The Wizard of Oz, The Musical

November 23 to December 31, 2011

Martha Cohen Theatre

http://www.atplive.com/The-Shows/TheWizardOfOz/index.html

Listen to my live review of The Wizard of Oz on CBC Radio’s Eyeopener on Monday, November 28th at 7:45 am

 http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/

 

Going to see The Wizard of Oz you expect certain things. A twister and Munchkins and red ruby slippers plus witches and wizards and yellow brick roads. And of course let’s not forget the lions and tigers and bears, oh my! But last night I encountered something totally unique at Alberta Theatre Projects’ holiday production of Oz. I met a woman, Canadian born with adult children, who had never seen The Wizard of Oz. Never read the book, never seen the movie and never been to the play. An Oz virgin! It felt like a precious rare discovery in a theatre full of people who, like myself, could hum along with every song and knew the lines before they were spoken.

So, what would I have thought if I were her?  Or if not her specifically, someone who was new to the story and production. First I would have thought that The Wizard of Oz is a funny gag a minute comedy verging on farce at times. Second I would have wondered why the silly Wicked Witch of the West is such an enduring force of evil in our cultural collective. And third I would have to scratch my head about audiences’ devotion to the character of Dorothy. This is not to say I wouldn’t have enjoyed the play.  I would have to a point. But for this kind of production, the enjoyment really comes from seeing the familiar yet once again. Comparing it to your memories of the movie and seeing where it stacked up. Even perhaps forgiving the production for what it can’t do because you can fill in the blanks yourself. All of this was possible to a greater or lesser degree as the play wobbled between a wonderful reinvention of the movie version to an efficient yet uninspired and sometimes off-putting delivery of the classic.

But back to the imagined Oz virgin’s critique to begin. The Wizard of Oz has always had humorous moments but I was unprepared for the joke-fest treatment this production presented. I can’t think of a single scene that didn’t play for laughs in one way or another by either mugging up the known funny bits, or introducing new elements sure to make the audience giggle. When it worked well, it was wonderful – the Lion’s reference to his father holding him up overlooking the valley a la Lion King and the hysterically funny and smartly creative Munchkin scenes. But at other times it seemed like the comedy was misplaced and trying too hard, especially when it came to the Wicked Witch of the West who instead of evil with a side of scary was portrayed as campy with a penchant for one-liners. I appreciate that this is a family show and that the scare-factor had to be kept at a minimum, but to dumb down the Wicked Witch into a spoof of herself felt wrong to me and didn’t provide the full villain experience the story calls for.

And what of Dorothy and the filling of Judy Garland’s ruby slippers in the role? No doubt this is a daunting task for any actress and while it may be impossible to live up to the legend, Ksenia Thurgood’s Dorothy was wanting not just in relation to Garland, but of its own accord. Right from the first few lines of “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” Thurgood’s voice came across as thin and unsuited for the task. In ensemble singing she was easily overpowered and solo had a hard time rising above the music. Her acting was not much stronger with her energies seemingly focused on providing annoyingly enunciated diction and exaggerated crisp consonants.  “Oh ToTo, I keep forgeTTing we are noT in Kansas anymore!”  It made Dorothy sound formal and cardboard and was an impediment to ever really liking her the way I wanted to.

Thankfully this was not a problem with her trio of friends.  The actors playing the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Lion had similarly large shoes to fill and they did so impressively.  Kevin Corey’s Lion was lovable and funny and David Leyshon’s Tin Man broke our hearts when he finally got his. But it was Bruce Horak’s Scarecrow that lit up the stage. From his perfectly rubbery physicality to his naively sage delivery and his resonant singing voice, Horack nailed every turn and gave the audience the perfect Scarecrow.

But the actors aren’t the only thing that makes or breaks the story of Oz. The sets, the effects and the magic are as much the stars of the show as the characters themselves and are a huge challenge to bring to the stage. Director Glynis Leyshon and her team of set, lighting, production and costume design handled the challenge admirably and gave us twisters and flying and Munchkins and melting and yellow brick roads that combined high-tech film and old-fashioned trap doors to create a manageable spectacle. When Glinda the Good Witch first appeared with her hundred foot high dress lit from within I heard a little girl behind me whisper, “Wow!”  Given the constraints of a small theatre and what Leyshon accomplished I have to agree.

As I was leaving the theatre and weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the play I couldn’t help but focus on the lovely bits and let what disappointed slide. Perhaps because the Scarecrow and the Munchkins and the joy of an adorable live Toto were overwhelmingly enchanting. Or maybe because I can’t bear to have my memory of The Wizard of Oz tainted with negative thoughts. But either way I did notice I was humming “Ding Dong, The Witch is Dead” on the drive home.

RATING

For the kids – Not too scary with lots to laugh at. But be warned, 2.5 hours in total might be a little long for the really young ones. SEE IT

For the adults – Nostalgia factor is high but devotees might be miffed at the differences. MAYBE SEE IT

For the occasional audience – A fun, easy, familiar night in the theatre with lots of sparkle. SEE IT

For the theatre junkie – Despite some great performances and interesting staging there is nothing so compelling that you need to revisit. SKIP IT

Any Night

Nov 16 to 26, 2011

Pumphouse Theatre

http://www.sagetheatre.com/

Listen to my live review of Any Night on this morning’s Calgary Eyeopener 

http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/columnists/theatre/2011/11/17/theatre-review—any-night/

 

The latest play from the Dual Minds duo of Daniel Arnold and Medina Hahn takes on the vulnerable and sometimes disturbed state of sleep and asks us to imagine what it would be like to be watched as we slumbered, either aware of the prying eyes or ignorant to the fact. Any Night is a creepy love story/thriller inspired by true stories that plays more like a contemporary film than a traditional stage play.

This is fitting because in addition to the show’s critical runs Off Broadway, Toronto and Vancouver, the play is in the early stages of being made into a film with the assistance of Movie Central and BC Film. This kind of attention though is nothing new for the playwrights who have already amassed a long list of accolades including  the Alberta Theatre Projects Emerging Artist Scholarship and the protégé award of The Siminovitch Prize, Canada’s most prestigious theatre awards.

