Theatre 2024: Titanique @ CAA Theatre

Titanique is an off-Broadway jukebox musical that is a spoof of the groundbreaking 1997 movie Titanic starring very young actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. It features songs sung by French Canadian diva Celine Dion, which of course includes the iconic movie theme song “My Heart Will Go On”.  This song was so ubiquitous and overplayed at the time that it scared off my husband Rich from watching the film when it first came out.  I convinced him to finally watch James Cameron’s Titanic as preparation for attending the musical, since it is difficult to appreciate a good parody without knowledge of the source material being made fun of.

Titanique uses a framing device to wrap around the plot of the movie.  Starting in present day, a tour group is learning about the tragedy when they are interrupted by Celine Dion who claims that she was on the Titanic and can tell the “true story” of what happened.  Played by Quebecois performer Véronique Claveau, the character of Celine Dion is portrayed as a caricature of the singer, highlighting and exaggerating her French accent, flair for dramatic theatricality and emotional delivery.  While played for laughs, I found the character’s antics, facial expressions, winks and over-the-top gestures to be annoying and not particularly funny.  Luckily after the introductory scene, there was less of this schtick and when Claveau sings, mimicking Dion’s voice and style, her voice soars and all is forgiven. In fact, all of the cast have amazing singing voices, which is probably a basic requirement if you are to tackle the catalogue of Celine Dion.

When questioned about how she possibly could still be alive if she had actually been on the Titanic back in 1912, Dion belts out the song “I’m Alive” while revealing a set made to look like the prow of a ship with a set of stairs jutting out from the regular stage in a triangular formation which extends the “front of the boat” right into the audience.  The first two rows of seating were reconfigured to be parallel to the stairs with the triangular point ending up right in front of our centre seats in row E.  I usually don’t like sitting too close to the front of the stage, especially for a musical, since you need to be further back to see the entire choreography.  Row E would have been far enough had it been a regular stage.  The new staging put us directly in front of any actor who positioned him or herself at the point, literally towering over us.  We were also directly in the path of the actors as they danced off the stairs to circle left and right before climbing back onto the stage.  They passed by so tightly that we had to make sure to tuck our feet in so that no one tripped over them or stepped on our toes. Sitting so close to the action was particularly precarious if we did not want to be chosen for any type of audience participation.  Any time a performer came close to us, we made sure not to make eye contact so as not be selected.  This worked until the final scene of the show, but more on that later.

The people in the first row were so close to the bottom steps that one patron actually used the stairs as a footrest.  When asked to remove her feet, she did so in a bit of a snit and then within 10 minutes after the start of the show, she got up and left.  Whether it was because of the footrest incident or whether she was offended by the raunchy jokes and not-so-subtle gay vibe is unclear. About 5 minutes later, the woman sitting next to her also got up and left.  The actors were very professional and ignored this distracting interruption, but later during a bit of improv, this incident was referenced as part of a joke.  A ridiculously large version of the infamous blue heart-shaped diamond “The Heart of the Ocean” (which is critical to the movie’s plot) dangles from the ceiling while shapes of icebergs sit ominously on either side of the stage.  When the curtains opened, they revealed the rest of the stage including an “upper deck” with another flight of stairs leading down to the lower deck.  The orchestra played on either side of the upper deck. At one point, Celine joked that they had stolen the set from the musical “Anything Goes”.  After one of the actors raced up and down all these stairs multiple times, he flopped down in exhaustion, broke the fourth wall and quipped “Serves me right for joining Stairs, the Musical”. 

After her introductory song, Celine introduces the rest of the characters on the Titanic, including the star-crossed lovers Rose and Jack, Rose’s mother Ruth played hilariously in semi-drag by male actor Constant Bernard, Rose’s rich, arrogant finance Cal, the Unsinkable Molly Brown or rather, Kathy Bates from the movie playing that role, and Victor Garber playing the shipbuilder/designer Thomas Andrew who also represented the captain of the ship.  It was a bit confusing why some of the characters were roles from the movie and others were actors who played roles from the movie, but we just went with it.  The actor playing Victor Garber also plays the role of Jack’s Italian friend named Fabrizio in the movie.  But for Titanique, he has been renamed “Luigi” and dressed up like that character from Super Mario complete with green cap and mustache.  Christopher Ning who plays the tour guide had the most extra roles.  He is also on the ship’s crew as “Seaman” which led to extended jokes regarding the similar-sounding word “semen”, as well as the personification of the Iceberg and Peabo Bryson for a duet of “Beauty and the Beast” with Celine Dion.

Once the main characters are introduced, the main plot of Titanic begins, with some liberties taken to fit better with the songs.  Celine Dion sometimes acts as narrator and at other times simply interjects herself into the action.  The various scenes are paired with lyrics from Celine Dion songs that often fit perfectly with the plot.  Jack wins at poker and secures passage onto the Titanic where he meets Rose and they sing “Taking Chances” where Rose begins with “Don’t know much about your life” and Jack replies, “Don’t know much about your world”.   Later, Molly Brown (played by powerhouse-voiced Erica Peck from We Will Rock You) advises Rose to let Jack know how she feels about him by singing the song “Tell Him”. Rose joins in for a duet (similarly to the original duet by Celine and Barbara Streisand) but then the Celine character chimes in and pushes Rose out.  When the Victor Garber character needs the ship to go faster at the urging of Cal (who has a hair appointment on Tuesday), he sings the song “I Drove All Night” and after the iceberg hits, he goes down with the ship while singing “I Surrender”.  When Molly Brown returns to look for survivors (something she was unsuccessful in convincing the crew to do in the movie and in history), she sings “All By Myself”.

Many of the most memorable scenes from the movie are referenced in the musical but in a hilarious manner.  For the most famous scene where Jack makes Rose climb onto the prow and spread her arms like she’s flying, he begins with “Do you trust me” to which she replies “Trust you? I just met you”.  But trust him she does and to the soaring tune of “To Love You More”, they perform the iconic scene with Celine yelling out “Wait for it…” just before Rose spreads her arms.  In the scene where Jack sketches Rose naked (or in a nude-coloured body suit) while wearing the big-ass diamond, the image that he draws is of a cat, since this version of Jack can only draw cats.  The love scene in the car is cleverly staged with two cutout images of the front of a car and a plastic windshield which Jack and Rose both slap their palms against, mocking the action from the movie.  Cal chases Jack and Rose throughout the ship and shoots at them with a plastic ray gun that makes “pew pew” sounds (like the blasters in Star Wars). When Rose uses an axe to chop off Jack’s handcuffs, she accidentally chops off his hand and a bloody plastic hand is thrown onto the centre of the stage for a quick gag.  And when the Titanic finally sinks, Rose shows up with a large door strapped to her back.  All these scenes would not be as funny without knowing how the original scenes played out in the movie.

When the personification of the Iceberg (played in drag by Christopher Ning) shows up calling herself “the Iceberg Bitch”, she  channels a fierce and brassy Tina Turner, singing “River Deep, Mountain High” (another Celine Dion cover song) while dancing forwards and backwards in high heels.  At one point, the Iceberg carries a model of the ship broken into two halves.  In one of the final scenes, the giant necklace needs to be thrown overboard and guess whose lap it lands on?  Rich got to hold the necklace during the singing of “My Heart Will Go On”, a song so powerful that it can raise the dead.  During an encore reprise of the song, the audience is invited to sing along, take photos and tag the show #titanique @titaniquemusical

One of the most hilarious actors in this show is Constant Bernard who played Rose’s mother Ruth while wearing a dowdy pink top (from Reitmans!) and chunky fake jewelry  while wearing a headband with a bird on it attached to his bald head.  At one point Ruth goes on a rant about how hard her life is and in quick succession, throws out snippets of lyrics from a bunch of musicals including Dream Girls and Gypsy.  She then improvises examples about how much worse things could get, throwing out the thought of 4 more years of Donald Trump, then referring to someone almost being fired on a Zoom Call (a reference to the Chrystia Freeland debacle that happened only days ago) and finally mentioning people who walk out of your show within minutes of it starting.

