|
 |
|
|
|
|
AGE OF AROUSAL and SERIOUS MONEY
Shaw Festival
The Shaw Festival of course presents the plays of Shaw, his contemporaries and those dealing with the time of Shaw. Artistic Director, Jackie Maxwell isn't satisfied with this challenge, she has taken it upon herself to champion a visible "minority": Women. She has programmed plays by women, directed by them often about them. The last two openings at the Shaw Festival—AGE OF AROUSAL and SERIOUS MONEY –cover all the bases. Our theatre critic Lynn Slotkin is here to explain.
Hello Lynn. So tell us how these two plays cover all the bases?
AGE OF AROUSAL is written by Linda Griffiths, a fixture of the Canadian theatre scene. Directed by Jackie Maxwell.
It takes place in 1885 and is about Mary Barfoot, an ex-suffragette, and Rhoda Nunn, Mary's partner in business and life. They run a secretarial school for women so they can be independent of men for their livelihood, and self-sufficient.
Rhoda describes herself as "odd" which can mean many things— odd person out, not conforming to the norm of what is expected. Odd in her sexual preference. Certainly the subject matter of AGE Of AROUSAL is startling. We rarely see plays set in the Victorian era dealing with lesbians. Sex plays heavily in the play. Mary loves Rhoda, and a dashing man lusts after Rhoda as well, among others we learn. And as the characters deal with their gush of thoughts, they voice them in what Griffiths calls 'thought speak.'
SERIOUS MONEY is written by British writer, Caryl Churchill and directed by Eda Holmes and is a bit off the beaten track.
How so?
It's part of programming that is outside the Shaw mandate but the plays are by writers who like Shaw, provoke. And if Caryl Churchill is anything she is provocative.
SERIOUS MONEY is set in London and is about the greed of stock brokers, shady investment bankers and corporate raiders. Sounds like today? It was written in 1987 and Churchill was writing about the excess of the 80s (times don't change, just the amount of money.) And it's done in rhyming couplets. The language is raw, hard-hitting and shocking. Often characters talk at the same time. Be brave, keep up or duck. There is nothing tame about either play.
Are the productions as wild as the plays seem to be?
They are but in different ways. This is the third production of AGE OF AROUSAL that I've seen and it's the best of the lot. Jackie Maxwell and her designer Sue LePage have created an elegant production. It's a world of grit and light, suggesting enlightenment, which is what Mary and Rhoda had worked for. The staging is like a dance, sometimes wary, sometimes swirling, in which the innocent as well as the experienced are sucked up into the swirl.
The cast is uniformly strong. As Mary, Donna Belleville has a gravitas, a confidence and yet an uncertainty when it comes to Rhoda. As Rhoda, Jenny Young continues to go from strength to strength— there is a steely maturity to Rhoda thanks to this fine performance. And I have to mention Sharry Flett as one of the lost women who comes to Mary and Rhoda for help. Her character is full of desperation, and grace. The performance is totally compelling.
And SERIOUS MONEY, should be completely different.
And it is. Director Eda Holmes has created the beautifully dressed, but frenzied, volatile world of the London stock exchange, or any one for that matter. This world is ruthless. Characters look relaxed with their hands in their well tailored pants pockets, but they are mentally shooting bullets at their opponents. These are people who smile without a shred of warmth. Characters charge around yelling their buy and sell orders. It's the best ensemble work I've seen anywhere. The whole group chants a song at the end of Act I that escalates to a fevered pich, ending in a shouted word that pins you to the seat.
And no, I can't say the word on radio.
Graeme Somerville plays a head Honcho of a company, using a soft voice, a sharp stare and control. As a South American moneyed woman with shady connections, Nicola Correia-Damude is full of confidence, sensuality and is dangerous.
It's a terrific cast and performance. But you have been warned about how hard hitting it is. AGE OF AROUSAL is forceful in a different, gentler way, and both are worthy of people who want to be challenged and provoked.
AGE OF AROUSAL plays at the Shaw Festival until Oct. 10.
SERIOUS MONEY plays until September 12.
Two Gentlemen of Verona, King of Thieves, For the Pleasure of Seeing Her Again, and Dangerous Liaisons.
Stratford Theatre
The summer might be winding down but the Stratford Shakespeare Festival is still going strong, with four recent openings. These plays cover the gamut of interests—from Shakespeare, musicals, comedy and a chilling drama from pre-Revolutionary France. Our theater critic, Lynn Slotkin, has seen them all and is here to tell us what to see and perhaps miss of the four.
Hello Lynn. There certainly is a lot to chose from with these four. Give us a brief idea of what each is about.
THE TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA by Shakespeare is about two friends, Valentine and Proteus, and their search for love.
FOR THE PLEASURE OF SEEING HER AGAIN, by Michel Tremblay, our leading French Canadian playwright, is his sweet, funny remembrance of his irascible, loving, larger than life, Mother.
KING OF THIEVES is a musical with book and lyrics by George F. Walker—our leading English Canadian playwright—music by John Roby. It's about low-life thieves and high flying shady bankers and everybody sings about it.
And finally DANGEROUS LIAISONS by Christopher Hampton. Set in pre-Revolutionary France about a group of bored aristocrats who amused themselves with their sexual adventures, sometimes praying on the innocent and virtuous.
So it's a really interesting cross-section of choice, using three of the four Stratford theatres.
They all seem so different. Are there any similarities that connect them?
I think the cross section is interesting enough to connect them. The Stratford Shakespeare Festival certainly is trying to move forward—putting Shakespeare front and centre. The festival is branching into commissions with a vengeance—commissioning the musical KING OF THEIVES.
There are other plays in development. And I like the attitude of paying respect to Canadian playwrights, certainly with George F. Walker, And Tremblay's play, FOR THE PLEASURE OF SEEING HER AGAIN.
But I have found in the last few years that the quality of productions is a huge stumbling block. In two cases of the four shows I'm talking about today, the quality is less than adequate. And in the other two the quality is stellar. I'm glad of the choice. I just wish the productions were better.
You generally like to get the bad news out of the way, so start there.
I think both TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA, and KING OF THEIVES are a mess. With TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA director Dean Gabourie has set the play as a back stage comedy of a theatre company. But in order to make his concept clear he inserts a little scene from Othello and a song and dance number at the beginning, and never again during the play. If you have to do that then the concept doesn't work. The pace and lack of humour are deadly. I am grateful for the acting of Dion Johnstone and Gareth Potter as Valentine and Proteus and a few others. But a lot of the rest of the acting falls under the category of HAM.
With KING OF THIEVES George F. Walker gives a modern spin on THE BEGGAR'S OPERA without its bite or single minded clarity. The story is a mess of confusion. The music is forgettable. It takes place in a cabaret with a narrator, why? The actual King of Thieves, seems a secondary lead to the narrator. Why? I liked the performances of Sean Cullen as the narrator and Evan Builiung as Mac, but this whole show is a missed opportunity.
And now for the good news?
FOR THE PLEASURE OF SEEING HER AGAIN, is a pleasure from top to bottom. Michel Tremblay's memory of his late mother was as a roaring, colourfully verbose power-house of a woman. And as he says at the beginning he would give anything for the pleasure of seeing her again. The play is his memories of her from the time he's 10 to adulthood. The writing is sharp, so funny, and moving. As the mother, Lucy Peacock is vibrant, energetic, tender and nuanced. As Tremblay, Tom Rooney is believable whether he's a curious 10 year old, or a loving adult son. It's never gratuitous. And it's beautifully directed by Chris Abraham.
DANGEROUS LIAISONS by Christopher Hampton is about rich aristocrats behaving badly and we can't take our eyes off them. The Marquise de Merteuil and the Vicomte de Valmont, once lovers, think nothing of manipulating and destroying reputations and people. She wagers he can't seduce a known virtuous married woman. He takes the wager with terrible results.
The production is fabulous, thanks to director Ethan McSweeney. Very smart choices. A wonderful set by Santo Loquasto. The best I've seen from him. And a stellar cast led by Seana McKenna as the dangerous and seductive Marquise, and Tom McCamus as the charming, seductive Vicomte.
Two wonderful productions. See both of them as soon as possible.
TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA plays at the Studio Theatre until Sept. 19.
FOR THE PLEASURE OF SEEING HER AGAIN, plays at the Tom Patterson Theatre until September 26.
KING OF THIEVES plays at the Studio Theatre until September 18.
And DANGEROUS LIAISONS plays at the Festival Theatre until Oct. 30
South Pacific
Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts until September 5, 2010.
Touring productions of Broadway musicals are nothing new to Toronto audiences. But the production of SOUTH PACIFIC, that opened last night at the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts, is something special for many reasons. Our theatre critic Lynn Slotkin is here to explain.
Hello Lynn. Before we get to those special details, briefly, what is SOUTH PACIFIC about?
World War II. It's the beautiful 1949 Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, based on the novel—Tales of the South Pacific, by James A. Michener. About a group of military men and women on an island in the South Pacific, anxiously waiting for their orders to get into the war.
There are various love stories, but the main one is between Ensign Nellie Forbush from Little Rock Arkansas, and suave Frenchman, Emile de Becque. Nellie learns a startling secret about Emile that has her questioning their relationship. It is a musical about love, racism, prejudice and finally wisdom.
What is so special about this production?
Most important is that it's a touring production of the hugely successful Broadway revival, still playing at Lincoln Center Theater. Bartlet Sher directed the Broadway revival and does the same for this touring production. He won a Tony Award for it and you can tell why in this exquisite production. Many of the same Broadway creative team are involved with this touring production. That's so rare with touring productions of Broadway shows.
