On Saturday, I went up to Barrie to watch Talk is Free Theatre's production of Jonathan Monro's Variations on a Nervous Breakdown song cycle. (Here's my three-star review.) I don't get out of Toronto nearly as often as I'd like, but I thought I should check out this production for a number of reasons.
First of all, I've been interested in TIFT's work since interviewing the company's dynamic artistic producer Arkady Spivak about his trip to the Bulgakov International Art Festival in Kiev with their production of Moliere, or League of Hypocrites; as Variations of a Nervous Breakdown was opening a new studio space in downtown Barrie, it seemed like the perfect opportunity to head up and see what they're doing.
Secondly, I've heard rumblings about composer/lyricist Jonathan Monro for a while now and wanted to see or, I suppose, hear if he was as good as they say.
Finally, the production featured the talented Chilina Kennedy, who I've gone on a little bit too much about on this blog. It was a treat to see her - and the wonderful Patricia Zentilli, too - perform in an intimate 120-seat theatre; you won't get that at Stratford this summer.
There is another interesting element to this production, though: it is directed by my colleague Richard Ouzounian, who has worked in Canadian theatre as a director, actor and playwright for decades, but is known these days mainly as the critic for the Toronto Star. I may end up writing about his moonlighting work again in January, when he directs the Canadian Premiere of Jerry Springer: The Opera at Hart House. (That's a student production, but if no one else is going to put it on...)
Usually I review across the aisle from Richard, so reviewing Richard himself was a real switch.
It does raise that popular post-show debate: Should theatre critics work in the theatre world they criticise? Barrie's Talk is Free Theatre is outside the area Ouzounian reviews for his paper, but he was directing actors who he has reviewed in the past and will again review in the future. Does that compromise his ability to be critic?
I know some people think so - there are some very loud opinions about "the Ooze" out there - but I don't think it's a problem as long as he doesn't let it be a problem.
I used to think critics should keep their hands as clean as possible, but living in the UK for a couple of years really challenged my point of view on this issue. The critical culture over there is quite different, dating back to Bernard Shaw, who straddled the critic/artist divide, and newspapers seem less worried about pure objectivity - a fairly mythical concept anyway.
In recent years, Mail on Sunday critic Georgina Brown sat on the board of the Bristol Old Vic, but still reviewed shows there, and Evening Standard critic and alleged snoozer Nicholas de Jongh's play Plague Over England opened at the Finborough theatre. These are a couple of exceptional examples of potential conflicts of interest, but then there are the regular, everyday ones of critics hired to write program notes or paid by theatres to host post-show talkbacks.
Rather than a poisoned well, however, I found the critical atmosphere out there extremely healthy with a wide variety of informed and engaged opinions banging up against each other. It helps that there are at least sixteen major print critics in London, none of whom can really make or break a production as the New York Times still can, and that Brits are less likely than Canadians to be embarrassed by the fact that they hold strong views.
Critic-artists exist peacefully in Vancouver, too, where two of the major reviewers work in the industry they cover: The Georgia Straight's critic Colin Thomas is a playwright, while Jerry Wasserman, critic for the Province, can review an actor at night and then end up at an audition with him the next morning.
Michael Billington, the critic for the Guardian, Harold Pinter biographer and occasional director, actually believes it is not only okay for critics to work in the theatre, but that they should "practice what they preach and occasionally get their hands dirty."
I wouldn't go that far, but I don't think there's a cut-and-dry answer to the question of how much distance critics should keep from the artists they write about. Your thoughts?
