[NEohioPAL]Berko review: Stratford, Canada Festival

[Roy Berko]

Stratford Festival not up to its expected excellence

Roy Berko
(Member, American Theatre Critics Association)

--THE TIMES NEWSPAPERS--
Lorain County Times--Westlaker Times--Lakewood News
Times--Olmsted-Fairview Times	


The Stratford Festival of Canada, in Stratford,
Ontario, Canada, is considered to be one of the best
repertory companies.  In past years, I have never left
the venue without seeing several outstanding
productions.
This year, of the five productions I saw, none was
outstanding, two were good (‘THE BLONDE, THE BRUNETTE
AND THE VENGEFUL REDHEAD’ and ‘HENRY IV  PART I’). 
One, (‘OLIVER’), which was an audience pleaser, was a
lesser production than I had expected.  Several others
(‘MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING’ and ‘CORIOLANUS’) were
sub-par.  The latter two were surprising, as they are
Shakespeare scripts which Stratford specializes in and
should be finely staged.  

To be fair, I didn’t see all of the shows offered. 
Canadian friends, whose evaluations I trust, saw
‘HARLEM DUET’ and were very impressed, and “enjoyed”
‘SOUTH PACIFIC.’   Local reviewer Tony Brown of the
Plain Dealer, who I met while at the Festival, saw
‘DUCHESS OF MALFI’ and commented favorably on the
creative staging.  Additional shows, which will open
later this summer include, ‘’TWELFTH NIGHT,’ ‘DON
JUAN,’ ‘GHOSTS,’ ‘FANNY KIMBLE,’ and ‘THE LIAR.’  


‘THE BLONDE, THE BRUNETTE AND THE VENGEFUL REDHEAD’

Australian playwright Robert Hewett’s ‘THE BLONDE, THE
BRUNETTE AND THE VENGEFUL REDHEAD’ is a one-women
show.  The actress must portray 7 uniquely different
characters aided only by costume and wigs changes. 
The persons range from a revenge driven woman, to a
young boy, to a cheating husband, to an elderly lady. 


In order for the play to work, an outstanding actress
must take on the role.  Fortunately, Stratford has
such an actress in the person of Lucy Peacock. 
Peacock is nothing short of outstanding in clearly
developing each of the characters.  

The story, which is a little preposterous and unhinged
in parts, concerns a suburban housewife whose husband
leaves her for another woman.  Rhonda, the wronged
wife, turns her angst against a woman who she
perceives is her husband’s mistress.  Unfortunately,
through a series of quirky events, she attacks and
kills the wrong person.  The story is woven together
so that we hear from the husband, a neighbor, the
jilted woman’s best friend, the murdered woman, her
lesbian partner and their son, as well as the woman
herself.  

Anyone who appreciates superior acting should enjoy
this production.


‘HENRY THE IV, PART I’

‘HENRY THE IV, PART I’ is one of Shakespeare’s
historical plays.  Richard II has been overthrown by
King Henry IV.  He faces a rebellion.  His son, Prince
Hal, is more playboy then heir-apparent, much to
Richard’s dismay.  In cahoots with Falstaff, an
overweight scoundrel, Hal sows his wild oats until it
becomes time for him to act as a leader in a battle to
keep the throne.   We see, in his growth into manhood,
that Prince Hal, who eventually becomes Henry V, has
the potential for greatness.

The play has many delightful moments as well as many
dramatic ones.  Unfortunately, Richard Monette’s
direction is inconsistent.  Oft-times the play soars. 
At other points it drags.  

David Snelgrove makes for a good Prince Hall.  He is
both physically and performance believable.  James
Blendick is delightful as Sir John Falstaff.  Adam
O’Byrne, is nicely caustic as Henry Percy.   On the
other hand, Scott Wentworth does not clearly develop a
believable King Henry IV and some of the other
characters are often hard to understand and fail to
create clear characterizations.

The costumes and the music, which was specifically
written for the production, are excellent.

In spite of the strength of some of the parts, as a
whole, ‘HENRY THE IV, PART I’ is not a quality
production.


‘OLIVER!’

On June 30, 1960 I had one of my most memorable
theatrical experiences when, while visiting London,
England, I saw the world premiere performance of
Lionel Bart’s ‘OLIVER!’  I screamed and applauded at
curtain call after curtain call for the performances
of Ron Moody (Fagan), Georgia Brown (Nancy)  and David
Jones (Artful Dodger) who went on to fame as one of
the pop group, The Monkees.

The musical is based on Charles Dickens’ ‘OLIVER
TWIST.’   It is the story of a boy who, along with
other castoffs, endures the miseries of the orphanages
of England.  In the case of Oliver, however, as
happens in all good musical comedies, he is saved by a
wealthy man who turns out to be his grandfather. 
Filled with such wonderful songs as “Who Will Buy?,”
“Consider Yourself at Home,” “Where Is Love” and such
show stoppers as “I’ll Do Anything” and “You’ve Got to
Pick a Pocket or Two,” audiences leave the show
humming the score.

Because of my amazing first-nighter experience, I hold
productions of ‘OLIVER!’ to a high standard.  Though
an obvious audience pleaser, as witnessed by shrieks
of joy and a standing ovation, I did not think the
Stratford production, under the choreographic and
directing lead of Donna Feore, is as good a production
as should be done at the Stratford Festival.   

On the positive side, Blythe Wilson was excellent as
Nancy.  Her rendition of “As Long As He Needs Me” was
powerful.  Brad Rudy was a menacing Bill Sikes. Mary
Ellen Mahoney was a delightful Widow Corney and Bruce
Dow was fun as Mr. Bumble.  The vocal chorus was
excellent, as was the orchestra.

