Theatre 2025: Trident Moon @ Crow's Theatre

Crow’s Theatre is known for its bold and edgy plays that do not shy away from difficult or even traumatic topics.  In the past, we have watched a play with vignettes about the horrors of the 2014 Russo-Ukrainian War, as well as one dealing with the recollections of a female pastor who was kidnapped and tortured by a Neo Nazi mental patient.  We knew that the play Trident Moon would be of the same vein, given that it is a fictional story set during the chaotic period of the 1947 Partition of India.  We further braced ourselves for an intense experience when we read the trigger warning sign posted outside the theatre that cautioned us to expect depictions of death, physical and sexual violence towards women and children, strong language, discussions of rape, torture, murder, decapitation and derogatory language directed at a disabled person, as well as the use of prop guns, simulated gun fire, flashing lights, theatrical haze and fog, and loud noises.  This is by far the most severe trigger warning that we have ever encountered.  Compare this to a previous Crow’s Theatre show, Natasha, Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812, which warned us (tongue in cheek) about depictions of sleigh rides!

The conflict between Hindus and Muslims in India dates back to the 7th century when Islam was first introduced into the country.  During their colonial rule from 1757 to 1947, Britain tried to keep a lid on hostilities, with varying degrees of success. To facilitate their intention to end colonial rule in India, in 1947 Britain enacted the Indian Independence Act, which included a Partition that split the country into two separate independent sovereign states divided by religion—the Republic of India for the Hindus/Sikhs and Dominion of Pakistan for the Muslims.  The Partition displaced over fifteen million people, creating an overwhelming humanitarian and refugee crisis in both new countries which led to families torn apart, homes destroyed and large-scale violence resulting in deaths of up to two million people.

It is in midst of this time of historic turmoil that Dora Award winning playwright Anusree Roy sets the imagined events in her thrilling play Trident Moon.  The set is configured to represent the interior of a cargo truck that is motoring through Pakistan towards towards India. As the play begins, we see six females seated, kneeling or prone on the floor of the truck.  The three on the left are dressed in ragged orangey-yellow linen saris and it is apparent that one of the women is injured with a bleeding wound at her abdomen while one is an intellectually disabled child.  The three on the right are dressed in light blue saris that seem more elegant and expensive in style and material.  They consist of two women who have their hands bound behind their backs and a young girl.  The two sets of adult females verbally spar and hurl insults and each other.  It becomes apparent that the wealthy Muslim employers have been kidnapped by their Hindu servants as some sort of revenge plot initially triggered by violence that occurred between their husbands.  As the play goes on, we learn more about what happened to bring these women to this point.

The “truck” is forced to stop several times throughout the action, as refugees of both religions seeking transport and marauders searching for riches attempt to board.  Through the use of light and sound effects timed perfectly with jolting motions of the bodies in the truck, the stagecraft to simulate these stoppages is so effective that the audience can almost feel the motion from our seats.

This is an intensely harrowing tale that highlights the brutality of this traumatic time period and yet manages to highlight the strength of human resilience and a spark of humanity that gives hope to this tragedy.  For such a violent time in history, it is interesting that most of the story is told through the eyes of women.  Also of interest is the innocent interaction between the children who have not yet learned to hate or fear each other.  In a talkback discussion with the playwright, who also portrayed one of the Muslim women, she stressed the importance of understanding that there are no real villains in the show.  All the characters are victims of circumstance, acting out of fear, desperation and anger as they react to the tragedy of their situations.  The actresses themselves represent both Hindu and Muslim religions and the comment was made in the talkback that although they loved each other fiercely, none of them could safely marry the other’s brothers without being disowned by their own families.  The violence may have subsided but the divide remains as strong as ever.

This was an extremely well-acted and thought-provoking play that taught us about a time in history that had not been that familiar to us.  By the end of it, we understood the significance of the title where the trident represents Hinduism and the crescent moon symbolizes Islam for the Muslims. Despite its difficult subject matter, this was a riveting show to watch and the 90 minutes just flew by.  

Theatre 2025: Cabaret @ Al Green Theatre

With music and lyrics by John Kandar and Fred Ebb, the 1966 musical Cabaret is about the decline of the decadent Weimar era and the rise of Nazism in Germany. We watched an excellent version of this musical at the Al Green Theatre which was made all the more poignant given its subject matter, since the theatre is situated inside the Miles Nadal Jewish Community Centre.  It was a fascinating exercise to trace the history of the musical, from its source material, the various adaptations in different formats that preceded and followed it, and the various changes made to the musical itself in each subsequent revival through the decades.  Its relevance is distressingly prevalent in our current troubled political times.  Just in case you didn’t catch the significance from the story itself, this rendition of the show added a chilling addendum at the end to hammer home the point.  But more on that later.

The genesis for Cabaret stems from the life of Christopher William Bradshaw Isherwood, a gay Anglo-American writer who briefly relocated to Berlin during the final months of the “Golden Twenties” to partake in the city’s colourful nightlife, jazz scene and the availability of young male prostitutes.  During his stay, he befriended and shared a room with 19-year-old British flapper Jean Ross, helping her procure an abortion when she became pregnant from one of her various affairs.  Both Isherwood and Ross became sexually involved with wealthy American playboy John Blomshield before he abruptly abandoned them. Their wild days ended once Hitler came into power and the pair fled Germany along with other bohemian friends.

