Lynn

l-r: Deborah Shaw, David Agro

Live and in person at the Red Sandcastle Theatre, Toronto, Ont. Produced by Zippysaid Productions. Running until April 28, 2024.

Written by Edward Albee

Directed by David Agro

Cast: David Agro

Chloe Matamoros

Josh Palmer

Deborah Shaw

A love story about a couple who got their kicks by arguing viciously especially in front of unwitting witnesses.

The Story. George and Martha, long married, have just come home from a boozie party hosted by Martha’s father. He’s the president of the College where George teachers history. Martha’s father hosts these parties so that the new faculty can meet the established faculty and get acquainted. To that end, Martha has invited a young couple from the party, over for a night cap. Nick teaches biology and his young, fragile wife Honey, tries to fit it. George is aghast that Martha invited them since it’s already 2 am.

Nick and Honey arrive, eager to please. They realize that Martha and George are not any ordinary battling couple. Martha and George sing invective and insults at each other, while drinking more and more. Secrets are shared and spilled. To rile George, Martha comes on to Nick. Since Nick is ambitious who acquiesces to the President’s daughter’s advances. Honey is so fragile she had to throw up frequently. When the final secrets are revealed and George concludes the evening with Martha in quiet kindness, we realize how much they really love each other.

The Production. Like any actors who want to act, David Agro and his acting colleague Deborah Shaw know that the best way of making that happen is to produce their own work.  Last year Deborah Shaw wrote and performed in her one-person play her about a woman with a troubled past. David Agro directed it. This year they are both acting in (with David directing again) Edward Albee’s towering 1962 play, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Deborah Shaw plays the brassy Martha to David Agro’s subdued but biting George. Their unsuspecting guests are Josh Palmer as the buff, smart Nick and Chloe Matamoros as his wife, the naïve, fragile Honey.

The ‘stage’ is set in establishing the relationship and characters of Martha and George from the get-go. Martha bellows in her drunken stupor as soon as she arrives home from her father’s party, with George trying to subdue her. Their wrangling probably started at the party. It will continue when Nick and Honey arrive. George and Martha are at their fighting best with an ‘audience.’

The evening progresses with more drinking, more accusations, more flirting by Martha towards Nick; George being disgusted and Honey following close behind. The animosity escalates and reaches a crescendo with George doing something drastic to end the invective.

Deborah Shaw plays Martha as an in-your-face loudmouth who yearns for attention. David Agro plays George with a controlled contempt, until he can’t stand it and looses control. The two young actors, are impressive finds. As Nick, Josh Palmer listens intently and reacts with wariness. He is also very confident and knows how to read the room. Chloe Matamoros has that subtle look on her face of a woman trying to keep up with what is happening, and seeming to be just a beat behind. She too is compelling in her focus on what is happening.

Director David Agro uses the small space of the Red Sandcastle Theatre very effectively in establishing relationships, both close and estranged.  What the production might lack in nuance and subtlety, it makes up for in commitment of all involved.

 Zippysaid Productions presents:

Plays until April 28, 2024.

Running time: 2 ½ hours (one intermission)

{ 0 comments }

Live and in person at 80 Bradford Street, Barrie, Ont. Produced by Talk is Free Theatre. Running until April 27.

www.tift.ca

Written by Mike Bartlett

Directed by Dylan Trowbridge

Production designer, Kathleen Black

Sound Designer, Nolan Moberly

Cast: Jakob Ehman

Michael Torontow

Tess Benger

Kevin Bundy

A gripping, powerful play and production about love—the obsession of it; the desperation of wanting it; the many variations of it. Beautifully acted and directed.

The Story. NOTE: about the title—According to Dylan Trowbridge’s Directors Note, playwright Mike Bartlett began writing COCK while participating in a writer’s residency in Mexico City. The inspiration for the play came when he saw a cockfight—close quarters for the two fighting cocks—and a group of ‘rabid?’ people surrounding the small fighting space cheering on the cocks who were tearing each other to pieces. Ah humanity.

Cock is not about vicious animals tearing each other to bits in anger. Cock is a love story between four people, each with a different perspective on love who are as demanding and brutal as any fighting cock.

John is at the center of the story. He is in love and been living with M for several years. (“M” can stand for “male” or “man).  But recently John has met “W” (that can stand for “woman”) and become besotted with her. They have had sex and now John is confused as to whom he wants to be with. Perhaps it’s easier than that—he wants both “M” and “W” and of course they want him to choose. There is also “F” who is “M’s” Father (so “F” can stand for Father) and wants the best for his son—another kind of love here.   

The Production. Director Dylan Trowbridge decided that because of the intimate, spare nature of the production it should be presented in a non-traditional space—small, tight, almost claustrophobic—so that the sense of the characters being stripped bare to their emotions is clear. It’s in a small garage space of an office building. The ceiling is low. There are opaque sheets as curtains along the walls. There is no fancy set, lights or costumes. A character might step on a switch on the floor and illuminate a light.  The audience sits in chairs along two facing walls. The action happens in the middle of the space and often on benches right beside audience members. To say this is intimate is an understatement. The audience is both watching, perhaps as voyeurs, and in a way participating—deciding whom to side with, whom to consider, how to decide how this should end. Characters change positions in the space, perhaps standing in the middle talking or sitting on a side bench facing another character when addressing each other—it’s less a cockfight and more maneuvering.

