The Slotkin Letter Theatre Reviews for the Serious Theatre-Goer Reviews, comments and even a rant or two about theatre everywhere. Theatre Reviews for the Serious Theatre-Goer Page 3

www.coalminetheatre.com

Live and in person at the Coal Mine Theatre, Woodbine and Danforth, Toronto, Ont. Playing until Dec. 1, 2024.

Written by Samuel D. Hunter

Directed by Ted Dykstra

Set and lighting by Nick Blais

Costumes by Des’ree Gray

Sound and composer, Aaron Jensen

Cast: Mazin Elsadig

Noah Reid

A beautifully written play about male friendship and fierce love of their children, in a heart-squeezing production that is wonderfully acted and directed.

The Story. No, this isn’t an esoteric religious tract. One would think so with a title like that. But it’s not.

A Case for the Existence of God is a play about a friendship between two unlikely men, both doting single fathers who adore their very young daughters—the daughters are about 18 months old.

Ryan works in a yogurt factory. Keith is a mortgage broker. Ryan has come to Keith for a loan. Ryan wants to buy a plot of land that his family once owned. He plans to build a house there. He feels that if he has that land he can give his daughter a good life. He also says that if he had money, then it would justify his existence. Ryan is going through a divorce. He’s going through a hard time. He shares custody of his daughter with his wife.

Keith has given Ryan the loan papers and tries to explain them, but Ryan is struggling to understand the terms and language etc. Keith appears successful; he has a college education, a responsible job but also has his issues. He’s a Black gay man who has tried to adopt a child but has had difficulty. So, he put himself forward as a foster parent for this young toddler. He is responsible, dotting and attentive to his daughter. But he has learned recently that while the birth mother of the little girl is unfit to raise her, the mother’s aunt has come forward after almost two years to try and adopt the little girl herself. Needless to say, Keith is fretting about this, but doesn’t want reveal this to Ryan.

There is a tentative connection between the two men because they met in their daughters’ daycare. By rights, Ryan is not eligible for the loan—he has no collateral. But Keith feels a kinship with Ryan and so works hard to find any angle to get him the loan.

One of the most devastating lines of the play is when Ryan says that they have a shared sadness. It takes your breath away, because it’s true.

The Production. Nick Blais has designed a stylish office for Keith. There are two black swivel chairs with Keith’s being the more substantial with a high back. The black desk is narrow. There is one plant and around the border of the office are black boulders. Is this supposed to suggest a ‘man-cave’? And interesting thought.

Des’ree Gray has designed the costumes: a crisp shirt, tie and pants for Keith and worn t-shirt, pants and work boots for Ryan. Ryan also wears a baseball cap. The clothes accent their social/economic divide. The play unfolds after several office meetings between Ryan (Noah Reid) and Keith (Mazin Elsadig).

With just a change in the light (again, Nick Blais) the scene changes and we know that time has passed. The body movement of both characters snaps to a different position so we know the scene has changed. Noah Reid as Ryan might take his baseball cap off to suggest the change, or put the hat on backwards for the same reason. Mazin Elsadig as Keith shifts to another position in his chair all at the same time. Director Ted Dykstra has carefully choreographed these scene changes with economy. His direction is also so nuanced that it rivets you to the action.

We get the sense that the friendship is deepening when one of the scenes takes place at night Ryan at Keith’s house watching tv and having drinks. Ryan falls asleep in the chair and Keith calls out to Ryan asleep in the chair but Ryan is too deep in sleep to rouse. Keith nods off too.

But then there is the little cry of Keith’s daughter through the machine that is on the table that will pick up any noise in the baby’s room. And like a shot both men are startled awake. I loved that both men are so a tuned to the sound of a baby crying that it would rouse them out of the deepest sleep.

The acting between Noah Reid as Ryan and Mazin Elsadig as Keith is exquisite and detailed. Both listen to the other. Both react with truth. The characters listen so hard to each other than they can sense when something is wrong. A character might lash out, and it’s discovered that it’s mis-placed anger, and that makes a scene richer when one character is so attuned to another.

Playwright Samuel D. Hunter is so nuanced and subtle in his writing. He has created believable men. You get the sense of what it must have been like for Keith, this gay Black man to be a gay Black kid in his small-town high school in which he is aware of slights, both real and imagined. And he has carried that into adulthood. It doesn’t go away like magic with maturity.

And we get a sense of Ryan’s disappointment as an adult because he was a kind of popular star in high school, who never lived up to the promise. I think of the other disappointed guys of promise: Biff in Death of a Salesman, the Gentleman Caller in The Glass Menagerie all looking for validation. Ryan has always been dirt poor, lonely, perhaps unloved since his parents were addicts and his father died young. And yet both men see the good in the other. Both men bolster the other, even though it starts out uneven in power—one man wants a loan and the other has the power to get it for him. The friendship evens the relationship. And the bond over their daughters, the fierce love they have for their child, grips them.

I can’t remember the last time I saw a play about male bonding of two such strong but fragile characters. Sex never enters into it, not even in jock talk. And the fact that there is no hint of anything sexual makes the play remarkable. They don’t become lovers with Ryan all of a sudden realizing he’s gay. This is not a play about macho guys bonding trying to one up the other.

No. This is a play about a gay Black man and a straight white man who become true, deep friends. This is a play about two men going through rough times and supporting each other because of it. They are kind, they listen to each other, they see the good in the other—there are bumps along the way. But I was stunned at the sensitive, elegant writing that dug deep into the feelings. How rare is that, that we are dealing with caring men who take their care of their daughters and spread it to the friendship with each other?

