The Invention of "Theatricality": Rereading Bernard Dort and Roland Barthes

Author(s): Jean-Pierre Sarrazac and Virginie Magnat

Reviewed work(s):
Source: SubStance, Vol. 31, No. 2/3, Issue 98/99: Special Issue: Theatricality (2002), pp. 57-72
Published by: University of Wisconsin Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3685478 .
Accessed: 19/10/2012 06:13
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
SubStance.

http://www.jstor.org

The Inventionof "Theatricality":

RereadingBernardDortand RolandBarthes
Sarrazac
Jean-Pierre
withitsexistence
Artcanonlybe reconciled
byexposing
- Adorno,Thdorie
itsinternal
Esthitique
emptiness.

At the openingof Gordon Craig's TheArtOf The Theater(1912), the

who has justshownthePlaygoeraroundthetheaterin order
Stage-Director,
to give himan idea ofthe"machine"("generalconstruction,
togetherwith
the stage, the machineryformanipulatingthe scenes, the apparatus for
and thehundredotherthings"[137]),inviteshisguestto "resthere
lighting,
in theauditoriumand talka whileofthetheaterand ofitsart..."(137).This
lesson meritsattention:one should never address any of the questions
pertainingto theatricalaestheticswithouthavingfirstfacedthestageitself,
even ifonlymentally.Priorto developingcriticalthinkingabout theater,it
is necessaryto takenote,once more,ofthefactthatthisconfined,flatarea,
in spite of its being destinedto become the pedestal of an entireworld,
appears absolutelydesertedwhen not in use. In the past, the red curtain
spared theaudience thesightofthisvoid; itwas onlydrawnback in order
to letthroughmiragesformerly
devisedbackstage.Now purelyfunctional,
the "ironcurtain"seems to set the spectatorsand the artistsapart,at the
outsetof a performance,
only to endow the absolute,gaping void of the
modernstagewithgreaterpower.Behindthevelvetcurtain,ourelderswere
able toconceiveofthemunificence
and plenitudeofa theaterfoundedupon
illusion.Nowadays, as soon as thecurtainrises,we become aware of the
inadequacyofthesetand scenography,
giventhatthesecan neverquitefill
thevoid ofthestagenorfulfilltheaudience'sexpectations.The stage,even
whenparticularly
burdened,remainsutterly
empty-and possiblymoreso
in thiscase. It is preciselythisemptiness-thisnon-representativeness
that
thestageseemsbound to exhibitto theaudience.
I somehow suspect Gordon Craig and his Stage-Directorof having
confronted
thePlaygoerwiththeunredeemablevacuityofthestageinorder
to impresshim with the idea thatthe Art of the Theater' was no longer
supposed to provideus witha sense of plenitudeand overwhelminglife,
? Board ofRegents,UniversityofWisconsinSystem,2002
SubStance#98/99,Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

57

58

Jean-Pierre
Sarrazac

but that,instead,it was to conveythesurreptitious,

erraticand discarnate
actionsofdeath-"the worddeath,
comes
Craigobserves,
naturallytomind,
as a parallelto theword lifeclaimedas theirsby therealists."(1912,85)2
Illusion or Simulacra?
Even if one assumes thattwentieth-century
theaterremainsfounded
imitation-an
that
must
be
upon
assumption
closely examined-such
in
in
imitation, Craig'sview as well as manyothers'(includinga numberof
"realists"),no longerdemandsthespectator'ssubservienceto illusion,but
requiresinsteadhis/hercriticalinspectionof simulacra.I would thusbe
and thered curtainwere abolishedde
temptedto posit thatthefootlights
factoonce thespectatorwas encouragedby the actorsor any given group
leader-the stagemanager,thedirector,
theauthor,etc.-to becomeinterested
notin thetheatereventas such,but in theadvent,withintheperformance,
of theateritself-or of what one may call theatricality.
This markeda new
that
led
theater
development
away fromtherealmofthespectacularthrough
itsinvolvementof theaudience in theproductionprocessof simulacraon
stage. This is an implicitdevelopment,which in most cases is not easily
identifiable.
identifiable
and explicitinBrecht'swork,
However,itis perfectly
as theGermandirectorclaimshe wants"theaterto admititis theater";this
is also trueof Pirandello'swork:doesn'ttheStage Managerof TonightWe
declareeverynighttothepublicthattheyaregoingto "tryand see
Improvise
how the acting,the simulation,the simulacraoftenreferredto as theater,
functionsofitsown accord."
At theturnof thetwentieth
century,thetheater,along withthe other
arts,graduallybecame aware of its inneremptinessand
representational
began to projectthisvoid outwards.Such a reversalcould obviouslynot
have occurred without the conjunction of a number of prerequisite
whichbegantounfoldwithZola and culminatedwithCraig,
developments,
and which included the contributions of Antoine, Lugn6-Poe and
Thesedevelopments
Stanislavski.
encompassedthebirthofthestagedirector,
whose authorshipof theproductiongraduallycame to the fore;theater's
emancipationfromthe authorityof text;theaterartists'new focuson the
essence of theirart,namely,on what was specificallytheatrical;
theater's
a
of
full
an
as
art
form
distinct
from
other
artsand
acquisition
autonomy
to
thecompromiseand the
techniquespertaining representation-beyond
"undividedness"propoundedby the Wagneriansynthesisof the arts,or
Gesamtkunstwerk.
Everyattemptat definingtherevolutionthatwas at work
at thispointin thehistoryoftheaterrightly
emphasizestheconsecrationof
SubStance#98/99,Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

BernardDortand RolandBarthes

59

ofthedramaticupon the
thedirectorand theend oftheabsoluteauthority
theatrical;yet, it would be wrong to leave out another factor,whose
importancecan onlybe feltwhenfacingtheblackhole ofthestage-that is
to say,therevelationoftheatricality
throughtheemptyingoftheater.
is "theaterRoland Barthes'sfamousdictum,statingthattheatricality
minus-text"
nonetheless,
(1972,26), is a muchquoted one. Letus notforget,
thistheatricalformin which,in his
his luminouspresentationof Bunraku,
view, "thesourcesofthetheaterare exposedin theiremptiness"so that:
and whatis
Whatis expelledfromthestageis hysteria,
i.e.,theater
itself;
ofthespectacle:
to theproduction
putin itsplaceis theactionnecessary
forinwardness.
workis substituted
(1982,52)

