Search the List

Monday, November 11, 2024

Miklos Laszlo | Illotszertór (Parfumerie) / 2013

working against love

by Douglas Messerli

 

Miklos Laszlo Illotszertór (Parfumerie), translated and adapted by E. P. Mowdall (from the English translation by Florence Laszlo) / Beverly Hills, California, Bram Goldsmith Theater in the Wallis Annenberg Center for Performing Arts, the performance I saw was the matinee on November 30, 2013

 

The new Bram Goldsmith Theater in Beverly Hills’ Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts is stunningly beautiful, as well as the set for its first theatrical production which I attended this past Saturday. The play, opening just before Christmas, seemed a perfect selection for the new Annenberg complex, in part because a big element of this play concerns Christmas shopping at a Budapest shop, and the film version of Hungarian Mikos Laszlo’s 1937-based play, The Shop Around the Corner, remains one of most popular of Lubitsch’s cinematic comedies; the musical version of this work, Jerry Bock’s and Sheldon Harnick’s She Loves Me, happens to be one my favorite Broadway musicals of all time, whose New York revival I saw in 1994. Other versions of this play, the movies in the Judy Garland vehicle In the Good Old Summertime and You’ve Got Mail—if not as wonderfully crafted—also attracted large audiences. What a wonderful opportunity, it seemed to me and others to see the ur-version of this popular work.


     Too bad that the original play, at least as adapted by E. P. Dowdall, a nephew of the original playwright, falls so flat. While Lubitsch honed in on the details of character, differentiating the eight employees of Miklos Hammerschmidt’s perfume parlor, Laszlo’s version flattens their personalities. Nearly all the employees of this shop keep secrets from one another that show them up to be self-centered and somewhat unlikeable. The cadish Steven Kadar (Matt Walton) is having a not-so-secret affair with Mrs. Hammerschmidt; Ilona Ritter (Cheryl Lynn Bowers), previously Kadar’s love interest, has a more-or-less permanent fiancée whom she, suddenly and inexplicably, marries before the second act as she disappears from the play. The young delivery boy Arpad Novack (Jacob Kempt) is not only incompetent but an inveterate gossip and a dangerous bicyclist, whose aim is to become a clerk. The play’s two central figures, Amalia Balash (Deborah Ann Woll) and George Horvath (Eddie Kaye Thomas), are selfish, unaware lovers who cannot even recognize one another as their secret correspondents, and spend their working days demeaning one another. Even the somewhat nebbish elder clerk, Sopos (Arye Gross) later admits that it was he, to protect his job, who wrote a note to his boss revealing that Mrs. Hammerschmidt was involved with one of the staff.  Hammerschmidt suspects George is her secret lover and in irritated vengeance fires his most trusted employee on the first day of this drama. Only Miss Molnar and Arpad’s replacement Fritz seem to have no secrets to reveal, but then they are so one-dimensional that they hardly exist. In short, there is something so dislikeable about these figures (as opposed to the movie and musical wherein even rakish Kadar is fairly loveable) that after a few moments of conversation we lose interest in their machinations. The workers of Hammerschmidt’s Parfumerie, alas, if very human, are terribly sympathetic figures.

      All of this might have been ameliorated if the cast could bring life to their roles through their acting skills. It may have been that in the balcony where I sat the acoustics were just not that good, but it seemed more likely that this semi-professional cast was just not up to the demands, declaiming their lines without great commitment to their characters.


     Despite the stunning set (by Allen Moyer), moreover, director Mark Brokaw brought little creativity to their movements across the stage, using his actors primarily to bring various articles in and out of drawers only to take those same objects, soon after, away. The large, highly polished, horseshoe counter at the center of the stage was used less as a spot where they might occasionally converge than as a kind of container in and out of which the various salespeople moved for no apparent reason. The richly brocaded settees were employed more for a placement of perfumed candles than as spaces in which characters might sit upon and share their little communal gossipy. Perhaps this was all intentional, suggesting their own illogical efforts at communication and purposefulness, but, in the end, their aimless actions proved simply distracting. The play, after all, eventually depends on their pausing to reflect—and join in camaraderie.

