Hunger Striking

April 26-May 5, 2012

Joyce Doolittle Theatre at the Pumphouse

http://urbancurvz.com/?page_id=9

 

This is going to be tricky. That was my first thought upon receiving the press release for Urban Curvz’s production of Hunger Striking. A play about anorexia reviewed by a theatre critic who was herself anorexic for many years. Talk about entanglement. The way I saw it, I had two choices. I could approach the review with cool objectivity, leaving my own history and bias at the door. Or I could fess up to the intimacy of the story and allow personal insights on the subject to inform my review. As you can tell already, I chose the latter.  It felt less contrived and supported my intention of always delivering a genuine review. But more importantly, if the playwright Kit Brennan, who herself struggled with anorexia, wanted to put out a semi-autobiographical play that addresses the genesis and journey of anorexia, who better than a kindred spirit to assess if the storytelling was authentic.

So, in a sense, I have two jobs in this review – to critique the play as a theatrical offering and to also pass judgement on the content of the play from a “been there done that” point of view. Funnily enough, my feelings on this production are the same no matter which hat I’m wearing. Hunger Striking offers up some brilliant moments and piercing ideas heartily mixed with stretches of severe disappointment and frustration.

The play is a simple construct that starts with Sarah (Jamie Konchak), a high school English teacher, telling us that her student, Katie, has just died of anorexia. The death brings up memories of Sarah’s own eating issues and we are taken back to various stages in her life to witness how her anorexia came to be, grew roots and eventually retreated (a word I will come back to).

Without a doubt, the most positive theatrical kudos I can give to this production is that while the story is told via a one woman narrative, Hunger Striking is actually a 2 person show. As Sarah does all the talking in the production, she is joined on stage throughout the play by a type of mute shadow performer (Anita Miotti) who goes from physically illustrating the narrative to interacting with Sarah in a choreographed movement cum dance sequence that punctuates the story.

This integration of text and movement is the brainchild of Director, Vanessa Sabourin, and is one of those brilliant moments I spoke of. Visually beautiful, physically demanding and perfectly executed, the movement element in the play, choreographed by Miotti, is by far the most unique and interesting thing about Hunger Striking. Whether the pair is playing the role of horse and rider to underline Sarah’s childhood fantasies, doing drills as part of a brutal exercise regime or simply reaching for each other to show pathos, the stage dance provides a perfect metaphoric pitch for the duality mindset of an anorexic – namely the feeling of powerlessness in the world combined with the complete power of self-imposed starvation.

Take away the visual dazzling however, and the script starts to fall short. Sarah’s flashbacks take us to her childhood home to show us the origins of eating disorder. We see her with a father she adores who will later lose his job and a turn a cold shoulder to his family. We watch her at eleven, horrified at getting her period for the first time and seemingly turning off the notion of femaleness as a result. We witness the tension with her older sister and a mother that factors little.  What we are waiting for as we watch, is some clue as to why this girl, under these circumstances developed anorexia. The answer never really comes. Sure there are hints that the pressures Sarah was feeling led to the notion that total control was the only answer. And to be fair, Sarah herself can’t put a finger on when or how it all started. But to ask an audience to empathize with a character’s actions without providing adequate motivation under any circumstance is difficult. Add in something as complex as an eating disorder, and the audience is left unengaged and unable to relate to Sarah’s struggle.

More problematic however are the anti-narrative segments of the play. Brennan takes several sidelines in her story in the form of fantasy sequences that revolve around Sarah’s Celtic heritage and the fables her father told her. From an imaginary horse plucked out of an old Irish legend to the myth of a sibling river drowning, Brennan infuses the play with long overwrought scenes that are at best distracting and at worst dull. Each time one of these segments came up (and there are many) I slumped in my seat wishing that they would just get back to the story already. Yes I suppose somewhere in the myths there were metaphors for Sarah’s plight, but trying to stuff anorexia’s messiness into the neat literary construct of fantasy only took away from the impact of the story and again made it difficult to truly connect with the story.

Thankfully the play’s structural and script issues are offset by a remarkably strong performance from Konchak whose incredible energy and focus command attention even when the story goes off the rails. With no props save her actor-shadow and a couple of chairs, Konchak fills up the stage with her intense delivery that infuses as much life into her character as is possible under the circumstances. A joy to watch whether acting, movement-dancing or singing, Konchak shows what solid acting can bring to a less than solid play.

From an ex-anorexic compatriot point of view, I have to admit that the part they get wrong stings a lot more than the mere theatrical missteps. Anyone who has dealt with an eating disorder will have a different tale to tell and no one lands in anorexia’s lap in quite the same manner. But no matter how we arrived, if we are to depart healthfully, we all do it with the same challenge. Addressing the underlying reasons we self-punished and working through the issues so that we don’t have to use those destructive coping mechanisms any longer. It’s a long and painful process to look at and deal with your own demons, and I recognize that it doesn’t make for neat or concise storytelling. But instead of finding a way to depict that recovery process, Hunger Striking instead presents what I referred to earlier as an anorexic retreat.

