STRATFORD SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL

HITS AND MISSES OR THE 57th SEASON IN REVIEW


In its 57th season the Stratford Shakespeare Festival is well into middle age and we have every right to expect a varied programme of old and new plays done to very high standards. We don’t have to like everything that they do but there must be production standards and values, and a selection of works that can compare favourably with any theatrical company in the world.

After some rough patches following the retirement of Richard Monette who was Artistic Director from 1994 to 2007, management of the Festival is now in the hands of Antoni Cimolino as General Manager and Des McAnuff as Artistic Director. Cimolino was second in command under Monette and McAnuff comes with considerable theatrical experience most notably in the production of musicals. The photograph in the programmes shows Cimolino cracking a smile with his arm resting on McAnuff’s shoulder. McAnuff sports a broad smile with his arms firmly crossed. Is there a message in the body language?

The Festival offered a total of fourteen productions this year in four theatres. I saw thirteen productions (Ever Yours, Oscar, a one-man show by Brian Bedford about Oscar Wilde being the exception) and now that the season is entering its final weeks it may be a good time to give it a brief look-over.

FESTIVAL THEATRE

There were four productions at the flagship Festival Theatre: two plays by Shakespeare, (Macbeth and A Midsummer Night’s Dream), West Side Story and Cyrano de Bergerac. If the Festival were to be judged solely by the quality of these productions it would not fare very well.

Macbeth had the acting and star power of Colm Feore in the lead role and the boss himself, Des McAnuff directing the season opener. It was clearly intended to be a showpiece production. Unfortunately despite some good moments the production fell flat on its face.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream, the comic Shakespeare directed by David Grindley fared little better in what appeared as an all-out attempt to kill Shakespeare. Grindley gave a punk production with some laughter evoked by the artisans but precious little else. The mixture of punk rock, gratuitous violence and 1950’s overtones resulted into a pretty bad night at the theatre.

With Edmond Rostand’s Cyrano de Bergerac we moved to 19th century French drama with the super-nosed poet and swashbuckler played by Colm Feore and directed by his wife Donna Feore.

The result is a passionless production of a play that is full of passion and passionate longing. Donna Lisman is colourless and unconvincing as Roxane in the great balcony scene. The final scene where Roxane realizes that Cyrano is her true lover evoked laugher instead of pathos. That’s as bad as you want to get.

With West Side Story the Festival hits a bull’s eye. We are treated to a muscular, energetic and simply spectacular production directed by Gary Griffin. Paul Nolan as Tony and Chilina Kennedy as Maria perform the main roles exceptionally well with Jennifer Rias doing an outstanding job as Anita. Brandon Espinoza is the athletic and agile Riff, leader of the Jets and Andrew Cao is Bernardo, the leader of the Sharks.

West Side Story is as much a ballet as a musical. There are visceral instrumental pieces that require a highly capable corps of dancers to perform them. The production has an excellent group of dancers and singers to do the job.

AVON THEATRE

There are three productions at the Avon Theatre and the odds of seeing a superb one here are two out of three. The Importance of Being Earnest is the best comedy of the season and A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum is a rollickingly well done musical. The bad news is that Julius Caesar is really bad.

Forum has witty dialogue, melodious songs and a fast-moving and utterly entertaining plot. Director Des McAnuff invents much comic business and he has a tendency to go over the top. He could have gotten more with less but nothing can take way from this thoroughly enjoyable production.

Stratford is lucky in having Brian Bedford to direct and play Lady Bracknell in the almost perfect comedy, The Importance of Being Earnest. Bedford’s directing is impeccable and the performances by the main players almost flawless if one ignores the issue of imperfect English accents. Productions of Earnest are fairly frequent; outstanding ones like this one are a rarity
.
Now for the bad news. Julius Caesar directed by James MacDonald and designed by David Boechler can best be described by borrowing a few of the author’s words from Hamlet as “weary, stale flat and unprofitable.” No one can accuse the cast of taking any pleasure in Shakespeare’s words or of bothering much to share that pleasure.

TOM PATTERSON THEATRE

The choice of plays for the Tom Patterson Theatre is more adventurous and the productions far more successful. The adventurous part is the offering of Ben Jonson’s Bartholomew Fair and Jean Racine’s Phèdre, both for the first time. What took them so long? Chekhov’s Three Sisters may not be adventurous but it is a good choice.

If Earnest is confined to the elegant drawing rooms of Victorian England, Bartholomew Fair encompasses life in London in the 17th century in all its variety, humour and exuberance as seen at a raucous fair.

The plot includes a pickpocket, a horse dealer, a whore, a pimp, a wrestler, a pig-woman, an urchin, a stilt-walker and others. The play presents an atmosphere and a world of its own and this is what Jonson created and director Antoni Cimolino captures so successfully.

Last year Stratford presented Euripides’ Trojan Women. It was a good start that should have been continued. It was not and we are given the next best thing with Phèdre. I found Seana McKenna’s performance outstanding and the production excellent although I took issue with the choice of translation which struck me as prosaic.

Anton Chekhov’s Three Sisters directed by Martha Henry was the other high drama at the Patterson. The finely nuanced production showed what a first-rate director can do with an excellent cast.

STUDIO THEATRE

The results at the Studio Theatre were not as edifying as the productions at the Tom Patterson. Morris Panych’s new play, The Trespassers, directed by the author highlighted his virtues and his failings. He can write fine dialogue and develop characters but he has difficulty with structuring a credible plot. The play would have benefitted from the hand of a strict dramaturge.

Rice Boy by Sunil Kuruvilla struck me as a shapeless and boring play even though on paper it looks like a great choice for Stratford. It is a play with Canadian content and encompasses India and Canada. Geographical and national aptness were not enough to save the day.

