Pour encore trois soirs à l'Espace Libre, l'acteur canadien
d'origine italienne Tony Nardi sert un virulent plaidoyer contre la
complaisance du milieu théâtral, l'ignorance de la critique, l'incompétence des
metteurs en scène et j'en passe. Lettre no 2 (Letter two) est, comme son nom
l'indique, la deuxième d'une série de trois lettres que l'homme de théâtre en
colère a adressé à différents acteurs du milieu théâtral canadien-anglais pour
leur souffler sa rage. La lettre a suscité des réactions, qu'il intègre à la
représentation, de sorte que la performance oscille constamment entre la
narration et le pamphlet. Et ça frappe fort. À toute allure, comme s'il était
maître d'oeuvre d'un véritable bombardement, Nardi attaque de toutes parts. Des
prises de parole de ce genre-là, on n'ose même pas en rêver dans le milieu
francophone québécois. Pourtant, la situation est bien peu différente.
Le prétexte de la lettre, ce sont deux critiques négatives
d'une production de La Servante Amoureuse de Goldoni par le Pleiades Theatre de
Toronto. Nardi, qui n'a pas plus
aimé la pièce que les critiques, leur a tout de même répliqué par la bouche de
ses canons, dénonçant leur méconnaissance de la commedia dell'arte et les
faussetés de leurs textes. Mais tant qu'à y être, il vise aussi les
metteurs en scène, qu'il juge incompétents parce qu'ils abaissent les pièces à
leur piètre niveau de compréhension et considèrent sérieusement qu'ils peuvent
monter n'importe quel texte seulement parce qu'ils sont metteurs en scène et
qu'«une pièce, c'est une pièce». Il écorche les acteurs au passage,
dénonçant ce milieu incestueux qui se réunit pour «échanger des fluides». Il
dénonce ensuite le silence accablant de l'ensemble du milieu, arguant qu'«avoir peur de
réprimander un journaliste est lâche et antidémocratique». Quoi d'autre
? Le milieu théâtral canadien-anglais est fermé sur lui même et refuse de
s'ouvrir aux scènes étrangères, l'interprétation des classiques est la plupart
du temps «pré-coloniale», les Canadiens n'ont pas d'identité et «font de
l'ignorance un trait national.»
On a beau se targuer de la différence québécoise, que Nardi
évoque d'ailleurs à quelques reprises, force est de constater que le brûlot
pourrait presque s'appliquer mot pour mot à la situation montréalaise. Chez
nous, rares sont les dissidents qui osent élever la voix pour dénoncer la
complaisance, mais ceux qui le font, comme Evelyne de la Chenelière, Olivier
Choinière ou Raymond Cloutier avant eux, disent tout haut ce que tout le monde
pense tout bas. L'ennui, c'est qu'ils peinent à recevoir des appuis publics et
prêchent bien souvent dans le désert, même si leur discours est applaudi en
privé. Comme s'il n'y avait pas de place pour ce type de discussions, pas
d'espace pour la prise de position et le remuage d'idées. C'est d'une grande
tristesse.
À entendre la dramaturge Carole Fréchette pendant la discussion
qui a suivi la présentation hier, cet espace a déjà existé dans les années
soixante-dix. Si tel est le cas, qu'on se dépêche de le réanimer. Car un milieu
critique et exigent envers lui-même comme envers ses commentateurs externes ne
peut qu'en sortir grandi. Et hier soir, devant une salle composée
majoritairement de gens du milieu théâtral montréalais, le discours de Tony
Nardi semble avoir reçu l'approbation générale. Peut-être faut-il un détour par
le Canada anglais pour porter enfin un regard acéré sur nous-mêmes ?
Quoi qu'il en soit, si vous comprenez bien l'anglais et êtes
intéressés par ces questions, je vous conseille de courir à l'Espace Libre. Il
y a des surtitres français, mais hélas ils ne suivent pas le rythme trépidant
de la parole de l'acteur. Vaut mieux s'armer de sa plus grande concentration et
de ses aptitudes dans la langue de Shakespeare.
