"简单地坐在椅子上":对玛格丽特-杜拉斯的《天使的面孔》和《塞纳-瓦兹的高架桥》中的表现手法和戏剧传统的质疑

IF 0.1 3区 艺术学 0 THEATER COMPARATIVE DRAMA Pub Date : 2024-09-06 DOI:10.1353/cdr.2024.a936318
Shelley Orr
{"title":"\"简单地坐在椅子上\":对玛格丽特-杜拉斯的《天使的面孔》和《塞纳-瓦兹的高架桥》中的表现手法和戏剧传统的质疑","authors":"Shelley Orr","doi":"10.1353/cdr.2024.a936318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\n<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> ”Simply Sitting in a Chair”: Questioning Representational Practice and Dramatic Convention in Marguerite Duras’s <em>L’Amante anglaise</em> and <em>The Viaducts of Seine-et-Oise</em> <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Shelley Orr (bio) </li> </ul> <blockquote> <p>One doesn’t know in life when things are there. They escape you . . . You want to know what it would take for it to be so. For me to be on stage saying nothing, <em>to let myself see</em>, without especially thinking about something. That’s right.</p> Marguerite Duras, <em>La Vie matérielle</em>, translated by Carol Barko (1987) </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>It is difficult to create a believable, sympathetic character while simply sitting in a chair answering questions for an hour, but Ms. Zabriskie pulls it off. As the actress stares off into space, wrings her hands in her lap, or clutches the hem of her skirt, <em>we see</em> the bleakness of Claire’s life as clearly as if she had been a neighbor.</p> Wilborn Hampton, review of Duras’s <em>English Mint/L’Amante Anglaise</em> (1988) </blockquote> <p><strong>F</strong>or both French novelist Marguerite Duras and American theatre critic Wilborn Hampton, the theatre is a place to see, an understanding in line with the Greek <em>théatron</em> (the seeing place, “a place for ‘looking at’ something”), from which the theatre takes its name. <sup>1</sup> However, what one sees in the theatre and how one sees it are quite different for writer and critic. Hampton expects to see characters and dramatic action in accordance with the conventions of mimetic realism and, in the case of the production of Duras’s 1968 work <em>L’Amante Anglaise</em> that he reviewed, <strong>[End Page 312]</strong> in accordance with the more specific conventions of the crime drama or <em>drame policier</em>. In her play, however, Duras questions the former and only appears to adhere to the latter as she challenges what is among the oldest of theatrical forms: the murder mystery. Ever since Sophocles’ <em>Oedipus Rex</em> laid a foundation for the genre (thanks in part to framing provided by Aristotle’s <em>Poetics</em>), with its cause-and-effect, linear plotline, in which each clue builds the emotional intensity until the climax reveals all, the murder mystery has been a favorite of playwrights and novelists. In her <em>L’Amante anglaise</em>, however, Duras mimics the form to question and undermine theatrical realism’s ability to engage in a project of uncovering the truth.</p> <p>We can get a sense of Duras’s project of mimicry, subversion, and critique in <em>L’Amante Anglaise</em>—as well as Hampton’s inability or unwillingness to understand it—in Hampton’s review of Stages Trilingual Theater’s English-language production of the play, which was performed in 1988 at New York’s Cherry Lane Theater under the title <em>English Mint/L’Amante anglaise</em>. At the start of the performance, the audience members hear the report of a murder in recorded voice-over, a clear convention of the crime drama. Nearly the entire dialogue of the play consists of the questioning of the main suspect, Claire, and her husband, Pierre, by a character aptly and simply called “the Interrogator.” In his review, Hampton notes that Grace Zabriskie, who played Claire, faced difficulty in her effort “to create a believable, sympathetic character.” <sup>2</sup> For Hampton, this difficulty has largely to do with the (playwright’s) restriction placed on her that she sit in a chair during her interrogation. He goes on to describe the ways in which the actor worked to overcome this limitation of static staging, pointing to the gestures that gave him