The upper middle-class in England, ever keen to show how utterly
sophisticated they are compared with the hoi pollio are flocking to the
English National Opera's modernised production of Verdi's "Masked Ball". It
opens with the male singers reading a newspaper, sitting on lavatory seats
with their trousers down. (The photo in today's Independent doesn't seem to
show any toilet rolls, and this bothers me.) Apparently, this version is
also replete with drug-fuelled orgies of sex and violence along with
transvestites.

It also might be added that this production is estimated to add a US$1
million loss to the English National Opera's existing debt of US$10 million
kindly made up by a grant from the Arts Council of England -- and paid for
by ordinary taxpayers. 

The principal singer, tenor Julian Gavin, withdrew from the leading role
saying he could not appear in a production to which he felt unable to bring
his children. This makes me feel less of a prude when I think back some
years ago to a production in the Royal Shakespeare Theatre in
Stratford-on-Avon (also supported by the Arts Council) when I walked out of
a scene in which the actors were performing sex au naturel.

I don't think we're quite at the point yet of calling the bluff of the
artistic middle classes. It wouldn't be so bad if they paid the full
economic costs of their tickets and didn't sponge on the rest of us. The
Director of the Institute of Contemporary Arts was summarily fired from his
post a week or two ago when he described Tracy Emin's "Unmade Bed" (which
won the prestigious Turner Prize two years ago) as 'crap'. 

So we're not quite ready yet to tell the Emperor about his clothes. In due
course, this modern, absurd obeisance to the 'serious arts' will go by the
board, and there'll be another fashion, another way of the 'beautiful
people' showing their natural superiority to the rest of us. And, I
imagine, ordinary people will continue to pay for it, as always.

Keith Hudson
  
__________________________________________________________
�Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in
order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow
_________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, Bath, England;  e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________

Reply via email to