Il ne fallait pas s'attendre à ce que le comédien torontois Tony Nardi vienne présenter à Montréal sa Letter Three sans porter une attention particulière au discours critique qui l'a suivi. Sans surprise, j'ai reçu cette semaine une longue lettre dans laquelle il s'attaque au critique du Globe & Mail Kelly Nestruck, se désolant que Nestruck ait volontairement ignoré une grande partie du contenu de sa Letter Three et qu'il n'ait pas vu la théâtralité et l'utilité de la violence verbale dans sa performance.
Je me dois de revenir sur cette nouvelle charge de Nardi, entre autres parce qu'il met la parole de Nestruck en opposition avec la mienne pour montrer le fossé culturel qui sépare le Canada anglais du Québec francophone. La différence est minime, toute relative, mais Nardi observe que la capacité de l'artiste et du critique québécois à admettre ses propres faiblesses lui donne une force supplémentaire. Autrement dit, la culture québécoise est sur la bonne voie lorsqu'elle se montre consciente de sa complaisance, de son asservissement culturel, de son manque de rigueur et des incohérences de ses mécanismes de financement (tous des enjeux abordés dans les lettres de Nardi). Certes. Mais, rappelons que ceux qui parlent publiquement et franchement de ces choses-là dans le milieu théâtral se comptent sur les doigts d'une main.
Je dois dire d'emblée que j'entretiens de très bons rapports avec Kelly Nestruck et que j'ignore si l'opposition que Nardi crée entre nous deux est valable. Je ne lis pas systématiquement les textes de Nestruck, bien que certains de ses papiers sur la scène théâtrale de Chicago m'aient beaucoup intéressé cette année, et je n'oserais pas me prononcer sur la valeur de sa parole critique, n'ayant pas vu la majorité des spectacles qu'il commente. Chaque fois que nous nous sommes rencontrés, j'ai apprécié nos discussions.
Ce que j'aime du combat de Tony Nardi, entre autres, c'est qu'il ne craint pas de remettre en question la parole d'un critique. Vous me direz que je suis en bonne position pour tenir un tel discours; ses foudres m'ont toujours épargné jusqu'à maintenant. Certes. Mais je crois fermement que le théâtre est un lieu de débat, et que la critique devrait l'être aussi. Nardi me donne raison en osant revenir sur les critiques de sa performance montréalaise.
Je vous laisserai lire par vous-mêmes sa nouvelle lettre, mais j'y trouve certaines idées dignes de mention. Par exemple, Nardi avance que si les critiques rédigéaient leurs textes après que les spectacles aient quitté l'affiche, on serait débarassés de l'enflure stylistique et du pouvoir que le critique se donne par là sur le succès public de la pièce. Cela forcerait les critiques à parler davantage du contenu et à pousser l'analyse un peu plus loin. Belle manière de dire que les critiques sont contaminés par le ton promotionnel qu'on voudrait bien leur imposer et qu'ils deviennent de plus en plus adeptes de la phrase creuse, qu'elle soit enthousiaste ou non. Ce n'est pas complètement faux. Nardi dit aussi que «l'incapacité de Nestruck à distinguer la réalité de la métaphore est liée au fait que les Canadiens Anglais ont du mal avec les métaphores, les paradoxes et n'arrivent qu'à comprendre le premier niveau.» C'est dit un peu crûment, mais je serais très intéressé à lire un approfondissement de cette pensée-là.
Là où je n'adhère pas à la démarche de Nardi, c'est lorsqu'il cherche une contradiction dans le fait que Nestruck ne tolère pas la violence verbale au théâtre mais qu'il s'en délecterait dans des séries télé comme The Sopranos. Pour affirmer une telle chose, Nardi se fie au profil facebook de Kelly Nestruck. Disons que l'argument aurait été plus percutant si Nardi avait trouvé un exemple dans la véritable parole critique de Nestruck. Peut-on vraiment remettre en doute le travail d'un critique en glanant furtivement des informations personnelles sur lui sur son profil Facebook ? Ça me semble un peu malhonnête, et très peu convaincant.
