Reviews

Deep Sleep: mystery in social context

DEEP SLEEP. Starring Megan Follows,
Stuart Margolin, Patricia Collins, Damon
D’Oliveira. Directed and written by Patricia
Gruben. Festival Films, Canada. At Fam-
ous Players theatres.

Deep, dark secrets lie hidden in the heart
of the individual, and within society. And
both need io awaken from the deep sleep
that clouds the truth, however painful it
may be.

That could be the message of Deep Sleep,
a made-in-Vancouver film of unevenqual-
ity that seems much longer than its 85-=
minutes — not because the “psychological
thriller” is boring (it isn’t) but because Deep
Sleep’s creators tried to cram so many
themes into it.

In presenting the story of 17-year-old
Shelley McBride (Megan Follows) and her
search for the answer to the riddle of her
father’s untimely death, writer-director
Patricia Gruben (of Simon Fraser Univer-
sity and the Praxis Film Development
Workshop) deals with sexual abuse of
children; painful psychological ‘self-awak-
ening, replete with symbolic dream sequen-
ces; murder mystery; religious devotion and
its flip side, hypocrisy; and related political
and social themes — U.S. imperialism in
the Philippines and the exploitation of Fil-
ipino immigrants in Vancouver.

Much of the film concerns the deeply
troubled Shelley, who takes an unscheduled
leave from the clinic in which she is under-

. going therapy to deal with the apparent

murder of her father four years earlier. She
returns to a less-than-enthusiastic welcome
from her family in their posh, West Van-
couver waterfront home, surprising them in
the act of celebrating the marriage of the
mother, Barbara (Patricia Collins), to
Dad’s old business partner, Bob (Stuart
Margolin).

It soon becomes clear that Shelley has
little love for Bob, a decidedly sinister look-
ing type who seems to fill the bill as the
mystery man in white Shelley envisions in
dreams waking and sleeping as the culprit in
her father’s murder. And she finds little
sympathy from Barbara, an upper-class
women with the classic repressed emotions.
Ditto for the rest of the family, all devout

Mesh Follows confronts Stuart Margolin in new Canadian psychological thriller, Deep Sleep. The balance of mystery,
trauma and politics is uneven. ;

Catholics who hold regular “family fellow-
ship” nights of Bible reading when the men
aren’t out bonding in a ritual of deer
slaying.

Shelley is left to her own resources, which
is a tall order: she suffers from somnambu-
listic nocturnal wanderings that are traum-
atizing and even potentially fatal; even
when awake, Shelley finds her actions ham-
pered by debilitating psychological triggers
that cause her to, variously, crash a car
through a fence, begin sordid sexuality with
a delivery man ina back alley, or faint at the
sight of an innocent object of worship.

But persevere she does, and Shelley’s
attempts to dig out the truth lead her to
Vancouver’s downtown streets and mem-
bers of a marginalized community of Fil-
ipino refugees. One such person, Angel
(Damon D’Oliveira), proves to be the cata-
lyst not only for Shelley’s awakening, but
for that of the rest of the family.

The triumph of Deep Sleep is the sus-

pense maintained through Shelley’s sleep-
walking dreams.. Full of baffling but
obviously symbolic objects and shot in
parched colours, they successfully maintain
the necessarily eerie atmosphere to main-
tain psychological suspense. An underwater
scene of kelp beds is particularly exceptional.

Such work shows the filmmakers were
serious about their project. It’s unfortunate,
then, that several scenes are badly cut, and
others aré poorly written. When Shelley
tells Angel, minutes after meeting him, that
she keeps dreaming of a man in white, the
effect is unintentionally comical.

Direction suffers as well. With several
experienced actors involved, we expect
more responses to dramatic situations.
When a bullet passes apparently inches
froma man’s head, he’d likely do more than
simply utter, “Jesus Christ.” Barbara
McBride’s reaction to discovering a terrible
truth about a loved one should be some-
thing more effective than an expression of

resigned sadness.

(And, to add a note of personal protest:
In one scene, a menial labourer shows no
qualms about sexually exploiting Shelley,
although he is old enough to be her father.
Can’t we expect more of Canadian film-
makers than to ape U.S.-style negative ste-
reotyping of the working class?)

As well-intentioned as the many themes
are, they make an uneasy blend in Deep
Sleep.- Undeveloped, because the film must
give so much attention to Shelley’s trauma,
is the partial expose of the U.S. imperialism
in the Third World, and — even more glar-
ing by its incompleteness — the sordid tale
of a body market operated by “respectable”
citizens.