If theatricality
equals theaterwheneveritbecomesan autonomousart
form,this process of formalizationmust necessarily occur once the
to
"exhaustionofthecontentby theform"has takenplace (see thereference
a
in
it
the
of
the
where
becomes
theater
of
paradigm
wrestling Mythologies,
external).
The idea ofa criticaltheater,
which,in the1950s,stemmedfromVilar's
Ensemble
and Strehler'sPiccoloTeatro,
was notlimited
TNP,Brecht'sBerliner
In
at
to
criticism.
the
view
RolandBarthes
has
been
social
of
(as
alleged times)
and BernardDort(amongthefirst
tolaunchtheidea),thecriticaland political
dimensionoftheatricalactivityonlymade senseifgroundedin a "criticism
in action"of theateritself,as well as in an effortto release theatricality's
potential.This accountsforthedismissalofall formsofpsychologicaland
who questioneditsovert
bourgeoistheaterbytheeditorsofTheatre
Populaire,
allegiance to the "internal,"the "natural,"and the purportedcontinuity
betweenrealityand theater.On theotherhand,theartistsand writerswhose
Pirandello,Genet)never
positionsDortand Barthesopenlyendorsed(Brecht,
ceased to insistupon thecleavage,thedisjunctionbetweenthereal and the
withtheworldat largeand tobolster
stage.In orderto build a relationship
itscriticism
ofsociety,theaterfirsthad to assertitsinsularity:
thestagewas
no longer linked througha hypotheticalconnectingpassage, a kind of
conduit,to an everydayrealitywhichit was supposed to drain and filter
(see Sarrazac,1977); neitherwas it a place wherethereal,leftunchecked,
overwhelmedall; it was, rather,a virgin,emptyspace, a blankpage upon
which the movinghieroglyphsof the theatricalperformancewere to be
written.
The discoursedeveloped by theadvocatesof such a criticaltheaterwhichwas, at thesame time,a criticism
oftheateritself-was notso remote
fromGordonCraig'sownposition.Therewas,however,onemajordifference:
Vol.31,nos.2 & 3,2002
SubStance
#98/99,

60

Sarrazac
Jean-Pierre

forbothBarthesand Dort,a theatricaltheaterwas notincompatiblewitha

realistictheater-orat leastwitha certaintypeofrealism.Whenboththese
from
itentirely
criticsadvocatedepicrealism,theydistinguished
"Brechtian"
a
socialistrealismand, more generally,fromany artisticsystemoffering
of
the
real.
In
Theatre
a
direct
or
Populaire,
they
reproduction
mirror-image
suchas Mother
Courage
praisedthecriticaland politicalimpactofproductions
and TheLifeofGalileoand acknowledgedthepowerand theclarity-i.e.the
thesedramatictexts.RealistTheaterwas no longersupposed
theatricality--of
to absorbthereal,but had becomemoreofa kindofin vitrospace, a space
under vacuum where experimentsabout the real mightbe conducted
accordingto thesole criteriaoftheatricality.
In the1960s,as Barthesmoved away fromtheater(and applied to the
Dort went on with his own
notion of texthis theoryon theatricality),
and widened thescope ofhis research.He began to look at
investigations
of theaterwhich had reached its pinnacle with
the re-theatricalization
in
the
Russia
of
1920sand 1930s.TakingMeyerholdintoaccount
Meyerhold
that
one
Feral,that"theassertion
acknowledges,alongwithJosette
implies
as
ofthetheatricalas distinctfromtherealappears thenecessarycondition,
sinequa non,of theatricality
on stage,"and that"the stage mustspeak its
own languageand imposeitsown laws"(1988).Yet,Dort'smostsignificant
betweenrealismand theatricality
is
as faras therelationship
contribution,
concerned,is his own attemptto entirelyreevaluateStanislavski,Antoine,
and what is unsatisfactorily
labeled "naturalism."
"le
Antoine
as
Patron"-theboss ofmoderntheater(1967),
Introducing
DortdistancedhimselffromGordonCraig's idealism.He did notperceive
in Antoine'sso-called"naturalistic"
or
productionseitherless theatricality
a less subtle kind of theatricality
than in the "symbolist"and stylized
Reelcertainly
productionsdirectedby Lugn6-Poe.3The authorofLe Theatre
in
seemedtobelievethattruemodernity
choices,
lay virtuallyexperimental
such as the decisionto expose a fragment
of lifeor a social milieu to the
wall,"ratherthanin thestagingof
publicthroughtheillusionofthe"fourth
ghostlyceremonies-remotelyinspiredfromBaudelaire and Wagnerproducedby theMoscow ArtTheaterand theTheatrede l'Oeuvre.
and unity
Perhapshe even discerned,beneaththeapparentcontinuity
of naturalisticrepresentation,the pointillismor, more specifically,the
"divisionism" practiced by Antoine and Stanislavski. In view of this,
theatricalnaturalismcould be redefinedas a definitively
modernartform
and even as theartoftheatricality
since
it
was
per se,
chieflygroundedin
thusleavingroomforemptiness.Consequently,Lugn6-Poe,
discontinuity,
SubStance
#98/99,
Vol.31,nos.2 & 3,2002

