CREATING TARTUFFE: AN ACTOR’S APPROACH
by
JEFFREY STEWART SCOT T, B.A.
A THESIS
IN
THEATRE ARTS
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF FINE ARTS
Approved
William Francis Gelber
Chairperson of the Committee
Linda Lee Donahue
Accepted
John Borrelli
Dean of the Graduate School
May 2006
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I must express my appreciation to Dr. Laurin Mann for giving me the opportunity
to play such a fascinating character, and for her wonderful direction during the
production. My thanks also to Dr. Linda Donahue for her continued guidance throughout
my graduate school career.
I would also like to thank my past acting teachers and directors, Rosalyn
Houghton, Roy Burney, Holly Riedel, Jim Weisman, Sarah Tacey, Dr. Claudia Sullivan
and Dr. Bill Gelber for giving me so many creative tools with which to execute the
character of Tartuffe.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ii
ABSTRACT
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
v
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION
1
History of Molière and Tartuffe
3
Dramatic Criticism of Tartuffe
6
II. PERIOD STYLE
12
The Body
12
The Voice
16
Commedia dell’arte
17
The Mask of Tartuffe
23
III. MODERN ACTING TECHNIQUES
25
Inner Life
25
Creativity
31
Status
37
Imagination and Truth
43
IV. CONCLUSION
50
Production
50
Self Evaluation
55
BIBLIOGRAPHY
60
APPENDIX
62
iii
ABSTRACT
Approaches to playing period plays are numerous. The techniques range from the
purely physical, external approach to an internalized psychological method. This thesis
focuses on the creative process from research and analysis as well as modern and period
acting styles used in the development of the character of Tartuffe for the Texas Tech
University Department of Theatre and Dance’s production of Tartuffe in 2004.
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
3.1
Word Study, Tartuffe
46
3.2
Visual Study, Tartuffe’s external silhouette
47
3.3
Visual Study, Tartuffe’s internal silhouette
48
3.4
Abstract Movement Study, Tartuffe
49
v
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Acting teachers and directors that I have worked with in the past have often
characterized my performance technique as a blending of classical training with more
modern approaches, including improvisation. I do not believe that I have a particular
“method” when it comes to approaching a role. Certainly there are techniques that I use
almost every time I perform, but I have always believed that every role has its own
unique challenges that the actor must identify. My graduate school training has
reinforced that belief. I maintain that it is the responsibility of any actor to study as many
techniques as possible, so as to develop a toolkit from which to draw on, depending on
the requirements of the role.
The role of Tartuffe was one that demanded a variety of acting techniques on my
part. While the production was set in the period between 1700 and 1715, a
straightforward period acting style simply was not enough to successfully portray the
character. Indeed, I would argue that very few, if any, modern productions of classical
plays can rely entirely on stylistic acting. The modern theatre audience has come to
expect more in terms of the inner workings of a character. This comes from a tradition in
the West of actor training based on the theories of Stanislavsky and those that came after
him. Many of these methodologies place emphasis on the psychology of the actor and
the character, in some cases sacrificing the training of the voice and body. Physical and
1
vocal performance skills must be developed in order to communicate the character to the
audience. Viola Spolin suggests the actor
must not withdraw into a subjective world and ‘emote,’ nor
should one intellectualize about ‘feeling,’ which can only
limit the expression of it. An audience should not be
interested in the personal grief, joy, and frustration of the
performing actor. It is the skill of the actor playing the
grief, joy, and frustration of the character portrayed that
holds us captive. (220-1)
Although the modern theatre audience may expect to glimpse the psychology of
the characters on stage, in the case of a classical piece such as Tartuffe the work of the
voice and body cannot be ignored. The language of such plays demands a welldeveloped voice in order to convey the color and musicality of the rhythm, structure and
vocabulary present in the character’s speech. If the actor is clothed in a period style
costume, it is important to understand how the body moves and behaves in garments that
are alien to modern standards of dress. Furthermore, it often is necessary for the actor to
be able to use his or her body to help convey the essence of the character. Since the
language of many classical plays sounds foreign to the ears of the modern audience, it is
the actors’ responsibility to use the body and voice to help tell the story of the play.
This production was staged by the Texas Tech University Department of Theatre
and Dance during the spring semester of 2004. The production used Richard Wilbur’s
translation of Tartuffe, which is divided into French scenes and written the Alexandrine
meter. All references to the text of the play made by me are citations of this particular
translation.
2
History of Molière and Tartuffe
I chose to begin my character development by studying Molière and Tartuffe
from a historical standpoint. This seemed appropriate for this role because Molière
performed in his own plays (although he did not perform the role of Tartuffe). Therefore
I believed that an understanding of this actor-playwright and the circumstances in which
he lived and wrote would give clues as to how to interpret and portray the character of
Tartuffe.
Molière was born Jean-Baptiste Poquelin in January of 1622 (Gaines xi). As a
child he attended the Jesuits’ College de Clermont in Paris (Scott 17). Poquelin was a
close friend of the abbé La Mothe Le Vayer, the son of the famous philosopher who
wrote on ideas of skepticism. It is believed that Poquelin may therefore have been
influenced by the philosopher’s writings (Scott 106).
In June 1643 Poquelin established his first theatre troupe, L’Illustre Théâtre, and
assumed the pseudonym of Molière. The failure of the troupe in 1645 caused him to
spend several weeks in debtor’s prison. After his release, Molière began to tour the
villages of the French countryside as a traveling comedian. He continued in this way for
fourteen years, during which time he performed in the companies of Charles Dufresne
and created another troupe of his own (Gaines xii).
Molière returned to Paris in 1658 and performed the tragedy Nicomède by
Corneille and his own farce Le Docteur amoureux at the Louvre. The success of the
performance earned Molière and his company the title of Troupe de Monsieur, allowing
them to become established in Paris and give public performances (Scott 91-92). The
3
troupe joined a famous local Italian commedia dell’arte company and became established
at the Petit-Bourbon theatre. Molière premiered Les Précieuses ridicules at the PetitBourbon on November 18, 1659 (Gaines xiv).
The Affected Young Ladies marked the first of many attempts by Molière to
highlight the ridiculousness of certain affectations and mannerisms common in French
society. Molière believed that satire “criticized customs through humor,” expressed in
Latin as castigat ridendo mores.
At this time Molière’s company routinely performed tragedies followed by a
presentation of one of his original farces. These farces were generally one-acts and
sometimes only partially written. The company performed in the commedia dell’arte
style, and made use of improvisation to complete the unfinished plays.
The influence of the Italian commedia dell’arte went beyond performance
techniques and into playwriting. Molière asked Tiberio Fiorelli, an actor in the Italian
troupe at the Petit-Bourbon, to give him a more detailed instruction in the Commedia
dell’arte style. Molière’s 1660 play Sganarelle seems a tribute to Fiorelli and Commedia
dell’arte (Cole 154).
In 1662 Molière and his Italian cohorts moved to the Théâtre du Palais-Royal.
That year he also presented his comedy L’École des femmes and married Armande, the
illegitimate daughter of his former lover, Madeleine Béjart. Molière became the subject
of intense criticism from a group in the French high society called the Party of Devotes
(Tilley 21). The Party not only railed against Molière on an artistic level, attacking the
irreverence and “realism” in his plays, but also sought to bring about personal
4
embarrassment by accusing him of marrying his own daughter (Armande was actually the
result of an affair between Béjart and the Duc of Modène.) King Louis XIV showed his
support for Molière in the face of these accusations by granting him royal protection
(Cole 155) and agreeing to be the godfather of his first son (Gaines xvi).
The first three acts of Tartuffe were performed in 1664 at Versailles and created
the greatest scandal of Molière’s artistic career. The hypocrisy portrayed in the play
outraged the upper classes of French society. The king suggested to Molière that the
performances be suspended. Molière then composed his Don Juan, which demonstrated
themes of hypocrisy just as Tartuffe had done. Following the suspension of this
production, the king became the official sponsor of the troupe (Gaines xvi-xvii).
In 1667 Molière attempted to perform Tartuffe again, but after the king left Paris
to join his army at Flanders, the French parliament and the Archbishop of Paris quickly
banned the play (Gaines xviii). It was not until 1669 that Louis XIV, having gained more
control over the clergy, gave his permission for the play to be publicly performed in its
entirety. It was an immediate success, enjoying an initial run of twenty-eight
performances (Scott 230).
Molière continued writing and performing in his own works until 1673, when he
collapsed on stage during a performance of The Imaginary Invalid. He died at his home
several hours later (Scott 256-7).
5
Dramatic Criticism of Tartuffe
I decided to look at the dramatic criticism and analysis that had been written on
Tartuffe as the next step in the development of my character. This has frequently been an
approach I use when performing a classical piece. I believe that because the playwright
was writing in and influenced by a time that is in many ways alien to the modern actor, it
is useful to examine any criticism available as a means of discovering the author’s intent,
which in turn can be a source of inspiration for character motivations, performance
techniques, and more.
Tartuffe the Hypocrite
The hypocrisy embedded in the character of Tartuffe is evident from the first
exposure to the play. While professing to be a man of religious zeal, he “equates the will
of God with his own desires” (Calder 162). It is possible that this element of the
character is actually an attack on the Jesuit order by Molière. Calder argues that the
Jesuits of Molière’s time “sacrificed Christian principles to political expediency” (161).
(Tartuffe’s goal is more financial than political, yet the allusion to the Jesuit hypocrisy
holds). Calder goes on to outline the similarities between Tartuffe’s methodology and the
strategy of the Jesuits outlined in the Monita secreta, an anti-Jesuit tract written in 1612.
A French translation was published in 1661, just prior to the performance of the first
three acts of Tartuffe, indicating that this may have been an inspiration for Molière.
The Monita secreta describes this methodology allegedly used by a Jesuit to
attract alms,
6
He must go to far-off places where he will receive
alms…after having displayed the poverty of our members.
These must then be handed to the poor, in order to edify
those who do not yet know about our Society and to
encourage them to be more generous towards us. (Calder
160)
A parallel to this tactic is seen when Orgon is describing his first encounter with Tartuffe
to Cléante. “I gave him gifts, but in his humbleness he’d beg me every time to give him
less…and when I wouldn’t take it back, he’d share half of it with the poor, right then and
there” (I, v).
Calder points out that the Monita secreta also mentions how a Jesuit can gain
control of wealth by ingratiating himself to a rich widow, merchant or a rich, married
bourgeois. The Jesuit’s victim must turn to him for advice on all matters, believing that
he is the source of spiritual advancement. The victim also becomes a fount of finances
and secrets for the Jesuit (160). Certainly this is similar to the relationship with Orgon
enjoyed by Tartuffe. Dorine tells Cléante that Orgon has
Quite lost his senses since he fell
Beneath Tartuffe’s infatuating spell.
