View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Oregon Scholars' Bank (IN)FAMOUS ANGEL: THE CHERUB COMPANY AND THE PROBLEM OF DEFINITION by BRIAN EDWARD GEORGE COOK A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Theater Arts and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2012 DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Brian Edward George Cook Title: (In)famous Angel: The Cherub Company and the Problem of Definition This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Theater Arts by: Dr. Sara Freeman Chairperson Dr. Theresa J. May Member Dr. John Schmor Member Dr. Julie Hessler Outside Member and Kimberly Andrews Espy Vice President for Research & Innovation/Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded June 2012 ii © 2012 Brian Edward George Cook iii DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Brian Edward George Cook Doctor of Philosophy Department of Theater Arts June 2012 Title: (In)famous Angel: The Cherub Company and the Problem of Definition This dissertation examines the effects of conventionally categorizing working artists and looks specifically at the Cherub Company, London, as a case study. Cherub was an alternative British theatre company whose work in the 1980s defied most of the categories which inscribed theatre practice in Britain. Because they did not fit canonical definitions, Cherub was said to be producing “bad” theatre. When governments, critics or historians use a canonical approach to separate the supposedly good from the bad, artists who do not conform are often ignored and become lost to history. In order to genealogically trace the influence of the Cherub Company and to accurately depict its legacy, this dissertation examines both the company’s archive and repertoire as well as the field of cultural production in which it operated. British theatre in the late 1970s was often hostile to foreign performance techniques, led by the opinions of the theatre staff of the Arts Council of Great Britain, the primary issuer of government arts subsidy. Cherub’s production of Two Noble Kinsmen melded a classic English text with Eastern European production methods and was derided by the ACGB. This response along with similar views on the company’s other early productions formed the backbone of the ACGB’s contention that Cherub should not receive subsidy. Despite the company’s maturation, demonstrated by the international success of their production of Kafka’s THE TRIAL, iv which won a Fringe First at the Edinburgh Festival, the ACGB continued to refuse subsidy. Eventually the company was selected by the British Council, a government organization whose mission was to send quality British cultural products abroad, for numerous international tours. These tours allowed the company to stay alive during the difficult years of the mid-1980s, though this also meant they were rarely producing in the UK. Ultimately, the company would lose its prominence, and though they continued producing into the new millennium, they never regained their former stature. Cherub’s story demonstrates that historiographic impact and importance should not be limited only to those who achieve conventional success, and this dissertation represents a more inclusive and less power-centered model for documenting and writing history. v CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Brian Edward George Cook GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene King’s College, London / Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, London, UK University of Denver, Denver, CO DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Philosophy, Theater Arts, 2012, University of Oregon Master of Arts, Text and Performance, 2005, King’s College, London / Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts Bachelor of Arts, Theater, 2000, University of Denver AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: History of British and American performance, popular culture and entertainment Alternative and counter-hegemonic theatre forms and practices Arts management Theatre practice and pedagogy PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Graduate Teaching Fellow, Department of Theater Arts, University of Oregon, 2008-2012. Head of Technical Theatre, Appel Farm Arts and Music Camp, 2006. Artistic Director, untitled productions, 2003-2006. GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: Norman Brown Graduate Fellowship. University of Oregon. 2011. Department of Theater Arts Alumni Scholarship. University of Oregon. 2011. Center for the Study of Women in Society Graduate Research Grant. University of Oregon. 2011. vi Department of Theater Arts Starlin Fellowship. University of Oregon. 2010. Department of Theater Arts Arnold, Isabelle, and Rupert Marks Graduate Scholarship. University of Oregon. 2009. PUBLICATIONS: Cook, Brian. “Achronicity: A Historical Installation for Burning Vision.” LMDA University Caucus Sourcebook Volume 4. Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas. August 2011. Cook, Brian. “‘They might not go blind’: Cherub’s Kinsmen and the Drama Officer’s Report.” Performing Arts Resources: A Tyranny of Documents: The Performing Arts Historian as Film Noir Detective 28 (2011): 314-21. vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thunderous applause is due to Theresa J. May and my adviser Sara Freeman for their willingness to ponder and reflect on my countless questions and over-philosophical ramblings over the past four years, as well as their consistently excellent advice on matters scholarly and otherwise. A huge thanks to the other members of my dissertation committee, Julie Hessler and John Schmor, for their diligent responses to the various chapters which immensely improved the quality of this work. Thanks also to the actors and staff of the Cherub Company - David Acton, Anthony Best, Paul Hegarty, Mary Keegan, Jeff Lewis, Vi Marriott, Vicki Ogden, Ben Ormerod and Anthony Wise – who were kind enough to sit down with me and share their experiences working with Cherub. My appreciation to the staffs of the V&A Archive, the National Archives UK, and especially that of the British Council, in particular Rebecca Hinton, for helping me in numerous ways to dig through mountains of archival materials to find the hidden gold within. The Center for the Study of Women in Society at the University of Oregon partially funded one research trip to the UK, which was invaluable in assuring the completion of my work. Finally, and most importantly, to Andrew Visnevski, I offer my endless gratitude for his entrusting me with the story (and the archive) of his company. Documenting Andrew’s work has confirmed my belief that maintaining a genuine and personal passion for art and performance, despite whatever negativity the world throws at you, can make all the difference in the world. viii To the family genealogists George C. Kalcich and Rudolph Kalcich, who first ignited my historical curiosity and my passion for documenting memories. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 Classification Within the Field of Cultural Production ......................................... 4 Potted History of the Arts Council......................................................................... 8 The Position of “Alternative” ................................................................................ 19 Symbolic Violence and Financial Subsidy ............................................................ 25 Undoing Order: Foucault’s Genealogy .................................................................. 31 Nota bene ............................................................................................................... 44 Notes ...................................................................................................................... 46 II. 1978-1980: SHAKESPEARE OR “JERK-OFF THEATRE” ................................. 51 Life Is a Dream and The Singing, Ringing Tree .................................................... 54 The Problem of The Two Noble Kinsmen .............................................................. 66 Cherub’s Kinsmen .................................................................................................. 73 A Masturbatory Fantasy ......................................................................................... 90 Notes ...................................................................................................................... 102 III. 1980-81: THE VORTEX OF STYLE.................................................................... 107 Complicating “Influence” ...................................................................................... 108 Into the Vortex ....................................................................................................... 121 Kafka’s THE TRIAL ............................................................................................... 131 Missteps ................................................................................................................. 144 Macbeth.................................................................................................................. 151 Notes ...................................................................................................................... 156 x Chapter Page IV. 1982-1989: FRAYING THE FRINGE .................................................................