In his first-ever theatrical role, Tyler Pearse, has a
fine singing voice and the innocent look for the lead
role of Oliver, but fails give the character any
dimension.  His expressionless face, and uncertain
stage presence, lessened the effect of the character. 
(Yes, he is only 10 and this is his virgin role, but
his performance must be evaluated against others who
have played Oliver and his falls short of many.) 
Scott Beaudin has a nice singing voice and moves well,
but didn’t have the pizzazz needed for the role of the
Artful Dodger.   

The acceptable choreography was often not well
executed.  The biggest disappointment, however, was
the performance of Colm Feore as Fagin.  One of
Canada’s best known actors, his interpretation of the
cunning rogue just didn’t’ have the dimension needed
for the multi-faceted character.  The always
delightful “Reviewing the Situation” fell flat.  


 ’CORIOLANUS’


‘CORNIOLANUS,’ which was the last tragedy written by
Shakespeare, is another of his plays that illustrates
the strengths and weaknesses of heroes.  In this case,
Caius Martius is a successful warrior, but an
individual who can’t put aside his high personal and
ethical standards and understand that not all can live
by his ideals.   As a result of his perceived
arrogance, and because of the fear of church leaders
that his rise to power will diminish their influence,
crowds of commoners, who were at first loyal
followers, are persuaded through treachery to turn on
Martius.  Underlying the political issues is the role
of family, especially the roles of son and father,
which, again, is a common Shakespeare topic (think
Hamlet and his father).  In the end, as happens in all
of the Bard’s tragedies, the fatal flaw of the hero
turns out to the be the cause of his final
destruction.

Many, including writer T. S. Elliot, consider
‘CORIOLANUS’ to be Shakespeare’s greatest achievement.

The Stratford production is visually spectacular.  
Burning fires, metal statues, meaningful musical
bridges, period  correct costumes and well conceived
supporting props and scenery help create the right
mood.  Unfortunately, some of the performances do not
support the technical efforts.

Director Antoni Cimolino has sacrificed effect for
affect.  Shouting substitutes for meaning.  Overacting
and feigned characterizations buried many of
Shakespeare’s ideas.

Unfortunately, Colm Feore, as he did in his portrayal
of Fagin in ‘OLIVER!,’ misses the mark as Coriolanus. 
He shouts his way through the first act making many of
his speeches unintelligible.  He creates no empathy
for the character so, when he is threatened by the
deceitful church leaders, we care little for him or
about him. The screaming creates an illusion of
someone out of control.  This is not a man out of
control.  This is a man of deep conviction.  He knows
he is right and therefore dedicates himself to his
personal cause.  If only Feore had taken the lead of
Graham Abbey, who, as Tulus Aufidus, Coriolanus’s near
warrior equal, underplayed his role, thus creating a
person who is real rather than an overacted image.  

The second and third acts of the play were much better
than the first as Feore ceased screaming and became
more intelligible and developed a somewhat more
believable character.

Paul Soles, in the key role of Meneius, was
unbelievable in his role.  On the other hand, Martha
Henry, as Martius’s mother, was excellent as were Don
Carrier and Bernard Hopkins as the conniving church
leaders.


‘MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING’

‘MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING’ is one of Shakespeare’s most
oft-done comedies.  Having some of the same caustic
dialogue as “TAMING OF THE SHREW,’ the play centers on
the battle of the sexes as Beatrice and Benedick wage
a merry war of words and insults as they move toward
their inevitable mating.   

An underlying subplot is one of supposed betrayal as
the beautiful Hero is accused of having an affair by
Claudio, her betrothed, because of rumors thrust
forward by a shunned suitor.   The entire conflict
comes to a happy ending when the bumbling
Malaprop-speaking Constable Dogberry, and his merry
band of keystone cops, accidentally foil the plot
against Hero.

The Stratford Festival’s production is acceptable, but
not what it should be.  There is some shallow acting,
the pace is quite slow and some of the delight of the
script is missing.  On the other hand, the costumes
are beautiful and the musical interludes are fine.   

Robert Persichini is delightful as Dogberry.  He
beautifully bumbles through his lines.  Diane D’Aquila
is quite humorous as Hero’s maid.  Though they are
very acceptable, Lucy Peacock (Beatrice) and Peter
Donaldson (Benedick) aren’t as sharp-tongued as they
could be so that their accepting their joined destiny
doesn’t bring about the fully delightful wrap-up that
might be expected.  

Part of the problem with the staging may have been
caused by the departure of the show’s original
director, Stephen Quimette, to be replaced by Marti
Maraden.  The change of directors may have caused the
lack of a unified concept.

CAPSULE JUDGEMENT:  All in all, from the productions I
saw, I would have to declare that this is not a
stellar year for the Stratford Festival.  There are
just too many weak productions to balance off the
several good ones.

If I was going to the Stratford Festival later this
summer or fall, and I enjoyed superb acting, I’d see
Lucy Peacock’s performance in ‘THE BLONDE, THE
BRUNETTE AND THE VENGEFUL REDHEAD.  In spite of its
weaknesses, ‘OLIVER’ will entertain most viewers.  If
you decide to do a Shakespeare, the production of
‘MUCH ADO  ABOUT NOTHING’ should entertain all except
the most sophisticated theatre-goer..

For recommendations on accommodations, restaurants and
shopping go to my website, (www.royberko.info) and
click on the 2006 reviews segment and then the
Stratford and Shaw previews entry.


Roy Berko's web page can be found at www.royberko.info.  His theatre and dance reviews appear on NeOHIOpal, an on-line source.   To subscribe to this free service via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.fredsternfeld.com/mailman/listinfo/neohiopal.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com