Talk:Théâtre de la Gaîté (boulevard du Temple)

Scope run riot?

The scope of this article seems to have gone in all directions at once, with the result that the excellent information is hardly accessible to the reader. I suggest we start splitting it up with the pre-1862 in a separate article, and also put in an infobox to give the core material an anchor. (The lead The Théâtre de la Gaîté is a Parisian theatre company" is in any case contradicted by the text that implies that there is no longer any company operating.) Any opinions on this? --Kleinzach 02:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. What name are you planning to use for the article about the theatre on the Boulevard du Temple? There seem to be several options. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

One possibility is Théâtre de la Gaîté (Boulevard du Temple). Théâtre de la Gaîté was its name beginning in 1792 up to 1862. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There is some sort of company, but not a theatre company in a traditional sense. They have a web site: La Gaîté Lyrique --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. There is an explanation here [1] --Kleinzach 03:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Painting: Nicolet's first theatre on the Boulevard du Temple

Surely this is at the Foire St Laurent not the boulevard du Temple? Am I missing something here? --Kleinzach 06:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. Take a look at this 1997 reference and see why I find it confusing. Keep in mind that Nicolet opened his theatre on the Boulevard in 1759. He built his new theatre there in 1762. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

History of the Gaîté from 1835 to 1862

In the middle of the article we find this sentence at the end of a section:

"Pixérécourt's theatre burned in 1835 and was replaced with an even larger theatre which was used until 1862."

Then the next section immediately begins with the sentence:

"In 1862, as a result of the destruction of the theatres on the boulevard du Temple during Haussmann's renovation of Paris, ..."

I feel that there is a mysterious 27 year gap at this point in the article. For instance, we know that the Gaiety was one of the main venues for the ubiquitous melodrama that caused the street to be nicknamed the Boulevard du Crime during this period, and that the simultaneous destruction of so many theatres in 1862 marked a discontinuity in the nature, number, and location of Parisian theatres in the 19th century. For example, see the sentence, "Melodrama flourished on the boulevard and various theaters, especially in the Gaite" in the French version of the Melodrama article. Unfortunately that statement is undocumented, so it might be worthless (C'est la vie).

I hope I am not nitpicking. I totally agreed with Kleinzach when he said: "I am minded to separate it [Théâtre de la Gaîté] into smaller, but more easily understood, articles." Kudos to Robert Allen and Kleinzach for trying to get a handle on this sprawling octopus of an article. Great work guys.— Foobarnix (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was during the era of Pixérécourt that melodrama flourished and the nickname arose. This was before the 1835 fire, which ruined him. And, yes, you're right about that mysterious gap. --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

La Gaîté Lyrique

Looking at this again I thought the easiest way to start rationalizing this was to create an article on the current entity entitled La Gaîté Lyrique. Please feel free to edit. --Kleinzach 05:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Next: Théâtre de la Gaîté (rue Papin)?

I think the next stage would be to hive off Théâtre de la Gaîté (rue Papin). Do you both agree with this? --Kleinzach 06:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Creating the new article on the modern "theatre" was a good idea. Also I think splitting this one should work. Do you think it would be a good idea to move this one to Théâtre de la Gaîté (boulevard du Temple) and modify the redirect created by the move into a disambiguation page for the three articles? I am willing to work on disambiguating the existing links, or if you prefer I could try to do the split, and you can help me with the cleanup. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes to the diambiguation page, of course. I think it would be easier to do Théâtre de la Gaîté (rue Papin) next as it is well defined and easily hived off. After that we can look at the problem of what to do with the rest — which personally I am not sure about. --Kleinzach 07:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of the information on the boulevard du Temple could probably be moved to that article. Also much of the info on the Ambigu-Comique could be integrated into that article, and the amount of detail on these topics could be reduced in this article.. It's partly a matter of finding the time to fine tune these things. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think I agree with all that — and yes it will take time, which is why I'd prefer not to see unnecessary little {{Fact}} tags on the article, OK? --Kleinzach 01:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not add that many, and some I have already found sources for and did not use. I find these things can be useful reminders, and I had run out of time before I had a chance to look for a source so I added it. I hope to get back to it. But I agree, we should not overuse them. If an article is well sourced to begin with, it makes further work on it much easier, and these things are not necessary. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I only use {{Fact}} tags if I think the information is probably incorrect. Reasonable? --Kleinzach 04:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please use as you like, but as I said, I use it when I think a source needs to be cited. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I have now spilt the article as outlined above. Obviously there is still a lot of editing and cleaning up to do and I would appreciate help with this. --Kleinzach 03:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

