Theatre 2023: Pride and Prejudice, Sort Of

I am quite familiar with the plot of Pride and Prejudice after having read the classic Jane Austen novel of manners, as well as watching the 1995 British TV miniseries and the 2005 movie with the young, hot actors Colin Firth and Matthew Macfayden respectively starring as the iconic romantic hero, Mr. Darcy.  Set in the Regency period between 1811-1820, the story revolves around the Bennet family with five unmarried daughters who are not entitled to inherit from their father’s estate based on the laws of the times which dictate that property can only be passed on to a male heir.  The irritatingly pushy mother Mrs. Bennet is desperate to find wealthy spouses for one or more of her daughters so that the family can be supported after Mr. Bennet’s passing.  The five girls include beautiful and kindly eldest daughter Jane, handsome, spunky and witty Elizabeth (Lizzy), bookish and reclusive middle child Mary, and the two youngest daughters Kitty and Lydia who are described as insipid, self indulgent and ignorant.

Most of this ubiquitously well-known story revolves around the romances of Jane and Mr. Bingley, Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy and to a lesser extent, Lydia and Mr. Wickham.  The general consensus is that title of the book refers to Mr. Darcy’s pride causing him to look down on the “lower class” and Elizabeth’s prejudice in judging Darcy based on first impressions. There is just as much evidence in the book to argue that Elizabeth’s pride was hurt when she overheard Darcy flippantly denigrate herself and her family when they first met, and that Darcy was prejudiced against the Bennet girls due to their need to marry in order to avoid their unfortunate circumstances.  Regardless, these two “character flaws” are the plot devices used to keep the Lizzy and Darcy apart for the bulk of the book.  In terms of tropes used in romance novels, not much has changed over the centuries.  The story has been adapted so many times and in so many ways.  There is a spoof novel called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, multiple movies and plays with or without a modernized spin and several musicals including the 1959 version called “First Impressions”, which was originally going to be the title for this novel.

Accordingly, when Pride and Prejudice* (*Sort of), the play originally from Glasgow that won the 2022 Olivier award, arrived on the slate of the 2023-24 “Off-Mirvish” subscription series, one had to wonder what new ideas were left to freshen up this old tale.  As it turns out, this rendition of the classic romantic drama is a hilarious jukebox musical comedy featuring five talented actresses who play all the relevant roles from the novel, darting behind a screen or off stage to switch costumes and characters.  As a framing device, the plot of Pride and Prejudice is told from the perspective of the servants of the various households, which the same five actresses also play.  This allows them to provide extra exposition such as explaining the inheritance laws of the time, to introduce or identify new characters as they first appear on stage and to manipulate the sparse props required by the story.  They also stress the important narrative role that servants could play in affecting a plot, such as misdirecting a missive (think about what happened in Romeo and Juliet!).  As we sat in the audience waiting for the play to start, we kept hearing a ringing sound which turned out to represent the buzzers used to summon the servants.  One by one, they appeared from the back of the theatre wearing plain white cotton slip dresses, yellow rubber gloves and using rags and dusters to “clean” the seats along the aisles.

Once on stage, the servants playfully bantered amongst themselves, dusted and cleaned, and explained their purpose within the play.  They then turned on music from a “boom box”,  grabbed microphones and belted out the Elvis Costello song “Every Day I Write the Book”, which is the perfect song to reflect their roles in presenting the stories about their employers.  This injection of karaoke-styled singing of classic pop songs continued throughout the play, sung by both the servants and the characters within the Pride and Prejudice story.  Occasionally instruments were played as part of the musical numbers.  In true jukebox musical fashion (or at least for good jukebox musicals), the songs were cleverly selected to fit right in with the plotline.  Jane crooned “Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow” by the Shirelles after meeting and becoming instantly smitten with Bingley at a dance.  When Elizabeth showed her distain for Mr. Darcy after feeling insulted by him, she retaliated with Carly Simon’s hit song “You’re so Vain”.  When Mr. Darcy’s wealthy and powerful aunt Lady Catherine de Bourgh made her appearance dressed in flamboyant red dress, naturally Chris de Burgh (pun intended?)’s song “Lady in Red” was performed to usher in her entrance.  When the Bennet family was in despair because Lydia had disgraced them by running off with the rakish Mr. Wickham, the sisters belted out “Holding Out for a Hero” in hopes that someone could find and save her from ruining her reputation.  And most hilariously, Mr. Darcy finally admitted his feelings for Elizabeth by singing David Cassidy’s hit “I Think I Love You” from the Partridge Family TV series.

The main story of Pride and Prejudice started with one of the servants quoting the actual first line of the novel—“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife”.   At this point the quick-change artistry began as the actresses jumped from character to character.  One of the actresses portrayed Mrs. Bennet and Mr. Darcy and another played Elizabeth’s best friend Charlotte Lucas, as well as Mr. Bingley and his sister Miss Bingley.  It was quipped that the siblings "looked nothing alike".  A third actress played Jane Bennet, Mr. Wickham and Lady Catherine de Bourgh.  A fourth actress had the most roles, taking on Mary Bennet, Lydia Bennet, Mr. Collins, the tedious priest and cousin of Mr. Bennet who would inherit the Bennet estate, as well as Mrs. Gardiner, the sister-in-law of Mr. Bennet.  The actress playing Elizabeth Bennet was only responsible for this one role within the main story since she was in almost every scene.  Poor Kitty Bennet was only referred to and not shown onstage at all.  Comically, Mr. Bennet was purported to be sitting an armchair facing away from the stage while reading a newspaper.  As scenes changed, “Mr. Bennet” along with his chair was pushed on and off the stage.  At one point, a servant lit a cigar for him, and smoke emanated from the front of the chair.

There were other examples of the play’s clever use of props to portray some of Pride and Prejudice’s plot points but in a humorous fashion.  With rain in the forecast, Mrs. Bennet forced Jane to ride a horse rather than take a carriage to visit Mr. Bingley, in hopes that she would be stranded due to bad weather and asked to stay longer.  Mrs. Bennet’s loud proclamation that “It’s time to mount Willie” (the horse) drew the expected laughs from the audience and then a large plastic horse was brought out which Jane needed a step ladder to climb up onto.  To simulate the rain that she encountered, Jane was sprayed with water from the servants’ water bottles.  Sitting in the fourth row of the theatre, we actually felt a bit of that spray.  In the scene where Elizabeth and her aunt Mrs. Gardiner visited Darcy’s Pemberley estate and viewed a life-sized portrait of him, two servants held up a giant empty picture frame in front of the actress playing Darcy in order to simulate the painting.  To reflect Lizzy’s confused emotions upon seeing Darcy’s image and not being able to take her eyes off it, every time she turned around, the portrait “moved” with her so that she was facing it again.  This happened a few times and on the last iteration, she turned to face Darcy himself as he had unexpectedly arrived a day early.  At this point, there was a sly reference to the 1995 BBC miniseries of Pride and Prejudice where Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy is infamously wearing a soaking wet, see-through shirt after swimming when he unexpectedly meets Elizabeth.  In the play, the servants hilariously asked why Darcy was not wet, which would be totally out of context if you did not understand the reference.

