The Great Concert of the Night

JANUARY

Five minutes past midnight: a call from my sister. It’s not right that I should be on my own, she tells me. Nobody should be alone at New Year. She sends a picture of herself and Nicholas, glasses raised to the phone; in the background, some people I don’t recognise. They’ve had a really nice evening; Nicholas excelled himself in the kitchen, and there’s been enough champagne to float a dinghy. ‘Even you would have enjoyed yourself,’ she says. I report that I too have had a nice evening. ‘Doing what?’ Emma demands. A film, a book, a drink. ‘Sounds great,’ she says. ‘Next year, you’re coming to us. No excuses accepted.’

I watched Le Grand Concert de la Nuit. Entranced again by Agamédé; entranced again by Imogen. The film transmits a presence that both consoles and torments.

Looking up from the book, I gaze at the chair in the corner of the room, the chair in which Imogen used to read; the lamp beside it is unlit. Gazing into the shadow, I make something like an after-image arise: turned to the side, with her legs curled up, she props the book on the arm of the chair, angled into the light. The presence is weaker than that of Agamédé. Often, when delighted or surprised by something she had read, she would read it aloud. One evening, I remember, she came upon the story of Blaise Pascal’s escape from death. ‘Listen to this,’ she said. I can hear her intonation, the rise of her voice.

On the night of November 23rd, 1654, terror-struck by the storm that was then in full spate, the horses that were pulling Pascal’s carriage bolted and plunged from the Pont de Neuilly. The reins snapped, leaving the vehicle perched on the lip of the road. This narrow escape, so the story goes, occasioned the revelation that Pascal recorded in the document that bears this date, a document known as the Memorial.

So it begins. Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy, we read later. On Pascal’s death, in August 1662, this piece of parchment was discovered by his manservant, folded inside the lining of his master’s doublet. A ‘mystic amulet’, Nicolas de Condorcet called it. Pascal had spoken to nobody about the episode that was recorded in the Memorial.

On my desk, two photos from Stourhead. The first: Imogen play-acting in front of the temple – a nymph in flight from a savage pursuer, her scarf flying as she looks back in terror; her hands are raised in a way that I have seen only in paintings by Poussin. The other: she looks directly into the lens, and her face almost fills the frame of the picture; her gaze is acute and open, offering herself to be seen as fully as any lens could allow.

Only twelve tickets sold today.

It was some time in mid-June when I first saw Imogen, in room seven. This is where people linger, because of the monsters. Casts of aborted foetuses, fearfully misshapen, occupy one section: we have examples of phocomelia, sirenomelia, acrania, anencephaly and cyclopia. There are two terrible little skeletons, each a conjoined pair: Dicephalus dibrachius diauchenos and Cephalothoracopagus monosymmetros. And above the skeletons, suspended on wires, in a posture of crucifixion, hangs the stillborn child. Its torso has been excavated to expose the major veins and arteries; the limbs have been flayed, so that the musculature may also be studied. The muscles and blood vessels gleam like varnished wax, but this is not a model. Its head is thrown back and its teeth are bared, as if in a scream; its face is directed into the light that comes from the window; it has no eyes, but it stares back with its vacant sockets. This is where I first saw Imogen.

I took note because she stayed at the hanging child for a long time. No – this is not quite true. I took note because she struck me as an attractive woman, and she was alone. Not that she was a woman who might be approached. She was on her own; few people come to the museum alone.

I was in room seven to rehang the print of Claude-Ambroise Seurat, ‘the human skeleton’. Fussing with the spirit level, I observed her reflection in the glass that covers the print. She continued to gaze into the eyeless face. She looked steadily into it, as if in contemplation of its meaning. Frowning, she seemed to be moved to sorrow. When I left the room, she did not look up; she had not so much as glanced at me.

Some time later, I returned. She was still there, examining the pages from Vaught’s Practical Character Reader. As if she had been waiting for an audience, she read aloud one of the captions: ‘The reason this man is an unreliable husband is because he is very weak in Conjugality and Parental Love and exceedingly strong in Amativeness. Young ladies, beware of such men as husbands.’ She laughed, and looked at me. The laugh was light and small. ‘Now I know,’ she said.

