In early November, on a bus in California, a 17 year-old boy allegedly set fire to the skirt of self-identified agendered teen, inflicting second and third-degree burns all over their body.
I’m outraged by this. I’m outraged by the fact that someone can be so compelled to hate and so compelled to hurt someone else over the insignificant act of choosing different clothing, or over something so personal as their gender or sexuality. I’m outraged that someone was hurt due to this compulsion.
And as much as I would love to speak simply about how much this outrages me, I’m discouraged at the prospect. Aside from the story, what else is there to talk about? Everyone that will be outraged is outraged. Simply stating that this upsets me seems to side with those who respect modern gender/sexuality definitions and human rights against those who don’t. And it seems impossible to change the minds of those who don’t.
How will standing on one side of the debate berating the ignorance of those on the other help solve the problem? Berating is not respecting the deeply ingrained beliefs that make someone feel this way; it addresses the symptoms, not the problem.
Regardless, if we have the chance to say anything, we must. Even if all we can think to do is berate; even if we feel one side of a debate is exhausted. We have to keep talking, keep debating matters that raise concerns as serious as this one. If a topic is important enough to arouse an opinion, it’s never worthless to join in a conversation about it.
We need to think and talk about the fact that, in the modern world, people’s lives are destroyed for something as personal as their sexuality. We can’t just leave it to the LGBTQ groups, or those affected by the issue directly to think about it.
In the past, I’ve considered myself lucky for not subscribing to a non-binary gender, for not being able to be tortured like that Californian teen. But I’m not lucky, and he and others aren’t unlucky. As much as I am unlucky to have brown hair because some like red better, or unlucky to have green eyes when some prefer brown, my gender subscription is neutral in the matter.
When people are attacked for wearing clothing of their choice, our society is out of luck. These aren’t problems of ignorant teenagers, or problems to be left to the LGBTQ community; these are problems that concern human rights.
So long as we’re human, we can’t ignore when this happens. We can’t shut this out, call ourselves lucky, and try to let these problems rest on someone else. If you’re given the chance to think about it, do so. Speak about it. Debate it. Vote on it. Not because you can, but because you have to.
The Clan women’s basketball team opened their 2013 non-conference season with a split weekend in California. After travelling south for their second road trip of the season, the ladies swapped wins with the Cal Poly Pomona Broncos, in two thrilling games.
In the first game of the doubleheader, the visitors fell by two points, despite an exciting second half comeback that showcased their ability as a team. The Clan started shaky, falling behind by 12 points before the half, shooting only 38 per cent from the floor. But in the second half they staged a period-long comeback, tying the game at 64 with just over two minutes to play.
The Broncos were able to shut them out over the final few minutes, taking the first match of the double header 66–64. Senior Rebecca Langmead earned her first double-double of the season, keeping the Clan in the game with 15 points and 17 rebounds on the night, while co-captain Erin Chambers led the Clan with 20 points. The loss gave the
Clan plenty of motivation for round two.
Less than 24-hours later, the two teams hit the floor for a rematch, both one game stronger, and more knowledgeable about the other. This time it was the Clan who were able to hold off their opponents, winning 73–64. Chambers again led the Clan offence, with 21 points in the game.
For the second straight night, SFU started slower than they would have liked, leading by only one point at the half. In the second period, however, the team came to play, holding the Broncos to 25 per cent shooting from the floor, and dominating the boards in the final 20 minutes. Sophomore Meg Wilson led the Clan in rebounds with ten, while senior Marie-Line Petit brought her experience to the Clan’s campaign finishing with 14 points, six assists, four rebounds and three steals on the night.
The Clan will continue their non-conference schedule at home on Nov. 22, hosting two games against the San Francisco State Gators as well asanother doubleheader against the Academy of Art Urban Nights next weekend. These non-conference games will help prepare the ladies for their Great Northwest Athletic Conference (GNAC) season which opens against their cross-border and GNAC championship rivals, Western Washington; the Clan will need all the preparation they can manage.
