Enough regietheatre!

I want to talk about something, but I am not quite sure how to describe my problem.  Basically I want to talk about two DVD's I have watched recently and how they compared and why one annoyed me intensely, and one didn't. But at the same time, I want to explain why it was not just a knee jerk reaction, but rather, it was a reflection on why I think so much of opera, and especially German opera, is heading down a dangerous path, that will end in tears, not the glory they seem to feel.

I would have liked to have started with videos from the relevant DVD's but youtube seems not to have any of either of the relevant ones, so, here are a couple that may help you understand.

Exhibit A

Exhibit B





Ok, now you get a sense of what I am talking about, the conflict between opera as bringing extant text to life versus bringing the director's ideas and nightmares to life while singing something that may or may not have anything to do with what they are surrounded by. I jest, but you get my drift.

The particular DVD's were Tannhauser as performed by The Danish Opera vs Das Rheingold as directed by Herbert von Karajan in a production created purely for film. Needless to say, the Danish one (directed by Kasper Holten) was the one that annoyed me intensely, while Karajan the traditionalist was the one that stuck to the storyline allowing the story to tell itself. It also made me wish that he had been able to do the other 3 operas in the Ring cycle as intended. Not because I think he was a gifted director, but because he was happy to allow the story to tell itself, without feeling the need to add his personal ideas to intrude into the story.

On the other hand, Kasper Holten's direction involved him writing a new scenario, and then shoehorning the opera into that. Now, in theory, I have nothing against that, so long as you can make it work. To do that, you have to make sure everything can be made to work within your scenario. And that the subtitles/subtitles do not make people laugh out loud because they go against everything your scenario states. Which happened for me on several occasions.

I guess part of my problem is that I come from a background of not seeing a lot of opera, but knowing a lot of operas from their music. At one stage, I had performed in more operas than I had seen. So, as a result, while I know the works, I am not always familiar with what particular performers are famous for doing on stage, but rather how they sound doing a role. So, for me, the operas first and for most are about what is written in the score. The idea that performed opera should be about something more than the music and words, but rather about the director's own neuroses and fixations I find frankly annoying. I mean, it is not as if any of the composers were not a mass of contradictions and fears and stuff like the rest of us, far from it! Many of them, lets be honest, are people that we would not want to know in person, or find frankly offensive if we met them in person.

But that is not my concern. I mean, some of my favourites were horrid people. Wagner is well known for being horrible to everyone who knew him. But, that was not the point.

My concern is more about a need to respect the work. These are works (in most cases) that have stood the test of time. The vast majority of operas that are performed regularly are over 100 years old. They continue to be performed because they speak to us, because they fill our lives with something more. They speak to us through the combination of music, story and words. The words inevitably ending third, not because they are lesser, but how many of us speak multiple languages and can catch the words sung at us across the room? We get the story, but the meaning is carried by the music and the actions on stage, as well as the words, (and by the surtitles in the theatre, assuming we can see them), and how that is brought to life before us.

So, if the staging does not bring the story to life, but rather detracts from our understanding of the story, how can it be a good thing? Unless your whole purpose in going is to see colour and movement and hear pretty sounds? And, if that is the case, why bother with opera? I mean, operas are all about life at the extreme, where life is dangerous, intense and confusing. Its not for nothing that many of the best operas deal with the myths and legends of our past that we have created to explain the world that we struggle to understand, its because that is how opera works best, by making our most primeval stories into art and sanity.

So, if at its heart, opera is about telling the stories that matter to us, why do we settle for stagings that end up leaving people more confused than when they start? I mean, for that matter, if the story that is being told matters so little to the director and those in charge of the company producing it, why bother with staging it? Why not stage something they like? Like, something they wrote perhaps? Oh, yes, well, that might not work out so well, hey? Who wants to see something that no one knows about? But a known piece of work that is reworked by modern artists? Which sounds great, except most of the time it seems that our understanding of the work, is not helped but hindered.

So, you see where I am at. Why should I want to go see something that has as its focus, not what the writer's intentions, but what those who put it together seem to have as fixations? Why should I be expected to have to choose what I go to see based on who is directing it, and whether I can cope with his (or her) nightmares enacted on stage, rather than just worrying about whether I like the particular show, or whether the performers in question have the abilities to sing the roles?

I want to go and see and hear things that are special. I want to go and experience the other, to get a sense of things beyond myself. I also want to come away thinking about the story and the plot and the music, and not "How fucking stupid was that thing they did in the third act to cover the plot hole they created" which was what I thought when I watched Tannhauser.

*end rant

Aida, mark 1

So, I have just stood through the length of Aida (it's more than 3 hours) and I would do it again if I had the chance. I think that says something about how great it was.

So, before I say anything else, let me just say this. if you have the chance to see Latonia Moore live in Aida, go, do not question the price. Sell something if you have to, but just go. Seriously, she is that good. I really cannot think of anyone singing at the moment who could match Latonia Moore as Aida. I fully expect to find she is identified with the role in the future like Leontyne Price was with it. Yes, she is that good, a singer who other soprani will be measured against in this role. And she is still young.

