Sondheim vs. Porgy & Bess - YIKES!- Page 7

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 10:00pm

As for the comment above that Sondheim "isn't God," his arguments speak for themselves and can be discussed on their own. Pretend Joe Schmo wrote them, if it helps.

Has the decision to "improve" the "downer ending" been discussed yet? I find that very odd as the ending isn't really tragic, particularly not for an opera. Yes, Bess has succumbed to her addiction and gone with Sportin' Life to New York, where he will probably make her work as a prostitute to pay for drugs.

HOWEVER, Porgy reclaims his manhood, even his legs metaphorically (which is why Sondheim talks about the line, "Bring me my goat!" (to pull his cart)). He declares he is "on his way" to get his woman back. Like a MAN does, not like the cripple who was the butt of everyone's condescension at the beginning of the play.

If you're a romantic, you believe Porgy will find Bess and win her back. If you're not, you admire the irrepressible human spirit even in the face of hopeless odds.

The ending of "Funny Girl" is more of a downer than that! Fanny can vow to have her parade, but there's no way she's getting the love her life back.

[trentsketch]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 10:05pm

I don't need Stephen Sondheim to tell me that adding backstories and a happy ending to Porgy & Bess seems misguided at best to me.

I'm all for adapting public domain works into new forms. This is not public domain. It's also not being promoted as an adaptation. They're changing the title to suggest this is what the original creators actually wanted. That's what gets to me. It could be an incredible production, but that title gives me pause.

[CurtainPullDowner]

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

"change the ending back"
We don't even know what their ending is yet.

[Gaveston2]

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

(Why doesn't this board have a "quote" function?)

Back on page 3, SEANMARTIN asked if the real issue is that the women quoted feel the opera "isn't black enough." I must say that every African-American theater artist or academic with whom I've ever discussed the show said they found it cringe-worthy. The leading man is a cripple, the leading lady a whore and drug addict, the people of Catfish Row don't see able to do anything but bemoan their fates (which is pretty much every opera chorus, but still...).

And on the whole, they complain that the work--however well intended--just feels like it was written by outsiders. Is it possible that's the real issue here, but the creators didn't want to "play the race card", so they chose unfortunate ways to criticize a classic?

As for Ms. MacDonald, despite the glorious music, Bess is consistently weak-willed and blows off her love for cocaine. (Mammy in "Gone with the Wind" is more active and even heroic.) A lot of actors, particularly stars, want to play heroes.

[AC126748]

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

Just because Bess is a tragic addict doesn't mean that she's not well-defined, IMO. That seemed to be the biggest misconception in the way McDonald conceptualized the production team's "reconfiguration" of her.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/10/11 at 11:00pm

I couldn't agree more. Frankly, still astonished by the performance of Clamma Dale on Broadway in the 1970s, it never occurred to me that Bess was "poorly defined."

The opera is based on a rather successful novel and play, where the same characters had to stand on their own without the glorious music.

This is why I think "poorly defined" may mean too superficially close to unfortunate African American stereotypes.
Updated On: 8/10/11 at 11:00 PM

[GlindatheGood22]

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

Jinkies. Theatre is so...messy.

I know some people will interpret this as Sondheim thundering from his pulpit at the rest of us scrabbling around in the theatrical muck. To me, though, it appears as though he's speaking only as a concerned theatre-goer familiar with, and a little bit protective of, a beloved piece.

I'm a big fan of both his and Paulus', I thought her Hair and Cabaret were both fabulous. I don't agree that she's solely in it for the money, I think she's a hardcore revisionist who sometimes get a little carried away. BUT, I do see Sondheim's point here. Paulus didn't undertake this project with the intention of ripping it to shreds to spite the Gershwins (Arthur Laurents I'm looking at you.) So much of what is defined as "good" relies on audience accessability, and the Gershwins were certainly not pandering to that in the original production. Paulus is making her alterations with the intention of making the piece easier for audiences to digest. I'm not sure what I think about that, but Sondheim has certainly made his opinion obvious. I do, however, think it's an arrogant move on somebody's part to title it "The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess." If they really are changing it that much, tacking the Gershwin name onto it is a bit like trying to usurp the original.

