The Passionate Playgoer

The Life and Death of Marina Abramovic

 At the Bluma Appel Theatre, Toronto. Concept, Direction and Design by Robert Wilson. Co-creator, Marina Abramovic. Co-director, Ann-Christin Rommen, Musical director, composer and lyricist by Antony. Costumes by Jacques Reynaud, Lighting by A.J. Weissbard, Video designer, Tomasz Jeziorski. Starring: Marina Abramovic, Antony, Willem Defoe, Dragana Tomic.

Part of the Luminato Festival. June 15, 16, 17.

The Life and Death of Marina Abramovic has been described as ‘an experimental opera’ and recounts the life of renowned performance artist Marina Abramovic, from her early troubled days in Belgrade, (former Yugoslavia, now Serbia) through her discovery of performance art, to her thorny love-life that was attached to her art, to her ascension to the top of her game. Perhaps her most ambitious piece was in 2010  “The Artist is Present”, at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in which she sat in a chair, silent for 716.5 hours in which various people sat opposite her each looking at the other for a minute.

For The Life and Death of Marina Abramovic the audience is led into the theatre and taken to their seats by an usher who talks in hushed sounds, perhaps out of respect for the three ‘bodies’ on stage. Three women in black velvet gowns are laid out on black raised platforms, each head resting on a raised block. Two of the women wear a white mask that suggests Marina Abramovic, exaggerated make-up, red lipstick. The last woman wears a white mask that looks a bit different than the other two, suggesting this is a different person—her mother perhaps.   Each wears white gloves and each has her hands folded on her diaphragm. They are all breathing but the woman in the middle is breathing in a manner that is quick but subtle. I figure this is the real Marina. There is a constant low humming sound.

Three large dogs come out from the wings and sniff the artificial bones around each platform. They eat something on stage. They scurry around the platforms but never bother the three women. When the ‘show’ is about to begin, the dogs leave, the lights lower and then rise again up full. Stage left is the narrator and participant in the production, Willem Dafoe. He is on a set piece that has risen from the orchestra pit. He sits in a ratty office chair in which the back is tapped together. Neat bundles of tied news papers surround him. His face is made-up in garish make-up—white face, red lips, black around the eyes etc. He could be ‘The Joker’ or in a German cabaret. His red hair is spiked high.

In quick sentences he goes through the dated milestones of Marina Abramovic’s life; born; her first period; ill health; her father deserts the family; her mother’s cruelty; meeting the love of her life; art; parting; more art; The Artist is Present and now The Life and Death of Marina Abramovic.

It’s a whirlwind of information with startling images projected on the back wall of the stage, with various characters, some bald, in dresses, white face and moustache, flitting across the stage. Because I am in the front row at the very side, getting focused on what is said and being able to see the full perspective of the stage, is difficult. Not an ideal location for reviewing a show properly, but ‘we’ do our best.

Abramovic plays both herself and her cold, unloving, unforgiving mother. As her mother, she walks across the stage to the accompaniment of a hard, clomping foot fall, arms folded across her chest, her white gloved hands gripping the sides of her black-clad arms, one finger tapping on the arm. The message is unmistakable with that tapping figure—irritation, impatience, pent up anger. At one point she looks out to the audience and ‘smiles’ a tight, hard smile. No warmth in that smile. She approaches a character dressed as a little girl and slaps her. It won’t be the first time.

Interestingly Marina Abramovic herself for the most part is a silent participant and mostly an observer of her own unfolding life. She does recite several recipes that deal with pain, and haltingly sings a song,  but otherwise her speaking is spare.

Antony, without his band The Johnsons, has written several songs for this production and sings them in his distinctive, angelic voice. The music and his singing are ethereal and evocative. “Cut the World” is particularly haunting and moving.  As is the music of Svetlana Spajic.

This being a Robert Wilson production, the style and design are artificial and provocative. Image after image is compelling and arresting. Movement is deliberately slow. Set pieces float out from the wings at a glacial pace, soon joined by other pieces from the other side of the stage. A man in spandex walks slowly across the stage with a beautiful yellow python around his shoulders, winding around his arm and down around his thigh. The snake is real. Other characters follow, each carrying a large knife. At the end of the production Abramovic and the other two like images are raised into the air like angels.

Is there a meaning to the images? Is it symbolism? Is the question too literal? Are we to accept them as is? Questions, questions. But that is the beauty of a Robert Wilson production I think; there are more questions than answers. The look of it; the shear theatricality is not in question. The production is gorgeous–the costumes, the lighting, the images–even from my too close, side view.

If there is a star of the production, it is Willem Dafoe as both narrator and participant. He has a finesse and sense of danger in performance. As he recites the dates and events of Abramovic’s life he is almost sarcastic in his tone.  His voice is malleable. His expression and physical dextrousness is impressive. He is fearless and frightening at once. But he is also extremely moving.

In Act II he is surrounded by crumpled sheets of paper. Is it news paper? Are they just jottings? Don’t know. He randomly picks up a sheet of paper, reads the date and the notes as if they are Abramovic’s musings. Puts the page down; picks up another; reads the date and then the note. The jottings are full of disappointment in love; being left for another; hoping the lover will see the show and not coming; she and her lover each walking 2500 kilometres, she from one direction, he from another, to meet and then say good by; psychoanalysis; finally happiness. This time there is no shred of sarcasm. There is softness, consideration, empathy.

In stillness and silence Abramovic is mesmerizing. There is something about her gaze that is both compelling and full of composure. It certainly has been a rich life with many twists and turns. Perhaps each change represents a kind of death, which might explain the last part of the title. (but then wouldn’t it be “The Life and Deaths of Marina Abramovic”?) Questions, questions.

I found the whole experience of this production fascinating but question the point of it in the first place. It seems that every single part of Abramovic’s life has been recorded, documented or utubed. And while absolute honesty is the cornerstone of her work, I thought some omissions in her story puzzling. The love of her life, with whom she lived and created art for 10 years, is frequently referenced in the narrative but not named. How odd. He was Ulay (Uwe Laysiepen). Why not name him?  Is she being coy?

They both did walk 2500 kilometres towards each other when they decided to end their relationship in 1988, but not mentioned is that the journey took place from either end of the Great Wall of China, where they met in the middle, hugged and parted. There is a heightened romanticism in that journey to their end on that Wall—both creating the grand gesture even at the end. Both odd omissions. Still a fascinating production.

The Life and Death of Marina Abramovic plays at the Bluma Appel Theatre June 15 (eve), 16 (Mat.), 17 (eve)

 www.luminatofestival.com

{ 2 comments }

The following  two reviews were broadcast on June 14, 2013, CIUT Friday Morning, 89.5 fm; Lady Windermere’s Fan at the Shaw Festival until  October 19; and Passion Play at Withrow Park and Eastminster United Church at 310 Danforth until  June 30.

 The guest host was Phil Taylor.

