Critiques de Coriolan
Critiques de la pièce Coriolan d'après Shakespeare mise en scène par François Orsoni, vue au théâtre Bastille le 4/10/22 avec les élèves de T-6.
- Critique de Philippine Vadim et Léon Jules
This year, between the 12th of September and the 7th of October, François Orsoni gave us every night a brilliant and bold interpretation of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus in Le Théâtre de la Bastille. Not as well-known as Othello or Macbeth, this classical play is one of Shakespeare’s last tragedies. This Roman play recounts the story of a bloodthirsty Roman general who seeks to be consul after his multiple war successes. In addition to narrating the life and exploits of this legendary figure, this play questions our relationship to democracy. Although it takes place in the forum of the 1st century B.C. Rome, it raises timeless questions about the relationship between the elites and the people. Indeed, it was in the context of a political crisis during the accession to the throne of King James I, between 1605 and 1608, that Shakespeare wrote the play.
The strength of the play lies particularly in the complete performance of the actors.
We were really impressed by Alban Guyon who interprets a torn Coriolanus, searching his own place in society.
In the role of his protective and devastated mother, Estelle Meyer touched some of us. However, others think that she tended to be a powerful and even toxic mother.
Some of us found the acting of Aufidius and Menenius too artificial while others think that their acting represents the bias and the artificiality of a demagogic speech.
The people are presented in all their vulnerability and credulity in front of the speech of the leaders. The spectators participate in this last role confronted with the speech of the actors too, with numerous intrusions and direct interactions of Coriolanus.
It is an impressive performance with very physical acting through actors singing and dancing. Indeed, we have appreciated this complete investment of the body such as the magnificent choreographed battle scenes. The very intimate relationship to the body is crucial, with characters who devote their whole being to the dynamics of power. Maybe that laying down clothes is an alternative to a demagogic revolution.
Furthermore, we have very different and mixed opinions about the set. For some of us, this simple staging which is satisfied with a photo of a decayed temple, a few scattered columns, and a plastic palm tree contrasts much too strongly with the glorious temporal framework of the play. For others, it was a courageous thumbing of the nose at expectations, moving away from the kitsch by this minimalism. And these poor decorations (with for example the backstage that exceeds the picture), were on the contrary a courageous choice to show the faded state of our democracies. Let's also underline the powerful symbolism of the placement of the actors: the patricians are on bleachers toping the plebeians who remain at the level of the spectators. Above all of them sat Volumnia, the instigator of passions with elitist ideals. The play was served by a noisemaker with a thorough precision and lighting that accentuated the power of the emotions. Moments of dance allowed the audience to rest their minds in the complex plot. It also allowed the spectator to enjoy a one-man show and to admire a musical performance linked to the story. For some, this mix of genres was too much. Is the public ready for a techno Shakespeare?
The costumes were also very unexpected if we consider the theme and time of the play. For example, Coriolanus often wears streetwear outfits which is paradoxical at first because we think that it doesn’t fit with the Roman era. But secondly, after having seen the whole play, we understand that he is only dressed as a noble politician, particularly when he gives up his desire of war and blood to be a consul because he is told to. His clothes picture his behaviors: He uses rhetoric when he is dressed as a politician and wants to fight when he’s dressed in streetwear as it goes for all the characters: a classy suit for the plebeian and an elegant red dress for the Machiavellian mother.
Some of us have seen a denunciation against a demagogic relationship between lower classes and elites. This political play shows us the throes of the conquest of power. Does the director take the side of the elitist and charismatic Coriolanus, while revealing his failings, or does he choose the side of the people, sometimes caricatured?
We can only recommend that you go and see this fearless interpretation. Although divisive, we can only admire the way the director has appropriated the crucial issues of the play and the energy of the actors. For some, this production is too much of a departure from Shakespeare's play, but in a time of deep political questioning and neglect of the ballot box, we invite you to be moved to reconsider the importance of fair democratic representation.
