If it wants to rework Gilbert & Sullivan, the Guthrie should make clear what it's doing

Of the Big Three works of Gilbert & Sullivan - "HMS Pinafore," "Pirates of Penzance" and "The Mikado" -- I don't care for "Pinafore." My fellow Savoyards would consider that heretical.

"Pinafore" is filled with terrific tunes, to be sure, but I find it precious, with little to no authentic dramatic tension. Worst of all, it's just not funny. Poking fun at the Victorian class system was done to far greater effect in ... well, almost every other operetta from the duo. On the whole, I find "Pinafore" to be dull. Dull, dull, dull. There. I said it. "Pirates" and "Mikado," on the other hand, come very close to perfection.

So, my reaction to the production of "Pinafore" that closed last weekend at the Guthrie caught me off guard. I liked it. A lot. This was very surprising to me because, on the one hand, it was "Pinafore" (yawn). But on the other hand, it wasn't "Pinafore" at all. I mean AT ALL.

Normally, I don't care for wholesale reinterpretations (in this case, a wholesale rewrite) of pieces for these reasons:

It is an indication that the production team doesn't trust the material. And if this is the case, why mount it in the first place? Unless...

The production team saw the operetta as lesser in some fundamental way, but with promise - promise that the team felt it could realize.

Reinterpretations frequently rob people who are new to the play of the opportunity of seeing (and hearing) it in a way that is reasonably close to what's actually on the written page. I'm not opposed to resetting pieces (particularly ones that are frequently staged). Go ahead and perform "Macbeth" in the Pentagon or "Das Reingold" at a hydroelectric dam. But don't change the music or the text.

In my experience, almost without exception, reinterpretations are more for the amusement of the director(s) and the performers than for the audience. I've been in crazy interpretations of some plays, and typically there's something like this at the heart of the changes: "If I have to direct this old thing one more time, I'll shoot myself. Unless ... I could do it in some new way to (pick one), a) Make it more accessible to a modern audience; b) Get rid of those scenes that are so dull; c) Make it fun and interesting for me as the director." Sometimes the answer is "all of the above." But almost always, "c" is the real reason for reinterpretations.

As for Gilbert & Sullivan, even though their operettas are mostly "light," their pieces were painstakingly put together. (It's true that Sullivan wrote very few of his overtures, but the rest is all his.) Gilbert was fastidious with his words. And like many "light" things (a souffle, for instance) it doesn't take much to make them fall flat or lose the qualities that made them special in the first place.

But as I said ... I liked this production. I liked it in spite of (or because of?) the following:

The only thing that remained from Sullivan were remnants of his tunes. The harmonics and settings were entirely new and foreign to the century and country in which the play unfolds.

New subplots were added. Significant ones.

Songs from other shows were added.

The one thing that every G&S must have is a pair of serious lovers (the ingenues), who must act as if they have no idea that everyone around them is absurd. When Ralph rips off his pants to reveal Union Jack underwear (not even boxers - in Victorian England?!), this rule gets broken, too.

An appearance by Barbara Bryne playing Queen Victoria (again), a character not in "Pinafore" (or "Pirates," in which Ms. Bryne also played Victoria).

None of this bothered me (much). In fact, I found myself enjoying "Pinafore" for the first time.

I did find one thing truly upsetting, but it had nothing to do with the production itself. Rather, my problem is with the way the production was marketed and the fact that the program notes made no reference to the major changes in the play.

This production was marketed as "Gilbert & Sullivan's HMS Pinafore." This show was most decidedly NOT Gilbert & Sullivan's anything. This was a musical (not a light opera) that used significant source material from the original show and then took it off on a wild flight of fancy - to great effect.

Why should we care about the show's marketing? Here's the thing: It's incumbent on the producers/marketers not to mislead the public. I pity those who came to see this show and thought that it was, indeed, a legitimate Gilbert and Sullivan production. These people were duped.

What would it have taken to market this production properly? Very little. The Guthrie should have called it something like, "HMS Pinafore" (followed in large or small print by), "as reconceived by Joe Dowling and Andrew Cooke," or "HMS Pinafore ... an entirely new voyage." I'd even accept, "Pinafore!"

Any of these approaches would have made clear to the public that Gilbert & Sullivan might only get a nod, and that the work was going to be different. And while I'm at it, why not use the program notes to discuss the changes? This would be an interesting, open and honest way of indicating what remained from the original show and what was newly conceived and executed.

This very same issue is coming to a head on Broadway with a reinterpretation of "Porgy and Bess," called (you guessed it) "The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess." Visit the New York Times to read Stephen Sondheim's response to this production and, by extension, to marked reinterpretations of classic works.

I thank the Guthrie for making "Pinafore" more fun for me than I ever would have thought possible. But seriously, it should be truthful and open with its audience. Not long ago, I heard Music Director Andrew Cooke on MPR talking about some of the choices he made when rescoring the show. It was a fascinating, albeit too short, interview. This is the kind of information that should have been central to the show's marketing and program notes. It would have cost the Guthrie nothing.

Now, don't even THINK of touching "The Mikado."

----

Joe Andrews, Minneapolis, is the senior director of brand management and creative services for Thomson Reuters. He's also a pianist and a singer/actor/director who has performed Gilbert & Sullivan with the Minnesota Opera and The Gilbert & Sullivan Light Opera Company.

Gallery

Fullscreen SlideshowPrevious Slide

1 of 1

Next Slide