You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
Playful and satirical, the Marx Brothers’ 1935 A Night at the Opera pokes fun at opera’s elitism while celebrating its spectacle, capturing the era’s ambivalence toward “high” art forms seen as both prestigious and pretentious, precious and pompous.
With their signature irreverence, the Marx Brothers portray opera as steeped in cultural snobbery. Groucho’s character, Otis B. Driftwood, feigning sophistication, embodies the public’s disdain toward wealthy patrons who championed opera as a status symbol. The film ridicules the absurdity of treating opera as an exclusive domain, disconnected from the lives of average Americans. Wealthy patrons are depicted as humorously out of touch, reflecting public frustration with an upper class more invested in prestige than genuine engagement with the art.
However, A Night at the Opera doesn’t reject opera outright; instead, it brings it down to earth, making it accessible to all. Harpo’s performance, showcasing genuine musical skill, transcends genre pretensions, demonstrating that opera’s appeal need not be confined to the elite.
The film’s transformation of an operatic performance into a chaotic, joyful spectacle—complete with slapstick interruptions and a mayhem-filled finale—reminds audiences that art can be both grand and inclusive. This blend of reverence for opera’s artistry and mockery of its social exclusivity hints at a public desire to enjoy cultural experiences without barriers of class or formality.
The famous stateroom scene, where characters absurdly pile into a small room, parodies the exclusivity and rigidity often associated with high culture. By breaking down such formalities, the Marx Brothers subvert social norms, suggesting that opera—and, by extension, other high art forms—should be freely enjoyed without protocols or airs of superiority. This scene reflects a longing for cultural democratization, a belief that all should enjoy art’s pleasures without feeling unwelcome.
A Night at the Opera captures a cultural moment when opera and other traditional art forms were losing popular appeal amid the rise of accessible entertainment like movies. By blending reverence for opera’s beauty with mockery of its elitism, the film suggests that art thrives when it remains accessible to a broad audience. Satirizing opera’s exclusivity while showcasing its artistry, the Marx Brothers reveal a respect tempered by a desire for inclusivity, embodying the belief that high art should reach beyond its gilded confines to connect with everyone.
There was a time when opera, the highest of high art forms, belonged to everyone. What had once been an elite, aristocratic entertainment became, during the 19th century, a democratic art—until it eventually lost its broad popular audience.
For decades, opera served as a democratic cultural platform, engaging the public in societal debates and providing a shared space for expression. At its height, opera transcended mere entertainment, functioning as a forum for collective exploration of ideas, identities and social issues, mirroring the political and cultural dialogues of the time.
This evolution from exclusive art to a medium with broad social resonance reflects society’s shifting views on public discourse, accessibility and the role of art in everyday life. Opera’s journey from elite circles to a public sphere of debate highlights a universal quest for meaningful, accessible art forms that invite dialogue and reflection.
While opera eventually lost its popular appeal to more accessible media, its rise and decline as a public art form underscore the transient nature of cultural relevance. Art’s true power lies in its capacity to foster community, spark discussion and adapt to the ever-changing landscape of public engagement. This search for inclusive spaces where art serves as a conduit for self-examination and societal dialogue remains ongoing as each art form’s place in the cultural spotlight evolves with the times.
In his classic analysis of democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville raised a thought-provoking question: Could a democratic society, with its emphasis on equality, pragmatism and commerce, foster great works of art?
Tocqueville feared that without aristocratic or church patronage—institutions that had historically championed the arts—democracies might overlook the fine arts, becoming too focused on material success and practicality. He worried that, in a society driven by equality and personal advancement, beauty, refinement and creativity might be sidelined in favor of profit and utility.
For Tocqueville, aristocratic societies, with their wealth and leisure, cultivated a deep appreciation for art, supporting artists in the pursuit of beauty for its own sake. The church, too, had been a powerful patron, commissioning works that served spiritual as well as artistic purposes. But in democratic societies, he observed, these traditional sources of support dwindled.
Without wealthy patrons to invest in the arts independently of market demands, Tocqueville feared that art might be reduced to mere commodity, valued only for entertainment or profit rather than for its ability to inspire, elevate or critique.