My favourite page, I said, was the one showing the woman with a white zone on the crown of her head; the white zone denotes ‘The Corn Faculty, or the Exact Source of Corns’. I introduced myself and told her that there would be a tour at four o’clock. The tour would encompass parts of the building that were otherwise out of bounds.

Imogen thanked me. I left her to continue her perusal of the Practical Character Reader.

After the tour, Imogen returned to room seven. Certain items required further inspection, it seemed; her demeanour was pensive. When, after several minutes, she did not reappear, I moved to a spot from which I could see her, obliquely. Crouched at the Auzoux models, she peered at the dissected head, and smiled. My first thought was that I, the spy, was the cause of the smile. Then it seemed that the smile signified appreciation of the finely crafted objects. I approached.

She did not look away, even when I was standing alongside. ‘Hard to believe this is just paper and glue,’ she said.

Auzoux’s papier-mâché was special, I informed her. Chopped rags and calcium carbonate and powdered cork – poudre de Liège – went into the recipe. That was why Auzoux’s models have lasted so well, I explained. But they have become very delicate. The models had been designed to be taken apart and reassembled, but this one would no longer bear handling. I paused.

She was scrutinising the piece as closely as a detective at a crime scene. ‘Go on,’ she said.

I told her about the factory that Louis Thomas Jérôme Auzoux had founded in his home town. In the very first issue of Nature, Auzoux’s model plants and plant organs were recommended for study. French cavalry regiments kept Auzoux models of horses’ teeth for reference, I told her. This made her look up; I stopped.

‘It’s interesting,’ she said. Her smile did not suggest irony.

I confessed that I was curious. ‘Are you doing some sort of research?’ I asked.

‘In a way,’ she said. Her gaze invited me to take the deduction a stage further.

I told her what I had guessed: that she was an academic.

‘I shall take that as compliment,’ she said. Then she told me her profession and name. She was not flirtatious, and this was an enhancement of her attractiveness. ‘The name will mean nothing to you. And obviously the face doesn’t,’ she observed, impersonally. ‘No reason why it should,’ she added. She had been on TV quite recently, in something called The Harbour. ‘I was the snooty wife of the mayor. I’d been having an affair with the father of the first victim, it turned out.’

I apologised for not having seen The Harbour; in truth, I had not heard of it.

‘You didn’t miss much,’ she said, then she told me about the audition for Devotion. I already knew about this project: several months earlier, Marcus Colhoun had contacted me; he had visited the museum when he was a student, and had been ‘inspired’ by it. We had exchanged emails.

The audition was a week away. I wished her good luck.

On the Sunday of the week in which the filming started, I met Samantha for coffee. Val was present, as was often the case at that time. She seemed to lack trust, though her victory was secure; the ostensible reason for her attendance would have been that she felt it was important for there to be no negativity between us. She was strongly opposed to negativity in all its forms, and still is.

‘How are you, David?’ Val enquired. She tended to employ my name at the outset; a boundary was thereby established.

‘I am well,’ I answered.

‘You look well,’ she said; et cetera. An exchange of niceties was all that was expected. I would have no news, she knew. In my world, every week was like every other. Val was then a student counsellor; her week, as usual, had been stressful.

I told her, not for the first time, that I could not do her job; this was sincere.

When Val excused herself and went indoors, Samantha eased back in her seat and levelled a diagnostic look at me. She stated: ‘Something has happened.’

‘Things are always happening,’ I said. ‘My life is a maelstrom.’

‘Come on,’ she said, rapping the back of my hand with a finger, as if it were an electronic device with a dodgy connection. ‘Something good, I mean. Tell me – quickly. We’ve got three minutes.’

I supplied the essential information. ‘Good-looking, is she?’ she asked.

‘She’s interesting,’ I answered.

‘I’ll take that as a Yes. Young?’

‘Younger than me. Not young young.’

Stirring the spoon in her coffee, she looked at me askance. ‘Is she interested in you?’

‘I doubt it.’

‘That’s the stuff – embrace defeat.’

‘Just answering honestly.’

‘You’ve talked to her?’

‘Of course.’

‘And you like her.’

‘I do.’

‘And she’ll soon be gone.’

‘Yes.’ Samantha leaned forward, as if to reveal a secret. ‘Take the initiative, David. What’s to be lost?’

Nothing was to be lost, I agreed.

‘It would be good for you,’ she said. ‘An adventure.’

