Sondheim vs. Porgy & Bess - YIKES! — Page 5

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

But we're not talking about the approving or disapproving of the actual changes themselves, but rather the "arrogant attitudes" taken by new creative "visionaries" who come along and say they can "fix" these older works.

That's what Sondheim is objecting to in his letter. He objects when it's someone else's work (P&B) but not when it's his own (Sweeney).

Why didn't he tell Burton off when he said publicly that "choral singing is unnatural" and I don't want any of that material in my movie?

Never mind approving or disapproving of the change itself. It was an arrogant comment from Burton, and Sondheim didn't say anything. But he's full of words now.

---

I think probably best12 that Sondheim would argue this is two different discussions - a)the discussion of what changes are made by a writer working with a director when a musical is adapted to the screen and b) what happens when major changes affecting story and character are authorized and carried out by an estate hoping to make an inherited property more commercially viable are actually pretty different debates in my mind.

Wait... you're still holding onto the "approval" or "disapproval," Reg. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with the creative changes.

And I don't see that's what Sondheim is objecting to in his letter, either. He's calling out the arrogance in someone looking at an older classic work and saying, "we can fix this flawed piece and make it better."

If you're saying he's only objecting now because it's his opinion that this particular work shouldn't be tampered with, while others can be identified as flawed works "in need of repair" by a director, and that's perfectly fine as long as he happens to agree with that sentiment ...

I'm not seeing it in his letter.

---

Updated On: 8/10/11 at 05:21 PM

Eh, what do I know?

I don't know, best. I think your last line is kind of what's implicit in what he's writing.

I also think he finds it appalling (and rightfully so) that DuBose Heyward's contribution seems to be minimized. Which is shameful. But, again, that's a problem with the estate, not with the group of artists currently working on this show.

So, Robbie, if the authors and composers were living, he wouldn't have chastised the ladies.


I actually like what he said in this letter. It's my personal opinion (only!) that I wish he would have a similar respect for his own work. Maybe he's implying that after he dies and isn't around to approve or disapprove such comments or decisions, he will.

---

Best, FWIW:

Sondheim puts it succinctly when he says "Maybe we should add an aria for Tosca to explain how she got be a singer" (or words to that effect, I dont have the article in front of me). The audience doesnt need it, because it's plainly not necessary -- and his point (and FWIW, I think it's a valid one) is that we're seeing the "dumbing down" of Gershwin's masterpiece because some director thinks the audience is too clueless to figure out what's going on. Oh, and the ending isnt cheery enough, because audiences need that too.

That goes a bit beyond just whether or not there's choral music in a movie (a major error, in my way of thinking, but hey, he and Burton made that choice, so whatever). It would be like Burton decided the audience needed to hear some sea shanties to understand that Todd was coming home on a boat. And because the political overtones of the piece arent made pointedly enough, we need to add a professor to give a five minute discussion on the history of the British social class system as reflected through 19th century London and the works of Simon Bond.

Or, to put it another way, the only problem with the Guernica painting is that it doesnt have enough happy colours in it!

Just my 0.02.

---

SeanMartin---I read the letter, but I don't see that "whether or not there's choral music" is as simple as that. It excised all the narrative from the story. That's major. About 1/3 of the score. It may be quick to say, "let's cut all the choral music," but the result was significant.

Burton did other things, like cut Tobias's madness out of the end. He kills Sweeney out of vengeance, because we never hear him recite his disturbed little nursery rhyme, and we don't see his hair turn white. It looks like a revenge killing. Isn't that a significant change to the end of the story and a major character in it?

We also never see Anthony and Johanna and the police arrive to discover the killings and witness Tobias's madness.

Again, this is all fine, because the creative people were alive. That makes it collaboration. It's only if Sondheim were dead now that it would be sacrilege ... or so Sondheim implies in this letter.

---

Updated On: 8/10/11 at 05:49 PM

I'll bet Audra sends him flowers and an apology. No joke.

---

>> Again, this is all fine, because the people were alive. It's only if Sondheim were dead that it would be sacrilege ... or so says Sondheim in this letter.

To a point, yes. To underscore, those changes were made with Sondheim's express approval. People around here, when the film score was being recorded, told us how Sondheim was present at the recordings. He was a willing accomplice to these changes, so he has to bear the responsibility for how well they did or did not work (and in the case of the movie, I'd say "didnt", but anyway...).

But the Gershwins and unfortunate Mr. Heyward arent. And the changes being discussed make it into a "re-imagining" more than anything else, all based on the director's notion that, without this input, "audiences wont get it".

And there's the difference. To presume how your audience will react if you dont step in and save them form themselves... that's the arrogance Sondheim is talking about. I dont think he cares about the fact of re-writing. It's the purpose of the rewrite that bothers him... and I think it's a valid concern. It implies that your audience is just stupid, pure and simple.

But whatever. The proof will be what we see on the stage.

---

"But whatever. The proof will be what we see on the stage."


... and as Sondheim says to the effect of, "We'll see then whether they have earned their arrogance."

---

Updated On: 8/10/11 at 05:58 PM

Just because the man is Sondheim doesn't mean anyone is under any obligation to think that every thought and opinion he has is the correct one.

I wonder how accurate the quotes are. If she really said this, I'll bet she writes a public letter to explain her comments further and perhaps offer "Steve" an apology of sorts. If she feels "quoted out of context," I'm sure she'd address that publicly, too.

After his letter today, I'll bet the PR team for this show is in "damage control" mode, right now.

---