The Toronto venue is also noteworthy. SOUTH PACIFIC is playing at the Four Seasons Centre For the Performing Arts—i n other words, our Opera/Ballet house. When I heard that, I was concerned. Musicals are always overly microphoned. I wondered how would this musical do in an opera house known for its fabulous acoustics which doesn't need micing. But after seeing the production last night I needn't have worried.
I won't ask you to compare the New York and touring production, but how did this production do?
On the whole, wonderfully well. Barlett Sher is such a gifted director. He has captured Nellie and Emile's initial awkwardness with each other as they realize their true feelings. They circle each other, they often try to keep their distance, which might suggest a slow pace but it's not. The musical says a lot about narrow minded attitudes, such as mixed marriages. Something Nellie learns to fight against. But Sher takes this further and illuminates the racism some of the soldiers experience with each other.
There are three black soldiers in the background in the chorus. They are always separate from the rest of the white soldiers. It's subtle but resoundingly obvious. If they do interact with white soldiers they are occasionally met with mimed condescension. Stunning. Bartlett Sher makes us look harder. But before everything there is the music, which this stellar cast handles with ease.
Tell us about that stellar cast.
They get to sing such wonderful songs as: A Cockeyed Optimist, Some Enchanted Evening, There is Nothing Like a Dame, Younger than Springtime, Bali Ha'i. And these are just some of the hits in Act I.
As Nellie Forbush, Carmen Cusack is innocent, kookie, sweet and graceful. She has a belting voice that can also capture the subtleties and softness of the music.
As Emile, Jason Howard is strapping, suave, engaging, and sings like a dream. It's a beautiful performance—an aside-- Mr. Howard is married. He wears a wedding ring. He's playing a character who is not married. Mr. Howard, please take off your wedding ring for the performance, your wife will still love you.
I told you Bartlett Sher makes us look harder. This cast from top to bottom is top notch, And so is this production of SOUTH PACIFIC. I urge you to see how terrific a touring Broadway production can be. This is it.
SOUTH PACIFIC plays at the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts until September 5.
Summerworks
Various venues until August 15, 2010.
Toronto is alive with the sound of theatre. Since it's August that means the annual SUMMERWORKS Theatre festival is upon us. Our inexhaustible theatre critic Lynn Slotkin is here to tell us of the highlights.
Hello Lynn. For those who might not be familiar with Summerworks, what is it?
It's a 10 day festival now in its 20th year, that started as an indie theatre festival, but has expanded to include various musical offerings, interesting walking tours, and art exhibits. For our purposes, I'm focusing on the theatre.
Over the 10 days about 45 one act plays are presented at various venues. Since Thursday I've seen 18. Many of the companies are local, Some are from across the country. Some are written and or performed by experienced artists, some by novices. All the shows have a common thread — the selection of the plays is by a jury, unlike the FRINGE where the selection is by lottery.
I love the fearlessness and rough and ready aspect of the whole of Summerworks.
With so much to chose from, how do you decide what to see?
I would pick a production of an original work first over one of an existing play. Often it's an artist that will grab my attention, be it an actor, a playwright or director. Sometimes it's the description of the play in the Summerworks brochure that's intriguing.
Once you've made your choice, what are you looking for in the production?
I'm looking for a compelling voice of the playwright, is the story interesting? Is there an intriguing thought in a play? I'm looking to be shaken, stirred, unsettled, moved, or driven to laughing. If it's a performer, or director, whose work I know of course I'm hoping that what drew me to that person's work in the first place, will draw me again.
Ok. You've seen 18 shows. What were the highlights?
I have five; in alphabetical order.
HAUNTED HILLBILLY is presented by Side Mart Theatrical Grocery from Montreal. It's a musical adaptation of the novel Haunted Hillbilly about a singer who dreams of fame. He comes under the drugging influence of a mysterious wheelchair-bound clothes designer. It is wildly inventive from the lyrics to the direction to the performances. Irreverent, hilarious and wonderfully theatrical.
I WAS BARBIE, written and performed by Nina Arsenault. Ms Arsenault is fascinating. She was born a man and after 60 operations and many silicone Injections, is not a woman. She used a store mannequin as her idea of perfection. I WAS BARBIE recalls Arsenault being hired to be the living representation of BARBIE, the doll, on BARBIE's 50th birthday, during Fashion Week in 2009. The show is full of caustic wit, perception, barbed observations and cupcakes. I love being unsettled by Ms Arsenault— a woman who idealizes a plastic creation but wants to be taken seriously as a living person.
That's two, how about the other three?
KAYAK by Jordan Hall is a thoughtful play about a clinging mother trying to hold on to her son, and the son and his protesting girlfriend who try to break away. Rosemary Dunsmore as the mother, gives a gripping, heartbreaking performance, proving why she is one of this country's best actresses.
REDHEADED STEPCHILD is written and performed by Johnny Walker (yes that's his real name.) About Nicholas, a 12 year old 'sweet disaster' who has to cope with having red hair and all the attendant teasing, meanness and bullying that entails, plus dealing with an uninterested stepmother, and being a loner. The writing is sharply observed, the performance is wonderful as is the inventive direction. A terrific, moving, very, very funny production.
RIDE THE CYCLONE, presented by Atomic Vaudeville, the off-the-wall company from Victoria, BC. It's a wacky, hilarious, almost surreal tale of a group of kids in a choir who rode a ride called the Cyclone at the fair, there was an accident and they died. They all come back to sing about their odd, weird lives. A buoyant production, energetically performed.
And I have some honourable mentions.
What are they?
THE KREUTZER SONATA is Leo Tolstoy's short story, adapted and performed by Ted Dykstra, against a backdrop of Beethoven's Kreutzer Sonata. About a jealous man obsessing on his wife and his belief that she is cheating on him. Dykstra is a revelation in this intense performance.
ME HAPPY by Amy Lee Lavoie and Matthew Mackenzie—about a convict in Newfoundland who mail orders cliff climbing shoes from a lonely woman in Ireland. Full of poetic, fantastical, imagery with two tantalizing performances by Chala Hunter and Alex McCooeye.
(Lack of time prevented me from mentioning): OR, by Liz Duffy Adams about Aphra Behn the 17th Century playwright, Nell Gwyn and King Charles II who had affairs with both of them. Raucous wit done at warp speed. Terrific performances. So all in all I had a grand time at Summerworks, as I always do.
SUMMERWORKS continues at various venues until August 15.
A Month in the Country
Young Centre for the Performing Arts until August 7.
Spending a month in the country seems an idyllic way of passing these hot, lazy days of summer. Unless of course it's the play A MONTH IN THE COUNTRY, in which the days seem more fraught than relaxed. Our theatre critic Lynn Slotkin is here to tell us of the goings on in the play.
Hello Lynn. Give us a little background about the play.
It was written by Russian novelist-playwright Ivan Turgenev who lived from 1818 to 1883. He was not quite a contemporary of Chekhov, who lived from 1860 to 1904, but certainly they both saw the quirky humour of every day life in Russia.
We join the play after the characters have spent most of the month in this pastoral setting. Natalya is a wife and mother in her 30s, beautiful, graceful and in amorous turmoil. He has a young son and also a ward who is a budding young woman. Natalya's husband is sweet but preoccupied. There is Rakitin a family friend in his own amorous turmoil of sorts. Then there is Belyaev, the young son's tutor, who has his own amorous angst, a family doctor and various other family members and hangers on round out the group of characters, all with their own agitated emotions. So the atmosphere is fraught.
With all this love in the air, why is the atmosphere fraught?
Because almost none of the love one person has for another is requited. Rakitin loves Natalya, who is only amused by him. Natalya in turn is besotted with the much younger tutor, Belyaev, and feels guilty and giddy at the same time. Natalya's ward is in love with Belyaev but he doesn't feel the same way about her. In fact when Natalya confesses her love to Belyaev, he admits his feelings for her and feels he must leave because of the awkward situation, which adds more turmoil to the household. And when Natalya's pre-occupied husband realizes his wife's feelings for the tutor, well matters keep spiraling out of control. This being a Russian play, it's all complicated and hilarious, and in the hands of the Soulpepper folks, it's very contemporary and Canadian.
How so?
The adaptation is by Susan Coyne and Laszlo Marton. Coyne is a wonderful actress-writer of SLINGS AND ARROWS fame among others. I figure the tight writing and zinger lines and images are her contribution. And Laszlo Marton brings a European sensibility. He also directs the production.
The adaptation sets the play in the modern day, with one foot in Russia and the other in Muskoka. Belyaev travels in the house by skateboard. A tire is used as a make-shift swing. And the clincher, that this is Canadian, eh, is that the old fashioned fridge is filled with nothing but beer.
And how was the production?
I think Laszlo Marton's direction certainly captures the sense of lazy days of summer. There is a sense of leisure. But in a character's stillness is the craziness of inner agitation as people are either attracted to or pushed away by the person who didn't return the affection. Marton also has a lovely sense of image. Natalya leaning against the fridge, with the light pouring out of the open door, is an elegant picture of a woman who is lost to love and doesn't know what to do. Sometimes he does get carried away with his fussiness to create yet another image. At the end hundreds of pieces of paper blow out from the wings, followed by a beach ball. Too much, not necessary. The performances are dandy though.
Tell us about them.
