GRENDEL--the MUST SEE show of the season- Page 2

[GYPSY1527]

Posted: 7/15/06 at 2:15pm

"At Lincoln Center this weekend only!

Tonight, Saturday July 15th at 7:30 PM
Tomorrow, Sunday July 16th at 7:30 PM

And then it's gone!

Catch Benjamin Bagby's Beowulf July 18, 19, 20 or 21! I have been waiting years to see this! I even paid full price plus a shipping fee and no real New Yorker pays retail! "


Are they not the same production?

[BumbleWumble]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 12:56am

I was able to buy a ticket from a gentleman with an extra tonight, and I'm so glad I did.

I came back and read the discussion here, and I have to say, there is a lot of good analysis. I do have to disagree about some things, however.

Let me start by saying that I think this is an important work. It might not be a technically perfect opera all-in-all, but considering the world climate, I am grateful that something of this intellectual magnitude is being showcased in the American theatre. Many people say that opera is dead, the theatre is dead, etc. And here it is challenging audiences' artistic, political, and human sensibilities in a sophisticated way.

I disagree that this production cashes in on the anti-Bush theme. Ms. Taymor and Mr. Goldenthal are artists and are presenting a narrative story based on philosophical text. As such, both artists naturally have political leanings and it's the artists' inclination to infuse their own world view into their art. You may read that as directly being anti-Bush or what have you, but honestly the reason you believe that is because the philosophies being explored in the story and psyche of Grendel are directly in line with current events. The audience draws its own conclusions by the evidence given to them from the story in a very discreet way. It reminds me of the way Russian directors chose material that educated audiences at a time when it was unlawful to speak political philosophy in theatres, and did so in a subversive manner. This is no different, and I loved them for it.

Also, even though I loved your observations, I think you should reexamine the meaning of "alienation." I think you're confusing it with something else.

The one thing I thought could have been better overall was Goldenthal's music. Not because it was a bad score or it wasn't melodic. I loved a lot of the untraditional melody and patterned fragments in the score. But I wanted more from him. His scores are usually very inventive and I thought he was too traditional in his orchestrating. His Juan Darien, Green Bird, and hell, even Batman had more interesting, playful, and inventive elements. I loved the unorthodox elements of Grendel (such as using the sound of trumpet players blowing air through their spit valves and the gutteral growl of a baritone sax), but I wanted more. Julie is constantly pushing the envelope at every turn. I wish that creativity could have been explored more musically.

Like I said, I am so glad I got to see this production. It's one of the best things I've seen in the past year and I think this is one that we'll hear about more as the years go by.

Looking forward to their next collaboration!

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 12:56am

No, Grendel is a newly composed opera with cast of some hundred or so, directed by Julie Taymor about the giant/monster Grendel from Grendel's point of view. Beowulf does show up at the end, so it is a different "retelling" of the story, made up, altered and not traditional. Beowulf is a character who arrives toward the end.

Beowulf, as sung and told by Benjamin Bagby, is the traditional epic song/verse about the legend of Beowulf and basically a one-man show.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 1:33pm

Thanks BumbleWumble, for your interesting comments (you posted the very minute of my last post and I missed it!).

Though you thought the material (philosophies being explored) rather than the performance might cause interpretation of an anti-Iraq war layering on the piece, I would say this. It is possible that that spin was coming from actor choices of what they were saying through the material rather than Taymor's(butseefurtheronin this thread). I do not ascribe it to Goldenthal's music.

I think there are clear layering instances of Brechtian distanciation/verfrumdung (alienation) with the asides to the audience, especially in slang, and within the Dragon scene. It would be interesting to hear more views on this, if others picked it up as well or disagree. It goes with the overall choice of deconstructing the myth of Grendel by telling the story from the monster's point of view. This was similarly effected in Urinetown, which was acknowledged as Brechtian in style.

Turning to another observation, the scene in which Grendel is unhappy becausing of the cutting down of trees to make to roads brought back memories of Lord of the Rings and the giant tree character who is fiercely angered at the killing of the trees by the evil side. Well, Grendel and his Mum and the other weird beasties are all part tree which begs the question--is this a Druid tree-hugger thing? I can't wait to see Benjamin Bagby's Beowulf to see if there are any original references to the chopping down of trees for roads or clearing of forests to see if that may be part of Tolkien's background source myth material or if it was the source for that scene in Grendel or a "layer-on" to give dimension to Grendel's character. In which case Grendel would be leaning on or inspired from Tolkien...