 (PHIL)

1)   Good Friday Morning. Lynn Slotkin, our theatre critic and passionate playgoer is here with our theatre fix.

 Hi Lynn. What do you have for us today?

 (LYNN)

Hi Phil. I saw two established plays being given startling productions. Lady Windermere’s Fan by Oscar Wilde now at the Shaw Festival, and Passion Play by Sarah Ruhl that is playing both in Withrow Park if it’s not raining and then Eastminster United Church. 310 Danforth Ave.

 (PHIL)

2)   Tell us first about Lady Windermere’s Fan by the witty Oscar Wilde.

 (LYNN)

It was first performed in London in 1892 in London, England. It has all those things that are as up to date as tomorrow: intrigue, rumour, innuendo, a fallen woman wanting to get back into society and society not being very accommodating. Lady Windermere is the 21 year old wife of Lord Windermere who is a bit older than she is and rich. It’s her birthday. Her husband has given her a present of a beautiful fan and had her name (Margaret) engraved on it. There is to be a party that night in her honour.

 But earlier in the day she is visited by Lord Darlington, very suave but with a questionable reputation. He has come to tell her that her husband is being unfaithful with a woman named Mrs. Erlynne.

 Darlington tells Lady Windermere that he loves her and wants her to leave her husband, and later asks her to run away with him.

 Later Lady Windermere does some snooping and finds her husband’s locked bank book with several large sums of money going to Mrs. Erlynne. When Lord Windermere comes home he realizes what his wife has done and is furious. But he implores his wife to invite Mrs. Erlynne to the party.

 She has a bad reputation for sure but she is trying to repent and needs to be brought back into society.

 Well we see the dilemma. Is Lord Windermere cheating on his young wife? He is not forthcoming with information on why he is giving Mrs. Erlynne lots of money.

 Lady Windermere’s own fan also implicates her in what could be a sticky situation.

 It’s all written with impeccable style and wit by Oscar Wilde who knew his way around humour, moral dilemmas and dangerous, bitchy society.

(PHIL)

3)   Is the production as stylish?

 (LYNN)

It’s a beautiful looking production. The sets (Teresa Przybylski), costumes (William Schmuck) and lighting (Louise Guinand) are stunning. Every scene seems to evoke a painting. It’s directed by Peter Hinton who always has a clear vision of what he wants his productions to be. He is an intellectual and that translates into his productions.

 And art and artists factor heavily here, such as John Singer Sargent, Whistler, Mary Cassatt etc. According to the program Peter Hinton used their work and others to elucidate the journey of the play and assigned a painter to each of the four acts.

 That’s all very well and good but I found the result confusing if not distracting from the actual play.

 (PHIL)

4)   How so?

 5)   (LYNN)

As I said earlier, every scene seemed to evoke a painting. Am I supposed to be familiar with the paintings of the period to fully appreciate the production? Do I have to read a program note before hand to learn the director’s intention? Surely the production should do that? Where is the play in all this if I’m looking at the posing around it? For example, as the audience files in various characters in beautiful gowns, walk out slowly in front of the curtain and pose in a pool of light. They all carry a fan. They stand in front of the curtain that is sectioned with light and a number in each section.

 It looked like a contact sheet of posed photographs. What does that mean?

 The rising curtain for each scene suggests an aperture of a camera, part rose up and part moved to the sides.

All very slowly.

 At Lady Windermere’s birthday ball, scenes seemed separate from the dancing behind it, all of it posed and again, very slow. Why?

 While it looks beautiful; and Hinton obviously has a meticulous concept for the play, I found all the posing, and the suggestions of paintings distancing from the actual play, and that’s frustrating.

 (PHIL)

6)   How are the performances? Do they redeem the production?

 (LYNN)

The performances are very fine. As Lady Windermere, Marla McLean is pert, gracious and has that confidence of a 21 year old with a stubborn side. She is adamant about not having Mrs. Erlynne anywhere near her, although she relents.

 As Mrs. Erlynne, Tara Rosling gives a fine performance of a woman with a past and the reasons she deserves  to have a lousy reputation. She’s cool, imperious, and dangerous.

 As the Duchess of Berwick, Corrine Koslo is properly condescending, frivolous and smothering of her daughter Agatha. Kate Bessworth plays Agatha as a demur, downtrodden daughter who proves to have a spine when she is finally free to go out with a man.

 Martin Happer as Lord Windermere is indignant at his wife’s prying,  as well as anxious in trying to hide his secret relationship with Mrs. Erlynne.

 In the small part of Mr. Cecil Graham, a kind of Oscar Wilde character, Kyle Blair is elegant in his costume, knows how to wear it with style and lets the bon mots drop perfectly. Wearing the clothes and giving off the sense of ‘to the manor born’ is difficult in some cases in this production, but Kyle Blair nails it.

So to sum up, Lady Windermere’s Fan is a fascinating play, with fine acting, in a stylish production but there is so much effort to create the style, that ultimately I found it a disappointment and frustrating experience in actually trying to see the play.

 It’s like looking at the tree and not seeing the forest.

 (PHIL)

7)   And what about Passion Play?

 (LYNN)

Sensational. It’s a herculean effort of three theatre companies, (Outside the March, Convergence Theatre Company and Sheep No Wool) getting together to produce Passion Play by American playwright, Sarah Ruhl.

 At its centre is the medieval Passion Play that recounts the crucifixion of Christ. Whole villages would put on this play once a year in which the townsfolk played all the parts. Usually the same actor played the same part year after year.

 What Ruhl does here is to take that experience as a basis for seeing how the play is referenced in three different time periods.

 Act I is 1575 in England just before Queen

Elizabeth 1 was about to shut down the Passion Plays in order to control religious representation.

 Act II takes place in Oberammergau, Germany (the place that the Passion Plays originated in the Middle Ages). Only for our purposes it’s 1934 and the Nazi Party is on the rise.

 And the last Act takes place in Spearfish, South Dakota in the time of the Viet Nam War and the time of Ronald Regan as president.

 Ruhl shows the shifting relationships of the characters who are putting on the plays.

 In Act I the man playing Pontius Pilate is in love with the woman playing Mary but she won’t have anything to do with him, perhaps because he’s a fisherman and smells of fish.

 In Act II, the focus of the Passion Play is the Jews and how they are reflected in Nazi Germany. There are also references to gays having to hide their relationship; and the cruel treatment of anyone thought to be either physically or mentally challenged.

 And in Act III a man who had been in the Passion Play goes off to Viet Nam and comes back broken, his faith shattered. And he questions everything the play might have stood for.

Passion Play is a huge play and producing it is a huge undertaking.

 (PHIL)

8)   Why do you say it is sensational?

 (LYNN)

Because everything in this triple collaboration works a treat and the result is thrilling. I saw it last night and Act I was supposed to take place in Withrow Park and then move for Acts II and III to Eastminster United Church.