Kathleen Black has designed the production and it’s spare, efficient, and enveloping. The audience is right in the middle of this ‘fight’ to win the prize of John. The production begins with M (a commanding, forceful Michael Torontow) and John (a more subdued, introspective Jakob Ehman) reviewing how John could have had his head turned by a woman. John tries to suggest the woman was stalking him. We learn later W (Tess Benger, giving a compelling performance) and John often took the same bus to work. There was an attraction there and they took it from there. John was intrigued by W and W was attracted to John, certainly when he tells her that his recent relationship has ended. John is coy about the pronoun about his former partner. When he lets it slip that his former partner was a man, Tess Benger as W reacted with a crease of her face in concern, but she soon recovered and continued as if pursuing John. She knows he’s interested. She’s smart enough to know how to play the situation and make him further interested in her. In a wonderfully erotic scene played as John and W face each other with the space of the room between them, each tells the other what they need for pleasure. It’s directed with exquisite care and detail by Dylan Trowbridge and played with growing gasping eroticism by Tess Benger as W and Jakob Ehman as John.

W is invited to M’s house for dinner so that the three characters can meet and talk about the situation. This is when M’s father, F (Kevin Bundy) is invited as well to support M. Kevin Bundy plays F with an almost tight, raised jaw. He is fighting for his son’s honour.  The stranger in the room is W and Tess Benger plays her with controlled intelligence and grace. She is quietly fierce in her arguments and in defending herself. As M, Michael Torontow is angry, exasperated, demanding and desperate to keep John as his lover. Naturally both lovers want John to chose with whom he will remain. Will it be the forceful, take-charge M? Or will it be the quietly resourceful W? It’s obvious who John wants and it’s wonderful how Jakob Ehman as John plays the scene and both lovers. It’s not that John is passive aggressive when asked to make a decision. Jakob Ehman is much subtler than that in the playing—and in Dylan Trowbridge’s direction. One can imagine one’s heart is beating faster in anticipation of an answer that is taking its time.  If Jakob Ehman’s performance has shown me anything, besides how gifted he is (as are they all), it’s that I would love to see him play Hamlet with all the emotional upheaval that role involves.

Cock is a terrific play of nimble thinking characters in a fraught situation of love and all its tangles. It’s so worth a trip to Barrie to see this emotionally charged production during its really short run.    

Comment. Talk is Free Theatre should give tutorials on how to create a programme. (never mind how to produce provocative, challenging theatre). First of all, there is a programme! The programme has everything anyone needs to know about the show so an audience can pass on the information. The title is there, big and bold. So is the name of the playwright. Then there are the dates of the run. There is the address of the venue (note this is not a theatre) and there is the Talk is Free URL and phone number. Woow. They really want to let the public where they can see this stunning production. Other theatres should take note.

Talk is Free Theatre presents:

Runs until April 27, 2024.

Running time: 90 minutes (no intermission)

www.tift.ca

{ 0 comments }

Live and in person at the Young Centre for the Performing Arts, Toronto, Ont. Produced by Outside the March in association with Soulpepper Theatre Company.  Playing until May 12, 2024.

Written by Lucas Hnath

Directed by Mitchell Cushman

Set by Anahita Dehbonehie

Lighting by Nick Blais

Sound by Heidi Chan

Costumes by Niloufar Ziaee

Cast: Katherine Cullen

Diego Matamoros

Tony Ofori

Anand Rajaram

An interesting playwriting exercise by Lucas Hnath that illuminates how much of a miserable, self-absorbed narcissist Walt Disney was. One has to ask, “Why bother.” Stylish production created by Mitchell Cushman and his team, but again, the point?

 The Story. The unwieldy title of A Public Reading of an Unproduced Screenplay About the Death of Walt Disney is not a self-explanatory title. First, it’s not a public reading. It’s a bone fide rehearsed production with sets, costumes and lots of technology. It’s not an unproduced screenplay. It’s a produced play by Lucas Hnath that’s been around since 2013. And while some of it is about the death of Walt Disney, all of it focuses on the miserable, mean-spirited, self-absorbed, narcissist who was Walt Disney. In this play Walt Disney is a pompous, miserable, mean-spirited, self-absorbed narcissist, who is cruel to his staff and his family.

Walt Disney has written a screenplay supposedly about his life. In fact, it’s a conceit to interact with his brother Roy, his daughter (who has no name in the program which should tell you plenty) and his son-in-law Ron. In the play he wrangles with everyone, especially his brother Roy. Roy is the business manager for the huge Disney empire and Walt is the creative mind behind it. Roy deals with the unions and Walt wants to bust them. He does not want to pay a fair wage or treat the employees fairly. He wants to short-change, cheat and undercut everybody he meets including his brother and daughter. Walt revels in his achievements. He wants to build a city not another theme park.

Roy and the board thwart him because of the expense. We never hear any altruistic reason for building the city. Is this another self-imposed kudo to himself?  When things go wrong and it’s Walt’s fault, he blames his brother who seems to take it. His daughter is afraid of him. Walt wants her to name her unborn son after him. She hesitates. He says he will cut her out of his will without a penny if she refuses to name her son after him. He is interested in cryogenics and thinks about freezing his head to be thawed when there is a cure for disease…Walt died of lung cancer. This is not a nice man. He was creative to be sure. But the play isn’t about that. It’s about how lousy a human being he was.

The Production and comment. Lucas Hnath is an interesting playwright. I think he was experimenting with form with A Public Reading of an Unproduced Screenplay About the Death of Walt Disney. He wrote a play called A Doll’s House Part II which looks at Ibsen’s A Doll’s House 15 years after Nora leaves her marriage to find herself. It’s fascinating.

He wrote Dana H, a verbatim one woman show about an experience his mother Dana Higginbothem endured when she was kidnapped for five months.