- Critique de Sarah M., Louis V. , Ilana H., et Flora H.
On Tuesday the fourth of October, we went to the Bastille theatre in the eleventh district of Paris to attend a play entitled Coriolanus, the last tragedy written by Shakespeare and taken over by the director François Orsoni. The main actors of the play, which lasted two hours, were Alban Guyon, who embodied Coriolanus, Estelle Meyer (his mother Volumnia), Thomas Landbo (Menenius), Pascal Tagnati (Alifidus and the Volscian’s leader), and Jean-Louis Coulloc’h (different plebeian figures).
Coriolanus is a Roman general. He made his name defeating the enemy army of the Volscians at Corioli. After these victories, he was nominated consul by the Roman army. But his disdainful speeches towards the plebeians, his contempt for the people and the idea of the popular rule led to his banishment from Rome. He left the town in rage and disgust. To seek revenge, he allied himself with his old enemies, the Volscians. Together, they planned to attack Rome…
When we entered the hall, we immediately noticed that the settings were overall minimalistic. Still, there were few elements that linked antiquity to modernity. We saw antic columns and statues, a palm tree, all enlightened by artificial light. Also, Coriolanus was written in luminous letters that made us think of a commercial. In the background, there were bleachers with modern seats which symbolized an antic roman theater, hence the link between the past and the present. Moreover, the lights created a nightclub atmosphere. It was an original choice that surprised the audience who expected more classical settings.
Concerning the costumes, we noticed once again that the stage director played with a mix of past and present: some of the clothes were casual while some accessories were more antic.
The stage director managed to create contrasts concerning the atmosphere of the different scenes. For example, the fight scene between the Volscian leader and Coriolanus with upbeat Latin music and colorful lightings was really different from the tragic, dark and quiet last scenes. That said, some of us noticed a lack of harmony in it, creating discontinuity.
The actors were very expressive and energetic, using all their bodies, but some of us found it a bit overacted since they were almost screaming at some point.
It was a really complete artistic performance thanks to the use of various forms of art such as dancing and singing in added scenes. We appreciated Volumnia’s song at the end because she had a very powerful voice that was contributing to the tragic aspect of her son’s death.
Besides, in the corner of the stage, a woman was live performing the sound effects of the play with original objects, such as some sorts of bowls to imitate the sound of a horse walking. It enabled the audience to have mental representations of imaginary elements as the horse or an armor. We thought it was bold and well done: it was impressive, unexpected and efficient because we immediately understood what it referred to.
One of the scenes that struck us the most was the one in which Coriolanus introduced a plebeian named Jean-Marie to the audience, a completely new scene that was added to Shakespeare’s text. We found this scene very comical because Coriolanus was making fun of him. We liked the fact that with this scene, there were no longer boundaries between the actors and the audience, especially because the former were physically at our level. In addition, there were interactions with the public as Coriolanus made one of the spectators touch the plebeian’s hair. Those elements made the play more dynamic, lively, as the actors didn’t hesitate to walk among the audience. One of us remains skeptical about the added scenes because according to her, it disrespected the playwright’s intentions.
The play had a political aim at Shakespeare’s time because the opposition between patricians and plebeians reflected the struggles between King James and the English Parliament during the early seventeenth century. But it still resonates today because it questions the demagoguery of our politicians and their relationship to their people, hence the link with modernity in the settings and the costumes. For example, at one moment, a naked plebeian was dancing around the patrician Menenius who was delivering a speech. This imitation of the politician could be a criticism against the possible political hypocrisy towards the people. Indeed, the speech was in part sung, and so it appeared as a show within the show.
As a conclusion, you may like it or not but it’s still worth watching for the originality of this not often staged play.
