Young Vic puts dark spin on 'Yeomen of the Guard'
You probably know Puccini lovers who still only have time for "Boheme," "Butterfly" and "Tosca," and keep their distance from such wonderful pieces as "La Rondine" and "La Fanciulla del West."
Likwise, there are self-proclaimed Verdi champions who skip "Falstaff," even "Otello" (outside of a few major opera houses, those masterworks always seem to be hard sells, at least without super-starry casts).
And so it is that some people who say they love Gilbert and Sullivan actually mean only "Pinafore," "Pirates" and "Mikado," considering the rest of the operettas not quite up to par. Pity.
True-blue devotees know that there is valuable stuff in all of the works, and that "The Yeomen of the Guard," despite its comparative lack of popularity, represents the very pinnacle of the brilliant duo's art. The score, in particular, is consistently delicious. Sullivan never exceeded the level of melodic inventiveness and sophistication achieved in "Yeomen." Gilbert’s libretto, too, has much going for it.
You can get a good sense of "Yeomen’s" worth in a new production from the Young Victorian Theatre Company, Baltimore’s indomitable keeper of the G&S flame. Performances continue through Sunday at the Bryn Mawr School.
The music is especially well-served in this staging, which features traditional costumes and a pleasant, economical set. But there is a little matter of the directorial concept, which might as well be addressed first.
Jim Harp takes the serious side of "Yeomen" very, well, seriously. The director has ...
invented a back story to explain the remarkable ending of the operetta, where, according to Gilbert’s original instructions, the character of jester Jack Point falls "insensible" to the ground, realizing that he will never win the heart and hand of the woman he loves.
This insertion of a tragic note into the general rejoicing of the final scene is one of the most fascinating things about "Yeomen."
Whether you interpret "insensible" as a fainting spell or an actual death from lovesickness, it’s still a pretty jarring conclusion to an operetta that is otherwise hardly Wagnerian.
The piece is not all sunshine, to be sure; set in the shadow of the Tower of London, the plot opens with an imminent execution. But just how much to push the dark side is a debatable issue.
Seizing on some lines spoken by, or to, Tower housekeeper Dame Carruthers in the libretto, Harp has turned her into a full-fledged witch who casts a fatal spell on Jack Point – an incident mimed, rather awkwardly, during the overture.
When a director needs so much time and effort to set up a concept, said concept is probably not as strong as it may have seemed in the planning stage. It should be possible to make Jack’s sad fate understandable and affecting without resorting to so much invented, often heavy-handed stuff.
The cast includes the very likable Jeffrey Williams as the jester. He sings with a ripe tone and phrases everything stylishly. His acting, though, could use refining. Too much skipping across the stage, too much time stuck with fool’s baubles in both hands (one of them should suffice).
And Williams doesn’t convey Jack's longing for his sidekick Elsie with quite enough depth, so it’s harder to buy into the dramatic death, accompanied by heavy sobs and rending of garments.
I think Gilbert and Sullivan had something much subtler and, thus, more poignant, in mind here. This treatment is just a little too Leoncavallo for me.
Nicholas Houhoulis sings with color and elegance as Colonel Fairfax. Jimi James has a good romp, musically and theatrically, as the unsavory Shadbolt. Catrin Rowenna Davies sings charmingly as Phoebe. Sara Kate Walston is a bright-voiced Elsie. Madeleine Gray, with her robust mezzo, makes a suitably formidable Dame Carruthers.
Samuel Helper brings vocal weight and sensitivity to the role of Sergeant Meryll. Adam Caughey makes the most of his brief appearance as Leonard. Jason Buckwalter does vigorous work as Sir Richard. For the most part, the chorus meets its challenges smoothly. Same for the orchestra, conducted with a good deal of expressive contour by Phillip Collister.
Young Vic casts, however much improved over the years, still are hampered by the acoustical imbalance of the pit-less theater. This ensemble needs to work even harder on clarity of diction during the vocal numbers.
The spoken dialogue could use some improvement, too, namely in terms of pacing. If all the little pauses between lines could have been eliminated from the performance I attended, the final curtain would have come down 10 minutes earlier.
