Search the List

Saturday, May 18, 2024

Giuseppe Verdi and Arrigo Boito | Otello / 2015

living in a glass house

by Douglas Messerli

 

Giuseppe Verdi (composer), Arrigo Boito (libretto, from Shakespeare’s play as translated by Giulio Carcano and Victor Hugo), Otello / The Metropolitan Opera HD live production, October 17, 2015

 

Life in late 19th-century Cyprus is truly a communal affair—at least as imagined by director Bartlett Sher and set designer Es Devlin in the MET’s recent production of Giuseppe Verdi’s Otello. The opera begins with a grand community event, the island’s citizens gathered, apparently in a heavy rain, to watch the return of their governor and general of the Venetian fleet as it attempts to find its way into safe harbor in a tempestuous storm. Despite temporary fears that the ship has been ripped apart, the Moor Otello (performed sans blackface in this production by Aleksanders Anntonenko) steers his vessel into port, announcing that he and his soldiers have been victorious in their fight against the Muslim Turks.


     In his absence, the young Venetian Roderigo (Chad Shelton) has arrived in Cyprus, and promptly fallen in love with Otello’s new wife, Desdemona (Sonya Yoncheva), who has also joined the awaiting crowd for Otello’s return.

    Also in that gathering is Otello’s ensign, Iago (Želijo Lučić), envious of Cassio, who Otello has promoted to head officer instead of choosing him. When Roderigo confesses to Iago about his love of Desdemona (Sonya Yoncheva), Iago pretends to befriend him, plotting a way to get back at Cassio by getting him drunk—a weakness that everyone seems to be aware of, including Cassio himself, who at first declines to drink—before egging on Roderigo to fight him. The fight and accidental wounding of a bystander and the former governor, Montano, who attempts to stop the fight, draws the newly returned hero from his home, who in anger, dismisses Cassio for his actions and demands that all return to their homes.

    So begins the long series of downward-spiraling incidents, triggered by Iago’s intimations and outright lies, ending in Otello's killing of the Desdemona.      


      I have always been puzzled, even when reading Shakespeare, why Otello relies so heavily on Iago’s insinuations in a world in which he might have consulted with numerous others for the truth about events. Or, as my opera-going companion, Thérèse Bachand asked after the performance, “Why does Otello trudge dutifully into the darkness?” Particularly in this production, wherein the governor and his people appear to be living in a massive, although constantly shifting, glass palace (the idea for this set came evidently from librettist Arrigo Boito’s comment to Verdi that they had put their hero into a “glass prison”) where nearly all behavior is transparent, it seems even stranger that Otello would choose to believe a man whom he, himself, apparently, did not chose to entrust as his head soldier.

      Iago, we know even from his own lips, is simply evil, a man who believes in the basest values of all men, and with that knowledge we readily perceive him—unlike Otello—as a kind of Satan. But why can’t Otello see through him? Almost from the first moment that Iago hints that something is going on between Cassio and Desdemona, Otello is overwhelmed with jealousy and, from that moment on—despite his demand for evidence—goes along with Iago’s presentation of an alternate universe, a world into which one needs help to see clearly.

 

    What Verdi’s opera seems to suggest is that although Otello is a glorious military figure (in her last act Desdemona even sings that her husband’s destiny is to be a figure of “glory,” while she a figure doomed by “love”), the governor is not a particularly good leader—which may also to be the opinion of the Venetian representative who recalls Otello home to Venice, and plans to put Cassio in charge of Cyprus.

     Clearly, the great battler is unable to perceive the true natures of those people closest to him. In his glass world where nearly everything is openly shared and seen by all, Otello chooses instead to stare into the darkness that Iago creates for him. And in that inexplicable fact it is clear that Otello is not just blind to reality as he becomes consumed by the many-headed hydra jealousy, but that he lives in a world apart from those around him, locked away in a selfish mania that is inconsistent with what everyone else (including the audience) perceives.

