nm0075: er a very warm welcome to the er [0.2] year one drama option [1.5] nice 
to see so many faces [0.6] quite surprised to see such a big group actually [0.
4] er my name is namex and i work in the French department of the Modern 
Languages Unit here at the University of namex [0.2] and also at namex 
University [0.6] so it's a great pleasure to be here this morning [0.2] to 
speak to you about er twentieth century drama [9.4] i'd like to begin now by 
just giving you an idea of some of the er things i'm going to be talking about 
in this lecture [0.6] and [0.6] if we briefly refer to er [0.5] the first 
schema which is on the on the board [1.6] er there's no need to copy this down 
actually but [0.4] if you notice er on this schema it's a fairly basic [0.2] 
and fairly er [1.4] er [0.6] inaccurate view really of what a a theatrical text 
actually consists of [0.3] er in the particular th-, schema that you have er [0.
8] we begin with er the author [0.5] who actually writes the play [0.3] er [0.
2] and [0.3] this obviously in turn [0.2] leads to the text [0.6] er [0.2] the 
characters within the 
text [0.4] er speak using language [0.2] and that actually is received by the 
by the audience so it's a pretty sort of unilinear [0.2] fairly er [0.3] fairly 
sort of er uninteresting account of what actually happens in twentieth century 
plays [1.1] now er there are some problems with this and one of the main 
problems actually is that er [0.8] some of the words are very [0.9] okay can 
can you hurry up and sit down as soon as possible please [0.2] er [0.8] some of 
the words are [0.3] quite overused and not very accurate in terms of er what 
actually happens in a play [0.7] for example [0.2] looking at the author [1.0] 
who actually [0.4] who actually writes the play [0.6] er is it the author [0.2] 
or is it the director [0.8] so [0.3] we have a problem of authorship [0.6] er 
[0.3] and er we don't really know who actually r-, is responsible for the play 
as we as we see it [0.9] er [0.3] secondly er [1.3] how can the director if we 
assume that the author [0.3] is replaced by the director [0.2] how can the 
director remain faithful [0.3] to the er [0.3] the [0.8] to the author's 
intentions [0.2] that's 
the second [0.2] sort of big problem with this actually [1.7] thirdly [0.4] is 
the problematic status of language [0.4] so one of the big problems there [0.2] 
is that er [0.3] verbal language [0.2] or words are one way of conveying 
meaning in a play [0.5] but [0.7] as you will know from your own experiences of 
twentieth century plays [0.2] there are many other ways of er [0.4] er [0.2] pr-
, producing communication [0.2] which don't actually depend on language [0.3] 
so you have for example mime gesture [0.8] er stage effects that kind of thing 
[0.4] so t-, to view to view verbal language [0.2] as a a sole means of 
communication in a play [0.5] is quite inaccurate [0.2] in the sense that er [0.
2] directors and playwrights will actually come ac-, come across many other 
ways of er [0.2] dealing with er [0.2] communication [1.4] finally [0.2] and 
perhaps the most problematic area of this schema [0.2] is the [0.3] er is the 
audience [1.4] the problem with this diagram [0.3] is that the audience is 
right at the bottom [0.2] and is seen as a kind of passive [0.4] and er [0.4] 
very quiet sort of recipient of the the drama [0.4] in other words er when you 
go and see a play [0.4] er the 
audience basically receives the action [0.5] and presumably interprets it [0.2] 
interprets the action in some way [0.3] but [0.6] er one of the problems with 
this is that it denies the very er active [0.6] participatory role of the 
audience in the [0.7] in the play itself [1.2] so these are some er rather er 
major problems with twentieth century er drama [0.2] if we look at it simply er 
in this very basic way [0.8] er what i'd like to propose this morning [0.3] and 
the aim of the lecture [0.4] is er to try to revise [0.3] this very er [0.7] 
this fairly monotonous scheme [0.3] er into a slightly more dynamic picture [0.
4] which could [0.5] look something like this [2.6] so you have a kind of 
reciprocal relationship [0.2] between director and audience [0.4] er [0.2] the 
director is at the centre of the play [0.6] so [0.2] the director will 
basically decide er [0.2] er how the play is actually seen by the audience [0.
7] nevertheless the audience will not receive the drama passively [0.2] but 
will participate [0.2] in the drama [0.5] okay so er [0.5] in in if you like 
the audience is challenged 
to actually respond [0.2] to what the director does [2.1] at the sides of the 
diagram you have for example author and text [1.0] i'm actually putting author 
and text at the side of the diagram [0.2] because [0.4] this morning i hope to 
show that er [0.2] the author [0.6] and the text [0.3] of drama [0.3] is 
actually secondary [0.3] to er the director and the audience [0.5] in other 
words the the kind of question that we should be asking [0.2] is not [0.5] what 
did Shakespeare intend to say [0.2] or what did er Beckett intend to say [0.4] 
when he wrote this this piece of this piece of drama [0.4] rather [0.2] what we 
ought to be looking at is how do we actually interpret [0.3] what was actually 
said [0.6] i think that's quite a big difference which [0.2] at first is rather 
er disturbing [0.3] but secondly [0.2] er becomes quite a lot more challenging 
when we're looking at drama [6.4] so my plan for this morning [0.2] can 
basically be divided into four parts [0.6] in the first part [0.2] i'd like to 
look in more detail [0.2] at the rise of [0.2] importance 
of the spectator [0.2] in twentieth century drama [0.2] with particular 
reference to French drama of course [1.7] in the second part [0.2] i'd like to 
question the central [0.4] th-, er area of language in [0.6] er drama [0.6] and 
i'd like to show that language means far more than just words [0.3] there's 
another kind of dramatic language [0.2] which actually has far more importance 
[1.0] the third area i'd like to talk about [0.2] is the rising importance of 
the drama o-, of the director in drama during the er [0.3] the the prewar and 
post-war period [0.6] er again i'm going to discuss this with particular 
reference to French drama [0.3] although a lot of what i say will be [0.2] er 
quite general also [0.3] and would obviously apply to [0.3] er [0.6] er plays 
in other nationalities also [0.5] finally [0.2] i'm going to have a a very 
brief look at the word character [0.6] er this will be the shortest of my 
sections [0.4] er i haven't got a lot to say about it [0.2] but i want to er 
try to challenge the way we look at character [0.4] er sometimes we s-, we tend 
to see characters [0.2] as er real people [0.9] er real [0.2] er [0.6] 
characters sort of 
behaving in a kind of a very sort of er [0.2] a very true to life fashion [0.3] 
i want to try and question that a little bit [0.3] and hopefully to give you 
some ideas for when you study your your subsequent texts [2.4] one particular 
[0.2] one particular dramatist that i shall be referring to throughout the 
lecture [0.2] is er Antonin Artaud [1.4] Artaud er was born in Marseilles in [0.
