# Traditional and Regie



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Another rant about regie and traditional productions...might want make a cup of tea beforehand 

I was watching a documentary the other night called “Wagner’s Dream” which is about the production of the Met’s Ring Cycle a few years back. I’ve only just seen that particular Cycle (I’m probably the last person here to do so). I generally avoid the Met operas because they have a reputation over here as being a bit banal when it comes to productions. In fairness, I think they’ve been trying to be creative in recent years but I suspect the public is resisting which makes things difficult for the Met. Which brings me to the documentary…

They interviewed a guy waiting for Ring tickets and he was quite nervous about what he’d heard about the production. I can understand his concerns, we all know how strange some productions (Wagner, especially) can be but it did seem like there’s a lot folks out that that simply don’t want opera productions to change at all. 

I find that interesting because personally, I find the Zeffirelli productions to be just as awful as Kundry wearing a crocodile head or whatever. I don’t doubt that Zeffirelli’s work was fantastic back in the day but how many times do you want to see it? It just screams 1960s etc.
Is the fear of Regietheatre so great that everyone is prepared to stop art from moving forward? Nearly all opera is Regie unless they’re in wigs and tights in front of a painted flat for a backdrop. Wagner was Regie for that matter. He turned opera on its head. The Met productions got boos from the audience and I got the impression that opinions of it were polarised. Personally, I thought it was one of the safest productions of The Ring I’ve ever seen in recent times. 

I’m an advocate of Regietheatre but with the caveat that it has to serve the story. If I’m watching it and I don’t understand what’s going on, the director has failed. If I can’t follow it, how is someone new to opera going to handle it? There’s nothing worse than upon arrival, having to read pages of notes by the director just to tell us what is going to happen. If you can’t tell the story on stage, it doesn’t work. 

Some operas are more grounded than others in the sense that there’s not a lot of room for fanciful changes. The Ring Cycle is difficult to portray as anything other than a story about Viking gods because the characters are constantly reminding us that they’re Viking gods. If a director can convince me that Wotan is the general manager of McDonald’s, I’m all for it but it’ll be a difficult task because why is McDonald’s GM building Valhalla?

I’m happy for Carmen to bet set anywhere at any time but I can’t ignore that it needs to be somewhere where there are bullfighters during a time when bullfighters were like rock stars. We could make Escamillo a footballer but that doesn’t explain why he’s singing about toreadors.

Some operas like La Traviata are more flexible. It could be set anywhere and any time without any glaring issues because it’s theme is universal. That’s fine by me because I really disengage when that opera is set in the 19th century. Particularly when the setting is attempting to be historically accurate with it’s faded décor and those god-awful frilly frocks. It’s better than a near empty stage with a single chair (the greatest production sin of them all), when the curtain goes up – but not much.

I’m of the opinion that people don’t know what they want until you give it to them. I’m also of the opinion that directors who do nothing progressive are as much at fault as directors who try to shock audiences without reason. 

What are your thoughts? Should opera be safe or progressive? Both have its dangers and rewards. How do you balance the two?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with updating but the plot shouldn't be changed. There's anger over Dmitri Chernyakov's 2010 version of _Dialogues des Carmélites_.

French court bans opera DVD

and there's been a development in Munich

"... The stage direction must have the freedom to deviate from history.."

I hated the fact that Andrea Breth cut some of the music/words in Macbeth. What gave her the right to change what Verdi and Piave wanted? I felt short changed.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

I am open to certain regie experiences but the criterion for me is that whatever is going on when an aria is being sung, is that it doesn't disrupt the attention or flow of the original action onstage. Too often they load the stage up with extraneous goings-on (often sexual in nature), which destroys the original intent. The problem is that this seems to be the case with the majority of regies. I can only think of a few that master it successfully. One is the Met's _Rigoletto_ which I went to with much trepidation -- convinced that the Rat Pack idea was a disgusting one, only to be entranced and excited by the outcome -- and the reason was because nothing was going on that disrupted the singers and the singing.
Yet another was a recent _Traviata _that included a clock, an ever-present Doctor constantly in the background, and covered up furniture which was supposed to convey a message but bombed instead. However, the opera itself succeeded in my opinion, because it was not disruptive in the wrong places.

An abomination of a regie was a Met _ Lohengrin _where singers acted like mannequins and never looked at one another and stood like statues. Some singers complained that their bodies were very sore and deplored the production. 
Another failure was a Met _Lucia di Lammermoor_ where, at a critical moment of singing (the Sextette), some "dreck"tor decided it would be a cute idea to have a photographer set everyone up in poses and take a "family photo" of the group. One became more interested in the action than in the music and singing itself. I'm sure Gaetano was kicking up his heels from the grave with that one.

I welcome up-dating of operas when they are done with taste. Unfortunately, most directors are too busy being on an ego trip to see the forest....


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Couac Addict said:


> Another rant about regie and traditional productions...might want make a cup of tea beforehand
> 
> I'm happy for Carmen to bet set anywhere at any time but I can't ignore that it needs to be somewhere where there are bullfighters during a time when bullfighters were like rock stars. We could make Escamillo a footballer but that doesn't explain why he's singing about toreadors.
> 
> ...


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Belowpar said:


> Trouble is you have to go before you know if it works for you.


That's the problem. I saw Andrea Breth's _The Gambler_ in Amsterdam and it was excellent and I absolutely loved it so I had no hesitation in booking a trip to see her _Macbeth_. This of course involved booking time off work, buying opera tickets, flights and reserving accommodation, well in advance.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

I get the feeling that the adherents of Regie try to draw opera-goers in with the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. They invite opera-goers into wishing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. i.e. New productions: fresh and exciting, Traditional productions: Boring, irrelevant, old-fashioned. Apparently that's our choice. No it isn't!!!

In my opinion there's a difference between new/modern stagings and regie stagings, and it's about respect for the composer's intentions. Take the recent Le Damnation de Faust at the Bastille. Review here:
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/dec/09/la-damnation-de-faust-review-opera-bastille-paris-hawking


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Don Fatale said:


> I get the feeling that the adherents of Regie try to draw opera-goers in with the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. They invite opera-goers into wishing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. i.e. New productions: fresh and exciting, Traditional productions: Boring, irrelevant, old-fashioned. Apparently that's our choice. No it isn't!!!
> 
> In my opinion there's a difference between new/modern stagings and regie stagings, and it's about respect for the composer's intentions. Take the recent Le Damnation de Faust at the Bastille. Review here:
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/dec/09/la-damnation-de-faust-review-opera-bastille-paris-hawking





> When an audience collapses in hoots of derision as mezzo-soprano Sophie Koch's Marguerite sings the exquisite D'Amour l'Ardente Flamme to a video backdrop of snails mating, it's a sure sign that the production is a turkey rather than that the bourgeoisie has been satisfyingly outraged.


This is awful. I feel so sorry for the singers.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

If the Met would resort to nudity more often I'd probably shell out for more expensive tickets.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> If the Met would resort to nudity more often I'd probably shell out for more expensive tickets.


Good lord! Where have you been? There's been lotsa that around lately.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

nina foresti said:


> Good lord! Where have you been? There's been lotsa that around lately.


Oh dear, the Met may be in even worse shape financially than I'd thought.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Don Fatale said:


> I get the feeling that the adherents of Regie try to draw opera-goers in with the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. They invite opera-goers into wishing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. i.e. New productions: fresh and exciting, Traditional productions: Boring, irrelevant, old-fashioned. Apparently that's our choice. No it isn't!!!
> 
> In my opinion *there's a difference between new/modern stagings and regie stagings, and it's about respect for the composer's intentions*. Take the recent Le Damnation de Faust at the Bastille. Review here:
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/dec/09/la-damnation-de-faust-review-opera-bastille-paris-hawking


Isn't that just as much of a false dichotomy? You're simply defining as regie anything you dislike or don't think works.

Perhaps it's more of a "No True Scotsman" fallacy...

No TRUE regie production respects the composer's intentions...


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Mahlerian said:


> Isn't that just as much of a false dichotomy? You're simply defining as regie anything you dislike or don't think works. Perhaps it's more of a "No True Scotsman" fallacy...
> No TRUE regie production respects the composer's intentions...


Please can you reread what I've written. I don't see how I can be clearer. My understanding of the term 'Regie' is where the director seeks to impose an artistic idea/vision/statement on top of the original work. In effect, using the original work. If this isn't a reasonable understanding of the term then I stand to be corrected.

We know what the composer's intentions are in a great many cases because they are documented. If a director chooses to rewrite or ignore the plot, sometimes even the libretto, seeking to cause a controversy, or achieve notoriety at the expense of the work's creators, then I disapprove. Le Damnation de Faust is a current example of this. It's online at the moment if you'd like to watch it.

Whether I like or dislike a production is irrelevant to the point being made.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

I'm not crazy about regie versions that draw a viewer too far out of the action, but I also think if you don't permit individual interpretation, that's a good way of preventing any talented theater directors from having any interest in the field. Opera is already arguably a museum artifact, and a good way of insuring that will remain the case is to prevent anyone other than deferential curators to work in the field.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Don Fatale said:


> Please can you reread what I've written. I don't see how I can be clearer. My understanding of the term 'Regie' is where the director seeks to impose an artistic idea/vision/statement on top of the original work. In effect, using the original work. If this isn't a reasonable understanding of the term then I stand to be corrected.


But this doesn't require that the idea/vision/statement be in conflict with the original intentions of the writer, nor is it necessarily in conflict with a production being "traditional."

You had previously said that the difference between Regie productions and modern stagings was that the latter had more respect for the composer's intentions.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Don Fatale said:


> I get the feeling that the adherents of Regie try to draw opera-goers in with the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. They invite opera-goers into wishing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. i.e. New productions: fresh and exciting, Traditional productions: Boring, irrelevant, old-fashioned. Apparently that's our choice. No it isn't!!!
> 
> In my opinion there's a difference between new/modern stagings and regie stagings, and it's about respect for the composer's intentions. Take the recent Le Damnation de Faust at the Bastille. Review here:
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/dec/09/la-damnation-de-faust-review-opera-bastille-paris-hawking


Triple times Hear Hear.

You can do something fresh and vital without completely ignoring the music and the libretto, but sometimes I get the feeling that the director likes neither the opera he is directing nor opera itself. The recent "La Boheme" at the ENO is a case in point. I have no objection to updating this work (Baz Luhrmann's Australian Opera production, set in the 1950s works really well) but everything about this ENO production was ugly. The modem set was ugly, the sight of the lovers writhing around in a heroin induced high, having shot-up during their Act I solos was ugly and served only to alienate the audience, the general crowd business in Act II was non-sensical and Act I's ugly set came apart to make an equally ugly set for Act II. I have no idea what Act III and Act IV were like as we left at the interval, the musical side of the performance not being much better than the visual. It was my boyfriend's first experience of opera and it nearly put him off completely. When we got home, I put on the DVD of the Baz Luhrmann production and, fortunately it worked its magic as it should.

Back in the 1980s ENO had a massive success with an updated production of "Rigoletto", the opera updated to 1940s gangster land New York. It was directed by Jonathan Miller, who understands and loves opera. It also brought in a whole news audience at a time when the ENO was enjoying a reputation for new and innovative productions, both traditional and not so traditional. They constantly played to packed houses. Now they are in deep financial trouble and there are empty seats even for popular operas like "La Boheme". It's not Regie that's killing opera, it's just bad productions.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> It's not Regie that's killing opera, it's just bad productions.


See? Something I agree with.

I don't like nonsensical, poorly imagined, etc. productions any more than those who proclaim themselves traditionalist. I just don't believe that Regie in and of itself is the problem.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

When people pay to see _Lohengrin_, they want to see _Lohengrin_. How many members of the audience at the average production have been to so many performances of that work that they're tired of Wagner's story and want to see some director ripping off Wagner's music and the prestige of his name to tell a story of his own devising? I myself have seen few operas live, mainly for financial reasons. But as I look at some of the recent productions of my favorite works on video I see that I have an even better reason for not patronizing the opera houses of the world.

The primary expressive medium of opera is music. The music of an opera is what gives meaning and power to its story; composers base their musical ideas on a particular mise en scene, they ask their librettists to tailor the action and dialogue to what they want to express musically, and if the result is a good opera it will be one in which the stage action allows the music to make its maximum effect. Minor innovations in the action or setting as originally conceived may be perfectly compatible with the style and spirit of a score and are in fact what reasonable people want in a production. Hardly anyone thinks that stagings are sacrosanct; people enjoy something fresh and stimulating - so long as it seems to be serving the work they've come to see and not distracting them from the basic experience of being moved by the story as expressed through music.

