BWW Poll: Do you Agree with Sondheim About PORGY & BESS?
#2
Posted: 8/12/11 at 5:21pm
To agree with Sondheim is most likely to agree that Parks, Paulus and McDonald's hype of the show is unfortunate. Even Sondheim himself says the proof will be in the pudding. He has, in a most qualified way to be sure, said he might be proven wrong by the production.
My own feeling is that the spin from the show is unfortunate, and the modified title is pathetic, but that the hype may well be an overstatement of the changes the production will reveal. Perhaps a huge overstatement. Better to wait and see what is actually put up on stage.
I also think it is regrettable that Sondheim didn't instead merely personally notify the creative team of his objections - a forward enough move, to be sure, but nothing in comparison to a pre-opening near poison pen letter to the Times from the Dean of the American Musical.
My own feeling is that the spin from the show is unfortunate, and the modified title is pathetic, but that the hype may well be an overstatement of the changes the production will reveal. Perhaps a huge overstatement. Better to wait and see what is actually put up on stage.
I also think it is regrettable that Sondheim didn't instead merely personally notify the creative team of his objections - a forward enough move, to be sure, but nothing in comparison to a pre-opening near poison pen letter to the Times from the Dean of the American Musical.
#3
Posted: 8/12/11 at 5:52pm
I'm glad Sondheim expressed his reservations publicly. We need to have more public discussions on this subject, not fewer. One of the healthy attributes of American culture has always been our willingness to embrace the new; but the downside is our often thoughtless willingness to discard the old. (This was once more obvious in Los Angeles than in New York, but not so much nowadays, I suspect.)
But Henrik makes a good point about the poll. I was going to say that Sondheim himself could probably click any of the three options.
But Henrik makes a good point about the poll. I was going to say that Sondheim himself could probably click any of the three options.
#5
Posted: 8/13/11 at 8:20am
In this case, I don't agree with everything that Sondheim is saying. Sondheim is as entitled to his opinion as anyone, but there are so many other cases where similar drastic cases of revision have taken place where he hasn't spoken out with such vehemence before that I think his love for PORGY AND BESS has surely made him a little biased here, which is fine, but it is the grain of salt with which I am going to take his words on the matter.
Others, like Trevor Nunn, have tried to do adapt the opera into a musical, always staying relatively faithful to the work, and have generally failed. So I'm pretty welcoming of the idea of a drastic, revisionist take on the material. And why not be revisionist? Go the whole hog if you're going to go anywhere at all, I say. The opera in all of its various configurations will still always be there and if this tanks, then it certainly won't replace it. Even if it is a moderate or a, for argument's sake, a smash success, the new version isn't going to make the opera magically disappear from the repertoire!
Others, like Trevor Nunn, have tried to do adapt the opera into a musical, always staying relatively faithful to the work, and have generally failed. So I'm pretty welcoming of the idea of a drastic, revisionist take on the material. And why not be revisionist? Go the whole hog if you're going to go anywhere at all, I say. The opera in all of its various configurations will still always be there and if this tanks, then it certainly won't replace it. Even if it is a moderate or a, for argument's sake, a smash success, the new version isn't going to make the opera magically disappear from the repertoire!
Musical Cyberspace: a tribute to the musicals of Broadway and beyond.
#6
Posted: 8/13/11 at 6:13pm
Well argued, Jude. I think Sondheim himself would agree that his remarks were influenced by his love of the opera and his opinion of its historical significance.
But I also think he was responding to specific remarks in the New York Times. If the new production were billed as an adaptation, or if Ms. Parks were merely hired to smooth out some of the more awkward dialogue, I doubt Sondheim would have had much to say.
It was the remarks attributed to the collaborators and their apparent cockiness about "fixing" this hoary old chestnut that annoyed Sondheim, particularly when coupled with the claim to authenticity implied by putting the Gershwin name in the title. There's an hypocrisy (or even fraud) in that and I think Sondheim wanted to set the record straight.
