Archives for July 2003

Deaf West Theatre’s revival of Big River: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn opened last night on Broadway. Here’s the first paragraph of my review in this morning’s Wall Street Journal:

Why on earth–and how on earth–would a deaf theater company bring a musical to Broadway? Neither part of this question can be briefly answered, but in the case of Deaf West Theatre’s magical production of “Big River: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” which opened last night at the American Airlines Theatre, the results need no explaining. This stage version of Mark Twain’s novel, first seen on Broadway in 1985, is now being revived by a mixed cast of deaf and hearing actors who not only speak and sing their lines out loud but simultaneously “say” them in American Sign Language. Laborious as the process may sound, Jeff Calhoun, the director and choreographer, has shaped it into a miraculously fluid theatrical spectacle….

To read the rest of the review, you’ll have to fork out a dollar for the Journal, whose “Weekend Journal” section is worth at least that much in gold.

I had lunch the other day with a classical composer I know. He told me, perfectly seriously, “I just had the worst nightmare–I dreamed I was trapped inside an E minor chord.”

He also told me about attending a drunken dinner party of fellow composers, who clustered around the piano after dessert to sing funny songs. Did you know that every poem Emily Dickinson ever wrote can be sung to the tune of the Gilligan’s Island theme? “Beeeeee-cause I could not stop for death/He kind-ly stop-ped for me….” Or that all limericks can be sung to the tune of “It Ain’t Necessarily So”?

Think about this the next time you see a composer take a bow at a new-music concert. Don’t let appearances fool you–these people are kinky.

P.S. A reader writes:

I’ve only very recently overcome the unfortunate habit of singing Emily Dickinson’s poems. “Yellow Rose of Texas,” “Ghost Riders in the Sky,” “The Marine Corps Hymn,” and, perhaps worst of all, “Deep in the Heart of Texas” also work. But I warn you: That way madness lies.

“Boredom is one of the flattest, most self-evident, most self-justifying of all esthetic judgments. There is no appeal from boredom. Even when you tell yourself you like boredom, there the verdict is.”

Clement Greenberg, Homemade Esthetics

Film noir is the porn of pessimists, who like nothing more than to watch stylishly photographed movies in which the Robert Mitchums of the world make the mistake of going to bed with the Jane Greers of the world, for which they pay with their lives. In LaBrava, Elmore Leonard dreamed up the perfect title for a nonexistent film noir: “Obituary.” That’s a movie somebody needs to make.

Alas, I’m just as hopeless a case–I’m one of those pathetic cinephiles who can’t settle on the best place to hang his framed On Dangerous Ground lobby card–and in the interests of spreading my addiction more widely, I want to pass the word that Nicholas Ray’s In a Lonely Place is now available on DVD. In a Lonely Place is well known to serious film buffs and Humphrey Bogart fanatics, but if you don’t fall into either of those two categories, you probably haven’t seen it. Do so. Bogart plays Dixon Steele, an almost-washed-up screenwriter who gets tagged with a brutal murder at the precise moment that he falls hard for Laurel Gray, a blonde with a past-and-a-half. Gloria Grahame, the ultimate film-noir babe, is eerily perfect as Laurel, and as all cinephiles know, she was simultaneously (1) married to Nicholas Ray and (2) having an affair with Ray’s teenage son while the movie was in production. Yikes!

As for Bogart, he never made a better movie, and I do mean Casablanca. David Thomson nails it: “This last [film] penetrates the toughness that Bogart so often assumed and reaches an intractable malevolence that is more frightening than any of his gangsters.”

This, by the way, is the film in which Bogart rasps out the line of a lifetime: “I was born when she kissed me. I died when she left me. I lived a few weeks while she loved me.” If that doesn’t make you go ooooh, film noir is not for you.

“If we have to choose, it is always better to read Chaucer again than to read a new criticism of him.”

C.S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

I started writing about music a quarter-century ago, and one thing I’ve learned since then (the only thing, some of you may already be muttering) is that the quickest way to start a fight is to say something nasty about the operas of Richard Wagner. Most of his admirers are reasonable, but some are fanatical, and the fanatics are all compulsive correspondents. Since I find Wagner a near-unendurable bore…O.K., O.K., enough already. Let’s just say that staged performances of Wagner’s operas usually fill me with unenthusiastic respect, and drop it. Or, as H. L. Mencken put it in his inimitable manner:

In the concert-hall Wagner’s music is still immensely effective; none other, new or old, can match its brilliance at its high points, which may be isolated there very conveniently and effectively. But in the opera-house it has to carry a heavy burden of puerile folk-lore, brummagem patriotism, and bilge-water Christianity, and another and even heavier burden of choppy and gargling singing. No wonder it begins to stagger.

For some (though not all) of these reasons, I occasionally enjoy listening to excerpts from Wagner’s operas in the privacy of my own home, and I definitely have a depraved taste for the super-sensuous Wagner performances of Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra. Stokowski may have been a bit of a fraud, with that phony Slavic accent and those pretty-pretty hands, but he knew how to make an orchestra play its heart out, and his Wagner recordings, which I once described as being as hot as an atomic pile, are the antithesis of dull.

