Margaret Evans plays Eugenia "Jim" Watts in Section 98
by Simon Rice and Michael Wheeler
Like any good tyrannical minority government gearing up for a fall election, Praxis is shaking it up! Nothing beats a cabinet shuffle to temporarily boost polling numbers for an independent theatre company.
Kidding… Sort of. We are making some changes at Praxis and they are lateral, but you know in the theatre world lateral means diagonal.
We wouldn’t have the wiggle room to be so obtuse if Margaret Evans, Maggie as we all know her, had not been General Manager of Praxis for the last 2 1/2 years.
Under Maggie’s tenure Praxis produced four shows, the scope of which were our largest thus far, both creatively and budget-wise. She also oversaw the creation of our board of directors, and was steward of the most successful fundraising campaigns in the history of the company.
Despite these skills and accomplishments, her greatest asset is actually as a performer. Margaret will be retiring from her role as GM of Praxis and will be taking a more front and central role as an actor/creator in our production of Section 98, continuing her work playing Eugenia “Jim” Watts, the legendary 1930s political artist and Spanish Civil War ambulance driver and radio host.
Aislinn Rose - Praxis' new Artistic Producer
Continuing in the diagonal tradition, Aislinn Rose will be rewriting the books as Artistic Producer at Praxis. Over the past year she has acted as Script Supervisor on our 2009 Toronto Fringe production of Tim Buck 2, as well as Director of the Open Source Theatre Project for Section 98, presented as part of Harbourfront Centre’s 2010 HATCH season. As Artistic Producer she will be handling Praxis’ day to day operations as well as developing a new creative project… More on this soon.
We should also mention that she has a non-Praxis show running right now, Amy Zuch’s Key to Key, which she directs for this year’s Toronto Fringe Festival at the Royal St. George venue until Saturday July 1o.
Melissa Hood looks over her notes during rehearsal. Photo by Hugh Probyn
by Aislinn Rose
In October 2009, Struts and Frets blogger Kris Joseph posted On theatre in society: porosity in response to Mike Daisey’s How Theater Failed America, about the current dysfunction of funding models for American theatre, as well as Chris Ashworth’s Toward a New Funding Model for Theater, in which he argues that “the process is the product”, and therein lies a new approach to funding. Joseph asserts in his post that he is, “now more convinced than ever that theatre can and must distinguish itself from film, TV, and new media by being completely porous to its audience.” He goes on to write that theatre artists must share their process by becoming integral parts of the communities where they work, and that the community should feel completely part of that work.
The post inspired an equally interesting conversation in its comments section, with Praxis Co-Artistic Director & Director of Section 98 Michael Wheeler commenting that the work we were doing with Section 98’s Open Source Theatre project was in part an attempt to make our process integral to our relationship with our audience, in preparation for our work-in-progress presentation for Harbourfront Centre’s HATCH season. We though the issues we were addressing would benefit from discussion and wanted to get our community involved as early in the process as possible.
Another commenter wrote to say that he normally runs screaming from the room when it comes to “art as process” work, with only a few exceptions. However, he was in complete agreement with a point made by Ashworth (in reference to sharing the development process with the audience) about editing out “the boring bits”. Sounds like a good idea, doesn’t it? Easier said than done I think.
It’s been a few weeks since our HATCH presentation and we’re still sorting through the feedback. In an effort to open ourselves up to our community, we recorded our process online and encouraged audience members to text us during the show with the texts posted live to our blog throughout the presentation, and we asked our audience members to continue sending us their feedback after they’d gone home and had a chance to reflect. Some chose to return to our blog with that feedback, and others emailed us or sent messages via Facebook.
Here’s our best attempt to provide an unbiased overview of the synthesis of this feedback under the major categories it addressed.
Open Source/Interactive:
Assistant Director Laura Nordin operated the texting software during the performance and transferred the comments to the website. Photo by Hugh Probyn
A text received during the show:
An unsolicited Facebook message after the show:
Do I want to meet? Hell yes! I had to google “experience design” to find out it was an actual thing.
