Libération

In Nanterre, where Atala is getting ready to perform its plays that twist the codes of stand-up comedy, Atala has designed a video game for artists in search of ideas. For all those exhausted artists struggling to sell their projects and searching in vain for the sesame to stardom. Salvation could come from a small arcade
installed at the Théâtre Nanterre-Amandiers (1) on which a video game
coaches you on how to sell your work and find inspiration.

The hero is an artist who starts the game with zero ideas and 100 dollars. It’s up to him to decide how to spend them: buying coffee for programmers, for example…” smiles the designer of this game currently under development.
Atala, who introduces us to the most ingenious algorithm
invented to find successful, 100% up-to-the-minute pitches. The algorithm randomly combines a “pop” format with a “classy” theme. This might result, for example, in ‘a soccer game about Greek philosophy’, or ‘a talk show about communication theory’.” Or, for example, a video game on the production process
production processes in 2017. Class and pop: an unstoppable recipe, a magnet for journalists… Atala is an absolute fan of the American series Seinfeld, the sitcom about “nothing” created in the late 90s. So it’s hardly surprising that he’s also an actor with the experimental tandem Grand Magasin (the French Seinfeld?), masters of the comedy of emptiness, inadequacy and inefficiency. But it was in the United States that he honed his eye for pop culture. First in Los Angeles, where he took a course in sitcom scriptwriting – “my colleague was a former ER nurse”. And in New York, playing the role of spectat X] in the bleachers of TV late shows: “The performance of the audience, who learn to sense when and at what volume to laugh, is almost a readymade of experimental theater.” This quasi-anthropological study has given rise to a number of plays in the form of instructions for use, rich in absurd data, such as Stand-up Comédie, a sometimes funny comedy, its sequel today, Stand-up Comédie 2, a comedy with even
more people, or SITuation COMédie, an experimental sitcom
also steeped in self-parody rather than sarcasm.
sarcasm. This is undoubtedly the singular charm of this artist: to know how to underline conventions without overhanging them. And, at the same time, to apply and divert “recipes”, because there are always some, whether we admit it or not.
(1) Le jeu vidéo Contemporary
Théâtre Nanterre-Amandiers (92) then at Gaité lyrique (75003) in autumn.

Mouvement

Atala turns the tables on the great laugh factory by trying its hand at different forms of stage and small-screen entertainment, from stand-up to sitcom.


By Carole Bailly published on March 2, 2017


You presented Talk Show, then Stand-up comedy and Stand-up comedy 2, and finally you directed the sitcom Situation comédie. Why are you interested in these different forms of typically American entertainment?
At one point I was so interested in these forms of popular culture that I had to say I watched Friends and Seinfeld over and over again because I was documenting for my work, otherwise it wasn’t justifiable!
You’ve already made a film about the making of a film, and now you’re making a sitcom about sitcoms.

What appeals to you about this new format?
The sitcom format is one of the ways we’ve found to make theater in the age of television. What I like about the formula of a TV series, whether it’s a comedy or a drama, is that it’s a beautiful poem about life. You have goals, you encounter obstacles and you vaguely try to come up with plans to overcome them. It usually doesn’t work, and then you discover something else by chance that takes you somewhere else. I also like to explore the rules of a format in order to understand its codes and not be in a state of manipulation but an active spectator.


Why is it so hard to make quality sitcoms in France?
One of the reasons we’re not as good at audiovisuals is that we spend less time on them, and we also consider that as soon as we make popular stuff it’s not as good, we discredit the public who watch these things. I talk about this in Stand-up 2: the quality of what we show is really proportional to the time we spend working on it. I was once at the set of The Big Bang Theory and it’s really beautiful the way the audience is responsible for the outcome of the play. The writers use the audience’s laughter to tell whether a joke is successful or not. If the joke flops, they stop the whole thing and rewrite the scene until it gets a laugh. Just like in live performance.


You’d think that comedy would be easier to write than drama.
Yes, but comedy is a very difficult exercise. In fact, it’s a very serious art form. In France, we tend to think that doing sad things is a guarantee of depth. On the contrary, I think you can go deep into thought, philosophize and reach deep truths by making people laugh. It’s not sub-art, it’s no less profound, no less poetic, and it has the same artistic power.


