We thought a quick post was in order to draw your attention to some of the wonderful photos available online that document, not only the production but also the celebrations surrounding the show and the growing community of Studio 180 supporters who took part in these special events.

It makes sense to kick things off with the beautiful rehearsal photos of our Stage Manager and resident shutterbug, Rob Harding. Rob has been documenting our process since Our Class and his candid shots offer an intoxicating glimpse behind the scenes of our recent productions. As a fun little bonus, we’ve also included a handful of Talkback photos snapped on Rob’s iPhone which showcase our dedicated cast members taking part in the dialogue after the show while revealing the impressive number of audience members who stuck around to chat after the final fade.

Then of course there’s the show itself. It’s always difficult to capture stage magic in a single frame but photographers John Karastamatis and Karri North brought their keen eyes and photographic savvy to our invited dress and provided a wonderful document of this remarkable production. Production photos (as well as a handful of Rob’s rehearsal shots) can always be found on our website’s Gallery and you can find even more show images on our Facebook page.

Finally, we love a good party. And Clybourne Park gave us ample opportunity to let loose with our audience. Our Facebook page also features a large assortment of party photos from our Opening Night and our exciting Block Party Fundraiser. All of these shots are by Karri North who did a wonderful job capturing the action in the moodily lit party rooms at Canadian Stage’s Berkeley Street Theatre.

We hope you enjoy these shots, and if you find yourself or one of your friends caught in the action, feel free to tag yourself and let us know you were part of the celebration.

Stage Manager Robert Harding’s photographs can be found on Facebook and he also works to share his knowledge of Stage Management and photography in the form of a blog.

Karri North’s photography can be found at, well . . . Karri North Photography. Among other things – Karri is a fabulous wedding photographer who happened to be the photographer of record at the wedding of two of Studio 180’s Core Artistic Team members.

John Karastamatis is the Director of Communications at Mirvish Productions and also works as a freelance publicist for independent productions around Toronto. John has been with Studio 180 since our very first production, The Laramie Project, in 2003.

And now we can add another title to the list.

Earlier this week we had the opportunity to see the Hot Docs premiere of United in Anger: A History of ACT UP which details the tireless efforts of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, the organization at the forefront of AIDS activism from 1987 to the present.

One of the most common queries to arise in talkbacks for The Normal Heart was, “What happens next?” And in many ways – this film provides the answer. Audiences (particularly young ones) aware that the character of Ned Weeks was a theatrical representation of real life artist, agitator and activist Larry Kramer were hungry to know what became of his struggle to draw attention to, and foster support for, a community in crisis. Jim Hubbard’s thorough and absorbing documentary is a glimpse of that unknown future.

The Normal Heart details Kramer’s efforts with the fledgling GMCH (Gay Men’s Health Crisis) and highlights the friction between its members as they debate the relative merits of service and support versus the need for activism. As personified by Weeks, Kramer is the fiery voice of outrage whose alarmist rhetoric and public grandstanding exacerbate his coworkers’ anxieties about further alienating an already hostile general public.

While Kramer is featured only sparingly in the film, we see his call to arms early on and witness the emergence of a bold new political voice. What sets United in Anger apart from many films examining the era is its focus. While a number filmmakers have set their sites on the horrors of the plague and the trauma it wrought, Hubbard and fellow producer Sarah Schulman present an almost academic survey of the roots of activism and the keys to successful political activation. The echoes of the Occupy movement are potent and one hopes its lessons are not lost on a new generation seeking to find a voice but often lacking cohesion of vision or message.

The provocative calling card of ACT UP

Among the most compelling elements of the documentary is the group’s ability to use art and the media as powerful allies. Slogans, posters and committed documentation lead to vibrant, inescapable messaging. Visual and behavioral irreverence, the kind championed by Kramer, unsettle members of both camps – but the impact is undeniable. Liberated from the need to be liked, the organization realizes its need to be heard. In an age of one click, online activism (KONY anyone?) it’s a sobering and powerful lesson.

The Normal Heart begins in an era of fear, where knowledge or understanding of the plague that has descended are in short supply. United in Anger moves us forward in the struggle as information and options slowly emerge and a dedicated group work to protect the rights of marginalized individuals denied the access to support they so desperately need.

United in Anger is both a suitable follow up for those who caught The Normal Heart in its first incarnation and a potent primer for those poised to see it in the fall. You have two more chances to catch it at Hot Docs and it will also be shown at this year’s Inside Out Film Festival.

Check it out and let us know what you think.

And finally, we’d be remiss if we didn’t link to our friends at AIDS Action Now who spoke briefly and effectively at the screening of the need for vigilance in the fight against HIV/AIDS and of the complex problems that continue to plague people in our city and around the world.