The Vikings visit the Clan on Dec. 7 for what will prove to be a telling game for the rest of the season. SFU and WWU were ranked third and fourth in the pre-season conference poll respectively, and the Clan will be looking to demonstrate their capabilities in their GNAC opener and set the tone for the remainder of the 2013-14 season.
If you want to make money filming, we want your application.
The job description is still in progress, so we can’t provide complete details at the moment, but the successful applicant will have the opportunity to help design the position. You will be the Multimedia Editor’s technical assistant while creating The Peak’s video content, so applicants must know how to operate a camera and microphone rig. As most of the work will happen on Fridays, we will expect you to be free for most of that day. The successful applicant will be paid $150 per week, every week that The Peak is published, and the position will last for the Spring semester, with the possibility of extensions.
After working a few years in a restaurant, I’ve become all too accustomed to the short fuses of dining customers. I’ve witnessed and played host to some astounding and unnecessary behaviour from displeased customers who unfairly claim they are being “mistreated” who scrutinize over the most minuscule problems or misunderstand how a restaurant is managed entirely.
Treating restaurant or any other servers like they’re second-class citizens has to change. As is, this treatment reflects our society as being pampered and unsympathetic.
A server’s job is incredibly difficult. The amount of multitasking and time-management it involves, including running back and forth between customers, taking care of payments, and ensuring customer satisfaction is both mentally and physically exhausting. When customers become angry for insignificant issues, this only adds to the stress that servers are already inundated with.
I am personally disappointed and disturbed by the unnecessary aggression, carelessness and self-centered nature that many restaurant-goers do not hesitate to display. Engulfed in their sense of what good customer service should be, agonizing over food not matching their specific tastes or agonizing over countless other meagre problems with a restaurant, they fail to recognize the weighted stress that servers are under — though they are apparently aware of their own position that allows them to power-trip over servers.
Customers angry over insignificant issues only adds to the stress servers are inundated with.
I once had a customer send back a plate of fish after he accused me of over-cooking it. Once, I distinctly remember a customer physically threaten a couple of my co-servers over a simple miscommunication. And, in an extreme case, I once had a young dissatisfied couple yell obscenities at me before fleeing the restaurant without paying. We had the police on them in no time.
If you have never worked in a restaurant and/or find these reactions justified, then let me enlighten you: servers are the people who serve your food. They typically do not prepare your food, but are the mediator between you and kitchen. We’ve all heard the phrase “don’t shoot the messenger.” Here, this could not apply more.
I am disgusted to recognize how this restaurant-culture behaviour reflects our society. We are, evidently, one that likes to complain for its own sake. We are so used to being pampered that, if even the smallest thing does not go exactly to our liking, we have no problem in vocalizing our distastes through unnecessary aggression. It’s time for us to lighten up, get over ourselves, and become a little more understanding.
The next time you go to a restaurant for a meal, treat your servers like people. Be extra friendly to them, in light of their job being possibly one of the most difficult customer-service jobs around. Think twice before you complain. If you have a problem with what you’ve been given, take your complaint to those actually deserving, such as the cooks or the restaurant manager. Please, maintain your dignity and don’t be ignorant. Show servers the respect they really deserve.
Maclean’s 2014 University Rankings were published Oct. 31 and, for the first time in six years, SFU is not the number one comprehensive university, beaten out by the University of Victoria (UVic) for the top spot.
SFU has been ranked the top comprehensive university in Canada a total of ten times since Maclean’s started publishing rankings 21 years ago, and was on a five-year streak in the top spot from 2008 to 2012.
Each year, Maclean’s publishes three sets of university rankings under three separate categories: medical doctoral, comprehensive, and primarily undergraduate. Universities in the comprehensive category show a significant amount of research activity and have a wide range of programs at the undergraduate and graduate level.
All three rankings are based on six main categories: students and classes, faculty, resources, student support, library, and reputation. Mount Allison University topped the primarily undergraduate category, and McGill University came in first among institutions under the medical doctoral category.