[everythingtaboo]

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

How about we actually see a public performance before judging it? Sondheim may end up being right in his assumptions, but based on his letter, there's suddenly a flood of negativity toward this production?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 12:23am

If Michael Riedel decided to sink his fangs into this mess, Diane Paulus will be the new Julie Taymor by the time Labor Day merrily rolls along.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 12:33am

Julie who?

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 12:34am

I don't see how Riedel can ignore this,
the TIMES is stealing his thunder.

Posted: 8/11/11 at 12:50am

As people commented under that Sondheim piece, it's not just that they feel the piece is too long. Porgy and Bess is very rarely performed in full--I don't believe it was until the 70s, maybe the Houston production--in fact, it IS a long long long piece. When most companies do it, it is edited, and that's one thing. (I know many disagree, but I think parts like Buzzard Song, while musically pretty great, don't add a lot to the theatrical experience). As it's been said before too, this isn't the first time the opera hs been done in a more musical theatre style--the more succesful second Broadway version in '42 used dialogue extensively, cutting the recitative, as did the movie (Which annoyingly the Gershwin foundation won't allow to be released, even if they seem thrilled by productions like this), and Trevor Nunn had a flop on the West End a few years back with the same goal.

*Anyway*, I did have a point, and it's that where I agree completely with Sondheim is about them feeling they have to add things. Why does Bess have to be raped now? The whole point of her dilemna was between her urges, for sex and for drugs, and her wanting love and security. The rape element, adds a completely different element that makes her in a way seem even more like a victim, IMHO, when she chooses to go off with Crown, and is not what was intended. I'm sure the rationale is rape couldn't be clearly shown back in the 30s, but in this case I think it was beyond the issue. But instead of a stronger Bess, in a way it seems to give the focus more to her needing Porgy to rescue her.

And the whole backstory aregument is spot on--I've seen a very good production of P&G, and nobody seemed lost as to why Porgy sang I Got Plenty of Nothin. And, at least for myself, I never felt like a character didn't seem to make sense, I don't get why any backstory would be needed. That said, I don't really see a huge issue if he doesn't have a goat (I think the production I first saw as a 10 year old, which was anothr good production that was a tour, couldn't use a goat, though they did have a sort of cart thing and not just a cane). Bring me my cane is not a great line, bu I'm sure something else could be.

Again in the comments, and here, everyone seems to compare it to the more outre reinterpretations of various well known operas, and I'm not sure that's quite fair. When Sellars redoes Verdi, I don't think (and I could be wrong) he ever justifies it by saying that if Verdi was living now he'd stage it this way. That's where I do find the original article condescending.

Updated On: 8/11/11 at 12:50 AM

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 1:15am

I think that Sondheim's comments are primarily valid, particularly about the billing (which is something that I wasn't aware of before). But it is disappointing to me that Audra (and, for that matter, Norm) couldn't have been involved with a version of this production that just allowed them to play the roles. I will see it because Audra is playing Bess.

If the new version is amazing (which it very well might be), then all the better. But it is becoming a new creature and should be acknowledged as such. And I bet that after all this stir, it will be. I'm frankly surprised that this controversy didn't arise from the minute the words "rewritten version" were tossed around.

And, going back a bit, but regarding the discussion of Night Music, it sort of bugs me that just because someone personally didn't like it, it is labeled a travesty to the degree that Sondheim ought to decry it as somehow revisionist and blasphemous to the material, as he did to a degree in the letter about Porgy and Bess. I saw and very much enjoyed the production of Night Music, as did many other people, including several on this board.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 1:17am

This isn't the first time the idiots at the Gershwin Estate trashed poor Porgy and Bess. This from the wiki page:

===

2006 Porgy and Bess:

Porgy and Bess: the Musical premiered on November 9, 2006, at the Savoy Theatre (London), directed by Trevor Nunn. Nunn had previously directed the operatic version at the Glyndebourne Festival and a videotaped television production, both with Willard White. For this production, he adapted the lengthy opera to fit the conventions of musical theatre.

Working with the Gershwin estate, Nunn used dialogue from the original novel and subsequent Broadway stage play to replace the recitatives with naturalistic scenes. He did not use conventional operatic voices in this production, but relied on musical theatre actors as leads. Gareth Valentine provided the musical adaptation.