The story opens with Anna, played by Hahn, who moves into a basement apartment after breaking up with her clingy and stalker-like boyfriend. Her upstairs neighbour Patrick, played by Arnold, is a nerdy, tech savvy seemingly sweet guy who takes an immediate interest in her and goes above and beyond to make Anna feel comfortable in her new home.  But the domestic bliss is shattered right on the first night as Anna suffers violent night terrors and a disturbing sleepwalking episode. Amazingly though, as if knowing exactly what she needs, Patrick comes to her rescue and makes light of the situation. Anna feels comfortable enough to tell him about her long history of sleep disorders and lets on that she’s even spent time in hospital under observation to try to help diagnose and cure the condition. Patrick doesn’t seems phased by this at all and peruses her until a romance blooms between them. But something isn’t quite right. Anna starts to sense that maybe she knows Patrick from somewhere and that maybe she’s being watched. The stress of all of this makes her nightly problems even worse and her paranoia senses overload until the situation explodes and she finally exposes what Patrick is really up to.

Without giving away all the plot twists and turns (it is a thriller after all) it’s interesting to note the real life events that inspired the play. The first story that motivated the playwrights was the real-life account of Kenneth Parks, who made legal history 1987 when he got up in the middle of the night, drove to his in-laws, murdered his mother-in-law, then woke up on drive home with blood all over him and a knife in his hand. Parks was found not guilty due to sleepwalking. The second story they looked at was about a man who used hidden cameras spy on the young woman living in the basement apartment of his home. The playwrights say they were fascinated by these stories and even visited sleep labs to learn more about night terrors and sleepwalking and to get a handle on just how much we don’t know about our sleep world.

The result is a very unique and extremely unusual play. Not just because of the subject matter, which is interesting in itself, but mostly because of the way the story is told. There are flashbacks and dream sequences and repetitive speeches that give a kind of otherworldly trance-like feel to a lot of the action evocative of  films like Memento or David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive. We’re given answers to questions we don’t even know to ask yet and frankly the audience spends a lot of the play stuck between confusion about what’s going on and interested determination to figure things out. The reason we hang in there, is that Arnold and Hahn’s writing is really clean, their acting is compelling and Ron Jenkins’ direction makes great use of a small stage and just a few props.

The only flaw for me, and it’s a minor one, is that I felt the play was just a tad too long. Any Night is a one-act 80 minute show, which is good because the narrative plays stronger here without interruption. But some scenes verged towards the ponderous, the karaoke scene in particular, and the whole thing could have benefitted from about a 10 minute edit or so. A small quibble however and certainly nothing that takes away from the overall experience of this creative and well-crafted production.

RATING

For the guys – A psychological thriller with some very cool sleep science thrown in. SEE IT

For the girls – Your empathy/sympathy with Anna will leave you both suffocated and angry. SEE IT

For the occasional theatre audience – Non-linear storytelling and a plot that’s hard to follow. SKIP IT

For the theatre junkie – It’s a play you will still be thinking about the next day. SEE IT

Pagliacci / Gianni Schicchi

Nov 12, 16 and 18, 2011

Jubilee Auditorium

http://www.calgaryopera.com/

I like short operas. Granted, they don’t have the hefty pent-up emotion that a 3 hour production can muster nor do they generally have the grandiose staging or whirlwind scene changes. But what they might lack in emotional and aesthetic opulence, they make up for in tightly realized libretto, snappy direction and an easily digestible plot. Or at least the good ones do.

Calgary Opera opens its 40th Anniversary season with two very good short operas, the tragedy Pagliacci by Ruggero Leoncavallo and Giacomo Puccini’s comedy Gianni Schicchi. Both are given decent treatment by the company, but it’s Puccini’s comedy where things really shine and the audience gets not just a “staging” of a classic, but a uniquely clever and immensely enjoyable interpretation of one.

The evening begins with Pagliacci, the story of spousal betrayal and revenge.  Canio, the head of a troupe of clown performers, brings his show to Calabria and invites the villagers to come out that evening to attend the show. With his PR duties finished, Canio and one of his actors, Beppe decide to go into town to have a drink and relax. One of the townspeople jokes that while Canio is gone, his wife Nedda will be wooed by Tonio, an actor who plays lovesick to her on stage. Canio forcefully insists that while this type of flirting goes on as part of his act, he will not tolerate any hint of adultery in real life.

But of course Nedda does have a lover, not Tonio, but a man named Silvio who begs her to run away with him. Tonio sees the two together and, acting in vengeance because he is truly in love with Nedda who has recently rebuffed him, goes to tell Canio and brings him to catch Nedda with her lover. Canio sees the pair, but Silvio runs off before Canio can tell who it is. He threatens to kill Nedda unless she tells him who her lover is, but she refuses. Tonio then tells Canio he must pretend to succeed – if he goes on with the show like nothing is wrong, no doubt Nedda’s lover will come out to watch and then be revealed. Canio grudgingly goes along with this advice but is tortured by the decision vacillating between rage and despair at the betrayal.

The comedic play goes on, but Canio cannot control his anger. He demands onstage that Nedda tell him the truth while the village audience thinks that the violent fight is simply part of the play. Furious by her unwillingness to come clean, Canio stabs her and then her lover Silvio who rushes from the audience to help her. Canio then announces to the shocked villagers that the comedy is ended.

Marc Hervieux’s Canio is musically proficient and he delivers the famous aria “Vesti la giubba” where Canio laments that in spite of his anguish the show must go on with technical poise, but it felt fairly emotionally flat and rushed to me.  Hervieux had all the despair bells and whistles under his command (the crying and the flinging of props) but perhaps by virtue of his launching into the aria too quickly and not giving the emotion enough space, he took what is arguably the most moving arias of all time and underwhelmed. Better direction by Alain Gauthier could have improved this much-anticipated scene. The same can be said for the final words spoken by Canio. At the end of all his torment, when he has killed his wife and her lover and has exhausted his rage, Hervieux gives a forceful bleat of “the comedy is over” instead treating the line like a fatigued and beaten man. The choice makes for an abrupt rather than tragic ending.