2] nineteen er sorry in eighteen-ninety-six [0.2] and er he's [0.4] quite a 
marginal figure in twentieth century drama [0.2] from some standpoints [0.4] er 
there are not many books written about him [0.4] but in fact [0.4] er one of 
the books that i'm going to mention quite a lot this morning Le Théâtre et 
son Double [0.6] the theatre and its double [0.4] is actually an attempt to 
subvert [0.2] and to revise the rules of drama [0.5] and so it lends itself 
very well to the revision [0.6] er that i'm actually going to be proposing this 
morning [1.7] so i will devote probably er about er [0.2] ten minutes or so [0.
4] to each stage of the lecture [0.5] er giving you some information that 
you'll be able to note down [0.6] er 
finally [0.4] i shall leave about five minutes before the end er to allow time 
for any questions which [0.2] you may have [4.1] is the structure of the 
lecture clear to you [1.2] you're happy about how we're going from here [6.6] 
so my first category then [0.6] and [0.2] by far the longest category that i 
i'm going to be talking about this morning [0.3] er is the whole area of 
spectator and audience [2.1] the twentieth century theatre [0.2] could be 
described as a time when the spectator [0.4] came into being [0.3] as an active 
[0.3] member [0.3] of the dramatic production [3.5] you may have noted er in 
previous studies that Aristotle [0.4] in his Poetics [0.7] er viewed [0.4] the 
[0.2] spectator very much in a kind of passive [0.6] and fairly er [0.3] er 
receptive role in drama [1.0] of course Aristotle talked about things like [0.
2] catharsis [0.8] er catharsis is the purging [0.2] of emotions [0.5] when you 
attend a play [0.6] so that [0.2] er by experiencing the full emotions of a 
dramatic text [0.3] er the spectator [0.2] will be able to kind of go home 
refreshed at the end of it [0.4] and [0.2] er [0.2] er his or her life will be 
improved as a result [0.4] so it 
wouldn't be correct to say that er classical drama [0.2] paid no attention at 
all to the spectator [3.0] on the other hand [0.5] in the twentieth century [0.
5] er almost all reactions to the classical theatre [0.3] involve in some 
measure er [0.2] the primary importance of the spectator [0.3] in the creative 
[0.3] dramatic process [3.7] in French drama [0.6] one of the strongest early 
reactions [0.2] er [0.2] to er [0.2] the negative position of the audience came 
from Antonin Artaud [3.8] for Artaud [0.7] the theatre [0.4] had become much 
too consumerist in nature [1.0] and this idea er is er very strong in his 
writing [2.1] his most famous work [0.3] is [0.3] Le Théâtre et son Double [0.
6] written in nineteen-thirty-eight [1.8] this is a series of er [0.3] 
published essays [0.6] which criticize the [0.5] stasis and the status quo [0.
3] of [0.2] er [0.5] of theatre at the time [1.7] theatre should be challenged 
[1.0] it should shake the audience [0.3] with a series of imagined feelings [1.
2] disclosing er [0.3] depths of the unconscious [1.3] so what Artaud proposed 
[0.2] instead of the [0.2] the existing model which was er Aristotelian in 
nature [0.2] what Artaud proposed [0.2] was what 
he called a a theatre of cruelty [3.0] cruelty [0.2] for Artaud [0.5] could 
involve er [0.6] violent or aggressive acts on the stage [0.8] however [0.3] it 
also involved [0.2] challenging the conventions [0.3] and the niceties of 
everyday existence [0.9] and [0.2] to allow the audience er to experience the 
thrill [0.4] of [0.3] er being alive [0.2] the the the problem of of existence 
[0.2] with all its sort of ups and downs [0.2] and er this was what er Artaud 
felt [0.2] er the spectator should be experiencing [0.4] in [0.5] er attending 
a play [2.0] if you like er it's the kind of contradictory feelings er [0.2] er 
you know the f-, feeling that something is sort of both er positive and 
negative but these things exist at the same time [0.2] within oneself [2.3] 
Artaud wrote an essay called er [0.4] Le Théâtre et la Peste [0.7] so er 
theatre and plague [2.4] in this essay [0.2] Artaud drew an analogy [0.2] and a 
comparison [0.2] between theatre and plague [2.9] both these events [0.2] 
Artaud thought [0.5] should bring about the er [0.2] the collapse [0.2] of 
normal [0.3] social hierarchy [2.4] the condition of the plague victim [1.0] er 
was reflected [0.4] in [0.3] the position of the actor on 
stage [0.8] but also [0.4] in the audience who was watching [1.9] if you like 
[0.2] the audience was seen to be very much contaminated [0.6] and infected [0.
