Met HD #1 - October 8, 2016 – Tristan und Isolde

 I had the opportunity to attend the first Met HD broadcast of the season last Saturday.  It was a wonderful and brilliant production of Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde.  The composition of this opera is perhaps one of the greatest musical achievements of the 19^th century.  Wagner’s musical accomplishment is remarkable.  He is able to represent the sense of longing and unfulfilled desire over multiple hours through his brilliant mastery of harmony.  We move from key to key and from one unresolved chord to another and never is there any resolution, until finally at the end during what has become known as Isolde’s Liebestod (“Love-Death) we arrive at a complete musical climax in B major.  What is it Wagner was trying to achieve?  This is not an easy question to answer and everyone seems to have an opinion.  There is the intensity of sexual desire.  In fact some have suggested the music represents the experience of human sexual intercourse.  Act 1 builds to a climax that is left unresolved.  Act 2 again builds and builds until finally we feel like resolution (orgasm) is about to break and it is brutally interrupted by the arrival of King Marke.  Finally Wagner brings the work to a complete resolution (orgasm) at the close of act 3 in the Liebestod.  Finally, desire is sated and we experience peace in death.  The lovers have finally consummated their love in their mutual deaths.

     This focus on death – love reaches resolution in death and love can only be consummated in death - is quite a foreign concept for us in the 21^st century.  While I think it is easy for us to acknowledge that a sense of desire often does drive human behavior, for us in our society intense desire can drive both bad and good behavior.  And the idea that death is the only way to achieve peace and unity is really quite an odd (and dangerous) notion I think for us.  But for many in the 19^th century (especially men as it seems) – this makes perfect sense.  And the idea is put forth in any number of literary works from Goethe’s The Sorrows of Young Werther to Schubert’s gorgeous but disturbing song cycle Die Schöne Müllerin.  The idea of finding peace from the intense suffering brought by unfilled desire was a part of the zeitgeist of the 19^th century.  Even Wagner himself represents various versions of this attitude in his earlier operas: In Flying Dutchman the heroine Senta sacrifices herself and her life for this Dutchman and through her sacrifice they both find peace, in death; In Tannhauser Elizabeth and Tannhauser both find peace in the purity of death as Tannhauser finally rejects sensual, sexual love and joins Elizabeth in death.  But we reach a new level in Tristan, both musically and philosophically.  And this is directly the result of Wagner’s having discovered the philosopher Schopenhauer and having enthusiastically devoured his work.

      Schopenhauer is complicated and I am not a philosopher, however the basic premise of a dimension of his work holds that human life is bleak and filled with pain and suffering.  There is no way to avoid this experience of suffering, because of human being’s desire, and it is desire that brings about suffering.  This desire is often discussed in sexual terms but desire extends way beyond the dimension of sexuality.  In fact, it is desire that brings into the world everything that is horrible and evil.  (As an aside it is particularly interesting to note that this idea of desire being at the root of all the world’s misery actually can be traced back to Rabbinical interpretations of the Genesis text of the creation of humanity and the subsequent temptation and taking of the fruit of the tree in the Garden.  According to Avivah Zornberg in her incredible works “The Beginning of Desire” and “The Murmuring Deep” she demonstrates how desire is a catalyst of the events that follow the creation.  Also, quite a lot of this is dependent on Schopenhauer’s study of Buddhism.  Back to Schopenhauer)  The only way desire can be sated is through death.  It is only in death that humanity can find peace and rest from the driving winds of desire.  Only death can allow human beings to escape the incredible suffering of the misery of human life in the world. Schopenhauer goes on to discuss how there are only three experiences in life which can bring temporary and minimal relief, therefore they are worthy to be pursued since they do provide a slight break from the misery of desire.  These three experiences are: 1. Sexual love; 2. The pursuit of the arts, especially music; 3. Spirituality of any kind, specifically the spiritual journey, shaped in particular by his study of Buddhism.  It is interesting to note that Wagner’s last three operas correspond to these three: Sexual love – Tristan; the Arts and Music – Meistersinger; Spirituality – Parsifal.  One last little point – which has some bearing on the subsequent discussion of the Met production – Schopenhauer condemned suicide.  For him, suicide was not a solution, because it simply increased the pain, suffering and misery of others in the world.

     The opera Tristan und Isolde then has the philosophy of Schopenhauer woven into the core of both the libretto and the music.  The famous Tristan Chord is the representation of unfulfilled desire in that the chord never resolves. One cannot fully appreciate the opera Tristan without some basic understanding of Schopenhauer.  The libretto itself is based on a German retelling of the ancient story by the 13^th century German poet Gottfried von Strassburg.  Strassburg’s version is based on a French language12th century version of the story by Thomas of Britain, which is believed to have been written specifically for Eleanor of Aquitaine. There are other early versions of the story, notably there is a French-Norman trouvére version of the story by Beroúl.  All of these versions have a variety of different episodes and the plot varies extensively between versions. 