OPEN LETTER (re Pat Donnelly of The Gazette)
Dear Pat Donnelly,
Today I received an e-mail with the Subject: Pat Donnelly doesn`t get it.
Then I received another one with Subject: Pat Donnelly: Hicktown weighs in!
So I read.
…
Reading you is reading ‘small own’, not in size, but in every other way. And to call your writing ‘small town’ is to insult small towns.
It’s not ‘what’ you say, but the little thought that goes into it. Or maybe it’s the overwhelming amount of it you put into saying so little. That’s worse and perhaps more accurate. Your writing is a series of tapered stool samples, an incomplete, unsatisfactory and ultimately unhealthy bowel movement, where most of what should have been expelled – and not in print – stayed inside, fermenting, producing disease and fear – yours. You write from that vantage point.
In many ways your writing looks frozen in time. A perfect fit for Anglophone Montreal.
English Montreal, for whatever reason, and for way too long, does not feel or think it deserves better.
Had I known (before or during the evening) that you were who you are I would have challenged you publicly on the idiotic and irresponsible comment you made in last year’s Gazette interview, where you attributed my ‘courage’ strictly to having garnered two Genie Awards.
I could be wrong. Alexandre Cadieux (Le Devoir), Nicolas Gendron (DimancheMatin), Philippe Couture (Voir.ca), Anna Fuerstenberg (RoverArts), and Yves Rousseau (Le Quatrième) must be the fools for what they wrote, especially the effort and thought they put into it.
I will share with them and others this e-mail – and your piece. It will probably be one of the rare times where any one of them reads something you wrote, with the possible exception of Anna Fuerstenberg.
My only regret is that you may actually like the attention. People who write the way you do often do. But I think it’s a good price to pay. Your writing is perhaps the best weapon against your own self: it reveals you the most and defends you the least.
You are not separate from the theatrical community you purportedly represent and reflect. Sadly, you are, for the most part, one and the same (with the exception of Anna Fuerstenberg and those theatre artists who strive to engage above ground zero of their mediocrity and the one you impose on them).
At Espace Libre, this past week, most agreed that the problem with authenticity in theatre and culture exists in English Canada and in Québec. Québec’s advantage is relative and largely impressive only when measured against English-Canada. I agree. But the week at Espace Libre also revealed that the “relative difference” is paradoxically significant.
The lack of critical thinking in your piece is a fitting ambassador for English theatre in Montreal (and possibly Canada). The level of thought and introspection of the French-Canadian critics mentioned above, their willingness to debate and to engage the reader and themselves in that debate, speaks well of that relative difference, and springs from the same well that produces a more relevant Quebecois culture.
Most offensive is your virtual dismissal of Moira Wylie and Douglas Campbell’s contribution during the talkback session. The little ink you dedicated to that makes me wonder where your mind traveled to during their articulate, passionate arguments in defense of relevant artists and culture.
As Olivier Kemeid (Artistic Director) said after that Q & A, Mr. Campbell and Ms. Wylie were the youngest and most revolutionary of the moderators we’ve had. I agree. And this is not to take anything away from those moderators who preceded or followed them. Even they would agree. Campbell stating that we need a revolution, that the actor needs to reclaim his/her place in the theatre, that Canadian Actors’ Equity should cease to exist, though he was fundamental in its creation, and that theatre schools are largely irrelevant, though some do offer value to the young aspiring actors, are far from being simply “ bold declarations on many subjects”.
Though the Letters expose my mediocrity, and I knew this even as I wrote them, and say so in Letter Two, they were mainly an attack on your brand of thinking, as displayed in your piece, a thinking that often produces the (English) culture we presently have in Canada, and have had for too long. I guess you can find comfort in the fact that you are in the majority: comfortably numb, each day one day closer to death, and much older than Campbell or Wylie.
