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?
Showing posts with label festival. Show all posts
Showing posts with label festival. Show all posts
Monday, August 09, 2010
Saturday, June 05, 2010
What's really been in and out of the parade
There's been so much vigorous (acrimonious?) debate over whether the group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) should be allowed to march in Toronto's Pride parade, there's been little I felt I could add. But it's dawned on me today that both sides have been making not-quite-right statements about the parade's history.
As someone who's watched every parade since 2000 from beginning to end (Oy! I know! I'll never get those hours back!), I wanted to add some facts to the mix.
Several times I've read city councillor Kyle Rae implying that the content in the parade has historically been queer-specific. "What they were doing is bringing in another issue into a queer community event," he told the Globe And Mail.
Well, in past parades, I've seen anti-meat signage, anti-fur signage, "Free Tibet" signage, anti-Catholic signage and anti-Pope signage (more on the Pope in a moment). Is it true to assume Pride messaging is always positive or, if negative, aimed only at those who oppress LGBT people? Tell that to the Latin American Coalition Against Racism that marched in 2000 or the people from Gays Liberation Against the Right Everywhere who, with Rae, founded Pride Toronto in 1981. Or the marchers in 1999 who chanted "Homelessness is a national disgrace."
The 2001 parade included Jewish Women Against The Occupation and people with signs stating "Bi Babes say screw the FTAA!"
All of these causes are debatable, some of them controversial. None are queer-specific. Neither is nudism, really--I've heard that even straight people are naked under their clothes--but nobody has questioned the desire of the group Totally Naked Men Enjoying Nudity (TNT!MEN) to march in the parade, even as they've questioned their right to. (As an aside: One of the criticisms I've heard levelled against QuAIA is that they're nothing but attention-seekers. Uhhh, it's a parade. Everybody who wants to be in a parade is an attention-seeker. It's the single common denominator of parade participants.)
The Toronto parade I've witnessed (endured?) has historically operated with the assumption that queer people who have what I'll call "generic" interests are permitted to, er, expose them in the parade. I haven't done a statistical breakdown, but I would bet that at least 25 percent of parade participants are queer people expressing generic interests, from their religion to their admiration for CBC radio to their distaste of the current government, whoever that might be. It's understandable that Councillor Rae has missed this; he's spent more time in the parade--and in the early days organizing the parade--than watching it. But the parade I've watched glide down Yonge Street year after year has never been a single voice speaking with a single unified message; it's a cacophony. If something in it doesn't make you uncomfortable, you're not paying enough attention.
Now, although the gayness of TNT!MEN's exhibitionist tendencies have not been questioned, their right to participate in the parade has. When Pride's executive director Tracey Sandilands talks about the words "Israeli Apartheid" making attendees "uncomfortable," she seems to be forgetting or ignoring the discomfort TNT!MEN's weenies have caused over the years. In the early 2000s, there were complaints about them almost every year. Prior to joining in the parade in 1999, then mayor Mel Lastman reportedly tried to pressure Pride organizers to get TNT!MEN to cover up. In the early 2000s, there were times when volunteer marshals at the staging grounds encouraged them to do so. Around that time, Pride adopted a semi-official hands-off policy with regard to nudity: organizers would pass on warnings from the police and inform participants that illegal behaviour would not be condoned. In 2002, police did arrest parade nudists, leading seven of them off in handcuffs, their asses still hanging out. The charges were eventually dropped and, as far as I know, neither the cops nor organizers have interfered with nudists in the parade since then. The nudists were never banned, but they have often been discouraged and, at the very least, were left to fend for themselves.
Which brings me to a not-quite-right claim I've been hearing from critics of Pride: that "Israeli Apartheid" is the first time Pride Toronto has censored something in the parade.
Actually, the kooky cult the Raelians were censored in the 2004 parade. They had brought signs that I believe criticized the Roman Catholic Pope, John Paul II, but I can't say for sure because the words on their signs (and they had a lot) were covered up with black tape and other makeshift coverings. The signs you could read said, "Not Allowed By Pride."
You could argue that the QuAIA case is the first time Pride has voted to censor a group, but, in a way, that's preferable to a last-minute crackdown because it opens debate prior to the event and allows the group time to challenge the decision. Also, at that time, Pride's board members, rather than paid staff, ran the festival. I don't know who called for or who approved the Raelian censorship, but I'm sure board members were either involved or close by. Nowadays, volunteers and paid staff can't be confident the board members will be on site to give such advice--the organic connection between community and organization has been severed by the professionalization of Pride, by money, so to speak--so the hands-on people obviously want these things settled before the event.
Regardless of whether a vote for censorship is better or worse than impromptu censorship, the bald fact of censorship has reared its head at Pride before.
