Almaty, Kazakhstan: Surprisingly Cosmopolitan City in the Middle of Whoknowswhereby Randi / October 30, 2017
Woot it’s Theatre Thursday! Today’s review is of the Broadway musical “War Paint”, which ends its run on Sunday.
The Broadway musical “War Paint”, which ends its respectable run this weekend, flew in completely under my radar, but once it was on it, I was so hooked. A new musical with a brand-new score, telling the story of two of the greatest women in business, and starring two of the greatest women in musical theatre? Sign me up! Doesn’t that sound just kick you in the shins spit on your neck fantastic? I don’t know how the anticipation of this show was so contained, because in theory it is just the greatest idea ever: Christine Ebersole, Patti LuPone, a new score by Korie and Frankel (who wrote the glorious “Grey Gardens” for Christine), and a biographical tale of cosmetics giants Elizabeth Arden and Helena Rubenstein and their long rivalry? I still can’t get over how incredible it is in theory. In theory.
The Broadway musical “War Paint”, which ends its respectable run this weekend, flew in completely under my radar, but once it was on it, I was so hooked. A new musical with a brand-new score, telling the story of two of the greatest women in business, and starring two of the greatest women in musical theatre? Sign me up! Doesn’t that sound just kick you in the shins spit on your neck fantastic? I don’t know how the anticipation of this show was so contained, because in theory it is just the greatest idea ever: Christine Ebersole, Patti LuPone, a new score by Korie and Frankel (who wrote the glorious “Grey Gardens” for Christine), and a biographical tale of cosmetics giants Elizabeth Arden and Helena Rubenstein and their long rivalry? I still can’t get over how incredible it is in theory. In theory.
GODDAMN QUEEEEENS
While the performances from Ebersole and LuPone were as phenomenal as one could have hoped, the show was decent but lacking. Despite having an out-of-town tryout in Chicago, it felt like it still needed edits and touch-ups. Based on the biographical book by Lindy Woodhead (erma what a name), “War Paint” chronicles Elizabeth Arden’s pink, waspy, lady-like domination of the cosmetics industry and American business world. That is, until Helena Rubenstein, the exotic Jewish immigrant from Poland, with her chic and harder edge and her focus on science, challenged Arden in every way to be her business equal and archrival. I am so in on this premise, because first of all it tells a story about a really crucial business rivalry that spurred even higher growth in the American cosmetics industry, and second of all, that rivalry happened to be between two middle aged women. You rarely get plays or movies that focus on women’s role in business, and if you are lucky enough to get such a story, the sole woman will be young and hot and surrounded by men who can take credit for her success. There’s no way in hell the story would focus on two women, and two older women at that. Yet “War Paint” does the impossible, and that is freaking amazing, and I wish that the show itself was as wonderful as that premise. But even with weaknesses in the score and book, it’s such a treat to be able to witness two legends of musical theatre portray two legends of industry when Hillary isn’t president.
I read some of Lindy Woodhead’s book (erma) when writing this up because I am hella professional, but going into the show I knew nothing about the lives of Rubenstein or Arden except that they were successful businessers whose names still carry significant weight today. Going in cold, I was so pumped to be blown away. However, from the start I could tell that I would be annoyingly unsatisfied. There were moments of greatness – LuPone’s humor, Ebersole’s vulnerability, both of their voices (in SUCH good shape), a few of their songs. But overall, the score was mediocre, the book was a g-d mess (such eye rolling at the dialogue and some unnecessary whole scenes), and the choreography was meh. If I’m sitting in an audience thinking “I could do that choreo” and I’m right? That doesn’t belong on a professional stage.
But really no matter how much I criticize it (and how much there is to criticize), it was amazing to be able to see these two pillars of musical theatre not only again but together. Patti’s vocal placement remains unparalleled. Christine is so lovely and heartbreaking as always. The show was unquestionably worth seeing for these performances, even though I questioned seeing it because I’ve seen both of them in other and better shows. At one moment I thought to myself “dammit they are incredible” and then was like “oh well yeah that’s why there are four Tony Awards up there between the two of them.”
Okay so what’s it about plot-wise and not just historically? It starts with a look inside Arden’s well-oiled machine, her super successful and popular salon with the famous red door, and all the inner workings and workers who keep it moving. Arden had pioneered the lighter touch to makeup to make it okay for higher class women to wear it, mostly tricking them with pink porcelain containers that were responsible for like 90% of a product’s cost. But then this brassy Jewish immigrant with an AMAZ accent comes around with an enticing brand that threatens to take Arden’s top spot in the industry. Whereas Arden’s was pink and soft and old moneyed, Rubenstein’s aesthetic is sleek and chic, black and white, sexual and violent, grabbing the attention of a lot of customers. The two battled back and forth, stealing ideas and secrets, trying to get a similar product out before the other, and most importantly upping their game consistently in their rivalry, which actually benefited everyone.
