ROH Cosi Fan Tutte - Another Attempt to Redeem a Work That Doesn't Need Redeeming!

For some reason it turns out that I have found a particular focus on the opera “Cosi fan tutte.”  I have probably read more about that one opera than about any others.  Perhaps it is because I love it so much and it is often unfairly maligned that I have sought to understand what Da Ponte and Mozart were attempting to accomplish.  So, I won’t repeat everything again.  Instead please read these other essays that I have written on this opera:

https://blakesoperablog.blogspot.com/2014/12/in-defense-of-cosi-fan-tutte.html

https://blakesoperablog.blogspot.com/2016/01/more-on-cosi-fan-tutte.html

https://blakesoperablog.blogspot.com/2016/01/winter-opera-st-louis-cosi-fan-tutte.html

In essence I argue that the original point of this work was to criticize current 18^th century social conventions that placed women on a pedestal with such high expectations that no mortal woman could ever possibly measure up.  The title says it all – “Cosi fan tutte – Women are like that”  - like what?  They are human beings, just like men!

     That said, the point of this article is to reflect briefly on the current Cosi that was recently performed and broadcast to cinemas of the Royal Opera House’s new production.  This production is slated to come to the Met in a season or two, which I have to say, is unfortunate.  But let me give the spoiler alert warning.  I am going to reveal some things that you might want to save until you see it yourself.

            The foundational issue of this production seems to be an attempt to redeem an opera that this director has determined is simply no longer acceptable for 21^st century audiences.  It is too silly, sexist, mean-spirited, etc. – I suppose.  How else do you account for the altering of the title of the work in large lighted letters at the end of the opera as Cosi fan tutti ?  We all are like that!  Yes, that is what da Ponte was getting at in the first place.  But just within the context of his own society.  After all, that is the culture in which he lived, and all it takes is a little study to understand the issues of gender roles, enlightenment, religion, social standing and so forth that all have an impact on this libretto.

            Back to the ROH production: in my opinion the best singer on stage was Johannes-Martin Kraenzle who sang Don Alfonso.  He was even dressed traditionally in 18th century garb with a sword at his side.  The rest of the very youngish cast was adequate but I didn’t feel were all that strong, with the exception of Corrine Winters as Fiordiligi.  The rest of the cast, by the way, (and the chorus) were all dressed in 21^st century attire.  They emerged from the audience at the end of the curtain calls, which took place during the overture – at the beginning of the opera!  Yes, you read that right!  Don’t ask. It was all rather perplexing, though I think the point was something along the lines that these young modern kids were going to participate in a theater event, as representatives of all the other hip and modern young people.  It was all rather odd.  But the bottom line is that there was no deception in this production.  Everyone recognized everyone else.  In fact, the fake mustaches were removed by the middle of the 2^nd act so there was no surprise at all. 

            Well, that is all fine.  It might even work except for one major problem.  The libretto doesn’t support it.  The denouement in the 2^nd act finale has the girls terrified and Despina hiding and then the boys reveal the ruse.  Except in this production everyone knew from the start, so there was nothing to reveal.  So, it was just a romp – I guess.  (And what in the world was with signing the marriage contracts in blood!  I felt like we had jumped into a production of “Faust” for a moment! Or maybe “Siegfried” – blutbrudderschaft and all that!). 

            In short, I felt that the production essentially negated the entire point of the opera.  It was just a romp, a diversion, a play in the course of relationship.  That the couples at the end were obviously now smitten with the opposite partner seemed to me to lead to the conclusion that perhaps they’ll just have an open relationship from now on and share and share alike.  Ultimately it all doesn’t matter in the end – Cosi fan tutti!  So what?  It is really a darn shame to unravel such a wonderful work.  Da Ponte was making a statement about equality and humanity – this production simply turns everything into a generic, playful romp where nothing really matters. 