Isherwood wrote several semi-autobiographical novels about his escapades in Berlin.  In Mr. Norris Changes Trains (1935), William Bradshaw meets a mysterious stranger on a train who turns out to be a spy.  In Goodbye Berlin (1939), English expatriate Christopher Isherwood rents a room in a boarding house and encounters a diverse group of residents including the owner Fräulein Schroeder, British good-time girl and cabaret singer Sally Bowles (obviously based on Jean Ross), prostitute Fräulein Kost and Nazi sympathizer Fräulein Mayr.  At a nightclub, Christopher and Sally meet a rich playboy named Clive (inspired by Blomshield), who wines and dines them, funding their lavish lifestyles before abruptly disappearing.  Goodbye Berlin depicts the hedonic times of Weimar Germany that slowly dissipates as poverty, unemployment and political unrest takes hold, leading to the Nazis coming into power. 

Goodbye Berlin opened with the line “I am a camera with a shutter open, passive, recording, not thinking”.  Using the beginning of that line for his title, in 1951 John Van Druten adapted Isherwood’s novel into a play called “I Am A Camera” which ran on Broadway for 214 shows.  In addition to the characters from Goodbye Berlin, the play added two extra roles.  Fritz, a poor young German Jew passing himself off as a Christian, falls in love with wealthy Jewish heiress Natalia. Their romance highlights the rise of antisemitism as Fritz struggles to conceal his Jewish identity for safety reasons before finally confessing to it so that he can marry Natalia.  Their traditional romance offers contrast to the platonic relationship between Christopher and Sally. To escape the increasingly oppressive situation in Germany, Natalia and Fritz emigrate to Switzerland while Sally departs for Paris to pursue an acting career and Christopher returns to London.  

Filmed during the Hayes Code era, the 1955 movie version of “I Am A Camera” was still based on Isherwood’s novel and Van Druten’s play, but what had previously been a serious drama was now presented as a romantic comedy with significant changes forced by the censors and the Hayes Code.  Sally no longer had an abortion but only had a pregnancy scare that turned out to be a false alarm.  The depiction of sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, morally controversial themes and social-political issues were also toned down or eliminated.

By the time Cabaret, the musical version of Isherwood’s stories opened on Broadway in 1966, it was the decade of “free love” and societal norms had changed.  As a result, the show was much grittier and more salacious than the previous adaptations, adding back depictions of decadence and sexual depravity, as well as providing scathing commentary about the political situation.  Much of this was conveyed by adding the complex character of “The Emcee” and creating the cabaret setting of the Kit Kat Club where he, Sally Bowles and other cabaret performers work.  In the opening number “Wilkommen”, the Emcee makes bawdy jokes about his skimpily clad cabaret girls while the sexually explicit song “Two Ladies” depicts the sexual freedom and debauchery of 1930s Berlin as the Emcee and two Kit Kat girls act out a threesome.  Sally continues the raunchiness with her flirty number “Don’t Tell Mama”.

For a more forceful critique of antisemitism and the threat of the Nazi regime, the characters of Natalia and Fritz are replaced by elderly, openly Jewish fruit seller Herr Schultz who romances and becomes engaged to the boarding house proprietor, now renamed Fräulein Schneider.  In an incredibly satirical routine titled “If You Could See Her Through My Eyes” the Emcee dances with a gorilla who he vehemently defends and declares his love for, with the final whispered words “If you could see her through my eyes, she wouldn’t look Jewish at all”.  The analogy to the doomed relationship between Schneider and Schultz is so impactful.  When she breaks off their engagement, succumbing to threats and the danger that their union would bring, her mournful song “What Would You Do?” is heartbreaking.  The rise of Nazism is first hinted at early on in the musical and then depicted in full force later on in the show.  The first singing of the song “Tomorrow Belongs To Me” comes across as a sweet, tender patriotic melody.  By the time it is reprised, the tune has transformed into a darker, Nazi marching song with the performers displaying their Nazi arm bands while gesturing with the Hitler salute.

Surprisingly, what is not depicted in this original rendition of the musical is homosexuality, often referred to in the entertainment industry as “The Last Taboo”.  The male protagonist, now renamed Cliff Bradshaw, is heterosexual and enters into a sexual relationship with Sally, making it a possibility that he might be the father when she becomes pregnant.  This puts a different spin on her abortion which she procures unilaterally without informing him.  This shatters his dreams of moving to England with her and the baby as a family.  The wealthy playboy from previous adaptations is no longer in the plot, but elements of Isherwood’s first novel Mr. Norris Rides the Train are added.  Cliff arrives in Berlin by train and during the trip, he meets Ernst Ludwig who turns out to be a German smuggler and Nazi sympathizer.  Ernst offers Cliff work as a “carrier” which he initially accepts.  But once Cliff realizes Ernst’s political affiliations, he refuses further jobs and ends up being attacked by Ernst and his goons.  All this makes for a much darker, more serious show despite being a musical.

