An added LAST CHANCE to catch the show that NOW Magazine is calling “instantly riveting and continually thought-provoking…The Jungle for the dot-com generation” !

Due to the overwhelming response we’ve received, we’ve added two more BONUS POP-UP PERFORMANCES this week in two brand new secret locations!

The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs

(and the Repudiation and Redemption of Mike Daisey) adapted from the monologue by Mike Daisey

Curated by David Ferry and Mitchell Cushman

Presented by Outside the March

in Association with Theatre Passe Muraille

New Performance Dates

Thursday May 17 @ 8pm

Saturday May 19 @ 8pm

Tickets are available at www.artsboxoffice.ca

For same day ticket requests, please call (647) 465 9438

for the location of the evening’s performance

{ 0 comments }

STOCKHOLM at the Tarragon Extra Space until June 3. Written by Bryony Lavery. Directed by Kelly Straugham. Designed by Lindsay C. Walker. Lighting by Kimberley Purtell. Choreography by Susie Burpee. Sound and original music by Verne Good. Starring: Melissa-Jane Shaw and Jonathon Young.

Produced by Seventh Stage in association with Nightwood Theatre.

A couple, Todd and Kali, are intensely in love and lust with one another. Sex is good and often and sometimes rough and ready. They are planning to go on vacation in a few days to Stockholm. But they might already be there, as in Stockholm Syndrome—in part it’s defined as: “strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens and abuses, or intimidates the other.” Yup, that sounds about right.

Kali is inordinately jealous. When things are good they are electric. But often she goes haywire, thinking Todd is cheating on her. She lashes out at Todd. He fights back. It’s compelling.

Bryony Lavery’s writing is elegant, poetic and deceptive. This is a gripping, beautifully directed production by Kelly Straughan, with two terrific performances by Melissa-Jane Shaw as Kali and Jonathon Young as Todd. It looks at the obsessive, compulsive behaviour of people in lust and love. It doesn’t let you look away.

Full review of STOCKHOLM on CIUT 89.5FM on CIUT FRIDAY MORNING between 9 am and 10 am.

{ 0 comments }

l-r: Brendan McMurtry-Howlett, David Patrick Flemming, Miranda Edwards. Photo by Daniel Alexander

The following reviews were broadcast Friday May 11, 2012 on CIUT FRIDAY MORNING, CIUT 89.5 FM. BEYOND THE CUCKOO’S NEST at Young People’s Theatre until May 17. THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY OF STEVE JOBS (And the Repudiation and Redemption of Mike Daisey) until Sunday May 13 at various locations.

(ROSE)
1) Good Friday Morning. It’s time for a little theatre with Lynn Slotkin, our theatre critic and passionate playgoer.

Hi Lynn.

What’s up for today theatre-wise?

(LYNN)
Hi Rose. I have two really provocative plays. First BEYOND THE CUCKOO’S NEST by Edward Roy, is at Young People’s Theatre and is about mental illness in teens.

And THE AGONY AND THE ECSTACY OF STEVE JOBS (and the repudiation and redemption of Mike Daisey). at various locations until Sunday. It’s the one person show that monologist Mike Daisey created about the dastardly working conditions in China of Foxcon, the company that makes all the Apple electronics and the accusation of the piece is that Steve Jobs the CEO of Apple, knew.

(ROSE)
2) Let’s start with BEYOND THE CUCKOO’S NEST. Mental illness in teens—you’re right, mental illness is a provocative subject.

(LYNN)
And Young People’s Theatre is never shy about producing plays that reflect what’s going on in the lives of young people.

I love this theatre to bits for having the guts to address issues that are affecting young people. This year they did plays about bullying, homophobia, overbearing parents, abandonment, and a musical (Seussical) about a loyal elephant who watched over an egg until the chick hatched.

With BEYOND THE CUCKOO’S NEST they deal with mental illness.

(ROSE)
3) How does the story deal with it?

(LYNN)
Three teens, Patricia, Jude and Trey meet regularly to talk about their problems with a therapist named Cathy. Patricia has issues of self-esteem; Jude is schizophrenic; and Trey suffers from anxiety and panic attacks.

Both Jude and Trey are sweet on Patricia. Jude is loquacious, argumentative, needy and pushes all Patricia’s buttons. She thinks that Jude is just annoying. She doesn’t see that he likes her. Trey has to do an oral presentation and is terrified because he has an anxiety attach before doing such things.

He refuses to tell the teacher of his difficulty and hates the teacher for being tough. Cathy the therapist urges Trey to talk to the teacher for consideration. Then Patricia offers to help Trey with his public speaking.

Over the course of preparing, both Patricia and Trey bond.

(ROSE)
4) Does Cathy treat them with kid gloves because they are mentally fragile?

(LYNN)
No and that’s one of the many beauties of Edward Roy’s play. Cathy doesn’t coddle them. She is considerate but firm. Through it all Cathy keeps the three in check and able to function. She insists they respect each other. She knows their tricks and at one point tells Trey to stop using his illness as an excuse of his not trying or being disappointed.

I love the way Edward Roy deals with the mental illness. Cathy doesn’t let them feel sorry for themselves.

She makes them face their issues and deal with them. Arguments are given and dealt with but not in a facile way. And Roy’s dialogue crackles with the lingo of teens, and since the play is for teens this is crucial. I also appreciated that the story does not end all neatly and with everybody happy.

The title, BEYOND THE CUCKOO’S NEST refers to a group of mentally challenged kids who go into schools to talk to young people about their mental illnesses.

