So, Die Tote Stadt.

An opera I have loved since I first saw it on TV one afternoon in the now legendary performance from Strasbourg. And finally I have seen it in the flesh. And I am happy I did.

But, before we start I think we need to get something sorted first. Die Tote Stadt (the dead city) has something in common with another show I saw this year: Company (Sondheim)

They are both shows that stand or fall by whether you care about the lead male. If you cannot care about the lead, be it Paul in DTS or Robert in Company, you will find the performance trying. No matter how good the others, the person at the centre undergoing the transformation has to be someone you care about, or it all falls apart and there is nothing to keep your interest. No matter how much you may enjoy the music, if the character does not interest you, it all ends up a bit hollow.

Now, with DTS, I have to say, this opera is full of gorgeous music. Full of it! It is a lush, melodic mass of beauty that should leave you awash and blissed out, assuming you like late romantic era lushness. And at its heart is a man who has failed to deal with his wife's death. He is living in a house that has become a shrine to her, and failing to build a new life with out her.

Then of course, he meets a young woman who is the image of his dead wife. Of course it all seems to good to be true, and thus it proves to be. But not without lots of gorgeous music, and he comes out of it stronger, once again returning to the land of the living, not the city of the dead.

So, what did I think of this performance? Well, to be honest, while I love this music, I found the problem I referred to above. Our Paul was not someone to care about. Having a Marietta who was more interesting (and frankly, a much better singer) than Paul meant that the person we needed to care about was a blank space, a dead weight the other characters had to carry.

To my mind, as Paul, Stefan Vinke  was far and away the weakest performer in the whole show. While he was the character around whose actions the whole story revolves (and in whose dreams much of it happens), he was not a performer you wanted to be central. Through out the first act, I was worried about how he sounded. His was the voice of someone struggling to handle a role that seemed too big for him, possibly coupled with illness or something similar. I mean, he sang most of the notes, but a lot sounded very ugly, not the beautiful voice that you will need to make people want to care about you. To be honest, his voice did settle in the second act, sounding less strangled and more confident, but I was still hearing hoarseness, making me wonder if he was tired or ill, or else having some other problem that should be investigated. I mean, I am not saying he sounds like Kim Carnes or anything, but there is to my ear, something worrying in his sound, that suggests vocal health issues. It also does not help that his is a muscular style of voice, with harsh metal sounds, not the beautiful big lyric-esque sounds that we dream of hearing in this sort of music.

As to his Marie/Marietta, well Cheryl Barker surprised me. To be honest, I have never really understood her appeal. The only times I have heard her live I felt she sounded too small for the roles she was singing. But as Marietta, she certainly had voice to spare. Her bright tones suited this role amazingly. She certainly sang Vinke off the stage! She is also a good enough dancer to get away with portraying a dancer on stage. Im not saying that she danced lots, or anything difficult, but she did enough to make it believable, which is all we could hope for. Frankly, I think we would have been better served if Marietta was the focus of the opera not Paul with this cast.

As Paul's housekeeper, Deborah Humble was a standout. She took the small role of the housekeeper and made it special. Hers is definitely a voice I will be looking for in the future.

As for Marietta's theatrical colleagues, I only need to say that silver people rule. Jose Carbo proved a great Peirrot, singing his aria with clarity and beauty of tone, even if a little bit too Italianate in sound. His fellow silver people either sang or danced beautifully, giving that sense of an performing troupe a bit out of touch with reality quite brilliantly. Their scene in act 2 had a life all of its own, a total contrast to the depression of Paul through out the rest. As it should.

As Frank, Paul's friend, Michael Honeyman did his best to make a blank canvas into a real person, but the role is one of those roles whose main purpose is to be part of a conversation, not to take on a life of their own.

This production was mostly very traditional. The staging was designed paying attention to the script, and nothing was too jarring. Of course, there was also little that was memorable, besides the costumes of the silver people and Marietta. Even Frank was dressed in a fairly somber fashion. There was extensive use of projections throughout the opera, some of which worked, some which didn't.  I really did not like the roses on the scrim, or the light at the end. Surely there is some better way of indicating his decision than the cliche of walking towards the light?

