After the show, here we are. Thank you so much to everyone in the Fringe 2012 program! It was an absolute blast.
More reviews will be posted soon. For now, enjoy the photos!
Fringe Photos!
Fringe Photos!
Getting excited! The line will move now!
The show has been completely sold out for most of Fringe.
Fringe Photos!
This is the line-up for Help Yourself, winner of the Best New Play Award at Fringe 2012.
Fringe Reviews! The Finale – Help Yourself
In an uncaring universe, morality is just something we use to bring order to chaos, justice to the unjust, and civility to animals. With sufficient arguments, you can justify anything. That’s what Donny (Daniel Pagett) believes, anyway, and that’s what you’ll believe by the end of Help Yourself.
Donny is a self-employed, self-titled consultant, informing his clients on matters that they can’t bring to anyone else. He does a good job, and makes good money. His girlfriend, Samantha (Tosha Doiron), knows both these things. On this particular day, Ted (Tim Walker) comes to Donny with a problem. Scotch and Darwin are two of Donny’s secret weapons, and the two explode in an exchange that is hilarious, tragic, and provoking all at once.
This story is occasionally broken by flashbacks to various episodes from Donny’s and Samantha’s relationship, and there we see the sensitive, awkward, human side of Donny. Pagett reveals the range of his acting abilities in these two storylines, and though it is initially offputting to see how his character behaves around Samantha, in time we realize his great depth. Doiron plays an elegant, intelligent woman with incredible elegance and intelligence. The two create great chemistry.
The script is crisp, with lines often relying on the effortless execution of the actors. Possibly outpacing himself, Pagett sometimes falters on his lines, but quickly picks himself up. The fast-paced dialogue is salted with improvised lines.
Probably the best part of the play, however, is the seamless transitions between the storylines. In one part, we see Samantha and Donny about to walk to stage right, while in the previous scene Donny exited from stage left. A quick exchange: “Oh, did you forget the –” “Yeah.” and Donny walks to stage left to pick up the Item.
This effortless connection between the two storylines is the play’s own undoing, however, as the ending is made apparent five minutes in. Regardless, it is enjoyable to watch everything unfold, and the tension in the room can be cut with a knife near the end.
Help Yourself is a must-see. It doesn’t come up with any new ideas per se (the idea of moral relativism is often explored), but the actors’ performances, smart script, and excellent direction make it more than worthwhile an experience.
Another contained piece that uses time to fragment its narrative, Kat Sandler’s Help Yourself is a far better at using its stunt-y premise to engage and thrill its audience. Donny (Daniel Pagett, who co-wrote the work with Sandler) is a sort of freelance life consultant, though he is generally hired on his unchanging approach to his job, which is to help convince his clients to justify committing an act they can not convince themselves of doing. After his girlfriend Samantha (Tosha Doiron) storms out of his apartment after having confronted Donny on the nature of his profession, Donny welcomes in his 1:00 appointment, Ted (Tim Walker), a shlubby middle-aged security guard who seems a little stunned to have wandered into the room. He decides that he requires Donny’s assistance in convincing him to murder his cheating wife. The slickly dressed and slick-talking Donny attempts to do just that, and for the next hour, throws a hodgepodge of different arguments at Tim, including Darwinism and poorly thought out ethical situations to help illustrate to the universe, but more importantly Ted himself, will be better off if Ted takes his revenge.
Pagett’s Donny is the onstage lynch pin between Walker and Doinon, sharing conversational duets with each of them as the narrative alternates between advancing further in time as Donny and Ted have a bro-ish dialogue about the kinds of moral structures humans can plausibly abide by, and retreating backwards in time as we watch (in the tradition of Harold Pinter’s Betrayal) the relationship between Samantha and Donny flourish from disillusionment and terror into the naivety and excitement of a new romance. Donny’s unshakable confidence with Ted is interchanged with a more vulnerable, though no less sharp-minded persona that he exhibits with Samantha. As the play gradually accelerates into its stressful, well-executed finale, the two storylines come together in a way that is somewhat distracting in its gimmickiness and narrative convenience, though still thematically coherent with the themes presented in the preceding ninety minutes: the idea of a human passing a moral judgment upon another human, already a questionable notion, becomes even murkier when we realize just how much we rely on the people in our lives to validate and reflect back to us our ideas of reality, and how much such people give us meaning and drive. Donny is faced with the realization at the exact moment that it is too late, and the play ends suddenly but with undeniable effectiveness.
