Search: Dark Heart

THE MAIDS (l-r) Diane D'Aquila, Ron Kennell

I’m dealing with two plays that opened recently, that I think have similar themes.

IN THE NEXT ROOM (or the Vibrator Play) by American playwright, Sarah Ruhl opened at the Tarragon Theatre on Wednesday, Sept. 21, and THE MAIDS by French playwright Jean Genet opened at Buddies in Bad times theatre last night, September 22.

Both deal with sex, kinky behaviour, loneliness, hiding a secret life, and certainly both plays are ‘a little out there.’

IN THE NEXT ROOM (or the Vibrator Play)

It’s the 1880s in a prosperous town outside New York City, in the house of Dr. Givings and his wife Catherine. Dr. Givings has his doctor’s office in the house. He calls it his Operating Theatre, which might startle patients so he just refers to it ‘in the next room.’

He has invented a machine that uses electricity to help women with something referred to then as ‘hysteria’ with symptoms like lethargy, ill-temper, restlessness. Dr. Givings tells one patient, Mrs. Daldry that she has congestion in her womb and this instrument, which he calls a vibrator, will produce a ‘paroxysm’ and help loosen some of the juices and ease her congestion.

In the 1880s this was new medical territory. It’s tempting to snicker because we know what the doctor is talking about even though he is straight laced about it. But the play is not a send-up of Victorian morality or early sexuality. The play is deeper and more thoughtful than that.

For example, Mrs. Givings is a young mother of an infant and she can’t nurse her baby because she doesn’t produce much milk. She thinks she’s inadequate as a mother.

They hire a wet nurse named Elizabeth who has just lost her baby, so she nurses Mrs. Givings’ baby. That’s touching and heartbreaking for both women.

Because Dr. Givings is so serious and proper and really treats his wife like a young child,
Mrs. Givings is lonely. And she’s curious. She hears low moans coming out of the next room where Mrs. Daldry is being treated and she wants to know what’s going on. Mrs. Givings does a lot of listening at the door of the next room.

So when her husband is not at home, Mrs. Givings is shown how the vibrator works by Mrs. Daldry. They take turns using it. It gives a physical pleasure Mrs. Givings had not really experienced before. Mrs. Daldry has experienced this pleasure during her treatments and of course wants more.

Dr. Givings is reluctant to give his wife any treatment— medically unethical he feels, so there is a tension between them.

As I said, this play isn’t a send-up of Victorian morality but you wouldn’t know it from director Richard Rose’s heavy-handed production. How do they do?

Badly.

Except for a few fine performances. This is a really disappointing production.

In one scene Mrs. Givings, holding her baby, is urged by her husband to get out of sight as a patient is at the door. She hides in the closet with the baby.

Dumb.

There’s a lot of deliberate upstage when two scenes are going on at the same time. You almost expect the cast to wink and leer our way. In some cases actors are encouraged to play broadly.

The last scene is terribly important because Dr. Givings and his wife finally communicate like husband and wife and lovers. Richard Rose plays the whole thing in the dark.

This is cheat suggesting he has no faith in the play or the actors. Ruhl obviously meant the scene to be played in the light, to show the couple’s sexual awakening.

The thing that just overwhelms everything is the set by David Boechler, who also designed the costumes. Sarah Ruhl is clear about the set in her stage directions.

“Sumptuous rugs and sumptuous wallpaper.” She didn’t say ‘it should be hideous’. The wallpaper is a hideous black or dark colour with a busy design. The rugs look like gaudy huge flowers by Georgia O’Keefe. On closer look and thought I see that there is a design in the wallpaper that might be similar to female genitalia with something protruding up.

Symbolism? No just hideous. The set is also oddly designed with the audience on either side not seeing part of the set. It is a tricky set up that does not need to be as deeply recessed as it is.

As I said, there are some fine performances. I am really impressed with Marci T. House who plays Elizabeth, the wet nurse. Ms House conveys Elizabeth’s dignity and sadness. She is obviously a woman still grieving for her dead baby and it’s palpable in this terrific performance.

I also love Elizabeth Saunders who plays Annie, the doctor’s nurse. Annie is stoical and is hiding a secret that also makes her feel lost and alone. In whatever I’ve seen Elizabeth Saunders do, she digs deep into the heart and soul of her characters. It’s all there in this performance.

As Dr. Givings, David Storch is prim and proper, perhaps stodgy and quite moving in the end, if you could see him.

