Countries Shaped Like Stars Revisited

Without a doubt, the “must see” show of the 2009 Ottawa Fringe was Countries Shaped Like Stars http://micasatheatre.com/performances/countries-shaped-like-stars/ . This play was so popular it sold out regularly during the Fringe.

I tried to see it twice but failed both times because of its popularity. During one occasion, I actually saw people running to try and catch it.  That’s even more impressive (for me anyway) than any other form of accolade could be; however, Countries Shaped like Stars also took down the Fringe 2009 award for outstanding overall production and it won top honours in the Ottawa Citizen’s top 5 critic’s picks as well.

 I was disappointed that I missed it at Fringe but I feel fortunate that I have a chance to see it again.  Those of you in Ottawa will have the same opportunity .

What is unique about this performance is that it will be put on in a family home. I think this is fantastic and will make for a very intimate venue. Bringing theatre out of conventional spaces is ground breaking. I love when this happens. In fact, tonight I am off to the Mechanicsville Monologues at the Carleton Tavern. I am therefore very excited to be going to this house performance of a Countries Shaped Liked Stars on Saturday November 21 at 8:00 p.m.

If you’re interested in attending  as well please contact Charlie and Bridget at this e-mail address for more info.: suqorvoott@garrifulio.mailexpire.com

I am told some snacks will be provided as well.  Great theatre, good people and snacks, what better way to spend a Saturday evening?

Seeing Stars

As many of you know, I began reviewing theatre at the Ottawa Fringe Festival back in June. Before I took on this assignment, I decided to check out other reviews from other Fringe festivals to see how others went about the job of reviewing.  I quickly noticed that most reviewers had adopted the star system.  The system was straight forward. Each show would earn between one and five stars based on how much the reviewer enjoyed the show. One star would be given to the worst of the lot and 5 to the best.

I decided not to adopt this system and instead chose to just use words to convey what I thought was or was not successful about a given production.  Theatre is a very subjective experience. A show I loved others might not enjoy as much and a show that I found boring might have mass appeal.  This is why I always encourage others to see a show and decide for themselves how “good” it is.  

A star rating system would only be useful for those readers who either have similar theatrical tastes as me or the exact opposite aesthetic sensibility.  I suspect both these instances are pretty rare. Maybe I’m wrong and excellent theatre is more universal than I am letting on here. Any thoughts?

For these reasons, I would feel very guilty if a theatergoer missed out on a show that they would have loved because I did not give it 5 stars.  Yet, this is the kind of thinking that the star system encourages. People want to see “the best” without recognizing how artificial this is.  (Then again it seems to work for wine.)

 I do understand why this system is popular. I saw 14 shows at the Fringe and yet this was still only a sampling of what the festival has to offer. Most theatergoers don’t have the time to watch even that many and so they are understandably looking for short cuts.

I feel that talking about the various elements of a production gives a reader a sense of what a show is about so they can make these judgments on their own.  This decision process, on the part of the reader, is more useful than simply seeing a show based on a high rating.

A Call to Action

OK gang here is a call to action for you. The Great Canadian Theatre Company and the Ottawa Theatre Network have put forward an Aviva funding proposal. If it gets enough votes the entire community will benefit. I have voted and continue to vote (it’s a daily thing). It’s easy to do, and you’ll be helping out tremendously.  If you’re not in Ottawa you can still vote and help us out. Here is the blurb from the Ottawa Theatre Network: 

Be a Part of Ottawa’s Renaissance: Vote Now, Vote Daily, Tell A Friend

Do you care about Ottawa professional theatre?

Do you want to help the Ottawa Theatre Network and the Great Canadian Theatre Company make a lasting contribution to Ottawa professional theatre?

Here’s you chance! It will only take a few minutes of your time. We promise. 

To find out more, click here: 

http://ottawatheatrenetwork.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/be-a-part-of-ottawas-renaissance-vote-now-vote-daily-tell-a-friend/ 

 Now go out there and vote!

