Macbeth -- Bard on the Beach

Story in 2 sentences:

Three witches tell Macbeth he's going to be king, so he kills his way to the throne.  His wife is a piece of work.

People who should see this show:

People with deep voices

People who need a nap

Well, someone must have said it backstage. 

Macbeth.  Macbeth Macbeth Macbeth.

I had been looking forward to this one.  I enjoy Colleen Wheeler and Duncan Fraser, I think Lois Anderson is the bomb, and I have always liked this play.  Hubby had also been looking forward to it; it's short. Amazing how the perfect ingredients can still make a horrible dish.

Let's start with the performances.

Colleen Wheeler has a lovely resonant voice, and she certainly knows it.  By her second line, I had begun to understand what had annoyed me so much about the witches:  she had laid down the gauntlet and they had accepted the challenge.  They were having a resonant voice contest.  Combined with Bob Frazer's incredible dramatic technique - look noble and speak slowly (I once heard a director accuse an actor of being a black hole on stage, which perfectly describes Frazer's performance) - their scenes were interminable.  I swear they ran out of underscoring. 

The rest of the cast had their problems as well:  Anton Lipovetsky's wide- eyed Malcolm, for example.  I had been pleased to see him cast in a Bard show, having liked his performance in Rent a few years ago, but he was a disappointment as Malcolm:  uninteresting histrionics combined with focus- pulling mugging.  Speaking of mugging, John Murphy, playing several smaller parts, firmly believed he was the only one onstage.  His cookie-cutter porter was annoyingly out of place in this plodding dramatic work.

Plodding, you say?  Let's talk about direction.  First of all, a purely technical note:  the stage is a thrust, and it was blocked for a proscenium.  Which alienates half of the audience.

Artistically, it was uninspired. 

Everyone knows Macbeth.  We've all studied it.  The reason to see it at Bard is to see something you haven't noticed before, and, hopefully, a special little twist that gives you a new insight.  The new thing I noticed was that there are an awful lot of monologues.  Seriously.  That's it.  The design was similarly uninspired.  In that there was basically no set design and the drab costumes (meant to highlight the somber mood of the piece) highlighted only the boredom one felt as one waited for intermission.  And then curtain.  No one would ever put up with this if it were a contemporary playwright, but it seems that every year there is at least one Bard director who doesn’t see the need to do any real work.

Don't bother.  Save your money for The Merry Wives of Windsor.  Plays until September 20th.

Some highlights:

Craig Erickson's Banquo:  by far the strongest of the cast.

The witches turning invisible:  that was pretty cool.

Banquo's ghost scene:  really well done, and the only reason I came back for the second act (turned out there was nothing worthwhile to see after that, though).

The Merry Wives of Windsor -- Bard on the Beach

Story in 2 sentences:

Falstaff tries to seduce Mistress Page and Mistress Ford.  Instead, they fuck him up.

People who should see this show:

Anyone not from Windsor

Anyone from Windsor (but you might get a little annoyed)

Note:  This is an amazing show and I highly recommend you see it, despite the inaccuracies.

Let it be said that I loved this show, but not as much as my husband did.  You see, the production has been set in Windsor, Ontario, and that is also where the first decade and a half of my life was set.  His enjoyment was not handicapped by reality.

The direction was phenomenal.  The performances were almost all incredible.  The problem, and it's a large one for me (and everyone else from Windsor that I've told about it), was Johnna Wright's concept.

When I think of Windsor in the 1960s, I think of the two categories of story told by my family from that era:  Motown (Windsor is across the river from Detroit), and the Ford (and Chrysler and GM) auto plants.  When I heard that the only play Shakespeare wrote that starred the middle class was going to be set in Windsor, I looked forward to seeing what would be done with the fact that two of the main characters in the play were Mr and Mrs Ford.  When I found out that there would be live music, I immediately started mentally flipping through my dad's LPs, searching out the perfect Motown songs.

Instead, I was presented with country music - well performed, and yes, I like country - but as far as Windsorite music preferences go, I am an anomaly - for the completely reasonable dramaturgical position that Johnna Wright likes country music from the 60s.  Nothing was done with the name Ford, which is even more ridiculous:  I have never gone through a day in Windsor without at least one conversation about someone working at Ford's.  Or Chrysler's.  Or GM.

Pam Johnson and Drew Facey's design followed the conceptual folly:  cowgirl outfits and a country bar.  Characters wandering through with curling brooms - our trashy Canadian sport is bowling, thank you very much.

These were the thoughts wandering through my mind, distracting me from the best production I have seen at Bard since Henry V. 

You should go, though, unless you're from Windsor.  You won't know the difference, and it truly is a gem.  One small annoyance:  if you are a woman who doesn't like being brought onstage, don't sit in the front row.  Plays until September 21st

Some highlights:

 Patti Allan's Mistress Quickly:  comic genius, brilliant facial expressions without ever pulling focus, and an easy rapport with every scene partner.

Alex Rose's vocals:  he's good.

Katey Wright and Amber Lewis's scenes:  there are a lot of them (cause they're the title roles), so good that they work well together; Wright is a little less forced, and more enjoyable to watch, but Lewis holds her own.

David Marr's French stereotype:  pure gold.

The Importance of Being Earnest -- Arts Club

Story in 2 sentences: Jack Worthing pretends to be his brother, Ernest, when partying in the city, and finds love. His friend Algernon pretends to be Ernest when partying in the country, and also finds love.

People who should see this show:
People who enjoy light comedy.

Gays who enjoy looking for hidden meaning, but don't want to work too hard at it.

Well, we knew we were in for a treat when the woman across the aisle from us pulled out a glass, some ice and a mini-bottle of scotch from her oversized handbag, and poured her husband a drink before fixing one for herself. We judged her, though we would have judged her less if she had offered us a drink as well.

The worst part about seeing a play in Vancouver is the pre-show commercial, and the Arts Club is horrible for it. Every performance, the same officious guy (reminds me of a former boss) comes out, thanks the sponsors and then acts surprised when some idiot starts them all clapping. No thank you. I turn commercials off at home; I refuse to applaud for one when I'm at a show.

I read the director's notes. I shouldn't; it generally sets my teeth on edge. David Mackay's did, this time by denying any homosexual (he says 'uranian' -- he's very educated) undercurrents in the play. OF COURSE there are homosexual undercurrents.