- Critique de Milo Lorenzo et Marius Abesan :
On October 4th, 2022, we and our Terminale 6 class went to see a play that lasted two hours at the Bastille Theater in Paris. The purpose of this school outing was to report on this play in English. Thus, we have seen Shakespeare's play Coriolanus which was written from 1605 to 1608. Coriolanus is a Roman general who, after proving himself on the battlefield, manages to become a consul in Rome. Unfortunately, the city faces a period of famine which makes the people unhappy and Coriolanus, being part of the Patricians, is treated with all evils and he is strongly criticized until being banished from the city. It is a dramatic play, which deals with the universal subject of the opposition between the elite and the people in a society. Shakespeare makes this play modern because at several points he reverses the class hierarchy. For example, he takes up the fable of the stomach, in which the belly, traditionally associated with the plebeians, the unmanageable crowd, is here associated with the patricians to show the important role it plays in society like the belly for the body.
Another aim of Shakespeare’s play is to represent the people and the use of power in front of the spectators. It seems that Orsoni succeeds in getting rid of these issues cleverly. We can easily notice the way Coriolanus conceptualises power. Actually, this is one of theatre’s strengths: seeing the harmony between what is happening on stage and what is being said. It occurs in the scenes in which Coriolanus was standing on three chairs, not riding his horse, but henceforth power itself. There is also the fact that he wore an Adidas tracksuit, as if wielding power was a boxing match for him. As far as the people is concerned, it is quite hard to show it on stage, as it is, by definition, an unrepresentable character.
However, Orsoni cleverly circumvents the problem by using Jean-Louis Coulloc’h who supports people's voice and Pascal Tagnati who embodies a brave tribune. Except that these two comedians, who also play other characters, only embody people’s voice when they aren’t on stage, at the level of the public who then feel fully complicit in political actions and injustices linked to the exercise of power.
Most of us think that among all these great comedians Alban Guyon, the most versatile of the company seems to stand out. He played Coriolanus, an old man, a television show presenter and even showed that he could sing well. A fussy scene would have spoilt the contrast between the place and the performance, since the acting matters the most. Despite some comfortably forgettable music pieces, they were used at the right moment and were in tune with what was happening on stage. These musical parts are at the same time, modern and sometimes their rhythmical aspect keep the spectator awake, and focus our attention on the stage. Besides, the sound effects convey the dramatic atmosphere of the play. Indeed, they are made by a woman, who uses different tools in order to mimic noises similar to what is performed, which was well done.
However, one of us thinks that the play wasn’t powerful and striking enough. It seemed, at some points, that the comedians were yelling at each other, even if some of us disagreed. As far as the actors are concerned, two of us think that the way one of the actors spoke was not catching the audience’s attention… One of us also considers that the sense of humour was not really linked to the plot and that it was only used to keep our attention. Although there were moments that left some of us indifferent. However, the way the fighting scene was played was quite interesting. The use of slow motion parts, that contrasted with the rapidity of the action, made the scene intriguing.
Nevertheless, we all agree to say that those who see only obscenity or coarseness in the brilliant attempts to modernize Shakespeare's old play are the supporters of a certain conservatism proper to the theatre, so often subjected to outdated codes and conventions. We are convinced that today, a conventional tragedy that respects the sacred time of the playwright will not allow us to perceive all the political substance of the play.
What actually happens when Coriolanus, in order to flatter the people, sets out to talk to them and transforms himself into an annoying TV presenter? What also happens when Coriolanus, as a failed consul, turns himself into a hooded old lady and imitates the well-known tune, La Kiffance, by the French rapper Naps? What happens, again, when Coriolanus grabs a microphone and starts singing, like a new Aznavour, in order to convince the people to elect him?
With all these examples, its detractors will surely stick to the comical aspect, and will judge ridiculous these choices of staging. Let's go beyond this aspect; what if these comical moments allowed us to distance ourselves from what is going on, in order to leave more room for our internal thoughts? How to make the public understand the political stakes by other means than by a song, that Coriolanus makes the people believe whatever he wants by flattering them? This choice is essential because it allows us to fully understand the political stakes highlighted by Shakespeare, thanks to the room that the director of this current play gave us in order to think deeply.
