Search Results

This chapter is organized into four parts. Part 1 shows that, particularly in their treatment of the themes of power and subjectivity, 1 Henry IV and 2 Henry IV pursue such different thematic ‘logics’ that a radical separation of the two is called for despite their numerous connections. Part 2 focuses on Falstaff in 1 Henry IV. Part 3 focuses on Prince Hal, power, and resistance in 1 Henry IV. Part 4 looks at the issue of the audience's role in interpreting the text, arguing that assumptions of a monolithic Elizabethan unitary ideology (or ‘world-picture’) are problematic in a number of ways. Thus, recent power-centered interpretations of the play assume a univocal audience that contradicts everything we know about social divisions and their relation to different forms of consciousness. 1 Henry IV has a strongly utopian strain, resistant to power, and such a strain appealed to the many plebeians in the audience who helped make this one of Shakespeare's most popular plays.

This chapter is divided into two parts. Part 1 focuses on how success spoils Hal and Falstaff. It shows that shows that in 2 Henry IV, subjectivity becomes reified and hence subordinated to power, and the dramatic and poetic themes begin to register regret and nostalgia. Part 2 discusses the discontinuities of Henry V. In Henry V, the darkening of mood and themes evident in 2 Henry IV, is intensified, but contrary to a long critical tradition, this play revives the theme of subjectivity celebrated in 1 Henry IV when we catch glimpses of the young king's interiority in the scenes before the battle, and it is an interiority recognizably continuous with that of Prince Hal before the accession.

The conclusion speculates on the possibilities for future reinterpretations of Cabaret following Harold Prince's groundbreaking first production that represented a new musical form because it began with concept and libretto rather than score and because of its provocative subjects (Nazism, promiscuity, abortion). Prince's version dramatized its central metaphor and invoked German icons to justify Cabaret's distance from the traditional American musical. From the first, Cabaret turned the traditional morality of the musical on its head, and given the advances in sexual and political mores, it was possible for Bob Fosse, Sam Mendes, Amanda Dehnert, and their successors to extend the boundaries of sexuality and fascism in this show. The conclusion notes how the show has changed with each reinterpretation and predicts that future versions in other languages will further extend this musical's greatness.

This chapter counters received critical opinion and Sondheim’s own negative views by coming to the defense of the 1978 film adaptation of A Little Night Music, a musical that was itself based on a film. Drawing on extensive archival investigations, the chapter details the deletions, revisions, and new material created by Sondheim that achieved this transformation of genre. It also considers the broader context of cinematic adaptations of stage musicals during this period and beyond, noting a number of contemporary film musicals. The chapter alerts us to an inherent bias against later adaptations and leads us to consider how received critical consensus tends to predetermine future criticism and our own experience of a work. It also considers the film’s cast, focusing on Elizabeth Taylor’s performance.

This chapter is devoted to the astonishing career of Sweeney Todd. Although many of Sondheim’s other works are also generic hybrids, none comes close to the multiplicity and ambiguity inherent in this “musical thriller.” The author traces this musical’s hybridity right back to its relationship with its literary sources and to the divergent visions of Sondheim, Prince, and Wheeler as they created the show. The chapter convincingly identifies Brechtian elements, pace Sondheim, and discusses the multiple generic juxtapositions that exist between, and within, individual numbers. It argues persuasively that the work’s “generic failure” has actually enabled it to be reconceived radically again and again. The chapter also chronicles numerous productions, large and small, all the way to Tim Burton’s 2007 screen adaptation. The chapter concludes by suggesting that the work’s identity crisis may be the very source of its continuing success.

In this chapter the ubiquity of references to the Prodigal Son in Shakespeare’s work is explored, leading to a discussion of Shakespeare’s use of the Bible in general and of the Geneva Bible in particular. Two plays are considered in detail: Henry IV Part 1 and King Lear. It is suggested that Shakespeare offers a creative exegesis, or midrash, of the parable in both plays. In the first, the parable is reworked in a way which leads the reader to question the motives of both Hal and the Prodigal in the original text. In the second, the complex overlay of the parable on the plot and characterization offers at least the possibility of grace and hope at the end of the play.

Drawing on manuscript study, the chapter documents in detail Sondheim’s role in shaping the multiple versions of the script of Company, focusing particularly on issues of sexuality in the construction of character and plot. It reveals the centrality of Sondheim’s vision to the dramaturgical development process in his collaboration with George Furth and Hal Prince. It also details the changes to the show that have been made with Sondheim’s sanction over the course of the past five decades. The chapter focuses on how the representation of the central character’s (Robert’s) sexuality evolved through the numerous drafts and subsequent productions.

The chapter discusses the one Sondheim musical that emphatically sought to represent nonwhite characters in an exotic setting and to feature performers of color: Pacific Overtures (1976). It traces the early development of this show in John Weidman’s multiple versions of the original script as well as how the message and focus of the musical shifted in the collaborative process of Weidman, Hal Prince, and Sondheim. It argues that the musical, and the original spoken play version in particular, resonated pointedly with the Vietnam War period, and it reports on the show’s reception by the Asian American community, as well its casting requirements, which were unique for its time.