The Peak spoke to SFU VP Academic, Dr. Jon Driver, about the new rankings and how SFU administration reacts to rankings such as Maclean’s.
“Rankings are interesting, because they are fairly crude attempts to measure very complex institutions,” said Driver. “On the one hand we recognized that what goes on at SFU, both in terms of teaching and in terms of research, is a very complicated story and it really can’t capture them so easily in rankings.”
Driver pointed to a significant drop in SFU’s ranking under scholarships and bursaries as especially concerning.
He continued, “On the other hand, we always pay attention to rankings, because they do influence public opinion about the university, [and] they influence student choices about whether or not to come to a particular university.”
Driver described university rankings as a tool for university administration to focus in on areas of possible concern, and address potential problems. In comparison with last year’s rankings, SFU went up in three of the judged categories and down in three, while UVic had scores go up in two categories and down in four. “That’s a bit of a conundrum for us,” laughed Driver.
Driver explained that SFU administration will be looking into the math and the data supporting the rankings, and checking that all information that was submitted to Maclean’s was accurate. He pointed specifically to a significant drop in SFU’s ranking under scholarships and bursaries as especially concerning.
Last year SFU was ranked sixth among the 15 comprehensive universities for contributions to student scholarships and bursaries. This year, that ranking has slipped to 12th.
“This appears at first look to be a really strange change, a really significant change. That’s the area that causes me the biggest concern, and I am fairly sure that that change in our ranking is probably what’s driving the move from being first to second position,” said Driver.
He continued, “If this really is a significant change for SFU and it’s not caused by the methodology or something like that, and presuming that the data are correct, we will have to take a hard look at how much we are contributing to scholarships and bursaries.”
When it comes to UVic taking the top spot, Driver had nothing but encouraging things to say. “I think it’s wonderful that the two comprehensive universities from British Columbia are sitting at one and two,” he said. “I think it says a great deal about the quality of both of those universities, the quality of the faculty members, the quality of the students, and the attention that both universities pay to trying to create the best educational experience we can.”
In 2012, President Andrew Petter cautiously celebrated the university’s success in international rankings writing: “I’m reluctant to attach too much significance to university rankings given their selective criteria and varied methodologies. But it’s hard not to take some small satisfaction from the recent reports of two leading international ratings,” alluding to the Times Higher Education (THE) and QS rankings.
Last year, in the THE 100 Under 50, SFU placed 26th in the world, and third in Canada. In the QS Top 50 Under 50, SFU was ranking 30th in the world, and second in Canada.
Who would have dreamed film would die so easily?” – Roger Ebert
It’s 9:30 a.m. and I’m about to sit down with Rob Groeneboer, one of the Senior Lecturers at Simon Fraser University’s School for the Contemporary Arts. I’ve come to interview Rob about the school’s film program.
Students in the program write, direct, shoot, edit, act in and mix sound for their own motion pictures. They take courses on the history, theory and criticism of film, while learning the practical skills required to make their own movies. The program is among the most well-regarded in the country: just last year, 21 of the 60 films in the Canadian Student Film Festival in Montreal were made by SFU students.
Many SCA graduates go on to become important members of the film industry. “For such a small program, we do exceptionally well,” Rob remarks. It’s not difficult to see why: the program is notoriously selective. Only about 20 students are accepted to the program every year, from over 100 applicants across the world.
The campus itself is located in the Goldcorp Centre for the Arts, inside Vancouver’s historic Woodward’s Building. Film majors rub shoulders with dancers, visual artists and screenwriters, in the heart downtown Vancouver. The third floor — reserved for film students — is often decorated with art installations, film posters, and folded issues of Cinemateque. It’s hard to believe this is Simon Fraser University.
