Deborah Yaffe

Blog

By Deborah Yaffe, Oct 4 2018 01:00PM

Musical theater is an expensive art form, and fans on a budget – or those who live far from the major cities where original productions flourish and touring companies visit – may get few opportunities to experience their passion.


Enter Streaming Musicals, a new experiment in making live musical theater affordable and accessible for audiences, and remunerative for the artists involved. Professional productions are staged and filmed live, but without an audience, in a theater or on a soundstage; then the show is made available via the internet for rental or purchase. Everyone involved shares in the profits from this hybrid of the live and the recorded, with the income stream continuing as long as internet viewers are willing to pay.


And there’s an Austen connection! Streaming Musicals launched last night by offering a musical version of Emma, adapted by Tony-nominated composer Paul Gordon and staged and filmed earlier this year in New York. Viewers pay $7.99 to rent the two-hour film, or $19.99 to buy it.


At least four previous musical versions of Emma exist, and although some of the publicity touts the Streaming Musicals show as “new,” Gordon’s Emma is in fact one of the four: It was first produced in 2006-7, winning excellent reviews for several regional productions.


Judging from photos, however, the older productions were traditional period pieces, whereas the new version updates the setting and costumes to the mid-twentieth century. Whether this choice is bold or foolhardy remains to be seen: It’s sometimes tricky to make Austen’s stories work in modern contexts, as legions of fanfic writers have learned to their – or our -- cost.


I haven’t had a chance to watch yet, but the musical snippets available online seem charming. And it’s hard not to root for a venture that hopes to give more people access to both live theater and Jane Austen.


By Deborah Yaffe, Aug 30 2018 01:00PM

Once again, it’s time to play “If I Were a Rich Janeite.” (Cue klezmer music.) The British auctioneer Bonhams has announced that, later this fall, it will offer a first edition of Pride and Prejudice for sale.


Bonhams estimates that the three-volume set -- in original bindings, a big plus for collectors – will fetch £15,000-20,000 (about $19,300-25,740). But Austen items have a history of selling for far more than initial estimates: In 2008, the copy of Emma that Austen presented to her friend Anne Sharp sold for £180,000 ($233,400), more than double the pre-auction estimate, and two years later the same item sold again, for a whopping £325,000 ($421,500).


In 2012, Austen’s turquoise ring brought in £152,000 ($197,000), five times the pre-sale estimate, and in 2014, a copy of Emma in original bindings fetched £48,050 ($62,300).* [On the other hand, when the Sharp copy again came up for sale in 2012, it failed to reach its reserve price of £150,000 ($194,500) and remained unsold.]


Whatever the newly offered P&P eventually goes for at the auction, scheduled for November 28 in London, it’s certain to be out of my price range. Alas. (Cue sad violins.)


Lest we Janeites get too full of ourselves, it should be noted that at the same time Bonhams announced its impending Austen sale, it also publicized two other items it plans to auction: A World War II-vintage Enigma coding machine, and a rare early golf ball. (Delightful as it would be to imagine this random threesome on the same auction block, it seems unlikely that the golf ball and the Enigma machine will join P&P in Bonhams' Fine Books and Manuscripts sale.)


Given the mania for golf, perhaps it’s not surprising that the ball is expected to pull in £12,000 ($15,500), not far off the price for the Austen. And given the mania for WWII history, it’s probably equally unsurprising that the Enigma is expected to draw £100,000-150,000 ($130,000-$194,500), ten times the low estimate for the books. Still, the price differentials are a salutary reminder that, passionate as our fandom may be, it’s not the only fandom out there.



* Confusingly, the auction house described this as a world-record auction price for Emma, despite the far higher prices paid for the Sharp copy.


By Deborah Yaffe, Jul 16 2018 01:00PM

Recently – OK, it was two weeks ago – I found occasion to mention an old journalists’ joke: that three examples of a phenomenon constitute a trend. At the time, I was remarking upon the proliferation of second-order Jane Austen adaptations – adaptations of previous adaptations.*


Today I feel justified in identifying yet another Austen-adaptation trend: the proliferation of jukebox/karaoke shows based on Austen stories. I’m talking about the kind of show that inserts famous pop songs into a newly developed storyline, giving audiences the comfort of the familiar along with the thrill of the new. Think Mamma Mia!, Jersey Boys, or (on the silver screen) Moulin Rouge.


Lately, Jane Austen has been getting the same treatment. The requisite three examples are as follows:


* In 2015, the lyricist and playwright Eric Price created Emma! A Pop Musical, which updates Austen’s story to high school, Clueless-style, and uses famous pop songs by female performers as a score. I’ve never seen it, but apparently it’s beloved by school drama departments.


* Earlier this summer, a Glasgow theater company produced Pride and Prejudice* (*sort of), an all-female, slapstick version of the novel featuring interpolations like Carly Simon’s "You’re So Vain" (sung to Mr. Darcy, of course). Reviews were generally positive, if not rapturous.


* Speaking of Clueless, this fall an off-Broadway company will produce a musical version of the much-loved 1995 movie. The show featues classic ‘90s pop songs with parodic lyrics by Amy Heckerling, who wrote and directed the original. **


Personally, I think the surface of this trend has barely been scratched.