     Increasingly, as Otello slips into madness and Iago’s accusations against Desdemona become more and more absurd, his relationship with the evil being seems more and more perverse. Instead of turning to the being of honesty and truth whom he has married, Otello would rather marry (in its meaning of “uniting with” or “joining”) with Iago, where small signs and tokens (the sight of Cassio laughing about a woman, the appearance of a handkerchief) matter more than observing what is evident.


     Iago himself has long been perceived by some readers and performers as having a homosexual attraction to Otello and perhaps even to Cassio, with whom he describes having slept. Laurence Olivier and David Sachet, in their interpretations of Othello and Iago, explored just these concerns in Shakespeare’s original play. But even Sher, who as a director has certainly not been afraid to explore homosexuality in his theatrical productions, does not fully embrace that possibility in this production.

      If the transparently innocent Desdemona is willfully destroyed in the process, the equally innocent Cassio claims his right to rule by killing Roderigo, restoring the light to which Otello has been blind.

 

Los Angeles, October 19, 2015

Reprinted from US Theater, Opera, and Performance (October 2015).

 

Carey Perloff | Pinter and Stoppard: A Director’s View / 2022 [book about Harold Pinter and Tom Stoppard]

life meeting art

by Douglas Messerli

 

Carey Perloff  Pinter and Stoppard: A Director’s View (London: Bloomsbury / Methuen Drama, 2022)

 

Theater director Carey Perloff’s 2022 publication Pinter and Stoppard: A Director’s View is many things at one time: a memoir of her own encounters as both director of the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco from 1992-2018 and before that of New York’s Classic Stage Company from 1986-1992 with the two most significant British playwrights of the 20th century Harold Pinter and Tom Stoppard; a handbook of how to direct their plays, particularly given the fact that on several occasions she worked in close collaboration with the playwrights during the rehearsals and early productions; and, perhaps most importantly, a sophisticated analysis of their works based on her own readings, their personal comments, and the history of critical dialogue that proceeded her involvement with their works.



      I can’t recall when I so enjoyed a book of theater history and artistry. But then Perloff has long been an acquaintance and over the years those of us who have known her are no longer surprised by her intellect and immense knowledge of theater, her instinctual insights into each work she and her companies have produced, and her utter enthusiasm for all things concerning language, particularly that of the theater.

     One’s first reaction to the book, obviously, is that she could not have chosen two more different British playwrights, differences with she herself summarizes in her “Introduction”:

 

“…It might appear that the differences between these two writers outweigh the similarities, when viewing them across the landscape of post-war English theater. Pinter is a playwright of intense observation, with an uncanny ability to mine the simplest of situations for the hidden current of menace, violence, and power play underneath. His is a drama mystery, of subtext, of terror. ….His plays usually take place in a single space, in an atmosphere so denuded of superfluous detail that the slightest move is a radical act. He is uniquely able to take seemingly ordinary speech and lift it onto the plane of poetry without ever disconnecting it from the guts and heartbeat of his characters. Stoppard, by contrast, is a writer of ideas. Following his own internal dialectic, he sets off the create characters and situations that can best reveal his own debates in dramatically satisfying ways. ‘I’m a playwright interested in ideas and forced to invent characters to express those ideas,’ Stoppard told the critic Mel Gussow in 1979.”

 

     Yet by the time she is finished, we recognize that, despite the vast differences of how the works mean and are performed on the stage, there are perhaps just as many similarities between the two major figures of the late English theatrical revolution of the second-half of the 20th century.

      The most important similarity, perhaps, is that both playwrights are profoundly Jewish, something which has previously received little attention, but to which Perloff devotes an entire highly revealing first chapter. Her first paragraph indeed summarizes her discoveries about these two writers:

 

“If finding a playwright’s ‘voice’ is a key to realizing their work onstage…a crucial aspect of both Pinter’s and Stoppard’s life histories is that both are Jewish. Not only Jewish, but Central European Jews who came of age in the traumatic period of the Second World War and the Holocaust. ….In the New York, where Judaism is pervasive, the fact that these two major figures happened to be Jewish may seem inconsequential. I would like to argue that Pinter’s and Stoppard’s Jewish heritage ultimately had a profound impact upon their plays and is a useful angle to explore in the rehearsal room.”