Despite the limited cast and the camp and silliness, Pride and Prejudice* (*Sort of) does an amazing job of hitting all the important plot points of the source material.  It does add a few anachronisms such as the metal step ladder for mounting the horse, the doc marten boots worn by the servants, the karaoke machine and wireless microphones, but they just add to the fun.  There was also some swearing (even by the ladies) thrown in for comic effect as well as a very funny recurring subplot where Lizzy’s friend Charlotte is actually gay and pines for Elizabeth while settling for marrying dull Mr. Collins.  Lizzy is totally oblivious to Charlotte’s feelings and misses all the subtext behind her words.  The servants had the last word and closed the show by singing a rousing rendition of  “Young Hearts Run Free” by Candi Staton.

This was one of the most enjoyable, entertaining and creative plays that we have watched in a long time.  We laughed, we cheered, and we bopped along to the tunes.  I wish that they would film a West End production like they do with so many other plays so that it will show up on a streaming service, since I would love the opportunity to watch it again.

Theatre 2023: 42nd Street

The musical play 42nd Street is an adaptation of the 1933 black and white movie of the same name, which in turn is based off of a similarly titled 1933 novel by Bradford Ropes.  Located in the heart of Manhattan’s entertainment district, 42nd Street has become synonymous with live theatre in New York City, especially at Times Square where it intersects with Broadway Avenue.  The book and the movie probably went a long way in cementing this connotation.

Bradford Rope’s story describes the backstage politics and power dynamics of Broadway in the roaring 20s.  He writes about chorus girls (and boys) subjected to casting couch tactics, the self-proclaimed “male gigolo and man-whore” Pat Denning who accepts money from various wealthy benefactors including the past-her-prime star Dorothy Brock, who herself has an elderly sugar-daddy Abner Dillon financing her latest show, mobsters for hire to separate Pat and Dorothy, the young male lead singer Billy Lawler whose influence over his gay director and lover Julian Marsh results in the firing of any perceived competition, and the fresh-faced but hardly naïve chorus girl Peggy Sawyer who juggles several suitors but ultimately prioritizes career advancement over love and marriage.  Much of the action revolves around the casting, rehearsal and performance of the Broadway show “Pretty Lady” which features tap dancing numbers that were extravaganzas in the vein of The Ziegfeld Follies.  To simulate the sound of the tapping on the page, Ropes would write “Ticka Tack Toe .. Ticka Tack Toe”.  This was not the best written book in terms of literary style or dialog but there were enough gems in the narrative to be mined to produce an Oscar nominated film that was the most profitable movie in 1933 and is now considered a classic.

While the movie version of 42nd Street takes some plot points and main characters from the book, it significantly bowdlerizes the seedier elements of Ropes’ novel, replacing them with traditional wholesome Hollywood tropes of the time.  The famous director Julian Marsh is still mounting the revue show “Pretty Lady”, but he is no longer gay.  Instead, he is ill, and this is likely his last show, making him desperate for it to be a success in order to financially secure his retirement.  The timeframe is moved to the early 1930s in the heart of the Great Depression in order to heighten the desperation of all involved for the show to be a hit.  As in the book, Dorothy Brock is still the star of the production,  which is financed by her rich, older benefactor Abner Dillon while secretly seeing her true love Pat Denning behind Abner’s back.  Marsh sends thugs to rough up Dennings to keep him away from Brock.  But in the movie, Denning is now an honorable man who is in love with Dorothy yet chafes against taking money from her and seeks to make it on his own.  The main narrative follows the old standard storyline where naïve but ultra-talented ingenue Peggy Sawyer is plucked out of the chorus line to become a star and save the show when Dorothy breaks her leg and cannot perform.  Billy Lawler is also no longer gay but now is Peggy’s supporter and love interest.

Although many taboo subjects from the book were eliminated, this movie was “pre-Hayes Code” so there were still some racy scenes that might not have been included a few decades later.  One of the experienced chorus girls named Ann Lowell is nicknamed “Anytime Annie”, about whom the male choreographer Andy Lee quips “She only said no once, and then she didn’t hear the question”.  As a prank on Peggy while she is looking for the casting director at the tryouts for Pretty Lady, Ann and some other showgirls send her into Billy Lawler’s dressing room where he is semi-clad in his underwear (in the requisite “meet-cute” scene).  During the tryouts, the women are called upon to lift their skirts so that the director can inspect their legs.  Director Julian Marsh is physically aggressive with Peggy, grabbing her repeatedly as he tries to whip her into shape to replace Dorothy on short notice.  At one point he even yanks her into a kiss to help her get in “the right mindset” for a love scene.   None of this would be acceptable in today’s “Me-Too” environment!  In another scene at Peggy’s rooming house, a woman in a negligee can be spotted in the background sneaking her lover out of her room.  It is interesting how much sexual inuendo was allowed in movies in the 1930s compared to the puritan decades of the 50s and 60s when you could not even show a married couple sharing a bed or use the word pregnancy.

The movie 42nd Street is deemed a musical, but there are only five songs, and they are only sung as part of rehearsals or performances of Pretty Lady.  There is no bursting into song with lyrics to advance the main plot.  Even the “show within a show” has no real plot but is rather a series of standalone numbers meant to showcase the tunes written by Harry Warren and Al Dubin including “Shuffling off to Buffalo” and the eponymous finale song “42nd Street”.  The main draw of the movie is the series of spectacular dance sequences choreographed by Busby Berkeley including a large cast of dancers creating kaleidoscope-like geometric patterns which he filmed from overhead and from below to create incredible images. Two memorable lines came out of this movie—“By tomorrow, I’ll either have a live leading lady or a dead chorus girl”, and “you’re going out a youngster, but you’ve got to come back a star!”. Up and coming stars Ruby Keeler and Dick Powell starred as Peggy and Billy respectively and would go on to be paired in many more musicals including The Golddiggers of 1933 and Dames.  A young (pre-Fred Astaire pairing) Ginger Rogers plays the experienced chorus girl Ann Lowell who catches Abner’s eye after he dumps Dorothy and is first offered the starring role.  She turns it down saying that she did not have the chops to carry the show but suggests Peggy instead.  In light of the explosion in Rogers’ film and dance career shortly after, this statement seems so ironic.

As part of our 2023/2024 Mirvish subscription series, we watched a touring production of London West End’s latest revival of the live musical 42nd Street.  This show was first staged on Broadway in 1980, winning the Tony awards for Best Musical and best choreography for that year.  To expand the show into a full-fledged musical, in addition to using most of the songs from the 1933 movie, popular tunes from other movies of the time including other Keeler/Powell collaborations were added.  Songs including “We’re in the Money”, “Shadow Waltz”, “Dames” and “With Plenty of Money and You” were used to beef up the performances within Pretty Lady, although this show-within-a-show still has no real plot.  But now, more in the fashion of contemporary "book" musicals, songs are sung by the characters of 42nd Street to advance the main storyline.  When Dorothy feels like she is losing Pat, she sings the torch song “Only Have Eyes For You”, and when the cast goes on the road to Philadelphia for pre-Broadway tryouts, they sing “Getting Out of Town”.  In addition to more songs, changes to some of the characters and plot made the musical flow more cohesively than both the movie and the book.