Comment. As for the title, A Case for the Existence of God, it seems like a non-sequitur but on closer reflection I think the whole play is proof. There are also events that happen that I can’t reveal because that would give away some of the surprises, but various things happen that prove the title. Samuel D. Hunter is one gifted writer and A Case for the Existence of Godis one example why.

Coal Mine Theatre Presents:

Plays until Dec. 1, 2024.

Running time: 80 minutes (no intermission)

www.coalminetheatre.com

Review: WHAT THE CONSTITUTION MEANS TO ME.

by Lynn on November 4, 2024

Live and in person at the Young Centre for the Performing Arts, Toronto, Ont. a Soulpepper Theatre and Nightwood Theatre co-production in association with Necessary Angel and Talk is Free Theatre. Playing until November 10, 2024.

www.soulpepper.ca

Written by Heidi Schreck

Additional writing support (Canadian adaptation), Damien Atkins, Gabriella King, Amy Rutherford.

Directed by Weyni Mengesha

Costume designer, Ellie Koffman

Lighting designer, Kimberly Purtell

Sound and composer, Richard Feren

Cast: Damien Atkins

Gabriella King

Amy Rutherford

The component of Heidi Shreck’s play that deals with the US Constitution is fascinating, well drawn and thought out. It is beautifully presented by Amy Rutherford. But including a segment that deals with Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms just because this play is being performed in Canada, is insulting.

The Story. When American playwright Heidi Schreck was a 15-year-old high school student in 1989, she participated in various debates about the Constitution of the United States. She gave speeches on what the Constitution meant to her. That involvement earned Heidi the tuition for her time in university. She was keenly versed in the Preamble to the Constitution, the seven articles and the 27 amendments and it all comes through in this bracing, personal rendering of the ins and out of the U.S. Constitution.

When I say “personal” I mean Heidi Schreck notes her family history and how it applies (and sometimes doesn’t) to the Constitution. Abuse factored heavily in Heidi Schreck’s family. Her great-great grandmother was a mail-order bride to the United States. She was abused/beaten by her husband, Schreck’s great-great-grandfather and she died in a mental institute of “melancholia” at age 36. Heidi Schreck’s grandmother and mother were abused by their husbands. Abortion factors in the story—Schreck had an abortion in her 20s.

With finesse and grace Heidi Schreck analyses the Constitution with regards to its dealings with women, people of colour and reproductive rights. She notes how white men made all the decisions regarding these issues and even with 27 amendments, they still don’t seem to have gotten it right.

The Production. (Background). What the Constitution Means To Me started Off-Broadway in 2017 with Heidi Schreck playing herself at both 15 and in the present day. She then took the show to Broadway in 2019. It was celebrated, nominated for various awards, won a few and for the past two years has been the most performed play in the United States. The Soulpepper-Nightwood-Necessary Angel-Talk Is Free Theatre production of What the Constitution Means to Me at the Young Centre, is the first one to play outside the United States.

The production takes place in a legion hall of sorts (no designer is listed) with a podium, two chairs, an American flag and a backdrop of framed pictures of men in uniform. Amy Rutherford plays Heidi Schreck as both a buoyant, smiling 15-year-old and Schreck as an adult in the present day. Amy Rutherford wears skinny jeans, a work shirt and boots. The joy of talking about the Constitution bubbles out in her performance. There is conviction and that youthful confidence as she defends her position for the debate as the 15-year-old student, and a poised calmness as an adult when she is describing the harsh realities of how women have been treated by abusive partners, especially in her family. Weyni Mengesha directs with her usual surety, sensitivity and rigor.

Damien Atkins plays a military man who keeps track of the time in the debate scenes when Heidi is 15-years-old. Interestingly there is a heightened tension when Amy Rutherford as Heidi must adhere to a strict time limit to answer complex questions. Atkins is an unsmiling, very conscientious military man in these scenes. The character takes the job very seriously. He looks at a stopwatch and we watch him, watching it to be accurate. Ones heart is pounding.

After all the points of the play are made, in the original production and ones that have played across the United States, the last 20 minutes or so of this 100 minute show, is a debate between Heidi Schreck (or the actress playing her) and a high school student. They are debating whether or not the U.S. Constitution should be scrapped and a new one initiated. With the toss of a coin one side argues for the proposition, the other side argues against. But not in Canada.

Because of the impending U.S. election and Canada’s future election, Weyni Mengesha thought it might be a good idea to have that last 20 minutes be a debate about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Heidi Schreck agreed. In this instance, Damien Atkins, Gabriella King and Amy Rutherford are credited with providing additional writing support for the Canadian Adaptation.

So Amy Rutherford and Gabriella King, an accomplished author and high school student from Unionville, debate whether or not to scrap the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Each side uses small recipe cards to note and express the points of their arguments. The audience makes the decision who wins and a member of the audience is chosen to voice the decision.

In fact, in this case the audience wasn’t consulted on the decision either by cheering or stamping their feet. A member of the audience—the estimable Karen Robinson at my performance—was asked to decide who won the debate. I would assume the decision changes with each performance. And while I believe that Weyni Mengesha’s decision to debate the future of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is well-intentioned, I found that decision galling, if not insulting.

