Review: On Vacation

It's always difficult to review a play staged by a friend because I know I'll be saying some pretty harsh things. Every play has its problems.

However, "On Vacation", directed by Mahrukh Bharucha, failed to address problems that would have been apparent at the tech rehearsal, and to carry those problems over into the third performance is a bit much, in my opinion.

I, and almost everyone in the audience behind the first row, couldn't see 2/3rds of the play because it was happening at ground level on the stage and the seating at Mazda Hall isn't conducive to that kind of performance. A simple 8" platform would have solved the problem without having to re-block.

Anyway, based on the 1/3rd part I did see and the 2/3rds part I was forced to deduce from the dialogue, here's my feedback:

1. Sets:

Unless one has the budget available to Andrew Lloyd Webber, one should not essay to emulate his sets.

Mazda Hall's stage is small, by Webber's standards. Putting genuine antique furniture on it without a true box set is counter-productive. It distracts the attention of the audience from the actors, where the real focus should be. Less is more in this case. Lesser furniture on stage would have given the impression of larger space, adding to the impression of a rich household instead of making it seem like a house belonging to a wannabe.

2. Sound:

Failed at crucial points. 'Nuff said.

3. Lights:

Inadequately used. The stuff was there. Only one scene used it effectively.

4. Direction:

Pretty well-blocked. No hitches like characters not knowing where a particular off-stage area was (as in, the exit to the protagonists' bedroom remained the same throughout and the exit to the guest bedroom was similarly consistent).

5. Acting:

Gayatri Natarajan (Uttara) has always been an excellent actress. If the showing of her underwear was just one of those things that happen onstage, there can be no complaint about her acting.

Ashtad Dadachanji (Kartik) was adequate but there is potential in that voice that was not fully realised.

Hans Billimoria (Vyom) was a disappontment. Having seen him in "The King an I" perhaps set my expectations a bit high but what on earth is an English accent doing in a character whose parents are Indian and who migrated to Canada? Having spent the formative years in Toronto, the character would have one of two, and only two, accents: Indian, with a tinge of Canadian, and wholly Canadian. Hans has the capability to tackle the accent. Why wasn't it done?

Khushru (Cyrus) was rather stiff. His affectionate pats to Vyom were stilted and awkward. Ashtad was far more comfortable with Hans than Khushru should have been.

Apeksha Shetty (Nalini) was the stereotypical "Maharashtra Maazhe" journalist. Nothing wrong with that. Problem is, it highlighted Hans' failure to address the Canadian accent.

Suchita Kudale (Yashoda) was far too conscious of the audience. This did not affect the play but I'm stating it as feedback to the actress herself.

6. Script:

This should, of course, have been the first aspect tackled but I kept it for the last so we aren't distracted by sets, sound, lights and acting.

The premise is excellent: Drawing a parallel between a heterosexual, "uncommitted" couple and a "commited", homosexual one.

However, the pace of the script leaves almost everything to be desired.

I think a LOT has been lost in translation. Certain pieces of dialogue make no sense whatsoever. Uttara's feministic outbursts in response to Kartik's innocuous statements at the start of the play are left hanging in the air. Neither is there a build-up to the outburst, nor a follow-up to show how irrational the outburst is.

Nitty-gritties aside, however, the script is just too SLOW for anyone to enjoy. It needs snappier dialogue. In my opinion, the whole play could have been staged in 20 minutes with the same message being portrayed as effectively, if not more.

Deepak