Bon, voilà, je vous laisse lire le texte de Tony Nardi. Mais jetez d'abord un œil à la critique de Kelly Nestruck en cliquant ici.
A tale of two nations … and, well, the usual!
In reading J. Kelly Nestruck's' "review" in the Gobe and Mail and contrasting it with what actually took place in Montreal at the FTA presentations, as I experienced it, not to mention the two pieces written by Philippe Couture in Voir (one before and one after the presentations), the question I am left with is the one I asked myself over 30 years ago, when I left Montreal in search of more vibrant English-language theatre community and tripped on Toronto – without meaning to.
How will this country, the people and artists inhabiting both sides of the two solitudes, ever make sense of – or live with – such radically different views of theatre (its purpose) and approaches to life and art?
It's not what Nestruck said that offends (should offend) theatre artists or discerning theatre lovers but what he missed in Letter Three or chose to ignore (including the Q & A moderated by Québec author/actor Robert Lalonde).
It's not only the absence of "what?"; the long list of missing "why's" is the problem.
Nestruck's criticism is not new. Similar knee-jerk vomit was launched at me like machine-gun fire before I could finish a first draft of Letter One in 2006. It actually helped me shape and articulate Letter One way better than I could have done alone sitting in front of a computer (though there was a lot of that, too).
If Nestruck could see (or read) Letter One he might think I wrote it after reading his "review" and based one of the ghosts on him, on what he said. Truth is, Letter One was written four years ago and the ghost in question was based on a fear-infested middle-aged actor who believed actors should not have a voice and that expressing is tantamount to signing a death sentence (Nestruck's ‘suicide-bombing' remark belongs to the same category of fear and disease). Letter Three takes issue with that middle-aged actor's concepts of "freedom of expression" and "support" and argues that the failure with our funding arts organizations, the failure of funding (support) for the arts, ultimately stems from the fear gripping (and spread by) too many artists. Period. That fear often shapes our work and informs arts funding agencies on what constitutes – and qualifies as – theatre (art). If artists take their cues from the arts funding agencies it's because the arts funding agencies take their cues first and foremost (from day one) from the artists creating the work and (presently) see no need to update their criteria. The arts funding bureaucracy reflects the cultural reality; the cultural reality looks for nourishment and guidance from the arts funding bureaucracy that mirrors its sickness. Fantastic! Let's not forget, theatre artists sit on most arts funding councils juries. Also, arts funding bureaucracies are often composed of ex theatre practitioners who (understandably) choose to abandon their artistic dreams and way of life in favour of three meals a day. Who can blame them when culture barely shows up on most Canadians' relevant radar screen?
I do not exist outside the problem, but am part of, and contribute to, the problem. There is no "us vs. them", as Letters One, Two & Three state over and over again. And though (two years ago) a journalist I highly respect criticized (perhaps rightfully so) Letter Three for overstating a point with too many examples, it seems that Nestruck didn't have enough, and needs help identifying templates. Or perhaps he was too busy reflecting on how he would write his piece on the one I was still in the midst of delivering.
Robert Lalonde understands templates and addressed the issues head on during the Q & A, as did Douglas Campbell last year when he moderated Letter Two at Espace Libre. Both, keep in mind, were first exposed to the Letters the night they moderated the Q & A. But, just as the Gazette's so-called theatre critic (Pat Donnelly) ignored Campbell's substantive and thought-provoking comments in her "review" of Letter Two, Nestruck chose to totally dismiss Robert Lalonde's input as moderator at the FTA presentation of Letter Three. Doesn't even mention him. Who the hell is Lalonde? – said Nestruck to himself (an opinion no doubt shared by his higher ups at the Globe and Mail).
Letter Three's "bile, profanity, violence, righteous and hateful diatribe" apparently (and noticeably) offended Nestruck's "cheery" sensibility (and tea-party prescription for Canadian theatre). And the conscious or unconscious dots he attempts to connect for the reader may qualify him as a Norman Douglas reincarnation, and not for the quality of his pen but for his cultural bias and tribal drum beating. For having 'violently' interrupted his drawing-room siesta (night) at the theatre, Nestruck knee-jerks a parting coup de grace and praises the arts councils that "refused funding" to the Letters in recent years.
