Itsazoo's Robin Hood comes out swinging
By Sebastien Archibald. Directed by Chelsea Haberlin. Presented by Itsazoo Productions. In Queen Elizabeth Park on Thursday, August 5. Continues until August 19
It’s great to see a young, political company come out swinging, but the politics in Itsazoo Productions’ version of Robin Hood could be a lot more sophisticated.
In writer Sebastien Archibald’s telling, Robin wants to create housing and green employment opportunities for the homeless of Vancouver. To do that, he has to fight the evil Mayor Nottingham, who becomes the evil Premier Nottingham—clearly a reference to Gordon Campbell. Nottingham wants his police force to taser the poor into submissive invisibility because he’s hosting something called the International Big Deal, aka the Olympics.
The best scene in the show finds an effectively absurdist spin: in the climax of the opening ceremony of the International Big Deal, athletes throw heaps of money into a cauldron—which very nearly fails to light. This passage works not just because it’s recognizable, but also because it’s succinct and surprising.
Too often, however, the politics of this Robin Hood are reheated. Even though the scene I’ve cited is successful, making the Olympics central to this story is a weak strategy, especially since Archibald adds no new analysis about how the Olympics affected Vancouver. This isn’t beating a dead horse; it’s shouting at a horse that left the barn a long time ago.
Archibald occasionally hits the mark with a low blow: when a fellow politician questions Nottingham’s chances of becoming premier, he says, “Oh, please! A drunken felon could be premier of this province.” Mostly, though, the show’s politics are disappointingly jejune: Robin indiscriminately robs lawyers, doctors, and professors. Why? Sure, these folks usually make more money than actors, but that doesn’t mean they’re evil capitalists. Itsazoo’s Robin Hood even questions the viability of democracy, but because it doesn’t thoroughly examine the issue, the reference feels naive.
Director Chelsea Haberlin oversees a production that contains some visual strengths. Thanks to props maker Kyle Sutherland, one actor becomes a large group of Big Deal judges: when he lifts his arms, so does a whole row of dummies. Haberlin fails to fully exploit the potential of the show’s outdoor site in Queen Elizabeth Park, however. To change scenes, she moves the audience from one playing area to another, but because she doesn’t often explore the specific qualities of these areas, the repeated moves feel pretty arbitrary.
Chris Cook makes a humbly charming Robin Hood, and Kaitlin Williams has fun playing his love interest, Marion, especially in the beginning, when she’s a spoiled rich girl.
For me, the highlight of the show comes very near the end, when the cast sings “He Ain’t Heavy. He’s My Brother” in fulsome harmonies. More singing, please, and deeper analysis.
Comments
2 Comments
loneshieling
Aug 19, 2010 at 6:59am
What a beautiful location to run a play! Sadly, this show was superficial and over-simplistic, as the reviewer states. They rob doctors, and then later praise socialized medicine - and *who* would be providing this free health care?
The victims of Robin are primarily people who have spent many years at, or below, the poverty line during their education (and then often get jobs providing free or subsidized public service - education, legal aid, medicine). Would the former homeless be appropriate targets too, once they get good jobs?
It is facile to suggest, as the play does, that the homeless should be trained for jobs in the emerging eco-tech sector. The toil of addiction and mental illness may preclude many of these people from menial jobs, let alone high tech jobs.
Occasionally the complexity peeks out - no, it's not a good idea to give a drug addict cash, but people have pride and want to make their own choices, even bad ones, and may react negatively to the constrained help offered. But mostly the play promotes a good versus evil approach that doesn't help.
Sebastien Archibald
Aug 25, 2010 at 12:18pm
Oooo, looks like an opportunity to defend my work. How can I resist?! God bless the internet...
I appreciate some of the kind words Colin said about the show and given that he's a tough critic with very high standards I'm happy to just have my work taken seriously and evaluated by a professional.
In hindsight there are few cuts and rewrites I would make to reduce the didacticism of Robin Hood.
Of course I disagree with some of his comments. First, sophistication was never on the agenda. There is a long history of successful political plays and playwrights who relish in simplicity and juvenility. There's no law that states that good satire has to be sophisticated. Banksy comes to mind. We see this in pop culture with Stewart and Colbert and South Park. We see it in theatre history with playwrights like Dario Fo (one of Italy's most prolific and internationally produced playwrights). Sophisticated political theatre tends to be very dry and cerebral, a la David Hare. This is not the crowd I'm gunning for. Brecht was also rather sophisticated but his plays are rarely if ever funny. So sophistication would negate my audience and undermine the fun and frivolousness of my piece. Our Robin Hood is more of a giant political cartoon with a touch of humanity than it is some sort of deep, profound meditation on capitalism and poverty.
As far as adding new insights regarding the Olympics this wasn't a goal of mine either. Although it may have arguably made for a stronger play. I wrote it as a reflection on what had happened and a reminder of all the promises that were made that weren't kept regarding cleaning up our streets, a reminder that maybe we're now a "World Class City" but the problems facing us haven't changed AT ALL. A little Olympic time capsule, if you will, performed a mere six months after the fact. Hardly an age ago given that artists are prone to reaching much farther back into history to find fodder for their work.
The fact that Robin Hood steals from society's elite is a obvious update to the myth. It has nothing to do with them making more than actors. I'm not sure where that comment comes from. Some Hollywood actors are among the most ridiculously wealthy people I can think of. And many don't take the opportunity to be philanthropic at all. Not to mention the ones who are card carrying republicans and don't believe in any form of social welfare.