François Mauriac

‘Je ne crois pas qu’il existe un seul romancier qui n'ait subi la tentation du théâtre’. This statement is a good starting point to understanding the development of François Mauriac’s less well-known attribute, i.e. that of the playwright. As a renowned French journalist, political commentator and, above all, novelist, his contribution to the world of theatre is often overlooked both by his contemporary and modern-day critics. In many respects his theatrical works supported Jacques Copeau’s desire to mark a new beginning in early 20^th French theatre, sweeping ‘away all the trappings’, to welcome the arrival of more simple and inventive drama. It is thus interesting to ask why, despite sharing this vision, the man who desired to be the French Chekhov achieved little acclaim as a dramaturge in twentieth-century France? 

To answer this question we should first establish what constitutes a successful playwright? This essay argues that success should not be judged simply by the critical response to the author’s plays as even some of the greatest plays in European history, such as Molière’s Le Tartuffe (1664), were condemned and even banned. Rather it asserts that a successful playwright is typically someone who enters the world of theatre willingly with firm innovative ideas, applies these ideas within his plays and most importantly demonstrates passion and dedication to the profession. Through an analysis of what led him to the theatre; his aims within it; whether or not he fulfilled these in Asmodée (1937), Les Mal-Aimés (1945) and Passage du Malin (1947) judged predominantly according to our own perspective, but also by the critical response to them; and finally Mauriac’s commitment to his dramaturgical role, it can be demonstrated that François Mauriac can be considered only a potential rather than a successful playwright.

 

 

As an avid theatregoer and critic Mauriac was no stranger to the boards. In fact his interest in theatre began long before his success as a novelist. He had a great admiration for Molière and Anton Chekhov but above all for Jean Racine whose tragedies he would read and re-read on a regular basis. He even published the biographical work La Vie de Jean Racine in 1928. For Mauriac, Racine defined the theatre he preferred, i.e. simple plots, where events stem from the passions of the characters. Mauriac aspired to follow this approach in his own literary creations. Racine’s influence explains the ‘puissance dramatique latente qui bouillonnait sourdement’ in Mauriac’s work perhaps most prominently seen in the novel Le Baiser au lépreux (1922) and the poem Le Disparu (1918). The former presents the reader with the tragedy of the fate of the three main characters, a tragedy ‘que l’on retrouve également dans le théâtre mauriacien’ and which is at the heart of Racine’s plays. The disconcerting rapidity of the novel, the ellipses and the intensity of the scenes described and their dialogues make it resemble a dramatic work rather than a novel. It is not surprising to discover Le Disparu was written whilst Mauriac was writing his first play since the poem is structured as a dialogue between two characters and written in alexandrines, a form associated with the French classical theatre tradition. It is often claimed that ‘the essence of drama is conflict’ and this poem is centred on the conflict between the speakers.

Given the abundance of theatricality found in his work frequently noted by his critics and increasingly evident after publishing Le Baiser au Lépreux, it could be argued that Mauriac was more suited to dramaturgy than novelistic or poetic writing. His imagination stems from the theatre, it is completely ‘nourrie par lui’. Or perhaps it is better to say he demonstrated equal suitability since Mauriac himself claimed that there is not a single ‘romancier qui ne porte en lui un poète et un dramaturge en puissance’. He regarded the different literary genres as diverse ways of expressing a unique gift. Mauriac’s branching into the world of theatre therefore always seemed, to most of his contemporaries, to be a question of when as opposed to if.

 

Mauriac claimed that, ‘la tentation d’écrire pour le théâtre m’est venue pour la première fois, à Salzbourg, en assistant à une représentation (parfaite) du Don Juan de Mozart’ in August 1934. This performance initiated a desire in him to use the resources of theatre to ‘give his characters corporeal presences and to project them into the temporal or spatial planes’. He also received the encouragement and subsequent support of influential directors Edouard Bourdet and Jacques Copeau, who had long wished to direct him towards becoming a playwright. Bourdet assured Mauriac that it was of no importance that he was yet to conceive a plot, since having characters was ‘la seule chose qui [importait]’.