Sandler directs her work with a simplicity and straightforwardness that compliments these tense, engaging conversations, though too often there’s a self-satisfied frat boy quality to the scenes between Walker and Pagett that limits the characters’ likability and the script’s originality. Still, the logic and veiled taunts used by Donny to rhetorically pound Ted’s ostensible intellectual insecurity into submission are often fun to watch and hear, due in no small part to the skill and speed of Pagett and Walker, as well as Sandler’s ear for naturalistic, overlapping dialogue.
Pagett is an unflappable ball of short, masculine energy, though Walker is ultimately better at exhibiting tonal variety, moving from confusion and disappointment to justifiable rage and sudden self-confidence. Doiron is strong at giving charisma and attractiveness to a thinly sketched character, and is very moving in the final few minutes. The George Ignatieff stage is decorated sparsely, with a white couch and chair, and a desk drawer being the main objects on display, leaving the actors lots of space to run around (literally, at one point). All in all, while there is too much posturing by the script on the profundity of its premise and ideas, and while the ending indulges too much of the play’s insularity, it’s still an entertainingly staged, well-performed piece of pop-philosophical fun.
Help Yourself. Written and directed by Kat Sandler (co-created by Daniel Pagett. Performing at the Best of the Toronto Fringe at the Toronto Centre for the Performing Arts.
I saw this show towards the tail-end of its run at the Toronto Fringe, in the context of all the word-of-mouth hype and its then recent selection as part of the Best of Fringe. I walked in not knowing what to expect and hoping my judgment wouldn’t be too clouded. The one thing I was assured of was a great performance from Tim Walker (Ted), who I recently worked with (albeit, at an arm’s length as an associate producer) on a production of Edward Albee’s The Goat. Independent of the build-up I experienced before seeing this show, it was definitely one of the best I saw at the Fringe and it certainly lives up to the hype. After experiencing this show, Kat Sandler is also a no-brainer when it comes to selecting her script for the Best New Play award.
Two stories are simultaneously played out over the course of the show, though both revolve around Donny (Daniel Pagett). Donny makes a handsome living as a “consultant” who specializes in helping people who want to commit acts that are illegal and/or commonly perceived as immoral. That is, he tries to convince each of his clients to go through with whatever act they are wrestling with. The first plot line concerns Donny and his long-term girlfriend Samantha (Tosha Doiron). At the top of the show they are having an argument over what he does for a living, leading Samantha to storm out of the apartment. Shortly after she leaves, the primary story line is introduced; Ted (Tim Walker) walks in under the pretext of having an appointment with Donny. Ted wants to kill his wife.
What follows is a whirlwind of dialogue between Ted and Donny, spliced with scenes that show the development of Donny and Samantha’s relationship. Both storylines come crashing together in the last few moments of the show with a twist that’s relatively predictable but an outcome that still leaves the audience a bit shell-shocked.
I can honestly say that there are very few flaws to point out here. In contrast to the bulk of Fringe shows that use a left field concept (and very often, fail at developing it to its potential), Help Yourself is relatively simple in its premise. With a straight-forward concept, Sandler has been able to create incredibly complex characters, dynamic dialogue and an intricate plot line that leaves you wanting to come see the show again just to re-evaluate the text. This is also one of the few occasions where the writer also succeeds brilliantly as a director; this was one of the only 90-minute Fringe shows where I was not bored or disconnected at any point. Sandler’s direction was as straight forwardly effective as her premise and she accomplished absolutely seamless transitions between the two story lines. It’s clear that the actors worked in harmonious tandem with their director.