How do you make people laugh?
There are techniques and formulas we learn in the United States. For example, you have to put the funniest word at the end of the sentence. The problem with this system is that laughter also comes from an element of surprise, of novelty for the spectator, and if you use a technique too much, it no longer works. Sometimes, in a show, people say things in English or in a foreign language, and there’s a word or a turn of phrase that everyone knows. People laugh, not because it’s really funny, but because it’s a way for them to say “I’ve understood what you’ve just said. And that’s a real function of laughter.


What sitcoms inspire you?
One of my secret sources is Seinfeld, which I’ve watched so many times that I can’t admit it anymore – it’s downright shameful! If I were an exhibition curator one day, I’d make a room where I’d show all the Seinfeld seasons on a loop! I drew a lot of my inspiration for Situation Comedy. I think there’s a certain beauty in the fact that this series has become mainstream, even though some episodes are completely experimental.

In Stand-up 2, you shed even more light on the difficulties behind making a show. You even explain to the audience that you’ve reached a “creative impasse”.

There’s still this sort of myth about art: inspiration would magically arrive one evening, when in reality we have techniques to make it work.The video-game prototype I show in Stand-up 1 about an artist who wants to produce his show is simply a story about my personal trials and tribulations. The only benefit for me is that it gives me something to say in my stand-ups. And rejection, which is one of the central themes of Stand-up 2, is part of an artist’s daily life. Even when it works …. A producer to whom I’d sent excerpts from my sitcom called me back three days later in a rather deep voice to tell me that she’d hated the tone, the way I pretended to act badly and the actors’ shabby clothes. So it was pretty violent. But anyway, without knowing it, she gave me a great slogan for my sitcom!


The United States has been a great inspiration for you. But your very first voyage of initiation was your three months in Japan.
Yes, Japan shaped a lot of my thinking. What do we look at and what don’t we look at? What does convention tell me about where I should look? Travel highlights how we’re conditioned to look at certain things and not others. In Japan, there’s this notion of borrowed landscape: the tree in the distance is as important as the garden you’re in. Since it’s visible, it’s part of this borrowed landscape. My latest work at the Théâtre Nanterre-Amandiers will be called Paysage emprunté.I’m going to show people my favorite lamp, or my favorite walk, which I’ve borrowed from the sets at Les Amandiers.Anything I see can become part of the landscape and therefore part of the show.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Theatrorama

Phoenix Atala à qui mieux mieux

CATHIA ENGELBACH AVRIL 21, 2015

Dans la Grande Salle du niveau – 1 du Centre Pompidou réduite d’un bon tiers, gradins officiels plongés dans le noir, gradins officieux tenant place et tête à la scène habituelle, Phoenix Atala débarque dans un pantalon et une chemise ultra serrés, nœud papillon noué autour de la gorge, air impassible. Attitude et tenue qu’il avait déjà adoptées pour un précédent spectacle, ou alors non, il ne sait plus trop, mais le public s’en souvient peut-être. Cette fois, il l’annonce, l’occasion sera spéciale : son nouveau spectacle parlera de l’ancien, de celui en train de se faire, et du prochain, ou alors non. Décodage du manuel anti-manuel mais ultra-factuel de la « Stand-up Comédie ».

Il tourne le dos à un paperboard déjà pré-rempli et à un écran géant, pour l’instant vierge mais qui se chargera bientôt de petits bonhommes grouillants à faciès et silhouettes identiques, futur lieu de toute forme d’expérimentations, via des schémas animés, exemples à l’appui infléchi. Il tient dans ses mains une tablette graphique qu’il ne quittera pas pour le bon déroulement de sa démonstration. Une « stand-up comédie » à l’héritage anglo-saxon affiché, dont il prendra très vite soin de faire dévier chaque angle.

