Saturday, February 6, 2016

I'M STILL HERE: THE ACCULTURATION OF STEPHEN SONDHEIM


Many years ago, I was at one of those New York show-business parties at which the guests sing for supper at the keyboard. The host was a major Broadway producer, and his performer wife, to keep the tone chic, pulled out the sheet music to a duet from Stephen Sondheim’s then latest show, A Little Night Music, and tried to cajole a singer named Earl Wrightson into sight-reading it with her.

     The number, “You Must Meet My Wife,” is a conversation in the form of a waltz, in which a man is forced to admit that his wonderful marriage is a sham. A middle-aged widower, by profession an attorney, he has taken a very young bride who finds him physically repulsive. In fact, she’s in love with his son. The woman the attorney is singing to is the love of his life, and she seems to know it. Yet somehow or other he doesn’t: perhaps because women see men as a source of warmth and protection but men see women as potential vessels of beauty and ecstasy. So his teenaged wife sparks some mysterious flame in him that overwhelms everything else.

     Granted, not all of the above comes out in “You Must Meet My Wife”: it takes the rest of A Little Night Music to develop that deconstruction of the American musical’s traditional Boy gets Girl. In fact, the song is a rather jolly affair—but Earl Wrightson was having none of it. An operetta baritone of the old school, Wrightson was a stouthearted man with a soprano mate, Lois Hunt. There were no sham marriages and no wives in love with their sons-in-law in Wrightson’s world. He and Hunt were strictly Boy Gets Girl, put on this planet to sing “Indian Love Call” and the like; the Wrightson-Hunt day job was a tour of The Sound of Music that hit almost a hundred cities.

     “I don’t know it,” Wrightson grumbled, as the hostess placed “You Must Meet My Wife” on the music rack and the pianist took a quick look at the sheet.

     “Oh, let’s wing our way through it,” the hostess suggested. Why not? They were both musicians enough. Troupers and pros.

     Here’s why not: “I don’t like that man’s music!” Wrightson told her in an unmistakably hostile tone. “He writes for himself and his friends!”

     Seated right in front of the piano—next to Lois Hunt, in fact—I alerted at that last line. Who were Sondheim’s “friends”? Reckless sophisticates who scorn The Sound of Music? Or gay? Because, while Sondheim wasn’t yet out at that time, everyone knew, even Earl Wrightson.

     But how did they know? Was it the clever jabs at the status quo, the playful observations of how (straight) people act, the slightly combative artfulness—all elements of gay creativity, from Oscar Wilde to Christopher Durang? Was homophobia the reason why the Sondheim shows of the 1970s—the works in which he first revealed his mature style as a composer and lyricist—proved divisive in the theatregoing community? Company (1970), Follies (1971), A Little Night Music (1973), Pacific Overtures (1976), and Sweeney Todd (1979), all produced and directed by Harold Prince, offered an astonishing outpouring of fascinating and exotic but also challenging and provocative music theatre.

     Quite aside from  anyone’s feelings about homosexual art, these shows are highly evolved from what musicals used to be. Follies’ leads are middle-aged, which already breaks the musical-comedy handbook’s Rule Number One: “Everyone you care about must be young and cute.” True, the four Follies leads were shadowed by their own ghosts, who were young and cute. Still, by the show’s end, all eight of these people were so depressed it looked as though the message was that free will doesn’t make us happy, creating what academics would call a very  crowded text. At least A Little Night Music was glamorous. But Pacific Overtures was history and Sweeney Todd’s protagonist is a serial killer. Remember when musicals were about  lovable con men and wistful piano teachers? But they’re really made for each other? And then everyone sings “Seventy-Six Trombones”?

    Maybe it wasn’t homophobia. Sondheim calls his scores “playwrighting,” because they pursue themes latent in the story. Sondheim characters don’t take a time out to sing “Indian Love Call,” because there are no time outs in his shows. In the average musical, stuff happens, then people sing, then more stuff happens. In Sondheim, stuff never stops happening; from dialogue into song into more dialogue, there are no relaxation points. That makes it difficult for spectators who are used to lowering their attention level during the songs: they want to enjoy the music as music without having to absorb the lyrics in any real sense. On the contrary, Sondheim’s playwrighting scores demand intense concentration. And this sabotages the musical’s time-honored mandate to provide entertainment free of intellectual content.

     But didn’t earlier musicals use songs with strong thematic drive? What about those famous innovative titles—Show Boat, Lady in the Dark, Oklahoma!, Cabaret? And, yes, of course they did; English-speaking music theatre has integrated its songs into its narratives since the very first one, John Gay’s The Beggar’s Opera, in 1728.

     Even so, Sondheim’s musicals tend to be more ambiguously psychologized than those of his predecessors, so they require more concentration from their spectators. To return to A Little Night Music: we are as close to that lawyer with the unhappily happy marriage as we are to Oklahoma!’s Curly or Cabaret’s Sally Bowles, but we can’t entirely understand him. Curly is easy: a cowboy as full of life as a newborn calf, in love, and proud of the land he lives on, the people he belongs to. Sally is easy: an English girl getting by in Weimar Berlin on a complete lack of scruples about anything.

     But that lawyer! He’s fast and smart, yet he misses a lot, Christopher Hitchens as the absent-minded professor. Married to a dope who loves another (again: his own son!), he gets the chance to reconvene with the actress, who is as fast and smart as he is. Everything about the show tells us that he needs the actress, and everyone in the audience wants them together. Yet, rather late in the evening, he reveals his motivation, and it’s a paradox. “When my eyes are open,” he says, he wants the actress—“a woman that I have loved for a long time.” Yes! But he goes on with “When my eyes are not open…all I see is a girl in a pink dress teasing a canary, running through a sunlit garden to hug me at the gate.” And we think, This is just as cockeyed and helpless as we all can get at times. What does he want? It’s real life as a musical, nimble and poetic yet also dense and inconclusive.

     But then, A Little Night Music’s source is Ingmar Bergman’s film Smiles of a Summer Night. One expects something of the Bergman atmosphere to inform the piece, even if the movie is dry and restrained while the musical is ebullient, almost an operetta in its plethora of waltzes. There’s even a sarabande, a number called “Liaisons,” in which the actress’ mother, a former courtesan, reflects on the erotic life to the shimmer of harp and celesta suggesting a sibyl whispering in a cave.

     Sondheim’s music was advanced, obviously. But so were the stories he told, reveling in the ambivalence that Sondheim observes in human nature, like the attorney of “You Must Meet My Wife,” caught between the fascinating woman and the darling girl. From Show Boat to Hamilton, the musical has been built on the notion of destiny: Boy may meet Girl by chance, but he gets her by something we could think of as intelligent design. Or call it Romance 101: once two hearts bond in “Indian Love Call” (or something along those lines), they are entitled to a happily ever after, or the audience will tear the theatre apart.

     Nevertheless, I say again that Sondheim’s shows are based on free will, which doesn’t guarantee an ever after of any kind. These are complex shows, adventurous shows. Pacific Overtures tells of the opening of isolated Japan to Western trade in the middle of the nineteenth century, and it was staged in the Kabuki manner, expecting the audience to follow its now intricate and now intense narrative technique. Some found it picturesque and enlightening, but others were baffled and annoyed.