1. Bunburying -- leading a double life

2. A rakish confirmed bachelor

3. An incorrigible brother who dies in Paris

4. Algernon's obsession with cucumbers

5. THE GUY IN THE DRESS whom you cast as Algernon's Aunt Augusta, Mr. Mackay.

After the silent prequel scene, (a bit of unnecessary hocus-pocus, no doubt trying to get us in the mood for melodrama), the curtain rose on a disappointing set. Amir Ofek obviously didn't want to be stuck with Downton Abbey-like drawing rooms and gardens, so he, of course, treated us to a giant top hat and mirror, followed by a sort-of garden, and finally a pile of suitcases. Imaginative? Possibly, although I wasn't really excited by it -- seemed sort of half-assed Alice in Wonderland -- but definitely detrimental to the blocking. Rather than people sitting around having tea, Mackay had them standing in a line talking to one another. To allow us to concentrate on the words, no doubt. Bah.

The performances ranged from pretty good to really good.

Ryan Beil, as Jack Worthing, was spot-on. He really was made for intelligent comedy. His counterpoint, Charlie Gallant, was less so. He played the foppish Algernon with too much sincerity in the first half, though he warmed up after intermission. Amber Lewis, as Gwendolen, was solid, but the real star of the young lovers was Ella Simon as Cecily Cardew. I was prepared to hate her; after the first two lines, her accent had already ranged through half of northern Europe, then paused in southern California. However, she won me over with her innocent comic timing -- sincerity fit her part perfectly.

Of the smaller roles, Deborah Williams's Miss Prism was the standout. Her flawless timing, perfect voice and brilliant physicalization made it difficult to take my eyes off her. I found myself wishing she were in more scenes. Allan Zinyk as Lady Bracknell was a bit too restrained for my taste, especially in comparison, and Simon Bradbury's Reverand Chausible and Allan Gray's Lane/Merriman were both cases of actors working really hard to make small parts memorable. They sort of succeeded, but not in a good way.

It was a good time. Plays until April 15th.

Some Highlights:

Lewis and Simon's oh-so-polite catfighting over tea: the best written scene in the piece, played perfectly.
Beil and Gallant's muffin fight: genius.

Williams's rapturing over her handbag: creepily hilarious.

The drunk lady who finished off Ryan Beil's last line for him.

Ignorance -- Old Trout Puppet Workshop

Story in two sentences:

Cavemen were depressed. Modern humans are depressed.

People who should see this show:
Deaf people who can't lip-read
Non-English speakers who can't hear high pitches
Stoned college students with intellectual pretensions


To be fair, I did get roped into watching this show. A friend had to see a professional show for school (and bring the ticket stub and program back as proof). So we hunted until we found a cheap one that was fairly close to us.

But I do have a soft spot for puppets of all types. One of the best shows I have seen to this day is a puppet show, and who doesn't like Avenue Q? I get a little worried when puppeteers consider themselves artistes, though, so was feeling a bit worried. The fact that few enough tickets had sold that we were shifted from our fairly bad seats (with easy access to an exit for our patented daring escape moves) to fairly good seats (exit only accessible by walking across the stage), coupled with a notice that there would be no intermission in the 75-minute show.

"It might be so bad that we can laugh our ways through it," offered our friend weakly. I glared at him.

As the lights went down and a sad-looking puppet started chasing a balloon before killing himself, our friend started laughing and we all started texting each other.

Technically, both in the sense of technique and technology, it was actually pretty good. The puppets were pretty cool (except the sad men -- they were creepy without being interesting), the puppetry was well-executed, and the projections on the wall of the cave (ugh) were kinda cool. Artistically, it was horrible.

Well, maybe I mean "intellectually." The premise of the show was that humans cannot be happy because we always want more, and that this congenital misery began when our ancestors first gained the capacity to imagine that which was not. I take issue with this premise. First of all, because it is incorrect, and secondly because it allows people to say "it's all part of being human, so we can't help it" and never actually work on the real problems, be they individual or societal.

But more than that, it is the sort of drivel that comes from taking a single philosophy course to satisfy the requirements of your theatre arts diploma, then forgetting about it for twenty years, or going on a few dates with a philosophy major in college, and never bothering to actually think your way through the information that was presented to you. Drives me crazy.

The set was ok, the costumes were not good (long johns are an invitation to visible ass-crack sweat), and the sound was inoffensive.

Don't go. You can't anyway, I think I saw it on closing night.

Some highlights:
Many of the puppets really were good, particularly the cavemen.
Watching a puppet parallel park (although the angst with which he reacted to his own anger mitigated my delight).
Ummm. . . that may be it.

Henry V -- Bard on the Beach

Story in 2 sentences:
Hal is sick of partying, so he conquers France. He's really good at it.

People who should see this show:
Everyone. Get off the computer and get to it right now.

At last: a show I knew well enough not to have to read up on beforehand. Henry V, England's greatest king (I like his son better), and one of Shakespeare's favourite historical subjects. The play comes smack in the middle of the histories, and was written just in the middle of Shakespeare's career. Rousing speeches, well-written characters and lots of action, against a backdrop that Elizabethans must have enjoyed ("We beat the French").

I loved it. Even though when I think about it, I might actually be on the side of the French (next on my summer reading list: Henry V, War Criminal? by John Sutherland and Cedric Watts), I was totally rooting for Henry.

I loved it so much that I didn't mind waiting for hours ahead of time. Even the commercial before the show was kinda fun. What a difference good direction makes. Meg Roe's staging was flawless.

I must admit, we went about it the wrong way. We should have seen Falstaff first, as probably everyone else is going to do. There were a few scenes that we knew would have been more powerful if we'd seen the back story more recently, rather than just vaguely remembering it. But they were still emotionally satisfying, and I'm hard-pressed to see how I could have enjoyed the show more.

The play is narrated throughout, much more so than any of Shakespeare's other plays (according to Wikipedia, anyway). Collen Wheeler's Chorus achieves admirably the very difficult task of making me use my imagination during summer vacation as she instructs my mind to picture vast sets and cast of thousands before me. Her commanding presence, combined with Pam Johnson's simple and effective set, and the brilliantly choreographed battle scenes (thank you choreographer Rob Kitsos and fight director Nicholas Harrison) made me always willing to believe that the battle had just occured in front of my eyes.

All the performances were great, but most important in this one is obviously Henry's; he has to carry the show. Alessandro Juliani did a brilliant job. One slight problem I have had with other Henrys is knowing that he has been, as prince Hal, a party boy for his whole life, but that as soon as his father dies he suddenly becomes the serious king who conquers France. Juliani's performance maintains Henry's youthful demeanor; we see the change starting during the play itself, but the transformation is only fully realized at the end of the play. I enjoy that. His rousing speeches are not the studied rhetoric I've seen before; they are impassioned pleas made by a guy who used to party with the commoners.

