Search the List

Friday, February 7, 2025

Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II | 'Ol Man River" from Show Boat / 1927

my favorite musical theater songs: “ol man river”

by Douglas Messerli


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ahqB-1NU0Q

Composers: Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II

Performer: Jules Bledscoe, 1927 (original Broadway performer)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnmEgmugnCg

Composers: Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II

Performer: Paul Robeson, 1928 (with Paul Whiteman and his orchestra)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df4VdyGIqJ8

Composers: Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II

Performer: Paul Robeson, 1936 (film version)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSzYRo9j7YM

Composers: Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II

Performer: William Warfield, 1951 (film version)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTnw_MmVptQ

Composers: Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II

Performer: Frank Sinatra, 1946

In what many see as the first great American musical—certainly one of the first “serious” Broadway musicals—Florenz Ziegfeld moved away from revue and light entertainments, producing Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein’s remarkably rich score of Show Boat at his Ziegfeld theater in 1927. Purportedly, Ziegfeld did not like one of the work’s major songs, “Ol’Man River;” given some of the kitsch productions (I’ve included Frank Sinatra’s version here just as an example of such), one might comprehend his doubts.

     Yet, in Jules Bledscoe’s performance, who sang Joe in the original production, we can hear his well-enunciated anger at the white community who treats him so abysmally while working on the river that “just keeps rollin’ along.” His version may not vocally be the best, but it’s certainly of the best expressed and is a true denunciation of the slavery all around him.

     Paul Robeson’s 1936 film rendition is perhaps the best known, with small changes to the original text (“darkies” instead of “niggers,” etc.). His version, particularly in his 1928 recording is much faster than Bledscoe’s, and, at times, he oddly seems more interested in the river itself than the bigotry of which the song so severely condemns. It is, of course, a work of comparison, describing the puny meanness of the human race against the endless flowing of the mighty Mississippi, the only peaceful aspect in Joe’s troubled life.

 Dere's an ol' man called de Mississippi

Dat's de ol' man dat I'd like to be

What does he care if de world's got troubles

What does he care if de land ain't free

 

Ol' man river, dat ol' man river

He mus' know sumpin', but don't say nuthin'

He jes' keeps rollin'

He keeps on rollin' along

 

Human beings are another thing:

 

You an' me, we sweat an' strain

Body all achin' an' wracked wid pain,

Tote dat barge! Lif' dat bale!

Git a little drunk an' you lands in jail

 

Ah gits weary an' sick of tryin'

Ah'm tired of livin' an' skeered of dyin'

But ol' man river

He jes' keeps rolling' along

 

     Warfield’s singing in the 1951 film version is a darker, bass setting of the same song.

    Hammerstein reveals himself in this early work as a far deeper lyricist than his later musicals—although in every work he has one or two songs with greater political context (think, for example of “Poor Judd Is Dead” in Oklahoma!South Pacific’s “You Have to Be Carefully Taught” or the spectacular narrative retelling of Uncle Tom’s Cabin in The King and I). But it remains difficult, even now, to accommodate the idea of the same lyricist who writes “Git a little drunk an’ you lands in jail,” or “Ah’m tired of livin’ an’ skeered of dyin,’with the fabulous metaphor of “the corn is as high as an elephant’s eye.” And when one also realizes just how important Hammerstein was in Stephen Sondheim’s career, it gets even a bit stranger. Hammerstein seems far more at home in the “Make Believe” reality, than in the gritty world of slavery and miscegenation; but there he is, way back in 1927, long before he had anything to do with Richard Rodgers, working with the highly romantic composer Jerome Kern.

 

Los Angeles, September 19, 2017  

Reprinted from USTheater, Opera, and Performance (September 2017).


Sunday, February 2, 2025

Jules Massenet, Edouard Blau, Paul Millet, and George Hartmann | Werther / 2014

between duty and the devil

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jules Massenet (music), Edouard Blau, Paul Millet, and Georges Hartmann (libretto, based on Goethe’s Die Leiden des jungen Werthers), Werther / 1892 / broadcast as a Metropolitan Opera HD-live production on March 15, 2014.

