theatre

Review - The Brink by Ellen Peterson @ Prairie Theatre Exchange

PTE open this seasons with their 140th new Canadian Play, this time coming from playwright in residence Ellen Peterson. The Brink tells the story of a family in Niagara Falls, Ontario, struggling to keep their printing business as well as their hope afloat. The story is set to the backdrop of the moon landing, and beautifully pairs this moment of intense optimism for the younger generation, Pat (played with nuance by RobYn Slade) while the older generation (a fabulous Jan Skene and heartbreaking Steven Ratzlaff) whose hope is all but gone as they are stuck in an endless cycle of flashbacks to moments of their youth.

Peterson's strength is dialogue; the razor-sharp, spitfire back and forth between the 3 members of the family, with its natural overlap and interruption is unbelievable. The constant unfinished sentences, pausing to breathe when a character (normally Pat) realizes no one is listening capture the essence of the family's dynamic.

The overall feeling of the need to push forward, to change and not be tied to the past pervades the play. The young characters do not experience the flashbacks, and are therefore the ones able to break free.

The only weakness for me, were the flashback scenes for Jim's character; at times these felt a bit long, although the character information was all necessary and moved the plot forward. I wonder whether it was the device of having the characters melt into their new bodies slowly, rather than snap into that world which caused this feeling. I would be curious to read the script to see whether this feeling can be eliminated by a different directorial choice.

PTE have developed a reputation for premiering strong Canadian drama, and this play can easily be added to the cannon.

Review - A Few Good Men @ Royal Manitoba Theatre Centre

MTC open their 2012-2013 season with Aaron Sorkin's A Few Good Men - a script made famous by the film version starring Jack Nicholson. Clearly stepping into some big and well-known shoes, the cast did a great job of making the words their own. There were only a few moments where delivery felt stilted or put on, specifically and inorganically recalling other interpretations. There was a lot of shouting (yes, I know this is a play about the Marine Corps...) however not all of it felt necessary. I would have liked to see more variation in the non-Marine-shouting scenes. A woman behind me commented a few times that she missed lines as a result of this.

The minimalist set evoked both a prison and a military base, and the beautiful lighting design helped create the buildings with long corridors and cramped offices evocatively. The use of a revolving stage piece was less successful in creating this feeling; luckily this device was used less frequently as the play went on. I found myself comparing the production to another recent play-of-fim I saw - The King's Speech, on the West End - Unfortunately I found that A Few Good Men lacked a bit of the theatricality in its staging that made The King's Speech so enjoyable for me months before. At times it felt like it was staged for the stage only because there were no film cameras. Detailed work was clearly done on military protocol; the actors' physical work clearly delineated levels of power, and gave the tense, testosterone-filled atmosphere of a millitary base.

On that note, though, the play really highlighted for me the misogyny in Sorkin's text. Perhaps it was the opening image, with a straight line of actors spanning the width of the large mainstage, and only one female actor which sparked the thought. As the play went on, I couldn't help but react to the treatment Galloway takes from the others, specifically Jessop and Kaffee. Each time she absorbed the words of disdain, I shuddered. Later in the script, when Kaffee berates her to the point of tears which causes her to leave, I was appalled that she gave in for the slapstick apology he offers. What kind of message does this give?

Overall it is a fairly strong production, just not really my cup of tea.

The Little Things

Last Friday marked my first night teaching the Friday Night Drama group at PTE School. This is a new project for me, working with a special group of adults with various abilities. This was the first time in ages that I have been nervous to teach a class; not because I was unsure of my preparation, but mainly because i was anxious with anticipation of the group, their dynamic, and whether I would fit into their circle.

We did a range of work on drama exercises, focussing on imagination. We began with a circle, talking about imagination and creating an imaginary place together. We then got up to walk around, creating our own imaginary beach, eventually finding an object, and sharing it with the group. The imagination game was very successful, every member of the group participating. We moved into other imagination-based exercises. As the group got more excited, I sensed myself getting excited too, veering from my plan into exercises with varying levels of success.

Several times through the class I found myself simply grinning with joy at the enthusiasm of these individuals, and how happy the simple theatre games made them for those 2 hours. I recently read an interview with Robert Lepage in which he stated that these days there is too much acting and not enough playing; this class reminded me of exactly this, the joy that comes from playing.