As we left the tent, we thought pityingly of the poor suckers at the mainstage, stuck watching Antony and Cleopatra for another half-hour. If I had it to do over again, I would have skipped it entirely in order to see Henry V twice.

Absolutely see it. I'll go with you. Plays until September 24.

Some Highlights:
Kevin McNulty's history lesson as the Archbishop of Canterbury: the perfect way to begin the show, he made the most boring part of the piece hilarious.
Rob Kitsos and Nicholas Harrison's battle and marching scenes: pure brilliance. Normally I put fight-dances in the same category as dream ballets -- embarrassing and best ignored completely. These were amazing, and actually heightened the drama of the piece.
Josef Gustafson: totally held his own with the adults on the stage. Really well done.
Amber Lewis and Kayla Doerksen's scenes: very funny.

Antony and Cleopatra -- Bard on the Beach

Story in 2 sentences:
Octavius Caesar takes advantage of Mark Antony's midlife crisis. Cleopatra does too, but in a different way and with less long-term success.

People who should see this show:
People who don't think you should mess with Shakespeare.
People who like over-enunciated words that are disconnected from any meaning.
People with nothing better to do.


We worried a bit before the show. Would we get there on time? Would we get good seats? Would Haig Sutherland be in it? We couldn't answer the first two questions, but the last required only a few clicks of the mouse: yes, Haig Sutherland would be in it. Crap.

We tried to be positive. Maybe he would interpret this part differently. Maybe he would not have as much stage time this year. Maybe he wouldn't ruin the show. But in our hearts, we knew it was going to be a long night.

Made even longer by Bard on the Beach's insistence on sticking with their "first-come-first-served-put-your-name-on-a-chair-to-reserve-it" system. Seriously, just have assigned seating or not.

This system makes the lineup interminable, and generally in the middle of the sun. Neither Hubby nor I enjoy lines or sunshine, so we sat in the shade and judged audience members as we waited. Judging people is definitely something we enjoy. We pointed out to each other who hated Shakespeare but was being dragged there, who hated Shakespeare but pretended not to, who would be nodding along sagely with the actors, and who had bad hair.

At last the lineup began to move, and eventually we joined it. Our seats were fine. Back row, centre -- the back row is still really close to the stage. We then went to get some coffee (Hubby is one of those people who gets dragged there, and needs a little help to get through the evening). The harried volunteers at the concession stand were running about, brows creased as they counted out change, looking for work to do. An enjoyable prelude to the evening.

We milled about for a while, then went back to our seats. The guy came out to do the commercial (grr), everyone applauded (except me -- I don't enjoy commercials) and the show began.

Apparently, there is a standard interpretation of Antony and Cleopatra: sensual, feminine Egypt represents one part of Marc Antony's personality, and austere, masculine Rome the other. Certainly a valid interpretation, however boring it may be. Possibly it was not boring when it was first interpreted that way. Very boring now, particularly when no other intellectual work goes into the production, and the creative team instead concentrates all their energy to emphasizing the stereotypes.

This was a standard production. Standard set (the best part was gazing through the hole in the tent at the mountains when Haig Sutherland started talking), Standard costuming (with the exception of a few of Cleopatra's accessories), standard direction, and generally standard acting. It was sort of like watching an Olivier movie, without the Olivier.

Antony and Cleopatra was one of Shakepeare's later plays, and disregards the rules of unity; action occurs in Egypt and Rome, it spans quite a long time, and there's a lot goin on. Fine, I don't care much for rules, but without careful direction it makes for a busy play. Scott Bellis wasn't all that careful. While the play itself converges to a unified story, his direction did not. To the last scene it was disjointed.

The performances, as I said, were standard. Haig Sutherland, as Octavius Caesar, over-enunciated every word in a quizzical voice as though he were stoned. Sort of like a confused Charlie Brown's teacher. Jennifer Lines, as Cleopatra, was excellent. She played both the comedy and tragedy of the role to perfection, but couldn't save the show. Andrew Wheeler as Mark Antony was fine. Unfortunately, the stereotyped standard interpretation made most of the smaller parts quite forgettable: John Murphy's cartoonish Alexas stands out, but not for good reasons; Shawn MacDonald's messenger was funny.

Hubby and I discussed it on our way home. Next year we'll look at the casting before we buy tickets.

See the show if you must, but I wouldn't if I were you. Plays until September 24.

Some Highlights:
Knowing that the rest of the Bard shows are going to be better than this one.
Jennifer Lines' scenes with Shawn MacDonald: both are good, but the second was the funner.
Jennifer Lines' Cleopatra: she's great.
The sea-battle scenes were kinda cool.

Around the World in 80 Days -- Gateway Theatre

Story in 2 Sentences:
Phileas Fogg goes around the world in 80 days. Wow.

People who should see this show:
The employees of the theatre. Cause they have to.



There was just nothing good about it. At all. The story seems like it could produce something worth seeing, but it never did. It was a series of uninteresting anecdotes, bad slapstick, and uninspired dialogue made difficult to understand by bad accents. Parnelli Parnes, playing Passepartout, certainly acted his heart out, but it was to no avail. I have been in his shoes, acting my heart out in what I knew in the depths of my soul was a horrible, horrible show, and I cannot blame him at all for what I saw. Nor can I blame Ted Cole, playing Fogg, who, it seemed, was directed by Simon Johnston to never show any emotion. Possibly this made him an amusing character to read about in the book. Certainly it made the production incredibly boring. I do, however, blame Keith Martin Gordey for his horrible slapstick, horrible accents and horrible characterization as Detective Fix and other characters.

We wanted to leave about 3 seconds into it, but there were people blocking our way. We held out until intermission (at least there was an intermission -- we'd wanted to walk out of Drowning Girls the previous month, but were stuck in the back row with no escape possible outside of running across the water-covered stage), grabbed our things, headed to the door -- and ran into an associate of hubby's, who has something to do with the production. We cheerfully lied and avoided eye contact, then made excuses about going to the bathroom and ran out of the theatre, never to return.

Seriously, never. We got season tickets as an experiment, and understand now what a mistake that was. The Gateway is not a good theatre. It just seems that it's the only thing going in on Richmond.

Some Highlights:
The trick with the elephant (although it was ruined immediately by a fart joke).
My daring escape at intermission.

Mr. Dexter and her Daily -- Arts Club Theatre

The story in 2 sentences:

Mrs. Dexter's husband left her for her best friend and she's so, so sad. Her slave wants to retire.

