Attempts on her Life

February 15 – 28

Theater Junction

http://www.theatrejunction.com/2011-2012-season/attempts-on-her-life/

Seeing and reviewing a play mid to late in the run is something I’m loathe to do. Primarily out of ego (I like to be the first opinion on the block) but not insignificantly because I like to give readers lots of time to digest the review and arrange to see the play if they are so inclined. However, my recent travel schedule has made this impossible for the next couple plays I am seeing. In the case of Theatre Junction’s production of Martin Crimp’s postmodernist play Attempts on Her Life, I am not only woefully late in the game, but fear that by the time my review is posted there will only be a few days left for the production. For those of you who like last-minute planning – no biggie. For others, my apologies. And to all I say, let’s dispense with the usual long drawn out review and cut to the chase this time.

Attempts on Her Life, subtitled “17 scenarios for the theatre” is experimental theatre personified. The non-linear plotless play whirls around an unknown and unseen character Anne who is discussed and debated second-hand in a series of anti-narrative scenes.  The multiple perspectives we get from these strange and sometimes funny vignettes do little to tell us who Anne actually is or was. She is described as a terrorist, a porn star, a suicide, a white supremacist, and a femme fatale consecutively, concurrently or perhaps not at all. And this is the point. In searching for the “real” Anne, the audience is asked to consider the notion that there is no “real” person anymore. We are all instead facsimile products of an increasingly violent, fragmented world where the self is crushed by rampant technology, consumerism and just too damn much communication.

Um….so yeah. Not a play for everyone. And even if you get off on this type of risk-taking production, it’s not a play that gets everything right. But with 17 vignettes all vying to out-cool, out-weird and out-perform each other I suppose that a bit of unevenness can be excused, especially when the high points are so compelling.

The scenes where Anne’s suicide is discussed by her mom and dad, a grotesquely sexy commercial vignette with Anne as a sports car and a dark episode with Anne as a teenage porn star are deeply affecting and have the audience’s full rapt attention. The more frenetic scenes, especially those accompanied full-throttle by live musicians, feel over directed and play-acted. In particular, one scene with Anne as a model/party girl relies too heavily on strobe lights and loud music to make its point and ends up feeling amateurish as a result. The other notable problems with the production are organically inherent in Crimp’s script leaving little room to make them better. Many scenes were so incomprehensibly metaphoric or symbolic to the point of disinterest that no matter how good the acting or direction, attention was lost. Fortunately for the audience, just when the scenes become too much or give too little to grab onto, another intense moment of storytelling from a uniformly strong cast comes along to pull you back in.

What doesn’t ever lose audience interest in Attempts on Her Life is the set design by Mark Lawes and for the most part his fluid direction that navigates his cast through the industrial-feeling set that is at the same time cold yet alive. All the bells and whistles are used here, there are 5 TV sets showing images of either the action on stage or recorded video clips, a big screen at the back of the stage where larger images are shown, several smoke machines, a sound system, photo-shoot lighting set-ups, wires and cords abounding and minimal props that look like something one would find in an apocalyptic flophouse. But in this case the bells have substance and the result is a stage that pulses with energy.

After the final scene as the cast assembled to take their bows there was a long awkward moment of lack of clapping from the audience. Did we not realize the play was over? Were we too overwhelmed to react? Did the experiment fail?  Whatever the reason, there was no doubt that some positive or negative uncertainty was going on. Regardless, the shame of it is that like it or not, Attempts on Her Life was a wild ride that merited much louder and longer clapping than we offered. So to the cast, the director and everyone involved I say a belated yet hearty Bravo!

RATING

For the guys and the girls – Anne’s gender is irrelevant – this is a story about identity in a modern world and to my mind this is something we can all relate to. Ignore the parts that don’t work and enjoy the ride. SEE IT

For the occasional theatre goer – Stop. Do not pass go. Do not accept $200. Stay home and watch CSI or something. SKIP IT

For the theatre junkie – You’ll be frustrated by how good it could have been compared to how often it fails. But it’s bold and risky and thought-provoking and it’s the kind of theatre that doesn’t get put on the stage in Calgary very often. SEE IT

Enbridge playRites Festival of New Canadian Plays

February 1 to March 4, 2012

Various Venues – check website for more information

http://www.atplive.com/playRites/playRites.html#productions

For a theatre critic in Calgary, it’s never really a good time to go away as there is always something new and potentially interesting on the stages in the city. And while I’m immensely grateful for this, it does become frustrating when you realize just what you are missing when you do book a vacation.

Unfortunately this month, vacation for me means missing all the openings for the Enbridge playRites Festival. Believe me…I’ve already done the phooey-phooey dance and it didn’t help much. So…..I’m relying on my lovely and loyal applause-meter.com readers to  provide some reviews for me.

I will be back in town February 18, with just a week or so left to catch the shows. So dear readers, what should I see? What do you recommend and what didn’t light your spark? I will be posting last-minute  reviews on the shows I do manage to see, but would be immensely grateful if you could help steer me in the direction of those most worth catching and reviewing…for whatever reason!

The shows this year are:

Thinking of Yu

By Carole Fréchette, Translated by John Murrell

February 1 – March 4, 2012

DRAMA: Pilot Episode

By Karen Hines

February 2 – March 3, 2012

Ash Rizin

By Michael P. Northey and Kyprios

In association with Green Thumb Theatre

February 3 – March 3, 2012

Good Fences

By the Downstage Creation Ensemble

In association with Downstage

February 14 – March 4, 2012

Personally, upon first glance, my tastes will tip me towards Thinking of Yu and Good Fences. But maybe it’s the other two that are the standouts. Drop me a line, let me know and look for my reviews when I get back.

Until then, I encourage you to find yourself in a dark theatre and leave you with the words of 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.”