It's a strong Soulpepper cast. As Natalya, Fiona Byrne is radiant, poised and overwhelmed by her emotions. As Belyaev, Jeff Lillico is boyish, charming and loose-limbed. As the doctor, Joseph Ziegler is priceless when he proposes to a meek, shy woman played by Nancy Palk, who is also priceless. The proposal is matter of fact, devoid of affection. He says they are well suited so they should marry. He could be talking about tiling a bathroom. But Ziegler says more by adjusting his glasses, And Palk creates more wonders with an open-mouthed stare, than many actors do with pages of dialogue.
I like the production. Worth a visit.
A MONTH IN THE COUNTRY plays at the Young Centre for the Performing Arts until August 7.
An Ideal Husband, The Cherry Orchard, One Touch of Venus, Harvey & The Women
Shaw Festival until October.
Click here to hear a Festival Preview!
The summer theatre season began officially last week with the opening of five productions at the Shaw Festival. Is there a common thread to them? Were there any surprises? Disappointments? Cause for celebration? Our theatre critic, Lynn Slotkin has seen the shows and is here to tell us about them.
Hello Lynn. Since this is a roundup of the first set of openings, is there a thread that ties them together?
Yes.
In her program note, Artistic Director Jackie Maxwell says that comedy is the binding thread for her season, and that’s certainly obvious with these five shows: AN IDEAL HUSBAND, THE CHERRY ORCHARD, ONE TOUCH OF VENUS, HARVEY AND THE WOMEN. I would go further because there are various types of comedy at play here.
AN IDEAL HUSBAND is a play of wit and intrigue both political and psychological. THE CHERRY ORCHARD, is a typical example of a Chekhov comedy with serious undertones. HARVEY and the rarely done musical ONE TOUCH OF VENUS, are pure whimsy, with a strong centre. And THE WOMEN, is a biting satire about the ‘weaker’ sex showing how tough and formidable they can be. These plays are comedies of substance -- they are certainly not inconsequential or frivolous.
Briefly, what are these plays about?
AN IDEAL HUSBAND (Oscar Wilde) is about an honourable politician who is being blackmailed by a scheming but charming woman.
THE CHERRY ORCHARD, (Chekhov) is about a family in debt and denial who refuse to sell their beloved Cherry Orchard, which would get them out of debt. They are finally forced to sell and they are shocked when they find out who the buyer is.
ONE TOUCH OF VENUS, a musical by Kurt Weil, Ogden Nash and S.J. Perelman, is about a meek barber who brings a statue of Venus to life by putting a ring on her finger. Bits of The Stepford Wives, Desperate Housewives, and the rocky road to love.
HARVEY by Mary Chase, is about a man Elwood P. Dowd, who’s best friend is HARVEY, an imaginary six foot tall rabbit. Elwood drinks, but he is the most well-mannered considerate character in the play. So a comedy to be sure, but with a sobering message.
And finally THE WOMEN by Clare Booth Luce. A happily married woman finds out from her very good “friends” that her husband of 12 years is having an affair. She is urged to divorce him by these very good friends who don’t hesitate to back-bite, front-bite, and in the end, get their comeuppance.
Were there any surprises, disappointments and cause for celebration?
A bit of all three. I was surprised that no play by Shaw was in the first set of openings. This isn’t a criticism. I thought that a daring move by Jackie Maxwell. Something to keep us a bit off balance, and not complacent. We have to wait until July for the next set of openings for Shaw to make his appearance. And while I think the Shaw Festival Company is one of the strongest anywhere, I am always surprised when an actor I respect pulls out the stops and goes one step further. Or an actor I thought was ok gives a performance that is stellar. And that happened often with these openings.
Give us some brief details.
With AN IDEAL HUSBAND, Jackie Maxwell’s staging seemed like both grand opera and melodrama. Judith Bowden’s set was huge and dark for some scenes. I thought that odd considering the play. But I have such respect for their work they did get me to try and figure it out instead of rejecting it outright. That said, I do think the play is served. With Steven Sutcliffe giving an appropriately flamboyant performance of a character who seems silly but is anything but.
With HARVEY, I was hugely impressed with Peter Krantz as Elwood. He made Elwood courtly, gentle but smart. At times I thought I saw that rabbit.
In THE CHERRY ORCHARD, Benedict Campbell gives a fearless heartbreaking performance as the man who buys the cherry orchard.
ONE TOUCH OF VENUS is a surprise because it’s rarely done. It is an off the wall musical that does not conform to any of the rules of musical theatre, and it works. Some of the singing was questionable but performances by Mark Uhre and Deborah Hay are clever and funny and save.
And with THE WOMEN, it’s always a romp seeing so many woman characters behaving so badly, in such a stylish production.
So, some concerns about some productions but on the whole I thought it was a strong opening week at The Shaw Festival.
AN IDEAL HUSBAND, THE CHERRY ORCHARD, ONE TOUCH OF VENUS, HARVEY and THE WOMEN continue at the Shaw Festival until October.
Rock of Ages
Royal Alexandra Theatre
That's one of the songs from ROCK OF AGES, the rock musical that opened last night at the Royal Alexandra Theatre. Our theatre critic, Lynn Slotkin, is here to tell us about it.
Hello Lynn. Are your ears still ringing?
WHAT??!!!
It's a rock musical. You expect it to be loud and raucous. And ROCK OF AGES, is that and more.
What's the show about?
It's written by Chris D'Arienzo. It takes place in Los Angeles. Drew and Sherrie are 20-something innocents who come to Los Angeles, who meet, fall in love and share their dreams. He wants to be a rock and roll star. She wants to be an actress. They both work in the Bourbon Room, a rock and roll club on the Sunset Strip.
But there is trouble brewing. Developers want to tear down the sleazy, raunchy strip and replace it with a mall. That means the Bourbon Room is in danger of closing. Also, an oversexed rocker, with an extremely flexible pelvis, makes the moves on Sherrie and she falls for his charms so this puts a rift in the romance with Drew.
There are other problems along the way, but this being rock and roll, everything works out and they all sing about it very loudly at the end.
Does the music support the story, or is it separate?
A bit of both. ROCK OF AGES is a jukebox musical, which means the music comes from other sources, rather than being original for the show.
For example, MAMMA MIA! uses the music of ABBA to tell its story. JERSEY BOYS is really a concert musical of the hit tunes of Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons with vague bits of facts about the group along the way. With ROCK OF AGES, the music used is hard rock, and rock ballads, specifically from the early to mid 1980s.So the show uses hit tunes from such groups as Survivor, Journey and Whitesnake for example. There are 31 songs such as DON'T STOP BELIEVIN' the anthem of the show: HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT; ANY WAY YOU WANT IT... Sometimes a song would be used that is perfect to express the feelings of the character. Sometimes it's for camp value, other times it's part of a concert, because it takes place in a rock club, so songs would be sung as part of the club's program. Often it's for camp.
Ok you have a love story with serious overtones mixed with rock music. Is the result a success?
A dandy success. The story loopy and predictable, and the script is written with lots of winks to the audience. The characters let you know they're aware of the loopy plot and are in on the joke. The dialogue is witty, sometimes silly and even cartoonish mixed with the occasional serious bit. The show is quite clear when it's played for laughs and when it's not.
And this being Canada eh, there are a few Canadian jokes thrown in. A song advertising a certain brand of beer. A video of a man wearing a Toronto Maple Leaf's jersey—that got a loud cheer. But the overall result is pure foot-stomping, hand-clapping fun. It's directed with heart-racing buoyancy and choreographed with the same energy. And it stars performers who have proven themselves with other shows.
As Drew, Yvan Pedneault brings his powerful singing voice and sweetness to the role. People will remember him from WE WILL ROCK YOU. As Sherrie, Elicia MacKenzie also has a belter voice, a charming innocence but with grit and sex appeal. She was Marie in THE SOUND OF MUSIC. Lemme tell you folks, Maria has left the convent with this show. The rest of the cast is stellar.
Who would you recommend it to?
Of course it's for people who love rock and roll of the 1980s or any other time who want a loud, raucous show that will give them a rush and will leave them with a smile on their faces.
ROCK OF AGES plays at the Royal Alexandra Theatre. The theatre is wheelchair accessible.
Faith Healer & Waiting for the Parade
Young Centre for the Performing Arts until June 4 and May 29, 2010, respectively.
Two plays opened back to back this week: FAITH HEALER, about an Irish healer of the sick who might be a con man; and WAITING FOR THE PARADE, about five Canadian women coping with the Second World War as they wait for their men to come home. Initially they don't look like they have anything in common, but if anyone can find a similarity, it's our theatre critic Lynn Slotkin who's here to tell us about both.
Hello Lynn. Let's be specific, what are these plays about? First FAITH HEALER.
Written in 1979, by Brian Friel, a wonderful Irish writer. It's a play of four monologues given by three people. Frank is the Faith Healer, who travels from town to town in Wales, Scotland etc. to demonstrate his healing talents. He's a smooth talker, charming, sometimes he can heal the people and sometimes not. But he can always tell when nothing will happen. He is also spotty about the truth.
Grace is his wife or mistress depending on whose monologue you are listening to. She's devoted to Frank even though he treats her badly. She is haunted by incidents in their past and seeks solace in whiskey and prescribed pills.
Teddy is Frank's manager who organizes the tours and pays the bills. He's devoted to both Frank and Grace, but more so to Frank. Teddy is funny, overly theatrical and also burdened by troubling memories.
The same horrifying memory haunts all of them.
And what about WAITING FOR THE PARADE?
