# Regietheater - good or bad?



## Cesare Impalatore (Apr 16, 2015)

Hey there fellow opera fans, what is your opinion on this controversial subject? How liberal are you when it comes to modernist staging styles? I have pretty mixed feelings on _Regietheater_, on the one hand I believe that creative reimagining of operas is needed to keep it interesting but there is always the danger of the whole thing going terribly wrong.

For example, I appreciated the mafia-drama atmosphere of this year's Salzburg version of Cavalleria Rusticana/Pagliacci with Jonas Kaufman as it was pretty fitting for the gritty verismo style of the operas (especially Cavalleria's rural, archaic Sicily). When it comes to something like Wagner, though, I can't help but find most modernist stagings hopelessly alienating, probably because Wagner intended his operas to be _Musikdrama_, the synthesis of music and theatre. Messing with the theatre side ruins the whole thing for me.


----------



## anmhe (Feb 10, 2015)

As long as the music is done right and the action doesn't make me react like Alex in Clockwork Orange (I'm looking at you, Deutsche Oper am Rhein), I'm totally open to new perspectives.

Good examples of stagings I like are a recent version of Falstaff that took place in the 1950's, and the 2009 Lohengrin at Bayreuth that was supposed to be a play for lab rats. Lohengrin was more of a headscratcher, though I enjoyed it more on the second or third viewing.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I hate it...........................


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

anmhe said:


> As long as the music is done right and the action doesn't make me react like Alex in Clockwork Orange (I'm looking at you, Deutsche Oper am Rhein), I'm totally open to new perspectives.
> 
> Good examples of stagings I like are a recent version of Falstaff that took place in the 1950's, and the 2009 Lohengrin at Bayreuth that was supposed to be a play for lab rats. *Lohengrin was more of a headscratcher, though I enjoyed it more on the second or third viewing.*


Most people don't get a second or third viewing. Subjecting them to a stageful of rat costumes in place of Wagner's Romantic legend just leaves them scratching their heads forever. And why would anyone want a second or third viewing of something inherently ludicrous?

Regietheater is based - no, rationalized - on the assumption that great works of art are incapable of making their own points and need to be "explained" ("see, Brabant is a regimented, conformist society, so we'll dress everyone like a pack of rats. _Get it???"_ - nudge, nudge, wink, wink). Of course the visual "explanations" then need to be explained, and the servile critics oblige.

At best such productions condescend to the intelligence of viewers and listeners. At worst they merely insult it.

If an opera is any good - if it's action, libretto, and music have any significance beyond shallow entertainment - a real director will find creative ways to convey it without violating the aesthetic integrity of the work.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Itullian said:


> I hate it...........................


Me too with capitals written .


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Regietheater is awesome. A1 sauce from me.


----------



## anmhe (Feb 10, 2015)

@Woodduck:
I watched that particular production of Lohengrin on YouTube, so it was easy for me (or anyone with an Internet connection) to view it multiple times. We'll just have to agree to disagree on everything else.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

To clarify my position, I really enjoy Regietheater or Regietheatre because it involves the production team being creative and doing a new synthesis for the original work in question. Consider it similar to the idea of the remix for popular music.  Often the results are glorious and even better than the original work in question.

Lohengrin and Neuenfels is incredible:


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Itullian said:


> I hate it...........................


Some seem to work and others don't. I hate it when they change the story and you end up with a libretto which doesn't make any sense.

I liked the Falstaff set in the 1950s but the Jenůfa I saw in Zurich a couple of years ago was dreadful. Instead of the Kostelnička taking the baby and burying him in the snow (on Jenůfa's wedding day, snow melts, people find baby with red hat etc), the Kostelnička takes the baby and leaves him in an attic to presumably starve to death. The chorus sing the words but the storyline of the crowd finding the preserved body of the baby when the snow melts doesn't make sense.

Against Modern Opera Productions


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

To me it's all about shocking or grossing out the audience.
And more about the director than composer.

They look like they come from sick minds that hate beauty or anything uplifting or inspiring.


----------



## Cesare Impalatore (Apr 16, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> If an opera is any good - if it's action, libretto, and music have any significance beyond shallow entertainment - a real director will find creative ways to convey it without violating the aesthetic integrity of the work.


Agreed. I was pleasantly surprised by a Carmen production that I've seen last winter at the Deutsche Oper am Rhein with Ramona Zaharia in the title role. The core story and atmosphere of the opera were spot on but the director added several interesting details, for example in the fourth act Don José appears as the guy who carries away the remains of the dead bulls out of the arena in a little wagon. I really liked the idea because it further emphasized the humiliation and downfall of José compared to Escamillo and it was a pretty effective way of denouncing the animal cruelty in bullfighting as well.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

The war horses are performed every second season here, so we need different ideas too stay interested. What many directors forget is the audience wants to see a spectacle (no empty stage, please) and the ensemble shouldn't be dressed like fools unless they are actually playing a fool.

I'm happy with almost anything that doesn't involve those 19th century dresses (basically, anything Renee Fleming wears).
Historically accurate? Perhaps. Boring and unattractive? Definately.


----------



## anmhe (Feb 10, 2015)

thank you for correcting the date, Albert7. It was 2011, not 2009. Also, I'm glad you liked it, too.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Regietheater assumes that the score, and only the score (including the words which are sung), is the opera - that in an opera only the score has integrity and should be presented (more or less) intact. This would have come as quite a surprise to the composers, who for some reason imagined that they were setting specific stories to music, music which they contrived specifically to express the emotions and meanings embodied in those stories.

If a director wishes to tell a story which differs in some significant way from the one set by the composer, he should find a composer and commission a new work to tell that story. If he wants to tell a story involving prostitutes who live on a hydroelectric dam, he should not use the music of Wagner and call his new work _Das Rheingold_. Altering Wagner's music would not be any worse a violation of the opera by that name.

When I go to see an opera, I go to see the opera which has been advertised. If I see something created by a director who thinks that the opera's creators didn't know what it was really about but that he, a postmodern genius of superior insight, does, I will have been duped and should be able to sue the theater for false advertising.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

That is ironic for my tastes. When I see an opera I want to see something new and creative and perhaps even off the wall. If I wanted to see the same old production then I can download off iTunes or buy the DVD instead. For me, a lot of traditional productions are generally the lazy way out or the fact that they wanted to dig up the props from 30 years ago out of their closet.

For me, historical accuracy isn't that important at all. If I wanted that, I would have no qualms about reading Toynbee's history of the world again. I go to operas to escape the humdrum of daily life.



Woodduck said:


> Regietheater assumes that the score, and only the score (including the words which are sung), is the opera - that in an opera only the score has integrity and should be presented (more or less) intact. This would have come as quite a surprise to the composers, who for some reason imagined that they were setting specific stories to music, music which they contrived specifically to express the emotions and meanings embodied in those stories.
> 
> If a director wishes to tell a story which differs in some significant way from the one set by the composer, he should find a composer and commission a new work to tell that story. If he wants to tell a story involving prostitutes who live on a hydroelectric dam, he should not use the music of Wagner and call his new work _Das Rheingold_. Altering Wagner's music would not be any worse a violation of the opera by that name.
> 
> When I go to see an opera, I go to see the opera which has been advertised. If I see something created by a director who thinks that the opera's creators didn't know what it was really about but that he, a postmodern genius of superior insight, does, I will have been duped and should be able to sue the theater for false advertising.


----------



## Retired (Feb 15, 2015)

> I really enjoy Regietheater or Regietheatre because it involves the production team being creative and doing a new synthesis for the original work in question


I think its time to put a tattoo on the Mona Lisa's neck and make that old girl relevant...park a Harley in the background...


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Retired said:


> I think its time to put a tattoo on the Mona Lisa's neck and make that old girl relevant...park a Harley in the background...


I actually prefer the Duchamp remix of Mona Lisa over the original version to be honest.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Albert7 said:


> That is ironic for my tastes. When I see an opera I want to see something new and creative and perhaps even off the wall. If I wanted to see the same old production then I can download off iTunes or buy the DVD instead. For me, a lot of traditional productions are generally the lazy way out or the fact that they wanted to dig up the props from 30 years ago out of their closet.
> 
> For me, historical accuracy isn't that important at all. If I wanted that, I would have no qualms about reading Toynbee's history of the world again. I go to operas to escape the humdrum of daily life.


You appear to be saying that it is legitimate to present any work of art in any manner whatsoever, regardless of the artist's intentions. Would you say this if the composers were still living?

Why are lazy, traditional productions with 30-year-old props the only alternative you can think of to rat-infested _Lohengrins_?

That shows an amazing poverty of imagination and, more fundamentally, an inability to love works of art for what they actually are.

Those who don't like what Wagner had to say should go write their own operas, not parasitize those of the past. But I guess that's too hard an assignment. Easier to make money off composers who are no longer around to object.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Most people don't get a second or third viewing. Subjecting them to a stageful of rat costumes in place of Wagner's Romantic legend just leaves them scratching their heads forever. And why would anyone want a second or third viewing of something inherently ludicrous?


People will want a second and third viewing of something like the Neuenfels _Lohengrin_ because it is dramatically compelling. Because it is tied to the music and engaging. I'd much rather watch that than only stick to performances (strawman coming!) with everybody in wigs standing around.



Woodduck said:


> Regietheater is based - no, rationalized - on the assumption that great works of art are incapable of making their own points and need to be "explained" ("see, Brabant is a regimented, conformist society, so we'll dress everyone like a pack of rats. _Get it???"_ - nudge, nudge, wink, wink). Of course the visual "explanations" then need to be explained, and the servile critics oblige.
> 
> At best such productions condescend to the intelligence of viewers and listeners. At worst they merely insult it.


In your first paragraph your complaint was that the problem was the productions were not comprehensible upon first viewing. Now the problem is that they're too simple and straightforward?

My take is more that just as it is wonderful - even essential! - to have many different CD recordings of a piece it it is wonderful to have many different stagings of a piece. And that (strawman alert!) museum recreations are only one approach. And that almost every performance is going to be flawed in some way and I'd prefer to focus on what works.

Non-literal, heavily symbolic productions seem only natural for such a rich art form, well fit with the detailed orchestration and the breadth of emotion expressed by trained voices. None of these are direct or clear methods of distilling plot, but all have plenty of room for feelings and motivations.



Woodduck said:


> If an opera is any good - if it's action, libretto, and music have any significance beyond shallow entertainment - a real director will find creative ways to convey it without violating the aesthetic integrity of the work.


If an opera is any good it has far more to convey than can be conveyed in a single production. If an opera is any good it will work when viewed from different angles.

Though I agree that a good director needs to pay attention to the aesthetic integrity of the work, even if I am using a looser definition. There are certainly productions that are not sensitive to the score and do not pay attention to the emotional landscape of the work. And there are plenty of productions that (say) change the time period but this only means different costumes and sets, there's no modified take on characterization or personregie.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

Albert7 said:


> I go to operas to escape the humdrum of daily life.


I go to the opera to enjoy myself. If you consider your daily life to be something you need to escape from, I would say the fault doesn't lie with opera.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> You appear to be saying that it is legitimate to present any work of art in any manner whatsoever, regardless of the artist's intentions. Would you say this if the composers were still living?
> 
> Why are lazy, traditional productions with 30-year-old props the only alternative you can think of to rat-infested _Lohengrins_?
> 
> ...


Yes, I strongly believe that it is legitimate to present the artwork regardless of what the original intention of the artist is. In fact, having worked in the visual arts area for many years, this is the same approach when you are curating a group show together. Every single work entered into the exhibition is ripped out of context and then re-contextualized. For example, the Whitney Biennial is all about rewriting the way that visual artworks are examined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Biennial

Here is an example of a group show that combines artists from all different backgrounds to make a new vision.

http://www.gagosian.com/exhibitions/chromophobia--january-27-2015

So if the contemporary visual art scene is that innovative, why not apply the same concept over to operas?

Thus Regietheater is born. Put it this way, if you don't like the historical rewriting of good ole classics, then you don't have to attend it.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

That's a straw man.
There are ways to be "different" and still respect the work.
These things are bad cartoons.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Albert7 said:


> Put it this way, if you don't like the historical rewriting of good ole classics, then you don't have to attend it.


The trouble is, almost every production in Germany is now 'regie' so if you don't like it you won't see any live opera. The houses are well attended because it's either that or nothing. I have two German opera friends and they both hate 'regie' with a passion and often go to the opera and sit with their eyes closed. They come to Covent Garden as often as they can because they like the more traditional productions.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

sospiro said:


> The trouble is, almost every production in Germany is now 'regie' so if you don't like it you won't see any live opera. The houses are well attended because it's either that or nothing. I have two German opera friends and they both hate 'regie' with a passion and often go to the opera and sit with their eyes closed. They come to Covent Garden as often as they can because they like the more traditional productions.


It is the same in Scandinavia too.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Albert7 said:


> Yes, I strongly believe that it is legitimate to present the artwork regardless of what the original intention of the artist is. In fact, having worked in the visual arts area for many years, this is the same approach when you are curating a group show together. Every single work entered into the exhibition is ripped out of context and then re-contextualized. For example, the Whitney Biennial is all about rewriting the way that visual artworks are examined.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Biennial
> 
> ...


What does the way that multiple artworks are displayed have to do with the presentation of an opera? Using that analogy then an opera house should have multiple stages with Trovatore on one, Rheingold on another and Peter Grimes on the third, all playing simultaneously.


----------



## Retired (Feb 15, 2015)

We can probably agree that some changes have been positive. I doubt anyone could look at a Brünhilde in horns and brass cups and keep a straight face. But let's not kid ourselves that a large part of the ridiculous rediscovery antics is being driven by directors who feel pressured to make a "splash"...a new sensation...which means that he/she makes the artistic "news cycle". I remember being told by a young German director that he didn't want to work with any artist over 40 because they were too traditional. I would have been glad to oblige but I was under contract.

We desperately need new works that an audience can grasp at every level...works that can become main stream...not many make it, often because they are not accessible to a broad audience....and because "Carmen" on roller skates is safer.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Becca said:


> What does the way that multiple artworks are displayed have to do with the presentation of an opera? Using that analogy then an opera house should have multiple stages with Trovatore on one, Rheingold on another and Peter Grimes on the third, all playing simultaneously.


I think you may be taking the analogy too literally. It seems to bring up a good question: for (say) a painting, what are the vital parts of the work? The paint (etc.) on a canvas (or whatever), certainly. But is the specific frame vital? What about the room in which it is originally displayed? The other paintings it was originally displayed with? These generally were not thoughtless decisions (though in some cases they were).

Curators will put a lot of thought into designing a wing or a show. And recreating how each piece was originally displayed is of low or no importance.

It's an imperfect analogy (aren't they all?) but I find it illuminating.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Becca said:


> What does the way that multiple artworks are displayed have to do with the presentation of an opera? Using that analogy then an opera house should have multiple stages with Trovatore on one, Rheingold on another and Peter Grimes on the third, all playing simultaneously.


My argument wasn't about the anthology format of a bunch of operas strung together like say, in the format of a concert. Although one can argue that any orchestral concert is always a recontextualization of the original work... say, a Bartok piece follows a Mozart piece which follows a John Adams.

Any time an opera is performed again and again, that is a form of rewriting honestly. Here one can argue as Barthes said:

"Once the Author is gone, the claim to "decipher" a text becomes quite useless. To give
an Author to a text is to impose upon that text a stop clause, to furnish it with a final
signification, to close the writing. This conception perfectly suits criticism, which
can then take as its major task the discovery of the Author (or his hypostases: society,
history, the psyche, freedom) beneath the work: once the Author is discovered, the
text is "explained:' the critic has conquered; hence it is scarcely surprising not only
that, historically, the reign of the Author should also have been that of the Critic, but
that criticism (even "new criticism") should be overthrown along with the Author."

Basically the composer is a recreation from the listener's stance which does not match with the historical figure necessarily. In fact, there is really no such thing as a composer's intent that is objective because it's all a historical construct. We at best have to fictionalize what the composer intended anyways.

This means that the producer has carte blanche to do the opera pretty much any way that he or she prefers because the opera is an open-ended text/music/word/drama configuration. It's like a bunch of Legos from which any number of structures can be delved into.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Albert7 said:


> Basically the composer is a recreation from the listener's stance which does not match with the historical figure necessarily. In fact, there is really no such thing as a composer's intent that is objective because it's all a historical construct. We at best have to fictionalize what the composer intended anyways.
> 
> This means that the producer has carte blanche to do the opera pretty much any way that he or she prefers because the opera is an open-ended text/music/word/drama configuration. It's like a bunch of Legos from which any number of structures can be delved into.


That is a really far-fetched conclusion and one that is based on rather dubious foundations. First of all the score and libretto with all of the composer's and librettist's annotations are facts and not constructs. Furthermore in many cases we have various contemporaneous documents from the composer, librettist and others associated with the work, are we to deny them any validity? Lastly I am quite amazed at how you can extrapolate from the vagueries of historical record to an assertion that a producer has carte blanche. To describe any work such as an opera as a bunch of Legos is, in my opinion, quite ludicrous.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Albert7 said:


> My argument wasn't about the anthology format of a bunch of operas strung together like say, in the format of a concert. Although one can argue that any orchestral concert is always a recontextualization of the original work... say, a Bartok piece follows a Mozart piece which follows a John Adams.
> 
> Any time an opera is performed again and again, that is a form of rewriting honestly. Here one can argue as Barthes said:
> 
> ...


Oh dear heaven. Barthes again. _Where_ would we be without Barthes? I'll tell you where _I_ would be... Oh, never mind. Where I am right _now_ is wading through a swamp of postmodern cliches that seemingly has no beginning or end. But let me begin with the conclusion - _your_ conclusion, as you put it in your previous post: _"Yes, I strongly believe that it is legitimate to present the artwork [in any manner we wish] regardless of what the original intention of the artist is."_

Why not be completely honest and simply say that you have no respect for the creator of an artwork and that he can just take his convictions and ideals and intentions and put them you-know-where? That's all Barf-ous is ultimately doing in those senile dribblings of "nothing-is-really-anything-because-nobody-really-knows-anything-so-just-blow-up-the-world" that he calls a philosophy. To say that we cannot know exactly what was in the mind of a composer and that every performance of a work is an interpretation (both true), and that _therefore_ any treatment of it is as valid as any other (absurdly false), doesn't even _approach_ the temple of rationality, much less cross over the threshold.

I'm sure that Wagner and Verdi would be thrilled to know that they, the composers, were now nothing more than "recreations," and that their lovingly crafted music dramas were considered by us to be "open-ended" piles of Legos. My fondest impossible wish is that they could come back and sue the pants off the people who make it their job to "deconstruct" their operas. On the other hand, I wouldn't want them to have to experience the pain, not only of seeing what's being done to them, but of realizing that the art form they practiced with such devotion has fallen into such a perilous state that producers have to resort to parasitizing works of the past in order to pull in an audience big enough to pay for their degenerate conceits.

Wagner liked to say "Make new things!" He meant by that that every era must create its own art. He did not mean that the art of the past should be taken hostage by postmodern fundamentalists and forced to declare its loyalty to their terrorist regime.


----------



## Loge (Oct 30, 2014)

Only if it works....


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Loge said:


> Only if it works....


At least that makes sense. He is a hunter and needs to use camouglage to hide himself.
But I think he should need a pair of shoes to make easier to go around in the forrest.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Oh dear heaven. Barthes again. _Where_ would we be without Barthes? I'll tell you where _I_ would be... Oh, never mind. Where I am right _now_ is wading through a swamp of postmodern cliches that seemingly has no beginning or end. But let me begin with the conclusion - _your_ conclusion, as you put it in your previous post: _"Yes, I strongly believe that it is legitimate to present the artwork [in any manner we wish] regardless of what the original intention of the artist is."_
> 
> Why not be completely honest and simply say that you have no respect for the creator of an artwork and that he can just take his convictions and ideals and intentions and put them you-know-where? That's all Barf-ous is ultimately doing in those senile dribblings of "nothing-is-really-anything-because-nobody-really-knows-anything-so-just-blow-up-the-world" that he calls a philosophy. To say that we cannot know exactly what was in the mind of a composer and that every performance of a work is an interpretation (both true), and that _therefore_ any treatment of it is as valid as any other (absurdly false), doesn't even _approach_ the temple of rationality, much less cross over the threshold.
> 
> ...


Why is it disrespectful to the artist to change their works, even radically? Seems to me that it hurts no one, and that the original work is unharmed, so it's entirely victimless. People are probably more likely to alter works of artists they already respect, anyway. I'm sure some of these dead artists, if they knew, certainly _would_ be upset, but I would think them rather silly for being so. Art of all kinds is wonderful, and some humans have dedicated their lives creating wonderful stuff for us to enjoy.. But I don't see these things as being on a pedestal above other mundane ideas and creations. I respect many composers greatly because of the gifts they've given us, but I owe nothing to their pieces themselves; the pieces will not be offended.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Dedalus said:


> Why is it disrespectful to the artist to change their works, even radically? Seems to me that it hurts no one, and that the original work is unharmed, so it's entirely victimless.


It hurts the audience.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Sloe said:


> It hurts the audience.


Again, it doesn't hurt the audience. Attending any production in opera is an optional cultural activity. One does not have to make it a life or death situation LOL.

Taking an operatic production personally conflicts with the intellectual analysis of the production. Rather than asking what in the heck is going on the question I would like to ask... what can I derive from the production which is challenging and meaningful rather than being negative and dismissive.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Albert7 said:


> Again, it doesn't hurt the audience. Attending any production in opera is an optional cultural activity. One does not have to make it a life or death situation LOL.


Since nearly every opera production in many countries are Regie productions it means to not go and see the operas at all. It means if you do not want to see Lohengrin with rats you will never see Lohengrin. If you don´t want to see Carmen among campers in the 1960s you will never see Carmen. If you don´t want to see Aida in burqa you will never see Aida.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Sloe said:


> Since nearly every opera production in many countries are Regie productions it means to not go and see the operas at all. It means if you do not want to see Lohengrin with rats you will never see Lohengrin. If you don´t want to see Carmen among campers in the 1960s you will never see Carmen. If you don´t want to see Aida in burka you will never see Aida.


I don't think that America does many Regie productions honestly. Perhaps I need to move to Europe because I feel like I'm missing out.

Of course, the Met is pretty conservative so for traditionalists you can always buy their DVD/Blu-rays or download their releases off iTunes.

Maybe we need to switch... our country will give the Europeans our more traditional fare and we get all of those Regie ones ... a good Faustian bargain.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Sloe said:


> Since nearly every opera production in many countries are Regie productions it means to not go and see the operas at all. It means if you do not want to see Lohengrin with rats you will never see Lohengrin. If you don´t want to see Carmen among campers in the 1960s you will never see Carmen. If you don´t want to see Aida in burqa you will never see Aida.


This is a complaint about people and about the opera culture in your area, not about works being altered.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Dedalus said:


> This is a complaint about people and about the opera culture in your area, not about works being altered.


My answer was to Alberts claim that if you don´t like it don´t go and see were I said if there are no alternatives the option is to see the distorted versions of the works or never see the works at all.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Albert7 said:


> I don't think that America does many Regie productions honestly. Perhaps I need to move to Europe because I feel like I'm missing out.
> 
> Of course, the Met is pretty conservative so for traditionalists you can always buy their DVD/Blu-rays or download their releases off iTunes.
> 
> Maybe we need to switch... our country will give the Europeans our more traditional fare and we get all of those Regie ones ... a good Faustian bargain.


Which European 'regie' productions have you seen?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dedalus said:


> Why is it disrespectful to the artist to change their works, even radically? Seems to me that it hurts no one, and that the original work is unharmed, so it's entirely victimless. People are probably more likely to alter works of artists they already respect, anyway. I'm sure some of these dead artists, if they knew, certainly _would_ be upset, but I would think them rather silly for being so. Art of all kinds is wonderful, and some humans have dedicated their lives creating wonderful stuff for us to enjoy.. But I don't see these things as being on a pedestal above other mundane ideas and creations. I respect many composers greatly because of the gifts they've given us, but I owe nothing to their pieces themselves; the pieces will not be offended.


It is helpful to know that operas, having no consciousness, cannot be offended. I didn't know that. 

Audiences who pay to experience particular operas by particular composers can be offended when presented with bizarre and irrelevant experiments in exchange for their hard-earned dollars.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Albert7 said:


> Again, it doesn't hurt the audience. Attending any production in opera is an optional cultural activity. One does not have to make it a life or death situation LOL.
> 
> Taking an operatic production personally conflicts with the intellectual analysis of the production. Rather than asking what in the heck is going on the question I would like to ask... what can I derive from the production which is challenging and meaningful rather than being negative and dismissive.


Of course it hurts the audience. They pay to see an opera but see some bizarre representation by an untalented idiot who apparently has gone out of his way to offend the very people who are paying for it. Wherelse do the paying patrons get their intelligence insulted?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> People will want a second and third viewing of something like the Neuenfels _Lohengrin_ because it is dramatically compelling. Because it is tied to the music and engaging. I'd much rather watch that than only stick to performances (strawman coming!) with everybody in wigs standing around.
> 
> Non-literal, heavily symbolic productions seem only natural for such a rich art form, well fit with the detailed orchestration and the breadth of emotion expressed by trained voices.


I watched the Neuenfels _Lohengrin_ on YouTube - as much of it as I could tolerate. It begins with Wagner's sublime prelude being rushed through insensitively by the conductor, presumably so that we won't have our expected experience of it's ethereal mystery and majesty utterly destroyed by an animated cartoon of a pink rat emerging from a human head and joining a pack of rats in some kind of pantomime involving a crown and the pink rat getting killed by a white one. Still to the music of the prelude we see an actual guy in a business shirt and tie who is pushing strenuously at the back wall of the stage set. The wall has holes in it like a hunk of Swiss cheese and he pushes until he gets tired, whereupon a door opens in the wall and he steps through it backwards into a bright light, the door closes, and the characters for the first act filter into a huge, bleak concrete hall (indoors, no river Scheldt). Most of them are in goofy black rat costumes; the herald is wearing a tux and some kind of Frankensteinian afro. King Henry seems to be holding a couple of apples. While he speaks one rat has a screaming fit and is hurried offstage by some figures in baby blue pajamas. Telramund's accusation against Elsa is accompanied on a screen behind him by the rat animation we saw during the prelude, suggesting that Elsa is the white rat in the cartoon and Gottfried is the pink one. When Elsa enters she's dressed in a modern white suit that has arrows sticking out all over it, and she's followed by three rats with bows and arrows aimed at her. As everyone awaits the arrival of Lohengrin a lot of white rats enter to join the black ones. When he is sighted the rats start removing their rat costumes right onstage, revealing bright yellow tuxedos, though they keep their rat heads. Lohengrin - the guy from the prelude in business shirt and tie - finally arrives through the door in the rear, followed by a couple of figures dressed in black sacks, carrying a stuffed swan over their heads.

I'll stop now. It's really just too beautiful and my emotions are getting to me. If you're curious, watch it yourself: 




Obviously this is all deeply, deeply (and did I mention deeply?) symbolic, and tells us _so_ much about the opera we could never have figured out for ourselves. Even Wagner couldn't have figured it out. Pity he can't come back and learn what real art looks like. He did love animals, so maybe he'd find big funny rodents to be the rat's pajamas.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

You either laugh or cry , I guess. ^^^^^^


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> You either laugh or cry , I guess. ^^^^^^


I laughed. No point in getting all teary and wetting my pillow case, or all agitated and wetting my baby blue rat pajamas.

Good night.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Regietheater - good or bad?
I can't answer that question. I don't have the experience. All I know is that I'd hate to be forced to watch flippancy, ugliness, and inconsequentiality when I could be watching something of beauty that will connect me to the vision of a master long dead and with all the other people who've enjoyed his vision. Something put on with conviction and sincerity, not with postmodern irony, cynicism, and the wish to strut.
It would just be a waste of my time.

I've glanced at a few regie productions on YouTube, and quickly switched them off again, so I have no direct experience; but I've seen more than a few tendentious Shakespeare plays in my time, and so I would never choose to go to a Regietheater production - even if they gave me free tickets.

And luckily, living in the UK, I don't have to go to regietheater productions as my only chance to see operas.
It sounds rather as if, on the continent, regie has become conventional, which seems somewhat laughable.

As far as the theoretical underpinnings (& the practical examples) are concerned, I couldn't put it any better than Woodduck. :tiphat:

Albert, didn't I read on a thread somewhere a post of yours that said you enjoyed *any* music, even that of a clog beating on a floor (or something similar)? 
So is your support for regietheater based on your own taste, or on a conviction that if it's modern and fashionable, it must be good?


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> Regietheater - good or bad?
> I can't answer that question. I don't have the experience. All I know is that I'd hate to be forced to watch flippancy, ugliness, and inconsequentiality when I could be watching something of beauty that will connect me to the vision of a master long dead and with all the other people who've enjoyed his vision. Something put on with conviction and sincerity, not with postmodern irony, cynicism, and the wish to strut.
> It would just be a waste of my time.


Amen! About a year ago, we had the pleasure of having the Globe Theatre come to town to perform Hamlet as part of a global tour. It was completely genuine. Not even microphones were used in the theatre. I shudder to think of this work being bastardized.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Kivimees said:


> Amen! About a year ago, we had the pleasure of having the Globe Theatre come to town to perform Hamlet as part of a global tour. It was completely genuine. Not even microphones were used in the theatre. I shudder to think of this work being bastardized.


That must have been wonderful!


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

sospiro said:


> That must have been wonderful!


It was. Although it wasn't completely genuine after all - there were female actors as well. :lol:


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> ... It sounds rather as if, on the continent, regie has become conventional, which seems somewhat laughable.


I think Italian houses have so far stayed with traditional productions but maybe our Italian forum members could confirm?

I can't think that the _loggionisti_ would approve of 'regie'.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Kivimees said:


> It was. Although it wasn't completely genuine after all - there were female actors as well. :lol:


Quelle horreur!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Kivimees said:


> It was. Although it wasn't completely genuine after all - there were female actors as well. :lol:


You mean actresses?


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

Itullian said:


> You mean actresses?


It's my understanding that such terms aren't used in English very much anymore.

So to be correct: There were female actresses as well.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Kivimees said:


> It's my understanding that such terms aren't used in English very much anymore.
> 
> So to be correct: There were female actresses as well.


In modern opera stagings there can be male actresses too:






That guy in the black dress (Erwin Schrott?) looks much nicer in female drag than any man has a right to! :lol:


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

sospiro said:


> I think Italian houses have so far stayed with traditional productions but maybe our Italian forum members could confirm?
> 
> I can't think that the _loggionisti_ would approve of 'regie'.


There are lots of non traditional productions in Italy.

Madama Butterfly in Turin:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> In modern opera stagings there can be male actresses too:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is apparently not supposed to be a parody. Maybe I don't know something I should know about this opera?

BTW, Bryan Hymel is a pretty fine tenor.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Sloe said:


> There are lots of non traditional productions in Italy.
> 
> Madama Butterfly in Turin:


Thanks for those!


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> This is apparently not supposed to be a parody. Maybe I don't know something I should know about this opera?
> 
> BTW, Bryan Hymel is a pretty fine tenor.


He's the best thing around by far these days, no contest- good looking too. (And thankfully not required to cross dress in the above clip, unlike poor Schrott.) That video popped up recently in my YouTube feed after I'd been listening to Hymel's Heroïque album, which is pretty good in places, and certainly better than I would have expected to hear in 2015: is it silly that in that long-neglected repertoire I can't help contrasting him unfavourably with tenors at least 100 years his senior?


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

Many times, I've traveled to attend an opera performance when one or more of my favorite singers was/were in the cast. I can't imagine traveling anywhere to attend an opera because it was being directed by a certain person. (Might travel to get away from some directors, though . . . :lol: )


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Figleaf said:


> In modern opera stagings there can be male actresses too:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh brother 
Well, at least it's only a French opera


----------



## jflatter (Mar 31, 2010)

When John Tomlinson was asked about this topic he said that there's good and bad traditional productions as well as good and bad modern productions. The Herheim Parsifal was an astonishing modern take on the piece. Claus Guth's production of Die Frau onhe Schatten was one of the best things I have seen in a theatre. However some like Kusej's Idomeneo have been awful. Whilst the production of Turandot at ROH is traditional but still packs a punch. So I think it's a bit of the luck of the draw.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

jflatter said:


> When John Tomlinson was asked about this topic he said that there's good and bad traditional productions as well as good and bad modern productions. The Herheim Parsifal was an astonishing modern take on the piece. Claus Guth's production of Die Frau onhe Schatten was one of the best things I have seen in a theatre. However some like Kusej's Idomeneo have been awful. Whilst the production of Turandot at ROH is traditional but still packs a punch. So I think it's a bit of the luck of the draw.


Amen... both traditional and postmodern productions can be hit and miss. It depends on the quality of the thought process behind it. You can't just jam random stuff and hope for the best. Even the most postmodern requires some forethought before the delivery.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

This sort of nonsense - i.e. the rats-infested Lohengrin - will continue as long as the paying audience and / or the government who subsidises it is willing to put up with such nonsense. If everyone demanded their money back at the end of that lamentable travesty, threatening to sue the management as they had booked to see Wagner's Lohengrin, not some idiot's lunatic take on it, then wouldn't it send a message? When my wife orders baked beans from the supermarket and they send her tins of peas then she does the sensible thing and demands her money back. Oh that opera audiences would take such simple steps!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

DavidA said:


> This sort of nonsense - i.e. the rats-infested Lohengrin - will continue as long as the paying audience and / or the government who subsidises it is willing to put up with such nonsense. If everyone demanded their money back at the end of that lamentable travesty, threatening to sue the management as they had booked to see Wagner's Lohengrin, not some idiot's lunatic take on it, then wouldn't it send a message? When my wife orders baked beans from the supermarket and they send her tins of peas then she does the sensible thing and demands her money back. Oh that opera audiences would take such simple steps!


Dammit, rats. I vant me some rats in Lohengrin, then Tristan .

On a serious note, the Opus Arte DVD has a wonderful bonus tracks where Neuenfels explains why he used the rat symbolism in the opera. It's rather enlightening.

Before we rush to judgment like rats to the sewer, perhaps we should examine the bonus tracks on the opera DVD's and see why the producer did what he/she did before criticizing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Albert7 said:


> Dammit, rats. I vant me some rats in Lohengrin, then Tristan .
> 
> On a serious note, the Opus Arte DVD has a wonderful bonus tracks where Neuenfels explains why he used the rat symbolism in the opera. It's rather enlightening.
> 
> Before we rush to judgment like rats to the sewer, perhaps we should examine the bonus tracks on the opera DVD's and see why the producer did what he/she did before criticizing.


Hmmmm. Wasn't it your boy Barthes who said that it's only the text and the reader that matter, and that the author's intentions are irrelevant? Or is that only true once the author is dead? Oh, I forgot: according to Barthes, he's dead already.

In the dessicated spirit of postmodernism, I say "Let vermin speak for themselves."


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Hmmmm. Wasn't it your boy Barthes who said that it's only the text and the reader that matter, and that the author's intentions are irrelevant? Or is that only true once the author is dead? Oh, I forgot: according to Barthes, he's dead already.
> 
> In the dessicated spirit of postmodernism, I say "Let vermin speak for themselves."


Indeed  Indeed 

Still to be open to all types of possible readings would be an ideal thing.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I


Albert7 said:


> Dammit, rats. I vant me some rats in Lohengrin, then Tristan .
> 
> On a serious note, the Opus Arte DVD has a wonderful bonus tracks where Neuenfels explains why he used the rat symbolism in the opera. It's rather enlightening.
> 
> Before we rush to judgment like rats to the sewer, perhaps we should examine the bonus tracks on the opera DVD's and see why the producer did what he/she did before criticizing.


These producers count the n their audiences being gullible to swallow the daft nonsense they come out with. Like the Emporer's new clothes. Cynics like me realise the king is in the altogether!


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I
> 
> These producers count the n their audiences being gullible to swallow the daft nonsense they come out with. Like the Emporer's new clothes. Cynics like me realise the king is in the altogether!


Actually, DavidA, I'm pretty sure that the naked actors in regietheater productions _know_ that they're naked.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> Actually, DavidA, I'm pretty sure that the naked actors in regietheater productions _know_ that they're naked.


Thanks for stating the obvious. In case you don't know the Emperor's New Clothes is not meant as a literal comparison.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Calixto Bieito coming to the Met.

Will be interesting to see what he does with _La forza del destino_ and what sort of reception he gets.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Due to the negative reaction to Regietheater here in this thread, it is time for me to post a fine example of it now.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Albert7 said:


> Due to the negative reaction to Regietheater here in this thread, it is time for me to post a fine example of it now.


It is not the kind of opera I personally prefer anyway.
But it is not a good example at all.
The opera is very seldom performed which takes away the opportunity for those who wants to see it to really see it. It would have been better with a concert version here it is like they spit the audience in the face.
The opera is based on Roman mythology and I beleive that the stagings at least somewhat should reflect what the opera is about. At least the king in Rat Lohengrin had a crown.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Sloe said:


> It is not the kind of opera I personally prefer anyway.
> But it is not a good example at all.
> The opera is very seldom performed which takes away the opportunity for those who wants to see it to really see it. It would have been better with a concert version here it is like they spit the audience in the face.
> The opera is based on Roman mythology and I beleive that the stagings at least somewhat should reflect what the opera is about. At least the king in Rat Lohengrin had a crown.


I am a huge fan of pop art... so the Warhol/Lichtenstein effect here for me is pretty awesome. Plus with great conducting by William Christie of course.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

OK, so the clip there was from the Prologue, which is, according to Wikipedia, "set in the Forest of Erymanthus where Diana and Cupid are arguing who will rule over the forest dwellers. The quarrel is settled by Jupiter who decrees that Love will reign over their hearts for one day every year. Diana vows to look after Hippolyte and Aricie."