Credit where credit is due, though:
Angel’s heartfelt denunciation of social ruin
caused by army bases in the Philippines is
strong. If only that theme had been
explored more — or given its own movie.

— Dan Keeton

SPOILS OF POWER: The Politics of
Patronage. By Jeffrey Simpson. 1988

and Collins, Toronto.

Spoils of Power by Jeffrey Simpson
proves conclusively that Canadian polit-
ics, from the colonial period to the Mulro-
ney era, cannot be understood without
understanding the role of political patron-
age and political corruption.

When Liberal Prime Minister Pierre
Trudeau handed over the party leadership
to John Turner in 1984, the cabinet
approved 225 patronage appointments,
mostly for Liberals.

Advertising companies connected with
the Liberals received new government
contracts. Eighteen high-profile Liberals,
including MPs, were awarded full-time
jobs. However, on the advice of cabinet, it
was agreed that the appointments would
be made by John Turner, after he officially
took over from Trudeau. When Turner
first saw the list, he was very angry, but
after listening to his advisors he added a
few names and made the appointments.

Many Canadians will remember the
1984 television debate in which Mulroney
crucified the helpless Turner for making
those appointments. “You had an option,
sir,’ Mulroney declaimed. “You could

hardcover, and 1989, paperback. Harper™

have said I am not going to doit. ’mnot ~

going to ask Canadians to pay the price.”

But that statement was made with
tongue in cheek, On the day before the
new Mulroney cabinet was sworn in, the
chairpersons of the Conservative provin-
cial advisory committees on patronage
met in Ottawa to set the machinery in
motion for patronage appointments.

By December, 1984, the first batch of
appointments were made, with a bit of
camouflage thrown in. Stephen Lewis,
former Ontario NDP leader, was named
ambassador to the United Nations. Lloyd
Francis, a Liberal and former Speaker of
the Commons, was named ambassador to
Portugal. These postings were meant to
prove that allpatronage appointments
were made on the basis of merit, irrespec-
tive of party affiliation.

However, on Dec. 4, 20 appointments
were made, mostly for Mulroney’s per-
sonal friends of Conservative organizers.
Then, on the last Friday before Christmas
(the date was chosen to minimize public-
ity) another long list of Conservatives
appeared. Eleven liberals were replaced by
Conservatives as directors of Petro-
Canada.

Three months later Mulroney handed
out one of the most sought-after political
plums: positions on the board of directors
of Air Canada, with the accompanying
free passes. Of the 13 Conservatives who

Sordid history of political patronage exposed

were named to the board, only two had
any previous experience relating to travel.
Four of the new members were PAC
chairpersons. Nine out of 10 PAC chair-
men received patronage postings: four to
Air Canada, two to Petro-Canada, one to
the Bank of Canada, one to the bench and
one as commission counsel for a royal
commission. While not unlawful, many of
these appointments were questionable.

All of this information and much more
can be found in Spoils of Power, with a
chapter devoted to each province and a
number of chapters on the history of Can-
adian political parties and on the federal
scene.

Two facets of this book are particularly
interesting. First, there’s the history of
patronage appointments and political cor-
ruption in Canada. When an active Lib-
eral or Conservative is appointed to a
board of commission, that is permissible
patronage. However, in recent years the
number of public service staff positions
which can be filled through. patronage has
been greatly reduced.

Toa great extent eS is due to the high
degree of unionization in the public ser-
vice. However corruption, like kickbacks
in return for contracts, rigged bidding,
renting premises for government business
from party supporters at inflated prices,

on the left, although it is not. written with }

donations to the party in return for liquor
licences, and many other such practices
have never been lawful. But such practices
exist to this day, although not in such
blatant forms as in previous times. The
public is now less inclined to accept such
actions.

The second facet is coalition building.
Sometimes we on the left seem to leave the
suggestion that we invented coalition ©
building, both in the extra-parliamentary |
and the parliamentary files. This book }
describes how political coalitions have }
held office for lengthy periods in Canada, —
like the Socred-Liberal-Conservative coa- |
lition in B.C., the Liberal-Progressive coa-
lition in Manitoba and the Liberal-
Progressive coalition federally under
Mackenzie King.

These were, essentially, right-centre |
coalitions, but they reflected mass dissatis- |
faction with the status quo. They also —
demonstrated the ability of astute leaders |
of the ruling class to manoeuvre in times of —
crisis; .

This book - ai ina popular style 1 |
and has much useful information for those -
who. are searching for Political z alternatives —

that purpose in mind. - aa
— Jack Phillips _

6 « Pacific Tribune, May 28, 1990