In this piece David Dean argues that theatre should be studied as a site of public history because public historians have typically examined museums, film, television, and living history sites, but neglected theatre. Using Vern Theissen’s play Vimy (2007) as a case study, the author emphasizes the value of theatre as a site to represent and understand the past. The battle for Vimy Ridge is one of the most significant historical events for Canadians as it was the first time in the First World War that all four Canadian divisions fought side-by-side. Moreover, the losses were huge, but Canadians succeeded where the British and French had failed. It has inspired Canadian films, monuments, stamps, coins, sculptures, and one of the most performed plays in recent years: Vimy.

In many ways Vimy represents Canadian society. Characters come from across Canada and from the many ethnic groups that call Canada home. The playwright’s intentions, Dean explains, were not to write about war. Rather, he was attempting to write about the recollections of individuals, and to connect this with our memory as a country. The survey used in this study asked audience members about their knowledge before and after viewing the play, about the value of theatre with regard to historical representation, about other ways that they engage with the past, and how “trustworthy” they believe theatre to be as a representation of the past.

Examining first the survey results with regard to theatre as a site of knowledge, Dean explains that respondents found that the play humanized the historical event, making it more personal. Few commented, however, on the significance of the play as an important element in shaping Canadian identity. Approximately one quarter of the respondents thought it was a play about the horrors of war or that it was anti-war, which is interesting to consider in light of the playwright’s intentions mentioned above. Turning to the survey responses about the play’s representations of history on stage, Dean points out that nearly three quarters of the respondents felt that it was important for the historical details of the play to be as accurate as possible. When asked about the advantages of engaging with the past on stage versus other venues, such as museums, books or movies, respondents identified the immediate, personal and life-like experience of theatre. It transcends physical barriers, allowing the audience to imagine, experience, and deeply engage with the story unfolding before them.

The survey respondents were divided over the question of whether the play deepened their sense of Canadian identity. Many commented that this was done through the ‘unity in diversity’ theme in the play, while others found the play evoked a feeling of pride in being Canadian. For some the play was about hidden histories and untold stories, such as women involvement in war. Others, however, resisted the idea that Vimy Ridge was a defining experience with regard to Canadian identity. When asked about the way in which the play influenced their views on Canada in Afghanistan, only one fifth agreed that it did, most commonly in how they considered the effects of war on soldiers. Those who disagreed explained that Vimy Ridge and Afghanistan were too far apart in time and space and too different to compare. The author closes by noting that just over one third of the respondents found plays to be “somewhat trustworthy” with regard to historical representation, while under a tenth of respondents found them either “very trustworthy” or “not trustworthy.” More than half thought this depended on the play, the playwright, the directors, and so forth. The author uses these results to argue that theatre, as a venue for representing the past, is as trustworthy as other forms of historical representation, and thus is an important site of public history that should be considered by public historians.