The end of the play finds Sarah on the road to recovery in a completely unrealistic set of circumstances. She undergoes no real therapy or self-examination despite being hospitalized for the severity of her condition. After what seems like years of self-abuse and starvation, Sarah meets a nun at the hospital who introduces her to the history of the hunger-striking suffragettes and this somehow kick-starts her desire to get well.  A final fall into a river on the hospital grounds and a rescue from Sarah’s nun friend, and pouff, she gets better. I found this ending incredibly offensive. After 90 minutes of being asked to share in Sarah’s struggle and pain, to have her drop the issue like it was no big deal belittles the disorder and makes light of the real work involved in recovery. It was a cop-out ending that Brennan as a playwright and a recovered anorexic should be ashamed of

Especially since she does have the capacity to get it crystal-clear at other times in the play. What Brennan excels at are nuggets of dialogue and small scenarios that perfectly illustrate the way an anorexic thinks and acts. The opening scene describes the now dead student Katie examining herself in the mirror as a slow and critical strip search with the eyes of a man who is beating his wife. Later in the play Sarah describes baking a chocolate chip cookie, placing it in front of her and not eating it as “winning”. But the most spine-chilling familiar moment for me was the scene where Sarah describes the anorexic’s view of the world. On the bottom heap there are the “fatties” – those that eat and don’t have the control to stop themselves. Then come the bulimics – the wanna-be anorexics that don’t have the intelligence or control to not eat. And at the top of the pyramid are the anorexics, glorified for their control and their self-discipline. This was the brutal authentic dialogue that I was hoping for. It could only come from someone that has been there and it was a moment of revelation that shined an important light on anorexia’s unhealthy skewed mindset. It was both a teaching moment and an important part of the character development in the play.

The irony that anorexics are severely hard on themselves and now, as an ex-anorexic, I find myself being predominantly hard on this production is not lost on me. I expected a lot of this play and on some levels I was rewarded. But in the areas it mattered most, Hunger Striking let me down. As a play it failed to illuminate, engage or start a conversation. As an interested party, it failed to show me sustained authenticity or reflect the truths I know to be important. The author E.B. White said that, ‘Writing is translation and the opus to be translated is yourself.” If Kit Brennan is going to translate herself in future, I hope she has the courage to not muddy it in trope and instead give real voice to the struggle that we are all interested in knowing about.

 

RATING

For the guys – Eating disorders are predominantly (although not exclusively) female issues and it would be great to see a play that helped you understand exactly what is going on. But this isn’t it. SKIP IT

For the girls – Many of Sarah’s problems are female issues in general and are easy to relate to, but you will be left wondering how and why her problems led to an eating disorder. Some biting insights but no real understanding despite some great staging and acting. SKIP IT

For the occasional theatre goer – The fantasy sequences will bore you and overshadow the actual storyline. SKIP IT

For the theatre junkie – If you could go for the direction, choreography and acting alone it would be a strong recommendation. But you have to sit through a messy narrative lacking true impact. Depends if you are willing to seek out the nuggets of gold in the dirty river bed. MAYBE SEE  IT

I know most of you have no idea what you’re doing next month let alone next year, but with the 2012/13 season announcements out from the four major theatre companies in Calgary, I thought it would be a good time to give everyone a heads up on the productions worth noting. Or at least the productions I’m most excited about.

Alberta Theatre Projects is opening its season with Lynn Nottage’s Intimate Apparel from October 9 to 27, 2012. Set in 1905, the play tells the story of Esther, a 35-year old African-American woman who moved from North Carolina years prior to seek her fortune as a seamstress in New York City.

Nottage is a highly respected and awarded playwright, winning the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 2009 for her play Ruined.  An earlier play, Intimate Apparel premiered in 2003 and went on to a very successful off-Broadway run in 2004 starring Viola Davis as Esther. The play won the 2004 Steinberg New Play Award, presented by The American Theatre Critics Association to “outstanding new plays produced around the United States, outside of New York City”.

I am eager to see how Nottage’s deft hand delivers the story of African-American women in the early 1900’s and to see how it resonates in a Calgary that is becoming ever more multi-cultural.

As part of its Enbridge playRites festival, ATP will be premiering Joan Macleod’s What to Expect from March 6 to April 7, 2013. The play centers on a violent Sky-train episode between a troubled teen and a cop. Implications of the incident deeply affect the involved families and the community as a whole. This promises to be a thought-provoking piece of theatre.

