The New York Times has a behind-the-scenes look at a new version of Phillip Glass’s modernist opera, “Satyagraha,” which is playing at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York until May 1. There is also a companion video piece, which I could watch but not listen to from the computer I’m working on this morning.
The libretto uses the Bhagavad-Gita as a source, and the opera as a whole aims to index some of the key events in Gandhi’s early political awakening in South Africa with the plot and text of the Gita. That alone might be a little confusing, since the central question facing Arjuna in the Gita, as most readers will know, is whether or not to fight — and Gandhi’s signature political contribution (“Satyagraha”) is the philosophy of non-violent resistance. The choice could of course be defended depending on your interpretation of the Gita, and indeed, I gather that Gandhi did his own translation — with commentary — of the Bhagavad-Gita in 1924. I haven’t read Gandhi’s version, though I should note that it has recently been re-published as a volume called Bhagavad-Gita According to Gandhi.
The current interpretation of Glass’s work adds some new elements, including a strong focus on newsprint and newspaper culture as a theme in Gandhi’s story (that at least seems dead-on). There are also towering puppets, made of “newspaper, fiberglass kite poles, light cotton cloth and lots of latex glue,” which symbolize historical figures from Gandhi’s past (Tolstoy), present, and future (MLK).
It seems like an interesting work, though I have to admit I’m not sure I personally would enjoy it. (And most tickets under $100 have already been sold out, so it’s not something where a person would go casually…) Has anyone seen this? Is anyone planning to?
I have always been a fan of Philip Glass’s works and am hoping to get tix to this, though to my surprise there are very few weekend performances, even though it’s 3.5 hours long. Incidentally, there are a series of events this weekend, in conjunction with the opera’s opening, including a free conference at St. John the Divine in NYC. More details here.
Oh, this is my aunty side coming out: the singles amongst you in their 20s and 30s might find this interesting: Connect at the Met 🙂
“That alone might be a little confusing, since the central question facing Arjuna in the Gita, as most readers will know, is whether or not to fight…”
At a deeper level, the question facing Arjuna was whether to fight the demons and evils within himself. He was in a situation where he had to fight, but backed out, since he faced people whom he knew well, people he grew up with and people he respected. (his own intellect, his own qualities like jealousy, hatred, anger, etc).
There is no conflict – Gandhi chose to fight! His method was that of non-violent resistance. He was very clear and firm with his goal.
The more I think about it, the more I realize just how very clear, how absolutely clear Gandhi was about this – that kind of clarity and vision is just amazing!
“That alone might be a little confusing, since the central question facing Arjuna in the Gita, as most readers will know, is whether or not to fight…”
Since Gandhi was a compulsive diarist, and a confessor.
He himself wrote about his start of ways leading to Satyagraha.
If you see “train incident” as a turning point in his life, there is a truth to Arjuna comparison that he felt very conflicted, and scared.
In his own words, he sat at the Pretoria Railway station platform whole night shivering in the dark – scared, alone, and upset. He had some luggage booked that had his blanket, and he was even scared to inquire about it.
It was that long night that was the turning point.
I’ve got tickets (<$100) to see this in a couple of weeks, and can't wait.
From that link:
Times sure are tough if non-violent resistance at $110 is the only option for 20 and 30-somethings, and even that alternative isn’t really open to the older crowd.
Gandhi addresses the fact that Krishna advocates violence:
“under the guise of physical warfare, it described the duel that perpetually went on in the hearts of mankind, and physical warfare was brought in merely to make the description of the internal duel morea lluring.”
“The author of the Mahabharata has not established the necessity of physical warfare; on the contrary he has proved its futility. He has made the victors shed tears of sorrow and repentance, and has left them nothing but a legacy of miseries.”
“Let it be granted, that according to the letter of the Gita it is possible to say that warfare is consistent with the renunciation of fruit. But after forty years’ unremitting endeavour fully to enforce the teaching of the Gita in my own life, I have in all humility felt that perfect renunciation is impossible without perfect observance of ahimsa in every shape and form.”
Gandhi says the main revolution of the Gita is that it changes the meaning of the Sannyasa. No longer can sannyasa avoid activity.
Like most Indians, Gandhi had the British to thank for his expsoure to the Gita, and he first read the Gita in English – in his case a shoddy verse translation by Edwin Arnold. He then read it in somewhat formal Gujurati. He did his translation into less formal Gujurati for women and Shudras. Someone else then translated that into English.
“That alone might be a little confusing, since the central question facing Arjuna in the Gita, as most readers will know, is whether or not to fight…”
Is Wendy Doniger your professional name?
The Geeta’s central teaching is to do your dharma dispassionately. Every Indian (Hindu?) child is taught that.
True, violence in Mahabharata vs. non-violence of Gandhi’s. On a fundamental level, though, Gandhi’s inspiration was Gita’s concept of karma (action). The philosophy of Gita, to reduce it to street lingo, is very simply “You gotta do what you gotta do.” That’s why Krishna acts like Arjuna’s shrink, liberating him from the terrible conflict over violence, and teaches him about the need to kill, in this case his own relatives, for the greater good.