Overall, my fears were for nought, as the group really took to my style of physical imagination  and games. I'm really excited about my continued development with this group over the coming weeks, and may share more of my trials and tribulations.

Photo: Autel @ Gas Station Arts Centre - photo by Leif Norman

Review - Duet for a Schizophrenic - Little Theatre of the Gray Goose & Adhere and Deny @ Ace Art

An interesting and strange little play, Duet for a Schizophrenic is Chris Johnson's foray into double and triple worlds. A place where people pretend to be people pretending to be other people, and popuulate the dream you dream i dream you dream i dream. How's that for a mouthful?

The quick and clever word play as He (Graham Ashmore) and She (Erin McGrath) weave between various characters was very enjoyable, and began the piece at a nice pace. There were times, particularly in the second act, where the pace needed some variation - I was urging with my mind for things to delve a bit deeper at this point. The piece really hit its stride, however, in a scene with the actors, preparing for a play within a play (within a play....and more). The beautiful timing of this bit made me wish the whole play was like this.

Each act was interspersed with musical interludes of He and She singing their feelings to one another. This I had some trouble with, as the lyrics weren't always comprehensible over the loud (but excellent) band. These bits also made use of large marionettes of the two actors, which were very fun.

Some clever references to Pirandello, for those who are very familiar with his work were great, however I worry that some of the truly clever humour would have been lost without this background. In a way, I wonder whether the piece would have been enjoyable to an audience not steeped in theatrical history and information.

Review - Sonofabitch Stew @ FemFest 2012

This one-woman show tells the story of a Womens' Studies' tutor forced into retirement after her wild-west antics inspired by the life of Calamity Jane embarass the department for one last time. Jane regales the audience with her tales, and after a few minutes we learn that the audience have been given the role of her students at her penultimate lecture. Jane goes on to talk of her career, flashing into moments of Calamity herself. The show progresses back and forth, paralleling the professor's life with that of the Western Female archetype as we hear of her rise to infamy and her ultimiate demise resulting from the very acts which made her famous.

The script itself is intriguing as it twists these two lives together, playing on ideas about what femininity and ultimately feminism are made up of. I did find that the stylistic traits of the language between the two characters was not as distinct as it could have been; this, muddied the ability to distinguish which character was being inhabited at each moment. Ultimately I would have appreciated a clearer distinction between the two, as it would have defined the parallel more clearly. Without this, the two characters spun together a bit too much and made the piece difficult to follow at times.
 
Overall this was a nice, enjoyable script and one I would love to see further work on.

FemFest 2012 Begins!

Last night I had the pleasure of attending the Opening Cabaret for the 10th Annual FemFest. I've had a fairly lengthy history with FemFest - I first worked with the festival as Assistant to Director Hope McIntyre (AD of the Festival) for Ordinary Times in 2005. Since then, I've directed workshop productions of new plays (The Dance of Sara Weins, 2006), shared my own work-in-progress piece Lavinia in the 2009 Cabaret, directed scenes for the launch of their book of scenes for female actresses (Generation NeXXt, 2010) and now directing readings of short plays in the 2012 festival. As I sat in the audience, hearing host and festival supporter Susan Tymofychuk speak of the history of the festival, and the opportunity it has provided for emerging artists (particularly female ones) I reflected on these experiences. FemFest has provided me the opportunity to hone my skills as a director and creator of work, providing a safe environment for me to learn and help those around me explore new works of theatre. I don't know of many festivals anywhere in the world that provide this kind of environment, and I must say that my career has been enriched immeasurably due to my involvement with FemFest.

There are shows throughout this week at the Centre for Theatre & Film at the University of Winnipeg; ticket prices are very affordable, including many free readings and talks about creating theatre. I encourage you to try to spend at least an hour taking in a piece of the festival. The work presented touches on all aspects of human experience; from Food Bank usage to Immigrant families, re-imagined fairy tales to readings from esteemed playwrights. Judith Thompson is this year's guest artist. She is one of the most well-known Canadian playwrights, and certainly the most known female playwright from Canada, and her support and participation in the festival says a lot about the amazing work Sarasvati do.

Take some time and check it out this week!

