsideofthestudent’s

currentconceptualframework;tounderstandthem,theframeworkmustshift.In

“ThresholdConceptsandTroublesomeKnowledge:LinkagestoWaysofThinkingand

PractisingwithintheDisciplines”(2003)JanMeyerandRayLandarguethatifthis

transformationisprotracted,theknowledgeisconsidered“troublesome.”

“Troublesomeknowledge”isthereforeknowledgethatthestudentfindsdifficultto

engagewithasitrequiresafundamentalshiftinhabitsofthought(thisdistinguishesit

from,forexample,knowledgethatastudentresistsbecausetheysimplydisagreewith

it—troublesomeknowledgeliesoutsidethestudent’scurrentconceptualframework).

Usingthisdefinition,theideasandpracticesthatstudentsencounteredinmyresearch

couldbeclassifiedas“thresholdconcepts”inthecaseofrelativelystraightforward

lessonslikedevisingtechniquesandcollaborativecreationinTheMasterandMargarita,

andinGaulier’sclassroomas“troublesomeknowledge”duetotheprotractedconfusion

studentshadwhenencounteringhispedagogy.InbothsitesIobservedpedagogical

techniquesofdisorientationbeingusedtohelpstudentsencounterthesenewideasand

behaviors.

EugenioBarba’sconceptofdisorientationresonateswiththeaforementioned

pedagogicalstudies,ashetiesdisorientationtothecreationofaspacefreefrompre‐

conceivedideas:“Duringrehearsals,thetechniqueofdisorientationconsistsingiving

spacetoamultiplicityoftrends,narrativesanddirectionswithoutbendingthem,right

fromthestart,beneaththeyokeofourchoicesandintentions”(Dramaturgy60).

Disorientationhereisproducesafruitfulspaceofmultiplicity,inwhichfreeingcognition

fromitshabitualpatternsallowsforavirtualexplosionofnewideas.His“body‐in‐life”

extendsdisorientationfromthecognitivetotheembodiedrealm,inwhichthethinking

body“proceedsbyleaps,bymeansofasuddendisorientationwhichobligesitto

reorganizeitselfinnewways”(qtd.inMagnat74).Inthisscenarioamomentary

disorientationeffectivelyallowsforaparadigmshiftofthebody,inwhichthebody

beforethedisorientatingmomentisstructurallydifferentfromthebodyafter.Thisis

notanexplosionofnewideas,butastructuralshift;onecouldsaythebodyhasnew

muscularhabits,newneuralpathwaysthatallowforanewwayofmovingintheworld.

Barba’sdualapproachtodisorientationresonateswithmyownanalysisofitasa

pedagogicaltechniquethatthroughmomentaryinterruptionsinhabitual

cognitive/physicalpatternsallowsfornewpatternsofthinkingandmoving.

Inheressay“DevisingUtopia,orAskingfortheMoon”VirginieMagnatpoetically

describesthedisorientationelementofdevisedtheatreas“theartoflosingone’s

mooringstothefamiliar,afruitfullossyieldingakinestheticandassociativeformof

awareness”(74).Iwouldaddtoherdescriptiontheintentionality,indevising,behind

“loosingone’smooringstothefamiliar,”asdisorientationcananddoesoccuracross

widelydifferingrehearsaltechniques—linesorblockingcanbesuddenlyforgotten;

unexpectedsounds,movementsorevenmoodscanopenuptheprocesstothe

unexpected.Devising,however,oftenplacesdisorientationattheheartofitsprocess,

intentionallycreatingspacesandencountersthatchallengeexpectation.Likethe

theoristsdiscussedabove,Magnatlinksdisorientationwithnewideasandnew

movements,theopportunityforastudenttomoveoutoftherealmofanexisting

frameworktoaspaceinwhich“thresholdconcepts”(cognitiveand/orembodied)can

berealized.Unliketheothertheorists,shefocusesondisorientationnotjustasaneffect

ofaprocessbutastheprocessitself,madeupofstrategies,thoughshedoesnot

articulatewhatthesespecificstrategiesare.IagreewithMagnat’sassessmentandtake

itasmystartingpoint,withtwokeydifferences:Ifocusonthespecificdisorientation

strategiesused,andthetopicsofmyanalysis—whatthestudentsencounter—isslightly

differentthanhers.Specifically,inChapters3and4Ilookatthe“thresholdconcepts”

thatstudentsatÉcolePhilippeGaulierencounteredincludingthenaturalversusthe

artificialbodyandtheideaoftheauthenticselfasdifferentfromtheassumedself.I

interrogatetheseencountersascontinuallyinflux,positioningbothstudentsand

teacherinacontinuingdialoguewiththem,adialoguethatItracebacktokeyconcepts

thatemergedinlatenineteenth‐andearlytwentieth‐centuryFrenchmime.

WhenIlookathabitsofbodyandofthoughtthatarechallengedusing

disorientationtechniques,IfocusonwhatDianaTaylordescribesasthe“repertoire”in

herdistinctionbetweenthearchiveandtherepertoire(2003).Taylorfocusesher

definitionsonthewaysinwhichculturalmemoryistransmitted:archivalmemory

throughdocumentation,mediaandarcheologicalremains,andrepertoirememory

throughembodiedactivitiesincludingperformances,gesturesandmovement(19‐20).

Shechallengesthepresumedpermanenceofthearchiveandephemeralityofthe

repertoire,pointingoutthatarchivalitemscandisappearfromornevermakeitintothe

archive,whilememoriestransmittedthroughtherepertoirecanleavetheirembodied

mark.Shewrites:“Therepertoirerequirespresence:peopleparticipateinthe

productionandreproductionofknowledgeby‘beingthere,’beingapartofthe

transmission”(20).DrawingonthisdefinitionIlookattwodistinctrepertoiresinmy

practice‐basedwork:thatofLecoq‐basedperformanceandpedagogyitself,andthatof

studentbehaviorsthatwerebroughtintotheclassroomandrehearsalsite.The

encounterandresistancebetweenthesetworepertoires,Iargue,washandled

pedagogicallythroughstrategiesofdisorientation,whichopenedupaspacewithin

whichnewhabitsofthoughtandmovementwerepossible.

Thehapticview

Myapproachtopractice‐basedresearchinthisdissertationstemsfrommy

experiencesinrehearsalsforTheMasterandMargarita.Productivedisorientationwas

facilitatedintheserehearsalsinpartthroughaspatially‐fragmentedrehearsalsite.The

piecewasphysicallystructuredthroughmobility:asite‐specificpromenadeshow,each

sceneoccurredinadifferentgeographicallocationontheuniversity’sArtsQuarter

sectionofcampus,requiringtheaudiencetowalkfromsitetosite.Asimilaroperation

playedoutintherehearsalprocess:duringeachfour‐hourrehearsal,aftergatheringin

StudioAonthefifthflooroftheRarigCenter(homeoftheDepartmentofTheatreArts

andDance)forahalf‐hourwarm‐upgame,performersscatteredthroughoutthetheatre

buildingandthroughvariousoutdoorsites,devisingandrehearsingfragmentsofthe

show.WhileStudioAremainedtheofficialspatialreferencepointtowhichpeople

returnedtofindothersandtobegivennewrehearsalassignments,therewasno

centralizedsiteforeitherrehearsalsorfortheperformance.Rehearsalswerescattered

throughoutthesixfloorsofthetheatrebuildingaswellasinamultitudeofoutdoor

locations,andmoreoftenthannotnoonepossessedacompleteknowledgeofwhat

washappeningwhere.Acommonsightwasoneofthetwosomewhatharriedstage

managersrunningfranticallyfromfloortofloor,askingforthelocationofaparticular

performer.

AweekorsointotherehearsalprocessIbegantobemoanthefactthat,dueto

thisspatialscattering,IwasnotabletoconductwhatIthoughtofasacomprehensive

datacollectionprocess.Ihadtriedhandingmydigitalvideocameratostagemanagers

andfellowgraduatestudentswhohappenedtobewanderingthrough,askingthemto

recordasmuchastheycouldwhileIranofftoanothersitetofuriouslyscribblenotes;I

hadtriedcatchingperformersintransitfromonerehearsallocationtoanothertoask

themtodescribewhattheyhadbeendoing;butdespitemybestefforts,Iwasacutely

awarethatmydatacollectionrepresentedonlyfragmentsofwhatwasoccurringeach

nightinrehearsals.AddingtomydifficultywerethemultiplerolesIplayedinthe

rehearsals:Iwasofficiallytheshow’sdramaturg,whichchieflyconsistedinmybeing

givenKiraObolensky’stexttoeditandconsultationswiththedirectorsonconnecting

scenesanddrawingoutcentralvisualandmovementthemes.SinceSommersand

Seifertbelievedinutilizinganyskillthatwalkedintotheroom,andsinceIwaseagerto

contributeinanywaytheyfoundhelpful,inshortorderIalsofoundmyselfrunning

vocalwarm‐upsandcoachingperformers.Myoneattempttorecordmyselfwithmy

digitalvideocamerarunningavoiceworkshopwiththeactorswhoplayedtheMaster

andMargaritaisusefulforitsdocumentationofanresearcher‐practitionerstrugglingto

captureeverymoment,andperhapsforitshumorvalueasthespokenconversations

becameincreasinglystiltedduetothepresenceofthecamera,butprovedfartoo

intrusivetobecomearepeatedpractice.

Afellowgraduatestudent,AshleyMajzels,whohappenedtobepassingthrough

oneoftheoutdoorrehearsalsoneeveningreframedmydilemmaforme:“That’s

appropriate,”hesaidinresponsetomyanxiousaccountoftheproblemsIwashavingin

collectingdata.“Yourownresearchprocessishaptic,whichisallowingyoutomirrorin

yourmethodologytheactualexperienceofbeinginsidealargedevisedrehearsal

process.”8HewasreferringtoDeleuzeandGuattari’sdistinctioninAThousand

Plateaus:CapitalismandSchizophreniabetweentheopticandthehapticview(492‐9).

8ThisquoteisaparaphraseofwhatMajzelssaidbasedonmyrehearsalnotes.

Theopticisthebird’s‐eyeview:theviewofacity,forexample,seenbylookingata

map.Whiletheeye’sfocuscanmovefromdetailtodetail,eachsegmentofthemapis

seen,ifonlyperipherally,inrelationtoeveryothersegment.Fromapractice‐based

researchperspectivethiscouldrepresentthe“viewfromnowhere,”theoutside

observerlookingatacoherentwholeinordertoanalyzeitfromaprivilegedviewpoint.

Thehapticview,bycontrast,wouldbethatofapedestrianwalkingthroughthecity’s

streets:theeyewouldtakeinanindividualfragmentofthecityinrelationtofragments

directlysurroundingit;ascornerswereturnedotherfragmentswouldcomeintoview,

andeventuallyamappingofthecitywouldbecomepossible,butthecityasawhole

wouldneverbeaccessibletothegaze.DeleuzeandGuattarialsolikenthehaptic/optic

distinctiontothedifferencebetweenthevisiononehasofanobject(apainting,a

wheatfield)andthatoftheobserverstandingatadistance.Theclose,hapticviewisof

“smooth”space,notyet“striated”,ordemarcatedbyobservable(ortactile—Deleuze

andGuattariemphasizethatthesedistinctionsapplytoallofthesenses)patternsthat

separatesectionsfromeachotherandproduceawholethatcanbetakenapartand

analyzed:“Cézannespokeoftheneedtonolongerseethewheatfield,tobetooclose

toit,toloseoneselfwithoutlandmarksinsmoothspace.Afterward,striationcan

emerge:drawing,strata,theearth,‘stubborngeometry,’the‘measureoftheworld,’…”

(493).DeleuzeandGuattaripositionthehapticviewofsmoothspaceastemporally

priortotheopticviewofstriatedspace,andasnecessarytothelateractofanalysis.

Idefinemyselfinallthreeofmypractice‐basedresearchsitesinthisdissertation

asa“hapticresearcher”.WithinthisroleIunderstandmyselftoinitiallyexperience(or

“see”)“smooth”insteadof“striated”space;thestriationsarecreatedbymewhenI

compilemynotes,sitdowntowrite,tocreateanarrative,andtoconstructtheories

thatmyexamplessupport(andthatareselectedbecausetheysupportthesetheories).

SoIcreateanopticviewforthereaderfrommyhapticexperienceasaparticipant‐

researcher,fullyacknowledgingthatmystriationsareonesetofpatternsona

landscape;anotherresearcher(andotherparticipants—thestudents,the

teachers/directors)mightverywellcreateanotherset.DeleuzeandGuattarihighlight

thismorerigidaspectofthestriatedspace/theopticview:“Itislesseasytoevaluatethe

creativepotentialitiesofstriatedspace,andhowitcansimultaneouslyemergefromthe

smoothandgiveeverythingawholenewimpetus”(494).AsthecreatorofthisviewI

acknowledgemyownlaborandthestrippingdownofthe“creativepotentialities”that

havenecessarilyoccurredasImovedawayfrommyhapticexperienceofthesites,and

emphasizethecreativepotentialitiesthatcontinuetoexistinthesesites,otherstories

thatcouldbetold.

AsItriedonmynewidentityashapticresearcherinTheMasterandMargarita

rehearsals,Ibegantonoticeresonanceswiththeexperiencesofotherparticipantsthat

pointedtotheusesofdisorientationtostructuretheprocess.Specifically,nooneever

seemedtoknoweverythingthatwasgoingon,eventhetraditionally‐omniscientstage

managerswhoweresuccessfullyifattimesgrudginglyadaptingtothisunaccustomed

stateofaffairs.Thisdidnotmeanthattheprocesswaschaotic,however—each

participantcouldrecitearoughoutlineoftheshow’schronologyandspatialmapping,

andrehearsalsub‐groupswerelimitedtoparticularsites.Yetthemoreclearly

demarcatedboundariesseenintraditionalrehearsals—markedoutbyawrittenscript

neatlydividedintoactsandscenes,onestageonwhichthebodiesofperformers

rehearsed,andthesingularroomofthetheatrewithinwhicheveryparticipantcanbe

found—weremuchmoreblurryandfluid.Standingatthetopofasetofstonestairs

behindthemusicbuilding,lookingdownandacrossaroadtowhereSommerswas

askingoneofthedevilstoexplorewaystoappearoverawall,aperformerwaitingfor

instructionaskedanother,“Doyouknowwhathe’sdoing?”andreceivedtheresponse,

“Noidea.”Theysmiledandcontinuedtowaitforaframingthatwouldallowthemto

createtheirportionofthescene.

Thisdisorientatedframingcouldalsoprovefrustratingforconsistency.During

anotherday’sshowingofthefirstsceneinwhichtheMasterandMargaritaappearnext

toabonfireinanoutdooramphitheatreand,astheyrecounttheirmemoriesofrecent

eventsinMoscowaswellastheirownlovestory,rolltogetheronthegroundin

laughter,ShawnMcConneloug,thechoreographer,stoodnexttomeandmurmured,“If

IhadknownthisishowtheywoulddothissceneIwouldhavechoreographedthetable

scenedifferently.”The“tablescene”wasanembodiedtellingofthetwolovers’affair;

Shawnwasreferringtothefactthatthemovementthemesshehadchoreographedfor

themwerenotconsistentwiththoseinthebonfirescene.Fortheperformers,however,

thedisorientationcausedbythisdisorientatingstructuringoftherehearsalprocesswas

atworstbemusingandatbestcreativelyproductive.

LaterinthischapterItiethisideaofdisorientationtomyobservationofalackof

clearlydelineatedleadershipandsubordinateroleswithingroupstaskedwithcreating

vaudevillescenesfortheshow.Inthesemoments,Iargue,thelackofarecognizable

structurecreatedaspacewithinwhichtheboundariesofhabitualsocialrolesand

hierarchiesloosened.Manyofthesestudentsbroughtwiththemyearsofclassroom

experiencesinwhichtheyhadlearnedtobesilentandwaitforinstructions,andhad

cometounderstandthattheirrolewasthatofinterpreterratherthancreator,their

bodiesdisciplinedtoperformlowstatuswithinrecognizablehierarchiesofauthorityin

thespaceofthepedagogicalsetting.Onceanewspacehadbeencreated,performers

wererecastascollaborators,andbegantorelearnappropriatewaystoperformwithin

thisrehearsalspace.Anotherwaytolookatthishorizontalcreationprocess,inwhich

everystudentcontributed,madesuggestions,commentsandcritiques,mightbeto

considertheemptyspacesthatopenedupintheabsenceofarecognizablehierarchy.In

atext‐based,hierarchicalrehearsalprocessthespaceoftherehearsalisfilledwith

predeterminedmeaningcentralizedinthescriptandinthedirector’svisionor

concept—meaningthatcanbeplayedwithandtransformed,certainly,butthereis

alwaysasenseofwherethecreativeimpetusiscomingfrom.InrehearsalsforThe

MasterandMargarita,gapsexistedwithinthegivenmeaningofanyparticularscene,

gapsthatcouldbefilledwithnewmeaning,andnewmaterial.

Embodiedknowledge:Thetapeballwarm‐up

Givenourculture’sprivilegingofdiscursivereasonoverembodiedknowledge,

devisingopensupapedagogicalrealmthatasksparticipantstoexplorealternateways

ofknowing.“TapeBall”(whichalsogoesbyothernamesincludingBallJugglingand

Keepy‐Uppy)isfrequentlyplayedasawarm‐upgameindevisingrehearsals.Thegame

developskinestheticawarenessinrelationtoothers,helpingtobuildensemblethrough

embodiedexperience.Playersstandinacircleandthrowaballintotheair;the

objectiveofthegameistokeeptheballfromhittingthegroundbyhittingitwiththe

palmofthehand.Everyoneinthegroupshoutsoutthenumberoftimestheballishit

(“One!Two!Three!...”),andthegoalistoreachthehighestnumberpossiblebefore

theballhitstheground.

Thiswasthestandardwarm‐upgameplayedatthebeginningofeachrehearsal

forTheMasterandMargarita.Iidentifytheuseofthisgameasastandardwarmupon

eachdayofrehearsalsasadeploymentofthestrategyofplay,ofengagingstudentsin

anembodiedexercisethat,throughitsfastrhythmandrelianceonimmediatephysical

reaction,putstudentsintoastateofmoment‐to‐momentawarenessoftheirbodies.

Observingthisgamethroughthefour‐weekrehearsalprocess,Iwasstruckbyboththe

improvementofthegroupinkeepingtheballup(oncethehighnumberreached138),

andtheparallelsbetweenwhatIwasobservinginthisgameandwhatIwasobserving

duringrehearsals.Successinthisgamereliedonacollectiveabilitytonegotiateshared

tactics:whenonepersonhitstheballsheissimultaneouslysettingitupforsomeone

else;whentwopeoplegoforthesameballtheymustfigureout—quickly—whotakesit;

thephysicalspacingofbodiesthroughtheroom(howmuchspacebetweenmembersof

thecircle,howrigidaretheboundariesofthecircle)affectstheflexibilityofhits.

Participantsbecamemoreskilledatnegotiating—asagroupandwithoutdiscussion—

wheretopositionbodiesintheroom.Attimestheboundariesofthecirclewould

becomenebulousasparticipantssteppedoutsideorinsidetheoriginalcircle,forming

ringsofcirclesthatenabledthegrouptocovermoreground.Whenbodiesbecametoo

dispersedtofacilitateeffectiveplaying,rhythmicclappingwouldbegin—againwithout

discussion,andalmostimmediatelyspreadthroughtheentiregroup—andthecircle

wouldre‐formwithitsoriginaltightboundaries.

Thedailyrepetitionofthisgametrainedtheperformers’bodiestorespond

quicklytoimpulse,tonegotiatesharedspace,andtoimaginativelyconnecttoeach

otherbyshoutingoutanumberwheneveranyonehittheball.Shoutingengagesthe

bodyviscerally,meaningthateverytimetheballwashiteachbodyintheroomhada

visceralexperience.Thisquicklyproducedanatmosphereinwhicheachindividual

success(hittingtheball)wastreatedasanensemblesuccess(triumphantlyshoutingout

anumber).Watchingtheperformerscollaborateoncetherehearsalspropergotgoing,I

sawthiselisionbetweenindividualandensemblemanifestasthehierarchiesthat

usuallydevelopwithingroupswerediminishedtosuchadegreethatIhaddifficulty

discerningthem.Performerstreatedeachproposal—whetherornotithadoriginated

withthem—asvalidandworthyofexploration.Itwasasifeachindividual’screativity

hadbeenmultipliedbythirty.Performersdescribedbeing“surprised”attheideas

generatedduringthedevisingprocess;moreoftenthannotpre‐existingideasabout

whatwouldhappeninaparticularscenewererenderedobsoleteorunrecognizable

oncethegrouphad“played”withit.

Thedifficultyofenactingcollaborativebehaviorsintherehearsalspacewith

performersnotextensivelytrainedindevisingwasillustratedinarehearsalprocessthat

Iobservedduringthesummerof2006.Thepiece,titledKilltheRobot,wasdirectedby

JonFerguson,aMinneapolis‐basedclownandphysicaltheatredirector,withacastof

teenagersparticipatinginasummercommunitydramacourse.Fergusonwas

experiencedandskilledatcreatingaspacefordevisingwithexperiencedadultactors,

yetIwatchedhimstruggletocontinuallydeflecttheteenagers’expectationsthathe,as

director,wasinchargeandwouldthereforetellthemwhattodo.Theteenswereable

tograspintellectuallytheconceptofdevising,ofembodiedplay,yetwhenthetime

cametoproposeideastheywouldstandstill,bodiessignificantlyimmobile,lookingat

theirdirectorexpectantly.Asignificantdifficultywastherehearsalspace:aclassroom

insideofacommunitytheatrebuilding,whichencouragedtheteenagerstoperformthe

roleofstudentandpositionFergusonastheirteacher.Fergusonrespondedby

increasingthetimedevotedtophysicalimprovisationexercises.Thisforcedthe

performerstoengagedirectlywitheachotherratherthanwiththeirdirector,andto

respondquicklyinthemomentwithouttimetoreflectandcomeupwiththe“right”

answer.Theteenagersinitiallyfoundthischallenging,andtheseexercisesoftenpetered

outasmovementsbecamemoreandmoretentativethenslowedtoastandstill,andthe

performersturnedtolookatFerguson.Itwasasifagravitationalforcecontinually

pulledtheirbodiesbackintothesubmissiveposeoftheexpectantstudentlookingto

theteacherforadvice.Overtime,however,Icoulddiscerntheeffectsofthese

embodiedexercisesastheperformersbegantopropose.Theproposalswerehesitant,

andembodiedplayneverdevelopedbeyondbriefburstsofperformer‐generated

creativity,butitwasanimprovement.Whatbecameapparenttomewasthattothe

extentthatthestudentslearnedthismethod,theylearneditthroughtheirbodies—no

amountofverbalexplanationcouldaltertheirhabitualpatternsofrelatingtoauthority.

ThisobservationreferencesanideaofembodiedknowledgesthatIexplorein

thisdissertation.TheentrenchedphysicalandcognitivehabitsthatIexamineinthe

rehearsalsiteandclassroomcanbeunderstoodthroughPeterMcLaren’sconceptof

“enfleshment”,theprocessofthephysicalbodycomingintobeingasculturally

inscribedthroughmuscularhabitsandstatesoftension(47).Thebodystores

knowledgeinitsmuscles;neuralpatternsaredeeplyengravedthroughhabitual

movement.McLarenproposes“refleshment”asaninnateabilityofthebodytolearn

newbehaviors:

Sincewecannotputonnewbodiesbeforewedesocializeouroldones,

thetaskathandrequiresustoprovidethemediativegroundfora

refleshedcorporeality.Thismeansthecreationofembodiedknowledges

...(65‐6)

McLarentiesembodiedknowledgestorefleshment;inordertochangethebody,one

mustengagethebodyinaprocessofknowledgecreation.Thisisanimportantpoint

aboutbodiesthinking;inboththerehearsalandclassroomsitesIanalyzeinthis

dissertation,studentsengageandstrugglewithnewknowledgesprimarilythroughtheir

bodies,oftenmakingdiscoveriesatoddswiththeirverbalattemptstocometogrips

withthenewknowledges.Imakethisdistinctionbetweenengagingwiththebodyand

withthemindadvisedly,awareofthedangerofreinscribingCartesianmind/body

duality.PerhapsamoreaccuratewaytodescribewhatIamtalkingaboutwouldbeto

saythestudentsengagedmoreoftheirbodiesintheseexercises—whenstudentswere

simply“talkingabout”theideaswithwhichtheywereengaging,theirbodieswereoften

quitestill,theireyesfocusedontheteacher/director,mouthsmovingandbrows

furrowed.WhenengagedinwhatIcall“embodiedexercises”,theyactivatedthe

musclesoftheirarmsandlegs,theirbreathingquickened,theirfacialmusclestendedto

relax.Additionally,thenewknowledgesoftenmanifestedthemselvesnotthrough

students’abilitytoverballydescribethem,butthroughtheirabilitytophysicallyenact

them.AugustoBoalinTheatreoftheOppresseddescribestheprocessofunlearning

habitualmovementpatternsas“disjunctive,”designedto“disjoint”thebody:“The

exercises…aredesignedto‘undo’themuscularstructureoftheparticipants.Thatis,to

takethemapart,tostudyandanalyzethem.Nottoweakenordestroythem,butto

raisethemtothelevelofconsciousness”(128).Boaldevelopedhistheoriesworkingasa

theatricalactivistinBrazil,andhis“disjunctive”techniquesweremeanttorevealways

inwhichoppressivesocietalstructuresplayoutintheactualmuscularstructureof

bodies.WhatIfindpertinenttomystudyisthatinBoal’stheoryofdisjunctive

exercises,thebodyissituatedatalevelbelowconsciousness,containingknowledge

thatcanbe“raised”intoconscioustobeanalyzed.Thispositioningofembodied

knowledgeresonateswiththelatenineteenth‐centuryideaofautomatismethatI

examineinChapter2andFreud’stheoryoftheunconsciousthatIconnecttothe

developmentofmimepedagogyinChapters3and4.Italsointersectswithmyinterest

inknowledgethatcanonlybeproducedthroughthebody,asraisingtheknowledgeof

muscularhabitstothelevelofconsciousnesscannothappenwithoutthebodybeing

physicallyengagedindisjunctiveexercises.Byengagingthebodytoproduceknowledge,

alteringthesehabitsbecomespossible.Iexplorethisingreaterdetaillaterinthenext

sectionwhenIlookatspecificstrategiesusedbySommersandSeifertduringrehearsals

forTheMasterandMargaritatohelpstudentsenactcollaborativerelationshipsinthe

devisingprocessmuchasFerguson’suseofphysicalimprovisationexerciseshadhelped

todisorienthisperformersandencouragetheirself‐generationofproposals.

Verticaltohorizontal:Collaborativerelationships

Oneofthestudents’mosttrenchanthabitsthatSommersandSeifertworkedto

alterwasstudents’tendencytodefertothedirectorsduringdevisingmoments,a

behaviorreminiscentoftheperformersinKilltheRobot.Whilethescatteredrehearsal

spaceaidedinbreakingstudentsofthesehabits,thisalmost‐intractabletendencymade

itdifficulttosendstudentsoffinsmallgroupstocreatematerialfortheshow,as

studentswerehesitanttocreateanythingwithoutspecificinstructionsandconstant

checkinginwiththedirectors.Thisreflectedanimplicitassumptionthattherelationship

structureintherehearsalprocesswasvertical,withSommersandSeifertatthetop

holdingallpertinentknowledge,andthestudentsatthebottomwaitingtoreceivethis

knowledge.Inordertoshifttheagencyfordevisingtothestudents,thedirectors

continuallydeflectedstudentattemptstoenactthisrelationshipbyloweringtheir

status.Thiswasparticularlyobservableduringrehearsalsforthevaudevillescene,when

SommersandSeifertaskedgroupsofstudentstoindependentlycreateactsforthe

vaudeville.

InBulgakov’snovel,thedevil(Woland)makeshisdramaticanddeadlypublic

appearancebeforethecitizensofMoscowonstageattheVarietyTheaterinachapter

titled“BlackMagicandItsExposé.”Fortheadaptation’sversionofthisscene,Sommers

andSeifertinvitedtheperformerstocreatepiecesforwhatcametobecalledthe

“vaudevilleshow,”performedonasmallwoodenstagewithredcurtainstuckedintothe

cornerofthebackofthemusicdepartmentconcerthallwiththeaudienceseatedon

theslopinggrassvergeopposite.Sincethissegmentwastheonlyonecreatedentirely

bytheperformerswithdirectorialassistanceonlyinthefinalweekwhentheshow’s

timingswerebeingpolished(theothermomentsintheshowwereworkedon

collaborativelybetweenperformers,directorsandthechoreographer),thiswasthesite

inwhichImoststronglyobservedthefluidityofhierarchicalsocialstructure.

Standingintheoutdoorarenatheatrethatwastoserveasthesiteoftheshow’s

openingscene,SommersandSeifertinstructedtheperformersoncreatingvaudeville

pieces,instructionsthatframedthecontextofthescene(vaudeville,varietyshows)

withouttellingtheperformerswhattocreate.Despitethepracticetheperformershad

hadinproposing,andthecontinuedemphasisthathadbeenplacedbytheco‐directors

ontheperformersratherthanthedirectorsasprimarycreators,astructuralhabit

reasserteditselfmuchasithadinKilltheRobot.AfterSommersandSeiferthadfinished

speaking,severaloftheperformersapproachedthemaskingforclarificationonwhat

thedirectors“wanted”themtodo.Thisincludedagroupthathadbeendevisingapiece

aroundtheideaoftheautomaton.Duringhisinstructionalremarks,Sommershadused

thisgroupasanexampleofhowthecreativeprocessmightwork,andproposedanact

thatwouldevokereligiousimagery—acrucifixionscene.Theperformersinthisgroup

tookthisproposalasanactualsuggestionforcontent,andapproachedhimwith

apparentconcerntoaskhowtheymightstagethis,giventheirdiscomfortwiththe

subjectmatter.Sommersimmediatelyrearticulatedhisproposalassimplyanexample

ofaroutetheymighttake,andspecifiedthathewantedthegrouptodevisecontent

separatelyfromwhattheyimaginedhe“wanted.”Seifertalsosteppedintoaid

Sommersinemphasizingtheperformer‐basedproposalprocessthattheywere

continuallyattemptingtoarticulateagainstthetraditionalhierarchicalrehearsal

structureofdirector‐as‐creator,performer‐as‐interpreter.

Sostrongwasthistraditionalstructurefortheperformersthatoneproposal

thrownoutasapossibilityamongmanythatlanguageofcoerciveinstructionframed

theperformers’responses:“Whatdoyouwantustodo?”“Isitsupposedtobelike

this?”Toworkagainstthesehabituatedlanguagepatterns,SommersandSeiferthadto

explicitlylowertheirstatusinrelationtotheperformers:“Don’tlistentome,”Sommers

saidatonepoint,“IhavenoideawhatI’mtalkingabout—youcomeupwith

something.”Byrespondinginthiswaythedirectorswereinducingadisorientation

aroundthestatusbehaviorsstudentsexpectedofthem,astrategythatplacedcreative

responsibilityinthehandsoftheperformersthemselves.Thistechniqueisaformofvia

negativa,apedagogicaltechniquecoinedbyGrotowskiandwidelyconsideredtohave

beenusedbyLecoq(thoughhedoesnotusetheterminhiswritings)aswellasthe

teacherswhoworkwithhismethod.Grotowskidevelopedvianegativaasamethod

thatspecificallyaddressedhisaestheticofthepoortheatre,atechniquethatrejectsthe

approachofaccruingtechniquessuchashowtodisplayemotionorhowtomovein

particularwaysinfavorofstrippingawayanyhabitthatstandsbetweentheactorand

spectator:“vianegativaeliminate[s]fromthecreativeprocesstheresistancesand

obstaclescausedbyone’sownorganism,bothphysicalandpsychic(thetwoforminga

whole)”(24).InLecoq’sversionofvianegativa,theteacherdoesnotgiveanswersor

directfeedbacktothestudent,butcreatesaspaceinwhichthestudentmust

experimentuntilshediscoverstheanswerforherself.JohnWright(2002)describes

Lecoq’suseofthetechniqueasastrategyto“manipulatecreativeenergy”:

Sometimeshe[Lecoq]knowsexactlywhathewantshisstudentstofindand

sometimeshesimplyusesitasastrategytogenerateurgency;anatmosphereof

white‐hotdiscussionandexperimentashisstudentsstruggletofindexactly

whatitistheythinkheislookingfor.(73)

ManyformerstudentsofLecoq‐basedpedagogydescribethefrustrationengenderedby

thistechnique.MarkEvansdescribeshisexperience:“Yousometimesfelt:whycan’tI

understandintellectually,andthenjustdoit?”(qtd.inMurrayLecoq51).The

technique’spedagogicalpayoffiswidelyconsideredtobetemporallydeferred;Simon

MurraywritesofhisownexperienceasastudentofGaulierandMonicaPagneux(who

taughtwithGaulierinParisforseveralyears):“…many‘results’ofwhatIlearneddidnot

emergeorsurfaceuntilyearslater.Oftenthebodyonlyunderstandsandbecomesable

toarticulatewhatithaslearnedlongaftertheeventitself”(Lecoq50);Lecoqwritesof

histeachingofthecommediadell’artetostudentswhoaretooyoungtoyethave

acquiredthe“tragicdimension”necessarytofullyunderstandandincorporatethe

lessonsintotheirperformances:

Avingtans,lesélèvesn’ontsouventpaslevécunécessaire,illeur

manquenotammentladimensiontragique,élémentconstitutif

importantdeceterritoire.Sinousfaisonsmalgrétoutcetravailàl’École,

cen’estpaspouruneutilisationimmédiatemaispourqu’ilsgardentle

souvenirdeceniveaudejeudansleurcorpsetdansleurtêteafinqu’ils

puissents’enservirplustard.

[Attwenty,thestudentsdon’toftenhavethenecessarylifeexperience,

theynotablylackthetragicdimension,themostimportantelementof

thisterritory.Ifwecarryondespitethiswiththeworkattheschool,this

isnotforanimmediateusebutsothattheywillretainamemoryofthis

levelofplayintheirbodiesandintheirheadsothattheycanuselater.]9

(Corps125)

Lecoqreferencestheideaofthethinkingbodyherebysuggestingthatboththebody

andtheheadstorememoriesofclassroomexperiences,whichcanbedrawnonlaterin

IntherehearsalspaceofTheMasterandMargarita,vianegativaoperated

slightlydifferentlythanintheclassroom,asSommersandSeifertattemptedtocreatea

spacewithinwhichnewmaterialwouldbegeneratedfromthestudents,ratherthan

teachingaspecificmethod;thereforetheydeliberatelyundercuttheimplicitauthority

ofthemselvesasteachers(whostudentsattemptto“please”inLecoq‐stylevia

negativa).Asoftenoccurswithinalooselystructuredspace,studentssoughtacentral

authoritativevoice;whenSommersandSeifertrefusedtoplaythisrole,therefore,it

begantoemergeamongtheperformersthemselves.Seniorandmoreverbally

9PhilippeGaulieralsousesthistechnique,oftentakingittoanextremeform,whichcanbefrustratingforstudentsusedtoaneducationalmodelinwhichtechniquesandfactsarepassedondirectlyfromteachertostudent.IexaminehisparticularmethodsinmoredetailinChapters3and4.

expressiveofthecastmembersledwhatchieflyamountedtoverbalbrainstorming

sessions.Themoreoutgoingmembersofthegroup,theoneswhoareusedto

performingasleaders,quicklytookcontrolofthecreationprocess,andthosemore

usedtosubmittingandfollowingfellintotheirownestablishedroles.Bytheendofthe

firstweek,however,Ibegantoobserveashiftindevisingtechniqueawayfromverbal

consultationandtowardsphysicalplay.Thiswasaccompaniedbyablurringoftheroles

withinthegroups;itbecamemoreandmoredifficultformetodiscernwhowas

“leading”anyonedevisingsession.

Thisblurringofroleswasconveyedbothverballyandphysically.Verbalcues

includedmultiplevoicesallseemingtospeakatthesametime,yetsomehowall

contributingtothecreativetaskathand.WithintheseeminglysimultaneouschatterI

discernedaconversationalstructurethatincludedproposal,response,validationand

critique.Voicesoftenoverlappedwithinagroup,thoughwithoutasenseofinterruption

orfightingtobeheard.Rather,theoverlappingvoiceswereengaginginmeaning

makingthatwaslesslinearandmoreasenseofdeepeningintoanidea.Forinstance,

whenIobservedthegroupcreatingthe“babytumblers”actworkingonaproblemthat

hadarisenintheirpieceinvolvinghowtonegotiateatrickyliftandturnofoneofthe

performers,allofthemembersofthegroupappearedtobespeakingsimultaneously,

yetasolutiontotheproblemwasclearlyemerging.Ratherthanonevoicelayingouta

completeideaandanothersingularvoicerespondingtothatphraseinitsentirety,the

speakingseemedtobeanongoingprocess,eachperformershiftingwhattheywere

sayingmid‐sentencebasedonwhatothervoicesweresaying:“Becausewecan’tliftlike

this…”“…she’dturnand…”“…maybeturnthisway…”“…andthenI’dtakeher…”

“…andyou’llcomethrough…”“…andthenwe…”“…standupandbow…”.

Physicalcuesincludedrupturesinfamiliarstatusmovementsandgestures,as

thesefamiliarphysicalities(lowerstatusparticipantsfixingtheirgazesonahigherstatus

person,tiltedheadsandbentbodyposturesindicatinglowerstatus,verticalstancesand

broadgesturesmarkinghigherstatus)begantodisappearinfavorofcontinualshifting

betweenmovementandstillness,eyecontactandlookingintothedistance,bent

posturesandstandingupright.Statuswasshiftingfromonememberofthegroupto

another,parallelingthevoicesemergingandbeingsubsumedbackintothegroupbuzz.

Leadershipflowedfromparticipanttoparticipant,abehaviorpatternalsoreflectedin—

and,Ibelieve,symbioticallyconnectedwith—thewarm‐upgameofTapeBall.

Conclusion:Disorientingspace

Inthischapter/sectionIhavedescribedseveralstrategiesthatfacilitateda

devisingprocessamongagroupofstudentsinexperiencedindevising.Therewasmore

totheprocessthanastraightforwardteachingofrehearsaltechniques.Inmy

experience,students/performerswhohavebeenhabituatedtotraditionalclassroom

andrehearsalstructuresfinditextremelydifficulttoshifttheirpatternsofknowledge

creation;Ferguson’sexperiencewiththeteenagersinKilltheRobotwastypicalinthis

regard,aswasTheMasterandMargaritacast’sinitialdifficultywithtakingownershipof

thevaudevillescene.AsImovedthroughtherehearsalprocessforTheMasterand

Margarita,alongsideshiftingbehaviorpatternsIbecameincreasinglyawareofaspatial

shiftthathadoccurred:thespacewithinwhichstudentscollaboratedwasmarkedby

looselydefinedboundaries,shiftingcentersofauthority,andfragmentedgroupingsof

collaboratorsoccupyingdiverselocations.Thespace,inotherwords,wasmarkedby

disorientation.IidentifythespatialscatteringthatSommersandSeifertemployedasa

strategytoproducecorporealandcognitivedisorientation,therebyshort‐circuiting

students’impulsestofallbackonhabitsofstudent‐teacher(inthiscase,actor‐director)

behavior.Thiswasincontrasttotheclassroom‐situatedrehearsalsofFerguson’sKillthe

Robot,whichIbelieveaccountedinpartforstudents’difficultyinbreakingoutof

habitualbehaviorpatternsastheycontinuedtoconsciouslyorientthemselveswithina

recognizableclassroomhierarchicalstructure.

Asdiscussedabove,Ibelievethatthesepedagogicaltechniquesthatdisorient

thestudentallowforshiftsincognitiveandmuscularhabits.Bybecomingunanchored

fromasenseof“knowing,”fromafamiliarreferencepointthatmarksthepedagogical

spaceasatraditionallystructuredthroughhierarchy,onecanoccupyanewsubject

positionthatdoesnotautomaticallyfallintoprescribedmodesofbehavior.Thisisnot

toclaimthatthesepedagogicalandrehearsalspacesallowforsomeimaginedcomplete

freedomofthesubject—newprescribedmodesofbehaviorareofcoursegeneratedin

thisspace—rather,IaminterestedinthisspaceofdisorientationbecauseIbelievethe

pedagogicalimplications—inthiscase,agency,embodiedknowledgeandcollaborative

relationships—tobeofvaluewithinaneducationalsystemthatisincreasingly

commodified,positioningitsstudentsasconsumersofready‐madeknowledge,training

themtobeaspassiveasthebodyistraditionallyunderstoodtobetothedemandsof

cerebralcognition.

InTheRainbowofDesire,Boaldescribeshisconceptofthe“aestheticspace”

whichisaspaceofknowledgecreation:“Theaestheticspacepossessesgnoseological

properties,thatis,propertieswhichstimulateknowledgeanddiscovery,cognitionand

recognition:propertieswhichstimulatetheprocessoflearningbyexperience.Theatreis

aformofknowledge.”Boal’sTheatreoftheOppressedworkdependsonthesuccessful

creationofanaestheticspacethatopensuppossibilitiesofbeinganddoingthatwould

beforeclosedwithinatraditionalhierarchicalspaceofdirectorasleaderandactoras

follower.WhileTheMasterandMargaritawasnotaTOpiece—andIamcarefulnotto

conflateanypedagogicallytransformationaltheatrewithBoal’sspecificwork—Ifind

Boal’sconceptof“aestheticspace”usefulforitsfocusontheneedtocreateadifferent

kindofspacewithinwhichtransformativeprocessescanoccur.Ibelievethatthespace

ofdisorientationcanbeonesuchspace,andfindthe“pedagogyofdisorientation”a

usefullensthroughwhichtoframemyanalysisofclassroomencounterswithideasof

thebodyandselfwithinFrenchmimethatIexamineinthefollowingchapters.

Chapter2VentreandCerveau:

ContaminationAnxietiesinLateNineteenth‐CenturyFrenchMime

StudentlorehasitthatthebreakbetweenPhilippeGaulierandJacquesLecoq

hingedontheirdisagreementoverwhethertheperformer,whenimitatinganon‐

humanentitythroughmovement,ismeantto“become”thatentity.10Inthecaseofthe

elementofwater,forinstance,Lecoqaskedhisstudentsto“identify”withthewaterby

becomingit:“Jesuisfaceàlamer,jelaregarde,jelarespire.Monsouffleépousele

mouvementdesvagueset,progressivement,l’imageserenverseetjedeviensmoi‐même

lamer"[Iamfacingtowardsthesea,Iwatchit,Ibreatheit.Mybreathfollowsthe

movementofthewavesand,progressively,theimagereversesitselfandImyself

becomethesea](Corps53).11Gaulier,bycontrast,expresseshisviewonthematterin

nouncertainterms:“Youhavepleasuretopretendtobethewater.Youdonotbecome

thewater—ifyouthinkyouarewater,youdonotbelongintheclassroom,youbelong

inamentalhospital.”12Sofundamentalwasthisdisagreement,thestorygoes,that

GaulierleftÉcoleJacquesLecoqin1980andfoundedhisownschooltopracticehis

pedagogybasedaroundtheperformer’s“pleasureinpretending”tobethatwhichis

imitated.

10 Fromworkshopnotes,MasqueNeutre[NeutralMask]workshopatÉcolePhilippeGaulier,November2007.11 Unlessindicatedotherwise,alltranslationsinthischapteraremine.12FromunpublishedresearchnotestakenduringaMasqueNeutre[NeutralMask]workshopatÉcolePhilippeGaulierinNovember2007.

Aswithmanynarrativestoldbythosewithsecond‐handaccesstotheevents,

thisstoryistoosimplistic;Gaulier’sreasonsforestablishinghisownschoolcannotbe

ascribedtoasinglepedagogicalcontention.13Buttheissueof“identifyingwith”versus

“takingpleasureinpretendingtobethatwhichoneisimitating”pointstodifferences

withincontemporarymimetheoryoverwhattheperformer’sbody—inthelanguageof

mime,hergestures—revealaboutherinnerstate.14

Intheirownpedagogicalessays,manifestosandletters,themostfamousofthe

earlytwentieth‐centuryParisianmimepractitioners—agroupthatincludestheseminal

figureofJacquesCopeauandsubsequentteachers,practitionersandtheoristsreacting

withinoragainsthiswork,includingÉtienneDecroux,MarcelMarceauandLecoq—

differentiatetheirtechniquesfrommimetheoristsandpractitionersinnineteenth‐

centuryParisbyascribingtothelatteraconcernonlywithagesturalstylemeantto

replacewords.Thisissetagainstthepresumablytwentieth‐centuryconcernwithhow

interiorityinformsgesturalmovementasexpressionsofabstractfeelingsandconcepts

13Forexample,whenLecoqpublishedhispedagogicalbookLeCorpspoétique:unenseignementdelacréationthéâtralein1997[translatedbyDavidBradbyin2000asTheMovingBody:TeachingCreativeTheatre],heincludedacaveatabout“identification”:“Bienentendu,ilnes’agitpasdes’identifiercomplètement,cequiseraitgrave,maisdejoueràs’identifier"[Ofcourse,thisisnotaboutidentifyingcompletely,whichwouldbeserious,butaboutplayingatidentifying](Corps53),adescriptionthatresonateswiththeviewusuallyascribedtoGaulier.14ItisworthnotingthatPhilippeGaulierstronglydisavowsanyconnectiontothemimetradition;hisschoolisnotconsidereda“mimeschool”,althoughthemaskformsheteachesaredrawnfromJacquesLecoq’spedagogywhichwasheavilyinfluencedbyFrenchmime.TheconnectionsIdrawbetweentheFrenchmimetraditionandGaulier’spedagogyarethereforenottechnical,butideological.

ratherthantranslationsofwordsbymovement.15Aclosereadingofthelanguageused

inthewritingsoflatenineteenth‐centuryParisianmimeartistsandcritics,however,

revealsamorecomplexrelationshiptothequestionofhowtheyunderstoodgestural

expression.ThetextualexaminationthatIconductinthischapterilluminatesanxieties

overtheideologicalconstructofthe“natural”bodyasitwaspositionedagainstthe

constructsofsocializationandcivilizationinthelatenineteenthcenturyandidentified

withconceptsofgrossmateriality(suchasbodilyfluids)andtheorganic(theliving,

breathingbodysetagainstthecoldcorpse).Iarguethatlatenineteenth‐century

nostalgiaforandsimultaneousdisgustwitha“natural”Pierrotinfluencedthe

developmentoftechniquesofmimebasedonminimalistmovement.ByminimalistI

meansmallandcontainedbodilymovementsthatarediscernableonlyatclose

proximity,amechanizedperformancestylemarkedbyrapid,rigidmovements

associatedwiththeautomaton—positionedagainstthe“natural”bodyasidentified

withthefluidandorganic.

Myanalysisoftheemergenceofminimalismwithinmimepractice,throughclose

studyofthelanguageusedinthewritingsofpractitionersandlatenineteenth‐century

pantomimescripts,focusesonitssimultaneouslinkswith“natural”gesturesandwith

empty/mechanicalmovementvocabularies.Mimeartistsandcriticsoftheeraincluding

15SeeforexampleMiraFelner’sdiscussionofdenotativeversusconnotativemimetechniques,inwhichshelinksthetermstotheirlinguisticuses.Denotativemime,therefore,translateswordsintogestures;connotativemimeevokesmoregeneralideas.Felnersuggeststhatdenotativemimethereforereliesonpreexistentlanguage,andconnotativemimestrivestoemulate“gesturalexpressionpriortolanguage”(152‐4).

