I'm feeling a slight bit of trepidation about the production, however, after reading a couple of articles on it in the New York Times. I am trying hard to keep a totally open mind, but this article, about the decision to update not just the production but the libretto translation (which now becomes an adaptation) made me a bit nervous. While I undoubtedly fall more into the traditionalist camp than the updaters camp (as the author of this article characterizes them), I'm not a strict traditionalist and have few problems in theory with updating the setting of a production. In practice, however, I think it rarely turns out to have been a good idea. The majority of the time, updated productions distract from the story. From the article:
J. D. McClatchy, a poet, librettist and sometime Met title maker, said that once a director sets the course, there is no choice but to follow. “That’s what makes me very nervous about directors,” he said, speaking in general terms, “that they will change things to suit themselves, rather than the text they’ve been given to interpret.”That's what makes me nervous about directors too. Almost invariably, when I see an unsatisfying update of a play or opera, I feel like the director came to the work with a determination to be novel/make it exciting/make it relevant, then picked a time period at random and twisted the play to suit. On the occasions when I see an update I really love, on the other hand, I feel like the director sat down with the work, asked how he or she could best convey the story as written, and then hit on something modern as the best way of illuminating the story's meaning. In the first case the setting takes precedence; in the second the story does.
When I've seen a modern update I like, I often barely notice that the play's or opera's setting has been updated (I mean, of course I notice -- presumably Shakespeare didn't arm Coriolanus with a rifle -- but the updated setting fades into the play. I don't think about it). The play's the thing in these updates, and the changes serve the goal of telling the story. One would think that one's goal in updating a play would always be to tell the story more clearly, but it's amazing how often it becomes obvious that the director ceased focusing on telling the story and started focusing on fitting the story into his setting.
If I had to suggest a few rules for updating productions, these would be among them:
1. If you have to change the characters' titles, or if the characters' titles sound ridiculous in your setting, you're doing it wrong. This is one of the things I notice the most in bad updates -- you're constantly drawn out of the story by the jarring contrast between characters' titles and the setting. John Wayne aside, there were no dukes in the Wild West, nor counts, princes, or earls. Updating Hamlet to the 19th or even the 20th century in the courts of Denmark can work. If you're trying to set it in the Wild West or Miami Beach, you should probably rethink things. This point also applies to settings/place names. If the play constantly refers to places that seem greatly removed from the context of your update, you have a problem.
2. There should be a need for every prop. I'm particularly thinking here of the Mary Zimmerman production, I believe it was, of Lucia di Lammermoor at the Met. One of the scenes featured a photographer trying to get everyone together for a family picture. It was a very 19th century thing for a wealthy family to do, I suppose, but it had absolutely no relevance to the scene or to the story. It shed no light on the opera, and was quite distracting. I've seen similar things in other updated productions. The director incorporates props or bits of business that emphasize the period but have no meaning for the play itself. They may serve to reinforce the play's setting, but they do nothing to reinforce the story.
3. If you're updating a production, make sure there are direct parallels between your update and the original setting. One excellent recent example of this is Ralph Fiennes' terrific film of Coriolanus. Fiennes' intent was to set Coriolanus in a situation like that of the modern-day Balkans -- presumably in something like the Bosnian conflict. Very small warring powers, almost city-states. Such a setting, of course, corresponds very well to that of the play, where you have warring tribes/small nations. Fiennes also makes incredibly effective use of television by having the play's politicians pontificate on the news and political talk shows, a very natural and effective parallel to the forums and chambers of ancient Rome. Imagine, however, Fiennes deciding to make Coriolanus and Aufidius not the modern-day equivalent of generals in city-states, but CEOs of rival companies. It requires a lot more work to fit that into the play, as the parallels between the two are significantly weaker -- if not nonexistent. While it seems perfectly natural for Coriolanus to be leading his troops into a war-torn town in something like modern-day Bosnia, it would seem a lot less natural -- if not utterly ridiculous -- for Coriolanus to lead his troops on an all-out assault of the offices of Aufidius Cosmetics, Inc. That may sound absurd, yet there are updates out there that are at least this crazy.
4. You shouldn't have to explain anything to make the audience understand your update. If you have to spend time explaining the updated setting or the updated roles of your characters to your audience, rethink your concept. The audience should be able to understand the setting and the roles and relationships of the characters from the production itself, as they can in a "traditional" production. It should not require a pre-show announcement, excessive signage, etc. If your update doesn't make the settings and relationships as clear as they would be in a non-updated production, then you should rethink things.
I think I could probably add several more rules, but this post is already getting long. I'm sure I'll discuss this topic again! Until next time, I'll be keeping an open mind about Rigoletto and hoping for one of those stellar updates that provides a new window into an old work.
- Rosalind
No comments:
Post a Comment