Sondheim vs. Porgy & Bess - YIKES!- Page 4

[jv92]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:26pm

This is NOT meant to be homophobic AT ALL, but I'm beginning to wonder if they'll add some homosexual element to Sportin' Life, like the new librettist of the recent PAL JOEY did for the club owner. That would be a shame, simply because...well...it just doesn't make sense!

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:28pm

"IMHO, here's the unstated message from the director and company:

It's not black enough."

I kind of get what you're saying...though I'm not sure you've unpacked it enough. I've always wondered why Audra had yet to play Bess. Perhaps (just perhaps, as I don't know), she wasn't drawn to the character in any meaningful way. Perhaps she saw it as a thankless part that wasn't particularly compelling. Maybe she felt that (though the music is beautiful), it wasn't really true to the experience of African Americans. Perhaps she views Porgy and Bess the way I view Brokeback Mountain...a well-meaning piece of art by people who have no true concept of what it means to be the minority they're portraying.

So...I don't think they're trying to 'black' it up. I think they're trying to make it more representative of what they perceive the black experience to be. I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with this exercise. But I can understand the impulse.

[newintown]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:29pm

"Sondheim, brilliant though he may be, underestimates just how little the audience on mass knows about Porgy & Bess."

He probably also underestimates how few people know that the term is en masse.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:30pm

Best12bars, the voice of sweet reason, as usual.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:31pm

Roscoe, I know you're not stupid and you know how logic works. You responded to Sondheim's comments about dramatic/script/character-related changes in this upcoming production of PORGY AND BESS by asking if Sondheim had ever addressed similar issues in the 2009 Broadway revival of his A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC, which was--in your words--"appalling". But since that production didn't alter any of the text or characters or music, as this production does, the analogy is fallacious. And in order for it to work--i.e., for Sondheim to speak out in similar fashion about the presentation of his own work as he does with PORGY AND BESS--one has to assume that YOUR opinion that the production was "appalling" and revisionist has to also be Sondheim's opinion. In truth, the facts seem to point in the opposite direction. Hope that clears things up. The nice thing about logic is that opinions don't need to be taken into account.

ETA: besty, that's a nice way to make sense of things--but it's not what Roscoe is saying in his posts. And it doesn't follow in quite the same way as the statements Sondheim is making in his open letter do.

Updated On: 8/10/11 at 04:31 PM

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:33pm

I think I have a new signature, Kad, because that's pretty close to what I imagine, too.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:35pm

AC, fallacious in your opinion. I fixed it for you again.

And by the way, Nunn's production of A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC did change the music: the opening moment on the cello. And it did alter the characters, in having Anne Egerman played as an insufferable frigid little bitch, instead of the sweet young girl indicated in the text.

Updated On: 8/10/11 at 04:35 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:38pm

Well, then, it looks like my work in this thread is done.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:40pm

Everything you're saying, and everything you say that I'm saying, seems to be coming down to matters of opinion. Just like saying that Trevor Nunn directed Ramona Mallory to play Anne as a bitch--an obvious opinion, yours. And also what's not being mentioned here is that while the Gershwins' work is controlled by an estate, one which for whatever reason ($$$) has put their faith in Diane Paulus, Sondheim is in control of his work. When all is said and done, he chooses who directs, who designs, and who performs his work. So the next time you see him at the theatre, you should ask him why he allowed Trevor Nunn to execute his work in such a way.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:40pm

I'm still not over Sondheim 'fixing' Into the Woods for the revival. That second wolf and having On the Steps of the Palace end as a trio were disasters.

Of course, it was the artist tinkering with his own work, which is very much different from what's happening here.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:41pm

^ Another thing Roscoe doesn't mention--Sondheim CONSTANTLY rewrites his own material, sometime to a fault.

[singtopher]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:43pm

Kad, that's what I see, too.

Roscoe- That's all interpretation, not re-writing. Let me use a different example. Let's say Trevor Nunn was trying to make Apple Pie using an existing recipe. They got together the ingredients and make a very dry, tasteless pastry. Palus & Co are looking at that recipe, and saying "Well, Apple Pie would be so much better if you used completely different ingredients."