But of course, no production of this opera can really escape that this is an opera whose first act is always going to be difficult. You have to be made to care about Paul from the start, or it just feels like so much wankery. Wankery set to beautiful music sure, but still wankery. At the first interval, one of my two opera going companions left because he could not see the point, the other was tempted to as well, but was glad to have stayed by the end of the second act. And, to be honest, I could see their point. I knew that there was much still to admire in Korngold's score, so there was no way I would leave before the end. And I was glad I did. I left, feeling both blessed out by the music, yet frustrated by the performance of Paul and our lack of concern at his plight. Yes, it is a hard role, but there are many others who can do it justice. In my dreams I hope for Andrew Richards or Stuart Skelton, but, I expect that I will not see this production mounted again in Sydney. Then again, I never expected to see it in Australia at all, so...

On seeing a friend do her show for the first time...

So, on the weekend, I got to see a friend of mine perform her show for the first time. And yes, I realise that sounds like a bit of a brag, but, yes, it is true.  I have long known she was a singer, both teaching at a school, and performing. Most of what she gets to do is entertaining kids via her YellowKat routine, but she does also write and sing songs from an adult point of view. And they are all highly personal, dare one say, therapeutic songs.

Now I have to say, before anything else, how wonderful it is to hear a singer whose words you can actually hear, because their diction is so clear. The fact that I hardly knew any of her songs did not matter, because she is such a vivid performer. She brought her songs to life with the passion that inspired them to be written in the first place.

And, as a singing teacher, she knows how to use her voice to bring things to life, without putting her voice under massive strain, so the last song came through clear, just like the first did. And those songs told stories, of her concerns for her son, of how some people annoyed the hell out of her, of her troubles with the house she and her husband bought.

I will also state for the record, that her music style is not really my kettle of fish per se. I mean, my love of opera and other classical music is hardly a secret here. But, considering it was a pop concert, the fact that I did enjoy it, says a lot about the skills of the performer.

And really, I could try to describe why I liked it, but really, just know it was good. Very good. You too can sample how good. She is performing again 7th July at Mars Hill Cafe in Parramatta. Or, you can try/buy her music via Bandcamp here 

I might also add, she is one of those people who deserve to be much more popular than she is. Trust me on this.

Yes, I saw Helen Perris and I enjoyed it. I may start buying friends her EP, for birthday gifts, just because...

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.

A Rant

Extreme frustration…

That is all I can say about what has just happened. Apart from the fact that I am distraught beyond words. Upset. Needing to cry and rant for days.

And it is all happening, because an invoice that should have been paid months ago sat on someone's too hard pile. Meanwhile, we sat and wondered why it was taking so long to pay. When The Gorgeous One was able to break free of regular day job induced deadline hell and family stress to find out, butts were kicked and numerous apologies issued, but the damage was done. We now had to restart the approval process for payment all over again. And being a Govt organisation that is funded by multiple areas of government, that takes time. You would think two weeks would be enough, but no.

So, instead, we have to sit back, rant and rave and wait for this money to come through. In the meantime, we watch our tickets to The Met's Ring cycle go to waste. Tickets we organised back in September last year. Our plans to do a range of things, fall apart. Our chance to meet people who have been responsible for keeping me sane through some very black days, gone. You begin to see why I am upset.

So, what am I missing you ask? Well, this:




Has that whetted your appetite for more? Try here:  This is the official video for the full cycle


So, instead, we are waiting to hear when we do get this payment through, then trying to work out what we can do. Needless to say, this is not a good time to be in our household right now.


If we appear a little distracted, upset or aggro, you at least know why, and hopefully will be sympathetic. Right now though, I think I will go have another cry. You might want to turn away.

And yes, this might seem a little melodramatic to some of you. But, this was going to be our first real holiday together, that was not for family reasons. This holiday has also already cost me several jobs, because they wanted someone who could start straight away. It has been the one thing I had been looking forward to, while I was out of work. Now that has gone too. I think I am entitled to be upset.

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.

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.

Gotterdammerung in HD

I admit to approaching this review in 2 minds. Do I write my normal review, or do I write a love letter to Deb Voigt's immolation scene? I am not being silly. Her immolation scene IS that good. The rest of the performance that we saw in the cinema was mostly fantastic, but that huge final sing that Deb did was truly something else again. Just so that you know what I am talking about, here is one of the better sounding immolation scenes available on line:



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2581375664047517259

This was Eva Marton singing Brunnhilde, I have no idea where, but it gives you an idea what I am talking about if you do not know the piece.

