BRUCE BARTON
CATHERINE GRAHAM
JENNIFER HARVIE
SHAWN HUFFMAN
SHEMINA KESHVANI
MARLENE MOSER
Although the enduring relevance and utility of the original Oxford Companion to Canadian Theatre is evidence of its quality and breadth, a revised edition of this important resource will no doubt reflect contemporary shifts in focus, emphas../TRIC18_2art03.html is, and interest.
One of the most conspicuous of these shifts will likely involve a departure from the unintentionally homogenizing orientation of the section on MULTICULTURAL THEATRE. For, while this admirable effort to encapsulate the emerging cultural diversity of Canadian Theatre is both eclectic and well-researched, a four page entry that combines Finnish, Ukrainian, Italian, Yiddish, and Chinese theatrical activity with those of the "Anglo-Irish" and Black practitioners must fall short of contemporary expectations. The (reluctant?) substitution of the then current "multicultural" for "ethnic" within the entry clearly presages the decreasing applicability of the former term in today's discourse.
Similarly, the original Companion's references to AMERINDIAN AND INUIT THEATRE provide a basis for what should become, in a revised edition, a greatly expanded and more detailed discussion of Indigenous theatre. The logical addition of separate entries for individual Native Canadian artists such as Tomson Highway and Daniel David Moses should accompany references to both nationally recognized Native companies and venues, such as the Native Earth Performing Arts Centre in Toronto, as well as emerging, less immediately recognized initiatives, such as the Nitapk Players of Prince Edward Island. As well, the enthusiasm and complexity of contemporary Native Canadian theatrical activity necessitates a separate, lengthy entry--or, perhaps more useful, a series of focused entries--addressing issues such as playwriting, scenography, performance, and cultural and political significance.
The Companion also provides a basis for an aspect of Canadian Theatre that largely post-dates the volume's publication in 1989. Included in the original is a section on MOTION PICTURES, CANADIANS IN, which focuses on performers and, to a lesser degree, directors who have achieved a degree of success in (primarily) American film and television. However, the past decade has seen the adaptation of many Canadian plays for the cinema, almost exclusively by Canadian filmmakers. Indeed, several Canadian dramatists have been key participants in the translation of their stage works to film. Linda Griffith's The Darling Family and Daniel MacIvor's House, for instance, represent two starkly different interpretations of the process of adaptation. Both films serve to raise public awareness of, and exposure to, these Canadian writer-performers. Both also raise challenging questions regarding the relationship between theatrical performance and cinematic representation--questions which involve the role and future of theatre in an increasingly 'multi-media' culture. This is further complicated when film adaptations--such as that of Guillermo Verdecchia's Fronteras Americanas (directed by Ramiro Puerta)--are seen primarily by television audience members, whose understanding of this complex, two-hour play is thus entirely mediated by their 'experience' of a 28 minute cinematic 'translation'--which has, itself, been reformatted for the small screen. The issues involved here are clearly not addressed within the original Companion's sections on either MOVING PICTURES or TELEVISION DRAMA IN ENGLISH.
Finally, a related aspect of the evolution of Canadian Theatre that might figure productively in a revised Companion is the increasing integration of advanced technologies in theatrical creation and practice. The central form/function of technology in the work of Robert Lepage is a prime (and often controversial) example of this reality. Beyond utilitarian concerns, there is evidence to suggest that the increasing application of technology to theatrical practice leads to significant influences on the elements of composition, performance, and production, as reflections of the pervasive presence of technology generally in contemporary society. And while the impact of technology is hardly a uniquely Canadian phenomenon, a study of the nature and degree of its influence--particularly as a regional variant--could provide an intriguing indication of current National trends.
A response to these specific suggestions may, indeed, involve a more general, structural revision to the Companion. Theoretical discussions of cultural diversity, cross-media representation, and emerging technologies might be made more accessible through a more distinctly thematic organization of included material. (As an initial step, for instance, it is worth considering establishing a separate section containing all entries on individuals, which, in the 1989 edition, are distributed alphabetically throughout the complete volume.) To be sure, determining the most helpful orientation and degree of specificity of such a thematic reorganization would be a significant challenge. However, the opportunity exists to identify a framework of immediate relevance and utility for those individuals most dependent on the Companion as a primary research resource.