And now that's he's done so, I for one am looking forward to an OC album with the new cast singing the score, and perhaps seeing the new version if it tours.
But I also think he was responding to specific remarks in the New York Times. If the new production were billed as an adaptation, or if Ms. Parks were merely hired to smooth out some of the more awkward dialogue, I doubt Sondheim would have had much to say.
It was the remarks attributed to the collaborators and their apparent cockiness about "fixing" this hoary old chestnut that annoyed Sondheim, particularly when coupled with the claim to authenticity implied by putting the Gershwin name in the title. There's an hypocrisy (or even fraud) in that and I think Sondheim wanted to set the record straight.
And now that's he's done so, I for one am looking forward to an OC album with the new cast singing the score, and perhaps seeing the new version if it tours.
Updated On: 8/13/11 at 06:13 PM
#7
Posted: 8/14/11 at 12:44am
Gaveston2 wrote: I also think he was responding to specific remarks in the New York Times. If the new production were billed as an adaptation, or if Ms. Parks were merely hired to smooth out some of the more awkward dialogue, I doubt Sondheim would have had much to say. It was the remarks attributed to the collaborators and their apparent cockiness about "fixing" this hoary old chestnut that annoyed Sondheim, particularly when coupled with the claim to authenticity implied by putting the Gershwin name in the title. There's an hypocrisy (or even fraud) in that and I think Sondheim wanted to set the record straight.
The thing is, I've been following the news about this adaptation of PORGY AND BESS since the start and the early articles I read were very clear in articulating that this is an adaptation of the show that is geared specifically towards shifting the genre from opera to musical theatre. So it has always been crystal clear to me that this is not about '"fixing" a hoary old chestnut'.
Somewhere along the line, this has gotten confused with rhetoric about this adaptation being an improvement - basically because the creative team behind this has allowed the press access to their process, which I think was a mistake on their part, and thus allowing people to target specific points about the adaptation before they've been seen and indeed before the final decisions have been made about how these changes will be effected in what is now essentially an out-of-town tryout before the show comes to New York at the end of the year - and I think that the comments of the people involved in these recent press articles need to be read in the light of their original intentions, as articulated in the earlier articles about this new production.
The debate around the titling is one that I can buy into. However, none of us knows all of the relevant information here. To what extent is it a contractual obligation? The name at least differentiates the new musical from the opera, but perhaps appending "the musical" to PORGY AND BESS would be the best option, but then one runs into the problem of confusing it with the disastrous Trevor Nunn adaptation from just a few years back. Without being glib and offering up completely unworkable title ideas like P+B etcetera, their choices are very limited in what seems to be a very complex and dense playing field.
The thing is, I've been following the news about this adaptation of PORGY AND BESS since the start and the early articles I read were very clear in articulating that this is an adaptation of the show that is geared specifically towards shifting the genre from opera to musical theatre. So it has always been crystal clear to me that this is not about '"fixing" a hoary old chestnut'.
Somewhere along the line, this has gotten confused with rhetoric about this adaptation being an improvement - basically because the creative team behind this has allowed the press access to their process, which I think was a mistake on their part, and thus allowing people to target specific points about the adaptation before they've been seen and indeed before the final decisions have been made about how these changes will be effected in what is now essentially an out-of-town tryout before the show comes to New York at the end of the year - and I think that the comments of the people involved in these recent press articles need to be read in the light of their original intentions, as articulated in the earlier articles about this new production.
The debate around the titling is one that I can buy into. However, none of us knows all of the relevant information here. To what extent is it a contractual obligation? The name at least differentiates the new musical from the opera, but perhaps appending "the musical" to PORGY AND BESS would be the best option, but then one runs into the problem of confusing it with the disastrous Trevor Nunn adaptation from just a few years back. Without being glib and offering up completely unworkable title ideas like P+B etcetera, their choices are very limited in what seems to be a very complex and dense playing field.
Musical Cyberspace: a tribute to the musicals of Broadway and beyond.
