This is the environment in which the reconstituted NYCO, in its precedent form one of those very constituents, will try to make headway with its board of eight (thus vulnerable to the loss of even a single benefactor), its lack of a home venue, and its still-undefined artistic identity. The establishment of such an identity (determined mostly by the repertory chosen and by how, and how well, it is presented), and its relationship to the company’s fundraising capacity, will decide the fate of the NYCO and all similar efforts. Levy and Kaiser speak to this, and coincidentally Anne Midgette–much missed here in New York since her removal to the Washington Post–recently braved a crossing of The Tommasini Line from critic to arts reporter with a column on the role of boards. But for all their good words, there seems to me to be a disconnect here, even a touch of “magical thinking” not far removed from Tommasini’s own. They all want great art, art that is “innovative,” “surprising,” “amazing,” productions that are (Midgette’s word) “probing.” But for opera, what would these lovely adjectives mean, if not Tommasini’s recipe of new/rare operas and revisionist productions? Isn’t that exactly what the (old) NYCO was attempting in its pitiable final seasons? Tommasini cites its “revelatory” production of Bernstein’s A Quiet Place. I agree that it was a worthy production, sympathetic to the work, and that in a way it was revelatory. What it revealed was that A Quiet Place should be returned to its quiet place, leaving us with an ungranted wish–that the supremely gifted Leonard Bernstein had left us with a repertory-worthy opera.

And what would “probing” productions be like? Would they resemble Willy Decker’s La Traviata (see Post # 1)? Or Dmitri Tcherniakov’s Prince Igor (see Opera as Opera)? What they probe is the psychological and intellectual preoccupations of their auteurs. Those would probably make for a nice hour’s chat over a glass of wine, but not much more.

Similarly, there’s a lot of facile talk about “taking risks.” Which risk would you care to take, that of displeasing some critics and an indeterminate segment of the cognoscenti, or the risk of not enough people buying tickets enough of the time to sustain your institution? As I noted above, an industry that balances inflation with productivity (or, in our case, plenty of donated bucks) can survive so long as demand holds up. But as you may or may not have noticed, demand isn’t holding up. In the last section of his book (the Trying to Look Forward Without Utter Despair section), Kaiser makes note of some examples of unique and risk-taking projects . One of them, The Steppenwolf Theatre Company’s production of Tracy Letts’ August, Osage County, I know something about. In its transfer from Chicago to New York it did indeed bring us something that has become “unique,” “amazing,” and “astonishing”–the spectacle of a serious-yet-entertaining straight play (not a musical) with a big cast flourishing in multi-Tonied splendor for an extended Broadway run.