The way over due post

So, I did not write about 3 of the operas I saw in New York. Or, for that matter, the operas I saw in Australia last year. (more anon) But I do need to look back and describe some stuff, because it feels a bit undone, as I approach my first opera of the year, to have not written about some of the best things I have seen, that happened last year.

So first, I did see some operas here. Love for 3 Oranges, which was amazing, and the Pearlfishers, which was less so.

So, for those that do not know, Love... is a farcical tale of fantasy and true love triumphing over evil, and features Prokofiev's challenging music Its a light hearted romp full of fun and craziness, with a cast that showcased just how good Opera Australia can be, when they trust in their own performers, and work as a team. It also featured the best performances I have seen from most of the leads featured (Rosario, being funny and singing beautifully, Kanen Breen showing that however good he is in other things, he is an amazing physical comic). It was so good, I actually saw I twice. Because, the first time, Kanen (and a few others) were sick, and there was a bunch of roles shuffled around to cover. It was fun, but the second time, with the leads as planned, it was stunning.

Pearlfishers, on the other hand... Well, yes, it was sung beautifully. The cast worked well together. The imported star (Pavol Breslik) did not stand head and shoulders above everyone, but fitted in with the standard of the rest quite well  (Jose Carbo, Daniel Sumegi and Ekaterina Siurina) But, in this case, the director tried to work around the problematic tale by changing some of the characters to try make it less "white men judging the foreigns". The problem is, I think he made it worse, by making the two male leads ex pats. Well, that was the way it felt to me.

So, to the rest of my fabulous stint in New York. Yes, I got to see the Nina Stemme and Stuart Skelton show, and yes, it was every bit as amazing live as I expected. Possibly more so than I expected, because the modernisation of the production worked better than I feared. Yes, if I knew Tristan better, I might think otherwise, but for me, it worked. It was the first time seeing the opera and, as an introduction, it was pretty amazing. And yes, if the cast was not so fabulous, it would have been quite tiring at times. But Nina, Stuart, Rene Pape, Evgeny Nikitin and Neal Cooper, all were amazing. Not to mention the surprise of Ekaterina Gubanova as Brangaene, who left me wondering why had I never heard of her before. She should go straight to the top of the list of mezzos to sing Wagner, her voice fitted right in alongside the starry names and staked a claim for similar recognition. I will also say, seeing those performers up close and hearing THAT ORCHESTRA from the third row, well, it really is astonishing. Talk about wallowing in sound!

Then there was the tragedy that is Jenufa, Janaczek's tale of woe in a small village. Once again with an astonishing cast, singing the snot out of their roles. Karita Mattila, having recently given up singing Jenufa, now sings the Kostelnicka. And how! Oksana Dyka proving once again, that she is great in Eastern European roles, as the tragic title role. Not to mention, Joseph Kaiser and Daniel Brenna as the competing tenors, and Hanna Schwartz (!) as the grandmother, Maria Zifchak as the Old Shepherdess and Elizabeth Bishop as the Mayor's wife. I mean, seriously! That is a cast!!! And yes, this was seen from the cheap seats, but, again, such great voices, and performers, there was no doubting the intensity..

Then we had Don Giovanni, the matinee that was used for the "Live in HD at The Met" performance. To be honest, I am not sure that DonG works well in such a barn of a theatre. Yes, the leads sang well, yes the set was quite clever in how it worked. But... Trying to make what is an intimate opera work to the back of the Met? Yeah, I am not convinced. Maybe it was just let down by a comparison with some of the other shows? But, despite the great cast (especially Paul Appleby as a non wimpy Don Ottavio) I was still left thinking this is something that needs to feel intimate, you need to be able to almost feel the heat of the flames licking at DonG's feet as his fate is realised. And that is something you will never feel from the balcony at the Met. Not, that I regret going, just it was a good reminder that opera works better in smaller theatres, and that big barns of theatres are an aberation, born of a bigger is better mentality in the USA. Which, while it can work well with somethings, will never work well with the many small scaled works that make up much of the repertoire.

Can we talk about Tatyana instead?

So, Eugene Onegin, that glorious lush Russian opera full of dance music and angst and love and death. It also starred a great cast singing beautifully and acting up a storm...

And yet, I was not happy. Mainly because the production of Kaspar Holten worked against the story, adding extra elements that worked against the story, to create the idea that the story was all about the memories we carry, not that it was just the sad tale of young lovers who make bad choices, then live to regret them.

