After Dark, June 4, 2013

Going Over The Line

When critics should pause

by Gaëtan L. Charlebois

@gcharlebois

I began reviewing theatre when I was 15 and an apprentice at The Quebec City Chronicle Telegraph. 

I only occasionally look back at what I wrote then, or subsequently at the Mirror or Hour. I suspect I'd cringe if I read right through the hundreds of articles - an ocean of smart-assedness and pretension. But if anyone thinks I regret hollering, "This is shit!" at the end of one production they'd be wrong. (I am especially proud of the article I wrote explaining the shout.) Or people who think I am upset I despised a profoundly wrong-headed production of Shakespeare once, they'd be erring. I'm also not upset I pointed out the arrogance of a young actor who mounted a production around himself - a very bad production. (Oh! I earned a death threat from him for that one!) 

As I aged from those days at the Chronicle, I was more cautious, each year learning more and more about the humanity of artists. Two very important lessons were learned: one from my mentor Henry Woolf who told me, "In theatre, we must build, not tear down." I only partly agreed saying, "I think I want to renovate!" When I began to freelance for The Gazette, on my first review I was asked to tone it down because, my editor, Lucinda Chodan, said, "Here you have a big hammer, be careful how you use it."

Ouzounian hammers like that weird dink in the folk-song: all over this fucking land.

Though I encourage the writers at CharPo to pierce pretension and arrogance in theatre, I warn them away from being personal in discussions. The soul of theatre and, also, by extension, of commentary on it must be careful of both the art's humanity and also of the human-ness of its people. I like the hammer analogy. I would add, however, it doesn't take a very big hammer to hurt someone. Every reviewer in the world should remember this - every editor be as mindful as Ms Chodan.

All this to say that a Canadian reviewer with one big motherfucking hammer went way over the line this week in his review of Romeo and Juliet at Stratford. It is not the first time I have flinched at the writing of the Toronto Star's Richard Ouzounian, but I think it is time for good-thinking critics to call him out on it. 

There is a lot to discuss in this adventurous production of a play many know well. There's a lot to disagree with. One of those is casting, yes. That's allowed. One can say an actor is miscast, yes - but after stating, soberly, why, a critic should move on. Nope. Ouzounian hammers like that weird dink in the folk-song: all over this fucking land. His target is one young actor who was walking into the lion's den of a Stratford season opening for the first time. I have read some agreement on the actor's capabilities but nothing matches the bitch-in-heat vituperation Ouzounian heaped on the actor for two paragraphs (with reprises in subsequent ones).

I have said it before: putting your name on an opinion about anything is a small act of arrogance. (I include Twitter and Facebook ops in this.) But when one works for a daily newspaper in a country's biggest city, wisdom in every turn of phrase is demanded. Bottom line (and this R&J review is just more proof): Ouzounian has never had that.