There is no rule about how far a staging may depart from the way an opera was originally conceived, but there are principles - and the first of those is that the essential nature of the music, and of the basic dramatic conceptions the music was written to express, should be respected. In practice this means that the mind of the spectator should be free to absorb and respond to the music, and not be confused and distracted by action and visual effects which seem unrelated to it or incongruous with it. The effect should be one of unity: we should feel as if the music and the staging are natural consequences of each other. This is called _integrity of concept_; we expect it of singers, who must understand the style of the music, understand the character they're portraying, and behave in such a way as to make music and acting a convincing unity. We have a right to expect integrity of directors as well: interpretations of musical/dramatic works, whether conventional or innovative, should always strive, above all, to bring the listener/spectator the truest, most complete experience possible of the basic meanings and qualities of those works.

This is not what regietheater attempts to do. Regietheater does not _present_ works of art. It _parasitizes_ them. It does not present Wagner's _Lohengrin_. It uses the music of _Lohengrin_ as a vehicle for presenting a director's work based, more or less closely or remotely, on Wagner's _Lohengrin_. This is how regie is defined and recognized, and how it is distinguished from production which is merely fresh and innovative. Proponents of regie like to obscure this distinction, and certainly there may be disagreements about how, and how far, a given production may depart from its original staging concept before the term regie is applied to it. But the principle should not be obscure in anyone's mind: is the composer being served, or is someone else being served at the composer's expense? This is not as hard to determine as regietheater proponents would like us to think. Audiences are not stupid.

A perfect example of the attempt to obscure the real meaning of regie is the statement in the OP that "Wagner was regie...he turned opera on its head." Well, no, he wasn't, and no, he didn't. If Wagner did anything to opera as an art form, he attempted to move it in the direction of greater musical-dramatic integrity, a project with strong historical precedent in the works of Monteverdi, Gluck and Mozart. Wagner conceived, scripted, composed, directed, and vocal-coached his own operas so that all aspects of a production should be thoroughly integrated in pursuit of a single concept - his own. He wasn't reinterpreting, rethinking, or modernizing anything. He was doing what, we can surmise, most of the great opera composers would like to have done if they'd had the time and talent and had not had to rely on collaboration of librettists and producers. If he were around today to see what regie directors were doing to his work we can be sure he would have a good many of them in court, would probably act as his own attorney, and might even file a class-action suit with Verdi and Mozart!

Finally, I think "regie vs. traditional" is a false dichotomy. Productions can be quite original and imaginative without smelling of directorial conceit. Our options for presenting Rhinemaidens are not Victorian ladies tied to swimming machines with ropes and pulleys vs. hookers living on top of the Hoover dam. All we need are people who possess both creative imagination and humility.

Yeah. That's all.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

OK, I'm not going to the wall to defend the snail-sex video in the production mentioned above, but I'll admit that I've taken an interest in the mating of gastropods as a result of this discussion.

For others who may be interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_system_of_gastropods

Was anyone else aware that "love dart" is a technical term?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

There is a difference between a fresh approach and violating the composer's intentions. For example, the recent Met (and ROH) Falstaff is a riot, reimagined in the second Elizabethan period - ie 1950s. It is terrific, a fresh take. One or two minor anachronisms but faithful to Verdi's intentions. Different from the goonish reimagining that goes on the Regietheatre. The awful Don Giovanni from ROH in which Holton reimagined the plot was simply annoying as it's obvious the director compketely missed Mozart's conception.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I feel this statement by the OP: _Wagner was Regie for that matter. He turned opera on its head._ completely misses the point. Wagner was not Regie. He might have imagined a new concept of opera but the difference is that HE was the originator of the opera. Regietheatre tries to re-interpret established works putting a new spin (often illogical) on them at the whim of a director who is more likely to be an upstart than a genius. Now if people want to compose operas about rats or the mating habits of snails, then by all means they should go ahead and do so. But don't inflict the ideas on someone else's work.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

DavidA said:


> There is a difference between a fresh approach and violating the composer's intentions. For example, the recent Met (and ROH) Falstaff is a riot, reimagined in the second Elizabethan period - ie 1950s. It is terrific, a fresh take. One or two minor anachronisms but faithful to Verdi's intentions. Different from the goonish reimagining that goes on the Regietheatre. The awful Don Giovanni from ROH in which Holton reimagined the plot was simply annoying as it's obvious the director compketely missed Mozart's conception.


I saw that Falstaff (more than once) and loved it. I didn't see the Holten Don Giovanni but was disappointed with his Eugene Onegin with the dancing 'younger selves'. All the principal singers were excellent actors and for them to just stand still and sing while the 'younger self' wrote the letter/shot the friend etc was such a waste. Very distracting too.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Blancrocher said:


> For others who may be interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_system_of_gastropods
> 
> Was anyone else aware that "love dart" is a technical term?


I actually was aware of that, but then I take an unhealthy interest in the reproductive behaviour of snails. That may sound weird, but at least I'm not a _regie_ director.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Although this isn't a poll, I vote NO to Regie.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

sospiro said:


> I saw that Falstaff (more than once) and loved it. I didn't see the Holten Don Giovanni but was disappointed with his *Eugene Onegin with the dancing 'younger selves'.* All the principal singers were excellent actors and for them to just stand still and sing while the 'younger self' wrote the letter/shot the friend etc was such a waste. Very distracting too.


That's just the annoying distraction these directors put in. It adds nothing and takes away from what is actually going on. It appears that these directors are like quangos who have to justify their existence with superfluous matter.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

It's interesting that there are several distinguished malacologists with the surname Wagner. That doesn't explain what copulating snails are doing in a _Berlioz_ opera, of course.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> The primary expressive medium of opera is music. The music of an opera is what gives meaning and power to its story; composers base their musical ideas on a particular mise en scene, they ask their librettists to tailor the action and dialogue to what they want to express musically, and if the result is a good opera it will be one in which the stage action allows the music to make its maximum effect. Minor innovations in the action or setting as originally conceived may be perfectly compatible with the style and spirit of a score and are in fact what reasonable people want in a production. Hardly anyone thinks that stagings are sacrosanct; people enjoy something fresh and stimulating - so long as it seems to be serving the work they've come to see and not distracting them from the basic experience of being moved by the story as expressed through music.


This is very much how I would have started my comment as well, except that I would claim that the basic experience is the _emotional_ story as expressed through music.

The basic plot can, itself, distract from what is being expressed by the music. It can be overly complex, incoherent, and or otherwise seem to be at odds with the music. As written, I mean, not even taking into account interventionist/regie/modern productions. Some of this is because not every opera is entirely successful. A poor plot will not necessarily ruin an opera's appeal, since, again, the primary expressive medium of opera is the music. Some of this is because associations, mores, and tastes change vary, over time but also from person to person.

The plot is often incomprehensible without prior exposure or study, no matter if it is presented as originally conceived or not. I don't know that I've ever found an opera synopsis that was complete; there's always more going on than is summarized. And there's often some parts that we just have to accept as the bizarre reality that this particular piece operates in. From there, I see it a not unreasonable step to also accept watching the basic emotional story play out in a differently imagined world.

Since I do not direct opera, my general take is to try and take opera productions on their own terms, see what they have to offer. I don't hold them as needing to be definitive or complete, and rather take them as expressions of the source material.

If I were an opera director and were to direct a single opera multiple times I'd be sure that they were distinctly different presentations, trying to show the breadth of the work. I find the Patrice Chéreau's Ring to be fascinating, and see it not as limiting but as illuminating.

This does not mean that I like every opera production, of course. There are times that various elements do not work for me. The example that comes to mind right now is Otto Schenk's _Tannhäuser_ from the Metropolitan Opera. Though in many ways this could be considered "traditional" in others it is not faithful to what Wagner wrote and I dislike the changes he effected and what it did to the opera overall.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Generally, my preference is for traditional (i.e. set in the original time and place) productions that contain fresh staging ideas showing the director really understood the opera and seriously thought about things like character motivation, etc. In other words, I don't want to see a "stand and sing concert in costume." I often don't have a problem with updating; perhaps the very best opera production I've seen yet, _Salome_ at Virginia Opera, looked like this (the same production has also been seen at Portland Opera):

















In that production, the character relationships and the progression of the action were always perfectly clear, which for me is the bottom-line requirement. I agree with GregMitchell in that some directors today seem almost to have contempt for whatever opera they're directing; it's as though they think the work itself is so boring that they have to liven it up by presenting something different from what the composer actually wrote. I read once where a certain director wanted to cut "Caro nome" in _Rigoletto_ because he thought it "slowed down the action." I guess he thought he knew better than Verdi how the opera should go. A much better idea would have been to examine Gilda's motivations in singing the aria so that he and the soprano could make those emotions come to life on the stage. Fortunately, we don't see many of those "director on an ego trip" productions where I live.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

When they decide to stage the opera sometimes in the 20:th century it is really tiresome since every opera production is like that. A more unusual setting is more fun such as The Flying Dutchman staged like this:


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

No matter what the final opinion is on this subject, one thing is for sure. These operas were penned by a creative mind called a composer. This person either found a story or play he/she liked and decided it would make a fine opera, found a librettist and wrote the music and the idea blossomed into a beautiful masterpiece that millions have seen to this day.

To take this person's creative genius and twist it to suit one's own taste with no sensitivity or respect for the writer or the music is hubris in the highest degree. It shows a lack of real talent while promoting a super ego to hide their inadequacies.
Perhaps they need our pity more than our judgmental minds.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Sloe said:


> When they decide to stage the opera sometimes in the 20:th century it is really tiresome since every opera production is like that. A more unusual setting is more fun such as The Flying Dutchman staged like this:


Well, I feel the same way about _Fidelio._ What a rare thing it would be today to see a production set in Beethoven's time!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> Well, I feel the same way about _Fidelio._ What a rare thing it would be today to see a production set in Beethoven's time!


To stage operas in the lifetime of the composer is on the other hand something very usual.

Such as Lohengrin at La Scala:










There are at least no rats.
I prefer settings that does not look disgusting.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> This is very much how I would have started my comment as well, except that I would claim that the basic experience is the _emotional_ story as expressed through music.
> 
> The basic plot can, itself, distract from what is being expressed by the music. It can be overly complex, incoherent, and or otherwise seem to be at odds with the music. As written, I mean, not even taking into account interventionist/regie/modern productions. Some of this is because not every opera is entirely successful. A poor plot will not necessarily ruin an opera's appeal, since, again, the primary expressive medium of opera is the music. Some of this is because associations, mores, and tastes change vary, over time but also from person to person.
> 
> ...


Your observation that not every opera has a good plot and libretto, or one well integrated with the music, is a good one. Of course it's also true that not every opera is a musical masterpiece. There are operas that can be improved by "tampering" (simple cutting being the commonest form of that), and although we wouldn't do it to symphonies or paintings or novels, works for the theater are by nature collaborative and dependent on producers and interpreters, and the history of adapting them for this or that venue probably goes all the way back to ancient Greece and beyond. I have no problem with rescuing librettists and composers from themselves, or from obsolescence and obscurity, if it can be done with discretion and respect. There can even be cases where operas are just "duds," but might be enjoyable in clever adaptations. If a third-rate opera about a neglected princess in an eighteenth-century court is boring, and can be made enjoyable if she's portrayed as a sex-starved first lady living in the White House, little or nothing of value will be lost, and the incongruity of Classical music and secco recitative with the contemporary setting might be entertaining in itself.

That does bring up the question of "updating" - transferring the action of an opera to a later period. This isn't always offensive, even with the masterpieces, depending on what's in the libretto or action that might tend to restrict it to a certain historical moment. A major risk is the potential for clash with the style and emotional tone of the music, but that is further complicated by the fact that many operas are set in times remote from the period in which the opera itself was composed. People in different eras and societies have different manners; they behave differently in ways both obvious and subtle. In a good traditional production an effort can and should be made to have the characters behave as people would have behaved during the period of the story, but of course with consideration given to the nationality and period of the music. Take an 18th-century opera about ancient Rome and set it in WW II Germany, and you have some interesting problems of manners on your hands! How should these people act? From what I've seen of updated productions, this problem is often solved awkwardly or not at all, probably because there is no good solution, and consequently the whole production feels "off." I suppose this is not a concern for many people now, who are used to the styleless eclecticism of modern culture, or who just want to be entertained and don't much care how that's accomplished. But I'm old-school and don't want to watch Orpheus and Euridice, or Tristan and Isolde, looking and acting like the people on TV or the folks next door.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Thanks everyone. Lots of thoughtful replies. 
It's pleasing to know that the reactions seem to be against bad theatre (no one wants that) rather than something different. Some of the popular warhorses over here are played every second season, so the last thing we want to see is the same thing over again. The gap isn't great enough.

