No 43 -- 1995 Edited by Michael Walters
In the November/December 1982 edition of Gasbag, Marc Shepherd expressed the opinion that Gondoliers was his favourite opera, since it is probably the opera I like least of the 13, I thought that an investigation of our opposing views would be of interest, particularly as some of the things Marc says are definitely controversial, at least to British readers. He starts off with the premise that he needs to defend his partiality for The Gondoliers because it is a comparatively unpopular opera. I feel the need to do just the reverse! Marc tells us:
Among most people, the consensus is that Gilbert and Sullivan's three greatest operas were H.M.S. Pinafore, The Pirates of Penzance and The Mikado [presumably in that order?]
But this is clearly an American view, I think few British readers would agree, indeed I think there is quite a sizeable chunk of the G&S community over here who regard Pinafore and Pirates as among the inferior works of the partnership. I think the British consensus of popularity opinion would regard the top three as Mikado, Gondoliers and Iolanthe. The lack of popularity of the latter in the States would be understandable, as it is directed specifically at English institutions, which must be a bit incomprehensible to our friends. It is not topical", as suggested by Marc, as much of the satire is every bit as relevant today as it was in Gilbert's time.
Marc places his case for The Gondoliers as follows:
The Gondoliers is one of my favourite operas because I believe it is one of the best that Gilbert and Sullivan wrote. From the first to the last note of this mammoth work, there is scarcely a measure or syllable out of place. There are few, if any, moments that I should have rather seen written some other way. This opera, perhaps more than any other, is infused with the simple capability to entertain its audience marvellously from start to finish.
Now while all this, from the beginning of the second sentence, is undoubtedly true, I query its relevance. A "simple capacity to entertain" is, after all, a cheap and rather common virtue, and certainly does not go to make a great work. And one of the reasons why Gondoliers is not a great work, is that it isn't an opera. The opening musical sequence is indeed operatic in character, after that, the piece is little removed from musical comedy, and indeed, may perhaps be regarded as the first musical comedy, and the work which contributed to bring that genre into being. If this is correct, then it occupies a unique place in English theatrical history.
Marc is undoubtedly right in saying that the greatest flaw of The Gondoliers is that it "tends to be unforgiving of a poor or inexperiences production". In plain English English, this means that its a damned difficult show to do well. I have seen the piece many times, and I do not believe I have ever seen a production, either amateur or professional, that I felt was thoroughly satisfactory. Most were very disappointing, and some were just downright dull. I do not believe that The Gondoliers can be regarded as one of G&S's best works. The lyrics are Gilbert at his most pallid, the music is Sullivan at his most twee, and it is certainly not "pure satire" as Marc claims. Utopia Ltd., is an example of one that is pure satire.
In short, Marc's spirited, and often ingenious attempts to explain why he is so fond of The Gondoliers, do not convince me; but they help to underline the very paradox of why we all love G&S. For the love of G&S, like Marc's love of The Gondoliers is basically irrational. The G&S lobby can put forward many reasons why G&S is good, the anti-G&S lobby can put forward many reasons why it is not. But the fact remains that none of the reasons I would put forward if I were forced to defend G&S are reasons which actually attracted me to it in the first place. I don't know why I love it, I just do. And the very illogicality is what has always baffled those who do not like it.
In the next issue, Marc reviewed UMGASS's Gondoliers and made one or two surprising comments. For instance, he criticised the stageing of "With Ducal pomp":
Prior to this number, selected members of the chorus were directed to take a conspicuous position beghind the scenery so that they could become physically re-acquainted with their newly-arrived girl friends. When the Duke entered, demanding to be escorted to the Baratarian palace,all the men entered grouchy and disinterested, the result of their having been interrupted in what they had been doing. The men's chorus was then directed to be thoroughly blase during "With ducal pomp" before exiting in disgust when it was over. I can't deny that this proved to be funny, but I don't believe it was at all what Gilbert intended, and as has often been said before, just because something is funny does not mean it is appropriate.
I agree entirely, yet elsewhere Marc told us that Marco and Giuseppe were played by two men of different skin colour. He said:
I don't know if this has been done before anywhere else, but it worked well here. In fact, far from creating awkwardness, it actually enhanced some of the comic situations.
I expect Marc was being tactful, but I feel that precisely the same criteria apply. This has been a bone of contention of mine for many years, so let me voice it here (and I happen to know that Grace Bumbry is of a similar opinion). It is not appropriate to have a single black person in a white cast, playing a role that is not supposed to be black. Make-up is as important as costume, and just as no-one would dream of playing Gondoliers with one person in modern dress and the rest in 18th century period costume on the grounds that it didn't matter, so the same applies to facial appearance. This is not racism, but just as a white actor is expected to put on dark make-up if playing (say) Othello, I consider it reasonable that a black actor should be expected to make up suitably if playing a white part.
MICHAEL WALTERS
Web page created 26 July 1998