Wait.
To show how offended he (generally) is by "near-violent performance" Nestruck lists "The Sopranos" as one of his favourite TV shows on his Facebook page (presumably for its non-violent, therapeutic, low-key, almost healing dialogue, its educational and culturally relevant – cheery – content, its Father Knows Best characters, and for making fun of a tribe and 'reality' he – thankfully – can't call his own. He enjoys laughing along after e-mailing in another 'thought-provoking review'. It's relaxing. Hell, anyone trying to "blow up" HIS Canadian Theatre is violent and suicidal; people blowing each other up, torturing, and executing major characters routinely, beating up, physically humiliating wives, girlfriends and everyone in between, where the brutality in season 3 apparently reached extreme levels even by "Sopranos" standards and had many people who had previously liked the show tuning off, well, that's just good wholesome fun, Canadian style, beer in hand – and a burp for good measure!
Nestruck is not offended by violence, profanity and bile; he simply wants to choose who's on the receiving end – and be able to view it, like a peep show. And – as long as it's set anywhere south of the 49th parallel. Free speech is relevant, it seems, only when those defending it are not in the line of fire and everyone's finger is pointed in the other direction.
Robert Lalonde addressed the use of "violent" language in Letter Three and its theatrical (and social) function – generally connecting it to other examples throughout history – without my ever having discussed – or raised – the subject with him. But let's be clear: Robert Lalonde, in addition to being a well-known and very respected Québecois actor, novelist and playwright is also a translator and professor of dramatic art. I may be wrong, but I believe Lalonde teaches – or recently taught – at Nestruck's alma mater (McGill). In fact, he taught theatre at a number of schools in and around Montreal. For someone who apparently "keeps an eye on what's going on in theatre across Canada and around the world" Nestruck seems to be oblivious to what's going on in his own backyard. That's McGill in Montreal and that's English Montreal in Québec. The Anglo-centric world Nestruck bathed in at McGill followed him to the Globe and Mail. Aren't we lucky!
For someone so interested in connecting the dots for others, the theatre Nestruck cocktails in the Globe & Mail and the history he apparently studied at McGill are so disconnected as to be alien to each other. The "bile and profanity" is between the dots he can't connect. Too many to list.
Of the four Globe and Mail journalists that have seen or commented on the Letters over the last couple of years, Nestruck is the youngest and the "oldest", and the only one in diapers, and not on account of his age. He's a throwback to bowties and writing by the pond in cream-colored clothes with matching two-tone shoes, right out of a Fitzgerald novel, with an anger expressed not in public or at anyone, but at himself, unleashed in silence, internally, on his organs. That's what his writing reveals. And more.
He's so out of touch with present-day Toronto, he actually believes I wrote Letter Three. If he cared to venture outside the cloistered walls of his "gated" community, whatever that is, he would see that the Letter wrote itself. A majority of the characters he believes I painted are based on real, living examples. I merely quoted them. In fact, some even attended Letter Three in Toronto. Most are Italian-Canadian. I have great respect for their ability to take the heat.
Nestruck, on the other hand, in the tradition of the person that previously held his post at the Globe, manifests an obsession with licking his (self-inflicted) wounds. To be fair, his predecessor did it in private (by not responding to my letter – the initial Letter Two – and to my invitation to moderate and debate the issues I raised in that Letter). Nestruck believes the Globe readership should feel blessed for being subjected to his emotional and reactionary reporting, issues I believe should be reserved for therapy and that don't qualify as theatre criticism – least of all in Canada's national newspaper.
As a paying member of the audience Nestruck is free to pick and choose, comment or not comment on what he likes or dislikes, or leave the theatre if and when he's bored (I explicitly offer people that option in Letter Two). Or sit and stew in his seat if he wants to. As he did. As a journalist/critic, however, Nestruck has a duty that extends beyond any responsibility we would expect/demand from any paying, regular audience member, even a discriminating one.
