I’m working on my Britten biopic and I just noticed that at one point I’d described Peter Pears as “a figure of clam sanity”.
I immediately corrected the word “clam” to “calm”. Then I started to wonder if it might not have been better the way it was before. I admit that it would change the focus of the film considerably – if Pears is to be portrayed as a clam then Britten will have to be a mussel or something similar – and it would be altogether less of a costume drama and more the kind of film produced by Pixar.
But so what? I can think of several advantages:
1. It would bring the music of Britten to a younger generation through a Snorks-like re-imagining of history.
2. It would draw clever parallels with the sea-oriented operas Peter Grimes and Billy Budd.
3. It might inspire the insane people who threaten world peace with their nuclear stockpiles to try to be “figures of clam sanity”. And drown.
4. Peter Pears as a clam – you’ve got to laugh. And it would make the sex scenes considerably easier to write.