Zastrozzi by George F. Walker is the third Canadian play offered by the Festival. It is one of Walker’s early plays and was first produced at the Toronto Free Theatre in 1977.

It is a strange, indeed bizarre play. Its full title is Zastrozzi: The Master of Discipline and it is supposed to take place in “Europe, probably Italy” sometime in the 1890s. There is nothing in the production to indicate the date or place of the play and it could be located anywhere.

Zastrozzi (Rick Roberts), the main character, is a German master criminal. His friend Bernardo tells us that the play is not about passion or obsession or ideas or emotions. It is much worse than that: it is about revenge. Zastrozzi informs us that he is a man who has no weaknesses and is simply extraordinary.

Zastrozzi’s archenemy is the Italian artist and dreamer Verezzi (Andrew Shaver) and he wants to get rid of him in order to avenge what he, Verezzi, has done to his mother and to wipe off his smile.

We will see nudity, sex, swordfights, killings, and a lot of insane behaviour. The play is called a comedy of revenge and I cannot even give a decent plot summary. The characters are certainly cartoonish, perhaps even escapees from a sci-fi novel. They can almost be found in some episodes of Star Trek but without a visit from Captains Kirk or Picard. They are sometimes funny but by no means funny in any conventional sense. Are they ridiculous? In a way, yes but also macabre and no doubt out of this world.

The “feel” that director Jennifer Tarver gives us encompasses all of the above characteristics and I must admit that it left me simply cold. Walker has created an insane and unique world and characters that I could not relate to and I could not figure out what the initial appeal of the play was or the reason for reviving it. Surely there are better Canadian plays by Walker and others that are more worthy of production or revival than this one.

With a looming deficit, the impulse may be to produce safe plays. It would be wrong. The Festival should show gumption in producing less known works from the classical repertoire. If they do them well, the world will notice and people will fill the theatre. The Festival should create and nurture an audience as much as entertain the existing theatre goers.

And so, until next year.

(Photo is of Stratford's "Three Sisters")

THE DEVIL’S DISCIPLE AND ALBERTINE IN FIVE TIMES AT SHAW FESTIVAL

The playwright who lends his name to the Shaw Festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake gets only two of his plays produced there this year. That’s not quite 20% of the eleven productions. The two Bernard Shaw plays are The Devil’s Disciple at the Festival Theatre and In Good King Charles Golden Days at the Royal George Theatre.

Shaw described The Devil’s Disciple as a melodrama in three acts. There are melodramatic elements in the play but one should never take Shaw at his word and expect a conventional potboiler.

The play takes place in 1777 in New Hampshire during the American Revolution. Dick Dudgeon (Evan Buliung), an unorthodox character and the devil’s disciple, finds himself in the house of The Reverend Anthony Anderson (Peter Krantz) when British soldiers come to arrest the latter. Dudgeon pretends to be Anderson and he kisses the latter’s pretty wife Judith (Fiona Byrne) as he is led away to be hanged by the British. Dudgeon is tried by General Burgoyne (Jim Mezon) and Major Swindon (Peter Millard) and he escapes hanging.

The first two acts are incredibly ineffectual. The play and the production seem to creak and it is hard to say where the fault lies. Is the play that bad or is director Tadeusz Bradecki not able to bring out its strengths? Bradecki opens the play with the supposedly startling image of a man being hanged, something that Shaw did not think of. Even that does not work.

The final act is the trial of Dudgeon by Major Swindon and General Burgoyne. Jim Mezon does a very good job as Burgoyne as does Millard as Swindon. Shaw has fun taking swipes at British aristocracy, arrogance and incompetence and the audience joins in. There is Shavian wit and wisdom and the pace picks up.

Bradecki takes some liberties with the text going so far as to add a few lines about Butlersburg becoming Niagara-on-the-Lake, something not mentioned by Shaw. This does produce a laugh but surely it is an unnecessary interpolation but some people may consider it a clever way of reaching out to the audience and making the play relate to them. After all, 300,000 loyalists did come to Canada after the American Revolution and they were the ones who started Niagara-on-the-Lake.

The relatively minor role of a British Sergeant is given to Richard Stewart who seems to belong to another play. A British Sergeant should sound somewhat, even slightly like a British Sergeant. Jonathan Widdifield, on the other hand, is good as Christy, Dick’s doltish brother.

A production that can be summed up as one third good and two-thirds so-so is not what one expects from the Shaw Festival.

The Canadian content of the Festival is Michel Tremblay’s Albertine in Five Times at the Court House Theatre.

When the lights go on we see five women. The oldest will sit centre-stage and the other four will sit around her. The five actors represent one woman, Albertine, at the age of 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70. Her sister Madeline will also appear and will talk with her sister. The five actors will talk with each other but we know of course that they represent one person and whatever each actor says represents the memories or experiences of Albertine.

It is a brilliant device. Representing a single working-class woman over five decades of her life simultaneously is an inspired idea. I don’t think the execution is as successful as the inspiration but it is a play that makes you stop and take notice.

Albertine at 70 (Patricia Hamilton) has just returned home from the hospital and she muses that she will be better off there. She appears calm, at peace with herself in old age.

We learn that Albertine, the waitress and mother from the working class district of Duhamel had two children, Therese and Marcel. Therese misbehaved and at age 11 was allowed a paedophile to molest her. Albertine at 30 beat Therese to a pulp and apparently did not shed a tear about it. Regret and guilt if not tears come later and she has to live with the memory of her action. At different stages of her life she tries to forget, resign herself to her fate or take drugs. It amounts to a tragic life over five decades that are spread out before us.

