Occupy is not present in the play and relating it directly to Occupy as a way of opening up ideas about the movement– especially given the setting – could have been fascinating but given this was already a fairly complicated hour long performance it would have necessitated the piece having a different focus.
I hope the piece gets staged again so the debate can continue!

As a reviewer, all I can attest to is my own personal experience, and I stand by all of the above. I wholly respect your stated intentions, but the fact remains that, one the day, I interacted with a number of anti-oil characters. For me, there was a single obvious “lead” in the journalist who briefed and debriefed us. The secondary characters seemed to be, in order of apparent emphasis: the journalist, the First Nations activist, the BP whistleblower, the Nigerian anonymous source and the UK government worker. Yes, there was an activist. Was she given equal emphasis as the others combined? No way. Perhaps the actress was simply not as assertive as required, or went off script at the performance I attended? I do not know.

In any case, I felt the concluding message was: We need lawyers and journalists, and business insiders very much onside in this murky, profit-driven world. That is fine as a message. Indeed, I felt it was the point of the play. As a viewer, I cannot assess your intentions but rather what ends up being staged.

I think you misread, and certainly misrepresent, my meaning of “rank and file” here. My comment is a product of knowing that Tar Sands activism has very much involved “traditional” protest marches, manifestations, blockades, First Nations speaker tours, documentary and photography campaigns, and locally applied political pressure alongside media and legal. All of these have involved non-white, non-middle-class activists, the unacknowledged rank and file (for the real rank and file are precisely those unable to take credit) of numerous movements, not least in Alberta itself. I made the point about emphasis because I felt that sort of activism broadly (not only of the Climate Camp ilk) was being played down.

Finally, I mentioned Occupy because the play is billed in your own press releases as appropriate for “the post-Occupy era”. For me, that was a prompt to analysis. Occupy is not referenced at all in the play, however. In fact, Oil City could have been staged pre-Occupy. Rather than perhaps suggest a cynical marketing strategy on your part, I simply sought to link the two through their focus on the financial heart of the city. I’m certainly not celebrating Occupy, and your critiques are valid. They are not, however, evident in Oil City.

I enjoyed the play and have a lot of admiration of the work Platform does. This is a review, however, not an interview with the production team. You of course have the right to reply, and talk about your intentions. If my experience was not what you wanted viewers to experience in terms of characters import, or overall message, I hope that my feedback as a viewer can be helpful for if/when you stage the play again in the future.

Best,

Siobhán

Siobhan you said:
“Oil City is a powerful and creative work. It also has notable faults. The Occupy movement, cited in press materials for the play, was apparently right to focus on the financial, rather than political heart of London. Yet the play emphasizes researchers, lawyers, whistleblowers and investigative journalists, rather than rank and file protesters, as the vital players in opposing dirty oil deals and digs.”

I wanted to flag up for readers that one of the two main characters was a First Nations Activist from Canada. This was a very clear choice not to represent the issues around the tar sands via a white, middle class activist from the UK, but to try to situate the activist perspective in the story by the activists leading that struggle in the real world.

It seemed really important to me not to replicate what Occupy failed on in my opinion, which was to blur everyone into ‘the 99%’, irrespective of massive differences in experience around racism and sexism, for a start. Occupy was also strongly criticised for using the language and symbolism of occupation uncritically in states which have colonial histories or are themselves settler colonies.

So there absolutely was an activist in Oil City – but not the ‘rank and file’, white middle class activist usually ready and willing to take credit for a campaign win, but a First Nations activist’s perspective, to point towards where this struggle is really based, and where to look for leadership.

I hope this comment is useful to you and other readers.