I used to play for an opera company years ago and the productions always served the story which was the music. Some were boring for sure but they still supported the music. That was because the theatre and music directors collaborated because you can't expect the theatre director to understand the intricacies in the music. I wonder if that's happening during the more terrible productions.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bellinilover said:


> Well, I feel the same way about _Fidelio._ What a rare thing it would be today to see a production set in Beethoven's time!


Peter Hall's production at Glyndebourne years ago was set in Beethoven's time. Actually I would think the setting of Fidelio is pretty contemporary with Beethoven.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> To stage operas in the lifetime of the composer is on the other hand something very usual.
> 
> Such as Lohengrin at La Scala:
> 
> ...


The problem is that Lohengrin is about mediaeval knights. That is central to it. I can't see how you can update it like this without destroying the essence of the work. Like a recent update of Carmen from the ENO. It was redeemed partially by a brilliant portrayal of the leading role but everything else detracted from what Bizet wrote.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Belowpar said:


> Trouble is you have to go before you know if it works for you.


But that's art baby! You don't know if you are going to like a particular film director until you have seen a few of their films already. I've had to read quite a few books by a writer before knowing whether I like that writers' books or not, ditto for art exhibitions. Of course, it is possible to do some research beforehand now that there are so many recordings on YouTube, so if you are really fussy about productions, then you can watch a particular directors' productions for free there before deciding to invest in a ticket.

In any case why is everybody so interested in opera productions at the expense of the singing these days? A lot of fans seem to be against Directors' opera (where the development of the story and the libretto are deemed more important than the music), but many of those fans then claim that a bad production ruined their evening. But you can't have it both ways either you are more interested in the music than the libretto and therefore five star singing in a one star production is still a fantastic evening out overall or you think the most important thing is the production so if that is bad it ruins your evening.

It's not ego driven directors who are taking the attention away from the importance of the musical aspect of opera, but the anti-regie fans who are harping on about how the director was just being provocative. If you feel a director is just being provocative and seeking attention, then your loud complaints about the 'dreadful' production are just what he wants. Reporting 'wild' productions to the authorities is just feeding the fire. If you want to see an end to silly productions then when you see one, just give a one line comment to the effect that the production was boring and then spend ages praising (or not as the case may be) the singing. Once the anti-regie squad start ignoring controversial directors they will lose their power.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Blancrocher said:


> Was anyone else aware that "love dart" is a technical term?


Post deleted as some things in a person's mind should stay in that person's head.:angel:

N.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Some interesting statements there.



The Conte said:


> In any case why is everybody so interested in opera productions at the expense of the singing these days?


Any proof for this sweeping statement? From my experience, it's a big name singer that sells the tickets not the director.



The Conte said:


> A lot of fans seem to be against Directors' opera (where the development of the story and the libretto are deemed more important than the music), but many of those fans then claim that a bad production ruined their evening. But you can't have it both ways either you are more interested in the music than the libretto and therefore five star singing in a one star production is still a fantastic evening out overall or you think the most important thing is the production so if that is bad it ruins your evening.


False dichotomy.



The Conte said:


> It's not ego driven directors who are taking the attention away from the importance of the musical aspect of opera, but the anti-regie fans who are harping on about how the director was just being provocative.


That makes no sense. It wasn't the anti-Regie opera fans who created the scene of Margherite singing in front of the copulating snails? (Sticking with the recent Regie example). A familiar complaint of opera fans is when they direction takes focus away from the singer, especially during key arias. Plenty of other examples already in this thread.



The Conte said:


> Once the anti-regie squad start ignoring controversial directors they will lose their power.


If only that were possible. It's hard to ignore them, as it seems one of their motivations is to not be ignored. They constitute a significant proportion of current productions and features many of the top singers.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Don Fatale said:


> That makes no sense. It wasn't the anti-Regie opera fans who created the scene of Margherite singing in front of the copulating snails? (Sticking with the recent Regie example).


As someone who's not strictly opposed to light sabers being employed in a performance of Wagner's _Ring_, I'll admit that I do not have full faith in the aesthetic judgment of those responsible for that particular production.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

DavidA said:


> The problem is that Lohengrin is about mediaeval knights. That is central to it. I can't see how you can update it like this without destroying the essence of the work.


Welsh National Opera recently did a production of _Lohengrin_, which was set in the early/mid-1800s, and it worked really well musically, dramatically and scenically. There was even a Swan/Gottfried hybrid!









Click to enlarge. _Picture credit: Financial Times_


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> As someone who's not strictly opposed to light sabers being employed in a performance of Wagner's _Ring_


If this ever happens, someone let me know! I'll get front-row tickets and wear a Darth Vader suit.

(Not really, but still an interesting idea.)


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

mstar said:


> If this ever happens, someone let me know! I'll get front-row tickets and wear a Darth Vader suit.
> 
> (Not really, but still an interesting idea.)


I believe Blancrocher was refering to the LA Opera Ring directed by Freyer from a few years back that the video was posted for.









Performance review of the Die Walküre.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

DavidA said:


> The problem is that Lohengrin is about mediaeval knights. That is central to it. I can't see how you can update it like this without destroying the essence of the work. Like a recent update of Carmen from the ENO. It was redeemed partially by a brilliant portrayal of the leading role but everything else detracted from what Bizet wrote.


That Bieito _Carmen_ is coming to San Francisco Opera in the summer season! There are two casts, and it runs for 11 performances. I don't know any of the four principals in either cast*, yet I'm excited to see the opera and am planning to see both casts.

I don't really know any other productions from Bieito, but I've seen a good part of this one on YouTube, so I have an idea what I'm getting. If they were doing another revival of the Jean-Pierre Ponnelle production** (debut 1981, revived in 9 seasons since including 2011-2012) I wouldn't be going at all. I haven't been here long enough to have seen the Ponnelle production, but in that production the opera would not have gotten me to the house. After seeing the Richard Eyre production at the Met (debuted in 2009) in 2012 I've had my fill of superficial Carmen productions, though I suppose that cast (Anita Rachvelishvili, Kate Royal, Kyle Ketelsen, and Yonghoon Lee) might get me out again.

I really don't know what to expect in terms of attendance or audience response in general for this long run of _Carmen_, but the non-traditional production is why I'll be there.

* Now that I look into it, I have actually seen both Carmens in minor roles at the Met. Ginger Costa-Jackson was Mercédès in _Carmen_, and Irene Roberts was a flower maiden in _Parsifal_.

** The Ponnelle production (not surprisingly) appears to have been on the traditional side, at least for the sets and costumes:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Some interesting statements there.
> 
> Any proof for this sweeping statement? From my experience, it's a big name singer that sells the tickets not the director.


"Everybody" was hyperbole. You are correct that opera fans are more interested in seeing particular singers rather than the work of a particular director. However at the same time there are opera fans that focus on a bad production even when a singer has given the performance of their lives. (The people booing the production team at the back of the Amphi at the first night of Maria Stuarda at the ROH didn't all give Joyce DiDonato a big cheer when she came out (although others did)). I thought the production could have been better, but I didn't really care as I had just witnessed (in the words of Rupert Christiensen): "Joyce DiDonato's performance as Donizetti's Mary Queen of Scots leaves one bereft of adequate superlatives. So let me just start by claiming that bel canto of this quality has not been heard at Covent Garden for more than a generation and that on the strength of this night alone, her name should rank in the operatic pantheon alongside the greatest legends of the past." Perhaps fans buy tickets to see particular singers, but it's the production that is foremost in many of their minds after the event. Just look at these comments about the recent Cav/Pag that in my opinion had some weak casting (the comments tend to focus on the production and mention the singers in passing):

http://www.roh.org.uk/news/your-reaction-cavalleria-rusticana-pagliacci



Don Fatale said:


> False dichotomy.


True, there are other options, but that is sophistry, the point I was making was if you claim that the music is so much more important than the libretto (and therefore the director's role is being given too much importance today), why do you focus so much on the production? [Not 'you' Don Fatale, 'you' in general.]



Don Fatale said:


> That makes no sense. It wasn't the anti-Regie opera fans who created the scene of Margherite singing in front of the copulating snails? (Sticking with the recent Regie example). A familiar complaint of opera fans is when they direction takes focus away from the singer, especially during key arias. Plenty of other examples already in this thread.


If you are only comfortable with the black and white dialectic of (evil) regie director vs (poor victim) passionate fan then it won't make sense. Perhaps I can express myself better if I say that although the attitude of _some_ directors about the importance of the director is part of the prevalence of director's opera, the fans who focus on the production are very much their accomplices (even if they are unconsciously so).



Don Fatale said:


> If only that were possible. It's hard to ignore them, as it seems one of their motivations is to not be ignored. They constitute a significant proportion of current productions and features many of the top singers.


Of course everybody is entitled to voice their opinion of a performance including the production. I am just making the point that if a director is being provocative just to get attention then the booers are playing right into their hands.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> In any case why is everybody so interested in opera productions at the expense of the singing these days? A lot of fans seem to be against Directors' opera (where the development of the story and the libretto are deemed more important than the music), but many of those fans then claim that a bad production ruined their evening. But you can't have it both ways either you are more interested in the music than the libretto and therefore five star singing in a one star production is still a fantastic evening out overall or you think the most important thing is the production so if that is bad it ruins your evening.
> 
> It's not ego driven directors who are taking the attention away from the importance of the musical aspect of opera, but the anti-regie fans who are harping on about how the director was just being provocative. If you feel a director is just being provocative and seeking attention, then your loud complaints about the 'dreadful' production are just what he wants. Reporting 'wild' productions to the authorities is just feeding the fire. If you want to see an end to silly productions then when you see one, just give a one line comment to the effect that the production was boring and then spend ages praising (or not as the case may be) the singing. Once the anti-regie squad start ignoring controversial directors they will lose their power.
> 
> N.


None of this makes any sense.

1.) "Everybody" is not more concerned with staging than with singing. Opera involves both, and most opera lovers presumably want both to be good.

2.) It is perfectly possible for an evening of fine singing to be ruined by a hideous production, just as it's possible for a beautiful production to be ruined by mediocre singing.

3.) It's ridiculous to blame criticism of regietheater nonsense for the perpetuation of regietheater nonsense.

POSTSCRIPT: Who are the "anti-regie squad"? I think I'd like a membership, assuming the dues don't involve sitting through productions like this:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mountmccabe said:


> That Bieito _Carmen_ is coming to San Francisco Opera in the summer season! There are two casts, and it runs for 11 performances. I don't know any of the four principals in either cast*, yet I'm excited to see the opera and am planning to see both casts.
> 
> I don't really know any other productions from Bieito, but I've seen a good part of this one on YouTube, so I have an idea what I'm getting. If they were doing another revival of the Jean-Pierre Ponnelle production** (debut 1981, revived in 9 seasons since including 2011-2012) I wouldn't be going at all. I haven't been here long enough to have seen the Ponnelle production, but in that production the opera would not have gotten me to the house. After seeing the Richard Eyre production at the Met (debuted in 2009) in 2012 I've had my fill of *superficial Carmen productions*, though I suppose that cast (Anita Rachvelishvili, Kate Royal, Kyle Ketelsen, and Yonghoon Lee) might get me out again.
> 
> ...


Can I ask you what you mean by a 'superficial production'? One done with what the composer had in mind perhaps?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> None of this makes any sense.
> 
> 1.) "Everybody" is not more concerned with staging than with singing. Opera involves both, and most opera lovers presumably want both to be good.
> 
> ...


Please see my post above where I explain my points better (and without the melodramatic hyperbole). What no high flung drama in an opera forum? 

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Please see my post above where I explain my points better (and without the melodramatic hyperbole). What no high flung drama in an opera forum?
> 
> N.


Oh, all right, I get it. You were just offering some _regiekritik._

Boooooooooo!


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Can I ask you what you mean by a 'superficial production'? One done with what the composer had in mind perhaps?


No, that does not really capture what I mean.

I would draw a distinction between how an opera was first presented, what was recorded in the libretto and score, and what the composer intended. Many older operas were first performed with flat, painted backdrops; it would be unreasonable, I think, to consider that as necessary for modern productions. But we can look at what those backdrops were intended to do, how they worked in the production, and then look at modern technology, tastes, and stagecraft (as well as the house the production is for) and see what can be done to serve the opera, even if it is different from the original production.

Superficial could be taking the stage directions and libretto at face value, without considering what the purpose of those elements were, without considering what is actually going on, without looking at the whole opera and how it works.

