alt.theatre magazine: 5.4 Sample by alt.theatre

VOL. 5, NO. 4 JUNE 2008 $5.00

Vol. 5, No. 4 JUNE 2008

Contrary to Public Policy

6 Edward Little’s editorial on Bill C-10.

An Article of Self-Reflection Arising from Leo and atl.theatre’s Recurring Theme of “Staging Peace in Times of War”

We’re All in This Together: Negotiating Collaborative

Creation in a Play about Addiction

Rosa Laborde grapples with the conflict between our political ideals and our human desire for pleasure by asserting that the personal and the political cannot be separated.

Savannah Walling and her co-writers from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside reflect on the challenges of creating a giant screen shadow play from the personal stories of residents affected by addiction.

A Fugue for Three Voices: Q Art Theatre’s Production of Ernestine Shuswap Gets Her Trout

Shanakht: The Search for a Lost Identity

A Practice-as-Research Theatre Project in Partnership with Survivors of Forced Marriages

Review-Essay Kwame Anthony Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers

Isabelle Zufferey-Boulton considers how Q Art Theatre’s multi-layered and polyvocal production mines Tomson Highway’s far-reaching theme of imperialistic oppression.

Stephanie Knight describes her complex journey negotiating the personal and political tensions surrounding forced marriage survivors and their reclamation of identity in Scotland.

34 M. NourbeSe Philip takes issue with Appiah’s ahistorical view of cosmopolitanism in her review-essay The Warm-and-Fuzzies, or How to Go to the Opera and Not Feel Guilty.

alt.theatre: cultural diversity and the stage is published by

“Change the World, One Play at a Time” EDITOR IN CHIEF Edward Little

UPCOMING in d’bi.young.anitafrika on dubpoetry and dubtheatre theory.

A S S O C I AT E E D I T O R Denis Salter EDITORIAL BOARD Rahul Varma, Edward Little, Denis Salter, Lina de Guevara, Shelley Scott

Andy Houston on land claims in DIFFER/END: The Caledonia Project.

CONTRIBUTORS Edward Little, Rosa Laborde, Savannah Walling, Isabelle Zufferey-Boulton, Stephanie Knight, M. NourbeSe Philip.

Clea Minaker with commentary on edited transcripts from Teesri Duniya’s Rachel Corrie Talkback Sessions.

MARKETING & SALES Linda Levesque

Lisa Doolittle and Lauren Jerke on Something to Declare: Community-based Theatre and the Ivory Tower in Lethbridge, Alberta.

E D I T O R I A L A S S I S TA N T Jason B. Crawford

Stéphanie Roesler reviews Louise Ladouceur’s Making the Scene: la traduction du théâtre d’une langue officielle à l’autre au Canada. and more . . .

GRAPHIC DESIGN ATELIER 6/ DFI GRAPHIK COVER PHOTO Cylla von Tiedmann / www.cylla.ca Salvatore Antonio as the title character in Tarragon Theatre’s production of Leo (February 2006) COPY EDITOR Colette Stoeber

SUBSCRIBE NOW! Support Canada’s only theatre magazine dedicated to cultural diversity. SUBSCRIPTIONS for four issues are $15 for individuals residing in Canada—$25 for libraries and individuals residing outside of Canada. BACK ISSUES of alt.theatre are available for $5 each. For general inquiries or more information about subscriptions, advertising, or contents of back issues, contact Teesri Duniya Theatre at 514. 848. 0238 or visit our website at www.teesriduniyatheatre.com and follow the links to alt.theatre.

ADVERTISING RATES Rate per Insertion: Full page - $150 Half Page - $100 Quarter page - $75 Back Cover - $300 (Full colour) Inside Back Cover - $200 (Black ink only) Discounts: 30% for 4 consecutive insertions | 20% for 3 consecutive insertions | 10% for 2 consecutive insertions

