Orientador: Joaquim Brasil Fontes Júnior / Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Faculdade de Educação / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-27T00:19:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Pereira_VeraLuciaCrepaldi_D.pdf: 3050663 bytes, checksum: 5eeca30f8afc509d23ebc5bd6a19be1b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 / Resumo: Este estudo tem como objetivo ler uma tragédia do teatro clássico grego escrita por Eurípides, Ifigênia em Áulis, com base em um tema mítico, e analisá-la sob o olhar dos helenistas, estabelecendo, a partir daí, um diálogo com a mesma temática em tragédias do período clássico e do teatro contemporâneo de autores franceses, através das obras Iphigénie e Iphigénie ou le Péché des Dieux, de Jean Racine e de Michel Azama, respectivamente. Apoia-se esta pesquisa em conceitos da filosofia moderna e pós-moderna para explicar o movimento do mito nessas diversas etapas da temporalidade que fazem parte do processo evolutivo do teatro, desde a Grécia Antiga até a época atual, sem perder de vista o período clássico. No caminho que se percorreu, procurou-se destacar a questão do conceito de sacrifício nesse mito que impulsionou as peças teatrais que são a base do corpus deste trabalho. Verificou-se que todas as obras levantam a ideia do sacrifício simbolizada através da Guerra de Troia e revisitada no momento em que esses autores comparavam valores políticos, sociais e religiosos moldados de acordo com a noção do poder vigente, em suas próprias épocas. Conclui-se, assim, que os três autores fazem uso da tragédia para denunciar o sacrifício e que Ifigênia continua viva no mundo atual. Desde a peça euripideana, a ação está subordinada à palavra, refletindo as tensões entre o poder e o sacrifício do ato / Abstract: This study has as its aim to read a tragedy of the classical Greek theatre written by Euripides, Iphigenia in Aulis, based on a mythical theme, and analyse it from the perspective of the Hellenists and from this, set up a dialogue with the same theme in tragedies of the classical era and contemporary theatre of French writers through the works Iphigénie and Iphigénie ou le Péché des Dieux, of Jean Racine and Michel Azama, respectively. This research is underpinned by modern and post-modern philosophical concepts in order to explain the movement of the myth in those distinct stages of temporality that are part of the evolutionary process of the theatre, from Ancient Greece to modern times, bearing in mind the classical period. In undertaking this trajectory, special focus was given to the question of the concept of sacrifice present in this myth, which inspired the theatrical plays that are the basis of this study. It was confirmed that all the works raise the idea of sacrifice, symbolized by the Trojan War and revisited when these authors compared political, social and religious values molded according to the notion of power present in their respective times. It is concluded that the three authors make use of tragedy to denounce the sacrifice and that Iphigenia is still alive in the contemporary world. Moreover, since the Euripidean play, action is subordinated to the word, reflecting the tension between power and the act of sacrifice / Doutorado / Educação, Conhecimento, Linguagem e Arte / Doutora em Educação

No description available.

Cette thèse a pour but d’identifier, dans la mise en scène européenne des années 1990-2000, les pratiques de la frontalité et d’en déterminer les enjeux en termes de mise en scène, de jeu et de présence de l’acteur et de réception du spectateur. L’analyse distingue trois modalités d’intervention de la frontalité, chaque fois remises dans leur perspective historique. La première est celle de l’interpellation, dans l’héritage du théâtre de foire ou d’intervention. La frontalité y est le support d’un acte de communication. Deuxièmement, la frontalité prend une dimension cérémonielle et devient le fondement de l’acte théâtral pour élaborer, cette fois, une relation indirecte avec les spectateurs. Dans sa troisième modalité, la frontalité dépasse le face-à-face entre acteurs et spectateurs, soit par le recours à l’image vidéo, créant un face-à-face médiatisé, soit par l’extension de la frontalité à l’ensemble de la scène. Finalement, l’usage de la frontalité témoigne d’une nouvelle économie de la représentation fondée sur un principe de réciprocité entre le geste du metteur en scène, l’engagement de l’acteur, la production scénique et l’individu spectateur. Au-delà du souci de conduire le spectateur à une activité critique ou à une participation fusionnelle, la frontalité invite à interroger sa position de retrait et sa passivité extérieure. / This thesis aims at identifying the practices of frontal acting in the European performances between the 1990’s and the 2000’s in order to define its challenges with regards to the staging, the acting, the actor’s presence on stage as well as in terms of spectator’s perception. Our analysis distinguishes three modes of frontal acting, by replacing each of them in its historical context. The first one is “interpellation” inherited from the Theatre performances at fairs and the Agit-Prop Theatre. In this case, frontal acting is considered as a medium for communication. The second mode, frontal acting takes a ceremonial dimension and becomes the basis of the theatrical moment in order to create, this time, an indirect relationship between actors and spectators. In its third mode, frontal acting exceeds the face-to-face between actors and spectators either thanks to the use of the video – creating media attention around the face-to-face – or thanks to the extension of frontal acting to the full stage. Finally, the use of frontal acting indicates the emergence of a new performance mode based on a reciprocity principle between the gesture of the director, the commitment of the actor, the performance and the spectator as an individual. Beyond the willingness to lead the spectator to a critical thought processor to a fusional participation, frontal acting invites to question his distant position and his external passivity.

This thesis analyses the themes of history, memory, and authorship in the works of four women playwrights from the French Caribbean islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe. In doing so, it aims to reveal the three levels of marginalization to which Caribbean women theatre practitioners are subjected: being a woman, being a French Caribbean woman, and being a French Caribbean woman who writes theatre. The thesis seeks to contribute to the expansion of the field of French Caribbean literary and drama studies, endeavours to redress the gender balance in studies on French Caribbean literature, and aspires to add to the existing body of work on French Caribbean women's writing. Therefore, the thesis aims to reveal and to analyse the world of French Caribbean women's theatre and to study how the playwrights address socio-political issues that affect their communities and influence their own writings and careers. The corpus consists of plays by Gerty Dambury, Ina Césaire, Maryse Condé, and Suzanne Dracius from the 1980s to the early 2000s. While focussing on a different theme, each chapter rests its analysis on theatrical works of a similar genre. The analysis of the plays deploys theories of the theatre pertaining to postcolonial drama and gender. The first chapter serves as an introduction to a group of female French Caribbean writers and their predecessors. The second chapter is a study of two historical plays, focussing on the collective experience of historical events and the role played by women in those events. The third chapter analyses plays that problematize the relationship between the collective and the individual. The fourth chapter looks at the image of the French Caribbean female artist and the multiple barriers she encounters in achieving creative independence.

La thèse, composée de quatre volumes, propose l’ensemble de l’œuvre du dramaturge, à savoir les quinze pièces – dont sept sont inédites –, selon ses différentes caractéristiques : théâtre idéaliste (collaboration artistique), renouvellement de la tragédie antique (scènes de plein air), drames historiques (volonté d’accéder aux théâtres nationaux), adaptations dramatiques (traduction et translation). Les pièces, retranscrites, annotées (variantes et notes), sont accompagnées d’études (introduction et notice). L’introduction générale permet de présenter et de saisir le théâtre de l’écrivain, ses expériences scéniques ainsi que ses considérations sur l’art dramatique. L’édition critique a pour but de donner à lire l’œuvre injustement négligée, en rappelant le rôle important de ce théâtre dans l’histoire des idées et dans l’évolution artistique et littéraire de la fin du XIXe siècle jusqu’au début du XXe siècle. / This is to prepare the scientific edition of the complete theatre work of Joséphin Péladan. The thesis in four volumes offers all of the work of the playwright, namely fifteen plays – seven of which are unpublished – according to its different characteristics: idealistic theater (artistic collaboration), renewal of ancient tragedy (outdoor scenes), historical dramas (willingness to access the national theaters), dramatic adaptations (translation and transposition). The plays, transcribed and annotated (variants and notes), are accompanied by some analysis (introductions and detailed descriptions). The general introduction presents the playwright and allows to understand his complete work, his stage experience and his reflections on the art of drama. The critical edition of the theatrical works of Joséphin Péladan aims to render accessible his plays unjustly neglected in spite of his profound influence on the theatre creation during the late 19th century and the early 20th century.

De nombreux dramaturges contemporains manifestent un intérêt surprenant pour le fait divers, un type dřinformation considéré comme anecdotique, suscitant une curiosité morbide chez le spectateur et difficile à cerner à cause de la variété des sujets quřil aborde. La thèse fondamentale de ce travail est que, par le biais du fait divers, le théâtre cherche une confrontation avec les médias et se redéfinit, repense son rôle. Par lřanalyse des structures dramatiques (espace, temps, action, parole) dřune cinquantaine de pièces françaises publiées dans lřaprès 1968, cette étude vise à répondre à trois questions : quelles sont les représentations du monde offertes par les médias et le théâtre à travers le fait divers ? Quels sont les modes de représentations respectifs ? Quelle est la fonction du théâtre qui en résulte et en quoi sřécarte-t-elle de celle des moyens de communication de masse ? Cette thèse inclut également vingt-cinq interviews avec des dramaturges et un parcours anthologique. / Many contemporary playwrights show a surprising interest for that particular type of news item that French journalism calls Ŗfait diversŗ, which has a bad reputation for being anecdotal, arousing a morbid curiosity in the spectator and being difficult to characterise because of the variety of subjects it treats. The main focus of this work is that, through Ŗfait diversŗ, theatre seeks confrontation with mass media and redefines itself, reconsidering its role. Through the analysis of the dramatic structures (space, time, action, language) of about fifty French plays published after 1968, this study aims at answering three questions: what representations of the world do media and theatre propose through Ŗfait diversŗ? What are the respective modes of representation? What is the function of theatre stemming from them and how does it depart from the one of mass media? This thesis also includes twenty-five interviews with playwrights and an anthology.