People who should see this show:
People who like Shirley Valentine
People who like hierarchy
People who like Rosie the riveter



I am the kind of guy who likes monologues that show different points of view, and I thought If We Are Women was a brilliant play. So when you combine that genre with that playwright, it is right up my alley.

However, the play itself wasn't as good as I'd hoped for. It was pretty predictable, with fairly safe conventions and and nothing really special or surprising. I liked it, I just wouldn't have picked it for a season.

What strikes us every time when we go to the Stanley is the high production value. I know, I know, it's all about the words and the acting, and the Greeks didn't have sets, but I still like to see a cool set. And this one, a kitchen complete with working electrical sockets, freezer and plumbing, was pretty cool. The costumes were, if not incredible, believable without looking cheap, and perfect for the characters.

The play is basically two monologues: the first act by Peggy (the daily), and the second by her employer. Act 1 is fine; a lot of exposition, a lot of character work for both characters (Peggy's opinions tell us a lot about Mrs. Dexter before we even see her), and a few gags. But, regardless of Peggy's happy-go-lucky charm, the entire purpose of act 1 is to preload us for act 2, and I think that's a shame. Peggy's story as it's told to us isn't interesting enough to be a play in itself, unlike Mrs. Dexter's. The devices Glass uses for her monologues, although suited to the characters, also differed in quality: speaking to a friend who isn't there (Mrs. Dexter) is far more interesting than speaking to god or the audience (Peggy). Act 2 is a beaultiful piece of work, worth the exposition. Mrs. Dexter's story of betrayal and her reaction to it is what shines in the play.

The class structure of the play is interesting to me. I find it a bit disturbing that lower-class woman has the less compelling story, and remains dependent on her employer even to be able to retire comfortably. But now that I have a cleaning lady, I must admit that I'm less uncomfortable than I once would have been.

Both actresses did quite well, nearly dropping some lines here and there, but that was more than made up for by brilliant characterization. It's a pity that Cavendish didn't have more to work with in the script; act 1 was the weaker, but not due to her performance.

See it, if you get a chance. Bring your maid.

Some highlights
Nicola Cavendish's incredible live re-wiring of an electric fan: really cool.
Fiona Reid's drunk: brilliantly played, believably timed, and both sad and funny.

Thoroughly Modern Millie -- Gateway Theatre

Story in 2 Sentences:
Millie moves to New York in order to marry rich. After stopping a white slavery ring being run by her "Chinese" landlady, she does.

People who should see this show:
People who haven't seen it before.
Friends and family of the chorus.


The problem with reviewing this show is that I just saw it a few months ago for the first time.

Nothing compares to your first time.

My first James Bond was Timothy Dalton, followed by Roger Moore on video. When I see Sean Connery classics, I turn my nose up. He wasn't right. He wasn't first.

However, I am a very open-minded, mature, intelligent person. So when I went to the Playhouse's version of the Drowsy Chaperone, I accepted a pudgy narrator even though I'd already seen rake thin Bob Martin play the part in Toronto. I accepted an older Chaperone than Lisa Lambert, and realized that the rewrites had improved what I had always thought of as a perfect musical. So based on my clearly-evidenced mature mindset, I have decided that any comparison I make to the Theatre Under the Stars version is perfectly reasonable. And I will make a few of them.

Last time, Millie was played brilliantly by Diana Kaarina. This time, not-so brilliantly by Lauren Bowler. She mostly had the voice for it, and could dance, I suppose, but her acting -- not good. Really not good. In a show where the lead comes to New York full of hope and ambition, she gave Millie a jaded edge that made her drive to marry rich more cynical than cute. And her pacing was slow. So very slow and angry.

And then there was Millie's love interest, Jimmy Smith, played by Mat Baker. I think he thought he was in Days of Our Lives. Every time he walked on the stage, you could hear the whooshing sound of energy being sucked out of the theatre. However, his voice was gorgeous, and I would love to hear him sing again. Maybe not while he's acting, though.

Diana Kaarina, who played Millie so skillfully a few months ago, really fell flat this time. When I saw it done at Theatre Under the Stars, Miss Dorothy Brown, ably played by Meghan Anderssen, seemed like an important part of the story. Here she seemed like a minor character part, barely more important to the story than any of the girls in the hotel. Her voice was up to the challenge, though -- lovely soprano.

Gaelan Beatty did well as Millie's boss/stalking victim, Mr. Trevor Graydon, playing to his usual high standard. His voice was well matched to Kaarina's, and he owned every scene he was in.

Denis Simpson as Muzzy van Hossmere was a surprise, I have to say. In his first scene, I was fairly irritated; putting a man in a dress for a few laughs is cheap, in my opinion. The cross-casting did nothing to improve the play, instead distracting us from it and bringing us out of the moment. However, there was a payoff in the end, during the scenes between van Hossmere and Mrs. Meers.

And here is where the show was worth the money and then some. Irene Karas as Mrs. Meers, the landlady/ringleader of a white slavery outfit, was brilliant. Perfection. Completely different to the Meers of the Theatre Under the Stars production (Sarah Rodgers, whom I also enjoyed), she nailed every joke, and had a kick-ass voice to boot. It was also her perfect performance that has allowed me to forgive the racist elements in the show -- thank you, Irene.

The artistic team was not good, and I am beginning to be afraid that this is a frequent problem at the Gateway. Simon Johnston's direction was lackluster, seeming as though he was embarrassed by the pastiche of Millie. The elevator gag -- thrown away. The staging -- every scene and change looked the same. The subtitles -- yawn. With the exception of the two tap-dancers, the dancing was generally horrible; Kenneth Overbey's choreography looked all at once too complex and too simple. Jenifer Darbellay was clearly working within a budget for her costumes, but also hadn't thought them through. Dull colour palette on top of the even drearier tones of Drew Facey's set. I realize this is intended to make Millie stand out more, but in this case it just drew attention to her badly designed duds.

Don't go unless you haven't seen it before. Plays until January 3.

Some Highlights:
Irene Karas' Mrs. Meers: brilliant in every way
Gaelan Beatty's Mr. Trevor Graydon: very capably performed, with excellent diction in "The Speed Test"
"I'm Falling in Love with Someone": beautifully sung, particularly Diana Kaarina's soprano notes

Back to You: the Life and Music of Lucille Starr -- Gateway Theatre

Story in 2 sentences:
Lucille Starr tells the story of her life at the first stop on her comeback tour. It was a hard life.
People who should see this show:
People who live within a 5 block radius of the Gateway
People who really like Lucille Starr and are willing to forgive a lot


I think the Lucille Starr story is very interesting, and I really wish someone had written it well. The play's conceit, that she is looking back on her life and telling her audience the story, was unnecessary. Her narrative distanced us emotionally from the action, and the lense through which we are forced to view it does not add to the story in any way. Tracey Power, the playwright, would do well to abandon that perspecctive and give us insight into Starr's life in a more direct way.