Superficial could also be making an opera production look pretty, based on the idea that operas are supposed to look pretty. That, to me, hurts an opera like _Wozzeck_, which is a fundamentally ugly story. That's an extreme example, but many of the most popular operas - such as Don Giovanni, Carmen, and Tosca - are full of horrible characters and situations, so it seems weird to me to keep those unsavory or salacious elements hidden (though I acknowledge that different people will have their experience disrupted by different things).

I also think of lush productions of _Der Rosenkavalier_ by say Schenk or Merrill, that seem to have been put together without asking why Strauss and Hofmannsthal chose to present this opera looking old timey. I'd contend that the Richard Jones production at Glyndebourne (complaints about how Tara Erraught looked and was costumed were horribly superficial; reviewers were more interested in seeing someone look good than fitting characterization) is closer to the spirit of what the creators intended (and probably the Carsen production, though I've not yet seen it). The opera clearly works (for many) when presented as sentiment rather than satire, but such an approach leaves me cold.

Similarly we have Schenk's neutered _Tannhäuser_, though here it is clear that this was changed purposefully. He did not like the balance given the opera by Wagner, and reworked it, (to my mind) ruining the drama at the core of the piece. And, again, many people love such an approach, whether because they love the look of the second act (which is very close to as Wagner wrote it) or because they prefer a neutralized Venusberg.

And, respectfully, I would disagree with this:



DavidA said:


> The problem is that Lohengrin is about mediaeval knights. That is central to it. I can't see how you can update it like this without destroying the essence of the work.


Characters in _Lohengrin_ are medieval knights, but _Lohengrin_ is not about what it means to be a knight, nor is it a character study about the life of a knight. The medieval setting is thoroughly integrated, and important both in the symbolic language and much of the logic of the opera, though of course Wagner adds and subtracted as he saw fit when creating the imaginary world of the opera.

Knights, etc. in medieval times is the surface. Central to the opera are the characters and their relationships.

I am not saying that productions of _Lohengrin_ with medieval knights are necessarily superficial, or that they are all bad. Certainly not! I am also not saying that other settings and costuming choices necessarily mean a thoughtful or good production.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> POSTSCRIPT: Who are the "anti-regie squad"? I think I'd like a membership, assuming the dues don't involve sitting through productions like this:


I'm putting that production right up there with "Swedish Carmen". Do people forget that performers frequently say that they don't become the role until they're in costume. What do you become when you're dressed like that? I had always assumed that Wotan's role changing to the wanderer wasn't so much as to disguise Wotan but to change the costuming so that the singer can better project himself as someone a little more pathetic than the badass he was in Rheingold.

Is "Sieg" written on his shirt so I don't mistake this for Pagliacci?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> I would draw a distinction between how an opera was first presented, what was recorded in the libretto and score, and what the composer intended. Many older operas were first performed with flat, painted backdrops; it would be unreasonable, I think, to consider that as necessary for modern productions. But we can look at what those backdrops were intended to do, how they worked in the production, and then look at modern technology, tastes, and stagecraft (as well as the house the production is for) and see what can be done to serve the opera, even if it is different from the original production.
> 
> Superficial could be taking the stage directions and libretto at face value, without considering what the purpose of those elements were, without considering what is actually going on, without looking at the whole opera and how it works.
> 
> ...


These observations point to the fact that there is often more to an opera than even its creators realized or explicitly intended, and certainly more than has been brought out in productions based on performing tradition. Even the music itself, especially in the greatest operas, may express shades of feeling which, to a sensitive director, may suggest settings, actions, and even dramatic themes not asked for or even imagined by the composer and librettist, beyond those we're accustomed to in traditional productions. This, of course, is where the utmost caution is called for in creating new productions, as the line between revealing meanings in a work which enlarge our sense of it and superimposing notions on a work to its detriment may be a fine one. It's too easy to look for currently fashionable social or political preoccupations and to impose them on operas which have similar themes, with the idea of making works set in earlier societies look more "relevant" to modern audiences. The problematic word there is "similar"; there were, after all, no Nazis in the Spain of _Il Trovatore_, even though there was much persecution of Jews, and there were certainly none in the mythical universe of the _Ring_, despite Wagner's personal antisemitic sentiments. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to discourage directors from marching swastikas - or some similarly familiar and "button-pushing" symbol - onto the stages of such operas, and in doing so they often end up, not deepening our understanding of the works, but narrowing our focus and diverting us from the more general, more universal themes present in them.

It's likely that some directors who try to make operas topical or "relevant" are sincerely motivated, but I suspect that the more common motivation is simple egotism: the desire to be seen as having a "unique personal vision" of the work, using it as a means to the end of being talked about and paid large sums of money in order to go on revealing "unique personal visions" on stage after stage. After all, a director who sees his primary job as trying to bring out as fully as possible what the composer has actually written into the work is not likely to get much attention from the average operagoer unless he does something clumsy or incongruous, and he will find himself faced with competition from others who are trying to do the same thing and may do it better than he can. He will - perish the thought - be judged by widely recognized standards of excellence, he may be found wanting, and instead of the delicious publicity of scandal he might be met with simple indifference and neglect. What could be more humiliating for him than the thought that he was wasting his cleverness on something that others would consider more important than himself?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Couac Addict said:


> I'm putting that production right up there with "Swedish Carmen".


Swedish Carmen:


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Sloe said:


> Swedish Carmen:


Not even close...Swedish Carmen is on this page.
http://www.talkclassical.com/34561-opera-buff.html


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

This just in to further muddle up the works:
http://slippedisc.com/2016/01/munic...campaign=Feed:+slippedisc/nICW+(Slipped+Disc)


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

As the priest said in this morning's sermon, " an orgasm is an orgasm, a rose is a rose is a rose."

Likewise a good production is a good production and a bad production a bad one irrespective of whether it is traditional, updated, revised, amended or full on reige.

N.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

The Conte said:


> As the priest said in this morning's sermon, " an orgasm is an orgasm, a rose is a rose is a rose."
> 
> Likewise a good production is a good production and a bad production a bad one irrespective of whether it is traditional, updated, revised, amended or full on reige.
> 
> N.


This was my point early on. The problem for me is that so few directors have had the talent yet to come up with creative up-datings because they are so egotistically self- involved with getting to the forefront that entire scenes become a miasma of activity while forgetting about the music and the singers themselves. 
When staging becomes the show of shows -- and done poorly in far too many cases -- something is drastically wrong and that is where lack of respect for the intent of the composer comes in.

Somehow, with his whimsical and even devilish fun personality, I can almost see a twinkle in the eye of Mozart for an updated or even regie production if it was done with creativity. Therein lies the main problem -- the lack of good talent and good taste in accomplishing that end.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

sospiro said:


> In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with updating but the plot shouldn't be changed. There's anger over Dmitri Chernyakov's 2010 version of _Dialogues des Carmélites_.
> 
> French court bans opera DVD
> 
> ...





nina foresti said:


> This just in to further muddle up the works:
> http://slippedisc.com/2016/01/munic...campaign=Feed:+slippedisc/nICW+(Slipped+Disc)




and yet more artistic differences at La Scala about a gay Fanciulla

http://slippedisc.com/2016/01/british-director-is-sacked-at-la-scala-over-gay-puccini/


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

sospiro said:


> and yet more artistic differences at La Scala about a gay Fanciulla
> 
> http://slippedisc.com/2016/01/british-director-is-sacked-at-la-scala-over-gay-puccini/


Yippeeee!
(This from a dedicated Vick hater)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

sospiro said:


> and yet more artistic differences at La Scala about a gay Fanciulla
> 
> http://slippedisc.com/2016/01/british-director-is-sacked-at-la-scala-over-gay-puccini/


Well, why didn't we see this before? How could we have missed it all these years? _Fanciulla_ takes place in a wild west gay colony, the saloon is a gay bar, and Minnie is a butch lesbian who's the perfect proprietor because she can't get romantically involved with the clientele. Of course she wants nothing to do with the straight sherriff, but when that swishy little bandido comes along and she finds out that he's really a she in disguise - fireworks at the OK Corral!

See. I can do this too. How come I'm not rich and famous?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Well, why didn't we see this before? How could we have missed it all these years? _Fanciulla_ takes place in a wild west gay colony, the saloon is a gay bar, and Minnie is a butch lesbian who's the perfect proprietor because she can't get romantically involved with the clientele. Of course she wants nothing to do with the straight sherriff, but when that swishy little bandido comes along and she finds out that he's really a she in disguise - fireworks at the OK Corral!
> 
> See. I can do this too. How come I'm not rich and famous?


Because you stick too close to the composer's intents, that is no-no.

Incidentally, regarding La Scala/Fanciulla, I suspect that La Scala's denial of the gay theme is closer to the real truth - and that comment comes from someone who tends to disbelieve corporate statements.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Well, why didn't we see this before? How could we have missed it all these years? _Fanciulla_ takes place in a wild west gay colony, the saloon is a gay bar, and Minnie is a butch lesbian who's the perfect proprietor because she can't get romantically involved with the clientele. Of course she wants nothing to do with the straight sherriff, but when that swishy little bandido comes along and she finds out that he's really a she in disguise - fireworks at the OK Corral!
> 
> See. I can do this too. How come I'm not rich and famous?


The gay theme has now been denied. Possibly a disagreement over concept?

http://slippedisc.com/2016/01/british-director-is-sacked-at-la-scala-over-gay-puccini/

Whatever, all credit to Chailly - if he is the director of the house then he should not put on a production he cannot live with. I wish a few other people showed similar leadership.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> The gay theme has now been denied. Possibly a disagreement over concept?
> 
> http://slippedisc.com/2016/01/british-director-is-sacked-at-la-scala-over-gay-puccini/
> 
> Whatever, all credit to Chailly - if he is the director of the house then he should not put on a production he cannot live with. I wish a few other people showed similar leadership.


So they weren't really going to do a gay _Fanciulla?_

Yippeeeee! Now I can copyright it and start my new career. I think I'll name myself Reggie Woodduck. Has a ring to it.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Well, why didn't we see this before? How could we have missed it all these years? _Fanciulla_ takes place in a wild west gay colony, the saloon is a gay bar, and Minnie is a butch lesbian who's the perfect proprietor because she can't get romantically involved with the clientele. Of course she wants nothing to do with the straight sherriff, but when that swishy little bandido comes along and she finds out that he's really a she in disguise - fireworks at the OK Corral!
> 
> See. I can do this too. How come I'm not rich and famous?


Funny thing is, it actually _could_ work if done properly (but never by that heavy-handed Vick)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Funny thing is, it actually _could_ work if done properly (but never by that heavy-handed Vick)


It could be hilarious! A camp classic! My God, I'd better file that copyright fast!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> It could be hilarious! A camp classic! My God, I'd better file that copyright fast!


:lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Couac Addict said:


> Not even close...Swedish Carmen is on this page.
> http://www.talkclassical.com/34561-opera-buff.html


That was a Swedish Carmen performance.
The same opera house staged Elektra this way:










When I saw that performance on TV I thought it was so disgusting to see Klittennestra in that fake nude dress that I turned it off but I watched it later. Aigisthos looks equally horrible.

It is the only opera house in an area as large as the United Kingdom they stage only a few operas each year. But they had the decency to make a traditional production of Rigoletto this year.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

I concur with the view that it is a question of specific performances being good or bad rather than "traditional" vs. "innovative."

The tremendous accessibility in recent years of opera video performances has allowed opera houses to take greater risks and I am glad for it.

If one wants to see a traditional Don Giovanni, there is the Salzburg production with Cesare Siepi. If one wants to see La Sonnambula with everyone decked out in traditional Swiss garb, there's Anna Moffo's film. Particularly for the warhorses, the wealth of the recorded legacy means that every new production needn't strive for the same Platonic ideal - houses are freer to present these works from fresh new angles.

That's not to say that every new production will be a great success, of course. But personally, the last thing I need to see is another Don Giovanni in tights.

Two recent productions that I greatly enjoyed (and which are unapologetically aggressive in their re-imaginings) are:

1. Dmitri Tcherniakov's Don Giovanni from Salzburg where the story was presented as an all-in-the-family affair with Bo Skovhus in the title role as the booze-fond black sheep of the family






2. Mary Zimmerman's La Sonnambula at the Met presented in the practice room of a modern-day opera company. (I've posted this elsewhere before...)






In both of these productions, the libretto didn't always make sense, and some leeway had to be given to matching the words with the image, but it was a small price to pay for gaining new insight into these very familiar works.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Funny thing is, it actually _could_ work if done properly (but never by that heavy-handed Vick)


I agree! There are only two women in the cast of _Fanciulla_. And for Ramirez, who according to the libretto already has a reputation as a lady-killer, a gay bar would be a clever place to hide out. Much better than dusting off an old set from _Bonanza_.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> So they weren't really going to do a gay _Fanciulla?_
> 
> Yippeeeee! Now I can copyright it and start my new career. I think I'll name myself Reggie Woodduck. Has a ring to it.


