Non avevo letto mai niente prima di Maugham, avevo solo visto la riduzione cinematografica con Edward Norton e Naomi Watts di "Il velo dipinto", e sono tuttavia convinta di non aver letto "il vero" Maugham.A questo proposito, la scorsa domenica, mi ero portata in spiaggia "Schiavo d'amore", intenzionata a leggere uno dei suoi romanzi pi�� famosi: peccato per�� che trattandosi di un'edizione in due volumi io abbia incautamente portato con me il numero due anzich�� il numero uno e che me ne sia accorta solo dopo la lettura del primo capitolo (in realt�� il numero sessantaquattro) e che poi abbia proseguito, indispettita, leggendone altri tre; incredibile a dirsi non sembrava affatto un romanzo preso a met��: chiss�� come sarebbe andata se avessi proseguito con questa lettura in corso d'opera!Ma torniamo alla Diva Julia.Maugham, come spiega nell'introduzione, attinge largamente alla sua esperienza di commediografo e da grande conoscitore di teatro qual era diventato - l'opera in originale si intitola, appunto, Theatre - riassume nella figura di Julia Lambert, ��la pi�� grande attrice d'Inghilterra��, tutte le grandi dive incontrate sulla scena.Lo stile �� brioso e attraverso l'espediente di alcune vecchie fotografie, che l'attrice si trova a guardare in un momento di malinconia per i tempi andati, ripercorre la sua storia sin dall'inizio, quando giovane e bella iniziava a calcare i palcoscenici della provincia inglese rivelando il proprio innato talento, fino all'incontro con l'attore Michael Gosselyn - bello e vanitoso e invariabilmente tirchio - che ne sarebbe poi diventato il marito.La Julia del presente �� una bellissima quarantenne, idolatrata dal pubblico, che conduce un ormai consolidato m��nage coniugale con Michael che regala ormai poche emozioni a entrambi, ma anche un pi�� che soddisfacente rapporto professionale che �� culminato nell'acquisto di un teatro londinese e nella costituzione di una compagnia propria.Julia e Michael hanno anche un figlio adolescente, Roger, che studia senza particolari successi in college.La quotidianit�� di Julia, scandita dalle rappresentazioni, dai riposini pomeridiani, dai massaggi, e soprattutto dai grandi successi, viene stravolta come un fulmine ciel sereno, dall'entrata in scena di Tom, un giovane impiegato del marito, che nonostante abbia poco pi�� dell'et�� del figlio, la trascina in una passionale relazione.�� abilissimo Maugham a narrare la storia dal punto di vista di Julia che �� attrice, anzi "diva", a tutto tondo. Julia �� vanitosa, ironica, melodrammatica, presuntuosa, manipolatrice,arrendevole, gelosa, passionale, insicura, vendicativae, soprattutto, non smette mai, nemmeno per un attimo, di recitare.Maugham ce la presenta in una doppia e irriverente versione, perch�� non solo vedremo (leggeremo) quello che dice, ma anche quello che realmente pensa mentre lo dice, mostrando anche a noi le sue eccelse qualit�� di attrice.Alla fine della storia, che volendo ricondurre al teatro si potrebbe definire in tre atti, forse solo Roger mostrer�� di aver capito fino in fondo la vera natura della madre, lasciando anche noi lettori in preda, oltre che all'euforia per l'eccellente esibizione, ad un dubbio di natura marzulliana: ma il teatro �� vita o tutta la vita �� teatro?Nota - Secondo me Zia Mame voleva essere la Diva Julia! :-)
After relishing Of Human Bondage, penned 22 years before this and adapted into a career-defining Bette Davis movie, I was surprised on several levels by Theatre, whose 2004 screen adaption scored Annette Bening a Best Actress Golden Globe and an Oscar nomination for Being Julia.Firstly, I was surprised by its great readability, of the kind that defies conventional analysis; that literary X-factor distinguishing great writers from good ones, their material striking an artful balance between adequacy and audacity. Secondly, I was surprised that Theatre's magic is not in its delivery, which is clunky for such a successful wordsmith (he had this published in 1937, forty years after his breakthrough novel, Liza of Lambeth). Nor is his command of vocabulary so apparent here, as was noted by contemporary critics, several of whom were unimpressed by this novel.Thirdly, I was surprised to see that word economy was not one of Theatre's notable stylistic features. Maugham's evolved indifference to narrative refinement suggests publication teams had become shy of engaging with this giant. Nor is the style, conversely, so flamboyant. Perhaps he had simply come to hold less concern for form than his less prolific contemporaries, more confidence in the purity of his storytelling. This is strangely reassuring. Those first three questions collectively begged the fourth and ultimate one for me: how did he get away with being so blasé?I believe the answer is that, like so many prolific masters of the era, Maugham had relaxed into his art sufficiently not to need to prove much anymore. This piece might never have kick started his career, decades before; his vast readership had simply, by 1937, developed a steady appetite for whatever he wrote.The essence of this fiction lies in its bare substance, rather than its presentation. As such, Theatre defies the discerning reader's better judgement by refusing to be put down despite conspicuous imperfections. Its key strength lies in the authentic characterisation, most notably that of protagonist Julia Lambert. Perhaps a crucial ingredient is its triggering of the reader's speculation as to which of this novelist-playwright's countless actress friends Julia Lambert parodies – not that she is a mere parody; on the contrary, here is a finely nuanced and compellingly original heroine. Maugham was famously friends with the likes of Gladys Cooper and Ethel Barrymore, to name but a couple, which lures the inquisitive mind down intriguing paths.I devoured this roughly crafted gem like a famished hyena and shan't hesitate rereading it down the track.
