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.

“La Favorite” by Donizetti – performed at La Fenice in Venice.

I found the video of this performance online.  Here it is on the Rai website - there are no English subtitles on this.

Had the opportunity to go to the summer movie house in St. Louis again last night for a really remarkable performance of “La Favorite” by Donizetti.  The opera was originally composed for the Paris Operá and in French but later Donizetti created an Italian version which has been historically preferred.  Famously, Luciano Pavarotti championed this opera, but I think he only performed the Italian version.  I had seen it once before in Italian and had loved the music, but was not as enthusiastic about the plot and libretto – more about that below.

But first I have to say this was a top-notch performance musically and dramatically in every way.  The singing was spectacular and not just by the principals, but by everyone, including the chorus.  The work was also very well conducted and the orchestra was terrific. I really do not understand why the Met doesn’t engage John Osborn more often.  He has a gorgeous voice.  It is bright with a beautiful ring to it.  He is sensitive musically and able to spin the most delicate phrases and when necessary also able to effectively thunder out.  And not only that but he is a great actor! He completely inhabits his roles and always puts in a very committed performance.  I have seen him a lot – mostly in European productions – and I really like him. He is particularly good with these sort of angry, crazy tenor roles.  And in this opera he was especially outstanding as Fernand.  As his rival King, Alphonse, the baritone Vito Priante did a beautiful job. His is another gorgeous voice and he is also a baritone who can act!  And as their love interest Léonor de Guzman, mezzo-soprano Veronica Simeoni was also outstanding.  And then the supporting cast – all equally excellent: Pauline Rouillard as Inés, bass Simon Lim as Balthazar and a wonderful comprimario tenor, Ivan Ayon Rivas, as Don Gaspar.  During intermission Rivas was interviewed and struck me as being probably one of the nicest and sweetest guys ever and he must have struck the interviewer the same because he was asked how it was possible for him (of all people I suppose) to play such a terrible, evil character like Don Gaspar so effectively and he laughed and essentially said – “It’s called acting!”  And while the Met certainly has a number of terrific comprimari they really ought to take a look at this guy. He also had a beautiful voice.  The conductor, Donato Renzetti also was outstanding.  Have I made the point yet?  Musically this was a terrific, outstanding performance in my view.

The plot of this opera is, IMHO, a bit troubled and tiresome, especially for a 21^st century audience. I do not think it is a particularly effective operatic plot.  In fact, I don’t much like it at all.  When I saw it a couple years ago in a musically fine production (which is still on YouTube) I found it to be tiresome and silly.  It is essentially a blame the female victim plot:  A beautiful woman, Léonor de Guzman (who is a historical character BTW, but whose life bore little to no resemblance to this plot) is promised that she will be queen by the King but, he is already married and so she becomes his mistress. She then meets and falls in love with the love of her life (Fernand) but is terrified that he will find out about her relationship with the King. She resolves to do the right thing and have her friend and associate Inés go to him and tell him everything.  But the jealous Don Gaspar prevents Inés from taking the information to Fernand.  This then leads to this major confrontation scene where the truth finally comes out and Fernand rebukes and brutally rejects Leonor out because her impurity is a stain on his honor (gag!).  In the last act she takes poison and finds him, now back in the monastery and begs for his forgiveness.  He is reluctant at first but eventually he is overcome with love and affection and he forgives her and wants to return to a life with her, but it is too late.  His honor is saved by her suicide. Leonor is a victim multiple times in this plot.

This brings me to the staging by director Rosetta Cucchi, which I found to be exceptionally engaging.  Not only that but was visually stunning. Lit softly the set and creative costumes were all in various shades of gray, blue, purple, white and black.  The only other color was from the dancers during the 2^nd act ballet who were butterflies.  It worked.  I immediately could tell that this staging was an imagined futuristic world.  And at the intermission there was an extensive interview with her and she laid out her vision, for which I am grateful.  I was able to pick up some of it but I would not have gotten all of it were it not for this interview.  So the original she said takes place in the year 1398 (or something like that) and she turned the numbers around to 8931 and set the opera in a distant future.  In this world the monks are the keepers of the chemistry of life and it is they that have the secret to preserving life and sustaining life.  Their monastery is made to look like the periodic table – on purpose (the set designer said as much) – and that which is essential to life – water and various kinds of plants are carefully stewarded by the monks.  Balthasar therefore yields much power and he is, like many who have that kind of power, a despot.  In this world, women have become “incubators” – they are de-humanized and have no feelings at all, and this is symbolized by their long flowing white hair. Leonor is an anomaly as she is not yet completely de-humanized.  She is still capable of feelings and because of this she is both desperately desired and also feared and shunned.  This is symbolized by her long flowing blond hair which slowly starts to turn white (until she cuts it all off when she pretends to be a boy in the last act). So Alphonse desires her, Fernand desires her and Balthasar and Don Gaspar hate her.  In act 2 the ballet features two dancers as butterflies who emerge from their cocoon only to suffocate in the constriction of the confines of this harsh society, symbolized by a womb like clear structure which I cannot describe but was exceptionally effective and both beautiful and terrifying. But the de-humanization has an effect on the men as well.  Dehumanizing the women has resulted in the dehumanization and enslavement of the men as well.  None of them are able to strike out on their own, including the King.  Fernand does it and is harshly shamed until he returns to the fold. The arrest of Inés was particularly revealing as this arrest included a symbolic rape That further dehumanized the men (she was already dehumanized).  In this society “honor” becomes a meaningless word that stands for the highest value but really has been stripped of all meaning (see Shakespeare on this one – I think Cucchi was channeling the Bard here because I kept thinking of Marc Antony’s great speech about the “honorable men” who murdered Caesar and Falstaff’s terrific speech from Henry IV, part I.)  Ultimately we are all human together – or we can loose our humanity by giving in to the dictates of despots who promise us security but which results in objectifying violence and hate.