Letter Three is not only a post-mortem of the first two letters; it's a documentary ‘play'. I take responsibility for committing the words to paper. But a good number of those words came from the mouths of real life characters I came into contact with when producing and presenting Two Letters. If anything, Nestruck should have blamed Tony, the actor, for failing to do justice to those characters, as written. To blame the writer (for essentially quoting bureaucrats, journalists and business types – including self-made 'moguls' within the Italian community) is to be totally out of touch with one's larger community.
That Nestruck can't believe those characters actually exist in the city he calls home is a big part of the problem and what disqualifies him from reporting on just about anything to do with Canadian culture. What he means by Canada and what I mean by it are two very different realities.
Nestruck's ‘review' proves, once more, that the two critics I took issue with in Letter Two were not the exception, but the rule. What I said to them applies to him. It's a chronic condition. The exception, I am told by people in Québec, is Philippe Couture (even in Québec). The 'exceptions' in English Canada know who they are. Nestruck's pen gives evidence to a refrain present in the three letters: that we set the bar very below in English Canada. Too low. In hell's basement. The awesome talent notwithstanding.
That in all three Letters I point the finger primarily at the actor and his/her perceived role in the process of theatre is something else Nestruck missed in Letter Three.
A theatre critic's best friend and worst enemy, however, is not the actor, but those working at box office in every theatre in the country. Artistic Directors are a close second. The theatre critic is a cultural pimp with an overinflated sense of the power he/she has over numbers and figures. I agree with Robin Philips who stated (I believe awhile ago) that theatre critics should release their reviews after the run of a play. Once you partly remove the pimping element in the theatre critic's pen, and the overinflated sense of power that comes with that, you leave (oblige) him/her to commenting on content and the art form, on making articulate, well researched and thought out arguments in favour or against the content and art form.
Nestruck inability to distinguish reality from metaphor, and his unease with contradictions, proves that my (Italian Government civil servant) friend was correct when, upon seeing Letter One and reactions to it, stated that Canadians have great difficulty living with metaphors and paradoxes and can only deal with the literal. F. Scott Fitzgerald would agree.
As for Nestruck's point that Letter Three is a non-play I leave it to Philippe Couture's writing to respond on my behalf: "Ceux qui ne voient pas de théâtre dans la série de lettres qu'il lit, ou plutôt qu'il performe depuis plusieurs mois entre Toronto et Montréal doivent être sourds ou aveugles."
I don't need to patronize and insult Philppe Couture by thanking him for stating the obvious. I want to thank him – and the Franco-Québecois that attended the Letters – for something else, for taking the lead, for repeating a relevant refrain (publicly – and in writing), and being able to live with and acknowledge a contradiction without going crazy… that though the cultural situation in French Québec (including theatre) is often depicted as being better than in English Canada it's essentially no different … and that French Québec should not sit and rely on that "relative" difference.
This ability to be accountable (and take the heat) ironically partly explains why French Québec is culturally more vibrant than English-Canada and why the ‘relative' difference is paradoxically not so relative.
Since it may appear convenient for me to use one critic's words against another, I will use Nestruck's own words against any assertion he may have that he's a qualified theatre critic.
"In a Q&A afterward, he (Nardi) seemed calmer, more interested in discussion. If his intention is to provoke, it works – I had to restrain myself from heckling or walking out."
The actual Letter, J. Kelly Nestruck, was an act of theatre; the discussion was not. Even a number of young, recently graduated (French-Québecois) theatre students on the second night could see that.
Nestruck is, sadly, and perhaps appropriately, the perfect poster boy for English-Canada's ivory-soap-commercial theatre culture. He didn't land from outer space. He's a product of his environment.
English-Canada's national newspaper presently has the theatre critic it deserves until it decides it deserves another one. But the artists in English-Canada have to demand more from themselves and each other before demanding anything from anyone else. And the audience has to demand more from its artists. More than forty years of packed houses at the Maple Leaf Gardens and Air Canada Centre has not given Toronto great hockey or a championship. Mediocrity, regrets and what could have been. And that's it.
