Sondheim vs. Porgy & Bess - YIKES!- Page 5

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:08pm

"The difference with "Sweeney," of course, is that Sondheim is still alive to approve or not."

But we're not talking about the approving or disapproving of the actual changes themselves, but rather the "arrogant attitudes" taken by new creative "visionaries" who come along and say they can "fix" these older works.

That's what Sondheim is objecting to in his letter. He objects when it's someone else's work (P&B) but not when it's his own (Sweeney).

Why didn't he tell Burton off when he said publicly that "choral singing is unnatural" and I don't want any of that material in my movie?

Never mind approving or disapproving of the change itself. It was an arrogant comment from Burton, and Sondheim didn't say anything. But he's full of words now.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:10pm

Maybe he's speaking on behalf of creators who can't speak for themselves. And maybe that's arrogant.

But I guess I'd need proof that Sondheim in fact disagreed with Burton's changes before I'd think him hypocritical for not speaking out against them.










Updated On: 8/10/11 at 05:10 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:14pm

I think probably best12 that Sondheim would argue this is two different discussions - a)the discussion of what changes are made by a writer working with a director when a musical is adapted to the screen and b) what happens when major changes affecting story and character are authorized and carried out by an estate hoping to make an inherited property more commercially viable are actually pretty different debates in my mind.

[binau]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:14pm

"Why didn't he tell Burton off when he said publicly that "choral singing is unnatural" and I don't want any of that material in my movie?"

Perhaps the double standard is because they are different mediums (would Sondheim react to someone wanting to mount a revival of Sweeney Todd without the chorus claiming it is 'unnatural' in the same way?)

Also, where did Tim Burton speak out against choral singing? I feel like the cutting of it would have worked more through discussion with Sondheim rather than an arrogant claim that the show needs 'fixing'...

Updated On: 8/10/11 at 05:14 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:21pm

Wait... you're still holding onto the "approval" or "disapproval," Reg. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with the creative changes.

And I don't see that's what Sondheim is objecting to in his letter, either. He's calling out the arrogance in someone looking at an older classic work and saying, "we can fix this flawed piece and make it better."

If you're saying he's only objecting now because it's his opinion that this particular work shouldn't be tampered with, while others can be identified as flawed works "in need of repair" by a director, and that's perfectly fine as long as he happens to agree with that sentiment ...

I'm not seeing it in his letter.

Updated On: 8/10/11 at 05:21 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:23pm

"Also, where did Tim Burton speak out against choral singing? "

It's on the DVD when Tim Burton is interviewed.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:23pm

Eh, what do I know?

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:31pm

You know a lot, Reg!

So MB, what you're saying is that if the Gershwins and Heyward were still alive, he wouldn't have written this letter because what the ladies are saying now publicly would be "arguably" part of a creative process to be worked out collaboratively with the writers, but because they're dead and can't speak for themselves, he's pissed at their arrogance (on behalf of them)?

Again, I don't see that in his letter, either.

And if that's the case, why didn't he say so? "Don't pick on classic works by dead people, only living people who can decide for themselves whether your remarks have merit."

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:35pm

I don't know, best. I think your last line is kind of what's implicit in what he's writing.

I also think he finds it appalling (and rightfully so) that DuBose Heyward's contribution seems to be minimized. Which is shameful. But, again, that's a problem with the estate, not with the group of artists currently working on this show.

[binau]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:38pm

I see a little bit of that in the letter (about the dead vs alive thing)

"Among the ways in which Ms. Parks defends the excavation work is this: “I wanted to flesh out the two main characters so that they are not cardboard cutout characters” and goes on to say, “I think that’s what George Gershwin wanted, and if he had lived longer he would have gone back to the story of ‘Porgy and Bess’ and made changes, including the ending.”

It’s reassuring that Ms. Parks has a direct pipeline to Gershwin and is just carrying out his work for him, and that she thinks he would have taken one of the most moving moments in musical theater history "

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:40pm

So, Robbie, if the authors and composers were living, he wouldn't have chastised the ladies.


I actually like what he said in this letter. It's my personal opinion (only!) that I wish he would have a similar respect for his own work. Maybe he's implying that after he dies and isn't around to approve or disapprove such comments or decisions, he will.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:43pm

qolbinau---I think you're right.