But you gotta love a Richmond audience. Oddly unicultural, considering Richmond's racial diversity, but running the whole age gamut (though heavily weighted to the old side, to be sure).

Beverly Elliot, who played the old version of Lucille, had a lovely voice, but seemed decidedly uncomfortable using it in a concert setting. The script required the sort of frank, conversational tone a singer would use with her audience, as well as the easy showmanship without strict choreography that one would expect from a country star of that era. Elliot's lack of confidence made it difficult to enjoy the "present" of the play.

Alison MacDonald, playing the younger Starr, was more successful, but often seemed to be playing to a house of 500 people rather than the intimate black box theatre. Elliot had not enough showmanship, and MacDonald a bit too much. To be sure, MacDonald had a tougher job of it, playing Lucille Starr from the age of 8 or so to adulthood. Adulthood was better. Her 8-year-old was much more Children of the Corn than one would have liked.

The two shared the vocals of Lucille Starr's hits, and musically, their duets were the high point of the evening. Their voices blended beautifully, and neither unduly overpowered the other.

Jeff Gladstone, as Lucille's husband Bob Regan, was easily the best performer of the three, playing a convincingly charming yet abusive alcoholic husband. Less convincing was MacDonald's performance of the abused wife as told by Elliot. Power's play moved too quickly from love to cruelty, leaving us wondering at all times why Starr remained with him. There never was a moment that explained it. Unfortunately, by the end of the play, the young looking Gladstone was difficult to believe as an aging Regan.

Some highlights:
The band was awesome.
Jeff Gladstone's Bob Regan: well portrayed, much better work than could have been expected from the script
Beverly Elliot and Alison MacDonald's duets: beautiful.

Suor Angelica and Gianni Schicchi -- UBC Opera

Story in 2 Sentences:
Suor Angelica kills herself. Gianni Schicchi pulls a fast one.
People Who should see this show:
Suor Angelica -- no one.
Gianni Schicchi -- everyone.


The tickets had SUOR ANGELICA in huge print, with Gianni Schicchi written underneath. Not the choice I would have made.

We entered the lobby, which was filled, it was nice to see, with a mix of ages. Lots of children and university students, middle-aged and old people. I like that in an opera audience. We found our seats, looked around us and waited.

Then came the speech, delivered by the Head of UBC voice and opera, Nancy Hermiston. God, I am sick of speeches before shows. If I want to know who the sponsors are, I will read the program.

At last, Suor Angelica. A boring story, predictably directed. Hermiston must have put a good deal of thought into how to ensure the cast always ended up in a semi-circle on stage, regardless of the action, entances, exits and narrative. Ruth Greenaway-Robbins was a convincingly distraught Suor Angelica, the only performer who played anything more than a characature. During group scenes, it was charming to see the lead actually acting, but when she played in a duet opposite Charlotte Burrage, the principessa, the juxtaposition of Greenaway-Robbins' shrieking histrionics with Burrage's confused stoicism was unbearably comic; if I had been the principessa, I would have thrown her into a convent too.

I was glad it was a one-act. I was amused to see Hermiston take the final bow.

The nuns sold 50-50 tickets in the intermission. Seriously. Now that is comedy.

Another speech preceded Gianni Schicchi. I ground my teeth a little, but it turned out to be a draw for the 50-50 tickets, and the first genuinely interesting moment of the evening, when the nun who was doing the draw discovered that she had pulled her mother's name.

Gianni Schicchi was brilliant from the first note. First of all, it's a funny story with beautiful music. Second, it was well performed and well directed. It was full of life at every moment, and I was interested to see what would happen next for the whole show. I had never heard of either opera before, but Gianni Schicchi did feature a familiar aria: "O Mio Babbino Caro," which was beautifully performed by Teresa Sedlmair.

Hermiston took a bow again, but this time I stopped clapping. Enough was enough.

Some Highlights:
Cameron McPhail's Gianni Schicchi: well acted and sung.
Teresa Sedlemair's Lauretta: brilliant aria.
Hany Janawati's Zita: I laughed every time I saw the scowl on her face. Good voice, too.
Martin Sadd'd Rinuccio: difficult to play a serious character well when you're surrounded by comedy, but he pulled it off admirably.
Stephanie Ferracane's La Ciesca: brilliant comic timing.

The Foursome -- Gateway Theatre

Story in 2 sentences:
4 friends from university meet up at a reunion and play golf. They reveal secrets and renew their friendship.
People who should see this show:
Golfers (there seemed to be a lot of inside jokes)
People who don't mind sitting through golf jokes to see a good show.


The Gateway Theatre operates a police state. We entered through the wrong door, and were indulgently allowed to continue by a manager, but the volunteers who man the entrances to the theatre itself were very diligent, as were the ushers wandering through the theatre -- demanding tickets every time you cross their paths. There was a time when I would bring my stub with me every time I left a theatre, but no one ever cares anywhere else, so I stopped. I found it endearing -- who's going to sneak into a play in Richmond? This is not a Nickleback concert, but they don't seem to realize that and feel very protective of their theatre.

The audience was a mixed bag, and I wish the balcony had been open so we could have looked at them from a better vantage point. Perfume-soaked grandes dames of Richmond, kids on their first date, entire families. Interesting.

And then the play started.

It takes place on a golf course, and you watch the foursome go through each hole.

I don't like golf. I think it's a boring waste of time, and that even watching golf is better than actually playing golf, because then you don't have to be out in the blazing sun for 5 hours. I don't understand how anyone could possibly like it, and to this day, whenever someone suggests playing golf, I think first of minigolf and smile, then realize what they meant and the smile turns uncomfortable.

The play is all about male comeradery.

If there's anything that can make my smile even more uncomfortable, it's male comeradery. Once again, I don't get it. I am uninterested in emotionally repressed conversations and ill at ease with swaggering. I don't understand why people separate themselves socially according to gender -- except that I feel a-ok when surrounded by women.

So for the first few minutes I found myself debating whether to leave at intermission or before. But then it started to be better. The performances were really good, it was funny, and, for a male-bonding-golf-show, it was pretty universal. Growing apart from old friends sucks; friendships need to be fostered. When you need support, it is the people who know you best who can offer the best support. Perhaps I'm being maudlin because I ran into a friend I've grown apart from not ten minutes before the play.