BernardDortand RolandBarthes

61

Craigand Copeau no longerneededtobe regardedas themandatoryfathers

a newgenealogywas intheprocessofbeingdrafted.
ofcontemporary
theater;
Barthesdreamtof a theaterin which,accordingto Dort's formula,"matter
would become sign"(1993),and thisdreamwas notsolelyrootedin hypercoded Orientalformsoftheatersuch as Bunraku,but also in experimental
realism as conceived by Brecht and his predecessors, Antoine and
Stanislavski.
The Present-nessof Theater
Fromtheemptinessofthestage-whetherostentatious(emptyspace)
or discreet(realisticor even naturalisticset)-the actor'sbody began to
emerge along with every componentof theater-the costumes, scenic
music,etc.As soon as thestageceased to pretendthatit
elements,lighting,
was contiguousto, and communicatedwith,thereal,theaterceased to be
colonized by life.The aestheticstakeshad shifted:theaterwas no longer
concernedwithstagingthereal,butwithexposingpresence,thusconfronting
made up thespecific
theautonomouselements-orsigns,hieroglyphs-that
realityofthetheater.Theseelementswerediscreet,separate,insolvable,and
Departing
appearanceand organization.
merelyled us backtotheirenigmatic
thenineteenth
fromtheprimacyofthereal,whichstillprevailedthroughout
century,one was now launched into the "present-ness"of theater,this
literalness
whichwas, forBrechtas well as fortheNew Theater,the great
concernofthe1950sand 1960s.As earlyas 1926,Artaudhad declaredunder
thedetermining
influenceofthelatestStrindberg
play:
We do notseek,as hasbeendonebefore,
as hasalwaysbeencharacteristic
to
ofthetheater,
to givetheillusionofwhatis not,buton thecontrary,
undeniable
presentto theeye certaintableaux,certainindestructible,
to themind.Theobjects,theprops,even
imagesthatwillspeakdirectly
in
thescenery
whichwillappearon thestagewillhavetobe understood
notfor
willhavetobetaken
an immediate
sense,without
transposition;
they
butforwhatthey
are.(1976,160)
whatthey
represent
really

Adamov would be theone to bridgethegap betweenArtaudand the

at a timewhenhe was stillclassified-alongwithIonesco
"Brechtian"critics,
and Beckett-as a purelyavant-gardewritermuchinfluenced
byStrindberg
and Kafka.As forthe definitionof the "Present-ness"of theater-which
would subsequently be endowed with a more philosophical, more
Heideggeriandimension-it was conveyedin a textwrittenby Adamov in
1950in whichhe explainedthatwhathe had "triedto achievewas to insure
thatthe manifestation[of] the content[of his plays] coincided literally,
concretely,
physicallywiththecontentitself."4
SubStance
Vol.31,nos.2 & 3,2002
#98/99,

62

Jean-Pierre
Sarrazac

In fact,ratherthan endorsingthe example of the MutilatedMan (a

characterin Adamov's La Grandeet La PetiteManoeuvre),
Barthesand Dort
chose to supportthe overall idea of literalness.The overtlyteratological
aspectoftheexcessivephysicality
depictedbyIonesco,Beckettand Adamov
did not,at theoutset,win overtheeditorsofTheltrePopulaire.
However,the
literalnessprincipleappealed to them,foritassertedthematerialnature,as
well as thepresent-ness,
oftheater.Literalnesscame to be perceivedas the
Bartheswas fascinated
onlypaththatcouldlead totheadventoftheatricality.
the
true
of
that
is
to
the
electricbilliard-table,
by
protagonist PingPong,
say
whichthe authorof Mythologies
called a "literalobject,"an objectwhose
and scenicfunction
was nottosymbolizeanything
buttosimply
dramaturgic
be present,and, throughthe obstinacyof its presence,to produce actions
and circumstances,
even ifthesewere issuingfromlanguage itself.In fact,
the generationthat advocated this dramaturgyof "Present-ness"also
supportedthe "Nouveau Roman" authors.Dortwould be among thefirst
to evolve,in his articlespublishedin Cahiersdu Sud and Lettres
a
Nouvelles,
thematic approach-in Tempsdes Choses and Romans Blancs-which
foreshadowed
thedevelopment
oftheNouveau Roman.Barthes'slong-lived,
intenseand stormyrelationshipwith Robbe-Grilletprovides us with an
edifyingexampleof such support.
Whetherwithintheateror thenovel,thetimehad come to irrevocably
exorcise the demon of analogy and to abolish, once and forall, artistic
practicesfoundedupon theascendancyof theinternal,ofpsychologyand
"thesurface
depth."Forus," declaredtheauthorofLesgommes
[TheErasers],
of thingshas neverceased to mask theheartof things."Whathad become
unbearableto writersand theaterartistsalike was theperpetuationof the
neo-Platonicdichotomyofidea and appearances,ofsoul and body--where
thesecond termwas always consideredto be but a poor translationofthe
firstone. Whatseemedmorerelevant,at thebeginningofthe1950s,was the
creationofa theaterentirelydevotedto thepresent-ness
oftheperformance
and of thescenicevent.This was onlypossibleifone ultimatelydid away
withtheidea inheritedfromHegel that,in theend, what was represented
on stagewas always no morethana collectionofcostumedand animated
concepts.
The editorsof the Frenchjournal Thedtre
Populairewanted the new
perspectivedeveloped by Nouveau Roman writersto be applied to the
theater.ForBarthesand Dort,however,thechampionofthisrevolutionwas
not a writerrelatedto theNouveau Roman movementsuch as Beckett,or
one ofthemostradicaladvocatesofliteralness,
suchas Adamov or theearly
SubStance#98/99,Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