Leonard Cohen’s “So Long, Marianne” begs to be included in a Sense and Sensibility jukebox show – sung by Willoughby in the second act, as he writes his fateful brush-off letter, and then tragically reprised by Marianne and Elinor during the climactic illness scene. (Earlier, Elinor will have promised to keep silent about Lucy Steele’s secret engagement by vowing “My Lips Are Sealed” and nursed her broken heart to a rousing chorus of "I Will Survive.")


It goes on and on: “My Boyfriend’s Back” is obviously Anne Elliot’s big Act One number. . . . Isabella Thorpe and Catherine Morland bop around Bath to the accompaniment of “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun”. . . . Maria Rushworth succumbs to the seductive Henry Crawford while singing “Like a Virgin’. . . the possibilities are endless. Paging Baz Luhrmann!



* And I forgot one – the upcoming TV show based on Curtis Sittenfeld’s P&P update Eligible. So, really, that trend is practically a tsunami.


** Devoted blog readers may recall that I already employed the Clueless musical as one of the confirmatory three points in my recent blog about the second-order-Austen-adaptation trend. Some may feel I am cheating by using it as one of the confirmatory three points in a blog about a different Austen trend. What can I say? Trend reporting is an unscrupulous business.


By Deborah Yaffe, May 3 2018 01:00PM

Apparently, judges just love Jane Austen.


Or so Ohio State University Professor Matthew H. Birkhold claims in a recent article in the online journal Electric Literature. Birkhold argues that, while judicial references to such canonical male authors as Shakespeare, Kafka, Melville, and Dickens predominate, Austen tops the list for female writers.


Sort of, anyway: “The most-cited female authors include Harper Lee, Mary Shelley, and Jane Austen,” Birkhold writes. “Only the last, though, is cited not only for one work but across her entire oeuvre.”


Since Harper Lee only wrote one book and Mary Shelley only wrote one that anyone outside of a graduate program has ever heard of, this Austen-as-judge’s-pet trope is starting to look a tad questionable, and we’re only in the second paragraph. Things get even sketchier in the next one, when Birkhold tells us that, since the first judicial reference to Emma in 1978, Austen’s “works have been invoked” twenty-seven times, not to mention the “many” references to Austen that don’t quote any specific text.


Across American courts at all levels and across all jurisdictions, then, we’ve got a single published Austen citation roughly every eighteen months, plus an unspecified number of more general mentions. Offhand, it doesn’t sound like a groundswell, especially when it turns out that half those twenty-seven citations are of the painfully ubiquitous “It is a truth universally acknowledged that [fill in the blank]” variety.


So I’m skeptical of the premise, but – go ahead! Explain why judges mention Jane Austen, however often they do!


Turns out that judges are a lot like pretty much everyone else who goes around mentioning Jane Austen. Either she’s a relationship expert -- “Jane Austen is cited as an authority on the complexity of life, particularly with regard to the intricacies of relationships,” Birkhold writes – or she’s an all-purpose symbol of classiness, refinement, and social distinction: “Judges cite Austen as a shorthand for erudition and sophistication, to demarcate who is a part of high society (often, lawyers) and who is not (often, defendants), reflecting the novelist’s popular reception.”


Can’t argue with the relationship-expert part: obviously, we Janeites think Our Author has profound insight into what makes families and romantic partnerships tick. But I can’t help giggling at the class part.


It’s not just that Austen’s novels often interrogate the very notions of class that too many readers (and, apparently, judges) attribute to her – although, of course, they do.


It’s that, in Austen’s day, many of those who made their living in the law were not considered of the highest social rank. Think of the Bingley sisters, sneering at the Bennet girls’ Uncle Phillips, “an attorney in Meryton.” Getting your hands dirty in the law was just a step above (gasp!) making a living in trade.


Though probably the Bingleys would have thought better of Uncle Phillips if he’d been a judge.


By Deborah Yaffe, Apr 16 2018 01:00PM

Good news for those of us who can never get enough Jane Austen adaptations: Apparently, theater professionals in London and New York are working on a new musical based on Emma.


London casting for an upcoming workshop production was announced last week, and an invitation-only reading was held in New York last September. The show’s book and lyrics are by playwright Meghan Brown, and the music is by composer Sarah Taylor Ellis.


It’s encouraging to see an all-female writing team behind this show, especially one whose previous collaboration is a feminist musical about slumber-party guests possessed by demons. Perfect preparation for Jane Austen!


You can’t call the whole Emma-as-a-musical-thing a new idea, however: A quick Google search informs me that an Emma musical by Paul Gordon was presented in New York in 2006, as part of the National Alliance for Musical Theatre’s Festival of New Musicals, and an apparently completely different version, by Joel Adlen, showed up the following year as part of the New York Musical Theatre Festival.


And that’s not even to mention Eric Price’s Emma! A Pop Musical, which seems to be popular with the drama departments of middle schools and high schools. That version updates Austen’s story to high school, Clueless-style, and uses famous pop songs as a score, in the jukebox fashion made famous by shows like Mamma Mia! and Jersey Boys.


No word on how close the latest show is to a full-fledged production, but you know I’ll be there if it happens.


Quill pen -- transparent BookTheWriter transparent facebook twitter