            Well, except it does matter that we treat each other with respect and that we recognize the humanity in each other.  Especially in this era of politically sanctioned misogyny and the tacet permission given to “grab them by the ***” – It matters!  It matters that we see and respect each other as human beings; that women are treated with respect and equality.  And that women are allowed to make their own choices and have their health care needs met in the way they choose, not the way that men choose for them!  It all matters! A lot!  And da Ponte would agree with me!

The Hollow Crown II

     I finally got to see the last installment of the BBC "Hollow Crown" series.  The first series appeared several years ago and included the plays: Richard II, Henry IV I & II and Henry V.  It is reviewed here - Hollow Crown I!  Now the last set has been released and it includes Henry VI 1, 2 and 3 and Richard III.  But quickly I must add that there are only two installments of Henry VI as they are condensed from 3 plays to two. In a way it is too bad.  It might have been nice to have done the plays in their entirety.  But on the other hand they are a long and epic in their attempt to tell the detailed (albeit filtered through Elizabethan eyes) story of the long and painful reign of Henry VI. Almost all of the French scenes are cut.  Joan Pucelle (Joan of Arc) appears but she is not developed but the objectionable scene where she looses her nerve and tries to escape execution by claiming to be pregnant is cut.  Joan of Arc at least has more dignity in this production than is usually the case. I won't go into any more about the cuts as I think for the most part they worked and for screen the way the scripts were assembled worked very well in maintaining what was really a riveting set of performances.

     The casting of the series is simply amazing.  Certainly the leading characters were magnificent. Benedict Cumberbatch as Richard III, Hugh Bonneville as the Duke of Glouchester and Lord Protector, Adrian Dunbar as Richard, Duke of York, Phoebe Fox as Anne Neville, Dame Judy Dench was simply spellbinding as Cecily, Duchess of York and for me the two members of the cast whose performances I found overwhelmingly outstanding were Tom Sturridge as Henry VI and Sopie Okonedo as Queen Margaret.  Those two were the only two to appear in all three plays (films) - though Henry VI comes back as only briefly as a ghost in Richard III. Queen Margaret of Anjou was given a central role in the series - she was the glue.  Her journey I found the most compelling and this actress was able to take us through from the shy girl who is discovered by Somerset to the incredible force behind Henry VI to the living phantom who haunts Richard the III until the end!  Never have I seen this character take such a central part, but frankly since Richard III is the play that is done most often I am not sure this approach would work with only that play.  You have to experience her from the beginning.

     The other thing I want to say about the casting is that I am not sure I have every seen a performance where all of the supporting roles were so brilliantly cast. Everyone was outstanding, including the children - in fact there was a scene that I don't remember having seen before included where the little Richard, Duke of York (one of the two princes in the tower) mocks his misshapen Uncle Richard and it was a chilling scene.  Other amazing performances would include Anton Lesser as the Duke of Exeter, Sally Hawkins as the Duchess of Glouchester, Stanley Townsend as the Earl of Warwick, Samuel West as the Bishop of Winchester, Ben Miles as the Duke of Somerset, Keeley Hawes as Elizabeth Woodville, Ben Daniels as the Duke of Buckingham, James Fleet as Hastings and the actor who played Catesby was really outstanding (why does Wikipedia not list the entire cast - they don't even list the actor who played the Earl of Richmond who ends the entire series by defeating Richard III and being crowned Henry VII, this is the character that gives the very Tudor inspired speech at the end about uniting the houses of York and Lancaster in perfect unity.  He was excellent, by the way and should be listed!

     If you have any interest in Shakespeare, and in the history plays I strongly recommend this series - both parts.  I think of the 7 plays included in the entire series I think my favorite would still have to be the Henry IV series, probably because I particularly love those plays, but also because they are so well acted and well filmed.  Tom Hiddleston, Simon Russell Beale and Jeremy Irons all put in magnificent performances. After that I think I would vote for the Richard III, but this 2nd set is designed to be watched as a set and to skip the Henry VI parts means you would miss out on a lot. This is not necessarily true of the first set of this series.  Those performances stand on their own much more.  And the reason for this is probably because in the first series a different director was engaged for each of the different plays (this is especially unfortunate in the case of Henry V which is in my view the weakest of the entire set).  For Hollow Crown II one director - Dominic Cooke - directed and he created a unified vision that really makes these plays work together.  This is a treasure! Highly recommended!