     The basic plot as laid out in Strassburg is as follows:  The story begins with Tristan’s father Riwalin travelling to Cornwall where he meets and falls in love with Marke’s sister Blanschefleur.  She becomes pregnant but before he is born his father is killed and when Blanschefleur hears the news she dies but is able to give birth before her death.  The child is named Tristan (Sorrow) because of the sorrowful events that have led to his birth. There are a variety of heroic episodes here as the child Tristan becomes a great knight.  Ultimately he makes his way back to Cornwall where Marke becomes like a father to him (Marke is his uncle after all).  Eventually Tristan takes part in a military conflict in Ireland.  He challenges the Irish King’s brother Morold to decide the conflict by a duel to the death. He then fights and kills the Irish warrior Morold in this battle, but is wounded mortally by a poison arrow.  Assuming a different identity (Tantris) Tristan washes up on the Irish shore and is nursed back to health by Morold’s beloved/betrothed/wife Isolde the Fair (Their relationship is actually one point where the various versions differ quite a lot).  Her mother, Isolde the Wise, the Irish Queen, is particularly skilled in the dark art of alchemy and Isolde the fair has learned her skills from her mother.  Eventually Isolde is able to figure out who this strange knight is and decides to kill him to revenge Morold.  But she cannot bring herself to do it.  One has the sense that the love between them is sparked at this point in the story.  Tristan eventually recovers and returns to Cornwall and to the court of King Marke.  The court wants Marke to take a wife, mostly in hopes that if Marke would have his own child then Tristan would be disinherited from being the heir to the throne.  Tristan suggests Isolde the Fair.  Marke eventually agrees and Tristan is sent to fetch her and bring her to Cornwall.  (It is here that Wagner begins the story, having skipped all of the previous story and only referring to it occasionally.  It can be confusing since one needs to pay close attention in order to pick up these back story pieces, and they are not always laid out in a comprehensive way.  And Wagner picks and chooses what he includes also).  In the Wagner Isolde resolves to murder Tristan and to commit suicide and she orders her maid Brangäne to prepare a poison drink.  Brangäne however substitutes the love potion instead.  This potion was prepared and sent by Isolde’s mother specifically to be consumed by Isolde and Marke on their wedding night.  This point in the plot is Wagner’s for the most part.  In the original versions of the story the ship is dead in the water baking under the hot sun and there is no water to drink.  A second maid finds the love potion and without knowing what it is gives it to Tristan and Isolde.  Brangäne discovers this mistake too late.  But the lovers are now completely under the spell of the potion.  Isolde marries Marke, but Brangäne manages to substitute for her in the marriage bed, thus Isolde remains completely pure.  Eventually Marke slowly comes to recognize the love that the couple holds for each other.  He banishes them from court and they live together in a hut in the forest - pure and chaste by the way, there is never any sexual relationship between them in the original sources, and there is no sex in the opera either, the sex is all in the music.  Marke eventually goes in search of them and finds them sleeping together and his anger is kindled.  He is about to strike and kill them when he notices that as they sleep Tristan’s sword lay between them.  He realizes they are pure and chase and decides not to kill them, rather he pardons them and welcomes them back to court.  But the tension between the lovers is too intense and difficult to deal with, so finally Tristan decides to leave Cornwall forever.  He travels to Normandy where he marries yet another Isolde – Isolde of the White Hands.  They never consummate their marriage and she cannot understand why.  Eventually he is wounded in battle and asks his faithful servant Gorvenal or Kurvenal to return to Cornwall and bring Isolde the Fair to him in order to heal him.  He instructs that if she is able to come he is to sail with a white sail, if she cannot or will not come he should sail with a black sail.  This conversation is overheard by Isolde of the White Hands who now understands why her marriage has never been consummated.  She is enraged.  As Tristan waits he gets weaker and weaker.  Finally a ship appears.  “What color is the sail” Tristan asks his wife.  “It is black,” Isolde of the White Hands responds.  This is a lie and it leads to Tristan dying dejected and alone.  Isolde the Fair overcome with remorse at not having arrived in time dies.  Marke has the bodies returned to Cornwall where they are entombed side by side.  A vine then grows out of the tombs and entwines together.  Several times the vine is cut back, but it always grows back bigger and greener and stronger.  Finally Marke orders that the vine be allowed to remain.

    Obviously very little of this is in the opera.  Wagner takes the Strassburg and completely reworks it leaving only a basic outline of the plot.  He changes key points as well – such as the adding the death potion and the possibility of the murder/suicide.  He also adds the scene where Marke catches them and expresses his deep sense of betrayal.  I think understanding the original story can be helpful in filling in the blanks but ultimately I think we need to take Wagner’s retelling on its own terms.

The Met Production by Marius Trelinski

     This then leads me to some comments and impressions of the production by Marius Trelinski and the Met performance from October 8.  From a standpoint of the musical performance, this performance is simply brilliant.  Simon Rattle conducts a magnificent performance.  Nina Stemme is wonderful as Isolde, Stuart Skelton is Tristan and they are both outstanding.  The entire cast is magnificent.  I have no complaints at all.  From a strictly musical standpoint this performance was one of the great Met performances.  For me the runaway star was the orchestra.  This score is difficult and this orchestra is incredible.  Special mention goes to English Horn Pedro Diaz from his beautiful playing in act 3 and to long time Bass Clarinet player James Ognibene for his beautiful playing in the Marke monologue. 

     Now to the production: I love the production.  I thought it was not only brilliant.  But I felt it was, on the whole, completely faithful to Wagner.  Specifically, I feel that the production represents and takes the Schopenhauer dimension more seriously than any production I have ever seen before – and this is #6 for me.  Some complain about the updating, as though placing this story in the fantasy early English middle ages has some inherent magic to it.  I reject that idea out of hand.  Wagner may have had settings in mind but I think for him they were functional settings which are rarely intrinsic to what he is trying to say.  This updating not only worked but it was profound and was a wonderful vehicle to present the basic underlying philosophy of the work. 

     Some specifics: First - the overwhelming bleakness of the production is completely Schopenhauer. Life is nothing but pain and suffering and failure and ultimately is tragic.  The drab costumes and uniforms represent this and are exceptionally appropriate; the violence of the sailors in the first act and late in the 2nd act is also representative of the tragic suffering of life. The only possibility of escape from this misery of life is death which will bring an end to suffering and will return humans to oneness with creation.