the mimetic illusion of knowing “Claire.” Yet Hampton is clearly disappointed that the overall experience of <em>L’Amante anglaise</em> does not sustain the kind of illusion that is common to the crime drama of revealing the truth. Although he acknowledges late in his review that “Ms. Duras has always eschewed such things as plot and narrative in her work,” he regards this as an error or a demonstration of poor judgment. He does not consider the goals or effects of not employing “such things,” nor does he address the idea that <em>L’Amante anglaise</em> might be deliberately mimicking and then subverting the expectations associated with particular theatrical conventions to critique them. He spends his review describing the little information that <strong> [End Page...</strong></p> </p>","PeriodicalId":39600,"journal":{"name":"COMPARATIVE DRAMA","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"Simply Sitting in a Chair\\\": Questioning Representational Practice and Dramatic Convention in Marguerite Duras's L'Amante anglaise and The Viaducts of Seine-et-Oise\",\"authors\":\"Shelley Orr\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/cdr.2024.a936318\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\\n<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> ”Simply Sitting in a Chair”: Questioning Representational Practice and Dramatic Convention in Marguerite Duras’s <em>L’Amante anglaise</em> and <em>The Viaducts of Seine-et-Oise</em> <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Shelley Orr (bio) </li> </ul> <blockquote> <p>One doesn’t know in life when things are there. They escape you . . . You want to know what it would take for it to be so. For me to be on stage saying nothing, <em>to let myself see</em>, without especially thinking about something. That’s right.</p> Marguerite Duras, <em>La Vie matérielle</em>, translated by Carol Barko (1987) </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>It is difficult to create a believable, sympathetic character while simply sitting in a chair answering questions for an hour, but Ms. Zabriskie pulls it off. As the actress stares off into space, wrings her hands in her lap, or clutches the hem of her skirt, <em>we see</em> the bleakness of Claire’s life as clearly as if she had been a neighbor.</p> Wilborn Hampton, review of Duras’s <em>English Mint/L’Amante Anglaise</em> (1988) </blockquote> <p><strong>F</strong>or both French novelist Marguerite Duras and American theatre critic Wilborn Hampton, the theatre is a place to see, an understanding in line with the Greek <em>théatron</em> (the seeing place, “a place for ‘looking at’ something”), from which the theatre takes its name. <sup>1</sup> However, what one sees in the theatre and how one sees it are quite different for writer and critic. Hampton expects to see characters and dramatic action in accordance with the conventions of mimetic realism and, in the case of the production of Duras’s 1968 work <em>L’Amante Anglaise</em> that he reviewed, <strong>[End Page 312]</strong> in accordance with the more specific conventions of the crime drama or <em>drame policier</em>. In her play, however, Duras questions the former and only appears to adhere to the latter as she challenges what is among the oldest of theatrical forms: the murder mystery. Ever since Sophocles’ <em>Oedipus Rex</em> laid a foundation for the genre (thanks in part to framing provided by Aristotle’s <em>Poetics</em>), with its cause-and-effect, linear plotline, in which each clue builds the emotional intensity until the climax reveals all, the murder mystery has been a favorite of playwrights and novelists. In her <em>L’Amante anglaise</em>, however, Duras mimics the form to question and undermine theatrical realism’s ability to engage in a project of uncovering the truth.