Restaging Indigenous — Settler Relations: Intercultural Theatre as Redress Rehearsal in Marie Clements’s and Rita Leistner’s <i>The Edward Curtis Project</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sahtu Dene Metis theatre artist Marie Clements’s and settler photographer Rita Leistner’s intercultural and multi-media collaboration The Edward Curtis Project (TECP) explores the tense negotiations between settler and Indigenous characters who are brought together from different time frames through an Indigenous concept of fluidly intersecting temporalities (McVie). Clements re-appropriates the American photographer Edward Curtis’s strategy of asking his Indigenous subjects to re-enact banned rituals and ceremonies; she thus stages Curtis as a settler avatar re-enacting scenes from his past that often involve confrontations between himself and numerous historical and contemporary Indigenous subjects. In her discussion of the production, Brenda Vellino first establishes the broader theatre studies context for the conflict transformation possibilities presented by TECP. Its intercultural rehearsal of relationship renegotiation may be read as essential for substantive redress between settler and Indigenous subjects. She discusses Clements’s rehearsal of Indigenous confrontation and negotiation with the settler avatar Edward Curtis in light of a recent turn toward rereading the Curtis archive for Indigenous agency and cultural authority. She then explores Clements’s critique of a politics of mediated projection as central to both the stagecraft and questions of TECP. Finally, she considers the significance of Clements’s culminating Windigo exorcism ceremony as painful but necessary medicine for both settler and Indigenous subjects. Clements’s and Leistner’s project thus invites consideration of rehearsal as a process, practice, and trope of multi-layered relationship renegotiation between members of Indigenous and settler communities who seek active redress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".