David Craven: The Fourth defect in Iolanthe is that it is "director-proof". Unlike many of the other works of G&S, which are delicate dishes which can be ruined by a poor hand at the wheel, Iolanthe is constructed in such a manner that it is very very hard to produce a bad production. On the other hand, this same apparent asset, is also a defect in that it is equally hard to produce a production which rises above the average Iolanthe production or has a unique concept.
In Mikado, for example, whether or not you agree that it is a valid interpretation, it is certainly within the plain meaning of the text to play Nanki-Poo as a villain, Katisha as a victim, the Mikado as a simpering fool or a sadomasochistic bully, Yum-Yum as an innocent young thing or a conniving society climber....
Similar multiple interpretations are possible in other G&S productions. Yet, in part, due to the lack of an individual who can be reasonably characterized as a villain, (and yes, I will acknowledge the "law" is in part the villain in this show...) the characters have a degree of one dimensionness not present in many of the other shows. Can Mounta with his dialogue be played as anything other than a simple pompous fool... and so on....
Personally I prefer a show like Sorcerer which requires a great deal of skill and craft on the part of the director to pull off....
(Note to those who don't understand why I am criticizing Iolanthe... I am doing so because it is generally regarded by the G&S aficionados as the greatest work, and as such, they often fail to recognize that it is not perfect, and often believe that it is the perfect point to introduce people to G&S. It is my view that while, like all works of G&S, it has a great deal of merit and is certainly worth performing, it does have flaws, and quite frankly, due to the intellectual level of the work, is not a good introduction to G&S, except for those highly educated, well read, and highly intelligent individuals who can quickly grasp the subtle humor in Iolanthe without the more traditional humor of the other G&S shows to gentle lead one to the more subtle humor....)
For example, I know nothing about Rap or Heavy Metal, Acid Rock, etc., and what I have heard I don't like. But I am not about to tell you the "reasons" why I don't like it because I haven't invested enough time or thought into these genres, and I'm not going to. So I'm content to dislike this stuff, and I am just about equally content to let millions of others adore it. It doesn't diminish nor augment my sense of well-being whether or not a lot of other people get off on Heavy Metal.
So if David dislikes Iolanthe, and Bruce loves it-----I can let it be. I think it's great that Bruce get pleasure from Iolanthe, and I think that David is missing out on something, but that's their business, and has no affect at all on either the merits of IOLANTHE or my enjoyment of it. I am not angered by David's dislike, nor elated by Bruce's appreciation of Iolanthe. Taste is taste, feelings are feelings; feelings are not facts.
Arthur Robinson: David Craven wrote: "Iolanthe... is not a good introduction to G&S, except for those highly educated, well read, and highly intelligent individuals who can quickly grasp the subtle humor in Iolanthe without the more traditional humor of the other G&S shows to gentle lead one to the more subtle humor....) "
Thank you. IOLANTHE was my introduction to G&S, so I must have been highly educated, well read, highly intelligent, etc., even though I was only eleven at the time.
Actually, I probably didn't get much of it--but I did get enough of it to like it.
Andrew Crowther: David Craven wrote: "[...] my point was the same construction which makes it difficult to mess up, makes it difficult to make it extraordinary or different or unique from the next production of Iolanthe. That is, in its own perverse way, a flaw. A paint by numbers copy of the Mona Lisa may produce a wonderful copy, but it is just that, a copy, devoid of art and creativity on the part of the painter."
This is a line of argument which goes right to the basic question about plays: which is more important, writer or director? I know analogies are tricky things to manage, but David does seem to be saying that in a theatrical production it is the director who is the artist, not the original author. (The art and creativity of Da Vinci are not rated a mention.) Thus he goes on to say:
David Craven wrote: "Iolanthe provides too detailed a framework and the result, no matter how skillfully executed, is devoid of any art and creativity beyond that provided by the original author...)"
Is it so terrible to have to place one's trust in the art and creativity of the original author(s)? Surely the point on which all Savoynetters agree is that they have a fundamental belief in the art and creativity of G&S. Otherwise, why are they here? I haven't thought deeply about whether _Iolanthe_ can, indeed, only be produced in a certain way, but assuming this to be true, is this a bad thing - from an artistic point of view, irrespective of the grumblings of director, actors etc.? I don't see why, even if productions of _Iolanthe_ are restricted to a small range of interpretation, they should necessarily end up as:
David Craven wrote: "clones" of the D'Oyly Carte blocking show after show after show... On the other hand, the rest of us find that kind of show boring, and like to see new and innovative approaches, even if such approaches are ultimately failures."
