National coverage

[Gaetan Charlebois]

>The problem is, when our entire culture is permeated with these biases, how
>can either journalism or academia rise above it? I think academia does a
>pretty good job sometimes; but I gave up on journalism overcoming this
>particular hurdle before I even got a driver's license. Maybe what we need
>is a truly national _online_ theatre review service . . .  Something
>small-scale enough that Conrad Black won't ever be tempted to buy it.
>This message is already too long, so I'm quitting here.
>
>Paul M. Malone

You see, what I am having trouble grasping here is the devolution of
theatre coverage. When my first play opened in Edmonton in 1979, Jamie
Portman, of Southam, interviewed me and reviewed it. The article appeared
across the country. Portman was saying, in effect, here is an interesting
new play and though it is being done in a tiny theatre in Edmonton, it
might be worth considering...As a result, discussion of the play and
playwright occured nation-wide and the play was subsequently produced in
Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Minneapolis, London (England) on TV, radio in
French and English. It seems to me the job of so-called National Papers
should be to say: here is something that directors/ADs should have a look
at and that all Canadian will find interesting. Many, many plays in the 70s
and early 80s got discussed and produced because of this kind of national
coverage. I think it's scandalous that I have to go scrounging about for
info on plays produced in BC or NS, even though the plays may be of
national import or - like Norm Foster's works - can transcend (sp?) their
regional content and make people laugh/cry everywhere in the nation. How
can we hope to create an evolving national theatrical character? Especially
when ADs are getting lazier and are reading less and are saying, "We have
to produce Pultizer-Prize-Winner 'A' because there is nothing exciting
across Canada!" And what about the new Tremblay, Walker, Pengilly,
Hollingsworth that was a huge success in that one-shot production? They
didn't see it, read it, hear about it. They didn't have the funds, as they
used to, to get on a plane and go to Edmonton/Halifax/Regina to have a look
at it and to see how an audience embraced the work. Well, fine. It was the
job of the Post and the G&M to make up for that loss of funding and to draw
attention to that production and everytime we spend our 60 cents to buy
these papers, we are giving them permission not to do that job...

Whew.

Gaetan Charlebois