The musical was a commercial failure, closing months early due to poor box office.

Posted: 8/11/11 at 1:24am

Yeah I mentioned that, and I think others did [edit I did mins after, sorry for sounding jerky]. It doesn't bother me as much, because, as others have said, it basically went back to previous versions (I am sure I'll be proven wrong, but I thought Gershwin even wrote a version where the recitative could be replaced with dialogue). It sounds like it was a misguided production (and I find that Nunn earlier, full oepratic production really hard to watch as filmed--not because Porgy has, I believe, canes instead of a goat, but it's just badly filmed on a soundstage). But it didn't actually add NEW scenes, it essentially changed the sung recitative to dialogue, the way Carmen originally did.

It is damn convenient, though, that they choose not to remember that production, when the team behind this act like this is the first time P&G has been done in a more musical theatre style than opera.
Updated On: 8/11/11 at 01:24 AM

[dented146]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 1:53am

One thing for sure, Sondheim's letter has created one of the most provacative posts in a while and one that has elicited some of the most thoughtful responses.

Clearly, this subject cuts close to the bone with him and gives fair warning to anyone who would presume to reinvent his thoughts in any future revival of his work.
Updated On: 8/13/11 at 01:53 AM

Posted: 8/11/11 at 2:27am

I agree with everything you say, except the last point. I think, for better or worse, Sondheim has always been open to reinterpretations of his work with the one caveat that they don't actually change the text of the piece (be it genders, or dialogue). I actually sometimes wish he were less (and that actually does go text in terms of some of his revisions).

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 2:34am

For those who keep reminding us that Stephen Sondheim isn't God, I want to say that while I might not be able to match his eloquence, there is nothing in his letter that I wouldn't have thought on my own.

I'm still having trouble imagining Porgy with a cane instead of a "Porgy board," a term that we actually used to use in New York for paraplegics who used a board with wheels for transport. In the Houston production of the 1970s, it was shocking and thrilling when the severely crippled Porgy rose up to strangle Bess' assailant.

We have produced at most a handful of great operas in this country. Is it so wrong if we are a little protective of the few we have?

To me, this is not the same as writing new books for "Babes in Arms" and "Anything Goes" (new versions I very much liked). Some types of comedy go out of date very quickly. Tragedy deals in universals. There's no reason an audience today shouldn't be able to appreciate the original "Porgy and Bess" (even if it must be cut for length).

[MadonnaMusical]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 2:38am

Michael Bennett said it best:

"To me, a bit part of the argument isn't actually the tinkering with the material -- what Sondheim is saying, is that its a respect issue; what the Gershwin estate through Paulus are in effect doing is trying to cash in on the name value of the Gershwins and maintain the name recognition of the original opera, all the while completely re-writing and changing the authors' original intentions, in effect creating a completely new musical.

The precedence isn't exactly new here. Whether its CARMEN JONES or CRAZY FOR YOU -- taking a familiar piece and re-writing it for a modern audience isn't anything I have an issue with.

But rewriting PORGY AND BESS - giving it a new ending, and insisting on calling it by its original title (and marketing it as the original work) is somewhat trying to have your cake and eat it too.

The problem in my opinion would be solved if they would just re-title this production."

the only thing I would add is the idea (like others have mentioned) that Sondheim is sending a warning that people better not F**K with the endings of COMPANY (Robert chooses April, or comes out of the closet), or FOLLIES (Ben goes home with Sally).... or many others... if the ending is going to be changed without the Author's permission it needs to have a new title.... How about "PORGY LOVES BESS" since it's going to be a romantic comedy apparently instead of a tragedy....

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 5:03am

"To me, this is not the same as writing new books for "Babes in Arms" and "Anything Goes" (new versions I very much liked). Some types of comedy go out of date very quickly. Tragedy deals in universals. There's no reason an audience today shouldn't be able to appreciate the original "Porgy and Bess" (even if it must be cut for length)."


This is the part I totally disagree with. What give you or anyone else the right to decide what's "outdated" and what is "worthy" of massive changes or not? Such hypocrisy!

