Search: Dark Heart

The following review aired on Friday, Oct. 19, 2012 on CIUT FRIDAY MORNING 89.5 FM. MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE. At Hart House Theatre until Oct. 20.

The host was Rose Palmieri.

(ROSE)
1) Good Friday morning. It’s time for our regular theatre from Lynn Slotkin, our theatre critic and passionate playgoer.

Hi Lynn. What are you reviewing today?

(LYNN)
I’m reviewing MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE, a challenging play that opened at Hart House Theatre on Wednesday night and will close tomorrow night. So a short run.

(ROSE)
2) Today will be a bit different because Lynn will do her review, but we will then be joined by Mahsa Alimardani for a panel discussion about the play.

Ok tell us the details of MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE and why it’s so challenging.

(LYNN)
MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE is about a young American woman who went to Gaza in 2003 as a volunteer to work with Palestinian families, and offer non-violent resistance to the Israeli military that were bulldozing properties in Gaza.

Rachel Corrie was killed by an Israeli bulldozer while she stood in front of it, trying to prevent it from knocking down a Palestinian house. She was 23.

The play is composed of her writings from her journals, diaries and poems that have been compiled by actor Alan Rickman and journalist Katharine Viner. We see her social awakening as a young girl to her political activism, to her going to Gaza to help.

There are also other jottings that fill in other aspects to her, her humour, prejudices, her great need for recognition etc. It’s a one person play so conveying what that person is about is a challenge.

It deals with a volatile subject—the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which is challenging. And it presents a skewered, lopsided picture of what is going on there.

Corrie tells us that the defenceless Palestinians are being victimized by the Israelis. But not once does she ask why? Not once does she wonder why those bulldozers are trying to destroy those houses and there are reasons, but the text doesn’t go there. That leaves a huge hole in the play.

Added to that is that I just think Corrie’s writing is not very good. It’s self-indulgent, naïve, rambling, and often precious. When listening to the play and reading it, it’s obvious that Rachel Corrie wanted her prose to be published. And truth to tell there would be no play if she had lived. Her adoring, grieving parents sent some of her work to the Guardian Newspaper in England to see if they would publish it posthumously. That got the ball rolling for Alan Rickman and Katharine Viner (a journalist at the Guardian) to put the play together out of her writings.

(ROSE)
3) How does it do as a production?

(LYNN)
I found it maddening.

Director Mumbi Tindyebwa Otu has directed a production so busy in movement, annoying musical underscoring, and cluttering unreadable projections that it was a wonder you could concentrate on the words at all.

Otu has Rachel scurrying all over the sandy set; hauling props hither and yon; digging in the sand to find a notebook she had forgotten, to check on something she wrote; even going into the audience to talk at break-neck, breathless speed, that you are distracted and distanced from the play.

As I quoted Christopher Plummer a few weeks ago, he was referencing directors who load their productions with bells, whistles and dazzle, resulting in all manner of distraction: “If you give the audience too much to look at, they stop listening to the words.” And listening is why we are in the room.

The most poignant, true moment in that play is at the end when we see a film of the 10-year-old Rachel Corrie making a speech at an event about hunger. In it she says simply what she hopes for the future and how we must all work to end world hunger. It’s heartfelt, true, innocent and charming. But Otu upstages even this moment by having Amelia Sargisson, as Rachel, wander around the upper part of the set (still visible in the darkened stage) and even walk across the front of the projection. Totally distracting.

Amelia Sargisson is youthful, buoyant at times and energetic. But too often she plays Rachel as if she is on the verge of tears; distraught.

Rather than drawing the audience into the emotion of the situation—it alienates them. The actress can ‘indicate’ the fraught emotion of a moment but not to go so overboard that the point is lost.

I will chalk this up to two young artists getting their chance with what looks like a powerful play, wanting so badly to do right by the material, and then because of inexperience let much of it overwhelm them. I want to see their work in another context. I look forward to that.

Put for MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE, I found the evening maddening and frustrating.

(ROSE)
Thanks Lynn. That’s Lynn Slotkin, our theatre critic and passionate playgoer.

You can read Lynn’s blog at www.slotkinletter.com

MY NAME IS RACHEL CORRIE plays at Hart House Theatre until Oct. 20.

{ 0 comments }

The following two reviews were broadcast on Friday, Oct. 12, CIUT FRIDAY MORNING, 89.5 FM TEAR THE CURTAIN! at the Bluma Appel Theatre until Oct. 20 and BLOODLESS: The Trial of Burke and Hare at the Panasonic Theatre until Oct. 28.

The host was Rose Palmieri.

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

Hi Lynn. What do you have for us today?

(LYNN)

Hi Rose. I’ve got two really intriguing shows. The first is TEAR THE CURTAIN! a co-production by the stellar ELECTRIC COMPANY and Canadian Stage Company.

And the other is BLOODLESS, The Trial of Burke and Hare. This is the inaugural production of the musical company Theatre 20, a company composed of some of our finest musical theatre artists.

(ROSE)
2) Ok, let’s start with TEAR THE CURTAIN! What’s it about?

(LYNN)
TEAR THE CURTAIN! is director/creator Kim Collier’s latest vivid, imagistic, startling creation. This time she explores the worlds of theatre and film, reality vs imagination, the subconscious, chaos, randomness, intimacy and distance, to name a few.

It’s the 1920s in Vancouver. The goings on are seen through the eyes of Alex Braithwaite, who says he’s a very important theatre critic. Although local. He goes to see a play and is smitten with the leading lady, Mila Brook and goes to the cast party to meet her. I don’t know about Alex’s code of ethics but going to cast parties after the opening night he is supposed to review, to meet the stars is a no-no.

He’s struck by the whole question of is Mila more real on stage or off? On his way home Alex meets a man in the park who reminds him of a theatre artist from years before whose theatre, the Empty Space, and his ideas affected Alex profoundly. He becomes transfixed on the idea of the man and his theatre. Questions of unlocking the subconscious are posed.

There is wrangling over property between two gangs, one controls the cinemas and the other controls the playhouses and they both want to build on that land. Alex decides to write a huge think piece on the Empty Space and all it stood for. We are led to believe that the article caused a huge sensation in the press and with the public. Alex gets more mired in this confusion of what is real and what is Memorex until he finally settles and goes to the movies with his girlfriend Mavis to watch Lillian Gish in her first talky.

(ROSE)
3) Well I’m intrigued when you use words like ‘vivid’ and startling’ to describe the production. Does that mean that it’s a success?

(LYNN)
Tricky. All the techno stuff is dazzling. With nods to Laterna Magica and Emma Rice and her Kneehigh Theater production of Brief Encounter, Collier blends theatre with film in which characters on stage dissolve into the film projected large behind and around the stage.

We see Alex on stage. A screen comes down with the film of Alex in the same setting, only in the film. So we fluctuate between watching a play and a film. Are we in a play? A film? Both? Which begs the question why? Why are we watching both a play and a film in the same place? I don’t believe that theatre and film vie with each other for audiences because these forms are different.

I love the cleverness of Tear the Curtain! In the first scene we are watching a film of Alex sitting in a theatre watching a play. In the last scene, Alex and Mavis sit in the front row of our theatre, watching the film of Lillian Gish in her first talking role. Mavis says with great excitement something line: “Oh there she really is” when looking at the celluloid Lillian Gish there on the screen. Thus in a way negating Alex’s thesis of what is real or not.

Once again in a Collier creation, story does not seem as important as the theatrical effect. Writers Jonathan Young and Kevin Kerr substitute story and character for frequent incomprehensible musings, usually from Alex. The script is a jumble of esoteric navel-gazing pretentiousness.