So he's only mad at the ladies because they're picking on dead people who can't defend themselves or their work. Got it.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:43pm

Best, FWIW:

Sondheim puts it succinctly when he says "Maybe we should add an aria for Tosca to explain how she got be a singer" (or words to that effect, I dont have the article in front of me). The audience doesnt need it, because it's plainly not necessary -- and his point (and FWIW, I think it's a valid one) is that we're seeing the "dumbing down" of Gershwin's masterpiece because some director thinks the audience is too clueless to figure out what's going on. Oh, and the ending isnt cheery enough, because audiences need that too.

That goes a bit beyond just whether or not there's choral music in a movie (a major error, in my way of thinking, but hey, he and Burton made that choice, so whatever). It would be like Burton decided the audience needed to hear some sea shanties to understand that Todd was coming home on a boat. And because the political overtones of the piece arent made pointedly enough, we need to add a professor to give a five minute discussion on the history of the British social class system as reflected through 19th century London and the works of Simon Bond.

Or, to put it another way, the only problem with the Guernica painting is that it doesnt have enough happy colours in it!

Just my 0.02.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:47pm

It'll certainly be interesting to see if Audra wants to work with Sondheim after this.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:49pm

SeanMartin---I read the letter, but I don't see that "whether or not there's choral music" is as simple as that. It excised all the narrative from the story. That's major. About 1/3 of the score. It may be quick to say, "let's cut all the choral music," but the result was significant.

Burton did other things, like cut Tobias's madness out of the end. He kills Sweeney out of vengeance, because we never hear him recite his disturbed little nursery rhyme, and we don't see his hair turn white. It looks like a revenge killing. Isn't that a significant change to the end of the story and a major character in it?

We also never see Anthony and Johanna and the police arrive to discover the killings and witness Tobias's madness.

Again, this is all fine, because the creative people were alive. That makes it collaboration. It's only if Sondheim were dead now that it would be sacrilege ... or so Sondheim implies in this letter.

Updated On: 8/10/11 at 05:49 PM

[binau]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:51pm

Mattbrain, I wonder about that. I think that his complimenting of her as a performer might salvage any future relationship though.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:53pm

I'll bet Audra sends him flowers and an apology. No joke.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:54pm

I dunno. I've got tickets to one of the last previews so I'll form my own opinion. I'm interested in these biographical details but I'm undecided about the idea of a new ending.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:56pm

>> Again, this is all fine, because the people were alive. It's only if Sondheim were dead that it would be sacrilege ... or so says Sondheim in this letter.

To a point, yes. To underscore, those changes were made with Sondheim's express approval. People around here, when the film score was being recorded, told us how Sondheim was present at the recordings. He was a willing accomplice to these changes, so he has to bear the responsibility for how well they did or did not work (and in the case of the movie, I'd say "didnt", but anyway...).

But the Gershwins and unfortunate Mr. Heyward arent. And the changes being discussed make it into a "re-imagining" more than anything else, all based on the director's notion that, without this input, "audiences wont get it".

And there's the difference. To presume how your audience will react if you dont step in and save them form themselves... that's the arrogance Sondheim is talking about. I dont think he cares about the fact of re-writing. It's the purpose of the rewrite that bothers him... and I think it's a valid concern. It implies that your audience is just stupid, pure and simple.

But whatever. The proof will be what we see on the stage.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:57pm

>> It'll certainly be interesting to see if Audra wants to work with Sondheim after this.

The man's 80. I doubt there will be many opportunities.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:58pm

"But whatever. The proof will be what we see on the stage."


... and as Sondheim says to the effect of, "We'll see then whether they have earned their arrogance."

Updated On: 8/10/11 at 05:58 PM

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 6:06pm

In all seriousness, I wonder how Audra feels about this.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 6:12pm

Just because the man is Sondheim doesn't mean anyone is under any obligation to think that every thought and opinion he has is the correct one.

[jv92]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 6:13pm

I agree with best12bars- Audra will send SS flowers. No joke.

I'm curious to know what some prominent people in the industry think of this letter.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 6:13pm

I wonder how accurate the quotes are. If she really said this, I'll bet she writes a public letter to explain her comments further and perhaps offer "Steve" an apology of sorts. If she feels "quoted out of context," I'm sure she'd address that publicly, too.

After his letter today, I'll bet the PR team for this show is in "damage control" mode, right now.