Potential and problems in dramatic character and choral writing

artistically successful, or at the very least good ideas that were almost successful.312 I will now analyse some of the operatic musical potential in the work in terms of the choral writing and the writing of the non-singing character, Susannah Dangerfield, who acted as a musical foil for the chorus. I will also outline choral passages that were ultimately less than successful in reception. These following points generally support the aims of Sawer et al. to revive the operetta but, where successful, they are more to do with the following of convention than the radicalisation of it. From an audience point of view, the excerpts I have chosen are perhaps mere moments, but from an analytical gaze, they are moments that held within them the problems and the potential of the work as a whole.

The spoken role of Susannah Dangerfield, reporting for Global Glamour TV was inspired in its design. The speaking role follows the operetta tradition utilised by Johann Strauss, Gilbert and Sullivan and Offenbach amongst others.313 The idea of the character (like many of the ideas in Skin Deep) perhaps did not fulfil its potential, but was nevertheless quite effective practically. Susannah Dangerfield, played by Gwendoline Christie, commented, speaking directly to the audience, or supposedly, with microphone in hand, ‘direct to camera’.314

This ‘larger than life’ character, made for TV, and outside of the operatic diegesis tried in vain to meld herself into the operatic world wherein the action takes place. She is outside of the stage action (as are the audience) so arises an integral affinity; it is possible to invest in her to an extent, and she acts as a foil for the self-absorption of the variously unlikeable characters. Her dramatic speech juxtaposes Sawer’s harsh tonal language, as her spoken interludes provide relief, the language of American-style gossip TV an instantly recognisable medium of communication to the audience. Christie herself is Amazonian in frame, a natural six foot

311 _{Cannon, p.314.} 312

Clements describes an ‘elegant, economical score’, but with too much text, and defends the composer working with a ‘contrived, feeble plot’. Christiansen describes a ‘highly gifted composer’ with

‘Stravinskyan clarity and economy’ and ‘a fine ear for orchestral texture and thoughtful word-setting’. He adds ‘there is some particularly beautiful choral writing’, but complains that ‘nothing is catchy,

memorable or touching’. Clements, Skin Deep (para. 1 of 5); Christiansen, ‘Skin Deep by Opera North at the Grand Theatre, Leeds – Review’ (para. 5 of 9). See also Clark (paras 8 and 12 of 15).

313 _{Speaking roles in operetta include Frosch the jailor in Johann Strauss’s Die Fledermaus, Public} Opinion in Offenbach’s Orpheus in the Underworld, and various characters in Gilbert and Sullivan operettas. Other ‘light’ forms such as Singspiel also often contain parts for speaking actors.

314 _{Sawer, Skin Deep, Act 1, No.9. Reporter and Chorus (‘Hi, This is Susannah Dangerfield’) and Act 3,} No.20 Introduction and Duet (‘Ages Have Past’).

three,315 enhanced by what looked to be six-inch heels. She towered, gargantuan, above the action, awkwardly looking down, and her attempts to meld in and disguise herself as a member of the chorus (playing uniformed clinic staff) were pure physical comedy. Cohesive with this image, Sawer’s joke in No.9 (Chorus and Solo: ‘Hi, This is Susannah Dangerfield’ / ‘Apply, Smear, Soothe’) is that Dangerfield cannot sing, and as the chorus hold forth with a

rhythmically disjointed but highly accurate ensemble, listing cosmetic properties of a cream, Dangerfield echoes their words, shouting each word in a faux-sung fashion, placing it a split second after the ‘correct’ version (see Example 11). There is an audible influence here from Kagel who utilised the spectrum of vocal production between speech and song, incorporating elements of Sprechgesang and Sprechstimme, and drew upon the distinctions and mergers between those speaking and those singing.316 The result here is the appearance of Susannah Dangerfield like an unmusical child, desperately trying to join in a choir practice; a vain attempt at the appearance of cohesion, with a result that is so obviously messy.

315 _{‘I am 6'3" or 6'4 ½ ", depending on when you measure me.’ Christie quoted in Esther Walker, ‘How} We Met: Gwendoline Christie and Polly Borland’, Independent, 29 June 2008,

<http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/sunday-review/regulars/how-we-met-gwendoline-christie--polly- borland-854953.html> [accessed 28 July 2009] (para. 11 of 17). Christie went on to be cast in action roles in film and television: Game of Thrones, Hunger Games: Mockingjay Parts 1 and 2, and Star Wars Episode VII: The force awakens. The Internet Movie Database lists her ‘towering height’ as her trademark. IMDb, ‘Gwendoline Christie Biography’, Internet Movie Database [n.d.]

<http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3729225/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm> [accessed 24 April 2015] (para. 3 of 5).

Example 11: Bars 22-38 of No.9, ‘Reporter and Chorus’, Sawer, Skin Deep (unpublished piano

reduction)

The Susannah Dangerfield character could be read as a spoof on a particular style of popular ‘news’ entertainment; ironic, perhaps, because it comes from Iannucci the television writer. And yet, this spoof of entertainment suddenly lifts us, because it is entertainment, and arguably the only really successful sustained element of entertainment in the piece.

