Sunday, March 18, 2012

Ernani, from the Met, or, meet my new diva

Ok, first up. This was my first experience of Ernani. Sure, I knew a couple of the arias, and the basic story, and it was early-ish Verdi, but that was it. I had thus expected the strong choruses, florid vocal lines that require big voices, with a plot that belonged in a South American soap opera.

Well, that pretty much sums up the basics, I guess, so now, down to business. First, the sets in this production are stunning. The opening scene looked like the ruins of some old castle, with just some walls and a staircase up the side left. The next scene inside Silva's castle, featured a massive painting on one wall with a huge couch in front of it, massive doors at the back, with about ten steps up to it. The next act was outside at Silva's castle, again, on a massive staircase. Then the last two acts featured the same staircase with different things around it, the tomb of Charlemagne in act 3, which was then hidden by a wall, to make it Ernani's castle at the end.

You notice something common there? Yes, all huge sets, all featuring stairs used extensively throughout the opera. In fact, it was normal to have people singing on the stairs in each act. Now, I do not know about you, but I do not normally make it a habit of stopping and discussing the days events on stairs normally, but it does at least allow for a chorus to be spread so you can see them all, and they did look effective. It also made for attractive groupings of the leads, in ways that also helped disguise big height differences.

Now, I have to say, Marcello Giordani did leave me a bit underwhelmed in this role. As Ernani, or, Don Juan of Aragon, his is a serviceable tenor but not really great. A couple of times I noticed some hoarseness suggesting maybe he was just tired, but he really did not sound like he belonged on the same stage as some of the others performing.

Likewise, I found Dmitri Hvorostovsky somewhat underwhelming. Somehow he lacks the power and forcefulness I would expect of this role. The odd thing about that though, is he seemed much freer and more powerful vocally during his recites, as if he was trying to hold back in the arias and ensembles to produce a more beautiful tone. If so, it was not working, it just left me annoyed..

Now, on the other hand, Ferruccio Furlanetto proved once again, he is one of the best basses singing Verdi at the moment. His is a big dark bass voice that he uses expressively to good effect. If he sang the cabaletta after his act 1 aria slower than I expected or wanted, I tend to suspect it was our conductor Marco Amilliato, not the singer, who was responsible. I am not saying he is a bad conductor, just not a great one. Having said that, the current Met conductor problems are well known, and tonight's conductor is one of the ones who has been adding more duties because of it.

Now, to the undoubted star tonight, Angela Meade. The first thing that needs to be said here, is she has only been singing professionally for a handful of years. Indeed, her professional debut, was when she jumped in to this production, replacing an ailing Elvira, in 2008. Her singing was quite frankly amazing for someone with so few productions under her belt. I did not get any sense at any time she was ever under stress as she powered her way through Verdi's tangled lines. This is not a role you give to a performer for their debut, it is a role for a soprano at the height of her powers. That Angela can rise to the ocaision so well says something about her abilities, and then for her to outshine her colleagues at the same time says even more.

For make no mistake, there was no doubt who was tonight's star. She proved that not only does she belongs amongst such starry company, she vocally leaves them for dead. Once she grows as an actor to match her singing abilities, she will dominate the opera world like the singer who many already compare her to, Dame Joan Sutherland.


Thursday, March 08, 2012

Marriage of Figaro - Benedict Andrews production

I often think that Figaro is one of those operas that is hard to kill. It is set in a time that is different enough from ours, that the behaviour and motivations of the characters can seem a bit odd, but yet it is full of universal truths that we can all relate to. Love, lust, jealousy, revenge and fidelity are things that we can all relate to, even if some of the situations seems frankly a bit out of our experience. Not to mention that the whole opera is so full of humour, it is almost like you can't make it not funny. Though, I am sure some directors have managed it.

Which brings me to the new production of Figaro for Opera Australia, by Benedict Andrews. My understanding is that this is his second opera he has worked on. I would definitely argue that this showed. Not that I think that fresh eyes are a bad thing with an well known and loved opera, but at the same time, experience with opera will show through in a great production.