 Because of the rain we saw all three acts in the Church. The logistics are a nightmare and they pulled it off with patience, resolve and cooperation. Special Kudos go to Colin Doyle a co-producer, ticket taker, calmer-downer, and all round charmer who got everyone in their seats on time. The audience was accommodating too.

 There are three directors, one for each act. Alan Dilworth directed Act I; Aaron Willis directed Act II and Mitchell Cushman directed Act III.

 Each has his own vision for the act; each shows the director’s distinct way of creating, but they all work to produce a cohesive whole.

 There are 11 actors and each and every one of them is strong, smart, creative and convincing.

 Maev Beaty, an enormously talented actress in this city plays Queen Elizabeth 1 with an imperious air; Adolph Hitler with an every growing frightening rage and mad eyes; and Ronald Reagan with a folksy manner and benign eyes. Stunning.

 As Pontius, Cyrus Lane is compelling. He’s downtrodden, dangerous, lost, and in the end crazed. Stunning.

 As Mary, Mayko Nguyen shifts from being almost demure but with an edge in Act I; coy and coquettish in Act II, and confident and conflicted in Act III. Stunning.

 This is a theatrical event and as such the audience was a cross section of ages. I thought that was heartening.

Passion Play is a terrific accomplishment.

 Don’t miss it!

(PHIL)

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

 Lady Windermere’s Fan plays at the Shaw Festival until October 19. www.shawfest.com

 Passion Play continues at Withrow Park (weather permitting)  and Eastminster United Church until June 30.

www.outsidethemarch.ca

 

 

{ 0 comments }

At the Panasonic Theatre until September 1, 2013. Based on “Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats” by T.S. Eliot. Music by Andrew Lloyd Webber. Directed by Dave Campbell. Choreography by Gino Berti.  Set by Tim Webb. Costumes by Lisa Magill. Lighting by Bradley A. Trenaman. Sound by  Peter McBoyle. Starring Charles Azulay, Ma-Anne Dionisio, Cory O’Brien, Devon Tullock.

Has it really been 28 years since producer Marlene Smith produced the first Canadian production of Cats? Time flies.

Cats is based on a sweet, slim book of poems written by T.S.Eliot in the 1930s, entitled “Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats”. “Old Possum” was T.S. Eliot’s assumed name. He included the poems in letters to his godchildren. Years later they were collected into book form. Then Andrew Lloyd Webber put his overbearing musical stamp on it. Cats The Musical opened in the West End in London in 1981 and then on Broadway. Cats is the second longest running musical in Broadway history, behind The Phantom of the Opera, also by Mr. Webber.

It’s a special night for the Jellicle cats of the local junk-yard. A cat will be picked who is thought to be special enough to come back with a new life. Old Deuteronomy, a revered old cat, will make the decision. Various cats have their time in the spotlight. There is Gus the theatre cat reminiscing of his past glories; Bustopher Jones in his fancy spats; Grizabella, the Glamour Cat is the most loathed cat in the yard. She was once elegant, now tattered, hunched, and halting as she walks. Her glory days are behind her.

This could be the way to describe the present production of Cats.  Kudos of course to Marlene Smith and her company to mount an all Canadian production, but does it have to look so tattered and downscale; so (forgive me) community theatre while charging a hefty amount for tickets? ($40-$100. $40 should be the top price for this effort and that’s stretching it.)

The Panasonic Theatre is a perfectly reasonable theatre for many productions but not this one. The stage is too small. Much of the stage is taken up with Tim Webb’s junk-yard set leaving precious little room for the performers to dance. When they do dance to Gino Berti’s pedestrian choreography it often seems more like synchronized arm waving and yoga poses with the occasional leap. Characters do scramble over the set pieces at the back but there is that sense that the actual set is underused. And since these are cats the junk, stuff should be much larger to give the sense of size. It started off well with a huge red high-top sneaker dropping from the flies, but it did not continue with that wit with the actual set.

Dave Campbell’s direction is little more than guiding characters on and off the stage, often via the audience making it difficult for those in the balcony to see it. The pace is slow and that’s deadly for any show. In too many cases characters and their costumes and wigs are not distinct enough, making several cats seem alike. The cast is a mix of experienced professionals, recent graduates making their professional debut, and those in between. The dancing is energetic. The singing in some cases is spotty. Surely there must be someone in the creative team to give the proper pronunciation Tottenham. Every syllable is not pronounced. It’s “Tottnum.”  As Grizabella, Ma-Anne Dionisio sings “Memory” with heart and heartache. But the young woman who echoes Grizabella as a younger incarnation is completely out of her depth when singing it. As Old Deuteronomy, Charles Azulay has a robust voice and knows how to bring out the most in the lyrics. I was grateful to these strong individual singers, but not grateful for an orchestra that sounded tinny, as if it was all done on a synthesizer.

This production of Cats attracted an audience of young people who are obviously seeing it for the first time. Fine. Perhaps they will be hooked to see something better next time. For those looking to revive your memory of Cats from 28 years ago, better pass.

Cats runs at the Panasonic Theatre until September 1.

{ 0 comments }

 TOMMY

At the Avon Theatre, Stratford, Ontario. Music and lyrics by Pete Townshend. Book by Pete Townshend and Des McAnuff. Directed by Des McAnuff. Set by John Arnone. Costumes by David C. Woolard.  Choreography by Wayne Cilento. Lighting by Howell Binkley. Sound by Andrew Keister. Projections by Sean Nieuwenhuis. Starring: Joshua Buckwald, Arden Couturier, Kira Guloien, Jeremy Kushnier, Robert Marcus, Paul Nolen, Steve Ross

A bit of background. Pete Townshend of The Who wrote TOMMY  as a concept album in 1969 in the form of a rock opera. It was probably the first time that phrase—rock opera—was used. It was then revisited by Townshend and Des McAnuff  who both wrote the book for it and created the musical that McAnuff also directed and played Broadway in 1992. It won the Tony Award for best musical among others. It played here in Toronto in 1995 with McAnuff directing, where I saw it.

The musical takes place in England between 1941-1963. Captain Walker has to leave his pregnant wife to go off to fight in WWII. She gives birth to their son Tommy while he’s away. Captain Walker is missing in action and presumed dead and over time Mrs. Walker finds another love. Then Captain Walker miraculously returns home to find his wife in the arms of this guy. She is delighted to see her husband. Captain Walker meets his four year old son Tommy and is delighted. The lover is not at all happy. A fight ensues. Captain Walker shoots the lover. Both parents forcibly tell Tommy that he is not to speak about this; he didn’t see anything; and he didn’t hear anything. They repeat this with more shaking of this kid. Tommy takes them at their word. After that he doesn’t speak at all, gives the impression he doesn’t hear anything or see at all. It’s not autism. It’s post traumatic stress disorder.

As time goes by, Tommy is ‘fiddled with’ by his ‘Uncle Ernie’; bullied by his cousin Kevin;  taken by his parents to endless doctors who poke and prod him trying to find out what’s wrong with him. Then he finds his calling when he’s put in front of a pinball machine. He’s a wiz at it. A champion. He becomes famous for it.  Then a miracle happens and he gets his senses back. He becomes a rock star and ultimately his public deserts him because he’s ordinary.

