Wherein Jacob and Adrienne talk about how much a person can do, what “the audience” wants and the pros and cons of independent theatre festivals for developing new work. iTunes | RSS
They also talk about:
the benefits of leaving hang-out space when programming cultural events,
whether David Mamet is a cheery sort of guy,
different forms of community theatre,
the importance of doing it yourself,
starting where people are,
the relative merits of patronage,
crowd-sourced funding,
Adrienne’s approach to writing Final Reports,
Jacob’s waves of Vancouver-envy, and
when the audience’s experience of a show begins.
Tune in another time when Adrienne and Jacob re-discuss topics they had to cut from this podcast including their perceived differences between theatre practice in Vancouver and Toronto and applying research-based design principles to devising theatre.
Teesri Duniya’s production of Bhopal by Rahul Varma
In inviting me to write this article, I was asked by in a broad sense, “how is democracy present for you as an artist today?” With a short period of time and 1000 words to weigh in on this loaded question, I address it with my personal viewpoint acquired through working as artistic director of Teesri Duniya Theatre, a culturally diverse theatre, and as a political playwright.
If democracy is a multiparty, one-person-one-vote system guaranteeing freedom, liberty, right to resist, and dispensing things of common good — Canada is a delightful democracy chockfull of parliamentary debate on a variety of issues, orders, disorders, delivering some sort of equality to men and women and equals and unequals alike. We are free to think. However freedom to think has not produced an ideological variety. Our democracy is restricted to ideologically similar parties supported by corporations pursuing corporate agendas. Slight deviation comes from cautiously left-leaning parties that have never formed the central government.
By definition, democracy accommodates all groups of people no matter how unalike they may be from one another, which explains why Canadian democracy has accommodated a separatist party in Parliament whose agenda it is to break the country in the name of ethnocentric nationalism. However, despite a handful national, regional and issue based political parties, we also know that democracy is present in Canada because existing parties and the population basically believe in the same history — the history of “founding fathers” attempting to build the Canadian nation along same set of ideas, same goals and same aspirations.
Two banners that the system has effectively used to mobilize masses in nation-building are the God and the flag. But contemporary Canada is more than founding fathers symbolizing bi-cultural Canada. Increasingly, many native born and new Canadians have joined First Nations Canadians in questioning past accounts of history. Many Canadians believe God and the flag means less or is an irrelevant yardstick of democracy and nation-building. In today’s time, a true democracy would be the one that takes into consideration previously eclipsed determinants such as cultural plurality, equality, race, languages, ethnicity, gender and differences. In absence of that, it is safe to say that we are stuck with a democratic government of the few i.e. white, Eurocentric, heterosexual male masquerading as a democracy.
Let’s talk about democracy in context of arts and culture.
Canada is signatory to the UN declaration (2001) that says, “Respect for diversity of cultures, dialogue and cooperation, are among the best guarantees of international peace and security.” Clearly there is recognition that Canada is a culturally diverse country. Respected philosopher Charles Taylor, points out in his book “Multiculturalism and The Politics of Recognition”, that equal recognition of all cultures is “not just the appropriate mode for a healthy democratic society, its refusal can inflict damage on those who are denied it…”
To answer the initial question as to how democracy is present for me as an artist – I have to examine if democracy has resulted in recognition of diversity, plurality, and equitable public policies in the arts and cultural field. Are we governed by policies that treat all cultural strands equally? Do we have a mechanism that supports aesthetic quality of all cultural forms equally? Is same market value assigned to all artistic products regardless of cultural, racial and gender differences? Or is there a racial and cultural underpinnings in our policies that allow the “founding cultures” to be perceived as mainstream while the rest – Aboriginal people, mixed race, and Canadians of African, Asian, South Asian, Arab, Muslim and Latino descent — the “Other” are reserved to stay on the margins?
I have the freedom to create what I believe is relevant and am passionate about. The Canada Council, our central arts body, is an equal opportunity institution and has policies in place for racial and cultural equality in the arts. This has provided me, to an extent, necessary conditions to create art. Presence of policy hasn’t however brought equality across cultures. Our art scene is still hierarchical in old terms of reference – Anglo-French, trailed by First Nations and other cultural strands.