This is sung at the end of a 6 hour opera! This is what brings it to a close. Tonight, listening to Debbie Voigt sing this music, whatever hesitations, what ever doubts I had about her as a successful Brunnhilde were swept away. She took charge and sang her heart out in a way we wish we got all the time, but rarely get. This was singing (and acting) of the highest order that left me shocked. Do not get me wrong, Debbie Voigt is a very good singer, and one of the few who can successfully negotiate the demands of Brunnhilde at The Met, with its barn of a theatre. But I was not expecting to be shocked out of my seat with brilliant singing at the end of the opera. The only conclusion is she was holding back enough to really let rip at the end and stun us all insensible. It worked!!!

But as for the rest? Well, really, there were no weak links. The Norns at the start all sang beautifully, even if their costuming and makeup was quite unflattering (occupational hazard in Wagner unfortunately)

Jay Hunter Morris continues to grow in his Siegfried performances. Give him another ten years, and he will either be truly fabulous, or his voice will be shot. I am not sure which but I am hoping for fabulous. As it is, he is really bringing the character to life beautifully. If his voice is a bit small for the role, well, that is something we have to live with. Siegfried Jerusalem was a freak of nature, and those tend to be few and far between.

Also stunning was Hans-Peter Konig as Hagen. Seriously, his is a voice born to play villains, big dark and beautifully expressive. Eric Owens in the cameo as his father was also his usual great self, continuing his outstanding success in the role.

And of course, the chorus were their normal amazing self. Seriously, that number of singers all working brilliantly together is amazing, and they did it well..

Which brings me to the production…

The Machine continues to be its mix of wonderful and infuriating. Wonderful in that so much of it works so well. Infuriating for those times when they seem to be doing things, just for the sake of doing it. Yes, it is great to have so much flexibility. But, that does not mean you have to use it all the time!!! Going through about three different stages each time the scene changes begins to get a bit old very quickly. And yes, I get that water features prominently in this opera. But do you have to constantly have it featured in the projections on the machine? It probably explains why regular toilet breaks are a must in this opera!!!

Something I have not mentioned much in my previous comments is the costumes. Part of that reason is that most of the previous operas are full of supernatural characters, gods and demigods and the like, so you do expect them to have out there costumes, rather than something normal. But most of this opera the characters are fully human, normal people in a medieval world. Their costumes worked in with that well, and it was the first time I noticed how well.

Oh, the other thing that Gotterdammitslong (as I call it) stands and falls on, is how well the staging of the ending is. Does it tie up the loose ends, does the burning work convincingly, is it believable? Well, to be honest, yes and no. It was not believable for the cataclysmic ending of the world with hope for renewal that we are led to expect. Yes, the important bits (Siegfried, Brunnhilde and Grane) burnt up, the subtitles indicated that Valhalla was going to be burnt (not that we saw it ever in any of the operas) and then the Rhine came up at the end and everything was brought to a calm serene ending. Yes, cathartic. Cataclysmic? No, and with everything at their disposal, I frankly expected more. But, considering the performance I had just sat through, I was happy with that. Not a perfect ending to a perfect Ring Cycle (is that even possible?), but one that got the important bits right, and left you knowing you had just witnessed something extraordinary. Really, should you ask for more?

Turandot - 4/2/2012

Hmm… Turandot. What really can you say about an opera when all three leads suffer from different mental illnesses? I mean, seriously, Calaf develops an instant infatuation with Turandot on first laying eyes on her, to the point he allows others who he is supposed to love and care for to die so he can win her. Turandot refuses to allow herself to love anyone and lives out her life seeking revenge on men in general for their treatment of her ancestor who was raped. And Liu? Well, she out of love, chooses to die, than reveal the name of the man she loves, despite the fact that he does not return it, and has no intention of doing so. That is three seriously fucked up individuals right there.

But, for all that, Puccini wrote some amazing music when writing for Turandot. Maybe suffering really does bring out the best art? Who knows, but Turandot is a superb piece of opera writing, and we all owe a thanks to Puccini for it…

So, onto this performance… What was it like you say?