Madeleine (Nicola Correia-Damude) provides a counterbalance to Albertine. Not all men are monsters, she says, and she is able to find love or is at least able to cope better than her sister.

Unfortunately the play is not always clear or easy to follow. Albertine at 70 can look back on her life, remember her past and have a dialogue with herself at different stages of her life. Albertine at 30 can have little to say to Albertine at 60, though she can correct lapses of memory, I suppose. Madeline died before Albertine reached 70 and yet she is on the stage talking with her. This is not a play that one can digest on one viewing.

Albertine at 30 is played by Marla McLean, at 40 by Jenny L. Wright, at 50 by Mary Haney and at 60 by Wendy Thatcher, doing good work in rather static roles. The play is directed by Micheline Chevrier.

In the end you end up being fascinated by the idea of the play and your attention is riveted but the fascination falls short of making this an enjoyable production. The play and the production fail to cross the thin line of “that was interesting” to that was a great evening at the theatre.

PHÈDRE - SEANA MCKENNA GIVES SUPERB PERFORMANCES IN RACINE PLAY AT STRATFORD

Last year, the Stratford Shakespeare Festival made one of its infrequent forays into Ancient Greek drama with a highly successful production of Euripides’s The Trojan Women. It would have been nice if that were the beginning of a trend but it did not happen. The closest we get to Greek drama this year is the production of Phèdre, a neo-classical tragedy by Jean Racine.

The production is billed as a World Premiere and they do not mean the 1677 play itself but a new translation of the work by playwright Timberlake Wertenbaker. Racine expressed the intense passion of Phaedra and the high drama of the story in tightly-knit rhyming couplets. Stratford however has chosen a prosaic translation for this production.

That is clearly not the mode of expression chosen by Racine and Wertenbaker’s translation, while it is clear it a ling way from Racine’s elevated language. Director Carey Perloff has the actors speak in a heroic style otherwise there are sections of the play that would sound more melodramatic than tragic, more akin to daytime television than poetic drama.

The language or mode of expression is even more important than the plot and one cannot get away from the fact that there is a huge difference between poetry and prose. Just imagine “To be or not to be” being rendered as “I just can’t make up my mind whether I should live or commit suicide.”

Phèdre tells the story of the love of Phaedra for her stepson Hippolytus. She is the wife of Theseus and is fully aware that her passion is completely improper. The problem is that her knowledge of the impropriety is not sufficient to control her passion. The tragic result is inevitable.

Phèdre has as its backdrop a complex political situation. Theseus is away from his kingdom and Hippolytus has fallen in love with Aricia, an Athenian princess and the last in line of the royal family that Theseus displaced as rulers of Athens. Hippolytus himself is the son of an Amazon, a foreigner, and there may be issues about his right of succession. Phaedra has children with Theseus and they may have a superior claim to the throne.

The real thrust of the play however remains the overwhelming power of love over rational thinking. Stratford is lucky in having Seana McKenna in the name role. She has extensive experience in Greek tragedy including a signature performance as Medea. She walks on the stage slightly crouched over with one hand on her stomach and the other stretched out for support. She is in the throes of all-consuming love that cannot be admitted and she gives a superb performance as the tortured queen. Jonathan Goad as Hippolytus looks young and innocent and contrasts perfectly with the much-older and disheveled Phaedra.

Tom McCamus gives a very dramatic and polished performance as Theseus, the blind father who curses his son. In one of the most dramatic deaths in mythology, Hippolytus is killed by a bull that rises from the sea. This a reference back to the bull that Phaedra’s mother had sex with and gave birth to the Minotaur, Phaedra’s half-brother. Theseus killed that bull with the help of Ariadne, Phaedra’s sister whom he married and later abandoned. Things do not get more dramatic than that.

Phèdre requires some heavy-duty supporting cast and the production is exceptionally well-served by Roberta Maxwell as Phaedra’s nurse Oenone, Sean Arbuckle as Théramène and Claire Lautier as Aricie. Wertenbaker seems a bit schizophrenic in her use of French names for most of the characters rather than relying on English equivalents such as Aricia, Theramenes.

The costumes suggest the confined atmosphere of the 17th century theatre rather than the town of Troezen by the sea where the play is set. There is a suggestion of rocks on one side of the stage but aside for some water in a well there is no other scenery. The sea is a major element in the play and there should have been some suggestion of its presence on the set.

According to Perloff “this is a version for North American actors” which sounds like this is “Racine for Dummies”. Wertenbaker’s translation is described as an unrhymed 10-syllable line but it sounds like prose. McKenna and the other actors are more than capable of handling complex poetry and people who go to Stratford for Shakespeare and Ben Jonson should not be patronized with “North American” versions. To paraphrase the comment made about Alexander Pope’s treatment of the Homeric texts, this is a decent rendition of the play but we must not call it Racine.

WEST SIDE STORY and A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM - REVIEW OF STRATFORD FESTIVAL PRODUCTIONS

Reviewed by James Karas

If you have to produce musicals at a Festival that aspired to being Shakespearean then choose from the best and do a great job. That is what the Stratford Shakespeare Festival has done this year. The musicals of choice are West Side Story and A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.

If you had to list the best Broadway musicals on the fingers of one hand, West Side Story should be one of them. It has an incredible provenance being the product of some of the finest creative talents of Broadway in the 1950’s. The idea for the musical belonged to the great Jerome Robbins. He choreographed the original production making the musical into a virtual ballet.

The book was written by Arthur Laurents who of course based it on Verona’s star-crossed lovers, Romeo and Juliet. The feuding Montagues and the Capulets become youth gangs of New York. They are the “American” Jets and the Puerto Rican Sharks who have territorial wars on the crowded streets and alleys of the west side of Manhattan.

