A Post Script on NTS and Canadian Acting Schools

It’s difficult in a climate and theatre community of largely half-hearted group hugs and the perennial obsession with the celebration of hurt feelings to exercise critical thinking. It’s difficult for some to understand that one doesn’t go to theatre (acting) school to acquire talent and that no school can deny or rob one of his/her talent.

I find it difficult to understand that many people actually believe that a moral (and ethical) core and a deep set of principles are bought with either money or fame, or, similarly, through poverty or obscurity, and that conditions and circumstances, personal or communal, great or harsh, create the core as opposed to simply affecting it.  These people are often swept and driven by emotion and blind to logic and reason, and usually (eventually) lead family members, friends, communities or countries to hell.

Fortunately there are people out there who do stick to making clear points, who agree or disagree with an idea or opinion by pointing to specific issues of concern and bones of contention, who elaborate on their point, hopefully with as many facts as they can get their hands on, so that others may also get the chance to agree or take issue with their views, thereby provoking healthy, sober, domino-effect debate. If theatre artists can’t or won’t do it… who should?

I’m thankful for those minds that refrain from projecting and vomiting their own personal frustrations and gripes with the world and their community, those who can spot templates instead of auto-generated imaginary personal attacks, who can make the critical distinction between describing (to the best of their ability) how the world and their community appear to them and lamenting or cheering (ad nausea) how the world and their community serve  - or fail to serve and promote - their own personal needs and dreams.

A lot of the emails sent my way, directly or indirectly, reacting to the first piece I posted yesterday, that others then proceeded to post elsewhere (which I have no problem with), are literally soaked in an emotional incoherent woe-is-me-or-us refrain or spread over a passive-aggressive who-the-fuck-are-you? subtext.   

Basically, and overall, the reactions fall under two clear categories: those who take offense, and those who exercise their own critical thinking and ponder the journalist’s question in whatever way they see fit. 

Yesterday, I suggested I could forward the journalist emails from those people who did not mind sharing their views. Thus far, less than a handful have informed me they have no problem with my doing so.

A couple of NTS alumni responded and did not take offense. Nor did they agree. They simply thanked me for offering food for thought. They knew that the collective ethos I took issue with transcends personal attacks on individuals and/or on NTS. They knew that my piece was not a sweeping comment on the caliber of people attending NTS or on their talent. (I have a number of friends who graduated from NTS, and they're very talented: some have done very well for themselves)

Given that young people admitted to some of the “finest” acting schools possess talent from birth, that we know  a school can never furnish an actor with talent, the question remains: What has the Canadian acting school, including NTS during its 50-year history, fostered in the actor and the community of actors? What has NTS encouraged the Canadian actor to be? 

We know that the French side of NTS stems from a French-Canadian society that considers culture and theatre very important (crucial) to everyday life. We know that, for the most part, generally, French-Canadians do not see theatre or culture as simply a must-do "night out" of the civilized, an entertaining journey through a one-size-fits-all supermarket of international theatre hits, but an important cultural mirror that reflects and challenges the French-Canadian society, a society keenly interested in theatre and in being challenged. For the most part. And some of my French-Canadian artist friends would not be as generous in describing the state of culture and theatre in Québec.

What about NTS’ English side?

Does it reflect and/or instill the same commitment to the process of theatre and the vital (viral) role of the actor within it and society? Does it support a commitment to a theatre that does not play TO an audience but reflects a society’s dreams, nightmares, aspirations, fears, foibles and challenges especially by addressing those issues the audience (society) would rather not deal with and ignore in daily life? Yes or no?

Do the best acting schools in Canada - does NTS  - instill in the actor the energy, commitment, craft and a social/political awareness needed to create works on par with the great relevant theatre of the past, or do they simply teach people how to best mimic the past, bypass the present and to remain silent where voices should sing and howl?

If Ontario's total annual theatre output is comprised mainly of plays from Britain and the USA - to the tune of 85%  - is it possible that this FAT fact and statistic offers an insight into what  English Canada’s acting schools preach, teach, encourage and expect? 

Some actors who chose NOT to attend NTS in the 70s and 80s (and who have done very well for themselves) expressed (in emails) similar sentiments on what The School projected during those years: an English-colonialist-infested pathology. 

The perception might be just that: a perception. But it is too widespread a perception for it to be summarily dismissed by knee-jerking, emotionally-driven, hurt-feelings-wound-licking thespians gorging on Facebook like drunks in a beer hall.

I believe Paul Thompson worked very hard as NTS director to get people away from the school’s colonialist shackles and stranglehold. That's what people tell me, and I have no reason to not believe them. Thompson, like Douglas Campbell before him, is often the youngest theatre artist in a room or a theatre. It’s why he lasts and why he’s been relevant.