Macleod, who was awarded the prestigious 2011 Siminovitch Prize for writing as well as many other prominent awards is no stranger to playRites. Her previous productions of Another Home Invasion and The Shape of A Girl both had their starts at the ATP festival and went on to great acclaim.

A new play by Macleod is always something to celebrate and I’m looking forward to seeing what this important Canadian playwright has in store for us this time.

Lastly, ATP will mount a production of Red from April 30 to May 18, 2013. The play spotlights a moment in time between the renowned and cantankerous abstract artist Mark Rothko and his assistant.  They argue, laugh, obsess and actually create paintings on-stage in this intellectually challenging and insightful 2010 award-winning drama.

I saw Red at CanStage in Toronto last year and loved every minute of it. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that ATP’s version will rise to the challenge.

Theatre Calgary’s season is full of safe bets and crowd-pleasers, but two of their productions stand out to me as fresh and exciting.

The musical Next to Normal will open the season from September 11 to 30, 2012. This story about one woman’s up and down journey through mental illness was the winner of the 2010 Pulitzer Prize for Drama and one of the most talked-about Broadway musicals in recent years.

Critics everywhere loved this show and I’m hoping that it will be one of the very few musicals I can actually say I am a fan of.

Starting off 2013 will be TC’s Canadian premiere of The Kite Runner from January 29 to February 24, 2013. Based on the internationally bestselling book by Khaled Hosseini, the play tells the story of  Amir, a young boy from Kabul, whose closest friend Hassan, is his father’s  servant. The story plays out against the backdrop of the fall of Afghanistan’s monarchy, the Soviet invasion, the exodus of refugees to Pakistan and the United States, and the rise of the Taliban regime.

I loved the book when I read it in 2003 and I’m very curious to see how it will be translated to the stage.

While not a great fan of mystery plays, Vertigo has one production that caught my eye. Panic, which is playing from May 4 to June 2, 2012, won the 2008 Edgar Allan Poe Award for best play from the Mystery Writers of America and even though I understand it could use a good edit, I’m game to see what all the fuss is about.

The story concerns a famous American film director accused of an unspeakable crime while attending a premiere in Paris. Bit by bit the truth is revealed, and he and his circle of friends must decide how far they will go to protect his legend.

Lunchbox Theatre peaked my interest on two fronts. A World Premiere “Historical” Drama by Matthew Heiti, Aviatrix: The Unreal Story of Amelia Earhart runs from November 5 to 24, 2012. The play aims to imagine would have become of this famous flier as it retraces her final journey.

If done well, this could be an interesting “what if” play that I’m hoping will rely more on drama than on sentimentality.

Finally, I’m excited to see my friend Louis B. Hobson premiere his play Almost a Love Story from April 29 to May 18, 2013. The play examines understanding and identity and what it means not to really know a parent. When David is survived by his loving wife and adoring son … and by his lover, Callum. David’s son strives to find out who his father really was.

This was a daring production for the usually mainstream –friendly Lunchbox to mount and I applaud them for it and look forward to seeing Hobson’s ideas realized on stage.

Whether these are your picks for next season or not, there is a play out there calling your name. Check out the season announcements and make your theatre choices for next year.

In the words of the great Oscar Wilde:

“I regard the theatre as the greatest of all art forms, the most immediate way in which a human being can share with another the sense of what it is to be a human being.”

ATP 2012/13 season http://www.atplive.com/2012-2013-Season/Shows.html

TC 2012/13 season http://theatrecalgary.com/tickets/1213season/

Vertigo 2012/13 season http://www.vertigotheatre.com/main/page.php?page_id=65

Lunchbox 2012/13 season http://www.lunchboxtheatre.com/20122013-season.html

 

 

La Bohème

April 21, 25 & 27, 2012

Jubilee Auditorium

http://www.calgaryopera.com/performancesandevents/boheme/index.php

 

I’ll be honest, when I learned that the Calgary Opera was going to end its season with Puccini’s La Bohème I was nervous. The beloved and enduring masterpiece is the only classic opera that I haven’t seen live in full production and I was fearful that my eager anticipation would lead to over-expectation and resulting disappointment. I shouldn’t have fretted.  Conductor, Gordon Gerrard and Stage Director, Robert Herriot delivered a near pitch perfect production that not only allowed for the required suspension of disbelief, but invited the audience on a transformation to a place of moving heart-tugging reality.

The story itself is very simple and concerns a group of French bohemians in the 1800s as they try to make their way in life on little money and only their personal relationships to keep them warm. The poet Rodolfo (Antoine Belanger) meets (Marianne Fiset) and they fall in and out of love until they are finally reunited when she is on her deathbed from consumption. The opera ends with Mimi’s death, leaving Rodolfo inconsolable. Interwoven with this main narrative are short stories of their friends, most notably Marcello (Phillip Addis) and Musetta (Laura Albino) as the tempestuous and humorous on again off again couple who eventually works to get Rodolfo and Mimi back together.