I don't think this is really true. You seem to be saying that all those who dislike a rigid adherence to the traditional "blocking" etc must inevitably prefer "new and innovative approaches" - that is (if I follow the rest of your post correctly) productions in which novelty and innovation are ends in themselves. Myself, I don't care if the traditional blockings go hang themselves: the essential thing is to find an approach to the text which is respectful (in the best sense) and does its best to communicate the text's meaning to the audience. If in the case of _Iolanthe_ there is not much room for a director to make an ostentatious display of creativity (loaded phrase!), then that's tough, but the _text_ is more important, and the director must be humble and obey what the text demands. Don't criticize the text for this: that's just the way it is. _Iolanthe_ is a work of art (most would say), and must be taken on its own terms: it cannot be properly criticized because it happens not to have certain qualities which may be found in other works of art. Art is restriction: a work of art has certain qualities, and because of this it lacks certain other qualities.
I've started to ramble, but I think that about covers all I have to say. Tom Shepard: Right on, Andrew!
Marc Shepherd: To an extent, I understand where David is coming from. The opera is more firmly rooted in a specific place than any of the others, and so allows less compass for creativity. The same is true of Boris Gudunov, and I don't recall any commentator citing this as a defect of THAT opera.
I have to admit that I've never seen a truly *great* IOLANTHE -- the kind of production you just remember forever. Could this be attributable to the alleged defect David cites, or just coincidence? I don't know.
Certainly, I've seen at least a couple of IOLANTHEs memorable for precisely the wrong reason -- they were awful -- so the show is NOT director-proof. But, based on experience, I have to agree that it's hard to make memorable. But, is this a DEFECT?
David Craven exhibits a preference for creative approaches, including an approach to THE MIKADO so creative (making Nanki-Poo a villain) that I've never heard of it. In IOLANTHE, perhaps there's not much room for imagination with the men -- "Peers will be peers" -- but there's plenty of room with the women. Since fairies are imaginary, you can play them any way you like!
David also seems to believe that either the director is pulling out all the stops with his imagination, or a production repeats the standard D'Oyly Carte blocking. Surely, there's a mountain of middle ground that he's ignoring.
Robert Jones: David Craven wrote: " The Fourth defect in Iolanthe is that it is "director-proof". "
It's a strange twist of logic that reaches the conclusion that this is a flaw. Another way of saying it would be: "Iolanthe is perfect", which, as MOST of us know, it is!
Tom Shepard: David Craven wrote: " And I don't say that one MUST do something different with the text, rather I submit that a work is more susceptible to an extraordinary production if one can do something with the text even if one chooses not to do so. (A choice not to follow an interpretation is as valid as a choice to follow an interpretation. A statement that such choices do not exist because one does not agree with the choice is simply pig-headed. I presented several examples of choices out of Mikado because we have discussed these possible choices "
I get a little worried when directorship is elevated as an equal or superior to the original creation. True, a great director can bring out much that both is and isn't there in the original conception, but the piece has to have some structural and artistic integrity to begin with. A thousand versions of HAMLET are no better than HAMLET itself, and I say the same thing about IOLANTHE, or that Artur Schnabel's Beethoven Sonatas, ennobling and inspired, are not in fact greater than what Beethoven wrote.
So I find it a bit unfocused to judge a work's merit by its ability to be subjected to various directorial whims. Of course music and theater are performing arts, and, unlike the MONA LISA, require an interpreter between the creator and the auditor.
But Stravinsky wrote musical directions with obsessive specificity, and yet, even those who do their damnedest to follow the letter of the law still come up with different sounding interpretations because all interpreters are human.
And it will be the same with IOLANTHE, no matter how director-proof WSG made it, there will always be room for color and interpretation in the hands of a gifted and sensitive director without his (or her) having deliberately to "re-interpret" the piece just for the sake of trying desperately to "be original."
And no matter how far afield a director may choose to go, if he loses the tone of the original, then he has done the work a great disservice. What price glory of the director triumphs while burying the authors?