This show, of course, would not be what it is without the three solid performances by Doiron, Pagett and Walker. While the show centres on Donny’s character, the play functions more as an
ensemble piece. Doiron, who is given the least stage time, develops her character as well as her cast mates and we get to know her as well as Donny and Ted. The advantage that Pagett has over the other two actors is that we’re given far greater access to two spheres of Donny’s life.
The one hindrance in this show would be the slightly overbearing performance that Pagett gives in his interpretation of Donny, particularly in his interactions with Ted (which happen to take up the bulk of the show). At times I felt like Ted’s character development was at a disadvantage due to Donny’s imposing presence and somewhat caricature-like portrayal of a self-assured, self-made man. I wonder, however, if this is done intentionally and this part of his character is merely a front for his clients; the Donny that we see around Samantha is worlds away from this.
Help Yourself is more than deserving of all the hype, and is a must-see at the Best of Fringe.
Fringe Reviews! Pt 2. Quantum Taxis
A simple change can lead to something major down the line: a butterfly’s wingbeats can indirectly cause weather phenomena, and Ashton Kutcher’s well-intentioned actions lead to unpredictable and undesirable – Wait, wrong show.
Quantum Taxis is an interesting play based on two things we are familiar with: friendly cabbies, and scientific laws being misapplied to common sense. The novelty here is that the two are combined rather seamlessly. And all this fits inside a single taxicab.
A shaky sign separates two storylines: in one, the sign tips in one direction, with no effect. In the other, it knocks the phone from a passenger’s (Herpeet Minhas) hand, leading her to take a different taxi, engage in a different conversation, and make different decisions. Decisions? Yes, boy troubles. This unnamed heroine is brash, bossy, and clearly not amused. In storyline 1, the cabbie (Steve Hetherington) keeps her in line with existentialism. In storyline 2, after dropping her phone, she creates no chemistry with Red, the reggae-loving cabbie (Romaine Waite). Meanwhile, the first cabbie (Hetherington) is occupied with a second heroine (Laurel Morgan), who finds nothing interesting to say. At least she’s not talking about Beatles conspiracy theories – until Waite, in the first timeline, enters a dialogue about music. His charisma carries the scene in the end, but Morgan’s overcalculated performance and unfortunate tangent leaves a sour taste.
The two storylines interact with one another in interesting ways, but in the end neither conclusion is satisfying. Perhaps this is the point, and if so, it’s an interesting one: if you had to choose which direction the sign tipped, which one would it be?
There are some good moments in the play. Hetherington creates moments of tension and pensiveness, and Waite provides comic relief and smooth songs. Both provide a different perspectives to the existential questions that plague us all: Hetherington adds pessimism to his nihilism, and Waite ‘goes with the flow’, satisfied with simply holding the wheel in a car that can go anywhere. Sadly, the script separates these moments of substance far apart with the trivial, and passengers act like they’re being taken for the ride.
Nearly as static as its stage-bound titular vehicle, Paul Steinsland’s Quantum Taxis is a play that has ambitions to explore ideas of determinism, free will, quantum physics, and, most prevalently, karma, but which is ultimately undone by the rigid structure of its concept, as well as a maddeningly obvious script and some eerily flat performances. Staged in the Honest Ed’s parking lot, the piece opens by introducing its audience to an unnamed taxi driver (Steve Hetherington) with an unexpectedly posh British accent, who picks up a charmless, irritable woman (Herpreet Minhas) who is perpetually glued to her blackberry. As the two slowly, awkwardly delve into conversation, we learn that the driver is an ex-physicist who is convinced of the unpredictable, uncontrollable nature of the universe, and that before he gave up teaching, he may have been responsible for the death of his wife (we also learn that the passenger is fighting with her boyfriend and is debating leaving him for another man). The two discuss relationships and what we are responsible for or think we are responsible for, before the audience is then treated to a rewind; we go back to the first moment of the play, where a small stumble on the part of the driver means he misses picking up Minhas’s passenger, and instead picks up another woman (whom the program names, unlike the previous two characters).