alt.theatre:cultural diversity and the stage is Canada's only magazine examining intersections b e t w e e n p o l i t i c s, c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i t y, s o c i a l a c t i v i s m , a n d t h e s t a g e. O u r r e a d e r s h i p i n c l u d e s t h e a t r e p r a c t i t i o n e r s, a c a d e m i c s, p l u s o t h e r s i n t e r e s t e d i n i s s u e s p e r t a i n i n g t o a r t s a n d c u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y. a l t . t h e a t r e we l c o m e s s u g g e s t i o n s o r p r o p o s a l s fo r i n t e r v i ew s, n ew s, p i e c e s o f s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n , a n a l y t i c a l a r t i c l e s, a n d r e v i e w s o f b o o k s, p l a y s, a n d p e r f o r m a n c e s. Founded in 1998, a l t . t h e a t r e is published quarterly by Teesri Duniya Theatre —an intercultural theatre company with a mandate to produce socially engaged theatre that reflects C a n a d a ’s s o c i a l a n d c u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y. Fo r m o re i n fo r m a t i o n , co n t a c t Te e s r i D u n i y a T h e a t r e 4324 St. Laurent Blvd., Montreal, QC Canada H2W 1Z3 Te l : 5 1 4 . 8 4 8 . 0 2 3 8 Fa x : 5 1 4 . 8 4 8 . 0 2 6 7 email: info@teesriduniya.com w e b s i t e : w w w. t e e s r i d u n i y a . c o m We acknowledge the support of the Canada Council for the Arts which last year invested $20.1 million in writing and publishing throughout Canada. Nous remercions de son soutien le Conseil des Arts du Canada, qui a investi 20,1 millions de dollars l'an dernier dans les lettres et l'édition partout au Canada.

We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Department of Canadian Heritage Support for Arts and Literary Magazines program. Nous reconnaissons l’appui financier du gouvernement du Canada par l’entremise du ministère du Patrimoine canadien pour l’aide aux magazines d'art et de littérature.

E D I TO R I A L / b y E d w a rd L i t t le

The drama began in 2002 when, according to Sheila Copps, the Liberal Government proposed the “contrary to public policy” wording to distance itself from a controversial film about Paul Bernardo (qtd. in Brean). At the time, all eyes were on the Chrétien—Martin leadership battle and the proposed amendment quietly died on the floor of the House of Commons. In October 2007 it abruptly sat up—resurrected, remarkably full of life, and poised to author a tragedy of epic proportions. . . .

CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY by Edward Little1 T h i r t e e n w o rd s b u r i e d d e e p i n S e c t i o n 1 2 0 o f t h e 5 4 7 - w o rd o m n i b u s B i l l C - 1 0 c o u l d s e t a p re c e d e n t w h e re i n t a x l a w w o u l d be used to deny or withdraw financial s u p p o r t f o r a r t i s t i c e x p re s s i o n t h a t t h e government finds “contrary to public p o l i c y. ” P ro p o n e n t s o f C - 1 0 c l a i m t h a t the bill is simply about accountability for p u b l i c s p e n d i n g re l a t i n g t o f i l m a n d v i d e o t a x c re d i t s a n d t h a t c e n s o r i a l p o w e r w o u l d o n l y b e i n v o k e d w h e re p ro j e c t s a re “highly objectionable and offensive.”2 Opponents of the bill point out that tax credits constitute financing that is essential t o the survival of the audiovisual industry— a n d t h a t f u n d i n g a n d re g u l a t o r y b o d i e s a l re a d y a p p l y r i g o ro u s s t a n d a rd s t o e n s u re t h a t p u b l i c f u n d s a re n o t g i v e n t o projects that depict gratuitous sex o r v i o l e n c e or that contravene the Criminal Code or the Charter of Rights a n d F re e d o m s . 3

Act I. Exposition / Previous Action The Canadian Filmmaking Polis (city-state) is young and virile. It boasts a growing reputation for facing all challengers. An army of distributors, broadcasters, private and public funders—with officers from Telefilm, the Canada Council, and major Banks—defends the artistic quality and market viability of the Polis , and enables it to generate up to 90 percent of its costs of production. Among the Polis’ celebrated victories is a 1995 tax law that provides the remaining 10 percent of production costs through a system of tax credits for expenses relating to Canadian labour. The Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office (CAVCO) determines Canadian content, estimates eligible expenses for each production, and certifies the value of the tax credits to be awarded. Business in the Polis is brisk. Ta x c re d i t s are payable upon filing for the taxation year in which the project is completed so filmmakers “bank on” on Certified Tax Credits by seeking interim financing at preferred rates from institutions such as The Royal, The National, and the HSBC Banks—all of which have officers trained to manage portfolios for filmmaking loans.