Nedda played by Sally Dibblee on the other hand not only musically conquers her role but also provides a solid actorly performance that is a pleasure to watch. Her ability to go from Nedda the love-struck with Canio to Nedda the mean-spirited dismissing Tonio’s love to Nedda the defiant against Canio’s threats, shows off Dibblee’s acting prowess and brings wonderful dimension to the role.

It would be a stretch to say the performance was uneven. The voices were solid, and for the most part the acting was decent to very good.   Better direction and some breathing room to let the emotion simmer however would have turned this good enough performance into something much better.

Gianni Schicchi by comparison was perfect on every level benefiting from outstanding staging, wonderful vocals, a beautiful interpretation of its signature aria, great use of props and superb acting at a level that we don’t often see in opera.

The story is a simple one. The wealthy Buoso Donati is dying and his greedy relatives gather at his bedside hoping for an inheritance from his will.  One of the relatives, Rinuccio is in love with a country girl Lauretta who his family does not approve of, but they agree to let him marry her if there is enough money. Their clan’s dreams are dashed however when they learn that Donati intends to leave everything to the town monastery. Rinuccio suggests that they consult Lauretta’s father, Gianni Schicchi, a shrew self-made man as surely he can help them figure out what to do. With much beseeching from his daughter, Schicchi agrees the help the Donati clan. He devises a plan to re-write the will with him disguised as the now dead Donati and give the relatives “what they deserve” reminding them that all people involved with the fraud would be dealt with harshly under Florence law. When the time comes to write the will, Schicchi pretending to be Buoso Donati, leaves the bulk of the will to himself to the dismay of the relatives. The opera ends with Rinuccio and Lauretta happily together and Schicchi remarking to the audience how happy his fraud made the lovers and how for this he should be found innocent of any crime.

If the star of an opera can be something other than a performer, than the brilliantly timed and bitingly funny staging in Gianni Schicchi steals the spotlight in all the right ways. Here Alain Gauthier clumps the relatives together in a pack as they move about the stage in full fake morning, deceitful back stabbing and naïve trust. They pull out long handkerchiefs and cry in unison, shrug off their black mourning garb in synchronicity and swirl about Schicchi in a whirlwind guided by masterfully funny choreography and blocking that is rewarded with many laughs from the audience.

Just as rewarding are the vocal performances from this cast. John Fanning as Schicchi projects a casual confidence through his singing that is charismatic and full. Sally Dibblee once again performs brilliantly as Lauretta and delivers an utterly beautiful and surprisingly funny execution of the opera’s famous aria “O mio babbino caro” where Lauretta pleas with her father to help with the will so she can marry Rinuccio. Here the juxtaposition of Dibblee’s breathtaking voice, the emotion of the libretto and the comedic staging of the delivery work in excellent balance and create one of those perfect opera moments.

In fact there is not a weak link in this entire opera. The voices and characterization work in splendid harmony making the whole a beautiful culmination of its parts, the staging and prop use is extremely smart and funny without veering into slapstick and then of course there is the wonderful music and story line that is still just as humorous and relevant today. All this in combination is when an opera performance becomes not just a good short one, but a very good one period.

RATING

For the guys – A tragedy about a man betrayed and a comedy about greedy relatives. Themes you will enjoy regardless if you are an opera lover or not. SEE IT

For the girls – You’ll wonder where the heart wrench went in the tragedy but will laugh so hard in the comedy you won’t mind the lapse. SEE IT

For the occasional audience – Short operas are a good way to introduce yourself to an art form that may have seemed inaccessible to you. Open your mind, read the surtitles to follow along and enjoy two famous operas and be prepared to laugh more than you expected. SEE IT

For the theatre junkie – If you can time it right, skip Pagliacci in spite of Dibblee’s great performance and instead show up for a Gianni Schicchi that will elevate your idea of what an opera can deliver. SEE SOME OF IT

Newyorkland

November 9 to 12, 2011

Theatre Junction

http://www.theatrejunction.com/2011-2012-season/newyorkland/

Newyorkland is a challenge. It is a challenge to describe, a challenge to watch, no doubt a challenge to perform and most certainly a challenge to review.

The performance, and please note this is not a play but rather an “assemblage”, employs almost every multi-media and staged technique to address the subject of police work in 1970’s New York. There is theatrical monologue, film, rap, poetry, music, lighting, silent movement and an industrial set that all work towards painting a picture of the bleak and sometimes desperate realities of street cops struggling with the lives and careers they’ve chosen.

This world premiere piece is the latest work by the New York based theatre company Temporary Distortion, who are known and lauded for their interweaving of theater and cinema to bring audiences a multi-dimensional experience. And while the performance most certainly has many dimensions, the overwhelming feeling is that the sum of its parts is nowhere near greater than the whole of the offering. In other words, parts of this performance work extremely well and many parts fall flat.

Newyorkland presents the first person confessionals of 4 New York Cops who describe the toll that police work has taken on their lives. These nameless characters talk of how “the job” has robbed them of their dreams and pride. One cop, through a film segment, talks about how he came to serve as a matter of principle and higher calling only to find out that the public disdains the police and ridicules him behind his back. Another speaks through a poetry segment about how he cannot sleep anymore or maintain his faith in humanity after what he has witnessed. One sits alone on the stage and phones his mother to tell her everything is ok, only to digress into a deadened emotional description of how the life has changed him. Perhaps the most jarring scene with the most forceful impact comes with the film depiction of a domestic take-down of a man holding his wife hostage at gunpoint. The offender points the gun at his own head, then at his wife’s head, then at the cops trying to talk him down. Eventually one cop tackles him and wrestles he gun away. Instead of the glamorous Hollywood ending we are used to seeing, we are shown the post-drama anxiety and shock the heroic cop suffers in the aftermath.

