Sondheim vs. Porgy & Bess - YIKES!- Page 2

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 2:05pm

I read this as much a warning shot to his family and estate - of what his wishes will be, as anything else.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 2:07pm

Except Carmen Jones wasn't completely new in the way, say, Rent is a completely new take on Boheme. It used the same music. That's not minor nor is it incidental. I'm not all that familiar with something like The Hot Mikado, but I was under the impression that it was along the same lines of Carmen Jones. I could be completely wrong here. But the music isn't some small afterthought. I would veture to say that most non-opera buffs would not be able to tell you the whole plot of Carmen or any of the lyrics...but damn, they'll be able to say 'That's Carmen!' when they hear that glorious music (thanks Katarina Witt and Debbie 'I Choked' Thomas!)

I will agree, however, that the tone of the adapters in the original article was off-putting. And the erasing of DuBose Heyward is dreadful. I agree with those saying they should retitle it. Personally, I'd just go with Porgy and Bess: The Musical.

But I don't quite get the vitriol at the adaptation. Someone in this thread mentioned something about those classic works being in the public domain. Is that really all that makes changes to a work ok? Time? That's it?

One of my favorite theatrical evenings was seeing R&J in its original run in the city. That is one hacking of a script. I mean...Midsummer ended up in there. But it was thoroughly moving, and, for me, it worked.

[jv92]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 2:09pm

Is it just my computer, or did the TIMES take the comments down?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 2:14pm

I agree that the score of "Carmen" is vital; the most vital element. But "Carmen Jones" still is a completely different work, not just "Carmen" with a few new elements, I would argue.

I was thinking the same thing about public domain. I think what makes it seem like that's the difference is simply that they've had such a long life as the original work that any later adaptations really aren't going to affect their life much.

Whereas if the Gershwin estate finds this version to be a surefire money-maker--and they're the only ones who can say yea or nay to a production--it's possible that the original work won't continue to be performed; that it will exist only on paper and in old recordings.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 2:15pm

JV, I don't see the comments anymore, either.

P.S. I'm not saying I'm against this production. I'm just not agreeing with the comparsion to "Carmen Jones" and "West Side Story," or simply performing Shakespeare in modern dress (to take one cited example).

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 2:23pm

I'll argue you to the death on Carmen Jones! But I agree that West Side Story has no place here. It's a completely new work, with just the broad outlines of the plot of Romeo and Juliet.

I don't know. I think theatre is generally a Frankenstein's monster of old stories and elements stitched together to make something...if not new, then different.

Adaptations of other works (be they wholesale or minor revisions) don't offend me. Medicore work offends me. As I do not know the quality of this work yet, I'll reserve judgement.

And who doesn't love a bunch of psychotic theatre people talking each other up and tearing each other down. IN PRINT!

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 2:28pm

Ok, I'll yield, then. It's not a provable point either way.

And I like adaptations, too. As I said, I'm eager to see this one.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 2:38pm

To me, a bit part of the argument isn't actually the tinkering with the material -- what Sondheim is saying, is that its a respect issue; what the Gershwin estate through Paulus are in effect doing is trying to cash in on the name value of the Gershwins and maintain the name recognition of the original opera, all the while completely re-writing and changing the authors' original intentions, in effect creating a completely new musical.

The precedence isn't exactly new here. Whether its CARMEN JONES or CRAZY FOR YOU -- taking a familiar piece and re-writing it for a modern audience isn't anything I have an issue with.

But rewriting PORGY AND BESS - giving it a new ending, and insisting on calling it by its original title (and marketing it as the original work) is somewhat trying to have your cake and eat it too.

The problem in my opinion would be solved if they would just re-title this production.


Updated On: 8/10/11 at 02:38 PM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 2:39pm

I hope you understood the winky emoticon implicit in the first sentence of my last post!

And what with this and Marilyn Michaels complaining about Lauren Ambrose, the olds of the entertainment world are CRANKY! It's like a Tea Party for gays!

[uncageg]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 2:39pm

The comments are still there on my computer. 4 pages of them.

[mallardo]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 2:51pm

Ditto. I just read all the comments and a lot of them are very good.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 2:56pm

Can we call it 'Porgy DuBose and Bess Heyward'?? All problems will be solved.

I do agree about the title. It should reflect that it's a new take on the material.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 3:01pm

And as I alluded to earlier, a new title, I think would actually potentially draw a bigger audience. There are just as many mainstream audience members out there who would be turned off by the title PORGY AND BESS as would be turned on by it.