A larger question is how I use democracy in my own creations. Do I use the freedom democracy has offered me to create meaningful art that overcomes silence, addresses controversies, creates difficult works, and highlights minorities and the marginalized. The most important use of democracy is to overcome censorship; even more important is to overcome self-censorship. Democracy will not have any meaning if all it does is create safe theatre that is pleasing and consumable out of fear that the big theatres would not produce it.
Recently, my play Bhopal was produced by the Teesri Duniya Theatre to a very successful run in Montreal. One of the world’s worst industrial disasters occurred in the city of Bhopal, India killing 25,000 people to date and counting. Thirty years after the disaster, survivors are suffering neurological and respiratory sickness, birth defects, disability and malformation among children. The play is a reminder that the frequency of industrial disasters is on the rise all over the world with recurring accidents of oil spills, pipeline leaks, dumping of hazardous chemicals and closer to home, the recent disaster at Lac-Mégantic.
The Bhopal gas disaster happened because multinational corporations have relocated manufacturing to the developing countries where human rights laws are inadequate, wages are low and environmental regulations are virtually nonexistent. I see a close relationship between democracy, dramatization of human condition and creativity, which makes us aware of what is going on in the world we live in. And so, democracy works as the backbone of creativity that generates a consciousness. When artists are able to create consciousness — things happen.
Events of this past week – which I’m naming “This Ontario Week in Sochi Canada” – brought to mind a moral question beautifully crystallized in @praxistheatre’s production of Rifles. In the play, a fierce woman fights to maintain and pass on the power of her moral compass to her family. In a harrowing moment when the woman discovers that yet another family member has been taken she loses her fight and picks up the very tools used to bludgeon her in the first place. She becomes one of “them”, the faceless enablers of atrocity. She becomes the user of rifles. It made me wonder, what would I resort to if I were stripped of the ideas and communities that ground me in my world? She fails, would I?
It is with this in mind that I tackle two moments in this week that was where the democratization – for better or worse – of media was in full bloom.
First, there was the slurpee-sized moment when mayor Rob Ford attempted to block the city of Toronto from joining an international protest against Russia’s homophobic policies by flying the Pride Flag at City Hall. What fun! How current! A great doctored shot of him riding naked on a horse with Putin made the Twitter Party Circuit. Slurp, snort, Brain-freeze! Ford lost his battle-of-the-flag and much of the win can be attributed to a simultaneous counter offensive afforded us through a more democratized media. So the day was won, in part, due to our individual ability to respond to a big bomb with a million tiny pistols.
Fantastic! But it seems like everybody is sharing being overwhelmed by the power of “the status quo” (often misattributed as synonymous with free speech). Enter (again) Rob Ford and his brother Doug, taking to the democratized airwaves with their own YouTube Show. Democratization of Western media means – basically–that everyone is doing it. (Or can)
Next up was the @CBCOntarioToday phone-in show called “Is live theatre dead to you?” I finally turned my attention to the podcast when I read about a petition started by @GoodOldNeonTO. It was the petition that actually got me to listen, not the good natured tweets before and during its airing: conflict in life, like in drama, being the hook.
The out of the gates response from my Twitteratti was about the dumbed down conversation and the problematic frames used for engaging with the topic. I will disclose here that I have not signed the petition.
What I did do – quite uncharacteristically – was take to Twitter with a list of reasons for why I liked the show. In addition to my Twitter list I liked the binary, or the simplistic, or the reductive framing because it allowed the space to hear things that I think are valuable to hear. I liked hearing about the barriers to going to theatre and felt that the general tenor of the show did allow for conversion. And I loved hearing that someone thought there would be real cats in Cats. Why? Because that is no less strange (or less imaginative) than the wonderful Daschund UN that @WorldStageTO and @FTAMontreal treated Canadians to last year. I would have been really bummed if I had turned up to find humans in dog suits at that show.
But there were two things that I did not enjoy and these connect back to Rob Ford’s Phobic Pride Flag debacle.