Comment. It seemed we Canadians should be puffed up and chuffed at the announcement that this is the first production of this American play outside of the United States and they have chosen Canada to play it. (sigh). How ever did we cope with the other American shows that have come north without fanfare? How did we cope in 1971 when the American musical 1776 (about the end of the war of Independence when Declaration of Independence is signed) played the Royal Alexandra Theatre for the summer, without need of explanation or nuance of how lucky we were that it played here?

And rather than give equal time to investigate our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms we are given short shrift. As if we are an afterthought, an irrelevance. As usual. And while it would be a no-brainer, that after investigating our Charter for its pros and cons, the debate would be what country had the better “Constitution”, the United States or Canada?

But of course, that’s not the play that Heidi Schreck wrote. Neither is the play at the Young Centre. I loved the 90 minutes that actually dealt with Heidi Schreck’s play, What The Constitution Means To Me. I found the 20 short minutes devoted to the debate of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms an insult, an embarrassment and galling.

A Soulpepper Theatre and Nightwood Theatre co-production in association with Necessary Angel and Talk is Free Theatre.

Plays until Nov. 10, 2024.

Running time: billed as 90 minutes but is really 100 minutes. (no intermission)

www.soulpepper.ca

Review: PLAYING SHYLOCK

by Lynn on November 3, 2024

Live and in person at the Berkeley Street Theatre, Toronto, Ont. Playing until Dec. 8, 2024.

Written by Mark Leiren-Young

Directed by Martin Kinch

Set and costumes by Shawn Kerwin

Sound by Olivia Wheeler

Lighting by Steven Hawkins

Cast: Saul Rubinek

Smart, bracing, perceptive, timely and wonderfully acted and directed.

The Story. Playing Shylock by Mark Leiren-Young is a really challenging, bracing play. In this time of divisiveness about race, religion and ethnicity this play is a hot potato. It asks really prickly questions about The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare, such as: is it antisemitic? should it even be done because of the subject matter; does one cancel a production of it if there are protests? It deals also with honouring one’s father; acting; the importance of theatre and why do it at all. And it talks about the world.

The Merchant of Venice is always a provocative, timely play, and Playing Shylockinvestigates that and other pertinent questions.

To appreciate Playing Shylock it’s helpful to know the story of The Merchant of Venice, and so the programme has a short synopsis to help the audience that has never seen the play. Here is my synopsis: In Shakespeare’s play, Antonio, a rich Gentile Merchant comes to Shylock, a Jew, to make a loan of 3,000 ducats. While Antonio is a prosperous merchant, at the moment he doesn’t have the money and he’s making a loan for his friend Bassanio so he can court Portia. Antonio is an anti-semite who has never hidden his hate and contempt of Shylock as a Jew. But he’ll ignore that to make this loan. Shylock reminds Antonio of his contempt but sees a way of getting this Gentile to be beholding so agrees to the loan.

And the penalty if Antonio forfeits? Shylock says he wants “a pound of your flesh.” It’s both horrifying and funny; horrifying because it shows Shylocks loathing of Antonio; funny because of course it would never happen that Antonio would renege. But things happen to Antonio’s holdings and his prospects to repay are dashed. And something has happened in Shylock’s life that he now wants justice and his pound of flesh. Needless to say, The Merchant of Venice is fraught with thorny issues and emotional baggage. Not to mention is it antisemitic or about antisemitism?

The Production and comment. The premise of the production of Playing Shylock is that the audience is waiting for ACT II of The Merchant of Veniceto begin. We hear several notifications that ACT II will begin in five minutes, then three minutes, then, it’s about to begin. The door to the side of the theatre opens and the actor (Saul Rubinek) playing Shylock enters to say that he’s just been informed that the production has been cancelled. He wears a yarmulka, a black suit with a prayer shawl. He notes the protests outside the theatre and for the safety of all concerned the production is cancelled. He’s appalled. This conceit puts the play by Shakespeare and our present world of protests for whatever reasons, in the same realm.

And so the world of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice and the world of the actor playing Shylock in Playing Shylock, namely Saul Rubinek, collide, meld and intertwine.

Saul Rubinek is the child of Holocaust survivors. He was born in a refugee camp in Germany after the war. His father was an actor and ran a Yiddish theatre company until Hitler put a stop to that. The family immigrated to Canada when Saul Rubinek was nine months old. At his parents’ suggestion, Rubinek began taking drama classes at the Ottawa Little Theatre when he was a kid in 1960. Rubinek became an actor, moved to Toronto and was one of the founding members of Toronto Free Theatre that performed out of the Berkeley Street Theatre 50 years ago. Toronto Free Theatre segued into a company that is now known as Canadian Stage. So Rubinek was very keen to do Playing Shylock at the theatre where he got his start in 1974, and with Martin Kinch, the director he worked with often in the early Toronto Free Theatre days.

Rubinek wanted to do Playing Shylock at the Berkeley Street Theatre and certainly with Martin Kinch directing. Kinch gently guides Rubinek around the space, using the room effectively (it also helps that Rubinek is microphoned). Rubinek also paces himself (along with the guiding hand of his director) in the Merchant of Venice scenes, not expressing his anger too soon in the speeches.

In Playing Shylock, Rubinek ruminates on acting, being Jewish, how tough it is for Jewish actors to play leading parts in Canada, and certainly at Stratford. He notes that no Jewish actor has ever played Shylock at our Stratford—actually Paul Soles did in 2001 replacing Al Waxman who died during open heart surgery.

But then Rubinek does look at the question of who should play what parts? He talks about the accusation of “appropriation” when an actor plays a part different from his ethnicity/background etc. Rubinek’s answer is that all acting is appropriation.

I loved that.