Now, I am going to be harsh here. This Figaro is one where the comedy is played up, but the soul is missing. Anyone who thinks that the Mozart Da Ponte operas are not works of genius probably are not going to understand why I am ambivalent about this production. Frequently the finely drawn characters were lost in the constant efforts to milk every laugh possible out. Yes, it should be funny. But, not to the point that characters lose their essential humanity, which I felt at times happened.

To be sure, setting the opera in current times, makes a certain logic. If you want to make it accessible to those who do not go to the opera, making it seem normal, or something they can relate to, does work. But if you want to capture the heart and soul of Figaro, modernising it usually fails. Yes, it lets you see things you may not have noticed, but the problem is, the behaviour of the characters of the opera does reflect their time. Droit du seigneur is not something that happens today, and would never even be contemplated. In the time of Figaro, it is supposed to be something that happens, even if not as often as it has been referred to. This fact alone will always make a modernised version awkward. A traditional version always has this as believable, so the scheming to avoid it, does not seem so crazy and silly as a modern one does.

Having said that, if you could get past that fact, as a production there was a lot to like about this one. The set allowed for rapid and easy switches between scenes. Not having to take the time to switch between Figaro's room and The Countess's worked, although having Susanna present while The Countess sang Porgi amor seemed awkward, breaking the servant/lady divide, even if their relationship always needs to be more than just servant/mistress. It just sat wrong, as if it was a step too far.. The costumes mostly matched what those sort of characters would wear in modern times, though I felt the act 2 dress for The Countess should have been more showy. A minor thing sure, but she IS a countess, not some 20something girl off for a night on the town.

Speaking of the Countess, I thought in many respects she was the weakest performer, both vocally and dramatically. She was the one performer who frequently was hard to understand. Having said that, I doubt my Russian diction is acceptable, so you could say that was being petty, except she is doing this professionally, and I do not.

On the other hand Taryn Fiebig as Susanna is an old pro at this role. Her diction was always understandable, and her comfort in the role, having played it frequently before, shows in her assurance on the stage. This is a Susanna that would stand up in companies overseas with higher reputations than OperaAustralia.

As her husband, Joshua Bloom seemed to grow into the role as the evening progressed. His is not a big voice, but well used. And his increasing confusion as the day progressed was totally believable.

As the Count, we had Michael Lewis, for once given a major lead role that enables him to shine, both vocally and dramatically. His is a count sure of his entitlements, and eager to claim what he sees as his. He seems unable to see that his behaviour is what is causing the whole mess, rather railing against everyone for preventing him getting what he feels he deserves.

Then of course, there was the comic relief. Bartolo and Marcellina in the hands of Conal Coad and Jacqui Dark ensures that every time they walk on stage they basically take over the scene. Their confident singing and love of any joke and mischief meant that if they could steal a scene, whether with Bartolo's oxygen tank, or their general foolery, they took it. And of course, they made the whole thing funny, every time they appeared. Possibly too much, I would argue, because the characters they were portraying tended to get lost under all the physical comedy. They do both have some very distinct motivations through out the opera, but those were hard to tell in this production, as they were too busy keeping the gags running thick and fast.

Likewise, Kanen Breen as Basillio was also hilarious, but I do not think anyone can ever take Basilio serious. He is there purely as a gossip and to be a figure of fun. Kanen of course, is always happy to be a source of hilarity in a production, and he gets plenty of chances in this one, whether his lechery towards Cherubino, or attacked by the dead deer or, well, you get the picture.

On the night I was there, Domenica Matthews was unwell, and her understudy went on. I won't say too much about Anna Yuen as a result, except to say this production requires a fearless Cherubino, which she pulled off fine. Her voice may not be the match of some others I have seen in the role, but she was certainly not bad, or the weakest lead.

So I guess really, my description of this production was, it was fun. It is a production for young non opera goers, who have no idea of the story. They will come away loving it.

