I can't help but mock this. Changing the text, as I've argued*, is a very different thing from reimagining the work through radical restagings, and Not Okay. I mean it's fine...it doesn't actually hurt anyone, least of all dead authors and composers, but I think it's, eh, dumb.
Somehow it's particularly galling when the driving impulse is to indulgently correct for the political consciousness of people from another time. I know I sound like a hypocrite if you're anti-regie, but I still believe this is not what most haute regie productions do.
But maybe I understand the indignance of traditionalists better now. Like them, I want to ask "what next?" Antipsychotics for Wozzeck and marriage counseling with Marie? (This is a good example, in fact, because Wozzeck documents things about mental illness in a way nobody would mistake for some kind of approval of their treatment in the past the way Diane Paulus seems to think Porgy's creators knowingly or unknowingly did. And even this sidesteps the question of whether viewing something makes us complicit in oh never mind this is too far off track
Oh, how about a new final scene for Aida in which Radames posts "ZOMG am under HUMUNGOLOID rock" on fb** from his iPhone and his friends show up and there's a big final chorus about teamwork? Or like Dr. Grenvil is like "gurl, you just need some Cipro!" and it's kind of an important public service message about getting proper medical care etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
*yeah, I know, this makes it sound like I've written it up in scholarly journals...
ETA: Orlando Furioso puts it succinctly and well:
If one finds it problematic, leave it unperformed. If one finds it powerful-but-flawed… well, live with the imperfections and enjoy the rest, as we do with so many good-but-flawed works.
But don’t create a new work, built on your favorite bits of what the original authors did, and then forge their names to the result.