In addition to Reitmans, there were many local references in the musical.  While singing “Seduces Me”, Cal places the huge diamond necklace around Rose’s neck, causing her to sag from the weight.  He indicates proudly that it is from Costco.  Later Celine disparages the Costco purchase, implying that a proper diamond should come from Birks or at least Peoples.  On Broadway, instead of Costco, the store named is Jared's (as compared to Neil Lane and Zales).

Although this show started off slowly for me, in the end I was howling with laughter and loving every minute of it.  This was such a goofy but clever show and was so enjoyable that I would love to watch it again.

Theatre 2024: Moulin Rouge @ Ed Mirvish Theatre

 My husband Rich and I had already watched the live musical version of Moulin Rouge in New York in 2019 with Broadway stars Aaron Tveit and Karen Olivo originating the roles of the star-crossed lovers Christian and Satine.  I wrote extensively about that show here as part of my travel blog -https://arenglishtravels.blogspot.com/2019/12/manhattan-2019-broadway-musicals.html

I therefore had lower expectations about seeing it for the second time, especially given the minor letdown of my recent experience revisiting The Lion King, plus the fact that road shows are rarely as spectacularly staged as in their original venues.  The Broadway staging of Moulin Rouge was over the top, featuring a stage bathed in red hues, a gigantic purple elephant parked to the right of the stage and an equally large windmill on left.  There was a catwalk that extended from the stage out into the audience to highlight featured dancers and actors in various scenes while a handful of audience members sat at tables cabaret-style just under the stage.

In light of all this, I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed the Toronto production of Moulin Rouge.  As expected, the staging in Toronto was not as elaborate as the Broadway production since there was no elephant, windmill or extended catwalk.  But a version of the signature fire-engine red hue with the large Moulin Rouge marquee was replicated and ultimately the lack of the cosmetically glitzy set pieces didn’t matter because they were just for show and did not affect the plot or performances.  While we were not allowed to photograph them, prior to the start of the show, several male and female background dancers strutted and preened on stage dressed in slinky outfits and sky-high heels. It has become more and more of a trend for the audience to be treated to a “pre-show teaser”.  Then the musical started and we were hooked right from the first finger snaps and pulsating beats of "Lady Marmalade" with the four principal performers revealed initially in silhouette (another staging trend that is becoming prevalent).

From that moment on, all the way until the end of the show, we were enthralled by the fabulously vibrant colours of the sets and costumes, the acrobatic Cancan dancers executing their jump splits, and the stellar acting and singing abilities of the cast, with a special shoutout to Christian Douglas who played his namesake Christian.  Douglas oozed emotion, especially in the songs where he was expressing his angst and heartbreak and his singing voice is amazing.

What makes Moulin Rouge most entertaining is playing “Name That Tune” with the plethora of song snippets that are pieced together to form this unique spin on the jukebox musical. Rather than featuring the oeuvre of a single group, Moulin Rouge samples from a wide range of songs running from classic oldies to recent contemporary hits.  It is a marvel how perfectly the chosen songs fit the plots and situations.

In some cases, large excerpts of a song are used to introduce or describe the state of mind of a character. The villainous Duke of Monroth’s solo songs are lines from “Money, That’s What I Want” and The Rolling Stones’ “Sympathy for the Devil”. Satine, who is known as “The Sparkling Diamond” is introduced with a mashup of songs including the classics Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend and Diamonds Are Forever, as well as Madonna’s Material Girl and Beyonce’s "Single Ladies (Put a Ring On it)". She later sings Katy Perry’s “Firework” to express her frustrations over her fragile health and her determination to persevere. Christian sings Elton John’s “Your Song” when he first meets and woos Satine, starting with the lines “I don’t have much money, but boy if I did…” which perfectly describes his situation before launching into the love song.  Later he sings "Roxanne" by the Police and a mashup of Gnarls Barkley’s "Crazy" and Adele’s "Rolling in the Deep" to express his anguish about Satine prostituting herself with the duke.

But what makes Moulin Rouge unique as a jukebox musical are the songs that piece together single lines from multiple songs in quick succession in order to form a cohesive musical dialogue between the characters.  In a few cases, the lyrics are tweaked slightly to fit the story but the tunes are unmistakable.  This is done most successfully in the sequence titled “Elephant Love Medley” since it takes place in Satine’s Elephant-themed dressing room. Christian has returned to fight for Satine after she rejects him in favour of the duke, who can provide the funds to save the cabaret.  Christian sings song after song promoting love while Satine retorts with songs about heartbreak and the result is head-spinning and magnificent.  Christian pleads for “Just One Night” (to the tune of Phil Collins’ One More Night) “In the Name of Love” (U2), asking her to “Take On Me” (A-ha) and declaring “I Can’t Help Falling in Love With You” (Elvis Presley) while vowing his “Everlasting Love” (Robert Knight).  In counterpoint, Satine retorts with “Love Hurts” (Nazareth), “Love is a Battlefield” (Pat Benatar), and “What’s Love Got to Do With It?” (Tina Turner) and “Don’t Speak ..don’t tell me cause it hurts” (No Doubt). As Christian starts to win her over, Satine voices her doubts by singing a few lines from “Torn” (Natalie Imbruglia) before succumbing to his charms.  Together they sing “Up Where We Belong” (Joe Cocker/Jennifer Warren), declaring “We can be Heroes just for one day” (David Bowie).  The medley ends with the two belting out the iconic “I Will Always Love You” (Whitney Houston).  This is one of the most incredible and masterful mashups of songs that I have ever heard.  In total, 19 songs are sampled in the under 6 minutes.

Given all of the cover songs used in this musical, it is ironic that one of the most beautiful tunes, that acts as Christian and Satine’s secret song to express their love for each other, was an original song written specifically for the 2001 Moulin Rouge movie.  As such, it has the prescient lyrics “Come What May, I will love you until my dying day”.

Rich and I enjoyed the familiarity of the music as well as the spectacle of the staging so much that we did not mind watching this show for the second time.  It helped that our previous viewing in Manhattan was over 6 years ago and our aging brains are starting to forget details.  One element of staging in the Toronto production seemed lacking compared to what I may or may not remember from the Broadway one.   For the song “Chandelier” (Sia) where Christian’s friends ply him with green absinthe to help him forget Satine, I seem to recall some aerial work as Christian becomes drunk and chases a hallucinatory green fairy.  No such acrobatics were performed in the Toronto version and Christian merely stumbles around on stage following a grounded fairy who flits about.  Given that the lyrics of the song include “I’m going to swing from the chandelier ... I’m going to fly like a bird through the night”, it felt lacking not to have this staging.  Nevertheless, we had a wonderful time watching Moulin Rouge again and would recommend it to all musical lovers as well as lovers of pop songs.

Theatre 2024: The Bidding War @ Crow's Theatre

My husband Rich and I enjoyed the shows that we watched at Crow’s Theatre’s 2023/24 season since they were all well-acted and creatively staged.  But almost all of them were dramas that were either very dark and tense or extremely sad and depressing.  In one of my theatre blog posts, I made a plea asking for lighter fare in the next season.  Toronto-based playwright Michael Ross Albert’s new play “The Bidding War” has answered my entreaty in spades!

