# Opera in cinema v live performance



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Thread suggested by _*perempe*_. Good idea!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I have only seen / heard two operas in a cinema, both made as films, i.e. not broadcasts of live performances.
[Mozart ~ Die Zauberflöte, (sung in Swedish), directed by Ingmar Bergman, and Verdi ~ La Traviata, directed by Franco Franco Zeffirelli. I greatly enjoyed each ]

All technology to the fore put aside, I _just know_ that a broadcast performance viewed on a screen is a far distant and less desirable cousin to attending any _live_ performance.

I suppose if it were the only way to travel to or access the live performance, or if I were more of a true fiend for 'just opera,' I might be yet another member of such an audience.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

There's just that indescribable _visceral impact_ that you get watching a live performance that can't be captured on camera or duplicated on a screen. I'm also not a fan of being at the whim of a film director when watching a live performance. All the random close-ups, zooming in and out, and panning makes for a very different experience than taking the whole picture in live as intended.


----------



## Freischutz (Mar 6, 2014)

The difference between a DVD and the cinema is minimal compared to the difference between the cinema and a live performance - so much so that I don't think the cinema is worth it. In general, though, cinemas as a medium for films only ever appeal to me if I'm desperate to see something that's just been released. In all other circumstances, I prefer the comfort of my own home. I'm not wowed by the bigger screen and I don't care about the sound. So give me my home comforts or take me out to the theatre!


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> There's just that indescribable _visceral impact_ that you get watching a live performance that can't be captured on camera or duplicated on a screen. I'm also not a fan of being at the whim of a film director when watching a live performance. All the random close-ups, zooming in and out, and panning makes for a very different experience than taking the whole picture in live as intended.


I agree with everything you've said here.

I love my opera DVDs and love the live screening which I can sometimes get despite having a poor internet speed but don't like seeing it in the cinema.

The very first time I saw a live transmission in the cinema was for the ROH's _Macbeth_. I was disappointed as the sound in the cinema was far too loud and was evened out so the bits which should have been quiet were loud.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

In what respect this is one v the other I'm not sure.

We can't all get to the Met, La Scala or Covent Garden on a regular basis, so it's great to experience the latest productions and performances, then be able to discuss them on forums or compare our experience to reviews. When I was last at Covent Garden a couple of months back I had a nice discussion with somebody about the recent production of Parsifal. He'd seen it in person and I saw the live relay on distant shores, whereas in the past all I'd have had was a review to read.

Frankly the cinema I saw Parsifal in was far more comfortable than the ROH amphitheatre, and of course one gets to see a lot more detail, such as facial expressions. I've been pretty happy with the sound at the relays I've seen.

I'm assuming this is becoming a vital fund-raiser for some of the major opera houses. However I do wonder whether the long term effect will be fewer live performances, possibly opera company/house closures, and more relays and videos. I doubt this is a passing fad. In fact I look forward to future developments such as 3D.


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

hi.

as a newbie in this forum, i didn't know that this question wasn't asked earlier. (i searched for it of course.)

i'm interested in opinions of people who can compare (MET) broadcasts to live performances of their own (smaller) opera houses they attend. which do they prefer?

a friend who attends MET telecasts regularly said she likes them very much. (she said they cried after La bohème.) she joined us to Budapest State Opera for the first time a month ago to see Tosca. she bought a decent ticket for about twice the price of the cinema ticket. i think she is critical, but she enjoyed it. she couldn't even criticize it. (i actually could: our Tosca did not jump.  )


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I've been to a couple of opera performances screened. The Met Falstaff was great. Fantastic! Just made, it seemed, for cinema, with brilliant colours.
The ROH Don Giovanni was terrible, but that was due to an inane production which had about as much colour as a black and white TV with a faded screen. 
Of course, nothing beats being at the theatre. I went to see broadcasts of National Theatres Coriolanus and Warhorse. Really good but I wished I was actually at the theatre. But then I'd have been forking out about four times as much in money. 
Interestingly, I was at Stratford on Avon theatre when the a RSC transmitted Richard II. Tickets cost £50 each! A broadcast would have been £15. But nothing beats actually being there.
However, a broadcast of an opera or play is at least some compensation to those of us who can't make the theatre or opera house.
Another good thing about a broadcast is that you can say how bad it was. If I had paid £100 to see the dreadful DG at a ROH I would have had to kid myself I had enjoyed it. Or got banned for demanding my money back!


