To my understanding, Kismet was intended to be an Arabian Nights-style tale, even if it wasn't based on a specific tale. Some of the original Arabian Nights tales are just as farcical, impious and/or bawdy as Kismet, if not more so. (For an example of that bawdiness, try reading pages 7-8 of the prologue of this edition - http://www.amazon.com/Arabian-Nights-New-Deluxe/dp/0393331660/ - yikes!) So one could, perhaps, argue that the show draws on a certain tradition of Middle Eastern and Islam-influenced storytelling and culture, rather than just shoehorning in a Western farce sensibility... although it is awfully convenient that the show cherry-picks all the 'sexy' and 'exotic' bits of fictionalised ancient Baghdad for inclusion. In a way I kind of like that the show provides some representation of 'casual Muslims' who have a sense of humour and run around having misadventures, breaking rules and falling in love and so forth, rather than the characters being either saints or terrorists. Well, maybe I'm being a bit generous to the show really. And I don't really know how I'd feel if I saw my culture portrayed through another's lens like that.
To actually answer the thread question, I don't think a revival of Kismet would work at this time, too politically and culturally sensitive. Maybe in the future, when there's a greater variety of portrayals of Muslims in other Western media/arts, and with some revisions to the book, it could work. I do love the score.
Updated On: 6/5/16 at 03:29 AM