Category Archives: Festival coverage

Review of My Fair Lady at the Shaw Festival

Deborah Hay and Benedict Campbell in The Shaw Festival’s production of My Fair Lady

One of the biggest crowd-pleasers at this year’s Shaw Festival is surely My Fair Lady, a good but still disappointing production of the brilliant musical about a cockney flower girl who goes from rags to riches simply by learning to speak proper English. The flower girl is Eliza Doolittle (Deborah Hay) and she has a chance encounter with a coarse phonetics expert, Henry Higgins (Benedict Campbell). Higgins claims that in six months, he can teach her to speak like a lady, and in so doing, completely change her prospects in life. The play unfolds in two parts: the time and lessons leading up to Eliza’s perfection of the English language and the aftermath of how changing how she talks has profound effects on her situation in life.

My Fair Lady is one of the best, and also one of my favourite, musicals of the twentieth century. It combines an excellent story and a witty script – an abridged but verbatim adaptation of Shaw’s Pygmalion – with catchy, enduring tunes and great lyrics. In short, it has it all. That’s why it’s so incredibly difficult to get right. West Side Story is similar, requiring its cast to not only act but sing very difficult songs and dance, to boot, with most productions failing at one of these.

My Fair Lady has the added complication that it’s a story about transformations in character and life brought about by transformations in speech, which requires that all of its characters speak with very specific English accents. Eliza Doolittle is especially challenging to play: she starts the play with a rough cockney accent and finishes it a new woman with a refined upper-class accent,. There are many things to get right, and when a production does, it soars. But it’s also very easy to get them wrong.

This production of My Fair Lady gets things about half right, which is enough to keep the show fairly entertaining. This is the most ambitious choreography in a production of My Fair Lady that I’ve ever seen: the choreography for “I’m Getting Married in the Morning”, in particular, was inspired. It’s also the only time I’ve ever heard the vocals for Henry Higgins songs done completely in tune and in song – the film version with Rex Harrison involved mostly speak-singing and almost no actual singing – and Benedict Campbell as Henry can really sing.

There are two major problems with the production. The first is that the accents are generally uneven. Hay’s early accent is certainly vulgar but not quite cockney and her later accent isn’t quite right either. Campbell’s accent is certainly refined but it slips now and then. I’m not convinced it’s the actors’ fault because the accents seem to be wrong, across the board, in the exact same ways. When they all go to the Ascot, the brilliant and hilarious “Ascot Gavotte” number is mispronounced by the whole cast, with a very grating “ehscot”, which suggests they were all very badly coached on how precisely to speak.

The stars, Deborah Hay and Benedict Campbell, give solid performances with uneven accents. Hay’s physicalization is commendable: in the beginning her loose manner is boorish and crass and by the second half, become noticeably refined and delicate. Campbell mostly keeps up. I should warn that I recently saw a production of Pygmalion in the London West End starring Rupert Everett as Higgins. Everett’s portrayal was so rich, so complex, offbeat yet charismatic, that Campbell can’t possibly compete. The accents in the London production were also pitch perfect and incredibly detailed: as Eliza developed the ability to speak more properly, you could still hear minor slips into a cockney accent, every tenth word or so, which became increasingly less prevalent as the play went on. The trouble with Hay and Campbell – and the rest of the cast’s mediocre accents – is that they were distracting. I ended up focusing on how they sounded off instead of on the story. In the case of Pickering (Patrick Galligan), it was horribly grating.

The real star of the show proved to be Mark Uhre as Freddy Eynsford-Hill, Eliza’s silly upper-class lover, who sings the silly but romantic love song, “On the Street Where You Live”. Freddy can so easily be an overlooked character: he is supposed to be daft yet sympathetic but can easily be banal. But Uhre has great stage presence. His Freddy is appealing and charming and completely steals the scene whenever he appears, even when the centre of attention is meant to be Eliza, like in the number “Show Me”. He’s also got a fantastic voice and a real affinity for the physicalizing Freddy’s proper manners and reckless romanticism. Mark Uhre is the real thing and he’s sure to be a star. Special mention should also be made of Sharry Flett as Henry’s mother, Mrs Higgins, who nailed her part, balancing her maternal instincts, her disapproval of her son, and her pride in Eliza for Eliza’s transformation.