Tony Nardi
If my stating that Kelly Nestruck listing The Sopranos among his favourite TV shows on his facebook page is dishonest on my part and weakens my argument (due to where I obtained the information and its ‘irrelevance’ to Nestruck’s critical view of Letter Three) I will accept responsibility for failing to elaborate on the point.
First: My citing open-to-the-public information from Nestruck’s facebook page is not quoting personal information he had intended to keep private. One posts viewable information on facebook to publicly state one’s views, likes and dislikes. It’s there for all to see, otherwise only his facebook friends would have access to the information.
Secondly: The Sopranos’ reference is very relevant to Nestruck’s limited “review” of Letter Three and any notion that he stayed within professional (critical analysis) boundaries. Nestruck reported untruths in English Canada’s national newspaper. The Sopranos ‘revelation’ uncovers one of his untruths: his apparent problem with the “bile, profanity and violence” in Letter Three and theatrical (dramatic) works in general.
Third point: Nestruck crossed the line a few times, mainly framing his piece within a cultural (tribal) context, implying that the Calabrian-born Nardi cannot possibly speak for the cheery-thirsty English-Canadian theatregoers and theatre practitioners, that dwindling ‘majority’ that presumably (and too often) sets the cultural standard for all the other ‘secondary’ tribes. He attempted to draw the lines for English-Canada’s theatre, defining what it should be and who qualifies to represent it and speak on its behalf.
As for being factual, Nestruck cherry-picked items from Letter Three, misquoted them, and then blamed me for not being factual. For me to state that the Globe and Mail often dedicates front page to the Oscars and a footnote to the Genies is a fact. That Canada produces, for the most part, cheery, sub-par, inorganic films (or theatre) is also a fact. The two statements are not contradictory; they are related: one feeds the other. If a society and its ‘free’ press does not value or support (by covering) its film artists (and culture) the viewership dwindles, so does the debate, eventually so does the volume of films (or culture) produced and, ultimately, so does the quality. Where’s the contradiction?
Nestruck not only passed judgment on a theatrical work he did not like (his prerogative) but disqualified Letter Three as theatre WITHOUT SUPPLYING EVIDENCE of how the Letter violates the concept and practice of the theatrical act. Nestruck was short on facts and knowledge of theatre.
Furthermore, he used his purported personal tolerance level for bile, violence and profanity in dramatic works as a moral yardstick and barometer by which to judge a theatrical work, and, he felt entitled to broadcast his “moral distaste” for bile, violence and profanity, such as he apparently witnessed in Letter Three (debatable – in my view), coast-to-coast, while clearly proving in facebook that he does not abide by that ‘moral principle’ but conveniently uses it as a tool (weapon) against a theatrical work he doesn’t understand or like.
Worse, buoyed by his moral indignation to Letter Three’s “bile, violence and profanity”, and his assertion that the Letter is not theatre, Nestruck played executioner by sending a direct message to the arts councils (whose officers have yet to read or see any Letter for that matter), applauding them for denying funding for the Letters.
Since when does this qualify as theatre criticism?
If Nestruck chooses to venture outside the realm of theatre (and theatre criticism) it’s totally legitimate for me – or anyone – to respond and expose the falsehoods in his piece.
An inquisition may be a better place for Nestruck than a national newspaper. Perhaps the latter has become the former when dealing with artists from ‘other’ cultures who take issue with “Canadian” theatre and culture. It all comes back to the definition of Canada and Canadians and if the ‘others’ have sufficiently Uncle Tom-ed their existence to qualify as acceptable or reasonably accommodated Canadians.
If, in your view, actors willing to speak out can be counted on one hand, Nestruck’s irresponsible and near slanderous use of his pen will make sure to maintain the present status quo among the many actors who believe they have no right to a voice. And Nestruck knows this. He’s taking advantage of a cultural climate that puts him above the art and that (through a fear-infested theatrical climate and culture) appoints him and critics in general as arbiters of and authorities on the art.