Morgan (Laurel Morgan) is a much more relaxed, conversational passenger, who works in an outreach program, and is a firm believer in the paybacks of karma. We are then taken back to the first timeline, and this time we watch as Morgan’s character instead hails a different cab, this one manned by the energetic, optimistic and charismatic Red (Romaine Waite). A Rastafarian, Red spends his off-time making music with his friends, and is a thorough believer (in contrast, surprise, to Hetherington’s outlook) that life is determined for us, and we just have to go with the flow, accepting what comes along. The play reveals itself to be V-shaped; we watch Red pick up Minhas’s character in the second timeline, then jump back to his drive with Morgan, before finishing Morgan’s story with Hetherington and finally wrapping up where we began, with Hetherington and Minhas.
The taxi itself is a vintage make whose left side faces the audience, meaning we are treated to the profile of driver and passenger for the entire play. This nearly unchanging compositional element might be more engaging if Steinsland were exploring Beckett-inspired stylistic monotony, or the fractured connections that we can sometimes achieve with strangers, but because the script is so overwritten and blunt in its thematic point-ratcheting, that interpretation isn’t really plausible. Still, at around the forty-five minute point, there is something hypnotizing and oddly watchable about the barely moving actors and their unnaturally articulate dialogue unfolding monotonously before us, particularly when it comes to Morgan’s passenger. Morgan the actress chooses a polite, sleepily engaged approach to her character, and sticks to it unchangingly throughout the entire show, to the point that watching her deliver great swaths of text in the exact same tone, as if she were retrieving the words from a memory card, is almost fascinating (almost). Minhas is simply flat, locked into a bored derisiveness that is far less interesting to watch. The drivers fare better: Hetherington could have more fun with the incongruity of his accent and demeanour with his static, ostensibly uninteresting job, but he at least manages to display changes in mood. The real saviour though, is Waite, who manages to actually expand his physical performance to below his neck; gesticulating, grooving around, and exhibiting facial variation far beyond the means of his co-stars, Waite’s performance is responsible for any vibrancy the play finds in its particularly repetitive middle section.
There’s potential in Steinsland’s script for real exploration of its themes; sticking a crew of poorly matched actors into an unmoving taxi in a dank parking garage for ninety minutes is not the optimal method for such discovery.
Quantum Taxis. Written and directed by Paul Steinsland. Performing during the Toronto Fringe at Honest Ed’s Underground Parking Lot
This show is one of many Fringe shows that feature an interesting concept not quite executed to its full potential. After getting your ticket for this show, you’re led by a Fringe volunteer down to the underground parking lot of Honest Ed’s. The play takes place in a sectioned off area with seats and a genuine retro taxicab in the performance area.
The action of the show goes without saying. There are two taxi drivers (played by Steve Hetherington and Romaine Waite) and two passengers (Herpreet Minhas and Laurel Morgan), with multiple scenes where drivers and passengers alternate. All four characters have consistent stories and relay them differently to each of their counterparts. Conversely, the advice that they get and dole out depends on who they’re interacting with. Indeed, the characters involved are all quite different. The first driver – who goes unnamed – is a proper, slightly stand-offish Englishman while the second driver named Red is an easy going Islander from St. Kitts. One of the passengers also goes unnamed, and is portrayed as a young, uptight power business woman. The other is named Morgan, and is an even tempered woman employed at a community outreach centre.
The overarching theme of the story is that small decisions, and seemingly insignificant moments have the potential to make a massive impact on our lives. The ways in which this is conveyed in the script is certainly one of the primary strengths of the show. The very concept of the show – the act of hailing a cab – is entirely contingent on chance. Further, there are a lot of interesting and multi-faceted ways in which this idea of conveyed. These include malfunctioning cell phones, traffic gridlock, quantum physics (as the name suggests) and musings on the life of Paul McCartney. The script certainly leaves a lot to ponder on after the show.
Unfortunately the performance and direction don’t quite do the script justice. This could potentially be pinned down to the fact the writer is also the director – a phenomenon that often leads to an end product that’s either very good or more often, very, very bad. It’s also worth noting that Laurel Morgan was also the producer for this show. After the first half hour or so I felt quite disengaged from the show and felt that it tended to drag on. The dialogue in the script could have easily been truncated to 60 or 75 minutes rather than the tedious 90 it clocked in at.