Fast forward to this year and the Stratford Festival where Des McAnuff has directed TOMMY again taking advantage of technological advances since he first did it in 1992. The production is a bombardment of loud music; projections, relentless psychedelic lighting effects and constantly moving set pieces and props.  There is not one surface on either a wall or prop that does not have a blinking, flashing light on it over which might be a projection or some other kind of distraction. Those with epilepsy beware.

The whole effect is distancing, cold and uninvolving. You can’t get engaged by any characters because of all that flashing distraction. The cast perform their hearts out—they have to to be noticed. As Captain Walker and his wife, Jeremy Kushnier and Kira Guloien respectively have strong voices, but even with miking they are often drowned out by the orchestra as is the rest of the cast. As the Acid Queen, Jewelle Blackman is incomprehensible because she screams and puts such a spin on her words you can’t tell what she’s saying. As Cousin Kevin, Paul Nolan is nicely dangerous.

And while McAnuff has said that strides in technology will allow him to improve upon the production of Tommy, that’s not what he’s done. It’s the same old set of scaffolding, moving props and lighting effects that he’s used for The Jersey Boys and Jesus Christ Superstar. The same old flash with little substance. And certainly no re-thinking. For all that frantically fouetteing of the poking, prodding doctors, they never really say they can’t find anything wrong with him. Irony is lost here.  It’s interesting to note that there is a Musical Staging Consultant listed in the program (Tracey Langan Corea) which leads me to believe that the staging is recreated but not rethought. There is substance in the story but McAnuff has ignored it.

If I was to describe this production with one word it would be “quaint.” Truly. TOMMY  is quaint in its being steadfastly mired in its old fashioned notion that dazzle and flash was the future of musical theatre. That lasted a nano second. The story and telling it well has always been what theatre is about, musical or otherwise. Since 1992 musical theatre has moved on. Audiences have too. Townshend has reflected a troubling world in TOMMY that still fills our news: pedophilia, bullying, child abuse, drug abuse, abuse of the disabled, but none of it is explored in this ‘revival.’ Typical McAnuff. Sad.

TOMMY plays at the Avon Theatre, Stratford Festival until October 19.

{ 0 comments }

At the Festival Theatre, Stratford, Ont. Until October 20. Book by Joseph Stein based on Tevye and his Daughters by Sholem Aleichem. Music by Jerry Bock. Lyrics by Sheldon Harnick. Directed and choreographed by Donna Feore. Originally directed and choreographed by Jerome Robbins. Set by Allen Moyer. Costumes by Dana Osborne. Lighting by Michael Walton. Sound by Peter McBoyle. Fight direction by John Stead. Starring: Jacqueline French, Kate Hennig, Keely Hutton, Gabrielle Jones, Krista Leis Julie Stuart, Scott Wentworth.

Fiddler on the Roof is the beloved musical that opened on Broadway in 1964; based on Tevye and his Daughters by Sholem Aleichem; in which one of its songs—“Sunrise, Sunset” has been responsible for sending thousands of brides—Jewish and otherwise—down the aisle, usually to sniffling accompaniment.

We are in the town of Anatevka in Russia in 1905 Tevye is a humble milk man living in a world of women—he has one wife, Golda, and five daughters. His main solace is talking to God, perhaps because God doesn’t answer back as often as Golda and his daughters do. And Tevye believes in tradition. It’s what holds a family and a people together. There is a procedure for things and certainly when it comes to marriage. In that case the father finds a husband using a matchmaker, and he gives the permission to marry. But in the case of three of his daughters that’s not holding true. They want to marry whom they want when they want. This causes Tevye all sorts of “tsoris” (Yiddish for “trouble”, “aggravation.”). The peaceful existence in the village is jeopardized when the local Russian police tell Tevye that there will be a little ‘dust up’ just to show the police are doing their jobs. The people learn soon enough the village will be disbanded and its inhabitants forced to leave. Tevye’s conversations with God ramp up.

Why is Fiddler on the Roof so beloved? Why does it rank as one of the all time successful Broadway musicals? It’s been revived endlessly and is popular even in high schools and community theatres.  What is so special about it?

Simple. It’s about families and almost everybody has one and can identify with someone in the story. It’s about tradition and trying desperately to hold on to it almost at all cost, but knowing when traditions have to be let go when moving forward, trying not to look back. And most important, it’s about love; love of parents for their children; husbands and wives for each other; and friends for friends. The stories are timeless.

Jerry Bock’s score is beautiful and touches the heart.  Sheldon Harnick’s lyrics fit perfectly and list those traditions that are so important; and talk of love and marriage from various perspectives; and talk of dreaming to be rich; dreaming to marry the girl/boy in question; questions of do you love me? Of the 22 musical numbers there are at least10 hit tunes. That’s astonishing.

Does this Stratford production do this musical justice? Definitely. Director Donna Feore has filled her vibrant production with respect, life and passion. The title of the show comes from a painting of a fiddler by Marc Chagall. Taking a cue from Chagall, set designer Allen Moyer, has a halo of sorts of Chagall-like characters placed around a curve above the stage—suggesting characters dancing in space. His design is simple and clearly depicts the humble, poor but full lives of the good people of Anatevka.

The original director and choreographer of the Broadway production was Jerome Robbins. And even though he died years ago he has a grip on his creations even from the grave. You cannot do a Jerome Robbins musical without adhering exactly to the Jerome Robbins choreography according to the dictates of his estate. Donna Feore has been true to Robbins’ rousing choreography but she goes further than that and has her gifted company of dancers and actors instil the passion and zest for life of all of them into the show. If anything I get the sense those dancers are dancing for their characters’ lives. The result is thrilling.

And it’s great fun seeing how perceptive and theatrically savvy Robbins was in knowing how to build a scene with music and movement, so that by the end of it the audience has no choice but to applaud. Take the famous bottle dance during the wedding of one of Tevye’s daughters. A group of wedding guests balances a bottle on top of their hats. Then sink down on their knees and to a downbeat in the music, flip one leg straight out to the side and then drag their bodies forward with the outstretched foot. Then the other leg is flipped out with the foot dragging the body after. Again to the downbeat, as the music speeds up a bit as the dancers still balancing the bottles, move with grace to the music. Behind them is a crowd of guests who clap and end up cheering to the beat of the music. The audience is intoxicated and caught up in it. Resistance is futile. Instant applause.

The cast is terrific. Leading the way is Scott Wentworth as Tevye. Mr. Wentworth is not physically imposing but his presence certainly is. His Tevye is tired—the horse is lame and he has to pull the milk cart himself. He moves slowly. His conversations with God are flippant and funny. He has a strong singing voice and a tenderness with his children that is heart-squeezing. He is intimidated by Golda and that’s rather sweet.  And when Tevye is faced with the local Russian police officer he withers. His body sinks into itself slightly and he stoops, head down. A stunning bit of physical business that speaks volumes.