(The “You gotta do what you gotta to do” interpretation of the Gita was offered by an ABD baccha in our Bal Vihar class recently. I thought it was pretty good.)
Gandhi’s non-violent solution was not only philosophical but, in retrospect, quite shrewd. He had seen the futility of a violent underground movement – not to disparage the “other” type of heroes of the freedom movement – in a country that was so populous, diverse and huge. Whether a Bhagat Singh type of approach would have ever worked is highly doubtful.
Has anybody seen Shyam Benegal’s “The Making of the Mahatma?” It was all about his formative years in South Africa, and how he slowly evolved into the visionary we all know.
As for Phillip Glass’s opera “Satyagraha,” at times I hate being stuck in this tropical paradise. I understand the Rockettes are in town.
In light of the Obama character controversy on Saturday Night Live, does anyone find it disturbing that Gandhi is played by a white guy? Or at the very least, that the media hasn’t said a word about this?
Check my website for a review and pics.
thanks..
Thanks, noblekinsman and Floridian. I enjoyed your comments above. @10, runnerwallah, I like the face that a non-Indian is playing Gandhi. Gandhi was an important figure at the world stage. I am somewhat irritated by the views of the some people that MLK’s views are something that black people need to pay attention to or that Gandhi’s thoughts are for Indians. That is clearly not the case. Then why not have a local person play character.
I remember seeing a TV play once when I was in India with Irfan Khan with a full head of hair and shaved chin playing Lenin and that was fine. Casting a local allows one to focus on the ideas of the character rather than his/her exotic-ness.
This is true.
The “You can’t play with my Gandhi doll” approach is unhelpful to everyone. Not every “white man portraying an Indian” is blackface or cariciature. Often, in the world, there’s plenty of honest motive among ( a small amount) of insincerty.
and dont listen to the AP They invented “WMD”.
On the contrary, I am not insinuating that Gandhi’s views are for Indians only. I do hope they cast the best person for the role but I do also hope they made an attempt to cast someone who looked, well, a little bit more like Gandhi.
Part of me wonders if the few South Asian opera singers have ever been denied roles because they did not look like the character. If so, let it cut both ways! But I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.
Can’t speak for desi opera singers but in the otherwise all-white local musical/theatre group I was in my colour was never an issue.
I distinctly remember a black Henry V in the news a few years back.
Just a related question: can anyone name any South Asian opera singers? I’d love to check him/her out, but I’ve never actually seen a Desi name on the big boards in front of Lincoln center…
I awoke just past midnight to the sound of applause and “bravo”s resonating around the theatre. My first ever opera, and can’t believe the third act was enough to send me snoozing. Maybe the week had taken its toll, but maybe the opera wasn’t as inspiring as many critiques made it out to be. I’d purchased a $175 ticket on a whim. In town for two weeks and nothing to do on a friday night, so why not risk the evening with an opera on bapu. I wan’t sure what to expect, but i took my seat and began engaging with people around me. It was clear from the onset i’d maybe bitten off more than i could chew. Philip Glass was not for the novice. This was a learned man’s opera, completely in sanksrit with minimal translations projected on to the stage back drop appearing every so often, then quickly disappearing leaving you feeling none the wiser. Tolstoy, arujuna, krishan, bapu, martin l king all played a part at some point. Just through watching alone, it was impossible to make out the detials of the story being told. Before the start of the second act, you could see the audience frantically making a grab for their programs to read the precis for the next act, hoping to find some sense of what they were about to see.
The orchestral arrangements and the voices did you make you tingle, but the constant repetition and slow evolution did nothing to further arouse the senses. At 3hrs and 30 minutes (and some), anyone can be forgiven for a few minutes of shut eye on a late friday night. I’m sure this production will continue to receive plaudits, but for me, i didn’t quite get it (maybe i did, but just don’t realise it yet?) I think the lady in the seat to my left must have thought the same, she never showed for the final act. The lady to my right was full of praise and loved every moment of it. It was defintely a learning experience, and did open my eyes to new art. As for bapu, i think he’d have rather have got an early night and used the 3.5 hours to join the Free Tibet peaceful protesters by the hudson river the next day.
Thank you for your honest and funny! review! I just saw this (Nov 2011) and feel the same way. My row in the third act was quite roomy as most left. The man in front of me was snoring loudly. I took part in the standing ovation only to stretch my legs. Although visually interesting, I did not love the music and was not moved. A story such as Gandhi’s should move the viewer. I’ll even go so far to call it a bit of a pompous and self-serving production.
Your review is spot on if you went expecting Richard Attenborough.