And you are a journalist working for one of the oldest newspapers in the country and Montreal’s only remaining English-language dailies. It is precisely your kind of thinking, as expressed in print, that inspired the following in Letter Two:
“If my ancestors (all poor, ignorant fools) could speak from the grave… they would kill you with their bare hands for your abuse of the pen… that most precious gift, knowledge and weapon you hold in your hand… »
Yours,
Tony Nardi
Cannibalism in Van Diemen’s Land, Tony Nardi’s Letter Two, and Coma Unplugged
As for Tony Nardi’s Letter Two, his passionate, heartfelt complaint about Canadian culture provoked by a couple of negative reviews of a Goldoni play in Toronto, it’s long. And rambling. Although he reads his script from a computer (which I sincerely hope does not provoke a trend), he delivers it without a missing a beat or a tripping over a word. A real feat considering the speed at which he operates. His finest moment is his turn as Arlecchino testifying about the play during a trial scene. I enjoyed his Montreal anecdote about the cast from a production of Arthur Kopit’s Indians waiting in Darwin’s bar for a review written by my late friend and colleague, Bruce Bailey. And you have to admire Nardi’s chutzpah in lashing out at the entire Toronto theatre establishment as well as the theatre critics of the city’s two leading newspapers.
But what, exactly, is his point? Like a porcupine, he shoots quills in every direction.
Still, if this be mid-life crisis, it’s an articulate one. And for him, it seems to be working. Not only was this show booked into Espace Libre (with subtitles) to kick off that experimental company’s season, it has already been made into a film — currently in the editing process, he says. It will be interesting to see how it turns out. No one can deny the necessity of editing for film. Within the theatre, however, some people just don’t know when to quit. At nearly two and a half hours, plus discussion period, Letter Two is a test of attention spans.
On Friday night, Moira Wylie and Douglas Campbell joined Nardi on stage for the talkback. Which almost created a second play-after-the-play, with bold declarations on many subjects from Campbell, and bilingual participation from the crowd.
OPEN LETTER (re Pat Donnelly of The Gazette)
Dear Pat Donnelly,
Today I received an e-mail with the Subject: Pat Donnelly doesn`t get it.
Then I received another one with Subject: Pat Donnelly: Hicktown weighs in!
So I read.
…
Reading you is reading ‘small own’, not in size, but in every other way. And to call your writing ‘small town’ is to insult small towns.
It’s not ‘what’ you say, but the little thought that goes into it. Or maybe it’s the overwhelming amount of it you put into saying so little. That’s worse and perhaps more accurate. Your writing is a series of tapered stool samples, an incomplete, unsatisfactory and ultimately unhealthy bowel movement, where most of what should have been expelled – and not in print – stayed inside, fermenting, producing disease and fear – yours. You write from that vantage point.
In many ways your writing looks frozen in time. A perfect fit for Anglophone Montreal.
English Montreal, for whatever reason, and for way too long, does not feel or think it deserves better.
Had I known (before or during the evening) that you were who you are I would have challenged you publicly on the idiotic and irresponsible comment you made in last year’s Gazette interview, where you attributed my ‘courage’ strictly to having garnered two Genie Awards.
I could be wrong. Alexandre Cadieux (Le Devoir), Nicolas Gendron (DimancheMatin), Philippe Couture (Voir.ca), Anna Fuerstenberg (RoverArts), and Yves Rousseau (Le Quatrième) must be the fools for what they wrote, especially the effort and thought they put into it.
I will share with them and others this e-mail – and your piece. It will probably be one of the rare times where any one of them reads something you wrote, with the possible exception of Anna Fuerstenberg.
My only regret is that you may actually like the attention. People who write the way you do often do. But I think it’s a good price to pay. Your writing is perhaps the best weapon against your own self: it reveals you the most and defends you the least.
You are not separate from the theatrical community you purportedly represent and reflect. Sadly, you are, for the most part, one and the same (with the exception of Anna Fuerstenberg and those theatre artists who strive to engage above ground zero of their mediocrity and the one you impose on them).