PHOTOS (by D.E. Thomas) COURTESY OF YOUNG VICTORIAN THEATRE COMPANY
Comments
I attended the opening night performance with a friend who is, like me, an ardent G7s fan and has seen uncountable versions of the repertoire. Yeoman is, sadly, rarely mounted so we looked forward to this show. To both of us, it was a very mixed bag. In brief, I agree with the review except in degree. I both disliked the negatives even more and enjoyed the positives even more than you.
The worst was the ridiculous mimed and totally invented back story played out distractingly behind the well played overture. The fine orchestra work should have been the focus, not some invented silliness that changes the story and adds nothing worthwhile. The other invention that seems to be required by all Young Vic productions are the so called 'topical insertions'. They are beyond useless, as mentioning Lindsay Lohan serves no purpose in Gilbert & Sullivan other than to massage the ego of whoever thought they were more clever than Gilbert in writing his story. Happily, these distracting (and VERY non-funny) additions were greatly reduced this time around.
Jeffrey Williams apparently has a nice tone of voice, but it can't be heard sufficiently to serve the part. I don't agree about his being likable. To me, the Point character never became truly sympathetic and I was unconcerned with his overwrought ending. The diction was likewise lacking and the use of the balcony at the rear only made matters worse for most who spoke/sang from there. Cutting two important songs in half made no sense - spare me the time-saving excuse when you take the time to add silliness that Gilbert never included.
The good though, made up for much. Ms. Walston was a marvelous Elsie in both voice and acting - love her. Mr. Houhoulis has a terrific voice though tends to overact the part slightly. The chorus, especially the men, were wonderful and the touching hymnal version of "I had a song to sing oh" by them at the conclusion was simply marvelously done. Likewise with the fine orchestra work. With such a fine group of musicians, they really REALLY need a pit and better auditorium.
While much of the diction suffered in this performance, any chance to see Yeoman is worth it - but in some ways, this was a step back for the Vic. Don't get me wrong, it's worth seeing for many reasons. But it will greatly help if you already know it, because you won't follow some important scenes (the faked shooting of Fairfax is a prominent example) due to inaudible diction and pacing. But oh that orchestra work and chorus.
Thanks for your sharing those very thoughtful and passionate views. I agree it is still worth going, for the chance to hear such a marvelous score doesn't come around very often. TIM
Posted by: flint350 | July 14, 2011 9:29 AM
I must take exception to some of what flint350 wrote -- but not everything. I agree with his positives, especially the strong approval he has towards the musical realization of this most difficult score.
But I do NOT endorse his negatives.
In the interests of full disclosure, I must reveal that I designed the Young Vic web site and did the program for this production; however, I had nothing whatsoever to do with the production of Yeomen and didn't see the concept in action until the performance I attended.
Also, I was one of the founders of this company in 1971 and 1978, and have long been a scholar of the genre; I have also produced, directed or participated in dozens of G&S productions in my life.
My point (so to speak) -- flint350 is of course welcome to disagree with or even heartily dislike the concept that Jim Harp created for this production; Tim Smith doesn't seem to agree with it, either. But researching and creating such a concept is not ridiculous at all; in fact, it is an important part of what a modern stage director does: to find the spine of the drama (what motivates the action; what force carries it along and thrusts towards the conclusion) and make it clear to the performers and the audience.
That Jim Harp was able to create such a strong one, that gave the action strong direction, but that didn't require the changing of a single sung or spoken word (dropping the final duet is a common Yeomen alteration that was first done in Gilbert's day), is a testament to the care with which he approached it. It is original. It is meaningful. It is taken seriously, and takes the work seriously, and it is well-acted by the cast. And that's whether one agrees with it, or not!
Think of the famous Peter Sellars production of Handel's Orlando Furioso -- set in a Cape Canaveral Trailer Park! Or his Don Giovanni -- set in the drug-infested slums of the South Bronx (and featuring Donna Anna shooting herself up with cocaine during her Act II aria! The drug's effect then creates the coloratura ...). These "concepts" were not lightly chosen -- they were carefully worked out to make "what this dramatic work is about" more clear to the audience -- at least, Sellars' vision!
