Berto_Tony_201307_PhD .pdf - University of Guelph

186
small” (Alexandrowicz, “Final” 1). Like the Arts Club, the space doesn’t allow for much
flexibility in terms of production design. Audiences can face the stage at only one angle,
similar to a proscenium arch configuration. However, the large stage area, the same width
as the audience area, doesn’t allow for the full picture-frame effect of a proscenium arch.
This design is likely to allow the widest possible stage area for concerts or other
performances that require no wings. Legs can be hung above the stage to allow more wing
area, as happened with Beggars’s production, but this cuts down on the visible stage space.
The walls of the theatre seating area are unadorned and painted a simple red; around the
stage they are black. Renters need to bring in their own stage pieces, built elsewhere to
furnish their set, or to build and install their show during booked time.
The utilitarian design of the space appears to offer a low-maintenance facility that
can provide for performances that require a unidirectionally focused audience, an
accommodation for varying sized audiences (as rent is based on attendance), in-house
lighting and sound with operators, and a minimal set-build or load in. Its utilitarian features
create an impression of a commercial space, yet one that is available for low-budget
productions. Alexadrowicz’s project-based theatre may seem a natural fit for this kind of
space, considering Beggars’s relatively small set requirements. Yet Alexandrowicz’s work
is framed as professional and avant garde, unlike much of the space’s programming.
Furthermore, his usual audience may have been unfamiliar with the particular space
because his previous works played at other venues, notably Performance Works and the
Firehall (which are better known for their presenting of professional work). The play’s gay
and sexual themes may have also seemed out of place or, given the history of the space’s