Frank McGuinness Quelqu'un pour veiller sur moi direction Etienne Pommeret Presentation : "Three men in chains who speak, fight, sing, joke, cry, hate each other, love each other, who live their life, fear their death, terrified especially by war. (…) This is the truth I like creating. We were, we are, we will be. I hope. (…) The theatre feeds on chaos, since it is borne by conflict." Frank McGuinness Dramaturgical Notes: Extracts from interviews between Chantal Regairaz and Etienne Pommeret The Fratricidal Conflict Chantal Regairaz: Mentioning the fratricidal conflict inevitably brings to my mind the feeling of internal contradiction, of inner contradiction. Étienne Pommeret: "Fratrie" (siblings) / Fraternity / Fratricide. McGuinness is completely within these bonds. His writing really speaks of the borders between fratricide and fraternity, between fraternity and brother-sister relationships, etc. C. R.: Fraternity is not within solidarity. É. P.: No, in solidarity there is the idea that one is above the other, that one has something that the other lacks, whereas here they are all in the same mess. Fundamentally, the play describes the bonds which unite these three "F". The time C. R.: There are two temporalities to be represented in this scene. How to make the audience feel that the shock felt by the two hostages on hearing of the indifference of the outside world for their situation is not simply a problem of non-liberty, of ego or of pride (from the fact that people are not speaking about them), but a truly impossible, unbearable principle, that their non-existence in the other time, the other world, separates them even further from life. They see, they realise even more, that life is elsewhere, that it continues elsewhere. How to give an account of this temporal distinction? this distinction between worlds? By what means to show this right from the first scene? Is it necessary to emphasise the connivance between Adam and Edward, the fruit of this long time spent together? É. P.: All the same, we can put forward several hypotheses or bases. I see four points. But before that, we must note that up until then, only one scene has occurred. Scene 1 lasts about seven minutes and ends with a glorious feat, a paroxysmal point, the acme, to take up the vocabulary of tragedy, the highest point of the tragic rise and its resolution. Therefore, there is already in the writing of the first scene a rising, a paroxysmal point and a fall. This already creates tension, an acceleration and a final slowing down. In the very rhythm of the scene, there is action on the different times. Coming back to the four points, let us begin with the practical points: first, just what are we going to show, what will be seen and heard in this setting, this place of imprisonment, these times? With Chantal Thomas, we are seeking how to show time and space by trying to de-naturalise the space and the time. Instead of taking the obvious beginning, that is, a realistic even naturalistic setting, we are trying to de-structure the relationship with reality. When the lights will come up, the audience will see it is not in a place it knows, or that it recognises. It’s a place with which it will be able to play, but it’s not a stereotyped place (whatever the quality of the stereotype). Visually therefore, it will have a first "other" space. Secondly, the way we are going to light this abstract space will also create movement, here too, in order to de-naturalise the idea of light. Of course the standard is the neon, the electric light bulb. How can we make this stereotype evolve, change? Either at the base, that is, from the very beginning, from the first image, or during the scene. The naturalistic view is one way of lighting the non-realistic view, more abstract, which will indicate another value on the time. The last point (which joins the previous ones): we are going to work more on a mental universe than on a real one. It’s a question of imagining how we can show this banal feeling of infinity, of emptiness. Through what visions can it be seen? How is the audience going to be able to play, to comprehend this vision of space which shows another mental time, another mental space? These are the three important points we’ve worked on until now. Next, work on the sound has to be added, but, for the moment, this is not far enough advanced to be able to speak of it. The fourth point is also very important. I didn’t want to begin with this one as it was the most obvious: it’s the work on rhythm, the work on the musical part of the play. There are some things which can happen very quickly, then suddenly the time seems very slow to us again. C. R.: This musical effect should take into account the temporal autonomy. É. P.: Its own time, independent of normal time, yes. Interview n°8 C. R.: The play starts with the difficulties of being lenient with others, and it ends with the difficulties of being lenient with oneself. É. P.: Exactly. This leniency with oneself is tangible precisely through the playing. It’s because they play at being cars, the queen, lady tennis players or rabbits, it’s because they provoke these losses of identity, that they have a chance of recovering their identity and accepting themselves as they are. How to be rich in oneself without lying to oneself? How to be fair with all one’s multiplicity without deluding oneself? © 2001 "Théâtre-contemporain.net". Tous droits réservés.