 

The Metropolitan Opera’s new production of Werther makes it clearer than ever that Werther (the remarkable Jonas Kaufman) and his beloved Charlotte (Sophie Koch) belong together, while standing apart from the others of the work. As my spouse Howard commented, both are costumed in clothes—mostly gray with a white bodice in Werther’s case, and pearl-white or white with a dark overcoat in Charlotte’s—that stand in opposition to the others of the work. Although the melancholic Werther is willing to risk everything for love, he is, nonetheless, like her, a man who adores children and believes in duty. Indeed, his absolute love for Charlotte is based on her conventional values, her determination to care for her brothers and sisters after their mother’s death and to remain true to her promise to her mother that she will marry Albert, a kindly militarist, who by opera’s end all but accuses his wife of unfaithfulness, forcing her to herself send the pistols for which Werther has asked in order to kill himself since Charlotte has refused to give into his sexual assaults.


     What became more apparent than ever in this production is that, as opposed to the conventionality of both Werther and Charlotte, most of the rest of the opera’s figures—despite their outward celebration of the local parson and clichés of cultural obedience—are far more willing to bend to the joy of daily pleasures. Several times in Werther, characters sing out in praise of Bacchus, particularly early in the opera when we first meet The Bailiff’s (Jonathan Sommers) friends, Johannn (Philip Cokorinnos) and Schmidt (Tony Stevenson), who while mocking Werther’s seriousness, themselves sing of the wine and crayfish they are looking forward to at the local pub. Despite the Bailiff’s more serious demeanor and his insistent demand that his children perform adequately a Christmas carol he currently teaching them, he too speaks of Bacchus and, through his daughter’s Sophie’s encouragement, is easily convinced to join his friends at the pub.

     Although both Werther and Charlotte may see the children as “angels,” the children themselves act up and mock several of their superiors behind their backs. Only in Charlotte’s gentle care to they truly act angelically.

     Charlotte’s 15-year-old sister, Sophie, is a pleasant and gentle girl who, when Charlotte is away at the ball, lovingly cares for her siblings; yet she has her own way of not taking things seriously, at the pastor’s wedding anniversary party singing of the joyfulness of the day and weather, while flirtatiously inviting Werther to dance with her at the celebration. In Act III she, similarly, attempts to cheer up her distraught older sister, who has now realized through Werther’s anguished epistles how much she is in love with him rather than with her often fatuous and inattentive husband, Albert (David Bižić).


      In such a bacchanalian world of wine, women, dance and, in Sophie’s case, just the joy of living, the two heroes of the piece become tragic representatives of conventional faith and duty, a fact that, by opera’s end Charlotte has come to realize—that she was forged her with chains to Werther from the first time she set eyes upon him. Two of Werther’s most touching songs—his Act II disquisition on God’s response if he were to commit suicide (Werther’s version of Hamlet’s “To Be or Not to Be,” “Lorsque l’enfant revient d’un voyage”) and his stunningly sad recitation of one of his translations of Ossian—center on death, as does Charlotte’s Act II aria (“Va, laisse couler mes larmes”), a prayer for moral fortitude. While the others dance around them with the zest of living beings, these two suffer, mostly in silence—except to the opera’s audience—unable to survive in the devil’s bacchanal of daily life. Although seen as everyone else as models of moral certitude, they are, in the real world in which they are forced to live, the most tenuous of beings. Is it any wonder, then, that they end their lives in a passionate embrace and kiss that resembles the high Romantic sacrificial pattern of “love, death, and transfiguration.” Although Massenet’s work is far more intimate and modest that Wagner’s great Tristan and Isolde, it is, at its heart, a similar tale, a tale of two lovers doomed by social and cultural conventions they feel are beyond their control, while the others, those on the side of the devil—according to Werther and Charlotte’s way of seeing things—are free to enjoy their lives and survive.