On the other hand, those of us who know and love Figaro, are likely to be less thrilled. This is not a production that enables the essential truths of the story to come forth. This is played purely for laughs. If that is how you see Figaro, go and enjoy yourself. Me, I expect more than just a barrel of laughs. I expect to see an understanding of the humanity of these people, a sense of something other and a concern for the characters and their plight. The fact that I did not, I think says all I need to.

Sunday, March 04, 2012

Gotterdammerung in HD

I admit to approaching this review in 2 minds. Do I write my normal review, or do I write a love letter to Deb Voigt's immolation scene? I am not being silly. Her immolation scene IS that good. The rest of the performance that we saw in the cinema was mostly fantastic, but that huge final sing that Deb did was truly something else again. Just so that you know what I am talking about, here is one of the better sounding immolation scenes available on line:



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2581375664047517259

This was Eva Marton singing Brunnhilde, I have no idea where, but it gives you an idea what I am talking about if you do not know the piece.

This is sung at the end of a 6 hour opera! This is what brings it to a close. Tonight, listening to Debbie Voigt sing this music, whatever hesitations, what ever doubts I had about her as a successful Brunnhilde were swept away. She took charge and sang her heart out in a way we wish we got all the time, but rarely get. This was singing (and acting) of the highest order that left me shocked. Do not get me wrong, Debbie Voigt is a very good singer, and one of the few who can successfully negotiate the demands of Brunnhilde at The Met, with its barn of a theatre. But I was not expecting to be shocked out of my seat with brilliant singing at the end of the opera. The only conclusion is she was holding back enough to really let rip at the end and stun us all insensible. It worked!!!

But as for the rest? Well, really, there were no weak links. The Norns at the start all sang beautifully, even if their costuming and makeup was quite unflattering (occupational hazard in Wagner unfortunately)

Jay Hunter Morris continues to grow in his Siegfried performances. Give him another ten years, and he will either be truly fabulous, or his voice will be shot. I am not sure which but I am hoping for fabulous. As it is, he is really bringing the character to life beautifully. If his voice is a bit small for the role, well, that is something we have to live with. Siegfried Jerusalem was a freak of nature, and those tend to be few and far between.

Also stunning was Hans-Peter Konig as Hagen. Seriously, his is a voice born to play villains, big dark and beautifully expressive. Eric Owens in the cameo as his father was also his usual great self, continuing his outstanding success in the role.

And of course, the chorus were their normal amazing self. Seriously, that number of singers all working brilliantly together is amazing, and they did it well..

Which brings me to the production…

The Machine continues to be its mix of wonderful and infuriating. Wonderful in that so much of it works so well. Infuriating for those times when they seem to be doing things, just for the sake of doing it. Yes, it is great to have so much flexibility. But, that does not mean you have to use it all the time!!! Going through about three different stages each time the scene changes begins to get a bit old very quickly. And yes, I get that water features prominently in this opera. But do you have to constantly have it featured in the projections on the machine? It probably explains why regular toilet breaks are a must in this opera!!!

Something I have not mentioned much in my previous comments is the costumes. Part of that reason is that most of the previous operas are full of supernatural characters, gods and demigods and the like, so you do expect them to have out there costumes, rather than something normal. But most of this opera the characters are fully human, normal people in a medieval world. Their costumes worked in with that well, and it was the first time I noticed how well.

Oh, the other thing that Gotterdammitslong (as I call it) stands and falls on, is how well the staging of the ending is. Does it tie up the loose ends, does the burning work convincingly, is it believable? Well, to be honest, yes and no. It was not believable for the cataclysmic ending of the world with hope for renewal that we are led to expect. Yes, the important bits (Siegfried, Brunnhilde and Grane) burnt up, the subtitles indicated that Valhalla was going to be burnt (not that we saw it ever in any of the operas) and then the Rhine came up at the end and everything was brought to a calm serene ending. Yes, cathartic. Cataclysmic? No, and with everything at their disposal, I frankly expected more. But, considering the performance I had just sat through, I was happy with that. Not a perfect ending to a perfect Ring Cycle (is that even possible?), but one that got the important bits right, and left you knowing you had just witnessed something extraordinary. Really, should you ask for more?