Doubt

Alright, so I was originally going to do a full and proper review of the play, but since it's now been many days, and I haven't gotten around to it, I thought I'd do a shorter review, skipping whatever I don't feel like writing about.

Doubt is to date my favourite production by John Kelly. I have seen several other shows, and have found them all to be way overrated, with serious problems with directing, the choice of plays, and often even acting. This time his choice of play was pretty good. An interesting, intelligent play, that goes out of its way not to draw conclusions, or tell you what's right or wrong, or who is right or wrong. A play intended to leave you with doubts in your mind.

The cast was solid, with its weakest link being Emmanuelle Zeesman, who left me feeling a little cold, though thankfully nothing worse than that. The highlight was surprisingly Natalie Fraser-Purdy, whom I'd never come across before, but she really brought life to her small part. Mary Ellis and Kris Joseph were very good, as expected, though Joseph didn't sparkle quite the same as he has in other productions I've seen him in.

Of course, this being a John Kelly production, the actors HAD to have accents, though luckily since this was set in the Bronx, no one was butchering the Irish accent. The accent, although better than often, still missed the mark, and took me out of the experience somewhat, though again, not quite as far out as the use of Irish, Scottish, and English accents do. There's no good reason for the use of the accent, this same story could have been set so many other places and it wouldn't have changed a thing, the accent does absolutely nothing to advance the story, and should have been dropped.

Finally we get to the set. Oh the set! There are not enough words to describe quite how dreadful the set was. From a pure design point of view, it was clumsy, with all 3 scene sets being towards the front, in a straight line next to each other. The principal's office going for extreme realism, with 2 proper walls, and a door, a clumsily place filing cabinet that I suppose is supposed to extend the wall in our imaginations. The garden's wall is much shorter than that of the office walls, and looks like it's part of an elementary school production. It's a piece of plywood which has been painted to attempt to be a stone wall, only it hasn't been skillfully done, with its 3 tiny strands of "ivy" with evenly spaced, disproportionately small leaves, looks so out of place and fake, especially compared to the very realistic walls of the office. A green carpeting pretending to be grass, a few fake shrubs, with real dirt spread around them, and a little fake flagstone or two to signify paths leaving the garden, which move as the actor steps across them. Finally we reach the rectory, which has only a pulpit. No wall whatsoever, no other props, no crucifix behind, only the cross "carved" onto the pulpit.

The lighting was crude as well. Just the most basic lights, with no obvious difference between sets (outside doesn't look any different than inside, rectory doesn't look different than office.)

I was sorry that this side of the show was so poorly done, because I found it to be highly distracting, and gave the show a whole cheap, amateur feel even though it really wasn't.

It's a shame that the basics of set building, painting, and props seem to be lost arts. If you can fake up a decent looking stone wall, get in touch with your local semi-professional theatre company today! They clearly need you, desperately!

I, Claudia

It is rare that I find myself in near complete agreement with a theatre reviewer. One of the few times I found myself doing so, was recently when I saw I, Claudia, at the GCTC, after reading the review by Natasha Gauthier in the Ottawa Citizen.

All her specific critiques, I found to be dead-on. She didn't differentiate enough between Claudia and her stepmother, the voices grew tiresome. The masks were fairly god-awful (perhaps I've been spoiled by a lifetime of Odyssey masks?), and didn't bring anything to the production. I found myself wanting to go up to her and push the sides of the masks down to conform to her face. They ended up looking as if they were simply made for someone else, with a much large head, than intentionally large.

That said, I do still disagree with the tone of the review. The show didn't deserve such a negative tone. It was a nice show, fairly well-written, with some extremely well done moments, particularly as the grandfather, and when the stepmother speaks of her upcoming wedding.

I also highly disagree with the statement with which she starts the review, that masks serve as a substitute for directorial imagination. Masks can be such wonderful tools, and when well-done, can truly transform a performance/performer. I remember watching actors during rehearsals for mask shows, and how magical it was watching them try their masks on for the first time. How the actor could completely become the character of the mask. How the details, right down to the shape of the nose could completely transform a character.

Mask-work is wonderful, you simply need actors and directors who know how to handle them properly!