And in response to the texting:
And from a texter with a smart phone with access to our blog throughout the show:
And from a post-show blogger:
The Q&A at the end of the show yielded a number of comments on this topic, with many saying they found the texting to be distracting, or that they prefer to lose themselves in the theatre rather than participating in every day life activities like texting. Others really liked that they were able to communicate with us throughout the show, but they wanted to see it further integrated into what they actually see onstage. Lots to think about here!
Multiple Plot Lines:
Greta Papageorgiu presents “Section 98 for Dummies”. Photo by Hugh Probyn
Section 98 was investigating the history of Civil Rights in Canada, with a particular eye on the Communists of the 1930s, the FLQ and the War Measures Act in the 1970s, and Afghan Detainees in the modern era. Some audience members found the inclusion of so much information to be confusing, or questionable:
The audience at the Q&A seemed to divide neatly into two camps on this issue. On the one side there were people who felt that the multiple topics were too scattered and they were having trouble tying it all together. Another perspective suggested this was not the time to condense our story yet… that we should “keep blowing it up and making us make the connections ourselves (which I’m sure we’ll continue to do for several days)” as one participant commented. Or, as it was put another way, “I kind of like you throwing a bunch of shit up there… you’re giving us homework”.
General’s Testimony:
Photo of the Three Generals from my iPhone during rehearsal.
As part of the presentation, we also included verbatim texts of the testimony given by General Rick Hillier, Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier, and Major-General David Fraser after the explosive testimony of Richard Colvin, in which he alleged that Canadian Soldiers knowingly transferred Afghan detainees to torture in Afghan prisons. Here’s some of what we got during the show:
So we discovered that most people found this material to be deadly boring (including my mom). There were, however, a few people who found the transcripts to be interesting, while others suggested we could absolutely continue working with them… once we had sculpted it with our point of view. “There’s no such thing as neutral.” This is fascinating to me since we had been so concerned about taking the material out of context and were committed to presenting it exactly as we found it.
Omar Khadr:
Image by Darren O’Donnell
Omar Khadr also caused some disagreement. I am, of course, not referring to the real Omar Khadr, the one who was captured at the age of 15 and lives in Guantanamo Bay. I’m referring to another of our Open Source Theatre commenters who went by the moniker of “Omar Khadr” in response to Open Source Entry # 4: Checking for a Pulse. Some of these comments were included in our show. Here are some of the responses this material generated, in the order in which they were received:
Some thought the sections to be “extraneous” or “questionable”, while another said, ““Omar” really turned out to be a lynchpin of the show.”
Fake Omar requested that we not take him out of context so we recorded his text using an imagined internet/robot voice. While people couldn’t agree on whether or not we should have included this material, most could agree that the robot voice should go.
Jim Watts
Margaret Evans as “Jim” Eugenia Watts. Photo by Hugh Probyn
If there’s one thing that most people could agree on, it was Communist/Theatre Artist/Revolutionary Jim Watts… the kind of character I would have liked to encounter in Canadian History classes in public school. Here’s what people had to say about her:
More post-show feedback continued in this vein, with suggestions that Jim really is the anchor of our show. To me, this is one of the most successful aspects of this workshop because we were fascinated by Jim while developing Tim Buck 2 when this show started at the Fringe, but she really didn’t emerge as a centrepiece in that iteration of the project.
What Now?
So, what do we do when half of our audience tells us they hate something about our show, while the other half says, “it was our favourite part”? One commenter may have addressed the challenge of conflicting advice best:
“If I start commenting on Linux, [an open source, collaboratively developed operating system] no one is going to listen, for very good reasons (I don’t know much about code.) So, how, in this world of aesthetic and political difference, can you tell […] who to listen to – who shares any values.”