     Finally, the play itself becomes utterly lethargic as we learn, early on, the work’s major secret: that Amelia and George are unknowingly in love, while the film and musical waited until the second act to allow Georg/Geroge to discover that fact with a visit to a café in the film and to a gypsy nightspot in She Loves Me. In this original version, alas, the suspense upon which the work depends is missing, as George passively refuses to reveal the situation to his postbox correspondent, the play, accordingly, stuttering into puttering repetition. Little in this version seems to mean anything of consequence. Even Mr. Hammerschmidt ultimately gets his wife back, despite her atrocious behavior. Everybody, by play’s end, gets their desired bonus. Although the young Arpad is denied a desired motorcycle in the play, he is pleasurably dragged off to dinner with the Hammerschmidt family. In the film, while the Arpad character has already moved on to a date with a woman, the homeless and overwhelmed Fritz (Rudy in the movie) is rightfully awarded dinner with Mr. Maraschek (the name given the boss in the cinema-version). It is these little, sometimes sentimental, tweaks in the story that make all the difference.

      Certainly there are moments in this work when the character interrelationships momentarily elevate the play into something—as my friend Perla Karney, whom I encountered after in the lobby, described it—“sweet.” Sipos’ fatherly advice to the young George is often engaging, as is his eventual feeling of guilt for having initiated the series of events which culminates in Mr. Hammerschmidt’s attempted suicide. Although he could not match the comic bluster of the film’s Frank Morgan, Schiff’s Hammerschmidt, at times, does nicely convey the saddened confusion of a man who, in his devotion to his job, nearly loses his wife. And the final scenes between George and Amalia (Thomas and Wolf) are touchingly exhilarating as they both suddenly perceive that behind their perpetual spats was love rather than belligerence. And we know, at heart, that Laszlo’s play is a gentle love story of a world gone by. It’s just too bad that this “original” Illotszertór couldn’t live up to the expectations created by its various reincarnations.

 

Los Angeles, December 2, 2013

Reprinted from US Theater, Opera and Performance (December 2013).

Sunday, November 10, 2024

Gian-Carlo Menotti | The Medium / 1950, 1977 || The Consul / 1960 || Amahl and the Night Visitors / 1998

strong but fragile survivors

by Douglas Messerli

 

Gian-Carlo Menotti The Medium / Thomas Schippers conducting the Symphony Orchestra of

     Rome Radio Italiana, 1950

Gian-Carlo Menotti The Medium  Peter Morin (director) / Raffi Armenian conducting The Straford 

     Ensemble / 1977 [TV production based on the Comus Music Theatre of Canada Production]

Gian-Carlo Menotti The Consul / Werner Torkanowsky conducting / Produced for television by

     Jean Darlymple, 1960

Gian-Carlo Menotti Amahl and the Night Visitors / NBC Theatre [Hallmark Hall of Fame production]

     1951-1962

 

With Gian-Carlo Menotti’s death on February 1, 2007, the US lost one of its major composers of opera. Even though he had remained throughout his life an Italian citizen, living for the past several years in Monaco and Scotland, Menotti composed and performed his major operas in the US, where he lived for most of his life, companion for years with the composer Samuel Barber and, later, with conductor Thomas Schippers.


     I remember Menotti—as many of my generation might—for his Amahl and the Night Visitors, his so-called Christmas opera, performed annually from 1951 for a number of years on NBC television. The simple story of a poor young shepherd boy’s and his mother’s encounter with the Three Kings, the biblical wise men on their way to witness the birth of the Holy Child, was perhaps my first encounter with opera, a kind of treasured annual event in my house—although my other family members, I am sure, would not have suffered it if I’d not pleaded each year for that special 45 minutes of viewing.

     I’d also seen—although I can’t remember where (perhaps on stage at Waukesha, Wisconsin High School)—a performance of his short L’amour á trois, The Telephone, wherein a young woman, Lucy, is so infatuated with her phone that her lover, Ben cannot hold her attention long enough to propose marriage. His final solution is to telephone with his proposal.

     If the two works I’ve described sound somewhat simplistic and—here comes that terrible word—“popular,” Menotti’s works were just that! Despite my family’s disinterest in Amahl, millions of households did watch it, presumably with great pleasure, annually—at a time when television executives were still testing out various cultural activities (drama, historical reenactments, orchestral music, and opera) on the relatively new medium.