Right, so maybe the broccoli represents trees, yeah? And I'm going out on a limb here but maybe the guy with the heart on his chest is Cupid? But who are these people? Are they allegories, or are they actually tiny people who live in a refrigerator? Have they been shrunk, perhaps as punishment? My daughter reads these "Rainbow Magic" books where these 2 girls have adventures in Fairyland and they get shrunk to fairy size and can fly around, so maybe it's that. Or are they food? Or psychrophilic bacteria? And what's with the big hanging banner? I guess it's a riff on "La vache qui rit", but is it a backdrop or something more important, like a flag? And what's the significance of it being upside down?
I for one can't wait to find out what happens next. 
I'm assuming that the climax of the opera involves a big fry-up with the eggs and sausages, hopefully with a nice bit of black pudding, though there doesn't seem to be any in the fridge right now. Perhaps Theseus descends to the underworld to get some?

My only criticism would be that the action needs to be speeded up. I think the problem is that everything is dictated by the pace of the music. Perhaps if they did the music faster or - better yet - just took it out altogether? It's really quite distracting actually.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> OK, so the clip there was from the Prologue, which is, according to Wikipedia, "set in the Forest of Erymanthus where Diana and Cupid are arguing who will rule over the forest dwellers. The quarrel is settled by Jupiter who decrees that Love will reign over their hearts for one day every year. Diana vows to look after Hippolyte and Aricie."
> 
> Right, so maybe the broccoli represents trees, yeah? And I'm going out on a limb here but maybe the guy with the heart on his chest is Cupid? But who are these people? Are they allegories, or are they actually tiny people who live in a refrigerator? Have they been shrunk, perhaps as punishment? My daughter reads these "Rainbow Magic" books where these 2 girls have adventures in Fairyland and they get shrunk to fairy size and can fly around, so maybe it's that. Or are they food? Or psychrophilic bacteria? And what's with the big hanging banner? I guess it's a riff on "La vache qui rit", but is it a backdrop or something more important, like a flag? And what's the significance of it being upside down?
> I for one can't wait to find out what happens next.
> ...




That Is The Best Post Ever


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Albert7 said:


> Due to the negative reaction to Regietheater here in this thread, it is time for me to post a fine example of it now.





Nereffid said:


> ...
> I'm assuming that the climax of the opera involves a big fry-up with the eggs and sausages, hopefully with a nice bit of black pudding, though there doesn't seem to be any in the fridge right now. Perhaps Theseus descends to the underworld to get some?
> 
> My only criticism would be that the action needs to be speeded up. I think the problem is that everything is dictated by the pace of the music. Perhaps if they did the music faster or - better yet - just took it out altogether? It's really quite distracting actually.


I share all Nereffid's bemusement, and feel immensely sad at hearing Rameau's gracious music being played as weird women cavort round the inside of a fridge in their underwear.

You honestly feel that this is 'a fine example', Albert?
What of?


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> My only criticism would be that the action needs to be speeded up. I think the problem is that everything is dictated by the pace of the music. Perhaps if they did the music faster or - better yet - just took it out altogether? It's really quite distracting actually.


Perhaps this is the next direction "regietheater" should take - leave the operatic stage production (sets, costumes etc.) intact and just change the music to whatever the "artist" desires. Do away with all that singing and those orchestras - maybe just perform "postmodern" interpretations on a recorder.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Albert7 said:


> Due to the negative reaction to Regietheater here in this thread, it is time for me to post a fine example of it now.


Actually I mistook this for an advert for underwear. Is that what they are singing about?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Kivimees said:


> Perhaps this is the next direction "regietheater" should take - leave the operatic stage production (sets, costumes etc.) intact and just change the music to whatever the "artist" desires. Do away with all that singing and those orchestras - maybe just perform "postmodern" interpretations on a recorder.


Why not just shoot the director?


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Why not just shoot the director?


I doubt Albert would approve.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Why not just shoot the director?


I hate seeing guns in operas set before the invention of guns.

It is not to see pop art one goes to a Rameau opera. People go to a Rameau operas because they like Rameau operas. If they want to go to see pop art they should go to a museum.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Kivimees said:


> Perhaps this is the next direction "regietheater" should take - leave the operatic stage production (sets, costumes etc.) intact and just change the music to whatever the "artist" desires. Do away with all that singing and those orchestras - *maybe just perform "postmodern" interpretations on a recorder.*


Great idea, and I know just the performer for it: my neighbour's four year old has been performing postmodern recorder music all afternoon, when not tunelessly singing 'Let It Go'. DO put your daughter on the stage, Mrs Worthington- preferably one a long way from here!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Kivimees said:


> I doubt Albert would approve.


I would prefer we shoot the piano player, Truffaut-style.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Why not just shoot the director?


That would create the ideal postmodern production, since the director is the real author of the work, and according to Barthes the author is dead. I suggest forming a postmodern posse and rounding up all the directors for a culturally-mediated, multi-vocal, counter-hegemonic and self-referential auto-da-fe.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Albert7 said:


> Indeed  Indeed
> 
> Still to be open to all types of possible readings would be an ideal thing.


The more that I read about this, the more that I am convinced that Humpty Dumpty was the first true postmodernist...

_"When* I* use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."_

PostHumptyism? Humpty-vision (with due thanks to MB)??


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

And there is nothing wrong with the theater of the absurd either. Ionesco would be proud .

"A work of art is above all an adventure of the mind."

-Eugene Ionesco






Maybe we are too focused on whether a production has to make sense in the first place. The aesthetic enjoyment and multiplicity of readings which challenge the imagination can take primacy.

Theater of the absurd doesn't make sense on the surface but the deeper meaning is hidden. We are too concerned with the superficial realities to delve into the multiple readings of any operatic text.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I rest my case.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

As noted above, creative productions can be good or bad. I wouldn't want an overly aggressive production to be my first introduction to an opera, but DVDs and streaming make that much less an issue.

An example I find very effective is this love duet from Mary Zimmerman's _La Sonnambula_ at the Met with Dessay and Florez (pardon the poor sound). Admittedly, setting the opera in a contemporary rehearsal studio makes some elements of the plot nonsensical, but the plot is ridiculous to begin with.

It is all worth it to get this beautiful declamation of jealousy and love from two youngsters -- much more effective, I find, in modern dress, than in their 18th century Swiss peasant Sunday best. I was never moved by this opera before I saw this.






For the record, I can die happy if I never see another Don Giovanni in tights.

And for those who don't get Ionesco, give it another try. _The Bald Soprano_ is fantastic drama. The play at least, I've never seen the opera.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^Wonderful performance.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> ^^^Wonderful performance.


I agree... a very moving and brilliant take for sure.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Albert7 said:


> And there is nothing wrong with the theater of the absurd either. Ionesco would be proud .
> 
> "A work of art is above all an adventure of the mind."
> 
> ...


One point:
Mozart, Wagner et al were not writing for the theatre of the absurd. It is the arguments of these preposterous directors which is absurd. If they want theatre of the absurd let them set Beckett to music!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Albert7 said:


> And there is nothing wrong with the theater of the absurd either. Ionesco would be proud .
> 
> "A work of art is above all an adventure of the mind."
> 
> ...


But the problem is, you - and, I suppose, proponents of regietheater generally - are conflating two issues. One is the desire to create or watch something new and different; the other is the desire to re-create or watch a work of art created in the past. Any given audience member may want one or the other, or both, but crucially what's being _sold_, the _context_ in which the production occurs, is unequivocally the latter. The audience is not being asked to come see Mathias Vidal's new production about tiny people who live in a refrigerator; it's being asked to come see Rameau's opera _Hippolyte et Aricie_. So there's a fundamental dishonesty there - and not simply one of marketing. If Vidal (or whoever) wants to create a musical story of love among minuscule fridge-dwellers that bears some resemblance to Racine's _Phèdre_ then there's nothing stopping him, but the crucial question asked by people who dislike regietheater is _why on earth does he insist on the music and libretto being those of an already existing baroque opera?_ 
When Goethe created his version of _Faust_, it wasn't just Marlowe's _Doctor Faustus_ with silly hats, it was a new work of art. So why not a new operatic version of the _Phèdre_ story, with new music and a new libretto that properly addresses the probably quite intriguing issues pertaining to a society based around the cold storage of enormous pieces of food?
If some readers' response to _that_ particular question is a loud cry of "creative bankruptcy!" I won't be too surprised.

Let's get back to the moustache on the Mona Lisa. What if the Louvre decided to replace its existing Mona Lisa with Duchamp's version but still insisted on calling it Leonardo's painting? Interesting statement on art, or flat-out lie that insults the people who admire the original?

Oh yeah, and finally:


> Maybe we are too focused on whether a production has to make sense in the first place.


Well, my only response to that is: 34598v dfhvi8hwee ohweg9wh eoofwff jbghuseifso.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

^^^^ :tiphat: Somebody ought to collect your posts for a book, Nereffid!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

The more I think of it, I realise that the Tiny Fridge People could just be the start of a series of operas set in household appliances.

_Don Giovanni_ set in a toaster... _La Boheme_ in a freezer ("Your tiny hand is frozen" - "Well, _duh!_")... _Das Rheingold_ in a washing machine (the first part of the Rinse Cycle)...


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> The more I think of it, I realise that the Tiny Fridge People could just be the start of a series of operas set in household appliances.
> 
> _Don Giovanni_ set in a toaster...


I presume the Commendatore switches it on at the end and it finishes with Don Giovanni popping up in flames?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> ^^^^ :tiphat: Somebody ought to collect your posts for a book, Nereffid!












Definitely!!!


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I sometimes wonder what advocates of regie feel like when they're sitting in the darkened theatre and half way through the opera, they suddenly realise that a favourite and beautiful part of the score has been deleted on the whim of an egocentric regisseur (happened to me). Or when, at a particularly heart breaking part in the story, the lead character is required to do something so stupid, the audience bursts out laughing (happened to me). Or when the lead character is singing words which have no bearing whatsoever on what she is acting (happened to me).


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

sospiro said:


> I sometimes wonder what advocates of regie feel like when they're sitting in the darkened theatre and half way through the opera, they suddenly realise that a favourite and beautiful part of the score has been deleted on the whim of an egocentric regisseur (happened to me). Or when, at a particularly heart breaking part in the story, the lead character is required to do something so stupid, the audience bursts out laughing (happened to me). Or when the lead character is singing words which have no bearing whatsoever on what she is acting (happened to me).


My guess is they try to convince themselves that there's some highly intellectual reason behind it all - and that "ordinary people" simply refuse to see it.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Kivimees said:


> My guess is they try to convince themselves that there's some highly intellectual reason behind it all - and that "ordinary people" simply refuse to see it.


Yep we're too stupid to see it.

At the end of _Simon Boccanegra_, he finds his long lost daughter after 25 years but then realises he's been poisoned and the dying Doge sings:

"Tutto finisce, o figlia..." "Everything is ended my daughter" 
"Maria, coraggio... A gran dolor t'appresta..." "Maria, have courage! Prepare yourself for a grievous blow ..."
"Per me l'estrema ora suonò!" "My last hour has struck"

But what he's *really* saying to his daughter is "I'm sitting here with my back to you, daughter and I have a pair of scissors and a newspaper and I'm going to cut out a paper hat and put it on my head".

And that's what he did, in Munich.

And of course that's what Verdi and Piave/Boito meant.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

sospiro said:


> Yep we're too stupid to see it.
> 
> At the end of _Simon Boccanegra_, he finds his long lost daughter after 25 years but then realises he's been poisoned and the dying Doge sings:
> 
> ...


Dear oh dear! You couldn't make it up!


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> You appear to be saying that it is legitimate to present any work of art in any manner whatsoever, regardless of the artist's intentions. Would you say this if the composers were still living?
> 
> Why are lazy, traditional productions with 30-year-old props the only alternative you can think of to rat-infested _Lohengrins_?
> 
> ...





Nereffid said:


> But the problem is, you - and, I suppose, proponents of regietheater generally - are conflating two issues. One is the desire to create or watch something new and different; the other is the desire to re-create or watch a work of art created in the past. Any given audience member may want one or the other, or both, but crucially what's being _sold_, the _context_ in which the production occurs, is unequivocally the latter. The audience is not being asked to come see Mathias Vidal's new production about tiny people who live in a refrigerator; it's being asked to come see Rameau's opera _Hippolyte et Aricie_. So there's a fundamental dishonesty there - and not simply one of marketing. If Vidal (or whoever) wants to create a musical story of love among minuscule fridge-dwellers that bears some resemblance to Racine's _Phèdre_ then there's nothing stopping him, but the crucial question asked by people who dislike regietheater is _why on earth does he insist on the music and libretto being those of an already existing baroque opera?_
> When Goethe created his version of _Faust_, it wasn't just Marlowe's _Doctor Faustus_ with silly hats, it was a new work of art. So why not a new operatic version of the _Phèdre_ story, with new music and a new libretto that properly addresses the probably quite intriguing issues pertaining to a society based around the cold storage of enormous pieces of food?


Two wonderful posts that pretty much some up my thoughts on the topic. I'm not against _new_ and unique stagings of operas at all, or even necessarily against "updating" the work to a different time or location as long as its done in a way that stays true to the words and drama and doesn't make nonsense out of them. However, I find the whole idea of directors "interpreting" operatic works to be wholly misguided, and think it usually results in a staged play of sorts where the music pretty much plays a background role but has no intrinsic ties to the action whatsoever.



Albert7 said:


> Dammit, rats. I vant me some rats in Lohengrin, then Tristan .
> 
> On a serious note, the Opus Arte DVD has a wonderful bonus tracks where Neuenfels explains why he used the rat symbolism in the opera. It's rather enlightening.
> 
> Before we rush to judgment like rats to the sewer, perhaps we should examine the bonus tracks on the opera DVD's and see why the producer did what he/she did before criticizing.


I've read some of his explanations (and the fact that one HAS to read them to get any kind of understanding or meaning out of it is already a bad sign to me) but I didn't find them very enlightening at all. It provides enlightenment on Neuenfels' interpretation and symbolism perhaps, but very little to nothing that's worthwhile about Wagner's opera in my opinion.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

I have seen examples of good and bad in both traditional and what is a catch all phrase, Regietheatre. To some extent all acts of direction are variations from the standard received ways and to generalise is to be an ..... But that's not the point I wish to make.


I wonder how much this is about the business of putting bums on seats? When I attend the Opera I see an aging audience and from overhearing conversations many people have seen more than one production of a particular work. So if the useful life of a production is e.g. 25 years, then how are you going to tempt the same audience back unless any NEW production offers something not seen before? The jack is out of the box and it's not going back anytime soon.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

How about tempting them back with some new and amazing singers who also act well? Staging that may include some interesting symbolism or new emphasis? Someone fresh reinterpreting, but not totally reorganising the music? 

Putting on yet more regie arguably doesn't tempt the older ones back, and may not win a new audience either if the production becomes too gimmicky & mystifying.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> How about tempting them back with some new and amazing singers who also act well? Staging that may include some interesting symbolism or new emphasis? Someone fresh reinterpreting, but not totally reorganising the music?
> 
> Putting on yet more regie arguably doesn't tempt the older ones back, and may not win a new audience either if the production becomes too gimmicky & mystifying.


I don't disagree with what you say, but if I had to plan a new production which has to work for say 5 revivals, then how can I plan for the singers (and don't forget I'm struggling to keep them interesting and fresh as well.)?

In the end it goes back to the old saying it's not important what you label something, it's whether its any good or not.

I also agree with Sospiro and Faustian, once the visual imagery or actions contradict the libretto, plot or music all is lost.

I've seen radical work that thrilled and old chestnuts revived that have been expensive ways of keeping up my beauty regime.


----------



## Camillorf (Jul 18, 2014)

Faustian said:


> Two wonderful posts that pretty much some up my thoughts on the topic. I'm not against _new_ and unique stagings of operas at all, or even necessarily against "updating" the work to a different time or location as long as its done in a way that stays true to the words and drama and doesn't make nonsense out of them. However, I find the whole idea of directors "interpreting" operatic works to be wholly misguided, and think it usually results in a staged play of sorts where the music pretty much plays a background role but has no intrinsic ties to the action whatsoever.


This. I am not against modern productions per se, but I have no interest whatsoever in a director's "concept". All of these works have stood the test of time well, long before this "concept" nonsense came about. I don't think we need any sort of "enlightenment" in order to attract a new audience. If anything, I find it very off-putting. Just put on a good, sensible production that stays true to the libretto (be it modern or otherwise) and let the music do its magic.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Camillorf said:


> This. I am not against modern productions per se, but I have no interest whatsoever in a director's "concept". All of these works have stood the test of time well, long before this "concept" nonsense came about. I don't think we need any sort of "enlightenment" in order to attract a new audience. If anything, I find it very off-putting. Just put on a good, sensible production that stays true to the libretto (be it modern or otherwise) and let the music do its magic.


I am against modern productions per se because they prevent people from really *seeing* the operas.
I am thinking that the reason behind all these strange productions and that people are not allowed to really see the operas is nastiness. They want to punish people for wanting to see all these old operas.
This is especially relevant if the opera is set during a certain historical event.
If they are about real historical persons.
If the plot can´t make sense if they are set in another time period.


----------



## Camillorf (Jul 18, 2014)

Sloe said:


> I am against modern productions per se because they prevent people from really *seeing* the operas.
> I am thinking that the reason behind all these strange productions and that people are not allowed to really see the operas is nastiness. They want to punish people for wanting to see all these old operas.
> This is especially relevant if the opera is set during a certain historical event.
> If they are about real historical persons.
> If the plot can´t make sense if they are set in another time period.


I did say productions _" that stays true to the libretto"_. If the opera is set during a historical event or if it's about a real historical person, then it's impossible to update it and stay true to the libretto. I have seen many modern operatic productions, including Covent Garden's recent Barber of Seville, that worked for me.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Camillorf said:


> I did say productions _" that stays true to the libretto"_. If the opera is set during a historical event or if it's about a real historical person, then it's impossible to update it and stay true to the libretto. I have seen many modern operatic productions, including Covent Garden's recent Barber of Seville, that worked for me.


Thank you for clarifying.
And for me to clarify I said especially.
What I primarily wanted to say is that I think it is cruel to stage an opera that might not be staged for another ten or 100 years with strange settings.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I think regie is a fad which will run its course and then stop. In 20 years time people will be looking at some of these productions with dismay and puzzlement.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

sospiro said:


> I think regie is a fad which will run its course and then stop. In 20 years time people will be looking at some of these productions with dismay and puzzlement.


Optimist.

Fifty years ago we thought Modernism had tried everything and that things could only get better. And now?

Postmodernism. It may not be worse, but it sure as hell isn't better.

I don't expect to live to see a return to sanity.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Janowski's decision to do his second Ring as concert performances was dictated partly by the fact that he had no confidence in the present bunch of theatre directors. Karajan's decision to produce and direct his own operas was again partly because he didn't trust what producers would put on stage.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Optimist.
> 
> Fifty years ago we thought Modernism had tried everything and that things could only get better. And now?
> 
> ...


PESSIMIST.



Can anyone point to a time when all productions were interesting and well done? Of course not. Before I get seen as standing too much on one side of this argument....there have been some terribly silly productions in recent years.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

If old operas have plots involving servants, marriage settlements, autocratic rulers, ceremonies, simple peasants and so on, then updating them to modern times is going to involve a lot of contrivance, and for what? The ambience, the true-to-life-then morality and social system of the old piece can just be accepted and the audience can concentrate on the music, singing, acting, and pace of the plot. Sloe has hit the nail on the head by saying that modern settings distract the audience - too busy puzzling out the whys and wherefores of the strange regime to 'see' the opera.

I once saw a production at Stratford of 'Much Ado about Nothing' that was set in the Victorian Raj. In some ways it worked well - the wit came across like Oscar Wilde, and the aristos as a colonial elite. I was twenty years old and bowled over. Almost twenty years later I saw the same idea in an open-air production of 'Much Ado' at Windsor - the laugh was that the producer thought he was doing something fresh. Here, it left a bad taste in my mouth, primarily because Dogberry was (or purported to be) an Indian official with a strong sing-song accent and it felt wrong & racist to laugh at his malapropisms & officiousness.

At least this transposed setting had some sort of aptness about it, was beautiful to look at, and the conventional morality of the time was not as far removed from the original play as a brutal totalitarian regime would have been.

But still, all that l I remember about *either* production is the setting & my response to that.
The same with the BBC 'modern' production of Henry IV Part One, where all I remember is that Hotspur was a Geordie punk and that the play featured a red double decker bus.

Shakespeare plays that I have seen with traditional settings, I remember much more about the acting - for example John Neville's Iago, which I liked, and David Suchet's, which I didn't.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I actually don't mind "updating", in the sense of changing the period in which the work is set. It can make the plot and action seem more immediate and (yes, horrible word) "relevant". AFAIC there's already a suspension of disbelief already required in the mere act of seeing an opera or play, so suspending a little bit further to accept a modern-day setting isn't such hard work. But there will be various problems of anachronism to be dealt with, so some works are easier to update than others. The problem with the regietheater approach is that it's not an "updating", it's an alteration of the meaning.
Basically I'm saying I'm OK with radical changes in _design_ but not with changes in _interpretation_.

(Going back to Shakespeare, my favourite of all the film versions of Hamlet I've seen is actually the one that strays most from the original, the modern one with Ethan Hawke. If you're a purist it's a travesty, but at heart it's the same characters in the same story. Design and execution are different, but interpretation is the same.)


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> I actually don't mind "updating", in the sense of changing the period in which the work is set. It can make the plot and action seem more immediate and (yes, horrible word) "relevant". AFAIC there's already a suspension of disbelief already required in the mere act of seeing an opera or play, so suspending a little bit further to accept a modern-day setting isn't such hard work. But there will be various problems of anachronism to be dealt with, so some works are easier to update than others. The problem with the regietheater approach is that it's not an "updating", it's an alteration of the meaning.
> Basically I'm saying I'm OK with radical changes in _design_ but not with changes in _interpretation_.
> 
> (Going back to Shakespeare, my favourite of all the film versions of Hamlet I've seen is actually the one that strays most from the original, the modern one with Ethan Hawke. If you're a purist it's a travesty, but at heart it's the same characters in the same story. Design and execution are different, but interpretation is the same.)


I agree re the use of need to appear "relevant" being something that sits uneasy with me. Having said that another film I would recommend is '10 things I hate about you'. This produces a delightful comedy out a play by Shakespeare that is frankly unwatchable now. Cole Porter made it watchable by turning them into theatrical monsters in Kiss me Kate. These are not productions of The Taming of the Shrew but reinventions in a different form. Here Shakespeare provides the inspiration but not the words or the exact same plot. It seems to me some directors want to use an Opera as that inspiration but economics and the House Manger/Conductor dictate they stick to the libretto and music with little change and that is where it all comes unstuck.

(Please point out if I have now reached the point where I am contradicting myself:lol


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Belowpar said:


> I agree re the use of need to appear "relevant" being something that sits uneasy with me. Having said that another film I would recommend is '10 things I hate about you'. This produces a delightful comedy out a play by Shakespeare that is frankly unwatchable now.


I love the film 'Ten Things I hate about you', and that sort of re-use of the plot is fine, and not really what we're talking about here.

*But* it just isn't true that 'Taming of the Shrew' is unwatchable now. I've taught it to students & got a lot of mileage out of the gender debate that ensues, and we've used the Burton/Taylor film or the BBC version in the classroom, and got a lot out of going to see a touring production with a vibrant black actress as Kate, well able to transmit the emotion of the character suddenly realising that she matters to someone else, and her sense of fun in joining in the 'game'. 
There's nothing objectionable in this if well-acted, and it's a very funny play.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> *But* it just isn't true that 'Taming of the Shrew' is unwatchable now. I've taught it to students & got a lot of mileage out of the gender debate that ensues, and we've used the Burton/Taylor film or the BBC version in the classroom, and got a lot out of going to see a touring production with a vibrant black actress as Kate, well able to transmit the emotion of the character suddenly realising that she matters to someone else, and her sense of fun in joining in the 'game'.
> There's nothing objectionable in this if well-acted, and it's a very funny play.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. And that is relevant because at the end of all this, much of this debate is subjective. I find the original grotesque with a happy ending and you think it all comes together, whereas many just assume Shakespeare isn't for them and aren't prepare to try. Much like some of the responses to a whole range of pieces being called Regietheatre.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Yes, of course it's a matter of taste; and of course one should be prepared to give something a go before rejecting it.

However, a lot of the posters who don't like regie on this thread *have* tried regie and don't like it. That includes me (in patches, before I had to give up).

Have you watched a live production of *The Taming of The Shrew*? The ending is problematic as far as the text goes, but can be made sense of in the theatre, and audiences seem to enjoy both the comedy and the romance.

_PS Even though it's such an early work, Shakespeare has left big clues in the first part of the play that Kate feels lonely & neglected by her father, and jealous of her sister Bianca; her misery finds its way out in selfish behaviour & she behaves badly 'because she can'. She is an intelligent masterful woman who would never be content with a man who didn't have the same qualities. Petrucchio is a less developed character, but he is committed to the marriage, he suffers the hunger and lack of sleep along with Kate, and he is basically showing her that life is more pleasant if you co-operate with those you live with. On the journey to her sister's wedding, Kate seems suddenly to get the point and joins in the game with the old man they meet - and her husband knows he can count on her when he bets on her, not because she is cowed but because she has decided to join his 'team', and now has the place she wanted, a married woman with a husband who *loves* her - that at least is made clear at the end.

My female head of department at the college I taught at was a passionate feminist but she loved this play, often chose to read it with classes, and saw no insuperable objections in it. _


----------



## Loge (Oct 30, 2014)

The main problem with Eurotrash operas is that the put off people who have never seen live opera. The Eurotrash directors are always claiming that their operas are interesting to the younger generation. I disagree with this because young people like literalism and realism.

For example say someone had read Lord of the Rings, and Hollywood was doing a remake of the trilogy. The fan of the book turns up to the cinema only to find the Hobbits are junkies living in the projects, Sauron is an evil businessman in a suit, Gandalf is a social worker and it is set in Detroit. Would that be popular and successful?

Eurotrash has been around for over 30 years and even critics say it is unpopular with audiences. But as these directors are State funded why should they care about audiences?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Wow, I guess that I'm the only person here defending Regietheater.

For me, it provides a new perspective into operas rather than subtracting from the work.

If one wants true subtraction then perhaps the Pete Townshend approach to opera recordings or the Boulez conflagration of opera houses would be a way to trash the operatic work in question.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Albert7 said:


> Wow, I guess that I'm the only person here defending Regietheater.
> 
> For me, it provides a new perspective into operas rather than subtracting from the work.
> 
> If one wants true subtraction then perhaps the Pete Townshend approach to opera recordings or* the Boulez conflagration of opera houses *would be a way to trash the operatic work in question.


They may as well have burned down Bayreuth after Wieland Wagner died. But then, Pierre was paid to conduct there, not set fire to it. Why retain one's youthful ideals when there's money to be made?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I just realised that I said that the director of that Rameau thing was Mathias Vidal. This was a mistake - I saw the name on the YouTube video and assumed that was the director, but in fact Mathias Vidal was the tenor. The director was Jonathan Kent, who, according to the advertising blurb, "strives to appeal to every sense and show audiences how engrossing and musically ravishing French Baroque opera can be".

Also, http://www.classicalsource.com/db_control/db_concert_review.php?id=11190


> The 21st-century setting was evident in numerous mise-en-scène. The Prologue, setting up the metaphysical contest between Diana's and Cupid's competing manifestos of love, is placed within a huge fridge symbolising the cold environment of controlled romantic feeling. In Act Three we find an ordinary domestic setting where Phaedra awaits Theseus's return from the Underworld, and Hippolytus loiters in another room above, like a love-sick teenager pining for Aricia presumably; the wallpaper and rounded corners of the rooms look like the 1970s. With the happy ending welded on to the end of Racine's original drama, bringing the reconciliation of Hippolytus and Aricia and the triumph of Diana, the production is brought full-circle to the cold, passionless beginning by placing the action in a morgue in which the two lovers discover themselves in a new life with each other.


Make of this what you will.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> I just realised that I said that the director of that Rameau thing was Mathias Vidal. This was a mistake - I saw the name on the YouTube video and assumed that was the director, but in fact Mathias Vidal was the tenor. The director was Jonathan Kent, who, according to the advertising blurb, "strives to appeal to every sense and show audiences how engrossing and musically ravishing French Baroque opera can be".
> 
> Also, http://www.classicalsource.com/db_control/db_concert_review.php?id=11190
> 
> Make of this what you will.


Doesn't every couple want to start their new life together in a morgue?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I agree with every word of this piece by Brian Robins

http://www.earlymusicworld.com/id44.html



> With the connivance of an unruly mob of administrators, conductors and critics, the staging of opera has thus arrived at the lowest point in its long history, an art form without integrity, without beauty, without grace, without dignity, without significance. The message of Hector Berlioz, who himself suffered from gross philistinism, demands to be heeded: "You musicians, you poets, prose-writers, actors, pianists, conductors, whether of third or second or even first rank, you do not have the right to meddle with a Shakespeare or a Beethoven, in order to bestow on them the blessings of your knowledge and taste."


Indeed


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

sospiro said:


> I agree with every word of this piece by Brian Robins
> 
> http://www.earlymusicworld.com/id44.html
> 
> Indeed


I second your agreement, in toto. Superb piece. I'm deeply moved by its honesty and eloquence.

The following observation from it particularly caught my attention: _"Today we are left with an all-enveloping plague of Regietrash that has seriously been resisted to an extent only in the United States, since there it is well-heeled sponsors who call the tune, not state-funded administrators."_

Those who advocate wholesale government "support for the arts," as well as those who decry "popular taste" (i.e. what people actually enjoy in the arts, as opposed to what "experts" think they should enjoy) should give this observation some thought.

The greatness, the beauty, the nobility of which the arts are capable, and the aspiration to those higher conceptions of life which characterized the artistic heritage of Western civilization for centuries, have been under conscious assault for so long that we now must live in a world where many cannot distinguish the beautiful from the ugly and the depraved, and where many of those who recognize a difference are determined to obliterate that difference and so destroy the beautiful, which they know is a reproach to them.

We who recognize the difference and wish to preserve what's left of the human aspiration to greatness should withhold every form of sanction and support from these vandals and murderers of the human spirit who live as parasites, plundering through government support the wealth of the audiences they insult while sucking the life-blood from great works of art created by people whose names they are unworthy to speak.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

^^
Excellent piece Woodduck.

The idea that regie appeals to the younger generation is a myth spread by supporters of regietrash. I know lots of young opera fans and most of them prefer traditional productions. It's an insult to young people to think that because they're young it means they can't appreciate opera without it being made 'relevant'


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I second your agreement, in toto. Superb piece. I'm deeply moved by its honesty and eloquence.
> 
> The following observation from it particularly caught my attention: _"Today we are left with an all-enveloping plague of Regietrash that has seriously been resisted to an extent only in the United States, since there it is well-heeled sponsors who call the tune, not state-funded administrators."_
> 
> ...


'Elevated' and 'dignified' are two of my favorite words.

Of course to truly appreciate these words one can't walk on all fours and rail against all that which has height.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Most productions today cannot include the involvement of "those intimately involved with the creation of the opera." Part of the change is that fewer new works are being presented; it is the same old chestnuts over and over.

The Berlioz quote is interesting and from reading the context two main observations come to mind. First, that Berlioz considered himself more of a genius than Shakespeare. And secondly, that people have been ranting about this sort of strictness for at least 150 years.

Though when he writes "Does not this lead to the utter ruin and destruction of all Art?" he is talking about chaos where "violin- or horn-players, or any back-desk musician... translators, editors, or even copyists, engravers, and printers" have a say in what happens in a performance. One might could argue that Berlioz would be approving of the cult of the conductor, or of the director, provided they are geniuses.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

To be clear: I disagree with Berlioz. No, allowing a range of artistic expression does not lead to utter ruin and destruction.

I think it is wonderful Berlioz adapted Shakespearean plays, Virgil, and so on. If his adaptations displace the originals (or other adaptations) in the public imagination (for at time) that is to his credit, not something we should yell at him about.

I don't see Regietheater as having taken over the world - or even Europe - though this may be in part due to an imprecise definition. The author of the article refuses to give any definition or provide examples (lampshading this as a positive), even while complaining that no one has "troubled to explain what constitutes a ‘bland’ or ‘boring’ production," (one of the most ridiculous statements of this piece).


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I have been watching Regietheater since I started attending Opera live performances, more than thirty-five years ago. Honestly, at this point in time, it's almost as second nature to me. Part of life. 

I know many people, young and old, that are against Regietheater (and some of them, passionately against). And many people, young and old, that are in favour (and some of them, passionately in favour). I suspect that, if we were called to a referendum, it would be a split vote.

After so many years, and so many shows, when there are things happening on stage that I consider detrimental to the piece, I just close my eyes, and forget all about staging. Then again, this doesn't happen often. I'm now quite a tolerant kind of guy. 

As a piece of personal advice (unrequited, I know, but still...), for people relatively new to Opera as an art form, and watching for the first time a particular opera, I would go for a "traditional" staging, just to get as neutral a view as possible of the score and the libretto, before adventuring into more regie-oriented productions.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

schigolch said:


> As a piece of personal advice (unrequited, I know, but still...), for people relatively new to Opera as an art form, and watching for the first time a particular opera, I would go for a "traditional" staging, just to get as neutral a view as possible of the score and the libretto, before adventuring into more regie-oriented productions.


Except that to see a traditional staging it might be necessary to get a vacation, pay airplane tickets and for hotell.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Sloe said:


> Except that to see a traditional staging it might be necessary to get a vacation, pay airplane tickets and for hotell.


The same if one wants to see a Regietheater staging. Or a staging with any specific requirements (such as singers or conductors). Or to see an opera one loves.

Of course treating "Regietheater" as monolithic is something only done by those opposed (and even then different lines will be drawn). Personally I don't really think of staging as Regietheater or traditional; it's just not a relevant axis.

I want to see well-done productions, interesting productions, _thoughtful_ productions. Basically, I want to see the kinds of productions I want to see. The same can be said for everyone. How strict we are will define how difficult that will be.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mountmccabe said:


> I want to see well-done productions, interesting productions, _thoughtful_ productions. Basically, I want to see the kinds of productions I want to see. The same can be said for everyone. How strict we are will define how difficult that will be.


Agreed! But I want to see productions which are faithful to the composers' intentions not perversions dreamed up by a talentless upstart, which is what regietheatre producers tend to be. Just why such idiocies are permitted is beyond me.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> The same if one wants to see a Regietheater staging. Or a staging with any specific requirements (such as singers or conductors). Or to see an opera one loves.
> 
> Of course treating "Regietheater" as monolithic is something only done by those opposed (and even then different lines will be drawn). Personally I don't really think of staging as Regietheater or traditional; it's just not a relevant axis.
> 
> *I want to see well-done productions, interesting productions, thoughtful productions. Basically, I want to see the kinds of productions I want to see. The same can be said for everyone. How strict we are will define how difficult that will be. *


Just take away the taxpayer subsidy of Regietheater and then people will voluntarily pay for what they really want to see.

People who love to luxuriate in nihilism can do it with their own money.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Just take away the taxpayer subsidy of Regietheater and then people will voluntarily pay for what they really want to see.


Hah! An unrepentant free-marketer! Next you'll be wanting to take away subsidies for yacht racing.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Hah! An unrepentant free-marketer! Next you'll be wanting to take away subsidies for yacht racing.


In a heartbeat, sailor.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> The same if one wants to see a Regietheater staging. Or a staging with any specific requirements (such as singers or conductors). Or to see an opera one loves.
> 
> Of course treating "Regietheater" as monolithic is something only done by those opposed (and even then different lines will be drawn). Personally I don't really think of staging as Regietheater or traditional; it's just not a relevant axis.
> 
> I want to see well-done productions, interesting productions, _thoughtful_ productions. Basically, I want to see the kinds of productions I want to see. The same can be said for everyone. How strict we are will define how difficult that will be.


Those who make the staging think it is relevant since the opera houses in the description of the productions say. The plot is moved to the 1960-s etc this means that they are changing the plot by using a non traditional staging. There is also a difference between having to go away to see a regie production and that is that traditional stagings should be the standard and the non traditional stagings should be the surprise not the other way around.

I can say that I am probably more tolerant to non traditional stagings that does not make sense with the plot of the operas than many other I just say that I do not prefer them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Just take away the taxpayer subsidy of Regietheater and then people will voluntarily pay for what they really want to see.
> 
> People who love to luxuriate in nihilism can do it with their own money.


An elegant solution.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I don't have a problem with updating as long as it stays faithful to the ideas of the composer/librettist. What upsets me is when they change the story.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

sospiro said:


> I don't have a problem with updating as long as it stays faithful to the ideas of the composer/librettist. What upsets me is when they change the story.


I agree.

If one wants a completely different story, then write one's own opera- instead of desecrating someone else's.

- But then perhaps that's what some of these people's objectives are to begin with.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> I want to see well-done productions, interesting productions, _thoughtful_ productions. Basically, I want to see the kinds of productions I want to see. The same can be said for everyone. How strict we are will define how difficult that will be.


Agreed. The Author of the piece dismisses the idea that traditional productions can be bland and boring. My a*** begs to differ.

Yes there is excess and utter rubbish put on and achieving a 'success de scandal' does no one any favours. I would be interested to know the process of commissioning. Does the Opera House demand to see the Regie's notes, the details of the set and the costume designs before committing? I doubt it and once it gets to rehearsal stage, it must be too late to afford to cancel. This debate goes on and on and IMO not enough attention is focussed on the process by which productions are commissioned.

However go and see the Ellen Kent touring productions (no subsidy that I know of?) and you'll see traditional productions that are definitely bland and boring, barely rehearsed warhorses. There are many reasons for this and it would be wrong of me to condemn all traditional productions because of them.