Hence it was with unexpected delight that I learned that Andante has released a five-CD set of the complete Wagner recordings made by Stokowski and the Philadelphians between 1926 and 1940, exquisitely remastered from the original 78s by Ward Marston. I shelled out good cash money for this set, and considering the way I feel about Wagner, I’d say that’s a pretty strong recommendation. Maybe Stokowski’s Wagner is for people who don’t really like Wagner, but I have a feeling it’s for everybody, especially his 35-minute-long “symphonic synthesis” of Tristan und Isolde, which consists of all the good parts lined up in single file with nothing in between.

One last slapshot at the Bryan of Bayreuth. This is what I wrote in the New York Daily News a few years ago about Robert Wilson’s Metropolitan Opera staging of Lohengrin:

“Though Wagnerites are a famously conservative lot, I confess to being puzzled by the displeasure of the opening-night crowd. Wilson was born to stage Wagner, and his ‘Lohengrin’—epic in scale and often deeply poetic in effect, but also inhumanely symbolic and portentous to the point of self-parody—is as precise a translation into contemporary terms of Wagner’s windy German romanticism as could possibly be imagined.”

Heh, heh, heh.

“The mentality of conductors is a dark, abysmal chapter that still awaits a historian. Conducting tends to spoil the character. When all is said and done, it is the only musical activity in which a dash of charlatanism is not only harmless, but positively necessary.”

Carl Flesch, Memoirs

Jesse Green recently wrote a smart piece in the New York Times Magazine about Adam Guettel, the composer of the off-Broadway musical Floyd Collins (it’s about the guy who got stuck in the cave) and the pop-song cycle Myths and Hymns. I’ve been interested in Guettel for some time now–I think he’s the most gifted and significant of the post-Sondheim musical-theater composers–and I’m very much looking forward to seeing his latest show, The Light in the Piazza, once it finally makes its way to New York. (It just had its premiere at Seattle’s Intiman Theatre.)

Having said all this, I’m puzzled by one thing. Green, who obviously admires Guettel as much as I do, described The Light in the Piazza as a “serious chamber musical” and emphasizes its musical complexity:

Anyone can whistle a happy tune. But take a look at the score of ”Piazza.” To create its highly chromatic, yearning atmosphere (Guettel calls it faux-Lisztian), the harpist is kept so busy changing pedals that she’s basically doing a clog dance. The other instruments–piano, violin, cello, bass–aren’t spared, either. The vocal lines are compulsively notated down to the last crotchet, specifying the kinds of inflections and back-phrasings that other composers would leave to the singers’ sense of style. It’s not pedantry; it’s how Guettel hears, and in some sense tries to stabilize, his damaged world. Is ”Love to Me”–the romantic climax of the score–less heart-melting because it is set mostly in the compound time signature of 5/8 + 4/8? No, it is more so, thanks to that strangely limping extra eighth-note, which seems to argue that imperfection can be another kind of beauty. But just try learning it without Guettel’s longtime music director, Ted Sperling, hammering out the beats.

What few can learn, few can love. ”I can’t help that,” Guettel says. ”We can finally admit, confidentially, that being a prominent theater composer is like being a prominent manuscript illuminator. So let’s not ask people to think more of this art form than they want to.” Which seems a shame because, with enough tinkering, ”Piazza” could be a classic….

Well, duh, it sounds to me like it wouldn’t take any tinkering whatsoever for Piazza to be…an opera. So why not call it that, and invite an opera company to produce it? I am fascinated by, and have written more than once about, the continuing resistance of “new music theater” composers like Guettel to thinking of their work in operatic terms. Stephen Sondheim is the same way. It’s as though “opera” were the dirtiest world in the language.

Does it matter whether you call a show like The Light in the Piazza or Sweeney Todd a musical or an opera? I think so. As I wrote in the Times a couple of years ago apropos the failed Broadway run of Marie Christine, whose composer, Michael John LaChiusa, similarly insisted on calling it a musical:

“The key word here is ‘elitist.’ Mr. LaChiusa, who admits to having had to pawn his piano after writing ‘Marie Christine,’ clearly longs to be popular. Alas, he longs in vain. Broadway today is about ‘Beauty and the Beast’ and ‘Footloose,’ not complex scores that demand your full attention at all times. To call ‘Marie Christine’ a musical is implicitly to claim that it has more in common with these simple-minded shows than ‘Carmen.’ Not only is this untrue, it’s bad marketing, the equivalent of a bait-and-switch scam. Labels are unfashionable these days, even politically incorrect, but sometimes they still matter. Had ‘Marie Christine’ been billed as ‘a new opera’ and produced by, say, Glimmerglass Opera, it would have drawn a different, more adventurous kind of audience, one better prepared to grapple with its challenging blend of pop-flavored rhythms and prickly harmonies.”

Judging by Jesse Green’s piece, I’d say Adam Guettel, for whatever reason, is making the same mistake—and I don’t think it will serve him well in the long run.

But don’t get me wrong—I love Broadway….