What interests me most about the film program — and the reason I’ve come to speak with Rob — is their dependence on analog equipment and celluloid film. Until recently, first year students in the program would shoot films on spring-wound Bolex cameras, which use 16 mm film and weigh about six pounds. They would then edit the analog footage on flatbed film editing machines called Steenbecks, which are large desks with metal discs and knobs on which students and filmmakers can physically cut their films together, tape, scissors and all.
Each Steenbeck features a small screen on which students can review footage from their film and tape different sections together. It’s a tiring but ultimately rewarding process. “It’s physically draining,” says Alysha Seriani, a second year student. “It’s not like throwing it into Final Cut Pro and pressing undo if you don’t like the way those shots look together. When you make a cut, you can’t put those back together . . . but you learn the value of a cut, and you learn the value of a shot.”
Though these analog processes have been the film school norm for decades, institutions worldwide are now beginning to move towards digital cameras and computerized post-production tools to teach students. The School for Contemporary Arts has been slow to follow suit. When I ask Rob whether SFU is the last school in Canada to use analog film to teach students, he laughs and adds, “I think possibly in North America, possibly the world.”
However, even the SCA is making the transition towards digital. Sixteen mm is the main film stock that SFU students use. As opposed to 35 mm, which is the standard format for analog motion pictures, 16 mm is “a very square little image,” Rob says. “It’s not a great latitude, it has definition that isn’t great, you have to fight for depth of field; there’s all kinds of limitations. With the new digital technology, none of those limitations exist.”
This year is the first in which new students will be editing digitally — all of the program’s Steenbeck machines have either been given away or put in storage.
An Industry Divided
Five years ago, SFU’s move from analog to digital might have shocked us — today, it feels inevitable. Filmmakers across the globe have traded their analog cameras for state of the art digital models, and some of the most popular films in recent years, such as Avatar, Gravity and The Hobbit, have been shot entirely on digital. The rise in digital filmmaking has been exponential; only one decade ago, three major motion pictures were filmed entirely in digital, whereas in 2013, the number is closer to 40.
Digital distribution has also become commonplace: in 2012, Screen Digest reported that over 91 per cent of theatres in the United Kingdom had made the switch from analog to digital projection. All of the major movie camera companies — Panavision, ARRI, and Aaton, to name a few — have quietly ceased production of film cameras, citing decreased revenues and a flooded market of used equipment. Fuji has officially stopped producing motion picture film, and Kodak isn’t far behind. It seems that the writing is on the wall for celluloid.
“We wouldn’t survive in the film industry if we weren’t designing a digital camera,” says Jean-Pierre Beauviala, the co-founder of Aaton. “Almost nobody is designing new film cameras. Why buy a new one when there are so many used cameras around the world?”
Still, many of Hollywood’s most revered filmmakers have refused to give up on analog. In an interview with the Director’s Guild of America, Christopher Nolan, the director of The Dark Knight and one of digital’s most outspoken critics, defended his continued use of film: “It’s cheaper to work on film, it’s far better looking, it’s the technology that’s been known and understood for a hundred years, and it’s extremely reliable.”
Quentin Tarantino, the man behind such po-mo flicks as Pulp Fiction and Inglourious Basterds, took his passion for analog even further by threatening to stop making movies altogether, should film ever stop being an option. “I’ll probably just be a writer,” he quipped in an Oscar roundtable. “All of this digital stuff, this is not what I signed up for.”
However, many directors have embraced the digitization of filmmaking. In Side by Side, a 2012 documentary about the digital vs. analog debate, Danny Boyle recalls shooting one of the first digitally shot films, the zombie flick 28 Days Later: “You could shoot illegally, surreptitiously without people knowing, and you could do unconventional things. The rhythm of film which had been passed on since it began, and crews had learned . . . you interrupted that. And I loved that feeling.”
Institutions worldwide are now beginning to move towards digital cameras and computerized post-production tools to teach students.
Six years later, Boyle’s film Slumdog Millionaire — shot almost entirely on digital cameras — would become the first of its kind to win an Oscar for Best Cinematography.