     Still, certain people simply do not like theatregoing outside the box. Worse, they couldn’t help noticing that some of the most intelligent and arts-stimulated people they knew greatly enjoyed Sondheim’s shows; their enthusiasm seemed, to disbelievers, a reproach. Three groups in particular were the most anti-Sondheim at this time: enraged queens, dreary straight men, and pretty much everyone in Bayonne, New Jersey.

     Then something happened. While writing On Sondheim: An Opinionated Guide, I noticed a change in the way Sondheim was perceived, something like the opposite of a glitch. He had generally gone over well in London, especially among the intellectuals’ steward class, who favor Shakespeare and Brecht and never go to musicals. But they went to Sondheim. So in 1976 the Mermaid Theatre, which had been been running a series of songwriter revues, from [Noël] Cowardy Custard to Cole [Porter], raised up Side By Side By Sondheim, an evening of pure song using a narrator and three singers. The show moved to the West End and then, with the same cast, to New York the following year.

     The narration, as so often, added nothing to the event and simply got in the way, but the performers—Millicent Martin, Julia McKenzie, and David Kernan—were personable and versatile. Most important, the public was able to hear the songs simply as songs, without the baggage of the dense Sondheim playwrighting. This, clearly, was the breakthrough. And, just to make things difficult for Earl Wrightson, there was a gay touch, in that Kernan took part in a few numbers written for women characters. In “Could I Leave You?,” a scathingly anguished waltz from Follies, Kernan leaped into a highly contextual piece without its context—that of the wife of a self-hating lit-and-politics media grandee who rates himself as a fraud and fears her judgment. He doesn’t understand that she still loves the young charmer she married.

     But we take all that in at a performance of the complete and total Follies.  At Side By Side By Sondheim, the house could actually relax and enjoy the song on its merits alone. The music told and the lyrics delighted. “Could I bury my rage with a boy half your age in the grass?” Kernan sang. “Bet your ass!”

     The revue’s London staging ran a bit over two years, the New York one about half that, and the American theatregoing public now underwent a Damascene conversion, just in time for Sweeney Todd. All Sondheim shows are different from all other musicals—and from one another—but Sweeney is the only famous musical in history that is truly bloodthirsty. Todd, “the demon barber of Fleet Street,” cuts the throats of his customers, and the original production made the point with gruesome realism, to the banshee shrilling of a factory whistle. Further, the genre was melodrama and the storyline an intricate interlacing of subplots, memed, so to say, by sociopolitical critique.

     In short, Sweeney Todd was another rich work, one that was attractive and even compelling but, at the same time, brusque and a bit repellent. True, as Oscar Wilde puts it in The Importance of Being Earnest, “The good ended happily and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means.” But Sondheim’s fiction comes with disclaimers. The traditional musical’s relationship with its audience was one of clarity. The public was welcomed and loved…and maybe lied to a little, with instant solutions to every problem. “The Best Things in Life Are Free” and “My Favorite Things” make life seem too basic. In the age of Sondheim, musicals explore life more honestly, and the relationship with the audience is less clear than it was.

     Luckily, after the Sondheim revue, the public had learned how to “hear” Sondheim—or, really, how to attend his shows. Then, too, as time passed, the key Sondheim titles were revived, which made it easier to process the detailed dramaturgy. Now we know to ask of Sondheim’s characters, as we do of people we’re close to, and whom we thought we knew, What do we want? Sondheim makes clichés into puzzles and tests the effectiveness of the received virtues. We have to return to his shows over and over simply to learn what we really mean when we’re talking. You must meet my wife.

 

 

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

IMELDA STAUNTON'S MADAM ROSE


Rose Hovick may have been a monster, but in Gypsy she was Ethel Merman, who spent her career playing a tough broad with a gooey center, like a Snickers in armor. Generally an urban character till Annie Get Your Gun (even in the Arizona of Girl Crazy, she was a San Franciscan), Merman would sing torch songs on the ninetieth floor. “Leave out the cherry,” she says in one of them. “Leave out the orange. Leave out the bitters.” No sweets in this one: “Just make it a straight rye!” And listen to her characters’ names: Wanda Brill (the one who sings “Eadie Was a Lady,” one of the great hard-boiled show tunes of all time, in Take a Chance), Reno Sweeney, Nails Duquesne, May Daley, Hattie Maloney: no sweets there, either.

      So Rose Hovick was an ideal Merman part, once she agreed to take some acting direction. The standard Merman performance was touch-me-not diva in a sheltered space, projecting directly into the audience so that all her co-stars got to play to was Merman’s left or right ear. For Gypsy, she interacted with them, though she reverted to her old ways thereafter. You can hear the difference in the live tapes: in Gypsy, she occasionally turns to someone, and, given the primitive miking of the day, you lose the line. Then, as the last of the original Hello, Dolly!s, she’s back to hurling everything straight into the auditorium, and, except when she’s on the runway (which isn’t miked), you hear every word.

     Merman’s Rose was a tough broad with a show-biz center, exploiting her kids because she “just wanted to be noticed.” I’ve seen all the major Roses in the New York area (including Tyne Daly’s replacement, Linda Lavin, and, at Paper Mill Playhouse, Betty Buckley), and Merman was the titanic one. Further, her background in the above all comic show enabled her to get more laughs than her successors. However, in some strange way Merman’s was also a triumphant Rose—yes, even at the end, when she must face giving up her dream of getting noticed—because starring in a smash hit on Broadway is triumphant.

     And yet. Rose doesn’t triumph. And, despite her insistent reminders that her troupe were headliners on the Orpheum Circuit, she has been slogging along in the fourth division all her life.

     Later Roses have dealt more honestly with this paradox of the winner who loses. Rather, they  play losers who lose. But that doesn’t make it easier to understand; one reason we keep returning to Gypsy is to try to collect its protagonist, too rich and contradictory to absorb in one or even several visits. What does she love—her kids or show biz? And does she really want to marry Herbie? Or is that just one of the countless little memes she toys with as she recklessly storms through the world? No one chooses his or life as freely as Rose. Her establishing number, “Some People,” is an anthem devoted to free will—and we’d expect no less from a Sondheim character. While he wrote only the lyrics, to Jule Styne’s music, whether Sondheim collaborates on a score or writes both words and music, a Sondheim show is a Sondheim show: they all tour through the terrible real estate of the life freely chosen. As they used to say of unknown lands on ancient maps, Here Be Dragons.

     When I was preparing the bibliographical essay for my book On Sondheim: An Opinionated Guide, I found that some writers felt comfortable ignoring the shows Sondheim didn’t compose. What nonsense: a musical’s lyrics don’t count? West Side Story and Gypsy are Sondheim’s two biggest hits. Is it sensible to leave them out of a Sondheim survey? As far as that goes, it was Sondheim and Jerome Robbins who put together “Rose’s Turn”—and I always suspected that Sondheim composed the strange rising then falling triad chords that accompany the trio section (at the Poco meno mosso, to the words “I had a dream”) of “Some People.” In fact, I once asked him, point blank, if he had done so, and he responded without answering, delivering instead some praise about Styne’s amazing facility at the keyboard. Well, Sondheim’s always diplomatic about people he admires; or perhaps he didn’t care for the question. And I could be wrong. But that music, extremely advanced for 1959, doesn’t sound like Styne. (To be fair, Styne himself sometimes doesn’t sound like Styne, as in the title song of Subways Are For Sleeping, which in fact doesn’t sound like any other song ever heard on Broadway.)

