La donna del lago - Royal Opera House, 17 May 2013 (first night)
The Royal Opera House has pulled together the most perfect cast imaginable for this new production. They more than lived up to expectations, with line after line of the most thrillingly spectacular Rossini singing I've ever heard. Even a production that rivals the recent Nabucco for sheer ineptness couldn't dim their brilliance.
Juan Diego Flórez gave us, as usual, the sort of perfectly even and secure singing that makes his fiendish coloratura and pinging top Cs seem almost thrown away. Like the equally stunning Joyce DiDonato, the titular donna, he didn't establish character clearly, but this is a fault that lies with the director. The robust, plummy mezzo of Daniela Barcellona as Joyce's paramour Malcom is well-known to continental audiences but a first for Covent Garden's, who rewarded her with a huge ovation for her faultless performance. Braveheartedly outfitted in traditional tartan, she made an eerily convincing man.
The biggest surprise was Michael Spyres, who stood in for an indisposed Colin Lee as as Joyce's unwelcome fiance Rodrigo, a role he was due to assume later in the run in any case. This is one of the toughest parts in all of operadom, encompassing a range from low F to top D. Spyres has a natural advantage with the low notes, having initially trained as a baritone. His notes were not quite as secure as Juan Diego's (whose are?), but every single one was clean. A rich and full lower register compensated for thinness at the very top. His sweetness of tone is matched by a naturally affable stage presence (rather like Calleja's), which made him a curiously sympathetic villain. He's due back at Covent Garden the season after next in the title role of Idomeneo, but you can catch him earlier at ENO in next season's Benvenuto Cellini, a role he seems perfect for at this stage in his career.
Michele Mariotti led the ROH orchestra in adequate if unsparkling support. The intonation of the onstage band (especially piccolo) was the only real disappointment.
Scenery applauders will find plenty to ovate in Dick Bird's stylish sets and the exquisite heather-paletted Harris Tweed costumes designed by Yannis Thavoris. But everything else about the production is a mess.
John Fulljames has framed Rossini's tale in a 19th century library where, presumably, Sir Walter Scott is reading his poem, on which the opera is based. The minor character of Serano (Robin Leggate) is got up as Scott, and helps release Joyce from the vitrine which encases her in the opening scene. He pops up later to hand over props. The concept appears to be a reading brought to life - sort of Night at the Museum meets Brigadoon.
Why Rossini (Justina Gringyte as another minor character, Albina) should be present too is anybody's guess. Both hang around almost throughout. Unlike Herheim's Manon Lescaut, which introduces the composer as a character in order to explore the whole notion of creativity, here there seems to be no intellectual basis for the intrusion, other than to point out that the story is a story and not a history - which is surely obvious.
The greater problem is the lack of direction of individual characters. The underlying ideas may be sound, but stock gestures abound. We never find out who these people are. The chorus are stuck there long after they've finished singing, obstructing the view and diffusing the focus. Anyone unfamilar with the opera is going to wonder just wtf is going on.
What's more, Fulljames introduces a mass rape scene not even remotely indicated in text or music. Was there really no other way to highlight the brutality of the Scottish Highlanders? Rossini, who created some of the most feisty and independent heroines in the history of opera, would have deplored reducing women to mere punching-bags. To top it off, the Lady of the Lake herself compliments King Uberto on his gentilezza (kindness) straight after he's shoved her around. No wonder Juan Diego looked nonplussed. I've encountered far more graphic scenes from Calixto Bieito and other directors in my European travels, but I can't recall anything quite as gratuitous as this. Animal lovers should also be warned about an unconvincing but nevertheless gory slaughtering scene.
It is clear that Covent Garden needed an alternative to "Lluis Pasqual’s laughable staging", which they had previously intended to borrow from the Paris Opera, but is this picturesque nonsense really any better?
The production is a must-see for the casting alone. But if you manage to snag a restricted-view ticket, count yourself lucky.
production photos (above) Bill Cooper
curtain call photos (below) intermezzo.typepad.com
Michael Spyres is going to sing Arnold in a very long Guillaume Tell at this year's Bad Wildbad Rossini Festival. Perhaps you'd be interested? Andrew Foster-Williams would be spectacular in the title role, I guess.
