Viviana Goodwin in the title role and Justin Austin as Remus in Scott Joplin’s Treemonisha at Washington National Opera. Photo: Elman Studios

Treemonisha is a young black woman found as a baby under a tree by her adoptive parents, Monisha and Ned. Educated by a white woman, she teaches others in her rural community, near Texarkana (where Joplin himself was raised), to read and write. After she defeats the local conjurers, who use superstition to cheat and swindle, the community elects her as their leader.

This version of Treemonisha, while still largely recognizable as Joplin’s work, has been adapted and orchestrated by composer Damien Sneed, with some new dialogue and lyrics by Kyle Bass. The work remains a lightweight piece in many ways: an operetta more than an opera, with spoken dialogue and incorporating a range of popular musical styles, a compendium of the music Joplin heard and played in his youth, from ragtime to spirituals to barbershop quartet. The adaptation tightens some of the dramatic structure, while bringing out the originality of Joplin’s compositional voice.

Soprano Viviana Goodwin, a Cafritz Young Artist heard as Clara in last season’s Porgy and Bess, made an eloquent and winsome Treemonisha. Her lyrical voice suited the character’s dreamy, idealistic arias, and her supple top range provided more than enough power to carry the opera’s major climaxes. The changes to the opera, especially Treemonisha’s romance with and marriage to Remus, only implied in Joplin’s score, made the character more human than idealized savior.

The role of Remus, written by Joplin for a tenor, had to be adjusted somewhat for baritone Justin Austin to sing it. While not ideal musically, the change made sense in terms of casting: the earnest Austin, tall and imposing, proved a sinewy presence. Sneed, while doing away with the duet between Monisha and Ned (“I Want to See My Child”), showed the growing love between Remus and Tremonisha by giving them a hummed duet as they returned to the community, to the tune of “Marching Onward” from the opera’s final number.

Kevin Short as Ned  and Tichina Vaughan as Monisha in WNO’s Treemonisha. Photo: Elman Studios

Tichina Vaughn brought a burnished mezzo-soprano and dignified stage presence to the motherly role of Monisha, with some potent high notes along the way, for a solid WNO debut. Bass-baritone Kevin Short gave humor as well as authority to her husband, Ned, with some of the opera’s most lyrical moments. His big aria in Act III, “When Villains Ramble Far and Near,” had a Sarastro-like gravitas, even venturing down to a rich low D at the conclusion.

Among the supporting cast, tenor Jonathan Pierce Rhodes continues to show a broad acting range. After his turn as a trans woman, among other roles while a Cafritz Young Artist, Rhodes displayed both strutting confidence and vulnerability as the leader of the conjurers, Zodzetrick. In another change to Joplin’s libretto, in this adaptation, Zodzetrick does not take advantage of Treemonisha’s insistence on mercy by going back to his old ways but is sincerely converted.

Both tenor Hakeem Henderson and baritone Nicholas LaGesse had impressive turns, as Andy and Parson Alltalk, respectively. In Sneed’s adaptation, Alltalk is not in league with the conjurers as in Joplin’s libretto. 

Director Denyce Graves, who portrayed the conjurers more as practitioners of an African or Caribbean folk religion, insisted that the staging was “not meant to mock spiritual tradition or folk belief.” Both the Parson and the conjurers, in fact, seem pious in their own ways.

The most obvious change to the score was heard at the opening of Act I, when banjo player DeAnte Haggerty-Willis took the stage to play a number before the Overture. The banjo, Joplin’s mother’s instrument, added a lovely, authentic aura throughout the evening. Sneed himself, seated at an onstage upright piano like the spirit of Scott Joplin, joined the opening number and added musical touches to the orchestral fabric throughout the performance. Sneed’s orchestration used a limited number of strings and modest woodwinds and brass, restricted by Lisner’s small pit. Kedrick Armstrong, appointed as music director of the Oakland Symphony in 2024, held things together at the podium with a calm hand.

The choral numbers, sung by the supporting cast, had a pleasing heft in the small but resonant acoustic. Sneed moved the chorus “Aunt Dinah Has Blowed de Horn” from its position at the end of Act II to open Act I, now sung by Treemonisha’s community instead of the plantation she and Remus pass through on their way home. That piece followed Joplin’s lengthy overture, which Graves decided to accompany with a pantomime. That regrettable choice, too often made by directors these days, was made worse by depicting the story of Treemonisha’s adoption, thus making redundant Monisha’s later narration of those same events.

Graves, who has embarked on a second career as a talented opera director, nonetheless created a visually appealing and dramatically cogent production. The paisley-like vine patterns covering Lawrence E. Moten III’s set pieces recalled the tree central to the plot, as well as the wreaths worn by the girls in the community. The vibrant lighting designed by Jason Lynch brought out different hues in those patterns, suiting each scene’s mood.

The choreography by Eboni Adams, performed by four elegant dancers as well as the cast, added another lively aspect to this worthy staging. The adaptation moved Joplin’s ballet, “The Frolic of the Bears,” to the start of Act II, where it served instead as an expression of the conjurers’ folk beliefs. All in all, this is a worthy staging of an American monument, kicking off a series of three American works to conclude the WNO season in style.