In 1972, a movie version of Cabaret was released as a star vehicle for Liza Minelli as Sally Bowles with Michael York playing the male lead, now named Brian Roberts, and Joel Grey playing the role of the Emcee.  Significant changes were made relative to the musical and some elements from “I Am A Camera” were resurrected.  For this movie, Brian once again prefers men, but ends up in a sexual relationship with Sally anyways, thus making him bisexual. The subplot with the wealthy playboy (now named Max von Heune), is back as Max courts and has sex with both Brian and Sally before leaving them 300 marks and disappearing.  When Sally becomes pregnant, she is not sure which man is the father.  Herr Schultz and his romance with Fraulein Schneider are cut and the subplot with the younger Jewish couple Fritz and Natalia is reinstated.  In my mind, these changes dilute the impact of the Nazi plotline, making this a weaker story from that perspective.

The portrayal of Sally Bowles changes between the musical and the movie.  In the musical, Sally is a mediocre singer with limited options, making her vulnerable, but also reckless and impulsive.  She chooses to stay in Berlin and at the Kit Kat Club since it is the only place she knows and feels wanted. Perhaps to appease Liza Minelli, the film portrays Sally as an extremely talented performer who could find work anywhere.  Thus, her need to stay in Berlin despite the growing danger makes less sense, although it highlights the self-imposed obliviousness and denial that permeated through much of the German population.

The reveal of the Nazis is also handled differently.  In the musical, most of the first act is devoted to showing the fun-filled, carefree Weimar days and it is not until the end of that act that the threat of Nazism is portrayed.  This stark change in tone makes the reveal hit harder.  The movie shows men wearing Nazi arm bands right from the beginning, depicting their rise in power by their degree of access to the Kit Kat Club.  At the start, Nazis are not allowed in the club but by the end of the movie, they are sitting in the front row.

But the biggest change that the film makes is the way that the songs are presented.  The musical Cabaret is a typical book musical where songs are sung spontaneously to advance the plot.  While some of the songs are performances sung at the Kit Kat Club by the Emcee or Sally and cabaret girls as dictated by the storyline, other songs take place wherever the action is happening, such as at the boarding house.  In a good book musical, the songs replace dialogue in order to express larger emotions.  Wanting to create a more “realistic” story, the film is no longer a book musical.  Instead, all the songs are “diegetic” meaning they are sung as “performance numbers” at the Kit Kat Club, which takes some of the songs totally out of context and in my opinion, makes no sense in the overall plot.

As I am a huge proponent of the book musical, this artistic choice alone made me not enjoy the movie.  But the interpretation of the big finale number made it even worse for me.  Sally Bowles sings the eponymous 11 O’Clock number “Cabaret” with a big smile and jazz hands, belting it out as if she were Ethel Merman.  She does not show any remorse about her abortion or Brian leaving, nor any horror about the numerous Nazi soldiers who are sitting in the front row of the audience.  There is no irony, regret, pain or pathos in her voice as she cheerily sings “Life is a Cabaret old chum.  Come to the Cabaret”.  This highlights her self-delusion that everything will be OK, ignoring the evidence right in front of her.

Since the 1972 movie was initially my only frame of reference for Cabaret, I was totally unprepared for the experience of watching the stage musical for the first time, when in 1999, a touring version of the 1998 Broadway revival arrived in Toronto.  I was blown away by the completely different, gut-wrenching interpretation of the song “Cabaret” as sung by Joely Fisher playing Sally Bowles.  In this version, Sally is heartbroken at losing Cliff and possibly starting to realize the horrors happening outside of the Kit Kat Club.  She sings at first somberly, then with increasing fear and sorrow, breaking down at the end as she is overwhelmed by her situation. Seeing the sub-plot of Fraulein Schneider and Herr Schultz for the first time also tugged at my heart strings and the song with the Gorilla finally made sense!  Director Bob Fosse strove to remove the sentimentality of the musical from his movie.  But in doing so, he also took away its emotional core, heart and pathos.

The movie did have one redeeming quality for me, in that it added three songs written by Kander and Ebb which were so iconic that they were added to most subsequent revivals of the musical.  “Money (makes the world go round)” perfectly describes the greed, power and corruption of the times.  The song “Mein Herr” gives Sally another big Cabaret number and further illustrates her free spirit and need for control with lines like “A tiger is a tiger, not a lamb, Mein Herr”. And finally, the torch song “Maybe This Time” allows Sally to show her vulnerability and hope for a real relationship with my favourite line “Everybody loves a winner, so nobody loves me”.  Once again, the lines of this song make much more sense for the musical’s more vulnerable version of Sally.

Since the 1980s, the musical version of Cabaret has had at least one revival every decade, either on Broadway and/or London’s West End.  Each new version may make some modifications to better reflect the current day’s tastes, tolerances and socio-political climate.  In the 1987 Broadway revival, a song by Kandar and Ebb called “I Don’t Care Much” that was cut from the original production was reinstated.   Sung by the Emcee towards the end of the show, this haunting number exposes his pain, growing desperation and fear of the Nazi regime while feigning indifference and apathy.  This reflects on the general population who dealt with the growing issues by ignoring or downplaying them.  This song has since become an integral part of future revivals.