     Menotti’s other operas, moreover, The Medium (1946), The Consul (1950), and The Saint of Bleecker Street (1954), were all performed on Broadway—the first with a run at the Ethel Barrymore Theater in 1947-1948 of 211 performances; the second running eight months and winning the Pulitzer Prize and Drama Critics’ Circle Award; and the third, performed at the Broadway Theater (although with less success), also awarded the Drama Critics’ Circle Award, a second Pulitzer Prize and the New York Music Critics’ Circle Award. Menotti, in short, was popular. Through his highly dramatic plots and appealing, melodic music (the composer is often compared to Puccini), Menotti was able to bring together music, theater, and popular entertainment in a way that is nearly inconceivable today! As music critic Martin Bernheimer described Menotti, he is “a modern composer who writes old-fashioned opera for the masses.”

     One might, contrarily, describe Menotti—along with Leonard Bernstein and a few others—as an innovative composer in his attempts to blend popular theater with a so-called “high” art, a composer who would influence later figures such as Arnold Weinstein (whom I’ve written about in my 2003 volume of these cultural memoirs), Irene Maria Fornes, Stephen Sondheim, Mac Wellman (in works such as The Lesser Magoo) and even me—in my own operatic endeavor with composer Michael Kowalski, Still in Love!

     By the end of his career, however—a career perhaps also shortened by his entrepreneurial activities of the Festival of Two Worlds occurring in both Spoleto, Italy and Charleston, South Carolina—Menotti’s melodically based theater pieces were critically attacked. While his libretto for Samuel Barber’s Vanessa was praised, his own later works—as well as those of Barber—were often scathingly dismissed. Times had changed.

     The critics, in some respects, may be justified for their reactions. There is no question that Menotti’s art is often retardataire; that the high drama of his pieces can appear almost comical to today’s more cynical audiences. Although Menotti’s lyrical works are often as discordant as Bernstein’s, for example, he does not share that composer’s jazz idioms, so brilliantly played out in On the Town and West Side Story. Yet, there are many moments in Menotti’s work that are far more musically challenging than Sondheim’s compositions and match Bernstein’s inventiveness: the overture to Bernstein’s 1955 “comic opera” Candide echoes many elements of Menotti’s earlier “Dance” of Amahl and the Night Visitors, and Bernstein’s Trouble in Tahiti shares many chordal moments with Menotti’s early works.  


     Menotti’s first major opera, The Medium (composed after a short one-act opera buffa, Amelia Goes to the Ball; another television work, The Old Maid and the Thief, and a failed opera seria, The Island God), seems to have been created in a hot-house environment. The very plot of the opera is, at times, absurd. Madame Flora is a medium who, with help of her daughter Monica and a mute, gypsy, servant boy, Toby, defrauds her customers—a couple, the Gobineaus, who are desperate to contact their baby boy, drowned in a decorative lawn fountain, and Mrs. Nolan, come to hear news of her more recently deceased daughter—in order to eke out a meager living. Meanwhile, Monica and Toby, innocently toying with one another during Madame Flora’s absences and drinking binges, have fallen in love.

     Madame Flora arrives home (she has threatened a neighbor lady to force her to repay a loan by sitting on her doorstep for hours) to find that nothing is prepared for the evening’s séance. She threatens both children, particularly Toby, whom she found on the streets of Budapest. The séance is successfully performed with Monica’s lovely interpretation of the two children (“Mother, Mother, are you there?) and Toby’s technical support with the lights and table risings. Near the end of the event, however, Madame feels a touch against her throat, and becomes horrified, demanding the participants depart. She is certain that Toby has somehow been involved in the event, and insistently questions him, later even whipping him as he cowers in fear; yet he cannot (or, Madame Flora is convinced, will not) answer her questions.

     Frightened by his silence and her own doubts, she determines to end the séances and return the money to the Gobineaus and Mrs. Nolan. A week later, however, they show up at the usual time, pleading that she continue the séances. Still affected by the previous week’s events, Madame rejects their pleas, explaining to her former customers just how she has tricked them. Incredibly, they refuse to believe her, insisting that the voices they heard were real, that she must have powers even she does not comprehend. Perceiving them as gullible idiots, she demands they leave her house, soon after requiring the same of Toby. Monica pleads that he is incapable of caring for himself, that he will die on the streets, but Madame Flora is determined to put her fears to rest. She locks Monica in her room and sends the boy off, settling down to drink and ruminate why she, a woman who has seen the worst of war-time events, should now be so frightened by death.

     Toby sneaks back into the house to free Monica and take her away with him. Startled from her drunkenness, the medium reaches for her gun, shooting into the dark: Toby is dead.