La déconstruction puise ses forces et ses fragilités dans « La Bible de la comédie » dénichée d’un clic dans la supposée plus grande librairie du monde. Des ressorts comiques que Phoenix Atala aura tôt fait de prendre à rebrousse-poil et presque sans en avoir l’air. Piochant un par un les points d’une prétendue maîtrise de toute stand-up comedy, il prétend vouloir « se soustraire à l’obligation somme toute conventionnelle de faire rire » en « proposant à la place d’entamer une réflexion sur le spectacle, la recherche d’idées et l’efficacité ». Autrement dit : il se livre à contre-sens à une dissection en bonne et due forme d’un codex qu’il exploite tout en désaxant.

Set-up Comédie


Au privilège de tout ce qu’il ne faudrait a priori surtout pas faire pour éviter un spectacle raté, Phoenix Atala s’amuse à briser les attentes et à tordre le cou aux idées avant même qu’elles ne soient envoyées. C’est qu’il partirait presque vaincu sans avoir eu à se battre, avançant en tentatives pour cerner les horizons et prenant le risque de sonder son public pour vérifier si la blague fonctionne (il entoure sur son paperboard la vraie bonne idée ou la fausse mauvaise idée) ou si elle tombe à plat (il rature la fausse bonne idée ou la vraie mauvaise idée, c’est selon, mais force est de constater que cela revient finalement au même, si l’on prend le temps de la réflexion).

En apparence donc, le risque comique paraît mesuré : le public est d’emblée averti qu’il n’est pas venu là pour rire, et d’ailleurs, le spectacle a bien failli ne pas avoir eu lieu, à considérer sa genèse – pas de salle pour accueillir les répétitions, drame familial en pleine préparation, problèmes divers et variés d’une quotidienneté repoussant toujours plus loin les prémices du divertissement.

Phoenix Atala affectionne les mots balourds qui commencent par « b » et les labiales réputées étouffer les rires ; il confesse un penchant pour la bérézina ; il calcule tout, même les blagues d’un régionalisme cloisonnant ou celles de mauvais goût, selon la règle de trois, quitte à s’embourber ; il n’a enfin aucun talent pour les imitations de voix. Mais à embobiner ainsi les ficelles dans le mauvais sens, et parfois même dans le non-sens, à digresser, à s’adosser aux failles personnelles censées desservir tout pseudo-potentiel comique, il démontre avec brio que, parfois, le tour de force repose très précisément sur des détours de force.

Stand-up Comédie De et avec Phoenix Atala,

assisté de Ronan Letourneur

Consultants : Pascale Murtin et François Hiffler (Grand Magasin)

Photo © Olivier Ouadah / Fondation Cartier pour l’art contemporain Au Centre Pompidou dans le cadre du Nouveau Festival (du 15 avril au 20 juillet 2015) Phoenix Atala présentera « Une compilation de mes blagues pas drôles préférées du mois dernier » dans l’Espace 315 du Centre Pompidou le samedi 16 mai 2015 à 17h.

Phoenix Atala at its best

CATHIA ENGELBACH APRIL 21, 2015

In the Grande Salle on level – 1 of the Centre Pompidou, reduced in size by a good third, official stands plunged into darkness, unofficial stands taking the place and head of the usual stage, Phoenix Atala arrives in ultra-tight pants and shirt, bow tie tied around his throat, looking impassive. Attitude and attire he’d already adopted for a previous show, or not, he’s not sure, but the audience may remember. This time, he announces, the occasion will be special: his new show will be about the old one, the one in the making, and the next one, or maybe not. Decoding the anti-manual but ultra-factual “Stand-up Comedy” manual.

He turns his back on a pre-filled flipchart and a giant screen, currently blank but soon to be filled with swarming little people with identical faces and silhouettes, the future site of all forms of experimentation, via animated diagrams, inflected supporting examples. He holds in his hands a graphic tablet, which he will not leave for the duration of his demonstration. A “stand-up comedy” with a distinctly Anglo-Saxon heritage, from which he is quick to deflect every angle.