The hardest thing for a work like The Oxford Companion to Canadian Theatre to deal with is inevitably the most contemporary examples of the theatre it tries to cover, and in this most difficult of areas, The Oxford Companion has aged remarkably well. This is especially true of the numerous articles that give an overview of particular forms of theatre or of theatrical activity in different regions of Canada. From David Barnet's article on collective creation to Louise Forsyth's overview of feminist theatre in Canada to Alan Filewod's entry on popular theatre or Gilbert David's overview of the state of Québec theatre at the time of the Companion's publication, the reader gets a clear sense of the development of different forms of theatre and of the issues this development raises.
That these analyses still make good sense may in part be explained, especially for the more alternative theatrical forms, by the fact that Canada's last big structural shift in theatrical production took place in the period between 1980 and 1985. In fact, Canadian theatre at the end of the 1990s is probably still working through the consequences of a rejection of some of the more totalizing "grand narratives" of social and theatrical change that had inspired the original collective movements of the 1970s. Many of the most important companies and performers of our own period might also be argued to be the products of the new vision of Canadian theatre that was consolidated, institutionally and aesthetically, in the mid-1980s. In this context, then, it is not surprising that there is little to disagree with in the analysis the overview articles put forward, even as we approach the tenth anniversary of the Oxford Companion's publication.
Where there is a problem with the 1989 version of The Oxford Companion to Canadian Theatre is in the gaps that are now evident in the text. The most striking of these, in my view, is the lack of any mention of First Nations theatre or of one of Canada's best-known playwrights, Tomson Highway. The impact of First Nations artists on Canadian dramatic art, whether on the stage, in film or on television, is a subject any new edition of the Companion would certainly want to take up and brief biographies of artists like Tomson Highway, Margo Kane, Drew Hayden Taylor, or recent Governor General's Prize winner Ian Ross would certainly be in order.
The Queer Theatre and Image Theatre movements are also strikingly absent, as are such important companies and individuals as Toronto's Buddies in Bad Times and Québec's Robert Lepage and Pol Pelletier. Writing from Montréal, where the majority of artistic directors of large French-language theatres are women, I am also struck by the need to recognize the importance of the increasing acceptance of women in mainstream theatres and the impact this has (or has had) on the dominant theatrical practices of our country. I wonder too about what may be the beginning of a new revolution in Québec's theatrical paradigms as signalled in works like Cabaret Neiges Noires by young playwright Dominic Champagne and Joie and Océan by longtime feminist performer Pol Pelletier.
To call attention to these gaps cannot really be a criticism of the 1989 edition of The Oxford Companion to Canadian Theatre; many of the movements and individuals for whom I would now suggest individual entries had not really come into their own when the original text was produced some ten years ago. But reflecting on these gaps, I cannot help but ponder the lessons we have learned from our rejection, in the last 15 years or so, of grand narratives of Canadian theatrical life. Perhaps, as Robert Wallace suggested in Producing Marginality in 1990, we are learning to cultivate the margins as a most significant site of cultural production. Following on this hunch, my motto for any new editions of the Oxford Companion would have to be: Vive la différence !
Faced with the somewhat daunting task of reviewing the reference tome The Oxford Companion to Canadian Theatre, I'm going to respond voluminously and criticize nothing short of the key terms of its title: "Oxford Companion" and "Canadian Theatre." For me, it is through these loaded terms and their connotations, interpretations, and ironic juxtaposition that the book begins first to fulfil some valuable projects but ultimately to limit or omit other valuable, and sometimes politically crucial, subjects and projects.
