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

ADISSERTATIONSUBMITTEDTOTHEFACULTYOFTHEGRADUATESCHOOL

OFTHEUNIVERSITYOFMINNESOTABY

LauraPurcellGates

INPARTIALFULFILLMENTOFTHEREQUIREMENTSFORTHEDEGREEOF

DOCTOROFPHILOSOPHY

Dr.SonjaKuftinecAdvisor

September2011

©LauraPurcellGates2011

i

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.

ii

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

iii

ListofFigures

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

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

1

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.

2

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

3

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.

4

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

5

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

6

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.

7

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.

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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,

12

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

13

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

14

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).

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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.

22

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

23

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.

24

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

25

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

26

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).

27

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

28

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,

29

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

30

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

31

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.

32

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

and4.

Pedagogyofdisorientation

Mypractice‐basedworkinthisdissertationfocusesonthisideaofa“pedagogy

ofdisorientation”which,Iargue,produceddisorientationamongstandwithinstudents

withtheintention(sometimessuccessful,sometimesnot)ofopeningtheirbodiesand

mindstonewwaysofmovingandthinkinginordertohelpthemencounteraconstruct

ofthebodyasa“thinkingbody”thatcanbeexperiencedandengagedwithsomatically

ratherthanintellectually.Forexample,inrehearsalsforTheMasterandMargarita

33

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

34

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

35

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

36

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

37

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

38

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.

39

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

40

“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

41

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

42

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

43

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.

44

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.

45

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

46

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,

47

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.

48

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

49

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

50

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”

51

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

52

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

53

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

54

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

55

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

56

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

57

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

58

souvenirdeceniveaudejeudansleurcorpsetdansleurtêteafinqu’ils

puissents’enservirplustard.

[Attwenty,thestudentsdon’toftenhavethenecessarylifeexperience,

theynotablylackthetragicdimension,themostimportantelementof

thisterritory.Ifwecarryondespitethiswiththeworkattheschool,this

isnotforanimmediateusebutsothattheywillretainamemoryofthis

levelofplayintheirbodiesandintheirheadsothattheycanuselater.]9

(Corps125)

Lecoqreferencestheideaofthethinkingbodyherebysuggestingthatboththebody

andtheheadstorememoriesofclassroomexperiences,whichcanbedrawnonlaterin

life.

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.

59

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

60

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

61

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

62

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.

63

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.

64

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.

65

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).

66

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

67

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

68

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

69

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

70

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.

71

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.

72

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.

73

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

74

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

75

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

76

(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.

77

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

78

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.

79

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).

80

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).

81

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

82

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

83

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

84

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

85

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

86

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.

87

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

88

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:

89

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.

90

[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,

91

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

92

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:

93

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

94

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”

95

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

96

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.

97

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].

98

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:)

99

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

100

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

101

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).

102

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]

103

(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

104

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

105

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.”

106

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

107

(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

108

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

109

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.

110

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

111

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

112

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.

113

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)

114

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

115

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

116

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)

117

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

118

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.

119

[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

120

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

121

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

122

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‐

123

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.

124

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.

125

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.

126

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

127

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

128

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

129

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.

130

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

131

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

132

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.

133

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.

134

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

135

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.

136

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)

137

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.

138

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

139

dignity,ourfreedom.Themaskprotectsthesoulfromgrimaces.Thence,

byaseriesofveryexplainableconsequences,thewearerofthemask

acutelyfeelshispossibilitiesofcorporealexpression.Itgoessofarthat,

inthismanner,Icuredayoungsterparalysedbyamorbidtimidity.(Texts

51)

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

140

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

141

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

142

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

143

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

144

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.

145

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

146

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.

147

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

148

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

149

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

150

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.

151

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

152

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

153

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

154

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

155

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).

156

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.

157

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

158

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.”

159

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

160

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.

161

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).

162

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.

163

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.

164

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?

165

‘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

166

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).

167

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.

168

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.”

169

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

170

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

171

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:

172

“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

173

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.

174

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

175

56)

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

176

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

177

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”:

178

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.

How?

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‐

179

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

head:

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

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

carryonthedreamofwhatyou’veopened…Inyourhead,something

hastobebeautiful.Yourheadhastobefullofbeauty.

180

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

181

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

182

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

183

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

184

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

185

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

186

earlytwentieth‐centuryFrenchmimetradition;themesthataretakenupinthe

followingchapter.

187

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.

188

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).

189

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

190

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

191

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.

192

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

193

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

194

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

195

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,”

196

“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

197

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.

198

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;

199

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

200

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:

201

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

202

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.

203

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)

204

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.

205

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).

206

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

207

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

208

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

209

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.

210

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—

211

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.

212

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

213

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

214

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.

215

‘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

216

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)

217

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

218

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

219

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

220

“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

221

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”.

222

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

223

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

224

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

225

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

226

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.

227

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

228

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

229

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

230

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

231

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,

232

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

233

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

234

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”

235

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

236

“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

237

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

238

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

239

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

240

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.

241

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

242

more“true”thanthehabituatedself.ButIwouldliketosuggestthatwhilethelanguage

remainedlogocentric,theexperience—dependantondisorientation—resisted

collapsingthemomentintoasingularideaof“self.”

243

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

244

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

245

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.

246

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

247

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

248

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

249

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

250

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

251

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

252

howbodiesmarkedbydifferentculturalpatternsofmovement,ethnicities,

socioeconomicclassesandgenderspecificallyencounter,challengeandcontinueto

shapethispedagogy.Ithereforehopethatmyresearchbothaddstoagrowingscholarly

discussionofLecoq‐basedtheatreandopensfurtherlinesofinquiryintothebodyinthe

classroom.

253

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.

254

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.

255

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.

256

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.

257

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.

258

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.

259

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.

260

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.

261

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.

262

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.