Langham Court Theatre board shake-up

 

 

My aim here was to present information and details that I had not seen presented that I believe are relevant to this discussion.

 

Many of your comments come across as disingenuous.

Few if any here have a full awareness of all the details of this situation. However it was at the time and is still currently an emotional and charged subject. both for the LCT community and many others.

 

My aim here was to present information and details that I had not seen presented that I believe are relevant to this discussion. There have been a variety of views expressed in a positive manner.

 

Thank you!

 

Thank you for raising the issues and thereby presenting an opportunity to discuss them.

What are the odds we’d have two people with relatively intimate knowledge of what went down.

That’s quite the thing.

Many of your comments come across as disingenuous.

Myself I wouldn’t go I find small theatres kind of lame.

The central character's 20-year-old daughter and her two friends represent the youth of Québec's Quiet Revolution.  In the rare occasions when a person of colour has been cast, Lise Paquette is usually the role they play, as was the case in the Langham Court production.  

 

Having a woman of colour as the daughter’s friend graphically and symbolically illustrated the differences between the generations and 1960s youths’ rejection of their parents’ anachronistic values.  Had the complainant accepted the offer to read, she would have been considered for either the role of Lise Paquette or that of Ginette Ménard, the daughter's other friend.  Being a competent actor, the complainant had every likelihood of being cast as Ginette Ménard, a role that eventually went unfilled.

 

Ms. Treloar recognized the young Asian woman who played Lise Paquette as an exceptional talent.  (She went on to study at the National Theatre School.)  When she had difficulty casting the role of Ginette Ménard, she decided to eliminate the role and merge it with the role of Lise Paquette to give that talented actor a larger part. 

Statement by LCT:

“In 2017, Ms. McKenna was discouraged from auditioning for the production of Les Belles Soeurs because of being Black. The Theatre regrets and apologises that Ms. McKenna was not welcomed to participate in the audition process for one of its productions due to race.“

https://www.langhamt...e.ca/statement/

Statement by LCT:

“In 2017, Ms. McKenna was discouraged from auditioning for the production of Les Belles Soeurs because of being Black. The Theatre regrets and apologises that Ms. McKenna was not welcomed to participate in the audition process for one of its productions due to race.“

https://www.langhamt...e.ca/statement/

 

Judy Treloar would have liked to argue that point before the Human Rights Tribunal, but the settlement between Langham Court and Dr. McKenna deprived her of the opportunity.  This statement was dictated by the terms of the settlement.  Ms. Treloar was not a part of the settlement and did not accept any of its terms.

The actions of ms treloar were clearly discriminatory based on any interpretation of the legislation. The only question is whether it was justified based on a bona fide occupational requirement. This is the only question that matters under BCs human rights regime.

You can see why a production of To Kill A Mockingbird might have bona fide requirements for actors of a certain race because it is so integral to the storyline and the intended message of the work. None of the explanations provided so far in thread come close to meeting this criteria and certainly the director’s desire for historical accuracy does not.

In any event, Langham effectively “settled out of court” so we never had a clear ruling.

The actions of ms treloar were clearly discriminatory based on any interpretation of the legislation. The only question is whether it was justified based on a bona fide occupational requirement. This is the only question that matters under BCs human rights regime.

You can see why a production of To Kill A Mockingbird might have bona fide requirements for actors of a certain race because it is so integral to the storyline and the intended message of the work. None of the explanations provided so far in thread 

 

The play is about a very specific underclass of white women, the "deplorables" of their day.  The playwright's purpose was to tell their story.  They are the story.  They are white.

 

It is a director's prerogative to cast a play however it suits their vision.  An actor's race cannot be ignored; it comes with its own culture and identity.  Sometimes that makes no difference and it can, and should, be ignored, but not in these parts in this play.  

 

Casting a Black woman as one of the neighbours or sisters would not only undermine the playwright's vision, it would negate the true story of Montréal's Black culture.  Michel Tremblay is on record as saying that at the time it would have been "un petit peu absurde" to put a Black woman in his play.  And he never has.

 

It may be worthy of note that in its 50 years of productions, Montréal’s Black Theatre Workshop has never staged this most famous Québec play; presumably because Les Belles-sœurs does not satisfy its artistic goal of selecting plays for their relevance to Black society and culture. 

The actions of ms treloar were clearly discriminatory based on any interpretation of the legislation

I’m afraid you don’t understand the legislation. 
It’s focus and intent is aimed at preventing discrimination when renting an apartment, getting a bank loan, getting a job, getting a promotion, etc.

 

It’s not remotely related to getting a part in a stage play. 
 

By example, because it’s a piece of art, the race card can’t be pulled on the Mona Lisa … demanding it be removed from public view because she isn’t a black woman. Such foolishness would rightly be seen as utterly ridiculous. 

This legislation doesn’t now, and never has, applied to works of art. 

For those of us who knew Judy, she was forthright and completely honest, with the utmost integrity and respect for the stage and those who trod it. 
 

Directors who poses such traits, and who turn down hundreds ( if not thousands) of actors for roles in shows, can be exposed to vilification as “payback” for perceived past sleights. (Judy had directed shows around Victoria for many decades)
 

The accusations against Judy were completely false, she wasn’t given an opportunity to address them at any point in the process, and a Board coup was undertaken using the already long over incident as its rallying cry. 
 

For those who continue to attack Judy with outright lies and innuendo, and for those who currently seek to burn Langham Court down - Karma!

I’ll just put this here: http://www.bchrt.bc....9_BCHRT_236.pdf

I’ll just put this here: http://www.bchrt.bc....9_BCHRT_236.pdf

 

OK, so that is a refusal of the request to dismiss.  It never had a hearing though.

 

 

The author of the above document says:

 

 

 

While I do not refer to it all in my decision, I have considered all of the information filed  by the parties in relation to this application to dismiss. This is not a complete recitation of the  parties’ submissions, but only those necessary to come to my decision. I make no findings of fact. 

 

 

 

 

And it still never had a hearing because the parties settled after a mandatory arbitration session.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 16 January 2022 - 07:42 PM.

The actions of ms treloar were clearly discriminatory based on any interpretation of the legislation. The only question is whether it was justified based on a bona fide occupational requirement. This is the only question that matters under BCs human rights regime.

You can see why a production of To Kill A Mockingbird might have bona fide requirements for actors of a certain race because it is so integral to the storyline and the intended message of the work. None of the explanations provided so far in thread come close to meeting this criteria and certainly the director’s desire for historical accuracy does not.

 

PS - it's not so much about historical accuracy, which does matter, as it is about cultural integrity.

I don’t think it matters to the human rights tribunal

And we will never know. Since the case was never heard.

I don’t think it matters to the human rights tribunal

It would appear that you don’t really understand what actually occurred. 

Edited by Spy Black, 16 January 2022 - 11:39 PM.

And for those following who may be out of step with the debate, Ms. Treloar passed away late last year.

I don’t think it matters to the human rights tribunal

 

I don't think the human rights tribunal is in the business of rewriting plays.  My guess is that they came to that realization, perhaps aided by Marni Soupcoff's opinion, and sent the complaint to mediation.

 

https://nationalpost...ctors-for-parts