Tocqueville also questioned whether democratic values themselves might limit artistic potential. In a society focused on equality, pragmatism and individualism, there is less emphasis on hierarchy, tradition and reverence for the past—qualities that often foster the cultivation of the sublime and complex. He feared that art in democracies might become more utilitarian, aimed at mass appeal rather than high aesthetic or moral purpose.
Yet Tocqueville’s concerns also highlighted the potential for democratic innovation and inclusivity in the arts. While aristocratic patronage funded masterpieces, it also limited artistic themes to those that upheld elite values. In contrast, democracies can foster artistic expression that speaks to a broad public, drawing inspiration from diverse backgrounds and capturing a range of human experiences.
In fact, much of American art in the 20th century—whether in literature, theater or film—grew out of democratic values, focusing on the lives and struggles of ordinary people. This new form of artistic greatness, rooted in shared experience, reflects a democratic greatness distinct from the elite-focused art Tocqueville envisioned.
Tocqueville’s concerns reflect a tension between artistic elitism and inclusivity. While aristocratic patronage certainly promoted grandeur and formality, democratic societies, by contrast, might prioritize relevance, inclusivity and social critique. This shift, though it sometimes yields more transient or accessible art, also enables works of profound social insight, as seen in the novels of Twain, the photography of Dorothea Lange and the films of Orson Welles and Spike Lee. Rather than weakening art, democratic values redefine it, bringing it closer to the lives and concerns of the public.
While Tocqueville was right to question the impact of democracy on high art, his critique does not fully account for the ways democratic values can enrich artistic expression. Though democracy may shift art’s focus from grand patrons to broader public appeal, it also fosters new voices, ideas and perspectives, allowing art to engage with society more directly. In reshaping art into something more accessible, democratic societies may indeed cultivate great works—ones that resonate across backgrounds and reach beyond an elite few, expanding our understanding of artistic achievement and cultural legacy.
The Astor Place Riot of 1849, also known as the Opera House Riot, stands as a notorious example of class tensions erupting into violent conflict in mid-19th-century America. This riot ostensibly revolved around the rivalry between two actors—Edwin Forrest, an American idolized by the working class, and William Charles Macready, a British actor favored by the elite. Yet beneath this theatrical feud lay a deeper clash of cultural and class identities, reflecting the profound social tensions of the time.
At the heart of the riot was working-class support for Forrest, whose raw, emotional performances and staunch American patriotism resonated with New York’s laboring population. Forrest’s vigorous, populist portrayal of Shakespearean characters struck a chord with the city’s immigrant and working-class communities, who viewed him as a symbol of American identity and defiance against British cultural dominance.
In stark contrast, Macready, known for his refined, restrained style, appealed to New York’s wealthy and educated elite. His performances were lauded by upper-class patrons as paragons of sophisticated culture, embodying the values of emotional control and polished artistry.
The rivalry between Forrest and Macready became a focal point for broader class tensions. The Astor Place Opera House, where Macready was performing, symbolized high culture’s exclusivity, with admission prices set deliberately to exclude lower-income audiences. To affluent patrons, venues like the opera house represented refinement and social status; to working-class Americans, they were barriers of elitism and symbols of societal exclusion.
Tensions reached a peak on May 10, 1849, when Macready took the stage at the Astor Place Opera House. Thousands of Forrest’s working-class supporters gathered outside, chanting and hurling stones at the building. When protesters attempted to storm the opera house, police and state militia intervened. The confrontation escalated rapidly, culminating in authorities firing into the crowd, resulting in at least 22 deaths and over 100 injuries.
The Astor Place Riot was a watershed moment in American cultural history. It illustrated how theater had become a public space where class divides and social grievances could erupt into open conflict. It also exposed anxieties over cultural identity, as Americans fiercely defended their own cultural icons against figures they saw as symbols of European elitism.
On a deeper level, the riot underscored a struggle over what American culture should represent. To the working class, art and theater should be accessible, inclusive and reflective of American experiences, free from European influence. The upper class, however, saw European cultural standards as the ultimate benchmarks of taste and sophistication, aspiring to replicate them in the United States.
