François Regnault, along with Jean-Pierre Miguel, Theatrical and Psychoanalyse (Thétre et Psychanallyse, 2004), is unique and of great value in its form and its participants. It is not an academic monograph written by theorists, but an in-depth dialogue - on the one hand, the leading interpreter of Laconian philosophy and spiritual analysis (Leño) and, on the other hand, the director of the Compédie-Française, a life-long practitioner of stage, text and actor.
The purpose of this dialogue is not to "intersect" theatrical analysis as an external tool, but to reveal the structural co-existence of the two (homologie structurale). It's about the way the theatre works, which is itself a psychoanalytical exercise.
I. Core participants: The intersection and resonance of theory and practice
Understanding the book begins with understanding the positions of the two parties to the dialogue
François Regnault - Theoretically
Identity: Theatrical works by philosophers, playwrights, followers of Lacon and famous director Patrice Chéreau.
Perspective: Radical Raconism. He does not bring with him common concepts such as the Freud type of "love-mother bond" or "subconscious", but rather the more sophisticated structural tools of Lacon: desire (le désir), others (l'autre), objecta (l'objet a), gaze (le regard) and subject (le Sujet supposé savoir).
Roles in dialogue: He is the one who proposes abstract frameworks, linking specific drama phenomena (such as the charm of an actor, the fascination of an audience) to the deep structure of psychoanalysis.
Jean-Pierre Miguel - Proof of practice
Identity: Distinguished director of theatre, then director of the French Opera (1993-2001).
Perspective: Empirical perspective from rehearsals, stage and audience. What he cares about is how to guide actors. What about the classic text? What does the audience reaction mean? What is "stage reality"?
The role in the dialogue: he's the test of theory. He has used specific and sensitive experience to respond to, challenge or corroborate the abstraction of the Inlerño. For example, when Renio talks about "targeta", Miguel talks about what an actor cannot say about "stage charm".
The glamour of this dialogue lies in the fact that it travels back and forth between abstract theoretical construction and concrete theatre practice, making the deep-seated Laconian theory touching and giving daily drama experience a profound theoretical dimension.
II. Analysis of the core themes addressed in the book
The book is structured around several core issues, which we can refine into the following themes
Theme 1: Le Désir - the only engine of the drama
This is the absolute core of the book. In the opening words of Lenio, the theatre deals not with psychology but with desire.
Lenio's point of view (Racon)
A desire, a need or a demand: desire is not a desire to get something specific, but rather an unsatisfied, structural "manque".
Desires are "the desires of others" (Le désir de l'Autre): The actions of dramatic characters are driven not by their "temporal character", but by a desire from "others" (social law, linguistic order, mother's desire, etc.), which he cannot fully grasp. The tragedy of Fidel was not because she "loved" Hippolytos, but because she was occupied by a destructive desire that she could not control, as if from outside.
Miguel's response (practical)
From the director's point of view, he confirmed that the greatest theatre roles (e.g., Alcaster, Hamlet, Fidel) have a kind of "pity" or "crazy". They are driven by a force that transcends itself, which makes their actions neither reasonable nor attractive.
The director's job is to present on stage the trajectory of this pure and irrational desire, rather than to find a reasonable "psychological motive" for the character's behaviour.
The value of dialogue: together, they strip the theatre of "psychology" and point directly to its very existence - the desire to act itself. Theatrical is thus a "mix of desire".
Theme 2: The role of the director -- from "master" to "subject to whom you should know"
What's the director's position in the theater?
Lenio's point of view (Racon)
The director took the position of the psychoanalyst "subject to know". Actors and viewers believe in what the director "know" is, just as patients believe analysts know the answer to his symptoms.
But in fact, the director himself did not know "the ultimate truth". He was just an interpreter, facing a text full of "holes" and "symptomatics". His job is to set a framework in which desires can flow and manifest themselves. He's not the source of meaning, he's the catalyst for meaning.
Miguel's response (practical)
He confessed to "ununderstanding" and "uncertainty" in the director's work. He acknowledged that the director's authority was, to a large extent, a "play", a role that had to be assumed in order for creativity to continue.
He described the process of "exploring" the text with actors at the rehearsal, which confirmed that the director was not fully knowledgeable, but rather a partner with actors in the "subconscious" of the text.
The value of dialogue: This discussion has subverted the myth of "genius director", repositioning the director as a structural functional role, similar to that of an analyst, leading rather than indoctrination.
Theme three: Actor body and voice - "Target a"
Why are some actors fascinating?
Lenio's point of view (Racon)
The great actor's charm is not because he's "impersonating" much, but because his body and his voice have become the shape of "objet a" on stage.
"Target a" is the cause of desire in Laconian theory, the one that ignites our desires and cannot be said (e.g. sound, eyes, parts of the body). It's a fascinating "residue".
The actor's "stage charm" or "preésence" is the expression of "targeta." The desire of the audience is attracted and captured by this living, real body that cannot be completely captured by symbols.
Miguel's response (practical)
He uses a lot of examples to describe actors with extraordinary charms. He talks about the quality of their voices, their silence, their unique gestures, which cannot be simply summed up by "good acting".
He also talks about actor fright. Renio would interpret it as the anxiety caused by actors facing the "le Réel" on stage - the naked, meaningless moment of sight.
The value of dialogue: they provide an extremely profound theoretical interpretation of the mysterious phenomenon of "actress charm" that goes beyond traditional acting analysis and touches on the root causes of audience desires.
Theme 4: Audience and gaze (L'Audience et le Regard)
What's the audience looking at?
Lenio's point of view (Racon)
He introduced the distinction between "eyes" and "observation". The audience looked at the stage with its eyes (l'pil), but at the same time there was an invisible " le regard" projecting from the stage in reverse to capture the audience.
The audience thinks that he is a safe spy in the dark, but in fact he feels he is seen on the stage and involved in the exchange of desires. You're not looking at Fidel. You're looking at Fidel.
Miguel's response (practical)
From the director's point of view, he talks about how to manipulate the audience's attention and how to build this "observation" using lights, scenery and the movement of actors.
