uottawashowgoer-blog

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

Selfies and stubs from each theatrical event attended.

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

A Streetcar Named Desire (Post-Show)

Okay, that was one big theatre for a venue with “little” in the title. The lobby/coatcheck was kind of sad, but I must say - the auditorium was gorgeous! Apparently it had been recently renovated and it showed. Row ‘I’ was way farther from the stage than expected, but the seats weren’t bad - good sight-lines, and well within earshot of the unmic’d actors. You could tell the theatre had some serious history, from the 75 year old staff members to the hundreds of past-actor headshots on the walls. It was also very traditional. Never before had I been to a play where everyone stood up and sang the national anthem before getting on with the show. I hadn’t sung O Canada in years, and frankly, it was strange. I understand this is the nation’s capital, but I did find myself asking, “is this really necessary?” Is theatre really all that closely knit with national identity? Maybe it was when the OLT established that tradition, and considering most of the patronage was closer to 105 than they were to 18, the theatre can hardly be blamed for retaining it. In retrospect, that out of place feeling is made even more distinct considering the show was very American.

Overall, I found the play quite unremarkable. Don’t get me wrong, I loved the script - I honestly think Streetcar is a masterpiece, but the delivery was simply lacking. They went for what I can only imagine is a very traditional approach. Each and every creative decision made was the obvious one, and had I been more familiar with the film at the time of seeing it (I snuck a peek at some scenes from the 1951 version today), I would have known exactly what to expect. This felt like a play based off the movie based off the play - so the acting, costumes, and general delivery of the material felt diluted and unoriginal.  All that being said, I was very impressed with the set - not necessarily because it was original, but because it was so well done: multiple levels, fantastic colour schemes, and the best use of scrims I had ever seen. It did a fantastic job of transporting me to 1948 - capturing the essence of past era without making it look weathered. This was also captured to some extent through the costumes, though they didn’t stand out as much as the set.

The stage crew was particularly entertaining, and perhaps best described as “laissez faire” or “un-rushed”. At one point, a crew member accidentally knocked a lampshade off a light between scenes and proceeded to fiddle with it for thirty seconds before reaffixing it. We applauded him. It was fantastic. The lighting crew was also comically underrehearsed. Not only did lights come on seconds after actors flicked switches, but the lighting board operator couldn't seem to figure out how many bows the actors were going to take upon curtain call, and the house lights came on then back off two or three times. It was quaint, and in my opinion, added a bit of comical zest to the evening as a whole, though completely unintentional.

On the whole, I’d say the show was a little rough around the edges performance-wise (actors wavering in and out of accents and two-dimensional characters), under-rehearsed crew-wise (lighting and set-changing crew), and unoriginal, but somehow still managed to do justice to the original text. None of the themes were lost on the audience, and though I haven’t read the script, I suspect it doesn’t lend itself too well to extensive experimentation. Nevertheless, it was a somewhat generic final product that was well worth $14, and it inspired me to read/see more Tennessee Williams.

P.S. Their bar has a limited but very tasteful beer menu.

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

A Streetcar Named Desire (Pre-Show)

I had forgotten that I bought this ticket! I received a message from Emily just yesterday asking when the show started, and I had to shuffle through my old emails to make sure I still had our tickets. $14 a piece makes them the most affordable tickets I’ve purchased this semester. I love student rates!

I’ve never been to Ottawa Little Theatre but I walk past it pretty much every day so it’s high time I did so. From the outside, its name seems very suitable, and when I bought the tickets, the seating map showed there was only one isle, dividing the audience into two sections. So I imagine it is very small. I do love small theatres though, so long as they’re well maintained - *cough cough* GLADSTONE. Getting to be so close to the action can completely change your experience of a show, and it can really push the set designers to be creative with how they use the space. Despite not knowing what the set of Streetcar is supposed to look like, I’d say I’m particularly excited to see what they do with it.

Not only have I never seen or read this play, I have never seen or read anything by Tennessee Williams. We studied him a bit last year in THE 1100 though, and I understand him to be one of the greats when it comes to 20th century theatre. If I remember correctly, he was gay, and given the time during which he was writing I imagine this made his life quite difficult. No doubt this would have effected his writing. Maybe themes of sexuality and gender relations are to be expected from this play because of that.  

I don’t have much more to say, knowing so little about the play and venue, but it feels as if tonight will be a rite of passage as a show-goer in Ottawa. OLT is apparently a long-established cultural cornerstone of the city, so it only makes sense that I squeeze in at least one show there before this semester is over. Likewise, I’ve heard the name A Streetcar Named Desire since I was a child, and after tonight, I’ll have something to contribute to the next Tennessee Williams conversation I find myself in. 

Here’s to becoming cultured!