The second main problem was the set design, which though elaborate, was mostly ill conceived, leading to awkward movement on the stage. The set for Henry’s house provided two main spaces on the set: his desk and office on one side of the stage and a sitting room completely on the other end. These spaces were so disparate that when characters interacted between them – and they often did – the action was always stilted. It often seemed as though the characters were yelling at each other from opposite ends of the stage. Even worse, the characters would often move between the two sets, pacing back and forth, with absolutely no motivation, just looking for an excuse to use the stage. This, too, was distracting.

The set for covent garden at the beginning of the play was not quite as problematic. It impressively created distorted pillars to use perspective to make the stage look bigger. The problem was that most of the elements that broke up the stage – the pillars, the elevated platform – were so far upstage that it was awkward to have actors realistically move from downstage to upstage often, just to make use of the set pieces. The pillars need to serve as a hiding place for Higgins to observe Eliza and as barriers between the two when they spar. Instead, they serve as decoration which the director desperately attempts to use without elegance.

There was one clear exception to the poor set design: the set at the ascot was brilliant. I particularly liked how when the group of spectators prepares to watch the race, a fence rolls out in front of them, far downstage, and shadows of the horses racing flicker across the stage. It looks just right and feels just right and you get the real sense that they really are at the ascot. The ‘Ascot Gavotte’, which is perhaps the funniest of all the songs, because of its irony, is also done just right. Few things are funnier than watching the very composed, expressionless faces of the men and women at the ascot as they sing about how they “have never been so keyed up”.

Even with bad accents and bad staging, My Fair Lady is so well crafted that the production is still entertaining. It might lose a few genuine laughs and some of the complexity and believability of character development, but it can still fall back on a long list of fabulous songs. And so if all My Fair Lady can boast is some great song and dance numbers that will keep you tapping your feet, smiling, and humming the songs as you leave, it’s still well worth the ticket price. I was disappointed that the production wasn’t better and didn’t fully do justice to the musical, but I thoroughly enjoyed it nonetheless.

My Fair Lady runs until October 31.

For information on getting cheap tickets and trave,l see the post on BlogUT’s top 5 summer theatre festivals on a student budget.

Richard III at the Stratford Festival is a triumph

Seanna McKenna as Richard III in the Stratford Festival production

Seanna McKenna does a fabulous turn as Shakespeare’s most interesting and deliciously charismatic villain, in the title role of Stratford’s must-see of the summer, Richard III. It seems to be a popular play this year, with Sam Mendes’s rendition currently playing at the Old Vic in the London West End, starring Kevin Spacey. But Torontonians need not feel too envious, as Stratford’s Richard III is a triumph, and proof positive that the history plays can be incredibly entertaining.

Richard III is a conniving and scheming little devil, who systematically kills – or has killed – everyone in his way to the throne of England while maintaining the appearance of humility amongst his peers and congratulating himself in intimate exchanges with the audience. It is a play that is as much about performance as it is about politics, which prove less important than building a fascinating character. Shakespeare’s rendering of Richard III is better remembered in history than the real Richard III, who was likely not quite so evil nor quite so charming.

Seanna McKenna plays Richard III straight, and aside from her small frame, is indistinguishable from a man. Richard III is a cripple, an outward manifestation of his inner evil, and McKenna has perfected the hunchback, the limp, and the deformed arm: it all seems so incredibly natural, that it’s a surprise to see McKenna spryly skip offstage in the curtain call. She also does a wonderful job of layering the many different facets of Richard’s character: he’s playful, witty, cunning, remorseless, pernicious, malicious, corrupt, and unbelievably likeable. It’s an incredibly rich character in text, and McKenna does it full justice.

The production plays it straight, too, which Stratford almost never does, and yet the best productions there are almost always the straight ones. This is not modernized. This is not updated. Its lack of pretension puts the text at centre stage, and here that’s a triumph.

The production is in the Tom Patterson Theatre, where the oddly shaped stage – long and narrow – is put to wonderfully good use while maintaining economy. This stage has many stages within it.