(Digression – Did Cucchi think at all about the American election, with the most dangerous despot attempting to become president by dehumanizing and objectifying other groups – including women?  She may not have, but this only speaks to the timeliness of her vision.)

So, I thought this production was brilliant!  She was able to take a rather misogynist plot and twist it around into something else entirely.  And that something else ended up being a production that was visually stunning, musically brilliant and exceptionally though-provoking.  Did it all work?  No. The English subtitles (for which I am grateful) were an exact translation of the libretto and not interpretive in any way.  Therefore sometimes what we saw on the stage was not consistent with the libretto.  And usually this bugs the heck out of me.  But in this case it didn’t.  I was fine with it and had no problem just reading past that and taking in the stage image.  This is the case because I find this libretto to be very poor on the whole.  Donizetti create incredibly beautiful music for it.  But otherwise there is nothing to redeem this libretto.  I cannot recommend this production more highly.  And I hope we see more of Rosetta Cucchi.  She is one brilliant visionary of a stage director.

Union Ave. Opera - Mikado

     For years the Mikado was perhaps one of the most beloved of Gilbert and Sullivan's light operas.  Ostensibly set in a fantasy Japan, it, like all of Gilbert's other work, took direct aim at Victorian British institutions.  The satire was at times harsh, but always clever and humorous. There had been however, some dis-ease with the Japanese setting from early on. But most were able to recognize that there is little to nothing truly Japanese about the setting or the jokes. And the strict way the copyright was managed insured that nothing excessive or incompatible with Gilbert's vision would be introduced.  That is - until the copyright expired.  And since then among the myriads of production one problem which has emerged has been the tasteless introduction of Asian/Japanese jokes and sight gags. Many of these were blatantly racist and an explosion finally occurred first in Seattle and then recently in New York City where protests erupted. I have read some pretty harsh commentary about "The Mikado" which frankly in my opinion is for the most part pretty uninformed, as it seems to not understand the work at all.  Still, it has (rightly I think) prompted G&S companies to rethink their approach to staging the work. At a minimum the concerns raised have caused directors to think through some of their sight gags and eliminate some of the more offensive ones.  At its most extreme other directors have attempted to rethink and rework the entire piece attempting to excise the Japanese setting completely.  The first and best know of these approaches is the well known Jonathan Miller staging for the English National Opera which reset the piece in a sea-side resort.
     This is roughly the same approach taken by the Union Ave Opera's production of the Mikado by its director Eric Gibson. And on the whole it worked pretty well.  I have to say right off the bat though that it was a great performance. The cast was simply terrific and the production was very entertaining. Zachery James as the Mikado managed to steal every scene he was in and so did Melissa Parks as Katisha - both of them were terrific. E. Scott Levin and Andy Papas were also outstanding as Poo-Bah and Ko-Ko. As this production attempted to remove Japan from the setting and the opera in every way certain lines were cut or altered: "In my artless Japanese way" became "artless millennial way" for example, and the joke about Japanese not carrying pocket handkerchiefs was cut. But other references were harder to excise. "Do you want to know who we are, we are gentlemen of Japan." or "A more humane Mikado never did in Japan exist." were retained. But the setting now is the "Japan Gentleman's Club" and the Mikado is now the "Mayor" (according to the program).
     Frankly I enjoyed the performance so much that I didn't really think much about it all during the performance, and it all kind of worked for me... sort of... well, until I started thinking about it on my long drive home and then, well, it kind of fell apart. I think It is all of the talk of execution which creates the problem. Since when does a Gentleman's club have a Lord High Executioner, even one as incompetent as Ko-Ko. And the Mikado is the Mayor of... well, what exactly?  The Gentleman's Club? Or the town in which the gentleman's club is located - is that Titipu, (that was never very clear for me either)? Ok, but since when does a mayor have the power to execute people by throwing them into a pot of boiling oil or molten lead? And it must be quite a gentleman's club where you might get executed for flirting! And well, not to be indelicate, but isn't flirting sort of one of the points of a Victorian Gentleman's Club? And this Gentleman's club has a nice group of young women (the women's chorus) which would make it impossible to avoid flirting. And... well.... (sigh) maybe I am thinking to hard about all of this and should just shrug my shoulders and say, who cares? I mean really, does it really matter if not all the pieces fit together?  After all the performance itself was terrific and it was a really fun production. I actually enjoyed this performance of the Mikado as much as any G&S performance I have been to in a long time, even if it did have the aftertaste of a bit of confusion for me. So I don't have an answer - this IS comic light opera.  All the jokes and satire were there and the performance was great.