Instead of two male producers for the show as in the book and movie, the musical has male and female producers, Bert and Maggie, who are also the songwriters and who act as comic relief both in 42nd Street and in Pretty Lady.  Peggy is portrayed as being much more naïve and forms relationships with Maggie and chorus girls Ann, Lorraine and Phyllis, who take her under their wings.  In the number “Go Into Your Dance”, Peggy impresses the others and proves her remarkable talent at tap dancing, which clarifies the later scene where Ann recommends Peggy for the lead to replace Dorothy.  In the movie, this came out of the blue and made no sense at all.   Another major plot change involves how and why Dorothy falls and breaks her leg.  In the movie, Dorothy trips in a drunken stupor and jealous rage as she assumes that her beloved Pat is two-timing her with Peggy.  In the musical, Peggy bumps into Dorothy during a number in Pretty Lady and causes her to fall.  This results in Dorothy demanding and Julian immediately firing Peggy.  To set up this scenario, Peggy is portrayed as being klutzy and always bumping  into people, which didn’t make sense to me since she is supposed to be such a gifted dancer.  The plot device is weak, but the firing sets up the big production number “Lullaby of Broadway” when Julian and the cast realize that they need Peggy to save the show and rush to the train station to convince her to return.

In the performance that we watched, two staircases that sat innocuously on either side of the stage during the rehearsal scenes are pushed together and with the help of some video magic, the Philadelphia Broad St. Station appears right before our eyes.  In general, the set design for this show was gorgeous with its Art Deco backdrops and the costumes worn during the Pretty Lady numbers were equally spectacular.  Add to that the stellar dance performances and what you get is a light-hearted, fun period musical whose sole purpose is to entertain, which was just what we needed to kick off the holiday season.

One small point of note is that being a touring road show, the cast of this production was significantly smaller than the West End revival that played in the Royal Drury Lane Theatre from 2017-2019 and which was filmed for streaming access in 2018.  While the Toronto version of the show only had 5 extra chorus girls and 8 chorus boys in the ensemble, the West End production had over 20 girls and 12 boys.  Their ensemble alone outnumbered the entire Toronto cast.  Thus by necessity, the dance numbers that we watched were on a much smaller scale than those of the original.  But the great choreography and talented performers in our show made their presence seem so large that we did not feel lacking.

It is interesting to compare Pretty Lady’s grand finale number 42^nd Street in the movie versus the musical.  In each case, it is a big production piece featuring Peggy and Billy singing the jazzy tune although in the movie, it is sung with a peppy cadence while in the musical, it is sung with more of a slow, sultry jazz rhythm (which I liked better!).  The song is meant to convey the atmosphere of the iconic street where you can “Hear the beat of dancing feet”, but also “where the underworld can meet the elite”.  Both the lyrics and the dance number show that it is not just all good times and song and dance on the street, but that there is a seedy, dangerous side as well.  In the movie version, in the middle of a dance sequence that features all types of people on the street, a woman is physically assaulted and murdered.  In the musical version, the shock factor of the scenario is toned down a bit as a purse snatcher is shot dead by the police.  The final words of the song sum it all up – “Naughty, bawdy, gaudy, sporty Forty-Second Street”.  Once again for this number, there are noticeably fewer people in the musical than the movie, and even fewer people in the touring production than the revival version.

The final scenes in both the movie and the musical focus on director Julian Marsh as opposed to the book which ends on the perspective of the newly minted star Peggy Sawyer. In the movie, Marsh stands alone outside the theatre and morosely listens as patrons walk by praising Peggy while diminishing Julian’s role in the show’s success. In the musical, after Peggy gently rebuffs Julian’s mild romantic overtures and leaves to attend a celebration party with the rest of the cast, he sings the final reprise of 42nd Street.  It feels like an eleven o’clock number and leads one to question who is intended to be the main protagonist of this musical—is it Peggy or Julian?  The question is further complicated in the final bows.  In the Toronto production that we watched, Peggy is clearly the star and gets the final bow while in the filmed West End version, it goes to the actors playing Julian and Dorothy who come out together.  Maybe this is just attributed to who were the bigger named actors in each version of the show, but it is still a bit perplexing what was the actual intention of the show creators.

Nonetheless, this was an enjoyable and visually stunning musical that left us happily humming and tapping our feet as we went home.  I always thought that it would be fun to learn to tap dance, and this just fueled my fantasy.

Theatre 2023: To Kill a Mockingbird

It has been many years since I read the novel “To Kill a Mockingbird”, Harper Lee’s classic coming of age story about six-year-old Scout and her ten-year-old brother Jem, growing up in small town Alabama during the Depression.  They lead a carefree existence full of childlike escapades until their widowed attorney father Atticus Finch is called upon to defend Tom Robinson, a gentle black man falsely accused of raping a 19-year-old white girl. This results in a loss of innocence for the children, as they gain first-hand experience of the deep-rooted racism that exists in the South. Told in flashbacks, an adult Scout (aka Jean Louise Finch) recalls the events of her childhood, sometimes gleaning clarity regarding situations or discussions that she could not fully comprehend at the time.

To Kill a Mockingbird won the Pulitzer Prize for Literature in 1961 and the character of Atticus Finch is considered one of the most beloved heroes in literary history, his name synonymous with honour, fairness and courage.  Some aspects of this book are based on Lee’s own life.  Her attorney father represented black defendants in a high profiled trial, while Scout and Jem’s childhood friend Dill is based on Harper’s best friend and neighbour Truman Capote.  The children’s fascination with the neighbourhood recluse Boo Radley is also based on a family who lived in a boarded-up house down the street from Lee’s home.

It has also been a long time since I first watched the equally famous 1962 movie “To Kill a Mockingbird” starring Gregory Peck as attorney Atticus Finch and newcomer Mary Badham as young Scout.  While cutting out many peripheral characters and storylines, the movie followed the plot of the book quite faithfully.  The movie was nominated for 8 Academy Awards, winning three including Best Actor for Peck.  Although it lost Best Picture to Lawrence of Arabia, it is still listed in the top 100 movies of all time.

Recently we watched a touring version of the 2018 Broadway play adaptation of “To Kill A Mockingbird”, written by  acclaimed screenwriter Aaron Sorkin.  By comparison, this rendition definitely does not follow the trajectory of the book. Sorkin is known for creating scripts for the TV series “The West Wing” and movies such as “A Few Good Men” (with now well-known lines such as “You can’t handle the truth!”).  Coming from the Hollywood world, he is used to injecting heightened drama and big dramatic speeches into his works.   It is therefore no surprise to hear that he took so many liberties with the beloved novel that the estate of Harper Lee sued lead producer Scott Rudin for contract violation for “not remaining faithful to the spirit of the book”.   According to reports, the estate objected to about 80% of the script. Before the lawsuit could go to court, it was settled between the two parties with Sorkin addressing half of those issues.  It was extremely interesting to see what was taken out of the original script and which deviations remained.