The director has entered the theatre and there's no sign of him leaving soon.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Well, as a connoisseur, you are entitled to find productions 'bland and boring', I suppose. Maybe you need something outré to tickle your palate. 

But I don't have lots of productions to choose from, so I'm grateful to Ellen Kent, as her company's tours have enabled me to see opera without having to travel to London. The Lowestoft Marina is an old Victorian roller skating rink, and as well as the howling gale from backstage, its playing space has some limitations - most noticeably during Aida with the same soldiers tramping over the stage again and again - but we enjoyed it, and were certainly not bored. We were too busy listening to the singing, with nothing to distract us. 

We have also seen Ellen Kent's Carmen, Tosca, La Traviata, and Madame Butterfly. The audience (of all ages) seemed to enjoy these just as much as we did. 

If you only have the chance to see opera occasionally, as I do, then it makes sense to see a traditional production for one's first introduction to a work. 

On the other hand, I have been bored as well as mystified when I've tried to sample a work on YouTube and all that is available is regie. Moreover, while these productions may escape blandness, I find drabness and seediness even less palatable.

If one needs newness, variety and unpredictability not to be bored, then I don't think regie really fits the bill. Dirt, dark lighting, surreal scenery, writhing bodies, bizarre motivations, random stage business, gratuitous brutalities - yawn, it's got pretty samey and in-a-rut after years of hogging the stages. 

No, in my opinion, a fresh interpretation of a traditionally-staged opera will be far less boring and less monotonous.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> Well, as a connoisseur, you are entitled to find productions 'bland and boring', I suppose. Maybe you need something outré to tickle your palate.
> 
> But I don't have lots of productions to choose from, so I'm grateful to Ellen Kent, as her company's tours have enabled me to see opera without having to travel to London. The Lowestoft Marina is an old Victorian roller skating rink, and as well as the howling gale from backstage, its playing space has some limitations - most noticeably during Aida with the same soldiers tramping over the stage again and again - but we enjoyed it, and were certainly not bored. We were too busy listening to the singing, with nothing to distract us.
> 
> ...


I've never seen any of Ellen Kent's productions but I love traditional operas done by small touring companies.



Ingélou said:


> On the other hand, I have been bored as well as mystified when I've tried to sample a work on YouTube and all that is available is regie. Moreover, while these productions may escape blandness, I find drabness and seediness even less palatable.
> 
> If one needs newness, variety and unpredictability not to be bored, then I don't think regie really fits the bill. Dirt, dark lighting, surreal scenery, writhing bodies, bizarre motivations, random stage business, gratuitous brutalities - yawn, it's got pretty samey and in-a-rut after years of hogging the stages.
> 
> No, in my opinion, a fresh interpretation of a traditionally-staged opera will be far less boring and less monotonous.


You're right!!! I've recently seen Simon Boccanegra, Idomeneo and Macbeth and the sets have predominately been black, variations of grey and white. Enough already!!


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

This is an interesting reflection on the recent staging of Chausson's _Le roi Arthus_, that I found very valid. For such rarities (hopefully it won't be the case some years from now, but this is a reality today), the stage director should be very careful to illustrate the piece, rather than working with it as if it was material from Traviata, Aida or Bohème, that pretty much everyone on the audience is familiar with.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/20...y-le-roi-arthus-deserves-clarity-not-banality


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

schigolch said:


> This is an interesting reflection on the recent staging of Chausson's _Le roi Arthus_, that I found very valid. For such rarities (hopefully it won't be the case some years from now, but this is a reality today), the stage director should be very careful to illustrate the piece, rather than working with it as if it was material from Traviata, Aida or Bohème, that pretty much everyone on the audience is familiar with.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/20...y-le-roi-arthus-deserves-clarity-not-banality


I can understand why an opera production of La Boheme or La Traviata in London or Paris might have a non traditional staging once in a while. But for unusual operas it is only rude.
With Aida I see no reason to do a non traditional staging. The anciant Egyptian setting is a huge part of what makes Aida into what it is. It should not go towards the same faith as The Magic Flute were people don´t even know it is set in Egypt.

Then depictions of king Arthur are nearly always anachronistic.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> Well, as a connoisseur, you are entitled to find productions 'bland and boring', I suppose. Maybe you need something outré to tickle your palate.
> 
> But I don't have lots of productions to choose from, so I'm grateful to Ellen Kent, as her company's tours have enabled me to see opera without having to travel to London. The Lowestoft Marina is an old Victorian roller skating rink, and as well as the howling gale from backstage, its playing space has some limitations - most noticeably during Aida with the same soldiers tramping over the stage again and again - but we enjoyed it, and were certainly not bored. We were too busy listening to the singing, with nothing to distract us.
> 
> ...


Ingelou I too saw that Aida. The moment that stuck out to you also did for me. It was farcical seeing the same 8 or 10 totally unrehearsed "spear carriers" running around the back of the painted drop and circling round and round with someone in the wings literally hurling them on stage to keep to pace. This was not a problem of the limitations of the auditorium it was poor directing. The Director was trying to put on a spectacle with close to zero resources. This was so farcical that I mentioned it to the one member of this DG that I've actually met during the half hour or so we spent together.

As to you point that this is the only Opera options you have and that the locals like it. Fine but don't compare it with other productions you've only seen on Youtube.

MY point is: not all traditional = good and not all regie = bad. If we could get past that we might have an informed discussion as to why some productions work and others don't.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Belowpar said:


> MY point is: not all traditional = good and not all regie = bad. If we could get past that we might have an informed discussion as to why some productions work and others don't.


Agree! But traditional productions don't change the story. If a Regisseur wants something different from what has already been written, let him/her write their own score and libretto.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Belowpar said:


> Ingelou I too saw that Aida. The moment that stuck out to you also did for me. It was farcical seeing the same 8 or 10 totally unrehearsed "spear carriers" running around the back of the painted drop and circling round and round with someone in the wings literally hurling them on stage to keep to pace. This was not a problem of the limitations of the auditorium it was poor directing. The Director was trying to put on a spectacle with close to zero resources. This was so farcical that I mentioned it to the one member of this DG that I've actually met during the half hour or so we spent together.
> 
> As to you point that this is the only Opera options you have and that the locals like it. Fine but don't compare it with other productions you've only seen on Youtube.
> 
> MY point is: not all traditional = good and not all regie = bad. If we could get past that we might have an informed discussion as to why some productions work and others don't.


I agree with your point that any production should be judged on its merits. I just wanted to dissent from your verdict that Ellen Kent is bland and boring - for you, okay, but while her productions may have faults, they have never bored *me*, and have engaged *my* emotions.

Chacun à son goût. :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> I agree with your point that any production should be judged on its merits. I just wanted to dissent from your verdict that Ellen Kent is bland and boring - for you, okay, but while her productions may have faults, they have never bored *me*, and have engaged *my* emotions.
> 
> Chacun à son goût. :tiphat:


Of course traditional productions can be bland and boring. But they have a decided advantage in being true to what the opera is about. Most Regietheatre productions are just plain bad as they completely misinterpret the opera at the whim of an idiot who wants to make a name for himself (or herself) by trying to outrage the paying public.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Of course traditional productions can be bland and boring. But they have a decided advantage in being true to what the opera is about. Most Regietheatre productions are just plain bad as they completely misinterpret the opera at the whim of an idiot who wants to make a name for himself (or herself) by trying to outrage the paying public.


The title of this thread suggests it was set up to divide us into two camps. When was it ever the act of a wise person to take up a rigidly fixed either or position on a subject of any importance?

Does every "traditional" production follow EVERY stage direction literally? If they don't are they bad?
Should all productions copy the sets and costumes used in a production worked on by the originators of the work? That's the only way we'd know the composer agree with them.
The most useful comments on this thread have focussed on when a production changes things to such an extent that the basic plot is not being conveyed. But even that point is not that simple. Even a basic knowledge of Shakespearean productions suggests each time something like Hamlet is put on we are taking a different look into his world and if we compare whet we know of historical productions (or even as shown on old films) then we can see that describing a "Traditional" production needs interpretation based on the time we are viewing it.

You say "Most" Regietheatre productions are just plain bad. Have you seen a significant no of these productions or are you just reacting to the ones the press make a fuss about?

Opera would be dead if we go on just reviving the same old, same old productions. Every production brings something new and yes since about 1950 there have been some outrageously bad, let's call them reinterpretations. I will shortly review on here the latest production I've seen and I'm trying to work out why it was unsatisfactory, but labelling the style will not help me decide.

I given up thinking I can persuade some of you to give living theatre it's opportunities to thrill us and that we must accept some risk that things go wrong. I'm not against Traditional (whatever that means exactly) productions but I don't want to take up a rigid position that stifles reinvention and renewal. I'm so wise I'll even welcome an entirely faithful to the original notes production, so long as it has 'life' on stage.

I think I'm done on this one.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Belowpar said:


> The title of this thread suggests it was set up to divide us into two camps. When was it ever the act of a wise person to take up a rigidly fixed either or position on a subject of any importance?
> 
> Does every "traditional" production follow EVERY stage direction literally? If they don't are they bad?
> Should all productions copy the sets and costumes used in a production worked on by the originators of the work? That's the only way we'd know the composer agree with them.
> ...


The fallacy of regietheatre is that it feels that it must reinterpret masterpieces which is a bit like drawing a beard on the Mona Lisa. A gifted producer can bring new life and a new slant - even an update - to a masterpiece without blatantly rewriting the piece. The last Falstaff I saw from the Met was a case in point. But it is the energy and charisma of the cast and how they are used on stage that make a production worth seeing, not the producer substituting his own daft ideas.
An even bigger fallacy is when some egoist feels he must shock the public by his staged idiocies, like the crocodiles at Bayreuth. This is not directing (and I have had limited experience myself) but utter stupidity taking the place of creativity.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

i'd have been so heartbroken if I spent all that money, traveled for my only Bayreuth visit and saw that ridiculous crocodile show. ughhh


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> i'd have been so heartbroken if I spent all that money, traveled for my only Bayreuth visit and saw that ridiculous crocodile show. ughhh


I'd have demanded half my money back in that I was hearing Wagner's music but not seeing his opera!


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

DavidA said:


> ... A gifted producer can bring new life and a new slant - even an update - to a masterpiece without blatantly rewriting the piece. The last Falstaff I saw from the Met was a case in point. But it is the energy and charisma of the cast and how they are used on stage that make a production worth seeing, not the producer substituting his own daft ideas.


Was that the Robert Carsen Falstaff?

If so I saw the première at ROH in 2012 and I'm seeing it again next month. It's updated to the 1950s but it really worked and I loved it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

sospiro said:


> Was that the Robert Carsen Falstaff?
> 
> If so I saw the première at ROH in 2012 and I'm seeing it again next month. It's updated to the 1950s but it really worked and I loved it.


Yes, terrific evening's entertainment!


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Everything I hate about regie

My last word on the subject


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

sospiro said:


> Everything I hate about regie
> 
> My last word on the subject


Just shows how stupid people are paying money to see the rubbish.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Just shows how stupid people are paying money to see the rubbish.


This is much more extreme than usual. I would say disgusting.
But when the options are see opera in regie versions or not see opera at all. It is not strange that people go and see it.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Just shows how stupid people are paying money to see the rubbish.


My wife is often surprised at how trenchant my opinions on certain films are, when every time she looked at me my eyes were shut and my head was nearly in my lap. But to condemn all productions that haven't even taken place yet requires a super power, an unfallible second sight or ...possibly... perhaps.....just rampant prejudice?

Have you never seen a production that departed in any way from the literal text that you actually enjoyed? If so how do you decide when those 'revisions' become unacceptable? Now that's an interesting question.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Belowpar said:


> Have you never seen a productin that departed in any way from the literal text that you actually enjoyed? If so how do you decide when those 'revisons' become unacceptable? Now thats an interesting question.


Un Ballo in Maschera with people in grey body stockings and Mickey Mouse masks is enough to make it bad.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Sorry just remembered I'm volunteering to butt out.

To those who haven't posted yet. Research the next production you go to see. I'm very luck to have seen at least a couple of hundred different productions and my experience is there are good and bad 'modern' and 'traditional' performances. I hope you are lucky and the next performance you see is good. Enjoy because there's few things more thrilling than an totally engaging Operatic performance.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Belowpar said:


> My wife is often surprised at how trenchant my opinions on certain films are, when every time she looked at me my eyes were shut and my head was nearly in my lap. But to condemn all productions that haven't even taken place yet requires a super power, an unfallible second sight or ...possibly... perhaps.....just rampant prejudice?
> 
> *Have you never seen a production that departed in any way from the literal text that you actually enjoyed*? If so how do you decide when those 'revisions' become unacceptable? Now that's an interesting question.


I'm genuinely puzzled. 
Why should it need to 'depart from the text', or what gives someone the right to put on an opera or a play by a famous composer or writer, and then change the material? I wouldn't like it if someone decided to rewrite Hamlet's soliloquies. 
Fair enough if it's just a play or film based on the story, or something adapted for children. But surely the music and lyrics of famous operas staged for adults should be left alone, and only the interpretation or setting changed? 
Or within the characters as written, there is the possibility of reinterpreting lyrics and language. In the latter case, one can be intrigued at someone's cleverness - with wholesale rewriting, I would feel that I'd been cheated under the Trades Description Act.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Regietheatre is all about the Emporer's new clothes. It is a fake. But people, not wishing to appear fools, say how wonderful and innovative it is. It is the ultimate in operatic PC where anyone with any sense is deemed a fool for not realising the amazing 'insights' the idiot producer has brought to the piece concerned.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I admit, I am puzzled in any case by this whole idea that a traditional production is going to be boring. When I see a Shakespeare play, so long as the acting isn't execrable, I don't care if the production is fairly run of the mill, because I thrill when I listen to Shakespeare's wonderful language and engage with his amazing characters.

If I listen to Lully's ballet music, or a fiddle cd, for the fiftieth time, why should it bore me if it's the same as last time? I love it the way it is.

I'm interested in opera, but not really an opera buff - but do opera-lovers really demand novelty in order not to be bored? Can they not just sit back and enjoy the melody, the words, the characterisation and the music?


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> I admit, I am puzzled in any case by this whole idea that a traditional production is going to be boring. When I see a Shakespeare play, so long as the acting isn't execrable, I don't care if the production is fairly run of the mill, because I thrill when I listen to Shakespeare's wonderful language and engage with his amazing characters.
> 
> If I listen to Lully's ballet music, or a fiddle cd, for the fiftieth time, why should it bore me if it's the same as last time? I love it the way it is.
> 
> I'm interested in opera, but not really an opera buff - but do opera-lovers really demand novelty in order not to be bored? Can they not just sit back and enjoy the melody, the words, the characterisation and the music?


http://www.roh.org.uk/news/exit-pur...-approach-shakespeares-famous-stage-direction

Possibly if you've stood through a production at London's globe theatre you've seen something that Shakespeare might recognise as a "traditional" production that is if he didn't laugh at such an idea. Oh yes I'm ignoring the fact that he wrote knowing that the women ...weren't really.

EVERY production is a new interpretation reflecting mostly the time it's produced. Some are thrilling and all too many are not.

You say you don't care if a production is run of the mill....I'm now speechless.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Regietheatre is all about the Emporer's new clothes. It is a fake. But people, not wishing to appear fools, say how wonderful and innovative it is. It is the ultimate in operatic PC where anyone with any sense is deemed a fool for not realising the amazing 'insights' the idiot producer has brought to the piece concerned.


To generalise is ....

I'm off to bed before I really start to upset people.

Have a good night.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Belowpar said:


> http://www.roh.org.uk/news/exit-pur...-approach-shakespeares-famous-stage-direction
> 
> Possibly if you've stood through a production at London's globe theatre you've seen something that Shakespeare might recognise as a "traditional" production that is if he didn't laugh at such an idea. Oh yes I'm ignoring the fact that he wrote knowing that the women ...weren't really.
> 
> ...


In terms of this thread, 'traditional' means performing it without any great departure from the original concepts and words. This does allow changes of fashion, but would preclude the sort of textual changes to Shakespeare's plays, for example, that took place in the eighteenth century, e.g. Nahum Tate's happy ending to King Lear.

Shakespeare wrote plays that used contemporary dress & ideas - doublet and hose in Julius Caesar, satire on Jesuits in Macbeth - but that doesn't mean that he'd be happy if someone else changed his words and basic characterisation.

Strangely, I do know that every production reflects its own time, and that people of every age bring their own understandings to it. You seem to be oversimplifying my ideas, and the words 'Aunt Sally' spring to mind...

Regarding a performance that was just 'ordinary', *I didn't say I didn't care** - only that I wouldn't be *bored*, because I'd still have Shakespeare's wonderful play to listen to. Having taught English for thirty years, and studied Shakespeare for fifty, I practically know the major plays by heart, and the poetry never fails to move me.

I'm saying that I don't need or want novelty - I can live in the text, in the art. I prefer my own imagination, which is steeped in Shakespearean culture and history, to do the work, rather than some 'cool' director desperate to be famous.

It surprises me that *you* get bored if you don't have some 'radical departure' to pique you...

*PS Apparently I did!  (See below.) But I am not going to waste my time paying myself the honour of going through my posts with a fine-toothed comb - now that would be 'boring'.  *


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> I admit, I am puzzled in any case by this whole idea that a traditional production is going to be boring. When I see a Shakespeare play, so long as the acting isn't execrable, I don't care if the production is fairly run of the mill, because I thrill when I listen to Shakespeare's wonderful language and engage with his amazing characters.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> In terms of this thread, 'traditional' means performing it without any great departure from the original concepts and words. This does allow changes of fashion, but would preclude the sort of textual changes to Shakespeare's plays, for example, that took place in the eighteenth century, e.g. Nahum Tate's happy ending to King Lear.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Belowpar said:


> Ingélou said:
> 
> 
> > I admit, I am puzzled in any case by this whole idea that a traditional production is going to be boring. When I see a Shakespeare play, so long as the acting isn't execrable, I don't care if the production is fairly run of the mill, because I thrill when I listen to Shakespeare's wonderful language and engage with his amazing characters.
> ...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Belowpar, in post #141 you misattribute the following to Brian Robins in his article in "Early Music World": _"The author of the piece dismisses the idea that traditional productions can be bland and boring."_ He does not. What he said, in fact, was: *"Typical is the article 'In defence of Regietheater' (published in the on-line arts magazine Limelight), an attack on Mac Donald by the director of an Australian opera company, in which he says he will take the worst Regietheater production over a bland production. This is also a common theme among certain critics, but in no case known to me has anyone troubled to explain what constitutes a 'bland' or 'boring' production. Doubtless one set in period that respects the aims of the composer and librettist."*

Robins does not deny that traditional productions can be "bland and boring." Neither does anyone participating in this discussion. Nobody wants to be bored; everyone, at one time or another, has been. Boredom can result from any style of production. Robins is suggesting that theater directors such as Mac Donald are dismissing traditional productions as boring by definition, when they say that any regie production at all is bound to be more interesting. It's this sort of attitude - shock and novelty for shock and novelty's sake - that Robins is condemning.

I think most of us enjoy seeing creative ideas and fresh insights when they seem integral to the work being produced and respectful of the story, the text, and the music, and most of us will accept some departures from tradition when they don't prove distracting. What most people do not like is cognitive dissonance: a setting, or dress, or stage action, which doesn't make sense in terms of the obvious qualities of the work they know or see and hear in front of them. Regie directors justify incongruities as providing "fresh perspectives." That is just modernist b******* for license to to as they please.

There are certainly diehard traditionalists who require that every period detail of an opera's original production style be reproduced. But I would suggest that most operagoers don't even know those specifics, and might not even care for them if they saw them. The temple of the Grail does not have to look like the Moorish-inspired church of Wagner's imagination, and for us is undoubtedly more evocative and true to how we perceive _Parsifal_ if it doesn't. The visual aesthetics of the 19th century need not bind contemporary people whose sensibilities no longer respond to the heavy literalism of a century and a half ago. Wieland Wagner's stripped-down productions in the '50s raised a few eyebrows - more for what wasn't on the stage than for what was - but he was always guided by respect for the characters, the words, and the music, all of which he sought to let speak eloquently for themselves. He has been called a predecessor of regie, but in a way he was the opposite of regie: he did not seek to impose new meanings, but to strip away old associations that could stand between the essence of the operas and a modern audience. Wotan's personal crisis is not more compelling if he is wearing a ten-pound winged helmet.

This really is not complicated. People want artistic integrity. They want to feel that what matters is the work as the composer has given it to them: its story, its characters, its music, its emotions and meaning.

Forced to choose, I would take a little blandness over outrage any day. But there should be no need for that choice. All we need is directors, set designers, conductors, singers, and actors who believe it, and have the talent to see and realize the power in old works of art. Tall order, evidently.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Belowpar, in post #141 you misattribute the following to Brian Robins in his article in "Early Music World": _"The author of the piece dismisses the idea that traditional productions can be bland and boring."_ He does not. What he said, in fact, was: *"Typical is the article 'In defence of Regietheater' (published in the on-line arts magazine Limelight), an attack on Mac Donald by the director of an Australian opera company, in which he says he will take the worst Regietheater production over a bland production. This is also a common theme among certain critics, but in no case known to me has anyone troubled to explain what constitutes a 'bland' or 'boring' production. Doubtless one set in period that respects the aims of the composer and librettist."*
> 
> Robins does not deny that traditional productions can be "bland and boring." Neither does anyone participating in this discussion. Nobody wants to be bored; everyone, at one time or another, has been. Boredom can result from any style of production. Robins is suggesting that theater directors such as Mac Donald are dismissing traditional productions as boring by definition, when they say that any regie production at all is bound to be more interesting. It's this sort of attitude - shock and novelty for shock and novelty's sake - that Robins is condemning.
> 
> ...


Thank you for this thoughtful and well reasoned response. I will respond when I have more time next week.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Belowpar, in post #141 you misattribute the following to Brian Robins in his article in "Early Music World": _"The author of the piece dismisses the idea that traditional productions can be bland and boring."_ He does not. What he said, in fact, was: *"Typical is the article 'In defence of Regietheater' (published in the on-line arts magazine Limelight), an attack on Mac Donald by the director of an Australian opera company, in which he says he will take the worst Regietheater production over a bland production. This is also a common theme among certain critics, but in no case known to me has anyone troubled to explain what constitutes a 'bland' or 'boring' production. Doubtless one set in period that respects the aims of the composer and librettist."*
> 
> Robins does not deny that traditional productions can be "bland and boring." Neither does anyone participating in this discussion. Nobody wants to be bored; everyone, at one time or another, has been. Boredom can result from any style of production. Robins is suggesting that theater directors such as Mac Donald are dismissing traditional productions as boring by definition, when they say that any regie production at all is bound to be more interesting. It's this sort of attitude - shock and novelty for shock and novelty's sake - that Robins is condemning.
> 
> ...


*Fabulous post altogether, Woodduck! Cogent and reasonable throughout, and the last two paragraphs express my own viewpoint exactly. Thank you. *:tiphat:

I get very little chance to see operas live at all - when they do pop along, I'm so grateful that they are not regie theatre. Instead I have the opportunity to experience the composer's vision and assess the work for myself. Apparently people in some parts of Europe don't have that chance?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Forced to choose, I would take a little blandness over outrage any day. But there should be no need for that choice. All we need is directors, set designers, conductors, singers, and actors who believe it, and have the talent to see and realize the power in old works of art. Tall order, evidently.


Exactly! A good producer will be able to give a lively performance with good ideas without the nonsense of regietheatre. Take the Glyndebourne 2006 Cosi - traditional production with modern sets. But how it fizzes simply because the singers look good, act good, sing well and are directed properly!






Something that seems to have escaped these buffoons of regietheatre and their simpleton followers!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

I have an idea.
Why not make compilation operas with music from several operas but with a new story and new lyrics such as Ivanhoe from 1826 with music by Rossini.
Then they can use the music from the old operas and stage their own ideas without making strange versions of the actual operas.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

We can even call it "The Enchanted Island", and premiered it at the MET.



Ingélou said:


> I'm interested in opera, but not really an opera buff - but do opera-lovers really demand novelty in order not to be bored? Can they not just sit back and enjoy the melody, the words, the characterisation and the music?


The problem, my friend, is of course that there is not a single 'opera buff', but many. And each one with his own vision and preferences.

I know many of these 'opera buff' guys. Well, probably I'm one of them myself, having watched more than 300 different operas on stage, and counting . But there are different views among us 'buffs', from people that really hate (and I mean, *hate*) Regietheater, to people that plan a travel to watch the last staging by Stefan Herheim. People that are mainly crazy about the operatic voice, and people that enjoy the full Wagnerian Gesamtkunstwerk, and think that Regietheater is the true encarnation of the concept.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of Regietheater. But, then again, I'm not a fan of 'bland', 'boring' stagings either. To do that, it's probably better to go for a concert performance. And, more than speaking in general terms, I do prefer to discuss each particular staging, with pros and cons.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

schigolch said:


> We can even call it "The Enchanted Island", and premiered it at the MET.
> 
> The problem, my friend, is of course that there is not a single 'opera buff', but many. And each one with his own vision and preferences.


But it is a good idea to start with the concept of the composer and librettist


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Bumping this thread with an interesting article by tenor Christopher Gillett

http://www.sinfinimusic.com/uk/features/blogs/christopher-gillett/regietheater-director-theatre-is-it-pretentious-or-artistic-august-2015


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> Bumping this thread with an interesting article by tenor Christopher Gillett
> 
> http://www.sinfinimusic.com/uk/features/blogs/christopher-gillett/regietheater-director-theatre-is-it-pretentious-or-artistic-august-2015


"There's a bunch of people who definitely don't take this style of direction in their stride and who are becoming increasingly vocal in their objection to Regietheater - witness their loud objections at the opening night of The Royal Opera's Guillaume Tell - and who are getting quite organised. This is their Facebook page."

And to think when I suggested that a group of people were purposefully booing first nights at the ROH, I was accused of creaating bizarre conspiracy theories! I wonder if any TC members are also members of that Facebook page...

N.

P.S. To misquote Oscar Wilde: There's no such thing as 'proper' productions and 'Regie' productions, just good and bad productions.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> Bumping this thread with an interesting article by tenor Christopher Gillett
> 
> http://www.sinfinimusic.com/uk/features/blogs/christopher-gillett/regietheater-director-theatre-is-it-pretentious-or-artistic-august-2015


Very even handed, and interesting to get a performer's perspective. Still, I think I'd rather he had to put on a ton of make up and sit still rather than caper in his underpants.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

The Conte said:


> "There's a bunch of people who definitely don't take this style of direction in their stride and who are becoming increasingly vocal in their objection to Regietheater - witness their loud objections at the opening night of The Royal Opera's Guillaume Tell - and who are getting quite organised. This is their Facebook page."
> 
> And to think when I suggested that a group of people were purposefully booing first nights at the ROH, I was accused of creaating bizarre conspiracy theories! I wonder if any TC members are also members of that Facebook page...
> 
> ...


Not all artists are prepared to go along with extreme 'regie'. Trebs withdrew from the Munich Manon Lescaut, citing artistic differences, but she doesn't need either the money or the work, unlike some jobbing singers.

Interesting review here.

It was live streamed but I didn't watch it as my internet speed is so poor but a friend of mine who adores Kaufmann and is very loyal to him and his work, hated it.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

sospiro said:


> Not all artists are prepared to go along with extreme 'regie'. Trebs withdrew from the Munich Manon Lescaut, citing artistic differences, but she doesn't need either the money or the work, unlike some jobbing singers.
> 
> Interesting review here.
> 
> It was live streamed but I didn't watch it as my internet speed is so poor but a friend of mine who adores Kaufmann and is very loyal to him and his work, hated it.


Singers also withdraw from traditional productions, and I can think of a few traditional productions that people haven't liked. Traditional doesn't automatically equal good, but 'regie' doesn't automatically equal bad.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

sospiro said:


> Not all artists are prepared to go along with extreme 'regie'. Trebs withdrew from the Munich Manon Lescaut, citing artistic differences, but she doesn't need either the money or the work, unlike some jobbing singers.
> 
> Interesting review here.
> 
> It was live streamed but I didn't watch it as my internet speed is so poor but a friend of mine who adores Kaufmann and is very loyal to him and his work, hated it.


Would be a good idea if audience members started cancelling as well instead of sitting through this nonsense, most of which is an insult to anyone's intelligence. One can only suppose opera audiences don't have too much of that quality!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Would be a good idea if audience members started cancelling as well instead of sitting through this nonsense, most of which is an insult to anyone's intelligence. One can only suppose opera audiences don't have too much of that quality!


Too many people go to the opera to be "seen" not for the music. It could as well be Don Corleone as Don Carlo on stage for all the difference it would make to them.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> Bumping this thread with an interesting article by tenor Christopher Gillett
> 
> http://www.sinfinimusic.com/uk/features/blogs/christopher-gillett/regietheater-director-theatre-is-it-pretentious-or-artistic-august-2015


An interesting article, but the author doesn't dig into the deeper questions and assumptions involving regietheater. It's taken for granted that directors should impose their own ideas on a work, and "if the director can convince me, I'm willing to try anything".

For my part, I have never seen a regie production that has accomplished what it's proponents claim they are trying to do: to reexamine and rethink the opera, to make it more relevant, to view it from another angle. Instead they are asserting their own _interpretations_ and substituting them in place of the work of art itself. In the more artistically jarring regie productions many of the ideas are absolutely extraneous to the opera, in less offensive ones they often strike me as simply unnecessary. There is a fine line between bringing in one's own ideas, artistry and creativity to craft a fulfilling and unique production of an opera (which I am a proponent of) and bringing in one's own ideas to alter the meaning and interfere with the spectator's appreciation of the original work.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Faustian said:


> An interesting article, but the author doesn't dig into the deeper questions and assumptions involving regietheater. It's taken for granted that directors should impose their own ideas on a work, and "if the director can convince me, I'm willing to try anything".
> 
> For my part, I have never seen a regie production that has accomplished what it's proponents claim they are trying to do: to reexamine and rethink the opera, to make it more relevant, to view it from another angle. Instead they are asserting their own _interpretations_ and *substituting them in place of the work of art itself.* In the more artistically jarring regie productions many of the ideas are absolutely extraneous to the opera, in less offensive ones they often strike me as simply unnecessary. There is a fine line between bringing in one's own ideas, artistry and creativity to craft a fulfilling and unique production of an opera (which I am a proponent of) and bringing in one's own ideas to alter the meaning and interfere with the spectator's appreciation of the original work.


Well said. They're too lazy to write their own opera.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Faustian said:


> An interesting article, but the author doesn't dig into the deeper questions and assumptions involving regietheater. It's taken for granted that directors should impose their own ideas on a work, and "if the director can convince me, I'm willing to try anything".
> 
> For my part, I have never seen a regie production that has accomplished what it's proponents claim they are trying to do: to reexamine and rethink the opera, to make it more relevant, to view it from another angle. Instead they are asserting their own _interpretations_ and substituting them in place of the work of art itself. In the more artistically jarring regie productions many of the ideas are absolutely extraneous to the opera, in less offensive ones they often strike me as simply unnecessary. There is a fine line between bringing in one's own ideas, artistry and creativity to craft a fulfilling and unique production of an opera (which I am a proponent of) and bringing in one's own ideas to alter the meaning and interfere with the spectator's appreciation of the original work.


Doesn't it depend on one's interpretation of the word Regietheater. Isn't it possible to think of Wieland Wagner's almost minimalistic and symbolic productions of Wagner at Bayreuth after the war as Regietheater, as they didn't adhere to Wagner's detailed stage directions? However they were pretty much universally acclaimed.

Ditto some of the productions Visconti did for Callas at La Scala. He brought forward the time period of his production of *La Traviata* to the _fin de siecle_ for the simple reason he thought she would look fantastic in the low waisted, low bustled dresses of that period. He was right and the production was a massive success. *La Sonnambula* was staged with Callas made to look like the ballet dancer Taglioni, bedecked in jewels. His concept was that Callas was a reincarnation of a nineteenth century prima donna, _playing_ the role and at the end he had all the house lights come on with Callas coming right down to the footlights and singing her final joyful cabaletta directly into the audience. It may seem tame now, but it was revolutionary at the time and made people re-think the works, perhaps taking it seriously for the first time in many years.

He set *Ifigenia in Tauride* in Gluck's time rather than in ancient Greece. Callas apparently couldn't understand it at all. She was a Greek woman playing a Greek character and Visconti had her costumed like a character in a Tiepolo painting. However, she went along with it and, in photos that survive, the production looks stunning.

I suppose one of the differences is that both Wieland Wagner and Visconti were intensely musical, and had lived with opera all their lives, rather than having been brought in from alien art form.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> Doesn't it depend on one's interpretation of the word Regietheater. Isn't it possible to think of Wieland Wagner's almost minimalistic and symbolic productions of Wagner at Bayreuth after the war as Regietheater, as they didn't adhere to Wagner's detailed stage directions? However they were pretty much universally acclaimed.
> 
> Ditto some of the productions Visconti did for Callas at La Scala. He brought forward the time period of his production of *La Traviata* to the _fin de siecle_ for the simple reason he thought she would look fantastic in the low waisted, low bustled dresses of that period. He was right and the production was a massive success. *La Sonnambula* was staged with Callas made to look like the ballet dancer Taglioni, bedecked in jewels. His concept was that Callas was a reincarnation of a nineteenth century prima donna, _playing_ the role and at the end he had all the house lights come on with Callas coming right down to the footlights and singing her final joyful cabaletta directly into the audience. It may seem tame now, but it was revolutionary at the time and made people re-think the works, perhaps taking it seriously for the first time in many years.
> 
> ...


Greg if you're going to bring facts into this! The usual suspects (you know who you are) howl about "Regietheatre" they haven't seen but forget themselves when they say how much they enjoy a Falstaff from ROH or Mozart from Glyndebourne, in modern dress!

It would be nice if some people could acknowledge (like the singer whose article is linked above) you don't have to have a position that says it's either all rubbish or all good. The third way is to take it production by production and explain why you liked it (like the linked review did) or didn't. I can then evaluate that information based on what I know of your preconceptions. Saying I love singer X but I hated that production with no further explanation is about as interesting to me as putting Crocodile's on the moon (or whatever the most egregious production was recently accused of).

Sorry if it seems like I'm getting personal and I will try not to make any more comments on this thread as it seems to me this is not a debate that will promote more understanding.

For my part I do realise in my decade or so where I stopped reading reviews or Opera magazine, means I have been ignorant of some farcical horrors for which some poor punters paid upwards of £100 a ticket. At least to that extent I have been educated. But is still doesn't mean that every 'new' production can be labelled unseen as Regietheatre and summarily dismissed.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> Doesn't it depend on one's interpretation of the word Regietheater. Isn't it possible to think of Wieland Wagner's almost minimalistic and symbolic productions of Wagner at Bayreuth after the war as Regietheater, as they didn't adhere to Wagner's detailed stage directions? However they were pretty much universally acclaimed.
> 
> Ditto some of the productions Visconti did for Callas at La Scala. He brought forward the time period of his production of *La Traviata* to the _fin de siecle_ for the simple reason he thought she would look fantastic in the low waisted, low bustled dresses of that period. He was right and the production was a massive success. *La Sonnambula* was staged with Callas made to look like the ballet dancer Taglioni, bedecked in jewels. His concept was that Callas was a reincarnation of a nineteenth century prima donna, _playing_ the role and at the end he had all the house lights come on with Callas coming right down to the footlights and singing her final joyful cabaletta directly into the audience. It may seem tame now, but it was revolutionary at the time and made people re-think the works, perhaps taking it seriously for the first time in many years.
> 
> ...


Yes, there is some grey area there of course. I think it's important to clarify that non-traditional stagings can exist alongside what is normally thought of as Regietheater, and that non-traditional stagings can be incredibly refreshing and engaging. As far as an opera being "updated" to a different time or place -- sometimes it works beautifully when all the essential elements of the libretto and the drama are given proper consideration and handled appropriately, and doesn't inherently change the dynamics of the characters and their situations. Other times it can make the words seem confusing, or have quite an unintended effect. I know of a Lohengrin from example that was updated to take place in a medical camp during World War I. Any "concepts" the director was trying to convey didn't come across it all, and the characters being dressed in sheets and rags just made it look like the production was staged for budgetary reasons.

I suppose its possible to think of Wieland Wagner's productions as Regietheater. However it seems to me that a Wieland was attempting to strip away all extra-musical associations and present the dramas in stark, semi-concert performances making subtle uses of geometric shapes and colors to add to enhance the musical experience. In contrast, what are usually thought of as Regietheater productions are all about _adding _ all sorts of associations and bringing in outside ideas or concepts and applying them to the opera.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Belowpar said:


> ... The usual suspects (you know who you are) howl about "Regietheatre" they haven't seen but forget themselves when they say how much they enjoy a Falstaff from ROH or Mozart from Glyndebourne, in modern dress!


Guilty as charged :lol:

But there's a difference between 'regie' and updating.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

sospiro said:


> Guilty as charged :lol:
> 
> But there's a difference between 'regie' and updating.


It is possible to like an opera performane despite it is not the staging preffered it can be just because it is an opera one likes just as people can like a concertant performance or it can be singers they like or good orchestration. Staging is only one of many factors.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Would Wagner hate 'Regietheater' productions of his opera? Given his concept of 'Gesamtkunstwerk' (total work of art) and his 'control freak' personality I think there can be no doubt.

Does it matter? Probably not.

The libretto of Rigoletto Act 1 Scene 2 specifies "The end of a cul-de-sac (Left, a modest house with a small courtyard...)". Would it be disrespectful to the composer to set the house on the right?

I believe the purpose of all art is to make the audience think otherwise it is mere decoration.
It is easy to simply 'enjoy' operas, particularly those we know and love well, without thinking at all or only distinguishing them by the quality of the singers or pace of the conducting.
Whilst there is nothing wrong with that do you believe that was the composer's intent?

