Snappy one-liners dull potential fiery tension
Cottagers and Indians ★★ 1⁄2 (out of 4) Written by Drew Hayden Taylor. Directed by Patti Shaughnessy. Until March 25 at Tarragon Theatre, 31 Bridgman Ave. TarragonTheatre.com or 416-531-1827.
In his new play, Drew Hayden Taylor sprinkles in a few trigger words for city-dwellers: condo boards, early buyers, NIMBYism — or in Taylor’s case, NIMBLism (Not In My Back Lake).
His play Cottagers and Indians, on now at Tarragon Theatre and set in the cottage country of central Ontario, is an unravelling of a neighbourly feud with a significant twist.
Arthur Copper, of the Anishinaabe First Nation, and Maureen Poole, of North York by way of Scarborough, both feel like the other has infringed on their land. But unlike most petty NIMBY-ish fights, this one pokes holes in the very concept of private land ownership, and who remains the rightful caretakers of Canadian land.
In 2015, media reports surfaced of a years-long dispute between cottage owners on Pigeon Lake, organized in a group named Save Pigeon Lake, and a man named James Whetung who was planting and harvesting wild rice in this and surrounding lakes, reviving a traditional source of nourishment and a source of income by selling it to local businesses. But his neighbours felt it was infringing on their ability to swim, fish and boat.
Taylor’s play draws from that story, using Arthur (Herbie Barnes) and Maureen (Tracey Hoyt) as the figureheads of the two opposing sides, exposing both the absurdity that comes from these kinds of arguments as well as touching upon the severity of its historical implications.
However, it seems in his and director Patti Shaughnessy’s desire to keep this potentially fiery fight from getting too heavy, the comedic dialogue of snappy one-liners from Arthur and oblivious upper-middleclass privilege from Maureen — delivered mostly through alternating monologues from opposite sides of Robin Fisher’s attractive lakeshore set, with a folk-art hand-painted skyscape backdrop that looks plucked from the wall of Poole’s cottage — snuff out the tension between them.
Both Barnes and Hoyt keep affable affectations, as if Arthur’s jokes come out of a mild irritation and Maureen is still trying to keep up appearances with her peer group. Whether it’s their physical separation (they interact on several occasions, though stay firmly on opposite sides of the stage) or the light, casual approach to Hoyt and Barnes’ delivery, the cause of such an intense feud doesn’t come across.
Hayden purposefully makes both characters sympathetic, adding emotional weight to the ways both characters feel connected to the lake and the land surrounding it.
But the kind of fury that blurs all sense of reason around NIMBY arguments is gone, as we meet the characters after the issue has blown over, which makes for a more measured conversation but weakens the dramatic tension — though Beau Dixon’s sound design does help jolt the audience from the serene country setting into the loud machinations of Arthur’s harvesting vessel, a fan boat.
Both sides are understandable, and that comes from a generosity in Taylor’s script not to take sides. And yet, given the vast discrepancy in privilege and the historical atrocities done to Arthur’s people, it’s not hard to see who’s in the right — it doesn’t help that Barnes’ Arthur is goofily lovable, while Hoyt’s Maureen puts her foot in her mouth, however good-naturedly, more often than not.
With a whammy of a final reveal from Arthur’s backstory, even Maureen realizes her misunderstandings.
But the audience has understood long before she gets there, and the dawning of the truth feels a little too late to redeem her.
Who knows, maybe my frustration with the two characters’ lack of frustration comes from my own desire to shout some sense into the woman — no one is immune from a good NIMBY fight.