GeorgesWagueandPaulHugounetincreasinglyviewedemotionalexpressivity

conveyedviathephysicalbodyassuspect.Iconsiderthewaysinwhichthiscontested

siteoflatenineteenth‐centurymimepracticeperformativelytheorizedracialanxieties,

specificallyaroundtheideaofcontamination.TodothisIexaminethelanguageusedto

describebothgesturalstyleandPierrot’sphysicalbodyinlatenineteenth‐century

FrenchpantomimesinordertopositiontheperformedfigureofPierrotasasite

throughwhichaprocessofwhatIcall“contaminationanxieties”playedout.Iusethe

term“contaminationanxieties”heretorefertoanxietiesrelatedtomaintainingthe

purityofthewhitebody,whichIargueconnectstoracialanxietiesinthewakeof

colonialization.Forinstance,Pierrot’sskiniswhite,andmanypantomimesoftheera

suchasFernandDesnoyers’sLebrasnoir[Theblackarm](1856)andPaulMargueritte’s

Pierrotassassindesafemme[Pierrotassassinofhiswife](1888)linkthiswhitenesswith

bothpurityandsterilityandblacknesswithbêtismandtheoverflowingofcorporeality.

Thisdualitysuggests,Iargue,anxietiesovertheintrusionofracialdifferenceintothe

whitebodyintheeraofCharlesDarwin’s1872publicationofTheExpressionofthe

EmotionsinManandAnimals,whichconnectedhumanexpressivitytoacommon

descentfromanimals.Throughclosereadingofthelanguageusedinmimewritingsof

theera,Irelatethelatenineteenth‐centuryminimalistmimestyleinFrancetothese

anxietiesoverthreatstothepurityofthewhitebody.Contaminationanxietiesalsolink

toclass,aspantomimeartistsinthelatenineteenthcenturyincreasinglysoughtto

distancethemselvesfromtheworking‐classaudiencesthatfrequentedthemore

popularpantomimevenues,suchastheThéâtredesFunambules,earlierinthecentury,

asevidencedinSouvenirsdesFunambules(1859)byJules‐Francis‐FélixHusson

(popularlyknownasChampfleury).Additionally,minimalistmimestylesdescribedin

languagesuspiciousofemotionalityandthebodyinfavorofreasonandcerebral

activity,asinJulesLaforgue’spoetryaboutPierrot,alsopointstoanxietiesoverthe

genderedbody.

InthischapterIbeginbydiscussingmysources,methodologyandintervention

inexistingscholarlydiscussionsonnineteenth‐centuryFrenchmime.Ithenanalyzethe

latenineteenth‐centurymovetowardsaminimalistmimestyleinlightofearliermime

stylesthatemphasizedsetgestures,linkingthisshiftbothtoaconcurrentshrinkingof

theperformancespaceandtoashiftinhowthebodyisunderstoodtoconveyemotion,

whichIarguewastiedtoanunderstandingofPierrot’sbodyassplitbetweena

grotesque,corporeally‐overflowingbodyandanempty,mechanical,purebody—in

Hugounet’sterms,Pierrot‐ventre[PierrotStomach]andPierrot‐cerveau[PierrotBrain],

respectively.Ithenanalyzetheinfluenceofideasofsang‐froid[cold‐blooded]and

automatisme[automatism]onlatenineteenth‐centuryFrenchmimestyles.Iarguethat

thewaysinwhichthesequalitieswereunderstoodinnineteenth‐centuryFrance

revealedadualroleofthe“natural”asaqualitytobebothsoughtafter—assmall,rigid

mimetechniqueswerebelievedtomoreaccuratelyrevealinternalreality—and

feared—duetothelinkingofthe“natural”withanimalityandadisruptionofthe

automaton‐likebody.Ithenlookcloselyatlatenineteenth‐centuryFrenchpantomime

scripts,musicalscoresandpoetryaboutPierrottoanalyzethelanguageofemotional

expressionandthewaysinwhichthisshapedthebodyoftheperformedfigureof

Pierrot,suggestingthatthisfigurebecamebothastand‐inforamodernselfexpressed

throughsubtleand“natural”movements,andsimultaneouslyanemptybodywitha

plaster‐whitemaskforafacethatperformativelytheorizesthethreatenedsurvivalof

thewhiterace.Idigfurtherintothese“contaminationanxieties”throughananalysisof

pantomimesandthenineteenth‐centuryideaofbêtism,suggestingthattheseanxieties

accountinpartfortheapparentcontradictionbetweenminimalistmimetechniques

thatweremeanttomoreauthenticallyexpressemotionsandaperformedbody

distancedfromsignifiersoftheorganic,andconcludingthatlatenineteenth‐century

mimetechniquesrepositionedthequalitiesofbêtismasanexternalmaskandsang‐

froidasadistancedinnerself,inalignmentwithemergingideasoftheself,inwaysthat

allowedartistsbothtocelebrateandtodistancethemselvesfromtheanxiety‐provoking

categoryofthe“natural.”

Sources,methodologyandreviewofliterature

Inordertoinvestigatethisemergenceofminimalistgesturalstylesand

concurrent“contaminationanxieties”overthenaturalbody,Ianalyzethelanguage

usedinPierrotpantomimescriptsandopéra‐comique[comicopera]pantomimemusical

scoresfromtheeraalongsidelanguageusedinLaforgue’spoemsaboutPierrot.I

selectedtwelvepantomimescriptsandeightmusicalscoresthatwerepublishedand

performedbetween1856and1914,choosingthosethatwerewrittenbyormost

frequentlyreferencedinthewritingsofartistsandcritics(thesecategoriesoften

overlappedasinthecaseofWagueandChampfleury)includingHugounet,JulesJanin

andTristanRémy.IalsostudythecontemporaneouswritingsofFrenchpantomime

critics,playwrightsandteachersonPierrotperformers,performancespaces,audiences

andgesturalstyleaswellaspsychologicalpublicationsthatdealtwiththeemergingidea

ofautomatisme,includingtheRevuephilosophiquedelaFranceetdel’étranger

[PhilosophicalreviewinFranceandabroad],amonthlyjournalfoundedinParisin1876

whichinfluencedthedevelopmentofmodernpsychologyinFrance(Estingoy2008),and

PierreJanet’sL’automatismepsychologique:essaidepsychologieexpérimentalesurles

formesinférieuresdel’activitéhumaine[PsychologicalAutomatism:Evaluationof

experimentalpsychologyonthelowerformsofhumanactivity](1889).Ianalyzethese

sourcesforthewaystheydeploylanguagethatreferencesemotion,thebody’s

expressivity,andthenaturalversustheartificialormechanicalbody.Ilookspecifically

forlanguagethatascribedvaluetoparticularmodesofgestureandphysical

appearance,andlinkthesedescriptionstoconcurrentracialtheories.

InmyanalysisIdrawandexpandonprevioustheoristswhohavestudiedthe

figureofPierrotinnineteenth‐centuryFranceincludingRémy(1945,1954and1964),

RobertStorey(1978and1985)andLouisaE.Jones(1984).Ifindallthreeauthorsuseful

inpartfortheircarefulcompilationofoften‐obscurerecordsofnineteenth‐century

Pierrotperformances,reviewsandcriticalwritingswhichIdrawon.Iaddtotheir

archivalresearchbothbyanalyzingpreviously‐unexaminedpassagesincriticalwritings

includingChampfleury’sSouvenirsdesFunambules[MemoriesoftheFunambules]

(1859),Janin’sDeburau:histoireduthéâtreàquatresous[Deburau:four‐parthistoryof

thetheatre](1881)andHugounet’sMimesetpierrots:notesetdocumentsinéditspour

serviràl’histoiredelapantomime[Mimesandpierrots:notesandunpublished

documentstobeusedinthehistoryofthepantomime](1889),andbyanalyzing

previously‐unexaminedlanguageinpantomimescriptsthatrevealsgesturalstyle,

includingLéonHennique’sLesonged’unenuitd’hiver[Amidwinternight’sdream]

(1903),LéoRouanet’sLeventreetlecœurdePierrot[Thestomachandtheheartof

Pierrot](1888),CharlesAubert’sLesuicidedePierrot[ThesuicideofPierrot](1897),and

opéra‐comique[comicopera]musicalscoresincludingJeanHubert’smusicalversionof

EdmondRostand’sPierrotquipleureetPierrotquirit[PierrotwhocriesandPierrotwho

laughs](1899),16PaulVidal’sscoreforMargueritte’sPierrotassassindesafemme

[Pierrotassassinofhiswife](1888),andFrancisThomé’smusicalscoreforRaoulde

Najac’sBarbe‐Bleuette[Blue‐Beard](1890),noneofwhichareexaminedbyRémy,Jones

orStorey.Rémyiswell‐knowninthefieldasthemostprolificwriteronnineteenth‐and

earlytwentieth‐centuryFrenchmime,andIdrawonhisworksLesclowns[Theclowns]

(1945),Jean‐GaspardDeburau(1954)andGeorgesWague:lemimedelabelleépoque

[GeorgeWague:themimeofthebelleépoque](1964)bothforhisextensive

documentationofmimeandclowninthenineteenthcenturyandforhisanalysisofthe

16 JeanHubertisthepseudonymofAlexisRostand,EdmondRostand’suncle.

WhiteClown/Augustecircusduo.IuseRémy’sdifferentiationbetweentheWhite

Clown/AugustefiguresasanexampleoftheemergenceoftwotypesofPierrotsinthe

latenineteenthcentury:apure,automaton‐likefigureanda“natural”,baseone.

Storeyalsodocumentsnineteenth‐centuryPierrotperformancesinPierrotson

theStageofDesire:Nineteenth‐CenturyFrenchLiteraryArtistsandtheComic

PantomimeandPierrot:ACriticalHistoryofaMask,focusingonapsychoanalytic

readingofthefigureanddocumentingthelatenineteenth‐centuryshrinkingofthe

performancespaceforpantomime,influencedbythedesireoflatenineteenth‐century

mimeartistsandcriticstomakepantomimeaneliteartform.InFranceattheendof

thenineteenthcentury,asStoreydocuments,artistsandcriticstiedaminimalist

approachtomovementtodirectexpressionsofinnerthoughtsandemotions.17Inan

articletitled“Commentonmonteunepantomime”[Howtomountapantomime]that

appearedalongsidehisplayPierrotconfesseur[Pierrotconfessor](1892)inthe

compilationLessoiréesFunambulesques[Funambulesque/acrobaticevenings],Félix

Galipauxwrote:

Today…thestudyofcharacter,offeelings—psychology,inaword—is

thething…Andthemimecertainofpleasingthepublicistheonewhose

17Thisminimalistapproachinfluencedthedevelopmentoftwentieth‐centuryphysicaltheatretraining:afterabandoningÉmileJaques‐Dalcroze’ssystemofeurhythmicsforplacingmusicbeforemovementandbeingtoorigidinitsuniformexercises,CopeauturnedtoGeorgesHébert’ssystemof“naturalgymnastics”whichfocusedoneconomyofmovement,aphilosophythatLecoqwaslatertoadopt.IdiscussCopeauandLecoq’smimetechniquesinmoredetailinChapter3.

meansaresimpleandvaried,hisgesturesrestrained,hardlyperceptible,

butextraordinarilysuggestive!(104,qtd.inStorey,Desire288)

GalipauxspokeformanyofhispeersintheCercleFunambulesque,agroupfoundedin

Paristhespringof1888tore‐inventpantomimeinresponsetoadeclineofgeneral

interestintheformthathadoccurredafterJean‐GaspardDeburau’sdeathin1946.

DeburauhadmadetheroleofPierrotfamousinthefirsthalfofthenineteenthcentury

atthepopularParisianvenuetheThéâtredesFunambules;mimeartistswhotookover

hisroleafterhisdeath,includinghissonCharlesDeburau—popularlyknownasDeburau

fils[sonofDeburau]—andPaulLegrandperformedinsmallervenuesforsmaller

audiences,andcriticsincludingChampfleuryandHugounetexpressedadesireto

elevatepantomimefromapopulisttoaneliteartform.18TheCerclewascomprisedof

seventy‐fivewriters,artists,actors,journalistsandcomposers,headedbyministry

officialandfuturetheatremanagerFélixLarcher.MembersincludedMargueritte,Najac,

Champfleury,LegrandandJulesLemaître.Thepublicly‐announcedgoalsoftheCercle

Funambulesqueincludedtherevivalofthe“classical”pantomimeofDeburau;the

presentationofpiecesrecoveredfromthecommediatradition;andtheproductionof

newworksofmodernpantomimeandplayletsinspiredbytheoldcommedia.

IexpandonStorey’sobservationsabouttheshrinkingoftheperformancespace

andgesturalstylebyexaminingthewaysinwhichpantomimeartiststhemselves

describegestureinthepantomimescriptsthatIselectedasoutlinedabove,looking

18 Foreaseofidentification,fortheremainderofthechapterIwilluse“Deburau”torefertoJean‐GaspardDeburau,and“Deburaufils”torefertohissonCharlesDeburau.

closelyatlanguagethatrevealsgesturalstyle.Thisincludes,forinstance,languagethat

canbereadasinstructionsfortheperformer’sphysicalperformance,aswellas

languagethatrevealswhatthebodymighthavelookedlike—orhowtheauthor

intendedittoappear—whileperforming.Ialsoexaminethewritingsofcriticsoftheera

suchasHugounet,Janin,ChampfleuryandWagueforhowtheirlanguageexpresses

valueabouttheatricalspace,theatricalbodies(performers’andspectators’)and

emotionalexpression.Itietheconcernwithdirectlyrepresentinginternalemotionsto

theemergingdisciplineofpsychologyinFranceandthetheoryofautomatisme,which

createdanewlevelofconsciousness—thesubconscious—thattheoristsunderstoodas

therepositoryofnon‐intentional,andthereforemoretruthful,humanimpulses.

InSadClownsandPalePierrots:LiteratureandthePopularComicArtsin19th‐

CenturyFrance(1984),JonesexaminesFrenchgrotesqueiconographythroughoutthe

nineteenthcenturyandanalyzesitinrelationtothemimepracticesoftheera.Ifind

particularlyinterestingherworkontheiconographyofthelatterpartofthecentury,

whichshearguesreveals“culturaltensionsbetweennaturalenergies—thosewhich

traditionallyprovidetheexuberanceofcarnivalhumor—andthematerialismofan

industrialagewhichfearedanimality”(121).IcomplicateJones’sreadingofthe

natural/materialistbinarybysuggestingthatlatenineteenth‐centuryattitudestoward

mimewereinflectedbyasimultaneousdesireanddisgustwhichbothinformedthe

minimaliststyleattributedtothepurePierrot.InthefollowingchaptersIfurtherthese

analysesbydrawingalinkbetweenthislatenineteenth‐centurydesire/disgustinfluence

onmimestylesandtwentieth‐centuryconceptionsofthemimebody—neutral,natural

andmechanical—andtheideaofthe“trueself”whichinformedthedevelopmentof

contemporaryFrenchmimetraining.

Pierrot‐cerveau,Pierrot‐ventre

Inhis1889historicalexplorationMimesetpierrots:notesetdocumentsinédits

pourserviràl'histoiredelapantomime[Mimesandpierrots:notesandunpublished

documentstobeusedinthehistoryofthepantomime],Hugounetdescribesamid‐

centurysplitofPierrotintoPierrot‐cerveau[Pierrot‐brain]andPierrot‐ventre[Pierrot‐

stomach]usingracializedterminology:“Pierrotsera‐t‐ilblanc,sera‐t‐ilnoir?Ventreou

cerveau?”[WillPierrotbewhite,orwillhebeblack?Stomachorbrain?](206).

HugounetheredividesPierrotbothraciallyandintobodypartsrepresenting,

respectively,vulgarappetiteandelevatedreason—animplieddivisionbetweenbody

andmind.Thisisatellingdivisionduringatimewhenmimeartistsadvocatedagestural

stylebasedonminimalistmovementandcenteredaroundthesubtleexpressivityofthe

face,thecerveausectionofthebody.Thesewordsappearinasectiononlate‐century

PierrotperformersincludingKalpestri;Hugounetspendsseveralpagesexpressinghis

disapprovalofKalpestri’sperformancestyle,whichheviewedasbaseandgrotesque,

over‐exaggeratingmovementsincontrasttomorerefinedmimeartists:"soulignant

sansnécessitécequeCharleseûtindiquéd'uncoupd'oeil,cequeGaspardeûtfait

comprendred'unsourire"[stressingunnecessarilythatwhichCharleshadindicatedwith

aglance,thatwhichGaspardhadconveyedwithasmile](179).Hugounethere

expressesthecommonlatenineteenth‐centuryvaluingofminimalistgesturesover

heightenedphysicality,comparingKalpestritoDeburauandDeburaufils.While

Deburaufils’smimestylehadbeeninfluencedbythesubtleemotionalexpressivityof

PaulLegrandandthereforeprefiguredthelatenineteenth‐centuryemphasisongestural

minimalism,Deburau’searlynineteenth‐centurymimestylewasmarkedbyheightened

poseswithinthelargetheatricalspaceoftheThéâtredesFunambules;hethereforewas

unlikelytohaverepresentedanemotionthroughasmilealone.Hugounet’sdescription

ofhiminthepassageaboveisnostalgic,revealingavalueplaceduponsubtletyof

gesturalstyleinthelatenineteenth‐centuryandapplyingitretroactivelytoahighly‐

regardedearly‐centuryperformer.

HugounetalsoidentifiesDeburaufils’sbodywiththatofapuppet:“…le

fantochetraduitparCharlesDeburauavaitlacoliqueplaisante,gaie;celuideKalpestri

étaitnaturaliste,sale”[…thepuppetinterpretationofPierrotbyCharlesDeburauhada

pleasantcolic;thatofKalpestriwasnaturalist,dirty](181).Hereacleardivisioncanbe

seenbetweenthesupposedpurityofthemind(cerveau)andthecontaminationofthe

body(ventre),asHugounetremovesDeburaufils’sfromtherealmofthe“natural”,the

fallibleand“dirty”corporealbody,duetohispuppet‐likemovements.Associationsof

mimeperformers’bodieswithautomataandpuppetswerecommoninlatenineteenth‐

centuryFrance,apopularitythatIpositionalongsidetheworksofHeinrichvonKleist

(1810)andEdwardGordonCraig(1908)ontheperformingmarionette,aswellasthe

emergenceofautomatismeinFrenchpsychology.19

Hugounet’sconcernwiththepurityofthemime’sperformingbodyandthe

correspondingsubtlegesturalstyleisechoedbylatenineteenth‐centurypantomime

artistWague,whowishedtomodernizemimepracticebypositioningminimalgesture

astheultimatecommunicationofinteriorreality.Asigninhisstudiostatedinno

uncertainterms:“LEMINIMUMDEGESTES/CORRESPONDAUMAXIMUM

D'EXPRESSION”[minimumgestures/correspondtomaximumexpression](qtd.inRémy,

Wague27).Hedefined“modern”pantomimeagainstitsearlier“classical”formby

attributingtothelatteranexclusivefocusongestureassilentlanguage(Rémy,Wague

39).Earlynineteenth‐centuryFrenchmimehadusedgestureasaformofsignlanguage;

scriptswerewrittenasspokenlanguagethattheperformerwouldthentranslateinto

gestural“speech”.Thiswasinpartbecausemuchearlynineteenth‐centurypantomime

developedinthewakeofstaterestrictionsonspokenlanguage(Jones16).These“sign

language”mimetechniquesexistedalongsidegesturaltechniquesofstrikingsetposes

toconveyarecognizablepassiondevelopedbyFrançoisDelsarteinthemid‐nineteenth

century,techniqueshedevelopedwithintheoriesofstagegesturebroughttothefore

byDiderot,whichdrewaone‐to‐onecorrelationbetweenouterexpressionandinner

feeling.Wague’sdesiretochangethesetechniquesintoamore“modern”formreflects

acommontendencytoattribute“artificiality”toearlieractingstyles.Thistendency

19 Iexamineautomatismeingreaterdetaillaterinthischapter,andanalyzetheinfluencesofKleistandCraigonlatenineteenth‐andearlytwentieth‐centuryFrenchmimeinChapter3.

persistsintothiscentury;mimetechniquesoftheturnofthecenturywereregardedas

emotionally“false”whenpantomimeswererevivedinthefirstdecadesofthetwentieth

century,andteacherssuchasCopeautookonthetaskofreinventingtheforminamore

“natural”style.

Earlytomidnineteenth‐centurymimeartistshadunderstoodtheperformance

vocabularyofDelsartianpose‐inflectedmimeasrenderingemotionslegibletothe

audiencethroughasetsystemofgestures.Inthelatterpartofthecenturyashift

occurredinFrancetowardsconceptionsofactingtechniquebasedonmovement

markedbytemporalflow,aspursuedbyConstantinStanislavski,fromtheearlier

conceptionofstaticgesturesandfacialexpressionsastechniquesdeployedbythe

skilledactorwhichrepresentedthecharacter’sinteriorcondition.Thelatterisindexed

byDenisDiderot’sdescriptionofDavidGarrick’simpressivesequenceoffacial

expressionsinLeparadoxesurlecomédien[Theparadoxoftheactor](published

posthumouslyin1830).InFrançoisDelsarte:ACodificationofNineteenth‐CenturyActing

(1999)GeorgeTaylordescribeshowthistechniqueofsetexpressiveposeswastakenup

indetailbyDelsarteinthemid‐nineteenthcentury(70).Delsarte’scloseobservationsof

“natural”gesturescomparedwiththeconventionsofthestagewasbasedontheLawof

Correspondencewhichpositedthebodyasareflectionofthesoul.Bytheendofthe

century,codifiedsystemsofgesturessuchasthatofDelsartewereregardedbyFrench

theatrepractitionersasquaintandout‐of‐date(72).Thiscouldbeunderstoodasone

reasonforthedeclineinthepopularityofpantomimeandofPierrotafterDeburau’s

deathin1846,asituationthattheCerclewasfoundedinparttoaddress.Frenchmime

practitionersofthelatenineteenthcenturywishedtoreinventthegesturalsystemof

mimeinlinewiththeincreasingemphasiswithinactingtheoryontemporalflow,orthe

movementsofthoughtthatpractitionersincreasinglyunderstoodasdefiningemotion.

Theshiftcanbediscernedinlanguageusedinbypractitionersandcriticsto

describethemimeperformer’semotionalexpressivity.Oneofthemembersofthe

Cercle,PaulLegrand,wasawell‐knownmidnineteenth‐centuryPierrotperformerwho,

despiteusingsetgestures,waswidelyacclaimedforhisabilitytoshowarangeof

emotionsonstage.Rémy’shighpraiseforhimcenteredonthisemotionalexpressivity:

“PaulLegrandaexprimésessentiments”[PaulLegrandexpressedhisfeelings](Deburau

176‐7).FélixandEugèneLarcher—Legrand’seditorsandlaterco‐foundersoftheCercle

Funambulesque—giveanaccountofLegrand’sperformanceasPierrotinTheButterfly

(1887)thatforegroundsemotionalexpressivity:asPierrotcourtsarose,hisface

“expresses”ecstasy,anda“tear”revealsthedepthofhisgrief(Pantomimes,qtd.in

Jones162‐3).TheemphasisonLegrand’sfaceandonsubtleexpressionsofemotion(a

singletear)isechoedinthelanguageusedinpantomimescriptsofthelatenineteenth

andearlytwentiethcenturies,whichIexaminelaterinthischapter,toindicate

emotionalgesturestoperformers.Theseindicatorsofemotionalexpressivitypointtoa

shrinkingofthegesturalstyleofmimeandanincreasedfocusonsubtleexpressionsof

thought.

Amimestylebasedonsmallgesturesandaconcurrentincreasedemphasison

expressingthoughtandsubtleemotionsrepresentedoneoutcomeoftheshifting

understandingofwhatconstituted“natural”performanceandtheresultingdeclinein

popularityofthegesturalmimestylebasedonlargesetposes.Thisstyledevelopedin

thelatenineteenthcenturywithinincreasinglyeliteandexclusivetheatres.Storey

documentshowPierrotperformersinthe1880sand1890sperformedinincreasingly

smallvenuesforincreasinglyselectaudiences(Desire290).Performancessponsoredby

theCerclewereoftenlimitedtothreeperformersinsideasalon.Asthiseliteinterestin

Pierrotdeveloped,sotoodidamimetechniquebasedonminimalistmovement,as

criticsincreasinglyregardedtheearliermimestylebasedonsetposesasartificial.Najac

performedseveralpantomimesattheCirqueMolier,apopularmimevenueinParis,

andblamedtheirfailureonthesizeoftheaudiencewhocouldnotperceivehissubtle

gestures(Jones167).SubtletyofgesturehadbeenpraisedasfarbackasDeburau;while

hisgesturalstyle,however,hadlikelybeenfarmoreexaggeratedthanhiscritics’praise

mightsuggest,thesubtletiesattributedtoNajacandotherlate‐centuryPierrotswere

likelyinformedbythesmallsizeoftheperformingspace—aspacethatcouldbemore

easilycontrolled,couldexcludeunpredictableorchaoticelements.20Thiscarefulcontrol

20InSouvenirsdesFunambules[MemoriesoftheFunambules]Champfleurywritesdisparaginglyoftheworking‐classaudiencesintheThéâtredesFunambules,attributingbasequalitiestothemusingcomparisonstonatureandawhiteaspurity/blackasfilthduality:“Quandlesvoyousapplaudissentavecleursgrossesmains,noirescommel’ailed’uncorbeau,crevasséescommeunravinetsolidescommedelacornedebœuf,çasonnepirequ’untambour”[Whenthethugsapplaudwiththeirbighands,blacklikewithwingsofaraven,crackedlikearavineandstrongasanoxhorn,itsoundsworsethanadrum](181).

oftheinteriorofthetheatricalspaceparallelsasimilarobsessionwithcontrollingthe

interiorofthebodythatcanbediscernedinthedescriptionsofPierrotsandothermime

performersbybothcriticsandplaywrights,whichdescribetheirbodiesasemptyand

cold.21Thisemptinessandcoldnesscouldbeunderstoodasaformofsterility,and

positionstheidealizedPierrotbodyasamechanicalone,setagainsta“natural”bodyof

warmth,corporealityandfecundity.InthenextsectionItracetheemergenceof

minimalistmimegestureswhich,Iargue,weretiedtothisidealizationofamechanical

Pierrotbodyalongside,inaseemingly‐contradictoryduality,apushtowards“natural”

gesturesthatrevealedthoughtsandsubtleemotions;Ithentakeacloserlookat

languagerevealingcontaminationanxietiesthatIargueunderliethisduality.

Sang‐froidandautomatismeinlatenineteenth‐centuryFrenchmime

InFranceattheendofthenineteenthcenturyFrenchmimepractitioners

increasinglylinkedaminimalistapproachtomovementtodirectexpressionsofinner

thoughtsandemotions.ThiswasincontrasttoDeburau’searlynineteenth‐centurystyle

ofmimesautante[leapingmime],basedonstrikingsetposes.AfterDeburau’sdeathin

1846,Deburaufilstookoverhisfather’sroleofPierrot,investingitwithhisown

performancestyle:elegant,graceful,aprototypeofwhatHugounetlatertermed

Pierrot‐cerveau.MimecriticJanin’spraisein1881ofDeburaufilssignificantlyincluded

21 See,forexample,thedescriptionofPierrot’sfaceas“uneinondationglacée"[anicyflood](Hennique6);ofPierrot’smovementsas“glacialetcalme"[glacialandcalm]and“froid”[cold](Laforgue2,7);ofhisbodyasfreezing:“Ilatrèsfroid"[Heisverycold](Beissier6).

thetermsang‐froid[cold‐blooded]:“Deburautrouvasonsang‐froid…quifaitsagrande

supériorité"[Deburaufoundhissang‐froid…whichgavehimhissuperiority](69).In

Janin’susage,sang‐froiddescribedthatqualityofflexibleactingabilitypraisedby

Diderot,aqualityheldbytheperformerwhocouldseamlesslyshiftfromoneheld

attitudetothenext.JaninconnectedDeburaufils’srenownedsang‐froidtohisrobust

emotionalpower;themime’sabilitytotransitionquicklybetweenfixedattitudeswas

understood,followingDiderot,asastrengththatallowedperformativeflexibilityrather

thanacapitulationtothewhimsofmomentarypassions:“C’estausang‐froidà

tempérerledéliredel’enthousiasme”[Itiswithsang‐froidthatonetempersthe

deliriumofenthusiasm](Diderot,Paradoxe36).Writingin1881aboutmimeartistsfrom

earlierinthecentury,Janin’suseofsang‐froidasatermofpraiseresonatedwitha

valuingofsang‐froidasimpassivitythatbegantogaintractionintheFrenchmimeworld

fromthemidnineteenthcentury.Practitionerslaudedtheabilityoftheartisttobeun‐

movedandun‐movable(asopposedtosensibilitéwhichdenotedanabilitytobe

affectedormovedbyfeelings)asallowingtheartisttooccupyaprivilegedvantagepoint

ofobjectivevision.InalettertoLouiseColetwrittenin1852,GustaveFlaubert

referencesthisideaofsang‐froidwhenhewritesthattheworkofagreatartististo

makeone“awareofasecretimpassivenessineveryatomandateveryangleofvision;

theeffectonthespectatorshouldbeakindofastonishment”(qtd.inNichols11,

emphasisadded).Flaubert’suseof“secret”pointstoanemphasisontheprivate

sphere,asenseoftheselfasdividedbetweenaprivate,“authentic”selfandapublic

performedself.Thisemphasisledtoanincreasingparing‐downofPierrot’saccessibility

fromapublicfigureintimatelytiedtolepeuple(asDeburau’sPierrot,performingtothe

largecrowdsattheFunambules,hadbeenviewed)toasolitaryfigure,misunderstood

bythemassofhumanity,speakingtothestateoftheisolatedartist.Pierrot’s

performingspaceaccordinglyshrankfromtheopenairoftheBoulevardatthestartof

thenineteenthcenturytotheenclosedyetstillpublicly‐accessibleFunambulesto,inthe

lasthalfofthecentury,thetinysalontheatrethatcouldonlyaccommodateasmall

numberofspectators.

Latenineteenth‐centuryFrenchpantomimetextsrevealacorrespondingshiftin

gesturalstylefromthemimesautante[leapingmime]ofDeburautoamoresubtlestyle

markedbytinymovementsthatwouldonlybelegibleinasmallperformancespace.

Hennique,inhis1903Lesonged’unenuitd’hiver[Amidwinternight’sdream],describes

minutefacialexpressionsofPierrot:“l’œilaiguisé,lalèvreméchante”[eyesharp,lip

nasty](3).ThephysicalgesturethatthePierrotperformerwouldhaveusedtodenotea

sharpeyeoranasty(presumablycurled)lipwouldnothavebeenlegiblefromthestage

oftheFunambules;thesmallerperformancespacesoftheselate‐centurypantomimes

allowedforsuchminutegestures.Similarly,Colombine’seyesbecomeafocalpointto

representhermoodinPartIIIofFernandBeissier’sLaLune[TheMoon](1890):“les

yeuxdeColombinesontmoinssévèresquetoutàl’heure”[Colombine’seyesareless

severethanbefore](2).IntheopeningsectionofLeSuicidedePierrot[TheSuicideof

Pierrot](1897)Aubertsetsthepieceina“salonmodeste”followedbyapassage

describingsubtleemotionalgesturesforPierrot:“Peuàpeuils’attendrit,sonvisage

s’allonge,sestraitsdeviennentgrimaçants;ilpleure.Soudainunerésolutionéclatedans

sesyeux”[Littlebylittlehesoftens,hisfacelengthens,hisfeaturesbecomegrimaces;

hecries.Suddenlyacleardecisionshowsinhiseyes](3‐4).Thelatenineteenth‐century

focusonminimalistgesturalstyleisrevealedinthisincreasingfocusonthefaceinthese

pantomimes:thefaceelongating,lipscurling,eyesrevealingemotionorideas.

Oneoftheeffectsofshrinkingthegesturalmimestylewasauniversalizingone:

byappearingtodistancethemselvesfromthepassionsthattheirbodiesrepresented,

mimeperformersintheminimaliststyleembodiedtheobjective,“neutral”observer

unencumberedbytheidiosyncrasiesthatmightreveal(racial,class,gendered)

difference.Theimplicationsofthisembodiedpracticecorrespondtolanguageusedto

describegesture;XavierAubryetintheCercleprologueof1888describesgesturein

universalizingterms:“[SinceGesture],unlikediscourse,cannotbeempty,andsinceit

extendsitsdomainsoverallhumanity,GestureistheeternalWordofallhumanity”

(qtd.inJones168).Thebeliefthatgestureaccessedacoreofcommonhumanity,

bypassingtheissuesofspokenlanguagecomprehension,wasanextensionofthe

eighteenth‐centurytenet,whichnineteenth‐centuryFrenchactingtheoryhadinherited,

thatallhumanbeingsarebornwithapre‐existingnaturalmorality.Thistenetalso

includedthenotionof“humannature”whichrequiredreasontoalignactionswith

naturalmorality;thosethatwerecapableofthisthereforebehavedmore“naturally.”

Whilemimegesturaltechniquesinearlynineteenth‐centuryFrancefocusedon

conveyingliteralmeaningduetotherestrictiononspokenlanguageintheboulevard

theatres,asmimebecameincreasinglybourgeoisinthelatenineteenthcentury,focus

turnedtoquestionsofauthenticityofemotionalexpression.

Thisfiguringofthemimeasatransparentmediumforemotioncanbelinkedto

anideaofuniversalitythatJulesLemaîtreascribedtoPierrotin1890.Accordingto

Lemaître,Pierrot’sgesturesconveyedaninternalrealitythat,whenviewedbythe

audience,wouldevokeuniversaltruths.Lemaîtrewroteofanidealpantomimictheatre

inwhich

…thesesilentspectacleswouldworktheirmagicbyawakeningwithinus

amassofmemories,impressionsanddreams…thesmallestgestureof

Pierrotwouldbesuddenlycombined,inourmemories,withaboutsixor

sevengreatpoets.(Impressionsdeuxième354,qtd.inJones165)

ThislinksPierrot’sgesturesnotonlytogeneralhumanexperience(“memories,

impressionsanddreams”)buttotheartisticelite(“greatpoets”),representingtwo

levelsoftheuniversal.InanarticlewrittenaboutMargueritte’s1888pantomimePierrot

assassindesafemme[Pierrotassassinofhiswife](apieceIanalyzeingreaterdetail

laterinthischapter),Lemaîtreexpandsontheartisticlevelofuniversality,linkingthe

physicalappearanceofPierrot’sfacetothetraditionofclassicalmasks:

…cettetêtesimplifiée,artificielle,sanscheveux,sansmodelé,cettelune

oblongueoùTon[sic]nevoitsurlablancheurplatedufondquelestrous

desyeuxetdesnarinesetlalignedessourcilsetdelabouche,cettetête

esttrèsréellementtragique...Aufait,ellel'estprécisémentdelamême

façonquecesautrestêtesartificielles,cesmasquesdontsecouvraient

lesacteurspourjouerlesdramesd'EschyleetdeSophocleetqui,àcoup

sûr,nedonnaientnulleenviederireauxGrecsingénieux.

[…thissimplifiedhead,artificial,withouthair,withoutmodeling,this

oblongmoonwhereoneseesnothingontheflatwhitenessbuttheholes

oftheeyesandnostrilsandthelineoftheeyebrowsandmouth,this

headistrulytragic…Infact,itistragicinpreciselythesamemanneras

otherartificialheads,themasksworntocovertheactorswhoperformed

thedramasofAeschylusandSophoclesandwhocertainlygavethe

ingeniousGreeksnodesiretolaugh.](Impressionstroisième351,

emphasisadded)

Lemaître’stextbothrevealsassumptionsabouttheuniversalityofthemaskform(‘’itis

tragicinpreciselythesamemanner…”)anddescribesPierrot’sfaceasalifelessmask

markedbywhitenessbrokenonlybythedark,emptyholesoftheeyesandthenostrils.

ThisimageevokestheacrobaticHanlon‐Leebrothers(Figure1)whoperformedPierrot

pantomimesinthe1870sand1880susingamimestylebasedonfreneticmovement,a

stylethatcomplicatedthemeaningofsang‐froid,retainingtheideaofuniversalitybut

alteringwhatgesture“revealed”abouthumannatureandthewaysinwhichthehuman

body’sinteriorwasconceptualized.WhentheacrobaticHanlon‐Leebrothersappeared

inthe1870swiththeirviolent,freneticacrobatics,thefigureofPierrotinpantomimes

wasincreasinglythatofacold‐bloodedmurderer,andsang‐froidhadtakenonasinister

quality,asenseofexposingtheemptinessbehindthemask.

Figure1:TheHanlon‐Lees22

Inasectiontitled“LaPantomime”inhisessayLenaturalismeauthéâtre

[Naturalisminthetheatre]ÉmileZolapraisedtheHanlon‐Leesfortheircoldness:

“L'observationcruelle,l'analyseférocedecesgrimaciersquimettentànud'ungesteou

d'unclind'oeiltoutelabêtehumaine”[Thecruelobservation,thefierceanalysisof

thesegrimacingmenwhoexposewithagestureorwithawinkallofthehumanbeast]

(34).Helinkedtheirviolentpantomimetechniquestolargerphilosophicalthemesofthe

emptinessofhumanexistence:“Aufond,c'estlanégationdetout,c'estlenéant 22 TheHanlonLeebrothersinLeVoyageenSuisse[TheVoyageinSwitzerland].PhotoattributedtoNadar,c.1878‐1879.

humain”[Atthebottomisthenegationofall,ishumannothingness](36).D.L.Murray

concurred,describingthebrothersas“thecynicphilosophersofthefin‐de‐siècle,the

unconsciousprophetsofthecrashofcivilization”(qtd.inTowsen175).Criticsexplicitly

connectedtheperformancestyleoftheHanlon‐Leestomechanism,describingtheir

movementsaspreciseandregulated.RolandAuguetsummarizesthewideconsensuson

theirgesturalstylewhenhewrites:

Theircomiceffectsweredrawnprimarilyfromautomatism,fromthe

productionofgesturesinserieswhoseperfectlinking,leadingto

unexpectedconvulsions,inducedlaughter.Theygavetothehumanbody

thevirtuesofthemachine.(51,qtd.inJones154)

Thisreferenceto“automatism”issignificant,andpointstoalinkbetween

concurrentideasinFrenchpsychologyandtheemptinessbehindthemaskthatmarked

theappearanceanddescriptionsoftheHanlon‐Lees.Latenineteenth‐centuryFrench

mimeartistswereincreasingobsessedwiththeautomaton,themarionette,and

tableauxvivants.ThisfascinationinthemimeworldcoincidedwithFrenchpsychology

theorists’interestintheideaofautomatisme.Inthelatterpartofthenineteenth

centurythefieldofFrenchpsychologywascomprisedofacombinationofphilosophy,

spiritualismandphysiology,withtheoristsinthelattercampattemptingtotietogether

mentalandphysiologicalphenomena.In1885ThéoduleRibot,aphilosopher,and

CharlesRichet,aphysiologist,foundedtheSociétédePsychologiePhysiologiqueinParis

withtheintentionoffurtheringthestudyofstatessuchashypnosis,hysteriaand

catalepsy,includingtheautomaticmovementsthataccompanythesestates,classedas

automatisme.Ribot,Richetandmanyoftheircontemporariesadvocatedanideaof

automatismethatpositioneditasentirelymechanical,operatingwithout

consciousness;theydisseminatedmanyoftheseideasthroughthemonthlyjournal

RevuephilosophiquedelaFranceetdel’étranger[PhilosophicalreviewinFranceand

abroad].Thisideaofautomatichumanactionssuchasconvulsions—actionsthatthe

Hanlon‐Leesincorporatedintotheirmimestyle—performedwithoutconsciousness

resonateswiththeempty‐eyedappearanceoftheHanlon‐Lees,andtheideathatthe

maskoftheirfaceshidaninneremptiness(lackofconsciousness).

However,thisideaofmovementperformedintheabsenceofconsciousnesswas

challengedin1889whenPierreJanet,ayoungpsychologicalprofessorwhowasa

memberoftherecently‐formedsociety,publishedhisthesisL’Automatisme

Psychologique:Essaidepsychologieexpérimentalesurleformesinférieuresdel’activité

humaine[PsychologicalAutomatism:Evaluationofexperimentalpsychologyonthe

lowerformsofhumanactivity].InthisthesisJanetreworkstheprevalenttheoryof

automatismethatdefineditasanentirelymechanicalact,arguingthatadegreeof

consciousnessisalwaysinvolved.Janetbeginsbychallengingthisideaofautomatisme

as“purementmécaniqueetabsolumentsansconscience”[purelymechanicaland

absolutelywithoutconscience](2),arguingthatthisisbasedonamisunderstandingof

thefullrangeofhumanconsciousnesswhichcanincludeautomaticelements:

Cetteinterprétationaétél’originedeconfusionsnombreuses,et

beaucoupdephilosophesserefusentàreconnaîtredansl’esprithumain

unautomatisme,quiestcependantréeletsanslequelbeaucoupde

phénomènessontinexplicables…Nouscroyonsquel’onpeutadmettre

simultanémentetl’automatismeetlaconscience…

[Thisinterpretationoriginatedoutofseveralconfusednotions,andmany

philosophersrefusetorecognizeanautomatisminthehumanspirit,

whichishoweverrealandwithoutwhichmanyphenomenaare

inexplicable...Webelievethatit’spossibletorecognizesimultaneously

bothautomatismandconsciousness…](2)

Janetproposesadifferentlevelofconsciousness,thesubconscious,thatgoverns

automaticactions.Heseparatesthesubconsciousfromthepartoftheconsciousness

thatmaintainsthepersona,thesenseofselfor“l’idéedumoi”(39).Todothis,he

redefines“moi”fromatranscendentbeingtoacollectionofideas,memoriesandhabits

thattogetherconstituteasenseofself:

L’idéedumoi,eneffet,estunphénomènepsychologiquefortcompliqué

quicomprendlessouvenirsdesactionspassées,lanotiondenotre

situation,denospouvoirs,denotrecorps,denotrenommême,qui,

réunissanttoutescesidéeséparses,joueungrandrôledansla

connaissancedelapersonnalité.

[Theideaofme,ineffect,isacomplexpsychologicalphenomenonwhich

ismadeupofmemoriesofpastactions,theideaofoursituation,ofour

power,ofourbody,evenofourname,which,bringingtogetherallof

thesedisparateideas,playsalargeroleintheknowledgeofour

personality.](39)

WhatissignificanthereaboutJanet’stheoriesisbothhisreworkingoftheselfand

consciousnesswhichprefiguredFreudandanearlytwentieth‐centuryinterestinthe

“authentic”selfthatliesbelowconsciousness,themesthatItakeupinChapter4.The

widertheoriesofautomatismethathearguedagainst,whichidentifiedthehumanwith

themechanical,resonatewithpracticesinlatenineteenth‐centuryFrenchmimethat

positionthebodyasmechanical,fleshasrigid,andsang‐froidasinnercoldness.

Pantomimesoftheeraincreasinglyreferencedstatues,automataandpuppets,

andthemovementstylesofmimesbecamesmaller,morerapidand“mechanical”or

stiff.InPierrotsceptique[Pierrotskeptic](1881)byHenniqueandJ.K.Huynsman,

Colombineiscomparedtoastatue:“Ellesetientrigide,sansregard,commeunestatue"

[Shestandsrigidly,withoutseeing,likeastatue](23).EugèneSue’sheroineBasquinein

hispantomimeMartinoulesmisèresdesenfantstrouvés[Martinorthemiseryofthe

foundchildren](1851)explainshowonebecome“unefilledemarbre”[amarblegirl]:

borrowingmultipleartificialroleshasleftherincapableoffeeling,withonly“that

leproussouloneacquiresinevitablyfrombeingasaltimbanque[acrobat],avagabond,a

thief,astreetsingeroranextraonstageforsixsous.”Shehasbecome“alivingmarble,

worsethanmarble,formarblecannotlaugh”(qtd.inJones138).InJones’sexamination

oflatenineteenth‐centurygrotesqueiconography,shedocumentshowthecircusclown

withahugetriangularhead(oftenaccompaniedbyasinistersmile)emergesforthefirst

timeinpostersandcircuscostuming.Pierrot’sseveredheadappearswithincreasing

frequencyingrotesqueiconography,andhispantomimecostumeincludesawhite

headbandtoextendthesizeofhisforehead.Jonesarguesthatlargeforeheadswerea

featureoftheRomanticeraaswell,butthentheywereassociatedwithrichnessof

intellect,withinteriormultipleworlds.Bythelatenineteenthcentury,however,the

largeheadhadbecometheseatof“cerebraleroticism”,associatedwithbothpower

andillness—onceagainbodilyimageryisextendedintolargersocialrealms,foritwas

duringthistimethatPaulVerlainedescribedParisasanenlargedheadtoinsistonits

overgrownimportance,andcerebralmedicalterminologybecomesincreasingly

associatedwiththemechanical,head‐enlargedclown.Jonesdrawsaconnection

betweenthemechanicalmovementsofclownsandhystericalepilepsyinlate

nineteenth‐centurymedicalterminology:itissignificant,forexample,thattheterm

“clonicspasm”(fromtheGreekklonos,violentmotion)inmimediscoursebecame

clownisme.CriticsandplaywrightsincreasinglydescribedPierrotasmechanical,havinga

tic,awayofmovingthatsuggestsmachinery—theclown’sgrowingassociationwith

puppetry(136).

IextendandcomplicateJones’sanalysisherebyarguingthat,paradoxically,the

veryautomaton‐likemovementsoflatenineteenth‐centurymimearethegesturalstyle

ofa“natural”Pierrot,aPierrotwhoseminimalistgesturesconveyinnerreality.Inthe

nextsectionItakeupthisquestionofthe“natural”invadinganddisruptingthe

dispassionatesang‐froidandmechanicalbodyoflatenineteenth‐centurymime,bothas

anintentionalperformancestyle(whensmall,rigid,precisemovementsdrawnfromthe

movementsofautomatonsfunctionexplicitlyasanew“natural”mimetechnique)and

asaperformativeworkingoutofcontaminationanxieties,inwhichthe“natural”(as

animality,thevisceral,labêtise)disruptstheautomaton‐likebody.Inotherwords,late

nineteenth‐centuryFrenchmimewasengagedinacomplexandconflictingdialogue

withthe“natural”asaqualitytobebothsoughtafterandfeared.

Minimalismand“natural”anxieties

In1920asmallmimepiecetitledMainsetmasques[Handsandfaces]openedat

L’OlympiaPariswrittenbyandstarringthefamousfindesièclePierrotperformer

GustaveFréjavilleSéverin,whohadfirstpublishedthetextin1914.Inthepantomime,

aslaterdescribedbyRémyinGeorgesWague,Pierrotappearsasaspectralfigure

whosehandsandfacearetheonlyvisiblepartsofhisbodymovingacrossthedark

stage:“Pierrot,toutdenoirvêtu,fondudanslesnoirceursd'unetoiledefondnelaissait

plusvoirquesonvisageetquesesmains”[Pierrot,dressedentirelyinblack,meltedinto

theblackbackgroundleavingnomoretoseethanhisfaceandhishands](153).Rémy

ascribesthisreductioninthevisibilityofthebodytoWague’smimetechnique:

AinsiSéverinréduisaitsonpouvoirdesuggestionàlatechniquede

GeorgesWaguequidepuislongtempsenseignaitquelesmainsetle

visagedevaientêtrelessourceessentielles,sinonabsolues,desmoyens

d’expressiondumime.‘Mainsetvisage,disait‐il,parlentauxspectateurs

mieuxquelesgestesdesbrasetlesattitudesducorps’.

[ThusSéverinminimizedPierrot’spowerofsuggestionfollowingthe

techniqueofGeorgesWaguewhoforalongtimehadtaughtthatthe

handsandthefacemustbetheessential,ifnottheabsolute,sourceof

themime’sexpression.‘Handsandface,’hesaid,‘speaktothespectators

betterthanthegesturesofthearmsandtheattitudesofthebody.’]

