Believable

For the past couple of days I've pondered upon Carlyle Floyd's opera Willie Stark and whether the story was successful to me from the music or from the story. I was entertained with the story; not entertained with laughing or enjoyment, but I was engaged with the story, empathized with the characters and took away a new perspective on a few subjects that our society tends to grapple with. It was fascinating to see a character that apparently began with good intentions, but for various reasons shown to the audience was pulled down a long road of corruption. It is my opinion that the concept is very engaging, however Carlyle Floyd's talents do not rest in reworking a story for a libretto. We only see the sub-story or background through the radio announcements, something that really interrupts the action of the story, took me by surprise every time and left me thinking “what the heck?” The only character that was really well fleshed out was Willie Stark. All the other characters were not and therefore they were not as believable. One could attribute this to poor acting, but I believe that the singers in the LSU production were pretty decent. The music displays a lot of mood swings, or change of thoughts, leaving me thinking that the characters were not well driven and frankly lacked an attention span. One character that did work was the secretary lady, but we are only introduced to her in the last act, which also threw me for a loop. Also, the love triangle was most peculiar. I didn't believe that Anne loved Willie. This may have been intentional, but I am left with no other thoughts as to what might have been going on there. I want to know why. She had lots of monologues but I don't really remember what she said, nor was I moved by her situation. I think that this can be tied back to the ability of the music to tie the story together as a whole. Music has the ability to help pull the audience in and heighten the drama of the story helping to connect the proverbial dots. The music, while perhaps interesting and helpful at some points, fails as a collective in this opera. I really wish the Floyd had gotten at least a lyricist to help him with this one. It has so much potential.

The Universal Big Bang Theory

I would like to talk more about the clichés and stereotypes brought up in class regarding Willie Stark. I think that just because certain aspects are commonplace or recognizable does not necessarily make is a blatant stereotype. I really enjoy watching The Big Bang Theory which is about four physicists. Normally, we would all think that such group could never be accessible to the public let alone funny and entertaining. Yet these four characters exhibit characteristics that we all see every day. Everyone knows a Sheldon. Some would say that these characters are stereotypical. But it is exactly this that allows others who are not physicists to enjoy this show. While I was watching Willie Stark I was swept up in the story because the character of Willie Stark was so believable. I recall a certain pastor from my childhood who used many of the same rhetorical tactics to preach the gospel to his congregation. Even more so, I began to make connections to thoughts about recent politics. I began to ask why someone goes into politics and I began to see another side to why politics become so corrupt. Because these stereotypes had so much truth to them, I was able to make connections and sympathize with figures previously beyond my fathoming imagination. I believe that stereotypes are what make stories universal and timeless. Like a Mozart Opera or a Jane Austin novel, there has to be elements for the reader to make connections. What's important is that there is intention or reason behind the stereotype in order to make believable. That is something debatable in Willie Stark. For sure, good acting is an essential part of this opera. The music by itself does not carry the story well. In the end, I think that Carlyle Floyd could have used a little help in the writing of the libretto. Some aspects were just very strange like the use of the radio to tell the back story.

A Clarification

Last class time I blurted out everything I thought about staging Satyagraha. Because most of the time I think much faster than I can speak everything comes out a gurgly mess. (If we can use the f-word, I'm hoping that I can use the word gurgly.) Therefore I would like to clarify the things I liked about the German production and things I would like to see in another. First, I felt that the first act was way too busy and distracting. While this was really frustrating at first, I felt it conveyed well, the lack of focus in the world and possibly also Gandhi's life. Some of the text from the Bhagavhad-Gita talked about finding meaning in your life's work. This showed that even the smallest jobs can take on a deeper meaning in one's life. However, if I were staging this, I might not make the vignettes so strange to not shock the audience. I feel like it distracts from the main purpose of the first act. A lot of the staging was purely artistic such as the scenes with the letters and the scene towards the end with the continuously adjusting ribbons of color. The process of formation of these scenes really amplified the music, making me actually pay more attention to the music. I think we can all agree that the neon light sign with Martin Luther King's name in the third act was a bit silly. Even though this act was very powerful with the progressive snap shots showing Gandhi's ideas spreading, showing Martin Luther King's encounters with Gandhi (reading a book about him, seeing him in the news at a movie theater, etc.) would have made the third act especially moving. I could also see mirror actions, implying both of their assassinations. Certainly, I think that cheaper production could be made using multimedia images pertaining to the grand ideas of the Bhagavhad-Gita and still have a very moving performance. Some suggested in the last class that Cirque-du-soleil would be a nice addition. While, I have every confidence that a show of this type could be very well adapted to the music of Philip Glass, I feel that the extraordinary feats would really detract from the story. Though, sad to say, I have never seen a Cirque-du-soleil show.

