goestoshow

This is the kind of play that results from a collection of improv actors writing a scripted play. Much like good improv, the play is hilarious because it is chock full of hilarious standalone moments. I couldn’t even count the number of times this play had the entire audience laughing uproariously at something happening on stage. A line that stood out for me, as being both funny and a defining line of the entire play, was “it’s eat or be eaten in the Enchanted fucking Forest!” There were much much funnier lines and sight gags, but that really covers the whole concept of a modern retelling of Red Riding Hood, The Three Little Pigs, and Jack and the Beanstalk complete with drugs, sex, murder, and every other sin under the sun.

Where it falls short, though, is in the frame story around all those hilarious moments. The mashup of those three stories into one is, unfortunately, largely incoherent, overly complex, and generally just a little too twisted (though that supplied a lot of its best moments). There were a couple of points where one of the actors even self-consciously pointed out the lack of funny in some of his lines (it’s entirely possible that’s part of the script, but either way it feels like an admission of discomfort at doing scripted theatre in this group).

I also found it a bit frustrating that at various points, different actors would play the same character. This is fine in short improv sketches, but in an hour long play it can make things a bit more difficult to follow.

I feel a bit conflicted at knocking the play for this, because it really was really really funny. But, at the same time I feel like it didn’t really achieve its goals. It might have been better left as improv with some audience participation to decide how the mashup would have worked. As is, I just felt like I was just seeing some improv that I had no way to participate in.

I think I’ll be seeing this group’s actual improv show (Scratch) at some point during the Fringe, and this play has made me more excited to do so. And I think the script shows promise, it just needed to be narrowed down in scope a bit.

Poster Boys is based loosely on the true story of a VanCity Credit Union advertising campaign that featured gay couples (or, as the play calls it occasionally and self-consciously, “cultural diversity”). Apparently the campaign angered Catholics and caused the church to pull out their backing for a banking program for children at the credit union.

I wanted to get that out of the way because this play is not really about those events. Though the issues of gay rights and the morality of corporate sponsorship of activist causes (one that recently affected Edmonton when the Pride Parade this year was labeled, on Facebook, as the “TD Canada Trust Gay Pride Parade”) are important and topical, they could easily be exchanged with just about any cause and just about any well-meaning outsiders combined with trying-to-live-their-lives insiders to that cause.

These events are just used as a frame for a story about people who get caught up in something bigger than themselves. And that’s what really matters here. Every character in the play is faced with their innocent desires turning their lives upside down as they become the focus of a major controversy. The characters want to find peace with their past but get caught up in the blaring noise of activism.

In that respect, the play is excellent. It creates compelling characters who are well acted by the cast. The production design looks far more expensive than it probably is, and for the most part the expansive multimedia (four very expensive projectors are used to create the visual touches the play) is well used and effective.

If it were only that, I would give this play 5 stars. Unfortunately, the play manages to be more ambitious than it can deliver on a couple of points. The first, and easiest to explain, is that for a play about gay people there is very little actual gayness. It suffers from the same problem a lot of media about gay couples does, and I can sum it up thusly: Straight people have sex, gay people flirt. We see the two straight people in the play in their underwear at least twice, while the gay men stay fully clothed and rarely do more than reach in for a peck on the cheek. I feel like this is pandering to a straight audience, but also that it shouldn’t really be necessary at this point in this medium. I also feel that it undermines the authenticity of the story as well as the credibility of the relationship.

The next problem, for me, is the inner monologue of the main character. It seems strange that it should be represented by a drag queen. Someone else who saw this play told me they felt like it was an attempt to make the play ‘more gay,’ and I can’t help but agree. Her presence never really added anything to the plot but a highly stereotypical queen voice. Possibly it was intended as comic relief, but mostly the jokes were too over the top for the tone of the play.

And last, but not least, there is a metaphor that runs through the entire play and culminates in a large multimedia display towards the end. Unfortunately, the display itself looks underproduced and feels painfully unnecessary to the plot. It doesn’t tie in in any meaningful way, it’s just there and gives an excuse for a loud noise at the climax of the play. I can’t say much more about this without spoiling the play, but suffice to say that you will probably know it when you see it.

But overall, I really liked this play and definitely recommend it. There’s a 2-for-1 ($13 each) Tuesday next week, as well as a bunch of other normal showings until the end of next weekend ($25). You can buy tickets at the door or from their website. Go see it!