Yichud (Seclusion) refers to the separation between men and women in daily Orthodox Jewish life. The Yichud room is the place where the bride and groom go to be alone for the first time immediately following the wedding.

What goes on in there is a mystery. Do they talk? Eat? Consummate the marriage? It’s a mystery.

It’s the wedding day of Rachel and Chaim. Rachel’s a very observant Orthodox Jew but also fiercely independent with a mind of her own. Chaim is nervous, shy and prone to bouts of asthma when he gets stressed.

On this day he is wheezing, big time. This is an arranged marriage. They have had about four dates, all chaperoned. They have never been alone together. Their wedding day will be the first time.

Added to this Rachel has to contend with her unhappy mother, her wise-cracking father who picks that day to wonder what she sees in Chaim.

And Chaim has to cope with his nerves and his two brothers—both religious scholars with one more so than the other and their cruel sense of humour.

While Rachel and Chaim are beginning their life together there is respect, consideration, kindness, and the beginnings of love. Those around them are not so lucky. Rachel’s mother wants a divorce from her father, and he is trying everything to win her back. Chaim’s brothers are unhappy in their marriages.And one of them, a star scholar, is having a crisis of conscience.

Issues of philosophy, belief, faith and doing right and not necessarily what the Torah says are discussed.

No.

It’s to the great credit of playwright Julie Tepperman and her tremendous heart and intelligence, that she creates a world and characters we can all identify with.Her research is prodigious.

And by showing how deliberately isolated these people are, quoting scripture in Hebrew discoursing on the fine points of the Torah she is making a universal statement.

They are in their own world. When they get into the wider world they have difficulty. We all can identify with that. Tepperman has a wonderful sense of dialogue, a terrific sense of humour, and tremendous compassion for her characters and that religious tradition.

Coupled with that is a vibrant, lively moving production.

Julie Tepperman and her husband Aaron Willis are triple threat theatre artists. She not only wrote this, she also plays Rachel with spunk, wit and easy confidence.

Aaron Willis not only directs with style, using the whole theatre which is set to look like a synagogue, he also plays Chaim with sweet insecurity, sensitivity, and an open heart.

Yes.

Theatre Passe Muraille and the Harold Green Jewish Theatre were supposed to co-produce YICHUD (seclusion). But three months before opening night, the Harold Green Jewish Theatre Company withdrew when one of their major donors objected to the play.

This could have meant financial disaster and the cancellation of the production but for the resolve and tenacit of Andy McKim, Artistic Director of Theatre Passe Muraille, willing donors who stepped up to the plate, and a generous theatre community who also donated.

That was impressive.

Theatre reflects who we are as a society, the good and the not so good. If you don’t know that or can’t cope with that reality, you shouldn’t be involved in the theatre.

For the Harold Green Jewish Theatre Company to pull the funding at the last minute, smacks of censorship.

YICHUD (Seclusion) is a huge, impressive accomplishment for Julie Tepperman, Aaron Willis their gifted cast and the forward thinking Theatre Passe Muraille.

When theatre is done well, the result is glorious. YICHUD (Seclusion) is done very, very well. I recommend it, very, very highly.

Before I get to that, a word about Judith Thompson. She has been a leading playwright in this country for 30 years. Writing about the marginalized, the forgotten or ignored of society. Her first play, THE CRACKWALKER, had its premiere 30 years ago at the Backspace of Theatre Passe Muraille, so her production of SUCH CREATURES is a sweet homecoming. The play is composed of separate, yet interwoven monologues of two women. Blandy is a tough, street-smart 15 year old, and Sorele is a 50 something survivor of Auschwitz.

Blandy riffs on her mentally ill mother, that she’s in a special ed class but she’s not stupid, that she is the leader of a gang of equally tough girls, and Shakespeare. She’s been asked to be one of three students to play HAMLET in a class production and miraculously, she finds an affinity with the brooding Dane.

Brandy is brooding herself. A rival gang has threatened to kill her Because they think she squealed on someone.

Sorele is remembering those days of horror when she too was 15 and she and her sister were struggling to survive in Auschwitz. She and her sister were part of a group of girls who plotted and succeeded in blowing up a crematorium. Sorele tells us that her sister was tortured before she died, but never betrayed her colleagues. And now Sorele lives with the memories.

Shakespeare also factors in her life. When she was younger she played Miranda in the Tempest, who marveled on the wonder and beauty of mankind. Lots of irony in SUCH CREATURES, The title of which also comes from THE TEMPEST. So while the play is full of seemingly improbable situations, Judith Thompson’s beautiful writing and the creators of the production make it work.

