“: THE STORY”: WHY TRUTH IS IMPORTANT IN HISTORICAL FILM. .

The legacy of Tommy Douglas to and its history is more than just what he did. It is the universal social principles that he stood and worked for such as Universal Health Care, Old Age Pension, Canada Pension, and Child Allowance to name a few and what they mean to ’ understanding of what we are as a country. There are many written records of his time both as Premier of and as leader of the CCF (later the NDP) including his struggles to benefit the marginalized in our society. These are narratives based on empirical facts. In 2006 CBC Television aired a two part miniseries on his life entitled “Prairie Giant: The Tommy Douglas Story”. Unfortunately the historical importance of the film to the telling of the Tommy Douglas story was lost in the firestorm of criticism it caused over the alleged inaccurate portrayal of Jimmie Gardiner, a political opponent of Douglas, both Federally and Provincially. Gardiner’s family and supporters claimed that the film’s errors about Gardiner amounted to a “misappropriation of his persona” to serve the interests of others. Such controversies lead to the continuing question: Can film portray history accurately and still entertain our senses and convey emotion to its viewers? I believe that it can and must to be fully accepted as a teaching medium for history.

John Alan Sutherland, BA. LLb. Student # 82203 3/29/2012 History 593 Dr. H. Devine

1

The subject of this biofilm, Tommy Douglas, was a larger than life figure in Canadian and

Saskatchewan politics (Houston and Waiser 2010) from the early 1930‟s until his death in 1986

(Stewart 2003). In 2004 he was chosen as on a CBC television show. The show‟s contest had pitted him against such Canadian icons as Sir John A. Macdonald, Wayne

Gretsky and . Given that Douglas‟ principal public achievement was the introduction of a publicly supported and funded universal healthcare plan in Saskatchewan in the

1960‟s (which ultimately forced the federal Liberal government to institute such a plan nationally in the late 1960‟s) his selection was credited by many to be that of the baby boomers and their parents rather than younger viewers. In fact Michael Therriault, age 32, who ended up playing Tommy in the movie, had never heard of Douglas. “Most of my friends didn‟t know who he was either” (Johnson). What is interesting is that Douglas won the vote for Greatest Canadian over second place Terry Fox, a young man, who despite insurmountable odds, crossed half of the country on one leg and a prosthesis before he was forced to quit because of spreading cancer

(which ultimately took his life). To have won over such a symbol of selfless sacrifice of one‟s life in order to raise monies to conquer cancer shows the level of admiration nationwide for

Douglas (Margoshes 1999). Of course the issue of the preservation of medicare has been a central issue in many of the Federal election campaigns during the twenty-first century and

Douglas‟ memory is constantly invoked to save the system from privatization .

Who was Tommy Douglas, the man, and what did he stand for that resonates years after his death to stir the hearts and emotions of Canadians to vote him the title as the country‟s greatest

Canadian (Douglas 1982)? He is to many Canadians the epitome of what is best in Canada

(Lovick 1979). He personified to many Canadians that simple quality which can be described as concern for one‟s fellow man and a desire to do what is best for the country as a whole without

2 concern for political labels or for personal gain or prestige (Barron 1997). It is the same quality that was expressed by the actions of young men and women in the two great wars when they volunteered to fight abroad for what they believed were just causes to protect those less fortunate than themselves (McNaught 1959). It was evident in the acts by a federal government and by various religious denominations led by the in recognizing injustices done to First Nation children and making compensation to them. It is a principle of our country that those who have been dealt less in this life have to be helped by society (Steeves 1960).

Tommy Douglas was born in Glasgow, Scotland. He recognized at an early age that privilege and class were against the welfare of the general populace. It was part of his enduring belief that no system would be just and equitable unless it provided equal treatment to every citizen (Harrop 1984). Douglas was raised in a Christian home in which the Social Gospel was the guiding principle. Because of this he grew up believing in the need to provide medical services to every person regardless of their ability to pay. To him there was no higher law than

“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (13b-15 n.d.).