He notes that it’s a trap/problem that actors get slotted into playing roles that are close to their lives. Should only gay actors play gay parts? That’s a trap waiting to happen. I would also ask, should only Jewish actors play Shylock? In Rubinek’s case, he knew that his father would love to have played Shylock, but then he lost his livelihood because Hitler closed the Yiddish Theatre.

Needless to say, The Merchant of Venice is referenced and quoted during Playing Shylock. Saul Rubinek gives many speeches from the play using a Yiddish accent, and at the end of the play repeats the speech about revenge: “Hath not a Jew eyes…..” in Yiddish. The anger is palpable. One wonders, are we watching Saul Rubinek play Shylock or are we watching Saul Rubinek imagining how his Yiddish speaking father would play the part? Both are fascinating possibilities. When Rubinek is saying the speeches it’s fierce, vivid, controlled, angry, and powerful.

He brings up the present-day rallying cry of cancelling a show because it’s uncomfortable, people might be offended, people protest and so matters might be dangerous. These happenings are getting dangerously common place. I think of The Runner being cancelled at The Belfry Theatre in Victoria last year and then the Push Festival cancelled it in Vancouver earlier this year because of protests of the subject matter—Jacob is an orthodox Jew in Israel and is a member of Z.A.K.A, an Israeli group of first responders who come to scenes of terrorist attacks to save the body parts, blood and bones of wounded Israelis. In scene of a terrorist attack, Jacob sees a dead soldier and close to him is an Arab woman who is wounded. Jacob tended to the woman because he ascertained the soldier was dead. He is pilloried for this humane decision by his mother, brother and fellow Z.A.K.A members. The play examines his decision. (The Runner will be part of the Harold Green Jewish Theatre 24-25 season here in Toronto.)

Saul Rubinek is no stranger to doing challenging theatre. He is an actor who was at the cutting edge of doing uncomfortable, challenging theatre years ago at the beginning of Toronto Free Theatre, so in the most elegant ways, Rubinek skewers ideas of censorship and cancellations. He also examines doing theatre vs. doing film and television—which he has done successfully for decades in Los Angeles.

There is also a long-impassioned speech about how Shakespeare could not have written the play—it had to be Edward de Vere the 17^th Earl of Oxford. The argument comes out in a torrent as the points keep piling up as proof. Never mind that scholars have disprove the theory. It is bracing to hear Rubinek’s arguments.

I keep on saying Rubinek’s arguments—the play was written by Mark Leiren-Young and he is referencing a lot of Rubinek’s life, so it seems as if it’s autobiographical. I love the melding. I also love the many questions.

Should The Merchant of Venice be put to rest because it’s so contentious? I think the answer is obvious since Playing Shylock so heavily references The Merchant of Venice. Personally, I think The Merchant of Venice should be done every day, everywhere because it’s important, uncomfortable and painful. It depicts our angry, blinkered, racist world and it doesn’t let us look away, thanks to Playing Shylock.

Canadian Stage Presents

Plays at the Berkeley Street Theatre until Dec. 8, 2024.

Running time: 90 minutes (no intermission)

{ 7 comments }

Review: A Gentleman’s Guide to Love and Murder

by Lynn on October 28, 2024

Live and in person at the Hamilton Family Theatre, Cambridge, produced by Drayton Entertainment, playing until Nov. 3, 2024.

www.draytonentertainment.com

Book and lyrics by Robert L. Freedman

Music and lyrics by Steven Lutvak

Based on a novel by Roy Horniman

Directed and choreographed by Adam Cates

Music director, Nico Rhodes

Set by Ryan Howell

Based on original costume design by Linda Cho

Lighting by Jeff JohnstonCollins

Sound by Allan McMillan

Cast: Ellen Denny

Eddie Glen

Daniel Greenberg

Elena Howard-Scott

Amanda Leight

Michael-Lamont Lyttle

Charlotte Moore

Tyler Murree

Powell Nobert

Sarah O’Brecht

Karen Wood

This is a lively, buoyant rendering of the Tony Award winning musical A Gentleman’s Guide to Love and Murder.

From the website: “In 1907 London, England, penniless clerk Monty Navarro is delighted to learn that he’s eighth in life for an earldom n the esteemed D’Ysquith family. Figuring his odds of outliving his predecessors are slight, he sets off down a sinister path knocking off his relatives one by one with his sights set on the family title and fortune.

All the while, this loveable cad has to juggle his mistress and his fiancée and the constant threat of being caught!”

It’s not really a ‘whodunit” because Monty says ‘he dun it” and we see him plotting to do it, so there is no mystery. The fun is in the singing, dancing and clever ways of doing in the successive Earls.

Daniel Greenberg plays Monty Navarro with panache, sophistication and total charm. He has a grand singing voice and endless energy juggling the various plot lines of murder and making sure his mistress and his fiancée don’t actually get to know that he is balancing both of them.

Playing all the various Earls of D’Ysquith and perhaps a servant or two is Tyler Murree using various quick-change disguises and accents. And he dies beautifully and inventively through all of it. Ellen Denny plays Phoebe D’Ysquith with sophistication and wit and is not one of the D’Ysquiths in line for anything. As her rival Sibella, Elena Howard-Scott is sweet, down-to-earth but with a touch of pouting. Both women sing beautifully and with flair.

Director/Choreographer Adam Cates directs and choregraphs with assurance. I must confess I found the movement and constant shifting in locations ramped up to warp speed and very busy and distracting. Robert L. Freedman’s Book and Lyrics are clever and very funny and Steven Lutvak’s music will keep you interested.

