Paris: UW- Milwaukee: SARUP Winterim 2003

P A R I P A R I S S

W I N T E R I M 2 0 0 3

P A R I P A R I S S

W I N T E R I M 2 0 0 3

Theatrical AnalysisSylvia: 1876 Louise Merante a current production of John Numerer

“ Someone who’ll watch over me” Frank McGuiness

Sylvia: 1876 Louise Merante a current production of John Numerer. In going to the ballet entitled “Sylvia”; I,

essentially, was going into the ballet

“blindfolded” and stripped of the gift of

memory as I have never seen nor read the

performance before, along with the fact that

I am not well-versed in ballet period. I can

enjoy them-but have no knowledge or

training in how to “analyze” and truly

enjoy-with that said.

Once inside-the Opera Bastille was an

incredible space-modern elements, yet

sheik. Modernity juxtaposed to rich

history. Although the theatre itself does not

“bellow” out history - the knowledge of

what the national opera represents and what

it has represented for many decades denotes

a strong history. The seats we had were,

probably according to many people,

horrible, yet they were actually satisfying

– the furthest up one could go.

The seats we had were, probably

according to many people, horrible, yet

they were actually satisfying – the

furthest up one could go. This warranted

and afforded an incredibly unique

view/vantage point. From these seats,

one could hear the bang of the drum, the

whisper of the flute, the charm of the

triangle, the romantic melancholy of the

violins and the deepness in pitch of the

cello - all as though we were sitting right

there right next to the orchestra pit.

Although when one walked

through the front door of the

Opera Bastille and greeted the

ticket- taker in French –

“Bonjour”, then stumbled with

quite minimal French to our seats

- with the brief aid of an usher.

We are in Paris; the notion of

being in Paris was certainly lost or

temporarily sidetracked. The

idea of language as a universality

seemingly took over. One would

have no indication of being in

Paris - simply by watching the

people. The people, consisting of

kids (acting like “normal” kids

we’d see in the states) and adults, gathered

around, talked amongst each other: some

dressed in jeans and a sweater – some

dressed in suit and tie. American/French it

just didn’t seem to matter - we were all

there together to witness a performance - a

universal language: ballet.

The ballet starts -it starts with a character

whom I believe to be the god of love: taking

on the appearance of Thyrsis - a mere

shepherd wandering into the woods falling

asleep but once the other dancers/characters

came into the picture -I was unable to

discern the characters. In the entire first

half of the performance I struggled to

identify who was who - who was important

to whom and what

relationships were flourishing. The only

dancer who I could keep track of was

the character in the red costume. By

such a strikingly different ensemble

compared to what all others were

wearing - was the only way. I feel that

the red was an allegory for something –

perhaps love, whereby one could see

and identify love all throughout. But as

an untrained eye, red may have

“symbolized” a totally different

message.

The first half was strong as far as

dancing, music (which was

extraordinary and resonated incredibly

throughout), the lighting and set work.

The second half, while continuing the

excellent dancing, sound, music and

setwork - the set was much more

vivid in the second half. The set in

the first was to be a forest, with

indication of trees in a forest. The

second has defining walls creating a

much more effective space - with

this in mind, the lighting seemingly

was much crisper in the second half

– with crispness in shadows met by

starkness of light.

 The second half consists of two

parts: the first being an elegant

ballroom atmosphere - the costumes

were long red; full dresses

accompanied by black-tie tuxedos.

The ballroom set with the costumes

evoked a sense of splendor - very classy; the

dancers seemingly floated above the stage to

the sounds of the orchestra. The second part

was back in the forest.

Although the music was incredible and

perfect it was as though it wasn’t there which

in my opinion is a compliment, as it elegantly

complimented the dancing without over

playing.

 Again, the element of language was not an

issue - as it is the universal language of ballet

- and no language is spoken just conveyed

through dance, I would have had a difficult

time figuring out what was happening and

why, even if it were on an “American” stage.

The closest thing to a full, or rather a partial

understanding of the play/ballet was when I

read the synopsis of the play. I don’t

know, due to, again my inexperience,

naivety to the notion of ballet. Still I

am unsure of what is happening when I

“play” the ballet through my head,

while reading the synopsis

interchangeably - regarding who is

who, what is what and what is meant to

be the story. Here is the official

synopsis – hopefully it is a bit more

poetic and serves justice well.

Synopsis

Part one:

Diana’s sacred wood

The god of Love descends into the wood and takes on the appearance of Thyrsis a mere shepherd.

Aminta, a real shepherd, enters the sacred wood secretly hoping to find Sylvia, Diana’s nymph. Diana and the nymph-huntresses appear in the wood to take a rest from hunting and to bathe. Sylvia and Aminta meet. Diana and the huntresses discover the tender exchanges betweenthe shepherd and the nymph.

Taken by surprisse, Sylvia betrays Aminta.

Left alone, Diana remembers handsome Endymion doomed to eternal sleep. At daybreak, the shepherds, their curiosity fired, enter the sacred wood and find Endymion asleep. Lover Thyrsis is with them. Aminta’s heaart is roken. He is obsessed by the vision of Sylvia. Love feels sorry for Aminta. But he takes on the form of handsome Orion in order to seduce Sylvia. She lets herself be led on by him.

Part two:

First Scene: Love/Orions’s party

Sylvia becomes aware of her femininity. She discovers pleasure.

Her sensuality aflame, Sylvia is overwhelmed by the memory of Diana and Aminta.

Second scene: Winter

May years later, Aminta returns to the sacred wood. Sylvia too returns to the sacred wood. They meet. Their love seems to live again for an instant.

Diana observes them. She is tempted to separate them, but Love disarms her.

In the end it is life itself that steals Sylvia away from Aminta.

As for Diana, she remains alone, the eternal huntress.

“ Someone who’ll watch over me” Frank McGuiness At the beginning, even before the play

started - as we sat ourselves, the stage

set was all dark, yet a figure was present

on the stage; at this time I wasn’t certain

as to whether the figure was real or

imaginary-as any movement was

discernable. It seemed to be a small

stage that was not kept up very well; not

a good initial opinion – or so I thought.

Not until the first lights came on was

when I realized that the set was

intentionally dingy - as it was

representing a prison cell

The opening of the play introduces two

characters; an Irishman Edward and an

American Adam who were merely

“Beirut, Lebanon, the mid 1980’s. An Englishman, an Irishman and an American are being held hostage in a cell. Why? And how will they survive their unseen capture and the boredom “The Bloody Boredom!” And each other… They turn to their own integrity, wit and faith in life. The conflict and the humour, but above all the courage of their struggle for physical and mental survival are beautifully conveyed in this play.”

 passing the time exercising –doing

push-ups and stretches. The two

characters while having badly aimed

hostility at each other came to become

friends and confidents -each supporting

the other in this perilous time. The

other is constantly preventing the other

from going “insane” and breaking down

(as they individually and collectively)-

as that is what their Lebanese captors

wanted. They managed to do so by

again redirecting their angers

through stories, memories and

recounts of their lives and most of

all – through humor.

They knew it was important to

concentrate their efforts on each

other maintaining a memory of

how long they’ve been away at the

same time maintaining the

desperate hope of eventual release.

The denotion of time, the elapse of

time was signified by pure

darkness coming back to the

identical set; each time months

seem to pass. Approximately four

months pass from the first capture, when the

third character, a British man Michael

entered the set. He was unconscious, asleep

while the other two just talked to him, rather

at him, trying to gain his attention.

When, eventually, the Britain awoke -he

was confused/disoriented, saying he was

merely going to the market for food, as he

was having his students over for dinner. He

came to this country Lebanon to teach

English -he was afraid at first, but felt the

risk was not too bad. (I’m certain that lying

in a cell - chained to a wall - changed that

opinion). Now it was time for the two

“veterans” to take care of the newcomer -

not letting him break down. They do so by

holding him from the door so he won’t

scream or cry out.

They force him to laugh, not cry.

“Laugh” they say - he tries but cannot.

They don’t give up -they start cracking

up, laughing hysterically, loudly - he

finally mustered up a laugh - not quite

convincing at first, but gets better.

Now, the dialogue of stories, recounts,

reminiscing of the past continues - each

making fun of the other and visa versa.

Taking turns “2 on 1” and “1 on 2”.

Occasionally, throughout the play, as the

time frames advance - faint Lebanese

music could be heard through the

speakers. This really sets up the mood as

the audience members could almost put

themselves there - with them. As the

time continues to elapse - Christmas time

comes - not nearly exacting the time

frame, which has passed - they sing

Christmas songs – joyous, yet somber

all in one.

More time elapses, the set goes dark -

more lights come on - and there are

only two characters - the American

they fear, has been murdered.

Michael, the British and Edward the

Irishman now come to grips that they,

too, may not go home; this hit

Edward really hard so he’d spent

much time many months - trying to

convince Adam that they would all go

home - had he been fooling himself

too? He was awestruck - he would

not eat the food that he was served.

Michael, the British, was consoling

Edward, while embracing  

which we will never know. Edward walks

out of the cell - free of the chains and

shackles - and the lights darken. The play

ends.

