Latest News

Editorial, Opinion

SSMU should reconsider new equity policy

by on
  • Author

More in Editorial:

McGill Tribune

Last week, the Students’ Society Legislative Council updated the 2008 version of the equity policy. There are problems with certain parts of the amended version. While they’re largely definitional problems, they’re anything but semantic. Future interpretations of the words in this document could lead to clubs unjustifiably having their funding cut. The wording of a document with such potential consequences must be perfect, and as right now it definitely is not.

For one thing, councillors amended the original definition of oppression, which was ambiguous, but the amendment is similarly unsatisfactory: “Oppression means the exercise of power by a group of people over another group of people with specific consideration of cultural, historical, and living legacies.” This is grammatically convoluted to the point that it effectively means nothing. It’s unclear, for instance, which party is meant to consider “cultural, historical, and living legacies.” As it reads right now, it sounds like it’s the oppressor’s consideration of “legacies” that makes their power oppressive. Presumably, council meant this to be a consideration taken by the equity commissioners. In addition, the phrase “the exercise of power” is problematic A group of people exercising power over another is the definition of government. SSMU exercises power over students every day: it levies fees, makes decisions about the student centre and events, and claims to speak on behalf of the student body. This definition leaves room for the interpretation that SSMU might be violating its own equity policy by merely existing. Additionally, what exactly are “cultural, historical, and living legacies?” Legacies of what? These will have to be interpreted later, and given both their importance and ambiguity, it’s unfortunate that council will actually have almost no say in what these words will ultimately mean.

Another issue can be found in a section that is supposedly meant to protect free speech, but which can also be read to mean the exact opposite. Section 3.2 states that the equity policy should not be read as limiting dialogue on controversial political issues, provided it’s “on legitimate topics” and “conducted in a respectful, non-coercive, collegial manner that conforms to the policy on discrimination and harassment.” It’s unclear why any part of this, besides mandating conformity to the preexisting policy on discrimination and harassment, is necessary. The Tribune has repeatedly called for a more respectful campus debate, but doesn’t support an attempt to mandate such a thing. The legitimacy of a topic and the respectfulness and collegiality of debate are subjective and open to interpretation and discussion. That an appointed committee has the power to remove a club’s funding if they deem it in contravention of one of these is antithetical to the stated purpose of encouraging open discussion. Independent groups like the Tribune, the Daily, and the Quebec Public Interest Research Group, which operate events in the Shatner Building, but over whose funding SSMU has no influence, pose an additional problem. The worst punishment they can get for violating the equity policy is a demand for a letter of apology. SSMU’s equity policy in effect gives them relatively greater licence to speak freely than the clubs whose purse strings equity can cut.

Even if council knew what they meant when writing this new equity policy, the people who will have to interpret it in future years may not have the same ideas. Solidifying policy into words means it needs to be intelligible for the future. Parts of the new policy are nearly unintelligible now. It needs to be reconsidered.

Editorial, Opinion

Changing the Canadian organ donor system

by on
  • Author

More in Editorial:

McGill Tribune

In 2008, there were 4,330 Canadians on waiting lists for organ transplants, and 215 of them died before receiving the potentially life-saving surgery they needed. At the moment, there are 1200 people on the waiting list in Quebec alone.

Looking at these numbers, it’s clear that the legislation proposed last Thursday by Quebec Health Minister Yves Bolduc, designed to make the Quebec organ donation system more efficient, is an important step in the right direction. The proposed changes would have the province join the Canadian Live Donors Registry, a federal program launched last year to help facilitate kidney transplants from live donors, and would also revamp the province’s system for postmortem donations. The current system, in which individuals who wish to become donors sign the back of their health cards, would be replaced with one where interested donors indicate their interest when they renew their health card every four years. The names of potential donors would then be entered in an electronic provincial registry, which doctors would be required to call when one of their patients dies.

While any effort to increase donation rates is significant, the entire country should be looking to larger systemic changes if the waiting list for organ transplants is to be significantly reduced. Canada should follow the lead of other countries such as Spain and Australia, and implement an opt-out system of organ donation. In such a system, every individual would automatically be considered a donor unless they indicate otherwise.