The deconstruction draws its strengths and weaknesses from “The Comedy Bible”, unearthed at the click of a button in the world’s supposedly biggest bookshop. Phoenix Atala is quick to take the comic springs by the scruff of the neck, almost without appearing to do so. Picking off one by one the points of a supposed mastery of all stand-up comedy, he claims to want to “escape the all-too-conventional obligation to make people laugh” by “proposing instead to engage in a reflection on spectacle, the search for ideas and efficiency”. In other words, he goes against the grain in a proper dissection of a codex that he exploits while at the same time misaligning.

Comedy set-up


Phoenix Atala has a lot of fun shattering expectations and turning ideas on their head before they even get off the ground. It’s as if he’d leave defeated without having had to fight, moving forward in attempts to define horizons and taking the risk of sounding out his audience to check whether the joke works (he circles the really good idea or the really bad idea on his flip chart) or falls flat (he crosses out the really good idea or the really bad idea, depending on the situation, but it all comes down to the same thing in the end, if you take the time to think about it).

On the face of it, then, the comic risk seems measured: the audience is warned from the outset that it has not come here to laugh, and indeed, the show very nearly didn’t take place, considering its genesis – no hall to host rehearsals, family drama in full preparation, various and sundry problems of a daily life pushing back ever further the beginnings of entertainment.

Phoenix Atala is fond of clumsy words beginning with “b” and labials reputed to stifle laughter; he confesses a penchant for the bérézina; he calculates everything, even cloyingly regional or tasteless jokes, according to the rule of three, even if it means getting bogged down; and he has no talent for voice imitations. But by twisting the strings in the wrong direction, and sometimes even into nonsense, digressing, leaning on personal flaws supposed to serve any pseudo-comic potential, he brilliantly demonstrates that, sometimes, the tour de force lies precisely in detours of force.

Stand-up Comedy By and starring Phoenix Atala,

assisted by Ronan Letourneur

Consultants : Pascale Murtin and François Hiffler (Grand Magasin)

Liberation

GRAND MAGASIN MAKE A LOT OF NOISE

Les Déplacements du problème

by GRAND MAGASIN at the Théâtre de la Cité Internationale

17 bd Jourdan 75014. Until 30 October.
Grand Magasin maintain a rather ambiguous rapport with technology. Founded in 1982 by Pascale Murtin and François Hiffler, the company has always shown more interest in what doesn’t work than what does. The title of their last show, dating back to 2003, and directly copied from a computer screen, clearly demonstrates this difficulty: 0 task(s) out of 7 have been carried out successfully.

Binary. That said, the subtleties of binary language have a friend in Grand Magasin, who would willingly recuperate Musset’s proverb, which was also the title of a play: The door must be either open or closed. An assertion that the troupe would instantly follow up with: “Or, maybe not.” A quick visit to their website (www.grandmagasin.net) shows the extent of what’s at stake. In an elevator shaft, a little sign has been photographed:

In the event that you have stopped between two floors:
– Press button “A”
– In the event that there is no reply
– Press button “B”

Well-behaved clown-musicians, Pascale Murtin and François Hiffler, joined by Phoenix Atala, are not troublemakers but they know how to sow the seeds of doubt. The result isn’t any less devastating. In Les Déplacements du problème, their show currently on at the Théâtre de la Cité Internationale, they explain how the show will work: “Three demonstrators present a series of devices whose acoustic effects will disturb the presentation itself. They will have to do it over a few times.”
The devices in question clearly exist: they were supplied by the Ircam (Institute for the Research and Coordination of Acoustics/Music), which participated in the new project. The goal of the show: “To use devices that emit sound in order to artificially multiply the obstacles to listening and comprehension.” Which more or less amounts to learning the science behind scenes we witness everyday without capturing its generaI meaning. Who has never tried to have a conversation in a train while your neighbour is yelling in his cellphone, when you enter a tunnel, the employee in the bar-car is having problems with his speaker and a baby is screaming? Among the Ircam’s devices, there is a series of microphones, including the “relativizing microphone,” which punctuates all of your sentences with your own recorded voice (“I’ll have to check”, “Unless there’s been a mistake”, “Or not”, “At least, that’s what I understood”… ).