The lyrics were written by a young man named Stephen Sondheim and the music by the prodigiously talented Leonard Bernstein. West Side Story opened on Broadway in 1957 and it, as they say, has never looked back.

The Stratford production directed by Gary Griffin is muscular, energetic and simply spectacular. Paul Nolan as Tony and Chilina Kennedy as Maria are strong leads with vocal and kinetic power. Jennifer Rias is outstanding as Anita. Brandon Espinoza is the athletic and agile Riff, leader of the Jets and Andrew Cao is Bernardo, the leader of the Sharks.

West Side Story is as much a ballet as a musical. There are visceral instrumental pieces that require a highly capable corps of dancers to perform them. The production has an excellent group of dancers and singers to do the job.

The under-used Stephen Russell plays the humane druggist and Bruce Dow is the blustering Officer Krupke. Don Chameroy plays Schrank and Mike Nadajawsky is Glad Hand.

The brilliant choreography is by Sergio Trujillo with Joshua Bergasse as co-choreographer. Rick Fox is the musical director and he brings out all the muscle and lyricism of Bernstein’s music.

A Funny Thing Happened has roots that go much further back than Romeo and Juliet. It is based on the comedies of Plautus (about 254–184 BC) from which Larry Gelbart and Burt Shevelove took characters and materials to shape a wonderful plot about a wily slave named Pseudolus (Bruce Dow) who will do anything to gain his freedom. With music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim, the musical was a great hit in 1962 and it is still thoroughly entertaining.

The plot is hilarious. Hero (Mike Nadajewski, is in love with the lovely virgin Philia (Chilina Kennedy), the girl next door, who has been sold to the braggart soldier Miles Gloriosus (Dan Chameroy). “Next door” is the house of Marcus Lycus, (Cliff Saunders), who is a seller of courtesans. And you should see some of his samples!

Pseudolos and chief slave and collector of pornographic pottery Hysterium (Stephen Ouimette) must find a way of breaking the agreement of purchase and sale with Miles. He will not be dissuaded and arranging for the feigned death of Philia seems like the only solution. But where do you get a body for the ruse especially now that the usual body-snatcher just died and his body was snatched?

And then there is the subplot of Philia mistaking Hero’s horny father Senex (Randy Hughson) for Miles and being ready to surrender herself to him. A cup of mare’s sweat comes in handy in derailing his plan.

Dow is a natural comic and makes the role of Pseudolus all his own. Ouimette is perfect as the dour-looking and “puritanical” Hysterium and Randy Hughson is hilarious as Senex. Chameroy is not pompous enough as Miles but that’s because he goes for cheap laughs.

The dialogue is witty, the songs melodious and the whole thing fast-moving and utterly entertaining. Director Des McAnuff invents much comic business and he has a tendency to go over the top. Hero and Philia can be played straight and there is no need to invent comic stunts for them. Why dress the all-purpose Proteans with modern sailors’ hats? He could have gotten more with less but nothing can take way from this rollicking and thoroughly enjoyable production.

FYROM v. GREECE - FROM THE STREETS TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

HOW TO HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO


In September 1991, the Socialist Republic of Macedonia, one of the constituent parts of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, held a referendum and subsequently declared itself an independent and sovereign nation under the name Republic of Macedonia. It quickly sought international recognition. Greece objected to the recognition of the new nation under the name Republic of Macedonia claiming that it implied territorial claims against the northern Greek province of Macedonia. The new Republic claimed that it had no territorial claims against Greece while at the same time adopting Greek symbols. Even a picture of the White Tower, the symbol of Thessaloniki, appeared on some souvenir currency printed by fervent nationalists. In FYROM the line between state affairs and private enterprise can be pretty blurry.

Feelings and tempers rose on both sides of the border and even more so in the Diaspora. A temporary solution was found in April 1993 when the United Nations granted membership the new country on condition that it will be “provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State”. (UN Security Council Resolution 817 (1993).

FYROM and Greece signed an Interim Accord on September 13, 1995. The Accord opens with some grandiose and fulsome statements about refraining from the use of force, being guided by the spirit and principles of democracy and the desire to establish peaceful relations and promote future cooperation.

The first section of the Accord is entitled “FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MEASURES”. Considering what happened after the Accord was signed this is ironic to the point of being comical. So much for wishful thinking.

The bizarre part is that the Accord does not mention the name that is acceptable to Greece for “the Party of the Second Part.” Article 1 states that Greece will recognize “the Party of the Second Part as an independent sovereign state, under the provisional designation set forth in a letter of the Party of the First Part of the date of this Interim Accord.”
Annexed to the Accord is a very short letter from the then Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs Karolos Papoulias which states that “Greece recognizes the party of the second part within its internationally recognized borders, with the provisional name of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State.”

Astounding as it may appear, the most crucial part of the Accord and the issue that will dominate relations between the two nations was incorporated by reference to a sloppily drafted letter that solved almost nothing.
Rather than posing positive obligations on FYROM (“You will do or you will not do …”), the woefully worded Accord imposes an obligation on Greece not to object to FYROM’s application to join international organizations of which Greece is a member. If Greece is a member then FYROM can only be called FYROM. The clear implication is that if Greece is not a member of that organization, then FYROM can join as the Republic of Macedonia.

Even worse, the Accord says nothing about FYROM asking nations around the world to recognize it as the Republic of Macedonia and putting itself out as the Republic of Macedonia. In fact, the use of the name FYROM, except at some international affairs, has almost disappeared. In Greece, itself FYROM is almost invariably referred to as Skopje.