While research shows that the majority of Canadians support organ donation, only a small minority have actually signed donor cards or registries. In an opt-out system, the organs of those who have not bothered to opt-in, who don’t know how, and those who do not have their donor cards with them at time of death and have not made their wishes clear to their families, would not go to waste but would instead help to save the lives of as many as eight people. In addition, research has indicated that the increase in donors that such a system would likely provide could help to stem the growing black market for organs.

Of course, there are individuals and groups with moral or religious opposition to organ donation. To help ensure that these people would be able to indicate their convictions, the opt-out system would need to be simple, accessible, and available to even those who are illiterate or don’t speak French or English. It would also need to be accompanied by a large public information campaign to inform individuals of their right to opt-out as well as instructions on how to do so.

An opt-out system is not about coercion or deception; it’s about ensuring that the organs of interested donors who currently fall through the cracks are utilized effectively. This method rests on one major assumption: that most Canadians would be willing to help save the lives of others if given the choice.

*  *  *

Some of us, however, though in agreement with the recent Quebec legislation, don’t believe Canada should switch from an opt-in donor system to an opt-out one. We believe that in discussing such important issues we must use a vocabulary other than the merely utilitarian. While we understand the horrible reality that Canadians die every day for want of organ donors, it’s too drastic a step for the government to declare ownership over every person’s corpse barring an explicit request from that person or their family that no such assumption about their wishes be made. It’s too easy to conceive of possible circumstances in which something could go wrong. When you’re dealing with an issue as important and irreversible as what happens to someone’s body after they die, there’s no room for error.

The idea that a person should have to explicitly state that they don’t want their organs removed after they die—even if for humanitarian and unquestionably good purposes—seems to us too dystopian to be taken seriously as a nationwide proposal. To make it the law of the land would be to effectively disparage the “moral or religious opposition,” to declare the government’s avowed support for those in favour of donation and its disapproval of those opposed.

The resources that would go into a nationwide campaign informing people of their right to opt-out could and should instead be used for mobilizing a massive campaign to inform people of why they should and how they can opt-in to the current system. If done properly, this could probably achieve the same result of increasing donor rates among those who would indeed wish to donate their organs to medicine after they die, but are too uninformed about how they can sign themselves up.

There’s no sense in compounding the tragedy of Canadians waiting for organ donations by risking that something be done with a person’s dead body which they would not want to have done. Assuming Canadians would want their organs donated to medicine unless they explicitly state otherwise does exactly that. There’s room within the current opt-in system for improvement, as Quebec’s proposed changes demonstrate, and we support whatever allocation of federal funds is necessary to ensure that voluntary—and only voluntary—organ donations increase dramatically.

Opinion

Help support mothers

by Catherine Leurer on

More in Opinion:

McGill Tribune

This year, especially in Quebec, “autonomy” seems to be a hot topic word. The idea that people have a right to make their own choices is a common argument, especially for anyone who takes a pro-choice stance. But these words, “autonomy” and “choice,” are somewhat misleading when used outside of the context of a real situation. When a woman faces a crisis pregnancy, for example, how much of a choice does she really have? When facing the financial realities of motherhood, abortion may seem like the only possible route. In this situation, does it count as a choice if there is seemingly only one viable option?

No woman should ever feel as if she is being forced into an abortion, whether it’s because of a lack of resources or an absence of emotional support. The difficulties of an unplanned pregnancy are immense, but they need not be insurmountable. Women should be able to embrace their womanhood and their motherhood, without also dealing with debt or poverty as a consequence. As Margaret Colin, honorary co-chair of Feminists for Life, eloquently put it, we need to fight “for the rights of pregnant women—for society to change to accept them, not for them to change to be accepted by society.” The financial difficulties, the time commitment of motherhood, and the pressures often added by close family and friends, should never coerce a woman into abortion. Young mothers should feel loved and supported, and should know that their child will feel the same love and support.