    Such grand, histrionic events need to be performed and directed in a similar manner if the opera is to succeed. I purchased two DVD’s of The Medium, the first a televised production from 1977 by The Stratford Ensemble with Maureen Forrester as Madame Flora and Shawna Farrell as Monica. This was a toned-down production, Forrester speaking many of her lines, some scenes pared away, the set starkly barren. I found the production enjoyable—but somewhat unconvincing. The second production—the earlier 1951 Menotti-directed film with Thomas Schippers conducting the Symphony Orchestra of Rome Radio Italiana and Marie Powers and Anna Maria Alberghetti in the major roles—was wonderfully over-the-top and cinematically conceived. As the reviewer for the Time Out Film Guide expressed it: “With monstrous characters and images only conceivable in a fevered or operatic mind (where else would one find Toby the deaf mute gypsy boy, his defiant eyelids sealed with hot candle wax), yet fully realizable nowhere else but the cinema.”

     The 1960 Jean Dalrymple-produced television production of Menotti’s The Consul was presented in the drab, gritty black-and-white of early TV. But Patricia Neway’s performance of Magda Sorel captured the slightly mad actions of a woman psychologically on the edge. Her husband, after all, is an underground hero, forced in the very first scene of the opera to leave his home—to cross the frontier—so that he will not betray his compatriots. Their baby son, watched over by the husband’s aged mother, is slowly starving to death.

    This couple’s sorrowful duet of departure, transformed by the mother’s participation into a trio, is centered upon what are perhaps some of the looniest lyrics ever created:

 

                    Now, O lips, say goodbye

                    The word must be said but the heart must not heed.

                    ….

                    The rose holds summer in her winter sleep.

                    The sea gathers moonlight where ships cannot plough.

                    And so will the heart retain endless hope…

                    …where time does not count, where words cannot reach.

                    Let no tears, no love laden tears dim the light that charts

                         our way.

                    Leave the tears to the starless one who wanders without

                         compass in the night.

 

Despite being nearly drowned in metaphors, the audience recognizes that this is the language of believers, of the heroes Sorel and his wife represent. John’s only practical advice to Magda is to visit the Consul.

     We never discover what Consul she is to visit, in what country the police are terrorizing her, or to where she and her husband are trying to escape. And, in that sense, there is a sort of Ionescoian abstraction to Menotti’s opera. It is a no-man’s land and an everyman’s land simultaneously—it might represent any European city before World War II and any dictatorially run country after the war. Whereas John and Magda sing in a metaphorically based, dream-like language, the secretary of the Consul intones a bureaucratic gobbledygook. “May I speak to the Consul” Magda pleads again and again, only to be answered, “No one’s allowed to speak to the Consul, the Consul is busy.”

     Asked what she wants, Magda tries to explain her husband’s role as hero and leader of the underground, to explain her own suffering, relate her child’s and mother-in-law’s deaths, and warn that her every move is watched. For the secretary, however, there is nothing to be done; forms must be filled out. The hilarious, repetitively rhythmic interchange between the Consul Secretary and Magda is reminiscent of both Ionesco and Beckett:

 

                  Secretary:  Your name is a number.

                  Magda: My name is Sorel.

                  Secretary: Sorel is a name and a name is a number.

                  Magda: The hidden hunger waits for the heart-sick panther to return.

                  Secretary: I give you these papers. This is how to begin.

                                     Your name is a number

                                     Your story’s a case

                                     You need a request

                                    Your hopes will be filed

                                    Come back next week.

                  Magda: Will you explain [to the Consul]?

                  Secretary: What is there to explain?

                  Magda: Explain that John is a hero. That flowers bloom in the blood

                               that was shed.

 

     The secretary can only repeat the requirements: "Fill out the papers, Your name is a number,” etc. Like others visiting the Consul day after day, Magda makes no progress in communicating her plight. After so insistently demanding to see the Consul that the Secretary caves in, Magda is met at the door by his previous visitor: the chief of police who threatens her life. She collapses, returning to the Consul the next day without any hope of response, then returning home to kill herself at the very moment that her husband has himself returned to help his family escape.

      In this opera the melodic references to Puccini (“Now, O lips, say goodbye) are darkly comedic in their relation to the Consul office interchanges, and, accordingly, the music seems much more dissonant and fragmented than the former opera. It is almost as if in The Consul Menotti has found the perfect foil for his melodramatic and sometimes overly sweet melodic moments. Without diminishing any of the true tragedy of his tale, Menotti also elicits a sense of the absurdity and meaningless of all acts.