I really enjoyed the play. The fist act was fairly quick, and cute, laying the groundwork. The intermission was too long -- 20 minutes? Come on, Gateway, we're not here to socialize. The second act had the apparently-obligatory Norm Foster epiphany, which was brief, poignant and passed in time to let us enjoy the humour, and the final twist was very enjoyable. Interestingly, the lighter the humour, the more belly-laughs it got, which has been my experience with Richmond audiences. Also, several people seemed to think they were watching t.v. at home -- seriously, people, use a whisper voice when commenting.

You should go. It was good, and got better as I thought more about it. Plays until October 24.

Some highlights:
David Thomson's Cameron: great physicality and great voice
The scene changes: excellent use of golf cart and bad rock
The song (December '63): the build up made it inevitable, and it was a crowd-pleaser.

Black Comedy -- Arts Club Theatre Company

Story in two Sentences:
A fuse blows on the most important night of Brindsley Miller's life. Everything goes wrong, and yet he somehow finds love.

People who should see this show:
People who only go to theatre to impress dates (like the guy beside us who ended up enjoying himself)
People who actually enjoy theatre

photo by Emily Cooper

This was an excellent evening.

What they didn't say (or not in print big enough for me to notice, anyway), was that it was a double bill. The main event was, of course, Peter Shaffer's one-act Black Comedy, but prior to that we were treated to a Chekov play, The Marriage Proposal. Probably a good thing they didn't advertise it too much -- who wants to go to a Chekov play?

Well, I do. This one, anyway. He wrote it before he got all depressing. It was short, only about 20 minutes -- an amuse-bouche, if you will, and my bouche was amused. It's a story of a wealthy landowner asking his neighbour for his daughter's hand, and a few fights they go through (she's feisty) before he gets around to it and she agrees. Kind of a stilted, dated story, wouldn't you say? Something to bear in mind for later if you're the type of person who does that.

Then, after a brief intermission ("Can we go now" asks the guy sitting on my right to his date, who is wearing an evening gown. "She's dressed up," the hag behind me points out to her gay. "It's not like I'm naked here," he protests.), comes the entree (if you will allow me to extend the metaphor a little more than it deserves).

Black Comedy is a brilliant farce, and Dean Paul Gibson has assembled a brilliant cast. The main gag of the show (the blackout) is funny enough, and the justifications for sustaining it are oddly believable. The real beauty, however, lies in the secrets we find out about people when they think no one can see them. The lighting convention we are introduced to early in the show helped considerably: knowing that everything I saw was intended to be kept secret from the other characters made it easier to accept peculiarities that would have been over the top otherwise.

Interestingly, although the actors are lit, I found myself paying much more attention to the nuances of their voices than I normally would, as though it truly were a blackout.

The play is a farce, and many characters are painted with broad strokes, as one would expect. However, first performed in 1965, the strokes are quite dated, and a little uncomfortable to watch: the philandering protagonist, Brindsley Miller, is much more likeable than he ought to be; the necessity of asking his fiancee's father for her hand is not even questioned. The only truly redeemable and fully realized charater is Clea, Brindsley's ex-girlfriend. She is charismatic, knows her mind, and gives back to Brindsley everything he gives to her. With the Madmen-era mores, we understand why he has asked a more compliant woman to marry him. Certainly it was easier on his chauvanism. Carol, a mod girl, is a whitewashed version of Clea, mocking conventions such as engagement, but still demanding they be upheld traditionally. Why, then, after Brindsley has revealed his true character in the dark, does Carol try to beat him and Clea protect him? I just don't know, but it was very funny getting to that point.

See it, especially if you're taking someone who doesn't want to go -- you may convert him. Plays until October 11.

Some highlights:
Ted Roberts' set design: really cool, trashy yet mod, exactly what you want a struggling artist's flat from the 60s to look like
Nicola Lipman's Miss Furnival: dazzling and hilarious, her final monologue is inspired
Charlie Gallant's Brindsley Miller: delightful acrobatics and convincingly immature
Sean Devine's Schuppanzigh: an excellent intellectual foil to the undercurrents of classism in the play

All's Well That Ends Well -- Bard on the Beach

The story in 2 sentences:
Helena saves the king's life and for a reward, gets to choose a husband: Bertram. Bertram isn't into the idea, but she tricks him into having sex with her.

People who should see this show:
Everyone. It's really good.


This was an almost-perfect show. When we saw Richard II earlier, we wondered why Lois Anderson, the best part of the show, didn't have a bigger part. Now we know -- this show revolved around her, and she deserved it. Her Helena was intelligent, vivacious, determined, interesting to watch and easy to get onside with.

All's Well That Ends Well is one of Shakespeare's problem plays, marked by dark overtones even thought the heroes get married and nobody dies. It's funny, but it's an uneasy funny.

The main story element that is difficult to for the audience to accept about this play as written is that Helena is so determined to be with Bertram, a lout who clearly doesn't deserve her. Director Rachel Ditor helps to resolve this contradiction by a cunningly introduced silent pre-scene wherein Bertram, winningly played by Craig Erikson, flirts with Helena and wins her affection through the same capriciousness and irresponsibility that he later uses to victimize her. There are two or three of these scenes, expanding on what Shakespeare wrote and taking a closer look at troublesome questions in the play. Parolles, a loathsome character that we want to like anyway, benefits from another silent moment on stage: having been entrapped by his comrades, we find out just how loathsome he is -- and it is difficult to find a satisfactory answer in our minds: does he deserve this humiliation? How is he any worse than Bertram, who ends up married to our heroine? It would be more convenient to step back from this moment, but Ditor forces us to examine it closely.

The direction is brilliant: the action never seems forced, and there are subtle finishing touches that surround each scene: scene changes by frolicking butlers, background business that perfectly walks the fine line so that everyone is interesting to watch but no one detracts from the scene at hand. The design is good -- set in the Victorian period, the costumes are beautiful and appropriate for a play involving such a physical and emotional segregation of gender.

And it turns out I was wrong. Unfortunately, Haig Sutherland in a dress isn't as funny as I would have predicted, and he mars a few scenes in this show as well. Thankfully, his role is much smaller. Otherwise, each performance is top-notch.

Bonus#1: Season sponsor Starbucks was giving away gift cards the day we went-- sweet!
Bonus#2: The guy sitting in the front row opposite us who was listening to every word with an expression of ecstasy, and gesticulating as though he were conducting an orchestra, beside his perplexed-looking wife. Two shows in one!

