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.

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

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.