Significant changes came in the 1993 London production directed by Sam Mendes.  This was the first time that a theatre was reconfigured to include Cabaret table seating in front of the stage, to augment the experience for some theatregoers.  The Emcee was reimagined to be more sexualized, seedy and overtly queer, physically groping, kissing and humping the Cabaret girls and male members of the orchestra.  While previous versions including the 1966 musical and 1972 movie saw the Emcee dressed in a tuxedo, Alan Cumming’s character came out in a black leather trench coat which he removed striptease-style to reveal that he is topless except for suspenders and a bowtie.  In the final number of the show, the Emcee appears again in his trench coat to reprise the opening number “Willkommen” but this time when he removes the coat, shockingly he is wearing the striped concentration camp uniform with the yellow Star of David in a much more overt reminder of tragedies that occurred.  The Emcee becomes a proxy for all the victims of the Holocaust.

The 1998 Broadway revival, with Alan Cummings reprising his role, incorporated the changes from 1993 London and added some of its own by ramping up the sexuality and queerness even more.  The lyrics of the song Willkommen were updated to add more lewd innuendos about lesbians, sexual acts (describing one girl as a very “cunning linguist”), and explicitly calling out the Cabaret Boys Bobby and Victor, who later out Cliff as a bisexual who had an encounter with one of them in the past.  This version also added the song Maybe This Time, which was missing from the 1993 production.  This extremely well-received show ran for 2377 performances and won the Tony for Best Revival of a Musical.

Since 1998, each subsequent version has leaned further into darker, more explicit portrayals of Berlin’s decadence in the Weimar era and the impact of the rise of Nazism.  In what might seem like stunt casting, or just the trend for more TV and movie stars to perform on stage, Sally Bowles has been played by celebrity actresses including Jennifer Jason Leigh, Molly Ringwald, Terry Hatcher, Michelle Williams, Emma Stone, Sienna Miller and Jessie Buckley.

What seems to be most tinkered with in each iteration of Cabaret is the ending.  In the most recent 2024 Broadway revival where the Emcee was played by Eddie Redmayne and now, Adam Lambert, instead of portraying him as a victim in concentration camp garb, they show him as a collaborator dressed in a bland gray suit.  This signifies conformity and loss of individuality brought about by fascism.  By the end of the show, the entire cast is dressed uniformly in grey.

The production that we watched at the Al Green Theatre seems to have taken notes from all the previous versions of Cabaret and then added its own spin as well.  When we entered the space, it felt like we were in the Kit Kat Club with cabaret tables surrounding the base of the stage.  Tickets for table seating included a free cocktail with a choice of whiskey sour, hard iced tea, gin smash or margarita which you could sip during the show.  We had bought tickets for a table right in front of the stage next to a few steps where the performers would descend, sometimes to use the telephones that were placed around us.  During the show, Cliff sat at the table behind us and was propositioned over the phone by first Bobby and Victor, and then Sally.  The immersive feeling of being in the middle of the action was so much fun.  During the “Money” number, the cast tossed fake Deutschmarks all over the stage before fighting to scoop them up.  One bill slipped and landed at our feet so we got a good look at it during intermission before returning it.

This was a great production with stellar acting, singing and dancing by the entire cast, effective staging and fabulous costumes.  The Emcee and Cabaret girls and boys came out for the opening number in Lederhosen, wearing not much else underneath. Nathaniel Bacon who played the Emcee is tall, muscular and bald with a powerful voice and an extremely expressive face that can change from playfully grinning to frightfully menacing in a flash, which he does again and again during one of the songs.  Several of the Cabaret dancers could do full side splits on demand.  The choreography was wonderful and acrobatic.  During the scene where Cliff gets beaten up by the Nazis, even though we were sitting very close to the stage, it still looked and sounded like he was being smacked.  After one punch, he even did a bit of a flip as he crashed to the ground.

Again, the biggest and most impactful changes to this rendition came towards the end of the show.  Amanda Milligan, who plays Sally Bowles, leans into the angst, turmoil and sorrow right from the start when she sings Cabaret, so that every word sounds insincere and ironic.  There is no gentle start building up to a breakdown at the end.  This Sally cracks right from the beginning of the song and continues to fall apart (even downing a bottle of champagne mid lyric) before imploding by the last note.  It was quite the performance to witness.  Then the final scene is reinterpreted again with the big, tall Emcee coming out dressed fully as a Nazi commandant.  He towers over the rest of the chorus plus Herr Schultz who are all dressed in the striped concentration camp uniforms.  Visually this makes much more sense than trying to make the enormous actor appear as the victim. A gun is pressed against Schultz’s head and the stage fades to black as the sound of a gun shot rings out.

But we were not done yet.  While sitting in the dark, we hear the voice of US President Donald Trump spewing his much-quoted rants about the need for a wall and that immigrants are poisoning the blood of our nation.  Just in case the parallels between the musical’s dark themes with what is happening today were not clear enough, these words left no room for doubt. The famous saying goes that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.  Sadly, and alarmingly, this appears to be our current reality.  The audience left the theatre a bit shell-shocked.