Each one of these anecdotes are worthwhile on their own, but unfortunately get lessened by the totality of the spectacle. Sounds echoes, lights flash, film flashes incessantly and the constant drone of the police radio can be heard in the background during most of the play. I appreciate that this cacophony is meant to illustrate the sensory overload the characters experience, but it gets in the way of the audience understanding what is being said and communicated. More than once I had to strain to understand what a character was saying over the din and often found myself giving up. And then even when the din went quiet for a moment, the over produced sound of the character’s microphones made following their dialogue a headache with unfortunately little payoff.

Even the cool set with its depiction of 3 separate police station offices/Mad Max industrial decor spaces had its drawbacks. The design was fun to look at but was so difficult to light that often I found I had no idea which cop was talking or who I should be relating to. I suppose since none of them had names and each were representative of a larger issue, figuring out which one was talking really didn’t matter. Still I would have liked to have had better lighting direction to help me follow the flow of the performance.

I fared much better with the film portion of the performance. Not only was the narrative clearer in these moments, but they were the most compelling moments. Most everything stimulating that was said or done in this performance was done in film. It’s as though the on stage elements shied away from the challenging or emotional moments of the play and instead let the film do the talking. And while the film segments were well done, I would have preferred more engaging moments on the stage to balance this out.

So back to why this performance was challenging. To describe, Newyorkland is neither a film or a poetry reading or a play per se, but rather a mish-mash of all these things without a comprehensive gelling of any of them. To watch, Newyorkland demanded much from the totality of its audience’s creative senses without satisfying them equally. To review, Newyorkland had some brilliant moments burdened with the weight of an overwrought idea trying to be cleverly all things within too many mediums.

RATING

For the guys – Tough guys have it tough – even 1970’s NYC police. If you can get past the heavy handed artsy element, you’ll like the inside track on what the cops are really thinking as they walk the beat. SEE IT

For the girls – Even with the veil pulled on the tough guy veneer, you may not find the subject matter compelling. SKIP IT

For the occasional audience – No story line…too many mediums. Nothing for you here, move along. SKIP IT

For the theatre junkie – The good moments are very good. Are they worth the entire experience? Not convinced. MAYBE SEE IT

A Behanding in Spokane

Nov 4 to 19, 2011

The Studio at Vertigo Theatre Centre

http://www.groundzerotheatre.ca/

Listen to my live review of A Behanding in Spokane on CBC Radio’s Eyeopener on Monday, November 7th at 8:20 am

 http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/

They say there are 3 types of characters in a Martin McDonagh play – The harmfully wicked, the wickedly foolish and the foolishly clueless. And while A Behanding in Spokane does nothing to expand on this expected repertoire of personality types or their darkly comedic, politically incorrect and violently absurd interactions with one another, the play does deliver the purely twisted enjoyment that comes from seeing a McDonagh piece. It’s an acquired taste that isn’t for everyone, but for those that like it, this show will not disappoint.

The story revolves around a seedy man by the name of  Carmichael who is looking for his hand – literally. Seems that 27 years ago some neighbourhood bullies pinned his arm down on the tracks of an oncoming train that then cut his hand clean off. The bullies picked it up and took off, stopping to wave goodbye to Carmichael with his own hand as they ran away. Ever since then he has been on a quest to find the appendage, not because he thinks he can restore it, but just because it belongs to him. He’s even gone so far as to put ads in the paper offering a reward to anyone who can produce the hand. He’s been presented with many hands over the years, but so far none of them are his.

The play opens with Carmichael sitting in a rundown hotel room where two hapless drug dealing teenagers, Toby and Marilyn, are trying to sell him a bogus hand for $500. It doesn’t take Carmichael long to realize it isn’t his, and he is not happy about it. But before he can kill them both, Toby claims that they have the real hand back at their place. Through no help at all from Marilyn, but some lucky guesses from Toby about what the real hand looks like, Carmichael is convinced that maybe they really do have it. He handcuffs the pair to the hotel radiator, lights a candle in a gas tank that will explode if he isn’t back in 45 minutes and takes off to the house. The fourth and almost wild-card-like character in the play is Mervyn, the hotel receptionist, who keeps budding into the room and the storyline with a bizarre but hysterical naïve stream of consciousness (think Woody from Cheers but not quite as innocent).

McDonagh wrote this play after 911 and it has been suggested that it is an allegory about the US’s quest for vengeance after the attack and their hopeless effort to regain something that is now gone. And sure, you can look at the play through those lenses. But I dare you to do it in real-time for there’s nothing intellectually meaningful or moving on this stage. Instead what we get is deep dark humour and lots of it. The kind where the more gruesome or politically incorrect it gets, the funnier it is. Thankfully not funny just by virtue of shock value, although there is that too. But funny because of the intelligent writing that keeps these characters from descending into mere foul-mouthed, violent sound bites.

Each character at some point gets to move away from the demented action of the play and hold court with a monologue that slows the insanity of the story down somewhat and provides a more thoughtful type of comedic experience. Nowhere is this more enjoyable to watch than Mervyn’s solo scene about halfway into the play where, talking directly to and walking through the audience, he riffs on everything from getting drunk and watching animals in a zoo to lesbianism to school shootings. It’s a theatrical gem that is not only beautifully written, but also superbly acted by Ryan Luhning in a performance that steals the show. But believe me, with three other strong actors in the play, this was not an easy thing to do.

Julie Orton as Marilyn and Edward Ogum as Toby both deliver wonderfully inept characters that maintain the hysteria of the story without going unbelievably over the top. Their interaction as they bicker over everything from their predicament to their own relationship problems is perfectly timed and is responsible for many of the laughs from the audience.

Joel Cochrane as Carmichael quite obviously channels Christopher Walken (who played the role last year on Broadway) and gives us a very satisfying non-Walken – Walken-type performance. I suppose a case could be made that Cochrane was a bit too mimicky and not original enough, but regardless, his acting was solid and his performance the right balance between menacing and quirky.

So in summation, A Behanding in Spokane is full of severed hands,lots of racist/foul language, the imminent threat of violence and perhaps somewhere in there an important metaphor about how we live in a post terrorist attack world.  But if you’ve acquired the taste for McDonagh you’ll find yourself laughing loudly at all of it.

