Arts » Theatre Reviews

The Love List struggles with predictability

By Colin Thomas,

By Norm Foster. Directed by Max Reimer. A Playhouse Theatre Company production. At the Vancouver Playhouse on Thursday, March 25. Continues until April 10

Norm Foster is Canada’s most produced playwright, but that’s not a fact to be celebrated because, as The Love List makes clear, he’s a long, long way from being our best.

In this play, Leo buys a 50th birthday gift for his pal Bill, a membership in a dating service called Got a Match. This is not a computer-driven process. The service is run by an old gypsy, and all Bill has to do is fill out a form listing the 10 characteristics of his ideal mate. No sooner has Bill written up his love list than Justine appears.

She’s got every quality that Bill has requested—including a fondness for performing oral sex. Justine knows all about Bill and she behaves as if they’ve been dating forever. Although he’s initially weirded out, Bill comes to enjoy living with Justine before the arrangement—inevitably—turns sour.

There’s theatricality in the magical nature of the setup, but Foster is mostly dealing in the shallow ideas and stale stereotypes of second-rate TV sitcoms.

Bill and Leo figure out that they can alter Justine’s behaviour by changing the list—by making her enjoy singing, say, as opposed to being unpredictable. But, of course, these Doctors Frankenstein lose control of their experiment. The lesson, as Leo says, is that: “You don’t fall in love with a perfect person. You fall in love by learning to see an imperfect person perfectly.” But we all know that already, don’t we?

Foster has fun sending up the classic sex-obsessed, emotionally stunted, narcissistic straight guy—Leo thinks that “big breasts” should be on the list—but, to me at least, this stereotype is crude and overworked. I don’t find the mere mention of a blowjob hilarious either—not because I’m a prude but because, for me, there’s nothing transgressive or surprising about it.

I did get one solid, unexpected laugh out of the first act. Bill is a statistician, and is delighted when Justine picks up one of his reports and asks, “Have you done the mean deviations and margins of error yet?” Too often, though, The Love List is predictable. You can see plot points coming miles away.

Peter Anderson is charmingly nerdy as Bill. Anderson is engagingly vulnerable and he’s a gifted physical clown. A bit of stage business in which Anderson’s Bill lip-synchs to his stereo, is the freshest passage of the evening. Cailin Stadnyk, who is developing into a very smooth comedienne, plays Justine with admirable timing and restraint; it would have been easy to go over the top with this role. And Foster embodies Leo with an author’s assured sense of the character’s wisecracking style.

The majority of the opening-night audience howled with laughter throughout The Love List, and most leapt to their feet at the end. In my view, though, this is a solid production of a mediocre play. I expect more challenge and sophistication from the Playhouse.

Comments

Richard Berrow
Colin, I don't think you're exhibiting a consistent taste here, and there was considerably more to the play than you managed to find. You loved Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, and didn't complain that it was predictable, or the language too rough. Scoundrels was a fine musical comedy, but it certainly wasn't unpredictable, and it came a lot closer to the zone of genuinely bad taste (all that wheelchair humour, and the comic humping retard impression). In Love List we have a very different production, equally well done, of a comic play with a good deal more to think about than Scoundrels (not that that's saying much) and a lot less dirty talking. Yet you're shocked by the blowjob line? Admittedly, that was the weakest laugh in the play. If you only got the one laugh all night then there's something wrong with your sense of humour, or there was that night, and you shouldn't've been reviewing comedy. And I don't believe you when you say that you saw all the plot points coming. Fibber. Sure, the general drift was clear, but the interesting thing was trying to foresee which of the possibilities was going to appear on stage. That's what people in my party were talking about at intermission. Nobody predicted what actually happens at the end. Did you? I don't believe it. This was an inventive approach on the part of the playwright, and created an interesting tension. And in case you don't know this, Colin, working inventively within a form that has some restrictions is the way much of the world's great art, and a lot of very entertaining drama, comes into being. What's quite clear is that this play, light as it was, went well over your head. 'Scuse me for being personal, but your review invites it.
 
Colin Thomas GS
Thanks for the comment, Richard. To be clear: I'm not offended by "rough language" or "dirty talking". I'm not shocked by the blow job jokes in The Love List either; in fact, they bored me. I'm all for witty, pointed transgression, but I don't find The Love List particularly witty or transgressive.
Colin Thomas
 
 
[Comments Disclaimer]
Post a comment
· Use your real name to have your comment considered for publication in print.
· URLs and email addresses will be automatically turned into links.