 

 

From the start of his career as a playwright Mauriac had well defined aims and objectives. He maintained that he was not attempting to create a new form of dramatic art but rather a new theatrical style. Rejecting the falseness of the théâtre de boulevard, the bizarreness of Surrealist drama and the rigidity of conventional theatre, he wanted to create a freer theatrical style, a ‘théâtre en liberté’. His characters would have commonly identifiable emotions and speak everyday language. However this language must still give the impression of art. He felt a balance had to be created between ‘le réalisme trop direct du dialogue,…[et] le style poétique qui risque de placer les personnages en marge de la vie’. This new style would serve to better maintain the audience’s suspension of disbelief, something he found as a spectator was too easily broken. He also wanted to create interest in all his characters rather than use them as mere secondary supports for the main action.

After writing his first play, Asmodée (1937) his ambitions developed. Not only did he wish to place the action within a French bourgeois family and prove to himself that all of his characters ‘existaient en soi’ outside of the atmosphere in his novels, but most importantly he wanted to follow the great Racinian design more closely, as stated by Racine in the preface of his Britannicus (1669). This wasto develop ‘une action simple, chargée de peu de matière’ which would only be supported by ‘les actions, les intérêts et les passions des personnages’. In following this design Mauriac recalled the classical tragedies of the 17^th century he so admired, not in an imitative way but rather to create ‘un théâtre tragique moderne’, classical tragedies with a modern appeal.

 

 

His talent for dramatic writing in his novels accompanied by his extensive knowledge of theatrical works as a spectator/reader and clear objectives would suggest Mauriac that was well equipped for a successful playwrighting career. However on closer analysis this can be disputed. First, although Mauriac frequented the theatre and read many plays, he lacked the experience of writing for the theatre. There is little evidence to suggest he had ever co-written a play or produced a play before 1916. Up until this moment, his experience within theatre had only been from a spectator’s perspective which had not prepared him for the intricate work of constructing a play. Perhaps because Mauriac’s novels were celebrated as ‘roman[s] théâtral[s]’, he initially believed that there was little difference between the two disciplines. However the failure of such acclaimed French novelists as Balzac and Flaubert, who had previously tried to cross into the field of theatre, proves that crossing the literary boundaries was not as easy as it may have appeared, even for gifted writers, since their techniques are very different. Given his natural talent for writing successful novels, Mauriac was perhaps not prepared for the possibility that he may find theatrical writing difficult and would have to work hard at mastering its techniques.

 

One of the principal catalysts which led Mauriac to the theatre was the influence of Bourdet and Coupeau as opposed to a desire to write plays. The question of whether this influence developed into a dependence on the pair for further direction in his playwrighting will be addressed later in this essay. However, their recommendation that having characters was more important than having a plot perhaps ran the risk of strange storylines being created to accommodate the individual characters from Mauriac’s novels.

 

Finally, his ideas, although very fixed, are abundant and ambitious. However, in an era which heralded the arrival of le théâtre de l’absurde and political theatre, his new style based on simplicity of language, commonly identifiable emotions, a classical structure and set within a bourgeois family could be considered outdated, and lacking in innovation. It was perhaps too rooted in the bourgeois naturalism of early twentieth century theatre and would fail to speak to the French jeunesse of his time and consequently future generations. Furthermore by aspiring to such great dramaturges as Molière, Chekhov and Racine, Mauriac was setting himself an almost impossible task. French playwright Henri Bernstein claimed ‘chaque époque théâtrale condamne les conventions de celle qui l’a précédée’ thus implying that theatre must move forward and change, not remain rooted in past tradition, as Mauriac seemed to be. By stipulating such specific and extensive aims and declaring that he did not wish to ‘[chercher] une forme nouvelle d’art dramatique’ Mauriac was reducing the canvas upon which he was working, making it increasingly difficult for him to produce a successful work – one that would satisfy both his aims and the tastes of the public. So, although Mauriac clearly had potential and was a suitable candidate to become a playwright in many respects, it can be argued that the foundations for a successful playwrighting career had not been laid. Despite this, the potential to be successful remained, so why was it not fulfilled?

 

 

A general assessment of Mauriac the playwright can be made, by analysing his most well known works, Asmodée, Les Mal-Aimés and Passage du Malinin terms of three of the most important elements of any play, i.e. language, characters, and plot/structure. 