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

House of Commons Question Period (Post-”Show”)

I must say, I’m glad we had an escort for our trip to parliament. Noah and I got to the Peace Tower pretty early and shuffled into a long line of high school students also attending QP. Dakota (my connection on the Hill) was able to sign us in while we waited in line, as staffers can more or less bypass security. I wonder if they know how lucky they are. The two of us had to go through three separate security checkpoints and the third actually confiscated my gum. Apparently the rule is “anything that can be thrown at MPs” is a no-go in the HoC. I’m sure it’s happened in the past, so I won’t ask questions, but man - it was worse than going through customs at an American airport. That was something that certainly set QP apart from other theatrical events - the armed guards and metal detectors. 

With all that said, the security staff was actually very cordial, and despite having to take off my belt three times, it was not a horrible experience. After approximately forty five minutes, we found ourselves three seats in the “gallery”, which contained a grand total of zero seats with decent sight-lines. From where we were sitting, the NDP members seemed like disembodied voices - heard only through the headsets - as they were tucked into the corner of the room above which our balcony was situated. 

The headsets were a very interesting part of the experience which I didn’t at all expect (but perhaps I should have). Each seat is equipped with hand-held museum-style headsets that picked up the mics of each MP. There’s volume control and live French-to-English translation on channel one, and English-to-French translation on channel two. Without this, I wouldn’t have heard a thing they said (with the exception of a few boisterous insults hurled across the isle... most of which came from the Conservatives). It was mildly uncomfortable to hold it up to my ear for an hour, but what else could be done? The acoustics in the space were all but sound-cancelling and not everyone in the gallery is going to be bilingual; so everything considered, they have a great system worked out. 

The configuration is certainly not optimal in terms of acoustics and sight-lines, but It is extremely beautiful - all of parliament is extremely beautiful... It was (ashamedly) my first time in the building. One of the most interesting things I found about the HoC however, was the merging of three major stage configurations: alley, arena, and end-stage/proscenium. Like arena stages, the gallery fully encircled the hall, while the MPs were arranged in an alley, but this alley led to the house speaker, to whom everyone’s attention is drawn. Once I realized this, my mind was blown, because from a theatrical perspective, the space (and the fact that it works as well as it does) is fascinating.

To comment on my previous post, Scheer, sadly, was not there, so I didn’t get to see him and Trudeau duke it out. Silver lining though: Trudeau was there, which is apparently very unorthodox for a Monday. But boy was I right; he deflects like a riot shield. I had no stake in the issues being thrown across the isle, but I still found myself frustrated with his inability/unwillingness to address issues. I can only imagine serving him at a restaurant...

“And how would you like your steak cooked Mister Prime Minister?” “Uh - well first I would just like to say thank you for your question, and that - um - unlike the previous government, we are very interested in answering it.”

Unsurprisingly, nothing really seemed to come out of question period. It was, in many ways, just a series of jabs between politicians hellbent on ruining the opposition’s image. While it was mildly informative, MPs were quicker to move on from a subject of debate than resolve it, which made sense seeing as none of them seemed to have solutions to anything... almost like a bad improv scene. The only time I saw Conservatives and Liberals come together was over the return of a Conservative MP who had, that day, returned to the HoC. So we can at least take solace in the fact that MPs are not publicly wishing death upon one another. 

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

House of Commons Question Period (Pre-”Show”)

This has been on my Ottawa to do list for some time. I’m not the most patriotic Canadian, but I feel it’s important to educate myself on how the democratic institutions of my nation work. Attending the parliamentary question period is a great place to do that. 

Monday will be my chance to see if what my sister told me growing up was true: “Question period is essentially a laughable screaming match between adult children.” That seems harsh, but everyone seems to more or less agree that that’s exactly what it is. The footage I've seen of QP also seems indicative. There appears to be a lot of politicians who hold one another in very low regard: finger pointing, interrupting, yelling, and a strange kind of pseudo-polite name-calling. In a way, that’s what I’m most excited for. If things do get out of hand, and I get to see the leaders of Canada reduce one another to fit-throwing, it will constitute that kind of educational you can only get from real-world experience. 

I really hope Trudeau and Scheer are both there. Trudeau is often referred to as a chronic deflector, and it’s high time I saw just how bad it was in person. (I don’t like pulling this card, but) as a philosophy student, I’ve spent nearly four years learning how to differentiate between sound and bogus reasoning. That’s not as much a jab at Trudeau as it is at politicians; avoiding tough questions is just part of the job - you can’t satisfy everyone, and members of parliament need to sweep that fact under the rug if they want to keep their jobs. I’m also excited by the prospect of watching Andrew Scheer try to exude political correctness in the world’s most unnatural fashion. 

On a high note, my pal Dakota works for the Liberal party and has promised a parliamentary tour for Noah and myself so long as we show up in ties. Having someone who knows the ropes of the Hill will be nice. As political science student and long time hill-worker, I’m sure he will be able to mitigate any of our potential guesswork. For example, he can fill us in on the bills and policies being discussed, or let us know if our parliamentary etiquette is off. 

I think this is going to be good! Not only am I crossing this off the THE 2100 to-do list, but I’m also getting an excuse to dress up!