     One last comment in general.  I have made the comment before that one should never look to the theater for historical accuracy and indeed Shakespeare's history plays are rife with Elizabethan fantasy and legend.  The two major legends being 1. That Hal - later Henry V - led a dissolute life with low life friends like Sir John Falstaff and did so in order to truly understand the mind of the people, but eventually casting them off - not true!  2. Richard III was a murderous, evil twisted man who murdered his way to the throne, including the two children in the tower - not true!  Still the plays have so much depth and can teach us so much about being human; about what is it that causes people to lust after power, to engage in such bloody conflicts and what are the consequences!  The Henry IV plays for me are an exploration of the issue of fatherhood - Sir John and Hal's real father, the King Henry IV are both deeply flawed men and neither is much of a father - but both for different reasons. Hal rejects one initially and ultimately rejects the other.  The final scene between Hal and Henry IV is for me one of the most moving scenes in all of Shakespeare.

     And Richard III for its rather unfair treatment of that last white rose Yorkish king who by all accounts was a pretty good king - certainly better than his brother Edward IV and (sorry Tudor fans) a whole lot better than Henry VII (who is the Messiah figure Richmond in the play - of course, he was, after all, Queen Elizabeth I's grandfather!)  Henry VII was withdrawn, brooding and highly insecure to the point of paranoia.  It was he who created the beginnings of the Tudor police state which eventually was so brilliantly managed and looked over by Elizabeth's spymaster Francis Walsingham and and her Secretary of State William Cecil.  But none of that matters, because Richard the III is ultimately not history, it is a study of the nature of evil.  And Cumberbatch's performance gives us a brilliant portrayal of a vulnerable Richard who is driven to evil and murder, but who also suffers from his obsessions and insecurity.  The play is brilliant but this performance is virtuostic! Shakespeare uses a technique in this play that he will utilize later, especially in Hamlet, and that is the use of the soliloquy.  Richard talks to us, confides in us, the audience, and looks to us as he is slowly weaving his plans.  It makes this play stand out and is different than all of the other history plays. But it has the effect of making us complicit in the evil that is buried deep in this tyrants heart.  We become a part and a player in the evolution of this evil monster and it should call for us to look deep into our own hearts to see the evil that Richard appeals to in all of us.  The death of Richard at Bosworth Field, and the final shot of the field in this film should give us all pause as we go plunging forward ignoring the lessons of history and the dangers of hate and lust for power and desire for revenge.  Do you see Richard III lying dead in the mud - that is where revenge and hate and selfishness and violence lead.  It led Richard and so many of the Yorks and Lancasters there in the 14th through the 15th centuries and it is going to lead us to the very same place today - except that technology has made the stakes higher and more dangerous. But it is the same story.

     So, get it and watch it.  You can stream it on the PBS site.  You can buy it on Amazon.  Take the lessons to heart.  For as bloody as it is remember they are only using swords and spears!

Chicago in November: Troyans / Hamilton / Don Quichotte and a little bit of CSO thrown in for good measure!

Finally I got a little vacation time and after spending a few days in Wyoming I flew back to Chicago and spent what turned out to be a very introspective several days there.  This has been a difficult fall.  The presidential election has been a horrendous experience, and not just for me.  The level of hate and violence and racism and homophobia and anti-Semitism that have been unleashed by one particular candidate has been, well, I can’t even come up with a word for it:  Disgusting – unbelievable – reprehensible – these come to mind.  And then the final result of the election and all that has transpired since have made it difficult for me to function.  It is not having lost that bothers me.  It is what has won that is so horrible.  And then at the same time there is the military assault taking place in North Dakota against Native Americans. Genocide in Syria, that no one seems to care about.  What is wrong with this country? This world?  Have we lost of sense of the principals of freedom and justice and due process upon which this country was built. And what about compassion?  Have we no shame or compassion?  And what is wrong with those folks who would assault other because they are different? I am simply appalled.