#8
Posted: 8/14/11 at 3:21am
RainbowJude wrote: The thing is, I've been following the news about this adaptation of PORGY AND BESS since the start and the early articles I read were very clear in articulating that this is an adaptation of the show that is geared specifically towards shifting the genre from opera to musical theatre. So it has always been crystal clear to me that this is not about '"fixing" a hoary old chestnut'.
Somewhere along the line, this has gotten confused with rhetoric about this adaptation being an improvement...
...and I think that the comments of the people involved in these recent press articles need to be read in the light of their original intentions, as articulated in the earlier articles about this new production.
By all means, let's read their comments in light of their original stated intentions. But I'm not convinced that that shows some of their comments to be any less contemptuous. (And embarrassing, because Diane Paulus, Suzan-Lori Parks and Audra McDonald condescending to Gershwin is like Norman Rockwell condescending to Michelangelo.)
Paulus didn't say "audiences today require the heroine to be written in a way that takes account of the requirements of musicals as opposed to operas." She said audiences today require the heroine to be "an understandable and fully rounded character," implying that Bess isn't. McDonald didn't say "Bess often comes off as a character inappropriate to musical theater." She said Bess was "often more of a plot device than a full-blooded character."
Parks said she wanted to "flesh out the two main characters so they are not cardboard cut-out characters", implying that currently they are cardboard cutouts. McDonald said "the opera has the makings of a great love story too that I think we’re bringing to life", implying that so far the love story hasn't been brought to life.
They aren't saying that they think certain aspects of Porgy and Bess work in an opera setting, but not a musical theater setting. They're calling the characters shallow and the love story dead.
More examples:
- " 'Because,' [Audra McDonald] explained one afternoon at the ART, where rehearsals moved in mid-July, 'how do we get it into a place where we can really just be with these characters and understand these characters and not be blocked by this wall of …' She broke off and shifted her voice low, doing a brief, gibberish impression of minstrel-show speech.
'You know, just that sort of Sambo-type racist talk,' she continued. 'I want them to be real people in the way that Lorraine Hansberry was able to lift the shade and [let] everybody peer into a real American family with ‘Raisin in the Sun.’'" (http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-07/ae/29861886_1_dorothy-heyward-porgy-and-bess-catfish-row/2)
- "Since then, [Parks] said, she’s learned that Porgy’s song 'I Got Plenty o’ Nuttin’' 'has stuck in the craw of many a folk, because people have interpreted it as the happy darky song: There he is, out of nowhere, for no reason, singin’ about how he ain’t got nothin’ and how that makes him happy.'
"Parks, who said she doesn’t care whether elements of shows are politically correct or incorrect, was instead bothered that the scene didn’t work dramatically: Porgy comes out of his room into the courtyard and bursts into song, but why?
"'So I say, you know what I’m gonna do? I’m gonna add some dialogue,' Parks recalled.
"'He says, ‘Good mornin’, everybody!’ And they say, ‘Good mornin’, Porgy!’ And one of the guys says, ‘Aw, but you’re lookin’ better than good, Porgy.’ And one of the other guys says, ‘Oh, look at that smile on his face.’ Another guy: ‘What you been up to, Porgy?’ And Porgy says, ‘Nothin’.’ And they say, ‘Nothin’? Huh huh huh huh. Nothin’, yeah.’ And Porgy goes,' and here Parks sang the line, '‘I got plenty of nothin’.'
“'What does ‘nothing’ mean now?’’ she asked. “He’s just been in the room with Bess. ‘Nothin’ ’ suddenly means ‘somethin’.’ He’s gettin’ some. So suddenly he’s singing, ‘I Got Plenty of Nothin’.’ Now of course very quickly it becomes a song about how happy I am to be alive.