First of all Judith Thompson’s dialogue is exquisite and true for both women. She nails the street jive and sass of Blandy. It’s full of dazzling, gritty imagery. It’s almost like a stream of consciousness, full of vigor, humour, edge and even sweetness.

And I absolutely believe that this disadvantaged kid would balk at learning Shakespeare but revel in how the character has had her experiences. With Sorele, the dialogue is thoughtful, tempered, eloquent and just as harrowing.

Her imagery is also compelling—she speaks of something spreading like “mushrooms through a garden”…we can see that. Both women are facing death in their own way. I’m not completely convinced that a young girl in a concentration camp facing death is the same as a young girl in modern Toronto facing death from a rival gang of bullies, but I appreciate Thompson’s argument. Brian Quirt’s direction is also fluid and gripping. Initially both women are in separate spaces. Blandy is on stage telling her story. Sorele begins hers sitting in the audience. As the play progresses their movements bring them closer and closer until they are almost side by side.

And the performances are nothing short of stunning.

As Blandy, Michaela Washburn has shafts of blazing red streaked through her black hair. It looks like flames of fire. She shifts and twitches like a hyperactive kid. She’s both formidable and fragile. And Washburn’s facility with the language, the jive of it, is a thing of beauty. As Sorele, Maria Vacratsis is elegant, almost regal, quiet and when the time comes hard, driven and brutal. Both actresses give towering performances.

As I said, I’m not totally convinced that the experiences of both women are equitable, but as always, Judith Thompson shines a light on two women and their lives that we might not have considered. She burst onto the scene 30 years ago With all guns blazing, and she’s still firing on all cylinders.

Michael Healey is an actor/playwright. As an actor he’s just finished playing George W. Bush in STUFF HAPPENS. As a playwright he is most known for his hugely successful play, THE DRAWER BOY. Many of Healey’s recent plays deal with weighty issues such as relationships, politics, what happens when good people do bad things and COURAGEOUS continues in that vein.

Three couples meet at a justice of the peace. Two of the couples want to get married. The first couple is young and bickering. The bride has nothing good to say about her groom except that he’s stupid. He is very smart when it comes to avoiding getting any kind of job. Another couple arrives—early. They’re a gay couple... and they soon learn the person who’s supposed to marry them isn’t available at the moment. But they’re in a rush and the only justice of the Peace who can marry them refuses, because his religion does not recognize gay marriage.

This sets off a chain of events... where one of the men, a sharp lawyer wanting to be married sues the Justice of the Peace, citing his rights have been violated. Healey also deals with issues of unfairness in which the dim husband is about to be passed over for a job in favour of a refugee. The employer will get incentive money if he employs the refugee rather than the dim husband, So the play is rife with explosive issues.

To a point.

In Act I there is a crackling debate between the lawyer and Tom, the Justice of the Peace that he’s suing. Issues of The Charter of Rights, and a person’s right to marry who he wants are examined. Tom says that he’s entitled to freedom of his religion and beliefs and that means he can’t marry this gay couple. The ideas are well thought out, sound and the scene goes like the wind because of the splendid acting of Patrick Galligan, the ruthless lawyer and Tom Barnett as the thoughtful Justice of the Peace. In Act II the question of a Canadian losing a job to a refugee is dealt with.

And it becomes even more interesting because the the dim husband the Canadian, is lazy and avoids work, while the refugee will do any kind of work, and do it well. But while I appreciate Healey’s intent to examine big issues, and liked some of his arguments, I have problems with his play.

I think he sacrificed important smaller details for the big picture. Such as, the young couple in Act I is always bickering. The bride has nothing good to say about her dim groom. He’s unemployed and lazy. Why is she marrying him?

With the gay couple the Lawyer can’t or won’t reschedule his wedding—he’s double booked the wedding—with lunch with a client. What’s the urgency to get married? Again, he and his lover are always bickering. Why are they getting married?

Also, whether in life or in theatre, we should always consider the source of a statement. I would trust a thoughtful, articulate person’s opinion sooner than a shiftless waster who talks a good streak.

So we have Todd, the dim husband who is also the narrator for Act II. He gives a funny, perverse speech about why he collects EI and doesn’t look for a job. But I don’t believe a word this guy says, either as the character or the narrator, even though he is acted beautifully by the loose-limbed Brandon McGibbon.

I think Michael Healey is on really thin ice here. COURAGEOUS is a play full of ideas. It’s helpful if they are given by credible characters.

Definitely Michael Healey fans, and there are a lot of them. The play is full of big ideas given the Healey treatment, with his loopy sense of humour. The cast is terrific and the piece is well directed by Richard Rose.