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

Ottawa Senators vs. Dallas Stars (Post-Game)

I hit the nail on the head - $13 for a 14oz “pint” is part of the ritual! Molson, Coors, or Creemore specifically. In the spirit of things however, I wasn’t all that torn up about it. The energy was really good, the security people didn’t confiscate my gum, and we won! 3-2 in overtime. 

I had totally forgotten I had an official Senators scarf in my closet, so I wore that and thereafter felt confident I knew what I was doing. I’ll reiterate, I’m not much of a sports guy, but I honestly feel like you don’t really need to be when it comes to hockey. The sport is straight forward enough and it felt like everyone in our section was in the fake it ‘til you make it mindset. For example, the boisterous guy to my right knew slightly more about hockey than his date, and worked very hard to make it obvious. His outbursts of “C’mon ref!” and “Boo! I’m booing you because you’re bad at hockey!” gave me hope. The screen-people were also kind enough to flash “make some noise! Faire bruit!” every time our spirits lulled. Stuff like this made getting into the game and partaking in the rituals easy and ironically funny. Nobody took the event as seriously as I thought they would, but that actually made it really fun. With that being said, Ottawa’s out of the playoffs, so the game was more or less inconsequential. I’m sure there are plenty of people who take the games really seriously, but this wasn’t a night for it. Part of me was relieved, and I was comfortable with the energy levels. 

You know what else I was comfortable with? The organist. I’m so glad that the live use of organs is something the NHL hasn’t dropped. I pictured a Steve Buscemi looking man in his 80s playing away in a closet somewhere. He also gave me hope. 

There were also several rituals previously unbeknownst to me about NHL games (or at least Sens games). There are a bunch of giveaways: plane tickets, Timmy’s cards, and a sizeable 50/50 draw that got up to about $25,000! Not bad at all. Also, the mini 12 v 12 Timbits game between the first and second period was incredible. I was way more into that than I should have been. Watching 20 some odd eight year olds chase a puck around the ice, constantly falling over for six minutes was entertainment at its finest. Kids from the community getting to ride the zamboni, a fleet of blonde women shovelling the ice between plays, mascots with t-shirt cannons! There was even a bit where they had five skaters come on the ice wearing massive caricature heads of past Canadian Prime ministers. They proceeded violently race around the ice. unsurprisingly, Laurier won. They had it all. I would absolutely go again (if the tickets were free). It really rides that line of “this is fun but too expensive for what it is”.

While we’re on the topic, don’t waste your money on close seats. The view from up top is great!  In many ways, the distant view is probably better because you don’t really have to move your head to follow the puck and you’re generally less likely to miss something. 

Finally, I really appreciated that you could tune in and out of the game as you pleased. Nobody’s going to get mad at you for telling un-hockey-related stories in the middle of the second period because everyone’s half drunk and singing along to Blur anyways. In that way it’s very much an unconventional theatrical event. There’s no pressure to stay tuned at all times, and in that way, audience members get to decide what and how much they take away from the event. 

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

Ottawa Senators vs. Dallas Stars (Pre-Game)

Tonight I’m headed to the Canadian Tire Centre In Kanata to see the Ottawa Senators play against the Dallas Stars. When I first heard we would be seeing a major sporting event as one of our theatrical events, I was surprised! But now, thinking about it, I can see why it qualifies. There are specific players with specific roles (cast), a venue, a stage configuration (arena), lighting, sound, and a lobby/concessions - and that list isn’t even exhaustive. I’m curious to see if the game will feel like a theatrical performance or something else entirely. Realistically, there will probably be some similarities and differences. 

I haven’t seen a Sens game since I was twelve, and as to be expected of a game against the Philadelphia Flyers on a Tuesday night, it wasn’t great: low turnout, low energy, and we lost. We did have good seats though... and I’m pretty sure my dad bought me a hot dog, so it wasn’t all bad. I know Dallas isn’t an all-star team either, but tonight’s game is happening on a Friday, I’m of legal drinking age, and I’m going to the game with Noah, Emily, and some Peter Kuling guy, so perhaps there is cause for excitement. 

Given our unforgiving budgets, we opted for seats on the upper levels. While it’s a shame we’re so far from the action, at least the seats are pretty well-centred (so we aren’t going to be watching from behind either net). 

What I’m not excited for is the preposterous prices of beer. I think, very much like traditional theatrical events, seeing an NHL game will come with its own rituals, and an overpriced pint of watery lager is one of them. Among them, I’m sure, are kiss-cams, accusing the ref of taking bribes, and the blaring of Wolfmother’s Joker and the Thief between plays. As for the others, I’ll have to wait and see. 

Go Sens Go!

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

Arabian Nights (Post-Show)

Last night was a bit of a let down. 