This question of “who to listen to” is a great one, and will be on our minds as we dig deeper into all of the feedback. Which of the responses can we add to our “source code” to enhance our work, and which responses will “crash” it? As we continue in our efforts to be “porous” with our audience, please stay tuned for Part 2 where we discuss our own responses to the feedback, and where Section 98 is headed.
Dave Tompa on how he scored the juicy role of an NDP Member of Parliament in Praxis Theatre’s Section 98
Praxis Theatre’s one-night-only workshop presentation of Section 98 is finally here. Do you have your tickets yet? Last night we had an invite-only dress rehearsal, and we learned a lot. In particular, after all these years of audiences being told to turn their cell phones off, we’re finding it a bit of a challenge to encourage you not only to leave them on, but to actually put them to use during the show. So we’re hoping to see you and your cell phones at the Harbourfront Centre tonight at 8pm.
Check out Praxis Theatre’s Co-Artistic Director Michael Wheeler talking to Harbourfront about our “Open Source” show, and why you need to bring your phones. See you tonight!
Harbourfront Centre’s Upfront talks “Open Source Theatre” with Praxis Co-Artistic Director, Michael Wheeler
We’re here on Day Three of HATCH at the Harbourfront Centre Studio Theatre, preparing for our work-in-progress presentation of Section 98. Some of you are familiar with the nature of “Tech Day”, but part of the purpose of our Open Source Theatre project is to reach a wider, non-theatre going audience… so for those of you who are not familiar with tech days, our Stage Coordinator Brittney Filek-Gibson – also known as BFG, also known as Praxis Theatre’s Social Media Sheriff – has created an amazing little video for you, that I like to call “Tech Day in 2 Minutes or Less”. In reality, tech days are much longer. 8 hours longer. Sometimes 12.
Don't go to the theatre regularly? Tell us why in the comments section and we'll give you a free ticket to our show!
So, to all you non-theatre goers… did you have any idea that theatre artists and technicians go through all of this just to make things pretty for your arrival? If you don’t normally go to the theatre, or if you used to go to the theatre but don’t anymore… we want to hear from you. What’s keeping you away? What can we do to get you here? Tell us why you don’t go to the theatre in the comments section below, and we’ll give you a free ticket to our show this Saturday night!
My mum has had a really hard time getting my dad to the theatre ever since she took him to a production of Man of La Mancha over 25 years ago, and a man “pranced around the stage on a broom pretending he was riding a horse”. To make matters worse for my dad, it was Good Friday and all the bars were closed.
On February 24th, I woke up to find an email from Section 98′s director Michael Wheeler, saying “have you been following my conversation with Omar Khadr?”. I’m sorry, what? Now, I think it says a lot about Mike that my first thought was, “if anyone’s going to find a way to have a conversation with Omar Khadr, it’s Mike”. Or maybe it says a lot about me. Then it dawned on me that a week earlier I had mentioned Omar Khadr in my Open Source entry “Checking for a Pulse“. I had dared to suggest that if one is going to support human rights and civil liberties, then one must do so in all cases, and, instead of quoting Margaret Chase this time, I’m going to quote Oscar winning actress Mo’nique: “sometimes you have to forego what’s popular in order to do what’s right”. I also said, based on this idea, that I’d like to know when we would be bringing Omar Khadr home. If I was going to find Mike’s conversation with “Omar Khadr” anywhere, I was betting it would be at the end of this post.
I headed to the comments section of the post, and there it was: ‘Everyone calm down! It’s me, Omar Khadr!‘… and it looked like Mike and Omar had stayed up “conversing” until the wee hours of the morning as well.
Don’t feed the trolls
If you spend a lot of time (angrily) reading reader comments on news sites like I do, you’ll often find the line, “don’t feed the trolls”. Can I go so far as to call this person a troll? Wikipedia defines an Internet Troll as “someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.” Well, the posts were reasonably on-topic, but cue the inflammatory on his end, and the emotional on my end. Ultimately, I don’t want to call this person a troll as I think he truly believes in his point of view (and isn’t just engaging in order to be a nuisance), but at the same time, he isn’t posting to debate or discuss. He’s posting to say “how it is”.
