“PRAIRIE GIANT: THE TOMMY DOUGLAS STORY”: WHY TRUTH IS IMPORTANT IN HISTORICAL FILM. The legacy of Tommy Douglas to Canada 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 Canadians’ understanding of what we are as a country. There are many written records of his time both as Premier of Saskatchewan 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 the Greatest Canadian on a CBC television show. The show‟s contest had pitted him against such Canadian icons as Sir John A. Macdonald, Wayne Gretsky and Pierre Trudeau. 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 United Church of Canada 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, Shirley Douglas had been married to the famous Hollywood actor, Donald Sutherland, 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 Dangerous Minds 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 Weyburn, 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.