✭✭✭✩✩ / ✭✭✭✭✩

by the Soulpepper Ensemble

Soulpepper Theatre Company, Young Centre, Toronto

May 9-June 22, 2011

Soulpepper is currently presenting a double bill of two extraordinarily creative theatre pieces developed by its Academy.  Since the first, (re)Birth: E.E. Cummings in Song is entirely musical and the second, Window on Toronto is entire visual and verbal, the two complement each other nicely.  While the inventiveness and sheer talent of the ensemble is never in doubt, one might question the use of too large a venue for such small-scale works as well as the overall conception of the first.

Both pieces were presented as workshops in 2009 in the 75-seat Tank House Theatre at the Young Centre.  This venue is really the perfect match for them in terms of size.  The difficulty with the Tank House is that its seating has a centre aisle, which in both cases, especially for Window, is really the ideal seating location.  The 207-seat Michael Young Theatre, without a centre aisle, has been altered by removing the stage platform and by excluding a number of seats at the sides which would have poor visibility.  Since the action of (re)Birth takes place under a small square awning centre stage and since all the action in Window must be viewed literally through a 4’6” window  on stage, a far larger number of seats should be blocked off as unsuitable than is presently the case.  Or, these less-than-ideal seats should be sold at a discounted price.  For the view only the middle third of the rows are ideal and only the first seven rows.

In (re)Birth we see the ten member cast enter what is meant to look like an impromptu stage under an awning held up my four poles.  All the light comes from the lights on stage.  And for the costumes Ken MacKenzie, who designed the set and lighting, had clad the troupe in a crazy mix-and-match style that looks like an explosion in a Goodwill Store.  Many of the players wear paper hats and some play toy instruments which gives the show a attitude of innocence mixed with whimsy and mischief--fundamental elements of the eccentric poetry of e.e. cummings (1894-1962), who spelt his name in all lower case long before it was trendy to do so.

The show consists of seventeen poems of cummings set to music by the troupe and sung by them in various combinations.  The styles range from 1920s cabaret, to 1940s bebop, hymns, blues, country-and-western and modern takes on all of these.  Musically it is simply delightful.  Mike Ross, the music director, who also “facilitated and managed” the show, deserves much credit for cleverly allowing the songs to blend into each other and for creating tangy juxtapositions from one to the next.

The main problem is that all of the songs are strophic and thus are forced to cram cummings’ poetry into stanzas whether they fit or not.  Not surprisingly, the song that work the best like “Humanity i love you”, “nobody loses” or “anyone lived” have already have a songlike format and have refrains.  Otherwise, the main characteristic of cummings’ verse is his unexpected use of language.  One of the poems used is “Buffalo Bill’s”:

    Buffalo Bill 's

    defunct

                         who used to

                         ride a watersmooth-silver

                                                            stallion

    and break onetwothreefourfive pigeonsjustlikethat

   

                                                                                                                            Jesus

    he was a handsome man

                                                                and what i want to know is

    how do you like your blueeyed boy

    Mister Death

How exactly is a strophic song supposed to capture its use of     space     , the wordscrammedtogether and its punctuationlessness?  The related problem is that what makes cummings’ language so attractive is his constant use of words in unusual contexts.  The poem “anyone lived” has the line “he sang his didn’t and he danced his did”.  The result is that cummings’ poetry bursts with far more information than than the popular song format can possibly capture.  While the music is highly enjoyable, it is almost impossible to understand what the singers are singing since they rush through all the eccentricities of cummings’ style and word choice. 

The poems that the ensemble has chosen deal with love, marriage and death, but, despite the title, Ross has not arranged the songs so that they combine to form even a crazy-quilt view of a life.  While we admire the inventiveness of the ever changing orchestration and the talent and enthusiasm of the cast who both sing and play instruments, we can’t help but wonder if cummings’ was really the best poet to use as a basis for popular-style songs.  Having just heard H.K. Gruber’s fantastic setting of nursery rhymes in his Frankenstein!! (1976), three night earlier, I couldn’t help but think that if the Academy had used far simpler poetry, it would have achieve a far greater effect.   

Directed by László Marton, Window on Toronto is an amazing feat of pure theatre.  The window of the title is that of Jason (Jason Patrick Rothery), a hot dog vendor situated in Nathan Phillips Square.  For 45 minutes the other eight members of the ensemble go through nearly 300 costumes in split-second quick changes to play a city-full of people.  Each person gives us glimpse of a larger story--but only a glimpse--and then is gone.  Reappearing characters give the piece some cohesion and we naturally incline to remember them more than the ones to flit by only once.  A clear audience favourite is Ins Choi as an English-deficient Korean new to the city who views Jason as his “friend” just because Jason has been nice to him.  Scattered throughout the general mayhem we watch as he finally finds a girlfriend.  Trish Lindström is hilarious in two completely different role.  In one she is hip friend of Jason’s who just drops by to gossip.  In the other is is a little old lady who quietly reminds Jason at every visit of the store that used to stand just where his van is parked.  Gregory Prest makes an impression as a bicyclist who is deeply suspicious about Jason or his van, and Karen Rae is very funny as a little girl who obviously has a crush on Jason.  Much of the show’s humour derives from Rothery’s deadpan delivery of his lines to freak show that drops by his window.

Despite the fact that the show was developed by the artists observing actual interactions in Toronto, the show strangely does not capture anything truly specific to Toronto.  We see a multiculturally diverse population of all ages and classes, but you would see the same thing at London’s Covent Garden or Berlin’s Alexanderplatz.  Where are the references to sports teams, bilingualism, universal health care, etc. that would situate the action only in Toronto?  Some of the appearance are too unbelievable, like the American tourist asking for directions to the Vatican.  Nevertheless, it’s recreation of a slice of life is sheer ebullient fun-- especially if you can sit close enough to have a good view through a rather small window.                

©Christopher Hoile

Note: This review is a Stage Door exclusive.

Photo: Ins Choi, Brendan Wall, Jason Patrick Rothery, Mike Ross, Karen Rae.

©2011 Sian Richards.