2. P A R IP A R I
SS
W I N T E R I M 2 0 0 3
Theatrical Analysis
Sylvia: 1876 Louise Merante a current production of John Numerer
“ Someone who’ll watch over me” Frank McGuiness
3. Sylvia: 1876 Louise Merante a current production of John Numerer.
In going to the ballet entitled “Sylvia”; I,
essentially, was going into the ballet
“blindfolded” and stripped of the gift of
memory as I have never seen nor read the
performance before, along with the fact that
I am not well-versed in ballet period. I can
enjoy them-but have no knowledge or
training in how to “analyze” and truly
enjoy-with that said.
Once inside-the Opera Bastille was an
incredible space-modern elements, yet
sheik. Modernity juxtaposed to rich
history. Although the theatre itself does not
“bellow” out history - the knowledge of
what the national opera represents and what
it has represented for many decades denotes
a strong history. The seats we had were,
probably according to many people,
horrible, yet they were actually satisfying
– the furthest up one could go.
The seats we had were, probably
according to many people, horrible, yet
they were actually satisfying – the
furthest up one could go. This warranted
and afforded an incredibly unique
view/vantage point. From these seats,
one could hear the bang of the drum, the
whisper of the flute, the charm of the
triangle, the romantic melancholy of the
violins and the deepness in pitch of the
cello - all as though we were sitting right
there right next to the orchestra pit.
Although when one walked
through the front door of the
Opera Bastille and greeted the
ticket- taker in French –
“Bonjour”, then stumbled with
quite minimal French to our seats
- with the brief aid of an usher.
We are in Paris; the notion of
being in Paris was certainly lost or
temporarily sidetracked. The
idea of language as a universality
seemingly took over. One would
have no indication of being in
Paris - simply by watching the
people. The people, consisting of
kids (acting like “normal” kids
4. we’d see in the states) and adults, gathered
around, talked amongst each other: some
dressed in jeans and a sweater – some
dressed in suit and tie. American/French it
just didn’t seem to matter - we were all
there together to witness a performance - a
universal language: ballet.
The ballet starts -it starts with a character
whom I believe to be the god of love: taking
on the appearance of Thyrsis - a mere
shepherd wandering into the woods falling
asleep but once the other dancers/characters
came into the picture -I was unable to
discern the characters. In the entire first
half of the performance I struggled to
identify who was who - who was important
to whom and what
relationships were flourishing. The only
dancer who I could keep track of was
the character in the red costume. By
such a strikingly different ensemble
compared to what all others were
wearing - was the only way. I feel that
the red was an allegory for something –
perhaps love, whereby one could see
and identify love all throughout. But as
an untrained eye, red may have
“symbolized” a totally different
message.
The first half was strong as far as
dancing, music (which was
extraordinary and resonated incredibly
throughout), the lighting and set work.
The second half, while continuing the
excellent dancing, sound, music and
setwork - the set was much more
vivid in the second half. The set in
the first was to be a forest, with
indication of trees in a forest. The
second has defining walls creating a
much more effective space - with
this in mind, the lighting seemingly
was much crisper in the second half
– with crispness in shadows met by
starkness of light.
The second half consists of two
parts: the first being an elegant
ballroom atmosphere - the costumes
were long red; full dresses
accompanied by black-tie tuxedos.
The ballroom set with the costumes
5. evoked a sense of splendor - very classy; the
dancers seemingly floated above the stage to
the sounds of the orchestra. The second part
was back in the forest.
Although the music was incredible and
perfect it was as though it wasn’t there which
in my opinion is a compliment, as it elegantly
complimented the dancing without over
playing.
Again, the element of language was not an
issue - as it is the universal language of ballet
- and no language is spoken just conveyed
through dance, I would have had a difficult
time figuring out what was happening and
why, even if it were on an “American” stage.
The closest thing to a full, or rather a partial
understanding of the play/ballet was when I
read the synopsis of the play. I don’t
know, due to, again my inexperience,
naivety to the notion of ballet. Still I
am unsure of what is happening when I
“play” the ballet through my head,
while reading the synopsis
interchangeably - regarding who is
who, what is what and what is meant to
be the story. Here is the official
synopsis – hopefully it is a bit more
poetic and serves justice well.
Synopsis
Part one:
Diana’s sacred wood
The god of Love descends into the wood and takes on
the appearance of Thyrsis a mere shepherd.