So, Chicago… First up – Les Troyans by Hector Berlioz.  I had seen it before in HD from the Met and a couple productions online.  But live, in the house was a unique experience. It was a terrific performance and I loved the production. This was a production of 1st's - the first time LOC used its new rotating turntable stage, the first time LOC ever performed this work and the first time Christine Goerke sang Cassandra. Vocally and musically it was a wonderful performance. The chorus and the orchestra were wonderful but I loved the cast. CG was powerful as Cassandra (who is my favorite character BTW) Susan Graham was, as expected, wonderful and Brandon Jovanovitch was announced as sick but singing and I really only noticed a little struggle in one brief spot otherwise he has a beautiful voice. The supporting cast were all excellent - especially Christian van Horn as Narbal and the young apprentice tenor who sang Iopas - Gorgeous! I liked the production quite a lot. The turntable and the projections were wonderful. A little more sumptuousness in Carthage part of the opera might have been nice but it all worked. The opera clocked in at 4:45 and this was with two substantial cuts. I missed the scene with the two soldiers and others felt that the ballet was too truncated. I don't know the piece well enough to have an opinion on that. As an extra treat I got to meet two members of the Facebook Met Opera group and It was wonderful to get to meet them. And after the performance there was a question and answer time with the GM and the stars that was also really fun.

So I left this wonderful experience thinking about Cassandra and how she kept saying: “That wooden horse is not what you think it is and it will destroy you!” And how the response – even when they hear the rattling of weapons inside – is “You’re crazy!  This is a wonderful present!  Make Troy great again!”  And guess what? Cassandra is right!  We have our own Trojan horse situation going on right now – and I fear for the future under the elect government who doesn’t seem to care about anyone but themselves.

So I had Friday off!  I took the bus into town and decided to walk over the Privatebank Theater and see if I could get a ticket to see “Hamilton.”  What a surprise that I was able to get a great seat near the front and it was not outrageously expensive.  So, looking forward to “Hamilton” in the evening I attended the Chicago Symphony concert in the afternoon.  The program featured the Dvorak G major Symphony, which is a piece I adore.  It also included a performance of the Prokofiev 2^nd Piano Concerto.  I had never heard this work before. But I was seated down front so I was very close to the pianist and it was an experience to watch him play this piece up close.  The piece itself is amazing!  Prokofiev lived under the repression of Soviet Russia and Stalin and the piece reflects this in some profound and subtle ways.  I found the relentless march of the 3^rd movement exceptionally moving.  The young pianist was terrific.  The Dvorak was good, but it didn’t compare with the Prokofiev. Part of the reason was that because I was sitting so close to the strings, they dominated the sound of the orchestra and muted even the brass and the winds.  As a former wind player I prefer to hear and see the winds and brass much more.  This piece has such wonderful brass writing that the muted quality of the brass was a disappointment.