DortandRolandBarthes
Bernard

63

Ensemble
Ionesco. Theirchampionwas Brecht,whose Berliner
productions
were firstperformedin Paris in 1954.To the editorsof Th6dtre
Populaire,
Brechtiandramaturgy
seemed farsuperiorto theavant-gardeofthe1950s,
whose workstheydeemed a-temporaland a-historical,
whereastheformer
toliteralness
endowedtheircommitment
withhistorical,
socialand political
dimensions.Theperspectivewe now have ofthistimeinducesus towonder
whethertheway in whichDortand BarthesrelegatedBeckett(theirrespect
forhimnotwithstanding)
and avant-garde
tothedarknessofa metaphysical
theater
his
own
as
(Adamov judged
bourgeois
plays just harshly)is not
somewhatexcessiveand unfair.Retrospectively,
one may,indeed,blame
the critics of TheatrePopulairefor having confused the works of the
ofthe1950swiththeidealisticway in whichsuchworkscould
playwrights
be interpreted
(in Beckett'scase,Anouilh,forinstance,choseto focuson the
absence ofGodot-as-symbol
ratherthanon the"literal"hyper-presence
of
Vladimir and Estragon). A fundamentalissue had neverthelessbeen
addressed:should thetheaterstillbe about thisnever-endingtransference
fromthesensibletowardstheintelligible,
and thispermanentannihilation
of scenic formsforthe sake of ideas, argumentationand othertypesof
"messages,"as in theSartre'splays?Had thetimenotcome,at last,forthe
theaterto bringto theforethismomentofpure theatricality
duringwhich
thesensiblebecame thesignifier?
One mayinferfromthisthattheprincipleoftheatricality
is reallybut a
vast (Brechtian)distanciationeffector a disquieting(Freudian) sense of
estrangement,
throughwhichthescenicpresenceofobjectsand beings,worn
out and renderedcommonplaceby so manycenturiesof performance(s),
suddenly regains its archaic and enigmaticpower. Such a demand for
in textswritten
literalness,
clearlyformulated
byAdamov,Barthesand Dort,
sealedthedeal ofa theaterre-founded
Theseriesofarticles
upontheatricality.
writtenby Bartheson MotherCourageand on theartoftheBerliner
Ensemble
as well as Dort'sLecture
deBrecht
demonstrated
that,within
(ReadingBrecht)
thistheaterof literalnessand theatricality,
meaningwas neverglobal,but
was always linkedtoitslocaleand was fragmentary.
was always
Signification
within
the
first
material
nature
of
the
which
was
itself
scene,
grasped
spaced
out, "as witheach typeprintedon the page of a book"(Benjamin,1969),5
withintheinauguralvoid oftheater.
The Brechtianexamplewas, forBarthes,theopportunity
to reexamine
the question of signification,
theater
itself.
beyond
Departing fromthe
or
the
linkedto Kafkaand
from,
of,
"exemption"
"deception" signification,
theadventof theNouveau Roman,and underthedirectinfluenceof epic
SubStance#98/99,Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

64

Jean-Pierre
Sarrazac

This implieda
theater,he conceivedof the "suspension"of signification.
new assessmentoftherecipientoftheworkofart,ofhis/herfunctionas an
active reader or spectator,concerned,once the readingwas done or the
Barthes
over,withtheunravelingoftheenigmaofsignification.
performance
most
owed
his
refined
of
conception semiologicalreasoningto
certainly
based on a "densityof
Brechtianliteralness-a polyphonictheatricality,
was
(1972,26). Pure theatrical
presence
signs,"a "layeringof signification"
what renderedan object,a body,a worldperceptiblein all itsfragmentary
itsreflexive
opacity,so thatitmightbe deciphered,although
hyper-visibility,
itcould neverbe decipheredin itsentirety.
Hence,thecontentofa showno longerexhausteditsform;theform,on
thecontrary,
was theelementthatresisted,absorbedtheviewer'sattention
and channeledhis/herthoughts.Literalnessachievedthegreatestpossible
levelofconcentration
ofthetheatrical
object,thereby
increasingtheviewer's
own ability to concentrate.Through this extremeintensificationand
oftheatrical
densification
matter-whichaffected
theactorsand thelanguage
as well as thesetand theobjects-thespectatorwas inescapablyconfronted
withthemutualPresent-ness
ofmenand theworld.Hence,literalnesswas
also a (false)opacity,a blindnessthatbecamevisibleintheglareofthetheater
lights:"We seeMotherCourageblind,Bartheswrites,we seewhatshe does
notsee"; thislineis echoedby thefollowingfragment
on Platonicdialogue
writtenin 1964:"To see thenot-seen,tohearthenot-heard[...]. We can hear
what Menon cannot, yet our hearing is commensuratewith Menon's
deafness"(1972,34).6
Dort and Barthes'sendorsementof literalnessin the 1950s and 1960s
Brechtonlyoffers,
mayappearunsatisfying
today.To someofhisdetractors,
undertheguise ofliteralnessand theatricality,
a covertlymilitant,
preachy
theater.Ifone wereto succeedin provingthatthepedagogyalone intended
by epic theaterwas of a heuristicand Socraticnature,a major objection
could stillbe made: indeed,Brechtdid notthoroughly
examinetheconcept
of representation,
since he basicallyavoided thequestionof thisabsolute
present,this "more-than-present"
presenceexposed by a pure theatrical
in
the
course
of
the
1980s
and 1990s,a new demandforliteralness
If,
process.
and theatricality
has beenexpressed,suchdemandpertainstoa theaterevent
thatis so deeplyinvolvedwithpureperformance,
thatit
purepresentifying,
obliteratesany idea ofreproduction
or repetition
ofthereal.
The Nouveau Roman and the New Theaterhave now become very
remotefromus (althoughthe singularityof the worksremain,especially
thatof Beckett),while Brecht,on the otherhand, has become suspect to
SubStance#98/99,Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

Bernard
DortandRolandBarthes

65

temptingto reconsiderthevalue ofa principlesuchas

many.It is therefore
backtothe1950s,and toeitherproposea morepotent
which
dates
literalness,
Some oftoday'stheaterartistsintendto
versionofitor dismissitaltogether.
extendthe reach and expanse of the Present-nessof theater;theyseek to
dilatethetheatricalinstant,to introducea greaterdistancebetween
further
in ordertofreetheater,
at last,fromall
and itssignification
theperformance
remained
dramatic
action
of
on
(Brechtian
theatricality
necessity commenting
on gestus"[seeBrecht,1964]).7Yet,one
subordinatedto the "commentary
an indictment
ofthe
can also sense,at thecoreofthecurrentcontroversies,
thatitengenders.
and oftheloss oftrustinsignification
misusesofliteralness
witnessedthe
century
Depthisn'twhatitusedtobe. Forifthenineteenth
ofappearancesand theirsupplanting
by
longprocessofthedestruction
thetwentieth,
saw an equallymassiveprocessof
meaning,
subsequently,
ofmeaning...
anditsreplacement
thedestruction
bywhat?Wefindpleasure
in appearancesnorinmeaning.(1990,6)
neither