The Bidding War is a comedic farce that takes aim at the competitive nature of the real estate market in hilarious fashion while driving home some salient points about Toronto’s housing crisis.  The action takes place at an open house held by Sam, an inexperienced listing agent trying to land his first sale of what he claims to be “the last affordable house in Toronto”.  Played by talented actor and Crow’s Theatre regular Peter Fernandes, Sam twitches and sputters while trying to manage the competing agendas of three real estate agents (Blayne, Greg, Patricia) and four sets of potential buyers who have come to inspect the home.  Greg represents gay couple Donovan and Ian, Patricia is the agent for an extremely pregnant Lara and her journalist husband Luke, Blayne’s client is Miriam (played with sass and wit by Fiona Reid), a well-to-do but technically challenged grandmother who already owns a 5-bedroom home, while Charlie, a young, muscle builder and influencer who makes a fortune selling humiliation videos on social media, is a friend of Sam’s and has no official representation in the house sale.  Adding to the mix is the unexpected return of June, who jointly inherited the house with her stepmother after her sculptor father passed away.  June has mixed emotions about the sale since this was her childhood home and yet she also desperately needs the money.

Sam has listed the residence well below market value to drive up interest, much to June’s dismay.  There are differing degrees of interest from the various buyers until Blayne, the most unethical of the real estate agents, learns through insider information that a nearby low-income housing complex has been rezoned and will be replaced with luxury condos and shops, which will cause neighbouring property values to skyrocket.  As these details spread, the claws come out and unscrupulous shenanigans mount as the agents and clients alike vie to get an upper hand in landing the house.  The antics include Ian and Donovan trying to scare off additional viewers from attending the viewing, Blayne deciding she wants the house for herself so that she can flip it for a huge profit and therefore ditching Miriam, and Patricia trying to ditch Luke and Lara who don’t have the money to compete in a bidding war, in exchange for the wealthier Miriam.   In typical farcical fashion, tensions flare and arguments escalate from verbal to physical as chaos reigns amongst the group.  At one point, Rich leaned over and whispered to me the old adage “It’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye”.  If you watch this play, you will get the reference.

Despite all the hilarity and hijinks of a real estate bidding war taken to extremes, some very real issues about the housing crisis are discussed.  Themes explored include the lack of affordable housing for the poor, greedy developers and investors alike who only care about personal gain, gentrification and displacement, generational wealth and how the millennials and later generations have it so much tougher than the baby boomers, and how the real estate system is rigged in favour of the wealthy.  The play also highlights how desperation leads to moral compromises and how greed leads to exploitation.  That all these serious topics are couched within satirical humour makes the social commentary more palatable to absorb.  While defending her actions, Blayne makes a crack about Doug Ford and all that he has gotten away with, which drew huge laughs from the audience.

As with all plays at Crow’s Theatre, the staging and set design is terrific and make you feel like you are in the middle of this open house.  The production is set in the round so that everyone in the audience is within four rows of the action. Watching such a big cast moving around so quickly and purposefully on a small stage, especially one located so close to the audience, it felt like we were witnessing a well choreographed dance routine of controlled mayhem.  Just about every that you see on set (with the exception of the Franz Kline-esque black and white paintings on the walls) serve some purpose in advancing the plot including much of the furniture and the many entrances and exits on and off the set that allow for a farce-like feel as different groups can disappear, leaving others to carry on private conversations. 

The first act is set on the ground floor of the home with the living room and kitchen in view.  The kitchen island is used to serve snacks to the open house attendees. The aisle leading in and out of the Guloein theatre acts as the entrance to the house, where a QR code with for a mandatory indemnity waiver is required to be signed by all potential buyers.  A flight of stairs leads up to the “second floor bedrooms”, while a door leads down to the basement and a second door opens up to reveal the powder room.  Glass sliding doors provide access to the backyard where much talk is heard about the beautiful tree that Donovan loves but that Charlie wants to chop down to make room for a hot tub.  Following the dramatic principle of “Chekhov’s Gun” (which I now understand after finally watching Uncle Vanya), all these elements come into play at some point in the story, so very little of the set is just for show.  After the frenzy of the first act, the second act takes place in the garden where the story comes to a surprising but satisfying conclusion.

The Bidding War is an extremely funny, entertaining, yet intelligent play that was a joy to watch.  I am hoping for more lighthearted shows for the rest of the 2024/25 season.

Theatre 2024: Dogfight Musical @ Harbourfront Centre Theatre

Since I love the genre, I have watched innumerable live-theatre musicals over the years, including multiple viewings of old standards and classics that feel repetitive and boring after so many repetitions.  I am always on the lookout for new (at least for me) musicals that I have not seen before. My husband Rich knows this, so he is vigilant in pointing out any that he finds, be they obscure oldies that we never came across, or new productions making their debuts.  We were therefore excited to spot an advertisement for “Dogfight the Musical”, especially after learning that this was an earlier (2012) work by Benji Pasek and Justin Paul, who went on to win the Best Musical Tony award for Dear Evan Hansen as well as writing songs for films The Greatest Showman and Lala Land.

Based on a similarly named 1991 movie starring River Phoenix, Dogfight the Musical deals with a group of newly trained Marines on their last day in the U.S. before shipping off to fight in the Vietnam War. Perpetuating a cruel ritual that has supposedly been played out by generations of Marines, the young men take part in the eponymous “Dogfight” where each one places a bet that he can bring the ugliest girl to a dance.  Eddie Birdlace and his best friends Borland and Bernstein, who call themselves “The Three Bees”, take part in this contest and scour the streets of San Francisco for possible candidates.  Eddie comes across shy waitress and budding folk singer Rose at her diner and convinces her to go to the dance with him.  At first reluctant, Rose eventually agrees and is excited about attending her first real date.  As he gets to know Rose, Eddie feels bad about what he is going to subject her to and tries unsuccessfully to back out of taking her to the dance.  Once Rose figures out what is going on, she berates him and flees the scene.  Feeling remorse, Eddie ditches his friends to apologize to Rose and takes her out on a real date.

An interesting side plot adds depth to the typical, derivative love story of two lonely people who find each other and form a connection.  Through songs and dialogue, we witness the naivety of the young Marines who do not realize what they are getting themselves into in Vietnam.  They think that they will be back in no time and will be heralded as “Hometown Heroes”.  The dramatic irony is heartbreaking as history shows that the broken and traumatized men who did make it back alive were not welcomed with open arms.

While the musical did not get much recognition, having a short run Off-Broadway and then Off-West End (I didn’t know that was a thing?!), I thought this was a good early effort by a writing duo that went on to achieve much greater fame.  The songs ranged from catchy to heartfelt and successfully moved the plot along, although the constant use of scatting syllables like “da da da”, “doo-doo-doot” and “bum bum bum” in multiple songs made me feel like the pair had not yet mastered the art of writing intricate lyrics.

The production, which had a community theatre feel, was put on by Thaumatrope Theatre, an up-and-coming theatre troupe that formed in 2022 with the goal of providing acting opportunities for “early-career artists”.  Reading the cast bios, many of the actors were either recent graduates or still attending schools like Randolph College for Performing Arts, University of Toronto or York University.  The individual actors were talented enough with good singing and acting skills, but the cast could have benefited from a bit more rehearsal time as the timing of some group dance numbers, especially by the marines, seemed a bit off.  However, the main issues with the production were technical as there were audio issues with the microphones so that sometimes the volume was too low for the characters to be heard and sometimes it was so loud that the voices were deafening or sounded screechy.  There was also a problem in the lighting as scenes transitioned from dimly to brightly lit.  Twice in the performance, while trying to brighten the stage lights, harsh glaring spotlights were aimed directly at the audience.  The Harbourfront Centre Theatre has three levels of seating including catwalks leading to the stage and this production made use of all three levels.  The band was permanently situated at the centre of the second level and the actors would appear on the various levels during different scenes.  This staging technique would have been more effective if props were not being moved on and off the darkened stage at the same time, which distracted a bit from the action that was happening above.