Breakups, consumption and death. On the surface La Bohème comes across as just another heavily tragic opera. And while the climactic scene is a no doubt a tear-jerker, I was most dramatically struck with how clever and funny and joyfully light ninety-five percent of the opera is. The credit for this goes jointly to the Herriot and Gerrard team who allowed the comedy to shine brightly and the energetically talented cast who portrayed their characters as individuals with their own quirks and personalities.

Right from the opening scene where Rodolfo, Marcello and their friends gather in Rodolfo’s ramshackle apartment to joke and tease each other as male friends will do, the audience gets the feeling that they are watching characters they can believe in and relate to. This is no small feat. One of my biggest complaints with opera productions is that too often the directors and performers get caught up in the singing and forget that the acting is just as important if the production is going to resonate past a music listening exercise.

The same acting attention is paid in the flirtatious and game-playing scene where Rodolfo and Mimi first meet. Despite the fact that it takes them only 10 minutes to fall in love, we buy into the romance because their interaction feels familiar and plausible. In fact, this type of “realness” feeling sustains itself throughout the entire production making the tragedy of the story all the more heartbreaking because the performers let us is and we respond with a genuine sense of closeness to them.

Which is not to say that the singing isn’t excellent. In certain cases it’s beyond excellent. Fiset as Mimi is utterly captivating. Always veering towards the fragile nature of her character, her singing has a warm sweetness that is only made sweeter by the power of her voice. There is something I call a “close your eye moment “– when the voice is so moving that you have to shut your eyes for a second to let your brain truly taste it, and I had several listening to Fiset.

The other standout for me was Addis’ Marcello whose resplendent baritone voice was like rich cream being stirred deliciously into a hot cup of coffee. With the killer combination of a voice that made my ears perk up with delight and an acting prowess that should be the envy of many performers, Addis owned the stage in all his scenes and I’m sure made the hearts of many a female in the audience go aflutter.

Belanger as Rodolfo had some beautiful moments as well and his duets with Fiset flowed richly.  However at times his performance was lost under the swell of the orchestra, which was a shame as it was a voice I would have liked to have heard more clearly.

This small criticism aside, I really have nothing but praise for the entire effort of this production. With the wonderful sets on loan from the Edmonton Opera, the elevated directorial approach and a uniformly strong cast with some marvelous standouts, I’m delighted that this is the La Bohème I waited for.

RATING

For the guys – The male camaraderie will feel authentic to you and while the production will ask you to cry at the end, it will keep you laughing right up until you do. SEE IT

For the girls – The women are not the typical whore/Madonna roles you are used to seeing in an opera. They are both flawed and lovely and it’s a story that feels very present despite the historical setting. SEE IT

For the occasional theatre goer – Regardless if opera is not your thing, the acting and storyline might just make this a performance you can delight in. SEE IT

For the theatre junkie – Think of the best opera you’ve seen. Now combine it with the acting you demand in the theatre. This is it. SEE IT

Sia

April 11 – 14 & 17 – 21, 2012

EPCOR CENTRE’S Motel

http://www.downstage.ca/sia.shtml

 

It’s likely that you’ve met someone like Nick, the college-age white kid from Alberta who naively believes that he can change the world with his good deeds. It starts off with activities like local food drives and “fight the power” protests which satisfies his need to impose a sense of righteousness on the issues. But soon these local initiatives aren’t enough for his do-gooder ego and Nick looks to Africa, perhaps one of the neediest places on earth, to offer himself up volunteer-wise. It’s not that the desire of servitude isn’t itself noble or that the work to be done isn’t desperately needed and necessary. What makes us shake our head at a guy like Nick is that he takes on these roles knowingly or unknowingly as an act of liberal white guilt flagellation. And history has shown us that this never works out well.

Sia begins with Nick in Ghana working as a volunteer in a Liberian refugee camp. Its evening and he and a local named Abraham are out on the town bar hopping, getting progressively more and more drunk. Or at least Nick is. What transpires at the end of the evening sets the stage for the rest of the play. Abraham, a former child solider, takes Nick hostage and demands that a witness in The Hague trial of the “Butcher” (the warlord that Abraham was made to fight for) not be allowed to testify.

Interspersed with the hostage scenes are flashbacks to Abraham’s teenage years in Liberia prior to his soldier duties. He and his beloved sister Sia practice their presentation for the peace monitors they hope are coming and discuss what they will do if the nearby fighting makes its way to their village. We know the two storylines are related, but it isn’t until the final scenes of the play that we realize the powerful and tragic entanglement of the two narratives.

