PASSION Off-Broadway Preview Thread — Page 4

That's been a major bone of contention about Passion from the start. Is Fosca's love "true" love? Is it more "real" than Clara's?

Clara knows that she will ruin her children's lives if she leaves her family for Giorgio (for those who are oblivious to the changing mores of society, watch this season's "Downton Abbey"); Giorgio "realizes" that Fosca's love is more "pure," because she will do anything for him. It's a selfish little boy's argument: "You don't love me, because I'm not the only thing that matters to you!"

To some (including me), Fosca's "love" is not love at all, but unhealthy obsession; the fact that Giorgio eventually decides that he prefers to be the object of obsession rather than to be loved by an equal is hardly a denouement worthy of admiration (in my opinion).

You're right - "admire" isn't the right word. But it does seem that Sondheim/Lapine expect us to sympathize, to agree with Giorgio that Fosca's obsession is a "truer" love than Clara's more measured feelings and actions.

Do I have to drink a cup of His blood after saying that prayer?

Well...I left that out cause been there, done that.

SH*T.

You win.

Sorry, newintown, I missed your response to me earlier...before the new Follies Creed.

I think you're right that the intention of Lapine and Sondheim is to lead us to make the decision that the love between Fosca and Giorgio is truer than that of the love between Girogio and Clara. But even if that's their intention, I'm grateful that others can take a different look at the material and present it otherwise.

Kuhn's Fosca is deeply human...and very smart. Even she seems to be surprised by the depth of feeling Giorgio stirs in her. And because she's not grotesque (no mole for her!), it takes on this meta bit of heartbreak that you're simply watching an actress be stripped of make-up and a decent wig and just presented as unattractive. It's actually hard to take in at first, because you don't want to look at Kuhn, who is a theatrical treasure, as anything but lovely. But no. So the audience is not at a safe remove. They cannot say, 'Oh, this is just some make-up trick that lets me judge this character.' It's simply a homely woman who's imprisoned by her looks.

It also helps that Silverman isn't a complete stud. I mean...he's handsome. But in a way that isn't off-putting...it's a relatable kind of attractiveness. He also possesses an innate intelligence that is a really good match for Kuhn. And so, when they do engage, sparks fly. Not sexual sparks, but something different. They are two people who seem to be most themselves when they're with each other. All of this combines to make the eventual union between the two actually believable...and not some bizarre joke.

On a completely unrelated note, what an absolute joy to hear a score that doesn't ask the singers to perform any kind of Herculean tasks. It's written in a way that clearly shows off each human voice, without taxing them in the way so many musicals now ask singers to stretch their abilities to the point of being unhealthy. And the small orchestra sounded marvelous.

ETA: MB, I'm reeeeeeally interested to see what you think.

Updated On: 2/15/13 at 11:30 AM

That's something that kept going through my head last night: the world around them does not allow for this kind of behavior. So when it occurs, it becomes something dangerous and thrilling. All without showing much skin.

Though...I kept thinking what it would look like to see the entire opening number performed completely naked. Like, not even a sheet to cover them. Just complete nudity. I would be interested in seeing that. AND NO, BITCHES. Not for prurient reasons.

That's exactly what I was thinking. I always find it fascinating when actors can find a sort of complete freedom when doing nudity so that it no longer becomes some sort of sexual thing. And I wonder how that scene would play out in that kind of staging.

I've never viewed Fosca's 'love' for Giorgio as 'pure'. It's based in wild obsession, and I think that's fairly clear.

I've always viewed this piece as a bit of a fantasy - not a treatise on 'true love'. It strikes me as rewarding (I am a fan of it) because the obsession wins its prize in the end -- which rarely happens in real life, or at least that's what our mores say. Therein lies the challenge of the piece, and why I enjoy it so much.

Well, what a heaping mound of pretentious, longwinded hogwash all devoted to disguising/rationalizing/perverting the simple truth that the woman is a vile monster, a predator, destroying another person's life without compunction, as morally repugnant within as she is repulsive without, shoved down our throats with abject effrontery by the show's creators, to stick it to us all but good.

Nice try, guys, but no one (no one outside the cultists' circle that is) is buying. You can't disguise the truth no matter how hard you try. It's like pouring Chanel no. 5 on a compost heap- it still reeks.

Time for some fresh air.

After Eight, you continually make assumptions about artists' intentions and everyone else's opinions. It makes it difficult, for me at least, to take you seriously.

I don't consider myself a Sondheim cultist. I respect many things, love some, and have great difficulty with some others in every show he's written. But I buy much of what MB and Son of RJ write here.

I saw the original Passion production and sensed an ambiguity in both relationships. The piece seemed subjectively tied to Giorgio's POV. The women seemed to represent opposing poles of love - fearsomely obsessive and evanescently lovely. I remember feeling that Fosca awakened in Giorgio a sense of love's possibility.

I felt the intent of the growing relationship between Giorgio and Fosca, even in the original, was as Son of RJ wrote so well, "They are two people who seem to be most themselves when they're with each other." I didn't think Shea could quite there but Gallagher sounds like he did in the workshop and Cerveris certainly did.

After Eight,

I think its pretty clear in my original post that I am not in complete disagreement with you. I point out pretty plainly my reasons for believing that PASSION is an inherently flawed adaptation, because Sondheim and Lapine are not completely successful in their attempt at humanizing a character that in the source material has essentially no redeeming qualities, and instead, have unconvincingly tried to impose a theme (the meaning of love) on a story, that as written, is about the poisonous effects of pure rabid obsession.

My commentary here is simply a dissertation on how those flaws can be 'best' circumvented through directorial approach. I'm excited to see what Doyle does with the material, because it sounds like he has through his directorial concept perhaps found a reasonable bridge to really an impossible pass better than directors prior to him have done with this material.

Just to be clear, I don't believe that in itself will eradicate completely and validate Sondheim and Lapine's choices and elevate PASSION beyond what I presume it will always be a - a very flawed but fascinating musical, and worthy of debate, if no other reason because of the legacy of the man who composed it.