He calls him brother and loves him as his life,
Preferring him to mother, child, or wife.
In him and him alone will he confide;
He’s made him his confessor and his guide. (I, ii)
The Jesuit parallel is strengthened when Orgon bestows upon Tartuffe all of his finances,
saying to him “I’ll give to you alone clear deed and title to everything I own” and
pronouncing Tartuffe his heir (III, vii).
Whether or not Molière was influenced by the Monita secreta while he wrote
Tartuffe is irrelevant, at least inasmuch as it concerns my acting process. The allusions to
7
the Jesuit hypocrisy gave me a motivation for why Tartuffe behaved the way he did. To
say that Tartuffe is a hypocrite would be stating the obvious; however, his methodology,
when compared to the Jesuit tactics described above, provides a stronger source for
inspiration. Tartuffe is a criminal, and the best criminals are the ones who systematically
and skillfully manipulate their prey. His infiltration of Orgon’s household was not
happenstance. A very serious game plan was involved; indeed, Tartuffe may have
learned his methods from reading the Monita secreta and adapting the tactics to his own
uses.
Tartuffe the Lover
Calder continues his extrapolation of Tartuffe being a model of Jesuit hypocrisy
through an examination and comparison of the character’s language with the imagery
presented in the Peintures morales, a text by the Jesuit poet La Moyne. According to
Calder,
(La Moyne) argues that as men and women are made in
God’s image, it is legitimate to love God in these earthly
reflections of His beauty; and secondly, that just as in
admiring the qualities of a work of art we are really
praising the hand that made it, we can admire God’s
handiwork in the human bodies which He created and
which so effectively reveal His art. (168)
Tartuffe echoes La Moyne’s sentiments almost point by point in his first scene
with Elmire as he tells her
Our senses are quite rightly captivated
By perfect works our Maker has created.
Some glory clings to all that Heaven has made;
In you, all Heaven’s marvels are displayed.
8
On that fair face, such beauties have been lavished,
The eyes are dazzled and the heart is ravished;
How could I look on you, O flawless creature,
And not adore the Author of all Nature. (III, iii)
The Peintures morales seems to have been concerned primarily with the idea that
the pious Jesuits could admire the beauty of a woman because it was essentially a way of
admiring the work of God, and therefore not in violation of their religious oaths provided
they did not pursue the matter beyond the realm of aesthetics. La Moyne’s thesis may
have been, anecdotally speaking, “look but don’t touch.”
Tartuffe has no intention of resigning himself to merely being a spectator of
Elmire’s beauty, openly offering her “love without scandal, pleasure without fear” (III,
iii). In short, Tartuffe uses the guise of the Jesuits’ admiration for beauty as a means of
wooing Elmire before he reveals his true sexual desires. Certainly this was another attack
on the hypocrisy of the Jesuits by Molière, but it also provided me with ideas on how
exactly to play the love scenes, which I will discuss later.
What’s in a Name?
In my experience, most playwrights seem to have very specific intentions with
regards to the words they use in their texts. Character names especially seem to be clues
to or expressions of the nature of the character. While this is not a universal truth, I have
found that the meaning or connotation behind a character’s name can be a valuable
insight. For example, when I played Mercutio in a production of Shakespeare’s Romeo
and Juliet I saw the character’s name as a derivative of Mercury. The Roman god
9
Mercury is often described as being quick, agile, and gymnastic, elements which I chose
to incorporate into my portrayal of Mercutio.
Similarly, when I played Sir Andrew Aguecheek in Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night,
I discovered that the name Aguecheek indicated that Sir Andrew’s cheek had a habit of
trembling, with the definition of ague meaning shivering or trembling. Not only was this
a clue to the cowardice of the character, which is apparent in the script itself, but it also
supplied a physicalization that I used in moments when Sir Andrew was particularly
upset or terrified.
I was therefore curious as to what, if any, meaning or connotation the name
Tartuffe had and if that would give me any insight into the character or at the very least a
mannerism, or physical or vocal quality that I could use to flesh out the character.
The Molière Encyclopedia presents the following as a possible etymology for
Tartuffe’s name:
Although its origin is difficult to determine precisely, the
name evokes the image of an unscrupulous person bent
upon deceiving others. In Old French, truffe or truffle had
the sense of deceit, deception, and fraud, and the Italian
tartuffo had a similar meaning. The infinitive truffer meant
to deceive. (448)
The meanings of these words did not provide me with any epiphanies; instead, they
simply confirmed the impressions of the character I already had. However, the Italian
word tartuffo was of particular interest, because it was the root word most akin to the
actual name Tartuffe. This caught my attention because it seemed possible that Molière
may have taken the name from his Italian partners at the Palais-Royal. That relationship
between Molière and the Italians led me to believe that there may have been a strong
10
commedia influence at work within the character of Tartuffe, an idea discussed in the
next chapter.
11
CHAPTER II
PERIOD STYLE
Some of the first performance elements that we as a cast were encouraged to
explore were the stylistic trends associated with Molière’s time. The first two days of
rehearsals were devoted to period style exercises in order for the actors to develop
physical and vocal expressiveness. Throughout the process, stylistic elements were
continually addressed. The women of the cast began wearing corsets and hoop skirts
early in rehearsal in order to adjust their movements and carriage. Similarly, the men
wore heeled shoes and worked with properties such as swords, canes, and handkerchiefs.
This chapter will describe the various physical and vocal exercises in style used
during rehearsals, as well as exercises I used for myself. Additionally, I will explore the
research and reasoning behind the idea that Tartuffe may have been inspired in part by
the tradition of commedia dell’arte and the techniques of commedia that I used as part of
the development of the character.
The Body
Stance and Posture
Tartuffe’s basic stances were either a closed or open third position, in terms of the
foot positions used for jazz dancing which are modifications of the classical ballet
stances. The jazz third position places one foot in front of the other with the heel of the
front foot aligned with the instep of the back foot. In the closed position the feet are
12
together; in the opened position, the feet are apart with the body’s weight evenly
balanced.
The director wanted the men in the cast to use these stances to maintain the period
of the play. Since men wore tights or hose underneath their breeches, the positioning of
the feet was a conscious effort to display the musculature of the calf. As a young man
living in the twenty-first century, I found these stances helpful in making me feel more
comfortable with the heeled shoes chosen for the character by the costumer. Wearing the
heels required me to find a different sense of balance than I was accustomed to with my
personal footwear; the open and closed third positions aided in finding that balance.
A simple exercise was used to help the cast with their posture. We would bend
forward from our waist, letting our upper body relax as much as possible. Then we
would return to an upright position, slowly rolling up our spine one vertebrae at a time
with the head being raised at the very last moment. The director would then ask us to
imagine a string pulling us up by the top of our head. The goal was to elongate the spine
and allow the head to rest lightly on the neck.
This posture was necessary because of the nature of the costumes. The women in
the cast needed a good upright posture in order to have any semblance of comfort while
wearing the corsets. The men, including myself, wore long coats similar in style to frock
coats. Having an upright posture allowed the fabric to drape properly from the body.
From a period standpoint, this was important because so much emphasis was placed on
an individual’s appearance. In particular, clothing of the time “generally emphasized the
figure” (Crawford 236). Additionally, posture and carriage became important for my
13
portrayal of the character in terms of modern acting techniques such as the playing of
status, which I will discuss in the next chapter.
Movement
Jerry Crawford describes Molière’s comedies as being “rooted in precise,
inventive activity, and therefore movement should be selective and rapid in tempo…Men
walked with virility and used elaborate finger gestures. Gestures were broad and
punctuated by use of fluid movements of the wrist and hand” (236). The hands were a
focal point for my characterization of Tartuffe.
There were several reasons I chose to give so much attention to the hands and the
hand gestures. First, it seemed appropriate to the assumed religious nature of the
character. In the Roman Catholic tradition the hands, particularly the priest’s, are a kind
of locus of spirituality. The most obvious instance of this is the traditional Catholic
blessing, the Sign of the Cross. Additionally, the hands of the priest become a focal point
during the sacrifice of the Mass when the bread and wine used for communion are
blessed and elevated. In a more generalized Christian sense, there is the concept of the
“laying on of hands,” the idea that a spiritual energy or sometimes a healing power can be
transferred by physical touch.
Based on this idea of the importance of the hands in a religious context I therefore
chose to incorporate some of the gestures I have seen priests use while celebrating the
Mass as part of my physical characterization. I used the Sign of the Cross to extend
Tartuffe’s blessing to certain other characters, namely Elmire and Laurent. Another
14
gesture that I have seen priests use is an extension of the arms towards the sky, typically
used as an invocation of the Holy Spirit. In Act III, scene vi, I chose to use this gesture
while Tartuffe challenges Damis to speak out against him, in a most theatrical and
pathetic manner, as the proverbial lamb to the slaughter.
Another priestly gesture I borrowed was the extension of the hands over the
offerings of bread and wine during the communion prayers. When Tartuffe encounters
Dorine in Act III, scene two, he offers a handkerchief and commands her to “cover that
bosom.” I chose to extend my hands and place the handkerchief directly on Dorine’s
breasts, which served a double-purpose for Tartuffe. In one sense, the extension and
laying on of hands is an attempt to bless the unclean flesh displayed by the low-cut of
Dorine’s garments. Of course, such pretense is merely for show, the underlying objective
being for Tartuffe to “cop a feel.” An interesting side note of this action is that priests
typically cover the Eucharistic vessels with a small white cloth following communion.
Again, such symbolism is merely done to maintain the guise of religiosity. The true
purpose of such actions is to allow Tartuffe to satisfy his more earthly desires while
keeping him insulated from the typical repercussions associated with such behavior.
In general, I strove to maintain fluidity in the movements of my hands and arms
as well my movements across the stage. This choice came especially as a result of my
experience with Rudolf Laban’s effort exercises as a means to develop a character, which
I will go into greater detail in the next chapter.
15
The Voice
A strong vocal quality was also needed for the production of Tartuffe. The voice
needed support, control and musicality. According to Crawford, “unusually clear
articulation, pronunciation, and projection are necessary to handle the rapid line delivery
and varied language of Molière. Complex inflections and vocal variety are absolutely
necessary in performing the language of Molière” (234).
A great deal of my vocal training came from working with Tim Snyder, who
taught voice at Schreiner University. Snyder did not teach me voice for the stage;
instead, he taught me the basics of operatic singing. I also performed in choral
productions of Handel’s Messiah, Faure’s Requiem and Vivaldi’s Gloria. These
experiences expanded my vocal range and taught me the skills of breath control and
support.