     Second - There is always a question in this opera (and enhanced in this production) of what was real and what was not.  Were the fantasies with the boy - the images of the boy and the father - were they real? What exactly is real and what is not real? What is darkness and what is light? Even the lovers were never certain of what is real? This is even more expanding on the above theme.  And here Wagner moves beyond Schopenhauer a bit.  Wagner is suggesting in the act 2 “love duet” that what appears in the day and in the light is really not real at all.  Only that which is experienced in the darkness and in the night is truly real. Therefore the day, the light brings with it the reality of suffering and pain and misery and separation.  But in the darkness and in the night those things all disintegrate and we can experience oneness and love and unity and joy.  You can see how it is only a short step from here to the assertion that love is ultimately joyously consummated in death, that is the ultimate experience of the darkness and night.

     Third - Human desire is intense suffering, but we cannot achieve the fulfillment of desire except for short intense bursts and then desire returns – this is true sexually and with all kinds of desire. Ultimately there is no remedy for desire.  For it only leads us to intense suffering.  Only in death is there the final consummation of desire. This was represented to me in the production quite starkly.

Spoiler alert

     There is one dimension of this production that is not consistent with Schopenhauer and that is the dominant theme of suicide.  Isolde is going to arrange a murder/suicide in act 1; in this production Tristan shoots himself at the end of act 2 and in act 3 Isolde slits her wrists and commits suicide. Many have complained about this. I myself am ambivalent.  The fact is that Schopenhauer, as stated above, took a very strong position against suicide.  Trelinski in this then has thus moved past Schopenhauer.  But on the other hand, it seems to me that the important thing is that they both find death together at the end.  Their suffering and misery has now come to an end and their love is finally consummated in death.  It doesn’t matter I think how they actually got there, all that matters is that they have joined each other in death.  That said, I will concede that this point has caused me to spend some time pondering this emphasis on suicide in this production.  It is uncomfortable, but I think Trelinski wanted to make it absolutely clear that Isolde has died with Tristan.  This I agree with.  To have her simply fall lifeless at the end leaves open the possibility that she has only fainted and this is simply not acceptable.

     Some have suggested that it was not Wagner’s intention that Isolde should die at the end.  They use as their evidence the fact that the stage directions suggest she is transfigured and rapturous at the end.  And that she usually simply falls lifeless at the end.  I think that is nonsense.  For Isolde to survive this opera would completely undermine the plot, the libretto, the philosophy and the music of the opera.  Of course she is rapturously transformed.  She has entered into death, she has now experienced the unity and consummation that comes with death and this has made her rapturous and transfigured.  She and Tristan are now together forever, and are now both children on the night.

     The last thing I will comment on are the projections. It is obvious that Trelinsky is using them to both enhance our understanding of the setting of the opera, and to deepen the characterizations with bits and pieces of the backstory.  But therein lay some confusion.  It is never quite clear who the guy in the white uniform is.  Is it a form of Marke?  Is it Riwalin, Tristan’s dad?  And who is the guy that Tristan shoots?  MaryJo Heath in the build up to one of the radio broadcasts said that it was Morold.  But Stuart Skelton in an interview said quite forcefully that it was not Morold but simply a random prisoner, and the point was to deepen this sense of life as misery and Tristan as a full participant in the miserable world.  This is obviously not clear.  And then there is the flame that is also rather unclear.  There was apparently a fire when Tristan was a boy.  Was the fire set by those who attacked and killed Riwalin or did Tristan set the fire?  The production seems to suggest the latter rather strongly, since as an adult Tristan seems fascinated by flames.  But it is not clear at all and frankly is a bit confusing.  There is nothing in any of the sources of this story that have any suggestion of a fire, much less the suggestion that Tristan was a pyromaniac.  I don’t really have any objections, but I have to say it is perplexing and I am still not sure what it all means.

     Some have objected to the hospital bed in the last act.  I thought it worked great.  Why not?  This doesn’t mean that he was not at Karaol Castle.  We simply do not need a literal falling down castle with Tristan laying on the ground outside.  This along with all the settings I felt worked brilliantly.

     In conclusion I loved this production.  I thought it was brilliant and moving and profound.  I will see it in the house in New York in another week and I may add to this review after seeing it then.  I suspect the experience in the house will be different from the experience of watching it on screen.  But the cast, crew, orchestra and production team of this opera have outdone themselves.  I believe this production will take its place among the great Met productions.

Bibliography:

"The Tristan Chord" by Bryan Magee

"The Wagner Operas" by Earnest Newman

"Wagner Without Fear" by William Berger

Chicago Shakespeare - "Tug of War: Civil Strife"

     We have come to part 2 of the Tug of War series mounted by Chicago Shakespeare and written by and directed by Barbara Gaines.  Below in June 2016 you can find my review of "Tug of War: Foreign Fire."  The first installment focused on the 100 Years War between England and France and included the infrequently performed Edward III along with the often performed Henry V and concluded with Henry VI, part 1. I found this pairing and production to be quite powerful and effective.  With "Civil Strife" we move to the Wars of Roses and the English nobility (all of whom are related) turning in on themselves and destroying each other.  The theme is revenge and it is a grisly series of murders. For this production to emphasize the amount of blood shed as cousin murders cousin, all in an attempt to sit upon a tenuous throne (represented by a golden tire suspended from the ceiling) and wear a paper crown, the set consisted of a large flat wall made of a series of plexiglass blocks.  At each murder blood cascades down the wall and by the end of the almost 6 hour event the wall has turned from white to crimson red as it is completely covered by blood and still the blood keeps flowing.