The play is appropriately titled, “Someone

Who’ll Watch Over Me” - as one had the

other to look over and to be looked over

upon Then the third was looked over by the

first two - and the two were looked over by

the third - in a sense of what was happening

“out there” “were there any mention of us”.

Tragically the play ended when - no longer -

was another able to watch over the last

inmate - we can only assume that someone

was indeed looking over Michael and that

he managed to leave unharmed.

him trying to offer hope, even in the

time of gloom. He finally was

successful – Edward found the inner

strength to go on – he, eventually, ate

his food.

 They continued intimate conversation -

and kept the time passing and kept hope

further alive that one day soon they

would be able to return to normalcy.

The play ended by Edward getting

dressed in his clothes in which he was

captured; pants, shirt and tie - with

shoes, but no socks. As he was getting

dressed, Michael was trying to be

supportive and wishing Edward luck

and so on, while certainly, on the inside

he was now thinking of his own fate -

The play was actually based on true

events; it evoked a quite powerful

“patriotic” feeling - putting you

emotionally in each character,

empathizing what each other must be

going through. The political overtones

were right on the money and gave me

personally more insight of what was

happening halfway around the globe; all

of the doom that we didn’t hear about on

CNN, the behind the scenery – so to

speak.

P A R I P A R I S S

W I N T E R I M 2 0 0 3

The Mansard Roof: Its Origin

an invention, or a product of François Nicolas

Mansart – a young French Architect. Yet, actually

research shows favorably that François Mansart did

not actually devise its concept; he merely utilized it

and furthered its existence by incorporating such

roofs into many of his works. The name of the

“Mansard Roof” seemingly came to be by virtue of

being acquainted with François Mansart’s name –

slightly altered.

  François Mansart was born in Paris on 13 January

1598; he was the son of a master carpenter – he was

trained by his father and by a sculptor and a mason

both of whom were his relatives. François was never

formally trained as an Architect – yet he was

eventually recognized for his abilities by the mid

1620’s. 

The Mansard Roof is often thought to be a concept,

Although François Mansart worked

significantly with the Mansard Roof, he was

also notable for many hotels and chateaus,

showing a “masterful massing of architectural

volumes and plan solutions for irregular sites

and precisely correct spacing, between openings

and classical design elements”

(http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1327/0923focus.html)

François Mansart was sometimes

commissioned for entire structures, other times

he merely added on to existing buildings. If he

was not happy with the work – he tore it down

and started over. He was often found to be a

rather difficult personality type to work with

and often worked without regard to cost.

François Mansart is said to be the ‘cornerstone’ of French Baroque Classicism; he

was best known for his work on Ste. Marie de la Visitation and the Orleans wing

of the uncompleted Chateau of Blois. In the 1660’s he was asked to draw up

plans for the East wing of the Palace of the Louvre – he never completed the

drawings. He was later asked to draw plans for the Royal Chapel at the end of St.

Denis – it was never built. 

Although the Mansard Roof

was “invented” by François

Mansart – no direct evidence

is found to support an exact

date, when the Mansard roof

was first employed. One

could make the assertion,

rather the assumption of its

‘birth date’; that assumption

could be made to fall around

that of approximately early-

to-mid 17th century.

Much later in the overall scheme of things, the Mansard

Roof was a rather popular approach or facet of architecture

throughout France. During the reign of Napoleon III –

1852-1870 – during France’s Second Empire, the Mansard

Roof was seemingly topping every building being built.

Later in the late 1800’s, in the time of

the exhibitions of Paris – the notion of

the Mansard Roof was furthered

significantly. The exhibitions of Paris

of 1855 and 1867 were very much an

impetus for the deployment of the

Mansard Roof to both England and the

United States, as many architects were

visiting Paris – specifically for the

exhibitions.

One of the most popular house styles

in America during the years

immediately following the exhibitions

of Paris – was one coined the

“Mansard Style”. This “Mansard

Style” was extensively used in: small

cottages, simple farmhouses, along

with massive mansions. Although the

The roar of the crowd, seemingly,

was silenced as the 19th century

was nearing its end. The voice of

the crowd was not distinctively

heard again until the 1970’s, and

today the voice of the crowd is

once again heard loud and clear.

Click on the image…

structures’ framings were quite varied, with

wooden members on the small cottages and

small farmhouses and brick and stone for

the mansions – the roof element was topped

with the Mansard Roof. The proverbial

“American Crowd” loved it. Not only was

the Mansard Style “molded” into residential

architecture, the Mansard Roof was also

employed in both commercial and industrial

application as well.