      As Jonas Kaufman suggested during an intermission discussion of this HD presentation of the Met production, in this pre-Freudian drama, there is no way that Werther or Charlotte might see the error of their ways, to psychologically comprehend their entrapment in the dichotomy of “Totem and Taboo.” The problem for modern audiences, accordingly is to try to maintain Werther (and also Charlotte) as credible figures, despite their manias, with whom we can identify. Both Kaufman (in one of the best operatic performances of the year) and Koch accomplished that!


      Unfortunately, in the last moments of Werther’s death, when the two sing of their passion and Werther is transfigured by the sound of the children singing, once again, “Noel Noel Noel,” the sound of the broadcast disappeared. Several members of the contemporary audience with whom we shared the theater suddenly became like children, shouting out for others to sing, or—in the most disgusting of experiences—two elderly women stupidly commenting in loud voices on the slow death of Werther: “Is she dead too? Oh, he’s still living! She’s covered with blood. Oh he’s still singing. Is she going to shoot herself?” etc. etc. Most of the audience members tried simply to imagine the emotional impact by following the subtitles, but for these adult-children the grand opera had simply fallen apart, the credibility that Kaufman had so brilliantly worked towards completely disappearing from the art. At times like these, one can only wonder why some people had been attracted to such a memorable opera broadcast in the first place, leaving the theater as they cried out, “I want my money back!”

 

Los Angeles, March 16, 2014

Reprinted from USTheater, Opera and Performance (March 2014).

Saturday, February 1, 2025

Elizabeth LeCompte and the Wooster Group (adapted by William Shakespeare) | Cry, Trojans! / 2014

shakespeare as ceremonial dance

by Douglas Messerli

 

William Shakespeare (as adapted by the Wooster Group and Elizabeth LeCompte) Cry, Trojans! (Troilus & Cressida) / the performance I saw as on March 2, 2014 at the Roy and Edna Disney/CalArts Theater Redcat

 

The Wooster Group’s production of Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida began as a joint project between the American experimental group—whose major projects have deconstructed and recontextualized classic works—and the Royal Shakespeare Company of England, who basically present more standardized productions of the Bard’s work. For the London production, the Wooster players created a text, using Shakespeare’s language, which featured the Trojans as a native American tribe, while the RSC concentrated on the Greeks using a more formalized Shakespearian approach. The two worked separately, coming together just days before the production, purposely clashing in styles and approaches, particularly in the second part, where Cressida is given over the Greeks and the two sides erupt into battle.


      I might have certainly enjoyed that pairing, delighting surely in the way the two might play off against each other. The version I saw in Los Angeles the other night, however, was, perhaps, a far more coherent rendering, performed by only the Wooster Group, with the company playing both the Trojans and the Greeks, representing the former with elaborate costumes and plastic appendages designed by artist Folkert de Jong and the latter in cowboy-like masks while speaking in a drag-version of Aussie-British English. The Trojans are clearly at the center the group’s reconfiguration of the piece, and, obviously, some of what might have resulted in clashes of outlandish proportions had been tamed by the work’s new focus.

      The Los Angeles Times critic Charles McNaulty—usually an admirably intelligent and reliable theater critic—wrote, in a piece titled “Not great Wooster or Shakespeare,” that the new version did not work for Shakespeare traditionalists nor for those who love the New York group’s sendups of classic theater pieces. He felt the work was filled with meaningless stereotypes and that it lacked technological brilliance of their other productions:

 

                        The company has made its name by reflecting canonical texts

                        in a multimedia fun house mirror. Normally the stage is awash

                        in bleeping technology, but perhaps in recognition of the fact that

                        our lives are now inundated with screens, director Elizabeth

                        LeCompte has chosen to keep the video relatively low key.