(ROSE)
4) Don’t you believe Alex as a character?

(LYNN)
No because he hasn’t been fully written as one. He and others are written like stereotypes—the grimacing critic, bored before the play starts. He’s always drinking either from a flask or from a glass. Why does he drink? We don’t know and we should.

Does he like the theatre? We don’t know and we should. He says he’s a famous critic. One wonders in what fantasy land he holds this august position—perhaps he’s a legend in his own mind.

The program note from the creators say: “Live theatre keeps us at a distance but reveals to us our vulnerability our very humanness.”

Twaddle.

It’s theatre like this, with lots of techno stuff to distract us, and underdeveloped characters we can’t identify with, that keeps us at a distance. So for me TEAR THE CURTAIN! is clever, technically dazzling, but hollow at its heart.

(ROSE)
5) I think that’s a natural segue to BLOODLESS: The Trial of Burke and Hare. There’s a lot of buzz about this show. Why?

(LYNN)
First of all it’s the inaugural show of a fearless company called Theatre 20, composed of some of our finest musical theatre artists. They want to do musical theatre; don’t have the opportunities they want so they formed a company, three years ago, to create their own work and their own luck.

BLOODLESS: The Trial of Burk and Hare is an original musical written and composed by Joseph Aragon.

It started as a fringe show in Winnipeg—was expanded and is now the first production of this spunky new company.

(ROSE)
6) And what’s the story of Bloodless: The Trial of Burke and Hare?

(LYNN)
It takes place in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1824. William Burke and William Hare are lowly labourers and can’t really make a living. But by accident they find a way. Mrs. Hare runs a rooming house. Mr. Hare discovers that one of the tenants is dead in his room. Hare’s friend William Burke knows that the local medical school will pay for fresh cadavers as long as there are no marks on it. So they sell the cadaver to Dr. Robert Knox a noted lecturer in anatomy and don’t tell Mrs. Hare.

Easy money and an idea. Pretty soon Burke and Hare are making good money killing and selling the corpses to the Doctor. But Burke gets flashy with his money. Hare gets disillusioned.

The show is played out against their trial, so it’s no surprise that they get caught. It’s how things unfold that is the hook.

(ROSE)
7) How is it as a musical?

(LYNN)
It certainly is an interesting story. Composer Joseph Aragon’s first song sets up the tone and the thrust of the piece. His music has melody and sweep. But it is also very reminiscent of Stephen Sondheim and Gilbert and Sullivan to name just two. And I couldn’t help but think that Aragon has bloated the piece with endless songs. Almost every character has a song and often they don’t need one because they are sung by a character that isn’t established yet.

The show is two hours and 10 minutes long. It should be a tight, trim 90 minutes with fewer songs. The lyrics are very sophisticated. The problem is that the characters who sing them aren’t. It’s the composer-lyricist showing off, not the characters who are expressing themselves.

As for Aragon’s writing, some revelations in Act II make no sense because they aren’t developed beforehand. Suddenly we are told that one character is really in love with Burke, but nothing sets that up beforehand.

It’s directed with flare and urgency by Adam Brazer—a founding member of Theatre 20 and its Artistic Director. But on the whole the pace is so relentlessness as to be overwhelming. So often the cast came forward to yell their displeasure with the world, the system and all manner of things, besides these disappearing people, that I thought the story ran out of gas before the show finished. Toning down the sound, and fixing the sound system might help. And I wish it had a list of songs in the program.

The cast is very strong. As Burke, Evan Buliung is crafty, wily, rough and charming. As Hare, Eddie Glen is initially devilish, but then fretful, and morally centered. As Mrs. Hare, Jan Alexandra Smith, is multi-faceted, hard, and eventually won over to the dark side. As Janet Brown, a prostitute, Carly Street is impassioned and compelling, as are they all.

I think this musical needs another going over. Cut some songs. Tighten the book. Be aware that if a character isn’t sophisticated then he/she shouldn’t be singing sophisticated songs with internal rhyming for example.

Theatre 20 is hugely talented and they deserve our support. I wish I had better things to say about this show.

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

TEAR THE CURTAIN! plays at the Bluma Appel Theatre until Oct. 20.

BLOODLESS: The Trial of Burke and Hare plays at the Panasonic Theatre until Oct. 28.

{ 0 comments }

The following reviews were broadcast on Friday, Sept. 7, 2012. CIUT FRIDAY MORNING, CIUT 89.5 FM. COME BACK LITTLE SHEBA at the Shaw Festival until Oct. 19, and ELEKTRA at the Stratford Festival until September 29.

The Host was Rose Palmieri.

(ROSE)
1) The Toronto International Film Festival might have begun yesterday, but that hasn’t stopped Lynn Slotkin our theatre critic and Passionate Play from talking about her favourite subject, theatre.

Hi Lynn. What’s on tap this week?

(LYNN)
Hi Rose. I have two classics, one each from Shaw and Stratford. Come Back, Little Sheba written by the American writer, William Inge in 1950.

And Elektra, written by the Greek master Sophokles about 2500 years ago, and translated for this production by Canadian poet Anne Carson. (odd spelling of the play and the playwright are as in the program).

(ROSE)
2) Why did you choose these two?

(LYNN)
Because both are terrific stories in their own way.

COME BACK, LITTLE SHEBA is a gem of an American play full of longing, loneliness, disappointment, but such emotional truth.

ELEKTRA is an epic Greek drama that results when the fury of the gods get involved, carried on by jealousy, rage, revenge and lust. And I picked both to talk about because both productions are stellar.

(ROSE)
3)Ok, lots to look forward to. Let’s start with COME BACK, LITTLE SHEBA. What makes this a gem of an American play?

(LYNN)
William Inge knew about the ache of the human heart. He knew about people in hard situations and how they coped. He knew how lonely marriage can be and disappointing and how a person can convey that disappointment subtly.

Come Back, Little Sheba is about two such people. Doc and Lola Delaney are the couple in question. He makes his own breakfast (it’s the 1950s, the women made breakfast for their husbands as a rule) and that of Marie, the young woman who is there as a boarder. He dotes on her and he is jealous of her boyfriend.

Doc’s wife, Lola, is a perky, cheerful woman who flirts with any young man, and positions herself so that she overhears Marie and her boyfriend in intimate moments.

While Doc and Lola are pleasant to each other, there is little affection—so they look elsewhere for it. And we soon learn of the dark secrets both Doc and Lola have. Tensions build and the result is shattering, that paves the way for Doc and Lola to face their demons.

(ROSE
4) Does the production rise to the challenge of balancing the subtlety with the shattering aspects.

(LYNN)
It does. It’s directed with exquisite sensitivity by Jackie Maxwell, who has an affinity for plays by William Inge. True emotions seems to bubble beneath the surface in Inge plays so the direction is vital to keep that delicate balance in check. You know all that good natured banter between Doc and Lola is hiding pent up emotion.

As Doc, Ric Reid is fastidious and up beat, but he gradually reveals how impatient he is with Lola and her chatter. How that manifests itself and is finally resolved is what makes this shattering.

And he is beautifully partnered by Corrine Koslo as Lola. Lola is buoyant, cheerful but with just a hint of too much good will. You realize how needy she is when she stands at a doorwell and listens to Marie and her boyfriend making out. It’s that hope, anticipation that is so moving.

Both Ric Reid and Corrine Koslo are giving stellar performances.

(ROSE)
5) And now Elektra, written 2500 years ago. Is it relevant at all?

(LYNN)
Absolutely. It’s about revenge, murder, jealousy, passion. And it’s about a family in crisis. Stuff we all can identify with in 2012. Elektra longs for the return of her long absent brother, Orestes, so he can avenge the death of their sister years before.

