by Andrew Robulack The Siamese Twins of Vancouver per- formance art—the Queen Elizabeth and the Playhouse—seemed to have sensed a need for a more spring-like attitude with their latest productions. As the take-and-take (read selfish) world ofCanadian politics heats upall over again (thanks owing to Daddy Richler); while fine art becomes more and more threaten- ing (the fecal matter of Anne Hamilton’s 200 yellow budgies); and as Hollywood once again lusts after our collectively homophobic psyches, the two largest thea- tre companies in Vancouver took a step back from it all. The Playhouse, with Noel Coward’s Fallen Angels, and the Opera, with Mozart’s The Marriage of Figaro, have both given us a timely reminder what art, in its immortal form, really mean to us. These works of performance art, to an extent, consummate some great ‘virtues’ of what it is to be human: humour, wit, originality, a spirit of decadence,and just plain fun. Perfect stuff for the rejuvenative month of April. The Marriage of Figaro, based on the play by the French writer Beaumarchais, is an Kighteenth Century Italian opera by the German composer Mozart. Fallen An- gels was written in the 1920’s by the British writer, composer and wit-about- town, Noel Coward. That neither of these plays. can take on a very modern face and that they are both born of foreign lands may have been diminishing factors for their potential to entertain a Vancouver audience. But they were not. These works ofart are so convolute with the absurdities of human nature that, for the most part, their meanings are still as pertinent today as when they were first performed. Both Figaro and Fallen Angels strike at pure truths of our collectively human con- dition. And that’s all that people care about in the end, isn’t it? Hearing about themselves? Not to sound cynical or critical about contemporary issue-oriented art, but what are the surviving features of the great works of art which history gives us?— Humans and their attitudes about them- selves, of course. It has been attempted in the past to occupy art with matters other than the intuitively human. Such an idea, how- ever, reeks of science (And we all know where science will get us, don’t we?). Art which appropriates science and reason as its fundamental source of inspiration even- tually fades into oblivion—whereas una- bashed self-indulgency exists in the artis- tic archives forever. Perfect to argue this case with are the Romantics who lent human tendencies to nature; hence the term personification. Throughout history it has been impossible for any visual artist to represent anything outside of themselves purely; Realist, Clas- sicist, Representationalist, they all fail for the simple fact that they, as humans, are the primal medium their art must travel through. And anything which a human touches, it taints. Art is truly the only vehicle towards immortality for a human and no matter how long or how short our life spans are, we remain nothing more than human be- ings. As Shelley’s Ozymandias suggests, the humans and their eras pass while art is eternally resilient to time. But I digress. Back to Figaroand Fallen Angels: where- upon I would like to raise this question: what is probably the trait most unique to us, as humans? We all do it every day. Answer: our intricate ability to deceive. A tree can’t fool you into believing that it’s not really growing though we humans can convince ourselves of own complete lack of self-worth (just ask any existentialist worth their Collected Works of Kierkegaard). The Marriage of Figaro’s complex plot revolves around multiple deceits, tricks, squabbles, and the sheer apathetic ambi- tions of every character. Originally Beaumarchais’ play contained cynicisms directed at specific social and political figures of his era whereas Mozart has streamlined his opera’s contents to main- tain only those elements essential to por- tray the characteristics of what it is to be human. The Vancouver Opera’s production of Figaro fully fully embraced Mozart ‘s in- tents and did so with a strict eye for set and costume design. I’ve heard complaints about the tiny rent-a-set from the Banff Centre (designed by Susan Benson), about its size and inability to fill the QE’s stage. But all of that is utter nonsense; the stage served as a polite reminder of the artistic value of Mozart’s opera with omnipresent wires and pulleys which were only half- hidden in the rafters. The theatric experi- ence was heightened. The Montreal born Gerald Finley is both a stunning actor and vocalist. His every motion on stage, his every note emitted from that deep-down place only operatic voices can reach, everything