Here is an article written by the director about his concept of the piece - Note: he doesn't mention the "Gentleman's Club and sort of explains Titipu, but the setting was clearly identified in the supertitles as a "Gentleman's Club."

     
     One additional issue which has sometimes caused folks to be uncomfortable with G&S is Gilbert's odd tendency to include an aging woman as a character whose aging becomes part of the joke.  These characters include Little Buttercup (Pinafore), Lady Jane (Patience), Dame Carruthers (Yeomen) and Katisha in this work. Even Sullivan was uncomfortable with this and pretty much demanded that Gilbert cease and desist, which he never really does though characters like Dame Hannah in Ruddigore and The Duchess of Plaza-Toro (Gondoliers) all have a bit more spunk and the aging jokes are (mercifully) gone, well, for the most part.  There is an interesting twist to all of this in Mikado as Katisha is not only older and consequently of failing beauty (this is still here) but Katisha also has a sadistic streak which makes her really kind of fun. "You won't hate me just because I am a little teensy-weensy bit bloodthirtsy will you?" she asks Ko-Ko. For this production Melissa Parks was perhaps the most memorable Katisha I have ever seen.  Not only did she have a huge powerful voice (Valküre power actually which made the act 1 finale absolutely thrilling!); and not only did she have perhaps the most incredible orange and black dress I have ever seen which made her stand completely apart from the rest of the cast, but she really played up the sadistic psychotic dimension and it was simply hilarious!  And not only that but she was matched in this by Zachery James as an equally sadistic and psychotic Mikado.  It was very effective and frankly it was really, really funny.
      I only have two other small (or not so small depending on your perspective) critiques - 1. Drake Dantzler has a lovely voice and he did a nice job as Nanki-Poo, but often he was so soft-spoken I could not hear his dialog. Yum-Yum too, but she was better. It is surprising for he is very experienced and really did a nice job otherwise.  I also had trouble understanding all of Ko-Ko's "Little List" song. There were no titles from this (though there were for every other song) and I suspect it might be because he was changing it for every performance.  Bravo, hats off - but between the laughing and the orchestra I just could not make it all out unfortunately. and 2. The conductor, Scott 

Schoonover did a nice job over all. His tempi were all great and the orchestra was well balanced with the stage. But I think he must have a thing for overtures as he cut Sullivan's wonderful Mikado overture down to almost nothing. He did the same thing to the Yeomen of the Guard overture last fall for Winter Opera (And to be fair, with OTSL did Pirates a few seasons ago they also cut the slow section out of that overture). All this overture cutting I find extremely disappointing. Those overtures are great pieces and need to be performed - especially the Mikado and Yeoman overtures, which were both written by Sullivan himself (unlike the Pirates overture which was written or I should say assembled by Sullivan's assistant Cellier.) I just don't understand the thinking behind this desire to cut the overtures.  Time will not be saved, in all cases the most time saved might have been maybe 5 minutes and, more importantly it completely destroys the form, and thus ruins the overture.  Why do it at all if it has to be cut so drastically - especially in the Mikado which begins with a relatively long orchestra introduction to the opening chorus.  Please - conductors - stop cutting G&S overtures!

     Finally, one thing I really liked a lot (aside from the great performance by the cast): the chorus - they were terrific. The men (and the women) especially had a nice full sound and not only that but they each worked on creating a unique character for themselves and it made the show really interesting. 

    I appreciate the director Eric Gibson's)attempt to find a new way to approach this work and it almost worked, and along the way it was a really great show. 

Here is a link to a promo slide show with multiple photos (on Facebook) - please note the photo of Katisha in her incredible orange and black dress!!!