I was surprised at first that Mike had taken on a somewhat similarly comedic tone with his responses. Good on him for not taking the bait I guess, but I was also frustrated at the amount of misinformation sitting there that was going undisputed (in the beginning). It’s so very easy to spout inflammatory statements like, ‘“The Young Offenders Act?!” Even I know that was replaced in 2003!‘ as thought that actually means something. In this case, it means nothing. While the YOA was replaced in 2003 with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, Omar was captured in 2002, and therefore still covered by the YOA. Regardless, the new Act still considers youth to be between the ages of 12 and 18, and Omar was 15 when captured. So what was his point, other than to say something in an authoritative manner, thereby casting doubt on Mike’s earlier assertions?
Same goes for such lines as ‘here’s the only law that DOES apply to me and my “situation”‘ (when in fact there ARE other international laws relating to child soldiers that apply to him and his situation), and ‘(unlike a lot of these bastards at Gitmo) I was actually charged WITH A CRIME‘… as were other Guantanamo Bay detainees who, regardless of their charges and/or convictions, were still released to the custody of their respective countries. I’ve always enjoyed people saying that Canada is unique, or special, but not when we’re unique because the only Western citizen remaining in Guantanamo Bay is Canadian.
Omar Khadr: Then & Now
… can we send it back?
The “debate” went on for a few days, with Mike and another valiant participant going head to head with this person… and I just sat back watching, wondering what to do, feeling a little bit useless, and a little bit overwhelmed. Oh, not by the level of debate, don’t get me wrong. In fact, when I first started reading his comments, I actually thought it might be satire. I thought, here is an ignorant, arrogant Colbert-like character playing up the ridiculousness of “the other side”… you know, that side that suggests the only reason anyone is interested in Omar’s rights in this case is ‘because they hate America, they hate what it stands for‘. It would almost be funny if he weren’t actually being utterly serious… in a quasi-funny, (mis)appropriated, and conveniently anonymous voice. So the level of debate wasn’t what was overwhelming me.
No, it was more about the fact that I knew engaging him further was useless. Consider, for a moment, his insistence that Omar is guilty (though he has yet to be tried), and his complete dismissal of the evidence to the contrary provided by Mike. In fact, any good point in the real Omar’s favour was simply met with something like ‘just which side are you on? Because it sounds like you’re on mine! This is fantastic, I need another “useful idiot”‘. So t. schwellnus gets called an idiot… not by the writer of course, but by “Omar”… so he gets away with it.
And then there’s the issue of my being a woman. Fake Omar’s first comment said (in reference to me), ‘what’s with the lady that hates “Borat” and why is she even allowed to view such Western filth?’. After that, I (wrongly or rightly) assumed that any comment I made would be met with a similar ‘joke’ about my place as a woman. He would be ‘in character’ of course, and I would be expected to be able to take a joke of course… otherwise I’m just another one of those humourless shrews we see portrayed on the television every day. I didn’t say any of this to anyone, yet I was asked by a female friend if this was one of the reasons I wasn’t responding to the discussion. And let me tell you now, I’m not proud of the fact that I stayed away.
Finally, it is overwhelming to know that there are so many people out there like this person. As Mike said in one of his responses, ‘it is valuable for the production to acknowledge that the reason Omar Khadr is in Guantanamo Bay is because there are many, many people, just like you out there.’. I don’t mind that people have differing opinions than my own, not at all. I just want to be able to have discussions with those people where we can share what we think and what we know, and actually drive the discussion forward. I love to learn, and I therefore love it when someone proves me wrong… but that can only happen if I actually listen to what the other person is saying.
t. schwellnus may have said it to fake Omar best: ‘I don’t know what your intentions are, ultimately, but this shit just kinda makes me crazy‘.