We were at a café near the Pompidou. An advertisement at a bus stop, for an exhibition at the Musée des Arts et Métiers, caught Imogen’s attention; it showed a close-up of a mechanism of incomprehensible complication, a thicket of golden cogs. In all the time she had been living in Paris, she had never been to the Arts et Métiers. Half an hour later, we were there. Three thousand items are on show at any time, from a collection of nearly one hundred thousand. We saw clocks, bicycles, phonographs and phones; steam engines, calculating machines, cars, aeroplanes, cameras; chronometers, gasometers, manometers, lathes and looms. Everything well displayed and informatively annotated.

The effects of the chemotherapy persisted. But the Arts et Métiers would have been fatiguing in any circumstances, she said. The scale of the Sanderson-Perceval museum was one of the things she liked about it; the incoherence was another. Many of the items in the Sanderson-Perceval – the porcelain, the musical instruments, the crystals, the velvet mushrooms, the glass jellyfish – belonged together only because they had been collected. There was no insistence that the visitor be instructed, but instruction might proceed from pleasure and confusion. ‘A bit of a mess – but a nice mess,’ someone once wrote in the visitors’ book.

Museums are places of contemplation; they are places of poetry; they create constellations of images in the mind. We behold a spectacular artefact or relic – an Aztec mask, the skull of an immense prehistoric carnivore, an Athenian goddess – and we marvel. Various means are employed to enhance the effect: jewellery and glass might be displayed under spotlights in a darkened room; sculpture arrayed in a white-walled hall of church-like ambience. Not every museum possesses items that are marvellous, but all objects in a museum emit some sort of charge; they have a resonant presence. Isolated for our inspection, they have an aura of significance. Having been collected, they now belong to themselves; they are untouchable.

Amateur dramatics at university had been the full extent of her acting experience until Antoine Vermeiren had cast her in Les tendres plaintes, Imogen told me, in answer to my question. Marc Vermeiren, Antoine’s brother, had been a colleague of her boyfriend, at the University of Tours. In my teens, I had gone cycling in France with a friend, I told her. We had stopped overnight in Tours. Imogen and I talked about the city – the giant cedar; Fritz the stuffed elephant. I learned the name of the boyfriend – Benoît – and that the relationship was over. Imogen’s manner did not suggest that the ground was being prepared for a new relationship; or rather, I saw nothing from which to take encouragement. But Imogen would say that this conversation was the start; something about my description of the silent lightning storm, watched from the little square in front of the cathedral, with the barely remembered friend, apparently.

The local paper sent a reporter to talk to the director and cast of Devotion. He interviewed Imogen in the garden, and was duly charmed. She was unpretentious, approachable; her gestures were expansive and urgent; ‘vivacious’ is the obvious adjective. I could see that she was telling the reporter a story. Tumbling from head to midriff, her hands conjured a costume in precise quick movements – a wide-brimmed hat; a cravat at the throat; a jacket, fastidiously buttoned; a flower in the lapel. With her fingertips she smoothed a moustache of air; her hands came together, one cupped over the other, on the handle of an imagined walking stick. She was being Mr Dobrý, as I later learned.

Asked if she could remember when she had realised that she would become an actress, Imogen would sometimes answer that her career could be traced to a story that a schoolfriend had told her, about an elderly man from Czechoslovakia. This friend’s family had moved to London when she was twelve years old, and she and her brother had soon come to know Mr Dobrý. Near their new house there was a small park, and Mr Dobrý could be seen there almost every afternoon, feeding the birds and the squirrels. He was an old man, but smartly dressed, always, with a white scarf around his neck on all but the warmest days, and a black three-piece suit that was never unbuttoned. In winter he wore a thick black coat that gleamed. Mr Dobrý had a hat that made him look like a character from a black-and-white film, Imogen’s friend had said. His walking stick had a lion’s head for a handle, in real silver. His hair was white, and cut in an old-fashioned way; he had a lovely white moustache.

Local shopkeepers knew a few things about this refined old gentleman, but not much. He had come to England from Czechoslovakia a couple of years before the war, with a wife, who was no longer living. Mr Dobrý’s home town was a place called Karlovy Vary, where he had worked in a hotel that was owned by his family. It was an expensive hotel. His parents had remained in Karlovy Vary, but a sister was believed to have emigrated with him. It was not known what had become of her; the inference was that she, like the parents and the wife, had died. Nobody was ever seen with Mr Dobrý. He did not seem unhappy, however, and he had money, as one could tell from his clothes. Someone had heard that Mr Dobrý owned a hotel in London.