Cabaret is playing at the Al Green Theatre until Sunday April 27, 2025.  Whether you have already watched a version of this musical before or not, it is worth seeing now.  Never has this show been more relevant or its message more important than it is today.

Theatre 2025: Just For One Day @ Ed Mirvish Theatre

The London West End musical Just For One Day depicts the events leading up to the iconic 1985 Live Aid charity concert to raise money for famine relief in Ethiopia.  Although food issues and malnutrition are always an ongoing concern in Africa, between 1983 to 1985 the situation escalated to the point where a famine was declared.  Conditions contributing to the famine included a combination of severe drought, ongoing civil war and government policies that prioritized on military spending over social aid.

When 33-year-old Bob Geldolf of the Irish alternative rock band Boomtown Rats learned of the tragedy, he was greatly moved and spurred into action, recruiting help from his friend Midge Ure, leader of the group Ultravox.  Together they wrote the song “Do They Know It’s Christmas” and formed a super-group of Britain’s largest music stars to record it.  Joining them in the group were members of hit bands at that time including The Police, U2, Genesis, Culture Club, Duran Duran, Wham!, Spandau Ballet, Kool & The Gang, Bananarama and more.  Geldof named the group “Band Aid” since he knew that his efforts would not end hunger but would at least be a bandage solution to provide some relief.  American musicians joined the cause by forming their own supergroup “USA for Africa” and recording the song “We Are the World” written by Lionel Richie and Michael Jackson.  In this recording were superstars including Bruce Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, Bob Dylan, Cyndi Lauper, Ray Charles, Huey Lewis, Kenny Loggins, Kenny Rogers, Diana Ross, Dionne Warwick, Willie Nelson, Billy Joel, Tina Turner, and more.

Despite the two charity songs raising £8 million pounds and $11 million US Dollars respectively, it was not enough to address the problems.  The food which this money bought was not getting through to the starving people due to corrupt cartels and government officials blocking the process.  As a way to raise even more money and more importantly, awareness around the world, Geldof and Ure organized an unprecedented one-day, live music event named “Live Aid”, that was broadcast to 1.5 billion people across 150 countries.  British artists performed at London's Wembley Stadium in front of 72,000 people with their acts interspersed with American artists playing in Philadelphia’s JFK stadium in front of a crowd ranging between 90,0000-100,000.  This time over £110 million pounds were raised, which was enough to cut through the corruption and red tape, so that food finally flowed to the starving people of Ethiopia.

The originally proposed concept for Just For One Day was more in lines of a biopic focusing on the heroic acts of Bob Geldof, which he was totally against.  The offer to donate 10% of the show’s proceeds to charity convinced Geldof to let the show’s producers try again.  He insisted that the musical’s main focus must be on the cause.  After multiple attempts, librettist John O’Farrell finally produced a version that met with Geldof’s approval, using several fictional archetypes, a framing device, and flashback scenes to convey the story.  Amara, a Red Cross nurse in Ethiopia gives a voice for and provides first-hand witness accounts of the suffering and deaths happening in Ethiopia. The character of Suzanne serves as a proxy to represent the innumerable ordinary people who helped promote or were affected by the charity movement back in the 80s.  In current day, Suzanne’s university-bound daughter Jemma is a stand-in for the next generation who will hopefully carry on the torch.

The musical opens in the present with Suzanne trying to make Jemma understand the magnitude and significance of the Live Aid concert.  As a teenager, Suzanne and her coworker Tim worked in a record shop where they hawked the Christmas charity single and attended the actual concert.  Suzanne reminisces about the concert with a group of attendees including Jim, the sound technician and Marsha, who acted as an assistant producer.  They express how proud they were to have participated by singing David Bowie’s song Heroes with lyrics “We can be heroes, just for one day” (thus the title of the musical and a song also used in the musical Moulin Rouge).

Somehow Bob Geldof is summoned and called upon to relay to Jemma the events leading up to the concert. Geldof is annoyed by how the group’s memories of that time are romanticized and sets the record straight about all the issues, heartaches, tensions and near disasters that occurred along the way.  In retelling how it all came about in 1984-85, the action jumps from Britain to America to Ethiopia. Intermittently a scene returns to current day to get reactions from Jemma.  Liverpool actor and singer Craig Els hilariously portrays the character of Bob Geldof as manic, foul-mouthed, pushy and reckless, which the actual Geldof laughingly concurred was just about right!  The other character used for comedic effect is Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who Geldof spars with several times in order to convince her to forgo the taxes that she wants to levy on the charity money collected.

Created as a jukebox musical, all the songs in Just For One Day where chosen from performances in the actual Live Aid Concert.  For those of us who lived through the 80’s, this musical was wonderfully nostalgic as familiar hit songs flowed one after another.  Up until the concert begins, the songs were selected perfectly set the mood or advance the plot with lyrics acting almost as dialogue.  This is exactly how a good jukebox musical should work.  When Amara pleads for assistance for the starving, she sings the Cars’ haunting hit “Drive” with lyrics including “Who’s going to tell you when it’s too late? Who’s going to come around, when you break?”.  When Geldof decides he needs to generate more visibility and cash for the relief fund, he sings “Message in a Bottle” by The Police (“I’ll send an SOS to the world”).  When introducing Harvey Goldsmith, the concert promoter extraordinaire who helps pull the concert together, the song “Pinball Wizard” by The Who is performed to highlight his expertise (“How do you think he does it? What makes him so good?”).  And when Amara prays that the concert will work and finally bring relief to the starving masses, she sings Bob Dylan’s “Blowing in the Wind” (“How many ears must one man have, before he can hear people cry?”).