You may be too late. Lehnhoff already got there:









Or, at least that's how it's generally interpreted since it's all men and they are almost entirely clad in leather. I didn't notice anything lewd or suggestive. I would not call it heavy-handed at all. The men still fawned after Minnie, but - other than Rance - it was, again, not due to sexual attraction.

Trailer:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> I concur with the view that it is a question of specific performances being good or bad rather than "traditional" vs. "innovative."
> 
> The tremendous accessibility in recent years of opera video performances has allowed opera houses to take greater risks and I am glad for it.
> 
> ...


Can you say what new insights those productions gave you?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Balthazar said:


> In both of these productions, *the libretto didn't always make sense*, and some leeway had to be given to matching the words with the image ...


That's one of the main reasons why I hate 'regie'. If these directors want to change libretto, they shouldn't be so lazy and should write their own operas.

It's like they're saying "I think the Mona Lisa is really a man so I'm going to paint a moustache on the face. The original is boring. It's always the same face. Let's see it from a different perspective"


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

This one was on the Mezzo channel yesterday, one of the worst production I've ever seen.

​


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Pugg said:


> This one was on the Mezzo channel yesterday, one of the worst production I've ever seen.
> 
> ​


Oh dear.

This is the same director who has created all the problems with his version of _Dialogues des Carmélites_.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> I agree! There are only two women in the cast of _Fanciulla_. And for Ramirez, who according to the libretto already has a reputation as a lady-killer, a gay bar would be a clever place to hide out. Much better than dusting off an old set from _Bonanza_.


Since there are no other Bonanza operas the only Bonanza opera can remain a Bonanza opera especially when it is performed that seldom. Some people want to see cowboys singing arias in Italian.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Balthazar said:


> In both of these productions, *the libretto didn't always make sense*, and some leeway had to be given to matching the words with the image, but it was a small price to pay for gaining new insight into these very familiar works.


In other words it was a completely different concept from the composer's! The action fighting against (instead of with) the words and the music. I do wish these guys would go away and write their own operas instead of inflicting their idiot ideas on everyone else. In opera words and action should go together.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

sospiro said:


> That's one of the main reasons why I hate 'regie'. If these directors want to change libretto, they shouldn't be so lazy and should write their own operas.
> 
> It's like they're saying "I think the Mona Lisa is really a man so I'm going to paint a moustache on the face. The original is boring. It's always the same face. Let's see it from a different perspective"


I don't think that changing the libretto is always necessarily bad. A lot of the time it doesn't work and just confuses the audience, but an intelligent change from what we are used to seeing in a particular opera can be very moving. I am far more concerned with how a director influences the singers' acting and the dynamism of the exchanges between the different characters in a work. I have seen a couple of productions whose staging can only be described as amateur. (In one of them two of the singers were forced to keep stepping over the body of one of the characters who had been killed on stage because of incompetent plotting by the director - the onstage death was in the libretto - it was so bad it was goo..., well no actually it was terrible!) The production also made a few small changes to the libretto, but the 'regie' elements were the least of its problems.

I don't think the Mona Lisa comparison works, a painting is static (although some artists have painted more than one version of the same subject). A theatrical work has to be recreated anew for each production and as production styles change with fashion, it makes sense to have new productions, or do you think that the set and costume designs should stay the same forever?

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I don't think that changing the libretto is always necessarily bad. A lot of the time it doesn't work and just confuses the audience, but an intelligent change from what we are used to seeing in a particular opera can be very moving. I am far more concerned with how a director influences the singers' acting and the dynamism of the exchanges between the different characters in a work. I have seen a couple of productions whose staging can only be described as amateur. (In one of them two of the singers were forced to keep stepping over the body of one of the characters who had been killed on stage because of incompetent plotting by the director - the onstage death was in the libretto - it was so bad it was goo..., well no actually it was terrible!) The production also made a few small changes to the libretto, but the 'regie' elements were the least of its problems.
> 
> I don't think the Mona Lisa comparison works, a painting is static (although some artists have painted more than one version of the same subject). A theatrical work has to be recreated anew for each production and as production styles change with fashion, it makes sense to have new productions, or do you think that the set and costume designs should stay the same forever?
> 
> N.


I'm trying to decide how near I am to agreeing with these points.  (I'm growing attached to these little emoticon people. I must be entering my second childhood.)

I can't think of an instance where changing an opera's libretto would accomplish anything necessary. You may be right that certain lines might perplex, but a composer has put his music to certain words. Substantial changes could affect the unity of words and music. And of course substantial changes would only be likely if the intent were to change the story. Whether it's right to do that is part of what we're discussing.

I do like the comparison of regie with giving Mona Lisa a mustache. The point is that "regiefying" an opera, like repainting a picture, intends to alter the _meaning_ of the work; whether meaning resides in something static and permanent or mobile and transient is not the point. Of course productions should be new, but simply being new doesn't make a production regie. Change the meaning of a work in some important way, even if only through aesthetic incongruity, and you've bewhiskered Mona.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

sospiro said:


> That's one of the main reasons why I hate 'regie'. If these directors want to change libretto, they shouldn't be so lazy and should write their own operas.
> 
> It's like they're saying "I think the Mona Lisa is really a man so I'm going to paint a moustache on the face. The original is boring. It's always the same face. Let's see it from a different perspective"


As far as I am aware, in the two productions I cited above the librettos were not changed. The fundamental essence and themes of the works came through loud and clear.

I welcome the diversity in interpretation we are seeing now. You may have a different perspective in Europe where it seems aggressive re-interpretations are the norm -- that is very far from the case here in the US where they are still the exception. And even from the videos I have seen it seems that certain tropes have outworn their welcome (viz., post-apocalyptic settings or entire casts in leather dusters).

I have nothing against a traditional production, but I think there is room for a variety of presentations, particularly, as I noted above, when such a rich legacy of traditional productions is available on video with unprecedented ease. One can always go to the Louvre to see the _Mona Lisa_, but our cultural life is richer with re-interpreted variations!


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Sloe said:


> Since there are no other Bonanza operas the only Bonanza opera can remain a Bonanza opera especially when it is performed that seldom. Some people want to see cowboys singing arias in Italian.


I agree with you that for a new opera, one that is seldom performed, or one that lacks a significant recorded legacy, a traditional staging will generally be appropriate and preferable.

I recently saw a performance of Mieczyslaw Weinberg's _The Passenger_ in Detroit. Though written in 1968, it only received its first staged performance in 2010 and its US premiere in 2014. Given that virtually no one in the audience would have seen or even heard the work before, it would be absurd to significantly modify the setting. But I do think it is different with the warhorses.

I understand that you have a preference for traditional productions. I think there is room for a variety of interpretations. Not all will be great. But some will, and I think that's worth it.

And as for _Fanciulla_, I was just following up nina foresti's light-hearted remark -- that work is on the cusp I think. Though the Kaufmann/Stemme production set in the present day in what seemed like an oil production town didn't seem to suffer for it. (At least until the final scene.)

And if you want to see a bar full of all-male 19th c. miners in a sing-along, but object to a gay bar, well,... that may be a distinction without a difference.

:lol:


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Balthazar said:


>


I think it's great that the only two guys without moustaches found each other.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I find it interesting that those who favor conspicuous reinterpretations of operas almost always say that they're bored with traditional productions. Many people - probably a considerable majority - are not bored by operas as originally conceived. They want to see those operas because they like or are interested in them for what they are. They do not attend the opera night after night, they don't need to have their expectations subverted, and they expect that attractive sets and costumes, beautiful and deeply felt musical performances, and interesting action onstage will bring them a meaningful experience - indeed a new experience - more than sufficient to prevent them from being bored.

Perhaps a lot of people nowadays have grown up watching the hypnotic flicker of images on TV and music videos and are in need of the stimulus of constant surprise to keep their minds from wandering and to make them feel alive. If they aren't continually experiencing something new and different, they feel deprived and restless. It's a common modern disorder, I think, and there may be no cure for it. But should their boredom impose a regietheater opera world on the rest of us?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Even war horses are not staged that often. They might be staged every 10 year at an opera house with 3-4 productions every year it is not that often.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> I find it interesting that those who favor conspicuous reinterpretations of operas almost always say that they're bored with traditional productions. Many people - probably a considerable majority - are not bored by operas as originally conceived. They want to see those operas because they like or are interested in them for what they are. They do not attend the opera night after night, they don't need to have their expectations subverted, and they expect that attractive sets and costumes, beautiful and deeply felt musical performances, and interesting action onstage will bring them a meaningful experience - indeed a new experience - more than sufficient to prevent them from being bored.
> 
> Perhaps a lot of people nowadays have grown up watching the hypnotic flicker of images on TV and music videos and are in need of the stimulus of constant surprise to keep their minds from wandering and to make them feel alive. If they aren't continually experiencing something new and different, they feel deprived and restless. It's a common modern disorder, I think, and there may be no cure for it. But should their boredom impose a regietheater opera world on the rest of us?


Well said. Last Saturday I saw the delightful and traditional _Tosca_ (and no, Angela didn't cancel!) and loved it.

My attempt at a curtain call video


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Review of Tosca

_" ... Everything combines to allow the well-known tale to unfold *unhindered by directorial whim* ... "_

:clap:

Amen to that


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

sospiro said:


> Review of Tosca
> 
> _" ... Everything combines to allow the well-known tale to unfold *unhindered by directorial whim* ... "_
> 
> ...


Well of course Covent Garden's previous production of *Tosca* was the famous Zeffirelli production which opened with Callas and Gobbi and lasted them a good 40 years. They'd have been mad to replace it with anything other than another traditional staging, and this one looks as if it might just have the same longevity.

That is also something opera companies need to look at, especially when staging operas in the staple repertoire. If the production only lasts one season, then it's not going to be cost effective.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I find it interesting that those who favor conspicuous reinterpretations of operas almost always say that they're bored with traditional productions. *Many people - probably a considerable majority - are not bored by operas as originally conceived. They want to see those operas because they like or are interested in them for what they are.* They do not attend the opera night after night, they don't need to have their expectations subverted, and they expect that attractive sets and costumes, beautiful and deeply felt musical performances, and interesting action onstage will bring them a meaningful experience - indeed a new experience - more than sufficient to prevent them from being bored.
> 
> *Perhaps a lot of people nowadays have grown up watching the hypnotic flicker of images on TV and music videos and are in need of the stimulus of constant surprise to keep their minds from wandering and to make them feel alive.* If they aren't continually experiencing something new and different, they feel deprived and restless. It's a common modern disorder, I think, and there may be no cure for it. But should their boredom impose a regietheater opera world on the rest of us?


I agree with one point but not the other. Opera that is true to the spirit of the conception (if not the letter) of the composer is welcome if it is bright and refreshing and well acted and sung. The recent Falstaff at the Met was true to the composer albeit updated. A refreshing experience that shed new light on a masterpiece. Note that the director did not force his vision on the piece but showed us Verdi's vision through a new lens. That is very different from putting ones own banal interpretation on a piece. Operas were written by men who generally had a genius - most directors don't.
The second point - I don't think most opera audiences come under the category Woodduck describes, at least not in my experience/ They just want to enjoy opera well performed.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

DavidA said:


> ... The recent Falstaff at the Met was true to the composer albeit updated. A refreshing experience that shed new light on a masterpiece. Note that the director did not force his vision on the piece but showed us Verdi's vision through a new lens. That is very different from putting ones own banal interpretation on a piece. Operas were written by men who generally had a genius - most directors don't...


If you're referring to the Robert Carsen _Falstaff_, it had its première at ROH










and I went to the dress rehearsal, three performances in the house and one free Big Screening!

When it returned last year, I saw the dress rehearsal again and three performances so you could say I like it!

It's on DVD now with Maestri but sadly not with the rest of the London cast.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> I can't think of an instance where changing an opera's libretto would accomplish anything necessary.


I can think of one example:

ALBERICH: Was ist's, ihr Glatten, dass dort so gläntzt und gleisst?
RHINEMAIDENS: Gar nichts!
ALBERICH: O... tschüss denn!

That tiny change would've given me years of my life back.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

sospiro said:


> If you're referring to the Robert Carsen _Falstaff_, it had its première at ROH
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is still very well done although people reckon the ROH cast was even better.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I find it interesting that those who favor conspicuous reinterpretations of operas almost always say that they're bored with traditional productions. Many people - probably a considerable majority - are not bored by operas as originally conceived. They want to see those operas because they like or are interested in them for what they are. They do not attend the opera night after night, they don't need to have their expectations subverted, and they expect that attractive sets and costumes, beautiful and deeply felt musical performances, and interesting action onstage will bring them a meaningful experience - indeed a new experience - more than sufficient to prevent them from being bored.