I have readily used those skills in every role I have played to some extent, and
Tartuffe was no exception. Classical texts seem to lend themselves to a voice that has
been trained in such a fashion. I recall Snyder telling me that if performers can sing
opera, they can sing anything, or rather, can use their voices for anything.
If this had been a production done in nothing but period style, then it might have
been acceptable to simply make the words sound as pleasing as possible, and leave it at
that. However, these characters were meant to be portrayed realistically in this
production, or at least as realistic as they could be within the context of the play. The
voice could not simply be musical for the sake of musicality. The rhythm, intonations,
and emphases used in the delivery had to be motivated from within. The most trained
16
voice would still be hollow without a sense of the character’s motivations or, as Charles
McGaw calls it, “the verbal action” (177).
In terms of the anatomy of the character, the vocal and physical styles formed the
skeleton of the character. The layering of modern acting techniques provided the
musculature of the character, the justification and motivation that powered the stylistic
voice and movement.
Commedia dell’arte
As mentioned earlier, commedia dell’arte seemed to be a key influence on
Molière’s writing. In looking at some of his other plays, it became clear to me that
Molière based many of his characters on the stock characters of commedia dell’arte.
Such vestiges of the stock characters are evident in Tartuffe as well. Dorine is a
derivative of the commedia character Columbina, the serving-maid who “exerts a
benevolent influence on the outcome” (Rudlin 130). The young lovers Valére and
Marianne are the embodiment of the innamorati of commedia. Orgon in many ways is a
variant of the Pantalone character because, like Pantalone, he “is money: he controls all
the finances available…he is the employer, giving orders to his servants, and the father,
dictating to his children, controlling the social structure which obtains before the events
of the scenario take place” (Rudlin 92).
Taking into account the presence of these characters derived from commedia
dell’Arte, along with the Italian word tartuffo, which could have been a possible basis for
the name Tartuffe, I wondered what commedia character was the basis for the legendary
17
hypocrite. There was not a single stock character that stood out to me as being “Tartuffelike.” However, upon further reading and discussion with the director, it seemed possible
that Molière may have combined elements from several different commedia characters to
create Tartuffe. Such an amalgamation is totally plausible considering that a charlatan
like Tartuffe would have a variety of different personas to be used in different situations.
My initial investigations led me to consider that Tartuffe may have been based in part on
Arlecchino, Brighella, or Dottore.
Arlecchino is one of the most enduring of all the commedia characters. Theories
abound as to his origin, specifically the meaning of his name. Rudlin suggests “it is
likely his name means simply Hellecchino (= ‘little devil’). Dante refers to a devil by the
name of Ellechino” (76). This devilish connotation is certainly in keeping with the nature
of Tartuffe’s character. Arlecchino was traditionally costumed in “a tight-fitting long
jacket and trousers, sewn over with random, odd-shaped patches” (Rudlin 76). This is in
reference to Arlecchino’s impoverished status. While Tartuffe at the time of the play is
enjoying the luxuries afforded him by Orgon, it is conceivable that before being taken in
to Orgon’s house Tartuffe was a man of poverty who may have worn a patched garment
like Arlecchino’s. Dorine calls Tartuffe “a beggar,” to which Orgon promptly chastises
her, telling her to “speak of his poverty with reverence” (II, ii).
In spite of these similarities, Tartuffe breaks from Arlecchino in one important
area: the mind. Rudlin describes Arlecchino as being “quick physically and slow
mentally…his body does not recognize the inadequacy of the mind which drives it” (789). Tartuffe is a character whose mind is as powerful as his body, if not more so. His
18
deviousness requires the faculties of a cunning and quick-witted intellect. Furthermore,
Rudlin describes Arlecchino as being “illiterate” (79). Tartuffe cannot be illiterate;
especially not my portrayal of him, which is based in part on the notion that at some point
he read and assimilated the ideas posed in the Monita secreta and the Penitures morales
for use in his scheme. This intellectual discrepancy between Arlecchino and Tartuffe was
too great to ignore, so I continued my research in hopes of finding a closer correlation.
At the suggestion of my director, Dr. Laurin Mann, I next investigated the
commedia character Brighella as a possible model for Tartuffe. Within the world of
commedia dell’Arte, Brighella’s social position is that of a zanni like Arlecchino.
However, unlike the other zanni, Brighella is “more than a servant, he is thus a jack-ofall-trades who can be a recruiting sergeant, a hangman, a fortune-teller or anything that’s
required of him. He is never a victim and always maintains his status” (Rudlin 84).
Additionally, Rudlin points out that “Brighella can instruct someone of higher status than
himself” (84).
This description matched my perceptions of Tartuffe almost point by point.
Tartuffe instructs Orgon, a person of higher status than himself, in the ways of religious
zeal. The description of Brighella being a jack-of-all-trades also fit with my ideas on
Tartuffe, because he is not a religious man by nature, but it is the occupation that will
allow him the most benefits in this particular situation. Molière himself supports this
idea in the text with the Officer’s comment that “the King soon recognized Tartuffe as
one notorious by another name, who’d done so many vicious crimes that one could fill
ten volumes with them, and be writing still” (V, vii). Finally, like Brighella, Tartuffe is
19
never a victim. Throughout the course of the play Tartuffe always manages to land on
his feet, until the final scene when he is arrested. When Damis exposes Tartuffe’s lust for
Elmire, Orgon decides to expel Damis, and not Tartuffe, from his house. Even when
Orgon catches him with Elmire in Act IV, scene vii, Tartuffe cannot be victimized. He
has played his game so masterfully that he is able to turn the tables on Orgon as he
confidently asserts, “I’m the master, and you’re the one to go! This house belongs to me,
I’ll have you know, and I shall show you that you can’t hurt me by this contemptible
conspiracy.” Indeed, without the intervention of the king, Tartuffe would never have
answered for his crimes.
In spite of the obvious similarities between Brighella and Tartuffe, I was bothered
by the fact that Brighella was of the servant-class. Even though he has the ability to play
multiple roles within a commedia scenario to the extent of instructing his superiors, I had
doubts that Brighella would ever have the audacity or capacity to rob his master of house
and home. In addition to that, Orgon does not see Tartuffe as a servant, but rather as an
equal, at least in the spiritual sense as he constantly refers to him as “brother” throughout
the play.
Dr. Mann informed me that she had learned that the actor who originally played
Tartuffe also played the role of Dottore in Molière’s commedia dell’arte productions. I
had initially discounted Dottore because he is typically an older character, but this new
information prompted me to investigate the possible connection with the character of
Tartuffe.
20
Rudlin describes Dottore as being the “neighbor and friend or rival of Pantalone
(either way they are inseparable), and, since he is a natural parasite, sees the advantage of
being patronized by him” (102). Since I consider Orgon to be the Pantolone character of
this play, this description of the relationship between Dottore and Pantalone is applicable
to Tartuffe’s relationship with the master of the house. While Tartuffe is Orgon’s friend,
he is also his rival, particularly when he attempts to dismiss Orgon and his family from
the house and, of course, when he tries to take Orgon’s wife. The description of Dottore
as a parasite is also applicable to Tartuffe.
The mask of Dottore was designed to cover only the nose and forehead; since the
actor’s cheeks were visible they were often reddened with makeup to show Dottore’s
fondness for the bottle. He is overweight and tends to think more with his stomach than
his intellect (Rudlin 100-1). This physical image matches Dorine’s depiction of Tartuffe,
that, “he’s round and red, bursting with health and excellently fed.” Later in the scene
she mentions that Tartuffe “drank, at lunch, four beakers full of port” (I, iv).
My first impression was that it would be of no use to me to think of Tartuffe as
being a derivative of Dottore. Dottore is a character of impressive girth, and at the time
of this production, I stood six feet tall and weighed 165 pounds. Taking into account my
leaner build, I decided that the comments made by Dorine about Tartuffe’s physical
condition were simply derogatory, an attempt by a lesser character to lower Tartuffe’s
status in the eyes of the master. If this was not the case, and Tartuffe had to possess a
ponderous bulk, then perhaps I was not right for the role.
21
As I read through Rudlin’s section on Dottore, I came across the following
sentence: “Later French types became lean pedants, reptilian like Molière’s Tartuffe
(100). I not only had validation for my body type being appropriate for the role, but I
also had a concrete connection between Tartuffe and a commedia dell’arte character.
However, I decided not to portray the character strictly as a rendition of Dottore, because
I felt like it was not enough of a challenge for me. Additionally, there were still elements
of the zanni, particularly Brighella, which I found appealing and appropriate for my
interpretation of Tartuffe.
I therefore made the choice to blend elements of Brighella and Dottore for my
creation of Tartuffe. The image of Dottore being reptilian held a certain power for me,
and inspired many of my movements. I attempted to embody reptilian characteristics by
adopting slow and smooth motions-the fluidity that I mentioned earlier in the chapterwhile at the same time finding moments where the movement became much quicker.
The analogy would be that of a snake that slowly watches its prey until it strikes with
lightning speed. This is also akin to Rudlin’s description of Brighella’s movement:
“Lithe, cat-like, without apparent muscular effort” (86). I favored the more melodious
style of speaking used by Brighella (Rudlin 86) as opposed to the fussiness and thicker
dialect typical of Dottore’s speech (Rudlin 101) because it was more in keeping with my
perception of Tartuffe being a very sleek and insinuating character. Essentially, Tartuffe
came to possess some of Brighella’s presentational skills and status while at the same
time maintaining a relationship with Orgon that was similar to Dottore’s relationship to
Pantalone in addition to portraying the same kind of false authority that Dottore
22
embodied. While the performance style was not strictly commedia in the physical sense,
the attributes of the commedia characters served as another source of inspiration for the
portrayal of Tartuffe.
The Mask of Tartuffe
It is common knowledge that the actors of Ancient Greece wore masks during
their performances. While it is impossible to ascertain the specifics of the Greek acting
style, it is widely believed that “acting in a mask actually requires more attention given to
the gestures, posture, and movement of the actor” (Sullivan The Actor Moves 13). This
can be interpreted to mean that for the Greek actors, characters were more externalized as
opposed to internalized.