It was not known where Mr Dobrý lived. ‘Not far from here,’ he told anyone who asked. He would let the children help him to feed the animals. But there was nothing creepy about Mr Dobrý, Imogen’s friend insisted. The parents all liked him. He was friendly to everyone, and he had wonderful tales about his life in Czechoslovakia. Sometimes he would show the children photographs: of hotels that looked like castles; of churches with shining domes that were onion-shaped; of ladies with parasols standing in front of colonnades and fountains. The photographs were the colour of tea. He brought coins and letters and postcards that were covered with unreadable handwriting. In the Dobrý family’s hotel there was a piano on which Chopin had played; he explained how famous Chopin was, and showed them a picture of the piano, which stood between palm trees in a room with a glass ceiling. Mr Dobrý would point to the faces in the photographs and recite all the names. Though he had left Czechoslovakia so many years before, his accent was strong.

Then came a month when Mr Dobrý was missing from the park. Nobody knew where he had gone. Occasionally he had been absent for a week or two; he never gave warning of his departure, and never said where he had been when he returned. He had never been missing for a whole month. The absence continued, until one evening the friend’s father announced that Mr Dobrý had died. The story was in the newspaper.

It turned out that Mr Dobrý had lived in a tiny flat at the end of a bus route that passed the park. A birth certificate had been found and a sister traced: her name was Edith and she had been born in Sheffield, as had Mr Dobrý, whose name in fact was Kenneth Tate. Edith had not seen or heard from her brother for forty years; she had not known where he had been living, and knew nothing about his life. The newspaper carried an appeal for information, but nobody ever came forward to say that they had known Mr Dobrý, under this or any other name.

How wonderful to have been Mr Dobrý, Imogen had thought, when her friend told her the story. To have invented such a life and lived it out seemed an enterprise of genius.

The filming of Devotion began on a July evening. From the dining room I looked out onto the garden, where Julius Preston and the father of Beatrice Moore were in earnest discussion, on the bench by the sundial. Searching for the answer to the conundrum of his daughter, Mr Moore gazed into the leaves of the beech tree that rose behind the cameraman, who stood a few yards in front of the actors, aiming the lens into their faces. Two paces to the right of the bench stood Marcus Colhoun, nodding approval. At the high point of the garden, in the crook of the wall where the irises grow, Imogen turned the pages of the script. Her skirt was a voluminous thing, with three tiers of flounces, and the pattern was a bold check, in lime green and salmon pink and violet. A paisley shawl covered her shoulders.

She was splendidly demure. Her neck and wrists were unadorned; her lips pale as paper; her hair, parted strictly down the centre, was gathered into a small tight bun. Imogen closed her eyes as a young woman applied a make-up brush to her cheeks, and when she opened them she noticed that I was at the window. She closed her eyes again and smiled into the sunlight.

Marcus took her down to the bench, talking urgently, like a coach with an athlete before the start of the race. While cameraman Joe waved a light meter around, the assistant fussed at the folds of the dress. Marcus Colhoun said a few words, then stepped back. Abruptly Imogen became Beatrice Moore. The angles of her head and neck and shoulders changed a little; it was enough for a different character to be delineated. One hand held the ends of the shawl like a clasp; the other lay on the arm of the bench, and was equally still. Not once did she look at Julius Preston; her eyes were directed past him, towards the pool at the foot of the garden. Dr Preston’s gaze never left Beatrice’s face. Suddenly she stood up, distressed; she walked away, and Julius Preston followed her, up the slope of the lawn, into the sunlight. The camera stalked them and the microphone hovered above their heads, but equipment and crew seemed to be invisible to the actors. The expertise was remarkable. For some reason, this sequence was omitted from the film.

