LLED 360

(My Initial Reactions to “Hong Kong, Canada”)

After reading Tara Goldstein’s “Hong Kong, Canada” (twice), I have to say, I’m very intrigued by the opportunity to explore this piece as a drama based activity that deals with the complex issues ELL students face in their school communities. However, I have some concerns! While it’s clear that Goldstein has taken great care to give voice to her characters based on those that she observed as being silenced or even oppressed during her ethnographic fieldwork, I find the development of those characters that appear on the “wrong side” of this controversial issue, troubling. In this case, I am referring to the characters Joshua and Sarah.

The first time the audience meets Sarah, we watch in disapproval as she literally kisses another girl’s boyfriend in front of the poor girl – granted, on the cheek, but her intent (and disregard for Wendy’s feelings) is clear. Meanwhile, in the very next scene, we watch as Josh blatantly ignores Sam’s request to turn off the radio program even though Sam admits that it makes him uncomfortable. As the play develops we see Josh manipulate Sarah by flirting with her in order to get her to write an article for his paper, constantly interrupt others or refuse to see their point of view; we see him walk out on his girlfriend after she confronts him about refusing to introduce her to his family, and combine forces with Sarah to create a petition for an English-only policy at their school. I recognize that these are the characters that I am not meant to agree with as an audience member – but should I also dislike them outside of their controversial political/personal opinions? Why are there no scenes that offer a “softer side” to either of these characters?

In her notes following the play, Goldstein writes that Joshua should be played as “as confused and uncertain rather than confident and cocky.” She also writes that Sarah should be seen as “vulnerable so that she would not be represented as a self-interested, ‘bitchy’ Jew.” Informing the audience how she envisions these characters should be played is problematic for me, because I’m not convinced that these versions of the characters are clearly represented in the text. Of course, having an actor breathe life into any role changes the way an audience will understand the character on the stage vs. the way they appear on the page. However, it is the job of the playwright to make the intentions of the characters and their actions clear whether the reader has had the opportunity to see a live action version or not. It is not enough to ask the actor to play the characters as “vulnerable” or “confused” in a footnote. We need to see these scenes as a functional part of the story.

We do see a hint of Joshua’s “confusion” in Scene 7, but the lights fade before we get an opportunity gage Josh’s reaction to his Nana’s speech. Also, this occurs almost halfway through the play, so most of the audience has already made up their minds about him AND he almost immediately reverts to being closed-minded, (and in my opinion unlikeable)! Both Josh and Sarah are characters that function as antagonists in this story. They are presented as angry, ignorant, and unable to see viewpoints outside of their own. I realize that this version of the script is missing the ending – and I’d like to think that these two characters are given even a moment of redemption, but I somehow doubt it.

So I guess the point of this rant is – when writing/staging a political piece of theatre, should we represent those characters who the audience is meant to disagree with as horrible humans – or do these characters also deserve a range of emotional colours in order to create a more balanced representation of their point of view? Isn’t it our responsibility as teachers to offer our students fully realized versions of both sides of any issue, no matter how controversial it is? And if so, how would we apply this to a piece of writing such as “Hong Kong, Canada” where the text itself is meant to challenge one bias – but inadvertently creates a new one?