He talked about the strange collective experience in the theater: shared breath, silence and sudden laughs. This suggests that the audience is not an isolated individual, but rather a temporary community under "observation".
The value of dialogue: a radical change in the understanding of visual relationships and the transformation of audiences from an active "consumer" to a subject "captured" by the structure of desire.
III. Meaning of the format of the dialogue and its conclusions
Avoiding theoretical rigidity: The form of dialogue keeps Racon's theory fluid and open. Miguel's practical experience constantly "questions" the theory to prevent it from becoming a closed body of dogma.
The book is a perfect example of how theory shines on practice and how it enriches theory. Lenio's analysis gave Miguel a deeper sense of the meaning of his work, while Miguel's example gave Lenio's theory blood and flesh.
The mirror psychoanalytical process: Dialogue itself is like an analysis. Renio plays "analyst", Miguel plays "analysed", and by word they collectively reveal the subconscious structure of "patient" drama.
Conclusion: moving beyond "applications" to "consistent structures"
The final conclusion of this book is revolutionary
It is not saying that "we can analyze dramas by psychoanalytical analysis", but that "theatricals, in their most advanced form, are structured in the same way as the findings of psychoanalytical analysis".
Theatricals are not the subject of psychoanalytical research, but rather another path parallel to psychoanalyticals, exploring human desires, mass divisions and relationships with "others". The director, the actor, the audience and the text together constitute a sophisticated "mechanism of desire", and the dialogue between Renio and Miguel is the instructions for its use.
For any reader who wants to understand in depth the relationship between theatre and psychoanalysis, the book is an indissoluble, inspiring and necessary reading. It brings readers from a shallow analysis of the role "psychological profile" to a deep structural understanding of how dramatic events themselves are so powerful.
I will then begin this in-depth text-by-chapter analysis in the most detailed and faithful manner possible. This analysis will follow the "inherent anatomical" approach, which means that we will follow every turn of the Leño-Miger dialogue to elaborate on each of the concepts put forward and to reconstruct its reasoning as if we were sitting next to it.
Theatre and Psychoanalytical
Chapter I: The Paradigm of Actors - from the myth of "integration" to the truth of "secession"
At the beginning of Theatrical and Psychiatry Analysis, the dialogue did not begin from the depths of theory, but was rooted in the oldest and most central puzzle of dramatic practice: the actor. Jean-Pierre Miguel, as an experienced director, casts out an issue that seems to be simple and fundamental and that forms the cornerstone of this chapter and indeed of the whole book.
Section I: Perplexing practitioners - "good faith" versus "teaching"
Miguel's point of departure is the long-spreaded "actors' creed" that actors must be "sincère" and must be emotionally "integrated" with his role.
Miguel (M) asked (reconstructed): "In rehearsals, we always say to actors, "You have to believe it," "You have to feel," "You have to be that person." This quest for `good faith' seems to be the Holy Grail of performing art. However, the paradox followed. When I think back about the greatest actors in the history of the Lancet, such as Louis Jouvette, I see a near-cold, absolutely precise technical control. Ruway himself said, "The actor is thinking with his heart and feeling with his mind. 'What exactly does this ambivalence mean? How do we reconcile the tension between this demand for `inherent truth' and `outside skills'?"
Miguel's confusion accurately summed up the central dilemma of dramatic theory that has plagued Dedro's Actors' Paradox. What he presented was a dual antagonism that practitioners could not avoid in their daily work: either emotional insulation (considered "real") or the use of technology (considered "fake"). This provides a perfect entry point for François Leño's intervention.
Section II: intervention in psychoanalytical analysis - "substantiation" as a fundamental answer
Lenio's response was subversive. He noted that Miguel described this duality itself as a "false question" based on a false premise. This mistake presupposes the existence of a unified, complete actor capable of "integrated" with the role. Renio introduced the foundational concept of Jacques Lacon's psychoanalytical analysis - the divided subject (le sujet divisé or le sujet barré, in $) - to completely re-establish the understanding of actors.
The analysis (reconstruction) of Lenio(R) reads: "In the framework of Lacon's theory, the term `integration' falls within the realm of `imaginaire'. It's an illusion of the integrity we long for, like the joy of a baby's first image in the mirror. However, this uniformity is an error. The fundamental finding of psychoanalytical analysis is that subjects are never uniform. "I" is fundamentally divided. Instead of overcoming this division on the stage, actors have shown the most spectacular and open truth about the existence of this human subject."
Renio has further analysed the specific structure of this division
As an individual actor: this is the actor with a biographical identity, for example, Jean-Paul Belmonto. He has his own body, his own unconsciousness, his own desires, his own accent and habits. He's the subject of speech.
Actors as role players: This is a symbolic position (position symbolique) as defined by the text, such as Sihano. This role is a structure of signifants, which belongs to the domain of the "le Grand Auto" - the symbolic order represented by language, culture and scripts. He's the subject of what he says.
Lenio(R)'s argument (reconstructed): "When actors say "I, Sihano..." on stage, this "I" is empty. There is an insurmountable gap between Belmonto, who said this, and Sihano, whom he said.
Thus, Zuvé's "deviousness" was answered: the actor's "brain" (twice, control, distance) was used to harness that prescriptive symbolic framework (role), while his "heart" (body, drive, exist) provided the energy for the true experience of the division of the subject. The two are not opposing, but are two sides of the same structure.
Section III: Reinterpretation of masks - from "covering" to "establishing"
In order to further concretize the theory of "separate subjects", the dialogue turned to the ancient instrument of drama, "le masque". In the traditional sense, masks are used to "hidden" actors for their true purpose. Lenio gave an entirely opposite explanation.
Miguel (M) quote (reconstructed): "In the ancient Greek tragedy, masks are indispensable. It seems to have fixed the role and deprived the actor of his face."