Ce mémoire porte sur le rôle des divinités dans la structure dramatique de la tragédie en musique Idoménée d’Antoine Danchet et d’André Campra, originalement créée en 1712 et remaniée en 1731. L’étude répond à des questions d’ordre structurel quant à l’évolution du genre et montre de quelle façon la représentation des dieux dans Idoménée est liée à une ouverture formelle qui annonce la disparition du prologue, puisque les divinités n’y sont plus confinées à une fonction de louange du roi, mais contribuent activement à lancer l’action dramatique dès cette partie liminaire de l’opéra. Par un bref aperçu historique de la tragédie lyrique et des traditions mythologiques se rapportant à Vénus et à Neptune, ce mémoire questionne la place de ces dieux dans l’univers des hommes, tel que l’envisage la tragédie lyrique, qui démontre, comme on le sait, une propension à unifier les mondes surnaturel et humain. Dans Idoménée, cette unification passe en grande partie par l’usage d’un prologue qui fait office de premier acte, en assurant aux divinités en question une fonction essentielle à la structure dramatique. / This essay focuses on the deities’ role in the dramatic structure of Antoine Danchet and André Campra’s Idoménée, a tragédie en musique originally written in 1712 and rearranged in 1731. This research raises questions about the evolution of this particular genre while aiming to show how the representation of the Gods in Idoménée is linked to a formal opening which announces the disappearance of the prologue during the 1740s, as the deities are no longer used to solely praise the king but actively contribute to start off the dramatic effect as early as this opening part of the opera, thus giving a new function to the prologue. Through a brief historical overview of the French opera genre known as tragédie lyrique and of the mythological traditions linked to Venus and Neptune, this essay questions the place of these two deities in the human universe as envisioned by the tragédie lyrique which, as it is well known, tends to unify the supernatural and human worlds. In Idoménée, this unification mostly occurs through the use of a prologue, which also forms the first act of this drama, giving the deities in question an essential role in the dramatic structure of the opera.

No description available.

No description available.

