Let's start at the beginning. It is 1979, and four rehersals before the opening of "The Care and Tending of Roses" by Robert Ross, whose previous play, "Murphy's Damond" made him a name to notice.
Assembled to act in this show are Tom, a young actor making his professional debut, Phil, insecure of himself and his lines, Jessica, returning to Toronto in the hopes of restarting a stalled New York career, and Patrick, highly regarded in the Toronto theatre scene but scared to take the leap into bigger (international) waters.
When it is confirmed that New York producer Bernie Feldman will be attending the opening performance with the thought of taking the show and its actors to Broadway, the stakes mount, the tensions rise, and hilarity ensues.
Director Ted Dykstra sets the piece squarely in the later 70's in which it was written, a setting beautifully executed by Set and Costume designer Patrick Clark, whose designs and clothes are clearly period, but never over-the-top. Leaving the play in its original time period serves it well. A lot is made in this play of how Canada does not create its own stars, and of how small the theatre scene is. I personally feel that these statements are far more arguable now than they were 30 years ago, and that some of this dialog would ring less true had the time period of the action been updated. Distancing the statements from the present, in fact, has the effect of allowing the truths they contain with respect to today's theatre scene ring even truer.
Another strong choice of Dykstra was to treat the entire theatre as his set. Yes, of course, the stage has a set on it, but in acts I and III it is the set of the play withen the play. The rest of the theatre is used very much as a theatre would be used, with the directors, crew, and others, entering through, and sitting in, the audience, just as they would if we, the audience, were not there. The fourth wall is temporarily erected for us in Act II, which takes place backstage in the dressing rooms on opening night.
So what about the promised hilarity? Not to worry, this production is full of laughs. Good, satisfying, lean-forward-in-your-seat laughs, too.
Actually, the laugher in this show reminded me of the water boiling in a soup pot. Stay with me; I'll explain: When you make a good soup, you first bring the water to a roaring boil. It takes some time to get there, but soon is it frothing with such furvour that it risks boiling over. At this point, you turn down the heat, cover, and let it simmer slowly until the cooking is complete. Much like the water in the pot, the laugher is slow to build, staring small at the start of the show, but by the end of act one, the two words "I see" are eliciting roars of hilarity. Acts II and III don't tend to match the uproarious nature of what has gone before, but continue a steady and satisfying simmer of laughs so that by the end of the show, you feel completely satisfied.
The cast does a fine job of portraying the slightly larger-than-life characters that populate the world of the play, and they do so without straying down the road of caricature. The stand-out performance for me is that of Mike Ross as Robert. His reactions to the insanity around him in Act I are spot on, and his silences elicit more laughter than you might think possible. He is no less engaging during the mounting humour of the second act. There's a pun in there if you look for it.
See this show if you can, particularly if you are or have ever been involved in the theatre scene. It was a personal joy to see almost every conflict and misstep that has happened on the many productions that I've been invovled with over the years all gathered together in one place, distilled, and then presented at once.
The program notes indicate that someone once called Jitters "David French's love letter to Canadian theatre." Why not share the love?
Jitters runs until July 24 at the Young Centre for the Performing Arts in Toronto's Distillery district.
More information at http://www.soulpepper.ca
Assembled to act in this show are Tom, a young actor making his professional debut, Phil, insecure of himself and his lines, Jessica, returning to Toronto in the hopes of restarting a stalled New York career, and Patrick, highly regarded in the Toronto theatre scene but scared to take the leap into bigger (international) waters.
When it is confirmed that New York producer Bernie Feldman will be attending the opening performance with the thought of taking the show and its actors to Broadway, the stakes mount, the tensions rise, and hilarity ensues.
Director Ted Dykstra sets the piece squarely in the later 70's in which it was written, a setting beautifully executed by Set and Costume designer Patrick Clark, whose designs and clothes are clearly period, but never over-the-top. Leaving the play in its original time period serves it well. A lot is made in this play of how Canada does not create its own stars, and of how small the theatre scene is. I personally feel that these statements are far more arguable now than they were 30 years ago, and that some of this dialog would ring less true had the time period of the action been updated. Distancing the statements from the present, in fact, has the effect of allowing the truths they contain with respect to today's theatre scene ring even truer.
Another strong choice of Dykstra was to treat the entire theatre as his set. Yes, of course, the stage has a set on it, but in acts I and III it is the set of the play withen the play. The rest of the theatre is used very much as a theatre would be used, with the directors, crew, and others, entering through, and sitting in, the audience, just as they would if we, the audience, were not there. The fourth wall is temporarily erected for us in Act II, which takes place backstage in the dressing rooms on opening night.
So what about the promised hilarity? Not to worry, this production is full of laughs. Good, satisfying, lean-forward-in-your-seat laughs, too.
Actually, the laugher in this show reminded me of the water boiling in a soup pot. Stay with me; I'll explain: When you make a good soup, you first bring the water to a roaring boil. It takes some time to get there, but soon is it frothing with such furvour that it risks boiling over. At this point, you turn down the heat, cover, and let it simmer slowly until the cooking is complete. Much like the water in the pot, the laugher is slow to build, staring small at the start of the show, but by the end of act one, the two words "I see" are eliciting roars of hilarity. Acts II and III don't tend to match the uproarious nature of what has gone before, but continue a steady and satisfying simmer of laughs so that by the end of the show, you feel completely satisfied.
The cast does a fine job of portraying the slightly larger-than-life characters that populate the world of the play, and they do so without straying down the road of caricature. The stand-out performance for me is that of Mike Ross as Robert. His reactions to the insanity around him in Act I are spot on, and his silences elicit more laughter than you might think possible. He is no less engaging during the mounting humour of the second act. There's a pun in there if you look for it.
See this show if you can, particularly if you are or have ever been involved in the theatre scene. It was a personal joy to see almost every conflict and misstep that has happened on the many productions that I've been invovled with over the years all gathered together in one place, distilled, and then presented at once.
The program notes indicate that someone once called Jitters "David French's love letter to Canadian theatre." Why not share the love?
Jitters runs until July 24 at the Young Centre for the Performing Arts in Toronto's Distillery district.
More information at http://www.soulpepper.ca