So, it was... well...
disappointing twice. The play, and Acquart (but less, 'cause she was really there
).The play I won't bash too harshly, because I found its choices of "mise en scène" interesting, and the story too. However, for a late play (10 pm the beginning), it is overlong and booooring. Especially towards the end, when I couldn't concentrate anymore on the meta-philosophical-whatever dialogues, and just wanted to close my eyes, because I didn't really care for what was happening (not much, as always in theatre, there is tons of pointless dialogue that leads nowhere
it is a personal opinion, I don't like theatre very much). Fact is, this play is demanding, especially for a viewer like me, who doesn't go to see plays unless I am forced to (which doesn't happen): the dialogue is thick and "profound" and demands to think about it, there are many plot elements in the play, it is complex (and complicated), and on the top of all, it uses a minimalistic "mise en scène". There were two wooden abstract decorations, painted bright yellow, at the left and the right of the scene, and a wall in the far side of the scene, and in it there were turning panels to let enter the actors. That's all, no interruptions for change of decorations, only lights were showing the evolution of the action.The play consisted of 4 actors only, who played several characters. The main actor (Thierry Raynaud - Andreas) is on the scene almost all the time, and the play is organised of encounters of him with different characters; he progressively realises why his life seems cursed. However I found him not always convincing in the role (I understand that it is difficult to play evenly 1h30 on the set). Nathalie Richard plays a woman he encounters and the mother of this woman, and she was excellent I think. It seems that she is a renown actress, but as I don't follow theatre actuality at all, I can't be sure and have an informed opinion. Pierre Baux was the best actor for me, very convincing; I liked that at one point he smokes on the set (well, more precisely he lightens a cigarette - twice). I don't enter into detail of the plot, pardon me, but I didn't understand all of it, it was heavy and the changing of roles for the actors was sometimes confusing. I don't say that I was out of the intrigue but I felt not much concerned. And the climax of the play was not really a climax, the main actor just shuts up and sits, wandering, or petrified, and Nathalie and Pierre tell the plot. But the performances were overall pretty good and surely conformed to the directions of Jonathon Châtel.
About, the organisation of the space: it was well orchestrated, very square, but I found it "polarised". I mean, the decorations were the center of the action, and they were on the opposite sides. To see what was going on was not always welcoming, especially for the people who were sitting on the sides (like me, but I chose the right one, and was right
to see what I came for), because the action was on the sides more than in the center. But for the most part, I've seen well all that was to be seen.Ow, I went lengthy, I'm sorry
Anyway, about Acquart. She plays two supporting roles, one of the daughter of an old friend of the main character, who (the girl) doesn't like him (the main character); and the other, of a nun in a charity hospital (or something like it). Her first role is thin, she says almost nothing and sits silent for the most of the important dialogue, staring and waiting her exit. I thought at first she would be the villain of the play but it didn't unfold like a standard tale (more like a metaphysic-philosophical-whatever reflexive play for the bourgeoisie of Avignon and tourists, who like "artistic" creations just because). She just disappeared for an hour
The second role was more developped and interesting. This nun helped the lost Stranger (that's the main character) and when he is finally saner than before, she gives him one of the keys to the plot (she reads a passage from Exodus, about curses). She was here longer, and on my side of the set, so I could see her profile more clearly. She was barefoot too, so that's a definitive plus
Her performance was more or less bland, not that I disliked it, but I was hoping to see 1. more of her, 2. feel like an emotional connection, because she was the one that I came for (and apparently the only one, or maybe one of the rare). I know that she played according to the directions given to her, but it lacked emotional impact, she was just there (and this applies for the rest of the play, because it is a more cerebral one than an emotional sparkful one).
This is sorrowful (well, maybe not at this point...), because at the very beginning, the actors were trying to hide their laughs and become more serious to fit with the tone (they achieved that). And these repressed laughs, I know, indicated the ambiance behind the scene, where I really wanted to be, at least as a passive spectator. The emotions, the truths of the actors were left hidden and I regret that. If I can appreciate theatre, it is more as a living representation, not figures and porte-parole of the director's "deep" thoughts. What I wanted to see of Acquart for example, is her as a human being, not as an expressionless actor (yes, it is the opposite of what I should expect), and I felt deprived of that. That's why I talk about her barefoot, because of one movement of her toes that I spotted, and that I remember vividly, and I know this was her as a human being. But it's not much.
At the end people applauded too long, I think, and the actors exited and reentered on the scene several times to bow (apparently a tradition). But then they left and I couldn't stay to see if they were going out to talk with people, because the person that accompanied me wanted to sleep badly (and the pace of the play helped that), and frankly I too, so we left. Therefore, no photos, sorry
The night after I dreamt that I met Pauline, and it was a hundred times better than the play (no innuendos
). Unfortunately, when I woke up, I didn't write down this dream, as I casually do (I find it interesting), so I don't really remember what was going on. It was very peaceful and quiet, I recall. A resting, feel-good dream.Anyway, that's the story.
Now, on the news side (I will be short).
The encounter with the crew of Andreas was today and I found a video of it. It is here: http://www.theatre-video.net/video/Dial ... -d-Avignon
It is VERY disappointing. Not only the actors are absent, because it is a resting day for them, but Châtel says not one word about any of them. He talks only about the story, the author, the themes and so on. The video is boring. The play didn't left me with a desire to learn more.
The reviews that I found are silent about the detail of performances. Not one talks even mentions Acquart. However I couldn't read the Figaro's review (if someone can, please copypaste here or send me by PM, I'll see if it is relevant to the subject of the thread). It is here (and asks subscription): http://www.lefigaro.fr/theatre/2015/07/ ... impose.php
The conclusion is: Pauline Acquart is a champion of discretion. And at the festival nobody cares for a supporting role.
