Reviews

"The play's the thing" By Brian Tyson. Lethbridge Herald. Oct. 21. 2004.

George Walker's award winning play Nothing Sacred is supposed to be based on Turgenev's famous little novel Fathers and Sons, about the young nihilist Bazarov and his disciples visiting their parents in Imperial Russia. It certainly contains characters with identical names to those in Fathers and Sons; but Walker uses the novel as a cowbird uses another bird's nest: that is he throws out all the things that he doesn't want and substitutes his own version of events.
The greatest difference between the two works is that the characters in Fathers and Sons behave like real human beings; in Walker's play they behave like marionettes. Unable to resist the cheap laugh, Walker turns Turgenev's story into a huge melodrama-cum-farce, in which the characters are drawn with a four-inch brush.
In the service of this self-indulgent melodrama, director Gail Hanrahan and her 11 cast members have done an astonishing job. The actors function as a highly competent team, ferociously articulate, flawless in word and deed.  They are almost like Le Cirque du Soliel.  One applauds their efforts till the rafters ring, as one might applaud the trapeze-feats in a traveling circus.  Theatrically, then, the piece is a triumph.
The play has been given the simplest possible set: a forest of steel-coloured scaffolds which at times represent trees, at other times a labyrinth, possibly even symbolizing the rigidity of old Russia, which is allegedly one of the targets of this rambling play.
The stage is bare except for a steep ramp, upon which now and then a table is placed precariously, set for dinner. Such is the angle that, not surprisingly, from time to time, kitchen utensils and bits of food slide down the ramp, making things even funnier than Walker intended.
This is a very funny play. It begins with the ritual flogging of a serf done in such a "camp" fashion that the audience is laughing after the third stroke. That we are supposed to be laughing is confirmed by the bad jokes of the person being flogged. This sets the tone for a play that alternates between the extremes of melodrama and farce: not such a big leap, as both forms possess the same characteristics: externality, violence, type characters and exaggerated acting.
As in all melodrama, music is added to create mood, and Rimsky- Korsakov does much to create the right one. Bazarov, the self-proclaimed nihilist and medical student, played by Frazer Andrews, has a good voice, clear and unforced. He is (in Walker's play) not a doctor only, but also a prototypical terrorist, dreaming of bombs and destruction. Hearing of this the audience titters, and occasionally laughs aloud � a remarkable reaction in view of today's political climate, and further evidence (were it necessary) of Walker's lack of control over his script.
Unfortunately, Bazarov is viewed largely uncritically in this play, a kind of melodramatic anti-hero who is able to assert without fear of denial, "I do everything well." Yet he is a mass of unresolved (and unexplored) contradictions: a doctor who saves life, yet desires to destroy it; a person
who declares that all love is physical, and then proclaims his love for mankind; one who professes anger for the exploitation of human beings, yet who exploits his friends.
The problem is that he is never confronted with these contradictions by other characters, with the possible exception of his friend and disciple Arkady, played well by Chris Terepocki.
Disquisitory drama this is not: no serious theme can be pursued when clowns sit at the dinner table swilling soup, or burst into the discussion with the sound of breaking china. Thus the conflict between generations, the seeds of the distant revolution, the pros and cons of nihilism, all fall by the wayside.
There is not shortage of pseudo-philosophy; but lines like �What you understand is what you come to believe,� are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Like all the men in the play (except Bazarov, of course), Arkady is a stammering wretch in the presence of women. But I thought he made a very convincing student of life and love and had an attractive stage personality.
His father Nikolai Petrovitch, played by Brent Felzien, is a tired gentleman farmer, trying to emancipate his work force on a failing farm, outmaneuvered by both bailiffs and serfs, and Brent Felzien played the role to perfection. His shame over the love child he has fathered on the servant-girl Fenichka is real; and the "Weltschmerz" expressed in the woods with his brother Pavel most convincing.
As Pavel, Richard Grafton is excellent throughout, at times reminiscent of John Cleese, breathing life into Walker's caricature of the effete Anglophile with the love- tortured past. He was responsible for the one moment when the play � just for an instant � lifted into genuine drama, sending a frisson down one's cheek.
Anna (with whom Pavel is obsessed), returns a rambling explanatory letter to him, confessing she has not read it; but, because of his evident distress, allows him to read it aloud. It is for once an honest account of his uncontrollable feelings for her; so honest that he stops reading, and drops the letter. Now thoroughly sorry for him, Anna picks it up and offers it to him, inviting him to continue.
He takes the tumbled papers from her. And then, just for a moment, as if his entire wasted life has suddenly flashed before his eyes � an expression goes across Pavel's face like that of a beaten dog. That flash of understanding made my evening.  Unfortunately, other potentially tender or serious moments in the play were lost.
So swiftly does Walker change key, that sometimes laughter from a farcical incident is still rippling through the audience during moments of pathos. The play is more successful when it lets go of serious themes, as at the beginning of the play's second half, when Pavel (Richard Grafton) played a scene of brilliant farce with Piotr (Kelly Roberts). It was delightful to watch the timing and balance of these two extremely talented actors.
Jamie Dunsdon gives a solid performance as Fenichka, appropriately bewildered by the "new" ideas of the young men, yet wise to their ways. Andrea Stein was commandingly beautiful as Anna, and certainly imperious enough for men to fall in love with her. She played the role with a humanity that transcended the script, until a melodramatic moment forced on her by the playwright.
Her announcement she wants Pavel killed (because he is pursuing her) is supposed to be a "coup de theatre," but is really just Walker's device to bring the first half of the play to a resounding conclusion. All credibility in her character vanishes with that announcement.
The fact she doesn't really want Pavel killed, just roughed up a little (as we are told later) helps restore our belief in her and, thanks to Stein, enough of the strong character survives to make an acceptable ending. I have no doubt that Andy Jenkins played Victor Sitnikov as written; which is as a clown pure and very simple. He is unfortunately at the bottom of the pecking order in the play, and we are invited to laugh at him because of his size, because his clothes don't fit (and do split), because of his silly voice and laugh (cruelly imitated by Bazarov), because of his doglike devotion to Bazarov, because of the inappropriateness of his remarks at the latter's death, etc.
I take my hat off to Jenkins for allowing himself to be used as a human football for nearly three hours.  Kelly Roberts, playing Piotr, is a natural comedian aided by the fact that his character is drawn as comic throughout.  He can convulse an audience by merely staring at them with a face as expressionless as a clock, and approached sublimity in the scenes with Grafton at the opening of the play's second half, Amos Altman was less successful in playing the Bailiff for laughs.
His character is supposed to represent one of Turgenev's favourite targets: the cruel Steward who brutalizes serfs for pleasure in the absence of his master. But you can't make a serious point about man's inhumanity to man when a character remarks slyly that "human beings enjoy beating other human beings," accompanying this by a sexual gesture with a whip that immediately brings to mind bondage games.
The roars of laughter that ensue are fine, provided the play has no serious purpose. But you can't have it both ways. If the torture that went on in Abu Graeb prison was funny, then Walker has got it right. If, however, we think torturing human beings is a crime, then someone needs to educate George Walker. Finally, Gregor (Willie Banfield) and Sergei (Clifford Kelly) are two more very funny clowns, much like Weary Willie and Dusty Rhodes.
Banfield, in particular, playing the emancipated serf, has a range of pratfalls and lithe athletic footwork plus some of the pathos of the young Charlie Chaplin, and is surely destined for great things. In fact the production is worth a visit just to see this talented team in action.
I fervently hope to see them all again in a more satisfying play.