     The Here Be Dragons in Gypsy is comparable to the places ventured into by Company’s Robert, Follies’ Ben Stone, A Little Night Music’s lawyer, almost everyone in Into the Woods, Passion’s Captain Bachetti, and many others in Sondheim shows. Each major Rose finds a different way of negotiating the perilous terrain, and now we have a vastly praised and very extreme interpretation from Imelda Staunton in England, which has suddenly become available online in a bootleg of a live performance at the Savoy Theatre in London. Staunton’s Rose is a massive portrayal, with a shattering finale, yet this is a mother without love and a finagler without charm. Merman’s Rose had her angry side, but it showed only when she was provoked. Staunton is a monster; she comes raging at you without preamble.

     The lack of love is especially shocking; like Verdi’s Macbeth, this is opera senz’amore. There are those who don’t believe there is such a thing as an unloving parent. They can conceive of misguided and even destructive and vindictive parents. But, they think, the love must be automatic.

     Well, they’re wrong. There are truly hateful parents. However, we don’t generally see Rose as unloving. We see her as obsessed, distracted by her goals, impatiently applying the choices of the free in her voyage to the isles of the blessed. The folks she describes in “Some People” aren’t free: because they make no choices. When Rose says, “I had a dream,” she really means, “I am choosing to be guilty of my life.” The melodic cell to which she sings those four words is so intrinsic to what Gypsy is about that it launches the overture and is the last thing we hear as the curtain falls. In the movie Schindler’s List, one character says, in a kind of ecstasy, “The list is life.” In Gypsy, the dream is life, and if you will it intensely enough—Hitler thought this, too, by the way—you’ll realize it.

     But Staunton’s Rose is not merely obsessed. She is so owned by her dream that nothing else is of value to her. When she smiles, it’s not because she’s happy, because she’s never happy. She smiles because no one at that moment is challenging her dream. And when, at last, she must give up the dream forever, she caps her stuttering “Momma”s with a wide-open mouth that recalls the terrible silent O that Brecht’s wife, Helene Weigel, made famous in Mother Courage, when she realizes that she has allowed one of her sons to be murdered. The shortish scene that follows has traditionally provided a reconciliation between mother and daughter; Merman capped it with something near delight. Goody—I’m going to a fancy party in a sable coat! But Staunton is wrecked. Her daughter leads their exit, tall and powerful. And Staunton shambles along, all the fizz drained out of her and her head cast down, like that of a slave in chains.

     It’s total Sondheim, comparable to how Follies’ Sally Plummer feels at the show’s end, scarcely able to move at all. Or think of Sweeney Todd, immobile in despair and even willing to have his own throat cut at the close of his show. I wonder, though, if we want to see Rose so destroyed. Is Gypsy a musical comedy or a musical play? The former can be read as (fantasy + minor problem + solution = fun); in other words, No, No, Nanette or Anything Goes. The latter is (reality + major problem + no solution = tragedy); in other words The King and I or West Side Story.  And Staunton’s Rose gives us a No Solution Gypsy.

     I wonder if this Rose so enthralls the public because it feels it finally understands the character, has finally seen her not merely lose but feel it to the utmost. It will certainly be one of the bullet-point performances in theatre history, and it’s wonderful to have it taped for posterity, even if the rest of the production is on the modest side. The minor character men have been overdirected and the Herbie is no more than correct (though “All I Need Is the Girl” is the best I’ve ever seen, and the Louise is good.) And Rose’s father amusingly says “You ain’t getting eighty-eight cents from me, Rose,” the words Sondheim uses in a cameo on the Merman cast album, even if text and score give the line with “eight [not eighty-eight] cents.”  Perhaps it’s a Gypsy performing tradition, like certain interpolated high notes in opera arias.

     Above all, will Staunton’s renovated Rose influence successors? Merman said that Irving Berlin “made a lady” out of her tough broad because Annie Get Your Gun brought out her tender side. True, tender people don’t marry Ernest Borgnine, and there was nothing tender in Merman’s Rose. But Staunton has made a lady out of Rose in an entirely different way, as a tragic heroine: she strives, unknowing, till calamity brings self-knowledge and the elimination of the self from the world of the living. It will be interesting to see if Gypsy itself changes form or reverts to the sweets-filled if regretful show that we have been enjoying up to now.    

    

Monday, October 19, 2015

I'M IN THE NUDE FOR LOVE


     Everyone knows about this now, but in 1979 it was a shock: two gay roommates are recapping last night’s wild party, whereupon the trick that one of them brought home walks in, completely naked. Present-day Manhattan, the West Village, right?

 

     Only not long after this, military men burst  in, shot the trick and then cut his throat while the two gay boys fled. And a sign came down from the flies, reading “Berlin—1934.”

 

     It’s Bent, and the nudity, which lasted while the trick paraded downstage and then, facing away from us, moved back up and exited, was at once natural and gratuitous. That is, of course the trick would leave the bedroom skin-side out after a night of lovemaking. But the actor had clearly been chosen to stun us, with a toned physique, glistening flesh, and a spectacular bottom. He later became a prominent Hollywood name, but in 1979 he was just starting out, and though he is unquestionably a fine actor, his job in Bent was to remind us of the essential visual component in the way we understand the intensity of sexual hunger. More: all Broadway told the tale that one of the actors playing the Nazis complained that, backstage before his entrance, the young actor was fluffing himself—well, duh—and summed it up as “I’ve played Shakeapeare and the classics, and now this!”

 

     Nudity was rare then. True, there had been a season or two of mostly gay nudefests, almost entirely off-Broadway, starting in 1969 and often starring avatars of the gay cruising grounds. You saw them dancing at the Tenth Floor, shirtless in the Eagle, or exciting comment at tea out at the Pines. Or they worked out at your gym; now they were actors. And of course there was Oh, Calcutta, though that was more of a counter-cultural statement than an acknowledgment of human hunger. It was political, conceived by Kenneth Tynan because he was one of England’s leftist bad boys, antagonizing the authorities because that’s how freedom exercises its muscles. As one of those authorities himself once said, “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.”

 

     Also true, nudity is all but routine today, even in opera. At Covent Garden, I saw the world premiere of three hours of twelve-tone shrieking, Gawain. Its composer, Harrison Birtwhistle, never got the memo that dodecaphonic music, having produced all its masterpieces relatively early in the twentieth century, was now a closed thread. Anyway, in the title role, Francois le Roux underwent a sort of shriving ceremony completely naked, full frontal, for something like ten minutes. (A friend asked, “And?,” to which I replied, “Promising.”) Further, Christopher Alden, one of my opera-director friends, says that whenever he proposes to set a scene from something in a spa—Monteverdi works well, apparently, but you can do it with anything except Suor Angelica—and asks if one of the chorus guys is willing to drop his towel, there’s always a dude who immediately raises his hand.

 

     Moving on to literature, though, the showrunner (so to say) can get away with a lot more, because sex becomes intellectualized. There are still some things you can’t show on stage or film, but you write as honestly as you like—and don’t we have to understand what a character needs from sex simply to know that character? I’m not talking about kink. I mean how people are drawn toward or away from the physical expression of affection. Women want to re-encounter the daddy they knew when they were toddlers, that source of love and protection. It’s an emotional attraction; how does that translate into the physics of love? Men are easier to comprehend, because the physical is their portal; only the most intrepid among them master the emotions in the room behind the door.