RATING

For the guys – The men in this play are the perfect dark horse anti-archetypes. They are for sure funnier than the heroes and villains you are used to seeing.  SEE IT

For the girls – Ask yourself, do you like sick and twisted humour that doesn’t shy away from violence? MAYBE SEE IT

For the occasional theatre goer – Like I said, it’s an acquired taste. SKIP IT

For the theatre junkies – Classic McDonagh in an American setting. The Walken-like performance may seem too evocative but get over it and just enjoy. SEE IT

Jake’s Gift

October 24 to November 19, 2011

Lunchbox Theatre

http://www.lunchboxtheatre.com/jakes-gift.html

 

There is a saying that almost right is generally much worse than totally wrong. The idea being that totally wrong can be dismissed and forgotten whereas almost right nags at you for the fact that it could have been better. Lunchbox Theatre’s one woman show, Jake’s Gift, falls into the almost right category on every note. Whether it’s the performance, staging or script, the play marginally misses the mark making it a frustrating play to watch.

The story takes place in Normandy in the lead up to the 60^th anniversary of the D-Day invasion.  Here we meet Isabelle, a 10-year-old French girl who has “the most important job in the world” of taking care of the soldiers who fought there during the war. Through a conversation with her Grandmama we learn that Isabelle is a precious girl who knows quite a bit about the war and how Canadians liberated the area. We also learn that she is very excited to take part in the 60^th anniversary planned celebrations and is even more eager to meet the Canadian war veterans who have come over to France to take part in the ceremony. Isabelle spots an old man named Jake looking out to the water from Juno beach and runs over to introduce herself. The two strike up a conversation and soon enough Isabelle has charmed her way into the old man’s gruff exterior through her inquisitive but sweet nature. Enough so that Jake begins to tell her about his own time in the war and how his eldest brother Chester died and is buried in Normandy. Jake has never visited his brother’s grave and it is clear from the outset that Jake has some unresolved feelings or issues about Chester’s death. Through the relationship he forms with Isabelle, Jake is able to face those ghosts and say a proper goodbye to his brother before returning home.

All the characters in the play are performed by Julie Mackey, and this is the first and most obvious instance of the almost right issue. Isabelle and her Grandmama are called upon to speak throughout the play with a French accent, but instead what we get is an almost French accent. Or more specifically a sometimes French accent. Grandmama only utters a few lines so the brogue is fairly easy to maintain, but with Isabelle’s co-starring role in the production we are presented with many lines that swing in and out of the accent and sometimes into another country entirely. The effect is dialogue that feels amateurish and at times lazy.

Equally as disruptive was Mackey’s physical portrayal of Isabelle who she plays in an overly boyish manner with lots of odd jerky movements that I suppose was meant to represent a child’s unselfconscious body language. The effort felt forced and distinctly like it was an adult trying very hard to behave in a childish manner.

Mackey’s performance as Jake is much stronger and a wonderful portrayal of a tough on the outside old veteran who is really a softie on the inside. She nails the old man’s way of taking and moving so well that it’s not hard to believe that she really is a 70 plus year-old man. My only gripe about Mackey’s performance of Jake is that the one –armed shake that she so beautifully maintains throughout the play and his shuffling, limping walk completely disappear when Jake shows Isabelle how he can dance. It’s a minor thing, but it was enough to take me away from the spell of the acting and instead see the actor.

The writing, which was also done by Mackey, had moments of lovely poignancy that were unfortunately interrupted without fail. Jake’s monologues explaining his wartime experience, his time alone at the ceremony and his long overdue graveyard chat with his brother were totally engrossing and emotionally wrenching. However, every time we were treated to this wonderful writing it was cut way too short by the reappearance of Isabelle into the scene, breaking the spell and once again giving us her weird accent, awkward movement and uninspired dialogue. And if wasn’t just the scripting that made Isabelle’s reappearances into the scene or conversation feel disruptive. Dirk Van Stralen’s direction has Mackey make lightning quick character switches or jarring character entrances that feel almost slapstick and totally out-of-place with the story line.

The more the play went on, the more I wished they would slow the transitions down or better yet get rid of Isabelle altogether and let Mackey tell Jake’s story as a monologue so that we could enjoy the strong writing and acting  that  seems to be reserved only for his character. That would have been the best gift Jake could have given us.

 

RATING

For the guys – Mackey has you guys nailed – her performance as an old veteran is excellent. It almost makes up for the hackneyed plot and weak co-character. MAYBE SEE IT

For the girls – Sure watching a young girl relate to an old grandfather-type character tugs at our heartstrings, but it’s been done better. Focus on Jake and you’ll get a story worth seeing. MAYBE SEE IT

For the occasional audience – Decent one-woman show that throws emotional punches without demanding or taking too much out of you. SEE IT

For the theatre junkies – The one strong characterization does not make up for the weaknesses in the acting, plot or direction. SKIP IT

Penny Plain

Martha Cohen Theatre

October 18 to November 6, 2011

http://www.atplive.com/The-Shows/PennyPlain/index.html

Listen to my live review of Penny Plain on CBC Radio’s The Calgary Eyeopener on Monday October 24^th at around 8:20 am http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/#igImgId_20740

There is no doubt that to see Ronnie Burkett Theatre of Marionettes performance of Penny Plain is to see a spectacle. There are the exquisitely crafted and costumed puppets, the otherworldly and haunting set design and the clever lighting that either hides or exposes the puppeteer and his creatures. But most importantly there is the immense talent of the multi award-winning Burkett himself as he commands and gives voice to the play’s 33 marionettes and 2 hand puppets for the entire length of the no-intermission play.

But like any spectacle, no matter how impressive, it pays to ask if one’s enjoyment is based on the display itself or what the display is really trying to show us. In other words, are we looking at production over content or something richer? For me, watching Penny Plain was a little of both.