[ruthiefan_felix]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 3:06pm

adaptations will always happen as long as plays are written and performed... heck, there was a period when King Lear has a happy ending! CRAZY STUFF!
I understand Sondheim's anger and I agree with his points and concern, but there really is no need to be so angry towards his colleagues in the business...
oh well... either way... that certainly steamed up some publicity for the production!

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 3:07pm

I was skeptical about the "re-thinking" of PORGY AND BESS a couple of months ago when this was first announced. Most of the above posters have made valid points. Nevertheless, call me a Gershwin purist. I think that Stephen Sondheim's letter to the Times is not only appropriate but is superbly crafted as an argument against what is happening in the creative process. It is an excellent letter. And I look forward to responses from Audra McDonald and the director and playwright. PORGY AND BESS is too important not to continue a dialogue between interested parties. I plan to see this new production because I love the work.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 3:08pm

And any half-way decent pr flack would tell you: 'Don't dilute your brand. Extend your brand!'

Making Porgy and Bess available to large houses, but having something else to offer smaller regional houses with a different title would probably be very lucrative for them. As of now, an audience won't be sure what it's getting if the titles are too similar.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 3:08pm

My only reason for bringing up West Side Story was on account of Sondheim's derision at the thought of creating backstories and fleshing out characters unnecessarily. West Side Story may be a new work, but it's not as if the adaptation isn't completely obvious. Changing one of the most famous endings of a classic theatrical work is bold. Was it necessary? Not really. But it added emotional weight to the ending with a venemous and heartwrenching monologue. Instead, they just allude to her suicide, but let her live. (on a side note, I always found it fascinating that a hugely popular complaint about Rent is that Mimi survives, but nobody ever takes issue with Maria surviving the end of West Side Story)

But sure, change the title if you're making significant changes to the original piece. But if you're just telling the same story with an enhanced book, then don't change the title. To me, these changes don't sound much more significant than those in the revisals of Annie Get Your Gun, the various Show Boats, or Flower Drum Song.

Just don't call it "The Gershwin's Porgy and Bess". Not because it is offensive so much as it just sounds stupid. I felt the same way about "The Who's Tommy". Nobody really calls it that.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 3:13pm

I don't think the Carmen Jones analogy is what Paulus and Parks are doing here. They are saying that the "old" Porgy and Bess is faulty and they are fixing it for the future.

Hammerstein wrote a new book and lyrics for the Bizet score--which Reggie pointed out was in the public domain at the time--to reflect on the racial situation in the US--never intending it to replace the the original Carmen.

I think the more apt analogy is what that Alan Gribben--that "Mark Twain scholar"--is doing with Huckleberry Finn: He's saying the old Huckleberry Finn "doesn't work" anymore and he's taking it on himself to provide a "new" version for the future.

Either Paulus, Parks and Audra all happened to be misquoted or somehow they all misspoke--or, more likely, they had no idea that their intentions would seem dishonorable.

I love Audra as much as I love any living singer or performer, but to use a phrase like "only Gershwin purists will object" is insulting and condescending. It attempts to diminish anyone who disagrees with them into a crack-pot.

I predict the Gershwin estate will now ask them to remove some of Parks's "improvements."

Updated On: 8/10/11 at 03:13 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 3:13pm

Henry David' Hwang's FLOWER DRUM SONG had a completely new book. In my opinion, it definitely should have been given a different title from FLOWER DRUM SONG.

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 3:21pm

(on a side note, I always found it fascinating that a hugely popular complaint about Rent is that Mimi survives, but nobody ever takes issue with Maria surviving the end of West Side Story)

I admit that I find it more tragic that Maria is still alive at the end of West Side Story. Yes it's tragic that both Romeo and Juliet die, but there's something heartbreaking about the fact that Tony is dead and Maria has to live the rest of her life knowing what happened and wondering what might have been.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 3:25pm

I think what I took issue most with was Mimi literally moo-ing herself back to life. I mean...

"or, more likely, they had no idea that their intentions would seem dishonorable."


^^THAT! Never let the talent speak. Especially in the middle of the process. People get excited about stuff, think what they're doing is brilliant and then, well...it could all go to hell. I remember doing a show I thought was brilliant during the rehearsal process. And I told everyone that. And then we hit the stage. Oh God. It was not cute.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 3:29pm

People get excited about stuff, think what they're doing is brilliant and then, well...it could all go to hell

And delay the opening again and again and again...

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 3:35pm

Is Porgy going to fly over the audience with a jet pack at the end of the show now?

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 3:41pm

Did Sondheim have these issues with Trevor Nunn's horrific production of A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC, the one that was set in a deserted mortuary and had all the life and fun and energy of a funeral?

[singtopher]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 3:43pm

I have nothing to add besides the fact that I enjoyed his use of the term "fuddy-duddy."