"To a certain extent," wrote Larry McDonald in his review of the Companion in Dalhousie Review in 1989, "one knows what one is getting in an Oxford companion" (vol. 69: 446). For McDonald, what seems to be reassuringly present is encyclopaedic reference material, carefully laid out. Much of this is, certainly, present and welcome in The Oxford Companion to Canadian Theatre. Crucially, this material records and legitimates histories which are often difficult to trace. And, as Jason Sherman notes in his Books in Canada review, it usefully dispels certain prevalent and frequently disabling myths; for instance, "that a professional theatre run by and for Canadians emerged only after the Second World War" (March 1990: 39). But, as McDonald's use of the passive voice perhaps implies, "Oxford companion" connotes more than encyclopaedic reference material, however useful, even however apparently politically useful. The "Oxford" part connotes, certainly, academic authority and, probably, academic conservatism and institutional imperialism. The "companion" part I find very difficult to disassociate from the phrase "lady's travelling companion" and related connotations of gentility, decorous restraint, and imperial armchair travel. Thus, no matter how political this Oxford Companion's content may be, contextualization within Oxford companion-ness looks worryingly like it predicates a certain conservatism, a restraining high cultural decorum, and an attitude of imperialism.
Given the avowed political concern of this Companion and many of its entries (e.g. Political and Popular Theatre, Théâtre Engagé, Feminist Theatre, Alternate Theatre, Collective Creation), the connotations I've identified in "Oxford companion" may appear fortunately to be absent here. However, I think they are unfortunately present and notable in the ways the Companion constitutes and interprets its second key term, "Canadian Theatre." Despite avowed attempts to conceptualize Canadian theatre broadly and critically, the volume ultimately, I believe, fails by conceptualizing its field too narrowly--neglecting, first, key structural concerns and, second, a comparative consideration of theatre as one of many related performance modes. Thus, the Companion limits its potential for useful political engagement with, and intervention in, Canadian theatre practices which, as many Companion entries note, are often themselves avowedly political.
For the Companion, Canadian theatre is largely constituted by theatre artists (primarily actors, playwrights, and directors), theatre buildings and companies, and theatre communities usually defined, somewhat crudely, by geopolitical boundaries (e.g. theatre in each of the provinces and territories). To be useful, the portrait of Canadian theatre these categories of entries provide must be grounded in the kind of historical, cultural, and economic context which can only adequately be provided by specific critical entries on the structural organization of Canadian theatre, entries on such topics as: the Playwrights Union of Canada, Actors' Equity, the Governor General's Awards, specific theatre publishers, and the Canada Council and other funding agencies. Presently, many of these topics are embedded in umbrella entries on such subjects as Professional Organizations, Awards and Competitions, Publishers: English-language Drama, and Publishers: French-language Drama. Unfortunately, these umbrellas (like Multicultural Theatre, which now sounds so insidious and inadequate) headline entries which are frequently more descriptive than critical and which tend to homogenize--and even neutralize--their subjects more than they usefully distinguish critical differences within them. The Companion's tendency to neutralize its subjects perhaps explains McDonald's parenthetical observation, "that horrible word, 'funding', is discreetly absent from the index" (448). It may explain it, but it doesn't excuse it.
The Companion's editors' claim, "The large subjects of Dance and Opera were excluded for reasons of space" (vii), explains two more serious omissions from The Oxford Companion to Canadian Theatre, but again doesn't excuse them. When Robert Lepage directs opera as well as "traditional" theatre and Carbone 14 creates dance theatre, a reference text like the Companion should not maintain--or reify--conservative high cultural disciplinary distinctions which don't necessarily apply and don't constructively contribute to our understanding of Canadian theatre and performance. Rather, it should take the opportunity--not to mention the responsibility--to suggest ways of conceptualizing and appreciating these cross-disciplinary and sometimes unconventional movements. The Oxford Companion to Canadian Theatre should not work to entrench Canadian theatre in colonial categories. It should contribute constructively to what many of its authors identify as recent Canadian theatre's postcolonial political project of critical self-interrogation and self-determination.
