# In Dealing with Problematic Operas of our Current Century.



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Hello Everyone,

I just read a thought-provoking New York Times opinion piece by Katherine Hu ""Classical Opera Has a Racism Problem: Don't try to hide it. Instead, make audiences confront it." In it, Ms. Hu points out the problems in confronting operas with its stereotypes, not far removed from, say, issues regarding removing Confederate statues or television removing shows deemed stereotypical or worse.

Ms. Hu's point of reference is the Seattle Opera in its aggressive, in-your-face approach in dealing with this topic: not shying away from it or simply sugar-coating it, but to confront it with education. In other words, presenting the art, but explaining its context of its time. It is something well worth exploring, still, as the public and audience are getting more aware and informed of some of our culture's questionable, contentious past.

So with that said, what say you?

Are we on the right path in dealing with this issue? 
Is there still work to be done? 
Are opera companies not doing enough? 
Is there (some) resistance to this?
Is this issue even a pressing one, or is political correctness going overboard?

Here is the link to Ms. Hu's editiorial
-->https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/...ule=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=Contributors


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

There is an awful lot of PC nonsense talked about this subject. To me (and I'm in my 70s) it has always been quite obvious that Butterfly was an abused girl and Pinkerton a bounder if not worse. I think the opera makes that quite clear. By all means we need to discuss with kids and maybe adults too the implications of the opera for today's society but let's not forget the thing is a fiction. When we talk of not using 'yellow face' then to be consistent we should surely talk of performing the opera only in Japanese. Sorry, but Pinkerton would speak American-English, of course! What is quite clear is that no-one would be speaking or singing Italian so the whole thing becomes a nonsense. If only we would remember that opera is about ACTING and that the Greek word for acting is 'mask'. An actor is someone who puts on a mask to hide his or her real identity. So the PC line that Butterfly should only be sung by a Japanese becomes nonsense. The stage is not a real place. People are acting. Of course, no-one wants to see racism on stage where other races are mocked as inferior and ways round that can be found, such as the role of Monostrotos in the Flute. But let's not get too intense about it or we abandon opera (and the rest of the stage) all together.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

DavidA said:


> There is an awful lot of PC nonsense talked about this subject. To me (and I'm in my 70s) it has always been quite obvious that Butterfly was an abused girl and Pinkerton a bounder if not worse. I think the opera makes that quite clear. By all means we need to discuss with kids and maybe adults too the implications of the opera for today's society but let's not forget the thing is a fiction. When we talk of not using 'yellow face' then to be consistent we should surely talk of performing the opera only in Japanese. Sorry, but Pinkerton would speak American-English, of course! What is quite clear is that no-one would be speaking or singing Italian so the whole thing becomes a nonsense. If only we would remember that opera is about ACTING and that the Greek word for acting is 'mask'. An actor is someone who puts on a mask to hide his or her real identity. So the PC line that Butterfly should only be sung by a Japanese becomes nonsense. The stage is not a real place. People are acting. Of course, no-one wants to see racism on stage where other races are mocked as inferior and ways round that can be found, such as the role of Monostrotos in the Flute. But let's not get too intense about it or we abandon opera (and the rest of the stage) all together.


I would agree that political correctness has gone overboard at times, and even awry. But this matter still has relevance. But yes, let's not get too intense about it, otherwise we'll run the risk of getting away the true purpose of the fight (namely, against ignorance).


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I can't access the article - all I could see was the headlines and a still from the Met's _Turandot_, and that picture doesn't strike me as being offensive at all. We already have enough _regietheater_ which often takes things too far in the opposite direction as regards ignoring traditional settings and costumes, usually to suit the personal agenda of a politically-driven director. In the case of _Madama Butterfly_ have there ever been any complaints from the Japanese themselves with Western interpretations of Japanese dress etc.? No, thought not. And if ever there are any Japanese singers capable of doing justice to the roles of Pinkerton and Sharpless then it's all the same to me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I can't check off any of your choices. It's a non-issue. The business of opera companies is to perform operas and to perform them as well as possible. Good luck finding operas written in past centuries that conform to the prevailing sensibilities of our own time. The operas are what they are, and shouldn't be altered to conform to the latest political sensibilities. The old-fashioned word for that is "bowdlerization." 