Brave and true.

(ROSE)
5) And the production?

(LYNN)
Edward Roy also directs and it’s with a muscular arm. Rock music throbs in the first few scenes as Jude tries to get Patricia to come with him to see some ‘really sick’ graffiti.

Andy Moro has designed a multi-levelled set onto which the three teens bound, hop, jump and dance. He has also done the projections which are busy and beautifully conjure that world of the teen—bursting with movement, images, and things to distract.

There are terrific performances from Miranda Edwards as Patricia—very confident, hopeful and yet anxious to do well in this new school and not repeat the problems at her other school. As Jude, David Patrick Flemming is a ball of fire and energy, attitude, in your face annoying and perfectly so. As Trey, Brendan McMurtry-Howlett is beautifully awkward, insecure, brow-beaten by his father. And as Cathy the therapist, Soo Garay is firm, thoughtful, considerate and fair.

Beautiful performances and a really compelling production.

(ROSE)
6) And now THE AGONY AND THE ECSTACY OF STEVE JOBS (and the Repudiation and Redemption of Mike Daisey). There’s been a lot of controversy about the show in general. Briefly tell us what the show is about.

(LYNN)
THE AGONY AND THE ECSTACY OF STEVE JOBS is a one man show originally written and performed by a wonderful, prickly monologist named Mike Daisey. In it he tells how he loves any kind of electronic device produced by Apple. He reads about them. He goes to their website to watch demos. Totally devoted.

But then doubt comes in. There are stories about horrible working conditions in China where every one of these devices is made. He decides to go to China to find out the truth.

He has an interpreter. He stands outside the Foxcon Factory in Shenzhen, China—a huge complex that makes these devices. He interviews workers, some as young as 12. He hears about the suicides of the workers because of long hours and grinding repetitive work.

He talks about the workers whose hands are gnarled crippled because of the chemicals used to clean the screens of he iphones etc. He is furious because he says that Steve Jobs knew about these horrible conditions. He had to. He wasn’t a micro-manager. He was a nano-manager.

So from all that comes this show—THE AGONY AND THE ECSTACY OF STEVE JOBS. Daisey is interviewed on NPR….lots of notoriety. But then it was revealed that Daisey lied.

(ROSE)
7) What did he lie about?

(LYNN)
He didn’t actually talk to any workers. He couldn’t confirm that a person he talked to was 12. He didn’t talk to anyone whose hands were crippled because of the work. So then he was vilified in the press and on the NPR program.

Lots of controversy—if he lied then his show is a lie. Daisey issues an apology saying it’s theatre not journalism. He allows other theatre artists to download his script for free.

Enter director/producer Mitchell Cushman and actor David Ferry who take advantage of the offer and produce their own provocative production of it. Only they add a bit that addresses the controversy and they call it …and the Repudiation and Redemption of Mike Daisey.

(ROSE)
8) Why is the production provocative?

(LYNN)
The run is very short—until Sunday—and each show is in a secret location you learn about by getting a message on your iphone on the day. The first show was in a hackers’s work space.

I saw it yesterday in a garage in the Dovercourt/Queen area—brilliant since Apple started in a garage. We were told to keep our cell phones, pump up the volume, tweet, answer calls etc.

Mitchell Cushman directs this and keeps a tally of the calls and texts. Our total was 32.

David Ferry is not Mike Daisey but he is doing his script. Ferry is vivid, vibrant, raging, engaging and sucks us into that compelling story.

The repudiation and redemption part is Ferry reading many quotes from the press etc. vilifying Daisey for what he did and Daisey apologizing and trying to explain.

I love being unsettled by this show and its implication.

When Mitchell Cushman and David Ferry were on our show a few weeks ago Ferry said that all theatre is a lie. And he said that we know that everything Daisey said is true. Because of the show and the bad press on their Foxcon factory, Apple has improved the working conditions.

People now don’t work 16 hours a day any more. The pay is better. Ultimately, the show does what it’s supposed to—it illuminates a reality and leaves it to us to decide if it’s right or not.

I loved the whole theatricality of this production. Beautifully done.

(ROSE)
Thanks Lynn. That’s Lynn Slotkin our theatre critic and passionate playgoer. You can check out Lynn’s blog at www.slotkinletter.com

BEYOND THE CUCKOO’S NEST plays at Young People’s Theatre until June 17.
Tickets: youngpeoplestheatre.ca

THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY OF STEVE JOBS (and the Repudiation and Redemption of Mike Daisey) at various locations until Sunday May 13.
Tickets: otmtheatre@gmail.com

{ 0 comments }

Review: HIGH

by Lynn on May 11, 2012

in The Passionate Playgoer

At the Royal Alexandra Theatre until May 13. Written by Matthew Lombardo. Directed by Rob Ruggiero. Set by David Gallo. Costumes by Jess Goldstein. Lighting by John Lasiter. Starring: Tim Altmeyer, Evan Jonigkeit, and Kathleen Turner.

Kathleen Turner has the gust of a bandit. She has acted in some sexually fearless films (Body Heat, Romancing the Stone). She’s had health problems, a dependence on alcohol, a career that’s had ups and downs, but she’s always come back, fighting, and positive.

She starred in HIGH on Broadway last year where it opened and closed quickly. She believes in the play so she she’s taking it on the road. It concludes its one week run on Sunday, May 13. Because of a packed theatre schedule, I only got to it today.