Go see it, folks! Do not miss this show!

Last chance TONIGHT.

© 2006 nomdeplume by pseudonym, all rights reserved Updated On: 7/16/06 at 01:33 PM

[BumbleWumble]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 2:48pm

Any actor who is concerned with making choices that have to do with a personal political sentiment is no actor. They might choose a piece based upon a personal or political view, but the primary duty of an actor in a performance is to communciate the material alone. Anything else is commenting on the play, which is not acting. I feel as if you were talking about the instances in which Eric Owens said certain asides that were very parallel to the current political situation and the audience responded accordingly. I don't believe he was mugging there, but just delivering material that the mostly liberal audience connected with, and carrying out his obligation as an actor by saying the words and adhering to the direction. Julie Taymor talks a little about how the current world climate is shifting to a medeival code of "hero" values on a video clip on the Lincoln Center website, and how it is exciting to be able to explore that at this time in particular. So yes, it's her and Elliot's personal view.

The entire idea of a musical or opera is alienation. People don't sing. Asides are inherently theatrical and were a part of theatre long, long before Brecht essentially stole this theory of alienation from Shklovsky. But I don't think the only alienating part of this show is the direct commentary. Puppets, anyone? Playing with scale and angle in a filmic way? All Julie Taymor trademarks take her own work and put it on its head, as well as distance the audience from the convention that it had gotten used to a few minutes beforehand.

And Urinetown... was Brechtian on the simplest of levels. They copied a Brecht play, which isn't anything new or exciting. It is a great musical, but the outside commentary, etc. don't necessarily make it a great example of how this theory can be put to work.

(I really am getting tired of people commenting on how Brechtian a certain show is, or how alienation is employed, etc. 80% of theatre is built on this principle nowadays. Directors and writers have grown up seeing plays and musicals that have employed these techniques, and now it is a part of the vocabulary of most productions. Almost all theatre is Brechtian - what's the big deal?)

The trees... It seems to me that part of a design concept for the "old world" creatures was that they were one and spawned from nature. They were made from trees, from dirty, from wild animals. The pre-Hrothgar/pre-Christianity era was preoccupied with the source of everything - the earth. There was no Christian God provider who made the earth, made you, made everything, controlled every move. Therefore in a way, all things are sacred, the light and the dark, in a pre-Christian society. Hrothgar comes along with his religon and people who value the infallability of God in heaven and the glory of man on earth. When the earth and its creatures become secondary to man, the dynamic shifts - which is essentially what Grendel is about. So when Hrothgar's machine (a tribute to his mind, will, and glory) turns a blind eye on nature and tradition and begins to cut down the trees, Grendel is deeply affected. It's a universal theme in religion and literature, and undoubtedly, this is a part of Tolkien's books.

Updated On: 7/16/06 at 02:48 PM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 4:10pm

Oh, BumbleWumble, I am happy you saw the show, and while I may disagree with what you say at points, I would fight to the death for your right to say it.

Let me take up a chip at a time off your gold block.

"Any actor who is concerned with making choices that have to do with a personal political sentiment is no actor. ... Anything else is commenting on the play, which is not acting. I feel as if you were talking about the instances in which Eric Owens said certain asides that were very parallel to the current political situation and the audience responded accordingly."

Well, it seems you did notice exactly what I was talking about. I was also getting it in the Dragon scene as well. and given that it was so obvious, I find it hard to buy that Director Taymor was either unaware of it or in opposition to it or she would have excised it from the production. I think it was a layer that she determined to have exist in the production. The false spin that the blind Shaper was putting on things certainly is a direct correlation to a lot of "stuff" that's turned out to be spin that has come out of this White House.

And thus I find I do disagree with your statement

"I disagree that this production cashes in on the anti-Bush theme."

I think it directly drags the production into this particular political foray and I would have rather that it had not been so blatant about it, but had stuck to the classicism of myth to leave it a work of art standing on its own, from which people could draw that interpretation or not.

© 2006 nomdeplume by pseudonym, all rights reserved Updated On: 7/16/06 at 04:10 PM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 4:35pm

"The entire idea of a musical or opera is alienation. People don't sing."

No, I think the idea of a musical is to connect with people subconsciously through mood by employ of music to reach them at a deep emotional, not intellectual, level, though clever stuff like Sondheim may catch both. I think a musical is generally the opposite of distanciation/verfrumdung in effect. In fact, the funny thing about Three Penny Opera was that Brecht thought it was going to distanciate and be political, but Weill's music was so good that at its time it became a big popular success for the very reasons Brecht didn't intend.