Despite these hiccups, I enjoyed the show and am delighted to make an addition to my ever-expanding list of musicals that I have watched.

Theatre 2024: O Christmas Tea @ CAA Theatre

Over the years before he decided to retire, we have watched several of Canadian actor and comedian Ross Petty’s “Fractured Fairy Tale Musicals”, which are based on the traditional British Christmas pantomimes but with a unique spin that made these shows a beloved annual tradition in Toronto.  Following the UK tradition, Petty’s pantos were loosely based on familiar fairy tales and classic stories such as Cinderella, Snow White, Peter Pan, The Little Mermaid or sometimes a mixture of characters from multiple tales, featured cross-dressing stock characters, and encouraged audience participation in call and response fashion including booing and hissing at the villains and cheering for the heroes which was fun for the kids.  They also included contemporary songs and mixed in jokes regarding local issues and politics that could be appreciated by the adults in the audience as well.

Therefore, when my husband Rich noticed that an acclaimed British pantomime called O Christmas Tea was making a 3-night run at the CAA Theatre in late November, we thought it would be a fun show to attend.  It turned out that this was not a traditional British pantomime, but rather a modern spin on the genre that came across as an absurdist Christmas panto.  We found it to be strange (not in a good way) and not very funny, although admittedly, humour is extremely subjective and there could have been a cultural divide that we could not span. 

The show started off with a quirky character named Jamesy who moves like a contortionist in the way that he can flex the muscles of his legs and foot.  Jamesey wants to invite his friend James (no, that is not the least bit confusing?!?) to tea and “phones” him using a teapot.  Once James arrives, it is clear that he can break the fourth wall and see the audience while initially Jamesy cannot.  As they converse, somehow Jamesy’s wild imagination causes their tea to flood the earth, taking them on a fantastical nautical journey that includes a shark, sea captain, first mate, the Queen of England and God.  These characters are played by members of the audience that are selected/dragged onto stage and asked to improvise while wearing silly costumes that were thrust upon them.  The scenes with this audience participation turned out to be the most fun because luckily, some quick-witted people were chosen and their improvisations added to the charm of the show.  Had they been duds, this could have been even worse.

Unfortunately, the rest of the show did not fare as well for many in the audience including us.  Part of the problem was that without the familiar structure of a fairy tale like Ross Petty’s pantos, we did not understand when or what we were supposed to call and respond.  The other issue was that we just didn’t find their jokes, pratfalls and slapstick schtick to be funny.  This was highlighted by one moment where James delivered a joke that landed flat.  He broke the fourth wall and addressed the audience, complaining that we did not appreciate his best joke of the night.  Just to be sure, he delivered the joke a second time—it still was not funny and no one laughed.  The silence was very awkward!  When you need to plead with the audience to laugh at your joke, there is something very wrong happening.  The best and funniest moment occurred during an acrobatic sequence early on in the show when James accidentally split open his pants.  Giggling at this unexpected development, the actor playing James adlibbed as he revealed what had happened by showing us the giant slit that exposed his underwear, then quipped with perfect timing and dramatic pause “I need to find a Tailor … Swiftly”.  Given that Taylor Swift was in Toronto for her Eras Tour that same weekend, this turned out to be the actual best joke of the night.

While there is obviously an interest and demand for this type of performance, it turns out that this modern take on the Christmas pantomime is not our cup of tea (pun intended).

Theatre 2024: Lion King Revival @ Princess of Wales

When I watched The Lion King in its initial Toronto run back in 2000, seeing Julie Taymor’s innovative use of puppetry for the first time was a magical and awe-inspiring experience that can never be replicated.  The first beats of the African chants, the giant rising sun and the appearance of the animal puppets produced a thrill that will stay in my memory forever.  I was used to seeing puppet acts where the puppeteers remained hidden such as The Muppets, or manipulated marionettes from above via strings as Ronnie Burkett or the kids from The Sound of Music do.  This was the first time where human puppeteers strode boldly on stage, perfectly integrated with their puppet forms so that man and animal blended into one in my imagination.  Tall giraffes played by actors on stilts, graceful zebras, loping gazelles, swirling birds and a giant lumbering elephant that traverses the auditorium to climb onto the stage all congregate to pay tribute to the birth of Simba, the heir of Pride Rock while his proud (pun intended) parents Mufasa and Sarabi look on.  The act of the mystical mandrill Rafiki hoisting the lion cub into the air with both arms outstretched has become so iconic that it widely parodied including in a hilarious scene from the TV show Modern Family.

Since The Lion King’s inception, no other show featuring puppets has so perfectly merged man and beast in such a beautifully stylized manner.  But there have been other hit shows including War Horse and Life of Pi that masterfully manipulate life-sized animal puppets while the puppeteers remain in full view.  It is as if Julie Taymor unleashed the potential of using puppets on stage as a new and powerful way of storytelling.  This influx of shows using hyper-realistic puppets to portray animals has somewhat diluted the impact of seeing them in The Lion King.

Now, over twenty years later, Mirvish Productions has launched a new home-grown, hopefully long-run production of The Lion King, intent on bringing this beloved spectacle to a new generation.  Recently, my husband Rich and I watched this version as part of our Mirvish subscription series.  This was the first time for him and I was a bit jealous that he would get to experience the that initial thrill.  For me, on second viewing, the puppetry was still wonderous but I would never get that initial electric rush again. I do not recall feeling this the first time that I watched The Lion King, but other than when the puppets were on full display, the rest of the show felt long and slow with the first act lasting an hour and 15 minutes. Rich felt the same, so it wasn’t just a repeat viewing phenomenon.

In 2018, the musical incorporated video elements into the show in an attempt to modernize it and “create a more immersive experience”.  It worked in some scenes, as when a tiny mouse scampered across the stage and was “scooped up” and eaten by Scar or when Rafiki asks the spirits to conjure up the image of Simba on the mystical Baobab tree.  However, I felt that the over-reliance on video especially in some critical scenes dampened the emotional impact of those moments.  Video was used to portray the onrush of approaching wildebeests but the video screen was so small and the animals did not seem to get any larger before they were suddenly replaced by “live action” beasts on stage.  Even worse for me was the staging of the big dramatic showdown between Simba and Scar in the grand finale.  Rather than depicting the actors portraying those characters in a choreographed fight scene, large metal screens covered the stage and a tiny video stream at the bottom showed the two lions fighting. For me, this was totally ineffective and the drained the tension out of what should have been a climatic scene, which felt frantic and rushed after the 2.5 hours of slow build leading up to this point.

Still, there is lots to love about the show.  I am sure that the new generation of children who get to see the Lion King for the first time will still be enthralled by Taymor’s gorgeous puppetry, the vibrant colours of the costumes, the comedic schtick of Timon and Pumba, the great set pieces that include Pride Rock and the Elephant Graveyard, and the iconic songs that they know by heart from the animated movies.  For me, this production did not live up to my memories of my first viewing.  But perhaps, that is just a case of “You can’t go home again”.

Theatre 2024: Dangerous Corner @ Dundas Little Theatre

 Recently we visited Dundas, Ontario which is now considered a satellite suburb of Hamilton.  We found this small community to be charming and vibrant, especially since we were there on the weekend before Halloween and found ourselves in midst of a bagpipe-led parade complete with costumed children, adults and pets alike, followed by a trick-or-treat event where all the local stores had candy ready for the neighbourhood children.

“Dundas Little Theatre” is an amateur theatre company that has been part of the local art scene since 1960. We watched the opening show of their 2024-25 season, which was the 1932 play “Dangerous Corner”, the first of many social commentaries written by English playwright J.B. Priestley.  Years ago, we watched his most famous play, the much adapted “An Inspector Calls” which deals with the class divisions and social responsibility for those less fortunate.