Act II. Complication/Rising Action The Filmmaking Polis is thrown into disarray when the Conservative Government’s Bill C-10 is revealed as a Trojan Horse concealing i) that tax credit certification will only be issued if the Minister of Heritage is satisfied that “public financial support of the production would not be contrary to public policy” (Subsection 3b); ii) that the Minister may revoke a tax credit certificate if she believes that an “omission or incorrect statement was made” (Subsection 6); and iii) that the Minister “shall issue guidelines” as to what would be contrary to public policy, and that these guidelines would not be Statutory Instruments (Subsection 7). Reverend Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, effectively fans the flames of panic when he reportedly claims credit for lobbying cabinet ministers and officials in the PMO to launch a moral offensive to promote

“conservative values.”4 ACTRA raises the alarm: “[T]he Conservative government plans to act as the country’s morality police by denying financial aid for any film or television show it believes is not in the public’s interest.” Senators, bankers, filmmakers, producers, writers, technical service workers, and others rush to erect barricades. They mount their offense with arguments that i) Section 120 will vest unassailable power in the Minister to limit freedom of expression through awarding or withholding tax credits that are essential to the survival of the industry; ii) the proposed Minister’s guidelines are not statutory instruments, meaning they will not be subject to scrutiny by the House of Commons or the Senate; iii) the guidelines could, therefore, at any time be revised for political convenience, to curry majority public opinion, or to suit government or ministerial whim; and iv) without the collateral certainty of tax credits, banks and lenders will not be able to provide funding.5 Toronto Mayor David Miller rallies the front line calling Bill C-10 “a serious attack on Canada’s Film Industry.” Sandra Cunningham, Chair of the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, warns against “religiously motivated” political agendas influencing public policy (qtd. in Brean). George Jonas prophesizes “a posse of bureaucrats moonlighting as film critics.” The Minister of Heritage issues a press release: “Bill C-10 has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with the integrity of the tax system. The goal is to ensure public trust in how tax dollars are spent.” The Liberal Party counters with a press release vowing that its Senators will fight to ensure “that a tiny clause in the Income Tax Act does not become a tool of government censorship.” The Conservative Government moves into damage control. Minister of Heritage Josée Verner unsuccessfully attempts to negotiate some ground and calm the Polis by pointing out that the guidelines have yet to be written and would only cover the types of content that may be illegal under the Criminal Code adding as well as other types of content for which public support is clearly unacceptable (Senate, 16 April 2008). The Minister suffers a severe loss on the plains of credibility when national newspapers report that Heritage has already “standardized and updated the list of illegal and other ineligible content.”6 In a move prophetic of Barack Obama’s troubles with his aptly named fundamentalist mentor/minister Reverend Wright, government officials deny meeting with McVety (Bowness). McVety, recognizing that he has become an Achilles’ Heel on the foot of the Conservative

The Players

E D I TO R I A L / b y E d w a rd L i t t le

agenda, appears before Senate and denies lobbying the Conservative Government. Liberal Senator Ringuette challenges McVety’s integrity: “You have taken credit for the current bill. I have seen you with my own eyes” (Senate, 16 April 2008). Lawyer David Zitzerman charges the government’s plan smacks of “closet censorship” and “could potentially violate the Charter and lead to legal challenges against the Minister of Canadian Heritage” (qtd. in Macdonald). The battle continues on the floor of the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade, and Commerce.7

Act III. The Climax In keeping with a tragedy of Aristotelian proportions, we have taken up the drama at the point of its rising action. The climax has yet to occur, and who, if anyone, will be able to afford the cigarette afterwards remains to be seen. What we can bank on is that if Bill C-10 passes without amendment, many artists and cultural sector workers will get fuddleduddled—to paraphrase the penetrative iteration of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who also insisted that “the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.”