 

     Even if the four small video screens used here may not exactly light up the stage the way they did in the group’s Vieux Carré, for example, they were crucial to the meaning and substance of the Wooster’s final version. Some may have simply perceived the screens filled with strange Eskimo-like representations or as camp images of Hollywood films. But, in fact, they were carefully chosen to parallel the seemingly Amazon-like tribal images of the play’s Trojans. And, most important, nearly all the “chorographical” movements of LeCompte’s actors were determined by the relation of the figures on these small screens. The arguments between Hector (Ari Fliakos) and Troilus (Scott Shepherd), the significant movements of the Trojan warriors are almost all “stolen” from the actors in the Inukitut-language Canadian film, made by Zacharias Kunuk in 2001, Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner (ᐊᑕᓈᕐᔪᐊᑦ), itself taken from an oral tradition of Inukitut myths.* The special relationships between Troilus and Cressida (Kate Valk) are borrowed from Eliza Kazan’s movie Splendor in the Grass of 1961, paralleling the movements of the forlorn love relationship between Warren Beatty and Natalie Wood.  At other moments there were scenes from Native American director Chris Eyre’s Smoke Signals, and, as Cassandra (Suzy Roche) sings out her prophetic warnings the videos center on a scene of a young girl singing, which vaguely reminds me of images of a long-ago witnessed clip of a child-like Diana Durbin singing before an audience. The fact that, at one point, the Trojans sit about the campfire on colorful basketballs, momentarily tossing them at one another, hints of the comic sequence from Airplane! wherein the white Peace Corps worker (Robert Hays) claims to have taught the isolated Amazon natives with whom he has been stationed to play basketball; the camera observes the tribe on the court (the tribe being performed by the Harlem Globetrotters). In short, if the Wooster Group uses stereotypical elements it is not without humor or, in other cases, is based on actual native myths. If the Greeks seem less interesting in this production it is simply because that they represent the conquering classicists who are not engaged in totemistic behavior. It’s clear that the Wooster company prefers the lost culture.          

      While the Trojans are bound by clan traditions (represented here by films relating to that oral tradition and by Hollywood-structured emblems, our own clan-like constructions, which we do not even recognize as such), the Greeks are an individualistic culture of art, poetry, music, etc. Strangely enough, however, in the end it is the Trojans who are willing to fight alone to their deaths, while Achilles (also portrayed by Scott Shepherd), in his rage over his male lover’s Patroculus’s death, orders his men to ambush Hector, killing him like a gang of thugs of before they drag away his dead body behind Achilles’ horse.

      While this may not be the most successful of the many Wooster Group plays I have enjoyed over the years, it is not without its own profound overlaying of images which create a density of meanings and cultural significance that adds to and illuminates the original Shakespeare play.

     In the end I feel this work displayed a new subtlety in the group’s development, depending less upon ironic pointing and more on the ability of its audience to focus less on story and language—while, however, retaining both—than on ceremonial-like movements of its actor’s bodies, as if this play had been relocated into a world of dance, movements represented on the special arc-like paintings the figures drew throughout upon the stage’s floor.       

 

*Fortunately, I attended this performance with my friend Deborah Meadows, who immediately recognized the Inukititut film by Zacharias Kanuk; I, in turn, told her about the images from the Kazan film. Unfortunately, the company did not list their video sources on the program nor on their web-site.

 

Los Angeles, March 4, 2014

Reprinted from USTheater, Opera, and Performance (March 2014).

 

 

Friday, January 31, 2025

John Adams and Alice Goodman | The Death of Klinghoffer / 2014

unrighteous deaths

by Douglas Messerli

 

John Adams (music), Alice Goodman (libretto), The Death of Klinghoffer / the production I saw was at Long Beach, California, the Terrace Theater, performed by Long Beach Opera Company on March 22, 2014

 

On October 7, 1985, four Palestinian terrorists, who had boarded the Italian cruise ship, Archille Lauro, docked outside Alexandria, Egypt, overtook the ship, turning off the ship’s engines and separated those tourists aboard into different groupings, including Jews and Gentiles.

      The terrorists, Ahmad Marrouf al-Assadi, Bassam al-Asker, Ibrahim Fatayer Abdelatif, and Youssef Majed al-Molqui were on a mission, organized by PLF leader Muhammad Zaidan, had, according to Zaidan’s widow, Reem al-Nimer, gone through several practice runs.


