Two

As we did briefly in reviewing Robert Ward's opera "The Crucible" we must pause here as well to correct the record for those who wish to delve deeper into the political genesis of Carlisle Floyd's "Susannah", especially our younger readers.
In an article written by Lisa Robinson for "The Julliard Journal Online" the composer is quoted as saying that "the McCarthy era did more than anything else to put a cloak of silence over the country in terms of defending a situation. That underlies very much the story in Susannah. The fact that nobody really speaks up or defends her for fear of being accused themselves is all it takes to make a witch hunt."
A McCarthy witch hunt?
The critique of the "McCarthy era" is based largely on the hearings before the House Un-American Activities Committee, of which Joe McCarthy, being a senator, was not a member. In fact, he was first elected to the senate in 1947 when HUAC began investigating "The Hollywood Ten". The committee at the time was primarily concerned with infiltration of the US by Soviet agents, fellow-travelers groups like the KKK and the American Nazis, and individuals such as Alger Hiss who actually turned out to be a spy for the Soviet Union. The committee was also interested in learning about the influence of Stalin-like communism on the political left which had a sympathetic following in Hollywood.
Interestingly and historically it was the committee that was scorned, not the witnesses it brought before it. Even President Truman, who refused to believe that his State Department was infiltrated and passing secrets on to the Soviets, condemned the Committee as did much of the media elite -- the New York Times, the Washington Post and Nation -- its scholarly following, and many in the arts community.
The primary witness, who did step forward to verify Soviet infiltration, Whittaker Chambers, was villified as a psychotic and pejoritively as a "homosexual", referred to as a "fag" four times in testimony.
Senator Joe McCarthy had no involvement with these hearings. Indeed, much of the comittee's work was done in executive session -- out of the view of the public.
Sen. Joe McCarthy didn't even address the issue of Soviet infiltration of the American government until 1950, two years after the 1948 debate on Alger Hiss concluded before HUAC. And even then, McCarthy's famous Wheeling W.Va. speech, in which he said he had a list of 57 suspected Soviet agents working for the federal government, was in response to the continued government denials that its most famous spy, Alger Hiss, was not a spy at all.
The allegation of communist infiltration of government was labeled "McCarthyism" and the name has stuck, and assigned to anyone who dared challenge the orthodoxy or question the viewpoint of the elite that scorned the idea that their progressive world views about the butcher Joe Stalin were dead wrong.
McCarthyism, as Floyd understands it, means "Reign of Terror", directed against the innocent. Hence, Susannah. Her persecution is supposed to demonstrate the power of innuendo and false accusations, a power to destroy lives, a power he mistakenly attribuites to McCarthyism.
The fact is the committee Joe McCarthy sat on only concerned itself with government employees who were deemed to pose security risks to the United States. But McCarthy defended his investigations vigorously and because they followed closely on the heels of HUAC he was and is villified. The historical as opposed to the hysterical record shows, however, that Joe McCarthy never advocated going public with his investigations, and argued that allegations of Soviet infiltration must be verified first, and verified only in private to members of the committee, not at the expense of the person being accused. His opponents DEMANDED as in the infamous "Welch Army/McCarthy" hearings, a hearing that was called to investigate Joe McCarthy, that he produce names publicly. After hours of proding he mentioned one name to prove he could. That's when Welch who prodded him for hours to bring forth names, uttered the words: "Have you no shame, senator . . ." when McCarthy correctly named a former member of Welch's own staff.
Not all people loathed Joe McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, held the senator in high esteem, and asked that he be the godfather of his first child, Kathleen. John F. Kennedy, too, understood what was going on and defended McCarthy in Harvard's own backyard as "a great American patriot."
Upon his death the Catholic Church bestowed its highest honor with a mass attended by 200 priests and over two thousand well-wisher, including 70 United States Senators and the director of the FBI. The US Post Office reported over seventy bags of mail were delivered to his wife from Americans who thanked him for what he did.
Susannah is a good story, dating back to the Bible; it is not a lesson in the evils of McCarthyism, but a lesson in the weakness of human beings.
Sen. Joe McCarthy was not perfect, nor was he always right, but compared to those who vilified, hounded and sought to destroy the reputations of those who defend him, he was a saint.

might not want to even give it a try.
As Manning noted, the audience on the Cape is probably not too different from her – in their sixties, and "Susannah" is not what they are accustomed to hearing when they listen to opera. "I feel that my audience as well as Worcester’s audience and probably Manchester’s is in their sixties and seventies and they’re used to hearing their opera in Italian.”
It may be left to the next generation, she said, to fully appreciate what composers like Floyd have done – a view shared by Sparks. “I agree with Mary, the younger generation will be more interested in this kind of music than the older generation.”
Even if it’s not Puccini, Manning added, opera enthusiasts should still give it a try. “I think 'Susannah' should be more of a challenge to people. To me it’s a challenge. You need to go and listen to American opera. This is the way music is moving today. You should at least have the opportunity to hear it. You’re not going to see a better production of it than what comes off Michael's stage right now.”
“I’m going into it with an open mind,” said McGuire (ONH) who is in her thirties and thinks a younger audience can be attracted. “It’s something new; it’s something different; it’s something I haven’t heard, and I’m looking forward to that. And I think there are just as many people like me out there as there are the ones [whose views] are set in stone, saying ‘It’s not Italian; I won’t see it; it’s only fifty years old; it’s American; it can’t be good.”
Interestingly, as noted in the accompanying review of the CD, the music is melodic, easy to follow, and yeah, if it sounds a little something like you would expect to hear in “Oklahoma” or “The Music Man”, what’s wrong with that?

