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

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.

(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.

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

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?

---

Julie who?

---

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

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.

---

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

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).

"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

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

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.

---