Posted by: William Lau | 19 May 2013 at 05:03 PM
Spot on review. I was in a restricted view seat which was immensely frustrating at times as unfortunately a lot of the action was on the left of the stage - the bit I couldn't see! The singing was of course superb which made up for it.
It is a bit worrying that none of new productions in the 2012/13 season have had what you might even call a modest success. Robert le Diable, Nabucco, Eugene Onegin and now this - with only Gloriana left to judge and even that looks questionable. More worrying perhaps is that the ROH Director of Opera and the Associate Director have seen their own pet projects heavily mauled by the critics.
Let's hope next season brings an improvement in the new productions presented.
Posted by: Siggy | 19 May 2013 at 05:35 PM
If only I could afford to go to Wildbad! It sounds perfect - Helmut Lachenmann one night and Rossini's most challenging opera the next.
http://www.rossini-in-wildbad.de/de/programm.html for anyone who's interested.
Posted by: inter mezzo | 19 May 2013 at 05:49 PM
I must then be the only one who profoundly disliked Spyre's excrutiatingly ugly top notes.
Good singing, yes, but a hideous production. The production team entirely deserved the heavy booing (VERY prominent in the amphitheatre).
Posted by: Sub opera | 19 May 2013 at 06:26 PM
And why no flowers for the male principals????
Posted by: Sub opera | 19 May 2013 at 06:29 PM
At the staff and artists party after the show, Mr Holten congratulated John Fulljames on his production, noting that he (Holten) now had company in having his production booed. (God knows, the Onegin deserved it.) Holten's next comment was interesting. "Obviously some of our audience don't like being challenged. We will have to teach them." So there you are. If you don't like the production, it's your fault.
Posted by: regkarpf | 19 May 2013 at 06:31 PM
If that's the case, it's concerning that Holten is unable to identity (let along confront) the production's inadequacies, which are for the most part purely technical.
Posted by: inter mezzo | 19 May 2013 at 06:41 PM
Bravo!
The ROH needs to be careful not to alienate those who don't need to be taught or patronised.
Posted by: Sub opera | 19 May 2013 at 07:03 PM
I actually didn't find the production THAT bad - having the nineteenth century constantly present as a visible filter in the way we imagine 17th-century Scotland was something I quite liked. The rape scene was gratuitous, IMO the gutting of the animal sufficiently illustrated the 'brutish' quality of the Scots. Sitting in the amphitheatre row N, I was (apparently blissfully) unaware of the personenregie. The loud booing actually quite surprised me.
Posted by: laura | 19 May 2013 at 07:51 PM
so nice review and pictures ...will certainly be back to it to read it over again
Posted by: Alexander | 19 May 2013 at 11:12 PM
This is a technical question, but how much rehearsal time will the cast have had for this? I understand that new productions normally get 5-6 weeks and this staging was a replacement for a "new to the house" production - but one that had already been premiered with most of the cast in Paris and Milan. So will this have received the normal length of rehearsal for a new show? Or could minimal rehearsal time be part of the problem, as the cast were booked to rehearse for a shorter period for a production they had already done?
**********
Intermezzo replies - I very much doubt that's the problem. These singers know the music so well they could drop into any production with little or no rehearsal - and JDF and Joyce have both been in town since at least 21 April, when they did their joint recital. The rehearsal period doesn't excuse the blocking and movement deficiencies in any case.
Posted by: John | 19 May 2013 at 11:54 PM
Thanks for your reply - I haven't seen the production yet so will refrain from further comment! I look forward to seeing it later in the run and re-reading your review then. Idomeneo in two seasons - fantastic.
Posted by: John | 20 May 2013 at 01:03 AM
"Holten's next comment was interesting. "Obviously some of our audience don't like being challenged. We will have to teach them."
And there, in a nutshell, is what is most wrong with opera today. Arrogant directors of dubious accomplishment(s) deciding that what they consider the composer ought to have written is of far more significance than what they actually did trouble to write. And though there's no doubt that the chilly receptions accorded both Holten's pathetic, infantile Onegin and this parti-coloured mess is in large part due to purely practical considerations - atrocious sightlines in the former's sets, hopelessly amateurish stage direction in the Rossini - this is written off by the impenetrable egos of directorial entitlement as evidence of the AUDIENCE'S inadequacy, not their own. Never their own. It's our failure of imagination to grasp their essential genius that they see as the problem, not the fact that they're interfering oafs with ideas above their station, virtually all of them bad.