The story begins with a voiceover news broadcast announcing the impending end of the world due to some type of viral pandemic. Several other darkly comedic announcements follow that speak about everything from the collapse of the economy to the standoff in the middle east, indicating that life as it was is quickly coming to an end.

It’s in this atmosphere of certain doom that we meet Penny, an elderly blind woman sitting in the drawing room of her rooming house with her companion dog Geoffrey. With so little time left in the world, Geoffrey (who not only speaks English but delivers philosophical barbs) decides to leave the house to go outside and live as a man, leaving Penny companionless. Several other talking dogs try to obtain the position, but instead a recently orphaned girl named Tuppence, who pretends she’s a dog, gets the job. Meanwhile as the chaos outside escalates, the other housemates become more and more agitated and strange new refugees come into the house looking for one kind of salvation or another.

This strange, dark, disturbing and comedic story demands every ounce of Burkett’s concentration and energy. All the action is orchestrated from a bridge-like structure at the top of the stage where Burkett stands and works the impossibly long strings of his gorgeous puppets. Actually Burkett rarely stands still, instead running back and forth to pick up or put down the various characters “acting” in a scene. Often I found myself watching not only by the puppet in play, but also the puppets hanging and sometimes swinging in the background waiting for Burkett to pick them up and bring them to life again. Equally remarkable to Burkett’s physical working of his puppets, is his ability to give original voices to 35 characters so that each one has a distinct sound, personality and accent.

But even the distraction of watching such creative prowess at work did not diminish the weak spots in the content of the play, namely the comedy which was either incredibly mainstream sit-com-ish or sophomoric. Nowhere was this more apparent than with the cranky, elderly, walker-using character named Queenie who spends most of her time screaming about “poo in her pants” and “smelling poo in the house” and demanding her daughter “come wipe my ass because I can’t anymore ‘cause my nails are too long”.  An old woman shrieking about poo just isn’t funny in this context no matter how clever the puppeteering is.  In the less fecal comedic moments, characters delivered obvious punch lines or played obvious stereotypes that brought nothing interesting to the story. For me, the comedy in the performance failed at every turn and I found myself wishing that they would just cut all the “funny” bits out and instead focus on the dramatic and creepy elements as they were by far the strongest aspects of the narrative.

It was in these moments that you truly did forget the spectacle of the performance and lose yourself in the play itself.  The incredibly disturbing story of how Tuppence came to be orphaned, the heart-wrenching tale of Penny going blind, a woman desperate for a baby and instead getting something quite inhuman to love and the upsetting and violent return of Geoffrey to Penny’s home – these were the substance moments that elevated the play to something more than mere eye-candy.

There is a reason Ronnie Burkett is recognized as one of Canada’s foremost theater artists. His work is some of the most innovative and visually stimulating things you’ll ever see in the theatre. With Penny Plain, the seeing is as spectacular as ever and beyond the spectacle at times is a play with content that deserves your full attention.

RATING

For the guys – There is a reason kids are not allowed in the performance. Puppets for adults in a way that will make you think and creep you out. SEE IT

For the girls – Creepy isn’t the only thing this play has to offer. Touching and heart wrenching scenes will leave you really caring for these inanimate “actors”. SEE IT

For the occasional theatre goer – The spectacle will wow you, but the surreal, dark and weird storyline may turn you off. MAYBE SEE IT

For the theatre junkie – Do you really need to see another Ronnie Burkett performance? Maybe not. But there are some very good smaller scenes in the play that will certainly stay with you. MAYBE SEE IT   

Highest Step In The World

October 18 to 29, 2011

Pumphouse Theatre

http://www.ghostrivertheatre.com/

 

When I moved here from Toronto (the centre of the Universe) a year and a half ago I was fearful that Calgary’s theatre scene would consist of safe classics, grating musicals and corny comedies. I soon realized that while yes, these types of plays do get put on here more than I’m used to; there is a good number of interesting companies producing distinctive and engaging shows. But to my mind, no one is better at mounting a totally unique and exquisitely creative piece of work than Ghost River Theatre. Their shows are not without their flaws and not every crazy idea they attempt works perfectly, but for my money I would always rather see one of their marvellously weird and wonderful multimedia shows over an impeccably performed “same old”.

After seeing a preview performance of Ghost River’s The Highest Step In the World this eve, I feel this more strongly than ever.The show originally premiered in February 2010 as part of Alberta Theatre Projectsʼ 24th Annual Enbridge PlayRites Festival of New Canadian Plays, was an instant hit with critics and won four Betty Mitchell Awards.  The company has now remounted the play for a short Calgary run before it goes on tour to St. Albert and beyond.

The show is marketed as  a meditation on the nature of risk based on the story of Captain Joseph Kittinger , who in 1960 leaped from a high-altitude weather balloon as part of a scientific program designed to test a new parachute system at the edge of space.  But really the play is about 3 stories, all of which have something to do with flight, or more specifically how or why someone in flight comes crashing back to earth.

In addition to Kittinger, we are introduced to Vesha Volovic, a Serbian air hostess who was the only survivor of an in-flight bomb and the world record holder for the highest fall without a parachute. We also meet a father and son who reveal themselves to be a modern interpretation Daedalus and Icarus – (Here’s a link if you need a mythology refresh http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/icarus.html ). But before any of these characters are introduced, we meet the performer himself, David van Belle, the star of this one man solo performance. Van Belle acts mainly as pop up narrator in the play letting us in on how the show was created, giving us information about the characters’ history or asking philosophic questions of the audience. He does at one point take on the role of a flying/crashing character himself in one small scene that is beautifully matter of fact about its rawness.

But perhaps more than the symbolism of flight/fall/crash that holds the play together is the imaginative and beautiful multi-media aspects of the show that not only mesmerize but actually assist with the plots and character changes. The effects are too many to mention and I don’t want to spoil the magic for you, but suffice it to say that little local theatre company Ghost River creates flight in this production that puts the most cash-infused performance of Peter Pan, Spiderman or Cirque du Soleil to shame. This in addition to some amazing video projections on the otherwise very bare stage and the ability to make a man no more than bones and a beating heart on stage go far to make sure the sense of wonder never runs out.