Everyone in the Audience is a Reviewer

Theatre practitioners are always very concerned about reviews. This is not surprising since they have put in a considerable amount of time into a production. A review is a kind of evaluation, and everyone craves feedback therefore actors, directors, producers etc. take reviews very seriously. Reviews are also considered by many in the community to be an essential promotional tool. Bad reviews can kill a show and positive reviews can bring in the crowds—or so the thinking goes. Is this really the case?

It might surprise you to know that positive word of mouth is ultimately what fills seats for all the arts. When audiences are asked why they attended a show, the most frequent response is invariably: “I heard about it from a friend or family member.”  People trust the opinions of their family and friends much more than those of a professional reviewer.

This is not a new phenomenon and has been the case for a long time. What has changed is the speed at which word of mouth can travel. Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and cell phones have forever accelerated this process. We live in an age where everyone in the audience is now a reviewer and should be treated with the utmost respect.

I believe that traditional professional reviewers still have a role play to in the process (just not a critical one as most believe).  Reviews are a good way of keeping the “story” of a show alive. Any publicity is good publicity. If people are reading about and discussing theatre they might be encourage to go out and see it as well (providing their friends/family are interested).

In large markets (New York, Toronto etc.), or during festivals like Fringe, reviewers can also serve as a means of filtering out what is worth seeing. Even in this case, a bad review won’t kill a show. A one star show can attract as much attention as a 5 star show. Anything that differentiates a show from the pack can be leveraged successfully by promoters.

Because Ottawa is still a relatively small market, it is quite possible to see every theatre performance currently in production during the “regular” season. In short, there is no need for the review filter. The choice for the audience becomes “do I want to see a play this evening or not.”  It is crucial to recognize that audiences will be making that decision based on what their peers, families, and friends think. Everything else is secondary (at best).

I do feel reviews can start important conversations or focus the discussion of a show in interesting ways. This is why I write reviews and what I hope to do with my work. To achieve this aim, I am attempting to build relationships with my readers (in person, via social media, and this blog). If I am successful, it will not be because I am considered a professional reviewer but because my readers consider me a peer or friend. Theatre practitioners should strive to create these kinds of relationships with their audiences. That will ultimately bring more success than any 5 star review could ever bring.

Any thoughts?

The Story of a Score: Mozart’s Final Piano Concerto and the Blogger Blob

Wednesday night (September 30) I was pleased to attend Mozart’s Final Piano Concerto: Beyond the Score at the National Arts Centre.  The Beyond the Score series is an innovative concept created by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra’s creative director, Gerard McBurney. The first half of the program tells the story of the score (Mozart Piano Concerto No.27 in B-flat major K. 595) and for the second half the audience is treated to the work in its entirety performed by the orchestra. 

 In the NAC’s production, this story is told through a wonderful collaboration of local artists of various disciplines. Bill Richardson  (CBC radio) acts as a narrator providing historical, artistic and the cultural context of the score.  Well known local actor, Pierre Brault, effectively plays a whole host of characters inspired by historical documents.  Brault is famous for his one man shows with numerous characters. He is always fun to watch.

As a change of pace, Nick Di Gaetano and Thea Nikolik provide some comedic relief as characters from the Comedia del arte. I would have liked to see some actual mask work. Unfrotuantely, this wasn’t possible given the format of the piece.

In my view, Donna Brown’s  solo soprano performance stood out. A taste of opera was a real pleasure and this part of the program sent chills up my spine. Brown’s voice is hauntingly beautiful and I will keep an eye out for other performances by this talented soprano.

I could have done without the streaming 18th century paintings of Vienna, Mozart etc. This Powerpoint presentation adds very little to the show as a whole. In fact, it often distracts from the performances on the stage.   A few still photos in key places would have been more effective than this repetitve series of images.

The NAC orchestra played beautifully and Katherine Chi (piano) was delightful.  These skilled musicians really shined through-out the program. It had been awhile since I had seen an orchestra live and I had forgotten how powerful an experience that can be.