As Golda, the matriarch of the family, Kate Hennig is a whirlwind. While Tevye has only a cart to pull, Golda has a house to run, a husband to boss and five daughters to order around all in the name of efficiency and getting things done on time. She has a beautiful sense of timing; a lovely voice and a tenderness that peeks out from the abruptness that is disarming.

The three older daughters: Tzeitel (Jennifer Stewart), Hodel, (Jacqueline French), Chava (Keely Hutton), all have spunk, confidence, and sing beautifully.

Fiddler on the Roof is as familiar as an old friend. And as captivating as if meeting for the first time.

Fiddler on the Roof plays at the Festival Theatre until Oct. 20

{ 0 comments }

The following productions were reviewed on Friday, May 31, 2013, CIUT FRIDAY MORNING, 89.5 FM ROMEO AND JULIET and MEASURE FOR MEASURE both at the Stratford Festival until the fall.

(PHIL)

1)  Good Friday morning. It’s theatre fix time with Lynn Slotkin, our theatre critic and Passionate Playgoer. 

Hi Lynn.   Since The Stratford Festival opened on Monday can I assume you are going to review plays from the Festival?

(LYNN)

Right you are Phil. It was an auspicious opening to the 61st season, with pomp and ceremony and begun by a kilt-clad, troupe of drum-beating, bag-pipe playing enthusiastic fellows.

It’s the inaugural season of incoming Artistic Director, Antoni Cimolino.  I see a theme in this opening week of moving forward into the future but with a strong bond to tradition.

In this week I saw: Romeo and Juliet, Fiddler on the Roof, Measure for Measure, The Who’s Tommy, tonight it’s Mary Stuart and tomorrow it’s The Three Musketeers and Blithe Spirit. This being a festival that focuses on Shakespeare, today I’m going to cover Romeo and Juliet and Measure for Measure.

(PHIL)

2)  Let’s start with those star cross’d lovers, Romeo and Juliet.

(LYNN)

Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is a play about love, feuding, death and reconciliation.

Romeo and Juliet are teenagers whose families have been feuding for so long that no one remembers the reason. They just hate each other and when anyone from either family meets in the street by accident, it usually results in a fight.

But Romeo crashes a party at Juliet’s house and is completely smitten when he sees her and so is she when she sees him. They secretly marry. Her parents promise her to someone else and it ends really, really badly.

(PHIL)

3)  I understand that the production is unusual because it tries to replicate a performance in Shakespeare’s day?

(LYNN)

This is where tradition comes in. The production’s director Tim Carroll and his design team led by set designer Douglas Paraschuk,  pay homage to the original Stratford Festival stage design by Tanya Moiseiwitsch; with its balcony, side staircases, and thrust stage.

It is also a tip of the hat to Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre in London,   England, with its three spikes at the top, canopy over the stage and the suggestion of tiers almost around its round circumference.  The theatre is uncovered for the most part. Carroll was an associate director at Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre from 1999 to 2005.

 They often used what is called “original practices” in which the lighting was natural during the day and minimal at night. A group of musicians played traditional music on traditional instruments before the show to get us in the mood. The actors played directly to the audience in many cases. They ended every performance with a rousing dance. Characters begin each performance with the rules, done in Elizabethan ‘speak’, about turning off cell phones and not taking pictures etc.

 And Carroll has brought those practices to Stratford. The house lights are on in the audience as well as on stage during the show.

Musicians played in the lobby beforehand and did the fanfare (lute, drum, recorder, violin) to announce the beginning of the performance. That was interesting. No rousing brass fanfare, but this quiet, lilting version. The same musicians stood on the stage balcony playing traditional music until the show started.

Characters from the house of Capulet tell us to turn off cell phones etc. but with a sensibility of 1595. Characters from the house of Montague come out to tell the same thing; a shouting match begins, and so does the play. Slick that.

Now I know we don’t live in Shakespeare’s time, but this is an interesting exercise. I have also seen Globe productions when all the women’s parts are played by men. It engages the audience; introduces a different approach. I’m up for that.

What Carroll has envisioned for his production of Romeo and Juliet has more to do with an adherence to the play as text and not as much attention about the play as performance, or to get performances out of actors who need a strong hand. 

I must confess I’ve seen a few of Carroll’s  productions at the Globe and they generally lack a strong idea; a grip on actually directing actors to realize the play. They seemed unexplored and dull. Opportunities missed. These problems are so evident here. 

(PHIL)

4)  How so?

(LYNN)

We have a Romeo in Daniel Briere who is not up to the task. It’s so easy to slash and burn him for his inadequacy but that’s unfair and cruel. His biography indicates only one Shakespeare role and that was a minor one, in an outdoor production. How can Tim Carroll then cast him in one of the most celebrated lead roles on one of the greatest stages? How can you do that to this young man with so little experience?

 As Juliet we have Sara Topham, who is accomplished in Shakespeare. She is sprightly and wide-eyed, trying to assume the youthfulness of Juliet, but forgive me Topham might be better suited to play Lady Capulet, Juliet’s mother.

 Tim Carroll direction plays for laughs, using the audience a lot, but doesn’t dig deep enough to realize the emotional depth of the play. So a character will go up to an audience member to ask if he/she can read a list of names. The audience member leans forward to do it, but the character rips the list out of her hand to say that he will find someone more intelligent. Very funny.

 But at another time Tybalt for example is standing watching a fight break out with the Montagues and one of the Montagues tries to break it up. Decent. But then Tybalt rushes into the fray as if he hadn’t seen this effort to break up the fight; as if he assumes they are all ganging up on his friends. Makes no sense. Not thought out enough.

A more serious moment lost occurs when Romeo rushes to Juliet’s tomb to find her dead (he thinks) laid out, arms folded across her chest. He laments, moves downstage with his back to her and drinks his poison. Unbeknownst to him is that Juliet is regaining consciousness from her drugged sleep. Her arm slowly floats out from her chest and is now extended. When Romeo turns to her and sees the arm he stops, looks at it and then carefully folds it back to the original position. No thought that perhaps she is alive. No thought that he has miscalculated. No seriousness developed. And then he continues his pining and then lays out beside her. Another opportunity lost to realize the huge emotion of the play. 

The acting is very uneven but there are a few saving graces.

 (PHIL)

5)  What were they?

 (LYNN)

As the Nurse, Kate Hennig is brash, lusty, overwhelming in her love for Juliet. As Friar Laurence, Tom McCamus has a beautiful ease with the language and brings out all the common sense and compassion in the part.

 As Tybalt, Tyrone Savage is a young actor who goes from strength to strength—hot headed as Tybalt, courtly and edgy. This is a Romeo in the making, if not ready now.

 I am grateful to Gabrielle Jones as Lady Montague for one of the few true emotional moments in the play. She pleads for her son not to be banished. She falls on her knees, reaches out for the Duke’s hand and cries out for compassion. It’s startling, honest and true. But the overall experience is disappointing.