Turner plays Sister Jamison (Jamie) Connelly—a swearing-recovering-alcoholic-nun. She works with addicts to help them recover. Her boss, Father Michael DelPapp, sends a challenging case her way, and insists she take it. Cody Randall is a nineteen-years-old meth addict (among other things) gay, a hustler and picked up when the police find him with a dead young teen. They are trying to find our how the boy died. In the mean time Father DelPapp tries to save Cody (for reasons we find out later) by insisting Jamie take the case.

Cody doesn’t want to be saved, or become clean or deal with this tough-broad nun. She doesn’t let him get away with anything. He challenges her. She pushes back. She tries to introduce him to a higher being. It’s tough going. There are startling revelations; a conflict of wills; trauma; drama; redemption but not necessarily in the way we expect.

Playwright Matthew Lombardo knows whereof he speaks. He’s a recovering meth addict who has been clean for almost five years. At times HIGH is preachy, often funny, harrowing and a bit sloppy—it seems to have ended twice.

The set by David Gallo is simple and efficient. John Lasiter’s lighting of a sky with stars is a bit obvious (there are several references to characters wanting to be high by flying up to the stars). Other characters want to get high another way.

As Father DelPapp, Tim Altmeyer is righteous with a sense of guilt which makes him really do wrong by Cody, good intentions notwithstanding.

As Cody, Evan Jonigkeit is twitchy, pacing, has attitude and anger for days and is deeply sad because he’s so lost.

We are in the room of course because of Kathleen Turner who plays the nun. Turner is fog-voiced, knows how to frame a laugh-line and has terrific timing for a joke. Bless her for not being microphoned. She projects, booms even. There is confidence. What is troubling is the delivery. She speaks in spurts of a few words. This breaks up sentences so that they are not said smoothly straight through, but with hesitation—almost as if she has run out of air after a few words. This makes her performance jagged, awkward and even portentous. The play and Turner’s performance didn’t leave me feeling very high at the end, alas.

Tickets at TicketKing; or www.mirvish.com

{ 0 comments }

At the Berkeley Street Theatre, Downstairs until May 26. Written by Diane Flacks in collaboration with Luba Goy and Andrey Tarasiuk. Directed by Andrey Tarasiuk. Music accompaniment by Victor Mishalow. Set by Douglas Paraschuk. Costume by Tamara Marie Kucheran. Lighting by Raha Javanfar and Robert Thomson. Starring Luba Goy.

Produced by Pleiades Theatre.

Luba Goy is beloved. This diminutive woman with her endless variety of facial expressions, sounds and sense of comedy, has been entertaining people as a founding member of The Royal Canadian Air Farce, for more than 35 years.

Luba, Simply Luba reveals Ms Goy’s and her family’s struggles to come to Canada and the trials and tribulations after they arrived, until Luba’s success. She was born in Ukraine. Her father was a comedic personality in his own right until he was in a terrible mining accident which changed his and their lives forever. From then on he was mentally fragile and unable to work. Her family immigrated to Canada for a better life. They settled in Ottawa. Luba’s mother supported the family by working at the Lord Elgin as a baker. Her father spent a lot of time at a mental facility in Brockville. There was no one to take care of Luba while her mother worked so she was taken to a Catholic orphanage to be looked after.

Luba grew up with dreams of becoming a dancer. That fortunately gave way to becoming an actress. She went to the National Theatre School. She had a stint at the Stratford Festival and eventually found her way into comedy, improvisation and ultimately as a founding member of the Royal Canadian Air Farce.

It’s a rich, full life. Fellow Ukrainian Andrey Tarasiuk urged Ms Goy to do a one woman show of her life. Diane Flacks, a huge comedic talent in her own right, was engaged to write the script with help from Ms Goy and Andrey Tarasiuk, who also directs. With all this wonderful talent involved, why is this show such a disappointment, and forgive me, so unfunny?

Many of Ms Goy’s remembrances, which she must have thought were hilarious, are so slight as not to register a titter. Her father entertaining her school friends might be funny in her memory, but they don’t resonate enough in retelling. The story flits back and forth in time, which is fine, but sometimes there are references to things that will be explained in a later scene. I think it’s a miscalculation to assume the audience knows many of the details of Ms Goy’s life. The biggest frustration is that sometimes stories are chopped up and other chopped up stories are interspersed in the telling.

For example the story of her father’s death and funeral is chopped up and interspersed with the story of Ms Goy being invited to a state dinner at Rideau Hall to meet President Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine—the hero of the revolution. She would come to a dramatic point in one story and would go to the other story, until that reached a dramatic point and she would go back. The result is that neither story is served and the drama of both is lost. However the description of the smell of the President’s shirt is divine.

Unfortunately, the biggest problem of Luba, Simply Luba, is Luba herself. Her delivery is often tentative. On the opening night she appeared to forget her lines twice. That is unsettling. She seems to pause after every line perhaps waiting for a laugh that doesn’t come. The result is that the pacing is ponderous and very slow.

Scenes are noted with a musical flourish by Victor Mishalow, playing a Bandura, a traditional Ukrainian stringed instrument like a huge lute. He also sings in a booming voice. To accompany each musical stroke director Andrey Tarasiuk has different projections appear on the large panels at the back.

The intentions are honourable. I just wish the results weren’t so disappointing.

Luba, Simply Luba plays at the Berkeley Street Theatre, Downstairs until May 26.

Tickets: www.pleiadestheatre.org.

{ 0 comments }

At Factory Theatre. Written, performed and lighting by Itai Erdal. Directed by James Long. Sound by Emelia Symington Fedy. Original composition by Andrea Young. Projection design by Jamie Nesbitt.

