# The Don



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Saw "Don Giovanni" today in a sold out HD house with Keenlyside, who was superb. Its running seemed so appropriate and timely. At times I felt like adding an "A-L-D" to his first name. The two have much in common.

The Donna Anna of Hibla Gerzmava was superb. Likewise the Donna Elvira of Malin Bystrom. 
Sad that Villazon was not able to perform but in his place for Don Ottavio was a very able Paul Appleby who sang the hell out of "Il mio tesoro".

In fact, the entire cast was on its mettle as well as Luisi in the Pit.
One fine afternoon spent listening to beautiful Mozart sounds.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

I did enjoy it also, Keenlyside seems to grow even bigger, good on him. 
Ten people walked out this time.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Saw "Don Giovanni" today in a sold out HD house with Keenlyside, who was superb. Its running seemed so appropriate and timely. At times I felt like adding an "A-L-D" to his first name. The two have much in common.
> 
> The Donna Anna of Hibla Gerzmava was superb. Likewise the Donna Elvira of Malin Bystrom.
> Sad that Villazon was not able to perform but in his place for Don Ottavio was a very able Paul Appleby who sang the hell out of "Il mio tesoro".
> ...


Malin Bystrom is a marvelous soprano. I heard her on the radio today singing _Jenufa_ in San Francisco. She would seem ideal for that complainer Elvira; "Mi tradi" is quite demanding.

I like your A-L-D idea. But Don Giovanni still trumps all his imitators, and as far as we know never called a woman "Miss Piggy." Not in the opera, anyway.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I saw the broadcast at the cinema. Vocally it was fine but came away with a feeling of disappointment at the production. It was, thankfully one that was true to Mozart / da Ponte (somewhat of a relief these days) but I felt something was missing.
First the sets were unimaginative and drab-looking. Surely the Commendatore's house would look better than this? And most of the action took place on the front of the stage. Surely better use could be made than this? When it did open up then we saw some bright action but most was set in the gloom. As it was the three-story set, with dozens of mostly shuttered doors, is blunt and uninviting.
The problem with the production is not so much that the ideas are bad as that there are few ideas to begin with. Keenlyside was in good form as the Don but one couldn't help but notice he might be getting too old for the part da Ponte specifies as 'a lecherous young nobleman'. Still, vocally he was superb and brought all his experience to the role. The problem was what was going on around him. For a start he was dwarfed by hulking giants: Adam Plachetka as Leporello, Giovanni’s servant; and Matthew Rose as Masetto, the peasant groom. As Keenlyside is of somewhat modest stature you would have thought the casting of at least Leporello would have been thought about a but more. The exchange of costumes between Giovanni and Leporello in the second act, and the resulting mistaken identities, strained suspension of disbelief beyond the breaking point.
The singing of the ladies was generally first rate and Paul Appleby made the hapless role of Don Ottavio a thing of tenurial beauty. Superb! he could out-sing Villain in Mozart these days.
What was missing from Louisa Muller's revival was chemistry between the characters of the sort we saw in the Covent Garden Cosi fan Tutte on Tuesday. There simply wasn't any. The Don is about sex and 'La ci darem di Mano' just hadn't got any of it. Similarly in Zerlina's 'Batti Batti' there was little seduction in the way the characters interacted. This went on. Singing fine, conducting OK, but little chemistry between the characters, so vital in Mozart.
When new, in 2011, Michael Grandage’s staging was evidently intended as a shining example of the Met general manager Peter Gelb’s policy of recruiting well-established theatrical directors, not always much experienced in opera, to mount productions with the company. Instead, this “Giovanni” was critically savaged from the start. it shows an opera and straight theatre are somewhat different.
So the production served as a platform for some excellent singing and some of the greatest music ever written by the most staggering genius ever to have written an opera. I know I've often moaned about producers having too many of their own ideas. Now I'm moaning about a production having too few. Some people are never satisfied are they?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I saw the broadcast at the cinema. Vocally it was fine but came away with a feeling of disappointment at the production. It was, thankfully one that was true to Mozart / da Ponte (somewhat of a relief these days) but I felt something was missing.
> First the sets were unimaginative and drab-looking. Surely the Commendatore's house would look better than this? And most of the action took place on the front of the stage. Surely better use could be made than this? When it did open up then we saw some bright action but most was set in the gloom. As it was the three-story set, with dozens of mostly shuttered doors, is blunt and uninviting.
> The problem with the production is not so much that the ideas are bad as that there are few ideas to begin with. Keenlyside was in good form as the Don but one couldn't help but notice he might be getting too old for the part da Ponte specifies as 'a lecherous young nobleman'. Still, vocally he was superb and brought all his experience to the role. The problem was what was going on around him. For a start he was dwarfed by hulking giants: Adam Plachetka as Leporello, Giovanni's servant; and Matthew Rose as Masetto, the peasant groom. As Keenlyside is of somewhat modest stature you would have thought the casting of at least Leporello would have been thought about a but more. The exchange of costumes between Giovanni and Leporello in the second act, and the resulting mistaken identities, strained suspension of disbelief beyond the breaking point.
> The singing of the ladies was generally first rate and Paul Appleby made the hapless role of Don Ottavio a thing of tenurial beauty. Superb! he could out-sing Villain in Mozart these days.
> ...