Sometimes it takes a different emphasis, or indeed a shock, to take us out of our comfort zone and make us think.

Anyway 'Regietheater' is nothing new - poor old Shakespeare has been taking it in the neck from directors for centuries. Some of these productions add value, others do not. So long as they don't change the story (as Baz Lurhmann did in his filmed Romeo and Juliet) I'm willing to go along for the ride (at least once).

Having said that some consideration must be given the audience when planning these productions and you mustn't stretch the credulity of the libretto beyond the breaking point. For example in Cosi the libretto asks us to believe the women do not recognize their lovers when disguised. Even when the disguises are large mustaches and exotic clothing we need to suspend disbelief. When 'modernized' and the 'disguise' consists of the lovers simply putting on, or taking off, leather jackets this disrespects the audience. It makes the joke on us.

I'm currently working on a new production of 'Butterfly' (only in my head you understand, I'm not a director or musician) where the racial identities are reversed; Pinkerton is a Sony executive working in the U.S. and Cho-Cho San is an American transvestite in Nagasaki (fictional city in New York state). Because gay marriage is legal in New York but not in Japan (don't know if this is true but for the purposes of the opera it is) Pinkerton does not consider this a real marriage.
I guess I'll have to substitute a gun for the father's samurai sword and I don't know how to resolve the child. Perhaps he can be an adoption that came through after Pinkerton left - what the hell it's not a singing part we can drop the child entirely.:lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DonAlfonso said:


> Would Wagner hate 'Regietheater' productions of his opera? Given his concept of 'Gesamtkunstwerk' (total work of art) and his 'control freak' personality I think there can be no doubt.
> 
> Does it matter? Probably not.
> 
> ...


I have several reservations about what you say here, DonAlfonso.

First, Wagner was not a control freak. He was the author and composer of his works - story, libretto, and music. As such, he was the only person who knew what his operas were intended to say, and he did what he found necessary to ensure that they would say it. That is what all artists do, to whatever extent they can. Composers who don't feel competent to write their own librettos typically engage in constant battles with their librettists - not because they are control freaks but because they have convictions about how to write a good opera, a medium in which music must rule and, therefore, the composer must be the final authority.

It's been said that because Wagner was a great innovator he would appreciate the "innovations" of regie directors. As if he would think doing things differently were desirable for its own sake!

My second point of disagreement with you concerns the purpose of art. It's a good thing, certainly, if art moves us to think. But that is not its primary purpose. We don't need it for a purpose better served by philosophy and criticism. Art is needed to present a vision of life and reality, not ideas about it. Wagner himself said that he wanted people, experiencing his work in the theater, not to think about it, but to experience its meaning through their emotions. That's a view of art as something far from "mere decoration." The unique gift of art is precisely this: that we have our consciousness enlarged by feeling things we cannot feel by any other means. Sure, if we think about this experience later and have new insights, so much the better; but those insights will be inspired by deeper perceptions of things which, by and large, are themselves beyond the power of words to express.

I do indeed want art to take me out of my "comfort zone," but shock for its own sake is unlikely to accomplish that. I will merely resent the effrontery of an arrogant director thinking he knows better than the composer what an opera is about. If an opera is a work of stature and power, it will take us to the proper "zone" when its potential for expressing the depth of its human emotions is realized by whatever means, traditional or unconventional, that might be accomplished. The ability of, say, _Tristan und Isolde_ to take us out of our comfort zone depends on the capacity of singers, conductor, scene designer and director to make us hear and see those qualities in Wagner's work that make it the uncomfortable, subversive thing it inherently is. It does not depend on having the setting changed to an Albuquerque motel or a slum in New Delhi, and having Isolde die by throwing herself under a bus because that is more "thought-provoking" to viewers who take the idea of dying for love too much for granted.

My only response to your imaginary production of _Madama Butterfly_ is: who will you commission to compose the music?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I think my brain isn't able to cope with too much information at once!

Last October I saw Simon Boccanegra in Munich. I hadn't done any research into the production but Dmitri Platanias was singing the title role and I'd seen him before in Rigoletto at ROH so I knew I liked his voice.

But instead of listening to the voices, I spent most of the evening trying to work out why the cast were doing certain things so I have no idea if the singing was any good. The ending was the worst. When Boccanegra is telling his daughter that he's dying, he's cutting up a newspaper to make a paper hat. And the stupid hat is all I can remember!! 

Check out the photos here (different cast)


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

sospiro said:


> I think my brain isn't able to cope with too much information at once!
> 
> Last October I saw Simon Boccanegra in Munich. I hadn't done any research into the production but Dmitri Platanias was singing the title role and I'd seen him before in Rigoletto at ROH so I knew I liked his voice.
> 
> ...


Looks as usual.






It is at least not disgusting as some productions are.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I have several reservations about what you say here, DonAlfonso.
> 
> First, Wagner was not a control freak. He was the author and composer of his works - story, libretto, and music. As such, he was the only person who knew what his operas were intended to say, and he did what he found necessary to ensure that they would say it. That is what all artists do, to whatever extent they can. Composers who don't feel competent to write their own librettos typically engage in constant battles with their librettists - not because they are control freaks but because they have convictions about how to write a good opera, a medium in which music must rule and, therefore, the composer must be the final authority.
> 
> ...


I guess we really do disagree on the purpose of art. Whilst I agree the emotional response is important it's not merely "so much the better" that it lead to new insights but vital. If the emotional response is all we get, or expect, then it's as sterile a pursuit as taking drugs for that purpose. In fact it's exactly the same.

As to shock value we need to acknowledge that many operas contained elements that were shocking to contemporary audiences that are missing to us. It was shocking in 1786 when Figaro, a servant, outwitted a nobleman; shocking in 1875 that Carmen, a 'bad' woman, showed independence and character; shocking in 1853 that a "kept" (Violetta) woman was presented as a heroine; and still shocking in 1895 to have the wastrel bohemians elevated to the operatic stage. None of these things shock us any more so our experience of the operas in traditional settings lacks something the composers intended. Perhaps 'Regietheater' productions are meant to restore some of the unease, even titillation, felt by those contemporary audiences.

Please understand I am no apologist for all 'Regietheater' excesses and I like traditional productions as well but as The Conte said above 'regie' doesn't automatically equal bad.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> Doesn't it depend on one's interpretation of the word Regietheater. Isn't it possible to think of Wieland Wagner's almost minimalistic and symbolic productions of Wagner at Bayreuth after the war as Regietheater, as they didn't adhere to Wagner's detailed stage directions? However they were pretty much universally acclaimed.
> 
> Ditto some of the productions Visconti did for Callas at La Scala. He brought forward the time period of his production of *La Traviata* to the _fin de siecle_ for the simple reason he thought she would look fantastic in the low waisted, low bustled dresses of that period. *He was right and the production was a massive success.* *La Sonnambula* was staged with Callas made to look like the ballet dancer Taglioni, bedecked in jewels. His concept was that Callas was a reincarnation of a nineteenth century prima donna, _playing_ the role and at the end he had all the house lights come on with Callas coming right down to the footlights and singing her final joyful cabaletta directly into the audience. It may seem tame now, but it was revolutionary at the time and made people re-think the works, perhaps taking it seriously for the first time in many years.
> 
> ...


Was it considered a success from the start? I've heard it caused a scandal because Callas' Violetta kicked off her shoes in the first act (or is that a myth?) Many productions that outraged people at the time (E.g. the Chereau Ring) are looked back on in a different light. Of course there are also rubbish productions that are always considered to have been rubbish productions, but maybe today's opera audience isn't always ready for good Regie productions.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DonAlfonso said:


> I guess we really do disagree on the purpose of art. Whilst I agree the emotional response is important it's not merely "so much the better" that it lead to new insights but vital. If the emotional response is all we get, or expect, then it's as sterile a pursuit as taking drugs for that purpose. In fact it's exactly the same.
> 
> As to shock value we need to acknowledge that many operas contained elements that were shocking to contemporary audiences that are missing to us. It was shocking in 1786 when Figaro, a servant, outwitted a nobleman; shocking in 1875 that Carmen, a 'bad' woman, showed independence and character; shocking in 1853 that a "kept" (Violetta) woman was presented as a heroine; and still shocking in 1895 to have the wastrel bohemians elevated to the operatic stage. None of these things shock us any more so our experience of the operas in traditional settings lacks something the composers intended. Perhaps 'Regietheater' productions are meant to restore some of the unease, even titillation, felt by those contemporary audiences.
> 
> Please understand I am no apologist for all 'Regietheater' excesses and I like traditional productions as well but as The Conte said above 'regie' doesn't automatically equal bad.


I think you are oversimplifying what I've said. At least I hope you are.

I haven't said that it is no part of the value of art to stimulate insight. What I'm trying to say is that the kind of insight which it mainly imparts does not need to occur through a directly induced process of abstract thought, although it certainly may do that. But let me ask you some questions. Do you really believe that the essential value of listening to music is that it stimulates new ideas? Is that what you expect to have happen when you put on a Bach mass or a Beethoven quartet? Do you actually like music, or do you only like thinking about it? Can you enjoy looking at a painting? Do line, form, and color have any effect on you? Do you place any value on that effect? When you watch a ballet, is your brain busy churning out ideas? About what? If your brain isn't doing that, do you get anxious and feel your time is being wasted?

It's hard to know what to say to someone who believes that those who are deeply moved by a performance of _Fidelio_, but are not being struck while watching it with new ideas about marriage or politics, might just as well be snorting cocaine for three hours.

I suspect you are erecting a partition between thinking and feeling which does not allow for the rich realm of expression and perception we call "aesthetic," and which underestimates or devalues the range and variety of responses which art can arouse. When I talk about art's appeal to the feelings, I'm not talking about mere sensation; neither am I talking about emotion in the everyday sense. The "feelings" we have at that performance of _Fidelio_ are not drug highs; neither are they equivalent to the happiness of getting a raise at work. I shouldn't think this difficult to comprehend.

People have written volumes about the many facets of the aesthetic response, about what art does for human beings, and about why we want and need it. I'm not about to write another one here. I will only say that the reason man has made and enjoyed art since at least the cave paintings at Lascaux has not been to make himself think. That activity tends to proceed more effectively without musical accompaniment. But is it good if a performance of _Fidelio_ leaves us with fresh thoughts about marriage and politics? It may be good - if, but _only_ if, those thoughts have been stimulated by a deeply felt - deeply _felt_, not cleverly "updated" or "rethought" - presentation of the humanity of Leonore and Florestan as expressed in the music of Beethoven. I don't need to go to a performance of _Fidelio_ to think about marriage or politics. I need to experience _Fidelio_ to experience _Fidelio_, for the simple and wonderful reason that I love _Fidelio_.

Snorting cocaine doesn't do the same thing for me somehow.

As for "shock value, the idea that it was part of Verdi's intention, in setting the story of _La Traviata_ to music, to shock his audiences, and that since we are no linger shocked by prostitutes as characters in opera we must find some other way to make Violetta shocking...



Shock is a feeling, not an insight. We want insight, don't we? Well, perhaps "insight" would best be served, not by having Violetta greet Papa Germont in the nude (is even that shocking any more?) but by having the performers express their characters' attitudes and emotions with force and meaning, and by assuming that an intelligent audience would be capable of understanding the social mores of the time in which the opera is set. Maybe it's just me, I don't know, but I've never had any difficulty understanding such things. Too many of regietheater's "shocks," when they are not merely confusing or distracting, are nothing but insults to our intelligence. Pizzarro doesn't have to wear a swastika, thank you very much.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Woodduck's last two posts did a wonderful job in his last two posts at summing up so many of my own thoughts on the subject, and expressed in a way I never would have been able to articulate, so I don't have too much to add. However I do have a couple thoughts:

1. It strikes me that Regietheater's entire raison d'être, the justification it is given for even existing, is that it makes audience members _think_. Which implies that these operas would not or do not make audience members think otherwise. Not only is this patently untrue, but ironically the "thinking" Regietheater productions are prompting us to do is astonishingly shallow, and involves trying to dumb them down and make them more _relatable_, or conveying an idea in a convoluted way that would be better expressed in words, or relating the opera to some socio-economic position or political movement or what have you in a manner that is crude and in complete opposition to the aesthetics of the art work. On the other hand the greatest operas, like all great art, convey something to us that can never be fully grasped and put into words, so they encourage multiple viewings and listenings and continue to reap rewards.

2. Even the best Regietheater productions I've seen, like Patrice Chéreau's Ring Cycle that is now considered by many to be a classic, seem to me to be largely unnecessary. All the parts about his production that _work_ are based on an interpretation of ideas that are already present in the operas and correlating them to the Industrial Revolution; the parts that don't work are the associations that are created through this interpretation that are downright contradictory to many aspects of Wagner's drama transmitted through the libretto and music. But the core of Chéreau's interpretation is latent in the Ring itself; its part of a larger _something_ that the Ring encompasses. However because the production views the work through this one particular prism, I find for me it lessens or detracts from the overall experience of the Ring. For any of its positives, it never comes close to the overwhelming feeling that experiencing an unfiltered Ring that stays completely true to the dramatic action, characters and settings in Wagner's drama imparts.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

A thought about "updated" productions.

I'm aware that some people are more easily drawn into stories that take place in their own times rather than past centuries or eras. They find it easier to identify with people wearing jeans than people wearing powdered wigs or bearskins. We are all in some manner and degree more comfortable with the familiar, and many of us seem to have an innate prejudice which says that people who don't look like us are not like us, and don't think or feel as we do. For such people, opera set in an 18th century villa or in some mythical kingdom will seem to some degree remote or unreal, like a visit to a foreign country where we don't know the language or the customs. 

I have never felt this way. Perhaps because I grew up reading myths and legends, looking at photos of foreign places and historical times in The Book of Knowledge, and acquiring a taste for classical music and opera at an early age, I always felt that the historic, the foreign, and the exotic were perfectly ordinary: as normal as the everyday world around me, and generally a heck of a lot more interesting. When I discovered opera, I loved the fact that it generally wasn't about my own time and place, of which I got more than enough every day. Classical music and opera were gateways to a bigger, more colorful world, a world of imagination and fantasy and wonderful things that had been real once upon a time, which were a part of "real life" and yet proof that life was much bigger than I might otherwise have known.

For me, updating an opera's setting can be all right if the later era doesn't make nonsense of the plot and doesn't clash badly with the style of the music. Sometimes the circumstances of life in a remote period of history may be little-known to a contemporary audience, and the presentation of a more modern equivalent could bring home to them the meaning of a dramatic situation in a more vivid way. But even where there was a gain in immediacy of impact or comprehensibility (and such gains would only be momentary, since an audience would learn quickly and adjust its affective responses accordingly), the opportunity for the audience to expand its vision and acquire a more comprehensive sense of the universally human would have been lost - or, more accurately, stolen: stolen by directors who, at their most benign, think that audiences haven't the imagination and breadth to appreciate life in times past, or, at their worst, simply see an opportunity to gain prestige second-hand by meddling with great works of art.

What I want from opera - from art in general - is that it show me what I have not seen, take me where I have not gone, and make me feel and understand that life, while it takes an infinity of shapes, is life. How is this to happen if everyone on stage looks like me?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Faustian said:


> Woodduck's last two posts did a wonderful job in his last two posts at summing up so many of my own thoughts on the subject, and expressed in a way I never would have been able to articulate, so I don't have too much to add. However I do have a couple thoughts:
> 
> 1. It strikes me that Regietheater's entire raison d'être, the justification it is given for even existing, is that it makes audience members _think_. Which implies that these operas would not or do not make audience members think otherwise. Not only is this patently untrue, but ironically the "thinking" Regietheater productions are prompting us to do is astonishingly shallow, and involves trying to dumb them down and make them more _relatable_, or conveying an idea in a convoluted way that would be better expressed in words, or relating the opera to some socio-economic position or political movement or what have you in a manner that is crude and in complete opposition to the aesthetics of the art work. On the other hand the greatest operas, like all great art, convey something to us that can never be fully grasped and put into words, so they encourage multiple viewings and listenings and continue to reap rewards.
> 
> 2. Even the best Regietheater productions I've seen, like Patrice Chéreau's Ring Cycle that is now considered by many to be a classic, seem to me to be largely unnecessary. All the parts about his production that _work_ are based on an interpretation of ideas that are already present in the operas and correlating them to the Industrial Revolution; the parts that don't work are the associations that are created through this interpretation that are downright contradictory to many aspects of Wagner's drama transmitted through the libretto and music. But the core of Chéreau's interpretation is latent in the Ring itself; its part of a larger _something_ that the Ring encompasses. However because the production views the work through this one particular prism, I find for me it lessens or detracts from the overall experience of the Ring. For any of its positives, it never comes close to the overwhelming feeling that experiencing an unfiltered Ring that stays completely true to the dramatic action, characters and settings in Wagner's drama imparts.


Well said, sir. Don't be so humble! Interesting that you posted this just as I was working on my latest. This gem has many facets.

:tiphat:

Another thought:

Regietheater, by looking for a "point of view," does not deepen the meaning of a work but rather confines and narrows it. We cannot forget that we are seeing, not the work itself, but a view of the work as it passes through the lenses worn by the director. Of course that view then passes through our own lenses - and so the work is filtered twice. How much will be left of it by then?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> A thought about "updated" productions.
> 
> I'm aware that some people are more easily drawn into stories that take place in their own times rather than past centuries or eras. They find it easier to identify with people wearing jeans than people wearing powdered wigs or bearskins. We are all in some manner and degree more comfortable with the familiar, and many of us seem to have an innate prejudice which says that people who don't look like us are not like us, and don't think or feel as we do. For such people, opera set in an 18th century villa or in some mythical kingdom will seem to some degree remote or unreal, like a visit to a foreign country where we don't know the language or the customs.


Good point. I would always prefer a production which reflects what the composer intended but there are times when I want to see/hear a particular singer and if they're singing in an updated production then so be it.



Woodduck said:


> Another thought:
> Regietheater, by looking for a "point of view," does not deepen the meaning of a work but rather confines and narrows it. We cannot forget that we are seeing, not the work itself, but a view of the work as it passes through the lenses worn by the director. Of course that view then passes through our own lenses - and so the work is filtered twice. How much will be left of it by then?


Exactly! I wonder what Simon Boccanegra 'virgins' thought of the Munich production.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> As for "shock value, the idea that it was part of Verdi's intention, in setting the story of _La Traviata_ to music, to shock his audiences, and that since we are no linger shocked by prostitutes as characters in opera we must find some other way to make Violetta shocking...
> 
> Shock is a feeling, not an insight. We want insight, don't we? Well, perhaps "insight" would best be served, not by having Violetta greet Papa Germont in the nude (is even that shocking any more?) but by having the performers express their characters' attitudes and emotions with force and meaning, and by assuming that an intelligent audience would be capable of understanding the social mores of the time in which the opera is set. Maybe it's just me, I don't know, but I've never had any difficulty understanding such things. Too many of regietheater's "shocks," when they are not merely confusing or distracting, are nothing but insults to our intelligence. Pizzarro doesn't have to wear a swastika, thank you very much.


This is indeed one of the basic assumptions of Regietheater. For me the case of "La Traviata" is particularly fascinating. I mean, every Western member of any Traviata audience is perfectly able to understand the situation, and the meaning of what's happening on stage, if we just follow the indications of the composer and the librettist.

Now, it seems we still need to get a component of the "shock", that was supposed to be for the opera goers of the 19th century to watch a prostitute being the protagonist of the show. Let's see what one notorious regista, Mr. Calixto Bieito has to say:

_With La Traviata, Verdi made a clear argument in favor of women. He wanted to give a second chance to explain the story of a prostitute whom society cannot truly love, while making a scathing attack on the bourgeois double standards of the time. He made it through the lens of melodrama, which was what was fashionable at the time. I do it from my own contemporaneity . . . That is why my version of Violetta has nothing to do with a prostitute who ends up dying of consumption. She's a strong, independent women, like Ridley Scott's Thelma and Louise. _

Of course Violetta has nothing to do with Thelma. Not even with Louise. But the root of the problem here is when Mr. Bieito's flatly states: _I do it from my own ... my version of Violetta_. (incidentally, in Mr. Bieito's mind Violetta is not really sick, Germont father is a kind of regular customer of Violetta, and at the end Violetta just want to get rid of both Germonts, and feigns her own death, in order to escape to Brazil with Amina, that is her lesbian lover).

He couldn't care less about the real story of Piave and Verdi, or his meaning to a contemporary audience, he is just interested in telling us about his own visions, his personal obsessions. In fact, he is claiming somehow that the audience is there to watch his staging, not to hear a painfully outdated melodrama in music. That the opera house is paying him to do that, to bring new life to what is now a dead genre.

So, instead of helping the audience to get a deeper understanding of the opera or to illuminate some aspect of Traviata, he just prefer to betray this audience, and stage something totally divorced from the text and the music.

And this is the sad truth of many (not all, of course) Regitheater stagings: that they are cheating on the audience, by presenting a parallel drama, superimposed on the original one, but totally separated from it.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Faustian said:


> Woodduck's last two posts did a wonderful job in his last two posts at summing up so many of my own thoughts on the subject, and expressed in a way I never would have been able to articulate, so I don't have too much to add. However I do have a couple thoughts:
> 
> 1. It strikes me that Regietheater's entire raison d'être, the justification it is given for even existing, is that it makes audience members _think_. Which implies that these operas would not or do not make audience members think otherwise. Not only is this patently untrue, but ironically the "thinking" Regietheater productions are prompting us to do is astonishingly shallow, and involves trying to dumb them down and make them more _relatable_, or conveying an idea in a convoluted way that would be better expressed in words, or relating the opera to some socio-economic position or political movement or what have you in a manner that is crude and in complete opposition to the aesthetics of the art work. On the other hand the greatest operas, like all great art, convey something to us that can never be fully grasped and put into words, so they encourage multiple viewings and listenings and continue to reap rewards.
> 
> 2. Even the best Regietheater productions I've seen, like Patrice Chéreau's Ring Cycle that is now considered by many to be a classic, seem to me to be largely unnecessary. All the parts about his production that _work_ are based on an interpretation of ideas that are already present in the operas and correlating them to the Industrial Revolution; the parts that don't work are the associations that are created through this interpretation that are downright contradictory to many aspects of Wagner's drama transmitted through the libretto and music. But the core of Chéreau's interpretation is latent in the Ring itself; its part of a larger _something_ that the Ring encompasses. However because the production views the work through this one particular prism, I find for me it lessens or detracts from the overall experience of the Ring. For any of its positives, it never comes close to the overwhelming feeling that experiencing an unfiltered Ring that stays completely true to the dramatic action, characters and settings in Wagner's drama imparts.


You make two interesting points, however, I don't think your premiss in either point is so.

*1) It strikes me that Regietheater's entire raison d'être, the justification it is given for even existing, is that it makes audience members think.*
This isn't so. The regie productions I have liked, I liked because they helped me to connect emotionally to the story. The best example of that was the recent Guillaume Tell at the ROH. I saw from the positive comments on the ROH website that other people who liked it, did so because it brought the story to life for them.

It worries me how many people see sets and costumes that they find 'ugly' and so think that the Director has done a bad job. They totally ignore the blocking, the way in which the singers move and react to each other dramatically and the overall style of the acting (all things that depend to a large degree on the Director). The same people see 'park and bark' productions where the singers react to each other with generic 'opera' gestures, but don't mind because the costumes were 'pretty'.

*However because the production views the work through this one particular prism, I find for me it lessens or detracts from the overall experience of the Ring.*

All productions are an _interpretation_ of the original work. Traditional productions also view a work from one particular prism, it just happens to be a prism that has been around a while. People who are opposed to regie often say that they couldn't follow the plot of an opera they know well because the production was so bad (where bad for them = regie). They then comment that it must have been even worse for people coming to the opera who have no idea of the story. Although I have seen bad regie productions where I couldn't follow the story (when I knew the pieces well), I had no problem following the story of Guillaume Tell even though I didn't really know the plot. I think newbies come to an opera with fewer preconceptions and so may actually enjoy a good regie production more than people who know the opera.

N.

P.S. You'd like to see an 'unfiltered' production of the Ring that deals with the larger _something_ that the Ring encompasses. The Ring is such a complex, multi-faceted work I doubt that would be even possible.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

schigolch said:


> This is indeed one of the basic assumptions of Regietheater. For me the case of "La Traviata" is particularly fascinating. I mean, every Western member of any Traviata audience is perfectly able to understand the situation, and the meaning of what's happening on stage, if we just follow the indications of the composer and the librettist.
> 
> Now, it seems we still need to get a component of the "shock", that was supposed to be for the opera goers of the 19th century to watch a prostitute being the protagonist of the show. Let's see what one notorious regista, Mr. Calixto Bieito has to say:
> 
> ...


Thank you. Superbly put!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

The well-reasoned posts by Faustian, Woodduck & Schigolch give the lie to the idea that opera lovers who (speaking *in general*) don't enjoy regie are staid types who aren't capable of deeper thought and just enjoy pretty costumes.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> The well-reasoned posts by Faustian, Woodduck & Schigolch give the lie to the idea that opera lovers who (speaking *in general*) don't enjoy regie are staid types who aren't capable of deeper thought and just enjoy pretty costumes.


Indeed!

Intelligent and thoughtful comments.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> The well-reasoned posts by Faustian, Woodduck & Schigolch give the lie to the idea that opera lovers who (speaking *in general*) don't enjoy regie are staid types who aren't capable of deeper thought and just enjoy pretty costumes.


But I love pretty costumes. Oh dear, time to retire to the corner and put on my dunce's hat.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Steatopygous said:


> But I love pretty costumes. Oh dear, time to retire to the corner and put on my dunce's hat.


Oh, so do I! I was only saying that non-regie-ist Opera-Goers can have a Deep Thought or two as well as liking pretty sets. 
So come on out of that corner!


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

The Conte said:


> You make two interesting points, however, I don't think your premiss in either point is so.
> 
> *1) It strikes me that Regietheater's entire raison d'être, the justification it is given for even existing, is that it makes audience members think.*
> This isn't so. The regie productions I have liked, I liked because they helped me to connect emotionally to the story. The best example of that was the recent Guillaume Tell at the ROH. I saw from the positive comments on the ROH website that other people who liked it, did so because it brought the story to life for them.
> ...


But see, I am not one of those concert-goers who dislikes productions simply because they are "ugly" and comes in loaded with all kinds of expectations and preconceptions of what I should be seeing.* My concern is not whether a set and costumes are pretty or not, but whether a production clashes with or enhances the aesthetic content of the opera.* And just because a production is traditional does not mean I'll like it. For example I consider the Met's production from 1990 under Levine to be remarkably kitschy and stiff.

What I am referring to when I talk about Regietheater are productions that are _driven_ by concept: they are a director's interpretation or reimagining of a work, or their attempt to draw our attention to something and make a statement about it. I am _not_ talking about any production that doesn't follow the original set designs or stage directions literally.

I think we are meaning different things when we are say "interpretations" of the drama. To me, there is a distinction between _interpreting_ a work and _presenting_ a work. Traditional productions aren't interpretations of an opera that have been around longer, they are _presentations_ of one based on the conception of the composer and librettist. Devising new ways of presenting Wagner's dramas that stay true to the narrative as he conceived it is very much a worthwhile endeavor. This is what I mean by presenting it "unfiltered", and in doing so the audience can absorb all the aspects of this "complex, multi-faceted work". Of course there are many different ways to go about this in new and exciting ways, and why new productions are always welcome. Alternatively, a production like Chéreau's Ring sees the work as an economic and political commentary, and draws parallels between it and ideas tied with the 19th century's industrial revolution. This is an _interpretation_ based on the political threads running through the work. But to present the Ring solely on this one level of interpretation makes it feel incomplete and sells so many of its other layers short. Not to mention turning the Rhinemaidens into whores or Wotan into an industrialist brings in all sorts of connotations and changes the context we view these characters that aren't in the original work at all.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Not only were Chereau's Rhinemaidens streetwalkers, but the street they walked was located atop a hydroelectric dam. I suppose that's a good place to run a brothel if your clients are swarthy dwarves who live under the earth. It seemed fair enough that when they refused service to him, it was Alberich who got paid instead of the ladies. But I've forgotten now whether they called Alberich "john."


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> The well-reasoned posts by Faustian, Woodduck & Schigolch give the lie to the idea that opera lovers who (speaking *in general*) don't enjoy regie are staid types who aren't capable of deeper thought and just enjoy pretty costumes.


That may well be true. I was thinking about the general comments I often see from people who don't like regie on other websites. Most comments there never mention the blocking or the way the singers react to one another and whether it is 'stagey' and/or 'hammy' or whether it has something of the naturally convincing about it. (Of course, there are also traditional productions where the singers are thoughtfully directed and regie ones that are turkeys in that department, but most criticism on the web is for the 'setting' and the designs, rather than for the production as a whole.)

N.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

My view is a simple one. Whatever the staging is, it *must* be subservient to the plot and characterization of the characters. There should be no psychoanalysis of the opera, which is something quite common. There should be no outright minimalism of staging that baffles what's going on with the plot. There should be no symbolism that leaves listeners guessing. Traditional staging tends to work best. Updates can work if done appropriately going back to what I wrote first about plot and characterization. But updates of a medieval story makes little sense if it's about kings and queens with wizardry magic "updated" in a modern setting, this doesn't work.

Most of the modern stage directors are amateurs in this respect. They are more interested in their own agenda than the composers'.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> That may well be true. I was thinking about the general comments I often see from people who don't like regie on other websites. *Most comments there never mention the blocking or the way the singers react to one another and whether it is 'stagey' and/or 'hammy' or whether it has something of the naturally convincing about it.* (Of course, there are also traditional productions where the singers are thoughtfully directed and regie ones that are turkeys in that department, but most criticism on the web is for the 'setting' and the designs, rather than for the production as a whole.)
> 
> N.


I suspect the reason people don't mention those things is that it's hard to know who to give credit or blame to - hard to know how much of the effect of the action is due to the director's concept and how much to the imaginations of the actors. Often the acting in regie productions can be quite fine. I was pretty impressed by Opolais and Kaufmann's work in the current _Manon Lescaut_, which I found annoying visually and conceptually. Of course the style of acting was very naturalistic and gutsy, but that was apt for the modernized production. The Chereau_ Ring_, as I recall, has some fine acting in it, and some good and original interaction between the characters, obviously a directorial choice.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Faustian said:


> But see, I am not one of those concert-goers who dislikes productions simply because they are "ugly" and comes in loaded with all kinds of expectations and preconceptions of what I should be seeing.* My concern is not whether a set and costumes are pretty or not, but whether a production clashes with or enhances the aesthetic content of the opera.* And just because a production is traditional does not mean I'll like it. For example I consider the Met's production from 1990 under Levine to be remarkably kitschy and stiff.
> 
> What I am referring to when I talk about Regietheater are productions that are _driven_ by concept: they are a director's interpretation or reimagining of a work, or their attempt to draw our attention to something and make a statement about it. I am _not_ talking about any production that doesn't follow the original set designs or stage directions literally.


This is interesting, your definition of regie is similar to my own, thanks for clarifying that you don't think regie = anything that isn't traditional.



Faustian said:


> I think we are meaning different things when we are say "interpretations" of the drama. To me, there is a distinction between _interpreting_ a work and _presenting_ a work. Traditional productions aren't interpretations of an opera that have been around longer, they are _presentations_ of one based on the conception of the composer and librettist. Devising new ways of presenting Wagner's dramas that stay true to the narrative as he conceived it is very much a worthwhile endeavor. This is what I mean by presenting it "unfiltered", and in doing so the audience can absorb all the aspects of this "complex, multi-faceted work". Of course there are many different ways to go about this in new and exciting ways, and why new productions are always welcome.


I'm afraid I can't understand the difference you perceive here. There are too many choices that a Director (or Producer) needs to make to turn the paper score of an opera into a living performance for it to be a mere 'presentation'. For example, Handel's operas were not performed in historically accurate costume, but rather in costumes that went with the tastes of the early eighteenth century. To 'present' Handel's operas today, would I have to use historically accurate costumes, costumes similar to those worn by the singers at the premiere of each opera, or costumes that are in line with what people today 'expect' people wore in the period the opera is originally set? What about The Ring? It starts at the beginning of time and ends at the destruction of the world (so in the future?) There are too many choices (even if I plan to stick to the Librettist and Composer's intentions (however I'm meant to know what they were)) for a production to be a mere 'presentation'. I don't see choosing to base a production on what has been done in the past as a 'presentation' rather just a reinterpretation of a prior interpretation.



Faustian said:


> Alternatively, a production like Chéreau's Ring sees the work as an economic and political commentary, and draws parallels between it and ideas tied with the 19th century's industrial revolution. This is an _interpretation_ based on the political threads running through the work. But to present the Ring solely on this one level of interpretation makes it feel incomplete and sells so many of its other layers short. Not to mention turning the Rhinemaidens into whores or Wotan into an industrialist brings in all sorts of connotations and changes the context we view these characters that aren't in the original work at all.


Interesting point, but why is having the Rhinemaidens as whores make them any less open to multiple interpretations than having them as water nymphs? How is 'water nymph' a wider concept than 'whores'?

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

The strangest thing just happened. When I first submitted my post the last word appeared as '******', fortunately I could edit it, but it seems that the forum itself doesn't like Rhinemaidens as whores!

N.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

The Conte said:


> The strangest thing just happened. When I first submitted my post the last word appeared as '******', fortunately I could edit it, but it seems that the forum itself doesn't like Rhinemaidens as whores!
> 
> N.


I recently noticed something similar. 
To me, casting the Rhinemaidens as whores is at odds with their role as guardians of the ring. But this would be only a minor objection.

I too agree with the definition of regietheatre that you and Faustian hold, and I think that is the general understanding. I don't always hate it, but I do get upset when I think the director has placed his personal vanity at the top of the priorities, when he (and it always a he, it seems) wants to have the audience leave discussing him, not the opera itself.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

The Conte said:


> I'm afraid I can't understand the difference you perceive here. There are too many choices that a Director (or Producer) needs to make to turn the paper score of an opera into a living performance for it to be a mere 'presentation'. For example, Handel's operas were not performed in historically accurate costume, but rather in costumes that went with the tastes of the early eighteenth century. To 'present' Handel's operas today, would I have to use historically accurate costumes, costumes similar to those worn by the singers at the premiere of each opera, or costumes that are in line with what people today 'expect' people wore in the period the opera is originally set? What about The Ring? It starts at the beginning of time and ends at the destruction of the world (so in the future?) There are too many choices (even if I plan to stick to the Librettist and Composer's intentions (however I'm meant to know what they were)) for a production to be a mere 'presentation'. I don't see choosing to base a production on what has been done in the past as a 'presentation' rather just a reinterpretation of a prior interpretation.


What you are talking about here is a director imagining what the staging and costumes will look like, based on the libretto and stage directions. So in Act I of Die Walkure we are told its a room in Hunding's hut, but the design and layout of this room is the job of the director to create. You're right of course, there is a creative, interpretive process that has to take place even in making choices of this sort. I'm not arguing this. However, what I am talking about when I speak of interpretation is a director deciding what an opera is about, or what messages it contains, or how it relates to some remote topic, and basing the production off of these ideas. In doing so some of the fundamental elements are often altered; it changes from the director deciding what Sieglinde should look like and how her movements might be choreographed to rethinking the nature of her character and deciding how the audience sees her and what she represents.

I hope that the way these two approaches to staging an opera are completely different and what I'm trying to say is a little clearer.



> Interesting point, but why is having the Rhinemaidens as whores make them any less open to multiple interpretations than having them as water nymphs? How is 'water nymph' a wider concept than 'whores'?
> 
> N.


Its not that I don't think they open to multiple interpretations; we are discussing works of art here, and they are always open to interpretation. But there are all sorts of associations that audience members have with whores that they wouldn't have with water nymphs; women who sell their bodies for profit being just one of the more obvious. If one looks at the Rhinemaidens as Wagner conceived them, there are never any implications of that sort. So again, it goes back to the very nature and perception of these characters being changed.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I think you are oversimplifying what I've said. At least I hope you are.
> 
> I haven't said that it is no part of the value of art to stimulate insight. What I'm trying to say is that the kind of insight which it mainly imparts does not need to occur through a directly induced process of abstract thought, although it certainly may do that. But let me ask you some questions. Do you really believe that the essential value of listening to music is that it stimulates new ideas? Is that what you expect to have happen when you put on a Bach mass or a Beethoven quartet? Do you actually like music, or do you only like thinking about it? Can you enjoy looking at a painting? Do line, form, and color have any effect on you? Do you place any value on that effect? When you watch a ballet, is your brain busy churning out ideas? About what? If your brain isn't doing that, do you get anxious and feel your time is being wasted?
> 
> ...


When I first read your post I thought "wow has he ever chosen the wrong opera as an example" - as I loathe Fidelio. However upon reflection I think it serves the purpose well.

First let me say that I'm delighted you get so much from that opera - I'm delighted when anyone loves any opera as I consider opera to be the pinnacle of musical art.

As deeply felt as your experience of watching Fidelio is, at bottom what you are describing is an entertainment. Whilst there is nothing wrong with that (as I've previously said) is that all it need be? If a director decides to highlight the plight of political prisoners in our time and resets the location to Saudia Arabia, Egypt, North Korea or one of the secret CIA 'rendition' prisons, why is that bad? Perhaps a few in the audience will be affected enough to write their congressman or give a donation to Amnesty International. Less likely I think when Florestan is an early 19th century Spaniard. But it seems you would deny the director that opportunity.

In a more contemporary vein, no "regie" here, some attending a performance of "Anna Nicole" will certainly simply enjoy (or not) the performance and feel the feelings; perhaps a few though, on leaving the theatre, will think "no I really don't need to check Twitter to learn of Kim Kardashian's latest antics". I believe composers in the past, as well as presenting entertainment of superb quality, also had "political" motives and meant to move contemporary audiences in those ways.