With such an ambitious technical production and a heady philosophical underpinning to the show, it’s hard not to have some trouble spots in the production, although they are very few in number. I found that of the three stories I was most interested in the Kittinger narrative both because it was the best acted and because it was the more interesting story. The modern-day Icarus plot, while cute in some of its language choices was just a tad histrionic for my taste and went on a little too long. Vesha’s story while interesting was played far too physically and vocally masculine at times for a female character. However neither of these issues mars the overall enjoyment of the performance.

The stories are unique, van Belle’s performance is strong, the writing, direction, sound, set design, graphics and video projection are all fantastic (kudos to the whole crew) and for me it was a mind-bendingly good way to spend 75 minutes of my time.

 

RATINGS

For the guys – Cool factor is HUGE in this. Flying and explosions and crazy inventors and more flying. SEE IT

For the girls – Don’t worry, this is not a techie geek fest of a play. The effects are wonderfully gorgeous and the Kittinger story will have you edge of your seat. SEE IT

For the occasional theatre goer –Definitely not a nice safe night in the theatre and it might be too alternative for your tastes. But you might be able to put aside the need for a straight narrative and instead enjoy watching a man fly for much of a production. MAYBE SEE IT

For the theatre junkies – It’s Ghost River doing what they do best. SEE IT

To Kill A Mockingbird

October 11 to November 6, 2011

Max Bell Theatre

http://www.theatrecalgary.com/plays/to_kill_a_mockingbird/more_info/

Tune into CBC Radio’s Calgary Eyeopener on Monday, October 17 at around 8:20 to hear my live review

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

 

Taking a classic story such as To Kill A Mockingbird and making it fresh for theatre goers is a huge challenge for any production company. Since Harper Lee’s Pulitzer Prize winning book was published in 1959, To Kill A Mockingbird has gone on to sell over 30 million copies, is required reading in many English classrooms, was made into an Oscar-winning movie starring Gregory Peck  and is today still one of the most produced plays in North America.

In other words – it’s been done to death.

Theatre Calgary’s answer to the freshness question comes in two forms – casting and set design. One of Canada’s most respected stage actors, R.H. Thompson, takes on the coveted role of Atticus Finch for the first time and the production features a special onstage seating section for 30 audience members. Both of these decisions are good in principle, but if not used to their fullest potential can be mere differences as opposed to enhancements.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. First the storyline for those of you who didn’t read the book in high school or who need a refresher.

Set during the Depression years in a fictional town in Alabama, the central plot of the play is a trial in which Atticus Finch, a middle-aged white lawyer, defends Tom Robinson, a black man who has been accused of raping a young poor white woman named Mayella Ewell. Atticus’ defense goes beyond mere lawyerly duty, he is a man of honour who shuns the prevalent prejudices and truly believes that all men are equal both within and outside the courtroom. This is a time and a town when black people are treated as second class citizens at best (beware the “n” word is used a total of 13 times during the play) and Finch comes under harsh criticism for his wanting to help Tom – criticism that extends to his children.

We are told this story by Finch’s daughter Scout, just a girl at the time of the trial, but now an adult delivering a monologue narration throughout the entire play. It is in fact young Scout, her brother Jem  and their friend Dill that dominate most of the play talking about everything from their father to the reclusive next-door neighbour Boo Radley to the trial itself. And it is the trial that the children eventually become obsessed with.

Because Atticus does not want them to be present at Tom Robinson’s trial, Scout, Jem, and Dill sneak into the court and watch in secret from the balcony. Atticus shows the jury that the accusers Mayella and her father, Bob Ewell, the town drunk—are lying. It was in fact Mayella who made sexual advances towards Tom and when her father caught her, he beat her senseless. Despite strong evidence of his innocence, the jury finds Tom guilty and he is sent to jail, only to be shot dead at a later date trying to escape. Despite his victory, Bob Ewell feels humiliated by the trial and vows revenge against Atticus and it is this revenge that plays out in the conclusion of the performance.

So now, back to the “fresh” elements. The onstage seating is superfluous at best and kitschy at worst.  In an interview, director Dennis Garnhum explains that he wanted the audience “to be surrounded by the goodness of Atticus Finch and be witness to the story. That’s why we have onstage seating”. Frankly I don’t see how 30 people on stage help the rest of the audience feel surrounded by Atticus’s goodness. During the first act the audience is not part of the action at all and just sits in the perimeter of the stage staring out at the actors and the audience. This set up makes more sense in the second half when they effectively become part of the courtroom crowd populating the stage. But here was the missed opportunity to have this design really work. Very seldom did Thompson or anyone in the courtroom address the onstage audience, plead their case to them or even acknowledge that they were there.  So what was the point?

I spoke with several onstage audience members at the intermission to ask how they were enjoying the experience and most liked the novelty. But I did hear from some people who said that with the actors’ backs often to them and the distraction of seeing what was going on in the wings, they felt that they were missing out on the full play.

What I felt I was missing out on was R.H. Thompson’s performance. And believe me; it pains me to say that as I am a HUGE fan of his work. I think it’s probably impossible for Thompson to be bad in a production, but I now know that he can be small ‘f’ fine. The role of Atticus Finch calls for gravitas in the belief of what is right and wrong, strength in standing up to prejudice, the ability to conjure outrage at the unjust treatment of Tom Robinson. But I felt none of this. In describing why he was defending Robinson in the face of adversity to his children, Thompson took on a matter of fact demeanour and worse still gave a fairly lackluster performance throughout the entire courtroom scene. After Atticus’ commanding defence at trial, the audience is supposed to actually believe that he has a chance at winning, but Thompson’s argument was so luke-warm, I couldn’t see how anyone could think he’d win.

There were certainly times when I saw the brilliance of Thompson’s acting. Notably in some of the smaller scenes where he simply plays father to his children. But the sad fact is that overall it could have been any actor playing the role and it would have been just as good.