Drayton Entertainment presents:

Plays until Nov. 3, 2024.

Running time: 2 hour, 30 minutes (1 Intermission)

www.draytonentertainment.com

Review: SANKOFA: The Soldier’s Tale Retold

by Lynn on October 27, 2024

Live and in person at the Harbourfront Centre Theatre, produced by Art of Time Ensemble in association with Kofflerarts and the Royal Conservatory, Glenn Gould School. Toronto, Ont. Playing Oct. 24-27, 2024.

www.harbourfrontcentre.com

Music by Igor Stravinsky

Libretto by Titilope Sonuga

Conducted by Andrew Burashko

Directed by Tawiah M’Carthy

Costumes by Des’ree Gray

Sound by John Gzowski

Lighting by Kevin Lamotte

Choreography by Pulga Muchochoma

Cast: Olaoluwa Fayokun

Diego Matamoros

Ordena Stephens-Thompson

Moving, meticulously presented, revelatory in its sweep.

Andrew Burashko, the gifted artistic director of Art of Time Ensemble, has long been interested in L’Histoire du soldat, the 1918 piece with music by Igor Stravinsky and the libretto by Charles Ferdinand Ramuz. Stravinsky and Ramuz conceived the piece together, based on the Russian tale The Runaway Soldier and the Devil. In it a soldier does a deal with the devil in which the soldier trades his beloved violin for the promise of riches.

Andrew Burashko wanted to reimagine the piece with the soldier being a Black man in which racism, isolation, and discrimination play a huge part, reflecting our present fractured, angry world and so Sankofa: The Soldier’s Tale Retold was created.

From the website: “Sankofa: The Soldier’s Tale Retold reimagines Igor Stravinsky’s L’Histoire du Soldat in a new libretto by poet Titilope Sonuga. Through the journey of a fictional soldier attempting to enlist in WWI, this Soldier’s Tale is set against the historical context of the No. 2 Construction Battalion — the only Canadian battalion composed of Black soldiers to serve in the First World War. In a psychological battle with the devil on the road to enlisting, the soldier embodies the battalion’s resilience and enduring struggle against racism, discrimination, and historical erasure. Sankofa is an invitation to honour a difficult history while moving toward a more promising future. Like the symbol of the Sankofa bird from which this story draws its name, this work is an act of remembrance.”

Context, comment, background.

Until 1916 Canadian Black men who wanted to fight to defend Canada were not allowed to enlist to fight in WWI. Matters changed in 1916 when the 2^nd Construction Battalion was created and Black men could join. But this was a labour battalion, not a fighting battalion. I found that so telling about the racism then.

From Wikipedia: Construction Battalion

“An all-Black infantry battalion was not an option. There were not enough Black men in Canada to man such a battalion and provide reinforcements in the face of heavy casualty rates at the front. Further, the British War Office refused to allow any Black units into combat on the Western Front (they feared that Black infantry units might use their training and experience against British authorities in the colonies). In April 1916, the chief of the general staff at Militia Headquarters found a solution. He proposed that a Black labour battalion be formed, labour being in very short supply and critical to support campaigns. The British approved the idea in May.”

Poet Titilope Sonuga has written a beautiful, moving and bracing libretto to tell the story of this Black Soldier, beautifully played by Olaoluwa Fayokun, who leaves his mother to fight for his country. He is met with opposition all the way, from his own doubts to meeting the Devil in many guises who dupes him at every turn. Diego Matamoros plays the Devil with smooth cunning and easy manipulation. Ordena Stephens-Thompson plays the Narrator and Yaa. She has a regal bearing as the Narrator and is therefore commanding, and as Yaa, the Soldier’s Mother, she is humble, full of advice when he leaves and frets about his safety.

The production is directed with assurance and depth by Tawiah M’Carthy. The message is so important and M’Carthy serves the piece with sensitivity and respect.

The last word (and the first as well) goes to Art of Time Ensemble Artistic Director Andrew Burashko. Over the last 25 years he has guided his ensemble with brilliance, intellectual curiosity and rigor. He has created programmes that cross genres of music with dance, literature, drama and variations in performance. He has introduced audiences to long forgotten composers and creators and revived/refreshed/reimagined their work. Sankofa: The Soldier’s Tale Retold is a work he has wanted to do for four years. It is a fitting cap to ending 25 years of bracing, invigorating work through the Art of Time Ensemble. I’ll miss learning from these concerts. However, I have a feeling he’s not finished providing thought provoking work to his loyal audiences. A final “bravo” and thank you.

The Art of Time Ensemble presented in association with Kofflerarts and The Royal Conservatory’s Glenn Gould School.

The short run of four performances closed on Oct. 27, 2024.

Review: TIP OF THE ICEBERG

by Lynn on October 26, 2024

Live and in person at Theatre Orangeville, Orangeville, Ont. Playing until Nov. 3, 2024.

www.theatreorangeville.ca

Written by Chris Rait, Mark Williams and Jeannine Duwyn

Directed by David Nairn

Set by Beckie Morris

Costumes by Alex Amini

Lighting by Chris Malkowski

Sound by Brian Bleasdale

Cast: Sweeney MacArthur

Stephen Sparks

Sometimes you get a second change to make things right as Gordon and Archie find out. They also find out about true friendship, taking chances and enjoying life to the fullest. Tip of the Iceberg is a funny, irreverent, joy-filled play and production that might jolt us into taking some of its wisdom with us into our lives after the play.