Years before their father, Agamemnon had to appease the gods by sacrificing his daughter, Iphigenia. He then went to fight in the Trojan war for about 10 years. In the meantime his wife, Clytemnestra was enraged at the murder of her daughter. She took a lover, Aigisthos and when Agamemnon came home Aigisthos killed him.

Years before Elektra, seeing all the danger, took her infant brother Oresteis and gave him to a trusted person to raise and keep him safe until he was able to come back and avenge the family honour. And so she’s been raging and waiting all that time and eventually he returns to revenge all those deaths.

Sounds like a really modern story to me. And it was given a terrific production as well

(ROSE)
6)How so?

(LYNN)
It was directed with tremendous flair by Greek Director Thomas Moschopoulos. He obviously knows his way around the pitfalls and the beauties of Greek Drama. He has directed at Epidaurus, the first Greek Theatre and filled all 14,000 seats. He also directed the closing ceremonies at the recent Greek Olympics, so he knows his way around spectacle, as well as directing for small spaces, as the Tom Patterson Theatre.

Both the set and lighting are striking. Moschopolous certainly has a vivid eye for the visual.

All the bloody bits happen off stage in classical Greek drama, but it’s quite dramatic seeing the bleeding bodies hauled on stage, the results of all that mayhem when revenge takes place.

Often the text is given rhythmically with the beat of the words deliberately underscored, (Greek Rap?) and then subtly the text is given in regular contemporary speech. I love that melding of the classical and the modern. Again, showing how contemporary this play is.

The chorus is expressive and driving when giving us the background and narrative.

As Elektra, Yanna McIntosh is giving one of her finest performances. It’s full of fury, sensitivity, and is absolutely single minded. As Clytemnestra, her murdering mother, Seana McKenna is cool and stylish as a Prada-wearing cougar. She is ruthless and cutting and also compelling.

I am intrigued by Orestes as played by Ian Lake. He is clean-cut- blond and when he makes his appearance to avenge his father and sister, he is in a white shirt and tie and shorts looking like a model of Hitler youth. Moschopoulos was certainly making a statement.

I think it’s cheesy to say that Elektra was electrifying, but I will—it was.

Since we have a few minutes, I did have a concern. I was in my seat waiting for the show to begin, reading the program, when I saw/heard one of the actors from the play, come into my section, in costume, and ask those around me if they were familiar with the story of the House of Atrius. This give the complex historical background to Elektra. I had to look up and see him there in the aisle to believe I heard properly. My eyebrows were knitting. The good folks in the audience near him said they did not know the story. So he obliged them with the history of the House of Atrius at what I consider breakneck speed. It’s so complicated that it’s like hearing the story of Geneses with all those begats and who begat whom, and then expecting the audience to remember it all. Impossible. Defeats the whole purpose.

An actress, in costume, sat in the empty seat beside me and engaged me in conversation. She asked if I was listening to the story told by her colleague over there. I said that I was trying not to. She said that their director wanted the actors to engage the audience beforehand to put the play in context and to give the background. I am embarrassed to say that I lost my patience with this pretension and referred to her director in a rather derogatory way. I said that surely the play should stand on its own and be able to convey all that’s necessary for us to understand it. The poor actress….after a bit more banter she moved off to engage other audience members.

I hate this need to break down the ‘fourth wall’ and engage the audience. What do they think I’m/we’re doing in the audience if not engaging? We’re there aren’t we? We make a commitment to look, listen and hear what’s going on on stage, what more do they want? Put in another way, just as I wouldn’t think of going on stage while the show was in progress to ‘engage’ an actor in his/her space, so I expect them to keep their distance and not come into my space either while the show is going on or before.

The director needs to tell us the story of the House of Atrius? Fine, put it in a program note. Don’t begin your show, which is rich in tension and drama, by having cast members jokingly tell us the history and background of the play, thus undercutting that tension.

I hate ‘audience’ participation. Why do I have to participate to make their production work in any other way other than listening and watching intently?

Sheesh.

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

COME BACK, LITTLE SHEBA plays at the Shaw Festival until October 19.

ELEKTRA plays at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival until September 29.

{ 1 comment }

The following reviews were broadcast on Friday, Aug 17, on CIUT FRIDAY MORNING, 89.5 FM Summerworks roundup and special mention. On at various locations until Sunday, Aug. 19.

The host was Rose Palmieri.

(ROSE)
1) Good Friday morning. It’s time for some theatre with Lynn Slotkin, our theatre critic and passionate playgoer. What do you have for us today?

(LYNN)
Hi Rose.

It’s the Summerworks Festival of indie theatre. Forty productions of mainly original work play over 10 days. The Festival ends this Sunday so there is still time to see a lot of interesting work. This is the biggest festival yet—with a music component, a living art component and of course theatre.

And I also found it to be one of the strongest line-ups of plays and creative people in years. Plays dealt with political hot-button subjects such as the philosophy of wearing the niqab; honour killing; digital manipulation; people dealing with mental illness; for example.

Not to say it’s all heavy stuff. There was a lot of humour, mystery and intrigue. So lots to chose from but the scheduling was maddening this year and so of the 40 I have only seen 18 up to the present.

And between today and Sunday I’ve scheduled 11 more. So I haven’t seen many of the ones I was looking forward to.

(ROSE)
2) Ok let’s get to it. What stood out for you?

(LYNN)
I’ve narrowed it down to four standouts with some honourable mention. Here are the four in alphabetical order:

BREATH IN BETWEEN written by Anton Piatigorsky. It’s about a man who advertises to kill a willing person. Two people answer the ad. He kills both of them. The play examines what happens next. It’s at once a psychological thriller, as well as an almost existential look at being, becoming and possession.

Piatagorsky is an elegant writer and hugely challenging with his subject matter and ideas. There are echoes of THE DYBBUK. In THE DYBBUK a woman is possessed by the spirit of her dead suitor.

The production is beautifully directed by Brendan Healy. With wonderful performances by Paul Fauteux, Amy Rutherford, and Audrey Dwyer who provides a mystery voice.

TERMINUS by Mark O’Rowe about three lost souls who go out into the Dublin night looking for love, and mystery and find near death.

The writing is in rhyme but it’s not cute. It’s urgent, muscular and throbbing with life. It’s full of foreboding and saving angels and your heart will be racing until the very end.

It’s directed by the always creative Mitchell Cushman. He places both the audience and the cast on the stage of Factory theatre in a tight space. It stars Maev Beaty, Ava Jane Markus and Adam Wilson and they are all wonderful.

A THOUSAND WORDS is written and directed by Chris Hanratty. His focus is how a picture can be worth a thousand words. What happens when the picture is doctored, digitally altered?

A man is investigating the death of two soldiers in Afghanistan who might have been involved in a drug running operation. He has pictures that implicate them, but there is another soldier who seems to have been air brushed out.

I love the thinking of Hanratty and the thorny questions the play asks. In this age when everybody has a camera, it’s so easy to alter the picture. Where is the truth? As the Investigator, Clinton Walker is clear, tenacious and aggressive in trying to find the truth.

And

WHEN IT RAINS: written and directed by Anthony Black and produced by his company 2B Theatre Company from Halifax. I would see anything created by him.

This is about two couples and their inter-relationships. Between brother and sister and husband and wife. The play asks how do you behave when you have everything and life seems idyllic, and then lose everything? How do you find your way back to your happiness?

Anthony Black’s visual sense is arresting, using projections and animation in compelling ways. The production is spare but intriguing. He stages his cast with economy but to great effect. The cast is fine as well.

(ROSE)
3) What are your honourable mention?

