James sent along this great, long profile of the city from The Walrus magazine. It’s by Gary Stephen Ross, the current editor-in-chief of Vancouver magazine. He’s written an insightful, well-observed piece that’s neither cheer-leading nor bitter:
Amid the stereotypes, of course, obscured by them, Vancouverites live substantial, complicated, inaccessible lives. Newcomers say folks here are quick to engage you in a friendly chat but slow to invite you over for dinner. There may be a flaky, hippie vibe to the lineup at Trout Lake Farmers Market on Saturday mornings, but there is a seriousness of purpose as well, an act-on-it conviction that organic tomatoes from the Okanagan are in every way superior to industrial tomatoes from Mexico. Local initiatives to address the Downtown Eastside, too, are more than compulsory nods toward civic responsibility; they are attempts to ameliorate vexing problems before they ossify into permanence.
For anybody wanting to understand our city, this is a terrific place to start.
Last Thursday I saw “The Blue Dragon”, a play written and directed by Quebecois theatrical maestro Robert Lepage. He’s among the most reknowned living theatre artists in the country and abroad, famous for designing wondrous, whimsical theatre experiences.
A sequel to his “Dragons’ Trilogy”, “The Blue Dragon” tells the story of a Montreal artist and gallery owner living through his middle age in China. He’s got a promising young Chinese artist for a girlfriend, and lives a life of quiet sparseness. This life is thrown into flux by the arrival of Claire, an old flame, who hopes to adopt a baby as a single mother.
But don’t go see this play for the plot. As Colin Thomas puts it, “the narrative is less than complex and it’s riddled with holes”. Nor for the themes–Lepage offers some pedestrian ideas about interationalization and middle age. Go for the stage spectacle, which (unless you’ve already seen a Lepage production or his excellentwork on Peter Gabriel’s tours), is like no play you’ve ever seen before.
Working with set designer Michel Gauthier, Lepage creates a playful, contemporary production. This is a 21st century theatre, that acknowledges the rise of film and television. For example, early scene changes happen, literally, in a instant. There’s a sound queue, the lighting changes and it’s later. Later, we see Lepage’s mastery as he plays with all sorts of visual devices on-stage. One scene is played out in silent silhouette. Another happens three times with a slightly different outcome. Another captures the energy of a bike ride through the busy streets of Beijing.
Watching the play, you enter into this perfectly-crafted yet delightfully unpredictable Lepage’s world. I’m struggling to do the play justice, so perhaps this ‘trailer’ will help:
I was pleased to get a chance to see the new The Fei & Milton Wong Experimental Theatre at SFU’s School for the Contemporary Arts in the Woodward’s complex. It’s a beautiful space (and, if you’re listening SFU, I’d love a tour).
It’s a pity that the story of “The Blue Dragon” doesn’t match its visuals, but I can’t imagine that any theatre-goer would leave the show disappointed.
I’m on the media list of a few Vancouver theatres now, and I’m hoping to write more reviews on this site. It occurs to me that I’ve never been explicit about how I disclose when I’ve received tickets to something for free, and when I’ve paid for an event.
My standard practice is to say something like “I was invited to the opening night…” (as with “Tesla”). Though I missed doing that for my recent “Beyond Eden” review. If I don’t mention something along those lines, assume I paid for the event myself. Which I did in the case of “The Blue Dragon”, incidentally.
I’ve written before about the incursion of advertising into new public (if privately-owned) spaces. The most recent example was video screens in the back seats of taxis. The other day I was having dinner at the old-school-in-a-charming-way Hamilton Street Grill in Yaletown. I went to the bathroom, and looked up at the mirror while washing my hands.
The whole mirror was turned into an advertising display. Sections of the mirror displayed a series of static slide images that culminated in an ad for Absolut vodka:
I know I sound like an eighty-year-old curmudgeon, but really? The bathroom mirror? This–along with the aforementioned taxi cab screens and video ads above urinals–are particularly frustrating because they’re forced, at closed range, right into my eye line. They are difficult to ignore.