Just so, Jim Harp's dark, verismo-inspired vision of Yeomen is intended to help the audience make sense of what otherwise might be just a random assortment of incidents that somehow coalesce at the end of the play.
Critics in 1888 made the point that the plot didn't hang together well (when they were finished lambasting Gilbert for "stealing" the basic idea in the first place), and that motivations were lacking or inconsistent in many of the key characters. I have seen several productions of Yeomen that erred on the side of being "too faithful" -- being too much interested in simply doing the show, and never asking "what is it about?"
The Young Vic production, then, is indeed very faithful and traditional, and beautifully sung. The choral music alone is worth the price of admission -- no better case could be made for the real beauty of late Victorian mixed-voice writing. The tenor and soprano have wonderful sets of pipes, indeed, and strength and solidity of musical preparation and ability are evident right down to the role of Kate.
Yes, the production concept will not get universal approbation. Tim Smith has indeed expressed strong qualms about it. But I urge all G&S lovers and all opera lovers and all theatre lovers to go see this production -- at least so you can argue with each other as to whether or not you, too, like or dislike the concept!
Because whether or not you agree with Harp's work, it shows that The Yeomen of the Guard is no stodgy, dusty relic -- it is a brilliant and troubling work of genius, musically and dramatically, and still excites and intrigues today!
Posted by: Michael Blum | July 14, 2011 4:35 PM
Comments like the two posted above are 90% of the reason why the Sun online is a valuable resource. They are incisive, articulate, forcefully expressed, respectfully submitted and make me determined to see the Young Vic production so I can decide for myself whether or not the director's vision works. So many directors take a theatrical work and set it in a different era, and generally I find such stagings unconvincing. In this case, however, the director has apparently plumbed the libretto, extracted hints of more sinister things afoot than are visible on the surface and then has staged the play in such a way as to illustrate his vision. Does it work? I'm looking forward to finding out for myself.
What a refreshing attitude. Please report your reactions after you catch the production. TIM
Posted by: G&S fan | July 14, 2011 6:01 PM
With sincere respect for Mr. Blum's contributions over the years and his disagreement with some of my thoughts, I wanted to respond. First, I never suggested (or certainly never intended to suggest) that the "dark spin" of the staging was inappropriate or out of context/unfaithful. I applaud it and it is the type of "updating" I enjoy (vs. the unfunny Lohan bit). I suggested that the manner chosen to emphasize it was the error. In my view, it was an idea not well served by the somewhat mystifying mime act that was greatly distracting from the fine overture playing. Without further context, a thorough reading of the 'new' prologue in the playbill or a very full knowledge of G&S to the level of Mr. Blum's, I think most people would have a hard time deciphering the goings-on behind the music of the overture. Especially what the subtext meant to the coming story. Many (most?) patrons don't read (sigh) the playbills or truly know the story going in, so they will be mystified. And the difficulty in diction I mentioned will not fill in the blanks in some important songs. My use of the words 'silliness' and 'ridiculous' were not directed at the concept, but at this particular style of its explanation. For 'silliness' read 'bits of business' - a staging term often used with G&S productions. Maybe 'ridiculous' was too much, but I so love the overture, I was somewhat annoyed at the background and noises distracting from the wonderfully played music.
Mr. Blum's disagreement with the cutting of songs seems to miss the fact that two full songs were cut in half (at least on opening night), including the motivational opening tenor aria "Is Life A Boon". Trust me, while not as knowledgeable as Mr. Blum, I do know the music and two major songs were cut. Maybe there was a good reason, but it was done. The set and staging were fine, especially considering the small space available and the large (hooray!) cast and chorus. My complaint was that the balcony setting often caused even more audibility problems for the audience, with the noted exception of Ms. Walston and Mr. Houhoulis. My complaints in that area were about the occasional pacing of great songs, like Shadbolt/Point's report on the shooting of Fairfax (totally incomprehensible - and I know the words). Yes, it's patter, but patter should still be heard unless "it really doesn't matter" :)
In summary, I think Mr. Blum misreads me in large part. I do not quibble with the dark concept at all, just its execution. I concur that Yeoman is a brilliant work both musically and dramatically and should be seen despite my 'negatives'. The positives are terrific, notably the orchestra and choral work. The Young Vic always gives a great effort and this is no exception.