Aminta, a real shepherd, enters the sacred wood
secretly hoping to find Sylvia, Diana’s nymph. Diana
and the nymph-huntresses appear in the wood to take
a rest from hunting and to bathe. Sylvia and Aminta
meet. Diana and the huntresses discover the tender
exchanges betweenthe shepherd and the nymph.
Taken by surprisse, Sylvia betrays Aminta.
Left alone, Diana remembers handsome Endymion
doomed to eternal sleep. At daybreak, the shepherds,
their curiosity fired, enter the sacred wood and find
Endymion asleep. Lover Thyrsis is with them.
Aminta’s heaart is roken. He is obsessed by the
vision of Sylvia. Love feels sorry for Aminta. But he
takes on the form of handsome Orion in order to
seduce Sylvia. She lets herself be led on by him.
Part two:
First Scene: Love/Orions’s party
Sylvia becomes aware of her femininity. She
discovers pleasure.
Her sensuality aflame, Sylvia is overwhelmed by the
memory of Diana and Aminta.
Second scene: Winter
May years later, Aminta returns to the sacred wood.
Sylvia too returns to the sacred wood. They meet.
Their love seems to live again for an instant.
Diana observes them. She is tempted to separate
them, but Love disarms her.
In the end it is life itself that steals Sylvia away from
Aminta.
As for Diana, she remains alone, the eternal huntress.
6. “ Someone who’ll watch over me” Frank McGuiness
At the beginning, even before the play
started - as we sat ourselves, the stage
set was all dark, yet a figure was present
on the stage; at this time I wasn’t certain
as to whether the figure was real or
imaginary-as any movement was
discernable. It seemed to be a small
stage that was not kept up very well; not
a good initial opinion – or so I thought.
Not until the first lights came on was
when I realized that the set was
intentionally dingy - as it was
representing a prison cell
The opening of the play introduces two
characters; an Irishman Edward and an
American Adam who were merely
“Beirut, Lebanon, the mid 1980’s. An
Englishman, an Irishman and an
American are being held hostage in a
cell. Why? And how will they survive
their unseen capture and the boredom
“The Bloody Boredom!” And each
other… They turn to their own
integrity, wit and faith in life. The
conflict and the humour, but above all
the courage of their struggle for
physical and mental survival are
beautifully conveyed in this play.”
passing the time exercising –doing
push-ups and stretches. The two
characters while having badly aimed
hostility at each other came to become
friends and confidents -each supporting
the other in this perilous time. The
other is constantly preventing the other
from going “insane” and breaking down
(as they individually and collectively)-
as that is what their Lebanese captors
wanted. They managed to do so by
again redirecting their angers
through stories, memories and
recounts of their lives and most of
all – through humor.
They knew it was important to
concentrate their efforts on each
other maintaining a memory of
how long they’ve been away at the
same time maintaining the
desperate hope of eventual release.
The denotion of time, the elapse of
time was signified by pure darkness
coming back to the identical set;
each time months seem to pass.
Approximately four
7. months pass from the first capture, when the
third character, a British man Michael
entered the set. He was unconscious, asleep
while the other two just talked to him, rather
at him, trying to gain his attention.
When, eventually, the Britain awoke -he
was confused/disoriented, saying he was
merely going to the market for food, as he
was having his students over for dinner. He
came to this country Lebanon to teach
English -he was afraid at first, but felt the
risk was not too bad. (I’m certain that lying
in a cell - chained to a wall - changed that
opinion). Now it was time for the two
“veterans” to take care of the newcomer
-not letting him break down. They do so by
holding him from the door so he won’t
scream or cry out.
They force him to laugh, not cry.
“Laugh” they say - he tries but cannot.
They don’t give up -they start cracking
up, laughing hysterically, loudly - he
finally mustered up a laugh - not quite
convincing at first, but gets better.
Now, the dialogue of stories, recounts,
reminiscing of the past continues - each
making fun of the other and visa versa.
Taking turns “2 on 1” and “1 on 2”.
Occasionally, throughout the play, as the
time frames advance - faint Lebanese
music could be heard through the
speakers. This really sets up the mood as
the audience members could almost put
themselves there - with them. As the
time continues to elapse - Christmas time
comes - not nearly exacting the time
frame, which has passed - they sing
Christmas songs – joyous, yet somber
all in one.
More time elapses, the set goes dark -
more lights come on - and there are
only two characters - the American
they fear, has been murdered.