HOW THE DIRECTOR SEES IT
Capasso, whom we spoke with after our interview with Manning, Sparks and McGuire, was nothing but upbeat about what he would be bringing to the stages of the northeast, but he, too, expresseed dismay at the reluctance of opera audiences to give American opera a chance. "Unfortunately", he said in a phone interview with OperaOnline.us, “opera audiences, for whatever reason, in that region, don’t like to accept contemporary music. Yet, they’ll embrace musical theater. A lot of it [opera] is a distant relative of Verdi or Puccini. 'Susannah' has sweeping melodies, a strong dramatic situation; it’s very tight; you don’t have to cut any of it. It’s just a matter of breaking down that barrier.”
“For whatever reason” he added, “people still think that opera is old, and [sung] in Italian and that’s what they’re used too.” It’s curious, he notes, that the same audience is not afraid to try new musicals.
But Capasso stresses that to him opera and American musical are the same thing and

He made the point passionately, admitting that it’s a gamble, and that while he appreciated the fact that the sponsoring companies have enough confidence in him to give it a run, he felt obliged to sell the idea because “part of my job is not just to resurrect these great nineteenth century works. If you’re going to develop an audience for opera in the future it’s important that American opera become a part of the staple of the repertoire – and this, along with ‘Baby Doe’ and ‘The Crucible’, are the operas to do that.”
But if the music is a hurdle for some, won’t the story attract? After all the music here is still melodic -- not the abstract, discordant cadence found in Previn, Dove or Ward’s works. And her story is worth telling. “Quite honestly,” Capasso, said, “She’s a victim. She’s a victim of the community . . .” and while the central controversy of the opera swirls around her being observed bathing nude in a pond, the pond is on her own property. “There’s nothing sexual about her,” he explained, “nor is she aware of her sexuality. She’s very, very, childish. She is not in any way aware of the affect she has on men, in my opinion. I play her as a tremendous victim – almost a battered woman, battered by the community.”
Once the women of the community hear the men talk about her

they then have to create a story in order to protect their home life, rather than admit that they saw her naked and really liked it.“ Unfortunately for poor "Susannah", the story they create, ruins her reputation.
As for the nude scene, itself, Capasso said, “We’re not going to have any nudity. I think it’s utterly unnecessary. It’s not about that. I mean you see her come out of her house [in his production] and she has a towel wrapped around her and you see her near the creek area and you see her descend into the water and the towel drops and she disappears into the water. It’s all artfully done.”
Interestingly, while Capasso said that the inspiration for the story came from a Thomas Hart Benton painting titled “Susannah and the Elders” -- a topic that was popular with Renaissance painters -- and the paintings (there were two of them) depict both the spying on Susannah in the nude at the foot of the creek and being seduced by the elders (which was the Biblical account where she was actually coerced into having sex with the men) his view of the event as portrayed on stage will not follow the model of Mattila’s “Salome” but rather downplay that aspect. The question is, in so doing, does he also sacrifice some of the “sizzle” that might guarantee a larger audience – and certainly more publicity? Only time will tell.

THE POLITICAL THEME: THE LEDBETTER NOTES YOU READ
While Floyd wisely managed to keep a political theme out of his opera and basically tell the story of 1940s Methodist morality in the Deep South, those who write about the opera can’t seem to resist focusing on the composer’s political motivation and none more so than former BSO musicologist and program annotator, Steven Ledbetter.
This focus is probably so because in many instances the composer, himself, has stated that his motivation in writing Susannah was to expose the evils of McCarthyism and the power of false accusation, and "Susannah", a Biblical story of morality, was a perfect fit -- with a few tweaks.
Steven Ledbetter, founder of “Steven Ledbetter Program Notes” describes the McCarthy era as “a dark period in American history when the ‘red scare’ was dominating public life, particularly in the sinister figure of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who for a few years built a power base by virtue of making unproven (and almost entirely false) charges of Communist sympathizers against anyone whose politics opposed his.” According to Ledbetter, this aspect of the era ‘terrified and enraged" Floyd. The Ledbetter notes which are read by many go on to state that “hundreds of people lost their jobs and had their careers destroyed because McCarthy insisted he had a list of Communists active throughout the government and elsewhere in American life, a list that he never showed.” See our sidebar for a discussion on this aspect of opera.

How this will all play out, and exactly what the audience sees, and our reaction to it, will have to wait until May when this new production makes its tour in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. This much is for certain: the audience that does see this production, and it promises to be one of Capasso’s best, will miss something they won’t likely see for a long time again. If for no other reason, that would be reason enough to see what all the fuss and angst is about.