"Nothing Sacred: An excellent performance of a good play."
By Jared Mackenzie. The Meliorist Oct. 28. 2004.

As I waited for the production of Nothing Sacred to commence last Thursday, I noticed in the program that the play was set in Russia in 1859. At this point, an intense feeling of dread swept over me. Call me pessimistic, but I was not expecting this play to be that enjoyable. Fortunately, I once again turned out to be dead wrong and experienced a hilarious and touching look at the generation gap, as well as many an intellectual conversation on rebellion, family roles and nihilism.
The plot of Nothing Sacred is as follows: Arkady (Chris Terepocki) heads home after graduating from university to visit his father Nikolai (Brent Felzien) and his eccentric uncle Pavel (Richard Grafton). Arkady is accompanied by Bazerov (Fraser Andrews), who has revolutionary ideas on life, love and all of society. Much of the play focuses on the interactions between Arkady and Bazerov with interesting master/slave dialogue, as well as the relationships between the young and old generations. Though I lack the room to go into detail here, let me just say that every character finds that all of their ideas are challenged by themselves or by other people, and refusing to accept these challenges can lead to heartbreak, or worse.
From reading the plot, you are probably thinking that this couldn�t be a comedy. Well, it certainly was, and I feel that it is because of Pavel (played excellently by Richard Grafton), Arkady�s uncle. Pavel is essentially a fop: he is constantly trying to reinvent himself in imitation of the latest European trends. In fact, in his quest for the latest styles and behaviours, Pavel gives off the impression of insanity. Grafton did an excellent job with Pavel, as his performance was marked by fantastic speech and a strong sense of physical comedy. Each time Pavel appeared on stage the entire audience knew that something hilarious was about to happen. 
Another aspect of Nothing Sacred that I really enjoyed was the production value: the set consisted of a multitude of painted PVC pipes, giving the impression of a forest, the lighting perfectly emulated my mood from the audience, and the music between each scene was simply excellent. As well, each scene change was done in such a way that the audience was made aware of the change in setting without being left in the dark.
All in all, Nothing Sacred was an excellent performance of an excellent play. It is too bad its run has past, or I would be busy convincing all of you to go out and see it. Hopefully the next theatre production can keep this successful line going.

"Nothing Sacred: The Latest Production at the University of Lethbridge"
By Bill Ponech. The Lethbridge Insider. Nov 1 2004

When the words �Russian� and �theatre� are mentioned in the same sentence, the result is often an overall drowsiness for anyone within earshot. Nothing Sacred is proof that preconceptions are a bad, bad thing. Having seen my first Walker play at the U of L Theatre way back in the early �90�s (Zastrozzi, The Master of Discipline), I knew what to expect as far as the script goes, but this production exceeded my already-high expectations.

Nothing Sacred is set in Russia in the mid-1800�s, at a time when new ideas are coming from the universities and are butting heads with ideals of the past. Leading the way are Bazarov (Frazer Andrews) and Arkady (Chris Terepocki), two friends and recent university graduates who embrace the ideals of the impending revolution. At least that�s how it appears on the outside. On the inside, it appears more like Bazarov is more interested in manipulating people for his own enjoyment; placing them in awkward positions, or forcing them to act more quickly than they would have otherwise. Ultimately it will be your opinion as to whether Bazarov thinks he is truly doing good, or simply enjoying his �fools.�

Upon arriving home, Arkady finds his love of his father, Nikolai (Brent Felzien), has overruled his desire to join the revolution and ultimately wants to stay on the family farm. He also discovers his father�s farm is nearly in ruins from allowing the peasants to work their own land, and is keen to use his education and find a viable solution for his father.

Also at home, he finds his father has found emotional solace in the form of the young housekeeper Fenichka (Jamie Dunsdon). His Uncle Pavel (Richard Grafton) is relentless in his quest for fashion, preservation of tradition, and Anna (Andrea Stein). Anna is the daughter of the woman he previously obsessed over.

Guest-director Gail Hanrahan is from Calgary and is used to directing professional theatre. If you placed this production at the Yates Theatre, I would have easily assumed this was a professional endeavor. The level of ability on-stage was well, professional � from the starring roles all the way down to the supporting cast. Standing out above the excellent cast were Frazer Andrews as Bazarov, Chris Terepocki as Arkady, and Richard Grafton as Uncle Pavel. In the supporting roles Willie Banfield as Gregor and Andy Jenkins as Sitnikov provided the bulk of the laughs throughout the evening.

This play also shows the importance of good costume design, and Jim Wills did not only a good job in creating the clothes, but the set as well. The costumes assist in creating and developing the characters over-and-above what is in the script. Take for example Bazarov, who always dresses in black. Black in this case designates nihilism, which Bazarov claims to believe in, was a popular way of thinking during the Russian revolution. Also benefiting from good costuming was Uncle Pavel, whose attire grew more ridiculous (and humourous) as the play progressed. As well as Richard Grafton did as Uncle Pavel, his character would not have been as effective without the great costuming.

I find too the set designs at the U of L productions are always interesting. In the case of Nothing Sacred, the set consisted of tall timber to resemble the rural setting of Nikolai�s farm. Also on stage was a ramp that doubled as a road and dining area. While the road was fairly simple, the dining area provided the cast with some double-duty, as the odd utensil would fall off during a scene and the character nearest, would simply pick it up without missing a beat. This was an interesting idea from director Hanrahan that made the set an active part of the play. Set changes were also unique in this production, as characters would be active participants in replacing items, often resulting in additional laughter from the audience.

George F. Walker is a gifted playwright; an opinion already well established. This play, which is a multiple-award winner, deals with issues of class, generation gaps, and politics � all fairly universal topics. In Nothing Sacred, Walker has neatly used the backdrop of the Russian Revolution to tell his story, but could have easily happened in the early 1970�s in the United States (for example). Plot is not everything however, as a play must have a good dialogue and this one leaves you with some of the best. Bazarov tells Arkady that he has, �two opinions at once. You are a good Russian.� Uncle Pavel calls Nikolai�s housekeeper Fenichka a �semi-literate,� and having �a wonderful sense of occasion� is a good quality to have.

As Nothing Sacred ends its run, the Department of Theatre and Dramatic Arts should be commended on producing another entertaining show.

News Acting Resume Skills and Stats Teaching Resume
Resources Gallery Design Projects Reviews Home

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws