THE PARISIAN STAGE DURING THE OCCUPATION, 1940-1944: A THEATRE OF RESISTANCE? by EDWARD BOOTHROYD A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of French Studies College of Arts and Law The University of Birmingham August 2009 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT This study aims to establish whether the performance or reception of a ‘theatre of resistance’ was possible amid the abundant and popular literary theatre seen during the Occupation of France (1940-1944). Playwrights and critics have made bold claims for five plays that allegedly conveyed hostility towards the occupier or somehow encouraged the French Resistance movement. These premières will be scrutinised by examining the plays’ scripts, the circumstances surrounding their composition, the acquisition of a performance visa, public reactions and critics’ interpretations from before and after the Liberation of August 1944. I intend to demonstrate that the extreme circumstances of war-torn Paris were largely responsible for the classification of these complex works and their authors as either pro-Resistance or pro-Collaboration, a binary opposition I will challenge. While it is understandable that certain lines or themes took on special relevance, writers would not risk attracting the attention of the German or Vichy authorities. Mythical or historical subject material was (deliberately) far removed from the situation of 1940s audiences, yet was presented in the form of ‘new’ tragedies that resonated with their preoccupations. Individual testimony confirms that certain plays provided a morale boost by reaffirming hope in the future of France. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Kate Ince, for her advice and insight over the last four years and more. I am also very grateful to the staff in the department of French Studies for their ongoing help and interest in my topic. My heartfelt thanks go to my family for their substantial moral and financial contributions over the course of this PhD. Finally, I wish to thank my wife, Gisèle, for showing patience she never knew she had, and for her unconditional love and support, CONTENTS Introduction 1 Criteria for the study of reception and interpretation My research aims The exceptional nature of the Occupation The complexities of theatrical production and reception Theatre and the Resistance The present state of research Chapter One – French theatre in Paris during the Occupation 19 Life in Paris and the theatregoing public The political context The role and functioning of the theatre Activity or silence? The content of theatre scripts The role of the audience The power of the official press Chapter Two – Claude Vermorel: Jeanne avec nous 55 The premiere and an overview of the play The political message of Joan of Arc during the Occupation Vermorel’s activities and political allegiances Interpreting the play and the 1942 public reaction Postwar (re-)interpretations Chapter Three – Henry de Montherlant: La Reine morte 100 The creation of the play The subject material of La Reine morte The reception of La Reine morte: Collaboration or Resistance? Montherlant’s political leanings Montherlant on trial Chapter Four – Jean-Paul Sartre: Les Mouches 145 Preparing for the premiere The narrative, political allegory and references to the 1940s The topicality of repentance The reception of Les Mouches in occupied Paris Sartre’s Occupation activities Sartre’s compromises Myth making: post-Liberation claims Chapter Five – Paul Claudel: Le Soulier de satin 196 The complexities of creating the play during the Occupation Assessing the narrative The significance of changes made for the 1943 version The reception among spectators and the press Contrasting interpretations of Le Soulier de satin Judgments of Claudel and his play after the Liberation Chapter Six – Jean Anouilh: Antigone 245 (Re-)writing Antigone during the Occupation The premiere Innovating with Antigone Possible contemporary inspiration and allegorical meanings Press reviews and the ensuing controversy The reactions of spectators Problems during the Épuration and the legacy of Antigone Conclusion 295 Comparing my chosen plays The complexity of scripts and performances Taking sides Suggested areas for further research Bibliography 307 INTRODUCTION The theatre in Paris flourished during the Second World War, with several hundred plays being performed to packed auditoriums in only four seasons. It has been common practice to conclude that the extraordinary activity and popularity of the Parisian theatre during the Occupation was made possible thanks to ignorance on the part of the Germans, bravery and uncommon subtlety on the part of French playwrights, and the public’s need to keep warm and be entertained in difficult times. My research has