----------



## Oreb (Aug 8, 2013)

Seeing an opera in the cinema is a qualitatively different experience to seeing it in a theatre - goes without saying. Still, I'm delighted to be able to access performances I'd only see otherwise at great expense and unwelcome inconvenience.

Plus, have you ever tried taking an ice cream into an opera theatre?


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

Oreb said:


> Plus, have you ever tried taking an ice cream into an opera theatre?


i actually used to drink beer in my box before the performance or after the 1st act. now i drink it in the buffet. (i still bring my beer, don't buy anything there.) :devil:


thank you for replies.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Having had experience of technical problems at live relays (including a complete failure at curtain-up of the recent La Scala opening night), I'd like to add that I don't think a live relay broadcast is a prerequisite to my cinematic enjoyment, particularly given possible time-zone issues if in another part of the world. The following night or couple of days after the performance with the guarantee of no glitches would be fine for me.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Alexander said:


> Having had experience of technical problems at live relays (including a complete failure at curtain-up of the recent La Scala opening night), I'd like to add that I don't think a live relay broadcast is a prerequisite to my cinematic enjoyment, particularly given possible time-zone issues if in another part of the world. The following night or couple of days after the performance with the guarantee of no glitches would be fine for me.


Yes, we had a number of glitches during the ROH Don Giovanni due to the gales that were blowing at the time. The biggest glitch, however, on that evening, was the production!


----------



## Pip (Aug 16, 2013)

I have seen the Walküre from the Met, 2011, also Don Carlo and a few others. Apart from the visceral pleasure of sitting in the actual opera house, the live telecast in HD is just the same as any member of the audience in the theatre will experience. If it goes wrong or a singer falls ill, we will have the same disappointment as the actual audience.
It is a marvelous development of being able to see opera live. As Alexander said in an earlier post, we can't all get to the Met or Covent Garden ect, so this is a great substitute.
I first went to CG in 1967 - and ever since up until 1997. I now live in Germany and the Met/CG broadcasts are a great bonus for me.
The only criteria is that the cinema has the required sound system neccessary to do justice to the music. That being so, then
it is great to be able to see Kaufmann in Werther, or Faust or in Die Walküre and a whole lot of other things.
I saw the Walküre in Dundee, Scotland at the Contemporary Arts cinema - it was packed out! and a was a great experience.
The sound system of my regular cinema in Germany is even better.
I am very careful about which productions I choose to see these days. So I do a little homework before booking a ticket. I don't want any wierd productions - just great singing if possible and a well thought out concept.
Werther - on saturday last with Kaufmann and Koch was wonderful. I don't feel that I am missing out on anything by not being in New York to see it - I was in New York for the performance - in my cinema in Germany - and I sat in a better seat and heard the performance much better than some of the times when I actually was at the Met and was sitting in an area where the sound was poor.
I have no problem with anyone who says that they would prefer - having tried both! - sitting in the theatre itself.
However anyone who derides the idea without having tried it is talking out of the place where the sun don't shine.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

No question that a live performance is better than a DVD, but as has been said above, not everyone can get to the Met or La Scala or wherever. Consider the vast number of people who live in remote areas or in towns that simply don't support a live opera venue.

We are so fortunate that we can at least have the performances on DVD or video on demand! Think of the millions who never had the opportunity to see an opera in the past few hundred years, and all the choices we now have.

Incidentally, the BEST way to "watch" an opera is from the stage! (I've been fortunate to sing in quite a few operas)

Anyway, yes, a live performance provides the electricity and emotions that a video cannot offer. And although I know this isn't the thread to discuss various DVDs, but my faves are the Ingmar Bergman "Magic Flute" (a great classic film!) and the superb Covent Garden "Marriage of Figaro".


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

I don't like the cinema, it's too loud. However I love livestreaming, I hope more opera houses will embrace it.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> There's just that indescribable _visceral impact_ that you get watching a live performance that can't be captured on camera or duplicated on a screen. I'm also not a fan of being at the whim of a film director when watching a live performance. All the random close-ups, zooming in and out, and panning makes for a very different experience than taking the whole picture in live as intended.


There's a definite visceral impact that I get watching opera on a cinema screen, being able to see so many more details than from any seat in the house.