“Absorbing rug”. In the same order of ideas, you’ll find the “contradicting mic” and the “negative echo mic”. But there is also the “absorbing rug” which muffles all sounds the second you step on it. And, let’s not forget the classics: vacuum cleaner, jackhammer, etc. You could lose yourself in it if it weren’t for the rope of the absurd Grand Magasin has generously tossed out to you.

RENÉ SOLIS

Theatre Contemporain

Grand Magasin

Playing with description and fiction

Interview by Clyde Chabot

 

You

When and how did you meet?

Pascale Murtin: Pascale and Francois in 1982, after both abandoning their short pasts as dancers which had allowed them to meet the year before. We met at Phoenix last century and decided to spend the 21st century together.

Francois Hiffler: Pascale Murtin met Francois Hiffler in 1981. That exact same year, Francois Hiffler met Pascale Murtin. This happy combination of circumstances encouraged them to found Grand Magasin in 1982. Eighteen years later, they met Phoenix Atala, who around the same time, made their acquaintance. This new coincidence forced them, in 2001, to march forward together.

Phoenix Atala: Pascale and Francois already knew each other when I met them, since Grand Magasin began in 1982. At that time I was actively preparing for entry into 1st grade. I therefore met Grand Magasin in 1995 and all three of started working us in 2000.

How have you been able to keep your artistic relationship alive for so long?

F.H.: It’s mainly because time passes quickly.

P.A.: It was not so long ago.

P.M.: We won’t risk asking the question for fear of abridging it. We’ve asked ourselves that question from the beginning, which has allowed us to continue asking it every year.

What do you feel you’ve broken with?

P.A.: I do not feel I’ve broken with anything.

P.M.: Do we have to name names? In generaI, people who offer up stunning images charged with understated references that the audience recognizes despite him/herself and the great emotion that overwhelms him/her.

What motivates you?
PA.: The possibility of making shows exactly how we think of them or how we’d love to see them. Since the result is always right at the limit of satisfaction, it makes you want to continue. It motivates you.
P.M.: Sometimes finding a way of saying things that changes our way of seeing, sometimes seeing a way of doing things that changes our way of saying things, sometimes laughter.
Why do you get up in the morning?
F.H.: The morning light, the sound of the alarm clock, the desire to drink coffee, street noises, an important appointment, etc.
P.A.: For breakfast generally.
P.M.: For the butter.

Text

How do you develop the text of your shows? Before or during rehearsals?
P.M.: At our table, with a sheet of paper, a pen and lots of Liquid Paper, where flies come and get stuck: on the sheet, and very rarely on the floor.
P.A.: The shows are written entirely beforehand, and are written in great detail. They are not the result of improvisations. Everything happens around a table. We discuss, first, then we jot down the ideas that seem most sensible, funny, interesting. Finally, after several hours, days and months in this situation, the show begins to take shape.
Of course, little by little, we also think of our ideas spatially, but the basic actions are so simple (sit, stand, go right, go left…) that there’s no real need to rehearse them, since they are actions that everyone, including us, practice every day.
F.H.: We first write the texts, scores with words and actions, and then try to execute them in time and, space. During these tests, it generally appears that modifications are needed. We make corrections, we try it again a few times and so on, until we are more or less satisfied.
What is the nature of your writing?
P.M.: There have been moments in the past where we have written sketches in the countryside of an urban character.
F.H.: I do not understand the nature of this question.
What inspires you?
F.H.: A sentence overheard, daylight, the sound of the alarm clock, the desire to drink coffee, street noises, an important appointment, a paragraph I’ve read, an annoying show in a theatre.
P.A.: Everything that happens within eye or earshot is a source of inspiration: a newspaper lying on the ground, a construction site at the end of the street, our neighbors’ music. The fact that we perceive all these things and how we perceive them is also a source of inspiration. It is the amount of time you spend being attentive to something that makes it inspiring.
P.M.: Our mother tongue, its misunderstandings, the repercussions it has in life, the homonym synonyms that one day gave us synhomonymes, its paradoxes as well as its tautologies.

