# Wagner, old and new



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"Some devotees of Richard Wagner have suggested, not wholly in jest, that the best way to enjoy the master's operas is with one's eyes closed. For not only have few stage presentations of his monumentally conceived and famously lengthy music dramas ever approached the cosmic sublimity of their underlying compositions, but nowadays it appears mandatory for them to be produced as bizarrely as possible, and despite the composer's detailed visual instructions to the contrary."

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/02/25/original-wagner-ring/


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

There have been many discussions and comments under various threads about the weird stagings of Wagner's operas which have predominated in recent decades. Just to save myself some labor, I'll quote, as a representation of my essential view of this, what I wrote elsewhere, with a few emendations and additions:

_We don't have to go back to picture postcard painted backdrops to be true to Wagner. After all, he wasn't entirely satisfied with the theatrical art of his own day, and would certainly have welcomed many of the technical and aesthetic innovations that came after his death. But I fear that we're sadly poor in theatrical directors and designers who understand and sympathize with the premises of Wagner's art and who are both interested in letting his work speak for itself and capable of presenting it in a manner both respectful and creative.

Wagner's art is for all time, but we are preoccupied with time and ever anxious to situate ourselves correctly in it. The self-conscious, post-modernist sensibility of our "high culture" is fundamentally embarrassed by an art which is epic, Romantic, and mythical: an art which unselfconsciously believes in itself, an art designed to reach our understanding not through discourse but through our emotions, which Wagner said explicitly that he wanted to do (it's mainly popular culture that retains a remnant of Romantic sensibility, however crudely manifested - which we should expect, since human nature can't be completely denied by any culture, no matter how "sophisticated"). The contemporary director, distrustful and even contemptuous of unmediated feeling, comes at a Wagner opera with "concepts," and stretches the work out on an ideological bed of Procrustes, ever ready to lop off its head or feet if those extremities fail to conform to the bed's proportions.

If we don't believe in Wagner in all his visceral directness and unwieldy complexity, unframed, unfiltered, and undistanced by our fashionable categories of thought, we just aren't going to see him, whole and unmutilated, onstage, and we'll have to settle for self-conscious, self-aggrandizing, incongruous entertainments ranging from the cerebral to the bizarre. Even, sadly and shamefully, in Wagner's own theater._


----------



## interestedin (Jan 10, 2016)

Wagner has never been to the cinema. He didn't own an HD flat-screen TV. His eyes have never seen dragons or dwarfs alive. We have. At least in the movies. When I see a puppet dragon on the stage I start laughing because my mind tells my that thing doesn't look or move like a dragon. It looks like a caricature. It ruins the atmosphere. So I close my eyes to keep the magic alive.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The author of the article appears ill-informed when he writes:

"Unfortunately there are no clips from the revolutionary postwar Bayreuth Ring cycles directed by the brothers Wieland and Wolfgang Wagner, grandsons of the composer who-once Allied authorities allowed this erstwhile nest of Nazis to reopen in 1951-took over the festival from their mother, Winifred Wagner, a close and unrepentant friend of Hitler's who privately referred to him as "U.S.A.": unser seliger Adolf (our blessed Adolf)."

First there are clips from the Wieland Wagner productions (sadly only in black and white) on YouTube e.g.











These are not necessarily from Bayreuth but they are Wieland's productions.

The other thing is that Filler appears to suggest that the Wagner grandsons were not involved with the Nazis as their mother was. They were both involved to the extent that they called Hitler "Uncle Wolf." They were both committed members of the Nazi party as far as I know. Of course we know they 'repented' of their connections and made a show of 'cleansing' Bayreuth from its Nazi past. But they were deeply involved with the Nazis - more probably than artists like Karajan and Schwartskopf who found it difficult to live down their Nazi past. Interesting that left wing liberals tended to excuse Wieland because he appeared to be one of them.

For myself Wagner tends to fail in the theatre because the effects the composer demanded always look pretty ludicrous, at least to a modern audience used to the cinema. I never feel that Wagner was a practical man of the theatre in the same way as (e.g.) Verdi was in that his effects are almost impossible to realise. Sadly this has led to the lunacy of modern productions which owe little to what Wagner was actually trying to say. I do have the Kupfer Ring on DVD which does at least try to realise Wagner's intentions in the main. But even with modern staging they are impossible to bring off properly. Hence the CD.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> For myself *Wagner tends to fail in the theatre because the effects the composer demanded always look pretty ludicrous, at least to a modern audience used to the cinema.* I never feel that Wagner was a practical man of the theatre in the same way as (e.g.) Verdi was in that his effects are almost impossible to realise. *Sadly this has led to the lunacy of modern productions *which owe little to what Wagner was actually trying to say. I do have the Kupfer Ring on DVD which does at least try to realise Wagner's intentions in the main. But even with modern staging they are impossible to bring off properly.


