Anthony Tommasini from the New York Times has written an article in “Artsbeat” recently entitled “Adapting, Revising, Provoking”.  He says that there are mixed feelings among the public about creative teams revamping productions of operas and musicals.  He talks about the recent re-creation of Gershwin’s “Porgy and Bess” at the American Repertory Theater in Cambridge, Mass., last fall and the public’s outrage calling this revamp “no reimagined adaptation but a desecration of a great American opera.”

Tommasini does not take a side in this article but rather presents the information.  I think the reason for that is because every circumstance is different and according to what Tommasini says, even the Gershwin brothers had to cut sections out of “Porgy and Bess” because of time constraints when it was first performed in 1935.  But the issue here is, he was the original composer, the original imagination that brought life into this production.  He had to cut complete arias out of the piece and he was saddened by this.  It is one thing to have to cut out stage directions and such but to cut the music is much more devastating to the creator.  In addition, Gershwin also changed all of the recitative to spoken rather than sung.

I think the issue here is that the reason why creative teams want to revise these productions is because they may not speak to an audience the same way as they would have when they were first created.  Things change.  So, in order to get the most out of the performance, the information must be conveyed in a different way.  It is ok for visual information to be conveyed differently,  but only if it leaves the music unchanged.  When one starts to cut too much and add too much, they might as well call the production something else.  That is exactly what happened in director Peter Brook’s adaptation of t Mozart’s “Magic Flute,” presented by the Lincoln Center Festival last summer.  “Because there is little protection of classical works, Mr. Brook did what he wanted with the piece.”  However, he renamed the piece “A Magic Flute” and not “The Magic Flute” because he did not want to think he was reinventing Mozart’s opera.  Rather, he reintroduced themes of the opera with a smaller production in a 100 minute performance and incorporating other works by Mozart.  This truly wasn’t a re-creation, so it did not receive any criticism.

Tommasini states that, “There are no ground rules when familiar operas and, for that matter, musicals and plays are revived in adapted or reconceived versions.”  He also adds that, “Works still under copyright protection allow limited tinkering and are protected (or not) by the estates of the creators. (That the Gershwin estate gave the O.K. for the revamped “Porgy” is a sore point for those who love the opera.)”  Perhaps, the Gershwin estate did not examine the revamped “Porgy” closely?  Or is it that this re-creation did in fact mirror the Gershwin’s original intent and that is why they allowed its performance?  It’s impossible to know what the Gershwins would have thought or Mozart or any playwright for that matter.  It is the responsibility of the creation team to keep true to the music as well as the intention of the composer.