Written in 1977 by John Murrell, wonderful Canadian writer. Set in Calgary during WWII. About five women. Two have men in the war. Two have husbands who could not go for one reason or another. One is a woman who came to Canada from Germany when she was nine, is a Canadian and is ostracized because they consider her German. Her father is in a detention camp in Canada. We see how they cope, and deal with despair and worry. How they volunteer to help the war effort. And how they wait for that parade that will bring their men home.
So what binds these two plays?
They are both produced by Soulpepper, a company devoted to doing classic plays. They both deal in faith. In FAITH HEALER, it's obvious. The people who came to this faith healer had to have faith that he would heal them of their infirmities or deformities. In WAITING FOR THE PARADE, the women who wait at home, have to have faith that their men will come home. As with any good drama there has to be some turmoil, some angst, and there is plenty of that in both plays.
What about the productions themselves? What did you think of FAITH HEALER.
Over all I found it a bit uneven. Director Gina Wilkinson has a fine eye for the atmosphere and the world of the play... Gloom pervades. Chairs are stacked precariously as if a cyclone whipped them up.
But more control of two performances are in order. As Frank, Stuart Hughes was unsteady in his first monologue, which was unsettling since he's such a good actor. We can see the charm and confidence of Frank in the performance but missing is a sense of being haunted. As Teddy, Diego Matamoros certainly has the comedy down pat, but missing are clear clues that will lead us to the last few seconds where we see Teddy is also gripped with despair.
Finally Grace. Brenda Robins gives a towering performance of a woman, overcome with grief and desperation, and consumed with trying to cope. Whether she grips the table, or deliberately pushes her whisky bottle an arms length away, or breathes deeply to hang on, She draws you into this performance of a woman with an aching heart.
And what about Waiting for the Parade?
Terrific production. In director Joseph Ziegler's production there are soldier's uniforms above the stage to give us a visual reminder of who these woman are waiting for. It's a dream cast of five superlative actresses, that bring out the humour, heart, prickly natures and regret of these five fascinating characters. It is directed with sensitivity, detail, spareness and respect for the play.
Both FAITH HEALER and WAITING FOR THE PARADE are fine plays in their own right. While I did have concerns for FAITH HEALER, I have faith that as the play is performed, they will be addressed. So I recommend you see both FAITH HEALER and WAITING FOR THE PARADE.
FAITH HEALER plays at the Young Centre for the Performing Arts until June 4; WAITING FOR THE PARADE plays at the Young Centre for the Performing Arts until May 29. The theatre is wheelchair accessible.
If We Were Birds
Tarragon Theatre until May 23, 2010.
Summer festivals, such as the Fringe or Summerworks, have been a fertile breeding ground for very accomplished plays and productions that have gone on to have an expanded life. The Drowsy Chaperone comes to mind. The latest play to come out of Summerworks with an expanded life is IF WE WERE BIRDS. It takes a Greek myth and gives it a contemporary application. Our theatre critic Lynn Slotkin was at the opening last night and is here to tell us how this new version did.
Hi Lynn. You saw this play when it was first done at Summerworks. What was so appealing about it?
When it played at Summerworks in 2008 I picked it as one of my top five shows of the festival.
Playwright Erin Shields has taken a tale from OVID (Roman Poet) full of passion, emotion, lust, and drive, and given it an equally vivid contemporary application. It's a gripping story. And its scope and Shields' writing gifts made the story fly. The writing is both poetic and muscular, the images are vivid, breathtaking and heart-squeezing. The production takes you gently by the throat and doesn't let go or let you look away. All of that is repeated in this expanded version of the play.
What's the story?
It's based on the story of Procne and her younger sister Philomela.
They are daughters of a king who gives Procne as a prize bride to the war hero King Tereus of Thrace. Tereus wants to take his bride home with him. This means that Procne must leave her beloved sister Philomela. Time passes. Procne is happy with this macho, fighting man. But she pines for Philomela and begs Tereus to bring her for a visit.
He relents—he'd rather go to war-- "he breathes war" is one stunning line that describes him. And when he sees Philomela, he is smitten. Actually he's in lust but he contains himself until after the voyage. After that he can't help himself. He rapes her. He makes sure she won't talk and keeps her prisoner deep in the woods. The truth eventually gets out with terrible results.
It's from Greek mythology—no happy ending, but there is a magical ending.
How is the play made contemporary?
There is a chorus of five women who comment on the action and occasionally participate in it, and are watchful. They are witnesses to history.
One woman talks about being a victim of ethnic cleansing. Another talks about being raped by soldiers. And we realize it's the story of the conflicts of the 20th century. Erin Sheilds references Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Nanking, Berlin, and Bangladesh. But it could be any conflict and not just confined to those five.
Sheilds' language is immediate and contemporary but also mixes classical references. Philomela says that she was dropped like something half-eaten. That is such a vivid image and the play is full of them. The play is pulsing with life and emotions regardless of the harshness of the behaviour. Characters crawl towards life... stunning image again.
Does the production live up to your memories of the Summerworks version?
Yes and then some. It's directed again by Alan Dilworth, surely one of our most accomplished directors. He has such a clear, precise vision of how to realize the elegance, poetry and brutality of the play that is compelling. He has faith in the writing and lets that and his fine actors realize each second without fuss or embellishment.
Gripping scenes are not cluttered with musical underscoring—I'm so grateful for that. The acting as I said is very fine. As Procne, Philippa Domville evolves from an innocent young girl to a graceful sexual woman who knows how to tame her man. As Tereus, Geoff Pounsett is all swagger, confidence and force. And Tara Rosling as Philomela is shattering. She is a sweet girl turned into a wounded woman and then a revenging one.
It's a performance full of heart, brains, emotions and guts. When I saw the play in a shorter version at Summerworks I called it astonishing. It still is.
It's a theatrical gift and I can't recommend it highly enough.
IF WE WERE BIRDS plays at the Tarragon Theatre until May 23. The theatre is wheelchair accessible.
This Is What Happens Next
Berkeley Street Theatre Downstairs until May 8, 2010.
Writer-actor-director Daniel MacIvor has been a leading fixture in Canadian theatre for more than two decades. With his one-man shows he illuminates the lives of the hapless and the quietly evil. A few years ago he announced he was quitting writing and performing one-man plays for good and taking a sabbatical from theatre. But now he’s back with a one-man play called THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. Our theatre critic, Lynn Slotkin is here to tell us about the show and what happened to make MacIvor change his mind about theatre.
Hi Lynn. Daniel MacIvor did announce with a lot of fanfare that he wasn’t doing this kind of theatre again. What happened to change his mind?
Love and divorce happened. He got married to his partner; closed down his production company da da camera and moved to the east coast. Then the marriage broke up. The lawyers cost lots and lots of money and he came back to a place that will always welcome him—the theatre. And he came back in a one-man show. His one-man shows always have multi-characters. They are also a complex weaving of story-lines. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS NEXT is no different in that regard. But I do detect a difference in philosophy from his other shows.
How so?
Daniel MacIvor seems intent on telling the truth, and he’s obsessed with happy endings. He rushes into the theatre from the audience lamenting he’s late and why... long line at the Starbucks.
He comments on his previous announcement that he wasn’t doing one man-shows and was leaving the theatre for a bit. And he does talk about the breakup and the lawyers and the wounded feelings. But then he segues into his search for the truth. He references Schopenhauer and his philosophy. Which leads into the lives of the characters that MacIvor has created.
There is Warren who has broken up with his partner and all he wants is his ‘stuff’ back, which includes a CD of John Denver songs. There is a drunken father, his seven year old son, twins in which one is transgendered, a harried, sharp talking lawyer, and you realize you are deep in Daniel MacIvor territory.
The stories are tightly woven, but he says that he seeks the truth in them. But then MacIvor does something out of the ordinary for him I think.
What does he do?
The stories seem to lead to disappointment and in one case, a horrific end. And then Macivor does a change-up leading the stories in another direction. Almost like a ‘gotcha’ moment. I found that to be a bit of a cheat. The story-telling is mesmerizing, but that pulling the rug out from under us was a broadside.
You say that the story-telling is mesmerizing, how is the rest of the performance?
Terrific. Daniel MacIvor has created this piece with his long-time collaborator, Daniel Brooks, who has also directed it. Both MacIvor and Brooks have worked separately creating their own theatre projects, but their best work is done together. And this is a perfect example.
The set is spare except for a chair and a pair of shoes. The lighting by Kimberly Purtell is stark and beautifully atmospheric. MacIvor stands absolutely still in telling the stories of the various characters. He changes from character to character with perhaps a change of stance or lighting, and we are always gripped.
Watching MacIvor tell his stories is like watching a spider weave a complex, intricate web. We are drawn in and drawn in until we are caught up in the tangle. And his sense of story and description are second to none. He describes a person being hit by a car that is both elegant and gut-wrenching. He creates the accident you can’t turn away from.
Your concern aside, do you recommend this?
Of course. MacIvor’s back. He is still at the top of his game, still gripping, wounded, angry and this time forgiving as well.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS NEXT plays at the Berkeley Street Theatre Downstairs. until May 8. The theatre is wheelchair accessible.
A Boy Called Newfoundland
Tarragon Extra Space until April 11, 2010.
Toronto is full of theatre companies that make up in spirit what they lack in size. They may produce only one show a year, but even then their presence is felt. Such a company is Theatresmash. They chose plays that deal with the human condition in an oddball, idiosyncratic way. Their latest effort is A BOY CALLED NEWFOUNDLAND and our own oddball, theatre critic, Lynn Slotkin is here to tell us about it.
Hi Lynn. What an intriguing title. Does the play have anything to do with Newfoundland?