Others have similarly championed the retirement of celluloid: George Lucas, James Cameron, Guillermo del Toro and Steven Soderbergh have all been key supporters of the digital revolution. Before the advent of the HD digital cameras used in the big-scale productions of the day, digital was a popular choice for independent filmmakers on a low budget, such as Lena Dunham and Miranda July. Cheaper, lower-definition cameras are still popular with independent filmmakers.
Many students in the SCA’s later years have chosen to use digital cameras to make their films. “For the last probably five or six years, we’ve had students who have been able to make the choice [between analog and digital],” Rob remarks. “We had all the Super 16 gear here, and people were going out and renting cameras.”
Analog versus Digital
So, what’s the difference between the two? Unlike analog film, which has a certain permanence to it, digital filmmaking is constantly evolving, making this question a difficult one to answer. However, it would be a mistake to call them the same medium: though they bear many similarities, film and digital are separate formats, and thus create separate experiences for the viewer. For example, a magazine of analog film must be switched after filming 10 minutes of footage, whereas digital cameras in general have much more storage capacity.
This has a profound effect on the filmmaking process and the experience of the cast and crew: with fewer breaks between shots, actors are required to spend more time on their feet and directors are able to assess their performances immediately via a small pixelated screen. Digital filmmaking also affects the way that films are staged: with lighter and more versatile equipment, as well as the boon of computer generated imagery, filmmakers are able to shoot scenes and depict images that would never have been possible with analog cameras.
From a financial standpoint, film cameras are relatively inexpensive. “They’re somewhere between cheap and boat anchors,” Rob says. Many can be bought for relatively little, while high-definition digital cameras are expensive and run the risk of obsoletion. Digital filmmaking also requires updated post-production technology, such as editing software, memory cards and computer applications. However, developing film stock may become more costly in the future, as labs continue to disappear around the world.
The image itself is another point of contention: some prefer the grainier, more tangible look of analog film, while others consider the crispness of digital cinema to be superior. Ultimately, the resolution of most modern digital films is about the same as celluloid — depending on the quality of the camera. Analog film produces fuller skin tones and better dynamic range, while digital images are more precise, and tend to perform better in low light situations. Some prefer the cleanliness and precision of digital imagery, while others hold true to the authenticity and subtleties of analog film.
Founded by Jim Jannard in 2005, The Red Digital Cinema Camera Company has quickly become one of the giants of digital filmmaking. Red Epic, the company’s latest digital camera, is a model that SFU will begin using within the next few years. “There’s no question this is the future,” Jannard said in an LA Times interview. The Epic may be the most sophisticated digital movie camera ever designed: its lightweight structure, resolution and versatility have made it the industry standard, especially when shooting in 3D.
However, celluloid still dominates in the realm of archival. The key is simplicity: films made over a century ago can still be viewed today, provided you have a film projector and the patience required to set it up. Film preservation is far from perfect — about 90 per cent of silent films made before 1929, and 50 per cent of sound films made before 1950, are lost — but it’s the best we’ve got. “Digital formats don’t store well; you have to keep transferring it over and over and over,” Rob says. “They’re now looking at 35 mm primarily as an archival tool.”
Fade to Black
According to Rob, the switch from film to digital at the SCA was inevitable. “It’s like a party that’s over, and there’s great memories there, but you move on.” Though he assures me that the program will still be in possession of analog film equipment, he’s doubtful that students will use it — after all, shooting film is a more difficult and time-consuming process.
For his part, Will Ross, a fourth year SFU film student, welcomes the program’s digitized future. “When I switched from film to digital in third year, it completely solidified me as a pro-digital person,” he says. “There’s a school of thought that film is better to learn on because it instills discipline . . . that it’s a proving ground. I actually feel the opposite of that: I never improved more as a filmmaker than when I had the freedom to make mistakes, digitally. It just gives me so much more creative freedom.