“'Of course he’s happy to be alive! He’s got a girlfriend! Yea! And everybody’s like, ‘Yea, Porgy’s gettin’ some! Porgy’s happy.’ I mean, it’s not crude and tacky. But it’s more about, ‘Yea, Porgy’s in love!’ He’s like, ‘I got the sun and the moon and the stars, I got my gal, I got my Lord, I’ve got my song.’'" (http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-07/ae/29861886_1_dorothy-heyward-porgy-and-bess-catfish-row/4)
- [Paulus's] point was to fix a conclusion that she found dramatically unfulfilling: Not only was there no scene at the end between Porgy and Bess, but there was also no demand in the original libretto that Porgy confront the fact that he’s committed murder for Bess’s love. (http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-07/ae/29861886_1_dorothy-heyward-porgy-and-bess-catfish-row/7)
They're saying the dialog is racist, that a scene doesn't "work dramatically", and that the conclusion is "dramatically unfulfilling."
Whether they're right or not about any of what they're saying is another discussion. But they don't seem to just be concerned with the challenges of turning the opera into a musical.
Somewhere along the line, this has gotten confused with rhetoric about this adaptation being an improvement...
...and I think that the comments of the people involved in these recent press articles need to be read in the light of their original intentions, as articulated in the earlier articles about this new production.
By all means, let's read their comments in light of their original stated intentions. But I'm not convinced that that shows some of their comments to be any less contemptuous. (And embarrassing, because Diane Paulus, Suzan-Lori Parks and Audra McDonald condescending to Gershwin is like Norman Rockwell condescending to Michelangelo.)
Paulus didn't say "audiences today require the heroine to be written in a way that takes account of the requirements of musicals as opposed to operas." She said audiences today require the heroine to be "an understandable and fully rounded character," implying that Bess isn't. McDonald didn't say "Bess often comes off as a character inappropriate to musical theater." She said Bess was "often more of a plot device than a full-blooded character."
Parks said she wanted to "flesh out the two main characters so they are not cardboard cut-out characters", implying that currently they are cardboard cutouts. McDonald said "the opera has the makings of a great love story too that I think we’re bringing to life", implying that so far the love story hasn't been brought to life.
They aren't saying that they think certain aspects of Porgy and Bess work in an opera setting, but not a musical theater setting. They're calling the characters shallow and the love story dead.
More examples:
- " 'Because,' [Audra McDonald] explained one afternoon at the ART, where rehearsals moved in mid-July, 'how do we get it into a place where we can really just be with these characters and understand these characters and not be blocked by this wall of …' She broke off and shifted her voice low, doing a brief, gibberish impression of minstrel-show speech.
'You know, just that sort of Sambo-type racist talk,' she continued. 'I want them to be real people in the way that Lorraine Hansberry was able to lift the shade and [let] everybody peer into a real American family with ‘Raisin in the Sun.’'" (http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-07/ae/29861886_1_dorothy-heyward-porgy-and-bess-catfish-row/2)
- "Since then, [Parks] said, she’s learned that Porgy’s song 'I Got Plenty o’ Nuttin’' 'has stuck in the craw of many a folk, because people have interpreted it as the happy darky song: There he is, out of nowhere, for no reason, singin’ about how he ain’t got nothin’ and how that makes him happy.'
"Parks, who said she doesn’t care whether elements of shows are politically correct or incorrect, was instead bothered that the scene didn’t work dramatically: Porgy comes out of his room into the courtyard and bursts into song, but why?
"'So I say, you know what I’m gonna do? I’m gonna add some dialogue,' Parks recalled.
"'He says, ‘Good mornin’, everybody!’ And they say, ‘Good mornin’, Porgy!’ And one of the guys says, ‘Aw, but you’re lookin’ better than good, Porgy.’ And one of the other guys says, ‘Oh, look at that smile on his face.’ Another guy: ‘What you been up to, Porgy?’ And Porgy says, ‘Nothin’.’ And they say, ‘Nothin’? Huh huh huh huh. Nothin’, yeah.’ And Porgy goes,' and here Parks sang the line, '‘I got plenty of nothin’.'