The Morals of the Story A member of the Tsimshian First People, a wise and prescient old friend, has stood at my side at numerous events that occasioned the singing of Canada’s National Anthem. He inevitably approaches such events with a certain silent “reserve”—up to the point where he loudly and joyfully joins the chorus to sing, “Our home on Native Land.” A government that would sow its “seeds of censorship” deep inside 547 pages of an omnibus tax bill inspires a further populist amendment to O Canada—to “stand on guard from thee.” “Public policy” is a dangerously broad term that effectively describes anything the government chooses to do or to endorse. “Public policy” subject to non-statutory and retroactively applicable guidelines that could be used to silence or bankrupt criticism, debate, or dissent is perfidious. Immigration, refugee status, minority rights, and the deployment of Canada’s military are but a few areas where the current government’s policy decisions are being hotly contested. Film and the performing arts are an essential voice championing social and cultural minorities, challenging outdated standards, and exploring new perspectives. In the words of Jean-Pierre Lefebvre, “[L]et us say that culture is always moving ahead and that creative artists are not ahead of their time, they are of their time. The rest of society lags behind and remains attached to old

The Chorus for the Bill: Reverend McVety and the 41,000 members of his Canada Family Action Coalition; The Conservative Government of Stephen Harper, including Minister of Heritage Josée Verner and Conservative Senator Eyton (Sponsor of Bill C-10); numerous spear-carrying Conservative Senators and MPs.

standards” (Senate, 17 April 2008). McVety and the Family Action Coalition cite polls and argue that they represent majority public opinion on what constitutes “offensive” content. Yet Family Action lobbyist Brian Rushfleldt reveals he does not comprehend the most basic principle of representation in the arts as he wonders before Senate why a film about necrophilia is not illegal because “sex with dead people is a criminal offense in Canada” (Senate, 16 April 2008). Responsible government by majority opinion is a contradiction in terms.

The Chorus against the Bill: The Canadian Film and Television Production Association; The Directors Guild of Canada, ACTRA; The Toronto City Council, The Toronto Film Board; The Big City Mayor’s Caucus of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities; PEN Canada; The Canadian Civil Liberties Association; La société des auteurs de radio, télévision, et cinéma; entrepreneurial lender AVer Media; The National Bank of Canada; The Documentary Organization of Canada; The Manitoba Writer’s Guild; individuals including Sandra Oh, Robert Lantos, Gordon Pinsent, David Cronenberg, etc., etc..

Memorable Lines Spoken by the Cast

The Conservative Government of Stephen Harper has a reputation for policies advocating entrepreneurship and a laissez-faire approach to private sector business. The arts in particular have been repeatedly encouraged to seek new sources of funding through private sector partnerships. It smacks of incompetence and/or deceit that the same government that offers millions of dollars in tax incentives to sectors including oil, gas, and military manufacturing— with no apparent concern for majority opinion or rendering public “offense”—would sabotage the economic health of a 4.8 billion-dollar-a-year industry in order to police artistic and cultural expression. In Quebec the industry is worth 1.3 billion dollars annually. In the City of Toronto, widely referred to as Canada’s “economic engine,” some 35,000 people derive their living from the film and television industry—more people than work in manufacturing. Vancouver is North America’s third busiest filming center—ranking behind Los Angeles and New York. As filmmaker Carl Laudan points out, “Even with the tax credit the government is still making more money than it gives us back” because “every dollar we spend on film labour creates four dollars of economic activity.” Yet according to testimony before Senate, the government has never conducted an economic study of the potential impact of Bill C-10 (Senate, 16 April 2008). Beware of a “do as I say, not as I do” approach to Government policy. Should Bill C-10 become law, I propose our own guidelines for film classification. These would include Films Likely Never to Get Made and Films Likely to Have Tax Credits Revoked. And— while not strictly required under our proposed guidelines—Filmmaker Bankrupt Owing to Lost Tax Credits would no doubt add to box office cachet to projects that manage to survive Bill C-10. Illegitimi non carborundum—(don’t let the bastards grind you down)—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale.

Memorable lines spoken by the Cast: Mario Silva (Liberal MP): The arts are not some commodity to be contained and restrained using the power of the public purse. They are supposed to challenge our belief system and they are supposed to do so in ways that are provocative and visionary (House of Commons, 1 May 2008). John Greyson (Queer Filmmaker): I’m pleased to say [my films] all managed to offend someone. That’s my job description (qtd. in Bowness, 13 March 2008). Professor Brenda Cossman (University of Toronto Faculty of Law): Tax credits in the Income Tax Act are intended to promote a vibrant television, film, and video sector. They are not supposed to be about promoting decency in Canadian culture (U of Toronto Law School Faculty Blog, 6 March 2008).

the way will be paved for the use of Canada’s tax system as a de facto censor of film and video production in Canada (Liberal Party of Canada, 5 March 2008). John Christou (Chair, National Lobby Committee, Documentary Organization of Canada): The act of discussing sodomy is not the same as the act of sodomy, and I think that the discussion and a film about [sodomy] are very different things (Senate, 16 April 2008). Yoine Goldstein (Liberal Senator): When you say they can produce it themselves [without tax credits], is that not the same as saying that a Black who is refused service in a restaurant is not discriminated against because that person can go to another restaurant? (Senate, 30 April 2008).