I said at the time that it would prove an evil day in Covent Garden's history having someone not confined - as always hitherto - to desk-bound paper-shuffling as Director of Opera. Chickens on their way home to roost are starting to circle ominously...
Posted by: SJT | 20 May 2013 at 01:31 AM
Well, if you didn't like this production, come on out to Santa Fe this summer and see Joyce DiD as well as Marianna Pizzolato and Lawrence Brownlee in what is going to be a pretty straightforward production with costumes borrowed from the movie "Braveheart"!
See this for Ms. Pizzolato: http://www.mariannapizzolato.com/?l=eng
And this for The Santa Fe Opera where the summers at the opera are magical:
http://www.santafeopera.org/tickets/production.aspx?performanceNumber=5680
I don't work there, just volunteer to do backstage tours all summer!
Posted by: John in Santa Fe, New Mexico | 20 May 2013 at 01:40 AM
The concept of the brutal highlanders is causing a wee stooshie here in Scotland as the Walter Scott scholars dispute the notion behind the production that the Highlanders were savages.I am there tonight in my upper slips seat so comments tomorrow,however I would go and hear Joyce and Juan with my eyes shut!
Posted by: Hugh Kerr | 20 May 2013 at 06:11 AM
Your photographs certainly capture the rapturous response of the audience at the end.
Posted by: Rose-Mary Hyslop | 20 May 2013 at 08:44 AM
Is Kasper Holten attempting to compete with David Cameron in his contempt for the people who pay his bills?
In both cases, I detect the whiff of cordite in the air...
Posted by: DESR | 20 May 2013 at 09:18 AM
Absolutely. We had endured an inept production which,for long periods, was little more than a costumed concert performance but was turned into a sensational night by JdD, JDF and incredible debuts by Barcellona and Spyres (he was very good last year in Paris in Auber's 'La muette de Portici'). Who, though, could forget JdD, who is accustomed to fantastic receptions, being overwhelmed and clearly mouthing 'wow' twice. A production to forget but an evening never to be forgotten.
Posted by: Siegfried | 20 May 2013 at 10:11 AM
It's correct that the rehearsal allocation was for a revival, not a new production, and that JdD, JDF, Orfila and Barcellona worked on the Paris/Milan production, also Lee just in Paris and Spyres just in Milan. But Mariotti didn't, so there would have been quite a bit of work to do on the music side. Spyres arrived only last Thursday, and had just one stage rehearsal plus the general, before the first night, since he was not expecting to sing until the last two performances. As intermezzo says, that doesn't stand up as an excuse for technical deficiencies in the staging. But whatever deficiencies this production has, technically or in terms of concept, it is a work of genius compared to the one that ROH rejected.
Holten's remark to the assembled multitude on Friday night just struck me as displaying incredible arrogance. Even if it was meant as a joke, it reveals a way of thinking, by no means unique, that really needs to be challenged by those who pay the bills. I do think it is fundamentally wrong to have an active stage director in his role as director of opera.
The comment I heard from several people in the audience as they were going out at the end was "Well, it could have been a lot worse." So it could, and so Nabucco, Robert le Diable and Onegin indeed were. But what a condemnation that is of this year's new productions, and if Holten is content with that, he should be fired tomorrow.
Posted by: regkarpf | 20 May 2013 at 12:19 PM
Will he redeem his reputation with Don Giovanni next year? I can't decide whether to buy tickets after the way he treated Onegin.
Posted by: Susannah | 20 May 2013 at 01:00 PM
Hi all,
I think this discussion is in fact very good to have (about productions and tastes, that is..), and I think it is maybe time for me to add my voice to it. I would encourage that we can have a lively and open debate about what makes opera exciting and what we like and do not like about productions, and I follow all comments with interest.
First of all, let me say that I don't think that is actually what I said, I think I said: "Part of our audience clearly do not like to be challenged. But we are just going to have to continue doing it." I cannot completely rule out that I might have said "teach them" instead, but if I did I want to apologise, because that would indeed be an arrogant comment. And actually not what I mean.
