Attending theatre festivals like the Fringe or SummerWorks, which is on this week, I usually focus my attention on the ideas behind the plays, what they might become rather than what they are.
Now, a lot of festival shows are fantastic. But even great festival shows (especially great festival shows) are often on their way to something else, like a main stage full-evening mounting. So there can be times when you have to let your imagination fill in the gaps of what might be under more optimal conditions. The creators are often trying things out, seeing what works within the limits of the festival's time frame (usually an hour) and logistical constrains (limited tech time, limited rehearsal time, limited time to erect and strike a set). The bells and whistles that come with a long theatrical run are denied festival productions. To watch (some of) these shows fairly, you have to accept that the intentions and spirit of the production are more important than their execution.
And then you see blow-you-away performances like Atomic Vaudeville's Ride The Cyclone and Edwidge Jean-Pierre's Even Darkness Is Made of Light. You realize there's no reason to handicap festival shows.
With Ride the Cyclone, a young cast sing and dance their way through numbers that personify the lives of their (dead) characters. The electricity coming off the stage is amazing. Each song crackles with bravado when it's not pulling at your heart strings.
It feels weird to describe a play about suicide as a tour-de-force but that's exactly what Even Darkness is. Harness up Jean-Pierre to the grid and we could pretend nuclear energy was never an option. She covers ever inch of the stage (and much of the theatre), taking her character from self-pity to joy to depression to silent redemption in the blink of an eye. She finishes the show bathed and sweat and, inside our heads, so does the audience.
Exceptional performances can happen anywhere at any time. How was the lighting and the sets? Who noticed?
Business, travel, culture, politics, city life and other things that tie the world together
Monday, August 09, 2010
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Look familiar?
Maybe it's just me, but the new Blackberry looks eerily like Palm's Pre, which floundered on release last year?
Who cares about young people?
Ontario's new law that prohibits drivers under 21 from drinking any alcohol at all before driving reminds me of something an old friend said years ago.
He used to do market research, focusing particularly on young people, what attracts them to particular brands, what values they wanted to see in consumer products, etc. He pointed out that nobody cares about youth issues except youth themselves. Teenagers might rail about not being able to vote or drink or how their schools treat them or how they are targeted by the police. But then they turn of age, leave school and they don't care about those issues anymore. In fact, young adults often put a great amount of distance between themselves and "youth" issues. I know there are adults who advocate for young people and they do great work but they are an exception, and usually paid for their advocacy.
Which is why governments can get away with clearly unconstitutional laws like these. By the time someone gathers up steam to launch a proper court challenge, which can take years, their age makes them stop caring; they move on to other things. There is not enough continuity to create a genuine movement.
Imagine if this law was applied to any other group that's protected by the Charter, which protects people from discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. For "under 21," imagine "men," "Protestants," or "Irish-Canadians." It could never happen. That's because these characteristics are (mostly) permanent and the affected individuals would stay affected for a long time, long enough to lobby against the law.
Youth is fleeting. Governments exploit that fact every time they take away young people's rights. It's politically pragmatic but it's hardly fair.
He used to do market research, focusing particularly on young people, what attracts them to particular brands, what values they wanted to see in consumer products, etc. He pointed out that nobody cares about youth issues except youth themselves. Teenagers might rail about not being able to vote or drink or how their schools treat them or how they are targeted by the police. But then they turn of age, leave school and they don't care about those issues anymore. In fact, young adults often put a great amount of distance between themselves and "youth" issues. I know there are adults who advocate for young people and they do great work but they are an exception, and usually paid for their advocacy.
Which is why governments can get away with clearly unconstitutional laws like these. By the time someone gathers up steam to launch a proper court challenge, which can take years, their age makes them stop caring; they move on to other things. There is not enough continuity to create a genuine movement.
Imagine if this law was applied to any other group that's protected by the Charter, which protects people from discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. For "under 21," imagine "men," "Protestants," or "Irish-Canadians." It could never happen. That's because these characteristics are (mostly) permanent and the affected individuals would stay affected for a long time, long enough to lobby against the law.
Youth is fleeting. Governments exploit that fact every time they take away young people's rights. It's politically pragmatic but it's hardly fair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)