Marina Nebro: Arts and Culture

Carmen vs. Carmen Jones

The story of Carmen originates in the short novella written by Prosper Mérimée. In this case, Bizet’s opera Carmen, libretto written by Henri Meilhac and Ludovic Halévy, is an adaptation of the original just as Carmen Jones is a different version written by Oscar Hammerstein II and Robert Russell Bennett. Adaptations are increasingly popular in this day and age as most films shown in the cinema are remakes, as many Broadway shows have been previously performed in past decades, and as many music pieces are covered by amateur artists on the internet. Such adaptations like the ones mentioned above receive great criticism from fans of the original. A revival or new spin on an old idea always adds something, but similarly, always leaves something out. In the comparison of Bizet’s Carmen and Hammerstein’s Carmen Jones, there are many things that are a let down while there are some things that are more accessible to a modern-day audience, especially in an American setting. Let us explore some of these differences and come up with an overall conclusion – which version is the most effective?

The simplest thing to compare first is the setting of the play, and which setting is most conducive to the idea of Carmen the heroine. Bizet and librettists set the opera in early nineteenth century Seville, Spain (though the Metropolitan version that the class saw took place during the Spanish Civil War). Carmen is a gypsy woman working in a tobacco factory. The idea of her being a gypsy brings a lot of allure to her character, for gypsies are often mysterious, mischievous, and mystical. By setting the opera in a European country, the audience also assumes certain cultural values of the characters. Let us now compare this setting with the American setting of Hammerstein’s play. He sets the play in an African American World War II military base in the United States. All of the characters are, taking from the setting, African American as well. This homogeneity in the character base leads to less distinction between all ranks. In this time of American history, African Americans were still not given the rights, or respect that many white men were given, and hence all of the characters seem to be on a level playing field when compared to the outside world of the segregated military base. There seems to be no reason, in meeting Carmen Jones, why she might be any more alluring than the other girls. One reason for this may be the fact that all of the characters are ordinary African American citizens in the United States rather than nomadic gypsies with a mysterious persona. Similarly, the costumes employed for the character of Carmen differ greatly. The opera heroine wears seductive “gypsy-costume,” where as the musical’s protagonist is dressed in ordinary garb of the day.

Next, lets consider the plot of the two similar performances and debate; which is stronger? Ultimately, when adapting a play from another form, there is often a lot of compromise. In trying to get the plot of Carmen Jones similar to that of Carmen, Hammerstein has to do a lot of forcing. Not all of the story line comes as naturally as the original opera. Let’s take the example of the third corner of famous love triangle: Escamillo (or in the case of Carmen Jones, Husky). In Spanish tradition and culture, bullfighters, toreros, matadors, or whatever you might call them, are given a high regard and are grand celebrities. They exhibit the power of man over nature as they ultimately kill not one, but two bulls by the end of the night. Compared to this heroic image, reminiscent of Roman tournaments, is the image of an African American boxer, Husky. Though the idea of a fighter is still there, Husky is nowhere near the symbol of a bullfighter. The goal at the end of a boxing match is not to kill the opponent, but merely to punch him to the floor. Even in pure image, the boxer cannot compete with the lavish costume of a toreador. For this reason, the plot line is weakened in Carmen Jones. Why does Carmen ultimately decide to go with this third corner of the triangle? Yes, both Husky and Escamillo have money, as they are celebrities. But the focus on Husky is more monetary than the focus on Escamillo which is more passion, and power based – more symbolic, just as his character. Such passion and power is also exemplified later on when Don Jose stabs Carmen outside of the bullfight. In the musical, Joe simply strangles her. Though both are horrific ways to die, there is a certain shock and awe that a stabbing brings upon an audience as opposed to a strangling.

An inexperienced theatregoer and music lover might not pick up a strong difference in the music of both opera and musical, but to someone who knows, Hammerstein’s version is close to an abomination. Bizet wrote his music for a specific libretto and for a specific setting. Though French, he puts a Spanish-gypsy flare into his orchestration to fit the setting of his opera. I am all for rewriting songs for the purpose of parody or “spoof,” but when it’s done in what I believe was a serious attempt at a musical, I have a problem. Hammerstein attempts to include the correct songs in the “correct” places in his adaptation, but he changes the lyrics so drastically that he cannot hope to get a similar message across. At some points, it seems, he includes a song just for the purpose of saying to the audience, “don’t worry, I included it!” Such an example is the song “Beat Out Dat Rhythm on a Drum,” to the melody of Bizet’s “Gypsy Song” in the opera. There was absolutely nothing gained in this performance, and all that it accomplished was tarnishing a Carmen-lover’s listening to Bizet’s original. And can anyone explain why Carmen Jones might nonchalantly be whistling themes from Bizet’s opera? Had she just gone to see a performance on the army base? It was overkill including such reminders that this was, in fact, a rendition.

All of this being considered, though, there are some strengths in Hammerstein’s version in the sense that it can be viewed as more accessible to a modern-day audience that isn’t quite accustomed to sitting in a foreign-language opera. Perhaps a novice theatregoer who sees this rendition might be inspired to make the next step and go to the opera. The musical definitely follows the cliché idea of musical theatre being a “hokey” outing. But, anything that inspires more appreciation in the arts is a welcome addition to theatre repertoire.

Ultimately, after an entire essay comparing the two versions of Carmen, both adaptations in their own right, it may be concluded that though Hammerstein’s version is obviously inferior in both story line and orchestration, it is simply yet another version of a famous opera that does no harm to the art world. Overall, it is necessary for new adaptations. Artists of all types have new ideas to add to the old, and we should welcome their fresh outlook.

Marina B. Nebro

Comment from Sally Sublette - November 8, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Why not just publish Hammerstein’s writings about his intentions and choices, and let the interested reader decide how to feel about all this? Also, your comment about being inferior in orchestration–without ever having discussed how closely the 1943 orchestration adaptation (for a slightly smaller complement than you’d probably see in a first-class opera house pit) parallel’s Bizet’s original writing–really suggests that you don’t know what orchestration is.

Comment from marinanebro - November 8, 2012 at 6:21 PM

What I posted was just a comparison essay between Carmen the opera and Carmen Jones. My professor has no qualms with the student stating his or her opinion on which adaptation was more effective. So in regards to your first question, I’m giving my own opinion.
Secondly, I apologize for using the wrong word – orchestration. The way the music is used in the the musical is inferior, that is all that I was trying to get across, and I’m sure even with the incorrect word, it is understandable.
Thank you, though, for your criticism 🙂

-Marina B. Nebro