Rogers v. Rogers
Photo: Dahlia Katz
CROW’S /Rogers v. Rogers, adapted for the stage by Michael Healey, based on Rogers v. Rogers: The Battle for Control of Canada’s Telecom Empire by Alexandra Posadzki, directed by Chris Abraham, Guloien Theatre, Streetcar Crowsnest, closes Jan. 17.
Give Canadian playwright Michael Healey a hint of corporate shenanigans and he strikes gold every time.
In his biting 2023 satire The Master Plan, adapted from Josh O’Kane’s Sideways: The City Google Couldn’t Buy, Healey took on the clash between a global tech behemoth and local government. In his new play Rogers v. Rogers, now sold out and repeatedly extended at Crow’s Theatre, Healey once again proves himself a master satirist of corporate power, this time turning inward to examine the implosion of one of Canada’s most powerful business dynasties.
Adapted from Alexandra Posadzki’s Rogers v. Rogers: The Battle for Control of Canada’s Telecom Empire, the play dissects what happened to the Rogers empire after the death of its founder, Ted Rogers. The play centres on the bitter struggle between son Edward and daughters, Melinda and Martha, as they battle for control of the company, even as the Rogers company itself attempts to absorb another telecom giant, Shaw.
Threaded through this family warfare is Matthew Boswell, Canada’s real-life Competition Commissioner, who serves as both narrator and foil, guiding the audience through the regulatory fight to block the merger and slyly noting that most of us probably did not even know such a position or a commission even existed.
At the heart of the production is a tour-de-force performance by Tom Rooney, who plays more than a dozen characters with astonishing clarity and control.
The highlight of the evening is watching how Rooney creates each distinct individual through the lightest of means: a jacket slipped on, a sweater added, a shift in posture, a change of voice. There are constant, lightning-fast costume changes happening offstage, and under Chris Abraham’s razor-sharp direction, Rooney moves fluidly from one character to another without ever losing focus or precision. I found it remarkably easy to track who was who, even in the most rapid exchanges.
One of the play’s most memorable sequences is a corporate board meeting conducted over Zoom, with every square on the screen occupied by Rooney, each thumbnail labelled with the name of the board member he is portraying. It is hilarious, technically dazzling, and theatrically inspired, perfectly capturing the absurdity and menace of remote corporate governance while showcasing Rooney’s virtuosity.
The production’s design team matches the ambition of the writing and performance: Joshua Quinlan’s sleek boardroom set, dominated by a long table and chairs that Rooney navigates like a chessboard; Nathan Bruce’s omnipresent video design; Thomas Ryder Payne’s surround sound; and Imogen Wilson’s omnipresent lighting all reinforce the world of screens, projections, and mediated power that defines modern telecom empires.
Beyond the satire, Rogers v. Rogers also offers glimpses of the family history that shaped this conflict. Through characters such as a housekeeper and a butler, we are given a sense of what the Rogers children’s upbringing was like, and it is not flattering. Ted Rogers emerges as a tyrannical patriarch whose cruelty left lasting scars, particularly on his son. The apple, as the saying goes, does not fall far from the tree. The legacy Ted left behind is not just financial power, but a culture of ruthlessness that seems to have infected everything it touched.
What I found most unsettling and ultimately most compelling is the portrait of Ed Rogers himself. Healey’s writing makes it clear that Ed is compulsively driven to seize control of the company at any cost, even if that means damaging the very enterprise he is fighting to possess. The stock price, the stability of the company, even family relationships all become secondary to winning. That Ed is willing to destroy the company at the cost of control is staggering, and what is more, that he is shocked when his mother won’t even grant him even a morsel of grudging respect to what he views as his greatest achievement is delusionary.
Healey’s weaving of Matthew Boswell’s story alongside Ed Rogers’s descent is especially effective. As Boswell grows in stature, patiently explaining competition law, resisting corporate pressure, and ultimately helping reshape the regulatory landscape, Ed seems to diminish. For anyone who has ever been a long-suffering Rogers customer, there is more than a little catharsis in watching this story unfold.
Looking at The Master Plan and Rogers v. Rogers side by side, the connection becomes clear. The former examines a corporation attempting to impose itself on a city; the other exposes a family tearing itself apart from within. But both reveal the same underlying truth: big corporations, whether acting externally or internally, are by nature, ruthless, destructive entities. The satire of Rogers v. Rogers is sharp and often very funny, but the implications are chilling. The play leaves us laughing even as it reminds us how dangerous unchecked power can be.
Healey has now delivered two blisteringly intelligent dissections of corporate culture, and one can only wonder what Canadian landscape he will turn to next. For now, Rogers v. Rogers stands as a thrilling piece of theatre: brilliantly written, impeccably performed, and unsettling in the best possible way.