If Nestruck, the journalist, believes he has a right to publicly state in the G & M only what he utters from one side of his mouth (his objection to “Letter Three’s « violence, bile and profanity » that apparently threatens the “CHEERY reality” of – and his prescription for – Canadian Theatre and culture), I have the right to point out what Nestruck, the person, publicly states from the other side of his mouth on his facebook page: his contradictory opinion. We know that no one watches The Sopranos for its non-violent, wholesome and CHEERY Lawrence Welk type entertainment. Anyone who has seen the TV show knows that.
So why the contradiction? Because it’s not a contradiction: it’s a double standard. Nestruck wants it both ways. His concern has NOTHING to do with violence, bile and profanity, or the degree of any one, but with the target: the one on the receiving end. That’s his concern and fear. The target in Letter Three is English-Canada’s cultural reality, theatre and funding! That’s HIS cultural turf, apparently! His birthright I’m messing with! I wasn’t even born here! I have no right! I’m a suicide-bombing Calabrian terrorist! What right do I have to “blow up” all that his Family Compact ancestors built?! That’s where it gets tribal. That’s where HE gets tribal. That’s the point.
Nestruck is NOT offended by the The Sopranos bile, violence and profanity because it deals with a tribe he – thankfully – can’t call his own, and that he can actually afford to laugh at – from a comfortable distance (his living-room couch). The Sopranos is to him what going down to any Little Italy is to many ‘non-Italians” like him, especially after a soccer game, enjoying an “espresso, gelati, or biscotti” while watching – from a comfortable distance or café patio – the post-game chemical reaction of ‘wild’, ‘violent’ Latin DNA and the runway procession of 905 (or 450) Italian-Canadian spoiled airheads. That’s also the point. I would have no problem with Nestruck taking issue with the 905 (or 450) Italian-Canadian spoiled airheads swarming the Little Italies of their respective cities in search of an identity. The perverse is in the fact that people (like Nestruck) can tolerate and defend the extreme violence and brutality of a culturally offensive fictional TV show (The Sopranos) but can’t deal with (are actually offended by) the “anger and violence” stemming from a Canadian reality dramatically expressed in a theatre presentation (Letter Three).
Nestruck’s facebook admission and the subtext running through it and his ‘review’ are obvious to anyone who reads between the lines.
Moreover, as a journalist Nestruck should have known that The Sopranos is seen as racially offensive by many Americans and Canadians of Italian extraction. People and organizations (the Federation of Italian-American Democratic Organizations in the ‘60s, The National Italian-American Foundation, The National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations and the anti-defamation arm of The Order of the Sons of Italy in America and others) have taken issue with The Sopranos time and time again; they NEVER said that Sopranos-like characters did not really exist in America, Canada or elsewhere (and from all cultural backgrounds). They were not complaining about the show’s “finely wrought characterizations, crackling dialogue and compelling plot-lines”. They had an issue with the American film and TV industry forever wasting all that talent and energy on ONE early 20th Century stereotype (the Italian-American gangster) that has been dragged into the 21st Century and shoved into people’s faces the way James Cagney worked a grapefruit, because it’s convenient, makes money, and everyone needs a cultural monkey to laugh at, and, that this (unfortunate) trend and practice – definitely not limited to Italians in North America – is ultimately culturally limiting and offensive. The danger being that TV fiction speaks for reality for many, or, worse, fiction can, in the minds of many, override (the cultural) reality. And no one bats an eye. A journalist is expected to bat both eyes. A journalist working for the Globe and Mail should set the standard.
The Sopranos seems to be a favourite among Canadian theatre critics advocating cheery, dinner theatre drama. In Letter Two I state that theatre critic Richard Ouzounian used an Italian-American TV character (Carmela Soprano) as a cultural reference and a ‘performance’ yardstick to judge the performance of the one actress who actually knew what she was doing in the ‘commedia” production of the Amorous Servant. For refusing to succumb to cultural “classical” acting clichés, to Uncle-Tom her performance and engage in minstrel theatre, ingredients many (including the theatre critic) had expected or paid to see, and that some of her acting partners were eager to deliver, she was branded a Carmela Soprano.