Enron

January 31 – February 19, 2012

Max Bell Theatre

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

Listen for my live review of Enron on CBC’s Eyeopener on Monday, February 6 at 7:40 am

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

Any theatre critic who tells you that they don’t read other reviewers’ takes on a production is lying. We all do it. This is especially true for a play like Lucy Prebble’s Enron which was such a hit in England (with two successful runs) and yet such a flop on Broadway (the play closed after only fifteen performances). The Guardian’s Michael Bilington called Enron, “a fantastic theatrical event…. an exhilarating mix of political satire, modern morality and multimedia spectacle.” While Ben Brantley of the New York Times declared the play, “A flashy but labored economics lesson…. factitious, all show (or show and tell) and little substance.” Over-enthusiasm on the part of the Brits or a case of US sour grapes at the Wall Street bashing from across the pond? Or maybe just a case of the Russell Brand phenomenon – things that are huge in Britain that cause Americans to gag.  Regardless, I’m sure the critics had their reasons and their respective audiences reacted similarly. So when I learned that Enron was making its Canadian premiere here in Calgary, I was very intrigued to see what my maple leaf sensibilities thought of it.

At the risk of subverting the Canadian global peacemaker role and employing it as a tool of theatre critique, I’d say that Enron fairly falls somewhere between the two opposing reviews. It was not, as the Brits claimed, an altogether exhilarating experience. But nor was it a laboured and contrived puff piece as it was called in New York.

The play is an entertaining show that benefits greatly from a decent cast, Antoni Cimolino’s smart direction, creative set design, interesting use of multi-media elements, the ability to dramatize complicated financial dealings into lay-person friendly narrative and at times, the inspired use of puppets. Enron is also a show that suffers from the weight of an over-loaded plot that tries to cram too many elements into the second half, a script that occasionally falls short, a preachy but empty final monologue and at times, the uninspired use of puppets.

The play opens in 1992 with the Houston-based Enron hiring of Jeffrey  Skilling on the back of his mark to market scheme – an accounting system where the company can realize the profits it’s going to make now as opposed to waiting for the money to actually come in. Starting off as a bit of a finance geek, Skilling quickly gets the taste for climbing the corporate ladder and eventually wins  the favour of Enron Chairman Ken Lay who promotes him to President over his equally ambitious colleague, Claudia Roe (an amalgam of several female executives who served at Enron). As a result of his accounting system, Skilling is able to show great profits for Enron and the markets react accordingly by pushing the stock price to never before seen highs. But Skilling has a problem. Those profits he promised would come in haven’t and unless he does something about it, the whole situation will explode. Enter Andy Fastow, a finance whiz who comes up with a plan for Enron to open shadow companies he calls Raptors (yes, he was a Jurassic Park fan) that will take on Enron’s debt until the real profits materialize so Enron’s books don’t have to show a loss. It works for a while and pretty soon with a combination of fancy accounting, favourable market developments and great analyst-love for the company, Enron becomes more successful than ever. But like all good morality tales, the cheating eventually catches up with the fraudsters. Enron’s smoke and mirror “success” is exposed and the world finds out that the company is worth nothing, leaving thousands of employees penniless and Wall Street with its tail between its legs. As anyone who watched the news in the early 2000’s knows, charges were laid, Fastow and Skilling were jailed and Lay died of a heart attack before sentencing.

Financial stories, while they may have intrigue and drama, are not the easiest thing to translate to a stage, and this is where Prebble excels. Metaphor is the name of the game when her characters attempt to explain the workings of markets and corporate dealings and they do so with easily digestible sound bites which resonate regardless of your financial aptitude. When talking about hedging, Fastow’s character likens it to owning airline stock but also buying stock in a car rental company should an airplane crash and people be suddenly afraid to fly. When explaining why Wall Street was so blindly enthusiastic about Enron, one analyst character says it’s like getting on a plane – you don’t know exactly how it works but you and everyone around you believes it is going to fly and if you stop the flight because you don’t know how the plane works you look crazy.  The double airplane imagery aside, these metaphors appear fairly unforced in the dialogue and go a long way to bringing the audiences’ understanding of events and ability to thereby enjoy the play up to speed.

And in the first act, there is much to enjoy. Breta Gerecke gives us a multi-level enclosed set with sliding doors that open to expose the action in the Enron offices or boardrooms while also acting as a screen for the numerous 90’s themed images projected on its surface. The set seems to pulsate with energy, sometimes literally in the case of Fastow’s basement office which glows nefariously red with financial misdeeds, and brings a unique and much-needed visual impact to this otherwise bookish story.

Puppet-like costuming also goes a long way to provide colour and tongue-in-cheek story development in the first act. Enron Board members as big-headed blind mice, the Raptor shadow companies as (you guessed it) full body Raptor suits, an Arthur Andersen accountant as a ventriloquist with dummy and investment bank Lehman Brothers as comical Siamese twins – these were all employed to their drama/comedy best and kept audiences guessing at what might be next.

The rest of the first act was filled out with some cute, but not too cute, blessedly short song and dance bits that served as punctuations to the narrative rather than full sentences and a cast that seemed to grasp that they were playing caricatures of their real life Enron roles rather than being asked to deliver deep meaningful character studies. Graham Abbey as Jeffrey Skilling, Barry Flatman as Kenneth Lay and Rylan Wilkie as Andy Fastow all do a fine job onstage even if not much is asked from them. All in all, a thoroughly enjoyable first half to the evening that flowed effortlessly and with great energy thanks to Cimolino’s entertaining direction.

But like the Enron collapse in the second act, the play’s writing, direction, puppet-use and story-telling took a downward tumble that it could simply not recover from. One of the challenges in adapting a true story for the stage is what to leave in and what to dismiss. Instead of editing or amalgamating the events of Enron’s undoing for dramatic effect, Prebble tries to stuff them all into a bloated second act that provides us with too many scenes yet not enough information. We get the justice hearings and the courtroom scenes yet it isn’t until Skilling’s lawyer talks to him later on that we fully understand that Fastow ratted out Skilling in return for a lesser sentence. In other words,  three scenes that could have easily been done in one, to greater effect. Then there’s the awkwardly staged inclusion of Skilling’s drunken and paranoid exchange with a street-walker. Yes, we vaguely recall that Skilling had an arrest for public intoxication, but it did nothing to move the story forward and instead was one more unnecessary layer on an act that was already dragging badly.