Imagine yourself dealing with an unplanned pregnancy, finding yourself thrust into the role of mother or father. How are you going to support your child? Where will you find the money for the endless supply of diapers, baby wipes, bottles, and clothing? How will you find the time to care for your child? Will you be able to continue your education? These kinds of stresses are what push women towards abortion every day. But despite these pressures, there is a light in the darkness. For those who are brave enough to challenge these problems, there are crisis pregnancy centres that provide both financial and emotional support to mothers in need. They provide women with the necessities that allow them to follow through with their pregnancies and their role as a mother. This week, Choose Life is running a diaper drive to support the pregnancy centres that provide this service. These centres are in need of diapers, baby toys, and cradles. We invite you to bring in these supplies, or to make a monetary donation towards the cause. There will be a table set up at the  Y-intersection, and collection bins in many buildings on campus. Join us in making sure mothers have the support they need.

Catherine Leurer is Choose Life VP-Internal, and can be reached at catherine.leurer@mail.mcgill.ca.

Opinion

Too Asian? is too simplified

by Trip Yang on

More in Opinion:

McGill Tribune

 

An article recently published in Maclean’s magazine, titled “Too Asian?” has generated controversy by presenting non-Asian Canadian students and families as concerned about attending universities with large Asian populations. Campuses that have the reputation of being too academically focused at the expense of a robust social scene are negatively cast as “too Asian.”

While the article is light on political correctness—one high school counsellor says, “Asians are the new Jews”— its real flaw is the oversimplification and gross generalization of a minority culture.

But for the authors to boil the discrepancy down to Asian students as “strivers, high achievers and single-minded in their approach to university” and white students as “more likely to choose universities  build their school lives around social interaction, athletics and self-actualization—and, yes, alcohol,” is a comparison that unfairly promotes an “us versus them” mentality.

At other times, the article is grasping for straws to stir its drink. The authors write that “there is little Asian representation on student government, campus newspapers or college radio stations.” The University of British Columbia’s student life is cited as an example, where the student executive contains no Asian members for the 2010-11 year. I have a hard time believing the demographic makeup of one unspecified student body at UBC is representative of Canadian student life in general. It’s comical to think that a reputable magazine hires such nonsensical inductionists.

Reader response has not been surprising. The Chinese Canadian National Council criticized the Maclean’s article as “fear mongering.” One Toronto executive director of the council labelled it “definitely racist.” It also unfairly targets one visible minority group as cliquish when the problem of self-segregating communities is really an immigration issue. If there is a silver lining, it’s that the Asian Canadian community can use this opportunity to re-evaluate the group’s self-identity within a multicultural society.  

As “model minorities,” Asians have often been depicted in mainstream media as academic superstars who are hardworking and career-focused. My own parents, extended family, and friends of Asian descent have often embraced the virtues of being perceived in such positive light. Whenever I pondered if our group’s overachievement and success can sometimes breed backlash, my concerns were dismissed as foolish and illogical.

But living in an oblivious bubble is an unhealthy mentality that should be remedied. If there are members of another culture who are discouraged from attending a prestigious university because the high number of Asians presumably raises the curve, then we shouldn’t be afraid to examine the concerns. When Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade claims that Asian students require an extra 140 points on the SAT to have an equal chance at university acceptance as white students, we need to scientifically test and peer review the phenomenon, and if true, make the community conscious of it.  

The publication of “Too Asian?” and the subsequent outrage reminds us that it’s important not to sweep contentious matters under the rug. If some feel that Asian students are more socially challenged, that Asian students segregate into their own campus cliques, and that there is a correspondingly higher standard for academic success, then these issues should all be spotlighted for discussion, even if it makes us cringe.

I’ve also encountered those who are very cognizant of the repercussions of being a model minority. When I interviewed for Columbia University in my last year of high school, my Chinese-American interviewer and Columbia alumni bluntly asked, “There are so many qualified Asian candidates applying to Ivy League schools. Trip, what can you bring besides good grades and an affinity for the piano?” I proceeded to explain how impressive my bench press-to-height ratio was.

While most Columbia rejectees reluctantly attend New York University or Cornell, I was lucky to end up at McGill. And it seems the stars have aligned—I’ve even met a couple of Asian students here who are involved in student life, like to drink, and can interact with others without speaking Mandarin or Korean.  

Trip Yang is a U3 economics and psychology student, and can be reached at trip.yang@mail.mcgill.ca.

Opinion

The politics of the poppy

by Martin Law on

More in Opinion:

McGill Tribune

I didn’t know whether or not to buy a poppy for Remembrance Day this year.

