Review From The House: The 21st Floor
The 21st Floor
Written and Staged by Michelle Lonsdale Smith
PAL Theatre
The Lyric Stage Project Ensemble
Nov 11 - 22, 2008
Anthony Ulc as Martin Best and Graem Beddoes as Kenny Gibson in Lyric Stage Project's The 21st Floor. Photo by Wendy D.
Vancouver, BC.
There are times when I wonder if I actually inhabit a parallel universe and it is an alternate me that is seeing and hearing the folks around me. Either that or I watched so many episodes of Dharma and Greg that I morphed from a Greg-ette into Dharma. You know, put all that "uptightness" into a bubble and just let it float away! So now I smile a lot, don't yell at theTV news or swear when I read the newspaper, and love my neighbours.
Before you think - "she's finally flipped out - must have been seeing too much theatre " - let me explain.
On Sunday I saw The 21st Floor, a new ensemble piece developed by the members of Lyric Stage Project. This was the "industry night" talk-back and the PAL Theatre was full. We were told that this is an evolving piece and invited to participate post-show by providing feed back on the concept and the theme.
As part of the idea of encouraging interaction, the audience was allowed to explore the set constructed with astounding attention to detail, by Grant Windsor. Doors opened by swipe cards lined the corridor of the 21st floor. They led into small furnished apartments. LIghting by Jim Wenting, video design by Andy Thompson for televisions and security cameras, and Rylan Kerbes' music and sound design really made this feel like an authentic floor in a high rise complex. Kudos to technical director Nicholas Timmenga, stage manager Jill Perry and their crew.
Coming and going via elevator, were the denizens of the floor. As I saw the set, the first apartment on my right was occupied by Kenny (Graem Beddoes), relative newcomer to the floor and desperate to make friends. Next was Alex (Anna Williams), angry young addicted cell phone-misplacing "kept" woman; then Martin (Anthony Ulc), angry young failed writer/professor (I think): then Dan (Nick Hunnings) - angry young building manager and son of the owner; then Rachel (Nadine Wright) angry young porn-watching lawyer. Next were Adam (Chris Bradford) - angry young partner of David (Ryan Hesp) who becomes angry when he realizes he may actually have to support himself. The room on the extreme left is occupied by Craig (Stephen Park) angry young blogger/podcaster. In the supposedly unoccupied room next to him a mysterious lady in white, cat lady, peers through a telescope. I think this is Beatrice (Eliza Norbury) but as you can see - with all those characters it became a bit confusing - for me at any rate. Elyse Levesque plays a hooker, Warren Low a drug dealer and Matt Ward flits, tumbles and capers through the dark set like a .... well in response to a "what was that supposed to be" question, audience members came up with suggestions like "the spirit of the floor", "the thing that pulls us all togther", "the energy". Hmm.... Not a sympathetic character among them. Well, except for Nathalie Therriault's Sylvie, who cleaned the place in exchange for being allowed to sleep in a closet. She was the only person who could actually connect to anyone else in a normal way.
In the spirit of entering into the discussion as was asked of the audience so that this work can be developed further, this commentary may seem unduly harsh but it is offered as constructive criticism. And I will publish rebuttals and comments that may be posted. So feel free to have your say. Here is my take.
The underlying idea for this play has great potential. Lonsdale Smith asked her ensemble to think about "what it would take to get the citizens of Vancouver to truly talk to each other and to easily engage with strangers and neighbours." Through a collaborative workshop process, the characters were created, and then developed by her into the work that we saw. It may been a fun process but It did not work on stage for me. With the exception of the podcaster blogger, all the other characters were more cliche than archetype. Who would actually want to get to know any of them? The overwhelming emotions in the air were alienation and anger, anger, anger. They all needed Dharma's bubble. Kenny's resolution to his problem came out of the blue. Is that what it takes to make people talk to each other? The net result was that I found most of the characters in the play trite or not credible. I thought the character of Craig was the most interesting in the sense of representing contemporary plugged in (or wired) city inhabitant and that the Adam/David story rang true for many contemporary relationships regardless of gender. But no one made me care.
I felt that this play does not need to be "staged." It needs a director with a firm hand and a ruthless red pencil. The pacing was far too slow and the story dragged on forever. Towards the end I found myself watching the restless stirrings of other audience members rather than the action on the stage. Even my usually patient companion became twitchy and disengaged from the story.
That being said, we both agreed that the talk back was most interesting. And this brings me back to my point about living in an alternate universe. Having been rebuked in my Rants, Raves and Reviews days for two grumpy reviews of plays that respectively portrayed a group of welfare moms as lying, thieving and promiscuous, and glorified lazy, drug abusing teenagers, (see "Critics critiqued, Reviewers Reviled"), I acknowledge that my perspective is that of a "mature, retired professional, comfortably housed, adequately fed and part of a supportive family and social network." However, as I spoke up in the talk back session, my philosophy is that personal responsibility trumps rights. I can't blame others for not greeting me as Martin does in the play, if I won't greet them first. And why would my neighbours want to get to know me if I don't want to know them?
So the alternate universe. My Vancouver is not alienating and isolating. I moved into a large condo complex a couple of years ago. I knew no one. A small group of people took the initiative of organizing quarterly parties, a film club, a book club, a cycle group, a hockey group. We have an on-line newsletter, a Facebook group. The complex has developed into a small community where neighbours help each other out. We greet each other in elevators. Some one had to make the first move. But others have to respond.
Feel free to comment, on line or off line to gillian@reviewfromthehouse.com and check out that RR&R post.
Comments
School Plays and Reviews
Hi Gillian,
I have some thoughts I want to share with you after reading your column on the 21st Floor and the attached bit on Reviewers and Critics. Of course, my view point is as an audience member who works in theatre.
I walked into last Tuesday nights packed show at PAL fully prepared for a workshop show from a company that specializes in actor training. I do the much the same thing prior to going to a show at UBC or Studio 58. I know, without having to think too much about it, that UBC has a full staff of highly trained and experienced people who specialize in performance, set design and construction, dramaturgy etc. I know that everything they do is well funded and focused on providing their students with an instrument to gain exposure and experience. So, I just did the same thing heading into this Lyric show at PAL. I knew the actors would probably be well prepared in the Lyric curriculum with a new-unproven play. I just knew that the play would be full of little vignettes consisting of opportunities for the students of Lyric to show their stuff. Correctly or incorrectly, I assumed that Lyric is in the business of preparing actors for work where the money is, that being film and television. That is why they are considered a success on the level they are. But I went in expecting the evening to be filled with fragmented and isolated moments for the actors, because that is my impression of what they do. To my knowledge, Lyric doesn’t have a playwrighting and dramaturgy section. And pacing is heavily weighted on the editors in post-production in film and tv. So, I cannot say I was disappointed. Having spent countless hours on film sets, I found myself imagining the calls of “rolling”, “action” and “cut” being yelled out and it all made more sense. And I go to theatre for the actors. The stage could have been an empty space with the actors in blacks with only lights to indicate the separate areas and I would have got what I came for. In a perfect world, every set piece, prop and costume choice is added only to augment the performances. But that’s me. And Robert LePage tends to bore me, so what do I know?
My second thought was about the attached article that mentions the difference between a Critic and a Reviewer. My take on that question is as follows: A Critic’s job is to analyse what is being presented as a piece of collaborative art. The Reviewer’s job is to discuss their experience as a audience member wanting to be caught up in the story and presentation of it. Subtle as the differences may be, our job, as the storytellers, is to turn every Critic into a Reviewer.
Just like the presenters of theatre, they too have an audience and must provide them with a complete article to read. So, just like every other seat in the theatre, all we can do is endeavour to provide that person with an experience filled with engaging moments that flow and keep them out of their head and their eyes on the narrative unfolding on stage. The more we do that, the more the Critic will be influenced by the emotions they experienced and the closer we get to turning them into a Reviewer.
We will never turn them into a publicity (or ego building) machine for us because their audience would lose trust in them. Besides, we constantly hear that the most valuable aspect of live theatre is the impact and discussion created in the community about the work we do. While Momma Mia may be enjoyed by the masses, the smaller companies tackling social issues get people thinking and talking. So, we could be universally celebrating that our work is being discussed by anyone.
Congrats on the new site. I am enjoying it.
Seán Cummings
Works in Progress versus theatrical production
Seán, thank you for your thoughtful commentary. Your differentiation between Critic and Reviewer is interesting. I guess by your criteria I would be more reviewer than critic since my view is clearly that of someone who wants to be deeply engaged by the story, the characters and the ideas.
From my discussions with people who are not theatre professionals, they read reviews because they want to get an idea as to whether they are likely to be engaged and entertained, bored or shocked. So as well as the general idea of what it is about, they are interested in my reaction to the work. That's why I think it is important that my readers know up front my slant on life and can judge how relevant my opinion is likely to be to them.
With respect to a work shop show, if it is billed as such that is what I wold expect to see, and my reviews would have been posted in the Works in Progress section. But Lyric's own description is that the work we were seeing is "the culmination of ... a construction process that built this experience from the ground up." I therefore evaluated what I saw as a new piece of theatre - and concluded there were areas where it needed a lot of work. Like plot, character and pacing.
I hope that members of the Lyric Stage Pproject will enter this discussion by posting their comments. It would be great to hear their thoughts.