 Overall, the show is well done and worth seeing, but what I found most impressive was the acknowledgement by the NAC of the power and reach of blogs and social media. Jennifer Covert has been very active in building relationships with the community through Twitter and the blogosphere.  I am very optimistic that others will follow the NAC’s lead and this will lead to a greater engagement of the arts in this city as a whole. In a twitter conversation, Covert nick named us “The Blogger Blob”.  The nick name is quite apt. Much like that amorphous mass of B movie fame, bloggers are replacing and assimilating the “more conventional media.” This will only serve to enrich the arts scene in this city. I am very excited for the present (as much as the future). It is  a thrilling time for Ottawa and the arts!

 On a related note: I will be attending the Anxiety cabaret at the Cube gallery on Sunday. This also is a collaborative effort of local artists. It sounds like a great way to spend a chilly autumn evening.

Let’s Play A Game

Pretend for a moment you are the artistic director of an independent theatre company. Your company has  just  taken on a very difficult show. It is is brand new company and this show is the first of the season. It is very important for the success of the company that it is well received.  You are a diligent and conscientious director so you have spent a huge amount of working very hard with a talented cast. Not surprisingly, because of this effort you are very emotionally invested in the play/cast.

 In spite of all this effort, however, opening night is only days away and you realize the show will not be ready. The actors are great but the technical side has not come together well. The set is incomplete and the actors have never run the show with lighting and sound. At best, even with rehearsing around the clock, opening night will be a glorified dress rehearsal.

 To complicate matters further your press relations team has done a fabulous job and reviewers from TV, radio, and print have already agreed to show up opening night to review the piece. It took a lot of effort to set this up and if they all pan the show it may impact severely on future audiences.  What do you do? Please also briefly explain your reasoning.

 1. You delay the opening. You apologize and explain the situation to the reviewers. They might reschedule. They also might not come at all. You may lose money and a little respect, but you turn opening night into a second dress rehearsal and make it a “pay what you can” show.

 2. You fake it! Maybe no one will notice these shortcomings and if they do you will say that you meant the show to appear raw and rough. It was a conscious aesthetic choice. Defy anyone who says otherwise and fire up the actors to give the best performance they can. You charge full price.

 3. You send a letter to the reviewers explaining the situation and begging them to come on a later night to review. You have lots of contacts in the community. By calling in a few favours you might be able to pull this off and the reviewers will agree to come later. You charge full price.

  Question 2: Who is more important the reviewers or the audience? Why?

Going Solo?

 Tonight I’m off to a media performance of The Syringa Tree at the Great Canadian Theatre Company. This is an award winning and internationally acclaimed play and it therefore seems a good way to begin the GCTC’s season. I will also be writing a review of this play for Cult(ure), and this time I decided to do a quick Google search to find out at little about the show in advance.  This is actually the first time I’ve taken this approach. I believe strongly that a play should be taken on its own terms. For this reason, I prefer to go into a show as “fresh” as possible. It’s worth noting that I still carefully avoided all the reviews of other companies’ performances of the play in an attempt to remain unbiased.

 Naturally in my Googling one of my first stops was Wiki. While Wiki has its issues, I find it pretty reliable for a very general synopsis.  Wiki had this to say about the play:

“The Syringa Tree[1] is a deeply personal memory play of a childhood under apartheid. Written and often performed by Pamela Gien it has received excellent reviews in New York and across the USA as well as in London.[2][3] Also very positively reviewed[4] in Dublin, the play has received several awards.

Originally, the play was intended for one actress only, with no props besides a swing and one costume. However, it can also be performed with two or multiple actors.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syringa_Tree)

I find that last line particularly intriguing and I’m really curious to know if Pamela Gien has made that allowance in her script. I would suspect not, as she performed it solo in the original off-Broadway version. I think it’s fair to assume that she would have performed it the way she felt it should be performed. (I could be wrong.)