6] by the action on stage [0.5] not a nice feeling [0.4] not a pleasant feeling 
[0.5] but then again er [0.2] theatre shouldn't be pleasant or nice [0.2] 
theatre should be er challenging [0.5] and should exer-, should sort of expose 
the horrible side of existence [3.6] theatre is like an epidemic [0.6] it sort 
of [0.3] makes you er infected and then it's very difficult to become cured 
afterwards [0.7] er so the disturbance [0.2] and the er the problematic 
emotions that people experience continue long after [0.2] the play is actually 
finished [2.3] in the first quotation [0.2] er which i'll read for you [0.2] 
the er [0.2] th-, this comes from Artaud's book [0.2] and it actually er [0.4] 
er gives voice to this connection between er theatre and plague [0.6] il y a 
dans le théâtre [0.3] comme dans la peste [0.4] quelque chose [0.3] à la 
fois de victorieux [0.4] et de vengeur [0.9] cet incendie spontané que la 
peste allume où elle passe [0.3] on sent très bien qu'il n'est autre chose [0.
2] 
qu'une immense [0.2] liquidation [1.7] so strong language [0.2] er [0.2] the 
plague [0.3] brings about [0.2] une liquidation [0.3] a strong sort of 
liquidation [0.2] a sort of dissolving [0.4] of sort of everyday concepts of 
existence and their replacing [0.2] with much stronger [0.2] er [0.4] er sort 
of views about life [3.9] so important was the spectator to an-, Antonin Artaud 
[0.3] that [0.4] also in Le Théâtre et son Double [0.6] he suggested [0.5] an 
i-, an ideal theatre [0.4] which actually er [0.2] surrounded the audience [0.
8] er who were seated on [0.2] pivotal stools [0.2] so you had the audience 
actually [0.2] er raised in the middle of the platform [1.5] er and you had the 
action [0.4] going on around it [0.4] so if you like it was a complete reverse 
[0.2] of the Shakespearean theatre [0.4] where you had the actors [0.2] er in 
the middle of the stage [0.5] and the [0.2] er [0.5] er the audience sitting 
around it [0.2] it was a complete subversion of that [1.5] it may seem very 
impracticable [0.4] but in fact [0.4] this er this was actually done er [0.2] 
to quite good effect in the Maison de la Culture [0.6] er the Maison de la 
Culture is the equivalent of our repertory 
theatre [0.5] and in Grenoble [0.4] this experience was actually tried [0.7] 
and er [0.2] in this particular building for a while at least [0.2] the stage 
was encircled by the audience [3.7] so [0.2] Artaud er seems to go beyond er 
simple fascination [0.2] with the show's magic [1.1] so the theatre has to lose 
its kind of magical appeal [0.2] as being a slice of life [0.7] and [0.2] the 
theatre needs to look towards [0.7] its effect [1.5] as er Artaud said er [0.2] 
the aim of theatre was to reforge the links [1.0] the chain of a rhythm [0.2] 
when aud-, audiences saw their own real lives in a show [1.5] so in other words 
er the audience's aim [0.2] was to actually see er [0.2] things that they were 
experiencing [0.2] er sort of within the theatre [1.1] far from being estranged 
by the action [0.5] they needed to feel totally sucked in [0.2] by what was 
actually going on [1.9] in short then [0.3] theatre [0.3] for Artaud [0.2] was 
a disquieting [0.5] rather than a comforting experience [9.9] i'd like to move 
on to my second category now [0.2] which is all about language [3.6] in the [0.
4] Western philosophical tradition [0.8] er which governs most of the way in 
which we think nowadays [0.5] language [0.3] is often [0.2] is often seen to be 
er central [0.7] er [0.3] to the way in which we communicate [1.5] so 
everything er surrounds the centrality of language [0.2] er [0.2] this term is 
[0.3] described as logocentrism [2.2] er [0.3] logocentrism [11.8] logocentrism 
[0.2] the belief that the word or language [0.5] er is the foundation [0.3] of 
thought and experience [3.0] however [1.0] in recent times [0.4] this concept 
of logocentrism [0.2] the central aspect of the word [0.5] has been er 
criticized [0.8] notably by a philosopher called er Jacques Derrida [1.4] some 
of you may have heard of [5.9] for Derrida er [0.7] meaning [1.1] is not 
central er and based on language [0.7] language is not sort of the central way 
of communicating [0.3] er [0.2] because meaning [0.4] is not created entirely 
through language [0.4] but the way in which we respond to text [1.3] if you 
like er language produces thought [0.5] rather than contains thought [0.6] 
language isn't something which is 
absolute [0.6] but it's kind of relative er a lot depends on how we use it [0.
2] and how we're caught up with the flow of language [2.1] but Artaud [0.2] er 
coming back to our er [0.2] our friend er [0.2] who we're going to be talking 
about a lot this morning er [0.2] for Artaud language [0.3] has also been given 
too much importance in the theatre [1.3] er [0.2] and there's a need says 
Artaud [0.2] er [0.2] to give er emphasis to other things [0.2] apart from 
verbal language [2.1] what kind of things does Artaud suggest [0.2] in terms of 
language of the theatre [1.2] well [0.3] he wrote some manifestos [0.3] which 
actually outline in quite a lot of detail [0.2] the er [0.5] the areas which he 
wants to see developed in the theatre [1.2] some of these are as follows [0.5] 
lighting [2.1] he wants to see er [0.2] what he describes as oscillating lights 
[0.3] so lights which kind of switch on and off [0.4] which create special 
effects [1.1] musical instruments [2.3] traditional costumes [2.6] and 
accompanied with these [0.4] er a kind of bareness of the theatre [0.8] in 
other words er [0.2] theatri-, theatrical decor [0.2] shouldn't actually be [0.