Practically nothing. I love what the program says: “This is not a play about Newfoundland. This play doesn’t even take place in Newfoundland. This is a play about this kid.” And the kid in question is in fact named Newfoundland because that’s where his parents spent their honeymoon.
So tell us the story of this seemingly oddly titled play.
Playwright Graeme Gillis has written a play that has “quirky” written all over it. It takes place in “a Nintendo-blue house at the top of a Maritime hill.”
It’s about the Willow family. Husband and wife Marianne and Bill Willow run a newspaper called The Romantic Times covering all kinds of romantic stories. They are on their second honeymoon in Newfoundland but only Marianne comes home. Bill has gone off somewhere and Marianne is not telling her three children where or why.
The kids are concerned. They are Brigid the eldest daughter, Arley, the middle and 15 year old Newfoundland, the youngest, whom everybody calls Flounder. Newfoundland wants to get the family back together. The daughters go on a wild, boozy car ride in search of their father. They realize all is not what their mother told them.
What’s really going on with their father? Will Arley find happiness with her divinity student boyfriend? Will Newfoundland find happiness with his French Canadian girlfriend who he met in summer camp? Will Marianne be able to fill the holes in the front page of THE ROMANTIC TIMES?
Probing questions from this quirky play.
Is this quirky play given a quirky production?
It sure calls for one doesn’t it? A BOY CALLED NEWFOUNDLAND is not just quirky, it’s a sweet, delicate play that requires a production that is as delicate. But that’s not what director Ashlie Corcoran has created. I have great respect for young directors such as Ms Corcoran. She’s bursting with ideas, and has a keen sense of the theatrical. But it’s important to knowing how to apply those ideas and when to hold back.
And I wish she had held back a bit.
How so?
The multi-leveled set by Robin Fisher is too gaudy and overpowering. At first I thought with all the bold colours they are trying to suggest the maritime waters. But that seems odd because the waters are never referenced.
At another point a sheet is pulled from out of one level and fashioned into a clever bed. Too clever. We don’t need it. We can use our imaginations.
When Arley and Brigid take their wild car ride, they flip up a section of one level of the set revealing a sunken area. The sisters climb in suggesting the car. They mime closing the door, starting the car and careening through traffic all with appropriate movement and recorded sound effects. Too fussy. We don’t need it. Since they are miming driving we can figure it out without the clever sound.
The best direction is invisible. It should serve the play, not distract from it.
How’s the acting?
The acting is a treat, lead by Martha Burns as Marianne. She is both grounded and yet has an appropriate quirky stare. She’s trying to hang on and continue on without her husband without too much alarm for the kids.
As Newfoundland, Patrick Kwok-Choon is wiry, pulsing with energy and sweet. As Brigid, Natasha Greenblatt has that in your face directness that is refreshing here.
A BOY CALLED NEWFOUNDLAND will appeal to theatre goers who support edgy, small companies like Theatresmash, and who appreciate performances that are as loopy as this sweet play.
A BOY CALLED NEWFOUNDLAND plays at the Tarragon Extra Space until April 11.
YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN
Princess of Wales Theatre until April 18, 2010.
Last year an ambitious theatre project was created called THE MILL, that would eventually involve four full length plays, all dealing with a mill in rural Ontario over several hundred years. Our theatre critic, Lynn Slotkin saw the first two plays last year, noting that they were so spooky that the hairs on the back of your neck were spiked. The third play in the series opened over the weekend and Lynn is here to tell us if her neck hairs are still standing on end.
Hello Lynn. Give us a little back ground about this project.
The idea came from Daryl Cloran, Artistic director of THEATREFRONT, a bold, spunky theatre company, and Matthew MacFadzean, an inventive playwright. They wanted to present a Canadian story over four plays, written by four playwrights, all dealing with a mill town in rural Ontario under the umbrella title of THE MILL.
The plays so far are: NOW WE ARE BRODY and, THE HURON BRIDE which take place in The 1800s. THE WOODS which takes place in 1646 and opened this weekend. And the project will conclude next season with the last part, which takes place in the future.
The first three plays are spooky, full of foreboding and one very angry ghost who is common to all of them.
What’s the story of THE WOODS?
It’s written by Tara Beagan a gifted playwright and a member of First Nations, so those aspects of the story of THE WOODS are vivid.
It’s 1646, in New France. This is before the MILL is built. An aboriginal village has been destroyed by disease and violence and all the natives are dead except for two people: Marie and her daughter Lyca. Marie is aboriginal but was given the name by the Jesuits and Europeans (who brought disease that destroyed her village). She was raped and the result is her blonde-haired, blue-eyed daughter Lyca, now about 12 years old.
One day Charles appears, a scientist, who was separated two years ago from his party of Europeans who were there to claim the land. He’s desperate, lonely and lost. He doesn’t understand Marie and Lyca because they don’t speak English, and he doesn’t speak their language.
Lyca shows her protective spirit by whacking Charles in the leg with an axe. He’s their prisoner, but over time Marie and Charles begin to understand each other and a close relationship forms. This doesn’t sit well at all with Lyca.
Terrible things happen and so the spooky story continues.
How does THE WOODS do in relations to the other two plays?
We certainly get a sense of the First Nations traditions.
And playwright Tara Beagan creates a vivid picture of Marie and her daughter Lyca. Lyca especially is arresting. She is not just a malevolent spirit in the other plays trying to protect the memory of her village. We see that she was a malevolent person to begin with. Of the three plays so far, I found THE WOODS to be a little thin, story-wise.
Much of the production is taken up with Ryan Hollyman as Charles gasping and grunting in pain because of his axe wound, or desperate to be understood. There is the same kind heightened emotion from Michelle Latimer as Marie and Holly Lewis as Lyca, trying to cope with this stranger. These are good actors, it’s just that I found what they had to act, almost a one note of angst and desperation.
That said, director Sarah Garton Stanley impressively creates the darkness and stillness of the woods by having actors play trees, holding branches among other aspects of the story.
And Richard Feren’s sound and music works a treat in adding to that foreboding, brooding atmosphere.
The plays of THE MILL don’t seem to be presented in chronological order. Is that a problem in comprehension?
No, because each play stands alone and is clear on its own terms. If anything, the plays seem to be presented in reverse chronological order and in a perverse way, it makes the plays more intriguing as new historical revelations are revealed.
With THE WOODS we realize this is where the First Nations village perished so the land is in fact a cemetery.
In the two other plays, the MILL is built on this land and is therefore haunted, and sometimes characters don’t know why. I think it adds to the atmosphere of the group of plays that they not be seen in chronological order, that the facts and reasons sneak up on you.
The first two plays will be presented from March 29 to April 2, so you can see all three. The Mill is a huge project and worth our attention.
THE WOODS plays at the Young Centre for the Performing Arts until April 3. The theatre is wheelchair accessible.
YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN
Princess of Wales Theatre until April 18, 2010.
We know Mel Brooks as a multi-talented comic actor and the writer and director of such cult films as THE PRODUCERS, BLAZING SADDLES and YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. Nine years ago he branched into musical theatre when he re-created THE PRODUCERS for Broadway with award winning results. He followed that with the musical of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN for the Broadway stage. A touring production of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN opened last night at the Princess of Wales Theatre, and our theatre critic, Lynn Slotkin, is here to tell us if the musical is a successful transition from the movie.
Hello Lynn. Refresh our memories, what is the story of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN?
A pure Mel Brooks creation. It’s 1934. The infamous Dr. Victor Frankenstein has died in Transylvania. Infamous because his experiments involved grave robbing and bringing dead people back to life, who then terrorized the village.
His grandson, Dr. Frederick Frankenstein, who works on brains in New York, has no interest in his grandfather’s work. But the Young Dr. Frankenstein must go to Transylvania to settle the estate.
There he meets a hunchback with a roaming hump, a buxom lass who will volunteer as his assistant, and his grandfather’s dour housekeeper who was closer to his grandfather than he imagined. There also is Young Frankenstein’s society girlfriend who doesn’t like to be touched because it will muss her hair, makeup and nails.
Young Frankenstein finds his grandfather’s notes, becomes absorbed in them and decides to continue with his experiments. He creates a monster, a beefy guy with green skin, lots of scars and bolts and enormous monster boots.
So it follows the film pretty closely?
For the most part yes. Only now there are 19 songs dealing with everything from the brain, lonely hermits, and the housekeeper who yearns for her dead boyfriend.
It’s interesting to note that the film YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN was co-written by Mel Brooks in 1974. For YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN the musical, Mr. Brooks has co-written the book with Thomas Meehan. Brooks has also written the music and lyrics.
The Mel Brooks kind of humour, it’s there in all its broad, cheesy over-done glory. Brooks never met a joke he didn’t like enough to repeat four times. The show is full of sight-gags, double entendres, and heavy-handed business.
Tell us more about the production.
It certainly has that high energy level that was in the Broadway production. The sets are huge. The lighting is eye popping. But I found it over-microphoned without benefit of clarity.
Roger Bart who originated the role of YOUNG Dr. Frankenstein on Broadway, recreates his role here. He has charm, but he seems bored, and spends more time mugging and hamming it than giving a good performance. And his singing of THE BRAIN, is rushed and one doesn’t clearly hear the clever lyrics.
Also recreating his Broadway performance, is Shuler Hensley as THE MONSTER. The monster mainly grunts and Mr. Hensley does that well. But not only does he convey the scariness of the monster, but also his sweetness.
YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN is directed and choreographed by the hugely talented Susan Stroman. I got the feeling that with Mel Brooks around, he stifled her usual creativity.
