Theatre

So over the past few years I have been too focused (or broke) to attend many plays. Quite frankly, it took too much effort to make the plans and figure out what was playing.

Then we went to Law Show 2011. I made the joke that this was the first Law Show that I attended where I could afford to bid at the silent auction. And bid I did. It is unfortunate that T.J. had to pay, as my credit card conveniently wasn't accepted as payment.

My prizes? Two tickets to the Hunchback at the Citadel Theatre, and two tickets to a play called "dog" at the Roxy. I attended both.

Firstly, the Hunchback was quite the experience. T.J. and I made a night of it, starting at Ruth's Chris. A couple glasses of sangria and I was ready for some entertainment. Now, when I thought of Hunchback I thought of Disney. I think everyone thinks of Disney. This was NOT Disney. I was amazed at how little I knew about the story.

The play itself was visually stunning. Like many plays, they attempted to revitalize what is a rather old story by using modern costumes and designs. One sees this quite often with Shakespeare's plays. If this is not done correctly, the play comes off awkward, and the set and costuming actually takes away from the story. I found that the set and costumes were brilliant at the Hunchback, which saved what could have turned out to be a very long story.

The modern-style, silver and lace corsets worn by the ladies kept T.J. interested in the play!

Of everything involved in a play, I find I enjoy the set most of all. It is the fundamental base upon which a play can thrive or die. It's like creating a world that works, one must start with the soil. The Hunchback set was well done. The book itself poses a difficult issue - how exactly does one stage a scene in a bedroom, and between the bells of Notre Dame without significant set changes? The Hunchback set was very simple - 5 arch-shaped silver tubes, serving as archways, doors, bells and everything else the play needed.

The story itself was tragic. Once again, not Disney. I think I may have cried. The actors weren't particularly believable, but I don't think that is what the play was going for.

It was a pleasure to watch.

The play "dog" was the underdog, the black horse. I had never been to the Roxy. I knew that the play was much smaller scale, a little more artsy-fartsy as my family would say. I thought it was a comedy, and was taken aback when I read the internet blurb which described the play as being about a woman who miscarries, gets depressed, then her dog starts talking to her (she thinks its the voice of her dead child). After seeing this play, I must confess the internet description was horribly inaccurate.

My play victim (I mean date) was Jaymie this time.

We sat near the front of a 2/3 full theatre (on opening night I was sad, but then... who opens on St. Patty's day?) I ran into an old co-worker, and got to chat with her about how much life can change in 5 short years.

The play itself... well, let's see:

1. The plot did not spoon-feed the audience. In fact, I am still not really sure what happened. I guess it was all about mental illness running through a family. I wish they would have went into what disorder the father had. There was one scene in particular where they shipped the father off to Sweden. This didn't make sense, and wasn't believable in the context of the rest of the play, which was set in mid-century America.

2. The costumes were unremarkable.

3. The set was fascinating. Where Hunchback hadn't really relied on technology beyond what one would traditionally expect from a theatre, "dog" did the opposite. The set included two rows of see-through screens hanging from roof to floor and off-set from one another. The cast could walk between the screens, which acted as hallways, doors, entrance-ways and a bedroom. You could see the actors at all times. I liked that. The most impressive thing however, was that they projected movies and images on the screens. The most amazing visual effect was the heartbeat image, which moved across the stage on these screens.

4. The acting was very strong. In particular, the lead actor, who played at least 4 characters (including a dog) was remarkably versatile. I enjoyed looking at his facial expressions, which never missed a beat.

5. Vocals were a blend of voice overs (similar to 1950's commercials) and live voices. Occasionally, and to highlight a point, the character and the voice-over would speak at the same time. I found this particularly effective.

Well, as it is 1:15 in the morning and I have to work tomorrow, I will leave it at that.

I hope to enjoy many more plays in Edmonton in the future!