The Day the Liberal Party Died

The day Iggy was anointed by the Liberal cabal without input from the grass roots was the day the Party died, though some in the Party might have marked Iggy's arrival from distant shores on Canadian soil as the day the music died. (Some called him the Unity Bomber: not a rough beast slouching towards Bethlehem but Ottawa.) What was both the original cabal that brought him to town and the new conclave that beatified the Count smoking? Whatever it was, it wasn't good for the health of the Liberal body. It will take a decade to rebuild this party if at all, and the first thing to do would be to let the ordinary people of the Party instead of the brain trust actually have a say instead of the illusion of input that has existed up til now. (What a waste of time policy conferences are for the grass roots!)

They would do better thinking about a merger with the NDP, but since they've moved so firmly to the centre and frequently across that line to the right, would the NDP even be interested in such a possibility? Red Tories, if any are left, have more in common with the NDP than the LPC. And, besides, such a merger would never happen because of Liberal pride. Understandably but nevertheless sadly so. There ought to be much weeping if not downright gnashing of teeth going on today.

Iggy Has to go: Kinsella 

P.S.Just a note to add that Iggy has resigned this morning and is going back to school -- my guess,somewhere in the U.S. So that's a beginning.

And some have suggested that because the LPC campaigned left of even the NDP in this election, the centrists in the party abandoned them and voted CPC. Maybe, but some certainly migrated to the NDP contributing to the orange crush.

Casting for a New Film About the Prime Minister of Canada

As I mentioned in my opening entry, I lived the life of a film producer for a number of years  -- even did a couple of projects for Mother Corporation, hoping to meet Pastor Mansbridge or, at the very least, Evan (let’s beat-this-story-to-death) Solomon,  and that experience got me thinking about a new film project called  Prime Minister of Canada:  How to Become a Dictator in a Democracy, which I intend to pitch to the new Sun Media channel  since I’m pretty sure the other big three national networks simply wouldn’t be interested in that so much of their programming is either in-house production or U.S. shows, apparently what Canadians want to see. You know,  things like Pastor Mansbridge ministering every night, and Lisa Laflame now pretty well every night for your viewing pleasure or Dancing with the Stars, though I could see one or two of those who came to the audition on that show waltzing or bumping around the dance floor.   Can’t you just see Iggy and Hair-in-the-Fridge (John Doyle’s phrase for OGL [our glorious leader]) doing their thing and getting all those on-line votes from giggling female viewers.  But Sun claims to be true blue Canadian, so I’m going with them.

So far, the agents of five potential actors have approached me, getting wind of the project through my Twitter account of course: Gilles Duceppe (many years of performance on various stages in la belle province), Jack Layton (very big on the Toronto stage), Michael Ignatieff (many years in front of the TV camera in Britain), Steve Harper (who’s been doing his one-note over-the-top angry bit  in Alberta political theatres for quite some time and has recently brought his act to Ottawa trying to go national but hasn’t been all that successful so far), and Elizabeth May (who is a less seasoned performer but a fresh face).  Now in the film business, when you’re casting, two considerations mean everything:  what we call less-is-more and screen presence, not really mutually exclusive categories.  Who does the camera love, who’s infinitely watchable, who does the small things well, who’s “natural?”

I’ve seen all five now, and, in consultation with the Director (who shall be nameless since he used to be a journalist) I’ve hired, we think we know who might sell this project with viewers.  Here’s our assessment of each:

Giles Duceppe:  No charisma and no acting talent whatsoever, too matter-of-fact in his delivery of lines, scripted or not.  Natural, but no screen presence.  Difficult to know how he got into the business or how that agent of his could possibly imagine we’d be interested given his limited Canadian experience.