As to the 'sanctity' (yes I'm aware no one has used that word - just shorthand for some the 'atmosphere' I detect in some posts) of the works the composers themselves didn't seem to consider anything untouchable. Beethoven spent years rewriting _Fidelio_, since we have his final word on the subject is it disrespectful, even heretical, to stage productions of the _Leonores_? _Un ballo in maschera_ was reset by Verdi from Sweden to Germany to Boston. The likelihood is that the last half-century when we attend an opera called _Un ballo in maschera_ we're actually given a performance of _Gustavo III_. So which is the "definitive" version, the last a composer presented or the first one written? And who decides?

Composers frequently amended, and reset, their own work for different audiences/opera companies/performers. Nor were they particularly reverent of the works of others. The majority of operas use librettos based on other sources - plays and books. The libretto for Fidelio was based on another libretto! Do you think all the original authors would have approved of the adaptations made in the libretto? Do you think the composers or libretticists(sp?) cared?

Finally I really don't understand a lot of the heat in this issue. A "regie" production of an opera does not supplant or destroy the original. Some may work, others fail, but to seem to deny the right to produce new versions seems to me to be completely wrong.


----------



## sorcered (Aug 2, 2015)

DonAlfonso said:


> A "regie" production of an opera does not supplant or destroy the original. Some may work, others fail, but to seem to deny the right to produce new versions seems to me to be completely wrong.


It might however destroy the goodwill of viewers towards the opera, which in the case of first-time viewers might lead to a profound distaste, going as far as not willing to go watch any other opera, period. For example, the first Traviata I saw was a horrible mix of old and new, where Brindisi was sung while the partygoers were shaking their booties to rock'n roll. GF had to blackmail me to get me to watch another rendition of Traviata, and this time it was a standard one, faithful to the 1860s.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

As deeply felt as your experience of watching Fidelio is, *at bottom what you are describing is an entertainment.* Whilst there is nothing wrong with that (as I've previously said) is that all it need be? If a director decides to highlight the plight of political prisoners in our time and resets the location to Saudia Arabia, Egypt, North Korea or one of the secret CIA 'rendition' prisons, why is that bad? Perhaps a few in the audience will be affected enough to write their congressman or give a donation to Amnesty International. 

You have a very low opinion of art - and, whether you realize it or not, of the people who create art and appreciate it.

When, in the past, I have spoken of the value of art to the human spirit, a member here on the forum has repeatedly insisted that opera is not to be taken too seriously, that it is merely "entertainment." Now, when I speak again of the value of experiencing great art, another member tells me that, yes, that's right, opera _is_ merely "entertainment" - unless it is rescued from that ignoble status by being turned into propaganda.

It's a little dispiriting to be told that the things you love and live for, the great, moving, even transforming experiences of your life, are the equivalent of a drug trip or a strip show, and that you need to be redeemed from your idle ways and devote yourself to something more "useful." It is even worse to be told this if you are, as I have always been, a creative and performing artist, for whom the wordless messages of art transcend all the heartless and wearisome business of the world and nourish the interior life which that world so often does its best to demean and grind to dust.

Entertainment? Tell that to Beethoven and Wagner. Tell them how shallow and insignificant their work is, how pointless their backbreaking labors have been, and how their only hope of giving their art genuine value is to stimulate their audiences to write their congressmen.

As to the 'sanctity' (yes I'm aware no one has used that word - just shorthand for some the 'atmosphere' I detect in some posts) of the works the composers themselves didn't seem to consider anything untouchable.

The composers themselves were not hotshot directors looking for second-hand glory by fiddling with other people's masterpieces. The composers themselves were - the composers themselves!

Finally I really don't understand a lot of the heat in this issue. A "regie" production of an opera does not supplant or destroy the original. Some may work, others fail, but to seem to deny the right to produce new versions seems to me to be completely wrong.

It certainly would be completely wrong to deny anyone the right to produce new versions. But no one wants to do that. It isn't a question of rights.

I just have to wonder why truly great art is considered so impotent, and audiences so stupid, that directors believe their ham-handed intervention is needed, lest no one leave the theater having been more than "entertained." Perhaps it's because they too do not fundamentally understand, love and believe in the art they make their living by plundering.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Woodduck

I will give more thought to your deeply felt post. However "Entertainment" is not always "shallow and insignificant" or "pointless". 

There are those who think that sport can tell them as much about the human condition and character as any book, play or music. 

You are have found your 'drug' and are obviously serious in your study, appreciation and thought about it. Can you allow others to have the same reactions to sport or entertainments like comedy, film or even musicals? The best practitioners have the same aims in mind as the composers you so revere.


There are worst things in life than to be entertaining.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

Belowpar said:


> Woodduck
> 
> I will give more thought to your deeply felt post. However "Entertainment" is not always "shallow and insignificant" or "pointless".
> 
> ...


That is certainly true. I like being entertained. For someone who is reasonably intelligent about music, philosophy, the media (or flatters himself so), I am vulgar when it comes to Hollywood. I like escapist stuff, but I don't watch much, because I spend more time on music. What I get from opera - most operas - is so much more profound than the movies I watch, though it is hard to elucidate why. But obviously I recognise that there are others of much more cultivated taste, more experience and more knowledge who get great fulfilment from movies. It seems to me that entertainment is like happiness - we are far more likely to be entertained when not seeking it, just as research shows that we are happiest when happiness is not our goal. 
Of course, we have to unpack what we mean by "entertainment". But for this discussion I mean being lifted out of myself, whether somewhere elevated or somewhere popular (sport can provide the latter).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

On the matter of "entertainment"...

I don't see a need to quibble over the definition of the word. What's really at issue is the value of the artistic experience, and the question of what art can and should do for us. I guess I would say that it can affect us on many levels, emotional and intellectual, that all those levels are worthwhile, and that none should be demeaned.

Most of us here would agree that opera is a pretty amazing and powerful art form. Wagner certainly thought so (apologies to all that I mention him so often; we talk about what we know). I can imagine the child Richard, accompanying his stepfather, actor Ludwig Geyer, to the theater, succumbing to the magic of an alternative universe where life was more brilliant, more intense, more focused and distilled than it was in the randomness and routine of the everyday world. I can imagine too the ecstasy he felt encountering the shivering darkness of Weber's Wolf's Glen in _Der Freischutz,_ or the heroism and loving fortitude of Beethoven's Leonore in _Fidelio,_ in which the brilliant singing actress Wilhelmine Schroeder-Devrient gave him a revelation of expressive art which stayed with him the rest of his life. Wagner, as revealed in his studies of Greek drama, his theories of the "total art work," the revolutionary design of his theater at Bayreuth, and above all his unremitting labors to refashion operatic "entertainment" into a profoundly serious art form of inestimable influence, never lost his belief that art could aspire to something more than amusement and distraction, that the stage could be a place where humanity's aspirations could find visible form, and that music could be the vehicle by which the spectator could be taken out of himself and lifted to a higher plane of feeling and understanding.

We may live in a more cynical time, and be skeptical of that kind of Romantic idealism, and I wouldn't say that that's altogether unhealthy; it's too obvious that no human endeavor, no matter how noble or beautiful, can save humanity from its flaws and errors. But art is still an endeavor that can make human life incomparably better, and it does so, I think, not primarily by teaching us how to live (though it may do that), but by focusing our minds and emotions in such a way that, while we are experiencing it, we are indeed more fully alive. As I listen to the music and watch the drama of a great opera unfold in the sanctuary of the theater, or even at home on a recording, I have an opportunity to cleanse my mind of the pressures, obligations, noise and distraction of the world, divest myself of the armor I may have to wear to protect myself from life's slings and arrows, and become for a few hours more alert, more aware, more sensitive, more vulnerable, more empathetic, more honest, more _myself_ - the self that I know in my heart that I am, and wish I could always be. And not only great art can do this for us: on less profound levels, "entertainments" - movies, TV shows, even athletic events, as Belowpar and Steatopygous point out - can give us a sense of being open and alive which is much more than "escapism." I often wonder whether those who look down on simple enjoyments as "escapist entertainment" look down on health as an "escape" from disease!

Maria Callas said that she believed that the function of opera, and her own function as an opera singer, was to bring to people something better than they had in their everyday lives. That "something better" is, I think, a direct, heightened, and inarguable experience of what it means to be alive and human. Whatever else we may get from art in the way of ideas and perspectives, that experience is the fundament, and forever the pearl of greatest price.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

Very well said, Woodduck. 
I have been asked to open an arts festival tomorrow (oddly and for the first time), and I was making notes yesterday for the (mercifully short) speech, and wrote down thoughts very similar to those you have just expressed.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I love opera but it remains an entertainment for me. The spirit may be moved greatly (as in the prisoners' chorus in Fidelio) or elevated (as in the finale of Falstaff) or caused to marvel (as when Mozart reconciles the count and countess in Figaro) but this is not real life. It is fiction on stage. It might be a high artistic experience - as a Shakespeare play, a John Ford movie, a night at the ballet or viewing a Rembrandt - but it remains fiction and not part of real life. It is a form of escapism and that's why I don't like reality rammed down my throat by regietheatre directors who feel they must 'educate' the audience somehow. If I want to know what's going on in the world I only have to look at the News or read a newspaper to find out. Opera of all art forms is not real life - come on, people sing and don't speak! But it provides a means of lifting the human spirit when it is done well. That's why I hate productions that depress the spirit. I can turn on the news and get that free of charge!


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

It doesn't bother me that folks try to make interesting adaptations of these works, but what does bother me is the narrative incoherence of retaining the original libretti and singing about dukes and queens and people dying of consumption but showing Vegas mobsters or CEOs or whatever. 

Maybe directors should be *freer* with the material instead of less free, and try to rewrite the libretti to keep the emotional and musical sweep of the original composition while also maintaining coherence and rational connection between the text and the stage action.

New settings also don't bother me as much as violence done to the characterizations. I didn't hate the global warming post-apocalypse pool of blood Parsifal (although I thought the production was kind of drab and inert) but I'm pretty skeptical about the murderous Parsifal and Gurnemanz at Berlin Staatsoper.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> It doesn't bother me that folks try to make interesting adaptations of these works, but what does bother me is the narrative incoherence of retaining the original libretti and singing about dukes and queens and people dying of consumption but showing Vegas mobsters or CEOs or whatever.
> 
> Maybe directors should be *freer* with the material instead of less free, and try to rewrite the libretti to keep the emotional and musical sweep of the original composition while also maintaining coherence and rational connection between the text and the stage action.
> 
> New settings also don't bother me as much as violence done to the characterizations. I didn't hate the global warming post-apocalypse pool of blood Parsifal (although I thought the production was kind of drab and inert) but I'm pretty skeptical about the murderous Parsifal and Gurnemanz at Berlin Staatsoper.


Can you tell us any more about the two interpretations in your last sentence?


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> It doesn't bother me that folks try to make interesting adaptations of these works, but what does bother me is the narrative incoherence of retaining the original libretti and singing about dukes and queens and people dying of consumption but showing Vegas mobsters or CEOs or whatever.
> 
> Maybe directors should be *freer* with the material instead of less free, and try to rewrite the libretti to keep the emotional and musical sweep of the original composition while also maintaining coherence and rational connection between the text and the stage action.
> 
> New settings also don't bother me as much as violence done to the characterizations. I didn't hate the global warming post-apocalypse pool of blood Parsifal (although I thought the production was kind of drab and inert) but I'm pretty skeptical about the murderous Parsifal and Gurnemanz at Berlin Staatsoper.


The idea of directors being even freer, I have to admit, doesn't commend itself to me. If it's wrong to cut or rearrange the music, as most here would generally agree, then the same must apply to the libretto. After all, the work is a dramatic unity. I suspect for every production that "worked" there would be 19 that did not.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I love opera but it remains an entertainment for me. The spirit may be moved greatly (as in the prisoners' chorus in Fidelio) or elevated (as in the finale of Falstaff) or caused to marvel (as when Mozart reconciles the count and countess in Figaro) but this is not real life. It is fiction on stage. It might be a high artistic experience - as a Shakespeare play, a John Ford movie, a night at the ballet or viewing a Rembrandt - but it remains fiction and not part of real life. It is a form of escapism and that's why I don't like reality rammed down my throat by regietheatre directors who feel they must 'educate' the audience somehow. If I want to know what's going on in the world I only have to look at the News or read a newspaper to find out. Opera of all art forms is not real life - come on, people sing and don't speak! But it provides a means of lifting the human spirit when it is done well. That's why I hate productions that depress the spirit. I can turn on the news and get that free of charge!


I don't entirely agree, but I understand the sentiments and largely agree. 
Where I don't agree is the implied suggestion that fiction doesn't teach us. Fiction can often illuminate and teach in special ways. This is pretty much off topic, so I won't labour the point, but it's important.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Steatopygous said:


> Can you tell us any more about the two interpretations in your last sentence?


The Met did a production recently that was set in sort of set in some blasted post-apocalyptic wasteland (lots of dust and sand) but in modern dress. Klingsor's tower several inches deep in blood. Really good performances--Kaufmann, Pape, and especially Peter Mattei as Amfortas. Kind of too much on the languorous end for me.









I haven't watched the Berlin Staatsoper one yet but I gather that the Klingsor in this version seems to be a mousy civilian who has a house of young flower maidens he's protecting or maybe molesting?, and Parsifal kills him at the end of Act 2. Then I guess at the end, I gather Parsifal starts writhing around with Kundry, then Gurnemanz knifes her in the back.... I guess I'm a little skeptical.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Steatopygous said:


> I don't entirely agree, but I understand the sentiments and largely agree.
> Where I don't agree is the implied suggestion that fiction doesn't teach us. Fiction can often illuminate and teach in special ways. This is pretty much off topic, so I won't labour the point, but it's important.


I wasn't saying fiction couldn't teach us - of course it can, as you suggest. We cannot see (e.g.) Henry iV by Shakespeare without learning some things about (e.g.) the burden of power ('Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown'). However, reading a good and truthful biography can teach us that and far more, although (of course) without the great experience of Shakespeare's verse. Let's remember that Shakespeare wrote his plays for the primary reason of entertaining people and making money for himself and his players. Of course, being a staggering genius he couldn't help putting bags of meaningful stuff in them too!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I wasn't saying fiction couldn't teach us - of course it can, as you suggest. We cannot see (e.g.) Henry iV by Shakespeare without learning some things about (e.g.) the burden of power ('Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown'). However, reading a good and truthful biography can teach us that and far more, although (of course) without the great experience of Shakespeare's verse. Let's remember that Shakespeare wrote his plays for the primary reason of entertaining people and making money for himself and his players. Of course, being a staggering genius he couldn't help putting bags of meaningful stuff in them too!


:tiphat: Lovely idea - knocking out a play & these mindblowing soliloquies keep creeping in. 

Yes, Shakespeare wrote to make a living. But he had literary ambitions too, as we see by his published collection of sonnets. And from the way his works were collected after his death into one edition (a departure from usual practice), I surmise that his contemporaries knew that he had artistic worth too!

Setting out to instruct an audience in moral or political thought via shock tactics or transposing the setting is the same in principle as the Victorian novelist's didacticism. But at least with a novel one can skip the pompous passages.

I like to be entertained, uplifted, inspired to reflect, presented with a vision of life, moved by the music, and pleased by the staging - all at the same time. I hold to that old theory about 'suspension of disbelief' - which is pretty impossible when one's brain keeps asking why, why, why are these scantily-clad figures dancing in the inside of a Giant Fridge, while someone sings discrepant nineteenth century lyrics about noble suffering, or whatever.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> You have a very low opinion of art - and, whether you realize it or not, of the people who create art and appreciate it.
> 
> When, in the past, I have spoken of the value of art to the human spirit, a member here on the forum has repeatedly insisted that opera is not to be taken too seriously, that it is merely "entertainment." Now, when I speak again of the value of experiencing great art, another member tells me that, yes, that's right, opera _is_ merely "entertainment" - unless it is rescued from that ignoble status by being turned into propaganda.
> 
> ...




Because some of us regard opera as entertainment please don't go to the extreme that we regard them as the equivalent of a drug trip or a strip show. That seems to be taking the point to an extreme no-one has mentioned here. Personally, the "things _ love and live for, the great, moving, even transforming experiences of [my] life" include the marriage to my wife, the birth of my children, the interactions with my family, the worship of God. The things I enjoy (and which undoubtably make my life richer) include classical music, opera, sport, reading, a visit to an art gallery, etc.. Now that's not to doubt your experience but please do not think less of us if we don't put opera in the same category as you do._


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> Setting out to instruct an audience in moral or political thought via shock tactics or transposing the setting is the same in principle as the Victorian novelist's didacticism. But at least with a novel one can skip the pompous passages.


This is interesting. I've never seen a production of an opera where I have been aware that the Director has 'set out to instruct an audience in moral or political thought via shock tactics or transposing the setting'.

What if a Director transposes the setting because they feel it will tell the story of the opera better? Or for other reasons come to think about it.

N.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> I haven't watched the Berlin Staatsoper one yet but I gather that the Klingsor in this version seems to be a mousy civilian who has a house of young flower maidens he's protecting or maybe molesting?, and Parsifal kills him at the end of Act 2. Then I guess at the end, I gather Parsifal starts writhing around with Kundry, then Gurnemanz knifes her in the back.... I guess I'm a little skeptical.


I can't imagine why. :lol:



The Conte said:


> This is interesting. I've never seen a production of an opera where I have been aware that the Director has 'set out to instruct an audience in moral or political thought via shock tactics or transposing the setting'.


Make no doubt about it, they exist.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/aug/02/classicalmusicandopera

"*Herheim's production continually poses the direct question of whether Wagner's own Bayreuth legacy - like the decaying world of the Grail knights in Parsifal - can ever be morally cleansed.* In pursuit of an answer, Herheim takes us on a formidably ambitious journey through a dazzlingly inventive theatrical deconstruction of Parsifal, of German history, of Wagner and, above all, of the way they are woven together in Bayreuth itself."











> What if a Director transposes the setting because they feel it will tell the story of the opera better? Or for other reasons come to think about it.
> 
> N.


Now _that's_ an interesting idea. That transposing a setting away from the setting chosen by the composer and librettist, one that is often intricately linked to the characters, their words, even at times inspires the music, would tell the story _better_.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Because some of us regard opera as entertainment please don't go to the extreme that we regard them as the equivalent of a drug trip or a strip show. *That seems to be taking the point to an extreme no-one has mentioned here. *Personally, the "things _ love and live for, the great, moving, even transforming experiences of [my] life" include the marriage to my wife, the birth of my children, the interactions with my family, the worship of God. The things I enjoy (and which undoubtably make my life richer) include classical music, opera, sport, reading, a visit to an art gallery, etc.. Now that's not to doubt your experience but *please do not think less of us if we don't put opera in the same category as you do.*_


_

You are incorrect that no one here has gone to that extreme. If you will scroll back in this thread you will see that the equation of enjoying opera un-regie-fied with taking drugs was not made by me. I was, in fact, specifically and indignantly objecting to that image. My point was that regietheater's pretense at "making us think" through reinterpretation and shock tactics, on the one hand, and opera as a passive pleasure equivalent to a drug high, on the other, are not the only alternatives.

To your other point, I don't expect other people to get from art exactly what I do. But I do - for future reference - likewise expect others not to tell me or anyone that we are making too much out of the things we love, that those things shouldn't be taken so seriously, and that opera - or anything else - is "just entertainment," as I have been admonished a number of times when discussing the very complex and serious art of Wagner. It seems clear to me that those who use such phrases to undermine the seriousness of such discussions are the ones devaluing the word._


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> If you will scroll back in this thread you will see that the equation of enjoying opera un-regie-fied to taking drugs was not made by me. I was, in fact, _objecting_ to that image. My point was that regietheater's pretense at "making us think" through reinterpretation and shock tactics, on the one hand, and opera as a passive pleasure equivalent to a drug high on the other, are _not_ the only alternatives available.


Agreed! So let's just get on with the task of enjoying it. I'm just listenng to Rossini's Il Turco and enjoying every moment! I'll hop back to it now! Scintillating stuff! Enjoy!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Agreed! So let's just get on with the task of enjoying it. I'm just listenng to Rossini's Il Turco and enjoying every moment! I'll hop back to it now! Scintillating stuff! Enjoy!


Apology accepted. :devil:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Faustian said:


> Now _that's_ an interesting idea. That transposing a setting away from the setting chosen by the composer and librettist, one that is often intricately linked to the characters, their words, even at times inspires the music, would tell the story _better_.


I don't feel that the setting chosen by the composer and/or librettist is often linked to the characters. Although Tosca is difficult to set elsewhere because of the political situation, Tosca could be a diva from Milan, Paris or Vienna, there's nothing in the opera that means she _must_ be Roman otherwise it doesn't make sense.

In actual fact, since you don't like any deviation from 'what the composer and librettist wanted', I imagine you insist on your Tosca entering the church in act one with a hat and cane and being played as a haughty diva. (I expect you would have hated Callas' 'vulnerable' Tosca.) In addition nobody who knows anything about local Italian culture has ever heard of a Roman woman with a hat and a cane during summer, so a Milanese Tosca makes far more sense.

N.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I don't feel that the setting chosen by the composer and/or librettist is often linked to the characters. Although Tosca is difficult to set elsewhere because of the political situation, Tosca could be a diva from Milan, Paris or Vienna, there's nothing in the opera that means she _must_ be Roman otherwise it doesn't make sense.
> 
> In actual fact, since you don't like any deviation from 'what the composer and librettist wanted', I imagine you insist on your Tosca entering the church in act one with a hat and cane and being played as a haughty diva. (I expect you would have hated Callas' 'vulnerable' Tosca.) In addition nobody who knows anything about local Italian culture has ever heard of a Roman woman with a hat and a cane during summer, so a Milanese Tosca makes far more sense.
> 
> N.


There is no reason for everything to be realistic.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Apology accepted. :devil:


Not for Rossini either! He never even apologised for the 'sins of my old age!' :lol:


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Faustian said:


> Make no doubt about it, they exist.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/aug/02/classicalmusicandopera
> 
> ...


I do not think of the Herheim _Parsifal_ as didactic at all. I take the line you quote to agree with me; it reads "In pursuit of an answer..." rather than "It explains Herheim's thoughts on this by...". It is an exploration of the history of _Parsifal_, Wagner, and Germany rather than anything particularly clear.

I consider that production an absolute triumph, on pretty much every level.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mountmccabe said:


> I do not think of the Herheim _Parsifal_ as didactic at all. I take the line you quote to agree with me; it reads "In pursuit of an answer..." rather than "It explains Herheim's thoughts on this by...". It is an exploration of the history of _Parsifal_, Wagner, and Germany rather than anything particularly clear.
> 
> I consider that production an absolute triumph, on pretty much every level.


Except, of course, if you went to see Wagner's Parsifal you ended up at the wrong theatre! :lol:


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

The Conte said:


> I don't feel that the setting chosen by the composer and/or librettist is often linked to the characters.


Despite the fact that the settings often determine a lot about the characters and their relationships to each other, not to mention names and places are often explicitly referred to? You could set Tosca in Vienna, but that would make nonsense out of all the dialogue that places it in the locations where it was set. Sure, one could still follow the story, but the audience would have to ignore those little inconsistencies. What is gained from creating inconsistencies of this sort? Does it outweigh the loss of complete congruity between music, dialogue and story?



> In actual fact, since you don't like any deviation from 'what the composer and librettist wanted', I imagine you insist on your Tosca entering the church in act one with a hat and cane and being played as a haughty diva. (I expect you would have hated Callas' 'vulnerable' Tosca.) In addition nobody who knows anything about local Italian culture has ever heard of a Roman woman with a hat and a cane during summer, so a Milanese Tosca makes far more sense.
> 
> N.


When have I ever said I was completely opposed to _any_ deviation from what the composer or librettist wanted? I have already stated several times before in this thread that I am not. I was simply questioning the presumption of the hypothetical director who thinks they can tell the story _better_ through transposing the setting. As I said before, I believe an updated or altered setting can still be effective if all dramatic factors are carefully balanced and taken into account. Even in such cases I wouldn't say the transposition told the story _better_, but it provides a different visual world than one may be accustomed to. For example, as in the case of the latest Cavalleria Rusticana and Pagliacci at the Met that staged the operas in the same village across different generations (1900 and 1949), it was really more of a cosmetic transformation than anything.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> I do not think of the Herheim _Parsifal_ as didactic at all. I take the line you quote to agree with me; it reads "In pursuit of an answer..." rather than "It explains Herheim's thoughts on this by...". It is an exploration of the history of _Parsifal_, Wagner, and Germany rather than anything particularly clear.
> 
> I consider that production an absolute triumph, on pretty much every level.


It may or may not have had the intention to _instruct_ the audience, but it was still using the opera as a means to an end to investigate unrelated moral and political issues.

But I'm glad you enjoyed it. Considering Wagner's opera isn't about the pursuit of any such answers, I have no interest whatsoever in watching it. Based on the regie productions I _have _ seen however, I'm guessing that most of the production and its symbolism are esoteric and confusing when paired with the music and action of the drama; essentially choreographing a completely different and unconnected artistic vision to the music of Wagner.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Faustian said:


> It may or may not have had the intention to _instruct_ the audience, but it was still using the opera as a means to an end to investigate unrelated moral and political issues.
> 
> But I'm glad you enjoyed it. Considering Wagner's opera isn't about the pursuit any of such answers, I have no interest whatsoever in watching it. Based on the regie productions I _have _ seen however, I'm guessing that most of the production and its symbolism are esoteric and confusing when paired with the music and action of the drama; *essentially choreographing a completely different and unrelated artistic vision to the music of Wagner.*


Indeed, exactly there is the bottom line where the rubber hits the fan... Well, _something_ hits the fan, that's for sure.  (If directors can mix centuries and screw up operas, I can mix metaphors and just screw up.)

Herheim's _Parsifal_ (of which I watched more than enough on YouTube) is not Wagner's _Parsifal._ It is a different stage play set to Wagner's music. It requires sensitivity - but probably not all that much, really - to know when we are no longer presenting the opera whose score we are borrowing. When we are presenting a different work (if we must), truth in advertising should constrain us to market our new product as what it is: in this case, "Stefan Herheim's challenging new play about Wagner, Parsifal, Germany, and other meta-topics we should all be forced to puzzle over for five hours, set to the music Wagner wasted on that sanctimonious old buehnenweihfestspiel that we have come to realize is meaningless to modern audiences who no longer wish to be uplifted but need controversial topics to lure them away from playing games on their smartphones during intermission."

That should sell tickets, wouldn't you think?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Indeed, exactly there is the bottom line where the rubber hits the fan... Well, _something_ hits the fan, that's for sure.  (If directors can mix centuries and screw up operas, I can mix metaphors and just screw up.)


The fan made at Daland´s fan factory?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sloe said:


> The fan made at Daland´s fan factory?


But of course. And was he ever surprised at how much ship hit the fan.


----------



## graziesignore (Mar 13, 2015)

Hey, speaking of Tosca... would it be considered regietheater if they *didn't* put her in a *red* dress during Act II? Did I miss something in the libretto, or is there a reason why her dress is always red in every production I've seen?


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

graziesignore said:


> Hey, speaking of Tosca... would it be considered regietheater if they *didn't* put her in a *red* dress during Act II? Did I miss something in the libretto, or is there a reason why her dress is always red in every production I've seen?


Matches her personality? Or provides a sartorial opportunity for the singer that just doesn't exist elsewhere?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Indeed, exactly there is the bottom line where the rubber hits the fan... Well, _something_ hits the fan, that's for sure.  (If directors can mix centuries and screw up operas, I can mix metaphors and just screw up.)


Although you haven't screwed up at all. Your excerpt I have quoted above is an example of a good bit of writing. It's funny, creative, vibrant, interesting and new. Some people of course won't like it because it's not what they are used to, "that's not the right metaphor", "it's poor English", "it's not what the founders of TC wanted", "What would the contributors to the thread think of it?", "Imagine if you had never seen TC before and Woodduck's post was the first one you saw, that could put you off TC for life!" Etc.

Go Woodduck (and others) be as creative as you want to, I say!

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> But of course. And was he ever surprised at how much ship hit the fan.


May I just remind you that that is *NOT* what the original creator of that metaphor intended...?

:devil:

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

graziesignore said:


> Hey, speaking of Tosca... would it be considered regietheater if they *didn't* put her in a *red* dress during Act II? Did I miss something in the libretto, or is there a reason why her dress is always red in every production I've seen?


You haven't seen the present ROH production then (in which it is white).

The only pratical reason I can think for it is that it would explain why the gaoler/guards in act three notice that she has Scarpia's blood on her (and it's absurd to think that she wouldn't have _some_ blood on her. I will check what is in the score.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

The Conte said:


> You haven't seen the present ROH production then (in which it is white).
> 
> The only pratical reason I can think for it is that it would explain why the gaoler/guards in act three notice that she has Scarpia's blood on her (and it's absurd to think that she wouldn't have _some_ blood on her. I will check what is in the score.
> 
> N.


Tosca's entrance in the score has the following _didascalia_: "(Tosca entra affannosa: vede Cavaradossi e corre ad abbracciarlo)" Nothing about a red dress, I guess this is more a case of what _Zefferelli_ wanted rather than what Puccini wanted.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Faustian said:


> When have I ever said I was completely opposed to _any_ deviation from what the composer or librettist wanted? I have already stated several times before in this thread that I am not. I was simply questioning the presumption of the hypothetical director who thinks they can tell the story _better_ through transposing the setting. As I said before, I believe an updated or altered setting can still be effective if all dramatic factors are carefully balanced and taken into account. Even in such cases I wouldn't say the transposition told the story _better_, but it provides a different visual world than one may be accustomed to. For example, as in the case of the latest Cavalleria Rusticana and Pagliacci at the Met that staged the operas in the same village across different generations (1900 and 1949), it was really more of a cosmetic transformation than anything.


Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought your point was that you feel that transposing the setting often negatively affects the telling of the story, whereas I think that the story is told primarily by other means in a production. (The blocking, the work that the director and the singers undertake around exploring the characters etc.) Do we perhaps agree more than at first appears here?

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I think we all (mostly?) agree that it's important to tell the story of an opera clearly and well, and I suspect that few if any of us object to "cosmetic" changes to the period or costuming, or to original bits of action between the characters which really help to illuminate their motivations and relationships. Really, that's what good production and directing is all about. There is _abundant_ room for creativity in the production of theater. It's all a matter of what a director's goals are, and whether he understands and cares about the difference between serving the composer and merely using him - the difference between presenting a work for our consideration and telling us what to think of it, or what _he_ thinks of it, or what it makes him think of when he's reading Foucault, or what he thinks Foucault would think of if _he_ thought about it.

The most satisfying performances of music are ones that, however creative and freshly imagined they are, leave us thinking "wow, that's what that piece is really about!" It's often interesting to hear an unusual "take" on a twenty-minute piece, but a four-hour evening that we've spent a hundred dollars, and possibly train fare and lodging, to witness needs to show some judgment in how tolerant of eccentricity it expects us to be. Opera, for all its complexity and difficulty of execution, can give us that feeling of "truthfulness" too, and without being rigidly tied to any performing tradition, if producers and performers just keep their priorities straight and realiize who the work's composition is by and who its performance is for.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

The Conte said:


> Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought your point was that you feel that transposing the setting often negatively affects the telling of the story, whereas I think that the story is told primarily by other means in a production. (The blocking, the work that the director and the singers undertake around exploring the characters etc.) Do we perhaps agree more than at first appears here?
> 
> N.


It seems self-evident to me that the setting is one of several elements of a story, and one that has to be taken into account when re-telling that story. Sometimes it plays a larger role in a story than at other times, and it is more difficult to change the setting without disrupting the narrative. As long as the director takes factors such as characters mentioning their surroundings or what role the time and place the story is set plays in defining who the characters are and how they interact into account when creating their production, then yes, the setting can potentially be changed without any negative effects.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Faustian said:


> It seems self-evident to me that the setting is one of several elements of a story, and one that has to be taken into account when re-telling that story.


I see, whereas I think that it is often just a _setting_. I might prefer a ruby in a 24 carat gold ring, rather than a sterling silver one, but neither setting makes the ruby any the less beautiful (or red, or precious etc.)

An inappropriate frame might make a Rembrandt less attractive, but it would still be a Rembrandt (and in any case there may be many appropriate frames for a painting other than the one it originally was set in).

Another thing that bothers me is the idea of "the story of the opera" as if there is just ONE possible story. To go back to my Tosca example, a Tosca as imperious diva, who stabs Scarpia because she thinks she has a right to do so because she is a superior human being to him, results in a different story from one involving a vulnerable woman who stabs Scarpia spontaneously because she can see no other way to escape a horrific situation.

N.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

The Conte said:


> I see, whereas I think that it is often just a _setting_. I might prefer a ruby in a 24 carat gold ring, rather than a sterling silver one, but neither setting makes the ruby any the less beautiful (or red, or precious etc.)
> 
> An inappropriate frame might make a Rembrandt less attractive, but it would still be a Rembrandt (and in any case there may be many appropriate frames for a painting other than the one it originally was set in).
> 
> ...


I think we are arguing different things, or at least bringing up completely unrelated issues. As far as settings go, for every opera you can cite where the setting is merely a decoration or framework, I could point to another where it plays a more significant role and is tied up with the words and actions of the characters. In either scenario, I'm not really addressing changes to costumes and scenery, or a changing of the exact time period the story is set (in most cases). I'm really talking about wholesale transplants of the opera to a drastically different environment, or complete visual overhauls. And in those instances, I still don't see how changing the setting would likely make a telling of the story _better_, which is the idea I found intriguing in the first place. It might give a fresh spin on proceedings, and it might still work extraordinarily well given that the director is intent on servicing and enhancing the work, as Woodduck said. But there's still something magical that's difficult to replace when watching a performance of an opera that by and large keeps the vision of the original artists in tact.

As for the ways an actor or director might interpret the inner motivations of a character and the way in which this can subtly impact the nuances of a story, that's not something I have any disagreement with.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I think we all (mostly?) agree that it's important to tell the story of an opera clearly and well, and I suspect that few if any of us object to "cosmetic" changes to the period or costuming, or to original bits of action between the characters which really help to illuminate their motivations and relationships. Really, that's what good production and directing is all about. There is _abundant_ room for creativity in the production of theater.


Apart from the idea of "the story" i.e. there only being one possible story. I agree.



Woodduck said:


> It's all a matter of what a director's goals are, and whether he understands and cares about the difference between serving the composer and merely using him - the difference between presenting a work for our consideration and telling us what to think of it, or what _he_ thinks of it, or what it makes him think of when he's reading Foucault, or what he thinks Foucault would think of if _he_ thought about it.


Of course a director's goals are important, but most of the major regie directors of today have the goal of serving the composer, it's just that the anti-regie group think they don't. Whilst I agree that sometimes directors make decisions that don't work due to thinking that an opera is about something that doesn't fit with the rest of their production, I don't think that changing the elements of a piece that an audience is used to or expects to see automatically makes for a bad production. Also a production may be good or bad irrespective of the director's intentions, a director may intend to completely ruin a piece, but absolutely useless at realising his intentions and therefore produce a wonderful production.

The recent Guillaume Tell at the ROH was panned by many due to its "grunge" (it had a dark, rather ugly style to the sets and costumes and was set under harsh strip lighting). Many of the criticisms of this production were similar to the ones thrown against regie on this thread. (It didn't tell the story, there weren't mountains so it wasn't obviously set in Switzerland, the director intended to make a political point about war, when the original story is about occupation etc.) I didn't know the story, but had no problem following what was going on, and the commitment and hard work that the director and conductor had put in with the singers was blindingly obvious, they gave amazingly deep, emotional portrayals of their roles. I was so gripped by the dilemmas that Arnold and Mathilde faced that I couldn't care less whether there were mountains in the background or not. Nowhere had the director claimed that he was using the piece to make a political statement about war and any political point underlined by the production was totally congruous with the text and music of the piece. It was the closed minded anti-regie squad that accused the director of having the wrong intentions.



Woodduck said:


> *The most satisfying performances of music are ones that, however creative and freshly imagined they are, leave us thinking "wow, that's what that piece is really about!"* It's often interesting to hear an unusual "take" on a twenty-minute piece, but a four-hour evening that we've spent a hundred dollars, and possibly train fare and lodging, to witness needs to show some judgment in how tolerant of eccentricity it expects us to be. Opera, for all its complexity and difficulty of execution, can give us that feeling of "truthfulness" too, and without being rigidly tied to any performing tradition, if producers and performers just keep their priorities straight and realiize who the work's composition is by and who its performance is for.


Very interesting. Since I go to musical performances with an open mind I couldn't agree less with the statement in bold. The most satisfying performances of music for me are the ones where the composer's artistry is highlighted by the artistry of the performers, irrespective of the clothes they were wearing, the setting (in every meaning of that word) and what the director, the stage crew, the page turner and/or the ushers were thinking or 'intending' that day. I certainly don't have an idea in my head of what a "definitive" performance will be like or there being an obligation on the part of those involved of delivering my idea of "what the composer wanted". (And that goes for all music, not just opera.)

There have been a few comments on this thread about regie productions not being "what the composer wanted" whereas it seems to me that many in the anti-regie group aren't open to narrative differences that they aren't comfortable with. In the early 19th century the composers themselves directed their operas and there wasn't really a role equivalent to the director, when staging a new Barbiere what do we do if we want to do "what the composer wanted", dig up Rossini's bones and place them on stage during rehearsals?

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Faustian said:


> I think we are arguing different things, or at least bringing up completely unrelated issues. As far as settings go, for every opera you can cite where the setting is merely a decoration or framework, I could point to another where it plays a more significant role and is tied up with the words and actions of the characters. In either scenario, I'm not really addressing changes to costumes and scenery, or a changing of the exact time period the story is set (in most cases). I'm really talking about wholesale transplants of the opera to a drastically different environment, or complete visual overhauls. And in those instances, I still don't see how changing the setting would likely make a telling of the story _better_, which is the idea I found intriguing in the first place. It might give a fresh spin on proceedings, and it might still work extraordinarily well given that the director is intent on servicing and enhancing the work, as Woodduck said. *But there's still something magical that's difficult to replace when watching a performance of an opera that by and large keeps the vision of the original artists in tact.
> *
> 
> As for the ways an actor or director might interpret the inner motivations of a character and the way in which this can subtly impact the nuances of a story, that's not something I have any disagreement with.