At Factory Theatre until May 13.

Itai Erdal emigrated to Canada from Israel in 1999 planning to be a documentary film maker. He became a theatre lighting designer instead because there were more jobs in the theatre than in film, although the pay was lousy.

Sometime after he arrived in Canada he learned that his mother had lung cancer and only had nine months to live. He rushed back to Israel to be with her. She decided he should make a documentary film of her last nine months, and so he began filming her, asking her questions, and in a way learning about his mother.

How to Disappear Completely in part is about Erdal’s mother, her struggles, and the family’s efforts to cope. It is also about Erdal’s efforts and hopes to find the right woman and have children. And also it’s a bit of a tutorial about various theatre lights, their lighting effects and Erdal’s favourite lights.

The lights go down to black to cue us the show is beginning. A voice out of the dark says that actors feel that they only have a sense of being present when they are lit. Pause. Then laughter. More talk in the dark. (Why does the word ‘pretentious’ spring to mind?) The lights finally come up to reveal Itai Erdal holding a rectangular flat keyboard it seems—with a click here and there, the lights change. He is running the lights as he performs the show. He tells us that he has broken all of the Ten Commandments. One knits one’s eyebrows at this. Laughter, but in fact he might be telling the truth we realize at the end of the show..

He moves a curtain at the back to reveal a screen on which is projected his film of his mother—smiling, on a beach, answering his questions with a touch of sarcasm. A cigarette always in her fingers (!). She looks healthy but she does have cancer. As her story progresses there are more scenes of Erdal’s mother, this time interviewed by his sister. Again there is that cigarette and direct, forthright answers. No she isn’t in pain but she doesn’t feel ‘right’. Her husband (her second) refuses to believe she is dying. He shaves her head after her chemo begins—a very touching section of film. There are filmed sections of Erdal’s best friend. There are filmed segments of his mother near the end, in the hospital.

His mother is not the focus of How to Disappear Completely. Much of it is Erdal talking about how theatre lighting is so interesting to him. There are various demonstrations of various lights. He talks about his best friend a lot. He shows film of his sister.

Erdal is very personable. Self assured, cocky perhaps with a good sense of the intriguing moment. He tells us that he has been told he’s a good story teller. Unfortunately that does not necessarily mean he is a good theatre story-teller.

Much of this production is tell and not show. He tells his mother on film of his drastic solution to her problem but then leaves us ‘in the dark’ about what that was or how he was going to put that into effect. In what we think might be leading to the touching conclusion of the production, he abruptly interrupts himself to show us one more bit of film with his sister and his take on what that means. (Why does the word ‘pretentious’ spring to mind?) The show doesn’t conclude so much as stops. Again the audience sits in the dark not knowing if this is the end or not, until one brave soul begins the applause. (Why does the word….oh, you know!)

Much of the show is a mishmash of things—is it about his dying mother? Is it about his tutorial about lighting? Is it about his great times with his friend? The whole effect seems unfocused—a real slight to a lighting designer. Erdal has left out so much information that would have been illuminating to his story. I shouldn’t have to read about it in the press information. It should be in his show and it isn’t. Nice lighting though.

{ 1 comment }

At the Theatre Centre until May 13. Written by Rajiv Joseph. Directed by Stefan Dzeparoski. Designed by Joseph Pagnan. Lighting by Gareth Crew. Sound by Christopher Staunton. Video Jordan Tannahill. Starring: Peter Mooney and Janet Porter.

Produced by BirdLand Theatre and Derrick Chua

Gruesome Playground Injuries-Playwright Rajiv Joseph certainly has chosen an intriguing title! And designer Joseph Pagnan has created an incredibly eerie, ghost-story-suggestive set and atmosphere. You enter into a hazy space, lit like a thick fog by Gareth Crew, which adds to the spookiness. A low-rumbling soundscape, courtesy of Christopher Staunton, fills the room, adding to the sense of foreboding. Human shapes, both whole and in halves, wrapped in plastic wrap are suspended from the ceiling. There is a sense of gloom and doom. Unfortunately neither the title nor the herculean effort that has gone into realizing that spooky world by director Stefan Dzeparoski, has anything to do with Joseph’s play.

Doug and Kayleen have been friends since they first met in the school nurse’s office, when they were eight. Kayleen was throwing up for some mysterious reason. Doug had just ridden his bike off the roof and gashed his forehead. He was pretending to be Evil Kenevil. They bond instantly over their maladies. “Does it hurt?” Kayleen asks. “No.” says Doug. “Can I touch it?” Kayleen wants to know. Doug lets her. This gives him comfort. Which is pretty much their routine over the next thirty years. Until Doug finally grows up and says that yes the latest injury does hurt and no she can’t touch him. I guess this is a breakthrough.

Doug and Kayleen are damaged goods. Walking wounded. He continues to do himself injuries, not necessarily in the playground, (in fact most often not—so the title is a tease). He loses an eye; he hurts a leg; until by the end of the play he’s in a wheelchair. She was abandoned by her mother and lived with an unloving, S.O.B. of a father. She ‘graduates’ from throwing up to cutting herself. They seem to have no one but each other. They complete each other. At one point Doug tells Kayleen that she is himself. But for some unknown reason they pick other partners. She marries, unhappily. Doug tries to find her after a few years but can’t. He even goes to her S.O.B. of a father to find out and is unsuccessful. But they always come back into each other.

