LETTER ONE

Tony Nardi Hopes
Hugo Hall

In the tradition of the philosophers of the 18th century Enlightenment and the reformers of the 16th century Reformation Tony Nardi hopes that through his performance piece he can establish a new authority. The Reformation led by Martin Luther was a protest against the dogma and excesses of the Catholic Church. The Enlightenment led by the philosophers of the era protested against the authority of classical philosophy and the metaphysical church. In the same vain Mr.Nardi’s performance can be framed as a protest against the established and respected authority of the Canadian theatre community. Actors, directors, and reviewers do not fear Nardi is not here to bury theater but to praise what he believes is valuable in the craft.

Mr. Nardi’s performance is inspired by two incidents that provoked him to write two letters. Nardi was personally offended by the depictions of Italian Canadians in “Rent a Goalie” a television show on Show Case, and the review of a play by the Toronto Star’s theatre critics. Nardi’s anger led him to write two letters to the perceived offenders, and he has decided to perform a reading of both of these deeply emotional and personal correspondences. There is no set, costumes, lighting, or music in the performance Mr. Nardi has chosen to simply stand in front of a computer on a podium and deliver his speech. This is a very hard performance to critique because I lack a full understanding of theatre history, the art world in Canada, what it is like to be an Italian Canadian, and no experience as a professional actor or director. Because of these limitations my understanding of Nardi’s philosophical sketch was hard to grasp, but I tried my best.

Mr. Nardi’s tirade against the theatre community at times reminded me of a politician delivering a war speech, a sage on a stage, a bitter professor, or a angry old man yelling on a corner helpless as no one listens. At the break during the first letter I went outside for a smoke with a classmate and discussed our first impressions. I said “ I don’t know I find his ideas very overwhelming.” My friend agreed and added, “ his ideas are not like light bulbs going off over our heads, instead they remind me of lightning bolts.” This is unfortunate because although Nardi displays true insight and great ideas they are hard to grasp because the audience has no time to catch their breath and process the enlightening information. Every time Nardi displayed his genius with yet another catch phrase or concept he would move quickly along to the next making the performance hard to follow.

Nardi spends a majority of his performance arguing against various “ghosts” of the art world. These “ghosts” represent the authority Nardi wishes to reform or destroy depending on his mood. Nardi chose to read the lines of the “ghosts” as he debated him but I think it would have been interesting to see other actors playing these parts. Having other performers on stage would have bumped up the performance and it would have allowed Nardi to play off the energy of the other actors. The fact that this is a one- man show demonstrates Mr.Nardi’s confidence in his own skill. His confidence is well deserved though, for of all the performances I have seen this term Nardi’s was full of the most energy and unbridled passion. We should on the other hand take this energy with a grain of salt, because while the actors in the other performances we have seen are pretending to be their characters, Nardi is his own character. This performance is extremely personal and its source is Nardi’s own heart, therefore unlike other performances his soul is left naked and alone on the stage.

Since Mr.Nardi’s ideas are the focus of the performance it is necessary to discuss some of his key points. But before we begin it must be pointed out that I am simply paraphrasing and interpreting the ideas that spoke to me. Nardi believes that Canada, our home and native land, is not united but divided culturally. Between white and native culture, between French and English Canada, and finally between the French/English narrative and the immigrant experience. Nardi’s conviction is that for too long the French/English narrative has dominated theatre in Canada leaving no room for other cultures to tell their own stories. So why is this the case? Fear of the unknown. Nardi describes freedom as a room that traps us within its limitations. Fortunately for humankind this room is full of holes and we can create our own exits. The problem that we all face is the fear of what lives beyond the walls, our own personal demons and monsters, the beast of “The Lord of the Flies.” In Nardi’s opinion teachers feed off our limitations and do not trust the students understanding of new concepts.

Throughout the performance Nardi constantly refers to the greatest teacher he ever had his three-year-old son. He hopes that we can one day view the world from the cradle and not from the grave. He has more faith in his six- month year old profit then in directors and actors. Children and actors in Nardi’s mind are the masters of “what if?” and “why?” And in his opinion these are the key questions every performer or artist should ask himself or herself before they commit to a project. When I was in grade ten my art teacher brought his three-year-old daughter into class to demonstrate how to draw. Our class was very confused as we watched this little girl draw a horse, a chair and a school. We complained that her drawing looked nothing like a chair, but our teacher said this was the whole point. My art teacher believed that we as young adults had been brainwashed to believe what a chair looks like (four legs etc) instead of using our feelings and instincts. He believed that his daughter would be our best teacher because she still had her artistic instincts. Mr. Nardi and my art teacher would both agree that as we get older we become more jaded and defensive towards our convictions. We choose to accept the authority of others and we ignore the freedom that is found in new ideas. Intellectualizing has replaced hand –craft in art and the audience is left out.

Nardi believes that the creativity of the craft has been taken out of the hands of actors and placed into the hands of playwrights and directors. The actor in his opinion is the most important element in the performance and not the script, while directors hinder the performance and place limitations on the actors with their assumed authority. Nardi reasonably suggests that directors and teachers should instead supply their students with tools to unleash their talent not obstruct it.
Mr. Nardi would like his objects of scorn to know that he is not their enemy but instead their brother in arms. His lecture/rant serves as a warning that the theatre community in Canada is in trouble. Nardi points to theatre’s deficiencies but also balances his views with hope and optimism about the theatre communities’ future. If his enemies view him as a fire bomber then he views them as the murderers who mercilessly bombed Dresden the center of art and culture in Germany during World War Two. The true message that I have grasped from Nardi’s “Two Letters” is a message of distress not anger. Nardi describes inmates of a concentration camp during an inspection holding newspapers upside down to show that everything was not all right. The upturned newspapers and Nardi’s letters are in this way both distress calls. But will anyone listen? Nardi is convinced that obedience and silence are the great multipliers of evil. It is the task of all humans to have faith in their convictions and stand up against the majority. Nardi warns that if we do not take up this mission then we will have the same fate as Lady Mac Beth forever washing the blood off our hands.

This performance stuck with me for days. I tried to figure out Nardi’s message and realized that his mission is to simply make us ask “Why?” I saw my father recently and began discussing the play with him. I pointed out the ideas and concepts that I agreed with and quickly found that my father is one of Nardi’s “ghosts”. My dad launched into his on tirade “ Sounds like a typical Canadian actor always complaining, why does he have to shit on people trying to make a living? Directors should be in charge, they form the structure of theatre, what is the alternative? Actors running things? No thanks! I prefer order to anarchy etc.” And so the discussion continued and I found myself defending Nardi, but I cannot truly speak for him can I? This is a debate for those with more knowledge of the subject and not a novice. Voltaire in his Philosophical Encyclopedia ended many of his passages in the same way. When Voltaire found that a problem had no real solution he would end the chapter with two letters: N.L. Roman judges used these two letters when they could not understand a lawsuit and they stand for “non liquet”, which means this is not clear.

hugohall@hotmail.com