In it the actress playing his mother lip-syncs the words and reacts to their meaning of a recorded interview with Dana H, Lucas Hnath’s mother. He plays with the form of verbatim theatre and lip-synching.

With A Public Reading of an Unproduced Screenplay About the Death of Walt Disney Lucas Hnath is experimenting with form and dialogue. The dialogue between characters is choppy and incomplete. Characters interrupt each other in the middle of a sentence or sometimes finish the other’s sentences. It’s reminiscent of David Mamet dialogue. It that the point? To emulate dialogue from a playwright who is so connected with this type of dialogue that everybody else seems like they are copying him? Hmmmmm

And while this cast is wonderfully accomplished, there is a hesitation in the interruptions, as if they are too polite to interrupt. There is that hint of a pause that often bogs down the conversation. That said, there are also times when the intercutting is bang on.  

Is Lucas Hnath trying to show that Walt Disney was not as sweet as one thought from all those tv shows he introduced? I have to ask Why??? Why bother? The company was big enough for someone to have actually spilled the beans about how lousy a person Walt was. Or did he fire them all with a gag order and send them to oblivion? Hard to imagine. After all, Lucas Hnath seems to know. But truly, why bother? What is to be gained by this play except as a vanity exercise?

We seem to have to have known that Walt Disney was a genius for creating such beloved animated characters in beloved movies. We look at the fantasy worlds of Disneyland etc. Ever been to Disneyland? It’s a pristine place. There is not one piece of garbage on the ground. It’s picked up immediately. If a bench appears dirty or smudged in any way, it’s removed and repainted to its perfect sheen. There cannot be any hint of anything less than perfect there. Can you imagine the city he wanted to build with his name on it. Perfect and hideous.

Director Mitchell Cushman’s production is a creation of nuance, technological dazzle and subtext with lots of light changes (kudos to Nick Blais) and sound cues (ditto Heidi Chan). The set by Anahita Dehbonehie looks like Walt Disney’s swank office with a console with lots of buttons for Walt to push for the lights, sound, ability to distort a voice, and to set the raised circular stage to revolve slowly. There is a round table with chairs around it on the raised platform. Walt’s chair is high-backed, comfortable and with a cushion. The other chairs for ‘minions’ have a low back—not much support there—and have a leather seat.

There is a Mickey Mouse telephone on a table and a set of drinks in crystal bottles over there, in which the bottles are illuminated.

We enter the space to the sound of Disney cartoon character voices and snippets of signature music tunes for each. We wait looking at the set, listening to the sound effects. And wait. And wait for someone to appear. A door upstage left opens and we wait and wait. Walt (Diego Matamoros) appears, slowly, smiling. Ah yes, the ploy of keeping the underlings waiting to establish his power over us.

He holds a pile of scripts in his arms. He is dapper in a shirt, jacket, dark pants and a yellow bowtie, tied the old-fashioned way. It’s not a clip-on. He smiles benignly at us saying he’s written the screenplay. He distributes it to spaces around the table.

When he finishes his spiel, the other characters enter: Roy (Anand Rajaram), Ron (Tony Ofori) and Walt’s Daughter (Katherine Cullen) who doesn’t warrant a name just the title, Daughter. The characters begin reading the script, but Walt is actually directing and controlling the screenplay, often calling “cut to” to go to some other scene. The most wrangling is with Walt and Roy as Walt gets more and more agitated. Diego Matamoros as Walt unties his bowtie; stares down his brother, threatens him, denigrates him and belittles him. As Roy, Anand Rajaram is tempered, calm and generally accepts the invective. He’s been down this road with his brother before. Katherine Cullen as Daughter and Tony Ofori as Ron are watchful, especially Katherine Cullen. She reacts subtly and is always in the moment. Tony Ofori as Ron tries to win over his father-in-law who he must sense doesn’t like him—well Walt doesn’t actually like anybody. And he gets more and more crazed when he’s contradicted or thwarted, and certainly when he’s dying of the lung cancer that will kill him.

So this is a play about a rotter of a human being, gifted notwithstanding.

I just have to ask why did anyone bother doing this experiment of a play—just because Soulpepper had a hole in its schedule that Outside the March thought it had to fill?

Comment. Mitchel Cushman provides a programme in the form of a ‘script’ with three ‘holes’ on the side as if it should fit in a binder. Very clever.  His programme note itemizes the events since the play first appeared, with references to megalomaniacal billionaires who go into space or become president; a world chocking because of climate change. I would add an (anti)-social media of meanness and the spreading of lies. OOOOOkkkkaaaayyyyy. So why bother with the whole endeavor? We are trapped in a room with a man who created fantasy and timeless cartoon characters, who is a moral bankrupt. That is all that is revealed about him and how he treated people. One might say….ok, nice experiment, moving on.

Outside the March, in association with Soulpepper Theatre Company present:

Runs until May 12, 2024.

Running time: 90 minutes (no intermission)

www.tickets.youngcente.ca

NOTE: Respectful comments are accepted on this site as long as they are accompanied by a verifiable name and a verifiable e-mail address. Posts that are slanderous, libelous or personally derogatory will not be approved.

{ 1 comment }

Live and in person at Young People’s Theatre, Toronto, Ont. Playing until May 2, 2024.

www.youngpeoplestheatre.org

Written by Kevin Dyer

Directed by Stephen Colella

Set and costumes by Anna Treusch

Lighting by Jareth Li

Sound by Olivia Wheeler

Video by Joshua Hind

Cast: Zoé Doyle

Eponine Lee

Eric Peterson

An important play that talks about grief and death with love, care and understanding.