The musical’s portrayal of the Live Aid concert led to some interesting artistic choices.  Most of these songs were not presented as imitations of the original artists or their performances, but rather were reinterpretations of the songs.  This made the well-known songs feel fresh without having to live up to the standards of the original.  The only exception was the set performed by the Boomtown Rats, where Craig Els channeled Bob Geldof and gave a stirring rendition of the hit song “I Don’t Like Mondays”, including the moment where Gedolf sang “the lesson today is how to die”, then stood for multiple seconds with his fist in the air while the crowd went crazy before carrying on with the song.  Once the song was done, Geldof told the crowd “Thank you very much.  I just realized today is the best day of my life”.  

Action cut between the concert performances and the frantic activity in the background by the crew including Jim and Marsha who struggle to keep things on track while Geldof and Goldsmith panic.  Checking back in with Jemma towards the end of the concert, she sings The Who’s anthem “My Generation” to show that she (and by proxy her generation) understands what was accomplished by Live Aid and accepts the challenge of carrying on the fight for change and for a better future. The show closes with Paul McCartney performing “Let it Be”, including the depiction of an actual technical glitch which muted his microphone for a few minutes. The crowd chimed in to fill the silence until the problem was fixed.

The set and staging were quite simple with several rows of stadium-styled bleachers for the cast while the 5-piece band played on a platform behind and above them.  As each set of featured characters performed or interacted on centre stage, the remaining cast acted as the chorus behind them, often popping up to deliver a line before sitting down again.  During the concert performances, occasionally one or more guitarists would descend onto the stage to perform solos as would have happened in the Live Aid show. Throughout the musical, so many different artists and bands were represented in such quick succession that the names of the people or groups were projected overhead so that the audience could follow who they were supposed to be watching. In many cases, the iconic song being performed gave it away but in some cases, the visual cues helped.

After watching this enjoyable and inspirational musical, I went into a bit of a deep dive into researching Band Aid and Live Aid.  I listened to Bob Geldof’s recent interview with the CBC radio program Q with Tom Power to promote the opening of the musical and watched copious YouTube videos of the Live Aid performances from both London and Philadelphia including Queen’s now iconic set and one where David Bowie introduces a CBC video clip from Ethiopia. Seeing images of the starvation and devastation reminded people what the concerts were really about and started the money pouring in.  It also helped when Bob Geldof went on BBC radio in the middle of the concert to remind people that they were not just here to have a good time.  He made an impassioned plea for donations that was later misquoted as “Give us your F**king money!”.  This became a running gag in the musical as he had to repeatedly deny using the profanity.  I listened to a video of his actual plea and it is true that he did not curse, but it made for a funny gag for the show.

I also watched the documentaries “Band Aid – Making of the Original Do You Know It’s Christmas” and “The Greatest Night in Pop” (Netflix) that documented the recordings of the two charity songs.  But the most interesting documentary was “Wham! Last Christmas” (Netflix) which expanded on a small subplot that was briefly referenced in the musical.  George Michael of Wham! had written “Last Christmas” which was a shoo-in to be the #1 song on the UK charts at Christmas before Band Aid’s song come along.   Although disappointed, George Michael gave up fighting to promote his own single and even became one of the soloists on “Do They Know It’s Christmas” which indeed was the #1 seller in 1984.  Last Christmas came in at #2 and Wham! generously donated all the proceeds from that record to the cause.  This was another example of altruism and personal sacrifice that warms the heart.  In 2023, Last Christmas finally made it to #1 but unfortunately, George Michael never got to experience this achievement since he passed away in 2016.

The poignant tale of Band Aid and Live Aid, as portrayed in the musical Just For One Day, did an amazing job of reminding past generations and teaching a new generation what it was like to have empathy and to care about the world and humanity as a whole.  Given how countries are becoming more and more insular, protectionist and self-serving, this show could not have come at a better time.  I’m not sure given the current political climate globally, that such an amazing feat as Live Aid could happen today.  Although he did not want to be featured, the passion, selflessness and generosity of Bob Geldof came through loud and clear.

Theatre 2025: Wights @ Crow's Theatre

I came out of Wights, the extremely challenging play by Yale graduate and playwright Liz Appel with several thoughts.  First, Appel must have been paid by the word since this play is so dialog-intense, with the characters spewing extended monologues or rants at such a rapid pace, that it took extreme concentration to try to catch all the words, let alone the meaning of their arguments.  In fact, in the second act, one character’s non-stop tirade went on for what felt like forever, without seeming to ever pause to take a breath.  After a while I lost track of what he was saying and stopped paying attention to his actual words.  I was more mesmerized by his frenetic actions, which maybe was the point since his whole philosophy was the adage that “actions speak louder than words”. Second, this play was obviously written by an academic, about (and for?) academics since no regular person thinks or speaks like this.