 (PHIL)

6)  And Measure for Measure. Tell us about that.

(LYNN)

We are in Vienna. Vienna is corrupt. The Duke of Vienna knows it and hopes to sort things out by leaving town and making his very straight-laced deputy, Angelo, the person in charge. Unbeknownst to everybody, the Duke disguises himself as a monk to see what kind of ruler Angelo is.

 Angelo takes his responsibilities seriously. He resurrects an arcane law that says that fornication resulting in pregnancy is a crime, punishable by death of the man. The first test case is Claudio who got his fiancée pregnant. According to the law he’s got to die. But his sister Isabella is sent to plead his case to Angelo. Isabella is about to become a nun and enter a convent.

 She comes to Angelo in her novice’s habit and he takes one look at her and is smitten. He says he will spare her brother if she will sleep with him. So here is one of the wonderful moral dilemma of this play. It’s about the corrupting affects of power; lust; sex; entitlement. Isabella is not only compromised by Angelo, there are others as well.

 (PHIL)

7)  Are Original Practices used for this production as well?

 (LYNN)

No. It’s a traditional production, and it’s a stunner. Director Martha Henry has set this in the 1940s as a kind of film nourish sensibility. The design by John Pennoyer is elegant and rich. Steven Hawkins’ lighting is moody and evocative of a less than savoury world.

 In the first scene the Duke has come home after carousing and we realize that he is part of that unsavoury world. Henry is a master of using the Tom Patterson Theatre to its fullest. The whole world of that Duke and his inner circle is vivid, and wonderfully unsettling. Interesting that they are on call 24/7. The Duke has a firm grip on his staff, but not on his city.

 Henry establishes each relationship in a way that we are never in doubt as to who or what these people think…and they are never superficial; never black and white. Isabella pleading her case to Angelo is gripping and full of conviction; as is his counter arguments.

 As Angelo, Tom Rooney is superb. Totally controlled, uptight, conflicted but ruthless. He is equally matched by Carmen Grant as Isabella.  Her performance is compelling, full of passion, and you are certain that this is life and death to her. You watch this sitting forward, breathless.

 As the Duke Geraint Wyn Davies is courtly, imperiously confident and dangerous. As Lucio, Stephen Ouimette embodies every shyster, lowlife petty thief in this masterful performance. There are several parts cast by graduates of the Birmingham Conservatory, the training arm of the Stratford Festival. They are all wonderful. Martha Henry is the Director of the Conservatory and responsible for the training. The work is exemplary.

 And while I loved the production I do have a concern.

 (PHIL)

8)  What’s your concern?

 (LYNN)

There are several decisions by the Duke that suggests that this does not end well. One of them is that the Duke tells Isabella that he will marry her.

 He says, “What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine.”

With this last he grabs her arm and draws her to him. He’s smiling. She’s not. We know it will not go well for Isabella. Isabella is stunned. That’s fine. We get the sense of her turmoil.

 But then Henry ends play with the Duke in a spotlight downstage, looking up to Lucio in his spotlight. Isabella, on the other side of the stage, crosses herself and sinks to her knees where she remains in shadow.

 I find that grouping mystifying. I don’t know what Henry is trying to suggest—that the Duke and Lucio are corrupt and nothing will change and that they are central and Isabella is discarded? Possible but unsatisfying.

 But the real gut-twister, is that Isabella will now be in the same situation with the Duke as she was with Angelo. She will not get her wish to be a nun and no moment really was made of this. I’m open to various interpretations as long as it makes sense.

 I’ve seen productions in which Isabella is alone on stage and turns to the audience and looks out fearful, and reacts in a way suggesting her peaceful life is over. One of the greatest Isabella’s I’ve seen is Martha Henry’s. I realize direction is all about interpretation but this staging confuses me. I have been thinking about that since I saw it. Always a good thing. I just wish I understood the reasoning.  Up till then, the production is terrific.

(PHIL)

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

Romeo and Juliet plays at the Festival Theatre until October 19.

 Measure for Measure plays at the Tom Patterson Theatre until September 21.

{ 0 comments }

The following reviews were broadcast on Friday, May 24, 2013, CIUT FRIDAY MORNING, CIUT 89.5 FM. BEA at the Factory Theatre Studio until May 26 and KAMP at the Enwave Theatre at Harbourfront until May 26.

The Guest Host is Phil Taylor.

(PHIL)

1)   It’s Friday morning which means Lynn Slotkin, our theatre critic and passionate playgoer is here to give us our theatre fix for the week. Hi Lynn. What do you have for us?

(LYNN)

Hi Phil. I have two challenging plays that take two sobering subjects and deal with them in intriguing ways.

First BEA by British writer Mick Gordon at the Factory Theatre Studio, about a young woman named Bea with a debilitating disease and how she wants to deal with it.

And KAMP is a play created by a company called Hotel Modern from the Netherlands—the last production in the World Stage festival. KAMP is a day in the life of a concentration camp, namely Auschwitz.

(PHIL)

2)   Sobering indeed. Tell us about BEA

(LYNN)

It’s produced by the Actors’ Repertory Company. Bea suffers from a debilitating disease which renders her bedridden. She’s unable to move. Her speech is also affected and sounds distorted. Bea knows she will not get better and she wants to die and tries to convince her mother of this.

Bea has a new caregiver named Ray.The mother wanted a woman caregiver but Ray says there weren’t any so they were stuck with him. Ray is engaging, upbeat, attentive, eager to help and please and I think suffering from ADHD. He writes the letter for Bea in which she tells her mother she wants to die and why.

(PHIL)

3)   You say it deals with this sobering subject in an intriguing way. How is it intriguing?

(LYNN)

Because while Bea is initially in the bed, absolutely still, while we file into the theatre,  for the first hour of this 1 hour and 45 minute show, Bea is bopping around the set, flipping over the bed, swinging on bars above her bed as if she is in training for gymnastics for the Olympics.

She is interrupted by Ray who has arrived to start his work as her caregiver. He has his own baggage to contend with. He refers to himself as “not gay Ray.”

(Subtext is everything in the theatre. He seems hyper-active and talks a mile-a-minute, often getting distracted by his own conversation.

 Ray and Bea form a strong bond. He is told his duties, giving Bea her meds etc. and how difficult it will be to take care of her. (Considering her lively behaviour this seems odd). With all this prolonged lively activity I wonder how is this person dying?

 Then finally playwright Mick Gordon shows us the truth about Bea, as she sinks down onto her bed, helpless.  The previous one hour is Bea’s ideal; her dream of being able to move quickly and gracefully like any normal young woman. The following 45 minutes is Bea’s reality. She must depend on her mother and caregivers for everything, from giving her medication; to feeding her to cleaning her up.

 Mrs. James is a strong, no-nonsense woman who is reluctant to accept Bea’s request to die. She has trouble with Ray. She always seems to come into the room in the most awkward moments—when he is giving Bea some booze.