His directorial input seems to be everywhere. But then we have the song PUTTIN’ ON THE RITZ, with a kickline of men, women, and the monster in top hat, tails and monster boots. It’s the best number in the show. Why? Because Irving Berlin wrote the music and lyrics which are wonderful, and not Mel Brooks—whose music and lyrics are forgettable. And here at least Stroman broke out with clever and witty choreography and staging. Such cleverness is too rare in this musical.
You don’t sound too happy with this production.
I ask, what’s the story, what was the creators’ intention and was it worth doing? I can appreciate Mr. Brooks brand of humour—broad and almost vaudeville. But was it worth doing? I think this kind of humour and overblown, relentless effort to make us laugh has had its day. His music and lyrics are not clever enough to stand the test of time. YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN is dated. There are many other more successful musicals that have lasted longer than this one.
Who would you recommend this for?
Obviously for Mel Brooks fans who like his broad humour and remember his films. Perhaps people who don’t go to the theatre often and want to see an old-fashioned, big Broadway musical. I would recommend it for them.
YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN plays at the Princess of Wales Theatre until April 18. The theatre is wheelchair accessible.
THE OVERWHELMING
Berkeley Street Theatre Downstairs until April 3, 2010.
The Rwandan Genocide of 1994 is one of those historic events one doesn’t soon forget, it resonates with such intensity. This complex story has been dramatized in a play called THE OVERWHELMING, which opened last night at the Berkeley Theatre Downstairs. Our theatre critic, Lynn Slotkin, is here to tell us if the play and the production did the story justice.
Hello Lynn. Briefly what is the background of the play?
Since 1916 Rwanda has been either under siege from outside forces, or had civil war between the resident Hutus and Tutsis. There is really no difference between these two peoples, except of social class.
The Tutsis were considered the elite class. And the Hutus were considered marginalized. Through Rwanda’s history either one or the other was in power with the one in power attacked the other.
The play THE OVERWHELMING covers The time in 1994 leading up to what is know as the Rwandan Genocide, when militant Hutus massacred between 800,000 and a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus over 100 days.
Mind-boggling.
What’s the story?
The play is written by J. T. Rogers. Jack Exley, an American professor of political science, has come to Rwanda to research a book on his friend Joseph Gasana, a doctor treating children with AIDS in that country.
Jack needs this opportunity because he has been denied tenure in the States and this book is his way to get it. The only problem is that Joseph has disappeared. No one at the hospital where he works has ever heard of him. Jack frantically goes from the police to other authorities trying to find him, with no luck. Jack has also brought his family with him, his wife Linda, a writer, and his 17 year old son Geoffrey. All of them are caught up in the swirl of the political upheaval in that country.
When Jack does learn about Joseph and his situation, Jack gets a sense of the impending danger he, his family and his friend are in. Joseph is a Tutsi and therefore a marked man.
I think J. T. Rogers handles the complexity of the animosity between Hutus and Tutsis well.
And how does he handle this?
He distills the situation without making it simplistic. In one scene a Rwandan woman is selling cabbages. She is joking with a pleasant Rwandan man. Linda wants to buy a cabbage from the woman. The man says no because the woman is a filthy Tutsi whore and her cabbages are poison.
The play is full of small, chilling scenes like that. And I love how Rogers creates a Kafkaesque situation in which Jack tries frantically to find Joseph, by going from one agency to another and either hits a brick wall, or is told to forget it.
In the play the Rwandans are wily, politically astute, charming and deadly. Next to them both Jack and Linda are naïve almost to the point of being stupid. Jack is a political scientist and yet seems surprised at the escalating political situation. Linda fancies herself a writer who is going to do articles on the place, yet believes everything she’s told by her charming, but complicit guide without question. Making them stupid seems like overkill but the play is so good it doesn’t damage it.
Does the production do the play justice?
For the most part. Studio 180 is producing THE OVERWHELMING. I love their edgy work. They did STUFF HAPPENS, THE ARAB-ISRAELI COOKBOOK.
Director Joel Greenberg has created a fast paced production, especially in Act II, that gets the audience right into the action. Scenes are swift, smooth and often very tight.
If I have a concern it’s that key scenes are not as clearly established as they should be. If one character is protecting another from brutality of a third character, and then gives up that person to be brutalized or worse, I have to clearly see why. That isn’t as clear or focused as it should be. We can have pandemonium, but it must be clearly shaped pandemonium.
The acting generally is very strong. As Jack, David Storch is appropriately concerned, confused and more and more distraught at a situation he can’t comprehend. As Joseph Gasana, Nigel Shawn Williams shows us a courtly man sinking deeper and deeper into the harrowing abyss. Fine work from both.
THE OVERWHELMING is an important play done by an important theatre company and it’s worth our attention.
THE OVERWHELMING plays at the Berkeley Street Theatre Downstairs until April 3. The theatre is wheelchair accessible.
TALK
Jane Mallet Theatre of the St. Lawrence Centre until March 20, 2010.
Can a close friendship survive after a heated debate about politics, religion, and the suitability of a friend’s girlfriend? These are some of the issues that are dealt with in TALK, a play produced by the Harold Green Jewish Theatre Company. Our theatre critic, Lynn Slotkin, is here to talk about her own take on TALK.
Hello Lynn. What’s the story of TALK?
Joshua and Gordon have been close friends for 18 years. Joshua is Jewish and Gordon is Not. Gordon has survived a divorce and moved from Winnipeg to London. After a four year separation, they meet for a drink and talk about old times.
During that conversation, Gordon asks Joshua what he thinks of his new girlfriend Clothilde. For Gordon Clothilde is ideal. Joshua has other thoughts and is conflicted about what to say. That conflict leads to other conflicts that come out in the conversation. Apparently Clothilde used a word in conversation that Joshua found offensive but he didn’t say anything at the time.
So the story of TALK, is about the debate about that word which leads to heated discussion about Middle East politics, Jews, Palestinians, and the true nature of friendship.
Is the play just a debate between the two men?
Not really.
Playwright Michael Nathanson involves another participant in the discussion—the audience. Of course in the theatre, the audience is involved by just listening. But in TALK we are directly involved. After almost every sentence to each other, Joshua and Gordon individually talk directly to the audience about what they really think and what they really want to say.
So we learn that Joshua thinks Clothilde is beautiful, charming, and engaging, which is what he tells Gordon, but he think her politics are offensive, which is what he tells us first before he tells Gordon. Gordon in turn tells Joshua he feels his thoughts on Judaism and Israel are blinkered, while Gordon tells us that Clothilde just wanted to open Joshua’s eyes to another point of view.
Nathanson loads his play with hot-button topics guaranteed to excite his audience. Or should that be incite. Whether it’s a good play or not is another matter.
So do you think it works as a play?
I certainly found it provocative. I also found it manipulative, incendiary, infuriating and compelling. I can appreciate that Joshua and Gordon have strong points of view that they want the other to see, but refuse to hear what the other is saying.
We’ve all been there. But this is a play and I have to look at it from that context. And in that context the problems start early. Initially Joshua tells Gordon the good things he finds about Clothilde. Gordon doesn’t believe him. He is adamant about not believing him. If that’s the case, the play is over.
Joshua says that Gordon’s new found political awareness does not sound like him. It sounds like his girlfriend. Gordon refuses to admit that’s the case. Neither friend budges from his position. Often I think the playwright is spinning his wheels because he can’t move the argument forward.
That might be real life, but it’s not great theatre.
You said you found the play compelling. Why?
Because the production is cracker-jack. The performances are very fine. As Joshua, Michael Rubenfeld is terrific. He is a ball of energy, intense, heated, charming, and wounded that this friendship is damaged. As Gordon, Kevin Bundy has that wonderful mix of innocence and arrogance. Gordon is like tofu. He soaks up all the political stuff his girlfriend dumps on him and he just reiterates it. He blindly goes along with it, not seeing the damage done.
Director Ted Dykstra keeps the pace moving quickly. On the whole, it’s a fine production of an annoying play and I want people to see it. It’s important for audiences to learn the difference between a play and a production. Between real life and theatre.
TALK is a good place to start.
TALK plays at the Jane Mallet Theatre of the St. Lawrence Centre until March 20. The theatre is wheelchair accessible.
FUTURE FOLK
Theatre Passe Muraille Back Space until March 13, 2010.
Recently the media has been full of horror stories of the plight of care-givers from the Philippines and the Live-in Caregiver Program that organizes their employment in Canada. A new play called FUTURE FOLK examines this troubling subject. Our theatre critic Lynn Slotkin was at the opening last night and is here to tell us about it.
Hello Lynn. Briefly tell us about the story of FUTURE FOLK.
It’s the creation of the Sulong Theatre Collective — three actresses who are in the play and their composer. We are given an overview of the Live-in Caregiver Program which arranges for Filipino women caregivers to leave their Families to come to Canada to Work for at least two years. At the end of which it is hoped they can become landed immigrants and bring their families here. The caregivers send money home to help pay for their family’s expenses. From the caregiver’s point of view there are vignettes about their treatment. Sometimes they are forced to work long hours without a day off, do jobs they were not originally expected to do, some endure sexual harassment. All this seemingly without recourse or a voice to protest because they fear they will be deported.
One thinks of the Ruby Dalla case last year in which the nanny employed by the family protested her long working hours, having to do inappropriate jobs and having to give up her passport.. Has this informed the story?
Not directly because this show has been two years in the making. But there are certainly echoes of that situation with the mention of the caregiver having to do jobs seemingly not part of their contract -- shoveling snow, walking dogs/pets.