One of the biggest points of contention was Sorkin’s portrayal of Atticus Finch.  In Sorkin’s mind, Atticus would be a more interesting and realistic character if he had the traditional (Hollywood trope?) character arc where he starts off as a flawed character and grows throughout the play until he ends up as the saintly hero of the book.  Sorkin wanted Atticus to begin as a “naïve apologist” trying to explain away or justify the racism of the town, as well as a man who cursed, drank alcohol and kept a gun in his closet.  This was such a departure from the spirit of the iconic literary character that I think the estate would have had a case in its lawsuit.  At any rate, Sorkin backed off on this change for the most part, in order to trade for the changes he wanted the most.

As we settled in to watch the play, the first major difference was noticed immediately.  In the book, the first 8 chapters are devoted to describing Scout and Jem’s lives in their small town. In addition to Atticus, we are introduced to their extended relatives, their black maid Calpurnia, neighbours, classmates and their friend Dill who joined them in their adventures.  The case against Tom Robinson is not brought up until the 9th chapter, and while the events are seminal and significantly impactful, they serve as just one part of Scout’s recollections from her childhood, albeit a major part.

By contrast Sorkin’s script made the rape trial the main event and Atticus, played by Jeff Daniels on Broadway and Richard Thomas (aka “John-Boy Walton”) in the touring production, the central character.  I read that Sorkin wanted his play to be staged in an actual Federal courthouse as opposed to a traditional theatre.  This did not happen.  The play kicks off with a scene in the courtroom with not just Scout but also Jem and Dill acting as omniscient narrators, roaming in front of the action to provide additional exposition.  Atticus is attributed lines that he did not have in the book, including the story about why it is a sin to “kill a mockingbird” (since they are totally innocent and only give pleasure with their song). Sorkin co-opted these lines from Scout’s recollections and included them in Atticus’ extended and powerful closing statements for the trial.  These changes seem reasonable given that the biggest star in the cast is the actor playing Atticus, so he should have the best lines.

Scenes reflecting the children’s escapades are scattered throughout the play, including their relentless hunt to catch a glimpse of Boo Radley, and Jem destroying the flowers belonging to mean old Mrs. Dubose after she disparages Atticus.  In a nice touch, Mrs. Dubose is played by Mary Badham, the former child actress who played Scout in the movie.  Yet the driving narrative relates to the trial and the other episodes seem peripheral.

The changes that Sorkin was most adamant about keeping were in the depictions of the black characters, namely the accused Tom Robinson and the maid Calpurnia.  Both characters are given more agency to speak their minds about the racism that they faced, either overtly or implicitly.  Calpurnia is visibly miffed when Atticus tries to preach that there is goodness in all men, even the blatantly hateful and racist ones around town.  When he espouses the need to always show respect for people, she observes that “by respecting them, you disrespect me”.  In Sorkin’s version, Tom understands clearly that his chances at a winning a jury trial are slim to none and wants to accept the original court appointed lawyer’s deal of 18 years in jail if he pleads guilty.  He does not want his children scarred with the thought of him being electrocuted if found guilty in a trial.  Atticus convinces Tom that he can win since the facts are on his side.

In all versions of To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom is found guilty by 12 white men, despite overwhelming evidence proving his innocence.  In the book, Atticus knows that he is taking on an unwinnable case yet does so anyway.  At least he will be giving Tom a chance to tell his side of the story and as a man of high principle, Atticus has to at least try.  After the trial, one of the neighbours explains to Jem that “Atticus won’t win, he can’t win, but he’s the only man in these parts who can keep a jury out so long in a case like this” and that this is a small step in the right direction.   In the play, by adding the (possibly historically inaccurate) option of allowing Tom to plead guilty to avoid a trial and having Atticus talk him out of it, Sorkin is still subtly giving the attorney a “fatal flaw” that leads directly to his client’s death.   Perhaps the goal was to make the death all the more tragic given that there was another option.  In my mind, this alters one of the major themes of the book and dilutes Atticus’ character, portraying him as either naïve or overconfident.  I’m surprised that Harper’s estate allowed this change to remain.

Another major difference between the play versus the book and even the movie is that the “children” are played by youthful-looking adults who can better handle the intricacies of the heavy subject matter and provide insightful flashback commentary.  In fact, Scout’s voice changes from an adult’s voice when describing her memories, to a child’s voice when acting out scenes from the past.

In one of the most dramatic scenes of the book, Atticus learns that Tom Robinson has been transferred to the local jail and realizes that a mob will show up to try to kill him.  Armed with just a reading lamp and a book, Atticus sits in front of the jail and faces the mob.  Things grow tense until the children race up and Scout diffuses the situation when she recognizes “Mr. Cunningham”, one of Atticus’ clients.  In the book and movie, the mob consists of angry farmers with rifles.  In the play, the men show up in hoods implying that they were part of the Ku Klux Klan.  Perhaps this was yet another attempt by Sorkin to ramp up the drama, but it just made it unbelievable that young Scout could recognize a man she met only once when he is disguised by a hood.  It is interesting that Sorkin chose not to depict the scene in the book where Atticus is forced to take up a rifle to shoot an approaching mad dog, thus revealing to his children that he was actually an expert marksman nicknamed “One-Shot Finch” in his youth.  This occurrence made Atticus' decision not bringing a gun to the jail to protect Tom even more impactful.  As he later remarked, that would have been the surest way to escalate the situation and get shot.

Despite my objections to some of Sorkin’s attempts to reframe a classic story in a modern lens to reflect current social mores and sensibilities and to Hollywoodize some scenes (I’m surprised he did not add a car chase!), overall I did enjoy his version of To Kill a Mockingbird.  His version was fast-paced with good use of set design to move the action from the courthouse to the Finches’ porch to the outdoors.  I particularly liked the initial setup where Scout debated with Jem about how it was technically and physically impossible that “Bob Ewell fell on his knife”, just to finally understand the importance of this statement by the end of the play.  I thought the actors who played Scout, Jem and Dill did a fabulous job of making you believe that they were children.  Richard Thomas did a credible job of portraying Atticus with the gravitas required for the role, even though I felt that his thundering summation speech was a bit over the top.. but that was more about the script than the actor.

Theatre 2023: Bad Roads

Crow’s Theatre continues its trend of putting on intense dramas with its mounting of the play Bad Roads, written by Ukrainian playwright Natal’ya Vorozhbit based on verbal testimonials from victims of the initial 2014 Russo-Ukrainian war. This show is so devastating and triggering that multiple emails were sent out to ticket holders with warnings of disturbing content including “depictions of physical, emotional and sexual violence”. There were even instructions regarding how and when to exit the theatre during the 2 hour show (with no intermission) should the need arise. Given that Russia’s most recent war on Ukraine is still raging after over 600 days of fighting, this play is all the more relevant, poignant and disturbing.

The one common aspect of all the shows that I have watched at Crow’s Theatre so far is the innovative staging and Bad Roads was no exception.  Held in the smaller Studio Theatre with five rows of stadium seating on each side of the room, the “stage” at the centre was covered with black, ash-like particles that simulated the rubble or debris found in bombed-out war-torn areas.  The sparse set consisted of a shabby wooden crate attached to a few steps on one side and a wooden bench on the other, with a bright spotlight shining in the middle.  Yet the audience is totally transported into this horrific landscape,  just with a few extra props, wardrobe, sound and lighting. The play consists of six vignettes, five of them depicting an aspect of the war, mostly told from the female perspective.