(Wague153‐4)

Thisreferenceto“attitudes”ofthebodyevokestheDelsartian‐inspiredgesturalstyle

thathadinfluencedFrenchmimeinthefirstpartofthenineteenthcentury,atechnique

thatWagueexplicitlyworkedagainst.AsdescribedbyRémy,Waguepositionedhis

mimetechniqueagainst“classical”mimedefinedbytheexaggeratedgesturesof

melodrama,astylethatWaguebelievedcouldnotaccuratelyconveyseriousfeeling:

“Lessentimentsvenusdelaprofondeurdel’être,nulgeste,nullegrimace,nulle

emphasenepeutlessuggérerquinesoitridicule,c’est‐à‐direcomique"[Thefeelings

thatcomefromthedepthofbeing,nogesture,nogrimace,noemphasiscansuggest

themwhichisnotridiculous,thatistosaycomical](Wague104).Waguepreferred

insteadminimalistmovementthatconveyedfeeling“parl’intensitédesexpressionsdu

visage,parlaconcentrationd’uneattitudeseulementtraverséepardesréflexes

esquissésàpeineetquitraduisentlesréactionsd’unepenséeenperpétuelleaction"[by

theintensityoffacialexpressions,bytheconcentrationofanattitudeonlyshifting

throughbarelydefinedreflexes,whichtranslatethemovementsofthoughtinto

perpetualaction](Wague104).Wague’sconnection,accordingtoRémy,offeelingswith

boththe“depthofbeing”andthoughtandhisdismissaloflargebodilygesturesreveals

amistrustofanapparently‐uncontrolledphysicalbody,aprivilegingofinnercognitive

process,andapositioningoftheperformer’sselfdeepwithinthebody,athemeItake

upinChapter4.Hepostedthefollowingthreephrasesabovethedoorsofhismime

schoolinParis:

SANSLAPENSÉELEGESTEESTINUTILE.

LEGESTEN’ESTQUELECOMPLÉMENTDELAPENSÉE.

LEMINIMUMDEGESTES

CORRESPONDAUMAXIMUMD’EXPRESSION.

[Withoutthoughtgestureisuseless.

Gestureisnothingbutthecomplementofthought.

Theminimumofgestures

correspondstothemaximumofexpression.](Wague182)

Thebodyhereisdismissedentirelyinfavorofthevalueofcerebralactivity;gestureis

onlyusefulasadirectandverysubtlevehicleforthought.Waguehailedhis“modern”

pantomimeasatechniquethat,bycontrollingtheexpressionsofthebody,allowedthe

directexpressionofthoughtandfeelingsfromthe“depthofbeing”.

Thisincreasedprivilegingofminimalistmovementcanbediscernedinshiftsthat

tookplaceinthegesturallanguagewithinFrenchpantomimetextsofthesecondhalfof

thenineteenthcentury.Earlierpiecesdescribeactioninfairlystraightforwardlanguage,

alongside“speech”thatPierrotismeanttomime.Forinstance,the1879pantomime

Pierrotterrible[TerriblePierrot]byRichardLesclideandfeaturingtheacrobaticHanlon‐

Leebrothersdescribesactionwithnomodifyingadjectives:“LesPierrotss’en

réjouissentets’enlèchentlesdoigts”[ThePierrotsrejoiceandlicktheirfingers](2).

LesclidedoesnotspecifyherehowthePierrotsperformrejoicingorlickingtheirfingers;

thisisastylethatheusesthroughoutthepieceasinhisdescriptionofthegreattumult

thatensueswhenabankercatchesthePierrotsstealing:“oncrie,onappelle,onse

sauve,onsebat”[theycry,theycallout,theytrytoescape,theyfight](3).This

straightforwarddescriptionofactioncanbecontrastedwithpantomimetextsfromthe

followingdecadesinwhichwritersdescribemovementusingincreasinglyspecificand

minimalistlanguage,andincreasinglytiegesturetothoughtandassignittosubtlefacial

movements.HenniqueandJ.K.HuysmansinPierrotsceptique[Pierrotskeptic](1881)

instructPierrottoperformhisgesturesmoregentlyinScene8:“Sesmanières

deviennentplusdouces”[Hismannerismsbecomesofter](21).Theyassignathoughtto

Pierrotthattheperformerwouldconveythroughmime:“«Lesparfumsdefeuema

femme,pense‐t‐il»"[‘Theperfumesofmylatewife’,hethinks](21).Thispantomime

andLesclide’swereproducedwithintwoyearsofeachother,andcanbeseenas

representativeofamomentofshiftinFrenchpantomime’sgesturalstylefromthe

mimesautante[leapingmime]thathadbeenpopularintheearlynineteenthcentury

andthelatenineteenth‐centurysubtle,minimaliststyle.

Thislatterstyleisevidencedinlatenineteenth‐andearlytwentieth‐century

pantomimesincludingHennique’sLesonged’unenuitd’hiver[Amidwinternight’s

dream](1903)inwhichPierrotisdescribedwith“l'œilaiguise,lalèvreméchante”[sharp

eye,wickedlip](2).ColombineconveysdisapprovalofArlequinthroughherfacein

Najac’sBarbe‐Bleuette[BlueBeard](1890)inwhichherface“prenduneexpression

méchante"[takesonawickedexpression](3),“aunsouriremalicieux"[hasamalicious

smile](4),andconveysaplotpointtotheaudience:“elle…lanceauplacardunregard

quifaitprévoiraupublicquePierrotneserapaslederniermarideBarbe‐Bleuette"[she

…givesalooktotheclosetthatconveystotheaudiencethatPierrotwillnotbethelast

husbandofBarbe‐Bleuette](6).23This“look”doesnotdenoteemotion,butintention—

anexampleofgesturebecomingincreasinglytiedtothought.ApassageinRouanet’sLe

ventreetlecœurdePierrot[ThestomachandtheheartofPierrot](1888)appearsto

describePierrotmovingthroughaseriesofemotionalposesreminiscentoftheearlier

nineteenth‐centurygesturalstyleofstrikingattitudes,withtheexceptionthatitishis

facestrikingtheattitudes:“LaphysionomiedePierrotexprimetouràtourlasurprise,la

passion,leravissement,l’extase"[thefaceofPierrotexpressesinturnsurprise,passion,

23“Bleuette”isthefeminineformof“bleu”[blue]inFrench,andisusedinthispantomimebecausethenamereferstoColombine.

rapture,ecstasy].Thesefacialattitudeswerelikelyintendedtobesubtle(notthe

“grimaces”thatWaguesodisdained),basedonalettertoHugounetthatRouanet

composedin1887inwhichhedescribesthegesturalstyleofhispantomimeas“une

successiondegestesnoblesetcalmes"[asuccessionofnobleandcalmgestures](qtd.

inHugounet234).InLeSuicidedePierrot[TheSuicideofPierrot](1897)Aubertsimilarly

locatesanexpressiveattitudeintheface:“Toutesaphysionomieauneexpression

stupide”[Hisentirefacehasastupidexpression](7).PaulLheureux,atthebeginningof

Crimeetchâtiment[Crimeandpunishment](1891),describesasequenceofactionsthat

Pierrotperformsangrily;hedescribestheemotionitselfas“concentrated”:“Safureur,

pourêtreconcentrée,n’enestpasmoinsterrible”[Hisfuror,forbeingconcentrated,is

notthelessterrible](4).

Latenineteenth‐centurytheatricalworkswithaspeakingorsingingPierrot

similarlycontainedlanguagethatprivilegedminimalistemotionalexpressionover

extreme,melodramaticdisplaysoffeeling.InRostand’s1890playLesdeuxPierrotsoule

souperblanc[ThetwoPierrotsorthesupperinwhite](arevisionofhis1889Pierrotqui

pleureetPierrotquirit[PierrotwhoweepsandPierrotwholaughs])inwhichthePierrot

charactersspeakinverse,twoPierrots—onehappyandonesad—viefortheaffections

ofColombina.24PierrotTwo(sadPierrot)weepseffusivelythroughoutthepiece;

Colombinadescribeshiseyesas“streaming”(3)priortohisentrance,andmuchofthe

dialoguethatensuesbetweenthethreecharactersconcernsthesephysicalsignifiersof

24TheEnglishtranslationthatIuseinthissectionisThomChristoph’s2007translationofLesdeuxPierrotsoulesouperblanc[ThetwoPierrotsorthesupperinwhite].

emotion.Significantly,PierrotOneexpressesskepticismoverthesincerityofPierrot

Two’sexpressedfeelingsinlanguagethatconnectsthelatter’semotionstotheatrical

performance:“Whilehe,withtremblingvoiceandstagytricks,/Emotes”(17);“Must

youalwaysgiveyourhearts/Tothosewhoweep?Tofraudswhoplaytheirparts/Like

sorryplayers,actingoutdejection…”(31).The“tremblingvoice”herecouldbe

interpretedasavocalequivalenttothemelodramaticposeoftheDelsartiantradition;

thatPierrotOnelinksthistechniquetorepresentationalfalsity—andfurtherlinks

representationalfalsitytothecraftofactors—revealsamistrustofgesturaldisplaysof

emotion(thegesturespopularinnineteenth‐centuryFrenchmime)thatrunsthrough

thepiece.PierrotOnefurtherquestionsthereliabilityofexternalemotionalgesturesin

renderinganaccuratedepictionofthebody’sinterior:“Who’dguess,/Toseeme,that

mystomach’shollowness/Createsmylaughter’sresonatingspace?/Who’dguessfrom

hisunhappy,lividface/Thathe’swell‐fed?”(19).Again,outwarddisplaysofemotion

cannotbetrustedtoaccuratelyrevealinnerstates.Theexceptionappearsattheendof

theplayintheformofminimalism,whenPierrotOneshedsasingletear,convincing

Colombinaofhissincerity:

COLOMBINA

But—you’reweeping!

PIERROTONE

I,weeping?Nonsense!

(Thensuddenly,simply:)

Well,then…yes,Iam.(32)

PierrotOne’sdisplayofemotionissosubtleandsoinvoluntary(alinktoautomatisme)

thathedoesnotrealizeheisweepinguntilitispointedouttohimbyanexternal

observer.Thestagedirection“simply”furtherpointstoaminimaliststyleofrendering

emotionlegibletotheaudience,andColombinatruststhissimple,minimalgestureof

griefoverthemoreelaborategesturesofPierrotTwo:“Ah!Deareristhissingletear

you’vebroughtme‐/Moredeeplyhasitmovedme,thissmalltear‐/Thanallhisnoisy

sobbing”(33);sheholdsPierrotOne’s“furtivetear”inhigherregardthanPierrotTwo’s

“endlessstreams”of“tooprodigioustears”(34).ColombinachoosesPierrotOneover

PierrotTwobecauseoftheminimalistqualityofhisemotionaldisplaywhich,assimple,

subtleandinvoluntary,tieshisemotionstoautomatisme,therebygivinganauthenticity

totheseexternalsignifiersofhisinternalemotions.

MembersoftheCerclealsoadvocatedaminimalistgesturestyleasaresponse

toWagner’stheoriesofthemusicaldramaandtheleitmotif,whichgaveamusical

themetospecifictheatricalelementsincludingindividualcharacters.Inan1892

interviewconductedbyHugounet,CerclememberLarcherdiscussedhisdesireto

transfergesturalexpressivityfromthemimeperformertomusicalinstruments:

Supprimerlesgestesconventionnelsetinintelligiblesdel’ancienne

pantomimeetpourcelaavoirrecoursàdescomédiens,exigerune

adaptationconstanteetétroitedelaphrasemusicaleàlasituation

scénique,mettrelaparoledugestedansl’orchestre,c’est‐à‐direenfinde

compte,appliquertoutsimplementàlapantomimelesthéoriesles

meilleuresdeWagner,ilmesemblequeceladevaitproduirepourun

publicrestreintmaisdechoixunspectacledesplusintéressants.

[Suppresstheconventionalandunintelligiblegesturesoftheolder

pantomimeandforthistohaverecoursetoactors,todemandaconstant

andcloseadaptationofthemusicalphrasetothetheatricalsituation,to

putthespeechofgestureintotheorchestra,whichisultimatelytosay,to

simplyapplytothepantomimethebesttheoriesofWagner,itseemsto

methatthiswouldproduceforalimitedaudiencethemostinteresting

choiceofperformances.](qtd.inBonnet10,emphasisadded)

Larcher’sdescriptionofthegesturalstyleoftheoldpantomimeas“unintelligible”

privilegestheintellectasinterpreterofgesture;hisimpliedcritiqueisthattheoldstyle

ofgestureisover‐emotional,tiedtothebodyratherthantheintellect.Hisdesire“toput

theutteranceofthegestureintotheorchestra”leavesonewonderingwhatwasleftfor

themimetoperform—doesthemimenowfollowthemusic,whichiswheregestural

utteranceisfound?

Inthemusicalscoresthataccompanymanypantomimesinthisera,inwhichthe

textfromthewrittenpantomimeappearsaboveeachlineofmusic,musicappearsto

emphasizeorunderscorebothemotionandcertainphysicalgestures.InVidal’smusical

scoreforPierrotassassindesafemme[Pierrotassassinofhiswife](1888),forexample,

themusicappearstoemphasizethedescribedemotionof“horror”whenPierrot“prend

unbouteillederhum,laregarde,imploreenvainColombineetboitavechorreur”[takes

abottleofrum,looksatit,imploresColombineinvainanddrinkswithhorror](68‐9).

Where“boitavechorreur”iswrittenabovethemusicalline,themusicbecomes

pianissimo(veryquiet)andsuddenlycontainsquickrepetitivenotes,diminishingover

eightmeasuresduringwhichthereisnowrittenpantomimetext;duringtheseeight

measurestheperformerplayingPierrotwouldpresumablyperformhorrortothe

accompanimentoftheevocativemusic.Thestyleofhisgesturalrepresentationof

“horror”cannotbededuced,onlythattheexpressionissimultaneouslyfoundinthe

accompanyingmusic.Physicalmovement,however,doesappeartobedictatedinparts

bythemusic,asatthebeginningofthepantomimewhenPierrotandtheundertaker

tip‐toeintotheroom:“PierrotetleCroque‐Mortentrenttitubants,flageolants,une‐

deux,une‐deux”[Pierrotandtheundertakerenterstaggering,weak,one‐two,one‐two]

(7).Herethephysicalactionofthefootstepsarerepresentedtextuallyby“une‐deux,

une‐deux”,whichiswrittenabovefourcorrespondingchordsofmusic.Theperformers

wouldthereforehavehadtotimetheirfootmovementstothemusicalchords.Soon

afterwardsPierrotopenshiseyesoneatatimeandseestheportraitofColombine:

“Pierrotouvreunœil,l'autre,lesdeux,regarde”[Pierrotopensoneeye,theother,both,

helooks](8);thistextispositionedexactlyabovespecificmusicalbeatsandsoonce

againtheperformer’sbodywouldlikelyhavebeenchoreographedtospecificmusical

beats.Hismomentofseeingtheportrait,whichwouldhaverequiredagesturalshift,is

specificallytimedtoashiftinthemusic:“Ah!là!vois!”[Ah!There!See!](9).

InThomé’smusicalscoreforNajac’sBarbe‐Bleuette[BlueBeard](1890),the

musicsimilarlybothunderscoresmovementanddictatesit.Theformerisevidencedin

suchsectionsaswhenPierrot“faitdomino”[falls]accompaniedbydescendingsixteenth

notesplayedacrossfourmeasures(14),andwhen“iltrembledetoussesmembres"[he

tremblesinallofhislimbs]alongsidemusicplayedsimultaneously“piano”[quietly],

“agitato”[agitated]and“staccato”.Thelatter—musicdictatingmovement—appearsas

Pierrotapproachestheominouscabinetinhisnewwife’shouseandopensit:“Undeux,

trois,quatre,dansl’armoire.Oh!"[Onetwo,three,four,inthecabinet.Oh!]

accompaniedbyfourbasenotesascendingduring“Undeux,trois,quatre”,four

staccatonotesascendingduring“dansl’armoire”(presumablythisindicatesPierrot’s

frightenedhesitationbeforeopeningthecabinet),followedbyachordon“Oh!”ashe

opensthecabinetdoor(23).AsinPierrotassassin,themusicalscoreindicatesthatat

timestheperformerhadtomovehisbodywiththesamerhythmasthemusic,alinking

oftheperformer’sbodywithamusicalinstrument.

Itisinthepopularcomédiesenmusiqueandopéras‐comiques—thespecifically‐

musicalpantomimes—oftheera,however,thattracesofashiftofgesturalexpressivity

fromperformer’sbodytomusicalinstrumentcanbediscerned.Inthe1899publication

ofacomédieenmusiqueversionofRostand’sPierrotquipleureetPierrotquirit[Pierrot

whocriesandPierrotwholaughs],composerHubertwritesmanyofthemusical

dynamicsinemotionallanguage.Heinstructstheviolatoplay“Allegretto,avecune

expressionsouffreteuse”[Allegretto(moderatelyquicktempo),withasicklyexpression]

(30),“avecuneexpressionexagérédetristessedésolée”[withanexaggerated

expressionofapologeticsadness](31);theviolinsaretoplay“Maestoso–Mouvtde

marchelenteetpompeuse"[Maestoso(stately)–Aslowandpompousmarching

movement](76)and"Trèstranquille"[Verycalmly](136).AsPierrotTwolamentsthe

misfortuneoflife,theinstrumentsareinstructedtoplay"thèmedelachansontriste,en

chargeantl'expressiontragique"[themeofthesadsong,emphasizingthetragic

expression](133).Emotionalinstructionsfortheperformersconsistentlytargetthe

body’smusicalinstrument,thevoice.PierrotTwosingsofhissadnesswith"unevoix

dolente"[adolefulvoice](109).PierrotOnesingsofhisjoy"gaiementetavec

désinvolture"[gailyandflippantly](118);thecomposertieshisemotionalexpressivityto

thatofhiscounterpartusingthevoice:PierrotOne’semotionistobeconveyed"en

contrefaisantlavoixdePierrotII"[byimitatingthevoiceofPierrotTwo](117).

ColombineinstructstheaudiencetolistentothesadsingingofPierrotTwo,focusingon

themusicalelementsofthepantomime—thevoiceandthemelody—asemotionally

expressive,ratherthanthestoryorphysicalexpressions:"Pierrotquipleure,enbas

chante.../Vousl'entendez!/Lamélodieesttrèslarmoyante..."[Pierrotwhoweeps,

inalowvoice…/Youhearhim!/Themelodyisverytearful…](34).HerePierrot’s

emotionalexpressionofweepingisconveyedthroughhisvoice(“inalowvoice”);the

audiencedoesnotseetheemotion,buthearsit.Themelodyconveystheemotion,not

agestureorapose.Emotionalexpressivityhasshiftedfromthemovementsofthe

physicalbodytotheauralformofmusic,ashiftthatprefiguredthemechanisticmime

practicesoftheearly‐twentiethcentury,inwhichthelinkingoftheperformer’sbody

withamusicalinstrumentwastakenupbyearlytwentieth‐centurymovement

practitionerssuchasÉmileJacques‐Dalcroze,whosesystemofeurhythmics—andits

effectonthemimepedagogyofJacquesCopeau—IdiscussinChapter3.

Minimalismalsopervadedlatenineteenth‐centurypoetryaboutPierrot,which

tendedtoportrayhimasadispassionate,pessimisticphilosopher,furthershifting

emotionfromthebodytotheintellect.JulesLaforguetookthistendencytoitsextreme

inhisComplaintes,adoptinganattitudethatinfluencedmultipleotherwritersofthe

time.LaforgueidentifiedhimselfwithPierrot,writingofhisownartistictrialsthrough

thefigure.InalettertohissisterwritteninMay1883,Laforguedescribeshisnew

writingstylethatsoundsstrikinglysimilartothelate‐centurymimestyleexpoundedby

theCercleFunambulesqueandWague:

Ifinditstupidtointoneinanoracularvoiceandtopostureeloquently.

Thesedays,beingontheonehandmoreskeptical,lesseasilycarried

away,andontheotherhandpossessingmylanguageinamoreminute,

clownesquefashion,Iwritewhimsicallittlepoems,havingonlyoneaim:

tobeoriginalatanyprice.(20,qtd.inStorey,Mask146,emphasisadded)

Laforgue’sassociationof“minute”with“clownesque”istellingatatimewhenthe

fashionforgesturalstyleinmimewastowardsincreasingminimalism.This“minute,

clownesquefashion”takesonagenderedtoneinhispoem“AutrecomplaintedeLord

Pierrot”[AnotherlamentofLordPierrot],inwhichLaforgueconfrontshisphilosopher‐

herowithWomanwhoistheslaveofIllusion:

CellequidoitmemettreaucourantdelaFemme!

Nousluidironsd’abord,demonairlemoinsfroid:

“Lasommedesanglesd’untriangle,chèreâme,

“Estégaleàdeuxdroits.”

Etsicecriluipart:“DieudeDieu!quejet’aime!”

—“Dieureconnaîtralessiens.”Oupiquéeauvif:

—“Mesclaviersontducœur,tuserasmonseulthème.”

Moi:“Toutestrelatif.”

Detoussesyeux,alors!sesentanttropbanale:

“Ah!tunem’aimespas;tantd’autressontjaloux!”

Etmoi,d’unœilquiversl’Inconscients‐emballe:

“Merci,pasmal;etvous?”

[ShewhomustputmeintouchwithWoman!

Wesaytoherfirst,withtheleastcoldair:

“Thesumoftheanglesofatriangle,dearsoul,

“Isequaltotwosquares.”

Andifshecries,“OhGod!Idoloveyou!”

—“Godlooksafterhisown.”Orpiercedtothebone:

—Mykeyboardhasaheart,youaremyonlycare,

I:“Allisrelative.”

Inhereyes,alas!shefeelstoobanal:

“Ah!youdon’tloveme;andsoothersarejealous!”

AndI,withaneyetowardtheUnconscious:

“Thanks,notbad;andyou?”](132)

Pierrot’sencounterherewithWomanpitshisimpassiveimmobility,astheprotectorof

Reason,againstthetemptationsofIllusionwhichLaforgueheredepictsasextreme

emotionality.InPierrot’sresponsestoWoman’simpassionedpleas,onecandiscern

tracesofthedispassionate,stone‐facedPierrotperformedbyDeburaufilsand

increasinglypopularamonglate‐centurymimes.

ThefemininewasnotonlyarepresentativeofunbridledemotioninLaforgue’s

writings;his1885volumeL’imitationdeNotre‐Damelalune[TheimitationofOurLady

themoon]—whosecenterpieceisaseriesofpoemsaboutPierrot—LaLuneisafigureof

sterility.Pierrothadbeenassociatedwiththemoonsincethebeginningofthecentury,

anassociationemphasizedinsentimental,dreamyportrayalssuchasLegrand’s.

Laforgueexploredthephilosophicalimplicationsofthisconnection;inhispoems

(includingtheaptlynamed“Laluneeststérile”)themoonisbarren.Pierrothimself

becomesidentifiedwiththisfrozen,barrenmoon,becomingnothingmorethana

statue,amanofmarble:

Jenesuisqu’unviveurlunaire

Quifaitdesrondsdanslesbasins,

Etcela,sansautredessein

Quedevenirunlégendaire…

[Iambutalunarbeing

Whomovesaboutinthedepths

Andthere,withnootherpurpose

Thantobecomealegend…](12)

IdentifyingPierrotwiththemoon,whosereflectedlightlacksthesubstantiabilityof

activeexistence,makesofPierrotafigureofshadow,ofquestionableexistence—a

corporealfadingthathadbeenpredictedbyThéophileGautierinhismid‐centuryreview

ofLegrand:“Thispale,gauntcreature,ghostly(famélique[starving])…”(qtd.inJones

79).Languageofsterility,furthermore,connectsPierrottolatenineteenth‐century

hystericalsterility,whichpositionedthemainlyupper‐classwhitewomensufferingfrom

thedisorderagainstnon‐whitewomen’ssupposedover‐fertility.Thisracialdiscourse

simultaneouslydistancedthe“civilized”whitewomanfromtheanimality(expressed

throughpurportedlyheightenedsexualandreproductivecharacteristics)ofthenon‐

white,poororimmigrantwoman,andaccusedtheformerofendangeringtherace.This

fearofsterilityintersectswithwhatLauraBriggscalls“overcivilization”,afinalcategory

tobeaddedtoEdwardTylor’ssocialevolutionarystagesof“savage”to“barbarian”to

“civilized”(Briggs248).Thefigureofthelatenineteenth‐centuryPierrottherefore

becomesbothastand‐inforamodernselfexpressedthroughthebody’ssubtleand

“natural”movements,andsimultaneouslyanempty,corporeally‐vaguebodywitha

plaster‐whitefacethatembodiesthethreatenedsurvivalofthewhiterace.

Contaminationanxieties

SterilityandtheshrinkingofthebodyinbothliterarydepictionsofPierrotand

theminimalistmimetechniqueconnectedwithWagueareparticularlysignificant

alongsidethelatenineteenth‐centuryfascinationwiththeautomatonthataffected

mimestylessuchasthosepracticedbytheHanlon‐Lees.Ifthesetechniquesweremeant

tomoreauthenticallyexpressemotions,whywasthebodysodistancedfromsignifiers

oftheorganic(fluidmovements,fullvisibilityofthebody)?Oneanswer,asI’ve

suggestedabove,liesinthelatenineteenth‐centuryFrenchmime’sbodyas

performativesiteofcontaminationanxieties,anxietiestiedtoracial,classandgender‐

inflecteddiscoursesofanimality.Theseanxietiescanbediscernedinpantomimesofthe

erainwhichPierrot’sbodyissimultaneouslymechanicalandgrotesque(corporeally‐

overflowing).AnxietyandambivalenceoverPierrot’sstatusasfantoche[puppet],for

example,runsthroughoutPierrotassassindesafemme[Pierrotassassinofhiswife]

(1888).Inthepantomime’sopeningstagedirections,MarguerittedescribesPierrotas

havingaforeheadenlargedbyawhiteheadband:Pierrotinhistypicalaspectof

“overcivilization.”ThePierrotofthispieceispainstakinglysetapartfromahumanbody

ofgrossmateriality—thatbodyisrepresentedbytheundertaker’smanwhodrags

PierrotinfromthefuneralofPierrot’swifeColumbine:theundertakerandPierrotare

describedusingcorporealandraciallanguage,respectivelyas“legrosvivantetle

spectral…noir,blanc”[thecourselivingbeingandthespecter…black,white](5).The

linebetweenlivingbodiesanddeadobjectsisthinandporous:thecrimsonbedseems

tobreatheandColumbine—Pierrot’smurderedwife—seemstolaughwithinthe

cadenceofthemusic(anexampleofplacingthe“utteranceofthegestureintothe

orchestra”).AfterPierrothasbeenleftaloneonstagetoconfesshiscrimetothe

audience—whichheaccomplishesthroughareenactmentofhowhetickledColumbine

todeathasshelayintheirbed—thebeditselfawakensanditscurtainsappeartoburst

intoflame.Columbine’shangingportraitcomestolife,aportraitthathasalwaysheld

moreofthefleshthanPierrot’sownalabasterbody,herimagedescribedatthe

beginningas“toutenchair,lesseinsnus,ritàbellesdents,vivante”[completelyinher

flesh,herbreastsbare,laughingwithbeautifulteeth,alive](5).Thegendered

associationwithColombine’sbodywithfleshissignificant:hernakedbodyisboth

terrifyingandorganic(“vivante”[alive]),indicatingambivalencetowardthe“natural”,

livingbody.WhentheterrifiedPierrottouchestheportrait—nolongerdistinguishable

fromthebodyofColumbineherself—hedies,theorganictouchresultinginhisbody

fullylosingitsorganicstatus,becomingentirelyacorpse.

MargueritteconsistentlypresentsPierrotasfarlessgrosslymaterialthanthe

dead‐yet‐aliveobjectsintheroom.APierrot‐cerveau‐type(todrawonHugounet’s

terminology)withanenlargedwhiteforehead,hismovementsaremarkedby

mechanicalrigidity,hisphysicalbodybythetrappingsoftheautomaton:alabasterskin,

lipsofplaster,aninclinationtowardsconvulsive,maniacallaughter,theclonicspasmof

hisclownisme.Heisdescribedas“déjàmort”[alreadydead](10)beforehetouchesthe

portrait;thetouchturnsawalkingcorpseintoafallenone.Yetthelanguage

MargueritteusestodescribePierrotoverflowswithbodilymaterialreferences.His

Pierrotisawalkingcorpse,aplasterexteriorencasingavoid.Agrosslymaterialinterior

announcesitsexistenceandcontinuallythreatenstoerupt.Hisbodyelicitsanxietyover

thiseruptionofaninteriorcorpulentexcessassociatednotwiththemechanical,

puppet‐likecerveau,butwithhiscounterpointPierrot‐ventre.

MarguerittedescribesPierrot’sconfessionasavomiting,ofinteriorbodilyexcess

eruptingthroughagapinghole:whenPierrotisleftaloneonstagetoconfrontthe

audienceheopenshismouthrepeatedly,theconfessionthatliesinsidewaitingtoburst

forthisdescribedascoming“àseslèvres”[tohislips](6);afterseveralhesitations“ses

lèvrestremblentetalorsuneforceinvinciblearrachedePierrotlesecretmontéàsa

bouche”[hislipstrembleandsoonaninvincibleforcewrenchesfromPierrotthesecret

risingtohismouth](6).Whentheportraitbeginstomakeitspresenceknown,Pierrot

mimeshisfearbyusinghishandtoindicateaninterioracceleratingheartbeat.Hiseye

gleamsoutfromitssocket:“hagard,terrifié,luit”[haggard,terrified,(it)gleams](8).The

descriptionoftheeye’s“gleam”standsinstarkcontrasttothedark,emptyeyesockets

popularamongcontemporaneousmimeperformerssuchastheHanlon‐Lees,and

announcescorporealitytothespectralform.Whenhemimesthedeath‐throesof

Columbine,hisbodybecominghersinatransgressionofcleanly‐demarcatedperformed

identity(andasignificantblurringofgenderedbodies),histhroesaredescribedin

languageofillnessinvadingthebody’sinterior:“unmalcontagieuxetvengeur"[a

contagiousandvengefuldisease](9).

AnxietyoverthenaturalintersectswithracialanxietyinDesnoyers’s1856

pantomimeLebrasnoir[Theblackarm].Theblackarmofthetitlebelongstothe

villainousmoorScapin,withwhomPierrothasaviolentfightinwhicheachpullsoffone

oftheother’sarmsandproceedstobeattheotherwithit.Pierrotmanagestobeat

ScapintodeathwithScapin’sownarm,thenvisitsadoctortohavehisarmputbackon.

Butthedoctorreattachesthewrongarm—withthebodilyfluidsalivahesticksScapin’s

blackarmontothewhitebodyofPierrot.TheevilblackarmleadspurewhitePierrot

intoaseriesofcrimesthatlandhiminprison;whenheattemptstoescapethejailor

grabshisblackarmanditcomesoff.AsPierrotflees,anenormousblackarmrisesup

fromthegroundbeforehim,aracially‐chargedimageevocativelyrenderedbyGustave

Courbetin1856topublicizethepantomime(Figure2).Pierrot,terrified,turnstostone

(6).JustasthePierrot‐cerveauasdescribedbyHugounetescapesthechargeofdirtyand

naturalistthroughhispuppet‐likemovements,sothePierrotofLebrasnoirescapes

defilementthroughexteriorrigidity,turningtostone.Whenthreatenedbythearmthat

representsblackdefilementofwhitepurity,Pierrotretainshispuritybyceasingtobean

organicbody.Purityleadstosterility.

Figure2:Lebrasnoir25

YetthefrozenbodyofPierrothasbeenhybrid—hisbodyremainsfacingthelimb

thatwasonlyrecentlyattachedtoit.Racialhybriditywasacontentiousissueinlate

nineteenth‐centuryanthropologystrugglingtoabsorbtheDarwinianimpactofthe

descentofmanfromanimals.InTheExpressionoftheEmotionsinManandAnimals

(1872)Darwinhadcategorizedhumanemotionsasmentalstatesconnectedspecifically

toneurologicalfunctionsandphysicalexpressionsthatcouldalsobeobservedin

animals,blurringthehuman/animaldistinction:

Withmankindsomeexpressions,suchasthebristlingofthehairunder

theinfluenceofextremeterror,ortheuncoveringoftheteethunderthat

25DrawingbyGustaveCourbetin1856topublicizethepremiereofDesnoyers’spantomimeattheThéâtredesFolies‐Nouvelles.

offuriousrage,canhardlybeunderstood,exceptofthebeliefthatman

onceexistedinamuchlowerandanimal‐likecondition.(12)

Asthedemarcationsbetweenhumanandanimalbecamemoretenuous,sotoodidthe

clearlinesbetweenhumanraces,producingsterilewhitebodiesbothcelebrated

(Pierrot’sdefilementcannotcontinueoncehehasfrozen)andfeared(thebodycanno

longerreproduce,threateningthesurvivalofthewhiterace).ThatPierrot’sfrozen,

sterilebodyexperiencedracialhybridityperformativelytheorizesthiscomplexsocietal

anxiety,theconflictingandcontradictoryrelationshiptocontaminationofthewhite

Frenchartists,criticsandaudiencesoflatenineteenth‐centuryFrenchmime.

Inthelatenineteenthcentury,nostalgiafortheearly‐century“popularPierrot”

positionedthisfigureasonewhoconnecteddirectlywithlepeuple.26Writersdescribed

thisfigureasexemplifyinglabêtise—ahighlyambiguousterm,oftentranslatedas

“foolishness”butwhoseassociationswithanimalitycannotbeignored,whichappeared

26Rémyattributesthisnostalgiaforthe“popularPierrot”oftheearlynineteenthcenturytoamyth‐makingthatidentifiestheromanticizedobjectwithageneralizedraucousjoyofthehappyworking‐classcrowd:

LalégendedelafoireperpétuellequisetientsurleboulevardduTemple,avecsescrisdejoie,sonambianceinsoucieuse,lafoulebéatedevantletapisdesacrobates,laliessedesfêtesetducarnaval,lesdescriptionsbrosséesdemaindemaître,lesfresquesbrillammentcolorées,n’existentquedansl’imaginationdeschroniqueursdelafinduXIXesièclequiparlentducommencementdu‐ditsièclecommeaujourd’huionraconte1900etlaBelleÉpoque.[ThelegendoftheperpetualfairontheBoulevardduTemple,withitscriesofjoy,itscarelessambiance,theblissfulcrowdstandingbeforetheacrobats’mats,thejubilationofthefestivitiesandofthecarnival,themasterfully‐painteddescriptions,thebrilliantly‐coloredfrescoes,donotexistexceptintheimaginationsofthechroniclersoftheendofthenineteenthcenturywhospeakofthebeginningofthatcenturyastodayoneremembers1900andtheBelleÉpoque.](Deburau68)

frequentlythroughoutthecenturyinreferencetofoolfiguresofclownsandmimes.La

bêtiseisapotenttermandneedsabitofunpackinginitsrelationshiptoeighteenth‐

andnineteenth‐centurydiscoursesonanimalityandthehuman‐animaldivide.Inthe

eighteenthcenturyRenéDescartes’sdoctrineofthe“bêtemachine”hadposedthe

questionofwhetheranimals,iftheyweretruly“machines,”hadsouls.Thequestion

cametomean“notthatanimalswerepureautomatadevoidofsensationandself‐

awareness,butratherthatthevariousmanifestationsofconsciousness,instinct,

sensibility,andevenintelligence,allofwhichseemedempiricallytotypifyanimal

behavior,oughttobeexplainedexclusivelyintermsoftheorganicmachine"(Vartanian

58).Despitetheapparentsimilaritiesbetweenthisdoctrineandthatofl’homme

machine[manasmachine]thatJuliendelaMettrie(1748)latertookup,onekey

differenceremainedbetweenl’homme[man]andlabête[beast]:unlikeanimals,

humanshadrationalsouls.

Yetinthedebatebetweenmechanisticandvitalistactingtheoriesthattypified

thelateeighteenthandearlynineteenthcenturies,labêteheldtheadvantagewithin

thelattercampofamoredirectlinktothepassions.Laterinthenineteenthcentury

GeorgeHenryLewesplacedexpressivityatthecenteroftheartofactinginOnActors

andtheArtofActing(1875).Hebelievedthatgreatactorshadan“animal”physiology,

“animalism,”aphysicalfluiditythatallowedtheorganicexpressionofthepassions

(Roach184).Thereturnofthelanguageofanimalisminlatenineteenth‐century

pantomimepointsinparttoareactionagainstthefixed,rigidmimestyleassociated

withlatenineteenth‐centuryPierrotperformances,astylethatwasenjoyingpopularity

notonlyonthepantomimestagebutalsoinsuchtraditionsasthetableauvivant.

Janet’stheoryofautomatisme—whichprefiguredFreud’stheoryoftheunconscious—

cleavedtheselfintotheselfofconsciousawarenessandthemore“authentic”self—

tiedtonon‐rational,instinctiveforces—thatresidesinthespaceofthesubconscious.In

theirpursuitofgesturalhonesty,ofamimetechniquethatsignifiedaninnerstate,

mimetheoristswhocalledforareturntoaPierrotdrivenby“instinct”weretherefore

drawingonthelatenineteenth‐centuryunderstandingofthe“authentic”selfsituatedin

thesubconscious,definedasthespaceofnon‐rationalandinstinctiveforces,and

therebysupportinganideaoftheactor’s“animalism.”WhenLeweshadadvocatedfor

the“weightyanimalism”ofthegreatactor,hehadspecifiedafluidityofthoughtand

movement:“afluidinterdependenceofbodyandmind,muscleandimagination,

includingaphysiquefreefrommusculartension,rigidity,andsuperfluityofmotion…”

(Roach184).Similarly,nineteenth‐centuryideasofsincerityderiveinpartfromJean‐

JacquesRousseau’sassertion,expressedinhisSecondDiscourse,thatthesavageismore

sincerebecauseofhisfundamentalconnectiontohimselfratherthantosociety:"The

savageliveswithinhimself,thesociablemanknowshowtoliveonlyintheopinionof

others,anditis,sotospeak,fromtheirjudgementalonethathedrawsthesentimentof

hisownbeing"(qtd.inTrilling62).

DecriersofthefindesièclePierrotsawinthissentimentalfigureanattenuation

oftherobust,livelyPierrotofDeburau’stime.Deburau’s“popularPierrot”was

describednostalgicallyasanaïve,childlikefigurewhoactsoutofinstinct.Thisideaof

instinctstraddlesbothromanticnostalgiaandfearofanimality,forthisfigureisboth

innocentandmurderous,asportrayedinalongarticleannouncingthepremiereofhis

1896pantomimeChandd’habits![Clothesmerchant],performedbySéverin,inwhich

poetandnovelistCatulleMendèscalledforareturnofthe“popularPierrot”:

Wepoetshavebeenwrong…BecausePierrotisaswhiteasLeda’sswan,

becausePierrotiswhitelikethemelancholypallorofthemoon…we

haveturnedintoapoetic,subtleandalsoperverseGillesinthestyleof

Watteau,thepopularPierrot,theformermiller’sapprenticewhocould

notcarelessaboutrhymesandwho,ingenuouslyandbrutally,with

puerileinstinctservedbyvirileforces,ignorantofthecomplexitiesof

refinedsouls,rushesheadlong,withoutpremeditationaswithout

remorse,withoutscienceandwithoutconscience,towardsevery

satisfaction,throughcrimeifneedbe,whojinglesinhisblood‐stained

handsthecoinsofthepursehestole,happyathisgoodluck,withthe

funnyfaceofacatwhohasstolemilk!Orelse,hewilllie,afterthe

murder,inthebedofthewomanhehasmadeintoawidow—because

thatwaswhatittooktogetthere—caressingherwithchildishly

murderoushands,notmorerestlessthaniftheyhadbeencrushing

strawberries!ForheisInstinctthatwantsanddoesnotknow.(240‐1,

qtd.inJones202‐3)

Thedescriptionofthis“popularPierrot”asachild(“childishlymurderoushands”)isno

accident.WritersfromtheearlypartofthecenturywhohadmadeDeburaufamous—

andwhohadcreatedtheDeburau‐PierrotmythfromwhichMendèsdraws—had

consistentlyreferredtotheworkingclassaudiencememberswhofrequentedthe

ThéâtredesFunambulesaschildren.Thisterminologyfunctionedinparttopositionthe

writersasflâneurs,literatiwithsophisticatedtasteswhowerealwaysatoneremove

fromtheartistsandaudiencesaboutwhomtheywrote.Italsofunctionedto

romanticizethefigureofthechild(connectedtotheworkingclassaudience),whofor

writersoftheerawastheemblemofpurity,thefigurebestpositionedtogainthemost

directknowledgethroughexperienceunmediatedbyexcessivethought.Ifthischild

engagedincrime(“whojinglesinhisblood‐stainedhandsthecoinsofthepursehe

stole,happyathisgoodluck…”)heisredeemedbyvirtueofhisinnocence:an

“uncomprehending”mindcannotactoutofmalice.

Mendès’suseof“Instinct”inthepassageabovesimilarlydrawsfromthe

Romanticconceptofthechildasemblematicofinnocenceandpurity,whohas

unfetteredaccesstointerioremotion(againbecausehisaccessisunmediatedby

excessivecerebralactivity),andlinksthisfigurewiththenineteenth‐centuryideaofthe

non‐rational,andthroughthistotheideaoftheanimal.WhenDeburaubegantodraw

attentionfromcriticsin1832,criticsconsideredpantomime—sinceitwasbasednoton

languagebutongesture—asamoreprimaryexpressivemediuminwhichonecouldnot

lie;BernadindeSaint‐Pierredescribeditas“thefirstlanguageofmankind”(qtd.in

Jones65).Whenlatenineteenth‐centurypractitionersandcriticssuchasMargueritte

yearnedforthereturnofapopular,naturalPierrot,then,thefiguretheycreated—and

themimestyletheyadoptedinpursuitofthesequalities—wasnotthatofPierrot‐ventre

who,asperformedbyKalpestri,wasavestigeofstreetperformancefromthebeginning

ofthecentury,andviewedasdegradingtheincreasinglyeliteandliteraryartofthe

mime.Rather,theypursuedaPierrotconnectedtoRomanticidealsofinnocence,

natureandthechild.

Theretrospectiverevaluingofthis“natural”figurecanbefoundintextsaslate

asRémy’s1945LesClownsinhisdiscussiononthecircusclownduetheWhiteClown

andtheAuguste.ThecircusclownpairtheWhiteClownandtheAugustecouldbeseen

asspeakingexamplesofthesilentPierrot‐cerveau/Pierrot‐ventretypes.TheWhite

Clownwasawhitefacefigurewhohadanauthoritativeandoftencruelair;theAuguste

wasalow‐statusbuffoonwho,despiteattemptstolook“gentlemanly”inpoorly‐

tailoredcoatandtails,wastoodrunkandtoostupidtobeanythingbutthebuttofthe

WhiteClown’sjokes.Rémyarguesthatthetwotypeswereinfactequals:

Lebeaudialogueduclownblancetdel’augustenemetpasauxprisesle

supérieuretl’inférieur,lebourreauetsavictime,l’exploitantet

l’exploité.Lesdeuxpartenairessontsurunpiedd’égalité.Ilssontdeux

forceségales,deuxprincipesaussipositivesl’unquel’autre.Le“blanc”

n’estpasplussupérieuràl’augustequelapenséenel’estàl’action,oula

sérénitéàl’émotion.

[ThelovelyinteractionoftheWhiteClownandtheAugustedoesnot

placetheminpositionsofsuperiorandinferior,theexecutionerandhis

victim,exploiterandexploited.Thetwopartnersareonequalfooting.

Theyaretwoequalforces,twoprinciplefigureseachasgoodasthe

other.The“White”isnomoresuperiortotheAugustethanthoughtisto

action,orserenitytoemotion.](ClownsXVI)

ByequatingtheWhiteClownwiththemind(thought,serenity)andtheAugustewith

thebody(action,emotion),Rémytapsintothelatenineteenth‐centuryFrenchacting

mechanist/vitalistdebatethatrevolvedaroundsuchconceptsasdispassionandsang‐

froidontheonehand,andpassion,instinctandlabêtiseontheother.Hisclaimthatthe

twowereinfactequals,alongsidelatenineteenth‐centuryFrenchmimeartists’

celebrationofDeburau’sbêtism,advocatingbotha“natural”,organicmimestylewhile

simultaneouslyputtingforthaminimalist,mechanisticstylethatappearedtoproducea

non‐organicbody,revealsthecomplexrelationshipthatlatenineteenth‐centuryFrench

mimeartistshadtothevalueofthe“natural”body.

Inhis1881biographyDeburau:histoireduthéâtreàquatresous[Deburau:four‐

parthistoryofthetheatre],Janindeployslabêtisseinamannerthatdemarcates

appearanceandreality,allowinghimtobothcelebratethequalityanddistancethe

idealmimebodyfromit.Describingthesuperiorityoflower‐classtheatre(“l’art

ignoble”)foritsvitality(178‐181),JanincontraststheeliteParisiantheatres(“l’art

noble”)withlower‐classtheatreusingcorporeallanguage:“LeThéâtre‐Français,livide

ethideux,étalesonsquelettetransparentàcotédel’embonpointduVaudeville…“

[TheThéâtreFrançais,paleandhideous,flauntsitsemptyskeletonnexttothe

corpulentVaudeville…](178).Thispositionstheliving,vital,corporealbodyabovethe

dispassionate,coldone,andisunderscoredbyJanin’sfrequentuseofthetermlabêtise

inreferencetoDeburau’sPierrot.InJanin’suseoftheterm,however,bêtiseisa

charmingouterfaçadethatconcealsaninnercontrolledintelligence:Deburau’sPierrot

isaloof,detached,hisbêtismadualidentitythatallowshimtobetheclumsyyetwitty

fool.InhisbiographyofDeburau,abarely‐discernibleshiftoccurs:Deburauisstill“au

niveaudetouteslesbêtisesdel’époque”[onalevelwithallthebêtisesofthetime]

(68),but,inamovethatconnectsDeburauwiththeself‐imageoftheRomanticartist,

heisbêtiseonlyontheoutside,inhisperformances;hisinteriorselfisdistanced.Inthe

samepassageinwhichhenameshimbêtise,JaninexplicitlycelebratesDeburau’ssang‐

froid:

Ilaremplacélapétulanceparlesang‐froid,l’enthousiasmeparlebon

sens;cen’estpluslePaillassequis’agitaitçàetlà,sansraisonetsansbut;

c’estunstoîcienrenforcéquiselaisseallermachinalementàtoutesles

impressionsdumoment,acteursanspassion…

[Hehasreplacedpetulancewithsang‐froid,enthusiasmwithgoodsense;

thisisnolongerthestreetclownwhoistossedhereandthere,without

reasonandwithoutpurpose;thisisastrongstoicwhoallowshimselfto

mechanicallyexplorealltheimpressionsofthemoment,anactorwithout

passion…](68)

Janinretainsherethe“impressions”thatthebêtiseperformerexploresandconveysto

theaudience,whilealteringtheinnerexperienceofthemimefromemotionality

(“petulance”,“enthusiasm”,“passion”)todispassion,coldness,sang‐froid—hisgestures

havenobearingonhisactualinnerstate.Janinthusrefiguresbêtismasaperformance

thatonlyaffectstheexteriorofthebody;interiorityisprotectedandrelegatedtothe

objectivedistancingandneutralityofsang‐froid.Thisunderstandingofsang‐froid

permeatedlatenineteenth‐centurymimetheories,inwhichthecalm,coldandoften

sinistermindcontrolledabodythatshrankbothinscopeofmovementandinactualon‐

stagevisibilityasminimalistmimetechniquescametothefore.

Conclusion:Twentieth‐centurymimepractitionersandthenarrativeofthenineteenth

century

Energiesassociatedwiththe“natural”flowthroughthefigureofPierrotinhis

manifestationasPierrot‐ventreinhiscorporealoverflowing,hisidentificationwiththe

workingclassandhisgleefulparticipationinlabêtise—allqualitiesascribedinthelatter

partofthecenturytotheearlyPierrotofDeburau,anidealizationbasedonnostalgia

foranideaofthe“natural”linkedtochildhoodandpurity.Racial,classandgender‐

inflectedsocietalanxietiesovercontaminationwiththenatural,withanimality,find

theirexpressionintheautomaton‐likePierrot,Pierrot‐cerveau,whoasthecenturywore

ontookonmoreandmoremechanized,spectralandsinisterfeatures,while

simultaneously—asIhaveargued—engagingingrotesqueperformancestylessuchasin

Margueritte’sPierrotassassindesafemme[Pierrotassassinofhiswife].Astheendof

thecenturyapproached,performersandcriticsalikeattemptedtoshiftPierrotbackto

anidealizedearlierversionofthe“natural”Pierrot,the“popularPierrot”ofDeburau.