By coincidence, this project to assess the Oxford Companion to Canadian Theatre falls hard on the heels of a historical paper on Canadian Literature and Drama that I wrote for the Ministry of Heritage. Since the Companion was never far from reach during the time I researched that study, its merits and weaknesses are still fresh in my mind. However, given the many different perspectives from which one may choose to examine a volume such as that presently under scrutiny, I will be limiting my observations to my immediate fields of study: francophone theatre in Canada, theatre semiotics and lesbigay theatre.
To the credit of the editors and article contributors, the volume has proven itself to be a useful tool. Entries on individuals, dramatic history and social movements, to name but a few of the areas treated, paint a surprisingly complete picture of the growth of drama in this country. Supplementary reading sources are often indicated at the end of an article, pictures accompanying certain articles provide a context (performance, historical, etc.) and the index is a boon to anyone trying to find information quickly.
Francophone theatre is treated, wholly or in part, in 186 of the 703 entries that comprise the Companion, working out to roughly 38% of the volume (based on article not word count). Overview articles--for example, "Acadian theatre" or "Drama in French"--not only provide excellent historical résumés for the neophyte, but in many cases also indicate social and literary ramifications within francophone drama. Problems occur, however, in several articles which claim to be national in scope, yet only make a passing reference to theatre in French. Let me stress that this is not always the case; "Feminist theatre," for example, is a model of balance, pointing out the contributions made by both francophone and anglophone theatre to that area of study. Other entries, however, need to be revised in order to provide a more credible account of francophone theatre. The most pressing of these include the following: "Architecture," "Archives and Collections," "Awards and Competitions," "Little Theatre," "Mime," "Canadians in Film," "Multicultural Theatre," "Musical Theatre," "Theatre in New Brunswick," and "Theatre Photographers." I will briefly examine two entries from the above list, "Awards and Competitions" and "Theatre in New Brunswick," to illustrate my point.
The author of the entry on awards does not mention a single prize or competition given or hosted by a francophone institution, despite the many that exist. Similarly, the entry on theatre in New Brunswick only makes summary reference to francophone theatre, belying the richness and diversity of Acadian drama. These omissions are symptomatic of a short sightedness that sometimes suggests an English-Canadian bias. A serious recentering is required if the Companion is to be truly a credible reference tool for our national theatres.
A future edition of the Companion will also have to account for the large amount of francophone theatre that has been produced in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada during the past ten years. Updates will be essential in many existing entries on individuals, historical summaries, and institutions. In addition, new entries will be required to account for the work of dramatists such as Michel Marc Bouchard, Marco Micone, or Marc Dalpé, actors such as Pol Pelletier or Sylvie Drapeau, and metteurs en scène, such as Denis Marleau or Alice Ronfard. Moreover, a number of new historical overviews need to be written, for example, "Multicultural francophone theatre," "Jewish Theatre in Montreal," or "Francophone theatre festivals." These suggestions only touch upon the number of individuals and topics that should be included in an updated version of the Companion.
In addition to the updates and new entries required for French language theatre in Canada, a separate entry for theatre criticism and theory, as opposed to theatre critics, needs to be considered. Many Canadian semioticians, for example, are well known throughout the world for their work in theatre--Fernando de Toro, Louise Vigeant, Roderique Villeneuve, and Wladimir Krysinski, to name just a few. Thus is seems strange that a volume devoted to Canadian theatre makes very little mention of the different ways, semiotic or other, in which theatre is understood, studied and taught in this country.
Finally, I would like to note the glaring absence of an entry for lesbigay theatre in the Companion. This absence is all the more unsettling when the number of Canadian plays dealing with lesbigay issues is considered. The scope of Jovette Marchessault's Triptique lesbien (1980) set the example for a history that still waits to be written in Canadian drama, including, among others, authors such as René-Daniel Dubois, Brad Fraser, Jeanne-Mance Delisle, and lesbian feminist collectives.
By providing a starting point from which further planning and elaboration can occur, these brief comments and suggestions, combined with the observations of specialists in other fields, will hopefully allow future editions of the Companion to keep pace with the fantastic growth of theatre in Canada.