I find your explanation of the absurdity of modern productions of Wagner to be off the mark. Regietheater is not a consequence of the difficulty of realizing Wagner's scenic conceptions, but of a more fundamental lack of belief in his artistic sensibility and goals, as I explained in my post above.

Wagner's operas, with the exception of _Die_ _Meistersinger,_ are not naturalistic; they take place in mythical time and imaginary space. Stagings in Wagner's day were basically naturalistic because, in a time before electricity, they almost had to be: audiences were accustomed to this, they expected it, and in the first productions at Bayreuth, Wagner sought to satisfy their expectations as completely as finances would allow. There is no question that his dramatic imagination and scenic requirements outstripped the capabilities of the technology of the time, and that audiences had to suspend disbelief to an extent that audiences of our day could not manage. But I think we can presume that they did so willingly, knowing that what they were witnessing was a play and not real life.

We may have different expectations of our entertainments than Wagner's audiences did, but the suspension of disbelief remains an essential principle of the theatrical art. Theater - not only opera, but all theater - is fundamentally unrealistic. Live theater is not film. Audiences in a theater know that what they're seeing is not a photograph of reality, but a stylized, meaningful symbolization of reality. Hence, for any theatrical production it is only necessary to establish certain aesthetic premises at the outset. I would contend that there is hardly a scene in Wagner's operas, the essence of which can't be effectively conveyed through imaginative use of the materials, lighting resources, and cinematic techniques available in the modern theater -_so long as we remember that the goal is not a literal representation of the physical world._

Most of Wagner's serious challenges to stagecraft occur in the _R__ing_. Animals (horses, birds, toads) are obviously problematic, but they can generally be left to the imagination, or merely suggested. Even Fafner the talking dragon can be dealt with delightfully if we remember that this is a fantasy and that we are not expected to believe that dragons are real. The cataclysmic conclusion of _Gotterdammerung_ is obviously impossible to depict if we want to conceive it naturalistically, but the assignment is to find aesthetically effective symbols of the destruction and transformation it represents, while letting the music do its work of persuading our emotions.

We need to remember that most of the required settings and props in Wagner are not unusual, and that, besides, they are subordinate to and supportive of the human interest of his stories. Most of his scenes, like those of nearly all opera, are focused intensely on the interaction of people; generally there are only two or three characters present (sometimes only one), his libretti are full of specific directions for their actions onstage, and when he was directing his own productions at Bayreuth he worked himself to exhaustion literally demonstrating to his singers how to act his characters powerfully and convincingly. A great many of the difficulties of staging Wagner's operas are put into perspective when we understand that despite their mythological sources and potential for cinematic visualization, Wagner's musical plays are fundamentally about the souls of human beings. If all our effects of stagecraft are focused on bringing that home, a few missing horses or birds are not going to matter much.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

interestedin said:


> Wagner has never been to the cinema. He didn't own an HD flat-screen TV. His eyes have never seen dragons or dwarfs alive. We have. At least in the movies. When I see a puppet dragon on the stage I start laughing because my mind tells my that thing doesn't look or move like a dragon. It looks like a caricature. It ruins the atmosphere. So I close my eyes to keep the magic alive.


You need some suspension of disbelieve the music is supposed to help you with that.
I think Wagner did see dwarfs alive I have seen some.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I find your explanation of the absurdity of modern productions of Wagner to be off the mark. Regietheater is not a consequence of the difficulty of realizing Wagner's scenic conceptions, but of a more fundamental lack of belief in his artistic sensibility and goals, as I explained in my post above.
> 
> Wagner's operas, with the exception of _Die_ _Meistersinger,_ are not naturalistic; they take place in mythical time and imaginary space. Stagings in Wagner's day were basically naturalistic because, in a time before electricity, they almost had to be: audiences were accustomed to this, they expected it, and in the first productions at Bayreuth, Wagner sought to satisfy their expectations as completely as finances would allow. There is no question that his dramatic imagination and scenic requirements outstripped the capabilities of the technology of the time, and that audiences had to suspend disbelief to an extent that audiences of our day could not manage. But I think we can presume that they did so willingly, knowing that what they were witnessing was a play and not real life.
> 
> ...


I see your point about regietheatre but don't forget that Wieland Wagner's productions were initially regarded in much the same light as regietheatre today. One reason Wieland went down the Appian way was in the Ring because of the sheer impossibility of his grandfather's demands in the theatre. That was his grandson admitting defeat in the literal realisation of his grandfather's instructions. 
Of course, Wieland applied the same techniques to all the operas so his productions were based on a psychological ideal as well as a practical one.
With modern technology, of course, it might be easier to get nearer to what Wagner intended. A recent production of the Pearl Fishers at the Met had some incredible simulated 'underwater' scenes. Could the Ride of the Valkyries be realised with CGI technology? Or the Immolation Scene which can be a damp squid with no horse when Brunnhilde specifically calls to him. What did Wagner do? Was there actually a horse in his productions? A Fire? How did the Valkyries ride? Any answers?