I think we have different ideas about the definition of 'vision' in that quote. Wagner's famous for having written/said "Kinder, schafft neues" not 'make sure you replicate the productions of my operas as they were at the first performances'.

N.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

The Conte said:


> I think we have different ideas about the definition of 'vision' in that quote. Wagner's famous for having written/said "Kinder, schafft neues" not 'make sure you replicate the productions of my operas as they were at the first performances'.
> 
> N.


Certainly there's a grey area between "replicating the productions of operas as they were at the first performances" and distorting a work of art? I'm happy with any aesthetically effective production that falls somewhere in between, as long as it doesn't trend towards the latter.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Faustian said:


> Certainly there's a grey area between "replicating the productions of operas as they were at the first performances" and distorting a work of art? I'm happy with any aesthetically effective production that falls somewhere in between, as long as it doesn't trend towards the latter.


For me you 'distort' an opera when you change the text, make cuts or change the music. And even then that depends, is a performance of Marriage of Figaro on modern instruments and with the two arias in act four cut such a distorted work of art that it shouldn't be tolerated?

And Carmen Jones?

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Another thing that bothers me is the idea of "the story of the opera" as if there is just ONE possible story. To go back to my Tosca example, a Tosca as imperious diva, who stabs Scarpia because she thinks she has a right to do so because she is a superior human being to him, results in a different story from one involving a vulnerable woman who stabs Scarpia spontaneously because she can see no other way to escape a horrific situation.

In any play or opera, there are things we are not told about the characters and their lives, about which directors and performers may speculate. Actors often try to imagine a "backstory" for the characters they play, or relate those characters to their own lives, or the lives of people they know, or people from history, in order to try to understand the characters' feelings and motives. All this is standard practice for "fleshing out" a work in performance. We don't know just how imperious Tosca is, or how she assesses her own worth, but answers to those questions don't affect the story as told. It's perfectly clear that she's in a desperate situation and stabs Scarpia to escape it. Beyond that, a singer is free to flesh out Tosca's personality as she wishes - but always with careful consideration of all Tosca's words, actions, and music in the opera, and what those reveal about her.

You have misunderstood my statement: _'The most satisfying performances of music are ones that, however creative and freshly imagined they are, leave us thinking "wow, that's what that piece is really about!"' _ You say:

Since I go to musical performances with an open mind I couldn't agree less with the statement in bold. The most satisfying performances of music for me are the ones where the composer's artistry is highlighted by the artistry of the performers...I certainly don't have an idea in my head of what a "definitive" performance will be like or there being an obligation on the part of those involved of delivering my idea of "what the composer wanted".

I wasn't implying at all that there are any "definitive" performances, or that I come to a performance with a specific interpretation in mind. After all, I'm not the one giving the performance. You have overlooked my phrase, "however freshly imagined and creative they are." Performances can be remarkably different - as different as Furtwangler's Beethoven 9th from Toscanini's - and still make us feel that they have penetrated to the heart of a composer's vision, each in its own stylistic terms. Likewise, two productions of an opera may look nothing alike in their staging and may feature singers of very different personality and with very different voices, and yet both may feel deeply faithful to the work's meaning. The reason for this is simply that great works of art are rich in meaning, and no single performance can encompass it all.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

The Conte said:


> For me you 'distort' an opera when you change the text, make cuts or change the music. And even then that depends, is a performance of Marriage of Figaro on modern instruments and with the two arias in act four cut such a distorted work of art that it shouldn't be tolerated?
> 
> And Carmen Jones?
> 
> N.


I find it fascinating that you don't consider the setting and visual aspects of an opera as fundamental to the art work as the music and text, when they so obviously are as opera is a musical, poetic, dramatic AND visual artform, and all of these elements reinforce each other. So it's acceptable to set Figaro in outer space or create visual elements that don't have any place in the opera to make a political statement, but change the words so that they are singing about astronauts or making the political statement verbally and suddenly its an unwelcome distortion? That's an interesting position to take. But what if the textual changes were completed with the upmost assurance and artistic conviction? Wouldn't it then be acceptable, if the director and performers SOLD YOU on the content?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Wagner's famous for having written/said "Kinder, schafft neues" not 'make sure you replicate the productions of my operas as they were at the first performances'.

"Make new things" doesn't mean "do whatever the hell you want to my operas as long as it's new and different." It means "go make your own new operas!"

Exactly my advice to someone who wants to line the banks of the Scheldt with rats and call it _Lohengrin_.

As for the first performances at Bayreuth, Wagner once exclaimed in exasperation, "Now that I've created the invisible orchestra I must create the invisible stage." Interpret that however you like!


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Faustian said:


> It may or may not have had the intention to _instruct_ the audience, but it was still using the opera as a means to an end to investigate unrelated moral and political issues.


I only find it (mostly) unrelated to the precise, literal action of the opera. The staging does not depict the fictional story about medieval knights in Spain. That isn't what the opera is about, though. The story of medieval knights in Spain was used by Wagner to explore guilt, renunciation, and redemption.

Though I understand that really no one thinks _Parsifal_ is simply about knights in Spain; everyone understands that there is far more going on than a plain relation of a superficial story.

But I find the exhortations that opera productions tell the story to be bizarre. Opera is a wonderful vehicle for many things, clearly laying out a story is not one of them. Wagner in particular, of course, tended to strip away as much plot as possible to provide space for us to understand the character's thoughts and feelings on events.

But, again, this is often about degrees, shades of grey.



Faustian said:


> But I'm glad you enjoyed it. Considering Wagner's opera isn't about the pursuit of any such answers, I have no interest whatsoever in watching it. Based on the regie productions I _have _ seen however, I'm guessing that most of the production and its symbolism are esoteric and confusing when paired with the music and action of the drama; essentially choreographing a completely different and unconnected artistic vision to the music of Wagner.


I found the staging exceptionally sensitive to the music, far better than many traditional productions. Herheim is a trained musician and formally studied to be an opera director. He did not come to this work from straight plays, films, or other arts. This was not a one-off foray into opera and he was not a novice director when he put together this production for the 2008 festival.

I do consider it a masterful production, I would highly recommend it, and it does truly deepen my understanding of the opera. But if you do not want to watch it, that is entirely reasonable. (Especially considering its run at Bayreuth is over and it is still not scheduled to be official released).

And I'll acknowledge that Herheim brings in layers that Wagner did not consider - and could not have considered - to be part of his work, even if I consider them very relevant to what the opera is actually about.

And I am thrilled that I can also watch other productions I love such as the much more traditional production by Wolfgang Wagner's second for Bayreuth (I don't have his earlier one on DVD) and the recent François Girard from the Metropolitan Opera that goes all out on the Fisher King aspects with Act 2 taking place inside Amfortas' wound.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> ...Likewise, two productions of an opera may look nothing alike in their staging and may feature singers of very different personality and with very different voices, and yet both may feel deeply faithful to the work's meaning. *The reason for this is simply that great works of art are rich in meaning, and no single performance can encompass it all.*


Exactly! But the meaning and interpretation of a work isn't the sole property of the creator in my opinion. We can (and do) interpret operas in slightly different ways and each of us finds different meanings in them (sometimes wildly different ones too!)

Looking at the topic in that way, the idea that a production can somehow "feel deeply faithful to the work's meaning" (which suggests a definitive meaning or limited amount of meanings to me) is totally absurd.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Faustian said:


> I find it fascinating that you don't consider the setting and visual aspects of an opera as fundamental to the art work as the music and text, when they so obviously are as opera is a musical, poetic, dramatic AND visual artform, and all of these elements reinforce each other. *So it's acceptable to set Figaro in outer space* or create visual elements that don't have any place in the opera to make a political statement, but change the words so that they are singing about astronauts or making the political statement verbally and suddenly its an unwelcome distortion? That's an interesting position to take. But what if the textual changes were completed with the upmost assurance and artistic conviction? Wouldn't it then be acceptable, if the director and performers SOLD YOU on the content?


Figaro in space? Why not? I certainly won't be foolish enough to rubbish it without seeing it. If it works, it works.

Nowhere did I say that changing the text would be an _unwelcome_ distortion. For example, I prefer opera in the original language. There are some companies that perform in the vernacular and in general I would not go to see their productions, but I know some people feel more connected to a work if they understand every word as it is being sung. I don't think opera should only be sung in the original language in order to _keep to the vision of the composer and librettist_. Surely the text of an opera is more important than the sets and the costumes, or do you also think that opera in translation is an abomination that goes against the wishes of the original creators?

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> I only find it (mostly) unrelated to the precise, literal action of the opera. The staging does not depict the fictional story about medieval knights in Spain. That isn't what the opera is about, though. The story of medieval knights in Spain was used by Wagner to explore guilt, renunciation, and redemption.
> 
> Though I understand that really no one thinks _Parsifal_ is simply about knights in Spain; everyone understands that there is far more going on than a plain relation of a superficial story.
> 
> *But I find the exhortations that opera productions tell the story to be bizarre. Opera is a wonderful vehicle for many things, clearly laying out a story is not one of them. Wagner in particular, of course, tended to strip away as much plot as possible to provide space for us to understand the character's thoughts and feelings on events.*


This shows a misunderstanding of Wagner's dramatic art.

Wagner did indeed strip away a great deal of sheer story material when he adapted myths and legends for his purposes. But that is not at all the same thing as stripping away "as much plot as possible." Story is not plot. Story is a sequence of events. Plot is a selective construction of events for a specific dramatic purpose.

Wagner didn't strip away story elements because he thought plot was unimportant. He did so because he thought it was _too_ important to be diluted and obscured by elements which had no higher dramatic purpose. And he had a well-nigh infallible instinct in this regard: every element in a Wagner opera, including every event in the story, serves a purpose and carries significance, often on multiple levels of meaning. The more you study his stage action and settings, even down to his descriptions of costumes, materials, and colors, the more you appreciate the severe precision of his imagination and the purposefulness of his symbolism. It may appear insignificant that _Parsifal_ takes place in the mountains of Medieval Spain (though, of course, it isn't a "real" location in any case, since none of us will ever find it unless the Grail calls us!). Note, however, that Spain in the Middle Ages was inhabited by the Muslim Moors, that Kundry mentions "Arabia" as the source of the balm for Amfortas' wound, and that Klingsor's domain exhibits "Arabian" style. All this was intended, and in the 19th century would have been felt by audiences, as symbolic of times and places legendary, exotic, magical, sensual, and slightly disturbing - just like the music that accompanies it. It can't be an accident that the little oscillating, serpentine motif that represents Kundry's enchantment, and accompanies her deadly kiss, is in an "Arabian" mode, and suggests nothing so much as the hypnotic swaying of a snake-charmer's cobra. And don't forget that Kundry wears a snakeskin belt!

It's possible to address the subjects of guilt, renunciation and redemption in numberless ways. But Wagner did not write an essay on guilt, renunciation, and redemption. He wrote an opera - a music drama, a "stage-dedicating festival play." And in writing it he chose the musical and dramatic effects he wanted with amazing insight into what they were capable of conveying about those psychological and spiritual issues and about many less tangible and nameable things which constitute the unique province of art.

Works of art may be "about" things - but the greater the art, the more the "aboutness" is inseparable from their very material content and structure.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Exactly! But the meaning and interpretation of a work isn't the sole property of the creator in my opinion. We can (and do) interpret operas in slightly different ways and each of us finds different meanings in them (sometimes wildly different ones too!)
> 
> Looking at the topic in that way, *the idea that a production can somehow "feel deeply faithful to the work's meaning" (which suggests a definitive meaning or limited amount of meanings to me) is totally absurd*.
> 
> N.


Works of art may be rich in meaning. That doesn't mean that their possible meanings are limitless and that they can mean anything anyone wants them to mean. The possibilities are indeed limited. Everything in the universe is limited! Again, no one is saying that there's one definitive way of doing anything. Please don't strawman me. Yes, a production can feel deeply faithful to a works meaning without being exhaustive or definitive.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Works of art may be rich in meaning. That doesn't mean that their possible meanings are limitless and that they can mean anything anyone wants them to mean. The possibilities are indeed limited. Everything in the universe is limited! Again, no one is saying that there's one definitive way of doing anything. Please don't strawman me. Yes, a production can feel deeply faithful to a works meaning without being exhaustive or definitive.


And the same production can be alien to another person's 'meaning' or interpretation of the work.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> And the same production can be alien to another person's 'meaning' or interpretation of the work.
> 
> N.


Of course. What does that prove? That because people disagree, no interpretation is truer than any other?


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

The Conte said:


> Figaro in space? Why not? I certainly won't be foolish enough to rubbish it without seeing it. If it works, it works.
> 
> Nowhere did I say that changing the text would be an _unwelcome_ distortion. For example, I prefer opera in the original language. There are some companies that perform in the vernacular and in general I would not go to see their productions, but I know some people feel more connected to a work if they understand every word as it is being sung. I don't think opera should only be sung in the original language in order to _keep to the vision of the composer and librettist_. Surely the text of an opera is more important than the sets and the costumes, or do you also think that opera in translation is an abomination that goes against the wishes of the original creators?
> 
> N.


Once again, you're arguing something completely different and contorting my position in the process. I didn't ask you if a faithful translation of the text of an opera to a different language was a distortion of the opera. OF COURSE ITS A DISTORTION IN A VERY LITERAL SENSE. And my opinions on opera translations are neither here nor there as far as the present topic goes. What I asked was, if a director were to rewrite *the actual words the characters sing* so that they better fit the circumstances and settings the characters now find themselves in, and in a production Susanna sings about how her space suit looks on her as she sings in front of a mirror in a space station, would you find that to be acceptable?

You ask me if the text of an opera is _more_ important than the setting. My answer is that both are important, and both play a intrinsic part in conveying the drama. The things that the characters in the Marriage of Figaro wear, their interactions and the way they address one another, the positions they hold, the customs they adhere to, the way the details of the story unfold and many other countless factors all stem from the world that Mozart and Da Ponte created for these characters as they envisioned it; the palace of Count Almaviva near Seville in the 18th century. What meaning does much of the dialogue and interaction of the characters have if they are now set in a totally alien environment, like a space station? Why would characters address each other as "Count" or "Countess"? Why would some characters have valets and servants? How would the Count's drunken gardener stumbling into the scene have any sort of validity in a place where characters are floating around in a command center in outer space?

Whether we are discussing changing the actual words and meanings of the text or the setting of the opera, there is a line that can be crossed that determines whether what are seeing is still Mozart and Da Ponte's Marriage of Figaro, or whether it is something radically and fundamentally different that is relating itself or grafting itself onto that original work in some way. The issue becomes, as Nereffid pointed out earlier in this thread:

"But the problem is, you - and, I suppose, proponents of regietheater generally - are conflating two issues. One is the desire to create or watch something new and different; the other is the desire to re-create or watch a work of art created in the past. Any given audience member may want one or the other, or both, but crucially what's being sold, the context in which the production occurs, is unequivocally the latter. The audience is not being asked to come see Mathias Vidal's new production about tiny people who live in a refrigerator; it's being asked to come see Rameau's opera Hippolyte et Aricie. So there's a fundamental dishonesty there - and not simply one of marketing."

Or as Woodduck said:

"It requires sensitivity - but probably not all that much, really - to know when we are no longer presenting the opera whose score we are borrowing. When we are presenting a different work (if we must), truth in advertising should constrain us to market our new product as what it is"

Whether or not a distortion of a great work of art can be worthwhile in and of itself is besides the point, really, and a different debate. Someone can paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa to make a social commentary on gender roles, but the results are no longer da Vinci's Mona Lisa. To present it as such would be dishonest. If one were to rewrite Mark Twain's Huckleberry Fin, leaving all the prose and dialogue in tact but changing the time period and locations where the events were set so that it takes place in modern day England, we would have a weird, possibly very humorous tale where the characters acted in ways and spoke in a manner that was bizarre and totally out of place considering the context. But no matter how awful or wonderful the results of such a concoction were based on its own merits as a new work, either way it would no longer be Mark Twain's Huckleberry Fin.

Regietheater directors and its proponents have this pretense that they are somehow _serving_ these great operatic works, possibly even _saving_ them from extinction. I on the other hand believe they are doing more harm than good. They aren't saving these works at all, even if that is their sincere intention, but actually probably killing them off even faster, because they are no longer presenting the actual works of art they claim or fool themselves into believing they are still showing us. They are using these works of art for their own purposes, presenting entirely new creations, and so much of what makes the actual operas the timeless masterpieces that they are is completely lost and forgotten.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Faustian said:


> Regietheater directors and its proponents have this pretense that they are somehow _serving_ these great operatic works, possibly even _saving_ them from extinction. I on the other hand believe they are doing more harm than good. They aren't saving these works at all, even if that is their sincere intention, but actually probably killing them off even faster, because they are no longer presenting the actual works of art they claim or fool themselves into believing they are still showing us. They are using these works of art for their own purposes, presenting entirely new creations, and so much of what makes the actual operas the timeless masterpieces that they are is completely lost and forgotten.


I think regie proponents would tell you that they are not destroying the original work but merely presenting an alternative, and that the original work is "still there." But the question is: where? If not in the theater, then where? It's my impression that in much of Europe it is now very difficult to find productions that try to present opera without a "concept." And that seems to be increasingly true in America. It really seems as if no one believes in old works of art any more. But how is anyone to believe in them if they can't see them?


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I'm still thinking about Wagner, but, really:



Faustian said:


> You ask me if the text of an opera is _more_ important than the setting. My answer is that both are important, and both play a intrinsic part in conveying the drama. The things that the characters in the Marriage of Figaro wear, their interactions and the way they address one another, the positions they hold, the customs they adhere to, the way the details of the story unfold and many other countless factors all stem from the world that Mozart and Da Ponte created for these characters as they envisioned it; the palace of Count Almaviva near Seville in the 18th century. What meaning does much of the dialogue and interaction of the characters have if they are now set in a totally alien environment, like a space station? Why would characters address each other as "Count" or "Countess"? Why would some characters have valets and servants? How would the Count's drunken gardener stumbling into the scene have any sort of validity in a place where characters are floating around in a command center in outer space?


We have Counts and Countesses right now; why could they not be on some future space station? Similarly, there are people in this day that have valets and servants, and others that do not; why would this not be the case on some future space station? And there always must be food; many science fiction depictions of space stations or large spaceships have included gardens and alcohol.

The real advantage of using a future or otherwise created/imaginary place is that it's easier to pretend Droid du seigneur is actually a thing. For any historical setting - including near Seville in the 18th century - it's a bit of imagined nonsense we have to accept to get on with the rest of it.

Come to think of it, maybe Der Rosenkavalier could be set in space, too.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> I'm still thinking about Wagner, but, really:
> 
> We have Counts and Countesses right now; why could they not be on some future space station? Similarly, there are people in this day that have valets and servants, and others that do not; why would this not be the case on some future space station? And there always must be food; many science fiction depictions of space stations or large spaceships have included gardens and alcohol.
> 
> ...


Again, by changing the fundamentals of the story, of the characters, and the way they are perceived, by not staying faithful to the spirit and the essence of the _entire_ opera, which includes music, text, dramatic action, and setting, the director isn't putting on a production of that work but rather constructing a new work through the distortion of the old one.

You can run around in circles and jump through hoops trying to justify the transposition of the opera to any time or place, but that doesn't change the fact that the cohesive aesthetic vision of the creators is being altered in very important ways. And it's easy to "pretend" Droid du seigneur is really a thing in the opera because it exists and has its place and purpose in the imaginary world created by Da Ponte and Mozart. Whether or not it is historically factual is irrelevant.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> I'm still thinking about Wagner, but, really:
> 
> We have Counts and Countesses right now; why could they not be on some future space station? Similarly, there are people in this day that have valets and servants, and others that do not; why would this not be the case on some future space station? And there always must be food; many science fiction depictions of space stations or large spaceships have included gardens and alcohol.


The difference is that being a count is something completely different in 2015 than it was in the eighteenth century. In our times it is just a title and a relic from long gone times. In those days it had importance it meant that you were entitled to a certain position.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Faustian said:


> If one were to rewrite Mark Twain's Huckleberry Fin, leaving all the prose and dialogue in tact but changing the time period and locations where the events were set so that it takes place in modern day England, we would have a weird, possibly very humorous tale where the characters acted in ways and spoke in a manner that was bizarre and totally out of place considering the context. But no matter how awful or wonderful the results of such a concoction were based on its own merits as a new work, either way it would no longer be Mark Twain's Huckleberry Fin.


 How is that even possible?



Faustian said:


> Regietheater directors and its proponents have this pretense that they are somehow _serving_ these great operatic works, possibly even _saving_ them from extinction. I on the other hand believe they are doing more harm than good. They aren't saving these works at all, even if that is their sincere intention, but actually probably killing them off even faster, because they are no longer presenting the actual works of art they claim or fool themselves into believing they are still showing us. They are using these works of art for their own purposes, presenting entirely new creations, *and so much of what makes the actual operas the timeless masterpieces that they are is completely lost and forgotten.*


I think you are missing my point here, which is that _some_ regie productions do indeed do exactly what they describe in your last paragraph, but not *all* regie productions do. I still suspect that you go to an opera with a fixed idea of what a production should be like and are offended when confronted with something that departs from that.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Faustian said:


> Again, by changing the fundamentals of the story, of the characters, and the way they are perceived, by not staying faithful to the spirit and the essence of the _entire_ opera, which includes music, text, dramatic action, and setting, the director isn't putting on a production of that work but rather constructing a new work through the distortion of the old one.


I disagree.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Sloe said:


> The difference is that being a count is something completely different in 2015 than it was in the eighteenth century. In our times it is just a title and a relic from long gone times. In those days it had importance it meant that you were entitled to a certain position.


And they are ways that a modern day 'count' on a space station could be entitled to a certain position.

N.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

The Conte said:


> How is that even possible?
> 
> I think you are missing my point here, which is that _some_ regie productions do indeed do exactly what they describe in your last paragraph, but not *all* regie productions do. I still suspect that you go to an opera with a fixed idea of what a production should be like and are offended when confronted with something that departs from that.
> 
> N.


What if I go to the library and borrow The Odyssey but when I open the book and start reading it I discover that it is Ullyses by James Joyce.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Sloe said:


> What if I go to the library and borrow The Odyssey but when I open the book and start reading it I discover that it is Ullyses by James Joyce.


Exactly, you distort an opera when you change its words and/or music, a point I made upthread, but Faustian felt it was irrelevant to the discussion.

What if my favourite edition of The Odyssey has a blue cover on it with a picture of an ancient Greek temple on the front and I go to the library and borrow The Odyssey, but it has a red cover with a picture of a beach full of sunbathing tourists on it?

N.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

The Conte said:


> Exactly, you distort an opera when you change its words and/or music, a point I made upthread, but Faustian felt it was irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> What if my favourite edition of The Odyssey has a blue cover on it with a picture of an ancient Greek temple on the front and I go to the library and borrow The Odyssey, but it has a red cover with a picture of a beach full of sunbathing tourists on it?
> 
> N.


What indeed! You'd have to burn that, shoot the librarian, blow up the library, and return home and read your blue-covered edition. 
(An answer that I feel is no sillier than the question.)


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Exactly, you distort an opera when you change its words and/or music, a point I made upthread, but Faustian felt it was irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> What if my favourite edition of The Odyssey has a blue cover on it with a picture of an ancient Greek temple on the front and I go to the library and borrow The Odyssey, but it has a red cover with a picture of a beach full of sunbathing tourists on it?
> 
> N.


Opera is unlike litterature also visual.
When they sing sword and I see a gun something is wrong.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

The Conte said:


> How is that even possible?


I imagine you understand the point. Keeping the prose and dialogue in tact except that which refers to the setting.

So for example:

"My folks was living in Pike County *(Bedfordshire)*, in Missouri *(England)*, where I was born, and they all died off but me and pa and my brother Ike. Pa, he 'lowed he'd break up and go down and live with Uncle Ben, who's got a little one-horse place *(one-bedroom flat)* on the river, forty-four mile below Orleans *(past London)*. Pa was pretty poor, and had some debts; so when he'd squared up there warn't nothing left but sixteen dollars and our ******, Jim. That warn't enough to take us fourteen hundred mile, deck passage nor no other way."



> I think you are missing my point here, which is that _some_ regie productions do indeed do exactly what they describe in your last paragraph, but not *all* regie productions do. I still suspect that you go to an opera with a fixed idea of what a production should be like and are offended when confronted with something that departs from that.
> 
> N.


If your point is that some regie productions are enjoyable, then that's your opinion and I'm not going to argue it. As I said earlier, "Whether or not a distortion of a great work of art can be worthwhile in and of itself is besides the point, really, and a different debate." My point is that "by changing the fundamentals of the story, of the characters, and the way they are perceived, by not staying faithful to the spirit and the essence of the entire opera, which includes music, text, dramatic action, and setting, the director isn't putting on a production of that work but rather constructing a new work through the distortion of the old one." Which you disagree with apparently, without stating why. Even though opera encompasses _all_ of those.

Anyways, I'm glad you _suspect_ that I have fixed ideas and expectations are when I go to see a production. Sure, there are basic core elements that I'm expecting to see if I'm attending a performance of Mozart's Figaro, like figures who are a basic approximation of the characters in the opera, set in a courtly estate, acting in ways that coincide with the words they are singing and the dramatic events as they are taking place. But if I was closed-minded to anything that was a departure of something I could even imagine, how is it possible that I enjoyed the Met's latest production of Wagner's Ring? Certainly a presentation of the opera using giant, spinning planks is a departure from anything I had seen before, and is something Wagner never would have dreamed of.



The Conte said:


> Exactly, you distort an opera when you change its words and/or music, a point I made upthread, but Faustian felt it was irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> What if my favourite edition of The Odyssey has a blue cover on it with a picture of an ancient Greek temple on the front and I go to the library and borrow The Odyssey, but it has a red cover with a picture of a beach full of sunbathing tourists on it?
> 
> N.


...I felt it was irrelevant? Actually, it's not irrelevant at all. An opera is fundamentally changed and distorted if a conductor writes a new melody for an aria. It's no longer Mozart's opera. As Woodduck said earlier, this is different from a conductor making certain stylistic and performance choices on how to shape the melody that Mozart wrote, or the interpretation of "tempo di minuetto" in the score. But the same basic principle applies to the visual presentation of the opera. If the characters and settings are changed to where they are now completely unrecognizable as those created by the composer, it is no longer Mozart's opera in that case either. As I have repeatedly pointed out, opera is an art form that exists on several levels simultaneously, and all these aspects are interconnected. An opera exists on a visual level as much as a musical or poetic one. There is no arbitrary distinction, as you seem to be trying to put in place, that makes the music and text fundamental to the conception of the work in a way that settings and characterizations are not. And I question any precedent or justification that allows a person to disassemble any one of its components, leaving the others in place, and presents what they are doing as being the work of its original creators.

As for all this business about book covers, surely you see how a cover of a book is not part of the work in question? A closer analogy to a book cover in relation to an opera would have to be the stage or theater the work was presented in, would it not?


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

It's been few days since I visited this thread soI apologise if I'm going over old ground.



Woodduck said:


> As deeply felt as your experience of watching Fidelio is, *at bottom what you are describing is an entertainment.* Whilst there is nothing wrong with that (as I've previously said) is that all it need be? If a director decides to highlight the plight of political prisoners in our time and resets the location to Saudia Arabia, Egypt, North Korea or one of the secret CIA 'rendition' prisons, why is that bad? Perhaps a few in the audience will be affected enough to write their congressman or give a donation to Amnesty International.
> 
> You have a very low opinion of art - and, whether you realize it or not, of the people who create art and appreciate it.


Frankly I think that comment is more personal than it need have been and I find it somewhat offensive.



Woodduck said:


> Now, when I speak again of the value of experiencing great art, another member tells me that, yes, that's right, opera _is_ merely "entertainment"


If you're referring to me I never said _merely_ entertainment - I love entertainment.



Woodduck said:


> The composers themselves were not hotshot directors looking for second-hand glory by fiddling with other people's masterpieces. The composers themselves were - the composers themselves!


I think this is a major factor in our disagreement. You are unable, or unwilling, to consider the directors as artists. I do. I've seen a lot of negative terms applied to these people in this thread. If the only evidence of their being egoistic, glory seeking plunderers is that they're doing something you don't like I must say I don't find that compelling.



Woodduck said:


> It's a little dispiriting to be told that the things you love and live for, the great, moving, even transforming experiences of your life, are the equivalent of a drug trip or a strip show





Woodduck said:


> You are incorrect that no one here has gone to that extreme. If you will scroll back in this thread you will see that the equation of enjoying opera un-regie-fied with taking drugs was not made by me.


Quite right, you didn't make that analogy, I did, but you must take credit(?) for the strip club.



Faustian said:


> Now _that's_ an interesting idea. That transposing a setting away from the setting chosen by the composer and librettist, one that is often intricately linked to the characters, their words, even at times inspires the music, would tell the story _better_.


Perhaps _better_ in the sense that current audiences can relate more? Composers were writing their operas for their contemporary audiences and certainly those operas set in that same time period used contemporary dress. Unless setting in a more current time period, or different place, wildly distorts the story it may well be _better_.
Let me cite an example:
In 1990 the Australian Opera needed a new production but had very limited resources. They asked Baz Luhrmann to produce a Boheme that they could afford. Taking staging ideas from theatre he had a set designed based on gantries and a large neon sign. Perhaps because 1900 dress styles would look incongruous on that set he also updated the time period to the 1950's. The music and libretto were left intact.
This production was a big hit for several seasons in Australia. In 2006 he took this production to a Broadway theatre where it ran for 252 performances.
Do you really think that the thousands of people who saw this production, probably many (even a majority) who'd never previously attended an opera, were denied an _authentic_ Boheme? That they'd been cheated by being presented some other work?
It's probable that a few of these people, maybe even quite a few, thought, upon leaving the theatre - "hey this opera stuff's pretty good, maybe I'll try some others".
Isn't that _better_ for opera as a whole?


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Well, I think it's very clear, and one just needs a reality check to convince himself, that music and text are more fundamental than the visuals, when performing an opera.

The proofs are there, and can't really be discounted, unless one is prepared also to discount reality: the visuals change from one performance to another, the music and the text do not; there are many operas performed in concert version everywhere, year after year, and starting from the 17th century; most people are perfectly happy to hear an opera, and disregard the visuals; the existence of CDs, blind tickets, ...

So, when I have to prepare a performance of "La traviata", the basic is the score. Yes, I can sometimes change a little bit the score by taking, or not, some cuts. But *all* that we hear is coming from Verdi, and Piave. 

If I select the visuals to tell the story of Violetta taking place at Japan, and at the time of the Tokugawa shogunate, instead of 18th or 19th century Paris, I'm performing "La traviata". If I select the visuals to tell a parallel drama of Violetta faking her death, and being engaged to Amina instead of Alfredo, I'm still performing "La traviata", though probably making a poor job of it, but any member of the audience can just close her eyes, and forget all about the visuals.

However, if I decide to use partly the music of Verdi, and partly my own, and also decide to change Piave's text for something describing a sexually charged version of "Thelma and Louise", I'm *not* performing "La traviata", anymore. I should announce the show as being "Violetta Valéry", a new opera by schigolch, inspired in Verdi's "La traviata". (Incidentally, this have been done recently to one of my favorite operas, Berg's "Lulu", being the basis for Olga Neuwirth's "American Lulu"). 


I have watched many Regietheater stagings. Most of them, I think they are not succesful. Some of them are, to me. Personally, I think that moving the plot in time, and/or in place, could be a good tool, and can provide useful insight. Parallel dramaturgy, normally not as it requires a lot of talent, and it's especially damaging for people in the audience new to the particular piece being staged. 

But I do think visuals can be changed, and can be changed a lot. As long as we respect the score, that's fine. And by respecting the score, I mean respecting each particular piece history. We can perform or create a Baroque, or early Romanticism, 'pastiche' opera. We can even have some freedom with inserting an aria on a Rossini, or Donizetti piece. Because the form, the structure and the period practice of these operas allow for it. But we can't replace 'Addio del passato' or the 'Liebestod', from "Traviata" or "Tristan".


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Faustian said:


> An opera is fundamentally changed and distorted if a conductor writes a new melody for an aria. It's no longer Mozart's opera.


Though of course in that time that and bigger changes such as substituting new arias were not uncommon.

The trends now have moved to mostly performing operas complete (and with no interpolations) but it was not that way for a long time, and cuts still happen. A couple weekends ago I saw a production of _Lulu_ that had around 45 minutes cut from it. And of course when talking about _Lulu_ we have to talk about they (thankfully) used the three act version completed by Cerha. Even cut and completed by another hand I am happy to call this "Alban Berg's _Lulu_." This is in part because I can understand those caveats without explicitly stating them every time I refer to the opera, but more importantly, because fundamentally this is Berg's creation. That is a decision I have made, by my own standards, of course.



Faustian said:


> But the same basic principle applies to the visual presentation of the opera. If the characters and settings are changed to where they are now *completely unrecognizable* as those created by the composer, it is no longer Mozart's opera in that case either. As I have repeatedly pointed out, opera is an art form that exists on several levels simultaneously, and all these aspects are interconnected. An opera exists on a visual level as much as a musical or poetic one. There is no arbitrary distinction, as you seem to be trying to put in place, that makes the music and text fundamental to the conception of the work in a way that settings and characterizations are not. And I question any precedent or justification that allows a person to disassemble any one of its components, leaving the others in place, and presents what they are doing as being the work of its original creators.


*Emphasis* added.

Different people will draw different lines for "completely unrecognizable." I'm not sure I've ever seen an opera production where I would say the characters were completely unrecognizable from those created by the composer and librettist.

But I have seen stage actions that were not specified. And I have seen sets and costumes that were completely different from what was specified and/or chosen by the creators. I take the point that the sets and costumes are often very carefully chosen, but I have a hard time accepting that they are the only sets and costumes that will work, especially since - as discussed above - they sometimes only work in the fantasy created by the composer and librettist.

My joke about _Der Rosenkavalier_ above got me thinking about creator's intentions. This opera was written as a satire but has been taken as sentimental. I saw the quite traditional Nathaniel Merrill production at the Met and was mostly unmoved. I really did not care for this opera until I saw the Richard Jones production from Glyndebourne last year: this was a production that actually saw the opera as a satirical comedy and ran with that. It does not look as Hofmannsthal described, but it has the spirit of the work, which I find far more important.

Some may consider both productions to be inadequate (or performances, at least. I saw the Merrill production many years after the 1969 premiere; it is possible however unlikely that earlier performances had some life, some bite), but in works as complicated as operas, my experience is that there's always something imperfect.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Faustian said:


> Again, by changing the fundamentals of the story, of the characters, and the way they are perceived, by not staying faithful to the spirit and the essence of the _entire_ opera, which includes music, text, dramatic action, and setting, the director isn't putting on a production of that work but rather constructing a new work through the distortion of the old one.


I agree. I think they're too lazy to write their own.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

sospiro said:


> I agree. I think they're too lazy to write their own.


Not lazy, just talentless!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

sospiro said:


> I agree. I think they're too lazy to write their own.


They don´t have to write their music they can make pastiche operas. They can make an opera about giant rats and an opera about a fan factory using music by Richard Wagner we others can then see Lohengrin and The Flying Dutchman.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DonAlfonso said:


> Perhaps _better_ in the sense that current audiences can relate more?


I think that the people of today can easily relate to the past; the basic nature of humans is the same as it's always been.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

schigolch said:


> Well, I think it's very clear, and one just needs a reality check to convince himself, that music and text are more fundamental than the visuals, when performing an opera.
> 
> The proofs are there, and can't really be discounted, unless one is prepared also to discount reality: the visuals change from one performance to another, the music and the text do not; there are many operas performed in concert version everywhere, year after year, and starting from the 17th century; most people are perfectly happy to hear an opera, and disregard the visuals; the existence of CDs, blind tickets, ...
> 
> ...


I'm not denying that producers having complete freedom to alter the visuals of these operas in any way they see fit while still being able to *claim* they are presenting these operas has become widely accepted and taken for granted. But how does the fact that the practice itself occurs inherently make the "music and text more fundamental than the visuals"? And even if they are *more* fundamental (since we are talking about music drama, music obviously takes precedent), that doesn't make the visuals unimportant. They are still a fundamental foundation of the art work, and related to the music and text in important ways. I think its fair to question the basic assumptions that regie directors make and that audiences by and large have come to (or been forced to accept); to question if they are really doing what they claim to be doing and accomplishing what they say they are accomplishing.

You say that if I were to to choreograph a _completely different visual drama_ and implant it onto the music of Verdi's La traviata, I would still be presenting La traviata. But _why_ is this the case? Because I can close my eyes and just listen to the music if I don't like what I see? That's not an answer, that's a suggestion of what one can do if they don't like, understand or accept what they are seeing as being the art work they are being told they seeing. Perhaps if I were to rewrite the music of Verdi and the words of Piave, but stage an exact replication of the visual drama of La traviata as Verdi envisioned it, I could tell someone who suggested that what they were watching wasn't La traviata to "plug your ears and follow the story".

I agree with you that parallel dramaturgy does require a lot of talent to be able to pull it off effectively, to keep all the elements of the words and drama in their proper context and have them seamlessly and sensibly match the visuals. Maybe this is why it happens so rarely.