It’s an interesting story, one that won playwright Matthew MacKenzie Grand Prize at the 2010 Alberta Playwriting Competition and apparently comes from some first-hand research. According to MacKenzie, Sia was inspired by interviews he conducted during two trips to the Buduburam refugee camp in 2004 and 2007. It is this field research no doubt that gives Sia its authentic sounding dialogue and its biting criticisms of Western aid to Africa. But thankfully Sia is not simply an exercise in North America-bashing. Mackenzie gives Abraham the character complexity of being neither a victim nor a hero and instead shows that there is imperfection on all sides of the issue and subtle shades of good and evil.

So it’s a real shame then that the performers choose not to embrace the dexterous nature of their characters and instead spend most of the play yelling at full volume. The scenes with Abraham and Sia in particular are guilty of this. Monice Peter is far too unmodulated in her emphatic portrayal of the 11-year old girl while Edward Ogum as Abraham spends most of his interactions with his sister either yelling at her or teasing her at a volume that sounded like yelling. Had the pair taken it down a notch, the bond between them would have been allowed to breathe and I would have felt remarkably more invested in their relationship.

The hostage scenes between Nick and Abraham are a more appropriate place for the yelling to occur and it comes in many forms. Abraham spits vitriol at Nick for his shallowness and Nick, played by Joe Perry alternates between full throttle begging and castigating of his captor. All this makes sense. However, when the climax is revealed through a lengthy monologue by Abraham and it is delivered by more tortured yelling, it loses impact. Ogum, who was far more impressive in his quieter moments, could have slayed us all had he only dropped the shrill for still and let the power of the dialogue do the shouting instead.  Director Simon Mallett needs to instruct his cast that there are better ways to pump up the emotion than simply pumping up the volume. The dialogue deserves better and the talented cast could handle it.

 

RATING

 For the guys – Nothing subtle here. Heavy subject, violent moments, loud acting. But underneath the noise is an interesting play. MAYBE SEE IT

 For the girls – As much as you will want to empathize with Sia, her almost unlikable portrayal makes it difficult. Not for the squeamish, the story is compelling despite the faults. MAYBE SEE IT

For the occasional theatre goer – This is not a light entertaining theater experience. But the story is important and you might be ok with the shouting as it does keep the energy up. MAYBE SEE IT

For the theatre junkie –Ogum is a terribly compelling presence in his more subtle moments and Perry’s mock CBC interview scene is a combination of brilliant writing and great delivery. MAYBE SEE IT

CATS

April 10 – May 13, 2012

Max Bell Theatre

http://theatrecalgary.com/plays/cats/more_info/

Listen for my live review of CATS on CBC’s Eyeopener on Monday April 16^th at 8:20

http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/

 

OK – full disclosure right off the top. I am not a fan of musicals. There are some I find mildly amusing (Little Shop of Horrors and Grease) and some I even quite like (My Fair Lady and West Side Story). But generally I would rather poke my eye out with a fork than see a musical for my own sense of enjoyment.

Now let’s add to this the fact that I have an intense dislike for cats. I say this with full knowledge that I’ll probably get a slew of hate mail from my feline-loving readers. But hey, I’m trying to be honest here. Interestingly, I have been told that my dislike is very odd considering how cat-like I am. I like to groom myself, I desire attention on my terms and often I just want everyone to leave me alone. So maybe it’s a competitive thing, but regardless, if a cat is in a room I generally don’t want to be.

Therefore when I heard an all new made-in-Alberta production of Andrew Lloyd Webbers’ legendary CATS was coming to Calgary, you can imagine I was not overly enthused. The last time I saw the production was when it opened on Broadway in 1982, and while I was certainly dazzled by the sets and the costumes, the rest of the production left me wishing I had nine lives so I could forget about the one where I sat through this musical.

However, I am older, wiser and now a professional theatre critic. It’s not always about my personal tastes, or at least not completely. As much as I can, I endeavor to have my reviews objectively examine the productions for their merit and their ability to entertain and engage an audience. So, with that as my goal and my double-whammy bias clearly stated, here we go.

The first thing anyone going to see CATS should know is that it really isn’t about anything. This is truly a blink and you’ll miss the plot kind of affair. The lyrics of the musical are based on a collection of poems about cats written by T.S. Eliot to entertain his godchildren. Webber took these poems and fashioned a skeleton of a story where the audience meets all the cats in the junkyard who have gathered for their annual ball. At this yearly festival, one of the felines is chosen to be reborn as a new cat with a fresh life. One by one the cats, with their funny names and distinct personalities, are introduced through song and dance numbers until the finale when the one chosen cat is revealed. But unlike a typical musical, these numbers are not interspersed with dialogue. In what was a totally revolutionary theatrical move at the time, CATS is told completely through song and movement.

