Sondheim vs. Porgy & Bess - YIKES!- Page 6

[jv92]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 6:21pm

Ooooh yes!! Every theater queen in New York has less of a reason to go to the new production once it opens. Rest assured, I still want to hear Audra sing the glorious arias, so I'll probably still go.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 6:27pm

Perhaps I lost the plot, but who asked Sondheim's opinion in the first place?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 6:28pm

I think there's an underlying thing here that I might not have noticed if I hadn't spent the last two years in the vicinity of "visionary" "director," Diane "populist" Paulist: the woman is a huckster. I'm not kidding, she's the latest in a long line of descendents of PT Barnum. Her programming at the ART for the past two years reveals that what she's most interested in is salesmanship. I thought, because she made a big game of talking about it for the year before she got to Cambridge (which she only visits, it's not like she's here much), that she was interested in a theater that was a vital contributor to a community-wide conversation. What I have seen, what she's most interested is her husband running the liquor concession at The Donkey Show. You pays your money and you takes your chances on whatever it is Paulus is currently dumbing down to make relevant to whatever group of young people with pockets worth picking.

As I read it, THAT'S what Sondheim is calling her out on. She uses the techniques of a carny barker to get asses in the theater seats (which is an admirable goal) by any means necessary (which is not).

I have no idea what kind of horrid concoction she's creating, but not having ever seen Porgy & Bess, I am exactly her target audience (except for the youth part). If I love it, I will join the chorus of people who dismiss the stodgy old naysayers who are familiar with the show that was originally created, and become another booster of the "revolutionary" work of Diane Paulus.

To think, this is all descended from the success of Sleep No More, which I love, and which was lined up on the ART schedule by Paulus's predecessor. She really is going to dine out on its cache for the rest of her career. And her husband holds the liquor license for that show too.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 6:30pm

Actually, in the long run, I think this controversy will get more people to check it out.

They'll want to see for themselves if these "arrogant" revisions made it better. And they'll want to sit right next to Mr. Sondheim when finds out, too.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 6:30pm

No one did. The New York Times published an article and Sondheim, like countless readers do, sent an open letter to the paper. I'm sure his letter made it to the top of the pile and warranted a blog post, though, because he's Stephen Sondheim of course.

[jv92]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 6:30pm

Nobody asked Sondheim's opinion, but he's always been a passionate fan of the piece, and of DuBose Heyward's libretto, so this really didn't come as a surprise to me-- maybe in its length.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 7:08pm

I'm posting a link to a Boston arts blog that I think really gives the context for how some people are perceiving Paulus. Now, I disagree with the guy's feelings about Amanda Palmer and the Dresden Dolls, but this sort of shady hucksterism is what's underlying the pushback. Porgy & Bess is going to take the heat because it's her first grand Broadway-aimed gesture since Hair. Had she gotten the awful Johnny Baseball to New York, that would have been the target.

It really is notable that Paulus and her husband turned ART's black box, Zero Arrow Theater, into Club Oberon. He gets a royalty for use of the name; a name that makes NO sense outside the context of The Donkey Show, which is now playing only two shows on Saturdays.

Her priorities are becoming more obvious and people have earned the right not to trust her.
The Hub Review

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 7:17pm

I really wanted to read this, but white type against a light blue background? Sweet Jesus.....

Yes, I know: copy and paste into text edit. I will, once the aspirin kicks in.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 7:27pm

It ain't my blog. Just a good source to show you how Diane Paulus doesn't happen to a show in a vacuum.

[jovie27]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 7:27pm

I totally agree...but we also have to remember the Gershwin Estate et,al., are allowing this to take place. So the only people we can be mad about are the producers and those who are allowing it to happen. We also have to remember that for some reason this IS taking place. There is a small chance that it was at one point to be revised this way...who knows? I think there is still more to this story and sadly everyone involved in this production is getting the worst of it. I mean why bring Lori-Parks, etc on to the project if the purpose was to just stage the original version. This creative team was assembled because the producers and the estate wanted it to make it something new...and that is what the creative team is doing.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 7:33pm

It premiered in 1935. Any bets that this is a way for the estate to extend the copyright protection?