It was most interesting to see the two strong women reconcile the fact that they are pioneers for strong women in industry, with the fact that their success is coming in an industry telling women they aren’t good enough as is. An actual quote of Rubenstein’s is “There are no ugly women, only lazy ones,” which is HILARIOUS but like, terrible. This provocative conflict between what they represented and what they were actually doing added to all the interesting conflict with each other and the competition that was responsible for a lot of later success, when either could have easily just skated by instead of constantly trying to innovate. There was SO MUCH potential for this story, right?? and I hate that it wasn’t a home run.
One of the biggest problems for me was that Rubenstein’s and Arden’s male companions’ and partners’ storylines and songs take up WAY too much space. Their whole thing reeks of fragile white masculinity and it is so eyeroll through all of it. It made me angry that even in my safe space I couldn’t get away from white men complaining when they might not be in charge of literally every single little bit of the world and oh how terrible it was for them to have (gasp) ladybosses. But more than that, I was furious that it seemed like the creators were seemingly trying to shore up a show about two strong amazing women by adding a B plot about their partners, adding a male story just in case the ignorant masses would be too scandalized by a show only about women. Like the thought that “oh to be safe we need a lot about the men in their lives” was probably the focus of a lot of early discussions. And it made the show worse. Trust female stories to be enough.
Aside from these men, my other big problem with the show was another white man, Charles Revson, who grows up to form Revlon and who in the movie version would be played by that creepy guy who shows up in literally every TV show, Isaac Heller. Revson is responsible for nail polish being so easy and accessible. Early on, he tried to sell his product to both women, who both passed. His bit could have been a short thing just so we knew his name and his deal and that both women passed, and his later enormous success – and his overtaking both Arden and Rubenstein in sales – would have had the same impact on the audience, as we realize oh shit this was probably a big mistake on both their parts. But to have looong boring scenes where he tries to sell his product and then later a whole drawn out mess with his big Revlon commercial/musical number? We did not need to see the TV commercial for Not One of the Main Characters. And we REALLY didn’t need that mess where Arden tries to warn Revson’s model girlfriend that she should be careful being his model because…actually it’s unclear why she felt so sad about the model, except that maybe she meant to say ‘don’t rely on your looks, they fade’ and was guessing at how sad the pretty girl might feel one day? BUT WHY WOULD THAT MAKE A COSMETICS GIANT SAD THAT JUST MEANS SHE’D HAVE A DEFINITE FUTURE CUSTOMER.
In the book (#woodhead), it’s clear that both women’s failure to recognize Revson as a serious player in the cosmetics industry and as a potential competitor was a huge mistake, and I think that could have effectively been shown without giving him unnecessary stage time. The women were too busy concentrating on fighting with and one-upping each other to notice new opponents creeping around them. This is an important fact, but the show addresses it way too messily.
But that competition and rivalry was the best part, creating such drama and intrigue between the two as representatives of their companies. They engaged in back and forth recipe leaking thanks to their partners who swapped companies (that should have been the focus of the men’s stories – that they both left to work in the rival company – AND THAT’S IT), and that led the FDA to require cosmetics to list every single ingredient on the label. We have all the shady dealings of these women to thank for knowing what’s in our stuff. How interesting is that? That’s strong material I wish we saw more of. (There was a Senate hearing or two but I wanted more and I wanted facts!) Both had to rename products and rethink advertising campaigns – especially when we saw both of them sell creams that were identical but one was sold for night and one for day. Companies still pull that shit today though when we can clearly see it’s all the same ingredients!
I also loved that we saw how these amazing women adapted when the war broke out – by creating products specifically for women in action and by veering away from using materials being rationed. This was interesting! Do more of that! I loved that they said they were helping to provide women in action with the war paint (take a shot) they needed to stay strong. The commitment of these women to make the companies they built as strong as possible could have made such a solid show if the creators believed in that story enough. Luckily the two performances are incredible, as I said. And not just their singing; they are some of the best actresses too. Patti’s biggest line, delivered when she is yet again trying to think of ways to destroy her rival, was, “It is dangerous to leave an enemy wounded. The attack must be fatal.” It’s a good line and her delivery was one hundred emoji but it did NOT need to get extended audience applause. What the crap kind of psychopaths was I sitting among.