about Gerald Finley was perfect in his role as Figaro. Clever, dashing, witty, although, in heart quite slow, Finley’s Figaro carried the opera. Probably the closest to innocence that The Marriage of Figaro has to offer is Susanna, Figaro’s wife-to-be. Played by Dominique Labelle, Susanna was beauti- ful: there were times when Labelle’s voice rose so purely that I found it hard to resist the temptation I had to rush the stageand take Susanna in my arms. Andas the Countess Adrianne Pieczonka shone with passion and jealousy. As each character in Figaro really represents the epitome of an emotion, Pieczonka actually became sadness when she realized her loss of the Count’s love. There is nothing really in The Marriage of Figaro which is stunning or dismaying besides its sarcastic honesty. It’s easy and fun and a bit bawdy, so what the heck, eh? Next door in the Playhouse was a work written by a man who understood a great deal about deceit. Based around the sudden appearance of two English housewive’s former French lover (they knew himat different times) in their post-passion married lives, Fallen Angels plays on the tension of anticipation and the constant longing for change or excitement all humans adore. The major- ity of the playis spent waiting for Maurice (the lover) and hypothesizing about the change he might bring to the two women. The play’s jokes and circumstances are bogged down by Coward’s devotion to his era though much of the one-liners and slapstick are eternally relevant. Funda- mentally pleasing, the Playhouse’s Fallen Angels is true to its title (Gf that makes sense). At its heart, there is not much beyond the surface of this play and I was not particularly thrilled with it. For the sim- ple fact only that it proves that we humans are really all only a bunch of self-indul- gent liars did I take an interest in it. The two main actresses, Camille Mitchell and Corrine Koslo, however should be granted admiration. Their performances were hi- larious. That plastic champagne glass shouldn’t have been there, though. That’s it—the end of my last review/ social commentary for the year. Memorize it and if you can repeat it back to me next September when I’m editor of this rag, you've got yourself a job (a volunteer one that is). The Marriage of Figaro. Dominique Labelle as Susanna , Adrianne Pieczonka and Norine Burgess on the floor by Andrew Robulack ‘The Siamese Twins of Vancouver per: formance art—the Queen Elizabeth and the Playhouse—seemed to have sensed a need for a more spring-ike attitude with their latest productions. Asthetake-and-take read selfish) world ‘of Canadian plitiesheats upallloveragain (thanks owing to Daddy Richler); while fine art becomes more and more threaten- ing (the fecal matter of Anne Hamilton's 200 yellow budgies); and as Hollywood once again lusts after our collectively homophobic psyches, the twolargest thea- tre companies in Vancouver took a step back from it all ‘The Playhouse, with Noel Coward's Fallen Angels, and the Opera, with Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro, have both given usa timely reminder what art, {nits immortal form, really mean to us. These works of performance art, to an extent, consummate some great ‘virtues’ of what it is to be human: humour, wit, originality, a spirit of decadence,and just plain fun. Perfect stufffortherejuvenative month of April ‘The Marriage of Figaro, based on the play by the French writer Beaumarchais, isan Bighteenth Century Italian opera by the German composer Mozart, Fallen An: ‘gels_was written in the 1920's by the British writer, composer and wit-about- town, Noel Coward. That neither ofthese plays can take on a very modern face and that they are both born of foreign lands ‘may have been diminishing factors for their potential to entertain a Vancouver audience, But they were not. These works fart aresoconvolute with the absurdities ofhuman nature that, for the most part, theirmeanings esti as pertinent today as when they were first performed. Both Figaro and Fallen Angels strike at pure truths ofour collectively human con- dition. And that’s all that people care about in the end, isn't it? Hearing about themselves? Not to sound eynical or critical about contemporary issue-oriented art, but what are the surviving features of the great works of art which history gives us?