(LYNN)
To begin with DARK LOCKS by Richard Sanger. A subject taken from the headlines about an immigrant family who comes to Canada and hangs on to its cultural ways while the teenaged daughter(s) wants to be modern. The rift between cultures; the spectre of honour killings

Sanger juxtaposes a history lesson on the battle on the Plains of Abraham between the British and the French (Wolfe and Montcalm) in which Montcalm would not pay attention to advice given by a first nation scout, and loses the bloody battle, and the reluctance of the immigrant family to accept the ways of their new country with the same disastrous results.

I like how Sanger deals with this difficult issue by giving a Canadian context of the British and the French. It is directed by Mary Frances Moore. She’s always inventive and has a sensitive eye.

Then TERRE HAUTE by Edmund White. Death row interviews based on the correspondence of Gore Vidal and Oklahoma bomber, Timothy McVeigh. Incendiary, infuriating and absolutely fascinating. Terrence Bryant as the interviewer and Todd Michael Sandomirsky are terrific under Alistair Newton’s careful direction.

And FACTS by Arthur Milner about the murder of an American archaeologist in the West Bank and both an Israeli and an Arab officer investigate. Full of the prickly politics between Arab and Israeli or Arab and Jew. I think Milner does a good balancing act between the two sides, or the many sides.

And three electric performances from Richard Greenblatt, Sam Kalilieh and Alex Poch-Goldin.

I look forward to ICELAND—lots of buzz about that: MEDICINE BOY; HAUNTED, and lots more.

(ROSE)
4) You had some problems with this year’s festival. What were they?

(LYNN)
With theatre, music, and living arts I think the festival has gotten so big that timetabling the plays I want to see is frustrating because of the scheduling. Sometimes there is only one play playing between the seven venues. NUTS. Sometimes there’s a wait of more than 1 ½ hours between shows—too long. I want to see a lot of plays.

Sometimes the timing of the shows–between 60 and 75 minutes each–conflicts with the schedule. I have found that a 75 minute play can be pared to 60 minutes, unless it is already established elsewhere as 75 minutes.

This has to be rethought for next year.

From the actual production point of view, a lot of the time I wanted to yell to the actors: SPEAK UP! It’s not that many talked quietly—I can live with that. It’s that they either mumble or drop their words down some pit of inaudibility. SPEAK UP and that goes for every word.

Programs. Some shows didn’t have any. You’re not saving money, you’re aggravating the audience which means me.

I don’t care if it’s a one person show—do you have a director? A lighting designer? A stage manager? You point out the stage manager at the bow. Give them all credit in a program, and make their mothers proud.

Or there is a program with all the cast listed but not who they play. Are you kidding? Are you embarrassed? I need to know who you are and who you played and I don’t have time to ask a press person.

However, Summerworks is my favourite festival. There is lots of choice (if only I could slot them in to see them all). I loved that the shows started on time in most cases. This is a well run, efficient, and every single volunteer who works either the tickets or box office etc. is a charmer.

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

SUMMERWORKS continues at various locations until Sunday, Aug. 19.

www.summerworks.ca

{ 0 comments }

l-r Nicole Underhay, Rick Roberts

The host was Rose Palmieri

(ROSE)
Good Friday morning. It’s the day after International Women’s day and Lynn Slotkin, our theatre critic and passionate playgoer is here with a play by women and about women.

Hi Lynn.

What will you be talking about?

(LYNN)
THE SMALL ROOM AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS by Carole Fréchette-a celebrated, award-winning playwright from Quebec.

This is not to be confused with the film Room at the Top. Or the play the Dark at the Top of the Stairs. Or anything else at the top of those stairs.

This is Carole Fréchette’s creation with inspiration from the legend of Bluebeard—the story of a man who married several women, killed them and then kept their bodies hanging in a secret room in his castle.

(ROSE)
2) How does the play carry on from the Bluebeard story?

(LYNN)
It’s set in contemporary times. A handsome, rich man named Henry, marries a golden girl named Grace. She’s beautiful, charming, and everything he finds perfect in the world.

Henry has been married three times before. He has a 26 room house that is an exquisite work of art. He tells Grace her that she can go anywhere in their 26 room house, except in that small room at the top of the sort of secret staircase in a far corner of the house. And he doesn’t tell her why, or what’s in there.

He jokes that that’s where he put the bodies of his former wives. Grace promises she won’t go into that room—no sirreee. Well, Grace is curious, isn’t she?

Fréchette has written an initially fascinating play that looks like a variation on the Bluebeard story. However, this being Fréchette, there is more to this story than just that gruesome legend.

(ROSE)
3) How so?

(LYNN)
Grace has a cloying mother named Joyce who is just reveling in her daughter’s good fortune to marry so well and to be so happy. Joyce has two daughters and wanted only the best for them. So she named both after princesses. There is Grace –our golden girl. And her ordinary and unpretty sister Anne.

Anne knows that Grace is her mother’s favourite. Grace gets praise and emotional support. Anne gets criticized and negativity. Anne is married to her high-school sweetheart and she does humanitarian work in foreign countries. She is critical of her sister’s idle life and doesn’t like Henry. There’s something slimy about him she thinks. No argument from me there.

But while Anne leads a useful life, she is deeply unhappy. Perhaps it’s just wanting a little encouragement and not criticism all the time from her mother and sister.

There is also a maid named Jenny who is very attentive to Henry, and obviously jealous of Grace.

So those are the other characters, but the spooky, pervading presence is that small room at the top of the stairs.

Grace is lectured by her mother Joyce not to go into that room and obey her husband. Well you know what’s going to happen. Grace goes in the room. That’s when the trouble starts.

(ROSE)
4) OK I won’t ask what trouble. But it sure sounds like a ghost story or a mystery of sorts. Is it?

(LYNN)
Carole Fréchette is a tease. She teases us by having Grace describe her long path, down corridor after corridor, to that small room at the top of the stairs.

Here Bonnie Beecher’s beautifully evocative and atmospheric lighting just oozes that kind of spookiness.

So for scene after scene Fréchette teases us about what her play is. Is it a mystery? A ghost story? I discount these because the spooky scenes of her going to the door of the small room, are repeated and repeated overstating the point. I would like to think Fréchette is better than that.

And besides when Grace does go in that room and sees and hears stuff that should terrify any ordinary person, Grace is not terrified, and is strangely attracted to the horror. I figure Fréchette is going for something bigger, more substantial. So is the play a metaphor? An allegory? All of them?

Is it about the facile, superficial interests of Graces’s mother? Is it about the emotional damage done to one sibling if a parent favours the other sibling?

Fréchette introduces an idea in which Grace must find out what true tears mean. Grace gets some salve from Jenny to help the bleeding man in the small room.

Jenny says for the salve to work she must rub a bit in her hand to warm it then drop true tears on them and mix that in….Grace must discover what true tears are and how they are caused. Fréchette mentions this fact late in the play and after a while I get the sense that she is putting too much effort into being profound.

There are too many threads of characters’ stories that throw out interesting comments, but they are jumbled in this too busy play and after a while it becomes tiresome.

I will say that her writing, as always, is elegant, vivid, and so beautifully expressive. And John Murrell’s translation is as beautiful and poetic.

(ROSE)
5) You have said that sometimes a production can make up for a confusing script. Does that happen hear?

(LYNN)

I think it does. This is a stunning, effective, compelling production. Weyni Mengesha’s direction is confident, vivid and results in an evocative, provocative production. She has a clear vision of this world of the play and her design team has created that world.