</p> <p>We can get a sense of Duras’s project of mimicry, subversion, and critique in <em>L’Amante Anglaise</em>—as well as Hampton’s inability or unwillingness to understand it—in Hampton’s review of Stages Trilingual Theater’s English-language production of the play, which was performed in 1988 at New York’s Cherry Lane Theater under the title <em>English Mint/L’Amante anglaise</em>. At the start of the performance, the audience members hear the report of a murder in recorded voice-over, a clear convention of the crime drama. Nearly the entire dialogue of the play consists of the questioning of the main suspect, Claire, and her husband, Pierre, by a character aptly and simply called “the Interrogator.” In his review, Hampton notes that Grace Zabriskie, who played Claire, faced difficulty in her effort “to create a believable, sympathetic character.” <sup>2</sup> For Hampton, this difficulty has largely to do with the (playwright’s) restriction placed on her that she sit in a chair during her interrogation. He goes on to describe the ways in which the actor worked to overcome this limitation of static staging, pointing to the gestures that gave him the mimetic illusion of knowing “Claire.” Yet Hampton is clearly disappointed that the overall experience of <em>L’Amante anglaise</em> does not sustain the kind of illusion that is common to the crime drama of revealing the truth. Although he acknowledges late in his review that “Ms. Duras has always eschewed such things as plot and narrative in her work,” he regards this as an error or a demonstration of poor judgment. He does not consider the goals or effects of not employing “such things,” nor does he address the idea that <em>L’Amante anglaise</em> might be deliberately mimicking and then subverting the expectations associated with particular theatrical conventions to critique them. He spends his review describing the little information that <strong> [End Page...</strong></p> </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39600,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"COMPARATIVE DRAMA\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"COMPARATIVE DRAMA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/cdr.2024.a936318\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"THEATER\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"COMPARATIVE DRAMA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cdr.2024.a936318","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"THEATER","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要: "简单地坐在椅子上":对玛格丽特-杜拉斯的《天使的面孔》和《塞纳-瓦兹的高架桥》中的表现手法和戏剧传统的质疑 Shelley Orr(简历 在生活中,人们不知道事物何时存在。它们逃脱了你的视线........ .你想知道要怎样才能做到这一点。让我在舞台上什么也不说,让我自己去看,而不用特别去想什么。没错玛格丽特-杜拉斯(Marguerite Duras),《母爱》(La Vie matérielle),卡罗尔-巴尔科(Carol Barko)译(1987 年) 仅仅坐在椅子上回答一个小时的问题,很难塑造出一个真实可信、富有同情心的角色,但扎布里斯基女士做到了。当这位女演员凝视着远方、在膝上搓着手或紧紧抓住裙摆时,我们看到了克莱尔生活的凄凉,就像她是一位邻居一样清晰。对于法国小说家玛格丽特-杜拉斯和美国戏剧评论家威尔伯恩-汉普顿来说,剧院是一个看的地方,这与希腊语中的théatron("看的地方","'看'东西的地方")一脉相承。1 然而,对于作家和评论家而言,在剧院看到什么和如何看到是完全不同的。汉普顿希望按照模仿现实主义的惯例看到人物和戏剧动作,而在他评论的杜拉斯 1968 年的作品《L'Amante Anglaise》中,[页尾 312]则是按照犯罪剧或警察剧更具体的惯例看到人物和戏剧动作。然而,杜拉斯在剧中对前者提出了质疑,只是在挑战最古老的戏剧形式--谋杀悬疑剧--时,似乎坚持了后者。自从索福克勒斯的《俄狄浦斯王》(Oedipus Rex)奠定了这一体裁的基础(部分归功于亚里士多德《诗学》的框架)以来,谋杀悬疑剧就一直是剧作家和小说家的最爱。然而,杜拉斯在她的《L'Amante anglaise》中模仿了这种形式,质疑并削弱了戏剧现实主义参与揭露真相计划的能力。我们可以从汉普顿对 Stages Trilingual Theater 的该剧英文版(1988 年在纽约樱桃巷剧院上演,剧名为 English Mint/L'Amante anglaise)的评论中了解到杜拉斯在《天使的面孔》中的模仿、颠覆和批判计划,以及汉普顿无法或不愿理解这一计划的原因。演出一开始,观众就听到了画外音中关于一起谋杀案的报道,这显然是罪案剧的惯例。剧中几乎所有的对白都是由一个被简单恰当地称为 "审讯者 "的角色对主要嫌疑人克莱尔和她的丈夫皮埃尔进行的审问。汉普顿在评论中指出,饰演克莱尔的格蕾丝-扎布里斯基(Grace Zabriskie)在努力 "塑造一个可信的、富有同情心的角色 "时遇到了困难。2 在汉普顿看来,这种困难主要与(剧作家)对她的限制有关,即她在接受审问时必须坐在椅子上。他接着描述了演员克服静态舞台限制的方法,指出演员的手势让他产生了了解 "克莱尔 "的拟态错觉。然而,汉普顿显然感到失望的是,《L'Amante anglaise》的整体体验并没有维持犯罪剧中常见的那种揭示真相的幻觉。虽然他在书评的末尾承认 "杜拉斯女士在她的作品中一直摒弃情节和叙事等东西",但他认为这是一种错误或判断力差的表现。他没有考虑不采用 "这些东西 "的目的或效果,也没有谈到《天使的微笑》可能是故意模仿然后颠覆与特定戏剧惯例相关的期望,从而对其进行批判的观点。他在评论中描述的信息很少, [尾页...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"Simply Sitting in a Chair": Questioning Representational Practice and Dramatic Convention in Marguerite Duras's L'Amante anglaise and The Viaducts of Seine-et-Oise
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • ”Simply Sitting in a Chair”: Questioning Representational Practice and Dramatic Convention in Marguerite Duras’s L’Amante anglaise and The Viaducts of Seine-et-Oise
  • Shelley Orr (bio)