Good as these few performances are, I can’t recommend this production. The play is much better than this production.

THE MAIDS

THE MAIDS is a more complex play, with lots of layers, rather than just kinky although the story is eye-brow knitting. It’s about social attitudes, politics, class distinctions; the haves vs. the have nots; being an outsider.

Of course you have to consider the writer and the source of the play. Jean Genet’s mother was a prostitute who left him at a young age to be brought up by others. In spite of being adopted by a loving couple, Genet got into trouble; went to jail for the first time when he was 15 and lived a life as a male prostitute, a vagabond a petty thief and eventually a writer.

THE MAIDS was written in 1947. It’s Genet’s second play and is based on a true story of two sisters who were maids who brutally killed their employer and her daughter.

In THE MAIDS two sisters, Claire and Solange have a nightly routine when their employer, known as Mistress, is out. They take turns playing Mistress and the Maid.

So at the opening. Claire is playing Mistress, and Solange is taking the identity of Claire.

As Mistress, Claire orders her sister to dress her, bring out her shoes, the jewels etc. Mistress is rude, abusive and arrogant. The Maid is meek, submissive and secretly angry.
We get the idea that that is how Mistress treats the two Maids.

The idea of the exercise is that in the end, the Maid will kill the Mistress. But they always run out of time before they get to that part. Mistress comes home and the Maids revert back to their real roles.

As a production THE MAIDS a happier result than IN THE NEXT ROOM (or the Vibrator Play). It’s a fabulous production.

First the translation by Martin Crimp is sharp, contemporary, accessible and in your face.

Director Brendan Healy has a vision of the world of Mistress that is sumptuous. Healy is such a fine director, taking difficult texts and bringing clarity, intelligence and sensitivity, but also going one step further and keeping things on edge.

The set by Julie Fox creates that world. It’s all pink or plum depending on the effective lighting by Kimberley Purtell. Pink walls, light pink broadloom. A bed with a pink, satin cover. Pink antique tables. It’s all neat, pristine, warm and rich.

Healy does an interesting thing with the cast. It’s been said that Genet meant for THE MAIDS to be acted by adolescent boys. I have always seen the play performed by women.

Here Healy casts a man to play one of the Maids. At the beginning of the production, Ron Kennell is playing Mistress. He wears a long curly blonde wig, knee high stockings and black bikini briefs. He is clearly a man but has the body language of an elegant woman.

He talks quietly as does Diana D’Aquila as the other Maid. They both are like meek mice scurrying around all that luxury, while they lament and are bitter that they live in a bleak attic.

When the game ends Kennell takes off the wig and reveals a buzzed head. Then he puts on the tight, black wig of the Maid. There is a startling surprise with the other Maid—I won’t tell you, but the whole idea of gender, identity is turned upside down. This is a terrific idea by Healy.

I think the cast is superb. I’ve never seen Ron Kennell so good both as Mistress and the Maid. He is the more submissive of the two Maids. He has a grace and an elegance.

Diane D’Aquila as the other Maid is fretful, fierce, fiery and dangerous. This is a powerhouse performance.

And as the real Mistress, Maria Ricossa is flighty, to the manor born, and has that light disdain that is like being pricked by needles.

The cast is superb.

So is the production.

Don’t miss this one.

IN THE NEXT ROOM (or the Vibrator Play) continues at Tarragon Theatre Mainspace until Oct. 23.

THE MAIDS continues at Buddies in Bad Times Theatre until October 9.

{ 0 comments }

I’ve seen 19 of the 24 shows I can see of the 41 shows on offer at Summerworks.

Here are my top five stand-outs in alpha order:

HOOKED
LITTLE ONE
MALARIA LULLABY
THE SAFE WORD
YOU SHOULD HAVE STAYED HOME

In almost every case it was the story-telling
and or a vivid production that made them notable. I also have some honourable mentions. But first, the details of the stand-outs.

HOOKED.
Written by Carolyn Smart about four women hooked on drugs, alcohol and love.

They were: Elizabeth Smart (no relation) the
Canadian writer/poet, who wrote BY GRAND CENTRAL STATION I LAY DOWN AND WEPT. She was besotted with writer George Barker and had 4 children with him, but reaised them as a single mother.

Unity Mitford of the Mitford family of the famous British Mitford sisters. She was conceived in Swastika, northern Ontario, which was ironic because when she was an adult Unity Mitford was devoted to the Nazi Party and thought Adolph Hitler was swell. She made careful note of the more than 100 times they met.