“'What does ‘nothing’ mean now?’’ she asked. “He’s just been in the room with Bess. ‘Nothin’ ’ suddenly means ‘somethin’.’ He’s gettin’ some. So suddenly he’s singing, ‘I Got Plenty of Nothin’.’ Now of course very quickly it becomes a song about how happy I am to be alive.
“'Of course he’s happy to be alive! He’s got a girlfriend! Yea! And everybody’s like, ‘Yea, Porgy’s gettin’ some! Porgy’s happy.’ I mean, it’s not crude and tacky. But it’s more about, ‘Yea, Porgy’s in love!’ He’s like, ‘I got the sun and the moon and the stars, I got my gal, I got my Lord, I’ve got my song.’'" (http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-07/ae/29861886_1_dorothy-heyward-porgy-and-bess-catfish-row/4)
- [Paulus's] point was to fix a conclusion that she found dramatically unfulfilling: Not only was there no scene at the end between Porgy and Bess, but there was also no demand in the original libretto that Porgy confront the fact that he’s committed murder for Bess’s love. (http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-07/ae/29861886_1_dorothy-heyward-porgy-and-bess-catfish-row/7)
They're saying the dialog is racist, that a scene doesn't "work dramatically", and that the conclusion is "dramatically unfulfilling."
Whether they're right or not about any of what they're saying is another discussion. But they don't seem to just be concerned with the challenges of turning the opera into a musical.
Updated On: 8/14/11 at 03:21 AM
#9
Posted: 8/14/11 at 4:53am
I wonder if Ms Parks took time to read the libretto? Based on her comments about "I got plenty of nothin'," I doubt it.
In the libretto, Porgy enters and begins singing. After he sings, "Got my gal, got my Lawd, go my song," it reads:
Women: Porgy change since dat woman come to live with he.
Serena: How he change.
The Others: He ain' cross with chillen no more, an' ain' you hear how he an" Bess all de time singin' in their room?
Maria: I tells you dat cripple's happy now.
The Others: Happy.
This is pretty clear to me and has been clear since this folk opera premiered in 1935. It appears this goes over Ms. Parks' head.
As for Ms. McDonald's comment "the opera has the makings of a great love story," this statement is absurd. Since the opera premiered in 1935, it has been a great love story. It appears this goes over Ms. McDonald's head.
The more these women speak, it is clear that stupidity is alive and well at A.R.T. May the production FAIL and never make it to Broadway!
In the libretto, Porgy enters and begins singing. After he sings, "Got my gal, got my Lawd, go my song," it reads:
Women: Porgy change since dat woman come to live with he.
Serena: How he change.
The Others: He ain' cross with chillen no more, an' ain' you hear how he an" Bess all de time singin' in their room?
Maria: I tells you dat cripple's happy now.
The Others: Happy.
This is pretty clear to me and has been clear since this folk opera premiered in 1935. It appears this goes over Ms. Parks' head.
As for Ms. McDonald's comment "the opera has the makings of a great love story," this statement is absurd. Since the opera premiered in 1935, it has been a great love story. It appears this goes over Ms. McDonald's head.
The more these women speak, it is clear that stupidity is alive and well at A.R.T. May the production FAIL and never make it to Broadway!
#10
Posted: 8/14/11 at 5:03am
A Director wrote: "I wonder if Ms Parks took time to read the libretto? Based on her comments about "I got plenty of nothin'," I doubt it.
In the libretto, Porgy enters and begins singing. After he sings, "Got my gal, got my Lawd, go my song," it reads:
Women: Porgy change since dat woman come to live with he.
Serena: How he change.
The Others: He ain' cross with chillen no more, an' ain' you hear how he an" Bess all de time singin' in their room?
Maria: I tells you dat cripple's happy now.
The Others: Happy.
This is pretty clear to me and has been clear since this folk opera premiered in 1935. It appears this goes over Ms. Parks' head."
Yeah, her explanation there is weird. It's even weirder when you consider that Porgy starts singing "I Got Plenty o Nuttin" immediately after Jake sings "How dat child gonna get a college education if I don't work and make money?". Motivations don't get much more obvious than that.