     I have to say that on the whole I found "Foreign Fire" to be more effective and engaging.  Perhaps it was the monotonous repetition of murder after murder - which after all might be exactly the point. Part I - Henry VI, part 2 and part of part 3 - focusing on the Duke of York and his struggle with the gentle Henry VI and his aggressive queen Margaret of Anjou - was very effective and incredible well acted. Larry Yando as the power-hungry Duke of York and Karen Aldrich as Queen Margaret were especially effective.  Margaret is one of Shakespeare's greatest creations, and perhaps his most fascinating and effective female character - even surpassing Lady Macbeth in my view.  Steven Sutcliffe was also powerfully effective as the gentle Henry VI.  To list the other standouts would require that I list the entire cast.  The power grabs, the plotting, the cruelty and the murders were all carefully played out.  And once the murder begins it cannot be stemmed. Particularly effective was the introduction of the peasant rebel Jack Cade.  Historically Cade's rebellion emerged from the peasantry who were tired and suffering as a result of all the lethal fighting between the aristocracy. Cade, a populist and a demagogue takes advantage of the discontent and emerges as the leader who has his own interest in power.  Shakespeare has him set up and encouraged by the Duke of York, as such he is a deluded and expendable fool. This production turns Cade into Donald Trump, complete with the cap, the hair, the orange skin and the mannerisms.  It was effective and served to highlight the incredible danger an incompetent opportunist like Trump poses to the nation and the world.  Just like Jack Cade, power and tyranny would be the order of the day were Trump to come into power. Kevin Gudahl was a terrific Jack Cade/DT - and he was a terrific Earl of Warwick as well.  Part I ends with the end of Richard, Duke of York in a particularly grisly yet powerful scene Margaret plants a paper crown on his head and gives him a white handkerchief which has been dyed red in the blood of his youngest son, the child Edmund, Earl of Rutland.  York's oldest son, Edward now takes his father's place, successfully claims the crown but foolishly contracts a marriage to the widow Elizabeth Woodville, insuring that the power struggles and bloodshed will continue.

     Part II concludes the Henry cycle and moves us into a focus on Richard, Duke of Gloucester later to be Richard III. Now, I have had a long standing relationship with the play Richard III.  Many years ago when I was in high school I saw the play performed in Boston with a young Al Pacino in the title role. I was mesmerized and captivated by the play and it became my senior thesis as I studied and compared the history of the play with actual history.  I discovered that Shakespeare's Richard is not so historical and that the play really is Tudor propaganda. Richard is made a monster, he looks like a monster and acts like a monster.  But he is a charming monster. By the end of the play we tire of him and are anxious to see him removed as good finally triumphs over evil. This is all historical nonsense of course.  Henry Richmond was not the savior he is depicted to be in the play.  Henry VII was a paranoid, insecure and brutal despot - not unlike any of the kings who came before - who ushers in the modern police state.  During the performance on Wednesday I found myself keenly aware of the propaganda dimension of the play: Margaret's prophecy, the scene with the ghosts (mercifully with most of the Henry parts cut) and Henry's final speech.  It was made worse by all of the cuts, which I understand were necessary, but the consequence was that there was little time for any character development. The other interesting characters - Buckingham and Hastings for example - had their parts cut so much that they hardly registered. Timothy Edward Kane was a terrific Richard, but I felt that this second part was not as effective as all that came before.  The propaganda dimension of the play undercut the point of the overall work I think.  Lifting up Henry as a savior as if he is some kind of superman who comes in to fight the forces of evil is simply nonsense.  The evil depicted in all of the plays represented which is fed by power lust and violence cannot be stopped with yet more violence and Henry is just as bad as the rest.  This is my major complaint.  Richard III was not effective as a concluding play for this project. Admittedly there is really no other option since there are no other plays that continue the story. (Henry VIII is not a possibility - it is a completely different play).

     But there were other things that I found distracting.  Clarence was not drowned in a vat of Malsmsey wine - though he obviously had a drinking problem (I liked that actor quite a lot however - John Tufts is terrific). I did not like the way Hastings was depicted. Lord Hastings was Edward's best friend, drinking buddy and hunting partner.  They were inseparable while Edward lived. It would be hard to imagine this Hastings, the petty administrative functionary, as such a close pal to Edward. These are minor complaints, so on the other hand, this presentation of the play with all its cuts did focus more attention on the women. With so much of the play's cuts taking away from the male characters, the women I think had their scenes retained almost in tact.  The incredible parallel scenes where Richard woos first Anne and then Elizabeth (for her daughter) where the women eventually have no choice to succumb but only after giving vent to their rage and disgust were both particularly effective. The scene with the four women - Anne, Elizabeth, Margaret (who is like a phantom in Richard III) and Richard's mother the Duchess of York - who has come to loathe her son - was also exceptionally effective. In part I - "Foreign Fire" - the women were more or less pawns, here in "Civil Strife" they come into their own and exercise more strength and determination.

     Ultimately I had mixed feelings about the ending.  Thankfully the play did not end with the gag inducing nationalistic speech of Henry VII post-Bosworth.  The appearance on stage of the cast as players and victims of all the violence and the disposal of the wall were effective.  The final song seemed a bit simplistic to me.  If only....