In the Canadian consciousness the red poppy is a symbol of respect for soldiers, those who fought in wars from the First World War to the present day. The poppy, and Remembrance Day in general, reminds us of the sacrifices made for the freedoms that Canadians and others enjoy today. I accept this, but with a weary heart.

I believe there is a much darker, unspoken spectre of history with which we have to come to serious terms. Each November 11, I carry an unspoken feeling that the Canadians, or anyone else for that matter, who died in the First World War probably died for no greater cause. That’s around 60,000 soldiers, over half of those slain Canadians we memorialize on November 11. With that in mind, I don’t find Remembrance Day to be only a day of dignified respect, but also of tragic solemnity, where we must confront an unjustifiable loss. We don’t seem to acknowledge it explicitly, perhaps because it seems outright wrong to say. To hear the words at our Remembrance Day service that our soldiers “gave their tomorrow for our today” is emotionally moving. However, to examine what exactly half of our war dead fell for with a cold, objective view is quite another.

Taking Professor Peter Hoffman’s First World War history course last year made me question the real extent to which the sacrifices of Canadian soldiers contributed to anyone’s freedom. The reason Canada fought in the First World War was based on British interests in maintaining a certain balance of power, among other political goals. To add any moral significance to the war aims and motivations seems downright false. Additionally, the seeds of the Second World War were laid in the treaties that emerged from the First. Did those Canadian soldiers die making a sacrifice towards what they believed they fought for? We must contend seriously with the chilling idea that perhaps they just died horrific deaths, for no greater purpose than guaranteeing an even greater war two decades later.

What of the poppy? Isn’t it a symbol for all conflicts and sacrifices for our way of life? I understand that. But to me, it’s still a specific symbol of the First World War. It evokes foreign fields senselessly soaked with the blood of thousands of human beings, and represents one of the most horrific wars humanity has known. In Scotland, the poppy was popularized by a campaign launched by Field Marshall Douglas Haig, whom I don’t regard in his common image as a butcher, but under whose command a young man from my family died at Ginchy in the Somme. And for what? I’m entitled to question why we wear a symbol each November 11 that was popularized by the man who commanded while an ancestor of mine died.

I’m not alone in this skcepticism. The British journalist Jon Snow has refused to wear a poppy for public broadcasts before Remembrance Day, saying we can choose to remember (or not remember) in whatever way we like. I agree with him insofar as we have a freedom of expression, and those we commemorate died for us to have that right. The Guardian, commenting on Snow, made the point that in France, where the war struck even worse, few wear the equivalent cornflower, yet many still remember.

I bought a poppy anyway, and I always have. But I feel a strange curiosity towards the red plastic adornment on my lapel. Like any symbol, it will carry whatever meaning people choose to give it. For me, it represents sacrifice, and I just leave it at that.

Martin Law is a U2 history student, and can be reached at martin.law@mail.mcgill.ca.

Opinion

Re: McGill earns B+ in university sustainability rankings

by James Hirsch on

More in Opinion:

So McGill only got a B+ rating for sustainability. It’s not that bad, and considering all the other stuff McGill has on its agenda, it should be happy it was able to pull that off. I mean, McGill could be like those other universities that spend all their time in the library and go to the SEI office hours all the time, but McGill has a life, and it has other things to do. Really, a B+ isn’t that bad for McGill. At least it’s not one of those institutions where sustainability grades are all inflated just so the university can get into sustainability grad school. McGill cares more about being challenged and doing the best it can, and in this case, that was a B+.

James Hirsch

U3 political science and North American studies

Opinion

Bring back handwritten invites

by Marko Djurdjic on

More in Opinion:

I miss receiving invitations. Paper invitations. Invitations for everything. Birthday parties, pool parties, other parties. Those flimsy cards were a precious commodity in elementary and middle school. They’re now a relic of a time when people had to sit down and write by hand, and had to commit time, dedication, and care. Even if the penmanship was poor, it offered an authenticity that has recently given way to something more sterile. The culprit is, of course, Facebook.