Maria Ricossa gets her Bev on, in a rehearsal photo by Rob Harding

• Everything with Clybourne Park begins and ends on the page. It is first and foremost a writer’s piece, and Bruce Norris was happy to share his thoughts with Toronto audiences in a number of forms. Norris took time out to chat with The Toronto Star’s Richard Ouzounian in a candid interview you can find here.
• Also, your resident blogger had the opportunity to chat with the Pulitzer Prize-winning author prior to the start of rehearsals. The resulting interview was shared in both our Spring Newsletter and is also available in the house program when you attend the show. You can find a link to the newsletter right here
• Now Magazine has a wonderful preview piece featuring Clybourne Park‘s Sterling Jarvis. Sterling last worked with Studio 180 on The Overwhelming, and we couldn’t be more delighted to have him along for the ride once again.
• During the rehearsal process our Stage Manager Rob Harding was scrupulously capturing moments of action and contemplation in the hall, creating a wonderful document of the creative process. You can find a generous selection of Rob’s rehearsal photos on our Facebook page.
• Our own blog has shared a few insights along the way with three particularly relevant entries; one at the start of the rehearsal process, a special guest entry by Stage Manager Rob Harding and our most recent post looking at the challenges of Clybourne Park’s unique structure from an actor’s point of view.
• Director Joel Greenberg contributed to The Charlebois Post with a first person entry on their website, looking at the ways in which Clybourne Park both reinforces our mandate and strikes bold new ground for Studio 180.
• When you attend a performance of Clybourne Park, you’ll have an opportunity to take in our Lobby Display supplied courtesy of Professor David Hulchanski and the University of Toronto’s Cities Centre. The display focuses particularly on the notion of Toronto’s Three cities, and the pressing issue of income polarization. You can find detailed information related to the display and the insights recent studies have provieded at the site neighbourhoodchange.ca.
• Finally, for the studious among you, we’d be remiss if we didn’t provide a link to our Study Guide. Created by Studio 180 Core Artistic Team member Jessica Greenberg, this study guide provides an entry point into the many contentious issues surrounding the play and also provides an understanding the play’s relationship to Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun. And, while not directly related to Clybourne Park, our October 2011 newsletter featured an interview with Jessica, looking at the ways in which we seek to educate not only our audiences, but also ourselves with each project we pursue.

Audrey Dwyer and Sterling Jarvis in Studio 180's production of Clybourne Park

We hope you enjoy these avenues for further investigation and that you’ll embrace additional opportunities to discuss the show and the issues it examines.

You can find out about our pre and post show discussions by visiting our website and if you’re looking for an extra special way to experience the show AND support independent theatre in the city, you may want to check out our special Fundraising Event on April 20th. See the show, eat, drink, mingle with the cast and have the opportunity to win great prizes too.

Of course this is just an optional syllabus. The only real required element of the course is that you come see one of the most provocative and hilarious shows in recent memory. Bruce Norris’ Clybourne Park is not to be missed. 

Maria Ricossa as Bev in Act I (left) and Kathy in Act II (right)

Maria Ricossa who shifts from a doting housewife in the first Act to a no nonsense lawyer in the second is quick to praise the playwright. “The joy of doing this part is that Bruce Norris has given me the gift of two very vivid characters. Each one has a clear voice and a strong need.” Mark McGrinder, who plays the only character to cross over to Clybourne Park from A Raisin in the Sun is equally appreciative of the playwright’s efforts. “Bruce Norris has done so much of the work for you. The characters are so finely drawn through the dialogue you sort of just have to go along for the ride. And I have the added good fortune of playing Karl Lindner (from A Raisin in the Sun), who already exists in the theatrical cannon.”

Of course finely drawn dialogue can be a curse as much as a gift as Ricossa observes. “He has written such tight dialogue with gloriously precise rhythms that, with even a slight inversion of a word here or an omission of a word there, the thought is not as clear and the rhythm of the next line is thrown off. It doesn’t seem significant in the moment but the overall effect is like hitting wrong notes in music.”

For McGrinder, the physical life of the men he plays is the next layer in building two distinct characters. “Rigid and loose would be the words I’d use to describe the two men. Norris describes Karl in the first Act as ‘an oddly formal and uncomfortable seeming man’. Formality informs everything he does. He says things like ‘Well, we shan’t be long,’ whereas Steve, my character in the second Act says things like ‘S’cool with me.’ That tells you a lot right there. The irony is that the formality of the first Act in many ways allows you to be looser. Characters allow each other to speak, to complete thoughts and as a result there are many more sustained sections of dialogue. Moments to sit in. The second Act is very contemporary in that no one is permitted to complete a thought, people speak in fragments, constantly interrupting. It’s like the difference between writing a letter and tweeting. But the weird inversion I’m trying to get at is that the looser, more relaxed, conversational style of dialogue in the second Act actually gives you very little room to relax.”