Stubborn

One of the first things I think about when I see a production of an opera is what other people will think of it. Perhaps I should focus on whether I enjoyed the production or whether it inspired me in some way. I can't particularly help it. I'm a big believer in the genre of opera and one of my career goals is to educate others to look beyond the stereotypes that most people think of for opera. I want people to know that if they open their minds a little bit, they can attend an opera and not only understand what is going on, but actually enjoy it. So often when judging an opera I would prefer if it were more accessible to the masses while maybe pushing their expectations a little further from their comfort zone. But after watching Philip Glass's Satyagraha, I think I may have to change my mind. I'm not going to lie; when I first watched it, it put me in a state of depression. It had almost the same effect as alcohol, amplifying the mood you're already have. The opera has such long scenes of repeated text not to mention the fact that it centers on a culture that is so beyond my comfort zone that I have a hard time remembering the simplest, most common facts. But in the end I'm glad I watched it. I learned from it, and by exposing myself to another culture and its literature I feel ready for another venture to push myself in a similar way. In the end, I don't think really anyone likes to be pushed to try new things. And while we may kick and scream at change, ultimately I think we at least come to a better understanding. Or maybe I'm just stubborn.

Give me a plot!

So decided to look a little at the music of the opera Vanessa, Barber's successful opera that started the path to his commission for Antony and Cleopatra. I wanted to see how the music and libretto was different and if this contributed to the disappointment of the later. In the first few minutes I can see why Antony and Cleopatra was such a flop especially if the Metropolitan director was such a traditionalist and wanted something more accessible. Antony and Cleopatra is much more text and idea driven, whereas Vanessa is much more plot driven. Let's face it, Shakespearean language is not impossible to understand but these days it requires the average person to use more brain power to ponder the words in order to fully appreciate its power and efficacy. Certainly when it is performed well and with proper intent, the text becomes more accessible however, most likely the audience still misses some important statements and ideas. When I say it is not immediately accessible, I am not saying that audiences are not able to appreciate or understand at all, but rather than in comparison to opera that focuses on action, audiences are more likely to “tune out” and become bored. An opera such as Il barbier di Siviglia would be much more enjoyable to an audience first experiencing opera because there is a lot of action; one doesn't have to think as much and therefore the experience is more entertaining. Vanessa provides the perfect balance of action for entertainment but also a bizarre story that makes the audience think without necessarily being aware of it. I would never suggest someone go to see a Wagner opera for their first opera; that is not to say that there is not value or that it is completely inaccessible. But generally the first thing people think of when they think of opera is Brunhilde with a Viking helmet and boring, therefore it is not immediately accessible. Barber's Antony and Cleopatra is also in this same vein. Put in context with the audience for this performance it is certainly understandable why the opera was not a success. This does not undercut the fact that the music does not have worth or is able to touch audiences when properly staged which we all know was a big factor in its accessibility.

Infinite

One of my favorite films of all time is The Legend of 1900. I highly recommend it. It's about this boy born on a ship traveling between England and the United States. He is raised by a crew member and never leaves the ship. However, he somehow learns to play the piano and creates wonderful music unlike anyone has ever heard. As the grown musician considers the daunting prospect of leaving the confines of the ship and exploring the infinite world he remarks that there are 88 keys on a piano and on those 88 keys you can play infinite music, but what would happen if you had an infinite number of keys? How would you choose even one? Commonly, when we create a work of art in the form of staging we have limited resources. There's only so much money you can spend on performers, musicians, props, costumes and staging. You have a limited amount of time that you can rehearse and often times the performance space is very limited. Yet with these limitations countless of memorable, fabulous, touching performances are achieved for the audiences. Mozart's operas come to mind as I think of how he many times composed operas so quickly out of necessity yet they are of the most memorable in the opera repertoire. This may explain why I think that Barber's Antony and Cleopatra was such big flop. Perhaps for the first time in the history of opera, there was practically unlimited resources available for production of an American Opera for the inauguration of the new Metropolitan Opera House. The eyes of the world was on this production. Barber had unlimited resources at his disposal; he could have any poet he wanted, practically any subject matter he wanted yet he chose a dead, English poet that is often the fall back for many composers. Zeffirelli as well had unlimited resources which he certainly managed to show off. The unfortunate disconnect between the introverted music and the bombastic staging is the most obvious reason for the failure. But I would hypothesize that the greatest art is created when elements are synced purely out of the necessity to create, inspire and entertain. This opera from the beginning of its production missed the point of the art form and therefore was a failure.

