The Story of Madame X
John Singer Sargent (American, 1856–1925) • Madame X (Virginie Amélie Avegno Gautreau) • 1883-84 • Metropolitan Museum of Art
Photograph of Sargent with what is perhaps his most famous portrait – that of the very wealthy socialite, Madame Gautreau. This is not the original version, though; the one that shocked the art world in 1884 when it was shown at the Paris Salon.
Above is a sketch for the Gautreau portrait. At some point Sargent decided to paint the right strap of her dress seductively off her shoulder. When the portrait was shown in Paris, there was an uproar of disapproval. Madame Gautreau was, apparently, already rumored to be an adultress. Her Singer portrait only added emphasis to the public's criticism of her character. According to the gallery card at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (the painting was on loan from the MET), Gautreau very much liked the painting. What neither she nor Sargent predicted was that it would cause such a stir and be the cause of much conversation, mostly derisive, in the drawing rooms of Paris high society.
Sargent was so upset by the reaction at the Salon and the ensuing buzz that he took the painting back to his studio and repainted the strap in its proper place on the shoulder.
The painting was eventually sold on the condition that its subject not be revealed in the title. It was to be called Madame X.
Sources:
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Metropolitan Museum of Art
Arty: Why Madame X Scandalized the Art World by Alina Cohen
67 notes
·
View notes
Fathers as nurturers during the Napoleonic era
Portrait of Monsieur Gaudry giving his daughter a geography lesson, 1812, Louis-Léopold Boilly
The Gaudry portrait is even more a portrayal of “the good father” than a lesson in political geography. The painting provides evidence of a reorientation of the father’s role within the family that had taken place from the eighteenth to the nineteenth centuries. In her study of archetypal family structures during the Revolutionary period, Lynn Hunt traces “the rise and fall of the good father” and his eventual replacement, as an ambivalent figure, by republican fathers “who were now officially depicted as friendly, supportive, and interested in their children.” While the gradual transformation of the king into a good father began before the Revolution (as manifested in the portrait of Louis XVI, and not a tutor, instructing his son in geography), it was not until the Napoleonic period that a positive image of paternalism was explicitly rehabilitated, as Boilly’s commission for a portrait of the yet-childless Napoleon as père de famille so clearly indicates. In the meanwhile, children assumed new importance as the affective center of gravity in representations of families, a shift that is indicated by the painting’s focus on the demure Mlle Gaudry. Rather than reading the Gaudry portrait in twentieth-century terms, as an expression of “unusual sensitivity and psychological insight,” Boilly’s portrayal of an affectionate and respectful relationship between father and daughter is better understood as conforming to a new social construction of the family that came to the fore during the Napoleonic period, in which fathers assumed new roles as nurturers or guides.
Source: The Art of Louis-Léopold Boilly: Modern Life in Napoleonic France, Susan Siegfried, pp, 115
73 notes
·
View notes
Cabaret's Shifting Lead Placement
Welcome to another rambling theatre history lesson with DroughtofApathy. Today we're going to examining the fascinating history of Cabaret's ever-changing lead roles.
Ground rule: Tony eligibility for Lead Actor/Actress is first determined by "above-the-title" billing in the show's opening night Playbill. It was a far stricter guideline in the past, as you'll see. These days, many lead roles aren't put above the title (ex. Hadestown, Kimberly Akimbo, etc.) but will be placed in lead categories either because it's obviously a lead, or because producers lobby for it. Conversely, actors can have "above-the-title" billing and be in featured roles, usually because they're major names like Angela Lansbury and Elaine Stritch, who were both Madame Armfeldt in the 2009/2011 revival of A Little Night Music. In which case, producers will usually submit them as featured.
When Cabaret opened on Broadway in 1966, Jill Haworth (Sally), Jack Gilford (Herr Schultz), and Bert Convey (Cliff) got top billing with Lotte Lenya (Fraulein Schneider) in the coveted "and" slot just below. Note who's missing. That's right. When the show premiered, Joel Grey (Emcee) was just a regular old featured role.
Left: opening night playbill billing. Right: post-Tony rebilling with Joel Grey's ascension.
At the 1967 Tonys, Jack Gilford (Herr Schultz) and Lotte Lenya (Fraulein Schneider) were nominated as Leading Actor/Actress, respectively, while Joel Grey and Edward Winter (Ernst Ludwig) were both in Featured. Jill Haworth (Sally) was not nominated, but would have been eligible for Lead as she had "above-the-title" billing. At the time, Joel Grey was just another working actor. Not so after Cabaret. His performance elevated both the role and his billing, thus transforming the Emcee into a Leading Role from then on.
Subsequent productions would focus more on Sally and the Emcee, while Schultz and Schneider (and the non-singing Cliff) would become featured roles. However, the "above the title" Tony ruling was far stricter back in the day, leading Sally (this time Alyson Reed) to once more be featured in the 1987 revival.