That's how Boosey and Hawkes has been able to keep control over THE QUAKER GIRL and THE ARCADIANS, both of which were written around 1900. They changed the score, and then reapplied for copyright in the 50s, and it apparently worked.

[best12bars]

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

Porgy & Bess won't fall into public domain in the U.S. until 2030. It's already in public domain in Canada and parts of Europe.

Here's the full breakdown:


"Porgy and Bess was copyrighted under the 1909 Act. Initially, the copyright was to last 56 years and should have expired in 1991. But it was extended another 19 years by the Copyright Act of 1976, so it was then slated to expire in 2010. However, since Porgy and Bess was still under copyright protection in 1998, it was given another 20 years by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and is now slated to expire in 2030.

If Porgy and Bess had been copyrighted under the 1976 Copyright Act, it would have been measured by the lifetime of George Gershwin plus 50 years, and it would have fallen into the public domain in 1987, and would not have been eligible for the 20-year extension because it would not have been under copyright protection in 1998.

Because the lifetime of the author plus 50 years rule was applicable in the Berne Convention countries much earlier than when the United States went to that rule in 1978, Porgy and Bess fell into the public domain in those countries in 1987, the 50th anniversary of George Gershwin's death."


LINK

[CurtainPullDowner]

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

This is all Sonny Bono's fault?

If I were Audra, (ah) I would lie low and let my work (which I believe will be sublime) speak for itself.

[SeanMartin]

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

All I'm saying, is that if people want to, theyll find a way to work around this, which is why a pair of shows written 40 years *before* Porgy would still be controlled by copyright. There is always a way if one is determined enough.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 8:34pm

I didn't like Mr.Sondheim picking on Audra.

She is one of the performers, and I feel it's a bit unfair to lump her in with the director and hold her equally accountable.

[PalJoey]

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

You might be right, SeanMartin. Disney extends copyrights like that regularly.

[AC126748]

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

I didn't like Mr.Sondheim picking on Audra.

She is one of the performers, and I feel it's a bit unfair to lump her in with the director and hold her equally accountable.

Sondheim wasn't "picking" on Audra. He was responding to comments she made in the article, particularly that Bess is not a well-developed character and that only purists will take issue with the direction that Paulus and Parks are taking the piece. He didn't just indiscriminately single her out.

[trentsketch]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 9:08pm

If you're going to change this much of the show, don't call it The Gershwins' Porgy & Bess. Don't market it as their visino when you know it's not their vision. I wouldn't blink at this if they marketed as a reimagined Porgy & Bess or a new adaptation of Porgy & Bess. They're not; they're lying and saying it's the Gershwins' vision of the story. That's funny. I thought that version of the show was written 80 years ago. My mistake.

[showchoirguy]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 9:11pm

Wow! just wow. I would think that by now the people working with the show might want tot take back the happier ending...

[jovie27]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 9:20pm

I can not wait for the Reality Series of this!! LOL

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 9:25pm

I wouldn't be surprised if they did change the ending back.

[littlegreen2]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 9:27pm

Am I the only one who is genuinely annoyed by this? Sondheim is not actually God, as some people seem to think.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 9:34pm

AC, I know, I know...but still, I feel protective over Audra!

By the way, is this what she was "sigh sigh sigh"-ing when she tweeted last night?

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 9:37pm

No, since the letter wasn't published until noon today.

Littlegreen2, I'd say you should take it up with the people who will read what Sondheim wrote and blindly take it as gospel rather than with the man himself. Although you do have to admit that he has a slight bit of credibility when it comes to matters concerning musical theatre.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 9:42pm

You're not alone, littlegreen.