In Imogen’s exchanges with Marcus Colhoun there was rarely much evidence of the sort of bantering camaraderie one often sees in behind-the-scenes extras. Their conversations – or the ones that I observed – were brief, almost brusque: a few gestures, a few words, as if discussing tactics. Imogen said to me: ‘He gets straight to the point. And we understand each other.’ Later, she told me that she had known immediately that Marcus Colhoun had attended a boarding school. ‘We’re like Freemasons or ex-cons – we recognise the signs,’ she said. It had been like serving a novitiate. Her mother and father had endured the same childhood confinement, and therefore she’d been required to endure it too. ‘It makes you strong,’ her mother had pronounced. Imogen had felt that she was being taught how to stand guard over herself, she told me; few people were to be permitted to pass into the heart of the fortress.

Sometimes, she told me, it felt necessary to play the part of being an actor. ‘There are certain expectations,’ she said. For example, on occasion she had been prompted to employ the trope of the actor as compulsive observer, always taking note of gestures, idiosyncrasies of speech, behavioural tics. ‘It’s not wholly untrue,’ she said. And people liked to hear about the moment at which one became aware of one’s vocation. ‘“For my thirteenth birthday my parents took me to see A Midsummer Night’s Dream and I was mesmerised. I knew right away that I was going to be an actor.” That kind of thing.’ Mr Dobrý was a recital piece, she said; like an encore. There were days on which she could believe that Mr Dobrý had indeed been the start of it.

Nothing from Samantha since the afternoon on which she gave me the news about Val’s big initiative. Confidentiality is of paramount importance in the world of heavyweight commerce, so the company in question could not be named, but I was to understand that it was a top-tier organisation, and that a considerable fee was involved. Once a week, Val was to travel to the London HQ, there to conduct a two-hour ‘workshop’ and then make herself available for individual consultations. The remit was broad. She would advise on issues relating to relaxation, diet, organisation of the workspace, et cetera, et cetera. Thus comprehensive wellness, a sense of empowerment, would be brought to the open-plan environment. The drones would be convinced of their happiness, and thereby become more effective drones. I commended Val’s enterprise, in a manner that caused irritation. I used the phrase ‘monetising the wisdom’, I believe.

‘And what have you done recently?’ Samantha wanted to know. ‘You’re stagnating,’ she told me. It seemed that I had chosen to go down with the sinking ship. Val’s ‘positivity’ evidently offended me. Did I think that passivity was a virtue in itself? ‘I think you’re happier living in the past,’ Samantha informed me.

‘Aren’t most of us?’ I countered.

‘Well, I’m not,’ said Samantha.

The museum does not allow us to reclaim the past – the past is irrecoverable. Hence the museum’s pathos. The exhibits are like stars, small pieces of light from distances that cannot be bridged.

My first sight of Samantha – more than twenty years ago, the calendar tells me. Twenty-plus years, but I remember the scene with what seems to be great clarity. Jerome called my office – a man had collapsed in the armour room. We had to push through a group of schoolchildren who had been corralled in the adjacent room; Samantha’s party, it turned out. The children were hushed, as if they had narrowly avoided a major accident. In a corner of the armour room, a large man lay on the floor; a jacket had been pushed under his head; his shirt, sky blue and too tight, was blackening with sweat. A woman held his hand as she talked to him. Her face was directly over his, and he was smiling as best he could. His grip was so strong that the woman’s fingers were bunched together, and scarlet at the tips. Her calmness was remarkable; she emanated an aura of competence. Quietly, clearly, slowly, continuously she talked to the stricken man, until the ambulance crew arrived. While she talked, she looked into his eyes. Caritas, the greatest of the virtues. ‘Yes,’ the man said, four or five times; otherwise silent, he yielded to her assurance, to her gaze.

My love for Samantha was conceived in that moment. We might persuade ourselves that love is something that emerges over time, but in many cases, or most, it is instantaneous. What follows, the ‘falling in love’, is but verification of what was comprehended in a second. It is a corroboration of the instinct. So many things can be seen in a moment.

Simone Weil: ‘We have to erase our faults by attention and not by will.’

On the third or fourth day of filming, I was in the mirrored room when Imogen came in. A conversation between the newly married couple was about to be filmed there. The fabric of that day’s dress was iridescent bronze, signifying perhaps the fire that had been lit in the soul of Beatrice. She stopped in front of one of her reflections, to appraise the effect of the dress. ‘A bold little number, isn’t it? But it does impose a certain decorum,’ she said. Extending her arms in a parody of gracefulness, she glided across the room. In the centre she halted. She glanced over her shoulder, looking away from me. I regarded one of her images in the glass, as if studying a picture, and her image looked back at me, without expression. Then the crew arrived.