Thisnostalgiaparadoxicallyexistedalongsideadisgustforthemimetechniquesofsuch

performersasKalpestriandanuneasinesswithmarkersoftheorganicintheperformed

bodyofPierrot;aparadoxicallayeringthatrevealsconflictedfeelingstowardthemesof

contaminationthatcontinuallyeruptedinlatenineteenth‐centuryFranceofthecolonial

era.ThesecontestationsproducedaperformingbodyinFrenchmimetraditionthatwas

mechanisticinitsidentificationofthebodywithautomatismeandmusicalinstruments,

expressedthroughaminimalistgesturalstyle,whilesimultaneously“natural”inits

presumedgesturalaccesstodeepemotionsandthought.

TheLecoq/Gaulierdisagreementthatopenedthischapteroverthemime’s

identificationwiththatwhichisimitatedcanbesituatedwithinthelargernarrativeof

shiftingconstructionsoftheperformer’sbodyinFrenchmime,andunderstoodasone

siteofcontestationwithinalargertraditionaroundwhatphysicalgesturedenotes

aboutinnerfeelingandself.Thiscontestationcontinuedfromthelatenineteenthand

earlytwentiethcenturiesintothe1920’sself‐conscious“renaissance”ofFrenchmime

bypractitionerssuchasJacquesCopeauandÉtienneDecroux,whosestylecaninpart

betracedtoadeliberatenarrativeofmimetheorythattheycraftedinwhichtheyself‐

consciouslydefinedtheirworkagainstthatofthelatenineteenthcentury.The

conventionalnarrativeoftherevivalofmimeinearlytwentieth‐centuryParisdrawsa

sharpdistinctionbetweennineteenth‐andtwentieth‐centuryFrenchmimestyles,

attributingtotheformeranartificialityandrelianceonliteralgesturaltranslationsof

spokenlanguageincontrasttothemore“natural,”“internal”styleofthelatter—a

distinctionreminiscentoflatenineteenth‐centuryFrenchmime’spractitioners’viewson

earlynineteenth‐centuryFrenchgesturalstyle.Theideaofaninteriorauthenticself

demarcatedbyafalseexterior,adislocationbetweenthemime’sinnerselfandhis

outermask,thatdevelopedinlatenineteenth‐centuryFrenchmimeinformedearly

twentieth‐centurypantomimetechniqueswhichinturninfluencedthedevelopmentof

masqueneutre[neutralmask]pedagogyandclownpedagogy’spositioningofthe

performer’sbodyassiteofauthenticity,eachofwhichistakenuprespectivelyinthe

followingchapters.

Chapter3PuppetsandBodies:

MechanicalversusNaturalinFrenchNeutralMaskTraining

OnasunnyafternooninthethirdfloorstudioclassroomofÉcolePhilippeGaulier

ontheoutskirtsofParis,theatmosphereshiftedalmostimperceptibly.Fivestudents

stoodinthecenteroftheroomwithwhiteexpressionlessmasksintheirhands,looking

confusedlyatthegrizzledmanwhosatslumpedinachairatthecenteroftherowof

studentspectators,cradlinghisframedrumonhislap.Isatseveralchairstotheright,

browfurrowed,mypenpoisedabovemynotebookwithinwhichIhadjustjotted

multiplequestionmarks.PhilippeGaulierhadjustfinishedhisinstructionsforthat

afternoon’sneutralmaskexercise:“NeutralMaskwalksforward,seesocean—whensee

ocean,bigemotioncomesin.NeutralMaskpicksupstoneandthrowsitintoocean.

Surprise,emotion,topemotion,throw.”27

ItwastheseconddayofGaulier’sNeutralMaskworkshop,andtheconfusion

evidencedbynearlyeverystudentintheclassresultedfromGaulier’suseoftheword

“emotion.”Thepreviousday,whenwehaddonnedtheneutralmasksforthefirsttime,

Gaulierhadexplainedthepremisebehindthemaskinnouncertainterms:“Anidiot

behindaNeutralMaskismuchmoreabstract.”28“TheNeutralMaskdoesnothave

problem.Hewakesup,hestand[sic]up,hewasnotdrunkyesterday.”Thiserasureof

27QuotesfromtheNeutralMaskWorkshopatÉcolePhilippeGaulier,bothofstudentsandteacher,aretakenfrommyownwrittennotesandareoftenparaphrased.28Gaulierfrequentlyusedtheterm“idiot”torefertoaperson.Thetermwasnotmeantpejoratively,butasanaffectionatereferencetothehumanconditionasultimatelyexpressedthroughthemaskformofClown,whichwillbeexploredinmoredetailinChapter4.

individualpersonalityandphysicaloremotionalpastiscentraltotheNeutralMask,a

formderivedfromJacquesCopeau’suseoftheexpressionlessmasquenoble[noble

mask]asatrainingdeviceattheÉcoleduVieuxColumbierinParisinthe1920s.Bythe

seconddayoftheworkshop,studentsheldtightlytothenotionoftheNeutralMaskas

comprisinglack:lackofpersonality,ofphysicalidiosyncrasy,ofinteriority—certainlyof

emotion.SowhenGauliersaidthewords“bigemotion,”theatmosphereintheroom

thickenedwithconfusion,aconfusionthatmanifestedfortherestofthedayin

questionsposedtotheteacherthatreceivednoclearresponseandthateveningin

conversationsonthetrainbackintocentralParis.Onestudenthaddecidedtowaita

weekandaskthequestionagaininhopesofgettingacleareranswer.Othersbelieved

Gaulierhadbeenaskingforaqualityofenergyratherthanemotion.AlexfromNew

Zealandframedthelessonintermsofpsychologicalactingtechniques.“It’stheeternal

actingquestion,isn’tit,”hecommentedaswesteppedoffthetrain.“It’sthesame

questionasinStanislavski:howmuchdoyouastheactoractuallyfeeltheemotion

inside,andhowmuchdoyoujustexternallyshowit?”thussuccinctlyframingthe

classroomeventwithinthediscourseofDiderot’sparadoxoftheactor. 29Thisframing

attempt,however,revealedmoreabouttheassumptionsAlexwasbringingtothe

workshopaboutthequandariesofactingthantheissuesthatNeutralMaskpedagogy

attemptstoaddress,whichfocusonlinkinga“natural”bodyto“neutrality”,markedby

29DenisDiderot’sfamous“paradoxofacting”isthedualitybetweentheactor’spersonalityonstageandtheroleheorsheisperforming;theseminalquestionthatDiderotposesinhisLeparadoxesurlecomédien[Theparadoxoftheactor]iswhethertheactoractuallyexperiencestheemotionshe/sheisrepresentingonstage.

efficiencyofmovement.Throughouttheremainingthreeweeksoftheworkshop

studentsstruggledtocometogripswiththismaskformwhoseapparentlackoforganic

markers(personality,physicalidiosyncrasy,emotion)pointedtomechanization,but

whichwasbeingtaughtthroughapedagogythatforegroundedanaturalbodythathad

becomeincreasinglyvaluedinFrenchmimepracticethroughoutthetwentiethcentury.

ThischapteranalysestheNeutralMaskasitdevelopedinthetwentiethcentury

asapedagogicaltoolwithinLecoq‐derivedactortraining,focusingonthewaysinwhich

thisformaroseoutofamimepracticeengagedinattemptstodefineandarticulate

boththe“mechanized”and“natural”body.IttakesasitsdeparturepointtheNovember

2007NeutralMaskWorkshopatÉcolePhilippeGaulier,inwhichIparticipatedasboth

studentandresearcher.Mymethodology,asoutlinedintheIntroduction,weaves

betweenpractice‐basedresearchandhistoriography.Iworktounraveltheintricateand

oftencompetingapproachestoandunderstandingsofthebodythatinformedspecific

embodiedeventswithintheclassroom.Thesepracticescanbetracedbackthroughthe

developmentoftwentieth‐centuryactingtraining,particularlythatbranchofacting

trainingdevelopedbythemimepractitionersofearlytwentieth‐centuryFrance

includingJacquesCopeau,ÉtienneDecroux,Jean‐LouisBarrault,andlaterJacques

Lecoq.Thesepractitionerswereworkingwithandoftenexplicitlyagainstthemime

traditionsofthenineteenthcentury,setagainstthebackdropoftheincreasing

mechanizationofthebodyand,alongsidethis,shiftingculturalvaluesplaceduponthe

“natural”self,asdiscussedinChapter2.Bycloselyexaminingthemomentsof

interactionbetweenaspecificteacher’spedagogyandstudentreception—particularly

momentsoffrustrationandstruggle—themultipleandoftencompetingunderstandings

ofmechanizationand“thenatural”thatinformhowbodiesactandareunderstood

withinacontemporaryNeutralMaskclassroombecomevisible,particularlythewaysin

whichthe“natural”hasbecomeincreasinglyvaluedduringthetwentiethcenturyin

actortraininggenerallyandLecoq‐basedFrenchmimetrainingspecifically,avaluing

thatwasbothreinscribedandchallengedinGaulier’sworkshopastheconstructionof

the“natural”thatinformthepedagogysimultaneouslypositionsthebodyinawaythat

studentstendedtointerpretasmechanical.IntheGaulierclassroomsectionsIfocus

particularlyonwhatItermGaulier’s“pedagogyofdisorientation,”atechniquethat

reframedthestudent/teacherrelationshipandcreatedaspacewithinwhichnew

approachestomovementandtheNeutralMaskpedagogicalapproachtothe“natural”

bodywereexplored.

Followingabriefdescriptionofmyresearchsiteandoutlineofmychapter

structuringthatbuildsonmymethodologyasdetailedinChapter1,inthischapterI

examinetheemergenceofavaluingofthe“natural”astheinteriororinnateselfin

earlytwentieth‐centuryFrenchmime.IarguethatFrenchmimeparadoxicallyretained

itsholdonthemechanicalevenasitincreasinglyvaluedtheideaofthenaturalbody,

developingapedagogycenteredaroundtheideaofbodyasmachine.Tounderstand

theemergenceofthispedagogyIbeginwithCopeau’sdevelopmentofthemasque

noble[noblemask]whichlaterbecamethemasqueneutre[neutralmask]usedby

Lecoq.IanalyzeCopeau’scomplexrelationshiptoboththemechanicalandthenatural,

andsuggestthatCopeau’sideaofneutralityresonatedwithboth:withmechanismby

allowingtheperformerfullcontrolofhisbody,andwiththenaturalinitsemphasison

revealingamoreauthenticbodythroughstrippingawaysocializedhabitsofmovement.

IthenreturntoGaulier’sclassroomtolookathowneutralityoperateswithinthis

pedagogicalsetting,analyzingGaulier’sdeploymentofapedagogyofdisorientation,

whichincludedthepracticeofaLecoq‐basedvianegativa,inordertostripawayhabits

ofthoughtandmovementtohelpstudentsencounterthisunfamiliarembodied

practice,andhisconceptof“beauty”that,Iargue,istiedtoalossofself‐consciousness

thatCopeausoughtinhismasquenoblework.IlinkthephysicalprecisionofNeutral

Maskpedagogytoearlytwentieth‐centuryideasofthebodyasmachineandDecroux’s

developmentofCopeau’spedagogyintoamoreexplicitlymechanisticstyle,and

complicatethismechanisticapproachinGaulier’sclassroombyteasingoutlanguageof

emotionality—specificallyofthebodyrevealingauthenticemotionor“pleasure.”Ithen

analyzethewaysinwhichthebodyinGaulier’sclassroomwasprivilegedover

categoriesofcognition—specificallytextandmentalimage—inthiscommunicationof

emotion,whiletheperformerisdistancedfromthisemotionthroughthepracticeofle

jeu[theplayorthegame]whichlinksto“pleasure”andpreventsfullidentificationwith

thatbeingperformed.Iconcludebysuggestingthatmuchoftheconfusionstudents

experiencestemmedfromtheirassumedideas(andconcurrenthabitsofthoughtand

movement)ofemotionalitylinkedtothenatural,andthenaturallinkedtotheconscious

self,astheyencounteredanapparently‐mechanical—becauselackingmarkersofpastor

personality—NeutralMaskwhoseemotionalityislocatedatadistinctremovefromthe

performer’sself.Itiethistoanideaoftheauthenticselflyingbehindthe“mask”ofthe

persona,athemethatItakeupinChapter4.

Siteandstructure

TheNeutralMaskworkshopatÉcolePhilippeGauliertookplaceinNovember

2007.ThestudentsinmysectionoftheworkshopcamefromBrazil,Spain,China,

England,theUnitedStates,Canada,Australia,NewZealand,GreeceandFrance.

Studentsweregenerallyintheirtwentiesandearlythirtiesandfromprivilegedmiddle‐

classbackgrounds(aself‐selectionofthistypeoftrainingwhichhasbothhightuition

feesanddemandsthefinancialresourcestoliveinParisduringthetraining).Most

studentshadhadpreviousactingtraining,andabouttwo‐thirdshadprofessionalacting

experience.TheworkshopwasconductedinEnglish,andstudentswhosefirstlanguage

wasEnglishtendedtobemorevocalintheclassroomthanstudentsfromBrazil,Spain

andGreecewhohadvariouslevelsofEnglishproficiency,mostlikelybecauseofthe

easeofspeakinginone’sfirstlanguage.30TheissueofGaulier’scomprehensibilityis

addressedinthischapterthroughmyanalysisofhis“pedagogyofdisorientation”which

meantthatevenfirst‐languageEnglishspeakerswerecontinuallyconfusedbyhis

30InChapter4IexamineaninstancewhenawomanfromBrazilwhohadbeenlearningEnglishovereightmonthsoftheworkshopmisunderstoodaninteractionwithGaulier,whichresultedinaderailingoftheintendedpedagogicaloutcomeoftheencounter.

statementswhichhebothdeliveredinbrokenEnglishthatbeliedhisfluency—a

deliberatetechnique,accordingtooneofGaulier’ssonswhowasintheothersectionof

theworkshop—andthatmadehisstatementsintentionally,therefore,obtuse.

AsdiscussedinChapter2,latenineteenth‐centuryFrenchmimehadacomplex

andfraughtrelationshipwiththe“natural”body,arelationshipforgedwithindiscourses

ofracial,class‐basedandgenderedimpurities.Thisresultedinmimeperformancesthat

apparentlystrippedthebodyofitsorganicmarkers(flushedskin,breathing)througha

celebrationofacorpse‐likeappearanceofPierrotandaperformancestylelaudedas

sang‐froid[cold‐blooded],whilesimultaneouslyrevealingafascinationwiththebody’s

visceralinterior.Lecoq’sNeutralMaskpedagogyemergedoutofanearlytwentieth‐

centuryreactionwithandagainstlatenineteenth‐centuryFrenchmimetraditions,and

hasdevelopedwithinlatetwentieth‐andearlytwenty‐first‐centuryclassroomsduringa

timewhenthe“natural”bodyhasgainedincurrency.IarguethatNeutralMaskisa

practicewithacomplexandapparently‐contradictoryrelationshiptotheideologyofthe

“natural”bodyasitdevelopedintheearlytwentiethcentury:simultaneouslysteepedin

earlytwentieth‐centuryideasofthenaturalbodyasefficientandeconomicalin

movement(hallmarksofthe“neutrality”pursuedbyCopeau),yetchallengingtheidea

ofthenaturalasorganicbypositioningthebodyashavingnopastorintentionality,an

echoofthelatenineteenth‐centuryempty,automaton‐likebodyinFrenchmime

discussedinChapter2.ThestudentsinGaulier’sNeutralMaskworkshopinlate2007

werethereforeencounteringamaskformthatpromotedtheideaofthenaturalasthat

whichliesbeneathculturally‐imposedphysicalhabits—aconceptthatresonateswith

suchtheoriesasPeterMcLaren’s“enfleshment”/”refleshment”andAugustoBoal’s

“disjunctive”embodiedtechniques,asdiscussedinChapter1—yetthatsimultaneously

challengedideasofthenaturalbodyasonewithmarkersofitsownlivedhistory.My

centralquestionsinthischapterare:howdidstudentsengagewithamaskformthat

promotesboththenatural(bystrippingthebodyofitsenculturatedhabits)and

mechanization(bystrippingthefaceofexpressivity)?Whataretheimplicationsforhow

the“natural”isunderstoodincontemporaryFrenchmimetraining,andwhatdoesthis

meanbothforthebodiesthatencounterthistrainingandthewaysinwhichitis

deployed?

Duetothemultipleintersectionsbetweenmomentsintheclassroomandthe

layersofgestural,bodyandactortrainingapproachesthatunderliethem,Ihave

structuredthischapterbyinterweavingthepractice‐basedwiththehistoriographic,

beginningwithamomentintheclassroom—whenGaulierconfusedstudentsbyusing

theword“emotion”torefertotheNeutralMask—andusingthatmomentandothers

fromtheworkshopaslaunchingpadsbothfordippingintoearlytwentieth‐century

innovationsinmimetrainingandforcloselyexaminingthedynamicsoftheworkshop

itself,bothwithinandoutsidetheactualclassroom.Whilethisstructuringlacksthe

clarityofachronologicalordering—eitherofthestoryofmimeinthetwentiethcentury

orofthestoryoftheNeutralMaskWorkshopfromdayonethroughtothefinalclass—

initsloopingmovementsitallows,Ihope,foraproductivelayeringofeventsthat

teasesoutapproachestoandunderstandingsofthebodythatfoundtheirwaythrough

decadesofactortrainingintoaspecificcontemporaryclassroom.

“Youhavenotgivenyourguts”:Interiority’sshift

Thesevenbodiesonstagejerkedandflailed,fillingtheroomwithechoingthuds.

Thelowthumpofahanddrumsoundedabovethedinmarkingtheendoftheexercise,

andthestudentsremovedtheirmasks,stoodupandwaitedfortheverdict.Feedback

wascharacteristicallygrim;onlyonestudenthad“alittlesomething,maybe.”Therest,

includingBritishstudentStephen,were“bad,horrible.”AsGaulier’spedagogical

approachomittedanyspecificdemonstrationsordirectreferencestogestural

movement,31Stephenaskedforclarification:

Stephen:IunderstandeverythingIdidwasbad.Buthowwasmy

movement?

Gaulier:Youhavenotgivenyourguts.Ifyoudon’tgiveyourguts,wesay

“bad.”

Stephen:Butcanyou…canyoubeabit…

Gaulier:Youhavegivensomethingcommensurant[commensurable],and

wedonotseesomethingbeautifulfromyou.Weseeclassique[classical]

actor.

Acoupleofthemesjumpoutinthisexchange:Gaulier’suseof“guts”whichpointstoa

31Apedagogicalapproachcommonlyreferredtoasvianegativa,discussedinChapter1andrevisitedingreaterdetaillaterinthischapter.

shiftinthevalueplaceduponthevisceralbodyduringthetwentiethcenturyinFrench

mime,32andhisreferencetothe“classiqueactor”whichevokedtheideaoftraditional,

text‐basedtheatreanditscorrespondingactingtrainingthatcanprioritizetextual

meaningoverphysicalspontaneity.Hisevocationofthisperceiveddichotomy—withthe

physicalplacedinthesuperiorpositionagainstthetextual—isrevealing,pointingtoan

importantshiftthatoccurredintheearlytwentiethcenturyintheunderstandingofthe

“natural”body.Thisphysical/textualdichotomyofcourseisoverlysimplisticandrooted

inaCartesianmind/bodysplit;GiovanniFusettiisoneofmanypractitionerswho

questionthisrhetoric,asking“Soifoneisphysicalwhatistheotherone?”:

Ifweanalyzethewordsweseethatstraight[thenon‐physical]referstoa

linearthinkingbasedonstructuresandideas,wellexpressedbytexts.

Whilephysicalinvolvesamorefluidanddynamicmovement,basedon

thebody,inwhichmovementsarenotstraightbuttheymostlyfollow

curvesandspirals.(Paradox1‐2)

Fusetti‘sassociationof“physical”withfluid,curvingmovementslinksthephysicalwith

theorganicor“natural”body;hisassociationoflinearthinking(“wellexpressedby

texts”)with“straight”pointstothemechanical.Similarly,inGaulier’sfeedbackto

Stephenonecandiscerntheoppositionoftextwithphysical,oflinearwithfluid.When

32Whileatthebeginningofthetwentiethcenturyperformativereferencestoavisceralinteriorofthemime’sbodyhadbeensimultaneouslyshunnedanddesiredasmimepracticeengagedinacomplexworking‐outofracially‐tingedcontaminationanxieties(asdiscussedinChapter2),inthelatterhalfofthecenturythe“natural”bodybecamemorevalued;Idiscussthisfurtherlaterinthischapterandinthefollowing.

GauliertoldStephenthathismovementisbadbecausehehasnotgivenithis“guts,”he

wasdrawingonanunderstandingofthenaturalbody(fluid)assetagainstthemind

(linear,mechanical),privilegingtheformer.

Thisunderstandingofthenaturalbody’srelationshiptothemindcanbetraced

throughnineteenth‐centuryreactionstotheEnlightenmentemphasisonreasonandthe

roleoftheintellect,orthewill,inmasteringinstinct,labêtisse,asdiscussedinChapter

2.Thefirstfewdecadesofthetwentiethcenturysawashiftinthevalueassignedtothe

lattercategoriesinmimetheoryandpractice,aspractitionersincreasinglymistrusted

intellectandbegantoprivilegetheideaofaninnatewisdomburieddeepinsidethe

body.Thiswaspartlyduetotheincreasedimportanceplacedonthesubconsciousas

repositoryoffundamentaltruthsabouttheselfthatwerenotdirectlyaccessibletothe

consciousmind,asconstructedbyPierreJanet’slatenineteenth‐centurytheoryof

automatisme,exploredinChapter2.Freudianpsychoanalysisrigorouslymappedout

thisarchitectureoftheself,withtheunconsciousrealmpositionedbelowthesurfaceof

consciousreality,capableofspillingthroughseamsandgapsinthesupposedlystable

egointheformofphysicalneuroses.

AsJacquesCopeau,ÉtienneDecrouxandJean‐LouisBarraultsetthemselvesto

exploringphysicaltrainingmethodsofthenewmime,thisunderstandingofthedual

conscious/unconsciousnatureoftheselfbecameheavilyentrenchedinFrance.33Both

33Inthefirstfewdecadesofthetwentiethcentury,thesemimeartistsinParissetthemselvestoreinvigorateandreinventthemimeform.Theformwaswidelyconsideredtobeinseriousdecline,andfaultwaslargelyplacedonthegesturalsystemitemployed,whichwasfeltbymany

theprocessofpsychoanalytictherapyandthephysicaltrainingforperformers

developedbythesepractitionersreinscribedthenotionthatadeeper,moreessential

truthlaybeneaththerigidoutersurfaceofthepersonaandphysicalhabits.Despitea

self‐consciousdemarcationbetweenthenewmimeandtheold,however,theseartists

werefashioningtheirmimetechniquesbothwithinandinresponsetounderstandings

ofmechanizationandthenaturalthathadbeenprevalentinthetheatreworldsince

Diderot.Itwasduringtheearlydecadesofthetwentiethcenturythattheycametosee

thebodynotjustasamachinetobecontrolledbythewill,butalsoasasedimentation

ofsocializedhabitsthatdistancedthebodyfromitsnaturalstate(Roach218‐219).

Natural—informsthathadbeenbothcelebratedanddecriedasbêtisseinthe

nineteenthcentury—becamesoughtafterbymimepractitionerscommittedtothe

reinventionofmimeasatwentieth‐centuryartform.

InChapter4Iwillexplorefurtherthesethemesofthenaturalself,whichintersect

withunderstandingsofauthenticity,sincerityandspontaneityastheyemergedinthe

contextofFrenchmimetraininginthetwentiethcentury.Whatisimportanttonoteat

thebeginningofachapterontheNeutralMask—amaskformsteepedinthe

mechanizationofthebodythatoccurredintheearlytwentiethcentury—istheseeming

paradoxattheheartofearlytwentieth‐centuryFrenchmimeapproachestothebody,in

whichanunderstandingofthebodyasmachineexistedanddevelopedalongsidea

valuingofthe“natural,”“organic”body.Whatisparticularlynotableisthatthesetwo

tobebothtooliteralandnotnaturalistic(Felner15‐21).Iexplorethisissueofgesturalsystemslaterinthechapter.

threads—ofmechanismandthenatural—appeardifficulttoseparateinthecaseof

twentieth‐centuryFrenchmimetraining;mechanizationhasmaintaineditsholdwithin

thistraditionevenasotherformsofactingtraininghavemovedtowardsthenatural,

andhasparadoxicallyincorporatedavaluingofthenaturalintoitspedagogyofthebody

asmachine.

“Paralyzedbyamorbidtimidity”:Copeau’smasquenobleandthefreeingofthebody

In1920JacquesCopeauopenedaschoolandlaboratoryfortrainingactors,Le

ThéâtreduVieuxColumbier,builtuponprinciplesarticulatedsevenyearsearlierina

manifestoentitledUnEssaideRénovationDramatique[AnAttemptatDramatic

Renovation].AtthetimeformalactortraininginFranceexistedonlyinthe

ConservatoireNationaldeMusiqueetdeDéclamationwhichtrainedactorsforthe

Comédie‐Française.TheatrepractitionersincludingCopeauandAndréAntoinefound

thetrainingofferedbytheConservatoireinadequatetodevelopingthecraftofacting;

AntoineoffersthefollowingdescriptionoftheConservatoire’smethods:

Eachstudentreceivedonlyabouttenhoursofpersonalattentionayear.

…Thenagaintheteachingislimitedtoasmallnumberofscenesfrom

classicplaysandrolesareassignedindifferentlytoalltemperaments.Itis

possibleforastudenttoworkonasinglepartforthreeyears,andonthe

strengthofthat,winthegrandprix,andbeelectedtothetroupeofthe

Comédie‐Française.(CopeauTexts3)

Copeauwishedtoexploreanewkindofpedagogyforactors,onethatapproachedthe

“instinct”fortheatreasfundamental,thatsoughttostripdowntheaccretionof

socializedhabits—includingtheelocutiontechniquesatthecoreoftheConservatoire’s

training—thathebelievedengenderedsimplisticactingbasedonimitation.Hisbeliefin

craft(métier)astechnicalperfectioncombinedwithhisdesirefor“sincerity”inactors.

HeavilyinfluencedbyConstantinStanislavski,hewishedtodevelopasystemoftraining

thatfocusedonpsychologicalmotivationformovement(Felner39).Hebeganby

strippingawaystageaccoutrements,creatingthetréteaunu[barestage](Felner37),

thenturnedhisfocustothestrippingawayofimpedimentstotheactor’sbody.

OneofCopeau’sgreatestconcernswasthefreedomoftheactor’sbody.Inhis

Réflexionsd’uncomédiensurleparadoxedeDiderot[Reflectionsofanactoron

Diderot’sparadox](1929),Copeauexploresthewaysinwhichtheactorfindshimselfat

oddswithhisownbodyonstage:“Laluttedusculpteuravecl’argilequ’ilmodèlen’est

rien,sijeluicomparelesrésistancesqu’opposentaucomédiensoncorps,sonsang,ses

membres,saboucheettoussesorganes”[Thesculptor’sstrugglewiththeclayheis

modelingisnothing,ifIcompareittotheresistancestotheactorfromtheoppositions

ofhisbody,hisblood,hislimbs,hismouthandallhisorgans.34](16)Copeau’s

positioningofthevisceralityofthebodyasimpedimentisrevealinginlightofthelate

nineteenth‐andearlytwentieth‐centurymistrustofthevisceralbodyinFrenchmime.

Hissimultaneousconcernwiththefreeingofthisvisceralbody,however,isevidentas

34Unlessindicatedotherwise,alltranslationsinthischapteraremine.

hefollowsahypotheticalactorpreparingarole,initiallyinspiredwithinhisimagination

butslowlyfindinghimselfimpairedbyhisinabilitytoembodythatwhichhismind

dictates—anothertakeonthebody‐as‐machinecontrolledbythemind/thewill

discussedinChapter2.HisresponsetoDiderot’sparadox—aresponseevokedbyAlex’s

commentwhilesteppingoffaParisiantrainnearlyacenturylater—isthattheactor

shouldfeeltheemotionsheisplaying,whileacknowledgingthatfrequentlythistypeof

sincerityislostinlieuofmechanicalproficiency.

AccordingtoCopeau(Réflexions16),hisuseofmasksforpedagogicalreasons

developedunexpectedlywhenastudentinhisclassfoundherselffrozenonstage—what

Copeaudescribedasafreezingoftheblood,orsang‐froid.Copeau’schoiceoflanguage

redefinesthetermthathadreferredtothequalityofdetachmentsoadmiredin

nineteenth‐centurymimeperformances.Thegoalremainedthatofdetachment,butthe

imageryofthebody’sinteriorhadshifted:nolongerwasthebloodtobefrozen;rather,

the“natural”bodywastobereleased,freedfromtheconstrictionsofperformingone’s

societalrole.Inhissearchfortechniqueswithwhichtofreetheactorfromthekindof

self‐consciousnessthatfrozethebloodandparalyzedthebody,Copeaudescribes

stumblinguponakeyrealization:thatiftheactor’sfaceiscovered,herbodygainsmore

expressivecapabilities:

…So,inordertoloosenupmypeopleattheSchool,Imaskedthem.

ImmediatelyIwasabletoobserveatransformationoftheyoungactor.

Youunderstandthattheface,forus,istormenting:themasksavesour

dignity,ourfreedom.Themaskprotectsthesoulfromgrimaces.Thence,

byaseriesofveryexplainableconsequences,thewearerofthemask

acutelyfeelshispossibilitiesofcorporealexpression.Itgoessofarthat,

inthismanner,Icuredayoungsterparalysedbyamorbidtimidity.(Texts

Copeau’spositioningof“grimaces”asantitheticaltodignityandfreedomisreminiscent

ofGeorgesWague’sstanceagainstthebody’sgrimacesexploredinChapter2.

Interestingly,however,Copeauhereidentifiesthegrimacewiththesoulratherthanthe

body,ashiftinemphasisfromexternalcorporealgesturestoaninnerstate.Copeau’s

approachtosang‐froidandthecorpse‐likebodyalsomarksashiftfromearlier

attitudes:fornineteenth‐centuryFrenchmimeartists,asdiscussedinChapter2,sang‐

froidwasapositiveattributethatindicatedaperformer’sabilitytoremaindetached

fromfullidentificationwithemotionandacorrespondingdisturbinglossofcorporeal

control,aconstructionthatinformedlatenineteenth‐centurydescriptionsofPierrotas

corpse‐like.Copeau’sdeploymentofsang‐froidandhislanguageofmorbidity,however,

positionthesequalitiesasimpedimentstoperformer’sexpressivefreedom.The

“possibilitiesofcorporealexpression”hadtobegin,forCopeau,fromastateof

opennessmarkedbylackofmotion:

Thedeparturepointofexpressivity:Thestateofrest,ofcalm,of

relaxation,ofsilence,orofsimplicity…Thisisthefirstpoint.Anactor

mustknowhowtobesilent,tolisten,torespond,tostaystill,tobeginan

action,todevelopit,andtoreturntosilenceandimmobility.(Écrits53,

qtd.Felner44)

TheimageofthesilentandimmobileactorthatCopeauconjuresherebears

strikingsimilaritiestoanimagedescribedonecenturyearlierbyHeinrichvonKleistin

hisÜberdasMarionettentheater[OntheMarionetteTheatre](1810),aworkwhich

likelyinfluencedEdwardGordonCraigwithwhomCopeauhadhadearlycontactashe

wasdevelopinghispedagogy.Kleiststructureshisessayasadialoguebetweenthe

authorandadancer,inwhichtheauthorexplainstothedancerthesuperiorityof

marionettestolivedancersintheformers’abilitytoexecuteperfectmovementsfroma

precisecenterofgravity:“...suchafigurewouldneverbeaffected.Foraffectation

appears,asyouknow,whenthesoul…locateditselfatanypointotherthanthecenter

ofgravityofthemovement.”Theauthor’sidealdancersare"dead,pure

pendulums…thespiritcannoterrwhereitdoesnotexist”(24).Describingthecenterof

gravityasthemarionette’s“soul”(23),theauthormakesofhumanidiosyncratic

consciousnessadisorderlyforce,workingagainstharmony:"...consciousnesscreates

disorderinthenaturalharmonyofmen"(24).InanimagethatCopeau’sdescriptionof

theyoungster“paralysedbyamorbidtimidity”evokes,theauthordescribeshisyoung

friendtryingunsuccessfullytorepeataspontaneousartisticgesturewithfoot:"An

invisibleandinexplicablepowerlikeanironnetseemedtoseizeuponthespontaneity

ofhisbearing"(25).Shiftingbrieflytothepossibilitiesofmechanicalperfectionthat

residewithinorganicbeings,abearisputforthasasuperiorfencerduetohis

minimalistmovements(25‐6).

Craighadfamouslyrespondedtosuchideaswithaproposaltodoawayentirely

withthefalliblehumanbodyonstage.Theparadoxattheheartofsuchtheories—the

necessityforfullcontrolovertheactor’sbodyinordertoachievetheeffectof

“spontaneity”—gainedincreasingholdovermechanistictheoriesofactinginthelate

nineteenthcentury,whenthepushforself‐expressiongainedcurrencyinthewakeof

Romanticartisticindividualismandtheriseofpsychoanalysis.Thesomewhatmisleading

terms“realism”and“naturalism”whichhavebeenusedtodescribelatenineteenth‐

centuryimpulsestowardsself‐expressioncanbebetterunderstoodiflookedatnotas

attemptstorepresent,inJulianOlf’swords,“anopticallyorpsychicallyauthenticstate

ofreality”(492),butasthestruggleovertheneedtoreckonwiththeactor’sego,the

psychicinteriorityoftheperformer,asanadditionalelementofstagecraft.Richard

Wagner’scallfortheGesamtkunstwerkhadmandatedthesubordinationofallelements

ofthemiseenscènetotheoveralldesign.Theproblem,addresseddirectlyby

mechanistictheoristsincludingCraig,wasthattheunpredictabilityandinstabilityofthe

actor’sinnerself(anditsconcomitantexpressionbythebody’smovements)didnot

allowforthecontrolneededtoaccomplishthis.

Copeau,agreeingwiththenecessityofaneutralstartingpointformovement,

differedwithCraiginthathebelieveditwaspossibletodevelopteachingtechniques

thatwouldallowahumanbodytoachievethisneutrality.Hebroughtinthesculptor

AlbertMarquetohelpdesignamasquenoble[noblemask](Felner45).Lecoq’slater

developmentofthemasqueneutre[neutralmask]drewonCopeau’smasquenoble,so

namedbecauseCopeaubaseditsdesign—and,inpart,itsfunction—onthemasksworn

byeighteenth‐centuryaristocratswhowhichtoremainanonymousinpublic.Copeau’s

masquenobleservedasimilarfunctionofprovidinganonymity,ashewishedtofreethe

studentfromthestultifyingeffectsofpersonality(Hodge72).

Reclaimingtheeighteenth‐centurymasktraditionofdisguisingone’ssocietal

identity,CopeaucreatedhisnoblemaskbasedontheVenetianbautamask(Figure3).

Figure3:TraditionalVenetianbautamask35

ThenamemayhavederivedfromtheGermanbehüten(toprotect),whichsuitsthe

35 Source:www.lamanomasks.com

functionofthemaskincoveringthefaceandalteringthevoicepitchsothatthe

individualidentityofthewearercouldnotbeascertained.Thename’sderivationmay

alsobefoundintheGermanbauorbabau,aGermanmonsterusedtofrighten

misbehavingchildrenintoobedience:“Senonstaibravovieneilbabauetiportavia…”

(“Ifyoudonotbehave,thebabauwillcomeandtakeyouaway…”)(Delpiano),a

connotationthatevokestheuncannyaspectofanexpressionlessmaskhidingtheface

ofamovinghumanbody.

Copeauforegroundedtwofunctionsofthenoblemaskinhiswork:thehidingof

thefacewhichallowedforfreedomofexpression,andtheplayingofthemaskitself,

whichwasmeanttoencourageneutrality—completebalance,astateofphysical

readiness—inphysicalbearing.Asubtlebutimportantlinkconnectsthetwo:if

neutralityiswhatcanbefoundwhentheself‐consciousnessoffacialvisibilityis

removed,thenneutralityiswhatisimaginedtoremainafterphysicalhabitsthat

performone’sroleinsocietyhavebeenstrippedaway.Thislinksneutralitywith

“natural”and“organic,”thatwhichexistsbothpriortoandbeneathsocializedhabitsof

physicality,andwhichwaslatertoinspireLecoq’spedagogicaluseoftheNeutralMask

to“permettezd'éprouverl'étatdeneutralitéavantl'action,unétatderéceptivitéàtout

autourdenous,sansleconflitintérieur”[“enableonetoexperiencethestateof

neutralitypriortoaction,astateofreceptivenesstoeverythingaroundus,withnoinner

conflict”](LecoqCorps36).InthenextsectionIanalyzeGaulier’sNeutralMask

workshop,lookingatthewaysthisideaofneutralitywasdeployedwithinthisparticular

pedagogicalsetting.

Figure4:StudentsworkingwiththeNeutralMaskinGaulier’sworkshop

Gaulier’spedagogy:Vianegativa,beautyandpleasure

OnfirstdayoftheNeutralMaskworkshopIfoundmyselfenteringanexisting

community.Mostofthestudentshadbeenworkingtogetherforamonth,havingjust

completedthefirstworkshopinGaulier’sannualprogression,LeJeu[Play].Thisinitial

workshop,forwhichIwasnotpresent,wasdescribedbystudentsas“difficult,”

“disorienting,”“impossible,”“frightening”and,perhapssurprisingly,“fun.”36Students

werethrownuponstagewithdirectionsasminimalandvagueas“Befunny,”and

quicklylearnedthateverytechniquetheyhadbroughtinwiththemtoplease—to

pleaseanaudience,ateacher,fellowstudents—didnotfunctionasanticipatedor

36Studentquotesfromwrittenclassroomnotes,November2007.

intended.Colin,arecently‐graduateduniversitytheatremajorfromtheU.S.,described

feelinglikehewasmadlyregurgitatingeveryperformancetechniquehehadeverbeen

taught,untilhewasleftwith“nothing.”Anditwasthis“nothing”thatGaulierwas

apparentlyafter:Colinrecountedtheteachertellingagroupofexhausted,demoralized

studentsthatthepointwastomovethrougha“tunneloffailure,”sheddingeachof

theiracquiredhabitsuntiltheyemergedopenand“beautiful.”

Thisnotionofsheddingacquiredhabitsistiedtothepedagogicalmethodofvia

negativa,originallyarticulatedbyJerzyGrotowski,whichthoughnotexplicitlynamedas

suchiswidelypracticedinboththeLecoqandGaulierschools(MurrayLecoq49‐50).

Theteacherdoesnottellthestudentwhattodo,doesnotdemonstrate;rather,heor

shewitnessesthestudenttryvariousstrategies,withfeedbacklimitedtovariationson

“No,thatwasn’tit”(oftencolorfullyembellishedinGaulier’sclassroomwithsuggestions

forhowtheaudiencemightliketo“kill”thestudentforhisorher“horrible”

performance),andanoccasional“Yes—beautiful”—likewisewithlittleornoexplanation

ofwhy.Vianegativaisrootedinunderstandingsofthephysicalbodyasacalcificationof

acquiredhabitswhichhavemisshapenits“natural”state,anassumptionthatgained

currencyduringthefirstfewdecadesofthetwentiethcenturyandwhichhasbecomea

stapleofcontemporaryWesternactingtraining.Vianegativaisthenamethodthat

attemptstoavoidteachingthestudentbypilingonyetanotherphysicalhabitor

technique;rather,thestudent’s“truest”selfisunderstoodtobelocatedunderneath

thebodyofhabit,buriedbeneathlayersofwhatPierreBourdieutermscultural

habitus;37thereforeaccessingthisdeepestselfwhichcanthenactivatethebodyina

morenatural,“beautiful”wayrequiresthestudenttodoithim‐orherself;theteacher

canonlyserveasawitnesswhoguidestheminimalamountnecessary.38

Whatcriteriadoestheteacherusefordeterminingwhetherastudent’s

performancemeritsa“Yes”ora“No”?InGaulier’scase,itis“beauty,”atermthathe

tiestothenotionsof“trueself”and,Iwouldargue,“instinct.”IntheNeutralMask

workshopstudent’sinnatebeautywasconnectedtoanideaofthe“natural”body

followingitsowninstincts,setagainsttheintellectualismofthemind.WhenIvone

attemptedtoincorporatetextintoherfiremovementduringoneexercise,hereyes

squintedasshespoke,drawingattentiontothemovementsofherfacialmuscles.

Gaulierdescribedherperformanceastoo“academic,”andreiteratedtheimportanceof

prioritizing“pleasure”inthemovement.“Pleasure”and“fun”werelinkedfrequentlyin

feedbacktostudents;whenastudent“lostthefun”ofthemovementhermovement

became“boring.”

Thiswaswellillustratedduringtheanimalexerciseofthethirdweek.Attheend

ofthesecondweekGaulierhadinstructedustovisitthezooovertheweekendandfind

ananimaltoobserve,whichwewouldexplorewithmovementthefollowingweek.

37AccordingtoBourdieu,culturalhabitusis"the'takingin'ofvalues,dispositions,attitudesandbehaviourpatternswhichbecomepartofourdaily,apparentlyindividualconduct…[Itis]deeplyembodiedandnotmerelyamentalandcognitiveconstruction"(qtd.inWebbetal.37).BourdieudrawsonEugenioBarba’sconceptof“inculturation”aswhatperformers“haveabsorbedsincetheirbirthinthecultureandsocialmilieuinwhichtheyhavegrownup.Anthropologistsdefineasinculturationthisprocessofpassivesensory‐motorabsorptionofthedailybehaviourofagivenculture"(Barba&Savarese1991:189).38Ianalyzethisideaofthe“trueself”inmoredetailinChapter4.

Matt’sexperienceonMondaywasnotatypical:heattemptedtoexactlyreplicatethe

movementsoftheanimalhehadchosen—theseaturtle—butthisliteralismcausedhim

to“losethemovement”whenhestoodup.Hedescribedhisfrustrationintermsthat

revealedactingtechniquesbasedonintellectualcontrolofthebody,actingoutimages

onehasinone’shead:

Matt:Idon’tknowwhattodo—Ihavetheimagesinmyhead,Iwentto

thezoo,it’sjusthowmymindworks.

Gaulier:Youdotherhythmonthefloor,andwhenyoustandupitis

absolutelynotthesame.

Matt:Sosometimesthemovementisgoodonthefloor?

Gaulier:Yes.

Matt:Isitthattherhythmistoohuman,andyoulosetheanimal?[This

statementpointedtowardsanideathathewassupposedtoliterally

recreatetheanimal’smovements,topresentarealisticanimaltothe

audience.]

Gaulier:It’sthatyoudon’thavethefunintheanimal.

Matt’sfocusonthe“imagesin[his]head”andhowhis“mindworks”highlightsan

approachthatmoststudentshadtorepresentationasanembodiedtranslationofa

mentalimage.Matt’sinsistencethathewenttothezoounderscoresthisapproach:he

physicallyexperiencedaneventthatwastranslatedintohismindintheformofa

memory,whichhewasnowdrawingoninclasstotranslatetheimageoftheanimalinto

themovementsheperformed.WhenGauliercritiquedhisstanding‐upmovement,Matt

interpretedthisasafailureonhisbody’sparttoaccuratelytranslatetheimageofthe

animal;whatGaulierwasafter,however,wasnottheliteralaccuracyofthemovement,

butaqualitywithinit:“havingfun.”

Thisinjunctionplacedstudentsinthepredicamentof”havingfun”onstagewithin

thestructureofaclassthatmadeoneabsolutelyterrifiedtoperform,apedagogical

techniquethatproducedadisorientationwithimplicationsforself‐consciousness

reminiscentofCopeau’sbattleagainsttheself‐conscious“freezingoftheblood.”Each

exercisebeganwithGaulierbangingonthehanddrumheheld,ashesatinachairin

thecenteroftheaudience,slumpedover,chinnestledinbeard,eyesgloweringatus

frombeneathbushyeyebrows,aperpetualfrownonhisface.Thiswasnotthefaceof

encouragement,anditwasmadecleartousthatassoonashebecameboredwithour

performance,hewouldbangthedrumandweweretoimmediatelystopwhatwewere

doing.Thisinducedafranticqualityinusasweattemptedtoengagewitheachexercise,

knowingthatwewouldalmostcertainlybeverballyrippedtoshredsoncetheexercise

wasover.Theanticipationofthedrumbeinghitwasalmostunbearable;inexercisesin

whichGaulier’sinstructionwasforustorunonstageonebyoneand“play”until

Gaulierwas“bored”withus,studentsoccasionallypre‐emptedthejudgmentbyrunning

offstagethemselvesbeforethedrumhadbeenhit.

IhadknownofGaulier’sreputation,ofcourse,beforeIarrivedattheschool;what

Iwasunpreparedforwasthequalityoflightheartedness,warmthandhumorthatlay

behindit.Laughteralmostalwaysaccompaniedstudents’displaysofterror,and

wheneverGaulierbeganfeedbackwithalongsighand“Doyouthinkthatwelove

Stephen?Thatheismostbeautifulthingwehaveeverseen?Ordowetakehimtoacliff

withaverysmallpieceofrope…”delightedgigglesfilledtheroominresponsetothis

hyperbole,andtherecipientofthelengthydiatribemoreoftenthannotsmiled

abashedlyandnoddedinagreementwiththepronouncement.Mypersonalexperience

wassharedbymoststudentsIspokewith:onceIhadbecomeaccustomedtobeing

“killed”ratherthanpraised,IceasedtocarequitesomuchwhenIdidanexercisebadly,

foundtheexaggeratedcriticismsabitofareliefbecauseboththeirfrequencyandtheir

hyperbolicqualitycushionedtheirimpact,andontheoneortwooccasionsthatIwas

praised,feltthatIhadtrulyaccomplishedsomething.Ialsobecamebetteratdiscerning

whenIhadperformed“beautifully”andwhenIhadbeen“boring,”adistinctionthatlay

inanebulousqualityofself‐consciousness:whenIwasextremelyawareofmy

movementsandworkedtocontrolthem,Ifaredpoorly,whereaswhenmybody

seemedto“takeover”andleadmethroughwhatIperceivedasspontaneous

movements,thefeedbackwaspositive.Thisdetachmentfromself‐consciousness—

whichcouldbelinkedtotheself‐consciousnessthatCopeauhadnotedinhisstudents

asafreezingoftheblood—wasdescribedbyonestudentlaterintheyearas“pleasure”:

Tome,Ithink,pleasurewasmoreaboutbeingcomfortable,andthatwas

somethingthattookalongtimetofeel.AssoonasIstartedfeeling

comfortable,Istartedtohavemorepleasure.Sothetwoofthemkindof

combined.Theeasetobeonstage,orthedesiretostayonstage…Ithink

itwaswheneveryoustoppedthinkingaboutyourself…wheneveryour

driveisnotyou,whenit’ssomeoneelse.(Interview2007)

Thisnotionoffocusshiftingfromoneselftosomethingexternalwasacommonone

amongGaulierstudents,andwasechoedaswellbyaformerstudentofLecoq’s,who

identifieditasthesinglemostusefullessonshelearnedduringheryearstudyingat

ÉcoleJacquesLecoq.39Givingthestudentanexternalfocustofreehimfromthe

constraintsofself‐consciousnessisapedagogicallineageofCopeau’sinteractionswith

themarionetteactingtheoriespopularinthenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies,

descendedfromsuchtheoristsasKleistandCraig.Copeau—whofeltstronglythatthese

theorieswereonlyvalidifactualizedbyactorsintheclassroomandonthestage,and

whoadmiredCraigyetcriticizedhimforhisinabilitytorealizethesetheoriesinthe

actualtheatre(Texts16)—alongwithhisfollowersintheearlytwentieth‐centuryFrench

mimetraditionworkedtocreatepedagogicalmethodsforhelpingthestudentloseself‐

consciousness.Atthecenterofthesemethodslaythemasquenoble,whichLecoq

developedintothemasqueneutre,theneutralmask.