The Story. From the website of the play: “Gordon and Archie have been friends for over 70 years, living and working in the remote fishing village of Murphy’s Harbour, Newfoundland. Through some internet research, Archie believes that he has figured out a way to physically reclaim his vigor. All that remains is the key ingredient to this elixir: Glacial ice. Gordon decides to join his mate for an excursion out to sea, where a large iceberg is drifting a few miles offshore.”

The Production. I think there is some unwritten law that says that you can’t do a story set in Newfoundland without having singing of local/original folksongs dealing with the sea, or solitude etc. And this production of Tip of the Iceberg has plenty of songs sung by Chris Rait with the help of the audience at times.

Beckie Morris’s set is evocative of the sea. There is a rough-hewn dock over there; a boat with a motor on the other side of it with a rope attached to a pillar on the dock; and a backdrop of a painted outline of an iceberg very reminiscent of Lauren Harris. And the boat moves as if on water. Love that detail.

Archie (Sweeney MacArthur) is the more irreverent of the two friends and Gordon (Stephen Sparks) is the more practical of the two. But they have been friends for years so while Archie has this hair-brained idea that glacial ice holds the secret to youthful vigor, Gordon is the kind of friend who would go with Archie out to that iceberg there to get some of that ice for Archie’s experiment. Archie knows that 90% of the iceberg is below the surface of the water and what is showing is ‘the tip.’ The same could be said for the play—it looks like it’s an irreverent comedy, but there is a lot going on underneath the jokes and humour.

There is a bit of a glitch when the friends get to the iceberg because ‘one of them’ realizes he forgot to fill the boat with oil and they are ‘stranded’ on the iceberg.

The friends don’t panic. They don’t blame each other for being a fool. They tell stories and reminisce. Both regret that they weren’t better husbands to their faithful wives. Gordon, a tempered, open-hearted performance by Stephen Sparks, regrets not taking his wife on a vacation she wanted. Archie, an irreverent and impish performance by Sweeney MacArthur, which includes a kind of strip-tease on the iceberg, has squandered lots of savings and hasn’t told his wife. Both realize how precious their wives are, that they now have a second chance if they survive, and how lucky they are to have each other as friends.

Tip of the Iceberg is directed by David Nairn with a wink and a smile bringing out all the humour and whimsy to the story. But he is also respectful of the quiet wisdom of the play and never overpower it with funny business.

Chris Rait, Mark Williams and Jeannine Duwyn have written a sweet, wise and funny play about friendship, loyalty, taking chances and getting second chances when things don’t work out the first time.

Comment. Chris Rait also lends his musical talents to the mix by providing the music, playing and rousing the audience to join in. Again, the songs are both familiar and irreverent. Perfect for an outing to Orangeville.

Theatre Orangeville presents:

Plays until Nov. 3, 2024.

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

www.theatreorangeville,ca

Review: DEAR ROBERT & SPECIAL DELIVERY

by Lynn on October 24, 2024

Live and in person at VideoCabaret, 10 Busy Street. Toronto, Ont. Running, Oct. 24, 25, 26, 27.

www.videocab.com

Dear Robert

Written by Jim Garrard

Directed by Aviva Armour-Ostroff

Props and set by Merle Harley

Sound by Jack Nicholsen

Lighting by Andrew Dollar

Cast: Rebecca Gibian

NOTE: Layne Coleman has the guts of a bandit. Mr. Coleman is an actor, writer, director and a mover and shaker of the early days of theatre in Toronto. He was the Artistic Director of Theatre Passe Muraille and now is the interim Artistic Director of VideoCabaret.

For his first season programming at VideoCabaret he went back to Toronto’s Theatre roots and programmed Alan Williams’ one man show Once in a Lifetime, Sometimes Never, as he mused about theatre, generational differences, Shakespeare and even the future.

Layne Coleman follows this with Dear Robert & Special Delivery, both of which celebrate the almost lost art of writing letters. Who comes up with programming like this– Layne Coleman, a man of impish daring with the guts of a bandit.

Both Dear Robert and Special Delivery are two pieces of theatre that celebrate the art of letter writing, and do it with wit, intelligence and (in the case of Special Delivery) wonderful singing.

Amanda (Rebecca Gibian) sits at a small desk in an apartment with packing boxes strewn around the floor. She begins reading from a three-page hand–written letter (on pink paper), pen in hand. It’s addressed to a man named Robert. She reads it aloud to check what she wrote. She misses Robert and hopes he’s happy and settled where he is. The letter is chatty and then she lightly says that she might be pregnant and it might be his. She finishes reading all three pages with a few corrections then folds the letter and places it in an envelope, writes Robert’s address on it, (checking her address book), then carefully applying a stamp. I note she does not put her return address on the envelope. That was interesting. She seals the envelope and carefully places it to the side of the desk.

Amanda takes another three-page hand-written letter, this time written on paper another pastel colour, addressed to Richard. There are a few details particular to Richard in this letter and again Amanda is breezy with the news that she might be pregnant and Richard might be the father. The same process for the envelope takes place. Again, no return address. And there is another letter addressed to another person that I will keep to myself so as not to spoil the wonderful joke of it. Jim Garrard’s writing is quirky, very funny, irreverent and full of surprises in this short play. The piece is beautifully, sensitively directed by Aviva Armour-Ostroff. She is not a flashy director pointing to her own work. She always serves the piece and lets it clearly say what it says.