If an opera, or any work of art, contains racial, sexual, national or other stereotypes that offend us, we have the privilege of going to a lecture or a movie or a street protest instead, of simply staying home, or - how about this one? - asking ourselves why we're unable to deal with realities that make us uncomfortable.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

or how about this one? - writing better operas than those penned in an age 10 times harder to live and compose in.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I can't check off any of your choices. It's a non-issue. The business of opera companies is to perform operas and to perform them as well as possible. Good luck finding operas written in past centuries that conform to the prevailing sensibilities of our own time. The operas are what they are, and shouldn't be altered to conform to the latest political sensibilities. The old-fashioned word for that is "bowdlerization."
> 
> If an opera, or any work of art, contains racial, sexual, national or other stereotypes that offend us, we have the privilege of going to a lecture or a movie or a street protest instead, of simply staying home, or - how about this one? - asking ourselves why we're unable to deal with realities that make us uncomfortable.


Okay, I see what you're saying, and your point is well made.

But Ms. Hu's editorial does have its relevance in this ongoing conflict in presenting art as it is _and _acknowledging the growing awareness and sensitivity of the past however contentious. That's really the gist of what she's saying.

A non-issue? I respectfully don't think so. But yes, we should be careful in balancing art as it presents itself and how people will perceive and react to it.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

DavidA said:


> When we talk of not using 'yellow face' then to be consistent we should surely talk of performing the opera only in Japanese. Sorry, but Pinkerton would speak American-English, of course! What is quite clear is that no-one would be speaking or singing Italian so the whole thing becomes a nonsense.


A recent production actually did go for linguistic accuracy:
https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...-project-madama-butterfly-20190403-story.html
https://www.laweekly.com/pacific-op...adama-butterfly-in-a-more-nuanced-production/
They also went for racially appropriate casting, but interestingly one of the artistic directors also said this: "If we started adapting things or trying to fix the politically incorrect things, it would be a slippery slope and we would not be telling the original story anymore. Instead, we didn't change anything. We tried to stay as literal as possible, painstakingly so."



DavidA said:


> So the PC line that Butterfly should only be sung by a Japanese becomes nonsense. The stage is not a real place. People are acting. Of course, no-one wants to see racism on stage where other races are mocked as inferior and ways round that can be found, such as the role of Monostrotos in the Flute. But let's not get too intense about it or we abandon opera (and the rest of the stage) all together.


I pretty much agree with this, although it depends how "realistic" you want the production to be (or possibly, _in what ways you want it to be realistic_). Strict realism demands the above route - Japanese playing Japanese etc. Especially if the character being played is a historical figure. But the alternative is to not bother with realism and trust the audience to follow you - one great recent example is Dev Patel as David Copperfield in Armando Iannucci's new film.

There's no point in gratutiously offending, but on the other hand there's often an over-cautiousness now, an assumption that anything even slightly "off" will upset the audience. Greater trust that the audience can distinguish between the _presentation_ of an outmoded idea and the _endorsement_ of that idea would be a help.

(I say this as a white male, of course, so by the current rules I should just shut up! But then again, being Irish I have at least some perspective on outsiders getting one's culture wrong. Thankfully, the days of really cringe-inducing depictions of Ireland or the Irish are mostly behind us. These days when someone says something outrageous, we tend to just shrug and say, "the Brits are at it again!" (it's usually the Brits...))


----------



## Machiavel (Apr 12, 2010)

No snowflakes, overly sensitive peoples is a thing now. They even remove a 17th century painting in cambridge because the vegans were trigger. Prepare for it, its going to be that way from now, peoples crying victim everywhere. adults still immature in theor late 30's.

It will not change now that from kindergarten they already social engineer kids. BE feminist, be for diversity, be antiwar, be vegan etc... Im happy I wont be there to see the cumble of society and going back to stupid ignorants peoples.

Flat earthers are ten of thousand in usa alone maybe even more.


As for operas its nothing short of experts at being victim again. they will always be a victim in their head. I mean the feminist of today are perpetual victim always asking for privilege now. If you think in advanced countries that womans are under privilege then you are a hypocrite plain and simple.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> A recent production actually did go for linguistic accuracy:
> https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...-project-madama-butterfly-20190403-story.html
> https://www.laweekly.com/pacific-op...adama-butterfly-in-a-more-nuanced-production/
> They also went for racially appropriate casting, but interestingly one of the artistic directors also said this: "If we started adapting things or trying to fix the politically incorrect things, it would be a slippery slope and we would not be telling the original story anymore. Instead, we didn't change anything. We tried to stay as literal as possible, painstakingly so."