Puppetbodies:Mechanizationandneutrality

TheNeutralMaskaspositionedinGaulier’sworkshopwasphysicallya‐temporal,

withnobodilypastthatmightinfluencethebody’spresentmoment.Onthefirstdayof

39 Interviewwithformerstudent,2009.

theworkshopthreestudentsstoodup,putthemaskonandturnedtotheaudience.

Gaulierinstructedthemtowalkdownstagetothebeatofthedrumheheld;asthey

walkedhepointedoutelementsoftheirphysicalbearingsthatwereoutofalignment:

“Nosehigher,lower,onemillimeterhigher,bon.”Hisuseofsuchhighlyprecise

instructionsforphysicality—“…onemillimeterhigher…”—drawsonearlytwentieth‐

centuryunderstandingsofthebodyasmachinewhichinfluencedthedevelopmentof

Lecoq’sNeutralMask.Theearlytwentieth‐centuryfascinationwiththebodyasmachine

wasmostexplicitlyexploredinRussianConstructivismandMeyerhold’sbiomechanics.

Theformerrepositionedallstageelementsincludingtheactor’sbodyasfunctional

ratherthanrepresentational,andthelatterdevelopedarichsystemofphysicaltraining

thatallowedtheactortoachieveultimatecontroloverhisbody—anexpansionof

nineteenth‐centuryWillcontrollingthebody‐as‐automaton.InFrancetheseideaswere

augmentedbyaninterestinsportspedagogy;Lecoqfamouslycametotheatrefrom

sports,enrichingatraditionthatwasalreadysteepedinphysicalmovementsystems

derivedfromexplorationsofhumanmovementthatapproachedthetrainingofthe

bodyfunctionally,asonewouldapproachtheproperandmostefficientfunctioningofa

machine’sparts.Inhissearchforapedagogyofmovementthatwouldreinvigorate

mime,CopeauwasinitiallyheavilyinfluencedbyÉmileJaques‐Dalcroze’ssystemof

eurhythmics.Dalcroze(1865‐1950)developedeurhythmicsasapedagogicalsystemthat

wouldtrainactorsinmusicalrhythmanddanceinordertoimprovetheircoordination

andhelpthemtosynchronizemovementandspeech.Aspectsofhisphilosophyfind

laterechoesinLecoq’spedagogicalsystem,suchashisbeliefthateachbodilygesture

expressedan“innervoice”andthatrhythmicmovementproducedinneremotions

(MurrayLecoq165).WhatledCopeautolaterrejectDalcroze’sworkinfavorofGeorges

Hébert's“naturalgymnastics”(asystembasedoneconomyofmovement)waswhat

eurhythmicstendedtobecomeinpractice:sequencesofuniformexercisesthattrained

performers’bodiestoimitateastrictform,ratherthanthecultivationofindividual

expressiveabilityattheheartofDalcroze’spedagogicaltheory(Olf490).Thisseeming

splitbetweentheoryandpractice,however,iscomplicatedwhenonelooksat

Dalcroze’stheoreticalintersectionswithmechanistictheoriesofacting,expressedin

suchstatementsas“fundamentaltoallindividualtrainingisthedisciplineofemotion

andthepracticeofreaction”(qtd.inOlf490)andhisexpresseddesireto“playonthis

marvelouskeyboardwhichisthemuscularandnervoussystem”(qtd.inOlf490),a

paradoxthatevokesthemarionettetheoriesofKleistandCraigwhowishedtoachieve

“spontaneity”throughfullcontrolovertheactor’sbody.

Decroux’sexpansionofCopeau’smasquenobledrewonCraig’smarionette

theory,asDecrouxwishedtomoveawayfromnaturalisticgesturalstylestowardsthe

abstract.Inordertoachieveastateofabstraction,theimperfectionsofthehumanbody

hadtobeminimized.Decroux’ssystemoftrainingwasbasedintheperformerachieving

absolutecontroloverhisbody;“involuntary”physicalmovements,linkedinthisageof

psychoanalysistotheunconsciousrealmofinstinctandemotion,hadtobesomehow

broughtundervoluntarycontrol.Craighadbelievedthistobeimpossible;in“TheActor

andtheÜbermarionette”(1908)hewrites:

Therehasneverbeenanactorwhohassotrainedhisbodyfromheadto

footthatitwouldanswertotheworkingsofhismindwithoutpermitting

theemotionsevensomuchastoawaken…never,never:thereneverhas

beenanactorwhoreachedsuchastateofmechanicalperfectionthathis

bodywasabsolutelytheslaveofhismind.(7)

Craig’semphasisonemotionsistelling:themechanicalbodyismarkedbylackof

emotion;emotionsherearethemarkersoftheorganic,the“natural”body.Decroux

tookupthechallengeposedbyCraigandattemptedtocreateamimeforminwhicha

humanperformercouldencompassthequalitiesofamarionette.Havingmaskedthe

mime’sface,Decrouxdevelopedthegymnastiquedramatique,aseriesofexercises

intendedtogivethemimecompletementalcontroloverhisbody:“WhatIhavedoneis

toconsiderthehumanbodyasakeyboard—thekeyboardofapiano…Nothingshould

happeninthebodyexceptwhatisdesiredandcalculated”(qtd.inFelner64).His

gymnastiquedramatiquefocusedontheisolationofbodyparts,followingthekeyboard

analogyoftheinstrumentalistplayingupondiscretekeys,andpromptingEricBentleyto

comment“Inhis[Decroux’s]presence…weglimpsedtheübermarionetteintheprocess

ofcreation”(187,qtd.inFelner65).Thisechoestheidentificationoftheperformer’s

bodywithmusicalinstrumentsinlatenineteenth‐centuryFrenchmime,asdiscussedin

Chapter2.ThisworkfurtherdevelopedintolemimestatuaireformwhichDecroux

contrastedtolepantomimeblancheofthenineteenthcenturyinitsfocusonthe

expressivequalitiesofthetorsooverthegesturesofthehandsandtheface:

Theoldpantomimeisdead;thepantomimeasoneperformeditindays

goneby—anecdotal,chatty,burdenedbyfutiletraditions,and

subordinatedtoanalphabet,analltooformalcode.Themobilestatuary

mimebearsitsolittleresemblancethatitactuallyconstitutesanewart,

amodernart.(qtd.inFelner65)

Ironicallytheminimalistmimestyleofthelatenineteenthcentury,thatfocused

gesturesinthehandsandface,hadbeendevelopedinresponsetowhatpractitioners

understoodasanexcessively“formalcode”ofDelsarte’sgesturalsystem.Decrouxhere

echoesthereasonsoflatenineteenth‐centurypractitionersfordevelopinganewmime

form,whileattributingtotheirnewstylethesamethingtheywereattemptingtoreject.

Onceagainthenewestmimeformisunderstoodasthemostexpressive,theolderform

burdenedbyartificiality.

WhileDecrouxandCopeauintentionallyandexplicitlysettheirrespective

techniquespantomimestatuaire[statuepantomime]andjeuphysique[physicalplay]

againstthepantomimeblanche[whitepantomime]ofthenineteenthcentury,these

newmimeformsdrewonideasofsang‐froidanddetachmentthathadmarkedthe

nineteenthcentury’stradition,reframingthemas“neutrality.”Nineteenthcentury

sang‐froidhadbeenconsideredanecessaryskillforconveyingcontroloverthe

gesturingbody;bymaintaininganairofdetachmentthemimewasabletoenact

successfullythesystemofgesturallanguagethatconveyedspecificmeaningtothe

audience.Earlytwentieth‐centurymimepractitionersrejectedtheideaofthistypeof

gesturallanguage,findingittooliteralandmerelyalesser,silentversionofspoken

language.Decrouxtookthisreactionagainstthebodymimingspokenlanguagetoan

extreme,attemptingtodevelopamimeformthatwascompletelyindependentoftext,

inventingagrammarofthebodyunconnectedtospokenlanguage(Felner56).They

embraced“neutrality”asastateoffullphysicalpotential,aperfectbalancingofthe

bodyfromwhichthemimecouldenactmovementsthatconveyedmeaning.Theneutral

stateitselfwasnotconsideredtocontainmeaning,andwastiedtotheideaofthe

naturalself,theselfpriortoinculturation.40ThuswhenLecoqlaterdevelopedhis

school’scurriculum,heplacedNeutralMaskatthebeginningofthemasksequenceand

Clownattheend,astherednosewasconsideredthemostidiosyncraticandhighly

personalofthemaskforms.

Thisshiftfromsang‐froidtoneutralitywasindicativeoftheshiftintheimplicit

valueofthe“natural”self.Whensang‐froidwaspracticedtodisplaymasteryover

instinctive,base,unpredictableanduncontrollablebêtism,itreinscribedamistrustof

thenaturalthatwasdeeplytiedtodiscoursesofrace,classandgender,asdiscussedin

Chapter2.Neutrality,bycontrast,lionizedthe“naturalstate”;practitionersdeveloped

extensivetrainingregimesaimedatbreakingdownthecalcifiedhabitsofthebodyin

40Iuse“inculturation”hereasdefinedbyEugenioBarba,whodescribeditaswhatperformers"haveabsorbedsincetheirbirthinthecultureandsocialmilieuinwhichtheyhavegrownup.Anthropologistsdefineasinculturationthisprocessofpassivesensory‐motorabsorptionofthedailybehaviourofagivenculture."(Barba&Savarese189).Barbasetsthisagainst“acculturation”whichis"asecondary'colonisation'ofthebody,butadeliberateandplannedone"(MurrayetalPhysical140).

ordertoaccessthepure,balancednaturalstatebeneath.Whatisremarkableabout

bothapproachesistheeffortanddisciplineappliedto,inthefirstcase,controllingthe

naturalstate,andinthesecondcase,achievingit.Inthefirstcasethenaturalwas

understoodasself‐motivatingandexcessive,capableofburstingforthatthefirstsignof

weaknessinthecontrollingsang‐froid.Inthesecondcase,thenaturalishiddenaway,

nearlyinaccessible;theinculturatedbodywithitsirongriponphysicalmovementmust

bebrokendown.Theviewofneutralityasthefreeingofthenatural,pre‐inculturated

selfwascloselytiedtotwoevents:thedevaluingoftextinfavorofabstractgesture,and

changingunderstandingsofhowknowledgewasgenerated.

Akeyfactorintheshiftfromneutralityassang‐froidtoneutralityasorganic

freedom,then,wasintheunderstandingofhowknowledgewasgenerated.The

marionettetheoriesespousedbyCraigandtakenupbyDecrouxlefttherationalmind

atthecenterofknowledgegeneration.WhenLecoqenteredthemimesceneinFrance

in1956,precisemovementsandabsolutecontroloverthebodywereatthecenterof

mimepedagogy.MarcelMarceau,discipleofDecroux,hadcreatedagesturalsystem

thatbroughttolifeaninvisibleworldofobjectsbeforethespectators’eyes.Lecoq,

findingthisstyleofgesturetooliteralmuchasDecrouxhadfoundpantomimeblanche’s

silentlanguagetrappedwithintextualrealism,basedhispedagogyonthepremisethat

knowledgeisgeneratedprimarilythroughthebody.41Decrouxhadpositionedthebody

asthatwhichimitatesthought:“Everythingispermittedinart,provideditisdoneon

41FordetailedaccountsofthedevelopmentofLecoq’spedagogy,seeLecoq2000,Murray2003andFelner1985.

purpose.Andsinceinourart[mime],thebodyofmanisthebasicmaterial,thebody

mustimitatethought”(DecrouxParoles114,qtd.inFelner149).Lecoq’sdivergence

fromDecrouxonthispointaltered,slightlybutsignificantly,thewayinwhicheach

definedneutrality.ForDecroux,theneutralbodywasadisciplinedbody,fromwhichthe

mime’sselfhadsuccessfullydissociatedtothepointwherethebodyitselfwasmerely

animitationofthought.Lecoq,bypositioningthoughtasaresultofmovementrather

thanitsinstigator,mergedthebodywithconsciousness.Inordertoachieveastateof

neutrality,orphysicalfreedom,Lecoq’smimeperformerplayedwithmovementin

ordertodiscoverphysicalinculturatedhabitsandshedthem,aprocessthatLecoq

describesasanerasureofpre‐existing(embodied)knowledge:

Aucommencement,ilestnécessairededémystifiertousquenoussavons

afindenousmettredansunétatdenon‐connaissance,unétatde

franchiseetladisponibilitépourlaredécouvertedel'élémentaire.Pour

maintenant,nousnevoyonspluscequinousentoure.

[Inthebeginning,itisnecessarytodemystifyallthatweknowinorderto

putourselvesinastateofnon‐knowing,astateofopennessand

availabilityfortherediscoveryoftheelemental.Fornow,wenolonger

seewhatsurroundsus.](L’école41)

Inthismimenaturel[naturalmime]theneutralstatewasnolongeradissociatedone,

butoneof“openness”and“availability.”ThusLecoq’sNeutralMaskpedagogybeganto

includephysicalexplorationsofthenaturalworld—theelements,animals,colors.The

mindwasre‐framedasanimpedimenttoknowledgeratherthanknowledge’ssource.

Earlierinthecentury,Decrouxwasinterestedintakinggesturalexpressiontoits

mostabstractform.Yethisunderstandingofneutralityretainedtheanti‐organic,

instrumentalist‐upon‐a‐keyboardaspectoflatenineteenth‐centurymarionettetheory.

Hebelievedthatinordertoachieveastateofneutrality,theperformermustusehis

mindtocompletelymasterhisbody.Interestingly,whilespokentextwasdoneaway

withastooliteralandthemime’sfaceandthushisidentitywereremovedthroughthe

maskinordertoseparatethehumanbodyfromitstraditionalform,therationalmind

remainedatthecenterofknowledgegenerationforDecroux.

Gaulierandconfusion:Apedagogyofdisorientation

TheplayingofneutralitywasinitiallyapproachedbymanystudentsintheGaulier

courseasastyleofmovementthathadtobelearned,anunderstandableassumption

giventhecloserelationshipbetweenthedevelopmentoftheNeutralMaskpedagogy

andtheuseofintensivephysicaltrainingtechniquessuchasthoseofDalcrozeand

Decroux.DuringaDayTwobathroombreak,aBritishwomannamedAnnaturnedtoa

groupqueuingintheladiesroomandaskedwhetheranyofusknewhowwewere

“supposed”tobemovingastheNeutralMask.“Arewesupposedtobegraceful?Big?

Beautiful?What?Ifeellikewe’resupposedtobegraceful,likedancers—heseemsto

likepeoplewholooklikethey’redancerswhentheymove,”sheexplained,thenadded

withahintofdesperation,“ButI’mnotadancer,Ican’tmovelikethat.”

ThisresponsepointedtoGaulier’sestablishmentofaclearhierarchyinhis

classroom,inwhichhewasthesoleandultimatearbiterofastudent’sperformance—

anexampleofthemarionetteparadoxofspontaneitythroughcontrolappliedtothe

teacher/studentrelationship.Gaulierwouldoftensolicitfeedbackfromotherstudents,

butusuallyintheformofsuchleadingquestionsas“Doyouthink,whenyouseeVictor

jumpupanddownlikeahorriblechicken,‘Ah,thisisthemostbeautifulmovementI

haveeverseen,thankyou,Ihavefoundtruebeautynow.’Ordoyouthink,‘Thisisthe

mosthorriblejumpingIcanimagine,Iwanttokillhim’?”Studentsquicklylearnedto

discern,evenwhensuchquestionswerephrasedmoreambiguously,whatGaulier

wantedthemtosay;theformatoffeedbackwastocreateauniformandpowerful

judgment,nottodiscussthesubtletiesofwhatworkedandwhatdidn’t.Gaulier

repeatedlystates,inclassandinhisrecentbookthathisgoalasateacherisnotto

teachonestaticmethod,buttoalloweachstudent’sindividualitytoemerge:

EntreAttilaetmonenseignement:unocéan.Làoùl’unpassait;l’herbe

nerepoussaitpas,làoùl’autrepénètre;desfleursoudescactus,oudes

ortiesfleurissentàtousboutsdechamps.Etdesoriginaux!Pasdesfac‐

similés!Pasdescopies!Del’authentique!/Quellesdifférencesentre

cesanciensétudiants?...ilssonttousdissemblablesetmerveilleuxdans

leurart./Aucunrouleaucompresseurnelesaratatinés,aucunprof.ne

leurarefiléunstylecommedesapprentismarlousfourguentdesphotos

pornographiquessubrepticement,souslemanteau./Unprof.donnedes

libertés.Pasplus./Etlestyle?/Ilfleuritsurlapoésiedechacun.Nepas

ytoucher!Fragile!

[BetweenAttilaandmyteaching:awholeocean.Whereoneofthem

passed,thegrasswouldnotgrowagain.Wheretheotherseepsin,

flowersorcactiornettlesflourishingreatprofusion.Andoriginals!Not

facsimiles!Notcopies!Theyareauthentic./Whatdifferencesarethere

betweentheseformerstudents?...theyarealldissimilarandmarvellous

intheirart.Nosteamrollerhassquashedthemdown.Noteacherhas

fobbedthemoffwithastylethewayapprenticepimpssellpornographic

photographs,surreptitiously,onthesly./Ateachergivesfreedom.

Nothingmore./Andthestyle?/Itflourishesinthepoetryofeach

individual.Don’ttouchit!It’sfragile!](Gégèneurbackcover)42

ManyGaulierstudentswouldagreewholeheartedlythatGaulierpracticeswhathe

preachesinthisregard;thathispedagogyisultimatelyaboutbringingouttheunique

beautyofeachindividualstudent.Theauthoritativemethodsheusestoachievethis,

however,frequentlysparkresistanceinstudents,asIexplorefurtherinChapter4.

Anna’squestionwasanattempttounderstandtechnique,tograspthecorrect

styleofmovementfortheNeutralMask.Herswasnotauniquequery;oneofthe

commonsideeffectsofthevianegativapedagogicalapproachisconfusionamong

42GaulierwroteLeGégèneur:jeulumièrethéâtre/TheTormentor:lejeulighttheatre(2007)inbothFrenchandEnglish;thefirsthalfofthebookisinFrench,andthesecondhalfishisEnglishtranslation.AllsubsequentquotesfromthebookinthischapterincludebothhisFrenchandEnglishversions.

studentsastowhattheteacherwants,whatisthe“correct”waytoperform.

Importantly,vianegativaisnotaboutanabsenceofspecifictechnique,an“anything

goes”approach.Thephilosophybehindthisapproachreflectsanexplicitengagement

withapedagogicalparadox:thereisnoone“right”techniquethatcanbedemonstrated

tothestudentbytheteacher,yettherearemany“wrong”techniquesthatthestudent

mightattempt.ThestudentsinGaulier’sworkshophadfiguredoutthattheyneededto

performinacertainwayinordertogarnerararepositiveresponsefromtheteacher;

questionsaskedbetweenexercisesandattheendofclassreflectedourattemptsto

piecetogethertheknowledgeweneededtoperformthe“correct”technique.

Questionsrequestingclarificationonaspecificcriticismwerequicklyabandoned

asastrategybymostofthestudentsoncetheyrealizedtheywereunlikelytoreceivea

satisfactoryresponse.AfterthefirstdayoftheworkshopwhenGauliercontinually

offeredspecificfeedbackonphysicaltechnique(“Nosehigher,lower,onemillimeter,

bon”),exerciseswereconductedinsilenceapartfromthebangonthedrum,andpost‐

exercisefeedbackrangedfrom“PamIkill”43to“Rachelisbeautiful,no?”44Most

studentsintheNeutralMaskworkshophadbeeninthepriorLeJeu[Play]workshop,

thefirstintheannualseries,andhadlearnedthefutilityofaskingGaulierforspecific

43Gaulier’suseof“kill”wasmeantnotinaliteralsense,obviously,butasaconnotationofabsolutedismissaloftheperformance.WhenGauliersaidhe“killed”someone,hemeantthattheirownindividualbeautyhadnotmanifestedanywhereintheperformance;theyhaddrawnmerelyonconvention.44Similarly,hisuseof“beautiful”wasnotmeantinaconventionalsense,buttoindicatethevisibilityofthestudent’suniqueinternalbeautyintheperformance:“Anactorisbeautifulwhenhedoesn’thidehissoulbeneaththepersonalityofhischaracter,whenheallowsustoperceive,behindthecharacter,thefacehehadwhenhewasseven”(GaulierJournal12).

feedback.Gaulierencouragedquestionsandalwaysansweredthem,butdidsoina

deliberatelyopaquestyle,oftendrawingonmetaphoricalturnsofphrase.Thetaskof

untanglinghispoeticyetconfusingphraseswasmademorearduousbyhisbroken

English,whichmadeitdifficulttoknowhowspecifichisterminologywas .45Having

describednearlyeverystudent’sperformanceas“horrible,”forinstance,heresponded

toJesse’squestion“Wasmymovementbad?”with“Theruleoftheschooliswedon’t

sayitwashorrible.”Didthismeanthat“horrible”wasnotaviabletermintheschool—a

pointcontradicteddirectlybytheword’sfrequentappearancefollowinganexercise—or

washereferringspecificallytoJesse’sperformance?Gaulier’sexplicit“rule”(“Therule

oftheschooliswedon’tsayitwashorrible”)contradictedoneofhisimplicit“rules”of

theworkshop(studentsweremeanttoconsistentlyfail).Thiscontradictionitselffuelled

anotheroftheimplicit“rules”:thestudentsweremeanttobeconfusedbytheir

exchangeswiththeteacher.Afteraconfusedpause,Jessemadeanotherattempt:“But

wasittoomuchwater?”whichwasansweredwith,“Yes,andtoomuchbaby.”Jesse

gaveupquestioning.Inresponsetoastudent’squestionaboutwhyshewas“horrible”

whenshesawtheocean,Gaulierexplained,“Youneedtohaveviolence,withthe

pleasuretoanswerthebeautyoftheocean.”Matt,sittingintheaudience,leanedover

toStephenandwhispered,“Howdoyoushowpleasurewithyourbody?”Hehad

learnedthatsuchaspecificquestionaboutphysicaltechniquewouldnotbedirectly

45Gaulier’suseofbrokenEnglishiswidelybelievedtobedeliberatelyaffected,apointconfirmedformebyhissonBalthazar(whowastakingthecourseatthetimeIattended),andwhodescribedhisfather’sEnglishathomeasmuchmorefluent.

answeredbyGaulier;thestudentsthereforeturnedtoeachotherforadvice.Gaulier’s

expressedintentioninthisstrategywastopreventstudentsfromexpectingand

receivinganswersthatwouldintellectuallyclearuptheirconfusion;hispedagogywas

experientialandpredicatedondisorientation.46

Ashiftinthistrendtookplaceonthefifthdaywhenthemovementteacher

Juan—acurrentsecond‐yearstudentatGaulierfromBarcelona—ranthemasksection

oftheworkshop,andstudentsattemptedtobreakoutofthedisorientingsetupofthe

classbyaskingmoredirectquestions.WiththescowlingGauliersafelyensconcedina

doctor’sofficemilesaway,questionsthathadbeenwhisperedbetweenstudentswere

askedoutloudtotheteacher.When,duringareviewofwater,JuantoldSarah“That

wasthirty‐threemilliliterbottledwater”(acriticisminGaulier‐speak),Sarahresponded

with,“Okay.Sonotenoughmovement?”ratherthanthemutenodoftheheadthat

wouldhavefollowedthesamecriticismofferedbyGaulier.Juanbecameawareofthe

statusdifferentialquickly,whenMattexplicitlydisagreedwithhisassessmentofIvone’s

watermovementas“alittletooartistic.”Mattjumpedin(anunimaginableinterruption

inaGaulierclassroom)with,“Butthere’snothingwrongwiththat.Itcouldbeartistic,

butifithasthemovementofwater…”Juanreplied,“IamnotPhilippe,youcan

disagreewithme.ButIhavethelastword.”WhenGaulierreturnedthefollowingday,

tracesofstudentquestioningthathaddevelopedduringoneclasswithJuancouldstill

bediscerned.Matt,havingjustbeencriticizedintypicallyopaqueyetunmistakable

46InterviewwithGaulier,November2007;thelinkto“disorientation”ismine.

fashion(“MattIkill.Noproblem.”)asked,“Why?”towhichhereceivedaresponsethat

answeredthequestionwithoutofferingaspecificphysicaltechniquetoemploy:

“Becausethevoicedoesn’tgothroughyourbody.”

Asimilarlyuntraditionalapproachtothequestion‐and‐answersessioncanbe

foundinGaulier’spedagogicalwritings.Gaulier’sLeGégèneur:jeuxlumièrethéâtre/

TheTormentor:lejeulighttheatre(2007)laysoutthepedagogythatinformshisschool,

alternatingbetweenpracticalexercisesandtheoreticalpassages.Thelatterare

structuredasinterviews,inwhichGauliersplitshisvoicebetweenhimselfasteacher

andtheInterrogateur,whoseitalicizedquestionsmirrorthoseposedbystudentsatthe

school,bothintheirsearchingafterclear,logicalexplanationsandintheirfrequent

abilityto(mockingly)infuriatetheteacher:

J’écoutevotrequestionsansmaliceaucun.

Pourquoi,audébutdenotreentretien,vousavez,billeentête,embrayé

surlesujetdelatragédiealorsquevotreécole,disonsvotre

enseignement,préludeavecle«jeu»?

Interrogateur,encorevousmedésarçonnez!Quiaposélapremière

question?Vous!Quelenavaitétélelibellé?Jelerépètemotàmot:‐

Quelledéfinitiondonnez‐vousd’untragédien?

[Ilistentoyourquestionwithnoillwill.

Why,atthebeginningofourinterview,didyouimmediatelygetintothe

subjectoftragedywhenteachingatyourschoolstartswithLeJeu?

‘Interrogator’!Youthrowmeoffcourseagain.Whoaskedthefirst

question?Youdid.Howwasitphrased?Irepeat,wordforword,‘Whatis

yourdefinitionofatragicactor?’](25&189)

TheseplayfulexchangesallowGauliertotheorizehispedagogywithinaframeworkthat

distanceshimfromthewordsheusestoexplainhismethods;hisapparentinsistenceon

literalcommunication(“Irepeat,wordforword…”)ironicallyconfusesthesubjectwhile

seemingtoinsistonclarity.Gaulierisfamouslysuspiciousoftheorizinghispractice(an

ironythatisnotlostonmeasIwritethesewords),believingthatthedrivetoanalyze

“beauty”and“pleasure”bydefinitionexcludesthepossibilityoftrulyunderstanding

theirmeanings.ThispointstoatensionthatexistsnotjustinGaulier’spedagogybutin

thatofLecoqaswell:thetensionbetweentheneedfordistancethatliesattheheartof

lejeu[theplayorthegame]ontheonehand,andtheneedtophysicallyenactexercises

inordertounderstandthepedagogy—aconceptrootedinLecoq’scontentionthat

knowledgeisgeneratedwithinthebody—ontheother.

OneoftheeffectsofGaulier’suseofvianegativawasashrinkingofphysicality

duringexercises.Mostofthestudentshadbeenpreviouslytrainedinacting,and

broughtwiththemmovementtechniquesthathadbecomehabituatedandwhichthey

thereforeeasilyfellintoonstage.Thesetendedtowardstheslightlyheightened

physicalitythattypifiesmostlatetwentieth‐centurystageacting,whichisbasedina

kindofamplifiednaturalism.Ittookonlyacoupleofroundsofbeingtoldtheywere

“horrible”forstudentstobegintoabandontheirlearnedstagephysicalities,which

resultedinaphysicaltentativenessthattypifiedexercisesinthefirstweek.This

tendencywassimultaneouslyencouragedbyGaulier’sharshfeedbackandcounteredby

hisexhortationstobe“big—likeagiant.”

Matt,whosemostcommonfacialexpressioninclasswasafrownandabrowso

furrowedthatheseemedtobesufferingfromachronicheadache,hadmoretensionin

hisperformancesthananyoneelse.Hewasconstantlybeing“killed”byGaulier,and

constantlymadeanextremeefforttogetit“right,”lookingmiserablewhenhewas

criticizedevenasotherstudentshadlearnedtolaughattheircritiques,whichwere

nearlyalwayspresentedasembellishedgrandioseparodies.Hisphysicalityduring

exerciseswasmarkedbyslownessandrigidity;IfeltasifIcouldreadhisthoughtson

eachmusclemovement:“Isthisright?Maybe?Howaboutthis?”Whentheexercise

wouldendhewouldhunchover,browfurrowed,breathshallow,andtakeinwhatever

criticismGaulierleveledathimwithapparentconfusionandmisery.Thiswasincontrast

tothepost‐exercisephysicalityofmostofthestudents,whichtendedtobemarkedbya

lowerleveloftensionasstudentsstoodslightlyslumped,onehipout,handonhip,feet

shuffling,awrysmileontheface,readytoreceivethepromisedlambasting—or,inthe

rarecaseofpraise,toreceiveitvery,veryhumbly(Figure5).

Figure5:Studentswaitingtoreceivefeedback

Matt’stensionfoundanoutletduring“Fire,”anexercisethatdemanded

considerableenergyandresultedinmultiplebruisesasourbodies,“playingfire,”

convulsedonthefloor.WhenMatt’sgroupwasuptheroomresoundedwiththumps

andrattling;Matt’sbody,lyinginatightfetalpositiononthefloor,alternatedbetween

suddenburstsofconvulsingandsmall,mutedtrembling.Studentswhowerewatching

appearedimpressed—severalofthemconversedwitheachotherandpointedatMatt.

Whentheexercisewasoverandthestudentsonstagesatwithmasksinhand,gasping

forbreath,GaulierdescribedMattas“…generous.Didhegivewiththefunoffire,or

withtherevenge—afterfiveweeks‘theywillseewhattheywillsee.’Verygenerous,but

abitrevenge.”Thisprovokedlaughterfromthegroupand,unusually,fromMatt,who

noddedinacknowledgmentofhisheartfeltattempttoimpressthegroupafterweeksof

failure.

Matt’sleveloftensionstoodoutincontrasttothephysicalperformancestylesof

mostotherstudentsintheclass,whounlikeMatthadhadpreviousformalacting

training.Latetwentieth‐centurymovementtrainingforactorshasbeenmarkedbyan

emphasison“freeing”thebodytomovespontaneously;manymovementexercisesare

derivedfromexperimentsinbodilymovementconductedinthe1960’sbygroups

includingTheLivingTheatrewhich,asJosephRoachhasdocumented,experimented

withfreeingthebodyfromsocializedcodesthatrestrainedmovement(218‐226).

WilhelmReich’sTheFunctionoftheOrgasm(1942)heavilyinfluencedsuch

experimentation,positingphysicalrigidity(ormovementscharacterizedbythe

mechanizationstyle)assymptomaticofneurosis(Roach219).Reich’sworkwasofgreat

interesttoearlytwentieth‐centurymimepractitioners,whowishedtomakemimeinto

anautonomousartformbasedonanexpandedrangeofphysicalmovement.Thekind

ofmovementtrainingthatmanystudentsinGaulier’sworkshophadalready

encountered,therefore,wasderivedfromtheseearlyandmid‐centurytechniquesthat

hadbeendevelopedinanattempttoreleasethebody’smusculaturefrompre‐existing

socializedhabitsinordertoallowforagreaterrangeofmovement.Improvisation,

whichallowsforspontaneity,isatthecoreofthistraining;thegoalistoletthebody

followitsownspontaneousmovementpatterns,withaslittleinterferencefromthe

mindaspossible.Sowhenstudentswithpriortheatricalmovementtraining(including

myself)enteredGaulier’sclassroom,wecarriedwithusphysicaltechniquesthatwere

easilyactivatedwhentoldto“playwater.”

Butthesetechniquesdidn’twork,asweallquicklylearned.AsIlayonthefloor

duringthefirstexercise,Ifeltmylimbs“naturally”respondtotheideaofmovinglike

water.Ihavealwaysthoughtofmyselfasquitea“watery”person,andasIlaydownon

thefloorandplacedthemaskovermyfaceIfeltatwingeofpridethatthefirstelement

IwouldbeabletodemonstratetoGaulierwouldbetheoneIwassogoodat.Gaulier

hadbegunthedayexplainingtousthataswebegantoexplorethemovementsof

variouselementsandotheraspectsofthenaturalworld,wewouldfindthatsomewe

weregoodat,somebad.Hehimself,whileastudentatLecoq’sschoolinthe1970s,had

apparentlybeenbadatairbutgoodatfire.Iknewbeforewebeganthatwaterwould

bemystrength.Thedrumsounded;Iwaitedforadramaticbeatbeforesoftly

undulatingmytorso,usingmyrhythmicbreathingasimpetus.Imovedontoslowly

sweepingmyarmsandlegsacrossthefloorinfluidarcs.Whenthedrumsounded

indicatingitwastimetomovetoastandingposition,Iallowedgravitytoexertitspull

onmyhead,myhipsandmyupperchestasIslowlyswayedupright.Iwasfully“inthe

water,”andwhenthedrumsoundedmarkingtheendoftheexerciseIremovedmy

maskandwaitedfortheinevitablepraise.Itnevercame.Gaulierdidn’tstopat“Ikill

Laura.”Hepausedandeyedmeclosely,thenmuttered“Horrible.Justhorrible.”

Anotherpause,ashakeofthehead,and“Horrible.Thankyougoodbye”andthedrum

soundedtheinstructiontotakeourseats.

InGaulier’sclasswequicklylearnedthatourtechniquesofperformingthe“free,”

“spontaneous”bodywerejustashabituatedasthetechniqueswehadshedinprevious

movementclassesinordertoachievethisfreedom.OneofthechiefeffectsofGaulier’s

hyper‐criticalpedagogy—accompaniedbyanear‐constantglareasheslumpedinhis

chair,caressingthedruminanticipationofhittingittomarkastudent’sfailure—wasto

makeapparenttousthephysicalstrategiesthatwebroughtwithustopleaseateacher

inanactingclass,strategiesthatoftenhadbecomenaturalizedthroughyearsof

corporealtraining.WhenGaulierdescribesthepedagogyofNeutralMask,hefocuseson

thismaking‐visibleofhabituatedmovementpatterns:

Ledivorceentrelesexigencesduneutreetlesanomalies(oules

singularités)danslesquellesl’étudiants’estréfugiésauteauxyeux.C’est

lemasquequilesdivulgue.

Ildévoile:lesespacesrétrécis,lesagressivité,lespeurs,leshontes.Le

professeurlessignalera.

[ThereisanobviousgapbetweenthedemandsoftheNeutralMaskand

the‘abnormalities’(orpeculiarities)underwhichthestudenthashidden

themself[sic].ItistheMaskwhichrevealstheseabnormalities.It

uncoverstheshrunkenspaces,theaggressions,thefearsandtheshame.

Theteacherpointsthesethingsout.](Gégèneur19&183)

Gaulier’sstatementthattheNeutralMask“divulges”the“anomalies”underwhichthe

studenthashiddenhimselfpointstotheshiftdiscussedearlierinthewaythebodywas

viewedintheearlytwentiethcentury,fromamachinethatcouldbecontrolled—to

virtuosiceffect—bythemindorthewill,toacalcificationofsocializedhabits;touse

Roach’sphrase,seeingourbodies“asdamagedbythekindsofliveswehavelived”

(218).WhatIhavetermedGaulier’s“pedagogyofdisorientation”wasanapproachto

revealingsocializedhabitsthatattemptedtobypassthehabitsoflearningthatmanyof

ushadbroughtwithustotheworkshopfromotheractortrainingexperiences(or,in

Matt’scase,fromacademicclassroomexperiences)—habitsthathadingrainedinusthe

ideathatnewwaysofengagingwithourbodiescouldbelearnedanalytically,andthe

classroomhierarchysuccessfullyengagedwiththroughlearninghowto“please”the

teacherbydeducingwhathewaslookingforandperformingit.Bothtypesofhabits—

embodied,socializedhabitsofmovementsandhabitsoflearning/performinglearningin

theclassroom—werechallengedbythemovement/textdichotomythatbecamethe

focusofmuchoftheworkshop.

Movementandtext:Competingapproaches

Attheendofthefirstweek,Gaulieraskedthestudentstoperformanexercisein

whichtheNeutralMaskwakesup,then“assistants”walkedonstagetoremove

performers’masks.Theinstructionwastospeakorsingapieceoftextwhilecontinuing

themovement.Jeanbegan,afterstandingupslowly:“WhyshouldIyokemyselfnineto

five…”Hisbodystoppedmoving;hissternumsaggedslightly.Gaulierbangedhisdrum

andbarked“No!Youarenotinthemovement.”Severalotherstudentsmadesimilar

attempts,andreceivedsimilarfeedback.BytheendofthesessionGaulierhadbegun

repeatingtherefrainthatwouldfollowusthroughtheremainingweeksofthecourse:

“Don’tdestroythemovementwiththetext.”

Thisideaoftextdestroyingmovementbecameacentralthemethatwasdiscussed

bystudentsoutsideofclass,particularlyasstudentsstruggledtomakesenseofexactly

whatthismeant.Ageneralconsensuseventuallyemergedthattherhythmsoftextand

movementneededtobedifferent;ifthetextandthebodyweredoingthesamerhythm

thenthebodyseemedtobemerelyunderscoringthetext,whichaccordingtoGaulier

was“boringfortheaudience.”Thoseactorswhohadpreviouslytrainedinconservatory

settingsinEnglandandtheUnitedStatesfoundthisparticularlydifficulttoembody,as

traditionalmovementtraininginsuchsettingsisfocusedonmovementfollowingfrom

anddrawingontext.Colindescribedthemovementclasseshehadtakeninhishome

university’sactortrainingprogram,notingthatonthefirstdayofclasstheinstructor

hadtoldherstudents“Iwillteachyoutoembodyyourtext,”aconceptthatwas

anathematoGaulier.Colinstruggledtoconceptualizethisalternateapproachtothe

movement/textrelationshipinhisonlinejournal:

Theactorrises.Slowly."Neutral."Theyattempttosuggestnothing.

Drum beat. The actor freezes. The mask is removed. Drum beat. The

actorcontinuesmoving.

Now,theactorspeaks.Buttheactordoesnotembodythetext.Thetext

is placed on top of themovement. The text follows the impulse of the

bodyandnevershapesit.

Theactorisfocusednotonthetextbutthemovement.Theactorhasthe

pleasuretoputthetextonthemovement.

Thereisnolifeinthetext.Thetextistext.Thelifeisintheactor…

Thereisonlylifeintheactor.Andtheactor'simpulse.Theimpulseisnot

thetext.Theactorputsthetextontheimpulse.

Colin’sdichotomybetweentextandmovement/life/impulsereinscribesadivision

betweentheintellectconnectedtotextandthebodyconnectedtomovementthat

echoesanearlytwentieth‐centuryshiftinmimepracticefromgesturalcodesthat

replicatelanguagetogestureasatransparentmediumforemotion.

WhenVictortiltedhisheaddownwardsduringanexerciseoneafternoon,Gaulier

reademotionintothegesture:“Victor,youaretoosad—higher.”Daveasked,“Howcan

yousaywe’reshowingemotionwhenourfacesarebehindthemask?”towhichGaulier

responded,“Weseethebodyisnothavingfun,goingup,ishesitating,issaying‘Oh,I’m

nothappy’…Withthequalityofyourmovementweseeeverything—whatyouwant,

whatyoudon’twant,whenyouarehappy…”Thisshiftinemotionalexpressionfrom

verbalandfacialtogesturalclues—thebody“speaks”inGaulier’squoteabove—made

thestudentsawareoftheextenttowhichgesturalcodesconveyinformationnotonly

aboutphysicalactivities(asinthemimeworkdevelopedintheearly1930sbyDecroux

andMarcelMarceau),nordogesturalcodesmerelyreplacespokenlanguage(asinthe

pantomimeblancheoftheearlytomidnineteenthcentury),butconveyinnerstates

suchasemotionaswell.Inthefirstpartofthenineteenthcenturypantomimeblanche

hadbeenassociatedwithagesturalsystemthatliterallyreplicatedspokenlanguage.

SkilledperformerssuchasGaspardDeburauhadbeenlaudedfortheirabilitytoconvey

specificmeaningthroughtheirgestures,atrendthatgrewoutofthesuppressionof

spokentextonthestagesofnon‐statetheatresbyNapoleonII.AsdiscussedinChapter

2,thisstyleofgesture‐as‐speechhadfallenoutoffavorbytheendofthenineteenth

centuryasemotionalexpressionbecameincreasinglysoughtafter,aphenomenonthat

wasenhancedbytheshrinkingoftheatrespacesandaudiences,removingpantomime

blanchefromthelargepublicspectaclesthathadmarkeditsemergenceandplacingit

withintherealmofeliteliterarytheatreart.Decroux,togetherwithBarrault,redefined

thequestionofgesture‐as‐speechwithinananti‐realistaesthetic,creatingwhathe

calleda“grammarofmime”(Felner56)inwhichmovementswereequatedwithparts

ofspeech.Theideabehindthis“grammar”wasnottomimespeechasintheearlydays

ofpantomimeblanche,butrathertotapintoanexpressivepowerofthebodythat

Decrouxbelievedrealism,anditsattendantrelianceupontext,concealed.InRéflexions

surlethéâtre[Reflectionsonthetheatre](1949)Barraultdescribesa“sentenceof

silence”:

I,thesubject,ismadeupofthespinalcolumnandtherespiratory

system.Itisthetorso.Itisoneself.Itisthesilhouette.Itistheattitude.

Theverbisthebeinginmovement.Itistheveryactionofthetorso.

Thecomplementiscreatedbythelimbs.Itisindication.

Thisishowmybodysaysasentenceofsilenceinspace:Subjector

attitude;verbormovement;complementofindication.(36,qtd.inFelner

Theseexplorationsofalternatewaysforlanguagetofunctionwereincreasingly

commonintheFrenchavant‐gardemovement.InZurichDadaismwasengagedin

radicallyreworkingthesignifyingabilitiesoflanguage,whileinViennaSigmundFreud

wasarticulatinganembodiedlanguageofthesymptom,andtheoristsfromthePrague

LinguisticSchoolworkedtowardsasemioticsoftheobject,withJiriVeltruskyexploring

thetheatricalrelationshipbetweenmanandobject(1940).Whateachoftheseefforts

sharesincommonwiththeothersisaninterestinfindingnewtechniquesoflanguage

thatarenotdependentontext,inopeningtherangeofexpressivepossibilitiesbeyond

thespokenword.ThedifficultiesofsuchanundertakingwerevisibleinGaulier’s

classroomasstudentsstruggledtomakesenseofhisinstructionsnotto“killthe

movementwiththetext,”tofindwaysofspeakingtextinwhichthebody’shabituated

movementswhichunderscorethetextwereabandonedinfavorofa“movementfirst”

approach.

Thesedifficultiesextendedtotherealmof“image,”whichliketextistraditionally

associatedwithmentalcognition,andwhichthereforehadtobereconceptualizedina

classroominwhichthebody’smovementwasprioritized.Thisstrugglewasatthe

centerofaclassduringthesecondweekoftheworkshop.Matthadaskedthefirst

question,asusual,andthistimemoreandmorestudentspickeduponit,repeating

variantsoftheinquiryinanattempttogetacoherentanswerfromtheteacher:“So,I

picturewindinmyhead,andactitout?”“Youhavepleasureinplayingthewind.”“So

mybodyimitatestheimageIhaveinmyhead?”“Youimaginewind,andyouplayit.”

ThequestionswerepersistentbecauseJuan,notGaulier,wasteachingthecoursethat

day.ThethemereferencedbyMatt,ofmentalimageandphysicalmovement,had

emergednearlyeverydayofthecourseinsomevariantofthisquestion:“ShouldIact

outtheimageinmyhead?”UsuallythequestionwasposedbyMatt;usuallyGaulier’s

answerwassomevarianton“Youtakepleasureintheplayingofthewater/the

wind/theearth/theoil/theacid.”The“imageinthehead”wasoneofavarietyof

physicalelementsandobjectsthatGaulieraskedthestudentstoplay.

Colinexploredthisthemeinhisonlineblog:

Youhavetoembodythelake/Soyoudotheexercise./Theprofessor

saysitisterrible./Heletsyoutryagain…Andthensomethinghappens

toyou.Youstopthinkingabouthowtodotheexerciseandyoubecome

awareoftheroom.Youimagineforamomentthesizeofalake,its

immensity.Yourbodystopsmovingsomuchandfeelssomehow

supportedbythisimaginedsizeandimmensity./Yourmaskisremoved./

Youaretoldtorisetoyourfeetwhilemaintainingthisquality,andspeak

atext./Soyourise,youspeak,andthissizeitstayswithyou.Andyou

feelfree.

Gaulierexplicitlytellsstudentsnotto“embody”anelement,insistingthattheactor’s

jobisnottobecomeanotherthing(“orwesendyoutothementalhospital”)buttotake

pleasurein“pretending”tobethatthing.Colin’suseoftheword“embody”hereoccurs

becausethissegmentoftheblogwaswrittenduringthefirstweekoftheworkshop;

Gaulier’spointhadnotyetbeenrepeatedenoughtocounteractColin’spreviousacting

traininginwhich,heexplainedtome,suchawordwascommonplace,muchas

movementwasunderstoodasinformedbytext.Gaulier’sfocus,however,wasonthe

“pleasure”ofthedistancebetweentheperformerandthatwhichwasbeingperformed:

LeMN…s’amuseàimiterl’eau,àprétendrequ’ilesteau.

…Ilestpréférabledes’amuseràprétendreplutôtqu’àêtre…

Onn’estjamaiscequ’onregarde.Toujoursunepointed’humouravertit

delasupercherie.

[TheNMenjoysimitatingthewater,pretendingitisthewater

…Itisbettertoenjoypretending,ratherthanto‘be’water…

Youareneverthethingyoulookat.Atouchofhumouralwaysreveals

thetrickeryinvolved.](Gégèneur20&184)

Thisisakeydifferencebasedontheideaoflejeuasaestheticdistance;theNeutral

Maskhere“enjoys”itsrepresentationaldistancewith“atouchofhumour”making

visiblethisnon‐identificationwiththeobjectofrepresentation.

Conclusion:Revisiting“emotion”;LeJeuasaestheticdistance

ThefollowingpassagebyGaulierrevealsbothhisalignmentwiththetwentieth‐

centuryviewofthebodyascomprisedoflayersofsocializedhabits,andhisfocusona

performativedistancemarkedbyanelusiveinnerqualityof“pleasure”or“beauty”:

Sileprofcorrige,rêvantdechangerlapersonnedefondencomble,ilse

fourvoie.

Leprofcorrige,songeantquepeut‐êtreundecesquatrematins,

l’étudiants’amuseradesesdésordres.

Leprofnechangerien,ilapprendàfaireavec.

Avecquoi?

Avecl’amusement.

[Iftheteachercorrectsthestudent,hopingtochangethepersoninhis

entirety,theteacherismakingabigmistake.

Theteachercorrectsthestudenthopingthat,maybeoneofthesedays,

thestudentwillhavefunwiththeir‘disorders’.

Theteacherdoesn’tchangeanythingbutratherteacheshowtousethese

things.

Withenjoyment.](Gégèneur19&183)

Significantly,Gaulierdoesnotproposetodoawaywiththese“disorders”throughhis

pedagogicalmethod,buttoteachthestudentto“havefun”withthem,to“use”them

“withenjoyment.”Thiswaspartofafocusonperformingwith“pleasure”,displaying

“beauty”intheperformance,thatlayatthecoreoftheworkshop.Gaulierfrequently

usedtwowordstoconnotethequalityofmovementhewasseekinginus:“beauty”and

“pleasure.”Thesequicklybecameelidedwith“emotion”asthestudentsspentanend‐

of‐classquestionandanswersessionfixatingonthisquestionofwhatonewas

supposedtobe“feeling”:

Student:Areyousupposedtoshowemotionorfeelitinside?

Gaulier:Youdon’tneedtoshowemotion,justhavethemoment,fixed…

Emotionisyouinfrontoftheaudience,butnotyouwithanemotion.

Student:Butdoyoufeelanemotion?