If this doesn’t strike you as a very interesting idea – it shouldn’t.  CATS goes beyond simply not having a clear narrative directly into the realm of the “who cares” category. But storyline isn’t the reason anyone sees or loves this musical. The reason CATS was awarded seven Tony’s and was the second longest running musical on Broadway (it was surpassed in 2006 by Webber’s Phantom of the Opera) is the unforgettable music, the wonderfully unique sets, the transformative costumes/ makeup and the overall magical theatrical experience of the production. Or at least that’s why people went to see the original production. When it comes to Theatre Calgary’s production of CATS, unfortunately many of the positives of the show are watered down and underachieved, leaving us with far too many tiresome moments and not enough good old entertainment.

This is a shame since it all started out so promisingly with Patrick Clark’s set design that nicely captured the junkyard setting with its multi-levels and secret tunnels for the cats to prowl about. Equally impressive were the costumes which depicted different types of cats with skin tight multi-coloured and tailed unitards, manes of fur around their heads and remarkable full face makeup.

However it became quickly apparent as the individual cats were introduced and let loose to do their thing that the cast was terribly uneven with only a certain few having the singing and dancing chops to make these cats come to life. One unfortunate scene in act one paired Robert Allan and Ksneia Thurgood together as the mischievous cats Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer in a rather difficult dance sequence that neither could handle gracefully. Making matters worse was the pair’s ill-paced and partially off-key singing. While others fared better, without any real standout performances in the first act and a tediously long dance sequence leading into intermission, I heard several people grumbling their disappointment at intermission.

After a terribly long and uninteresting start to the second act featuring Gus the theatre cat, things mercifully do pick up. In a fantastically choreographed and performed scene about Skimbleshanks the railway cat, John Edward as the cat in question does a lovely job bringing cat-ness to the scene and choreographer Lisa Stevens deserves a big round of applause for her vision here. Equally interesting is the scene that follows concerning the mysterious and criminal cat Macavity. Melanie McInenly and Lindsay Croxall as Demeter and Bombalurina respectively finally bring some raw feline-ness to the stage and their singing and physicality are touches of the magic that CATS is known for.

And then of course there’s that song. The one we’ve heard a million times and the one everyone in the audience is waiting for. Grizabella, the old decrepit cat does deliver a snippet of Memory in the first act, but it isn’t until the near end that Cailin Stadnyk belts it out in full. It’s a make or break moment in the production and Stadnyk delivers it with a clear and powerful voice for sure, but  it feels rushed a void of feeling. I went back to view the original version sung by the amazing Elaine Paige (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm5w7gHEtJI) to see what  was missing. Whether it was comfort in the role or the confidence to let the phrasing breathe, Stadnyk’s version  lacked  Paige’s emotional heft and left me disappointed, feeling like I’d been somehow cheated out of my “wow” moment.

But  perhaps my biggest beef with  this version of CATS was how un-cat-like the whole thing seemed. I distinctly remember being amazed at how bang-on the cast was in their embodiment of cat characteristics. Whether they were performing solos or simply sitting on the sidelines, they were constantly doing lithe and interesting cat things that gave the whole production a fantastical otherworldly feeling.  Theater Calgary’s cast seemed to be content to twirl their tails and rub their heads every once in a while and rarely did I ever see a non-spotlighted cat keep the movement going in the background. Whereas in the Broadway production I truly felt like I was watching cats onstage, here I felt I was watching actors pretend to be cats on stage. If director Jaques Lemay wants to create an experience where we will gloss over the lack of story and occasional dull bits, he needs to concentrate beyond the solos and think about the stage as a whole.  Only then can audiences truly see what all the fuss was about and only then can I say that I was glad to have revisited this production.

RATING

For the guys – This is spectacle more than musical, but even the lithe bodies and flirty felines won’t save you from boredom. SKIP IT

For the girls – Perhaps you’ll be more forgiving of the lack of story, but you won’t forgive the lack of wonder this production suffers from. SKIP IT

For the occasional theatre goer – Some of the music is catchy and some beautiful and yes, the set and costumes are wonderful. But the lack of a story or even a point will kill it for you. SKIP IT

For the theatre junkie – If you haven’t seen it, this isn’t the production to catch. If you have, leave well enough alone. SKIP IT

Eurydice

April 4 – 7, 2012

Reeve Theatre

http://drama.ucalgary.ca/event/eurydice-sarah-ruhl

 

Sarah Ruhl is a playwright I’ve been following for some time now. The New York Times has called her a theatrically adventurous and gifted young playwright and the New Yorker has praised her work as bold and imaginative. Her plays are some of the most produced of any contemporary playwright in the United States and at 38; she is already a MacArthur “genius” grant winner as well as a Pulitzer Prize finalist.