Christine’s best line won’t really translate to the page, but when she was dismissing all the other sources of competition in the industry (really, they only had eyes for each other), she waves off the idea of being threatened by one of them because “she’s from Hoboken!” Right it sounds like nothing but Ebersole’s delivery was maybe the best of any line ever by anyone and the audience was crying. Patti’s funniest moments were from her ridiculous accent that I LOVED. It made her say things like ‘shits’ instead of ‘sheets’. “Where’s that contract?” “It’s right here on the shits.” Obsessed.
See I complain but there was so much good in this show. I just so badly wanted it to be better. The big number “Face to Face”, the duet performed on the Tonys, felt like an important piece of musical theatre history, just watching these two sing a duet. And Arden’s big 11 o’clock number “Pink”, about how her dismay that her entire life’s legacy might just be boiled down to her signature color, was Tony worthy in my opinion. And honestly, the costumes stand out as the most striking part of the show. They really deserved to win the Tony. I’ve never really noticed costumes before, not enough to realize that I’m noticing them, but I was in awe of Catherine Zuber’s work here. She is flames.
Side note, I learned afterward that Elizabeth Arden’s real name was Florence Nightingale Graham lolol her shitty parents.
So if somehow you have the chance to see this show in the next few days, you should. It’s so frustrating that it wasn’t constructed more thoughtfully and that all the songs aren’t as good as the best ones, but there is still some greatness in the story, and seeing LuPone and Ebersole together is a magical experience.
THEATRE
- The Nederlander redid the bathrooms since I was there last and it’s maybe the best bathroom situation I’ve ever seen in a theatre except for the Lyric, that shit is enormous.
- I got rush tickets for a Saturday matinee right before showtime. Definitely one of the easiest rushes I’ve ever encountered. (Although probably not for its final weekend.)
- This had the latest start of any show I’ve been to, I think. But it was a Saturday matinee and it was the oldest crowd I’ve ever seen too, older even than the people on the cruise I was on 8 years ago when it was me and husband and then 100 people from The Villages retirement home in Florida. So, I guess there’s at least a reason.
STAGEDOOR
OMG are you kidding, you do not stagedoor on two-show days for people of this calibre! They’re not coming out for shit!
Related Posts
The Visit at the National Theatre, Or This Old Broad is Crazy But She Ain’t Wrong
It’s Theatre Thursday! Today’s show is The Visit, which opens tonight and plays at the National Theatre (Olivier Theatre) until May 13.
Full confesh time: As soon as The Visit went on sale, I bought tickets to the first preview because I assumed it was the Kander & Ebb musical version that I never got to see on Broadway with Chita and I was like YESS I CAN FINALLY SEE THIS WEIRD AF SHOW THAT DID THE TONY AWARDS PERFORMANCE THAT MADE ME UNCOMFORTABLE! It is not the musical version. This is the latest adaptation of the classic 1956 German play, more faithful to the original than the musical (and the many other adaptations that have come before) and this time translated/written by Tony Kushner, if you can believe it. (“If I can believe it? Watch this – I believe it!”) The Visit, a classic play about humanity, revenge, and also the stain of capitalism (true), tells of the world’s richest lady, Claire Zachanassian, who returns to her poverty-stricken hometown and makes them an offer they should refuse but don’t. The questions it raises about morality and greed and wrath are the sort that stick with you and make you uneasy, a sign of effective theatre.
Although I have lots of problems with the third act and the overall success of the show, I enjoyed this production and recommend seeing it, if only for the strong star turns from the great Lesley Manville and Hugo Weaving (who I took a picture with at one of the Lord of the Rings premieres but it was before smartphones and I don’t know where that photo is dammit). Kushner’s adaptation updates the location of the action to New York state, namely the destitute town of Slurry, which is a terrible name (on purpose; the original German name was supposed to evoke manure). When the hot witch? seductive demon? sexy bionic elder lady Claire finally comes back for a visit (the visit) after leaving as a teen, the down-on-their-luck residents hope that she will be their savior. Maybe if she paid enough in taxes you wouldn’t have to rely on her feeling philanthropic! Claire indeed is willing to give the town lots of money, like the kind that starts with a ‘b’ and that no private citizen should have control of. This money would more than save the town; it would make every penniless resident rich. But there’s a condition, and it’s dark, which you guessed because she is a scary scary sexy lady (like the song from Crazy Ex Girlfriend): she will only give the money in exchange for what she considers ‘justice’. Her version of ‘justice’? The townspeople killing her ex-boyfriend Alfred. YEP.
