A tale of 2 opera events

So, this is the story of my attendance at two opera performances, where one was in the theatre and one was the spectacular that is Opera On The Harbour. Both very different, both a bit flashy and glam, but one moved me, and one left me feeling WTAF?

First, to the special. Faust. With the David McVicar production from the Royal Opera, a much loved and praised production, that manages to include much of his usual visual language, while still remaining true to the story and libretto. Everything that is needed is there, with a few extras (I never worked out the point of the black evening gown for Mephistopheles, but it worked in context)  and the story is told in a way that leaves this archetypal morality play still relevant for today. To be sure, we do not expect supernatural intervention in our lives, but this tale of innocence lost, and of "be careful what you ask for" still rang true, helped by superlative performances.

For this was truly international A-grade house casting. First of all, the young up coming tenor that is getting everyone excited, Michael Fabiano sang the title role. As a singer that did not automatically leap to mind in this role (I expect to hear him in Italian ones), I was impressed by his versatility. His musicianship was never in doubt, but French is a language that not every opera singer can sing successfully in. The fact that after Sydney he flew to Paris to perform the role at the Bastille Opera also probably says a lot. Needless to say, if you have the chance, I strongly recommend you go hear him, he is a very impressive singer, who is going to continue to improve.

As his love interest, we had the stunning Nicole Car, who once again showed why she is now going places. (currently singing in Berlin, then off to the Royal Opera as Tatyana) Last time I heard her, I loved her voice, but was a little underwhelmed by her acting in a role where she did not fit the production. This time, she was fine. She took the star role that Marguerite is and ran with it. If her French did not always sound French, that would be my biggest criticism, which in a young singer, is nothing that time and coaching will not fix.

And then we had Teddy Tahu Rhodes stepping into the big badboy role of Mephistopheles. And loving it. I have said before, that Teddy is such a great stage animal. Once again, he got a role to sink his teeth into and have fun with. And he did. I'm finding him sounding more basslike each time I hear him, less baritonal. And I like it. Especially in this role, where the usual performers are basses with secure top notes, not baritones who can go low. And of course, the best recorded performers of it are the Russian/eastern europe basses like Cristoff and Ghiaurov, so the darkening of Teddy's sound worked well here. Although, there is no real opportunity for him to show off his chest this time...

Then, we had the smaller parts filled out by Giorgio Caoduro as Valentine, Anna Dowsley as Siebel, Richard Anderson as Wagner and Domenica Matthews as Marthe. Each of them great singers and worthy of major roles, filling out smaller roles and making them vivid and real. And each of them well loved by Australian audiences.

The result of this? A performance of Faust that will live as the one to beat in my memories. Admittedly, only my second, and the first live, but it left me moved, and aware, that even if I will never be a Faust fan, it is certainly a much stronger work dramatically and musically than I had given it credit, in the correct hands.

Which leads me to Aida, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

First of all, Aida seems a natural fit to be mounted in stadium style productions, with big choruses and lots of put everything on you have on stage scenes. It's why it remains popular at The Met for example, who can fill their stage with hundreds of big voices raised in triumph or horror, as the mood dictates. The only problem with that idea, as everyone quickly discovers when performing Aida, is that it really is about the love triangle between the leads, stuck into the situation where they are all people of influence and importance, and love and the requirements of society do not match at all. Not to mention the requirements of religion. The big scenes are the setting of the scene for the important drama, what happens to the people at the centre of it

As a result, big flashy productions of Aida tend to fall flat on their faces if you do not have four performers giving performances that make you care about them. If you are more concerned about the spectacle than the story, then your Aida ultimately becomes the the souffle that fails to rise.

Now, to be sure, there was much to love about this production. All the voices (except one) were right for the parts. Visually, it looked amazing. It was just totally schizophrenic in its imagery. Amneris's costumes looked straight out of Elizabeth Taylor's Cleopatra, yet Aida's looked like they belonged to the heroine of  The Number 1 Ladies' Detective Agency. I mean, I get that Aida is meant to look different to Amneris as one is Egyptian and one Ethiopian, but really??? And, that is before we start on the dancers and their outfits. Yes, let's not discuss the dancers at all, because what they had to do was mostly laughable and totally wrong in context (there was a context to them?)And their outfits belonged to the 1am show at RHI at the Sydney Mardi Gras Party.