- Play review, Coriolanus by W. Shakespeare
by Ada THORETTON, Adèle POITOU, Paloma NGUYEN, Hania ZAIMEDDINE
On October the 4th 2022 a new staging, by François Orsoni, of the play Coriolanus was presented to the public in the Théâtre de la Bastille.
Coriolanus is a tragedy in five acts, written by W. Shakespeare and first performed in the early 17th century. Shakespeare was inspired by the life of Coriolanus, as told by Plutarch in The Lives of Illustrious Men. Caius Marcius, a very proud Roman general, is given the name Coriolanus because of his brilliant exploits in the war against the Volscian people and the conquest of the city of Corioles. As soon as he returns to Rome, the Senate intends to appoint him consul, but his haughty and contemptuous attitude towards the plebians makes him unpopular: will he be able to have a successful political career? Coriolanus was played by Alban Guyon, his mother Volumnia by Estelle Meyer and the patrician Menenius by Thomas Landbo. The tribunes were played by Jean-Louis Coulloc’h and Pascal Tagnati, who also incarnated Aufidius (Coriolanus’s enemy).
When you enter the room, the first thing you see is the theater set, which is not separated from the public by the traditional red curtains. It is quite simple, though maybe a bit unusual: on the stage is a grandstand, and in front of it a statue, three black chairs and an enigmatic palm tree… The three chairs (which represented a horse!) brought a fun touch to the play. But the lonely Greek-inspired statue of a half-nude lady felt out of place and even a bit cliché. The idea of putting a grandstand, which could represent the assembly of the Roman senate, is quite good, but wasn’t exploited enough; during most of the show, it remained empty and unused. However, this setting helped symbolizing the two assemblies facing each other, with in front of the stage the stands where the public (the plebeians) is sitting.
The setting was completed by sound effects made before our eyes on the side of the stage, which really helped to create a realistic atmosphere. The costumes on the other side weren’t to everyone's liking. Indeed, the story takes place during the Antiquity but the comedians wore jackets in leather or tracksuits. Maybe it was another way to actualize the play?
Alban Guyon was a convincing Coriolanus, breathing life into his character and showing his ability to adapt his acting to each particular scene. First incarnating a fearsome general, he comes back on stage transformed into the most hilarious and yet pretty realistic demagogue politician (the demagoguery was well modernized by the similarity with a TV host). But the deceiving part is that not all actors were as mesmerizing and convincing as he was. It seems as if some of the comedians themselves did not always quite understand the philosophical and political meaning of the text and thus delivered speeches monotonous or overdramatic, which looked for some of us more like a poem recitation in Junior High than a classical tragedy.
But the play didn’t only consist of reciting a pre-written script. The staging made it sometimes disruptive and uncomfortable. When you read the leaflet, you expect to see a traditional play which deals with major political problems. And yet, what everyone seems to remember is the image of a naked man dancing around on some loud music, while Menenius is delivering an important speech, with lights pounding on stage. But maybe it is the aim of it. The plebeians are deaf to what is being said: the political speech of Menenius is reduced to an obscene farce.
Theater is indeed not only a place where the public receives passively a script. The play also offers a place where important matters are discussed. It is in this case impossible to obliterate the political dimension, whether it be at the time of Shakespeare, when King James the First came to the throne, or nowadays when the People doesn't recognize itself in its political representatives and political debate seems stuck. Some patricians are portrayed as demagogues ready to infringe their values if it can help them attain power, and Coriolanus is the embodiment of a contemptuous elite looking down on the common people. But on the other side, the People is manipulated both by the patricians and its own tribunes.
As a conclusion, the staging did not reach consensus. In wanting to create a modern version of the play, the director faced two difficulties: the play was written four centuries ago and it is set in the Antiquity. How can you adapt such a remote story to 2022? But by choosing to create a new staging of Coriolanus, the director managed to show the public the impact this tragedy can still have on us today. The essence of the play still remains, and the will of François Orsoni to stay on this thin line, between a criticism of a more democratic and parliamentary regime and a consecration of the elitism at the head of the state, is perfectly respected.