 

     So authors develop character in a sex scene. I had to grip this while writing a novella called One Day in France, centered on an atrocity of World War II that took place in the village of Oradour-sur-Glane: the burning alive of the inhabitants and the destruction of their little town (which, by the way, has been left as the Nazis left it, by order of Charles de Gaulle, to serve as a war memorial). I wanted to show how the civilized always face barbarian enemies, in whatever age, and how defenseless the civilized have made themselves. But I wanted to show as well how full of life everyone is before the catastrophe, because civilization is full of life, with its rich stock of music and theatre, its nudity and fluffing and sarcastic gay dish, its nonconformism and playful crazy beingness. Everything barbarians hate.

 

     So I modeled one (straight) couple on the Abbé Prévost’s Manon Lescaut and her lover, the Chevalier des Grieux, simply because the novel and its opera, ballet, and film versions typify our arts world. It’s an edgy story, though we think of it as just another constipated old classic. Lurking behind its plot, very near to the view, is the same need to reveal how much of the visual resides in the sexual that I just remarked upon in Bent. Manon Lescaut tells of two teenagers in an obsessive romance that is destroyed by her wish for financial comfort. Here are two beautiful creatures so mad with love that, in effect, they fuck till it kills her—but of course Prévost couldn’t say that in 1731, or even twenty-five years later, in a very slight revision. The first version was banned in France, because it told of a love whose only morality is its own greed for consummation, and everyone reading the novel back then knew what a writer of that epoch couldn’t say outright: that marriage is society’s method for suppressing sex. A hot coupling brings us close to the divine, but it also threatens social stability. To tell, as Prévost did, how the utmost beauty inspires the densest hunger, is to blaspheme, which is one reason why gay-hatred is often a religious phenomenon. Indeed, at one point des Grieux’s family forces him to take holy orders, a hetero version of Pray Away the Gay (and, like the current version, it doesn’t work).

 

     There is another layer atop all this, because Manon Lescaut the novel is narrated by des Grieux himself. Or, more exactly, it’s narrated by “a man of quality” who reassigns narrator command over to des Grieux. So we have  the young hero’s viewpoint, not that of the usual omniscient narrator. Once only, the man of quality meets Manon, to ruminate on “le caractère incomprehensible des femmes”: womankind’s incomprehensible nature. But isn’t that mankind’s rationalization for the way women resist his control?

 

     Because we notice that, in all the modern adaptations of Prévost, Manon has all the power in the relationship. Auber’s opéra comique adaptation of Prévost (1856), immensely popular for a generation despite its unhappy ending—a provocative violation of genre—gives all its goodies to the soprano, with a ton of coloratura escapades. The baritone, as one of her admirers, gets some nice couplets, but des Grieux, the tenor lead, has no self-defining solo.

 

     At least Massenet (1884) and Puccini (1893) bring the tenor forward, and, after Auber’s tuneful but shallow piece, it’s refreshing to hear his two successors exhilarate the tale, open it up to take in the life around the central couple. Prévost’s novel is constricted and obsessed; he travels here and there in Paris but takes no notice of his surroundings—the markets, the Opéra, the people. He scarcely even gives anyone’s name—it’s all M. de T. or M. de G.M. (There are two G. M.s, father and son, both of course wild for delectable Manon; Prévost really does shatter the Commandments.) Des Grieux has no first name, and when the two lovers and her brother (her cousin in the operas) are out walking, a man steps up, crying, “C’est Lescaut” (as the stranger lets off a pistol shot). “Il ira souper ce soir avec les anges”: Tonight he’ll dine in heaven.” Then this who-was-that? takes off, and Prévost never troubles to tell us what that was about, because it’s des Grieux’s tale to tell, and all he knows is Manon.

 

     Are they the only people in the world, those two? Massenet and, to a lesser extent, Puccini color in the narration with piquant episodes, though the latter felt he had been sharper at realizing Prévost. Massenet, he said in a famous line, saw the story en francais, with “wigs and minuets,” while he, Puccini, gave it “passion.”

 

     Yet Puccini’s second act is half wigs and minuets and only then passionate. It’s an act like no other in opera, because his first act introduces Manon as little more than a cipher. Massenet filled her out with stream-of-consciousness confessions and endearing flourishes, but Puccini leaves everything out. We know only that she is insanely beautiful (the music says so), that des Grieux falls wildly in love, and that they run off to Paris together.

 

     Intermission.

 

     Then the curtain goes up on the greatest cold-open non sequitur in opera: Manon has already left des Grieux for some old clunkabunk’s gilded-cage palace, a naïve sweetheart boxing above her weight in the world of the wealthy, jaded exploiters of life’s chance thrills, such as helpless young women. Massenet’s heroine is on top of all this, but Puccini’s doesn’t understand the rules by which powerful men play with sweethearts—and, in the France of Manon’s day, aristocrats had the legal power of a hanging judge.

 

     Now for another coup de théâtre. The clunkabunk and his courtiers depart, and Manon, alone, turns to find in front of her, seething with rage, the last person she ever expected to see again: des Grieux. This is the passion section, in a splendid love duet of the kind that was pretty much the last formal invention in the form that we call “opera.” True, there’s that strange last scene in Monteverdi’s L’Incoronazione di Poppea, when two besotted freaks fit for I, Claudius launch their honeymoon. But not till Les Huguenots, Tristan und Isolde, Un Ballo in Maschera do we get love duets worthy of the name, and this one in Manon Lescaut is in the tradition.

 

     And yet Massenet is defter in the counterpart scene, when it is Manon who does the confronting and the Abbé des Grieux who does the resisting. Yes, she actually love-duets him in the church where he now preaches, and at its center is a tremendously intimate sequence, at “N’est-ce plus ma main?”:

 

          Isn’t this my hand in your hand?

          Isn’t this my voice

          Caressing you as always before?

 

The orchestra is reticent here at first, Manon’s phrases echoed by a solo violin. Opera occasionally tries to musicalize difficult propositions; one theme in Wagner’s Parsifal depicts the suffering on the Cross, or perhaps the tender horror it inspires. (Parsifal doesn’t lock all its leitmotifs into business-card clarity.) And here, Massenet tries to capture what the sexual temptation that you cannot resist sounds like. It’s naked music, but on the exalted level, wheedling but fierce. I love the live performances. At La Scala, Mafalda Favero gives it the verismo approach, pulling the line around, cringing and sobbing, but you can virtually hear the audience rapt in concentration; at the Met with conductor Thomas Beecham, Bidu Sayao is stupendously beguiling, with a hunger you can hear from space.

 

     And there’s a Manon ballet. When Nicholas Hytner was preparing his Carousel for England’s National Theatre, he told his choreographer, Kenneth MacMillan, that Carousel was about “sex and violence.” And MacMillan amiably growled, “Sex and violence is what I do.” He’s perfect for Manon—and dance is about bodies, so it can ask how much sex is there in love, how much love in sex. I recall a German staging of On the Town in which the Great Lover Pas de Deux found Gabey and Miss Turnstiles nearly naked and all but copulating. But is his idolization chaste and wondering, or just the dream of a horny sailor? And here’s the great On the Town line, from a wrecked old lush who teaches singing: “Sex and art don’t mix. If they did, I’d have gone right to the top!”