Le point de départ de ce travail réside d’une part dans la découverte d’une différence considérable de nature entre le héros du Cid et les protagonistes du théâtre contemporain ; et d’autre part sur l’intuition que l’analyse littéraire utilise presque exclusivement Rodrigue comme personnage représentatif du premier XVIIe siècle. Notre première démarche a été de chercher à confirmer ces impressions en démontrant le statut particulier de ce personnage. Nous avons étudié la réception du Cid et de son héros au fil des siècles dans cette optique, jugeant que les réactions des spectateurs, des lecteurs et des critiques construisaient progressivement notre image actuelle de Rodrigue. Nous avons cherché à voir comment depuis janvier 1637 jusqu’au début du XXIe siècle la pièce et son héros ont été accueillis. Nous avons ainsi établi la longévité du texte, ainsi que les exceptionnelles réactions d’engouement qu’il a pu rencontrer. Cela nous a permis d’établir la mythification de la pièce et de dégager sa portée universelle. Ces premières conclusions nous ont invité à rechercher les causes d’un tel succès. C’est à nouveau l’étude de la réception qui nous a permis de découvrir que cette unanimité tenait essentiellement au personnage de Rodrigue. C’est lui qui semble d’abord retenir l’intérêt des lecteurs et des spectateurs. Nous avons donc cherché dans une deuxième partie à comprendre ce qui fascinait tant en Rodrigue. Pour cette raison, nous l’avons confronté à l’idée de héros. La coïncidence saisissante que les réactions publiques révèlent entre ce personnage archétypal et le protagoniste du Cid nous a permis d’aboutir à un premier stade de compréhension : la pièce est accueillie avec enthousiasme au XVIIe siècle parce que son personnage principal actualise l’idéal humain tel que l’époque se le représente. Cependant, l’engouement des siècles suivants repose sur le même motif : c’est parce que Rodrigue incarne le héros du XVIIe siècle que le spectateur du siècle des Lumières, du Romantisme, de la Troisième République ou de l’entre-deux-guerres l’apprécie. Le protagoniste du Cid apparaît comme un héros révéré mais regretté car appartenant à une époque révolue. Au sein de l’œuvre de Corneille, il est également envisagé comme un paradigme héroïque et incarne le modèle dont tous les personnages masculins du théâtre cornélien ne seraient que la déclinaison. Il est l’élément fondateur du mythe du « héros cornélien ». Cependant, l’unanimité de réception face à Rodrigue pose question : Le Cid a-t-il réellement eu une place à part sur le théâtre du premier XVIIe siècle ? À l’ouverture de notre troisième partie, une brève étude de ce théâtre permet de révéler l’écart entre l’image de Rodrigue façonnée par la réception et la réalité dramaturgique des années 1630-1650. La tragi-comédie de Corneille n’est pas la seule pièce à connaître le succès et son héros n’est pas l’unique incarnation sur scène de l’homme tel qu’on se le représente alors. De nombreux autres dramaturges connaissent de réelles réussites. Toutefois, la réception critique les oublie. L’histoire littéraire semble ne vouloir retenir que Corneille pour la postérité. Elle impose Le Cid comme pièce modèle ; mais, se faisant, elle fausse l’appréciation que nous nous faisons du théâtre et des mentalités du XVIIe siècle. Nombre de théories critiques se sont en effet élaborées sur l’idée d’un premier XVIIe siècle glorieux à l’image de Rodrigue et d’une seconde moitié de siècle déclinante et sombre. C’est le cas de Paul Bénichou et de sa « démolition du héros ». Mais peut-on en garantir la véracité si elles reposent pour affirmer la grandeur des premières décennies du siècle sur le seul exemple de Rodrigue ? Une relecture de la littérature de cette période permet pour finir de revenir sur des conceptions altérées notamment par l’éclat du succès incomparable du Cid et d’envisager le premier XVIIe siècle sous une autre lumière. / The basis of this work lies primarily in the discovery of a huge nature difference between the hero in “Le Cid”, and the far less glorious contemporary drama protagonists. On the other hand, it is based upon the intuition that most literary analysis almost exclusively use Rodrigue as the character of the first decades of the17th century.The first step of our work was therefore to try to confirm these impressions by conveying the very special status of this character. We have studied the treatment of “Le Cid” and its hero throughout the centuries with this goal in mind, assessing that the way audiences, readers and critics reacted to the play steadily built our perception of Rodrigue. We have tried to understand how the play and its hero were welcomed from January 1637 to the outcome of the 21st century. We have thus established the longevity of the text as well as the outstanding praise reactions it met with. This enabled us to substantiate the mythification of the play and bring into light its universal scope.From these first conclusions, we then tried to find out the reasons why the success of the play has never been denied. Here again it is the study of the critic treatment that quickly showed us that the unanimous public feeling was essentially due to Rodrigue as a character. For it is he mainly who seems to captivate the audience and the readers’interest. In the second part, we therefore tried to understand why Rodrigue is so mesmerising. With this purpose in mind, we confronted our character to the very hero notion. The stiking coincidence that public reactions convey between this archetypal character and “Le Cid” protagonist brought us to a first conclusion: the play is enthusiastically welcomed in the 17th century because the main character updates the human ideal as it was viewed at the time. Yet, the passion that the play generated in later periods is based on the same principle: it is because Rodrigue embodies the 17th century hero that the public from the age of enlightenment, from the great romantic era, from the French 3rd Republic or the interwar period do feel fond of him. “Le Cid” protagonist appears both as a revered and missed hero because he belongs to days gone by, a past example of the ideal man. In Corneille’s entire works, he is also regarded as a heroic paradygm and is viewed as the Cornelian male reference from which other male characters are derived in the works of the playwright. He is the very source of “the Cornelian hero” myth.However, Rodrigue’s unanimous critic treatment brings forward another issue: does “Le Cid” really stand apart in the early 17th century drama? At the outset of our third part, a brief survey of the period drama reveals the gap between Rodrigue’s image as it was made by the critic treatment and the dramatic reality of the 1630-1650 era. Corneille’s tragicomedy is not the only successful play and its hero is not the only stage embodiment of the male figure as it was then represented. Several other playwrights were successful too. Yet, the critic treatment does not take them into account. It seems as if Corneille is the only author to be remembered in the history of literature. Thus, “Le Cid” is the play reference. But it alters our vision of the 17th century drama and mentalities.In fact, scores of critic theories were based on the idea of a glorious early 17th century (impersonated by Rodrigue) as opposed to a gloomier and declining period at the end of the century. But can one guarantee their truthfulness if they are only based on the character of Rodrigue to assert the grandeur of the early 17th century decades?To conclude, a precise and detailed reading of the period literature allows one to study many misinterpretations, particularly because of “Le Cid” unmatched success, and to consider the early 17th century with a brand new perspective.