revealed a much more complex picture of compromises and cover stories constructed after the event by those whose reputations and careers could well have been in the balance when it came to explaining at the Liberation of 1944 just how theatres could have thrived during such a time of great personal and collective suffering – particularly for those involved in the Resistance. Moreover, the huge disparity between press reviews and public opinion that has come to light during my examination of documents from the 1940s belies summary judgments about the majority consensus on these plays. Many historians also imply that the most extreme reviews in the collaborationist press were somehow a faithful barometer of public opinion. However, personal correspondence and insightful memoirs from those in attendance suggest that the opinions in published reviews were often dramatically at odds with the popular reception of plays. Although not necessarily written in the same period, all five of my chosen plays were premiered during the Occupation: Claude Vermorel’s Jeanne avec nous, Henry de Montherlant’s La Reine morte, Jean-Paul Sartre’s Les Mouches, Paul Claudel’s Le Soulier de satin and Jean Anouilh’s Antigone. They also had immediate or lasting success, with the 1 possible exception of Les Mouches, as the following summary of the theatrical activities during the Occupation from a Paris newspaper illustrates: Rarement créations furent attendues avec plus d’impatience et de curiosité. Allions-nous connaître quelque chef-d’œuvre interdit pendant les quatre ans d’occupation? Quelque ouvrage inspiré par nos misères ou par nos espoirs? Si la période 1940-1944 a été, pour le théâtre, une des plus riches, si jamais l’empressement des spectateurs n’a été aussi grand et la qualité des pièces principales aussi incontestable (Antigone, la Reine morte, le Soulier de satin […]), il faut avouer que les révélations de jeunes auteurs ont été rares (je ne vois guère à citer que le Jeanne avec nous de Claude Vermorel).1 All of them were written by leading French authors, with the exception of the little-known Claude Vermorel. Although Paul Claudel was not yet a popular playwright, he was famous for his poetry and his role as an ambassador. Henry de Montherlant was well-known as a novelist and Sartre as a philosopher, but neither was established as a playwright in 1940. I have chosen Paris and these five plays because, until the decentralisation of the 1950s, the French capital was the centre of theatrical activity and the site of all major productions. It was also the home of the playwrights, the directors, the major national and independent theatres, the censorship office, and the most influential critics under discussion. Even the majority of the reading public and spectators were in Paris, which remained occupied by the Germans between 1940 and 1944. Few other cities staged a substantial amount of professional literary theatre and (arguably) the best of these – such as Toulouse – were in the unoccupied zone. Occasionally, Parisian productions, such as for Claudel’s Annonce faite à Marie, went on tour to big cities such as Lyon, or to the seat of the French government in Vichy. By far the most confident and specifically pro-Resistance claims have been consistently made for the five plays listed above, though they have never been tackled alongside each other in detail, nor with substantial analysis of the texts. 1 Jean Sauvenay, Courrier français du témoignage chrétien, 15 December 1944. 2 The Occupation was a period of extremes during which the norms of creation and reception of literary theatre did not apply. Censorship – reintroduced for the first time since 1906 – affected all written texts and the obligatory German presence in theatres at a time of war meant that every word and gesture was scrutinised. German displeasure could result in a play being banned or the playwright and any other participants being punished. At the risk of stating the obvious, a play could not proclaim hostility towards the occupier, nor offer open support to the Resistance movement and Allied war strategy: ‘il faut en convenir, pour le théâtre surtout, le parler clair par ces temps obscurs n’était guère évident.’2 It will be seen that such expression would be stamped out by the authorities or denounced by pro-Collaboration papers: ‘Parfois il y avait des Français qui ont averti les Allemands de faire attention aux réactions du public’.3 Any playwright hoping to continue a career could not produce an unequivocal call to resistance in a publicly performed play. In order for a so-called ‘message’ of hostility to the occupier or an encouragement for the French Resistance to be conveyed across the footlights, it would have to be subtly couched in a superficially innocuous language.