The writing for chorus in Skin Deep was contentious and, one might argue, of variable quality. There are moments in which it is evident that the production of sound by a chorus was not understood in advance of the construction of words and music. Examples include No.21 (‘Butchers and Bakers and Muslims and Quakers’) in Act 3, with the line ‘Shut the gate! Don’t let us out! Out we hate! We like in!’ (see Example 12). This was set in 6/16 (a highly unusual time signature with six semi-quaver ‘beats’ to the bar); it was sung just once, and set to various broken configurations of semi-quavers and demi-semi quavers; attacks and stresses were marked, but not placed on pulse beats (if, in fact, they could be said to exist). The

accompaniment to this panicky outburst offers very little help, as usual punctuating rather than supporting. Accidentals are strewn around enharmonically as sharps and flats, without guidance as to any manner of tonal centre for the chorus. Besides the problems of reading and learning this for the chorus (again these problems pervade the whole work) it seems simply impossible that the diction here could ever be audible or understood by an audience.

Example 12: Bars 74-75 of No.21, ‘Chorus’, Sawer, Skin Deep (Vienna: Universal Edition, 2008)

Another problem with audibility of diction and ensemble (as reflected in audience comments) came at the opening to No.27 (see Example 13). This was very fast, and gave little in the way of introduction which itself was written in a rhythm that was arguably unnecessarily syncopated.317 The chorus entered on the fifth quaver beat of a 6/8 bar, and had to contend with unmanageable leaps at that pace (for example, a diminished octave, beginning bar 5). Musical stresses did not match those of the words in speech, for example the first syllable of ‘tinker’ (bar 3) and of ‘joker’ (bar 4) fell on weak beats, and were easy to lose. Some stresses were placed strangely in time within the bar, some were created in odd places by a leap (often upward) onto a syllable that should not be stressed in speech, but where in ensemble singing, this leap would inevitably create weight on the note, as in the second syllables of ‘tailor’ (bar 4) and ‘jailer’ (bar 5). Having seen and heard the following number in many different spaces and circumstances, I never once heard the text clearly.

317 _{Richard Farnes spoke to me about the piece being ‘more difficult, mentally, than it needed to be’ and} suggested that rhythmically and enharmonically there were places where the notation had its ‘knickers in a twist’. He added that ‘the theatre creates its own issues’ to do with rhythmic and ensemble issues ensuing from the distance from pit to stage, and that experienced, effective opera composers quickly learn that (22 April 2009).

Example 13: Opening bars of No.27, ‘Chorus’, Sawer, Skin Deep (unpublished piano reduction)

It was Iannucci who, in the programme to the operetta, outlined what he had learned in writing for singers:

I want the words to be clear and the challenge of writing for singers as opposed to actors is in the time they require to produce the words and the audience takes to absorb them. In the end it’s the music that is important so you really can’t be too intricate.318

Sawer also commented:

With a libretto with this many words, and this dextrous, I’ve deliberately kept the orchestration very light. I really do want the audience to be able to hear every word.319 In these numbers, however, the intentions of the creators did not come to fruition. Farnes put it

318 _{L. Walker, ‘The Writer’, p.16.} 319 _{Rivers, p.14.}

succinctly: ‘There’s too much, there are just too many words.’320

More successful are the very brief moments where conventions are followed knowingly. In No.22 (Scene: ‘All Good Things Come to an End’) the chorus has been beautified by drinking the elixir of youth, but are in regression and need more. They are moaning and

groaning. In rehearsal, Richard Jones remarked on this scene’s ‘zombie qualities’ and said of the individual unpitched moaning, ‘The sound does you, not you do the sound, be like

possession.’321 So they are unified, all looking the same, in wigs and dress, the women styled as Donna, and the men as Robert. In block SSA harmony, the women sing ‘Take a Donna from us, Donna is true beauty’ (Example 14):

Example 14: Bars 23-26 of No.22, ‘Scene’, Sawer, Skin Deep (unpublished piano reduction)

It seems odd that soprano 2 sings lower than alto, and the harmony is thinner than it could be, with sopranos doubling at the octave. Yet here are four bars where a block of sound from the female chorus serves to illustrate the dramatic point. There is a conscious nod to Gilbert and Sullivan, starting at bar 43 of the same number (Example 15). ‘Donnalike’ (a chorus member with a voice not as strong as that of the lead) sings for her survival; to avoid being thrown into the vat she outlines her weakness: ‘I’d love to jump in, But I think you should know, Though I’m attractive, I’m mentally slow.’ The ‘Donnalike’ is on a huge scaffold at this point, away from the rest of the action. With jumping time signatures of 7/16, 9/16 and 11/16 changing every bar (although these were often necessarily ‘smoothed’ into more natural beat patterns in performance) and a disjunct ‘melody’ it is unlikely that the audience would hear these words, but the chorus comes to the rescue with an echo of the phrase: ‘Though she’s attractive, she’s mentally slow.’ The rhythm of the ‘Donnalike’ is copied in the chorus, and the response is similarly shaped so that the audience might get a second chance to absorb those

320 _{Farnes, 22 April 2009.}

lyrics, placed again into the same rhythm. The chorus is required to be slightly less agile than the ‘Donnalike’ when leaping around intervals that are now shortened to make them feasible for an ensemble, and to raise the likelihood of audibility of diction for the audience.

Example 15: Bars 43-49 of No.22, ‘Scene’, Sawer, Skin Deep (unpublished piano reduction)

Such disjointed writing for voices in the theatre is risky indeed, particularly with a chorus, and given Sawer’s stated aim that the audience might hear every word. Some risks paid off with moments of successfully innovative choral writing. The musical victories were enhanced on

stage by Director Richard Jones, and as a result, there were occasional choral moments that achieved a spellbinding synergy. In a moment opening audibly reminiscent of the opening of Kagel’s Anagrama,322

Sawer’s No.8, ‘Mute Dance with Chorus’ (‘Hush the Time is Ready’) begins with a solo violin, and choruswhispering ‘Hush!’ (see Example 16). Men and women are subsequently split to form two groups of commentators, singing one group after another with atmospheric harmony. Despite being notated without a key signature, this passage is essentially in the key of B flat major, although without focusing on a ‘tonic’ as such. Each phrase begins with the chorus in unison, and diverges to create Sawer’s cluster chords, created, in each instance, from a consonant interval (often a major third) and a dissonant interval (often a major or minor second).323 This combination of the known (diatonic) and unknown (dissonant intervals and lack of a certain tonic) within the harmonic structure creates an ambiguity in mood; there is consonance (additionally the chorus are acting together as an organised unit) but also uncertainty as to where this plot will go. High woodwinds join the fragile violin, floating bassless in a mesmerising moment, without harmonic roots, and with a drifting sense of plot direction. The mystical build up to Lania’s birthday operation is set serenely to the candlelight of her birthday cake. The effect is ethereal, and it is an operatic moment of atmospheric magic.

Example 16: Opening bars of No.8, ‘Mute Dance with Chorus’, Sawer, Skin Deep (unpublished piano

reduction)

322 _{Mauricio Kagel, Anagrama, online recording, YouTube, 1 May 2011,} <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWF1-BlhE4U> [accessed 15 May 2015].

323 _{I have not included a musical example here because the passage is cluttered with accidentals and} unnecessarily difficult to read (see Richard Farnes’s comments in note 317).

The power of the chorus is utilised some way into No.27. This climax of drama and of musical texture felt, to me, as though it really should be the finale, but was not. The chorus sing about themselves and the wisdom of acceptance that they have gained through the farce of plastic surgery that we have witnessed. The chorus are heard in octaves (Example 17) then in two parts doubled at the octave. It is apowerful moment, enhanced by the humour of the uninhibited shedding of all their ‘clothes’ to reveal the hilarious implied nudity of somewhat unrealistic but anatomically complete body suits.

Example 17: Bars 64-68 of No.27, ‘Chorus’, Sawer, Skin Deep (unpublished piano score)

In my numerous attendances at performances of Skin Deep, the audience found this exhilarating, and could yet have left on a high, if this climax had been the actual finale.

However, subsequent to this is an entry by Lania (Needlemeier’s wife) then Robert and Elsa, to end the work. I posited my preferred ending to Farnes in a private interview, and he agreed, having made the suggestion of this cut for the Bregenz performance to come, with Sawer’s agreement:

JD: It did feel to me like the finale was… RF: Was that. [No.27]

JD: There was a fantastic piece of choral writing, and then I thought, ‘ok that’s the end’. And then it just wasn’t.

RF: Yes, that’s right. […] And that’s what I’m proposing is perhaps the last number of the piece… that was that, the clothes stuff.

JD: And then to get rid of that bit with the three of them at the end?

RF: Yeah, exactly. And possibly the bit with Lania coming on. She came on after the chorus had taken their clothes off and did this sort of solo. And then there was the jigging around bit that the three of them… you know, the two lovers at the end. And nobody ever knew when it had finished. […] So David, interestingly… […] I had

suggested in an email, whether we might look at this. I said ‘given that you were very keen to change things before we opened’ (I mean snipping here and snipping there). […] But I knew that a lot of other people would be thinking along the same lines. And he came back to me saying, ‘Yes I absolutely agree, I think we need to think about taking that out.’324

However, for the initial production run, after members of the chorus have scattered and left the stage, Lania remains with a melodically disjointed, leaping passage giving a condensed moral of redemption. She then continues to moralise into No.28, where Robert and Elsa enter, resolve their differences and finally adjourn to their bed. The work ends with fragmented phrases of homophonic quavers in the orchestra ascending in cluster chords without a firm tonal centre. Here are the unnecessary endings that Richard Farnes referred to, which confused and weakened the finale of the piece during its first production run.325

3.3.8 Conclusions: dramaturgical issues and mismatched expectations of a genre