For many years, probably more than 30, I have tried to explain to successive groups of students that the French 17th century is neither (or not only) Classical centuryNo A great centuryNo The century of Louis XIV. That all these labels only partially capture its historical, artistic, philosophical, aesthetic and literary complexity, and that once criticism and literary history discovered the beauty and charm of the Baroque, where do you think they also found a significant part in the jewel? (as opposed to the nonsense in which it failed), many of the claims in the old textbooks, made by academics in the old Sorbonne tradition and in the old criticism, should be set aside. Basically, rules, order, balance dominated only in the part of the considered age.

Classicism also did not mean a monolith, because, for example, even the great tragedian Racine, who was often said to love rules, occasionally allowed himself to be polluted by the beautiful eccentricities of only the apparently unpolished baroque. Corneille, Racine, and Moliere were far from like brothers, apart from their great merits, Richelieu and the Sun King wanted the unconditional subordination of artists to official aesthetics. Lafontaine, for example, was not at all approved by Louis XIV, and Moliere showed secret disagreement not only with the Church, but also openly with countless les faux dThis isvoices, but also regarding the dramaturgical formulas agreed upon at the Court. At the Princesse de ClisWest was as classically Roman as Jansenist and Baroque, the public equally liked the so-called a great classicsuch as the works of Paul Scarron, Charles Sorel and last but not least –Cyrano de Bergerac.

I thought about all this while watching the play Cyrano de Bergerac, a modern, lively, inspired, sometimes even iconoclastic rewriting of Edmond Rostan’s score of the same name thanks to Briton Martin Crimp. The performance took place in the great hall of the theater queen maria from Oradea de Horia Suru. The same one who put it here years ago Nodes and platesan installation that I was reminded of by Oleksandr Felseghi, Andrej Majeri and Ioana Gaido just two weeks ago in Goddesses of category B.

Martin Crimp seems to have a certain passion for French culture as he has translated quite a few texts for it and in addition Sirano…he also gave a personal version of the picture misanthrope.

That’s right, I also thought that it’s not quite right that it appears in the repertoire of the Theater only after two months. Cruelty and tenderness, another play by the same playwright, that variety, alternation are or should be the main considerations of the very concept of the repertoire. That the repertoire is not an accumulation of names. And that he does not apply for the role of directors. I no longer develop the idea, I have done it on other occasions and still to no avail.

How’s Crimp’s track? How do you like Horiya Suru’s show? The song is definitely good. At least in his first movement, he respects the sought-after disorder, that artistic irregularity that characterized Cyrano’s work as much as it is. Horiya Suru tried to deal with the mess in question as efficiently as possible. One in the specificity of the Baroque, but also in the way of creating theater, which depends primarily on the taste of the audience. The performance begins in the lobby, where we meet a large part of the actors in civilian clothes. As we enter the room, someone named Linier (somewhat too expansive, too boisterous as Sebastien Lupu) introduces us to the new recruit. About Christian, a young, handsome, thrifty, clearly uneducated guy who doesn’t quite understand what’s happening to him, why he’s being turned around, applauded, mocked, booed, asked for help. The initial silence will later be replaced by verbiage, courage, disarming naturalness of character, rebellion in the face of fakeness, be it with good intentions. Everyone is very surprised by Rezvan Vikoveanu’s performance. All kinds of brawlers from the audience appear. Leila Rageno, literature teacher and confectioner, makes an explosive introduction (though I liked Elvira Rimba, especially in the last ten or fifteen minutes of the play, when I seemed to find an actress with Hey people!), and later, when we are satisfied theater in a theater (a fact clearly alluding to Tudor Prodan’s set design, which uses several red chairs placed at the sides of the stage) we see veteran actor Montfleur playing Hamlet (Petre Gimbachan) poorly. Consciously so. We also see the multi-faceted and amoral director of the theater (Sherban Borda), de Guiche, Richelieu’s man of hope and with the tics of a sugary old man who still wants to have sex (Daniel Vulcu), accompanied by the beautiful Roxana (very good in the role of Alina Leonte). Also appearing is a sort of De Bret (a slightly bored, likeable Sorin Ionescu, who is clearly unsure of what he’s doing), as De Guiche’s no-nonsense deputy named Walvert (the fiery and kind George Dometi), a cavalier and a somewhat stupid priest (spicy Paul). Sîrghi), literature students (Georgiana Coman, Karina Bunea, Denisa Iryna Vlad, Anda Temashanu, Adelina Tripa), soldiers (Ciprian Chuchiu, Alin Stancu, Eugene Neag, Paul Tripon, David Constantinescu, Tudor Manea, Cosmin Petrus).

Horia Suru coordinates the mass scenes well, convincingly transposes the excitement of the crowd on the stage, and this despite the fact that some actors and especially actresses do not treat the roles as they should (in some cases, an overestimation of the professional capabilities of some actors and especially actresses, who without for real artistic reasons, they want the main roles and want to show us at all costs that they have professional development), and a little further, that is, in the second part, the set designer, Adrian Dominte, who shoots perfectly prepared the actors for the moments of artistic fencing, actually transfers the war to the scene This is by no means an easy task. And war, and classics, and modern. – Read the entire article and comment on contributors.ro