Rebecca Gibian plays Amanda with an easy confidence. There is no judgement of Amanda towards these recipients because of Rebecca Gibian’s nuanced playing of her. There is confidence, humour and a wonderful artfulness in that Amanda hand writes the letters. This is not old fashioned. This is making a statement of effort, importance and purpose. Wonderful.

Special Delivery

Curated and co-performed by Jack Nicholsen

Co-performed by Laska Sawade

Jack Nicholsen has created the perfect companion piece to Dear Robert. It’s a short concert of songs about letters such as: “Signed, Sealed, Delivered,” “My Baby Just Wrote Me a Letter,” “I’m Gonna Sit Right Down and Write Myself A Letter,” and the crushing, “Return to Sender.”

Each song is sung with simplicity, beautiful harmony and joy by Jack Nicholsen and Laska Sawade. Nothing fancy: two stand microphones, both performers in jeans and a work shirt, and the wonderful musicality. Again, wonderful.

VideoCabaret presents:

Plays Oct. 24-27, 2024.

Running time: 1 hour (no intermission)

www.videocab.com

Review: My Name is Lucy Barton

by Lynn on October 23, 2024

Maev Beaty: Photo by Dahlia Katz

Live and in person at the Bluma Appel Theatre, Toronto, Ont. Produced by Canadian Stage. Running until Nov. 3, 2024.

From the book of the same name by Elizabeth Strout

Adapted by Rona Munro

Directed by Jackie Maxwell

Set and costumes by Michael Gianfrancesco

Lighting by Bonnie Beecher

Sound and composition by Jacob Lin

Projection designer, Amelia Scott

Cast: Maev Beaty

A beautiful ache of a play about Lucy Barton, a woman navigating her way through a difficult life to revelation. Maev Beaty as Lucy Barton is exquisite. Jackie Maxwell’s sensitive direction makes the whole production shimmer.

The Story. Lucy Barton has a lot of memories, brought on by her nine weeks stay in the hospital, initially to have her appendix removed. But there were complications. She has been recovering, alone in her hospital room and she’s had time to think. Memories come gushing out. And there was shock. Lucy awoke in her hospital room to see her long-estranged mother sitting in a chair at the end of her bed. Her mother overcame her fear of flying and came to see her sick daughter in hospital. Lucy’s early life was one of poverty, being ostracized in school because she was of a lower class and poor. Her parents were unaffectionate and even mean. There was trauma in her life. Her life changed when she left home to go to university. She was shunned by her parents because of that. But here was Lucy Barton’s mother and with her are the memories.

The Production and comment. Michael Gianfrancesco’s design is spare and elegant. The stage is bare except for a hospital bed and a lone visitor’s chair a few feet off from the bed. There is a projection in the background of waves of in muted colours that remind me of Edvard Munch’s “The Scream,” even though the waves in “The Scream” are orangy-red. Still, that ‘look’ sets the tone, an idea. When the production starts, the waves move and undulate, calming. Over the course of the production the projections subtly change into a starry sky, the suggestion of a hospital corridor and various locations in the narrative. It is a smooth blending of Amelia Scott’s projections, Bonnie Beecher’s evocative, beautiful lighting and Jacob Lin’s soundscape.

Lucy Barton (Maev Beaty) is dressed in a beautiful silky shirt and elegant pants. This is a stylish woman. Hearing Lucy Barton slowly spill her guts about her life and her family, is like observing the resultant open wound. With every story and experience Lucy has had it’s like watching an accident happen. We want to look away but are so mesmerized by Maev Beaty’s graceful, nuanced performance as both Lucy Barton and her mother, that we are gently gripped. Maev Beaty takes the audience on Lucy’s emotional journey. Recollections make her shudder at their horror: her fear of snakes; the lack of heat in the garage in which she grew up; the lack of hugs; a husband who doesn’t visit in the hospital but feels Lucy needs a private room; the loneliness.

Because of Rona Munro’s beautiful adaptation of Elizabeth Strout’s celebrated novel, “My Name Is Lucy Barton,” we follow Lucy’s rollercoaster ride of a story of being poor, cold and hungry when younger, desperate for her parents’ affection and not getting it, and ostracized by her school mates.

Director Jackie Maxwell sensitively guides the production through all the subtleties and subtext of the play. Maneuvering Maev Beaty around the space from the hospital bed to the chair to being in the space is beautifully fluid, organic and natural. The emotions are revealed slowly and then almost like a torrent.

To survive that Lucy had to be ruthless (as a friend told her to be) and she was. Through it all Lucy was observant, caring, intensely loving to her two young children, patient and uncomplaining with her distant husband, and non-judgmental with her friends. She lamented the loss of a young man to AIDS without even considering, (or caring) that he was gay. She just lamented his loss. When Lucy became a writer, she knew what her story was and the kind of person she had become. Angst seemed to slip away with that knowledge.

Watching Maev Beaty play Lucy Barton, through all her painful memories and disappointments, is like watching a wound heal. Miraculous.

Canadian Stage Presents:

Plays until November 3, 2024.

Running time: 105 minutes (no intermission).

Review: FAUST

by Lynn on October 21, 2024

Live and in person at the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts, a co-production of the Canadian Opera Company and of Malmö Opera, in Toronto, Ont.

Playing Oct. 24, 27, Nov. 2.

www.coc.ca

By Charles Gounod

Libretto by Jules Barbier and Michael Carré

Conductor, Johannes Debus

Director, Amy Lane

Set and costumes by Emma Ryott

Lighting by Charles Morgan Jones

Choreography by Tim Claydon

Cast: Alex Hetherington

Kyle Ketelsen

Megan Latham

Long Long

Szymon Mechliński

Korin Thomas-Smith

Guanqun Yu

Once again a concept is imposed on an opera that does not support it. Frustrating but terrific music and performance.