On Failure

Last week, our "Theatre in London Today" class was visited by performance artist Bruno Roubicek, who has worked a fair bit with Forced Entertainment. For those unfamiliar with Forced Entertainment work, I definitely suggest looking them up..will include a few video links below for you as well. Anyway, Forced's work and Bruno's work focus on the aesthetics of failure, something he suggests "reflects the failings of authority. . . questioning the legitimacy of the establishment" and which reflects "the postmodernist concern with failure of society and economics". Rather than aiming for a performance which would be successful by the regular standards - realistic set, believable performances, clear narrative, etc - Forced Entertainment seem to perform the anxiety of the modern (Western) experience. In one show, Bloody Mess, the characters express how they want the audience to see them in an honest confessional style format looking almost like an AA Meeting. The play then continues on to portray them in a way that undermines these desires, hence performing their failure to achieve a desired effect.

While sometimes trying to the audience, this work most certainly affects the audience (even if the result is frustration, boredom, or anger). I respect this fully, because so much "enjoyable" and "successful" theatre has no effect whatsoever on its audience, who happily leave after their evening of entertainment, unmoved by that which passed before them.

Now, in Bruno's discussions, he took us back through a history of failure in performance, demonstrating the skills of people like Jack Benny, Monty Python, other comedians (unfortunately my limited familiarity with Brit comics pre-2000 limited my ability to grab all the names...). One commonality I noticed was the relationship with the permission to laugh and the performance of failure; every performance, even the ones that took themselves most seriously, seemed to set themselves up to give permission to the audience to laugh. A free pass to identify failings and laugh at their performance in public.

This, of course, got me thinking; what happens if this free pass is not provided? If we do not give the audience permission to laugh at the characters, their situations, and their failed attempts to perform a task, but rather demand the audience's serious attention. Is it possible to perform failure in a situation which does not first give the laughter permission to escape? Or is this our only way to watch failure without turning to despair? Further yet, is performing the despair of failure functional? Does it, too teach us something?

I performed in a show in 2011 which, now that I examine it from this perspective, did perform failure; in that case, it was the failure of the characters to act in a way that would get what they wanted. The piece allowed them to re-visit those situations from their original plays, role-playing to re-enact situations where they could be dominant. One reviewer picked up on the heavy thread of despair running through it. Perhaps despair is the dramatic equivalent to laughter. For many people seeing this show, the despair was overwhelming, to the point that some reviewers criticized it for doing so, not allowing a reprieve so to speak. But do we not have something to experience from this as well? If you consider the ancient Greeks, plays like Medea and Oedipus are one long-running moment of despair and hopelessness after the next, but this adds together for a final result of hope; the ability to act or choose differently. Despair can be a useful tool.

If this is so, it is certainly difficult to ask audiences to come experience despair for an hour or two, and pay to do so. But perhaps this is necessary; for too long we have seen a comic approach to performing failure, and in fact, it has become mainstream with programs like John Stewart in the US, Mock the Week in the UK, and This Hour Has 22 minutes in Canada (among others reaching further back). I suggest that while these comic approaches to failure have worked to incite action in the past, they are becoming common, and therefore not causing the impact they might once have had. Forced Entertainment's work does seem to straddle this gray area between comedy and despair, having their audiences feel slightly aware of the impropriety of their laughter. I think this can go further.

Some videos from Forced:



The British 10k - 8 July

Time for me to ask something of you readers (and lurkers) - I am running the British 10k in London on July 8th in support of RADA scholarships, and am looking for donations. Any of you lurkers who are artists know how horribly expensive school can be, and how few scholarships there are for arts students. Fundraising from this will help with the Hardship fund at the school, and for creating future scholarships for students.

You can donate here: http://www.justgiving.com/Kendra-Jones

Any amount is greatly appreciated, as it all adds up. Thank you in advance for any support you can offer!

Review - The Conquest of the South Pole by Manfred Karge - Arcola Theatre @ The Rose, Kingston

In premise, a strong idea; 4 unemployed lads from east London, working their way through social exclusion in their own way, bond over the story of an expedition to the South Pole that begins as an escape, but slowly merges with their own reality. The job market, prospects, become metaphorically the endless antarctic ice, and the goal of reaching the South Pole something never fully attainable. Very timely in its subject matter, the production unfortunately does not hold up. The script - disjointed and episodic - felt as though it was being moulded into a linear, psychological storyline, rather than allowing the juxtaposition of scenes that may or may not make sense. Having not read the original German version, it is tough for me to say just what role translation and direction jointly held in this.