So like, 40 maybe 50 years have passed since Claire and Alfred, who still lives in Slurry, had their little teenage romance, and despite 7 husbands and traveling all over the world and becoming the richest person on earth, Claire is still angry that Alfred broke up with her. Or so it seems at first. At first you’re like oh this bitch cray, no one in that town better think twice about telling her to shove her money. I mean you’re talking about MURDER. But despite initially laughing off her proposal and telling Alfred that they would never even consider it, the townspeople slowly start to realize how much their lives would change by sacrificing just one eensy person.
And as more details come out about their history, what Claire suffered through, and who exactly composes her entourage (this part straight f-ed me up), you understand Claire’s position better: Alfred didn’t just abandon her. What he did was pure evil. I completely get being furious about what he did for decades and wanting some kind of justice. But, murdering him isn’t justice. My biggest disappointment with this show is that at no point does anyone say that murdering a wrongdoer does not beget justice, and that enacting such revenge doesn’t help anyone. Every time someone said the word justice I thought to myself “you keep a-using that word. I don’t-a think you know what it means.” I had recently watched The Good Place finale, so the whole ‘he did a horrible deed 50 years ago and should be punished eternally for it’ thing was a stark contrast to that show’s message that everyone should at least have a chance at redemption. (I mean not that Alfred ever seemed interesting in apologizing for his actions, but I guess that would have changed things too much.)
The first act was quite gripping, despite a slow start due to some weird acting choices on the part of the townspeople (also in New York state there should not be southern accents, but that is the most common ‘American accent’ choice usually). Also in that first kind of rocky opening were some REALLY WEIRD lines about Jews? Like very very disturbing that would be okay if anything came of them or they were supposed to be important but it just felt like random slurs? I’m really surprised at Kushner here, who is a Jew, and what he was trying to achieve. I have noticed his other works having such weird anti-Jew lines almost seemingly for the hell of it, not doing anything with them to make it worthwhile (I wonder if he uses it as an easy way to show that certain characters are flawed/bad, not realizing how anti-Semitic London/UK/Europe is). It took me out of it for a bit as I tried to understand his purpose. Ugh I got Kushlash.
Then, the second act is truly superb, one of the best, most gripping pieces of theatre. It was only 45 minutes and every second of that was perfectly calibrated. As the townspeople grapple with their decision, the whole play felt like a slow creeping movement towards evil, almost like a secret of the ooze, and it’s reflected incredibly in the blocking, with excellent direction from Jeremy Herrin. If the first act’s dark comedy was a B, this second act’s riveting psychological thriller was an A+.
And then the third act was beyond disappointing. It didn’t effectively capitalize on the gripping psycho-drama proffered in Act II. So much happens that is indefensible from a dramaturg perspective: Why don’t Alfred’s wife and kids seem to care about what’s happening AT ALL? Why is Alfred letting the press take pictures of him and his family in his shop? Why is this townsperson pretending to stab Alfred for a photo – when the journalist asking for it has NO idea about the deal?? (That last one really bugs me to no end. Like wtaf.) That is nonsense. There’s also so much that needed to be cut: the entire car ride with Alfred’s family was a waste of time, as was the horrible annoying TV personalities doing their bits at the town meeting, and then, to add insult to injury, repeating everything because their feeds weren’t working or something. This was some real nonsense that almost had me screaming.
So this first preview was four hours (although it never really felt long at all; it was well paced aside from some bullshit in the third act). A few days later, I saw on the NT website that the run time had been amended to 3 hours 50 minutes, and then a few days later to 3 hours 40 minutes, and now it’s at 3 hours 30 minutes. I hope that’s all due to work on the third act, because if ONE SECOND of the second act was touched, that’s a real tragedy. (Apparently the Broadway musical version was 95 minutes, which is hilarious to me. What did Chita just show up and sing one song and then they all do a murder and you’re out before you even have to pee? I peed 5 times during this event.)
But the most disappointing thing (well the TV reporters bit was pretty terrible) was that there is no discussion of forgiveness, or redemption, or how by considering this offer the townspeople are just as bad or worse as teenage Alfred. While the play is overall pretty good, always interesting, and almost never boring, it’s still such a wasted opportunity for exploring these themes. There is so much fodder for how to deal with remorse and past sins as well as anger and desire for vengeance, and of course what actual justice is, but any real contemplation of all this happens offstage.