While Ricossa and McGrinder are drawn to the contrasts in their characters, Jeff Lillico finds a striking commonality in the roles he essays.”One of the most notable connections between my first two characters in this play are how they both act as mediators. In 1959, my character Jim is a church minister. He is asked to counsel Russ, as there is concern for his spiritual well-being. He does so with the utmost concern for Russ and an almost selfish wish to alleviate his troubles. In 2009, my character Tom is on the board of the Clybourne Park community association and is extremely well-versed on the ins and outs of residential legislation, real-estate and finances.” But while the role of mediator is central to his character the ways in which they choose to mediate is where the contrast comes into play. “The role of mediator has changed over the years relative to our collective fundamentals as a society.”

Jeff Lillico as Jim in Act I (left) and Tom in Act II (right)

The question of fundamental change (and how much, if any has transpired over the fifty years between Acts) is central to the play. “One of the most striking differences for me is the move from a religion-centric society to one far more concerned with matters of money and property,” observes Lillico. “Why the change? One could argue a deteriorating moral code, one could say an express need to better thrive amidst the territorial ramifications of a capitalist society”.

“I agree that things have changed in many ways”, McGrinder allows, “in terms of priorities and such, but I still wonder how much has fundamentally changed. At least in terms of our actual attitudes. I think in many cases the attitudes have altered far less than the way we express or suppress those attitudes.”

“It’s really about communication,” Ricossa observes “and the way we communicate with each other reveals a lot about our characters in the respective Acts. The real joy in rehearsing is discovering the relationships and word games he (Norris) has created among all his characters in both acts. The dialogue, and how each line builds on the one before – often being echoed in the other Act – has been a challenge. It’s like a tennis match. Each line has to hit the mark with purpose and precision.”

With performances under way we hope the communication can move beyond the stage and to the audience. Clybourne Park challenges viewers to develop their own notions about just how far we have (or haven’t) come and the striking contrast between to the two Acts is sure to provoke conversation. You won’t see it listed in the program but the dialogue that ensues is, in many ways, the play’s third and final act.

Be sure to check out our Behind the Scenes video we shared earlier on our Facebook and Twitter pages to get a further glimpse at the company discussing what Clybourne Park is all about.

With our first preview on the horizon, we thought it made sense to share a different point of view on the backstage goings on of Clybourne Park, so we asked Stage Manager extraordinaire Rob Harding to share some insights on the production from his unique perspective. In addition to working as a Stage Manager, Rob also finds time to take stunning rehearsal photos, examples of which you can find in the body of this blog as well as on our Facebook Page. And now, without further ado, here’s Rob.

It’s hard to believe that this is my seventh production with Studio 180 and all of its associates and partners; Stuff Happens (original and remount w/ Mirvish), Blackbird (Canadian Stage), Parade (Acting Up Stage), Our Class (Canadian Stage), The Normal Heart (Buddies in Bad Times) and now with Clybourne Park (Canadian Stage). All very different plays, but this is the first Satire, and one with some very specific demands. As we head into tech I was thinking about a couple of elements and approaches that were specific to this production as we move into the next phase of the rehearsal process.

Since the piece isn’t written in scenes, an understanding of when and where the division of thoughts and events occur was important in picking spots to pick up the action. Finding points in the script that we could work toward or pick up from was a constant challenge which got easier as we ran larger chunks of text. “Let’s take it from Francine and Albert before the Lindners enter” or “From Jim’s ‘Annnnyway…’” really helped clarify shifts in mood and structure.

Scheduling came easy. All cast members are so well showcased and large sections of the piece came together quickly, so there were many full company rehearsal calls. This made scheduling costume fittings a little tricky, with so many cast members being on their feet so much. I think this will give us an edge going into the long hours of tech week though, as the cast has a clear idea of the demands and stamina required for the piece.

Our Assistant Stage Manager, Laura Baxter, has been a phenomenal force in the room. Her ability to strike a balance between the continuity of setting and resetting props and costumes in a box set, all while prompting AND taking line notes with laser beam focus has been a joy to watch. I may be the one who gets to say “Go”, but she’s the one who puts it all in the right place so we have somewhere to “Go” to!

On to tech…

Thanks for sharing Rob. And if you’d like to see more fine examples of Rob’s photographic endeavours you can visit him on Facebook as well.