It is of course absolutely ridiculous as it is an Italian opera. You might just as well perform the Mikado in Japanese. Though as Jonathan Miller showed, it is very, very English. The problem is, where do we stop? Falstaff only performed in English by English singers as English people are offended at these Italians taking one at them? Oh but of course it was Shakespeare originally. So maybe only English as Shakespeare's shade might be offended? And Fidelio and Carmen only in Spanish? The list is endless. Just think of who we can offend next! :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> Greater trust that the audience can distinguish between the _*p**resentation*_ of an outmoded idea and the _*endorsement*_ of that idea would be a help.


Yes it would.

Ms. Hu's article contains these statements:

"The Orientalist stereotyping in _Turandot,_ for instance, seeps into the music itself."

"To survive, opera has to confront the depth of its racism and sexism point-blank, treating classic operas as historical artifacts instead of dynamic cultural productions. Opera directors should approach the production of these classics as museum curators and professors - educating audiences about historical context and making stereotypes visible."

"Opera companies have a responsibility to present classics in a way that helps audiences understand how problematic histories continue to reverberate today."

"There are lines in the sand that we should draw, such as eliminating blackface, brownface and yellowface."

I find all of this condescending, an insult to the intelligence of audiences. There's nothing wrong with program notes that discuss the outmoded ideas embodied in an opera's plot, and nothing wrong with exercising taste in how such ideas are presented onstage, or even making some alterations to traditional stagings if the dramatic point is not compromised. But to say that directors should "make stereotypes visible" - which I assume means introducing something into the production that screams "This is a stereotype! It's bad!" or "Don't take it seriously!" - is going too far. Composers don't write operas to project social messages - or, when they do, they get to decide what those messages will be.

There's been controversy over the character of Otello - whether it's stereotyping to present him as a black man (as he's described by other characters) and whether white singers should perform him in "blackface." Well, Otello happens to be an emotionally volatile, dark-skinned African who murders his demure white European wife out of jealousy. What of it? Is that a stereotype? Maybe, but it's also possible in real life, and it's the story of the opera as composed by Verdi, based on Shakespeare. White men also murder out of jealousy. Murder and jealousy are ubiquitous in opera. Are black men exempt? And - for those who can't tell the difference - dark makeup is not "blackface"; the opera is not a minstrel show designed to caricature and subjugate black people. Otello does not have white lips, say "yis massa," play the banjo, and jump around like a drunken grasshopper.

Not long ago there was a production of Carmen in which she was not murdered by the enraged Jose but killed him instead. Someone's ideal of female liberation, apparently. Maybe we should have Desdemona leap out of bed, grab Otello's sword and run him through. But then someone would complain about the victimization of black men.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Good luck finding operas written in past centuries that conform to the prevailing sensibilities of our own time.


True. As I've often pointed out here, in general, theater, including musical theater, is an art that is much more specific to its place and time than is abstract music. That doesn't just mean that certain material that was okey-dokey for the original 19th century audience may seem shocking and racist to us now. It means that the entire meaning and purpose of a theatrical work from another time and/or culture can be lost if the audience is not educated in advance, or the work is not modified to make it more accessible, or some combination of the two. Beyond acknowledging that, I don't see how one can generalize about which is the best approach for all pre-20th century operas. So I can't vote in the poll either.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

Let us compose an opera wherein all proponents of pc are passed through a wood-chipper on stage.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

david johnson said:


> Let us compose an opera wherein all proponents of pc are passed through a wood-chipper on stage.


I wonder if you could come up with an appropriate tone row so you can write the sounds of people being wood-chippered. Maybe even add-in some _man_dolins (an obviously sexist instrument) as an accompaniment to spark further outrage.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

david johnson said:


> Let us compose an opera wherein all proponents of pc are passed through a wood-chipper on stage.


We have a whole sub forum for today's composer. That would be a challenge for them.


----------



## Lilijana (Dec 17, 2019)

Just read about how Seattle approaches the issue, and it seems good to me! Best to take these things as a learning opportunity to understand the differences between the past and the present and how we can always strive to better ourselves.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

When art is distorted for cultural / political education it is no longer art. it is, as someone else suggested, being defaced because it offends someone. That's why they bomb cathedrals too.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

philoctetes said:


> When art is distorted for cultural / political education it is no longer art.