There’s a small elevated platform, downstage, that serves as a stage for Richard to speak his soliloquies to us, marveling at and congratulating himself on his deviousness: this is Richard’s spectacle to the audience. It is also used to great effect when he successfully woos Lady Anne at her husband’s deathbed where Richard killed him, perhaps Richard’s greatest triumph of performance as Director Miles Potter cleverly and subtly draws attention to with this staging.

In the middle of the stage, there is red tile on the floor, which is where most of the scenes at court are held, subtly drawing attention to how manners at court are just another form of performance. And finally, the whole stage is elevated from the ground by one step which surrounds the entire stage. Watch where Richard lingers and when. When there is action occurring, but Richard has minimal dialogue, he stalks the outer step around the stage – he is, in a way, backstage, observing, not yet performing, but calculating and scheming and always having a hand at driving the action, however surreptitiously. Watch how when he puts on airs of humility, Potter has him step onto one of the many stages within the stage. Watch also how in the first half, he only steps onto the edges of the stage within the stage, and he steps there with some trepidation. Compare this to how, once crowned, Richard finally walks confidently to the middle of the red tile: finally feeling he belongs in a different kind of spotlight.

This very, very clever blocking is executed perfectly: it is subtle, motivated, and incredibly effective. It makes you constantly question who is performing, who is the audience, and how is the audience complicit in the performance. As Richard draws us into his plan, intimately speaking directly to the audience with his clever wordplay, we can’t help but root for him. We become complicit in supporting his wicked plan. We also can understand how all the members at court would be so taken in by Richard. McKenna shows us Richard’s pretensions but so subtly that we can believe they could go unnoticed by those at court.

Much like in Hamlet, where we can’t help but like Hamlet for his clever wordplay, and despise Claudius for his inadequacies in this department, Shakespeare equips Richard with incredible wit. He can artfully twist other people’s words, with a talent for verbal sparring unmatched by any of the other characters. This gives us both a feeling of how alone Richard is and a surprising amount of sympathy for him. And it also brings up the question of how someone so cogent in thought can be so deformed in motives.

The main failure of this production is a common one for this play, which is that the supporting characters get muddled and the many characters Richard deceives are hard to track. This may be, in part, due to a directorial indifference to these banal characters, compared to the seductive Richard, and in part due to solid but uninspiring acting. Bethany Jillard as Lady Anne is one striking exception, with real stage presence, and a complex performance, making this easily overlooked character actually equally rich as her partner on stage, Richard. Luckily, most of the specifics don’t matter too much, and the programme provides a nice family tree to help you keep track of the many people Richard needs to knock off.

Nevertheless, it is still a solid production, with an inspired use of stages within stages, and Seanna McKenna in a stunning performance, which, I am convinced, could not have been equalled by anyone else in the company at the moment. This is also the best Shakespeare production and the strongest lead performance I’ve seen at the Stratford Festival since Ben Carlson played Hamlet and Colm Feore did Macbeth. And along with the Shaw Festival’s production of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Stratford’s Richard III is the must-see play of the year and it’s within driving distance of the GTA.

For information on cheap student tickets and travel, see the post on the Top 5 Summer Theatre Festivals on a Student Budget.

TO Jazz Festival: Review of the Dave Holland Quintet

The Dave Holland Quintet put on a phenomenal show at the Enwave Theatre at the Toronto Jazz Festival, a show so good that it is almost in the same league as those by the Keith Jarrett trio (which I called the best I’ve ever seen). Jazz concerts are at their best when you get to hear totally original music evolving, with the band in tune, giving you so much more than you can get from an album. The Dave Holland Quintet delivered, especially thanks to the fantastic bandleader Dave Holland on bass, the amazing musician’s musician Chris Potter on saxophone, and the wonderful Nate Smith on percussion, who reached impressive new heights as a percussionist in this show. The quintet also includes vibraphonist Steve Nelson and trombonist Robin Eubanks, who are certainly not slouches, being excellent musicians in their own right, but not quite in the same league as Holland, Potter, and Smith.