Michael, the British and Edward the
Irishman now come to grips that they,
too, may not go home; this hit
Edward really hard so he’d spent
much time many months - trying to
convince Adam that they would all go
home - had he been fooling himself
too? He was awestruck - he would
not eat the food that he was served.
Michael, the British, was consoling
Edward, while embracing
8. which we will never know. Edward walks
out of the cell - free of the chains and
shackles - and the lights darken. The play
ends.
The play is appropriately titled, “Someone
Who’ll Watch Over Me” - as one had the
other to look over and to be looked over
upon Then the third was looked over by the
first two - and the two were looked over by
the third - in a sense of what was happening
“out there” “were there any mention of us”.
Tragically the play ended when - no longer -
was another able to watch over the last
inmate - we can only assume that someone
was indeed looking over Michael and that
he managed to leave unharmed.
him trying to offer hope, even in the
time of gloom. He finally was
successful – Edward found the inner
strength to go on – he, eventually, ate
his food.
They continued intimate conversation -
and kept the time passing and kept hope
further alive that one day soon they
would be able to return to normalcy.
The play ended by Edward getting
dressed in his clothes in which he was
captured; pants, shirt and tie - with
shoes, but no socks. As he was getting
dressed, Michael was trying to be
supportive and wishing Edward luck
and so on, while certainly, on the inside
he was now thinking of his own fate -
The play was actually based on true
events; it evoked a quite powerful
“patriotic” feeling - putting you
emotionally in each character,
empathizing what each other must be
going through. The political overtones
were right on the money and gave me
personally more insight of what was
happening halfway around the globe; all
of the doom that we didn’t hear about on
CNN, the behind the scenery – so to
speak.
9. P A R IP A R I
SS
W I N T E R I M 2 0 0 3
The Mansard Roof: Its Origin
10. an invention, or a product of François Nicolas
Mansart – a young French Architect. Yet, actually
research shows favorably that François Mansart did
not actually devise its concept; he merely utilized it
and furthered its existence by incorporating such
roofs into many of his works. The name of the
“Mansard Roof” seemingly came to be by virtue of
being acquainted with François Mansart’s name –
slightly altered.
François Mansart was born in Paris on 13 January
1598; he was the son of a master carpenter – he was
trained by his father and by a sculptor and a mason
both of whom were his relatives. François was never
formally trained as an Architect – yet he was
eventually recognized for his abilities by the mid
1620’s.
The Mansard Roof is often thought to be a concept,
11. Although François Mansart worked
significantly with the Mansard Roof, he was
also notable for many hotels and chateaus,
showing a “masterful massing of architectural
volumes and plan solutions for irregular sites
and precisely correct spacing, between openings
and classical design elements”
(http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1327/0923focus.html)
François Mansart was sometimes commissioned
for entire structures, other times he merely
added on to existing buildings. If he was not
happy with the work – he tore it down and
started over. He was often found to be a rather
difficult personality type to work with and often
worked without regard to cost.
François Mansart is said to be the ‘cornerstone’ of French Baroque Classicism; he
was best known for his work on Ste. Marie de la Visitation and the Orleans wing
of the uncompleted Chateau of Blois. In the 1660’s he was asked to draw up
plans for the East wing of the Palace of the Louvre – he never completed the
drawings. He was later asked to draw plans for the Royal Chapel at the end of St.
Denis – it was never built.
12. Although the Mansard Roof
was “invented” by François
Mansart – no direct evidence
is found to support an exact
date, when the Mansard roof
was first employed. One
could make the assertion,
rather the assumption of its
‘birth date’; that assumption
could be made to fall around
that of approximately early-
to-mid 17th
century.
Much later in the overall scheme of things, the Mansard
Roof was a rather popular approach or facet of architecture
throughout France. During the reign of Napoleon III –
1852-1870 – during France’s Second Empire, the Mansard
Roof was seemingly topping every building being built.
13. Later in the late 1800’s, in the time of
the exhibitions of Paris – the notion of
the Mansard Roof was furthered
significantly. The exhibitions of Paris
of 1855 and 1867 were very much an
impetus for the deployment of the
Mansard Roof to both England and the
United States, as many architects were
visiting Paris – specifically for the
exhibitions.
One of the most popular house styles in
America during the years immediately
following the exhibitions of Paris –
was one coined the “Mansard Style”.