The first was the evident fear of art. The concern that art’s end-game is a kind of corruption seemed to seep through what I can only assume was a well-intentioned desire to celebrate a bold move by Brendan Healy, Artistic Director of Buddies in Bad Times Theatre, when last year he made a bold inquiry (paraphrased here): “Why, please tell me, are you not coming to my theatre?” Strange then to feel that answers to his question were formulated before the first caller hit the air. There was an indication from the show (and refuted point-for-point on the petition page (referred to above) that people don’t go to theatre because they are too busy going elsewhere (a spurious argument). Moreover, that to go to the theatre requires “erudition” (oh please Rita, really?) or an appetite for being ripped off.
None of this really bothered me. I enjoy this kind of easy-breezy “this bugs me and that bugs me” kind of deal. What did bother me was the underlying sensibility that phobia is a basic lens through which all discussion of art and sexuality must be seen.
There appears to be an ergo that now links an expression of the unknown with the engenderment of fear in the hypothetical audience member. If you listen to the show you will encounter a vivid description of entrapment whereby a man and his wife, unsuspecting victims of American commercial art, were lured into a house of ill repute, and their very souls were drained of life force in fact made them feel murderous. I was so relieved they got out of there alive and held my breath ‘til story’s end for fear that he might have died at the hands of this awful, awful theatre experience! I exaggerate and the above is sarcastic, the lowest form of something, but the story was woven through with the basic presumption that the unknown is always a trap.. The actual story starts the show at 2:48 on the podcast.
The phobia continued into new terrain with Buddies In Bad Times Theatre being referred to as “a professional company in Toronto…” – What is professional? Please will somebody tell me so that I can tell other people? – without ever mentioning its Queer status. Was this a “gift” from the mother corps to Buddies? Here ya go! Here’s your hard fought for legitimacy? Or was it to ensure that the CBC would not offend homophobic listeners and therefore – so the story goes – further diminish their listening base? God I hope neither is true, but after This Ontario Week in Sochi Canada it is hard not to go there.
Earlier I asked what I would become if I, like the protagonist in Rifles, lost my markers of self. I think that it might be choosing to hate those that hate me. How can I arm myself against this? I don’t want to fail at this.
We exist in a brief moment of opportunity to reinvent our democracy as The Senate of Canada is challenged and reshaped by Parliamentarians.
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has de-franchised Liberal Members of the Senate, proposing further changes that would create a replacement system for Senators similar to the Order of Canada; Official Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair has renewed calls for Senate abolition; The Harper Government has already requested clarification from The Supreme Court of Canada about what reforms are Constitutionally possible.
The Senate of Canada, modeled on The House of Lords, contains 105 members and came into being through The British North America Act in 1867. Senators are appointed by The Governor General upon the advice of the PM. A ‘sober house of second thought’ that legislation must pass through to become law, the only qualifications required to be a Senator are that one must be both older-than-30 and Canadian. Over the years this has become largely a patronage appointment for party loyalists.
The three major parties are at odds with one another about how our democracy should develop. Both the NDP and Conservatives are opposed to Trudeau’s suggestion we should continue to appoint and not elect the people who draft and pass our laws. Both Liberals and Conservatives prefer reform to the Constitutionally-challenged proposal by the NDP who have never had a Senator to “Roll Up The Red Carpet”. The NDP and Liberals are united in their frustration at eight years of talking about Senate reform, while promoting 59 Conservative Senators.
This impasse can be resolved through the singular mechanism of the The Governor General by incorporating other titles the position already awards to create a Senate that is a creative meritocracy.
Proposal for abandoned metro station in Paris, inspiration for Senate abandoned by Canadians.
The Senate need not be reformed using a system similar to The Order of Canada as Greg Sorbara suggested in the Toronto Star, six months before Justin Trudeau re-suggested the proposal this January. A much simpler and immediate solution would be a Senate comprised of actual members of The Order of Canada. Rather than create a second system to discover exemplary Canadians, we should remain with the impartial, non-partisan system that is already in place to identify the best and brightest as awarded by The Governor General.