“Hamilton” was a wonderful experience. It is a great show.  The Chicago cast was excellent and I enjoyed the performance very much.  Anytime there is the representation of historical events on stage there is by necessity some compromise, but in the case of “Hamilton” I thought this was all pretty minimal. Historically the work is amazingly accurate and showed the events of Hamilton’s life. My favorite line: “Immigrants – we get things done!”  Right, in case we have forgotten!  Folks we are all immigrants and have no special God-given claim to special status – unless we are Native American!  The musical was entertaining enough, but I actually found it very profound and powerful.  It was certainly ironic when it turned out that the same evening I saw the opera there was an incident in New York at the “Hamilton” performance involving the Vice-President elect.  Then the president-elect had to jump into the mess by making the most ridiculous statement I have (almost) ever heard: “theater is supposed to be a safe place.”  He must not go to the theater very often. I have never found the theater to be a safe place.  I have, however, found it to be a human place.  A place were human emotions are stripped and made raw; a place where I am reminded of my own vulnerabilities and a place where my own prejudices and close minded-ness is challenged.  The theater is not a safe place – but it is an essential place, for the theater teaches us human values like love and compassion.  I think this is why I prefer the theater to television or even the movies – because I feel that the theater is honest and it puts us in touch with our humanity in a way TV hardly ever does and that most movies (I have found anyway) do not.  I hope our Vice-President elect experienced the joy and the challenge and the power that is theater on that evening at “Hamilton.”

My last opera was wonderful production of the opera Don Quichotte by Massenet. I found this entire experience to be very magical and very moving. Ferruccio Furlanetto was simply terrific. His beautiful, rich dark bass combined with his terrific acting skills brought DQ to life in a unique way. From the opening tableau where he and Sancho were revealed in the pose of a famous illustration to his final death scene FF was funny and touching as was Nicola Alaimo as Sancho. For me the serenade DQ sings in act one, interspersed with his fighting a duel and Sancho's beautiful and moving defense of him while others are mocking him at the end of act 4 were highlights. I also found the prayer in act 3 very moving as well. The windmill scene was clever and funny. This was a very traditional production and it was very well executed. I really liked the quotes that were projected on the scrim before each act. They really set the feel for what was to come. Clementine Margaine was Dulcinee and also did a beautiful job. Her character is the one that is most changed from the novel and from the musical. Dulcinee in this telling of the story is a noble woman of aristocratic bearing. Chorus and orchestra were also excellent. It was a joy to experience this beautiful work. As is always the case with Massenet the score is brilliantly orchestrated and exceptionally colorful. There are extended solos for all the winds and a beautiful cello solo which is the whole of the last act entr’act. There is also a wonderful canzonetta sung by Dulcinee with in stage guitar accompaniment.

This world needs more knights errant. People who take it upon themselves to comfort those who are grieving, help and feed the poor, and treat all - no matter who they are - with kindness and respect. Perhaps like DQ those who have compassion for others will be similarly mocked but it is in this that true humanity is found.

My Trip to the Met - October 2016 - Guillaume Tell!

The reason for the trip was Guillaume Tell.  This is Rossini’s very last opera and it is simply brilliant. I hope that the Met will continue to cycle productions of this opera into their rotation. This is a work that should be performed regularly.  Of course the vocal requirements alone are enough to limit productions. The tenor role of Arnold is incredibly high and then there are all the dancers and 3, count them, 3 separate men’s choruses for the rousing finale of act 2 – not counting the villagers and the soldiers!  In fact the chorus writing is simply amazing in this opera.  And the Met chorus takes top honors for this performance.  If it was the orchestra who shone brightest in “Tristan” it was the chorus in “Tell!”  This takes nothing away from the cast – all of whom are outstanding.  I loved the principals – Gerald Finley as Tell, Jennai Brunner as Jemmy, Maria Zifchak as Hedwige (Tell’s wife), Bryan Hymel as Arnold, Marina Rebekah as Mathilde (Gessler’s sister) and then John Relyea as Gessler and Sean Pannikar as the Austrian Captain Rudolphe.  And then there is the supporting cast – all excellent!  Musically this was a very captivating and moving experience.  It will always be for me one of my most memorable Met experiences.

