The Characters of Jean-Pierre Martinez’s Theatrical Universe
In his 1927 essay Aspects of the Novel, the British novelist E.M. Forster (A Room with a View, Howards End) proposes the distinction between:
- Flat characters: simple, predictable, unchanging…
- Round characters: complex, unpredictable, evolving…
This typology, opposing stereotypical characters to characters endowed with a sophisticated psychology — still popular in academic circles today — appears rather rudimentary, even for describing novelistic writing, and it certainly does not account for the diversity of characters in theatre.
This opposition is particularly inadequate when describing tragic characters who, despite their relative complexity, cannot be reduced to “flat characters” (like the figures of the commedia dell’arte or even those in Molière’s comedies), yet remain predictable and unchanging because of the defining dominant trait that guides them (a sense of honour, for example) — a distinctive trait that inexorably leads them to a fatal end.
It therefore seems necessary, in order to account for the diversity of theatrical characters, to return to our typology of theatrical genres:
The Realist Character
The realist character is defined above all by their psychology. Whether this psychology is simple or complex, it leads them to behave in a relatively unpredictable way when confronted with unexpected events.
This very unpredictability is what makes the charm of comedy, dramedy, or even drama.
The spectator never truly knows whether things will end well or badly — or at least pretends not to know — in order to experience the story as closely as possible through the character to whom they become attached.
The Symbolist Character
The symbolist character, on the contrary, is defined less by psychology than by values, which lead them to adopt a predictable attitude when faced with the dilemma confronting them.
This expected behaviour, in the face of a destiny already written, is what defines symbolist theatre. Whether in a fairy tale or an absolute tragedy, the spectator knows in advance whether the ending will be happy or fatal.
The interest lies not in the uncertainty of the outcome, but in admiration for exemplary characters who uphold and defend their values, even at the cost of their own lives.
The Surrealist Character
The surrealist character, by contrast with the realist one, retains psychological depth and logical behaviour, but becomes the plaything of the absurd world into which they are thrown.
Initially guided by rationality, they gradually sink into madness as they descend into a fantastic and irrational universe.
The spectator’s pleasure comes from watching — with a certain cruelty — an ordinary character struggle within an environment that has become completely abnormal.
The Objectivist Character
The objectivist character is defined neither by psychology nor by values, but solely by their mechanical behaviour, described meticulously and observed with detachment.
This schematic type of character remains more or less impermeable to what happens to them, which may even be insignificant.
Barely sketched, these characters exist only insofar as they objectively contribute to the unusual situation in which they are involved — a situation the spectator is invited to observe like a researcher studying rats in a maze to see how they will manage to escape.
As we can see, in this typology the character does not pre-exist the story or the narrative.
They are defined by the theatrical genre in which they are involved.
This typology remains very general, however, and we also propose here a classification of characters in terms of social roles — what semiotics calls motifs (figures associated with specific, expected micro-narratives).
The role of the “husband”, for example, immediately suggests a whole range of possible intrigues traditionally linked on stage to the theme of adultery.
Every profession (doctor, notary, painter…) likewise suggests a specific setting and particular kinds of stories, according to the logic of the universe invoked and in reference to an intertextuality with which the spectator is more or less familiar.