'Company' and 'theatre'

I've been avoiding the word 'company' when I've been editing these articles . . . . I can see that a company did exist under Nicolet (hence the name Les Grands-Danseurs etc.) but what about the 19th century? Was there a resident company at the Théâtre de la Gaîté? Or just an impresario owning a theatre and hiring actors? A company implies a repertory system. Is that what we have here? --Kleinzach 16:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly true that language is not always completely precise, and the word theatre can refer to both a building and a company. When this company was founded by Nicolet, it performed at several venues, not only on the boulevard, but also at least three of the fairs (according to McCormick until 1789 at the Foire St-Laurent). Except for a short period when Ribié had purchased the license, Nicolet's widow ran it up until about 1824. It was licensed by Napoleon in 1807 as one of the officially recognized four secondary theaters, and this was in effect until about 1862, when the restrictions on theaters were repealed. People die, retire, and go bankrupt, so personnel changes over time. The same things happened to other companies. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Alicia Levin's article in Fauser and Everist's book, which covers the period from 1830 to 1914, has a table titled "Chronology and administration of the Théâtre de la Gaîté company" which covers the period from 1825 to about 1900. By the way, the director Alfred Harmant was appointed on 1 May 1858 and retained the post until 1 June 1865, which means he was the director of the theatre on both the boulevard du Temple and the rue Papin. The history of the company is fairly continuous without any lengthy breaks. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

New Grove Opera specifically indicates that the name refers to both the company and the theatre (see vol. 3, p. 874, Table 2). I also notice they omit the name Gaîté-Lyrique (as does Levin), but we have other sources that show that name was definitely also used. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The distinction between 'theatre' and 'company' is an important one. It's true that "theatre can refer to both a building and a company" but the reverse is not true. A company can only refer to a company. I know you like to get these little facts straight, so can we please have specific references for mentions of 'company'? Otherwise let's use the word 'theatre' since it doesn't give us any problems. OK? --Kleinzach 02:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I find your statement confusing. Do you mean to say that theatre buildings were not sometimes named the same as the companies? The Théâtre des Bouffes-Parisiens would be another good example of one that is, and there are many others. And why do you find the word company to be a problem? I honestly do not understand. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

PS- Do you mean that you want me to add a footnote to the effect that "Théâtre de la Gaîté" was the actual name of the company in the 19th century? --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course not, not if it isn't true. If you think a theatrical company existed during a given period you have to provide referenced information. The existence of a building does not prove the existence of a permanent company. --Kleinzach 16:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Problematic lead

The lead starts "The Théâtre de la Gaîté, a former Parisian theatre company, was established in 1759 on the boulevard du Temple ". Untrue. It was the Théâtre de Nicolet that was established in 1759. (Nor, as far as I can see, is there any evidence that the Théâtre de la Gaîté was a single Parisian theatre company, rather than a theatre that sometimes had repertory companies attached to it.) One of the problems with an article like this is that it becomes progressively more and more convoluted, less and less encyclopedic.