Yves Légaré (General Director, La société des auteurs de

John Doyle (Reporter, Globe and Mail): It’s odd that the same

radio, télévision, et cinéma; If it is about public policy, it should refer to a policy. […] We are opposed to moral criteria determining how tax credits are awarded (Senate, 17 April 2008).

agency that, according to Auditor General Sheila Fraser, lost track of 41,000 foreigners ordered out of Canada is seriously on

guard and on the lookout for risqué film footage. Like anyone they prioritize, based on the boss’s agenda (12 May 2008).

Céline Hervieux-Payette (Liberal Senate Leader): We are concerned that if Bill C-10 is allowed to pass in its current form,

NOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Thanks to Graduate Student Jason B. Crawford for his background research, discussions, and fact-checking. Conservative MP Ed Fast. House of Commons 5 March 2008. Jean-Pierre Lefebvre, President, Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec. Senate 16 April 2008. Globe and Mail 28 February 2008, National Post 11 March 2008, Xtra 13 March 2008. Elaine Morissette, Senior Manager, TV and Motion Picture Group, National Bank of Canada. Senate 17 April 2008. Canadian Heritage Spokesperson Charles Drouin qtd. in Globe and Mail 28 February 2008. On 18 June 2008, as this issue of alt.theatre went to press, Liberal Senators announced their intention to amend the controversial wording in Bill C-10. The Senate will send the amended bill back to the House of Commons following the 2008 summer recess.

WORKS CITED ACTRA (Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists) WEBSITE 20 May 2008. Bowness, Gordon. “Bill C-10 an ‘Absolute Catastrophe’: Cronenberg.” Xtra 13 March 2008. Brean, Joseph. “Controversial Bill Called an ‘Attack on Canada’s Film Industry.’” National Post 8 March 2008. Cossman, Brenda. “Bill C-10—When Funding Becomes Censorship.” University of Toronto Law School Faculty Blog 6 March 2008. Doyle, John. “Fear Not, Border Services Is Standing on Guard for Thee.” Globe and Mail 12 May 2008. Gelbert, Arnie. “Censoring Canada’s Filmmakers by Stealth.” National Post 11 March 2008. Galloway, Gloria. “Bill C-10: Denying Tax Credits for Films Would Have Deep Impact on Cities, Mayors Say.” Globe and Mail 6 June 2008: A4. Jonas, George. “C-10 Isn’t Censorship—But It’s Still Wrong.” National Post 8 March 2008. Laudan, Carl. “Filmmaker’s Statement on Bill C-10”. Publicbroadcasting.ca 20 May 2008. Liberal Party of Canada. “Liberals to Shed Light on Conservative Censorship Attempt.” Media Release 5 March 2008. Macdonald, Gayle. “Tories Plan to Withhold Funding for ‘Offensive Productions.’” Globe and Mail 28 February 2008. Miller, David. City of Toronto Website 5 March 2008. Verner, Josée, “Bill C-10 and the Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit,” Minister of Heritage Press Release 3 March 2008.

A N A R T I C L E O F S E L F - R E F L E CT I O N / b y R o s a L a b o rd e

I a m b y t h e s e a i n To f i n o B . C . o n a s i d e t r i p f ro m t h e L e o t o u r t o t h e B e l f r y T h e a t re i n V i c t o r i a . I t ’s m y f i r s t t i m e i n

AN ARTICLE OF SELF-REFLECTION ARISING FROM LEO AND alt.theatre’s RECURRING THEME OF “STAGING PEACE IN TIMES OF WAR”