The performers of commedia dell’arte were also masked. However, the word
‘mask’ came to mean not only the physical object that covered the actor’s face, but in fact
the characters themselves who were referred to as ‘masks’ (Rudlin 35). This idea of the
character as a mask has survived to the present day, and is employed by many acting
teachers in both classical and modern plays. Harrop and Epstein maintain that
An actor must take into account all the given circumstances
in order to create the mask of character that the truth of the
event requires. He or she must be aware that a character
may be constructed as much out of the rhythms and images
of its speech and its structural function in a play, as out of
imagined biological or biographical data…If an actor
creates a mask that is a valid representation of the demands
the script places on the character, then he or she is being
honest with the intention of the play. (5)
23
The mask of Tartuffe then is the compilation of all the physical and vocal traits
discussed previously in this chapter, aimed at fulfilling Molière’s perceived goal of
satirizing the hypocrisy in his society.
It should be remembered that a mask is not merely an external display of the
character. There is no hollowness to the mask; the internal motivations and tactics of the
character drive it. Indeed, it has often been the case in my own personal experience that
the psychology of the character is influenced by external attributes and stimuli just as
much as the internal attributes influence the external. This concept is further illustrated
in Harrop’s and Epstein’s statement that “there is no fundamental contradiction between
the demands of mask and playing, and the need for inner process. Gestalt psychology
teaches the close relationship between physical response and emotional response, and
many practitioners of theatre now feel that the articulation of the physical part of the role
stimulates the inner support” (6).
The next chapter will focus on the different modern acting techniques I used in
creating the inner life of the character. Those techniques allowed me to inhabit the mask
of Tartuffe more fully and provided for the exchanging of stimuli between the external
and the internal.
24
CHAPTER III
MODERN ACTING TECHNIQUES
During the course of my training I have been exposed to a number of different
methodologies for creating a character. There is not one specific technique that I
subscribe to above the rest; instead, I pull from my resources to create my own system of
acting. Different roles place different demands on the actor. Typically when I approach
a role, I begin by establishing the foundation of the character and then adding layers and
details as rehearsals progress. Occasionally, I discover that a certain fundamental aspect
of the character does not work, and I will go back and adjust my choices accordingly.
The work described in the preceding chapter largely falls into the category of the
foundation of the character, although some of the more particular gestures were
established later on in the rehearsal process. This chapter describes the various acting
techniques I used in creating the role of Tartuffe, beginning with the fundamentals of the
character’s psychology and progressing to the specific details used for the character.
Inner Life
I began creating the inner life of Tartuffe by using Uta Hagen’s “Six Steps for
Scoring a Role,” which is detailed in her books Respect for Acting and A Challenge for
the Actor. In this approach, the actor answers a set of questions about the character and
the world of the play. This is done from the perspective of the character so as to embody
25
more fully the character, rather than merely commenting on him. I have classified this
information into six basic concepts inspired by Hagen’s approach.
Identity
The people in this house know me as Tartuffe, though that is not my real name. I
have had many names in the past, just as a snake has many skins. My real name is Raoul,
and I am descended from the French aristocracy; or rather, I should have been descended
from the aristocracy. I am in my thirtieth year and am blessed with a lean and graceful
frame that Adonis would envy.
I reside in the house of Orgon, who discovered me praying in the church, and was so
moved by my fervor and devotion that he decided to take me in to serve as spiritual
advisor to him and his family. Little did he know that it was I, in fact, who took him in; I
had long known Monsieur Orgon as a man of great wealth and property and had
suspected that he could be persuaded to become my caretaker. Wealthy men such as he
are so lacking in common sense it seems and, moreover, they are obsessed with their own
mortality. In spite of all their wealth and power, they know that they will eventually have
to stand before God to be judged worthy of Heaven. As I had hoped, when Orgon saw
me praying in the church, he saw the key to his own salvation. I am well fed and cared
for in this house; indeed, I have full run of the grounds and because of the protection of
the master, I can criticize and command the rest of the household without fear of reprisal.
I am a superior being. I will admit that I am a criminal, or rather, that I am guilty of
what society deems as criminal acts. Does that really make me a criminal? In my
26
opinion, what is criminal is that so much wealth can be in the hands of those who do not
deserve it, people such as Orgon and his family, who are so vapid and ignorant that they
would not know the color of the sky unless it had been relayed to them. Orgon may
possess wealth and property, but it is I who am the greater man, because I am aware of
the great gift of intellect and how to use it for my own advancement.
When Orgon first found me in the church I was dressed in beggar’s rags, homespun
fabrics covered in patches. Since I have been living here, I have been dressed in new
garments. In order to keep up my religious appearance, I always insist on wearing black
because of the connection with the black cassocks worn by the clergy.
Circumstances
It is midmorning, spring, in the year 1700. I reside in Orgon’s house in Paris,
France. I spend a great deal of my time in the parlor of the house. In the parlor is a
settee, a pianoforte, a wardrobe, and a round table covered with a cloth with two chairs
on either side. A grand staircase leads up to the rest of the house as well as my private
bedroom. The staircase is made of marble with a reddish tint. On the walls hang
portraits of the family members. The weather outside is temperate. The house has a very
clean, crisp smell. In spite of her loose tongue, Dorine does a fairly good job of
maintaining the home. Orgon has just returned from touring his country estates. In his
absence, I assumed the rule of the household. There was much resistance to this, as I fear
that some in the house doubt my piety. Fortunately for me, Orgon’s mother visited and
legitimized my authority in Orgon’s absence. Now that he is back, I have heard that he
27
plans on ordering his daughter to marry me. I expect that my position in the household
will be secured, and that if anyone objects to my presence, they will have to deal with
Orgon’s retribution. In short, I don’t believe I will be going anywhere. Indeed, if all
goes according to plan, then it may be the idiots of Orgon’s family who are forced to beg
on the streets.
Relationships
Orgon is my caretaker and spiritual brother; at least, he thinks of himself that way.
In all actuality, I do not care for the man very much. He is an ignoramus, so wrapped up
in materialistic concerns that he does not see me for what I really am. It is all quite
humorous to me. What I find even more amusing is that there are those like Dorine and
Cleante who suspect that I am not the religious man I claim to be; however, all their
attempts to expose me fail because Orgon has drawn me so close to him, and he will not
even entertain the notion that I could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The children,
Mariane and Damis, are annoyances. The thought of being married to Mariane does not
delight me, as I fear she lacks the skills to truly please a man of the world such as myself.
Elmire, on the other hand, is the perfect woman. She has the age, maturity, and resources
to satisfy all my needs. Surely the corset was invented as a compliment for her supple
torso.
28
Objectives
I want this house. I want Orgon’s wealth for myself. All his possessions,
material and personal, should be mine. I am tired of living the life of a beggar. I was not
created for such a menial existence. I deserve to wear the finest clothes, eat the finest
foods, and have all my physical needs tended to. I want Elmire to give herself to me and
satisfy my lust. I, in turn, will satisfy all her feminine needs in a way that pompous fool
Orgon could not.
Obstacles
It is the simpletons of this house that are the obstacles to my desires. All of them,
Dorine, Cleante, Damis, even my beautiful Elmire, are against me. They seek to expose
me to Orgon, to damage my reputation and have me cast out on the street again. Dorine
constantly meddles in affairs that are none of her concern. I know Orgon intends to give
me the hand of his daughter in marriage, and while I am loathe to accept because of her
youthful incompetence, if Dorine should happen to interfere and match her to Valere then
my whole scheme may be disrupted. If Orgon should listen to the wench Dorine in
regards to Mariane’s marriage, then he may be swayed in regards to his perception of me.
Cleante is dangerous to my plan because not only does he have the meddlesome
traits of Dorine, he has a powerful intellect as well. He seems to be able to refute any of
my actions with some piece of logic or philosophy, or to point out the contradictions in
my own arguments. I believe there is a conspiracy between Dorine and Cleante. While
Dorine attempts to appeal to Orgon’s common sense, Cleante tries to appeal to his
29
intelligence. If they continue to assault him on both fronts he may break, which would
spell doom for me.
There is another collaboration taking place between Damis and Elmire. The hottempered brat wants to expel me from the house, and I believe that he and Elmire may
seek to entrap me in a situation that may reveal my true intentions. I am constantly spied
upon; therefore I must be ever on my guard and ready to refute any slander that these
philistines may cast at me.
Actions
Ultimately, I must destroy all those who seek to undo me. It is all a matter of
confronting their rage with my extreme piety and humbleness. I must be able to change
my status at a moment’s notice; when I am assaulted, a lowered status will portray me as
the victim or a martyr. My assessment of Orgon is that he will pity me, and in turn
become angry with those that seek to oust me. Ultimately, he will come to distrust all the
members of his household, and I believe he will bestow on me the inheritance that would
have passed to them. Then it is only a matter of waiting for the appropriate moment to
make my ultimate move, for I suspect that Orgon, like so many men of power, has a
secret that could potentially destroy him. Once I learn that secret, I can use it to expose
him and take his possessions for my own.
30
Creativity
One of my first acting teachers was Dr. Claudia Sullivan, who was a student of
Paul Baker. Sullivan developed a system of exercises for the actor to do away from
rehearsals, which were inspired in part by Baker’s Integration of Abilities. She calls her
system the Ten Line Exercise, and it is comprised of a word study, a sound study, a visual
study, a movement study, a choice study, and finally a ten line study. The goal of this
exercise is two-fold. In one sense, it functions very much in the same manner as Baker’s
exercises; that is, the exercises are of an abstract nature aimed at encouraging creative
thinking in the actor with the hope of opening the actor’s mind to new possibilities
regarding the character. The Ten Line Exercise is also a practical tool for the actor
because it provides him or her with material that is readily accessible during a
performance.
For example, an actor may spend several minutes before stepping on stage going
through the information contained within the character’s biography, the objectives,
obstacles, and tactics that must be applied, and all the various components that make up
the character’s psychology to get “in the moment.” Using Sullivan’s system, the actor
may only need to recall a particular sound, or set of words, or the visual representation of
the character in order to prepare him or herself for performance. Sullivan argues that the
Integration of Abilities and the Ten Line Exercise are in fact a fulfillment of
Stanislavski’s system of acting. Both approaches require the actor to explore the inner
life of the character as well as the embodiment of the character through physical actions
(Sullivan The Actor Alone 49-51).
31
Word Study
The word study asks the actor to comprise a list of words for his or her character.
These words do not need to follow any apparent logic, nor should they be worked into a
sentence. Instead, the words stand alone as representations of ideas and images the actor
has towards the character. As Sullivan explains
the list might include likes and dislikes of the character or
perhaps objects, sounds, textures or attitudes of the
character and his environment…the word study helps the
actor explore facets of the life of the character which are
not necessarily presented on the stage…it is important not
to intellectualize these words and images but rather to note
any that come to mind. (The Actor Alone 61-62)
The word study for Tartuffe is found at the end of this chapter, Figure 3.1.