(Left to Right) James Orbinski, Romeo Dallaire and Studio 180 Artistic Director Joel Greenberg

In February 2010, a few weeks before the opening of our production of The Overwhelming, members of the Studio 180 team, along with a large group of our supporters, were treated to an unforgettable evening featuring two remarkable men at the podium. Both Dr. James Orbinski and Lieutenant-General Roméo A. Dallaire spoke movingly of the atrocities they had witnessed in Africa and of the capacity for Art to illuminate this suffering. Such illumination, they hoped, would lead to a deeper understanding of the conflicts they had encountered and possibly give rise to they type of humanitarian support they are both still so dedicated to providing. At the end of the evening, as we were bidding farewell to Mr. Dallaire, he paused for a moment and then offered a simple thought. “You know what you should do? You should do a play about Child Soldiers. This is a very important issue.”

The issue of Child Soldiers has been on everyone’s radar of late in light of the controversy surrounding the KONY 2012 video that became an overnight viral sensation. Upon its debut, the short film inspired a wave of overwhelming support, emphatic sharing and (as only social media can do) led to the coronation of the issue of Child Soldiers as the most important thing in the world at that moment. Then came the backlash, with accusations of corruption, manipulation and general vilification of the filmmaker. Social media had declared a new most important issue in the world, the perils of online activism and the corruption of Jason Russell.

With rehearsals under way for Clybourne Park we felt we had little time to fully absorb, consider or respond to the online sensation that KONY 2012 had become so we decided to put some questions to someone we knew had a vested interest in the subject matter at hand. We sent our queries to actor, writer and producer Jenn Buffett, who had been a recipient of an Ontario Arts Council’s Theatre Creators’ Reserve grant in 2011 for Small Soldiers, a play about the issue of Child Soldiers in Africa.

A lot has happened between the time Jenn received our questions and our getting this online, including filmmaker Jason Russell’s public meltdown and subsequent diagnosis of “brief reactive psychosis”, but we’re happy to share Jenn’s thoughtful responses to our questions and, most importantly, her suggestions for further research to heighten one’s understanding of the complex issue at hand.

Studio 180: Tell us a little bit about how you come to this subject matter and what compels you to speak out on the issue of Child Soldiers.

Jenn Buffett in Naivasha, Kenya

Jenn Buffett: I want to preface all of this by saying that I am a 29 year old white girl from Quispamsis, New Brunswick. Although never well off, I have never wanted for anything. I have spent time in Africa (I recently marked the second anniversary of my landing in Kenya) but do not profess to know everything there is to know. I just have an inexplicable connection and love for people I have met and those I have helped in my own way. Especially the children. They are the very definition of resiliency. I like to preface my opinions with this statement to illustrate that I am aware of my own situation. I don’t profess to be better than anyone else. My opinions are based on having read and watched as much as I could possibly get my hands on about child soldiers.

Studio 180 was kind enough to offer me a Theatre Creators’ Reserve grant for the play I am writing titled Small Soldiers and I was more than happy to try and provide honest answers to their tough questions about the KONY 2012 campaign.

Studio 180: The release of this video has precipitated extreme reactions on both ends of the spectrum – first in the rush to share and support the cause, and then, in a whiplash inducing backlash, we saw a shower of accusations questioning the filmmakers’ motives, tactics and the likelihood of monetary support doing genuine good. Do you think either of these extremes are justified?

Jenn Buffett: I feel compelled to bring up the topic of the “armchair activist” as a preface to my opinion. I strongly believe in education vs. awareness. It is not the same thing to sit at your computer and read some post on Facebook and click “share” or “like” and then leave your house and buy a $5 frappuccino. You haven’t registered what it all means. It hasn’t affected the way you live. I find people who read the post on Facebook and then want to read a book about the topic or want to do more research online are those who have let the information affect them. Because we are inundated with this petition and that petition, I don’t believe it is enough to click “share” and go about your day anymore.

(Studio 180 shared similar thoughts regarding online activism in an earlier blog post)

So, although I think both extremes are justified, I do believe that one is more educated than the other. In my opinion, those who are for the campaign have simply watched the video and fallen for Jason Russell’s charm and the tragedy that Uganda and its children are facing. Conversely, I feel that those who are on the other side of the cause have done their research. They have researched the LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army) and Joseph Kony and see the discrepancies and misinformation, they’ve researched Invisible Children and their allocation of funds, they have spoken up against the simplification of a very complicated topic. So based on my personal bias of education vs. awareness, I’m sure you can guess which side I land on.