I recently had to invite as many friends as I could to a play I’m performing in. The process of going through a list of friends to pick those I wanted to invite was frustrating to say the least. The prospect of simply “inviting all” became more appealing with every subsequent group of people I scrolled through. The worst part about knowing the “invite all” feature exists, and not receiving an invitation to a massive event, makes one feel even more left out of these social events. There’s something about receiving an invite of any sort that makes the invitee feel appreciated by the inviter. If someone took the time to click on your name alone, then there’s a wonderful sense of elation, especially if the event is small. But Facebook has simply made the process of staging an event a bore.

Using mass texting and mass Facebook invites as ways to contact people has negated the ever important aspect of having to invite a person while physically in their presence. These days, when I get invited to events, I feel less important and special than I used to. Although this may seem selfish and self-obsessed, I appreciate being invited to events in person. Even if I don’t attend, simply having someone take the time to invite to your face carries an element of real friendship. Seeing an invite, and then seeing that 400 other people have been invited to the same event immediately negates some of the connection you feel towards a person, and thus removes some of the excitement of attending. Lazy invitations make for lazy attendees, many of whom put “maybe attending” in an effort to placate those who made the event and sent out the invitations. What happened to RSVPing that you were coming, and then actually coming? Some try to escape this by texting their friends plans and event details, but these are immediately noticeable as mass texts: “Hey, come to our place Friday at 10” reeks of impersonality, and the least you can do is put “Hey guys…etc.” We know you’re inviting at least five of us with this same message, so lay off with the half-assed attempts at making them seem personal.

It’s easy to criticize Facebook, but by doing so we are really criticizing ourselves, as we have accepted this situation as the norm.

Yet the very nature of writing your friends’ names on that small line that read NAME, and penciling in your address and phone number, one card at a time, made your parties and events seem special, important, and even downright holy. Those cards took effort. Next time there’s a party, go to the dollar store, pick up a stack of those flimsy little cards, and send them to the people who most deserve a proper invite. Let’s bring the cards back: I, for one, miss them.

Arts & Entertainment, Film and TV

Commericals that will make you think

by Lilian Jordy on

More in Arts & Entertainment:

Last Wednesday, Cinema du Parc showed a screening of Cannes Lions, a part of the prestigious annual film festival in Cannes, which honours the world’s most creative and effective ads. The competition’s 57th anniversary presented eight awards to Canadian agencies, two of them from Quebec.

This two-hour experience—screening a little under 100 clips—was thought-provoking to say the least. Accustomed to the monotony of generic TV commercials, people outside the industry usually regard advertisements as purely functional, not artistic. But watching ads like ‘’Arctic Sun” for Tropicana orange juice triggers an uplifting emotional response: in the Canadian Arctic, an artificial sun rises in the dark morning sky over a bewildered crowd, followed by the “brighter mornings make for brighter days” slogan. Effects such as slow motion filming combined with sentimental piano music worked to create a vibrant atmosphere that resonated with the audience.

The most powerful clips, however, were far from pleasant in content. These often tackled difficult subject matter, like the Canadian Cancer Society’s three-minute montage of touching monologues from cancer survivors. The ads touched up politics several times, the most memorable being an Italian Rolling Stone clip denouncing their government’s sleazy sex and drugs scandals. The video’s narrative voice calls for rock ‘n’ roll behaviour to return to the hands of musicians, ordering us to “reclaim our alcoholic coma and the stench of passion.” Words like these are shocking and memorable in this context because we are never explicitly told by the media to pursue such actions. Combined with the beautifully crafted camerawork, viewers couldn’t help but be hypnotized. This clip proves that political views and thoughts can be more inspiring when reshaped by a creative frame of mind.

Similar to the Rolling Stone ad, environmental and health issues were raised in original ways, especially the winning entries by thefuntheory.com, an initiative of Volkswagen. The very successful ‘’Piano Stairs” clip had over 18 million hits on YouTube before the festival; the video shows how remodelling public stairways into piano keys that play notes when stepped on can actually deter people from using the escalator. Other ingenious experiments advertise the concept of “Fun Theory,” which posits the best way to get people to do things is to make them fun, as a way to reach out and change our behaviours for the better; doing so creatively provides dull messages like “be healthy and exercise” with enjoyment value.

Whether a viewer seeks thought-provoking messages or purely audiovisual enjoyment, the Cannes Lions Festival offers a wide variety for everyone. It offers creative interpretations of the world we live in today, and is food for the contemporary mind.