Baudrillard'sironicobservationshould certainlycapturethe attentionof

and scholars.
today'stheaterpractitioners
FromStage to Text
is oftendefinedas theater'spropensityto distanceitself
Theatricality
fromthe text,which is not withoutjustification
but can lead to a rather
univocaland abusive use of thisnotion.Barthes,at any rate,did forewarn
us againstsuchreductivethinking:
whilehe definedtheatricality
as "theaterin Baudelaire's
minus-text"
Theater
(26),he introduceda paradox according
to whichsuch theatricality
is "a datum of creationnot of production."He
specifiedthat"in Aeschylus,in Shakespeare,in Brechtthe writtentextis
fromthe firstcarried along by the externalityof bodies, of objects,of
situations."Is Barthes'spositiontherebyambiguous?It is, ifone considers
thatitdoes notshed lighton therelationship
betweenthetextand theother
elementsof the theatricalperformance.It isn't,insofaras it secures the
possibilityofa dialectic,a tensionbetweentheseelements.
ForBarthesand Dort,theatricality
didnotcallfora text-deprived
theater,
but ratherfortheaterin theprocessofbeingmade, or as it becomes.This
backtothehicetnuncofperformance,
conveyeda willingnesstotracetheater
and to reinstateit withinits specificallyscenic dimension,afterseveral
centuriesoffeudalsubserviencetoliterature
(to"YourHighnessTheWord,"
as Batyso pleasantlyput it; as forArtaud,he denounced the attitudeof
and introverts,
thatis tosay,ofWesterners").
Above all,there
"grammarians
was a desireto freetheaterfromitsabstractand atemporalliteraryidentity
SubStance
#98/99,
Vol.31,nos.2 & 3,2002

66

Jean-Pierre
Sarrazac

ittotheworldand tothereal.To thisextent,

inordertoreconnect
theatricality
reestablishedtheartoftheateras action.
Theseconcernswerenotfirst
Populaire.
expressedbytheeditorsofThadtre
had alwaysdefendedtheidea thattheatershould
HenriGouhier,forinstance,
be examinedfromthethresholdofperformance:
Performance
is inherently
beingabletofullycome
partofdrama,thelatter
in timeand space.Hence,
intoexistence
a metamorphosis
solelythrough
is notan added bonusthatcan be dispensedwith;it is an
performance
to
endinitself.
Thisis trueintwoways:ontheonehand,dramaiswritten
be performed,
whereinlies itsfinality;
on theotherhand,performance
an accomplishment,
themomentduringwhichdramafinally
constitutes
reachescompletion.8

Itis worthnotingthattheacademicianactuallyemployedthephrase"scoretext."
However,Gouhier'sposition(or a verysimilarcontention
put forthby
stillpartook,as faras performanceas such
Touchard,his contemporary)
was concerned,of this "textocentrism"
denounced by Dort. To the very
"Galilean" authorofLecturede Brecht,
neitherthetextnor any ofthescenic
elementswere to be consideredas thecenterofthetheatricalperformance.
In an essaythatis as clearas itis erudite,Le Texteetla scene:pourunenouvelle
Dortdelineatedthebirthand developmentofthemodernconcept
alliance,9
an
of open, incomplete,dramatictextawaitingits staging.Almostin spite
ofhimself,
Hegel had endorsedtheexistenceofthecreativerole-instead of
or illustrative-ofthe actor,who throughhis/her
merelyinterpretative
and
silent
actions
filledinthegaps ina textwhich,initself,
remained
mimicry
unfinished.Le Texteetla scenerefersto thepages in Aesthetics
thatdeal with
drama,consideredas a new genre,and whereitis said that"thepoet even
lets gesturesexpresssome of what the Ancientswanted to be expressed
words"(1984).AlongwithHegel,Dortalso couldhavereferred
solelythrough
to the creativefunction-oftenin contradictionwith spoken words-of
"pantomime"as describedby Diderotand Lessing.
in orderto asserttheautonomyof
Yet,ifDortdenouncedtextocentrism
he
refused
to
be
performance, categorically
swayedby the"modern"myth
of a theatricality
thatwould be incompatiblewiththeexistenceoftext.He
even added yetanotherparadoxto Barthes'sby stating(alludingin partto
Artaud)that"theaterwithouttextis a writer'sdream [that]has onlybeen
able tobe conceivedand expressedthroughtextand in writing.Whencethe
theatricalsilence to which its prophetsare condemned"(1984)10.
The line
musttherefore
be drawnbetweena necessarybreakwitha purelyliterary
theaterdevoid ofphysicality,
and a moreextremeposition,ifnotan impasse,
SubStance
#98/99,
Vol.31,nos.2 & 3,2002

BernardDortand RolandBarthes

67

whichwould implytherepudiationof dramatictextsaltogether.Dortwas

so concernedwiththenecessityoffindinga balance-or perhapsa dynamic
thatcharacterizedThe
imbalance-thathe stroveto solve thecontradictions
anditsDouble:
Theater
workstobe enlisted
ArtaudquotedWoyzeck
WhenAntonin
amongthefirst
his
in therepertoire
ofhis theater
ofcruelty,
he seemingly
contradicted
of thepast,yet,he also
determination
to do away withmasterpieces
foresawthenewallianceoftextandstagewhichmayquitepossiblydefine
theallegedopposition
betweentextand staging
today'stheater-beyond
theaterand a theater-oriented
(miseen scene),betweena text-oriented
text.(Dort, 1984)11