     The experience was overall very profound and called needed and important attention to the issues of endless idiotic wars which are fought for fake reasons of "security" but really are fought only for profits and power as hundreds of thousands of victims are produced as a result. Look at the wars we have created and continue to prosecute and what do we have? Security? Stability? Democracy? Justice?  Nope - the world is a more unsettled and insecure place as a result of the idiotic wars begun by GWB.  The security of the world is more unstable than ever before by the emergence of harsher, more violent and more self-righteous groups.  And the "collateral damage" has included an uncountable number of men, women and children who are now refugees. And in the end who benefits?  In the end the crown is made of paper and the reward is a useless swinging tire that we have spray-painted gold.  This was a powerful couple days spent in the theater.

https://youtu.be/VDJOv7rtW70

The promotional clip for Tug of War: Civil Strife

Catch Up - Cosi, Parsifal, Beatrice, Fanciulla

     Now that I am back from vacation, I am back to work and back to my regular schedule of watching opera online (or in rare cases going to the movie theater).  So in the last week I have tried to catch up a bit by watching several opera productions that I have had on my list for a while.

     Cosi fan Tutte - Aix-en-Provence - This new production opening this past summer and has been fairly controversial, which is why I wanted to start with it.  I finally was able to watch it and I will start by saying that I thought the cast did a nice job. The production was very demanding physically and of course vocally. And they all did a nice job.  I especially liked Lenneke Ruiten as Fiordiligi as well as Kate Lindsay as Dorabella and Rod Gilfrey as Don Alonso.  The boys were fine but I have mixed feelings about the Despina.  However, the orchestra was just not up to the standards I expect from Aix or from the Freiburg Baroque Orchestra. The playing was sloppy: ensemble problems abounded, they almost completely fell apart at one point and the horns were a disappointment, especially in "Per pietá."
     I began the opera expecting to like it. I had seen an extended clip and had read several reviews and the idea of expanding the opera's dealing with the objectification of women to include systemic racism I thought might actually work. But in the end I felt that it was a muddle, with a lot of inconsistencies.  Set in Italian occupied Africa (not sure I ever caught the country) during the late 1930's (Il Duce appears prominently at several points) we begin during the overture with the scene of occupation and really horrible abuse of the native African population. Partially naked black prostitutes are abused by the Italian soldiers - including Guglielmo. With the number of Italian soldiers milling around it reminded me more of the opening of Carmen and here then is the first disconnect.  So I assume this is some kind of base, complete with a commanding officer. This means these soldiers are on active duty. Ok, so are we then supposed to believe that they are just going to all abandon their posts because Alfonso pays them some cash that enable G and F to play this trick on their girlfriends.  And were they even boyfriend and girlfriend? What was their relationship? I wasn't sure they had much of a relationship with the girls to begin with. It was all kind of muddy. So, they all ship out - to where who knows.  But when the boys come back they are now dressed as Africans in dark make-up. This in and of itself doesn't bother me.  But here begins all the confusion. There is such a divide between the Italians and Africans. Alfonso and Despina seem to be residents as they get along with the Africans (Despina seems to have an African boyfriend - but exactly who is she anyway, she is not a maid, and doesn't appear to be a friend of any of the rest of the cast. I was totally confused by her character in this production.) But the girls and the boys both treat the Africans terribly: it is violent and hateful and racist. Ok given that  then we are next to believe that they are falling for these faux black men?
     The bottom line problem is that there is no epiphany.  The violent racist behavior continues all the way to the end of the opera. And then when the black make up starts to rub off it becomes obvious who these guys are. Ferrando even appears to Fiordiligi with the make-up mostly wiped off and she then begins to cover her own body and face with make-up.  But when we get to the act 2 finale it is a big surprise that the boys had dressed up.  So what was the point? And how can that be? And it also seemed to me that Despina was fully aware and complicit throughout but yet she seems totally surprised by the revelation.  In the end none of the characters are very likable, they were all kind of horrid.  The only characters I developed any sympathy for were the African supers. But yet I was fascinated to see what the director was going to do next hoping we would move these charcters forward about towards enlightenment.  But it never happens. Ultimately Cosi is making a statement about a shared humanity - "Women are like that" - they are human beings too! They are not to be put on pedestels, they are not the virgin/whore - they are simply human beings like all the rest of us.  This was Da Ponte's effort to undermine one of the more troubling strains of the late 18th century enlightenment.  In the libretto we have moved to this and Ferrando can accept it and Guglielmo is not able to accept it.  But there is movement nontheless.  That is what I do not like about this production - no movement. There is no sense that there is any new understanding of a shared humanity with the Africans.  After the curtain comes down the violent racist abuse will simply continue along with the terrible misogyny which is a part of the behavior of the male characters in particular, but also the women.

     Parsifal - Bayreuth 2016 - I thought the singing was really terrific, especially from Pantratova, Zeppenfelds and McKinney - I also liked Vogt. The chorus was terrific as was the orchestra and the conducting by Haenschen was outstanding. Others had written about finding the production disturbing and one commentator on YouTube felt that the production was "anti-religion."  I disagree with these assessments. I did not find the production disturbing at all, in fact it seemed to me that the production was lifting up the imagery of bondage/freedom, with the key to freedom being forgiveness. Parsifal is always blaming himself, he blames himself for his mother's death and for Titural's death. Both Amfortas and Kundry are also in bondage and ultimately they are freed only through an act of love - in Kundry's case it is her act of washing Parsifal's feet (like Mary - not Magdalene BTW - does in John 12.) Acts 1 and 2 seemed to be all bound up with the oppression of bondage, but act 3 gives us a new creation, a Garden of Eden, spring emerges after winter, and refreshing water is abundant. At the end the instruments of oppression, the symbols of religious oppression are placed in the casket: "earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust." In act 1 - the community was forcing Amfortas to take on the role of the redeemer but he simply can not do it. Parsifal in act 3 does not take on the role but simply begins to process of opening up the community to freedom. This is how I read it anyway.  I felt this production transcended nationalities and was pretty universal. The imagery was predominantly Christian at first but in act 3 opened up to bring all religions together. I did not see it as anti-religious just anti using religion as a tool of bondage (which happens all too often, and has historically). Maybe I missed the point but this is what I experienced.   I will say that not everything worked.  The big green plant in act 3 look like someone at Mount Salvat had traded a cow for some magic beans. But I really liked the set of act 2 and the flower maidens.

