The Screens (Les Paravents, 1961) by Jean Genet (Characters Analysis of Colonial / French Figures)

 

The Screens (Les Paravents, 1961)

by Jean Genet

(Characters Analysis of Colonial / French Figures) 

Character Analysis of The Lieutenant in The Screens (Les Paravents, 1961) by Jean Genet

The Lieutenant in The Screens represents one of the most visible embodiments of colonial authority, yet his character is far from a stable or purely authoritative figure. Through him, Jean Genet explores the performative and fragile nature of power, exposing how authority often depends less on inherent strength than on ritual, appearance, and belief.

At first glance, the Lieutenant appears to be a conventional military officer, tasked with maintaining order and enforcing colonial rule. His position grants him authority, and he operates within a structured hierarchy that emphasizes discipline, command, and control. However, this authority is not presented as solid or unquestionable. Instead, it is revealed to be dependent on external markers such as uniform, rank, and adherence to military ritual. These elements function as symbols that sustain the illusion of control, suggesting that his power exists largely through performance.

The Lieutenant’s character is deeply tied to the idea of role-playing. He does not simply exercise authority; he enacts it. His gestures, speech, and behavior often carry a theatrical quality, as though he is conscious of being observed and judged. This performative aspect aligns him with other characters in the play, blurring the distinction between those who wield power and those who are subject to it. In this sense, the Lieutenant is not entirely different from figures like Saïd; both are engaged in constructing identities that rely on external validation.

Beneath this surface of authority lies a sense of insecurity and instability. The colonial world he inhabits is marked by unrest and resistance, and his position is constantly under threat. The presence of rebellion undermines the certainty of his role, exposing the limits of his control. As a result, his authority can appear exaggerated or strained, as though he must continually reinforce it to prevent its collapse. This tension reveals the vulnerability inherent in systems of power that depend on domination and spectacle.

The Lieutenant also reflects the broader dehumanizing effects of colonial structures. His role requires him to enforce systems that reduce individuals to categories—enemy, subject, or subordinate—rather than recognizing their humanity. In carrying out these duties, he becomes part of a mechanism that prioritizes order over empathy. Yet, rather than presenting him as purely villainous, the play situates him within this system, suggesting that he, too, is shaped and constrained by the role he occupies.

Another significant aspect of his character is his detachment from the realities of those he governs. His perspective is limited by his position within the colonial hierarchy, preventing him from fully understanding the experiences of the colonized population. This distance reinforces the artificial nature of his authority, as it is based not on genuine connection but on imposed structure and control.

Ultimately, the Lieutenant embodies the paradox of colonial power in The Screens. He appears as a figure of control, yet his authority is unstable; he enforces order, yet he exists within chaos; he commands, yet he performs. Through this character, Jean Genet reveals that power, rather than being absolute, is contingent, theatrical, and deeply uncertain. The Lieutenant’s presence thus contributes to the play’s broader critique of authority as an illusion sustained by performance rather than an unquestionable reality.

 

Character Analysis of The Captain in The Screens (Les Paravents, 1961) by Jean Genet

The Captain in The Screens serves as another significant representation of colonial authority, yet his character extends beyond mere military command to reveal the deeper contradictions and theatricality embedded within systems of power. While he occupies a higher rank than the Lieutenant, his authority, like that of other colonial figures in the play, is not portrayed as absolute or secure. Instead, it is shaped by performance, ritual, and an underlying sense of instability.

At a superficial level, the Captain appears to embody discipline, structure, and command. His role situates him firmly within the hierarchy of the colonial military, suggesting control and leadership. However, Jean Genet deliberately complicates this image by presenting his authority as something that must be constantly enacted rather than naturally possessed. His commands, gestures, and demeanor carry a heightened, almost exaggerated quality, emphasizing that his power depends on display as much as on action.

The Captain’s character is deeply intertwined with the idea of spectacle. Like other figures of authority in the play, he participates in a form of theatrical performance in which power is sustained through visibility and repetition. Military rituals, formal speech, and hierarchical interactions become symbolic acts that reinforce his position. Yet, this reliance on spectacle also exposes the fragility of his authority. The more it must be displayed, the more it suggests an absence of inherent stability.

Beneath this performative exterior lies a sense of detachment and abstraction. The Captain operates within a system that reduces complex human realities into simplified categories of control and opposition. His decisions and actions are guided less by personal understanding and more by institutional logic. This detachment distances him from the lived experiences of those affected by the conflict, reinforcing the artificial nature of the authority he represents.

The presence of rebellion and unrest further destabilizes the Captain’s position. The colonial system he upholds is under constant threat, and this tension permeates his role. While he may project confidence and command, the surrounding chaos undermines the effectiveness of his authority. His position becomes one of maintenance rather than mastery—an ongoing effort to preserve order in a world that resists it. This dynamic highlights the limits of power when confronted with resistance and change.