 

 

In all three of the plays Mauriac manages to achieve the style of language he so desired, allying poetry with simplicity, as demonstrated in the quote below:

 

Alain: Ça n’arrivera pas…le bonheur n’existe pas…

Élisabeth: Il existe, nous appartenons, nous sommes livrés, les pieds liés, aux êtres qui nous aiment et que nous n’aimons pas. (Les Mal-Aimés, III.IV)

 

Here we have simple vocabulary that still ‘donne le sentiment de l’art’.

 

André Séailles argues that in Les Mal-Aimés, as in Racine’s tragedies, the play’s moral weight stems from the characters’ understatements. Lines are often finished with a look exchanged between characters, a movement or a gesture. In Act I Scene IV in response to Alain’s claim that he is unable to be happy if she is suffering Marianne says, ‘Je ne souffre presque pas’. Séailles goes on to argue that these simple five words illustrate her distress better than a cry or a long monologue. However the exact opposite has been argued by Fernand Vial who disputes whether this style of language is successful in conveying the personal passions of Mauriac’s characters. Although Séailles argues that the adverb ‘presque’ is the key to this line, since it suggests that all is not well in Marianne’s world, this suggested underlying pain only ever remains a vague and imprecise suggestion. ‘Presque’ does not explicitly advance the audience’s knowledge of Marianne’s deep suffering for having been rejected by Alain, as much as an extensive and traditionally poetic monologue might. It seems ‘inadéquat[] pour rendre ce qui est le plus personnel, le plus intime, le plus intense’ to this character. The simplicity of this language risks certain nuances throughout the play being overlooked. The fact that his language is insufficient to portray the emotions of his characters is not simply a shortcoming in his style of language, but also is due to the fact that paradoxically Mauriac was attempting to portray complex inner human emotions and psychology in simple terms.

 

It can be further argued that this style of language even runs the risk of becoming vulgar and repetitive since vocabulary and structures are so limited. The repetition of words within one work can serve as a leit-motif for a specific theme. However their repetition across the three plays simply serves to highlight the small canvas upon which Mauriac was working, particularly in terms of theme. By the time we reach Passage du Malin words such as ‘âmes’ ‘bonheur’ ‘souffrir’ and ‘supplier’ have been completely exhausted and used within a number of different contexts, but ultimately depict the same ‘univers de la souffrance’ which characterises all of his plays and novels. This repetition leads to a dilution of interest on the spectator/reader’s part demonstrating how unsuccessful this style of language is in maintaining a sense of disbelief.  

 

Mauriac had many aims in terms of character. His desire to bring the characters of his novels to a more formal dramatization is the aim with which he best complies since in all three plays we can identify characters from these novels. Blaise Coûture, Monsieur de Virelade and even Émilie Tavernas can readily be compared with Brigitte Pian in L’Agneau (1954) or Octavie in Génétrix (1923) in their thirst to dominate others. This aim is acceptable enough in itself if it were used in one play. The problem here is that the resurgence of familiar character types in all three plays once again becomes repetitive and suggests a lack of versatility and innovation, a charge previously made about his novels.

 

There is much evidence to suggest that despite wanting to create commonly identifiable emotions Mauriac was unable to do this since his characters’ emotions stem from his own intensely personal and complex psychology which he projects onto the stage. All three of his plays are a dramatic representation of his own doubts with regards to human love, the conflict between the disgust of the flesh and the soul and the Pascalien idea of ‘la misère de l’homme sans Dieu’.  In his attempt to portray these ideas many of the characters’ emotions become too difficult to identify with and extreme to the point of being absurd and bewildering, such as the satanic-like covetousness of Blaise Coûture for the souls of those around him in Asmodée and the ever Christian, cold and resolute Émilie’s sudden surrender to the passion of the flesh after spending only a few moments with Bernard in Passage du Malin.

 

In Les Mal-Aimés, however, Monsieur de Virelade’s obsession for his daughter to remain with him is understandable for a retired old man, abandoned by his wife, and who appears to have nothing else to live for, as is Elizabeth’s sense of duty towards and sympathy for him. Yet, even though these emotions are perhaps identifiable, the lack of monologues and limitations of the dialogue provides little opportunity within the work for the audience to establish a relationship with the characters and to genuinely feel empathy towards them. The tragic situation Elizabeth is left in ends up being less tragic since the audience’s sympathies have not been successfully enlisted. 