What degree of permeability do current events have for you?
P.M.: Our own permeability, the fact that we are obliged to be contemporary.
F.H.: Our permeability to current events is so strong that it passes through us without any leaving residue behind. Curiously, however, most of our concerns are sooner or later relayed by the press, publishing, advertising.
In what way is your writing current?
P.M.: Insofar as it is not apocryphal.
P.A.: Because we are writing right now.
F.H.: The postmark on our manuscript proves it.
What is your most complete text and why?
P.M.: Laurel and Hardy at School because it saw itself as a Socratic dialogue on hostility or rebellion against the elements that surround us and the difficult, though comic, adaptation of the human race to its environment.
What is the function of text in your shows?
P.M.: The language is powerful. Its evocative power is such that it allows us to describe what we do or not do to explain what we should have done. It allows us, to act in total contradiction with what we are saying or even to refrain from doing anything. It helps us to present, to represent ourselves, to represent us, to the point that it can replace us. Fortunately, it still needs us to express itself.
P.A.: The text often comes in to nullify or confirm an action. It allows us to direct the viewer’s attention to what I’m doing, what my neighbor is doing as I speak, or what I’m not doing. For example, if I close a toolbox, I can say: I’m closing a toolbox, but I can also just as well say: I’m not opening this toolbox, nor sitting, nor getting up, nor reading the newspaper. All these formulations are true, they nevertheless do not seem to describe the same event.
F.H.: The text, on the one hand, has a musical role and, on the other, of criticism – to confirm or contradict – what is being shown. Without this constant sanctioning by the text, our shows would probably be of no interest. The purely visual aspect of our services, while polished and pleasant, remains very poor. We try to separate the scenic tableau, the scenographic image, and try to attain a paradoxical form of invisible spectacle in which, under surroundings that are nevertheless colorful, it principally calls out to the spectator’s imagination and intellect. Language has this power: it is known.

Shows

What is the nature of your stage work?
P.M.: Matching the gesture with words by sometimes putting the cart between two horses.
How much do doubt and incertitude play in your creation?
F.H.: A lot. With only very few skills in the various sectors mentioned (music, dance, writing and pronunciation of a text, etc.), We need to start again from scratch every time with only our sole ambition as our weapon.
P.M.: It’s the point of departure of our projects. If we were certain we would reach the goals that we set for ourselves, we wouldn’t even try.
Is there an element of improvisation in your shows?
P.M.: Very little, unless randomness is the main theme.
F.H.: The amount of improvisation is virtually nil. However, there have been occasions where we give ourselves several formulations of a sentence in advance, for example, with the flexibility to choose the moment when we will pronounce it.
We have also instituted, for the “5e forum international du cinema d’entreprise,” (5th International Forum of Corporate Films) the GAME OF PROFESSIONS, which consists of players taking turns and freely articulating a list of occupations that are not their own.
P.A.: It is reduced to a minimum, for example, in the 5FIDCE, where the only improvised scene is the game of professions where the rules are so simple that the improvisation is relaxed: it’s a matter of enumerating all the trades we do not practice. I am not a baker, I don’t work on railroads, I am not glazier … It’s a way of evoking realities that are more or less distant and exotic while still remaining in the realm of self-description.
What are you looking to achieve? Do you sometimes achieve it?
F.H.: We seek to create shows that we would like to watch. Perhaps sometimes we reach that.
P.A.: We often like to say that we’d make an invisible show. There is a scene in 5FIDCE where we say that we haven’t always made the best choices, that there must probably be an ideal situation in which we would not be there, in the process of saying these words, and each of us begins to describe everything he/she is not doing while doing this very action. I give a folder, and I say: I will not give this folder. I give a second one, I say: this one neither. I think denying what we do at each step makes the scene disappear at the same time people are sitting there, watching it.
P.M.: Thinking out loud. Finding logics that we never suspected existed. Discovering mysteries in obvious facts, and delighting in it.
What has been your most complete show? Why?
P.M.: Every new show. The last show always leads to the next one.
Could one of your goals be achieving the most radical reduction in terms of representation?
P.A.: Yes.
F.H.: The word Representation has numerous accepted meanings. It is often used and rarely defined. If Representation means “evocation by various means of a thing, a state or an event which is not truly present here and now,” it’s true that this is an issue which we constantly return to. We constantly oscillate between the feeling that it would be impossible or vain to talk about something other than what is happening right here and now, in this precise moment, and the desire to tell stories, to string scenarios together. Therefore, back and forth between the joys of pure description of the present and the allure of fiction.
What is the nature of the relationship you offer your viewers?
P.M.: If we are succinct enough in our presentations to make them resemble demonstrations or instruction booklets, the viewer can practice a bit of mental gymnastics with us which is rather pleasant and funny, and even informative.
P.A.: It is difficult to assume what the viewer thinks, or how he/she is reacting. But the shows are designed so that the viewer’s attention is always active, so that he/she will create the links between such and such a scene with us. A bit of an effort in terms of memory and prediction are asked of them.
The principle behind the shows is to start off where the viewer’s knowledge is equal to ours, and to use whatever we have on hand to build a plot, a speech, a demonstration. This is why we do not refer to books or films that the audience might have seen to understand our message. That is also why we often resort to repeating certain passages, or even looping (in order to create a communal memory) as well as self-referencing.
F.H.: A privileged relationship.
What is the function of theater?
P.M.: To enable minds.
What is the most accurate piece of feedback anyone has ever given you on your work?
F.H.: (Feed)Back to square one.
P.M.: The death of the subject.