       The goal of these terrorists, in part in reaction to the Israel bombing in October 1985 of the PLO headquarters in Tunis, was to stay aboard the shop until it reached the Israeli port of Ashdod, and perform a mass suicide killing of Israeli soldiers. A crew member, however, accidentally uncovered the terrorists and the group acted prematurely in taking over the ship.

      Using the ship’s captain as their go-between, the terrorist group attempted to receive further instructions from Tunis and elsewhere, and sought reaction from the world community which might help to make them heroes. But despite their proclamations that these men were not murderers, but were idealists, they chose, apparently at random, an elderly, wheelchair-bound, Jewish man, Leon Klinghoffer, who had apparently spoken out against them, for murder. The terrorists shot him in the head and forced the ship’s barber to toss him and wheelchair overboard. Terrorists told his wife, Marilyn, that he had been taken to sick-bay, and it was only after the ship docked in Cairo that she was told of her husband’s death.

     Although United States President Ronald Reagan sent a US Seal Team and Delta Force to stand by for a possible rescue attempt, most the world refrained from acting, and it was not until the Palestinians threatened further lives that the captain was able to negotiate an agreement that the terrorists would be removed from his vessel, freed in Cairo.

      In the aftermath, US planes intercepted the plane carrying the hijackers, delivering them over to the Italian Carabinieri, disagreement between the Americans and the Italians allowed others such as their leader, Muhammad Zaidan, to continue on their way. Egypt even demanded a US apology for forcing the plane off course. Although all the terrorists served some time, some escaped long imprisonments.

     A few years after these events, in 1987, shortly after the success of John Adams’ Nixon in China, director Peter Sellars suggested the Klinghoffer affair as a new subject matter, and Adams and his Nixon librettist, Alice Goodman, began working on the new opera, The Death of Klinghoffer. The opera premiered in 1991 in Brussels with Sellars directing. Reviews were highly mixed, some describing it as a “revolutionary” opera, others chastising it for a cool and cruel meditation on, as Manuela Hoelterhoff suggested, “meaning and myth, life and death.”

     As new productions were performed at the Brooklyn Academy of Music and elsewhere criticisms grew, some interpreting a few of the Jewish figures aboard as representing negative stereotypes.

      Performances in Germany, and elsewhere followed, but productions in Glyndebourne and Los Angeles were canceled, the latter, in part, I presume through the outrage expressed by our friend Betty Freeman (see My Year 2009), a financial backer of Adams’ Nixon in China.  



      The production Howard and I saw yesterday at the Long Beach Opera, was based on Opera Theatre of Saint Louis production, directed by James Robinson. This production was the first appearance of the work in southern California.    

      My reaction was also mixed, my negative feelings not based specifically on the equal balance of the representation of both the views of the Palestinians and the Israelis (or the Jews); frankly, as the opera suggests time and again, perhaps only if people can come together and discuss their opposing positions can any true peace be found. Nor was the highly unconventional structure of this opera, which one might describe as more an oratorio than a standard work of operatic narrative, a true problem. While there is no doubt that the series of tableaux Robinson and Adams have created makes the opera, at times, very static, as the choral masses, representing different viewpoints and tensions—The Chorus of the Palestinians, The Chorus of the Jews, The Night Chorus, etc—are presented through group friezes. And, yes, the interactions between characters, except during the highly dramatic interchanges between Leon Klinghoffer (a strong voiced Robin Buck) and the terrorists (Roberto Perlas Gomez, Alex Richardson, Jason Switzer, and Peabody Southwell), are mostly presented through individualized arias that allow for very little real interchange.


       Adams’ music, as always, is dark, intense, and swelling, alternating between tonal dissonance and lyrical passages that are almost always alive with awe and suspense. If nothing else the score of The Death of Klinghoffer, like his Nixon in China and the more recent The Gospel According to the Other Mary, represents masterful composition that justifies that his work be performed often. Even if the smaller Long Beach Opera orchestra could not quite recreate what one perceives as the density of Adams’ tonal range, one can only recognize that this is a work of art that deserves close listening.