Sound Study
The sound study follows in the footsteps of the word study. Avoiding dialogue,
the actor comprises a list of vocal and environmental sounds as well as any sounds that
evoke images for the actor. The actor can choose to record these sounds from real life,
recreate them personally, or simply describe them. “The purpose of the sound study is to
expand the actor’s knowledge of the actor’s audible traits and rhythms and, more
important, to explore sound in both abstract and real senses of communication” (Sullivan
The Actor Alone 64). Sullivan goes on to point out that the actor may experience
personal reactions to certain sounds. Such reactions can be used to achieve a desired
response, similar to Stanislavski’s emotion memory exercise.
32
Sound Study for Tartuffe. The sounds of footsteps echo down the marble
hallway. Faint sounds of harpsichord music come from downstairs. Dorine’s annoyingly
loud voice can be heard anywhere. Birds chirp outside the window. Horses pulling
carriages rumble down the streets of Paris outside the house.
Visual Study
The visual study is meant to be the actor’s visual conception of the character. It
can be an object found in nature, or it can be something created by the actor, such as a
painting, drawing or collage. The study can be a visual representation of the rhythm, the
line and direction of the body or emotions, the silhouette, and the color and texture of the
character. The actor may, of course, choose to do several visual studies, each one
focusing on one of the aforementioned concepts. The purpose of this exercise is to
express the character in visual terms that evoke a response or hold significance for the
actor (Sullivan The Actor Alone 65-66). In my own personal experience, I have often
been drawn to visualizations. For me, the pictures are easier to retain in my memory and
draw responses from. During rehearsals and in my work at home, I tried to keep the
images of Tartuffe’s silhouette and lines of movement in mind to spur the character’s
actions. The visual studies for Tartuffe are found at the end of this chapter, Figures 3.2
and 3.3.
33
Movement Study
Movement holds a special importance for Sullivan because she is a dancer, and it
was through dance that she first became involved in theatre. For Sullivan, “movement is
the essence of life…Emotions, psychological attitudes and concepts constitute inner
movements. These inner movements in turn change and affect the outer movements or
those more commonly referred to as bodily movements or bodily actions” (The Actor
Alone 39). One approach to the movement study is through Laban’s effort theory, which
holds that all movements are comprised of four factors: space, weight, time, and flow.
Laban’s efforts apply not only to movement but also to vocal patterns, attitudes, and work
actions (Sullivan The Actor Alone 93). Therefore, the movement study is not only a
study of the character’s external movements but also of the internal movements. I saw
Tartuffe’s movements as being a combination of Wring and Float, which are both slow,
curved movements, but differ in weight. Wring is heavy while Float is lighter. The
curved nature of the movement reflects Tartuffe’s ability to move around obstacles, the
slowness is an aspect of his typical caution, and the differences in weight reflect different
situations; when the stakes are higher, the movement becomes heavier and more
deliberate. These movement choices were also a reflection of the reptilian quality of the
character identified in the commedia style. An abstract representation of the movement
study is found at the end of this chapter, Figure 3.4.
34
Choice Study
Sullivan establishes the choice study to give the actor a chance to explore any
aspects of the character not previously addressed. The actor may choose to reproduce the
sound, visual, or movement studies with a new emphasis, or pursue research into the
historical period of the play or the genre of the play. As Sullivan puts it, “the choice
study might be more appropriately titled ‘your exercise’ for this study is literally the
choice of the individual actor. The purpose of this study is to allow the actor a chance to
explore aspects of the character or the play as a whole” (The Actor Alone 68). Sullivan
always believed the actors should do research into their characters and the play before
using these exercises. I chose to make a more detailed investigation of the literary
criticism on the play my choice exercise for this particular role, the results of which are
contained in the research presented in the first and second chapters of this thesis.
Ten Line Study
The Ten Line study is the culmination of all the preceding studies. The actor
selects approximately ten lines from the script that display a variety of emotions and
aspects of the character and show the character’s progression during the play. “The
transitions from one line to another may be made with the use of abstract movements,
sounds, or rhythmic phrases performed vocally or physically” (Sullivan The Actor Alone
69). Essentially, the actor performs the entire life of the character as contained within the
play in ten lines, using elements of the previous studies as sources for inspiration. In a
35
few moments, the actor can encapsulate the essence of the character in an abstracted
form, which can then serve as a basis for the actual performance.
Ten Line Study for Tartuffe.
1. Raising hands in the air. May Heaven, whose infinite goodness we adore,
preserve your body and soul forevermore.
2. Kneeling before Elmire. I may be pious, but I’m human too.
3. Standing over Damis, invading his space. Load me with all the names men
most abhor; I’ll not complain; I’ve earned them all, and more (falling on knees
in front of Damis); I’ll kneel here while you pour them on my head. As a just
punishment for the life I’ve led.
4. Standing erect, modeling for the painter. And if I have resigned myself to
taking the gift which my dear Brother insists on making, I do so only, as he
well understand, lest so much wealth fall into wicked hands.
5. Sitting on settee. The less we merit, the less we dare to hope, and with our
doubts, mere words can never cope. We trust no promised bliss till we receive
it (spreads legs wide); not till a joy is ours can we believe it.
6. Crawling towards Elmire like a tiger stalking its prey. If you’re still troubled,
think of things this way: No one shall know our joys, save us alone, and
there’s no evil till the act is known; it’s scandal, Madam, which makes it an
offense, and it’s no sin to sin in confidence.
36
7. Standing to full height, bearing down on Orgon. No, I’m the master, and
you’re the one to go! This house belongs to me I’ll have you know, and I
shall show you that you can’t hurt me by this contemptible conspiracy.
8. Somber. But my first duty is to serve my King. That obligation is so
paramount that other claims, beside it, do not count; And for it I would
sacrifice my wife, my family, my friend, or my own life.
9. Chuckling dismissively. To prison? This can’t be true! (realizes it is true and
sits in anger).
Status
Another component of my early actor training was my involvement in a
Theatresports troupe, the Pointless Players, for nearly three years. Theatresports is a
form of improvisational acting developed by Keith Johnstone. Johnstone developed this
form of improvisation during his tenure at the Royal Court Theatre as a method of actor
training. Eventually, he changed emphases, and began to practice improvisation as a
theatrical form in and of itself, with the establishment of Theatresports.
While the main focus of the Pointless Players was improvisational performances,
the troupe’s director used many of Johnstone’s acting techniques during our rehearsals.
Performances were virtually always comedic, but rehearsals made use of dramatic
improvisations as well. One element of Johnstone’s approach that we often used in the
troupe was the concept of status, which I have continuously used in many of my acting
roles, including Tartuffe.
37
The Oxford English Dictionary defines status as “the relative social, professional,
or other standing of someone or something.” Johnstone developed his ideas of playing
status as a technique for actors to make scenes more realistic. He first noticed the lack of
status as a problem when “actors couldn’t reproduce ‘ordinary’ conversation” (33).
While he was experimenting with ways of infusing action into scenes that lacked any true
physical action, he saw the Moscow Art Theatre’s production of The Cherry Orchard.
Johnstone writes, “Everyone on stage seemed to have chosen the strongest possible
motives for each action…The effect was ‘theatrical’ but not like life as I knew it. I asked
myself for the first time what were the weakest possible motives, the motives that the
characters I was watching might really have had” (33). When Johnstone directed his
actors to raise or lower their status by only a minimal amount, he discovered that scenes
became subsequently more realistic. For Johnstone, status is not simply inherent, it’s
“something one does” (36).
Johnstone also found that major changes in status proved to be effective for
comedy. A man slipping on a banana peel is comedic “if he loses status, and we don’t
have any sympathy for him” (Johnstone 40). The final scene of Tartuffe is a big
proverbial banana peel. Tartuffe has raised himself to a position of ultimate status by
lowering all those around him. When the officer arrests him, his status is instantly
deprived, much to the audience’s delight, because there is no sympathy for him. I made
the choice to continue to play the remnants of high status even after the arrest for the very
reason that I didn’t want the audience to have any sympathy for the character. Had
Tartuffe actually felt the pain of his loss of status, then the audience might have felt some
38
measure of sympathy, despite his vile nature, and the comedy would have been lost. In
the instance of the banana peel gag, “if my poor old blind grandfather falls over I’ll rush
up and help him to his feet. If he’s really hurt I may be appalled” (Johnstone 40).
Status transactions were an important part of my portrayal of Tartuffe. Johnstone
describes people that are either compulsively high or low status as being “status
specialists.” There are also “status experts” who are able to raise or lower their status
depending on the situation (35-36). For the actor, playing status then becomes a tactic to
be used in pursuit of the objective or goal. This becomes apparent when one considers
Johnstone’s seesaw principle, which holds that within the context of a particular
relationship, if one person raises or lowers his or her own status then the status of the
others involved will react in the opposite manner (37). Therefore, Tartuffe may play low
status in relation to Orgon in order to raise Orgon’s status, and stay in his good graces.
Conversely, Tartuffe may play high status with Dorine to place her in a lower position
where she may be more easily dominated.
Of course, in some instances the seesaw principle does not hold true. When
Tartuffe confronts Dorine about her excessive cleavage, she responds by trying to raise
her status above his, an illustration of the conflictive nature of their relationship; there is
distaste between the two, and so neither is willing to lose status to the other. The
intimacy between Orgon and Tartuffe and the strife between Tartuffe and Dorine and the
rest of the household can be understood in terms of status. Johnstone points out
“acquaintances become friends when they agree to play status games together” (37).
39
To further illustrate the use of status as a tactic, the following is an excerpt from
the confrontation between Tartuffe, Orgon, and Damis with the status transactions
labeled in italics:
TARTUFFE. (lowering himself)
Yes, Brother, I’m a wicked man, I fear:
A wretched sinner, all depraved and twisted,
The greatest villain that has ever existed.
My life’s one heap of crimes, which grows each minute;
There’s not but foulness and corruption in it;
And I perceive that Heaven, outraged by me,
Has chose this occasion to mortify me.
Charge me with any deed you wish to name;
I’ll not defend myself but take the blame.
Believe what you are told, and drive Tartuffe
Like some base criminal from beneath your roof;
Yes, drive me hence, and with a parting curse:
I shan’t protest, for I deserve far worse.
ORGON (lowering Damis).
Ah, you deceitful boy, how dare you try
To stain his purity with so foul a lie?
DAMIS.
What! Are you taken in by such a bluff?
Did you not hear…?
ORGON.
Enough, you rogue, enough!
TARTUFFE (raising Damis to lower himself further)
Ah, Brother, let him speak: you’re being unjust.
Believe his story; the boy deserves your trust.
Why, after all, should you have faith in me?