So, yes, there was much that was quite frankly so grossly over the top, the production threatened to out camp a John Waters film. Think on that, and remember this is a serious drama about a love triangle caught up with societal pressures in a rigidly structured society. Or, it is written as such, at any rate.

Thankfully, the music making was mostly of a high standard. As Amneris, Jacqui Dark was pretty much the star of the show. Her character is traditionally the villain of this piece and she got to be that writ large. Always bringing a strong performance to her characters, here she revelled in playing the spoiler. Her voice is also well suited to the role, so she got to prowl the stage belting out her music with abandon, and generally acting the maneater, with her eye on someone else's man.

As the man in question,  Arnold Rawls brought a remarkably fresh voiced tenor to the role, singing the opening aria which trips up many, with ease. To some, he me have failed to lack the daring do needed to be convincing as the man who risks throwing everything away for love, but to me, he was more the man paralysed by love's demands, than the do-er many assumed this role must be. He certainly sang the role comfortably, with more enthusiasm than many. His was a performance that left you thinking you would not mind hearing him again.

As the title role though, we had a singer who quite frankly did not cut it. Sure, she had all the notes, and she has a reputation as a spinto soprano, but that is where the good things ended. I couldn't help thinking at times, that her staging was very clearly designed around the other cast Aida (Latonia Moore) who has the voice to make you forget anything except what she is telling you. Daria Masiero does not. What Moore could convince with the power and beauty of her voice, Masiero would do and come across as looking stagy and tired, producing a "please like me" response, that REALLY grated on me. If your heroine who is going to die at the end, cannot make you want her to live, you have failed. And, that was the biggest problem for me in a problematic production. The Nile Scene where you see Aida being torn between her love for her man, and her desire to be back in her homeland, which can be a lesson in how to sing beautiful high notes softly, became an "oh my god just get over it" trial, as well. We felt nothing for her as a character, and the sounds she was producing, were frankly not that pretty either. Certainly the worst sound I have heard from an Aida (six staged performances, 2 of them video)

For the most part, the other performers were all quite acceptable, singing what really are roles that are cyphers, rather than flesh and blood characters, although the Ramfis of Conal Coad will remain with me, purely for the camp factor. Him walking up the stage with his cape could teach Joan Crawford how to go OTT for pure campery.

However, I have to admit, knowing Aida, I still have no idea what killed them in this production. There was no attempt to try to confine them, or to place them in some sort of lower location to suggest they were trapped. Rather they were stuck alone on the middle of that huge stage. Death by excess fresh air perhaps? Certainly not the suffocation they were singing about. It was also telling that I was eager for them to get it over and just die at the end. This was not a production to leave you sobbing at the end (which it should), rather, most of us left laughing. Which, considering this is a tragic love story, is probably all you really need to know.

Il Turco in Italia (Or, gosh, a sex farce, Rossini style)

So, yes, Rossini and sex romps, not exactly what you think of together. Well, not until you get to know the plots of most of his comic operas. Then, yes, its all about who gets it, who doesn't, who is chasing it, and who ends up winning in the end.

And, then you need the sort of cast, who can not only throw of the vocal high jinks with ease (as shown above), but also carry off the sort of staging that makes the crazy stories work. In Turk, we basically have a bedroom farce, revolving around the young Fiorilla, busy sleeping her way through the town, her husband, her lover, the Turk of the title who arrives to stir the plot, and a young gypsy, who of course, turns out to be the Turk's long lost love. Throw in the playwright who is busy recording the goings on to make his first great play, add a chorus and cook till light, frothy, effervescent, and serve with a chilled bubbly, probably prosecco, considering the music (ably held together by Andrea Molina from the pit). That is basically all you need to know.