B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . To d a y I a t e t h e m o s t s p e c ta c u l a r f i s h ta co , I ro d e m y b i c yc le over the beach, gazed for hours at the ocean, watched the sun set behind o v e rg ro w n C a n a d i a n t re e s . I l o v e t r a v elling, I love the beach, I have a child-

On the weekends I would go to the beach on a nearby island to work on my tan, drink tall glasses of icy-blue vodka-laced sugar concoctions, fight with my boyfriend, make up, make love, and make plans to go to the movies and to our favourite mall when we got back to the city. In moments of self-reflection I would think, “Who the hell am I?” I was caught, like a mouse, in the trap of wanting to make the world a better place but also wanting to just live in it and enjoy every hedonistic pleasure that I could.

like obsession with tacos, I am curre n t l y i n l o v e w i t h s p a r k l i n g w i n e a n d s m o k e d f i s h — p re f e r a b l y a t t h e s a m e t i m e — I l o v e l e i s u re l y b a t h s , s t re t c h i n g my body, and the ballet.

by Rosa Laborde I

mention

these

points

not

only

because I like to talk about me (I do) b u t t o i l l u s t r a t e w h e re t h e i n s p i ra t i o n fo r L e o to o k s e e d .

Sergio DiZio / Lesley Faulkner / Salvatore Antonio

At the time that I began writing Leo, I was in Thailand volunteering in the slums of Bangkok at an AIDS hospice. I was spending my days with babies and toddlers born with HIV who were already or about to be orphaned by their infected parents. On the slum streets, eleven-year-olds sniffed glue, young prostitutes’ ankles shivered on too-high heels, and police stormed in, guns in tow, to take down the drug dealers (killing 2500 “suspects” courtesy of extra-judiciary murder while I was there). I didn’t feel particularly naïve to or even surprised by the circumstances that I found myself in, but as time wore on, the violence of the conditions weighed heavy—I just couldn’t wrap my head around a world that allowed such systemic destruction to continue. I would jet home on the back of a little motorcycle, fried and confused, often to weep into my pillow at the injustice of it all.

Leo, himself, is a poet and a pleasure seeker, irreverent and self-interested. He grows up in Chile and blooms into adolescence during the politically heady years leading up to Salvador Allende’s election and discovers his wandering sexuality and the nature of love during Allende’s short-lived presidency. I am the daughter of a Chilean exile, so the politics of Chile in the early 1970s are deeply ingrained in my being. Had the coup d’état that overthrew the first democratically elected Marxist government never happened, my mother would not have ended up in Canada and married my father, a Canadian citizen, and I would not exist. Geographically, Thailand is about as far as you can get from Chile, and when it comes to food, the Thais certainly possess a more artful use of spice! But there was something about the inequitable distribution of wealth that struck a chord with me and reminded me of my roots. My mother was only seventeen when Augusto Pinochet’s military overthrew Salvador Allende’s government. She had been an extremely active supporter of Allende, a deeply patriotic Chilean, and a believer that we could, through proper government, make the world a more just place in which to live. My mother and those like her were dubbed “the beautiful dreamers.” And then the dream died.

I was caught, like a mouse, in the trap of wanting to make the world a better place but also wanting to just live in it and enjoy every hedonistic pleasure that I could.

A N A R T I C L E O F S E L F - R E F L E CT I O N / b y R o s a L a b o rd e

I a m o b s e s s e d w i t h t h e way s we t r e a t e a ch o t h e r i n o u r m o s t i n t i m a t e relationships because I believe the complexities of our personal relationships reverberate out into the global playing field. Since I was in the throes of a great disillusionment, I couldn’t help but think of my mother’s disillusionment, and the death of dreams began to obsess me: that moment when optimism is overthrown by the realities of a world skewed towards material gain over public welfare. It seemed clear to me that no matter how much good we tried to do, we would always be swimming upstream, pushing against a tide that was stronger than all the good will we could muster—but really, how much good will could I muster when I so looked forward to lying on the beach and going to the mall and making love?