Sadly, I don’t think all that much has changed since I was a kid; I don’t think live orchestral performance is my thing. I will certainly need to see a few more orchestras before I can really gauge how I feel about them, but if Arabian Nights was characteristic of what to expect in the future (and I have a hunch it is), then I wouldn’t want to spend too much money on tickets. I don’t want to suggest that the issue with Arabian Nights was that it was a ‘budget show’ - it wasn’t. The orchestra was massive, the show took place in Southam Hall, and it certainly drew a crowd that was anything but plebeian (I choose this word deliberately). To be honest, it was an impressive spectacle. The lighting, the arrangement of musicians, the venue - everything was incredibly posh and polished. For me however, this was part of the problem. The show had no character. Not a word was spoken by the conductor or Alain Lefevre (the pianist frontman), and in the context of the show, this seemed... normal. But this performance felt extremely formal and ritualistic - almost robotic, like you could have swapped any talented performer in for any of those on stage and it would go unnoticed. At one point during the show, I looked around at the faces of the other patrons. Judging by the general air of disinterest I detected among them, I want to say many of them were there just to say the were, as if, because they were posh people, and seeing the NAC Orchestra is a posh thing to do, they were to do it by default. 

With all that said, I was indeed amazed by the quality of performance. Never have I heard so many instruments perfectly in concert. It really blew my mind for the first little while, and I had fun tuning into what each performer was doing. But due to my unfamiliarity with the music or story of Arabian Nights, I can’t say I was anticipating anything throughout the performance. This really sapped some energy from me as an audience member, and I constantly had to remind myself to tune into what was happening on stage. Sadly, I could derive absolutely no plot or themes from the music. All I could do was pick out the obvious and general atmosphere of each number: tension, ease, playfulness, anger, etc. But these never seemed to string together in any coherent way, so I didn’t leave feeling I had been taken to an enchanted world on a magic carpet-ride, which the NAC had ensured. But I was tired and I had neglected to read into the plot of Arabian Nights, so I certainly can't blame the performers. 

So while I say the show was a let down, I recognize that most of that is on my end. I’m sure the Toronto Symphony Orchestra’s Jonathan Crow would have had a very different experience from my own had he seen the show. And I’m sure that if the name orchestra was playing Beethoven’s best hits (which I would love to see), I would been super into it. Alas, that’s not how it went, and in the future, I’ll be sure to be more selective with the orchestral performances I choose to see. I think familiarity with the music is key. 

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

Arabian Nights (Pre-Show)

I am pleased to say that I was not only called off work tonight, but I was also able to take advantage of the NAC’s Live Rush for tonight’s performance of Arabian Nights!

While I cannot say live classical music was ever my thing growing up, it’s been many years and now I’m optimistic about my ability to sit through a full hour or two of orchestral music and stay engaged. In my typical fashion, I know nothing about the show going in - but not because I got last minute tickets or was too lazy to research. I want to neglect researching the show for the same reasons I had going into Danse Solitaires.

Tonight I want to challenge myself and see if I can deduce plot, theme, or narrative from what is happening on stage alone. I impressed myself last time, but now I will get to see if I have the same capacity to interpret instrumental music.

I assume the music of Arabian Nights will be Arabian... I hope it is. I’m certainly curious to see what established orchestral music of the Middle East is like.

The NAC is surprisingly busy for a Wednesday! I’ve never been here on a Wednesday, so to be fair, I’m not sure if this is normal or not, but I could have easily mistaken it for a Friday or Saturday. It’s nice to live somewhere where the demand and appreciation of theatre is so strong. The more I come here, the more a sense of pride grows within me. I’m so happy to live here. I’m so happy to have access to such amazing shows put on by such amazing people.

The NAC hasn’t let me down yet, and I hope tonight won’t change that.

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

The Clean House (Post-Show)

This show was by far the most pleasant show I’ve seen in a very long time. I feel like describing something as pleasant suggests that it was surface level or in the long run, unremarkable, but I don’t think that would be fair to say about The Clean House. It certainly dealt with important themes like identity, love, class, culture, and most importantly, death, but that didn’t stop them from infusing comedy into each and every scene. Because of this, I wouldn’t say, as I had heard, that Sarah Ruhl brought her audience from one emotion to the polar opposite, moment to moment. I’d rather say that because of the way comedy was interspersed throughout the show, I never left the light-hearted space it put me in. Ultimately, this just made discussing lost love, death, and existential crises really palatable, which is different from an emotional rollercoaster. 

That being said, Ruhl certainly delivered on wit... maybe that isn't the right word. Intricacy of dialogue? The way characters responded to others was so integral to the plot, and the writing of characters in odd situations was masterfully done. Listening to characters interact was always a pleasure, but not necessarily because of their choice of words or character chemistry, but rather, because the characters were extremely unpredictable, which made the play take very interesting turns. This however, did not come at the expense of their believability. At one point in the play, a character - Lane - finds out her husband has been cheating on her. To my surprise, the husband brings the woman his mistress home to meet Lane. To my even greater surprise, they all have coffee together. However - and this is the part that amazes me about Ruhl’s writing - this didn’t seem unnatural. It was strange, but absolutely believable. After the initial struggle, Lane and Ana (her husband’s mistress) become friends - though it is, of course, a complicated friendship. To put it simply, none of these characters fit stereotypical archetypes, and watching very real, complex, and changing characters onstage really made you feel like they were real people, without the play itself being all that realistic. 