I love the way the Quintet puts together a show. They take their time to ease you into their style, starting off with some straightforward compositions with melody, improvisation on bass, improvisation on saxophone, improvisation on drums, melody, etc., just to get us used to the group and each musician’s style. These improvisations, it should be noted, by Potter, Smith, and Holland on the opening numbers “Walking a Walk” and “Cosmosis” are so fantastic that if these were all the concert had to offer, you could leave a very, very contented audience member.

And it gets better. As the concert progresses, so does the music, increasing in complexity. They let us in on what they’re doing though. We might get a complex piece in five parts, but each part gets added in sequentially. Robin Eubanks’s composition, “Pass it On”, was an exercise in perfecting the introduction and layering of five parts. We start with just  Eubanks on trombone and then after a few minutes, Nate Smith joins in on drums, playing off the existing rhythm in the piece. With those two playing, add in Potter on sax who continues to build on the two preceding parts. By the time the fifth part has been added in, which is Holland in this piece, it’s not just a fifth part, but a progression that builds on the other four, carefully piecing together a complex composition , and slowly enough that we know what they’re doing. Continue reading

Toronto Jazz Festival 2011: Branford Marsalis and Joey Calderazzo and the Bad Plus

On Wednesday night, Branford Marsalis, on soprano and tenor sax, and Joey Calderazzo, on piano, took the stage at Koerner Hall for the world premiere of their duo collaboration, Songs of Mirth and Melancholy. They did a fantastic preview of this at last year’s Jazz Lives, which you can download (in part) and listen to here. At the Jazz Lives performance, Marsalis explained that when the two of them started this duo project, they sat down and talked about everything they hate about jazz duos. One thing that stood out to them as particularly distasteful was when the piano walks the bass line in the left hand: “If we wanted someone to walk the bass line, we would have hired a bassist”, said Marsalis.

Wednesday’s concert featured a mix of great standards and original compositions both old and new. The highlights included a wonderful rendition of Irving Berlin’s “Cheek to Cheek” and Marsalis’s “Eternal”, the title track of his record. Marsalis and Calderazzo are incredibly in tune with one another. Marsalis is, no doubt, the resident master. He seems to effortlessly and intuitively produce fantastic musical solos while Calderazzo works to keep up with his part, much of which is scripted in music he is reading; Marsalis didn’t have any music on stage.

This is not to say that Calderazzo didn’t hold his own; he played quite a lot and very well and many of his compositions were a joy to hear. Perhaps Calderazzo said it best: he doesn’t know how Branford Marsalis does it, but if he hears something once, he has it committed to memory. The one thing he doesn’t know, as Calderazzo pointed out, is the key that any song is in, though he can play them perfectly in any key. Marsalis explained that, as a child, he and his brother would ask their dad to play a song for them. Branford would ask his dad what key the piece was in, before they started, and his father Ellis would respond, ‘son, there are no keys. There are only notes.’’ Eventually Branford stopped asking and just learned to figure it out as they went along.   Continue reading

TIFF2010: Lapland Odyssey

Dome Karukoski’s Lapland Odyssey is a hilarious road movie packed with everything from low-brow humour to masterfully paced black comedy. Its weird humour and pacing remind me of the Coen Brothers and the strange brand of absurdist humour they concoct from unsettlingly strange pacing, except Lapland Odyssey takes place in Finland, in the middle of winter, and is full of bright colours.

The plot is simple: Janne must find and purchase a “digibox” for his girlfriend, Irina, on Friday night, and present it to her before 9AM Saturday morning or she will leave him forever. Having spent the money she gave him for the digibox on booze, he and his two sidekicks set off on a road trip adventure to acquire funds and find a digibox.

