A tale of two outings to the cinema

Right, I should have blogged about Les Mis last weekend, but it did not happen, so now, I will try to combine it with Un Ballo in Maschera in a Live at The Med in HD screening. Yes, I know that sounds an odd combination, but there is a reason.

One of these productions was full of gorgeous singing (almost uniformly well cast) set in a totally unbelievable setting, that only sort of worked, and, frankly removed the action about one level. The other was cast based on the fame of certain performers, not their vocal abilities, yet told the story much more effectively, with realistic performances that broke your heart.

So, first of all, Ballo. Apart from one person, I uniformly loved the singing in this production. Well cast voices, who brought their roles to life with passionate performances, mostly at, or close to, their peak of their careers. As you would expect at The Met (but often don't get) these were all luxury casting. Dmitri Hvorostovsky, the Siberian smoulderer, bringing his formidable talents to Renato, and Marcelo Alvarez as Riccardo, both convincing in their vocal performance, and well cast. Freaking Stephanie Blythe as Ulrica, the fortune teller, who comes on and dominates the whole cast for one scene, then never comes back. Yes, it is an important scene, but, wow, talk about luxury casting!!  Also fine was Kathleen Kim, bringing her schtick of coloratura and crazy to a role that is always a bit annoying. Yes, she sang it well, but some of the directing choices with her characters were rather odd. There were times when she should not have been overhearing things that she was clearly involved in. Remember to focus on the story you are telling guys.

Which leaves Sondra Radvanovsky. Well, lets say she has a big voice. And when she is not singing, she looks every inch the Countess she is here. But, please, someone send her to a good singing teacher. If you are singing at this level, you should not take till after you have sung your big solo scena in the second act to really start producing pleasant sounds. And frankly, even then it was more a relief that it sounded better, rather than this is sounding good. I suspect it is to do with how she is singing and the unnecessary tension she is creating, because she is constantly producing facial expressions that do not relate to what her character is singing. It sounds to me, like she needs to learn to stop trying, and learn to let the voice be. Then again, what do I know? I am just a amateur who watches these things, and have not sung in anger (or otherwise) for ages.

It has to be said tho, this is a production for those that like things frenetic. At times there was movement for the sake of movement, at other times it made sense. All the scenes were set on a steep rake within a deliberately not square space, with every feature bar the floor moved at times. It worked, but not as well as it could have. The sets were all very bare, with only the props needed or mentioned in the libretto appearing. So, rooms would only have one chair in them, then others would be brought in by the chorus and taken out again..

To be honest, I was not convinced as a work of theatre. Yes, it was theatrical, but as a piece of storytelling, it failed dismally. You had great singers trying to throw there all in, and you found it hard to care for them, simply because there was nothing remotely believable about it. Most of the time it had almost a dreamlike quality to it, but not in a way that worked with the story. In the hands of a skilled director who knew how to milk emotion, the ending would be tragic and bring on all the emotions. Here? We wanted to care, but were left with a bunch of spoiled kids who were caught out playing up. Which is a shame.

Because if there was one thing that Les Mis does well as a movie, is bring all the emotions. The battle scenes will make you cry in Les Mis, because the characters have been brought to life. The students all spring forth larger than life (and most of them sung really well) demanding you respond. And you do too, with Jean Valjean at the end, because he has been made human.

But, Les Mis is a singer's musical, a story driven romp that relies on good singing and humanising of a huge bunch of characters as a tale of redemption of two men plays out over the years. Ultimately, this story was not as effective as it could have been. Who ever thought Russell Crowe would make a good Javert has clearly never sat through a good production of this in the theatre. It is a big long sing, and it only works if you believe him in his big numbers. If they do not let you get inside his head and understand him, you have failed. Miserably. Javert needs to be seen as a rule bound do gooder who actually thinks he is doing the right thing chasing Valjean down, till he finally realises that Valjean has done his time, and that he has lived a good life, AND brought good into the world through others. Compared to others, Crowe is a wooden log, and his singing was, well, I guess calling it singing is polite.