This “Mansard Style” was extensively
used in: small cottages, simple
farmhouses, along with massive
mansions. Although the
The roar of the crowd, seemingly,
was silenced as the 19th
century
was nearing its end. The voice of
the crowd was not distinctively
heard again until the 1970’s, and
today the voice of the crowd is
once again heard loud and clear.
Click on the image…
structures’ framings were quite varied, with
wooden members on the small cottages and
small farmhouses and brick and stone for
the mansions – the roof element was topped
with the Mansard Roof. The proverbial
“American Crowd” loved it. Not only was
the Mansard Style “molded” into residential
architecture, the Mansard Roof was also
employed in both commercial and industrial
application as well.
“Mansardic Roof”? The resemblance can definitely be
seen on modern building across the courtyard from the
Dausminil Residence.
14. The approach that
Francois Mansart often
times used simply
wrapped the roof down the
vertical elements of the
attic space – creating both:
taller walls at the attic
level, yielding more head
room and a tax-free story,
thereby reducing the tax
burden on the owner.
The Mansard Roof’s
origins are said to be
mainly two-fold: the
primary reason the
Mansard Roof was
developed was to
create more livable
living space; the
secondary factor is
said to be a method of
circumvention of a
long standing Paris tax
on the overall height of
a building. This height
was determined from
the grade level up to
where the roof eave
starts.
15. virtually invisible hipped roof is employed. The structural rafters of the
Mansard Roof are therefore discontinuous; their overall shape takes on that
of an elbow, which fits onto or above the structure like a “hat”. Whereby the
shape of the traditional roof’s rafters create an “A”. Due to this structural
difference, the Mansard Roof type has also been called the “curb roof”.
There are essentially four types of Mansard
Roofs: straight, convex, concave or flared – with
an occasional, but very rare “S” curve or bell
cast. As the complexity of the shapes increases –
so, too, does the overall cost. Regardless of the
type, the slope can very extensively.
Although the Mansard Roof was said to be an
increase of livable space and a circumvention
of a Paris tax, another impetus was that of a
visual one; even a boring, boxy type house
could be transformed into beauty by placing
the “hat” of the Mansard Roof atop.
The above Images were borrowed from
http://www.realtor.org/rmomag.nsf/pages/arch33
Above image borrowed from
http://www.mansard.org/
The slope of a Mansard Roof from its eaves to its
ridge is broken into two portions. The lower
portion is built with a steep pitch – almost
vertical in nature, in many cases. The upper
portion is pitched lowly and is nearly flat. Often
times the utilization of a very shallow,
This shallow roof can be seen in the above photo
Nearly every slope is
covered with “shingles
made of such varied
materials as clay or slate
tiles, corrugated sheets of
steel, aluminum, lead,
(http://www.renovationexperts.com/roofing/roofhistory.asp)
copper, or zinc”.
16. The Mansard Roof can be punctuated by
numerous types of dormer windows:
rectangular, pointed, gabled, round and
sometimes with a double row of dormer
windows altogether (seen in photo to right).
Each window style carries with it a wide range
of decorative motifs – each creating
uniqueness in character.
The Mansard Roof was, as previously
noted, a method of transformation of many
building typologies. The most common
building type or typology that was refitted with
the “hat” of the Mansard Roof, was the
Italianate Style which began in the 1840’s –
which overlapped the Mansardic or Second
Empire in the 1860’s. Both the Mansardic
and the Italianate Styles lost their popularity in
the 1880’s.
To identify a starting point or a place of
origin of the Mansard Roof is just as
difficult to do as it were to establish a
precise age of such style. Without
knowing the first specific roof type
indicative of the Mansard Roof style – the
whereabouts of such a roof can, too, only
be assumed. Thus far the findings
17. reflect the birth of the
Mansard Roof to be equated
with Francois Mansart. As
Francois Mansart was born
in and was a life-long
resident of Paris, the broad
stretch of correlation could
be cause to assume that the
Mansard Roof was
developed in Paris.
The Mansard Roof was
thought to be further
implemented along the newly
expanded Haussman
boulevards under the
leadership of Napoleon III –
paralleling the expansion of
Throughout the mid-to-late 19th
century the Mansard Roof was
well established throughout Paris
and France’s countryside. Up to
the time of the exhibitions of
Paris, which occurred in 1855
and 1867, the notion of the
Mansard Roof was completely
within the “footprint” of France.
Only after the exhibitions of
Paris, did the Mansard Roof find
itself stepping outside the
perimeter of France; the
Mansard Roof found itself
topping buildings in both
England and the United States –
and even Canada.