Playwright Rajiv Joseph is maddeningly vague on the details of their lives. Is there no help for these two? Why don’t they stay with each other? Why do they leave their partners and come back to each other? The self-affliction of injuries runs deep in both of them. After asking ‘why’ for much of the play, the question becomes tiresome as Joseph refuses to dig deeper to reveal more. It seems a whole lot of effort on Joseph’s part to be profound and he’s not. I found the same situation with his previous play, Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo—a story about war torn Baghdad as seen through the eyes of a tiger played by an actor as a person. Metaphor in neon.

It’s hard to decide what is more incomprehensible about this production—Stefan Dzeparoski’s meandering program note that tries to explain it, or his scattered direction. One of the plastic wrap figures drops from the ceiling. Why? Dzeparoski stages the cast of two all over the set with little connection, seemingly just to move them and appear to use the space. Truth to tell, the most intimate moments are when the two are close together on a chair or the floor, just talking.

Their scenes move back and forth in time beginning when Kayleen and Doug are eight and ending when they are thirty-eight. At the end of each scene Peter Mooney as Doug and Janet Porter as Kayleen, take off their costumes to their underwear, move upstage, ritualistically wash their hands in a communal bowl of water, and then take each other’s make-up off. Porter is particularly attentive to Mooney—washing his face, removing an eye-patch or putting it on. He tenderly removes the blood from her thigh when “Kayleen” cut herself. Then both move to another part of the stage to put on their costumes for the next scene. It’s an interesting bit of business by Dzeparoski but the tenderness is to the actors and not the characters. So again, I have to wonder why?

They do the hand-washing near a large plastic sheet onto which Jason Tannahill has projected images supposedly of Doug and Kayleen. I say, ‘supposedly’ because the sheet is rippled and thus distorts anything projected on it. So if there is supposed to be anything meaningful, it’s lost.

The performances by Peter Mooney as Doug and Janet Porter as Kayleen are the saving graces of this frustrating production. They are charming, endearing, awkward and innocent at the beginning of their relationship, and just plain sad as they sink deeper and deeper into their neuroses. He is awkward, disarmingly full of clumsy bravado and outwardly ‘cool’. She is hard-edged, self-contained, and so lost it makes your teeth hurt.

Wonderful performances from both of them.

They are the two bright spots in ponderous play and an incomprehensible production. Nope, can’t recommend this one. Better to stay home and pick your scabs.

Gruesome Playground Injuries plays at the Theatre Centre until May 13.

{ 1 comment }

Michael Morpurgo, author of War Horse, will give an evening of words and music (with special guest Melanie Doane) on Sunday, May 13 at 7:00 pm at the Princess of Wales Theatre. Tickets can be bought on line from www.mirvish.com

Michael Morpurgo lived a quiet, ordered life in his Devon village, writing books for kids and young teens, when something shattered that quiet life resoundingly. That ‘something’ was the adaptation into a play of one of his books for the National Theatre in London. The book of course was War Horse. It’s the love story between a young teen named Albert and his horse named Joey, during WWI. The horse is sold to the cavalry to fight in France. Albert lies about his age and enlists in order to bring his horse home.

The resulting theatre production opened in 2007, played to sold-out houses for its entire run at the National; won many awards; and transferred to the West End where it continues to sell out. When the American production opened a year ago in New York at Lincoln Center Theater it too played and continues to play to rapturous audiences; became an award winning production, culminating with the Tony Award. In February the all Canadian production opened at the Princess of Wales Theatre, produced by Mirvish Productions. And Stephen Spielberg did the film version that opened at Christmas. Not bad for a book that didn’t start out as one of Morpurgo’s successes.

As with War Horse, Morpurgo writes of characters with back-bone and integrity, about lives in peril and the tenacity, resolve, loyalty, and courage to endure.

Besides gripping story-telling, there are recurring themes in his books; war is one; an absent or angry father is another. The father in War Horse is an angry, sad man but with cause. The father in Waiting for Anya had been away at war, as a prisoner for four years and comes back sick, angry, short tempered and jealous. Yet Morpurgo’s books aren’t full of anger. He treats his characters with compassion. When he deals with war, there are no enemies—just two sides fighting when they would rather not be.

Michael Morpurgo comes from a theatrical family. His parents were actors. His mother was pregnant with him when his father went off to fight for the British in WWII. He was born, in 1943 while his father was still away. During that time his mother met and fell in love with Jack Morpurgo and the marriage fell apart.

I interviewed Michael Morpurgo when he was in Toronto, doing publicity for the opening of War Horse. This is part of what he said.

(LS) With a family full of actors, an opera singer, writers poets etc. did you feel pressure to follow in the family business?

(MM) “My mother married again…. married my stepfather (Jack Morpurgo) who really did urge us (Morpurgo has an older brother, Pieter) to do more conventional things with our lives. I don’t think any of us were aspiring actors. My brother Pieter was, and I don’t think it pleased my stepfather at all because it was so like Dad on the stage and (Pieter) ended up as a wonderful director for the BBC for years and years and years, Pieter Morpurgo.

He (his step-father) was much more conventional in a sense. He was a professor of American Literature at Leeds University and the National Book League and he wrote lots of history books himself. He was a great academic. A great book man. Status was very important to him. He came to McGill in Canada for a bit….He was very public school and very British. And to some extent, in a way, I was drawn away from the acting roots of my family—I’m not blaming anyone, but I think that’s the circumstance– looking back I regret it. I regret the fact that I didn’t go into the theatre. I love the stage. I think at the time, it was the army and then it was teaching…these were relatively safe things. You were joining institutions. You were going to be embraced by them, by colleagues. I acted in school. I loved acting in school. I didn’t think I was much good at it.