"This is the key function of the mask!" It's not about "hidden" actors' "real" faces. On the contrary, on stage, the mask is the real face of an actor. It is an imposed, non-negotiable, symbolic identity from the "big others". By wearing a mask, the actor's personal and imaginary expression (the subtle, psychological, " sincere " expression) was completely abolished. Such abolition is not a loss, but a liberation. It forces actors to stop relying on facial expressions, the most easily `integrated' illusions, thus giving way to a more pure and structured expression - that is, through his voice (voix) and his physical posture (geste). The mask establishes the invincible symbolic position under which the subject of the actor must speak."
The function of the mask, therefore, is to move from the "similar" game of imagination to the "structural" law of symbolic circles. It ensures that the "separation" between actors and actors is visible and structural, thus preventing performances from slipping into cheap psychology.
Section IV: The truth of the error -- the error and the scene of the intrusion as a "real world"
If the mask was built on the initiative of symbolic division, the uncontrollable "accidents" at the rehearsal field constituted a passive revelation of that division. From his practical experience, Miguel provided the material most interested in psychoanalytical analysis: lapsus and le fou rire.
MIG-L(M) Observations (reconstructed): One of the most frustrating moments was when, in a highly stressful and emotional rehearsing, an actor suddenly said the wrong key line, or worse, he laughed beyond his control. The magic of the whole scene suddenly disappeared."
Lenio(R) analysis (reconstructed): "This may be a `failure' from the point of view of the theatre director. But from a psychoanalyst's point of view, it was a `successful' revelation. This is exactly what Freud called the "psychiatry of everyday life" on stage. Wrong words or jokes, not random mistakes. They're "le Réel."
Renio has here introduced the third and central dimension of the Lacon doctrine, the "real one".
Lenio(R) explains (reconstructed): "The `real world' is the traumatic kernel that resists symbolization and transcends imagination. In the context of the stage, the substance of the actor itself, his repressed unconscious thoughts, the limits of his body, the true relationship between him and the rival actor -- - All these things that don't belong to the role, the symbol of the shell, constitute the "real realm". When the actor was wrong, his own unconscious words (un words inconscient) pierced the script. When he laughs, it's his body's joissance that overwhelms the emotional rules of the role. In these moments, the illusion of the drama broke down, but the truth of the division of the subject (la vérité) was revealed in an embarrassing but inexorably real way. At that moment, the audience saw not Hamlet, but the subject who played Hamlet, divided and fleshed."
This analysis elevates the actor's "failure" from a technical problem to an existential one. It is no longer a professional absence of actors, but a symptom of structurally incomplete human subjects (symptôme).
Summary of this chapter: Actors as "symptoms"
This chapter completes the overhaul of the role of actors through an evolutionary analysis of layers. Actors are no longer seen as a unified psychological entity that attempts to "integrated" with the role, but are revealed as a structural "symptoms" - a manifestation of the fundamental division between the subject and the "big others". His performance was a simultaneous complex movement on the three dimensions of imagination (a desire for integration), symbolism (subordination to the law of texts) and realism (intentional intrusion).
This new definition of actor provides a solid basis for following up on texts, desires and audience experiences. Because if an actor is itself divided, the whole dramatic event in which he is involved must also be about the appearance of division, desire and absence.
Chapter 2: From text to words - the "mise en volix" of desire
If the actor is the "subject" of division, then the text is the embodiment of the "Big Other". This chapter will focus on the transformation process from static text printed on paper to dynamic, energy-intensive performances on the stage. The central argument of Lenio is that this transformation is not a simple "repeal" or "repeat", but a key "acte de parole" that produces meaning and desire.
Section I: Director's core mission - transforming from "Langue" to "Parole"
The starting point for the dialogue remains the practical dimension raised by Miguel, which concerns the nature of the director ' s work.
Miguel (M) asked (reconstructed): "We got a classic play, like Moriya's Hypocrites. Every word, every dot symbol is fixed there and has not changed for centuries. But every new production, we all feel like we're having a whole new creation. My job, or what is the nature of the director's job? How can we make these words, which are silent and belong to the past, sound on the stage today and have an impact on the audience today?"
In response, Renio introduced and elaborated on a set of key concepts that Sogor reshaped through Lacan: language (Langue) and speech (Parole).
Lenio(R) analysis (reconstructed): "The script that you refer to on paper is the `le trésor des signifants' that Lacon describes. `Language' is a non-personal, structured, synchronized system. It is like a dictionary or a grammar book, and it contains all the combination rules between the finger and them. At this level, the text is " dead ", it belongs to " le grand auto " and it belongs to no one. It just exists.
"Leño(R) continues to explain (reconstruct): "The word is the personalized and time-consuming expropriation of this `language' system by the subject. When an actor, a divided subject, speaks a line in the particular air of the stage, it becomes a word. `Saying' is physical, it is borne by a specific body (the body of an actor); it is pointed, it is directed towards another subject (actress or audience); and, above all, it carries the desire of the subject (désir). Thus, the central task of the director is to create all the necessary conditions for the transformation from `language' to `spoken'. Your job is not to "translate" the text, but to activate the text, from a static function to a dynamic, desireful event."
This distinction is essential because it shifts the focus of the theatre performance from "recurrence of meaning" to "production of desire". Actors are not "expressing the meaning" of the line, but are displaying the desires of their subjects by "speaking" the line.
Section II: "Spoken words" and "empty words"
In order to further refine the quality of "spoken", Leño introduced another two important concepts as presented by Lacon in the Rome Report: full-fledged words and empty words.
The definition (reconstruction) of Renio(R) reads: "`An empty speech' is a statement in which the subject does not participate. It's like a cold in our daily social life, or a student recites lessons. It delivers messages and follows grammar, but the speakers themselves hide behind this automated discourse. In the drama, an actor who just "repeated" the lines was saying "a hollow word." The audience can hear words, but it can't feel anything."
Lenio(R) Comparative Analysis (reconstructed): "And `full words' are the words in which the subject gambles its own existence. It is not a description of a reality that already exists, but rather the creation of reality in words about conduct itself. When Racine's Fiedel says "I love you" to Hippolytos, if it's a `full word', then this `love' is not a pre-existing emotional report, but an act of `love' itself, a devastating, taboo reality, into the stage world like a stone. It changes all the coordinates of Fidel, Hippolytos and the entire theatre universe. It is an irreversible act."