      Speaking extensively of his ties to family and the Jewish traditions he inherited from his growing up in Hackney in London’s East End to parents very much bound up their Jewish heritage, Perloff quotes Pinter himself: “I’ve no religious beliefs whatsoever, but I’m still Jewish. I don’t know what that means, really, nobody ever does.” Through her discussions of The Birthday Party, The Homecoming, and Mountain Language Perloff shows how the centrality of language, the continual sense of loss and displacement, and the importance of ritual in characters such as Goldberg in the first play, and the entire patriarchal family in The Homecoming echo from his cultural and religious roots. In The Caretaker she observes how characters such as Davies, “a man robbed of his name and identity and desperate to find a way to get to Sidcup to get his papers,” reveals just how permeated is Pinter’s consciousness by the Jewish world which often shared a sense of non-belonging with Kafka, one of Pinter’s favorite writers. 

     By the time she was finished, I saw Pinter in an entirely new way, realizing just how radically different he was from the first wave of British playwrights of the 1950s and 1960s such as Alan Bennett, David Storey, Edward Bond, Alan Ayckbourn, Michael Frayn, John Arden, Simon Gray and Caryl Churchill and even from fellow Jewish writers such as Arnold Wesker who dealt specifically with Jewish themes and characters. For Pinter power lies in language and when that is taken away, even momentarily, it evidences a loss that is immediate and devastating.

       Stoppard, born in Czechoslovakia in 1937 with the name Tomas Staussler, was the son of a Jewish surgeon employed by the company hospital of the Bata shoe factory. That company’s owner had arranged for the evacuation of his Jewish employees to various world-wide factories to escape the inevitable invasion by Hitler. Accordingly, the young Stoppard, nicknamed Tomik, with his parents ended up in Singapore for two years before heading to Australia and being diverted to India, where by that time the boy called “Tommy” ended up with his mother and his elder brother Peter in Darjeeling. It was only later that he was told that his father had died.

       Stoppard’s memory of that revelation was: “For my part, I took it well, or not well, depending upon how you look at it. I felt almost nothing. I felt the significance of the occasion but not the loss. How had my father died? At sea? No one seemed to know. As far as I was told, he had simply disappeared.”

      The family remained in India for the duration of the war, an experience that Stoppard fondly recalls, afterwards moving to England (Retford, Derbyshire) where he attended school and quickly grew up to be an “honorary Englishman,” adopting the new language along with a new identity that only occasionally resulted in a slip that made him conscious of his transformation. Perloff quotes him in a Guardian interview: “I fairly often find I’m with people who forget that I don’t quite belong in the world we’re in. I find I put a foot wrong—it could be a pronunciation, an arcane bit of English history, and suddenly I’m there naked, as someone with a pass, a press ticket.” Perloff demonstrates how that sense of alien being, the temporarily loss of identity, haunts a play such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead in which the two characters are not quite certain of who they are or what role they are to play in Hamlet’s world in which they find themselves.

       Yet Stoppard did not actually explore his own roots until later in his life, a lacuna driven primarily by his mother’s refusal to talk about her life in Czechoslovakia and her own family. When he finally met a distant cousin Sarka as a full adult at the National Theatre, when he asked, “How Jewish are we?” she replied that the family was completely Jewish and that most of the family had been lost to the gas chambers. He hadn’t even been quite certain that his own mother was Jewish. And it was only when Stoppard later met the daughter of one of his mother’s best friend, Vera, that she and Sarka took him to the Pinkas Synagogue, next to the famous Old Jewish Cemetery in Prague, where he witnessed in the 1990s the names if 80,000 Czechs murdered by the Nazis during the war, names that included both the Becks (his mother’s maiden name) and the Strausslers.

