George Luscombe Directing Chicago ’70 at Toronto Workshop Productions: an insider’s subjective account
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article is a revised and expanded version of a talk prepared for The Art of Directing symposium, Celebrating Peter Stein at the University of Toronto, 7 June 2014. as Documentarist / Director as Activist the topic of the panel in which participated. For this panel talked about the creation of Chicago '70 at Toronto Workshop Productions (aka: TWP), January to March 1970. This show developed collaboratively by the ensemble with the direction of George Luscombe who, in many productions and especially this one, showed himself both a documentarist and an activist. George's importance in Toronto and in English Canadian theatre Many readers already know a lot or a little bit about George. Here's a brief backgrounder for those who might not. The late theatre critic and artistic director Urjo Kareda called George Our Father (Bush 191). Why? Because George on the scene first, developing new work from 1959 when the very few professional productions in Toronto were touring shows from elsewhere, reliable classics, and recent Broadway or West End hits. TWP in operation some ten years before important companies like Factory, Passe Muraille, Tarragon, and Toronto Free appeared. Theatre-makers in other parts of Canada would acknowledge George's influence. Besides Chicago '70 his many innovating productions include Hey Rube!, The Mechanic, Che Guevara, Mr Bones, The Good Soldier Schweik, The Mac Paps, Olympics '76, and of course Ten Lost Years. George committed to original creation, to new looks at old plays, to strong political content and to building a fulltime paid ensemble of actors who would train as well as perform together. In her review of our book Conversations with George Luscombe: Steven Bush in conversation with the Canadian theatre visionary, veteran theatre practitioner Lib Spry wrote: I surprised to discover in these conversations that Luscombe a fervent believer in Stanislavski. The shows saw did not have anything in them that then associated with Stanislavski--they were physical, lively, fun, thought-provoking and even in the most emotional of moments, it the audience whose guts were being wrung, rather than the actor's. Indeed the eclectic mix that George's theatre included influences from Joan Littlewood's understanding of Brecht & Epic Theatre; Rudolf von Laban's Efforts; British Music Hall; Circus; Mime; Commedia; Chinese Opera; and Vakhtangov. And yet his foundation always Stanislavski. TWP and me My role in the Chicago '70 project--along with everybody else in the ensemble--was as Actor/ Researcher/Co-Creator. But also functioned as informal Dramaturge. My tasks included (in close collaboration with George) editing transcripts, organizing units of dramatic material into a playable sequence, and (with fellow actor Mel Dixon) putting our work-script into readable form. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] This the last of the five shows did as an actor with George and this the project on which worked most closely with him until, over a quarter-of-a-century later, we recorded the conversations that eventually became our book. The Activism of the Director George had East Toronto working-class roots. He an activist who was on picket lines at 16 (Luscombe, qtd. in Bush 163). He remained on the side of Labour and the Left to the end of his days--though sometimes very critically. And he had five formative years acting with Joan Littlewood and Ewan MacColl at their politically committed Theatre Workshop in London. He also the first director in Toronto--to my knowledge--to actively practice colour-blind casting. George once said: I don't train actors. train citizens (qtd. in Bush ix). The Activism of Chicago '70's Ensemble-of-the-Moment Who were we? We were actors of diverse experience, training, and cultural backgrounds and most shared George's artistic values as well as the desire to put our politics onstage. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,022 | 0,020 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».