In comparison to other characters, the Captain may appear more controlled or composed, yet this composure itself can be seen as part of the performance. His restraint and adherence to role reflect a deeper entrapment within the system he serves. He is not merely an individual exercising power but a figure shaped and confined by the expectations of his rank. In this sense, he becomes both an agent of authority and a product of it.

Ultimately, the Captain embodies the paradox of command within The Screens. He stands as a figure of order in a disordered world, yet his authority is sustained through fragile performances rather than unquestionable dominance. Through this character, Jean Genet continues to unravel the illusion of power, revealing it as something constructed, maintained, and constantly at risk of collapse.

 

Character Analysis of The Sergeant in The Screens (Les Paravents, 1961) by Jean Genet

The Sergeant in The Screens occupies a crucial position within the hierarchy of colonial authority, functioning as the immediate enforcer of power rather than its distant symbol. Unlike higher-ranking figures such as the Captain or the Lieutenant, whose authority often appears abstract and performative, the Sergeant represents the direct, everyday execution of control. Through him, Jean Genet brings the mechanisms of domination into closer, more tangible focus.

At the most basic level, the Sergeant embodies discipline and obedience. He operates within a rigid structure, carrying out orders without questioning their purpose or morality. His identity is closely tied to his function: he exists to enforce, to command at a lower level, and to ensure that authority is visibly maintained. This makes him a figure of immediacy—where the Captain and Lieutenant may symbolize power, the Sergeant applies it in concrete terms.

However, like other authority figures in the play, the Sergeant’s power is not entirely secure or self-sustaining. It depends heavily on repetition, ritual, and visible assertion. His commands, gestures, and interactions often carry a mechanical quality, as though he is enacting a script rather than expressing individual will. This suggests that his authority is less a personal attribute and more a borrowed role, sustained only as long as he performs it convincingly.

The Sergeant’s proximity to both superiors and subordinates places him in a particularly complex position. He stands between those who give orders and those who suffer their consequences. This intermediate status reveals the layered nature of power: while he exercises control over others, he is simultaneously subject to the authority above him. His identity is therefore divided, shaped by both dominance and subordination. This dual position underscores the idea that power in the play is not fixed but circulates through a hierarchy of roles.

Another significant aspect of the Sergeant’s character is his embodiment of the dehumanizing effects of the colonial system. His actions often reduce individuals to objects of control, reinforcing a structure that prioritizes order over empathy. Yet, he himself is also diminished by this system. By adhering strictly to his role, he sacrifices individuality and moral agency, becoming an extension of the authority he serves. In this way, he reflects how systems of power can strip humanity not only from the oppressed but also from those who enforce them.

The Sergeant also contributes to the play’s exploration of violence as routine. His role normalizes acts of coercion and punishment, presenting them as necessary and habitual rather than exceptional. This normalization transforms violence into a pattern, reinforcing the cyclical and repetitive nature of conflict within the play. Through him, violence becomes less an expression of personal cruelty and more a function of institutional structure.

Ultimately, the Sergeant represents the operational core of colonial authority in The Screens. He is neither the architect of power nor entirely its victim, but a figure through whom power is enacted and sustained. His character reveals the dependence of authority on continuous performance and enforcement, as well as its capacity to erode individuality and moral responsibility. Through the Sergeant, Jean Genet deepens the play’s portrayal of power as something both pervasive and profoundly unstable, existing only through those who carry it out.

 

Character Analysis of the French Soldiers in The Screens (Les Paravents, 1961) by Jean Genet

The French soldiers in The Screens are not presented as individualized, psychologically complex characters but rather as a collective presence that embodies the machinery of colonial power. Through them, Jean Genet shifts attention away from personal identity to the broader functioning of authority, revealing how systems of domination rely on repetition, conformity, and performance.

At the most immediate level, the soldiers represent the physical force of colonial rule. They are the visible agents of control, carrying out orders, enforcing discipline, and maintaining the presence of authority on the ground. Unlike higher-ranking officers who symbolize command, the soldiers enact it through their actions. Their presence reinforces the idea that power is sustained not only by leadership but by those who execute its directives in everyday situations.

However, the soldiers are deliberately stripped of individuality. They often appear as interchangeable figures, lacking distinct personalities or motivations. This anonymity is significant, as it reflects the dehumanizing nature of the system they serve. By functioning as a group rather than as individuals, they become extensions of the colonial apparatus, suggesting that personal identity is subsumed under institutional roles. Their sameness emphasizes conformity, obedience, and the erasure of difference within the military structure.