The order has a three-level hierarchy of Member (C.M.), Officer (O.C.) and Companion (C.C). These levels of achievement could be represented proportionally, or through some other mechanism that recognizes these distinctions. Immediately, this would alter the quality and ability of our Senators from ‘breathing person born before 1984’ to ‘best country has to offer’.
This revitalized cohort of Senators would be tasked with contributing to Parliament in innovative ways that leaves the drafting of legislation to elected representatives. Following The Speech From The Throne by The Governor General laying out the Government’s priorities for the year, these Senators would be tasked with investigating the surrounding issues and representing them through artistic practice.
This would be facilitated by those possessing another honour bestowed by the GG: Governor General’s Arts Award Winners in Performing Arts, Literature, History, Visual and Media Arts, and Architecture. Authors could be paired with scientists, statisticians with sopranos, judges with directors, academics with transmedia artists, farmers with architects, and infinite likeminded variations.
The short distance between The Senate and The National Arts Centre should lead to a formal arrangement between two institutions, both of which are already directly funded by Parliament. There will be a significant amount of artistic direction and administration required for these reforms to be implemented. Fortunately, it will be relatively easy to connect the two physically through underground tunnel beneath Wellington St., for The NAC to seamlessly take on its new role of facilitator of this multiplicity of relationships between Members of The Order of Canada, GG Winners, and the works and presentations they will create in The Senate.
The Senate itself will be transformed into a multi-purpose venue that will allow intense exploration and presentation of these issues as well as access for Canadians. The single biggest tourist attraction in Ottawa, it will act as a theatre, museum, concert hall, studio, digital laboratory, and workspace. An open-source intellectual crucible, The Senate will forge great and unprecedented responses to the issues elected Parliamentarians in The House of Commons will be drafting legislation to face.
An increasingly fragmented and digitally integrated 21st Century requires a government that can inspire, inquire, reflect and debate with rigour. While Parliamentary committees and debate will investigate the nuts and bolts of bills; the creative meritocracy in The Senate will complement this work by engaging in non-linear and imaginative practices related to the legislation. Embracing both rational knowledge and the power of creative thought, The Senate of Canada will become our strategic advantage as a nation that has a pro-active elite body to explore the problems we face and relate them to Members of Parliament and all Canadians.
Change is coming to The Senate of Canada. At this moment in time, when reform seems inevitable, but no one knows what form it will take, Creative Change in The Senate is possible. An onsite workspace/venue, populated by the brightest Canadians, partnered with our most exciting artists, it will become a model for advanced democratic engagement globally. Our Provincial Parliaments function admirably without an upper-house reviewing their legislation, now is the time to transform our Federal upper-house into an institution that truly prizes higher
thought.
The future of culture and democracy in Canada takes focus in this week’s edition of #CdnCult Times.
Sarah Garton Stanley reacts to the #CdnCult Twittersphere’s response to @CBCOntarioToday and the Rob Ford Pride Flag Flap; Rahul Varma investigates the cultural principals that underpin our democratic ideals; I make a proposal for Senate reform that puts culture at the vanguard of revitalizing our democratic institutions.
Each article suggests proactive innovation to preserve democratic values through inclusivity and equality. Beyond the act of casting a ballot, in what imaginative ways can we improve our democracy?”
In which Adrienne and Jacob discuss authenticity in terms of original practices Shakespeare, Chinese New Year menus and theatre architecture. Essentially: what’s in the sauce. iTunes | RSS
They also talk about:
whether the twins should look alike in Twelfth Night,
Me on the Map is a project I’ve been working on with Jan Derbyshire for the past 2 years. We started jamming together about how to tie together kids’ experiences of urban living, civic responsibility and inclusivity in a way that is interesting and fun. Our process involves a lot of talking.
A lot.
We have inevitable concentration breaks. You know, those times when the conversation turns away from the task at hand to small talk about shows, or books, or gossip, or sporting events.
Jan and I talk about parenting.
Being mothers is part of our shared territory – and it makes sense that we talk about child-rearing. I maintain that you can glean information about any project you’re working on by stepping back and observing the process. Although, ‘process’ isn’t quite the right word. I don’t mean the methodology. I’m talking about the social patterns and small rituals that develop within an ensemble as part of the group dynamic.
