To the casual observer, Garry Williams and Amy Reitsma appear
breezy and calm as they sit down at a Barrington Street cafe on a sunny
afternoon. Reitsma smiles and sips coffee, while Williams orders carrot
cake. This all seems fairly innocuous until the pair reveal that they
are in the midst of writing, preparing and rehearsing a Fringe
show—with five days to go before the first performance.
“I actually haven’t eaten yet today,” Williams says between
mouthfuls.
“We are running on coffee and sheer will,” says Reitsma.
Reitsma and Williams had come into the production well prepared—or
so they thought. Rehearsals for the off-Broadway show What About
Luv? were scheduled to begin nearly two weeks ago. Reitsma and the
pair’s third co-star, Andrew Chandler, had arrived in town straight
from other performances. On Monday, Williams greeted them with bad
news: the rights for the script they’d memorized wouldn’t be cleared in
time for the planned Fringe performance dates.
After some quick decision-making, the actors and their director,
Eric Benson, decided the show must go on, but the situation dictated
that the cast put together a new show with all-original material. The
resulting product has been appropriately dubbed So…What About
Love?. (The cast still intends to present What About Luv? later this fall.) Williams and Reitsma say their show bears thematic
similarities to the original script written by Andrew Sweet, exploring
notions of love through three distinct characters. But unlike the
original, it’s also a cabaret, with songs linked to brief
monologue-styled interludes. And there are some distinct parallels
between the plot and the cast’s real-life situation.
“The play was originally about desperate people, and now it’s still
about desperate people—because we’ve got five days to put it
together,” Reitsma says. “But it also asks: What is it about love that
makes us do the insane things that we do? Love of the theatre, love of
another person. We’re trying to inform it as much from our own
experiences as we can.”
“Sometimes in a process, you feel frustrated, like you’re not making
any progress,” says Williams. “But so far, we’ve found it to be the
opposite. An idea for a song will lead to another song. It’s just
forward motion, and that’s promising.”
Reitsma, like Williams, is a seasoned theatre performer—both have
worked together with Williams’ DaPoPo theatre company, and she’s a
leading member of Metamorphic Theatre. But So…What About Love? marks the first time she’s written monologues and songs under such a
specific time frame.
“I’m more of a performer than a writer,” she says. “But it forces
you to go to places you would never otherwise go. It keeps all the
synapses firing.”
Williams scrapes up the last few crumbs of his cake with his fork.
Reitsma finishes her coffee. They are upbeat and even excited. The show
clearly represents a dive into the unknown, and they’re ready for
it.
“The essayist Neil Postman once coined this term called
Columbicity—the idea that Christopher Columbus wasn’t looking for
America when he sailed off into the unknown,” says Williams. “It
references the things you find when you’re looking for something else.
I wonder if this is one of those instances. We’re finding something and
trying not to be blind to it.”
This article appears in Sep 10-16, 2009.
“What About Luv” becomes “What about Love”?!…due to ‘copyright’ issues, but “the show must go on!”(?!) Even with a total re-write in 5 days?
Original ‘songs’ ( I assume there are several) penned since Labour Day?
Hmm.
Sorry, but a flight missed, is a flight missed…and to take the train of desperation at the last mintue is an insult to the community, unless these three possess talent far beyond that of their business skills!
Are there no “standby” (and properly rehearsed) performances from local groups that would eagerly fill the void/venue?
You know…the arts is not a Walt Disney film where the most “eager” win out…
it takes planning, from both the creative, and “business” side…
Dear critic,
I feel what we presented, under admittedly less than ideal circumstances, as “So… What About Love?” was not an insult to the community. I hope that those who saw our Fringe submission would agree.
I extend my sincere apologies for insulting your sensibilities in attempting to make the best out of a difficult situation.
GaRRy Williams
DaPoPo Theatre
I think Garry is being modest, I’ve heard from a number of people that “So…What About Love?” was one of the best shows of the Fringe. One of the best shows I’ve ever seen “Poor Boy” (by Zuppa Theatre) was practically a complete re-write after one of the actor’s broke his leg in the final days of rehearsal.
“You know…the arts is not a Walt Disney film where the most “eager” win out… it takes planning, from both the creative, and “business” side…”
That’s crap, I don’t know what DaPoPo did to piss you off, but everyone knows it’s the final product that counts.
I think Bad Mr. Frosty should have taken his head out of his ass long enough to actually see the play! It was amazing…made even more so by the fact that it was put together with little time and lots of pressure. Garry, Amy, and Andrew were fantastic, the show was smart, funny, sad, engaging, adorable…the list of adjectives goes on and on. It made me laugh, it made me cry, it made me wish I could sing and act…and for a big coward like me, that’s saying a hell of a lot! It was the best show I’ve seen in years and I can only hope it gets to been seen by a larger, wider audience, because it is so worth it! This was no insult to the community…your unenlightened comments are an insult to everyone who poured their hearts and souls into the creation of such a great play.
Rewriting a play or making significant changes even to existing plays is far more common than people know. A recent production of Brecht’s Mother Courage at the National Theatre in London (UK) went up for previews even though the cast could not perform the final two scenes because they hadn’t been able to complete the technical rehearsal. There are stories of plays and musicals being completely rewritten between the previews and opening night. Audiences are often ignorant of just how close any production is to complete and utter disaster.
As for “business” skills, it is “business” that created the problem in the first place. (a result of the limitations imposed on creativity by the Fringe as well as the long process involved in obtaining copyright permission). The fact that the show went on in the face of business opposition is something we should all applaud.
First, a brief but important note; though I can’t say for certain, it doesn’t sound like baD mR fRosTy saw the show. Hopefully it can be remounted, and he will have the opportunity to do so.
Second, an important note on my own prejudices – I know two of the three actor/writers in the show. That being said, had I not known them, I still would have thought it was an exceptional show. Had I not known the (brief) history of it’s creation, I would have thought it exceptional. It was truly creative, honest theatre. The music was smart and witty, and the dialogue/soliloquies were effective and well-conceived. The show was poignant, challenging, and rewarding to it’s audience.
Those who teach creative subjects, and better still those who teach creativity, know that some of the more enlightening creative moments come not from total freedom, but with particular restrictions, and with deadlines of time. Yes, total freedom can lead to brilliance. But as a general rule, creativity appears more naturally within a set of guidelines; in this case, the guidelines were the theme of love, 90 minutes of theatre, and a week and a half to create it.
I have found/read three reviews of this show, all of which were favourable. More than that, having seen 2 of the 4 performances, I can attest that the audiences received it very favourably. Both shows I saw received standing ovations, and they were not casually given. The audiences were highly engaged, believed the actor/writers did an excellent job with truly enlightening theatre, and rewarded them accordingly.
The arts are certainly not a Disney film; greatness is born from risk, not from focus groups and mainstream methods. The actor/writers involved in So…What About Love? took a great risk in deciding to attempt to write and produce a show in the limited time span they had. That risk paid off greatly, with one of the more honest pieces of theatre I have seen in quite some time. Should there be a second running of So…What About Love?, I hope that those who did not have the opportunity to see it will avail themselves; I will certainly relish the opportunity to hear those soulful reflections on love at least once more.