
The history of the play is itself a hoot, now almost 400 years after it opened. It seems that Louis XIV listened to his religious advisory counsel and banned it almost immediately after its debut because, he said, the play threatened to confuse the good people about the true nature of the Christian faith.
The unabashed villian is Tartuffe, a name that, for years, was synonomous with hypocricy. Tartuffe himself is that specious of beast Dante claimed would, upon their deaths, fall ingraciously to the lowest rungs of hell. Tartuffe is a pious fraud, an ingrate whose speciality is spewing phony godliness, a insufferable wretch who, by his bankrupt rigid orthodoxy, is nonetheless capable of seducing the heart and soul of both the lord of the manor and his goodly wife.
For a time anyway. The play is no tragedy. It's just hilarious. It's knee-slappingly funny. Really, it's a hoot.
But apparently, long, long ago its themes hit so close to the soul that the prelate at the head of the French Roman Catholic Church threatened anyone who attended with immediate excommunication. He wasn't piddling around, even if Moliere was.
And the fact of the matter is, this old play can still deliver some pretty wholesome bites--even though it's farce really, melodrama, outright silliness. Still, among the truly devout, it might well be seen as its own kind of scandal.
It's on the mainstage at Dordt College this spring, and I think the choice is a riot because it's bound to be a hit. It's just flat-out funny, really.
But it'll interesting to discover how it's received--and by whom, received in what way.
In a nutshell, it's a hilarious spoof, a comedy with verifiable villian as black as any that ever rode into Dodge; but when that villian spouts theology, he's capable of utterances that are a good deal more than annoying. We're not in France, circa 1660, of course, and there ain't no church determining the tenor of the private lives of its members. That's long, long ago.
But, methinks the play could still light some fires. It'll be interesting.
Here's my predictions:
1--for my class, who will be assigned the play before production so that they'll understand what the heck is going on if they go, I'm predicting no particular reaction at all. 17th century France is so far off the screen of their iPods that to them it doesn't even exist. It'll be my job--call it a calling--to try to make them see, not only that this play has some relevance, but that it's drop-dead funny. For the most part, intro to lit students are going to be incapable of reading a 17th century French comedy script, even if Richard Wilbur rendered the text into English. Look for Schaap to get more discouraged and look forward more anxiously to retirement. On the Richter scale: nr (no reaction). Those from my class who attend the show will love it, but, my guess (sob, sob)?--few will.
2--for the community (which includes the college community), no big deal. Some will feel occasional, odd discomfort; but very few who attend--if any--will draw any kind of parallel between what happens in their lives and what happens on the stage.
3--for the lunatic fringe, a few nasty letters (two or three) to the administration.
Thus, 't'will be okay, methinks. And that's okay too. No kerfuffles. No scandals. No mad patrons. Two or three angry parents.
Art in a box. A ton of laughs to boot.
Yet, something about that series of predictions, I must say, I regret. It should produce at least something of an itch. Nonetheless--trust me on this at least--Tartuffe is a hoot.
We shall see.