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!

So, last night, I saw Aida again....

Leontyne Price shows us how it is done (O Patria Mia)

 And Ritorno vincitor from the same night, (her last night at The Met)


First of all, for those that do not know, Jacqueline Mabardi is no Latonia Moore (or Leontyne Price). This was no surprise to me. However, I was relieved at her not being anywhere near as bad as I was led to believe. Not as big a voice as Moore (obviously) she still sang the role credibly, with that mix of control and abandon that we need to hear. However, my criticism would be that her voice lacks the clean focus that Moore (and for that matter Leontyne Price) has. This is a voice which seems too much core, not enough focus. Which makes me worry about the long term use of it, as well as explains (when I think about it) why the floated high notes near the end were not soft and floating, but hit with too much power.

Against Mabardi, Rosario La Spina and Milijana Nikolic came across as much stronger than previously. At the start, I suspected La Spina was having troubles, as he seemed a bit hesitant in the recit before Celeste Aida, but the aria itself was fine. However, I do think as the evening went on, I could hear him off the peak of the previous performance. Possibly a cold? Or hay fever? Either way, he still sang with power and ease throughout his range. And yes, his voice is not the prettiest tenor, but the power and security of his line of sound, means that quite frankly, I don't care. We need singers who can do the job, and he does it well. Nikolic sang better than I remember, but again, possibly a comparison situation?

Having said that, I can say that Warwick Fyfe and David Parkin were definitely an improvement on Michael Honeyman and Paul Whelan. Both much bigger voices, though I still feel both seem too small in these roles. But, they were more secure and larger voices than before, and were both convincing in their roles.


Now, having said all that, I also have to say, we need some new good Verdi conductors in the pit. Our conductor Andrea Licata seemed unable to get the fire of Verdi in the belly of our orchestra, at times they seemed rather tepid. If you cannot bring the fire and passion to Aida, you do not deserve to be conducting it. Also, there were a couple of times where things started to get a little bit out of synch between the stage and pit. Not train wreck badly, but I spotted it, so it was noticeable.

As for the production, once again, while I love the many clever touches of this production, I again was wishing at times people would just stand still and sing! That the director was a dancer is very obvious. Yes, the dances were witty and fun, but we do not need a chorus to move around on the stage in the temple scene, its meant to be static.

Oh, and some of you know that we took an opera virgin to this production. He loved it, and was moved by it in a good way. In some ways I think that is the best compliment we can give. Someone who did not know the story before, got the story, and felt for the characters. Its not rocket science folks, it should just work!


Previous performance review here

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

Thoughts that arose after seeing "Wagner's Dream"

Ok, so I have now seen "Wagner's dream" - the documentary to pull more money for the Met. Sorry, raise the profile of The Met's Ring cycle. That was a bit cynical wasn't it? It's actually worth seeing if you went to the Ring operas from this new production, either at the opera, or at The Met itself. And yes, I am glad I saw it.

But, for me, what was most telling is what was not covered. Yes, I get that the machine, and the staging was the big deal about this new production. And, to be sure, this is probably what most people were interested in, but, really, that is only one part of what goes into making a production like this.

Where was the sections of the orchestra rehearsing with James Levine, before he had to leave for health reasons? Or him working with some of the singers? Or, how about some stuff of Debbie Voigt working on learning the words and music of what is a humungous role, which she had never learnt before? I mean, even the preparation of some individual scenes, which were shown, in every case focused on the interaction of the characters and the machine, not even once did I hear a performer talk about motivations or "how do you want me to play this scene?"

Of course, I do know why none of this featured.

This was a production by a director, who while known for innovation, is not exactly known for depth. This is not a production to make people discuss what was meant, or why someone did what, it was opera as spectacle, as a literal reading, utilising technology to bring things to life that have always been essentially unstageable.

My spies, who include people who sang in the show, inform me that they did not have much in the way of interaction with Robert LePage. Most of the blocking, that is, the building up of how the characters move around and interact was worked out with assistants. LePage was more focussed (dare I say, obsessed?) with his monster of a set, and all its technical challenges.

Yet ultimately, what matters with any opera, in the end, is the music, the characters and the performances. Do we believe in them as individuals enough to care what happens? Are the musical values strong enough to make us care? And, is the music working to strengthen the performances, or do those actually work against the music being sung?

And to be honest, having seen this production in cinema, and now having seen the documentary, I am truly convinced that what worked owed most to Richard Wagner, then to James Levine and his musical staff, then the performers and finally to Robert LePage's organisation. This, for all its marketing as an innovative production, was really at its heart a very traditional telling of the story. Yes, the set was unusual, and used in interesting ways, but that does not detract from the fact, this is a very traditional Ring.

And I say that, not meaning it in a bad way. This is a Ring cycle to show to people who do not "get" Wagner. It presents the operas in a way that is clear, does not clutter the stories with unnecessary details and is performed by people who mostly are at the top of their careers. There are a couple of smaller performers who, in the performances screened in cinemas, seemed outclassed, but they were minor roles, compared to most.

But, Wagner is expected to offer more. As a writer, he was concerned much more with the meaning of the tale, than just the tale itself. Normally, in modern productions, you come away with a sense of what the director thought the operas were about. You gain a sense of what his or her pet theories are, or his choice of things to fetishise. With this production, you only get opera as spectacle and storytelling. Which, while enjoyable, does leave you wondering, "is that it?" I think for the length of time we commit, we (and Wagner) should expect more.

Faust, or what could have been…..