Me On the Map is a show for kids. It’s about asking kids to consider what the built environment says about the values held by their communities. More than that: we want kids to know they can – and must – imagine the neighbourhoods and cities they would like to live in. We want to empower kids to find ways to manifest those ideas; they can be agents for change in their communities.
To me, this is also part of my job as a parent.
So while Jan and I talk about disciplining toddlers and communicating with teenagers, about sleepless nights and the daily practice of letting go, we are also talking about the show. We’re talking about how our bright, shining children become engaged, empowered adults. We’re not talking about shaping our kids, but rather, how to open up a space for kids to grow into, and to own.
We aim to create an experience that all kids can participate in, but the truth is that not all kids experience an event or performance in the same way. In fact, I’m banking on it.
I’m working with the assumption that each kid will be showing up with their own point of view based on their personal history, interests, abilities, etc – just like grown-ups. By setting up the right environment – the “rules of the world”, as Jan calls them – we can create a space where the kids must negotiate the differences between them and come to some sort of collective decision. We want the kids to have to make arguments, to listen, to disagree and to find compromise. These are the building blocks of civic engagement.
How are we going about doing this?
By incorporating these building blocks into our own creative process. And by inviting other folks into our process who know things we don’t. Specifically, a mechanical engineer/industrial designer and a software developer.
Working with creative professionals in other fields is making us ask questions to which we have no answers. In previous creation processes, I think I’ve cheated by asking questions I already had an idea of how to answer. While I don’t know the nuances of lighting design, I can imagine how lights can make a space look and feel. The same for conventional design elements like set, sound and costumes. Conversations could revolve around what as possible, and what was affordable.
But I really don’t know anything about software functionality or game design. So I’m finding the conversations between our group of collaborators stays open, longer. The ideas are wilder, bolder. This is also something I’m learning from Jan. To put all the ideas out there; don’t be shy. We may not get to The Idea immediately, but we may find the idea that leads us to The Idea.
This notion of sharing and conversation is a new, radical approach to creation process. In fact, I’m stealing it from my Progress Lab pals in Vancouver.
Progress Lab, at the very beginning, was the brainwave of Kim Collier and the Electric Company that pulled together the creation-based companies and the artists who run them. In a series of hands-on sessions, each company led a show and tell on how they created new work. The sessions went so well that the group continued to meet-up for dinners, to hang out, to discuss hot topics and dream big. And it was out of this synergistic stew that Hive was born, and from there Obstructions and from there… who knows.
Is there something about this process or approach that is inherently feminist?
Yes!
While Me On The Map doesn’t engage primarily with women’s issues, our objective is to promote equality and self-determination within civic discourse for all citizens. The capitalist notions of competition, property and ownership are part of the expression of patriarchy. I argue that sharing knowledge, cooperating and building consensus through conversation are strategies infused with a female world view.
By engaging kids in a participatory show that deliberately embeds (without naming) a feminist world view and approach, Me On The Map has the potential to have significant and long-lasting impact. The greater awareness among kids of the notion of citizenship will, hopefully, lead to greater civic engagement, higher voter participation and – ultimately – safer communities.
Click to read “10 Ways Malala Yousafzai Has Changed the World”
Matthew: How are you feminists? Or are you?
Laakkuluk: I’m proudly female, that’s for sure
Amy: Sorry, my dog threw up. Had to duck out for a moment! Feminism??
Laakkuluk: Ha ha ha ha!
Matthew: Ha ha ha [coughing fit] ha ha
Laakkuluk: I mean, that’s terrible. I hope she doesn’t do that again.
Amy: Earlier in my life I did not think of myself as a feminist, although I was always independent. My Mom worked outside the home and I guess I always learned by example. When I was younger (I am 56) feminism was a hard word with a bad connotation, but not so much anymore.
Laakkuluk: But you do see yourself as a feminist now?
Amy: Yes, I guess so but I always thought of myself as a humanist. But when I consider positions of leadership, like government or running theatres etc, I believe it is very important to have gender equity, or as close as possible. I do believe that women are still paid less and have to work harder to get to the top. We are much harder on women. Our premier just resigned. I believe a lot of the criticism about her would not have been so much if she were a man. People get more personal about women it seems.