Miguel provides a vivid example of this theory from the director's experience.
Miguel (M) responded (reconstructed): This is exactly what I'm looking for in my rehearsal. I used to say to actors, "Don't go to the show, just say the line." But you have to find the only absolutely necessary reason to say that line. 'We've spent weeks, probably just to find the correct "weight" of the line. This weight, I think, is what you said, makes it a full word."
Thus, the director's work has been redefined as a kind of "midwifery": helping actors find a place where their words become "full". This is no longer a psychological "play-in role", but a structural "take-in".
Section III: Silence, breathing and sound - vehicles of desire other than words
The logic of dialogue naturally extends to: if desire is reflected in words, then what happens where there is no words - for example, silence, pause and breathing?
Miguel (M)'s observation (reconstructed): "Harold Pinter is famous in the dramatic text for his threatening "pause" and "silence". In rehearsing the tragedy of Racine, we also found that the short breath between Alexander's poems was no less important than the words themselves."
Renio sees these "non-linguistic" elements as a key place where desire operates, even more directly than language.
(R) Analysis (reconstruction): "In psychoanalysis, unconsciousness manifests itself in language cracks, cracks and mouth errors. The silence on the stage is not "free." It's a crack full of tension. It points to what cannot be said - trauma, death, taboo desires. The silence moves the audience's ears from listening to the meaning to feeling the presence. It forces us to face the limits of language."
Here, Renio leads the dialogue to a more refined concept of the Laconian theory: the voice is a target a (objet petit a).
"We have to distinguish between sound and words. Words are symbolic, they convey meaning. And the sound, it's symbolic, it's the appearance of pure drive. It is a material carrier out of meaning - the sound of sound, the sound, the rhythm, an aria, a scream, a breath. This "sound" is a form of what Lacon calls "objecta". It does not enter symbolic circles, but rather directly attacks the body of the audience and triggers a pre-reasonable, biological reaction. That is why an opera that doesn't understand the lyrics can still make us cry. We are touched not by its meaning, but by its "sound" object itself."
The Miguel (M) certificate (reconstructed) explains why the sound training of actors is so important. We're not training them to say "better" but training them to master "mass", "colour" and "energy." A great tragic actor, whose voice in itself carries the weight of destiny."
Summary of this chapter: from "text reproduction" to "production of desire"
This chapter completes a major paradigm shift in theatre theory. According to the Laconian interpretation of Renio, the core of the theatre is no longer a pre-existing text. Instead, the stage became a "production device".
The "raw material" of the device is the text (the repository of languages), its "workers" is the actor (the subject of division), its "products" is the sound, body and movement, and its "products" is the desire that is produced in the "full words" and silence cracks.
The director's job, therefore, is more like a sound engineer, who does not simply "mise en scène" but rather a more fundamental "mise en voix" - creating an area where desire can be engraved and mobile through voice and speech.
The analysis of this chapter paves the way for a comprehensive and systematic discussion in the next chapter of the mechanisms for the operation of desire itself in theatre.
Chapter III: Stage control of desire
The central task of this chapter is to answer the question: What is the theatre really showing? Renio's answer is clear and categorical: drama, especially great drama, is not about emotion, not about moral conflict, not even about the story itself, but about the structure of desire and its functioning.
Section I: The essence of desire - it is not a "possession", but a "existence" problem
In the first instance, Lenio spent a considerable amount of space, clarifying the specific meaning of the concept of "desir" in the psychoanalytical analysis, and making a strict distinction between it and the term "desir" or "need" in everyday languages.
"We have to start with a fundamental distinction. The first is demand, which stems from biologicality, such as the need for food. Needs can be met by a specific target and then disappear. Next is the requirement (demande), which is expressed through language, such as baby crying for milk. But the demand is never just about the specific thing, it's deeper about the "love" and the recognition of others. And desire comes from the surplus of "demand" over "demand." Desire is not a desire for any specific object, it is essentially unsatisfied and it points to a permanent `manque'."
After clarifying this set of concepts, Renio has dropped the core formula of the Laconian theory: human desire is the desire of the great others. He explained in detail the dual meaning of the formula.
(reformed)
In the sense of the word: my desire is the desire of the Great Others. This means that I want to be the object of the other. I want to be the perfect, complete and filled with his own. It's about "Who am I?", "Who should I be to please others?" 'The existential problem.
In the sense of "master": my desire is the desire of the Great Others themselves. That means I don't know what I want, so I take the desire of the Great Others as my own. I want what I think is valuable. My desire is alienated, it comes from outside.
(R) Renio (R) summed up (reconstructed): "So the fundamental question of desire is not 'What do I want?', but the disturbing question Lacon asked: 'Che vuoi?' - 'What do I want from me? It's an eternal question about where I am in the other's desire system. The great drama is the presentation of this "Che vuoi"?
Section 2: The classic drama character as an example of the "subject of desire"
This abstract theory was immediately brought back by Miguel to concrete theatre practice. He referred to the most inexplicable and charming theatre figures.
"Why would Hamlet delay? If he really believes in his father's ghost, why not take revenge immediately? Similarly, the cynicist of Mori, who claims to hate the hypocrisy of human beings, prefers to fall in love with Serimana, who is the most flirting and unfaithful."
Lénho used the theoretical tool of "the desire of the big others" to provide an excellent "clinical diagnosis" of these classic roles.
Renio (R) Analysis of Hamlet (reconstructed): "The tragedy of Hamlet is not a weakness of willpower. His tragedy is that he was hit by an absolute order from the "Big Other" (the ghost of his father): "Venge for me!" but that order was traumatic and vague. The appearance of ghosts has torn the symbolic order of the Kingdom of Denmark. The question for Hamlet is "Che vuoi?" Father, what do you want me to do? As a result, his procrastination, his dementia, his director of the play, all of which was his futile attempt to explain, locate and locate the desire of the `big other' and find his position as his implementer. His desire is completely paralysed."