What I mean is - and what I think has never been a secret, that this is what I stood for in Copenhagen and want to stand for here - that I think it is important to continuously challenge audiences as well as ourselves, in order to move opera forward. This means taking risks. This means having something to say with what we do. And this mean presenting different production styles (in other words, I am certainly not advocating just doing one kind of productions, I think the mix of different types of voices is precisely the point). This - the mix as well as the risk-taking - inevitably means sometimes failing (not that I am suggesting this is what happened in the case of Onegin and Lago). And sometimes upsetting audiences. And this is why I think - in spite of it naturally being hurtful for the creative team to feel the audience not liking their work, I hate getting booed, it stings very hard every time it happens (not sure I should give this away, might give too much pleasure to some of the booers ;-) ) - it is important to say that we must keep challenging ourselves and audiences, not just trying to play on what feels like 'safe bets', which in my view is ultimately the biggest risk and equals artistic death.
This is certainly not the same as wanting to teach audiences to share my taste, and as mentioned, if I did indeed use the word 'teach', then that was arrogant and uncalled for and I apologise.
I totally understand what SJT says. But I can assure you that the stage directors are probably the ones who carries the biggest doubt around, always doubting, questioning, searching and living with the fact that it is so unpredictable what we do. You search honestly for a response to each piece, in my experience you never set out to shock or provoke but try to find a way you can make this piece come alive in the strongest possible way, and you always want to be courageous - but equally hopes that the audience will be moved by it, will love it. I really don't think I know any of my colleagues who - however confident or even arrogant we or our work might seem - are not basically always doubting, always questioning their own work. You set out on a journey with a piece, and you just hope it will be good. You know you will fail if you try to please or figure it out, but of course you hope it will work. And then so often it is surprising: I have done productions that were really popular with everyone, productions that were widely hated by everyone, and others - even more difficult - where opinion is completely divided. The one thing they have in common is that I could never really foresee what the reaction would be. And that if I think too much about it, it becomes about my personal vanity rather than about trying to do an honest piece of work.
Now, I don't want to get into a specific discussion about Onegin or Lago. I heard from a lot of people who said they had been deeply moved by Onegin, and from others who said they hated it. I even met a couple at a dinner for donors, where the man said it was one of the best things he had seen in years and his wife fiercely rejected the production! I response to John above, I can say that John Fulljames certainly did have very difficult working conditions, but that should never serve as an excuse or even explanation. What we put on, is what we put on. And that is what we stand by, of course.
But it is equally important for me to say that we live in a time, where short term success seems so important to us. Of course, we want to be successful. But for me, the ability to stay courageous and curious is even more important, because it is honest. This is why I think it is more important for us to keep challenging audiences - and ourselves - if we want to be successful on another level. This was what was behind my comment, and this is my philosophy for the job I do. I hope you don't perceive that as arrogant. I hope we will put on success after success, but I hope we will be able to do it not just because we tried to figure out in advance what you would all like, but because we had the courage to be honest (whether I then have the necessary talent as a stage director, that is of course another discussion and not one for me to lead, and in any case of course we often end up with a discussion of taste).
Best wishes - and in the hope of many engaging discussions about productions over the years,
Kasper
PS! Siggy, don't forget Written on skin. I think that must count as a success, surely.
PPS! IM, of course, yes, there are both taste issues and technical issues one can discuss around any production. My feeling was the reaction was mostly to taste issues on Friday, but in any case 'technical' is an illusive term when it comes to stage direction.
Posted by: Kasper Holten | 20 May 2013 at 01:11 PM
PS! I can actually see it is maybe arrogant to assume that people boing do not like to be challenged, instead of just not liking the production. That is not my intention. But I do stand by my point of it being extremely important that we do continue to challenge audiences and ourselves.
Posted by: Kasper Holten | 20 May 2013 at 01:15 PM
What a relief to hear this. I already have my Santa Fe trip planned. Reading this review, I began to worry that this same production would cross the ocean. Straightforward is just fine for it's the first time I'll see this opera.
Posted by: Sheila | 20 May 2013 at 01:31 PM
Thanks for the review. We had almost the same cast here in Milan, but with Roberto Abbado in the pit. Spyres sang just one performance (Osborn the rest) and was surprisingly full-voiced and secure in a house which doesn't exactly give newcomers a warm hug as they come through the door.
It was exciting musically, but the production was just boring: columns and shiny costumes is about all I remember. More or less a concert version with costumes, so as you conclude "if you manage to snag a restricted-view ticket, count yourself lucky", I guess Covent Garden could have stuck with the Pasqual staging after all.
Posted by: Gramilano | 20 May 2013 at 02:28 PM
Many thanks for this informative reply.