Even more egregious was the over-use of the Raptor creatures in the second half. Far from simply being metaphors for the shadow companies, Cimolino has them at the forefront of every scene involving Fastow. They growl, they bite, they get sick, they need to be tasered to be kept under control. What was a clever metaphor in the first half became a gratingly literal interpretation of how the shadow companies were out of control. If one could be beaten over the head with a Raptor, the audience surely experienced it.

But perhaps the most disappointing moment of the second half was the final monologue delivered by Skilling before he enters his cell.  A huge stock chart is projected on the set and Skilling begins a long speech about how every innovation has occurred by being in an unrealistic bubble and that his actions at Enron were just another bubble that would have eventually born the same type of fruit. It is a hubris –filled monologue that I’m guessing is supposed to show Skilling’s lack of remorse and perhaps betray Prebble’s belief that Skilling was heartless right up to the end. But weak writing foils this effort and instead sends Skilling to his cell with the air taken out of both Abbey’s performance and a second act that was already floundering.

So in the end, Enron the play has much in common with Enron the company. Both employed creative and innovative elements to make it look extremely attractive, both were an entertaining ride for a while with many successful features, but ultimately both the Enron the play and Enron the company came undone and ended with a whimper. However, unlike the risk that Enron the company took, I heartily applaud the risk taken in the play. I would rather see a production that takes chances and stages something unique even if it fails on some levels than be made to sit through a safe bet. Enron may be somewhat lacking in the end, but when looked at from a big picture point of view, its hits outweigh the disappointments and the good can be focused on enough to enjoy the result. Or at least that’s my measured Canadian take on it.

RATING

For the guys – Don’t be afraid by the puppets and the dancing. This is a financial tale told fairly well with some great theatrical moments. SEE IT

For the girls – Whether you followed the story or not, you’ll get the gist and will be uniquely entertained by the first half. Focus on that as you shuffle in your seat during the conclusion. SEE IT

For the occasional theatre goer – You’ll either find the puppets helpful in the story-telling or totally preposterous. This is not breezy theatre going – you have to pay attention to get the financial narrative and keep up. MAYBE SEE IT

For the theatre junkie – Yes the characters and script are terribly ill-formed at times, but the narrative method is unique, the production is visually exciting and it’s a chance to see Cimolino direct before he most likely nabs the most important job in Canadian Theatre as Artistic Director of the Stratford Shakespeare Company. SEE IT

Moby Dick

January 28, February 1 and 3, 2012

Jubilee Auditorium

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

Listen to CBC’s Eyeopener for my live review of Moby Dick on Monday, January 30 at 7:40

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

 

Upon reading Herman Melville’s classic novel Moby Dick in consideration for an opera, San Francisco-based composer Jake Heggie says he was surprised at how musical, lyrically charged and operatic the book already was. “I could hear musical textures, rhythms, orchestral and vocal colours as I considered it”. If this was the case, it is then disappointingly unfortunate that in the realization of Heggie’s work onto the stage, the question is not how did he do it, but why did he fall so short? How is it that a classic story of passion and madness and revenge and loyalty was such a drag? Except for the mesmerizing video projections – the real star of the show. But more on those later.

Moby Dick was commissioned from Heggie (best known for his operatic adaptation of Dead Man Walking) by an opera consortium, headed by Dallas Opera that also included San Francisco Opera, San Diego Opera, the State Opera of South Australia, and Calgary Opera. It’s a big ticket item (coming in at $1.5 million) with equally big ticket talent. Star Canadian tenor Ben Heppner takes on the role of the peg-legged Captain Ahab, his real leg harnessed behind him throughout the production for the effect.

The story deviates little from the original novel save the fact that the famous first line, “Call me Ishmael”, is relegated to the last words spoken in the production, freeing the story up from the narrative first person constraints and treating the novel like a memoir that took place long after events occurred. An easily digestible full synopsis of the opera can be found at http://www.calgaryopera.com/performancesandevents/mobydick/synopsis.php if you want to read about all the little bits and details. This is opera after all, so there are many.  But the gist of the story is fairly simple. The whaling ship Pequod sets out only to discover from its Captain Ahab that the real reason they are sailing is not to hunt whales, but specifically to hunt the white whale Moby Dick that took Ahab’s leg in a previous encounter. Ahab’s desire for revenge is not only cold but obsessively insane. Despite the protestations of his first mate, Ahab will not be deterred in his quest. Not even when it brings about the loss and death of his crew, the damage to his cargo and ultimately the destruction of his ship and his own death when he finally encounters the whale.

It’s hard not to agree with Heggie that this is a story just begging to be set to music in the operatic realm. But instead of a powerful or interesting composition, we mostly get dull music that is at best forgettable and at worst something that sounds like a high school marching band riff such as the pivotal scene where Ahab and Moby Dick face off. The exceptions to this are the pieces written for the two strongest performers in the opera. Greenhorn’s (Colin Ainsworth) aria befriending a pagan native harpooner is a moving and emotional swath of music helped along by some lovely wording courtesy of Librettist Gene Scheer. Equally, first mate Starbuck’s (Brett Polegato) aria in Ahab’s cabin as he debates whether to kill the Captain and longs for his family is musically fulfilling and a joy to listen to.

If you glossed over the “two strongest performers” comment in the previous paragraph, be assured that it was not a typo where Heppner was mistakenly omitted. Right from his first appearance, Heppner’s voice sounded thin and lacking command. Often times overpowered by the orchestra, he delivered arias without any of the rage or passion or madness that the character called for. Believe me; I take no pleasure in writing this. I’m rather horrified that I was underwhelmed by such a lauded and admired tenor. In his defence, the only things that might have contributed this this lacklustre performance was the unsure footing the peg and harness might have created (Heppner himself admits that his powerful voice comes from his legs) and the totally stagnant, stand in one spot and sing, staging by Director LeonardFoglia.