So, you have one half of a morality tale that fails. Does the other half work? Yes, absolutely. You get a sense of what goes on inside Valjean's head. You see him reduced to nearly human by the justice system, then given another chance by the Bishop, then rebuild his life. His rescue of Fantine worked to convince that he now knew he had to do what he could to undo any mistakes he made. So much more expression came across his face, and in his voice, even though the role is wrong vocally for him. (I personally would have rather have seen him as Javert, it would have been a much better movie)

The other roles? Well, I wanted the Enjolras to play Marius. Much better voice, much nicer screen presence. But not a star. Then again, Marius is a drip, so it really doesn't matter, does it? Eponine was great. She sang out, and played the lovelorn to the hilt. Altho, usually, the suggestion is she has been sleeping with him, which never came across in this. A conscious decision to play to the prudes perhaps?

Cosette, as sung by Amanda Seyfried, well, she is pretty and sweet, which really, is all she is expected to be. Her one moment of spunk and rebellion is to fall in love with a man after seeing him twice. And they are supposed to build a happy life together…

Fantine? Well, Ann Hathaway brings ALL THE FEELINGS. Yes, she brings them in capitals. There is nothing subtle about her role. Then again, it is not meant to be. Her death tho, is moving and provides ample motivation for much that follows.

Which leaves the Thenardiers, played by Pirellli and Mrs Lovett, err, Sascha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonhom Carter. To be honest, they did not work for me. They were portrayed as fleecing every single customer who came in, to the point of ridicule, rather than a little bit here, a little bit there. It went from being funny to being grotesque, and lacking in humour and humanity. And neither really are known for their singing…

So, if you have never seen a good Les Mis in the theatre, this is a good introduction to it. If you have, give it a miss unless you want a good cry. There is nothing uniquely special about it, other than the fact of seeing distress writ large across the screen. This production does play up the poverty and disease and general lack of care for the poor, in ways that most productions cannot. That is probably the only thing that it does better than most productions can.

As for Ballo? Well, I would have liked to have seen it live in the theatre, not on a screen. I might have changed my mind about some of the things if I saw it live, but I doubt it. However, will I go see it here at OperaAustralia? Maybe. Its a production prepared by a company noted for putting their own stamp on things in ways that do not always help bring the story to life. This is a story that needs to be treated seriously to work. And with the casting budget at Opera Australia? Well, we won't have these singers that is for sure!

Cunning Little Vixen.. Indeed

So, Cunning Little Vixen, hey? An opera I knew of, but had never seen. So thanks to the generosity of ABC Classic FM and the wonders of cinema, I got to see the Glyndebourne production.

And what a production it is. Truly sumptuous and beautiful, yet playful and bringing a fanciful story to life..

 

 

So, first off, let me say, I have never seen a production of this before. And, well, I had no idea it was going to be so funny! Like belly laughs in the theatre funny. But it was. And it is. Funny.

But, the music you say? Well, Janacek would have been pleased, I am sure. The orchestra sounded both lush and brash, with spiky alternating with lyricism as seems to be Janacek's way. Vladimir Jurowski lead them with a very sure hand. Melly Still has directed a gorgeous production with amazing costuming and sets.

Now, about the performers…

As the Vixen, Lucy Crowe was a lot of fun. She had the feisty minx down pat. Was she as successful with the love scene? Possibly not, but that really is a small part of the story, not dominant, so it does not matter as much. She sang beautifully throughout and appeared to be having a ball. We certainly had a ball watching her.

Sergei Leiferkus as the Forester at first seemed to be a bit out of sorts, but he grew into the role as the evening progressed, which is just as well as his biggest vocal demands are at the end. You ended believing in him as someone who loved this forest, even as he was also clumsily rustic earlier.

But for me, the biggest vocal treats were two of the minor players. I loved the voice of William Dazeley as Harasta the poacher and Mischa Schelomianski as the Parson and Badger, both deep rich voices full of resonance. Yes, I know, how surprising! I particularly wished that Harasta was a bigger part, simply to hear more of that voice.

Of course, this production is very much about the animals.  My favourites were definitely the hens. A chorus of hens, who get attacked by a fox. What could go wrong? (smirk) They really were hilariously funny. All preening desperately for the attention of the rooster, but most ending up dead thanks to our heroine.

But ultimately, this production stands or falls by the effect. Do the animals tell you something? Do you get a sense of having seen something life affirming? Are you reminded of a world out there, beyond your immediate surrounds? And for me, the answer, resoundingly, was yes. This was a production both funny, and with heart, that truly rare beast. And left me saying "more please"

 

 

Seeing Company on film

So I go to see Company in the cinema, with an amazing cast with the NY philharmonic yesterday. If you don't know, it is one of Sondheim's glittering musicals full of dazzling songs and rapier wit. It revolves around Robert, a perennially single man, and 5 married couples who are his close friends. Robert basically is a self absorbed man who is not married because, well, he is not ready to be that emotionally close and vulnerable with someone.