It is also fair to say, that when he planned the production for the Royal Opera (it is a co production with Covent Garden and Teatro Reggio, Turino), that he expected much older leads, which could make the young lovers/old lovers thing work, but when you have a singer in the (old) role who is probably the same age as the young dancer doubling her, it becomes both confusing and distracting. "Is that Young Tatyana, or is it Old? Oh, she is singing, its the Old one." is the sort of thing that would go through the heads of the audience, assuming of course they had read the information beforehand, and knew this was happening, and did not just think there was a mute sister who danced (at one point I was asked "Is she meant to be miscarrying?", which would make for a very different Letter Scene!!!)

Also, it took a while, but eventually, I got the point of why everything got left on stage and never cleared, the books, the letters, the tree, the snow, dead Lensky, the broken chair, etc. It was to highlight that these people are carrying their history with them, as surely as if it was packed in a backpack and permanently attached to their backs. Well, we get that, it is constantly reinforced in the story and in the music; that the awkward mistakes that these characters make and must live with, are what has caused the traumatic ending for them. Doomed to love each other, but unable to do anything about it, because of the decisions they made in the past, that lead to this point.

But, we do not need to have that drummed into us, it is there in the story and the words, and the music, for all to see. Leaving all these reminders is just awkward, and does not help the story. Having Tatyana come close to falling on dead Lenksy is not going to make things believable, nor is she catching her dress on the branch left behind, as she tries to turn and walk angrily away from Onegin while inside her palace!

So, yes, there was lots about this performance that I did not like.  And most of those related to the work of Kaspar Holten, whose work I have seen before on DVD and found awkward. On the other hand, there was also much to admire. There were no weak performers in the cast, and lots to admire. I have to say, most of that flowed from the high musical standards, held together with precision and fire by Guillaume Tournaire. This is the second time I have attended OperaAustralia this year, and the second time I have found myself in awe of their musical standard.

First of all, if this is not the role that marks Nicole Car as a star, then, I would be curious what would. She inhabits this role as if born to it. Her sweet lyrical voice rose to the occasion beautifully, never feeling underpowered, and sounding every bit the dreamy, yet innocent girl who she portrayed. Considering her age, I was surprised to hear she was cast in this, but having heard her, I could not imagine another local singer come even close to her in this role.

As her would be suitor Onegin, we had the Slovak Baritone Dalibor Jenis in his first season here. He sounds strong and powerful, but I found his soft notes a bit off. An off night? Problems with Russian? I can't say, but it affected the way I viewed his performance. I thought he seemed to be portraying Onegin as a heartless bully and very abrupt, until I realised, it was actually his voice I was reacting to, not his acting. Once I realised that, I could see a much more nuanced performance, just one with a vocal challenge.

As Tatyana's sister, we had Sian Pendry, released from the realms of pants roles, and freed to play a very girly girl, one not yet ready to settle down with the ardent Lensky, and more than eager to flirt back with Onegin, setting up the duel that is in many ways the centre of the piece. Her early scenes with Tatyana showed beautifully matched voices, setting the tone for the opera well.

As Lensky, James Egglestone was ardent and hot headed as we expect. His argument with Onegin at the party was quite physical, and believable. His voice is a bit darker than expected in this role, and his Kuda kuda, was beautifully sung, but not quite the meltingly lovely tone that we hope for in this role. The fact that he then got killed at the front of the stage and remained there till the end of the opera, deserves special praise for being dead so effectively, though why it was thought needed is another question.

Also worthy of mention were the glorious cameo arias of both Kaneen Breen as Triquet (hilarious) and Konstantin Gorny as Prince Gremin, bringing a cultured authority to his part, though why he had to appear briefly to witness the big scene between Onegin and Tatyana was beyond me. It was not needed, and just drew focus away from the fine anguished and passionate performances we were riveted by.

So, to sum up, this is not an Onegin to go see if you do not know the story. This is also not a production to see if you get annoyed by directors who play with stories to suit their pet ideas. I admit, I left both annoyed by what I had seen, yet blown over by the performances.

However, it is a production to go hear if you love this music. That was very well served by all, and has been haunting me for days since. I can think of no better praise for a performer, than that they served the music as well as this cast.

Go see LA Forza!!!

Any opera called "the Force of Destiny" (or La Forza del Destino, in the original Italian) has to ask big questions, or at least attempt to, to avoid being laughed at. Its debateable whether Verdi does ask such question, but he does certainly fill his pot boiler of an opera with characters who seem to be doomed to spend their lives unhappily, their destiny set from before the opera starts, it would seem.