If that's how you feel, please so express yourself, I didn't like the staging either, but I do think we are stuck with this kind of productions for a long time to come.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I saw the broadcast at the cinema. Vocally it was fine but came away with a feeling of disappointment at the production. It was, thankfully one that was true to Mozart / da Ponte (somewhat of a relief these days) but I felt something was missing.
> First the sets were unimaginative and drab-looking. Surely the Commendatore's house would look better than this? And most of the action took place on the front of the stage. Surely better use could be made than this? When it did open up then we saw some bright action but most was set in the gloom. As it was the three-story set, with dozens of mostly shuttered doors, is blunt and uninviting.
> The problem with the production is not so much that the ideas are bad as that there are few ideas to begin with. Keenlyside was in good form as the Don but one couldn't help but notice he might be getting too old for the part da Ponte specifies as 'a lecherous young nobleman'. Still, vocally he was superb and brought all his experience to the role. The problem was what was going on around him. For a start he was dwarfed by hulking giants: Adam Plachetka as Leporello, Giovanni's servant; and Matthew Rose as Masetto, the peasant groom. As Keenlyside is of somewhat modest stature you would have thought the casting of at least Leporello would have been thought about a but more. The exchange of costumes between Giovanni and Leporello in the second act, and the resulting mistaken identities, strained suspension of disbelief beyond the breaking point.
> The singing of the ladies was generally first rate and Paul Appleby made the hapless role of Don Ottavio a thing of tenurial beauty. Superb! he could out-sing Villain in Mozart these days.
> ...


One excellently written review. I related to just about everything you had to say, only to add 2 very fine performances by the "Donnas" as well.

Aside: I do wish that it would have been acceptable in "those days" to not have to bring peace and happiness to the end of an opera.
I so long for this opera to have ended with the Don going down below in a sea of flames. Period, Stop!


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I didn't catch the Live in HD yesterday, but having seen the production in the house, I agree that the sets are dull and bland, and that the production is rather inert. Characters seemed to just wander on/off stage when they were required to sing/done singing without any sense or dramatic purpose.



Woodduck said:


> Malin Bystrom is a marvelous soprano. I heard her on the radio today singing _Jenufa_ in San Francisco. She would seem ideal for that complainer Elvira; "Mi tradi" is quite demanding.


It was wonderful to hear her.

For those that saw the Don Giovanni; how was she on stage? In San Francisco she seemed the committed actress unless she was singing, when she tended to go towards the front of the stage and just sing (though this worked fantastically for her prayer).


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Bystrom was superb. Some mentioned her strange facial expressions that were off putting but somehow they just didn't bother me. She is a classy lady who exudes personality. In her interview backstage she mentioned loving the role of Donna Anna even more than that of Donna Elvira.
The two (she and Gerzmava) are switching off in this production so that both get to play both parts. Somehow I think Elvira fits her more.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> I do wish that it would have been acceptable in "those days" to not have to bring peace and happiness to the end of an opera.
> I so long for this opera to have ended with the Don going down below in a sea of flames. Period, Stop!


