"You must be very politically aware that we are not laughing about, but we are laughing with... What I believe is that, according to the political context you’re in, you must be very aware of the references you’re using and how you present human suffering or human madness, whether it’s a tragedy or a comedic opera... You must be very careful about whose side you’re on when you deal with characters in an opera. But you must also be very sure that you’re not turning your art form into a gourmet experience for vocal fudge-makers... The piece at its core, in a certain way, is a very Western take on Islamic culture, and normally Mustafa is portrayed as just stupid and ugly and the Italians are clever and very heroic... That was something I was not interested in at all. We had to find another story line to keep the genius of Rossini and the music and the libretto, and keep it as a real comedy, because it’s important to laugh. But comedy is serious business, and you must know what you are laughing about."
From a NYT article about a new production of the 1813 Rossini opera "The Italian Girl in Algiers," which is about a Turkish leader who rejects his own wife because she is a Muslim and therefore (as the NYT puts it) "too ingratiating and submissive," and seeks "the exciting temperament and sexual prowess of an Italian woman." The title of the article, strangely effacing the anti-Muslim problem, is "Taking On 19th-Century Opera Stereotypes for the #MeToo Era."
५८ टिप्पण्या:
Taking On 19th-Century Opera Stereotypes for the #MeToo Era."
If you ran a fake headline contest for the NYT wouldn’t this be a winning entry?
To the winners of Lepanto go the spoils. 400 ships fighting to the death to win the Fourth Ottoman-Venetian War was a big deal. It saved Europe from slaughter by the merciless Turks. So a little boasting by Christians is in order.
Jesus Christ on a stick.
I suppose when Die Entführung aus dem Serail shows up again the idiot
Nina Siegal will demand we greet Bassa Salim as emblematic of the typical Muslim.
I'm not impressed by the opinion of a guy who says spaghetti and cous cous are "basically the same carbohydrate" and thinks that's funny.
I don't understand what "vocal fudge-makers" is referring to. What?
An oddly durable theme these two hundred years on.
Shit talkers?
Nina Siegal beats the vocal fudge-makers by committing her shit to newsprint, ink and otherwise.
And another thing, Ms. Siegal, a Turk is not an Arab, and an Arab is not always a Muslim, you ignorant bitch.
"the genius of Rossini and the music and the libretto"
Why are they putting on this opera at all? Couldn't they find an Arab-Muslim opera of the same "genius"?
And why, pray tell, is that?
I don't understand what "vocal fudge-makers" is referring to. What?
I think he meant fudge-packers.
"I don't understand what "vocal fudge-makers" is referring to. What?"
I know. I tried doing some googling, but I only ended up with some damned fudge shop where the workers sing while wielding spatulas.
"...and don't get me started on some of the books in the Old Testament. Highly problematic. Stereotypes all over the place! Time for a little re-write." / sarc
The famed Iowahawk tweet: Find those things that the people value and hollow it out from the inside, wear its skin until it is a husk. Doesn't matter if it is football, opera government etc.
I understood that when a piece of art no longer spoke to a people, what happens is that it slowly fades away / doesn't get republished / the # of people who might make reference to it becomes minimal. There are countless 16th century writers that no one today (except for a few '000s academics) might even have heard of, let alone read.
Why do people worry about revising past works to mirror with their own worldview? If you find them problematic, let them go. Go create your own memorable story / opera and if it is judged by the people to be more enduring than Rossini, well there you go.
Of course the people may prefer Rossini. Oh wait.
Will someone for fuck's sake please get me out of 2018? Characters in comic operas are idiots no matter where they're supposed to be from.
Stop the opera! Find the scores and librettos and destroy them. All of them.
OK, let's do away with 19th-century stereotypes. Instead, let's have operas and plays and movies that accurately portray the actual behavior of Barbary pirates or Turkish sultans or Muslim armies.
D 2: Why do people worry about revising past works to mirror with their own worldview?
Why indeed.
I bothered to read the article; the "revisers" knock themselves out pushing clichés in defense of their alleged goal of avoiding clichés.
At the end one says: “We are very keen on keeping the humanity of the characters; that means that a character is complex, and it has contradictions.” But "revising past works to mirror their own worldview" is an exercise in avoiding complexity and contradiction. Is there a single instance of "getting woke" in art that results in more complexity, deeper meaning? No, the result is preaching, aka dumbing-down and making shallow.