Now, before we go any further, this was true luxury casting. Neil Patrick Harris proving once again, that he is slumming it on TV. Im sorry, but he is. He really works so much better in live theatre. As Robert, he brings the slightly sleazy charm needed to make the role believable, and of course he can sing (Oh man he can sing!!!) He is the heart and soul this show revolves around, and it work brilliantly. His singing of "Being Alive" at the end of the show left me feeling raw and emotional. in a good way.

Stephen Colbert (!) played one of the married couples, the one who had a drinking problem. He was, as expected, hilarious, but also believable. He was not playing the Colbert Show character at all, but was rather immersed in a genuine character. His interaction with his wife with the karate was also hilarious.

Another TV surprise was Jon Cryer as another of the husbands. He played someone a bit of a drip like his 2.5 men character, but someone you actually wanted to like. He more just seemed like someone caught living a life he wanted, but it isn't what he expected.

As the kooky girlfriend we had everyone's favourite curvy secretary Christina Hendricks. Yes, she can sing too. To be sure, her big number, a duet with Robert, called Barcelona, is not a big challenge to a singer, but she was able to perform it convincingly, in character, and with humour. Really, you could not ask for much more. She was able to keep her character just the lifelike side of caricature, positively revelling in her kookiness.

Then, there is Patti Lupone as Joanne. Yes, Patti Lupone, getting to sing one of the icon songs of Sondheim, probably the one that people forever link to Sondheim and New York, "Here's to the ladies who lunch" This comes in a scene in a bar, where she and her husband have taken Robert and they all have tied one on. To be blunt, she is more than a little under the weather before she proposes the toast that is the song. No one is going to sing this like La Lupone, I frankly think i have now seen the definitive version of it. She just lets rip with that glorious big voice, while still using it to portray the bitterness, the jadeness, the ennui behind the song.

And then there was Anika Noni Rose, who as well as being another of Robert's women gets to sing the hellish "Another hundred people" - if you do not know the song, it is like singing one of the G&S patter songs, constantly spitting out words while making it musical at the same time. To be able to do that in itself is a skill, but being Sondheim, you also have to remain in character and reveal your inner thoughts at the same time. She did it, and how.

Now, I could go on about the other performers, like the truly demented bride to be, or the southern belle who has divorced her husband but still lives together with him, but really, why? They were all brilliantly cast and all just right for their roles. these were people who knew their roles and sang them well, inhabiting them convincingly.

But ultimately, this show stands or falls on two things, whether we care about Robert, and whether the finely written vignettes of couples and their flaws, come across as contrived or real. This production succeeds on both counts. Robert played by Neil Patrick Harris is the sort of person you want to know, which enables the whole set up to work. And allows for the conclusion to work. We want Robert to find "someone to hold me too close" to make him feel he is alive. The fact that we don't know if he does, is beside the point, we know he is ready to now.

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.

La Nozze di Figaro in cinema extravaganza

Ok, before I start this, allow me to make a few disclaimers.

1) This was a free ticket. I won mine, and my companions also won tickets, so we were very happy to be seeing something for free.

2) I admit to being somewhat biased about Opera Australia. When they get it right, they are up the with the best. Not that they always do of course, but they CAN do...

3) I love funny Mozart productions, and this was very funny.

4) I have competed in an eisteddfod against at least one, and I suspect 2 of the leads in this show many years ago, and am always really pleased to see them doing well.

5) There was a problem with the sound not being totally in sync with the visuals. At times this was annoying, other times you barely noticed it, but it was there. Why? I have no idea, but it needs to be fixed for future productions.

Okay, now to the meat and potatoes, as it were.

First, let me say that I was not entirely convinced by the production design of this show. It did not really strike me as a convincing country residence of a wealthy aristocracy member. The first act set was a nondescript brownish fabric backdrop, which was draped rather than hung. There was an opening in it for the door, and doors on either side of the stage which were fixed in place for all acts of the opera, and looked the worse for wear, being plain wood, not the sort of thing you would expect to see in a count's bedroom, for example, or in his 2 highly placed and respected servants, whose marriage the opera revolves around. The following acts also featured scenery that did not entirely match what was required, or what was referred to, which is annoying.