I fully understand, however, why a company might decide to add other actors to a Solo actor show.  There is something very compelling about “the chemistry” that happens between two or more actors when they perform on stage that is always missing from solo work.I usually prefer the performances of multiple actors over solo actors because I enjoy this chemistry so much.  

That is not to say that solo performances aren’t worth seeing. Many of them are quite excellent. Pierre Brault’s Portrait of An Unidentified Man, for instance, is a great example of one that did everything right. It was unquestionably one of the best shows I’ve seen this year.

I’m not sure how I feel about converting solo actor scripts into multi-actor scripts, which brings us to Wayne’s question of the day:

Is it OK to take a script intended to be performed by one actor and turn it into a multi-actor piece? Judging by the Wiki entry, this is precisely what someone did at some point with The Syringa Tree.

 (Bonus points will be given to anyone who has read the play and can therefore illuminate us on whether Gien has actually made allowances for this in her script.)

Ditzes, Doormats, and Noises Off

Last Thursday I attended the Gladstone’s production of Noises Off on behalf of (Cult)ure Magazine (my review can be read here).  While I realize that all the characters in Michael Frayn’s play are two dimensional archetypes, used as vehicles to drive the comedy, I was particularly disappointed with Frayn’s depiction of women in this well known comedy.

 Frayn has written a collection of ditzes and doormats falling on comedic stereotypes that were dated long before Frayn wrote his script. I find this particularly frustrating as an audience member because comedies have been recycling these stereotypical female characters for so long that they have become worse than clichés. Quite simply, there is nothing new here and comedy works best when it is founded on the unexpected.

 On a personal note, I am friends with two of the actresses who performed in Noises Off both of whom are fine actresses. Michelle Leblanc and Colleen Sutton both impressed me at Ottawa’s Fringe and while they do an admirable job with what they are given in this play, Frayn has given them very little to work with. That’s a shame.

 Offstage, both these women are the furthest thing from either ditz or doormat. They are intelligent, vibrant women, who are extremely dedicated to their craft.  They are not alone. This town is blessed with a large collection of talented actresses and yet sometimes there seems to be a shortage of roles where these actresses can really shine.

I would encourage all the theatres, and theatre companies, in Ottawa to consider this when selecting the scripts they will perform. No more ditzes and doormats! Let’s see some vibrant female characters on the stage that will push the actresses playing them to new heights.

Why Jordan’s Principle Deserves Your Support

Back in the summer of 2007, I had a brief job as a special assistant for a member of Parliament.  The majority of my job consisted of looking for stories and setting up interviews for the MP’s Internet broadcast.  It was,thankfully, a very short gig and I moved on to better things.

Most of the stories I researched and set up interviews for were either politically motivated or kind of banal; however,  one story that we covered during this summer  touched me.

While searching for a story, I discovered that Jean Crowder (a MP from B.C. ) was putting forward a motion for a private members bill and made a statement that I felt was important and deserved to get as much as press as it could.   This was unusual.  Often these statements are used as nothing more than a vehicle for self promotion: “Minister X would like to extend her congratulations to the local hockey team  Y for winning championship Z.” That kind of thing.

Jean Crowder was doing something different with hers and was lending her voice in Parliament to advocate on behalf of aboriginal children to support Jordan’s Principle.

It’s a sad story.  Jordan was a little aboriginal boy with very severe medical problems. Jordan’s family was forced to give the child up so that Jordan could access the best possible care that was not available on the reserve.   After two years, Jordan was approved by his medical care givers to go to a special foster home where he would receive the extensive care he needed and also benefit from a home atmosphere.  Jordan never got to go to this facility because the federal and provincial governments couldn’t decide who would pay for it.  While they were argueing over the bill, Jordan died in the hospital.

This would not happen to any other Canadian child because they would be covered under their provincial plans.  This only occurred because Jordan was an aboriginal child born on a reservation and thus fell under a  grey area between federal and provincial jurisdictions.