So, as the keeper of Section 98‘s Open Source Theatre project, here’s what I want to know: what the hell do you do in this scenario? Do you take the bait and engage in the name of accuracy and/or principle? Do you ignore the “troll”? Do you delete his posts (as he accused us of doing)? Or, like Mike, do you try to find a way to incorporate this “voice” into the show, without taking the voice “out of context” (which is what concerns fake Omar). Though, I don’t see how we can take a voice that doesn’t actually belong to this person out of context, but we’ll certainly do our best.
Now I want to leave you with a question… and feel free to tell answer in the comments section below: what were you doing when you were 15? What was I doing when I was 15? I was going to Catholic school, and campaigning for Perrin Beatty? Why? Well, I was raised by my parents as both a Catholic and a Conservative. And, while I hate to admit it, I was pretty much one of those kids that did as their parents told them. It wasn’t until a little later in life that I realised I wasn’t a believer, and I certainly wasn’t a Conservative (of the big or small c variety). Luckily, when I was 15, I didn’t have parents that sent me to Afghanistan to fight in a war, as I probably would have gone. You?
Come see Praxis Theatre’s Section 98 interactive work-in-progress presentation on Saturday, March 13th at the Harbourfront Centre Studio Theatre. Click here for more information.
Vancouver Poet Laureate Brad Cran on the Canadian Women’s hockey team’s post-game celebration.
by Aislinn Rose
The Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games are over, and although there was some protesting and censoring, it seems to have come off as a relatively controversy free affair. For this creative process we’ve been keeping an eye on things ever since we first heard about “free speech zones“, and rights activists being detained on bothsides of our border. We are, after all, building a show about civil liberties in Canada, which leaves room in each iteration for pressing civil rights issues at the time of each production to be addressed within the context of similarly difficult moments in the history of our country.
We became interested in these stories about activists being detained at the Canadian/US border, and then I came across a piece by Vancouver Poet Laureate, Brad Cran who, incidentally, declined to participate in the Cultural Olympiad due to rules he believed muzzled free speech. In his piece entitled “2010 Handbook for Entering Canada”, Cran takes a look at these border crossings from the perspective of the border guard. Sort of.
In an effort to stay true to this concept of “Open Source”, I am reaching out to you for contributions to the “source code” of Section 98. That’s right. I want you to read Brad Cran’s piece below, and then send us what you think we should do with it. It can be in script format, or just in the form of a completed idea or concept. You can email all of this to the “info” address at the top right of the website if you’re the shy type or leave it as a comment below!
Our creative process has evolved a lot at Praxis Theatre – evolving from working exclusively with text-based tools to create new work, to also incorporating and experimenting with ideas and using the workshop process to develop them into theatre. You’ll see the results of those recent efforts on March 13th at our work in progress HATCH presentation. (Did I mention tickets are on sale now? No? Tickets are on sale now.)
Please take the time to read the Handbook below, and then send us whatever comes to you. How might you put this story, this issue on stage? How would you make it theatrical? Have you considered how it might fit into a show that is also covering civil rights issues of the 1930s and 1970s? In keeping with things open source, we may incorporate your contribution into our presentation (so be forwarned), we may save it for a later iteration, or we may determine that it doesn’t fit into what we’re developing. Either way, you’ll be acknowledged, credited, and thanked appropriately.
Are you bringing any fruits or vegetables into Canada?
Have you visited a farm in the last 30 days?
Are you now or have you ever been a member of a group that disagreed with government?
Do you intend to ride the zip line?
Do you approve of product placement in movies?
Do you like my uniform?
Are you bringing into Canada any currency and/or monetary instruments of a value totalling CAN$10,000 or more per person?
Have you ever assaulted a police officer with a stapler?
In describing my uniform, would you say that it a) inspires respect or b) breeds contempt?
Have you ever dreamed of shooting a fascist dictator off a Spanish balcony?