If anything I think the inspiration was the woman who applied for citizenship and was refused because she was sick with cancer. Efforts were being made to deport her. In the play she got her citizenship but eventually died here. The background information of the Sulong Theatre Collective cites perceptions that the Filipino caregiver is viewed with contempt and not empathy. The troubling aspects of the treatment of some caregiver’s certainly informs the play.
How does the production bring these stories to life?
The three actresses of the collective: Karen Ancheta, Aura Carcueva and Catherine Hernandez, use traditional dance, song, eloquent dialogue and mime to tell these stories. With just a swath of material and wonderful imagination, that material becomes a baby, a sheet, laundry and clothing.
It’s a production of shattering images and ones that are touching. In one shattering scene a caregiver is sexually abused and tries to fight off her abuser -— the husband of the couple employing her. As for the most moving instances -- most of the time the three actresses fashion the material and hold it in their arms. hese are the babies these women care for, with tenderness, compassion and total devotion.
All three actresses bring their characters to life with nuance, subtlety, variation and spareness. I love the simple efficiency in telling these troubling stories.
Troubling stories indeed. Does the production work?
Partially. Kudos to The Sulong Theatre Collective for bringing these stories to the stage so eloquently.
My concern is that all the stories concern mistreatment with no variation. Are there no happy experiences to balance the bad stories? I find that hard to believe.
I get the troubling feeling that the Collective assumes that Canadians perceive Filipino caregivers with contempt and not respect. Are they assuming we and the lousy employers are one and the same? I think that’s a blinkered perception and does damage to this show.
If there are no positive stories then why would anyone want Canadian citizenship here. I appreciate this important story and the efforts the Sulong Theatre Collective has taken to tell it. Now they need to revisit it and tell it with as much power but with a more balanced, fair assessment.
FUTURE FOLK plays at Theatre Passe Muraille Back Space until March 13.
ONCE AND FOR ALL WE’RE GONNA TELL YOU WHO WE ARE SO SHUT UP AND LISTEN and HUSH
Harbourfront until February 20, 2010 and Tarragon Theatre until March 21.
Note: This review contains both a pick and a pan.
Two plays opened recently which are wildly different but also have something in common—teenagers. The first play: ONCE AND FOR ALL WE”RE GONNA TELL YOU WHO WE ARE SO SHUT UP AND LISTEN is part of the Worldstage festival at Harbourfront, and the second play, HUSH is at the Tarragon Extra Space. Our theatre critic Lynn Slotkin saw both and is here to tell us how they are, and if they made her think longingly of her own teenaged years.
Hi Lynn. First let’s talk about how these two productions are different.
ONCE AND FOR ALL WE’RE GONNA TELL YOU WHO WE ARE SO SHUT UP AND LISTEN is performed by a group of teenagers from Belgium. They tell the story in a non-linear way, so it’s not traditional storytelling. Generally it looks like organized chaos and anarchy with the teens acting with carefree abandon. More performance ‘art’ than a traditionally acted performance. The teens here are not really actors. Lots of yelling, roughhouse activity, characters spit water at each other. It touches on puberty, sexuality, taking drugs and alcohol and challenging parents.
With HUSH, playwright Rosa Laborde has written a traditional play about a 12 year old girl named Lily going through puberty, on the cusp of being a teen. She has terrible nightmares, which in turn worries her single father. There is a mystery surrounding these bad dreams which is dramatically revealed. The actors in HUSH are all professional.
If ONCE AND FOR ALL... is performed in a non-linear way, how do they convey the story?
This is where program notes are always helpful. It says that they will pull down barriers between the way they are on stage and off. They will get on our nerves and for once you’ll know why. The director Alexander Devriendt says that the performance goes against the idea that adolescents lose their rebellious spirit once they’re on stage. Devriendt carefully creates scenes and performances that look like they are out of control.
The performance begins when the cast of 13 quietly sit in chairs looking at us. The quiet gives way to two boys aggressively snapping deflated balloons at each other. A girl wacks another with her shoulder bag. A boy says quietly to us, “I’m scared.” The same boy dances wildly on a chair after he takes his shirt off. (I guess he wasn’t that scared, eh?) A girl says she won’t adhere to her curfew and when she comes home late she’ll be drunk and she can’t help it.
Clear dialogue is spare. Pandemonium rules. Stuff is strewn all over the stage. Then a buzzer buzzes and the teens change and quickly, efficiently clean up the stage, set the chairs aright and leave the stage. The scenes are then repeated with the same cleanup after each buzzer.
One assumes that HUSH tells its story in a simpler way.
It does to a point. We know that Lily, the 12 year old is having nightmares. We see a voodoo priest upstage preparing to stab a pile of her possessions, including her teddy bear, which wakes her screaming.
Her father Harlem is concerned by this so he sleeps in her room to calm her. Then he has his own nightmares. The play veers from the straightforward when we see a mysterious woman involved with Harlem with her own mysterious story.
Who is she? What happened to Lily’s mother? Is her father losing his mind? Interesting questions, that are slowly revealed in this stylish, provocative production.
Two different types of theatre. Did these plays work?
I thought the performances in ONCE AND FOR ALL to be lively, energetic and confident.As a piece of theatre ONCE AND FOR ALL... is a pretentious, dishonest load of claptrap. It’s the director’s fantasy of manipulation. First of all, who is this for? Who are they telling to shut up and listen? Certainly not the audience who was silent and attentive. So who? Their parents?
All that rehearsed anarchy proves nothing. And the shows intentions are negated after the bows when these teens come on stage and begin to quietly, responsibly clean up the junk strewn stage, as we leave.
ONCE AND FOR ALL I’M GONNA TELL YOU TO MISS THIS.
HUSH on the other hand works a treat.
It’s a fascinating play. And Richard Rose has created a stylish production full of vivid images and taut emotions. And the acting is fine from the four actors, especially Vivien Endicott-Douglas as the 12 year old Lily. This kid is a find. The play and production are well worth your time.
ONCE AND FOR ALL WE’RE GONNA TELL YOU WHO WE ARE SO SHUT UP AND LISTEN plays at the Enwave Theatre at Harbourfront until February 20.
HUSH plays at the Tarragon Theatre Extra Space until March 21. Both theatres are wheelchair accessible.
YICHUD (Seclusion)
Theatre Passe Muraille until February 27, 2010
A hot button topic to avoid in plays is religion with all its volatile pitfalls. But tell that to playwright Julie Tepperman and director Aaron Willis. They have created YICHUD ("seclusion") a play which opened last night at Theatre Passe Muraille, that investigates the self-contained mysterious world of Orthodox Judaism through a typical Orthodox Jewish wedding. Our Theatre Critic Lynn Slotkin was one of the guests at the wedding last night and is here to tell us if this marriage will last or not.
Hello Lynn. First of all, explain that intriguing title, YICHUD (Seclusion).
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.
What’s the play actually about?
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.
Does a person have to be Jewish to appreciate YICHUD? Will non-Jews feel left out?
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.
Tell us about that.
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.
I understand the production had it’s own bumpy ride to opening night?
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.
YICHUD (Seclusion) plays at Theatre Passe Muraille until February 27.
Such Creatures
Theatre Passe Muraille Backspace until February 6, 2010
What do Shakespeare, the leader of a girl-gang, and a survivor of Auschwitz have in common? They all factor heavily in Judith Thompson’s new play, SUCH CREATURES, which opened last night at Theatre Passe Muraille’s Backsapace. Our theatre critic, Lynn Slotkin, is here to tell us if it works or not.
Lynn Hello. What’s the play about... it seems packed with improbable subjects.
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.
And how does Sorele fit in to the play?
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.
How so?
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.
Tell us about those.
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.
SUCH CREATURES plays at the Theatre Passe Muraille’s Backspace until February 6.
Courageous
Tarragon Theatre until February 7, 2010
After a few weeks of holidays and relaxation it’s time to go back to the theatre. Our brave theatre critic, Lynn Slotkin has been to see COURAGEOUS by Michael Healey, which deals with prickly issues in a humourous way. Lynn is here to tell us if we should be courageous and see it or not.
Lynn Hello. Before we talk about the story, tell us about the playwright Michael Healey.
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.
What’s the story?
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.
Does Healey do justice to the 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.
How so?
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.
Who would enjoy this play?
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.
COURAGEOUS plays at the Tarragon Theatre until February 7, The Tarragon is wheelchair accessible.
The Princess and the Handmaiden & Hamlet
Lorraine Kimsa Theatre for Young People, until December 30 & the Enwave Theatre at Harbourfront until November 29
Two very different shows opened yesterday. THE PRINCESS AND THE HANDMAIDEN at the Lorraine Kimsa Theatre for Young People and HAMLET produced by Necessary Angel as part of the World Stage Festival. Our theatre critic, Lynn Slotkin saw them both and is here to tell us about them.
Hello Lynn. Usually when you review two shows there’s a connection. What’s the connection kid’s show and HAMLET?
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.
How so?
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.
Tell us first about THE PRINCESS AND THE HANDMAIDEN.
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.
And HAMLET. What can be done to it that hasn’t already been done?
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.
Obviously they are vastly different productions. Do they work too?
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.
It sounds like a recommendation for both.
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.
THE PRINCESS AND THE HANDMAIDEN plays at the Lorraine Kimsa Theatre for Young People until Dec. 30.
HAMLET plays at the Enwave Theatre at Harbourfront until Nov. 29.