Given such a national icon status of Tommy Douglas it was to be expected that any film on his life would be scrutinized closely by both his supporters and detractors. A further factor to draw attention to the film was that his daughter, had been married to the famous

Hollywood actor, , and was the mother of an even more famous actor son,

Kiefer Sutherland. Shirley had been the prime mover behind the production of the film; hoping in fact that her father could be played by her famous son but “he got too busy torturing terrorists on „24‟(his current television show)” (Johnson). It was Shirley who recruited John N. Smith, a veteran Montreal filmmaker, best known for depicting pedophile priests in The Boys of St.

Vincent and making with Michelle Pfeiffer, to direct the film on her father . In

3 turn he hired his son, Bruce M. Smith, as screenwriter to write the screen play. Both later agreed that Shirley was fantastic as a research source. Perhaps as later developments showed the only historical source! According to Bruce his view of what a “biopic” should be is that “he believes in telling the truth when writing an historical screenplay but that telling the truth is not the same as reciting facts” (Smith 2012).This concept of how to portray history on film is definitely not the standard “stuff „em and mount „em mould of historical drama” (Johnson) traditionally aired by the CBC. However it was a view that could and in fact did lead to controversy that the CBC did not expect nor want to handle.

The result of this collaboration between the Smiths and Shirley Douglas produced a film which has been described as “a passionate piece of socialist realism” (Johnson) which “wears its socialist sympathies on its sleeve (Johnson). It begins with Douglas‟ call to the ministry in a

Baptist church in , Saskatchewan during the Great Depression. He arrives in town with his new wife fresh from graduation from a religious run college. There are newsreel clips of prairie scenes during the Depression interspersed throughout the early stages of the film. Their purpose is to add credibility to the central theme which is the suffering of the rural poor especially in the West. Bad times have come to Western Canada and Douglas is portrayed as “an openly religious Christian leftist” (Johnson) who is driven to take up the cause of the suffering of his parishioners.

The film does not deal with the causes of the Great Depression but the screenwriter feels obliged to turn it into a class struggle between capitalist exploiters on one hand and the poor and working class championed by Douglas on the other. The scene switches from his pulpit and distributing food and clothes to the poor to his involvement in the Saskatchewan miner‟s strike

(Endicott 2002). To demonstrate Douglas‟ social compassion he and his wife are placed at the

4 scene of the bloody aftermath of police brutality against the miners for daring to march in

Estevan. While Douglas had spoken to the miners at the mining community of Bienfait

(Endicott)before the “riot” or “march” depending on one‟s politics, he and his wife were not in

Estevan (Macdonald 2004). However the scene showing Douglas challenging the RCMP on behalf of the fallen miners and his wife cradling a dying miner in her arms focuses on this event as the cause of Tommy‟s decision to abandon the church pulpit for the political arena. It also represents a scene of high drama with Douglas standing up to police portrayed as thugs working for the mine bosses. But who are supporting this brutality against the poor working man? The answer by the screenwriter is that the existing government of Saskatchewan is controlled by capitalist exploiters who have no compassion for the working man. The Smiths take the film a step further by creating the needed “bad guy” in the personage of James “Jimmie” Gardiner, a well known Liberal Saskatchewan politician , who controlled a well organized political machine in the province during this period (Ward 1990). Gardiner is shown delivering an anti-worker anti-immigrant speech on behalf of a united Saskatchewan government from the foyer of the

Provincial Legislature. In the film he describes the miners as Communists who have started the

“riot” and need to be stopped. After this “red-baiting” speech he then says to the reporters “let‟s have a drink” as the scene switches back to Estevan to show the police beating three miners to death for allegedly marching to protest their working conditions. The impression left with viewers is that Gardiner is totally without compassion for the poor and the working man.

