Two Letters: A Courageous Performance
February 2, 2007
Megan O'Donoghue
Two Letters, by Tony Nardi, was a two-part critique on modern
Canadian Theatre. Inspired by two letters that Nardi wrote to
two individuals of the theatre business, he expressed the issues
that plagued Canadian actors and directors within a very creative
and artistic context. The acting was powerful, provocative and
extremely communicative. Although the performance lacked in
both storyline and spectacle, and with good reason, it is nonetheless
important to ask why the directors decided not to include these
two elements. In this review, Two Letters will first be assessed
according to the quality of acting. Secondly, a closer exploration
as to why the directors decided not to include the elements
of storyline or spectacle will be examined, and it will be argued
that the absence of these elements in fact enhanced the performance.
Lastly, some of the underlying messages that were communicated
to the audience throughout the performance will be discussed.
The quality of acting was very high in this performance. What
stood out the most were Nardi’s moments of intense rage,
which often shocked and provoked the audience. I also give him
credit for being able to articulate every word, every syllable,
with such clarity given the fact that he spoke so rapidly throughout
the performance. These were just some minor aspects of the acting
that made it so persuasive. There were in fact, more specific
aspects of the acting that truly demonstrated the talent of
the actor.
The acting in this performance took on a completely new twist
and was unlike any other acting performances that I had witnessed
in the past. Not only did Nardi play “himself” in
the performance but he also incorporated a variety of “ghost”
characters, which either represented real people from his life
or fictitious characters. This was an interesting paradox, for
Nardi was both not acting and acting at the same time. This
paradox gave the performance its own uniqueness, as well as
demonstrated the immense talent of the actor.
Another aspect of the acting that further demonstrated Nardi’s
talent as an actor was his ability to play multiple roles simultaneously.
There were many scenarios in which Nardi had to constantly switch
between playing himself and one of his ghost characters. By
transforming his voice and incorporating different gestures,
Nardi successfully portrayed two separate characters at the
same time, both of which were endowed with their own personality
and distinctness. His ability to do this so successfully thus
made it easy for the audience to distinguish between the different
characters.
Another interesting aspect of the acting that was observed,
was the fact that it came with “how to” instructions.
One of Nardi’s main issues with Canadian Theatre had to
do with, ironically enough, the quality of acting. He ultimately
felt that actors were “inauthentic” and “lacked
feeling.” During the performance, he often expressed this
issue to the individuals that he was writing to within a theatrical
context. In other words, Nardi was not simply telling these
individuals how actors should portray their characters; rather
he was providing them with a demonstration by actually acting
them out. In this way, Nardi was therefore implying, “this
is how it should be done.” The fact that Nardi’s
acting was so authoritative is what made him so persuasive as
an actor. To this point I have examined the many aspects of
the acting, all of which were given very positive notes. I will
now assess the performance according to the storyline, or lack
of storyline in this case.
Since two letters that were written by Nardi inspired the performance,
I assumed that Nardi was simply going to read his letters to
the audience in full text, but obviously within some theatrical
context. As it turned out, Nardi only quoted certain parts of
his letters and the performance was in fact skillfully scripted.
However, unlike Das Rheingold, Chekov’s Heartache, and
Of Mice and Men, Two Letters was not performed as a narrative.
It functioned more as a critique on Canadian Theatre and therefore
did not contain a plot. The performance did not have an identifiable
beginning, middle or end; rather it functioned as a whole-as
one coherent piece consisting of all its parts. Nonetheless,
since the performance was in fact scripted it should be inquired
as to why it was done so in such a fashion, and not within the
context of a storyline.
As mentioned earlier, Two Letters addressed many concerns regarding
the quality of acting and directing in Canada. The directors’
main aim was to simply express these concerns in a way that
could be well comprehended by a wider audience. Therefore, a
storyline was not necessary. I believe that the absence of the
storyline element enhanced the performance. Firstly, it was
a nice change. Secondly, it added a level of excitement and
unpredictability to the performance because the audience could
not anticipate the actor’s next move. Lastly, it made
the experience more relaxing because rather than having to concentrate
on words and action, both of which are characteristic in a storyline;
I only had to focus on words. Not only was the element of storyline
absent from the production, but the spectacle element was absent
as well.
Two Letters consisted only of one actor and a lab top, and there
was absolutely no background setting in any form. The actor
also remained stationary in the same spot throughout the entire
performance and hence, no elaborate movement was present. The
absence of any kind of set or spectacle may sound, to some,
rather dull. However, there was perhaps a very important reason
as to why the directors decided not to incorporate this element
into the performance.
Since the audience’s focus lay primarily within the messages
that were being communicated by the actor, the directors probably
figured that the addition of a set would have been not only
distracting, but also completely irrelevant. The point was to
direct the audience’s attention on the actor, and the
way in which he expressed his ideas through language and diction.
Like with the absence of the storyline element, I also felt
that the absence of spectacle enhanced the performance. Firstly,
so many different ideas were incorporated into the diction that
a spectacle would have just stood as excess, unnecessary detail.
Secondly, because the actor remained stationary and did not
interact with any parts of a setting, I was able to close my
eyes at times to better absorb the language. In other words,
rather than relying on both senses of sight and hearing, I only
had to rely on the latter. Therefore, not only was it appropriate
to exclude the spectacle element from the performance, but its
absence also made the performance more relaxing and enjoyable
for me as a spectator. I will now move on to my last discussion
regarding some of the important messages that were expressed
within the performance.
Two Letters expressed the concerns of Canadian Theatre in all
of its aspects including acting, directing, producing, etc.
Nardi was particularly disappointed with the way in which actors
portrayed their characters. In First Letter, Nardi argued that
the problem with Canadian acting today was the fact that actors
merely portrayed stereotypes. He also argued that stereotypes
were used simply because “the audience could understand
the characters” more clearly. To make matters worse, Nardi
noted in Second Letter that Canadian actors were in fact aware
of this issue but refused to voice their opinion for fear of
losing their jobs and ultimately, their place anywhere within
the theatre business. Nardi argued, “Actors were afraid,”
“theatres lacked courage,” and “actors were
silent.” It is for these reasons that Nardi felt that
the silence must once and for all be broken, and Two Letters
was the vehicle that was used to break it.
Of course, Nardi considered the consequences that might result
upon spreading these messages to the public. In the prologue
to First Letter, Nardi talked about people “pointing guns
at him.” As the letter progressed, he referred to himself
as “being shot at.” Thus, Nardi was explaining the
potential consequences of his actions within a metaphorical
context. To be “shot at with guns” actually symbolized
the negative criticism that might result upon voicing his opinion.
Regardless of this consequence, what was so striking about the
performance was Nardi’s unwillingness to remain silent.
His courage, his aggressiveness, and his refusal to submit to
the hypocrisies of Canadian Theatre taught the audience to always
fight for what is important, for change only results from action.
I feel that this above all, was the underlying message of the
performance.
In summary, I examined many aspects of the acting that were
observed during the performance, all of which were given very
positive feedback. It was then argued that the absence of both
the storyline and the spectacle element was necessary, and that
both of their absences in fact enhanced the performance. Finally,
some of the important messages that were communicated by the
actor were discussed in detail. Overall, Nardi’s performance
was both moving and inspiring. Furthermore, the significance
of the performance lay within the fact, that in watching it,
the audience was reading his letters.
sweetmeggie@hotmail.com