We should be clear about one thing: when FYROM signed the Interim Accord, its constitutional name was Republic of Macedonia. By signing the Accord the “Republic of Macedonia” was clearly admitting that there was a problem with that name and that some modification will have to be made down the line. To date FYROM has refused to budge and insists on the name Republic of Macedonia. In other words, it wants to have its cake and eat too. Agree to negotiate the name and then refuse to negotiate the name.

Greece kept its part of the Accord by not objecting to FYROM joining a number of international organizations including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Council of Europe, the World Trade Organization and others.

Negotiations and meetings followed in an attempt to resolve the name issue but no solution could be found.

In the meantime, FYROM mounted a three-pronged attack on the problem: on the diplomatic front, the international front and the home front.

On the diplomatic front, it approached nations with a request for recognition as the Republic of Macedonia. Whatever the letter and spirit of United Nations Resolution 817, FYROM asked for and was granted recognition as the Republic of Macedonian by dozens of nations and by now that number has risen to well over one hundred.

On the international front it has launched an all-out campaign to convince the world community that it should be recognized as the Republic of Macedonia. It showed complete intransigence to any names proposed by Matthew Nimitz, the UN appointed mediator and continued and continues pushing for nothing less than complete recognition as the Republic of Macedonia while paying lip-service to the Interim Accord.

On the home front it has mobilized its educational system from kindergarten to university in the teaching about “unlibertaed brothers in Greece” and in painting Greece as its heinous enemy. This reached a pinnacle when in April 2008 photographs of Greece’s Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis in a Nazi uniform were distributed widely.

FYROM’s internal and external policies were examined in detail in Macedonianism: FYROM’S Expansionist designs Against Greece after the Interim Accord, (1995). Iakovos D. Michailidis, Assistant Professor of Modern and Contemporary History at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki shows FYROM trying to do nothing less than to re-write history to suit current political needs, to promote territorial claims against Greece and to create a national mythology based on Greece’s cultural legacy. So much for the provision of the Accord that “Each Party undertakes to respect the sovereignty, the territorial integrity and the political independence of the other.”

The argument came down to the use of the word Macedonia. FYROM wants nothing less than recognition as the Republic of Macedonia. The Greeks refused to allow the use of the word Macedonia in FYROM’s name. Greece eventually backed off its original position and agreed to a qualified use of the word – call it New Macedonia or Northern Macedonia or something like that to differentiate it from the Greek province. All Greek political parties except for the extreme right wing LAOS agreed to the compromise. FYROM refused to budge.

The issue came to a head in April 2008 when FYROM attempted to join NATO. They had a powerful advocate and supporter in President George W. Bush and the FYROM delegation went to the Bucharest Summit assured of success. Greece had made it perfectly clear that it intended to veto FYROM’s application. Many thought that American and some European pressure would prove too much for Greece. It did not and FYROM was not invited to join NATO. The fury of the FYROM and American delegations was palpable.

While continuing its efforts on the diplomatic, international and home front (including ads in major newspapers and CNN) FYROM has decided to take another approach: an Application to the International Court of Justice for an order forcing Greece to withdraw its objection to NATO’s invitation to FYROM.

FYROM’s argument is based on the wording of the Interim Accord, which states that Greece will not object to FYROM applying to join international organizations. Greece in fact only “reserves the right to abject to any membership.” As mentioned above, Greece has not objected to FYROM joining a large number of such organizations until the NATO issue came up. Greece’s position seems to be that “enough is enough” If the name issue is not resolved FYROM can stay out of NATO and out of the European Union.

The Application to the International Court of Justice was filed on November 13, 2008 by the Republic of Macedonia. The opening sentence of the Application reads “The Republic of Macedonian (being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 817 of 1993) brings this application…..” The International Court of Justice is a body of the United Nations. Yet even there FYROM pays only lip service to its provisional name. The Application is signed by Antonio Miloshoski, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia and the seal of the Republic of Macedonia is affixed. So much for the former Yugoslav Republic being known as such even at the UN.

Greece has not filed a reply to the Application. The Court ordered FYROM to file its legal memorandum by July 20, 2009 and it has done so. Unfortunately I have not received a copy of it for review. Greece has until January 20, 2010 to file its reply.

In the meantime, the war of words continues and FYROM continues to identify itself as the Republic of Macedonia except when forced to do the opposite. At the opening of the Olympic Games, for example, its athletes enter the stadium under the letter “f”. Despite thumbing its nose at Greece and the UN, FYROM wants to appear as the aggrieved party and is going to the ICC asking the Court to make Greece behave. Once again, it wants to have its cake and eat it too.

TONIGHT AT 8:30 AT SHAW FESTIVAL

PRODUCTION OF COWARD'S TEN PLAYS AN OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT FESTIVAL

by James Karas


In 1935-36 Noel Coward wrote nine one-act plays to be produced in groups of three under the title Tonight at 8:30. He added a tenth play called Star Chamber but it was performed only once before he withdrew it. The first nine plays have been produced in bits and pieces at the Shaw Festival over the years but never all ten together.

In what can only be described as a bold move, artistic director Jackie Maxwell has decided to produce all ten in one season. It is a venture that is worthy of loud applause and a chance to see the plays that is simply not to be missed.

There are three groups of three plays and one, Star Chamber, is shown alone during lunchtime. As may be expected, the boldness in selection is not always equaled in the quality of execution of the first three one-acters but the overall result is still enjoyable and, repeat, not to be missed.

BRIEF ENCOUNTERS

The first three plays are presented at the Festival Theatre under the title Brief Encounters. Still Life and We Were Dancing are about brief and illicit love affairs. Hands Across the Sea has an almost farcical plot about mistaken identity.