Dialogue is happening. The only problem being is that the dialogue is about Invisible Children and not about Child Soldiers, Joseph Kony or the LRA.

Studio 180: Can a polarizing project like this be misguided or naive but still noble in intent?

Jenn Buffett: Absolutely it can. For those who don’t know, Jason Russell is an evangelical Christian. I don’t hold this against him. I actually applaud him for not bringing his religion into the picture (though I will bring up the attendant religious hypocrisy later on). Because he has this background, I do believe his intent is noble. I do believe he wants to change the world and arrest Kony and save the children of Uganda. Quite the undertaking though, isn’t it?

Studio 180: Is the awareness of the issue engendered by the video innately valuable despite the complexities or is there a danger in allowing one man (Joseph Kony) to exemplify something that is far deeper seated?

Jenn Buffett: I think there is a lot of danger in over simplifying something that is innately complex. It’s a fine balance. You have to tread the line between educating people on the real issues at hand vs. boring your audience.

I feel that some of his statements and views on the subject expressed in KONY 2012 are dangerously simple. For example, his fervent statement to Jacob (a Ugandan child featured prominently in the film) saying, “We are going to stop them. Do you hear me? We are going to stop them.” is incredibly misguided. It was a promise he couldn’t keep and one based on an emotional response. It makes it almost insultingly simple. Many nations (and many Ugandans for that matter) have been trying to “stop them” for years despite the filmmaker’s continuous statements that nobody cares. I get frustrated that policies and procedures consistently stand in the way of action, but the fact that Jason Russell is now involved in no way means that it is all about to come to an end. I also think his very black and white view on the issue is incredibly misguided and naïve. He supports the Ugandan Army and SPLA but condemns the LRA. With a bit more research he would realize that all three armies are accused of atrocities and of using child soldiers to further their own political and religious agendas. There is a lot of grey area in Africa.

There is also a lot of grey area in the United States’ involvement in the conflicts in Africa. Perhaps instead of asking their Senators and their Presidet to bring “American advisors” (what does that even mean?) to Uganda, people should be campaigning to get the United States to stop supplying weapons to rebel forces? Perhaps.

Studio 180: Is the film a work of Art? Politics? Manipulation? Activism?

Jenn Buffett: I think it’s all of the above. 

Is it art? Absolutely. He has clearly structured images, fed people lines to say, and narrates the movie himself. The question is, is it good art? I personally feel it is more of a commercial for him and his company rather than a documentary film on Joseph Kony . . . but all art is subjective.

Is it politics? They are definitely selling it that way. The whole agenda is to create awareness, which for them means getting people to engage in politics by calling and writing senators.

Manipulation? Absolutely. He is playing on our emotions. He shows us his beautiful child trying to tug on our heart strings, reminding us that it could be any of our children. He shows us Jacob’s breakdown and how happy he is now that Jason Russell is in his life. He tells us we don’t have time, we are running out of time, we only have so much time.

Activism? I have a very different opinion of what the definition of activism is vs. Wikipedia’s definition (yes I looked it up!). According to Wikipedia “Activism consists of intentional efforts to promote, impede or direct social, political, economic, or environmental change. Activism can take a wide range of forms from writing letters to newspapers or politicians, political campaigning, economic activism such as boycotts or preferentially patronizing businesses, rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, and hunger strikes.”

I always envisioned activism as getting your hands dirtier than all that.

Studio 180: What are the things people should be made aware of?

Jenn Buffett: One of the most succinct arguments I have read yet is, “Child soldiers didn’t start with Kony and they won’t end with Kony”.

My very specific problems with the video are as follows:

1. The video begins with Jason Russell’s own child fake “bombing” things. I don’t know if I’m missing some hidden meaning in this but for someone to use their child as a tool for us to connect to his story, showing the child being “violent” doesn’t really help the argument that children should be protected from violence.
2. The statement made that Joseph Kony is only fighting to hold onto his power is a very convenient simplification. Kony (and many others) believe that he is a medium through which Jesus speaks. He is a very religious man. This is why I find it very convenient that an evangelical Christian keeps religion out of the picture when the very man he is fighting believes in the same religion he does and uses it to justify his actions.
3. The packages themselves. I am concerned that buying a package will be cool but students won’t actually be educated on what it all means. It will be the new hip thing to own a KONY 2012 bracelet. It will end up at the bottom of a drawer once the newest cool accessory comes along.
4. The ever present argument of the “white man as saviour”. North America needs to stop treating Africa as a place that only we can fix. There are tons and tons of self-run, homegrown organizations that put their heart and souls into creating a better government and life for themselves. We may have the means to help but we don’t always have the correct answers on how to help.