You believe the visuals can be changed a lot, as long as we respect the score. I think the entire conception should be treated with the same respect.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Faustian said:


> Because I can close my eyes and just listen to the music if I don't like what I see? That's not an answer, that's a suggestion of what one can do if they don't like, understand or accept what they are seeing as being the art work they are being told they seeing. Perhaps if I were to rewrite the music of Verdi and the words of Piave, but stage an exact replication of the visual drama of La traviata as Verdi envisioned it, I could tell someone who suggested that what they were watching wasn't La traviata to "plug your ears and follow the story".


If I have to close my eye to get the vision I want from an opera performance I would rather stay at home listen to a recording.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> Though of course in that time that and bigger changes such as substituting new arias were not uncommon.
> 
> The trends now have moved to mostly performing operas complete (and with no interpolations) but it was not that way for a long time, and cuts still happen. A couple weekends ago I saw a production of _Lulu_ that had around 45 minutes cut from it. And of course when talking about _Lulu_ we have to talk about they (thankfully) used the three act version completed by Cerha. Even cut and completed by another hand I am happy to call this "Alban Berg's _Lulu_." This is in part because I can understand those caveats without explicitly stating them every time I refer to the opera, but more importantly, because fundamentally this is Berg's creation. That is a decision I have made, by my own standards, of course.


It may not have been uncommon in the past. But allowing new arias to be composed and entered into the score at whim is not a practice that has come to be widely accepted or condoned, if we are to consider what we are hearing as Berg's Lulu. If the opera has cuts made to it in a particular production, it is Berg's Lulu with cuts made to it. Not "Berg's complete opera Lulu". If we see a version with the third act completed by Cerha, we understand that's what we are seeing and not being told otherwise. It's not "Lulu as completed by Alban Berg". You may wish, if you so choose, to _think_ of it that way, or for convenience sake to say "Berg's Lulu". But we understand this is not the exact conception and form it would have taken if completed by Berg.



> *Emphasis* added.
> 
> Different people will draw different lines for "completely unrecognizable." I'm not sure I've ever seen an opera production where I would say the characters were completely unrecognizable from those created by the composer and librettist.
> 
> But I have seen stage actions that were not specified. And I have seen sets and costumes that were completely different from what was specified and/or chosen by the creators. I take the point that the sets and costumes are often very carefully chosen, but I have a hard time accepting that they are the only sets and costumes that will work, especially since - as discussed above - they sometimes only work in the fantasy created by the composer and librettist.


Granted, not everyone has the same standard. But I think most everyone, if being honest, can recognize when they are seeing at least a proximate portrayal of a character that stays true to their essence, and when they are seeing something that doesn't come close to matching the character as the composer conceived them at all. And I would argue that productions that have characters perform stage actions that were not only not specified, but have no relation to anything in the text or dramatic events of the opera are altering these characters beyond any recognition of who they are, and not just visually, but behaviorally.

In any case, surely you must be joking about not seeing an opera production where characters were completely unrecognizable from the conceptions of the composer and librettist. How are giant rats in Neuenfels' Lohengrin in any way recognizable as the nobles and commoners of Brabant? Even in a less extreme case, I would love to hear your thoughts on how dressing and suggesting three women to be prostitutes and setting them atop a dam is a an approximate and recognizable portrayal of Rhinemaidens as Wagner conceived them.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Faustian said:


> You say that if I were to to choreograph a _completely different visual drama_ and implant it onto the music of Verdi's La traviata, I would still be presenting La traviata. But _why_ is this the case? Because I can close my eyes and just listen to the music if I don't like what I see? That's not an answer, that's a suggestion of what one can do if they don't like, understand or accept what they are seeing as being the art work they are being told they seeing. Perhaps if I were to rewrite the music of Verdi and the words of Piave, but stage an exact replication of the visual drama of La traviata as Verdi envisioned it, I could tell someone who suggested that what they were watching wasn't La traviata to "plug your ears and follow the story".
> 
> I agree with you that parallel dramaturgy does require a lot of talent to be able to pull it off effectively, to keep all the elements of the words and drama in their proper context and have them seamlessly and sensibly match the visuals. Maybe this is why it happens so rarely.
> 
> You believe the visuals can be changed a lot, as long as we respect the score. I think the entire conception should be treated with the same respect.


But, my friend, don't you realize that "closing your eyes" is the exact equivalent of being seated in an U-shaped theater with no visibility of the stage?. Or attending a concert performance?. Or listening to a CD in your home?. The only difference among them, for those of us that love live performance over anything else, is that when you are listening to a live performance, rather than a recording, that's a very big advantage, visuals or no visuals.

However, and in all three cases, I can assure you the vast majority of opera fans will have no trouble in telling you that they have attended a performance, live or recorded, of "La Traviata".

I think, however, that very, very few will claim to have attended a performance of "La Traviata" by seating in a theater watching the action with a pair of headphones on their ears, blocking the sound, or watching a DVD of the opera at home, with the sound off. Or with the soundtrack of "Camille", by that matter.

This is just the real world, and I'm not going to argue more about something that is simply that, a fact. Sorry, but I'm a practical man. 

About respecting the visuals, I would like to discuss another example. Alban Berg was desperate about what he perceived (yes, in the 1920s) as a total disregard of the stage directors about his indications on how to perform "Wozzeck". When he was writing "Lulu" he confided to Arnold Schönberg that he had in mind to write a book on the staging of the opera so detailed, that no one could deviate from it. Of course, Berg died before he could do that (in fact, even before he could even complete the score), but it's a safe bet that, if that book were available, almost all stage directors would disregard it, anyway. But this is not because of the evil nature of stage directors, it's again simply the nature of the art genre. Of *our* art genre. And in the case of "Wozzeck" we can even get a good Regiethater staging coming from the same guy that designed that 'visual assault' on "La Traviata" himself, Mr. Bieito:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Faustian said:


> It may not have been uncommon in the past. But allowing new arias to be composed and entered into the score at whim is not a practice that has come to be widely accepted or condoned, if we are to consider what we are hearing as Berg's Lulu. If the opera has cuts made to it in a particular production, it is Berg's Lulu with cuts made to it. Not "Berg's complete opera Lulu". If we see a version with the third act completed by Cerha, we understand that's what we are seeing and not being told otherwise. It's not "Lulu as completed by Alban Berg". You may wish, if you so choose, to _think_ of it that way, or for convenience sake to say "Berg's Lulu". But we understand this is not the exact conception and form it would have taken if completed by Berg.


Actually, the form and conception are exactly what is Berg's in the Third Act. It's only a few parts of the orchestration that needed input.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I trust that those who have no problem with regietheater will pay the price to attend a performance, and those who find it generally objectionable or obnoxious in design will keep their money in their wallets. There you have it - we all get what we want.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I happened across the following line about this topic in a different thread and it so perfectly sums up my feelings that I think I will reproduce it here:

"I've given up trying to debate this one. Why do people refuse to consider each production on its own?"

N.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> I trust that those who have no problem with regietheater will pay the price to attend a performance, and those who find it generally objectionable or obnoxious in design will keep their money in their wallets. There you have it - we all get what we want.


So you say that we who do not prefer regietheater should stay at home and never see a live opera performance?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Sloe said:


> So you say that we who do not prefer regietheater should stay at home and never see a live opera performance?


My friend, you seem to be saying that it's regietheater or nothing. If my memory is correct, the last five operas I attended were entirely of the original type (attended in Poland, Budapest and Prague).

Okay, maybe where you reside there is nothing but regietheater. In that case, why not get a petition started, gather a ton of signatures and present it to the opera house management. Regardless, I'm not paying for regietheater any more than I would pay for a pack of rats to occupy my home.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> My friend, you seem to be saying that it's regietheater or nothing. If my memory is correct, the last five operas I attended were entirely of the original type (attended in Poland, Budapest and Prague).
> 
> Okay, maybe where you reside there is nothing but regietheater. In that case, why not get a petition started, gather a ton of signatures and present it to the opera house management. Regardless, I'm not paying for regietheater any more than I would pay for a pack of rats to occupy my home.


If the managers of opera houses want to stage regie or non traditional stagings if that term is more prefered they can do it. I have no power the only thing I can do is to say my opinion and hope things will be different one day.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Maybe those regie-type folks just don't have enough contemporary operas to fully occupy their time. If they did, they would likely not get to thinking of raiding the masterpieces of the past.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> Maybe those regie-type folks just don't have enough contemporary operas to fully occupy their time. If they did, they would likely not get to thinking of raiding the masterpieces of the past.


Contemporary operas seems to be the only way to avoid regie unfortunately it happens there too.


----------



## Jorge Hereth (Aug 16, 2015)

Here a presentation Teatro da Paz in Belém, PA (Brazil), made of Carlos Gomes' Il Guarany in August 2007:
(I like it)


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Jorge Hereth said:


> Here a presentation Teatro da Paz in Belém, PA (Brazil), made of Carlos Gomes' Il Guarany in August 2007:
> (I like it)


Have I missed something is Il Guarany not set in the jungles of colonial Brazil?


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> I think that the people of today can easily relate to the past; the basic nature of humans is the same as it's always been.


I agree that the basic nature of humans has not changed but the audience watching Boheme in 1896 was not being asked to relate to the past but to the "present" so why not give us the same opportunity?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DonAlfonso said:


> I agree that the basic nature of humans has not changed but the audience watching Boheme in 1896 was not being asked to relate to the past but to the "present" so why not give us the same opportunity?


La Boheme was not set in the present in 1896 it was set over half a century ago when it premiered.

If we want to see something that can relate to the present we can see Rent.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

What's Rent? What if you own your home?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DonAlfonso said:


> I agree that the basic nature of humans has not changed but the audience watching Boheme in 1896 was not being asked to relate to the past but to the "present" so why not give us the same opportunity?


It's a matter of personal choice. Evidently, you and many others want masterpieces from the past updated to be more relevant to 21st Century listeners. What I want from a past masterpiece is to be transported back to the time of composition. Of course, I won't deny that I am skeptical of the motivations and creativity of those who make regietheater productions.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Maybe those regie-type folks just don't have enough contemporary operas to fully occupy their time. If they did, they would likely not get to thinking of raiding the masterpieces of the past.

They have plenty of contemporary operas to choose from, but they know where to find the music that will guarantee them an audience. Besides, you don't get that godlike rush by _not_ putting something over on your audience and _not_ seeing your name at the center of a _scandale_ which will have no consequences for you except your being invited to direct at Bayreuth next summer.

I agree that the basic nature of humans has not changed but the audience watching Boheme in 1896 was not being asked to relate to the past but to the "present" so why not give us the same opportunity?

That question should be addressed to contemporary composers and _regisseurs,_ not audiences.

Evidently...many others want masterpieces from the past updated to be more relevant to 21st Century listeners. What I want from a past masterpiece is to be transported back to the time of composition.

"Updating" may be the least offensive technique of regie directors. It doesn't always violate the spirit or sense of an opera, and it has a long history in the theater. But isn't it, usually, frivolous at best? How many operas can you think of which cry out to be set in a more recent era, and how many gain anything - and lose nothing - in artistic value thereby? To present opera, a fundamentally unrealistic art form, in such a way that audiences are drawn to recognize, understand, identify with and enjoy depictions of human life and values from times and places different from our own - to show these things as fully human and ultimately familiar - is always a challenge to a director. And meeting that particular challenge is apt to require a lot of hard work and gain him little publicity. The best directing doesn't call attention to itself: it results in a feeling of naturalness and a direct involvement of the audience with the music and characters.


----------



## Jorge Hereth (Aug 16, 2015)

Sloe said:


> Have I missed something is Il Guarany not set in the jungles of colonial Brazil?


It actually is, Sloe, right in the 16th Century. It's based on the novel by José de Alencar (1829-1877), with the original libretto in Italian by Antonio Scalvini (1835-1881) and Carlo d'Ormeville (1840-1924). Luís Vicente de Simoni (1792-1881) published a libretto adapted to Brazilian Portuguese in 1877, but no presentation is known; in 1935, another libretto in Brazil Portuguese was adapted by Carlos Marinho de Paula Barros (1894-1955), and there was at least one presentation at the Teatro Municipal in Rio de Janeiro, RJ, June 7, 1935, as a recital and one with its entire inscenation May 20, 1937.

But about jungles, for the acoustics and in order to avoid animal attacks it's better to put it on scene in an opera house LOL


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Jorge Hereth said:


> It actually is, Sloe, right in the 16th Century. It's based on the novel by José de Alencar (1829-1877), with the original libretto in Italian by Antonio Scalvini (1835-1881) and Carlo d'Ormeville (1840-1924). Luís Vicente de Simoni (1792-1881) published a libretto adapted to Brazilian Portuguese in 1877, but no presentation is known; in 1935, another libretto in Brazil Portuguese was adapted by Carlos Marinho de Paula Barros (1894-1955), and there was at least one presentation at the Teatro Municipal in Rio de Janeiro, RJ, June 7, 1935, as a recital and one with its entire inscenation May 20, 1937.
> 
> But about jungles, for the acoustics and in order to avoid animal attacks it's better to put it on scene in an opera house LOL


I just thought that the beginning with the figures at the museum coming to life was regietheater. I have seen that video several times before. It is a good opera but I think I prefer Fosca.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Well, enough of these abstract arguments! Here's the transcendent finale of an opera you only think you know, produced in High Regie style. It's been re-titled:

Perfect Fool Reunites Bag Lady With Sumo Wrestler on the Night of the Living Dead.






And if that thrills the pants off you, you can see the whole thing:


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Well, enough of these abstract arguments! Here's the transcendent finale of an opera you only think you know, produced in High Regie style. It's been re-titled:
> 
> Perfect Fool Reunites Bag Lady With Sumo Wrestler on the Night of the Living Dead.


What? No rats??


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Well, enough of these abstract arguments! Here's the transcendent finale of an opera you only think you know, produced in High Regie style. It's been re-titled:
> 
> Perfect Fool Reunites Bag Lady With Sumo Wrestler on the Night of the Living Dead.


I take it your point is that you didn't like it.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Well, enough of these abstract arguments! Here's the transcendent finale of an opera you only think you know, produced in High Regie style. It's been re-titled:
> 
> Perfect Fool Reunites Bag Lady With Sumo Wrestler on the Night of the Living Dead.
> 
> ...


Damn! What have I been missing all these years when I thought I didn't like Wagner??!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DonAlfonso said:


> I take it your point is that you didn't like it.


Let's just say I find it incredible.

That production is in fact absorbing to watch in its entirety. It tells us a great deal about the mind-set of our culture - which I'll call "deconstructive" - and how it views the artistic expressions of earlier times as things to be taken apart and remade, as much for the sake of doing so and proving our "superior" understanding as for actually saying anything new and significant. The legitimate points made by director Tcherniakov are already implicit in Wagner's original, but he feels he must spell them out for us, in the process making aspects of the work stand for the whole and throwing out a good deal of Wagner in the process.

Just watch the Good Friday Spell, with Parsifal and Kundry sharing their childhood toys while Gurnemanz stands in the shadows singing something about nature redeemed. Weirdly fascinating, but Wagner it isn't.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Let's just say I find it incredible.


As in the correct and literal meaning of the word?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

sospiro said:


> As in the correct and literal meaning of the word?


Indeed.................


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Well, enough of these abstract arguments! Here's the transcendent finale of an opera you only think you know, produced in High Regie style. It's been re-titled:
> 
> Perfect Fool Reunites Bag Lady With Sumo Wrestler on the Night of the Living Dead.
> 
> ...


Parsifal neets Peter Grimes??? What a load of cobblers!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Let's just say I find it incredible.
> 
> That production is in fact *absorbing to watch in its entirety.* It tells us a great deal about the mind-set of our culture - which I'll call "deconstructive" - and how it views the artistic expressions of earlier times as things to be taken apart and remade, as much for the sake of doing so and proving our "superior" understanding as for actually saying anything new and significant. The legitimate points made by director Tcherniakov are already implicit in Wagner's original, but he feels he must spell them out for us, in the process making aspects of the work stand for the whole and throwing out a good deal of Wagner in the process.
> 
> Just watch the Good Friday Spell, with Parsifal and Kundry sharing their childhood toys while Gurnemanz stands in the shadows singing something about nature redeemed. Weirdly fascinating, but Wagner it isn't.


No thanks! This is one reason Karajan turned to directing himself because he didn't want the nonsense that often passes for stage direction. Of course one can say he wasn't that good at it but at least it approximated to what the composer may have wanted.

i must confess I find it totally incredible - as well as depressing - that Barenboim could stand and conduct this total nonsense.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Parsifal neets Peter Grimes??? What a load of cobblers!


Might be better than this. Romeo Castellucci's.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

sospiro said:


> Might be better than this. Romeo Castellucci's.


From what I can see on YouTube, Castellucci is a surrealist. His stage images look like Dali or Magritte, with strange symbolic objects floating in dream space. I can imagine this working better with the music of _Parsifal_ than other regie productions I've seen, although some of the excerpts on YouTube look a bit outlandish. Who are all those people walking on a treadmill in act 3? Seems to me Wagner's own version of the action is already pretty surreal!


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> And if that thrills the pants off you, you can see the whole thing:


Thank you so much for that link.
Parsifal has never been high on my list of favourites but I did enjoy the production. Having a close-up of the fake plastic wound was definitely a mistake but that's the video director's fault, it probably looked fine to the live audience.

Wagner would have been proud!:lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DonAlfonso said:


> Parsifal has never been high on my list of favourites but I did enjoy the production.


Those two facts definitely shed light on each other.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> On the matter of "entertainment"...
> 
> I don't see a need to quibble over the definition of the word. What's really at issue is the value of the artistic experience, and the question of what art can and should do for us. I guess I would say that it can affect us on many levels, emotional and intellectual, that all those levels are worthwhile, and that none should be demeaned.
> 
> ...


Beautifully expressed post.

Ah-men.

Divina gave 'the' graduate-level seminar on how to be a Queen.


----------



## Queen of the Nerds (Dec 22, 2014)

OK, I haven't seen any Regie opera (thank goodness), but I HAVE seen Regie ballet. Don't think such a thing exists? Imagine this:
You go see a local production of _The Nutcracker_, and you find there's no March, no Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy, the Waltz of the Flowers is seriously abridged, Drosselmeyer dances in all of those national dances (which he's not supposed to do), there's no Christmas tree magically growing, no whole bunch of kids, no gigantic dolls, no Fritz at all, no nutcracker breaking, no entry scene, and the overture has been transformed into a scene in which the clock breaks and Drosselmeyer opens it to find the Tick-Tock girls asleep (characters not found in the original). Plus, the nutcracker is not the prince of a sweets land (he's Drosselmeyer's nephew who comes to the party), Clara is sixteen (she's seven or eight in the original), it's set in the 1900s, and the entire thing is a flashback caused by a huge photograph of Clara and her parents coming to life.
I know, right?


----------



## Sir Redcrosse (Aug 30, 2015)

It is, of course, a matter of taste, but I find that the abstractions are at least somewhat reasonable and not just a director doing something "because [they] can," I'm usually okay.

For example, I'm a huge fan of La Fura dels Baus's work, though the previews of their Ring cycle left me absolutely cold (though to date I have only seen a single Walkure that I would buy on DVD but I can't find it anymore...). At least in their production of _Mahagonny_, which was, from what I could see, set in a garbage dump, made sense given the message of the opera. But how is the bridge to Valhalla anything like a gymnastic cylinder? What use is a human wrecking ball that has pretty much no purpose whatsoever?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> On the matter of "entertainment"...
> 
> I don't see a need to quibble over the definition of the word. What's really at issue is the value of the artistic experience, and the question of what art can and should do for us. I guess I would say that it can affect us on many levels, emotional and intellectual, that all those levels are worthwhile, and that none should be demeaned.
> 
> ...












Ah-men.

Divina gave 'the' graduate-level seminar on how to be a Queen.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

The Court of Appeal in Paris has banned the sale of Dmitri Chernyakov's 2010 Munich production of Francis Poulenc's Dialogues des Carmelites. The case was brought by the Poulenc and Georges Bernanos heirs, who called the production 'a betrayal'.
Now the BelAir label has been ordered to remove the video from sale.

Story here.

This could have massive implications for opera houses and directors.

This production is due to be staged in Munich in January 2016 and the opera house had made this statement:

"Vor dem Hintergrund eines in Frankreich anhängigen Rechtsstreits weist die Bayerische Staatsoper darauf hin, dass die Erben des Komponisten und Librettisten der Auffassung sind, dass die Umsetzung der Schlussszene durch den Regisseur das Werk von Bernanos und Poulenc abwandelt und entstellt. Nach Meinung der Erben muss der Märtyrertod aller Nonnen zwingend szenisch umgesetzt werden. Ansonsten würden Deutungsmöglichkeiten eröffnet, die der Kernaussage des Werkes nicht gerecht würden."

(Google translate: Against the backdrop of a pending dispute in France, the Bayerische Staatsoper out that the heirs of composers and librettists are of the opinion that the implementation of the final scene by the director modifies and distorts the work of Bernanos and Poulenc. According to the heirs of the martyrdom of all nuns must be strictly implemented scenic. Otherwise interpretation possibilities would open that would not do justice to the core message of the work.)

Slippedisc which broke the story in UK. The comments are very interesting.

I would be delighted if this was the end of extreme regietheater. Updating an opera is fine but changing the story is sacrilege - IMO.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I agree that interpretation & updating is one thing - drastic alterations another.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Well, enough of these abstract arguments! Here's the transcendent finale of an opera you only think you know, produced in High Regie style. It's been re-titled:
> 
> Perfect Fool Reunites Bag Lady With Sumo Wrestler on the Night of the Living Dead.
> 
> ...


Oh, this is the version I was talking about earlier in this thread.

Your first clip didn't even include the most jawdropping parts-- (1) Wise gentle Gurnemanz knifing Kundry in the back while she and Amfortas are grinding on each other; and (2) Instead of just leaving Klingsor's castle with the spear after he catches it in the end of Act 2, Parsifal stabs Klingsor (complete with gushing arterial blood spray) in front of Kundry and all the screaming Blumenmadchens, who in this version are innocent young girls in floral dresses.

I'm not even firmly against Regie (I like the Victorian Chéreau Ring, and while I didn't love the Met's postapocalyptic Parsifal, I didn't hate it). But if changes to the characterization undercuts the musical argument, I think the interpretation has to be considered a failure.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

With a little research it's quite possible to find out something about a production before you pay your money. A new Boheme has just openend in London. You only have to know a tiny bit about a critics views and they will tell you all you need to know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opera/what-to-see/la-boheme-english-national-opera-review/
Rupert Christiansen
17 October 2015 • 10:53am
John Berry, ENO's Artistic Director until last summer, has bequeathed the company some projects that the new management would probably rather have ditched. One of them is this dreary production of La Bohème, which needlessly replaces a charming staging by Jonathan Miller that was hugely popular with ENO's core audience.
Instead we have something in an unspecified "modern" setting that drains all the emotional warmth from the plot and adds nothing illuminating in compensation. The director Benedict Andrews may think that he has been frightfully daring, but let me assure him that his concept is yawningly old hat. I can think of at least five Bohèmes I've seen recently along similar lines - David McVicar's version at Glyndebourne, for one, not to mention the derivative musical Rent.
The corniness wouldn't matter if what we saw was fresh, musical, or sensitive. But it isn't: the Bohemians live in a dirty white-walled apartment. When his chums go out carousing, Rodolfo rolls up his sleeve and gets out the syringe and the gear, implausibly luring Mimi to inject herself within seconds of meeting her. They then fall in love through a drug-induced haze: how is that for old-fashioned romance?
This infantile attempt to shock fails dismally, and the heroin theme subsequently fades out - Mimi dies coughing as usual. Andrews has nothing else of interest to offer: the Café Momus is situated in a downmarket shopping mall - heaven knows what a social climber like Musetta and her rich beau are doing there - and the final two acts are merely banal, with any attempt at hard-hitting Channel 4 realism vitiated by Amanda Holden's anachronistic translation, laden with jokes about Demosthenes and talk of 'ladies of easy virtue'.
What further depressed me was the fact that both the leading roles have been given to American singers, neither of them outstandingly good. Corinne Winters is a resourceful soprano, but her Mimi was devoid of vulnerability and innocence; her Rodolfo, Zach Borichevsky, marvellously tall for a tenor, wields cleanly produced tome that turns painfully tight above the stave. He never communicated the character's emotional volatility or insecurity.

New post on Edward Seckerson

La Boheme, English National Opera

So this is the moment where the tables are turned and La Boheme, the opera, takes its cue fromRent, the musical, and Rodolfo the poet's observation that he has "a few more lines" to finish takes on a rather different connotation. An entirely redundent blog in a certain national newspaper seemed to think that this was in some way news and that the idea that our cuddly bohemians might actually do drugs constituted another operatic scandal (isn't that the only way opera ever makes the news these days?) and that Benedict Andrews' staging would be booed (yawn) to the echo. It wasn't.
Rather more worth writing about is the undisputible fact that Andrews is an extraordinary talent who has already given me two or three of my best and most lasting experiences in the theatre and whose take on Puccini's masterpiece was not in the least sensationalist or attention seeking but rather full of telling detail and touching insight. Ok, so Rodolfo swallowed his top C on the first night and the teeming canvas that is act two ran into some technical problems - but when did you ever see the tiny role of the toy-seller Parpignol (child-catcher, more like) turn the promise of youth into a sinister premonition of potentially wasted lives and when was the kinship between Musetta and Mimi (both of whom will undergo transformation) more sharply drawn.
Great directors intil truth and honesty and flair into fledgling casts and this was no exception. Act three played out on a pretty much barren stage was unforgettable and have you ever seen aBoheme where the promise of Spring was actually realised in act four where the hopeful light flooding the stage (and the heartwarming sight of children playing outside) was in moving contradiction to the end of life tragedy being played out on it. Duncan Rock (Marcello) is growing into something special and Corinne Winters just belongs on a stage. The sound of that big voice shaking her tiny frame was as exciting as it was upsetting in the last two acts. For sure piece usually gets to you - but it's less often that you care about the people you meet in it.

Once again its as if they'd been to different theatre's, on separate evenings to see entirely different Opera's.

We see what we want to see.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

sospiro said:


> I would be delighted if this was the end of extreme regietheater. Updating an opera is fine but changing the story is sacrilege - IMO.


The case only held up (thus far) because _Dialogues des carmélites_ is still under copyright. So if anything any reigning in would likely only apply to recent works.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Belowpar said:


> With a little research it's quite possible to find out something about a production before you pay your money. A new Boheme has just opened in London. You only have to know a tiny bit about a critics views and they will tell you all you need to know.


I agree that you can read reviews and make up your own mind but most people will buy their tickets before opening night and before the reviews are in. This was a new production so nobody knew what it was going to be like.

In my case, I would have not only bought tickets in advance but booked train tickets and hotel. I could have decided not to go but as I'd spent all that money anyway ...


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

mountmccabe said:


> The case only held up (thus far) because _Dialogues des carmélites_ is still under copyright. So if anything any reigning in would likely only apply to recent works.


Sadly, I know you're right.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

sospiro said:


> I agree that you can read reviews and make up your own mind but most people will buy their tickets before opening night and before the reviews are in. This was a new production so nobody knew what it was going to be like.
> 
> In my case, I would have not only bought tickets in advance but booked train tickets and hotel. I could have decided not to go but as I'd spent all that money anyway ...


This is true, but tickets are only available after the season is announced. I was going to say that opera companies tend to be proactive about promoting their work and giving an idea of what their productions will be like, but it seems I am mistaken and the latter doesn't seem to be as common as I had thought.

I am kind of surprised by the lack of production images, promotional photos, and trailers for ENO shows. I can find precious little for the upcoming _Akhnaten_ in March. Same for ROH, as I look into it. There is an article with comments from Mariame Clément on the new production of _L'Etoile_ opening in February, whereas there's almost nothing on Richard Jone's new production of Boris Godunov; I picked out a few seconds of Bryn Terfel in the season trailer. [As a side note, wow, I'd love to be in London in March!]

I certainly went into San Francisco Opera's new production of _Lucia di lammermoor_ with a good idea of what to expect. The season announcement (in February or so) had rich and representative photos. There were rehearsal videos posted a few days before opening night, but I had tickets already at that point. There is a lot of information available about other upcoming productions, but that is in part because none of them are new (though several are new to San Francisco). I have seen the _Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg_ and _Jenůfa_ on DVD and caught much of the _Carmen_ via YouTube.

The Met Opera is much better about this, I guess. _Lulu_ hasn't opened at the Met but we've known a lot about the production since the announcement in February (or so). There are promo stills, video clips with William Kentridge and others discussing the production, and even knowing William Kentridge's previous productions. And of course people talked about their _Otello_ all summer.

None of this guarantees that the production will work, or will otherwise be satisfying. There's far more that goes into this than traditionalist/updated/interventionist productions, of course.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Belowpar said:


> With a little research it's quite possible to find out something about a production before you pay your money. A new Boheme has just openend in London. You only have to know a tiny bit about a critics views and they will tell you all you need to know.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opera/what-to-see/la-boheme-english-national-opera-review/
> Rupert Christiansen
> ...


Well I hope I see what Edward Seckerson saw (I often do agree with him by the way) because I booked my tickets long before the reviews came out.

It's part of my birthday present to my boyfriend, who has never seen an opera before. I chose *La Boheme* because it's easy on the ear, and has four short acts, and because it was the opera that got me started. I just hope it doesn't put him off opera for good.

I'll report back when I've seen it.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

GregMitchell said:


> Well I hope I see what Edward Seckerson saw (I often do agree with him by the way) because I booked my tickets long before the reviews came out.
> 
> It's part of my birthday present to my boyfriend, who has never seen an opera before. I chose *La Boheme* because it's easy on the ear, and has four short acts, and because it was the opera that got me started. I just hope it doesn't put him off opera for good.
> 
> I'll report back when I've seen it.


I hope you both enjoy it and look forward to hearing your opinion.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Well I hope I see what Edward Seckerson saw (I often do agree with him by the way) because I booked my tickets long before the reviews came out.
> 
> It's part of my birthday present to my boyfriend, who has never seen an opera before. I chose *La Boheme* because it's easy on the ear, and has four short acts, and because it was the opera that got me started. I just hope it doesn't put him off opera for good.
> 
> I'll report back when I've seen it.


I really hope your boyfriend likes _Boheme_!!

There should be no interference this time around for you from Zandra Rhodes and the 'fuscia-Betsey-Johnson-school-of-costume-design'- so I think you're both off to an auspicious start.


----------



## Braddan (Aug 23, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> It's part of my birthday present to my boyfriend, who has never seen an opera before. I chose *La Boheme* because it's easy on the ear, and has four short acts, and because it was the opera that got me started. I just hope it doesn't put him off opera for good.
> 
> I'll report back when I've seen it.


A good choice for a newcomer to opera. I took my mother to see a production many moons ago and she wanted to hear "lots of choruses" so appeared dismayed when I told her there was little. By the end of Act 3, she was in pieces and I was handing over the tissues. I reminded her that she was only hearing four voices.

The first opera my partner (should say husband but can't quite get used to/believe it yet) saw with me was *Turandot* and his second was *Tristan* (in Berlin so no English supertitles) - that's some leap! It didn't exactly put him off but he sees less these days and generally finds a bar on our foreign breaks. 
Incidentally, the Tristan production was a typical example of _Regie_ which I hated but he liked so it didn't make the slightest difference whether he knew the text or not.

I rest my case milord...


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Braddan said:


> A good choice for a newcomer to opera. I took my mother to see a production many moons ago and she wanted to hear "lots of choruses" so appeared dismayed when I told her there was little. By the end of Act 3, she was in pieces and I was handing over the tissues. I reminded her that she was only hearing four voices.
> 
> The first opera my partner (should say husband but can't quite get used to/believe it yet) saw with me was *Turandot* and his second was *Tristan* (in Berlin so no English supertitles) - that's some leap! It didn't exactly put him off but he sees less these days and generally finds a bar on our foreign breaks.
> Incidentally, the Tristan production was a typical example of _Regie_ which I hated but he liked so it didn't make the slightest difference whether he knew the text or not.
> ...


Wonderful little story.

- And congratulations to you both.

<Clink.>


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Well last night I attended the production of *La Boheme* by English National Opera at the Colosseum with my boyfriend. It was his first opera, and part of his birthday present from me. We left at the interval (after Act II).

The reviews didn't lie. This modern take on *La Boheme* was just plain dull, and the singing wasn't very good either. The shock tactic of having Rodolfo and Mimi take heroin during their Act I arias did nothing but alienate us from them, when we should be at our most involved. Presumably the director, one Benedict Andrews, thought this piece of sensationalist nonsense would make the piece more relevant to a modern audience. Well it didn't.

I don't know if it was his or the conductor's idea to have the Bohemians do their opening exchanges in a sort of conversational manner, but unfortunately it meant that they forgot to sing. It didn't make the words any clearer, and what we did hear of the new translation, proved it to be more an adaptation of the original Italian, rather than an actual translation.

But the worst criticism I can level at the production is that it was just plain boring. I could tell my boyfriend wasn't enjoying it and decided to get him out before any real damage was done.

Updated productions can work and when we got home, I put on the video of Baz Luhrmann's superb Australian Opera production. My boyfriend loved the first two acts, but we had to stop it during the third act, because he was finding it much too upsetting. My fault, as I hadn't really warned him that after the fun and high jinks of the first two acts, the opera got decidedly more tragic. He decided he'd prefer to watch the rest of it later on, when he'd prepared himself. But at least the opera was working its magic as it should.

English National Opera used to put on some fantastic productions and I have some very fond memories of them, but recently it just seems to have lost its way. No wonder the company is in trouble. There were quite a few empty seats, which is pretty much unheard of for an opera as popular as *La Boheme*.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

GregMitchell said:


> Well last night I attended the production of *La Boheme* by English National Opera at the Colosseum with my boyfriend. It was his first opera, and part of his birthday present from me. We left at the interval (after Act II).
> 
> The reviews didn't lie. This modern take on *La Boheme* was just plain dull, and the singing wasn't very good either. The shock tactic of having Rodolfo and Mimi take heroin during their Act I arias did nothing but alienate us from them, when we should be at our most involved. Presumably the director, one Benedict Andrews, thought this piece of sensationalist nonsense would make the piece more relevant to a modern audience. Well it didn't.
> 
> ...


Oh what a shame. I really hope it hasn't put your boyfriend off opera.

That's two reviews I've read in quick succession on here where a modern production has left someone very disappointed. Don Fatale's review.


----------



## Braddan (Aug 23, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> Updated productions can work and when we got home, I put on the video of Baz Luhrmann's superb Australian Opera production. My boyfriend loved the first two acts, but we had to stop it during the third act, because he was finding it much too upsetting. My fault, as I hadn't really warned him that after the fun and high jinks of the first two acts, the opera got decidedly more tragic. He decided he'd prefer to watch the rest of it later on, when he'd prepared himself. But at least the opera was working its magic as it should.


I couldn't agree more. One of my absolute favourite productions of Boheme. I am all for modern productions when a director can still be faithful to the text, the interpretation is coherent and has dramatic integrity. Luhrmann demonstrates all this and the result is a profoundly moving performance. You can see that the tenor is still overcome with emotion at the curtain call. I can completely understand why your B/F found it difficult to continue watching. I still find it overwhelming despite knowing the opera so well and watching it many, many times. I feel much the same about Minghella's Butterfly, an example of when ENO got it right.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Did you all see how low the Flanders opera has sunk?
Well....... take a look at there website.
Warning *This* comes with_ shocking_ images 

https://operaballet.be/nl/programma/2015-2016?page=1&type=opera


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Those hot dogs definitely look undercooked.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Those hot dogs definitely look undercooked.


And Otello definitely not sexy :lol:


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

sospiro said:


> Oh what a shame. I really hope it hasn't put your boyfriend off opera.
> 
> Don Fatale's review.


+1 (and 13 more characters)


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Braddan said:


> I couldn't agree more. One of my absolute favourite productions of Boheme. I am all for modern productions when a director can still be faithful to the text, the interpretation is coherent and has dramatic integrity. Luhrmann demonstrates all this and the result is a profoundly moving performance. You can see that the tenor is still overcome with emotion at the curtain call. I can completely understand why your B/F found it difficult to continue watching. I still find it overwhelming despite knowing the opera so well and watching it many, many times. I feel much the same about Minghella's Butterfly, an example of when ENO got it right.


It was the scene when Rodolfo inadvertently lets slip that Mimi is dying, and is overheard by Mimi herself. All the singers are so involved, their predicament almost shockingly real, which just shows you don't need to bring out needles and heroin paraphernalia in order to shock an audience out of its complacency. Just play the scene for real, and the music will do the rest.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Pugg said:


> Did you all see how low the Flanders opera has sunk?
> Well....... take a look at there website.
> Warning *This* comes with_ shocking_ images
> 
> https://operaballet.be/nl/programma/2015-2016?page=1&type=opera


I would have liked your post, except it might have indicated my approval of those pictures. What the hell are they thinking? Speechless.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Don Fatale said:


> I would have liked your post, except it might have indicated my approval of those pictures. What the hell are they thinking? Speechless.


And they are always sold out, can you believe it?


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Pugg said:


> And they are always sold out, can you believe it?


such things called productions are aimed for non-classical listeners usually ( people who usually won't listen to opera or any other classical music genre at home on CD , for them going to Opera house is not more than a social event. what they are looking for? Shock and fascination from an appearance since they are not attracted to music and/or don't understand it, just came to see and look :lol:

well, of course, there are some real classical music snobs who attend these productions, but imo they aren't quite often an audience, for who after attending couple of such productions won't be bored with this intentionally non-boring, excitingly provocative stuff? Its provocativeness itself becomes predictable.

for me such things look as if they were oriented for kids under age of 5, so to say just for entertaining purposes.