INFORMATION
There are two intervals so regardless of what the ever-changing run time is, that’s always good.
My favorite place to sit in the Olivier is the front row of the circle. I usually do stalls but the Olivier is such an enormous cavern of a place that you get a better view from the circle. Also the inner aisles are pretty central. Best of all, it’s formed so you only see the stage and none of the people in the stalls on their phones. Also people don’t seem to know that there are bathrooms on either side of the circle, inside the doors, and there are usually okay lines. What does have a line is the new water dispenser on the bar, which is a nice idea but now since there’s only one instead of a few pitchers that line is longer than the bar’s!
My best tip for the NT as always is to bring your small bag, not a big one. They make you check purses and backpacks &c that are bigger than like a piece of paper.
London’s Current Opera Offerings Apparently Chosen by E.L. James, Directed by Roman Polanski, with Chris Brown as Consultant
macauley.cuny.edu
WHAT is happening in London’s opera scene? A whole lot of shit, that’s what’s happening. Like there wasn’t enough misogyny in the world and in all forms of entertainment, now London’s opera bigwigs apparently decided that all the biggest summer productions at the city’s most respected opera houses would not only be anti-feminist but anti-female, pro-rape, pro-violence against women, and not good. Big steaming poop messes are at the English National Opera and the Royal Opera House and are unrelated to this week’s heat wave.
First off, the one that has been in the news. Guillaume Tell at the Royal Opera. This Rossini opera is about William Tell, could you have guessed? You know what’s interesting about this show? It was the last opera Rossini wrote even though he lived for 40 more years after it. I think he was shamed by nighttime visions of this future production that kept him up at night and he was all, I’m never giving these futuristic f**kers any more fodder to be assholes with, or something.
So, it starts with the Lone Ranger theme, and then villagers sing about weddings, archery contests occur, and Swiss people get upset that their country is oppressed (by Austria). After two acts of that comes a scene in which soldier baddies celebrate 100 years Austrian oppression in Switzerland. The baddies drink and sing and then notice that Tell and his son aren’t joining in, so they’re like, oh we gotta arrest you, even though we respect what a great archer you are, do you want to tell your son to run or is he gonna stick around?
So that’s the third act of Guillaume Tell. Do you know what happens in the current abomination at the Royal Opera House? When they celebrate Austrian rule, the soldiers drink and sing and sing and drink, and then they take the servant girl who is providing the alcohol, and they force themselves on her, and they pour all the wine on her so she’s soaked through, and then the men put her on the table and take off her clothes (the audience sees her naked), and all the many many men sexually assault her further at gunpoint before Tell rescues her.
That doesn’t sound like the opera as written, does it? It’s not. That is utter bullshit completely added in by the dirty f**kface director Damiano Michieletto, bag o’ dicks director of opera at Covent Garden Kasper Hotlen, and the producers at the ROH. None of that violence adds anything to the show, so there is no excuse for it. I’m sure they argue that they wanted to show how terrible those men were, but it was not necessary to do so, especially to such an extent. All it really accomplished was reminding everyone in the audience that people still consider violence against women to be totally okay and permitted. Luckily, the audience booed during this scene, so much so that news outlets actually did mention the booing, but how many people walked out? How many cancelled their subscriptions? What’s more important, and disturbing: how many people are now buying tickets to the rest of the performances to catch this ‘newsworthy’ production?
This production should have been vilified for this gratuitous brutality and I know I will not be giving the Royal Opera House any money until they apologize. Indeed, Holten said they will not apologize for the scene and they refuse to edit it even though it will be broadcast in movie theatres. He described it as “an honest attempt to talk about the reality of war” and said people maybe “felt we should have warned them better, as people may not want to be exposed to sexual violence”. That’s not it, you ignorant douchebag. People don’t want to see in their entertainment depictions of what at least 60% of your audience has to live with and fear every day of their lives if it is not necessary to convey the message you hope to. And this was not necessary. Did you know, Kasper, that that’s the definition of gratuitous? I’m sure it was really fun for all you men involved to be like, ‘oh hey we can do this shit because it makes people realize how bad war is.’ A) People know how bad war is. B) All it did was remind people how terrible modern society still is when it comes to understanding rape culture. You, sir, do not understand it.