So, like most of Rossini's operas, there is always a star role that the whole opera revolves around. In this case, it is Fiorilla, the girl who is open all hours and seemingly to all comers. How she came to marry Geronio is anyone's guess, but it is your typical young excited vixen/old crotchety fool type couple that is the stuff of these plots. Needless to say, Emma Matthews takes the challenges of Fiorella's music, throws those notes off against the back wall of the theatre, and vamps her way up, basically having a great time doing it; relishing the chance not to play the tragic heroine, but rather showing off her great comic skills as well as her sizzling coloratura. It is the first time I have seen her play comic in a long time (I think the last I saw live was back in the 80's as Cupid in Orphee aux enfers) but, just like in Lucia, she remains the one character your eyes are constantly drawn to on stage, as she turns the vamp level up to 11.

As her husband, the mislead fool, Conal Coad gives us more of what we expect. This role could have been written with him in mind. His fearless portrayals of comic roles are legendary, and here, he is once again in his element. If at times his coloratura was not as clear as it could have been, who cares? He clearly relishes being the butt of jokes and can teach a thing or two to many performers about singing loudly, even when motorboating Fiorilla.

As the Turk, Poalo Bordogna had fun with pretty much every stereotype of Turks you can think of. It is not exactly a subtle comedy, but getting to play the exotic playboy with two girls at your beck and call is probably most baritones' dream. He had fun doing it. He even does a mean Elvis hip swivel as required by the staging. If his voice was not as good as some of the others, he clearly had no problem negotiating the challenging vocal lines. Though, lacking the beauty of some of the other voices on display, he left me wishing for Jose Carbo at times, who would have been just as funny, with a beautiful flexible voice to match the others. Not that I did not like him, I just wished for a nicer sound, and when you know an Australian could do it better....

As Narciso the lover, Luciano Botelho was hilarious and sang with a darker tone than we sometimes get from Rossini tenors. However, he had no problems negotiating the vocal writing, even while changing on stage (twice) and dealing with a range of sight gag props (anyone who can sing clearly and beautifully, while wearing goggles, swimming flippers and carrying an inflatable mattress deserves some sort of award).

Also impressive was the Prosdocimo of Samuel Dundas, the playwright to be, whose frequent asides to the audience were as much to elaborate the action, as to explain his future play.  He almost worked as Greek chorus at times, but never had to drop character, indicating many great characterisations ahead of him. If his singing got lost in some of the ensembles, that was unsurprising. A young baritone singing Rossini is always a big ask...

And, of course, mention must be made of Anna Dowsley making her mainstage debut for OperaAustralia as Zaida, the gypsy/lover of the Turk. Maybe she was not as secure in her comedy as some of the other performers, but her voice was clear and very well produced. This was a very promising debut for a voice that had no problems in filling the theatre. And one I look forward to hearing more of in the future.

I suppose I should mention that the staging was updated to the 1950's - resulting in fabulous loud colours and dresses that flatter curves (always a good thing for opera!) While the set looked fabulous, like some 50s diner designed by a cubist, the revolve that was a feature (and intended to speed the scene changes) failed to revolve, resulting in a very late start as they tried to fix it. However, with Prosdocimo acting as the barman taking on extra duties of removing tables and chairs as needed, it was not missed much. A couple of times things suffered slightly, but it did not affect the story telling significantly. It still flowed smoothly from one scene to another, things just may have happened in earshot of characters that were not supposed to hear them. Which is nothing new for opera, of course! It also meant a lot more people had to leave via a small space into the wings, than was probably planned.

I should also make special mention of the surtitles that the director Simon Phillips prepared. They were a treat in themselves, filled with all sorts of unexpected slang, clearly aimed at Australians. Referring to the Turk as a doner kebab was a good example of what I mean.

So, all in all, this is definitely a great night out. It is not serious, nor does it make any pretense to offer any deeper meanings. But it does offer some truly amazing singing, and lots of belly laughs, especially in the second act. I had thought based on the cast, that this was going to be one of the must sees for this year's opera season. Having seen it, I have no hesitation in saying that now. Go, laugh, and live life loud.

I shall leave you with our heroine, singing something different, but equally vocally challenging.

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.