Pushing Politics

I find it fascinating that we don't remember the works Aaron Copland produced after he stepped down from the political spot-light. However, Leonard Bernstein who continued to push his point of view also continued to produce works that are still conscious in our minds. After thinking of other composers of the past, I wonder if this is a constant connection between endurance of works through the ages and a political point of view that the composer is trying to stress. I wonder if such modern day groups as U2 and Green Day would be quite as popular if they did not convey a political message. Though there are also many successful artists and groups that have not pushed political agendas. Think about Beethoven 9's brotherhood of mankind, or his Symphony no. 3, originally dedicated to Napoleon; or perhaps Mozart, though his political views may not be quite as apparent in his works, he still conveys Masonic ideals in his operas and orchestral works. Even Johann Sebastian Bach in a way conveyed a political perspective through his constant devotional music which showed support for the Lutheran church also a political institution. In the end while it may not be necessary for a work to be political to popular during the composer's lifetime, it is almost without exception that we remember the works of composers who pushed the proverbial creative envelope. Those who were not only a product of their culture but those who reacted and used their medium as a form of persuasion.

Productions for profit

Class discussions today focused on production aspects from the productions we have watched and our own thoughts as to what would constitute not only a fabulous performance but a meaningful one as well. Discussion seemed to focus on the pros and cons of three different performances. The first is the London Symphony Orchestra with Bernstein conducting and Jerry Hadley as Candide and June Anderson as Cunegonde. The staging is by far the most simple as the singers are arranged in an oratorio form, dressed for concert with the chorus standing behind the orchestra. The second production is the Live on Broadway performance with Kristen Chenoweth as Cunegonde and Patti LuPone as the old lady. While the staging is minimal the characters are dressed in costumes and interact with orchestra and chorus. The third produced at Le Chatelet in France is by far the most complexly staged and politically poignant productions. The conversation quickly turned to aspects we liked and disliked with some pointing out that the Broadway version was too optimistic and made its primary focus the too huge stars of the show rather than focusing on the real meat of the story, Candide's loss of innocence and discovery of balance with Cunegonde. Criticism was also given to the Le Chatelet version as it was too pessimistic and political making too many references to modern day politics. I think that all three are valid and enjoyable. They each focus on certain points they want to make a direct attention using the material available through the story. The Broadway version is directed more towards being light entertainment; there's not much to shock the audience or necessarily make them think. Though it could also be said that the Chatelet version is directed to a certain audience with a specific political and world view and therefore doesn't urge them to think as well. There are many themes and ideas that can be brought out of this story. I watched the oratorio styled performance all the way through and learned from it the importance of balance especially in optimism and pessimism (we see this in Pangloss's antithesis) and the importance of continuing to struggle and make a better world in the face of misery and strife. I took away these themes without pretty costumes or cool effects, anything added perhaps directs focus only. For instance, in the oratorio production I particularly enjoyed the scene with the kings singing about the simple life. I was brought to consider the possibility that leaders may show great pomp speaking well and fluently, but they might not have much to say that is really important. This is really emphasized by the king who simply grunts recalling an idea of a cave man king who may seem important to other cave men but looks rather silly to us. The Chatelet version characterizes the kings as important political figures such as Boris Yeltsin, George W. Bush and Tony Blair but dialogue had to be added and various aspects of the original music had to be changed including the exclusion of the cave man saying “ug” only to be included towards the end with Boris Yeltsin taking the part which is doesn't really make as much sense. In the end, it is most important that a production should keep the balance of both the optimistic and pessimistic aspects of the opera. The music and story will take care of itself in maintaining its poignance.