Do you approve of John Furlong?
Can you give me an example of the words in your head and how they might be used while in Canada?
Do you vote?
Are you now or have you ever been a person who carries MasterCard?
Were you aware of the Oka uprising, and if so, whose side were you on?
Remind me again about the zip line.
Do you read poetry?
Do you believe in homelessness as a right of the people?
If you were Canadian, and if it were possible to do so, would you vote for John Furlong?
Does the colour of your socks match the colour of your pants?
Do your children own an effigy, stuffed or otherwise, of the Olympic mascot?
Our premier rode the zip line. Did you see that? It looks awesome.
Please arrange the following terms in order of preference, starting with the least important: Health Care, Education, the Environment, Homelessness, Logo Placement at Sporting Events.
Do you now or have you ever owned a copy of Raffi’s Baby Beluga?
Do you own a cell phone?
Are you carrying any printed matter that illustrates same-sex love?
Are you bringing into Canada any firearms or other weapons?
Did you know that each year, more Canadians trust RBC Royal Bank® for their mortgage solutions than any other provider?
What is the total monetary value of the goods you will be leaving in Canada?
Let’s go back to my uniform for a minute, you gotta admit it’s pretty fucking awesome.
Do you or have you ever listened to Democracy Now?
Can you finish the following sentence? Baby beluga in the deep blue ______________.
What colour is your heart?
Do you believe in global warming?
Have you ever purchased No Name brand products? You know, the ugly yellow ones?
If while in Canada you were tasered, would you be upset or go into cardiac arrest?
Do you support an international unelected and roaming fourth tier of government as set out by a non-existent charter of the
IOC?
If your government acted against the principles of democracy, would you be compelled to action or would you just tell your
friends you are miffed?
Do you ever experience emotions stronger than miffment?
If someone you knew spoke up against your government, would you a) listen or b) think that was a little weird?
Which of the following does not fit? Osama bin Laden, Louis Riel, Chris Shaw, Gordon Campbell.
When asked, will you keep the flow of traffic moving smoothly?
How long will you be staying?
* * *
I should tell you there’s a lot of interesting stuff to read on Cran’s Poet Laureate site, including his take on Shane Koyczan, the slam poet featured in Vancouver’s Opening Ceremonies. Here’s Koyczan performing “We Are More” in 2007.
Amnesty International launched this multi-platform human rights awareness campaign in Belgium.
by Aislinn Rose
Ever since our most recent workshop in January, my research has been focussed on ways in which we can incorporate wireless and cellular technology into our HATCH work-in-progress. In particular, we’re trying to find out the best way to allow our audience members to send us text messages throughout the show so that we can project them on screens and/or televisions. (We have some ideas, but if you’ve got any advice, please feel free to share it in the comments). When it comes to figuring out the solution, we have to keep asking ourselves, “What do we need it for?” – a great question both logistically and theatrically.
As mentioned previously, we want to engage all of you in the debate about civil rights, and we want to do that before, during, and after our presentations. So we’re using all of the resources we have available to us, including the theatre, our website, Facebook, Twitter, and whatever hand-held gadget you’re currently addicted to (it’s the iPhone for me). As theatre artists we’re looking at political content and attempting to agitate you and bring awareness by employing some of the techniques typically employed by activists, and there are all kinds of activists who inspire us… and some who are even turning around and using theatrical techniques to get their points across.
The campaign by Amnesty International asked the humans of Belgium to wake up, and what I particularly like about it is that it’s asking a progressive society to stop taking their human rights for granted, reminding them that they must remain forever vigilant. So are we awake in Canada? A few of us (across the political spectrum) seemed to be on January 23rd. But what about when it comes to stickier, less black and white issues? It seems too easy to want to defend human rights when it’s a child being denied entrance to a school, or a couple being refused a marriage ceremony in a church.