Obviously at that time I was aware that my father was an actor. My mother used to talk about her acting days with great fun. I think I should have gone into acting earlier…as Marlon Brando says, “I could have been a contender.”

(LS) Was it a happy accident that you realized you were a great story-teller when you were a young school teacher?

(MM) “I think I was always a born liar, and certainly when I came to teaching I did realize that the power of that could be used usefully and educationally.

There was a book… of which I am immensely proud called It Never Rained.” It came out in 1974, a book of short stories….It’s your first book and there’s very little evidence of story-telling talent. What there was was someone who was very enthusiastic about telling a story. There are some good things in it but it’s a bit prosaic.

Way, way before that, I put together an anthology of poems by children, called Children’s Words, and this is when I was teaching. And I did it deliberately because I wanted a way to show to children how good their writing was. I selected poems from all over the country that were just written by kids. And I was looking at it the other day—it’s a tiny little volume—and there’s one there by Daniel Day Lewis, age 14. And it is lovely. And because he’s now in the next Spielberg film, I’m going to send a copy to him so he can see what he wrote like when he was 14…

“And bit by bit by bit the stories became slightly more complex and broadened out. And really what I do know about writing is that it’s so much about confidence. Having the confidence to stray a little further, to go into uncharted territory. I wrote about the territory I knew where you’re comfortable. Actually I discovered it with a book called Friend or Foe, which I wrote because my Auntie had been a head teacher in a school in London and evacuated her kids out to the country

“I was used to writing about my experience or the experience of family. I had done some research into evacuation and listening to other people’s stories, before I came to War Horse. War Horse was the first one I strayed very much from the domestic scene.”

He was nineteen when he married. Twenty when he became a teacher.

“Kids were all around me when I was growing up. And then I was teaching kids. So they became my world, very, very quickly. It was the world I understood. I found I could relate to children. And it seemed to work. I’m acting in the classroom.”

He never patronizes them. After one of his evenings of words and music in Toronto a few months ago he recalled:

“There was this little kid standing outside (the theatre) with his mother, he was about 6 ½.

I asked him “Did you read the book?” He was very direct.
“Yes I’ve read the book…I like your books a lot, but they make me sad and they shouldn’t make me sad. Why do your books make me sad?
(Morpurgo) “Which book are you talking about?”
(Boy) “War Horse. Topthorn dies. Why does Topthorn have to die?
(Morpurgo) “Well what would you have me do? Write a story about that war where everything ends happily every after?
(Boy) No…”
(Morpurgo) “Then you do accept that in war there has to be sadness?”
(Boy) “Yes.”
(Morpurgo) “Then there you are…”

“We really had a good conversation on the street. I love that. I love the directness of children. It think children are wonderful in responding to the best in them. I find children very aspirational. They know and understand all these various human qualities. Who want to find the best in other people.”

That attitude has affected him greatly, and that attitude is certainly in his books.

“ I’m very influenced by my wife’s philosophy of life. She’s a Quaker…

I’m an instinctive story writer. I try not to force it. I did find when I started I tried to force stories to happen. The more I learnt about story telling, the more I knew that you have got to allow other influences and other colours and shades to come in and to give the time for that to happen.”

He struggled to make a living from his writing for the first twenty years. But he was a paid teacher for many years. Then he set up a charity with his wife, to bring underprivileged city kids to the country to live and work on the farm he bought for that purpose, for which he received a teachers salary so that’s how they survived.

“And then bit by bit the books began to sell. Just a little bit more. One got made into a film—not a good experience—but it made a bit of money. It gave publishers confidence to keep publishing me. You only need little successes—you win the odd prize and when that happens the more they feel good about publishing you….it’s been a very, very, very slow burn. And it’s only really in the last 10 years that I’ve made a proper living.

War Horse came out in 1982 and didn’t really sell very well- perhaps about maximum sales of 2000 copies a year. Shortlisted for the Whitbread prize. Didn’t win it. So it never really sold, but the minute they announced that Spielberg was going to make a film of it sales skyrocketed (500,000 at one count) …It’s now translated into 32 languages. Interestingly the play boosted it hugely but only in England… but then the reputation of the play boosted it in Scotland and Ireland and now Canada. And the US has gone potty.”

Morpurgo had trepidation about the National Theatre doing War Horse with puppets so he asked Phillip Pullman (author of His Dark Materials) to check it out—he trusts him.

“I’m always slightly suspicious of puppets used in an ancillary way…sometimes I think it’s lazy drama, “oh just do it with a puppet.” And I was a bit worried about that. But then I saw this video of the giraffe that Handspring Puppets made for some other production…and I was completely bowled over, and from then on I knew it was possible…” (Handspring Puppets is the brilliant South African company that produced the puppets in War Horse).

There is a Canadian connection regarding Morpurgo’s father. When his father realized that the marriage had failed he severed ties with the family because the boys were so young and didn’t know him. He went to Canada first to be a long-time member of the Stratford Festival and then as a beloved member of the Shaw Festival. His name? Tony van Bridge.

Michael Morpurgo’s mother never talked about her first husband to her children and they asked often. But one day, when Michael was 19, he, his brother, and mother were watching a televised CBC drama of Great Expectations and when the character of Magwich appeared, their mother said, “that’s your father.” It was Tony van Bridge in the part.