 

      These discoveries eventually made their way into his plays, particularly in the Czech-based 2006 play Rock n’ Roll which Perloff bravely directed in San Francisco and in Leopoldstadt, which as I write this piece is about to have its premiere on Broadway. When Stoppard and his wife made a surprise visit to San Francisco in 2018 in celebration of Perloff’s farewell party from the A.C.T., they drove after down to Los Angeles to visit her mother Marjorie, whose parents had left with her from Vienna the day before the Anschluss. Marjorie had written a memoir The Vienna Paradox about growing up as a child in pre-war Vienna and traveling with her family to resettle in the US. And clearly those very issues were very much on Stoppard’s mind as he was working on that play, which premiered and quickly closed in London in 2020 because of the COVID pandemic. As Perloff reports: “Over a long afternoon, he asked her innumerable questions about pre-war Jewish life in Vienna. She was amused by how surprised he was about certain aspects of that complicated, assimilationist, culture-obsessed Jewish universe, and tried to make nuances clear to him,” just such issues that arise in Leopoldstadt. The guilt Stoppard now clearly felt for his previous ignorance of the truths of his own ancestors was played out, so Perloff reveals, in his Rock ‘n’ RollThe Hard Problem, and The Invention of Love, discussed in a chapter titled “Anatomizing Guilt.”

      These two very different authors also shared a remarkable interest in observing, commenting on, and in Stoppard’s case actually remaking their plays in pre-production. Despite the many warnings Perloff had received about Pinter’s difficulty, given his media outbursts and his well-known disliking of US politics, the young director found the former actor and director completely caring and accommodating with regard to her actors David Strathairn, Peter Riegert, Richard Riehle, Miguel Perez, Jean Stapleton, Bill Moor, and Wendy Makkena at CSC. Although only occasionally interrupting Perloff’s own directorial comments, he was loathe to tell the actors how to play their roles and respected the characters he had created as individuals who were as unknowable as the humans around him, on several occasions quietly asking questions and posing answers that helped his fellow thespians to come to terms with his works and the figures they portrayed. Indeed, Perloff found his presence necessary and reassuring, and enjoyed the pleasure of working with someone who had had years of acting experience himself and was a brilliant director as well.

     With Stoppard she corresponded for long hours via fax wherein he would completely explain seemingly impenetrable scenes, often rewriting passages to make them clearer. Working with her in New York on his early play Indian Ink, he completely reconceived the ending of the play, restructuring it thoroughly and rewriting various moments.

      In both cases she appears to have become close friends with the playwrights neither of whom threatened her role as director but contributed to the final fuller dimensions of the actual productions.

        When I was younger I had long imagined, given my deep interest in theater, that I might someday be a theater director. With my abilities to rather thoroughly analyze theater works and my managerial affinities, I might have, in fact, been somewhat successful in such a role. But I cannot imagine conceiving the play with regard the wide range of details that Perloff outlines in relationship to the sets, lighting, and props. Particularly in Pinter’s plays in which the space is so particularly defined and free from unnecessary objects one has to think about how to reveal a staircase, as in The Birthday Party that leads to an invisible upstairs which is both a fortress to Meg and her boarder Stanley, and a territory to be breeched by Goldberg and the other intruders, or another, much longer staircase in The Homecoming which represents an entire kingdom to the males of the house and later to Ruth who will reign as their queen after her husband Lenny leaves her to them almost as a “homecoming gift.”

 

       How do you represent a box of Cornflakes to the audience, one of the most important props in The Birthday Party, particularly to viewers who cannot comprehend the importance of that staple in the post-World War II British diet? How do you shred newspapers into even strips as McCann is required to in the same play? Or how do you destroy a toy drum each evening, as the same play requires, without buying endless numbers of such drums for each production?