 Playwright Mick Gordon is an accomplished theatre practitioner in England. He has written several plays and essays dealing with theatre and the mind. With Bea he is attempting to deal with the thorny, heart-aching problem of disability and the right to die by assisted suicide. And he misses.

 (PHIL)

4)   How does he miss?

 (LYNN)

By his own admission in an essay, when he goes into the theatre he is distracted by questions that come up that the play doesn’t answer quickly enough. The same thing happens for me in Bea. Showing us a healthy, lively woman, joyful and energetic, bopping around the set for one hour, but with hints that there is some illness, is not conducive to convincing us that she is dying of a debilitating disease. It’s confusing. Only in the last 45 minutes does it become clear, but that is a long, damaging hour before hand.

 And then there is the matter of the deliberate misquote.

In the final minutes of the play, Ray has brought Bea a present; the text of A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams.

 He has read her the whole play and comes to the last scene, when the fragile-minded Blanche, is led off by a doctor and nurse while Stanley woos his wife Stella back to him. Ray reads the scene, complete with stage directions, getting more and more agitated for some reason. And then he comes to Blanche’s most famous line in the play and he reads: “I have always relied on the kindness of strangers.”

 I’m thinking, ‘no you don’t”. It’s wrong. The line is “I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.”

Ray refers to the line again and reads it in the same way—the wrong way. One has to ask why Mick Gordon would change a word in a perfect line and render it imperfect; unpoetic; wrong. I was taken out of the play because of that.The saving grace for this disappointing play is the cast.

 (PHIL)

5) How do they do?

 (LYNN)

As Bea, Bahareh Yaraghi is vibrant and fearless as she jumps, flits around the stage in her imagined ideal state; and heartbreaking when confined to her bed; shaking; voice distorted. As Mrs. James, Deborah Drakeford makes a journey from brittle but concerned mother, to a woman who loves her daughter enough to let her go. This is a firm, focused, performance of a woman whose guts must be in a knot all the time with worry.

As Ray, Brendan McMurtry-Howlett has charm, is disarming with his ADHD and eagerness to please, but he is not served well by his director Aleksandar Lukač. He has McMurtry-Howlett yelling most of his lines and certainly when reading the scene from A Streetcar Named Desire. McMurtry-Howlett has tender moments, but his director robs him of more of them.

 And Lukač had several scenes at the end in freeze frame that gave the production several false endings. Too fussy by half.

 The idea of dramatising the subjects of disability and assisted suicide is interesting and provocative. Unfortunately the play Bea doesn’t do it justice, in spite of a committed cast.

(PHIL)

5)   Now tell us about KAMP. What intriguing way do they deal with this devastating place?

 (LYNN)

A day in the life of Auschwitz during the war.

 Let me first tell you about the company—Hotel Modern. They blend visual art, drama, music, film, modelling and performance to view the world from a macro perspective….they believe that experiencing theatre can encourage reconciliation….they represent harsh reality in a subtle and poetic way.

 They have created a scale model of Auschwitz that takes over the entire stage of the Enwave Theatre.The prisoners all wear the stripped pajama uniform. There is no differentiating between prisoners—no yellow Stars of David; no pink triangles for homosexual etc. The guards wear their military uniform.They are all portrayed by 8 centimetre tall hand made stick puppets. And there are thousands of them. The heads are lumpy like potato heads. Two holes for the eyes, one for the mouth and the expressions are of despair and horror.

 Three performers, manipulate the puppets in full view.

 Because the puppets are so small, the activity is filmed while it’s happening and then projected large on the back wall of the stage, making it look like a black and white news reel. There is no dialogue. But the sound effects are stunning.

 A character rakes the dirt and we hear that scratching sound. Other characters saw wood. As soup is poured into a bowl we hear that liquid splashing sound. We hear the slurping sound of soup being gulped. Then the licking sound as a character greedily, desperately licks his bowl clean. For a second we get a sense of starvation because of the image and the sound.

 We hear the screeching sound of a (miniature) train  arriving down the centre of the camp, with a new load of prisoners.

 It’s all there: the pouring of the Ziclon B gas pellets into a hole in the ceiling, down into the shower room below; the same scene is repeated later on but from the point of view of the prisoners in the shower room; the bodies being shoved into the crematoria; a desperate prisoner flinging himself against an electrified fence (we hear the soft humming of the electricity flowing through the wires), and the last scene in the barracks with people packed into the bunk beds, sleeping, and all we hear is the sound of breathing, laboured, wheezing, heavy, until the lights and sound fade.

 The whole enterprise is astonishing because the imagination is so powerful that it takes these vivid stick puppets and transforms them into people.

 (PHIL)

6)   Lynn it’s such a hard story. Why should we see it?

 (LYNN)

Because it’s art.

Out of hell comes art.

Because it’s important.

Because it’s brave in the telling and provocative.

Because it reminds us that if we see wrong and do nothing then it happens again.

Theatre reflects our world.

It tells our stories.

It is embracing even when the story is as tough as this one.

KAMP is a stunning piece of theatre that must be seen.

 (PHIL)

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

Bea plays at the Factory Theatre Studio until May 26.

KAMP plays at the Enwave Theatre until May 26.

{ 0 comments }

BEA

At the Factory Theatre Studio, Toronto. Written by Mick Gordon. Directed by Aleksandar Lukač. Set and Lighting by Andy Moro. Costumes by Laura Gardner. Sound by Christopher Stanton. Choreography by Patricia Allison. Starring Bahareh Yaraghi, Deborah Drakeford, Brendan McMurtry-Howlett.

Produced by Actors Repertory Company. Plays until May 26, 2013.

As the audience files into the Factory Theatre Studio space there is a bed on a raised platform in the centre. It is something like a four-poster bed. The audience sits on either side of the platform. A young woman lies in the bed, covered, absolutely still. This is Bea James.

When the play is about to begin the lights lower and rock music blares out.  Bea raises her arms, holds onto bars above the headboard and smartly raises herself to a sitting position. Next she flips the covers off. She raises and bends first one leg and then the other and flips herself out of the bed. She dances wildly around the bed, flipping her long curly hair. She jumps on the bed. She grabs onto one of the rods above the bed and flips from one side to the other. She holds on to a corner rod and twirls out around it. She jumps onto and climbs a ladder in her room. She is so energetic; so focused in her wild movement I figure she is training for the 2014 Olympics.

She is interrupted in this free movement by Ray, the young man who has been engaged by Bea’s mother to be Bea’s caregiver. Mrs. James wanted a woman for the job, but as Ray says they ran out. Ray is very eager and caring although not formerly trained in the job. He has his own baggage to contend with. He refers to himself as “not gay Ray.” He cringes when he is called Raymond—his mother called him that and he hated it. He seems hyper-active and talks a mile-a-minute, often getting distracted by his own conversation that I fear he has ADHD.