Puppets are not distanciating of themselves. They are quite endearing often. There is a certain safety zone in the use of puppets, which can get bashed around like Punch and Judy but you know they aren't really hurt. If you've ever seen one of the Bunraku love suicide puppet tales, you'll find yourself weeping away, caught up in the story, and it's "only" puppets!

Playing with angles and sizes is creative and imaginative, but by no means distanciating, jarring the inellect into play. Not at all. And visual metaphor does not distanciate either, though it expands your sense and vision of the play. Perhaps, BumbleWumble, it is you who could rethink your interpretation of verfrumdung. I will agree that you and I have very different ideas of what it means. Perhaps that is why you are tired of hearing people bring up the subject.

"Almost all theatre is Brechtian - what's the big deal?"

This statement I have to disagree with bigtime. There is nothing Brechtian in style or distanciating about The Lion King or The Sound of Music or Oklahoma or Shining City or The Caine Mutiny or The Lieutenant of Inishmore or tons of theatre.

I much enjoyed your proffering on the subject of trees and pre-Christian religion, though it seems to me there was often a Earth mother goddess figure in there, like the "Sheila" figurines from Ancient Ireland and the tradion of Gaia and the like.

I've noticed some wonderful play in Ingmar Bergman's films on the subjects of ancient witchcraft and Shamanism in conflict with Christianity and often represent the uncontrollable evil of the old ways vs. the goodness of the Christian path. Think The Virgin Spring. Plus there is an acknowledgement of the supranatural, the omnipresence of the unseen, such as the ghost of a family member that one of the children can see in Fanny and Alexander, and which is casually acknowledged by another family member, and the Kabbalist magic later effected in the story. In that instance, it is Judaism which is connected with the force of good. And Christianity, after all, sprang from Judaism.

© 2006 nomdeplume by pseudonym, all rights reserved Updated On: 7/16/06 at 04:35 PM

[BumbleWumble]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 4:37pm

I don't think you are reading my whole arguement correctly, so let me put it more bluntly.

This is not a play about Bush. Not once does it mention Bush or anything that has to do with modern politics. Julie Taymor and Elliot Goldenthal have created an opera about Grendel, who is introspective and wages a war against the "right" honoring his own personal views. This is in direct parallel to current politics. Not once during the evening do the artists bring up current politics, thus it is not cashing in on any Bush related theme. HOWEVER, choosing to stage this story NOW, in the current time, is commenting, in a completely subversive way, on the state of the world.

I did not say that Taymor was unaware of it at all. Please reread what I have written because you don't seem to understand. Where I disagree with you is that it was NOT blatently spewing anti-Bush politics - it is how you are interpreting the work on your own. And this, as I said in my first post, is what makes this an important piece.

Theatre does not exist in a vacuum. There is an impetus behind creating art. The creators did not choose to interpret this novel just because it was a good novel. There is an agenda behind most great pieces of art, and you will be hard pressed to find any one of intellectual magnitude and value that was not created thusly.

The agenda is the catalyst and a force at work behind the work. Then as the work is created, it's a storyteller's responsibility to tell a story. This story, having inspired the creators, contains all elements of their agenda - but what you see as a final product is the story. Grendel tells the story of Grendel, and in its theatrical world, exists in its time on its own terms. There is no outside political mechanism - only the story at hand. Anything the audience gleans from it which comments on the world of today is interpretive. That ability to make a connection is the power of performance.

The Grendel asides are in the world of the play. They are Grendel speaking about the action at hand with Umferth, etc. Grendel cannot possibly be talking about Bush because there IS no Bush in the Grendel story. However, you as an audience member, make that connection and it strikes you. And that's what the creators are surely attempting to do subversively.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 4:52pm

"This is not a play about Bush. Not once does it mention Bush or anything that has to do with modern politics."

I do get what you have just said, my dear ol' Bumble. I don't think you have caught my drift or you would not thus respond.

When Grendel jumps to modern slang, jumping the time period of the piece to the present, it is the same as saying "I'm talking about now, today, the spin of this administration, this war" without needing to say "Bush" or "Iraq" out loud. It is a big obvious stamp on the piece, jarring in context, recognized by you, me and the audience. Distanciating. And unnecessary. Nothing "sub" to be subversive about it. It says, from its creators, "I don't trust you, audience, to be able to make this leap for yourself, so let me just slam on you to make sure you get it." And I didn't need it and didn't like what it did to the overall art of the piece by having that present.