      Some of the work’s arias, moreover, such as that performed by The Chorus of the Night, by Klinghoffer, the terrorist Mamoud, and, at work’s end, by the furiously accusatory Marilyn Klinghoffer (Suzan Hanson), represent extremely powerful operatic statements that transform this work. Presumably The Chorus of the Night, in its dark, clanging chordal structures and in the act of two groups of passengers building up a wall of suitcases between them, hints of the ethnic oppositions even aboard the Achille Lauro, differences presented in more comic moments played out by Danielle Marcelle Bond as an Austrian woman who hides in her stateroom quietly munching on chocolates and fruit while the others on deck are threatened and mocked and the empty-headed British dancing girl she later portrays, who perceives the whole even as a kind of school-girl game. 

      Klinghoffer’s aria, sung after his death, is an extremely gentle song, reiterating the first “Palestinian” chorus of the opera, which recounts the destruction of everything they (the Jews) had owned after World War II—the welters of the furniture, the destruction of tables and bureaus, or doors and drawers; but unlike the Palestinians, Klinghoffer suggests, although the Jews also had nothing left, they did not attempt revenge or revolution but moved on, creating new lives for themselves. It is a moving operatic statement, thoroughly delineating the reactions of the two cultures.

      On the other side, Mamoud describes, in a gruesomely literal aria how his mother was killed by the Israelis and how, discovering his brother’s severed head, he was able to close the tortured man’s eyes. (Discerning, a bit after the fact, what Mamoud had just conveyed, a woman on our loge suddenly cried out in shock).


   Marilyn Klinghoffer’s impassioned screed and plea, which ends the opera, is quite simply unforgettable, as out of unspeakable pain and silence, she suddenly rejects the ship captain’s empty condolences, shouting out that his suit smells of the Palestinians, and wailing out her own stupidity for not comprehending the significance the events that have just taken place. By the end of her powerful aria, she cries out for her own death, insisting that she should have died instead of her husband, that she “wanted to die.”*

       In short, Adams’ music is not the problem with the work. Even in Nixon in China, at moments I cringed at some of poet Alice Goodman’s language. Her mix of prosaic nonsense and abstract gobbledygook worked rather nicely, however, for the political double-speaking figures such as Nixon, Mrs. Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and Mao. Here; however, with real people facing life and death dilemmas, Goodman’s abstract, new-age like tropes, often seem to have nothing to do with the issues the opera is attempting to engage. People sing of dissolution, of crescent-moons (yes, we recognize its symbolic status in the Arab culture), of sand, and flying frigates—and pigeons, terns, herons, hawks, etc. etc.. all presented as the expression of the ability to be truly be free in a world of borders. This may sound like a kind of poetic lyricism, but Goodman clearly cannot hear the music in what she is attempting to express, often creating impossibly long and illogically impacted sentences that must be quickly elided over in order to fit into the musical phrase.


     Some of this mix of abstraction and the ordinary achieves its goal, as when, for instance, at the very moment her husband is being shot, Marilyn Klinghoffer tells a friendly woman about the new advances in hip and knee replacement, while discussing her husband’s paralysis as being something doctors no longer want to deal with, describing them as men and women busy “curing headaches instead of strokes.” But time and again Goodman’s meandering linguistic tunnels take the opera’s characters nowhere, as if they were speaking out of some moon-induced lunacy instead of the world which they exist. And this tends to make Adams’ work far more elliptical and drains it of his music’s inspired emotional poignancies.

       Through Goodman’s libretto the real-life death of an elderly Jewish man by murderous terrorists, no matter how holy their cause, becomes a kind of dreamy fable that diffuses dramatic encounters, turning it, just as Hoelterhoff argues, into a meditation of abstract concerns which cloak even the very title with good intentions instead of a solid look into the heart of good and evil.

