Lysistrata
By Aristophanes
Adapted by Peter McGarry
Theatre Passe Muraille Mainspace
Fri. July 3 @ 5:15pm
Sun. July 5 @ noon
Mon. July 6 @ 10:30pm
Tue. July 7 @ 6:15pm
Fri. July 10 @ 2:15
Sat. July 11 @ 10:30pm
Tickets are $10 at the door.
Reviewed by Daina Valiulis
Brought to us by the Eyewitness Theatre Company from Manchester, UK, Lysistrata is the classic Aristophanes play adapted by Peter McGarry and presented by four performers — Dee Watson (Lysistrata), Lara Bradban (Kalonika), Nell Corrin (Mirrine), and Carly Tarett (Lampito/Magistrate/Kinesias). This production has a few distracting flaws but ultimately managed to draw the audience back in by the engaging and colourful personalities of the performers.
The main flaws in the show were towards the end and involved strange and sudden plot twists not in Aristophanes’ original work. At one point, Lysistrata gets called to trial for being a traitor because of her staunch refusal to support the wars her state has been waging. She calls out to the Oracle to help her and, weirdly, a booming voice can be heard from speakers around the theatre and the lights change dramatically as the production takes a sharp turn. The women each portray women from the future who lose their children in times of war. All the bawdy lightheartedness that characterized the first three-quarters of the play is gone. Why this was necessary or what this was meant to show was unclear and after this section ended the play went back to being bawdy and lighthearted, which was confusing. Stranger still, Lysistrata is released and the women sing ABBA songs with the lyrics changed to pertain to the play. Again, there was no set up for this — suddenly they were all singing ABBA…
While all this was strange and made no sense, the production was still enjoyable! The ladies made each character distinct, over the top, and hilarious, which is why through all the strange plot twists it was still successful. These British actors were just as over the top as some Canadian actors tend to be; however, unlike actors who mainly gesticulate to show that they are feeling something, these women’s gestures arose out of some deeper connection. The gestures occurred because the character needed to express herself in the moment in that particular way and as such, seemed much more natural and honest than Canadian acting in general where the performers tend to merely “show” what the character is feeling with no deeper connection than that. The story was told with their whole selves and as such was rich, engaging, and unique to each individual on stage.
British bawdiness abounds in this high-energy adaptation and it is well worth seeing.
I’d be careful with your generalizations about Canadian and British actors. I’m not sure that they’re…correct. At least not often enough to make such broad statements. I know that you’re trying to make it clear that it’s not a blanket statement, but I’m pretty sure that it will raise a few eyebrows. And not in a good way.
Fair enough. Maybe I should not have generalized and kept it strictly about this production in my comparison. I do think North American and European actors are trained differently. I didn’t mean to imply that one is better than the other (it does read that way). It was just striking to see acting from the inside out rather than the other way around, which is the bulk of what I see. I apologize for the generalization.