How can you know what I might do, or be?
Is it on my good actions that you base
Your favor? Do you trust my pious face?
Ah, no, don’t be deceived by hollow shows;
I’m far, alas, from being what men suppose;
Though the world takes me for a man of worth.
I’m truly the most wretched man on earth.
40
(To Damis, apparently lowering himself but actually
raising his status)
Yes, my dear son, speak out now: call me the chief
Of sinners, a wretch, a murderer, a thief;
Load me with all the names men most abhor;
I’ll not complain; I’ve earned them all, and more;
(falling on his knees, extremely lowering himself)
I’ll kneel here while you pour them on my head
As a just punishment for the life I’ve led. (III, vi)
The basic tactic behind these status transactions is that by lowering his own status,
Tartuffe raises Damis and makes him out to be the unjust villain. Tartuffe also appears to
be the victim in his low status position, which compels Orgon to pity him and rebuke
Damis for being apparently tyrannical.
There is a physical component involved in playing status. Typically the high
status player moves more smoothly, with greater confidence and with a minimum of
extraneous gestures. They are more inclined to hold eye contact with another, and they
keep their head still when speaking; that in turn leads to a more upright posture.
It is important to understand the difference between control and tension in terms
of physical status. A high status player is very much in control of his or her body, but
there is a relaxed quality that seems effortless, due in part to his/her own assuredness of
his/her high status position. If the muscles are tense in an effort to hold the body still, the
rigidity could come across as being defensive. The result may be interpreted as a person
who is naturally low status trying to affect high status. Converse to the relaxed stillness
of a high status player, the low status player avoids eye contact, is jerky in movement,
uses extraneous gestures and often has a stammering quality in speech. There is often a
nervous quality to such people (Johnstone 42-43).
41
Tartuffe is high status by nature, even though he is an expert in that he can lower
his status when need be. The physical embodiment of high status corresponds with
earlier ideas I had for Tartuffe’s movements. There is a graceful quality to him because
he believes himself to be invincible. When Tartuffe plays lower status as a tactic, as in
the confrontation with Damis, the physicality becomes extreme to the point of falling on
his knees before Damis with arms outstretched as if waiting for the executioner’s blade.
A particularly interesting status transaction for me as an actor occurs when Orgon,
who has been hiding under the table, discovers Tartuffe with Elmire. At this point in the
play Tartuffe’s high status is absolute; he has gained the inheritance of Orgon as well as
discovered a secret that could result in Orgon’s imprisonment. In spite of this, the
dialogue puts Tartuffe in a low status position when Orgon intercepts him. Stammering,
Tartuffe tries to explain the situation, only to have Orgon cast him out. It is then that
Tartuffe plays high status once more, asserting his dominance before exiting.
I decided the reason for Tartuffe’s initial low status was because he was
unprepared to deal with a confrontation with Orgon and was caught off his guard.
Additionally, the scene mirrors the earlier confrontation with Damis in that an unseen
party catches Tartuffe in an awkward situation. In the first encounter, Tartuffe is able to
successful play low status in order to escape punishment. It is totally logical then that
when caught off-guard in a similar situation, Tartuffe would instinctively try to employ
the same low status tactics that saved him previously.
Status is a tool that can help an actor understand the relationships between
characters and explore new avenues of interpretation. When added to a character that has
42
already been developed by the actor, status becomes an effective tactic to be used in
pursuit of an objective. Small changes in status can help make a scene more realistic;
larger changes can help portray comedy and tragedy. Since playing status is a natural
activity that humans engage in, it is important for the actor to understand exactly what
playing status entails so as to be able to convincingly represent the transactions between
characters before an audience.
Imagination and Truth
Imagination has always been a key element in any role I have played. As
Stanislavski wrote, “Every movement you make on the stage, every word you speak, is
the result of the right life of your imagination” (An Actor Prepares 67). The techniques I
have described earlier in this chapter, the inner life of the character, the abstract images
and words associated with the character, even the choices of status all germinated from
how my imagination assimilated the information presented to me in the given
circumstances of the text, as well as the historical and critical research. After doing the
actor homework, the exercises and experimentations, my imagination came to my aid
again to help me believe myself in the role of Tartuffe, and create a sense of truth for me.
What then, is a sense of truth for the actor? Stanislavski related truth to
imagination by saying “everything must be real in the imaginary life of the actor” (An
Actor Prepares 148). In order to achieve that reality, the actor must believe in his or her
actions and those of the others on stage. That believability is necessary to create a sense
of truth, as truth and belief are bound together (An Actor Prepares 122).
43
A sense of belief and truth is key when performing in any play, but often it
becomes even more a necessity and more of a challenge in pre-modern dramas for the
simple fact that the actor is called upon to represent a role that is alien to modern
performers and audiences. Tartuffe presents ideas that are still applicable in the present
day. A con artist who disguises himself in the trappings of religion in order to
manipulate and swindle his victims is certainly nothing irrelevant in modern life;
however, the world of the play, the time period, society, and manners and customs
displayed often exist primarily in history books and museums. Therefore, it can be said
that a modern actor can identify with a classical piece such as Tartuffe on an internal
level more readily than an external level. It is for this reason that I placed such an
emphasis on historical research while preparing this role. I wanted to create a picture for
myself of what the world looked, sounded and smelled like so that I could imagine
myself being there. While the action of Tartuffe is localized to a single room, the
dialogue and activities of the characters are indicative of a much larger environment; they
behave as they do because of the society in which they live; therefore, as an actor I
needed to understand that society in order to understand certain behaviors.
Another component to establishing belief and truth were the rehearsal costumes
that were provided for the cast. By being able to rehearse while wearing heeled shoes
and a long coat I began to understand how the body moved in those garments and became
comfortable with that movement. In order to believe in myself, and by the same token to
expect the audience to believe me, I had to feel as though the costume truly was my
everyday dress, and not simply something I wore for two hours a night during the
44
performance. Also, by practicing the elements of the period style such as stances,
postures and gestures from the beginning of rehearsals, the addition of the rehearsal
costumes and finally the transition to the actual costumes was a smooth process. The
elements influenced each other in creating a sense of belief. On the one hand, I knew I
needed to stand a certain way from the beginning, and once I was given a rehearsal
costume, the stance made sense because of how the garments affected the body. At the
same time, however, new physicalizations were discovered with the addition of the
rehearsal costumes that became truthful because the body could only behave a certain
way. It is the belief in the actions and physical life of the character that creates truth.
After all the research, analysis and experimentation, I achieve my sense of truth in
performance by imagining that every action I perform on stage and the delivery of every
word is a natural expression of the character. I typically am not aware of the audience, at
least not on a conscious level. My training has taught me how to make myself heard and
seen, and to know how to adjust to the audience’s reactions. I do not clutter my mind
thinking about how I will say an upcoming line, or what bit of blocking comes next. All
the homework and experimentation has been ingrained through the rehearsal process.
That is not to say that I am on autopilot while I am acting, but rather am in the moment. I
have created an imaginary life for the character; when I step on stage, I put myself into
that imaginary life, and while all the movements and vocalizations have been set, the
impetus comes just from the belief in the truth of that imaginary world and the
character’s place in it.
45
Figure 3.1 Word Study, Tartuffe
46
Figure 3.2 Visual Study, Tartuffe’s external silhouette
47
Figure 3.3 Visual Study, Tartuffe’s internal silhouette
48
Figure 3.4 Abstract Movement Study, Tartuffe
49
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSION
Production
Ritual
For many years I have approached performing as engaging in a ritual, and
Tartuffe was no exception. I do not use the term ritual in a particularly religious sense;
instead, I refer to a series of actions and behaviors that I invariably followed every night
before performances. The ritual changes with every different production I am involved
in, but inevitably during dress rehearsals I fall into a set pattern of activities leading up to
my first entrance that continues throughout the run of that particular production.
My ritual for this production began with my early arrival at the theatre, usually at
least fifteen minutes before the call time. I have always tried to arrive early for rehearsals
and, particularly, performances in order to allow myself extra time to collect my thoughts
and put the business of daily life aside. I also enjoy being able to take my time in
preparing for the performance and not having to feel rushed in getting into makeup and
costume.
The first minutes at the theatre were spent outside visiting with the other actors in
the cast. We talked about the events of our day, made jokes and so forth. This was a
transitory time for me, bridging the gap between the world of my personal life and the
world of the performance. It also helped to strengthen the connections among the cast
and enhanced the ensemble quality of the production.
50
After this time with my castmates I went inside to apply my makeup. Makeup
was a key part in the transformation into my character. The makeup for Tartuffe was
lighter in color than my natural skin tone, but it was not as white as that worn by some of
the other characters. The more affluent characters, such as Orgon and Elmire wore
makeup that was virtually white, in keeping with the practices of the French upper class
during the time period of the play. In addition to the lighter base makeup, the bridge of
my nose and the area above my eyebrows were colored with highlights. The eyebrows
were darkened, and red makeup was applied to my nose and cheeks with a stipple sponge
in order to create the look of broken capillaries resulting from heavy drinking. I applied
my makeup with care, because it was the first step in “putting on” the character.
The makeup was mask-like in a sense, because of how it altered my appearance;
thus, when I looked at my reflection I saw more of the character than of my own person.
It was also a visual representation of the hypocritical nature of Tartuffe. The alabaster
skin tone suggested purity, or a classical beauty, but the addition of the redness in the
nose and cheeks indicated his true debauched nature.
After the makeup was completed, I then got into costume. My costume consisted
of a white Jacobean-style shirt, white jabot, white hose, black heeled shoes, black
breeches, black waistcoat and a dark gray overcoat similar to a frock coat. Putting the
costume on was another step in the transformation because of how the clothing affected
my posture and movement. I could see Tartuffe’s face in the mirror because of the
makeup, and now I could feel his movements in my body.
51
At this point we had our company meeting in the greenroom for notes from either
the stage manager or director. After the meeting the stage manager would call us to
places. Since I did not make my first entrance until the third act, I used this time to put
my wig on. It was dark brown with curls that fell past my shoulders. Once I was wigged,
the appearance of Tartuffe was complete. I spent time looking at myself in the mirror,
getting used to the appearance of the character and allowing myself to see the character
and not myself (I recall a story that actors in the Kabuki theatre stare at their reflections
after putting on their elaborate makeup and costumes as a means of believing themselves
to have become the character; it was a similar ritual for me.) I also took time to walk
around in character backstage. Similar to looking at my reflection, I wanted to feel the
movements of the character and the costume before I made my first entrance. I would
occasionally converse with members of the cast and crew, but the majority of my time
leading up to my first entrance was spent in solitude.