Still Life is perhaps best known as the film Brief Encounter with Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard. Laura Jesson (Deborah Hay) quite accidentally meets a Dr. Alec Harvey (Patrick Galligan) in the refreshment room of a railroad station. The doctor removes a speck from her eye and the two, married and reserved middle-class English people, fall in love. They continue meeting at the railroad station and make one pathetic and unsuccessful attempt at consummating the affair but we only see them in the refreshment room.

A dingy railroad station, and two reserved people make for a poor source of fervent expressions of grand passion. You take the two of them at their word that by reserved English standards they are deeply in love and the sad end of the affair is inevitable. Coward does show us the other side of English love in the lower class workers at the railroad station who are far more demonstrative but what do you expect from the lower classes? I found Hay more convincing than Galligan but I wished that some more of their passion came across.

For We Were Dancing Coward takes us to a country club setting on the exotic Island of Samolo. This is no railroad station and Karl (Patrick Galligan) falls madly in love with Louise (Deborah Hay) right in front of her husband Hubert (Thom Marriott). Karl and Louise were dancing and were swept off their feet with love. Unlike, Laura and Alec, they show no reserve, not even a modicum of good manners, as they declare their passion for each other. This love affair dissipates as quickly as it arises and there is no time to consummate it. Issues arise, problems appear and the course of their love comes to a fork in the road. We Were Dancing is broadly comic and the love affair is more farcical than passionate.

Hands Across the Sea has a different texture from the first two plays. It is set in a fancy flat in London where some well-travelled and well-heeled people act and overact in very silly ways. The Gilpins (Deborah Hay and Patrick Galligan) are expecting some people that Lady Gilpin met in the Far East. Mr. and Mrs. Wadhurst (Thom Marriott and Corrine Koslo) arrive and they are generally ignored or spoken to in very strange ways. There is clearly a problem here as the busy Gilpins and their friends flit around and the result is some good comedy.

The playlets have a charm of their own but they do require a finesse of acting and accent that is frequently lacking in Canadian actors. In the end we know what they are getting at and appreciate the effort while all the time knowing that the type of comedy that Coward wrote is at times out of their reach. The plays are directed by Jackie Maxwell.

PLAY, ORCHESTRA, PLAY

The second trio entitled Play, Orchestra, Play, consists of Red Peppers, Fumed Oak and Shadow Play. The three playlets are funny, charming and have a tinge of sadness all their own. Red Peppers is about song-and-dance couple (Jay Turvey and Patty Jamieson) who are bickering as their way of life is disappearing. The movies have arrived and the music hall is on its way out. The wife makes a mistake during their exit and the two start arguing over it only to be interrupted by the house manager and turn their energies on him. The fight gets worse when the conductor arrives. It is funny and touching.

Fumed Oak presents a henpecked husband (Steven Sutcliffe) who lives with his bitch of a wife (Patty Jamieson), whining daughter (Robin Evan Willis) and an even worse mother-in-law (Wendy Thatcher). His submissiveness for fifteen years gives way to an explosion of energy in which he tells his wife and mother-in-law and daughter to stuff it. He has saved some money and he is going on a ship to anywhere but where he is. Comedy framed in a very sad situation with fine performances.

Shadow Play is about a couple on the verge of divorce. They have found other lovers and Simon (Steven Sutcliffe) tells Victoria (Julie Martell) that he wants a divorce. She has just taken three sleeping pills and dreams of happier days with Simon. The play has eleven characters and half a dozen musical numbers as it moves through moments in the lives of Simon and Stella. Quite a beautiful production.

Play, Orchestra, Play is skillfully directed by Christopher Newton at the Royal George Theatre.

STAR CHAMBER

Star Chamber, at the royal George Theatre, is a hilarious gem that will strike a chord with anyone who has attended a committee meeting. To make things worse, these are all actors who are meeting about some charitable cause. No one is on time, they talk to each other instead of listening and leave when they feel like it. Neil Barclay is outstandingly funny among a very entertaining cast directed by Kate Lynch.

WAYS OF THE HEART

The final trio of plays is staged at the Court House Theatre under the title Ways of the Heart and consists of The Astonished Heart, Family Album and Ways and Means.

The Astonished Heart has a complex structure for a one-act play. It is divided in seven scenes and moves back and forth in time. It tells the story of a renowned psychiatrist (David Jansen) who falls in love with Leonora (Claire Julien), a worldly woman and his wife’s worldly friend.

It is a dramatic piece about passionate love, betrayal and ultimate disappointment. Laurie Paton is the plump, faithful wife in a marriage that has seen better days. Julien is the femme fatale that oozes sexual attraction and knows how to get her man. The end is disastrous but the performances under the direction of Blair Williams are superb.

In Family Album, the large Featherways family is gathered shortly after Papa’s death and the reading of his will. They are a stuffy Victorian family who display grief and reverence for the dearly departed and then decide to have a toast. One toast leads to another and they all break into song. More toasts and more songs and the somber atmosphere dissipates into revels.

The large cast is excellent with notable mentions of Laurie Paton as the older spinster Lavinia, Patrick McManus as Jasper and Lisa Codrington as Emily. Being a family gathering and a funereal occasion, the characters are dressed alike. Michael Ball has the small role of the servant Burrows. He practically steals the show as he staggers in carrying drinks and is hard of hearing, especially of things he does not want to hear. A delightful piece.

In Ways and Means we move to more familiar Coward territory, the world of the sophisticated and somewhat eccentric upper crust on the Riviera. Stella (Claire Jullien) and Toby (David Jansen) are having breakfast in bed, wearing silk pajamas, in a fancy house on the Côte d’Azur. They have lost their last franc gambling and are at the end of their mooching rope.