NOTE: As I have said when I review an opera, since music and singing aren’t my forte, I’m looking at the opera from the point of view of theatre. I can talk about the drama of the piece, the acting, set and costumes and the concept of the director, etc. The usual stuff for a drama.

The opera was composed by Charles Gounod, with a libretto by Jules Barbier and Michael Carré Sung in French with English surtitles.

The Story. Faust is an old man and considers himself a failure in life after efforts to succeed fail him, and plans to take his life by drinking poison. But he is interrupted by the Devil, Méphistophélès, who makes Faust an offer he can’t refuse.

Méphistophélès will give Faust youth and vigor so he can cavort with women and have a great time, but after that Faust’s soul is the Devil’s, Méphistophélès. Faust agrees. Faust is miraculously transformed into a virile, youthful man in a fitted dark green jacket. He sees the young Marguerite and falls in love with her and she him. Temptations of riches, jewels from the Devil on behalf of Faust appear and Marguerite succumbs. It ends badly for everybody except the Devil who takes Faust’s soul at the end.

The Production. The Faust story is the subject of dramas, musicals, ballets etc. So, it’s familiar. But if I look at the opera from the musical-theatre point of view, it’s interesting.

In musicals, there is a “rule” that within the first five minutes of the start of the musical, the tone, atmosphere and general sense of the story has to be established both in music and in text/lyrics. I wouldn’t apply that idea to the music in an opera. The composer of course knows what he/she/they are doing. But it’s the libretto here that was troubling.

Faust (Long Long) is old, stiff-legged and hunched. He begins by singing that he is a failure. He laments that repeatedly. He sings that he sought answers in nature and in research and in thinking etc. but he’s failed. He sings about drinking poison and ending it all. This goes on for about 15 minutes and I have no idea what he is talking about. A failure at what? He doesn’t say. I thought it a bit drastic that because he failed at whatever, he wanted to drink poison.

But then the dashing, charming, tuxedo-dressed Méphistophélès (Kyle Ketelsen) appears, with top hat and cane to help out. Méphistophélès calls Faust,” Dr.” I don’t think he’s a medical doctor, but perhaps a botanist, with that reference to nature etc. Then it comes clear: Faust wants to be young again to dally with the ladies and live a life of pleasure and perhaps in his studies as whatever Doctor, he was looking for an elixir for youth, to turn back time and make him young again. Méphistophélès says he can do that (before that Faust pleads to God with not much success). So Méphistophélès promises to change Faust into a young, virile man again with a new wardrobe but when Faust is finished living the high life, his soul is Méphistophélès’. Faust agrees. Faust is on his way to falling in love with Marguerite (Guanqun Yu) and she him, until it all ends badly.

Keeping in mind I’m looking at the opera as ‘theatre’, how was the production? I think any clarity that could serve the piece is choked out of it and smothered with the weight of the overbearing, ill-conceived concept of director Amy Lane. You have to read the program to find out what you are seeing up there on that set by Emma Ryott or why. You have to listen to an interview with Amy Lane on line to decipher her thinking.

Amy Lane envisions the opera as a game for Faust so the floor is in the design of a chess board. Really? A game?? With whom? Why a game? With whom is Faust playing, because it’s not Méphistophélès. Méphistophélès holds all the cards (wrong kind of game). And why chess? No reason given. While I was in a great seat in the orchestra, I could not see that floor clearly enough to discern the chess board.

Nor did I get a sense from Amy Lane’s staging that she was moving the pieces—characters– around as in a game of chess. Upstage on the backdrop was something that looked like a chest cavity—I was told in fact it was a pair of lungs with all sorts of veins in it. Ok, I see that. Why? There are six dwarf moveable trees with thick trunks and spindly branches. I’m figuring these are arteries and veins—in keeping the body references. In the middle of the stage is an odd, winding staircase that you realize is a spine. Singers have to climb up and down that staircase and those stairs are steep. Again, we have a designer, Emma Ryott, who doesn’t consider the singer when designing the set on which they have to move. In fact, checking with the Amy Lane’s interview—we are looking at Faust’s body. News to me. It’s not his body that is at stake here, it’s his soul. Sigh.

Amy Lane also references popular culture in her vision—films like the Wizard of Oz, films by Tim Burton. Musicals such as Cabaret or perhaps by Bob Fosse are referenced. For example, Méphistophélès is always accompanied by two scantily clad women in black tights, high heels, and form fitting corset things. I could be looking at the Kit Kat Orchestra from Cabaret or some of the dancers from Sweet Charity. I think the pièce de resistance is a character, supposedly God, in white tie, tails, heels and top hat that is emulating Marlene Dietrich.That had me rolling my good eye.

Comment. I loved the singing and thought the opera was well-acted. But this is a mess of a self-indulgent concept that does not serve the opera. If the design can’t explain itself without having to check the program or accompanying interview of the director, then it’s failed. And don’t tell me the devil made them do it.

The Canadian Opera Company in a co-production with Malmö Opera presents:

Playson Oct. 24, 27 and Nov. 2

Running time: 3 hours (1 intermission)

www.coc.ca

{ 1 comment }

Guy Sprung vs. Canadian Actors Equity Association.

by Lynn on October 16, 2024