that one time classic American theatre got rebooted

Like a lot of people following American theatre, I was very excited when Audra McDonald and Norm Lewis were announced to play the title roles in a Broadway-bound revival of Porgy and Bess at American Repertory Theatre. Chicagoans enjoyed a beautifully simple staging at Court this season, which put the music (as gorgeously directed by Doug Peck and sung by an amazing cast, including the imcomparable Bethany Thomas) at the forefront.


great interview with director Charles Newell; BT & Doug performance at 6:08 mark

"What an exciting time for this show," I thought. It looked I might be in NYC when ART production would be running and was very excited. Then the reports of the changes started coming in. Director Diane Paulus brings in playwright Suzan-Lori Parks to collaborate with. Now, this isn't the first time anyone has "tweaked" this piece. In 2006, Tony Award-winning director Trevor Nunn updated his London production a bit by turning a lot of the recitative into naturalistic book scenes (maybe he was inspired by the movie version of RENT). And it flopped. Mind you, Nunn's production still stuck with the original plot and (most controversial to the ART revival) ending. For ART, Ms. Paulus and Ms. Parks have expanded character bios, omitted key scenes and songs to accomodate said additions and changed the ending (no spoiler alert here) to be more upbeat and "happy".

When NY Times  writer Patrick Healy broke the story for the Arts & Leisure section, many readers expressed their concern in the comments section. Michael Musto had a hilarious response on his blog. But the most vocally outraged was prolific composer Stephen Sondheim, who wrote an eloquent and poignant response to the Times. Here are some excerpts:



-Ms. Paulus says that in the opera you don’t get to know the characters as people. Putting it kindly, that’s willful ignorance. These characters are as vivid as any ever created for the musical theater, as has been proved over and over in productions that may have cut some dialogue and musical passages but didn’t rewrite and distort them.

-What Ms. Paulus...fails to recognize that Porgy, Bess, Crown, Sportin’ Life and the rest are archetypes and intended to be larger than life and that filling in “realistic” details is likely to reduce them to line drawings.

-Among the ways in which Ms. Parks defends the excavation work is this: “I wanted to flesh out the two main characters so that they are not cardboard cutout characters” and goes on to say, “I think that’s what George Gershwin wanted, and if he had lived longer he would have gone back to the story of ‘Porgy and Bess’ and made changes, including the ending.” It’s reassuring that Ms. Parks has a direct pipeline to Gershwin and is just carrying out his work for him...

-I can hear the outraged cries now about stifling creativity and discouraging directors who want to reinterpret plays and musicals in order to bring “fresh perspectives,” as they are wont to say, but there is a difference between reinterpretation and wholesale rewriting. Nor am I judging this production in advance, only the attitude of its creators toward the piece and the audience.

Which brings me back to my opening point. In the interest of truth in advertising, let it not be called “The Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess,” nor even “The Gershwin-Heyward Porgy and Bess.” Advertise it honestly as “Diane Paulus’s Porgy and Bess.” And the hell with the real one.



Mr. Sondheim brings up some excellent points. You learn very early on in studying directing that your job first and foremost is to present the play as the playwright intended (thanks Sheldon!) It is the basis of many awesome collaboractions between director-playwright-director I've seen in my career. So when does one ask the ethical question "am I changing this because I prefer it this way or because it's what better serves the play?" And who polices these ethics?

In the same breath, should creativity and innovation lose out to tradition? David Henry Hwang approached the Rodgers & Hammersein estate about revamping Flower Drum Song in 1997. Like P&B, FDS was believed by many to be outdated in its portrayal of its subject ethnic group and to have perpetuated stereotypes. Hwang gained approval for his rewrite from both the Rodgares & Hammerstein estate and from the author of the original novel, C.Y. Lee. Hwang's book (with the collaboration of director Robert Longellow) streamlined the story, matched the seriousness in tone of the original novel and bringing old-world immigrants struggling with the assmilation of the American-born generation. I am very biased as I saw this revival on Broadway in 2002 and can say as an Asian-American, I was thankful for the revisions: I connected to it more than I ever did with the film version of the original.

In both cases of Porgy and Bess and Flower Drum Song, the respective estates that own the rights to the works have approved the changes. The artistic and production staffs of the ART revival of P&B are standing behind their process and as artists, they should. But the questions remain: should tradition win out over innovation? At what point is the ethical line crossed when a playwright's work is rebooted posthumously? And if the core intention of the playwright is to connect with an audience and their work is revamped to "better" connect to an audience of a different era, is their intention still being honored?

And the ultimate question: what is more important, the artist's intention or audience's reaction?