Though what matters in the end is how the production turns out. People can talk a lot of drivel about their work and still deliver the goods.
I first read by the bit about "a gourmet experience for vocal fudge-makers" as the usual drivel about audiences wanting pleasant and pretty things instead of the "challenging experience" the artistes wish to give them but really, I don't know what they mean, since the "fudge-makers" seem to refer to the singers. Wouldn't be surprised if the speaker didn't know, either.
It's those shoes with the pointy, curled up toes that are problematic. It's cultural appropriation when Santa's Elves wear them.
Instead, let's have operas and plays and movies that accurately portray the actual behavior of Barbary pirates or Turkish sultans or Muslim armies.
Something tells me Nina Siegal and her ilk would find that even less amusing.
The Ottoman Sultan at the turn of the 20th Century had a taste for English women. Many women on holiday or doing research or charity work were kidnapped and put in his Harem forcibly. Evidence surfaced in the last decade that the British were well aware of the abductions, but did nothing about them because they wanted trade and other concessions. They also stopped loved ones from taking action in the courts or through other means.
Paul Z is right. You cannot have a comedic opera without a knave. Also, in the days of their release, operas of all kinds - but comedic ones especially weren't given the cultural reverence that they are today. They were (and are) gaudy, overproduced, musically flamboyant but accessible soap operas. While certainly not dismissed as trivial works, they were given a wink.
Such subtlety is unthinkable today.
"But you must also be very sure that you’re not turning your art form into a gourmet experience for vocal fudge-makers..."
Google Translate must have mangled this while converting from the original Stupid. Properly translated it comes out "But you must be sure to insult only white people..."
Cannot get past presentism.
Like that line in the movie A Few Good Men when Jack Nicholson says "YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH"...
Today we say "YOU CAN'T HANDLE HISTORY" so we try to hide history and change it to represent what is currently in vogue.
Erase all works of art before 1960. Eliminate anything that isn't politically correct. It never happened!!!!!
Dust Bunny Queen at 8:53 AM said...
"Today we say "YOU CAN'T HANDLE HISTORY" so we try to hide history and change it to represent what is currently in vogue.
I am so making a meme out of that!
@Dust Bunny Queen:
Today we say "YOU CAN'T HANDLE HISTORY" so we try to hide history and change it to represent what is currently in vogue.
Exactly. It is the retconning of history.
See Lin-Manuel Miranda's Hamilton for one of the more recent and egregious examples.
They didn't alter the libretto. I give them a lot of credit for that. Changing around the words to "keep up with the times" is the surest way to ruin a piece of music. Revisers always seem to be complete hacks who have no idea what prosody is.
As for whether changing the Turkish bey to a gangster and making the Italian characters (more?) ridiculous is good or bad, who knows? They do that sort of thing in operas and plays all the time.
I don't think operas are judged by their credibility or the realism of their plot points. If the music is good, the opera is good........Mozart's Abduction from the Seraglio, as I remember it, takes a surprisingly tolerant and charitable view of the Muslim potentate. Nowadays, we look at men who kidnap women in order to make them sex slaves in a far harsher light......Perhaps if they changed the setting to Rotherham we would have a more balanced view of Rossini's musical gifts.
Re: Matt:
As for whether changing the Turkish bey to a gangster and making the Italian characters (more?) ridiculous is good or bad, who knows? They do that sort of thing in operas and plays all the time.
Yes . . . I kind of wish they wouldn't. I appreciate that for people who work in opera, or see operas all the time, they've seen the "traditional" stagings a thousand times and they seem boring now. But the audience hasn't, and they'll still get a kick out of seeing Brunnhilde with the horned helmet and all that. I think there's this delusion that if they do a "modern" staging it will seem "relevant" and they'll finally get young people to show up. Dream on! Opera is for old people and people like me! Even when you get young people, it's mostly just rich people who think going to the opera is something rich people do -- you see how they're always leaving at the intermission. I'm your audience!
Well, people like me and probably the White Nationalists who celebrate opera as part of the glorious heritage of their Herrenvolk or whatever. It's all German and Italian, after all -- the culture of the Axis powers!
Correct Title:
Censoring 19th Century Operas for Counter-Revolutionary Thoughts.