    Interestingly enough, just the weekend before, Howard and I had attended another opera, Billy Budd, which takes place entirely at sea, wherein we also witness an unrighteous murder of someone on board. In both cases, the ships’ captains are particularly culpable, in Vere’s case because of his refusal to mitigate human justice over the law, in the case of the Achille Lauro because the captain refuses to perceive himself as morally responsible for his crew and passengers. Although, like Vere, he is a moral man, even going so far as to insist that the terrorists kill him instead of his passengers, he sees himself more as a hotelier among his crew of barbers, masseurs, shopkeepers, cooks, and servants than as a legal entity. He is a conciliator instead of a leader, a fact which Marilyn Klinghoffer ultimately perceives. Melville clearly was focused, far more specifically, on that very issue: who and what is good, who and what is evil, without providing easy answers. Neither Billy nor Leon Klinghoffer can be saved by the outside world. But the terrible vision of Klinghoffer’s wife reverberates with the Nazi horrors of World War II: how many people must die before the world acts? Must 100 people be killed aboard, she asks? Or millions, history might echo?  How can you talk with a people who cannot even acknowledge that history itself? Although she cries out for death, it is quite apparent that she and numerous others have already died for their beliefs, for their very existence, long before her.

     And so too, alas, have many been killed from the opposing sides. The tragedy is that there can be no end to this improbable stand-off of suffering communities. There can be, unfortunately, no easy reconciliation between the escalating wars of hate, a tragedy repeated over and over again in the history of our operatic archive.

 

*One of the most grotesque and painful ironies of this event—although not mentioned in the opera—is that after the events on the Achille Lauro, some accused Marilyn herself as having killed her husband in order to receive his insurance. Later, Muhammad Zaidan confirmed that Klinghoffer had, in fact, been killed by the terrorists.

 

Los Angeles, March 23, 2014

Reprinted from USTheater, Opera, and Performance (March 2014).

Thursday, January 30, 2025

Elevator Repair Service | Arguendo / 2014

problems of the text

by Douglas Messerli

 

Elevator Repair Service Arguendo / Los Angeles, Redcat (the Roy and Edna Disney/Cal Arts Theater) in the Walt Disney Concert Hall / the performance I saw as on opening night, November 6, 2014

 

The Elevator Repair Service theater company—although described in the program as creating “original works for live theater with an ongoing ensemble”—clearly prefers to use extant texts, as in last year’s “reading” of The Great Gatsby, presented as Gatz, and in their 2008 production of The Sound and the Fury, works which they perform in ways that decontextualize the originals and presumably refresh their meanings or transform our previous interpretations. Significant auteur-based directors such as Peter Sellars have been doing this for years, rethinking and reinventing the standard repertoire of plays, operas, and other compositions in productions that sometimes radically re-reposition the original intentions and meanings of the chosen texts. And more recently, writers such as Kenneth Goldsmith and Vanessa Place have done something similar in their “literary” publications, such as—in Goldsmith’s case—reprinting an entire issue of The New York Times in a one read-through version published in a single volume, which helps to create the sense of varying articles serving like chapters in a long, postmodern-like fiction, or gathering months of weather reports and related radio commentary as if they might be read as a kind of journal or diary of cultural events—or in the case of Place—presenting court documents so that they read as a kind of soap-opera or melodrama about various encounters between women and men.


      In the work I saw last night at Redcat, Arguendo, uses court documents from the case of Barnes v. Glen Theatre, a 1991 Supreme Court hearing about nude dancing in the state of Indiana. Applying the actual words, as well as hems, haws, hacks, and sometimes incoherent interruptions of the Supreme Court justices of that term—William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and David H. Souter, plus the legal arguments of Mr. Uhl (for the Petitioner) and Mr. Ennis (for the Respondent)—the company has great fun imagining the internal thinking of the various speakers as they throw out various contradicting and sometimes shockingly unpredictable comments (particularly given what we know of the general viewpoints of individuals such as Scalia, Kennedy, Rehnquist and others today) for “arguendos” sake, “for the sake of argument.”