Treemonisha runs through March 15. washnatopera.org

Photo: Elman Studios

Just before dawn Saturday, a plaque honoring U.S. Capitol Police along with other law enforcement agencies who protected the Capitol on Jan. 6 was installed.

It comes more than 5 years after insurrectionists stormed the building. The Senate voted to install the plaque after the House GOP refused to display it.

“I think that speaks volumes about they’re doing this because they were forced to do it, and they did it in a manner that really added insult to the injury, to the injury that they had already subjected so many law enforcement officers to,” said former Capitol police officer Michael Fanone.

Fanone was one of the officers attacked by the rioters five years ago. He later suffered a heart attack and resigned from the Metropolitan Police Department.

Fanone says many officers feel betrayed by the institutions they fought to protect.

“They installed it at four in the morning, in a part of the Senate that is not accessible to the public,” he said. “The whole purpose of the plaque is to remind the public when they come visit the Capitol of the selflessness, courage of the Metropolitan police department and the U.S. Capitol Police.”

The riot took place at the tail end of President Donald Trump’s first term while Congress was attempting to certify 2020 election results.

When Trump was sworn in for his second term last year, he pardoned roughly 1,500 criminal defendants who were charged for their actions at the capitol on Jan. 6.

The new marker comes two months after the Senate unanimously agreed to a resolution directing the architect of the capitol to install the plaque honoring the officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6.

The resolution was introduced earlier this year after congress had stalled on plans outlined in a 2022 law to install a similar plaque by March 2023.

The marker was installed on the Senate side of the Capitol and is expected to stay there until both chambers can agree on a more permanent place for it.

Former U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, who filed a joint lawsuit seeking the installation of the plaque, took to social media, writing, “The location of the plaque that was just hung, is in a place that it will not be visible to the public. While I am thankful for this first step, our lawsuit continues until the plaque is hung in accordance with the law.”

The plaque reads, “On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on January 6, 2021. Their heroism will never be forgotten.”

The Kurds are once again confronting a dilemma in their relationship with the United States. This time it is in Iran. Reports indicate that Washington may be exploring ways to train and support Iranian Kurdish forces for a potential ground offensive inside Iran, as U.S. and Israeli strikes continue to target the regime’s military and security infrastructure from the air. President Donald Trump even said it would be “wonderful” if the Kurds launch such an offensive.

For the Kurds, the situation revives a long-standing calculation: Aligning with Washington offers opportunities but carries the risk of abandonment, but refusing cooperation may prove even more costly in a volatile region.

It may seem natural for Iranian Kurds to align with Washington as the clerical regime in Tehran crumbles. After all, the Kurds, who make up roughly 10 percent in a country of 92 million, long have been among the most marginalized communities in Iran. Their cultural rights are restricted, political representation nonexistent, and Kurdish regions neglected economically. The regime treats even modest efforts to promote Kurdish language and culture have as security threats, with activists and teachers facing arrest and imprisonment. This systematic repression has turned the Kurds into a cohesive bloc of opposition to the Iranian regime.

Moreover, the Kurds in Iran, like in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, are largely secular and pro-American. Their willingness to work with Washington is not merely an act of opportunism aimed at benefiting from a superpower. Rather, many Kurdish political movements view partnership with the United States as aligned with their broader aspiration for democratic governance and a secular political order. Ordinary Kurds generally hold a strong affinity for America.

Repressive policies across the region have contributed to the emergence of a survival mechanism among the Kurds, most evident in their highly disciplined and organized military mindset. It is mainly for this reason that Washington has often relied on Kurdish forces to undertake some of the most difficult tasks that even conventional militaries sometimes struggle to accomplish. It has created a unique partnership to which American commanders working with Kurds, particularly in Syria, can readily attest.

Yet both distant and recent episodes of Kurdish partnership with the United States send mixed signals to the Kurds, especially now in Iran, about whether a military alignment with Washington would serve their long-term strategic interests.

This is a paradox. American policies have shaped both the major gains and setbacks experienced by the Kurds at different historical stages. The losses suffered by Kurds and the status they enjoy in Iraq, and to a lesser extent in Syria, are in large part the result of American intervention and protection. The U.S.-Kurdish partnership, therefore, is far from black and white; it is complex and unfolds across multiple national borders.

Part of this asymmetrical partnership with the United States is the Kurds’ lack of sovereignty. Without a state of their own, the Kurds remain not only subject to the shifting priorities of different U.S. administrations, but also lack the institutional tools needed to formalize and sustain a long-term partnership with Washington.

But Washington has the tools to recalibrate its relationship with Kurds across the region. It remains the primary power shaping developments the Middle East. And as a new regional order seems to be emerging, it is critical for the United States to maintain more partners who are aligned with its vision. Particularly in Iran, if the current war leads to regime change, having a reliable partner such as Kurds could offer Washington important strategic leverage to shape the country’s future governance.