Updated On: 8/11/11 at 05:03 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 8:34am

The "right" to decide what's outdated lies with the creator of the work or the creator's estate for as long as the work is in copyright, and with anyone and everyone thereafter.

The Gershwin estate (and the Heyward estate, according to the ART press release) decided to let Paulus and Parks "reimagine" (also from the press release) the piece.

I don't think Sondheim would have written a letter to the Times objecting to that alone, even if the idea of "reimagining" this particular work struck him as unnecessary.

What drove him to write the letter were the callous and clueless comments by Paulus and Parks (and even Audra), which made them all sound like the wrong people to have been entrusted with that task.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 9:04am

Exactly. Here's what I said on Page 4 of this thread:

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.

Still, there are people posting here who think the issue is "which shows are worthy of revisions and which shows aren't." Some are "sacred cows" and others open to anything. That's not what he's saying, though.

My point of contention with Sondheim's letter is (still) why he only choses to object to certain "arrogant" creatives who say they want to "fix" something, in this case. This isn't the first time someone has had comments like this. But they're being arrogant about one of his personal "sacred cows," so he's taking issue publicly. If it were another work, he wouldn't say anything and he wouldn't even necessarily care. He's not taking a stance "in principle," yet at times he paints it as a general concern and cites examples of potential arrogant tampering with other "classic" works:

It makes you speculate about what would happen if she ever got her hands on “Tosca” and ‘Don Giovanni.” How would we get to know them? Ms. Paulus would probably want to add an aria or two to explain how Tosca got to be a star, and she would certainly want some additional material about Don Giovanni’s unhappy childhood to explain what made him such an unconscionable lecher.

He's really only pissed and compelled to write about it here because it's his beloved "Porgy & Bess." One of his personal sacred cows. I find that to be a double-standard.

Updated On: 8/11/11 at 09:04 AM

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 9:43am

I don't disagree, Besty, but where is the rule that if you feel a certain way about one thing you have to feel it about all other things arguably in the same category?

If he (or anyone on this board, for that matter) wants to say "I feel this way about 'Porgy and Bess,' I don't feel it about 'Anything Goes,'" I think it's a bit of a leap to charges of hypocrisy--not least because, whatever their presumed quality, they're very different kinds of works.

Similary, if he wants to defend "Don Giovanni" against some perceived vandalism, I personally don't require him to get the wagons in a circle around "Der Zarewitsch."

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 9:48am

I guess what it comes down to is this: are the re-writes necessary? I dont think so. As I said way back on page 1,782, this just feels like dumbing down to the audience, going on the assumption that they cant figure this stuff out for themselves (If you want to see something really shocking, watch the video at the theatre site. One of the leads, who's been singing this thing for years, pretty much says, "Y'know, until now, I just didnt get it; now I do!", which I find... just amazing. If you havent gotten it by now, then maybe it's time to look for other avenues.

But it's not so much that this is a sacred cow, IMHO. Other shows that have gotten re-written librettos, like FINIAN or BABES IN TOYLAND, usually did because the jokes were either stale or too referential for todays audiences. There are things in some of the shows of the 20s that would completely fly over the heads of most theatregoers... not because they're dumb, but because the humour comes from a particular time and is topical on that point. But the director here isnt looking at that: she's just saying the audiences wont "get" who Bess is, not without a lot of added exposition. And in that regard, what Sondheim says about Tosca is spot on.

Someone in another thread mentioned the importance of actors bringing subtext to a role, and, again IMHO, PORGY is one of those works where an actor/singer can truly finesse the performance to make these characters stuningly unique. But the director here is short-circuiting that process and laying everything on with a shovel... and then claims she's doing it to make the work "better". Maybe it is, but it's not "the Gershwins'" work. It's hers.

And I know what you're going to say, Best, but this just convinces me more and more that the estate is looking for a version they can control for the next century. What she's doing -- by adding material here and taking out material there -- is creating a whole new work, and the estate no doubt wants that, so that even if someone were to perform the *original* version, the estate could block it, saying it uses large parts of *their* version. This is precisely what happened with ARCADIANS, and i see no reason to doubt they're playing the same game.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/11/11 at 10:47am

My favorite response to this situation was actor Jarrod Emick's one-line FB status:

"Note to self: Don't ever get this letter."