NOTE: The production is recommended for young people from 8-13 years old.

Meghan is a young girl who is having a terrible day. She bursts into her Grandad’s workshop-shed in a bad mood, slams the door and locks it with both bolts on the door. Her Mum is concerned and comes after Meghan, but Meghan ignores her and won’t open the door. While Meghan is obviously upset and angry she knows that her Grandad has listed various chores for her to accomplish, on a blackboard on the wall. Meghan has to fix a switch; fix the train and set up the tracks;  and fix the handle on the toaster so she and her Grandad can make toast and tea.

Usually Meghan’s Grandad would help her but he isn’t there for some reason. As the play continues, we can imagine why. Grandad does appear in spirit and he too says he’s had a bad day.

Under her Grandad’s careful eye, and impish humour, Meghen has learned to fix broken appliances etc. or repurpose them. Her Grandad hates waste and feels that if a thing can be fixed then it should be fixed to continue its usefulness. He also felt that a thing that is too broken can be repurposed for something else.

We can see that Meghan’s Grandad and Meghan had a special rapport. He left her notes in the workshop as a means of communicating with her to do what she knows how to do. He was giving her confidence when she doesn’t think she has any. And to reach out to her mother who is grieving too.

The production is dandy. Director Stephen Colella has created a lively, energetic production that also captures the wounding sadness of losing a loved one. As Meghan, Eponine Lee is wonderful as the angry, upset, confused and grieving soul. She does not want to hear what her mother obviously had to tell her about her Grandad so she charges into the workshop shed, bangs the door, locks the locks and hides, grieving. Eponine Lee takes Meghan’s energy and resolve and focuses it into racing around the workshop to fix the things she had to. She must prove herself to her Grandad even if he’s not there. When she gets stuck, she will find a note with an impish message, that will help. When she realizes that while Grandpa is in her heart, she wishes he was in the workshop too with her.

Eric Peterson plays the funny, irascible Grandpa. This is a man who can fix anything (including one imagines, a broken heart) and he has the love and patience to pass on his wisdom to his receptive granddaughter. There is fun and a sense of impishness in Peterson’s performance. Perhaps Grandad and granddaughter bring out the best in each other.

And Zoé Doyle plays Meghan’s mum, who has her own journey of grief to contend with. Zoé Doyle gives a lovely, tempered, delicate performance of a grieving daughter who must in turn tend to her own grieving daughter. It’s a performance of grief mixed with love and concern.

A message of the show is reuse, repair and repurpose. One gets that sense from Anna Treusch’s wonderfully eclectic set that has bits and bobs of stuff around the space that are used or repurposed The set is made of repurposed wood, structures, doors, tools secret hiding places and a wonderful sense of order and whimsy.

The play also deals with grief for a loved one and death as well that somehow teaches us to deal with grief and other unpleasant emotions. Most important, the plays is also about the healing power of love.

Young People’s Theatre Presents:

Playing until May 2, 2023.

Running time: 80 minutes (no intermission)

www.youngpeoplestheatre.org

{ 0 comments }

Live and in person at the Theatre Centre, Toronto, Ont. A Nightwood Theatre production in association with VideoCabaret. Plays until April 21, 2024.

Written by Rose Napoli

Directed by Andrea Donaldson

Set, costumes and props designed by Astrid Janson, Abby Esteireiro and Merle Harley

Lighting by Rebecca Vandevelde

Sound by Olivia Wheeler

Cast: Karl Ang

Wayne Burns

Izad Etemadi

Farhang Ghajar

Rose Napoli

Nancy Palk

Irreverent, bold, witty, contemporary, in need of tightening, but still a fascinating endeavor by the gifted Rose Napoli, into the remarkable life of Margaret Cavendish (Mad Madge).

The Story. We are in the 17^th century in England. Margaret Lucas’s father has died leaving the family penniless, unless Margaret marries a rich man. She doesn’t want that. She does not want to be submerged in a man’s life. She wants independence from men. She wants notoriety. She wants to be seen on her own terms. Simply put, she wants fame.

She decides to go to London to become a lady-in-waiting to Queen Henrietta, the widow of Charles I. Henrietta is exiled to France and Margaret goes with her. They have a rapport. Margaret is witty, smart and bold. Henrietta is grieving and constipated. Margaret offers friendship for the former, and (surprisingly) relief from the latter.

They return to England. Margaret forms a friendship with William Cavendish, a suitor of the Queen. The friendship goes deeper. Margaret proves to be a soulmate to William. But there is that business of wanting fame. During William’s opening night, of a play he wrote and stars in, Margaret caused a stir by appearing in the audience, topless with her nipples painted red. Margaret and William had words. Henrietta makes William the Duke of Newcastle and sends him there. Margaret’s life and accomplishments are huge. In twenty-seven months she writes: “The Blazing World” believed to be perhaps the first example of science fiction in English; books of poetry, essays, letters, etc.  

The Production. Standing at the side of the playing space, Margaret (Rose Napoli) makes her dramatic entrance at the top of the production, smiling and topless. Her nipples and areola are painted black. She then moves to the center of the playing area—a large square–so everybody can get a good look and then the show can progress with an exhale. Margaret the free spirit, the confident woman, is established instantly. She then puts on her ‘corset’ and pulls up the rest of her stylish dress that has been billowing at her waist.

Rose Napoli plays Margaret with wit, confidence and frustration. She challenges the social constraints in which she must live—getting married, subservient to her husband with no shared opinions or thoughts. She doesn’t want it. Napoli presents a woman with a brain and attitude. She thinks on her feet and has a nimble mind that can wrangle with any man, and charm the most powerful woman, Henrietta.

