CREATING TARTUFFE: AN ACTOR’S APPROACH

by

JEFFREY STEWART SCOTT, 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

ii

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.

iii

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

iv

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.

v

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

1

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

2

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 well-

developed 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.

3

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

4

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 Petit-

Bourbon 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

5

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).

6

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,

7

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

8

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.

9

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

10

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

11

commedia influence at work within the character of Tartuffe, an idea discussed in the

next chapter.

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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.

16

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

17

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

18

hypocrite. There was not a single stock character that stood out to me as being “Tartuffe-

like.” 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” (78-

9). Tartuffe is a character whose mind is as powerful as his body, if not more so. His

19

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-of-

all-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

20

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.

21

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.

22

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 chapter-

while 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

23

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)

24

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.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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.

29

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

30

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 hot-

tempered 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.

31

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).

32

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.

33

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.

34

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.

35

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

36

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.

37

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.

38

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

39

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).

40

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.

41

(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).

42

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

43

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).

44

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

45

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.

46

Figure 3.1 Word Study, Tartuffe

47

Figure 3.2 Visual Study, Tartuffe’s external silhouette

48

Figure 3.3 Visual Study, Tartuffe’s internal silhouette

49

Figure 3.4 Abstract Movement Study, Tartuffe

50

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.

51

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.

52

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

53

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

54

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 pre-

show ritual made each performance motivated and genuine.

55

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.

56

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

57

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

58

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)

59

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.

60

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.

61

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.

62

APPENDIX

63

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

64

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.

65

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.

66

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.

67

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.

68

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

69

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.

70

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.

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_________________________________ __04/20/06_______ Student Signature Date Disagree (Permission is not granted.) _______________________________________________ _________________ Student Signature Date