They’re a heinous and idiotic intrusion, particularly when I’ve already paid for dinner or a cab ride. Such advertising only encourages me to not only boycott the products advertised, but also the business that shows me the ads.
Last month, the federal government lost their appeal of a court ruling on Insite, Vancouver’s supervised injection site. There was hope among the site’s proponents that the Conservatives’ legal challenges might end there. Alas, our Prime Minister is keen to bring the case before the Supreme Court of Canada:
The case has raised important questions about the division of powers among federal and provincial governments that need answers, said Justice Minister Rob Nicholson on Parliament Hill Tuesday.
“The case we’ll be presenting before the court is to ask for clarification,” he said. “I think it is important to do that.” Nicholson pointed out that there was a dissenting opinion in the lower court ruling. “I think it is appropriate for me to seek leave to appeal,” he said.
What, I wonder, is our federal government justification for this ongoing lawsuit? As this great Slate profile puts it, the site’s efficacy has been demonstrated by “dozens of peer-reviewed articles…published in scientific journals like the Lancet, the American Journal of Public Health, and the New England Journal of Medicine“. Those publications describe how Insite has reduced public injections, behaviour like needle sharing that increases HIV transmission and increased adoption of addiction treatment programs. In 2009 alone, the centre oversaw over 700 daily visits, and handled 484 overdoses without a fatality.
It’s that rarest of success–a drug program that works effectively. It reduces harm, saves money and introduces addicts to treatment programs. I’m ashamed that my government so aggressively opposes this success that they want to litigate it out of existence. The ongoing legal action is absurd, and a waste of taxpayers’ money.
Get Your Free Drugs Here
On a related note, I enjoyed the fourth part of the Slate profile of Vancouver’s drug problem. In it, writer Matthew Power discusses a more radical program that I’ve always thought made sense: free heroin for addicts. A trial has been run in Vancouver in recent years, and the results are pretty interesting:
Schecter found that 88 percent of the heroin maintenance group stayed on their course of treatment, versus 54 percent in the methadone group. Illegal activity in the heroin group was reduced 67 percent, versus 47.7 percent in the methadone group. Out of 89,000 injections, there were only 10 overdoses and no fatalities…Schecter claims opiate maintenance makes sense: An untreated heroin addict costs the state $45,000 a year in legal and medical bills; heroin maintenance costs $7,000. “Sure, it’s easy to say, ‘You’re giving heroin to junkies,’ ” Schecter says, but he witnessed the stabilization of the heroin group firsthand. “A subject told me ‘for the first time in 20 years I’m actually thinking about my life.’ That was the line that blew my mind,” he recalled. “They’re actually thinking about the future. Normally they’re thinking about eight hours.”
And, importantly, they’re not thinking about breaking into your house or car. Plus, by taking over the supply, you significantly reduce the much more serious crime of drug trafficking.
And the math is pretty compelling. 5447 unique individuals used Insite last year. Let’s imagine that we could convince just 1000 heroin addicts to accept drugs from the government instead of the street. We just saved ourselves $37 million. I wonder what Feds’ legal bill is up to on this case?
Our society probably isn’t ready for this approach yet, but I think it’s a sensible next step.
I pity anybody who has had to learn English as second (or third or fifth) language. It’s a confusing language to begin with, the regional differences are sometimes staggering (or downright opposing).
Take the word crèche, for example. I was introduced to the term when I lived in Ireland, where I learned that it referred to a daycare or nursery. When I subsequently lived in Malta, I heard the Maltese use crèche to refer to nativity scenes. Being the most Catholic country outside of the Vatican, they took their Christmas dioramas very seriously. Some of the crèches were sprawling, baroque affairs. Here’s part of one, with its creator for, uh, scale:
I’m currently reading the witty Septic’s Companion, “a mercifully brief guide to British culture and language”. It’s written by Chris Rae. He kindly sent me a copy as a thank you for linking to his website a bajillion years ago, when dinosaurs still roamed the Internet.
creche: n day-care. The place you take your children to be looked after, usually while you bumble off and make the money you’ll need to pay for it. The Brits do not use the word to describe a the revolting Christian Christmas scene that your child brought home from school and you’re not sure where to jettison (see “nativityâ€Â).