2] er [0.5] sort of beautiful 
and elaborate [0.2] on the other hand it should be simple [0.3] so you might 
have sort of whitewashed walls [0.3] er [0.2] very plain decor er [0.2] this 
particular lecture theatre springs to mind as a [0.2] as an example of what 
Artaud might have intended [0.7] okay er [0.2] er a very sort of [0.3] l-, er a 
very small amount of of of of decoration [2.0] gestures [1.2] gestures were 
also important [0.6] it wasn't it didn't just matter what people said [0.8] but 
it mattered what people did [0.4] how did people move on stage [0.7] and Artaud 
observed [0.2] er the Balinese theatre [0.8] er [0.2] Balinese theatre [0.2] er 
[0.3] so er the Balinese theatre i'll just spell that [0.2] er [3.0] er [0.3] 
in [0.2] the nineteen-thirties [0.2] and discovered that the way they moved [0.
2] er [0.2] er was er quite [0.6] odd [0.3] in a way [0.4] er [0.3] they used 
quite sort of sharp jerky movements [0.3] in what they were doing [0.3] and 
Artaud [0.2] thought this might actually be quite a nice thing to er [0.2] 
integrate into the theatre [3.2] and similarly at the same time er [0.3] 
there's the avoidance of er [0.2] of articulated language [0.5] so all 
these special effects [0.2] have an equal place in theatre [0.2] as well [2.1] 
Artaud's prescriptions er [0.2] gave rise to what might be described as total 
theatre [3.7] total theatre means a theatre which actually [0.2] incorporates 
[0.4] sort of all different [0.2] aspects of the production [0.7] so [0.2] er 
the kind of the primacy of language [0.2] which is present maybe in texts like 
er [0.2] Molière's plays or Racine's plays [0.3] which are based around pretty 
much around language really [0.4] although action is important too [0.3] er [0.
2] all those things become important [0.2] er when we're dealing with a 
twentieth century play [3.1] one example in British er culture [0.2] which is 
very interesting [0.2] is er [0.4] Peter Shaffer's play [0.2] the The Royal 
Hunt of the Sun [0.8] some of you may know it [0.2] which deals with the er [0.
5] conquistadors er [0.5] er [1.2] er and their relationship to the Incan 
civilization [0.6] now Peter Shaffer [0.2] as Artaud [0.6] er uses the idea of 
total theatre [0.4] so what you get [0.2] is a kind of amalgam [0.4] of all 
different kinds of prescriptions [0.3] er [0.2] you get sort of musical 
instruments [0.8] special effects [0.2] very bare 
stage [1.2] there is language of course [0.9] but [0.2] there's a lot of 
gesture [0.8] and [0.2] i think if you watched a [0.2] if you watched er [0.2] 
er [0.2] a sort of modern production of The Royal Hunt of the Sun [0.2] i think 
you might actually see that er some of the prescriptions [0.2] are pretty 
similar [0.3] to what Artaud was saying in [0.2] Le Théâtre et son Double [1.
7] it's important to bear in mind [0.2] when we're talking about language [0.4] 
it's important to bear in mind that [0.2] not all [0.3] directors [0.3] and not 
all playwrights [0.2] dealt with language in the same way [0.4] i think Artaud 
is [0.3] suggesting a kind of escape from [0.5] the [0.2] kind of control of 
language if you like [0.6] however [0.2] er [0.2] other people do things quite 
differently [0.2] so Ionesco [0.4] who you're going to be studying later in the 
course [0.3] er [0.2] seems to break with er language [0.6] er he uses language 
[0.2] in a kind of absurd and er [0.3] er mismatched way [0.4] so [0.2] er 
characters do communicate with each other [0.2] through language [0.5] but [0.
2] er in ways which surprise us [0.4] er [0.2] through their kind of very their 
very absurdity [0.8] er [1.7] Sartre who you'll also be studying [0.2] 
er [0.3] i think er Sartre [0.2] very much believes in the er in the importance 
of language [0.4] but Sartre will er appropriate language for [0.2] political 
effects [0.4] as we know from our [0.2] er immediate experience with Sartre [0.
2] he's a political dramatist as much as anything [0.3] er [0.2] conveying 
political messages [0.3] therefore language needs to be important [0.2] 
language is quite central [0.5] so it wouldn't be correct to say that Artaud's 
er [0.2] prescriptions for language [0.2] are adopted by all the playwrights 
that you're actually going to be studying [0.4] however [0.2] it does cast a 
new light on what's happening in the [0.2] in the theatre [0.4] and [0.2] er it 
places the er the theatre into er [0.4] into into a very different perspective 
[3.0] one of the criticisms [0.2] i'll just deal with this before moving on [0.
2] one of the criticisms with er Artaud's idea that [0.4] er verbal language [0.
2] that you could get away with verbal language [0.9] er [0.2] is that er [0.4] 
verbal language is always there in the background [0.6] in a sense it's actu-, 
it's actually impossible to escape u-, from using language 
altogether [0.6] er [0.2] i think people have tried it in the theatre [0.2] but 
it's almost impossible to get away with that kind of er [0.2] that kind of er 
[0.3] thing [0.2] so what's happening then really [0.3] is that Artaud is 
proposing something [0.4] here [0.2] which can never be achieved entirely [0.5] 
and so [0.2] er [0.2] in almost all plays [0.3] even plays [0.2] which er [0.2] 
you could describe as belonging to the Theatre of the Absurd [0.2] language is 
[0.2] is always there in the background it doesn't always make sense [0.5] but 
it is basically a problem [1.7] before we move on er [0.2] i'd like to [0.2] 
make a transition by referring to the second quotation [0.6] which [0.2] i 
think er clarifies what Artaud's er views are about non-verbal language [1.8] 
ce langage objectif [0.3] so he described er [0.2] setting scenes er [0.2] 
colours [0.3] costumes and things as langage objectif [0.2] it's a kind of 
objective rather than subjective language [0.3] ce langage objectif [0.2] rend 
enfin [0.3] l'assujettissement [0.5] the subordination [0.3] okay [0.2] 
l'assujettissement [0.2] er [0.2] intellectuel au langage [0.8] en donnant le 
sens d'une intellectualité nouvelle [0.4] 
et plus profonde [1.1] qui se cache sous les gestes [0.3] et sous les signes 
élevés [0.4] à la dignité [0.2] d'exorcisme [0.2] particulier [2.0] so the 
idea is to break the kind of subordination [0.4] which [0.2] other kind of 
stage effects have to language [1.1] okay [0.2] everything needs to be given 
the same degree of importance [15.1] it will come as [0.2] probably fairly 
little surprise [0.2] to note that [0.2] the director [0.6] of the theatre [0.