I agree Written on Skin was a success although interesting that this was in a contemporary opera - perhaps because the audience have fewer expectations or are more accepting of adventurous staging in modern opera?
Either way, of course directors must continue to push the boundaries and take risks, but when the 'new' ideas used are becoming standard operatic tropes in themselves i.e. composers represented on stage, theatre within theatre etc, then that's not particularly challenging.
My problem with Donna was not that it was particularly challenging (gratuitous rape aside) but that it added nothing to the piece and actively obscured understanding of a work that hasn't been seen at ROH since 1985.
That said I'm looking forward to Don Giovanni and the other new productions next season, hoping for the elusive combination of sublime singing and engaging production.
Posted by: Siggy | 20 May 2013 at 02:41 PM
Understanding these arguments and how they link one with another is already "challenging" per se.
There's a risk of confusing "challenging" with whimsical and preposterous. Opera is already an art for minorities (sadly) that can't really afford a dwindling audience. ROH is capitalising on a brand built strenuously over decades and on a great roster of performers, but it is risking alienating its core (and wealthy) audience with these ENO-like productions. Unless Mr Holten is confident that the Munich model can apply to London.
And Onegin/Lago are just the begining. I live in hope to get to see those five major operas based on the work of the hipster philosopher Zizek. Cause that's not arrogant or anything.
Posted by: Andres | 20 May 2013 at 02:45 PM
The Written on Skin staging was successful not because the audience were more accommodating, but because it was lucid, imaginative and complemented the text and score - all attributes lacked by La donna del lago.
It's tempting to assume that modern stagings can only work with contemporary opera, and that older works 'need' a traditional approach. What all operas really need are good productions and a fresh approach.
Posted by: inter mezzo | 20 May 2013 at 02:51 PM
I don't think Inter Mezzo, in all her past informative postings, has ever said anything so sane and rational as the above utterance. No wonder her blog is so revered (and one which, obviously, the ROH monitors with the closest of interests).
Posted by: sub_opera | 20 May 2013 at 03:07 PM
It is certainly fallacious and borders on essentialism to state that the core (and wealthy) audience do not like and are alienated by innovative productions. It is also not true that opposition to such productions are confined to the wealthy patrons.
Besides, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the 'Munich model'. Would you care to elaborate? I don't see how Munich works in fundamentally different ways from the ROH.
Posted by: ZC | 20 May 2013 at 04:21 PM
The Bavarian company manages to attract audience and sponsors alike for productions that bring together the most starry performers alongside, on more than a few times, the most enfant terrible of directors - Covent Garden has the audience, the sponsors/money and the cast, but has not yet ventured into a similar regie trend of productions. Until, tentatively, now, which is something I welcome and I thank Mr Holten for. I wouldn't mind putting up with the somewhat failed attemps that we've had if, say, next year's Herheim or Guth are good. And after them please bring Bieito, Baumgartem and the rest. I'm as tired as the next of Zeffirellis old and modern (McVicar).
However, this "Challenging" label closely resembles those art students who dismiss any critique of their "installation" or "performance" on the basis that they are artists and know more than thou because they can namecheck and love to be different, alternative, provocative, subversive and whatnot. So this is where we are going: if you like the show, it's because the director is fantastic, a genius. If you don't, it's because the work is "challenging" and you didn't get it, not because the work per se is bad.
Posted by: Andres | 20 May 2013 at 05:37 PM
Good to see Kasper responding and having seen a few of his challenging productions in Copenhagen I am a big fan particularly of his feminist Ring! I also liked Onegin apart from the dopplegangers although they were less annoying in the tv transmission.
I have just returned from Lago and I thought it was a very silly production and as a Scot I found the portrayal of the highlanders insulting and certainly not in the text of Walter Scott nor his views on highlanders.Indeed it could be construed as racist towards Scots.Also if the idea of taking the characters from the museum and the text the least you could do is to respect the text and indulge in rape,pillage and disembowelling.Was it challenging? No more gratioutusly offensive!
However vocally it was wonderful Joyce, Juan and Daniella ( what a revelation!) were superb and the others good. I took a friend along who was a former opera singer and she is not a great Rossini fan but she was knocked out by the singing in particular Joyce's final aria she said " I have never heard better singing"!