Gaulier:No.Youpretendtofeelemotioninfrontoftheaudience.You

areamagicianwithyourfeelings.Ifyouarepresentingyouremotions,

youcan’tbefreeandplay.

Thisideaof“freedom”linkedtolejeuresonateswiththeideaoffreedomfrom

socializedembodiedhabitsthatmarkedthemimeexplorationsofsuchpractitionersas

Copeauintheearlytwentiethcentury;Gaulier’sdeploymentoftheconcept,however,

associatesitnotwithafreedomfromparticularhabitsofmovement,butafreedom

fromasupposedinjunctiontoperform“real”emotionsonstage.Emotionhereis

devalued,replacedbyanelusiveideaof“beauty”whichGaulierinterestingly(givenhis

apparentdisdainfortheintellectinhistext/movementdichotomy)locatedwithinthe

Gaulier:Ifhere[pointstohead]everythingisbeautiful,youcan’tchange.

Youcan’t…It’sdelicatehere[pointstohead].Ifyouopen,youhaveto

carryonthedreamofwhatyou’veopened…Inyourhead,something

hastobebeautiful.Yourheadhastobefullofbeauty.

Gaulier’sgestureofpointingtotheheadwhenhespokeofbeautyreferred,he

latertoldmeinaninterview,tohiscentralpointoftheperformerdistancingherself

fromhercharacter;byapproachingeverythingfromaperspectiveofpleasurable

detachment,theperformercanplaywithwhateverispresentedonstage.Yetatthis

earlystageoftheworkshop,whenstudents—eventhosewhohadbeenpresentforthe

LeJeu[Play]workshop—werestillstrugglingtomakesenseofhiscentraltenets,the

actionofpointingtotheheadwhilemakingpoeticbutsemi‐incoherentstatements

aboutbeautyservedtodirectconfusedstudentstowardsaconventionalideaoftrying

topinpointthelocusofemotion,aconfusionillustratedbythestorythatopenedthis

chapterofstudentsattemptingtodecipherthequestionofwhethertheperformer

engagedinNeutralMaskpracticeismeantto“feel”emotion.Thisfocusontheheadled

topost‐classconversationsthatstruggledtomakesenseofGaulier’sconfusing

responses,revolvingaroundanincreasingcertaintythatGauliermeanteverythingour

bodiesdidtooriginateinthemind.Rita,apsychologistfromGreece,statedwith

confidencethatweweremeantto“feelit[emotion]inyourbrain.Youhaveimagesofit

inyourbrain,andyougivethesetotheaudience.”RitahadlinkedGaulier’sdiscussion

ofbeautyintheheadwithbothemotionandimages,twoconceptswithwhichstudents

struggled,astheyseemedtodrawattentionawayfromthebody.

Gaulier’spedagogicalfocusonlejeuservedtoemphasizethisdistinctionbetween

mindandbody,orthepersonaoftheperformer(situatedinthemind)andthe

performed(thebody).Attheheartoflejeu,forGaulier,isthepleasureonetakesin

lyingtotheaudience.Thisapparentdeceptionismitigatedbyakeyrequirement:the

audiencemustbeabletoknowthattheperformerislying,mustbeabletosensethe

pleasuretheperformertakesinthisgame.DuringtheLeJeu[Play]workshopGaulier

hadintroducedanexercisethatwasrepeatedbyJuanintheNeutralMaskworkshop

(muchtotheconfusionofstudentssuchasmyselfwhohadnotbeenpresentforLeJeu):

thegameofdancingcouples.Allstudentsstandonthestage,andpickapartner.The

teacherpushes“play”onaCDplayer,musicfillstheroom,andthecouplesdance

together.Wheneveranyonebecomes“bored”withtheirpartner,theywinkatthe

teacherwhostopsthemusicandbeginsaskingindividualstudents,“Wasityouwho

winked?”WhenIfirstplayedthisgameIwasnotgiventhekeyinstructionbeforehand

thatthestudentwhoisaskedthisquestionismeanttodenythatheorshewinked,

takinggreatpleasureintheactofdenial:

…chacundoitdireàl’autrequecen’estpasluiquiaclignédel’œil

(surtoutsic’estlui).Toutlemondes’amuseàmentir.

[…everyonemustsaytotheirpartnerthatitwasn’tthemwhowinked

(especiallyifitwasactuallythem!).Everyoneloveslying.](Gaulier

Gégèneur37&201)

Ignorantofthisrule,whenJuan(whowasrunningclassthatday)accusedmeof

winking,Imadeaheartfeltprotest,genuinelytryingtoreassuremypartner,Jesse,thatI

hadnotwinked,thatIwasnotboredwithhim,thatIhadtrulybeenenjoyingourdance.

Jessesmiled,leanedoverandwhispered,“You’resupposedtoenjoysayingthatyou

didn’twink,”whichconfusedmeevenfurther.Juan,realizingIwasn’tplayingthegame

butwasinsteadresponding“earnestly”(aqualityhumorouslyascribedtoAmericansby

theBritishstudentsintheworkshop),turnedhisattentiontoanotherstudentandIwas

abletoobservethestyleofperformanceweweremeanttogive.Sheopenedhereyes

wide,laidheroutstretchedpalmonherchest,shookherheadslowlyfromsidetoside

inexaggeratedmock‐innocenceandsaidinasing‐songvoice,“Me?No,Juan,I

absolutelydidnotwink!IlovedancingwithIvone!Ineverwouldhavewinked!”This

game,Icametolearn,illustratedakeypointforGaulier:thatactorsarealwaysengaged

indeception,andthatthegame,lejeu,istoallowtheaudiencetoparticipateinthefun

ofthatperceptionthrougha(usuallymetaphorical)“wink”:

Voixdesacteurségalecelledesmenteurs.Elleenalesinflexions,les

modulations,lestonalitésquiseperchentuntantinetverslesaigus.Elle

n’estpasnaturellepourunrond.

Quandlavoixestnaturelleçacloche.Lejeun’estpaslaréalité.Ilenestla

répétitiongénérale,«pourdufaux».

[Actors’voicesequalliars’voices.Theyhaveinflections,modulations,

tonalitieswhichveerslightlytowardsthehigh‐pitched.Theyarenot

natural.

Whenthevoiceisnaturalitsoundswrong.Thegameisnotreality.Itisits

dressrehearsal,‘forpretend.’](GaulierGégèneur37&201)

Onceagain,Gaulierwarnsagainstthecollapsingofthedistancebetweenperformerand

thatwhichisbeingperformed;emotionsshouldnotbe“real”onstage;the“natural”is

“wrong”.WhenGaulierrespondstoastudent’squestionaboutwhethertheactor

shouldactuallyfeeltheemotionheorsheisplayingwithavehement“Youdonotfeel

theemotion,youtakepleasureinpretendingtofeelemotion,”ashiftcanbediscerned

betweenearlytwentieth‐centurymimepractitioners’questforsincerityandan

embracing,followingRoach,oftheactor’s“professionalisationoftwo‐facedness”(137).

WhenLecoqbegantoconceptualizelejeu,theexistingrhetoricof“play”wasfoundin

CopeauandMeyerhold,whobothencouragedanopennesstoexplorationwithina

theatricalmoment(MurrayLecoq65).Additionally,BertoldBrecht’sconceptof

Verfremdungseffekthadfundamentallychallengedprevailingnotionsoftheatrical

sincerity,callingintoquestiontheactor’sprocessofidentificationwiththecharacter.

TheconceptoflejeudevelopedbyLecoqandadaptedbyGaulierwassimilartothe

Verfremdungseffektinallowingtheaudiencetoseethedistancebetweenperformer

andcharacter,butdivergedfromBrecht’sconceptinfocusingonthepleasureatthe

heartofplaying.

AcommonanalogyusedbybothLecoqandGaulieristhatofthepleasurethe

childtakesinplaying,whichinvolvesafullcommitmenttothegame,alwaysinflectedby

acleardistancebetweenthechildandwhatheorsheispretending:

Quandonjouaitauxcow‐boysetauxIndiens,àd’Artagnan,àlaguerre

aveclessoldatsdeplomb,onneressentaitpasdessentiments.On

s’amusaitavecl’histoire,avecleshéros,lesprotagonistes.Toutétaitfiltré

autraversdu«jeu»quilaissepasseruneréalitédéjàtransmutée,celle

dontonaenlevélepoidsdesdouleurs(«Pourdufaux»ditmonfils

Samuelenparlantdelaréalitéaveclaquelleils’amuseet«Pourduvrai»

parlantdel’autre).

[WhenweplayedatcowboysandIndians,orbeingd’Artagnan,orhad

battleswithleadsoldiers,wedidn’thavefeelings.Weenjoyedthestory

anditsheroesandprotagonists.Everythingwasfilteredthroughthe

‘Game’whichallowedatransmutedrealitytopass,arealitywithoutthe

weightofsorrows.(‘Notforreal,’mysonSamuelwouldsay,whentalking

abouttherealityhewashavingfunwith,or“Forreal’,whentalkingof

theotherone).](GaulierGégèneur32&196,emphasisadded)

Gaulier’sassertionthatwhenplaying“wedidn’thavefeelings”revealsthestatusofthe

“we”asthedistancedpersonaoftheperformer,whilethe“feelings”areunderstoodto

resideinthebodiesthatperformedthecharacters.Intheclassroomstudents’confusion

wasrootedinpartintheirlinkingofemotionalitytothenaturalthatstudentsbrought

withthemtotheworkshop,whichhitupagainstanapparently‐mechanical,because

lackingmarkersofpastorpersonality,NeutralMask.Thismaskformseemingly‐

paradoxicallyrequiredadistinctseparationbetweenperformer(identifiedwith

cognition,thefaceandthefalsepersona)andperformed(identifiedwiththebodyand

trueexpressivity).Theseemingparadoxformoststudentswasthattheybroughtwith

themideasofexpressivityasexpressionsofemotionsandideasthatemanatedfrom

theirconsciousideaofthemselves—whatPierreJanet,discussedinChapter2,called

“l’idéedumoi”[theideaofme].Intheclassroom,theideaof“playing”emotionbecame

amajorsticking‐pointformanyofthestudents,atopicthatwasrevisitedfrequently

throughoutthethreeweeksoftheworkshop.ToGaulier’sstatement“Emotionisyouin

frontoftheaudience,butnotyouwithanemotion,”astudentrespondedwith“Butdo

youfeelanemotion?”asotherstudentslookedoninconfusion.Havingestablishedthe

needfordistancefromfeelinganemotion,fortakingpleasureinpretendingtohavethe

emotionfortheaudience,anotherstudentrespondedwith“Butdeceptionisan

emotionaswell.”Gaulierdistinguishedbetweendeceptionandthe“pleasure”hewas

attemptingtodescribe:“Bigemotion.Butnotoneforfun.”Theslipperydistinction

betweenthedetachmentof“fun”thatGauliertaughtanddeceptionwasarticulated

throughalanguageofpresence:theperformerwasnottoattempttoactivelydeceive

theaudience,buttoalwaysmaintainadetachmentthatallowedtheaudiencetosee

theperformer’sselfunderneaththemaskofthecharacter,takingpleasurein

performing.Thedifficultiesinherentinapedagogyfocusedaroundtheperformer’s

“authentic”presencewereforegroundedsevenmonthslaterinGaulier’sClown

WorkshopinJune2008,whenaconfusedstudenttriedtoarticulatethedifficultieshe

hadbeenhavingin“beinghimself”onstage,askinghowhecouldknowhewasbeing

himselfwhenhisownjudgmentcouldn’tbetrusted.Hisquestiondistilledthemesof

sincerity,authenticityandthe“trueself”thatpermeateclownworkandwhoseroots,

likethoseofmechanizationandneutrality,canbetracedbackthroughnineteenth‐and

earlytwentieth‐centuryFrenchmimetradition;themesthataretakenupinthe

followingchapter.

Chapter4LocatingtheSelf:

NarrativesandPracticesofAuthenticityinFrenchClownTraining47

Debelleschosesdébutentaupaysdesmauvais.Beautifulthingsbegininthelandofthebad.48

PhilippeGaulier(Gégèneur129&289)

Thedrumbeatcomeswithnowarning.Gaulier’sreputationisthatofthemean

clown,theteacherwhosepedagogicaltechniquesinvolvethrowingstudentsupon

stagewithminimalinstructions,gloweringatthem,andiftheyfailtobe“beautiful,”

sendingthemoffstageunceremoniouslywiththebangofadrumandagruff“Thankyou

forthathorriblemoment.Goodbye.”Thefour‐weekClownworkshopisgrueling;after

thetenthtimehearinginelaboratedetailhow“shit”one’sperformanceis,

accompaniedbyasuggestionfor“howwekillyou”(Gaulier’sfavoritephrasefor

conveyingdisapproval),eventhemostresilientperformerfaces—significantlyfor

Gaulier’spedagogy—acrisisofego.

Thischapterexploresclownpedagogyasindialoguewiththeideaofthe

“authentic”or“true”self,takingasitsstartingpointtheclownworkshopattheÉcole

PhilippeGaulierinJune2008inwhichIwasaparticipant‐researcher.49Asdescribedin

47 AneditedversionofthischapterwillbepublishedinanupcomingeditionofthejournalTheatre,DanceandPerformanceTraining(Routledge).48GaulierwroteLeGégèneur:jeuxlumièrethéâtre/TheTormentor:lejeulighttheatre(2007)inbothFrenchandEnglish;thefirsthalfofthebookisinFrench,andthesecondhalfishisEnglishtranslation.AllsubsequentquotesfromthebookinthischapterincludebothhisFrenchandEnglishversions.49TheworkshoptookplaceattheÉcolePhilippeGaulierinSceaux,France,forfourweeksinJune2008.Iattendedtheworkshopbothasaparticipantandasaresearcher;myobservationsaredrawnfromdirectexperienceintheclassroomandinterviewswithstudentsandPhilippeGaulier.

Chapter1,Iuse“authentic”or“true”selftomeantheideaofapre‐socializedidentity

thatlies“behind”socializedhabitsofthoughtandmovement.InLecoq‐basedclown

training,studentsareencouragedto“discover”theirpersonalclown,generally

identifiedintheclassroomandinwritings(includingLecoq1997,Fusetti1999and

Gaulier2007)asthestudent’s“true”self,positionedagainstthefalsityofsocialized

habitsofthoughtandmovementthatperformapersonawhichobscuresthe“true”self

thatliesbehindit.Withinthistraining,Iargue,aconstructofthe“authenticself”exists

alongsidetechniquesthatdisruptconventionalnotionsofstable,linearidentity.These

techniques—groundedinastrategyofdisorientation—relocateconsciousnessto

embodiedprocessesthatcanbeexternallyreadbyspectators,andpromoteamoment‐

to‐momentawarenessofthestudent’scontinually‐shiftingperformance.Takingupthe

waysinwhichideasoftheauthenticselfintersectedwiththeFrenchmimetraditionin

thelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies,Iexaminehowsuchnotionscontinue

toberevealedwithinthecontemporaryclownclassroom.50Specifically,Ilookathow

thepedagogicallanguageusedbyGaulierandthedescriptivelanguageofstudents

discursivelyreinscribetheideaofastable,unifiedself,whileGaulier’sdescriptionsofhis

pedagogyaswellasspecificclassroompracticessimultaneouslydisruptit.By

juxtaposinganddrawingconnectionsbetweenanoldermimetraditionandacurrent

50AsmentionedinChapter2:“PhilippeGaulierstronglydisavowsanyconnectiontothemimetradition;hisschoolisnotconsidereda‘mimeschool’,althoughthemaskformsheteachesaredrawnfromJacquesLecoq’spedagogywhichwasheavilyinfluencedbyFrenchmime.TheconnectionsIdrawbetweentheFrenchmimetraditionandGaulier’spedagogyarethereforenottechnical,butideological”(2).

pedagogicalincarnation,Iwishtohighlightthewaysinwhichtheideaoftheselfhas

beenandcontinuestobecontested,alteredandredefinedwithinaspecificsiteof

performertraining.

Inwhatfollows,IfirstoutlinetheconnectionofLecoq‐basedclownpracticewith

theideaofthe“true”or“authentic”self,positionedbyLecoqattheoppositeendofthe

spectrumfromtheNeutralMaskwhichlackspersonalidiosyncrasy.Ithenproposethat

thedominantcodeinGaulier’sclassroomwasthedistinctionbetweensuccessand

failure,inwhichGaulierdeliberatelystructuredexercisesintheClownworkshopto

promotefailure,causingstudentstodirectlyexperiencetheperpetually‐failingstateof

clown.Icomplicatetheconnectionbetweenclownandthe“authentic”selfby

suggestingthatGaulier’sinterestlaynotwithevokingthestudent’sinnerself,butwith

encouragingamorenebuloussenseof“beauty”or“pleasure”;despitethis,however,

languageofauthenticitystillcreptintotheclassroomasbothstudentsandteacher

linkedbeautyandpleasurewith“beingoneself”.Ithenturntoanexaminationoflate

nineteenth‐andearlytwentieth‐centurymimepracticesthatrepositionedthetrueself

asboth“beneath”theconsciousself,asinFreudianpsychoanalysis,andasexternalto

theperformer,asinpracticesthatencouragedtheperformertovalidatethesincerityof

theirperformanceusingmirrors.IarguethatGaulierdisruptstheideaofdirectaccessto

aninnerselfthroughhisuseoftechniquesofdisorientationproducedbyconstant

failure,producing“spontaneous”reactionsfromstudents.Ireturntolatenineteenth‐

andearlytwentieth‐centuryFrenchmimepracticetointerrogatethisideaof

spontaneityanditslinkedconceptionofsincerity,whichinLecoq‐basedpedagogy,I

argue,istiedtotheideaoflejeu[theplayorthegame]andGaulier’sideaofembracing

the“flop.”Thisbringsmebacktotheclassroom,whereIanalyzeatechniqueinwhich

studentsareencouragedtorecounttheirflopsinordertomakevisibletheir“authentic”

selvestospectators.Ithenanalyzethelanguageandembodiedmovementsthat

surroundattemptstoarticulatethis“authentic”self,whichrevealadifficultyinclearly

locatingordescribingit.Iconcludebysuggestingthatthis“authentic”selfispositioned

inGaulier’sclassroomasnotclearlyaccessibleorrecognizable,butasnegotiated

externallyinthespacebetweenperformerandspectator,accessedonlyinmomentsof

disorientation.Iproposethatwhilethispositioningoftheselfdoesnotfullyescape

logocentrism(asitreinscribesideasofauthenticity),Ibelievethereisapedagogical

valueinamomentarydisorientingexperienceofaselfoutsideofcleardefinitionsand

recognizablepatterns,anexperiencethatresistscollapsingthemomentintoasingular

ideaof“self.”

OneimportantpointtonoteisthatGaulier’sportrayaloftheauthoritarianteacher

operatedontwolevels:theleveloftheperformedrole,inwhichhe“played”theroleof

theterrifyinglystrictteacher,oftentothedelightofthestudentswhenhelaunchedinto

anelaboratelyridiculouscritique;andthelevelof“actual”teacher(atrickydistinction,

butforthepurposesofthisargumentImeanthewaysinwhichhisrolefunctionedasa

teacherinthemoreconventionalsense),inwhichstudentsgenuinelylookedtohimfor

cuesonhowtoperformandhowtorespondtoothers’performances.Oftenthesetwo

levelsoverlapped,as,forexample,whenstudentsquicklylearnedtoagreewith

Gaulier’sassessmentofastudent’sperformance,whetheritwas“beautiful”or

“horrible”.Ontheleveloftheperformedrole,studentswereplayingbumblingfoolsin

relationshiptoGaulier’sroleofcomically‐authoritarianteacher.Onthelevelof“actual”

teacher,studentslearnedlessonsfromGaulier’sresponsesaboutthenatureof

vulnerability,beauty,andasuccessfulperformanceofone’s“trueself”inGaulier’s

pedagogy.ThislatterlevelraisestheissueofhowGaulierdrewdistinctionsbetween

performancesthatwere“beautiful”andthosethatwerenot.LaterinthischapterI

discusstheconfusionthataroseamongstudentswhoinitiallybelievetheywerebeing

beautiful,vulnerable,“themselves”onstage,onlytobetoldotherwise.Thisleavesopen

thequestionsofwhethermarkersofvulnerability(andthereby,inthispedagogy,

“authenticity”)canbedifferentacrossgeography,gender,ethnicity,andwhetherthese

markerscanthereforebemisread,particularlywhenthestandardforreadingthem

residedinonewhiteFrenchman.Theanswer,Iwouldargue,tobothquestionsisyes;

vulnerabilityanditscorrelateauthenticityweredefinedand“read”inparticularwaysin

Gaulier’sclassroombasedonGaulier’sstandards,andIdonotwishtosuggestinthis

chapterthatwhenstudentssuccessfullyperformedthesestatesthattheyhadtapped

intoatranscendentcategoryofauthenticity.Rather,Iinterrogatethewaysinwhichthis

particularideaofauthenticityemergedwithintheFrenchmimetraditionandwas

deployedinGaulier’sclassroom,andsuggestpossiblepositiveeffectsthatmightarise

fromsuchanexperience.

Clown:Theactor’strueself

OnthefirstdayoftheNeutralMaskworkshop,asdiscussedinChapter3,Philippe

GaulieremphasizedtheNeutralMask’slackofphysicalorpersonalhistory:“TheNeutral

Maskdoesnothaveproblem.Hewakesup,hestand[sic]up,hewasnotdrunk

yesterday.”ThephysicalityoftheNeutralMaskisoneofperfectbalance,thebody

preciselyaligned,notwistingorslumpingtoindicateabodilyhistory.Attheopposite

endofthespectruminLecoq‐basedpedagogyisClown:themostpersonal,idiosyncratic

ofthemaskforms.WhileClownisnotasreadilyidentifiableasamaskformasits

counterparts—Neutral,LarvalandExpressiveMasks—whichcovertheentireface,Lecoq

consideredthesmallrednosethatthestudentdons“thesmallestmaskintheworld”

(GaulierGégèneur293),onethatallowsahighlevelofvulnerability:“Quandl’acteur

entreenscèneporteurdesonpetitnezrouge,sonvisageprésenteunétatde

disponibilitésansdéfense”[Whentheactorenterswearinghislittlerednose,hisface

presentsastateofavailabilitywithoutdefense](LecoqCorps154).

ThepointofthisvulnerabilityistoexposewhatclownteachersincludingGaulier

andGiovanniFusettirefertoasthestudent’s“trueself”aselfthatlies“beneath”the

layersofpersonabuiltupoveralifetimeoflearningbehaviorsthathelponefunctionas

anapparentlycompetentmemberofsociety.Atthecoreofthispedagogyisthe

assertionthateveryoneisaclownatheart,meaningeveryoneisconstantlyinastateof

onlyprecariouslymaintainingthesemblanceofcompetence.AccordingtoJacques

LecoqandclownteachersincludingPierreByland,JohnWright,AngeladeCastro,

GiovanniFusettiandPhilippeGaulierwhocontinuetopracticeanddevelophisclown

pedagogy,eachpersonismostlovablewhenwecanseethemintheirmostvulnerable

state,thestateofclown.

Successandfailureintheclassroom

Aswithmyparticipant‐observerresearchintheNeutralMaskWorkshop,for

Gaulier’sClownWorkshopIfocusedonthemostsalientlanguageandmovement

patternsthatemergedwithintheclassroomandininterviewswithstudents,and

compilednotesbasedonobservationsofthephysicalbehaviors,socialinteractionsand

spokenwordsthatmostfrequentlyaccompaniedthesecodesinordertoanalyzewhat

washappeningintheclassroomthroughphysicalaswellasverbalevidence.The

dominantcodewithintheclownworkshopwasthedistinctionbetweensuccessand

failure.Gaulierstructuredhisclassroomasaparodyofatraditionalclassroom.He

playedtheroleoftheterrifyinglyauthoritarianteacher,positioningstudentsas

fumblingfools(clowns)continuallyfailing.Oneirony—intentional,accordingto

Gaulier—wasthatthestudentswerenotperformingtheserolesfromadistance,they

actuallyexperiencedthemselvesasfumblingfoolsdesperatelytryingtopleasethe

teacher.Theintensivefocusonredefiningsuccessandfailureintheclownclassroomis

predicatedonGaulier’sbeliefthattraditionalclassroomsdisciplinethestudent’sbody

toperforminarigidlycodifiedmanner,therebycalcifyingthepersonaintoasetof

approvedbehaviors.Theactoffailure,accordingtoGaulier,createsaruptureorabreak

inthispersona,revealingtheclown—thestudent’s“trueself”—within.Gaulier

thereforestructuresclassroomexercisestoencouragestudentstofailasoftenas

possible.

Theinevitableparadoxthatiscreatedbysuchanapproachisthatstudentsquickly

learnthattosucceedinthecoursetheymustfailinawaythatispleasingtothe

teacher.Thiswasatrickyproposition,however,asGaulierwasextremelyinconsistent

withhisexpressionsofapproval,bothacrossbehaviorsandacrossstudents.Astudent

couldperformanactionduringanexercisethatwouldbemetwith“Ah,beautiful,”only

tobetoldshewas“Horrible”thenexttimesheperformedthesameaction.Similarly,

rarelydidonestudentconsistentlyreceivepositivefeedback;whileoneortwostudents

couldbesaidtobe“doingwell”intheworkshop,thiswasmeantgenerally,andatthe

firstsignofastudentbecomingoverly‐confidentGaulierwouldshootthemdown.This

wasdemonstratedpowerfullyonthefinaldayoftheworkshopwhenstudentswere

invitedtoperformeithernewpiecesorpiecestheyhaddevelopedduringtheworkshop.

Threewomenstooduptoperformapiecethathadmetwithhilarityandunanimous

approvalearlierintheweek.Theyranontothestagetotheintroductorymusic

beaming,smilingandleaping.Gaulierimmediatelystoppedthem,callingthem“horrible

girlscoutsoncrack,”thenbangedhisdrumandorderedthemtoleavethestage.Their

despairatnotbeingabletoperformthepiecetheyhadpreparedledtotears,andafter

twohoursofotherstudentsperformingGaulierinvitedthemtoperformtheirpiece

again,thistimethroughtheirtears.Theywerebarelyabletogetthroughthepiece,yet

theirperformancewaswell‐receivedbybothstudentsandteacher,whodescribedtheir

tear‐streakedfacesas“beautiful.”Gaulierlaterexplainedthatthestudentshadseemed

tooconfidentintheirinitialattempt;byforcingthemtofailinahumiliatingway,hehad

shatteredtheirconfidentpersonasandopenedthemuptoperformingtheirvulnerable

clowns.

Amajorshiftthatoccurredduringthefourweeksoftheworkshopwasthe

lesseningofstudentquestionsthatinvolvedthefollowingphrases:“…supposedto…”

“youliked”/”youdidn’tlike”,“wasthisgood”/”wasthisbad”,“shouldIhave…”.These

phrasesneverdiedoutcompletely,yetincreasinglystudentslearnedthatthe

appropriateresponsetoGaulier’sexpresseddisapprovalwasaquicknodofthehead

andsilence.Forsomestudents,thisshiftexpressedaletting‐gooftheneedtogetthings

right;failurebecamesoroutinethatitcouldbeshruggedoff.Forafewstudents,

however,thissilenceexpressedfrustration,andwasnearlyalwaysaccompaniedbya

clenchedjawandlaboredbreathing.

Paradoxically,andperhapsinevitably,thereexistedacodeofbehaviorwithinthe

classroomthatwas“correct,”acodethatstudentsquicklylearned.Thisinvolvedalways

agreeingwithGaulier’sopinionsonotherstudents’performances,andsubmitting

whollytohisassessmentofone’sownperformance.Onlyoneopinionexistedwithinthe

classroom:Gaulier’s.Thelongerstudentshadbeenintheschool,themorefrequently

theirdescriptionsoftheworkwaspepperedwithkeyGaulierwordssuchas“beautiful,”

“vulnerable,”“boring”and“horrible.”StudentswhoIinterviewedduringtheclown

workshopwhohadbeenintheschooltheentireyearusedthesewordsthemost

frequently,andconsistentlyquotedGaulierevenwhenaskedfortheirownopinionsof

whathappenedwithintheclassroom.ThiswasincontrasttostudentsforwhomClown

wastheirfirstworkshop,whofocusedmoreoncontrastingGaulier’smethodstoother

trainingtheyhadreceived.Thefactthatthesestudentswereenteringacommunitythat

hadbeenformingforninemonthsgavethemadditionaloutsiderstatus,asmanyofthe

classroomcommunity’sbehaviorsandwordsthathadbecomenormativewerevisible

toanewcomer,incontrasttotheexperienceofstudentsduringthefirstcoupleof

monthsoftheschoolyearwhowerealllearningtherulestogether(andthereforethis

accumulationprocesswasmoreinvisibletothoseinthemidstofit).WhileGaulier’s

structuringoftheclassroomaroundfailuredisorientedstudentsandforcedthemto

performtheirstudentrolesdifferently,therefore,anewroleof“Gaulierstudent”

tendedtoformoverthecourseofseveralworkshops,indicatingalesseningofthe

disorientationeffect.Fortheclownworkshopspecifically,however,theideaofthe

“trueself”thatwas“beautiful”andemergedduringmomentsofextremevulnerability

wasanewoneevenforthosestudentswhohadbeenatGaulier’sschoolfortheentire

year,andthereforeGaulierwasabletousetechniquesofdisorientationtohelp

studentsengagewiththisexperience.

Classroomre‐structuring

ThecentralruleinGaulier’sclownclassroomisthattheclownisonewho

provokesgenuinelaughterfromtheaudience.Thetestofastudent’seffectivenesson

stageisquitesimplywhethertheaudienceislaughing.Onemajorchangethatmust

occurintheclassroominorderforstudentstorepeatedlyfailatbeingfunnyisre‐

trainingotherstudentsnottogivewhatFusetticallslaughterthatissympathique—

laughtermeanttoencourageastrugglingstudent.51Thischangeisparticularlydifficult,

basedonmyexperienceandobservations,forAmericans,whosepedagogicalculture

tendstowardthesympathiqueinwhichpraiseandconstructivecriticismarevalued.

DuringaclownworkshopinMinneapolisin2004,JonFerguson—aBritishclownteacher

trainedintheLecoqtraditionasdevelopedbyJohnWright—conductedanexercisein

whichastudentleavestheroomandtheteacherdemonstrates,silently,asimple

sequenceofactions,suchaswalkingupstage,pickingupachair,placingitcenterstage,

andfoldinghisarms.Thestudentisinvitedbackintotheroomwheretheotherstudents

sitquietly;thepointisforthestudent—nowtheperformer—toenactthisexact

sequenceofevents,hisonlycluebeingtheapplausehereceivesifheisdoingtheright

thing.Ifhewalksupstagetowardsthechair,theotherstudentsapplaud;ifheturnsback

downstagebeforereachingthechair,theapplausestops.Thepointoftheexerciseisto

teachstudentstoattunethemselvestotheaudience’sreactions,astheclownalways

triestopleasetheaudience.Duringtheexercise,itbecameclearthatthestudents

wantedtheperformertodotherightsequenceofactions:whenhepickedupthechair

51Fromworkshopnotes:“AClown’sLife”workshopconductedbyGiovanniFusettiinBoulder,CO,October2007.

atthecorrecttime,theapplausewasaccompaniedbysoftcheering;whenheputit

backdowninthewrongspace,smallsadgroansfilledtheroom.Whenhehad

completedthesequenceandfoldedhisarms,theroomburstintocheersandapplause;

whenthenoisehaddieddownJonstoodquietlyforamoment,shookhishead,andsaid

“That’ssomethingIloveaboutteachingthisworkintheStates—theaudiencesareso

generous,youwanteachothertosucceed.It’smuchmeanerinEnglandandFrance.”

WhileitisperhapstruethatinmostcasesBritishandFrenchstudentsare

accustomedtoalessovertlyencouragingstyleoftheatricalpedagogythantheirU.S.

counterparts,thedesiretoencourageandhelpoutfellowstudentsneverthelesshadto

beactivelysuppressedinGaulier’sclassroom,whichwascomposedofstudentsfrom

France,Spain,Brazil,Australia,NewZealand,China,Japan,EnglandandtheU.S.(the

lattercontingentwastiny,consistingonlyofmyselfandoneotherAmericanstudent,a

paucityattributedbyotherstudentstothedifficultymanyAmericansfindinadaptingto

aharshpedagogicalstylesuchasGaulier’s).Gaulierachievedthisshiftthroughavariety

oftechniquesembeddedintothestructuringoftheworkshops,beginningwiththedaily

warm‐upgame“BalthazarSays,”avariationon“SimonSays”inwhichGaulierbanged

hishanddrumandshoutedaquicksequenceofinstructionssuchas“walk,”“run,”

“stop”and“jump”which,ifnotprecededby“Balthazarsays,”qualifiedthestudentfor

corporalpunishment(usuallyhavingthearmtwistedbehindtheback,thethumb

presseddownandthebackpinched).Studentswereencouragedtotakepleasurein

noticingwhentheirfriendshadmessedupandin“denouncing”themtotheteacher;

thedenouncedstudentcouldthenonlyavoidpunishmentbysuccessfullyaskingfor

kissesfromotherstudentswho,again,wereencouragedtotakepleasureindenyingthe

request.BythetimeIjoinedtheworkshopinNeutralMaskthisgamewaswell‐

establishedandmarkedbylaughter,evenfromstudentssubjectedtopunishment.

Beingsingledoutforpunishmentbecameasignofaffectionintheclassroom,andthe

mockoutrageshownbystudentsdenouncedbytheirpeerswasgiventheliebythe

laughterthatalmostinevitablyaccompaniedit.Studentswhojoinedtheworkshops

laterintheyear,includingmyself,quicklylearnednottotakethegameseriously,and

thatdenouncementwasaformofexpressedaffection.

Moredifficultwassuppressingtheurgetolaughsympatheticallywhenastudent

wasflailingonstage;sittingsilentlywithastonyface—themodeweweretaughtto

adopt—wasexcruciatingformanyofusastensionwouldbuildthroughastudent’s

failedattemptstopleaseus.Gauliermodeledtheroleofaudiencememberforus,

glaringatstudentsonstagewithaslightfrownunlesstheydidsomethingthatprompted

spontaneouslaughter(arareoccurrence).Gaulierdefined“spontaneous”laughteras

uncontrolledlaughter,laughterthateruptedoutofuswithoutpremeditationordesire

topleasetheperformer.Hisdefinitionresonateswiththelatenineteenth‐centuryidea

ofautomatisme,particularlythelinkingofautomatismeand“truth”asexploredin

Chapter2,inwhichanon‐consciousbodilyactionistakentobemore“authentic”thana

consciousone.Thisextendedthelessonofauthenticitytospectatorsaswellas

performers,asthe“correct”performanceofaspectatorintheclassroomwasasopen

andspontaneousasthevulnerablemomentsoftheperformer.Gaulierexpectedusas

spectatorstoresistperforminginhabitualways,specificallylaughingstrategicallyin

ordertosupportorencouragethepersononstage.

Re‐framingfailure

PhilippeGaulier’scareerasaclownteacherbeganattheÉcoleJacquesLecoqin

Pariswherehetaughtbetween1976‐80,helpingtodeveloptheschool’sclown

pedagogy.Inhis1997bookLeCorpspoétique:unenseignementdelacréationthéâtrale

[translatedbyDavidBradbyin2000asTheMovingBody:TeachingCreativeTheatre]

JacquesLecoqdescribestheappearanceofclowninhisschoolinthe1960swhenhe

exploredtheconnectionsbetweentheCommediadell’Arteandcircusclowns.The

Medranocircushadclosedin1963,leavingtheCirqued’Hivertheonlycircusremaining

fromthenineteenth‐centuryexplosionofParisiancircuses(FusettiCommencement10).

Themultiplefiguresofthe“clown”asdefinedbyTristanRémyinhisseminal1945book

LesClownslikelyinfluencedLecoq,particularlythefigureoftheAuguste—thecircus

clownfigurediscussedinChapter2whowasfrequentlypairedwiththecrueland

sinisterWhiteClown,afigurethathasvisualandpersonaresonanceswiththelate

nineteenth‐centurymurderousPierrot.ThechiefmarkeroftheAugustewashis

persistentfailuretodoanythingright.Lecoqdescribesadiscoveryofthefunninessof

failurewithhisstudents,inwhichheaskedhisstudentstositinacircle,andonebyone

tostandupanddosomethinginthestyleofthecircusclowntomaketheotherslaugh:

Lerésultatfutcatastrophique.Nousavionslagorgeserrée,l’angoisseau

plexus,celadevenaittragique…ilsarrêtèrentleurimprovisationet

allèrentserasseoir,dépités,confus,gênés.C’estalors,enlesvoyantdans

cetétatdefaiblesse,quetoutlemondesemitàrire,nondupersonnage

qu’ilsprétendaientnousprésentermaisdelapersonneelle‐même,ainsi

miseànu.Nousavonstrouvé!

[Theresultwascatastrophic.Ourthroatsweretight,chestsconstricted,it

wasbecomingtragic…theystoppedtheirimprovisationandwenttosit

down,vexed,confused,embarrassed.Thatwaswhen,seeingthemin

theirstateofweakness,everyonestartedtolaugh,notatthepersonas

theyhadpretendedtoshowusbutatthepersonherself,soexposed.We

hadfoundit!](Corps153)

Lecoquniversalizesthisdiscoverybydescribingtherealizationmadecollaborativelyby

himselfandhisstudentsthatdayastheinherentridiculousnessofthehumancondition:

“Noussommestousdesclowns,nousnouscroyonstousbeaux,intelligentsetforts,

alorsquenousavonschacunnosfaiblesses,notredérisoire,qui,ens’exprimant,font

rire”[Weareallclowns,weallbelieveourselvestobebeautiful,intelligentandstrong,

whileeachofushasourweaknesses,thingstobederided,which,whenweexpress

them,causelaughter](Corps153).TheclowninLecoq’spedagogytriestomakethe

audiencelaugh,fails,anditisparadoxicallyhisfailureandhissubsequentreactionthat

provokeslaughter.Lecoqunderstandthisfailureasrepresentativeofthehuman

condition:weareconstantlyattemptingtosucceedintheeyesofothers,andnever

quitemakingit.InLecoq‐trainedclownRobertRosen’swords,theclownisalways“in

theshit”(Personalcorrespondence2007).AccordingtoLecoq,whenothersseethe

momentofvulnerabilitythataccompaniesfailure,theyrespondwithlaughter.Lecoq

andotherclownteachersinhistraditionincludingGaulierandGiovanniFusettiattribute

thislaughtertoarecognitionofauniversalhumanity,predicatedontheassumption

thatthemomentofvulnerabilityrevealstheperformer’strueself:“Enallantjusqu’au

fonddemapropreindividualité,jetouchel’universalité,oùchacunpeutsereconnaître”

[Bygoingtotherootofmytrueindividuality,Itouchtheuniversal,whereeveryonecan

recognizethemselves](FusettiCommencement87).52Theauthenticself,inother

words,canbeaccessedthroughclownpedagogy,andonceaccessedissomethingthat

spectatorswillinstinctivelyrecognize.

Lecoq’sinnovationwastomakethisintoapedagogicalmethodcalled“clown”.

Theparadoxattheheartofthismethodisfoundinthejuxtapositionoftheclown’s

failurewiththestructuringoftheclassroom,inwhichastudentisexpectedtosucceed

atlearningwhatevertechniqueorlessonisbeingtaught.Forinorderto“succeed”in

clown—successthatisdefinedinLecoq‐basedclowncoursesasmakingtheaudience

laugh—thestudentmustfailrepeatedlytomaketheaudiencelaugh.Thisrepeated

failureforcesthestudenttoabandontechniquesshehasacquiredtopleaseboth

spectatorsandteachers,leavingherwithwhateverisleftaftertheselearnedtechniques

52Unlessspecifiedotherwise,alltranslationsinthischapteraremine.

havefailed.Thisassumptionandthepracticesthatsurrounditlieattheheartofmy

analysisofGaulier’sclownworkshop,inwhichstudentsfrequentlyunderstood

“whateverisleft”astheauthenticself.

Thisfocusonthe“authenticself”existedintheworkshopdespitethefactthat

Gaulierhimselfisexpresslyuninterestedintheinnerselfofthestudent;unlikeother

Lecoq‐basedclownteachersincludingGiovanniFusettiandAngeladeCastro,Gaulier

doesnotemphasizefindingone’sinnerclown.53Rather,hispedagogyisfocusedonthe

“pleasure”ofperforming,the“beauty”ofthestateofvulnerability,andthefailure

discussedearlierasthecentralclassroomcode.Eachoftheseconceptsisfoundinother

Lecoq‐basedpedagogies;Gaulierhowevergivesthemmorecentralitythanasearchfor

theinnerclown.Histechniques,correspondingly,aredesignedtodisorientthestudent,

includingusingcostumesthatencouragestudentstotransgresstype(Peacock38).

However,languagethatinvokedauthenticityfrequentlycreptintotheclassroom,both

fromGaulier—whenhepraisedastudentforbeing“himself”or“herself”onstage—and

morefrequentlyfromthestudents,whosepost‐classdiscussionsnearlyalways

defaultedtoanassumptionthat“beingoneself”onstagewasthegoaloftheworkshop;

indeed,thephrase“beingmyself”wasfrequentlyusedinterchangeablywith“being

beautiful”(anexpressedaimofGaulier’spedagogy)inbothinterviewsanddiscussions.

53Describinghisclownpedagogy,Fusettisays,“Peoplecanplaythemselvesatthemomentthattheyfeeltheycanplaywiththingsthatareactuallytheirs—theirbodies,theirforms,theirperceptions,”emphasisingthesimultaneousdistancethatisaresultofthestructureofplay;hecontraststhiswithothertypesofperformancethatrelyondistinguishingoneselffromone’scharacter(Interview2007)

Gaulierrepeatedlypositionedbeautyinoppositiontothepracticeofacting,deridinga

performancewithsuchphrasesas“heishorribleactor,no?”Thisledmoststudentswith

whomIspoketointerpretbeautyasthatwhichremainswhenthemasksofsocially

learnedbehaviorarestrippedaway:“WhenI’mbeautifuliswhenI’mreallybeing

myself,notactingorpretending”(Interviewwithworkshopstudent2007).This

languagedisplaystracesofamodernistconceptionofthe“trueself”thatlieswithinthe

body,aselfstronglycontestedinnineteenth‐centurymimewhenthatwhichlay

beneaththemime’smaskwasportrayedasavoid,aswiththeHanlon‐Lees,andyetan

instinctiverealmmarkedbyautomatismethatbecametiedtoanideaoftheauthentic

self.54Thisideagainedtractionintheearlytwentiethcenturyaspsychoanalysisgained

increasinginfluence,positioningtheselfdeepwithinthebody,accessibleonlythrough

indirectexternalsymptoms.

Gestureandinteriority:“Themirrorisanenemyforthemime…”

Thebeliefinahiddeninteriorityanditscomplexrelationshiptothemaskgained

strengthinlatenineteenth‐andearlytwentieth‐centuryFrenchmime,atraditionthat

wasoneofthechiefinfluencesonLecoq.Realisminthetheatreofthelatenineteenth

centuryresteduponanassumptionofrepresentativetransparency,inthatmeaningwas

directlylinkedtooutermanifestation.“Reflection”isperhapsanaptwordforthisbrand

ofrepresentation;inthesamewaythatsets,costumesandlightingwereconfiguredto

54SeeLouisaE.Jones(1984)foradetailedaccountofthisiconography.

produceaneffectof“everydayreality”,sotoowerethebodiesofactorsonthestage

choreographedtolookvisuallyidenticaltotheeveryday,asintheMeiningenPlayers’

famouscrowdscenes.55Theintersectionofpsychologicalrealismwiththispictorial

realismbuildsasecondlayerontotheuseofthebodyasrepresentativeofmeaning:not

onlywasthebodystrategicallyplacedandchoreographedonstagetomirrorthe

everyday,therecognizablemeaningofphysicalmovementandgesture,butthestyleof

gesturebecamesmallerandincreasinglyindicatedsubtlemovementsofthoughtrather

thantheearlierstyleofgesturestandinginforlanguage,asdiscussedinChapter2.

Astheyincreasinglylinkedgesturewiththought,mimeartistsalsobegantoshift

theirrehearsaltechniquestowardsinteriormethodsofself‐analysis.Intheearly

twentiethcentury,thefamousFrenchmimeGustaveFréjavilleSéverindescribedwhyhe

chosetoeschewtheuseofmirrorsastrainingtoolsinfavorofcerebralprocess:“The

mirrorisanenemyforthemime,atleastforthemimewhothinks…Hismirrorshould

behismind:hiseyes,mask,bodyshouldbealwaysindirectcontactwithhisthought”

(qtd.inJones171).Theuseofmirrorshadlongbeenencouragedforactors.Inthe

eighteenthcenturythepredominantactingmethodwastostrikeoneofsix“attitudes”

thatconveyedaclearpassion(assumedtobeuniversallylegibletoaudiences),holding

thetableauforalengthoftimebeforequicklytransitioningtothenextattitude.This

reflectedastrongconnectionbetweenactingandfinearts;eachpassionwasgivenan

idealizedphysicalrepresentationthatwasunderstoodtoimpressitstemplateuponthe

55TheMeiningenPlayerstouredEuropebetween1874‐90,pursuinganaestheticofpictorialillusionismmeanttoduplicaterealitywithgreataccuracy(BrockettandHildy389).

humanform.Asthepassionswereconsidered“universal,”theperformer’sbodyhadto

achieveastateof“harmony”inordertosuccessfullyconveytheidealizedtemplate.In

ordertoachievethephysicalrepresentationofthistemplate,theactorwasencouraged

topracticemeticulouslyinfrontofmirrors,atechniquethatJohannWolfgangvon

Goethelaterencouraged(Roach69‐71&167).

FrenchmimeRaouldeNajac’sendorsementoftheuseofmirrorsinhisSouvenirs

d’unmimeisdifferentlyinflectedthanGoethe’s,forwhilethelatterwasconcernedwith

precisionofmovementconferredontheactorbyanall‐controllingdirector,Najac

encouragedthedevelopmentofindividualgesture.Forhimmirrorswereusefulnotfor

achievinganidealphysicalpositionthroughcomparingthereflectedimageagainstan

outwardly‐availableone(viadrawingsordirectorialdescription),butfortestingthe

effectsofone’sownindividualcreation.Thedifferencebetweenhistechniqueand

Séverin’s,therefore,laynotintheemphasisonouter‐directedversusinnermodel,but

inthelocusoftheperformingselfinrelationtothatselfwhichjudgestheperformer’s

gesturalaccuracy,aprocessthatcouldbecalledself‐awareness.WhileSéverin’s

cognitively‐experiencedsensationsofhisbody(hisperformingself)werejudgedbyhis

thinkingmind—“Hismirrorshouldbehismind:hiseyes,mask,bodyshouldbealwaysin

directcontactwithhisthought”—Najacexternalizedhisperformingselfbyplacingit

ontothereflectivesurfaceofthemirror,positioninghisjudgingselfasliteralspectator.

Hiseyelooksoutwardfromthesurfaceofhisbodytoviewthetwo‐dimensionalimage

ofhisperformingbodyonthereflectivesurfaceofthemirror.Untilthemiddleofthe

nineteenthcentury,themimetictechniqueofcopyingwhatoneliterallyseeswas

dominantamongactors,mostofwhomcamefromactingfamiliesinwhichthecraftwas

passeddown;thosenewtothetheatrehadtolearntoimitateattitudesandstage

positionsquickly,astherewasverylittlerehearsaltime(Taylor73).Bythelate

nineteenthcentury,however,thistechniquewasincreasinglyconnectedtoanideaof

thedissociationoftheself,echoesofwhichcanbefoundintheGaulier’sfocuson

“pleasure”asadistancingtechniquethatdelineatesthedistinctionbetweenperformer

andperformed.