Left: opening night Playbill billing. Right: poster billing
In 1987, Joel Grey was given the sole "above-the-title" billing with Alyson Reed in the next featured spot. Though Sally was, like 1966, technically a lead role, she was nominated in featured at the Tonys that season. (Grey was not eligible as he was reprising his role.) In this production, Regina Resnik (Schneider) and Werner Klemperer (Schultz) both got fancy featured billing and nominations in their respective categories. As Cliff, Gregg Edelman got the "and" billing, but in this case it was less elevated than either Resnik or Klemperer (note the boxes). Edelman was still early-career at this point, and not yet a "name" but Cliff was still considered an elevated role in the company.
By 1998, however, the roles as we currently think of them had finally slotted into place. Alan Cumming (Emcee) won for Best Actor, Natasha Richardson (Sally) for Best Actress and Ron Rifkin (Schultz) for Featured Actor. Mary Louise Wilson (Schneider) was nominated in Featured Actress. Richardson also received left-side billing, as she was a larger name (arguably) than Cumming at the time.
Left: opening night Playbill billing. Right: lobby poster billing
But though nominations seemed to make sense, it still didn't jive with billing placement. In the 1998 production, Richardson, Cumming, and Rifkin all had "above-the-title" with Wilson in the featured "and" slot. Despite this placement, Rifkin went in for Featured. Producers can lobby the Tony committee for actor placement if they think it fitting, and these days we're a lot more fast-and-loose with the definitions. Note however, how Wilson has "above-the-title" billing in the lobby board. This was presumably a contractual renegotiation that happened post-Tonys. Note how Denis O'Hare (Ernst) and Michele Pawk (Kost) have their own line below John Benjamin Hickey (Cliff). All three were/are modest, but known, names in the theatre world, about equal to one another, at least at the time.
By 2014, the old couple (Schultz and Schneider) no longer would get top billing. Alan Cumming only built upon Joel Grey's foundation to fully elevate the Emcee role into the undisputed leading man, with Sally the star-vehicle leading lady. Between the 1998 and up until the recent revival, the older couple's story--and Cliff's importance--had taken a backseat.
Left: opening night Playbill billing. Right: poster billing.
In 2014, the revival won no Tonys, but was nominated for both Featured Actor and Actress (Danny Burstein and Linda Emond, respectively). Cumming was not eligible as, like Joel Grey before him, he was reprising his role. This time, with a Tony in his pocket, and a much bigger name than 16 years prior, he got left-side billing. Emond and Burstein received equal line billing below the title, with Emond getting the left. Though they were roughly equal in the theatre world, and Burstein had a slight edge in terms of Tony noms, I'd guess Emond got the left owing to her larger screen presence/notoriety. In the poster, Bill Heck (Cliff) is left out of featured billing entirely, as are Aaron Krohn (Ernst) and Gayle Rankin (Kost).
Now we come to our latest revival, number four. Though it's still too early for nominations, we can assume Eddie Redmayne (Emcee) and Gayle Rankin (Sally) will be leads with all others featured. Historically, Schultz and Schneider are roles that receive nominations, and the Emcee a role that wins. Will that hold in a wildly over-crowded season?
Left: first preview Playbill insert. Right: billing poster outside the theater.
Once more deviating from past productions, the roles of Cliff (Ato Blankson-Wood), Ernst (Henry Gottfried), and Kost (Natascia Diaz) are plucked back out of the company to be given featured billing. This time, Steven Skybell (Schultz) is on even footing with Cliff, even slightly under with his right-side billing. This would be the least "elevated" billing any Schultz has ever gotten. Skybell is a respected theatre veteran but not quite a household name, even in theatre circles. Blankson-Wood, meanwhile, is a recent Tony nominee. It's all politics when it comes to billing.
Here, Bebe Neuwirth (Schneider) is given the coveted "and" poster billing, no surprise. Of the featured roles, she's inarguably the biggest name. A few decades ago, that might have been enough to get her above the title, but these days it's less common that a solidly featured role would get that (unless you're Patti LuPone in Company, and Bebe doesn't have quite the same sway or ego).
This, to me, seems like the most obvious case of industry politics and agent negotiation at play, and usually actors (and egos) aren't even involved in the conversation. Skybell and Neuwirth aren't on the same level, though their characters are. My guess here is that producers want to bill their sole two-time Tony winner separately, and Skybell's agents know he isn't big enough to dispute that.
Now, let's take a look at this marketing design. Redmayne's name is left-billed despite being above Rankin's head. While annoying for those of us audience members who might just see this as a design flaw, this is all contractual, negotiated to death. Redmayne also gets front-and-center positioning, while Rankin is in the background, off-center, but she gets left-side position, which isn't as minimizing as right-side would. Left-billing is given to the bigger name because English reads left to right. These are the kinds of things I think about when I see marketing ads and playbills.
15 notes
·
View notes