Leo was born of this internal conflict and explores how our political ideals can often be at war with our all-too-human tendencies. A conversation in Leo regarding socialism goes like this:

I believe that while we demean or beat our loved ones behind closed doors, so will dictators subdue the spirits of their people. While we numb ourselves to the pain of our individual lives with any number of addictions or avoidance, so will entire generations numb themselves to the ecological havoc that has been wreaked on our planet. It is all one, I believe. I recently came across a quote in John Welwood’s book Perfect Love, Imperfect Relationships that astonished and affirmed me in its succinct description of what I have always thought to be true: Outer terror is but a symptom of inner terror. When people feel unloved or mistreated, they look for someone to blame, someone on whom they can take out their bad feelings. Though war and terrorism are usually regarded as political issues, the fact is that people in whom love is flowing freely do not throw bombs. Terrorism, like war itself, is a symptom of the disconnect

No. But values are. Is this the grandfather who beats your grandmother? ISOLDA. Not anymore. LEO. His values took hold finally? ISOLDA. She kicked him out finally. And now she lives with us. You’re poking me, LEO. LEO. I’m not poking you. ISOLDA. You are. Why? Does it make you feel better to point out that I descend from a long line of...? LEO. Socialism and you. That was the conversation. We seem unable to avoid your… ISOLDA. So one of the founding members of the Socialist party was a wife beater. Is that allowed? LEO. I was wondering. ISOLDA. Now look what you’ve done. Poked a hole right into me. Can good people be bad? Can bad people be good? I am obsessed with the ways we treat each other in our most intimate relationships because I believe the complexities of our personal relationships reverberate out into the global playing field.

from love that infects our world. (12)

It is this theory that impels me to create and that drove the central story in Leo forward. In Leo, a love triangle emerges between the play’s three characters: Leo, Rodrigo, and Isolda. Rodrigo and Isolda are both socialist supporters of Allende who believe that equitably sharing the country’s resources is the path to a peaceful and fulfilled people. But while they promote “sharing” in theory, they soon discover that sharing their love beyond the accepted norms of “possession” brings them only anguish. As the play moves towards its climax, Isolda, hurt and confused, screams, “How could you do this to me?”, which launches an angry Leo into “Me. At the end of it all we always come back to me. Me wanting more. Me needing love. Me, all alone. And there’s nothing left. No toilet paper, no flour, no fucking food. What a great idea! Let’s help the unfortunate so we all end up with nothing!” It was my hope that by overlaying the warring factors in the personal relationships of my characters with the politically hot climate of Chile pre- and post-coup I would more deeply unearth how our personal choices and belief systems are not microcosms of their own but carry energy and weight into the external sphere of our existence as well. And though we can consider ourselves to be righteously doing our best to improve the state of

Because my grandfather was a founding member of the Socialist Party! Of course. Socialism is hereditary.

A N A R T I C L E O F S E L F - R E F L E CT I O N / b y R o s a L a b o rd e

the world, if we do not change our behaviour in our relationships and practice what we preach, as it were, true change remains impossible. John Welwood describes this dilemma clearly when he says, “No wonder nations so quickly demand an eye for an eye and march off to war to settle disputes. If we as individuals are not ready to give up our personal grievances, how can we condemn our leaders for waging war, since we nurture the same seeds of violence within ourselves? To the extent that we indulge in the mood of grievance, each of us is implicated in the strife that dominates our planet” (72).

Leo was, for the most part, very wellreceived, but there came to me several hard-core politicos who felt that it was just not “political enough.” If they were going to see a play about politics in Chile, they wanted it to be a really educational and politically rousing play about Chile. They also hoped that it would strongly confirm the political views that they held. The antithesis of what I set out to create.

Often in so-called political theatre I have found myself to be the recipient of news headlines and a steady bombardment of fact with the underlying general message being that war or oppression is almost always someone else’s fault. To be sure, a victim mentality is deeply ingrained in our cultural belief system. For me, this is a convenient way to judge negative events in the world around us while avoiding pointing a finger back at ourselves, as though we could freely disassociate from parts of humanity that don’t seem to represent us thereby creating the dynamic of us against them— which I translate as fighting violence with violence under the guise of being “right.”

If we do not change our behaviour in our relationships and practice what we preach, as it were, true change remains impossible.