6] er [0.2] is not mentioned in Aristotle [1.3] so the director [0.2] is er a 
pretty new concept [0.4] which [0.2] came of age in the twentieth century [2.1] 
it's important [0.2] when we're studying plays [0.2] not to forget about the 
director [1.6] one of the characteristic features of twentieth century drama [0.
7] er is the debate about the er relative importance of playwrights and 
directors [1.9] and the post-war drama period [0.3] can be seen [0.3] as er [0.
2] the a period in which we see the [0.2] gradual eradication of the playwright 
[0.8] and the rise to power [0.4] of the theatre director [2.3] somebody called 
Edward Gordon Craig [0.7] so an early twentieth century dramatist [0.3] Edward 
Gordon 
Craig [6.6] wrote a prophetic [0.2] er a prophetic statement in nineteen-eleven 
[0.7] which said that the director [0.6] would eventually become the complete 
[0.6] creative artist of the theatre [3.1] bringing together [0.2] and 
mastering [0.3] all the different expressive idioms of the stage [3.5] that was 
a very early that was a very early comment [0.2] okay nineteen-eleven [0.2] the 
director would be the complete creative artist [0.4] of the future [1.8] 
bringing together and mastering [0.9] all the different expressive idioms [0.6] 
of the stage [4.8] this is one kind of statement which shows us [0.2] how 
important [0.2] the director is going to become [0.3] in twentieth century 
theatre [0.3] but there were other statements which occurred later on [0.4] 
which were also important [0.2] for example Roland Barthes [0.8] some of you 
may have heard of Roland Barthes [3.7] Roland Barthes er [0.4] declared er [0.
2] in er [0.9] er in the twentieth century that er [0.3] there was [0.5] what 
he called a death of the author [1.9] 
okay so er [0.2] the death of the author [0.2] means that the author of a text 
[0.2] is not sacrosanct [2.3] faithfulness to the original [0.7] is not the 
primary concern therefore [0.5] when adapting [0.2] er works [1.2] from the 
past [0.3] so this is where for example in the Royal Shakespeare Company [0.2] 
some modern productions have actually attracted a lot of criticism [0.2] so for 
example [0.2] you get er [0.3] er Shylock in The Merchant of Venice perhaps 
riding around on a motorbike [0.5] or something like that [0.3] and people say 
well you know [0.2] er how dare they do that you know [0.2] er [0.2] that 
that's this is totally unfaithful to the Shakespearean original [0.5] but some 
people [0.2] in twentieth century drama will say well that doesn't matter [0.2] 
because it's the director's interpretation [0.3] that actually matters [0.7] er 
[0.2] so you find often that er [0.2] that modern [0.2] productions of 
Shakespeare or Racine or Molière [0.2] er [0.2] are pretty much criticized [0.
2] for being er [0.2] anachronistic [1.0] er in other words er applying sort of 
modern principles [0.2] er to old texts [0.2] when those concepts were not 
actually 
available [4.5] the climate of Paris at the time is also very important [1.0] 
er [0.3] directors in particular in Paris [0.2] were responsible for 
decentralizing the theatre [1.5] for moving theatre away from state control [0.
4] towards er [0.2] private [0.3] control [0.7] a little bit like our repertory 
theatre theatres in this country [0.5] er [0.2] they receive grants but what 
they do is very much up to them [1.7] in Paris a lot of directors saw the 
theatre [0.2] almost as a kind of basic human right really [1.1] er it wasn't 
just pleasure but everybody had the right to go to the theatre [0.5] er theatre 
shouldn't be expensive and prohibitive to the audience [0.2] but should 
actually encourage people to attend [0.6] far from being a luxury [0.3] the 
theatri-, [0.2] the theatre was actually seen as being pretty much central to 
human existence at the time [2.4] let's trace briefly some of the important 
players er in the development of er [0.3] the director throughout the twentieth 
century [3.2] one particular figure who you will actually er see [0.2] now and 
again [0.2] is somebody called Jacques Copeau [11.1] 
okay Jacques Copeau [5.0] eighteen-seventy-nine [0.2] to nineteen-forty-nine [6.
7] Jacques Copeau er advocated the return [0.5] of modern drama to the 
collaborative [0.8] kind of drama which happened during the Elizabethan period 
[1.0] in seventeenth century drama [0.2] and [0.2] er [0.8] to an extent in 
Renaissance drama as well [0.2] what had happened was that the playwright [0.2] 
worked in quite close cooperation with the er [0.3] the the actors and the 
actresses [0.4] so what would happen in that if in that case [0.2] is that er 
there would be a kind of collaborative drama which was produced [0.4] and that 
he thought er [0.2] was better [0.4] than er [0.2] simply being subservient to 
the playwright [0.2] doing everything that the playwright says [0.7] it's not a 
matter of that [0.2] it's a matter of negotiation [0.5] so er Jacques Copeau 
was quite a central character in that [0.5] a more recent player [0.2] in the 
director debate [0.2] is somebody called er [0.2] Roger Planchon [12.1] 
Roger Planchon er [0.2] was er a director of a small theatre er [0.2] i think 
just outside Lyon [0.5] but [0.6] one interesting thing that Roger Planchon 
actually did say [0.2] was that the director [0.2] was a little bit like a a 
museum crea-, er a museum [0.2] curator [0.6] somebody who actually er [0.4] er 
[0.2] works with relics from the past [0.5] but may change those relics [0.2] 
so that it's actually er [0.2] impossible to see at the end [0.2] who is 
responsible for them [0.7] that's quite an interesting comment too [1.8] Peter 
Brook [0.6] another director [0.9] er [0.2] he directed er in a small Parisian 
theatre [0.2] in the nineteen-seventies er [0.6] what he said was that [0.2] 
the job of the director [0.5] goes beyond [0.4] seeing himself as the servant 
of the play text [1.2] theatre [0.2] Peter Brook said was an empty space [1.1] 
where magical transformations can take place [1.7] through the interaction [0.