See the show. It's great. You may even get free coffee. Plays Until September 26.

Some Highlights:
Lois Anderson's Helena: the shining star of my Bard on the Beach experience this year
Craig Erikson's Bertram: a character written to be hated, Erikson makes him likeable enough to understand why Helena is attracted to him
Gaelan Beatty's scene changes: fun
Celine Stubel's Diana: funny, innocent and intelligent at the same time
Scott Bellis' Parolles: a thoughtful interpretation of what could easily be a two-dimensional character
Duncan Fraser's King of France: another solid job, Fraser works the text masterfully

Richard II -- Bard on the Beach

Story in 2 Sentences:
King Richard banishes his cousin Henry, who kinda deserves it. Henry comes back, revolts, and becomes king.

People who should see this show:
Haig Sutherland's grandmother
People who want to look like they like Shakespeare but don't actually


Haig Sutherland ruined this show. Every scene without him was great, but, unfortunately, he was playing the title role, so there weren't many. He spoke like William Shatner in drag. Except that would be kinda funny. He was so entranced with the words and his own voice that he forgot the words were meant to convey a story to the audience. He was horrible. After a scene or two of his droning, I thought "well, they won't make the mistake of hiring him again," but Hubby (who likes to flip through programs during shows) pointed out that this was his ninth season. I just don't get it.

Hubby liked him in Robson Arms. I never watched it.

He was so awful that he made his queen, played by Celine Stubel, look bad (she was great when he wasn't on stage). David Marr, another questionable Bard veteran, wasn't all that great either -- he spat through his lines so quickly it was hard to believe he even understood what he was saying, and painful to hear his gasp for air at the end -- but at least his performance didn't affect the people around him.

And it's a pity, because this is just the type of story I'm interested in: a humanizing look at a sweeping history, with interesting political overtones (Shakespeare could have gotten killed over this play, they tell me). We went on chatterbox Tuesday, so got a great introduction to the play. We also went when an understudy was going on with script in hand (Christopher Gaze, artistic director), which I always love. Could've been so beautiful. I really need to see a good version.

Don't go. Spend the money on a gift to yourself instead. Plays until September 26.

Some Highlights:
Duncan Fraser's John of Gaunt: Solid performance, with an incredible soliloquy
Lois Anderson's Duchess of York: Easily the best performance of the show
Gaelan Beatty's Duke of Aumerle: good performance, and acted well with Anderson

Rent -- Fighting Chance Productions

Story in 2 Sentences:
New York's gay/artistic community is devastated by AIDS and gentrification. They all find love anyway.

People who should see this show:
People who love Rent. You know you will anyway, no matter if it's good or bad.


And it's both. Ryan Mooney has directed a low-budget version that's fairly true to what we're all familiar with. It's interesting to see the show in a smaller venue, and the band isn't bad. Some effects (Maureen's entrance, for example) are compromised, but otherwise the direction is fine, although it tends to fall apart toward the end ("What You Own" was a badly carried-out pseudo-original version).

Most of the cast is terrific, and the ensemble vocal work is very good.

The problem is the leads. Craig Decarlo has a fine voice, but he seems to think he's on the movie soundtrack rather than in a small theatre. That is, he has memorized every nuance of the original Roger's performance without adding in anything of his own, and he's just not acting. At all. Christine Quintana as Mimi was worse. Much worse. When she first came out and I heard her croak out "Light my Candle", I thought "clearly she's not a singer" -- her one good note was so overpowering her mic couldn't pick it up -- "Well, she'll be a terrific actor, then." By the time it became clear that her acting was only slightly more inspired than DeCarlo's, I decided "her dancing must be phenomenal -- Mimi should be a good dancer. That's why they cast her." Wrong again. "Out Tonight," Mimi's big dance number, was embarrassing to watch. She clearly did not feel comfortable on stage, making the audience feel uncomfortable as well. By the second act, watching the two of them on stage was making me cringe.

Which is a pity, because the ensemble was generally great. Question: why not cast the "Seasons of Love" soloist as Mimi? She was excellent, both as a singer and an actor.

Don't see this if you've never seen Rent before or aren't a fan; you won't enjoy it. If you're hardcore, you've already got tickets. If you're undecided, you might as well go. Plays Until August 30.

Some Highlights:
Jaqueline Breakwall's Maureen: inspired. Well sung, well acted, a joy to watch. "Take me or Leave me" with Jenn Suratos was fantastic
Cesar Erba's Angel: beautiful voice and touching performance
Anton Lipovetsky's Mark: engaging and earnest, with excellent comic timing
Nick Fontaine's Tom Collins: wonderful voice
Cathy Wilmot's solo: Amazing, and her work in small ensemble parts showed she could act as well
Rielle Braid's Alexi Darling: funny, oddly realistic, and a great voice

Thoroughly Modern Millie -- Theatre Under the Stars

Story in 2 Sentences:
Millie moves to New York in order to marry rich. After stopping a white slavery ring being run by her Chinese landlady, she does.

People who should see this show:
People who like musicals

Ok, there's some light (heavy) racism, and some ridiculous plot elements. But it's all there for humour, and as it actually is funny, I don't mind it.

The singing and dancing are quite well done, and the acting is as realistic as you want farce to be. Shell Piercey knows how to direct a musical. Nothing is over- or under-done, and the cast is up to the challenge of allowing the audience to buy in to the ridiculous nature of the show. The night I went to see it, there were a few mic glitches, and a bonus scene: Diana Kaarina, playing Millie, forgot to change into her tap shoes before a scene they were necessary for. She ran away (with her mic still on), leaving an amused Laura Koberstein and a befuddled Seth Drabinski to cover for her for what must have seemed to them like an eternity. Drakinski's next line happened to be a compliment on Millie's quick pace in walking down the hall, which he noticed only halfway through saying it. After another eternity they got back on track. I love it when stuff like that happens.

The musical itself is well-written: the pace is quick, taking only as much time as necessary for the story to be told; the songs are catchy and evoke the spirit of the times (did they ever really exist?) of flappers, moderns and speakeasies. I was surprised to discover how recently the stage show was written -- it opened on Broadway in 2002. Both the score and the light racism helped to create the effect of a musical written much earlier.

Speaking of which, is it easier or harder to forgive racism when you know the play is less than 10 years old? I can't decide. The plot does hinge on it, but one can just as easily imagine it hinging on a criminal conspiracy involving shipping young women to Italy. . . of course that brings the sexual slave aspect further into the light. Maybe it's best not to look too deeply into this.

