Collin Vorbeck - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Papers by Collin Vorbeck
Theatre Research International, Mar 1, 2021
This thesis examines the presentation of the plays of Molière by American directors for American ... more This thesis examines the presentation of the plays of Molière by American directors for American audiences. How have his works been produced and reimagined by directors from his own country? What are the qualities of successful American productions of a French masterpiece? What is the best way to present these works to American audiences? How have specific American directors put their stamp on Molière? What can Molière teach American audiences 350 years after his death? Chapter one presents a control group in an overview of the works of Molière conceived by French directors for French audiences. Using specific productions directed by Jacques Copeau, Louis Jouvet, Robert Planchon, Antoine Vitez and Ariane Mnouchkine, the importance each director places on Molière and the necessity to bring his plays to life on stage will be traced throughout the twentieth century. Chapter two shifts the focus to three iv American productions of The Misanthrope. Examining the 1989 production directed by Robert Falls and two 1992 productions in Baltimore and Philadelphia, the techniques of each director are explored to illustrate a path to their creations using three different translations. Chapter three discusses director Kenneth Albers and how early productions of Molière influenced his professional career, through an examination of his work directing The Imaginary Invalid in 1995 and The Misanthrope in 1996 for The Missouri Repertory Theatre in Kansas City. Chapter four presents a case study of a production of The Learned Ladies in 2015, directed by Theodore Swetz at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. As the author of this thesis played a role in the production, he possesses first-hand knowledge of the process. Through interviews with the director, and through the dissemination of the author's own observations throughout the process, the methodology the director employed is discussed as he shaped the production for a twenty-first-century American audience. v APPROVAL PAGE The faculty listed below, appointed by the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, have examined a thesis titled "Directing Molière: Presenting the French Master to American Audiences," presented by Collin M. Vorbeck, candidate for the Master of Arts degree, and certify that in their opinion it is worthy of acceptance.
This thesis examines the presentation of the plays of Molière by American directors for American ... more This thesis examines the presentation of the plays of Molière by American directors for American audiences. How have his works been produced and reimagined by directors from his own country? What are the qualities of successful American productions of a French masterpiece? What is the best way to present these works to American audiences? How have specific American directors put their stamp on Molière? What can Molière teach American audiences 350 years after his death? Chapter one presents a control group in an overview of the works of Molière conceived by French directors for French audiences. Using specific productions directed by Jacques Copeau, Louis Jouvet, Robert Planchon, Antoine Vitez and Ariane Mnouchkine, the importance each director places on Molière and the necessity to bring his plays to life on stage will be traced throughout the twentieth century. Chapter two shifts the focus to three
Theatre Research International, 2019
forms of subsidy and interference. The bulk of Meyrick’s book, however, is devoted to the inspiri... more forms of subsidy and interference. The bulk of Meyrick’s book, however, is devoted to the inspiring, infuriating and always extraordinary history of the Melbourne-based Anthill (– ), a company which presented as a collective but was completely dominated by its maverick artistic director, Jean-Pierre Mignon. Anthill, or the Australian Nouveau Theatre, was dedicated to performing experimental and/or classic drama. This meant that Anthill productions were usually successful in negotiating funding benchmarks such as ‘quality’ and ‘innovation’, but ‘Australian content’, which some assessors in the period immediately following the nationalistic s New Wave felt was critical for funding, was harder to discern. Anthill’s Chekhov triptych, which, thirty years later, I still remember vividly, was, for me, indubitably ‘Australian’ (which I would identify as larrikin, rule-breaking, physically committed, irreverent, multicultural). But, for others, Anthill’s commitment to ‘Australianness’ was problematic, simply because its repertoire was dominated by European drama. Because it refused to dance to the Australia Council’s tune, Anthill was bound to crash and burn eventually, but they went down fighting, glorious in their foolhardiness and disdain for the rules. Writing with wit and panache, Meyrick recounts the fortunes and misfortunes of the three theatre companies, evoking both the genius and the nonsense, skewering pomposity and grieving over the casualties. He excavates memos, polemics and jottings from the Australia Council archives, resurrecting a few items that the authors would probably wish to remain buried. As well as reminding us that artists who cannot/do not fill in forms according to the rules (Jean-Pierre Mignon) are less likely to secure ongoing funding no matter how laudable their artistic ambitions, Meyrick also questions how cultural work can be evaluated, how funding agencies can assess value for money, and how art can be discussed in a way that makes sense to the state, to governments, to auditors and to cultural accountants. What metrics are important? Who judges? Meyrick doesn’t offer solutions but he asks readers to confront the challenges. For example, peer review has to be contentious when artists are competing against each other for an ever-shrinking pot of money. Meyrick’s arguments are relevant to any state where art and culture are subsidized. While I remain unconvinced by his decision to bring French philosopher and playwright Alain Badiou into the debate, this book is significant in suggesting that subsidy could – and should – do better. Meanwhile I am struck by how many of Meyrick’s concerns apply to British academia now, with the current emphasis on academics’ grant capture rather than on their intellectual daring or originality. Meyrick’s underlying theme – cultural subsidy could be done better – really does resonate far beyond the purlieus of Australian theatre.