Nancy Palk plays: Pye, Margaret’s simple eleven-year-old sister, arrogant, condescending Samuel Pepys, and Queen Henrietta. In each case Nancy Palk gives a closely observed, fully detailed performance of these disparate characters. While Palk is hugely accomplished as Pye and Pepys, she shines as Henrietta. The language is sharply witty, irreverent, sexually vivid and hilarious. A constipated Queen on a throne-like commode, trading witticisms with her lady-in-waiting, while trying ‘to lay down a barrage,’ is pretty funny.

The production plays impishly with gender roles, cross-dressing, sexuality and mores of the day. Margaret’s mother Elizabeth is played with a hint of a whine by Izad Etemadi in flowing frock and full beard. Elizabeth knows the society in which she lives, and knows that to get ahead Rose must marry. Later Izad Etemadi will play Judy, one of Henrietta’s spoiled ladies-in-waiting, along with Wayne Burns who plays Trudy. Both Judy and Trudy are spoiled, nasty twits who try to give grief to Margaret. Wayne Burns also plays Thomas, Margaret’s supportive brother. Farhang Ghajar plays Margaret’s exasperated brother and various other men who feel women should keep in their place. Karl Ang plays William, Margaret’s intellectual equal. He is supportive, charmed by this willful, smart woman, modern, in that he is not macho nor expects Margaret to be subservient.

Astrid Janson, Abbey Esteireiro and Merle Harley are three gifted souls credited with designing the sets, costumes and props for Mad Madge. But the unmistakable witty, wild imagination of Astrid Janson (so prevalent in past VideoCabaret productions and an associate producer with this show) is everywhere here from the frocks to the wild head pieces to the elaborate commode and other props.

 Director Andrea Donaldson keeps the pace moving and the laughs almost constant. She also accentuates the seriousness of Margaret’s arguments regarding women. And while presenting the production in the round is bold, I found it an unfortunate decision because the Franco Boni Theatre is an unforgiving space for sound. If a character turns away from the audience, audibility suffers. Often when a character faces a section of the audience the actor—Rose Napoli for example—tended to push the voice to be heard. Balance is the trick. Making the audience listen to the character is also better than making the audience hear the actor by bellowing. Also having an underscore of music in some scenes is not helpful for hearing.

Rose Napoli has written a bracing, witty, rich play about an obscure but fascinating woman in history. The ideas fly through the air regarding feminism, sexuality, constipation, women’s rights, exhibitionism and fame. The programme note is coy in saying that they were going for truth rather than accuracy with Mad Madge. In the play Margaret is invited to the Royal Society by Samuel Pepys—ostensibly she thinks for her scientific ideas. The outcome is something else. Is that the truth? A fiction of a clever playwright? I wonder.

There are many modern references in the play from a film with seductive dancing to a reference to a guru sparking joy with neatness. While the play stretched to two and a half hours (with intermission) perhaps some judicious editing is in order.   

Comment. Rose Napoli has done a wonderful thing in introducing audiences to this wit and thinker known as Margaret Cavendish. Margaret wrote poetry, a novel of wild imagination in “The Blazing World” with an avoidance of meaningful punctuation, about a woman who was spirited away to the North Pole by a man who was besotted by her-a novel full of wild imagination; essays, letters and displayed a sharp mind. If one is lucky and has access, her books are available from university libraries.

I would not call her an influencer, as Napoli does in the play—who would Margaret actually influence if women were not taken seriously. Interestingly Margaret wanted fame in order to voice her thoughts. Ironically we live at a time when people are famous for being famous and little else. Like all good playwrights, Rose Napoli makes one curious to find out not only the truth about Margaret Cavendish, but also the facts. While I have concerns with the play and production, I’m glad I saw it. Margaret Cavendish is fascinating.  

A Nightwood Theatre production in association with VideoCabaret.

Plays until April 21, 2024

Running time: 2 hours, 30 minutes (1 intermission)

www.theatrecentre.org

{ 0 comments }

Live and in person at the Streetcar Crowsnest Studio, Toronto, Ont. Produced by Crow’s Theatre in association with paul watson productions and Obsidian Theatre Company,  until April 28, 2024.

https://www.crowstheatre.com

Written and performed by bahia watson

Directed by Sabryn Rock

Set by Echo Zhou

Lighting by Kimberly Purtell

Video design by Laura Warren

Sound by Thomas Ryder Payne

Choreographer, Jaz Fairy J

Shaniqua in abstraction by bahia watson is a fierce and poetic look at the Black experience from a woman’s point of view. It’s created and performed by bahia watson, a powerhouse actor, creator, writer and observer of the world, especially in this work of Black womanhood.

The press information describes this as “a kaleidoscopic explosion of experiences and shifting identities that defiantly push back the boundaries defining Black womanhood.”

It starts off with a woman auditioning for a part. She assumes various poses and delivers simple words in varying ways. A voice from an unseen person conducting the audition asks for the woman to play it with “more sass.” From that I assume the person conducting the audition is white because the word ‘sass’ is insensitive when suggested to a Black woman. Language is changing according to the changing times. “Sass” is an inappropriate word. The actor auditioning—shaniqua—is accommodating, helpful and agreeable. She wants the job. She plays the scene with “more sass”.

Then shaniqua goes off on a tangent, quietly, understated but with conviction and comments on perception, judgement, impressions etc. She says that she has no control over how she is perceived by others. We live in a judgmental world. A person sees someone and sizes them up by skin colour, clothes, behaviour, actions etc. even though they don’t know them. While bahia watson as shaniqua is talking about the Black woman’s experience that line could also be applied to anyone, any woman. That is one of the beauties of the show.