Right, before I start, a confession. This is the first time I have seen a complete production of Faust. Any version of Faust, let alone Gounod's opera. I mean, sure, we all know the basic story. Old guy does deal with devil (or facsimile there of), gets youth, money, girl, loses girl and loses soul to devil by end. Its an old story, and, to be frank, the old stories usually are pretty good for operas, because the reason they are still remembered is they speak to us in ways that are meaningful Often, they speak to us in ways that change as we do. And of course, it is an opera that we all know bits of, as well as how the story goes.

So, Faust from The Met, in cinema release, with three outstanding singers in the leads and that new Canadian whizz kid conductor, in a new production, should be fabulous right?

Yeah, that was my thought too. Sadly, the director (Des McAnuff) has somehow failed to make this work. I suspect if I knew the opera better, I could give a better explanation, but all you really need to know is he failed to tell the story in a way that made it really live.

But first, back to the performers. As Faust himself, we had Jonas Kaufmann proving himself everything we have come to expect from him. Committed, with that beautiful well produced tone. He has the strength to carry through this long role, without tiring, despite the demanding music he sings. The fact that he can act as well, is a bonus, as is the fact he is very pleasing to the eye as well! As a performer to carry this opera, he would be one of my first choices, if I were in that position.

As Mephistopheles, Rene Pape too, was sensational. Really, these two seem rarely able to do wrong. They are both at, or approaching the peak of their performance abilities and on stage prove that their reputations are well deserved, unlike some performers, who seem unable to perform as well outside the recording studio.

On the other hand, Marina Poplavskaya, to me, while a great singer, sounds lost in this role. Vocally, she sounded too much like she was singing in her native Russian a lot of the time. I mean, in the right role she is stunning. But this role, is not hers vocally. The role needs a brighter cleaner sound than she seems able to produce. Having said that, her Jewel Song was fabulous, and I could well imagine her being cast on the strength of that alone. But, as many people will tell you, that aria is not typical of the role as a whole. On the other hand, she really did live the role. She was Marguerite, just a shame she does not sound right as her.

Of the others, Valentin definitely deserves praise. He was totally believable as the brother who was conflicted but could not forgive his sister her sins, even on his deathbed. Russell Braun sang with a powerful baritone, suggesting a big future ahead of him.

In the pit, Yannick Nézet-Séguin proved once again he is a young conductor with a big future ahead of him. He was able to keep the large forces of the orchestra and chorus well controlled, while maintaining a strong sense of mood from the atmospheric writing of Gounod.

Which leaves me with the director. Now, before anyone calls me reactionary, let me say that an updated setting of an opera can work, and often work very well… Indeed, in some cases they can make a work accessible, bring new life to a story and make it relevant to a modern audience. This is not one of those times.

I mean to my mind, Faust is about wish fulfilment, a fable if you like, about how you should be very careful what you wish for, because what you want is rarely what you need, and the consequences are often too much to handle. Fine, in theory, and it sounds like something that could be translated to a modern era without a problem.

There is one slight problem with that. Faust is very much a product of an era long gone. One where christianity was more what defined the world we lived in than science. Where a scientist was always a bit suspicious, not a trusted and valued part of our society.

So, in his wisdom, (because a director always knows better than the original creators, right?) the director decided to set it at the time of the second world war. Faust became an atomic physicist working on the atomic bomb (I do not recall the French having the bomb till long after that!) So, after moaning about his life and being about to drink the poison, Mephistopheles appears in a very snazzy cream suit and hat, and proceeds to seduce Faust in to the idea of having what ever he wants. Faust chooses youth, but of course, Mephistopheles gives him so much more. The story from then on takes off on its normal trajectory, more or less, though there were a couple of very odd things that stood out like sore thumbs, as if the director had no idea how to make them fit. (Including an atom bomb going off!)

Having said that, there were some good ideas, mostly badly executed, in the production.

The set was designed with two circular staircases going up out of sight at the front of the stage, one on either side. These were frequently used by Faust and Mephistopheles to go from one place to another, as if they were part of Mephistopheles powers, enabling him to easily travel where ever he wanted. Except sometimes he did not use them when he clearly should have, to fit the idea….

And the chorus. Such an integral part of Faust. Frequently so badly handled. Whose idea was it to put one door (!) on stage at the front, then to have all the chorus go in and out thru that for the soldiers' chorus scene when they returned? Really? It LOOKED awkward, and of course, the chorus had to all pile in before they could start to sing. And the ending? If you are going to have your angelic chorus on stage (Normally they would be offstage I would assume), and you have a set with a cat walk on either side of it, surely your angelic chorus (or those the audience see) should be up high on that cat walk, singing down to Marguerite, that she has been redeemed? Not on the stage floor with her? Oh, and making her walk up all those stairs to ascend into heaven? Surely you could have done something better than that?

But then, after all that? It all turns out to be a dream, from between when Faust actually did drink the poison at the start, and him dying. Because, right after Marguerite goes to heaven, there is a quick change and there is Faust looking old again like at the start, holding the beaker of poison, right before he collapses to the ground at the end. To me, that was the real insult. I mean, sure the story is quite unbelievable to many, but if you have to change the ending (and weaken its only happiness), surely you should just start with a different opera? Maybe get someone to write a Faust opera that fits with your ideas? Because, sadly, this ending was far too clumsy to work.

And really, I guess that is my big complaint with this production. It was clumsy. Things failed, not for lack of good intentions, but in their execution. And with the resources he had available to him, and the performers on hand, that is simply not good enough.