The first is a lengthy monologue by a female reporter who travels with her military escort to inspect the battle zone around the Donetsk airport a year after its siege.  Speaking for a few seconds in total darkness before being illuminated by the central spotlight, she describes herself, her travel companion who she is attracted to and eventually becomes her lover, their harrowing journey, and the state of the war in general.  Pacing back and forth across the performance area, she reveals intimate details such as cleaning herself with wet naps since there is no available water source.  Achingly she conveys the difficulties of trying to find love and intimacy in midst of a war.

The lights darken during each scene interchange.  These are your chances to leave although no one did.  There was no clapping between scenes.  It is not that type of play.  The audience sat in (sometimes shocked) silence while trying to absorb what they just saw and heard.

The second vignette starts with three young teenaged girls huddled on a bench on a chilly night, discussing their Ukrainian “lovers” who give them gifts. Disturbingly, the girls think they are in relationships and don’t realize that they are being abused and used like prostitutes by the soldiers.  One of the girls is an orphan whose grandmother shows up and tries unsuccessfully tries to convince her to go home.  It is sad to see how war has impacted the lives of children.

The third story involves an inebriated schoolteacher who is stopped at a Ukraine checkpoint and realizes that he accidentally brought his wife’s passport instead of his own.  To make matters worse, he is in possession of a fake rifle which further raises the suspicions of the border guards, a Commander and another soldier.  In a tense interaction while he is pushed around and threatened with a gun, the schoolteacher tries to reason with the guards, citing patriotism and reminding that they are on the same side.  But just as the soldiers are letting him go, he spots one of his female students coming out of the Commander’s tent (off stage).  It is the orphaned girl from the previous scene.  The teacher tries to admonish the Commander for using a child for sex and to appeal to his sympathies towards the unfortunate situation of this girl.  But when the Commander grows defensive and threatens the teacher’s freedom, the ultimate instinct of self-preservation kicks in.  The teacher backs down and drives away, pretending to accept the claim that he was mistaken in what he saw.

The fourth scene depicts a female medic riding in a jeep driven by a soldier as they traverse a dark deserted road.  In an unexpected role reversal, the female is aggressive and domineering while the male is meek and subservient.  By simply placing a grill with two headlights in front of the wooden crate which they sit on while jostling up and down, the illusion of the bumpy jeep ride is conveyed.  As their conversation progresses, we learn that they are transporting the headless body of a senior officer in the trunk who turns out to be the soldier’s commander and the angry grieving medic’s lover.  The woman is being taunted by cruel text messages sent from the dead man’s phone by the enemy who killed him.  When the jeep breaks down and they are stranded without cell service, the woman’s anguish finally overflows and she explodes in a rage, thrashing around in the black debris.  Towards the end of the vignette, having survived the freezing elements overnight by using the dead soldier’s body bag for cover, the medic sadly tells her companion that she won’t even get to attend her lover’s funeral—that honour will go to his wife.

The fifth situation is the most viscerally horrifying in its graphic depiction of both emotional and physical torture including violent rape. But it is also one of the most artfully choreographed portrayals of such acts that I have ever seen.  A female reporter has been captured by an enemy soldier who has been so traumatized by all the debauchery that he has both witnessed and participated in that he now thinks of himself as an animal and acts accordingly.  Two sequences at the beginning of the scene show the captor physically attacking what he sees as his prey.  In the first, they are both rolling around in the rubble as he pounces, and she deflects trying to defend herself.  But they each act out his or her part on separate sides of the stage, with a light alternately shining on each of them to highlight their actions. In the second sequence, he rapes her as she screams but there is actually a bench between them as he stands on top of the bench and she lays prone under it.  The use of a flashlight simulates the thrusting motions as he “penetrates” her.  This was all sickeningly painful to watch, but in reflection, you realize that the actors never touched.  Yet the illusions they created are forever seared in your mind.

Using her wits and determination to survive, the reporter talks sweetly to her captor, trying to find the humanity that she hopes still exists inside him.  She asks questions about him and tells quirky anecdotes about herself, including the time that she accidentally ran over a farmer’s chicken.  Slowly she works to break down his defenses as she plots her escape.

After that shocking and agonizing fifth scene, the sixth and final vignette felt jarring and out of left field in its change in tone, yet it had its own message to convey.  We are told that this story happened “pre-war” as a young woman runs up to the gates of a farm and tearfully tells the farmer and his wife that she just killed their chicken.  This clearly refers back to the previous scene.  At first the couple are nonchalant about the occurrence and there is some humorous debate as to the value of a chicken, which reflected back on the previous scene where the prisoner and her captor debate the value of a human life. But back to this scenario, once the woman, who is obviously wealthier than them, offers to pay for the chicken, greed sets in.  The demands the farmer and his wife make grow more and more outrageous as they take all of the woman’s cash, her jewelry, handbag and even want her car, threatening to lock her up and call the police if she doesn’t comply.  Suddenly, shocked back into reality by the cry of a neighbouring baby, they let the woman go while admonishing her for “tempting them”.   Perhaps the moral of this last story might be that it does not take war to trigger greed or evil?  Or maybe there was just the need to lighten the mood a bit before sending the audience out into the night?

This was an extremely difficult play to watch, but that was the whole point.  As badly as we felt experiencing enactments of these situations, imagine how it was, and still is, for the Ukrainian people to actually live through them.  We should be so grateful that we live in Canada where it is relatively peaceful and safe.

Theatre 2023: Jagged Little Pill

I have watched three musicals (two of them juke box musicals) within the span of a month, and it is interesting to compare them.  While I previously complained that the plot and number of songs included in the musical “Six” felt lightweight, it was the complete opposite with the  musical “Jagged Little Pill”, based on the songs of Canadian grunge-pop/rock singer Alanis Morissette.  Mining the lyrics primarily from her 1995 multi-platinum album of the same name, Jagged Little Pill the musical has a complex storyline that deals with dark themes including family dysfunction, anxiety, substance abuse, implicit racism, gender identities, and sexual assault.

In comparison to “In Dreams” which features the catalog of Roy Orbison, both Orbison and Morissette sing many sad songs about pain and loss.  But where Orbison’s tunes are melancholic and regretful ballads (“Crying .. over you”), Morissette’s are angsty, angry and aggressive rock songs (“It was a slap in the face, how quickly I was replaced …”) with loud instrumentation featuring heavy bass and percussion. 

While a few of the lyrics of Morissette’s songs were changed to better suit the plot, the instrumentation was not rearranged and remained loud, distorted and overwhelming.  When paired with bad acoustics at the Princess of Wales Theatre and the softer voices of some of the performers, it made the poignant lyrics very difficult to hear.  The background music was so loud that it drowned out much of the singing.  I was particularly frustrated by the song “That I Would Be Good” where I could only hear that first part, but not the resolution of each sentence.  All I could hear over and over again was “That I would be good, even if ..”  I wanted to scream “if what????”.  It was only when I got home and listened to the soundtrack while reading the lyrics that I discovered how perfectly many of the songs fit into the plot and enriched the back-stories of the characters.  Once again I lamented not doing more research before watching the show.