In fact, I would fault Foglia as much as Heggie for causing the boredom in this production. I had happily thought that inert performers without any acting chops were a thing of the past. But practically every major character in Moby Dick was planted feet down facing the audience when singing with no regard for emoting or interacting with the action on stage. The worst of this was when Foglia had characters up on the ship masts singing without movement for what seemed like an intolerable amount of time. Compare this to the background action and choral scenes which were beautifully staged (the fight and ship capsizing scenes in particular) and it’s confusing why Foglia decided to do so little with his main characters.

But if Foglia was hit or miss on the stage, his decision to project things on stage was a brilliant choice that paid off handsomely. To overcome the obstacles of storm scenes, water swells and a whaling ship that not only needed to sail, but needed to sink, Foglia commissioned Elaine J. McCarthy (of Wicked fame) to create video projections that took Robert Brill’s set from good to amazing. It is McCarthy’s work that opens Moby Dick with an animation of a starry night that morphs into a massive whaling ship seemingly floating out into the audience and causing gasps of amazement. It is in fact McCarthy’s continual projections throughout the opera with their welcome eye candy distraction that save this production from being a total yawn. But even McCarthy’s fantastic touches can’t save what should have been the climactic scene between Ahab and Moby Dick. The odd pauses in action, the banal music, the stiff physicality and Heppner’s uninspired singing was in total one of the biggest letdowns I’ve ever seen at the opera.

The French playwright Moliere once said, “Of all the noises known to man, opera is the most expensive.” If opera were to be judged on this production of Moby Dick alone, that saying could be altered to read – of all the noises known to man, opera is the most disappointing.

RATING

For the guys – The video and animation elements are brilliantly cool. But why go to see a Moby Dick that has no bravado or passion?  The testosterone has left the building. SKIP IT

For the girls – Greenhorn is a character you will like and a performer that will impress, and yes the projections are captivating. But the music will leave you flat as will the lack of acting. SKIP IT

For the occasional audience – Well, it’s in English. And once again, the projections are amazing to watch. But with the performance clocking in at 3 hours and no music you can latch onto, you’ll be wishing the whale would come and end it all much sooner. SKIP IT

For the theatre junkie – Two good supporting performers, unique use of video and occasional lovely  libretto. Not exactly what you’d expect from Heggie and Heppner. SKIP IT 

No. 2

January 25 – 28, 2012

Engineered Air Theatre

https://www.hprodeo.ca/2012/no-2

To my mind, every successful theatre experience rests on a fairly simple equilibrium – the duality of a compelling story buoyed by an excellent script and enthralling acting to bring the words to life. Sure there are other layers of  a production that are important, direction, lighting, set design, costume – these are all elements that can make a play go from good to great. But getting to good in the first place lies squarely on the shoulders of the playwright and cast. No. 2, written by Toa Fraser and performed by Madeleine Sami, is a play that unhinges that equilibrium causing all the good to lie in the acting realm with little more than the doldrums residing in the story. In other words, great performance/lackluster narrative.

The story, which Fraser debuted in 1999, tells the story of Nana Maria, an elderly widowed Kiwi matriarch, who decides to gather all her grandchildren together for a feast at which she will name her successor. Nana is very specific not to invite her children for they are, as she says, “useless”. One by one we meet her grandchildren in a parade of cliché and stereotypical characters. First up is Erasmus, the quiet responsible leader of the pack, then there is Charlene the miserable put upon one who always ends up doing all the work. Saul is the wanna-be gangster perpetually in trouble, Tyson is the sweet romantic athlete, Hibiscus is the pretty empty-headed one and Moses is the youngster full of boyhood fidgety energy. Two other characters appear in the story, Maria, an English girl who Tyson has brought and the Priest of the village that Nana invites to the feast.

Nine characters in total that, with the exception of Nana, have no other purpose in the story but to play out their formulaic roles as symbols rather than fully formed characters. But here’s where the equilibrium tips, and it tips strongly. All nine characters are performed by Sami who, despite the vast limitations of the roles, serves up a near flawless and remarkable performance for each and every character. Without using props or costume changes, Sami is able to transform herself from the crotchety old woman to a testosterone fuelled young man to a vain beauty queen and back again. All this is done with a Kiwi accent so strong that it takes more than the usual time limit to adjust your ears and even once the rhythm is known, you must be resigned to missing bits of dialogue here and there.

And there is lots of dialogue. All nine characters interact with each other throughout the play and it is through Sami’s strength as a performer that the rapid changes are not jarring or awkwardly comedic. It’s a physically intense piece of acting we are treated to and it is to Sami’s credit that we care about these characters at all. Problem is that even with her superb acting, we just don’t care enough.

This is where No. 2 falls with a thud. The long-winded and two-dimensional script gives the audience no point of engagement with any of the grandchildren. We can laugh at the impersonations, but ultimately we don’t relate or root for any one of them. Nana’s character is given more context and texture and at times redeems the otherwise flat storytelling, but after 90 minutes of trying to become engaged with the story even Nana can’t save the day.

RATING

For the guys – Sami’s male characters are spot on and fun to witness, but the fun wears thin with a dull script and overly long performance. SKIP IT

For the girls – Nana Maria will intrigue you but the overall family dynamic is shallow and the female characters are all unnecessarily ugly stereotypes. SKIP IT

For the occasional theatre goer – The barrier of the accent alone might be too much for you. Add on a script that lurches and this is a no go. SKIP IT

For the theatre junkie – Yes I know this show has been produced internationally and won an award at the Edinburgh Festival, but no doubt this was by virtue of Sami’s performance and for me, a glass distinctly half full performance is not a good enough reason to recommend it. SKIP IT

The Ugly One

January 16 to 26, 2012

Lunchbox Theatre

http://www.lunchboxtheatre.com/the-ugly-one.html

 

It was a very fitting coincidence that the opening performance of The Ugly One, a play about the perversely reverential way society esteems beauty, should come just a mere day after I, like many others I’m sure, sat glued to their TV set watching the red carpet of the Golden Globe awards. After a night spent critiquing which star‘s hair/dress/makeup looked best and who ‘s plastic surgery made them the fairest of them all, The Ugly One was a much-needed slap in the face to remind us how judgement based on outward appearances is not only shallow, but dangerous for all those involved. Even better was the fact that this slap was not provided by a heavy-handed preachy production but instead the message was delivered through a clever, surreal, sometimes funny, wonderfully acted and smartly designed and directed 60 minute one-act play.