The performances were adequate at best, with mere moments of interest perking up for me. I strongly dislike actors who appear to be over-directed, with choreographed physicality that does not come across as natural to their being. This may seem like a contradiction given my penchant for physical theatre and dance, however pieces which manage this balance of choreography that seems to be pouring out of the actor rather than painted on it are truly remarkable, and what we strive for. This piece did not have this quality.

Again, I stress, there were moments. Unfortunately they were few and far between, the gaps being overwhelmed by actors shouting in roaming accents.

I do, really, see a seed of something interesting here - it simply didn't get to blossom.

Reading Time

My mind is engulfed with reading on performance theory right now. More on that later. That, and Laura Wade's "Posh" now transferred from the Royal Court to The Duke of York's Theatre in the West End. It is a good thing I am not a reviewer with deadlines, as it is taking me awhile to decide exactly what I have to say about it.

In the interim, I have come across two excellent articles today that I must share.

First, Dennis Kelly's (colourful) speech to open the Stuckemarkt festival in Germany. Kelly, a Brit playwright who pushes the boundaries of "polite" political theatre, challenges theatre makers to stop trying to make plays political for the sake of it. Quote of the piece "I believe young theatre makers need a very healthy does of 'go fuck yourself'". Well said, Mr Kelly, well said.

Link Here: http://www.theatertreffen-blog.de/tt12/english-posts/dennis-kelly-opens-the-stuckemarkt/

Second, Lauren Gunderson on the economics of presenting female characters, since (gosh darn it) a significant proportion of audience members are female. I can't say I agree with the argument entirely (which pretty much relies on mimesis and our desire to see the self reflected in the theatre...) but she does make a valid point. Worth a read.

Link Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-gunderson/theatres-audiences-are-ma_b_1388150.html

Happy Reading!

Review - Cymbeline by The South Sudan Theatre Company @ Shakespeare's Globe (Globe to Globe Festival)

There is something truly extraordinary about seeing performers so joyous to be performing, that when the curtain call begins, a full-blown dance party breaks out. This company, which has only existed for a year, born in Sudanese refugee camps, was presenting their first international performance, at the much publicized Globe to Globe festival. Working in translation to Juba Arabic, they presented Cymbeline as a story of love and war in Sudan. Accompanied by fabulous drumming (by the co-director and translator), Juba songs and dances were woven into the play, for entrances, exits, and the fantastic war scene. Each performer was fully committed to their character and the presence of each performer was undeniable. 

Now, as a piece of theatre, it was by no means the best thing I have seen. Jumping lines occurred with fair regularity (although in many instances, worked rather well for the energy of the piece), and some scenes felt flat. As well, even softer scenes, such as Imogen reading the letter and learning of Posthumous' location, came across as harsh, simply due to the nature of the sounds of Juba Arabic. . . as a result, some of the colour of the story was lost. Overall, however, the pure joy filled The Globe and infected everyone in the theatre.

 Sometimes theatre isn't about the perfect performance. It is, as a brilliant thinker once told me, about "bringing joy to the peeps". Per Brask, you were right.

New Explorations

Spent this lovely, sunny Saturday indoors at the University of London. Normally this would make me sad, however, today it simply inspired and encouraged me. I attended the Womens Studies Group's annual Workshop, titled Women, Performance, Portraiture. This is a group of mainly history scholars who meet throughout the year for workshops, field trips, etc, and most importantly, to share their scholarly endeavors.

The day began with a keynote speaker - the brilliant Gill Perry. (more on her here: http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/arthistory/perry.shtml). The paper she presented looked at art and the creation of feiminine celebrity, particularly in 18th century London society circles. Looking at the semiotics not just of the works themselves, but also at their placement, prominence, and re-location in manor houses throughout England, she made some intriguing suggestions regarding the role art played in creating and perpetuating myths of celebrity. There were many resonances for me in this lecture, notably the ideas of public vs private space - hearkening back to our thoughts about The Duchess of Malfi. I cannot begin to give justice to her argument in the lecture, however suffice to say that it sparked many ideas in me, and something creative will come from this.