 

    But sex and art do mix. They have to, or art would be dishonest. Like the hot young devil in Bent, Prévost’s novel focuses on something unmentionable: the hotness that threatens to unravel the social order if we give it the reins. Isn’t that why all fascisms are by nature puritanical? Sexual freedom is freedom, period. And freedom is subversive to those who could control us.

 

     Thus, my French novel tells how democracies are always under the assault of fascists, and that led me to include a couple modeled on Manon and des Grieux. I may have under-modeled, though, because I changed almost everything about them. My des Grieux is shy, and my Manon likes to confuse people with ironic jokes. When the former speaks of how men see Prévost’s Manon as prey and hate her if she resists, the latter tells him, outrageously, “We women need these little attentions.” And she’s far more in charge of the liaison than he is. After their night together, he finds his way to church to repent, and she, untroubled in guiltless sin, takes a meditative walk along the riverfront of Limoges that seems to place her, through the magic of meta-fiction, in Roman Gaul, literally a Manon for the ages.

 

     Prévost wrote before psychology took over the novel; it was all narrative then while today it is all analysis theory. There is far too little history in the form, too little awareness of what forces have made us who we are: in a world in which the aggression that would smash Manon and des Grieux simply because they are so beautiful finds the free peoples not only failing to repel but actively welcoming it. Like the Wolves in the current season of The Walking Dead, barbarians don’t need a reason. They live to destroy and they destroy to live. What, then, happens to Shakespeare and the classics, even to Bent? The Wolves and their collaborators are everywhere among us now. James Burnham said, “Liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.” I don't think he meant the liberalism of social safety nets, women's biological rights, and so on. He meant our eagerness to tolerate the intrusion of those who would destroy us.

 

    

         

  

Saturday, August 22, 2015

THE SEXUALITY OF STEPHEN SONDHEIM'S COMPANY


     In 1970, Company was innovative, thrilling, and easy to understand, containing just three elements: an attractive, youngish straight man called Robert (that most basic of names, likening him to Everyman); his three girl friends; and a squad of married couples, each pair different from the others. They were the “extras” in his life, the company. Or was he the extra in theirs? And how did he come to know these people?

     George Furth’s book left out a load of details. That mean-girl sophisticate Joanne, for instance, played by the professional mean girl herself, Elaine Stritch: she didn’t seem like someone Robert would know, did she? He appears to like mellow, while she’s aggressive. But she’s the wife of Larry, so maybe…but why would Robert know Larry, for that matter? Isn’t Larry a bit…corny? Robert is hip, right? Sort of? Actually, while we’re at it, who was Robert? Who were any of these people?

     So Company wasn’t all that easy.

     Adding in producer-director Harold Prince and choreographer Michael Bennett, we have a creative team tilted toward gay, and it appears that all four had Anthony Perkins in mind for Robert, both as the model for the character and as the ideal exponent of the role.

     But Perkins was gay, and though he eventually turned the part down, presumably something of Perkins (but how much of him?) informs the creation of Robert, in his psychology, his attitudes, his sexuality.

     This makes Company even less easy yet, especially as the musical showed Robert living in a homogeneously heterosexual environment. At one point, all the company husbands sing, “Bobby boy, you know how I hate the opera,” so apparently he doesn’t even know any gay men, because we take the married couples as symbolic of the people in his life. In 1970, so early in the Stonewall era, if Robert was unusual enough to know a gay man—I mean an out one—the latter would surely have been on the Company stage.

     Further, when we see Robert’s erotic side, he’s in bed with a stewardess. Again, it’s symbolic: this is how Robert typically dates. So he’s not gay—but Anthony Perkins, who was certainly gay in his youth in Hollywood, married a woman and sired children, which makes both Company and Robert extremely not easy.

     I needed to detective my way through these puzzles for my forthcoming book, On Sondheim: An Opinionated Guide, but of course all the senior Sondheim shows (the ones that unveil his mature composing style, after Anyone Can Whistle) bedevil and captivate us with puzzles, which is why they keep being revived. You never quite collect them the way you collect, say, Hello, Dolly! or Zorbá. Actors love the Sondheims because there’s so much for them to play, and audiences love them because there’s always more to learn.

     The point of my book is that Sondheim is a classical composer who worked on Broadway, almost as if Debussy wrote musicals. However, while doing so, his imaginative curiosity led him to such offbeat themes and forms—and all with so much content within—that  he perforce ended in intellectualizing the musical. The German poet and dramatist Friedrich Schiller devised a useful way of considering artwork: it is either naïve or sentimental. That is, naïve art is created instinctively, emotionally, impulsively. Sentimental (really meaning “thoughtful”) art is created by plan, methodically and shrewdly. Here are samples:

      Naïve symphonist: Schubert. Sentimental symphonist: Beethoven.

      Naïve comic strip: Peanuts. Sentimental comic strip: Krazy Kat.

      Naïve blasphemy: “Christ!” Sentimental blasphemy: Madonna’s cone bra.  

 All of Sondheim’s art is sentimental. However, the details of the plan are not necessarily clear at one viewing; Sondheim really did pioneer the two-visit show, too smart and busy for anyone to absorb completely the first time.

     So Robert: after all the times we’ve seen Company, who is he? In certain ways, he is a quasi-Pinteresque figure, so believable yet so fantastical at the same time. And I do remark on Pinter’s influence on Furth’s script in my book. Consider: Pinter was the can’t-miss playwright on Broadway in the 1960s, and Furth would have to have taken those plays in, perhaps from The Caretaker’s fabulous $1.00 balcony seats. Pinter’s theatre can seem utterly unbelievable until you figure out the missing piece, the information the characters never give voice to because they wouldn’t utter it in life. Pinter skips the exposition; as the curtain rises, the development has already started. I give away The Homecoming’s missing piece in the book, but I’m too breathless to pause just now. Moving right along:

     Furth, in his turn, skips Company’s exposition. He doesn’t explain who the principals are and site them in their daily life. He doesn’t explain, period. No doubt Robert, somewhere, somehow, tells someone or other what Robert does for a living. It doesn’t occur in Company, but that doesn’t mean it never occurs. It merely doesn’t happen to come up during Company’s continuity, because everybody in the show already knows him (and what he does), except one of the girl friends, who, in her first scene, is making his acquaintance. And she is an eccentric, not the sort who asks people what they do.

     Similarly, Furth has no reason to define Robert’s sexuality for us in so many words—until the “bisexual scene” was inserted in a revision. Which brings us back to Anthony Perkins: one of the married men does a little something or other at Robert about getting it on with men and Robert does a little something or other back. But is this an attempt to fill in one of Robert’s mysteries, or simply Company getting trendy? And was Anthony Perkins something or othering his way through life? Because the evidence says otherwise. He was gay. Then he was married. Does that absolutely and utterly make him bisexual? Or was something else going on?

     Besides, generally speaking, are there really bisexuals? I’ve met Renee Fleming, Leonard Bernstein, Lauren Bacall, Tennessee Williams, and George Herbert Walker and Barbara Bush. I’ve even met Sondheim. But I’ve never met a bisexual.

     Here’s what I think: bisexual women are really lesbians who want to see what all the fuss is about and unite with a male. Momentarily. And bisexual men are phallocentric straights who enjoy crossing the line because dick fascinates them, though their emotional-romantic response focuses on women only.