— Humans and their attitudes about them- selves, of course. Tt has been attempted in the past to ‘ceeupy art with matters other than the intuitively human, Such an idea, how- ever, reeks of science (And we all know where science will get us, don't we2), Art which appropriates science and reason as itsfuundamental source ofinspirationeven- tually fades into oblivion—whereas una- bashed se-indulgeney exists in the artis- tic archives forever. Perfect to argue this case with are the Romantics who lent human tendencies to nature; hence the term personification ‘Throughout history it hasbeen impossible forany visual artist to represent anything ‘outsideof themselves purely;Realist,Clas- sicist, Representationalis, they all fail for the simple fact that they, as humans, are the primal medium their art must travel through. And anything which a human touches, it taints Artis truly the only vehicle towards immortality for a human and no matter how long or how short our life spans are, ‘we remain nothing more than human be- ings. As Shelley's Ozymandias suggests, the humans and their eras pass while art is eternally resilient to time. But I digress BacktoFigaroand Fallen Angels: where upon I would like to raise this question’ what is probably the trait most unique to us, as humans? We all do it every day. Answer: our intricate ability to deceive. A tree can't fool you into believing that it's not really growing though we humans can convince ourselves ofown complete lack of self-worth Gust ask any existentialist worth their Collected Works of Kierkegaard), ‘The Marriage of Figaro's complex plot revolves around multiple deceits, tricks, squabbles, and the sheer apathetic ambi- tions of every character. Originally Beaumarchais’ play contained eynicisms directed at specific social and political ge figures of his era whereas Mozart has streamlined his opera's contents to main. tain only those elements essential to por- tray the characteristics of what itis tobe human. ‘The Vancouver Opera's production of Figaro fully fully embraced Mozart's in- tents and did so with a striet eye for set ‘and costume design, Pveheard complaints about the tiny rent-a-set from the BanfT Centre designedby Susan Benson), about its ize and inability to fill the QE’s stage. But all ofthat i utter nonsense; the stage served as a polite reminder ofthe artistic value of Mozart's opera with omnipresent wires and pulleys which were only half hidden in the rafters. The theatricexperi cence was heightened ‘The Montreal born Gerald Finley isboth ‘a stunning actor and vocalist. His every motion on stage, his every note emitted from that deep-down place only operatic voices can reach, everything about Gerald Finley was perfect in his role as Figaro Clever, dashing, witty, although, in heart quite slow, Finley's Figaro carried the opera. Probably the closest to innocence that The Marriage of Figaro has to offer is Susanna, Figaro's wifecto-be. Played by Dominique Labelle, Susanna was beauti- ful: there were times when Labelle’ voice roseso purely that I found it hard to resist the temptation [had torush thestageand take Susanna in my arms. ‘Andas the Countess Adrianne Pieczonka shone with passion and ealousy. As each character in Figaro really represents the epitome ofan emotion, Pieczonka actually became sadness when she realized her loss of the Count’s love. ‘There is nothing really in The Marriage of Figaro which is stunning or dismaying besides itssarcastichonesty. It’seasyand fun anda bit bawdy, so what the heck, eh? Next door in the Playhouse was a work written by a man who understood a great deal about deceit. Based around the sudden appearance of two English housewive's former French lover(theyknewhimatdifferent times) in their post-passion married lives, Fallen ‘Angels playson the tension ofanticipation and the constant longing for change or excitement all humans adore, The major- ity ofthe play is spent waiting for Maurice (the lover) and hypothesizing about the change he might bring tothe two women, The play's jokes and circumstances are bogged down by Coward's devotion to his era though much of the one-liners and slapstick are eternally relevant. Funda- mentally pleasing, the Playhouse's Fallen Angels is true to its title (if that makes sense), At its heart, there is not much beyond the surface of this play and 1 was not particularly thrilled with it. For the sim- plefactonly thatit provesthat we humans are really all only a bunch of selfindul- gent liars did I take an interest init. The two main actresses, Camille Mitchell and Corrine Koslo, however should be granted admiration. Their performances were hi Jarious. That plastic champagne glass shouldn't have been there, though, That's it—the end of my last review/ social commentary for the year. Memorize it and if you can repeat it back tomemnext September when I'm editor of this rag, you've got yourself a job (a volunteerone that is) “The Mariage of Figaro. Dominique Labelle as Susanne, Adrianne Pieronka and Norine Barges onthe ot