On the surface, the play is about Anita (aka “Annie”) a biracial professor at Yale (with a black mother and white father) who is about to interview for the head job to lead the university’s Centre for Reparative Thought and Justice.  She is with her friends Bing, a native Chinese man who immigrated from China when he was seventeen, and his spouse Celine, a white American born to (French?) Canadian parents.  Anita is divorced from a cheating husband who is currently in Italy with their sixteen-year-old daughter, “the Great Maya”.  Anita has since married Danny, a white Jewish defense lawyer specializing in helping the wrongly convicted. Together, they have a baby only half-jokingly nicknamed “Demon child” due to his constant crying. I describe each of the characters by their racial background, since race, discrimination, displacement and restitution are main topics of the play.

Anita has gathered her friends and fellow academics to hear her pitch for her job interview, asking them to mercilessly critique her in preparation for what she will face the next day.  Bing is to act as “the asshole”, representing the harshest critic on the board who Anita will face while Celine will play the “good cop”.  Danny returns from work looking worried and upset but puts on a mask of congeniality when he sees they have company, as he joins in on the assessment of Anita’s speech.

It is late at night on Halloween, one week before the 2024 US election that will determine the fate and ideology of the country for the next four years.  There is a sense of unease in the air as the conversation is interrupted several times by a banging on the front door, which may be last-minute trick-or-treaters or something more sinister.  Anita makes a point of mentioning that Danny likes to keep the front door double-locked to feel protected from external threats, but the locks make Anita feel trapped inside.

The house itself is a source of contention as it initially belonged to Anita’s maternal family before passing on to her father upon her mother’s death.  Her father remarried and upon his death, left the house to his new wife, leaving Anita feeling robbed of her rightful heritage and legacy. In her mind, she may relate being displaced from her home with the Indigenous people being displaced from their native lands.  This may be why she is so insistent that she opens up her interview speech with a “land acknowledgement” despite Bing and later Danny vehemently advising her against doing so.  Anita plans to buy back the house in her own personal act of restitution.

Anita and Bing argue about whether that land acknowledgement and the use of gender pronouns to clarify identity are important or even useful.  Anita believes that language matters and that speaking out can lead to social change, while Bing sees these statements as gimmicky platitudes.  After Bing and Celine leave, Anita and Danny continue the debate over words versus actions and trying to address racial issues in general versus dealing with people on an individual level. Their discussion gets more and more heated and personal until Danny reveals a secret that up-ends their relationship.

Much of the discourse between the characters deals with racism and it almost felt like a competition between Anita, Bing and Danny to prove which one of them endured the most.  Anita cites the systemic racism towards Blacks in America and particularly Black females, despite the fact that she herself had a privileged upbringing.  After being generalized by Anita as benefiting from the white male supremacy that dominates the country, Danny protests that his Jewish family was persecuted far more than hers and that he suffers generational trauma.  Bing declares that there is a hierarchy of racism in America and that Asians rank towards the bottom.  It is ironic that Celine, the white American born to Canadian parents jokes about being the “Whitest of all white people” and therefore least susceptible to racism.  But in light of Donald Trump’s declared war on “birth-right citizenship” it seems she is not as safe as she assumes.

There is much symbolism in the play that manifests itself through props and set design.  A kitchen cupboard door repeatedly falls off its hinges (once with a huge, scary bang), perhaps representing the rot in society, or on a more personal level, the breakdown in Anita and Danny’s marriage. After a discussion about whether the term “pour salt in the wound” is racist since it refers to slaves being tortured, or medicinal, since salt was used as an antiseptic to clean wounds, a strange saltshaker figurine that creepily looks like Danny comes into play.  Towards the end of the first act after Danny reveals his secret, he accidentally cuts his hand causing much bleeding.  Anita literally and figuratively “rubs salt in the wound” as she unscrews the head of the saltshaker and pours salt over Danny’s hand as he howls.  By the start of the second act, the saltshaker is in pieces and Danny sits at the kitchen island trying to glue it back together, as if trying to repair his relationship with Anita.

While the first act comes across as an extremely wordy, overly intellectual social discourse, the second act pivots into the realm of the “Twilight Zone”.  Up to now, the term “White” has been thrown around so often in the dialogue that you start to wonder whether there was a typo in the play’s name.  But acting as a homophone to the colour, “Wight” refers to a supernatural being and was clearly intended based on what happens in the second act.  The slightly ominous mood felt earlier ramps up with intermittent occurrences of large crashing sounds and flashing lights.  Danny becomes more and more unhinged as he goes on his 20-minute diatribe while blood drips from his cut hand and skin starts to peel from his face.  It turns out that the entire play was actually a flashback to events leading up to a Zombie apocalypse, probably caused by a virus (COVID inspired?) since the characters began to cough as the play progressed.

