Like most boys growing up in the US during the 60’s I played
“army” growing up. This is a nice way of
saying that I and my friends played "war."
We had our toy soldiers, our toy guns and our fake uniforms. As little boys it was pretty harmless playing
around the house, but as we got older we would link up with other boys and turn
our neighborhood into a battleground. It
was fun – mostly. Nobody got hurt –
usually. It was fantasy. That was a long time ago. In the intervening 50 years or so I have
learned that fantasy and reality are not the same. The reality of war is much uglier than the
fantasy and lots of people get hurt – not just the combatants, but innocent people
get hurt in a huge variety of ways.
Specifically innocent people who happen to live in the way of advancing
troops are often caught in the crossfire; and women who encounter enemy troops
accidently have been raped, beaten and killed for centuries. This is part of the reality that we like to
pretend doesn’t exist. But it does
exist. Sexual violence is a part of warfare now and it has been going back as
far back as we have records in history.
The reality of warfare is violent and horrible. But the fantasy persists, and we often do not
like to have our fantasies ruined by the inconvenience of reality.
I finally had the
opportunity to watch the very controversial production of the opera “William
Tell” by Rossini that recently had its premiere and was subsequently broadcast
to cinemas. This production aroused such
ire and upset at the premiere that the performance was interrupted with
boos. Specifically a scene of sexual
violence was depicted with stark reality (read nudity) to the extent that many
were upset. In the performance I watched
however the scene had been modified (the nudity removed), but the sexual
violence was depicted with just as much starkness as I have ever seen on
stage. The social media reaction has
been predictable. Many seem to believe
that opera (and art in general I suppose) should not enter the realm of realism
but confine itself to fantasy. The
libretto is (supposedly) set in a long ago time so we should keep it there and
let the story play out as a fantasy.
That is what the composer intended after all, isn’t it?
Maybe - maybe not! It should not be a surprise that I have a problem
with this attitude. First, let me address the
contention that to change the setting somehow dishonors the composer and
librettist: This of course assumes that folks making this claim have actually
either seen the opera or read the libretto.
This usually turns out not to be the case. Often those who are the most
offended by “updated” productions have neither seen the production in question nor
read the libretto. 2nd, why
do we naturally assume that the composer or librettist would not want their
work to be interpreted in a way that brings the work to life in new and unique
ways that find ways of speaking to new generations? Is it better to keep these works as museum
pieces to be trotted out to provide an escape? That to me is not art, nor is it
what opera is about. And I do not
believe that most composers would want their works to be relegated to being
museum pieces. I think this is
especially true with Rossini and this particular opera. “William Tell” was a complete change of
direction for this composer and he seems to have been quite intent upon depicting
the reality of warfare violence, including sexual violence.
In its 4 acts this
opera is really quite a violent work. The opera begins under the cloud of
oppression and threatened violence. The
Austrian occupation of Switzerland has taken a toll on the people. They try to continue with their lives, but it
is not easy. Then a character named
Leucholt arrives (in this production covered in blood). He has caught a soldier
raping his daughter. He murdered the
soldier with an axe he confesses and is now trying to escape the soldiers who
are after him. Tell agrees to help him
escape. But the consequences for Tell's action are grave. The Austrian soldiers swoop
in and treat the residents with brutality, eventually murdering an old man
(Mechthal) who dares to oppose them.
This offstage rape and the murders are then the catalyst of the
remainder of the plot. Rape and violence
are a part of this opera from act 1. And
then in act 4 (according to the libretto), the soldiers force a group of
local girls to dance for them. This is
described in the English libretto as “violence.” In this production however the scene has been refocused and has only one
woman who is gang raped by the soldiers.
There is nothing remotely appealing about this scene. It is harsh and unpleasant. I found it hard to watch. But I felt that it was completely consistent
with the opera, and not only the director’s vision but with libretto
itself. Perhaps the nudity in the scene
pushed it over a line. I don’t know,
since there was no nudity in the production I saw. But sexual violence is a reality of war and
it is in the libretto. Those who are so
offended by this scene might consider turning their outrage against the current
perpetrators of this kind of horrendous abuse of innocents who are caught up in
war. Sexual violence continues to be a horrible reality even today in the 21st century.
For me what made
this production outstanding and remarkable was the way the fantasy of war was
juxtaposed with the reality of war.
Tell’s son Jemmy plays with toy soldiers and reads comic books about
war, specifically about the legend of William Tell, while he is living the harsh
reality. The opening scene was
absolutely outstanding in setting the atmosphere. The chorus in particularly was magnificent. They certainly had lots to do and sang
incredibly well. I think my favorite
scene was the finale of act 2 where the Swiss men all come together and pledge
to each other their commitment to rid their land of the oppressor. Musically and dramatically this was a very
powerful scene. The famous scene of
shooting the apple off the boy’s head was done very effectively as well.
The cast was
terrific. Gerald Finley was an
outstanding Tell. He brought his
beautiful voice to this role and the result was a complex interpretation of
this character. This was not a one
dimensional Tell. John Osborn was
equally outstanding as Arnold, the son of old Mechthal who is caught between
his duty to his country and his love of the Austrian princess Mathilde, sung by
Malim Bystrom. The remainder of the cast was equally outstanding. There was not a weak link among them. I
particularly liked the young soprano who played the boy Jemmy (I don’t have her
name unfortunately). She perfectly
captured the struggle between fantasy and reality that is focused on this
character.
In short, I thought
this was a profound, moving and powerful production and and an outstanding
performance. This should probably be
rated R, but there is here in this production a message we all need to hear and
take to heart. Within the last 15 years
we in the west have been way too cavalier about committing ourselves to
war. Politicians in this country still
promote the idea that the solution for global problems is to go to war! This is crap!
We need to begin to move away from the idea that violence is the way we
conduct diplomacy. Every military
engagement that we have entered into since the invasion of Iraq has simply made
things worse, especially for the innocents who are caught up in this – for the
women, the children, the elderly and the sick.
Maybe this production will call into question the degree to which we are
all still caught up in the fantasy of war and prompt us to begin to ask more
questions of our leaders.
Last comment – I made
a comment on social media to the effect that this opera – William Tell - is not the
Rossini of the Barber of Seville, Cenerentola or L’Italiani. Someone took offense at this comment, but it
is true. This is not the Rossini most of
us are familiar with. This opera is not
even “Donna del Lago.” Musically this
work seems to me to represent a completely new direction for this
composer. Not only the choice of the
subject matter, to which judging from the music, he was totally committed. But the music itself is powerful and moving. There
is no harpsichord. There are still
recitatives but there is a move towards blending the recits into the fabric of
the opera – this of course is one of the Verdi’s great accomplishments. But here is a step in that direction before
Verdi. Also Rossini’s use of the chorus has
no parallel in any of his other works as far as I can tell. In fact, I cannot think of another Bel Canto
opera that uses the chorus in this manner.
It is tragic that Rossini did not continue to compose after this opera
and chose to abandon composing operas after he wrote Tell. I would like to see this opera performed more
often and I would vote for bringing this production to the Met. I hope that many will take the time (3 hours and 45 minutes) to watch this production. It is worth every minute.
No comments:
Post a Comment