Initially nothing. The thing that connected these two shows for me was that I really like the theatre companies producing them. The Lorraine Kimsa Theatre for Young People consistently produces thoughtful, quality theatre for young people of all ages. THE PRINCESS AND THE HANDMAIDEN is a case in point. With all the ‘grownup’ theatre going on, the Lorriane Kimsa gets shoved out of being mentioned.

I wanted to address that.

NECESSARY ANGEL Theatre Company, producing HAMLET does edgy, bold productions that turn convention on its ear. But after seeing both shows, they have more in common than I thought.

Both have taken the source material and either expanded, revised, refined or cut it to its bare bones. The results are illuminating in both cases with some moments of exasperation, and that’s not a bad thing either.

It’s based on a Grimm’s Brothers Fairy tale Called THE GOOSE GIRL. A simple story of a Princess who is sent to the next kingdom to marry the prince. Her handmaiden goes with her. On the way the handmaiden gets fed up with waiting on the Princess and forcibly switches places with her. Composer/lyricist/writer, Leslie Arden, has fleshed out the slight story, and expanded it to be a sophisticated tale of friendship, awakening of responsibility, loyalty, tenacity and being true to oneself. It’s a love story on many levels, but it doesn’t finish with a conventional ending. Rather it has a really smart, mature ending, and Arden’t lyrics and music are lush, complex, witty and sophisticated.

You may well ask. Necessary Angel Theatre Company has engaged guest director Graham McLaren to direct this. The play is slashed to an intermissionless two hours and dwells on the intrigue and sinister aspects of the play.

This is a hard world of aggressive sex, drugs and violence. It does not seem out of place for a play in which the restless ghost of a murdered king compels his son Hamlet to seek revenge. It doesn’t seem out of place when you know the brother of the former king killed him, and then married his brother’s wife. And the way they go at it, they were probably having an affair to begin with.

Sometimes the poetry and details are sacrificed to create this violent, misogynistic, incestuous world. But on the whole, the adaptation works.

THE PRINCESS AND THE HANDMAIDEN has real charm because the cast is first rate. As the Princess, Regan Thiel is kind, wide-eyed, sings beautifully and brings out the beating hear of the Princess.

As the Handmaiden, Tracy Michailidis is edgy, brash, pushy, and ultimately reformed. Allen MacInnis directs with a fine sense of humour and compassion.

It looks like a fair tale land with lots of visual jokes -- there’s a flock of sheep that sing... the production does really well.

As for HAMLET, director/designer Graham McLaren sets out to show us that violent world and he has achieved it. There is nothing polite about it. When Hamlet and Laertes have their fight at the end, it’s not with swords as per usual -- it’s with knives.

The way it’s staged it looks like two aggressive gladiators fighting to the death. Again, the cast is first rate with Gord Rand playing Hamlet like a moody, prowling, panther.

Yes but with conditions. THE PRINCESS AND THE HANDMAIDEN is recommended in the program for kids 5-16. Not on your life do you take a 5 year old to this. The lyrics are too complicated for anybody under 13 to 16. Sorry, but I don’t think a kid knows what 'Ennui,' 'estranged' or 'morose' means.

I saw this with an audience of 8 year olds and they were fidgetting... too complex and complicated. PERFECT for Teenagers and their parents.

As for HAMLET, this is not for those who like their Shakespeare traditional. This is for people who are up for their theatre being rough, challenging, and in your face.

They won’t be disappointed.

Simple. The play takes place in the month of August, in Osage County, the largest county in the state of Oklahoma. No mystery, no subtext just when and where. The what and the who are the aspects that make this a fascinating play.

Written by Tracy Letts, an actor/playwright With the illustrious Steppenwolf Company of Chicago. It’s about the Weston family in which Beverly Weston is the patriarch. In a wonderful first scene, he sets up The workings and failings of the family to a young woman he’s hired to take care of his sick wife, Violet. Violet has cancer of the mouth -- as the play progresses, we see how ironic that is. She is also addicted to painkillers of every description.

Then Beverly disappears.

The family is called to rally around Violet. Three daughters with various partners, husbands, a sister and brother-in-law gather. We realize why the daughters have scattered and Only one has stayed in the area.

Violet is a horror. Vindictive, manipulative, acid tongued and very, very funny.

First and foremost the writing is brilliant.

It’s been called LONG DAY’S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT for the 21st century. Tracy Letts writes characters, especially Violet, who take no prisoners. You see where she is coming from and how that bite has affected her children.

Letts knows how to get under the skin of characters who lash out through frustration and desperation. We don’t excuse them but we recognize them. His dialogue crackles like a raging forest fire. When Violet lobs her first explosive remark, you think, “fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night.”