Throughout the film Gardiner is portrayed as the heavy /bad guy, a scheming politician , who is a foil to the good guy Douglas. Whether it is in the legislature, out on the hustings during subsequent election campaigns or in private confrontations, Gardiner is portrayed as the champion of the capitalist system which is determined to crush the socialist Douglas regardless

5 of the cost in terms of human suffering to the people of Saskatchewan. Smith, the screen writer, admits that such scenes as the miner‟s strike, Douglas‟ involvement and Gardiner‟s red bashing speech are “the most extreme nudging of the facts”. “But it‟s not a documentary. It‟s a drama.

These riots were formative events. But the facts have been remoulded into something that I consider essentially true” (Johnson). Whatever the reasons for “nudging the facts” Bruce Smith overlooked some basic errors: Gardiner was a teetotaler and a strong prohibitionist; he was not premier at the time of the miner‟s strike and would not be giving an address to the province on behalf of the legislature; in fact he never made the speech; and Gardiner had shown concerns for minorities in such acts as chasing the Ku Klux Klan out of the province and the fact nowhere is there evidence that he was openly anti-immigrant (Ward 1990).

When the miniseries aired on March 12, 2006 these obvious distortions of the truth caused a firestorm of protest from Gardiner‟s family and friends and even from the more objective of

Douglas‟ own supporters. Former CCF MP and well-known journalist Douglas Fisher described the film as “ A Shoddy Portrait of another Prairie Giant”. The Saskatoon star Phoenix described the film as “wonderful television but abysmal history” (Burton 2007). The fact that Gardiner had still continued to control a well organized Liberal machine in Saskatchewan in 1931 although not premier (Ward) did not excuse the obvious untruths about him portrayed in the film. Gardiner was a farmer, teacher, family man and unquestionably a teetotaler (Ward). Gardiner‟s family were not prepared to sit back and accept this film portrayal of their beloved “Jimmie” as a “bad guy‟. On the other hand the film‟s producer „Talking Dog Studios’ had distributed ten thousand

DVD‟s of the film to schools, libraries, video stores and homes and were not prepared to admit what were glaring errors in the movie. Jimmy‟s granddaughter Marg claimed that the persona of

6 her grandfather was “misappropriated for the purpose of feeding egos and for financial gain” and she “hated to see Canadian children fed historical pap and lies” (Gardiner 2006).

The screenwriter Smith stood by the film‟s characterization of Gardiner by stating that

Gardiner “is not shown doing or saying anything he wouldn‟t have done at the time”

(Anonymous 2006). “He was a tough, ruthless opponent to Tommy Douglas”, Smith said, “And if you‟re doing a movie about Tommy Douglas, Jimmy Gardiner is going to come off badly”

(Controversy continues over CBC's Tommy Douglas miniseries 2006). Obviously his meaning was that if St. Tommy is to slay dragons the movie has to have dragons. As well Smith referred to the disclaimer at the beginning of the film which stated that “some characters were condensed or composited and certain events were fictionalized” (2006). However this disclaimer cannot hide the fact that Gardiner was a real person and described by name in the movie as opposed to the creation of a fictional character.

The libel and slander of Gardiner in the movie could have moved into the courts in an action for defamation given there was no basis for these scenes (Defamation Act ). The CBC moved quickly to stop that by drafting a new disclaimer which said that “this film is a dramatization based on true events. Some names have been changed and locations, events and characters, including James G. Gardiner, have been composited, condensed or fictionalized for dramatic purposes and do not necessarily reflect the generally accepted historical record”

(Anonymous 2006). Naturally this satisfied no one as Gardiner was not a fictional character. The

CBC in the end chose the wise course by deciding not to rebroadcast the series, recalling the copies and acknowledging errors in the film. This was only done after the CBC had retained the services of a third party historian to review the movie (Wood 2006). In announcing its decision the CBC stated it was “based on the conclusions that the independent historian came to on how

7

Mr. Gardiner was portrayed. His portrayal in the dramatization was sort of inconsistent with the historical record” (Wood 2006). A concession perhaps that the portrayal was untrue? It is clear that no one connected with the production including the screenwriter had ever done a historical review before the script for the film was written or perhaps Bruce Smith as he said was applying a different sort of truth to the facts.