      How to create lighting that conveys the vast shifts of time and place that occur throughout Stoppard’s plays? These questions are not only brilliantly answered by Perloff, but the significance of their roles in these plays is thoroughly explained by the writer in terms of ambience and overall thematics.

      By the time I had finished Perloff’s book describing the works she had directed by Pinter and Stoppard—in a couple of cases in two different productions—I could not imagine them differently than the way she described them, and I wished to rush out immediately and see productions of them, even if they were conceived by other directors in completely different manners. I discovered, alas, that I had missed a production of The Birthday Party by a small Glendale-based theater by just a few weeks!

      If nothing else, I was convinced at book’s end by the genius of both the playwrights—both of whose work I had long admired—and their director. I have always believed that coincidence has something to do with evidence that one has made the appropriate decisions in life. And I was absolutely delighted, accordingly, when Perloff reported that in the midst of their A.C.T. production of Stoppard’s Rock ‘n’ Roll, the cast met up by accident with the band that had helped to inspire the play. The Plastic People of the Universe had regrouped long after the events in the play, had somehow managed to stay together, and were suddenly performing in San Francisco.

      Perloff writes:

 

“We could not quite believe that those famous ‘pagans’ had shown up on our doorsteps just as we were trying to tell their story onstage. The night before their gig at the Independent, they came to see our production (in which we had used their music at strategic moments), and afterwards met with the audience, chatted with the cast, and sold merchandise which we all eagerly bought. …The next night, when our curtain came down, we all descended upon the music venue in our “Plastic People of the Universe” t-shirts, exulting at the sight of a group of passionate aging Czechs playing their unique brand of cacophonous, rebellious rock ‘n’ roll. The rest of the San Francisco audience, totally unaware of what this band had done to change the world, bopped along, happy in their ignorance. It was a surreal and moving example of life meeting art.”

 

Los Angeles, August 23, 2022

Reprinted from USTheater, Opera, and Performance (September 2022).

George Bernard Shaw | Heartbreak House / 2006

keeping the homefires burning

by Douglas Messerli

 

George Bernard Shaw Heartbreak House / American Airlines Theater (Roundabout Theatre Company), New York / the performance I attended was on December 10, 2006

 

“It is difficult to say whether indifference and neglect are worse than false doctrine; but Heartbreak House and Horseback Hall unfortunately suffered from both.”

                                                                       —George Bernard Shaw, from his Introduction to

                                                                                                             Heartbreak House

 

When I announced to my companion Howard in December that I would be seeing George Bernard Shaw’s Heartbreak House in New York, he asked me, with a kind of bemused innocence, whether anyone still read Shaw!

 


    I paused to consider the question, ready as always to spring into defense of any writer of great stature ignored by his or her public. But after a few moments, I admitted, “I don’t think anyone who isn’t studying drama in the university reads Shaw these days.” Of the dozen or so literary friends I asked while I was later rereading the play, only one had read the work, some of my friends confusing it, momentarily, with Dickens (Bleak House, I presume).

    After witnessing the performance at Roundabout’s American Airlines Theater, accordingly, I also felt saddened to think that Shaw had come to be so ignored. For despite the fustian fervor of his ideas, Shaw is extremely witty, funnier at times than Oscar Wilde was on his most aphoristically clever days. Shaw’s witty observations, moreover, rather than resulting in the kinds of clever one-liners that characterize most modern and contemporary comedies, cascade into a series of near-unstoppable character interactions and asides which in their very energy almost devour each other as the audience struggles to keep up. Life in the Sussex “fine evening” as presented in Heartbreak House is not for the slow of mind.         