As Tim Ashley of the Guardian says "its unmissable despite the staging"! So Kasper keep on challenging us but dont insult us!
Posted by: Hugh Kerr | 21 May 2013 at 12:32 AM
Whatever the ideaas of the production present.
Whatever the message of the production presents whether it is successful or unsuccessful is certainly if it is enlightening or even nutral or even offensive is a risk I like to take when going to the Opera .
However there is no excuse for a messy production with too much going on and this took one's mind off a beautifully sung performance.
Who were the two characters who wandered all over the stage , who were in the way and who sang occasionally ?
Mike Titchkin
Posted by: Michael Stern | 21 May 2013 at 09:20 AM
Does anybody know what encouraged Robin Leggate to come out of retirement for this role and production?
http://www.roh.org.uk/news/robin-leggates-last-performance-after-40-years-with-the-company
Posted by: Edward George | 21 May 2013 at 03:17 PM
Strong words. Holten can't be held responsible for productions commissioned before he arrived. Let's see what happens over the next few years; none of the productions you mention were predictable disappointments.
Posted by: John | 21 May 2013 at 03:40 PM
I think you mean the ones who should normally be Serano and Albina, very minor characters the latter being female, but in this production they represented Sir Walter Scott and Rossini respectively. But how was one supposed to know that?
Posted by: Miriam | 21 May 2013 at 04:11 PM
Hi Sheila:
When you come to Santa Fe you must take a backstage tour of the Opera. They are given on Monday to Friday at 9am ($10) and Saturdays from 8:30am with a light breakfast, a talk by one of the opera personnel, and a one-hour backstage tour (all free, courtesy of the Opera Guilds, of which I'm a Board member). Ask for the British guy and say hello, since I usually do the Saturday tours.
Posted by: John in Santa Fe, New Mexico | 21 May 2013 at 05:14 PM
The fact that he's on stage longer, and has more to do, than any of the actual principals?
Posted by: SJT | 22 May 2013 at 02:23 AM
The only 'challenge' presented by the ROH Donna del Lago was not to let this awful production spoil a beautiful Rossini opera brilliantly performed by both singers and orchestra.
Most of the horrors have been highlighted. I particuarly disliked the final scene. It was like a taxidermist's shop and distracted from JdD's wonderful 'Tanti Affetti'. And the claustrophobic sets lost the landscape element which is so much a part of the score.
Posted by: Louisa | 22 May 2013 at 12:12 PM
I think the idea of Scott and Rossini as characters, and the museum setting, could have worked but were executed badly. The production was stilted and clunky, and I agree that the molestation scene was offensive.
One of those strange evenings where so much was wrong but it was amongst my greatest opera experiences - the singing was incredible.
It could have been an homage to Spinal Tap, with characters stuck in pods and 'joke' scenery. As David St Hubbins said, "It's such a fine line between stupid and uh... clever".
Posted by: operagooner | 23 May 2013 at 08:51 AM
I agree with your first sentence. I think it would have been better if Scott and Rossini had been played by actors rather than trying to convert the characters of Serano and Albina into them, because it became rather confusing when they then had to sing as the usual characters.
Posted by: Miriam | 23 May 2013 at 02:07 PM
Last night was Colin Lee's first performance. More "Ecco ridente" than "Eccomi a voi" in places, but he might not be fully well. He certainly lacks Spyres's heft and lower register, and it's a pity he didn't bother with any of the trills, which Spyres managed well even with his bigger voice. Mariotti impresses more and more. It's rare to see a young (or any) conductor quite so clearly in complete control of his forces. He must be a dream to play for, the beat is so clear and you can see exactly what he wants.
I listened to a recording from the 1985 run at ROH, with von Stade, Horne and Merritt. Musically at least, we are far better served this time round in all the principal roles and with the conductor.
Posted by: regkarpf | 24 May 2013 at 11:04 AM
I attended the opening night too and didn't quite get the presence of Rossini and Scot as characters. The idea must have been "borrowed" from that inimitable old classic La Scala production of La Cenerentola, with the unforgettable Federica von Stade. Only thing is: Rossini's character had a reason for being present in that one: he was the Godfather! I don't get the point of his character being there in La Donna.
I belong to the younger part of the opera audience and am frankly tired of seeing "challenging" and "innovative" productions all the time. I ache to see something more classic and traditional, if only occasionally. The older audiences might have seen it all and want something new, but for those of us that are younger, not that affluent (and still regularly fork out £45 to sit very high up with the gods), the occasional traditional production WOULD actually, at the moment, feel quite innovative and blissfully challenging!