When and if you see Letter One you will hopefully understand and revisit my comments to Nestruck’s ‘review’ and your reaction vis a vis The Sopranos’ ‘revelation’. Nestruck’s comments and logic – what he likes (The Sopranos) and what he doesn’t (Letter Three) and the reasons for it – follow a disturbing pattern. He’s not thinking. We all lose.
Like many in English Canada, Nestruck seems to inhabit (is stuck in) a pre-1967 English-Canada reality. This is not saying little since it’s possible he was born after ’67. He appears incapable of auto-critical views and analysis befitting an English-Canadian society that has less problem paying out money (and tons of it) for a Queen’s Royal visit (in 2010) than it does for culture.
I have no problem with the fact that I was born in Calabria. I do object to how Nestruck’s uses my Calabrian roots (the apparent context and purpose). It’s worth quoting the opening line in your review of Letter Three – written one day before Nestruck’s piece:
“Chaque fois qu’on parle de l’acteur canadien anglais Tony Nardi, on souligne ses origines italiennes. Je me suis demandé quelques fois d’où vient cette insistance à souligner cette particularité culturelle, alors que Nardi est un vrai Torontois, qui a vécu presque toute sa vie au Canada. Mais il est vrai qu’il n’a rien du flegme brittannique de certains de ses collègues canadiens-anglais. Chez lui, le geste et l’énergie sont d’une indéniable latinité, et sa colère gronde au rythme du tambour battant.”
A friend asked me if your statement was not the Gallic equivalent to Nestruck’s apparent subtext. Frankly, I don’t believe so, I said. I do know that I have read enough of Philippe Couture’s stuff to give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s earned it. I can’t say the same for Nestruck. There is no evidence that Nestruck reflects on (or shares) a journalist’s reasons for underlining a person’s cultural origins. There is evidence that he’s trapped in – guided by – tribal emotion when faced with debating or analyzing matters of (Canadian) culture. The patronizing aspect is that he narrows the cultural demographics of the Globe readership as if it were made up entirely of only two ethnic groups: English and Scottish.
The fact that Nestruck’s falls victim to exactly what you said in your review – without him being aware of it – or supplying or questioning his reasons for it – tells a story.
It will be hard for Nestruck to argue against or ignore a growing sentiment in Canada as expressed by Billy Weathers (on the Globe website in response to Nestruck’s piece):
“The problem is that theatre in English speaking Canada is mostly irrelevant given the fact that it is dominated by a clique of white Anglo Saxon protestant that for the most part don’t even like theatre
“Tony Nardi is saying that basically critics don’t pick that up and white wash everything to the point where the theatre is so vanilla milk toast in Toronto and Vancouver that really it is just a bad joke and the point is that this isn’t going to change for probably fifty years till the demographics change there are people who love theatre and Kelly Nestruk you being one am sure to have sat through Nardi’s rap but theatre is not respected in Anglo Canada never has been because of the methodists and calvinists who abhore any kind of personal discovery or journey in effect Mr Nardi is saying that society is stuck and without a vibrant theatre the culture loses out the thing here is that nobody wants to associate with the meanness of it all.”
Or this response from Carrots 1 also posted on The Globe’s Website:
”You’d have to live the freelance life for three or four decades to know how real is the frustration of Canadian Theatre Artists and Creators. What is being funded has so little to do with Canada, contemporary or otherwise. We’ve had enough drek from Broadway and the West End, recycled endlessly, coast to coast.”
With his brand of reporting and limited “critical analysis” Nestruck essentially invited me (or anyone) to – at the very least – expose his double standard and untruths. For Nestruck to misuse his pen and wield his ‘petit pouvoir’ in a national newspaper is journalistically ‘criminal’, confirms the pettiness of Canadian theatre and culture and its irrelevance and less than world-class status. He’s banking on a series of nights at the THEATAH, not a life in the theatre. He wants recreation not creation. He wants to be as cheery when he walks out of the theatre as when he walked in.