- Critique de Thibault Aristao et Eva Elie :
On October the 4th , we saw Coriolanus, a play written by William Shakespeare. He probably created it between 1607 and 1608. This famous writer (1564-1616) is known as the playwright of Hamlet and Othello, both are plays that still influence the modern-day drama scene.
Speaking of them, some of his masterpieces are still performed such as Coriolanus, his last tragedy, a two-hour-long play that we have seen in the Bastille’s theatre. It was staged by François Orsoni and the main character, Coriolanus, was embodied by Alban Guyon.
The scene takes place in Ancient Rome in the years of -488 BC, and it starts with a debate which opposes three senators, a Patrician and two Plebeians. That first scene already introduces us to the arguments and conflicts that happen in the play. Victorious from the “Volscians”, Coriolanus comes back in Rome, glorious and admired by his people. While he is sure to become consul, he has been abandoned by the plebeians who have seen the contempt in which he holds them. Even though he tries his best in order to being pardoned, his hatred for his people has been seen as a betrayal. After this failure, Coriolanus finally joins his first opponent for the purpose of avenging himself against the Roman Republic. His mother tries to reason him and finally manages to make him give up his envy of vendetta, however, since he already is committed to side with the Volscians, he will be punished for his treason.
The play staged by François Orsoni has been a great experience even if it has not made the unanimity among us. Some of us like the music, that stands apart by the boldness of its modernity. Others have been really entertained by the sound designer who allowed the public to be into the storytelling. The steps’ noises of the wounded centurions, the drums of war and the crossing swords gave us a feeling of realism. All of us agree on the fascinating aesthetics of the room decoration. The use of light was simplistic but quite beautiful. For example, the battle scenes in red or the dialogue scenes bathed in some yellow and blue lights that contrast on the surfaces of statues that were representing mythic figures such as goddesses, reminding us of the age-old atmosphere of the play.
Moreover, we appreciated the staging, especially the idea of hierarchy symbolized by the heights where the different characters have been placed., the warrior Coriolanus and his mother were actually on the bleachers at the top of the stage. The patrician senator was on the main stage and finally, the plebeians remain under this place, almost in the public. Therefore, the audience seems to take part in the play, embodying the Roman People. This staging also made sense when Coriolanus came down from the stage in order to influence the vote of the plebeians.
Forlornly, there start the issues. First, the liberty the comedians have taken introducing childish humour was great to a certain extent as it made a break with the tragic history the play talked about. Furthermore, the costumes also showed a modern and comic aspect that contrasted too much with the mood of the replies. A plethora of these replies seemed to have been added to the original text of Shakespeare and we thought it became more important that it normally should. We think the actors did a great job, unfortunately the tone, even if it was powerful, still remained the same throughout the whole play. That clearly made us lose attention as things progressed.
Finally, we enjoyed the idea of the three chairs that represented Coriolanus’s horse. His talent made it seem real, but it did not have such a useful interest in the story telling. Same for the song his mother sang, it was wonderful, but it did not have such an interest. Last thing, the nudity in the play was not essential. It effectively described a moment of jubilation, however, the nudity, no matter the ages, had a powerful meaning thus it was not expected here.
As a conclusion, we can say that we enjoyed the staging and the global interpretation of the play due to its modernity and great aesthetics. However, too many replies and scenes seemed random and did not share the same mood the play tried to establish. Thus, we recommend to see other plays staged by François Orsoni and played by Alban Guyon, but not especially this one.
- Critique de Louis, Maena, Emile et Marina :
Coriolanus : To see or not to see ? That is the question.