She presents a very confident stand-up comedienne who is razor sharp and fast with an angry set about race, Blackness and white supremacy. There is a section on colourism and shadism about the preference of light skin over dark skin. Interestingly this is done seemingly from the white point of view as a colonial conversation without putting it in a conversation between Black people. There have been plays that focus on this question from a Black perspective shaniqua in abstraction ignores this conversation and only references colonialism. I thought that was interesting. And she delves into the pairing that created light skinned and dark skinned women.

There is a section questioning why Black men prefer white women and not Black women. There is a section on a confident, frustrated Black woman living with a Black man who is emotionally abusive and condescending.  Race factors heavily in the lives of these Black women as observed by bahia watson. watson explores the history of blackface, Slavery and the underground railroad.

The observations of bahia watson are razor sharp perceptions, full of humour and stunning writing. This is really a work of fierce, hard-hitting, funny, observations expressed in exquisite poetry. The writing is stunning. It’s directed with equal style and detail by Sabryn Rock who keeps the pace going like the wind, but every second is noted and presented with care.

This is a bristling piece of theatre.

 Produced by Crow’s Theatre in association with paul watson productions and Obsidian Theatre Company.

Plays until April 28.

Running time: 90 minutes (no intermission)

https://www.crowstheatre.com

{ 0 comments }

Live and in person, at the Red Sandcastle Theatre, Queen St. E., Toronto, Ont. Produced by the Eldritch Theatre.  Running until April 21.

Written by Michael O’Brien and Eric Woolfe

Designed by Melanie McNeill

Music by Cathy Nosaty

Cast: Mairi Babb

Eric Woolfe

The House at Poe Corner is ghoulish theatre. It is based on the works and world of Edgar Allan Poe, but with a twist.

The press information should give you a taste of what’s in store:

“Celebrating the 10^th deathiversary and woeful return of Eldritch Theatre’s dreadfully dour kindergoth Masterpiece. Welcome back to the Grim Woodland of Weir, where the terrifying tales of Edgar Allan Poe are performed in petrifying perpetuity by twisted little toys that bear a striking yet non-copyright infringing resemblance to a certain ‘stuffy old bear” and his forest-dwelling companions.

Narrated by two lost souls, Edgar (Eric Woolfe) and Allan (Mairi Babb), and performed by a creepy cabal of table top puppets, aided with some truly horrifying parlour magic, these chilling fables are sure to send audiences into paroxysms of despair, madness and mirth. Dedicated to the dead child in all of us.”

Let me translate that by way of explanation. This is the 10^th anniversary of this show, and the first time I’m seeing it. The show is written by Michael O’Brien and Eric Woolfe. Mr. Woolfe acts in it playing Edgar, does the magic tricks and has created and manipulates the puppets along with Mairi Babb. They use the background of Edgar Allan Poe and his eerie stories as the basis of this, but I don’t think the exact references are as important as the wild imagination, that would use animal puppets as the characters. There is a reference to Mr. Usher’s house and various horrors to set us up.

The hero is Poe Bear who bears (sorry) a close resemblance to a certain teddy bear of note in literature, but I won’t swear to it, and the various adventures he gets into.  Poe Bear has a friend named Cutlet who looks like a toy cow in puppet form. There is Jack Hare, again a bunny or hare in puppet form—thin, long ears, excitable.

Many of these puppets kill other puppets. They pounce on them, and seem to hack them up resulting in red feathers flying all over the place. There is a narwal that is mysterious and a cast of characters that makes one dizzy keeping track of them all. And magic tricks on top of it all.

How does magic factor into a horror puppet show? It’s a show by and with Eric Woolfe. He’s a master puppeteer and magician so he combines the two. He just brings in a magic trick. Things appear and disappear with ease and amazement. For example, he presentes three little empty amber cups that he turns upside down. Then he puts a little red ball on top of each cup.

Then he took the ball off each cup, lifted each cup and there was a red ball under each one where there was nothing before. I have long since given up trying to figure out how he does it. I take it on faith that it’s magic.

The pace is fast and furious. The acting is urgent and serious. Eric Woolfe plays Edgar. He has dark shadows under his eyes suggesting sleepless nights of worry and mayhem. He wears a wig of full, unkept hair and a mustache. Mairi Babb plays Allan with an equally full wig of unkept hair and a mustache. Together they manipulate the puppets with dexterity. They both sing original songs by Cathy Nosaty. The wild set and high counter on which to plop the puppets is designed by Melanie McNeill. Both Eric Woolfe and Mairi Babb work in smooth tandem creating an effortless show of fraught situations.

And the puppets are a collection of large eyed imaginative creations along with stories more ghoulish than the next. The idea of chopping up a character is horrifying. But then the red feathers go flying all over the place and bits and pieces are hurled on the floor and it’s hilarious.

The Eldritch Theatre presents:

Playing until April 21, 2024.

Running time: 90 minutes, (no intermission)

{ 0 comments }

Live and in person at the Tarragon Theatre, Mainspace, Toronto, Ont. Playing until April 21, 224.

Written by Christine Quintana

Directed by Guilermo Verdecchia

Set by Shannon Lea Doyle

Costumes by Fernando Maya Meneses

Lighting by Michelle Ramsay

Sound by Alejandra Nuñez

Co-sound designer,Christopher-Elizabeth

Projection designer, Samay Arcentales Cajas

Cast: Miranda Caleron

Mónica Garrido Huerta

Sam Khalilieh

Caolán Kelly

Rosalba Martinni

Mariló Núñez

Michael Scholar Jr.