But this is no run-of-the-mill adventure. The film opens with one of Janne’s friends narrating the story of the tree near their town where people have gone to hang themselves for generations. He tells us of each of the five people that have used the tree to end their lives. The stories are just superficial enough and unfold just slowly enough to allow us to laugh. This sets the stage for the film: this is a film where the grotesque and the politically incorrect can be hilarious. Continue reading

TIFF2010: Les Petits Mouchoirs (Little White Lies)

Guillaume Canet, the talented heart-throb French actor from Jeux d’Enfants and l’Affaire Farewell (TIFF 2009), is quickly distinguishing himself as a serious talent as a writer and director. In 2006, he wrote and directed the wonderful thriller, Ne Le Dis à Personne (Tell No One), which was a masterpiece of tight writing, strong emotion and suspense. At this year’s TIFF, he returns with his latest film, which he wrote and directed, Les Petits Mouchoirs (Little White Lies), which is a masterful follow-up to Ne Le Dis à Personne. In Les Petits Mouchoirs, Canet has assembled a cast of some of the who’s who’s of the very best in French cinema, including his partner, Marion Cotillard, Francois Cluzet and Gilles Lellouche (Ne Le Dis à Personne) and Anne Marivin (Le Coach, Bienvenue chez les Ch’tis).

Les Petits Mouchoirs is an ensemble piece about a group of friends spending a one-month vacation in Bordeaux at Max’s (Francois Cluzet) beach house, while their friend Ludo (Jean DuJardin) recuperates from a near-fatal drug-induced motorcycle accident in hospital. The film bears some resemblance to The Big Chill, if you replace the overwhelming nostalgia, with a darker underbelly of the “little white lies” that hold a group of friends together, and at the same time, tear them apart. Every character has a secret and this leads to a great deal of comedy and tragedy.

At the beginning, we watch as the characters experience the fun of a vacation with friends, the luxury of boating, and the laughter they share, all scored by a soundtrack of buddy movie American songs. But as the film plays on, the phoniness of their camaraderie is slowly revealed. Everyone has a secret and everyone lies to somebody else. On the surface, everyone is smiling and happy, but scratch below it, and you find a group of struggling and insecure people. Continue reading

TIFF2010: Chico & Rita

Chico & Rita is a lovely animated film about two Cuban jazz musicians in the late 1940s and early 1950s: Chico is a talented pianist and Rita is a one-of-a-kind singer. They meet and fall in love but they face many obstacles that separate them, from miscommunications to the schism that occurs after the Cuban revolution which leaves Chico stuck in Cuba, unable to play his music, and Rita in the United States, unable to fulfill her musical potential because she is black.

The story is told from Chico’s perspective, as an old man reflecting back on the good and sad times of his youth, which lends some additional romanticism to the story. Although the romance between Rita and Chico is what grounds the film, their story is somewhat clichéd. The real success of the film is in the animation and music and how these visuals and sounds capture an era and what Cuba and the US was like for jazz musicians in the 1950s and present day. Continue reading

TIFF 2010: Anything You Want (Todo lo que tù quieras)

I saw Achero Mañas’s brilliant film, Noviembre, at TIFF in 2003 and absolutely loved it. It won the audience choice award and for good reason; it was a masterpiece. Eight years later and I still haven’t managed to find a copy of it on DVD and it certainly never received a theatrical release in North America. So when I discovered that Mañas would be bringing his latest film, Anything You Want, to this year’s TIFF, I jumped at the opportunity to see the master at work once more.

Anything You Want is a sad and poignant story of how Leo, a family-law lawyer in Madrid who spends little time with his own family, must cope with taking care of his four-year-old daughter, Dafne, when her mother, his wife, passes away. At first, Leo feels completely incapable of handling the responsibility. We watch him break down into tears in front of his father as he admits his fear and anxiety about taking on the role of both mother and father, when he was so used to having Alicia be the primary caretaker for Dafne. His struggle is exacerbated by Dafne’s grief and alienation from him: Dafne refuses to kiss him or hug him and wants solely to speak to and be comforted by her mother.

At first, Dafne is content to take on a “fake mother”. When Leo brings home his girlfriend, Marta, Dafne asks Marta to read her a bedtime story and lie with her like her mother would. Dafne is eagerly searching for a female replacement and Leo feels helpless, convinced that what Dafne needs is a woman in her life. He confides in his co-worker at work that he feels obligated to date for Dafne’s sake, so that Dafne can have a woman in her life. Ultimately, however, both Dafne and Leo abuse Marta’s kindness, too keen to pretend she really is a substitute for Alicia, and unwilling to admit to themselves that she is someone different, and so Marta leaves.