Last Tuesday, we went to the Bastille theatre where we had the pleasure to see a play written by William Shakespeare in 1607 : Coriolanus. It was directed by François Orsoni who referred to its dramatic aspect by saying : “When the play starts, it never stops.” To what extent is this statement accurate? As professional critics, we are giving you our feedback on this show in order to help you determine whether you should or shouldn't see the play.
The play is set in the young Roman Republic, in the early 5th century during which food riots tore the city apart, the plebeians particularly resenting Caius Martius whom they held responsible for the situation. After having successfully overcome the attack of the Volks, he still needs to deal with the protest of the plebeians, as well as the resentment of his own homeland…
To start with, it was striking to discover that some comedians were already on the stage when we entered the room. We could describe the props as a clever blend between the antic Greek Acropolis and a parking lot or a fighting arena. Indeed, the blue neon lights projected on the sculptures and columns were reminiscent of the epic atmosphere you would find in an arena. Each character sat on a special level of the stage, depending on their social ladder. The patricians were on the stairs of the stage, whereas the plebeians remained on the floor. Since ancient Rome coexists with the contemporary world, we can assert that this adaptation contrasts a lot with the original play.
The costumes were also very surprising. As we were supposed to see a Shakespeare’s tragedy, we expected the comedians to wear classic clothes. However, we were astounded to see that the costumes were made from our contemporary fashion. Therefore the comedians wore either an Adidas sport set, fancy dresses and jewelry, an all-leather outfit and even bathrobes. Some were sometimes shirtless and one tribune was even naked. We noticed that the costumes were chosen according to the characters’ personalities. Volumnia, Coriolanus’s mother, had several dresses and earrings, while the patricians wore everyday-life clothes, and the plebeians some basic and neutral clothes. That was pretty original !
We all have a favorite comedian in the play, even if their acting was equally good. One of us really liked Aufidius (Pascal Tagnati). Others preferred Melenius (Thomas Landbo), and Volumnia (Estelle Meyer). For another one of us it was Coriolanus himself (Alban Guyon) because she admired his ability to switch from one role -a fearsome warrior- to another -a TV show host. The comedians were very invested in their roles and they knew how to give the text another blow. It was quite dynamic and they interacted a lot with the public.
The adaptation of the text was very ambitious : the director used a really comical tone, that was almost crude if not trivial. He made extensive use of improvisation as the imitation of a game show at a crucial moment in the plot. He resorted to this device to make the political message less austere. This pedagogical requirement shows the current echo of the text. In addition, this lightness contrasted with more intense scenes of the play, including the first fight.
At the beginning of the play, we could hear very well the original text of Shakespeare with all literary devices such as metaphors. For example : Melenius told a story about a revolt in a human body against the stomach who kept all the food. This image was very interesting because it compared the patricians to the stomach although at the time of Shakespeare, the stomach was a recurrent image to talk about the people. It then conveyed a complex message addressed to the wealthy who watched the play as it revealed the patricians’ deafness to the pain of the plebians. But at the end, the text moved away from the original and became coarser, perhaps to reduce the distance between the actors and the audience.
The staging held more surprises like the use of microphones which was quite daring and allowed the comedians more freedom. All four of us were amazed by their great dancing and singing skills. Besides, we could see the lady in charge of the sound effects which was a very original decision from the director. Nevertheless, we have mixed opinions on the play. Some of us think that it was too far from the original text and granted itself too much freedom, making it hard for the spectators to follow the plot sometimes. Two of us argued that the trivial humor was excessively used.
Ultimately, we’ve all been receptive to at least one aspect of the play and highly recommend you to see it. What we found the most interesting is the audacity of the adaptation.
Review by Clara, Laura, Alice and Sacha,
In a world that appears unrecognizable, where the democracy is questioned in each country having different ways of thinking it, Coriolanus written by Shakespeare in 1607 that we saw with our English teacher and our librarian Ms. François, has rarely seemed so relevant.
Through the image of the head controlling the stomach (The plebeians), Coriolanus is everything but considering the plebeians' needs and desires. However, we should never underestimate the stomach issues of the hungry plebe.