The story, written by German playwright Marius Von Mayenburg, centres around Lette, an unknowingly hideous-looking engineer, who finds out from his boss that he’s not being sent to present his new product at a conference because he is repulsively ugly. Aghast and upset at the news, Lette goes home to his wife to find out if it is true – if he really is unbearable to look at. His wife, Fanny, praises Lette’s many good qualities but cannot deny her husband’s facial shortcomings. She explains that she thought Lette knew about his looks all along and that she was impressed at his ability to soldier on in spite of his appearance. But her assurances aren’t enough to quash his distress and he instead opts for facial reconstruction that renders him stunningly handsome. This transformation not only changes the way Lette looks (“I look like someone I’ll always envy,” he says upon seeing his face for the first time), it changes the way everyone feels about him too. Fanny is suddenly erotically obsessed with him, his boss is now fawning and eager to send him to the conference and while on the road, throngs of women line up to meet Lette for more than his engineering smarts while orders for his product are pouring in.

But like the saying goes, Lette’s beauty is only skin deep and soon enough he becomes vain and demanding and thoughtless and able to get away with it because of his looks. Until it comes back to bite him that is. I won’t ruin the plot twists for you; they are too much fun to experience fresh. But suffice it to say The Ugly One is an exacting and critical look at our aesthetic values and trust me, no one is spared and no one is redeemed. It’s a deliciously strange and twisted story that makes you think even when you are laughing while making you laugh uncomfortably at the irony while you are thinking.

Just as interesting as the story in this play is the staging and set design. Pamela Halstead remarks in her director’s notes that The Ugly One was a difficult play to conceptualize and a challenge to direct. Several times she says, she and the production team scrapped their ideas and started from scratch. If it was a challenge, the audience is the better for it because what Halstead and her team deliver is an inventive and risky production that is the perfect simple foil for the complex messages of the script. Opting for a chillingly stark stage with white walls and only two props, an operating table that doubles as a desk and a bed and the gauze that Lette wears post operation, Halstead and set designer Anton De Groot create a clinical atmosphere in which the absurdity of the beauty myth becomes magnified.

This bare bones set also does great justice to the uniformly impressive cast, who without scenery and props to rely on are utterly exposed for the fine performers they are. All actors are on stage throughout the play and simply turn their backs to the action when they are not part of the scene and there are many scenes in this play, with all of the actors except Matthew Thomas Walker (Lette) playing more than one role. Brian Heighton as Scheffler (Lette’s boss) and the surgeon oozes wonderful advantage-taking sliminess with both his characters, Kate Lavendar as Fanny and one of Lette’s affairs excels at both the small gestures of her characters (the way Fanny averts her eye from the ugly Lette) and the over the top outrageousness of a woman in erotic heat and Adriano Sobretodo Jr. as Karlmann (Lette’s assistant) and the odd misfit son of Lette’s  female suitor evokes both a man wronged seeking revenge and the vulnerability of not being desired. Walker as Lette, though a little too reserved and plotted as the ugly Lette, lets loose once his character’s handsome transformation and his out of control spiral with a fabulous ease and intensity that begs to be watched.

I have spoken before about my desire for theatre that takes risks and pushes expectations. Not simply for newness sake, but in order to bring excitement and illumination to the stage. This script and this production is one of those experiences. And as a result, dare I say it, The Ugly One is beautiful.

 

RATING

For the guys – You may think that the whole “looks are everything” notion doesn’t affect your gender. Think again. SEE IT

For the girls – Beauty as judgement is all too real in your world. This is not simply a shame on us story but rather a disturbingly funny look at how trapped we all are in it. SEE IT

For the occasional audience – Normally I wouldn’t send you to see a play with no props and a surreal storyline – but I think you’ll find it easy to penetrate and fun to watch. In other words, not too weird to enjoy. SEE IT

For the theatre junkie – We don’t get many experimental theatre productions in Calgary with this quality cast and script. SEE IT

Picasso at the Lapin Aglie

January 13 to 28, 2012

Pumphouse Theatre

http://www.morpheustheatre.ca/prod/picasso.php

 

So Picasso and Einstein walk into a bar. No really, it’s not a joke. In Picasso at the Lapin Agile these characters actually do walk into the same bar. On the other hand it is a joke – the play I mean. Not a joke really, more of a lengthy Saturday Night Live skit that while smart and funny in places goes on just a bit too long and runs off the rails in places.

I use the SNL reference here intentionally because Picasso at the Lapin Agile is written by one of the show’s most well-known and well-rounded past cast mates – Steve Martin. Martin, who is known for his banjo playing, novel-writing, screenwriting and art collecting in addition to his comedy, penned this, his first full length play in 1993. It had a successful run in both Los Angeles and New York and now is brought to us by Morpheus Theatre here in Calgary.

The one-act play features Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso who meet at a bar called the Lapin Agile (Nimble Rabbit). The date is 1904and both men believe they are close to unveiling work that will change the century. Einstein is on the verge of publishing his ground-breaking theory of relativity and Picasso is working up to his seminal painting Les Demoiselles d’Avignon. The two meet and argue about which is the more beautiful, meaningful and significant talent – that of the hand or of the mind, that of the scientist or of the artist. Heady stuff for sure – but in Martin’s hands, the discussion is peppered with humour that ranges from the intellectually witty (Einstein discussing how a baker would and should bake pies in the shape of the letters of the alphabet) to slapstick-ish (Picasso clutching his heart in mock pain and jealousy every time someone mentions Matisse).

