Berto_Tony_201307_PhD .pdf - University of Guelph

190
wipes semen off his privates and then sniffs it but the reviewer fails to mention the play’s
same-sex themes. He identifies the acting as bouffon, and notes the music sounds like Kurt
Weill. Like Birnie, he lauds the performances but finds the play’s central themes, its class
politics, “crudely presented.”
The Vancouver Courier’s Jo Ledingham opened her review with the phrase
“Raunchy, rude and bawdy” (“Smart”). Her review revealed the most about the play’s
sexual themes, but again referred to them obliquely. Using descriptors like “raw sexiness”,
“naughty bits”, “pelvic-thrusting”, as well as a number of Alexandrowicz’s own phrases
from the play, she communicated the show’s sexual themes in a way that seemed to prepare
a viewer for offense or titillation, yet her descriptions were simultaneously and seemingly
purposely vague. She also noted that some members of the audience walked out, thereby
interrupting the performance. She recognized the style of Brecht and Weill, and
summarised found the show both intelligent and hilarious (Ledingham, “Smart”).
The overall impression one takes from the play’s critical reception is that the
reviewers found the play bawdy. These perceptions are contextualised as both coming out
of, and appropriate to, the stylistic form(s) of the play. The critics’ perceptions tended to
only touch marginally on any sexual themes specifically (let alone any gay themes) through
vague codings like the words “raunch” or “naughty bits.” Other than Morley wiping his
genitalia, no sexuality or specific sexual themes are discussed in any review. In this way the
reviews present the play as a kind of salacious enigma. While their descriptions imply that
the play may titillate, they keep the nature of the play’s sexually explicit material mostly
unavailable to a reader.