REVIEW of The Exchange - Interview of David Furlong
by Michael Donley
Published in the Paul Claudel’s Review
As a background, the wide painting of a beach. A set reduced to its minimum. To the right, a pink fridge from the 50’s, big and curvy, and a hammock where an acoustic guitar stands; to the left, a Tv set. With a musical background from the Beach Boys, Louis enters, carrying a surfboard. This opening gives the tone to all that is going to follow, because David Furlong wants the audience to see in Claudel’s text a contemporary message.
The way he uses to match his statement is interesting. First of all, the original use of the props.
The guitar, for a start. Louis’ nostalgic memories of his first encounter with Marthe are put in music. The folksong he sings and plays himself -an very simple air – captures with perfection the simplicity and the beauty of their first moments.
The television is immediately deviated from its original function. As soon as Louis starts to dream aloud (« I fly in the air like a hawk, like the hovering falcon… »), this dream machine ‘awakes’ to accompany every allusions he makes with some footages found among old movie archives. When Thomas Pollock Nageoire pronounces a speech on the dollar (« Glory be to the Lord who gave the dollar to the man … »), the screen lights up again. This time, however, we see himself speaking. Out of sight, an assistant is filming. Louis watches him on the TV. The audience watches them three. Nageoire, Louis, and Nageoire on TV. The same idea is used when Lechy starts her crazy monologue around theatre, but this time Louis takes the video-camera himself to underline his enthusiasm. But most important, it’s a trick who put the emphasis on the ambiguity of the themes that Lechy talks about : she says « Look » ; « Something unreal seen as truth ». Where is the truth ?
But we’re not done with the Tv yet. At the beginning of Act Three, lying down in the hammock, Marthe reads a letter she wrote to her parents in French; the translation appears to the left on the screen as subtiltles. And it’s on the televison, of course, withh the actors, that we see the fire at the end. An elegant solution !
As for the fridge – gigantic, part of the backwall - , he turns into a magical cornucopia, a satirical image of our society of consummation. In the original script, when Nageoire takes out of his pocket a pack of dollars, Claudel made Louis saying: « What is it that he pulled out from the fridge ? » In David Furlong’s direction, to the marvel of the audience, it is indeed from the fridge that he pulls it out. u’il les retire. A briefcase full of banknotes to be precise. Louis hasn’t got any pockets ? Nageoire goes to the fridge again and pulls out a brand new suit. Later on, Lechy would use it as a dressing room. And towards the end of the play – which reminds a lot of the first written version- Lechy, drunk, after having killed Louis with gunshots, tries to hide his body in that fridge.
But enough of the props. What about the actors, and the translation ?
To tell the truth, we didn’t get the impression that it was a “translation”, as the dialogues were so fluids, easy, idiomatic. The delivery of Toby Manley (Louis) was full of verve and captured with success the personality of a young enthusiast man, naïve, looking for « the American dream ». Anna Ruben – impertinent, impudent, sexy « à l’américaine »– succeeded in giving life to Lechy, being at the same time captivating, fun, and pitiful. It’s a French actress (Fanny Dulin) who created the part of Marthe, with a very good english. Serene, without pretentions, she did not have any difficulties to play her role of a solid landmark. But it’s Kevin Golding’s Thomas Pollock Nageoire who was the big surprise. A black man, he uses a musical and rythmic speech –through which he savours every word- and that evocates the delivery of afro-americans predicators. An ingenous transposition of the Claudelian musicality. And in spite of his strong presence, he succeeds in presenting a sympathetic Nageoire.
An interview with the director, David Furlong.
At the Jermyn Street Theatre, 25th July 2006. The British Premiere of The
Exchange.
Michael Donley : David, The Exchange is your first directorial work in the
Uk ?
David Furlong : In England, yes. I share my life between Paris and London
and I worked in France as a director and as part of a devising team. And
as an actor of course. But The Exchange represents my first work as an artistic
director with my own company.
MD : In the artistic file, you say that you were influenced by the 'méthode
Vitezienne'. Can you tell us a few words about it ?
DF : With pleasure. When Antoine Vitez directed the French National Theatre
and created the National School of Chaillot -which is where I trained- he
brought something very new and special, it was in the eighties. I remember
when I watched for the first time some videos of his work - The Mysanthrope,
for example - what hit me every time was his way of making the text so modern
and contemporary ! And that's precisely what I aim to do myself with ETC
with the promotion of french plays in english.
MD : Which leads me to ask you why you chose, as a first work, this play
and this writer?
DF : I was looking for a play that could carry the identity of the company,
especially for our first show. I had some other ideas, but it became suddenly
so obvious : The Exchange was the best. I even took the title for the name
of the company.
I had know the play since I was a student. I had always been attracted to
it because of the themes of exile... and interbreeding. Those topics are
dear to my heart. I was born in Mauritius, I am not really French, but not
really British either... You see... Then, I was first attracted to the character
of Louis and when I started to research the play in depth, I began to realise
that there is a link between Claudel's journey and mine.
MD : What about the translation? ... Did you face some problems in this
matter? It's particularly difficult to translate Claudel - especially in
English, I think. He said himself in one his first letter to André
Gide, that a translated Claudelian play seems like « an opera without
music ».
DF : Some problems? Yes, quite a few. Thanks to the Paul Claudel Society,
I made contact with Louise Witherell, who lives in the Wisconsin and who
did a translation of the play (2nd version) in 1974. She authorized me to
use her work which is quite poetic, but... you know, years have passed.
I needed something more up to date. Then I discovered an existing translation
from New-Zealand, written by France Hervé and Stephen Baine
MD : When ?
DF : In 1997 or 1998. It's true that their translation is more modern, but
they made far too many cuts. I wasn't satisfied. In the end I had to create
my own version. The two others translations were essentials, of course.
I learned a lot while reading them, especially in terms of grammar. But
on the contrary, very often, I had to use different words and expressions
for the style. As a French speaker who knows English very well, I could
be true to the original text. But the support of their very good English
was necessary.
MD : If I can quote your artistic file again, I see that that you describe
Claudel as a « playwrite of the doubt ». That could be very
surprising to some people on this side of the channel - if they ever heard
of Claudel - who tend to put him aside as an overconfident writer, full
of certainties. I think I see what you mean but can you tell us more about
it?
DF : Well, most of the people - and not only here in England - make a big
mistake concerning Claudel. Certainly because they only consider the last
part of his life when he was a fervent old Christian. However, he was only
25 when he wrote The Exchange !
MD : And you ? How old are you ?
DF : 25 precisely! It was very easy for me to try to imagine his situation
and I felt close to him. At my age, he was alone, exiled. But he was a «
visionnaire »... He saw things at the time that are now reality. Despite
what many people think of him, he was deeply in projection towards the future.
Today, for example, he will praise the Internet ! His doubts ?... They were
on our civilisation, our western society, he already saw l'ébranlement
général des certitudes.
MD : Claudel (...) says that there is two different ways to perform The
Exchange: a soft acting, grey, delicate as some "musique de chambre",
or a violently, colored, excessiv, almost caricatural game , like a Van
Dongen's painting. He added that he had a slight preference for the second
option. What about you ?
DF : Oh Yes ! Me too ! In the end, for me, The Exchange is a «feel-good
play » ! A piece of clever entertainment ... The directors focus too
much on the break-up between Louis and Marthe. But, never the less, the
title is not "The break up", but The Exchange . An Exchange that
could lead to something else, maybe to something better !
MD : Absolutely ! And it's too often forgotten that it's not a realistic
or naturalistic play. It's incredible to say that the is no comical elements
!