Camden Fringe 2024
Fille De Mon Coeur
The Writer's Mark
Genre: Experimental, Theatre
Venue: Proposition Studios
Festival: Camden Fringe
Low Down
Experimental theatre that uses physical storytelling and use of props. This story investigates the relationship between Antonin Artaud and Colette Thomas. A tribute to both the actor and the practitioner.
Review
This is an Avant-Garde, experimental play that investigates the life of French practitioner Antonin Artaud and his relationship with Colette Thomas. This show is produced by The Writer’s Mark, a company that explores the psychology behind famous writers.
As the audience entered, creepy, high-pitched music played in the background. We were seated in the centre of a large space, in a sort of thrust, with two seats at the back and two lines of chairs on either side of the single chair in the middle; the audience was not allowed to sit in this middle chair.
A camera on a tripod filmed us all and the actor’s performances, making me feel slightly on edge.
This play looks into the life of Antonin Artaud, through physical storytelling before introducing Colette Thomas, the wife of Artaud’s friend Henri Thomas, to Artaud. It’s here that their relationship grows as Thomas performs Artaud’s writing and they reach great success. Using intriguing physical theatre and relationships with objects, they show the abuse Thomas endured from Artaud to achieve her peak acting performances.
The space was used effectively, with the audience being a part of the stage and the walls having projections of disturbing videos and images on them, such as a dilating pupil or Artaud’s asylum. They used props in a clever way, with the lamp Artaud spoke to in his moments of madness and the bamboo stick showing how Thomas was ‘tied’ to Artaud was clever.
Though they used less dialogue, I still got the story. Sometimes without dialogue, the message can seem more interpretational than it was potentially intended but their relationship was obvious.
I appreciated the consistent dialogue in French. Though there were points where some dialogue was in English and many points where they didn’t have dialogue, the use of dialogue in French was a nice touch; keeping the setting clear and giving more respect to Artaud and Thomas’s legacy.
There was also lots of audience participation throughout the play which was engaging and helped build a relationship between the performers and the observers.
Artaud’s relationship with the asylum was another thing I enjoyed: Artaud’s reaction to seeing the asylum for the first time versus Artaud’s relief at seeing the asylum towards the end of the play. For me, this highlighted his poignant journey through the play.
I felt uncomfortable at two points in the play: the first being when Artaud scared us at the start and the second being when Artaud and Thomas were both ‘stabbing themselves’ with Thomas finding it far more arduous. The latter made my stomach churn at her pain.
The way the actors travelled and experimented with Viewpoints, particularly Architecture, Spatial Relationship and Topography, was engaging to watch. All the acting felt genuine and nothing was forced.
The actress who played Thomas’s form for her movement sequences was beautiful to watch and it was contrasted nicely by Artaud’s frantic movements.
This piece has great potential to be excellent or groundbreaking work. To achieve this, I need to feel more throughout the play; in an experimental play, where dialogue isn’t used or is non-sensical, the capacity to make me feel, as an audience member, is limitless.
The audience interactions throughout were great and made us feel more involved. However, our relationship with the actors was as ‘other characters’ but there could’ve been a greater bond between the audience and the actors given that the audience was onstage. I don’t want to give too much away, but when we were startled towards the beginning of the play, I felt very alive, unsafe and that our relationship with the actors was unpredictable, which was intriguing. After a while, I began to feel safer and that when I would be interacted with, it would just be as a character and that nothing more would come of our interactions. The actors looked a little surprised when the audience responded and I thought this could be an opportunity to make our relationship more volatile: the audience could be asked questions and answers from the audience could have consequences. Without consequences, the interactions will never feel as tense or alive.
Although the piece was ultimately a tribute to Colette Thomas, it was also a tribute to Antonin Artaud. To highlight this further, we could have seen more ‘Theatre of Cruelty’. I saw this at moments through the play but I think the audience can be made to feel more uncomfortable.
I understand Artaud and who he is but some audiences may be unaware of who Artaud is. Though it was explained who Thomas was, I think Artaud could have more of an introduction. The piece jumped into Artaud’s life, without establishing who he was beforehand, leading me to care slightly less about his journey.
I would also like to see more specificity in the movement sections at the start of the play as I believe their intentions could be more purposeful. The movements were interesting but I think the effect on the audience could be investigated further.
Finally, although the acting was genuine, I would encourage the actors to find deeper emotional stakes at the heights of their character’s emotional turmoil to make the audience feel more invested.
I am a big fan of experimental theatre, and again, I think this piece has great potential with more R&D.
A poignant reflection on the relationship between Antonin Artaud and Colette Thomas. An experimental piece that takes risks but keeps the theme clear.