What was also not entirely successful in this production was the overall quality of the acting. On the one hand, Hetherington and Waite as the two contrasting taxi drivers were both engaging, enjoyable to watch and it was clear that some independent thought had been put into their interpretations of their characters. In particular, Waite was incredibly likeable and also managed to curtail the potential stereotypes that had been written into his character.
On the other hand, both Minhas and Morgan both gave cliché performances in regards to their characters; Minhas came off as melodramatic in an attempt at being high strung. While trying to convey a relaxed disposition, Morgan was deadpan and towards the end, unbearably boring to watch. Additionally, Morgan stumbled over her lines on numerous occasions (and made it very obvious that it was case) and was unable to project. The only way that I could hear what she was saying was because I sat right in the front row; I can’t imagine that anyone sitting towards the back of the 100-seat space could hear her at all.
What concerned me the most about this script, however, were the numerous stereotypes played out across the characters. Between the two cab drivers there’s a presented dichotomy between the “enlightened” Westerner who’s in the profession as a last resort and the “laid-back” (i.e. lazy) Caribbean who doesn’t feel a need to pursue any other vocation. In terms of the women, we have another problematic dichotomy of a selfish bitch vs. the nurturing and self-sacrificing woman. The ways in which these characters are represented unfortunately overshadowed the positive elements of the script.
As stated in the beginning of this piece, Quantum Taxis is certainly an interesting idea and having the performance take place in an underground parking lot lends itself well to the play. The central theme of the show is executed well in the script, but the overall performance and development of characters leave much to be desired.
Fringe Reviews! Pt 1 – Fishbowl
We are all connected – that’s essentially the idea behind Fishbowl. To this end, Mark Shyzer connects four very different characters from different places and different times. The audience’s connection to these characters has yet to be seen, however.
Shyzer ably performs four very different roles in a play that starts ridiculous and ends surreal. The characters are trite and tired. There’s the geek, Esther, complete with braces-induced lisp and glasses. She is obsessed with physics, and keeps a goldfish whom she considers her best friend. Shyzer’s acting in this role is reminiscent of Mark McKinney of Kids in the Hall. Shifting to the left, Shyzer becomes Francis, a static, quintessential emo/goth, despising his parents, society, and anything else you can think of. Think long hair, deep voice, blank expression. While some of the most memorable one-liners come from this character, he is by and large a cookie-cutter wrist-cutter. Next is Mr. Farrell, who is as painfully lucid as he is caustic in his dying days, telling jokes and stories with a voice of gravel. Finally, Shyzer dons a flamboyant costume and even more flamboyant pose, taking on the role of Janet. One cringes upon seeing the costume, in expectation of that oh-so-obvious character’s first lispy line. If Buddy Cole (Scott Thompson, Kids in the Hall) perfected the delightful fag with shocking, insightful remarks, Janet makes the character cheap and dirty.
The characters cycle in this manner, with Shyzer performing in a neutral costume throughout – the mannerisms, voices, and lighting are cues enough. As they continue to tell their stories, the characters converge on an interesting existentialist idea, founded on the basic physics principles Esther outlines in the beginning (though the idea of a “beginning” is misleading – oops, ambiguous spoiler).
While Mark Shyzer is clearly a capable actor, it seems that he prefers to demonstrate breadth rather than depth in his characters. Sometimes, especially with Esther, there are moments of endearment and novelty, but by and large the characters follow the book. This is a shame, since there is much potential to the idea behind the play. Sadly, the biggest takeaway question remains: why was there a fishbowl?
Fishbowl. Written and performed by Mark Shyzer, directed by Evelyn Parry. Performing during the Toronto Fringe at the Helen Gardiner Phelan Playhouse.