Posted by: flint350 | July 15, 2011 11:18 AM
Full disclosure: I directed about ten productions for the YVTC beginning in the 1990s, and many of the current cast are former students of mine from Peabody. But by no means all, and I have no current connection with the company whatsoever.
I agree with most of Tim Smith's review and a lot of the comments. I especially want to emphasize that I have never, ever heard a YVTC production (and very few elswhere) that was so consistently strong vocally. And in so operatic a work as Yeomen, this matters a lot.
As for the "Dame's Curse" interpretation, I can take it or leave it. While not strictly necessary, it seemed to propel the director, Jim Harp, into a much more consistent view of the production than usually obtains, preventing the too frequent tendency of G&S productions breaking down into a series of cute bits. Add to this Harp's new-found interest in composing for the big stage picture (as your first photograph shows), and a welcome REDUCTION of those irritating updates, and you approach a kind of music drama that doesn't need gimmicks to be taken seriously.
I think that the main problem is the impossible task Gilbert gave his actors and directors in the character of Jack Point. How are you meant to play a funny man all of whose jokes fall flat, not because they are badly delivered, but because their failure is part of the joke? You can't laugh at him, you can't laugh with him, and only the magnificent sequence of trio and quartet towards the end do you get a chance to cry for him. I suspect it needs to be played as an aging has-been like Archie Rice in THE ENTERTAINER, but that would be a very hard sell. Try as I might, I have not succeeded with this role in any of my own productions, and I have not seen complete success in any others either. At least Mr. Williams brought a finer voice to the part than the G&S comic leads usually get.
Thanks very much for joining the conversation, Roger. I have been biting my tongue since the review, but may return to the subject after the run is over. You and the other commentators have provided abundant food for thought. TIM
Posted by: Roger Brunyate | July 15, 2011 6:02 PM
Tim, since you asked, here is my view of this production: So much about this show was excellent. The set was fine. The costumes were terrific. The orchestra was fabulous. I don't think that I have ever attended a Young Vic performance which was as musically strong as this one. The soloists were all strong. Fairfax, Pheobe, Shadbolt and Jack Point really stood out, but there wasn't a weak vocal performance all night. The choral work was really superb, particularly the men's chorus. I found myself really looking forward to the next time the chorus would come onstage, and the conclusion of the opera was extremely strong musically.
I really wasn't wild about the heavy-handed use of Dame Caruthers but I'm willing to accord to the director the opportunity to conceive and then realize a particular vision of the show. Mr. Harp's interpretation was original and interesting, but I doubt that it will inspire imitations.
I think that Roger Brunyate hits the problem with the Jack Point character right on the head. For all of his cavorting around the stage, Point is just not funny. (I suspect that to the more educated audiences of the 1880's, his humor would have been funnier than it is today.) Your other bloggers disparage the attempts of the Young Vic to add contemporary humor to their productions, but here is where a couple of topical jokes might make all the difference. A funny Jack Point drawing some lusty laughs would make the audience sympathetic early on and deepen the sense of loss at the end of the play.
The only big negative insofar as this production was concerned, in my view, was the lack of an orchestra pit. The spoken dialogue was clear and distinct, but as soon as the orchestra began to play, the lyrics to the songs, some of which advanced the plot in important ways, became indistinct. If the Young Vic is stuck in a performance venue without an orchestra pit, I think that it should consider adding surtitles. By this point, audiences are used to surtitles, so it shouldn't be too jarring for the Young Vic to employ them. But for this problem, I'd say that the Young Vic production of "Yeomen" was first rate.
Posted by: G&S fan | July 17, 2011 9:27 PM
Had the same problem Sunday.
If not surtitles, hand out or sell the lyrics. They do it at the Shriver series. (but you have to leave the lights on)
Posted by: Willy T | July 18, 2011 2:19 PM
One of my all time favorites, but I have to agree that it was very difficult to understand the lyrics. Even though I know them well, I still couldn't understand, and my partner who was enjoying his first G&S performance had no clue what was being sung. All in all, a very enjoyable evening. The Young Vic always does it well.
Posted by: Katie Traub | July 20, 2011 11:29 AM