August: Osage County
Canon Theatre, until November 15
AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY is a huge play about a dysfunctional family. It has won every award available to it, including the Pulitzer Prize and the Tony Award. The touring production opened last night and our theatre critic, Lynn Slotkin, is here to tell us what’s the big deal about the play.
Hello Lynn. What’s the title mean?
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.
What’s the story of this 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.
What makes this such an award winning play?
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.
Tell us about the production. It stars the legendary Estelle Parsons.
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.
Shapiro also won awards for her direction, didn’t she?
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.
So I guess you liked it?
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.
AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY plays at the Canon Theatre until November 15.
True Love Lies
Factory Theatre, until November 1.
Playwright Brad Fraser has been described as the “Bad-Boy of Canadian Theatre” for his provocative, challenging plays. He has also taken Canadian theatre to task for being too safe, and not dealing with bold subjects. Our theatre critic Lynn Slotkin has been following Brad Fraser’s career over the years and is here to tell us about his new play, TRUE LOVE LIES, which opened recently.
Hi Lynn, How so are Brad Fraser’s plays provocative and challenging?
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.
What's it about?
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.
Talking about that generosity of spirit. That doesn’t mean that biting Brad Fraser is turning soft does it?
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.
Good material needs a good production. Do they get it here?
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.
Thanks Lynn. That was Lynn Slotkin, Here and Now’s theatre critic. Lynn also publishes a theatre newsletter called THE SLOTKIN LETTER.
TRUE LOVE LIES plays at the Factory Theatre until November 1.
The Sound of Music
Princes of Wales Theatre, Open-ended
Box Office: (416) 593-4225
The ridiculous hype about picking the Maria via a television reality show has died down and now the production and its winning Maria, Elicia McKenzie, have to stand up to scrutiny. Was it all worth the hooplah? Indeed. Elicia McKenzie is a charming, bubbly, genuine Maria. Almost every one in the cast is strong (there are a few duds, but they can be overlooked). Jeremy Sams’s direction is thoughtful, strong, detailed and imaginative. The set is astonishing.
The Tempest
Stratford Shakespeare Festival
The Stratford Shakespeare Festival has been hyping its production of Shakespeare's THE TEMPEST with great fanfare starring Christopher Plummer. Our theatre critic Lynn Slotkin was at the opening and now fresh from her vacation, she's here to tell us if all the hype was worth it.
Hello Lynn. For those a bit rusty on their Shakespeare what's THE TEMPEST about?
Prospero was The duke of Milan at one time. But 12 years before, his evil brother deposed him, took over the dukedom and banished Prospero and his then three year old daughter Miranda to a small land.
Prospero has two helpers: Ariel, who is a dainty spirit, and Caliban, who lives under the earth and does the grunt work. Prospero has always been interested in magic and over the 12 years in exile perfects his magical powers. He conjures the tempest that opens the play, that coincidentally brings all those who did him wrong to his island to face him and get their comeuppance.
It sounds like a play about revenge.
Prospero is furious alright. When he tells Miranda the story of how they got to the island, Prospero has 12 years of festering anger that erupts in his telling of the story. But rather than being a play about revenge, it's really a play about forgiveness, retribution, love and acceptance. This is a play from a mature Shakespeare who wrote it in his later, mellower life.
Prospero goes through a long journey, from anger to forgiveness in this deep, complex play. It is a play of consequence but also has wit, farcical moments and lots of magic. And certainly the director, Des McAnuff is adept at creating moments that startle and dazzle. There are a lot of vivid images in this production.
Such as?
I have never seen the Stratford Festival stage used as technically as in this production. The set revolves. There are many trap doors of various sizes that reveal and hide characters and action. Parts of the set rise, tilt and dip.
At the beginning of the production a creature of sorts in a ghost-grey form fitting body suit slowly dives down from the flies, arms gracefully waving back and forth, and legs kicking, as if in water, swims down to a large book illuminated at the bottom. The creature picks up the book, walks off and then the play proper begins with the raging tempest.
Sounds impressive.
It was. The problem is that the dazzling image has nothing to do with the play. That character is introduced soon after that. It's Ariel, Prospero's dainty spirit. The whole image of her swimming down is ludicrous. Her name is ARIEL, not Flipper. And she is diving down to something that shouldn't be there in the first place, namely Prospero's magic book. What's it doing there? Did he lose it? I don't think so.
Unfortunately this production is full of dazzle for its own sake with no connection to the play. It makes the production shallow, and disjointed. I thought the pace of the production was glacial. The set moved quicker and more often than the production.
Surely a production starring Christopher Plummer has acting fireworks.
Yes, absolutely. Plummer is a powerhouse actor. Here is an actor who is a colourful, vibrant, even lively Prospero. We see the anger and seething rage. But there is also humour, even impishness, which I think is an interesting choice. After his quick moment of rage, it gives way to a twinkling humour. This Prospero seems to enjoy manipulating all the people on the island, doing his bidding. So rather than Prospero having a long journey through the play, it's more like a little jaunt... Prospero-lite.
Doesn't a powerhouse performance make up for your disappointment with the rest of the production?
No, nor should it. Attention to detail that realizes the play, creating a coherent, cohesive production that serves the play, and going deeper than superficial, are not strong points in Des McAnuff's direction , I'm finding again and again. The result is yet another McAnuff production that is shallow and inconsistent that relies on techno-dazzle to make up for the lack consistency and depth. But at the end, there was Plummer alone on a bare stage, speaking the glorious words of Shakespeare, gloriously and with brains. And that was magic, without the techno dazzle that diluted this production. I just wish the rest of the production rose to that level.
Thanks Lynn. THE TEMPEST continues at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival.
Stratford Openings
Stratford
The Stratford Shakespeare Festival opened its last five productions of this 2009 season this past weekend. They included A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM by Shakespeare, of course, PHEDRE, by Racine, based on the Greek tragedy, and three Canadian plays: THE TRESPASSERS, RICE BOY and ZASTROZZI. Our theatre critic, Lynn Slotkin, is here to tell us if Stratford's offerings opened with a bang or a whimper.
Hello Lynn, I know I usually ask you at the end of the review if they represent a bang or a whimper, but we can't wait. What is it?
Neither. It's more like a thud, along with groaning and gritting teeth. I always hope for the best when I go to the theatre. There was a lot to look forward too with these Stratford plays.
Shakespeare and Racine represent he classics. And three Canadian plays are showcased, with two written by our leading playwrights. The acting company for the most part is strong.
On paper, the directors appear to be accomplished. But the proof is in the finished productions and that's where many of the problems lie.
Let's start with Shakespeare. A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM is usually so magical, what could go wrong?
In director David Grindley's production, practically everything. I've seen his work elsewhere. Very impressive.
But not here.
The play is magical, about prickly love that gets smoothed out. But Grindley has depicted this as a nightmare not a dream. ( I think Shakespeare knew the difference).
The magical forest where most of the play takes place is inhabited by fairies in Shakespeare's play, which Grindley has interpreted as leather clad, boot-stomping, pelvis thrusting Goths, in sun-glasses. The acting is uneven. But Tom Rooney is inventive as Puck dressed like a punk rocker. And Geraint Wynn Davies is sweet As Buttom. The lighting is murky making it hard to see anything.
Oh dear. And Phèdre?
It's a fraught story of Phèdre, in love with her stepson. It involves heightened emotions and wrathful Greek gods. But the production is lumbered by a dull, stodgy adaptation by Timberlake Wertenbaker.
And the direction of Carey Perloff is static and that removes all the energy. There's good acting by Seana McKenna as Phèdre, Jonathan Goad as Hippolytus the stepson, and Roberta Maxwell as Oenone, but they are in this lumbering production.
Aren't you heartened by Stratford doing three Canadian Plays?
I would have been if they were better plays. THE TRESPASSERS is a new play by Morris Panych—always cause for anticipation. It's about life, sexual awakening and peaches. A grandfather teaches his teenaged grandson about life and stealing peaches from the neighbouring orchard, much to the boy's mother's dismay.
Panych writes dazzling dialogue. Full of wit. But as happens so often in a Panych play, aside from the wit and esoteric musings, the centre is hollow. He directs as well. The cast is great: Joseph Ziegler is the grandfather, Noah Reid is the grandson. Kelli Fox is the long suffering mother. A fine cast in a witty-sounding but ultimately hollow play.
And the other two plays: RICE BOY and ZASTROZZI?
TRICE BOY by Sunil Kuruvilla takes place in both Canada and India and is about three generations of men and their losses in life.
It is a shapeless, meandering mess of a play that has not benefited from the playwright's reworking of his earlier version, or the workshops, dramaturgy and readings it's had.
ZASTROZZI is a very early George F. Walker play,1977, one of our leading playwrights. It takes place in Europe, a few hundred years ago and is about a man who is a killing machine, getting rid of artists he thinks are mediocre—would that it was so easy. It shows a little of the angry humour and dark vision that make his recent plays crackle with life.
He is our most successful playwright but you would never know it from this weak, early work. Why on earth program it if it doesn't show him in a good light, in spite of creative direction by Jennifer Tarver and a terrific performance by Rick Roberts as Zastrozzi?
You are not in a recommending mood?
Zastrozzi gives a prophetic line: 'artists must be answerable to somebody'. The same can be said of the people who run the Stratford Shakespeare Festival. I don't get the sense of artistic rigour or respect.
Just a desperation to try something new and appeal to a younger audience. What about the loyal audience that expects quality and isn't getting it?
These five plays, coupled with a generally disappointing season, except for a few sterling productions, left me furious and fearful for the festival. Is there anyone watching the store?
This isn't good enough.
Do better.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