The book for Jagged Little Pill was written by Diablo Cody who won the Best Original Screenplay Oscar for the 2007 movie Juno.  The main protagonists are the Healys, who outwardly portray the image of the perfect middle-class family unit, as described by matriarch Mary Jane (MJ) in her annual Christmas card.  Behind the scenes, we see that MJ is addicted to prescription pain killers after a car accident, her estranged husband Steve is a workaholic who missed much of his childrens’ upbringing, their adopted teenaged black daughter Frankie is bisexual and searching for her racial identity within her white family, while teenaged Nick is weighed down by the expectations of being the golden child and perfect son.

Usually towards the beginning of a musical, you have the “I Want” song which describes the hopes, desires and motivations of the main character or characters.  What better Morisette song to choose than the one titled “All I Really Want” with the various lines of the song portioned out to the appropriate characters.  Frankie idealistically wants a better, just world where people are not apathetic.  She also desires a soul mate who understands her and can talk intelligently to her.  Nick wants peace from the stress of trying to be perfect while MJ and Steve want to have patience to deal with their kids (and each other?).  Steve also wants more time while MJ seeks comfort.  The words of this song are sung verbatim by the cast except for a one word change where Frankie asks MJ if she thinks about her “bills, pills, deadlines”?  It was impressive how the lyrics of this one song could fit so aptly to the motivations of each character and made me think about the process of how a juke box musical is developed.  Do they pick the songs first and fit a story within the lyrics, or have the skeleton of a story and find songs that match?

The gender non-conforming character Jo (not Joanne!) is in a relationship with Frankie until Frankie meets and falls in love with Phoenix, who is male.  Jo’s outraged performance of “You Oughta Know”, expressing their hurt and anger at being dumped and betrayed, is a tour de force that stopped the show to rounding applause.  The song starts off slowly then builds into what feels like an erupting volcano with the stage bathed in bright red light that symbolized their rage.

MJ’s drug abuse is illustrated in an amazingly choreographed sequence that starts with her trying to get more drugs from the pharmacy but is out of refills.  She keeps up appearances when encountering other school moms at the gym, then meets a drug dealer in the alley and buys illegal drugs before going home to unpack groceries.  Singing the soulful song “Smiling” that describes her world crashing around her while she has to “keep on smiling”, the entire scene that we just saw is replayed backwards with all the characters moving slowly in reverse.  This was one of two songs that were written specifically for the musical.

Nick sings the song “Perfect” to relay his anxiety and anguish of trying to measure up to impossible expectations.  When he witnesses the sexual assault of his friend Bella while she was passed out drunk at a party, Nick is reluctant to get involved.  MJ also encourages him to stay silent, afraid that he might be named as an accomplice.  When Nick finally decides to come forward and relays what happened, the rape scene is re-enacted with the help of an incredible dancer who acts as an avatar for Bella who sings “Predator”, the second haunting new song that Morissette wrote specifically for the show.

This same dancer is used in the scene where MJ overdoses on fentanyl-laced opioids while singing “Uninvited”, as if personifying the hellish turmoil that she is experiencing.  As the saying goes, “when the emotion becomes too strong for speech, you sing; when it becomes too strong for song, you dance”.  This certainly was showcased in these extremely emotional scenes and the impact was breathtaking.  In all, the choreography was probably the best part of this musical.

I was so surprised to learn that the eleven o’clock number “No” was not written specifically for the show since it fit so perfectly.  In a rally organized by Frankie to support her, Bella sings “My mind is invaded. My gates are ignored … What part of no, do you not understand?”  This is the most powerful scene of the show as anti-abuse signs are held up by most of the cast.

After all that trauma, the show ends on a happier, hopeful note with the various broken relationships being mended and friends and family reconciling.  The cast sings “You Learn” to illustrate that despite all their bad choices and decisions, they have learned to be better people (“You live, you learn; You lose, you learn…).

In considering the three musicals that I watched back-to-back-to-back, I think I liked Jagged Little Pill the best.  It was the most ambitious in terms of themes and plot, did a fabulous job of matching the lyrics of Morissette’s songs to the story, and used dance to the utmost effect.  I gained a greater appreciation for Alanis as well.  I hope that she is happier now since that was a lot of pain and anger and disappointment that she wrote about in her younger days.

Theatre 2023: Six the Musical / Heroes of the Fourth Turning

Since I am partial to “book” musicals that are mostly sung-through, I was skeptical about watching “Six the Musical” as it only features 9 songs and the few that I heard did not convey much of a plot. Reading the synopsis wasn’t any more reassuring since the storyline itself is pretty thin and inconsequential.  Featuring the six wives of King Henry VIII in a competition to determine which of them suffered the most as his spouse, this is more of a pop concert marketed as a musical. The play started out as an entry in the Edinburgh Fringe Festival in 2017 and at a mere 80 minutes long with no intermission, the show doesn’t seem to have been expanded much beyond the original Fringe offering.  After an intro number titled "Ex-Wives" that uses the iconic rhyme to describe the six (Divorced, Beheaded, Died, Divorced, Beheaded, Survived), each character sings a song that is meant to prove how and why she is the one who should win the contest.

After reading the program notes and reviewing to the lyrics of each woman’s song, I have gained greater appreciation for what the musical was trying to achieve in conveying not only the historical plight of each woman, but also her thoughts and feelings about her situation.  Each wife is modeled after modern-day pop stars, from the style or genre of the song that is sung and the accompanying choreography, to her attitude or demeanour, wardrobe, and hairstyle.

The main “Queenspiration” of Catherine of Aragon was Beyonce, giving the character a mature, confident “Queen Bee” vibe.  Casting a statuesque actress and dressing her in a costume reminiscent to one Beyonce wore helped to complete the comparison. The defiant anthem “No Way” expresses Catherine’s hurt at being cast aside after all putting up with Henry’s infidelities, her staunch Catholic faith that prohibited divorce and her refusal to meekly walk away from her marriage, which she considered “for life”.

Anne Boleyn is portrayed as younger and more coquettish, which is ironic since Boleyn was in her late twenties to early thirties when she married Henry, while Aragon was only twenty-three.  One of inspirations for Anne’s character was Avril Lavigne who sings “in-your-face” grunge- pop songs.  The peppy tune “Don’t Lose Your Head” alludes both to Boleyn’s beheading as well as the more colloquial meaning of not losing your cool. The lyrics are peppered with modern catch phrases and slangs such as “Sorry not sorry” and “LOL”.  Bopping along to the quick beat, Boleyn describes how she fought off Henry’s attentions while he was still married to Catherine.  This caused him to split with the Catholic Church to form the Church of England (referred to as “C of E” in the song) so that he could marry Anne.  Then came his dalliances once they were wed and her flirting with other men to make him jealous (“jel” in the lyrics), resulting in his ordering her beheading for treason.  That was quite a bit of history relayed in a 4 minute song!  Anne is dressed in green and there are several references to her “green sleeves”, alluding to the idea that Henry wrote the song/poem “Greensleeves” for her while they were courting.