I'm neither of those types of people! 

I just like good productions and watch a new production with an open mind. I have seen good traditional productions and good regie productions (and good productions that fall somewhere in between the two). I am not bored by productions with no surprises, but ones that lack drama and where the interactions between the performers are unconvincing and that can happen in both traditional and regie productions.

I think the attitude that only productions that change the setting and the story of a work or exchange the story with a concept is just as closed minded as that which asserts that all regie productions are bad.

I don't think a work of art has just one meaning and I think that cuts (if any) need to be intelligently chosen by the Conductor and the Director, but in the main I think the words and music of an opera shouldn't be changed (unless in translation and/or there are different versions of the music and/or incomplete works finished by other hands). However, I am open minded to the 'story' being changed, by the director changing the time period, the setting or even the accepted, traditional stage directions. This may not be _necessary_, but is it necessary to have pyramids in the background to sympathise with Aida's fate?

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I can think of one example:
> 
> ALBERICH: Was ist's, ihr Glatten, dass dort so gläntzt und gleisst?
> RHINEMAIDENS: Gar nichts!
> ...


:lol:

N.

15 Characters? _Whatever!_


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

The Conte said:


> This may not be _necessary_, but is it necessary to have pyramids in the background to sympathise with Aida's fate?
> 
> N.


Do you want Aida to have the same faith as The Magic Flute were people don´t even know were the opera is set?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Sloe said:


> Do you want Aida to have the same faith as The Magic Flute were people don´t even know were the opera is set?


I don't understand? What faith, what? Is this a regie production where Aida belongs to a pyramid worshiping cult?

N.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I don't understand? What faith, what? Is this a regie production where Aida belongs to a pyramid worshiping cult?
> 
> N.


That there will be so many productions were all visible references to ancient Egypt are removed that many people will eventually not know that it is set in ancient Egypt.
This is what have happened to the other famous opera set in ancient Egypt.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Sloe said:


> That there will be so many productions were all visible references to ancient Egypt are removed that many people will eventually not know that it is set in ancient Egypt.
> This is what have happened to the other famous opera set in ancient Egypt.


I'm not saying I'm against productions of Aida with pyramids in the background (although IIRC pyramids are historically inaccurate for the time of the original setting), I just don't think they are necessary.

However, your Magic Flute example proves my point, original settings aren't necessary (although I recognise that that works better with some pieces than others).

N.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Watched this last night, has absolutely nothing to do with the real score, 
It's working because my focus was on the singers, but that's it.
Horrendous staging 










*Verdi; Il Trovatore*
_Kaufmann/ Harteros/ _Markov
Munich 2013


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Muti, on "regie" stage directors: "I have no longer the time to discuss with idiots that insult our culture".

http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/cul...sti_572eaf1a-bd52-4399-b5df-a4be05acfb66.html


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

schigolch said:


> Muti, on "regie" stage directors: "I have no longer the time to discuss with idiots that insult our culture".
> 
> http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/cul...sti_572eaf1a-bd52-4399-b5df-a4be05acfb66.html


:clap:

Well said Muti. That's Muti and Chailly now who are fighting against extreme 'regie' The worm is turning.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

schigolch said:


> Muti, on "regie" stage directors: "I have no longer the time to discuss with idiots that insult our culture".
> 
> http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/cul...sti_572eaf1a-bd52-4399-b5df-a4be05acfb66.html


Thank goodness! Some of these idiots might just find themselves unemployed!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Pugg said:


> Watched this last night, has absolutely nothing to do with the real score,
> It's working because my focus was on the singers, but that's it.
> Horrendous staging
> 
> ...


The mind boggles how someone could come up with something so idiotic.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

DavidA said:


> The mind boggles how someone could come up with something so idiotic.


Not really. It's called, "look at me!!!"


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I don't mind if the director and designer have a concept as long as they don't reduce it to ridiculous arbitrary gimmicks, which too many productions, particularly in Europe, have done .
The Met's Las Vegas Rigoletto did not seem objectionable to me because it did no damage to the opera and the Vegas setting was congruous with the seedy, dissolute world of the court in Mantua .
But the Munich production , which I have not seen , which was set as Planet of the Apes ! sounds absolutely ludicrous to me . Ditto the Bayreuth Lohengrin with members of the chorus dressed as rats !
Or the current Bayreuth Tannhauser , set in a futuristic waste recycling plant . Yikes ! How ridiculous can you get ?


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Pugg said:


> Watched this last night, has absolutely nothing to do with the real score
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks like E.T. crashed into Norman Bates' house.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Pugg said:


> Watched this last night, has absolutely nothing to do with the real score,
> It's working because my focus was on the singers, but that's it.
> Horrendous staging
> 
> ...


Can we really judge an opera production from one photo?

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

schigolch said:


> Muti, on "regie" stage directors: "I have no longer the time to discuss with idiots that insult our culture".
> 
> http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/cul...sti_572eaf1a-bd52-4399-b5df-a4be05acfb66.html


Oh, the irony! 

N.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

superhorn said:


> I don't mind if the director and designer have a concept as long as they don't reduce it to ridiculous arbitrary gimmicks, which too many productions, particularly in Europe, have done .
> The Met's Las Vegas Rigoletto did not seem objectionable to me because it did no damage to the opera and the Vegas setting was congruous with the seedy, dissolute world of the court in Mantua .
> But the Munich production , which I have not seen , which was set as Planet of the Apes ! sounds absolutely ludicrous to me . Ditto the Bayreuth Lohengrin with members of the chorus dressed as rats !
> Or the current Bayreuth Tannhauser , set in a futuristic waste recycling plant . Yikes ! How ridiculous can you get ?


Rigoletto set at Planet of the Apes is at least original unlike Las Vegas.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Can we really judge an opera production from one photo?
> 
> N.


Come one Conte, you seems to be a wise person.
So for you :tiphat:
https://www.google.nl/search?q=Trov...ved=0ahUKEwi2stTnzajKAhUDeQ8KHZERAaMQ_AUIBigB


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Oh dear, even Lakmé seems to transformed to some "modern" setting.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Pugg said:


> Come one Conte, you seems to be a wise person.
> So for you :tiphat:
> https://www.google.nl/search?q=Trov...ved=0ahUKEwi2stTnzajKAhUDeQ8KHZERAaMQ_AUIBigB


Too bad so many opera productions have to look so dark and gloomy.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

It seems to follow naturally, being for operas on such dark subjects.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Much of this thread strikes me as presenting a too-easy, intellectually lazy approach. Regie is bad, let's look at a photo or video clip, snicker and scoff, and feel all the more confirmed in our dismissive judgments.

I'm far from enjoying or understanding every Regie production I've seen. But I've seen enough that intrigue, excite, or move me not to dismiss the trend out of hand. And while I appreciate when directors demonstrate a real understanding of the drama and the music, I'm not averse to them turning that awareness to a critical approach that reexamines the opera from a more distanced perspective, perhaps viewing the work in terms of its specific historical moment and cultural contradictions in ways that raise questions about the values it promotes. I'm not saying every production should do this--in fact, I don't think so at all. But I do think there's a place for such reassessments of individual operas and the art form as a whole.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

amfortas said:


> Much of this thread strikes me as presenting a too-easy, intellectually lazy approach. Regie is bad, let's look at a photo or video clip, snicker and scoff, and feel all the more confirmed in our dismissive judgments.
> 
> I'm far from enjoying or understanding every Regie production I've seen. But I've seen enough that intrigue, excite, or move me not to dismiss the trend out of hand. And while I appreciate when directors demonstrate a real understanding of the drama and the music, I'm not averse to them turning that awareness to a critical approach that reexamines the opera from a more distanced perspective, perhaps situating the work within its specific historical moment and cultural contradictions in ways that raise questions about the values the work promotes. I'm not saying every production should do this--in fact, I don't think so at all. But I do think there's a place for such reassessments of individual operas and the art form as a whole.


Is it so bad that some of us some day want to see an opera production were setting and costumes are consistent to the time and place it is set?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Sloe said:


> Is it so bad that some of us some day want to see an opera production were setting and costumes are consistent to the time and place it is set?


Not at all, which is why I made it clear I don't want to see only Regie interpretations. But by the same token, is it so bad that some of us sometimes want to see an opera production where setting and costumes convey something more than simply the time and place it is set?

It's a question of balance, and I acknowledge it also becomes a political and economic question of which staging practice becomes predominant. But that's an issue I really can't resolve.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

amfortas said:


> Not at all, which is why I made it clear I don't want to see only Regie interpretations. But by the same token, is it so bad that some of us sometimes want to see an opera production where setting and costumes convey something more than simply the time and place it is set?


Amfortas, you're misrepresenting the argument being made. If your interpretation of _regie_ is any production where the date setting is different to the original, then that's not the definition of _regie_ being discussed here. Most opera-goers are content enough with the centuries being shifted, in fact it's commonplace and always has been.

What we're discussing here is _Regie_ as in _director's opera_, signifying a director's attempt to change or remove meaning from the original opera by means of extraneous, incongruous and sometimes controversial visual devices. Sometimes this results in a disconnect between the story/libretto and what is being shown on stage. That's the problem!

Perhaps amfortas or somebody could post an example of a good _regie_, although I admit that might by a problem as the term is usually applied in a derogatory sense to bad, baffling or offensive productions.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Don Fatale said:


> What we're discussing here is _Regie_ as in _director's opera_, signifying a director's attempt to change or remove meaning from the original opera by means of extraneous, incongruous and sometimes controversial visual devices. Sometimes this results in a disconnect between the story/libretto and what is being shown on stage. That's the problem!


It seems to me that's exactly what I was talking about. The difference is, some people here seem to take such a disconnect as a _prima facie_ instance of unpardonable sin, where I see it as at least potentially opening a space for interpretive insight.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

amfortas said:


> It seems to me that's exactly what I was talking about. The difference is, some people here seem to take such a disconnect as a _prima facie_ instance of unpardonable sin, where I see it as at least potentially opening a space for interpretive insight.


An example would help with my understanding of your point.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Don Fatale said:


> An example would help with my understanding of your point.


That's an excellent suggestion; in fact, I've been surprised a thread ostensibly devoted to the merits (or otherwise) of Regie hasn't gone into anything more than the most cursory discussion of an actual production.

But since I've got a bad head cold and need to get up early, I'm turning in. So I'll take the lazy way out and post something I wrote elsewhere, on Harry Kupfer's Bayreuth staging of _Der Fliegende Holländer_.










* * *

Kupfer's production is famous (or notorious) as all taking place in Senta's mind. This isn't strictly true, though: The action isn't *all* in her mind, but rather revolves around the conflict between her fantasy and the reality of an oppressive society.

I take it that the entire opening act between Daland, his crew, and the Dutchman is the repressed Senta's fantasy--her dream that her imaginary lover will materialize and win her father's approval. Hence her presence hovering over the action and responding to it gleefully.

The trouble with fantasies, though, is that they run up against reality. Here's where I think Kupfer's concept is most brilliant.

In Act II, Senta is excited at the prospect of her father bringing her dream lover to her. But when Daland appears with a mysterious, silhouetted stranger, she backs away, distressed and fearful, continually checking the portrait against this unexpected figure. The audience may feel a similar uncertainty at this point--is this Simon Estes (The Dutchman), and if so, why are his features so obscured? After announcing that he has brought her daughter a suitor for her hand in marriage, Daland leaves the two of them alone.

The point here is that Senta's father really does come home with a prospective husband for her. But this wooer is not Senta's fantasy Dutchman, but rather some ordinary, real man Daland has chosen. His features are obscured because Senta, lost in her romantic delusion, is unable--or refuses--to see him.

Confronted with this unwelcome stranger, Senta reverts to her fantasy. A more flowery version of the magical ship appears upstage, revealing the Dutchman (Estes, of course, so that we now realize the shadowy figure is just a stand-in). Throughout the ensuing scene, Senta interacts with this romanticized illusion rather than with the actual man brought by her father. Estes/Dutchman sings words in keeping with this fantasy, announcing that he has sought such a young woman for restless ages and yearned for redemption. Senta, quite appropriately for this production, responds by asking, "Am I deep in a wonderful dream? What I see, is it mere fancy?" She too expresses her wish to bring salvation to this tormented soul.

But then the shadowy figure steps forward, and for the one and only time in the scene mimes speaking for himself. As he does so, Estes sings, "Do you agree with your father's choice? What he promised, say, can I count on it?" This is the one down-to-earth, businesslike moment in the scene; Kupfer gives these lines to the shadowy figure to make it clear that in reality, Senta is talking to an ordinary man pursuing a mundane marriage contract.