Dangerous Corner deals with secrets and lies and whether it is better to “let sleeping dogs lie”, as the old English idiom goes. To drum in this point, the play starts with three upper-class women dressed in evening gowns (Freda, Betty, Olwen) plus a modestly dressed elderly lady (Miss Mockridge) listening to a radio program named after that saying.  This play-within-a-play ends with a gunshot and a scream. As they discuss the show, they are joined by tuxedo-clad Robert, Gordon and Charles who all work at the same company along with Olwen.  Robert is married to Freda and Gordon to Betty while Charles is clearly smitten with Olwen.  Miss Mockridge is an esteemed author looking for ideas for her next book.  This group with their simmering emotions and secrets kept just under the surface provide her with delicious fodder.

The group partake in banal conversation while Gordon fiddles with the radio looking for dance music to liven up the party but finds only static.  A seemingly innocuous statement by Olwen triggers a cascading series of revelations about a suspicious suicide (or was it?!?), stolen money, marital infidelity, unrequited love and even sexual assault and homosexuality, which seem to be very risqué topics for the 1930s!  By the end of the play, none of the characters are any better off for having their secrets revealed, as relationships and friendships are torn apart.  Then in a “time-reset”, which is a trope for what has become known as Priestley’s “Time Plays”, the action rewinds to the beginning.  In this alternate timeline, Gordon successfully finds dance music which distracts everyone from questioning Olwen’s triggering statement.  Instead, they all dance happily and avoid the “Dangerous Corner” that they might have turned into.

To match the wealthy, upper-class English setting of the 1930s where Dangerous Corner takes place, both the wardrobe of the characters and the set design reflect the Art Deco style of the times.  I was impressed by how elegant and elaborate the gorgeous set was, especially for a show that only ran for two weeks.  In particular, the fireplace and mantlepiece, light sconces, stained glass designs on the double-doors at the back of the stage and the settees and lounger really sold the Art Deco time period.  The set designer Graham Clements revealed that some of the furnishings were borrowed from the Players’ Guild of Hamilton.

At the front of the stage is a table on which a chess set sits and at the start of the play, several pieces were knocked over and a couple had fallen onto the ground.  I was convinced throughout the show that there was a clue in this chessboard as to what was happening, especially since the pieces were picked up and then knocked over again in subsequent scenes.  I even studied the opening move of the pieces at half-time, trying to glean meaning from it. This all turned out to be a MacGuffin (stealing a term from Alfred Hitchcock) as the chessboard never figured into the plot.

One other interesting note for this rendition of Dangerous Corner is the addition of a maid who has no lines, but whose sole purpose seemed to be to aid the elderly actress playing Miss Mockridge up and down a couple of steps leading on and off the stage.  Considering that at least two other actors stumbled slightly on those steps, this might have been a wise move.  While the “dangerous corner” referenced in the play is purely psychological, these steps might have been the physical manifestation of this peril.

Given that this was a production by a self-proclaimed amateur theatre group, the overall acting and production value was stellar and quite enjoyable.

Theatre 2024: The Last Piece @ Hart House Theatre

I was initially hesitant about watching a musical about Alzheimer's, which I thought might be too sad and depressing. That it would be presented in “concert” with the cast sitting on stage without any sets, props, costumes, choreography or other stagecraft did not ease my discomfort.  But knowing my love of musicals and desire to watch new ones, my husband Rich convinced me to attend “The Last Piece” at University of Toronto’s Hart House Theatre.  Am I ever glad that he did.  This turned out to be a wonderful experience, made all the more special by knowing that the book, music and lyrics were written by Shreya Jha, a U of T medical student in her final year of medical school.  It is mind-boggling to consider how talented Jha is to excel at both medicine and musical theatre, let alone the time management required to focus on both—no left-brain vs right-brain preference here!

The Last Piece deals with 60-year-old Amara who has been acrimoniously divorced from, and out of contact with, her ex-husband Andrew for over 10 years when she gets summoned to the hospital in her hometown.  Andrew has been admitted and diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease and Amara is listed as his emergency contact.  Amara rants to her friends Morgan, Franchine and Shelby about this imposition and all the bad memories of the breakup that Andrew’s resurgence brings up.  Through flashbacks played by a set of younger actors, we see how Amara and Andrew originally met in university and connected over their mutual love of jigsaw puzzles.  The pieces of these puzzles become a metaphor for the couple’s relationship and their different goals and values.  While Amara is careful and methodical, always starting her puzzles at the corners before filling in the middle, Andrew randomly attaches pieces and enjoys being surprised as to the outcome.  Andrew wants to travel the world and experience new adventures, declaring that home is anywhere in the world where they can be together.  Amara wants stability, permanence and the traditional definition of home, which includes a job, house, kids, friends and family.  Despite their love for each other, these fundamental differences result in the constant need for unhappy compromises, and eventually drive them apart.  Now Andrew is back, with his wanderlust and desire for change dampened by his disease and his fading memories taking him more and more to the past.  Amara struggles with whether she should let Andrew back into her life and take on the responsibility of caring for him as his health declines.

The Last Piece is a moving tale of love, loss, memories and family.  The proverbial “last piece” had many meanings in the play, including the physical last piece to complete their jigsaw puzzle, or symbolically to represent the last piece of Andrew’s memory that he struggles to preserve.  The lyrics of one of the songs included the line that “you never know how beautiful a puzzle is until you put in the last piece”. A wonderful 6-person band featuring a violin, cello, guitar, reeds, base and drums sat at the back of the stage behind the actors, providing the score of the musical.  Judging by their ages, they were probably U of T students. They also delightfully serenaded us with jazz classics prior to the start of the show.

The intimate songs and dialogue did not suffer from the lack of sets or movement, but the lack of costumes and the ages of the actors detracted a bit from the storyline.  The older Amara and Andrew were played by actors well short of the sixty-year-old characters they were supposed to portray.  The younger actors fit well when playing 20-year-olds but did not resonate as much when they “aged” three decades up to age 50, all while still dressed in young Andrew’s ripped jeans and young Amara’s school-girl pleated skirt and nylons. Having said that, the acting and vocal singing abilities of the entire cast was very good, especially the powerfully emotional performances by the two Amaras.  The show is only playing for three nights (and one matinee) at Hart House.  I hope that this musical gets a proper staging at some point, perhaps at a future Fringe Festival or even a larger theatre.

Theatre 2024: Rosmersholm @ Crow Theatre

The first play in Crow Theatre’s 2024/25 season is an adapted version of Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen’s drama Rosmersholm which deals with guilt and moral responsibility set against the backdrop of a period of global societal change that saw the decline of the aristocracy and rise of the working class.  It has been described as Ibsen’s darkest play so I went in prepared to not enjoy this, since I usually prefer lighter works.  I was pleasantly surprised to find that I was mesmerized and enthralled from the very start.

Written in 1886, which puts the timeframe in between the French Revolution of 1789-99 and the Russian Revolution of 1917-23, the setting of Ibsen’s tale is the manor house of John Rosmer, an aristocratic former clergyman who is the latest in a long line of Rosmers, a well-respected and influential family in the community.  Also living in the house is Rebecca West, a friend and companion of Rosmer’s late wife Beata.  We learn that presumably out of despair due to her inability to bear children and continue the Rosmer line, Beata committed suicide a year ago by throwing herself off a bridge on the property.