The second half of the day allowed for each delegate at the workshop to bring a small 5-10 minute presentation on their own current work. This, too, was fascinating. I was humbled in the presence of these intelligent women and the brilliant research they are undertaking. For my own contribution, I brought a section of Forc'd To Woo, the devised response to The Duchess of Malfi that I had created before our group merged our individual work to create In Secret. I talked a bit about my process for creating theatre - looking at historical texts for modern resonances and stories that echo forward, telling us something about the human condition, and specifically the female experience. I also talked a bit about how this developed in performance, and my future plans for the piece. I had some great questions from the group, and overall they seemed encouraging to my endeavors.

On a personal note, I was sure I would be nervous speaking; I was in the company of accomplished and published scholars, a lowly MA candidate, and in theatre nonetheless. That said, I wasn't nervous whatsoever. I felt extremely confident sharing my work and responding to questions about how I had created the piece.

It seems odd for a theatre maker to find their best inspiration in a room full of academics, but alas, I tend to be unconventional.

Cliche?

Reading Sophie Nield's piece in the Guardian Theatre Blog (http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2012/apr/03/curtain-calls-clapped-out-convention) got me thinking about discussions surrounding our work on Jean Genet. Our group, having created what we felt was an hour of work that subverted expectation and challenged the audience to take Genet seriously as a writer who still has something to tell us, proposed not having a curtain call. Our tutor, Andrew Visnevski, responded favourably to the piece we created, and challenged us further; not having a curtain call has become the expectation when one sees edgy, challenging theatre. So the audience, coming to see an MA response to Jean Genet would most certainly expect no curtain call. . . so our hour's worth of subversion would be undermined by this choice. Instead, he suggested that we come out behind the audience, and applaud them along with the empty stage; in a way, this honouring the ghost of Genet whom we had conjured in the previous 10 weeks and who had inspired our work.

So this is how we proceeded. Certainly the effect was startling to the audience; we waited for them to begin applauding, then appeared behind them, also applauding. It took a moment for each person to catch on, the increase in volume from 14 extra sets of hands clapping, the distinct lack of bodies on stage receiving the thanks.

In a way, this choice did what Nield and many comments on the blog have suggested; it forced a truthful appreciation of the work separate from the appreciation of the individuals creating the work. It is certainly something to consider.

Review - Can We Talk About This? DV8 Physical Theatre @ Royal National Theatre

I have had a massive company-crush on DV8 for well over a year, since a friend first shared a clip of this show in its Australian incarnation. As a result, I went into this show with huge expectations and the desire to be tested intellectually and visually. The set as we first see it is a large, open space prepared for intricate physical movement with parquet floors. There is a wall close to the downstage side with mirrors on it, and doors lining the sides of the room on stage. Pulling no punches, creator Lloyd Newson begins by cracking in on the audience, largely visible in the mirror on stage, about moral superiority to the Taliban. This direct address sets the tone for the ensuing 120 minutes of questioning our stance (or lack thereof) when it comes to Western cultures interacting with other cultures, most specifically muslims. The show challenges us to look at our own beliefs, and to question why we have come to a place of moral relativism, where acts we view as completely heinous are okay for others, because of their "culture".

At its root is a deep belief in the univerality of human existence; that there are certain basic rights that all people deserve to have access to, and that for someone to remove those rights in the name of religion or culture is not acceptable. The intellectual debate is fiery, and is underscored by intense physical choreography which echoes in space and movement the essence of what a character is saying or doing, to great effect. When a politician is dancing around an issue, the actor is literally fancy-footing around the stage. When a woman is preaching from her high horse, she speaks the entire monologue from atop another actor, who moves her around as if he was her chair.

Oddly, despite the desecriptions I have stated above, it does not feel like it gives us an answer...rather it asks A LOT of questions and at least in my case, sparked some serious discussion about how we should handle these things and what is acceptable.

Overall, the effect was visually stunning, underscoring intense intellectual debate, and left me thinking. Isn't that what we want theatre to do?

