Politics and Theatre

Friday, I saw "Belle Moral" at the NAC theatre. Saturday, I saw the Ontario NDP leadership race debates at the Lord Elgin. Of the two, the debates made for better theatre.

Belle Moral is about evolution, a family secret, the thing locked up in the attic, and other gothic tropes. The play pretends to be smarter than it is. The two main characters regularly give long and complex soliloquies about science and evolution and the future of humanity. Those speeches are pretty tedious.

And the stage is so damned frantic. Three large screens spin on an axis point, allowing shadowy characters to come out and install new sets. At one point, a character goes into the attic, has a five minute scene, and then the whole set is disassembled and reassembled as the drawing room. Ten minutes in the drawing room, and the characters decide to head for the attic. The set is disassembled and reassembled again. There has to be a better way to show this. It felt like at least a fifth of the night was wasted in creating and destroying sets.

The acting was decent enough. The story was okay. The conclusion, beyond goofy.

It was an acceptable evening, seven out of ten. But ultimately, forgettable.

Now on to the real theatre...

The set of the NDP debates featured five podiums: four for the candidates, and one for the moderator. The villain was played by Michael Prue. He seemed unaware of the part he was playing. His orange silk tie, a ring on either hand, his very proper gray moustache -- he had the air of a retired pimp.

He angrily accused a fellow candidate of not letting him speak -- though she'd done no such thing. Later, he erupted into indignant rage. A fellow candidate heckled him.

He only had thirty seconds to answer the question, he complained, and the guy heckled him? "Jesus!" he yelled out.

There followed a hushed and embarrassed silence that Prue either didn't notice, or ignored.

Prue's right eyebrow kept rising up, making it look like he had an invisible monocle in his left eye. The expression made him look like he was already contemplating his future coronation. While sincere, something about his presentation style felt artificial and forced. All of his hand gestures involved "giving the fig" -- holding the hand palm upwards, and drawing all the fingers into a bundle, and emphasizing points. Prue needs to loosen up.


A demonstration of "the fig".

And he also needs to loosen up geographically. Everything Michael Prue talked about was centred around Toronto. He kept giving examples of places he knew and things he'd done: Toronto, Toronto, and Toronto. I wanted to yell out, "You ain't in Toronto anymore, Toto!" but I'd already seen how angry Prue got with hecklers, so I kept my mouth shut.

Prue came across as pompous, irritable, whiny, and a prima donna. Definitely the villain of the debates. Everyone loves a good villain, and I immediately loved Michael Prue. I hope he wins so I can watch him more closely. But he doesn't stand a chance.

Andrea Horwath was the female lead. The only notable thing she did was call another candidate sexist when he jokingly referred to his own "pretty face". When Horwath said she wasn't going to let the sexist comment pass, all the other candidates seemed baffled. It had been clear the man, Gilles Bisson, had been making fun of his own ugly face. Horwath chose to interpret him differently.



It was a gutsy if confusing thing for Horwath to do. But I think it made her come across as a little weird. Mind you, this is the NDP we're talking about. A sign of political incorrectness is the equivalent of high treason. I'm surprised the crowd didn't immediately crucify Bisson -- but they were all a bit confused as to what Horwath was talking about.

(I keep wanting to call her Hogwarts.)

Gilles Bisson struck me as the most affable man up there. While the other three struggled with their French -- Prue's French was particularly bad -- Bisson was fluently bilingual. Bisson was funny and loud and quick with a joke. Of all of the speakers, I enjoyed hearing him the most.



When Bisson casually mentioned his previous work with unions, I immediately understood who he was. He had that affable union organizer feel to him. High minded enough to be a politician, but rough and tumble enough to drink beers with the workers. He mentioned that he was going to be at a Superbowl party on Sunday, and I was not even slightly surprised.

The final candidate was Peter Tabuns, and I suspect he has this thing locked up. He looks like Howard Hampton, he's well spoken, and he didn't make any mistakes. He was boring but friendly, and I'm starting to think that's exactly the sort of person who gets elected to office.



According to a piece of paper handed out at the door, Paul Dewar says Tabuns has his support -- which in Ottawa pretty much means Tabuns has every NDP Ottawans' vote.

Tabuns has a face too small for his head, and a haircut so perfect I suspect he has a hairstylist on staff. He made broad gestures with his open hands. It made him seem larger than he was.

The debates featured written questions from the audience, read by the moderator. Fundraising was a big issue. Someone asked, what can we learn from Obama's success, particularly in regards to fundraising?

That's a touchy issue with the NDP, because they're in debt and everyone knows it.

Tabuns said that the NDP needs to be a party of ideas that people can support. When the NDP truly represents what the people want, the people will come to the NDP -- and presumably throw money. Some of the other candidates echoed this sentiment.

This approach really depressed me. It seems so incredibly wrong.

As the coalition craziness swept over Ottawa, I heard a news story about the Conservatives. They wanted money. Line our war chest with dough so we can fight this, the Conservatives pleaded.

Well, if the Conservatives are asking for money, clearly the NDP needs money too. So I went to their website and looked around for where to make a donation. There was a very clear "donation" button, but when I clicked it, I was greeted with the opportunity to donate money to Jack Layton's campaign fund.

This was confusing, as the election was long over. I hesitated to donate, for fear it wouldn't be processed properly, or at all. Was this the right place to give money?

Shouldn't a political party always be fundraising, even after an election? Shouldn't the donations page of the website been updated immediately after the election was over?

I get this feeling that the NDP sees itself as a party of the people. They don't have to raise money. That's gross and dirty and not what the NDP is about. As Tabuns seemed to say, the NDP just have to reflect who the people really are, and the money will magically arrive. Socialism inaction.

How ironic that that all the candidates voiced concern over the public perception that the NDP cannot be trusted to handle matters involving finance.

Charities don't assume they'll get money, just because they're a good cause. They have to ask for the money, over and over and over again. That's the reality of the marketplace.

Sadly, the NDP seems to think Obama simply raised money by being awesome, instead of organized. Not to mention that he was running against the proxy of the least popular president in history, and people were terrified he'd win.

But despite my displeasure, Tabuns will win, because he's non-threatening and bland. He's a good product the NDP can sell. I can see the posters now.

VOTE TABUNS: He Has Nice Hair

Too bad he'll win. I'd really like to see Gilles Bisson get the job -- if only for the jokes.