Geeves, take me to the theatre

Friday night, I attended In the Chamber, a theatre production at the Rachel Browne Theatre. The event was put on by Theatre Projects Manitoba.

The show essentially consisted of two monologues that were roughly an hour each. The two monologues complimented each other well; it's annoying when the opening act is better than the headliner, or vice versa. The underlying theme for the evening (if there was one), was that both characters had “gone off the deep end” because of their careers.

Both plays had a very political undertone. The first play dealt with issues related to the hog industry in Manitoba, and the second one was related to the inquiry into twelve deaths at the Winnipeg Health Sciences Centre in 1994, (and the report written by Associate Chief Judge Murray Sinclair regarding the deaths of 12 babies). Although the arguments presented in both plays were not tied together, in both cases, the arguments were presented from the perspectives of individuals that were extremely involved in their respective industries, and both characters were involved in some very traumatic events.

In the first play, an account manager for a firm that provides consulting services to the hog industry completely snaps. He becomes horrified by the cruel farming practices being used in the Manitoba (Canadian) hog farming industry, and bears witness to the aftermath of a hog farm fire in Alberta that killed thousands of hogs.

There were some pretty funny parts throughout the play, which essentially consisted of a video taped rant intended for Warren Buffett. My favorite part was when he snacked on some “small town Chinese food” during his rant; which typically has a lot of “shifty pork” in it. Some subtle irony never hurts.

The main argument was made pretty bluntly; hog farming practices in Manitoba are unethical and hogs suffer their entire lives. A few moths ago I watched a documentary “expose” (I don't know how to do the accent on the “e”), where a journalist went undercover to expose the farming practices at a specific hog farm in South Carolina. I couldn't actually get through the entire documentary, it was a little too disturbing.

After seeing the documentary, I took a break from eating pork for a while, but eventually my love of bacon got the better of me. I do, however, try to eat cruelty free ham whenever possible. Cruelty free basically means that hog farms must provide above-par living conditions for the hogs, specifically, “they must have farrowing systems, which are areas which have bedding and are big enough to allow sows to turn around, with large space allowances.” The meat is more expensive, but it's not watered down like ham at most popular supermarkets (but that likely has more to do with the vendor than the product). It tastes the same as non-cruelty free ham though. (Is it just me, or is the term cruelty free, when related to farming, a bit of an oxymoron? I mean, the pigs die right...)

This is a really sensitive subject, and I don't want to sound like I'm preaching. I'm the last person that should be judging people about their eating habits. I eat cruelty free meat wherever possible because it tastes good, and I guess, in a way, it's helping me dilute the guilt. A lot of people seem to be “going organic”, and choosing alternative eating practices. I've heard good arguments that support eating organic, and good arguments that oppose eating organic. I think I'll likely address those arguments in a blog, at some point....

Anyway, back to the first play... I'm going to say the play is good, because it's provocative. The politics of farming affects everyone, because everyone has to eat.

The character in the second play worked for the Health Sciences Centre, in the pediatric surgery unit, during the events of 1994 (I'm not 100% sure on the details about what his specific job was). He goes off the deep end because of the events that took place, and he can not come to terms with the recommendations put forth by Judge Sinclair, or the suffering that one mother (whose baby died) had to endure.

A few times throughout the play, the character would recount very specific and complicated details (hospital policies, surgical procedures etc...), making it difficult to follow. I can understand why someone, who didn't go into the play ready to use all of their brain's echtoplasm, might get bored with it. Fortunately, I was a little familiar with the main issue, and because I know a number of people who work in the health care industry, I was able to enjoy the subject matter. I'll admit that I didn't follow every point the character tried to make, but maybe that wasn't the point. Maybe the point of including all of those esoteric details was simply to show, metaphorically, that the procedures that took place were too complicated for an proper inquest to have taken place.

As I mentioned, the character in the play opposes the conclusions that were made by Justice Sinclair, and is deeply troubled by the experiences the mother had to endure. He completely loses faith in the health care system, so much so, that he quits his job and vows never to set foot in a hospital again. He is so bound by his hatred for the system, that he opts not to have a suspicious growth on his neck checked out.

His break down leads to the downfall of his relationship with his wife, and he comes to terms with the fact that he'll never go back to a hospital again, and will probably die from the cancer he is convinced he has.

I'm glad I saw this play. It presented an argument about a subject that I knew a little about, but was able to explore much deeper, and hear an argument from a unique perspective. And the character in the play had gone just crazy enough to make it comical.

Similar to the first play, the subject matter was heavy. Like farming, health care is something that affects everyone. And everyone knows somebody who has been affected by it.

If you happen to know some people that work in the system, you've probably heard your fair share of horror stories. It's really too bad that we don't hear enough about the success stories though. The public is exposed far more to the shitty things that happen in hospitals, which causes them to focus on those events, taking their focus away from the amazing work that health care practitioners do.

I'm not sure that I'd recommend the show, because it's art, and is sooooo subjective. But I'm very glad I went.