Giorgio Strehler Essay Example For Students

Giorgio Strehler Essay The most acclaimed events in the marathon 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Arts Festival were productions by Ariane Mnouchkines Theatre du Soleil and Giorgio Strehlers Piccolo Teatro di Milano. Their L.A. performances of Shakespeare and Goldoni were theatrical blockbusters. One was thrilled and envious to experience stage virtuosity that has no counterpart in our own country. For once, legendary reputations and advance hype from abroad were justified. Now, as part of Cambridge University Presss Directors in Perspective series, the first English-language on Mnouchkine and Strehler have appeared. These slim volumes contain well-researched histories, reference materials and excellent chronologies, but the overall effect is passive and often pretentious when it comes to the productions themselves. Both authors indulge in dry academic prose that cannot convey the compelling excitement of their subjects best work. As with some other books in this ambitious Cambridge survey of 20th-century theatre, these essays often have the monotonous second-hand feel of lengthy encyclopedia entries. Strehler and Mnouchkine represent the creative extremes of large-scale European theatre. Since the mid-1960s, Mnouchkine has commanded a rigorous ensemble devoted to the extended development and performance of about 20 idiosyncratic plays and films. Strehler has created more than 200 productions since he co-founded the Piccolo Teatro in 1947. She recasts Asian-inspired forms of acting into explosive theatrical emotion. He is the unquestioned master of lyric realism, tempering the gestus of Brechtian movement with con brio Italian style. Mnouchkine produces classic dramas as her ensembles preparation for new plays on political themes, while Strehlers career is built upon established dramatic literature. Mnouchkine works exclusively with her own company. Strehler has often staged plays at other theatres, and he has earned a reputation as one of the centurys great directors of opera. Despite their fundamental differences, these artists have shared roots. The teachings of Jouvet and Coupeau are common to both, and the legacy of commedia dellarte is basic to their physical styles. They have achieved wide influence by touring performances across Europe, but their American appearances have been limited to two brief visits by each company the Piccolo Teatro in 1960 and 1984; the Theatre du Soleil in 1984 and 1992. (Strehlers work in opera was also seen here during the La Scala and Paris Opera Bicentennial tours in 1976.) As a result Strehler and Mnouchkine are largely unknown in America, making the creative failure of these new Cambridge volumes significant. Inspired by Reinhardt The absence of Strehler as a presence in the U.S. is our greatest loss, since he has achieved so much in the familiar form of institutional repertory theatre. Amid the social upheavals of post-war Italy, Strehler (and his co-founder, critic Paolo Grassi) established the Piccolo Teatro in 1947 as a civic theatre for Milan. This was a radical act. Until then, modern Italian theatre was centered upon commercial productions or star-based tours; the institutional approach had been reserved for opera alone. Strehler, who as an adolescent was inspired by Max Reinhardt productions and later staged Pirandello one-acts in prisoner of war camps, soon developed an international following. He became one of the few leading directors of his generation who did not move on to film, remaining with the Piccolo Teatro for all but the 1968-72 seasons. The history of the Piccolo Teatro revolves around the long-term leadership of Strehler and Grassi, but they were not the only unifying elements. Important Italian actors based their careers in this company. Tino Carraro, the regal Prospero of La Tempesta in Los Angeles and New York during the 1984 tour, was also (among other roles) Strehlers King Lear (1972), Coriolanus (1956), and Macheath in the 1956 Threepenny Opera production that Brecht considered superior to his own. (Strehler was asked to take over the Berliner Ensemble after Brechts death, but declined the offer.) Greek tragedy EssayAs with the Strehler volume, essential points are touched upon, but rarely illuminated. Kiernander explores the background of Mnouchkines artistic goals and performance style, as well as her feminist concerns. Still, her directorial technique remains vague, and there is very little about how she shaped a unified acting company out of individuals from so many different national and artistic backgrounds. The heaviness of Kiernanders prose is a poor match not only for Mnouchkines productions, but her entirely unpretentious and direct personality. (An awkward Kiernander phrase such as a theatrical alternative to phallocentric binarism conveys little about the work of this immediately communicative director.) Issues of importance are not addressed. Mnouchkine is an exceptional teacher. She often engages inexperienced actors who grow majestically under her tutelage. How was Georges Bigot perhaps Mnouchkines most famous protege trained to become an astounding repertory actor who gave performances on successive evenings (as he did in Los Angeles) of Shakespeares Richard II, Orsino and Prince Hal? The same question could be asked about Simon Abkarian, the frighteningly passive-violent Orestes in Mnouchkines Les Atrides (her production of Aeschylus Orestia, which toured to Montreal and Brooklyn last year). How did Abkarian grow during 10 years of intense work (and small roles) with Mnouchkine to emerge triumphant in this massive leading part? Paucity of information Granted, Mnouchkine is a difficult subject. She is not a theoretician and (unlike Strehler or Brook) has not published essays about her own work. She is not eager to discuss her productions, and Kiernander admits that she was typically hesitant to authorize this book. Even so, much more could have been done. Certainly, for American audiences, this publication will not sufficiently expand impressions of the companys 1992 tour of Les Atrides, which confirmed the Theatre du Soleils essential qualities, but was compromised by serious cast changes, design modifications and acoustic problems. Given the paucity of information in English about these artists, one remains grateful for the Cambridge series, which attempts to fill an important need. But to understand the work of Mnouchkine and Strehler (or Germanys Peter Stein equally original, unknown in America and also the subject of a Cambridge volume), one must travel abroad. The Piccolo Teatro di Milano toured to 11 cities last year, but once again had no American stop on its itinerary. As supplements to these new books, consider the following. The New Yorker of May 4, 1992 contains a more personal casebook on Strehler by musicologist Harvey Sachs. Double Page, a French photo journal available in art bookstores, has three issues (numbers 21, 32 and 49) devoted to Martine Francks production shots of Mnouchkine projects, including three Shakespeare plays. This is exceptionally rich theatrical photography that accurately captures the emotion and color of these shows in performance, as well as the company backstage. All three issues are worth the hunt. In the meantime, Mnouchkines latest production (a new play by Helene Cixous about the recent French scandal in which HIV-infected blood was knowingly distributed to hospitals) has just opened at the Cartoucherie.