Margarita Valderrama

Juan Carlos Velis

Wild, bold and imaginative, but another pass is needed to tighten and develop character.

Luz is planning a 21^st birthday party for her youngest sister Lina—a university student. The family is invited: Rosa, a bitter woman who we learn later is a successful architect; There is Abuela, grandmother in Spanish who lives with Luz and Lina; Omar, the next door neighbour who takes care of his aged father; Henry, who drops by and is a friend of Rosa, and finally Lina who arrives with her friend Tash, but is hesitant to bring them to meet the family.The dynamic is established immediately. Almost nobody wants to be there because they all have issues.

Luz is anxious that tradition be followed and that means there is a 21^st birthday party for the person turning 21 and she bakes her famous cake and sets out a table full of food. Rosa arrives with the chip on her shoulder towards her sister, firmly intact. She doesn’t want to be there and thinks the idea is silly. She can barely contain her anger at being there. Luz answers Rosa’s invective with a barb of her own. Omar is happy for respite from taking care of his aged father. Henry is a little jumpy. He was in a relationship with Rosa but married someone else and now they have children and that takes up his time. Lina arrives and her frustration at being there precedes her through the door as she leaves Tash outside to wait on the steps. Only Abuela is a calm presence. The three sisters are her family and she loves them, moods and all. She is the one who notices Tash is sitting outside on the steps. Tash is invited in and is charming to everybody.

I get the sense that the death of their parents’ years before might have been the cause of the unease. The mother suffered from bouts of depression and there was a mystery about how both parents died. Rosa resents her older sister Luz for being a take-charge person. She is a professor at the university and runs the house in a precise way and perhaps Rosa resents it even though Rosa doesn’t live there anymore. And Lina seems to pine in the absence of her parents who she doesn’t seem to remember. And she’s anxious about how Tash will be accepted by her family. Lina longs to know her Mexican roots. When she was younger Abuela used to talk to her in Spanish all the time but stopped, so Lina does not really know the language of her parents or grandmother.

I know there are three sisters and one immediately thinks of Chekhov, but Christine Quintana puts her own spin on the story and references her own Mexican roots and culture.

Do the matters get resolved? I would more accurately call it ‘explained’ rather than resolved. Christina Quintana has written a bold, wild play because of what happens in Act II. Act I just seems like a lot of raging for no reason—I know we must have patience and hope that Act II will resolve things. But Act I seems a litany of hurts and accusations like ticking boxes of concerns without a hint of the reasons. I longed for some character development in Act I. Act I ends with the earthquake that almost levels everything for ACT II and the explanation.

Act II seems a mix of Day of the Dead (a specific date when Mexicans remember and celebrate the memory of their dead family and friends), and Deus ex Machina….when a play has an artificial ending to resolve conflict and solve problems. I hesitate to detail what happens because it is such a surprise of the play.  So I’ll leave it there.

It’s a bold move by playwright Christine Quintana to conjure this dramatic event—the earthquake—to get the family and friends to talk to each other and express what they are feeling and experiencing. It’s just that it feels contrived, which it is, and therefore rather false. Everybody gets to tell their story in Act II as if the Earthquake has opened the world and let out their pain. I think the play needs another pass to tighten up the flabby bits about character and situation.

This does not diminish the play. I like Christine Quintana’s writing. I like the boldness of melding the Mexican celebration of the dead with a dash of Greek theatricality, all at the mercy of a fierce earthquake in British Columbia—where the sisters now live. That illuminates an impressive imagination. I also like that Abuela, a calming presence, speaks almost always in Spanish, and with gesture and nuance we understand what she is trying to convey (if we don’t speak Spanish). She knows English and it’s always a surprise and a twist when she speaks it. That too is illuminating. And there is a wonderful speech in Act II from Tash to Lina that is terrific.

Tash is watchful and open-hearted. Lina is self-absorbed and perhaps selfish Tash would have noticed that.  The speech is true and comes from an honest place. All these characters want is to be happy and settled.

The set by Shannon Lea Doyle is quite wonderful. It is Luz’s house and it’s neat and comfortable looking. It’s furnished so that it looks like company is welcome, lots of comfy chairs and tables for drinks etc.  The book shelves are loaded with books.

And when the earthquake hits we see the destruction of the place in Act II—that’s impressive too. And the sound of the rumbling earthquake shakes the theatre. Kudos to co-sound designers, Alejandra Nuñez and Christopher-Elizabeth

There is a photo/portrait of the dead parents in a warm embrace on the wall so we get a sense that perhaps they are the dearly departed parents. Guillermo Verdecchia has directed the production with care and attention to detail.

As Luz, Mariló Núñez is efficient, tense and forces herself to be cheerful, although she is anxious that the party work out. She knows how fraught these events can be for her family. And we sense that she is bracing for fireworks, certainly from Rosa (Miranda Calderon). As Abuela, Rosalba Martinni has the confidence of a wise woman who has seen it all and accepts the world, but wants her children to be happy. As Tash Caolán Kelly has an easy charm of a person trying to fit in to this family.  As Rosa, Miranda Calderon, and Margarita Valderrama as Lina would do well not to push their words so much—it makes the delivery choppy.

Christine Quintana writes a story referenced by her Mexican roots, but it will have resonance no matter what background you are.