“Mansardic Roof”? The resemblance can definitely be seen on modern building across the courtyard from the Dausminil Residence.

The approach that

Francois Mansart often

times used simply

wrapped the roof down the

vertical elements of the

attic space – creating both:

taller walls at the attic

level, yielding more head

room and a tax-free story,

thereby reducing the tax

burden on the owner.

The Mansard Roof’s

origins are said to be

mainly two-fold: the

primary reason the

Mansard Roof was

developed was to

create more livable

living space; the

secondary factor is

said to be a method of

circumvention of a

long standing Paris tax

on the overall height of

a building. This height

was determined from

the grade level up to

where the roof eave

starts.

virtually invisible hipped roof is employed. The structural rafters of the

Mansard Roof are therefore discontinuous; their overall shape takes on that

of an elbow, which fits onto or above the structure like a “hat”. Whereby the

shape of the traditional roof’s rafters create an “A”. Due to this structural

difference, the Mansard Roof type has also been called the “curb roof”.

There are essentially four types of Mansard

Roofs: straight, convex, concave or flared – with

an occasional, but very rare “S” curve or bell

cast. As the complexity of the shapes increases –

so, too, does the overall cost. Regardless of the

type, the slope can very extensively.

Although the Mansard Roof was said to be an

increase of livable space and a circumvention

of a Paris tax, another impetus was that of a

visual one; even a boring, boxy type house

could be transformed into beauty by placing

the “hat” of the Mansard Roof atop.

The above Images were borrowed from http://www.realtor.org/rmomag.nsf/pages/arch33

Above image borrowed from

http://www.mansard.org/

The slope of a Mansard Roof from its eaves to its

ridge is broken into two portions. The lower

portion is built with a steep pitch – almost

vertical in nature, in many cases. The upper

portion is pitched lowly and is nearly flat. Often

times the utilization of a very shallow,

This shallow roof can be seen in the above photo

Nearly every slope is

covered with “shingles

made of such varied

materials as clay or slate

tiles, corrugated sheets of

steel, aluminum, lead,

(http://www.renovationexperts.com/roofing/roofhistory.asp)

copper, or zinc”.

The Mansard Roof can be punctuated by

numerous types of dormer windows:

rectangular, pointed, gabled, round and

sometimes with a double row of dormer

windows altogether (seen in photo to right).

Each window style carries with it a wide range

of decorative motifs – each creating

uniqueness in character.

  The Mansard Roof was, as previously

noted, a method of transformation of many

building typologies. The most common

building type or typology that was refitted

with the “hat” of the Mansard Roof, was the

Italianate Style which began in the 1840’s –

which overlapped the Mansardic or Second

Empire in the 1860’s. Both the Mansardic

and the Italianate Styles lost their popularity in

the 1880’s.

To identify a starting point or a place of

origin of the Mansard Roof is just as

difficult to do as it were to establish a

precise age of such style. Without

knowing the first specific roof type

indicative of the Mansard Roof style –

the whereabouts of such a roof can, too,

only be assumed. Thus far the findings

reflect the birth of the

Mansard Roof to be equated

with Francois Mansart. As

Francois Mansart was born

in and was a life-long

resident of Paris, the broad

stretch of correlation could

be cause to assume that the

Mansard Roof was

developed in Paris.

The Mansard Roof was

thought to be further

implemented along the

newly expanded Haussman

boulevards under the

leadership of Napoleon III –

paralleling the expansion of

the Louvre.

Throughout the mid-to-late 19th

century the Mansard Roof was

well established throughout Paris

and France’s countryside. Up to

the time of the exhibitions of

Paris, which occurred in 1855

and 1867, the notion of the

Mansard Roof was completely

within the “footprint” of France.

Only after the exhibitions of

Paris, did the Mansard Roof find

itself stepping outside the

perimeter of France; the

Mansard Roof found itself

topping buildings in both

England and the United States –

and even Canada.

Sources Cited…

http://www.charlestownpreservation.org/archistory8.htm

http://www.rchsonline.org/ar_mans.htm

http://www.renovationexperts.com/roofing/roofhistory.asp

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ma/mansardr.html

http://www.bartleby.com/81/10959.html

http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~thompson/empire.html

http://www.slider.com/enc/33000/mansard_roof.htm

http://www.historiclandmarks.org/feature/feature1002.html

http://www.rochestercityliving.com/neighborhoods/styles/neigharch.html

http://www.realviews.com/homes/2nd.html

http://www.realtor.org/rmomag.nsf/pages/arch33

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1327/0923focus.html