Typhus

by Jean-Paul Sartre

"Au milieu de l'année 1943, la firme Pathé s'était avisée que la Libération, sans doute proche, permettait d'envisager des projets sans entraves. Mais la vie ne reprendrait pas telle qu'on l'avait laissée juste avant la guerre. Le cinéma non plus. Un renouvellement semblait nécessaire. La firme décida de proposer à des écrivains de composer des scénarios. Pressenti, Sartre accepta. Dans une colonie en état de panique, tout entière talonnée par une épidémie mortelle, rencontre de deux "vaincus de la vie" : un ivrogne, indicateur de police à ses heures, et une chanteuse de troisième zone, échouée là par hasard. Tel est le sujet de Typhus, que Sartre imagina et développa en un scénario complet ; Jean Delannoy était décidé à le tourner ; si le projet s'enlisa, c'est, selon lui, que Pathé le trouva "trop original". L'auteur de La nausée s'était astreint à une rédaction en deux colonnes - ce qui est à voir d'un côté, ce qui est à entendre de l'autre - à la manière des scénaristes professionnels. Nous publions ce scénario tel que le manuscrit le présente." Arlette Elkaïm-Sartre.

Genres: Fiction, France, Philosophy, Plays

Paperback

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic, considered a leading figure in 20th-century French philosophy and Marxism. Sartre was one of the key figures in the philosophy of existentialism (and phenomenology). His work has influenced sociology, critical theory, post-colonial theory, and literary studies. He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature despite attempting to refuse it, saying that he always declined official honors and that "a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution."
Sartre held an open relationship with prominent feminist and fellow existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Together, Sartre and de Beauvoir challenged the cultural and social assumptions and expectations of their upbringings, which they considered bourgeois, in both lifestyles and thought. The conflict between oppressive, spiritually destructive conformity (mauvaise foi, literally, 'bad faith') and an "authentic" way of "being" became the dominant theme of Sartre's early work, a theme embodied in his principal philosophical work Being and Nothingness (L'Être et le Néant, 1943). Sartre's introduction to his philosophy is his work Existentialism Is a Humanism (L'existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946), originally presented as a lecture.

Reviews

[Shreyas · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Typhus' by Jean-Paul Sartre.



Rating: 4.0/5.



Review:
For years, I have been avoiding Jean-Paul Sartre's works—not because I hate his writing, but because of a strong impression made by my fellow reader friends who implied that his stories contained heavy philosophizing. I generally don't dislike books like this, but since I had too many unread books lying on my bookshelves, I never thought about giving Sartre's work a try... until a few days back when I discovered a copy of Typhus while cleaning my home library.

Typhus, a screenplay rather than a traditional book, was penned by Sartre in 1943-44 as a commission for the French filmmakers. Unfortunately, the film was never made, and the screenplay was lost for over 60 years. Typhus was finally rediscovered and published in 2007 and went on to become one of the French publishing successes of the year.

Since I'm not used to reading screenplays, I was confused at first about how to read this book—as each page was split into two columns, and it didn't make much sense to me! However, after closer inspection, I realised the first column detailed the visual descriptions and the narration, while the second column mentioned the auditory descriptions and the dialogues. Once I was able to parse out these details, it was easier for me to take a deep dive into the story and enjoy it to its full extent.

Typhus is set in the Malay region during the British occupation, and it details the hardships of Nellie, a nightclub singer who is struggling to make ends meet after her young partner, unfortunately succumbs to the typhus epidemic sweeping the country, and George, a disgraced doctor, who has sunken to the lowest depths of the colonial society. While there's a turbulent love story at the forefront of this book, it is also an existentialist tale of moral redemption.

Typhus turned out to be an enjoyable short read, which is quite evident from the fact that I was able to finish it within a matter of a couple of hours. It left me awestruck by Sartre's ability to narrate a wondrous tale that tugged my heartstrings. All in all, I was pleasantly surprised about how much I enjoyed reading this book. I'm glad that I unexpectedly came across this book a few days back and decided to read it despite my preconceived notions regarding the author's works.

[Faeze Masoudi · Rating 3 out of 5]

از لحاظ محتوا خوب عمل کرده و سارتر کاملا تونسته دیدگاه خودش رو توی داستان بگنجونه شخصیت پردازیش هم جالب بود. اما در مورد فیلم‌نامه زیاد مطمئن نیستم شاید میتونست خیلی بهتر در بیاره و به نظرم بعضی جاهاش خیلی کلیشه بود البته باید نسبت به سالی که این اثر نوشته شده سنجیده بشه.
پایان‌بندیش رو دوست داشتم

[Ian · Rating 2 out of 5]

A minor work that provides some insight/context for some of Sartre’s other texts, but if his name wasn’t on this book, no one would read it. For completists only.

[Squeasel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well, I quite enjoyed the film my mind saw while reading this, which was part The Sheltering Sky, part Casablanca, and part Heinlein novel (one of the ones without all the festive incest and group marriages.) Perhaps it was just some of the now-somewhat-dated film tropes and dialogue giving it a jaunty air, or my early reimaginings of it reset on a space colony or something (wondering how they'd adapt it for today) but despite the screenplay examining inner vs outer dying and hopelessness and self-inflicted vs outwardly-directed cruelty/hatred/violence, oh, and lots of alcohol, assorted race/class things and stuffs, and an almost Shakespearian body count, I found this surprisingly charming, which is NOT a word I'd have expected to use while reading Sartre.

Then again, my responses are a bit wonky these days. (maybe it's typhus.)

Your liking of this will depend heavily on your feelings towards reading plays/screenplays vs regular novels. If reading a play you haven't seen a production of leaves you cold, or if somewhat dated phrases or film shots or wardrobe details and whatnot distract and anger you rather than delighting you, probably don't bother with this unless you're a completist. It doesn't appear there's a big rush towards this - mine's been sitting around my house semi-lost in the stacks of to-reads since it was published several years ago, and there are still only like 3 reviews. FOR SARTRE. *sigh*

[Joshua Finnell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Library Journal Review:

Sartre's lost screenplay is a tale of human redemption against a backdrop of utter hopelessness, a common theme in the work of the French existentialist. Depicting the plight of Malayan natives struggling for survival under colonial occupation during the outbreak of typhus, the imagery matches the desolate rhythm of the lines with dark scenes of death and decay. The protagonist is Georges, a drunk, disgraced naval doctor whose life has been shattered because of an act of cowardice. In view of the screenplay's deuteragonist, a poor nightclub singer named Nellie, Georges degrades himself by dancing a jig for a bottle of whiskey. Desperately trying to erase that humiliating image of him in her mind, Georges performs successive acts of thoughtfulness toward Nellie, which constitute the reversal of his process of destitution, ultimately leading to even greater levels of sacrifice. VERDICT Sartre's existential philosophy is better known through his creative works than his philosophical treatises. The first English translation of this screenplay, written in 1943-44 and rediscovered in 2007, adds to that understanding.

[M · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's difficult to rate a screenplay when it's meant to be watched rather than read as a book. But anyway, while the story is quite simple and somewhat basic, with romantic tensions between two lost souls blah blah, it's important to keep in mind the context in which this was written. It's not the deepest most philosophical work of all time, but it wasn't meant to be! It was a screenplay appealing to the masses. And yet there were other ideas and thoughts presented in the work beyond this, which did make it interesting to read. Having never read a screenplay before, its hard to say if it really comes across as cheesy or insightful, but I'm leading towards the former.