Matthew: Was there specific criticism about her gender?
Laakkuluk: You are absolutely right – female politicians face a lot of gendered prejudice
Amy: It was mean criticism somehow. Her presentation, her communication manner…
Laakkuluk: Women and visible minorities still get exposed to a lot of unconscious chauvinism and racism: remarks that slight the subject
Amy: yeah, I guess I felt there was an air of chauvinism within the criticism of K. Dunderdale.
Laakkuluk: there definitely was for our former female premier as well
Matthew: A Victoria woman started this site to draw attention to the gender imbalance in politics. Questions like, “What would your government look like if it was made up of 75% women?” Then I go- What?! 75% male government? Doesn’t seem quite right. I think we’re doing better in theatre.
Amy: It is interesting that every time I saw our premier speak, she referred to her family, the family unit, where we came from to get where we have arrived. Basic foundation stuff. Not that it was all that but it was in the mix: the pride of place and family.
Laakkuluk: I agree with Matthew – I see so much more gender equality and partnership in theatre
Matthew: And how do you define feminism? Laakkuluk?
Amy: Also do you consider yourself a feminist?
Matthew: A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women- according to wiki
Laakkuluk: Well – for me there is a sense of pride and cultural responsibility in my gender but there is also the need to affirm the female voice in a commercialized world that suppresses female perspectives and experiences. One struggle I often have in feminist discussions is that I think so much female knowledge has been lost in the fight to be the same as men. I think that the fight should be to be equal to men but not to become men. If we all become the same as the men in the boardrooms, we lose a connection to home, the land, to sensual knowledge, to family. Not that all men lack that at all, but I’m talking about trends.
Amy: I agree. Totally. WE are different, we just want to be in/on the same playing field. Anyone can be a feminist. Are you a feminist Matthew?
Matthew: I would like to think so. At least “yes” was my first reaction to the question. Then I looked up the definition of feminism, because I was not sure how to define it. I suppose I defined it as “supportive of women and gender equality.” Or something like that. The definition I read: “Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.” Led me to think I was not active enough to be a feminist.
Amy: Interesting they say collection of movements.
Matthew: I can’t say I am completely dedicated to defining establishing and defending equality, but I do think about gender equality in casting and in the make up of our administration I also consider other forms of equality.
Amy: I get ideologies, but “movements” seems to me to be that old-fashioned feminism I referred to earlier.
Matthew: Yes, Amy, I can see that.
Amy: In Newfoundland, women hold most of the Ad & GM jobs of theatre companies. It is changing but probably equal female/male now.
Amy Brownhill, midwife
Matthew: I think I spoke in an earlier chat about a project that I’m writing connected to sexual politics in the workplace.
Laakkuluk: Tell us more about it!
Matthew: Inspired by the terrible way some men still speak about women in male-dominated work places such as construction sites and carpentry scene shops. Takes place in a scene shop where carpenters are building a set.
Matthew: The first draft has 12 men and three women in it. So it will need an all-female crew.
Laakkuluk: That’s going to be great
Amy: WE are breaking into unconventional careers more and more. It is still very new though so will take some time
Matthew: So I guess feminism is important in our work?
Amy: Very much so.
Laakkuluk: As we have this conversation, my daughter and her two teenaged friends are watching “Call the Midwife”
Amy: heeheehee
Laakkuluk: The living room is filled with the sounds of babies being born and the girls are entranced.
Matthew: A Feminist show?
Laakkuluk: Yes I would say so
Amy: Very important job.
Matthew: Our midwife is one of our heroes.
Amy: Are there any male mid-“wives”? That would be equality.
Matthew: Heroines.
Laakkuluk: They are beautiful heroines
Matthew: One male mid-wife in BC
Laakkuluk: My father helped deliver babies. My husband helped at our friend’s birth too
Matthew: Ah, and at least one in the North
Amy: Excellent.
Matthew: I was hoping to catch my son, but I don’t think that would have counted.
Amy: My husband was in the room watching a baseball game while I was in labour! God love him!