In an effort to get closer to his daughter and gain her affections, Leo agrees to begin to dress like Alicia, at Dafne’s request. It starts off small, with Leo acquiescing to a request from Dafne to have him put on some lipstick, as a comforting reminder of her mother. But the obsession grows. It is only through dressing up as Alicia that Leo is able to have a close and caring relationship with his daughter.

Achero Mañas problematizes gender roles by examining Leo’s approach. It is heartbreaking that Leo feels that Dafne cannot love him if he is a man, and equally so that he feels that the only way to be gentle and loving towards his daughter is to take on a female persona. Certainly, Dafne is missing something by not having a woman in her life, but is Leo really right to think that only a female could fulfill the role of caregiver? Is there not some way for him to maintain his identity as the handsome, masculine male that he is while still finding a way to tenderly parent his daughter? Continue reading

TIFF 2010: Pinoy Sunday

Pinoy Sunday is a movie about a red couch. More specifically, it’s a movie about Manuel and Dado, two Filipino migrant factory workers in Taiwan, who dream of luxury and better days, and discover a discarded red couch on a Sunday, their day off. They decide to carry the couch back to the dormitory where they live so that one day they might be able to relax under the stars, drinking beer, stretched out on their couch, after a hard day’s work.

As the genre requires, they encounter many vicissitudes on their journey: a collision with a motorcyclist gets them picked up by the cops; a lady spotting them walking by with a couch sees this as an opportunity to cushion the fall of her son who is standing at the top of the apartment building threatening to jump; and enlisting the help of someone with a car puts them on a long detour to the middle of nowhere. They are racing against the clock, since they must return to their dormitory before curfew at 9PM or else risk deportation.

The couch, of course, is a symbol of luxury, and of hopes and dreams. It’s an impractical, heavy, clunky thing that they must carry across the city, with the hope of one day finding comfort and joy from it. Ultimately, this is a film about the difficulty of maintaining optimism and motivation against all odds, which seem to point towards your dreams being crushed. Continue reading

TIFF2010: What I Most Want

One of the best films at TIFF this year is Delfina Castagnino’s What I Most Want, which is about two women – Maria  (Maria Villar) and Pilar (Pilar Gamboa) – and the week they spend together in Pilar’s hometown in Patagonia as they cope with their respective problems. Maria is at the tail-end of her four-year relationship with her boyfriend which has gone very sour; Pilar copes with the recent death of her father and the subsequent responsibilities that come with that such as managing her father’s extensive land and business. The two friends need each other to cope, yet they cannot fully communicate their pain to each other and so we watch them experience loneliness in the company of a close friend and we also see how that company gives them security and comfort.

The films opens on the backs of Maria and Pilar, sitting silently in front of a beautiful look-out point in Patagonia. After a few minutes they begin to talk about breathing classes and gossip and relationships, the conversation flows the way real conversation flows: sometimes there are long pauses of acceptable silence and sometimes dialogue is continuous with a realistic fast-paced rhythm. They are charming and bright and we like them instantly.

In both her writing and directing, Castagnino has mastered the art of conversation and silence. The film is shot in a series of long takes each with a still camera, and each take can last ten minutes or longer still. These long takes allow us to experience these characters in “real-time”: we can enter their world and really experience the awkwardness of silences and the excitement of flowing conversation. Such long takes require remarkable acting skills and Castagnino has found such mastery in these two exquisite actresses. Both actresses started out in theatre, which is perhaps why they are able to carry their performances throughout these long takes.

Near the beginning of the film, Maria gets a phone call from her boyfriend, and we follow her on the phone for about five or ten minutes. We watch as her body language changes from completely open and confident to slowly becoming more enclosed and less self-assured. We can hear subtle changes in her voice as the effects of this emotionally-demanding conversation begin to take their toll on her. We see her suppressing her desire to cry – she needs to cry but she does not want to – as she hears, what we can only imagine, is something very hurtful. We never hear what her boyfriend says but it doesn’t matter: we can see it all on her face. Here we experience silence and minimal dialogue, but we follow Maria on her emotional journey completely: the words spoken are just enough and just right. Continue reading