But anyway, enough gushing and how about I tell you why, right? Well, we are talking a huge voice. Huge, as in sing over the top of the chorus and fellow soloists in the triumphal march scene huge. As in, could take on Turandot in the future if she wanted huge. But, while she has the power to make Ritorna vincitor the potent mix of excitement and horror it should be, the most impressive aria was O Patria mia, with its long floating phrases just hanging beautifully with that gorgeous tone filling the theatre and with stunning crescendi to powerful notes that were both expressive and controlled. Just listen to this La mama morta to get an idea of her voice: 

So, yes, you could say, today's tickets were worth it purely for seeing Latonia do her thing, and do it very well. But she was not the only good thing about today's performance. To be sure, she out sang everyone on stage, but they all held up quite well beside her. As her lover Radames, Rosario LaSpina proved what a fine big voiced tenor he is. To be sure, today was not his best sounding day, but never once did he sound awkward or lost. Rather, his issue today was more a tendency to sound a bit "strangled tenor" not the clear open sound I have heard from him before. Having said that, he still sounded much better than many tenors I have heard live in big roles. It's more that when I know how good he can sound, I get upset when he does not sound that good. But hey, if that was an off day, I would be pretty happy with it. He still got the second biggest applause of the curtain calls, and never once sounded in danger of not hitting the note, or cracked, or went "splat" on a high note, he just did not sound as good as I have heard him. Radames might not be his best role. Listening to him today, I was wondering if he is heading into dramatic tenor territory. There was something of the ugly sound about him that some dramatic tenors get. That sound that is not pretty, but boy is it loud. That was more like what he was sounding like today. And that is not a bad thing for Radames really. Especially when you get the ending right, singing with as much sensitivity as your Aida did (she got THAT note right) in their final death scene.

With today's Amneris, Milijana Nikolic, I started thinking she was going to be sung off the stage physically. Her opening left me wondering what OA were doing casting her in the role. Having said that, by the time of the Nile scene, there was no doubt she belonged on the stage with Latonia and Rosario. Not warmed up enough maybe? I don't know, but by the end, her voice was holding her own against the big guns, working hard at making Amneris a human figure, not just the cruel figurehead of a rejected woman, but a woman who both is used to getting everything she wants, and trying to deal with not getting the one thing she really wants.

Of the others, well, Andrew Brunsdon was a luxury casting Messenger and sang it as beautifully as I would expect him to.

Jud Arthur brought his beautiful bass sound to the King, but sounded way under powered against the others on stage. To be sure, his is a small role and basses that sound this good are not common, but it made me wish for anyone of a number of basses from OperaAustralia's past in the role.

Amonasro was Michael Honeyman, who recently impressed me in Die Tote Stadt, proving again today that this is a voice to watch. I wanted more power from him, but I was more than happy with what I was hearing, I just wanted it to be bigger. Time will fix that of course!

Ramfis was sung by Paul Whelan and I was again wanting a bigger voice. The big bad bass has to be big and bad to really convince, and frankly, Paul did not sound like the big threatening high priest who has the say in much that happens in this opera. Its a role that needs more power to make you believe he is that powerful, and frankly, I felt like he was a boy playing at being the man. Which screams bad casting, to my mind, rather than a bad performance.

I have to say, though, I was not impressed with Arvo Volmer's conducting. Verdi has to be a bit, well, barbaric? You really need to feel those dotted rhythms, and feel the marches in your soul and they lacked the bite they needed. But, having said that, he really got the last 2 acts right. The lyrical beauty of the Nile scene was milked for every ounce of beauty, and the judgement and death scenes were impressive in control. I just wanted that sense of abandon that great Verdi has, and I was not hearing it at all.

On the other hand, I was impressed with Graeme Murphy's direction with limited resources. Obviously OperaAustralia does not have the resources of The Met to mount Aida with masses of chorus and extras. But he has worked well with minimal resources (and the tiny Sydney Opera House stage) to make this a spectacle. The triumphal march scene was cleverly done, with a mix of live figures and cutouts in the parade. The set throughout was based on a steep rake with a ramp that opened at the back at certain points for entries and exits. There was a triangle on the backdrop which was sometimes used to indicate a pyramid, at other times other things. Various "Egyptian" set elements were flown in or brought in from the wings at various times to indicate differing locations with a minimum of fuss. There was also a thin strip of water between the pit and the rest of the stage, which represented the Nile. Its presence the whole time was an interesting reminder of Egypt's dependence on it in the past, as well as used cleverly, especially in the Nile scene. The death scene worked, with a coup de theatre that I did not expect. His staging focused on telling the story, allowing the drama to develop and making us care for the characters. It worked well. There were a few surprising touches, but nothing that stood out as a whoops or what the moment. It was the story, and nothing but the story.

However, while the set was effective and functional, the lighting design was definitely something. While it did not hinder from the story, some of the extra projections of Egyptian symbols did leave me feeling "enough already". Mostly, the lighting worked well to draw attention to the things that matter, sometimes too much so, but then, I do know Aida backwards.  Some of the awkward mass scene moments were helped by lighting tricks, making us focus on those intimate between two character exchanges, not wondering why others don't notice what was said/sung.

However, it does have to be said, while Graeme Murphy is a great opera director for bringing the story to life, he really has a reluctance to let things just be, to let us just focus on the glorious singing. Several times I watched massed movement happen and realised there was no reason for it, apart from trying to avoid a static scene. And, in Aida, you do sort of expect a few static scenes as the masses just let rip and sing. A couple of times I wanted to say, "just stand still and sing" but it was a small price to pay for a performance with standards on the whole, as high as today's were.

But ultimately, it has to be said, Aida ultimately stands and falls on the strengths of the main leads, and today, Opera Australia delivered those, and did it well.

Can we do it again now? (And the answer is, yes, seated, with a different cast in September)

And below, a snippet from Latonia singing at Dallas...