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

Pugg said:


> Did you all see how low the Flanders opera has sunk?
> Well....... take a look at there website.
> Warning *This* comes with_ shocking_ images
> 
> https://operaballet.be/nl/programma/2015-2016?page=1&type=opera


Then look at the image for The Nutcracker 

Seriously though, what I notice often (Amsterdam for example) is that these images annoucing the opera's are nowhere near the images we will see on stage, even though the posters are all over the billboards. I don't like that and I don't get the 'added value'.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Dongiovanni said:


> Then look at the image for The Nutcracker
> 
> Seriously though, what I notice often (Amsterdam for example) is that these images annoucing the opera's are nowhere near the images we will see on stage, even though the posters are all over the billboards. I don't like that and I don't get the 'added value'.


People who like opera and ballet will buy a ticket no matter what the poster will look like. (In other words these posters won't put the fans off.) People who don't like the aesthetic of what they think opera and ballet are like, but like the aesthetic of the poster might buy a ticket they otherwise wouldn't have bought. Thus goes the theory.

However, what happens if the production's aesthetic doesn't match that of the poster? Do these posters attract first timers who are then enchanted by the art forms and end up becoming fans? Or do they only attract people who go once and leave disappointed? There's a market research project in there somewhere.

N.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

The Conte said:


> However, what happens if the production's aesthetic doesn't match that of the poster? Do these posters attract first timers who are then enchanted by the art forms and end up becoming fans? Or do they only attract people who go once and leave disappointed? There's a market research project in there somewhere.
> 
> N.


I too wonder about this.

I have ASSUMED that research shows this works as this kind of 'sexing up' is done by many companies. To me it looks like an attempt to find a new audience by deliberately promoting Opera in a non traditonal way. As you say its a problems if it just fills theatre's with one off 'been there, done it' types. However I have ASSUMED the research would have proven that false too?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

After all the hullabaloo over Katie Mitchell's _Lucia di Lammermoor_ at ROH, Rupert Christiansen has written a piece about ending (in his words) the gimmickry and the gore.

There's much I agree with, especially "We need to stop telling children that they ought to like opera and let them find their own way there, in their own time." Opera houses moan that only old/older people go to opera and that's true but the 30 somethings of today will be the 50-60 somethings of tomorrow and they will find their way to opera. Was ever thus.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

sospiro said:


> There's much I agree with, especially "We need to stop telling children that they ought to like opera and let them find their own way there, in their own time." Opera houses moan that only old/older people go to opera and that's true but the 30 somethings of today will be the 50-60 somethings of tomorrow and they will find their way to opera. Was ever thus.


Yes, so much. Opera is not going to take over the world. There's no way to get all 30-somethings interested, any more than there is a way to get all 60-somethings interested.

Though as a whole I don't agree with Christiansen on much here. I find it amazing that he links to his review of Carsen's _Falstaff_ as an example of "trivial gimmicks." (The headline mentions the horse, but Christiansen dismisses the entire production, and closes with "So it's back to Toscanini for me," referring to an old recording).

His closing comments on the _Lucia_, calling it "pretentious and faintly silly" could be an entirely reasonable summation of opera in general. He also called the Michieletto's production of _Guillaume Tell_ "pretentious."


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I will also note that I, at 20, had more or less completely dismissed opera as out-of-date and dull. I did not care for wigs and fancy dresses and other old-fashioned dress. Seeing a copy of _Nixon in China_ in a shop opened my eyes, as did seeing the Chéreau Ring.

I still flinch at old-fashioned, sentimentalist productions. I'll pass on Zeffirelli's busy, overblown style of regie, but I'm excited to see Mitchell's _Lucia_. (Though it won't be shown in a theater near me until July, I believe).


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Bad? _Bad_? _BAD_?! Absolutely -ing appalling. The sooner we get rid of Régietheater, the better.

I've seen a _Don Giovanni_ in which he was a paedophile who died of a drug overdose; the bass-baritone told me he hated the production. I've seen a _Tannhäuser_ with a bald obese Cupid with a priapic codpiece waddling around the stage; at the end, Wolfram joins Venus under the mountain. I've endured the Met's recent _Parsifal _and_ Prince Igor _(the one with the WWI footage and the field of plastic flowers).

I recently saw the Opera di Roma production of _Cenerentola_. The singing was excellent - Serena Malfi as Angelina, Juan Francisco Gatell as Don Ramiro, Alessandro Corbelli as Don Magnifico - but the production was misguided. The director thought the opera was a nightmare; she filled the stage with wind-up robots, which distracted from the singing ... and the chorus (half of whom were men in drag) pulled out machine guns and committed suicide at the Act I finale. That was obscene.

I can live without gang rapes in _Guillaume Tell_, mutilation and murder in Mozart, violated virgins in my _Vasco_, punks in my _Prophète_, or robots, rats and decomposing rabbits in Wagner.

What is this obsession with ugliness and brutality? Most of these directors are deranged, and should be let nowhere near a theatre, let alone an opera house.

Now, I'm not against all modern productions. There are some "concept" productions that work-the Book of Hours _Lohengrin_; _Huguenots _like a Flemish Old Masters; a Noh _Madama Butterfly _. Göran Järvefelt's Mozarts set in wooden boxes are brilliant; they focus the attention on the singers. But these productions bring out what is in the opera; their directors - and also Lofti Mansouri, Elijah Moshinsky, Jean-Pierre Ponnelle, and Zeffirelli - respect the work.

Regie is not only ugly, violent and tasteless; it destroys the work. A lot of operas are set in definite times and places. Composers, librettists and opera houses went to great effort to make sure that productions were historically accurate; I've seen set designs and character sketches for French opera that are carefully modelled on paintings, sculptures and architecture. _Aida_ has to be set in Egypt, _Semiramide_ in Babylon, _Meistersinger_ in sixteenth century Germany, _Huguenots_ in sixteenth century Paris, _Juive_ at the Council of Constance, _Troyens_ in the ancient world. It's built into the score. So setting the opera in a public toilet, with the cast dressed like they're going to a rubber fetishists' convention, misses the point.

Regie directors don't have much grasp of history or culture, whether Western or non-European. The desire to make everything "relevant" is narcissistic and blinkered - surely other times, other places are fascinating? One of the great things about opera is that there are stories in Renaissance Italy, mediaeval Russia, Nubia, Persia, China, Japan, India, Sri Lanka, and South America. Opera opened up the world; it's an art form that shows people of every walk of life, in every continent (except Antarctica) and time period, in every mood. Opera also taught audiences about history; the depictions might not always be accurate, but it still showed that they happened.

And the obvious point is that opera is beautiful. Beauty matters. Opera can be light and graceful and joyous - Rossini's music is exhilarating, and makes me feel glad to be alive. Opera can be incredibly powerful and moving - the endings of _Fidelio_, _Clemenza di Tito_, _Guillaume Tell_ and _Contes d'Hoffmann_ are sublime. Other operas believe in people; again and again, even though opera characters are caught up in some of the most appalling events in history, their humanity shines through. Opera, put simply, is life enhancing - and it believes in life.

Regie directors see the world through a very narrow political lens (power, oppression, gender, sexuality, misanthropy), so where opera traditionally _broadened_ people's outlook, their operas are narrow-minded and degrading.

The problem, I think, is that these directors aren't directing for the public. Theatre and opera used to be mainstream entertainment. Television and film has largely taken their place. So a lot of directors are making productions for other directors, without giving a damn about people who _actually like opera_.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

^^
Excellent post Nick.

I don't mind updating but I do prefer the opera to be set in time in which the composer intended.

My favourite opera is _Simon Boccanegra_ and this version is the one I first saw live and I'm sure it will remain my favourite.










I note from the Lucia reviews that the audience laughed at a couple of the dramatic and tragic scenes and this must have been upsetting for the singers. I saw Dmitri Tcherniakov's version in Munich a couple of years ago. One of the most poignant moments is when Boccanegra, on his daughter's wedding day, has to tell her that he's dying. In Munich while he sings this very sad part, Boccanegra cuts up a newspaper, makes a paper hat and puts it on his head. The audience burst out laughing. I nearly cried, not at the scene but at the travesty.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

SimonTemplar said:


> One of the great things about opera is that there are stories in Renaissance Italy, mediaeval Russia, Nubia, Persia, China, *Japan*, India, Sri Lanka, and South America.


Like Heinrich Marschner´s opera Der Vampyr:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SimonTemplar said:


> Bad? _Bad_? _BAD_?! Absolutely -ing appalling. The sooner we get rid of Régietheater, the better.
> 
> I've seen a _Don Giovanni_ in which he was a paedophile who died of a drug overdose; the bass-baritone told me he hated the production. I've seen a _Tannhäuser_ with a bald obese Cupid with a priapic codpiece waddling around the stage; at the end, Wolfram joins Venus under the mountain. I've endured the Met's recent _Parsifal _and_ Prince Igor _(the one with the WWI footage and the field of plastic flowers).
> 
> ...


This obsession with makng opera 'relevant' is nonsense. It is entertainment that takes us out of our world into another. To seek to make something where people sing rather than speak relevant and real life is like trying to make a fairy tale real. Opera is generally not real life and should be left as such.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

SimonTemplar said:


> One of the great things about opera is that there are stories in Renaissance Italy, mediaeval Russia, Nubia, Persia, China, Japan, India, Sri Lanka, and South America. Opera opened up the world; it's an art form that shows people of every walk of life, in every continent (except Antarctica)


Ahem.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Beyond that, that post doesn't make much sense to me. It seems to reflect a different reality.

People have different tastes. Many operas have plots that are full of ugliness and brutality, and not just 20th century works. I do not prefer a tame _Carmen_, a joyless _Der Rosenkavalier_, or a timid _Guillaume Tell_. I do not mean to create a strawman; I understand that those can be accomplished even while following the letter of the score, but these are the sort of things I'm looking at, not if the costumes and settings are true to the period, ideas about the period at the time of composition, and/or the original production. There are poorly thought out opera productions of all types; old-fashioned costumes do not make a true production any more than modern or bizarre costumes do. And there are deeply resonant productions of all types, in any type of dress.

People can have their preferences, but none of this is indicative of anyone who is trying to disrespect opera, or doesn't care about their audience.

I also believe you're overstating how much opera broadens people's horizons; for example _Les pêcheurs de perles_ has nothing at all to do with Sri Lanka or Brahmanism, the ideas and values were mid-19th century French Catholic, utterly unsurprising for an opera from mid-19th century France. The "Ancient Times Ceylon" and use of the word "Brahma" in the hymn were just shallow exoticism.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> I also believe you're overstating how much opera broadens people's horizons; for example _Les pêcheurs de perles_ has nothing at all to do with Sri Lanka or Brahmanism, the ideas and values were mid-19th century French Catholic, utterly unsurprising for an opera from mid-19th century France. The "Ancient Times Ceylon" and use of the word "Brahma" in the hymn were just shallow exoticism.


It is a French 19th century version of Sri Lanka.
Some of us likes shallow exoticism anyway.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

It is a fantasy, an "Ancient Ceylon" where the people think, act, and have the customs, rituals, and beliefs of ancient Europeans.

I'm not really attacking the opera, but the idea that it teaches anyone about another place or time. Seeing it did inspire me to review the history of Sri Lanka and Brahmanism, but that's because the opera was so facile.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

sospiro said:


> ^^
> Excellent post Nick.


Thanks!



> I don't mind updating but I do prefer the opera to be set in time in which the composer intended.


So do I, definitely! There are some updates that work - but the only ones that come to mind are Shakespeare rather than opera: the Ian McKellen _Richard III_, set in a 1930s England on the verge of Fascism; or Moshinsky's _Love's Labours Lost_ for the BBC, updated to the eighteenth century and performed as a Mozartean opera of words. What made those productions work was that they played it straight.



> My favourite opera is _Simon Boccanegra_ and this version is the one I first saw live and I'm sure it will remain my favourite.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ugh. What's the point? Why do so many modern directors try to weaken the effect of the story? You would think that a good director would try to tell the story as well as possible; to make what's happening on stage seem as realistic and believable as possible, and to connect emotionally with the audience and draw them into the opera (or play or movie or what have you).

But no doubt the paper hat teems with hidden meaning. What does it _signify_?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SimonTemplar said:


> But no doubt the paper hat teems with hidden meaning. What does it _signify_?


Oh, probably something really deep, like the pointlessness and superficiality of everything.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Oh, probably something really deep, like the pointlessness and superficiality of everything.


Or, could it be superficial or arrogance?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

SimonTemplar said:


> But no doubt the paper hat teems with hidden meaning. What does it _signify_?


We had no idea!

This is from Tcherniakov's Boccanegra, just before he opens up the newspaper.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

mountmccabe said:


> Beyond that, that post doesn't make much sense to me. It seems to reflect a different reality.
> 
> People have different tastes. Many operas have plots that are full of ugliness and brutality, and not just 20th century works. I do not prefer a tame _Carmen_, a joyless _Der Rosenkavalier_, or a timid _Guillaume Tell_. I do not mean to create a strawman; I understand that those can be accomplished even while following the letter of the score, but these are the sort of things I'm looking at, not if the costumes and settings are true to the period, ideas about the period at the time of composition, and/or the original production. There are poorly thought out opera productions of all types; old-fashioned costumes do not make a true production any more than modern or bizarre costumes do. And there are deeply resonant productions of all types, in any type of dress.
> 
> ...


Several points...

1.) You talk about a "timid" _Guillaume Tell_. Is a _Guillaume Tell _ that doesn't have a rape scene - i.e. one that respects the composer and librettists' intentions - timid?

Besides, we already know from what's in the opera (libretto and score) that the Austrians are bad guys. They kill old Melchthal. (There's a powerful production from Pesaro, 1995, where the Austrians stab him at the end of Act I - from around 1'25":




. It's very skillfully done, and not gratuitous. The director focuses not on the act itself, but on the emotions of the characters - the anguish of Hedwige and the women as she clasps her hands and kneels by the corpse, the callousness of the Austrians as they march off. We feel pity for the poor old man, and anger at his murderers.

Unlike the Swiss, the Austrians don't live in harmony with nature, but enjoy killing and hunting. Gessler makes Tell shoot the apple off his son's head - which is both cruel and unusual.

A gang rape scene doesn't _add_ anything to the opera; it only disgusts.

2.) You seem to assume that costumes and sets that are historically accurate are old-fashioned. Not so. Many operas are set in specific times and places, deal with historic events and figures, and, at their best, the stories rely on attitudes and customs particular to a culture.

I actually want what I see on stage to be (Romantically) realistic. I want it to be believable. If it's set in Ancient Rome, I want the buildings to look like the Forum and the Capitol, the characters to wear togas, and to carry themselves as though they're on the way to dinner with Domitian.

(There's a book - blue cover - by Stanislavski, I think, in which he sets out how actors should behave if they're doing historical plays; how they carry themselves, how they see the world, what they eat and drink and wear. And Victor Hugo said something similar in his Preface to _Cromwell_:

The stage is an optical point. Everything that exists in the world--in history, in life, in man--should be and can be reflected therein, but under the magic wand of art. Art turns the leaves of the ages, of nature, studies chronicles, strives to reproduce actual facts (especially in respect to manners and peculiarities, which are much less exposed to doubt and contradiction that are concrete facts), restores what the chroniclers have lopped off, harmonises what they have collected, divines and supplies their omissions, fills their gaps with imaginary scenes which have the colour of the time, groups what they have left scattered about, sets in motion anew the threads of Providence which work the human marionettes, clothes the whole with a form at once poetical and natural, and imparts to it that vitality of truth and brilliancy which gives birth to illusion, that prestige of reality which arouses the enthusiasm of the spectator, and of the poet first of all, for the poet is sincere. Thus the aim of art is almost divine: to bring to life again if it is writing history, to create if it is writing poetry. 
It is a grand and beautiful sight to see this broad development of a drama wherein art powerfully seconds nature; of a drama wherein the plot moves on to the conclusion with a firm and unembarrassed step, without diffuseness and without undue compression; of a drama, in short, wherein the poet abundantly fulfills the multifold object of art, which is to open to the spectator a double prospect, to illuminate at the same time the interior and the exterior of mankind: the exterior by their speech and their acts, the interior, by asides and monologues; to bring together, in a word, in the same picture, the drama of life and the drama of conscience. 
It will readily be imagined that, for a work of this kind, if the poet must choose (and he must), he should choose, not the beautiful, but the characteristic. Not that it is advisable to "make local colour," as they say to-day; that is, to add as an afterthought a few discordant touches here and there to a work that is at best utterly conventional and false. The local colour should not be on the surface of the drama, but in its substance, in the very heart of the work, whence it spreads of itself, naturally, evenly, and, so to speak, into every corner of the drama, as the sap ascends from the root to the tree's topmost leaf. The drama should be thoroughly impregnated with this colour of the time, which should be, in some sort, in the air, so that one detects it only on entering the theatre, and that on going forth one finds one's self in a different period and atmosphere. It requires some study, some labour, to attain this end; so much the better. It is well that the avenues of art should be obstructed by those brambles from which everybody recoils except those of powerful will. Besides, it is this very study, fostered by an ardent inspiration, which will ensure the drama against a vice that kills it--the commonplace. to be commonplace is the failing of short-sighted, short-breathed poets. In this tableau of the stage, each figure must be held down to its most prominent, most individual, most precisely defined characteristic. Even the vulgar and the trivial should have an accent of their own. Like God, the true poet is present in every part of his work at once. Genius resembles the die which stamps the king's effigy on copper and golden coins alike.

IF an artist sets a story in a particular place, that should be where the story is set. You wouldn't set a drama about the Caesars - _I Claudius_, say - in Imperial China in the Boxer Rebellion or Hapsburg Vienna. Yes, they're all empires, but they're very _different _empires. Or if you are going to change it - and, as I said above, some of the Shakespeare plays do still work if set in other times - you should have a good reason, and be very careful how you change it.

Because if a historical drama (which most operas are) is transplanted to a different time and place, it makes nonsense of the plot.

Even if that doesn't come across, I would much rather see an opera in period costume than one in modern dress, or that's crass or ugly. We also have the _technology_ to recreate the past on stage, so we should use modern technology to make the settings as convincing as possible.

3.) Ugliness and brutality... True, opera often deals with unpleasant things; tragedy involves death, murder, jilted love, jealousy, thwarted passion, and revenge. But it doesn't say - at least until the twentieth century - that life is meaningless, and that ugliness and brutality are all there are. Rather, opera celebrates humanity and life; at the very least, it insists that people _matter_; that Rachel or Valentine or Fidès or Didon matter.

What good is there in emphasising ugliness and brutality? If we want to experience ugliness and brutality, that's our psychopathology and our misfortune, but it has little to do with the original work. Besides, it's likely to create a pessimistic view of the world - the world as an unpleasant place where people suffer and die, where most people can't be trusted. It doesn't create optimism or a belief in the nobility of humanity, move people by beauty, or inspire them to be better people or do something worthwhile.

Let's get back to _Tell_. Is it an opera about the cruelty of the Austrians, or is it an opera about people rising up against their oppressors? Is _Fidelio_ about the iniquities of Pizarro and the suffering of Florestan, or is it about liberty vs tyranny and the triumph of Enlightenment ideals and a unified humanity?

Several of the examples I cited were comedies. Ugliness and brutality have no place in _Cenerentola_ or the Mozart comedies. If you want to know how vile Regietheater can be, I suggest you read this: http://www.city-journal.org/html/abduction-opera-13034.html

(And the idea of choosing ugliness and brutality over beauty makes no sense.)

4.) Yes, but _Les pêcheurs de perles_ isn't really the best example; it's _La Vestale_ set in a mythical Ceylon, as contemporary critics recognised. And was originally meant to be set in Mexico!

I was thinking more of _Le roi de Lahore_, _Vasco_ (in its complete form), _Lakmé_, _La fée aux roses_, _Le dieu et la bayadère_.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

sospiro said:


> We had no idea!
> 
> This is from Tcherniakov's Boccanegra, just before he opens up the newspaper.


That's a stage set? It looks more like after bump out!


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

SimonTemplar said:


> Several points...
> 
> 1.) You talk about a "timid" _Guillaume Tell_. Is a _Guillaume Tell _ that doesn't have a rape scene - i.e. one that respects the composer and librettists' intentions - timid?
> 
> ...












Wonderful! You're very articulate; do you write?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

SimonTemplar said:


> That's a stage set? It looks more like after bump out!











Adorno and Amelia.

His arrival caused much mirth amongst the audience.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

sospiro said:


> View attachment 83431
> 
> 
> Adorno and Amelia.
> ...


How can a serious artist perform in this sort of nonsensical production?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

. If you want to know how vile Regietheater can be, I suggest you read this: http://www.city-journal.org/html/abd...era-13034.html

Just read this. You cannot believe how perverse this thing is, destroying the culture of the past. It will, however, continue as long as fool governments subsidise these productions and idiot audiences pay to see them. The thing that might save America from this nonsense is the fact of mainly private subsidy.
It is up to opera house directors to refuse to employ these Regietheatre maniacs. I am no fan of Karajan's often rather staid productions but one reason he produced as well as conducted is that he didn't trust directors to be true to the composer. But once you let these maniacs loose with their self-justifying arrogance, it's like taking a felt tip to a Rembrandt to sopposedly 'imporove' it by 'makng it relevant'. I don't want opera to be relevant. It is a glorious irrelevance!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> How can a serious artist perform in this sort of nonsensical production?


We may have reached the point where if serious artists started turning down regietheater productions they'd end up waiting on tables.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

DavidA said:


> . If you want to know how vile Regietheater can be, I suggest you read this: http://www.city-journal.org/html/abd...era-13034.html
> 
> Just read this. You cannot believe how perverse this thing is, destroying the culture of the past. It will, however, continue as long as fool governments subsidise these productions and idiot audiences pay to see them. The thing that might save America from this nonsense is the fact of mainly private subsidy.
> It is up to opera house directors to refuse to employ these Regietheatre maniacs. I am no fan of Karajan's often rather staid productions but one reason he produced as well as conducted is that he didn't trust directors to be true to the composer. But once you let these maniacs loose with their self-justifying arrogance, it's like taking a felt tip to a Rembrandt to supposedly 'improve' it by 'making it relevant'. I don't want opera to be relevant. It is a glorious irrelevance!


Amen to that. Judging by the reaction to Lucia, especially the latest comments, ROH might think twice about putting on this type of production in the future.

I feel really sorry for Rosemary McDonald who said: "I cant say Im looking forward to it despite my love of this opera, and will probably leave my opera glasses for viewing from the ampitheatre at home - but rather than waste the ticket and transport costs I'll go and try and keep an open mind....but it shouldnt be like that should it? ....."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

sospiro said:


> Amen to that. Judging by the reaction to Lucia, especially the latest comments, ROH might think twice about putting on this type of production in the future.
> 
> I feel really sorry for Rosemary McDonald who said: "I cant say Im looking forward to it despite my love of this opera, and will probably leave my opera glasses for viewing from the ampitheatre at home - but rather than waste the ticket and transport costs I'll go and try and keep an open mind....but it shouldnt be like that should it? ....."


In this case I would definitely ask for my money back as what is being shown is not Lucia as the composer intended. It is artistic fraud.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> . If you want to know how vile Regietheater can be, I suggest you read this: http://www.city-journal.org/html/abd...era-13034.html
> 
> You cannot believe how perverse this thing is, destroying the culture of the past. *It will, however, continue as long as fool governments subsidise these productions and idiot audiences pay to see them. The thing that might save America from this nonsense is the fact of mainly private subsidy.*


It's dispiriting to think that, somewhere between the base tastes of an ignorant public and the alliance of a spiritually vacuous avant garde and a corrupt government, genuine art manages (barely) to survive.

Thank God Haydn had Esterhazy and Wagner had Ludwig II.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this will be just a phase and a fad and that in a couple of years' time, new productions of old favourites will be staged as the composer intended and will be glorious. 

Opera has been successful for hundreds of years and there's no reason why regie won't die the death it deserves - as a 'concept' in black and white and with rats.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

SimonTemplar said:


> Several points...
> 
> 1.) You talk about a "timid" _Guillaume Tell_. Is a _Guillaume Tell _ that doesn't have a rape scene - i.e. one that respects the composer and librettists' intentions - timid?
> 
> ...


My point is that "is this production timid" is a more important question for a production of _Guillaume Tell_ than "how authentic are the lederhosen?" I praised the same Pizzi production last summer in the thread on the Michieletto production at ROH. I was discussing the act 3 ballet:



mountmccabe said:


> The actions in the Pesaro performance are not what is written in the libretto, but I believe it is mostly effective dramatically. Doing it this way misses some of the build in the libretto and there's a little bit much of the soldiers dancing around generally, but the female soloist (Alessandra Ferri) is very evocative.
> 
> To be clear, I am not suggesting that the Pizzi production is the same as the Michieletto production. The dance in the Pizzi conveys the oppression of the Austrian soldiers that Tell rebels against in a different way than the libretto, but still more tastefully than in the Michieletto.


I am not going to rehash my thoughts on the Michieletto production, other than to note that I believe that the press were rather sensationalist regarding that production.



SimonTemplar said:


> 2.) You seem to assume that costumes and sets that are historically accurate are old-fashioned. Not so. Many operas are set in specific times and places, deal with historic events and figures, and, at their best, the stories rely on attitudes and customs particular to a culture.
> 
> I actually want what I see on stage to be (Romantically) realistic. I want it to be believable. If it's set in Ancient Rome, I want the buildings to look like the Forum and the Capitol, the characters to wear togas, and to carry themselves as though they're on the way to dinner with Domitian.
> [...]
> ...


There are a lot of points here, but it seems like the major difference of opinion is on how realistic, true-to-life operas typically are. I, in general, see operas as poor at history, with customs, people, and events made up for dramatic effect. I find them rarely believable, whether in their original settings or not.

I also find opera as - generally - poor at plot details. They are far better suited at the emotions of a story. Maria Stuarda and Elisabetta did not have a big confrontation, but it makes for a compelling story and a thrilling finale to the act. Donizetti and Giuseppe Bardari (and Schiller) were loose with history, I see no reason that we can't be similarly loose with their opera.

I agree that it should be done carefully, but there are limits. The Pelly _Le fille du régiment_ is set around World War 1, which does not work historically - the French were not in Tyrol at that time - but that historical setting is not important for the plot, which is basically a romantic comedy. And even when the piece is set in the first decade of the 19th century the plot is a little far-fetched.

At any rate, if I thought opera was more true to life, I would also find it more reasonable to have more strict expectations regarding these matters. Or, rather, since generalizations are incomplete and each opera works differently, I think it makes sense to look at each opera, see how it works, see what it is actually about, consider the subtext... and based on all that make decisions on how to proceed.

I don't think it is bad for a production to stick to the composer's intentions, what is in the libretto, performing traditions, and so on (these are not always the same), but I am also OK with new approaches, too.

As for judging those approaches...



SimonTemplar said:


> 3.) Ugliness and brutality... True, opera often deals with unpleasant things; tragedy involves death, murder, jilted love, jealousy, thwarted passion, and revenge. But it doesn't say - at least until the twentieth century - that life is meaningless, and that ugliness and brutality are all there are. Rather, opera celebrates humanity and life; at the very least, it insists that people _matter_; that Rachel or Valentine or Fidès or Didon matter.
> 
> What good is there in emphasising ugliness and brutality? If we want to experience ugliness and brutality, that's our psychopathology and our misfortune, but it has little to do with the original work. Besides, it's likely to create a pessimistic view of the world - the world as an unpleasant place where people suffer and die, where most people can't be trusted. It doesn't create optimism or a belief in the nobility of humanity, move people by beauty, or inspire them to be better people or do something worthwhile.
> 
> ...


On this point, it seems like you are talking more about taste. I'd posit a continuum between ignoring ugliness and dwelling upon it. Neither extreme is particularly interesting, but there is a lot of space in the middle. And one person's "emphasizing ugliness and brutality" is another's "acknowledging and dealing with ugliness and brutality." In addition not every opera - even before the 20th century - expresses Enlightenment ideals and is a celebration of humanity and love and friendship. And if you can accept that even tragedies such as _Werther_ and _La traviata_ can show us humanity even while we see deaths, I don't see why some darkness or brutality in an opera production means it is ruined and false, and is a sign of the pathology of the director. That is to say, "choosing ugliness and brutality over beauty makes no sense" is presenting a false dichotomy; beautiful art can contain ugliness.

I am quite aware of but have not seen the Bieito _Die Entführung aus dem Serail_, nor do I particularly care to. This is in part because the opera itself is not to my taste, as that article puts it "a humorous tale of the capture of a group of Europeans by a Turkish pasha" does not appeal to me. Or perhaps, I find that sort of farce difficult to balance correctly. (I have half watched a few other productions that haven't grabbed me. I may see the Star Trek-themed production when it is performed near me in August). At any rate, I am in no position to defend that production, and I acknowledge that it seems ridiculous. But I also don't see it as typical.

My position is not "anything goes!" but that "fidelity to the libretto" or "fidelity to the last production I saw" are not important criteria for me. Instead I am going to ask "does the production make sense, on its own terms," and "does it work with the music and libretto," and "is it effective, dramatically."

I have seen a video of Bieito's _Carmen_, and will see in on the stage in a few months. The last time I saw _Carmen_ was at the Met, in a traditional/safe production by Richard Eyre. The sumptuous sets and costumes did not make it dull, but they also did not save it from being dull. The less-pretty sets and scattered racy bits of the Bieito production do not mean this will be an exciting performance, but I am also not going to dismiss it because of this lack of fidelity. And a somewhat racy production that causes a stir (and somehow has been doing so for 17 years) is quite historically appropriate for _Carmen_.

At any rate, the world _is_ a place where people suffer and die; I prefer art that acknowledges and legitimately grapples with this, rather than art that ignores this reality, or presents false victories. (I am still not sure what I think of the Guth _Fidelio_ from Salzburg, but I do see justification for not taking that final act at face value).


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

mountmccabe said:


> My point is that "is this production timid" is a more important question for a production of _Guillaume Tell_ than "how authentic are the lederhosen?" I praised the same Pizzi production last summer in the thread on the Michieletto production at ROH. I was discussing the act 3 ballet:
> 
> I am not going to rehash my thoughts on the Michieletto production, other than to note that I believe that the press were rather sensationalist regarding that production.
> 
> ...


I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Fidelity to the libretto and to the composer and librettists' intentions is paramount. You ask why we can't play fast and loose with Donizetti or Schiller. There's your answer: authorial intention.

And in most operas, drama (including the historical period) and music are connected; having the music (including the words the characters sing) accompany a play that barely resembles the one the composer set doesn't work.

I didn't say that all operas have to be hymns to humanity, but they do have to be humane. Tragic operas are at least that. I don't think that most Regie directors are; like Tarantino, the opera is the excuse for the savagery.

You ask why operas like Werther or Trav can't be brutal. That's not what the operas are about. Werther in particular doesn't say that the world is brutal, quite the reverse. The first act shows one of the warmest, happiest families in opera; Charlotte and Sophie are close; Werther himself is enraptured by the beauties of nature. His tragedy is that he's sensitive, high minded and idealistic - but also immature and highly strung. He doesn't have the wisdom of the bailiff and his cronies who enjoy life and wine, or the good hearted Sophie, who loves Werther, but deals with it by trying to be happy (Ce qu'il faut c'est rire, rire encore, comme autre fois).


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> My position is not "anything goes!" but that "fidelity to the libretto" or "fidelity to the last production I saw" are not important criteria for me. Instead I am going to ask "does the production make sense, on its own terms," and "does it work with the music and libretto," and "is it effective, dramatically."


Yes that just about sums it up for me. I happen to think we live in a time where fidelity to the score is at an all time high. When every note has to be played it makes for some verrrry long evenings. I have recently noticed that one way round that is the increasing popularity of faithfully reviving an earlier, shorter version of the score.

At least until the 1950's the score was often cut and in earlier days composers sat there whilst the star interpolated one of their own favourite hits from a completely different Opera. Times and fashions change.

It's a bit simplistic but if it works then its a good night out and I've spent my money wisely. And live Theatre continues to entertain in the way of true theatrical traditions. The Theatre has often revived old works but never as museum pieces ,but as entertainments with all the creativity and energy that demands.

PS IN this I accept I am going to differ from most contributors to a Classical Music discussion group who know 10 recordings of each work backwards, but wont accept that they are not the majority of the audience.

I will also speak out about the Claque who think is its acceptable to make their views known during a performance. Their posturing is just as offensive as a Director who introduces elements of shock solely to get free publicity.

HOWEVER I can see the fashion for Gloom, leather trench coats, broken clocks etc has become very old. And if I'm going to be entertained I want it to be done intelligently. I can offer no defence for crocodiles, spacecraft etc. I can see that the no of silly productions are clearly at an all time high.

Sadly I see little prospect of change on the horizon. What is needed is a new 'powerhouse' where a young team can put on Opera's that appeal to both parties. Well I can dream can't I?

(Once again) my final words on this subject.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

sospiro said:


> Wonderful! You're very articulate; do you write?


Thank you! I'm moving into journalism; I freelance for my local paper and had a couple of articles published on MusicWeb International.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

In case anyone is wondering how widespread regie-opera is, I'm listing operas I've seen so far in 2016, and how 'regie' I think they are. To clarify, _regie_ to me is not necessarily the changing of location or time-period, but rather the presentation of extraneous imagery and material that re-interprets the original meaning of the opera.

Rigoletto at La Scala. 
Completely traditional, with grand sets. This is what most people like (or expect) to see at the opera. (Revival)

Ariodante at Scottish Opera. 
Modern dress, low budget. Rather dull. Slightly regie, i.e. gay marriage good, infidelity punishable by death.

Boris Godunov at Covent Garden.
Modern production by Richard Jones. I'd call this a symbolist set. Not realism, but not abstract. The motifs and designs support the opera's background and intentions. I was at the opening night and Richard Jones and his team were generally well received. (Slightly regie)

Khovanschina at DNO Amsterdam
Christof Loy's minimalist production was generally criticised and easy to do so, although I appreciated many of the details. Partly updated, and clearly having a dig at modern Russia and the use of religion by those in power. Some discomforting under-age dance scenes which they should reconsider. (Mid-regie)

Mefistofele at Prague State Opera
Minimalist, abstract, but that's fine for this opera. Just not particularly good. (Slightly regie)

Agrippina at Theatre an der Wien
Robert Carsen's swimming pool set with (counter) tenors in trunks was a daring undertaking. As I watched, I was unsure if it was the best or worst thing I'd seen in a while. Given that the opera was already satirical in intent (despite its opera seria label), Carsen pretty much played the whole thing for a laughs, and plenty of tasteful tittilation. It was laugh-out-loud funny at many points and the audience loved it. I was at the opening night. Carsen and his team came on to the loudest cheer of the night. (Slightly regie). This audacious production apparently received immediate enquiries from major opera houses.

Orphée et Eurydice at Teatru Manoel, Malta
As with Mefistofele, operas set partly in heaven and/or hell are likely to be abstract. Pleasant, artful and not at all regie.

Looking back over the last couple of years of European opera-going, I appreciate the traditional stagings more, because they are more likely to deliver the essence of the opera. The singers and the audience just seem to feel it more. We can more readily comprehend the composers' intent. However I've enjoyed many modern updates and abstract productions too, particularly those where it seems that the designer has a love and respect for the opera.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> A thought about "updated" productions.
> 
> I'm aware that some people are more easily drawn into stories that take place in their own times rather than past centuries or eras. They find it easier to identify with people wearing jeans than people wearing powdered wigs or bearskins. *We are all in some manner and degree more comfortable with the familiar*, and many of us seem to have an innate prejudice which says that people who don't look like us are not like us, and don't think or feel as we do. For such people, opera set in an 18th century villa or in some mythical kingdom will seem to some degree remote or unreal, like a visit to a foreign country where we don't know the language or the customs.
> 
> ...


Just to take things out of the Bizet context, I react to this post. Maybe you'll find this, maybe not.

In all exposed eloquence, I notice that you prefer period pieces to be staged according to your personal taste, ie from the period they were first staged, as you are familiarized with these (historic) images.

Then you say you prefer opera/art to surprise you, to deliver new points of view to complete your ideas about life.

Is this interpretation of your words somehow correct? It just seems contradictory.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

As long as the intentions of the composer and librettist are not betrayed, nor the machinations onstage disruptive to the music or singing (as in _Ballo_ toilet urinals, Hans Neuenfels rats production in _Lohengrin_, photographers at _Lucia_ wedding, Robert Wilson characters staring like manikins in _Lohengrin[/_etc.), and are a well conceived and entertaining Regie (as in the Rat Pack _Rigoletto_, or an updated production similar to the _Traviata_ "clock" production), it would be acceptable.

The problem is that the majority of hubristic "dreck"tors aren't really opera lovers and lack true talent. They tend to be misogynistic (Bieito) and are more interested in the opera "THEY" write, rather than that of the originator.

PS. I have the sense that those who are attracted to regie opera or worse, Eurotrash, aren't really so much dedicated to the art of opera as they are involved in sensationalism. These kinds of people are tired of the "old tried and true" stagings of the past and find an excitement in those who enjoy adding outlandish scenes like faux mastur******, sexual abberations, shock mechanisms, and robot-like characters.

Frankly, my sympathy goes out to the singers, most of whom cannot afford to have the balls to walk away from these distortions of the original concept designed by the composer. 
Not too often can you cheer a top singer who says "stick it where the sun don't shine" like Callas/Gheorghiu/Alagna, and perhaps a few others.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

NLAdriaan said:


> Just to take things out of the Bizet context, I react to this post. Maybe you'll find this, maybe not.
> 
> In all exposed eloquence, I notice that you prefer period pieces to be staged according to your personal taste, ie from the period they were first staged, as you are familiarized with these (historic) images.
> 
> ...


No, there's no contradiction. I said, "For me, updating an opera's setting can be all right if the later era doesn't make nonsense of the plot and doesn't clash badly with the style of the music." That doesn't imply that an opera written in 1850 must look as it looked in 1850.

I don't require that stagings of operas be shocking and outrageous to "show me what I have not seen" and "take me where I have not gone." Mozart, Wagner, Bartok and company can do that best if the meaning they've put into their work is respected.


----------

