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.