***
Now to the one that has not received any media attention that I know of, probably because people with the power to make things known in the media don’t really realize how misogynistic this one is, especially since there’s only so much opera coverage allowed by the populace. “Carmen”, Bizet’s famous opera about the wiles of a Gypsy woman, is playing at the English National Opera. First things first, the ENO does all their productions in English. It sucks. I’ve been there a lot, and the productions are sometimes great, but it’s never my or most opera fans preference to see works translated from their original language. I saw “Rigoletto” once in Austria and it was in German instead of Italian. It was terrible. Oh but they did the famous aria “La donna e mobile” in Italian. Just that part.
Moving on, “Carmen” is a pretty misogynistic opera to begin with, but ENO succeeded in making it even more gratuitously so with this ‘modernized’ production. I don’t understand why directors feel the need to unnecessarily change aspects of great works just for the sake of changing it, when it doesn’t add any artistic value. There are some alterations or reimaginings or revivals that are worthy, like the recent “Spring Awakening” production in California that used many deaf and disabled cast members to highlight the rampant lack of understanding and capability in the show. That sounds brilliant. The half-assed modernization of “Carmen” was not: it kept most of the same ideas – lots of soldiers, being in Spain, smugglers – and added hysterically hideous ‘90s-era-Italy outfits and like 6 cars, doing the smuggling, onstage at one time. I don’t know what they were going for.
So “Carmen” tells the story of a seductive gypsy who seduces men and is a gypsy. She is a cigarette girl among hundreds of cigarette girls who apparently work in the same barracks as hundreds of soldiers. It was a big cast. The soldiers are all disgusting. They treat the women like toys and Carmen like a piece of meat. They grope everyone and repeatedly stick her face in their crotchular regions. But Carmen enjoys it, apparently, because she is seductive, so she is asking for it. Hence it being a super misogynistic show as written, differentiating it from the above monstrosity.
The soldiers beg for her to choose a lover and stop taunting them by existing, so she chooses Jose, who was ignoring her. Smart plan! She sings her super famous aria that goes ‘da dum dum dum!’ about how those who love her should beware. Then all the girls fight like really actually fight, because who doesn’t love women fighting and hitting and scratching each other with their claws? Carmen is accused of whipping out a knife in what should have been merely a skin fight, so the male official says she’s going to be arrested and tells Jose to tie her hands together while they figure out what to do because small man brain. That’s what happens normally.
Here, the men tie Carmen to a flagpole with the official’s workbelt, take off her shirtdress, and position her so she’s on her knees. People I talked to at intermission thought this was disgusting. One woman who knows the opera well felt that tying her up completely, as opposed to just her hands, unnecessarily made her subordinate and submissive and was just gross.
Carmen then beguiles Jose, tasked with guarding her, and he becomes pretty infatuated with her. He lets her escape, whereupon he is imprisoned for a month or two.
When he gets out, he and we find Carmen with her smuggler friends, who are driving regular-sized cars across the stage to show how modern the show is. Three women (and one little girl, sadly) compose the group with 3 or so indistinguishably disgusting men, who assault them and grope them all with no regard for which woman it is or what she’s doing or how drunk she is (very drunk). They meet Escamillo, the famous toreador, who sings the famous toreador song (and not very well, also sadly). Escamillo ‘falls in love’ with Carmen, who is instead in love with her Jose, whom she is now seeing for the second time ever. Jose has to go back to camp for nighttime, and Carmen, being an awful no good female who doesn’t understand that men have to work, gets really upset that he isn’t willing to sacrifice his job for her, because if he really loved her he would. This is apparently how Rossini thought women’s little brains worked. As written, Jose’s superior officer arrives looking for Carmen (every man thinks he is in love with her), and Jose fights him. Having done that, he can’t go back to soldiering, so he joins the smugglers.
Here, he punches Carmen instead, for mocking his need to go back to work. She falls to the ground in fetal position, where she remains while Jose sings not about how he’s sorry but about how much he loves her. Then he cuddles up next to her and declares his love more. And what choice does she have but to accept it? What other kind of love could she possibly know?
Then more cars appear and it’s really just nonsense.
Then, Carmen gets bored with Jose, because that’s how women are, those fickle people, and the toreador tells her he loves her. Hey guess what, she returns the favor now. That happens really with no build up, I thought she was lying, but that’s how women do, just transfer affection really easily when they’re bored. Then Carmen and her friends do tarot cards, and Carmen gets the one saying she’s going to die. No one else seems really worried, though Carmen tells them it’s probably Jose.