     Having seen Amahl and the Night Visitors two or three times in recent years, I was satisfied to listen to a recording of that opera. The Royal Opera House at Convent Garden production with Lorna Haywood as the Mother and James Rainbird as the young crippled boy was a beautiful reminder of the joys of this true family event. Here too, particularly in his presentation of the slightly ridiculous King Kasper, Menotti was able to combine the absurd and the sublime. How could anyone with a shred of humor not be enchanted by King Kasper's fascinating catalogue of the contents of his marvelous box in “This Is My Box,” or the repeatedly chanted elisions of the wise men in “Thank You Good Friends” in response to the gifts brought them by the poor shepherds. The beautiful antiphony of “Have You Seen a Child?"—the wise men asking about the Christ child, Amahl’s mother responding with the news of her own son—marvelously personalizes the mythical and helps to explain her later attempt to steal the Kings’ gold. Only Menotti, moreover, could have conjured up the wonderfully absurd idea of presenting to the Christ child a gift of a crutch—reminding us all perhaps of how impossible it is to stand on two feet as a human being.

     If Menotti was an unabashed romantic, so too was he a kind of early absurdist, a theatrical trickster who could combine the tragic occurrences of the 20th century with a comic recognition of the spiritual emptiness with which those events had left its survivors. Madame Flora, Magda Sorel, even the abandoned Mother of the small crippled child, all inordinately strong figures, are brought down by nearly insignificant events and individuals—by a touch of the flesh, by an office worker demanding that human beings become a number, by three wandering kings mysteriously passing in the night who sweep up a mother's child from bleak reality into a myth of eternal proportions.     

      American culture has indeed lost something with the death of a man who could speak so eloquently—in both music and language—of the fragility of life.

 

Los Angeles, March 10, 2007

Reprinted from The Green Integer Review, No. 8 (April 2007)

          

 

Before writing on the early Menotti production of his The Medium, I had not heard the Anna Maria Alberghetti performance. As a young teenager, I knew her only for her role in the Broadway musical Carnival, listening to the recording of that musical—in particular, her rendition of the song “Mira”— so many times that today it can hardly be heard, the music appearing as a faint background accompaniment to a series of cracks, hisses, and scratch sounds—the record itself becoming a sort of “strong but fragile survivor.” Several years ago, I was introduced to Anna Maria Alberghetti at an art opening at the Los Angeles County Museum, and was able to tell her in person how much her performances had meant to me.            

 

Los Angeles, March 11, 2007

Friday, November 8, 2024

Eugène Ionesco | Rhinocéros / 2012

growing horns

by Douglas Messerli

 

Eugène Ionesco Rhinocéros / performed by the Théâtre de la Ville-Paris, Royce Hall, University of California, Los Angeles / the performance I saw was on September 22, 2012

 

Although I read Ionesco’s acclaimed play when it was first published in English in the early 1960s, I had never seen a theatrical production of the work (and only clips from the 1974 American film), so I jumped at the chance of attending the performance at UCLA’s Royce Hall by the Théâtre de la Ville-Paris in French (with English language subtitles).

     Yet, I left the theater, despite having finally seen one of the best plays by one of my favorite playwrights, slightly disappointed. That sometimes happens, even at brilliant productions: one is tired or slightly distracted for reasons other than the play one is observing. Here, part of the problem simply lay in the fact the distance between the translation board and the stage was vast enough that it was hard to follow the stage action and still read the English, and the constant vertical motion of the eyes often distracted me.


     More importantly, however, is that Ionesco’s play, often touted as his best, is a parable that, once it has asserted its major premise has little place else to go. Los Angeles Times critic Charles McNulty quoted Kenneth Tynan: Ionesco is "a brilliant, anarchic sprinter unfitted by temperament for the steady, provident mountaineering of the three-act form." Also, having seen this production, I now wonder whether other plays such as his early short works (including the unforgettable The Chairs) and later works such as The Killer and Exit the King are not simply more profound works. At the heart of Rhinoceros is an important but quite simple warning of cultural conformity, and in the wake of World War II (the play was written, we must remember, just over a decade after the end of the war) Ionesco’s Rhinoceri—whether two horned or one—perfectly encapsulated the cultural betrayal of everyday citizens who suddenly embraced Fascism and Nazism. 