As for his father, “We didn’t know him at all until I saw him on Canadian Television in Great Expectations.

“When we tried to ask anything about him to my mother just didn’t want to go there…She was a deeply serious woman, my mother. She was a Christian Socialist and she’d gone against all her principles and her family’s principles by divorcing. So she had to make the second marriage work. My step-father was quite chauvinistic and didn’t like her acting…She couldn’t in her head go back to this other man…so I think the way that she dealt with it was simply by removing him (from her field of vision.)…the older she got the more sad she got?” They were ideally suited my mother and my father…both actors…” During the war, 1947-48, the divorce rate went up four times. The war destroyed so much that people don’t know about.”

(LS) What’s affected you more in your writing, war or an absent father?

(MM) “An absent father. I’m very close to my older brother…it’s always a difficulty. It’s one that is reflected very often in the fathers you find in my books. It’s something that stays with you….he (Tony van Bridge) was sweet when I met him….he’d done this wonderful thing of doing his best to minimize the effect…what he did was when my mother decided in 1945, that she was going to leave him and marry someone else…he came back to try (save the marriage)—was given compassionate leave—and it didn’t work so there was a decision that there would be a divorce. So Tony said: ‘Well here’s the thing, I don’t know these boys. I’ve been away for all their lives except for two weeks, they don’t know me…there’s no point in my hanging around and getting in the way, so I’ll absent myself and let you carry on with them with this new family…”

But he did want them to have part of his name, so ‘Bridge’ was added. His mother married and the boys were adopted by Jack Morpurgo. Tony van Bridge left for Canada in 1947 for Stratford.

….”In a sense he did right by me because I wasn’t torn by one father to a step-father…There were things I didn’t care for about my step-father, but we were one unit. And to be fair to him, I think he did the best by us. We’re not talking about a nasty man. He wasn’t a vicious man.”

Morpurgo did finally meet and get to know his father when he was himself a father. Tony Van Bridge wrote a memoir entitled Also in the Cast in which his family is slightly mentioned, but Morpurgo knows as many details as he can find out. He wanted to know what theatres his father played in, in Toronto. He seemed very pleased that he was going to have a tiny part in one performance of War Horse in New York, which is playing at a theatre (The Vivian Beaumont) in which his father acted. Following in his father’s footsteps.

Morpurgo’s books are full characters who show great resolve, compassion, understanding, sensitivity, are not judgemental. who in the face of adversity, act with decency. Much like the author himself. All this and he is a wonderful, wonderful story-teller.

{ 0 comments }

Pamela Sinha; photo by Aviva Armour-Ostroff

The following two reviews were broadcast Friday, May 4, 2012, on CIUT FRIDAY MORNING. CIUT 89.5 FM. CRASH at Theatre Passe Muraille Backspace until May 13 and THE REAL WORLD?? At Tarragon Mainspace until June 3.

The host was Rose Palmieri.

(ROSE)
1) Good Friday Morning, it’s time for our regular theatre review with Lynn Slotkin, our theatre critic and passionate playgoer.

Hi Lynn

What do you have for us today?

(LYNN)
I’ve got two that opened this week which coincidentally have similar themes.

One is CRASH by Pamela Sinha, that opened at Theatre Passe Muraille backspace.

And the other is THE REAL WORLD? By Michel Tremblay, celebrated French Canadian playwright, at Tarragon Mainspace.

(ROSE)
2) What are the similar themes?

(LYNN)
Each deals with a painful incident. In each the characters suppress the memory of that incident with drastic results. Each deals with secrecy, guilt, resentment. Each is very theatrical in the story-telling.

(ROSE)
3) Let’s start with the CRASH—what a provocative title.

(LYNN)
It is. It’s a one-person show, written and performed by Pamela Sinha. It’s told in the third person about a young woman referred to as ‘The girl.’ Crash is the sound that woke her up one night after she had just moved into her apartment in Montreal.

It was the window in her apartment being broken by a crowbar, used by the intruder who would brutalize her and leave her naked, face down on her bed and terrified to turn and look at him. She couldn’t be sure, but she thought it was the cabdriver who drove her to her knew place. He helped bring some stuff in and got a good look at her apartment.

The police are sensitive to her but there are difficulties in getting the guy.

The play is really about coping. How the girl coped and how her family rallied but had their own issues with what happened to her. She has a younger brother who is very supportive.

CRASH is a compelling, gripping piece of theatre, and certainly when we realize who “the girl” is. Pamela Sinha shows that forgetting and not remembering are not the same thing. At times the girl suppresses the memory; at others she tries to remember details that have eluded her for years.

The memories flood back when she attends her father’s funeral and has to face all sorts of family and friends. It deals with faith, trust, confidence, guilt and release.

ROSE)
4) So who is the girl?

(LYNN)
It’s presented in the third person, but it’s really a first person account. This happened to Pamela Sinha when she was a theatre student years ago in Montreal. And the slow revelation when we realize that is stunning.

I love that decision to tell this in the third person. It gives us distance in a way from the person it happened to while we hear the details and get to know that girl. But when we realize that girl in the story and the woman telling it are the same person, then that distance becomes shorter and we are sucked into the story.

Pamela Sinha is a graceful, poetic writer. Details are spare but the images are crystal clear and memorable. As an actor she is understated and thus compelling. There is no gnashing of teeth or flailing around. But the production, nonetheless just grabs you.

(ROSE)
5) I would think the story would certainly grab you. How does the production add to that grip?