The Astor Place Riot ultimately serves as a vivid example of how art and entertainment venues can become battlegrounds for social and political issues. In mid-19th-century New York, a theater performance became an unlikely stage for clashes over class, national identity and cultural authority, underscoring how art is never just about aesthetics; it is woven deeply into the social and political fabric of society.
Emerging during the Italian Renaissance, opera blended music, drama and spectacle, captivating elite audiences with its emotional intensity and grandeur. By the 18th century, it had become a prestigious European art form, with composers like Mozart, Verdi and Wagner using it to explore complex human emotions and philosophical ideas. Opera houses became social hubs for the elite, who attended not only for the performances but also for the cultural prestige.
In the 19th century, however, opera transformed into a vibrant, popular art form that significantly contributed to the public sphere, conveying powerful messages about society, identity and national aspirations. Far from the elite status it holds today, opera was widely accessible and served as a social and cultural forum for people across different classes. Its dramatic narratives, powerful music and immersive performances resonated deeply with the public, contributing uniquely to public discourse.
Opera houses became gathering places where people from various backgrounds came together. Attending the opera was not just a cultural event but a social occasion for lively discussions. Audiences responded collectively to performances through applause, boos or conversations during intermissions. This public space allowed for the free exchange of ideas, emotions and political sentiments, making opera a form of popular democratic engagement.
Many 19th-century operas were infused with nationalist themes that appealed to audiences’ desires for identity and unity, especially during periods of political upheaval. Composers like Verdi in Italy and Wagner in Germany used opera to promote patriotic messages, symbolizing struggles for national independence and unity. Verdi’s Nabucco, for example, with its famous chorus “Va, pensiero” (often interpreted as a longing for freedom), became an anthem for Italian unification. By reflecting nationalist sentiments, operas created shared cultural experiences that strengthened collective identity and mobilized public opinion.
Operas of this period also addressed social issues, from class inequalities to moral dilemmas, resonating with the public’s lived experiences. In La Traviata, Verdi portrayed the tragedy of a courtesan marginalized by society, raising questions about morality, social justice and the treatment of women. Bizet’s Carmen depicted class conflict, marginalized individuals and defiance of social norms, highlighting the struggles of the working class. Through these narratives, opera served as a platform for exploring and questioning social structures, contributing to public awareness of social issues.
Because opera attracted large, diverse audiences, it became a medium for expressing political views, both overtly and subtly. In places like Italy and France, opera performances sometimes acted as quasi-political gatherings where patriotic sentiments could be safely expressed under the guise of entertainment.
Among the messages conveyed by opera were these:
- The power of collective identity: Opera underscored themes of unity, loyalty and shared values. Through stirring choruses and themes of sacrifice, works like Verdi’s Aida and Nabucco evoked strong feelings of nationalism and identity. These messages resonated during nationalist movements, reinforcing the honor and necessity of individual sacrifice for one’s country or community.
- The tragic cost of social inequality: Many operas highlighted suffering caused by social hierarchies and prejudice. The tragic stories of characters like Violetta in La Traviata or Mimi in La Bohème exposed the personal toll of societal judgment and economic disparity, challenging audiences to reflect on class and gender inequalities. By evoking empathy for marginalized characters, operas communicated the need for compassion and the consequences of societal indifference.
- The complexity of human emotions and morality: Operas presented intense emotional journeys grappling with moral ambiguity and human frailty. Characters faced dilemmas that challenged societal norms—from Carmen’s rebellious spirit to Don Giovanni’s defiance of morality. These portrayals conveyed that human experience is fraught with contradictions, prompting audiences to consider the complexities of morality, free will and human nature.
- Resistance to oppression and injustice: Opera frequently portrayed themes of defiance and resistance, inspiring audiences to view opposition to injustice as noble. Verdi’s operas were notable for this theme; Italian audiences under Austrian rule saw their struggles mirrored on stage. In works like Il Trovatore and Don Carlo, characters’ fights for freedom and justice resonated with oppressed groups, affirming the honor and necessity of resisting injustice.