The production has received, for the most part, a fair amount of negative reviews.  One friend called it “garbage” (without having seen it, I hasten to add), another friend called it “drab” and other writers have complained about this and that.  I will just come out and say that in many ways I prefer the highly controversial ROH production (see below for my review of that) but on the whole I liked the production and felt that it was effective. There was an impressionism about this production that I felt really worked and was quite effective.  That doesn’t mean that I liked everything.  But on the whole I appreciated how the director used the set to create a closed world created by the injustice and tyranny of oppression. At the very end when freedom comes the set opens up and we have bright warm lightening just in time for the finale ensemble which may well be the most beautiful music Rossini ever composed.  I thought the boat/bow structure worked well.  I did not quite get the point of what looked like oversized florescent light bulbs that appeared for act 3.  Nor did I quite understand the upside down livestock hanging from the top of the stage. And frankly I found the costuming rather, well, drab.  A little color might have been a nice touch and would not have ruined the concept.  Especially at the end of act 2 when all the Cantons come together to pledge their commitment to each other and the task of pushing the oppressor out of Switzerland. The 3 different Cantons were distinguished by some kind of a carved figure, but sitting in the house it was too far away to be able to see it.  A little color would have been nice.

But on the whole, I loved this production and I love this opera.  I listened to everyone of the live Sirius broadcasts and I am so glad that I have had the opportunity to become familiar with this great work!

My Trip to the Met - Tristan und Isolde Continued

    I had the opportunity to see this production a second time, but this time live at the Met.  Frankly musically there is simply no contest between live and HD.  In HD one is constantly subject to the whims of the sound mixing and the sound reproduction system of the movie house.  It is all right and better than nothing.  But being in the house one is completely surrounded and engulfed by the music. And for this opera in particular it is so effective.  The voices souring and orchestra swelling it was magical.  In particular, the three major principals were amazing and the orchestra was wonderful. The off stage English horn was thrilling for me as were Brangane's interjections in act 2 and Isolde's "Liebestod" in act 3.  If you read below I stated that I found the production profound and moving and I consider it to be very faithful to the inner philosophical narrative of the libretto.  My experience of seeing the opera live did not change this impression, in fact, it strengthened it.  But some elements "read" much differently.  The fact that HD can use close ups really does change things.  For example the beginning of act 3 with the boy - young Tristan - something about the distance made this stage action seem more dreamlike and mystical.  In HD it was just too present.  The same with all the obsession with the lighter and the flame, at a distance it is not as present and I felt it all worked much better.  Act 3 in particular I felt was much more successful in the house simply because it just felt more like a hallucination because of the distance.  Also being able to see the projections at all times in the background made a difference to me as well.
     I came away with a couple new interpretations.  For example, who was the uniformed guy who embraced the child and appeared from time to time.  It simply cannot be Tristan's father who died before his birth.  I noticed that this figured was a reflection of Marke and so I believe it was Marke, who in the legend becomes a surrogate father to Tristan. The obsession with the flame and the fire is still a bit ambiguous for me, but I think is designed to demonstrate that Tristan was exceptionally troubled.  The murder of the prisoner in act 1 become much more enigmatic for me after seeing the opera live. The titles during this scene explicitly talk about the death of Morold, so if (as Stuart Skelton stated in an interview) this is the murder of a different person, then this is a misfire by the director.  Having the murder happen during this discussion of the death or murder of Morold makes a link despite whether this is what the director wants.
     I want to make a comment about the hospital bed which is a part of act 3.  I have been surprised that so many have been so negative about this little detail.  This objection makes no sense to me at all.  In the story Tristan is wounded at the end of act 2.  He returns to Karaol, his home castle in order to recuperate. Why does everyone assume that a man who is wounded would automatically be laying on the ground in front of the castle?  Why not recuperate in a bed? I think the objection is just silly.  It makes all the sense in the world and I think it works dramatically very, very well.
     Ultimately "Tristan" is about the music.  Some complained that Tristan and Isolde had no physical relationship at all in this production.  But it is not only this production, this is pretty common.  The fact the source material is all pretty clear that this love was not physically expressed, which lead to this sense of intense despairing desire. In the Wagner there is no sex on stage, because all the sex is in the orchestra and the music.  It is a very erotic score, a gorgeous and magnificent score - that is where the sex is and it is very explicit!  I loved seeing this opera in the house.