I just hope that the conversation can be turned around so that people stop talking about the video and Invisible Children itself and start talking about the issue at hand. There are hundreds of thousands of children who are being used as soldiers every day. This really is an atrocity. I don’t have a solution to the problem. Sorry. I do believe that writing letters and making phone calls to political figures can keep the powers that be aware that this is important to us. We can request that the international criminal court be more effective in arresting war criminals (since their inception they have only arrested one war criminal – a Congolese leader who used child soldiers in his war), we can demand that our countries have a heightened awareness of where our arms go and demand that troops that are on the ground prioritize finding weapons and drug caches, we can demand that our political priorities not solely be in countries that supply us with resources but with countries who are in great need of a physical presence. Rwanda didn’t receive help because there are no oil reserves, diamonds or gold. Only people.

Studio 180: Where do you think people can go to start to educate themselves? 

Jenn Buffett:

• Look up Zero Force, which was created by the Child Soldiers Initiative and Roméo Dallaire. They already have a campaign to eradicate the use of child soldiers. Their timelines and means are a bit more realistic.
• Read Romeo Dallaire’s book, They Fight Like Soldiers, They Die Like Children
• Read James Orbinski’s, An Imperfect Offering. This one is not for the weak of stomach.
• Read Dambisa Moyo’s, Dead Aid
• Check out the Munk Debates and listen to Stephen Lewis debate Dambisa Moyo on the topic of monetary aid in Africa.
• Watch Pink Ribbons, Inc to see how charities can capitalize on funds given.
• Look up Invisible Children and how their funds are allocated, what other projects they take on.
• Watch other rebuttal videos and blogs of KONY 2012. I highly recommend the Al Jazeera news report on what the response was when they screened the video in Uganda.

Thanks Jenn, for taking so much time to share your opinions and insight with us and for providing so many avenues for further learning. We look forward to hearing more about Small Soldiers as it continues to evolve and we look forward to any thoughts our audience might have about the complex issues discussed in this article.

Of course it would be unfair to say that our past productions haven’t included moments of levity. While the collective concerns of shows like The Overwhelming, The Normal Heart and Our Class do little to suggest that a laugh riot is at hand, humour invariably emerges in moments of crisis and conflict (on stage, as in life) and serves to both release tension and illuminate character. In Clybourne Park, humour and tension go hand in hand, the former doing little to dissipate the latter and both serving to illuminate the human condition.

Norris’ play is a true satire, and while we may be untested within the form, the rigour of its ideas and its unflinchingly provocative nature make it a perfect next step in the evolution of Studio 180. Of course a leap into the unknown is eased considerably when you have a healthy dose of familiar faces along for the ride and it was deeply energizing to finally have the company assembled for the start of rehearsals. Six of our seven cast members have already graced the stage in past 180 productions and the new kid on the block will be no stranger to Toronto theatregoers. The cast includes Studio 180 alumni: Audrey Dwyer (The Overwhelming), Michael Healey (Stuff Happens), Sterling Jarvis (The Overwhelming) and Maria Ricossa (The Arab-Israeli Cookbook) along with co-founders and Core Artistic Team members Mark McGrinder and Kimwun Perehinec. And the newest member of the family is Shaw, Stratford and Soulpepper regular Jeff Lillico (who seems inexplicably drawn to companies that begin with the letter ‘s’). There’s a similarly healthy mix of past collaborators and new faces behind the scenes with Clybourne Park and we hope that our proven track record, mingled with the promise of something new means that our audiences will be comprised of old friends and new fans alike.

We’re off to a great start and we look forward to keeping you up to date on the production as rehearsals progress.

Clybourne Park runs at Canadian Stage’s Berkeley Street Theatre, Downstairs from April 2 to April 28.

While the announcement was met with cynicism in some quarters (and the site flooded with irreverent, mock charities) this seems to me a pretty valuable opportunity to support Toronto’s vibrant theatre community. As many of you are aware, most independent theatres in this city function as not for profit organizations and would be viable recipients of pledges put forward by those supporting the program. These pledges could have two decidedly positive effects for the Arts community:

1) Calling attention to the value of Art in our cities
Given that every pledge is posted to the program’s website for public perusal (though some of the more provocative early posts have vanished), extending support to theatres throughout the city would serve to reinforce our recent assertion that the Arts play a vital role in any healthy city. The collective sigh of relief heard after the budget meetings this week is warranted but a collective sense of complacency or emerging sense of victory is not. We need to continue to assert the importance of Art in general and theatre in particular and the simple act of pledging support in a public forum can do just that.