As a result of the negligent, perhaps even reckless, manipulation of the character of James

Gardiner as “ relentless blackguard who exhibited not a single positive trait” (Burton 2007) by the screen writer there were many losers in addition to the reputation of Gardiner. The screenwriter and director lost face and reputation for their production. The CBC lost $7.9 million in the production of a film which was only broadcast once in this country. Tommy Douglas‟ memory was sullied by the connection to such a controversy despite the many positive sides to his life and work. The lack of objectivity given to one side of the political spectrum as personified by Gardiner rendered the film to most viewers as a form of propaganda for leftist and progressive views.

The truth was the greatest loser in this controversy. Film in Canada as a medium that can be used as a tool for teaching history has as a result of this controversy become more suspect by the viewing public. Can we not expect films on historical subjects to be historically accurate

(Cuddington 2006)? Of course we should.

It has been shown that we now live in “ a post literate society in which the majority of people gain historical information from movies and television” (Weston 2010). “It must be clear to even the most academic of historians that the visual media have become(perhaps) the chief conveyor of public history” (R.A.Rosenstone 2002). To this end it is important to understand that

8 historically valid facts can be derived from a film the primary objective of which is entertainment rather than historical accuracy (Weston, 93). But in order to do this and maintain narrative flow, “events and characters have to be omitted, compressed, altered, or even invented”

(Weston, 93). To that extent there are similarities between filmmakers of historical films and writers of history. History as written cannot claim accuracy because it is as much informed by narrative conventions and current tropes as by research and subject matter (Nadel 2009).

Although “film will never be able to do precisely what a book can do, and vice versa… history presented in these two different media would ultimately have to be judged by different criteria”

(R. A. Rosenstone 2006)Both actively construct and shape the story of the past from materials or evidence available to them. Both engage in preparing a narrative based on historical facts and where no facts exist to project a story on presumed facts. However unlike the screenwriter and director of “Prairie Giant” this does not include distorting known facts to provide a better film.

All narrative histories, which means most histories, have a few themes or theses or arguments that the author wants readers to take away with them. The book or essay is about an overall interpretation of historical phenomena which the details of the book or essay support (Weston,

96). Themes that are evident in all histories, whether filmic or written histories, are really stories or narratives themselves. Popular historical films offer unique and accessible means of introducing viewers to key theoretical and historiographical concepts; constructivism, narrativism, structure and agency (Weston, 102). It has often been said that “detecting factual mistakes is less important than teaching viewers to discern ways in which historical films often manipulate and trivialize historical issues” (Metzger 2007). History movies contain numerous details about the past as well as fictionalized elements that are used to build the narrative story.

There are three broad ways to represent history; dramatic film, documentary and innovative film.

9

“The dramatic film aims directly at the emotions” while the documentary “tells a linear and moral story” and the innovative historical film “constitutes a baggy category” (R. A. Rosenstone

2006).

The difficulties of producing the biographical film (R. Rosenstone 2007).

Strategies of Representation (R. A. Rosenstone 1995)

“All films to some degree convey accurate facts, portray settings and practices, question extant interpretations, expose controversies and stimulate interest” (Smyth 2006). “Perhaps they all condense, highlight, and focus as well as reflect the privileged assumptions and metanarratives that surrounded their production. But some films perform more of these tasks, some fewer, some films perform these tasks well, some very poorly” (Nadel 2009).

Bibliography 13b-15, Galicians 5. Holy Bible. n.d.

Alberta, Province of. "Defamation Act ." Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter D-7. Edmonton: Alberta Queen's Printer, November 1, 2010.