Next up is Jane Seymour, dubbed “the only woman Henry truly loved”. Inspired by Adele’s power ballads, “Heart of Stone” declares Seymour’s steadfast love for Henry even though she understands that he only values her because she bore him a son and heir.  The lyrics continue to lament that she dies in childbirth and will never see her son grow up.  Of the six songs, this one contains the least exposition and is more about imagery and emotion.  The actress cast to play Seymour is made to look a bit like Adele both in terms of hairstyle and wardrobe.  There was a quirky line in the intro song “Ex-Wives” where Jane sings “Stick around and you’ll suddenly see more…” which sounds like a reference to the song “Suddenly Seymour” from Little Shop of Horrors in addition to a pun on Jane's last name.  If so, then how clever?!

Henry’s fourth marriage was for political purposes to secure an alliance with Germany in case of a war with France.  Anne of Cleves, daughter of a German Duke, was chosen based on a portrait drawn by painter Hans Holbein the Younger.  When Henry met Anne in person, he was disappointed by her “plain” appearance.  After 6 months without consummating the union, he had the marriage amicably annulled with her consent and Anne was given a generous settlement.  Channeling hip hop artists like Nicki Minaj and Rhianna, Anne of Cleves twerks and gyrates to the song “Get Down”, which describes her luxurious life after freeing herself of Henry.  The lyrics subvert the old children’s nursery rhyme “I’m the King of the Castle.  You’re the Dirty Rascal” by having Cleves declare herself the “Queen of the Castle” in several refrains.  It is pretty clear that she did not suffer much other than the indignity of being rejected for being unattractive and at one point in the musical, she withdraws from the competition.  A German phrase (“das ist gut”) and reference to Wienerschnitzel add some flavour to Cleves’ background in the song.

The main inspiration for Katherine Howard’s character is the most obvious, as the actress is adorned with Ariana Grande’s signature long ponytail and pink skirt.  At almost 7 minutes with 4 choruses, Howard’s song “All You Wanna Do” is the longest and provides the most insight into the past of a figure who has been maligned in history as a wanton harlot. Kate was only seventeen when she married Henry, and the song makes it clear that she had been sexually preyed upon by older men since she was young, starting with her music teacher Henry Mannox and Tudor courtier Francis Dereham.  She sings “I was thirteen going on thirty” which seems like a reference to the famous line in The Sound of Music where Liesel sings “I am sixteen going on seventeen”.  The initial refrains of the pop song are upbeat, seductive and full of sexual inuendo as Howard is initially too young to realize that she has been abused.  She initially enjoys the attention and feels she is making a “connection”. By the end of the song, Katherine has wised up and is distraught at being manhandled all of her life.  The choreography supports this as the other wives (acting as background dancers) grab and paw her from all sides.  This song is so impactful as it gives a sympathetic depiction of Howard as a child being exploited, manipulated and molested since puberty by powerful men.  Howard’s character is also inspired by Britney Spears, who has also endured abuse and toxic relationships since childhood.  In fact the song All You Wanna Do is heavily influenced by Britney’s hit song “Toxic”.

Henry’s final wife, who actually survived him, was Catherine Parr.  As soon as she started to sing her song “I Don’t Need Your Love” with its smooth R&B tones, you could tell that the inspiration was Alicia Keys since the actress sounded just like her.  Parr describes how she had to give up the love of her life (Thomas Seymour) once Henry decided he wanted to marry her.  She writes a goodbye letter to Thomas and ironically tells him “I don’t need your love” which clearly isn’t true.  Rather in a later refrain, these are the words she would like to tell Henry, but doing so would not be wise.  In Parr’s brief intro during the initial song “Ex-Wives”, she sings “I’m a survivor” in the same key and rhythm as Destiny’s Child’s song Survivor.

At the end of this song, Parr questions why the stories of the wives have to be tied to the King.  She declares “That’s not my story.. there’s so much more” and conveys facts about herself, her interests and accomplishments separate from her ties to Henry.  The women decide that they should not be in competition and the final song “Six” allows each of them to re-imagine a happier ending for themselves.   Just like with so many other shows that we watched this year (&Juliet, Bad Cinderella), once again the theme of female empowerment is explored by rewriting history (which they call the “Historemix” in this musical), with the wives not just surviving, but thriving and transcending their roles as Henry’s wives.  I had fun watching this show since it was full of energy with great singing and dancing.  But I did not fully appreciate it until I did a deep dive into the lyrics.

Two days later, my husband Rich and I went to a very intense play called “Heroes of the Fourth Turning” at Crow’s Theatre.  We went into this show without any idea of what it was about, other than that it won several literary prizes and was a finalist for the Pulitzer.  We came out a bit shell-shocked and still unsure as to what it was that we just watched.  Written in 2019 by conservative American playwright Will Arbery, the play is set in 2017, eight months into the presidential term of Donald Trump, and a week after the “Unite the Right” Charlottesville riots that saw neo-Nazi white supremacists clash with counter-protesters resulting in multiple injuries and one death.  Accordingly, tensions were high and division palpable between the American left vs right.  The setting of the play is the backyard of a house party where four former students of a small conservative Catholic college in Wyoming reunite to celebrate a beloved professor being appointed as president.

Justin, Emily, Kevin and Teresa are all staunch, religious conservatives but represent different factions on the conservative political spectrum.  Teresa is an alt-right, fervent supporter of Trump, who she calls “a Golem molded from the clay of mass media .. come to save us all” and a disciple of Steve Bannon.  She believes that a sociological and ideological war is brewing.  At the other end of the spectrum is Emily, a compassionate, moderate conservative who happens to be the daughter of Gina, the new president of the college.  Emily is unfortunately afflicted with a mysterious illness that causes her debilitating pain.  She does not believe in abortion but understands that there is another point of view and empathizes with those who see it as their only alternative.  She works in a pregnancy crises centre and is friends with someone who works at Planned Parenthood as well as a drag queen.  Justin, a former Marine Corps sniper, is a militant conservative who also believes that war is inevitable but for him it will be a violent war that requires training and arming the college’s students in preparation.  Kevin is a weak, self-loathing alcoholic who craves a girlfriend but is hooked on Internet porn, tormented by the disconnect between his Catholic faith and his sexual desires.  He waffles and questions his beliefs and the polarization of the wide-ranging conservative philosophies.  He claims he voted for Trump (as they all did for one reason or another) but vomited right after.

The four interact with one another in the backyard, debating topics ranging from racism, homosexuality, abortion, pre-marital sex, as well as theology and politics, all in the context of conservative ideology.  Eventually Gina, who is an “Old-school conservative” joins them and is appalled at Teresa’s extreme viewpoints.  We did not find it particularly enjoyable to sit for over 2 hours (with no intermission), listening to a plotless play where the sole point seemed to be to highlight the mass ideological divide within the Republican party.  Being in the front row of a small space where the seating was “in-the-round” and the actors were often positioned right in front of us, there was not even an opportunity to leave if we had wanted to. It felt a bit like being in the movie “A Clockwork Orange” and having your eyelids forced open while strapped down and being forced to watching Fox News on end.