Lastly, I want to comment on the nearly all-female caste. I honestly feel like if I had not looked at the program or heard anything about Three Sisters, it wouldn’t have even consciously registered in me that I was watching a play that only had one male actor (who didn’t even have any lines until after the intermission). I think that’s really cool, because it’s the exact inverse of what we see in entertainment so often. I for one, didn’t notice that Lord the Rings, Star Wars, and Avatar all failed the Beshdel Test when I watched them, and The Clean House was the exact same (but the other way around). We, as audience members want well-developed and interesting characters with real problems, and The Clean House/Three Sisters provided that. These actors were spectacular, and their issues were often completely divorced from men and the roles they played in these women’s lives - which in no way made the show less interesting... a nice little slap to the face of the artsy misogynists out there. 

p.s. The Gladstone didn’t feel as gross and muggy as it did last time. 

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

The Clean House (Pre-Show)

And here I am again at the Gladstone. While I am apprehensive about sitting through another show in a cramped and hot theatre with poor air circulation, I am less apprehensive about the show itself than I was for Othello (the only other show I’ve seen here).

As per usual, I know very little about the show I am about to see. I have, however, heard great things about Three Sisters Theatre Company. While I have never seen one of their shows, I understand they have very high standards for their actors and creative team, which is always encouraging.

Looking at the programme, I’m impressed that nearly the entire creative team is comprised of women! Furthermore (and of course this speaks to Sarah Ruhl - the playwright - more than the company), the caste is nearly all women as well. Of course, Three Sisters chose to do the play so I suppose it’s both. It’s refreshing to say the least. I’m now curious whether gender roles and female identity will be a central theme of the show. I’m hoping it is. That’s always fun.

A comment on Sarah Ruhl: she purportedly has a knack for rapidly shifting her scenes from one tone to another with remarkable ease. One moment you’re dying laughing and the next you’re heartbroken. While I understand this kind of description is effectively meant to excite the reader - romancing the event and all - I don’t want to go into this show expecting Oscar-Wilde-level genius. But quick, witty dialogue is one of my favourite things to see in theatre. I will remain cautiously optimistic.

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

Danse Solitudes Duo (Post-Show)

I feel like I’m running the risk of reading too much into things here, or even completely misunderstanding the performance, but I like to think I actually understood what it was about, and why the creators made the choices they did. 

Firstly let me say, I am very glad I sat in the front row (perks of going to the theatre alone). The choreography had leaps and lifts, but also a great deal of slower isolated movements that required a great deal of core strength. Since the performers were (a) almost naked, (b) very close, and (c) extremely slim, you could see how each of their muscles were working to do what they were doing. It was anatomically fascinating. While this may have been the desired effect of the directors/choreographer, I believe the choice to have so much nudity in the show goes beyond that. 

Not all the dancers were naked the entire time. Depending on who the dancers were dancing with, their clothing changed. While I have a hunch that this has symbolic value, I’m made almost certain of it by the one case where a male dancer came on stage wearing a Che Guevara shirt and non-verbally asked the naked female dancer to put on the clothes he brought onstage with him. This felt like an act of power. The number these two performed together hinted at an intense struggle of personal identity where one (the girl who was made to get dressed) was forced to mimic the movements of the dancer. This seemed unnatural at first - even comedic, but as the number progressed her new identity (that of a revolutionary) became more natural and apparent. Slowly, the revolutionary identity of the male dancer faded, and he seemed uncomfortable with his identity, and even more so, with hers. As these roles gradually switched, the female dancer would often cling to the male dancer as to prevent him from leaving. As he tried to violently shake her off, she remained cool an collected. He had made her into something powerful and unpredictable, while her movements on stage were graceful and prudent prior. As his confidence in character waned and hers grew, he lost all control. Interestingly, the male dancer, having made his female counterpart into what she was, caused his own subjugation. Importantly, this number was performed to the Beatles’s I Want You (She’s So Heavy). The song starts off with heavy sexual undertones, just as the interactions between the dancers did, but half way through, the song turns from that to “She’s So Heavy”, which reflected the shift in the male dancer’s perspective where he was overwhelmed by the weight of his counterpart’s new identity. Like the song however, the sexuality doesn’t evaporate with the realization that she is a burden. It was clear through the choreography that she was using her sexuality as a weapon - a means of keeping him under her control long after he was made uncomfortable with the situation. It was really fascinating!

I could go into depth about each of the numbers and what I think the stories told through them were (because I was surprisingly confident in my ability to do so), but there simply isn’t time here. Alternatively, I want to broadly discuss the theme of sexuality and how it effects relationships because I think that was the main theme of the show. 