The Cannes Lions Festival is now playing at Cinema du Parc

Arts & Entertainment, Theatre

Don’t cheat on the queen

by Brahna Siegelberg on

More in Arts & Entertainment:

Sophie Silkes

 As a broke college student, attending an opera can be jarring and strange: spectators are dressed to the nines, songs are sung in languages most of us don’t understand, actors are wearing over-the-top costumes, and melodramatic stories are being unfurled before us. But if you suspend your cynicism, if only for a couple hours, then what you will discover is an unabashed world of aesthetic delight that thankfully didn’t get left behind in the Romantic period.

And that’s just what happened on Saturday night, when the Opéra de Montreal opened its latest play, Gaetano Donizetti’s Roberto Devereux. A whirlwind of colour and orchestral sound, the play began with an overture that included “God save the Queen,” signalling its main subject: Queen Elizabeth I.

An opera in three acts, Roberto Devereux tells the story of a love quadrangle involving the Queen, her favourite, Roberto Devereux Earl of Essex, his lover, the Duchess Sarah, and her husband, the Duke of Nottingham. Written in 1837 as part of a series of Tudor dramas, the opera covers one period in the life of Elizabeth I—arguably one of the most studied monarchs in European history. Although Elizabeth isn’t the opera’s title character, it’s her jealousy, rage, and ultimate revenge that drive the play’s action and lyrical focus.

Like most operas, Devereux is not a history in song, but a highly romanticized and dramatized take on a quasi-historical moment. Robert and Sarah are lovers, but when Robert goes to fight in Ireland—where, historically, he staged a coup against the crown and failed to quell the Irish “rebels”—the Queen forces Sarah to marry Nottingham. When Robert returns, Elizabeth is willing to forget his treachery if he admits that he loves her, an exchange that is explored through a dramatic recitative in which Elizabeth belts “Are you in love?” and he answers with a solemn “No.”

To add fuel to the flame, Elizabeth gives Robert one more chance to save himself from the gallows—where he’s been sent for treason to the Queen on two accounts—by naming his secret lover, which he gallantly refuses to do. Meanwhile, Nottingham, looking to exact revenge on Robert on behalf of his wife, declares in a rich, powerful baritone, “Blood I wanted, and blood I got!” Although Elizabeth is outraged by Robert’s infidelity and treason, the play ends with her inner torture at the thought of her dead lover. Her powerful final aria, “Vivi Ingrato” (“Ingrateful Life”) exposes at once her anger and deep remorse.

It’s interesting to note the importance Donizetti attributed to the character of Robert, as he’s neither the title character of the story on which the opera was based—Francois Ancelot’s Elisabeth d’Angleterre—nor even the central figure in the opera itself. Yet Russian tenor Alexey Dolgov justifies his status as the title character, as it was his soaring tenor that carried the play. Although Robert has technically done what any woman—even one without the power to declare a death sentence—would call sleazy, he manages to maintain the sympathy of the audience with his exquisite vocals and powerful stage presence.

A rarely staged opera, Devereux is still considered a masterpiece of the bel canto style—one that features the prima donna soprano and the virtuoso tenor, as opposed to the extinct castrato. Greek soprano Dimitra Theodossiou, who plays Elizabeth, captures the stage presence and dramatic flair characteristic of the domineering Queen. However, often singing shrilly and unpleasantly, she proves that she’s no diva. American mezzo-soprano Elizabeth Batton, who plays Sarah, can’t sing like a prima donna either, but the scenes between her and Robert are stirring and poignant.

If you’re not for the singing, go to the opera for the vibrant costumes and the elaborate set designs. In one scene between Sarah and Robert, Elizabeth suddenly looms over the lovers like a judge at his lectern. Although her presence is meant to be metaphorical, it was a brilliant move on the part of the director, evoking not only Elizabeth’s power over the relationship but her status as a stand-in for England itself.

Roberto Devereux has all the components of a great opera—love, lust, and betrayal—and serves as a reminder of a powerful and compelling art form that is rarely appreciated by today’s youth.  