At Espace Libre, this past week, most agreed that the problem with authenticity in theatre and culture exists in English Canada and in Québec. Québec’s advantage is relative and largely impressive only when measured against English-Canada. I agree. But the week at Espace Libre also revealed that the “relative difference” is paradoxically significant.
The lack of critical thinking in your piece is a fitting ambassador for English theatre in Montreal (and possibly Canada). The level of thought and introspection of the French-Canadian critics mentioned above, their willingness to debate and to engage the reader and themselves in that debate, speaks well of that relative difference, and springs from the same well that produces a more relevant Quebecois culture.
Most offensive is your virtual dismissal of Moira Wylie and Douglas Campbell’s contribution during the talkback session. The little ink you dedicated to that makes me wonder where your mind traveled to during their articulate, passionate arguments in defense of relevant artists and culture.
As Olivier Kemeid (Artistic Director) said after that Q & A, Mr. Campbell and Ms. Wylie were the youngest and most revolutionary of the moderators we’ve had. I agree. And this is not to take anything away from those moderators who preceded or followed them. Even they would agree. Campbell stating that we need a revolution, that the actor needs to reclaim his/her place in the theatre, that Canadian Actors’ Equity should cease to exist, though he was fundamental in its creation, and that theatre schools are largely irrelevant, though some do offer value to the young aspiring actors, are far from being simply “ bold declarations on many subjects”.
Though the Letters expose my mediocrity, and I knew this even as I wrote them, and say so in Letter Two, they were mainly an attack on your brand of thinking, as displayed in your piece, a thinking that often produces the (English) culture we presently have in Canada, and have had for too long. I guess you can find comfort in the fact that you are in the majority: comfortably numb, each day one day closer to death, and much older than Campbell or Wylie.
And you are a journalist working for one of the oldest newspapers in the country and Montreal’s only remaining English-language dailies. It is precisely your kind of thinking, as expressed in print, that inspired the following in Letter Two:
“If my ancestors (all poor, ignorant fools) could speak from the grave… they would kill you with their bare hands for your abuse of the pen… that most precious gift, knowledge and weapon you hold in your hand… »
Yours,
Tony Nardi
Cannibalism in Van Diemen’s Land, Tony Nardi’s Letter Two, and Coma Unplugged
As for Tony Nardi’s Letter Two, his passionate, heartfelt complaint about Canadian culture provoked by a couple of negative reviews of a Goldoni play in Toronto, it’s long. And rambling. Although he reads his script from a computer (which I sincerely hope does not provoke a trend), he delivers it without a missing a beat or a tripping over a word. A real feat considering the speed at which he operates. His finest moment is his turn as Arlecchino testifying about the play during a trial scene. I enjoyed his Montreal anecdote about the cast from a production of Arthur Kopit’s Indians waiting in Darwin’s bar for a review written by my late friend and colleague, Bruce Bailey. And you have to admire Nardi’s chutzpah in lashing out at the entire Toronto theatre establishment as well as the theatre critics of the city’s two leading newspapers.
But what, exactly, is his point? Like a porcupine, he shoots quills in every direction.
Still, if this be mid-life crisis, it’s an articulate one. And for him, it seems to be working. Not only was this show booked into Espace Libre (with subtitles) to kick off that experimental company’s season, it has already been made into a film — currently in the editing process, he says. It will be interesting to see how it turns out. No one can deny the necessity of editing for film. Within the theatre, however, some people just don’t know when to quit. At nearly two and a half hours, plus discussion period, Letter Two is a test of attention spans.
On Friday night, Moira Wylie and Douglas Campbell joined Nardi on stage for the talkback. Which almost created a second play-after-the-play, with bold declarations on many subjects from Campbell, and bilingual participation from the crowd.
On dirait bien que c'est au tour de Pat Donelly , journaliste affectée au théâtre au quotidien The