At the portrait of Charles Perceval and Adeline I told their story, as I always do. The behaviour of Adeline’s sister, Marie, whose temper seems to have been problematic since puberty, had become unmanageably erratic. ‘She was frequently hysterical, the father informed the young doctor,’ I would have said, before pointing to the row of pessaries; the pessaries invariably provoke a reaction. Misalignment of the uterus was widely held to be the cause of afflictions such as Marie’s, and physicians often fitted one of these devices to correct the irregularity. Charles Perceval refused to consider such an intervention. Hysteria was not a disorder of the womb, he believed; rather it was a disorder of the mind, or not a disorder at all. Instead, he talked to the patient; he offered, I proposed, a secular confessional. The father of Marie Hewitt was reluctant to permit such a conversation to take place in private, but the doctor eventually prevailed. So Charles Perceval talked to Marie, and she, after several consultations, became considerably less troublesome, though she later made a marriage of which they strongly disapproved, and which proved to be profoundly unsatisfactory to Marie herself. She took holy orders at the age of forty, and lived to the age of ninety-six. And her sister married Charles Perceval.

Then the fatal complication: the Catholicism of the Hewitts, and Charles Perceval’s conversion. His parents, committed to the Church of England, were so dismayed by their son’s betrayal that they refused to attend the wedding. But the faith of the Hewitts was to be implicated in a much graver crisis than this. It became apparent, in the later stages of Adeline’s second pregnancy, that delivery of the child at full term could be extremely injurious to Adeline’s health. Furthermore, it was evident that the foetus was not developing as it should. Something could be done to mitigate the risk to the mother, but at the cost of the unborn child’s life. Here I direct attention to the cranioclast, that terrible instrument. Such a step would of course have been impossible for Adeline and Charles: eternal torture would have been the punishment. The child died within hours of its birth; Adeline four days later.

The tour is always a performance. Conducting visitors around the museum, I am more voluble than my ordinary self, as I am in writing this. But on this particular day I was delivering more of a performance than usual. By the ten-minute mark, on an ordinary day, I would have finished with Charles Perceval. On the day of Imogen I was behind schedule. I had given information that I normally omitted; I had accentuated the pathos. This, I knew, was attributable to her presence. I was not making an effort to impress – not in the sense of trying to make myself attractive. I did not think that such a thing was possible. Rather, what I wanted to do was to make an impressive presentation, and I wanted to do this because of the quality of her attention. I felt compelled to sustain her engagement.

At the Sanderson-Perceval Museum, one spends time in a house of some splendour. This is a major part of its appeal: the visitor escapes into a fantasy of luxuriance. It offers, moreover, an experience of the genuine: in a world of proliferating fakes and simulations, the museum is a repository of the authentic. The things that it contains have an enhanced authenticity, it might be said, by virtue of their having endured.

I watched the tape of La Châtelaine on the day that I received it from Marcus. He had characterised it as ‘Bresson meets Borowczyk’. At the time I was not sure what this meant. ‘It looks good,’ Joe had said, seeming to imply that it lacked substance. And it does look good, right from the start, where men in belted tunics and stockings appear out of the shadows and pass into the sunlight of a courtyard, a light so bright that they are obliterated by it. At the top of a tower, a crimson and gold flag hangs against a pure blue sky. At the foot of the tower, a groom is at work; the horse’s flank ripples under the brush; the animal’s breathing and the rasp of the bristles are the only sounds. In La Châtelaine there is a great quantity of silence. Conversations are observed from a distance; the actors gesture as if each movement were freighted with meaning. In the bedchamber, the lovers speak in the murmur of people under hypnosis. There are no throes of passion in the lovers’ bed; they touch each other as though their bodies were hollow.

We see the Châtelaine’s breasts as her lover lying beside her sees them. It was a pleasure to look at this body. The camera keeps close company with the lovers. In adoration of the Châtelaine, the lens loiters on the soft declivity between her shoulder blades; on the pulsing skin of her neck; on her lips; on her thighs. The young man is regarded closely too. Our gaze – the Châtelaine’s gaze – caresses the tightening muscle of an arm, a taut buttock, a curl of hair around an ear. We glimpse a penis, tumescent, twice; and penetration, in close-up – a slow and blatant coupling, of documentary frankness.

