The Rachel Browne Theatre at 211 Bannatyne Avenue is an intimate setting because of the seven rows of seats and single scene room that places the audience quite literally in the laps of the four actors.
On Wednesday evening, Creative Communication students at Red River College attended the play Proud, by Michael Healey, a satire spin on the world of politics, and the imagined response to a Conservative lead in the 2011 federal election.
The protagonist, Stephen Harper, finds himself face-to-face with femme fatale character, Jisbella Lyth, a younger MP that has no use for government other than the perks it brings (sex).
Harper, played by Ross McMillan, mimicked the gestures and discourse of Canada’s Prime Minister perfectly. Even though I’m not well groomed in politics, I was able to identify the character easily.
On the other hand, I was disappointed with the agenda that Healey wrote for Ms. Lyth, played by Daria Puttaert. Finding herself suddenly down the hall from Harper, she barges into his office and requests a condom, a great first impression.
I found it very Scarlett Letter-esque that Lyth was wearing red stiletto shoes when she enters Harper's office in the first scene. I have mixed feelings on how Lyth is portrayed by Healey. On one hand, she appears desperate, slutty and disconcerned with proper workplace behaviour- I mean, just how dumb do you have to be? I feel like a man certainly wrote this play, as society should be trying to stifle sexism, not glorifying it.
On the other hand, I suppose there is no harm in poking fun at the sex lives of politics sometimes, male or female. I'm unsure if the Healey made Lyth border line nymph as a funny twist, or because he feels that woman have sleazy motives.
More infuriating, why does a woman have to use sex to gain power? And, why does the representation of being a female and young come off so stupid?
In this day and age, there are many fine lines when it comes to the interpretations of woman. Digging deeper, maybe Healey's motives were to write something in which people would debate after seeing his play. Whatever his purpose, it sparked major discussion and the reconfirmation of values in each and every one of us sitting in that theatre. A great storyline, although it may have been more effective without all the sex and swearing.
I laughed, I frowned, I gasped and I shuttered. Attending this play did not change my political beliefs, or inspire them in any way, although it did spark many feelings I have when it comes to principles. It may have slightly opened my mind to the possibility of debauterous activities in Parliament Hill. It reminded me that government is filled with people who engage in 'questionable' activity, just like us 'plain' people. It would make an excellent television series, in my opinion. I have seen many Broadway plays in my life. When I was in New York, I saw
Wicked,
Hairspray, and
Jersey Boys. Proud couldn't have been further from the sort of 'play' I was expecting, but I can't say I was not interested.
I found the talkback session troubling. Ross McMillan was extremely witty when answering questions from the audience, although I didn't feel as if any of the actor's had too much of a political background or knowledge. I assumed they were passionate about politics in their real life- more of an assumption if anything. Realistically, this could mean they were extremely good actors.
A question was raised about the insinuation of media being "portrayed negatively." Puttaert answered awkwardly, insisting that the play did not have anything to do with media. In my opinion, Healey very much presented the media as vultures, insinuating that it's all a big game to throw the 'dogs' a bone in order to give them a false lead.
All in all, I suppose we can chalk Proud up to be an amusing and somewhat mocking portrayal of woman, putting a dramatic spin in politics and their personal lives. It was a good play for $10, artistic in the sense that there was four actors and one set, although I probably won't be hitting up anything of that nature anytime in the future.