Most of this information is available in the pre-2005 archives of Xtra.ca; my memory isn't that good.
As someone who's watched every parade since 2000 from beginning to end (Oy! I know! I'll never get those hours back!), I wanted to add some facts to the mix.
Several times I've read city councillor Kyle Rae implying that the content in the parade has historically been queer-specific. "What they were doing is bringing in another issue into a queer community event," he told the Globe And Mail.
Well, in past parades, I've seen anti-meat signage, anti-fur signage, "Free Tibet" signage, anti-Catholic signage and anti-Pope signage (more on the Pope in a moment). Is it true to assume Pride messaging is always positive or, if negative, aimed only at those who oppress LGBT people? Tell that to the Latin American Coalition Against Racism that marched in 2000 or the people from Gays Liberation Against the Right Everywhere who, with Rae, founded Pride Toronto in 1981. Or the marchers in 1999 who chanted "Homelessness is a national disgrace."
The 2001 parade included Jewish Women Against The Occupation and people with signs stating "Bi Babes say screw the FTAA!"
All of these causes are debatable, some of them controversial. None are queer-specific. Neither is nudism, really--I've heard that even straight people are naked under their clothes--but nobody has questioned the desire of the group Totally Naked Men Enjoying Nudity (TNT!MEN) to march in the parade, even as they've questioned their right to. (As an aside: One of the criticisms I've heard levelled against QuAIA is that they're nothing but attention-seekers. Uhhh, it's a parade. Everybody who wants to be in a parade is an attention-seeker. It's the single common denominator of parade participants.)
The Toronto parade I've witnessed (endured?) has historically operated with the assumption that queer people who have what I'll call "generic" interests are permitted to, er, expose them in the parade. I haven't done a statistical breakdown, but I would bet that at least 25 percent of parade participants are queer people expressing generic interests, from their religion to their admiration for CBC radio to their distaste of the current government, whoever that might be. It's understandable that Councillor Rae has missed this; he's spent more time in the parade--and in the early days organizing the parade--than watching it. But the parade I've watched glide down Yonge Street year after year has never been a single voice speaking with a single unified message; it's a cacophony. If something in it doesn't make you uncomfortable, you're not paying enough attention.
Now, although the gayness of TNT!MEN's exhibitionist tendencies have not been questioned, their right to participate in the parade has. When Pride's executive director Tracey Sandilands talks about the words "Israeli Apartheid" making attendees "uncomfortable," she seems to be forgetting or ignoring the discomfort TNT!MEN's weenies have caused over the years. In the early 2000s, there were complaints about them almost every year. Prior to joining in the parade in 1999, then mayor Mel Lastman reportedly tried to pressure Pride organizers to get TNT!MEN to cover up. In the early 2000s, there were times when volunteer marshals at the staging grounds encouraged them to do so. Around that time, Pride adopted a semi-official hands-off policy with regard to nudity: organizers would pass on warnings from the police and inform participants that illegal behaviour would not be condoned. In 2002, police did arrest parade nudists, leading seven of them off in handcuffs, their asses still hanging out. The charges were eventually dropped and, as far as I know, neither the cops nor organizers have interfered with nudists in the parade since then. The nudists were never banned, but they have often been discouraged and, at the very least, were left to fend for themselves.
Which brings me to a not-quite-right claim I've been hearing from critics of Pride: that "Israeli Apartheid" is the first time Pride Toronto has censored something in the parade.
Actually, the kooky cult the Raelians were censored in the 2004 parade. They had brought signs that I believe criticized the Roman Catholic Pope, John Paul II, but I can't say for sure because the words on their signs (and they had a lot) were covered up with black tape and other makeshift coverings. The signs you could read said, "Not Allowed By Pride."
You could argue that the QuAIA case is the first time Pride has voted to censor a group, but, in a way, that's preferable to a last-minute crackdown because it opens debate prior to the event and allows the group time to challenge the decision. Also, at that time, Pride's board members, rather than paid staff, ran the festival. I don't know who called for or who approved the Raelian censorship, but I'm sure board members were either involved or close by. Nowadays, volunteers and paid staff can't be confident the board members will be on site to give such advice--the organic connection between community and organization has been severed by the professionalization of Pride, by money, so to speak--so the hands-on people obviously want these things settled before the event.
Regardless of whether a vote for censorship is better or worse than impromptu censorship, the bald fact of censorship has reared its head at Pride before.