      But there are deeper problems with director Emmanuel Demarcy-Mota’s production of the Ionesco play. His version is absolutely brilliant when it comes to the ensemble scenes. The second act scene in the local, small-town newspaper office, where characters react en masse to the increasing gossip about the beasts roaming the city and, soon after, despite Botard’s (Jauris Casanova) argument that there can be no such animal in France, discover that another employee, Boeuf (so his wife reports) has become a rhinoceros and is threatening to stampede their very offices. The marvelous mass movements of the characters as their desks, chairs, and bodies go spinning with the charges of the beast, are evidence of this company’s brilliant group acting.


     And there are numerous other moments of excellent performance, particularly in Bérenger’s speeches and the logician’s perfectly absurd discussion of the difference between African and Asian rhincoeri. Yet, in perhaps the most important scene of the play, as the sensitive Jean (Hugues Quester in this production)—completely opposed to the rhinoceri transformations—gradually is transformed into just a beast, the work loses focus as he is transformed behind a plastic door where we see only the outlines of his facial shifts. As I mentioned previously, I did not see Zero Mostel’s 1961 rendition of Jean, but in the movie and in descriptions of his New York performance I recognize significant differences which made this early interpretation, a true theatrical wonder. In a fascinating article in the Jewish Daily Forward by Mostel’s nephew, Raphael Mostel describes the events behind the Broadway production:

 

                      The scene Z is most remembered for in this play is the

                      one in which he transformed into a rhinoceros. Ionesco had

                      envisioned the transformation happening behind a curtain,

                      and the actor bursting through with a rhino mask. But Z

                      could perform the most astonishing physical feats — whether

                      reducing Johnny Carson to hysterics by placing a proffered

                      cigarette on his brow and somehow getting it to roll all around

                      his face until it fell into his mouth like a pinball machine, or

                      doing a Dada-like imitation of a coffee percolator. And he

                      wanted to make the frightening transformation with his face

                      and body in full view of the audience.

 

As reviewer Jack Kroll wrote of that performance in Newsweek: “Something unbelievable happened. A fat comedian named Zero Mostel gave a performance that was even more astonishing than [Laurence] Olivier’s” (Olivier had performed the role in London).

       Just such an “astonishing” individual performance is what is missing in this otherwise capable French rendition. One might even suggest that few companies could have better portrayed the kind of mass hysteria which is at the heart of Ionesco’s play.  But, as Bérenger, himself ponders, it is not just the masses wherein these transformations are taking place, but in the individual hearts. Jean stood against the rhinoceros invasion at the very moment he begins to grow, in his very reasonableness, more and more lenient. Even while attacking the beasts, he grows more and more sympathetic to their plight, to their odd differences. And in that very allowance of human empathy he is himself destroyed. That is perhaps a more frightening statement than the fact that some individuals have turned into beasts, the idea that one cannot ever permit the thought that there may be some good in these transformations actually allows the transformations to take place. And seeing that struggle up close and in person is crucial to the structure of the play.

      In the end Bérenger is left alone, like Miles Bennell in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, with no one to tell his tale to except, perhaps, the audience. And it is we who must determine, accordingly, whether he is mad or sane.

     Demarcy-Mota’s production focused more on the chorus, all of whom allowed the transformation to occur, than upon that man set apart. But then, that is part of the problem with Ionesco’s engaging parable; it is more fun to watch a pack of charging rhinocerori than a non-capitulating loner shouting abuses at them.

 

Los Angeles, October 5, 2012

Reprinted from USTheater, Opera and Performance (October 2012).


Cole Porter, P. G. Wodehouse and Guy Bolton, revised by Howard Lindsay, Russell Crouse and later by Timothy Crouse and John Weidman | Anything Goes / 2012

pure poetry

by Douglas Messerli

 

Cole Porter (music and lyrics), P. G. Wodehouse and Guy Bolton, revised by Howard Lindsay and Russell Crouse, revised again by Timothy Crouse and John Weidman (book), Anything Goes / the production I saw with Diana Daves was on December 1, 2012 at Ahmanson Theatre, Los Angeles

 

The musical Anything Goes has been rewritten so many times, adding Porter’s songs from other musicals while subtracting several of the original songs, that one might almost describe what I witnessed the other day as a shadow of its first conception, even if, arguably, the layering revisions have burnished it into a better work. Most of the changes, however, have been to the story, and since the silly couplings and un-couplings of the work hardly matter, it is hard to be interested in the “ur-text.” I will be glad to except Timothy Crouse’s and John Weidman’s assurances that they were “purists” “but only to a point.” What is important is that they restored as much of Porter’s score as they could, adding only three wonderful Porter songs “Friendship,” “It’s De-Lovely,” and “Goodbye, Little Dream, Goodbye.”