When Germany lost the war she attempted
suicide by shooting herself in the head that left her brain damaged.

Then we have Jane Bowles who was married to Paul Bowles the writer.

She wrote one book and Tennessee Williams
called her “the most underrated writer of fiction in America.”

And finally Carson McCullers, a southern writer who wrote The Member of The Wedding and The Heart is a Lonely Hunter.

The play is divided into segments each dealing biographically with each woman.

Actress Nicky Guadagni plays each woman in the style of the writing or her nationality.
For example Unity Mitford is a dainty flaky English woman, while Carson McCullers is a fragile southern belle with a floral way of expressing herself. Guadagni lounges throughout this segment.

Guadagni is sharp-eyed and nuanced in her performance as she depicts each woman in her own distinct way. Guadagni captures the emotional, physical and mental idiosyncrasies of each woman.

It’s beautifully directed by Layne Coleman.

It’s a testament to the show, that I want to read the work or biographies of each of these women.

LITTLE ONE

It’s written by Hannah Moscovitch and directed by Natasha Mytnowych. A dynamic duo in Toronto theatre if ever there was one.

Moscovitch is a master story teller. Here we have a family: parents, a son Aaron who is the narrator and his younger sister Claire.

I think Claire is 8 when we first meet her. We soon realize that Claire is the embodiment of evil. A psychopath.

She has no conception of right and wrong.
She could kill a kitten or a person with the same cold-eyed emotional detachment.

When she tells Aaron she loves him, the
family thinks it’s a breakthrough. It isn’t. She could just as easily have said “I’m
a chopped liver sandwich” with the same conviction.

Little One is basically a mystery, perhaps a murder mystery, but that’s part of the gripping story-telling.

Mytnowych captures the spooky, eerie atmosphere of the story with moody lighting, and a decided quiet way her actors tell their story.

As Aaron, Joe Cobden is a mass of insecurity and hesitation when he has to talk about Claire.

And as Claire, Michelle Monteith is chilling and compelling, engaging and terrifying.

MALARIA LULLABY,

This is an intriguing title if ever there was one. It’s billed as ‘an aerial dance play. It’s also phantasmagorical, a hallucination, or a nightmare.

A woman on vacation fears getting malaria.
Apparitions invade her imagination. Are they flight attendants dressed funny? They wear caps with a propeller on the top, and a black tutu-like costume. They wear distinctive dark sunglasses.

They do a dance the suggests a flight attendant giving us the instructions on the plane…where the emergency exits are, etc.

Then they seem to change into mosquitoes.
When we look at those sunglasses they now look like mosquito eye-balls. There are buzzing sound effects.

Two of these creatures flip onto huge hoops suspended from the flies and do all sorts of contortions.

Another climbs a rope while the woman writhes in bed, hallucinating, until the final chilling, scene.

The draw for me was the description of the show in the Summerworks brochure and who the creators are. Choreographed and conceived by Monica Dottor.

Directed by Monica Dottor and Stephen McCarthy. The piece is hugely theatrical.
with very bold ideas.

The combination of rock music, with video images, the choreographed dances plus the areal work made this a must-see.

This show is very ambitious for Summerworks but they pull it off.

THE SAFE WORD

It’s written by Nicholas Billon.

I haven’t been keen on much of his work,
but this one really surprised me.

It’s about a prickly, sharp-tongued woman and the new flat mate who moves into the house where she lives.

She just snaps at every attempt on his part
to be friends or get closer. He reacts by backing off.

It’s obvious they are headed towards each other, but then Billon does a startling thing and throws a wrench into the relationship that unsettles him.

I like how Billon develops the story slowly
and fleshes out the characters beautifully.
He looks at relationships, people with baggage, loneliness, and he does it with humour and sensitivity.

Daniel Brière plays the man with a sad-eyed
charm and Samantha Espie is the embodiment of ‘feisty.’

These are beautiful performances and well directed by Lee Wilson—another reason I wanted to see this.

YOU SHOULD HAVE STAYED HOME

It’s billed as a G20 romp. What would Summerworks be without a little politics?

It’s written and performed by Tommy Taylor.
Mr. Taylor was minding his own business last year when he saw peaceful demonstrations during G20 so he thought he would join them.

He was arrested and detained along with hundreds of others, denied food, water and even toilet paper for hours.