(LYNN)
The production is beautifully directed by Alan Dilworth—a really gifted director. He has a fine eye for the small but perfect detail and for guiding such a performance from Pamela Sinha.

There is an evocative set and lighting design by Kimberly Purtell. The set is multi-levelled that you get to by a series of stairs. Purtell is mainly a lighting designer, and her work here is moody, eerie, and provocative.

The sound is very important as well created by Debashis Sinha, her brother. The sound and lighting work in tandem to underline a startling moment or to change a scene. And completing the family affair, her mother Rubena Sinha created some of the choreography

Theatre at it’s finest.

(ROSE)
6) And let’s continue with THE REAL WORLD? A question mark in the title? What does that mean?

(LYNN)
The play was written by Michel Tremblay, and translated by John Van Burek and Bill Glassco. I think it means that everybody’s perception of things is so particular. Two people can look at the same thing and see things differently, but what is the real world after all the discussion?

This being Michel Tremblay, the play takes place in Quebec. Suppressed society. The play is about a family as seen through the eyes of the son, Claude. He is sensitive and watchful. He has written a play about his repressed, dysfunctional family, and in particular his parents.

His mother Madeleine has read it at his request and is appalled. She tells him that he has not written the truth. Or he has written things, using their own names, that are best left unsaid. Claude says he has written what he considers to be the truth. It’s not pretty.

I’m reminded of what David Ferry said last week when we had him on talking about is upcoming production of THE AGONY AND ECSTASY OF STEVE JOBS—all theatre is a lie, it just varies from person to person.

Claude’s father Alex is a flagrant philanderer. He’s a travelling insurance salesman, a sexist, a bully who always criticizes Claude for his wanting to be a playwright. He criticizes his wife who rebuffs his gruff advances when he comes home from a trip.

Claude’s sister Mariette is a go-go dancer in various hotels. The relationship between the father and daughter is to say the least, eye-brow raising. And there is a sordid family secret that everybody knows about but keeps suppressed.

Claude writes about all of it and naturally his family is angry. And while he is confronting his family about it, how he has actually written about the family is played out on stage at the same time.

So a play within a play, with Claude standing off watching. The world of Claude’s play and the world of his family play-out at the same time and collide.

(ROSE)
6) Do we ever find out the secret?

(LYNN)
Of course. This is where the two worlds, the collide. We have to decide which is real, where is the truth. Or are both real. The life of a playwright is never easy and certainly not in the emotionally charged world of The Real World?

The play debuted 25 years ago and it is as emotionally charged, as fraught today as it was then. In his particular way Tremblay has written a love letter to the theatre.

(ROSE)
7) Is the production a love-letter too?

(LYNN)
I think so certainly as directed by Richard Rose. He puts us in both worlds at the same time. It’s designed by Charlotte Dean who has set it in a straight forward proscenium stage with the set behind it. As in a play.

When Claude is interacting with his family he is right in the middle of the action. When his characters of his family in his play then come on stage—wearing sort of the same clothes as his real family—and play the same scenes we have seen for real, Claude sometimes steps out of the proscenium and watches the action he has written, unfold. That’s wonderfully theatrical.

We are engaged on two levels—what we think is the real world, and Claude’s idea of his real world. We always know where we are. It’s never confusing.

Richard Rose has directed a production that both takes us into that family and has us look at it from a distance. The performances are terrific, especially Matthew Edison as Claude. There is such passion and frustration in this character standing up to his bully father who does something terrible, but expected at the end.

In one of those wonderful ironies, Matthew Edison is himself a playwright. I love that juxtaposition. As Alex the ‘real’ father, Tony Nappo is easy going, a smiler, and a lethal streak lurks beneath.

As the theatrical father in Claude’s play, Cliff Saunders has a sleazy charm and his anger is overt. As the real mother, Jane Spidell is tightly wound, ready to explode at her son for telling family secrets and her husband for everything else.

Dysfunctional families—we’ve seen plays dealing with them before, but this is Tremblay and it’s so much more—passion, fury, frustration, and sheer theatre.

(ROSE)
Thanks Lynn. That’s Lynn Slotkin our theatre critic and passionate playgoer. You can read Lynn’s blog at www.slotkinletter.com

CRASH plays at Theatre Passe Muraille Backspace until May 13. Tickets at 416-504.7529

THE REAL WORLD? Plays at the Tarragon Mainspace until June 3. Tickets: 416-531-1827

{ 0 comments }

At Tarragon Theatre Mainspace until June 3. Written by Michel Tremblay. Translated by John Van Burek and Bill Glassco. Directed by Richard Rose. Designed by Charlotte Dean. Lighting by Kevin Fraser. Music and sound by Emily Porter.

Produced by Tarragon Theatre.

The life of a playwright is never easy and certainly not in the emotionally charged world of The Real World? by Michel Tremblay. In it Claude, sensitive and watchful, has written a play about his dysfunctional family, and in particular his parents. His mother has read it at his request and is appalled. She tells him that he has not written the truth. Claude says he has written what he considers to be the truth.

The world of Claude’s play and the world of his family play-out at the same time and collide. Which is the real world? The play debuted 25 years ago and it is as emotionally charged, as fraught today as it was then.

Richard Rose has directed a production that both takes us into that family and has us look at it from a distance. The performances are terrific, especially Matthew Edison as Claude.

Full review will be broadcast on CIUT MONDAY MORNING on Friday, May 4 from 9 am to 10 am. CIUT 89.5 FM.

{ 0 comments }