Escamillo invites pretty much all of Spain to see him in his next bull-fight, and during that famous song we get to watch 100 or so actors in neon shorts and smartphones jumping up and down in unison for a good 2 minutes. It’s like they stopped trying. Anyway, outside the arena, Carmen and her two girlfriends are about to enter, before they leave her and are like, ‘Hey don’t get killed, we know that’s a possibility but we’re going to leave you alone now.’ Carmen keeps a watchful eye until she needs to do her makeup, and Jose sneaks in while she is looking in the compact, because oh girls with their makeup! So silly! So Jose is devastated that she no longer wants to be with him, even though he hit her, and even though now she loves someone else, so he kills her. At the end, after Jose kills her, he normally confesses to the murder. Here, instead, he grabs her by the lifeless foot and drags her offstage as the lights go out. Cute!
So ENO is not nearly as guilty as ROH for disgusting and gratuitous anti-female sentiment, because so much of it is in the text, but how they chose to augment what was already a plethora of misogyny reinforces how normal all the people involved considered it to be. This already has violence against women, but let’s make it worse! This one doesn’t have violence against women, so let’s add a lot, for art’s sake. It’s not art, guys. It’s violence, and it’s perpetuating the acceptance and sickening tolerance of rape culture.
So that’s the third act of Guillaume Tell. Do you know what happens in the current abomination at the Royal Opera House? When they celebrate Austrian rule, the soldiers drink and sing and sing and drink, and then they take the servant girl who is providing the alcohol, and they force themselves on her, and they pour all the wine on her so she’s soaked through, and then the men put her on the table and take off her clothes (the audience sees her naked), and all the many many men sexually assault her further at gunpoint before Tell rescues her.
That doesn’t sound like the opera as written, does it? It’s not. That is utter bullshit completely added in by the dirty f**kface director Damiano Michieletto, bag o’ dicks director of opera at Covent Garden Kasper Hotlen, and the producers at the ROH. None of that violence adds anything to the show, so there is no excuse for it. I’m sure they argue that they wanted to show how terrible those men were, but it was not necessary to do so, especially to such an extent. All it really accomplished was reminding everyone in the audience that people still consider violence against women to be totally okay and permitted. Luckily, the audience booed during this scene, so much so that news outlets actually did mention the booing, but how many people walked out? How many cancelled their subscriptions? What’s more important, and disturbing: how many people are now buying tickets to the rest of the performances to catch this ‘newsworthy’ production?
This production should have been vilified for this gratuitous brutality and I know I will not be giving the Royal Opera House any money until they apologize. Indeed, Holten said they will not apologize for the scene and they refuse to edit it even though it will be broadcast in movie theatres. He described it as “an honest attempt to talk about the reality of war” and said people maybe “felt we should have warned them better, as people may not want to be exposed to sexual violence”. That’s not it, you ignorant douchebag. People don’t want to see in their entertainment depictions of what at least 60% of your audience has to live with and fear every day of their lives if it is not necessary to convey the message you hope to. And this was not necessary. Did you know, Kasper, that that’s the definition of gratuitous? I’m sure it was really fun for all you men involved to be like, ‘oh hey we can do this shit because it makes people realize how bad war is.’ A) People know how bad war is. B) All it did was remind people how terrible modern society still is when it comes to understanding rape culture. You, sir, do not understand it.
***
Now to the one that has not received any media attention that I know of, probably because people with the power to make things known in the media don’t really realize how misogynistic this one is, especially since there’s only so much opera coverage allowed by the populace. “Carmen”, Bizet’s famous opera about the wiles of a Gypsy woman, is playing at the English National Opera. First things first, the ENO does all their productions in English. It sucks. I’ve been there a lot, and the productions are sometimes great, but it’s never my or most opera fans preference to see works translated from their original language. I saw “Rigoletto” once in Austria and it was in German instead of Italian. It was terrible. Oh but they did the famous aria “La donna e mobile” in Italian. Just that part.
Moving on, “Carmen” is a pretty misogynistic opera to begin with, but ENO succeeded in making it even more gratuitously so with this ‘modernized’ production. I don’t understand why directors feel the need to unnecessarily change aspects of great works just for the sake of changing it, when it doesn’t add any artistic value. There are some alterations or reimaginings or revivals that are worthy, like the recent “Spring Awakening” production in California that used many deaf and disabled cast members to highlight the rampant lack of understanding and capability in the show. That sounds brilliant. The half-assed modernization of “Carmen” was not: it kept most of the same ideas – lots of soldiers, being in Spain, smugglers – and added hysterically hideous ‘90s-era-Italy outfits and like 6 cars, doing the smuggling, onstage at one time. I don’t know what they were going for.