It’s based on his Facebook posting after he was released. The posting went viral.

Taylor tells the story with humour, sensitivity, a keen eye for detail and a quiet manner. There is no ranting, raving or table banging.

He quietly, carefully describes a disgraceful event in our city. And it’s made him into a better informed, more committed citizen. When he is released he’s told by the police that he must not join any protests or he will be charged next time. It’s almost understated that not only does he join another protest, but he is a speaker at it.

I found the piece very moving and it made me grit my teeth at the way things were handled. That’s what good theatre does

Honourable Mentions.

1. The PARTICULARS and IN GENERAL

This is composed of two monologues by Matt MacKenzie.

One is about a devoted clergywoman who goes to Africa to find a nun who has lost her faith.

And the other is about a very ordered man who finds his world cracking up as he hears scratching in the walls of his house.

There are two terrific performances by Elizabeth Saunders and Simon Bracken.

And it’s well directed by Alex McCooey

2. Kristina Nicholl who directed EURYDICE.

Nicholl is a terrific actress but this is her first
attempt at directing and it was inventive, and intriguing.

Huge magination and whimsy here.

3) Both actress Severn Thompson as Hannah Arendt in HANNAH’S TURN, and Mary Frances Moore, the director of the piece.

Thompson gives a tempered yet steely performance of this great philosopher. She continues to go from strenght to strength.

Mary Frances Moore is developing into one of our best up and coming directors. She moves smoothly from acting to directing. Her direction always digs deep into character and story and the result is always illuminating.

More please from all of them.

It’s been an interesting festival of new playwrights, and directors and people established in their fields.

These shows continue at Summerworks until Sunday Aug. 14.

Check out www.summerworks.com

{ 2 comments }

The summer theatre season began officially last week with the opening of five productions at the Shaw Festival. Is there a common thread to them? Were there any surprises? Disappointments? Cause for celebration? Our theatre critic, Lynn Slotkin has seen the shows and is here to tell us about them.

Hello Lynn. Since this is a roundup of the first set of openings, is there a thread that ties them together?

Yes.

In her program note, Artistic Director Jackie Maxwell says that comedy is the binding thread for her season, and that’s certainly obvious with these five shows: AN IDEAL HUSBAND, THE CHERRY ORCHARD, ONE TOUCH OF VENUS, HARVEY AND THE WOMEN. I would go further because there are various types of comedy at play here.

AN IDEAL HUSBAND is a play of wit and intrigue both political and psychological. THE CHERRY ORCHARD, is a typical example of a Chekhov comedy with serious undertones. HARVEY and the rarely done musical ONE TOUCH OF VENUS, are pure whimsy, with a strong centre. And THE WOMEN, is a biting satire about the ‘weaker’ sex showing how tough and formidable they can be. These plays are comedies of substance — they are certainly not inconsequential or frivolous.

Briefly, what are these plays about?

AN IDEAL HUSBAND (Oscar Wilde) is about an honourable politician who is being blackmailed by a scheming but charming woman.

THE CHERRY ORCHARD, (Chekhov) is about a family in debt and denial who refuse to sell their beloved Cherry Orchard, which would get them out of debt. They are finally forced to sell and they are shocked when they find out who the buyer is.

ONE TOUCH OF VENUS, a musical by Kurt Weil, Ogden Nash and S.J. Perelman, is about a meek barber who brings a statue of Venus to life by putting a ring on her finger. Bits of The Stepford Wives, Desperate Housewives, and the rocky road to love.

HARVEY by Mary Chase, is about a man Elwood P. Dowd, who’s best friend is HARVEY, an imaginary six foot tall rabbit. Elwood drinks, but he is the most well-mannered considerate character in the play. So a comedy to be sure, but with a sobering message.

And finally THE WOMEN by Clare Booth Luce. A happily married woman finds out from her very good “friends” that her husband of 12 years is having an affair. She is urged to divorce him by these very good friends who don’t hesitate to back-bite, front-bite, and in the end, get their comeuppance.

Were there any surprises, disappointments and cause for celebration?

A bit of all three. I was surprised that no play by Shaw was in the first set of openings. This isn’t a criticism. I thought that a daring move by Jackie Maxwell. Something to keep us a bit off balance, and not complacent. We have to wait until July for the next set of openings for Shaw to make his appearance. And while I think the Shaw Festival Company is one of the strongest anywhere, I am always surprised when an actor I respect pulls out the stops and goes one step further. Or an actor I thought was ok gives a performance that is stellar. And that happened often with these openings.