I found that puzzling. For who would the Maltese learn the word crèche from if not the English? What’s the word’s etymology?
“Christmas manger scene,” 1792, from Fr. crèche, from O.Fr. cresche, ult. from O.H.G. kripja, from the root of crib. Also “a public nursery for infants where they are cared for while their mothers are at work” (1854).
Huh. Maybe they learned the word from the French? At least the two meanings–nativity and nursery–have vaguely similar meanings. Another example from Chris’s book is “momentarily”. He says that in the UK, it means “for a moment” and in the US it means “in a moment”. In Canada, I feel like I hear both cases used all the time.
By the way, I’d heartily recommend Chris’s book to Anglophiles everywhere. I particularly liked this bit about the Royal Family:
The Royal Family has three main functions in modern Britain. The first is to invoke antagonism amongst the chattering classes about what the bloody Royal Family ever does for anyone. Bloody social leeches. The second is to provide the tourist industry with ceremonial events, tea towels, commemorative spoons, postcards and other overpriced memorabilia which will be snapped up by enthusiastic tourists and displayed in homes all over the modern world. Their third is to generate C-grade scandal for the chattering classes by having sex with supermodels, smoking pot or making obliquely racist comments on television. Elizabeth II’s son, Charles, was hampered by his looks from humping any supermodels and prevented by his personality from scoring weed, although his children, Princes William and Harry, are considerably better looking and attempting to make amends. Elizabeth’s husband, Prince Philip, is a much more enthusiastic scandalmonger and is famous for asking an Australian aborigine whether they still threw spears at each other, and telling British students in China that ―if you stay here much longer, you’ll get all slitty-eyed.
In recent months, while watching hockey games, I’ve noticed these L’Oreal For Mencommercials featuring Patrick Dempsey:
The target demographic for these commercials is surely wives and girlfriends. The cliche here is the wife sitting beside her husband on the couch, a little bored as she half-watches LePeiter pass to Huckenchuck and go offside. Then she immediately perks up when Doctor McDreamy or whatever his frackin’ nickname is shows up on-screen.
The ad’s subtext is simple: “Buy this for your man, and he’ll be slightly more similar to Patrick Dempsey”. That’s fair enough–ads employ aspirational messages all the time. That doesn’t make the ad or the product line any less ridiculous. L’Oreal for Men? Seriously? This is one wrong-headed brand extension.
On the other hand, this excellent Old Spice commercial seems to intentionally spoof the Dempsey ads. And I think, given its mix of hunk and humour, it’s going to reach both people on the couch:
“If he stopped using lady-scented body wash, he could smell like he’s me.” Bonus points for the subtle reference to the SNL digital short, “I’m on a Boat” (rated PG for cuss words).
Last week, we opened up speaking submissions for Northern Voice, the social media and personal blogging conference I help organize.
The conference, by the way, will be held out at UBC on May 7 and 8, 2010. Why so late this year? We didn’t want to schedule it during the Olympics, and, preferring to keep it out at UBC, we needed to wait until classes weren’t in session.
The deadline for submitting a talk is March 9, 2010. I’ll be one of the people filtering through the submissions. We get more than 100 now, and the amount grows every year. As such, I thought I ought to brainstorm some topics that I’d like covered at this year’s conference:
Why do location-based social networks like Foursquare and Gowalla matter? Will they catch on? What are original ideas around how to use them?
Dying on the social web. I’ve discussed this topic occasionally, and obviously it’s kind of an uncomfortable one, but as the Internet and its users get older, it’s increasingly germane.
Sex and the social web. Not to sound all dirty, but it’s been five years and we’ve never had this topic. We’ve had ‘relationships and blogging’, which is great, but nobody’s owned this subject.
How does the average 15-year-old use technology and the social web. As I get older and continue to have zero children, I feel less and less in touch with how the average teenager uses the web. I might actually submit on this topic, in the hopes of convening a panel of teenagers to take questions from the audience.
That’s all I can think of. What topics would you like to see covered at this year’s conference?
