Lyric Opera 2019-2020 Issue 8 Madama Butterfly

Lyric Opera of Chicago | 28 The choice to love: in defense of Madama Butterfly By Martha C. Nussbaum for scenes that were never performed. Of particular interest is a long scene in the US consulate, where Cio-Cio San (Butterfly), taunted by Pinkerton’s American wife Kate as a “plaything,” stands up for herself and the integrity of her marriage. Unfortunately this scene is not finished enough to perform; it would have enhanced the opera’s portrayal of Cio-Cio-San’s strength and assertiveness. Throughout the opera, Puccini and his librettists display serious research into Japanese culture, particularly in their depiction of Cio-Cio-San’s impoverished but rigidly proud samurai family, who reject her when she converts to Christianity. Today, two related complaints are made against the opera under the heading of “cultural appropriation”: one about casting, the other about the opera’s use of cultural stereotypes. Theater has always been a medium of self-change and artifice. Gender-crossing is only one way in which theater and opera invite our imaginations to go beyond their usual confines. When executed with respect and genuine curiosity, such crossing reveals fascinating human depths and commonalities. So I think the complaint cannot validly be that only Asian singers should sing Asian roles, any more than that Lyric’s Cio-Cio-San, Ana María Martínez, should stick to Puerto Rican roles. The real issue behind the casting objection is that we know that non-Caucasian artists have often been denied any roles: the performing arts in general used to cast Asian and Latinx roles with white performers only. To answer this complaint, an opera company must show, I believe, not that it adheres narrowly to ethnic type in casting – for surely it is thrilling to see African-American tenor Lawrence Brownlee as Count Almaviva, African-American bass-baritone Eric Owens as Wotan, and Latina Ana María Martínez as Cio-Cio- San – but rather, that the company, as a whole, creates ample opportunities for artists of color to shine in a wide range of roles. Casting decisions involve a range of complex issues that need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I would respectfully disagree with those who insist that Butterfly be performed only by an Asian artist. Rather, I believe, there is a need to see Asian and other non-Caucasian singers exhibiting their talents everywhere in the repertory. (For example, one of the most moving and vocally impressive performances I have ever seen was that of Korean bass Kwangchul Youn as Gurnemanz in Wagner’s Parsifal – casting that would have horrified the composer, but that today would bring dignity and illumination to any opera house.) I believe, however, that out of sensitivity to a history of mockery and denigration, Butterfly should not be made up in “yellow-face”: makeup should let us Amanda Echalaz (right) in the title role and Mary Ann McCormick as Suzuki in Madama Butterfly , Lyric, 2013|14 season. Dan Rest Madama Butterfly is one of the most beloved operas in the repertory: it ranks number six in performance frequency among all opera performances in the U. S. and Europe during 2009|14. Its popularity is easy to understand, for its soaring, heart-rending lyricism and tragic story of love and commitment have always moved audiences deeply. And yet, Butterfly is also one of the most reviled operas today, charged with a condescending use of ethnic stereotypes and with a cruel objectification of women’s suffering. Audiences need to sort out these debates for themselves, but this essay aims to offer some guidance, ultimately giving a strong defense of the work. Giacomo Puccini (1858|1924) composed Butterfly in 1904, drawing on a short story by John Luther Long (1897) and a one-act play by David Belasco (1900). Chronologically, the opera is right in the middle of Puccini’s output – later than Manon Lescaut , La bohème , and Tosca , but earlier than La fanciulla del West , Il trittico , and Turandot . Musically, it begins a period during which Puccini’s compositions exhibit increasing harmonic daring, showing the influence of Wagner. It used to be fashionable to condescend to Puccini as a mere crowd- pleaser. Today there is a greater appreciation of his musical depth and daring. Although the opera had a disastrous premiere, a revised version won success only four months later, with three acts instead of the original long second act; there were other cuts and changes. Puccini kept revising until a “standard version” emerged by 1907. Furthermore, his notebooks show sketches