It would only be polite to occasionally be done the courtesy of being allowed to see a proper staging of something, without having to suffer directors' "challenging" ideas for every single production we attend.
Rossini offers himslef to classic stagings. He appreciated properly done things; didn't he create the "Tournedos Rossini" dish after all? Hardly nouvelle cuisine. He'd probably have flinched last Friday.
Oh, and if I was Scottish I'd have been very offended; besides, it is not like other soldiers all over the world, during any era, were more gentlemanly.
Best thing of the evening: discovering Barcelona! My mouth dropped open and I have not recovered from her brilliance yet.
Posted by: Seagirl | 27 May 2013 at 12:12 PM
Well pretty duff staging - although far more elaborate than I had expected.
Actually, it did not strike me as a particularly "producer" style opera - more an inept staging.
Overall musically - very very good.
Posted by: amac | 28 May 2013 at 10:13 AM
Yesterday's performance - Monday 27 May - was fantastic: Colin Lee gave JDF a run for his money, and JdiD and DB in superb voice. I can't quite understand the negative comments on the production - I didn't find it as bad as I was led to expect, though it is certainly confusing to have the opera being watched by an onstage audience. It is one of those dimly lit productions - I wonder what it looked like on the big screen.
Posted by: OperaBeginner | 28 May 2013 at 01:22 PM
I love opera and love to be challenged. But, I really hate to be re-traumatized! In the past, I was abused and raped, unfortunately (as well as very many other women who could also be opera lovers). Every time I see glorified sexual violence on a stage or on the screen, I feel re-victimized. It means that if I want to enjoy my favorite operas, it would be safer for me to just listen to them. But opera is supposed to be watched as well! Is it too much to ask directors and producers to avoid unnecessary violence in opera productions?
If I'd want to watch some gory scenes or porn, I would go to D-listed movies or XXX-rated media... Maybe, opera productions also should be rated?
Posted by: Natalia | 03 June 2013 at 04:06 AM
I went last night (4th June) and was totally enthused with the highest of quality singing I've ever heard. JDF and Colin Lee trading top Cs was incredible and the kilted man role of Malcom was a revelation. Well sung, Daniela! As for DiDonato, wow!
Now the production. The shock tactics were straight out of Game of Thrones (those who have seen it will know what I mean). The appearance of unbrellas alongside the cast members of Braveheart even more bizarre.
We are lucky to see/hear such great talents in London but not to be undermined by distracting and, frankly, absurd notions that all Scots are barbaric. Clearly some aren't!
Posted by: Peter Lewis | 05 June 2013 at 11:11 AM
The "challenge" was ignoring that the stage had been double booked with an unknown play. I was told - I couldn't have guessed - that the extra people on stage represented the writers. This shows the production team to be self obsessed, egotists. The only time I want to see the producers on stage is at the curtain call so that in this case I could have booed loudly.
Kasper Holton wrote: "The one thing they have in common is that I could never really foresee what the reaction would be." It's about time you listened to your customers. It's obvious to me.
I do not go to be "challenged", I go to be entertained. That doesn't mean I don't expect to make an effort. Before a performance I listen to the music several times and read the libretto in its native language and English translation.
I no more expect the story and setting to be messed with than the music. This is my preference for any work but is a heartfelt plea for works that come round every twenty years and we might get only one chance in a lifetime to experience.
I'm now fearing for Les Vêpres Siciliennes. Kasper, I challenge you to set it in Palermo in 1282.
Posted by: Giacomo | 10 June 2013 at 11:16 AM
Oh well, they can't all be winners. Even if the cod-scots nonsense was too embarrassing for a shortbread gift tin we still had impeccable singing to listen to. It was still less historically and culturally misguided than the confusion of Hebrew slaves with Holocaust victims in Nabucco.
I don't mind a bit of innovation but why don't directors trust the text? Why not direct something you don't feel needs to be 'fixed' to be relevant? If the piece doesn't work as written then it isn't as timeless as purported. Why not do something you can engage with? It reminds me of that early 90's craze for colourizing old B&W films as if their art wasn't the right art and had to be fixed.
Posted by: ScottA | 12 June 2013 at 02:31 PM