2) Making a difference in a theatre’s bottom line
Of course a pledge is a nice gesture but if everyone follows through with their online promise – theatres everywhere will benefit from the monetary support. The point of this exercise isn’t to “stick it to the mayor” but to actually heighten grassroots charitable support for our Arts organizations. Obviously thousands already contribute to the work we and our colleagues do by purchasing tickets to shows throughout the city and that is truly the most direct and vital way of showing your support – but a small donation can go a long way for companies struggling to bring work to the stage. It’s easy to see a list of big money donors in show programs and think that philanthropy is solely the domain of the wealthy but even modest contributions can make a difference. You might even get a tax receipt and sense of contributing to the greater good out of it all.

It’s not radical activism but it is a tiny open window in an occasionally impenetrable fortress. Why not pry it open a little further? I know that for many in our community the notion of supporting a Ford Nation initiative isn’t high on a list of priorities but that seems cynical in the face of a Win/Win situation like the one that lies before us here. At last inspection there wasn’t a single theatre in the list of pledges. Let’s see if we can change that. A few pennies a pound could really add up.  A pledge to the waist is a vow that theatre is not a waste.

We encourage people to think far and wide of the organizations they’d like to support but of course we’d be delighted to be the recipients of engaged citizens’ generosity. If you’re interested in supporting Studio 180 be sure to visit our website to learn more about how you can contribute and the benefits of doing so. And if you’re interested in a little more bang for your buck – be sure to check out our special Block Party event coming up this April. 

Henrik Ibsen

Here’s a fascinating article that takes a remarkably honest and straightforward look at the issue of appropriating communal and cultural voices that are not our own. The discussion stems from a theatre class wherein students felt strongly that A Doll’s House, though written by a man (Henrik Ibsen), is legitimately a “woman’s play” and that Ibsen is fully justified in exploring his heroine’s struggle. Conversely, the students felt that it would be inappropriate for their teacher (a white male) to attempt to write an “African American play”. In the students’ minds “it would be almost impossible for someone who is not African American to write credibly about the black experience”. While the teacher balks at this notion initially, upon further reflection he’s forced to confront the fact that he’s never really attempted to write an African American character in his own creative work and wonders if this adds credence to the students’ argument.

Is there a difference? Why is it OK for a male writer to explore a woman’s story but inappropriate for a white writer to explore the conflicts and conundrums of black characters? Our author goes into some detail as to why he thinks this may be the case and his points are well stated – but it struck me that his analysis leaves much more to be discussed. Chief among the concerns raised by the article is the narrow definition of community put forward by the students. There seems to be an implied sense that there is some universal “black experience” and by extension myriad other racial domains that are solely ripe for exploration from within. Is a black writer’s exploration of an impoverished character’s struggle in Sudan innately valid or authentic even if the writer undertaking the task is from Guelph and went to private school? If not – does that imply that our wealthy Ontarian’s efforts to tackle the tale are not a worthy artistic endeavour? Should he or she be denied the opportunity to explore and attempt to understand or empathize with the experience of someone outside their realm of experience? Should a white author? I don’t think so, though I understand the reticence to enable potentially inauthenticity.

But what of the audience? What’s their responsibility in all this? It seems to me that denying an artist (writer, painter, actor, musician) an opportunity to explore something outside their realm of experience implies that the task must only be undertaken by those who can tell the “truth”. Those who can get it right. And to me that implies a rejection of the spectator’s reponsibility or the need for critical thinking. Often, with the “issue based” plays we do people will say things like, “well, you’re saying this” or, “you’re telling me that” and while I’d never contend that we don’t have our own opinions or points of view – we’re not telling you anything. We’re not implying that what you’re seeing onstage is fact and should be taken as such. We’re presenting a story through many veils. A writer’s voice, a director’s vision, an actor’s interpretation; all these things inform a production and all these things can illuminate or abstract truth or meaning. Meaning that is gleaned by the observer and not imparted by the practitioners. A quick glance at some of Studio 180′s past productions only raises more questions. Is Our Class a “Jewish play” despite being written by a non Jew (Tadeusz Slobodzianek)? Is the authenticity of its voice strengthened  or diminished by virtue of being adapted into English by a Jewish writer (Ryan Craig) who is not Polish? Is membership in either community essential for the tale to be told effectively and should one group’s story/needs take precedence over the other’s. And what of verbatim theatre? Is a play like The Laramie Project unassailably authentic because it presents actual testimony from citizens of the titular town, or does the fact that these voices are shaped into a narrative arc by theatre practitioners in New York lessen its veracity?