The show was structured like a series of vignettes. Some characters returned from previous vignettes, others did not. What I realized though, was that any character who danced exclusively with members of a specific sex remained naked for the entire show. Those characters who danced naked with either male or female partners, danced clothed with the opposite. If I was correct in my assumption above (that to dress in this show was to play a role), then this seems to suggest that the role being played by clothed dancers had something to do with who they were paired with. This leads me to think that characters who remained naked throughout the show were either straight or gay, while those who dressed and undressed based upon who their partner was (because they danced with male and female dancers) were bisexual, or simply less rigid in their sexuality. This lack of rigidity however, didn’t stop them from being forced to play specific roles when clothed (which felt less natural). If I had to guess, I would say this is a comment on how society wishes everyone to be stable in their identity (of which sexuality is a large part), and in trying to assume a more multidimensional identity, we are told (by individuals or society at large) that we have to be a certain way. 

Finally, the part of the show that I’m not sure whether I’m interpreting correctly or not is why the only raw, animalistic, and overtly sexual numbers were performed between men and women (when they were either both dressed or both naked) - all of which were set to sexy 1960s rock songs such as those of The Beatles and The Doors. All the interactions between same-sex partners was more refined, emotional, and often (but not always) non-romantic - based more on helping one another through their respective suffering rather than extracting from the relationship whatever they could for their own benefit (mostly sexual companionship and a feeling of power). These numbers were set to instrumental, classical-style music. I think we can all agree the harpsichord is not a sexy instrument, especially when played next to the passionate, velvety croonings of Jim Morrison.

But what does that all mean? That heterosexual relationships are about using one another? That same-sex relationships are better for honest, supportive interactions? I sincerely doubt this, and I hope to discuss with my classmates who saw the show what they took from it. 

But overall, this was a very interesting show that was engaging chiefly because I, as the audience member, got to formulate by own stories for the characters. There is so much room for interpretation in these sort of performances, and I imagine that is a big draw for those who attend them regularly. 

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

Danse Solitudes Duo (Pre-Show)

Tonight I will be seeing Daniel Léveillé’s Danse Solitudes Duo at the NAC. Intrigued by the ad I saw online, I deliberately elected not to research the show too heavily. I am far from well versed in dance performance. In high school, I saw a handful of performances but never managed to extract from what was occurring on stage the plot of the numbers. As a challenge to myself this evening, I am going to see if I can infer, almost solely from what I see on stage, coherent themes and maybe even plot... If there is one. Frankly, I don’t know if Danse Solitudes Duo will have one, but I’m excited find out.

I think tonight’s performance will be interesting for several reasons - the first of which, is that I know there is a good deal of nudity in this show. While I’m sure this does wonders for the company’s promotional team, I’m interested in seeing if the reasoning behind this creative choice is clear in the performance. The second reason is that, if I understand correctly, the show features dance-duos with male-female, female-female, and male-male pairs. Of the few two person dance performances I have seen, the majority have been male-female pairs. While these different parings will obviously effect dynamics on stage, I’m curious to see precisely how they do, and if these dynamics are an integral aspect of the show.

The performance is taking place in the NAC’s Azrieli studio - which I am most familiar with of all the stages I have seen here. And I managed to get a front seat as well! So I’m excited about that. I’m pretty sure the show is about to begin, so will report back in a few hours!

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

Daughter (post-show)

This show did two things: It showed me a character that I despised, and it showed me a character that I deeply related to. Unfortunately this was a one man show and these characters were one in the same. Needless to say, it was a hard show to watch. Above all else, this was a show about the patriarchal social script and toxic masculinity - the same I have been exposed to all my life. And I imagine that this performance resonated with me in a very different capacity than it did with the primarily female audience. 

The show was basically a series of vignettes, and it flowed like standup for the most part, with moments of more traditional theatre-esk performance. It explored Adam’s childhood, his young adulthood, his marriage, his affairs, his addictions, his fatherhood, and that one time he nearly beat a guy to death with a metal rod in a room full of twenty people. It doesn’t take long to start hating his character. I don’t want to go into too much detail because it is really hard to talk about, but let me just say that Adam Lazarus brings to the stage someone who is disgusting and terrifying, all the while making it more and more clear that these men are all around us. And the fact that this immoral character is in many ways just a normal guy is in itself, disgusting and terrifying because it speaks to the world we live in. 

Following the show, the NAC carried out a Q&A type program called “National Provocations” where Adam Lazarus and the production team left the room and two brilliant women led a discussion around what we had all just seen. For me, one of the most profound moments of the night was when a woman (probably in her sixties) expressed her discomfort following the show because society’s youth - being surrounded by violence, pornography, and hatred from such a young age - seems to have “lost all innocence”. Meanwhile I was sitting there thinking, “the scary part for me was not the violence, pornography, or hatred, it was seeing all the sick and twisted inner thoughts of my youth portrayed on stage with disquieting accuracy. It was invasive. I don’t want to sit in a room full of people thinking, “Jesus, are all men this screwed up?” then looking over at me and thinking, “I wonder if he’s evil too.” It is horrible knowing that so much of my own conditioning can generate someone like the character of Adam... that if pushed to the the fringes of my identity by the women or children in my life, I could be him. It is beyond scary. It is the sort of thing that makes me not want to have children for fear of being horrible father. It is the sort of thing that makes me want to crawl into a whole and die. 