2] between spectator [0.2] and actor [2.1] the imaginative stimulus [0.6] in [0.
2] the play [0.2] is the important thing [0.7] and [0.2] it's the director's 
responsibility [0.5] to [0.2] er provoke and to challenge [0.5] the the person 
who's watching the 
play [3.0] decor [0.7] Peter Brook said was of minimal importance [0.4] the 
director had the maximum responsibility [0.2] to ensure that everybody enjoyed 
the play and was challenged by it [4.5] Artaud [0.5] i'd like to go back to 
again [0.2] Artaud says a lot about this er [0.4] er [0.2] he's er pretty 
unhappy about Shakespeare [0.6] er [0.2] generally speaking [0.2] and rather 
uncomplimentary about him [0.2] er [0.6] i personally think Shakespeare is a 
great playwright [0.2] so i disagree er [0.2] perhaps with Artaud on this on 
this point [0.2] but some of you may well agree with him [0.2] and if you'd 
like to refer to the third quotation [0.4] this is what he says about 
Shakespeare [4.4] Shakespeare lui-même [0.2] est responsable de cette 
aberration [0.5] et de cette déchéance [0.8] de cette idée désintéressée 
du théâtre [0.6] qui veut qu'une représentation théâtrale [0.2] laisse le 
public intact [0.4] sans qu'une image lancée [0.3] provoque son ébranlement 
[0.2] dans l'organisme [0.4] pose sur lui une empreinte [0.2] qui ne s'effacera 
plus [1.1] Shakespeare [0.2] is responsible for aberration [0.4] in 
the theatre [1.1] this [0.2] idea of a disinterested theatre [0.8] which [0.3] 
makes theatrical representation [0.9] leave [0.7] the public cold [0.6] okay 
laisse le public intact [0.2] leave the public cold [0.2] er [0.4] without [0.
4] er images [0.7] which actually sort of shatter the insides of the organism 
[0.9] so the problem really er [0.2] is that er [0.2] Shakespeare [0.2] er 
doesn't really er stimulate or challenge the playwr-, er the [0.3] the [0.2] 
the watcher of the play [0.2] er in the way in which er [0.3] er he should er 
contends Artaud [7.9] in the second part of that quotation er [0.2] we see as 
follows la poésie écrite [0.4] vaut une fois [0.3] et ensuite qu'on la 
détruise [0.4] written poetry [0.2] is okay once [0.5] but then we've got to 
destroy it [1.9] que les poètes morts [0.2] laissent la place aux autres [1.2] 
may dead poets [0.2] leave place for others [0.3] to come in their place [1.1] 
okay que les poètes morts laissent la place aux autres [5.4] Artaud in 
particular [0.2] criticized playwrights like Racine [0.2] for er over-
psychological [0.2] interpretation [2.4] you've got to shatter the spectator's 
expectations [1.2] don't just play don't just give 
the spectator what he or she wants [0.5] but challenge the spectator [0.2] give 
them what's good for them [0.6] rather than what they actually want [0.3] this 
is actually Artaud's [0.2] contention here [14.6] i hope you're all still awake 
[1.8] my final [0.4] m-, my final point er this morning [0.2] concerns 
character [0.2] and actor [1.5] i'm not going to say very much about this [0.2] 
but there are s-, there are some things here which i think do merit er [0.2] 
consideration [0.2] er [0.2] as we're sort of moving into studying plays [2.1] 
characters and actors [0.2] are actually er mentioned in er Aristotle's Poetics 
[1.8] for Aristotle [0.3] character is a kind of reality [2.4] characters exist 
in their own right [2.1] because er Aristotle doesn't particularly mention [0.
2] actors or actresses who play those characters [1.5] so the character if you 
like is a kind of abstract concept [2.2] what a-, what Aristotle says in his 
Poetics [0.2] is that characters should be morally good [3.3] suitable [1.7] 
and [0.3] most importantly [0.2] lifelike [1.7] so the key to success when [0.
2] when you're writing a play [0.2] is that the characters [0.2] have to seem 
like real 
people [0.2] in in real life [5.3] so er this is described as verisimilitude [0.
7] verisimilitude [0.8] er or vraisemblance [0.5] er [0.2] in the French 
classical theatre [3.2] it would help if my pen worked [1.5] vraisemblance [2.