The two are joined in the bar by a host of other characters that each get their chance to zing a few lines and deliver Martin’s philosophy on everything from what drives a womanizer to what inventions the 20^th century will bring to what type of books get published to the sleazy world of art dealers. Martin’s insightful, sarcastic and ironic views are given full airing on stage and they work best when the zany screwball treatment is toned down and the jokes are allowed to breathe on their own. Best at this is Greg Spielman as Gaston, a French elderly barfly with an eye for the ladies and a bladder that needs tending to every 15 minutes or so. Apart from his trips to the bathroom, Spielman’s character is on stage throughout the play and his understated stabs at the humour were very welcome in a cast where extreme mad-cappery and shouting was often employed to emphasize the funny and overcome some hollow acting. Lonni Olson at Sagot, Picasso’s art dealer, also hits the right balance between larger than life unctuous character and well-timed thoughtful delivery.

Unfortunately the other actors don’t fare as well. Peter Dorrius’ Einstein feels far too naively gee-whiz to be believable as a master scientific mind and as Picasso Brad Simon’s usage of bombast and bravado makes for some great shouting but not great acting moments. The rest of the cast falls somewhere between fine to amateurish with each one having occasional bright moments that quickly get brought down again by bouts of wooden acting and flubbed lines.

To be fair, Martin’s script doesn’t exactly allow for great character development. Picasso at the Lapin Agile is far more concerned with spouting off sarcasm and bombarding us with gags than it is with giving actors great roles to play. But as Saturday Night Live has shown us, sketch comedy is only really funny if the acting is good. And in this case, there is no way to change the channel.

 

RATING

For the guys – Zany with a healthy dash of smarts would have been a great bet – but instead it feels over-acted and under-funny. SKIP IT

For the girls – See above. SKIP IT

For the occasional theatre goer – Way too much going on with no real plot, this is will feel long and rambling. SKIP IT

For the theatre junkie – A better cast might have made this a smartly interesting light-hearted diversion, but unfortunately the cast doesn’t live up to the script. SKIP IT.

 

Taking Shakespeare

Big Secret Theatre

January 10 to 28, 2012

https://www.hprodeo.ca/2012/taking-shakespeare

Listen to my review of Taking Shakespeare on this morning’s CBC radio’s Eyeopener

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

 

Happy New Year everyone – I hope your holidays were splendid and that you are all ready to get back into the thick of the theatre season. As usual in Calgary, the start of a new year means it’s time once again for the High Performance Rodeo and there are five theatre or theatre-ish offerings on the schedule this year. The productions hail from all over the globe, but it’s the hometown darlings One Yellow Rabbit that always have the biggest theatre buzz heading into the festival. This year has been especially buzz-worthy thanks to the Rabbits scoring Taking Shakespeare,  a new play by the award-winning John Murrell that he himself stars in. If you are unsure who Mr. Murrell is or why this is a big deal, I suggest you take a look at his entry in the Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia to get a handle on his accomplishments and accolades.  http://www.canadiantheatre.com/dict.pl?term=Murrell%2C%20John

Taking Shakespeare is the first new play by Murrell in over a decade and I was very pleased to see that he hasn’t lost his touch.  This 90 minute one-act, two-character play is charming, funny, poignant and despite some thin narrative edges, it was a delight to watch. Murph is a 24-year-old college slacker who’s flunking his English Lit course; specifically he just doesn’t understand any of the Shakespeare plays that have been assigned. In an effort to help, his mother who is the president of the University, arranges for him to be tutored by another instructor at the college – the Professor  (played by Murrell) -who is an old-school Shakespeare-ologoist if there is such a thing. A devoted lover of Shakespeare’s work, the Professor knows all the plays by heart and is very opinionated on how they should be taught, in what order they should be taught and how old you need to be to understand them. Naturally, the Professor is horrified at the selection Murph has been given and is equally disgusted by Murph’s ignorance of Shakespeare in general and refuses to tutor him. That is until Murph tells him that Othello is on his reading list. The play is one of the Professor’s favourites and it hits a soft spot that gets him to agree to work with Murph.  The tutoring sessions that ensue are the meat of the play, and you do get a lot of Shakespeare in the script as the two work on Othello, but the play really isn’t about the lessons per se, it’s about what the two characters learn about each other in the process and more importantly what they discover about themselves over time.

While having the playwright as one of the stars in the play is unusual, it’s not as unusual as the choice that was made in the casting of Murph.  In a reversal of what would have happened in Shakespeare’s day – namely a man playing a woman’s role – Taking Shakespeare casts a woman in the role of the college slacker. And not just any woman, but Denise Clarke, who is also twice the age of the character she portrays. For the most part she does a decent job, but it was a job that got better as the play went on. The start of her performance felt “acted” and overly card-boardy with the male mannerisms either not quite right or at the very least not natural. But as the momentum of the play took off so did her performance and by the end of the production she gave us a fully formed character that you could connect with and one that you could pretty much forget was being acted by a middle-aged woman.

As for Murrell’s writing, the play is a very simple premise without much action, so if the writing isn’t good you really don’t have much traction. I am happy to say this was not a problem; Murell’s writing as always was excellent. The play had humour and humanity, it didn’t hermetically seal every plot twist, it was terribly smart in places and it was also profoundly sad at times in a way that didn’t shamefully pull on the audience’s heartstrings.

There were a few dropped threads in the writing that ever so slightly dented the excellence armour – most notably an exchange after Murph snoops in the Professors closet that has the Professor barely aggravated or upset by this invasion of privacy. Frankly I was shocked that his character was not more offended or angry as this seemed totally out of step with the Professor persona we being presented and for a moment broke the spell.  Thankfully this moment passed quickly and was not broken again until an odd little drunken scene late in the play which had the Professor dancing by himself to Prince’s Raspberry Beret, that while funny to see, felt totally unnecessary and just wrong for the character. Truthfully I can’t say if this was a glitch in Murrell’s writing or the only wrong step in Blake Brooker’s otherwise respectable direction. But either way I do wish they hadn’t included it.