     Hesione Hushabye (brilliantly played in the version I witnessed by Swoosie Kurtz) has invited Ellie Dunn to her country house, primarily to thwart Ellie’s “romance” and marriage to Boss Mangan, a boorish industrialist whose mind functions as swiftly as a turtle on the run. Upon Ellie’s arrival no one bothers to greet her, and she is left to the strange inattentions of Mrs. Hushabye’s aging father, Captain Shotover (Philip Bosco), and the ineffective sympathy of their servant, Nurse Guinness, who wanders in and out dispensing cockney-like endearments such as “ducky” and “poor lamb.” The Captain, who lives in a world apart from those around him, also moves in and out of rooms (as well as, we later discover, in and out of sobriety) in his attempt to attain “the seventh degree of concentration.” Miss Dunn, he proclaims, is the daughter of his boatswain, originally a pirate in China!

     Superficially patterned after the boulevard farce, Heartbreak House brings together all its players: Lady Utterword, Hesione’s sister—whose existence her father appears to have utterly forgotten—followed soon after by Ellie’s father, the wise fool Mazzini Dunn, and the very man with whom Ellie has just confided to Hesione she has fallen in love, Marcus Darnley—in truth Hector Hushabye, Hesione’s husband. Boss Mangan and Lady Utterword’s brother-in-law, erstwhile lover, Randall enter soon after. The cast is complete.

    


     Together these absurd beings, egged on by the three incredibly beautiful women at their center, reveal all the silliness, idle indifference, and cultural emptiness of the British gentry. Shaw’s aim is clearly to satirize, but the topsy-turvy nature of the characters, as they implacably fall in and out of love with one other, provides us with a splendid melodrama.

      We soon discover that each is busy hatching up plots of how to use the others in the search for.... Well, that is the problem, for these folks’ actions have no true goal. Little has meaning outside of the characters’ hilarious machinations. For this reason, Shaw’s humor is far more profound than any standard farce. While each character speaks poignantly of his or her need for love and belief—while forced to remain in a country (or country house) that breaks all human hearts—desires and values, we quickly recognize, shift in the span of a heartbeat. Except for Mazzini Dunn’s flatfooted honesty and the mysteriously twisted aphorisms of the ancient Captain, there is no truth behind their Schnitzlerian turns and twists.

 


    I have never thought before of Shaw in this context, but as the play comes to its brilliant ending, as the collective whirlwind of near-meaningless proclamations, admissions, and confessions comes to a close, it is clear that this great playwright has created a work that, metaphorically speaking, resembles the kind of vortex of which Wyndham Lewis wrote in 1914—the year after Shaw had begun his play:

  

                 You think at once of a whirlpool. At the heart of the whirlpool

                 is a great silent place where all energy is concentrated. And there,

                 at the point of concentration, is the Vorticist.

 

     As Heartbreak House moves into its quiet closing upon the terrace, war breaks out, the falling bombs, as in a Futurist fiction (one should recall that Vorticism is often referred to as a kind of English Futurism) resulting in these lost souls’ exhilaration, as—ordered into blackout—Hector races about the house setting it ablaze with lights. Miraculously, the bombs miss the mansion, falling instead in a nearby pit implanted with the Captain’s dynamite, where Mangan and a local burglar (the real pirate Dunn)—the later inexplicably absent in the Roundabout production—have run off to hide. The residents of Heartbreak House are heartbroken all over again, this time on account of the bomb’s missing their target! But, as Hesione and Ellie declare, there is always the chance “they’ll come again tomorrow night.”

   And with that declaration, Shaw has said it all, revealed what lay at the heart of Britain’s—of Europe’s—World War I struggles. A vacuum, a vast whirlwind of meaningless activity, can only lead—as Lewis comprehended and sought out—to the concentrated center where the natural is destroyed, replaced by an abstraction of life.                 

 

Los Angeles, February 6, 2007

Reprinted from Green Integer Blog (July 2008).

 

Index of Entries (by author, composer, lyricist, choreographer, or performer)

TABLE OF CONTENTS John Adams, Lucinda Childs, and Frank O. Gehry | Available Light / 2015 John Adams and Peter Sellars (based on Old and New...