Show 22: The Watershed
The two best pieces of advice I was given throughout my theatre education were a.) if you want to be a theatre artist then you MUST watch as many pieces of theatre as you can, and b.) go see a show at the Tarragon Theatre; since May I have been working on the former, and this evening I achieved the latter. This evening I had the absolute pleasure of seeing The Watershed by Annabel Soutar and Crow’s Theatre to start off the Tarragon season. What really made this piece special for me was how entrenched it was within the Canadian political scene, as well as questions our values as Canadians and as citizens.
“THE END OF DIALOGUE IS WAR” — ANNABEL SOUTAR
I want to start this off by saying that this play is so wonderfully Canadian — in its references, in the places that it brings its audience, to the style of speech used. Because of this, what makes this play uniquely special is how at its base, this play brings to the forefront an issue that is vital to Canadian life. To me this play is more than a play about the environment; to me this play forces us to examine the economic root of our value-system, which is what I would argue as the main functionality our nation believes in. Soutar brilliantly embeds this argument within the environmental issue in order to outline the varying arguments within it across different generations of Canadians. And in doing so, she is able to deconstruct the partisan nature in which we discuss such issues. This play elicits dialogue, it elicits conversation, but more importantly, by taking away the partisan nature of this issue, it inspires a holistic understanding.
“WE’RE RECORDING WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE” — ALEX
“TO WHAT END? I’VE JUST BEEN TOLD THAT “THIS PLAY” MIGHT NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY. SO — TO WHAT FUCKING END?” — ANNABEL.
Although I am of the opinion that this play was both at times too long AND too short, I believe that the style in which the play was presented was quite inspiring. To explain my first statement, the play, which ran for two hours and thirty-five minutes (with a twenty minute intermission) at times felt like it tried to pack every bit of research conducted within the piece. That being said, after speaking to a friend of mine who had a more expansive knowledge of both the script and its process, I recently learned that in its initial onset, it was intended to be a three act play, which to me would make sense. In this way, I believe that the play would have either benefited from a thorough trimming to get the point across, or should it choose to be a long, detail-oriented, piece, it should commit to a three-act to really highlight the specificities of the issue. Again, that being said, I believe that the documentary-style of the piece really highlighted a lot of the struggles and frustrations that I, myself, am experiencing as an aspiring playwright. It is very difficult to tell a story as holistically as possible, especially when it comes to a topic that has a multiplicity of opinions, none of which are necessarily completely wrong. Thus, I thought that in terms of presenting research in its purest form, the documentary/autobiographical style of theatre was incredibly effective. In addition to this, its autobiographical nature melded the personal with the political. I felt very empathetic towards the character, Annabel, in her search for truth and perspective. As a young playwright, I was taught of the value of research and the value of telling risky stories. However, even in the onset of my research, there are so many times where I have been frustrated with the kind of story that I am wanting to tell, and in what form it would communicate best with a wide variety of people. Sometimes it definitely feels easier to give up; often times it is easy to lose sight of why you were writing about the topic in the first place. The Watershed is inspirational because it created within me a sense of community — it was inspiring to see fellow playwrights struggling with stories that they wish to tell, but persevere because they believed that it was still one worth telling. Though it seemed frustrating at times, Soutar did not shy away from both the risky topic, and the risky stylization of her piece. And thus, though there were parts that did not necessarily communicate with me, I applaud her for taking those risks and allowing theatre to do what it does best, which is, in her words, to incorporate and tolerate different points of view [with]in the same space”. I thank her for using theatre to elicit some sort of change, or at the very least, a discussion for it.
