Carlson gets on The French Stage

The French Stage  chronicles an idiosyncratic period - effectively the nineteenth century - in the history of Parisian theatre. With major events on either side of the century - the revolution of 1789 and the First World War in 1914 - ignored and existing only as ghosts within Carlson's study, the context of the events he discusses is sadly limited to the immediate chronology of the period.

Beginning in 1800, Carlson deals with the theatre during Bonaparte's reign as emperor. Lacking a study of the revolution's impact on the arts, the stories of censorship and imperial interference in the programming of the state theatres are isolated, and the huge impact of Bonaparte's defeat is subsumed within broad discussion of the shift from neo-classicism towards romanticism. 

Identifying a tension between Bonaparte's taste for the neo-classical (and his banning of any plays that could be considered political pg12) and the rise of melodrama, Carlson sketches the influence of the emperor in terms of taste and legislation. He ignores the political reasons why Bonaparte might have had a predilection for the neo-classical.

The neo-classical model - new plays in the style of the Greek tragedies, with emphasis on the supposed Aristotlean rules - was the favoured mode for the kings of the ancien regime. Bonaparte was making a clear identification with the pre-revolutionary aesthetics, and establishing his lineage as a monarch. 

In the second chapter, Carlson describes the blossoming of the romantic movement on the stage in France. He carefully notes that romanticism had a currency across the arts - and a more lasting presence in other nations, such as Germany, and in other forms. Relating it to the arrival of English companies in the late 1820s - long enough after the British victory over Bonaparte for enmity to have dissolved - he recognises that the romantic fashion was competing with the more melodramatic fare of the boulevard theatres (set in opposition to the state theatres) and that a growing 'realism' in set design and script - and the interest in both historical accuracy and contemporary subject matter - led to the triumph of the 'well-made play'.

Again, Carlson's limited historical period ensures that his analysis is limited. He ascribes romanticism to the inspiration of Rosseau, and mentions Diderot only once (a revival of one play). He does not spot the influence of Diderot's writing on the growth of the dram, a style that evolves into the social dramas which come to dominate Parisian theatre after 1850, and are the subject of his third chapter.

The final chapter takes on 'realism' (which seems akin to the 'naturalism' of Ibsen et al) and symbolism. This 'realism' pays special attention to historical accuracy - and much of the critical debate at the time, Carlson explains, was around the scenography as much as the script. The clear through-line from melodrama, via romanticism into the dram and the well-made play - now emerges as 'realism', but Carlson does not draw on Diderot to clarify the ideas behind this process. 

The book is a remarkable cataloguing of information - it is almost an almanac of Paris' performance schedule through the century, and references the critical writing of the period, with an interest in how performers shaped the public reception of plays - this concludes with an almost actor-manager model by the end of the century, as Sarah Bernhardt rose to celebrity. 

It also exposes the subtle changes in the relationship between national and commercial theatre, with attention paid to individual theatres, both state supported and the commercial boulevard. 

Fragment Toward Bourgeois Theatre Number 1: Carlson on 'Minor Theatres and the End of Romanticism'

In his chapter on The Age of Romanticism, Marvin Carlson describes the architectural changes around the 'boulevard theatres'. These theatres were the poor relations of the state-supported institutions, usually populist and featuring long programmes that had a bit of everything on the bill. Connected to the carnival's informal performances, they struggled to capture the official approval that has made the national theatres the focus of critical attention.

After the revolution of 1789, Carlson observes that the surrounding area of the boulevard theatres had an atmosphere of 'the carnival', until Charles X got rid of the fair booths and 'rough paving was smoothed, wooden barriers were erected... marquees offered protection from the rain, the humble dwellings... had been replaced by elegant town houses and cafes' (pg 103). This set of improvements are recognisable in contemporary terms as gentrification, such as in the recent attempts in Glasgow to make The Merchant City a more upmarket destination.

Inside the theatres, the audience might have mixed and matched social classes, but the old 'pit' (audience members who stood on the ground floor and joined in with the performance) was increasingly replaced by the claque. While the pit tended to whistle if the actors weren't up to scratch, or laugh at bits that accidentally referenced contemporary events, the claque was employed by the theatre to big up the play. It's a bit like press nights at certain theatres in Scotland, when the critics are hemmed in by members of the cast's family.

Even in  the brief period of the Romantic blossoming in French theatre, the boulevard was putting on the dram, plays about bourgeois concerns with a level of 'realism' or 'naturalism'. Plots abour domestic life came into fashion and, when Antony Beraud became the director of one boulevard venue, the Ambigu, attention was paid to the accurate detail of the set. (pg 105).

Gautier comments: 'we bourgeois of 1840 have rather lazier

imaginations'. 

He was talking about the need for sumptuous sets, but given the move towards more familiar stories and situations, his complaint could be leveled at the bourgeois inability to empathise with themes and concerns from worlds other than their own.


Random on image (from Wikipedia): Plans of the Ambigu-Comique (left) and the Théâtre de Nicolet (Théâtre de la Gaîté (boulevard du Temple), right), on the boulevard du Temple.

The Ambigu-Comique and the Gaîté had a smaller number of boxes for privileged clientele than other Parisian theatres. These were separated by only half partitions that were more steeply angled toward the stage. 

The boxes usually found at the rear of a theatre were replaced with galleries of benches which seated more people. These arrangements provided more patrons with a better view of the stage, rather than a view of the other members of the audience.