Though certainly, I've seen many filmed operas where I'd prefer more conservative video direction. And while close-ups can be great when used judiciously I would also prefer to more often be able to see the broader picture, though it is clear that most opera companies disagree. I would speculate that they're trying to keep the cinema/DVD experience as a separate thing to avoid putting themselves out of business but I don't have any actual inside info.

And I would agree that there is a very different visceral impact seeing an opera live and I think that is one reason the video direction is as it is; when that impact is missing a largely static image would be dull.

One of the reasons that I can't be a purist and say "in the house only!" is that there can be hundreds or even thousands of seats in an opera house... and all of them will have a different view. There are many views of an opera and, especially in the seats where I tend to end up a lot of details get lost. Which brings up another reason: I don't have all the money and can't see as many live operas as I'd like to and can't sit in the best seats when I do get to go. So I supplement when possible with live streams, DVD and the occasionally in cinema showing.

I've never seen a Met Live In HD simulcast when I've seen the production in the house though I have seen several DVDs of productions I've caught in house. It feels very different to me and I want both available.

In the fall the final performance of _The Nose_ was being broadcast live but I never considered trying to get a ticket to a cinema (though they tend to be sold out) and instead set an alarm and bought a standing room ticket.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

(yes, I'm replying to myself)



mountmccabe said:


> I've never seen a Met Live In HD simulcast when I've seen the production in the house though I have seen several DVDs of productions I've caught in house. It feels very different to me and I want both available.


I did see _Nixon in China_ in the theater when I lived in Arizona but I did so alone and did not see the rest of the broadcast season. If I were to move away from the Met I can imagine regularly attending the Live in HD simulcasts at the same theater and it becoming a social thing, seeing the same core group of people over and over. And, likely seeing many of them at local live productions and other concerts.

And I agree with Alexander; it is great that people all over the world can actually see full productions and form their own opinions rather than just relying on reviews.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

mountmccabe said:


> There's a definite visceral impact that I get watching opera on a cinema screen, being able to see so many more details than from any seat in the house.
> 
> Though certainly, I've seen many filmed operas where I'd prefer more conservative video direction. And while close-ups can be great when used judiciously I would also prefer to more often be able to see the broader picture, though it is clear that most opera companies disagree. I would speculate that they're trying to keep the cinema/DVD experience as a separate thing to avoid putting themselves out of business but I don't have any actual inside info.
> 
> And I would agree that there is a very different visceral impact seeing an opera live and I think that is one reason the video direction is as it is; when that impact is missing a largely static image would be dull.


Yes, I quite agree. I can see how a fixed image of the stage could be incredibly dull when viewing it on a cinema or tv screen. Which is just part of the reason viewing an opera on screen has never been the optimal choice for me. When an opera is filmed an entirely new aspect is being brought into play. Film directing is an art unto itself; the director chooses the exact shots, the exact angles that are optimal for bringing whatever vision he has in his head onto the screen, and edits the material accordingly. However, when a film director of an opera makes choices about when and where to zoom in, what to focus the camera on, etc., this often detracts from or contradicts the overall vision of the stage director and the choreography in place. For example, you get a really dramatic shot of Mimi, but the reactions of Rodolfo and movements of any other characters on stage is usually lost.

So although I will occasionally see an opera in a cinema broadcast, or rent a dvd, it's rare that I want to watch it more than once. Part of the joy of live theater is the excitement of not knowing what's going to happen next, of seeing how the actors improvise in the moment and react off one another. When you watch a dvd of the same performance, it all becomes too predictable. I also am not sure that opera is an art form that really benefits from extreme close-ups: instead of seeing the singers expressing emotion, you usually are watching them with their mouths wide open and sweat pouring down their face. My personal preference has always been to either try to see an opera live when possible, or listening to it at home and letting my imagination be liberated.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> For example, you get a really dramatic shot of Mimi, but the reactions of Rodolfo and movements of any other characters on stage is usually lost.


yes, that's one of my gripes with DVDs. It's a trade-off. I can't normally sit in the stalls so when I'm in the house I don't see the singers' facial expressions and I'm glad for DVDs for that.