     I could be wrong. This is all anecdotal, and it’s certainly an unpopular view nowadays, when the chic thing is to get on the Kinsey scale at somewhere in the middle. But I don’t think Anthony Perkins was bisexual. I think he was gay. And I don’t think Robert is bisexual, despite what he says in the added scene; we often wonder what Robert’s motivation is for saying what he says, which is part of what makes Company eternally fresh.

     No, I think Robert is a straight man who puts up a No Trespassers sign right at the line where “company” crosses over into an intimacy so dense that you lose your privacy forever. Because Robert is what Schiller would call a sentimental guy—a man who thinks everything through and carefully programs the events of his life. Love, however, is naïve: it takes you thoughtlessly, imperiously. It’s blind, remember?

     Robert doesn’t want to be taken.  But Anthony Perkins did, it would seem. And every time I hear Robert’s songs, no matter who is singing them, I hear Anthony Perkins’ voice in the music, Perkins of those wonderful Greenwillow songs, especially “Never Will I Marry,” with its stab-through-the-heart high note at the refrain’s climax. So which is it, Robert? Which way do you go?

     Well, as the pitch for Peggy Sue Got Married put it: Robert got married…or will he?

 

Saturday, June 6, 2015

RODGERS AND HAMMERSTEIN'S PIPE DREAM; or, Don't Make Speeches--Start the Show!


The seventh of R & H’s stage works, Pipe Dream came along at a particularly vulnerable time in their partnership. After the revolutionary Oklahoma! (1943) and Carousel (1945)—with, above all, two of the most remarkable scores ever heard to that point—they disappointed many with Allegro (1947), eventually revealed to be intensely influential as the first “concept musical” but built around a strangely deconstructed score using bits and pieces and giving the leads too little to sing, the musical equivalent of Pixy Stix.

       R & H shows were supposed to produce great cast albums; Oklahoma!’s 78s moved past a wonderful overture on side one to “Oh, What a Beautiful Mornin’” on the next disc, “The Surrey With the Fringe On Top” right after that, and so on—twelve cuts of absolutely first-rate music theatre, its characters jumping out of the speakers at you. Just to hear Alfred Drake’s Curly conjuring up the experience of a surrey ride expanded the American musical’s horizons after years of “The Best Things in Life Are Free’ and “Easter Parade.” Anybody could sing those songs, but only this particular cowboy—braggy and full of himself yet hiding a fierce tenderness for his sweetheart—was right for “Surrey.”

       Allegro’s cast album sold so poorly that it wasn’t transcribed to LP till a generation later. Then came South Pacific (1949) and The King and I (1951), R & H back in form with character-rich scores. However, another setback followed. Me and Juliet (1953), by any other team, would have satisfied, as a backstager with fabulous scenery and a ton of dancing, completely devoid of generic cliché. Unfortunately, it was devoid of everything else, too, with a lot of principals but no interesting conflict—Oklahoma!’s cold war of landowners (the farmers) and laborers (the cowmen), for instance, or The King and I’s battle to the death between two egomaniacs. And Me and Juliet’s score was no better than agreeable: here was another cast album that didn’t sell.

       So R & H was right back where it had been after Allegro, and the team needed to reaffirm the brand, as we now put it, with another of their great “musical plays,” an Oklahoma! or so. However, it was the 1940s that hosted their serious works. In the 1950s, they were doing musical comedy, a less highly strung format, with none of those angsty musical scenes or soliloquies that tear the heart open. After The King and I, R & H wrote in a more direct communication style. You know…songs.

       And that’s when Pipe Dream happened along, breaking one of the creative world’s primary rules: Don’t make art with your friends. R & H were personally close to novelist John Steinbeck and his wife, Elaine (who had been a stage manager on Oklahoma!), and someone thought it would be fun for R & H to do a Steinbeck musical. But the complex alchemy of writing and putting on a big show is very demanding on everybody’s ego. There will be criticism, blaming, and good old-fashioned screaming. You can make art with people you respect, but not with people you like, because you will need to hurt their feelings.

       But then, Pipe Dream didn’t start with R & H and the Steinbecks. It was originally a project for Frank Loesser with producers Cy Feuer and Ernest Martin, because all three had presented Broadway with Guys and Dolls, and Steinbeck’s fiction, set in northern California among society’s outlaws and the women who love them, seemed to promise another smash hit of the same kind.

       Then Loesser drifted away, R & H got involved (and bought Feuer and Martin out for a percentage), and Steinbeck, who was supposed to write  a libretto based on the storyline of his novel Cannery Row, announced that he didn’t want to write a libretto and, anyway, Cannery Row didn’t have a storyline. It was an atmosphere piece.

       Instead, Steinbeck wrote a novel, Sweet Thursday, set in Cannery Row and inventing what every musical needs, a love plot. This one united two Steinbeckian winner-losers (that is, interesting people who for neurotic reasons aren’t having interesting lives). Doc, a marine biologist, is loafing his days away with scientific busy work, and Suzy is a vagrant who fronts her vulnerability with dangerous anger. But musicals do love odd couples, from Naughty Marietta to Marie Christine.

        So Hammerstein turned Sweet Thursday into a libretto, R & H gave it lift and emotion with their fifties-style musical-comedy numbers, and they renamed it Pipe Dream because at one point Suzy takes up residence inside a boiler pipe. (Yes, really). The show marked a departure from R & H because of the wastrels and bordello girls in the narrative. And yet it was typical R & H as well in its strong sense of community (as with Carousel’s fisherfolk and South Pacific’s seabees); in its making room for an opera soprano, Helen Traubel, as the bordello madam (because Rodgers vastly preferred singers who act to actors who sing; most R & H productions had sopranos or mezzos in at least one role); in its lack of high-fashion choreography, which had given South Pacific an extra shot of realism; and in the offbeat nature of the show as a whole, as every R & H project had been offbeat except Me and Juliet.

       So far, so good, but Pipe Dream did not work. Some blame Helen Traubel, though, as we can see in MGM’s Sigmund Romberg bio, Deep In My Heart, she was a performer of warmth and power, exactly what her part needed. She may have been on the stately side, though, and the musical as a form needs vitality from its stars.

       Some feel R & H had trouble getting into Steinbeck’s earthy worldview. They didn’t exactly tiptoe around it—some of the scenes were set inside the bordello, and, early on, Doc’s latest one-night-stand, Millicent, feeling ignored by Doc, assumed that his pal—a man named Hazel—was Doc’s boy friend. “Maybe that explains the whole thing!” she cried, angrily, as she left. It’s a very advanced moment for a musical of 1955.

       Nonetheless, there was the feeling that Pipe Dream ended up an R & H musical but not a Steinbeck musical, and I think I know why, because, some years ago, in London, I gave a speech introducing a staged concert of Pipe Dream. Then, home again, I did exactly the same thing way up town, in a theatre so far to Manhattan’s northeast that it should have been under water. The English had enjoyed my improvisational talk well enough, but I decided to prepare the second talk, so I opened with the first lines of Cannery Row, in which Steinbeck describes his setting as “a poem, a stink, a grating noise, a quality of light, a tone, a habit, a nostalgia, a dream…Its inhabitants are, as the man once said, “whores, pimps, gamblers, and sons of bitches,” by which he means Everybody.”