They bitch and bicker with wit and sophistication as they search for a desperate remedy for their impecuniosity. Jansen and Jullien carry the whole thing off with aplomb. Patrick McManus is very good as Stevens, the former valet who was unceremoniously dismissed from his former position which included servicing the wife of his employer. Jenny Young makes a short appearance as the Russian Princess Elena and manages a horrible accent. It is one thing to be less than perfect when doing an accent but this was really bad.

In the end, the production of the ten plays amounts to an outstanding achievement.

ELIA KAZAN AND ARTHUR MILLER

THE DIRECTOR, THE PLAYWRIGHT AND NAMING NAMES

By James Karas

In April 1952 Elia Kazan appeared before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and gave the names of eight people who were fellow members of the Communist Party during the 1930s. They were blacklisted.

In 1956, playwright Arthur Miller was subpoenaed to testify before the same committee and he refused to disclose the names of leftists or Communists that he had associated with. He was found to be in contempt of Congress, fined $500.00 and sentenced to one month in jail. The decision was subsequently overturned.

HUAC was established as a permanent Committee of the House of Representatives in 1945 with the aim of weeding out Communists or “reds” from American society. It paid special attention to the movie industry which it felt was dominated by Communists. Under Senator Joseph McCarthy the hearings became infamous witch hunts where guilt by association, the trampling of democratic rights and coercive interrogations were the norm.

Kazan and Miller were close friends and their decisions to name names and not to name names respectively put an end to their friendship and were to play pivotal roles in their subsequent lives.

Arthur Miller and Elia Kazan had a lot in common. Both were the children of immigrants, were raised in New York, espoused leftist politics, went into the theatre and were exceptionally successful. Kazan was brought from Turkey in 1913 at age four, the son of Greek immigrants. Miller, born in 1915, was the son of Polish Jews.

Miller’s first major play, All My Sons (1947) dealt with corruption in business and treachery. Joe Keller, an airplane parts manufacturer sells defective cylinder heads to the Air Force during World War II. He and his partner are arrested but he is exonerated when he puts the blame on his partner. When his son, an Air Force pilot, finds out of his father’s activities, he commits suicide rather than face his father’s treachery. Joe insists that he did what he did for the good of his family. When the full extent of his moral cowardice and treachery are revealed, Keller commits suicide.

All My Sons was directed by Elia Kazan.

In 1949 Kazan directed Miller’s Death of a Salesman, one of the greatest American plays, and the two men became friends. In his autobiography, Timebends – A Life, (1987), Miller wrote that Kazan was a man “whom I loved like a brother.”

Both men produced significant works illustrating or justifying their actions before HUAC. Kazan directed the film On the Waterfront (1954). Miller wrote the play A View from the Bridge. The play and a stage version of the film played in London a few months ago and I was able to see both productions on successive nights.

A View from the Bridge is a riveting play about love and betrayal played at London’s Duke of York’s Theatre. It is about Eddie Carbone (Ken Stott) an Italian-American who betrays Rodolpho, an illegal immigrant, to prevent him from marrying Eddie’s niece Catherine. Eddie harbors an illicit passion for Catherine. Rodolpho, who is also related to Eddie, falls in love with her and Eddie calls the immigration authorities. The play is a vivid condemnation of such treachery and it has the expected tragic finale. Eddie is condemned by society for his conduct and after Rodolpho’s brother spits on him he screams “I want my name back.” He is killed in a fight with Rodolpho’s brother.

A short distance from the Duke of York’s, On the Waterfront, the stage version of the famous movie with Marlon Brando played at the Theatre Royal Haymarket. It is a play that justifies naming names.

Kazan had to appear before the Committee in April 1952. He met with Miller in early April and told him that he had decided to cooperate with the Committee. Miller in his autobiography writes of Kazan’s decision to name names to HUAC: “There was a certain gloomy logic in what he was saying: unless he came clean he could never hope, in the height of his creative powers, to make another film in America, and he would probably not be given a passport to work abroad either. If the theatre remained open to him, it was not his primary interest anymore; he wanted to deepen his film life, that was where his heart lay, and he had been told in so many words by his old boss and friend Spyros Skouras, president of Twentieth Century Fox, that the company would not employ him unless he satisfied the Committee.”

Miller tries to convince Kazan that the witch hunts could not go on indefinitely but then comes to the terrible realization that “unbelievable as it seemed, I could still be up for sacrifice if Kazan knew I attended meetings of the Communist Party writers years ago and had made a speech at one of them.” Miller sympathized with Kazan’s predicament but at the same time “was afraid of him. Had I been of his generation, he would have had to sacrifice me as well.” Kazan would have done to Miller what Joe Keller did to his partner in All My Sons: betrayed him for his self-interest.

As indicated, Kazan appeared before HUAC in April 1952 and gave the names of eight people, including playwright Clifford Odets, who were blacklisted. Kazan showed no remorse for his action but commented that “there's a normal sadness about hurting people, but I'd rather hurt them a little than hurt myself a lot."

That statement may show more bravado than moral certainty. Kazan obviously had some misgivings about his testimony before the committee. He took out an ad in the New York Times in which he wrote A Statement “to make my stand clear.” While a member of the Communist Party for about a year and a half (1934-1936), he had “firsthand experience of dictatorship and thought control” and that left him with “an abiding hatred of Communist philosophy and methods and the conviction that these must be resisted always.”