As for Murrell’s acting, I can’t believe he doesn’t do more of it because he’s very good at it. Right from his first line he burrows deep into the character of the Professor and gives us great outrage and bluster and educational snobbery. But the real talent shows when Murrell is playing the calmer moments, the parts where he needs to be contemplative or compassionate or vulnerable. These are the really hard emotions to evoke onstage and Murrell delivered them with the realness and honesty of an inspired performance.

So yes, this is one of those cases where the goods do live up to the hype. True, the idea of a play centered on a tutoring session isn’t exactly new, we’ve seen this before in various forms over the years, but Taking Shakespeare does it really well with a lot of heart, great writing and good to great performances. This is a play that will have a tremendously wide appeal and don’t worry; you don’t need to be an expert on Othello or like Shakespeare to enjoy this production. But what you do need to do if you are going to see this play is learn how to turn your cell phone off. No less than three times during the production someone’s cell rang or beeped, and that my friends is a BIG no-no in live theatre. So go, enjoy but please, hit the off button first.

 

RATING

For the guys – The juxtaposition between an under-achieving man in his prime and an old-timer with accolades that are fading will resonate with you no matter what stage of life you are at. The chuckles are plenty and the 90 minutes moves along quickly. SEE IT

For the girls – Male or not, these characters are empathetic and you will have a soft spot for the Professor as a kind of avuncular figure. You’ll be interested to know that originally the role of the Prof was written for a woman. SEE IT

For the occasional theatre goer – You’ll laugh, you’ll sniffle, you’ll like both characters and the simple premise is easy to follow and engaging. SEE IT

For the theatre junkie– Murrell’s writing is wonderful and to hear him perform his own words is a real treat – one he delivers with great talent. Ignore some of the thin spots and you will thoroughly enjoy yourself. SEE IT

For my last post of the year I thought it would be appropriate to collect my thoughts on all that I’ve seen in 2011 and what I’m most looking forward to in 2012.

Since I began Applause Meter!  in May of this year, I have reviewed 31 plays and been exposed to countless actors, directors, sound and lighting experts, a myriad of other crew professionals and venues that vary from tiny church basements to large expensive theatres. Anyone who says that there isn’t a vibrant theatre scene here in Calgary must be living under a rock. It’s here and it’s happening all the time. It may not be as original, brilliant, innovative and risk-taking as I would like it to be, but I have seen many jewels in the last eight months in the form of great performances and great plays and I’m grateful for them all.

Yes, I have been sorely disappointed as well. And no, I’m not afraid to comment on it. Of all the feedback I get from readers of this blog or listeners to my spots on CBC’s Eyeopener, the thing I hear the most is appreciation for the forthrightness of my criticisms, whether they are agreed with or not.  But as I look back, I’d rather not dwell on what didn’t work and instead end on a positive note and once again send kudos to the people and productions that lit my imagination and made me remember why I love the theatre in the first place.

Great performances are  interesting things. They can come about from the culmination of a wonderful production that lends it’s patina to all involved. Or they can be good in spite of a lackluster plot or other theatrical accoutrements.  But regardless of how they emerge, good performances for me are the equal core of enjoyment in a production on par with the story itself. Below are the men and women that excited me, made me think and whose characterizations stay with me still:

Mikaela Cochrane, Elaine Weryshko and Scott Morris’s performances as the prototype factory robots in i-Robot  were uniformly impressive with their combination robot/human delivery and intense portrayals. Immensely interesting to watch, all three could teach a class on how to infuse believability into fantasy-conceived characters.

Bob Brader’s autobiographical performance in Spitting In The Face of The Devil was energetically volcanic and humorous with a measured pathos. Hard to do when you are in a one man show about your horrifically abusive father.

Without a doubt, my favourite performance was Mikaela Dyke playing the victims of the 1960’s Newfoundland fluorspar mine in Dying Hard.  Her ability to not simply “act” as these men and women, but to actually become them on stage with such ferocious intensity blew my mind and still gives me tingles when I think of it.

True Love Lies brought us three outstanding performances. Sarah Koury and Alexander Plouffe as rebellious and troubled teens took what could have been clichés and instead delivered uncomfortably realistic characters that resonated at every turn.  Just as wonderful to watch was Rejean Cournoyer who played his cynically gay ex-lover character with a beautiful restrained arrogance that just oozed charisma.

Edwin Curr and Marcus Trummer in To Kill A Mockingbird proved to me that young actors really can hold their own as major roles in a major production without just relying on the cute factor to get by.

Nothing made me laugh harder than Ryan Luhning’s monologue in A Behanding in Spokane. His deadpan delivery of absurd stream of consciousness was a slice of brilliance that seemed to never run out of steam.

A great play cannot be great if the artists on stage aren’t performing at top-level. But often magnificent shows have less to do with any one outstanding performer and more to do with a splendid cast effort combined with a compelling story and method of storytelling. These are the plays that by virtue of their holistic excellence, ranked as great for me.

Ghost River Theatre’s Reverie was the kind of brilliantly original outside of the lines production that makes going to the theatre a thrilling adventure. Even though the second half of this play fell quite flat, the first act with its part play, part musical performance, part video installation, part sound experiment, part spoken word and part dance presentation, packed more into one-act than most shows can ever hope to achieve. It was a spectacular intellectual and sensory sweet-spot tickle.

Chase Padgett’s  6 Guitars was a one man show that introduced us to 6 different characters, each a musician of a different genre, talking about their particular type of music and what drew them to their style of playing. Armed with only a guitar and speaker, Padgett played their songs and told their stories and gave us a show that was as intelligent as it was funny. Pure joyful entertainment.

Ghost River gets another nod from me for their remount of The Highest Step in the World, a play about the risk and rewards of flight. I would always rather see a daring attempt at brilliance by a company with passion and vision than a play that is safe and sure to please. The majority of the time the brilliance worked in this production and once again Ghost River wowed with its multimedia theatre experience.

Calgary Opera’s Gianni Schicchi was for me the perfect opera experience. Beautiful voices, outstanding theatricality and staging that would make any modern director jealous. Funny without being corny, gorgeous without relying on grand set design and relevant to today’s audience without having to over–modernize the production. Bravo!