      Much of this makes for quite spritely fun, as the justices, all played by three office-chair-bound actors, who, like their arguments, shift and roll across space at the same time that director John Collins and video designer Ben Rubin roll vast pages of previous decisions across the back wall and floor like so much literary confetti. The often nonplussed lawyers attempt to present their cases against the backdrop of the court justices, often quite hilariously, querying and challenging former lower-court decisions while simultaneously attempting to determine, in minute detail, just what constitutes a message in a nude dance and how such “messages” differ from similar expressions in higher art forms such as opera or theatrical productions. Scalia, in particular, seems nearly obsessed with the nudity in Richard Strauss’ Salome.


     At the very crux of several of the arguments is a seeming inability of previous courts to be able to comprehend that expression through dance (what all describe as “performance dance,” as if all dance might not be performative) may be as significant as expression through language or through musical performance. Somehow dance has not been given the same leniency in relationship with First Amendment rights, we perceive, as other forms of art, and therefore “nude” dancing is not seen as a statement of significance in the same way that Henry Miller might speak about nudity or a rock band might comment on such behavior in their songs and lyrics.

       Recognizing this fine point of distinction, the company often moves the judges and other figures across the stage as if they were all in a grand ballet. Similarly, the lawyer for the nude bookstore, Mr. Ennis (Mike Iveson) gradually moves from partial undress (the male equivalent of pasties and G-string) to complete nudity—permissible within a stage play such as Arguendo, while, given the final court decision, apparently still not permissible—in Indiana at least—in a room full of men positioned behind a shared pane of glass (the concept of a “shared pane of glass” is of utter importance in this manner, since a dancer performing nude before a single customer behind a piece of glass would be permitted).


      All of this wild deconstruction of court documents, in the hands of the Elevator Repair Service, provides for a kind of heady amusement—at least for a while. But over the short duration of this performance, it suddenly dawns on us that, despite the absurd nit-picking differentiations between the desire for expression and the message we perceive is that a far more serious issue about the very difference between actor and responder, between community notions of morality and personal expression and the significance of those values, without the possibility that this theatrical group might be able to pause for a moment to explore them. At the heart of these questions also lie profound issues concerning what is natural, or even concerning what nature is itself. Finally, we can only ask, why does nudity—and thousands of other things relating to our bodies—so frighten us? Why are so many the audience even giggling even as I mentally noted this, at Mike Iveson’s rather unattractive—certainly not sexually alluring—nude body?

      What the justices are doing in their arguendo may be quite ridiculous on the surface, but if one truly contemplates the substance of those law-based arguments, we realize that the whole matter exists in a kind self-created maze of impenetrable realities in which the law, because of its limited language, is simply unable to engage. In short, the language the justices are using cannot properly focus on the very issues wherein such seemingly trivial things truly do matter. And, in satirizing of what has already been utterly trivialized, the actors and the plays creators gradually reveal themselves as being as highly unoriginal as the justices had been locked away in their thousands of pages of case law.



     In short, in watching this otherwise humorous bagatelle, I gradually came to perceive the real problem was what might be described as a kind of elevation of unoriginality.  Given the nature of the preconceived text one can only work to reveal what one sees as its already pre-existent truths—the role often taken on by conservative pedants, who represent such texts as sacred fact—or by more liberal commentators such as this theater company to challenge and mock such texts, exposing their flaws of logic through humor.

      An original writer, on the other hand, might be able to explore the primary text in a way that offers a kind of amelioration between these two extremes, considering what may be perceived of as value while simultaneously questioning and challenging the meanings and logic of those very codes of behavior. The original writer might even have found another route into this serious issue of personal rights which our state and nation often feel compelled to delimit. Given the extremes in which our country has been willing to go in order to delimit those freedoms, as Edward Snowden and others have revealed in the past few years, perhaps a wink and a nod, a giggle and wiggle are simply not enough. Both my theater-going companion, Deborah Meadows, and I, accordingly, walked away a bit saddened by what I am certain others saw as a joyously raucous attack.

 

Los Angeles, November 7, 2014

Reprinted from USTheater, Opera, and Performance (November 2014).

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...