‘I’m useless on stage,’ Imogen said, as if this were an incontrovertible fact. ‘And applause is a problem. For me, I mean. You do your turn and you get your reward. I don’t like it.’

It struck me as reasonable for people to congratulate and thank the performers, I said. And wasn’t applause an honest way to close the evening? The lights go up, the audience claps – the whole thing has been an illusion, and now the show is over.

She was all in favour of honesty, Imogen said, but she was not cut out to be an entertainer. ‘That sounds pompous, but it’s how it is,’ she said. ‘You give your performance, and at the end of the evening the comfortable ones give you their approval, if they feel they’ve had their money’s worth. And I’m speaking as a member of the comfortable community. I’m aware of the hypocrisy,’ she said, bowing her head to accept the implied reproach.

‘Life consists in the sum of all the functions by which death is resisted,’ wrote Marie François Xavier Bichat, chief physician to the Hôtel-Dieu de Paris, in his Recherches physiologiques sur la vie et la mort. His book was published in 1800. Two years later he died, at the age of thirty, after falling down a flight of stairs at the Hôtel-Dieu.

I watched Les tendres plaintes last night – or skim-watched it, for the scenes in which Imogen appears. I have never cared for the actor who plays Xavier. It is hard to understand why any of these young women would tolerate this prig for more than ten minutes. And the behavioural tics are overdone: the staring eyes, the staccato speech, the peculiar gait. Everything is overdone: the unmanaged hair, the ill-fitting clothes. Xavier has no TV; such is his disdain for the modern world. He manages to rein himself in for the longest scene – with Caroline, at the concert given by his bête noire, Gaston Lasserre, a serial winner of competitions and awards, who just happens to have attended the same conservatoire as Xavier. Perhaps Imogen’s self-restraint obliged him to tone it down a little. Depressed by the brilliance of Gaston, Xavier walks with Caroline to the Métro; he walks at arm’s length from her, head down, like a man who has just received terrible news. ‘He is better than me,’ he complains. ‘He is very good,’ Caroline admits; she cannot lie. ‘I hate him,’ says Xavier; Gaston is handsomer and cooler than Xavier too; he drives an implausibly expensive car. It’s a tough world, Caroline sympathises; it’s unfair that there should be room for so few harpsichordists at the top of the tree. (Les tendres plaintes is a comedy, Antoine Vermeiren maintains; this is the only scene at which I smile.) ‘Gaston Lasserre is a showman,’ Xavier protests. ‘He is not serious.’ We know that Xavier is very serious. He is a scholar as well as a musician; his knowledge of the music of his chosen era is profound. Unfortunately, though, he is not a performer of Gaston Lasserre’s calibre, as he knows. ‘He loves the applause, not the music,’ he moans. The whingeing continues all the way to the Métro station, where Xavier informs his girlfriend that he might as well kill himself. There is of course no possibility that Xavier could do any such thing; nevertheless, Caroline dissuades him. ‘The music needs you,’ she tells him. He kisses her on the forehead. ‘Tonight I have to be on my own,’ he says. Caroline watches him as he descends the steps and disappears. Imogen’s face in these four or five seconds is the best thing in the film: we see pity, anger, affection; and her knowledge that their relationship has just been ended.

We were leaving my office, where I had shown Imogen some of the letters. She preceded me to the door, and as she opened it I felt compelled to tell her that Marcus Colhoun had given me a copy of La Châtelaine.

Registering no surprise, she glanced over her shoulder to ask: ‘And you’ve watched it?’

‘I have.’

‘What did you think?’

My remarks were inane: I had appreciated the pace of it, and the tone; the cinematography was excellent. Blah blah.

She glanced at me again and said, without innuendo: ‘There are some nice images.’

‘Indeed,’ I said.

‘The basket of oranges was memorable,’ she said, and laughed. Then she stopped at the head of the stairs to suggest that we continue this conversation some other time.