However, I love the rest of the piece so much I think it is a must see. Especially visually it is magnificent. And look how much it's given us to talk about.

© 2006 nomdeplume by pseudonym, all rights reserved

[BumbleWumble]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 4:55pm

This is getting ridiculous.

The music in a musical is written because it supports the action of the play. It underscores subtext, supports character choices, etc. There is nothing mystical or subsconscious about it. And you can't tell me that a musical is naturalism. If you do, you're living on a different planet. The "musical" is something that we are used to, but stripped down to its core elements, it's certainly "alienating." To have a character stop speaking and begin singing naturally puts us at a distance from reality and makes us experience action in a different way. That's alienating, plain and simple.

How is puppetry not alienation? There are human actors and all of a sudden, there are puppets portraying humans, etc. It is jarring and you have to adjust to the convention of puppets as being reality in the moment. Again, making the familiar concept (humans acting on stage) strange (puppets are acting with the humans and are obviously being operated by other humans). I don't see how you can deny that either. You experience the scene in a different way that makes you think differently about the action.

Angles and size are the same thing. Instead of seeing something from the front, we see an entire scene played out from the back or in miniature. It's almost a direct parallel to the concept: seeing something in a different way (literally) that makes you think about it differently.

Let me offer this up: there is nothing Brechtian about alienation. "Brechtian" style can only be achieved by Brecht himself, who is now dead. The theory that he used, which had been around way before his time, lives on with the term he coined for it. I agree that nothing is Brechtian in style about most Broadway musicals, because Brecht didn't direct him. But as I said before, a musical is based on the priniciple of alienation, so even the dumbest of musicals utilizes this. And don't even get me started about Lieutenant of Inishmore not being alienating.

And yes, agreed about a mother figure. In pre-Christian society, the concept of a mother goddess was an identifier... After all, a mother gives birth and provides for her young and is comparable to the Earth itself. So the figure of Grendel's mother is very important in illustrating that, as well.

[BumbleWumble]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 4:58pm

Dude, all he says is "****." And "whatever." That's just colloquialism.

If you read the notes on the production, they wanted Grendel to "speak our language." Grendel's material is in English because we understand it, and we especially understand colloquial English. The other characters sing in Olde English, which distance them from us, having gotten used to the convention of English.

By speaking in slang that we understand, I don't get how that shoves Bush down our throats at all. Again, you're getting that because you're making connections outside of the world of the play.

Maybe by your standard the role of Grendel should have been written entirely in Monster. Updated On: 7/16/06 at 04:58 PM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 5:11pm

No, I just don't agree with you. Storytelling from days of old has often been effected through song, and musicals are actually just a continuation of that tradition. I find it to be the opposite of alienating/distanciating. The song or musical creates its own world and we step into its verisimilitude and stay there.

Don't confuse verfrumdung/distanciation/alienation as meaning whether a piece is realistic or like the reality we experience in our everyday lives or not. It means to break apart the "getting lost in the dream" or the verisimilitude of the piece by creating breaks which force your intellect to engage in something outside of the dream world the play creates, preferably political from Brecht's point of view, so that you won't have an easily controlled mind that can be manipulated by the Hitlers that may come along.

The Lietenant of Inishmore I had to think about for a while before I decided it stood on its own as a piece, it is the hardest to justify of my examples and would require a bit more erudition than I have time for today. I believe the analogy works, that Martin McDonaugh has created a dream play and with the speed of its execution I think he accomplishes brilliantly the dream and sticks to it, without rubbing the IRA in our face he has satirized it to the max through the contect of the splinter group. And that play is timeless, not stuck to referencing the present time period. Fine, fine piece of work, that. I read History Boys and still think Lieutenant deserved the Tony.

I highly recommend that you go and see a real Japanese Bunraku puppet play for then you would understand that whether the story is conveyed through puppets or no has no reflection on the "breaking" of the dream or verisimilitude of the play. You can watch an animated film such as Disney's Cinderella the same way, without a breaking of the dream, the verisimilitude (which would create alienation/distqanciation) and that is only animated characters with human voice overlays.

Disanciation is, I believe, a better and more accurate way to state verfrumdung, which distances you outside the dream of the piece.

© 2006 nomdeplume by pseudonym, all rights reserved Updated On: 7/16/06 at 05:11 PM

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 5:19pm

Julie Taymore is so overrated.