See it. It's fun. Bring an asian friend. Plays until August 22.

Some Highlights:
Diana Kaarina's Millie: an engaging performer with an amazing voice, Kaarina has appeared on Broadway and it shows -- she must enjoy being a big fish in a small pond
Meghan Anderssen's Miss Dorothy Brown: scene-stealing, hilarious, with a lovely voice. Her love scene with Drabinski is heaven to watch
Laura Koberstein's Miss Flannery: funny
Aaron Lau's Ching Ho: great voice, great comic love lead, and half of a fun duo
The Subtitles: I love a gimmick like that
Sarah Rodgers' Mrs Meers: Hilarious and quite likeable, given that she's the villain and the centre of the racist plot elements
Nancy Herb's Muzzy Van Hossmere: killer voice and good comic timing
Seth Drabinski's Trevor Grayden: an excellent classical voice, and very funny

Annie -- Theatre Under the Stars

Story in 2 Sentences:
Annie is an orphan. She gets adopted and ends the Great Depression.

People who should see this show:
Little girls who want to be Annie
Little boys who want to be girls so they can be Annie
Stagemoms
My hubby, who likes to compare his choreography to others'

What can you say about Annie? I remember being a little boy who wanted to be a little girl so I could play Annie, standing in line for blocks to see the movie on opening night, only to be told it was sold out. We went to see The Muppets Take Manhattan instead -- or am I mixing memories?

In order to be fair, I need to separate my review into sections.

The musical itself
Is just not very good. I know, it won a Tony, but -- face it -- the competition was not very stiff that year. I love "It's a Hard-Knock Life" and I don't mind "Tomorrow," but the other songs are boring and repetitive. The story is all very pie-in-the-sky, and I don't think it's fun to be fed elitist propaganda with a thin veneer of quasi-socialism for 2 hours, even when the mouthpiece is a little kid with a great voice. Also, it's a boring retelling of a familiar story, the only thing freshening it up being a sassy orphan. Punky Brewster was way better.

I also wanted to be Punky Brewster.

Glynis Leyshon's production
As good as Annie can get. The set was good, the costumes were good, the staging and choreography were fine, the performances were fine. The band was a bit rough.

Plays until August 21

Some Highlights:
Michelle Creber's Annie: oh so saccharin, but the kid can definitely sing
Michelle Creber's dog Max's Sandy: dogs are cute
The first 10 minutes or so: "Hard-Knock Life" is fun
The wine at intermission

The Comedy of Errors -- Bard on the Beach

Story in 2 Sentences:
Two sets of twins separated at birth are unknowingly reunited. They get mistaken for each other before it's all sorted out.

People who should see this show:
Everyone. People who grumble when directors "do things to Shakespeare" (i.e. my hubby) will grumble a lot, then grudgingly admit they enjoyed it anyway. People who don't usually like Shakespeare will find it accessible.


David Mackay's Comedy of Errors is fun. The story is fun, the production is fun, the acting is fun. The thing is, it's a comedy, with an unbelievable storyline and generally broad characters who do unbelievable things. But the audience buys into it anyway. Because it's fun.

It is filled with self-referential gags: In the middle of the second half, a vendor sells "rats on a stick" calling to mind how different an experience Shakespeare was in Shakespearean times (the audience had the option of buying tomatoes from vendors to throw at performers); an actor mimes talking on a cell phone, which is, I suppose, the contemporary interruption analogous to the bustle and chatter my English teachers told me was going on in the Globe. But these gags are intelligent, and, I found, useful. There was never a chance for my mind to wander during lulls of sing-song acting -- I was constantly snapped to attention, and therefore never missed an important plot element in a somewhat confusing play -- and, grumble though he may, neither did hubby.

The design is also self-referential: a puppet theatre, Queen Elizabeth as Solinus, sound effects ranging from trumpets to demonic laughter. This is a production for people who are interested in the history of English theatre, but does not exclude those who aren't in the know. Consider the levels in one sight gag:

Solinus, duke of Ephesus is played by Christopher Gaze in Queen Elizabeth I's iconic dress.

Funny to people who aren't in the know: an old guy in a dress.
Nod to historical accuracy: Female parts were played by men in dresses in Elizabethan England
Contemporary commentary on this gender role: It's a male part being played by a man in a dress
A reminder of the political context of the time of writing: Elizabeth was ruler of England, and did not hesitate to order death when it suited her politically, as Solinus will do if Egeon can't pay his fine.
Further nod to historical accuracy: Elizabeth, reigning queen of England, referred to herself as "prince"
In-joke: Solinus, the duke who dispenses justice, is played by the artistic director of Bard on the Beach

There are more layers -- I thought of another but forgot it, and I'm sure there are more in-jokes that I'm not privy to, more contemporary or historical commentary that I'm not up on. Do I feel smart for having understood all of these layers at once? Absolutely. Would I have enjoyed it if I hadn't? Absolutely. And this is one sight gag that occurs at the very beginning and end of the play -- there are more, each one as thoughtful -- if I didn't think I'd bore you all to tears I would write about them all.

See the show. You'll like it even if you don't want to. Plays until September 26


Some highlights:
Colleen Wheeler's Adriana: perfect
Shawn Macdonald's Dromio of Ephesus: very well done
Kevin MacDonald's Antipholus of Syracuse: well acted, and part of a brilliant comic duo
Christopher Gaze's Solinus: an enjoyable camio
Bob Frazer's Antipholus of Ephesus: the only truly repugnant character in the show, Frazer actually made him sort of likeable
Ryan Beil's Dromio of Syracuse: the other half of a brilliant comic duo, and just as funny as a solo act
Jennifer Lines' Luciana: funny sidekickery at its best
Amber Lewis' Courtesan: brings life to a small role -- outstanding

Othello -- Bard on the Beach

Story in 2 Sentences:
Iago hates Othello, so he fools him into believing his wife, Desdemona, is cheating on him. It works, and Othello kills her.

People who should see this show:
Anyone who loves Shakespeare
Anyone who loves great acting



Dean Paul Gibson's production of Othello is simple and classical. Nothing to write home about, except that such simplicity demands perfection in performance. Gibson trusts the cast to deliver, and they do. Every part is played beautifully, and the story, running through themes of passion, obsession, class, and race, shines.

Well worth seeing. Plays until September 26

Some highlights:
Michael Blake's Othello: brilliant
Bob Frazer's Iago: excellent
Jennifer Lines' Emilia: subtle, with a build up to a stunning performance in act 5
Naomi Wright's Desdemona: beautiful, layered and believable