Most of this information is available in the pre-2005 archives of Xtra.ca; my memory isn't that good.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Hardly surprising
Strange how it's not legal to discriminate in law but in cash, well, the Tories run a slightly more segregated ship. Can anybody say "sponsorship scandal"? The key difference seems to be that the Liberals showed preferential treatment to certain Quebec ridings while the Conservatives show contempt for LGBT Canadians.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
The Tories & Pride
I swear. It's not like Ablonczy used any of the words in the LGBT lexicon when she was handing over the money. She must have some kind of plausible deniability. Can't she claim she thought Pride was a casino?
But seriously. Either there is a set of criteria for the federal tourism money or it is a pork-barrel program where MPs pick and choose who gets what. This kerfuffle, and the treatment of poor Diane Ablonczy, suggests that latter, which should be far more embarrassing for any legitimate government than the complaints of a few rightwingers.
If there are criteria--and I'm sure there must be--it would be hard to imagine Pride Toronto, with its size and economic impact, being excluded for any reason other than discrimination based on sexual orientation which, the last time I looked, was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Either way, it makes the Conservatives look very, very bad. Pork barrellers or anti-Charter discriminators. Take your pick.
But seriously. Either there is a set of criteria for the federal tourism money or it is a pork-barrel program where MPs pick and choose who gets what. This kerfuffle, and the treatment of poor Diane Ablonczy, suggests that latter, which should be far more embarrassing for any legitimate government than the complaints of a few rightwingers.
If there are criteria--and I'm sure there must be--it would be hard to imagine Pride Toronto, with its size and economic impact, being excluded for any reason other than discrimination based on sexual orientation which, the last time I looked, was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Either way, it makes the Conservatives look very, very bad. Pork barrellers or anti-Charter discriminators. Take your pick.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
More Fringe notes
We're almost at the end of the "debut days" at the Toronto Fringe Festival--I have just one more show Saturday afternoon and I'll have done my reviewing duties. A few thoughts.
* The techies are an unforgiving bunch. Says one in the beer garden. "There was this one show today and they asked me for chairs! Chairs! What do they think this is? Are they going to be asking me for costumes next?" Then she started talking about what techies would do if they ran the world. I expected it to sound like Fascism, but it was more about some kind of automated lighting system.
* Most obvious piece of dialogue today: "Life is so... alive."
* Thursday's best line: "Nobody likes the aging divorcee but everyone loves a widow."
* If there is a choice between a no-name act that seems to come from a place of passion and an act with a few "professionals" on its roster--references to L.A. or London in the program bios, for example--always take the amateurs. Big egos spell indifferent work ethic and you have to wonder: If you're doing so well in L.A., why are you in the Fringe?
* In a similar vein, I am often left wondering about what it takes to make something "entertaining." I've seen plays that have been workshopped, dramaturged, workshopped again, performed and directed by trained theatre professionals that have been vastly less entertaining that somebody just hopping on stage and telling funny stories. I suppose if Hollywood hasn't figured it out, the chances I will are slim.
* Past Fringe success is an unreliable indicator of what this year's show will be like. The best expectations are no expectations.
* The techies are an unforgiving bunch. Says one in the beer garden. "There was this one show today and they asked me for chairs! Chairs! What do they think this is? Are they going to be asking me for costumes next?" Then she started talking about what techies would do if they ran the world. I expected it to sound like Fascism, but it was more about some kind of automated lighting system.
* Most obvious piece of dialogue today: "Life is so... alive."
* Thursday's best line: "Nobody likes the aging divorcee but everyone loves a widow."
* If there is a choice between a no-name act that seems to come from a place of passion and an act with a few "professionals" on its roster--references to L.A. or London in the program bios, for example--always take the amateurs. Big egos spell indifferent work ethic and you have to wonder: If you're doing so well in L.A., why are you in the Fringe?
* In a similar vein, I am often left wondering about what it takes to make something "entertaining." I've seen plays that have been workshopped, dramaturged, workshopped again, performed and directed by trained theatre professionals that have been vastly less entertaining that somebody just hopping on stage and telling funny stories. I suppose if Hollywood hasn't figured it out, the chances I will are slim.
* Past Fringe success is an unreliable indicator of what this year's show will be like. The best expectations are no expectations.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Fringe phrasing
I just had to share the best line I've heard so far in the Fringe, though I think its hilarity was inadvertent.
Gansta to his high-school-attending sister, while giving her drugs to retail (The sister happens to be prostituting her best friend): Let me pimp the bitch!
Sister: I'm not comfortable with that.
Eye Weekly's Fringe review site is here and my review of Lockdown is here.
Gansta to his high-school-attending sister, while giving her drugs to retail (The sister happens to be prostituting her best friend): Let me pimp the bitch!
Sister: I'm not comfortable with that.
Eye Weekly's Fringe review site is here and my review of Lockdown is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)