TheincreasingpopularityofSigmundFreud’spsychoanalytictheoryhad

refiguredtheideaof“doubleconsciousness”formulatedinDenisDiderot’sLeparadoxe

surlecomédien[Theparadoxoftheactor]bypositioningthetruest,deepestselfinthe

realmoftheonlyindirectly‐accessibleunconscious.Diderot’sParadoxehaddrawnonan

eighteenth‐centuryconceptionoftheselfversusthemask;theexteriorofthebody,the

mask,couldbemadebytheskillfulactortomimicemotionalstateswhiletheactor’s

interiorselfremainedunaffected.Hisconceptoftherationalversustheinstinctiveselfis

echoedinWilliamArcher’sMasksorFaces?(1888)inwhichactorswhogivewaytotheir

emotionsonstageinspiteoftheirbetterjudgmentaredescribedas“beside

themselves”(96).Diderothadconnectedsensibilitywiththeinstabilityofbodily

processes:

Lasensibilité,selonlaseuleacceptionqu’onaitdonnéejusqu’àprésentà

ceterme,est,cemesemble,cettedisposition,compagnedelafaiblesse

desorganes,suitedelamobilitédudiaphragme,delavivacitéde

l’imagination,deladélicatessedesnerfs…

[Sensibility,accordingtotheonlyacceptableusegiventotheterm,is,it

seemstome,thatdispositionthataccompaniestheweaknessofthe

organs,followsthemovementofthediaphragm,ofthelivelinessofthe

imagination,ofthedelicacyofthenerves…](72)

Havingtiedsensibilitytonature(37),heunderscoreditsspecificallyirrationalaspect:“…

cettedisposition…incline…àperdrelaraison,àexagérer,àmépriser,àdédaigner,à

n’avoiraucuneidéepréciseduvrai,dubonetdubeau,àêtreinjuste,àêtrefou”[…this

disposition…inclinesone…toloseone’smind,toexaggerate,tobecontemptuous,to

scorn,tohavenopreciseideaofthetrue,thegoodandthebeautiful,tobeunjust,tobe

insane](72).

IncontrasttoDiderot’sclearassociationofmechanicalactingwithrationality

andsentimentalactingwiththepropensityto“loseone’smind,”inthelatenineteenth

centuryArcherarguedthat“thereisnoreasonwhyactorswhofeel,betheygood,bad,

orindifferent,shouldnotatthesametimehavealltheirwitsaboutthem.”Addressing

Diderot’scontentionthatanactorwhointerruptshislaughteratajokeinthe

greenroomtogoonstageforasuicidescenecouldnotpossiblyfeelanyemotioninhis

role,Archertiesmechanicalactingnotjusttolackofemotionbuttolackof

comprehension:“Butofthesetruthswehaveanobviousexplanation,involvingno

paradox.Itissimplythattheruck[disparagingtermfor‘group’]ofmiddlingandbad

actorsperformtheirpartsmechanically,notfeeling,notevenunderstandingthem…”

(95,emphasisadded).Asimilarshiftoccursintheunderstandingof“coldness”:Diderot

laudstheactorLekain‐Niniasfordiscreetlypushingadroppeddiamondoffstagewithhis

footinthemidstofasceneinwhichhischaracterishorror‐stricken:“Direz‐vousqu’il

estmauvaisacteur?Jen’encroisrien.Qu’est‐cedoncqueLekain‐Ninias?C’estun

hommefroidquinesentrien,maisquifiguresupérieurementlasensibilité”[Doyousay

thatheisabadactor?Idon’tbelieveit.Whatis,therefore,Lekain‐Ninias?Heisacold

manwhofeelsnothing,butwhorepresentssensibilityinasuperiorway](64,emphasis

added). 56Archerechoestheuseofcoldnesstodenotemechanicalacting,thoughhe

viewsitwithmorecautionthanDiderot(96&115).

Inhisexplicitpositioningofself‐awarenesswithinthethinkingmind,Séverinwas

reiteratingtheconceptofthe“innermodel”whichhadgainedholdinlatenineteenth‐

centuryactingtheories.TheconceptcanbetracedtoDiderot’sconceptofthe“modèle

idéale"or"modèleintérieur,”57whichreferredtothecreationofanimagewithinthe

mindoftheartistthathethencopiestocreateasculptureorpainting.Incontrasttothe

56ItisimportanttodistinguishtheFrenchdefinitionofsensibilité,theabilitytobeaffectedbyphysicalimpressions,includingfeelings,fromsentiment,thefacultyoffeelingandfeelingsthemselves;thisdistinctionistrueinEnglishaswell(Roach99‐100).WhenDiderottiessensibilitétoirrationalityandArchertiesittobothfeelingandcognition,theyarenotspeakingoffeelingsinandofthemselvesbutoftheabilitytobeaffectedbyfeelings.WhileWalterHerriesPollocktranslatesthelastsectionofthepassageaboveas“…whoiswithoutfeeling,butwhoimitatesitexcellently”(38),Ihavechosentoretaintheterm“sensibility”which,whileitmakesthesentenceslightlymoreclunky,IbelievebetterconveysDiderot’suseofthetermtoindicateanactorimitatingapersonwhohasthecapacitytobeaffectedbyfeelings,ratherthanimitatingfeelingsthemselves.57Whentranslatedliterallyas“idealmodel”or“type,”“modèleidéale"conveysDiderot’sneoclassicalviewofartimprovingonnature;RoachsuggestsconnectingthetermtoDiderot’slater"modèleintérieur”sincebothtermsrefertoanimageinthemind’seyeoftheartist.

exteriorizingactionoftheliteralmirror,the“innermodel”placedthefacultyofsight

notwithintheeye(whichseesoutwardfromtheedgesofthebody)butwithinthe

mind,spatiallylocatedintheinteriorofthebody.Instructingartistsontherenderingof

nudefiguresindrawings,Diderotwrites,“Trytoimagine,myfriends,thatthewhole

figureistransparent,andtoplaceyoureyeinthemiddle…”(Essais466,qtd.inRoach

126).Thisspatialshiftistiedtoaconcurrentdiscourseofauthenticity,inwhichthe

individualisanswerableonlytohimself,asthereexistsanegativerelationbetween

craftingone’sactionstoconformtotheopinionsofothersandbeingauthentic.In

theatrethistranslatesintotheartist’sreferenceonlytohimselfortoatranscendent

powerratherthantotheapprovalofthespectators(Trilling97).Thegazeofspectators

uponthesurfaceoftheperformer’sbodyhasnopowertodetermineorcreate

authenticity—apossiblereasonbehindSéverin’sexplicitrejectionoftheexternalizing

functionofthemirror:“Themirrorisanenemyforthemime,atleastforthethinking

mime…”.

TheshiftthatoccurredinpsychologywithFreud’stheoriesoftheunconscious

andthesymptom—whichtiedtheunconsciousinextricablytothebody—deepenedand

furtherlayeredthisunderstandingofthebodyaslegiblelocusofinteriormeaning,for

histheoryofpsychoanalysisrupturedtheformerlyassumedone‐to‐oneconnection

betweenperceptionandrepresentation.Nolongerwasanembodiedgestureareliably

transparentpointertounderlyingpsychologicalmeaning;thesymptomhadreplaced

themirrorasasymbolratherthanareflection,andonlyanewmethodology—

psychoanalysis—couldunlockitsmeaning.Thatthemeaninghiddenwithinthe

unconsciouscouldbemadelegiblewithinthecorrectmethodology,however,doesnot

negatetheseverityoftheparadigmshiftvis‐à‐vismeaningandthecomprehensible

subjectusheredinbyFreud.Oneneedonlylooktothetenetsofnineteenthcentury

realism—particularlyitsnaturalistmanifestation—toperceivethedisorientationFreud’s

theoriesinauguratedforthestabilityofthesubject.Whereaswithinnaturalismthe

subjectwasunderstoodtobetransparentandreadilylegible,onceFreud’s

psychoanalytictheorytookholdthenotionof“underlyingpsychicreality”became

unanchoredfromaone‐to‐onecorrespondenceofinnerrealitytooutermanifestation.

Evenwithinthemethodologyofpsychoanalysis,theprocessofuncoveringunconscious

meaningwasalong,multifacetedone,asanyofFreud’sownnarrativesinThe

PsychopathologyofEverydayLife(1914)willattest.TheincreasingpopularityofFreud’s

psychoanalytictheoryhadrefiguredtheideaof“doubleconsciousness”formulatedin

Diderot’sParadoxebypositioningthetruest,deepestselfintherealmoftheonly

indirectly‐accessibleunconscious.ConstantinStanislavskisimilarlyprivilegedthe

subconsciousovertheconsciousmindasthe“realmwherenine‐tenthsofanygenuine

creativeprocesstakesplace”(Legacy172);hisactingtechniquesincludingemotion

recall(Actor164)areintendedtoaccessthisrealmoftruecreativeprocess.

Lecoq’sreworkingofhispedagogyaroundadeliberatedistancingoftheperformer

fromtherole,however,foregroundedandprivilegedthetwo‐facednessofacting;

sinceritybecamelinkedtothepresenceoftheactorbehindthemaskofthecharacter.

Thisshiftinthelanguageusedtodescribethearchaeologyoftheselffromunderneath

inFreud’s“unconscious”tobehindinLecoqcanlikelybeattributedtothemaskwork

thatformsthefoundationofLecoq’spedagogy:fromNeutralMaskthroughLarval,

ExpressiveandCharactermasksandfinallytheRedNose,thestrongestsignifierofthe

performer’sidentity—herface—islocatedbehindthemask,leadingtoalogicalslippage

thatpositionsthepresenceoftheperformer’s“trueself”behindthemaskofthe

charactersheisperforming.ForLecoqthispresenceisdetectedthroughspontaneous

reactionstoexternalstimuli:

Orlejeunepeuts’établirqu’enréactionàl’autre.Ilfautleurfaire

comprendrecephénomèneessentiel:réagir,c’estmettreenreliefla

propositiondumondedudehors.Lemondedudedansserévèlepar

réactionauxprovocationsdumondedudehors.Pourjouer,riennesert

derechercherensoisasensibilité,sessouvenirs,sonmondede

l’enfance.

[Butplaycannotoccurexceptthroughreactiontoanother.Theymust

understandthisessentialphenomenon:toreactistoplaceinreliefthe

ideaoftheoutsideworld.Theinnerworldrevealsitselfthroughreactions

totheprovocationsoftheoutsideworld.Toplay,itdoesnogoodto

searchforsensitivities,memories,theworldofchildhood.](Corps42)

ThekeydistinctionherebetweenNajac’suseofmirrorsdiscussedearlierandLecoq’s

expressedpedagogicalaimisthatwhileintheformertheactorhimselfjudgeshisown

performance,inthelattertheperformanceisfundamentallydependentonthe

reactionsofothers.Lecoq’slinkingofinteriorityto“theprovocationsoftheworld

outside”producedpedagogicaltechniquesdesignedtodisruptthestudent’shabitual

relianceonhisownsenseofinteriority,includingtechniquesofdisorientationthat

forcedstudentstofocusontheunpredictablereactionsofspectators.Gaulierenacted

thisdisruptionthroughtechniquesofdisorientationproducedbyconstantfailure,

continuallylinkingthisstateoffailuretothatoftheclown.

Spontaneityandgettingthetimingwrong

Gaulieropenshisclownworkshopwithastory.Hedescribesan“idiot”

wanderingthroughthestreetsofParistowardsabistrowhereMonsieurMarcel,the

“whitewolf,”sitsanddispenseshiswisdomtocuriousseekers.InhisbookLeGégèneur:

JeuxLumièreThéâtre/TheTormentor:LeJeuLightTheatre,thestoryisrenderedinthe

firstperson,GaulierhimselfaskingMonsieurMarcelforadviceonwhatinreallife

becameoneofhismostfamousclownactswithPierreBylandinwhichtheduosmashed

multipleplatesbeforealiveaudience.Inthestory,theidiot/GaulierinformsMonsieur

Marcelthathehaslefttraditionaltheatreandwishestodoaclownroutinewitha

friend,andasksforadviceon«uneidéedegagquiferarirelepublic,àcoupsûr»/“a

gagthat’llmakeanaudiencelaugh,somethingsure‐fire.”MonsieurMarceladvisesthe

aspiringclowntobreakaplate,as«çaatoujoursamuselepublic»/“‘thatalways

makesthemhappy’”(120&280).Gaulier’sdescriptionoftheoutcomeoftheshow

illustratesakeydistinctioninclownbetweenperformingsomethingfunnyandbeing

funnybecauseofthefailuretoperformsomethingfunny:

J’aifaitlespectacle.

QuandmonamiPierreBylandetmoiavonscasséuneassiette,lepublic

n’apasri.Quandnousn’avonspascomprispourquoil’idéegénialede

MonsieurMarceln’apasfonctionné,ilarigoléjusqu'às’enéclaterla

rate.Nousavonspensé:lepublicn’estpasdanslebonrythme.Nous

avonscasséunesecondeassietteafindelemettredanslebonrythme.

Nouveléchec:nouveauxriresdécalés.

Nousavonscassédeuxcentsassietteschaquesoirafindemettrele

publicdanslebonrythme.

Unbeaugâchis.

…L’idéed’unnumérodeclownestsouffléeparuncornichonàune

andouille.

Celle‐citenterad’enfaireunfromage.

Lepublicritduridiculeetdel’humanitédel’andouille.Peudugag.

[Ididtheshow.

WhenmyfriendandIsmashedaplate,theaudiencedidn’tlaugh.We

didn’tunderstandwhytheydidn’tlaughatMonsieurMarcel’sbrilliant

idea.Thismadethemlaughuproariously.

‘Theaudience’stimingisallwrong,’wethought.Sowebrokeanother

plate,sotheycouldgettheirtimingright.Anotherfailure.Morelaughter

atthewrongtime.

Webroketwohundredplateseveryeveningsotheaudiencecouldget

theirtimingright.Afinemess.

…Theideaofa‘clown’routineistransmittedbyanitwittoanumbskull.

Thenumbskullwilltrytomakeanumberoutofit.Theaudiencelaughsat

theabsurdityandhumanityofthenumbskull,morethanitlaughsatthe

gag.](120‐1&280)

Theaudience’slaughterheredisruptstheperformer’sexpectationsofwhenlaughteris

meanttooccurinthecomicpiece,forcingtheperformerintothestateofclownin

whichperformanceandaudienceresponsecannotbepredicted,butmustbe

encounteredspontaneously.

Atthecoreof“discoveringone’sclown”inGaulier’sclassesisthisideaof

spontaneity.Spontaneityinthenineteenthcenturywaslinkedtotheconceptofthe

automaticandthroughthistoStanislavski’snotionof“secondnature”astheworkings

ofconditionedreflexes(Roach162‐3).Theinteriorspacecalledtheunconscious,which

wasdubbedassuchbyEduardvonHartmanninhisPhilosophyoftheUnconsciousof

1868,translatedintoFrenchin1877(Roach179)—becametherepositoryofthe

instinctive,irrationalforcesofbêtism.Copeau,agreatadmirerofStanislavski’s,wished

toexplorepedagogicalstrategiesforre‐connectingtheactortohis“natural”self,tohis

unconscious.Nineteenth‐centuryviewsoftheunconsciousasthehomeofirrational

forces,togetherwithFreud’spsychoanalyticmethodsforbypassingtherationalego,

carriedoverintoearlytwentiethcenturyexperimentationwithhelpingactorsachieve

“spontaneity.”Spontaneityatthistimewasandcontinuestobedefinedinmuchthe

samewayasStanislavskidefined“secondnature”,andwaspursuedbyLecoqlaterin

thetwentiethcentury.

Inordertobypasstheactor’srationalmind,Lecoqdrewonanindirecttraining

method—“parricochet”(Corps63),whichItranslateas“indirectly”,andwhichDavid

Bradbyhastranslatedas“asidewaysapproach”(Body53).Lecoqconnectedthistohis

earlycareerexperienceinsports:

Encela,l’enseignementnefonctionnepasendirect,maisparricochet,

commepourcertainsentraînementssportifs.Pourfaireunbonlanceur

depoidsilfautlefairecourir,pourformerunbonjudoka,ilfautluifaire

fairedelamusculation.Cedétourestégalementnécessairedansle

domaineduthéâtre.

[Inthistheteachingdoesnotfunctiondirectly,butindirectly,likeinsome

sportstraining.Tomakeagoodshotputteronemustrun,tomakea

goodjudoka,onemustliftweights.Thisdetourisequallynecessaryinthe

fieldoftheatre.](Corps63‐4,emphasisadded)

Gaulierstudentsalsoconnectedthisideaofspontaneitytophysicalprocesses,

frequentlydescribingitbyevokingtheideaofreflex:astheabilitytoreacttowhatever

situationisinfrontofyou,withoutcognitivethought:

It’sthisideathatyou’renottopresumeanything,nottothinkabout

what’sgoingtohappennext,andthat’squiteahardthingtodowhen

youknowwhat’sgoingtohappennext.Butjusttobeopento,toreactto

exactlywhatisgoingon,andwhattheotheractorisgivingyou,andwhat

theaudiencewantsyoutodo.(Interviewwithstudent2008)

Onestudent,describinganimprovisedsceneinwhichthevisitinginstructorChristine

Langdon‐Smithhadgiventhetwostudentsonstageadistraction—sheplacedone

studentinawheelchairinordertodistancethemfromtheirlearnedinterpretationsofa

classicalscene—linkedtheirabilitytobespontaneoustoanideaoffreedom:“Thatwas

tomeoneofthemostopenmomentstowatch.Anditwasjustthisideathattheycould

have,itfeltliketheycouldgoanywherewithit,andtheywerejustfree,intheirown

bodiesandtheirownself”(Interview2008).Freedomisconnectedheretotemporal

andspatialpresence;being“inthemoment”andreactingtowhatwashappening

physicallyinfrontofthemonstage.Therationalmindispositionedasablockto

spontaneityinitsconstantattemptstocontrolactionbasedonpreconceivedideas.

Alinkcanbedrawnherebetweentheviewoftherationalmindasarepository

ofpreconceivedideasthatprescribeactionbyinhibitingspontaneity,andthetwentieth

centuryvitalistviewofthebodyasacalcifiedsetoflearnedhabitsthatmustbe

bypassedinorderfortheactortoachievephysicalspontaneity.Thisisoneroutetothe

notionofthe“thinkingbody”thatliesattheheartofphysicaltheatre,withthebody’s

thinkingaspectcomprisingtwocontrastingstrands:thethinkingassociatedwith

rationality,preconceivedideasandcalcifiedphysicalhabits;andtheideaofthebody’s

innatewisdom,connectedtothewisdomoftheunconscious.Bothofthesestrandscan

belinkedtoanearlytwentieth‐centuryideasofsincerityasitwasdeployedinFrench

mimepedagogy.

Acraftgroundedinsincerity

Intheearlypartofthetwentiethcentury,Copeausethimselftoarticulatinga

trainingforactorsthatwouldmaketheactor’s“sincerity”genuine.“Sincerity”wasa

catch‐phraseinearlytwentieth‐centurymimetheoryforahostofconceptsconnected

totheideaoftruth:presence,ennoblement,authenticity.LouisJouvetcalledforsaving

actorsfromtheir“monstrousegotism,thatcongestionofsincerity”(qtd.inGardner4).

Inhis“Conseilsàunjeuneélève,”CharlesDullinmakeshispointstarkly:“Insincerity,

there’sthepoison,”arguingthatinsincerityleadstocabotinage,anaffectedstyleof

actingthatdamagestheactor’shumanityasit“involvesahardeningoftheheartandan

abandonmentofthesoulthatintheenddegradesaman”(qtd.inGardner6).This

“hardeningoftheheart”and“abandonmentofthesoul”evokesthesang‐froidfor

whichPierrotperformersweresolaudedinthenineteenthcentury,asthehighest

praiseamimecouldreceivewasthathecreatedtheappearanceofabsolute

disengagementfromhisperformance.Thatthemimepractitionersofearlytwentieth

centuryFranceweresopreoccupiedwithavoidingthisappearanceofdisengagement,

of“renormalizing”theactorsothathecouldperformwith“sincerity,”pointsnottoa

newvalueplacedontheactor’s“sincerity”—forthisconcernovertheactor’sprofession

hadbeenwell‐establishedasfarbackasShakespeare—butratheranimportantshiftin

howinterioritywasviewed.Inthenineteenthcentury,amime’ssang‐froidwas

evidenceofhissincerity,forspectatorswereabletoseethemimeasaperformer

executinghiscraftwithvirtuosity;ifatearrandownCharlesDeburau’sfaceduringhis

performanceinaPierrotpantomime,thiswasevidencenotthattheperformerhimself

feltsadness,butthathehadusedhis“will”tomasterhisbody’sphysiologicalreactions

tothepointwherehecouldseemingly“spontaneously”produceatear.

Thepushtowardsmétier[craft]inearlytwentieth‐centuryFrenchmimewas

simultaneouslyarejectionofthesang‐froidofthenineteenthcenturyanda

continuationofthenineteenthcenturyfocusonthecraftofmimeasthemind/will

exertingcontroloverthebodyasmachine.TonyGardner(2008)hasdocumentedthe

waysinwhichthecontinuationoftheseideas—articulatedastheneedfortraining

techniquestostriptheactorofsocializedbehaviors—wasinformedinpartbythe

embracingofneo‐classicalidealsinFranceafterthefirstWorldWar,theso‐called

Rappelàl’ordre[Calltoorder].FueledbyarejectionofRomanticidealsfortheir

Germanicorigins,theRappelàl’ordrejoinedtheinfluenceofthescientificmethodin

encouragingasystematicapproachtoart,whichCharlesEdouardJeanneretexpectedto

“inducethesensationofmathematicalorder,andthemeansofinducingthis

mathematicalordershouldbesoughtamonguniversalmeans”(qtd.inGardner6).

Copeauidentifiedrigoroustechniqueastheroutetosincerityinacting:

Emotiveexpressiongrowsoutofcorrectexpression.Notonlydoes

techniquenotexcludesensitivity:itauthenticatesandliberatesit.It

upholdsandprotectsit.Itisthankstoourcraft[métier]thatweareable

toletourselvesgo,becauseitisthankstoitthatwewillbeabletofind

ourselvesagain.(Texts77)

CopeauhadadmiredanddrawnonStanislavski’stechniquesforpursuing“sincerity”and

“truth”intheactor’semotionalexpression(Felner39).Inordertogivetheactor

techniquesforfreeingthebodyfromlearnedhabitsofexpression,Copeauexplored

varioustypesofmovementtraining,amethodmeantto“followthenatural

developmentoftheinstinctforplayinthechild”(qtd.inFelner40).

Lecoqmadelejeu(“play”or“thegame”)centraltohispedagogy;Gaulierfocuses

evenmorestronglyonthe“pleasuretoplay.”Gaulier’sfocusonpleasurecontinually

remindstheperformertoremaindisengagedfromtheperformance:theactorand

characterareneverone.Thismeansthattheperformerneveractuallyfeelstheemotion

thatheorsheisplaying,buttakespleasureinpretendingtofeelit.This“pleasurein

playing”isattheheartoflejeuforGaulier,andunderlieseverythingheteaches.So,as

discussedinChapter3,whenheaskedstudentstoplaytheNeutralMaskseeingthe

oceanandhavinga“bigemotion”andreceivedconfusedresponsesandquestions,he

reiteratedhiscentralpointthattheperformerwastotakepleasureinplayingthebig

emotionoftheNeutralMask.Inthisinstancetheemotionofthemaskwastobe

treatedasanyotheraction:amomentaryshiftoutofneutralityintoexpressivity,justas

leaningovertopickupastonewasanupsettingoftheneutralityofperfectbalanceand

alignment.Critiquesofstudents’unintentionallyexpressiveposturesandmovements

(“Nosedown,”“Headup,”“Youlooksad,”“Hemaybehadtoomuchtodrinklastnight”)

appliedtothestateofneutralitythatprecededexpressivityandaction.Studentshad

learnedfromsuchfeedbackthatexpressivitywasnotwanted,andthereforeresponded

withconfusiontotheinstructiontohaveabigemotion.Unintentionalexpressivityin

theneutralstatecamefromthestudent’spre‐existingemotional/physicalstate,

whereastheNeutralMask’semotionatseeingtheoceanwasashiftoutofpre‐existing

neutrality.Thesetwotypesofexpressivitywereconflated,understandably,leadingto

Alex’scomment,citedatthebeginningofChapter3,abouttheperennialissueof

whethertheactorfeelstheemotionheisplaying,whenGaulier’sinstructionhadhad

nothingtodowithwhattheperformerfelt.Thisdisengagementfromidentificationwith

thatwhichisbeingplayedisreiteratedinGaulier’sClownpedagogy,withakey

difference:inClown,thedisengagedselfwhotakespleasureinplayingisidentifiedwith

thestudent’s“true”selfagainstthelearnedpersonacomposedofsocializedhabits.

Gaulier’sstrategyforbreakingthesehabitsisoneofdisorientation:makingthestudent,

whohasbeensocializedtosucceedintheclassroombypleasingtheteacher,repeatedly

fail,or“flop”.

TheflopanddisorientationinGaulier’spedagogy

Lecoqembracedthenotionofanecessarycrisisinthere‐constructionoftheself,

puttingforththeflopasthecoreofclowntraining:

Leclownestceluiqui“prendlebide”,quiratesonnuméroet,decefait,

placelespectateurenétatdesupériorité.Parcetéchec,ildévoilesa

naturehumaineprofondequinousémeutetnousfaitrire.

[Theclownistheonewho“flops”(lit.“takesthebelly”),whomisseshis

turnand,inthisway,positionsthespectatorinasuperiorstate.Forthis

failure,herevealshisprofoundhumannaturewhichmovesusandmakes

uslaugh.](Corps155)

Gaulierfrequentlyreferredto“MonsieurFlop”duringtheclownworkshopasthe

clown’sbestfriend;whentheclownsensesaflop,sheshouldthinktoherself“Ah,I

senseMonsieurFlopisnear—Ithankyou,MonsieurFlop,foryouwillallowmetosave

theshow”(myparaphraseofGaulier’sin‐classdescription,2008).Theflopisthe

mistake.Inaclownperformancebeforeanaudience,itisarehearsedmistake;inthe

clownclassroom,itisgenuine—thestudenttrulymessesupandfacesamoment—often

unbearable—ofnotknowingwhattodonext.TheauthoritarianstructureofGaulier’s

classroom,asdiscussedabove,facilitatedfrequentopportunitiesforflops.

Theintensivefocusonredefiningsuccessandfailureintheclownclassroomis

predicatedonthebeliefthatthestudent’sbodyisdisciplinedwithintraditional

classroomstoperforminarigidlycodifiedmanner,therebycalcifyingthepersonaintoa

setofapprovedbehaviors.Theactoffailure,correspondingly,createsaruptureora

breakinthispersona.Gaulier’sclassroomisdeliberatelystructuredtoproduce

disorientationthroughensuringthefailureofanypre‐existingstrategiesforpleasingthe

teacherthatastudentbringswithher.Theuseof“impossible”exercises(throwinga

studentonstageanddemandingsheinstantly“befunny”),thedrumthatcouldstrike,

startlingly,atanymoment(Figure6),andthecultureofharshcritiquewerethechief

strategiesforproducingdisorientationamongstudents.

Figure6:Gaulierreadytohitthedrum

Thesudden,oftenfear‐inducingtechniquesemployedbyGaulierlinksthesestates

ofdisorientationtowhatRogerCailloisidentifiesasvertiginousgames:

Thelastkindofgameincludesthosewhicharebasedonthepursuit

ofvertigoandwhichconsistofanattempttomomentarilydestroythestabili

tyofperceptionandinflictakindofvoluptuouspanicuponanotherwise

lucidmind.Inallcases,itisaquestionofsurrenderingtoakindofspasm,

seizure,orshockwhichdestroysrealitywithsovereignbrusqueness.(23)

Theshockelementofvertiginousgamesresonateswithonestudent’sdescriptionofthe

flop,whichshelinkedtoGaulier’sdescriptionofthe“necessarycrisis”:

Gauliertalksalotaboutthebeautifulprocess,andhavingthiscrisis

whereyou’reinatunnelandyoudon’tknowwhatyou’redoing.Hefeels,

it’shisopinion,thatyouneedthat,tothencomeoutofthat,because

that’sthetimewhenyoureallystrugglewithyourselfandfigureoutwhat

you’redoingandwhyyou’redoingit.(Interview2008)

Gaulierdescribeshispedagogyinphysicallyharshterms,pittinghimselfagainstthe

habitsofperformanceandpersona:

Quandj’enseigneleclown,jeboxe:unuppercutdanslagueuledugentil

petitpersonnage,uncrochetdudroitdanslesgencivesdelavolonté,de

ladétermination,desrésolutions,desvolitions,undirectdansl’estomac

ducomiquedebasétage,uncrochetdugauchedanslethoraxdecelui

quisecroitdrôleavantdel’être,troisswingscontrelesidées

conventionnelles.

[WhenIteachclown,Ibox.Anuppercutonthefaceofthenicelittle

character,arighthookinthegumsofwill,determination,resolutionand

volition.Asmackinthestomachofthecheapcomic,alefthooktothe

thoraxforsomeonewhothinksthey’refunnybeforetheyreallyareand

threepiledriversforconventionalideas.](130&290)

Hisexpressedaimistodismantlethestudent’ssenseofselfaccruedthroughimitative

habits,forcinghertofallbackuponwhatexistsunderneaththismaskofthepersona.

WhileGaulierdoesnotuselanguagethatevokesthe“natural”or“pre‐inscripted”body,

studentsneverthelesstendedtolinktheideaofsuccessfullyfollowinganimpulseon

stageinthemidstofdisorientationwithbeingintouchwiththe“self”—acommon

elision,asMarkEvanspointsout,inactortrainingthatfocusesonreactingonimpulse

ratherthanhabitualresponse(Movement84).

WhileGaulier’sclownclassroomwasstructuredaroundtheideaoffailure,his

harshauthoritariandemeanorsimultaneouslystructuredaspaceinwhichstudentsfelt

compelledtofigureouthowtosucceedinpleasingtheteacher.Studentsquickly

learnedthattherewasarightwayandawrongwaytofail:ifthefailureproduced

laughter,itwascorrect;ifthefailureresultedinthesoundofadrumbeatfollowedby

Gaulier’smuttered“Thankyou,goodbye,”itwaswrong.Gaulier,however,directly

challengedthisassumptionattheendofthethirdweekofthecourse,whenthe

classroomhadbeenimplicitlydividedbetweenthosewhoweredoingrelativelywell(a

tinyminority)andtheremainingstudentswhowereincreasinglyfrustratedovertheir

abilitytofailcorrectly.OnFridayafternoonattheendofthethirdweek,allforty‐three

studentsfromthetwogroupsthattheclasswasdividedintoweregatheredtogetherin

theclassroomstudiofortheweeklygroupsession.Shoulderswereslumped,faceswere

pinched,andthegeneralsensewasthatofdreadmixedwithincreasingdespair.Gaulier

bangedhisdrumandsaid,“So.Iwantabadstudentnowtogetup.”Afterabriefpause

Paula—athirty‐threeyearoldPortugueseBrazilianwomanwhoworkedasa

professionalclowninBrazilandwhoseEnglishabilitiesweresparse—sighed,stoodup

andtookcentrestage.58“Now,”Gaulierinstructed,“tellusaboutyourflops,whenyou

havefloppedhere.”

Paulabegantodescribetheattemptsshehadmadeoverthepastthreeweeks

tobefunny,describingtheexerciseinstructions(“Weweretocomeonandsavethe

showbecausetheclownshadbeeninplanecrash”),herattempttodosomethingfunny

(“AndIcameonanddancedandpresentedshow”—thisaccompaniedwithaslightsmile

assherecalledthefunshehadhadintheexercise),andhersubsequentfailure(“…and

noonelikedit.”).Atmomentsduringherrecountingscatteredlaughterbrokeoutinthe

room,usuallyduringhertransitionfromdescribinghereffortsintostatingthattheyhad

failed.Herspirits,alongwithhershouldersandfacialexpression,seemedtodroopas

shecarriedonrecountingherflops,untilGaulierstoppedherwithabangofthedrum,

lookedaroundandaskedtheroomatlarge,“Sheisbeautifulnow,no?Shehas

something,”towhichtheroomatlargemurmuredconsent.HethenturnedtoPaula,

leanedforward,andsaid,“Whyyounotbelikethis,likeyouarenow?Youareyourself–

youarebeautiful,thiswomanhereisbeautiful.Whyyoudothisawfulperforming,be

thishorribleactress,insteadofthisbeautifulwoman?”Paulabegancrying,shookher

58Allstudentnameshavebeenchanged.

head,andmurmured“Idon’tknow.”Heaskedherwhethershehadheardthe

audience’slaughterassherecountedherflops;whensheshookherhead,hesaid,

“Theylaughedbecausethisisbeautiful.Thishereisyou,”reinscribingtheideathat

beautyistiedtotheemergenceofthe“true”selfbeforespectators,andsimultaneously

linkingthetrueselfwithexpressionsofconfusionandsadness.

Paula’sapproachtoclowningintheworkshophadbeeninfluencedbyher

existingcareerasaclowninBrazilperformingmainlyforchildren,bothintheatrical

settingsandinhospitalsthroughtheorganization“DoutoresdaAlegria”[DoctorsofJoy]

inSaoPaolo.Theclowningstylethatshehaddevelopedwasphysicallybroadand

expressive,markedbyexaggeratedgesturesandfacialexpressions.Inthehospital

setting,accordingtoPaula,theclownperformstherolesofjoyfulplaymatesforthe

hospitalizedchildren,encouragingthemtolaughattheclown’ssillinessandjoinin

gamesthataremeanttodistractthemfromtherathergrimsettingofthehospitaland

thepresenceofillnessandinjury.Pauladescribesthecoreofthisapproachasabelief

thatthehumanheartisasiteofcreativityandjoy;theclownaimstovisiblyembody

thesequalities.

ForPaulaasaBrazilianhospitalclown,therefore,“beauty”layinlargephysical

gesturesanddeliberateexpressionsofjoyandwonder.Gaulier’sdefinitionof“beauty”,

inmarkedcontrasttothis,wasrootedinanideaofopennessmarkedbyphysical

minimalismandcognitiveconfusion.HispraiseofPauladuringthe“describeyourflop”

exercisefocusedonherlackoflargegesturesandfacialexpressions,andfarfrom

expressionsofjoy,heonlydescribedheras“beautiful”whenshebegantolook

confusedanddispirited,hispraiseheighteningasshebegantocry.Thisencounter

tappedintooneofthecontradictionsatplayintheworkshop:theroleofemotional

expressiononandthroughthebody.Gaulier’sdisparagementofcertainmarkersofthe

unrulybodyincludingexaggeratedgesturesandfacialexpressionsrevealedtheFrench

mimetradition’sshrinkingofthebodyassiteofexpressivityandmistrustofovert

emotionalmarkers,markersthatPaula’sbodydisplayed.Thecentralityofanideaof

pleasuredefinedasan“openness”predicatedonlackofmusculartensioncameinto

conflict,inthatmoment,withanapproachtothejoyofclowningthatprivilegedvisible

displaysofemotiononthebody.Theminimalismassociatedwiththestateofclownin

theFrenchLecoqtraditionnotonlypointstoamistrustoftheconsciousself,butofthe

excessive,unrulybody—anearlytwenty‐first‐centurymanifestationofthelate

nineteenth‐centurycontaminationanxietiesanalyzedinChapter2.WhenPaulawason

stageintheworkshop,herbodymovedinlarge,sweepinggestures:headhigh,chest

out,hipsswayingasshesmiledbroadlyandlaughedandwinkedattheaudience.This,

accordingtoPaula,washerinterpretationoftheclown’sjoy,whichsheidentifiedasthe

“pleasure”thatGaulierendorsed.Gaulier’sreadingofthislevelofbodilyexpressivity

wasasinauthenticdisplay,asexcessiveeffortthathedescribedasrepellanttoan

audience.

Hispraiseofinvoluntarycrying,however—andthispraisewasrepeated

throughouttheworkshopwheneverastudentcriedonstage—privilegedanideaof

authenticemotionthatevokedtheconceptofautomatismeasinvoluntarymovements

producedsubconsciously.Thislatterconceptofauthenticityrevealsamistrustofthe

consciousself(whatJanettermed“l’ideédumoi”,asdiscussedinChapter2)that

representsemotionsonstage.Gaulierinterpretedlargeexpressivegesturessuchas

Paula’sasrootedintheconsciousself,inan“idea”ratherthananinvoluntaryemotional

reality.Heinterpretedcryingonstage,conversely,asaspontaneouseruptionofthe

authenticself(echoingJanet’sideaofthesubconscious)thatwasmorerealand

thereforemore“beautiful”thandeliberate,consciousdisplaysofemotionality.

WhenIspoketoPaulalateraboutherexperienceintheexercise,sheexpressed

conflictingfeelingsandideasoverwhathadoccurred.Immediatelyaftertheclass

finished,shewasstillintears,andascribedherinabilityto“hear”thelaughtertoa

translationissue:whenshehadarrivedinParisfromBrazilninemonthspreviously,she

wasbarelyabletospeakEnglishatall;throughouttheyearshehadbeenstrugglingwith

Gaulier’sheavily‐accentedEnglish.Maria,ayoungwomanfromGreece,satwithPaula

asshecriedinthedressingroomandrepeatedlyinvokedthelessonatthecenterof

Gaulier’sclownpedagogy:“Youarebeautifulnow,youarereallyyourself.See,this

Paula,here,beingvulnerable,issobeautiful.That’swhatwelovetoseeonstage.”

PaulanoddedinapparentagreementasMariaspoke,butsimultaneouslycountered

whatshewassayingbyreturningtotheissueoftranslation:“Heasksmetodothings

andIdon’tknowwhathe’ssaid,andhowamIsupposedtodotheexerciseifIcan’t

understand?”OnasurfacelevelthiscouldbesaidtopointtoGaulier’suseof

disorientationasaspecifictactic,yetPaula’sgenuinedifficultyinunderstanding

Gaulier’sinstructionsandfeedbackremovedherinteractionwithhimfromtheframeof

theclownclassroomthathehadsetup,asthisframingreliedonstudents

understandingtheprocessandbecomingdisorientedwithinit.Paulahadexperienced

anauthoritarianclassroominwhichtherewasnodistancingfromtheperformancethat

madeitaparody;despiteGaulier’sinsistencethatshehadbeen“beautiful”whenshe

criedonstage,hervulnerabilityinthatmomentexistedasagenuinebreakdownof

communicationbetweenteacherandstudent,notamomentofdisorientation

producedthroughGaulier’sintendedpedagogicalstrategy.Thislattertypeof

engagementrequiredalevelofunderstandingoftheclassroomframingthatallowed

thestudenttofunctionwithinherintendedrole.

AfterPaulareturnedtoherseat,anEnglishstudentnamedDavid—whoearlierin

thedayhadaskedhowhecouldknowthathewasbeinghimself,when“IthinkI’m

beingreal,andbeingmyself,butapparentlyI’mnot,becauseI’mnotbeautiful”—stood

upandshuffledtocenterstage.Hesmiledsomewhatsheepishlyandbegandescribing

hisflops:“Right—well,duringthefirstweekwedidthisexerciseandIthoughtitwould

beabrilliantidea…”Helaidoutalitanyoffailure,hisnormalself‐assured,somewhat

cockydemeanorreplacedbythephysicalcuesofconfusion:complexionpale,brows

slightlyfurrowed,shouldersslumped.Describingamomentinclasswhenhehadbeen

confidentthathisideawouldbegreetedwithlaughter,hebrieflycharacterizedhimself

performingaridiculousgrimace,smiledandchuckledbrieflyatthehumorhehadfound

intheperformance,thensankbackintohislookofconfusionasherememberedthatno

oneelsehadlaughed.Thisconfusedlookwasmarkedbyasofteningofthefacial

muscles:hisjawdroppedveryslightly,hischeekmuscleswhichhadcontractedwhenhe

smiledrelaxed,alsoresultinginhiseyesopeningwider.

Theaudiencelaughed,asmallchuckle.David,whoappearedabouttocontinue

hisstory,paused,surprised:hiseyebrowsraisedslightly,openinghiseyesfurther.This

resultedinalouderlaughfromtheaudience;themoreconfusedandsurprisedDavid

appeared,themorewelaughed.Thelaughterstoppedquitesuddenlywhenhe“struck

apose,”liftinghissternum,clenchinghisfistandcontractinghisfacialmusclesintoa

fixedsmile.Thiswasdescribedlaterbyseveralstudentsashimfallingbackintohis

“cocky”demeanor,andtheroomwassilentuntilthelackoflaughterconfusedhim

further,promptinganotherrelaxationofthemuscles.“Youlookedsosadand

vulnerable,”onestudentcommentedtohimafterclass.Thismoment—experiencedby

onlyafewstudentsintheworkshop—isdescribedas“findingone’sclown,”the

momentofcompleteopennessandvulnerabilitybroughtaboutthroughthefailureto

pleasetheaudience,aneffectheightenedwhentheperformerhadbeensoconfidentin

hisperformingabilitiesthatthefailureisthatmuchmoredisorienting.Thisprocesslinks

the“untrue”or“false”selftothehabituallyperformedpersona,linkingittoFrench

mimetheoriesoftheearlytwentiethcenturythatidentifiedthe“true”selfwiththe

body’sabilitytobreakfreeofsocially‐conditionedhabitsofmovementandtoanideaof

sincerityasthatwhichliesbehindthemaskofthecharacterperformed.However,

Gaulier’stechniqueofdisorientingthestudentinordertorevealaselfbehindthe

student’sownpersonatakesthisideaofsincerityonestepfurther,identifyingthe

student’shabitually‐performedpersonawiththemaskofacharacter.Sotheselfwho

takespleasureinperforming,markedbyadissociationoftheperformerfromcharacter,

isaselfdistancednotonlyfromthecharacterperformed,butfromtheperformer’sown

ideaofwhosheisbehindthemask.Thatspectatorsonlycatchaglimpseofthis“true”

selfwhentheperformerisinanopen,vulnerablestateofdisorientationproduced

throughfailuremakesthis“true”selfdifficulttoidentifyordefineoutsideofavague

senseofopennessandwhatGauliercalls“beauty”,asanycleardefinitionwould

becomeyetanothercomponentofasocially‐constructedpersona.Idiscussthisvague

senseofopenness,andstudents’attemptstoarticulateit,inthefollowingsection.

Thebeautiful/trueself

Aftertheclassinwhichstudentshadrecountedtheirfailures,overdrinksatAu

ClairedeLune,thebuzzofconversationrevolvedaroundthebeautyofpeoplewhen

theywere“reallythemselves”onstage.“Youcanseeitintheireyes,whenthey’re

themselves,”Zoe,atwenty‐threeyearoldstudentfromEngland,toldme.WhenIasked

whatshethought“beingoneself”meant,shehesitatedforamoment,thenresponded,

“It’swhentheyexistforusinourimagination,whentheyarestronglyinour

imagination.”ThisresponseresonatedinlightofDavid’squestionfromearlierinthe

day,whenheexpressedconfusionoverthinkinghewasbeinghimselfbutbeingtoldhe

wasnot.Thisobservationwasunderscoredbytheapparentsurpriseshownbystudents

whentheaudiencelaughedastheyrecountedtheirflops;thesemomentsoflaughter

wereunderstoodasbeingsignalsthattheywerebeingtheir“trueselves,”butthesignal

wasexternalanddependentontheotherpeopleintheroom;nothingaboutthe

momentregisteredfortheperformersasmore“real”thanthemomentbefore.And

Paula,whohadn’tregisteredthelaughter,wasconfusedastowhenandhowshewas

“beingherself.”The“trueself”wasfunctioninginthiseventasanexternal,visible

markerthatproducedaparticularreactionintheaudiencewithoutnecessarilybeing

recognizedbythepersonobserved.

InsubsequentinterviewswithstudentsIraisedthisquestionofthe“trueself,”

askinghowtheywoulddefinethatconcept,andhoworwhetheronecouldknowwhen

onewasbeingone’srealself.Theanswerswerevariedandvague,thougheveryone

withwhomIspokehadastrongsensethattheyknewwhenthesemomentsoccurred,

thatsomethinghappenedtosignaltheemergenceoftherealself,thevisiblemarker

usuallybeingtheeyes.AndeveryoneIspoketohadatleastonestoryofamomentin

Gaulier’sclasswhentheyknewtheywerebeingbeautiful–whichwasnearlyalways

interpretedbystudentsasbeingthemselves–beforereceivingfeedback.Theeyes

emergedasthelocusofselfandbeauty—specifically,akindof“gleam”intheeyes.

Manystudentsdescribednon‐beautifuleyes,theeyesofaperformerwhowas

“performing”insteadofbeingherself,as“dead”andbeautifuleyes,whichweretaken

tosignifythepresenceoftheperformer’sself,as“alive”.Whilemostinitialdescriptions

ofwhatdistinguishedthetwoplacedthemarkersontheperformer’sbody(particularly

theeyes),secondaryresponsestendedtorelocatethemarkerswithinthespectator:“I

feltmoreconnectedwithhim”;“Whenshebecamealiveandbeautifulsheexistedfor

meinmyimagination.”Interioritytakesontwoaspectshere:ageneralizedsensory

feelinglocatedwithinthebodybutwithoutaclearlocus,andtheimagination,where

theperformer’strueselfexistedwithinthespectator.

Corporealandcognitiveperceptionswereoftendescribedintandem,the

boundariesbetweenthetwofrequentlyelided.WhenIspokewithLiz,sheexplained

howsheknowswhenaperformerisbeingtrulyherorhimselfby“sensingit.”Iasked

herifshecouldbemorespecificaboutthissensing–whereonorinthebodydidshe

perceivethesensation?Andwhatwasthesensationof?Shehesitated,herbrow

furrowed,andreplied,“Idon’treallyknow.”Assheattemptedtoarticulateresponsesto

myquestions,herbodyenactedamovementthatIwasbeginningtorecognizeduring

conversationsonthesetopics:oneofherhandswenttoherchestandhoveredthere,

movingoutandbackasshesaid“Youjustknow,youfeelit,inhere…”

Therewasaperceptibledifferenceinexternalbodygesturesandtension

betweenthestatedescribedas“notbeautiful”/”performed”andthatlaudedas

“beautiful”/”yourrealself.”Myownobservationswereprimarilyofasofteningofthe

facialmuscles,whichwidenedtheeyesslightly,aslightextensionoftheneckupwards

accompaniedbytheheadmovingbackandup,andaslightdroopintheelbowsand

wristsasthearmmusclesrelaxed.Whenthisoccurredinthe“Describetousyourflop”

exercisetobothPaulaandDavid,theaudiencebegantolaugh,andbothhesitated,

wideningtheireyesevenfurther,followedbyaslightfurrowingofthebrow.Ifound

myselflaughinginthesemomentsaswell;itappearedtomeasifasoft‐focusfilterhad

beenplacedinfrontofeachofthemforjustamoment;whenthemusculartension

returned,sharpfocusreturned.

“Vulnerable”wasanotherwordusedtodescribethisstatebybothGaulierand

thestudents.Therednosemaskisunderstoodtorevealtheperformer’s“inner

stupidity,”thetermnotmeantpejorativelybutinthesenseofthearchetypalfool,

whoseopennessandinnocenceallowsforthegreatestwisdom.Ibecamepersonally

convinced,earlyonintheclowncourse,thatthepedagogywasexperiential–thatwe

werebeingsetupforrepeatedfailureandhumiliationsothatwewouldbeginto

experiencetheactualstateoftheclown,whoisalways“intheshit.”The“describeyour

flop”exerciseconfirmedmysuspicions.Mostofthestudentswhocametotheschool

weretrainedperformers;wheneverytechniqueourbodieshadlearnedfailedtoplease

Gaulier,provokingthedreadeddrumbeat,themusclesinourbodiesfirsttensedeven

more–exaggeratingthetechniqueswithwhichourbodieshadbeendisciplined–then

slowlybegantorelax.Oftenthisrelaxationwasaccompaniedwithfeelingsbest

describedasfrustrationanddespair.Mostofuslookedliterallybeatendownbytheend

ofthethirdweek.