Anonymous. "Controversy continues over CBC's Tommy Douglas miniseries." The Canadian Press. : Canadian Pres Newswire, July 12, 2006.

Barron, F. Laurie. Walking in Indian Moccasins: The Native Policies of Tommy Douglas and the CCF. Vancouver: UBC Press, 1997.

10

Burton, Randy. "Taking Prairie Giant to Task." Star-Phoenix. Saskatoon: Star-Phoenix, September 25, 2007.

Cuddington, Margaret. "Douglas movie prompts debate." Leader Post. Regina: Leader Post, April 12, 2006.

Douglas, T.C. The making of a socialist. Edmonton: The University of Alberta Press, 1982.

Endicott, Stephen. Bienfait: the Saskatchewan Miner's Struggle of '31. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002.

Gardiner, James G. "Douglas movie still a giant issue." Leader Post. Regina: Leader Post, September 26, 2006.

Harrop, Gerry. Advocate of Compassion: Stanley Knowles in the political process. Hantsport, N.S.: Lancelot Press Limited, 1984.

Houston, Stuart, and Bill Waiser. Tommy's Team: The People behind the Douglas Years. Markham, On: Fifth House Ltd., 2010.

Johnson, Brian d. "Tommy to the rescue." Maclean's. Toronto: Maclean's, March 6, 2006 Vol 119 Issue 10.

Lovick, L.D. till power is brought to pooling: Tommy Douglas Speaks. Lantzville, B.C.: oolichan books, 1979.

Macdonald, Daniel. "Bienfait: The Saskatchewan Miners' Struggle of '31." Project Muse, 2004: 175-177.

Margoshes, Dave. Tommy douglas: Building the new society. Montreal: XYZ Publishing, 1999.

McNaught, Kenneth. A prophet in politics: a biography of J.S. Woodsworth. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1959.

Metzger, Scott Alan. "Pedagogy and the Historical Feature Film: Toward Historical Literacy." Film & History: an Interdisciplinary Journal of film and Television Vol 37 Issue 2 Fall, 2007: 67-75.

Nadel, Alan. "What makes films Historical?" Film Quarterly Spring vol 62, No. 3, 2009: 76-80.

R.A.Rosenstone. "The visual media and historical knowledge." In A companion to Western Historical Thought, by L. Kramer and S. Maza, 466-481. Malden, MA.: Blackwell, 2002.

Rosenstone, Robeert A. History on film/Film on History. Harlow, U.K.: Pearson Education Limited, 2006.

Rosenstone, Robert A. "Walker: The Dramatic Film as Poastmodern film." In Revisioning History: film and the Construction of a New Past, by Robert A. Rosenstone, 202-213. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995.

11

Rosenstone, Robert. "In Praise of the Biopic." In Lights, Camera,History: Portraying the Past in Film, by Richard Francaviglia and Jerry Rodnitzky, 11-29. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press, 2007.

Smith, Bruce M. "Bruce M. Smith-John A: Behind the Scenes." Canada's History. March 12, 2012. http://www.canadahistory.ca/Community/3-60-360/Behind-the-scenes (accessed March 19, 2012).

Smyth, J.E. Reconstructing American Historical cinema: From Cimarron to Citizen Kane. Lexington,Ky: The University Press of Kentucky, 2006.

Steeves, Dorothy G. The Compassionate Rebel: Ernest Winch and the Growth of Socialism in Western Canada. North Vancouver: J.J. Douglas Ltd., 1960.

Stewart, Walter. Tommy: the life and politics of Tommy Douglas. Toronto: McArthur and Company, 2003.

Ward, Norman. James Gardiner: Relentless Liberal. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990.

Weston, Rowland. "Introducing Theoretical Issues through popular historical films." Teaching History: A Journal of Methods 35:2 Fall, 2010: 92-102.

Wood, James. "CBC cancels rebroadcast of Douglas biopic:Inaccuracies;." . Don Mills: National Post, June 13, 2006.