Backwards is where Nestruck wants to take his readership (and theatre). To a time that never was but when fairytale dreams were embraced as a way to pass the time and ignore recording or commenting on the actual times. Nestruck’s pen and the Globe and Mail readership expect and deserve more than what he’s willing to offer and commit to. He should help push the envelope beyond what previous generations managed to accomplish. He should continue from where Nathan Cohen left off. He should resist turning back the clock and fearing what he doesn’t know and operating and condemning from that standpoint. He should not propagate publicly with his milk-toast reviews that we move backward faster than past generations moved forward. He should not attempt to pre-date Cohen by decades and encourage theatre artists to run for cover In the Sewers of Lvov. I’m sure this analogy will appear far-fetched to Nestruck. To those who know, or have lived it, or who recognize and pay attention to templates, I’m sure the analogy fits. The degree is usually a matter of just that: degree. And as long as the template is in place, the degree will usually take care of itself. Always does.
There was a time when actors were killed for what they said on stage. The authorities did not permit actors to hide behind their professionalism or toolbox (craft). It was not JUST the actor’s – or writer’s – words that were struck from the stage but the actor and writer. The person. The life itself was struck. Ended. Today, the striking from the stage and executions are subtler and often aided and abetted by the actor. Isn’t great to see how far we’ve come?
(We also know that the Nuremberg and The Hague trials didn’t have much patience for war criminals who tried to separate the soldier from the human being, the public servant from the private citizen: the former followed orders and could kill, apparently, but the latter was an open-minded, freedom-loving, people-loving, classical-music aficionado and so deserves our pity and consideration. We are asked to excuse the professional in favour of the person hidden within or to excuse the person within in favour of the professional (status) that grants him immunity.)
Given this reality, what makes anyone think that a journalist – or critic – can conveniently hide behind his professionalism, while spewing contradictory statements and beliefs and opinions that fall outside his professional duties and responsibilities? Who is going to take issue with the theatre critic if not the actor?
In reading my initial response to Nestruck, a well respected and connected Italian-Canadian “community” leader, a friend, taking a page and a character right out of Letter One – the Dottore, suggested that there is always a right time for breaking the silence, where the words that follow a decent silence can have powerful, seismic repercussions. Now’s not the time, he said. It’s apparently never been the right time – yet. And I have to live with that, apparently, if I want to get ahead and have my voice heard – one day. This wise community leader is apparently qualified to gauge the right time for things – to break the silence – and has generously promised to cue me when the right time comes. “PAUSE. SILENCE … and WAIT (I’ll give you the signal)”. Until then, I should perfect and polish the PAUSE and SILENCE. Besides, he said (using a soccer analogy in honor of the World Cup) a game can be played defensively and not always in « attack”.
I’ve known this community leader for 20 years. I’m still waiting for his cue. And the goaltender has been pelted with many “shots on net” and the game no longer looks like a game but a one-sided slaughter, an execution. But be patient, I’m told. Or better yet, “become an Uncle Tomasso and disappear into the crowd. It’s filled with Uncle Toms. That way, you won’t stand out.”
This over-educated community-leader friend forgets that nobody marched on the Romes of Europe in the ‘20’s. Societies willingly opened their capitol-city doors to the fascists from the inside. Sweets don’t cause tooth decay by jumping into our mouths. We do by sucking on them each day, believing they won’t harm us. That’s what history tells us.
How long can a person or community LIVE or HOLD a pause, or a silence? Even a community of actors? What is justifiable? According to whom? Who sets the time limit? I do have a sense. It’s not a pretty one. And it’s in the world-record zone, I’m sure.
There are no sides in this. We all lose.
Tony Nardi
N.B. My response in trying to address Nestruck’s ‘review’ and untruths was read by only a handful – including you and Nestruck. Hardly a level playing field. And unlike your comprehensive and much-appreciated response to my letter, Nestruck’s response was: “I rest my case.” I say to that: Ay, there’s the rub… and the difference.