[BumbleWumble]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 5:24pm

I agree with you that song is one of our primary storytelling devices, but that doesn't stop it from being alienating in a musical or play. Brecht used song in almost all of his plays, not just Threepenny, to alienate.

Remember, Brecht didn't come up with this. It's not something he dreamed up. It existed before him, was articulated by a drama critic before him, and he took it and ran with it, much like Anne Bogart ran away with Viewpoints and left Mary Overlie in the dust. I am well aware of what alienation is as a theatre professional who has studied at the best institutions.

It need not be political. Something is alienating when it makes a familiar convention strange to the viewer, causing him or her to step back from the work, thus alienating and causing a reevaulation process to take place in the mind and in reverse engaging the intellect. (Speech to song - human to puppet - large scale to miniature.) It's in the details and execution of theatre, not the purpose. Like this whole discussion... the elements (the contents) serve the purpose (the container.) The asides from Grendel are active in the world of the play and they serve to draw a connection in the audience's brain. The songs in a musical are active in the world of the play and cause the audience to experience the text in a more heightened and different way than if they were just speaking in a scene, therefore adding importance to the material by setting it as sung. Same thing.

I enjoyed Lieutenant at the Atlantic Theatre but not on Broadway. I didn't think it transferred well. But I do think it's a superior achievement than History Boys, overall.

And I studied Japanese theatre in college, travelled to Japan, and still see all the performances at the Japan Society. I am highly familiar with puppet plays. Julie Taymor's work is not puppet play. It employs global techniques to serve her own vision. When she uses puppetry in theatrical productions, it is alienating, plain and simple.

Updated On: 7/16/06 at 05:24 PM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 5:45pm

"Julie Taymore is so overrated."

BwayBaby18, you are a riot. This is probably one of the more heavy duty discussions I've been involved in on this Board with Brechtian distanciation and the lot. I am still laughing. Hey, but spell the chick's name right, will ya? (j/k)

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 5:59pm

Well, Bumble, you could be Godzilla and I'd still argue with you if I disagreed.

You and I disagree on the meaning of verfrumdung, or distanciation/alienation. I think it is the breaking of the verisimilitude dream and you think it is:

"Something is alienating when it makes a familiar convention strange to the viewer, causing him or her to step back from the work, thus alienating and causing a reevaulation process to take place in the mind and in reverse engaging the intellect."

And that affects how I can see a puppet play or a play that suddenly introduces puppets as not interfering with the dream process, perhaps expanding and enhancing the dream, and you see it as you do. For example, in Oklahoma, when Laurie falls asleep for the traditional dream sequence and a ballet Laurie, a second Laurie takes over in dance, I'm still in the dream, still in the verisimilitude, no verfrumdung, though from your interpretation of its meaning that could create distanciation/alienation.

I am very happy to have you here for the discussion. How tame it would be without different points of view.

© 2006 nomdeplume by pseudonym, all rights reserved

[jwsel]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 6:12pm

nomdeplume,

My comparison of Grendel to a Hollywood action film ($100 million on effects and $0 on story) was not a comment on Grendel's story, but on its music. I think good music is essential to Opera and I found the score to be extremely weak. It bothered me that so much money had been spent on the production when I thought it would have been better spent on higher quality source material.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 6:19pm

Ah, jwsel.

Story (book) and music are two different things to me.

I did find the music was sometimes slow and would have liked more variety, especially coming from Grendel in places.

It is very helpful to have commentary from people educated in opera scores and from musicians here. I wish I were more educated in musicianship, even though I can write a little music (not opera level) I am keenly aware of my shortcomings in the art. Updated On: 7/16/06 at 06:19 PM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 6:35pm

"If you read the notes on the production, they wanted Grendel to "speak our language." Grendel's material is in English because we understand it, and we especially understand colloquial English. The other characters sing in Olde English, which distance them from us, having gotten used to the convention of English."

Ahk! That post snuck by my attention, but I see it now and will respond. There are not two kinds of language here, there are THREE. Grendel's usual "heightened speech" or theatrical English, Grendel's slang and the Olde English. I could have done without Grendel's slang which "jived" things right to Bush.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 8:04pm

Gosh! All I want to know is ... How was Denyce Graves? Details, please.. She is an all time favorite of mine. I am more than dissappointed that I could not see this!

Updated On: 7/16/06 at 08:04 PM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 8:08pm

Read my post about the Dragon, PB ENT!

She was a dynamo!