'Nuff said. Time to be a curmudgeon elsewhere.
David Craven: Tom Shepard wrote: " So I find it a bit unfocused to judge a work's merit by its ability to be subjected to various directorial whims. Of course music and theater are performing arts, and, unlike the MONA LISA, require an interpreter between the creator and the auditor."
I am afraid that I am not expressing myself correctly. I am not suggesting that the "director-proofness" of the show is the only basis for judging a work's merit. What I am suggesting is that Iolanthe has far less leeway for directorial choice than many of the other works of Gilbert and Sullivan and that this is a weakness. Whether it is a mild or a strong weakness, I leave up to you. In my view, one would be far more bored after seeing 100 productions of Iolanthe than after seeing 100 productions of some other G&S work because the Iolanthe productions would have more elements of similarity than the other production.
Certainly a director could go wild and do an off the wall Iolanthe, but such wildness would not be based on the text of the work. If a director chooses to go off the wall, he or she had better be able to tie it in to some interpretation of the text. Whether others agree with the interpretation is another matter, but tied into the text it is at least valid. (For example, and I am choosing this because it has been well discussed. Very very few people agree with me on my interpretation of Nanki-Poo as a villian, yet I suspect that the vast majority of those people would agree with me that I have at least tied it to the text and the story line. It would, therefore, be a valid interpretation. In contrast, an Iolanthe in which the Lord Chancellor is played as a vampire would have no validity. It would certainly be a unique approach, but not grounded in the text.)
Tom Shepard wrote: "And it will be the same with IOLANTHE, no matter how director-proof WSG made it, there will always be room for color and interpretation in the hands of a gifted and sensitive director without his (or her) having deliberately to "re-interpret" the piece just for the sake of trying desperately to "be original." "
One does not re-interpret a piece just for the sake of being original, but it is certainly valid to apply new looks to works and it is perfectly fine to look for those new approaches, as long as they can be justified.
Tom Shepard wrote: "And no matter how far afield a director may choose to go, if he loses the tone of the original, then he has done the work a great disservice. What price glory of the director triumphs while burying the authors?"
Again, I don't think we disagree. It may just be that we might not agree on the tone of the authors. In fact, I think that a problem with Iolanthe is that we do agree with the tone of the authors as, in fact, it is much more of a single colour work.
Tom Shepard: David Craven wrote: "One does not re-interpret a piece just for the sake of being original, "
I enjoyed your response, but I may argue this one point because I have witnessed (and have been victimized) by directors and choreographers whose need to put their own stamp on a work (mine!) really flew in the face of the creators' (the lyricist and I) intentions.
What began as a French comedy of manners ended as a staged farce. It had laughs and occasional cleverness, but all the heart went out of the piece because the director, a talented man, felt that the imposition of HIS stamp was at least equally valid as the stamp originally desired by the writers. I don't believe necessarily in the equal rights of a director vis-a-vis the authors. I admit that the author is certainly not always right, and that productions have good reason to be adapted for modern sensibilities, but this doesn't mean----and I know I am being ridiculous----that I want to accept the title role of Richard III as a pants role starring Elaine Stritch. It might be refreshing and funny, but it isn't Shakespeare.
Judith R. Neale: What did you think of the drag Duchess in that Stratford video of Gondoliers? (I don't remember the names involved and all my tapes are in storage at the moment.) I confess I hadn't expected to like it, and ended up enjoying it very much against my will, papa, against my will...
Bruce I. Miller: Ridiculous the thought may be, but not, alas, unheard of. At a Holy Cross production of Julius Caesar a few years ago, the title role was played by a female, as were some of the other male roles. I don't recall now which way the role of Caesar's wife was cast...
David Craven: I am afraid that you have not been ridiculous enough... even if I agree with you on this point... did not the Folger Theater, one of the U.S.'s premier Shakespeare companies have a woman (Pat something) play Falstaff in a production of Falstaff.. and we have the strange casting decision of a man playing the Duchess in Stratford...
As with anything, I like new interpretations as long as they can be tied in or if they are so far afield that they clearly have, at best, only a tangential relationship to the prior work...
Michael Rice: The woman was Pat Carol...and interestingly enough, she played "Little???" Buttercup last season with the NYGASP.
Updated 28 November 1997