REVIEW: 1979


Rating: 1.5 out of 5.

In the same way Joe Clark fell short of his ambitions while Prime Minister, this play does not achieve what it sets out to.


Michael Healey’s play 1979 previously ran back in 2019 at the Berkeley Street Theatre (also known as the Canadian Stage) in Toronto. Now, the political piece makes its European debut at the Finborough Theatre. The production will run until Saturday 27th January. 

In the winter of 1979, Canadian Prime Minister Joe Clark awaits a crucial confidence vote that could end his term. Despite his youth and idealism, Clark is determined to govern for the entire nation, not just his party supporters. Faced with a tough decision, he is visited by colleagues, opponents, and even his wife, all offering diverse perspectives and attempting to influence him throughout the play.

On entering the theatre I knew very little about the history of Canadian politics, and even less about 1979 specifically. Upon leaving the theatre, not much had changed. Healey’s writing is unnecessarily expositional and lacks focus. The dialogue is heavy with political information, facts, figures, clashing opinions – and sure, this is to be expected from a play about politics, but there is hardly any time to breathe and take it in. It’s difficult to grasp any through-line. Projected footnotes on the back wall introduce characters, and provide even more information to offer context to busy scenes, but they become distracting. Between reams of text, some self aware jokes (‘oh god, more reading’) fall flat. With insufficient time to read some slides during on-stage action, I was torn between watching the play and reading the projected text.

The cast of three bring a vibrant energy to the stage as they endeavour to lift the script for the audience. Joseph May takes on the role of the Prime Minister, Clark. Perhaps the most naturalistic onstage, May brings to life quite an ordinary seeming man. The writing does not give him much to play with, but he is believable. Clark is confident in his decisions, a little confused at times, but resolute in achieving what he sets out to achieve for his country and Government. 

Samantha Coughland and Ian Porter play multiple roles, bursting into Clark’s office in successive duologues, set apart with slight costume changes and names projected on the back wall. Both bring a bold and almost melodramatic energy to their characters, but there’s a noticeable similarity in physicality and personas for each multirole moment. Porter brings a touch of comedy as Pierre Trudeau, winking to the audience and dancing about, but there is a depth to Trudeau, an uneasiness that is somewhat foreboding. Coughlan reaches great heights as Stephen Harper, beginning startlingly shy and building into a bellowing, determined and ruthless right-wing rant. 

The effort that this hard-working cast brought to their characters was impressive, but ultimately the script doesn’t achieve its ambitions. 

REVIEW: The Ayes Have It! The Ayes Have It!

Rating: 4 out of 5.

This house believes that Brexit has been a disaster and now must be reversed

Brian Cox as Logan Roy from Succession appears on screen to deliver the prologue to warn the audience to be respectful and suddenly we’re in: 4 people that defend Brexit as a disaster and 4 people pro-Brexit. An open debate with plenty of room for audience interaction. 

The amazing crowd control and improvisation from the ex-speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow is commendable as he might have the toughest job in the room. 

This debate show, devised by Tasmina Ahmed-Sheik, starts with British politician and economist Alex Salmond: 

“Brexit was born to fail.” After 7 years Salmond alerts to the 5% decrease in income with the barriers to trade and decrease in productivity. 

“The economic damage is and will be felt by those who can afford it the least.”

David Davies MP follows Salmond with a question: Who resigns more frequently the European commissioners or British PMs? This leads to some audience reaction as the question might not be so easy to answer.

Davies focused on comparisons to other countries before and after Brexit to make his argument, “We were losing from Europe. We’re paying more per capita than Germany.” 

While refuting Salmond arguments describing forecasts as guesswork, he claims Brexit gave England a competitive advantage, “since Brexit we’ve had more tech investment than Germany.” 

The MP finishes his speech claiming that now we’re free to run our own country. We’re free to make our own decisions, right or wrong. 

Business owner and activist Gina Miller starts off with what she calls the “real consequences of Brexit”. She focuses her argument on 3 areas: sovereignty, migration, and the NHS. Regarding sovereignty, Miller reminds the audience of the definition which includes having a seat and a voice at the table, and alerts that we’re no longer in the room so our influence has decreased. The cut in migration meant that nurses stopped coming over and there has been a lack of staff in almost every sector. The funding of the NHS simply hasn’t happened. “The money hasn’t gone to the NHS.” 

She brings real numbers and facts which “might be inconvenient” as she looks over at the Brexiteers. “The evidence is here. It’s been 7 years and we’re hurting. We should be there at the top of the table.” 

Next up the journalist Brexiteer Mike Graham brings jokes and his amazing comedic timing. He dismisses all the facts by saying “For every single fact you can’t bring a statistical draft from a random university that says you’re completely right”. 

His argument is indeed not backed up by facts. Instead of addressing the issue he focuses on the opposition. While the amusing crowd work and great personality make him a breath of fresh air between the tension in the room his views add nothing to the discussion. “Just get over it, you’re not worse than before”. 

Andrew Marr comes in sleek as ever “Mike Graham promised a fact-free speech and he’s done it.” 

The Scottish journalist and broadcaster brings a different perspective as he defends that while Brexit is a disaster we can’t reverse it because you can’t override a referendum without another referendum and the country can’t go through that again. 

He adds “We left a market of 300 trillion dollars to a market of 3 trillion dollars and since we’ve signed off, the US has signed 2 deals with the EU.” 

He justifies that all the losses would make sense if the UK had a better plan or an agenda for the future, “you better have a really good plan if you’re aborting and closing your eyes on your neighbour.” 

Marr reinforces as the crowd cheers that we’ve made a mistake and we can’t go back but we need to learn from this. “Brexit is not talked about and that’s why we’re here. We’ve lost ourselves”. 

Baroness Clare Fox starts off her speech stating the disinformation about Brexit addressing that in her campaigns people who were voting remain didn’t want to be racist and wanted to travel. She struggled to get through her discourse as the crowd interference was stronger than ever. She however was the one to provide some facts in favour of Brexit. 

The most wholesome and respectable part of the evening was when we got to hear the voice of the youth by high schoolers Cora and Dominic. Cora defended the reversal of Brexit as she stated that her generation will be the most affected as the generations above have voted for her but got to enjoy the EU while resenting it. “I’d rather be borderless in a creative free space than just an island with rising waters.” 

Dominic holds himself well as he admits it was neither a complete success nor a complete disaster. 

With a comedic break provided by the stand-up comedian Tony Bennett, we’ve moved on to the audience questions that increasingly showed even more of the divide between the audience and the country regarding Brexit. 

Regardless of the outcome and opposing views of Brexit,  the only thing every member of the audience could agree is that Brexit needs to be talked about. Politics are broken if the major issues in our government become taboos for fear of backlash. It’s been 7 years but Brexit is an ongoing issue and needs to be talked about, debated, criticised, defended, and most of all consistently questioned as any other issue in our democracy.