Michael Ignatief: Apparently has two nicknames, Iggy and the Count.  I never know which of those to use. There’s a certain charm -- I think it’s called the crumpet motif that derives from old British ladies’ affection for certain TV types or Opal’s infatuation with Alex Trebek.  Not sure which. Has become adept at delivery, getting slicker everyday, and not bad at improvising lines, which does, however, get him into trouble with other cast members occasionally, but unfortunately the camera knows that HE’S PERFORMING.  In his case, less-is-more is just not working because it’s far more dramatic than it should be.  That desperate urgency just doesn’t work these days except in soap operas.  I’ve recommended to his agent that he give Days of Our Lives a call.

Jack Layton:  Slick, well-oiled, clichéd delivery but interesting look, especially the moustache and baldness.  Good teeth too. Unfortunately, all his performances are routine or predictable.   He’s one of those actors who just doesn’t know how to surprise us, sad to say, and it’s unlikely he’s ever going to make the big time.  Still we wish him luck in the small theatres, for his heart would seem to be  in the right place.

Stephen Harper:  Far too many nicknames to list here, especially since some children or the parents of children might be reading  this, but I am fond of Hair-in-the-Fridge.  It has a certain ring to it.  Not sure how to describe all the problems of performance here. The Director and I, having both steeped ourselves in Freudian analysis years ago, think there may be some issues haunting this actor from the past -- probably something to do with loyalty and trust.  We think that perhaps, some time ago, one of his fellow actors whom he thought was loyal betrayed him and that  incident has generated a distrust of everybody in the cast, not to mention the viewing audience itself.  His performances are edgy, true, and that makes them watchful, but they drift towards resentful in tone far too often.  And he cannot deal with the paparazzi or fans that might want to get in and see him at all.  But he’s natural, too:  we do see the man for what he is; there’s no performance here for the most part.  In fact, when we do see a performance, especially when we see him working at his desk, playing the piano, or wearing a sweater, unfortunately we know he’s performing.  I haven’t told his agent yet that we’re rejecting him.  To tell you the truth, I’m a bit scared to do so.

Elizabeth May: a fresh face, an up-and-comer, getting better known all the time, but not as well known as Charlie yet.   We producers are always on the look-out for fresh new faces, and we think she might be able to pull it off.  Totally natural, what you see is what you get performances in all her other stage and film work, a total absence of artifice, no acting tricks, smooth articulate delivery and a great sense of working  with the other actors comfortably -- which sort of surprised us -- and the viewing audience, whom she seems to respect for their discerning abilities -- not something that can really be said about the others who auditioned.

But we do see a possible problem with the project.  Sun, it turns out, might be having second thoughts, especially since we said we were going with Elizabeth.  Turns out, they thought we would automatically cast Hair-the-Fridge.  Seems like we might have to wait for a while to get the film up and running.

A Postscript to Yesterday's Post: More Than One Villlian

According to Evan (let's-beat-this-story-to-death) Solomon's in his interview with Elizabeth May on  CBC's Power and Politics yesterday, all four of the federal parties with seats in the House had to agree to the decision to exclude Elizabeth May in the two televised debates.  If that is  true, then Michael Ignatieff's and Jack Layton's remarks about welcoming May in the debates could be considered, shall we say, a bit hypocritical.  But a spokesman referenced in a story in the Globe and Mail today says the television consortium issued an ultimatum on Wednesday night to the four parties to agree to their terms, arbitrary as they are.  So the charge of hypocrisy may be less weighty unless the parties had already agreed in discussions before Wednesday night to the exclusion.  Very likely.

The point is why does the absence of a seat in the House determine who should be in a federal leaders' debate?  As I've said, the Green Party of Canada is a legally constituted institution with 308 candidates running for seats across the country with a substantial number of supporters.  It is indeed an issue of democracy and inclusiveness.  Why should we fear a wide range of voices on all the issues that concern us?  Debate can lead to enlightenment for both those who participate and those who watch.

After two exclusionary blowups in three years, isn't it about time we take these federal debates out of the hands of big TV and make them truly public?   For all their faults, the Americans have it right on national debates.