Paradiso, a short film which Will edited, was recently featured at the Toronto International Film Festival. It was shot in — you guessed it — digital. “I no longer see any reason why anyone would work with film at any stage of the process,” he says.
Still, not all film students are celebrating the end of celluloid. “You have to be a really special kind of crazy to work with film,” Alysha says. When I ask her what the film program will lose when celluloid is eventually phased out, she replies, “It’s the blood, sweat, and tears of analog. It’s wasting away in the Steenbeck room, looking for the 12 frames that you need in order make a cut. It’s the idea of creating a work ethic, and not having a safety net other than yourself. It’s about learning that process of responsibility.”
Is this the death of film? Not necessarily. Though many have been quick to announce the impending doom of celluloid, it’s likely that the two media will continue to coexist, at least for the time being. However, it’s likely that digital and film will have traded places by the end of the decade — film may well become a medium reserved for the artistic, the independent and the alternative, while digital will propel the Hollywood industry into a techno-savvy future.
“I imagine there will always be 35 mm projectors at film festivals and various shrines of cinema,” the late Roger Ebert wrote in a 2011 post on his website. “But my war is over, my side lost, and it’s important to consider this in the real world.”
Ultimately, whether you prefer film or digital, the format used to make movies isn’t nearly as important as the work put into them by people. “The ideas are more important than the tools you use to capture them,” Rob says, and this rings truer than any argument on either side of the debate. Like any artistic medium, film is first and foremost a tool for personal expression, and the students at SFU’s School for the Contemporary Arts will doubtlessly continue to make immersive, thought-provoking films — regardless of whether they’re “films” at all.
The future of SFU’s film program may be made up of ones and zeroes, but analog-loving students still have a chance to use celluloid when they begin their degree — at least, for now. “It’s a great teaching tool — that’s what I miss about it,” Rob says wistfully. “The idea of being able to hold something in your hands and see the images and become conscious of what a frame is, just to have a tactile connection with what you’re doing, is I think invaluable.
“That’s why we still use it in first year, we continue to shoot films on the Bolexes and we hand-process it ourselves, here. Then we project it on the wall, film it, and edit digital. We’ll keep doing that just to give students that experience. And in second year, if you’re burning to use the Super 16s, God bless you, they’re there for you.”
Over the course of any regular season, in any sport, there are games that have more at stake than others — to SFU’s men’s soccer team — such a game was played last week.
It had all the makings of a classic: the second-last game of the season, and SFU’s final home game of the year, against their bitter Seattle Pacific rivals — the only team to have defeated the Clan this season.
Not to mention, the match was for all the marbles. A Clan victory meant a fourth-straight Great Northwest Athletic Conference championship, and a spot in the national tournament. A loss, and SFU would’ve needed a lot of luck to earn those honours.
“It was just perfect,” says junior midfielder Jovan Blagojevic, a man who would factor in quite significantly later in the game. “It was like a movie; you couldn’t have written it any better. The rivalry we have between each other is so strong, and them having beat us before, playing for the GNAC title . . . we were excited.”
Few games can live up to that kind of hype. This one did.
It wasn’t a barnburner — far from it, in fact. Instead, it was a close game that kept fans on the edge of their seats, despite being a scoreless affair heading into Golden Goal overtime.
“It was such a tight game,” says Blagojevic. “I think we were carrying the play a little bit, but there were tense moments both ways.” A Seattle Pacific corner kick, pushed just wide with about five minutes to play in regulation, comes to mind.
“Going into overtime, everyone on our team was holding our breath as much as the fans were. We didn’t think about it too much. We knew we just had to get it done.”
And that’s where Blagojevic comes in.
Freshman Robert Hyams lined up for a Clan free kick, 30 yards from the Falcons’ goal. He had the option to pass down low to sophomore Ryan Dhillon and potentially take a two-on-one to the net. He didn’t take it.
Instead, he laid a perfect cross into the box — three seconds and a couple of wild bounces later, Blagojevic tapped it in. Clan win. Another three seconds later, he was at the bottom of a team-wide dog pile.