We also have the problem of the Jean-Baptiste Nicolet article which is only two sentences long. Clearly, biographical details should be in the biography, while the history of the institutions should be in the theatre article. I would be happy to rewrite the beginning of the article — but will I be reverted yet again, Robert.Allen ? This has just happened with the largely-irrelevant Audinot section which I stripped — because we already have another article, Théâtre de l'Ambigu-Comique, covering the subject — only for it to be re-inflated. --Kleinzach 17:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see your point about the name problem, since the name of the company changed. All the sources use the later name as the title of their articles, even though Nicolet founded it with a different name. This is not necessarily an uncommon phenomenon. But we could rewrite the first sentence to include the original name. For instance, "The Théâtre de la Gaîté, a former Parisian theatre company, was founded in 1759 on the boulevard du Temple by the celebrated Parisian fair-grounds showman Jean-Baptiste Nicolet as the Théâtre de Nicolet, ou des Grands Danseurs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert.Allen (talk • contribs)

That just repeats the same error! " "The Théâtre de la Gaîté, a former Parisian theatre company, was founded in 1759" . . . . wrong! The Théâtre de la Gaîté didn't exist until 1792. Why not either reword it to remove the anachronism, or let me do it if you agree not to immediately revert the edits as you are now doing with 90% of my other attempted contributions? --Kleinzach 06:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am following the cited source as written by David Charlton. I can't cite you. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. Then it is important to quote Charlton accurately. Can you please give the quotation here, in full and in context, so we know exactly what he wrote. --Kleinzach 02:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, look at the headings and subheadings listed in the citation in Sources:

• Charlton, David (1992). "Paris. 4. 1789–1870. (vii) Other companies. Théâtre de la Gaîté" in Sadie 1992, vol. 3, p. 872.

Charlton clearly regards the name "Théâtre de la Gaîté" as the name of a company. Here is the complete first part of his entry on the theatre:

Théâtre de la Gaîté. This company made its name before the 1789 Revolution under J.-B. Nicolet, giving harlequin plays, marionette plays, and various acrobatic shows. After the reforms of 1807 it continued with pantomime, harlequin plays, and, later, melodramas.

Of course, Charlton's description is much abbreviated compared to the books that treat this subject in depth, by Hemmings and McCormick. It is interesting to read Hemmings 1994, pp. 2–3:

Although hardly anyone realized it at the time, the step taken by Nicolet in 1760 was destined to alter the whole trend of development over the next century and a half. All the theaters that attained prominence in the nineteenth century , the Gaîté, the Ambigu, the Variétés, the Vaudeville, the Gymnase, were modeled on the formula evolved by the mountebank of genius, Nicolet.

What he is saying is that Nicolet was the father of commercial theatre, at least on the boulevard, which is what all the theatre companies operating on the boulevard were. A bit further on he says: "from 1791, by decree of the National Assembly, all theatres became purely commercial enterprises...." McCormick gives us much more detail on the actual repertoire of the company, including the fact that dramatic pieces with actors were being performed between the other acts. Taconet wasn't called the Molière of the boulevard for doing marionettes, or acrobatics, or rope dancing, or mime. This all evolved under Nicolet, before Audinot opened the Ambigu. Nicolet's widow ran the Gaîté up to her death (which I believe was in 1824), but the company continued on under new management. Although it was no longer a family-run business after she died, it was still the same company, just evolving over time. The same thing happened with the Théâtre Fanconi. Antonio Fanconi's grandson sold his business to Louis Dejean. The Franconis continued to perform for him for quite a few more years, then split off and formed a new company. That's when they set up their Hippodrome on the Champs-Élysées, while Dejean continued to operate the Cirque Olympique. Just because they left and formed a new company does not mean that the Cirque Olympique (which was a company, not a building) ceased to exist. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeating information

Re: your second point, I don't think it hurts to repeat some information in more than one article. In this case, I felt it was important to show that Audinot changed the type of presentations in his next-door theatre, so that they were in more direct competition with what was being presented in Nicolet's theatre. I don't think we have to be so strict about repeating some information in more than one article. (For instance, I would favor creating a page List of operas by Gounod, but leaving the simple list of opera names (with links) and their years of first performance at List of compositions by Charles Gounod. The reader does not then have to open the more detailed page to see the names of the operas that Gounod wrote, but the reader who wants a list with more detailed information can follow the link. The simple list could be regarded as a summary of the linked page.) And yes, I had not looked at Nicolet's article in a while, but it clearly needs to be expanded. Thanks for pointing that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert.Allen (talk • contribs)

