Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1996 - 47

Anative of France, the circumstances of my life took me to the nited
States where eventually I did graduate studies in costume design. My
knowledge of the American theatre, theatrical companies or costllme
designers was very poor-with the exception of the Living Theatre of
Julian Beck and Judith Malina, which is relatively well known anlOng
theatre people in France.
In April, 1994, I had the opportunity to attend the USI1I conference in Nashville, the best way for me, as a designer, to be in contact
with the reality of American theatre. Sylvia Hillyard Pannell, then my
professor and advisor in costume design, introduced me to Irene Corey.
During this brief encounter, I canle totally under the charm of this very
chic and eleg:llll WOm:lll. At the time I did not know who she was, nor
did I know of her work as a costume designer. Since she was honored
with :lIl award the day I met her, I assumed her work must be of very
high quality and I was anxious to discover it. My desire was fulfilled the
next day when, as a student worker, I was assigned to the Irene Corey
exhibit of the Stage Exposition. Willie walking toward the exhibit, I was
imagining how beautifully, perfectly and professionally done would be
her costume renderings :lIld how it would be inspiring for me. What I
discovered was beyond my expectations.
Yes, beauty was there and the artistic quality of her work was irreproachable. Yet, her works were beyond beauty-strong, powerful,
magical. Something was coming out of her work, something that I could
not describe, but which hit me like a lightning strike :lIld left me
speechless. I had goose bumps allover my body.
My immediate reactions were: "so, here in the .S.A. there are
some people doing this kind of theatre," and "so Irene Corey worked
with people doing this kind of theatre." My reactions surprised me.
What did Ime:lll by "this kind of tlleatre"? I then realized that my emotions toward Irene Corey's costume renderings were exactly the same as
the ones which I experienced toward the works of Peter Brook and
Ariane 1nouchkine (respectively, directors of the Centre InteJ'llafional
de Creations Tbeatrales (CIC1) :lIld of the Tbeatre du Soleil, both
comp:lllies located in Fr:lllCe). Looking at Irene Corey's renderings
brought me back a decade when in 1984, as a seasonal worker at the
International Festival of Theatre in Avignon, FnUlce, I had the great opportunity to see Mnouchkine's Shakespearean cycle: Ricbard II, Hem:!,
W, and La Vuit des Rois (Twelftb Nigbt) , and in 1985, Brook's
Mababbarata. These were to be the last works by Brook :lIld
Mnouchkine that I saw, :lIld until this day, they remain my best theatrical
memories as well as the greatest emotions that I ever experienced in
theatre.
It was not the renderings of Irene Corey themselves but something
else that seemed to connect her work to the theatre of Peter Brook and
Ariane Mnouchkine. None of her renderings were designed for lUly of
the plays mentioned above. This "something else" started to become
more clear as I looked through the books on display at her booth: Tbe
Mask ofReali~)' and 1'be Face is a Canvas both by Irene Corey, lUldAn

Odysse)' ofMasquers: Tbe Eve/J'II/all Players by Orlin Corey. At this
time I discovered that Irene Corey first made her reputation designing
for The Evelyman Players, directed by her former husband, Orlin Corey.
Agreat number of photos from the plays produced during the long
existence of The Everym:lll Players were featured in tllese books, :lIld
my feelings toward tile photographs were exactly the sanle as toward the
renderings. As it is certain that the works of Chloe Obolensky (Peter
Brook's costume and scenic designer) :lIld the works of Jean-Claude
Barriera :lIld Nathalie Thomas (ArilUle Mnouchkine's costume designers) are the reflection of tlleir directors' particular theatrical philosophy, I started to wonder if ·'the something else" that I sensed about
Irene Corey's renderings was not also a reflection of a special directorial conception, not too far (rom that of Brook and Mnouchkine.

These observations, based on Nicole's personal experiences, intrigued SylVia J. Hillyard P:lI1I1ell, a longtime student of the Coreys'
work. Faurant and P:lI1I1ell agreed that it was time for the world to consider Irene Corey, in the greater world of theatre, especially in the world
of Brook :lIld Mnouchkine. Their collaboration produced the following
analysis.
Peter Brook, Ari:llle Mnouchkine and Orlin Corey, though far apart
geographically :lIld velY different in their theatre practice, present certain similarities in theatrical conceptions :lIld echo the sal11e influences.
"Like Copeau's, Mnouchkine's vision of theatre is based on tile ideal of
a collective company of equals working closely together over a long period of time, collaborating jointly on the creation of perfOrm:lllCes.'·
(Adri:lll Kiernander: Ariane Mnoucbkille alld tbe Tbeatre du Soleil,
p.4). The CICT, Theatre du Soleil, and The Evel)~ll:l1l Players are three
companies which mirror Copeau's aim in the way that they were based
exactly on this reflection. Orlin Corey, whose influence canle mainly
through Copeau's nephew Michel Saint Denis :lIld his Company des
Quinze, and Ari:llle Mnouchkine went a step further in their development of Copeau's aim. They both "... have had a parental role within the
group, and have tended to assemble companies of actors who are
young, idealistic and dedicated." They "...also see the troupe functioning as a school for its members, who are not professional actors engaged for a specific production" (Kiernander; p.4).
In order to create the theatre they wanted, (ree of commercial
pressures, of rigid agendas of scheduled performances, these directors
needed companies in which evel)'one was dedicated to the art of theatre. Within the group no one individual prevails. There is no star, only
equals committed to bring their best to the troupe so that they are, as
Copeau put it in hisAppels "inventing their performances together'"
r ithin these companies "...evelyone-designers, composers,
technical consult:lllls, actors, directors-was intimately engaged in the
collective creative act.·· (Orlin Corey: All Odysse.J' ofMasquers: Tbe
EVeJ:,'lI/an Players, p.180). "The collective creative act" is nol a vain
idea for these three directors. Evel)' time they give voice to a newly peI~
formed work they refer to it as a collective work :lIld as ··we.·· Each production is the result of a genuine sharing of research, exploration, and
experimentation. Consequently, when the work is achieved, one cannot
dissociate what once had been a costume, a mask, a decor, :lIl actor, a
play; what remains is the whole art of theatre.
Directors such as Brook, Corey and Mnollchkine are not intel~
ested in a theatre of entertainment, where commercial criteria are more
important than artistic goals, nor are they interested in theatre which
TD&T

S I)RI NG

996

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1996