Well, funny you should ask that…. Allow me to state from the start, this was the production of any in Australia that I was probably looking forward to the most this year. I saw this production many years ago when the ABC used to show opera and other performing arts on sunday nights on TV. This production was one of the standouts, even on a black and white TV (Yes, we got colour really late)

When Graeme Murphy and Kristian Fredrikson put this production together all those years ago, they did it very much as an act of love. This was an opera they had been eager to work on, and it shows in their gorgeous sets, costumes and staging. This is never a simple park and bark production, but rather one where people constantly move, where the chorus is used not just to fill the stage, but to inform relationships by their actions and to provide visual interest. They also sounded great, by the way.

Now, about the soloists, first, a comment. This is an opera where the difference between stunning and competent is phenomenally expensive. Both Turandots and Calafs who can sing the roles well can pretty much write their own check. There is really only ever a couple of people singing Turandot at any time, who can do it true justice. Turandot is like the Everest of roles for Italianate dramatic sopranos. Now Susan Foster is no Ghena Demitriova or Eva Marton, but she is pretty damn fine in this role for Sydney, which is a small house. Granted, in her first big sing, I was thinking she was going to run out of voice and possibly high notes, as she seemed to be already at her limit. However, I am pleased to say, there was something in reserve, and she did hit the top notes with out the splat or cracks I was expecting. After the first part of the Riddle Song, I never felt that nervous about her again. I did however notice a tendency of when she quietened her voice of becoming inaudible, which I suspect was more due to a lack of familiarity with the house she was singing in, than anything, or a lack of advice from the musical staff. She certainly had the necessary loudness when needed, being able to soar over the chorus in full voice when needed. Did she display the subtlety of others in this role? Did she really melt and become the warm fully human loving woman the role calls for at the end? Well, there was definitely a softening, but I was not convinced fully, though sitting at the back of the opera does make such things hard to judge.

As the next mad person, Rosario La Spina was something I was looking forward to. His first act seemed a little disappointing, as if he was having an off night, or if he was just not warmed up enough. I suspect the later, because by the second act, he was the thrilling Italian tenor I was expecting. Considering some of the tenor voices I have heard used by OperaAustralia and others, his is a real thrill, powerful, pingy and consistent of line. To be sure, I have heard more beautiful voices, but those are going to remain beyond the price of OperaAustralia sadly. In the meantime, we have Rosario, and I for one am much happier with him than with some of the tenors they used in the past (Here I refuse to name another Aussie who they used repeatedly in the past, who badly needed to relearn his technique) To be honest, his is a role to be the reckless person risking all for love, and he was believable as that. To be sure, that sounds like most tenor roles, but he did do it very well.

As Liu, I was a little disappointed at first that we had Daria Masiero and not Hyeseoung Kwon. As anyone who has heard her knows, Hyeseoung OWNS this role. I heard her do it at opera in the domain 2 years ago, and she moved me to tears, even over the PA and all. With her beautiful voice in the theatre there would be no dry eyes when she kills herself. Now, Daria did nothing wrong, just her voice is not as stunning as Hyeseoung. Not bad, far from it, just no one comes close to Hyeseoung at the moment, though I would imagine Rachelle Durkin could probably give her a good run for her money in the role. Hyeseoung is probably worth going again for when she takes over the role at the end of February.

As the trio of P's, we had Andrew Moran, David Corcoran and Graeme Macfarlane providing a strong trio of performers, and making me wonder how I missed hearing about Andrew Moran. He is clearly a performer to watch out for with a rich baritone voice, possibly the strongest of the three, although David Corcoran's pingy tenor came close. The trio scene in this production remains a beautiful rest from the dramas of the opera, and is full of visual interest, unlike what happens in some productions.

I also have to make mention of the Emperor of Warren Fisher. While I dislike this role going to a young singer, I have to say, well sung Warren. It is also great to see you making an impression in OperaAustralia, after singing with you in amateur productions in the past.

So, ultimately, my thoughts? If you get the chance, go see this production. It is that rare thing, a night at the opera when you do not have any real criticism to make, when everything works together to bring a story to life. And really, what more could you hope for?

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.