Coriolanus is a hero of the war, strongly motivated by his mother to become a consul. He is well-known as an anti-democratic political candidate spreading hate publicly against plebeians. This hatred led him to a violent repression against him that ended up in a forced exile from Rome. He will make a kind of deal with the Volks people’s chief while being his worst enemy. Will they together conquer Rome ?…
If you expected to watch a classical play, you would be surprised to discover a very modern atmosphere as soon as you enter the room, closer to a nightclub mood than a Plato and Aristotle philosophical debate about democracy. However, it was a nice decoration mixing antiquity statues, temples, columns, a palm-tree, chairs on the stage, and modern dresses far from the Roman togas. You would be surprised by the interesting light choices, violet and blue. The name of Coriolanus was written in enlightened letters that were highlighting the omnipresence of the character. The music choices and the sound effects were either very complex (techno music) or very simple. The dances were very modern, seemingly illustrating a sexual tension between Coriolanus and his enemy. Perhaps this tension would illustrate the profound hatred shared by both characters revealing a form of desire, hidden by violence. The Acropolis was projected on a white screen in front of the public facing it as if we were the plebeians themselves. As the staging was very simple, the audience needed somehow to motivate its imagination, with the example of Coriolanus riding a horse that was a block of chairs.
The main character of the play is Coriolanus showing a fighting, manly and strong personality. His masculinity is highlighted by his look: he is shirtless and his chest is oiled in order to put forward his angry personality and thirst for blood. He has a mullet and he is sometimes dressed like a usual guy with adidas sets which is both modern and interesting because as you remember, he’s a patrician. But this virility contrasts with another character who represents the impressionable and sensitive people. At one point he is naked, in order to show off his femininity. The mother of Coriolanus represents luxury, changing her clothes a lot through the play. She is always placed in the highest position overlooking the other characters. There is also another patrician who is classy, he is the wise one. Each actor plays only one role, except the long-haired man with a very serious voice who plays both a citizen and a warrior.
The text crosses the centuries without being affected by age. Instead, it reveals something particularly related to our time.
Is Coriolanus a hero? He embodies a model of 'Virtus Romana' but he remains haughty showing a lack of compassion. He is tyrannical and pure.
It is a political play that focuses on the difficulty of sharing power. But in this conflict between the People, and Coriolanus, attached to the privileges of his class, Shakespeare remains impartial. Is the play a lodge for the People, or for political elitism?
In spite of the comic moments, such as the reference to the French summer hit "Kiffance", the plot remains tragic. Indeed, it strongly reveals the drama that is played out between the ignited passions of an ambitious mother and her son. Coriolanus seeks to please his mother rather than respond to his own aspirations. When he enters into a full contradiction with himself, the crisis breaks out. Shakespeare underlines the progressive perversion of the main character, stung by the two tribunes and suffocated by his mother.
We found this play very audacious. In some ways, even though complex because of the written old English. The play through the modernity of the actors made this classical play very accessible. The actors have great energy -dancing, singing, gestures, diction- even if some of us have been submerged by it.
We sometimes found a weird interpretation of the play without understanding why: for instance why Coriolanus imitated a French program «Question pour un champion ».
But still, it has been an enjoyable moment, somehow surprising, somehow funny, but obviously questioning ourselves about our democracy.
NB: A very beautiful elocution without using a micro (don’t forget to bring an umbrella however, if you are too close to the stage ;) ).
Critique de Nina Cabaret, Solène Athenes, Louise Combettes et Lucile Doridot :
On Tuesday the fourth of October we went with our classmates to the théâtre de la Bastille to see an adaptation of Shakespeare’s play Coriolanus by director François Orsoni. The original play was written between 1605 and 1608 during troubled times as King James and the Parliament were in an open conflict.
Coriolanus is a victorious Roman general who has just defeated the Volscians and their leader Aufidius. Back from the war, he seeks to be consul. However Coriolanus is a patrician and his hatred toward the ungrateful plebeians leads to his fall. Banished from Rome he’s longing for revenge and unites with Aufidius and the Volscians and returns to Rome to destroy it.
One of us has not seen the play, therefore she has written what her expectations were rather than what she saw.
She expected classic interpretation and setting and that the main costumes would be historical costumes. She imagined the scenery of the battles as a shadow theater : a white sheet lit in red with the shadow of the soldiers behind.
The setting was a modern approach with classical codes. To represent Rome there were columns, a statue and benches as the beginning of the play takes place in the Roman Senate. The global aesthetics was really kitsch, there also was a picture of a temple with “L’acropol” written. Not to mention the neon “Corioland” and the palm tree.
The costumes were modern but also provocative and vulgar. For example Coriolanus had an Adidas tracksuit and sneakers. As for Aufidius, Coriolanus’ enemy, he wore kitsch armor but also modern clothes and there were even some moments when he’s only wearing his underwear. However, these costumes are also visually important to represent the characters. For example at the end of the play Volumnia wears a black dress to beg her son while she only wore colored dresses before, which symbolizes her despair.
A major point of the setting is the sound effects. Indeed, a woman made them live. That added dynamism and a comical touch. The music carried two very different vibes.
In fact, the play is constantly wavering between a comical and a tragic tone which was really a problem for us.
Coriolanus is an intense political play and it felt like the director tried and failed to keep the balance between his choice of modernizing the play and the raw force of Shakespeare’s text that we loved.
Unfortunately, we found that the actors were overacting. They were always yelling and we were disappointed.
Coriolanus is a paradoxical character as he's proud and out of control, but will bend before his mother when she begs him to give up on destroying Rome. The love he feels for her is stronger in the end than his pride, and tragically, he's then killed for betraying his new allies. His pride is excessive : it’s hubris. His taste for violence made him a hero but caused his fall. The comedian played Coriolanus only as full of rage. He didn’t quite show his complexity as a character. It was all about physical and verbal violence. Yet we found the idea of a boxing ring original. It added to the physical violence of his character. Coriolanus is more than a violent character and we wanted to see some emotion, especially when Voluminia begs him. Some moments were thrilling but it mostly lacked depth.
As for his great enemy Aufidius, he was supposed to be “a lion I am proud to hunt” as Coriolanus said but he was no lion. He's supposed to be as noble and majestic as Coriolanus, but the comedian was making faces and his metal leg made ludicrous noises. When Coriolanus comes to propose an alliance he undresses in front of Aufidius and there is then an homoerotic subtext which we didn’t find really subtle. It could have been interesting but felt clumsy in the end.
We would like to state that some of us liked the fight scenes. We were impressed by the slow motion duel between Coriolanus and Aufidius and we liked the synchronization with the sound effects.
Volumnia, Coriolanus’ mother, was an important character and the actress’s diction was excellent. However the dramatic tension came more from the mother's overhanging position in the stands than from the acting and her supposedly dramatic final song rings hollow.
Meanwhile a tragic tone is present throughout the play, some scenes which were added to the original text, are meant to be comic. They’re created from the contrast between the seriousness of Shakespeare’s play and the casualness with which these additions are played. For example, when Coriolanus is giving a speech to convince plebeians that he deserves to be elected as a consul, it starts with him mocking the crowd and interacting with the audience, and it ends up with the comedian dancing entirely naked. These sketches could have been interesting if they were less present and shorter. In fact, the political messages conveyed by the play are self-sufficient. These changes between comical and tragic tone prevented us from appreciating either and it’s a pity. No balance there.
Overall, the three of us who’ve seen the play felt that even if it has undeniable flaws it was a correct staging of Shakespeare’s masterpiece. Sadly, any reader will have to take our word for it, as the performances of this Coriolanus have stopped on October the fifth.
Commentaires