Astrid Janson who has created the wonderful costumes and set. The set is a large square playing area with the audience on two sides. To emphasize how golden is the life of Grace, Janson has dressed her in pale beige to gold coloured clothes. Her blouse is like a satiny pale gold. The pants are well fitted beige with beige flats that just says—special, golden, preferred.

Bonnie Beecher’s lighting creates the staircase with illumination and shadow on the floor—love that. And we see the long path Grace has to take in that house to get to that small room…again in light around the edges of the set.

The cast that inhabits this world is stellar, lead by a compelling Nicole Underhay as Grace. Blonde, pert, dimple cheeked and curious. And when Grace is drawn to that room and what’s inside, Underhay conveys that urgency that is gripping and breathless.

As Joyce, Sarah Dodd is both grounded and flighty with her idea that this moneyed marriage is the answer to all her prayers. It’s a performance of a woman that both charms and annoys.

As Anne Claire Calnan has that wonderful ground-down look and attitude of a woman who has had a lot to deal with growing up with a perfect sister her mother prefers. As Henry, Rick Roberts is hugely attractive, disarming and dangerous. Wonderful work. And as Jenny the maid, Raquel Duffy is unsettling as the always attentive maid with strange salve for wounds.

I had problems with Fréchette’s play but this stunning production made up for it in great measure.

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

THE SMALL ROOM AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS plays at the Tarragon Mainspace until April 8. www.tarragontheatre.com

{ 0 comments }

The following reviews were broadcast on Friday, February 17/12. CIUT FRIDAY MORNING, 89.5 FM CIUT. POTTED POTTER at the Panasonic Theatre. THE PITMAN PAINTERS at Theatre Aquarius in Hamilton, Ont. Until February 25.

The host is Rose Palmieri.

(ROSE)
1) Good Friday morning. Lynn Slotkin, our theatre critic and passionate playgoer is here with two reviews.

Hi Lynn.

What do you have for us today?

(LYNN)
I have POTTED POTTER and THE PITMAN PAINTERS.

(ROSE)
2) You didn’t pick them because of the alliteration, did you?

(LYNN)
Just a coincidence—but when I started writing about them I did see that preponderance of Ps in the titles.

(ROSE)
3) Is there anything else that connects them?

(LYNN)
Not really, except that they might be both based on books. POTTED POTTER deals with the seven Harry Potter books.

THE PITMAN PAINTERS is inspired by a book by William Fever.

But they are so far and away different from each other that I can’t say there is anything similar except that they both take place in a theatre.

(ROSE)
4) Ok let’s start with POTTED POTTER. How does the show deal with the seven books?

(LYNN)
First of all the show is a bit of a phenomenon. It has played to great acclaim in England, Australia and now North America. Before the show opened here it was held over.

Ok what’s it about? Well, it’s about 70 minutes. In that frantic seventy minutes, Daniel Clarkson and Jefferson Turner tell the stories of all seven Harry Potter books complete with props, hogwart wannabees, and audience participation.

Actually Jeff is the expert in Harry Potter books and takes his task seriously. He is constantly re-reading the books.

Daniel Clarkson is the joker. He mixes Harry Potter up with the Narnia books and perhaps Alice in Wonderland.

But before the show starts he’s out in the audience chatting up the folks, shaking hands, making contact. He lays the ground rules and is probably the one to send up Jeff and make fun of something.

They also divide the audience in half so that both halves play a game of Quidditch. There’s a lot of mugging, seemingly adlibbing, audience participation and two people are hauled onto the stage to participate—actually they volunteer.

This is the kind of show where people are happy to volunteer.

(ROSE)
5) I guess the most important question is do you have to have read the Harry Potter books to appreciate the show?

(LYNN)
Good question. I bought all 7 books but haven’t read any of the, nor have I seen any of the movies. I know that Harry is this kid who wants to be a wizard and went to school to learn. Lots of British movie stars starred in the movies. But that’s all I know. I went to see if in fact I could get the gist of the stories of the books.

(ROSE)
6) And could you?

(LYNN)
Barely. But I think the point is that since the whole world was reading those books or saw the movies, then people who went to the show would basically know the stories.

Also, the fact that it’s billed as “The Unauthorized experience—a Parody by Dan and Jeff” then the audience would be up for a romp. It has the pace and tone of a frat house party. People—Dan and Jeff –acting goofy, prat falls burp jokes, lots of shouting, fake enthusiasm, going off on tangents.

At times I thought that even 70 minutes seemed too long for this and that the silliness took the place of truly actually telling the story of the seven books. The audience was young 20 somethings. It’s a good date show.

Daniel Clarkson is tall, lanky and the more animated of the two. He tends to rev up audience to mayhem. Jefferson Turner is the more serious one, often sounding off in frustration to Dan, but there is good camaraderie between the two of them. Well yeah, they did write the show together.

I think this show is an acquired taste for me. But there definitely is an audience for it.

(ROSE)
7) Did the show make you want to read the books?

(LYNN)
Maybe…I should give it a try one of these days.

(ROSE)
8) And tell us about THE PITMAN PAINTERS.

(LYNN)
I went to Hamilton to see it at Theatre Aquarius. It’s a wonderful play written by Lee Hall who wrote the film and the book of BILLY ELLIOT.

THE PITMAN PAINTERS is about a group of coalminers in England, Newcastle, to be exact who took up painting and became noted for it in the 1940s.

In the play these miners wanted to improve themselves. There was a fund that could be used for various courses. All that was available was a course on art appreciation. They had no background in it at all.

The instructor began talking about styles and genres—went completely over their heads. So he got them to paint what they knew—their village, their work—down the mines. And then they discussed it amongst themselves. How the painting made them feel; that art should make you feel something. As time went on their paintings got better. They had a real facility for it.

Their conversations about art got deeper and more philosophical. They became famous. Had exhibitions.
Even sold some of their work. It gave them a sense, a hope of a better life.

I found the play and their story astonishing.

(ROSE)
9) How so?

(LYNN)
Because most of these men began working in the mines when they were 11 years old. They got up in the middle of the night when it was dark to go to work. They worked in horrible conditions down the mines in the dark. They came home in the dark. And yet they painted with colour. And for untrained painters you do get a sense of their lives in their village, at home, in the mines and the back-breaking conditions. And that they produced paintings that are now postcards is an astonishing accomplishment. I found their story so inspiring, so full of tenacity and ultimately hopeful.

(ROSE)
10) And how was the Hamilton production?

(LYNN)
Just terrific. I had heard from friends who saw it to rush to see it and I urge people to do the same. I think Theatre Aquarius does a fine job of bringing theatre to the city with top actors usually from the Shaw Festival.

And this production of THE PITMAN PAINTERS is terrific. I found it beautifully acted by the company, moving, funny, thoughtful and even transporting. The men are no-nonsense. They wear suits and ties for their meetings—the miners would only have work clothes and their Sunday best—these meetings called for their Sunday best.

As George Brown, the leader of the group, Nigel Bennett is all bluster and propriety, even stodgy.

As Oliver Kilbourn, the most gifted painter of the group, Michael Spencer Davis conveys the wonderful awaken of how art can change a life for the better.

And as Helen Sutherland, a rich patron of the arts, Sharry Flett is both dignified and gracious to these men.

In one hilarious scene they all look at a painting Mrs. Sutherland bought. It’s a brown curved line on a white painted canvas. She paid a lot of money for it. The men laugh because they think it’s rubbish. But she makes them look harder at it. She never laughs at them. She is always accommodating and never condescending. It’s a lovely performance, as are they all.

It’s directed with great detail and care by Ron Ulrich who just makes the whole production vibrant with life and heart.

Loved it.