Rebecca has remained to console John and it is clear that they have fallen in love and are much more compatible in intellect and viewpoints that John was with Beata.  Rebecca’s passion and ideals about the need for social change and equality amongst the classes have influenced John, leading him to support the Liberal cause in an upcoming election against the Conservatives who want to maintain the status quo. The highly controversial election will determine which party will gain power and impose their vision for the future of the town, and then eventually the country. Beata’s brother Kroll, a fellow aristocrat and current governor of the town, is appalled and outraged at the thought that Rosmer is willing to betray his friends and peers with his new political stance. Kroll blames Rebecca for bewitching Rosmer and insinuates that there was an illicit and immoral affair between them which was the real reason that Beata killed herself.  Rosmer renouncing his religious faith and stepping down as pastor reinforces Kroll’s assertion that John is now a fallen man.  Despite maintaining a platonic relationship, John and Rebecca each feel guilt that their feelings for one another may have led to Beata’s suicide.  Unable to move past the tragedy, they decide on a joint course of action that leads to a shocking conclusion.

British playwright Duncan Macmillian’s adaptation of Rosmersholm premiered in London’s West End in 2019.  Keeping the characters, themes, plotline and timeframe of the original play intact, Macmillian modernizes the language and adds more emphasis to the political aspects of the play, drawing clear references to the political turmoil that we currently face.  This includes highlighting the power of the media in influencing the common man, where dueling newspapers supporting the two opposing ideologies parallel today’s dueling TV news outlets.  When Kroll’s Tribune newspaper publishes a smear campaign against John and Rebecca, the head housekeeper Mrs. Helseth expresses her doubts about their relationship, despite having witnessed no improprieties first-hand.  Because it said so in the newspapers, there had to be some truth to it?!?

To highlight the class distinction between the upper and lower classes, the multiple servants who wait on John, Rebecca and Kroll as they dine, and who help John dress, are silent and have no speaking lines in the play.  This intentionally and effectively illustrated the “voiceless majority” of the working class.  It was interesting that the actors playing the servants were mostly the ones that attended the post-show talk-back so we finally were able to hear them speak.  They explained how their silent actions of servitude throughout the play helped to visually emphasize the plight of the lower class.

Plays at Crow theatre directed by head artistic director Chris Abraham always have innovative and impressive staging.  Rosmersholm is set in the round, and painted portraits of past generations of Rosmer men line all four walls, each lit by a simulated oil lamp.  These faces stare down at the action, adding to the pressure felt by John and probably Beata to carry on the family name and traditions.  The final climatic scene is a staging triumph. Not wanting to spoil the ending, I can merely say that while Ibsen’s play originally used dialogue to explain what happened, the version of the play at Crow Theatre made it clear by the mere use of sound effects, lighting and water, resulting in a much more powerful conclusion.  

TIFF 2024 - Nutcrackers, Better Man, The Friend

It has been several years since my husband and I seriously attended the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF).  Prior to retiring in 2012, we would buy a few movies to watch on the weekends, and we once took vacation during TIFF so that we could watch movies for an entire week.  After retiring and having more time, we really got into the festival experience, watching 25-30+ movies in the 10-day span. At the peak, I once watched 44 movies, with a few days where I saw 5 in a row, trying to catch a cat nap in between by snagging a comfy chair in the upper floors of the TIFF (formerly Bell) Lightbox.

Starting in 2020, COVID and other factors put a stop to our annual TIFF attendance.  Once we got out of the habit of going each year, we found that we didn’t miss it.  September is a lovely time of year to be outside and not stuck in a dark movie theatre. We have since switched our patronage and moved our entertainment dollar more towards live theatre. The festival scene was fun while it lasted, but I don’t think I would have the stamina and attention span anymore to watch as many movies in such quick succession.  This year, we got a brief reminder of the whole TIFF experience when we were gifted tickets to some movies for the final weekend of the festival.

Since our last major TIFF attendance back in 2019, the ticketing process has changed and you are now assigned seats when you purchase your movie tickets. The advantage of that is that you no longer have to stand in line for long periods of time, waiting for the theatre to open in order to claim an acceptable seat (which for me is at the back of the theatre since I am far-sighted).  The bad news is that you are limited as to what seats you can select and may be assigned seats in undesirable locations.  Luckily none of the seats that we were given were within the first few rows of the theatre which would have been much too close for me.

We ended up watching three enjoyable movies starting around 1pm, then 5pm and finally 9pm which allowed us to have a late lunch/early dinner after the first movie and a snack after the second one.  The first two movies were fairly derivative, following well-tread plotlines but each with a twist that made it a bit more memorable.  The third movie was our favourite because it felt fresh and original, which is a rare achievement these days.

Our first movie was Nutcrackers, starring Ben Stiller in the stereotypical role of the high-powered urban businessman pulled out of his natural habitat when his estranged sister and brother-in-law die in a car accident, leaving behind four unruly orphaned boys (aged 8-13) who live on a working farm which is overrun by animals.  Following all the standard fish-out-of-water tropes, Stiller’s character Michael is put through the ringer as he is tested by the boys until slowly, they learn to care for him and he for them.  Much of the movie deals with Michael and the local child services representative Gretchen urgently trying to locate a suitable foster home for the boys that would keep them together.  It is not much of a spoiler to say that by the end of the movie, Michael’s eyes are opened (metaphorically and literally!) and he realizes that the perfect home for them is with him.

Despite hitting all the expected, clichéd notes in this age-old plot, Nutcrackers wins you over due to the winsome, charismatic performances by the first-time-acting children and a surprisingly nuanced one from Stiller who reins in his usual neurotic, high-strung acting style.  As Michael gets to know them, he realizes that underneath their rough-and-tumble façades can be found sensitive, imaginative and intelligent boys.

The plot twist and reason for the title of the movie comes from the fact that Michael’s sister was a talented ballerina who ran a ballet school and taught her boys to dance.  The older boys Justice and Junior are quite accomplished. To attract prospective foster parents, Michael convinces the children to mount a performance of The Nutcracker’s Moustache, which is Junior’s adaptation of the classical ballet but featuring a sword fight between a Samurai and Rambo, played by the younger twins Simon and Samuel.  Justice’s crush and fellow ballet student Lily plays Clara.  

A more significant twist came during the opening credits, which revealed that the children were played by actual siblings, the Janson brothers.  We left this feel-good, tug-at-your-heartstrings movie wondering how the casting director found the perfect family for the roles of the children.  It turns out that the reverse happened.  The director David Gordon Green was a film school classmate with the Janson brothers’ mother Karen and visited them often at their working farm.  Charmed by the children, Green developed the script for the movie for them, filmed at their farm incorporating all of their animals including pigs, chickens, dogs and guinea pig, and included the ballet plotline because the boys were all trained ballet dancers. The revised Nutcracker’s Moustache ballet featured input from middle child Ulysses Janson.  This great back story gave a tired plot a new life.

The next movie was Better Man, a biopic following the trajectory of (self-proclaimed?) international singing superstar Robbie Williams from his childhood growing up in Stoke-on-Trent, England, to his stint between 1990-1995 with the British boy band Take That, to his solo career leading up to current day.  In terms of story, Better Man hits many of the usual themes or plot points that come with biographies of celebrities in general and rock stars in particular.   We have the precocious talent and drive for fame, the daddy issues that come with a neglectful, absentee father, the initial big break followed by insecurities, self doubt and depression that lead to alcohol and drug abuse, the fall from grace, hitting rock bottom, then finally overcoming adversity and rising up again to become the current day success.  At a high level, this could be the life story or trajectory of a number of different artists.

Given that Robbie Williams found most of his success in UK and Europe and that we are not familiar with his songs either from Take That or as a solo artist, this movie would have been mostly forgettable were it not for the major twist, or should I say gimmick?  Throughout the entire movie starting from when he was a child, Robbie is depicted as a monkey through the use of motion capture technology and CGI.  When Robbie becomes an adult, the monkey is endowed with Williams’ own expressive eyes overlaying the eyes of the actor Jonno Davies, who performs the physical movements while Williams provides the speaking and singing voices.  The inspiration for this interpretation comes from a comment that Robbie made where he said he always feels like a performing monkey when on stage.