      The story, in fact, pretty much lives up to the musical’s title, the characters almost changing partners willy-nilly. This time round nightclub singer (former evangelist?) Reno loves Billy, Billy loves Hope, Hope pretends to love Lord Evelyn Oakleigh but really loves Billy, Lord Evelyn loves Reno, Elisha Whitney loves Evangeline Harcourt, and Erma loves everybody. Enough said. The book—whatever version you choose—makes soap operas, by comparison, look like grand operas. “Frothy” is the appropriate word.

      Yet this chestnut has been immensely popular since its 1934 opening in New York, running 420 performances even during the great depression, and reappearing in successful productions in England and New York in 1935 (261 performances), 1962, 1987 (784 performances), 1989 and 2011 (521 performances). What I saw was a sold-out performance of the touring version of the 2011 production. Why has it succeeded again and again?

     The answer, quite obviously, is not just a cast of talented singers and dancers (a requirement of course!) but Cole Porter, who in this and other works turns what might have been tin-pan ditties into pure American poetry. Sure, the music itself is spritely and often borders on a kind regularized jazz. But those words! No one, not even Stephen Sondheim, can write as wittily idiomatic lyrics while pulling his audiences into a kind of licentious world that hints of everything from adultery and drug addiction to sexual orgies and open homosexuality, with his characters simultaneously hoofing up innocent-seeming line dances across the stage.

      The fun begins with this show’s very first song, “I Get a Kick Out of You,” where Broadway libertine Reno Sweeney (the talented Rachel York) tells Billy about her frigidity concerning everyday life:

 

                                      I get no kick from champagne.

                                      Mere alcohol doesn’t thrill me at all,

                                      So tell me why should it be true

                                      That I get a kick out of you?

 

                                       Some get a kick from cocaine.

                                       I’m sure that if I took even one sniff

                                       That would bore me terrific’ly too

                                       Yet I get a kick out of you.


     The whole idea of sexual excitement being likened to a “kick,” compared to champagne and cocaine would be unimaginable in Irving Berlin’s near-Puritanized romances. Berlin could be funny, even witty, but couldn’t be funny, witty, and naughty at the same time. When Berlin’s characters said they loved someone they meant it, for all time. For Reno and numerous other characters of Porter’s world love my haunt one, even torture one, but it was seldom seen as permanent and could even be an everyday occurrence, something to traffic in, something someone might what to “buy”—just like champagne and cocaine.

     Or consider the wonderful shifts in the notion of “friendship” in the song titled that. It begins as a song of spirited support of one being for another, in this case the musical’s two major “hustlers,” Reno and Moonface Martin (the 13th  most wanted criminal):

 

                                If you’re ever in a jam, here I am

                                If you’re ever in a mess, S.O.S.

                                If you’re so happy, you land in jail. I’m your bail.

 

     But gradually as they each try to outdo one another in imagining life-saving necessities, the song becomes a kind of contest which reveals that underneath their “perfect friendship” there is not only an open competitiveness but a true hostility:

 

                                 If they ever black your eyes, put me wise.

                                 If they ever cook your goose, turn me loose.

                                 If they ever put a bullet through your brain, I’ll complain.

 

The lyrics grow even more outlandish as they imagine the worst for one another:

 

                                 If you ever lose your mind, I’ll be kind.

                                 And if you ever lose your shirt, I’ll be hurt.

                                 If you ever in a mill get sawed in half, I won’t laugh.

 

It finally ends with imagining each other being eaten by cannibals, in which the second half answers “invite me.”

     These are not the words of supportive human beings, but of criminals who might turn on each other in a minute. Plumbing the unconscious depths of Americans’ fascination with violence—notably present in the entertainments of the 1930s—Porter has created almost a paean to the macabre, a world wherein people land up in jail, put bullets through brains, lose their minds, get sawed in half, and are consumed by cannibals, lines somewhat reminiscent of William Carlos Williams’ observation “the pure products of America / go crazy” and Allen Ginsberg’s opening line in Howl: “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked….”

     Hearing once more the musical’s title song, “Anything Goes,” I realized that, again, the most important thing about this work is its lyrics—which unfortunately, in the quick-paced rhythms, got somewhat lost in York’s rendition; suddenly it became clear to me that the original Reno, played by Ethel Merman, with her emphatic pronunciations of every word, may have been the perfect Porter interpreter—ensuring that the audiences heard every one of Porter’s quips.