Tragically,  had they moved Jordan to the foster home facility for his final days, not only would his quality of life have been better but his care would have actually been cheaper for the taxpayer as well.

If Jordan’s principle is adopted. The Federal Government will pay up front any costs (to be retrieved later from the province if applicable) to allow native children to have access to services when they need them. 

This issue has resurfaced for me recently when I received this e-mail, which I have decided to post here in full:

Dear Jordan’s Principle Supporter – we need your help

 As you may know, the federal government is attempting to narrow Jordan’s Principle to apply only to children with complex medical needs with multiple service providers instead of to all government services.  We currently have a complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal alleging that the Canadian government is discriminating against First Nations children by failing to implement Jordan’s Principle across all Government services and by providing a lesser level of child welfare funding on reserves.

I am writing to invite you all to spend two minutes supporting our “I am a witness” campaign.  This campaign calls on caring Canadians and people from around the world to sign up to say they will witness the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal which is reviewing a complaint that the federal government discriminates against First Nations children by providing them with less child welfare funding and benefit than other children receive.  Being a witness means  you agree to follow the case by  either attending at the tribunal in person or following it through the media, visiting our website -www.fncaringsociety.com.  After you have heard all the facts presented at the tribunal you will be in a good position to make up your own mind about whether or not you feel the federal government is treating First Nations children fairly.

Be amongst the first to sign up as a witness – it is free and open to all organizations and individuals and please encourage everyone in your circle to do so as well. A year after the apology for residential schools we want the Canadian government to know that caring Canadians are keeping watch over this generation of First Nations children.

Here is the website – please do spend 2 minutes to sign up!  Here is the website http://www.fnwitness.ca

I have signed up. If you feel so inclined to do so as well, I know it will be appreciated.

When Added Value Is Just Added Time

This year, on behalf of (Cult)ure Magazine,  I attended Carnivale Lune Bleue  an event inspired by the traveling carnivals of the 1930s complete with vintage rides and actors in period costume (the full review can be read here.) Over all I enjoyed the carnival; however,  on the evening I attended a decision was made by the organizers to tack on an interview with an actress before the acrobatic Cirque Maroc.  I feel this was a mistake and instead of adding value it only added time.

The actress in question starred in an HBO TV  series about a 1930’s traveling carnival, which obviously served as inspiration for the organizers of this event.  While on paper this might look like added value (it was thrown in at no additional charge to the audience) it was actually detrimental to the experience.  

Previously, much effort had been put forward into setting the mood/atmosphere for the carnivals patrons taking them  back in time to the 1930’s.   It worked and the audience was immersed in the spirit of the carnival and primed to see an acrobatic circus act performed under the big top.

Rather than the high energy acrobatic show we were expecting, we were greeted instead with a TV screen and a Q&A session.

 The interview itself was clearly an adhoc affair, more reminiscent of a high school yearbook interview then anything else.   Most of the audience, including a large proportion of children, were bored out of their minds.

I also doubt very few knew who this actress was and those that did were probably not that impressed with the line of questioning.  Unfortunately, many of the questions were actually very inappropriate for the kids.  “What’s your favourite cuss word?”  being one example of  a question that was particularly poorly thought out, provoking a string of profanity from the actress.  

The greatest sin on the part of the organizers was this was not what the audience was promised.  We came for acrobats and a carnival atmoshphere  and we were given a modern TV interview.  It felt like a “bait and switch” maneuver and all the magic of being under the big top was destroyed.   The tent became a hot non-air-conditioned space and the audience was held captive wondering where the hell the acrobats were.

Forty minutes later they did appear, and they were excellent.  It is a testament to their performance that the interview portion (hopefully) will be forgotten.

This serves to underline another lesson.  If you have a “winner” don’t tack anything on to it.  The acrobatic show was more than enough to wow the audience.  

If you are wondering why this criticism didn’t make the review, it is because this tacked on interview only lasted for a couple of days (thankfully).  By the time the review was published it was no longer relevant, so I left it out.