My guess is that her real problem is that she feels the song sounds like a "happy darkie song" and wants to change that, and that she's trying to rationalize her desire.
"May the production FAIL and never make it to Broadway!"
In fairness, it could still turn out to be good. There's a long list of artists who say stupid things but produce good work.
And even if it is bad, I feel uneasy about hoping for a show to fail. Hoping for it to finish its run and never be heard from again, sure. But fail? A show equals a lot of people's jobs.
In the libretto, Porgy enters and begins singing. After he sings, "Got my gal, got my Lawd, go my song," it reads:
Women: Porgy change since dat woman come to live with he.
Serena: How he change.
The Others: He ain' cross with chillen no more, an' ain' you hear how he an" Bess all de time singin' in their room?
Maria: I tells you dat cripple's happy now.
The Others: Happy.
This is pretty clear to me and has been clear since this folk opera premiered in 1935. It appears this goes over Ms. Parks' head."
Yeah, her explanation there is weird. It's even weirder when you consider that Porgy starts singing "I Got Plenty o Nuttin" immediately after Jake sings "How dat child gonna get a college education if I don't work and make money?". Motivations don't get much more obvious than that.
My guess is that her real problem is that she feels the song sounds like a "happy darkie song" and wants to change that, and that she's trying to rationalize her desire.
"May the production FAIL and never make it to Broadway!"
In fairness, it could still turn out to be good. There's a long list of artists who say stupid things but produce good work.
And even if it is bad, I feel uneasy about hoping for a show to fail. Hoping for it to finish its run and never be heard from again, sure. But fail? A show equals a lot of people's jobs.
Updated On: 8/14/11 at 05:03 AM
#11
Posted: 8/14/11 at 7:26am
Thanks to everyone for their comments.
I see RainbowJude's points and bow to his superior knowledge of the history of past press on this revision. And I admit that my experience with the media is that I have never been quoted correctly on any subject.
But these collaborators are experienced professionals. PR is part of that experience and they share responsibility for how they are portrayed in the press. Their comments of late have made them sound contemptuous and condescending to a deservedly beloved classic. They ought to expect a little heat.
I'm more sympathetic to the complaints Alm discusses that the dialogue is too influenced by "white" minstrelsy (the minstrel shows written by whites in imitation of earlier shows by African-Americans, i.e., Jolson instead of mid-19th century black writers). I can understand wanting to change that and Ms. Parks seems a good choice.
Unfortunately, however, whenever we hear about a change, it isn't a change from minstrel imitations to something more naturalistic, it's a change from the poetic to the literal and pedantic.
As Alm points out, the stated remarks make it sound as if the revisionists barely read and little understood the original.
I see RainbowJude's points and bow to his superior knowledge of the history of past press on this revision. And I admit that my experience with the media is that I have never been quoted correctly on any subject.
But these collaborators are experienced professionals. PR is part of that experience and they share responsibility for how they are portrayed in the press. Their comments of late have made them sound contemptuous and condescending to a deservedly beloved classic. They ought to expect a little heat.
I'm more sympathetic to the complaints Alm discusses that the dialogue is too influenced by "white" minstrelsy (the minstrel shows written by whites in imitation of earlier shows by African-Americans, i.e., Jolson instead of mid-19th century black writers). I can understand wanting to change that and Ms. Parks seems a good choice.
Unfortunately, however, whenever we hear about a change, it isn't a change from minstrel imitations to something more naturalistic, it's a change from the poetic to the literal and pedantic.
As Alm points out, the stated remarks make it sound as if the revisionists barely read and little understood the original.
#12
Posted: 8/14/11 at 10:36am
If Paulus feels the song is a "happy darkie song," perhaps the problem is with HER and her inability to see beyond the stereotype.
That statement implies to me that she is either unimaginative or simply the wrong director for the show.