In the minutes before I stepped on stage, I took a moment to visualize myself in
the first scene. I imagined where I stood, where the other characters were around me. I
pictured the set and the lights and all the elements of the world of the production. I then
added to that the visualization of the imaginary world of the play, seeing in my mind a
complete house and not just a set on a stage. I recalled the activity my character was
engaged in offstage that had been established during rehearsals; before my first scene my
servant Laurent and I were in my chambers discussing how our plan of infiltrating
Orgon’s life had progressed, and what our next actions would be now that he had
returned home. At that point, I felt ready to make my entrance in character. Once my
52
performance had begun, I did not engage in any more ritualized behavior, nor did I take
time offstage to think about work done in rehearsals.
My personal philosophy is that the work done in rehearsals becomes a part of the
actor, and once the door to the character has been opened for the performance it is simply
a matter of staying in the moment in order to create the sense of truth. I liken it to a
column of dominoes; once the energy has been imparted to knock the first one down, the
others follow in succession.
Performance
In my experience I have been exposed to two schools of thought regarding the
actor in performance. One holds that the actor must commit to the choices made during
the rehearsal process, the physical actions and interpretations, and that every night of
performance should be without any significant variants. Under such a philosophy it
becomes the responsibility of the actor to infuse each performance with enough energy
and creativity in order to create the “illusion of the first time;” that is to say, each
audience member who views the performance should believe that the actors are playing
their roles for the first time, and not for the seventh time.
The other philosophy argues that the actor must continue to investigate the
character after the performance run has started. The belief is that the art of acting is
organic in nature and must constantly evolve and develop. As a result, interpretations
may change over the course of the run. There may even be changes in physical actions
53
and the relationships presented on stage through a shifting of interactions between
characters.
I personally have always subscribed to the former theory as opposed to the latter.
My approach to a role, as illustrated in this thesis, is to engage in research and analysis
prior to the beginning of rehearsals, and then during the rehearsal process to explore the
character intellectually and imaginatively, and then experiment with physical and vocal
interpretations that best convey the character. Near the end of rehearsals, I commit to
certain physical, vocal, and inner actions, and attempt to reproduce those actions
faithfully during every performance. I very much agree with what Stanislavski said on
the subject:
The score of his (the actor’s) part and of the production as a
whole undergo further change as more work is done on
them…The score of each role must be condensed, the form
of its conveyance be made concrete…As the performances
are repeated, the stage score of the play, as well as that of
each part, no longer changes in general form. Yet this does
not mean…that the creative process of the actors is
finished, that all they have to do is to repeat mechanically
their opening performance. On the contrary, each
successive performance requires that they be in a creative
state, all their inner faculties must participate in their
acting. (Stanislavski’s Legacy 193-4).
Again, it is the actor’s imagination that creates a sense of truth and belief in those actions
that are performed repetitively night after night that keeps the performance from
becoming mechanical or stagnant. Thus, while my score of physical actions,
interpretation, and vocal delivery were fairly consistent from performance to performance
I believe that the belief and truth I created for myself through imagination and my preshow ritual made each performance motivated and genuine.
54
Self Evaluation
Stanislavski wrote, “The greatest wisdom is to recognize one’s lack of it”
(Building a Character 300). I cannot say how successful my performance of Tartuffe
was, at least not from the perspective of the audiences that saw it; I can only evaluate
myself in terms of how I applied the different facets of my training and how my artistry
developed as a result of this role.
One of the most significant aspects of playing this character came from the
director’s desire to blend the performance techniques of modern acting with the period
style. Previously, when I have performed in period plays, I tended to focus mainly on the
externals of voice and movement for the character. That is not to say that I completely
ignored the inner life of those characters; I simply did not focus on those aspects as
much. I was content to have a basic understanding of who the character was and how the
character related to the others in the play. Beyond that, it was enough for me to have the
right look and sound for the role and stay in the moment during each performance.
By spending more time analyzing Tartuffe’s motivations and studying the history
and analysis surrounding the play, I found myself to be more deeply engaged in the role.
I felt that any choices I made regarding the physical and vocal characterization were not
gratuitous but were motivated by my understanding of the character and the play as a
whole. When I assumed an expansive and dramatic, pose it was because of Tartuffe’s
tactics, status play, and the commedia dell’arte influence that I had discovered doing my
research. Nothing was done by accident, nor was it done simply to look and sound good.
55
The nature of the comedy was something that I constantly struggled with during
rehearsals. The director told the cast that traditionally English-speaking companies tend
to perform Tartuffe as a farce with extreme physical comedy, while in the French theatre
it is performed very seriously, almost to the point of being more of a drama than a
comedy. This production tried to find a middle ground. The comedic elements were
controlled so as to stay away from slapstick, though there were moments of more extreme
physical comedy, such as when Orgon discovered Tartuffe with his wife. At the same
time, we as actors could not become so mired in our characters’ psychologies that the
humor was totally lost on the audience. It was, after all, a comedy of manners, and the
only effective way to make the humor viable was to play the mannerisms with enough
physicality to make it clear that they are in fact being made fun of. It was in many ways
like walking a tightrope for me; I wanted the audience to enjoy the comedy, but I did not
want to take it so far as to be unfaithful to the ensemble or the style of the production.
Fortunately, the director made sure that the physical style kept within the appropriate
limits for the production. Several times I was told to restrain my physicality, which I
appreciated because it helped me to focus on the specific motivations for the character
and not become self-indulgent.
While in many areas I feel as though I developed as an artist, playing Tartuffe
also made me consider some deficiencies. The use of my body is an area of my acting
ability that is lacking, in my opinion. I do believe that regardless of the style of the play,
an actor must be physically and vocally expressive. Many actors I have worked with
have studied dance or gymnastics, which has helped them in developing the
56
expressiveness of the body. At the time of this production I had not had much in the way
of movement training, which subsequently has become an area of interest for me in order
to develop my skills as a whole.
Zeami, the Noh actor and dramatist of the fifteenth century, wrote, “An actor must
absorb all styles of acting…One who has truly grasped the various styles can summon up
his art to color them and expand upon them a hundredfold” (101). Playing Tartuffe in
this particular production has taught me the validity of that statement. While Zeami was
referring to the various styles of dance and chanting used by the Noh actors, it is a
concept that I believe holds true for modern American performers as well. I could have
played Tartuffe in either a strictly period style or strictly Stanislavskian; however, I do
not believe the end result would have been as effective either way, nor would I have
developed my performance abilities as I did. I had to consider the role in ways that were
unfamiliar to me, and it was because of that I was able to advance my skills as an actor.
I do not believe I was perfect in the role of Tartuffe, for I do not believe that there
exists such a thing as a perfect performance. In hindsight, there are other elements of
characterization I would have liked to incorporate and aspects of the character that
warranted more exploration. Part of this comes from the fact that as I have progressed in
my actor training, I have been exposed to techniques that were not available to me when I
played Tartuffe. Furthermore, as I have matured as an individual, my personal
experiences have changed my perceptions, and I see the role in ways I could not have
seen before. Acting is an organic art form, and as such, is always in a state of flux.
When a painter’s colors have dried on the canvas, the artwork is fixed and will not
57
change unless the artist desires it. For the actor, there can be no such concreteness, for
even though the physical actions, vocal delivery and inner motivations for the character
may be set and adhered to as faithfully as possible during each successive performance,
there are still elements which are constantly in change. Physical and mental fatigue,
distractions both on stage and off, the influence of daily life and emotions, all have an
effect of the actor’s performance, even if only in minute ways. Some performances
garnered a more vocal reaction from the audience, and some felt more inspired for me
personally; overall, I believe it was a successful production, and I handled my role to the
best of my abilities.
Ultimately, performing this role was both an educational and an artistic
experience for me. I developed my skills as an actor during the rehearsal process and
experimented with a blending of styles that I had never attempted before. I believe that
the performances were an artistic success for me because I strove to create the same sense
of truth and belief for myself as the character of Tartuffe each night, and I think I
achieved that. As Coquelin wrote of an actor playing Tartuffe
When the actor has a portrait to execute, that is, a part to
create, he must first read the play carefully over many
times, until he has grasped the intention of the author and
the meaning of the character he is to represent…Then, like
the painter, he seizes each salient feature and transfers it,
not to his canvas, but to himself…he recasts his own
individuality, till the critic which is his first self declares
that he is satisfied, and finds that the result is really
Tartuffe. (192-3)
58
With careful research and analysis of the play, I developed an image of what I thought
Tartuffe should be, and through imagination, experimentation, and expression, I inhabited
that role to my own satisfaction, which I believe is the goal of any actor.
59
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baker, Paul. Integration of Abilities: Exercises for Creative Growth. New Orleans:
Anchorage, 1977.
Berne, Eric. Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships. New York:
Grove Press, 1966.
Braider, Christopher. Indiscernible Counterparts: The Invention of the Text in French
Classic Drama. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 2002.
Calder, Andrew. Molière: The Theory and Practice of
Comedy. London: Athlone, 1993.
Callow, Simon. Acting in Restoration Comedy. New York: Applause, 1991.
Coquelin, Benoit Constant. “The Dual Personality of the Actor.” Actors on Acting. Ed.
Toby Cole and Helen Krich Chinoy. New York: Crown, 1970.
Crawford, Jerry L. Acting in Person and in Style. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown
Company Publishing, 1980.
Hagen, Uta. A Challenge for the Actor. New York: Macmillan, 1991.
---. Respect for Acting. New York: Macmillan, 1973.
Harrop, John, and Sabin R. Epstein. Acting with Style. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 1990.
Johnstone, Keith. Impro: Improvistation and the Theatre. New York: Routledge, 1981.
Kasparek, Jerry Lewis. Molière’s Tartuffe and the Traditions of Roman Satire. Chapel
Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1977.
Koppisch, Michael S. Rivalry and the Disruption of Order in Molière’s Theater.
Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 2004.
Laban, Rudolf. The Mastery of Movement. Boston: Plays, 1971.
Molière. Tartuffe. Trans. Richard Wilbur. New York: Dramatists, 1991.
The Molière Encyclopedia. Ed. James F. Gaines. Westport: Greenwood, 2002.
60
Oxenford, Lyn. Playing Period Plays. London: J. Garnet Miller Ltd, 1957.
Price, Thomas. Dramatic Structure and Meaning in Theatrical Productions. San
Francisco: Mellen Research UP, 1992.
Rudlin, John. Commedia dell’Arte: An Actor’s Handbook. New York: Routledge, 1994.
Scott, Virginia. Molière: A Theatrical Life. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000.
Spolin, Viola. Improvistation for the Theater. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1999.
Stanislavski, Constantin. An Actor Prepares. Trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. New
York: Theatre Arts Books, 1965.
---. Building a Character. Trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. New York: Routledge,
1994.
---. Creating a Role. Trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. New York: Routledge, 2003.
---. Stanislavski’s Legacy: A Collection of Comments on a Variety of Aspects of an
Actor’s Art and Life. Trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. New York: Theatre
Arts Books, 1968.
Sullivan, Claudia N. The Actor Alone: Exercises for Work in Progress. Jefferson:
McFarland, 1993.
---. The Actor Moves. Jefferson: McFarland, 1990.
Tilley, Arthur. Molière. New York: Russell & Russell, 1968.
Zeami. “On the Art of the Noh Drama.” Trans. J. Thomas Rimer and Yamazaki
Masakazu. Theatre/Theory/Theatre: The Major Critical Texts. Ed. Daniel
Gerould. New York: Applause, 2000.
61
APPENDIX
62
REHEARSAL JOURNAL
February 23, 2004
We had our first read-through for Tartuffe tonight. There was a lot of good energy from
everyone involved. I think that this will be a very enjoyable experience. Dr. Mann mad
some comments about the play. It was written in 1669, but we are pushing it forward
into the 1700’s to allow for more interesting costumes. We will be performing in a
definite period style with broad movements and vocal variety. She wants us to still keep
in mind the modern techniques of tactics, objectives, and relationships. Since Molière
was influenced by Commedia dell’Arte, and some of the characters are manifestations of
the commedia stock characters, a lot of the acting style will be similar. Dr. Mann also
said that we would be doing exercises like pushups to build our strength in order to
perform the physical style. She also wants us to go through the script and underline the
important words. The vocal style will involve “pointing,” or emphasizing key words and
phrases for effect.
February 24
I was thinking today about the relationship between the play and commedia. Dr. Mann
had mentioned that Orgon is in many ways a Pantalone character, and that Dorine is a
derivative of Columbina. So I am wondering if Tartuffe has a connection to any of the
commedia characters. I was thinking that he might be drawn from Coviello, since he is a
combination of the slyness of Arlecchino and the pompousness of Dottore. I mentioned
63
this to Dr. Mann and she thinks there may be a connection to Brighella, because he is
more sneaky and underhanded. She also said that she had been thinking about
connections between Tartuffe and any of the commedia characters, and she thinks that
any connection would be slim, because the character of Tartuffe is more individualized,
but it still might be something worth investigating.
February 27
Dr. Mann told me she asked Dr. Marks if there was a correlation between Tartuffe and
any of the commedia stock characters. Dr. Marks said that in Molière’s original company
the actor who played Dottore also played Tartuffe. Dottore puts on the front of being an
academic when in actuality he is a fraud who has no clue what he’s talking about. In
much the same way, Tartuffe tries to pass himself off as a religious man. Dr. Mann also
gave me an interview with Antony Sher discussing how he played Tartuffe. Sher’s
approach was that Tartuffe essentially is not a real person, but a fabrication or a person
invented by the con man. Sher believed that this allowed a greater versatility in how the
character related to the other characters. When I was in high school I saw a one-act
production of Tartuffe for competition. I remember that one of the judge’s comments to
the actor playing Tartuffe was that the character was not charming. I mentioned this to
Dr. Mann and she thought it was an interesting idea that the character, while devious and
underhanded, still had to have some sort of attractiveness, magnetism or charm in order
to insert himself into Orgon’s life and work his con act.
64
February 29
In reading the script, I am struck with a curiosity. I wonder if it is possible or feasible to
play Tartuffe in such a way that the audience actually empathizes with him. The question
comes to me after watching a film version of Oliver Twist. In it, the thieves are portrayed
as the heroes of the story, because they are not necessarily bad, but are victims of
circumstances that drove them to a life of crime. The same may be true of Tartuffe.
There is a line which states that Tartuffe at one time belonged to the nobility but was
deprived of his wealth. Of course this line may be a total lie. True or not, it could still
serve as a basis for the character.
March 1
We’ve been doing some work on the acting style. In many ways it reminds me of ballet
with very graceful yet strong movements across the stage. When you get to a position,
you assume a pose and hold it. The acting is somewhat sparse in movement, mostly
standing and talking. You only move if you have a definite reason to do so. In some
ways it reminds me of the style of acting we applied to Samuel Beckett last semester in
the Advanced Scene Study class. The movement is conscious and decided, but at the
same time it must have a natural appearance. We blocked Act V tonight, and the
blocking follows the acting style that we have been discussing. While the acting style is
very presentational, Dr. Mann still wants us to have the real underlying emotions. We’ve
also been doing a lot of physical and vocal warm-ups to build up the technique.
65
March 4
Last night we worked on the scenes between Tartuffe and Elmire and the scene where
Damis attempts to expose Tartuffe to Orgon. I really enjoyed working on the scenes with
Elmire. We didn’t block them; instead we read through and discussed what was going
on. We worked on finding the beat changes and tried to figure out the objectives and
tactics being used. Something interesting that I came across was the idea that Tartuffe
uses language as a mask to hide behind. There are also moments in Tartuffe’s speeches
that make him sound like a snake-oil salesman. I mentioned this to Dr. Mann and she
said that it might be another commedia influence, deriving from the Mountebanks who
would sell their wares during a performance. It is growing ever more apparent to me that
this character must be approached from both sides. Modern acting techniques must be
used to give the character shape, dimension and purpose, but then it falls on the more
period elements of physical gesture and vocal style to convey the intentions.
March 5
Last night I was only called to rehearse Scene One of Act IV, the dialogue between
Cleante and Tartuffe. Again, I feel that Tartuffe is using language as a mask. The way
he speaks with Cleante is markedly different from how he addresses other characters.
With Orgon he is an evangelical snake-oil salesman, with Elmire he is a Don Juan, and
with Cleante he seems to try and use logic at times to refute Cleante’s arguments. It may
be that every time Tartuffe steps on stage he is essentially a different person, adapting
himself to suit his current environment.
66
March 9
At rehearsal last night we blocked the scene in which Tartuffe makes his first appearance.
Certainly a character’s first entrance is always an important concern for any actor,
because it is essentially the audiences’ first impression of the character that can set the
tone for how the audience relates to that character for the rest of the play. Tartuffe
presents an interesting situation for the first entrance because of the fact that Tartuffe has
been the topic of conversation for the first half of the play. This may build an
anticipation or interest from the audience as to who or what Tartuffe is, perhaps in a sort
of Godot fashion. For the staging, Tartuffe is entering in a very conspiratorial manner
with his servant Laurent, but when he sees Dorine he immediately snaps into his religious
mask with a Mountebank tone, announcing to the audience what a pious man he is. We
discussed the bit with the handkerchief between Tartuffe and Dorine. Some possible
motivations are:
1. It is simply an excuse for Tartuffe to touch a woman’s breast.
2. He does it because he knows that it will aggravate her.
3. He is conveying the façade of a religious man.
It could be any one of these motivations, a combination of them, or something completely
different. As of right now I see it as a combination of all of thesee, which is possible
when dealing with Transactional Psychology and Games Analysis. Of course, what is
more important is if the multiple motivations can be played so that the audience reads
them as such.
67
March 17
We are currently in the middle of Spring Break and are not in rehearsal. I must confess, I
have not thought too much about the play in the past few days. Perhaps that is a good
thing. Maybe I should take time to step back from the character so that I can have a fresh
perspective. Yesterday I went to Schreiner University and helped out Dr. Sullivan’s
acting class. They are preparing short duet scenes, working on objectives and obstacles.
In talking to them it reinforced just how important those things will be for my portrayal
of Tartuffe. I worry sometimes that I may be over-intellectualizing the part, that maybe I
should just “feel” it more. I’ve received the critique in the past that my acting is too
cerebral at times. I heard that a lot in high school. I think at some point I learned to let
go and my performances became for natural, but right now I’m not so sure. Sometimes
in rehearsal I just go with the flow, and other times I am constantly analyzing everything
I do. Then again, maybe that is Tartuffe. Maybe the con man is almost always on his
toes, but sometimes he gives in to his instincts or to his own desires. It’s an interesting
theory.
March 21
Yesterday we focused on the two scenes between Elmire and Tartuffe. It was a very
productive rehearsal. It basically boils down to this: in their first scene, Tartuffe is trying
to seduce her with his words like a Don Juan, but in the second scene he resorts to more
aggressive physical tactics. When Elmire says she has feelings for him, Tartuffe’s
68
response is, “put your money where your mouth is.” I think part of the reason for this
change in behavior is an increasing cockiness in Tartuffe. By this time Orgon has signed
over basically everything to him. Tartuffe is essentially invincible. If he wanted to, he
could easily just ravish Elmire regardless of what she might say, but then he wouldn’t be
playing the game. It’s no fun for him to simply take what he wants; instead, he wants to
play people so that they willingly give it to him. He uses every trick at his disposal to
play his game.
March 25
We worked on the scene between Cleante and Tartuffe tonight and made an interesting
discovery. Dr. Mann gave him a stick and told him to lightly poke me on certain lines for
emphasis. The result was that I became very annoyed and angry with him by the end of
the scene, which gave me a stronger motivation for my exit. He won’t actually poke me
in the show, but the jabs will be there verbally. We are supposed to be off-book this
Friday. When I’ve worked on classical plays in the past like Shakespeare, the lines came
fairly easily because of the rhythm and flow of the language. This play has been
somewhat more difficult because it seems as though Tartuffe repeats his ideas. He just
finds different ways to say the same thing, which may be another attribute of the con
man. The remainder of rehearsals will be devoted to run throughs and technicals, so I
may not write much about them.
69
April 16
We open in a few hours, and I am reflecting on this process and my thoughts on the
production. As a play, Tartuffe presents some interesting challenges. It is always a
difficulty to make a period piece work for a modern audience. There is a desire to remain
true to the physical style, but if this is done in excess, then it runs the risk of alienating
the audience. Conversely, if the acting technique is too modern, then the audience may
not accept it because of the stylized nature of the language. The nature of the comedy in
the play is another interesting matter. While there are some farcical elements, and times
of physical comedy, much of the humor is subtle. Playing the show is like walking a
tightrope. If it is played too big, then it becomes something unruly that the audience may
reject. If played too subtly, the humor may not come across at all.
70
PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s
degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I
agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for research
purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the
Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that any copying or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my further
written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.
Agree (Permission is granted.)
____Jeffrey Scott_________________________________
Student Signature
__04/20/06_______
Date
Disagree (Permission is not granted.)
_______________________________________________
Student Signature
_________________
Date