That makes a good stand-alone aphorism.

....................................................................................................

OK. Now that it's stood alone for a minute - :tiphat:- I'll add that good art rarely makes good propaganda, and propaganda rarely makes good art. The true artist listens to a deeper music than the politician and the ad man, and it's for us to listen for his music and not try to set our own words to it, whether we like it or not.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

david johnson said:


> Let us compose an opera wherein all proponents of pc are passed through a wood-chipper on stage.



[What the actual f***?]


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


>


I couldn't even bring myself to say that much.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2019)

philoctetes said:


> When art is distorted for cultural / political education it is no longer art. it is, as someone else suggested, being defaced because it offends someone. That's why they bomb cathedrals too.


Except that all art is presented in a context - not in a vacuum. That is, in the case of opera, both the context provided by the production, and the context in which the audience views the production. Every context offers the potential for 'distortion' of the art. Consequently, the audience will always take away more than is intended or less than is intended - rarely exactly what is intended by either the production or by the composer.

It's a vexed question for production companies, and not one which is answered by countering with the simplistic, "It's PC gone mad." Unless, of course, we just shrug and say, "Who cares, it's only opera?"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Except that all art is presented in a context - not in a vacuum. That is, in the case of opera, both the context provided by the production, and the context in which the audience views the production. Every context offers the potential for 'distortion' of the art. Consequently, the audience will always take away more than is intended or less than is intended - rarely *exactly what is intended by either the production or by the composer.*
> 
> It's a vexed question for production companies, and not one which is answered by countering with the simplistic, "It's PC gone mad." Unless, of course, we just shrug and say, "Who cares, it's only opera?"


You make good points, except for the assumption that the composer himself has an exact intention he wants or expects to convey. Certainly he wants to convey something and not just anything, but most artists realize that a good work of art is "bigger" than its creator and may legitimately have meaning beyond what he thought he was putting there. Hence the challenge of producing an opera is not in finding some specific meaning and adhering to it but in finding possibilities within it which don't contradict or undermine it. That leaves plenty of latitude.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sounds like Seattle's doing fine. 

Thinking about how to deal with things like this is a problem. 

But we have much bigger problems, like legalized bribery in our politics, global warming, putting children in cages, suppressing minority people's vote, air and water pollution, the criminalization of poverty, denying healthcare to millions of people, the destruction of public education, declining wages, failing infrastructure, student loan debt, corruption in the finance industry....


----------



## Lilijana (Dec 17, 2019)

I'm with science on this 'issue' really. I do like the idea of creating new art, and even interpretations of older art, that can point to current issues such as the ones listed above.

I watched a very lovely chamber opera last year which presented a story of coming out as transgender and the experiences the character had in the early stages of transitioning. I've heard compositions which are inspired by the effects of climate change and other issues we are currently faced with. I do like very much that composers, artists, writers, entertainers are inspired by these things and I would love to see more opera companies (and other mainstream companies that perform classical music) to also take these issues on board, for the simple reason that art tends to reflect the time it was made in (and people today will always be projecting contemporary ideas onto older works of art/music/literature etc)


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> You make good points, *except for the assumption that the composer himself has an exact intention he wants or expects to convey.* Certainly he wants to convey something and not just anything, but most artists realize that a good work of art is "bigger" than its creator and may legitimately have meaning beyond what he thought he was putting there. Hence the challenge of producing an opera is not in finding some specific meaning and adhering to it but in finding possibilities within it which don't contradict or undermine it. That leaves plenty of latitude.


No assumption on my part that the artist has an _exact _purpose (you should know me better by now). But all artists have _some _kind of purpose in creating their art, even if it was 'just' to have a good time doing it, or to make money. It's as good a starting point as any in deciding how/what to produce/present. My point is that those who reject productions that monkey with what they deem is the 'right way' to do it are making a naive assumption that such a thing can be derived simply from its origins (that is, the score and libretto).

I note the point made earlier that we should just let it be, not get worked up...it's only fiction, after all. I have much higher opinion of the value of art. Without the literature, cinema, theatre and music I have consumed in my lifetime, I would not be the person I am now. It's not just art. It's the stuff of life. I'm no opera fan, but to relegate its usefulness in this way is misguided. Consequently, the questions posed in the NY Times article are worth considering.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

The whole thing seems ridiculous to me, sorry. 

So many characters in opera have their stereotypical aspects, it's the nature of the art form, surely? 