I find this statement of hers just appalling: "So I say, you know what I’m gonna do? I’m gonna add some dialogue"
The dialogue she added makes the same point that the Heywards have Serena and Maria and the women make, only the Heywards' version is poetic Paulus's version is crude and unimaginative.
And literal, literal, literal, to the point of ugliness.
That statement implies to me that she is either unimaginative or simply the wrong director for the show.
I find this statement of hers just appalling: "So I say, you know what I’m gonna do? I’m gonna add some dialogue"
The dialogue she added makes the same point that the Heywards have Serena and Maria and the women make, only the Heywards' version is poetic Paulus's version is crude and unimaginative.
And literal, literal, literal, to the point of ugliness.
#13
Posted: 8/14/11 at 5:08pm
The literalness is particularly odd considering that by most measures the most successful American playwright of the past 30 years is August Wilson, who also wrote highly poetic drama. I wish he were still with us to share his perspective.
I don't know all of Parks' work, but the plays I have seen or read cannot be said to talk down to the audience. So why does she seem to be doing that here?
One might almost conclude from the published remarks that the ART collaborators hate the opera and are doing it only to cash in on the commercial appeal of the title. And probably because MacDonald wants to sing those famous songs.
I don't know all of Parks' work, but the plays I have seen or read cannot be said to talk down to the audience. So why does she seem to be doing that here?
One might almost conclude from the published remarks that the ART collaborators hate the opera and are doing it only to cash in on the commercial appeal of the title. And probably because MacDonald wants to sing those famous songs.
#14
Posted: 8/14/11 at 8:49pm
There's also one other reason why Sondheim is right: every note, word, orchestration, character, plot element and theme of Porgy and Bess coalesce to form a total work of art, a gesamtkunstwerk, as defined by Wagner. But rather than standing on the shoulders of giants, less talented pygmies with not an idea in their pointed heads will, in their teeth-gnashing envy, make pathetic attempts to tear them down. No matter: the pee-wees will soon fade from memory and be consigned to the dustbin of oblivion where they belong.
Updated On: 8/14/11 at 08:49 PM
#15
Posted: 8/15/11 at 1:28am
I've honestly never been a huge fan of Porgy and Bess save for a few of the more popular songs so I don't really mind anyone making changes to it. It's not a show that would get me riled up over changes being made, but there are those shows that would cause me to equally echo Mr. Sondheim's concerns if it were announced that said show was being revised so I do understand where he's coming from.
I agree with Mr. Sondheim on two of his points. If Paulus feels the need to make so many changes then why pick that show in the first place? I have the same issues every time a musical is made into a movie and butchered beyond recognition. If the show was so great why change it for film? If it's good it'll work on film as is and if it doesn't work then clearly it doesn't belong on film so why do it?
Second, I agree that the title should be changed. If they're making an abundance of changes and bringing in a new book writer then clearly it is no longer the Gershwin's Porgy and Bess and should not be advertised as such. Instead, perhaps they should try "The NEW Porgy and Bess."
It is an opera and this wouldn't be the first time an opera was substantially revised to more closely resemble a musical. I remember The Pirates of Penzance undergoing a similar transformation, but if I remember correctly the new creators had the good sense to rename the show simply, Pirates! instead of misleading an audience by advertising it as The Pirates of Penzance.
I agree with Mr. Sondheim on two of his points. If Paulus feels the need to make so many changes then why pick that show in the first place? I have the same issues every time a musical is made into a movie and butchered beyond recognition. If the show was so great why change it for film? If it's good it'll work on film as is and if it doesn't work then clearly it doesn't belong on film so why do it?
Second, I agree that the title should be changed. If they're making an abundance of changes and bringing in a new book writer then clearly it is no longer the Gershwin's Porgy and Bess and should not be advertised as such. Instead, perhaps they should try "The NEW Porgy and Bess."
It is an opera and this wouldn't be the first time an opera was substantially revised to more closely resemble a musical. I remember The Pirates of Penzance undergoing a similar transformation, but if I remember correctly the new creators had the good sense to rename the show simply, Pirates! instead of misleading an audience by advertising it as The Pirates of Penzance.