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

KenOC said:


> "Some devotees of Richard Wagner have suggested, not wholly in jest, that the best way to enjoy the master's operas is with one's eyes closed. For not only have few stage presentations of his monumentally conceived and famously lengthy music dramas ever approached the cosmic sublimity of their underlying compositions, but nowadays it appears mandatory for them to be produced as bizarrely as possible, and despite the composer's detailed visual instructions to the contrary."
> 
> http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/02/25/original-wagner-ring/


I'm sorry, but sitting through Gotterdamerung for 6 hours with my eyes closed sounds like a great eye to catch up on r.e.m. sleep.
I need to see the Rhine Maidens running around with Viking Horns sticking out of their heads to make me guffaw and stay awake, or at least some Regietheater version where they now have become Serial Murdering Prostitutes or something similar...


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

As much as I like the Ring, there are long stretches of it (e.g. most of act 2 of Walkure) where it is all I can do to keep my eyes open!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I see your point about regietheatre but don't forget that Wieland Wagner's productions were initially regarded in much the same light as regietheatre today. One reason Wieland went down the Appian way was in the Ring because of the sheer impossibility of his grandfather's demands in the theatre. That was his grandson admitting defeat in the literal realisation of his grandfather's instructions.
> Of course, Wieland applied the same techniques to all the operas so his productions were based on a psychological ideal as well as a practical one.
> With modern technology, of course, it might be easier to get nearer to what Wagner intended. A recent production of the Pearl Fishers at the Met had some incredible simulated 'underwater' scenes. Could the Ride of the Valkyries be realised with CGI technology? Or the Immolation Scene which can be a damp squid with no horse when Brunnhilde specifically calls to him. What did Wagner do? Was there actually a horse in his productions? A Fire? How did the Valkyries ride? Any answers?


I don't think the valkyries ever rode around on horses, especially since their horses were supposed to fly through the air. The music took care of the "ride" aspect, while the valkyries themselves called to each other from rocky outcrops and such. Wagner did apparently ask for a "flash of lightning" revealing among the clouds a valkyrie astride a horse. I can't imagine how that was achieved without electricity! Grane was real at first, though the idea of having Brunnhilde leap into the flames on horseback seems to have been recognized as unrealistic (Marjorie Lawrence apparently did it, however). It seems there are very few photos of the original 1876 _Ring_, so we have to rely on paintings and verbal accounts to get a sense of it.

Here's an excellent article dealing with the history of _Ring_ productions:

http://www.the-wagnerian.com/2012/10/a-history-of-ring-cycle-productions-or.html


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Becca said:


> As much as I like the Ring, there are long stretches of it (e.g. most of act 2 of Walkure) where it is all I can do to keep my eyes open!


I love Act 2 of Walkure!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Itullian said:


> I love Act 2 of Walkure!


So do I. The short prelude to it is almost as intense as the Ride of the Valkyries. Wotan's quiet despair, and the scene between Siegmund and Bruennhilde when she first appears to him, is probably one of the most powerful in the entire Ring.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

DavidA said:


> With modern technology, of course, it might be easier to get nearer to what Wagner intended. A recent production of the Pearl Fishers at the Met had some incredible simulated 'underwater' scenes. *Could the Ride of the Valkyries be realised with CGI technology? *Or the Immolation Scene which can be a damp squid with no horse when Brunnhilde specifically calls to him. What did Wagner do? Was there actually a horse in his productions? A Fire? How did the Valkyries ride? Any answers?


The Victorian Opera did this last year brilliantly with the Flying Dutchman, using video background in 3D, produced in conjunction with a video laboratory connected to Melbourne University. On stage was a single rope, for example, in the opening scene, but the video had the ships sweeping in, etc. Right now, it's a gimmick, but it will happen more and more. 
I went along skeptical, but enjoyed it greatly. One has to be careful that the video activity doesn't overwhelm what is happening on stage.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> So do I. The short prelude to it is almost as intense as the Ride of the Valkyries. Wotan's quiet despair, and the scene between Siegmund and Bruennhilde when she first appears to him, is probably one of the most powerful in the entire Ring.


Amen to this :tiphat:


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Yeah, Act II is where the serious drama occurs. Sieglinde and Siegmund are mere stage dressing and not the real point of this opera; it's Wotan's growing self-realization in Act II, and Brünnhilde's attempts to suss out what he really wants when he isn't quite sure himself, and the tragic consequences that inexorably grow from his past misdeeds, that form the real heart of the opera.


----------



## jflatter (Mar 31, 2010)

I actually think that act 2 of Die Walkure is the most important of the Ring. It gives the story it's ultimate direction.


----------

