Jean Louis Barrault (1910–1994)

> Par Adrian (Laculturegenerale.com) : Les 150 classiques de la littérature française qu’il faut avoir lus !
07/05/2017 - « Sans la liberté de blâmer, il n’est point d’éloge flatteur. », « Je me presse de rire de tout, de peur d’être obligé d’en pleurer. », « Vous vous êtes donné la peine de naître, et rien de plus. » Un brûlot contre la noblesse, à lire, relire et à appliquer.… (más)

https://nwhyte.livejournal.com/3048286.html

It shows I guess how times change. This was a huge hit in 1778, and it depends on the humour of improbable deceptions and misunderstandings. Two different characters hide behind the same chair in Act I. In Act II, the Count breaks into his wife's dressing room while his page jumps out the window and Figaro pretends it was him. In Act III, Figaro is about to be forcibly married to an older woman when it dramatically turns out that she is his long-lost mother. I really got lost in Act IV. In Act V the Countess and Figaro's girlfriend Suzanne pretend to be each other, with hilarious consequences (at one point the Count aims to hit the Countess, who he thinks is Suzanne, but accidentally hits Figaro instead without noticing). It would require some very ingenious staging to make the various antics of the cast appear in any way realistic, and even then the humour depends a lot on swallowing and digesting eighteenth-century norms of the regulation of sex. Still, I've always liked Mozart and maybe I'll give the opera a go some time.… (más)

I found this by chance at the library when I was looking for information on Kafka's novel. The process of adapting a story or literary work into another form -- whether through translation or producing it on stage -- fascinates me, so when I had a moment I picked this up.

As a written piece of work, it can't compare to the original novel. Plays are of course intended to be performed, not read, but some plays are captured better on the page than others. This one doesn't work quite so well in that form. It uses a lot of Kafka's original words, but for me, at least, with his text fresh in my mind, they lose something taken out of the context. Kafka's writing is descriptive and atmospheric, and stylistically fairly simple; his characters don't rise to great heights of eloquence. Which creates a challenge for anyone trying to adapt the text.

What it means is that a lot of the effectiveness depends on the presentation and staging, not on the dialogue, and that's harder (for me at least) to visualize with only the written text as a guide. I do have a sense for some of what is being attempted here: parts I understand and agree with, other parts I'm a bit dubious about. The action of the story is compressed, and at times the order of events is altered. This is logical enough; the dramatic requirements of the stage are different than in a novel. More interesting is the use of space, particularly the mingling of areas we expect to be kept separate, and the tendency of time to alter its normal patterns. Also the way in which the parable about the doorkeeper was worked into the main action of the play. This is very consistent with the themes and structure of Kafka's work -- it's simply less forcibly expressed in his novel.

Most of my reservations are about the interpretation of the meaning of the story. The novel can be read any number of ways. The play -- by necessity -- expresses the authors' ideas about Kafka's novel as much as (or more than) Kafka's own. This can be quite interesting, but sometimes it can also be distracting. At times I found the tension between the voice and vision of the original author and that of the adapters to be rather unsettling, although on the whole I think the play, taken for what it is, was probably well done.… (más)