Movement / Future

What have you not yet written?
P.A.: I don’t think I have ever written this particular sentence. But, I guess I have now.
P.M.: A play.
What will be the subject of your next creation?
F.H.: I’ll tell my life from A to Z in order to probably realize that, at the end, I haven’t said anything at all.
P.M.: Retrieve memories that are so forgotten that they could belong to someone else.
P.A.: As for me, I’m writing a movie on the theme of incoherence.
P. A. / F. H. / P.M. / C.C.

Objectif Cinema

Season 1 episode 2

 Phoenix Atala

by Nicolas VILLODRE
Year after year, Sophie Herbin, the very charming and pleasant woman in charge of the dance section of the Conservatoire Olivier Messiaen de Champigny, programs in this isle of tranquility, located 4 rue Proudhon, right in the heart of the “leafy projects” of a Communist suburb – which is at the pinnacle all things contemporary and incredibly audacious in the urbandance or in avant-garde, modern, or multi-genre performances, caring little for pleasing everybody, obtaining high audience numbers, and disappointing people – and yet, we’re all here. April 1st – a date full of meaning for an operation like the one we will discuss, more or less relevant, whether we want to or not, either a joke or a trap – Phoenix Atala, partner, disciple, spiritual daughter of the mythical duo of French actionists Grand Magasin (Pascale Murtin and François Hiffler), presented his first personal work here, an “enlarged” film with a title that sounds like an American TV series: SEASON 1 EPISODE 2.

After an unexpected “Rumba du pinceau”, a song written and sung by Bourvil in 1947, danced by four visual arts students and choreographed by Marie-Laure Tétaud, a sort of apéritif to the evening, with its connotations of “amateur night”, the projection could finally begin in its meta-filmic version, i.e., in an old-fashioned-style presentation, with many people participating in the spirit of Le Film est déjà commencé?, debates, and all.
As is generally the case with Grand Magasin, whose excellent work has always enchanted us, insofar as it is both poetic and spiritual – in our hierarchy of values, these two criteria define what is most difficult to achieve in art – with (faux) naïveté, malice and finesse, Phoenix Atala’s film questions language. It is no longer a question here of the French language, as is habitually the case, but what could best be called “cinematic writing”, perfected by Griffith and accepted as a given by spectators. “Where is the cameraman? When will the shot change? Was this shot filmed in chronological order? How many takes were necessary before getting the desired shot? These are the questions that the characters of the film ask out loud…” This is the pitch of the show where, at any moment, from anywhere, the characters can walk out of the screen like Sherlock Jr. to appear in 3D, flesh and bones to participate in the performance. They are: Pascale Murtin, Christophe Salengro, Aurélia Petit, Virginie Petit, Danièle Colomine, Joseph Dahan, Christophe Arrot, Marc Bruckert, Etienne Charry, François Hiffler.