In spiteofhis attachment
to theepiphanyofperformance-thepointat
manifesteditself-Dortremainedopen to the question
whichtheatricality
of dramatictext,especiallywhen dealingwithcontemporary
texts,and he
The factthatthetextcould
was well aware thatthelatterresistedmimesis.
as Duras wrote,"when a
refuseto play thegame ofrepresentation-since,
itis atitsremotest
from
the
author"-did notappear
textis performed,
point
to Dort as an aberration.In truth,unlike Barthes,Dort was not fond of
alliance,and,
impassesbutofpassages.In Le Texteetla scone:pourunenouvelle
his
a littlelater,in La Representation
he
to
outline-in
imancipde, attempted
usual "reasonable"manner-a new (post-Brechtian)
of
utopia performance.
Above all, by suggestinga "new alliance," Dort warned us against two
threatentherelationshipofstageand text.
dangersthatcurrently
On theone hand,a ratherconservative
attitudeis becomingincreasingly
a
and
can
be
as
prevalent
interpreted willingnessto restoreliterarytheater,
namely, "text-orientedtheater."Jacques Julliard,forinstance,recently
assertedin one ofhis chroniclesforthemagazineNouvelObservateur:
Foras longas thetheater
is led astrayfromitsoriginalpurpose,whichis
to ensurethatthesacredwordsofthepoetcanbe heard,and as longas
thecurrent
theseill-bred
would-betyrants,
directors,
keepup theirracy
at thecostoftheauthor,
thedramatic
thisthree-sided
contract,
posturing
adventure
whichunitesauthor,
and spectators
arounda text,
interpreters
willbe tornapart,dishonored
and destroyed.

We can easilycounterJulliard'sprejudices(which,by theway,largely

pre-datetheemergenceofmoderndirecting)by quotingDort's comments
on what he designatesas "the greatesttheatertexts":"They seem most
toread [...], so complexas toappearincoherent
[...],proliferating
problematic
on theedge of disorder[sincethey]deliberatelyendorsetheirown lack of
completion[and] requirestaging."12
On theotherhand,we arefacedwithan alternative
which,inaccordance
withtheidea of the "emancipation"of performance
(I believe thisphrase
SubStance
#98/99,
Vol.31,nos.2 & 3,2002

68

Sarrazac
Jean-Pierre

dates back to Evreinoff),

remainsvague, unreliableand hazardous. Such a
Alain Badiou, in his "Dix Theses sur le
induce
to
seems
position
with
thequestionoftext,thusreducingthelatter
to do away
Theatre"(1995),
to a kind of eternalessence to whichthe performancealone may bringa
sense ofimmediacy,ofbeingin themoment,or,in otherwords,oflife.Dort
would probablyagreewithBadiou's claimthat"theidea oftheaterremains,
and [...] thetext'sstagingor mise-enwithina textor a poem,unfulfilled,
but a 'fulfillment'."
Yet I imaginethathe
scene is not an 'interpretation'
would findfarless convincingtheassertionthattheateris the"organization
variedmaterialand ideal componentswhose existenceis solely
ofextremely
dependent upon performance."Badiou simply seems to forget,in his
within
statusand function,
has a different
thatthetextnecessarily
arguments,
text
as
the
fromtheothercomponents.Firstly,
theperformance,
default,
by
is theonlyelementthatno longerexistsin itsoriginalform-thatis to say as
a writtentext-when included in the performative
event; it transforms,
metamorphosesand virtuallydispels itselfthroughitsverymanifestation.
Secondly,by excess,as thetextis so muchmorepervasive-able as it is to
infringeon bodies, voices,space, and even on themindsof thespectators
who mayhave a priorknowledgeofit-than any otherelementpresenton
stage.
An Impending Polyphony
Should one advance beyondAdamov's contentionto whichDort and
Barthes subscribed-"the theaterof which I conceive is entirelyand
absolutelylinked to performance"-andendorse Badiou's stance,which
(or the "idea of theater")onlyexists"withinand
alleges thattheatricality
the
The drawbackof Badiou's "idea of theater"is
through performance"?
that,because itdoes notaccountforthearticulation-or,as Dortwould put
it, the "interplay"-between the various scenic components, it only
the ambiguitythatwe have previouslyidentifiedin Barthes's
strengthens
work.In a way,the"idea oftheater"fillstheplace leftvacantbytheBrechtian
oftheconceptionofa criticaltheaterearlierdeveloped
gestus,thecornerstone
by Dort and Barthes:
Everydramaticworkcan and mustreduceitselfto whatBrechtcallsits
socialgestus,theexternal,
materialexpressionof thesocial conflicts
to
whichitbearswitness.It is obviouslyup to thedirector
to manifest
this
gestus,thisparticularhistoricalschemewhichis at the core of every
athisdisposal,inordertodo so,hehastheensemble
oftheatrical
spectacle:
and location,thesetting,
theactor'sperformance,
movement,
techniques:
1972,41)
(Barthes,
lighting
[...],costume.
SubStance
#98/99,
Vol.31,nos.2 & 3,2002

Bernard
DortandRolandBarthes

69

The advantage of gestus--nowadaysconsideredobsolete,along with

all formsof theaterbased on fable-over the "idea of theater"is thatit is
in relationto thecomponentsofperformance
as a whole,
bothtranscendent
and indexed to the text.The gestusexistsnot only as an all-encompassing
viewpointofthetext,butalso as a unit(in thesemiologicalsense)whichcan
be used towardsreading,breakingdown and commenting
on a text.
was done with,Dort,intent
WhileresignedtothefactthatBrechtianism
as he was on preservinga certain"interplay"betweenthetheaterand the
real world,stroveto devise thesurrogateutopiaI alluded to earlier,which
is moretechnicalthanpolitical.Whencehis choiceto extendtheBrechtian
metaphor of a "Copernican" revolution of theater to that of a truly
In ordertomakethishopemorefeasible,he evoked
"Einsteinian"revolution.
a model oftheideal performance:
The CopernicanRevolutionof theturnof thecenturyhas becomean
Einsteinian
Revolution.
Theendoftheprimacy
ofthetextoverstagehas
ledtoa generalre-evaluation
oftheelements
ofthetheatrical
performance
intheirrelationship
toeachother.Theidea oforganicunityconsidered
as
a given,orevenofanessenceofthetheater
event(thatistosay,themystery
oftheatricality),
haveeventually
beenrelinquished,
and thetheatrical
is
nowconceivedofas a signifying
thespectator.
encompassing
polyphony,
(1998)13