The problem is that he did not act on his conviction to resist Communism until he was called to testify before HUAC sixteen years later. His explanation for the delay was his concern for the reputation and employment of the people he would expose – people who had done exactly what he did many years before. That consideration went by the board when he realized that these people were a danger to free speech, free press etc. He never explains what menace Clifford Odets and the others posed to those cherished American ideals nor does he reveal when that epiphany came to him. Was it in the spring of 1936 when he left the Communist Party or in January 1952 when he was called to testify before HUAC?

In 1954 Kazan directed On the Waterfront, written by Budd Schulberg with Lee J. Cobb in the cast. The movie is an attempt to justify the informer for snitching to the authorities. Lee J. Cobb, the original Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman and Schulberg testified before HUAC and named names.

Schulberg has adapted the screenplay of the 1954 movie with Stan Silverman for the stage. Steven Berkoff directs the current production and plays the role of Johnny Friendly, the heavy. The acting is stylized and at times choreographed. About half a dozen men are the chorus and they act as the dockworkers, Crimes Committee and other parts. There is some serious overacting by Berkoff and Simon Merrells as Terry Malloy. Were it not for the stylized acting the whole thing would have ended up as melodrama but it is quite effective and dramatic theatre.

On the Waterfront is about corruption and crime by organized criminals on the Port of New York. Johnny Friendly and his cohorts are corrupt thugs who are running the union local and skimming from the wages of the workers. They do not brook any dissent and when one person attempts it he is murdered by being pushed off a building. One of the participants in the murder is Terry Malloy, a former prize fighter who is not too bright. Terry’s boxing career was cut short by his brother Charley (Cobb in the movie, Antony Byrne in the play) when he was asked to throw a match because they had bet on the other fighter.

Terry falls in love with the victim’s sister Edie (Eva Marie Saint/Bryony Afferson) and when he witnesses another murder he learns a new word: “conscience.” He is subpoenaed by a commission investigating crimes on the waterfront and he must decide about giving evidence against his brother Charley and his cousin Johnny Friendly.

Terry follows his conscience and gives evidence against the criminals. He is severely beaten but is able to get up and presumably be followed by other longshoremen on the path of justice and resistance to the mob. Naming names, in this instance, was the right and noble thing to do.

On the Waterfront is considered on of the best films ever made. It won eight Oscars in 1954 including Best Picture, Best Director (Kazan), Best Actor (Brando) and Best Supporting Actress (Saint).

Kazan made no secret that he considered the film his revenge on those who criticized him for naming names before HUAC. In his 1988 autobiography Elia Kazan: A Life he remembered getting the Oscar as follows: “I was tasting vengeance that night and enjoying it. On the Waterfront is my own story, every day I worked on that film, I was telling the world where I stood.”

Surely there is a difference between giving evidence against criminals and giving the names of people who belonged to the same organization as you did many years before the testimony.

Miller was subpoenaed to testify before HUAC in 1956. Spyros Skouras attempted to convince him to cooperate with the Committee. Miller stood his ground but he himself realized that his moral courage was affected by this: “Privately I thanked my stars that I worked in the theatre, where there was no blacklist; as a film writer, I would now be kissing my career goodbye.” In the end, he refused to testify because if he did he would be breaking “an implicit understanding among human beings that you don’t use their names to bring trouble on them, or cooperate in deforming the democratic doctrine of the sanctity of peaceful association.” He realized that if he did not buckle he could be sent to jail but he considered HUAC so morally corrupt that he was willing to take that risk.

Lillian Hellman was subpoenaed to testify before HUAC in 1952. She asked the Committee if she could testify about herself without naming others. The Committee refused and she issued the following statement: “To hurt innocent people whom I knew many years ago in order to save myself is, to me, inhuman and indecent and dishonorable.” Helleman was blacklisted and her career suffered.

In 1999, the board of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences decided to bestow an honorary Oscar to Kazan for his achievement in film. The decision was hugely controversial. There were those who never forgave Kazan for informing on his former associates and folded their arms in protest when he stepped up to receive his Oscars. There were others who thought that it was time to bury the hatchet and applauded warmly. The moral issue of informing on your colleagues was not resolved. Interestingly enough, the fact the Kazan belonged to the same organization as the people he named had no adverse consequences on him. The informer, in this case at least, was absolved of his sin the minute he named the other sinners.

The emblematic example of acting on principle over expedience is that of Sir Thomas More as seen by Robert Bolt in A Man for all Seasons. More was Henry VIII’s Lord Chancellor when the king broke away from Rome so that he could annul his marriage to Catherine, his first wife, and marry Anne Boleyn. More, a devout Catholic, refused to recognize the king’s religious supremacy. Being a lawyer, he tread carefully and refused to state his position and relied on his silence for safety. The king insisted on More’s support. He was charged with treason but there was no evidence on which to convict him. Richard Rich, an ambitious young man and, at least, an acquaintance if not a friend of More’s, provided perjured evidence and More was convicted.

There is a magnificent scene at the end of More’s trial. After Rich has given his perjured evidence, More notices that Rich is wearing a chain of office. He asks what the chain represents and he is told that Rich has been appointed Attorney General for Wales. More gives the great reply that separates principal from expedience: “Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … But for Wales!”

“Wales” could be career (Kazan), family (Joe Keller), misguided love (Eddie Carbone) or any number of reasons.

What is left in the end is each person’s epitaph in history if not eternity. In A Dictionary of British History, Richard Rich is given a one-sentence dismissal: “His provision, while solicitor general, of false evidence at the trial of Sir Thomas More was instrumental is securing More’s conviction for treason (1535).” He is a perjurer forever. More gets a whole paragraph where he is described as a renowned scholar, lawyer and saint who was convicted on the perjured evidence of Sir Richard Rich.