But that right there is good theatre. That is what I want to pay money for - not the jovial and euphoric happily-ever-after story. There is no resolution in Daughter; it just drops off and you are left terrified for the future of Adam’s daughter. While I certainly had that concern, I was doubly made an emotional wreck because of the introspection this show provoked in me. As soon as I got home I immediately took an hour long shower and asked myself, “is it okay to be who I am?” And I answered, “no.” This piece of theatre haunts people, particularly men who are uncomfortable with patriarchy but cannot change their patriarchal upbringing. I doubt I will ever forget seeing Daughter.

The latter half of the show, which focussed on Adam’s difficult relationship with his daughter was also disquieting because he was on stage yelling “why does my three year old daughter have to be such a cunt?” and all I could think about was my father. He would never say anything like that out loud to his daughter, and nor would Adam, but I wondered if he ever had those thoughts about my sister. I wondered if I would if I had a daughter. 

After the show I talked at length with one of the women who led the discussion on stage, as well as Adam and the show’s director. Adam said he always worries about “traumatizing his audience”, and thus has a very complicated relationship with the show. And there were most certainly people who were traumatized by what they saw and heard on stage that night. It is no surprise that more than half the audience stormed out of the theatre as soon as the house lights came up. I am of the opinion however, that if that didn’t happen, Daughter would not have fulfilled its creative function. The true nature of modern masculinity is terrifying, it is not supposed to be easy material to digest, and to those who have not lived through “becoming a man” will most likely be repulsed by the disgusting and forthcoming character of Adam Lazarus. Rightfully so. But those of us who identified with Adam, what we were most disgusted with was ourselves. 

It is safe to say this is the best piece of theatre I have ever seen. While I understand why people neglected to give a standing ovation, I was straight out of my chair just as the lights came up, and I congratulated Adam on the show as soon as he returned to the space. Daughter left me with a lot to think about, and I am nowhere near finished thinking about it. 

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

Daughter (Pre-Show)

This morning, I showed up to the NAC box office at 9:30 in hopes of getting the first live rush ticket for Daughter. When they opened at 10:00, I was promptly informed that the show was wholly sold out. Despite knowing nothing about the show other than its venue and ticket price, I was very disappointed. The 887 left a good taste in my mouth, and certainly encouraged me to return to the NAC as soon as possible.

At 6:00pm, I was informed by a classmate that she would be unable to make the show, and her ticket was available to me if I could come get it from her before the show starts at 7:00. I was in Gatineau at the time and not confident the busses would get me to her address in time for the trek to the theatre, so I attempted to call an Uber... Ubers in Gatineau are few and far between. At 6:35, I was informed that an Uber driver, Guy, would be there to pick me up in 3 minutes. I quickly zipped to my classmate’s home, retrieved the ticket from the mailbox, and sprinted to the NAC.

It is currently 6:56 and I am sitting by the NAC box office, ticket and programme in hand. While trying to catch my breath and frantically write my pre-show blog entry, I’m skimming the programme. This will be not only my second NAC show, but my second one-man show as well! As would have been apprehensive about this but 887 put me at ease with one-man performances, so if anything, I’m excited to see how Adam Lazarus (the writer and performer) measures up to Robert Lepage.

...

Okay, I have just entered the theatre’s ‘fourth stage’ (which I have never seen). They are playing David Guetta’s ‘Titanium’ and everyone is swarming the in-theatre bar. I never knew the NAC could be so hip! The space is arranged like a dinner-theatre and it looks far more apt to be a stand up comedy performance than a traditional work of theatre. To be honest, I am quite thrown off.

The programme describes Daughter as “a darkly satirical piece about a father, raised in a patriarchy, confronting his new identity as a patriarch.”

This sounds like my kind of theatre. Dark humour, satire, and social issues are three of my favourite things. Red wine is a fourth - so I may visit the bar quickly before the show starts.

But all in all, I’ve quickly become very excited for a show that I not only knew nothing about 20 minutes ago, but one that I had very slim odds of seeing. It feels serendipitous that I made it here tonight. As for specific expectations of the show, they are, like Gatineau Ubers, far and few between. Judging you the stage, there is little to no set (I see a mic stand and a black stool). And judging by the relatively young audience, I imagine Adam Lazarus is fairly topical.

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

Othello (Post-Show)

Unfortunately, I have far more critical comments than praises to be said about this production, and much like telling an employee they did not get the promotion, I will start with the good news and move to the bad. 

I was astonished at how well the caste knew their lines. It is no easy feat memorizing nearly three hours of monologues, soliloquies, and intricate dialogue in a dialect found on the fringes of one’s language. I certainly left the Gladstone feeling a deep sense of relief that I would likely never find myself in a situation where I would have to carry out such memorization. Unfortunately, I also left feeling a deep sense of relief that the play was over. I can only say it kept me on the edge of my seat because if I had refrained from sitting forward, I would have nodded off well before intermission. 