Ray and Bea form a strong bond. He is helpful and caring. He is told his duties, giving Bea her meds etc. and how difficult it will be to take care of her. (Considering her lively behaviour this seems odd) She trusts him to help write her mother telling her mother that she wants to die because she won’t get any better.

Over the course of the first hour of this one hour and 45 minute play, Ray and Bea joke, dance, jump on the bed and fly across the stage, swing on the bars of the bed and generally present a confusing picture. How is this person dying? Then finally playwright Mick Gordon shows us the truth about Bea, as she sinks down, onto her bed, helpless.  She has a debilitating disease that renders her immobile, bedridden. It has affected her speech. She often gets fits. The previous one hour is Bea’s ideal; her dream of being able to move quickly and gracefully like any normal young woman. The following 45 minutes is Bea’s reality. She must depend on her mother and caregivers for everything, from giving her medication; to cleaning her up to feeding her.

Mrs. James is a strong, no-nonsense woman who is reluctant to accept Bea’s request to die. She has trouble with Ray. She always seems to come into the room in the most awkward moments—when he is giving Bea some booze, when Bea wants him to try and arouse her because she can’t feel anything.

Playwright Mick Gordon is an accomplished theatre practitioner in England. He has written several plays and essays dealing with Theatre and the mind. With Bea he is attempting to deal with the thorny, heart-aching problem of disability and the right to die by assisted suicide. And he misses.

By his own admission in an essay, when he goes into the theatre he is distracted by questions that come up that the play doesn’t answer quickly enough. The same thing happens in Bea. Showing us a healthy, lively woman, joyful and energetic, bopping around the set for one hour, but with hints that there is some illness, is not conducive to convincing us that she is dying of a debilitating disease. It’s confusing. Only in the last 45 minutes does it become clear, but that is a long, damaging hour before hand. A rule to playwrights—don’t confuse the audience.

And then there is the matter of the deliberate misquote.  In the final minutes of the play, Ray has brought Bea a present; the text of A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams. He has read her the whole play and comes to the last scene, when the fragile-minded Blanche, is led off by a doctor and nurse while Stanley woos his wife Stella back to him. Ray reads the scene, complete with stage directions, getting more and more agitated for some reason (I’ll get to the director shortly). And then he comes to the most famous line in the play and he reads Blanche’s line: “I have always relied on the kindness of strangers.”  It’s wrong. The line is “I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.” Ray refers to the line again and reads it in the same way—the wrong way. One has to ask why Mick Gordon would change a word in a perfect line and render it imperfect; unpoetic; wrong. I was taken out of the play because of that wondering why a playwright would make such a decision. I wonder if the cast asked him why he changed it and could they use the correct word? I wonder if when permission to use the scene from the play was granted by the University of Sewanee, Tennessee, did anyone tell the University trustees of Williams’ work, they were going to change a word of it as well?

Ray has no kind words for Blanche and every consideration for Stanley. Interesting that Ray could be so compassionate to Bea, who is physically debilitated, but no compassion for Blanche who by the end of the play is mentally unhinged because of Stanley.

The saving grace for this disappointing play is the cast. As Bea, Bahareh Yaraghi is vibrant and fearless as she jumps, flits and flips around the stage in her imagined ideal state; and heartbreaking when confined to her bed; shaking; voice distorted. We see what we will lose if she gets her wish to die.

As Mrs. James, Deborah Drakeford makes a journey from brittle but concerned mother, to a woman who loves her daughter enough to let her go. This is a firm, focused, performance of a woman whose guts must be in a knot all the time with worry.

As Ray, Brendan McMurtry-Howlett has charm, is disarming with his ADHD and eagerness to please, but he is not served well by his director Aleksandar Lukač. He has McMurtry-Howlett yelling most of his lines and certainly when reading the scene from A Streetcar Named Desire. And Lukač had several scenes in freeze frame that gave it several false endings. Too fussy by half.

The idea of dramatising the subjects of disability and assisted suicide is interesting and provocative. Unfortunately the play Bea doesn’t do it justice, in spite of a committed cast.

{ 1 comment }

At the Toronto Centre for the Arts, Studio Theatre, Toronto.  Book and lyrics by Joe DiPietro. Music by Jimmy Roberts. Directed by Evan Tsitsias. Musical director, Scott Christian. Starring: Christopher Alan Gray, Dean Hollin, Leslie Kay, Alison O’Neill.

Produced by Angelwalk Theatre with KooGle Theatre Company. It plays until June 2, 2013.

For the last four years Brian Goldenberg, the Artistic Producer for Angelwalk Theatre, has been living his dream of presenting Off-Broadway musicals in Toronto with a totally Canadian cast and creative crew. He has produced such shows as Altar Boyz, The Last Five Years, I Love You Because, and Ordinary Days.

He ends his fourth season with I Love You, You’re Perfect, Now Change which originally  ran for 12 years Off-Broadway. The book and lyrics were written by Joe DiPietro with music by Jimmy Roberts. Amazingly, I Love You, You’re Perfect, Now Change is DiPietro’s first show. To show this success was no fluke, he followed it with Toxic Avenger, Memphis (winning him a Tony Award), and Nice Work If You Can Get It.

I Love You, You’re Perfect, Now Change is about those age-old, always relevant subjects of love and relationships; dating; fumbling into love; breaking up etc.

A buoyant cast of four: Christopher Alan Gray, Dean Hollin, Leslie Kay and Alison O’Neill, backed by a keyboard and violinist, sing the songs and create the relationships.

In Act I we watch the unsettling machinations of the first date, handled in a somewhat clever way in which the couple decide to skip the first date because it’s so stressful, and go to the second date but pass on that and pass the date with sex; then the first argument, and so on. One gets lost in all that philosophizing. There is a song—“A Stud and a Babe”– in which a couple are wistful about their perceptions about themselves, wishing they were in fact a stud and a babe but not quite making it. There is a song about how a woman will date anyone because there seems to be a “Single Man Drought.” There is the joy when a woman breaks down the reserve of a guy she’s been dating who has not made a pass, and invites him over and condoms are mentioned (“I Will Be Loved Tonight”). There is the song about the break-up, just when the parents of one of them thinks an engagement is in the air. There is another song about waiting by the phone for a call from a man. And finally at the end of Act I there is a harried wedding.

I never know why it’s necessary to have a cast of four microphoned in a small theatre, especially when there is a band of two. I found the sound too loud at times. I also thought the staging by Evan Tsitsias was too frantic and too eager to fill the space with activity. There are large moveable set pieces up stage that holds the various props and clothes of the cast. Tsitsias spent a lot of time moving those pieces around for no reason other than to appear busy. Jimmy Roberts’ music is unmemorable; while DiPietro’s book and lyrics while occasionally clever, generally try too hard to be clever and insightful and fall short.

It might appeal to some as a pleasant date show and perhaps some will nod in agreement at the trials and tribulations of relationships. Me, I found it deadly. I can’t comment on Act II because I left at intermission.

{ 0 comments }