With the theatre season just half over, there’s still much to look forward to in 2012. Below are some of the productions I’m most excited to see:

Moby Dick

Calgary Opera

Jan 28, Feb 1 &3

This Canadian Premiere is a co-commission /production with the Dallas Opera, State Opera of South Australia, San Francisco Opera and San Diego Opera.  Starring Ben Heppner, who is recognized worldwide as the finest dramatic tenor before the public today, the opera is based on the spirit of the original Melville story with the novel’s famous first line, “Call me Ishmael” placed instead as the last line of the production.

No.2

Engineered Air Theatre/ High Performance Rodeo

Jan 25 to 28

New Zealand’s Silo Theatre Productions brings the award-winning No.2 to the Rodeo. The matriarch of a Fijian family living in Auckland wants a large feast. She gathers together her grandkids, but none of her children – they are all “bloody useless.” She wants tablecloths, a priest, dancing, some beers and hopefully several squabbles. At the end of the day she will name her successor or “No.2”.  Madeleine Sami, in this one woman show, portrays the matriarch plus four generations of a complicated family.

Enron

Theatre Calgary

Jan 31 to Feb 19

Canadian premier of the smash hit play from London. Based on the real-life Enron scandal, the play combines modern multimedia, vaudevillian comedy and classical tragedy to tell the tale of the rise and fall of the industry giant and exposes a dangerous game of perception versus profits.

Fool for Love

Sage Theatre

March 7 to 17

In a co-production with Edmonton’s Shadow Theatre, Sage brings us Sam Sheppard’s 1984 Obie Award Winning play for Best New American Drama. The play takes a look at the dark side of the American West and centres on a struggle, mostly of words, between two on-again/off-again lovers, Eddie and May.

 

There are many more plays on offer for 2012 and as always, if there is something that you think I should see, don’t hesitate to drop me a note.

In the meantime – have a wonderful holiday season, all the best for a happy and healthy 2012 and remember, going to the theatre more often is one of the best resolutions you can make!

A Clean Slate Christmas

December 7 to 10, 2011

EPCOR Motel

http://theatretransit.ca/schedules.html

 

Originally produced in 2005 in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and most recently staged at Sage Theatre’s IGNITE! 2010 festival, A Clean Slate Christmas comes to us this time courtesy of Theatre Transit, an emerging artist collective based here in Calgary. In other words actors, writers and stage crew who are just starting out in their chosen professions and flexing their inchoate creative muscles.

I generally enjoy watching these types of performances. Yes, it’s true that the newly minted often make many missteps and theatrical gaffes. But they are the same people who, by virtue of being unburdened with company politics and box-office pressure, are able to take risks and produce plays that are wholly original and challenging rather than the expected and safe. Personally, I would rather watch an imperfect  play that pushes conventional theatre boundaries even if it flops on a number of levels than a well-delivered same old-same old.

And it’s this combination of pushing and intriguing yet also failing and disappointing that we get from A Clean Slate Christmas.

The story is simple – Hannah, the daughter in a highly dysfunctional divorced family has been hit on the head rendering her memory-less. The rest of the family, mother Carol, father John, brother Oliver and Oliver’s friend Declan are so immersed in their own unhappiness with themselves and each other that they use the opportunity of a “clean slate” with Hannah to fill her head with their own biased views of family facts and events. Most of which are lies.

The show is promoted as a “pitch black comedy” and here is where things get muddy. I am the first to jump on the “disturb me into laughing” bandwagon, but in this case I wasn’t laughing and I wasn’t fully disturbed enough to ignore the moments of comedy. The humour in the play is supposed to come from the absurd lies that each character tells Hannah who believes everything they say as if she has not only lost her memory, but her BS-meter as well. In their lies, the family use and abuse Hannah’s presence cruelly and this comes off as pathetic rather than funny. Of particular note are the scenes where Oliver tells her that she is adopted and that her mother never really wanted her, the scene where Declan takes advantage and sleeps with her despite his later admission of having a girlfriend, her father telling her that her mother threw out all her possessions when she was in the hospital and her mother spewing all sorts of hateful and biased information about her father under the guise of a good girl chat. And these are just a few of the examples. I suppose the audience, who knows these proclamations are lies, is supposed to find the deception funny especially since it is Hannah who gets the last laugh. But even with her empowerment at the end of the play, I couldn’t shake the feeling of ick I had throughout the majority of the performance. I would have preferred the story-line to have either been funnier as in a Coen brothers treatment of disturbing circumstances (think Fargo) or an exclusively disturbing narrative as in any number of Neil LaBute’s plots (In the Company of Men as a perfect example)

However, while the execution of the plot was unsatisfying, there were many wonderful elements within the production that made this exciting to watch.  The standout actor, Carly McKee as Carol, showed great acting chops in that she didn’t seem to be acting at all, but rather speaking as though her lines were as natural to her as her own thoughts. In fairness, this is not her first go at the character as she was part of the IGNITE! cast two years ago. But even if this afforded her more comfort with the role, McKee is a strong performer that I will be happy to watch again on future stages.

The other standout moments came from Director Valmai Goggin’s exquisitely staged scenes where all characters in the cast bombard Hannah with their lies, while at the same time refuting each other’s versions of the truth. Whether it was the parental pull and tug near the start of the story or the full cast pleading to “hang out” close to the end of the play, these scenes were not only superbly acted, but the timing and blocking Goggin imposed made them powerful and incredibly thrilling to watch. A perfect example of original risk-taking paying off handsomely for an emerging theatre company.

No, this was not a perfect play by a long shot. But there were moments of great and successful creativity that I’m very glad I got to see.

 

RATING

For the guys – perhaps you won’t identify with Hannah as much and therefore find her torture funnier than I did. MAYBE SEE IT

For the girls – Yes Hanna gets the last laugh, but the ick factor getting there is hard to bear. MAYBE SEE IT

For the occasional audience – Probably not the holiday play you had in mind. SKIP IT

For the theatre junkie – The plot is under-formed and some of the acting is a little stiff but the moments that work, work really well and are intriguing to watch. MAYBE SEE IT