Ontheothersideofthespectrumwerethosestudentswhobecamemoretense

asthecoursesprogressed.Matt,a22‐year‐oldEnglishstudentwhohadbeeninthe

“NeutralMask”workshop(andwasdiscussedinChapter3),seemedtohavea

perpetuallyfurrowedbrow,somuchsothatheoftenappearedtobesufferingfrom

painfulheadaches.Thebrowfurrowedthehardestassoonashegotonstage,mirroring

thetensionthroughouthisbody,atensionthatcreatedstiff,jerkymovementsthat

oftenprovokedlaughter–butadifferentsortoflaughterthanthatprovokedby

softening.HeaskedmorequestionsofGaulierthananyoneelseintheclass,andspent

Metrojourneysattemptingtoworkoutwhatitwasweweremeanttobedoing,since

Gaulierwasfamousforvagueinstructions(“befunny”),criticisms(“horrible–thankyou

goodbye”)andpraise(beautiful–shehassomething,no?”).

AlsointheincreasedtensioncampwasTim,anAmericanprofessionalmagician

whowasnewtoclownandtophysicaltheatretraininggenerally.Whenonstage,Tim

wouldputonacharmingsmileandsquinthiseyesinwhatIsooncametorecognizeas

hismagician’spersona.Throughoutthefourweeksheneverrelaxedthisfacial

expression,saveforacoupleofmomentsofa“dead”look,whenhisfacialmuscles

relaxedcompletelyandimmediatelyreshapedintoaresentful,slightlyangryexpression.

AndTimwasangry–hewasusedtostudyingwithteacherswhoexplainedtheir

methods,whoexplainedthetechniquestheywereteaching,andGaulier’sdeliberate

deflectionstohisprecisequestions(“WhatwasitexactlyaboutwhatIjustdidthat

wasn’tbeautiful?”“Heissexualfanatic,no?”)frustratedhimendlessly.

TheideaofbeingrootedinthepresentinGaulier’scoursewasconsistentlytied

totheideaofvulnerability.Theperformerwhowasvulnerablewascompletelyopen

andabletorespondtowhatwashappeningbothonstageandintheaudience.One

studentlinkedthisopennesstothesenses:

Wetalkaboutthesamethingthatyougetthroughmeditation,asina

waysimilartowhatGaulieristeaching,theideaofbeingverypresent,of

beinghere,andbeingopen,andbeing,yoursensesbeingalertand

awakeandawareofwhatisgoingonaroundyou.Andthatmakesyou

sensitive.Andbeingvulnerable.Andbeingopentowhatever,whatever

happens.(Interview2008)

GiventhestructureoffailureandcriticismthatGauliersetupintheclassroom,

however,thislevelofvulnerabilitywasextremelydifficulttoaccessifapproachedasa

concomitantofrelaxation.Thepersistentthreatofthelouddeepresonanceofthehand

drumsignalingonetoleavethestageimmediatelykepttheleveloftensionhighon

stage.Thiswaslinkedbyonestudenttothedifficultiesofbeingopenandvulnerable

whiledealingwiththepressuresoflivinginParis:

And[vulnerabilityis]quiteadifficultthingtokeepup,Ithink,particularly

ineverydaylife,becauseyouhavesomanysituationswhereyoucan’t,

youhavetohaveabitofafront,justtosurvive.ParticularlylikeinParis

[laughs].AndIremembertalkingtoColin,andthisisthekindofparadox,

Ifind,ofaschoollikeGaulierisbeinginParis,isthatIthink,I’venever

feltlikeIneedtotougherthanwhenI’velivedinParis,andatthesame

timeI’mgoingtoaschoolthat’stryingtoteachmetobesensitiveand

open.(Interview2008)

YetthevulnerabilitythatGauliersoughtwasnottherelaxationachievedthroughfeeling

safeandsecureinone’shabitualpersona,buttheopennessofdisorientation,ofbeing

betweenthoughts,caughtinthemomentofthemistake.SimonMurraydrawsauseful

distinctionbetweentheopennessandpleasureofplayandafeelingofself‐satisfaction:

ForLecoqandGaulier,thepleasureofplayisnotsimplysomekindof

self‐indulgenttomfoolerywherehavingawonderfultimeisthekeyto

creativityandeffectiveacting.Rather,anabilitytoplayismoreabout

openness,awillingnesstoexplorethecircumstancesofthemoment

withoutintellectual‘editing’,butwithinasetofrulesorexpectations

germanetothestyleorformoftheatreunderinvestigation.(Lecoq50)

Inpursuitofcreatinggenuineifuncomfortablemomentsofdisorientation,Gaulier

frequentlysetupsituationswithinexercisestoconfusethestudent.Onthesecondday

oftheworkshopheaskedtenstudentstodancearoundthestagewithrednosesonto

vibrantmusictakingpleasureinimitatingfish.Wehadbeendancingforabouthalfa

minutewhenthedrumwashitandGauliercalledouttoMiho,ayoungJapanese

woman,thatshewasimitatingthewronganimal;hetheninstantlyhitthedrumagain

andshouted“Go!”FivesecondslaterhestoppedtheexerciseonceagaintotellMiho

shewasdoingitwrong,andthenhaduscontinuedancing.Thehigh‐pacednatureofthe

exerciseandintermittentandconfusingcriticismsledMiho,whohadsomedifficulty

understandingGaulier’sEnglish,tobethoroughlyconfusedastowhathewasaskingher

todo;shelatchedontomeandtriedveryhardtoimitatemymovements,whichwere

impededbyaninjuredkneeandlookedmorelikeastrangesortofdancinghorsethana

fish.Theintensityofherconcentrationon“gettingitright”whileinadvertentlygettingit

completelywrongledtoimmenselaughterfromtheaudience,andafinal

pronouncementfromGaulierandseveralstudentsthatherperformancewasbeautiful

andopen.

Conclusion

Miho’sexperienceofconfusionoverthereasonfortheaudience’slaughter

pointstoafeatureofdisorientationthatchallengesconventionalunderstandingsofthe

selfaslocatedwithinthecoreofthebody(asrepresentedbythegestureofpointingto

thechest),accessibleandrecognizable.Itpointstoaselfthatwasnegotiatedexternally,

inthespacebetweentheperformerandspectator,astheperformer’sbodysignifieda

selfthatcausedthespectatortorespondwithlaughter,evenastheperformerwas

unawareofthiscommunication.Duringtheflopexerciseinthethirdweek,Davidhad

addressedthisissuedirectly;hisquestionpointedtoashiftingpositionalityoftheselfin

Gaulier’sclassroom:attimesthestudentfelttheemergenceofhisorher“trueself”

fromwithin;attimestheselfseemedtobelocatedexternally,inthegazeofthe

spectator.Whetherornotthestudentbelievedhewasbeinghimselfinthislattercase

didnotmatter;thiswasa“self”locatedintheeyesofthebeholder—specifically,inthe

perceptionsofthespectatorswatchingtheperformance.Theexternalcueofthe

audience’slaughtermarkedthesuccessfulperformanceoftheself;theperformerrelied

onhearingspectators’laughtertoknowhewas“beinghimself”.Thisshiftinglocusof

theselfinGaulier’sclassroomcontainstracesoftheself’smulti‐positionalityinNajac’s

mirrorexercises,inpsychoanalysisinwhichthepatient’ssymptomswerereadbythe

externalanalyst,andinLecoq’sdiscoveryofthemomentofastudent’sconfusion,a

momentthatprovokesaudiencelaughter.

Authenticitywasidentifiedintheearlytwentiethcenturywiththeunconscious,

positioningtheideaofthe“true”selfbelowconsciousness,perceptibleonlythroughthe

embodiedsymptom.ThepracticeswithwhichstudentsengagedinGaulier’sClown

workshoppointstothislocusoftheselfbelowconsciousness—ormoreaccuratelyin

thelanguageofmasktraining‘behind’consciousnessastheperformer’sfaceisbehind

themask—sincetheselfstudentsunderstoodthemselvestohavewaspositionedasa

persona,oraperformanceofsocially‐constructedbehaviorsthathadaccruedwithin

consciousnesstomeanthe“self’.David’sarticulationofthisstrugglewithaperceived

self(“IthinkI’mbeingreal,andbeingmyself,butapparentlyI’mnot,becauseI’mnot

beautiful”)illustratesthepowerofa“self”identifiedwiththataspectofconsciousness

thatperceivesandcategorizes—the“ego”inFreudianterminology.Jouvetmighthave

calledthisa“monstrousegotism”,anover‐accretionofthesenseofselfthatironically

preventstheperformerfrombeingtrulyauthentic,fromactingfromaplaceofinstinct.

Gaulier’spedagogyofdisorientationwasdeployedasastrategytohelpstudents

encounterthisotherself,theselfofinstinctandtheunconscious,byshort‐circuiting

habitsofthoughtthatcouldonlyproduceapersona.The“true”selfofinstinctandthe

unconsciousisnecessarilyonlyperceptibletospectatorswithinthestudent’smoment

ofdisorientation,sinceassoonasthestudentbecomesawareofa“self”ithasalready

beencollapsedintoasystemofconsciouscognition.Students’difficultywithverbally

articulatingthis“true”self,theselfmarkedbythevaguecategoryof“beauty”,pointsto

thepositioningofthisconstructionofselfoutsideofconsciousness.Therepeated

embodiedgesturesandreferencesthataccompaniedtheseattemptsatarticulation—

touchingthechest,pointingtotheeyes—furtherlinksthisconstructionofselfwiththe

Freudiansymptom,thebody’sevidencethatisonlylegibletotheexternalobserver.

ReturningtoPhilipAuslander’scritiqueoflogocentrismasdiscussedinChapter

1,themomentofdisorientationinGaulier’sclownclassroomwasmeanttorevealan

“authentic”selfratherthandisruptingtheveryideaofauthenticity.YetIbelievethereis

somethingvaluableoccurringinthesemomentsinwhichstudentsshiftoutofexisting

habitsintosomethingthatcannotbeclearlydefinedorcaptured.Perhapsthisvaluelies

inthemomentaryexperienceofadisruptedpatternofthoughtandbehavior,a

disruptionthatmightallowforareorganizationofthesepatterns,orevenprovidean

experientialencounterwithwhatitmightfeellikenottohaveapatternforjusta

moment.Again,theidentificationofthesemomentsofdisorientationwithauthenticity,

withthe“true”self,worksagainstthislatterpossibilitybyassumingastableselfthatis

more“true”thanthehabituatedself.ButIwouldliketosuggestthatwhilethelanguage

remainedlogocentric,theexperience—dependantondisorientation—resisted

collapsingthemomentintoasingularideaof“self.”

Conclusion

The challenge for the student actor … is to understand and control theirmovementanditscultural,theatricalandprofessionalsignificance,whilstatthesametime‘losing’and‘finding’themselvesintheever‐changingexperiencethatistheirownbodyandtheirconsciousnessofthatbody.

MarkEvans2009(184)

InthisdissertationIhaveidentifiedandtracedkeyideaswithintheFrenchmime

traditionfromthelatenineteenthcenturytothepresentincludingtheideaof

automatismethatemergedinFrenchpsychologyinthelatenineteenthcentury

alongsideJanet’sdevelopmentofl’idéedumoi[theideaofme];nineteenthcentury

Frenchmimepractitioners’simultaneousfascinationandrepulsionwiththeideaof

bêtism;andtheshiftingunderstandingofsang‐froid[cold‐blooded]fromaproductive

distancinginthenineteenthcenturythroughCopeau’srejectionofthe“freezingofthe

blood”intheearlytwentiethcenturyandhisresultingdevelopmentofthemasque

noble[noblemask]formtofreethestudenttomovemorenaturally,throughtothe

innerdistancingofLecoq’slejeu[theplayorthegame]pedagogyandGaulier’sideaof

pleasure.IhaveidentifiedwhatIterm“contaminationanxieties”atplaywithinthese

shiftsinFrenchmime,arguingthatthecontinualmovementtowardsminimalism

revealsamistrustoftheexcessiveorunrulynon‐white,female,workingclassbody.Just

asthemask‐likewhitefaceandrigid,mechanicalbodyofthelate‐nineteenthcentury

Pierrotperformativelytheorizedthewhite,elitemalebody,asFrenchmimemoved

throughthetwentiethcenturythebodiesitproducedweremarkedbystraightlinesand

small,subtlemovements,privilegingagainthewhite,male“contained”bodyagainstthe

non‐white,femalebodyoffluidityandexcess.ThepracticeofNeutralMask,for

instance,askedthestudenttostraightenthelinesofthebody(headdirectlyabove

torso,torsoabovehips,hipsfacingforward,armsstraightatthesides)andmoveina

morerigidmannermarkedbyclearbeginningsandendingsofgestures.Thispractice

straightenedthecurvesofthefemalebody,whichtendstowardsbreakingthestraight

lineofhead‐torso‐hips,andbendingthejointsduringgestures.Thisdiscipliningofthe

bodyintoanefficientmachinethereforepositionsfemalemovementsasexcessive,

equating“neutrality”with“male”.Similarly,Clownpedagogylinkssubtlemovements

withauthenticity,privilegingaminimalistexpressivestyleoverlargergesturesthata

studentlikePaulabroughtwithherfromherBrazilianclowntraining,whichbecame

definedinGaulier’sclassroomasinauthentic,themovementsofan“actress”rather

thana“beautiful”human.

Ihavetracedtheideaofautomatismeaslinkedtoauthenticityfromthelate

nineteenth‐centuryperformedbodyofPierrotthroughtwentieth‐centuryFrenchmime

andthedevelopmentofLecoq’spedagogy.Inlatenineteenth‐centuryFrance

automatismeoperatedbothasamarkerofauthenticbodilyaction(theinvoluntary

movementsproducedbythesubconsciousmind)andasarigid,mechanicalmimestyle

thatdistancedtheperformedbodyfrommarkersoftheorganicsuchasfluid

movementsandlargeemotionallyexpressivegestures.Thisemphasisonaminimalist

andmechanicalmimestylereveals,Iargued,contaminationanxietiesaroundthepurity

ofthewhite,elitemalebody,particularlyastheperformedbodyofPierrotemerged

frompopularcommediaperformances,Parisianstreetclownsinthefirstdecadesofthe

nineteenthcentury,andtheFrenchcircustraditionthatincludedtheracially‐mixed

whiteFootitandblackChocolatpairing.FootitandChocolatwereoneofthemost

famousWhiteClown/AugusteduosintheFrenchcircusofthelatenineteenthcentury.

Chocolat(RaphaelPadilla)wasborninCuba,andasateenagerwassoldintotheservice

ofawealthyPortuguesemerchantwhotookhimtoPortugal.Padillaescaped,movedto

Bilbao,andbeganperformingincabarets,wherehewasnoticedbytheclownTony‐

GreacewhobroughthimtotheFrenchcircus(Towsen219),gainingfameastheclumsy

foolpairedwiththecruel,authoritativeFootit.ThevisibilityofblackbodiesinFrancein

thenineteenthcenturylayinpartinsuch“freak”performancespacesasthecircusand

theexhibitionhall,wherethe“savage”blackbodywasputondisplayaspartofan

anthropologicalfocusondifferentiatingthebodiesofthewhiteEuropeanbodyand

blackAfricans.59TheFrenchcircusasperformativedisplayofthe“freak”bodyinthe

nineteenthcenturyisthereforeafurthersiteforstudiesinthisarea,astheexcessive

bodiesthatlatenineteenth‐centuryFrenchmimepractitionersreactedagainstintheir

constructionofthepure,white,elitefigureofPierrotcanthereforebelocated,inpart,

inthissiteofpopularperformance.

59 See,forinstance,LouisFiguier’sLesraceshumaines[publishedinEnglishasHistoryoftheHumanRace](1872),inwhichheextensivelydescribestheinferiorphysicalandcognitivecharacteristics,incontrasttothoseofwhiteEuropeans,ofthepeoplelivinginDahomey,aWestAfricankingdom(today’sBenin)thatFrancehadbeguntocolonizeinthemid‐nineteenthcentury.

Themechanicalbodyofthelatenineteenth‐centuryPierrotthereforeserveda

dualfunction:toprotectthepurebodyfrom(racial,gendered,class‐based)

contamination,andtomore“authentically”portraysubtletiesofthoughtandemotion

inanerainwhichpsychologistsandmimepractitionersviewedthesmall,rapid

movementsofautomatismeasmoreauthenticallyrevealingoftheinnerself.Copeau’s

searchforauthenticityinhisdevelopmentofanearlytwentieth‐centuryFrenchmime

styleledhimtopursueanidealofneutralityasabodyfreeofidiosyncrasyand

expressionandtherefore,forhim,moreauthentic.Theconstructionoftheneutralbody

intheFrenchmimetraditionofthelastcenturyprivilegesstraightlinesand“efficient”

movementpositionedagainstexcessivegesture,anechoingoflatenineteenth‐century

minimalistmimetechniquesthatpractitionersbelievedmoreaccuratelyconveyedinner

reality,definedasthoughtandsubtleemotions.Thisemphasisonsubtletyisrevealing;

whenstudentsinGaulier’sNeutralMaskworkshop“expressed”throughtheirbodiesin

non‐linear,minimalistways—suchasAnafromGreecewhoarchedherheadbackina

chorusexerciseorTammyfromNewZealandwhostrugglednottoswayherhipsasshe

walked—Gaulier’sfeedbackwasthattheywerepushingtoomuch,addingunnecessary

movementtothemask,notandthereforenotneutral.Neutralityherebecomesa

particulartypeofdisciplinedbody,onethatmovesinstraightlineswithsmall,

“efficient”gestures,amovementstylethatisarguablygenderedmaleagainstthe

fluidityandcurvesofthefemale‐genderedbody.Thisisaneutrality,furthermore,that

privilegesanAnglo‐Americanminimalistgesturalstylethatdevelopedwithinanacting

discourseofnaturalisminthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies,and

thereforeexcludesthegesturalstylesofstudentsfromotherculturessuchasGreece

andBrazil.Thisformof“neutrality”,then,representsareemergenceofcontamination

anxietiesinthetwenty‐firstcenturyclassroomaroundissuesofnon‐whitemale

embodiedpractice;theunruly,excessivebodiesofstudentswhousemorephysically

expressiveculturalcodesandparticularlyofwomenaredisciplinedwithinNeutralMask

trainingtoperformwithstraight,linear,minimalistphysicalgestures,aperformance

identifiedintheFrenchmimetraditionwiththeneutral—andthereforeuniversaland

authentic—body.

Automatismeintersectsonceagainwithl’idéedumoiinGaulier’sClown

classroom,inwhichGaulieridentifiestheauthenticselfasthatwhichemergesin

momentsofdisorientation,whentheconsciousmindandthementalandembodied

habitsthataccompanyit(whichechoJanet’sdefinitionofl’idéedumoi)issufficiently

distractedthroughamomentofsurprisethatthe“real”,“true”selfthatliesbeneath

emerges.AswiththeNeutralMask,theembodiedpracticesthataccompanythese

momentsof“findingone’sclown”aremarkedbyminimalism:lackoflargegestural

expressivityandmusculartension.TheclowninGaulier’sclassroomcanperformlarge

gesturesinplay,butmustalwaysmakevisiblethe“pleasure”behindthegesture,a

distancingeffectthatpositionstheperformerasopenandvulnerable,unattachedto

theemotionsheorsheisportraying.WhenPaulamovedherbodyinthestyleofthe

Brazilianhospitalclownwithlargeexpressivegesturesofjoy,Gaulierdenouncedthese

gesturesasthe“horrible”gesturesofan“actress”infavorofthesubtletyofphysical

markersof“openness”(relaxedmuscles,subtlemovements)thatrepresentedpleasure

withinhispedagogy.Onecandiscernhereanechooftheminimalismencouraged

withintheFrenchmimetraditionduringthelatenineteenthcentury.Despitethe

apparentchangesmadebyCopeauintheearlytwentiethcenturytomimepractice,the

momentsofshiftinFrenchmimetowardsmore“natural”performancestyleshave

tendedtofollowapatternofpositioningtheearlierstyleasartificial,thenewstyleas

natural,withaconcurrentmistrustoftheexcessivebody(largebodilygestures,organic

markerssuchasfluid,curvedmovements)accompanyingthedefinitionofthe“natural”.

Alongsidetheseshiftstowardsamore“natural”performancestylehasbeena

concernwithauthenticallyrepresentinginnerexperience.Inthelatenineteenthcentury

thefocusofinnerexperiencebecameincreasinglycerebral,aspantomimescripts

increasinglyreferencedcharacters’thoughtsascontentthatperformerswouldconvey

throughsilentgesture,andGeorgesWague’smimetheorypositionedthoughtatthe

coreofgesturalvalidity—themorethatgestureexpressedthought,themoreit

representedtheperformer’sinnercondition.Thisprivilegingofcerebralprocesscanbe

discernedintwentieth‐centuryconcernsoverthe“neutral”bodythatremovephysical

markersofidiosyncrasy(therebyshrinkingthebody’sexpressivity),yetisapparently

challengedinclowntrainingthatdemandsinstantreactiontoastimulus,achieved

throughastateofdisorientation,withnorecoursetoapre‐existingidea.Yetinoneof

theparadoxesofthepractice,clowntrainingretainstheconcernwithtruthfully

representingtheperformer’sauthenticinnercondition,andmistruststhebody’s

excessiveexpressivityindenotingthisauthenticity.Theauthenticselfsoughtthrough

clowntrainingisindividuated(itisanideaoftheperformer’suniqueself),yetis

simultaneouslyonlyconstitutedsociallyinthespacebetweenperformerandspectator,

whentheperformer’sbodyletsgoofitsexcessivehabitsofexpressivemovement.

Theconstructionsofbodyandselfthatemergedinlatenineteenth‐andearly

twentieth‐centuryFrenchmimearenotstraightforward,singularideasthathavebeen

appliedmonolithicallyinmimetraining,noristhereoneclearideaofwhatthe“body”

and“self”signifyinthetwentyfirst‐centuryphysicaltheatreclassroom.Rather,

studentsandteachersinthetraditionofFrenchmimeinthetwentyfirstcentury

continuetoengagewiththebodyandtheselfinwaysthatbothrevealtracesofearlier

constructionsandredefinethemfortwentyfirst‐centuryLecoq‐basedtraining,muchas

Evansdescribestheprocessofcontinually“losing”andthen“finding”oneselfinthe

experienceofmovementtraining.Itisperhapsappropriate,then,thatthepedagogical

practicethatformedthecoreofmyanalysiswasa“pedagogyofdisorientation”,

introducedandcontextualizedinChapter1,asastrategyusedstrategicallytohelp

studentsencounternewwaysofmovingandperceivingthemselves.Ibelievethatthe

practiceof“losingone’smooringstothefamiliar”(Magnat74)appliesbothtothese

strategicpedagogicalaimsandtoalargerprocesscontinuallyoccurringwithinthe

Frenchmimetraditioninunderstandingsandconstructionsofthebodyandtheselfare

continuallyinflux.Ihaveaimedinthisresearchtoanalyzeanddrawconnections

betweenthebodyasitmovesandisarticulatedwithinthemomentofclassroom

practicesofFrenchmimeinthetwentyfirstcentury,andhistoricalconstructionsofthe

bodyandtheselfthatproducedthispedagogy.WhileexistingworkonLecoq‐based

pedagogytracehisinfluencesbacktoCopeau,inChapter2Ihavelookedfurtherbackto

theFrenchmimepracticesofthelatenineteenthcenturytointerrogatewhat

understandingsofthebodyandoftheselfFrenchmimepractitionersweredrawingon

inthetwentiethcentury,andinChapters3and4Ihaveanalyzedtwenty‐firstcentury

classroompracticesthroughthelensoftheseconstructions.

Continuingthisthemeofongoingengagementwithconstructionsofbodyand

self,Iviewmyresearchasyetanotherencounterwiththeseideasandpractices,rather

thanasadefinitiveaccountofhowLecoq‐basedpedagogyfunctions.Ibelievethatthe

relevanceofmyworktothefieldoftheatrestudiesliesinmyassertionthatphysical

theatreprovidesanotherwayoftalkingaboutthebodyassomethingotherthanan

inanimateobject,andmakesastrongcontributiontothefieldofcriticalpedagogyby

examiningaclassroompracticethatcanbeanalternatetotheteachingmodelof

studentperformanceofthedisciplinedbodythatbracketsoutitsthinkingaspectand

encouragesstudentstoperform“successfully”inhabituatedways.Myresearch

representsasignificantinterventioninthefieldoftheatrestudiesastheonlypractice‐

basedstudy(withresearchconductedintheactualmomentoftheclassroom)and

theoreticalanalysistodateonLecoq‐basedperformancepedagogy,apedagogythatis

growingandgaininginfluenceinthetheatreworld.Whilethebodyistalkedabout

extensivelyincriticalpedagogy,andtheperformance‐basedclassroomisrecognizedas

apotentsiteforinvestigatingthebody,veryfewactualpractice‐basedstudieshave

beenconductedinthesesites.

Thefieldofactorpedagogyhasgenerallydefinedaclearseparationbetween

whatJosephRoachterms“mechanistic”and“vitalist”approaches(1985).Myresearch

seekstocomplicatethisdistinctionbysuggestingthatFrenchmimepracticesfromthe

latenineteenthcenturytothepresenthavebeenengagedinanenactmentofboth

mechanisticandvitalistpracticesthroughacomplexrelationshiptoideasofthenatural

bodyandtheself,inwhich“natural”expressionexistsside‐by‐sidewithmistrustof

corporealityandcontamination,NeutralMaskpedagogydrawsonbothavaluingofthe

naturalbodyasfreefromsocially‐constraininghabitsofmovementandapositioningof

thebodyasamachinetobecontrolled,andClownpedagogybothreinscribesand

disruptsideasofthe“authentic”self.Iviewmyresearchasaninitialinquiryintothe

complextopicofthebodywithinLecoq‐basedpedagogy.Byobserving,documenting

andanalyzinghowthesetechniquesaretaughtandwhatphysicalprinciplesare

involved,andbyidentifyinga“pedagogyofdisorientation”withastrategyforhelping

studentsencounternewwaysofbeingandinterrogatingthisstrategyforthemodelof

thebodyandselfthatitconstructs,Iintenditasagroundedcontributiontothegrowing

fieldsofcriticalpedagogy,bodystudiesandactingtheory,andasacriticalpedagogical

referencefortheatreartistsandothereducators.IhavefocusedonaWestern

conceptionofthebody;furtherresearchinthisfieldcouldbedonearoundquestionsof

howbodiesmarkedbydifferentculturalpatternsofmovement,ethnicities,

socioeconomicclassesandgenderspecificallyencounter,challengeandcontinueto

shapethispedagogy.Ithereforehopethatmyresearchbothaddstoagrowingscholarly

discussionofLecoq‐basedtheatreandopensfurtherlinesofinquiryintothebodyinthe

classroom.

WorksCited

Archer,William.MasksOrFaces?AStudyinthePsychologyofActing.LondonNewYork:Longmans,GreenandCo.,1888.

Aubert,Charles."LeSuicideDePierrot,PantomimeEnUnActe."PantomimesModernes.Ed.CharlesAubert.Paris:Flammarion,1895.

Auslander,Philip.""justbeYourSelf":LogocentrismandDifferenceinPerformanceTheory."Acting(Re)Considered:ATheoreticalandPracticalGuide.Ed.PhillipB.Zarrilli.2nded.NewYork:Routledge,2002.53‐60.

Barba,Eugenio."TheDeepOrderCalledTurbulence:TheThreeFacesofDramaturgy."TheDramaReview44.4(2000):56‐66.

Barba,Eugenio,andNicolaSavarese.ADictionaryofTheatreAnthropology:TheSecretArtofthePerformer.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,inassociationwiththeCentreforPerformanceResearch,1991.

Barba,Eugenio.ThePaperCanoe:AGuidetoTheatreAnthropology.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1995.

Barrault,Jean‐Louis.RéflexionsSurLeThéâtre.Paris:J.Vautrain,1949.

Beissier,Fernand.LaLune,Fantaisie‐PantomimeEnUnActeEtTroisTableaux.Paris:Chaudensfils,1889.

Boal,Augusto.TheRainbowofDesire:TheBoalMethodofTheatreandTherapy.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1995.

‐‐‐.TheatreoftheOppressed.NewYork:TheatreCommunicationsGroup,1985.

Bonnet,Gilles.PantomimesFin‐De‐Siècle.Paris:Kimé,2008.

Briggs,Laura."TheRaceofHysteria:"Overcivilization"andthe"Savage"WomaninLateNineteenth‐CenturyObstetricsandGynecology"AmericanQuarterly52.2(2000):246‐73.

Brockett,OscarG.HistoryoftheTheatre.7thed.Boston:AllynandBacon,1995.

Bulgakov,Mikhail.TheMasterandMargarita.Trans.DianaBurginandKatherineTiernanO'Connor.FirstVintageInternationalEditioned.NewYork:VintageBooks,1996.

Caillois,Roger,andMeyerBarash.Man,Play,andGames.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,2001;1961.

Callery,Dymphna.ThroughtheBody:APracticalGuidetoPhysicalTheatre.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2001.

Champfleury.SouvenirsDesFunambules.Paris:MichelLévyfrères,1859.

Christensen,Nels."ThePedagogyofDisorientation:TeachingCarolynChute’s theBeansofEgypt,MaineattheUniversityofMichigan’sNewEnglandLiteratureProgramandBeyond."GreenTheory&Praxis:TheJournalofEcoPedagogy5.1(2009):<http://greentheoryandpraxis.org/journal/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/76>.

Cieutat,Henri.PierrotPuni:Opéra‐ComiqueEnUnActe.Paris:L.Grus,1888.

Copeau,Jacques."UnEssaiDeRénovationDramatique:LeThéâtreDuVieux‐Colombier."NouvelleRevueFrançaise(1913):338‐‐355.

‐‐‐."Réflexionsd’unComédienSurLeParadoxeDeDiderot."ParadoxeSurLeComédien.Paris:LibrairiePlon,1929.

Craig,EdwardGordon.TheActorandtheÜber‐Marionette.Florence,Italy:TheMask,1908.

Csikszentmihalyi,Mihaly,andIsabellaSelegaCsikszentmihalyi.OptimalExperience:PsychologicalStudiesofFlowinConsciousness.CambridgeandNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988.

Csikszentmihalyi,Mihaly.Flow:ThePsychologyofOptimalExperience.1sted.NewYork:Harper&Row,1990.

Darwin,Charles.TheExpressionoftheEmotionsinManandAnimals.NewYork:D.AppletonandCompany,1899.

deLaMettrie,JulienOffray.L'HommeMachine.Leyde:ElieLuzac,fils,1748.

Deleuze,Gilles,andFélixGuattari.AThousandPlateaus:CapitalismandSchizophrenia.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1987.

Delpiano,Roberto."BAUTA(Bautta)."2011:<http://www.delpiano.com/carnival/html/bauta.html>.

Desnoyers,Fernand.LeBrasNoir,PantomimeEnVers.LibrairieThéâtrale,1856.

Diderot,Denis.ParadoxeSurLeComédien.Paris:ÉditionsNord‐Sud,1949.

Dolan,Jill.UtopiainPerformance:FindingHopeattheTheater.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,2005.

Dubreuil,MMErnest,L.Stapleux,andL.Vercken.Pierrot‐Fantôme:Opéra‐ComiqueEn1Acte.Paris:Hartmann,G.,1873.

Eldredge,SearsA.,andHollisW.Huston."ActorTrainingintheNeutralMask."Acting(Re)Considered:ATheoreticalandPracticalGuide.Ed.PhillipB.Zarrilli.2nded.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2002.140‐147.

Estingoy,P."LeConceptd’automatismeàl’épreuveDeLaFiliation.DeCharlesRichetàPierreJanet."AnnalesMedicoPsychologiques166.3(2008):177‐84.

Evans,Mark.MovementTrainingfortheModernActor.NewYork:Routledge,2009.

Felner,Mira.ApostlesofSilence:TheModernFrenchMimes.Rutherford,N.J.;London:FairleighDickinsonUniversityPress;AssociatedUniversityPresses,1985.

Freire,Paulo.PedagogyoftheOppressed.NewYork:SeaburyPress,1974.

Freud,Sigmund.PsychopathologyofEverydayLife.NewYork,NY:MacmillanPublishing,1914.

Frost,Anthony,andRalphYarrow.ImprovisationinDrama.Basingstoke:MacmillanEducation,1990.

Fusetti,Giovanni.PersonalInterview.15May2007.

‐‐‐.AuCommencementÉtaitLeClown:LeVoyageDuClownEntreArt,GestaltEtThérapie.Paris:ÉcoleParisiennedeGestalt,1999.

‐‐‐."TheParadoxof"PhysicalTheatre"."2011:<http://www.giovannifusetti.com/en/writings.php?nav=7&lang=en>.

Gardner,Tony.“IsitNotMonstrous…”:ReflectionsonDiderot’sParadoxoftheActor.Author'sprivatecollection,2008.

Gaulier,Philippe.PersonalInterview.16November2007.

‐‐‐.PersonalInterview.20June2008.

‐‐‐.LeGégèneur:JeuxLumièrethéâtre/TheTormentor:LeJeuLightTheatre.Trans.EwenMaclachian.Paris:ÉditionsFilmiko,2007.

Gaulier,Philippe,andMichikoMiyazaki.ÉcolePhilippeGaulier1980‐2005,25Ans:BonAnniversaire/HappyBirthday.Paris:ÉcolePhilippeGaulier,2006.

Giroux,HenryA.TeachersasIntellectuals:TowardaCriticalPedagogyofLearning.Westport:Bergin&GarveyPublishers,Inc.,1988.

Grotowski,Jerzy.TowardsaPoorTheatre.NewYork:SimonandSchuster,1970.

Hébert,Georges.L’ÉducationPhysiqueDul’entraînementCompletParLaMéthodeNaturelle.Paris:LibrairieVuibert,1912.

Hennique,Léon.PierrotSceptique:Pantomime.Paris:Librairieancienneetmoderne,ÉdouardRouveyre,1881.

‐‐‐.LeSonged'UneNuitd'Hiver,PantomimeInédite.Paris:A.Ferroud,1903.

Hodge,Alison.TwentiethCenturyActorTraining.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2000.

hooks,bell."Eros,Eroticism,andthePedagogicalProcess."BetweenBorders:PedagogyandthePoliticsofCulturalStudies.Ed.HenryA.GirouxandPeterMcLaren.NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,1994.113‐118.

Hugounet,Paul.MimesEtPierrots:NotesEtDocumentsInéditsPourServiràl'HistoireDeLaPantomime.Paris:Fischbacher,1889.

Huizinga,Johan.HomoLudens;aStudyofthePlay‐ElementinCulture.Boston:BeaconPress,1955.

Janet,Pierre.L'AutomatismePsychologique:EssaiDePsychologieExpérimentaleSurLesFormesInférieuresDel'ActivitéHumaine.Paris:Germer‐Baillière,FelixAlcan,1889.

Janin,JulesGabriel.Deburau:HistoireDuThéâtreàQuatreSous.Paris:Librairiedesbibliophiles,1881.

Jay,Gregory."TakingMulticulturalismPersonally:EthnosandEthosintheClassroom."AmericanLiteraryHistory6.4(2007):613‐32.

Jones,LouisaE.SadClownsandPalePierrots:LiteratureandthePopularComicArtsin19th‐CenturyFrance.Vol.48.Lexington:FrenchForum,1984.

Kirby,E.T.TotalTheatre;aCriticalAnthology.1sted.NewYork:Dutton,1969.

Kleist,Heinrichvon."OntheMarionetteTheatre."TheDramaReview16.3(1972):22‐6.

Laforgue,Jules."AutreComplainteDeLordPierrot."OeuvresComplètes:LesComplaintes.Paris:MercuredeFrance,1922.132‐136.

‐‐‐.L'ImitationDeNotre‐DameLaLune.Paris:Gallimard,1979.

Leabhart,Thomas.ModernandPost‐ModernMime.London:Macmillan,1989.

Lecoq,Jacques.LeCorpsPoétique:UnEnseignementDeLaCréationThéâtrale.Paris:ActesSud,1997.

‐‐‐."L'ÉcoleJ.LecoqAuThéâtreDeLaVille"LeJournalduThéâtreJanvier(1972).

‐‐‐."Mime‐Movement‐Theatre."YaleTheater4.1(1973).

‐‐‐.LeThéâtreDuGeste:MimesEtActeurs.Paris:Bordas,1987.

‐‐‐.TheatreofMovementandGesture.Ed.DavidBradby.MiltonPark,NewYork:Routledge,2006.

‐‐‐.TheMovingBody:TeachingCreativeTheatre.Trans.DavidBradby.NewYork:Routledge,2001.

Lesclide,Richard."PierrotTerrible."MémoiresEtPantomimesDesFrèresHanlon‐Lees.Ed.RichardLesclide.Paris:ReverchonetVollet,1879.

Lewes,GeorgeHenry.OnActorsandtheArtofActing(1875).NewYork:GrovePress,1957.

Lheureux,Paul."CrimeEtChâtiment."Pantomimes.Ed.PaulLheureux.Paris:J.‐B.Ferreyrol,1891.

Linklater,Kristen.FreeingtheNaturalVoice.NewYork:DramaPublishers,1976.

Magnat,Virginie."DevisingUtopia,OrAskingfortheMoon."TheatreTopics15.1(2005):73‐86.

Margueritte,Paul.PierrotAssassinDeSaFemme:PantomimeEnUnActe.Paris:PaulSchmidt,1882.

Mason,Bim."TheWellofPossibilities:TheoreticalandPracticalUsesofLecoq’sTeaching."JacquesLecoqandtheBritishTheatre.Ed.RalphYarrowandFrancChamberlain.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2002.45‐56.

McLaren,Peter."SchoolingthePostmodernBody:CriticalPedagogyandthePoliticsofEnfleshment."JournalofEducation170.3(1988):53‐83.

Mendès,Catulle.Chandd'Habits!PantomimeEnQuatreTableaux.Paris:Rapide,1896.

Meyer,Jan,andRayLand.ThresholdConceptsandTroublesomeKnowledge:LinkagestoWaysofThinkingandPractisingwithintheDisciplines.Vol.OccasionalReport4.Edinburgh:ETLProject,UniversitiesofEdinburgh,CoventryandDurham,2003.

Murray,Simon,andJohnKeefe.PhysicalTheatres:ACriticalIntroduction.MiltonParkandNewYork:Routledge,2007.

Murray,Simon.JacquesLecoq.Routledge,2003.

‐‐‐."ToutBouge:JacquesLecoq,ModernMimeandtheZeroBody."JacquesLecoqandtheBritishTheatre.Ed.FrancChamberlainandRalphYarrow.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2002.17‐44.

Nadar."Hanlon‐LeeBrothersinLevoyageenSuisse(1878)"NationalGalleryofCanada.2010:<http://www.ramblingsofagypsynomad.com/2010/07/le‐voyage‐en‐suisse.html>.

Najac,Raoulde.Barbe‐Bluette.Paris:Hennuyer,1890.

‐‐‐.Souvenirsd'UnMime.Paris:Émile‐Paul,1909.

Olf,Julian."TheMan/MarionetteDebateinModernTheatre."EducationalTheatreJournal26.4(1974):488‐‐494.

Peacock,Louise.SeriousPlay:ModernClownPerformance.Bristol,UKandChicago:Intellect,2009.

Perkins,David."TheManyFacesofConstructivism."EducationalLeadership53.7(1999):6‐11.

Proulx,Travis,andStevenJ.Heine."ConnectionsfromKafka:ExposuretoMeaningThreatsImprovesImplicitLearningofanArtificialGrammar."PsychologicalScience20.9(2009):1125‐31.

PurcellGates,Laura.Interviewswithstudentsin"Clown"workshopatÉcolePhilippeGaulier.June2008.

‐‐‐.Notesfrom"Clown"workshopatÉcolePhilippeGaulier.June2008.

‐‐‐.Interviewswithstudentsin"MasqueNeutre"[NeutralMask]workshopatÉcolePhilippeGaulier.November2007.

‐‐‐.Notesfrom"AClown'sLife"workshoprunbyGiovanniFusettiinBoulder,CO.October2007.

‐‐‐.Notesfrom"TheRedNose"workshoprunbyGiovanniFusettiinMinneapolis,MN.May‐June2007.

‐‐‐.Notesfrom"MasqueNeutre"[NeutralMask]workshopatÉcolePhilippeGaulier.November2007.

‐‐‐.Notesfrom"TheMasterandMargarita"rehearsalsattheUniversityofMinnesota.September‐October2006.

‐‐‐.Notesfrom"KilltheRobot"rehearsalsinMinneapolis,MN.July2006.

‐‐‐.Notesfrom"Clown"workshoprunbyJonFergusoninMinneapolis,MN.November2004.

Reich,Wilhelm.TheFunctionoftheOrgasm:Sex‐EconomicProblemsofBiologicalEnergy.Trans.VincentR.Carfagno.NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,1973.

Rémy,Tristan.GeorgesWague.Paris:G.Girard,1964.

‐‐‐.Jean‐GaspardDeburau.Paris:L'Archeéditeur,1954.

‐‐‐.LesClowns.Paris:B.Grasset,1945.

Ribot,ThéoduleArmand.RevuePhilosophiqueDeLaFranceEtDel'Étranger.Ed.LucienLévy‐Bruhl,etal.Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance,1876.

Riccoboni,François.L'ArtDuThéâtre.Paris:ChezC.F.Simon,1750.

Roach,JosephR.ThePlayer'sPassion:StudiesintheScienceofActing.Newark;London:UniversityofDelawarePress;AssociatedUniversityPresses,1985.

Rolfe,Bari."TheMimeofJacquesLecoq."DramaReview16.1(1972):34‐8.

Rosen,Robert.PersonalInterview.April2007.

Rostand,Edmond,andJeanHubert.PierrotQuiPleureEtPierrotQuiRit:ComédieEnMusique.Paris:Heugel&Cie,1899.

Rostand,Edmond.TheTwoPierrotsOrtheSupperinWhite(LesDeuxPierrotsOuLeSouperBlanc[1890]).Trans.ThomCristoph.Minehead:GengePress,2007.

Rouanet,Léo.LeVentreEtLeCoeurDePierrot.Paris:Parvillez,1888.

Rudlin,John,andNormanH.Paul.Copeau:TextsonTheatre.London;NewYork:Routledge,1990.

Schechner,Richard."JulieTaymor:FromJacquesLecoqtotheLionKing:AnInterviewbyRichardSchechner."TheDramaReview43.3(1999):38‐9.

Schensul,StephenL.,JeanJ.Schensul,andMargaretDianeLeCompte.EssentialEthnographicMethods:Observations,Interviews,andQuestionnaires.Vol.2.WalnutCreek,Calif.:AltaMiraPress,1999.

Shapiro,SherryB.PedagogyandthePoliticsoftheBody:ACriticalPraxis.Vol.16.NewYork:GarlandPublishing,1999.

Shrubsall,Anthony."JosHouben:UnderstandingtheNeutralMask."JacquesLecoqandtheBritishTheatre.Ed.RalphYarrowandFrancChamberlain.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2002.99‐110.

Skinner,Quinton."CurtainCall."Citypages27Dec2006,sec.Arts:1.

Stanislavsky,Konstantin,andElizabethReynoldsHapgood.AnActorPrepares.NewYork:TheatreArtsBooks,1965.

‐‐‐.Stanislavski'sLegacy;aCollectionofCommentsonaVarietyofAspectsofanActor'sArtandLife.NewYork:TheatreArtsBooks,1968.

Storey,RobertF.Pierrot:ACriticalHistoryofaMask.PrincetonandGuildford:PrincetonUniversityPress,1978.

‐‐‐.PierrotsontheStageofDesire:Nineteenth‐CenturyFrenchLiteraryArtistsandtheComicPantomime.Princeton,NewJerseyandGuildford:PrincetonUniversityPress,1985.

Sutton‐Smith,Brian.TheAmbiguityofPlay.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1997.

Taylor,Diana.TheArchiveandtheRepertoire:PerformingCulturalMemoryintheAmericas.Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2003.

Taylor,George."FrancoisDelsarte:ACodificationofNineteenth‐CenturyActing."TheatreResearchInternational24.1(1999):71‐82.

Thomé,Francis.Barbe‐Bluette.Paris:Hamelle,1900.

Towsen,JohnH.Clowns:APanoramicHistoryofFoolsandJesters,MedievalMimes,JongleursandMinstrels.Boston:EPDutton,1976.

Trilling,Lionel.SincerityandAuthenticity.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1972.

Vartanian,Aram.DiderotandDescartes:AStudyofScientificNaturalismintheEnlightenment.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1953.

Veltrusky,Jiri."ManandObjectinTheatre."APragueSchoolReaderonEsthetics,LiteraryStructure,andStyle.Ed.PaulL.Gavin.Georgetown:GeorgetownUniversitySchoolofLanguage,1964.83‐91.

Vidal,Paul,andMauriceLeCorbeiller.LaRévérence:PantomimeEnUnActe.Paris:G.Hartmann&Cie,1891.

Vidal,Paul,andPaulMargueritte.PierrotAssassinDeSaFemme[PierrotAssassinofHisWife].Paris:Heugel&Cie,1892.

Volbach,WaltherR.AdolpheAppia,ProphetoftheModernTheater:AProfile.1sted.Middletown,Conn.:WesleyanUniversityPress,1968.

Webb,Jen,TonySchirato,andGeoffDanaher.UnderstandingBourdieu.CrowsNest,Australia:Allen&Unwin,2002.

Werry,Margaret,andRóisínO'Gorman."Shamefaced:PerformingPedagogy,OutingAffect."TextandPerformanceQuarterly27.3(2007):213‐30.

Worsley,Victoria."Amusez‐Vous,Merde!theEffectofPhilippeGaulier’sTeachingonMyWorkasanActorandWriter."JacquesLecoqandtheBritishTheatre.Ed.RalphYarrowandFrancChamberlain.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2002.85‐98.

Wright,John."TheMasksofJacquesLecoq."JacquesLecoqandtheBritishTheatre.Ed.FrancChamberlainandRalphYarrow.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2002.71‐84.

‐‐‐."PhilippeGaulier:GeniusOrEgotist."TotalTheatreWinter(1990):8‐9.

‐‐‐.WhyisthatsoFunny?APracticalExplorationofPhysicalComedy.London:NickHernBooks,2007.

Yarrow,Ralph,andFrancChamberlain.JacquesLecoqandtheBritishTheatre.Vol.42.London;NewYork:Routledge,2002.

Zarrilli,PhillipB."Part1:Introduction."Acting(Re)Considered:ATheoreticalandPracticalGuide.Ed.PhillipB.Zarrilli.2nded.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2002.1‐22.

Zola,Émile.LeNaturalismeAuThéâtre.1881.Paris:ÉditionsComplexe,2003.

Tout Bouge [Everything Moves]: The (Re)Construction of the Body … · 2016-05-18 · i...

Documents

Living Generously Part Five

UIDAI & Govt. of India officials for generously making

Gaulier Info

Generously Hosted By: Presented By

2014 TEAM CAPTAIN BREAKFAST Generously sponsored by:

International Transportation Costs Around the … Transportation Costs Around the World: a New CIF/FoB rates Dataset Guillaume Gaulier, Daniel Mirza, Sébastien Turban, Soledad Zignago

MEASURING EXPORT COMPETITIVENESS DATABASE ......Bricongne et al. (2011) 25 Gaulier, Santoni, Taglioni & Zignago ECONOMETRIC SHIFT-SHARE DECOMPOSITION Step 1: Computation of Mid-Point

Gaulier Buddhism in Afghanistan and Central Asia Vol.2

Why We Should Give Generously Give money generously Why We Should Give Generously

Living Generously Part One

Living Generously

This meeting is generously spons ored by Health Net

Multicomponent interventions to promote physical activity ...€¦ · KISS BALLABEINA Joup’la Bouge environment 1° school kindergarten childcare Interventional components PA lifestyle

Current account imbalances in the €A: competitiveness or demand shock? G. Gaulier, Lille, Oct. 2016

Generously RABBI MICHAEL KANTEROVITZ A

Get up. Get smart. Get going!™ Joue, bouge, apprends! · 2 Get up. Get smart. Get going!™ Joue, bouge, apprends! Children love to learn while they play and learn best when they’re

THIS PRODUCTION IS GENEROUSLY SPONSORED BY MEDIA …

Faithful Provisions - Save Money. Live Generously

Giuseppe Rocca violin, generously Instrument Trust which is …darraghmorgan.com/images/Darragh_Morgan_Giuseppe_Rocca... · 2018-10-31 · Giuseppe Rocca violin, generously on loan

Living Generously Part Two