Fishbowl is one of the many shows that got its start at Buddies in Bad Times and was subsequently work-shopped and remounted over the course of several years. Other success stories in this same vain include Agokwe and The Silicone Diaries of recent years. Buddies is one of the few theatres in Toronto that place an emphasis on communally work-shopping unfinished works. That being said, Fishbowl is a perfect embodiment of the Fringe spirit.
The show is performed solely by Mark Shyzer; he lets us into the lives of four very distinct characters. The show opens with Esther – a socially awkward high school student with a passion for physics. Francis (who likes to call himself Ravyn), comes next; he is a textbook “emo” kid, reminiscent of the old viral song “I’m an Emo Kid!” and the goth kids from South Park. The other two characters are Mr. Parnell, an elderly retired teacher facing death, and Janice – a forty-something, sexually self-assured divorcée.
Overall, I have to say that I enjoyed myself. Shyzer has given a great deal of thought towards developing all the humourous nuances for each character. The script is full of hilarious zingers and one-liners that give the characters plenty of dimension, despite the fact that they are derived from fairly standard comedic archetypes. At times, however, the jokes felt a little repetitive and the development of the overall story arch and the characters was slowed down a fair amount. Despite the fact that this show was already cut down by twenty minutes to accommodate a sixty minute Fringe slot, I think that it can be cut another ten to fifteen. There is a fairly surprising conclusion, but not a whole lot really happens during the show and the characters get shtick-y after the first twenty or so minutes. The characters go through pretty major events, but I found that it took Shyzer far too long to tell their stories. This might be informed by my fidgety disposition, but I think that an artist working with such a short window of performance time ought to make the progression of the piece work with the time constraints, rather than just padding the show to fill up the allotted time slot.
I would recommend this show to anyone looking for some light-hearted laughs with a bit of substance found within the jokes. Fishbowl is a perfect representation of the Fringe spirit and really shows a half-decade of careful work and consideration.
The Book of Reviewing!
The Book of Reviewing
For Intermission
What is a review?
A review is an opinion-based piece about a performance (or presentation, book, concert, etc). A review is written to provide information about the merits of the performance to those who have not yet seen the performance.
A review often contains partial summaries, teasers, and pointers about which parts were excellent and which were mediocre. It doesn’t spoil the ending, and avoids discussing parts of the show that would give away the surprise.
A response, by contrast, is written for people who have already seen the show. It is meant to encourage discussion, and may contain spoilers as the readers of the response will have already seen the show.
Megan Mooneys DOs and DON’Ts of Review Writing
MEGAN MOONEY IS VERY AMAZING. Thank you so much, Mooney on Theatre!
1) DO be personal.
a. A show can never be good or bad, but people can have very different opinions about it.
b. Therefore, talk about why you liked it (or didn’t), and how this or that scene made you feel.
c. Tell us about you experiences with similar plays in the past. Tell us why the topic at hand means something to you. Tell us why you wanted to see the play in the first place (or didn’t want to).
d. These all help explain your perspective, which helps the reader understand why you did or did not like aspects of the play. It helps the reader know if they would have the same opinion as you, and a similar reaction to the show.
e. This is the most important DO! It makes your review interesting!
2) DON’T be vague. DO be specific.
a. If you liked something, tell us exactly what it was!
b. If you hated something, tell us exactly what did not work for you.
c. The more specific you can be (even if that means you have a really long list of things to talk about) the more people can relate to your review, or response.
d. This won’t always be easy. And specifics can be hard to remember. But this is how you analyze, and how you will get better at discussing theatre and other things.
e. In addition, being specific is also great for the people who saw the show. If they read your review, they’ll want to know what it was that “sucked”! It helps them become better performers and artists if you are specific.
3) DON’T give away the surprises.
a. This can be really hard if you liked a play or it blew your mind.
b. But don’t give it away.
c. If it’s really, really too hard not to mention the end – say that you are having trouble! Say that it’s really hard not to break the surprise! It’s probably a good reason to see the show.
4) DON’T worry about making it for every person on the planet. DON’T even worry about making it for every person in Toronto.
a. Your review can’t be a universal explanation of everything.
b. It may not help every single person who reads it.
c. But if you are personal, and if you include details, most people will find it more helpful than if you talked about how the meaning of life is embodied in this play.
d. By NOT generalizing, you actually make it easier for people to understand, and to make decisions.
