The Omnibus Bill: The Realistic Trap of a Political Play
An Omnibus bill is a single bill presented to parliament which includes many issues, often in an attempt to bury the most controversial questions in a whole mass of proposed legislation where everything must be approved at the same time. In Canada, the 1969 the Omnibus Bill passed by Pierre Trudeau’s government was the first time Canadians had faced that challenge when the Liberal Government of Trudeau, attempted to change the face of our country by dealing with important ethical questions as health issues.
The Bill which dealt with a multitude of practices inscribed in the criminal code such as divorce, abortion, homosexuality , opened the way to transform the Canadian criminal code which, according to the Minister John Turner was an outdated 19th Century document. This play therefore has a serious legal basis and followed through Trudeau’s desire to “keep the state out of the bedrooms of the nation”
However there was protest at the time from pro-choice groups who felt the law did not go far enough because, by setting up abortion committees which had to judge each case on its own merits, and by not clearly legalizing all abortions with no exceptions, this opened the way for loopholes to avoid helping women in dire need.
Darrah Teitel goes after that loophole in her show in order to illustrate generally accepted conclusions that making abortions difficult is a way of refusing abortions and thus killing women. With strict anti-abortion laws looming in the USA and even in Canada now, with many right-wing conservatives itching to open up the discussion that the Trump wave is making a distinct possibility in Canada, Darrah Teitel has clearly decided it is time to face the question head on and she pulls no punches. Her motives are admirable.
The question is, does this didactic form of theatre really work or is it only preaching to the converted? That is the dilemma that political theatre has always faced (except for Brecht who found the secret) and we wonder if this play, The Omnibus Bill is going to capture the fear and uneasiness caused by such ambiguous legislation and can it actually help convince those who are against abortion to change their minds? That is the crux of the matter
The play sets up two couples who are directly or indirectly involved in abortion committee decisions, where the procedure must be accepted by the doctors according to all the laws set down , before it can be done in legal conditions. Without giving too much detail away to spoil the show, a fifth person enters the picture and becomes the catalyst in the form of a difficult case who sets off the discussion at a new level.
Not only is her case unusual but she is married and already has children, so doctors don’t seem to think an abortion is as urgent as the woman feels. The dialogue delves into the fears and near terror of the woman who even speaks of killing herself, as if the situation were knawing at her mental stability. The actress makes an excellent case for her character, not by describing herself but by living through the panic of this woman who seems so lost. Jacqui Du Toit has already shown us the level of her skill in the The Hottentot Venus . Here she was so thoroughly convincing that her presence was almost enough to incarnate her own case, without the contribution of the others who were not particularly useful in this discussion. Such a case was made by a woman in a belgian play called Rwanda 94, created in 2000 by the theatre le Groupov which lasted almost 6 hours and not only spoke of the genocide but also to gave a human face to the victims, according to Jacques Delcuvellerie the director and responsible for the conception of the work. The most disturbing scene of that whole evening was a moment of pure truth where a woman, who was not an actor, described how she had seen her family hacked to death in front of her. This form of realism devoid of any theatrical strategy was so strong that it became the essence of this performance. It seems to me that Mme du Toit has the same power to create a similar moment of realism in this show but she was not given the chance.
Questions of difficult relations arise with regard the couples as their ideological conflicts strike a false note. The needs of one of the husbands (Michael Swatton) sends him off to the services of a prostitute but his engagement in some mildly kinky sex is rather juvenile, played out by young actors who are clearly not at all convinced and even less experienced about what they are doing. This is after all naturalistic theatre and the actors have to give us the impression they are really involved in what they are doing. That was not the case.
Vicky the midwife(Neta J. Rose) appears to be sneering most of the time, radiating a deep sense of superiority that was very uncomfortable and it all feels voyeuristic , even an attempt to titillate the audience in a way that detracts from the important issues, represented mainly by the plight of Maria, played by Jacqui du Toit. .
The 1960s music was beautiful and nostalgic for those of us who were there at that period!! However, it is not sure that a younger audience who would probably take this situation most seriously, would be able to relate to the neo-romantic world represented by that period of freedom and counter culture reaction. It might even seem like ancient history for most of that audience and detract from the context that was the source of all the suffering.
On the other hand, the scenes with Maria were the most powerful. She conveyed her mistrust, her doubt, her real anguish as the woman who needed the abortion but was really terrified of the whole process while the other characters just appeared to be the emotional obstacles to our feeling any serious pity for this woman. The scene in the hospital which is supposed to illustrate the results of a back -street abortion inspired horror, especially one particular prop which had our imaginations running wildly, and was probably the most effective moment of the evening except that the person sitting next to me had not even recognized what was happening, which was certainly not what the director could have imagined. Obviously, the staging was not as clear as it might have been. And then Sarah’s almost light-hearted attitude during the procedure did not contribute to the tension of the moment, in spite of Maria’s fear.
This is a terribly difficult situation to capture on a naturalistic stage where we all know the actors are only performing! We know that in order to convince people to change , it is important to oblige people to face the horrors of the uncomfortable truth. The Groupov did that in relation to the massacre in Rwanda. How might Ester Jun and Darrah Teitel have done something similar on the stage in Canada? Why was it that solid, powerful honnest realism did not make its way into this situation ? Maria (Jacqui du Toit) was able to build that but the rest of the cast did not and unfortunately.Director Esther Jun did not get it . And what about the playwright?
The Omnibus Bill written by Darrah Teitel plays until June 8 at Arts Court Theatre. At 8pm
A production of Counterpoint Theatre presented in the Tactics mainstage series
Directed by Esther Jun.
NOTE at Arts Court next week
Maupin by Margo MacDonald directed by Mary Ellis A workshop presentation, June 7 at 5pm
As well as Four whores and a pro by Joanne John June 8 at 5pm
And
The Blissful State of Surrender by Sanita Fejzic June 9, 4pm