The public nature of opera, combined with its compelling narratives and emotional power, made it more than mere entertainment; it was a potent force for social awareness and political engagement. Opera engaged audiences intellectually and emotionally, offering a shared space to reflect on the moral and social issues of their time. As a result, it became an influential tool in shaping public opinion, challenging social conventions and fostering collective identities.
In the 19th century, opera acted as both a cultural unifier and a mirror to society’s values and struggles. The opera house itself, as a gathering place for people of all classes, embodied the values of shared experience and dialogue. The operatic form—rich in emotion, spectacle and narrative—encouraged audiences to view the world from new perspectives and question societal norms. By contributing to the public sphere, opera underscored the importance of storytelling as a tool for social critique, collective identity and cultural transformation.
By the early 20th century, opera had lost much of its central cultural role, especially in the United States. Once a primary form of musical storytelling, opera came to be viewed as a highbrow, outdated art form, appealing primarily to elite aficionados rather than a broad audience. Its grandiosity, lengthy performances and adherence to tradition increasingly seemed out of step with modern sensibilities.
By the mid-20th century, opera arias were often most recognizable as soundtracks in children’s cartoons, underscoring the art form’s distance from mainstream cultural relevance. Opera had become a symbol of high culture, associated with wealth and exclusivity. Grand opera houses, with their opulent architecture and elite patronage, projected an aura of exclusivity, making opera less a form of public entertainment and more a marker of social status.
The 20th century brought forth new, accessible forms of entertainment—cinema, radio and eventually television. These media offered stories and themes more directly relatable to contemporary audiences, making opera’s historical and grandiose narratives feel distant or even irrelevant. At the same time, opera’s foreign languages, complex structure and considerable length made it seem inaccessible to many who lacked the time, interest or cultural background to fully appreciate it.
The rise of “high culture” in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which classified art forms by their supposed prestige, further positioned opera as a “highbrow” pursuit. This association discouraged broad appeal, as opera came to be seen as less of a popular entertainment form and more an activity for the elite, reinforcing its image as an inaccessible and outmoded art for the average person.
The transition of some of Broadway’s greatest musicals—such as Showboat, Porgy and Bess, South Pacific and Carousel—into opera houses reflects their unique aspiration to unite the grandeur of opera with the accessibility of popular theater. These musicals, groundbreaking in their time, brought opera’s emotional intensity, musical sophistication and dramatic scope to broader audiences, democratizing high art for everyday people.
In the early and mid-20th century, these Broadway musicals represented a bold attempt to merge operatic elements with the American cultural landscape, creating works that resonated deeply across class and cultural divides. They featured lush orchestrations, sweeping emotional arcs and socially relevant themes, much like the operas of Verdi or Puccini but grounded in narratives that reflected American society. For instance, Porgy and Bess, often called an “American folk opera,” blended African American spiritual and jazz influences with operatic form, embodying both the cultural richness of America and the majesty of European opera.
These musicals also tackled profound social issues, echoing opera’s historical role as a mirror to society’s complexities. Showboat addressed themes of racism and social justice, South Pacific explored the consequences of prejudice, and Carousel delved into love, morality and redemption. By presenting these themes in an accessible theater setting, these works invited audiences to engage with weighty topics often sidelined in popular entertainment, much as opera once tackled grand themes of love, power and human tragedy.
The artistic ambition behind these musicals aligns them with operatic tradition: They were created to be more than mere entertainment. Composers like Rodgers and Hammerstein and George Gershwin sought to evoke the emotional resonance of opera within a format that could reach across socioeconomic lines, forging a shared cultural experience.
As these musicals are now embraced by opera houses, it becomes clear that they inhabit a unique space, bridging the worlds of high and popular art. Staging these works in opera venues emphasizes their musical and dramatic sophistication, inviting audiences to see them not just as musicals, but as culturally significant works worthy of a place alongside traditional operatic masterpieces. This evolution underscores the timeless relevance of these musicals and their capacity to adapt across artistic and cultural spheres, embodying both the spectacle of opera and the democratic spirit of the American musical.