Give us some brief details.

With AN IDEAL HUSBAND, Jackie Maxwell’s staging seemed like both grand opera and melodrama. Judith Bowden’s set was huge and dark for some scenes. I thought that odd considering the play. But I have such respect for their work they did get me to try and figure it out instead of rejecting it outright. That said, I do think the play is served. With Steven Sutcliffe giving an appropriately flamboyant performance of a character who seems silly but is anything but.

With HARVEY, I was hugely impressed with Peter Krantz as Elwood. He made Elwood courtly, gentle but smart. At times I thought I saw that rabbit.

In THE CHERRY ORCHARD, Benedict Campbell gives a fearless heartbreaking performance as the man who buys the cherry orchard.

ONE TOUCH OF VENUS is a surprise because it’s rarely done. It is an off the wall musical that does not conform to any of the rules of musical theatre, and it works. Some of the singing was questionable but performances by Mark Uhre and Deborah Hay are clever and funny and save.

And with THE WOMEN, it’s always a romp seeing so many woman characters behaving so badly, in such a stylish production.

So, some concerns about some productions but on the whole I thought it was a strong opening week at The Shaw Festival.

AN IDEAL HUSBAND, THE CHERRY ORCHARD, ONE TOUCH OF VENUS, HARVEY and THE WOMEN continue at the Shaw Festival until October.

At the Young Centre for the Performing Arts. Created by the Soulpepper Academy.

(re)Birth: E.E. Cummings in Song

Musical direction by Mike Ross. Set, costume and lighting designed by Ken MacKenzie. Starring: Ins Choi, Tatjana Cornij, Trish Lindström, Ken MacKenzie, Abena Malika, Gregory Prest, Karen Rae, Jason Patrick Rothery, Mike Ross, Brendan Wall.

Window on Toronto

Directed by László Marton. Set, costume and lighting designed by Ken MacKenzie. Sound by Lyon Smith. Starring: Ins Choi, Tatjana Cornij, Trish Lindström, Ken MacKenzie, Gregory Prest, Karen Rae, Jason Patrick Rothery, Andre Sills, Brendan Wall.

In a way “re-birth” is an apt description for these two shows. (re)Birth: E.E. Cummings in Song was created by the Soulpepper Academy in 2009 for the Global Cabaret Festival. Window on Toronto was created by the Academy last year as part of the Soulpepper Lab Series. Both shows are being re-born in a sense after more developing, honing and polishing.

re(Birth): E.E. Cummings in Song is an assortment of poems by Cummings, the great American poet, set to music. His poems are often whimsical, gritty, dark, child-like, oddly phrased and quirky. His subject matter is just as varied.

There is no formal director for this show, but the multi-talented Mike Ross is the musical director. The ensemble work is crisp, very precise, cohesive and full of invention. Because many of the Soulpepper Academy play musical instruments, each member of the Academy picked a poem from Cummings’ collection and set it to music appropriate for the poem. The ensemble ‘performs’ the ‘song’ using traditional instruments (flute, trumpet, piano, violin, double bass) and not so traditional instruments (a brush stroked on a board, sticks tapped on a wash tub, a toy piano, a ukulele and all manner of things banged and thumped). There is a video of animated fish projected on the back wall. Everybody dresses in rag-tag costumes grabbed from wardrobe, and they all wear gumboots or Wellingtons.

There is such an array of music with a lot of effort to be as whimsical as possible, that I find the whole enterprise suffused with a gentle smugness. There are lots of self-satisfied winks and smiles to the audience at the cleverness of it all. To me it’s cringe-making. The end result is that the ‘performance’ and overloud music makes the poems secondary and almost irrelevant. To make matters worse, you couldn’t make out what the company is saying in many cases.

My heart almost sinks when a double bass is rolled out, a hat put on the top of it, a man holds a book of Cummings’ poems in front of it, and another man stands on a chair behind it holding a small tape recorder. The play button is pressed and suddenly we hear the voice of E.E. Cummings reciting one of his poems in a clear, nuanced, beautifully phrased voice. It is the most genuine, effective moment of this whole piece.