It is debatable whether this artistic choice helps or hinders the movie.  In retrospect, I think it does a bit of both. It is jarring and even distracting seeing Robbie the monkey interacting and carrying on conversations with the people around him, and especially in several nude scenes where the hairy simian is seen in full glory without the shield of human clothing.  Where the gimmick does work is during the musical numbers and his on-stage performances.  In particular, when Robbie looks out at the audience while performing, he sees hostile, angry apes glaring at him and judging him.  This becomes the perfect visual manifestation of his own insecurities and self-loathing.   The lyrics of many of William’s songs address themes of personal struggle, feelings of shame and inadequacy.  In the case of Better Man, the song which the movie is named after, he voices his desire for redemption as he sings: "As my soul heals the shame, I will grow through this pain, Lord, I'm doing all I can, To be a better man".

The other choice that made watching Better Man more palatable for me was that the first half was staged as a musical with characters singing soulful tunes to voice their feelings, and massive choreographed dance numbers that harkened back to the golden age of movie musicals.  In one scene where Williams first meets and falls in love with Nicole Appleton from the group All Saints, their spectacular dance across the bow of a ship channels the spirits of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.  I am a sucker for musicals, even when performed by a monkey, so that won me over for a while before the second half of the movie turned into a straight melodrama.

Whether portraying Robbie Williams as a monkey turns out to be a good idea or not remains to be seen. It is clear that even the director is not sure, since he felt the need to start the screening of Better Man with a brief preamble interview between him and Williams where they explain the reason behind the concept.  Without this, you would have spent the entire movie thinking, "What’s going on?!?!?" One thing is for sure, good or bad, the choice makes this film memorable.

The final movie that we watched was titled The Friend, starring Naomi Watts, Bill Murray, and Bing, an enormous Great Dane who really should get top billing and possibly an Oscar nomination for his most expressive, soulful performance.  Iris (Watts) and Walter (Murray) are fellow writers and longtime friends with a complicated history.  The movie starts off at a dinner party where Walter describes being out for a run when he comes across an abandoned Great Dane that he keeps and names Apollo. By the next scene, we find out that Walter has committed suicide and left instructions that Apollo should be taken in by Iris, much to her surprise.  Unfortunately, Iris lives in a rent-controlled midtown apartment building that does not allow dogs and faces being evicted for keeping one, even temporarily, while she searches for a new home for him. The parallels between this movie and Nutcrackers are interesting as they both involve protagonists who unexpectedly have unwanted responsibilities thrust upon them.  But where Nutcrackers felt formulaic, The Friend does not, in no small part because of the gigantic, majestic dog.

The Friend is a slow-paced, subtle, dialog-driven movie about love, friendship, and grief, as felt by Iris and also by Apollo who vocally mourns the loss of his master, and finally acceptance.  As Iris struggles to befriend and console Apollo, she slowly comes to realize that he provides her with consolation and companionship in return.  At some point, you wonder who the title “The Friend” actually refers to, since it might be Apollo who is featured in much more of the movie than Walter is.  “But what to do about the dog?” becomes an overlying question throughout the movie.  Even when Iris realizes that she may want to keep Apollo, she cannot risk losing the only apartment in the neighbourhood that she can afford.

While dealing with her own grief and even anger at Walter’s actions, Iris must also grapple with Walter’s wives (referred to as wife #1, wife #2 and the current wife #3), his recently discovered adult daughter, the completion of Walter’s memoir which Iris was helping with, and her writer’s block in completing her own novel.  It slowly comes out that Walter seduced many of his female students including Iris while he was teaching and probably got “Me-too’ed”, possibly leading to his depression.  As this is revealed, some of the earlier seemingly innocuous conversations start to take on new meanings.  Despite the movie’s serious themes, there are some light moments including a voice-over memory of Walter dryly commenting “The more suicidal people there are, the less suicidal people there are …”.  I’m ashamed to admit that I laughed out loud at this morbid but ironically funny observation.

The cinematography of The Friend is a love letter to Manhattan as it lingers on street signs such as 8th Avenue and Washington Place and provides sweeping views of Washington Square, Central Park, Chelsea and other prominent areas.  The film is based on a short novel of the same name by Sigrid Nunez, which won the 2018 National Book Award for Fiction.  I have it on hold from the library but was able to read a short sample of the first few pages.  So far, it is told in short snippets of thoughts and memories by Iris as she processes Walter’s passing, some of which have become Iris’ voiceovers in the movie.  The writing style is invigorating and addictive and I look forward to reading the rest.  In the meantime, I’m happy that I watched this movie.

In addition to being a world-class film festival, TIFF is trying to position itself as the marketplace that brings together the creatives and the moneymen to facilitate major movie deals.  It is interesting to note that at the start of the festival, only Better Man had a distribution deal while Nutcrackers and The Friend had not yet secured one.  Maybe the monkey was a good idea after all?

Theatre 2024: Life of Pi @ Mirvish

My husband Rich and I were first exposed to the stage version of Yann Matel’s critically acclaimed and award-winning novel “Life of Pi” when we watched a filmed version of London’s West End National Theatre performance, screened at Cineplex Theatres in April 2023.  With its innovative staging that incorporated stunning video effects to simulate rainstorms, waves in the ocean, schools of fish and more, as well as amazingly skillful use of puppetry to represent animals at the Zoo and on Pi’s lifeboat, this was one of the best examples of theatre stagecraft that we had ever seen. You can read my extensive about my review of the West End production of this play, including a synopsis of the plot, at the link below.

https://torontohappenings.blogspot.com/2023/04/theatre-2023-life-of-pi-national.html

A touring road show from London has now hit Toronto and is part of our 2024/25 Mirvish subscription series.  We loved the play so much when we watched the filmed version that we would probably would have wanted to watch it again regardless.  But given that it was part of our subscription series, this became a no-brainer.  I won’t repeat my thoughts about the original show here but will compare and contrast the two productions.

As always, seeing a show for the second time will never be the same as the first time that you experience it, and a touring show usually must make some compromises in terms of staging.  So, we were interested in how we would feel revisiting Life of Pi while also comparing attending a live performance versus watching one on screen.  Because we knew what to expect, we upgraded our tickets to the first row in the Mezzanine to get the best view.  The special effects projected onto the stage floor made it imperative that we be able to look down on the action from above.  But we also wanted to be close enough to see the intricate movements and “reactions” from the various animals and the tiger Richard Parker in particular.

Since it was designed by the same creative team, the Mirvish production matched the West End one in terms of spectacular lighting effects and masterful puppetry and animatronics.  The use of video and a few prop changes magically transform the setting from an austere hospital room in Mexico, to a zoo and a bustling market in India, to a cargo ship in a fierce storm and finally to the open waters of the ocean where Pi is shipwrecked on a lifeboat.  But the team had to work within the limitations of the CAA Ed Mirvish Theatre as opposed to the Wyndham Theatre in London, England.  At Wyndham, Pi’s lifeboat rises out of the stage floor and Pi falls into the “ocean” by going right through the stage with only his head sticking out.  This was not possible to reproduce in Toronto, so Pi’s boat is split vertically into two halves that emerge from either side of the stage, and the scene where Pi falls into the water is sadly eliminated.  In the West End version, that was one of the highlights of the stagecraft.