Questions to consider
Aka. Prompts for your memory, and ideas to think about.
1) What did you leave the theatre thinking about?
2) Do you remember most of all from the show, now? How much is that related to what you think the “message” or “theme” of the show was? Why do you remember this/these things?
3) What did you connect with, or identify with – or with whom? On the other hand, did anything repel you, gross you out, make you angry, etc? What and why?
4) Were you ever bored? Did you ever look at your watch, or start looking at the audience? What were you thinking at the time? What was happening on stage – or what scene were they in, what was happening plot-wise? Was this a bad boredom, did it detract from the show? Why?
5) Think about the set, the costumes, the light changes (or the lack thereof!). Can you see choices about the design that helped the play, or hindered it?
a. For example, were there symbolic set pieces, or props? Were the costumes realistic, or over-the-top, or symbolic themselves?
b. Did you feel that all the choices fit together, the way a well composed painting or photograph does? Did it help you draw connections about the story or the issues in the play?
6) Did you feel that the play was “finished”, when it was over? Did you have a mental click where everything fit into place? Did you feel that things were unfinished?
a. Did you have lingering questions that you wish were talked about or answered? For example, something in the plot that was forgotten about, or a character that never came back and was unexplained. Or themes and ideas that they raised, and seemed to say “this is really important!” but then make no comment on the issue other than it’s “important”, etc.
b. How would you like the play to continue? Do you think it was great the way it ended? (for dramatic reasons, for characters, for leaving a good question in the air, etc)
7) If you’re still reading, feel free to add your own questions! These are just starters and prompts to help you remember everything!
What to do if you’re stuck
1) Start writing something down.
a. Start writing down what happened in the play. Make a summary.
b. Describe the characters.
c. Now you can start thinking about the writing style, how the words sounded, how the characters had details about their lives, how the plot worked, etc.
2) Write for as much as you like. You can edit afterwards.
a. But if you need a specification, write one and a half – two double spaced pages.
b. For comics, probably about the same length. For drawings, one or two pages. You get the idea. The most important thing is connections and creativity.
3) Draw a map of connections.
a. Each character can be a node – connect them and write how each connection works (how are they related, what happened, etc).
b. Each issue can be a node.
c. Each piece of the set can be a node.
d. Costumes can be a node.
e. Connect these nodes to each other and think about the ways in which they interact.
4) Don’t think about making it perfect. Don’t think about the whole thing. Just start writing about your favourite or least favourite part – the thing that got you the most fired up.
5) Are you trying to make EVERYONE like it? Stop that. Write so that the folks in Intermission can learn something about the show and what you thought about it. Write for your best friend who hasn’t seen it yet.
SUMMER PROGRAM! Excitement!
Hi everyone,
I am pleased to announce that we are running a summer program with the Toronto Fringe Festival!
Over the course of two weeks, participants get to see 5 shows free, meet with the actors and creative teams of the shows, participate in the Tent Talks at Fringe with some of Toronto’s leading arts workers, and have a workshop on writing theatrical reviews with one of Toronto’s amazing theatre critics!
You will be traveling the Fringe in a group of 4. Just before Fringe, we will be having a pizza party, during which you’ll meet your group, and as a group, select the shows you want to see. You will be able to pick the shows yourself, meaning you can coordinate with your group how your program will run!
Intermission will provide you tickets and materials. It will be an awesome summertime blast!
Fringe runs July 4th-15th. Our pizza party will be July 2nd, Canada Day (don’t worry, we won’t less you miss the fireworks).
The sign up deadline is midnight on June 15th, 2012. You must be between 16 and 20 years of age. Send your name, age, and a paragraph on why you think seeing 5 consecutive shows in two weeks would be fantastic, and what you could contribute to your group. Please send applications to intermission.toronto@gmail.com
You can also send any questions and we’ll be happy to help. Let’s Fringe!
Intermission Toronto 