Window on Toronto is another matter. This is equally as creative but without the attitude. It’s a love-letter to the huge range of people that make up Toronto as seen from the window of a hot dog truck in Nathan Phillips Square. Jason is the proprietor and while he sells hot dogs etc. to the passers by he also dispenses advice; gives directions to a harried back-packer who is trying to get to Vatican City; patiently listens to the various tales of woe; acts as a drop-off centre for many and various people and their things (scripts, guitars, cigarettes), and witnesses some of the weirdest, funniest, most poignant behaviour anywhere.

It is directed by László Marton with a firm hand on the proceedings but not so that his direction is overbearing. The pace is fast as people rush, cycle, roll, skateboard, and slink past his window. Some get sick on his counter. Some moon him. Another gives birth. A shy immigrant makes a friend. It’s at once hilarious and touching.

While the ensemble is very talented, I think Ins Choi in many rolls especially the shy immigrant from Korea, is terrific. Trish Lindström is a flirty twenty-something one minute; a crazed woman the next, and then a forgetful senior the next. Lovely work there. Brendan Wall is consistently inventive in his many rolls from the aggressive man who leaves his guitar, to a yuppie who is confused about which one of his friends has cancer. And Jason Patrick Rothery plays Jason, fielding all manner of situations from the window of his hot-dog truck. Rothery sits in the front row, his back to the audience as people wiz by his window and occasionally stop to chat and eat a hot dog.

The work in these two one acts shows an ensemble that is unafraid of a challenge and rises to the occasion. However (re)Birth: E.E. Cummings in Song made me grit my teeth in frustration. The whole thing is so precious I thought there might be a Brinks truck outside the theatre when it was over.

While Window on Toronto is a total delight. You decide.

Double Bill: (re)Birth: E.E. Cummings in Song and Window on Toronto plays at the Young Centre for the Performing Arts until May 28.

{ 1 comment }

NIGHT

by Lynn on April 22, 2011

in The Passionate Playgoer

l-r: Renellta Arluk, Tiffany Ayalik, Linnea Swan

At the Factory Theatre Mainspace. Written and directed by Christopher Morris. Designed by Gillian Gallow. Lighting by Michelle Ramsay. Sound by Lyon Smith. Starring: Reneltta Arluk, Tiffany Ayalik, Jonathan Fisher, Linnea Swan.

Presented by Factory Theatre and Human Cargo.

From the press release: “The lives of a Toronto anthropologist and a 16-year-old Inuk girl intersect powerfully during 24 hours of darkness in Pond Inlet, Nunavut. Daniella is a scientist from the big city; Piuyuq is an Inuit girl with big dreams. As the two cross paths, their lives are changed forever.”

Sometimes I think a press release tells the story of a play better than the play does. Night is a case in point. Daniella the anthropologist is just an incidental point to this story. The larger issues involve Piuyuq and her best friend Gloria, with Piuyuq giving Gloria support, love and affection which Gloria certainly doesn’t get at home. Piuyuq has to contend with a bitter, drunken father who blames his troubles on ‘white-man’ interference and never accepts the blame for anything. Daniella the anthropologist has come to Pond Inlet to return the bones of Piuyuq’s grandfather—they had been in a museum in Toronto. The museum received a mysterious request for the bones to be returned, and Daniella took it upon herself to do it.

Writer/director Christopher Morris is a passionate, accomplished man of the theatre. He has travelled far and wide to bring the harrowing stories of other cultures to Toronto and elsewhere. And while he attempts to do the same with life in Nunavut, going so far as to present Night in both English and Inuktitut with English surtitles, I must confess that I find his play to be so far-fetched and clumsily written as to be almost amateurish.

The story seems to unfold languidly until startling incident upon startling incident piles on quickly by the end leaving one breathless and confused. While the dialogue often is poetic and compelling, characters could use more fleshing out. At present too often they seem like caricatures. Daniella is no more a credible anthropologist than I’m the Queen of Romania. Daniella, as played by Linnea Swan, just seems silly and over-excited. However Gloria, as played by Reneltta Arluk and Piuyuq, as played by Tiffany Ayalik, are fierce in their convictions and so good in realizing their heartbreaking characters.

The production, on the other hand, works a treat in capturing the various aspects of life in Pond Inlet, Nunavut. Gillian Gallow’s stark, spare yet beautiful set creates the feeling of cold and isolation while Michelle Ramsay’s lighting makes us sense what 24 hours of oppressive darkness is like. The local radio station announces birthday wishes from friends, as well as warnings that a polar bear is terrorizing the village.