And, Besty, I follow the Sweeney reference, but I think Sondheim went on the record saying he was pleased with Burton's film.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:44pm

Well, DUH, AC. Most of what gets said round here comes down to MATTERS OF OPINION. Get off your high horse about labelling questions "unqualified" and "fallacious."

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:47pm

The bottom line is that Sondheim isn't objecting to them making revisions, but he is objecting to them presenting themselves as "fixers" and "show doctors" who are taking care off all the terrible things that were wrong with this piece to begin with.

He finds their attitudes shameful and thinks their approach to the work is dishonorable.

For some reason, I'm reminded of the Mme. Armfeldt quote:

"I do not object to the immorality of your life; merely to its sloppiness!"

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:47pm

So, you state your opinion as fact and then get huffy when someone else points out that your opinion isn't fact, and that maybe there are people (like, I don't know, Sondheim) who might not agree with it? Just making sure I have this right.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:48pm

Singtopher, point taken. I'd say though, that sometimes re-interpretation can be a form of re-writing as drastic as the changes Ms. Paulus is evidently making to PORGY.

An opinion, of course. I'm sure folks will disagree

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:50pm

"but he is objecting to them presenting themselves as "fixers" and "show doctors" who are taking care off all the terrible things that were wrong with this piece to begin with."

Very true...and he does have a point. However, we should all acknowledge that we are talking about a piece that has controversy attached to it. There are many people who feel the show is rife with stereotypes.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:52pm

"And, Besty, I follow the Sweeney reference, but I think Sondheim went on the record saying he was pleased with Burton's film."

I believe you're right ... which is exactly what I find hypocritical. Burton cut all of the choral singing, which isn't just "decorative," it drives the entire story dramatically, from The Ballad of Sweeney Todd on. That "prideful decision" on Burton's part excised nearly 1/3 of Sondheim's score.

And Sondheim smiled and nodded and said as much as "well done." Again, that's a double standard.

Is it okay for Burton to object to any choral singing as "unnatural," and cut it from the work for that reason, but not okay for these ladies to make critical comments and changes to another beloved work?

Which is it?

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:52pm

Although I understand Sondheim's reference to "buck and wing", as the basic opposite of Porgy on a cart with lifeless legs.
But I wondered if he was making a somewhat subversive comment on race.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:53pm

"So, you state your opinion as fact and then get huffy when someone else points out that your opinion isn't fact, and that maybe there are people (like, I don't know, Sondheim) who might not agree with it?"

Lighten up, AC. Stating opinion as fact is pretty much SOP round here. Must I put IMHO after every statement? And dismissing my post as being "unqualified" puts you in a glass house when it comes to accusations of huffiness, I'd say.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:57pm

>> But I wondered if he was making a somewhat subversive comment on race.

Somewhat? Yeah, I'd say that.

[singtopher]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:57pm

"re-interpretation can be a form of re-writing as drastic as the changes Ms. Paulus is evidently making to PORGY."

Very true.

ETA- Besty, while Sondheim says he isn't taking issue with the production but rather the attitudes, why does he argue against some of the changed made?

Updated On: 8/10/11 at 04:57 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:57pm

^ Totally! The "buck and wing" comment was racial, no question about it.

Updated On: 8/10/11 at 04:57 PM

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 4:59pm

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

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 5:06pm

I think the basic problem is that the book of Porgy and Bess has just not ever been popular with the mainstream. Catfish Row is an odd and alien and depressing place. Maybe Gershwin spent too much time down there researching the subject matter.

If the dislike of the story has kept millions away from the glorious music, I wouldn't mind some tampering with it if done with restraint and good taste. I love Robert Russell Bennett's "Symphonic Picture," which just hits high after high.

It's not like there is no precedent. The second act of Show Boat is "re-imagined" in every production. Different songs are included or excluded. The original closing number, "It's Getting Hotter in the North," has never been used in any significant production.

Mr. Sondheim seems to fear the worst and he may be right. I don't think that Audra McDonald would allow herself to be used in any crass mangling of the show. But I don't think that we should pre-judge. They have the right to lay a big fat egg.