The Philanderer: Masterfully executed but lacking heart

What a perfect venue for a period piece. The auditorium of the Stanley Industrial Alliance Stage itself is already so atmospheric, it complimented the set beautifully. Before the lights had even dimmed I was well primed to be transported back to a time of manners coated in wicked wit and of scandals rationalized away with philosophy.

The ensuing production was slick and well put together. The spare yet ornate set facilitated seamless scene changes and, apart from one hesitant entrance, the actors negotiated the sometimes chaotic action with an easy energy and commitment, not to mention a masterful grasp of Shaw's complex language.
My only complaint is that I felt the nuances of the subject matter weren't handled as delicately as they could have been given the caliber of the actors and the wealth of resources that the Arts Club have at their finger tips. I understand that farce sells better than sophisticated satire, and that this is most likely a conscious choice. But Shaw's script is so rich with biting observations and dark
emotional undercurrent, such a talented team could have done more with it. There were moments: Kelly Sandomirsky as Grace snatched a few poignant seconds in her confrontation with Anna Galvin's Julia, and the Scott Bellis's Paramore showed a frustrated broken heart in act two that was quite moving. But apart from those precious glimpses, I was really more inclined to disdain the characters than to identify with them.

Being well familiar with Shaw's The Philanderer, I have always felt that the beauty of this play is that each character is so earnest in their personal philosophy. Yes, they seem superficial to the observer, but don't we all from the outside? Every character in this play is wrapped up in their own scheme to win love and happiness but, despite their best efforts, not one of them achieves it. The seemingly flippant banter is textured with a true desperation which they deny and dismiss in order to protect themselves against a vicious and unforgiving society. In a community like Vancouver, sure, the context might be outdated and morals are not as strict, but the question of gender-roles, sexual independence and conditional love are hardly irrelevant issues. Rachel Ditor's The Philanderer was eloquent, entertaining and witty, but I was not moved by the characters' plight
nor charmed by their wry dismissal of disaster. Other than that, I felt that characters choices were solid and bold. And I'm always impressed when a Canadian cast can carry off a British accent. The consistency of dialect in this production is possibly the best I have seen in Vancouver. It is evident that the actors, director and entire production crew are skilled at their various crafts and it is a pleasure to see such a high production values.

This particular audient just wishes there had been something more to see than technical prowess. Something moving and passionate. Without heart, without stakes, without something to make an audience shiver with both delight and disdain, without thoughts to ponder and debate on the way home, what is the point of it all? Is mainstream contemporary theatre really just light entertainment? If one is aiming for cotton candy, no matter how skillfully woven, it seems a waste to use such an intelligent and challenging script.

I know people go to the theatre for different reasons, and with a background in the performing arts I am aware that my conditions of satisfaction differ greatly from those of the average audience member. I am not the target audience. But I am passionate about the craft and it just seems to me that if such star resources and talent can't rise to the challenge of making theatre alive in the heart of the modern audience, what hope is there for the rest of us nobodies at the bottom?