I am against duplicating/triplicating material in different articles because it's confusing for the reader who can't see which article has the substance of the information. --Kleinzach 06:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The "duplicated" information is repeated in a way that is tailored to this context, which is discussing Audinot's theatre as a competitor of Nicolet's theatre and helps the reader to understand the topic of the paragraph without having to open the page concerning the Ambigu-Comique and searching there for the relevant information. Your change deleted the information that Audinot began presenting drama with popular content and live actors in his theatre on the boulevard, rather than just presenting puppet shows. It was this change that made him a direct competitor of Nicolet. That's why I added that information back. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: how much information to include in an article, I seem to remember that Britannica went through of a period of dealing with this issue, and divided the encyclopedia into a Macropedia and a Micropedia. (They later dropped this as unnecessary.) In the same vein, the Wikipedia now has the Simple English Wikipedia. Fortunately, on the internet we don't have to worry about the weight and size of the books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert.Allen (talk • contribs)

Continuity of companies

Re: the continuity of the company, this is not a problem. Levin says the company has a continuous history. It is also treated this way by New Grove Opera, as well as Yon in his 2000 biography of Offenbach, and the The Oxford Companion to the Theatre. I could also cite numerous other sources, if you wish. (Your definition requiring that a theatre company be a repertory company seems a bit atypical to me. It would exclude many historical and contemporary companies that have been run by impresarios who hired actors and musicians for particular perfomances.) Best regards, --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly "companies that have been run by impresarios who hired actors and musicians for particular perfomances" are not theatrical companies/troupes. They may be commercial (business/ legal) companies but they are not theatrical companies like the Royal Shakespeare Company, Comédie-Française etc. There are two different main forms of theatrical organization: stagione (and its equivalents) vs repertory. It's important to distinguish between the two, though of course they can be mixed, say in the case of a permanent company that has guest stars. In the case of Théâtre de la Gaîté it's almost certain that they shifted from one thing to another — after all they got rid of all their actors at one point! If you have any serious information that contradicts this, please give full and specific references, including Grove (which can be quite vague when it comes to theatres) or whatever. --Kleinzach 06:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have based my contributions on the cited sources. If you wish to make changes you should cite the source of your information to substantiate those changes. It might help you, if you would consult the cited sources. Levin's article has quite a few details concerning the "Théâtre de la Gaîté company" in her table. I have cited this source for the article and already mentioned it in this discussion. So far you have not mentioned a single reliable source to support your arguments. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicolet founded the company, and he was still the head of the company when the name changes occurred. It is not unusual for companies to change their names. All the sources I have consulted use the later name Théâtre de la Gaîté as the title of their entries when discussing this company. As I mentioned before, even Yon in his excellent biography of Offenbach, who became the director of the company in 1873, traces the history of the company from its founding by Nicolet. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked up the section on theatre companies in the 1991 Encyclopedia Britannica. It includes discussions of several different subtypes including the "repertory troupe", "commercial management", and the "modern repertory company". Judging from the description of the company provided by Carlson, Hemmings, McCormick, or Levin, who all refer to it as the Théâtre de la Gaîté, it easily fits into the second category, regardless of the name it was using at any particular time. They all say it was founded by Nicolet on the boulevard du Temple. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. Challenging me on what I didn't write is a waste of everybody's time. It's perfectly clear that Nicolet did employ a company of actors (I wrote above: " I can see that a company did exist under Nicolet . . . "). So that's not the problem here. --Kleinzach 01:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I thought you wrote this: "companies that have been run by impresarios who hired actors and musicians for particular perfomances" are not theatrical companies/troupes. They may be commercial (business/ legal) companies but they are not theatrical companies". Am I misreading this? --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)