No 42 -- Summer 1994 Edited by Michael Walters
by Richard Moore (Abridged)
To write a defence of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera seems almost impertinence. Do any of them, after all, really need the services of an apologetic critic? The question of THE GRAND DUKE can be left for another time, though I am personally convinced that Gilbert's self-criticism stemmed largely from a sourness and loss of confidence caused by the failure of the piece. UTOPIA LTD., however, deserves immediate comment, for it is a work of great merit which deserves more general recognition. Shaw liked it, and he was certainly astute where Gilbert and Sullivan were concerned. It was he who first recognised Wilde's borrowings from Gilbert's ENGAGED in THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST, and who frequently drew attention to Sullivan's brilliance in orchestration, which even his detractors nowadays grudgingly admit as one of his principal merits. UTOPIA deserves a sympathetic hearing.
One of the complaints sometimes voiced about the opera relates to the question of dialogue. After the simplicity of of the dialogue in THESPIS, Gilbert tended to get steadily more long-winded, but in fact, in UTOPIA, the grandiloquent conversations can be justified. The whole point is that the Utopian nation is built on an inflated idea of power. Scaphio and Phantis, in their own little world, think themselves mighty dictators. Later, under the English system, Utopia thinks itself of world-shaking significance. The satirical intention, of course, is to undercut human pretentiousness - and, in particular, to read "England" for "Utopia". And, although the satire is affectionate rather than cruel, the librettist makes it quite clear that England does tend to overvalue itself and is full of inflated pride. Given the "slummeries" and the social abuses of the country, the pretension is unjustified. It is a case of "Man, proud Man, dressed in a little brief authority" - only for "Man" read "England" and the whole of humanity. The opera is, in fact, quite a profound study of human aspiration and over-reaching. Of all the operas it has most to say to the petty dictators of a hundred still surviving petty states today.
Of course subtle analytical probing is not what the public always wants and many complain of the lack of a strongly focused love-interest in the opera. I would argue that there is one - but that it is split between two couples - Zara and Fitzbattleaxe on the one hand, and the King and Sophy on the other. The latter pair takes over from the former, who have little to do in the second act except sing. Originally, as we know, Gilbert planned and wrote longish Act 2 scenes featuring more conflict between Scaphio and Phantis, Zara and Fitzbattleaxe. They are certainly funny and give the soprano and tenor more to do in the second half, but they open up an area which has already been brought to a clear full stop by the end of "It's understood I Think, All Round" in Act 1. Act 2 is intended to concentrate on the effects of "Anglicisation" as outlined in the Act 1 finale, so further development of what happened before that finale is inappropriate. At the same time, so that some love interest will remain, we are given the scene beginning with Sophy's aria which effectively concludes the development of her relationship with the King which was not resolved at any earlier point.
Some people, it is true, see Sophy as a bit of a let-down, and it is only fair to admit that Gilbert and Sullivan themselves conceived her differently; Sullivan, as always, wanting more heart, Gilbert wanting to play up play up the comic elements in her starchiness by showing them to be the fruit of an hypocrisy in which she has finally trapped herself. This idea is quite an intriguing one - a character subjected to its own role-play - and further develops the theme of acting and false appearances which runs throughout Gilbert's work, from THESPIS and even before - and is still seen here in Nekaya and Kalyba. But what Sophy loses in depth of interest and comic potential, she gains in refinement. She is the most genuinely dignified of the alto leads and also has a touch of pathos which makes her more sympathetic to all but the most unresponsive of audiences. And Gilbert still has a few jokes out of her - not least the fact that she, so typical of refined English lady-governesses, should be known as the princesses' "Gouvernante". The best English educational models turn out in this case to be a French import - or at least to be labelled in the French way as if snobbish English find French labels indicative of higher refinement.
I could go on at great length about the opera's other virtues - the spectacular stage effects and picturesque scenes, for example - and the fact that the number of small cameo parts makes it ideal for the larger amateur companies. However, I will end merely by stressing that the piece has far more strengths than weaknesses and that such drawbacks as there are really do not count for very much. The Joint Stock Company business theory, I know, alarms some people - but it is really not especially difficult to work out and is not a make-or-break factor. Once one has realised that the country is to be run as a big business enterprise under the aegis of genial financial shark, the rest follows logically enough, and vigorous playing and good singing should take us over the minor economic hurdles. My only real criticism would be with the ending, which was never really satisfactory, as is shown by the number of variant Finales that were suggested. For myself I should like to see somebody follow up one of Sullivan's passing ideas of re-incorporating some of the splendid military music from Act 1. If Verdi's MACBETH is said to have failed for want of a good ending, the same might be the only real hindrance to the greater appreciation of UTOPIA. Certainly if we could add a bit of the Lifeguards while not dispensing with "There's a little group of isles", I should be happier. But even without this change the opera remains a fine and civilised entertainment. I gather that Nellie Melba ("gorgeous in green") was at the first night of UTOPIA LIMITED. She apparently enjoyed it - and, if a great opera singer and a great playwright (Shaw) concur in their praises, who are we to disagree?
[Curiously, Richard does not mention the uniqueness of the UTOPIA finale - the only one in G&S which does not use music heard earlier in the opera. See also David Thomas' comments on UTOPIA in GG41. Ed.]
Web page created 31 July 1998