Tama Matheson has directed a very dark retelling of this tale. He has opted to focus on the story and its themes, and tell that, rather than try to update it to some other time, trusting in the source, rather than feeling the need to change the story to fit his ideas. Thus, the stage is filled with characters in period appropriate costumes.

And yet, the set itself, tended to be non naturalistic. Props that were needed were always available, and era appropriate, but the stage itself was mostly left blank, with a series of platforms and staircases wheeled in out and around, as needed, with curtains and a large revolve, used to change spaces as needed. At various times, other pieces were added and removed as required. A large skull often featured, with a giant statue of the Madonna, an altar, massed candles, and a crucifix, all appearing at times to add to the atmosphere of religious fervour, and oppression.

This production does take a few small liberties with the story though. Preziosilla, ably sung and acted by Rinat Shaham, became, not just a fortune telling gypsy, but an embodiment of Fate itself. She lurks menacingly whenever any scenes ripe for death or "significant plot event" happen. As characters die, she has kissed them immediately before, becoming the hand of fate that brings death. At times, the women of the chorus join her in this role. In the battle scenes, the women, hidden behind death masks, wander amongst the soldiers, touching them, which results in them dying.

So, about the performers. First, let me say, this is probably the best cast opera I have seen live in Sydney. There were no weak links. With five leads all at a very high standard, this is no mean feat!

First, of course, our Leonora, played by Svetla Vassileva, bringing a slight figure and huge voice to the role. Hers is a big, beautiful voice, used to good effect in this role. A few times her loud notes became a bit squally and wayward, but mostly she sang with gorgeous tone and portrayed the initial nervousness and then anguish of her character well. Singing much of her final aria Pace pace mio Dio lying on the floor, her torment at what had become of her life was almost too painful to watch.

As her fiance Don Alvaro, Riccardo Massi brought a strong tenor voice to the role. He was convincing as the impulsive foreigner in love with Leonora and whose plan to elope was destroyed by the intrusion and then death of her father, (well sung by Richard Anderson)

A welcome return to the OA stage was by Jonathan Summers as Don Carlo. Hearing the veteran sing with the strength that puts most younger baritones to shame, reminds us of a time when he was a regular singer here. His determination to get vengeance and repair the honour caused by the loss of his father was palpable, as was his brokenness from his loss.

And I mentioned Rinat Shaham before, so all I need to say is, how good is it to have a singer who can sing from the back of the stage, on a raised platform and still have her heard at the back of the theatre, over the chorus in front of her? Very good! Though why every director chooses to go nuts with at least one of Preziosilla's scenes, I have no idea. This time, her "Rataplan" results in all the chorus dying as she sings. Not the effect that Verdi was aiming at!

The lead that gets the least time though, who also impressed me the most was Giacomo Prestia. Big beautiful sounds poured out of him effortlessly, every time he opened his mouth. Can we have him back soon to sing King Phillip in Don Carlo? Please?

To give you an idea how big his voice is. His Melitone, Warwick Fyfe, who sang Falstaff earlier this year at OperaAustralia, seemed small voiced when singing next to him. Not that this was bad, Melitone is a smaller role after all (and Warwick filled it well) but the difference in voice size between them was noticeable.

It has to be said, there were lots of clever touches throughout this opera, things that showed the director and designers had thought long and hard how to create a strong sense of the atmosphere and story. These occurred throughout the opera. For example, in the opening, Leonora starts in a big elaborate wide dress and wig, which during her first big aria, she is helped out of by servants, as if her rebellion requires her to first be freed of the shackles society has put on her. She later spends the rest of the performance in plainer costumes, indicating that she has left her past behind her, even as her past will not leave her. At the end of Act2, as she puts on the monk habit before beginning as a hermit, the monk assisting her removes the hood from his head, revealing to us that, in her mind, she sees her dead father, and because almost paralysed with fear.

Andrea Licata was the conductor, keeping the forces well controlled. Personally, I prefer a little more forcefulness in my Verdi, but, the ensemble was tight and controlled, working with the singers to comment on the action.

So, my advice? If you like Verdi, go. You won't see a cast like this locally again in a hurry.

Happy families, not...

Ok, so Salome and her crazy family. I just saw them today. And, yes, they are all nuts. Mum clearly does not like her husband, and is jealous of her daughter, but also clearly taught her well. Daughter uses her beauty to get her step dad to do what she wants. Clearly she has learnt to twist men around her finger, but not anything about right or wrong.

Which really gets to the heart of the matter. Salome is both femme fatale and yet naive innocent. She knows how to get What she wants, but she clearly has no moral compass. She meets someone with a powerful one, but fails to convince him to succumb to her charms. And from there it all goes pear shaped.