Downfall - Death of the Vancouver Playhouse

For those outside the Canadian theatre bubble, this might require some explanation. March 9th, the Vancouver Playhouse, a regional Canadian theatre established in 1962, announced it would be closing. Plagued with debt, the company felt they were unable to overcome this and the board voted to shut things down. As one might imagine, this has caused outcry from the theatre community across Canada; anger at arts cuts from the current Conservative government that span back years, mountains of hypotheses on the cause of this downfall , and petitions circulating to try to save the company, soliciting donations. I do not disagree with a single one of these.

That said, I feel that the thing that is going unsaid (or at least not loudly enough) is that many professional regional companies in Canada are not creating work that gives people a reason to go. In an age where Hollywood and Television do what they do so well, and suck people in to paying upwards of $13 for a movie theatre ticket to see the latest blockbuster, theatre interest has waned, particularly among the aging middle-class bourgeois Canadian public. Now what has the Canadian Mainstream's response to this been, in the face of large commercial successes like those seen by DanCap and Mirvish in Toronto (the Canuck equivalent of the West End or Broadway)? It has been to try continually to produce the mega-budget, big-star blockbuster, but on the stage. This has meant season after season full of adaptations from films, or staging of plays that have been made to films, for maximum opportunity for success. Rather than engaging with what makes theatre essential, as well as what makes it fundamentally different from a moviegoing experience, theatre in Canada has attempted to be "just like the big kids".

I would like this to be a call to arms for my fellow young theatremakers in Canada; With our generation, lets fix things, not by going with formulae and safe but mediocre successes, but by really challenging why on earth we make this stuff in the first place. Lets make interesting and new work that challenges the audience and makes them want more. What stories must be told in the theatre? What makes our medium, one that has existed for 2000 years different and necessary? And why should people come see our work?

When we can begin to attempt to answer these questions in our work, we'll have begun to do something truly worthwhile. I know it is in there.

Inspiration

A video of Lindsay Kemp's Flowers, inspired by Jean Genet's Notre Dame Des Fleurs, which I am reading right now.


Words can't even begin to describe what this does. Kemp manages to embody the extreme beauty and grotesqueness of Genet's words, the perfect balance of the two.

She dies beautifully.

So simply....

Read some brilliant words today by Mr Martin Esslin:

Put in its simplest and most mundane terms, the basic task of anyone concerned with presenting any kind of drama to any audience consists in capturing their attention and holding it as long as required. Only when that fundamental objective has been achieved can the more lofty and ambitious intentions be fulfilled; the imparing of wisdom and insight, poetry and beauty, amusement and relaxation, illumination and purging of emotion. If you lose their attention, if you fail to make them concentrate on what is happening, on what is being said, all is lost.

Review - Top Girls by Caryl Churchill - Trafalgar Studios

I love seeing a play that I love presented well. With the exception of one actor, whose voice I found hard to listen to, these ladies presented Churchill's gutsy play with every ounce of real, juicy, funny, harsh activity that it deserves. It is remarkable that a play which premiered in the year I was born still has such loud resonance for the condition of women in society. Churchill's argument, that women through time have had these struggles, and despite our "successes" continue to, was loud and clear in this production. Suranne Jones is outstanding as Marlene, the power-hungry emblem of the Thatcherite quest for power; every ounce of her being was poured into the shifts from Marlene at dinner, to work, to home. Her vulnerability whilst defending her choices hit me in the gut, and made me angry at her choices, but also angry at a world which causes women to feel they must make those choices to achieve success.

Even today, 2011, I get amazed looks when people learn that I've managed to "do it all"; Management job, child, extra curricular work in the theatre, and now going for the MA. If a man chose to go for the MA "later" would he be "amazing" or anything of the sort?? (I say "later" in quotations because I truly believe 29 isn't at all old to be completing an MA and expounding my thoughts about the theatre on the world..I've only just begun!)

The other thing that really struck me was the reverence to Churchill's text and the originally intended production style. Part of me was happy (and amazed) that this didn't feel dated, but felt to resonate more as a result. But part of me wanted Churchill's text to be played with, to consider the role that heightened sexuality of women in the media and its resultant affect on young girls. To consider that we are still in a place (arguably further back than in 1982) where women are cruel and difficult to other women, where they judge one another and put them down to pull themselves up.

In any case, I think this was a fabulous production. And it made me think.