One of the many merits of The Oxford Companion to Canadian Theatre, is its diversity of entries which cover a wide variety of subjects. I would like to look more closely at the entry on "Multicultural Theatre," written by Jeniva Berger (353-57). I will concentrate on certain theoretical problems that arise with the articulation of a "multicultural" theatre practice, specifically, the difficulty of organizing and unifying the many cultural approaches.
Choosing a method of classification for an encyclopedic document, is always challenging, especially when the subject is politically charged. The term "category" already implies commonality. Anything included in a category must be comparable or similar; moreover, the heading must be flexible enough to include a broad assortment of examples and confining enough to legitimate its presence. Following this principle, Berger's article is organized around the premise that it is possible and desirable to link early and late twentieth century "ethnic theatre" on the basis of a shared vision--primarily, "the wish to preserve the culture and language of the mother country and to instil a sense of community ties" (353). The entry is surprisingly comprehensive in terms of the number of different cultural groups and individual works within the different communities represented. Moreover, the inclusion of an article on Multicultural theatre provides recognition to a highly marginalized but very rich area of Canadian Theatre. But, with the rise of cultural theory and issues of race and representation, it has become increasingly difficult to unify different cultural and racial groups. Even within a group, we need to take into consideration differences of race, class and gender. Thus difference and not similarity has become the mantra of the '80s and '90s.
The difficulty of unifying diverse practices under the auspices of preserving tradition and instilling a sense of community, comes to the fore when we look at new theatre produced by those who traditionally would be located in the multicultural framework. Is it possible, for example, to categorize according to the Companion's definition of multicultural, works like Isolated Incident, by Rahul Varma and Montreal's Teersi Duniya? This play examines the discrimination of Blacks by the police and the problems with the Canadian legal system, through the eyes of South Asian Canadians. Classification becomes even more complicated when we take into consideration the race-blind and gender-blind casting characteristic of Teersi Duniya's work. There is no attempt to preserve culture or language of the mother country nor is there an attempt to create community ties. Rather, the play is a political statement that sharply criticizes Canada and its multicultural rhetoric.
The heading "multicultural" is also somewhat contentious. Clearly, the term is meant to ameliorate the marginal position of these theatre practices. Paradoxically, as an editorial tactic and as a manner of address, the logic of a "multicultural" entry tends to intensify, rather than improve, the perceived otherness and marginality of the subject itself. There is nothing "essentially" different about multiculturalism in theatre, yet it does force us to reevaluate existing methods and theories. To problematize further the logic of the multicultural, the category dismisses the hegemony's ethnicity. White ethnicity does not come into question and is therefore naturalized.
Another common problem that arises with the multicultural label is a bias towards an evolutionary perspective--from community to professional. The entry in the Companion shows no divergence from this bias. Berger indicates that ethnic theatre tends to follow a progression from insular community oriented works to sophisticated specialized activities aimed at drawing a more diverse audience (353). It seems the ideal is to produce legitimate theatre, performed in recognised theatre buildings by professionals. For example, Berger says that the progression is clear in the theatre of the Ukrainians, which began in around 1906 and continues to develop up to the present day when we can see The Canadian Ukrainian Opera Association performing at places like Roy Thomson Hall, with international casts (353). Thus, the goal for multicultural theatre is to be accepted and absorbed by the mainstream. More precisely, professionalizing becomes a process of de-marginalization, a move towards the erasure of a perceived "otherness."
I am not dismissing the endless and increasingly difficult problem of classification but the section on multicultural works in the Companion is insufficiently conceptualized with respect to contemporary theory. The heading "Multicultural" is no longer acceptable because it further concretizes the marginal position. The question is how do we classify the extremely varied selection of theatre groups, performances, plays and playwrights that question and challenge the dominant culture through an exploration of racial and cultural difference? One answer might be to follow the example of The Oxford Companion to American Theatre which classifies similar works by nationality and race. Rather than include a multicultural section, they have included sections on Blacks, Jews, Indians, and Irish in American Theatre. This however would not allow for a consideration of theoretical issues, nor would it allow for a dialogue between the many perspectives that are a part of the Canadian selections. Perhaps the solution would be to include a section on "ethnicity" or "race and representation" in Canadian Theatre. This would be further subdivided into categories of "community" or "professional" which would then be cross-referenced according to thematic or political issues. This would undoubtedly allow for diversity and at the same time provide a method of classification. These problems and questions are still relatively new and are thus exceptionally difficult to answer--but this in itself is an indication of the very need for this section.