Matthew: The next room or the room you were in?
Amy: The room I was in, just before the birth! But he flew home to be there! 🙂
Laakkuluk: The lovely men that attend our births!
Matthew: Who was playing?
Amy: Blue Jays and someone. Final game of the season! 1990
Laakkuluk: oooh – even I know that was a big game
Amy: yeah. A big deal.
Matthew: Orioles won that game 3-2. October 3rd would the date of your child’s birth then?
Amy: Sorry it was 1992, July 25th is her birthday, but the game was on 24th.
Amy: Well, I think we did say gender equity is important to our work. It is a hot topic at all our PACT AGM’s!
Laakkuluk: I think I would just add that I use gender quite centrally in my work especially as an uaajeerneq (Greenlandic mask dancing) dancer where the whole point is to celebrate the physical body and all healthy expressions of sexuality
Matthew: Uaajeerneq- I’ll have to look that up
Laakkuluk: And to play with the so-called “borders” of gendered roles
Amy: That sounds beautiful Laakkuluk. I would love to see that.
Matthew: The borders between male and female and other genders?
Amy: Men and women dance? Same number of men and women, or just one of each?
Laakkuluk: It’s a blast. I’m in an uaajeerneq mask in the photo I sent in for this chat. Yes the borders between male and female and other genders. Both men and women perform uaajeerneq often wearing huge phalluses or massive breasts
Matthew: Do you teach it?
Laakkuluk: yes I do
Matthew: One more reason to get together.
Laakkuluk: Absolutely!
Amy: for sure.
Amy: Phonetically spell it, How do you pronounce it?
Laakkuluk: “ooooaayiinnik.” But the last sound is like the way “q” is pronounced in Arabic
Amy: It even sounds sexy!
Laakkuluk: He he – you’re already getting the hang of it
Amy: Thanks guys! See ya!
Laakkuluk: See you gang! Thanks for all the fun again!
“Representation of women with power are as problematic as representations of women without, mostly because they are written and directed by men.”
My friend and film critic, Adam Nayman in passing.
When I went to see Michael Healey’s Proud at the GCTC this fall, I brought a young, female NDP MP who was elected in Quebec during the 2011 ‘Orange Wave.’ As a playwright, who more recently also has a career as a legislative assistant for two different female NDP MPs, I thought the play would be a fun distillation of my two passions – a perfect social excursion for me and my boss.
I vaguely knew that the play was about an MP such as her, elected under similar circumstances. I was proud to show her that people from my world (Canadian Theatre) were already immortalizing her in our art. I also knew the play enjoyed some lefty cred for having been de-programmed from the Tarragon Theatre’s season, presumably because it was about Stephen Harper, and the PMO has allegedly interfered with federal funding for theatre they disapprove of in the past.
After watching the play I was mortified and my MP guest was horrified. She turned to me flatly and said: “That was the most misogynist thing I’ve seen.” Given her exposure to misogyny and sexism since her election, that is saying a lot.
I’m a political playwright who loves to use and abuse public figures in my work. My lawyer father constantly warns me that someone is going to sue me for libel one day, and I don’t care. I feel utterly entitled to use real people and stories in my writing. I loved that Healey was taking on Harper. I even loved that he was using the details of Ruth-Ellen Brosseau, MP Berthier-Maskinonge, to write a political play. How aux courant!
My problem with Proud is not about the hurt feelings of the women I work with. The question of whether the play is libelous is beside the point. The play also completely ignores the NDP’s existence as a political force, which breaks my partisan heart, but that is definitely beside the point.
The point is this:
Throughout history, women in positions of power have made people very uncomfortable. This has empowered a stereotype of a woman who is as sexually manipulative as she is thirsty for inappropriate power. Healey’s character Jisbella Lyth, may be based on the shamefully recent phenomenon of young women in Parliament, but there is nothing new about the stereotype we are presented with.