Theatre Research International, 2021
Theatre Research International, Mar 1, 2021
This thesis examines the presentation of the plays of Molière by American directors for American ... more This thesis examines the presentation of the plays of Molière by American directors for American audiences. How have his works been produced and reimagined by directors from his own country? What are the qualities of successful American productions of a French masterpiece? What is the best way to present these works to American audiences? How have specific American directors put their stamp on Molière? What can Molière teach American audiences 350 years after his death? Chapter one presents a control group in an overview of the works of Molière conceived by French directors for French audiences. Using specific productions directed by Jacques Copeau, Louis Jouvet, Robert Planchon, Antoine Vitez and Ariane Mnouchkine, the importance each director places on Molière and the necessity to bring his plays to life on stage will be traced throughout the twentieth century. Chapter two shifts the focus to three iv American productions of The Misanthrope. Examining the 1989 production directed by Robert Falls and two 1992 productions in Baltimore and Philadelphia, the techniques of each director are explored to illustrate a path to their creations using three different translations. Chapter three discusses director Kenneth Albers and how early productions of Molière influenced his professional career, through an examination of his work directing The Imaginary Invalid in 1995 and The Misanthrope in 1996 for The Missouri Repertory Theatre in Kansas City. Chapter four presents a case study of a production of The Learned Ladies in 2015, directed by Theodore Swetz at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. As the author of this thesis played a role in the production, he possesses first-hand knowledge of the process. Through interviews with the director, and through the dissemination of the author's own observations throughout the process, the methodology the director employed is discussed as he shaped the production for a twenty-first-century American audience. v APPROVAL PAGE The faculty listed below, appointed by the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, have examined a thesis titled "Directing Molière: Presenting the French Master to American Audiences," presented by Collin M. Vorbeck, candidate for the Master of Arts degree, and certify that in their opinion it is worthy of acceptance.
This thesis examines the presentation of the plays of Molière by American directors for American ... more This thesis examines the presentation of the plays of Molière by American directors for American audiences. How have his works been produced and reimagined by directors from his own country? What are the qualities of successful American productions of a French masterpiece? What is the best way to present these works to American audiences? How have specific American directors put their stamp on Molière? What can Molière teach American audiences 350 years after his death? Chapter one presents a control group in an overview of the works of Molière conceived by French directors for French audiences. Using specific productions directed by Jacques Copeau, Louis Jouvet, Robert Planchon, Antoine Vitez and Ariane Mnouchkine, the importance each director places on Molière and the necessity to bring his plays to life on stage will be traced throughout the twentieth century. Chapter two shifts the focus to three
Theatre Research International, 2019
forms of subsidy and interference. The bulk of Meyrick’s book, however, is devoted to the inspiri... more forms of subsidy and interference. The bulk of Meyrick’s book, however, is devoted to the inspiring, infuriating and always extraordinary history of the Melbourne-based Anthill (– ), a company which presented as a collective but was completely dominated by its maverick artistic director, Jean-Pierre Mignon. Anthill, or the Australian Nouveau Theatre, was dedicated to performing experimental and/or classic drama. This meant that Anthill productions were usually successful in negotiating funding benchmarks such as ‘quality’ and ‘innovation’, but ‘Australian content’, which some assessors in the period immediately following the nationalistic s New Wave felt was critical for funding, was harder to discern. Anthill’s Chekhov triptych, which, thirty years later, I still remember vividly, was, for me, indubitably ‘Australian’ (which I would identify as larrikin, rule-breaking, physically committed, irreverent, multicultural). But, for others, Anthill’s commitment to ‘Australianness’ was problematic, simply because its repertoire was dominated by European drama. Because it refused to dance to the Australia Council’s tune, Anthill was bound to crash and burn eventually, but they went down fighting, glorious in their foolhardiness and disdain for the rules. Writing with wit and panache, Meyrick recounts the fortunes and misfortunes of the three theatre companies, evoking both the genius and the nonsense, skewering pomposity and grieving over the casualties. He excavates memos, polemics and jottings from the Australia Council archives, resurrecting a few items that the authors would probably wish to remain buried. As well as reminding us that artists who cannot/do not fill in forms according to the rules (Jean-Pierre Mignon) are less likely to secure ongoing funding no matter how laudable their artistic ambitions, Meyrick also questions how cultural work can be evaluated, how funding agencies can assess value for money, and how art can be discussed in a way that makes sense to the state, to governments, to auditors and to cultural accountants. What metrics are important? Who judges? Meyrick doesn’t offer solutions but he asks readers to confront the challenges. For example, peer review has to be contentious when artists are competing against each other for an ever-shrinking pot of money. Meyrick’s arguments are relevant to any state where art and culture are subsidized. While I remain unconvinced by his decision to bring French philosopher and playwright Alain Badiou into the debate, this book is significant in suggesting that subsidy could – and should – do better. Meanwhile I am struck by how many of Meyrick’s concerns apply to British academia now, with the current emphasis on academics’ grant capture rather than on their intellectual daring or originality. Meyrick’s underlying theme – cultural subsidy could be done better – really does resonate far beyond the purlieus of Australian theatre.
Theatre Research International, 2021