I’m always grateful to see a production by Human Cargo. And while I liked the production of Night very much, I wish the play was better in telling its story.

Night plays at the Factory Theatre Mainspace until April 24, 2011.

{ 1 comment }

Stratford Openings

by Lynn on August 26, 2010

in Archive,Picks & Pans

Stratford

The Stratford Shakespeare Festival opened its last five productions of this 2009 season this past weekend. They included A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM by Shakespeare, of course, PHEDRE, by Racine, based on the Greek tragedy, and three Canadian plays: THE TRESPASSERS, RICE BOY and ZASTROZZI. Our theatre critic, Lynn Slotkin, is here to tell us if Stratford’s offerings opened with a bang or a whimper.

Hello Lynn, I know I usually ask you at the end of the review if they represent a bang or a whimper, but we can’t wait. What is it?

Neither. It’s more like a thud, along with groaning and gritting teeth. I always hope for the best when I go to the theatre. There was a lot to look forward too with these Stratford plays.

Shakespeare and Racine represent he classics. And three Canadian plays are showcased, with two written by our leading playwrights. The acting company for the most part is strong.

On paper, the directors appear to be accomplished. But the proof is in the finished productions and that’s where many of the problems lie.

Let’s start with Shakespeare. A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM is usually so magical, what could go wrong?

In director David Grindley’s production, practically everything. I’ve seen his work elsewhere. Very impressive.

But not here.

The play is magical, about prickly love that gets smoothed out. But Grindley has depicted this as a nightmare not a dream. ( I think Shakespeare knew the difference).

The magical forest where most of the play takes place is inhabited by fairies in Shakespeare’s play, which Grindley has interpreted as leather clad, boot-stomping, pelvis thrusting Goths, in sun-glasses. The acting is uneven. But Tom Rooney is inventive as Puck dressed like a punk rocker. And Geraint Wynn Davies is sweet As Buttom. The lighting is murky making it hard to see anything.

Oh dear. And Phèdre?

It’s a fraught story of Phèdre, in love with her stepson. It involves heightened emotions and wrathful Greek gods. But the production is lumbered by a dull, stodgy adaptation by Timberlake Wertenbaker.

And the direction of Carey Perloff is static and that removes all the energy. There’s good acting by Seana McKenna as Phèdre, Jonathan Goad as Hippolytus the stepson, and Roberta Maxwell as Oenone, but they are in this lumbering production.

Aren’t you heartened by Stratford doing three Canadian Plays?

I would have been if they were better plays. THE TRESPASSERS is a new play by Morris Panych—always cause for anticipation. It’s about life, sexual awakening and peaches. A grandfather teaches his teenaged grandson about life and stealing peaches from the neighbouring orchard, much to the boy’s mother’s dismay.

Panych writes dazzling dialogue. Full of wit. But as happens so often in a Panych play, aside from the wit and esoteric musings, the centre is hollow. He directs as well. The cast is great: Joseph Ziegler is the grandfather, Noah Reid is the grandson. Kelli Fox is the long suffering mother. A fine cast in a witty-sounding but ultimately hollow play.

And the other two plays: RICE BOY and ZASTROZZI?

TRICE BOY by Sunil Kuruvilla takes place in both Canada and India and is about three generations of men and their losses in life.

It is a shapeless, meandering mess of a play that has not benefited from the playwright’s reworking of his earlier version, or the workshops, dramaturgy and readings it’s had.

ZASTROZZI is a very early George F. Walker play,1977, one of our leading playwrights. It takes place in Europe, a few hundred years ago and is about a man who is a killing machine, getting rid of artists he thinks are mediocre—would that it was so easy. It shows a little of the angry humour and dark vision that make his recent plays crackle with life.

He is our most successful playwright but you would never know it from this weak, early work. Why on earth program it if it doesn’t show him in a good light, in spite of creative direction by Jennifer Tarver and a terrific performance by Rick Roberts as Zastrozzi?

You are not in a recommending mood?

Zastrozzi gives a prophetic line: ‘artists must be answerable to somebody’. The same can be said of the people who run the Stratford Shakespeare Festival. I don’t get the sense of artistic rigour or respect.

Just a desperation to try something new and appeal to a younger audience. What about the loyal audience that expects quality and isn’t getting it?

These five plays, coupled with a generally disappointing season, except for a few sterling productions, left me furious and fearful for the festival. Is there anyone watching the store?

This isn’t good enough.

Do better.