(ROSE)
Thanks Lynn. You can read Lynn’s blog at slotkinletter.com

>POTTED POTTER plays at the Panasonic Theatre.
Presented by Mirvish Productions. www.mirvish.com

THE PITMAN PAINTERS plays until Feb. 25 at Theatre Aquarius in Hamilton. Box Office: 905-522-7529

{ 0 comments }

The following review was broadcast Friday, December 23, 2011. On the Friday Show, CIUT, 89.5 FM. BED AND BREAKFAST at the Tarragon Extra Space until January 1, 2012. Damon Scheffer is the host.

(DAMON)
1) Good Friday morning. While it’s the holiday season, Lynn Slotkin, our theatre critic and passionate playgoer has taken a break from shopping and is here to tell us about a play called BED AND BREAKFAST.

Hi Lynn

That doesn’t have a holiday ring to it. What’s it about?

(LYNN)
First a little background.

BED AND BREAKFAST is produced by the wonderful company of puppeteers called Puppetmongers.

It’s composed of brother and sister puppeteers: David and Ann Powell who create the shows, make the puppets, sets and props, write the scripts and act in the shows.

They always have a production at this time of year that might be based on a fairy tale but they give it their won stamp.

A few years ago they did a play called CINDERELLA IN MUDDY YORK which was set in the early days of Toronto when it was called YORK, using the Cinderella story.

BED AND BREAKFAST takes a fairy tale and runs with it.

It’s based on Hans Christian Anderson’s story, THE PRINCESS AND THE PEA.

Let me refresh your memory.

A prince was desperate to marry a princess but every one he met was lacking. He travelled the world to meet the perfect one but always came home princessless.

One dark and stormy night a woman knocked at the city gates wanting shelter. The old king went to answer the knocking himself. The woman said she was a princess, but she looked all wet and bedraggled. Hardly the princess type.

The queen, (the old queen?) devised a test unbeknownst to the bedraggled princess. She prepared a bedroom with 20 mattresses Piled one on top of another, onto which she piled 20 feather beds. And placed a hard pea under all of it.

The thinking was that if she was a real princess she would be so sensitive to that pea she wouldn’t be able to sleep. And sure enough in the morning the woman was asked how she slept and said that she hardly slept because there was something hard in the bed that prevented her from sleeping well….black and blue she said she was.

So the royals were convinced she was a real princess and the prince married her.

BED AND BREAKFAST takes the story of THE PRINCESS AND THE PEA and runs with it, giving it a modern sensibility.

(DAMON)
2) How so?

(LYNN)
It’s written by Ann Powell. She’s always been annoyed at the original Hans Christian Anderson story.

To quote from the Puppetmongers newsletter:

“She found it ridiculous that a princess should have to marry a prince she’s never met just because she’s had a bad night’s sleep.”

By the same token it’s ridiculous now that the prince thinks he must marry royalty to be happy.

In BED AND BREAKFAST we are in a beautiful miniature Edwardian palace. Amy, a housemaid in the palace loves bugs. The prince also loves bugs and loves nothing in the world more than to discuss the bug world with Amy. She in turn can’t wait to tell him of the bugs she has found in the garden.

They obviously love each other. The prince proposes. Amy accepts. And the queen promptly fires her because in royal circles a maid can’t marry a prince. How times have changed.

Amy leaves. The prince is heartbroken and decides to leave too to wander the world seeking adventure and to try to forget Amy. It’s impossible. At every turn he sees something he would love to share with her, which makes him long for her more.

One day, a year later, a pretty, poised, woman comes to the door of the palace. It’s Amy but she doesn’t admit it. She’s looking for her prince but he’s still travelling and pining for her. The queen doesn’t recognize her.

She only sees who she is certain is a real princess. The servants have a hint it’s Amy and are determined to help her.

The same test with the mattresses is done, but with a wonderful twist.

(DAMON)
3) How old do the kids have to be to see it?

(LYNN)
It’s for kids five and up and when I went there was a good cross section of ages.

(DAMON)
4)How does that work in the performances? Little kids are entertained by different things that entertain older kids.

(LYNN)
That’s true. The little kids are interested in the story. It’s simple and Ann and David Powell never talk down to them. Even though they are puppets, director Sue Miner directs them and her puppeteers to treat their audience both small and tall with respect.

And Miner does direct the puppets. They have gestures, expressions and reactions, just like a live person would. The older kids are intrigued by the beautiful miniature set with its sliding doors that reveal a four story palace in cross-section.

There are projections, animation, and a model plane flies in bringing the returning prince. There is a miniature bath tub, miniature furnishings including a grand piano and tiny puppets, chandeliers and lots and lots of mattresses.

So it’s story telling that grabs the younger kids. The magic of the creation of the show grabs the older ones. The script is laced with witty comments and observations that are hilarious for the adults.

And the final twist in getting the lovebirds together is inspired.

BED AND BREAKFAST is a charming show for kids with some sassy dialogue for their parents, done with wit and imagination.

(DAMON)
Thanks Lynn. That’s Lynn Slotkin our theatre critic and passionate playgoer.

You can read Lynn’s blog at www.slotkinletter.com

>BED AND BREAKFAST plays at the Tarragon Extra Space until Jan. 1/12. tickets: www.tarragontheatre.com/tickets

{ 0 comments }

The following two productions were reviewed on Friday, December 16, 2011 on CIUT 89.5 FM: PARFUMERIE at the Young Centre For the Performing Arts until Dec. 24, and THE STORY at the Evergreen Brick Works until Dec. 31.

(DAMON Scheffer)

1) Good Friday morning. It’s time to find out what our Theatre Critic, and Passionate Playgoer, Lynn Slotkin is up to.

Hello Lynn

What are you going to tell us about today?

(LYNN)

It’s the holidays and things tend to wind down, theatre-wise. But I have two shows that are perfect for the holidays.

First, PARFUMERIE is a delicious confection, that is sweet with a bit of tart.

And then THE STORY, which is the Christmas Story, about Mary, Joseph, three wise men who are lost. But there is a twist.

(DAMON

2) Ok, I’m sure we’ll get to the twist. But let’s start with PARFUMERIE.

(LYNN)

It was written in 1937 by Hungarian playwright Miklós László. It was adapted in 2009 for Soulpepper Theatre Company by Canadians Adam Pettle and Brenda Robins. Both have done work before for Soulpepper, Pettle as a writer and Robins as an actress. They still keep the old-world charm of the story but with a modern sense of humour.

It takes place in a perfume shop around Christmas time. There is a staff of many and various characters, two of whom bicker and complain about each other incessantly.

George Asztalos is a clerk in the store and is efficient but a bit high strung and certainly when another clerk, Rosanna (Rosie) Balaz, is involved. She bugs George and George bugs her. Try as they might to be polite, they just can’t stand each other.

George lives alone. Rosie lives with her mother. But both have secret loves that they know only through letters. Each has had their secret pen-pal for more than a year to whom they write of their innermost yearnings, thoughts and dreams even though they have not told their secret love their names.

And yes, unbeknownst to George and Rosie, they are in fact writing each to other. And if this sounds like the films THE SHOP ON MAIN STREET or YOU’VE GOT MAIL then you now know the source of these wonderful films. The play has spawned three adaptations and one Broadway musical.

(DAMON)

3) Who are some of the other characters in the play?

(LYNN)

There is a clerk who flirts with any woman he sees when he’s not borrowing money from her. There is the sad owner Mr. Hammerschmidt who believes his wife is cheating on him with one of his staff. There is a delivery boy, devoted to Mr. Hammerschmidt but yearns to be a clerk.

They all have their secrets and longings but at its basic level, it’s about decent people trying to get by and do well by each other.

