Beethoven's 33 Variations on a waltz by Anton Diabelli are among the most exceptional pieces written for piano, but why Beethoven decided to focus so much attention on a single, some say simplistic, waltz, has been cause for great debate. In Moisés Kaufman's new Broadway play, 33 Variations, musicologist Dr. Katherine Brandt (Jane Fonda) becomes obsessed with figuring out Beethoven's fascination with the variations. During the span of the play, we witness not only Beethoven's dark spiral into complete deafness, but Dr. Brandt's own struggle with a fatal illness, as both geniuses come to terms with the final phases of their lives.
Recently, we spoke with Kaufman—perhaps best known for his work as the primary writer of The Laramie Project—about the play, which inspired Jane Fonda to return to Broadway after a 46 year absence. 33 Variations officially opens at the Eugene O'Neill on tonight, for a limited run.
How did the idea of writing about Beethoven's 33 Variations come to you? I went to Tower Records and I was looking for an album with Beethoven and the salesperson said to me, "Why don't you look at the Diabelli Variations?" And then he proceeded to tell me the story of how they were made. As soon as I heard the story, I said, "That's my next play." So it was a salesperson at Tower Records.
Does he know that he's the inspiration for your play? [Laughs] Yes, he does.
Jane Fonda says that she was actually writing about Beethoven at the time that she was approached with the play. Not only that, but she was writing about artists who create their best works later in life, many times despite physical setbacks. Did you find that her personal relationship with these subjects affected the play and the development of her character? Amazingly so. The most shocking thing to me was the first time we met. The way she was talking about the material was as if I was talking about the material. She had this incredible knowledge about the subject matter and the ideas in the play were so second-hand to her. I was so thrilled by that, by the fact that she really seemed like, "Oh, I know what this play's about, and I'm actually writing about similar questions." So that was very thrilling. I think that's one of the reasons why, when we met at the restaurant to decide whether we were going to do this or not... You know, those conversations usually take months. We met once. We sat down, we had dinner, and at the end of dinner we knew we were going to do this together. It took one dinner.
It sounds like this must have been a very emotional journey for both of you. I think it was. It was very personal. Maybe not emotional, but certainly very personal for both of us.
Do you find that it's a very different experience when you're directing your own work? It's easier directing things you don't write. But I've done this before, so it didn't feel so alien to me. With other people's work there's more searching going on. I have a little more knowledge when I direct my own work. It's fun. I've already directed a Broadway show, but this is the most personal work. It's interesting to see my most personal work so publicly.
It seems like you really enjoy writing about true-life events. What is it about using theater to convey real events that inspires you? I think that, for me, there's a great wealth of beauty and truth in reality, whether it's present or past, so I'm interested in that, and I'm also very interested in new theatrical forms. How can theatre in all its power and beauty articulate this? So that's what I keep coming back to.
The simple idea is that the theater is a medium. We know how to speak through film so well, so it feels like we're never really going to learn to speak through theater. We need new theatrical forms, we need new ways of expressing our ideas. We still have so much work to do in trying to freely figure out how theater speaks, so, to me, this play is an exercise in that. It's a play with music, it's a play with dancing, it's a play with singing, it's a play with video... It really tries to redefine how the theatrical space is used. The audience seems to be very taken with it. I think people are hungry to have intelligent conversations in the theater.
So how did the other story line with Dr. Brandt come about? Originally, I thought it was just going to be a piece about Beethoven, but when I started working on it I realized it couldn't be, it had to be something more. I became obsessed with trying to figure this out, trying to figure out what Beethoven became obsessed with. So I was fascinated with those questions. I did basically what Katherine does in the play. I went to Bon (Germany), I researched it, I did it. I spent all those months in the archives with Dr. Ladenburger. So I wanted to create a character that could − this is a play about obsessions and about curiosity and, to me, Beethoven's obsession with the work is echoed in Katherine's obsession with Beethoven's decision.
I knew that I wanted to create a play in variation form: variations about obsession and about what happens when everything else in your life is removed from your life. So I needed to create a parallel scenario with someone where everything was being taken away from them, so that they could understand something about what Beethoven was going through at that time.
So the character of Dr. Katherine Brandt developed through your own experience? Yes, she is my stand-in in the play.
As one of the writers of The Laramie Project, I would be really interested to hear your thoughts on the current fight for gay marriage and equal rights. Well, I think it's the last bastion of that kind of horrific, reactionary, retrograde thinking. I think that, like with every other major human rights revolution, very soon we will look back at this and be so embarrassed that we were even having this conversation. Just like with interracial marriage, we look back at those protests and we think, "How did we ever think that was a good idea?" And we're on the brink of having that occur with gay marriage. The opposition is going to look back and say, "How did we ever think that this was a good idea?" And all the people who are now against gay marriage, who are voicing their adoration and their support of that, are all going to look like idiots and bigots.
It should be such a non-issue. Not to mention that the worst part is not so much that what they're saying is nonsensical, but what bothers me most as a gay man is that focusing on this is taking so much focus away from where it should be: the real problems that we're facing as a society. That's the most upsetting thing.
Do you see yourself ever broaching that subject again? No, I don't think so. With Laramie, that was a real event there. Opposition to gay marriage, that for me is not an event. That's going to happen soon and everyone who opposed it is going to be ridiculed, and that's going to be the end of that.