The 19th century agreed with you, and performed the opera without its little convocation of moralizers telling us "what it all means":

_This is the end which befalls evildoers.
And in this life scoundrels
always receive their just deserts!_

It's rather hard to take that sort of thing seriously, and nothing remarkable is lost when the final scene is omitted.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> The 19th century agreed with you, and performed the opera without its little convocation of moralizers telling us "what it all means":
> 
> _This is the end which befalls evildoers.
> And in this life scoundrels
> ...


I hope we don't take too seriously a statue coming to life either! it is an opera and not to be taken too seriously. I do think Mozart was right to include the final scene as the opera is actually about the other characters and how they are affected by the Don. Nice to know what happens to the. The final scene contains some pretty good music by the great genius so I'm not complaining when I hear it!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I hope we don't take too seriously a statue coming to life either! it is an opera and not to be taken too seriously. The final scene contains some pretty good music by the great genius so I'm not complaining when I hear it!


Well, David, seriously doesn't always mean _seriously_, if you catch my drift. 

It's no longer customary to leave out the final ensemble, so you're safe. My guess, though, is that directors nowadays will play it with a bit of irony. It's one case in which playing things straight would not convince a modern audience. Self-righteous moralizing by people only too obviously seduced by vicious narcissists is apt to come off as Trumpery. (Sorry. Right now we're hypersensitive on this side of the pond.)


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Well, David, seriously doesn't always mean _seriously_, if you catch my drift.
> 
> It's no longer customary to leave out the final ensemble, so you're safe. My guess, though, is that directors nowadays will play it with a bit of irony. It's one case in which playing things straight would not convince a modern audience. *Self-righteous moralizing by people only too obviously seduced by vicious narcissists is apt to come off as Trumpery*. (Sorry. Right now we're hypersensitive on this side of the pond.)


And don't you think that is maybe the point Mozart had in mind. If you read The Man who wrote Mozart - the biography of da Ponte - you'll see Don G was somewhat of a self portrait!

As to your mention of Trumpery I would have thought a country the size of the USA would have been able to produce two better candidates than a woman who's proved herself a serial liar (she is someone not to take seriously) and a man who's a boorish lout!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> And don't you think that is maybe the point Mozart had in mind. If you read The Man who wrote Mozart - the biography of da Ponte - you'll see Don G was somewhat of a self portrait!
> 
> As to your mention of Trumpery I would have thought a country the size of the USA would have been able to produce two better candidates than a woman who's proved herself a serial liar (she is someone not to take seriously) and a man who's a boorish lout!


We would have thought so too. Boorish lout isn't the half of it. The Don had more class than the Donald. Where's that singing statue when we need him? At the polls, we hope.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> We would have thought so too. Boorish lout isn't the half of it. The Don had more class than the Donald. Where's that singing statue when we need him? At the polls, we hope.


My apologies for a country that has become the laughing stock and has caused such embarrassment because it knows not how to choose from a list of wonderful candidates and instead gives us cartoon characters to pick from. 
This just looks like another chapter in the lives of the real housewives. You cannot believe what you are witnessing but you become hooked and wouldn't miss it for the world.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> The 19th century agreed with you, and performed the opera without its little convocation of moralizers telling us "what it all means":
> 
> _This is the end which befalls evildoers.
> And in this life scoundrels
> ...


I can see the attraction in end with the don dragged down to hell - and the moralising in the final scene is in danger of making the work less than it is.

However - bear this is mind - it is 18thC - and this is exactly what people believed. They did believe in divine retribution for sin on earth. The don's death also leaves the many wonderful characters of the opera in limbo - a final number is actually needed to round things off as it were and moreover - the final ensemble is breathtaking - musically a very fitting end to a great opera.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Pugg said:


> I did enjoy it also, Keenlyside seems to grow even bigger, good on him.
> Ten people walked out this time.


I first saw Simon Keenlyside in the early nineties when he sang with Scottish Opera. I saw him singing Harlequin in Ariadne and the title role in Billy Budd. You could hear that he was going to hit the big time even back then. Great voice and a fine actor.


----------