     Beatrice and Benedict - Glyndebourne 2016 - I truly enjoyed this opera which I had never seen before and this production, though it is very light on plot! The Shakespeare play "Much Ado About Nothing," upon which the opera is based, is darker with much more complex. The plot of the play is pretty much gone here though. And what remains is one single thread and a characterization thread at that: the relationship of banter and wit between Beatrice and Benedict.  This now becomes the entirety of the plot for the entire opera with really nothing else from the play. Yes Hero and Claudio are also getting married, but that is incidental for the most part - though I loved the act 1 finale where Hero shows Ursula her wedding dress - what a lovely scene. Berlioz did add a music master character and utilized the chorus extensively which, in my view, is the one thing that really redeems this opera. The chorus writing is terrific and the Glyndebourne chorus obviously had a great time doing this. Great fun. The music master Somarone is based on Berlioz himself (in the production anyway) and was really very funny. I wonder if Berlioz was drawn not only to this play but to focus on this thin plot line because true love and happy marriage was one thing that eluded him all of his life. His marriage to Harriet Smithson had been a disaster and his relationships with women tended to be obsessive and short-lived. So in this perhaps there is something of a sense of loss and regret in the score. But at the same time it is rather celebrative and the production is rather fun. Laurant Pelly portrays marriage as a box - both restrictive and secure. I really enjoyed it, but it would never be even a favorite Berlioz. Damnation and Cellini are much more substantial works. This opera does not even have much memorable music, except for the overture and the final duet (which uses music from the overture - or vice versa). It is fun to see though. Paul Appleby was terrific as Benedict and Stephanie d'Oustrac was terrific as Beatrice. The rest of the cast was quite good. The Ursula was quite outstanding and actually her part is more extensive than in the play. But the stars of the show were really the orchestra under conductor Antonello Manacora and the chorus. It is available for a couple more days on the Glyndebourne website and then I think it may be going to Sonostream where it can be watched for a small fee.

     Fanciulla del West - La Scala - I got to see this production in the movie theater. It was a really interesting and entertaining production.  Robert Carsen takes his starting point with old western movies and he begins and ends there.  And in between we always have the sense that we are in the movie. I found the experience to be fun! The cast was great.  The score was really fun.  The plot is a little silly.  This is really the quintessential Spaghetti Western ("dooda, dooda, dooda day). It is not completely politically correct either - stereotypes abound: Mexican bandits and a drunk Indian - but the music is lovely.  Seems maybe Andrew Lloyd Weber might be a fan of this opera, one of the beautiful souring melodic motifs reminded me a lot of a tune from Phantom of the Opera (even the way it is orchestrated!).  Barbara Haveman was terrific as Minnie, I thought.  She was tough and feisty and kind and gentle. Roberto Aronica was fine as Dick Johnson (Ramirez). He is not a great actor but he pulled it off. Carlo Bossi was great as Nick but my favorite in the cast was Claudio Sgura as Jack Rance.  He was terrific.  The chorus and all of the many small roles were all very well performed.  The chorus has a beautiful blend in their sound that was quite effective.  For me act 2 is a masterpiece musically and dramatically. Puccini moves the plot forward effectively through Minnie's discovery of her betrayal, Dick's wounding and then the climax with Minnie and Jack playing a very high stakes poker game.  Sgura was really terrific in this act. I was on the edge of my seat, and I felt like I was at the movies! (Maybe a little too much blood running down the wall, if there had been that much blood he would have bled to death!) The denoument in act 3 is a little silly and a bit of a let down which may be why Carsen recast it all in front of the movie theater.  I thought it was great and really effective.  And on the whole it was a fun night going out to Tivoli theater in St. Louis for dinner and a movie - which happened to be an opera set as an old movie.

Central City Opera – Tosca & the Ballad of Baby Doe

It has been 60 years since Central City Opera premiered the Douglas Moore opera, “The Ballad of Baby Doe.”  When I learned they would produce this work I wanted very much to see it.  Back about 12 years ago I participated in a production of this wonderful opera when I was with Opera Illinois.  I was both the chorusmaster and a chorister on stage and also served as assistant conductor. I came to really love this opera.  As it happened in addition Central City was also doing a production of Puccini’s great opera “Tosca.”  So I arrived in Central City on Tuesday ready to see both operas.

Tosca first – This opera could be called a “warhorse.”  It is produced often and I have seen it more times than I can remember, I have also prepared the chorus and performed in it as well (I got to be the captain of the firing squad – pretty cool!) I have seen productions of this opera at the Met, at LOC, at Opera Delaware and on and on.  And I have to say that of all the times I have seen this opera I cannot remember ever experiencing a better acted performance.  These singers were not only terrific singers, but really great actors. I was completely absorbed by their performance. Alexandra Loutsian was a wonderful Tosca with all kinds of character nuances. From her jealous outbursts to her simple and naïve religious convictions to her devotion to Cavaradosi to her terror of Scarpia - it was all here.  And when she finally gets up the nerve to stab Scarpia to death at the end of act 2 her sobbing was so visceral and realistic I wondered if she was going to be able to sing the remainder of the act (she did, BTW).  Her performance of the great famous aria Vissi d’arte was incredibly moving.  Here was a woman whose faith had been destroyed and she was left with nothing but her own inner strength.