Put off by this intrusion of reality, Senta immediately reverts to her fantasy: the silhouetted figure steps aside, and the fantasy Dutchman sings "Could you give yourself to me for ever and offer your hand to a stranger? Shall I, after a life of anguish, find in your loyalty my long-sought rest?" We are back in the romantic dream world of the accursed, tormented soul in need of redemption. It is this figure whom Senta finds irresistible, and he whom she agrees to wed. It is only by maintaining this split between fantasy and reality that Senta can keep any sort of psychic equilibrium. I find this notion quite powerful, since of course there's an element of this dichotomy in all romantic love.

This idea of a fantasy Dutchman is executed brilliantly throughout the production, without having to alter any of the text. Another notable instance is the final scene of Act III, where Erik and the Dutchman both castigate Senta. If you watch carefully, you'll see that in Kupfer's production, Erik and the entire assembled crowd don't see the Dutchman-only Senta does. And again, it works perfectly with the text.

In the end, of course, Senta chooses her fantasy over both her father's candidate and the hapless Erik. But the only way to keep hold of such a delusion is to break with reality completely--through either insanity or death. Senta chooses the latter, though perhaps she has flirted with the former all along.

I also think the casting (even apart from vocal considerations) serves the production beautifully. Lisbeth Balslev, in both looks and behavior, is perfect as a repressed old-maid schoolmarm of a Senta.

And yes, some may object that Simon Estes doesn't look like any kind of "pallid" Dutchman. But presented as a fantasy figure--a towering, handsome, virile black man (appearing in chains on a slave ship), he only makes Senta's feverish longings seem all the more exotic and transgressive.

* * *

If I had time and energy I could add to what I wrote earlier, but I hope this at least provides food for thought. 

Good night, all!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> That's an excellent suggestion; in fact, I've been surprised a thread ostensibly devoted to the merits (or otherwise) of Regie hasn't gone into anything more than the most cursory discussion of an actual production.
> 
> But since I've got a bad head cold and need to get up early, I'm turning in. So I'll take the lazy way out and post something I wrote elsewhere, on Harry Kupfer's Bayreuth staging of _Der Fliegende Holländer_.
> 
> ...


A persuasive presentation, amfortas. I haven't seen the entire Kupfer production, but from seeing excerpts I feel it may be a plausible view of the work. Does it actually afford the "fresh insights" that people claim they get from regietheater? Well, we already know that Senta is given to an overactive fantasy life. I suppose that the idea that she is driven to this by a too-conventional society receives a stronger emphasis by Kupfer, although I've always felt that Wagner's portrayal of Daland and the village ladies at their spinning makes this quite clear in both words and music, and that an insightful director and actors can make it unmistakable. The exceptional individual against a conventional society is after all a theme in much of Wagner's work, from _Dutchman_ to _Parsifal._

I suppose the question for me is whether anything is really gained by taking the Dutchman out of literal reality and making him a fantasy chained to his ship. Does this make Senta too much the central concern of the work, and diminish our sympathy with the Dutchman himself, who is now only a figment of her imagination? Wagner clearly intends for us to empathize with him, and works hard to ensure that we do from his first powerful appearance. I'll have to withhold judgment on that until I see how the production works as a whole.

I'd have to say at least that this conception makes more sense than another one I read about which makes the whole story into a dream of the steersman. I mean, who cares about the steersman?


----------



## Operafocus (Jul 17, 2011)

superhorn said:


> But the Munich production, which I have not seen, which was set as Planet of the Apes! sounds absolutely ludicrous to me.


Well, what about the one where Rigoletto has an incestuous relationship with his daughter and the Duke is basically saving her rather than violating her? How would that even work...?

OR the one where the Duke is the leader of the KKK.

As if Rigoletto wasn't tragic enough...?


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Don Fatale said:


> Amfortas, you're misrepresenting the argument being made. If your interpretation of _regie_ is any production where the date setting is different to the original, then that's not the definition of _regie_ being discussed here. Most opera-goers are content enough with the centuries being shifted, in fact it's commonplace and always has been.


There are, however, people making the argument that operas should be produced just as they were written. I would agree, though, with your statement that "most opera-goers are content enough with the centuries being shifted."



Don Fatale said:


> What we're discussing here is _Regie_ as in _director's opera_, signifying a director's attempt to change or remove meaning from the original opera by means of extraneous, incongruous and sometimes controversial visual devices. Sometimes this results in a disconnect between the story/libretto and what is being shown on stage. That's the problem!
> 
> Perhaps amfortas or somebody could post an example of a good _regie_, although I admit that might by a problem as the term is usually applied in a derogatory sense to bad, baffling or offensive productions.


This is one of the things that bother me; it too often isn't about alterations in meanings - though I would deny that anything as rich as an opera is going to have a single, simple meaning - or even how the staging, costumes, etc. fit the music and libretto, but what one thinks of the production. It's about tastes, not art.

And those tastes are generally that the staging should be bright, pretty, and chaste, no matter what happens on stage. I think one of my big problems with Puccini has been the tendency for lush, beautiful stagings which don't match the horrific scenarios. Similarly, a controversial, risque _Carmen_ feels very appropriate for the story, especially considering how the opera was first received.

Why does Brünnhilde look like a tomato. I don't want to see a toilet in an opera. The stage looks too gloomy. These are criticisms of regie/modern productions/whatever that I don't understand, and feel more prominent than concerns about the going against the letter of the libretto (I would say spirit, but, again, the analysis is rarely that deep). Though, of course, it does not matter that I do not understand these concerns. People can have any and every reason for disliking - or liking! - and opera. But those concerns are not universal.

I honestly don't care if many people here do not like Regie productions; I just wish they weren't so often rude about it. The directors are not idiots, and they do not hate opera, or opera audiences.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> There are, however, people making the argument that operas should be produced just as they were written. I would agree, though, with your statement that "most opera-goers are content enough with the centuries being shifted."
> 
> This is one of the things that bother me; it *too often isn't about alterations in meanings - though I would deny that anything as rich as an opera is going to have a single, simple meaning* - or even how the staging, costumes, etc. fit the music and libretto, but what one thinks of the production. *It's about tastes, not art.
> *
> ...


*

There are so many assumptions here!

There seems no reason to worry about the minority of opera lovers who are so ultraconservative that they will tolerate no deviation from an opera's original setting. You admit that most are not as conservative as that.

Do you think that most people who speak disapprovingly of regie productions are expressing mere taste? I don't. Usually they cite something about a production that strikes them as absurd or inappropriate. That's certainly a question of meaning. I don't know who has said that an opera can have only one meaning, but it often happens that some meaning it's intended to convey has has been obscured, compromised, or flouted by a regie director. Is it unreasonable for people to object to this?

Do you honestly believe that people want the setting of act two of Fidelio, or the Wolf's Glen of Freischutz, or Tristan und Isolde, or Il Tabarro, or Bluebeard's castle, or Wozzeck to be "pretty, bright, and chaste"? My guess is that most people want the setting to reinforce the mood of the drama. But that doesn't have to mean continuously thrusting upon us what some director seizes upon as the opera's dominant mood. The aristocratic plushness of Scarpia's private quarters and his perfect manners may set off the horror of his sexual perversity more eloquently than some dank, black room littered with old liquor bottles. We'll be in dank blackness with Cavaradossi soon enough.

You don't understand why Brunnhilde should not look like a tomato? How would such a thing respect either the letter or the spirit of the Ring?

Your faith in the noble intentions of the people who think that their conceptions are more important than the works they impose those conceptions on is greater than mine. But your respect for the intelligence of those who criticize the parasitism and vandalism of such people is much less than mine. I think this post paints a caricatured portrait of those who dislike regietheater's abuses, and it's a portrait in which I don't recognize myself.*


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mountmccabe said:


> There are, however, *people making the argument that operas should be produced just as they were written.* I would agree, though, with your statement that "most opera-goers are content enough with the centuries being shifted."
> 
> This is one of the things that bother me; it too often isn't about alterations in meanings - though I would deny that anything as rich as an opera is going to have a single, simple meaning - or *even how the staging, costumes, etc. fit the music and libretto,* but what one thinks of the production. It's about tastes, not art.
> 
> ...


I think most people would make the argument that they like opera produced at the composer intended but with an imaginative director directing the action and the whole modern stage apparatus at his disposal. This is very different from going away from what the composer and Librettist wrote.

I don't think anyone has said that the stage should always be bright pretty and chased. What we are saying is that it should be appropriate for what is written.

Because Carmen was badly received at its first incarnation there is no need to put on productions which will make people continue to hate it.

If you can't understandwhy people do not want to see Brunnhilde looking like a tomato or seeing as toilet on and I'll press stage or seeing it too dark that you can hardly see the action then there is no point in arguing. most sensible people do not like their intellect insulted by a stage director doing pointless things that are irrelevant to the opera.

I would've said that the director is there as a servant of the composer and also of the audience. People are paid good money to see an opera and to have an enjoyable experience. I directorWho deliberately sets out to offend his audience is perverse or an idiot. One review of the latest horror at Bayreuth was of the director looking very smug as everyone booed him at the end for his silly perversion of what Wagner wrote. These people seem to have the mind of a naughty child who wants to upset people to get attention to him self. How anyone can approve of this nonsense is beyond me


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Perhaps amfortas or somebody could post an example of a good _regie_, although I admit that might by a problem as the term is usually applied in a derogatory sense to bad, baffling or offensive productions.


The good regie productions I have seen either weren't filmed or the recordings aren't available to be linked. In any case, posting examples doesn't prove any points as it is just one example, I could post a bad traditional production, but that wouldn't prove that all traditional productions are bad (not that I am saying that all traditional productions are bad).

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> There are, however, people making the argument that operas should be produced just as they were written. I would agree, though, with your statement that "most opera-goers are content enough with the centuries being shifted."
> 
> This is one of the things that bother me; it too often isn't about alterations in meanings - though I would deny that anything as rich as an opera is going to have a single, simple meaning - or even how the staging, costumes, etc. fit the music and libretto, but what one thinks of the production. It's about tastes, not art.
> 
> ...


Bravo! Not liking something is one thing, but accusing the directors of not knowing or liking the work with no basis is rather intellectually lazy in my opinion.

N.

N.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> A persuasive presentation, amfortas. I haven't seen the entire Kupfer production, but from seeing excerpts I feel it may be a plausible view of the work. Does it actually afford the "fresh insights" that people claim they get from regietheater? Well, we already know that Senta is given to an overactive fantasy life. I suppose that the idea that she is driven to this by a too-conventional society receives a stronger emphasis by Kupfer, although I've always felt that Wagner's portrayal of Daland and the village ladies at their spinning makes this quite clear in both words and music, and that an insightful director and actors can make it unmistakable. The exceptional individual against a conventional society is after all a theme in much of Wagner's work, from _Dutchman_ to _Parsifal._


That's an astute question. I would say, first of all, there's a real benefit in being able to relate Kupfer's concept to themes already apparent in the opera itself--it would a lot more problematic if he went on a tangent with no discernible basis.

As for whether such an approach provides any new insight, I would say the simple twist of presenting Senta's fantasy *as* fantasy, having her dream lover no more than a figment of her overactive imagination, gives us a stark, uncompromising view of the dynamic underlying Wagner's work. So at the end, we aren't left with the stirring apotheosis of the two lovers joined in a mystical union, but rather the bleak spectacle of Senta's broken body lying in the street after she plunges through a window to her death, the final chord punctuated by the slamming of shutters in buildings all around her as society turns its back. I can only say this harsh deconstruction of the opera's underlying fantasy has colored my view of the work ever since, in ways that, for me at least, make it seem richer in interpretive possibilities.



Woodduck said:


> I suppose the question for me is whether anything is really gained by taking the Dutchman out of literal reality and making him a fantasy chained to his ship. Does this make Senta too much the central concern of the work, and diminish our sympathy with the Dutchman himself, who is now only a figment of her imagination? Wagner clearly intends for us to empathize with him, and works hard to ensure that we do from his first powerful appearance.


Another very good question. I'd say I do still empathize with the Dutchman's plight. After all, he's already a fictional character, so I'm not sure putting him at one further remove from reality affects his ontological status, or my engagement with his story, that significantly. Perhaps, though, the Dutchman's dilemma takes on a somewhat different inflection, his endless search for redemption becoming, even more than in the original work, a displaced reflection of Senta's own yearnings. For me, that only adds a layer of emotional resonance.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> There seems no reason to worry about the minority of opera lovers who are so ultraconservative that they will tolerate no deviation from an opera's original setting. You admit that most are not as conservative as that.