Another seemingly major difference between the two versions of the play was in the gender casting of some major roles.  At our performance, Piscine Molitor Patel (Pi) was female (played by a spunky Riya Rajeev), as was the representative of Japanese Ministry of transport Mrs.Okamoto, who was sent to interview Pi and find out why the ship sank.  And even the Bengal tiger “Richard Parker” was referenced as female.  This seemed to be a triumph for gender equality in casting and did not affect the plot at all.  What I realized when reviewing the programme after the show was that we had the “alternate” Pi for our performance.  In the regular performances, Pi was male (played by Divesh Subaskaran) while Riya played his sister Rani.  At our show, Pi’s sibling was a brother named Ravi.  Because of the strenuous demands of the role involving jumping around in the lifeboat and battling giant-sized puppets, it seems clear why there is a need for two actors to play Pi.  However, the gender switch is surprising since it called for subtle changes in the dialog anytime anyone referred to Pi in the third person.  You would think the chance of a mix-up would be high!  Based on the programme, it seems that the role of Okamoto remains female for all performances but I wonder whether Richard Parker changes genders to match the actor playing Pi?

Another interesting detail that I learned from reviewing the programme was the multiple teams of puppeteers assigned to play Richard Parker.  At any one time, there are three puppeteers manipulating the tiger’s various parts—one for the hind legs, one for the core or heart and one for the head.  The movements and expressions of the tiger are so realistic that you forget about the humans controlling the puppet despite their being in plain sight and concentrate only on the ferocious beast.  I did notice the two rear puppeteers during the final bows and felt sorry for them since they had to be hunched over for much of the time that they were on stage.

Because of the acoustics in the Ed Mirvish Theatre and the heavy accents of the actors, I found it sometimes difficult to hear all of the dialogue, especially when Pi was shouting or speaking very rapidly.  But having read the novel and watched the previous West End performance, I was very familiar with the plot so this did not detract much from my enjoyment of the play.  Even watching it for the second time and knowing what to expect, I found the show to be just as enthralling. Those who go watch it for the first time will be blown away.  This was an extremely difficult book to adapt and playwright Lolita Chakrabarti did a fantastic job.  But the biggest kudos must go to the creative team including the lighting and video designers, as well as the puppeteers, whose work took the show to an entirely different level.  You can find a video of the puppeteers rehearsing on Facebook.

Theatre 2024: Something Rotten! @ Stratford Festival

My husband Rich and I first became aware of the musical comedy Something Rotten! when we watched an outstanding performance of its showstopping number “A Musical” at the 2015 Tony Awards where it was nominated for 10 Tonies including Best Musical. After that, we waited impatiently for the show to come to Toronto. When it didn’t, we decided to drive to Buffalo,NY in 2018 to watch a touring production at the Shea Theatre. I wrote extensively about the Buffalo performance in my travel blog, which is available from the following link, so I won’t go into that much detail about the plot again for this review.

https://arenglishtravels.blogspot.com/2018/03/buffalo-2018-something-rotten-musical.html

We enjoyed Something Rotten! so much that we were thrilled to hear that it would be mounted at the Stratford Festival as part of their 2024 season.  We jumped at the opportunity to watch this delightful show again and encouraged all our friends to do so as well.  Stratford is the perfect venue for mounting this show since its two major topics, musicals and Shakespeare, are also the festival’s two mainstays.

Brothers Nick and Nigel Bottom, two writing contemporaries of William Shakespeare, are struggling to come up with new ideas for their next play or risk losing funding from their patron Lady Clapham.  Jealous of Shakespeare’s success and fame, Nick steals his family’s savings and hires a dubious soothsayer Thomas Nostradamus (not the famous or reliable one) to predict what will be the next big thing in theatre.  Nostradamus foresees the advent of the musical and tries to explain the concept to a skeptical Nick, which leads to the unforgettable number that was performed on the Tonies.  Hearing that in a musical, people break into song for no apparent reason, Nick protests “That’s the stupidest thing that I have ever heard”, but of course, he sings the lines (for no apparent reason and to much laughter). While still not sold on the concept, Nick exclaims that it all sounds miserable, to which Nostradamus retorts “I believe it’s pronounced Misér-a-a-a-bles”.

If you love musicals, then Something Rotten! is a love letter to the classics of the past, with musical references whizzing by faster than your brain can absorb them.  Tiny snippets of melody, lyrics, dance steps, costumes and props allude to iconic shows including Music Man, Chicago, Rent, Follies, Cats, Sweet Charity, Phantom of the Opera, Annie, A Chorus Line and many, many more. 

If you love Shakespeare, then there is much for you to recognize and relate to as well.  Nick’s wife Bea is named after Beatrice from Much Ado About Nothing and Nigel’s love interest Portia is named after the heroine in Merchant of Venice and Shylock the moneylender from that play is also a character here.  A judge named after Falstaff from the Henry IV plays appears towards the end of the show.  Actual lines from Shakespeare’s more famous plays are often quoted.  And if you like musicals but not Shakespeare, there’s something for you as well, since one of the songs that Nick sings is literally called “God, I Hate Shakespeare”.  Something Rotten! portrays Shakespeare as a genius, but also a pompous, arrogant rockstar from the Renaissance. Refreshingly, the female characters Bea and Portia are portrayed as intelligent, strong women who could rule the world if the idiot men around them would just let them.

Having already watched and loved this show, we were a bit wary that a second viewing would not stand up to our memories of the first time.  We needed not fear since the Stratford production was every bit as wonderful and hilarious as the Buffalo one.  Director Donna Feore (wife of actor Colm Feore) put her own personal touches to the Stratford version with new sets and costumes and most notably, incorporating her own personal musical references from Stratford shows that she directed in the past including Rocky Horror Picture Show, Guys and Dolls, Fiddler on the Roof, Sound of Music, Crazy For You and Little Shop of Horrors.  The nods to her past works were extra special when she was able to assign current cast members who were also in one of those shows to recreate a snippet of their past performances.  It became a whole new game of spot the musical.  I think I recognized a few more obscure ones including the cowboys from Will Rogers Follies and miners from Billy Elliot.  The highly anticipated “A Musical” number induced the almost expected, extended standing ovation.  But a subsequent extravaganza number in the second act was so thrilling that the audience jumped up to applaud for a second time.  A standing ovation in the middle of a show is already rare, but I have never seen this happen twice in the same show before.

The entire cast was spectacular including Michael Uhre who played the passionate and exasperated Nick Bottom, Jeff Lillico as a sexy, strutting Shakespeare, and Dan Chameroy, who we have seen many times in Ross Petty’s annual Christmas Pantomimes, playing a befuddled, wacky Nostradamus.  Having also watched La Cage Aux Folles, Stratford’s other musical this season, we recognized Steve Ross playing Shylock since he also starred as Albin/Zaza in La Cage, as did many of the male dancers in the Something Rotten! chorus, who played drag queens in the show that we watched earlier this season.

Taking advantage of Stratford’s 2 for 1 ticket sale at the beginning of the year, we ended up in the best seats that we have ever had at the Festival Theatre.  We sat 2nd row centre and were able to see subtle nuances in the performances that we usually miss when further back.  Luckily, we did not pick the first row since this was actually too close to the stage.  There were barriers, meant to stop the dancing chorus from falling on top of the audience, that might have blocked my line of sight.  We were so close that we could see the beautiful designs on the costumes, the expressions on the characters’ faces, but also their sweat from exertion, spit from enunciation and the gigantic smiles from the chorus that needed to be large enough for the back row to see, but looked almost unnatural from the second row.

We absolutely love Something Rotten! and it remains our favourite musical to this day, which is saying something considering how many musicals we have watched and continue to watch over the years.  It is wonderful to be able to go to the theatre and experience a show that is intelligent and witty without hammering you over the head with some serious message, that is fun entertainment and just a pure joy to watch.  If you hate both Shakespeare and musicals and don’t enjoy a good laugh, then Something Rotten probably isn’t for you.  Everyone else should rush out to see it before its run ends, although the show has been so successful that it is now extended two more weeks through mid November.