There were other disappointing elements. Garnhum did a nice job of directing Brooke Johnson’s narration as the adult Scout and weaving her into the action onstage. But Johnson’s delivery was weirdly over the top and affected, and took away from my enjoyment of the play with every appearance. Jenise Farrell as the young Scout was a fine actor for the most part, but I had a hard time understanding what she was saying. At first I thought it was where I was sitting, but apparently I was not the only one straining to get her lines. I’m not sure if it was her pace, enunciation or accent, but unfortunately what I got was gist more than dialogue.

The play however did have some strong positives. Edwin Curr as Jem and Marcus Trummer as Dill were both wonderful, proving that young actors really can hold their own as major roles in a major production. Melanee Murray as the Finch’s maid Calpurnia delivered a high energy and often funny performance that brought levity to the story. But in the spotlight category, it was David Trimble as Bob Ewell that was a standout for me. He was deliciously dirty and mean and ignorant and although it was a small part, my eyes were on him throughout his entire time onstage.

I wanted ‘great’ with this production of To Kill A Mockingbird; what I got was ‘fine’ by the time the pluses and minuses were tallied up.  And I seriously doubt that’s the way Scout or Harper Lee would have wanted it.

RATING

For the guys – It’s a courtroom drama narrated by a tomboy girl where right and wrong are apparent but doesn’t guarantee the good guys win.  SEE IT

For the girls – Scout is a spunky, smart and funny girl that you will love despite not getting every line. The scenes with the kids are great and make it worth getting a seat. SEE IT

For the occasional theatre goer – It’s an enjoyable if not spectacular night in the theatre that will leave you feeling like you got your money’s worth. SEE IT

For the theatre junkie – Is just fine what you want from Mockingbird? I didn’t think so. SKIP IT

In A World Created By A Drunken God

October 12 – 22, 2011

EPCOR CENTRE’s Motel

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

 

“I’ve spent too many years explaining who and what I am repeatedly, so as of this moment I officially secede from both races. I plan to start my own separate nation. Because I am half Ojibway and half Caucasian, we will be called the Occasions. And of course, since I’m founding the new nation, I will be a Special Occasion.” —Drew Hayden Taylor

This is my favourite quote from Drew Hayden Taylor, the playwright of In A World Created By A Drunken God, which is now playing in Calgary thanks to a co-production by Downstage Theatre and Lethbridge’s New West Theatre. I love the quote because it perfectly illustrates Taylor’s talent at being smartly funny, culturally ironic and bitter-sweet all at the same time. I was excited to see this Governor General nominated play and was hoping that the Taylor touch would be well delivered. And it was, sort of.

The story is simple enough.  Jason Pierce, a thirty-one-year-old Canadian half-Native man recently broken up with his girlfriend is packing up his apartment in Toronto to move in with his mother on the Reserve where he grew up. As he’s waiting for the movers and packing last-minute items, Jason is visited unexpectedly by Harry Deiter, an American man who awkwardly introduces himself as Jason’s half-brother. It seems that Harry’s white father had an affair with Jason’s native mother and got her pregnant unbeknownst to his wife and kids back in Rhode Island. Two months after Jason was born he took off and was never seen again.  The reason for Harry’s visit is that their father is dying and is in need of a kidney transplant. None of the Deiters are a match, so Jason is the last hope. Harry begs Jason to get tested and the two men spend the rest of the play arguing and opening emotional wounds and confronting their views about the man who fathered them both.

It’s an intimate story about very personal matters and the theatre space and the staging nicely portray the tension. Set in the EPCOR CENTRE’s teeny tiny Motel Theatre (which I understand was originally a boardroom space!) the stage is placed in the centre of the room, allowing the audience to watch the action from both sides. I’ve seen this two-sided attempt before and it can often seem overwrought as the actors make a protracted point of offering both sides good views. But kudos to director Simon Mallett for keeping the “stagey” out of the staging and giving us a natural flow to the action. And kudos to Drew Hayden Taylor for giving us a script that showcases his wonderful writing trifecta of humour, poignancy and identity crises.

My feelings about the acting however aren’t as generous. Phil Fulton as Harry Deiter did a fine job projecting his character’s earnest, privileged, and naïve, “you can make things happen” American attitude.  And his ability to go from nervousness to anger to pleading to choking up with sad emotion was quite seamless and effective. But the accent! The accent nearly ruined what was otherwise a nice piece of acting. Harry is said to be from Rhode Island and Fulton played it like a cross between a Newfoundland drawl and a cartoonish Boston dialect. This is a real pet peeve of mine. If you are going to do an accent…it better be good because I would rather hear no accent than a bad one. And in this case, Harry’s character could have easily been played without one to the same effect.

The issue with speech was not limited to Fulton. Jesse Wheeler as Jason Pierce had no accent but what he did have was a delivery that was way too fast and lacked the depth of emotion I would have liked to have seen and felt. Often times I could hear the lines as opposed to enjoying the acting and this made his character somewhat unbelievable for me.  Thankfully Wheeler did slow down somewhat in the strong second act and in these moments his anger and bitterness and even humour seemed real. But these moments were too few to save the performance for me in total.

I came to the play really wanting to like it. And despite the flaws I did to a certain extent. Taylor has given us a wonderful story, Mallett makes it move and if the actors could just go accent-free and slow down to really feel the dialogue I think I could easily like it a whole lot more.

 

RATING

For the guys – Men dealing with fathers, good and bad and how you define yourself as a son are given a good working over. Maybe the issues will be more important than great acting for you. MAYBE SEE IT

For the girls – Neither character is particularly sympathetic and you won’t be rooting for either of them. But maybe the parent child issue will resonate with you and the male perspective on a break up is always interesting. MAYBE SEE IT

For the occasional theatre goer – We have far too few Native Canadian playwrights and even fewer opportunities for them to have their work showcased. And this is a good script. But I’m not sure if the small intimate performance and no frills production will wow you. MAYBE SEE IT

For the theatre junkie – It really is a fantastic story and classic Taylor. You’ll want to enjoy it to its fullest and in this case I think that means reading the script yourself. SKIP IT