15 minutes into the show, a character asked, “Why are we even here?” and for a moment, I genuinely wondered if they were breaking the fourth wall, as I had been wondering the exact same thing.

I knew very early into the show that I was going to hate this play. I very, very rarely consider leaving before a play has finished, out of respect to the artist’s efforts, but I was seriously considering it for this one. Performed in the sanctuary of the Holy Trinity Anglican Church, this play’s greatest sin is that it communicated such an important sociopolitical message in such an obnoxious and unfunny way.

As someone who comes from a long line of health care workers, I am privy to all kinds of stories and experiences of the frankly abysmal Alberta health care system. It is not this thesis that I take issue with. Rather, it is that every way they choose to express this message is ineffective at best and offensive at worst. At some point, the strawman arguments became so tiring as to make me wish I was rooting for the other side.

Several times in the play, for several minutes at a time, the nurse character chooses to didactically recite what is functionally a lecture to the audience about how our health care system is broken and what needs to be done to change it. This kind of speech might work for a classroom or a sleepy rally, but it is certainly not compelling as part of an artistic work. Eventually, I wondered when they would pull out a slideshow and a clicker; that could’ve at least set up some funnier jokes.

During one of many lectures in the play, the nurse character apologizes for her prosteltyzing, noting that she “[has] a captive audience”. It was at this point that I questioned the intentions of the playwright; if you know that your own dialogue is dragging beyond enjoyment, why not pivot to something more artful and effective? Why choose a work of art for this message, when it seems what you really want is to straightforwardly lecture the public?

In terms of character, we were meant to trust the nurse as the moral core of the story, and certainly the political voice of the playwright, as she was depicted as the most responsible and competent health care professional in the room. This was, however, hard to swallow when one of her first acts was to incorrectly dose a patient. It was confusing that the play tried to have it both ways.

I have seen many “bad” plays over the years, but few actively offended me. I was shocked that a play about a care-based profession that boasts many female members, would characterize female characters in such a misogynistic way. The resident character is the wide-eyed greenhorn. Why cast this character as female? Why make her primarily the audience’s way in to understanding the health care system’s realities for the first time, through her constant naive questions, when the male patient is right there and most likely to be unknowledgable about the system? Why show a veteran nurse as incompetent and competent by turns, seemingly with no rhyme or reason? Comedy does not exist in a vacuum. Gender is a politicizing force. The way you cast your shows matters.

Near the end, as the wannabe-plastic surgeon leaves the venue, they comment on the appearances of various audience members. In this particular performance, they pointed out actual features (and thus likely insecurities) of real people. For example, they filippantly recommended that one audience member, who had an actual receding hairline, get a hair transplant. This is absolutely reprehensible. Insult comedy is an art that is only funny when audience members consent to the process. To throw this in, without warning, at the end of a show is both shocking and a reflection of the very, very poor thought process that went into the development of this show’s “comedy”. It flies in the face of the consent culture that Fringe is actively trying to uphold. It is mean-spirited towards the paying audience that is supporting your art.

I was also deeply unimpressed by the post-show announcement by the actors that this play was “absurdist” and not meant to be a reflection of real health care experiences, though they admitted that some cast members were health care workers and the script made reference to their lived experiences. How can you hide behind a label of absurdism, while also claiming realism? This was clearly a declaration made in response to negative feedback from patrons or even reviews. I find this kind of rebuttal to reviews to be embarrassing. When you choose to perform your art for the public, you are letting go of your control of said art. That is part of why art is such a vulnerable-making process, and why I personally believe that artists are deeply courageous people. Artists who last can recognize criticisms and use it to improve their craft, or at least reflect on it if not change it, instead of falling back on immature and defensive commentary. I don’t ever want to act like one bad play is worth never seeing another from an artist or team, but it seems turnabout is fair play. This deeply soured my opinion of all artists involved and I will certainly be avoiding their work in the future.