The soldiers also illustrate the theme of performance that runs throughout the play. Their actions—marching, saluting, issuing commands—are highly ritualized, resembling rehearsed gestures rather than spontaneous behavior. These repeated movements create a sense of theatricality, as though the soldiers are performing their roles for an unseen audience. Their uniforms, in particular, act as powerful symbols, transforming them into visible representations of authority while simultaneously concealing their individuality. In this way, their identity is constructed through appearance and action rather than inherent qualities.

At the same time, the soldiers’ authority is shown to be fragile and dependent on context. While they appear powerful within the colonial framework, their position is undermined by the instability of the environment in which they operate. The presence of resistance, unrest, and uncertainty challenges the effectiveness of their control. This tension reveals that their power is not absolute but contingent, sustained only as long as the structures supporting it remain intact.

Another important aspect of their characterization is their role in normalizing violence. The soldiers carry out acts of coercion, punishment, and aggression as part of their routine duties. These actions are not depicted as extraordinary but as expected, even mundane, within the system they inhabit. This normalization transforms violence into a habitual practice, reinforcing the play’s portrayal of conflict as cyclical and pervasive.

Yet, despite their role as enforcers, the soldiers are not entirely separate from the dehumanizing effects of the system. Their lack of individuality and mechanical behavior suggest that they, too, are constrained by the roles they perform. In serving the machinery of power, they relinquish personal agency, becoming instruments rather than autonomous beings. This dual position—as both agents and products of authority—adds complexity to their collective presence.

Ultimately, the French soldiers in The Screens function as a symbolic representation of institutional power in action. They are not defined by personal stories but by their role within a larger structure that demands obedience, uniformity, and performance. Through them, Jean Genet underscores the idea that power is not held by individuals alone but is sustained through collective participation, repetition, and the continuous enactment of authority.

 

Character Analysis of Colonial Officials / Settlers in The Screens (Les Paravents, 1961) by Jean Genet

The colonial officials and settlers in The Screens represent the civilian and administrative face of colonial power, extending the presence of authority beyond the battlefield into everyday life. Unlike the soldiers, who embody direct force, these figures sustain the structures of domination through governance, social order, and cultural presence. Through them, Jean Genet explores how colonial power is maintained not only by violence but also by systems of organization, perception, and belief.

At a fundamental level, these characters symbolize institutional control. Officials operate within bureaucratic frameworks, issuing orders, maintaining records, and overseeing the functioning of colonial rule. Settlers, on the other hand, represent the normalization of that rule, living within the colonized land as though it were their own. Together, they create an environment in which colonial authority appears embedded and permanent. Their presence suggests that power is not limited to moments of conflict but is woven into the fabric of daily existence.

However, like other figures in the play, their authority is not presented as stable or unquestioned. It relies heavily on performance and illusion. Officials enact their roles through formal procedures, language, and hierarchical interactions, while settlers maintain a façade of normalcy that masks the underlying tension of occupation. This dependence on appearance reveals the fragility of their position. The more they attempt to present control as natural and inevitable, the more it becomes clear that it must be continually reinforced.

The colonial officials and settlers are also marked by a significant degree of detachment. They often remain removed from the realities of those they govern, perceiving the colonized population through simplified or distorted perspectives. This distance allows them to sustain their authority without confronting its human consequences. At the same time, it underscores the artificiality of their position, as their understanding of the world around them is filtered through ideology rather than direct experience.

Another important aspect of their characterization is their role in perpetuating inequality and division. By maintaining social hierarchies and reinforcing distinctions between colonizer and colonized, they contribute to a system that defines individuals according to rigid categories. These divisions are not merely political but cultural and psychological, shaping how people see themselves and others. Through these characters, the play reveals how power operates not only through force but through the construction of identity and difference.

Despite their apparent dominance, the colonial officials and settlers are not immune to the instability that surrounds them. The presence of resistance and the threat of upheaval undermine their sense of security. Their attempts to maintain order often appear strained or artificial, suggesting an awareness—whether conscious or not—of the precariousness of their position. This tension highlights the limits of their control and the possibility of its eventual collapse.

In addition, these figures contribute to the play’s broader theme of theatricality. Their roles, like those of the soldiers, are performed through gestures, language, and social rituals. They participate in a kind of staged reality, where authority is continuously displayed and reaffirmed. This theatrical dimension blurs the line between genuine control and its representation, reinforcing the idea that power exists as much in perception as in action.

Ultimately, the colonial officials and settlers in The Screens embody the systemic and everyday dimensions of colonial rule. They reveal how authority is sustained through administration, normalization, and performance, rather than through force alone. Through these characters, Jean Genet presents a vision of power that is pervasive yet unstable, deeply embedded yet constantly in need of reinforcement, and ultimately dependent on the illusions it creates and sustains.