I’ve had the pleasure of seeing many of Ruhl’s recent plays in Toronto and New York, but when I heard that her 2003 play Eurydice was being performed in Calgary as part of the University of Calgary’s Taking Flight: Festival of Student Work, I jumped at the chance to experience her earlier creation.

Putting a contemporary and quirky spin on the Greek myth of Orpheus, the play tells the famous story from the point of view of Orpheus’s wife Eurydice. In the classic myth, which has spawned several operas, a Balanchine ballet and at least two movies, Orpheus, the great musician, mourns his beloved bride (she died on their wedding day after being bitten by a snake) so much that he travels to the underworld to retrieve her. Through his beautiful music, he convinces the Gods of Hades to let him have her back, but loses her again when he disobeys the Gods’ orders not to look at her until they both reach the land of the living.

In Ruhl’s hands, the snake is replaced by a creepy, otherworldly Nasty Man who lures Eurydice from her wedding with a letter from her dead father who she misses terribly. It is during her escape from this stranger’s presence that Eurydice dies and then finds herself in the underworld, unable to remember anything of Orpheus or even who she is. Greeted by three bossy and cranky stones, Big, Little and Loud, Eurydice is told that she is dead and must now do as the stones do, namely not cry, care about relationships, or try to remember anything from when she was alive.

Ruhl then adds a completely unique and personal element to the story. Eurydice’s father greets her in Hades and helps her remember their father-daughter relationship. Together they reminisce, make up for lost time and become closer than when they were both alive. Apparently Ruhl wrote this play for her father who died while she was at University and it feels as though the story is a cross between a love letter to their relationship and a form of therapy for her grief.

Back above ground Orpheus is dealing with grief of his own and begins formulating ways to contact Eurydice, find her and bring her back. Thus Eurydice plays out as a 90 minute, one act, short-scened, dual narrative that follows the action both on earth and in the underworld.

In a sense this dual narrative was sweetly mirrored by the audience at the show. On the one hand the full house was there to see a polished staged production with trained actors. But looking around the theater at all the parents laden with flowers for their performer children, you were instantly reminded that this was a student production with all the nerves and tender talents that come with it.

While every family has the right to be substantially proud of their actor child, no one has more reason than the family of the inspiringly talented Sarina Sorensen as the title role of Eurydice. Asked to show a breadth of emotion from giddy to suspicious to confused to inconsolable, Sorensen evoked it all with great credibility and richness of character. Much of the joy of watching this production was the pleasure of watching her work and I look forward to seeing where her career goes once her schooling is done.

Strongly representing the eccentric elements of this play were the Stones played by Courtney Charnock, Riah Fielding-Walters and Brett Tromburg. Whether speaking in unison or in quick fire consecutive barbs, the trio delivered powerfully strange performances that were as much about what they said as how they moved when they said it. The scene where Eurydice’s father recounts directions to the underworld river punctuated by the Stone’s physical enactment was beautiful, mesmerizing, melancholy and reason enough to see the play. Kudos to Movement Coach Melissa Thomas for giving the performers compelling physicality to complement their dialogue and bravo to the actors for being brave enough to give in to the gestures.

Less successful in the choreography was the strange treatment of the Nasty Man. Moving like a cross between a rubber band blowing in the wind and what I can only guess was an interpretation of the snake in the original myth, Connor Pritchard unfortunately lost much of his impact due to awkward staging that distracted from both the plot and the dialogue.  Later in the play Pritchard gets another chance to show his idiosyncratic side as the huffy, over the top Lord of the Underworld. While he certainly can do sensational with great aplomb, I would have liked to seen a more nuanced treatment of the character with a little less hamming it up for effect.

Rounding out the performances with decent efforts from Reese Jones as the Father and Jonathan Molinski as Orpheus,  extremely effective theatre in the round staging by director Alyssa Bradac and some clever set design elements from Geneal St. Clair, the production was successful on many levels.  I may not have seen this Sarah Ruhl play on a professional stage, but I can happily file my experience of Eurydice away with the rest my Ruhl repertoire and not feel like I missed out on anything.