 

And then there was Michael Mayes as one of the most subtle but cruel Scarpia’s I have seen. From his initial appearance he dominated the stage, and he continued to dominate the opera even into act 3.  His Va, Tosca was terrifying in its obsession.  And in act 2 he was able to cajole, to be gentle, to be cruel and ultimately to be lustful and violent.  Mayes created an incredible arc for this character and in the process gave us a truly remarkable and memorable performance. I believe this run may have been his role debut, but I cannot believe that he will not have many, many more Scarpia’s in his future career. This was not a cookie-cutter evil Scarpia – Mayes gave us a nuanced character whose lust for power both ran deep and at the same time controlled him.

Finally there was Jonathan Burton’s Cavaradosi. Perhaps this character is the only character in the opera who one might say is at all “normal.”  He is creative, works for a living, has a famous lover to whom he is devoted, but still is patient and indulgent of Tosca's silly jealous fits and he takes a huge and ultimately tragic risk in agreeing to help the political escapee Angelotti. At the same time he is courageous and is the only character who dares to stand up to Scarpia – this is what gets him killed in the end.  Well, that and the inconvenient fact that he is the boyfriend of Tosca.  Burton had all of the light, loving gentleness that the role requires.  But was also able to convey the courage and determination as well.  His Vittoria was simply glorious.  And his E lucenvan le stelle was heartbreakingly gorgeous and yet his O dolci mani was so incredibly tender and loving.  I particularly appreciated his reaction to the news that he would be shot.  Like Domingo it was obvious he knew exactly what would happen and he conveyed that to the audience, but yet allowed Tosca to continue with the fantasy that they would be able to get away from this horror together.  These three leads were simply terrific!

And the supporting cast were also excellent.  I especially liked Peter Lake’s Spoletta. I do not like it when the director gives the Spoletta and the Sciarone as conscience. Power corrupts and tends to seduce.  We have seen it in our own times not to mention the historical reality. Those who are called upon to do the dirty work of violence and cruelty do so often with no sense of remorse or conscience. Such I believe to be the case of the Sbirri Spoletta and Scarpia’s orderly Sciarone. One of the oddest moments in the opera occurs during the torture scene in act 2.  Tosca is reacting to the torture of her lover and pleading with Scarpia to stop it and trying not to let on she knows what Scarpia is trying to find out – something she does not do well.  At one point just before she breaks and gives up the info, she is pleading and Spoletta sings behind her pleading a chant in Latin – it is a prayer of some sort.  It is rather odd, and it is always interesting to me to see how this is portrayed.  Too often the Spoletta is having a moment of pity and says this prayer as a way of repenting, or expressing sympathy for Tosca.  That I think is completely the wrong way to approach it.  In the Central City production Spoletta came up behind her and spread his arms and the chant became a kind of cruel mockery of her faith and situation. I thought it was just right as it set up the aria which follows in a bit where Tosca herself questions her faith.

Michael Mayes as Scarpia and Peter Lake as Spoletta

Among the other supporting cast Donald Hartmann did a fine job as the nervous Sacristan, though he may have been a little bit over the top at times.  And Stephen Clark was an excellent Angelotti, though the wig just didn’t work.  Minor points.  I was also surprised that women were added to the children’s chorus. Having trained the children’s chorus for this opera I was a little disappointed to hear women’s voices dominating the scene with the children’s chorus as I particularly love the sound of the children’s voices.  But the scene itself was effectively staged.  I was also disappointed that the Shepherd was sung by an adult soprano instead of a boy.  She did a lovely job, but… well… the boy’s voice is just different.  But the staging of that scene with the projections of the sheep was pretty fun.

This brings me to the staging by Joachim Schamberger. In the first sentence of his director’s notes he states that he sees Tosca as a “poignant metaphor” for the quest of freedom. Later he describes how the set is designed to be “cage-like” trapping humanity – us all – into cycles of violence and suffering from which we cannot escape. And so the concept of reality was flipped: the true reality was being locked in a cage from which escape is impossible and the settings – the church, Scarpia’s apartment to parapet  - all of that is fantasy.  This was conveyed by the very ingenious use of projections that allowed us to see into the minds of the characters.  And the modern dressed extras at the beginning (before the music) and at the very end brought us, the audience, into the cage.  We are trapped just like the characters in this story of Tosca. This is a profound and powerful concept and one that I think has great potential and I hope that the director will have a chance in the future to refine it in future productions.  The major problem was that without having read the director’s notes or attended the preview there was no way one could pick up on any of this.  This is in large part because the set itself didn’t look much like a cage but rather looked like a set of doors.  The set needs to be reworked for the future I think to make it more obviously cage-like.  But I love the concept. After I figured it out it has dominated my thoughts – and this is also because the cast were all such great actors.  One last little detail that I didn’t quite get – there was some kind of odd relationship between Scarpia and Roberti. I didn’t get the elderly disabled take on Roberti, who then refuses to receive any money for doing his job? Was he some kind of true believer torturer? And there was an odd and creepy affection between him and Scarpia as well. What was up with that?  And why was the Judge then not drawn in a more detailed way to match the Roberti?  But on the whole, I loved this performance.  Finally I will mention that the orchestra was great and the conductor John Baril excellent.  His pacing and his ability to maintain coordination with the stage was almost uncanny.