The "emancipated performance,"according to Dort, was certainly

closely related to Barthes'snotion of "polyphony";however,unlike his
Dort
colleague, Dort rejectedthe idea of an "ecumenical" theatricality.
the
various
of
the
specificallysupported,among
components performance,
thatBrechthad initiallyplanned
typeofviolentlycontradictory
relationship
to develop in his theoryof a "Brotherhoodof theArts" (Schwesterkunste),
but which,accordingto Dort,he had eventuallyneglected:
withtheprivilege
Endowed
andduties
ofa playwright
anda stagedirector,
as well as thatof an artisticdirectorforthe BerlinerEnsemble,
he

forsook
theindependance
ofbrother
artsinorder
todevote
undoubtedly

himselfto a unifieddramaturgical
oftheworkshe directed.
conception

histeachings
hisownpractice.
a
However,
expand
beyond
Theyoutline

non-unified
whose variouselementsshould co-exist,or
performance

thancontribute,
rather
the
perhapsevenrivaloneanother,
through

annihilation
of theirdifferences,
to theconstruction
of an overarching

(1998)14
signification.

For Dort, "play" was always synonymouswith struggleand strife.

was attenuatedand channeledby
However,thetheoretician's
intractability
his spectator'spropensitytowardshedonism.Incidentally,
forthisspectator
of romanticproportions,the "joy of theater"was always imbued with a
nostalgicand evenmelancholicaura.Was thisdue tothefactthathisactivity
SubStance
Vol.31,nos.2 & 3,2002
#98/99,

Jean-Pierre
Sarrazac

70

rootedin thebattleshe had conductedalongwith

as a criticwas irrevocably
Bartheswhen theywere theeditorsof Theatre
Populaire?Or was itbecause
no theaterproductionhad ever fulfilledtheirexpectationsin the way the
stagingofMotherCourageby Brechtand TheLifeofGalileoby Strehlerhad?
broaderfeeling,
Or did itperhapshave todo witha moremysterious,
directly
within
thefeelingofthelossoftheater
connectedtotheadventoftheatricality:
theater
Whateverthecase maybe, forBernardDort,performance
turned
itself?
out tobe thesiteforthatwhichwas lacking,fortheexperienceby defaultof
a space and a timewhichwere foreverout of reach.As if the spectator's
passion could henceforthonly express itself as a relentless formof
A disillusionwhichthe artist(who was the spectatorof
disenchantment.
to maketheater)sharedwiththeaudience.Echoingin a
his/herown effort
manner
Barthes'sdeclaration"I no longergo to thetheater,"
contradictory
Dortneverceased towarnus mezzovocethattheater
was constantly
forsaking,
us
It
was
of
the
mode
bedazzlement,
indeed,
itself).
(and
deserting
nostalgic
whichcharacterizedDort's appreciationof Sur La Grand-Route
Gruber:
by
recurrent
motionthroughwhichGrubernever
"a stallingof the infinitely
ceases to leave thestage [...],SurLa Grand-Route
speaks ofa lastprospectof
happiness."'5
Thelastparadoxoftheatricality
mayverywellconsistofthe(Beckettian)
task of being done (again) with theaterwhile constantlydreaming of
beginningtheaterall over again. For theatercan onlybe achieved outside
wheneveritis able toletgooftheater,
and thiscan onlybe accomplished
itself,
iftheateris recurringly
theater.
emptied
of
Institut
d'"tudesthdtrales,
Paris
translated
byVirginie
Magnat

Notes

We thankthejournalEsprit
forpermission
topublishourtranslation
of"l'Invention
de la
thdatralite"
Jan.1997).Thisessayalso constitutes
(Esprit,
chapter3 ofSarrazac,Critique
du thidtre.
De l'utopie
au disenchantement.
Belfort:
2000.
Circe,coll.Penserle theatre,
1. Craigclaimstobe thefirst
todefinetheater
as an autonomous
art,thatis tosay,an art
fromliterature
and freefromthe"indivision"
which,in Wagner'sview,
independent
impliedthattheaterwas stillcontrolledby music,poetry,pantomime,and even
architecture
and painting.
2. Craigadds: "severaltimesin thecourseofthisessayhas a wordor twoaboutDeath
founditsway on to thepaper--calledtherebytheincessant
ofLife!Life!
clamouring
Life!whichtherealistskeepup."
SubStance
Vol.31,nos.2 & 3,2002
#98/99,