For anyone who has never been to the Gladstone, it is hot. Very hot. Upon buying my tickets, the Gladstone Theatre website informed me that they are fundraising for a new ventilation system for their building and patrons could donate a few dollars upon their purchase. I refrained and thought nothing of it. But my god - never have I been so acutely aware of my physical discomfort as an audience member (the two patrons who had sat to my left had neglected to return for the second half). To make matters worse, the seats were as close together as possible with minimal legroom. Thank my lucky stars I refrained from bringing a backpack. But silver linings are everywhere of course, so long as you catch the light at the right angle. The theatre staff were lovely and the bar had Shakespeare-specific signature cocktails. That was fun. And I must keep in mind that Theatre Kraken had no part to play in the theatre’s physical state.

Theatre Kraken did however, have a part to play in the bizarre creative choices made for the production. As I stated in my previous post, I am far from a Shakespeare expert, in fact, I would likely distance myself from the Shakespeare experts should we happen upon the same cocktail party - but it only takes a theatre novice to realize that this was, on the whole, a poorly executed production. 

I do not wish to go into detail on every qualm I have (for they are many) but I want to discuss here a few of the more substantial ones. Theatre Kraken’s Othello was not visibly North-African. He was not visibly white either (silver linings are everywhere), but he would probably stand out in a room full of Moors. Is Ottawa’s Shakespeare acting community not as diverse as I imagine? If so, then the casting director(s) can hardly be blamed, but if not, then I should very much like to ask them a few questions. This is a play largely focused on race issues, and this deeply undermined the production’s potential to hit this theme. To weigh down this sinking ship, they chose to give Othello a very thick southern drawl... and an American ranger Stratton hat... Why? I suppose because it went with the accent? But why the accent? Well that is a whole other can of worms...

Let’s crack that open shall we?

From what I gathered, the director was attempting to merge the world of Civil War America with turn of the 17th century southern Europe. This was made apparent not only by Othello’s character, but also by the American slave songs interspersed throughout the show. But of course, this play is set in a time that predates the transatlantic slave trade, and even if it didn’t, why would you, as a director, choose to make Othello American without writing out his Moorish identity? Probably because anything more than the minor alterations to Shakespeare walks a line between theatrical heresy and impossibly difficult. 

The worst of it, in my opinion, was the choice to add a (wholly uncalled-for) a cappella number sung by the complete caste during curtain call. It was beautiful... and incredibly strange. Not only did it awkwardly cut the audience’s (somewhat forced) applause in half, it seemed painfully irrelevant to the plot. Sure, Othello is supposed to be this liberated slave, and this song was sung from the perspective of a slave, but the song’s narrative was blatantly concerned with American identity and the abolition movement. Watching nine white people and one non-black person of colour sing a slave song that effectively conflated Othello’s plight with that of an unnamed American slave was probably offensive to at least some members of the audience. For myself, it was just a face-palm inducing sight. 

Frankly, it seemed as if the creatives for this show never bothered googling “Moor” or “transatlantic slave trade”. I really do understand the effect they were trying to achieve. But it simply failed. And horribly at that. 

P.s. the actor for Iago was phenomenal - hands down one of the best portrayals of genuinely insane antagonist I have ever seen. Well done Iago. Well done.

[uottawashowgoer-blog]

Othello (Pre-Show)

Tonight, I will be seeing Theatre Kraken’s production Othello at the Gladstone Theatre. There are a great number of variables here in terms of my expectations. I have never seen nor read Othello. I have never seen a Theatre Kraken production. I have never been to the Gladstone Theatre. I have never even seen Shakespeare performed outside an acting class here at the university! It seems the only familiar things I can expect tonight are house lights and the company of my fellow show-goer, Emily. 

It would be unfair to say I have low expectations for the show, but I cannot say I’m as excited for this as I was for the shows prior. I’m not the world’s biggest Shakespeare fan - not because I lack any respect for him or his works, but because I value the accessibility of a show and my Shakespearian tongue is not as sharp as some others. Simply, I suspect the language used might go over my head at times. With that said however, I think the visual aids naturally provided by the stage will make the plot easier to discern than it is when simply sitting down with a Shakespearian text. It would also help if I was more familiar with Othello going into the theatre, but this may very well be a smaller issue than I suspect. 

From what I do know however, Othello is a story of race, love, jealousy, and betrayal, all of which are themes that greatly interest me. I must say, I was surprised to find out Shakespeare wrote a play where the main character is a person of colour, considering he was writing in early 17th century Britain. I’m certainly curious to find out if this play touches on the more contemporary race-issues seen in the world today. If so, I wonder if that effect was inherent to the writing, or if Theatre Kraken managed to inject that into the production through their creative choices. Time will tell.

As far as my knowledge of Theatre Kraken goes, I’m aware that they are dedicated to helping the up-and-coming theatre creatives of Ottawa. While I very much support that, I’m not exactly sure what that means in terms of what level of acting/production quality I can expect - not to say I would necessarily be the best at discerning well-done from poorly-done Shakespeare. 

So all in all, I don’t really know what to expect. And In all likelihood, tonight will probably form a good portion of what my future expectations of a Shakespearian play is apt to look like.