The set also frequently featured things that were totally out of place, deliberately so. In Figaro and Susanna's bedroom, there was a red vinyl reclining rocker chair, and a steam iron that Susanna is using at the start, on a wooden folding ironing board, that, if it had a metal frame would look at home in a modern home. The ironing board was the subject of much amusing business, with people getting bent over on it, or in one case, having it wind him rather painfully. There was also a hairdryer on a stand in the Countess's bedroom, the sort you see in hairdressers that cover your whole head (?) These incongruities were both amusing and confusing, leading to “why were they there” thoughts.

The business in the first act, with first Cherubino hiding, then the Count hiding, with the chair was handled very well, if a touch unbelievably. It was also hilarious, because you could see what was coming, yet the reveal of the hidden characters was farcical in the true sense of the word, not corny or hackneyed. This was also one of those moments where a more true to life setting would have worked better, with more places to hide as the characters moved around the room. On the other hand, the final aria of the first act, where Figaro sings about Cherubino joining the army was probably over played. It was funny, but you would have expected Figaro to show a bit more sympathy to Cherubino, rather than making him suffer quite so much. It was funny, but it felt a bit forced as it got more over the top. On the other hand, the interplay between Marcelina and Susanna was priceless. The frostiness between them as they tried to get the other to leave first was both real AND funny, just like most of this production.

The Countess's bedroom scene also was played for laughs. Apart from the very affecting opening aria Porgi amor, the comedy came fast and furious. Rachelle Durkin sang a very beautiful Countess, all too real, and both driven to distraction by her husband's behaviour, and longing to get him back, to return to the days when he was affectionate and loving. Her's is a high sounding soprano with a faster vibrato than is common these days, but with a strong powerful sound, which made a clear distinction to Taryn Fiebig's more darker sound. The interplay between them worked very well both musically, as well as their acting, the years of having sung together showed. They were totally believable as the lady and her maid, who knew all her secrets. Both sang beautifully throughout, and shon in the glorious solo music they both get.

Sian Pendry as Cherubino is one of those cases of great casting. She is believable as a boy. She plays the boy in the control of his hormones very well, and totally looks the part. Indeed, if it was not for the voice, you would think she WAS a boy. But, no, this mezzo sings with a clarity, putting all the enthusiasm required for this gift of a role to it's service.

As Marcelina, Jacquie Dark is surprisingly sexy. Yes, she is old enough to have been around and seen and done most of it. Yes, she is that stereotyped bitch that her character is meant to be. But she was more. From the start, there was the human warmth behind her, so that the Act 3 sudden change was not so much "Oh my God!" but a natural and logical reaction for someone who has previously been crushed by her life, but saw a chance to redefine herself. In short, she was a real person, and a walking, singing demonstration of the adage, there are no small roles, only small performers.

Kaneen Breen also was very strong as the music master. He was every bit the fussy prissy nasty gossip the story makes him out, the butt of many jokes. He also grabbed the role with both hands and made it his own, with lots of minor scene stealing moments that made his character more than just a figure of fun. In fact, he was clearly having enormous fun being the figure of fun..

I have not really said much about Figaro and the Count yet. Having Teddy Tahu Rhodes and Peter Coleman Wright in the same show really is a gift to any audience. Teddy with his undeniable physical charms, as well as a virile baritonal sound really makes the former barber turned manservant role his own. He is convincing as well as funny, and from the opening duet, you know he is well cast in this role.

Likewise Peter Coleman Wright as the Count is everything you would expect from this experienced performer. He plays him for his faults, and works to bring the humour out. If he is not the natural comic that TTR appears, that also works, because the Count is supposed to be a serious figure, with very obvious flaws. That he manages to humanise him says much about his skill as a performer.

And yet, for all the obvious strengths of the male cast members, the things that remain for me as I write this, is just how amazing the women were in this. They really were the heart of this performance. Taryn and Rachelle were the glue that made everything stick. Their Sull' aria duet was the music that stuck in your head afterwards (and this is an opera full of great tunes). Not because it was staged funny or something unexpected happened, but rather because they allowed the beauty of the music to express the emotions of the characters, and the closeness between them. Not to mention, they sang it beautifully. I went with 2 others who also have sung in opera, and knew this opera quite well. Each of us, after leaving the cinema sang snatches of sull' aria as we headed off. Somehow, it seemed to sum up the production. And, I guess in an opera about relationships and their difficulties, that is probably a good thing.