DortandRolandBarthes
Bernard

71

as beinga formoftheatricality."
itselfis acknowledged
3. Josette
Feral,"Naturalism
4. Our translation.
See also, "Si le dramed'un hommeconsistedans une mutilation
la
je ne vois pas de moyenpourrendredramatiquement
quelconquede sa personne,
surla scene."(Adamov,
v6rit6
d'unetellemutilation
corporellement
quede la representer
1964)
"...commedes caracteresd'imprimerie
sur la page d'un livre."
5. Our translation.
1969).
(Benjamin,
ce
le non-entendre
"Voirle non-voir,
entendre
6. Our translation.
[... i. Nous entendons
de la surdit6de
que Menonn'entendpas, maisnousne l'entendons
qu'a proportion
M6non."(Barthes,
1964,48)
ongestus,
seeBarthes
7.On thenecessary
oftheatricality
tothecommentary
subordination
(1955,1972).
"La representation
est inscritedans l'essencede l'oeuvretheatrale;
8. Our translation.
etdanslelieuohs'accomplit
la m6tamorphose.
reellement
celle-cin'existe
qu'au moment
La representation
donta la rigueuronpourrait
se passer;
n'estdoncpas unsupplement
la estsa
elleestune finaux deuxsensdu mot:l'ceuvreestfaitepouretrerepresent6e;
la
un
le
enfin
du
meme
moment
oui
achevement,
coup, representation
marque
finalitY;
elle-meme."
l'oeuvreestpleinement
allianceis an essaywritten
9. Le Texteetla Scene:pourunenouvelle
by Dortin 1984as an
and subsequently
oftexts
includedina collection
additiontoEncyclopoedia
Universalis,
endialogue
(Paris:POL, 1995).
byDorttitledLe Spectateur
<<Le theatre
sanstexteestunreved'&crivain
10.Ourtranslation.
[qui]n'a puetrepens6et
auquelse sonttrouve
exprimedansle texte,que par l'6criture.
D'oh le silencetheatral
>>(1984).
condamnesses prophetes
ArtaudcitaitWoyzeck
a
11.Ourtranslation.
oeuvres
"QuandAntonin
parmiles premieres
au repertoire
de sonth6atre
de la cruaute,
inscrire
sansdouteentrait-il
en contradiction
du passe,maisil pressentait
avec sa volont6d"en finiravecles chefs-d'oeuvre'
aussila
nouvelleallianceentrele texteet la scenequi pourraitbien caracteriser
le theatre
entretexteetmiseen scene,entreun
d'aujourd'hui-au-delade la pseudo-opposition
du texteetun textetheatral"
(1984).
theatre
12. Our translation.
"A la lecture,[ils] nous semblentles plus probl6matiques
[...],
a la limitedu d6sordre
[...], foisonnants
complexesau pointde paraitreincoherents
deliberement
le partide leurpropreinachevement
[et]font
[parce
' qu"ils]pren[nent]
appel la scene"(1984).
13. Our translation.
"La revolution
du d6butdu siecles'estmueeen une
copernicienne
revolution
Le renversement
einsteinienne.
de la primaut6
entrele texteetla scenes'est
transform6
en unerelativisation
des facteurs
de la representation
theatrale
gendralisde
les unsparrapportaux autres.On en vienta renoncer
Al'ideed'uneunit6organique,
fixeei priori,
voired'uneessencedu faitthdatral
eta concevoir
(lamyst6rieuse
theatralit6),
ouvertesurle spectateur"
signifiante,
plut6tcelui-cisousles espccesd'unepolyphonie
(1998).
14.Ourtranslation.
"Fortde sonprivilege
etdes ses obligations
d'auteuretde metteur
en
il a sans doutesacrifieI'ind pendance
scene,d'animateur
aussi,du Berliner
Ensemble,
de ces arts-freres
a uneconception
unitaire
des oeuvresqu'il montrait.
dramaturgique
Mais sa leqonva plus loinque sa pratique.Elle dessinel'imaged'une representation
non-unifiee
dontles diff6rents
en collaboration,
voireen rivalit6,
el"mentsentreraient
"
en effaqant
leursdiff6rences,l'6dification
d'un sens
plut6tqu'ils ne contribueraient,
commun"(1998).
15.Ourtranslation.
infini
"... unehaltedansle mouvement
parlequelGruberne cessede
nous parled'un dernierbonheurpossible"
quitterle plateau[...], Sur la grand-route
(1998).

Vol.31,nos.2 & 3,2002

SubStance
#98/99,

Jean-Pierre
Sarrazac

72
WorksCited

"Avertissement
Paris:
Adamov,Arthur,
a la Parodieet a l'Invasion."Ici etMaintenant,
1964.
Gallimard,
ofMinnesotaPress,1997.
Adorno,TheodorW. Aesthetic
Theory.
Minneapolis:
University
Oeuvres
t.II. Paris:Gallimard,
1980.
Artaud,Antonin.
Completes
Straus
fora TheaterThatFailed."In Selected
New York:Farrar,
-. "Manifesto
Writings
and Giroux,1976.
Les Cahiersn"15POL,
Badiou,Alain. "Dix Thesessur le Theatre."ComidieFranpaise,
1995.
printemps
Roland."Inside/ Outside."In Empire
Barthes,
ofsigns.New York:HillandWang,1982.
Evanston:
Northwestern
- . "Mother
Press,
CourageBlind."InCritical
Essays.
University
1972.
In Critical
Northwestern
Press,
-. "Baudelaire'sTheater."
Essays.Evanston:
University
1972.
-. "The DiseasesofCostume."In Critical
Essays.Evanston:Northwestern
University
Press,1972,p. 41-50.
desSignes,
Geneve:Skira,1970.
. L'Empire
no8juillet-aofit
1954andinEssaiscritiques,
Populaire
-. "MereCourageaveugle."Theatre
Paris:Seuil,1964.
1955.
- . "Les maladiesdu costumede theatre"
n'12,mars-avril
Populaire,
Thdatre
London& New York:Verso,1990.
Baudrillard,
Jean.CoolMemories.
_. CoolMemories.
Paris:Galilee1987.
Walter.EssaissurBertolt
trans.Paul Laveau(Versuche
uberBrecht).
Paris:
Brecht,
Benjamin,
F. Maspero,1969.
A ShortOrganum
Bertolt.
New York:HillandWang,1964.
Brecht,
fortheTheatre.
Paris:Lieutier,
1942,
Craig,EdwardGordon."Premier
Dialogue."In De l'Artdu Theatre.
pp.103-125.
London:WilliamHeinemann,
_. "TheFirstDialogue."In OntheArtoftheTheatre.
1912,
pp. 137-181
La Representation
Paris:ActesSud,1998.
Dort,Bernard.
imancipee.
endialogue.
Paris:POL, 1995.
-. Le Spectateur
ArtPressn' 184,Octobre1993.
-. "Le Corpsdu theatre."
1984.
Universalis,
-. "Le Texteetla Scene:pourunenouvellealliance."In Encyclopaedia
Public.Paris:Seuil,1967.
-. "Antoinele Patron."Theatre
"La theatralit&:
recherche
surla sp6cificite
du langagetheatral."
75
Feral,Josette.
Poetique
1988.
September
In Encyclopaedia
Gouhier,Henri."La th atralit&."
Universalis.
Julliard,
Jacques.
"Le RegardenCoulisse."In Travail
Sarrazac,Jean-Pierre.
Thiatral
n'27,Lausanne:La Cit6,
1977.

SubStance
#98/99,
Vol.31,nos.2 & 3,2002