“It seemed like the longest two, three seconds of my life,” he says. “It was a beautiful cross, [senior forward Carlo] Basso got his head on it and it went off the post — I thought it was going in originally — and eventually popped right back out to me. As Golden Goals go, it was probably the easiest I could imagine.” But he’ll take it.
“The best thing that’s ever happened to me in my career,” he says, with an ear-to-ear grin.
Better than making the Final Four of the the NCAA Division II tournament last year?
“Individually,” he clarifies. “I almost died; I couldn’t breathe at the bottom of the pile. Like, ‘Thanks, but get off me,’” he laughs. “It was pretty cool.”
But Blagojevic knows his work and his team’s, is far from done.
“We’ll call this season a success if we can win the National Championship,” he says. “It’s nice winning the GNAC; we completed one of our goals. And of course we would’ve wanted an undefeated season, but we won the conference, and you’ve got to be happy with that. But every year we have the ambition of winning the National Championship, and that’s our ultimate goal.”
The Clan came close last year, falling short in the Final Four.
“Obviously it was upsetting to get so close and lose. But in a way, it might’ve helped us, it maybe showed we need to push a little harder, do a little more,” says Blagojevic. “We’re ready for whatever’s coming at us.”
So when Nationals begin, for a team that preaches taking things one game at a time, Blagojevic’s goal against the Falcons will matter little.
But for a day, or maybe a week, Blagojevic is SFU’s golden boy, his goal having sent his team to the national competition, as well as earning the Clan a fourth consecutive conference title.
You know those rare people who are so down-to-earth and easy to talk to that you feel like you’ve known them a long time after just a few minutes of conversation? Sarah Louise Turner is one of those people. The SFU professor and stage actress is currently starring in Sandi Johnson’s play People Like Us, playing at the Firehall Arts Centre until Nov. 16.
People Like Us is a one-woman play that deals with Gulf War Syndrome and one family’s process of coping. Little discussed, Gulf War Syndrome is something that many people developed when the war was over. Symptoms are incredibly varied — from insomnia, to cancer, to one case where a woman’s bones actually expanded, making her grow larger. Such variety made it particularly difficult for sufferers to get any of the support they needed from their government.
“The argument in the United States was ‘well, we can’t give you compensation for this because we can’t call it a syndrome until we can say ‘these are the symptoms that it has resulted in,’” says Turner. “I think it’s really interesting that the play is told from the partner and family’s point of view, and the impact this has not only on the veteran, but on the veteran’s family. It really destroys the entire family.”
The story is not just about one veteran’s struggles with the health and psychological issues that go along with war, it’s also about, “one woman finding her strength and how she maneuvers and finds her way through the challenging blows that life can strike,” Turner says. Having the partner as the primary narrator in the play allows the audience insight into not only her husband’s experience of the war, but also her experience of it when he returns.
During the entire one hour and 15 minute play, Turner is the only person on stage; this is the first time she’s been in a one-woman show. When I ask her about the experience, she tells me, “It’s a huge learning opportunity. It’s been incredible and very challenging . . . and all of the challenges that I knew it would provide, it has definitely provided.” She laughs as she says this, and tells me that the hardest thing for her was to learn her lines without the back and forth energy that she is accustomed to when there are other actors on stage.
Another challenge is keeping her own energy up for the full show: “It’s got to come from her [the character’s] fight.” Turner draws on the energy of her character’s struggle of “having to really fight for [her husband’s] life, and fight for the truth, and having to fight for all these things that she expected someone to give her. And it’s not happening.”
“It’s a cautionary tale. It’s an important political piece, particularly right now, with all of the potential cutbacks in veteran funding. Warfare is changing drastically, and the implications of war are very different now from what they were in the past . . . we never know what we’re going to get in the next war. I also just think it’s a really beautiful story about love and partnership and what it takes.”
You can catch People Like Us at the Firehall Arts Centre until Nov. 16.