One laughs at the absurdity of rewriting and re-staging unrealistic Opera plots and characters, but that won't stop the SJW's or the "big minds" at NYT's from cheering them on.
BTW, I too googled "fudge makers" and got nothing.
Fudge makers = assholes?
Matt said...
"They didn't alter the libretto. I give them a lot of credit for that. Changing around the words to "keep up with the times" is the surest way to ruin a piece of music."
A similar movement with Shakespeare. John McWhorter at his Lexicon Valley podcast has given many examples of words in Shakespeare's time having a different meaning in ours. For example, "generous" meant noble and subtleties of using "you" and "thee" which means nothing to us except perhaps "thee" sounds archaic but in reality had complex rules for their use.
Last year, I came across a 're-edited' version of a famous classic science fiction story that had been 'revised' to remove certain problematic elements:
-- Any reference to the smoking of tobacco
-- References to women as 'girls.'
-- Obsolete data-presentation technology
-- Non-metric system measures
-- The original story's 1950's version of surface conditions on the planet Mars
This was done, the re-editor assured readers, so that 'modern readers' (who appear to be rather feeble-minded and emotionally fragile) would not 'stumble over' these shocking anachronisms.
Censorship is for your own good, you see.
Opera shaming
“The Adventures of Baron Von Muchausen” has some nice takes on the Ottoman sultans.
Why do people worry about revising past works to mirror with their own worldview? If you find them problematic, let them go.
It is more them pushing the idea that THEY should have any authority to make these changes, or that we consider them in any way as talented as the original artist. (They aren't)
But sure...why don't we let them do a remake of Casablanca, but make Rick a Transexual Black 'man', Igmar Bergan a red haired lesbian and have the two of them shoot her 'husband' and let the Nazis win. Oh...and throw in some A cup nipple and CGI as well.
Let Michael Bay write it.
sodal ye said..."God how fucking pompous."
. . . . a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse.
Blessed are the fudge makers..
There is a class issue here indeed.
That is, when Rossini wrote this the Barbary pirates were a proximate danger to residents of the Mediterranean coasts. They really were kidnapping and enslaving people, almost all of them poor villagers, sailors, fishermen. The POV of the contemporary public was exactly what you would expect. This memory persisted into modern times. My grandmother would say, for instance, when godssiping - “hay moros en la costa” - there are moors on the coast, when warning of being overheard.
And in Rossini’s day opera was a public art, not limited to the top of society.
The niceness about what afflicts the modern upper class is disrespectful to that actual audience of the period.
If you want an idea of how this opera sounded in its original, check out Conchita Supervias recordings from a he 1930s.
In 1813 the Barbary Pirates were still active, as witness the 1815 agreement at the Congress of Vienna that the European powers needed to unite in their supression. Attractive female sex slaves were as prized by them then as by Boko Haram today.
Trying to remake operatic warhorses to appeal to the values and biases (real or imagined) of a contemporary audience has been a directorial conceit for a long, long time. So there is nothing new here in that regard. The team remaking this Rossini work must have had quite a few internal battles. Cecilia Bartoli is well known as one of today's great interpreters of the heroines in Rossini and Mozart. Very unlikely that she would have ever accepted any change to the libretto, to say nothing of the music. So the director was reduced to playing around with the characters and the setting, and his changes seem rather slight for all the hyperventilating about cultural sensitivities. So the bey becomes an Algerian gangster. Ho hum, no big deal, and not much of a change. We're all used to seeing despotic rulers dismissed as gangsters (Putin, Xi, Little Rocket Man and many others quite often; Trump for many lefties, etc.). Twenty years ago, for example, Don Giovanni was set in the South Bronx, the Count was reimagined as a gang leader, etc. The Met's current production of Rigoletto is set in Las Vegas (Gilda ends up being dumped in the trunk of a pink Cadillac), and the number of operas that try to put a neo-Nazi spin on powerful villains is beyond count.
If the #MeToo thing was so important, it would have been more interesting to see the bey recast as a Weinstein/Slick Willy-type avant la lettre -- powerful guy gets tired of the frumpy wife, and seeks excitement with a younger, spicier type whether or not she's willing, until he gets the inevitable come-uppance. As it turns out, that's an operatic cliché in its own right. What's new is not so new after all.
