Last night Ryan and I ventured out in the wet weather to take in a show about wetness of another kind. And happily we left feeling theatrically quenched. (I promised that is the last of the water puns.) Right from the start the show was captivating, and a great reminder of how good
Urinetown really is. Both Ryan and I had seen the show before. I, in San Francisco at ACT where the first touring company premiered, and Ryan saw it here at
CanStage. The
CanStage production got such great reviews many felt it was better than the original New York production. Needless-to-say we have quality standards for this show. In fact Ryan turned to me just before the start and asked if we were prepared in case it was a butcher job. And let me just say looking at the set I was afraid.
I'd like to get the unpleasantness out of the way first because in the end we really like this production. But, I don't understand why, and particularly with U of T amateur productions, everyone builds really literal sets that ultimately do not work, and look bad. In this case the set made us wonder if the designer thought the show was called
Fecestown. Not good.
The use of an overwhelming amount of dry wall, to represent city structures and the public amenities that are so vital to the plot, covered in brown splotchy paint was so visually unpleasant and not necessary. And yes, looked like feces. And the sad thing about it was that in one section of this wall was a huge hole covered over with what I would describe as 12inch by 2inch fence slating. It was supposed to look like a crack in the wall, which it did, and was meant to add to the derelict feel of the place. But which also gave me the vision of how much better the set would have looked if they had used the wood slating over the frame and skipped the shit brown dry wall, giving the set a more minimalistic feel. It would have allowed the director to use more of the structure in the action and staging. Not to mention, more of the stage. And the slates would have been visually interesting and denoted a downtrodden environment without having to be covered in crap. But instead set designer Luke Sutherland went in a very obvious direction and executed it poorly. The set also had the unfortunate side effect of pushing all of the action too far downstage for my liking.
The flaws with the set only exacerbated my other only problem with the show and that was lighting. I don't want to go on and on about it, suffice it to say that it was awful. Actors were constantly out of the light and the whole lighting arrangement was sloppy and boring. So much so, that there was spill during a third of the scenes on a black light box above the stage, which was so distracting, particularly when the actors made use of the second tier of the set. But in my opinion the bad technical impact of these was totally nullified by this show, and in many ways this production was wonderful. Here is what worked
Meria Gold's choreography, to me, and I am a tough dance critic, was perfect. It was clean, really utilized the stage and took account of the dance level of the cast. The choreography was interesting and appropriate for the show. And there were definitely some unexpected moments. "Don't be the Bunny," a quirky number towards the end of the first act was particularly memorable. She utilized shapes and levels and kept it campy and fun. Really well done.
I also really liked a lot the physical comedy choices made by both director, Neil
Silcox, and by the actors. In particularly Melanie
Lamoureux as Hope
Cladwell and Amanda Whitney as Little Sally shone in this regard, and added a lot to the
Show's energy. Other highlights in the cast were Officer
Lockstock, who I liked but Ryan was on the fence about. In my opinion that role is all about energy and a commanding presence. Both of which I felt Andrew
Dundass, who played
Lockstock had. Ryan felt he lacked a physical embodiment of the role, but I thought he was focused and consistent. Andrew
Knowlton as Bobby Strong was well cast and had all of the boyish and endearing qualities a Bobby should have. But to me Matthew Tremain as Caldwell B
Cladwell stole the show. His scenes and songs of evil plotting with Joey
Unnold's, perfectly slimy Senator
Flipp, and the rest of the Ur-in-Good Company ensemble were the strongest of the production. Overall I thought the casting was spot on. And Ryan and I were impressed by the staging.
Vocally it seemed many of the leads suffered from tired voices, but I am a firm believer that strong actors can sing anything. And this
Show's music while entertaining is not It's strongest element anyway. The men appeared to be more vocally affected than the women and there were definitely some cringe worthy notes. On the
womens' side I was underwhelmed initially by Natalie
Kulesza as Ms.
Pennywise but she grew on me, and was one of Ryan's favourites. What really impressed me in the music department was how well the cast sounded as an ensemble. The harmonies were well balanced and the orchestra while not perfect added to the show rather than detracted. Sound which can often let musicals down was happily not a major issue here.
There were however, a few directorial choices that I questioned. And overall while I liked the staging I wonder how much impact
Silcox had on his obviously talented cast. Particularly there was a female ensemble member who should have been reigned in because her vocal affectation competed with Little Sally, and became jarring. There were also some character connections that were not clearly defined and I think could have benefited from a stronger direction. Particularly the relationship between
Pennywise and the
Cladwells.
All in all after seeing
Urinetown I felt it was one of the better productions I have seen at Hart House, and I think, the best production I have seen of the
UC Follies. The Follies are definitely the most premiere company at U of T and I have seen all of their shows going back to
A Chorus Line six seasons ago. What made this the best, was its evenness in quality and talent. And hands down the best show choice since
UC did Evita, the only Andrew L.
Webber worth Its salt, in my book. In years past the Follies have done either bad shows,
Nine, over-the-top shock, Rocky Horror, or just plain wrong A Chorus Line, and Urinetown provided a nice departure from those. I only wish they could have generated a larger audience for their great production. Low turn out might be in part due to saturation, Victoria College did Urinetown two seasons ago but the Follies have the power to bring in a lot larger audience and a wider range of talent.
On that note, I would like to conclude with a question as to why the Follies continue to outsource talent in such an extreme way? I mean I don't have a problem with any of the casting choices as I said, based on talent. But if I was a UC student I would definitely wonder why I am funding a show full of Sheridan and Randolph grads? That aside, fully entertaining and Ryan and I, as we walked home agreed that when the lights are the biggest problem, you know you've got a pretty good show on your hands.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