The Ballad of Baby Doe – As I stated above I love this opera.  It holds a special place in my heart.  The staging of this opera was also not necessarily completely traditional.  Gone were the realistic sets and the sense that we are watching the story unfold in real time.  Instead the first image is of the miner’s shack at the Matchless Mine where Baby Doe Tabor eventually froze to death and an elderly Baby Doe wandered the stage and we entered into her reflections and memories.  Projections continued to bring us into the story – the original hotel lobby among other scenes.  Frayed drapes represented frayed memories upon which images of Horace and Baby Doe and Augusta were projected. We experienced the story unfold as Baby Doe herself remembered her experiences and her life.  It was ingenious and it worked beautifully.  I loved this production and felt it was outstanding. Hats off to director Ken Cazan.

Again the principals were not only terrific singers but excellent actors, each and every one of the completely embodied their characters.  First among equals though was Suzanne Mentzer as Augusta Tabor.  Her performance was simply brilliant.  Her acting and her singing were amazing.  My favorite scene in the opera has always been the scene with Augusta and her 4 friends – What do you intend to do Augusta? –  (see the photo below) at the end of this scene Augusta declares that if Horace attempts to divorce her he will “rue the day he was every born.” Beginning on a high a on the word “rue” the musical line descends to the lowest note in the opera for her on the word “born.”  Stunning! Mentzer’s performance of this entire scene was chilling.  You do not want to mess this with woman!  I also loved her act 2, when she begins to take responsibility for the mistakes she made, and her attempts to try to reach out and then her incredible final monologue. I don’t know how to describe it except to say that Mentzer was simply brilliant.  Hers was a powerful and moving performance.

"What do you intend to do, Augusta?" - Suzanne Mentzer as Augusta Tabor with her four friends - Act 1, Scene 5

This is not to say that she was not matched by her co-stars.  I loved Grant Youngblood as Horace.  He was vocally strong but he also embodied Horace’s dependence and flamboyance and his complete inability to manage his life.  And I was totally convinced of his commitment to the silver standard which will be his undoing.  Even as everyone else (including Baby Doe) try to get him to see the writing on the wall he stubbornly holds onto this out of principal, but a principal that destroys him.  His final scene – the memory scene where he relives parts of his life – was a tour de force.  He was completely broken and he conveyed this.  As his love Baby Doe, Anne Christy also did a beautiful job developing the character arc for a young woman who is kind of on the make to a woman who truly and sincerely is in love and supports Horace no matter what.  She also did a wonderful job with the devilishly difficult vocal writing.  My favorite of her arias is in the wedding scene – Gold is a fine thing – her hymn to silver. This was beautifully sung.  And in the rally scene for William Jennings Bryant she was dutifully loyal despite the sense that this was going to end badly.

Horace and Baby Doe at their wedding - Act 1 finale!

I have to say that Donald Hartman was absolutely terrific as William Jennings Bryant. He may have been a little over the top as the Sacristan, but not so as Bryant.  He commanded the stage, he was the experienced politician greeting everyone at the rally and each greeting was different.  And his “aria” speech (actually a real speech by the historical Bryant set to music) Good People of Leadville was masterful.  He built it slowly until finally the chorus could not help but erupt into cheers and celebration. He is in the one scene only – but he was great!  Well Done!

I can’t possibly mention all of the rest of the cast by name, this is an opera with a huge cast. But all of the supporting roles were done very well.  Sarah Barber was also excellent as Baby Doe’s mother Mama McCourt.  I loved how she drank so much that it loosened her tongue and she blurted out the information about the divorces, which scandalized everyone, especially poor Fr. Chappelle.  Augusta’s 4 friends, and Horace’s 4 cronies also were particularly good.  I mentioned the scene with the friends, but the gambling scene with the cronies was also very well done.  Finally the chorus was excellent.  I know that chorus part and the final chorus is gorgeous music and it is not that easy, but they did a beautiful job,  I also loved the chorus in the rally scene and in the wedding.  The 7/4 rhythm which dominates the scene gives a sense of everything out of balance, and sometimes can actually cause problems between the stage and the pit, but not in this performance.  The chorus, principals and the orchestra were excellent and the conductor Timothy Myers was excellent.

My experience with Central City Opera was really excellent.  They did a great job, the hall has great acoustics, even if the seats are not so comfortable.  But in closing I should mention that I found Central City itself to be a rather challenging place to visit.  We were lucky to find a lovely place to stay, but finding food for meals was a task.  There is one good restaurant, the Teller House, which is always booked and which has the oddest hours.  So if there is no evening performance then they don’t open for dinner, despite the fact that the opera matinee gets out at 5:30 which is exactly dinner time.  So what to do, well, one is forced to patronize the casinos.  This I found very uncomfortable.  Perhaps it is my profession, but I have seen how people’s lives are destroyed by gambling and I disapprove of gambling quite a lot since gambling tends to target those who can least afford it.  (Maybe Central City Opera needs to do a production of "Queen of Spades!") But if you wanted to eat that was the only option – to wander through these horrid casinos in order to get poor food which was incompetently served.  Each of the casinos had a sign that no one was allowed on the casino floor unless they were over the age of 21.  Not a problem for me.  But what if I had children with me to attend the opera, and I was not able to get into the Teller House? Then what? In order to get to the restaurants in the casinos one has to walk through the casinos – so I guess the children are supposed to starve since they can't get to the restaurants.  It is simply absurd and this is an issue that the city and the opera should address. I would frankly not be inclined to return for this reason alone.  And if I ever do, I doubt that I will stay in Central City.

But from a purely operatic standpoint it was a wonderful couple days.  I loved both operas and so glad I got to see them, even if finding meals was such a chore.