|
The following correspondence is reproduced here with the kind permission of the author. It has been edited slightly for brevity.
From : Michael Lellouche, Paris To : Nostalghia.com Date : Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:29:48 +0100 (CET) Subject: Hoffmanniana Yesterday I attended the stage adaptation of "Hoffmaniana" in Paris. Well, I must confess that it wasn't as exciting as I had expected it would be. Of course, the idea of putting on stage Tarkovsky's never-filmed screenplay was kind of interesting, even though quite odd. I never read the screenplay, and I strived against my will to do so before watching the play. That way I could stay in a "virginal" state of mind, without prejudice, and I could thereby try to grasp the stageplay for what it is, and not compare it to the original Tarkovsky text. But, I couldn't help being disappointed. [...] As far as I'm concerned, I found quite disturbing the formal link to Tarkovsky that Dietrich Sagert chose to propose to the audience in his adaptation. All the stage elements and the stage direction were targeted to be direct Tarkovsky references. There are references to "Mirror" (author lying on a bed and speaking), "Nostalghia" (glasses displayed everywhere on the stage, the actor filling them and drinking), "Stalker" (he attaches bits of fabric to bolts and throws them), "Andrei Rublev" (throws sand on a large white panel), "Sacrifice" (a house miniature replica sets on fire on stage), and a screen shows the images of balloons (like the one shown in newsreels in "Mirror"). All these direct quotes from Tarkovsky films, and the addition of a part to Hoffmann's monologue wherein he announces the titles of his tales along with the titles of Tarkovsky films, were annoying to me. These were not subtle hints, but rather heavily underlined references. I was attending the play with a friend who isn't familiar with Tarkovsky's films. He didn't catch the references and thought some were too odd and impossible to understand (the thrown bolts), and some were quite poetic. But the general feeling was quite boring, I'm sad to say. Again, to me the references were plain annoying. Because: although Tarkovsky had some recurring themes, he would never "quote himself" and not recycle the exact same visions he had used years prior. His way of injecting himself into a story was tasteful and subtle, subtle as a mist - not pretentious, not as obvious and loud as a thunderbolt strike. To me, the play fails because of exactly that: it is a tribute to Tarkovsky (and more generally to creators such as Hoffmann and the Romantics), while Tarkovsky of course intended a screenplay about Hoffmann (and more generally on creators such as the Romantics...). The only actor is Claude Guyonnet, who is very good and captivating, rambling on stage like a ghost... Leaving the theatre, my friend who didn't know much of Tarkovsky didn't understand most of what the play was about, and being myself a true admirer of Tarkovsky's work, I didn't really find any real interest or value in this confused play, which looked more like a Tarkovsky "parody exercise," than anything else, really. Of course, I felt the true admiration of Tarkovsky that Sagert surely has, but the tribute could have been done through an original play, perhaps, instead of mixing it with a screenplay that didn't originally bear this intention? I hope this isn't too long or confused too, and that you'll get a chance to watch the play and make up your own mind. In the next days I will read Tarkovsky's screenplay and find out what I think about the original script. Regards, Michael |
