1: Repertory cannot exist without a canon, a critical mass of repeatable, renewable works that hold their value over time. If we lose the repertory companies, we lose not only all the artistic virtues that are sustainable only in that context, but important institutions of social continuity, as well. True: one of art’s imperatives is disruption. But that seems to be in ample supply. Perhaps continuity, stability are more important right now.

2: The operatic canon, insufficiently refreshed for a century, is still made use of because we have no replacements for its masterworks. But, though nominally present, it is not recognizable as itself (and therefore not really with us) for two main reasons:

2a: Production. This comes down to a principle. Either one believes that director/designers are auteurs, empowered to rewrite works according to their beliefs and passions, or one believes that they are interpreters, responsible for renewing and upholding the beliefs and passions of the works’ creators. I was heartened to read Hilton Als’ review of Sam Gold’s production of King Lear (the “Glenda Jackson King Lear“) in the Apr.15 New Yorker. It reads almost like a man’s  belated and distressing discovery of this matter of principle, though I’m sure that’s not literally the case. Als calls this production “a launching pad from which to explore [Gold’s] own theatrical concerns . . . a personal drama, in which Gold sets out to ‘break’ a classic text and make it new.” (Yes, that’s precisely what the auteurs do, and have avowed as their privilege, in that very language, from the time of Meyerhold through that of our present-day “postdramatic” regisseurs.) But it is impossible to conduct journalistic criticism on the basis of opposing auteurism on principle. It would not be tolerated. Als goes on, rather poignantly: “Where do you draw the line between an interpretation that is freeing . . . and one that is just frustratingly and bafflingly self-indulgent?” And, after some exceedingly well-taken remarks on Gold’s Hamlet and Glass Menagerie: “In a way, it’s impossible to review Gold’s staging of ‘King Lear,’ because, in the arrogance of its conception, it turns up its nose at the plebeian notion of simply providing the audience with what it might want . . .”

There’s the critic’s predicament, if he really takes a stand. When people earnestly ask me, “Can’t you think of a single production you’ve liked this year?”, and I’m constrained to answer “Not really” or “Maybe one, partially,” the reaction is generally that given Bernard Shaw by Hermann Levi when Shaw offered to sing Gurnemanz better himself than the fellow who had just sung it at Bayreuth: ” . . .upon which he gave me up for a lunatic.” So, though Als pluckily raises the issue on this occasion, he cannot afford to be given up for a lunatic, and if he truly decided to declare himself on the principle and write accordingly, the word would soon come down: “Clear out your desk.” I have no desk to clear out, so I’ve found that it’s actually easy to see where the line should be drawn, and stand on this side of it. It costs me nothing but the occasional cold stare.