Renio(R) Analysis of Alcaster (restructuring): "Alcaster is another excellent example. He claims that his desire is "absolutely sincere". But if that's the case, he should retire. But he stayed in the Paris salon and fell in love with Selimana. Why? Because Serimanna is the incarnation of the "big others" he claims to hate. The true desire of Alcaster is not to achieve sincerity, but rather to be an exception that allows the hypocritical "Big Other" (Serimana) to acknowledge his sincerity and change it for him. He wants to get a proof of his own uniqueness from the Great Others. This is precisely proof that his desire was built entirely around the desire of the great others."
Through these analyses, the drama character is no longer a psychological individual with a fixed "temporal" character, but a "subject position" driven by the structure of desire. Their actions are their trajectory in the maze of desire.
Section III: "Object a" - the bait of desire on stage
If desire is a structural "deprivation", then there must be a specific, visible "something" on the stage to represent this deficit in order to trigger and capture audience desires. This "something" is the most central and elusive concept of Laconian theory: objecta.
(R) The difficult definition of "objecta" (reconstructed): "`objecta' is not the object of our desire (l'objet du désir), but the cause of desire (la cause du désir). It's not what we eventually want, it's the spark that ignited our desire. It's a `remaining thing', the small `real boundary' where the body was removed and lost when the subject entered the symbolic boundary. It has no value per se, but it marks a gap around which desire revolves. It's like MacGuffin in the Hitchcock movie, where the characters fight, but it doesn't matter what it is."
Renio and Miguel then began to look for the specific shape of "targeta" in the theatre. They noted that it was not an entity, but an effect, usually in several specific, non-material forms
The interpretation (reconstructed) of Le regard (R) "we must distinguish between `l' œil' and `le regard'. The eyes are the organs of the action, the actors. And "look" is the feeling that "I'm being watched" it doesn't belong to anyone, it's an anonymous, scattered force in space. In the theater, the audience looks at the stage with its eyes, but at the same time it seems to be " staring " at the audience. The feeling is that "observation" works as "objecta". It makes the audience feel that he is not a safe, knowledgeable observer, but rather involved in the scene of desire, and that he himself is the object of view. It creates a delicate sense of anxiety and pleasure."
Miguel (M) supplements (reconstructed): "A great actor whose eyes seem to penetrate the audience without looking at any specific person. He's projecting a kind of "observation." Or, a light on the stage suddenly lights up an empty chair, as if it were `observing' us, which marks an absence and triggers our doubts and desires."
La voix (R) reaffirms and deepens: "As we discussed in the previous chapter, the sound of the semantic content itself is another perfect incarnation of `objecta'. It's a pure drive vehicle beyond meaning. It works directly in a more efficient economy, bypassing our rational defence."
An example (reconstruction) of other forms of Lenio(R): "Anything that can mark `deficient' and trigger desire can be `objecta'. For example, the `cassette' in The Hyde, hidden by Orgon; the blood-stained sword of Rodrigo in Heidel; and a character repeatedly mentioned but never appeared, like Gordo in " Waiting for Godo ". Gordo is the ultimate `objecta', a pure void, and all the characters' desires are organized around him."
Summary of this chapter: Theatre as a machine of desire
The analysis of this chapter ultimately defines the theatre as a sophisticated "mechanism of desire". The machinery operates as follows
It uses a puzzle (Che vuoi?) about "the desire of the big others" as an engine for the plot.
The person it created was the "subject" that sought its place in this lust labyrinth.
It captures the desires of viewers, turning them from safe bystanders to participants in desire, by crafting various forms of "objecta" on stage (observation, sound, mysterious objects).
The director's "mise en scène" is given a new meaning here. It is no longer as simple as putting actors away, setting the scenes, but rather as a profound "movement of desire". The director must be an engineer of desire, and he must accurately calculate and deploy every finger, every silence, every gaze and sound to ensure that the desire machine works efficiently and ultimately has a profound impact on the audience ' s substance.
And this shock, the so-called "purification", is the ultimate issue to be addressed in the next chapter.
Chapter 4: Audience experience - from "identity" to encounter with "real"
The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the complex psychological processes of the audience in the theatre. Lenio's reasoning path is, first, to deconstruct a single concept of "identification" in the traditional sense and to break it down into different levels of operation; then, on that basis, to redefine "purification" and transform it from an emotional revelation to a profound shock to the subject.
Section I: Three dimensions of identity - imagination, symbolism and reality
The dialogue began with a critical breakdown of the core concept of "identity" in audience psychology. Lenio notes that when we say "audience agrees with the role", we confuse at least two distinct psychological mechanisms.
Renio(R) distinction (reconstruction): "We must precisely divide the two main forms of identification, which correspond to the imagination and symbolism of Lacon."
"It's the most direct, most superficial identity." It's based on "similarity." Audiences see a role on the stage that is similar to their own, emotional, and they create the idea of "he's like me" or "I understand how he feels". It's a mirror relationship, like a baby's image in a mirror. In this identity, the audience and the role form a dualist relationship, temporarily forgetting the distance between them. The vast majority of popular theatres, dramas and commercial films, whose main effects are based on the identity of this imagination, are designed to provide emotional resonance and satisfaction."
"It's deeper and more structured. Here, the audience no longer subscribes to the role's `images' or `emotionals', but rather to the role's `trait unire ' or `apparent positions'. For example, when I watched Sofokles' Antigone, I might not be able to identify with her at any level of imagination - neither am I a princess nor have I ever wanted to bury my brother, who was convicted of being a traitor. But, at the symbolic level, I can agree with what she stands for: the subject who stands for for something beyond the laws of the city. I agree with the intransigent `postures' she embodies. It's not about "I'm not like him," it's about "where I am in the whole legal, family, symbolism of death."
Miguel confirmed the importance of this distinction from a practical point of view.
