Review: I am I

by Elizabeth Johnston

Don’t be afraid of the press line, “I AM I is an exploration into the duality of the modern man.” Mike Czuba’s play appearing now at the Wildside Theatre Festival is not nearly as cerebral as you might think. At the heart of it, I AM I is about a guy trying to get a girl. One side of him wants to jump her bones and the other wants to take it slow, to get to know her first. 

A Woody Allenesque comedy, the actors deliver their well-written lines with passion and believability. Man 1, the sensitive one played by Canadian Idol contestant George Bekiaris is a perfect foil for lusty Man 2, played by Tristan D. Lalla, a recipient of numerous awards for acting excellence. While Man 1 and Man 2 wrestle over their object of desire, Tamara Brown’s character, Sonya, struggles to make sense of the Jekyll and Hide personality of a guy she’s sort of interested in. Having just come out of a “difficult relationship,” she’s not sure whether she just wants an ear or a grope in the dark. Her indecision makes it that much harder for Man 1 and Man 2 to come together, and Tai Timbers’ live electric guitar “sound track” just underscores their existential angst.

First Person: Towards a Rock & Roll Theatre: I AM I… Redux.

The Cast of I am I

By Mike Czuba

When Dancing Monkey Theatre produced I AM I in 2009 at the Players’ Theatre, we wanted to push the ideas of what independent, contemporary, new works could be. We also understood we weren’t attempting anything new. We were simply creating a new Mash-Up. We took some of the tastier bits of theory from Brecht, Artaud and Brook, the slickness of film and the sonic boom of a live concert. We didn’t turn our back on our old friend Aristotle and his elements of Tragedy (Story, Character, Thought, Diction, Music and Spectacle), but ignored his descending order of importance, flattened it all out and let them exist in the same time and space. So in the end, Spectacle becomes just as important as Story. We also gave ourselves an internal code of conduct which explicitly stated that ‘good-enough’ is not good enough and in fact is unacceptable.