#16
Posted: 8/15/11 at 6:31am
In fairness, film is a different medium and some adaptation is required, just as movies that are made into stage musicals are adapted to the new form.
But I know what you mean about film adaptations that seem to have no interest in the original property whatsoever. In the "Golden Age," studios were buying the name recognition of the stage title and whatever songs had become hits. They didn't care about the rest and, in fact, took the attitude that if a song hadn't become a commercial hit, it ought to be replaced with something that might.
Nowadays, it depends on the property, but I doubt the title "Nine" sold enough tickets on its own to justify buying the rights. (Nor do I think that film is an example of what you are talking about. Whatever the limitations of the finished product, Rob Marshall obviously cared about the original.)
The whole system is so different now it seems to be that film adaptations that deliberately trash the source material are much less common. But there will always be moments that worked on the stage, but don't work on film (and vice versa).
But I know what you mean about film adaptations that seem to have no interest in the original property whatsoever. In the "Golden Age," studios were buying the name recognition of the stage title and whatever songs had become hits. They didn't care about the rest and, in fact, took the attitude that if a song hadn't become a commercial hit, it ought to be replaced with something that might.
Nowadays, it depends on the property, but I doubt the title "Nine" sold enough tickets on its own to justify buying the rights. (Nor do I think that film is an example of what you are talking about. Whatever the limitations of the finished product, Rob Marshall obviously cared about the original.)
The whole system is so different now it seems to be that film adaptations that deliberately trash the source material are much less common. But there will always be moments that worked on the stage, but don't work on film (and vice versa).
#17
Posted: 8/15/11 at 10:28am
It's remarkable how when they give specific examples of their "fixes" it seems that if they'd just read the libretto they'd have found their "problem" doesn't really exist.
I can't think of a more beautiful expression about how love can change someone than "He ain' cross with chillen no more . . ."
It's hard to believe that any dialogue of Parks's is going to better that.
I can't think of a more beautiful expression about how love can change someone than "He ain' cross with chillen no more . . ."
It's hard to believe that any dialogue of Parks's is going to better that.
#18
Posted: 8/15/11 at 3:11pm
^^^^
Parks is a poet in her own right, so we'll see. But great example.
Parks is a poet in her own right, so we'll see. But great example.
#19
Posted: 8/15/11 at 7:12pm
I don't see the big hooplah the shows songs have been cut before for time constraints and will be again. i'm not saying parks or mcdonald are in the right but it's been defore and will be done again.
#20
Posted: 8/15/11 at 9:16pm
Along with others, I think the hoopla is a result of the adapters' published remarks. It isn't the mere idea of somebody changing P&B.
#21
Posted: 8/16/11 at 10:33am
I share his extreme skepticism, but find his marked concern (some would say vitriol) surprising. We live in an age when classics are constantly being deconstructed, for better or for worse. Why single out this production?
#22
Posted: 8/16/11 at 3:46pm
Maybe Sondheim has reached an age where he is thinking about whether his own works will be "fixed" so carelessly after he is gone. But I really think it was the stupid comments (and the credit taken from Heywood) that set him off.
If somebody wants to write adaptations of Oedipus and Hamlet that have happy endings, some of us might raise an eyebrow, but good luck to them. If they give interviews to the Times talking about how Shakespeare and Sophocles were poor writers who didn't write well-rounded characters and didn't know how to structure their plays, then I hope somebody with the stature and knowledge of Stephen Sondheim will respond with a little heat.
If somebody wants to write adaptations of Oedipus and Hamlet that have happy endings, some of us might raise an eyebrow, but good luck to them. If they give interviews to the Times talking about how Shakespeare and Sophocles were poor writers who didn't write well-rounded characters and didn't know how to structure their plays, then I hope somebody with the stature and knowledge of Stephen Sondheim will respond with a little heat.
#23
Posted: 8/18/11 at 3:00pm
Updated On: 2/20/18 at 03:00 PM
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95