It has always been ironically amusing to me that minority groups (I belong to two) furiously rally against any racial discrimination pitted against them (as they should), yet when it comes their time to speak of other minority groups, they often tend to be just as vicious as those they reprimand, as though rules can sweetly dissolve depending on which side you’re on. I am also infinitely amazed by the fact that some of our best-loved and most inspiring figures in the world of social activism, spirituality, religion, and politics are absolutely inept when it comes to managing their own families and most intimate relationships. How many more times will we hear the stories of emotionally stunted, abused, and struggling adults whose parents “were an inspiration to the world at large” but neglectful or outright abusive at home. This split between what we do out there versus what we do in here is a recurring theme in Leo , culminating in a play that asks more questions than it answers. Mainly as a result of the fact that truths constantly shift in my perception but also because when I sit my bum in a seat as an audience member and it becomes clear to me that I am about to be “taught” something by someone who “knows,” I shut down. I seize up. Because I (and most everyone I know) love the opportunity to make a discovery on my own, I long for art to invite me, the audience, into inspiring, enlightening, communicative conversation. Though art is unquestionably a powerful vehicle for social change, I am not a fan of political theatre as an

opportunity for didactic conversion. Theatre should be fun, create a sense of awe and wonder, leave ample opportunity for laughter as well as tears, and above all be entertaining. Watching young people watch Leo and having discussions with them about what they experienced during many talk-back sessions over the last couple of years has been one of the greatest gifts of the process. The majority knew nothing about this particular time in history— many didn’t even know where Chile was exactly. But they were deeply moved and ready to relate to a story of young people, full of hope, awakening to love, and fighting for a better world while still struggling to integrate their own particular personalities in a material world. The outcome for Leo, Rodrigo, and Isolda is sadly not the happily-ever-after that beautifully ends so many great stories. But because I am at heart a hopeful person, Leo does alter his views by the end of the play: loss brings truths and with them the simple but everlasting notion that love lives on—and in the end is perhaps the only value of value. Did I stage peace in a time of war? I don’t know about that. I certainly did stage some questions—questions too big for my little head. Questions that once sprinkled on paper don’t seem to find themselves answered but continue to reverberate in their constant wondering. People fascinate me. How we say one thing and so often do another. How we have such high hopes for ourselves and yet are constantly disappointed by our fragile humanity. I watch us working so hard, doing our best, running head first into walls. If only we could embrace what we really are—the good and the bad—could we then unwind the shackles that bind us? And finally, I quote Rodrigo before I say goodbye: “If you tell the truth about how things really are, if everybody does, change happens.” Boy, do I ever want that to be true.

WORK CITED Welwood, John. Perfect Love, Imperfect Relationships: Healing the Wound of the Heart . Boston: Trumpeter Books, 2007.

BIO

Rosa Laborde I S

A PLAYWRIGHT AND ACTRESS WORKING AND LIVING IN TORONTO. SHE IS A R E S I D E N T PLAYWRIGHT AT TORONTO’S TARRAGON THEATRE. HER PLAY LEO HAS TOURED ACROSS CA N A DA , WA S N O M I N AT E D FO R F I V E D O R A M AVO R M O O R E AWA R D S , A N D WA S A L S O A R E C E N T F I N A L I S T FOR THE GOVERNOR GENERAL’S LITERARY AWARD FOR DRAMA. LEO IS PUBLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED BY PLAYWRIGHTS CANADA PRESS.

W E ’ R E A L L I N T H I S T O G E T H E R / b y S a v a n n a h Wa l l i n g

WE’RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER: Negotiating Collaborative Creation in a Play about Addiction. By Savannah Walling with contributions from co-writers

I n 2 0 0 5 , Va n co u ve r M ov i n g T h e a t re b e g a n a s e r i e s o f wo r k s h o p s , fo r u m s , a n d interviews

e x p l o r i n g t h e r o o t s o f a d d i c t i o n w i t h p e o p l e f r o m V a n c o u v e r ’s

D o w n t o w n E a s t s i d e . W e ’ r e A l l i n T h i s T o g e t h e r i s t h e g i a n t s c re e n s h a d o w p l a y t h a t e m e rg e d a l m o s t t h re e y e a r s l a t e r f ro m t h e re c o l l e c t i o n s o f o v e r o n e t h o u s a n d re s i d e n t s and their collaborations with two teams of designers, musicians, d i r e c t o r s , a n d w r i t e r s ; g u e s t a r t i s t s f ro m C a l g a r y a n d S a n F r a n c i s c o ; a n d o v e r f i f t y c o m m u n i t y p e r f o r m e r s a n d c re w.