So “Carmen” tells the story of a seductive gypsy who seduces men and is a gypsy. She is a cigarette girl among hundreds of cigarette girls who apparently work in the same barracks as hundreds of soldiers. It was a big cast. The soldiers are all disgusting. They treat the women like toys and Carmen like a piece of meat. They grope everyone and repeatedly stick her face in their crotchular regions. But Carmen enjoys it, apparently, because she is seductive, so she is asking for it. Hence it being a super misogynistic show as written, differentiating it from the above monstrosity.
The soldiers beg for her to choose a lover and stop taunting them by existing, so she chooses Jose, who was ignoring her. Smart plan! She sings her super famous aria that goes ‘da dum dum dum!’ about how those who love her should beware. Then all the girls fight like really actually fight, because who doesn’t love women fighting and hitting and scratching each other with their claws? Carmen is accused of whipping out a knife in what should have been merely a skin fight, so the male official says she’s going to be arrested and tells Jose to tie her hands together while they figure out what to do because small man brain. That’s what happens normally.
Here, the men tie Carmen to a flagpole with the official’s workbelt, take off her shirtdress, and position her so she’s on her knees. People I talked to at intermission thought this was disgusting. One woman who knows the opera well felt that tying her up completely, as opposed to just her hands, unnecessarily made her subordinate and submissive and was just gross.
Carmen then beguiles Jose, tasked with guarding her, and he becomes pretty infatuated with her. He lets her escape, whereupon he is imprisoned for a month or two.
When he gets out, he and we find Carmen with her smuggler friends, who are driving regular-sized cars across the stage to show how modern the show is. Three women (and one little girl, sadly) compose the group with 3 or so indistinguishably disgusting men, who assault them and grope them all with no regard for which woman it is or what she’s doing or how drunk she is (very drunk). They meet Escamillo, the famous toreador, who sings the famous toreador song (and not very well, also sadly). Escamillo ‘falls in love’ with Carmen, who is instead in love with her Jose, whom she is now seeing for the second time ever. Jose has to go back to camp for nighttime, and Carmen, being an awful no good female who doesn’t understand that men have to work, gets really upset that he isn’t willing to sacrifice his job for her, because if he really loved her he would. This is apparently how Rossini thought women’s little brains worked. As written, Jose’s superior officer arrives looking for Carmen (every man thinks he is in love with her), and Jose fights him. Having done that, he can’t go back to soldiering, so he joins the smugglers.
Here, he punches Carmen instead, for mocking his need to go back to work. She falls to the ground in fetal position, where she remains while Jose sings not about how he’s sorry but about how much he loves her. Then he cuddles up next to her and declares his love more. And what choice does she have but to accept it? What other kind of love could she possibly know?
Then more cars appear and it’s really just nonsense.
Then, Carmen gets bored with Jose, because that’s how women are, those fickle people, and the toreador tells her he loves her. Hey guess what, she returns the favor now. That happens really with no build up, I thought she was lying, but that’s how women do, just transfer affection really easily when they’re bored. Then Carmen and her friends do tarot cards, and Carmen gets the one saying she’s going to die. No one else seems really worried, though Carmen tells them it’s probably Jose.
Escamillo invites pretty much all of Spain to see him in his next bull-fight, and during that famous song we get to watch 100 or so actors in neon shorts and smartphones jumping up and down in unison for a good 2 minutes. It’s like they stopped trying. Anyway, outside the arena, Carmen and her two girlfriends are about to enter, before they leave her and are like, ‘Hey don’t get killed, we know that’s a possibility but we’re going to leave you alone now.’ Carmen keeps a watchful eye until she needs to do her makeup, and Jose sneaks in while she is looking in the compact, because oh girls with their makeup! So silly! So Jose is devastated that she no longer wants to be with him, even though he hit her, and even though now she loves someone else, so he kills her. At the end, after Jose kills her, he normally confesses to the murder. Here, instead, he grabs her by the lifeless foot and drags her offstage as the lights go out. Cute!
So ENO is not nearly as guilty as ROH for disgusting and gratuitous anti-female sentiment, because so much of it is in the text, but how they chose to augment what was already a plethora of misogyny reinforces how normal all the people involved considered it to be. This already has violence against women, but let’s make it worse! This one doesn’t have violence against women, so let’s add a lot, for art’s sake. It’s not art, guys. It’s violence, and it’s perpetuating the acceptance and sickening tolerance of rape culture.