Roberto Devereux is playing at Salle Wilfrid-Pelletier, Place des Arts on Nov. 17, 20, 22, and 25. For more information call 514-842-2112 or go to operademontreal.com

Opinion

Why deliberation is necessary

by Alexander Hamilton on

More in Opinion:

Saskia Nowicki

 Closing the fall season at Players’ Theatre, the cast and crew of Twelve Angry Men take on the daunting task of performing an American classic on the McGill stage. Based on the 1954 teleplay by Reginald Rose, Twelve Angry Men has been adapted twice for film, performed on Broadway, and the original motion picture was inducted into the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress. Director Natalie Gershstein’s production aspires to a realistic portrayal of this timeless account of 12 jurors deciding the guilt or innocence of a young man charged with murdering his father.

Set in a crowded and, at times, claustrophobic jury room, the play recounts a single juror’s stubborn refusal to succumb to the pressures of his peers in the decision over the murder trial. The action of the play revolves around the protagonist’s attempts to convince his fellow jurors to review the evidence presented, and revise their quick judgment of the case. His attempts to alter the group’s verdict are presented with both subtlety and complexity, focusing on the shifting dynamic of the group and the varied interactions between the 12 characters.

Twelve Angry Men is an important artistic depiction of the American judicial system that manages to resonate as well with audiences today as it did 50 years ago. The characterization of the many prejudices inherent in American society can be viewed historically as a commentary on McCarthyism, fascism, communism, or as a timeless indictment against all forms of bigotry. The piece’s message is perennial and it remains relevant in the face of social change thanks to its astute depiction of humanity.

The protagonist, Juror Number Eight (Rowan Spencer), distinguishes himself from the group with his deliberate aloofness and introspection. Although Spencer’s performance controls the stage, his talent lies in his ability to disconnect from the action and to lead the jury with reason. The group’s interactions are dominated by the bigotry of Jurors Number Three (Matthew Banks), Number Six (Alex Rivers), and Number Ten (Matthew Steen), whose aggressive views and unwillingness to engage in rational discourse eventually alienate them from the rest of the jury. However, the play’s true antagonist appears to be a stockbroker, Juror Number Four (Andrew Cameron), who coolly matches Spencer’s character point for point with reasonable dissent. As the play progresses. the more rational characters—Juror Number Nine (Gerard Westland), Juror Number Eleven (Martin Law), and Juror Number Five (James Kelly)—quickly line up on the side of the protagonist, while the rest of the cast—the Foreman (Leo Imbert), Juror Number Two (Richard Carozza), Juror Number Six (Max Lanocha) and Juror Number Twelve (Max Lloyd-Jones)—take longer to be convinced.

The comprehensiveness of the cast’s performance is remarkable, in particular its ability to represent a wide range of mannerisms and stereotypes. Gerard Westland is convincing in the difficult role of an old man, thanks in part to some great makeup. Also notable is the dynamism between several of the actors. The interaction between Juror Number Twelve, an ad man lacking in convictions, and Juror Number Eleven, a German immigrant with an outsider’s perspective on the situation, is especially enjoyable to watch, as is the strange alliance that forms between Jurors Number Three and Number Four.

The play’s staging adheres to Gershstein’s realist aims. The painted faux wood floor frames the action nicely, and frequent use of props, like two switchblade knives and an overhead projector, enhance the production. Lighting is used to focus the audience’s attention on the action when it shifts to the washroom, and when seated around the table the characters stagger their chairs and situate themselves so as to avoid blocking anyone.

Even with 12 actors in such an enclosed space, the play’s action manages to shift smoothly. While certain characters are speaking, others will mime dialogue, or position themselves to the sides of the stage. The careful realism of Twelve Angry Men is broken only a few times, in particular during one indelible scene where the characters turn their backs on Juror Number 10’s dogmatic monologue. The moment is blatantly theatrical, but the performance retains an overall realistic quality throughout.

Gershstein’s production of Twelve Angry Men is a thorough and methodical performance of the play that succeeds in capturing the impetus of Rose’s original script. Although this version doesn’t attempt any radical modifications, its critique of prejudice, reason, and persuasion in the judicial system remains relatable and necessary.

Twelve Angry Men plays from November 17-20. Tickets are $6. For more information visit ssmu.mcgill.ca/players/

1 … 1,264 1,265 1,266 1,267 1,268 … 1,367

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue