As part of the ongoing what-I-did-on-my-summer-vacation, I’ll wrap it up with our overnight stay at Niagara-on-the-Lake. Niagara-on-the-Lake is a beautiful small town on Lake Ontario. It is the home of the Shaw Festival, a theater festival where they celebrate George Bernard Shaw‘s
plays, and any other (non-Shaw) play written during Shaw’s considerable
lifetime (1856-1950). The productions are excellent, and the theaters
are small, which makes for some great theater.
Meredith and I went to Stratford, Canada (the Shakespeare Festival) and
to Niagara-on-the-Lake as the first 8 days of our honeymoon (the rest
were spent in romantic Philadelphia with my brother). I know seeing
lots of theater on your honeymoon is not everyone’s cup of tea, but it
worked for us. We have talked about going back lots, but have never
managed it until this one-night stay over vacation. Since we had to be
in Michigan on Saturday for a wedding, Meredith suggested breaking the
Maine-to-Michigan trip up into a Middlebury stage and a
Niagara-on-the-Lake stage, which was a brilliant idea. So, we finally
got back to the Shaw Festival, almost eight years later.
Even though we spent only about 30 hours in town, we went for two walks
along the lake, which is lined with very nice homes. It seems as if all
of the homes in Niagara-on-the-Lake are cute, AND they are all
individual – no housing development cookie-cutter homes here. Both days’
walks were fine, and you could just make out the skyline of Toronto on
the other side of the lake (the CN Tower sure helps with that!).
We also got to wander the cute downtown shops, which I recommend
highly. They had a decent gelato (Italian ice cream) stand in a (wait
for it, Jolene) coffee shop, an Irish import store AND a Scottish
import store. We ate in a pub-ish basement, where we had some good food
(many of the other restaurants are upscale, so I don’t like the food).
But the main reason for us to go was to see plays. We saw two plays – one Thursday night, and one Friday afternoon.
The Thursday play was Shaw’s “Too True to be Good,” an improbable play
about an ex-preacher and his former lover convincing a rich young woman
to be “kidnapped” so all three can share the ransom money, and they all
head off to Arabia where they lounge about a military base with a
private based on Lawrence of Arabia, one of Shaw’s good friends.
Meredith’s concise and witty review was the title – the play was
too true to be good. It had some great one-liners (Shaw is very funny),
but the play was really long and almost nothing happened. It was like
what I have heard about “Waiting for Godot” – lots of talk, and no plot
or action. Add to this that Shaw used the play to squeeze in dozens of
rants that make the Cheerful Ranter
look like an amateur, and the play started to get tedious. I am a huge
theater nut, and even I began to wonder when the play would end. It
could have been a great short play if it were edited down. Don’t
get me wrong – the production was fantastic; the acting and staging
were first rate. I just think it is not a very good play. One thing
Sonotmu has taught me about improv is that relationships drive scenes,
and that is what audiences find most interesting. I think that is what
is wrong with “To True to Be Good” – the characters are flat,and the
relationships are canned or non-existant. You just don’t care what
happens to these people. It is too much satire to be taken as a serious
play (meaning dealing with serious issues in a serious way – not a
judgement on the nature of satire, which I love), and Shaw breaks the
satire time and again, so it does not make good satire either. Lastly,
the issues Shaw raises are not subtle at all – he preaches at you for
over two hours.
If you want to see an excellent Shaw play that is more consistent, see
“Mrs. Warren’s Profession” – I saw that a few years ago, and I
recommend it.
The play we saw on Friday was a stage adaptation of H.G. Wells‘
“The Invisible Man” (see picture on left). This play was fantastic. I
was fascinated by how they would stage the production. I saw two
choices: 1) use illusion to portray the Invisible Man, or 2) have the
actor on stage at all times, but have times when the other actors could
not see him. This production chose to use illusion, and it was very
effective. They had things floating on stage, a police man fighting with
an “empty” shirt, a man dragged by his shirt collar across the stage,
and two occasions where a coat was laid over the Invisible Man on stage.
It was most impressive. More impressive was the adaptation. I have not
read Wells’ story, but the play brought up questions about what it
means to be human, the nature of community, the price of power and
knowledge, ideas of loyalty, the dangers of being short sighted, and
other ideas. I was completely sucked in to the story – the plot and
characters were strong, and the acting was magnificent. I loved this
play.
So, that is what we did on vacation. It was great. Now, I’m
back to the reality of network wires, switches, servers, and so on. I
hope to get a few weekends away yet this summer – one to L.A. for my
niece’s baptism, and maybe a weekend in Chicago to see The Flying Buttresses, my brother and his wife’s improv group.





