       I quoted these lines to emphasize that Steinbeck’s world is writerly and paradoxical and above all anarchic. It’s everything going off at once yet nothing ever happens—and musicals are about people who make things happen. For instance a belle vamps the football hero so he’ll play for the home team and Win the Big Game! (That’s Leave It To Jane.) Or a sinner  blows his money on the temptress known as Miss Georgia Brown and, she, feeling religion coming on, gives it away to the church so he gets into heaven after all! (That’s Cabin in the Sky.)

       Thus, Pipe Dream couldn’t have worked, because its characters resist the musical—especially the R & H musical, which is orderly to a fault. Cannery Row is disorderly, so when Pipe Dream’s people are running around trying to fix Doc and Suzy up, it’s not natural, because it overturns the authentic Cannery Row environment. The show really needed lazy songs, pointless songs, songs that sneak up on you and then wander away; but what kind of musical is that?

       True, the score is wonderful as sheer music, and some of the character numbers work well. Suzy’s “Everybody’s Got a Home But Me” catches her strength and wistfulness at once, and Hazel’s “Thinkin’” is properly goofy. Doc sounds the forgiving Steinbeckian philosophy in “All Kinds Of People.” But “How Long?” a choral number when Cannery Row is heartening Doc up in his courtship of Suzy, is too darn organized. It has a terrific vocal arrangement, which eventually reaches six-voice harmony, but it misrepresents Cannery Row. The inhabitants don’t spend their time heartening anyone, and, frankly, these people are not in harmony with each other or anything else. Remember, Cannery Row is a stink, a grating noise, a dream. It’s eternally inconclusive, and if there’s anything an R & H musical is, it’s conclusive. Every song finishes off a scene, an idea, a hope.

       So that’s what I said in my New York speech before a performance of Pipe Dream, and the whole time I was talking I saw the audience glaring at me in fury. They didn’t want a speech. They wanted the show to start.

       I bring this up now because there was a thread recently on one of the Broadway sites on this very matter, as theatre buffs, trolls, and the usual “me, too” schmengies discussed whether or not managers of small theatre companies should program an address before a performance. Are they imparting information we need to have? Or are they just showing off before a captive audience?

       I was especially taken with one post, recalling an organization in San Francisco that gave an annual luncheon that was ruined for several years  by a co-chair who, at the very end when people wanted to leave, would launch into a ramble through whatever was on his mind, including pauses during which he would grin while slowly reaching for his next paragraph. The poster called it “insufferable.” The second year the co-chair did this, some folks got up and left while he talked, and though the facing bench told him to mind the light (as they put it in Quaker meetings), he kept on giving his insufferable talk till he was removed from his co-chairmanship.

       Now, why did he do this? Was the occult pleasure of controlling the room enough to outweigh the disadvantage of appearing selfish and needy? And are speeches a bad idea altogether? Because the one I gave before that little New York Pipe Dream sure was.

       I didn’t take part in that online thread, but I’m posting now. I think these little-theatre organizations have to decide whether they lean toward Broadway or the church-basement bake sale. The former is professional, sophisticated, polished. The latter observes clubhouse manners, rustic and informal. Both attitudes are viable; it’s simply a matter of fixing your ID in one tone or the other. If you want respect, omit the speech and start the overture. If you want the relaxed air of friends getting together, keep the speech. But if the audience is glaring at you while you give it, it may be that you and your public have incongruent agendas.

       And don’t make art with your friends.

            

 

      

Friday, February 20, 2015

DADDIES DON'T BREAK--PART FOUR

A TALE FOR GROWNUPS ONLY


But it wasn't Quentin who came up. It was Lionel, apologizing for coming over without warning and in an air of such unhappy haste that we had no choice but to reassure him, with a glass of sparkling and a quick introduction to and backstory on runaway Bentley and his valise.


"It's a bad time, yes, I see that," said Lionel, settling in on the couch while trying to look as temporary as possible, "but frankly I don't know which way to turn. It's...I'm sure I've mentioned him. Clete Jarvis? I've known him for eons, and...Oh, this is so awful, I'm just going to crash into it." A deep breath, then: "He's dying. It's some blood disease. He's had it a long time. Long time. But now...and he's actually taking it...well, calmly. But, see, he's worried about his dog, who's going to take care of it after he...So he wants to adopt it out, and now, not later."

Those of us who had been standing now sat. Those sitting leaned back. It was listening time.

"Look, Clete knows the dog will be killed if it ends up in  shelter, because there's something wrong with it. Some I don't know thing. One night he simply fell backward and wet himself. Just helplessly...A weakness in his hind legs. And there's this idea in the dog pack that if one of them is vulnerable in some way, the others attack it. Instinct stuff. This dog knows he has Clete's love, but there's always that nature thing, you know. Of course, Clete picked him up and carried him into the bathroom. Washed him. Comforted him. And the next day the vet...and of course it's never good news."

"What sort of dog is he?" asked Cosgrove.

"They kill them at these shelters if they're not adopted. They call it 'euthanizing.' To make it sound like...a birthday party or something. Why don't they just say what it is? They kill them." Now he answered Cosgrove's question: "Little Nemo. It's a white lab. Wary of strangers, but very affectionate within the pack. And he loves to go out and tour the neighborhood. Clete was like that, too, until...You know, like straights run around a lot in their twenties and then they get homebound. But gays run around all their lives, because we don't want to miss anything. Clete never knows when...when his condition will get...so he and the dog are his whole world, and they play together. He has these antique building sets from eBay, in little yellow boxes. Cars and jet planes and...like with bags of screws and bolts. He sits on the floor with the dog and constructs these...objects. The instructions are printed on the back of these little boxes, and they're incredibly hard to read. Compressed. And the dog helps him, taking up a piece in his mouth and offering it to Clete. "Now bolt this one on" sort of thing. Of course, it's never the right piece."

Lionel almost lost it then, but he kept on going.

"There's a whole series of them. Meccano, they're called."

Everyone looked at me.

Clearing my throat, I explained, "I have those sets myself." I got up and went over to the chotchke display in the breakfront--Coca-Cola trucks, a Beatles harmonica, Tin Tin figurines, a penguin beanie baby that Cosgrove won playing Strip Bingo at the LGBTQXMGDWZF Community Center, and a Meccano racing car with juicy decals dotting its surfaces. I showed it to Lionel, and he took it, studying it as if it held the answer to some central question. Everyone else just sat there, except Cosgrove picked Fleabiscuit up and set the dog in his lap. No one else is allowed to handle him.


And then the buzzer sounded.


"My my," said Dennis Savage. "I wonder who that could be."


Bentley hunched up a bit, as if he wanted to disappear, and now it really was Quentin. Carlo let him in, and no one said anything as Quentin surveyed the gathering, processing not only his errant boy friend but the valise as well. Moving into the room, Quentin asked Bentley, "You runnin' off somewhere? Because you're gonna come home and face the music."


Suddenly invigorated, Bentley cried, "Oh no, I'm not!"


"First of it, you have nowhere else to go. And second, yes, you will."


"I won't let you trouble me!"


Quentin accepted a glass of sparkling from me and quietly told Bentley, "You're lucky there's folks around." He never looked more big-shouldered and thrilling, but (laying aside the gay talk) one might instead just say that combat veterans are a breed apart. Thank you for your service.


"I'm always cheered when a dangerous hunk enters the scene," said Lionel, "especially when he's pursuing a twisted relationship with a handsome boy. At any other time, I'd dance a jig. But right now I need to redeem Little Nemo, and I'm sorry but one of you needs to adopt him, Yes, it's pushy. It's unforgivable. And you're already dog owners, I see that."


"Actually," I said, "we're the dog's wait staff."


"You're stubborn," Quentin said, addressing Bentley but looking in Lionel's direction. (Lionel much confused.)


"Where's your stupid toothpicks?" cried Bentley. "That you're always chewing on so rudely?"


Quentin stepped toward him, but Bentley moved away, behind the couch, as Carlo warned Quentin, "No rough stuff, chief."


"Save that for later," Quentin replied.


"Please, please, people," Lionel pleaded, "don't hijack the thread. I'm trying to get a home for a very deserving doggie."


"Is he sweet-natured?" Cosgrove asked, while Quentin stared menacingly at Bentley and Bentley continued to defy him with head-high looks and clenched fists. He looked as the Norse god Thor must have in his second-grade Easter pageant.


"Yes, he's sweet-natured," Lionel told Cosgrove. "Sweet as apple candy."


"Where do you plan to live, if not with me?" Quentin asked Bentley.


"I'll find a way! There are some that like me, whatever you say!"


"What's apple candy?" Cosgrove asked.


"Will someone please help?" Lionel cried, almost feebly. "This is a wonderful animal. His poor master is dying, and instead of hoping for a cure he just wants to find his old friend a home. He is a good dog. A noble dog."


"Why is he noble?" Cosgrove asked.


At first Lionel didn't answer. He sighed and worried.  Then: "He was a combat dog in Iraq. Sniffing out enemy munitions or something. So he...well, he saved lives, didn't he? They tend to burn out because the work is so intense, and the noises of war unnerve them. Somehow or other he was brought back here, and then...some program, I don't know. But listen. When you put a dog in a shelter, it breaks him. Because his whole existence is bound up in the relationship with his owner. When you give him up, he feels rejected to the very bottom of his soul. He doesn't understand that you're unable to go on with him. You see these dogs in those cages, not moving and turned away from everything with their head down, all torn up. They have feelings, you know, just like us."


There was a silence, during which Lionel finally set the Meccano racer down on the coffee table. And then Quentin said, "I'll take the dog."


Lionel looked up at him. "You would...really?"


"The boy can look after it, instead of screwing everything else up. I s'pose he could do that much. Got my truck outside, so we can go pick the dog up tonight. If His Highness climbs down from his throne."


"Such a dog will bite you," said Bentley, still the antagonist, "if you try to strike me."


Quentin just shook his head in resignation.


Lionel sprang up. "Okay, then. Let's...let's do the truck and the dog and Clete will...well, he'll be so relieved, and it's...it's sad. But at least Little Nemo is saved."


"What kind of name is that for a combat dog?" Quentin asked. "I recall they're usually Sarge or Runner and the like."


"It's from an old comic strip," I explained. "Nemo was a little boy who dreamed each night of fanciful adventures in the sky, and in the last panel he would awaken back on earth."


Quentin looked at Bentley, his expression saying, Unlike the boy, who never returns from his fanciful adventures. And Bentley looked back, his face a blank.


"I'm Lionel, by the way" was the start of some introductions, whereupon he called his friend on my land line to have him get Little Nemo ready to travel. That would be a farewell I didn't like to think about, but, meanwhile, everyone got up to mill about and Quentin, staring at Bentley, very, very quietly said, "C'm'ere." Bentley came. Behind me, I heard Lionel saying, "No, I don't know them, but they...the names? I...who knows, Tom Sawyer and Robo-Cop..." But I tuned out to watch Quentin take Bentley's hand in his and mime writing letters in his palm. Then Bentley did the same to Quentin--some sort of private ritual, it appeared. Cosgrove was collecting the glasses and Carlo and Dennis Savage were conferring about something or other, but Quentin and Bentley were lost in secret séance.


To washing-up noises in the kitchen, Lionel got off the phone and, for some reason, picked up Bentley's valise, saying, "Let's roll!" Carlo opened the door and then Bentley impulsively threw his arms around Quentin and held on tight. He said, "Don't...don't..." Just that much. But Quentin didn't hold the boy in return. Again most quietly, he said, "No one else can understand," and Bentley relinquished his hold. Lionel marched out, Bentley followed, and Quentin, also leaving, said, "Now it's good," though he never sounds content when he says it.


It was all over but the recaps, and finally bedtime rolled around. Dennis Savage went up to his place, and Carlo told me, "Got something to say to you, Bud." To Cosgrove he added, "Need privacy for this."


"It's about how Quentin and Bentley are father and son, right?" Cosgrove answered. "He told us so riding in the park, and that's as solemn as a pinky swear."


"Young Bentley's always making things up," Carlo told him. "You know that. Scoot, now."


Cosgrove went into the bedroom, but Fleabiscuit dawdled to play spy, and Carlo told him, "Dog, too." So he joined Cosgrove, though he grumbled all the way.


Watching the dog depart, Carlo told me, "Break out the hard stuff. Got something to say."


Vodka on the rocks with lime.


"What it is, Bud," he began, taking across the coffee table from me, "is small-town life. No independence. Everyone knows what you're doing. Sure, it's farms, mostly. Lots of open space and hiding places. But they find you. They know you."


He took a gulp of liquor, swallowed, and drew breath at his leisure.


"High school's about dating. You get wow on a girl, say. And she's wow on you? Check. Next thing," as he put his feet up on the table, stretching out as he unveiled his tale, "she's pregnant. And all the town's after her for the father's name. The name! The name! We will have this name! And why do they need it so?"


Another swallow.


"To make him pay. He's young and interesting and having his fun. Guys in charge? Can't stand that. They hate young. They hate interesting. But you know what they hate most of all?"


"Liberty," I said.


He nodded. Suddenly, he got up and went to my desk, one drawer of which is his, private, absolute. No one else can go there. He fished something out and came over to show it to me.


Half an amulet.


"That's Bentley's," I said. "He said his father has the matching piece."


Carlo shook his head, holding the thing and moving his hand up and down as if weighing it. How light is love?"


"It's not Bentley's," he said. "It's mine, given to me quite some time ago now."


And then it all fell into place. "Quentin really is Bentley's father," I said. "And his lover. Bentley's just guessing, but you've known it all along."


"We were special-close, Bud. He had feelings for me, so he gave me this as a token. To protect me. Care for me. Because he knew he was going to light out of the place before I did."


"Cosgrove," I called out, "stop eavesdropping and go to sleep!"


There was no response, but I did hear rustling; and Fleabiscuit growled a little.


"And now with the boy Bentley," Carlo went on. "Protect or care? Flash by night? Will they hold each other so tender over the years, or is it just housemates taking advantage of a situation?"


"There's this famous story," I said. "They asked Zhou Enlai if the French Revolution was a good thing."


Carlo walked over to the windows and pulled one open; I felt a breeze of cool summer-night air flow in.


"This would be about, say, 1971. And Zhou replied, 'It is too early to say.'"


At which Carlo hurled the amulet into the night.


"Of course," I continued, "some say he was actually talking about the rebellion of 1968, which takes all the air out of the tale."


"Some things are best left unknown," Carlo observed, coming back to me. "Because there are just too many damnhell feelings inside. Too many hopes. Too many Bentleys waiting to be rescued, running around with their bags all packed and their feelings hurt."


He sat again, took up his drink, and gulped down the rest of it. All gone.


"Just like us."