As I said, it’s a delicious confection that is a mix of sweet and tart. There is sadness, disappointment but also a generosity of spirit, a camaraderie a gentleness and yet great humour that is both the doing of the script and the terrific production, thanks to director Morris Panych and his cast and creative people.

(DAMON)

4) Why do you think the production is terrific?

(LYNN)

Because the director Morris Panych and his cast and creative team serve the spirit, heart and humour of the play. It’s directed with warm-hearted impishness by Morris Panych. Panych has a zany, but light touch with his direction. At times he has clerks and shop staff rushing around to serve customers, jumping over furniture, and it makes it all look like reindeer hopping or even gazelles just leaping in air.

There are so many wonderfully funny, impish touches—the way the whole store reacts to a departing customer; the body language and funny business of the womanizing clerk; even the look of the set is funny.

(DAMON)

5) How so?

(LYNN)

It’s designed by Ken MacDonald and with its pastel colours, curlicues and ornate details of the inside of the shop, it looks like an exquisite chocolate box. Or at least that the whole thing is made of marzipan. In any case the set made me smile and drool.

The acting company is supremely gifted. As George, Oliver Dennis can give a look that is confused, conflicted, and morally tough all at the same time. He has a gentleness but also a firm resolve and he has a way with a joke or a humourous thought that is unerring and dear.

As Rosie, Patricia Fagan is both steely in her resolve as well as emotionally fragile. She can stand up to George when she thinks he’s being unfair but dissolve in tears when she is wounded.

As Mr. Hammerschmidt, Joseph Ziegler has that world weary look of a man who is ground down by doubt and regret when he thinks his wife is cheating on him with one of his clerks. The body language slumps—that says it all. The voice is deliberately weak and wobbly. Hammerschmidt seems distracted and he is. This is a lovely performance, as are they all.

PARFUMERIE is a play and a production that is perfect for the holidays and makes a holiday of the rest of the time.

(DAMON)

6) Ok moving along. You said that THE STORY is about the Christmas Story but with a twist. Explain.

(LYNN)

It’s written by Martha Ross for Theatre Columbus, a theatre company of which she was co-artistic director for about 25 years before the reins were turned over to Jennifer Brewin who now runs the company and directs this show.

Ross has written the basic story we all know: pregnant Mary and her husband Joseph are told she will give birth to a baby who will change the world. There is the angel Gabriel whose hat glows in the dark who drops by occasionally to tell us and Mary what will happen. Three wise men are searching for a miracle star in the sky but have lost their way.

So we know the story.

There are a lot of contemporary references and a gentle, almost goofy humour to it. All that is rather sweet. The twist is that the whole show takes place in and around the buildings of the Everygreen Brickworks on Bayview Avenue, but mostly outside in the fields around the site. The effect is truly magical.

(DAMON)

7) How so?

Well it’s dark of course, but Glenn Davidson has fashioned lighting that sets off the buildings that are more than 100 years old. It’s both eerie and evocative. To see lights in the distant field, or to see a glowing orb in the distance bobbing up and down as it approaches us and then see that it is Angel Gabriel wearing a round hat (halo) that is illuminate, is just magic.

The set pieces by Catherine Hahn in the buildings and in the fields, are simple but effective. And it’s directed by Jennifer Brewin that is hugely impressive for its wit, efficiency and imagination.

We follow a Sheppard who holds a lamp. She takes us to each scene in the field or in the buildings. The distances are short but we cover 1km over the hour length of the show. As we go from scene to scene we pass a choir that stands in the field singing hymns. That is magical.

The performances are earnest and sweet. Mary is played by Haley McGee, an actress to watch. She is forthright, has common sense and a whimsy that is delightful. As Joseph, Richard Lee is a sweet innocent and very devoted to Mary.

The whole cast is wonderful. As is the whole experience. I loved it.

(DAMON)

8. What if it rains?

(LYNN)

Then the whole thing is done indoors. It had been raining earlier in the day yesterday when I saw it, so the fields were wet and muddy in places. But we are told to dress warmly, wear proper shoes etc. They sell hot chocolate with marshmallows! And there were lots and lots of kids. This is a wonderful show for kids and adults who know some kids. Kids are fearless—the dark doesn’t scare them.

And I’d never been to the brickworks. What an incredible place. And a perfect place for this show.

(DAMON)

8) We’re coming up to the end of the year. What are you looking forward to in the New Year?

(LYNN)

I’m looking forward to the Next Stage Festival. Kind of a Fringe Festival only in the winter. That’s at Factory Theatre in early January.

THE PENELOPEAD, by Margaret Atwood, done by Nightwood Theatre, at Buddies In Bad Times Theatre, opening January 12.

It’s the story of Penelope as she waits for her husband Odysseus to come back from the war and he’s taking a long time, and she’s bothered by lots and lots of suitors. And WAR HORSE at the Princess of Wales Theatre. This is based on the wonderful book by Michael Morpurgo. About a boy in England who enlists in WWI to go to France to find his horse and bring him home. The horse was sold to the cavalry to fight in France. The boy wants him back.

It has life sized puppets of the horses that are astonishing. If you see only one show all year, this should be it.

(DAMON)

Thanks Lynn. That’s Lynn Slotkin our theatre critic and Passionate Playgoer.

You can read Lynn’s blog at slotkinletter.com

PARFUMERIE plays at the Young Centre for the Performing Arts until Dec. 24. Tickets: 416-866-8666

THE STORY plays at the Evergreen Brick Works until Dec. 31. Tickets: 416-504-0019

{ 0 comments }

The following was broadcast on CIUT 89.5 FM today. Friday, November 25, 2011. CIUT, 89.5FM The No name show.

HALLAJ, At Buddies in Bad Times Theatre: WOULD YOU SAY THE NAME OF THIS PLAY?, in the Studio of Young People’s Theatre: RED at the Bluma Appel Theatre.

DAMON

1) Good Friday morning….Lynn Slotkin, our passionate playgoer is here with her roundup of plays she’s seen this week, namely: HALLAJ, WOULD YOU SAY THE NAME OF THIS PLAY? and RED.

Hi Lynn.

These look like a cross-section of cultures and genres. Give us the details.

LYNN

They are a cross section.

HALLAJ is based a portion of the life of Mansur al-Hallaj, who lived in the 9th century and is largely unknown outside the Islamic World. Hallaj was a poet, philosopher and Sufi mystic who thought God was in every one, thus bringing him into conflict with orthodox Islamic teachings.

Sounds familiar.

That’s presented by Modern Times Stage Company that specializes in producing ancient tales and bringing them into Modern Times.They take these fascinating stories from another culture and make them so accessible to us.

WOULD YOU SAY THE NAME OF THIS PLAY? comes from Young People’s Theatre and is about racism, bullying and homophobia.

They do give the name of the play in brackets in the program but I can’t and won’t say the words on radio or anywhere else. One word is the pejorative word for a black person. The other word is the pejorative word for gay.

And finally RED, a play about Mark Rothko, the American contemporary abstract painter. It takes place from 1958 to 1960, examines the nature of art and its creation, and what one would do to bring the art to the public.

DAMON

2) They all sound contemporary even though one of them is centuries old. Tell us about HALLAJ.

LYNN

It’s the night before Hallaj’s execution. He is being executed because of his religious beliefs that go against those of the ruling government. He has uttered four words offensive to the regime. He refuses to recant them.

Playwrights Peter Farbridge and Soheil Parsa make us wait to find out what these four words are and tantalize us with false starts. And no I’m not going to tell you what they are.

Much of the play is flashbacks building to where he is at that point. He was happily married but was compelled to leave his wife Jamil to look for God. He arrives back, tired and in rags from his journey but successful. He realizes where God is.