The film is also a documentary on the suburbs, on the banks of the Seine and Marne Rivers, which have kept none of the idyllic aura they once had in the populist cinema of Marcel Carné (Nogent, Eldorado du dimanche, 1929) or Jean Dréville (cf. À la Varenne, 1933, a sort of music video juxtaposing a java sung by the “Bayonnais” André Perchicot to images of “guinguettes”) or that of Julien Duvivier (La Belle équipe, 1936). […]
Phoenix allows himself a few visual flourishes: a split screen that could have been straight out of The Thomas Crown Affair (a photo of the film poster with a housewife in a red tartan shirt ironing a red-checkered tablecloth with the same tint, or doing the dishes in a tiled kitchen with the same pattern; the appearance of a message that would terrify all the wannabe editors in the room: “Media offline”; location of the subtitles, announced by the actors themselves; a few unapologetic blurry shots; an anamorphic image; several martial arts scenes no doubt inspired by the proximity of the Chinese center, Chinagora…

But the value and flavor of the project is dependent on the constant to-and-fro between the interventions of the “live performers” and the actions of the conference that were decided upon last August, in the outskirts of Alfortville, once and for all and, we would be tempted to say, for all eternity or posterity, on the skin of the tiny HDV tape strip. And, naturally, on the effects of concordance (cf. the two examples of live post-synchronization of one sequence that was allegedly defective) and of discordance (jump cuts, a character embodied by different actors, like in post-Brechtian theatre, incongruous inserts in the spirit of Hellzapoppin’, traditional Serbian dancers, etc.). Although the film and “play” are not really narrative, the young filmmaker seems fascinated by storytelling and by the panoply of means that the dominant – aka “classical” – cinema needs. As a result, we will not unveil the end of the show, which is in no way a resolution of the problem that has been posed, but which is given to us as a bonus to the film.

Mouvement

Performance put to the test by images

The Irregulars at the Ménagerie de Verre

Cinematographies

During the commentary-driven projection of Atala’s film Saison 1, épisode 2, the room became a movie house. Standing in front of the screen barring the stage, the filmmaker dissected filmic procedures (montage, rehearsal, continuity) systematically, to the point of exhaustion. Cinema and performance were intertwined but remained impermeable to each other. That is, until… a miracle! The Real, in the form of traditional dancers seen earlier in the film, burst into the room, “exploding through the screen”: like in Woody Allen’s The Purple Rose of Cairo, fiction met reality, with no possible return back, in a sort of epiphany, a miraculous incarnation. We were dumbfounded by this appearance, to the point where it obliterated the memory of the film that had just been presented along with its conceptual and funny deconstruction of cinema.

Telerama

Saison 1 épisode 2

By Phoenix Atala – Grand Magasin Collective

At this stage in the game/By now, we’re starting to think that Grand Magasin will always be Grand Magasin. After twenty years as a collective, you can recognize its members right from their first line. They’re always half-pop, half-kitsch, in skirts, t-shirts, or pants that are too short and fluorescent-coloured. And they can still astonish with new gestures, umpteen raspberries to be taken literally, new tiny phrases that are as absurd as they are obvious. An inseparable band of serious oddballs.
Initially, there was Pascale Murtin and François Hiffler, defectors from the world of dance in 1982. The thirty-year-old Phoenix Atala who joined up in 2000 is a perfect match. Season 1 Episode 2 is his brainchild, a film made without any prior technical knowledge, and that is what makes it so good. As a director-in-training, Phoenix asks questions from his spot on the stage about this marvelous world where someone can instantly go from the 1st to the 31st floor in an elevator. With him, a missing shot can be filled in with sequences of Serbian folk dancing… Unless it’s not your style of humor, you’ll very quickly be smiling out of delightful disbelief. Because, when you think about it, there are a thousand and one ways of seeing things, a thousand and one scales of measurement, a thousand and one wonderful incongruities that ostensibly puncture reality… even though we had tried so hard not to see them.

Cathy Blisson

Telerama n° 3042 – 03 mai 2008