 

Mauriac is also not always successful in creating interest in all his characters. In Mal-Aimés the play’s four characters have an important dramatic function and make a substantial contribution to the plot’s development. It is only Alain who, at times, appears to lack substance and personality since he is always ‘poussé par des forces supérieures’. Nevertheless his role is vital to the play since his relationship with the other characters is the source of all the drama.

 

In Asmodée he attempts to give greater symbolic value to smaller characters such as Emmanuelle. By abandoning her potential religious life and choosing to marry Harry, Emanuelle ‘ne [sera] plus jamais tranquille’ (Asmodée, V.III). She represents ‘la misère de l’homme sans Dieu’ but also of how divine love ‘ne se substitue pas à la passion de la chair’. However the naturalistic idiom she employs deprives her of any authority, making her seem unreal. This is not only the case with Emmanuelle but also in the character of Mademoiselle. She has very little dramatic function. The distress she feels by Blaise Coûture’s rejection and dominance can just as easily be seen in his power over Marcelle de Barthas and Emmanuelle. The fact she has not even been given a name adds further to the argument that this character remains very one-dimensional and unnecessary to the plot. 

 

In Passage du Malin both Agnès and Fernand Tavernas are also very one-dimensional characters: the former never appearing on stage and the latter showing little emotion even on discovering his wife’s infidelity. Furthermore rather than providing comedy the two elderly women serve as grotesque burlesque caricatures who add nothing substantial to the plot’s development.

 

Mauriac argued that in Les Mal-Aimés he deliberately ignored the atmospheric effects which made Asmodée resemble his novels, in an attempt to show that his characters existed outside of this atmosphere and to write ‘une pièce sans aucune sauce’. He removes the smells, tastes and sounds of his childhood holidays in the Landes region, the references to ‘la chaleur’ (I.VI), ‘l’humidité du ruisseau’ (II.III) and the imprisoning effect of ‘les pins’ (I.VII), ‘la porte’(I.VI) and ‘les persiennes’ (I.IV) which litter Asmodée’s pages. These effects all serve to intensify the simmering intertwined passions of Blaise Coûture for Madame de Barthas, Madame de Barthas for Harry, and Harry for Emanuelle, which bubbles under the bourgeois exterior of the Barthas household. However these effects have not entirely disappeared in Les Mal-Aimés. He continues to use a ‘grande maison de campagne’ (I.I) as his setting, to refer to the ‘campagne déserte’ (II.I) ‘la chaleur…terrible’ (II.I) and to place much of the action in the evening with night approaching, the time when Mauriac traditionally reveals concealed passions.

 

The ‘prison-like atmosphere’ created in Asmodée is now portrayed through the spatial constraints which Mauriac imposes on his characters. He reduces the action to constrained spaces, such as Virelade’s office and the lounge, where nature, representing freedom, is shown to be just outside the window, ‘on voit de la verdure par les fenêtres’ (Les Mal-Aimés, I.I) yet this liberty remains unobtainable. Through this Mauriac evokes a feeling of the characters being hemmed in physically and psychologically. This firmly demonstrates that he was incapable of entirely breaking away from what constituted the atmosphere of his novels. 

 

 

In terms of complying with his aims for plot and structure Mauriac was only partially successful, although admittedly these aims were only stipulated after Asmodée had already been written. This is perhaps pivotal in demonstrating Mauriac’s lack of knowledge of how to construct a play before writing it. It also illustrates the extent of the guidance he received from Bordet and Copeau during its composition since the play was celebrated for being well constructed. Les Mal-Aimés was heralded as being Mauriac’s true arrival on the theatrical scene since it corresponds ‘mieux qu’Asmodée à ce qui pour [lui] depuis le collège, doit être le théâtre’. In other words, ‘dans ce triptyque sauvage et nu, Mauraic a rencontré Racine’. 

 

Mauriac presents his audience with an intense psychological tragedy with a simple linear plot. As in a Racine tragedy, the intrigue of Les Mal-Aimés is solely motivated by the passions of its characters. The drama stems purely from Monsieur de Virelade’s insatiable passion for his daughter, and Marianne’s carnal passion for Alain and how it leads them to act. The unleashing of these passions, the lack of filler scenes or smaller characters to detract or provide relief from the main action, create an air of tragedy and tension throughout, characteristic of a Racinian play.

