On Faithfulness

Patrice Pavis deconstructs the notion that a director can be ‘faithful’ to the author's intentions, revealing this belief as an illusion. He challenges the idea that a ‘correct reading’ of a play exists, particularly in light of the simultaneous rise of mise-en-scène and psychoanalysis, which call into question the possibility of faithful interpretation. Directors inevitably bring their own perspectives and interpretations to the work, making ‘productive betrayal’ an inherent aspect of the directorial process.

Pavis, furthermore, critiques Didier Plassard’s distinction between ‘restitutive’ and ‘projective’ staging. Restitutive staging aims for an immanent reading of the text, while projective staging uses the work to comment on broader societal issues. He questions whether a classic text can be understood without projecting contemporary knowledge onto it. Additionally, he asks if prioritizing contemporary concerns risks losing sight of the original vision. Pavis suggests that mise-en-scène complicates both approaches, but this complication risks falling back into the dichotomy of fidelity versus infidelity. Pavis also challenges Jean-Claude Lallias’s view of mise-en-scène as a ‘stage translation,’ arguing that it simplifies the director’s role. He questions the binary opposition of the director as a ‘tyrant’ versus a ‘servant of the text,’ as well as the problematic dualism of opacity and transparency in stage productions.

He advocates for moving beyond traditional binaries such as text–stage, readable–unreadable, and readable-visible. Pavis recommends historicizing the debate between text and performance, acknowledging that their relationship has evolved over time and varies across different cultures. He introduces the concept of ‘stage writing,’ where texts are generated through improvisation and on-stage events. This approach challenges the traditional hierarchy, transforming mise-en-scène into a process of discovering the text rather than merely executing it. However, this blurring of roles can lead to confusion, as directors sometimes regard themselves as authors and vice versa.

While Pavis provides a thorough overview of the text–performance debate, some critical questions remain unanswered. Although he touches on the trope of the director as a tyrant, a deeper exploration of power dynamics within the theatrical process would have enriched his analysis. Pavis suggests that the text–performance relationship remains a valuable metric for assessing mise-en-scène but warns against allowing it to dictate interpretation. His paper ultimately calls for a constant process of checking, fine-tuning, and detuning the senses, encouraging a dynamic and critical approach to theater-making.

Ibrahim Fawzy