
by Tony Nardi
|

LETTER ONE
(Film Version in English)
February 20, 2011 at 14:30 (2:30PM) at the ONF/NFB Cinema
|
LIBERATING LETTERS
Two Letters: Letter Two
March 8, 2007
Glen Sumi
NOW Magazine
stage@nowtoronto.com
In two letters, Tony Nardi proves he's mad as hell and isn't
going to take it any more.
The letters, delivered – or rather, performed –
separately at an art gallery in the Distillery District, take
on lots of hot-button issues in the arts, namely racial stereotyping
in TV and film and responsibility in English-language theatre
criticism and directing.
I sat through the second letter on opening day, a nearly three-hour
(including a brief, somewhat awkward intermission) impassioned
rant in front of an audience of about half a dozen. It's not
great theatre, but Nardi's ideas and passion are gripping and
deserve a wide audience.
Inspired to write after reading scathing reviews in two of the
country's dailies of a production of Goldoni's The Amorous Servant,
Nardi (who wasn't in that production) stands in front of a podium
holding his white MacBook.
What's the rant about? A sample: Why don't professional theatre
critics know about comedia dell'arte? Why do so many actors
perform the classics in pseudo-British accents? Why do actors-turned-directors
feel directing is a promotion?
Nardi doesn't kid himself that most Canadians give a damn about
the industry. His letter arises from his love of his profession,
and some of its most vivid and dramatic moments come via personal
memories, including one drunken opening-night party where the
cast is awaiting the show's first reviews.
A late scene in which Nardi takes on the role of the Harlequin
is a bravura bit of acting.
It's a shame the piece isn't better structured. Nardi sets it
up like a Dantean circle of hell, with various ghosts nudging
and prodding him. It's a precious conceit that fails to pay
off. Early comparisons between the theatre world, the Catholic
Church and school, unfortunately, aren't carried through. And
for all its occasional brilliance, the piece could stand trimming.
On the other hand, I wouldn't want a dramaturge – another
target of Nardi's ire – to get his or her hands on this
piece and take any of the life out of it.
|
|
| |