Bruce Norris

Our current season looks at issues of community in many ways and both The Normal Heart and Clybourne Park reveal that the borders of the communities we presume define us may be hazier then we initially thought. Inclusion in a specific group does not innately imply one’s voice can legitimately represent those who share your affiliation. This duality is apparent within The Normal Heart and in the complex response the play evokes in the gay community (another blanket appellation I’m hesitant to employ). Playwright Larry Kramer and The Normal Heart‘s central character, Ned Weeks, elicit strong responses from their community. For some they represent heroic voices of protest and a powerful insistence for recognition. For others, their vitriol and combative manner encourage dissension within their community and serve to reinforce commonly held prejudices. And what of their goals? The quest for acceptance and a universal respect for “sameness” is in direct conflict with the views of many within their community who want to assert their differences and reject the compulsion to be just like everyone else. Both Kramer and Weeks are adrift, uncertain if they are defined by their orientation, their activism or their deeply personal proximity to an unknowable plague.

Lorraine Hansberry

None of which explicitly answers the concerns of the aforementioned article – but it is food for thought. Who may speak for whom? What lines should not be crossed in an effort to represent a reality outside our own? Can we encourage artists to ignore such potential boundaries without enabling damaging portrayals of the communities we value? As with our productions – I’m not here to provide the answers but I’m pretty interested in what people think and the discussion that may ensue. Particularly as we head into production for Clybourne Park, a drama about race, written by a white man (Bruce Norris), inspired by  A Raisin in the Sun, a classic play by an African American woman (Lorraine Hansberry).

The mind reels. The debate goes on.

Ravi Jain

In 2009, Studio 180 was chosen to be a third party recommender for the Ontario Arts Council’s Theatre Creators’ Reserve program and Ravi Jain of Why Not Theatre was one of the very first recipients of a recommendation from our Core Artistic Team. Ravi took time out to chat with us from London, England on the third day of a development workshop for Komagata Maru (the project that received our recommendation in early 2010) to chat about the work’s progress and what the support of the Theatre Creators’ Reserve program has meant to the process.

RAVI JAIN: The initial support from the Theatre Creators’ Reserve allowed me to start a long term project which I have been working on since January 2010 and am aiming to finish for 2014 . . . I am now in the middle and here is what I’ve been up to.

The project is inspired by an event in Canadian history often referred to as “The Komagata Maru Incident”. The Komagata Maru was a ship that came over to Canada from India in 1914, carrying 376 Indians looking to immigrate to this country. The problem was that Canada’s immigration policy at the time was an all white immigration policy. In a very long, drawn out  and dramatic legal battle, the boat and its passengers were denied entry. This event exposed the inequities within the British Empire as well as Canada’s not so pleasant past.

“That Canada should desire to restrict immigration from the Orient is regarded as natural, that Canada should remain a white man’s country is believed to be not only desirable for economic and social reasons but highly necessary on political and national grounds.”- William Lyon Mackenzie King, 1908

I saw a documentary that told the story of the Komagata Maru called A Continuous Journey by Ali Kazimi and it had a huge impact on me. So, in 2010, with the help of the Theatre Creators’ Reserve and Studio 180, I brought over a director from the UK and worked with a number of actors in Toronto on a one week workshop.

A photo from No Entry, the Coronation Park podcast project

The project then sat for a while . . . then in August 2010, a boat of Tamils came to Canada and was denied entry in a way similar to Komagata Maru. Not the same, but it brought up similar questions as to who we let into the country and why. With the help of writer Sharada Eswar (thanks to the Ontario Arts Council and the Canada Council for the Arts) I went to Vancouver to interview passangers on that boat who were being detained. Aided by the local Tamil community and Tamil aritsts, I created a site specific podcast in Coronation Park entitled No Entry, which allowed these stories to be told in their own voices. The passengers spoke about why they came to Canada, the challenges they were facing and the need to seek shelter as they were fleeing persecution.

Now, December 2011, I am in London, England working with four Canadians, three Indians, five British South Asians and two others to deepen the research and work on this eventual play. It has been incredible to see the ways in which the South Asian Diaspora and others react to this story. With this phase of research we look to go beyond the political dimensions of the story which tend to dominate how we experience it, and look deeper into the human aspect of it.

The Theatre Creators’ Reserve was THE catalyst to make this project happen. Without it, I wouldn’t have had the freedom to just begin. It is that freedom with no expectations, that trust in the idea and support that is the best way to begin a project, and the thing that I want to forever hold on to as I continue on this journey.

Thanks so much Ravi, for keeping us up to date on the project and for the exciting and challenging work you continue to create.  Ravi will next be seen in Toronto at Tarragon theatre in, A Brimful of Asha.