     Like the peeved reactions of conservative parents through the mid 1960s, Porter presciently reiterates the very same issues of change in his opening refrain:

                                 

                                    Times have changed

                                    And we’ve often got a shock,

                                    When they landed on Plymouth Rock.

                                    If today,

                                    Any shock they should try to stem,

                                    ‘Stead of landing of Plymouth Rock,

                                    Plymouth Rock would land on them.

 

     The song goes on to explain the topsy-turvy morality of the contemporary world:

 

                                     The world has gone mad today

                                     And good’s bad today,

                                     And black’s white today,

                                     And day’s night today,

                                     When most guys today

                                     That women prize today

                                     Are just silly gigolos

 

    Porter might almost have added: “Or are gay today.” Porter does add himself, indirectly, to that list:

 

                                     Good authors too who once knew better words,

                                     Now only use four letter words

                                     Writing prose, anything goes.


     The near-incessant repetition of the word “today” simply reiterates the inescapable contemporaneity of it all, the insistence of this song’s presentness without past or future. Porter’s world—at least in this musical—is without guilt or consequence, a godless place where “grandma’s who are eighty” sit in nightclubs getting “matey with gigolos,” where “mother’s pack and leave poor father” to become “tennis pros,” and “The set that’s smart / Is intruding in nudist parties in studios.”  It is a world we all imagine we live in or, at least, might have liked to have lived in, even if the truth is something far different; and for that reason, the elderly audience with whom I sat at the matinee performance, instead of being even slightly taken aback, leaned forward with complete enthusiasm, as the cast tap-tap-tapped.

       In such an “anything goes” atmosphere Porter was freed up to even question the normal structure of his songs, to query and even challenge the standard introductory lead-ins and normalized language of Broadway music:

 

                                     [hope]

                                     I feel a sudden urge to sing

                                     The kind of ditty that invokes the spring.

 

                                     [billy]

                                     I’ll control my desire to curse

                                     While you crucify the verse.

 

                                     [hope]

                                     This verse I started seems to me

                                     The Tin-Pantithesis of a melody.

 

                                     [billy]

                                     So spare us all the pain,

                                     Just skip the darn thing and sing the refrain…      

 

Of course, what they sing is “delightful, delicious, de-lovey, delirious” in its de-construction of the English language, letting themselves go in thrilling, drilling (de-de-de-de) of words that suggest being out of control.

     Porter’s lyrics almost always seem to be slightly over the top, about to spill over into pure ridiculousness as they finally do in “You’re the Top,” where the same couple, Reno and Billy, again in an attempt to outdo one another, compare each other with almost anything that comes to mind, from the Louvre Museum, to a symphony by Strauss, to a Shakespeare sonnet and even Mickey Mouse, blithely jumping across the bodies of outstanding individuals, expensive drinks, glorious visions of nature, national institutions, celebrity salaries, to end in marvelous industrial creations, moving across the whole society as if it were all of one piece—not unlike Williams in his Spring and All. *

 

                                        You’re the top!

                                        You’re Mahatma Gandhi.

                                        You’re the top!

                                        You’re Napoleon Brandy.

                                        You’re the purple light

                                        Of a summer night in Spain,

                                        You’re the National Gallery

                                        You’re Garbo’s salary,

                                        You’re cellophane.**

 

     Never has the simple metaphor been used to such an extreme example! At one grand moment the couple compare each other to the great romantic poets only to suddenly drop into the most banal of American consumer products:

 

                                         You’re Keats.

                                         You’re Shelley,

                                         You’re Ovaltine. (,)

 

hinting at the purist poetry possible!

 

*Compare, for example, these lines from Williams’ Spring and All from 1923:

 

O “Kiki”

O Miss Margaret Jarvis

The backhandspring

 

I: clean

    clean

    clean: yes . .  New York

 

Wrigley’s, appendicitis, James Marin:

Skyscraper soup—

 

Either that or a bullet!

 

**Surely it is not coincidental that in the very same year as the Broadway production of Anything Goes, 1934, Four Saints in Three Acts, Gertrude Stein’s and Virgil Thomson’s noted opera, premiered in Hartford, Connecticut, the set festooned with cellophane. The opera had been previously performed in Ann Arbor in a concert version in 1933.

 

Los Angeles, December 4, 2012

Reprinted from US Theater, Opera and Performance (December 2012).

 

 

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 Alice Goodman | The Death of Klingh...