William,
I played years back in a performance of Abduction from which all trace of Islam had been meticulously scrubbed. Seriously. It was set in a post-peak-oil apocalyptic future, and "Seraglio" was a nightclub (with a front and then, er, "back rooms") run by a guy named Gorgeous Jerome (Mozart's Pasha). Osmin, the Muslim "baddie" in the original, was in our production a Russian gangster, and in the final seconds of the opera, he and his cronies come in and machine-gun the entire cast.
But no Islam anywhere, no siree.
I think the fudge makers maybe refers to gay sex, AKA fudge packers, thus vocal fudge makers would be cocksuckers.
Last year, I came across a 're-edited' version of a famous classic science fiction story that had been 'revised' to remove certain problematic elements:
-- Any reference to the smoking of tobacco
-- References to women as 'girls.'
-- Obsolete data-presentation technology
-- Non-metric system measures
-- The original story's 1950's version of surface conditions on the planet Mars
This, editing (bastardizing) of written works is exactly why I think that going to digital books and abandoning the written/printed versions is a very very bad idea.
When all you have available is an easily altered digtized version, unless there exists an original hard copy to refer to, at some point people will not realize that what they are reading has been so very compromised. Censored to not "offend" and removing many of the key elements that made the work what it was in the context of its own history.
Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn is one of the prime examples. Removing the references to Nigger Jim, because the word nigger today is offensive, even though in the historical usage it was common, bastardizes not only the meaning of the book....it dumbs it down so much because, evidently, people can't handle the truth. The truth that at one time in the past the word nigger was common usage, wasn't always a denigration, that slavery existed and that those things have changed. Instead of reflexively hysterically clutching your pearls because Twain wrote the "n" word and that slavery was a thing......read the damned book to see what he really wrote about those things.
How can you learn from the past, if you erase it or bastardize it?
Digital books are convenient. They are also subject to being changed without you even knowing it. They can even change the digital books you own on your own devices. Unless like in Fahrenheit 451 you 'bookleg' a copy for safe keeping you are never guaranteed that you are reading the author's original intentions.
For an example of how this sort of thing plays out even when the work in question wasn't meant to be staged at all, look at the rapturous review of the Mostly Mozart Festival's new Haydn Creation. Adam and Eve sing their gorgeous little duet submerged up to their necks in a huge water tank. (That had better be well reinforced; if it were to break, I shudder to think of the instrument damage.) The chorus are "refugees" or "migrants" (of course), who carry around tablet computers with images of all the nice things they used to know -- skies and flowers and beaches and so on. Etc.
Here.
Well hell, we don’t have to go to Salzburg for that. ba-dum-tshh
Oh, I should've said: That review is by Tommasini in the New York Times.
L'Italiana in Algieri, Supervia et al, 1928
Somebody WILL be offended.
Did you hear about the woman (leftist) who launched a campaign against the University of Wyoming for using the slogan "cowboy"?
She's OK with cows but not "boys". Behold: the modern left.
There's a Facebook page, "Against Modern Opera Productions," that generally mocks the conceits of current directors. I've seen a production of "Daughter of the Regiment" updated to WWII, so that French villagers are frightened that American soldiers are coming to save them from the Nazis.
The lesson here is that Rossini or his successors are helpless without copyright protection. By reducing our current copyright period to match our patent period, we can render Disney, our other media overlords, and all of those who feed on them, similarly powerless.
How can you learn from the past, if you erase it or bastardize it?
That's the point. To the Left, history begins anew each day. Whether you like it or not.
"Last year, I came across a 're-edited' version of a famous classic science fiction story that had been 'revised' to remove certain problematic elements:"
And its called What? and written by who?
pygmies climbing on shoulders of giants and YELLING - hey look how big I am
I'm not sure, but it's possible that the weird "vocal fudge-makers" comment refers (in an opprobrious way, for some reason) to people who love hearing talented singers meet the demands of bel canto singing.
Surely the main reason to love Rossini or Bellini or Donizetti is because the vocal lines, when sung well, are so completely ravishing.
Not sure why the raison d'être of bel canto opera--the singing--has to be stigmatized; it's like complaining about all the dancing in ballet ("why do they do that? That's not what happens in real life!", etc.).
If the stories are interesting and passable, that's always a plus. If you want to take the stories seriously, of course, you need to take them on their own terms, in their own context--which would preclude the tiresome "updating" we see here.
Lots of interesting comments here--and thanks so much for the Conchita Supervia recording!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा