Yeah, I am so sick of all those plays about Quebec separatism... What are you talking about?! Is what you mean to say that you, like many Western Anglos, find this particular political issue tedious and you actually have no interest in it ever being dealt with theatrically? Because there are a lot of social and political and other issues explored regularly on stage that, frankly, bore me to distraction, but I would hope never to be so arrogant as to make the kind of dismissive declaration you make in the last two sentences of your review.

Neil Simon meets Rick Mercer. I don't care.

Thomas feels he’s heard it all before. What has he heard before? I am intrigued by people who think they have heard it all before. The negotiations that Thomas talk about don’t happen. The politicians here don’t discuss the issues...they break for lunch. Has he heard before that the American president, Frank Gifford has his army blocking Westmount, or that Disney has made an offer on P.E.I. (and for the life of me, I have zero concept of what Thomas is talking about when he brings up P.E.I. as the toddler of the Anglo politician... I mean nobody said it nor is it implied – but hey if that is what you heard ???). I find offensive Thomas’s implication that the characterization of the Quebec female politician is degrading to woman and Quebec. You have to be held accountable for that. First and foremost Sea Theatre’s artistic team (and backbone of the organization) are comprised of very strong independent women who don’t play that shit. They would not be involved with nor support a production that does. In this satire we are allowed to laugh at the characters sexual energies and manipulations because it lends itself to this kind of farce. What’s good for the boys is good for the girls and vica versa...or haven’t ya heard. Finally, to compare Plan B to Gilles Duceppe recent sovereignty tour is about as academic as Mr. Thomas review. We don’t want Quebec to separate, the basis of this play is to show that all the academic political power plays from both sides have lead us all to a place where we have to start again, from scratch, and ask the right questions, some fundamentally human and important ones in order to wipe out the years of infighting and hate that derides both sides. If B.C. left Canada – I guess I might shed a tear to see Thomas leave (and Webb who has decided to chime in with his what –what) but as an artist I am on my knees with fear to see what Canada would be like without the likes of Michel Tremblay et al. I am one Anglo willing to go the distance and whatever it takes. P.S. the play is also very funny (what-what).

It's too bad Colin Thomas took the low road of critical analysis, littering his review with lazy assumptions (the PEI toddler thing, the "this is about issues" take) but like our seasoned old critic, I too have seen it all before - with his pan. Colin just could not find an emotional connection with the play, that's all. Nothing pushed that fickle button called The Thomas Veklempt. Luck of the draw. Not at all representative of what I heard expressed by audience in the foyer though. Sorry, Col, you must have had a rough day! As for Simon Webb, my God! That an artist of his experience could dismiss so much hard work with such trite flippancy is...well, illuminating. I was sitting three seats away from you, me old hero. You seemed as merry as could be! Neil Simon?? Oh yes, you're right, Neil Simon does have a lot of couches in his plays, doesn't he?

I loved the search for identity in this play - essential Canadian navel-gazing - but it never takes itself tooooo seriously, just seriously enough to make you think about a few of our kooky national qualities. But there the tree was full of yummy fruit! Adam Henderson trying to make sense through the morasse of his Ritulin withdrawl was nearly worth the price of admission alone. Howard Siegel's characher arc was also amazing and unpredictable. France Perras made another big step in her conquest of Vancouver. Jacques Lalonde (The Crazy Frenchman) played it straight. None of this have I ever seen before. Play of the year for me.

Thanks Ian. Were having a blast on this play.

I was quite surprised at some of the stuff Colin was saying. I think maybe he should take a break from reviews and write a really great play since he is clearly so much smarter than other playwrights.

I do have to take issue with some of his strange thoughts about our play. There is a sexy, funny love story between a man and a woman but that in no ways implies that Quebec is merely feminine in nature. Rocket Richard is very emblematic of Quebec and last time I checked he was pretty masculine. Oh yeah...and there's the other Quebecois character in the play...the one driven by reason...I guess Colin forgot about him...wondered maybe if he represented Nunavut, maybe?...And as for nothing new in this play, I have been working on it for over a month now and still am enlightened by its words and ideas.(And I grew up in Montreal during the first Referendum)

I guess Colin is just that much smarter than me (and, apparently this award winning playwright and the people who gave him the award for best production). I am really looking forward to Colin's next play because its going to be so smart with lots of new ideas. I just hope it is as funny as this one.

Thanks for the responses. I appreciate it when people use the on-line forum—especially when they sign their names.

Perhaps my reaction will feel less dismissive if I give it a more personal context. Through the two referenda, I was sympathetic to Québec’s aspirations to sovereignty. But when Jacques Parizeau blamed the defeat of the second referendum on the so-called ethnic vote, he exposed the racism that lurks beneath the surface of the separatist movement. The separatist argument that French Canadians are uniquely oppressed became much less persuasive to me and more clearly self-serving. The pose of victimization that has been such a goldmine for separatists lost its hold on me.