 

Mauriac’s intention was to conform to Racine’s design, presenting a classically structured piece, with the addition of a few modern twists. The royal court in Troezen in Phèdre (1677) becomes the gloomy country house, in Les Mal-Aimés. Following the classical structure, the first act has an expository role and the second is where the drama develops. However instead of a Hippolytus-like death in the final act, Mauriac concedes to modernism and leaves the play open-ended.

 

Although Bourdet and Copeau did not make any changes to the play, it was written not long after ‘chantier’ of Asmodée.  This play had been heavily revised, reconstructed and re-written over a period of ten years under the direction of Bourdet and, in parts, Copeau. In particular they helped Mauriac rework the character of Blaise Coûture to make him the central character of the play, something Mauriac did not seem intent on doing. Much of their influence is still present in Les Mal-Aimés, such as the tight plot based around one character. Mauriac himself even goes as far as claiming that the work ‘manquera toujours à ces trois actes d’avoir été jugés une dernière fois par [Bourdet,] ce maître du théâtre’. What did this mean exactly? As Jean Lacouture questions ‘Jugés…ou revus?’ The play underwent some revision on the advice of Claude Mauriac who was ‘un peu deçu’ with its first draft. Does this not suggest that, despite meeting his aim in terms of plot and structure in Les Mal-Aimés, Mauriac continued to rely too heavily on direction and did not see himself as capable of producing a successful work without guidance? Finally, by conforming so strongly to the Racien design does this not further demonstrate a lack of innovative thinking?

 

Although claiming that he ‘[voyait sa] pièce telle [qu’il] la [rêvait] encore’ there is much evidence to argue that Mauriac failed to develop a credible plot and structure in Passage du Malin. The characters’ emotions are so extreme and the intrigue is so overcomplicated and unbelievable that it is difficult to discern whether the emotions are leading the plot or the strange plot has forced Mauriac to give his characters these emotions. In Passage du Malin, Mauriac oscillates between a Racinian tragedy and a Molière comedy, something which can perhaps be hailed as innovative; however the ‘échec total’ of the play proves that on this occasion the blend does not work. Perhaps ‘comme un apprenti cuisinier, [a-t-il] eu la main un peu lourde et forcé la dose d’épices’. 

 

Critically the plays received mixed responses: Asmodée, was considered by some to be a ‘succès très vif’ and by others ‘viable’.  Les Mal-Aimés, was both a ‘seconde et fameuse réussite,’ and ‘a pathetic treatment in depth of Mauriac’s great chapter, Le Désert de l’amour’(1925). Passage du Malin was generally regarded as a ‘monstre ennuyeux’. These diverse opinions, accompanied by the analysis of his works show that despite fulfilling some aspects of his aims, he did not meet them all. However this moment in Mauriac’s search for a successful dramaturgical career is arguably the major turning point. By changing some of his aims in order to better comply with contemporary tastes and techniques, the possibility still remained for Mauriac to develop as a playwright and to go on to write more successful works.

 

 

Having looked at both Mauriac’s entrance into the world of theatre and the work he produced, a clear picture emerges as to why he was unable to fulfil his potential to be a successful playwright. In the analysis to date he has not fully met the necessary conditions. Yet these conditions are, as it has been discussed, not as fixed as we might have first thought. Why, despite this, however, he did not become a successful playwright is due to his failure to posses, what this essay suggests, is the most essential component of successful dramaturgy, i.e. passion for and dedication to one’s role.

 

It is often said that choice not circumstance determines success and Mauriac chose to protest against and ignore the criticism he received, rather than taking it on board to improve his work. He was discouraged by failure and chose not to learn from it. He became increasingly troubled by his inability to master theatrical writing techniques and lamented the lack of corresponding techniques to the novel. Mauriac came to a gradual realisation that the differences between the two art forms were greater than he first thought and reacted by losing confidence and interest. It is after the failure of Passsage du Malin that we start to see a change in his attitude towards theatre. He went from claiming ‘I should very much like to devote the rest of my life to the stage’ after Asmodée to ‘c’est dans le roman qu’on est vraiment libre’ and ‘...je ne suis pas fait pour nager dans le milieu théâtral’.

 

He was very quick to shift the blame onto others, .... for full article contact tutor.