The play full of surprises, all of which are credible. The play is deeply, deeply funny, the language is raw and defines and confines the characters. There is not one false note in the play or the production.

The production is electrifying and Estelle Parsons as Violet is one of the reasons why. She is both diminutive and dangerous. She is like a coiled cobra — watchful for any sign of weakness in her victims, ready to strike. She’s mesmerizing.

As Barbara, the oldest daughter, Shannon Cochran matches Parsons barb for barb. Zingers whiz through the air like darts and unerringly hit their mark. Cochran’s performance is full of invention, nuance and subtlety.

The cast is an ensemble in the true sense of the word. It’s is a cohesive whole of acting artists at the top of their game.

Director Anna D. Shapiro guides her large cast with meticulous attention to detail.

Yes, and she deserves everyone of them. Emotions carefully build in this production thanks to her direction. Some characters prowl with pent up energy others slump on a couch dead-eyed, a subtle sigh and a roll of the eyes conveys one character’s boredom with the story of another.

Shapiro stages the 13 characters with a keen sense of their place in the story. Not one movement is false. Not one reaction is anything but true.

The result is a terrific production.

AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY deserves every award it has won. This production lives up to it in every way. If you love theatre, you can’t miss this. It’s a gift for anyone who loves their theatre meaty, gripping and exhilarating.

They deal with sexuality, relationships -- usually gay issues. In UNIDENTIFIED HUMAN REMAINS AND THE TRUE NATURE OF LOVE, it dealt with couplings and partings with a touch of serial killing to heighten the intensity of the play. In the past, Brad Fraser’s characters tended to be abrasive, in your face and took no prisoners. But with his last play—COLD MEAT PARTY and this latest one—TRUE LOVE LIES, I’ve also detected a shift and a wider view in his focus. Fraser’s characters still are forceful and direct but I’m noting a maturity in them, a generosity Of spirit, even an open-heartedness. Certainly in TRUE LOVE LIES.

In TRUE LOVE LIES Fraser is looking at the modern family, love, compassion, consideration and the cost of honesty.

Kane and his wife Carolyn appear happily married With two children. Madison is their smarmy, independent, unemployed 21 year old daughter. Royce is their troubled teenaged son. But Kane and Carolyn have kept a secret from their children -- before they were married, Kane had a relationship with David, now a successful restaurant owner. The secret is revealed when David returns to the city from New York, to open a restaurant and by coincidence Madison applies for a job there.

When David recognizes her name and Madison says that Kane is her father, David seems startled and doesn’t hire her. Madison tells her parents this and the truth comes out; in those days Kane was experimenting sexually. He’s not gay he says, echoed by Carolyn, but this sets in motion all sorts of upheaval in the family, and the revealing and concealing of secrets.

I think the title is a wonderful play on words and ideas. Does true love mean we lie about the truth to protect our loved ones, or ourselves? Is there a set of proper lies that comes with true love? I love that Brad Fraser gets me thinking about all that.

Nothing of the sort. He establishes the point and lets the audience make the judgement.

Is it possible for Kane to be a married gay man? Is it possible he was experimenting when he had a relationship with David and really is straight? What must Carolyn think about the reappearance of David?

Brad Fraser has written much of his dialogue lke a series of one-liners zinging threw the air. It’s almost like stand-up between characters. That got me thinking about why. But what they say is witty, wise -- very, very funny, and when I least expected it, tremendously moving.

When a character says, “I don’t want to be discarded,” we can empathize. When Royce pleads: “make me not ugly," we ache for that kid. I think what looks like flip dialogue Vs. wise thoughts plays up the seriousness of what Fraser is writing about.

Fraser does not end his play neatly with a happy bow at the end; He ends it properly, honestly.

In spades. Fraser directs his own play—usually I frown on that... who will tell the writer to cut, who will tell the director to hold back? But this is a play with no fat or padding. Fraser has an exemplary cast. For all that rat-atat delivery you are never in doubt that this is a caring family. The parents fret about their kids and worry about when they aren’t home and it’s late.

And Kane and Carolyn adore each other passionately, especially as played by Ashley Wright as Kane and Julie Stewart as Carolyn—people might recognize her from THE BORDER. As David, David Keeley is strapping attractive conflicted and wise in an adult way. And he not above showing Royce the error of his ways with a little tough love. Brad Fraser had me engaged for all of it. He had me thinking about his choices of writing, about what characters said and why. He got me thinking about this huge subject of love, family, lying to protect loved ones and telling the truth for the same reasons.

Brad Fraser shakes us up again for all the right reasons. I love this play and the production. I can’t recommend TRUE LOVE LIES highly enough.