Our initial reaction was WTF(?!?) but I guess we should have been forewarned by the title of the work.  Also, at the beginning of the play, there was a quick light-hearted discussion about Halloween and Zombies and Celine even performed Michael Jackson’s iconic Thriller dance. I am trying to understand what purpose adding Zombies served for this play.  The only thing that I can think of is that this is a physical and visual manifestation of the dire state of the world as we currently know it.  For me, it just felt weird and out of place.  Relating back to Michael Jackson, I was amused at one point when Danny becomes concerned about Anita’s state of mind and calling her by his nickname for her (which she hates), he says “Annie are you OK?” which is a line from Jackson’s song Smooth Criminal.  Whether this was intended or not, it made me chuckle in that moment.

As always in shows at Crow’s Theatre, the set design and staging are impressive.  The entire centre of the stage including the kitchen island and dining table sit on top of projectors that can superimpose images on the floor and countertops.  These lighting effects help ramp up the horror of the zombie apocalypse as it is used to project blood splatters on the floor and then mysterious writing and words including a countdown clock that ticks away during Danny’s extended rant.  I first noticed this effect when we initially sat down in the theatre and I realized that the floor covering under the table was a projection as opposed to a real carpet.

During intermission, glass cases were set up around the edge of the stage, interspersed between the stadium seating.  In each case was an artifact from the first act, including the saltshaker and salt, Anita’s speech covered in blood, an apron that was used to bandage Danny’s bleeding hand, and the empty “trick-or-treat” candy bowl.  These were displayed as artifacts by the Zombies who were recalling and recapping the earlier scenes.

My only criticism of the staging is that the Guloien Theatre is too large and widespread for the stadium seating arrangement that spanned both sides of the room.  Given the theatre’s size, parts of the audience could not see what was happening on various corners of the “stage”.  Some of the people sitting across from us could not see what was happening at the front door while others could not see the kitchen where the cupboard door kept falling down.  Often, we could not hear if the actors were standing further away from us with their backs turned, which was especially detrimental in a play that was so dialogue intensive.

I found this play more stressful than enjoyable and had a bit of a headache at the end from straining for so long trying to understand the messages being conveyed.  I think the playwright tried to pack too many ideas into a lengthy play and overwhelmed the audience with the overly intellectual, jargon-filled spiel.  But given that we talked about it all the way home, there was obviously something interesting or at least thought-provoking there.

Theatre 2025: Dinner With the Duchess @ Crow's Theatre

Our first show of 2025 was Dinner With the Duchess at Crow’s Theatre.  This is a play by Nick Green (known for writing The Last Timbit, Casey and Diana) that was initially workshopped as part of Toronto Fringe’s Next Stage Festival back in 2019.  The action takes place at the condo of violin virtuoso Margaret who is at the end of her career and giving one last interview before her retirement.  Margaret hopes that the interview will secure her legacy, concentrating on her career, talent and accomplishments.  The interviewer Helen may have a more salacious piece in mind, initially gently and eventually aggressively requesting comments on reports and rumours of Margaret’s diva-esque behaviour.  There is much interaction with a little cassette recorder that Helen wants to use to capture the interview.

Added to the mix is Margaret’s spouse David who arrives to help her with the interview, with the intent of preventing her from saying anything damaging to her reputation.  They try to appear as a united, loving couple but cracks show with the little resentful barbs that Margaret continually throws his way.  The couple insist on holding the interview over dinner, which consists of takeout from their favourite Italian restaurant where David took cooking lessons, using his skills to jazz up the meal with extra ingredients. He enthuses about lemon zest, adding a bit of humour to the play.  The dinner is intended to create a more intimate, convivial atmosphere in an attempt to control the flow and narrative of the interview.  It is a bit of a cat-and-mouse game as Margaret dodges, evades and erupts defensively while Helen probes, especially about why Margaret is nicknamed ‘The Duchess”.

This play delves into the themes of celebrity, misogyny, perception and legacy.  There is a quick reference to Taylor Swift and all that she had to endure to make it in a male-dominated music industry, which brings the issues into perspective for those of us not familiar with the world of classical music.  The actress who plays Margaret carries this piece as she goes through an emotional gamut, culminating in a mesmerizing final speech where she compares her life and career to the beat of a musical piece.

The simple set design representing a chic, modern Toronto condo consisted of a kitchen island and a small dining space with a glass table and four chairs delineated by an area rug, where most of the interview and meal took place.  Two large photographic images of the Toronto skyline represented the windows of the condo. A couple of coffee-table books on a trolley included titles such as “Noire et Blanc”, perhaps to highlight Margaret’s sophistication but also her contrasting nature? But most telling and interesting is the colourful cubist-like painting of a seated woman with a musical note on her left side (possibly near her heart).  Credited in the digital programme as the “Duchess painting” by visual artist Mark Uhre, the fragmented painting encapsulates Margaret’s passion for music but also her complexity and turmoil.  In one scene, Margaret uses candles, wine bottle and wine glass to illustrate the very small group of top female violinists who influenced her.  Her actions reminded me of a scene from the classic 1939 movie Four Feathers where objects on the dining table are used to act out a battle.

Dinner With the Duchess was not the most cheerful play to start off the new year, but the stellar performances made it a memorable one.  Before the start of the play, the stage manager made a special thank you to Tulia Osteria for providing the food each night for the dinner scenes.  The dishes certainly looked good and hopefully get eaten after the performances.