The Oxford Companion to Canadian Theatre is a valuable resource which has served me well in my research and curiosity regarding Canadian theatre. With its tenth anniversary approaching, however, a revision is timely. Given the new material that has been produced, some entries simply need extensive updating. At times The Companion almost prophetically suggests names of emerging artists who have now become established, such as Robert Lepage. There are those theatre artists I would like to see included in individual entries in a new edition: Daniel David Moses, Sky Gilbert and Shawna Dempsey and Lorri Millan, to name a few. Similarly, individual theatres and companies such as Buddies in Bad Times Theatre and Nightwood Theatre merit entries. There are ways in which I believe a new edition could benefit from some slight restructuring to accommodate in a more extensive manner that which is already suggested by the book: a view of Canadian theatre and drama which includes the eccentric and the eclectic.
A volume of such scope and yet of a manageable size necessarily demands difficult choices which "will not please everyone," (vii) as Benson and Conolly acknowledge in their introduction to the first edition. Perhaps this is the nature of such an undertaking: eccentricity--whether alluding to "peculiar in manner or character" or simply "deviating from the center" (Websters)--is hard to accommodate. And yet the editors have tried to include a wide range of theatrical activity. While they choose, for example, to omit Dance or Opera for reasons of space, they do include paratheatrical activity such as burlesque and puppetry. If this choice is to be made, however, it now needs to be given more thorough attention. There is no mention of Circus or Clown work as far as I could tell. A revised edition might consider the work of Cirque du Soleil and Mump and Smoot, for example, as well as Fringe Theatre Festivals.
Eclecticism--in the sense of "made up of different systems, doctrines, or sources" (Websters)--is perhaps most often found in the photographs, a rich selection which includes productions, theatres, and theatre artists. Perhaps the ends of eccentricity and eclecticism alike could be served by interrogating the kinds of categories which are listed with a consideration of the world beyond the traditionally scholarly. A new edition would do well to extend its coverage, not only of what makes theatre, but also of what merits theatre research. Although there are separate entries for acting and directing, there is no such entry for playwriting. I would find an entry which considers the state of theatre training as a whole a useful addition, and perhaps even an entry enumerating university and college programs in drama and theatre. I understand that this might become quickly dated; nonetheless, it provides a nice situating of the discipline. Furthermore, having both these entries in one book might bridge the division between the academic and practical theatre worlds.
This kind of dialogue between categories and entries could be enhanced by some modification to the index. The Companion is most useful when it provides thumbnail sketches and suggests other resources or entries. (I assume Internet resources and websites will be included in a new edition.) Although references in individual entries provide valuable bibliographical information, it is sometimes difficult to locate information within The Companion itself. When I looked for theatre training, for example, I found nothing. I did find information on the topic under the entries for acting and directing, but I believe alternate titles would be helpful to direct the reader more efficiently, and possibly to suggest other avenues of investigation.
The bulk of material which could be included in such a book is daunting and undoubtedly there would be even more exigencies of space in a new edition. Although extensive descriptions of individual plays, such as the page and a half devoted to George F. Walker's Zastrozzi, are interesting, in such a scenario, they are difficult to justify. Are they meant to signal key moments in Canadian theatre history? Do they reflect the predilections of the advisory board?
I look forward to an updated version of The Oxford Companion to Canadian Theatre. Given the new material that deserves consideration, perhaps a revision of the mandate of the book is in order. Curtailed entries on plays combined with a broader spectrum of theatre artists and areas of theatre research might achieve a more diverse coverage of Canadian theatre.