The one aspect that I did find interesting was the reference point for the title of the play, which was the 1997 book called “The Fourth Turning”, detailing the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory.  This theory by William Strauss and Neil Howe prophesizes how history moves in 80-year cycles divided into four transitional periods.  The “High” is a time of economic boom and security where institutions are strong, and individualism is weak. “Awakening” is a phase where people rebel against institutions in hopes of recapturing personal freedoms.  This is followed by “Unraveling” which is the opposite of the High phase.  Individualism is strong, Institutions are weak and culture wars are fought.  Finally the last phase which is Crisis, or the Fourth Turning” is the period of war and destruction where past institutions are destroyed and rebuilt in a new fashion.  The generation who come to adulthood during the Fourth Turning are known as “Heroes” who will lead the revolution.

Looking at recent history, the Great Depression and World War II could be identified as a Crisis period that was followed by the economic recovery of the 1950s (High) before the 1960s and 70s led to the fight for “Peace and Free Love” (Awakening).  It was during this period that the decision on Roe vs. Wade was made.  Next came the culture wars of the 1980s and 90s with battlegrounds being fought over military vs social spending, gender and sexual politics including abortion rights. (Unraveling).  It certainly seems that the period from the 2000s up to the current day have led the world into another Crisis period with military wars breaking out globally, the rise of nationalism and racial hatred and then the pandemic paralyzing the world.  So there seems to be some merit to this generational theory, at least over the past century.  Teresa explains the theory to the others, saying that they are of the Hero generation, and it is up to them to “fight bravely”.  Her most illuminating statement is about what she thinks caused the latest Crisis.  "... The crisis caused by Obama. Liberals think it's Trump. It almost doesn't matter."  Ultimately, it all depends on your point of view.

Having watched both Six the Musical and Heroes of the Fourth Turning back to back, I would like to retract all of my prior reservations about Six. In our troubled times where I get more than my fill of serious drama, violence and traumatic events just by watching the local or global news, I appreciate the escapism of light-hearted, joyous fare whose main goal is just to entertain.  As a matter of fact, as much as I have appreciated the stellar offerings from Crow’s Theatre in the past, maybe they can take note and program more “happy, feel-good” plays and musicals for their future seasons?

Theatre 2023: In Dreams

I am always a bit leery about jukebox musicals that try to co-opt popular songs originally written by or for well-known singing artists or  groups, in an attempt to turn their lyrics into sung dialogue that fits a storyline.  Mamma Mia remains the gold standard but there have been many less successful wannabes that followed.  Often the lyrics don’t make sense in the context of the plot, or the plot becomes so convoluted in order to fit the lyrics. The first show of our 2023/2024 Mirvish subscription series was the new jukebox musical In Dreams, featuring songs by Roy Orbison who had a successful solo career in the 1960s and 70s and then formed the super rock group The Traveling Wilburys which also included Bob Dylan, George Harrison, Jeff Lynne and Tom Petty.  The book for the musical was written by David West Read who successfully wrote the plot for the Tony Award nominated musical &Juliet as well as the charming TV series Schitt’s Creek, so I was cautiously optimistic before attending his new show.  I am happy to report that for the most part, the storyline was cohesive, touching and occasionally humorous while the lyrics of the songs fit well in the plot and worked to advance the action as should be the case in a good musical.

In Dreams deals with Kenna, the lead singer of the former rock band “Heartbreak Radio” which included her best friend Jane, bassist Donovan now married to Jane, and drummer Ramsey who was Kenna’s ex.  When Kenna receives a dire medical diagnosis, she decides that she needs to reunite with her estranged band members for one last party.  She selects a Mexican restaurant in New Mexico that holds memorials for the deceased.  The restaurant is run by Oscar, who is grieving the recent death of his parents, his pregnant wife Nicole and sassy widowed grandmother Ana Sofia.

The title of the show and the name of the rock band are both titles of Orbison songs that are in the musical’s song list. As well, it seems like the setting was inspired by the Traveling Wilbury song called “Margarita” which of course is featured during one of the scenes.  As with all jukebox musicals, the songs drive the plot for better or worse.  Continuing with the Mexican theme, parts of some of the songs are actually sung in Spanish by the relevant characters, perhaps to give their heritage more authenticity.

Many of Orbison’s and the Traveling Wilbury’s most famous songs are represented and weaved cleverly into the plot.  After Kenna convinces Oscar, Nicole and Ana- Sofia to hold her memorial party even though she is still alive, they sing “You Got It (anything you want..)” to agree to her wishes.  When describing why the band lost touch, the song “Communication Breakdown” is performed.  Ramsey is now an Uber Driver and as he rushes to the party in hopes of rekindling his relationship with Kenna, he hilariously sings “I Drove All Night (to get to you)”.   A sweet subplot involves Ana Sofia and fellow recently widowed George who are both lonely and miss their spouses.  They connect over a beautiful mashup of the songs “Blue Bayou” and “Only the Lonely”.  Eventually, George proceeds to court Ana Sofia with the iconic “Pretty Woman”, perhaps Orbison’s best known song due to the success of the Julia Roberts/Richard Gere romantic comedy.  But the showstopper was Kenna’s singing “Crying” to end the first act as she laments pushing Ramsey away to spare him from learning of her illness.  Tony award winner Lena Hall absolutely killed this song as well as “Love Hurts” and a solo in the second act where the group sings “Handle With Care”.  Hall’s voice can start hauntingly soft and then slowly build into a powerful belt that metaphorically blows the roof off the theatre.

I did have a few reservations about this musical.  I liked the first act more than the second, perhaps because more well-known songs were sung earlier on and the ones I did not know did not resonate as much with me. Also, the first act had a faster pace while the second act dragged slightly.  I felt a bit indifferent to Oscar’s sub-plot with his struggles to deal with his parents being gone and his inability to share his feelings with Nicole.  This allowed him to sing the titular “In Dreams” as his vehicle to communicate with them and for her to respond in a Spanish version of “Crying”.  Maybe if these characters had been more richly developed, I might have cared more?  I also found it interesting that yet again (just like in all five shows which my husband Rich and I watched on Broadway in May), there was the addition of a gay character portrayed in the show, although in this case, it was a peripheral and stereotypically flamboyant one.  This is starting to feel like an obligatory trope that needs to somehow be inserted into every current show.  Many of Roy Orbison’s songs are based on themes of loneliness, pain and heartache perhaps fueled by the multiple personal tragedies that he faced.   In Dreams did a good job of reflecting these themes in the show, but in striving for an upbeat, hopeful ending, it undercut some of the original plot points introduced at the start of the show.

But overall, I found In Dreams to be very entertaining and enjoyable.  It felt like some of the songs had been written specifically for this show, as opposed to having a plot that needed to jump through illogical hoops in order to justify the lyrics.  That is the mark of a good juke box musical.  If tickets were not so expensive, I would consider watching this show again after carefully listening to Orbison’s or the Traveling Wilbury’s versions of the songs to become more familiar with the lyrics.  I think I would appreciate the plot more the second time around.