What do You think about Theatre (2015)?
This wonderful novel was published in 1937, when W. Somerset Maugham was already an extremely successful writer – both as a novelist and in the theatre. In fact, much of Maugham’s early success was in the theatre and it was a world he knew extremely well. The heroine of this book is Julia Lambert, an ageing actress whose husband, Michael Gosselyn, manages the Siddons Theatre and her career. They have one son, Roger, and a marriage which is respectable, but passionless. Julia is flattered when her husband brings a young man to lunch; an accountant who obviously admires her. Neither Julia, nor Michael, even know the young man’s name, but she sets out to be charming. Julia is certainly not without admirers, including the wealthy Charles Tamerley, but she uses her abilities as an actress to control and manipulate men. However, the young man in question, Tom Fennell, turns out to be a surprise – as before long she becomes besotted with him. Maugham writes of the situation that Julia finds herself in with exquisite sensitivity. You feel for her, as events spiral out of her control – and as for the ending.... Well, I have no wish to give anything away, but it is brilliantly written. This is Maugham at his most self assured and confident, in his prime and writing of a world he loved and understood. It is one of his lesser known novels, which is a shame, as it is an utter joy to read.
—Susan
W. Somerset'as Maugham'as, nors lyg ir labai pakankamai nemažai žinomas ir populiarus, man ilgą laiką buvo visiška paslaptis, apie kurį žinojau tik tiek, kad turi gan keistą vardą ir, kaip galvojau, yra zanūda - nes aš by default taip galvoju apie visus, kurie save vadina pirmo vardo pirma raide ir antruoju vardu, pvz., J. Edgar Hoover ir...ir... Ai, nesvarbu, ok, užtenka ir Hooverio, kuris buvo zanūdų zanūda ir šiaip nemalonus žmogus. Bet kuriuo atveju, šita knyga man buvo žiauriai malonus atradimas. Tikėjausi tokio nuobodoko skystalėlio, pilstymo iš tuščio į kiaurą, ilgų, nuobodžių, niekam neįdomių peizažų aprašymų ir kitokio panašaus šlamšto, būdingo neretam klasikiniam autoriui. Vietoj to gi gavau smagią, puikiu stilium parašytą, gyvą ir įtraukiančią istoriją. O personažai!! Labai mėgstu, kai autoriai, užuot patys pasakoję apie savo kuriamus personažus tuo tradiciniu būdu - "Petras buvo atstumtas Marytės, todėl turėjo nepilnavertiškumo kompleksą ir dar nepasitikėjo savim dėl didelių ausų" - tiesiog kuria veiksmą, kuriame dalyvaujant minėtiems herojams be jokių papildomų aprašymų ir pastabų skaitytojui paaiškėja, kokio medžio paukščiai šie besą. Pats siužetas gal kiek ir banalokas, bet puikiai, meistriškai kuriamas, nenaudojamas nei vienas nereikalingas žodis, nėra jokio gražbyliavimo ar bereikalingo filosofavimo, visaks gaunasi paprastai ir natūraliai, autoriaus pamąstymai labai trumpi, konkretūs, ir labai vietoje, labai gerai atskleidžiamos pagrindinės herojės vidinės dilemos ir ypač baimės - pasenti, būti nebepatraukliai scenoje ir gyvenime - tad skaitėsi puikiai, greitai ir labai maloniai. Neabejoju, kad su šiuo autorium mano pažintis dar prasitęs. Labai gera knyga. P.s. - papildomas honorable mention skiriamas leidyklai (maketuotojai?) už pasirinktą šriftą, kuriuo knyga buvo atspausdinta. Ai laikt it!! :)
—Efka
Critics like to put down Maugham, but readers know you can'tput him down. As the author of hit plays, he knew Ethel Barrymore, Gladys Cooper, among others. The stage is an effective prop as he warmly scopesthe psyche of a plummy star (her set: asexual husby and priggy son, lesby backer, shopboy lover and his thespy sweetie -- ah, theatuuh). A sublime 'recognition' scene missing from 2 film versions: bored to hell, star decides to 'give' herself to Devoted Friend. Imagine her shock when she realizes he isn't interested in sex, probably was never interested.The finale is also cherce. After whammy premiere, she flees by herself to a restaurant and celebrates with verboten steak and fried potatoes. What greater pleasure, at times, can top being left alone? Maugham writes from the bowels of compassion.
—Sketchbook