0] that w-, that you could y-, [0.6] that was a joke actually so you were 
supposed to laugh then [1.1] [laughter] okay [0.2] not a good actor i'm afraid 
[0.3] er [0.2] okay [0.2] so er vraisemblance er [0.2] er the sort of 
verisimilitude [1.2] however [0.3] er not er [0.3] okay i mean [0.2] so thi-, 
this is the kind of classical view of character [0.3] but i think it's 
important to recognize when we're studying Ionesco er Beckett and and [0.2] and 
possibly also Sartre [0.3] although i think Sartre perhaps to a lesser extent 
[0.3] er [0.2] character [0.4] the the word character has been pronounced dead 
[0.7] by many writers [4.0] for example [0.2] a lot of writers er see 
characters basically as language [1.0] rather than [0.2] as er real flesh and 
blood individuals [0.4] like ourselves [1.4] 
what what are characters [0.3] well basically characters [0.2] are sort of 
words on a page [0.4] perhaps [0.4] this is one theory of characters [0.6] i 
think it's a contentious theory and i think [0.2] you know we may decide that 
characters are real characters and they do have real emotions [0.5] er [0.3] so 
i'm not particularly pressurizing you to think one way or the other [0.2] i 
think the the debate is quite interesting [4.2] but i think we have to 
recognize that [0.2] when we're looking at some plays in the twentieth century 
[0.3] er characters are not fully rounded individuals [0.7] er [0.2] but rather 
[0.2] they consist of fragments of language [7.2] this is again er what Artaud 
said [0.6] er in his er Le Théâtre et son Double [0.9] the fact that er 
basically er [0.2] characters [0.6] er were not really er [0.4] sort of flesh 
and blood characters [0.6] but they they they exterted a kind of power [0.4] er 
[0.2] but i think [0.2] er Artaud wanted to get rid of the psychology [0.6] 
which [0.2] er lay behind the character [1.5] and he wasn't very keen on the 
way in which Shakespeare [0.4] Shakespeare's 
characters [0.2] er analysed themselves [1.2] so when Shakespearean characters 
are facing a sort of predicament of one sort or another [0.2] er they will tend 
to sort of [0.2] er [0.2] go into a kind of process of self-analysis [0.2] 
whereby they they explore the whole area of [0.2] of their of their conscious 
you know [0.2] er to be or not to be [0.5] er it's that kind of thing you know 
[0.2] er [0.2] you know [0.2] but i think Artaud said that this was kind of 
unnecessary in the theatre [0.2] er [0.2] we don't want this kind of [0.2] sort 
of er thought and this kind of complexity [0.2] let's just get back down to 
actions again [0.9] let's let's [0.2] let's [0.2] let's judge characters not so 
much in terms of what they think [0.7] as what they do [1.0] in fact i think 
that's that's a very very big distinction there [2.3] something [0.2] something 
of this kind [0.2] o-, occurs in [0.2] what we might call the Theatre of of the 
Absurd [1.3] er to which er often Ionesco [0.4] has been attributed [0.6] 
although i don't particularly think that the [0.3] that the [0.2] the term 
Theatre of the Absurd is always a very helpful one [0.2] er [0.2] Theatre of 
the Absurd [0.2] 
being er [0.2] a recognition [0.3] that er life has lost all its meaning [1.3] 
er [1.9] i i i think i experienced this feeling very well when i was [0.2] when 
i was writing up my PhD thesis [0.9] er i felt that sort of life [0.2] life 
life had lost all its meaning but [0.2] er and er [0.2] sometimes when we're 
writing assignments we think you know er what's the point of all this er so 
what you do is to get the whisky bottle out and have another drink don't you [0.
8] [laughter] okay [0.2] er [0.6] well except i don't like whisky so i [0.2] i 
i tend to sort of i have other things but [0.2] i think er [0.2] er [laughter] 
but i think i think the er [0.3] i i i think the thing i think the Theatre of 
the Absurd is well how can we how can we go on from this point and life seems 
to be so ridiculous doesn't it [0.4] and er so theatre for the th-, for the for 
the absurdist [0.2] f-, for the absurdist writers like Ionesco [0.2] theatre er 
[0.2] is a kind of [0.2] antitheatre [1.7] characters behave in totally 
ridiculous ways [0.3] er [0.2] at 
the beginning of La Cantatrice Chauve [0.8] er [0.4] er [0.2] which i think is 
translated [0.2] er as The Bald Primadonna [0.7] some of you may know of by by 
Ionesco at the beginning of that play [0.2] you have er for example er [0.2] 
two characters Mr and Mrs Smith [0.8] who are sort of discussing things [0.2] 
and [0.2] one of them says right you know it's kind of [0.4] gives the time i-, 
s-, it says like it's ten o'clock in the morning [0.5] and of course i mean 
what's the point of saying it because the clock's sort of standing there right 
in front of you [0.2] it's the kind of absurd exchange [0.2] and Ionesco took 
the the dialogue for La Cantatrice Chauve [0.2] er from an English textbook [0.
7] when he was learning English [0.5] he's saying well you know this is a 
totally sort of absurd textbook [0.5] how could anybody learn English from this 
i know i'll write a play about it [0.7] which is act-, whi-, whi-, [0.2] which 
er was w-, was a complete flop actually when it first came out [0.3] but [0.2] 
eventually er became much more popular Les Chaises [0.2] The Chairs is another 
one [0.2] where chairs are sort 
of progressively sort of moving towards the end of the stage [0.4] until the 
characters fall off the stage [0.6] wonderful [0.4] but but these are not 
really [0.7] of course this is this really what happens it might be it might be 
what happens in some lectures i'm slightly out of touch with er [0.2] with sort 
of university er lectures at the moment so [0.2] er this may well be what 
happens [0.2] you know people fall off chairs and all sorts of things but [0.2] 
er i think basically er [0.2] er this is pretty absurd stuff isn't it really [1.
4] er [2.0] another example [0.2] of Samuel Beckett in a play [0.2] er Samuel 
Beckett in a play called er La Dernière Bande which is translated fetchingly 
as Krapp's Last Tape [0.8] er [0.4] so er La Dernière Bande [0.2] er where the 
character er basically is suffering from er constipation because he's eaten too 
many bananas [0.8] [laughter] er [0.4] so er what's this got to do with real 
life well it's it's just a a kind of escape isn't it it's the characters [0.8] 
i mean they're they're we might not 
recognize very much of ourselves in characters on the other hand [0.3] we what 
we do what we do feel is that [0.2] the charac-, [0.2] er the characters do [0.
4] communicate in some way [0.4] and language [0.6] is not the way perhaps that 
we would use language [0.4] but on the other hand [0.2] it reveals something 
about our sort of inner selves doesn't it [1.1] i would say perhaps just as a 
kind of er [0.2] as as a kind of final thing on character [0.4] er [0.4] we 
have to look also at the actor [0.6] or the actress [0.2] that lies behind the 
mask [2.5] because the actor [0.4] is not particularly subservient to the 
character now [0.7] in other words er [0.3] i mean er [0.4] one of the one of 
the big preoccupations of actors in the past has been to say well [0.2] er [0.