Tarragon Theatre presents:

Runs until April 21, 2024

Running time, 2 hours 20 minutes (1 intermission)

www.tarragontheatre.com

{ 0 comments }

Live and in person at the Royal Manitoba Theatre Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, John Hirsch Stage. Plays until April 13, 2024.

www.royalmtc.ca

Written by Stefano Massini

Adapted by Ben Power

Directed  by Richard Greenblatt

Set and costumes by Gillian Gallow

Lighting and video by Hugh Conacher

Original composition and sound by Ashley Au

Cast: Ari Cohen

Jordan Pettle

Alex Poch Goldin

The sprawling story of the Lehman brothers, three immigrants from Bavaria who came to America to make their fortune and started a financial empire with spectacular results, both good and bad; given a clear, impressive production beautifully acted and directed. 

The Story. The story begins in 1844 on a New York City dock.Chaim Lehman (pronounced “Laymahn”) has just arrived by boat after one and a half months from Bavaria. He talks with conviction of the American Dream. He has come there to the centre of that dream–America–to make his way in the world.

First he must deal with people, like the customs person who can’t pronounce Chaim (that ‘ch’ sound from the German) or Lehman, so Chaim becomes Henry, and Lehman becomes Lehman (pronounced Leeman). Henry starts a small shop in Montgomery, Alabama that sells fabric. He is soon joined by his two brothers, Emmanuel, the middle brother and Mayer, the youngest. Still there are not many Jews in Montgomery, Alabama.

Henry is considered the ‘head’, the man with the ideas who is always right. Emmanuel is known as ‘the arm’, who has the brawn or energy. And Mayer, who has a baby-face like a potato refers to himself as ‘the potato’ acts as the calming presence between his two demanding brothers. Mayer also has several impressive ideas of his own.

All of them reveal an affinity for business, knowing an opportunity when it appears and taking full advantage of those opportunities. The brothers were full of ingenuity. They saw an opportunity to keep the store open on Sundays while everybody else went to church, and presented an opportunity for the churchgoers to also buy fabric etc. The etc. became shovels and seeds. The store grew into a banking empire.

The Production and comment. Richard Greenblatt has directed a clear, spare production. Gillian Gallow has designed a simple set that consists of a moveable table and chairs and that’s it. The table and chairs are moved to represent a new scene or location.  Projections appear on the back of the stage indicating various locations and images that augment a scene. It opens with a projection of a huge highrise building with the words Lehman Brothers at the top. It establishes the size that banking empire became for context. Kudos to lighting and video designer, Hugh Conacher.

Henry Lehman (Alex Poch Goldin), enters, wearing a brown suit,  suitcase in hand, having landed in America from Bavaria, after a voyage on a boat for one and a half months. Henry Lehman seems hunched a bit, as played by Alex Poch Goldin, but there is an enthusiasm, a buoyancy when he says “America!” This is the place of his dreams to succeed. His posture straightens after that. Poch Goldin plays Henry as a man on a mission. He has no time for small talk or jokes. He is focused on work. He takes his ‘calling’ as ‘the head’ very seriously. And he is never wrong.

The other brothers arrive after that. Emanuel Lehman, known as “The Arm,” was a man of action and Ari Cohen plays him as watchful and serious. He sizes things up and makes decisions quickly. Emanuel went to New York City to check things out, and instantly decided the business needed a New York Office and he would head it.  

Henry and Emanuel are wary of each other and always seem to be in competition although they never really fight. The brother who seems to keep the peace between them is Mayer, played with nimble finesse and humour by Jordan Pettle. He is the baby brother, the one with a face as smooth as a ‘potato’ and so he is called “the potato.” Mayer has many good ideas that he slides in with quiet determination.  

Jordan Pettle was also in the Toronto production last year of the play playing Mayer—it was a completely different production. This does not mean he is repeating his performance. He is not. The performance in Winnipeg is athletic, agile in its own way, animated in a different way, and still clearly illuminating Mayer’s intelligence and business smarts. I found Pettle’s performance more animated and that comes naturally performing with Alex Poch Goldin and Ari Cohen.

There is a smooth fluidity to director Richard Greenblatt’s direction. Movement is intentional and not superfluous. The table and chairs are moves swiftly to change scenes. Often a brother would climb on a chair and onto the table to make a point. It all seems natural.  

Alex Poch Goldin, Ari Cohen and Jordan Pettle are fine actors playing the parts of brothers who are Jewish. All three actors are Jewish. Should this matter? Should only Jewish actors play Jewish characters. Personally, I don’t think so because it opens up all sorts of thorny issues (only gay actors should play gay characters, for example). There certainly have been enough gentile actors playing Jews recently—Bradley Cooper as Leonard Bernstein for example.  I’m sure the debate will go on no matter what the play. That said, these three fine actors bring a shorthand of sorts to their roles; they know how being Jewish defined the Lehman Brothers just as how that defines them. Lots to think about.  

The story is huge with all the financial implications as the business grew. It’s also a small family story of different personalities all working together for a common purpose—to make the business grow and eventually to make money. That is their product—money. They go from opening their dry-goods store in Alabama, to expand the business by moving to New York City to run their own bank.

As I have said in a previous review, the brothers were brilliant at business. They could see an opportunity when it presented itself and ran with it without hesitation on how it might look. To an outside eye, their business acumen could garner anti-semitic comments. If they were gentile businessmen and not Jewish, their business smarts would not have been commented upon. Such is the world.

This production was well worth a trip to Winnipeg.

The Royal Manitoba Theatre Company presents:

Plays until April 13 2024

Running time: 3 hours (1 intermission and one pause).

www.royalmtc.ca

NOTE: Respectful comments are accepted on this site as long as they are accompanied by a verifiable name and a verifiable e-mail address. Posts that are slanderous, libelous or personally derogatory will not be approved.

{ 0 comments }