One doesn’t know in life when things are there. They escape you . . . You want to know what it would take for it to be so. For me to be on stage saying nothing, to let myself see, without especially thinking about something. That’s right.

Marguerite Duras, La Vie matérielle, translated by Carol Barko (1987)

It is difficult to create a believable, sympathetic character while simply sitting in a chair answering questions for an hour, but Ms. Zabriskie pulls it off. As the actress stares off into space, wrings her hands in her lap, or clutches the hem of her skirt, we see the bleakness of Claire’s life as clearly as if she had been a neighbor.

Wilborn Hampton, review of Duras’s English Mint/L’Amante Anglaise (1988)

For both French novelist Marguerite Duras and American theatre critic Wilborn Hampton, the theatre is a place to see, an understanding in line with the Greek théatron (the seeing place, “a place for ‘looking at’ something”), from which the theatre takes its name. 1 However, what one sees in the theatre and how one sees it are quite different for writer and critic. Hampton expects to see characters and dramatic action in accordance with the conventions of mimetic realism and, in the case of the production of Duras’s 1968 work L’Amante Anglaise that he reviewed, [End Page 312] in accordance with the more specific conventions of the crime drama or drame policier. In her play, however, Duras questions the former and only appears to adhere to the latter as she challenges what is among the oldest of theatrical forms: the murder mystery. Ever since Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex laid a foundation for the genre (thanks in part to framing provided by Aristotle’s Poetics), with its cause-and-effect, linear plotline, in which each clue builds the emotional intensity until the climax reveals all, the murder mystery has been a favorite of playwrights and novelists. In her L’Amante anglaise, however, Duras mimics the form to question and undermine theatrical realism’s ability to engage in a project of uncovering the truth.

We can get a sense of Duras’s project of mimicry, subversion, and critique in L’Amante Anglaise—as well as Hampton’s inability or unwillingness to understand it—in Hampton’s review of Stages Trilingual Theater’s English-language production of the play, which was performed in 1988 at New York’s Cherry Lane Theater under the title English Mint/L’Amante anglaise. At the start of the performance, the audience members hear the report of a murder in recorded voice-over, a clear convention of the crime drama. Nearly the entire dialogue of the play consists of the questioning of the main suspect, Claire, and her husband, Pierre, by a character aptly and simply called “the Interrogator.” In his review, Hampton notes that Grace Zabriskie, who played Claire, faced difficulty in her effort “to create a believable, sympathetic character.” 2 For Hampton, this difficulty has largely to do with the (playwright’s) restriction placed on her that she sit in a chair during her interrogation. He goes on to describe the ways in which the actor worked to overcome this limitation of static staging, pointing to the gestures that gave him the mimetic illusion of knowing “Claire.” Yet Hampton is clearly disappointed that the overall experience of L’Amante anglaise does not sustain the kind of illusion that is common to the crime drama of revealing the truth. Although he acknowledges late in his review that “Ms. Duras has always eschewed such things as plot and narrative in her work,” he regards this as an error or a demonstration of poor judgment. He does not consider the goals or effects of not employing “such things,” nor does he address the idea that L’Amante anglaise might be deliberately mimicking and then subverting the expectations associated with particular theatrical conventions to critique them. He spends his review describing the little information that [End Page...

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
COMPARATIVE DRAMA
COMPARATIVE DRAMA Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Comparative Drama (ISSN 0010-4078) is a scholarly journal devoted to studies international in spirit and interdisciplinary in scope; it is published quarterly (Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter) at Western Michigan University
期刊最新文献
In Memoriam: Clifford O. Davidson: 1932–2024 "Simply Sitting in a Chair": Questioning Representational Practice and Dramatic Convention in Marguerite Duras's L'Amante anglaise and The Viaducts of Seine-et-Oise Rewriting Idolatry: Doctor Faustus and Romeo and Juliet Measuring Protagonism in Early Modern European Theatre: A Distant Reading of the Character of Sophonisba Theater, War, and Revolution in Eighteenth-Century France and Its Empire by Logan J. Connors (review)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1