Hallaj learns he is a father. He is emboldened by his beliefs and that always brings him up against the authorities. The authorities will save him and his family if he will recant. He won’t. They then threaten his wife and son.

The story is quite gripping.

DAMON

3) Does the play do the story justice?

LYNN

The play is at times gripping but also poetic and dry. Almost vaultingly poetic and I think that just bogs down the proceedings. In an effort to capture the language of the times, sometimes esoteric, it defeats the purpose of telling the story. That said, there are many times when the language does also seem contemporary and is quite funny.

And while I do have a problem with the actual writing, I think Soheil Parsa’s direction is vivid and often compelling. He has such a visual idea of what he wants. A simple sound effect and a sudden square of light illuminated on the floor instantly creates Hallaj’s prison cell. With another lighting effect and sound cue we are in a flashback. We are never in doubt as to where we are—in a flashback or the night before the execution.

Peter Farbridge also plays Hallaj. He certainly moves beautifully, at times suggesting he’s overcome with some bedeviling spirit. He dances with grace. I just wish he was a better actor. He is a bit stodgy in his performance.

I do think that Beatiz Pizano as Jamil, his wife, is arresting, emotional and very moving. The ensemble is committed, the play introduces us to an interesting character we don’t generally know. The production, directed by Parsa, is so inventive and vivid in creating the world of Hallaj all those years ago and yet making him so contemporary.

DAMON

4) And now WOULD YOU SAY THE NAME OF THIS PLAY? From Young People’s Theatre. I take it it’s not a lighthearted romp for kids?

LYNN

Correct.

Berend McKenzie has written and performs his play about a sweet, effervescent 16 year old named Buddy who just wants to fit in. He hopes that a popular girl agrees to be his date to a party so his classmates will stop calling him faggot. Hearing that word tumble so innocuously from Buddy’s mouth just catches you up short.

Buddy is gay and of mixed race. His mother was white and his father was black from the West Indies. And he was adopted by a loving couple who didn’t care what colour he was. They just wanted to adopt a kid.

But it’s been rough for Buddy. He has few friends. He’s bullied, ostracized and made to feel terrible about himself. It’s a play about bullies, homophobia, being loved and given the courage to stand up to his tormentors. And of course and unfortunately it’s timely when you consider the recent headlines of children being so bullied they commit suicide.

DAMON

5) How is the show presented?

LYNN

Berend McKenzie is an energetic actor in his 20s? 30s? and he’s playing a wiry, teenager, always on the move. It’s a one person show. McKenzie wears a black tank top, camouflage pants and leather shoes sneakers? Trainers? that are dark gold and I wanted them they are so cool. He flits all over the stage as Buddy. He has a sweet, innocent openness which is disarming. Think about it…he wants the girl to go with him to the party so that people won’t call him reprehensible names about his skin colour or sexual orientation.

He has a secret place where he keeps his mementos. He is easily wounded, almost never vindictive. And ultimately stands up to his tormentors because he can tell his parents that something is wrong…and his parents are intuitive enough to know it too.

Always part of these school shows is a talkback with the actor. These are as telling as the play. McKenzie is direct, forthright and hard hitting. He asked, “How many of you chose to be straight?” No hands go up. “Well why would you think I chose to be gay?” A girl in the audience blurted out, “You’re gay!!” almost incredulously and with a touch of an edge. I wanted to ask her, “Does it matter? Why would it matter?”

In that talk-back after WOULD YOU SAY THE NAME OF THIS PLAY? I get the sense that Berend McKenzie is driven to save lives. To try and prevent another kid from going through what he went through as a kid.

It’s an important, sobering look at a serious problem for many young people and needs to be seen. And to be cheeky, some of the scenes in the play will make you see red.

DAMON

6) Which leads us nicely into the last play… RED. Give us the background on this one.

LYNN

Part of the Canadian Stage season. Written by John Logan who won a Tony Award for the play. He also wrote the screenplay for such films as GLADIATOR and AVIATOR.

RED it’s about Mark Rothko, the celebrated American modern artist, known for his huge paintings usually of one colour with some variation.

It’s 1958, in New York. He has just received a commission. He will paint several panels, in red we learn, to be installed in the new Seagram’s Building for their restaurant called The Four Seasons. He believes those paintings will change the lives of the people who will see them as they chow done on over-priced food. We have to smile at his naivety and hubris. He got $35,000 for the commission. Unheard of in that day.

Rothko hires an assistant named Ken, to help with the stretching of the canvases, priming them, and to do various jobs he needs done—buy booze and food for example. Rothko expounds to Ken on art, life, colour, the dilemma of being true to one’s art in a commercial world and other philosophical thought.

For example, he believes his paintings are living, breathing and sensitive. He treats the paintings better than he treats people. Rothko rages about everything else. He has no interest in Ken at all except as a sounding board for his rants and theories.

Ken is an artist too—timid about showing Rothko his work—but Rothko seems so disinterested in him. He never refers to Ken by name. Rothko’s answer to that when Ken challenges him, is that he doesn’t have to be interested. He’s an employee. We realize Rothko is an intensely unhappy man who has contempt for most things except for artists of the past. There is precious little evidence that he even lives in the outside world.

DAMON

7) Do you get a sense of the man in the play?

LYNN

I think to some extent, but as I said, there is so little evidence he lives in the outside world. Does he have a family? Is he married? Does he know what’s going on politically at the time? None of that is in the play.

His philosophical outpouring seems like so much pretension. You stick with him because he seems so deluded about how his paintings will affect the viewer and certainly in that restaurant. But truth to tell, when John Logan did see the paintings and not in the restaurant, he was so moved by them, he wrote a play.

DAMON

8) And the production..does it bring the play to life?

LYNN

It’s directed by Kim Collier who has directed plays in the past that have a very specific, definite visual impact. STUDIES IN MOTION last year with Canadian Stage—NO EXIT before that. Text seemed secondary to her visual production. So I was intrigued to see what she would do with a play that is so dense in philosophy and rage.

The production is as huge as one of Rothko’s paintings.The production is as muscular as Rothko, tearing into priming his canvases. We are in Rothko’s studio. Paintings hang everywhere. As Rothko, Jim Mezon paces, tears around the space. He is one of this country’s best, most powerful actors,and he lends that power to Rothko. It almost seems like Mezon is at level 10 of fury. I would have liked a bit more variation.

I must confess that I shouldn’t have to worry that the actor will have a heart-attach with all the bellowing—not the character, but the actor. And echoing the apprentice to the master, as Ken, David Coomber is a young actor, leaning at the feet of the master—Jim Mezon.

As Ken, Coomber is quietly respectful, trying hard to keep up and eventually giving back the argument in as powerful a voice as Rothko. And only at the end do we see a kind of meeting of the minds—that Rothko has noticed Ken.

I think Collier’s production does justice to the play but she gets carried away with the techno stuff. We really don’t need lumbering side panels (canvases) sliding out to block off the stage with scene changes, complete with projections on the panels to distract us.

And the set is so designed that perhaps part of the audience on one side doesn’t see something on the other. When Ken exits for the last time, he leaves one of his paintings propped up on a crate. I wonder if people on the other side of the stage saw it properly, because I didn’t see it clearly.

It’s a play and production I think people should see for themselves. The play is intriguing and the production does justice to it.

DAMON

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

HALLAJ plays at Buddies in Bad Times Theatre until Dec. 4.

WOULD YOU SAY THE NAME OF THIS PLAY? Plays at Young People’s Theatre until Dec. 3.

RED plays at the Bluma Appel Theatre until Dec. 17.

{ 0 comments }