2] am i actually playing this part faithfully to the original [0.2] i-, is i-, 
is my is my portrayal of Shylock or Portia in The Merchant of Venice [0.2] is 
that how Shakespeare would have wanted me to er [0.2] to portray it [0.2] but 
the answer is well [0.2] does it really matter [0.7] i mean does it matter if 
er [0.2] you know how we actually perform a a role [0.4] lies er [0.2] very 
faithfully er against the original i mean we can do it in different ways er 
somebody who actually er [0.3] wrote a lot on er [0.3] on on on actors and [0.
2] the theories of acting [0.2] was somebody called Jean-Louis Barrault [2.7] 
Jean-Louis Barrault [9.4] and Jean Jean-Louis Barrault did all sorts of 
interesting things i mean he s-, he suggested for example that actors [0.6] and 
actresses [0.3] should er cultivate the art of [0.2] double breathing [0.9] so 
in other words er [0.3] er [0.2] the characters have to breathe twice [1.3] er 
[0.4] once for er [0.6] once for themselves and once for the character [2.3] 
that's a really strange kind of concept to grasp isn't it [0.2] the idea of 
double breathing [0.3] i mean in the smog of sort of central Birmingham [0.2] i 
find it i find it difficult to breathe once never mind twice really [0.4] but i 
think you know [0.2] er this kind of whole concept of sort of breathing is i-, 
is pretty [0.4] pretty [0.4] pretty central to what Barrault is doing er [0.5] 
so [0.8] language is a kind of bodily movement [1.0] w-, er so characters 
have to use their bodies in certain ways and use their gestures [0.8] er [0.7] 
Barrault spoke of an alchemy [1.4] so alchemy extracting gold from [0.3] from 
solid material [0.2] so [0.2] er [0.3] Barrault spoke about an alchemy of the 
theatre [1.0] er in which the actor or the actress was was in central position 
[2.9] Artaud er [0.2] used to er [0.4] exploit his his actors in [0.3] quite 
strange ways i mean he used to make them scream at the top of their voices [0.
9] and they used to sort of practise sort of shouting [1.0] er [0.2] and er [0.
2] it all sounded rather sort of strange and and and problematic really [0.2] 
er but noises screams and shouts strange sort of er things er these are are 
obviously very central to to the kind of thing that Barrault is is coming out 
with [1.4] i'd like to conclude now [5.0] by hoping that er [0.2] as a result 
of the things that i've spoken about this morning [0.2] the the very er 
unilinear [0.3] er structure which i presented with you with at the beginning 
of the lecture [0.2] namely author text characters [0.2] language and audience 
er [0.2] i hope you can see that er this is er an ideal [0.3] but 
rather inaccurate picture [0.2] of what actually goes on in in twentieth 
century drama [0.4] Antonin Artaud [0.2] was a [0.3] w-, was a watershed in 
this development [0.7] he's totally disregarded by some critics [0.2] i think 
in a book called Modern French Drama by somebody called David Bradby [0.5] who 
i have recommended in your er [0.2] in your your documentation packs [0.2] i 
think Artaud gets [0.3] maybe a couple of pages mention [0.5] in a whole book 
about French drama [0.8] i think that's perhaps er underestimating [0.2] 
Artaud's importance [0.2] i think Artaud's Théâtre et son Double is central 
[0.3] to the rev-, to the reversal [0.4] of this particular paradigm which 
we're actually actually looking at [0.4] and i think it does sort of repay 
quite c-, quite careful attention [4.3] but some people considered that Artaud 
was rather mad [0.2] and this particular picture will demonstrate his rather [0.
2] er strange appearance certainly [6.0] so er Artaud near the end of his life 
[0.3] Paris nineteen-forty-eight [0.3] er a rather sort of 
peculiar [0.2] twisted sort of gnarled character [0.4] he at this by this stage 
he'd had many electroshock treatments [0.5] er [0.2] because of his sort of in-,
his supposed insanity [0.4] er [0.4] er so he had er he had E-C-T treatment 
for a number of years and he was he was sort of sent to asylum in a place 
called Rodez [0.4] er rather unfortunately [0.3] er had he not been he might 
have come up with some more interesting [0.3] things [0.3] er [3.7] characters 
er [0.3] these ones [2.6] the-, these characters come from er a play by Jean 
Genet called er [0.3] er Les Paravents [1.4] okay [0.3] the only reason i'm 
showing you these is to show how characters [0.4] are actually sort of made 
into almost kind of grotesque [0.2] sort of high comic figures [0.3] er [0.2] 
through [0.5] what they wear [0.3] so you can see le gendarme the policeman [0.
7] okay er sort of you know puffed out in all his sort of regalia [0.2] er and 
er basically i mean it's all er it's all very 
sort of high high drama sort of totally contrived really [4.5] and the the the 
last one that i'd like to show you is is basically this one it's er [0.2] it's 
a picture from er [0.7] a play by er Paul Claudel called Le Soulier de Satin [0.
5] er Paul Claudel worked in quite close col-, er collaboration with Jean-Louis 
Barrault [0.4] so it actually shows you you know the the dynamism [0.5] which 
er [0.2] er actresses are er [0.2] er sort of captured sort of through through 
Barrault's training so again high drama [0.2] er [0.2] and er [0.2] r-, revises 
to an extent the kind of expectations that we have [1.6] i'm looking forward to 
speaking to you next week er [0.3] at which time i shall f-, i shall focus [0.
2] probably more more particularly on Beckett and Sartre [0.2] i have tried to 
pack quite a lot into that lecture [0.4] i hope you don't mind [0.2] er [0.2] 
and er [1.2] possibly next week i'll leave a little bit more time for questions 
so we can deal with anything that might have come up in these [0.2] in these 
lectures [0.2] thank you very much for your attention