I think my main point is that, yes, we should worry about the minority of opera lovers who prefer operas to be performed set in the era they were written in. That desire has been expressed in this thread; it had been expressed several times in the preceding comments.

And by "worry about" I mostly mean acknowledge that differing opinions - in all different directions - are held by many of our fellow opera lovers, who are present.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> I think my main point is that, yes, we should worry about the minority of opera lovers who prefer operas to be performed set in the era they were written in. That desire has been expressed in this thread; it had been expressed several times in the preceding comments.
> 
> And by "worry about" I mostly mean acknowledge that differing opinions - in all different directions - are held by many of our fellow opera lovers, who are present.


A "minority" of opera lovers? Really? That's news to me. I could have sworn it was just the opposite -- that the majority of opera lovers disdain Eurotrash and Regie offerings and much prefer their operas come scritto.
Hmmmm. Learn something new every day.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> I think my main point is that, yes, we should worry about the minority of opera lovers who prefer operas to be performed set in the era they were written in. That desire has been expressed in this thread; it had been expressed several times in the preceding comments.
> 
> And by "worry about" I mostly mean acknowledge that differing opinions - in all different directions - are held by many of our fellow opera lovers, who are present.


I think we may be misunderstanding each other a little. I spoke of a "minority of opera lovers who are so ultraconservative that they will tolerate no deviation from an opera's original setting." This doesn't seem to be the same thing as your "minority of opera lovers who prefer operas to be performed set in the era they were written in" (by which I assume you mean not the composer's own era but the era of the opera's original setting). I suspect that those who prefer the latter are not a minority at all, although I have no proof of that. Theirs might be called the _basic conservative_ viewpoint, whereas the _ultraconservative_ folks I meant (and originally thought you meant) were ones who wanted productions to be essentially identical to the original production in setting and action and would tolerate only cosmetic differences from it. People who merely prefer keeping an opera in its designated period could favor quite a large measure of freedom in its visual presentation and stage action, and might even accept moving it somewhat forward or backward in time so long as this doesn't result in dramatic, textual, or musical incongruities.

My point in bringing this up is simply to emphasize that, just as not all regie productions are equally outrageous, not all so-called conservative viewpoints are equal in their position on the freedom to rethink the way an opera is dramatized. And I do believe that most criticism of regie productions is based, not on dogmatic belief in a narrowly defined authenticity, and certainly not on a mere taste for "prettiness," but on a dislike for seeing operas made into something they are not by a director's personal conceits coming between the work and the audience. It's only natural that people won't always agree on when this has occurred, but too it's obvious that its occurrence is often quite consciously intended. Hence the anger people feel and express.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> A "minority" of opera lovers? Really? That's news to me. I could have sworn it was just the opposite -- that the majority of opera lovers disdain Eurotrash and Regie offerings and much prefer their operas come scritto.
> Hmmmm. Learn something new every day.


I doubt that we will ever be able to settle this one.

The time since all Opera's were 'traditional' inc. painted sets is long gone and yet most Opera houses are 'full' every night. If the traditional productions were always sell outs and the 'modern' ones weren't, there would be a trail of evidence that even governing bodies could see.
Suffice to say voters are speaking with their wallets and arguments that 'I'd go more if only they'd hire Zeferelli' can be discounted.

Does anyone know what part of an Opera companies income comes from DVD sales? I would think it financial suicide to launch a DVD of a traditional production when e.g. The Met or Glyndebourne already has one out there. But a new outre visual take might make far more sense fiscally.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Belowpar said:


> I doubt that we will ever be able to settle this one.
> 
> The time since all Opera's were 'traditional' inc. painted sets is long gone and yet most Opera houses are 'full' every night. If the traditional productions were always sell outs and the 'modern' ones weren't, there would be a trail of evidence that even governing bodies could see.
> Suffice to say voters are speaking with their wallets and arguments that 'I'd go more if only they'd hire Zeferelli' can be discounted.
> ...


When even the most popular operas might be staged in at least a five years the next time or more often 10 years and every opera that is not a warhorse is a once in a lifetime opportunity people go to see the operas because they have a chance. To wait until the next production will come whenever that will be is too much of a risk. Yes it is possible to travel around the World but not everyone have that opportunity.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Belowpar said:


> Does anyone know what part of an Opera companies income comes from DVD sales? I would think it financial suicide to launch a DVD of a traditional production when e.g. The Met or Glyndebourne already has one out there. But a new outre visual take might make far more sense fiscally.


I don't know how much opera companies make from sales, I don't think singers get royalties for sales like authors do though.

However there has been one occasion that I know of where an opera company has produced a new DVD of the same production but with a totally different cast. And a traditional production too.

This Phyllida Lloyd's _Macbeth_ was originally staged at ROH, this DVD is of a performance at Liceu.










DVD of same production of performance at ROH


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

sospiro said:


> I don't know how much opera companies make from sales, I don't think singers get royalties for sales like authors do though.
> 
> However there has been one occasion that I know of where an opera company has produced a new DVD of the same production but with a totally different cast. And a traditional production too.
> 
> ...


Didn't do the Met the same production of Anna Bolena (Netrobko ) also somewhere in Europe?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Pugg said:


> Didn't do the Met the same production of Anna Bolena (Netrobko ) also somewhere in Europe?


I don't know but if there's a "star" to hang a DVD on then it would make financial sense for a company to produce another DVD. There are always fans who will buy a new DVD if it features their favourite singer even though there's a identical version already already on the market. (Owns up to doing exactly this )


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

sospiro said:


> I don't know how much opera companies make from sales, I don't think singers get royalties for sales like authors do though.
> 
> However there has been one occasion that I know of where an opera company has produced a new DVD of the same production but with a totally different cast. And a traditional production too.


Thank you for posting this. I was wondering how often this happened recently in another thread. We came across two different performances - different houses, different casts - of the same production by Pier Luigi Pizzi of _Maria Stuarda_.

I could not think of any other examples.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I think we may be misunderstanding each other a little. I spoke of a "minority of opera lovers who are so ultraconservative that they will tolerate no deviation from an opera's original setting." This doesn't seem to be the same thing as your "minority of opera lovers who prefer operas to be performed set in the era they were written in" (by which I assume you mean not the composer's own era but the era of the opera's original setting). I suspect that those who prefer the latter are not a minority at all, although I have no proof of that. Theirs might be called the _basic conservative_ viewpoint, whereas the _ultraconservative_ folks I meant (and originally thought you meant) were ones who wanted productions to be essentially identical to the original production in setting and action and would tolerate only cosmetic differences from it. People who merely prefer keeping an opera in its designated period could favor quite a large measure of freedom in its visual presentation and stage action, and might even accept moving it somewhat forward or backward in time so long as this doesn't result in dramatic, textual, or musical incongruities.
> 
> My point in bringing this up is simply to emphasize that, just as not all regie productions are equally outrageous, not all so-called conservative viewpoints are equal in their position on the freedom to rethink the way an opera is dramatized. And I do believe that most criticism of regie productions is based, not on dogmatic belief in a narrowly defined authenticity, and certainly not on a mere taste for "prettiness," but on a dislike for seeing operas made into something they are not by a director's personal conceits coming between the work and the audience. It's only natural that people won't always agree on when this has occurred, but too it's obvious that its occurrence is often quite consciously intended. Hence the anger people feel and express.


First off, I will backtrack and say that I have no idea where the majority of opera lovers fall on these issues. I don't have any numbers on this either. And, using your definition of "basic conservative" as I understand it I would also suspect that that subset would be a majority view. For my statement I had drawn the line differently, yielding different results, but even then this was not based on any actual proof, and I should not have been so dismissive.

Similarly, I have no idea of the basis for most criticisms of regie productions. I do know that I prefer informed discussion that engages with the opera and the production, and will do more to seek it out.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> First off, I will backtrack and say that I have no idea where the majority of opera lovers fall on these issues. I don't have any numbers on this either. And, using your definition of "basic conservative" as I understand it I would also suspect that that subset would be a majority view. For my statement I had drawn the line differently, yielding different results, but even then this was not based on any actual proof, and I should not have been so dismissive.
> 
> Similarly, I have no idea of the basis for most criticisms of regie productions. *I do know that I prefer informed discussion that engages with the opera and the production, *and will do more to seek it out.


On that we agree. General principles are fine, but the test is the performance itself.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I'm sure it's happened before but this is the first time I've heard of ..... a regie production *adding* stuff from other composers.

" ... In addition to Il ritorno d'Ulisse itself, there were several other musical numbers interspersed throughout the opera."


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Playing a Cavalli sonata before the opera seems to be about the most gentle addition possible.

They do mention interpolation of two pieces by Monteverdi from the same era, and no additions to the body of the opera by any other composers. Given the profuse number of editions of the score, it does not seem to be that ridiculous of an addition, at least in theory. 

If the music and words fit with the story and the rest of the music, I can see this being very effective.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Wait all till you see the reviews from Belgium new Otello production.
A none singing friend of mine is on stage, he's on the verge off quitting .
The costumes alone make him wanna vomit .


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

A view from the Economist

http://www.economist.com/blogs/pros...nnas_aren_t_onstage_but_behind_the_curtain"]/


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

DavidA said:


> A view from the Economist
> 
> http://www.economist.com/blogs/pros...nnas_aren_t_onstage_but_behind_the_curtain"]/


Hard to disagree with this assessment of this disagreeable trend.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

"valuing theatricality at the expense of musical quality" is a silly dichotomy to present. Though the article is trying to push its biases, so that's what you get. Along with a shallow discussion of the Giovanna d'Arco situation, repeat of misreported information on the Vick/Fanciulla situation, and another superficial gloss on the Michielleto/Tell story and the article almost makes sense!


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Can David McVicar Bring Peace to the Opera Wars?

David McVicar will no longer accept work in Germany, where, he said, "the production style is now so navel-gazing and so extreme, and has been excluding the audience for a quarter of a century."

Good! I hope other directors do the same and this will be the end of extreme regie.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

sospiro said:


> In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with updating but the plot shouldn't be changed. There's anger over Dmitri Chernyakov's 2010 version of _Dialogues des Carmélites_.
> 
> French court bans opera DVD
> 
> ...


A recent new court ruling has reversed this decision, and, as Pugg has pointed out in the Future opera releases on DVD and Blu-ray thread it is being re-released.

The most I can find on this ruling is this article.

From that article:


> The crucial point in the case was the main message. It was Mrs. Adam-Caumeil's own interpretation, that she pleaded in front of the Supreme Court. In her opinion, Dimitri Tcherniakov's version is more universal. "Not the guillotine, but the religious aspects are the central message of Georges Bernanos. The nuns lived the martyrdom. The exchange of the guillotine with gas or the number of martyrs do not change the main message. At the end it does not make a difference how or how many died," she explains. What is more, there is only music, no dialogue, during the final scene. "That is why Tcherniakov could change what happens with the nuns. The music and the text are not changed," she points out.
> 
> Ultimately, the Supreme Court found "Tcherniakov certainly brought his own vision to the original work. (...) The central themes of the work, including that of martyrdom, were respected because the nuns were ready to die, but they were saved at the last minute. Thus, Mr Tcherniakov cannot be blamed for the distortion of the original work." Moreover the Supreme Court declared "staging is a piece of art itself". To add authority he even included a reference to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in his decision.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> A recent new court ruling has reversed this decision, and, as Pugg has pointed out in the Future opera releases on DVD and Blu-ray thread it is being re-released.
> 
> The most I can find on this ruling is this article.
> 
> From that article:


Thanks for sharing mountmccabe, now I understand your post better!


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

All will be solved when opera productions offer two exit aisles. The booth at one is where you can say, "That was stupendous! Here's another $5 for you guys." The other line is where you can say, "That stunk to high heaven. I'll take my money back, plus a $5 insult reparation fee."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I know I will be thinking very carefully about attending any opera production in the opera house. It's not so bad if you see a broadcast and it's rubbish as it has not cost a fortune. But to go to opera, pay $150 a ticket and then a further amount for hotel and travel puts one off if one is not sure the production will be valid


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

I usually don´t like regie but I really like that the Korean National Opera will stage La Traviata set in 18th century Korea:

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20170811000542


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sloe said:


> I usually don´t like regie but I really like that the Korean National Opera will stage La Traviata set in 18th century Korea:
> 
> http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20170811000542


Beautiful costume. It just might work.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Beautiful costume. It just might work.


Who does not have a desire to see Violetta in the shape of Anna Sohn in a hanbok.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Sloe said:


> I usually don´t like regie but I really like that the Korean National Opera will stage La Traviata set in 18th century Korea:
> 
> http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20170811000542


If the setting is as good as the dress, people will be over the moon watching this.


----------