The decision was made to show the feast that is repeatedly referred to throughout the opera. They are at the back of the stage, raised up but also hidden behind a curtain of clear plastic strips, letting us know they are there, but seeming them not noticing what happens outside. "Outside" is a circular platform with a huge metal grate in it. There are a series of about 7 curved stairs down to the floor level of the stage. Most of the action takes place on the round platform, or the stairs in front of them. The grate of course, is raised up to allow access to Jokanaan, when needed. Costumes are best described as regie-light. Yes, none of them match the period this opera is set in, but they all are appropriate for the person wearing them. Herod looks like a overweight pimp in a shiny yellow suit. Salome and Herodias have out there trashy look at me look at me dresses, with head gear to match (and OTT hairstyles often too) . The religious guests at the feast are all dressed in the costume appropriate to whatever type of priest they are representing. (They are not all Jews here) And Narraboth and the soldiers are a mix of army camoflage pants, with upper body armour that looks like it came from some scifi movie. As I said, regie light costuming.

So. You begin to get a sense of what it looked like, what did it sound like? Well, to be honest, mostly very good. No one stood out as bad, most were very well cast, some were astonishingly good. I heard no bad singing, and a lot of amazing singing. I also saw a lot of powerful acting in what ultimately is a how not to guide to family values.

None of the minor characters stood out as bad, most surprised with how good they sounded. The fact that Kanen Breen was relegated to mere First Jew, gives you an idea, that luxury casting was applied. David Corcoran was seriously good as the doomed Narraboth. His death early on, both shocked and upset (as it should) when he realised that Salome in person, was not the beautiful ideal he had in his mind, but a twisted soul trapped within a beautiful facade.

Salome herself, performed by Cheryl Barker, was a monster, in the best way. Her performance was gripping, moving and also believable. She portrayed Salome as both victim and as active participant who causes things to happen. Yes, I still think Salome needs a bigger voice, but Cheryl makes a strong case for not needing a dramatic soprano in this role. To be sure, there are times when her voice struggles to deal with the combination of heavy orchestra and the vocal writing, but she rises above it to deliver a towering final scene that had us believing. And moved. And it has to be said, she does have something of the girlishness about her voice still, that this role should have, but few do.

As her mother, Jacqui Dark was suitably demented. She adds to her list of demented monster roles, a Herodias who you seriously do not want to meet in the street. There was nothing subtle about the performance, but then, Herodias was not written to be subtle. Her stentorian tones blasted across all others in the take no prisoners style we expect. You almost do not blame Herod for looking at his stepdaughter, when his wife has become such a vile harridan of a creature.

And Herod? Well, John Pickering was amazing (and creepy). This is the first time I have encountered him in the flesh, and, well, I hope to again. Im thinking he would make an excellent Mime or Loge. Here he makes light work of an incredibly wordy part, flinging off huge amounts of dialogue through the music, while remaining totally musical and in character. He was far and away the best performer, in my opinion, in a very strong cast.

As our Jokanaan, we had the ever reliable John Wegner, portraying yet another tortured soul. This one though, is physically tortured, while his soul is elsewhere. I was perhaps less convinced by him acting as the otherworldly prophet, but there was no complaints about his sound. I felt that using speakers for him when in the cistern, was probably unnecessary, but I also recognise that with the stage at the Opera House, putting him in the pit to sing his "in cistern" lines, would not give him much time to get to up to where he needed to be when he emerged into the light. It was probably unnecessary, but it also worked. It gave his prophetic pronouncements more power, making him more the person to be afraid of, even when imprisoned. At times I did wonder if I needed to see more otherworldliness from him, but then, he did seem comparatively sane, in a world going mad around him.

Now, about the Dance. That fraught thing about Salome, is most singers who are believable in the famous Dance of the 7 veils, are not likely to be capable to sing the role. Rather than have Cheryl do some sort of big long dance number shedding clothing, our director opted to have each of the seven veils represent a different female character, an archetype of men's fantasies of women if you will. It works, probably better as a concept than in reality, but if you know it in advance, it certainly made sense. And it was a lot more believable than her doing a solo dance for the almost 10 mins of the dance, shedding clothes as she goes….

So, to sum up, on a scale of 10? I would give this production, as seen today a 9. Not quite as amazing as Lucia, but still awesomely sung, and brilliantly theatrical. And yes, moving. Though, to be honest, I have no idea why I cared about such vile people. That I think says all you need to know.







Here is something of the infamous dance:

And ABC TV's news report:

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.