When women do masculine things, like have confidence and wield power, they are disturbing deeply engrained gender norms. The “Ah ha!” moment of Proud comes when we realize that Jisbella has been lusting not just for sex, but for political capital since the beginning of the play. It turns out that she’s not as dumb as she seems and has been fooling the men in the play in order to climb into cabinet faster than she deserves. I think this revelation is supposed to make her character seem less sexist because she’s smart and she wins. But she doesn’t win by demonstrating that she’s a competent politician. She wins by distracting men, through seduction, while performing feminine idiocy and pliability. This doesn’t make her a feminist role model, like real female politicians are, it just makes her a sneaky bitch. The phrase: “She fucked her way to the top.” Has been dogging successful women since… Well, at least since the 80’s. And I’m sure every era had it’s own to explain away professional women.
Women with a large appetite for success have always been regarded with suspicion so people dismiss them using sex. There is nothing novel about Jisbella Lyth from a cultural perspective. From Lady Macbeth, to the femmes fatale of Noir Fiction to more modern day film examples of Basic Instinct or Working Girl, when women have a decent amount of power in a movie, book or play it’s always attached to her sexuality. Even more problematic, is the fact her brazen, near masculine sexuality, almost always functions to mask a deep emptiness felt by the character. We get a sniff of this from Jisbella’s monologue about her unexamined libertarian beliefs when she talks about her parents abandoning her. While this isn’t directly related to her fairly unrealistic desire to fuck all the men she meets indiscriminately, it does account for the nihilism that some men might imagine would account for that behaviour.
Also present is that other shitty stereotype about single, disadvantaged mothers being slutty and ridiculous. When Jisbella bursts in to the PMO searching for condoms the joke is only funny because a young, working class female should never find herself an accidental politician. Someone who used to manage a restaurant isn’t fit to represent a fictional suburban (maybe rural?) Quebec riding. Why would a 50-year-old lawyer be a more appropriate, less hilarious, choice for the good people of Cormier-Lac-Poule?
At this point I should disclose that when I saw, on election night in May 2011, that a bunch of university age kids had unexpectedly won their seats in Quebec, my first reaction was they were not qualified. It took me a few hours and a stern scolding from my (younger) boyfriend to recognize my attitude was ageist and that young people should be in Parliament to represent, you know… young people. So I certainly forgive Healey for having a chuckle at the expense of the newly elected NDP youth caucus. However, I’m having a hard time forgiving sexist stereotypes from a 21st century playwright.
The young women I work for encounter implicit and explicit examples of sexism and misogyny, almost on a daily basis in their workplace. It’s such a common occurrence that it takes some effort for them not to become numb to it. Inside of every snide, inappropriate comment is the insinuation that they don’t have the right to occupy the space they consume in the halls of power. One of them once said to me: “They are all wondering who I slept with to get this gig.” Thank you, Proud, for being the unhelpful play that illustrates exactly who such women might be sleeping with.
I went home and scoured the reviews of Proud after I saw it. They were mostly positive. None of the lukewarm ones called out the play’s gender dynamics. A few lefty political staffers who I worked with saw it and disliked it for not being left-wing enough. No one was quite as angry as I am about Jisbella Lyth. But maybe this is because there aren’t many feminist playwrights who also work on Parliament Hill.
So there you have it. Speaking of shitty female stereotypes, I’m the feminist who can’t take the joke.
Laakkuluk: I think I would just add that I use gender quite centrally in my work especially as an uaajeerneq (Greenlandic mask dancing) dancer where the whole point is to celebrate the physical body and all healthy expressions of sexuality
Women with a large appetite for success have always been regarded with suspicion so people dismiss them using sex. There is nothing novel about Jisbella Lyth from a cultural perspective. From Lady Macbeth, to the femmes fatale of Noir Fiction to more modern day film examples of Basic Instinct or Working Girl, when women have a decent amount of power in a movie, book or play it’s always attached to her sexuality. Even more problematic, is the fact her brazen, near masculine sexuality, almost always functions to mask a deep emptiness felt by the character. We get a sniff of this from Jisbella’s monologue about her unexamined libertarian beliefs when she talks about her parents abandoning her. While this isn’t directly related to her fairly unrealistic desire to fuck all the men she meets indiscriminately, it does account for the nihilism that some men might imagine would account for that behaviour.
