None of the 'pros' seem to be writing reviews of the world premiere of "A Bright Particular Star", at Pacific Theatre till June 3 (end of season fatigue?), so I'll try my amateur hand.
Ron Reed's play examines the muted but moving ascension of Lilia MacDonald onto the British, Victorian era stage. Lilia was the daughter of noted author-theologian and minister George MacDonald, who encouraged Lilia's aspirations as long as they didn't get out of hand. (That's God's apparently restrictive hand.) The play opens with father and daughter playing Macbeth and Lady Macbeth in a spirited but amateur 'theatrical'. But, whereas George is somewhat stiff and overdone, Lilia is luminous, and 'catches the bug', desiring to go on the 'real' stage, despite a societal bias which sees actresses as two (or three) steps up from, let's just say, 'ladies of the night'. So Lilia suffers some strong resistance to her dreams from her father and others, and she faces a faith dilemma: will she be true to her father's beliefs or to that part of her God-given soul which compels her to act? Lilia happily, is not one to be thwarted. Along comes romance in the form of Charlie Granet de la Rue, who seems to be the saviour-protector-provider of all Lilia's hopes. They become engaged and, for a time, things appear idyllic. I won't give any more plot away, but it is a moving story, of interest to anyone who has ever loved the arts and dreamed of a career, whether it is possible or realistic or truly encouraged, or not.
In the title role, Rebecca deBoer shines with appropriate luminosity, and convinces us that, given different circumstances, this was a star that might have shone in the sphere of Kate Terry (who appears in the play), Ellen Terry (her sister), and Henry Irving. There are a number of other affecting performances including Ryan Hoke as Charlie (he occasionally reminded me of a young Olivier), Jacqui Hoke as Lilia's troubled friend and fellow actress, Lori Kokotailo as Kate Terry, Stephen Waldschmidt (also the set designer and publicist!) as Lilia's supportive brother, Greville, and Kerri Norris as Lilia's mother, Louisa. Dan Amos does some hilarious doubling as Mark Twain and Lewis Carroll, and Kathleen Parsons is strong as Virenda Granet de la Rue, Charlie's granite-like aunt. Absolutely everyone, most of all Ron Reed as director, does their best to make this little gem shine. And the costumes alone (by Nicole Bach) are worth the price of admission. Go see it if you love the theatre. It made me happy and proud to do what I do (acting), similar to the way I felt when I saw the film "Stage Beauty".
There, that wasn't so hard. But I wouldn't want to do it six days a week!
Donald Adams
BPS review
Thanks for writing that review, Donald. I have a high regard for Pacific's work and often attend, but as I was working myself, I wasn't sure I was going to get to this one. Having read your review, however, I used my one night off to catch it before it closed and was very glad I did.
Diana Sandberg
************************
Of course I believe in free will; I have no choice. ---I.B.Singer
Posted by Diana Sandberg
cudos and cvetches TM
I've been considering whether, in my last comment, entitled "BMT Review", I should have said:"Cynicism and 'hipness' are the black leather and shades which MAY cloak emotional shallowness and intellectual laziness." I think that's better, but my edit yesterday didn't stick, and I seem to have now lost the edit option on the comment altogether. So you can have the sweeping and inflammatory original or the more considered revision above. Original or extra crispy?
But that's not what I originally wanted to write about. "Cudos" to 7/13 Productions and Pablo Productions presentation of David Gow's "Cherry Docs" which closed last night, following a three week run, without receiving a review (as far as I saw) from any of 'the usual suspects'. (Where have all the flowers gone?) So you can guess who the "cvetches" are for. I know and have worked with David Gow (on the '98 Touchstone production and another project), and I can say with some certainty that he would have loved this production. I sure did. It was moving and funny and horrifying- everything the play is . D. Neil Mark and Daniel McKellar were terrific, as was the direction of Tim Perez and the set design by Gail Taylor. The latter really allowed the violence and danger of the play to come right into the audience's face (safely but disturbingly). Didn't these guys deserve some attention for mounting an important Canadian near-classic (hey kids, it wowed 'em in Philadelphia and got made into a major motion picture!) which hasn't been seen in town for eight years? If this kind of vision and success isn't what we're celebrating (and reviewing), what is? love, Donald
Posted by Donald Adams
Missed reviews
I certainly hope this mini-trend of some papers not reviewing significant new, and classic, Canadian work (ie Bright Particular Star and Cherry Docs) will not continue. Perhaps it's time to hire more than one critic to meet the demand and pick up the slack. Post a comment if you have experienced this lack.
DG Adams
Posted by the shakespeare...
sorry donald
If I edit your blog entry, which I did by posting it to the front page, the system then seems to not want to let anyone with a lower authority change it. Sorry about that.
Sean
Posted by immediate theatre
No worries
No worries. I had my say. Thanks Sean.
Donald
Posted by the shakespeare...
it is odd that neither the
it is odd that neither the straight nor the courier wrote a review, isn't it?
i did see one in the westender. generally a positive review, but the fellow ends by saying that everyong in the theatre already agrees with the way the story should end, so what's the point?
while his conclusion does seem logical, if we carry his idea to its utmost conclusion we would have to say "we all know that good should triumph over evil, that love should win in the end, and that poor put-upon cinderella should marry the prince, so why bother telling that story?". thus, i can only judge his response as cynicism. i won't bother to even guess what he's cynical about.
i found the story well told and quite comforting as i went through somewhat similar circumstances in my younger days. in fact, it was only a month ago that my father actually thanked me for showing him how important art is. i can't tell you how floored and humbled and awestruck i was when i heard him utter those words.
thanks for the review donald. and i second your sentiments.
anthony
http://www.geocities.com/afingram
http://www.palvancouver.org
Posted by a f ingram
BPT review
Yes, it's odd, to say the least, that the world premiere of a new Canadian play attracts so little attention from Vancouver's 'usual suspects'. Not sure what that's about but it's disappointing, and potentially harmful to Pacific. As for The Westender's bevy of revolving critics: um, who are those guys/gals? At least they wrote a review, but, as you say, the logic about the play's point of view would seem to indicate that if a playwright's pov and a theatre company's pov are known from the outset, then the story's not worth telling. Hmm, seems we'd lose a lot of worthwhile stories that way. And I'm not even sure things Are so cut and dry in the script. It's worth seeing, at any rate, for the story, the history, and the performances, particularly Rebecca de Boer's. Talented performers still receive resistance along their chosen career path in these 'enlightened' days, whether it's religious, cultural, parental, financial, journalistic...I guess the subject is just not 'hip' enough or something. Cynicism and 'hipness' (and I guess Pacific is an easy target for these forces), are the black leather and shades which cloak emotional shallowness and intellectual laziness. Such tainted vision can be as narrow as fundamentalism. Give me a shot of faith and passion anytime!
love, Donald
Posted by the shakespeare...