The final scene of Maintenant et à l’heure de notre mort is difficult to watch; it is difficult for anyone to watch. The woman, Marguerite, is in her bedroom, seated in front of a mirror. Motionless, the camera observes her from the far side the room; the distance implies some sort of tact. A window is open; we hear a car passing in the street; after ten seconds, a second car; a child calls out and is answered by another child. The room is bright with sunlight. Calmly, or so it seems, the woman regards the reflection of her face. We hear her exhale, then the camera is abruptly in the place of the mirror, and her face occupies most of the screen. The lens receives Marguerite’s consideration. We last saw her weeping; she is not weeping now; her eyes suggest exhaustion, and vast disappointment. Then, in the space of two or three seconds, the focus of her gaze changes. The eyes widen fractionally; the exhaustion appears to dissipate. Marguerite is no longer looking at what she sees in the glass: she is looking through the glass, at us. Her gaze makes each of us feel that we are being specifically addressed. ‘Look at me,’ says her gaze. Nothing in her face undergoes any alteration; her mouth is relaxed and closed; there is no frown. She blinks, slowly, with composure; that is the only movement. She is not protesting; neither is she requesting pity. The power of her gaze is the power of absolute openness. For a full minute we are not released. Each of us must look at her; we must look into her eyes and return the gaze of this dying woman, until, in an instant, the screen becomes black. For ten seconds the screen is black, then the names scroll up in silence.

I could not say how many times I have watched this scene. My admiration is some sort of palliative.

She disliked the ‘contrived intimacy’ of the theatre. ‘We pretend to be unaware of the audience. And I know what you’re going to say,’ she said, raising a finger. ‘Film is every bit as contrived. That’s true. But it’s a different kind of contrivance.’ The camera allowed her to be natural, she said. ‘The camera sees everything, and I like that. There’s no distance to cross. I don’t have to project myself. But there’s a distance too: because I’m not there for the performance. I’m on a screen, in a big dark room. People are looking at me, but I can’t see them. To the audience it’s enhanced reality. It’s an immersion: the picture is huge, the sounds are loud. But it’s just a screen – they’re staring at a wall. So you’re absorbed in it, but detached. That’s what I like. It’s more true and at the same time more false,’ she said.

I admitted that I had been watching from the window.

‘I know,’ she said, making an adjustment to her hair. From an adjoining room her name was called. She curtseyed with prim dignity, in the character of Beatrice.

Imogen’s mother had fallen a week before one of our visits. Her arm was in a sling, and we watched her as she attacked the roses with secateurs, one-armed, as if to demonstrate to an invisible assessor that the cast was a needless encumbrance. She had been thrown several times, Imogen told me. Once she had ridden home with a broken wrist and two broken ribs. This was when Imogen first spoke about the curse on the family’s women. She had known nothing of her mother’s diagnosis and nothing of the surgery until it was done. When she came home from school at Easter her mother told her about the operation. In her mother’s mind, the cancer had been defeated: the surgeon had removed the tumour, the chemotherapy would deal with any residues, and any further invasion could be repelled by an act of will. There was barely any further discussion. In the morning she spent a little longer in bed than was usual, but she was not visibly ill; she was not visibly anxious. And her mother’s cancer did not return. But other women in the family had died of it, Imogen had later learned. The ordeal was inevitable, she had come to think. She talked about it as others might talk about the debilities of old age.

The museum enjoins us to be humble: memento mori, it whispers to us. Soon, very soon, your life will be reduced to fragments such as these, a ruin, a miscellany of fragments from which the past can be reconstituted only as a picture in which most of the space is blank.

A new message on Val’s homepage: ‘We are living in times of great uncertainty.’ Politically, economically, socially, the world ‘is in a state of flux’. It is not surprising, then, that ‘dangerously high levels of stress’ have become ‘endemic’ to our society. She sees the symptoms of stress everywhere. It is good to know, then, that help is at hand. Under Val’s tutelage, she tells us, we can overcome anxiety, eliminate ‘fear and resistance’, acquire ‘resourcefulness and resilience’. We can learn to ‘grow and change’. Her coaching is a ‘dynamic and self-generating process in which we work in partnership to harness and develop your skills and capabilities. I will help you to identify who you want to be, and to recognise what is preventing you from achieving self-fulfilment.’ She impresses upon us that her approach is not prescriptive. She has been trained in ‘a wide range of techniques and theories’, and in addition to ‘mindfulness practices’ often makes use of ‘archetypal psychology and psychosynthesis’. Solutions will differ from one individual to the next. The common denominator is that Val will always bring her full attention to bear upon the client. ‘My promise: to be wholly present to the person I’m working with.’