They are works of art, and within reason untouchable.

I must confess to never having listened to Boris Godunov and come away with a loathing for the Catholic Church, Porgy and Bess and an utter disdain for all black people, and I am afraid The Merchant of Venice has not managed to inspire rabid anti-Semitism (Rheingold did a better job :devil. Mind you my extensive expertise in the field of Japanese culture is exclusively based upon the teachings of Messrs Gilbert and Sullivan and their docu-drama The Mikado.

The problem with this sort of snowflake attitude is that it has caused a vicious backlash against all things "politically" correct. Hence the Western world now has the likes of Trump and Boris in power. Thanks, you daft gits.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

To me, this is simply a non-issue.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Except that all art is presented in a context - not in a vacuum. That is, in the case of opera, both the context provided by the production, and the context in which the audience views the production. Every context offers the potential for 'distortion' of the art. Consequently, the audience will always take away more than is intended or less than is intended - rarely exactly what is intended by either the production or by the composer.
> 
> It's a vexed question for production companies, and not one which is answered by countering with the simplistic, "It's PC gone mad." Unless, of course, we just shrug and say, "Who cares, it's only opera?"


For me it's being transported into the original context that makes it a work of art by a certain person at a certain time. If you change the context it may still be a work of art, but now it's POP art that shuns the original context in favor of something more commercial and easily assimilated as entertainment for weak hearts.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

I'm quite tired of watching people steal art from the past to recreate it with their imprint of authority and approval. Leave the old stuff alone and make your own, and make it in your own context, by your own design, and it will be your to do what you want. And if you can't maybe you are not worthy to call yourself an "artist" but just another second-tier underachiever who is jealous of true masterpieces.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2019)

CnC Bartok said:


> The whole thing seems ridiculous to me, sorry.
> 
> So many characters in opera have their stereotypical aspects, it's the nature of the art form, surely?
> 
> ...


I'd make two observations in response. One, is that works of art may or may not be untouchable, depending on whether they are fixed (like a statue or a painting) in which case they can only be imitated; or...how shall I put it...'fluid', such as a musical score, where reproduction is essential and, therefore, touchable. Whether art _should_ be untouchable is, consequently, moot.

Two, it's all very well each of us claiming that we are not adversely influenced by, for example, racism in Mme Butterfly, but that's not the point. The point is that if art has power to influence at all, there exists the possibility that it will adversely influence someone vulnerable to such power. Consequently, there is a responsibility to consider what may be taken from art and act accordingly. And surely, everyone here agrees that it does have the power, either by the great works ennobling the human spirit, or the trash dumbing us all down (apparently). I don't see how we can have it both ways.



philoctetes said:


> For me it's being transported into the original context that makes it a work of art by a certain person at a certain time. If you change the context it may still be a work of art, but now it's POP art that shuns the original context in favor of something more commercial and easily assimilated as entertainment for weak hearts.


I'm not sure I follow. What is "the original context"?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

science said:


> Sounds like Seattle's doing fine.
> 
> Thinking about how to deal with things like this is a problem.
> 
> But we have much bigger problems, like legalized bribery in our politics, global warming, putting children in cages, suppressing minority people's vote, air and water pollution, the criminalization of poverty, denying healthcare to millions of people, the destruction of public education, declining wages, failing infrastructure, student loan debt, corruption in the finance industry....


Maybe parents should not take their kids or send their kids into the US illegally, and all will be good.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Maybe parents should not take their kids or send their kids into the US illegally, and all will be good.


Let's talk about politics somewhere else.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

science said:


> Let's talk about politics somewhere else.


Just answering your post.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

I miss the poll option "It's not the operas that's problematic, it's the public"


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

My thoughts:

A) If the New York Times prints it you should assume it's a lie or worse - insidious agitprop

B) If an article uses 'problematic' as a descriptor or if it complains about statues it should be trashed along with the author.

C) If a non-European has a problem with European art then that, as a European, is not my concern. Perhaps Katherine Hu can direct her article at her native China in order to advocate for a moratorium on performances of Madame Butterfly in that country. I won't hold my breath.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

First of all, can we identify just what "problematical opera" means ? Problematical how ? Difficult to perform for the singers, orchestra and conductor ? Very long operas requiring a huge orchestra and cast etc , operas that are not immediately appealing to many opera goers because of complexity , musical idiom etc ? Operas which are al;agedly "racist ?


----------