Justifiably, playwright Michael Healey sends up that oppressed posture. And he sends up English Canadian dithering as well. I didn’t mean to imply that Healey or Sea Theatre was pursuing a secessionist agenda.

I think it’s unlikely that Québec is going to separate—in a recent poll, 58% of Quebeckers said they would vote against such a move. And the constant threat of departure has become tedious—at least to me. If Québec does leave, I will be very sorry, but I won’t mourn the loss of Michele Tremblay’s plays. They won’t disappear. They’ll still be part of world literature and I’ll still enjoy them.

For me, Plan B adds no significant insight to the debate, although I’m glad it does for you, Jacques. I respect your position: as an actor in the show, you’re much closer to the script than I am. And Jacques, I take your point that the separatist side is embodied by a man (your character) as well as a woman in this script. Still, the female Québec character is more central, and the supposed irrationality of the separatist position is presented in female form. (Yes, all of the characters are eccentric; I'm talking about the whimsical way this character changes her mind.) As I see it, this formulation is sexist.

As I said, there’s successful humour in this play. It won a major award in Ontario, which I acknowledged. And I respect the artists involved: the actors are particularly strong. But this is clearly a play about issues; it’s a political satire. And, for me, those issues started to go stale a long time ago.

Colin Thomas

Yes of course we must all fight against racism, every second of every day if need be. The play does not support Parizeau or that kind of logic (who resigned under pressure the next day because of his remarks). You are correct in assuming that I did not choose the play because, under the guise of it all, Healey is writing a separatist agenda sympathizing with the Quebec sovereigntists. It is a political satire, it certainly mirrors the Quebec/English relationship. Also personal relationships. In fact any two groups or individuals in a tug of war from a political or personal perspective The satire arrives from that mixture of recognition with the element of surprise. Yes it is about issues, but human issues concerning the dominating/surrendering motifs of will and desire which are concurrent with the political thinking.

Michel Tremblay. You have rightfully put him on the world stage, he exists with the crí¨me of the crop. I can live with that as much as I can live with Cocteau and Genet from France. Brecht and Wedekind from Germany. Shakespeare and Hare, England. Chekov and Gogol etc. and so on.

My experience is this. When I was 18 or 19 I saw a Tremblay here at the Arts Club on Seymour Street. I had not yet seen Theatre so powerful. Very shortly afterward ward I left for Toronto on the journey to find work. There I saw Tremblay productions of Bonjour la Bonjour, Montreal smoked meat and Hosanna with Richard Monet to name a few. My life has been trying to come to grips with the life of the Theatre since. Quite simply - that sealed the deal. I left for Drama Centre and after my education I was asked to stay in England. Both the Royal Manchester Exchange and the Glasgow Citizens offered me acting positions. I didn't want to stay because I wanted to be back in Canada with the writers like Michel Tremblay and that whole crew. Of course I was naive. But that was the dream. If Tremblay were in some Country called Quebec somewhere down south or something - well yeah, I would respect his writing (like all the greats) but the inspiration of what that writer did for me as a young artistic,with my personal growth, and - yes lets go whole hog, on a spiritual level - I simply don't have with those other writers of genius. It is that inexplicable need of artist and country and the peerage therein. I would beg my sisters and brothers to stay because I believe they would share with the next generation of young artists (and the many to come) this source of genius.

Irrationality, well I still don't get it, I mean I really don't see any of these characters as being rational. In fact most of the body of the Marx Brothers movies are more rational than Healey’s politicians. So the fact that you see one as irrational/whimsical and the other three as stable confuses me still.

Very long winded this...but an important note - in the many years of reviews (good and bad) I have not written a critic about their opinion because I know you have a job to do. We wouldn't invite you if we didn't want you to be there. However, because the internet now allows a response I just followed that impulse and did what I don't normally do. Respond. I just felt you totally dismissed the evening’s work, with comparisons completely manipulative to justify your points. As a result some very good acting work (in a production that many find extremely satisfactory) got thrown to the wolves. Yes there were a couple of quick asides mentioning the actors- but apparently that does not seem as important to you as some cryptic angst you have with the racist Parizeau. And all these thoughts of "dead issues" and "over" and "we have heard it all before" are to me, dismissive of our French Canadian sisters and brothers. And please, stop using we when talking your angst, revert to I. With respect, you do not speak for me from an Anglo perspective or someone from the West Coast. Please don’t group me into that dislike.

Sincerely
Bill

The character I play talks incessantly, I might as well chime in too. Thank you Colin, I love you for engaging in this conversation. I love Plan B from the inside. I never say anything with out restating it three ways, but then overstatement is so Canadian, eh? And clearly there is more to say: witness this lively BLOG. For me the purpose of theatre is to start conversations that can’t be handled by parents, politicians and priests. The reviewer’s personal, and emotional response to the content, and the intensity of the reaction from audience (thanks Ian Morton), director and cast, prove this play can generate political discussion. So, success: buttons have been pushed and the talks continue. I love Canada; 400 years later and we’re still talking it through.