Miguel (M)'s observation (reconstructed): "It is true that great dramatic works often block the simple imagination of the audience. Brecht's "distantization" is the best-known example, and he's trying to tell the audience, "It's not you on the stage, it's the structure that's presented. Think about it. 'But even in the classical tragedy of Racine, Fidel, whose passion is so extreme and devastating that it is hard for the audience to say 'she is like me', we are still deeply attracted to her, and I think that is precisely what we are struck by the symbolic position that she occupied of the 'subject destroyed by taboo desires'."
Section II: Redefinition of "purification" - crossing illusions and encountering "real"
After clarifying the complexity of identity, Renio pointed to Aristotle's theory of "purification". In his view, "purification" was understood to mean the "promising" of feelings by triggering compassion and fear, which was a vulgar psychological error.
Renio(R) is critical (reconstructed): "See the theatre as an `emotional sewer', a kind of psychotherapy that allows us to cry at a safe distance and then feel better, which is a great disparaging force for tragedy. Within the framework of Lacon, the real drama, the so-called `purification', is not a release of emotion, but a far deeper thing: it is a meeting with the `le Réel'."
The "real world", the last and most central category of the Lacan three, is that traumatic kernel that cannot be symbolicized and imagined. It represents the collapse of meaning, the end of language and the naked truth of existence.
Renio(R) explains the "purification" of the tragedy (reconstructed): "The whole course of the tragedy is to carefully guide the audience to the edge of the "real world". We take King Oedipus as an example. For most of the time in the play, we were in the symbolic realm: we tracked the clues, worked out the reasoning and tried to solve the puzzle of who did it. We also share the pain of Oedipus in the imagination. But when the last truth comes to light -- when "the killer is me," "I married my mother," "I gave birth to my brother and sister," When these terrible things come together - the whole symbolic order has collapsed. Words cannot bear the weight of the truth. Now, what did Oedipus do? He didn't speak again. He stabbed himself in the eye. This self-inflicted act is a pure outbreak of "realism." It's an unspoken act. What the audience has experienced at this moment is not simply `pity', but a major breakdown. Their own identity and the symbolic order on which they rely (father, mother, son, king, wise man) are being shaken at this moment. This sense of dizziness, fear and pain, Lakan calls it "joissance". That's the "purification" of tragedy -- it doesn't make you feel better, but lets you leave the theatre with a traumatic problem that can't heal."
Section III: Different paths between tragedy and comedy
Renio further noted that tragedies and comedy dealt differently with the relationship with the "real world", but ultimately pointed to the impact on the main illusion.
(reconstructed)
Tragedy Path: Tragic masters, such as Antigone or Oedipus, are the subjects of a "la trversée du fantasme" for their own desire (or for loyalty to an absolute finger). They want to reveal the truth at all costs, even if it destroys themselves. They confront and destroy the abyss of the "real border". Through them, the audience was able to see the horror of the abyss.
The path of comedy: comedy, especially the great comedy of Morire, reveals "the real world" in another way. At the heart of the comedy is the disclosure of "le disguise". Like Dardolph or Arbagon, they hide their true, sick enjoyment behind them with a symbolic coat (pious, frugal). The pleasure of comedy is to see this symbolic disguise torn apart and the empty nature of the "big others" that sustain it.
"Why are we laughing?" In Lacon's view, laughter tends to react to sudden lapses in meaning. We laughed when Dandolph's deception was completely uncovered, and the entire symbolic building he built collapsed in an instant into a pile of meaningless rubble. It's not because we're having fun, but because we're seeing the funny, random, empty real world behind the symbolic order that sustains society. Smile is a little bit of anxiety in the face of this void."
Conclusion: Theatrical as a major "test"
The full book Theatrical and Psychiatry Analysis has thus completed a complete closure of the case. It begins with the division of actors, through the production of words and desires, and finally reaches the reshaping of the audience.
Theatricals, in a dialogue between Renio and Miguel, were eventually defined as a public space rare in a modern society. It is not a place for entertainment, but rather an "ethic test site". Audiences are invited to enter the field not to gain a cheap mutual or emotional outburst, but to undergo a journey of their own dominant "cross vision".
Whether through the devastating shock of tragedy or through the subversive mockery of comedy, the ultimate function of the theatre is to temporarily suspend the coordinates of the imagination and symbolism on which we depend for our survival, so that we can look at the "real" truth about the division, desire and limitation of our existence, which is overshadowed by everyday realities. When we leave the theatre, we may be troubled and confused, but it is precisely this kind of uncertainty and confusion that constitutes the most valuable gift that the theatre has given us - an opportunity to re-examine the location of our main subjects.
The dialogue document, which ultimately brings together psychoanalytical and theatre seemingly different practices under one and the same objective: To explore and reveal the subject of humanity that continues to speak in the labyrinth of languages, to desire, to build and to disintegrate.
Chapter 5: Theaters and clinics - two practices, one object
The value of Theatrical and Psychoanalytical Analysis lies not only in the fact that it provides new analytical tools for theatrical theory, but also in the fact that it sheds profound light on the striking homogeneity between theatrical and psychoanalytical practices. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize and clarify this core argument: the theatre and the psychiatric clinic (le cabinnet de l'analyste), which are two different but similar-structured "champs", are dedicated to dealing with the same subject - the human subject struggling in the language and its desires.
Section I: Shared structures - "devices" (Le Dispositif)
Renio's dialogue with Miguel repeatedly implied that the effectiveness of both theatrical and psychological analysis depended on a well-designed "mechanism". Through specific spatial arrangements, rules and participant roles, this device creates a special field that is different from everyday life and that allows "truths" to emerge.
Psychiatry device: description (reconstructed) of Renio(R): "What is the mechanism for psychoanalytic analysis? It consists of several key elements: an analyst (l'analyste), an analyst (l'analysant), a recital (le divan), fixed time and payment rules. Analysts are asked to follow the fundamental rule of `l'assation libre', which is to say what appears in the brain, however illogical or immoral. Analysts maintain a `suspension' and a degree of silence. The purpose of this device is to temporarily suspend the daily rules of social interaction so that the analyst ' s unconscious words can appear in the cracks of the language. Core elements
Lie-in chairs: freer speech by removing analysts from direct eye contact with analysts (the mirror of imagination).
The silence of analysts: By refusing to act as a "big other" who provides answers and meets demands, analysts are forced to face the truth of their desires. Analysts occupy the position of "the desire to listen", not "the subject of knowledge".
(a) Payment rules: The stripping of analytical relationships from the realm of "love" or "friendship" becomes a symbolic contract, marking the limitation of time and the seriousness of the exchange.
Theatrical device: Miguel (M) responded with a theoretical (reconstructed) version of Lenio (R): "The theatre's device is as sophisticated. It includes the division of the stage from the audience (la scène et la salle), the setting of the `fourth wall', the ceremony of darkening the light, the distinction between actors and roles, and the observance of the script (the law of the great others). Core elements
Stage/audience segmentation: This creates a clear line, similar to the setup of the clinic, which delineates a space for "play" or "experiment". The viewer's "seeing" and the actor's "seeing" form the basic path of desire.
Lights darken: this is a symbolic act that marks a shift from everyday reality to dramatic reality. It requires the audience to put aside its daily defence mechanisms and enter a special "suspension of trust".
Distinction of actors/roles: As detailed in chapter I, this division structure is at the heart of the dramatic device. It allows the central truth of the spiritual analysis of "substantiation" to be publicly displayed.
Lenio(R) summation (reconstructed): "So we can see that the theatre and the clinic are artificially constructed `espace vide'. Through a series of rules, they create an area that makes "spoken" essential. In both places, what matters is not what happens `real', but what is said and how is said."
Section II: Shared approaches - listening to "outside"
If the two practices share a similar structure, they share a similar methodological theory, that is, a special "hearing" approach.
Analyst listens: the interpretation (reconstructed) of Léno (R): "The analyst listens, not the apparent meaning of the analyst's words. He listens to the cracks, contradictions, mistakes, repetitions and silence in his words. He's concerned about "le signifiant" rather than "le signifié". Because it's precisely in these `impairments' of the language that unconscious desires are revealed. The analyst's question is not "What do you mean by that?" It's "Why do you say that at this point?"
Director/audience's "Listening": Miguel (M) and Renio (R) Consensus (reconstructed): "A good director does the same thing in rehearsal. He listens to the actors, but pays more attention to their rhythm, sound, pause and breathing. He's listening to actors' `full words' and to the flow of desires. Similarly, a profound audience, who watched the drama, did not follow only the story. He would feel the tension behind a line, notice a deep silence, and think about why a role used a word repeatedly. He is conscious of a `symptomal reading'."
Thus, both analysts and directors/audiences play a role as "explainers". But this interpretation is not to provide a final and correct meaning, but rather to mark the moment when the meaning breaks, so that the truth of the subject itself emerges in those cracks.
Section III: Shared ethics - loyalty to your desire (L'éthique du désir)
In the end, Renio raised the commonality of theatre and psychoanalysis to the ethical level. He quotes Lacon ' s famous assertion in his seminar on the ethics of psychoanalysis.
Renio(R) argues in ethics (reconstructed): "The only ethics of psychoanalytic analysis presented by Lacon is: `Don't give in to your desires'. This is not to say that it is to indulge all its willful impulses. Rather, it means that a subject should assume the uniqueness and impossibility of its desires and not betray it because of the pressure of society, the demands of others or the desire for peace."
Renio believes that the great master of tragedy is the purest manifestation of that ethic.
"We look at Antigone." She faces the "le been" of the city law and public interest represented by Creon. But she insisted on burying her brother, which was her desire, linked to an older, family and sacred law. For that desire, she sacrificed her life and crossed the boundaries of the human world. Antigone is the ultimate subject of "not giving in to her desires." Her tragedy is a direct consequence of her ethical behaviour. She has shown us the terrible price of loyalty to her own desires, and some noble beauty inherent therein."
Miguel (M) supplements (reconstructed): "This may explain why these tragic figures, thousands of years ago, can still shake us. Because they played an absolute, uncompromising ethical choice on the stage for all of us who have made constant compromises and given in our daily lives. We are both afraid and obsessed with it."
Conclusion: Theatrical as "another psychoanalytical"
So, Theatrical and Psychoanalytical accomplished its mission. It does not simplify psychoanalytical analysis into an external tool for "coding" theatre, nor does it use drama as a simple illustration of psychoanalytic theory.
On the contrary, in this equal and in-depth dialogue between Renio and Miguel, the theatre itself was revealed as an autonomous "analytical practice" parallel to psychological analysis.
(a) If psychoanalytical analysis is at the individual level, help subjects to face the truth of their unconsciousness and desire through "spoken words"
Theatricals are then presented collectively, through "mise en scène", to bring the audience of the whole community together to face the fundamental structures of the existence of human subjects - divisions, desires, encounters with the real world, and ethical dilemmas of loyalty to their own desires.
Theater has become a public "dialogue room". Here, each and every one of us is invited to watch the "analytical process" of "others" (roles) and, in the process, to look at our desires and existence. Renio's dialogue with Miguel finally proved that both of the whispers on the couch and the shouts on the stage point to the same deep anthropological truth: we are made up of words, driven by desire, and fought and reconciled with this force that drives us all our lives.
Chapter VI: CONCLUDING COMPREHENSIONS - METHODOLOGY OF DIALOGUE AND THEOLOGICAL FACILITIES OF LONO
The purpose of this chapter is to put an end to our introspection of Theatrics and Psychiatry. We will make a final synthesis from two levels: first, an analysis of how the form of "dialogue" itself becomes a unique method of producing knowledge; and, secondly, a systematic streamlining and integration of the coherent and sophisticated set of theoretical tools of spiritual analysis used by Renio in responding to Miguel's practice.
Section I: Dialogue as a methodological approach to knowledge production
The most important feature of Theatrical and Psychiatry Analysis is its "dialogues". This form is not an accident; it itself reflects a profound methodological theory that perfects the clinical context of psychoanalysis.
The role of Miguel: the "questioner" of practice and the "symptomatic" provider in this dialogue, Jean-Pierre Miguel played a role more than just a questioner. Structurally, he plays a role similar to that of "l'analysant" in psychoanalysis. He brings with him not theoretical questions, but non-theory "symptôme" from the dramatic practice of this "real world".
Miguel's typical question-and-answer mode (reconstructed): "At the rehearsal, I encountered an irresolvable contradiction: I asked the actor to be honest, but the greatest actor showed cold technology..." or, "What should we do? These problems, like the "symptoms" that analysts bring to their lives, are specific, confusing and seemingly inexplicable. Miguel's work is to faithfully present these "raw materials" from practice, thus providing a solid anchor for theoretical intervention. His presence ensures that the entire dialogue does not slide into empty, disconnected theoretical thinking.
The role of Renio: "analyst" and "explainer" of the theory
"François Leño has assumed the role of "l'analyste". In the face of Miguel's symptoms, he did not provide a simple "answer" or "solution". Instead, he provided a completely new "depreciation framework" (cadre d'interprétation), the psychoanalytical theory of Lacon.
Lenio's typical response model (reconstructed): "This `controversial' you call is precisely not a problem to be solved, but a truth to be recognized. That's exactly what Lacon said about the "substantiation" or "the seemingly ruinous `joke field', which is actually a `real world' piercing' of the `symbolism', which reveals a deeper truth than the dramatic illusions..." Renio's job is to help Miguel (as well as his readers) read the familiar drama. He repositioned an issue that appeared to be "technical" or "psychological" as a "structural" problem concerning the existence of the subject. His interpretation is not intended to eliminate "symptoms", but to reveal the truth behind "symptoms".
Knowledge production: the gap between "practice" and "theory" Medium
Thus, the knowledge of the book is not exported unilaterally by Lénio, but is produced in the tense "l'intervalle" between Miguel's "question" and Leño's "reconstruction". In Miguel's specific case, Lenio was forced to translate abstract Racon concepts (e.g. "targeta", "big others") into "physicalized" and "situational". In turn, the Réunion ' s theoretical framework has given Miguel an unprecedented depth and universality of daily experience. This sustained movement of the past constitutes the core of the book ' s charms and intellectual dynamism.
Section II: Complete doctrine (L'appareil théorique) deployed by Leno
Now, let us systematically integrate the theoretical tools that Lenore has scattered throughout the dialogue into a coherent analytical device. The device could be considered as a complete set of "surgery devices" that he provided for the theatre study.
1. Core body theory: All phenomena in the theatre world of the three-tier framework (Le cadre des trois registes) are located in the three-tier system of Lacon.
Imaginaire: This is the realm of mirrors, integration, identity and misperception.
The drama is reflected in the most direct emotional resonance of the audience with the role; the myth that actors are trying to "get together" with the role; and the illusion of reality created on the stage. It's the most sensory surface of theatre.
Symbolic community (Le Symbolique): this is the domain of language, law, structure, social norms and the "big others".
The drama is reflected in the text of the script itself (the law of the great others); the programming and practice of the theatre; the tragic conflict between urban and family law; and the audience's endorsement of the role as "signal location". It's the skeleton of the drama and order.
The real world (Le Réel): This is an area of trauma, impossible, unsigned kernel, meaning collapse.
The drama is reflected in: the physical reaction of the actor, either by mistake or out of control; a scream that goes beyond words (the voice is the object of a); the truth that cannot be sustained at the height of the tragedy (such as the discovery of Oedipus); and the absolute presence of death. It's the ultimate source of theatre power. It's the "empty hole" that shakes the subject.
2. Core actors: the divided body (Le sujet divisé, $) is the centre of the whole device. Both actors and viewers are understood to be fundamentally divided.
Actors: It's the division between the subjects of speech and the subjects of speech.
Audience: The divide between "I" who was caught up in the scene and "I" who maintained a real identity in the theatre.
Theatrical characters: the division between their conscious words and deeds and their unconscious desire to drive their actions.
Core dynamics: What drives this device?
Desire (Le Désir): defined as a permanent, structural deficiency, which is essentially the desire of the great others.
In theatre: it constitutes the fundamental driving force of the plot. The man's actions are all his attempts to answer the question "Che vuoi?" (What does he want from me?
Target a (L'objet petit a): the cause of desire, not the target. It's the "remnant" that ignites desire and cannot be captured.
In theatre: it appears in non-material forms, such as le regard and la voix, as bait to capture the desires of the audience, directly affecting the audience more economically than economically.
La Joissance: A painful pleasure beyond the "principle of happiness". It comes from the violation of taboos and contact with the "real world".
In theatre: it is the true effect of the tragic "purification". The dizziness and shock that the audience feels when it sees the symbolic breakdown of order is a kind of "happy".
4. Core media: How does La Parole work? By "speaks".
Parole language vs. Empty speech: Distinguishing between a language that simply conveys information and a language that creates reality in which the subject gambles.
The essence of the dramatic performance is to transform the text, a static "Langue" system, into a dynamic, desire-bearing "Parale" event.
Final summary: a profound drama.
Through this complete theoretical device, François Leño, in his dialogue with Jean-Pierre Miguel, finally built a profound, structural and dramatic phenomenon. It is no longer concerned with what the theatre "simulates" or contented with psychological analysis of people.
It asks
How does this "device" construct the subject matter?
How does desire be produced and moved in this device?
How was the audience captured by this device and, ultimately, in encounters with the "real world", to experience a major re-engineering of its own?
Read about
P4 Inputs to dental poetry: Preliminary interpretation of dark conceptual theory
P4 Theater, 10-year archive (partial)
The heterogeneity of Druze and contemporary art.
The politics of the screams of Druze and contemporary art.
Druze, Qatar and contemporary art
P4 Theater built a university, a crumbling maze, a hard drive engraving life.
Self-inflicted project "Tangshan Youth - The Artist's Final Book"
Chen Guo Li's "Teacher says"
Theatrical Laconian theory in François Renault's Audience
If you want to make a contribution or communicate, put it on. Long