 

RATING

For the guys – it’s funny, it’s sad, it’s creepy and it’s about loss. You’ll relate to Orpheus’ pain at losing the woman he loves and the lengths he’ll go to get her back. SEE IT

For the girls – How do you choose between the love for your father or your husband? And what are you willing to lose in the process? You will instantly warm to Eurydice and wrestle along with her struggle. SEE IT

For the occasional audience – I think the talking Stones may be too much for you. I’ll leave it at that. SKIP IT

For the theatre junkie – It’s a beautifully written play that is at once clever and incredibly sad. Go for the writing and be glad you’ll be able to say you saw Sarina Sorenson before she hits it big. SEE IT

 

The Whimsy State or the Principality of Outer Baldonia

April 2- 21, 2012

Lunchbox Theatre

http://www.lunchboxtheatre.com/the-whimsy-state-or-the-principality-of-outer-baldonia.html

Listen to my live review of The Whimsy State on CBC’s Eyeopener at 8:20 on Tuesday, April 3rd

http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/

 

In his playwright’s notes, AJ Demers says when he first heard the fantastical but true story of Outer Baldonia it struck him as one of those stories so bizarre you just couldn’t make it up. Lucky for us though he did decide to make it up – into a comedic play that tells the tale of couple men who buy an island off of Nova Scotia, declare it a sovereign nation and then declare war on Russia. The Whimsy State or the Principality of Outer Baldonia is a light-hearted comedy that tells the historic account of the island while also adding in its own tall tale elements just for fun.

The real story goes like this – Russell Arundel was a Washington lawyer, lobbyist for Pepsi in the US and an ardent fisherman. While attending the International Tuna Cup Match in 1948 he spotted a small three acre island off the coast of Nova Scotia called Outer Bald Tusket that was the perfect place to dock for a shore lunch or rest while out fishing all day. He liked the island so much, he bought it along with two other Nova Scotia fisherman for $750, renamed it Outer Baldonia, declared it as an independent principality for fisherman and gave himself the ruling title of Prince of Princes. The men then installed their fisherman friends from Canada and the US as knights, admirals or vassal princes depending on how good they were at catching fish. With so many “citizens” it was decided that laws need to be passed, so with the aid of many bottles of run consumed, Russ and his mates wrote a Declaration of Independence. Outer Baldonian citizens were given the right to lie and be believed along with the right of freedom from questioning, nagging, shaving, interruption, women, taxes, politics and inhibition. In addition, the right to applause, vanity, flattery, praise, self-inflation, lying,  drinking , gambling  and the permission to be silent or noisy if the mood strikes were also added. To avoid overcrowding of the small island, no citizen had to actually live there; they just had the right to pop in when they were in the area fishing.

Without a doubt the most famous thing that happened in Outer Baldonia was when they declared war on Russia. Apparently there was a slanderous critique of the island’s charter in a Soviet state publication in 1953 and when the Russian Government declined an invitation to visit and hopefully retract the insults, Outer Baldonia issued their declaration of war..The whole thing blew over very quickly, but not without a lot of press coverage for the incident and the people involved.

Finally in the late 1960’s, tuna stocks in the area declined and Arundel was rarely going there to fish anymore, so in December 1973 he sold the island for one Canadian dollar to the Nature Conservancy of Canada for use as a sanctuary.

Demers’ play takes this bizarre real life story and brings it to life on the stage. Well, almost. The audience is warned right from the first lines of the performance that like any good fishing story, the play we are about to see stretches the truth “just a bit”. The areas that are played up or made up for comedic effect are mostly concerning Outer Baldonia’s war on Russia and how it was resolved. In the play Russell is invited to the United Nations for a diplomatic event where he meets a buxom Soviet diplomat named Anna who seduces him for nefarious purposes. This bit of back room dealing is what leads to the eventual war declaration on Russia and adds some nicely written and paced comedy to the already humorous story.

The mash-up of the funny true story with Demers’ clever, amusing writing and director Pamela Halstead’s witty direction is only half the reason this play works. Equal kudos must go to the strong cast who bring sweet likeability to the mainly drunken fisherman/citizens. These roles could have easily been over played or turned into caricatures, but Graham Percy as Russ Arundel and Sheldon Davis and David LeReaney as the two Nova Scotia fishermen all exude a lovely comedic charm and warmth that allows the audience to like them in their absurdity. A special mention has to go to the flawless Karen Johnson-Diamond who played Florence the secretary and Ann the Russian diplomat. Her scenes were by far the most memorable thanks to her hilarious timing and superb character acting.

It’s easy to like this play on a whole bunch of levels.  The story itself is amazingly fascinating, the comedy hits the right pitch and tone and the performances are utterly engaging. Kudos to all involved for producing this original, perfectly lovely, light comedy.

RATING

For the guys – Men buy an island for fishing, ban women, drink excessively and declare war when they get pissed off at Russia. It’s like your dream come true! SEE IT

For the girls – You’ll get over the chauvinistic and delinquent behaviour of the men very quickly and instead warm to the comedy of the story and the characters’ sweet precociousness. Plus Karen Johnson-Diamond often steals the show with a good helping of female comedic prowess. SEE IT

For the occasional theatre goers – This is the perfect show for you. You will giggle your way through this one hour play and learn something interesting at the same time. SEE IT

For the theater junkies – Go, laugh, enjoy. Light doesn’t mean worthwhile. SEE IT