It was avant garde, I also thought rajmohan gandhi slept through the show. he appeared sleepy when taking the applause in the end.
gack
Hitesh, don’t feel bad at all. The mere notion of it is enough to send me to….sknz…zzzzzzzzzzzz
i watched it last night. paid for a $25 standing ticket, and after the 1st break (40 mins in) was able to find seats, which is usual for the MEt Opera. There are always some people that leave at the first break.
i don’t have a very long tradition of watching operas. i’ve seen maybe 4.
this was by far the most visually exciting thing I have seen on the stage. it was multimedia but not in a calling attention to itself kinda way.
the score itself was strongest and to my liking in act 2, with a reliance on strings (violin, and bass, maybe cello too), and wood winds and flutes adding a playful element.
i didn’t read the playbill, so all I knew was that it was based on his awakening period in south africa. It was very difficult to recognize that it was sanskrit becasue of the operatic style of singing, and pronuciation with incorrect emphasis.
the 3rd act was slow, and I didn’t care for the music that much but the visual imagery and staging kept it thoroughly enjoyable. If you take more than a passing interest in cinema, you will find this very enjoyable.
don’t expect a history lesson on gandhi. you know that already don’t you?
If anyone is interested in just hearing the opera it’s scheduled to broadcast this weekend live from The Met and can be heard on a public radio station near you. Unfortunately this opera isn’t one that’s being shown in the movie theaters like some others have been.
was like this except gandhi was more stop motion (like those 22 fps films being played on a slow projector)
You can get rush tickets. I’m going to see it on Tuesday, I think.
I live in Washington, DC. I used the new BoltBus service by Greyhound and public transportation to get to the Met on Saturday, April 19.(I used to live in the NYC metro area, so I basically knew my way around…) I stood for the first two acts on the Orchestra floor and lucked out to obtain seats a few rows in for the third act. I have enjoyed Philip Glass’s music since I was a graduate student in Buffalo, NY. I attended the U.S. premiere of Satyagraha at the Artpark in Lewiston, NY on July 29, 1981. The sound, orchestra, and vocalists were awesome! I preferred the sets from the Artpark production. The lighting design for the 1981 production was absolutely amazing and complemented Glass’s music, IMO. My total out of pocket expenses were about $75.00 for transportation and music. It was definitely worth every penny!
I happened to catch about the last half hour of this on NPR when I got in my car Saturday. I was transfixed and sat in my driveway until it was over (I’ve been known to do this , my neighbors probably wonder). I am no music critic but I know what affects me, and I responded to what I heard on levels that are un-explainable. The music in the part I heard seems to run as an undercurrent to the voices, and I want to use the word discordant here, but I am not sure if that would be correct. And it really didn’t mater to me that I couldn’t understand a word, and had no clue what the story line even was. I only know that I would gladly have paid $175 to see and hear that in person. And I can understand why one might fall asleep, I once fell asleep during a very loud rock concert.
Philip Glass has the right to compose whatever kind of music he cares to, but I can’t believe the Metropolitan Opera (or any other reputable opera company) would condone and support such drivel. (My seven year old piano students are composing melodies of more merit.) I seem to sense an “Emperor’s New Clothes” situation here…
If this is what was performed on April 22 on public radio in the afternoon, the music motifs and instrumentations are used in The Hours(2002). I thought that had been original. Oh well.
Hitesh – Same thing here! After elbowing my activity partner every so often during Acts I and II in order to wake him, I found that I snoozed through all of Act III. Shame on me! Also my first opera, I thought the music was beautiful and contemplative. Maybe a little too contemplative…
I have been so delighted to read the postings and comments here. I saw the show in question in London and thought it magical. To read the thoughts of those who understand Ghandi’s place in the minds of contemporary Indian people puts this show into a whole new context for me. John Adams, commenting on his “Nixon in China” said that he thought American Opera could gain from reflecting on American experience. In this piece, Glass showed unequivocally that American Opera can succeed in Myth and History, Politics, Sociology and the intermingling of all these disciplines (just as Nixon in China does!). Thank you all for posting. You’ve absolutely made my day! Lots of love to you all.
Andy
This is the worst opera I’ve ever seen. The Metropolitan Opera, which is a brilliant house, took all its greatest talent to execute it, and the person playing Ghandi has a wonderful voice, but it’s laughable awful. I saw it on HD and listening to the executers of the set putting their best face on it made me giggle. It’s like calling Pollack art. The only reason it’s considered art is because art institutions say it is–but it isn’t. Absolute junk. It looks like someone put Night of the Living Dead to music. Everyone moves in slow motion, which is okay but they end up no where. The idea of it–connecting Tolstoy to Ghandi to Martin Luther King is intriguing and helped by the brilliance of the Met, but even the Met can’t save this one for their friend. The music is terrible. There is no libretto because he literally makes sounds up and calls it words. (Calling it an obscure language–sand script?–kinda like a voweled Klingon–literally. ) Don’t wait for the translation–there isn’t any. Just Ghandi sayings flashed on the wall. Run from this one. And the last act–said to have beens speeded up? OMG, it puts the icing on the cake. If you doubted you were watching something horrid it and that you just aren’t deep enough to get it this assures you that the thing is an LSD trip. I feel bad for the actors and set designers who put so much into this piece of horrible work and took it seriously. They tape the stage with such precision. Don’t worry. You get to watch this grass grow to the beat or relentlessly awful music and then you get to see it mowed. Run away from this one.