It appears to become more of a challenge to remain awake and engaged when we’re talking about the rights of someone who has (allegedly) fought against us, who has engaged in illegal activities, who has been deemed an enemy or a traitor. But when does a human being stop deserving basic human rights? Surely if human rights are something worth fighting for, then we should be willing to fight for them in every situation.
I’ve been searching for a quote for the last several weeks in relation to our Section 98 project and to the issue of civil rights in general, and I think I finally found it. It is attributed to Margaret Chase Smith a former Republican Senator from Maine, and she said, “the right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character”. So while it may be unpopular, I’d like to know when we’re bringing Omar Khadr home.
By the way, did you know that music by a number of popular western bands (including R.E.M., Pearl Jam and Rage Against the Machine) has also been used to torture detainees in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq? I’ll leave you with this little number from Rage Against the Machine… but I will say this, it would be a pretty good torture device for me as well. And also: Keanu Reeves’ movies.
More than 5000 people greeted him upon arrival at Union Station. Men shouted his name, women swooned, and some even reached out to touch the hem of his coat as he walked past. Later he greeted a capacity audience at Maple Leaf Gardens (after 3000 others were turned away at the gate). Who are we talking about? Why, Tim Buck of course… Canada’s most celebrated Communist! (And avowed Stalinist.)
This past summer, Praxis Theatre presented the first phase of its current project (Section 98) at the Toronto Fringe Festival with a work-in-progress called Tim Buck 2. So I now present to you a little ditty we affectionately called “Tim Buck, The Musical”. Unfortunately it hasn’t made the cut for this 2nd phase of development in the lead up to HATCH as the work has veered away from the story of Tim Buck, but it was certainly useful to us in imparting a lot of important information about our subject in a relatively short period of time. Without further ado…
Tim Buck, The Musical!
Oh, the year was 1932,
EIGHT MEN WERE GAOLED IN KINGSTONPEN!
Among them was a man named Buck,
A commie leader short on luck
Chorus:
God damn the law!
I was told, we’d a right to a trial and ideas to hold
We used no force- committed no crime, Section 98 had us all confined
Locked in the PEN and doing time.
Tim Buck was a leader in his day,
EIGHT MEN WERE GAOLED IN KINGSTON PEN!
He organized the poor, and the workers relief,
In a time of Depression, hunger and grief.
Chorus
The government wasn’t so keen on Buck,
EIGHT MEN WERE GAOLED IN KINGSTON PEN!
They fixed the law, terms rearranged
So we couldn’t belong to a group for change
Chorus
Volume 1 of The Progressive Arts Club’s Journal, Masses
Oh, Democracy is a funny thing,
EIGHT MEN WERE GAOLED IN KINGSTON PEN! Dissent was viewed as mighty grim
So off to the slammer for little Red Tim
Chorus
But the Government still wasn’t satisfied,
EIGHT MEN WERE GAOLED IN KINGSTON PEN!
So a riot was staged by the prison chief
To frame Tim Buck for his beliefs
Chorus
The guards were pawns in this nasty game,
EIGHT MEN WERE GAOLED IN KINGSTON PEN! They fired eight shots into Tim Buck’s cell,
But they missed each time, ‘cause they couldn’t shoot well.
Chorus
Back in the city the people cried out
EIGHT MEN WERE GAOLED IN KINGSTON PEN! The Progressive Arts Club was the workers’ stage Wrote a play to save BUCK, from his prison cage
Chorus
Need a hint on the tune?
On a final note, Praxis Theatre is taking part in the launch of the HATCH Season at Harbourfront Centre tonight. Click here for the Facebook event page, and here for further information on the Harbourfront website. We hope to see you there, where we’ll be demonstrating our Open Source Theatre Project, and answering questions! (There is also a cash bar and a whole bunch of Harbourfront visual art stuff.
“After the years and years of weaker and waterier imitations, we now find ourselves rejecting the very notion of a holy stage. It is not the fault of the holy that it has become a middle-class weapon to keep the children good.”
RECENT COMMENTS