SilenceIsGolden said:


> Part of the joy of live theater is the excitement of not knowing what's going to happen next, of seeing how the actors improvise in the moment and react off one another. When you watch a dvd of the same performance, it all becomes too predictable. I also am not sure that opera is an art form that really benefits from extreme close-ups: instead of seeing the singers expressing emotion, you usually are watching them with their mouths wide open and sweat pouring down their face. My personal preference has always been to either try to see an opera live when possible, or listening to it at home and letting my imagination be liberated.


yes and no. Sometimes a production is interesting and it will fuel your imagination further than you could on your own by the radio or with a CD. Also, if said production is interesting and the singers are also good actors you will enjoy watching it again and might even find things you missed the first time around or forgot about. It's true that every performance is different and you wonder sometimes how the singers did it on another occasion during the same production but to me that's not so earth shattering. I also don't mind sweat. I find it rather refreshing to be reminded that singers are human after all  In house serendipity is one thing and it's wonderful in itself but being able to watch performances that you never hand the chance to see live is also very rewarding.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

deggial said:


> yes, that's one of my gripes with DVDs. It's a trade-off. I can't normally sit in the stalls so when I'm in the house I don't see the singers' facial expressions and I'm glad for DVDs for that.


Of course it does depend on the singers' faces and deportment. I have DVDs of close ups of singers which reveal the ageing process rather obviously so that one would probably better off in the stalls!


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

that too  I sometimes book tickets "strategically", like when I know you get park and barkers or ahem, ugly singers, restricted view isn't a problem.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

deggial said:


> yes, that's one of my gripes with DVDs. It's a trade-off. I can't normally sit in the stalls so when I'm in the house I don't see the singers' facial expressions and I'm glad for DVDs for that.
> 
> yes and no. Sometimes a production is interesting and it will fuel your imagination further than you could on your own by the radio or with a CD. Also, if said production is interesting and the singers are also good actors you will enjoy watching it again and might even find things you missed the first time around or forgot about. It's true that every performance is different and you wonder sometimes how the singers did it on another occasion during the same production but to me that's not so earth shattering. I also don't mind sweat. I find it rather refreshing to be reminded that singers are human after all  In house serendipity is one thing and it's wonderful in itself but being able to watch performances that you never hand the chance to see live is also very rewarding.


I don't disagree that there are benefits to broadcasts and dvds of operas. I mean I definitely don't consider them worthless! Haha. I was simply explaining my preference.  And for me, while I find that I can listen to my favorite recordings over and over again and learn fresh things from them every time, I don't have the same experience with dvds.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

I've been watching the DVD of the Met's Meistersinger tonight. What I don't get from the DVD is how all-consuming it is to be at a live Wagner opera. Next best thing is a cinema telecast and then a home DVD. But it's opera and I love and value it all.

On this Meistersinger DVD I really enjoy the detailed performances, particular of Thomas Allen and Karita Mattila, not just great singing, but charming physical acting, which in the opera house one would be able to enjoy if you're in the first ten rows of the stalls.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

When I've seen the HD broadcasts at the cinema I miss the natural un miked sound of an opera house.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Watching in a cinema can't be as good a live and in the flesh, but if you have no choice, it's the next best thing. The cinema is better than sitting a home. In my home town, they produce only four operas a year. So I supplement with going to see Live from the Met.


----------



## Gizmo (Mar 28, 2013)

My preference is a live performance but there are so few where I live. Being able to see them at the cinema is an opportunity to see many operas that I would never be able to see live.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

The big thing is a lot of people are being exposed to opera that would never go to see one and more importantly, the Met is making a ton of money at something in a time when money from opera is in short supply. I saw Armida as I knew I would never get to see it otherwise and Fleming was divine. Not Callas, but still divine. If there were a HD broadcast of fat Callas doing Armida I would pay hundreds to see that one. Ah....dreams of what will never be.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Live Can Be Expensive*

I think the purist are missing the point.

In theory, if you can afford a good seat, seeing a live performance is better.

The cons of a live performance include the cost. The price of a good seat for the National Opera in Washington, DC (I live near the Kennedy Center) can be between $100 and $200 a piece!!! The Virginia Opera stages some performance at George Mason University. Their seats are slightly cheaper but the productions can be uneven. Traveling to New York City to see the Met (I have seen two great performances) can be really expensive.

Also the atmosphere at the movie theater is, how should I put it, looser? It is not uncommon for groups of total strangers to meet during the intermission, talking and socializing about the performance.

Also the munchies can be great.

The big negative in Washington, DC are the crowds. Some of the theaters sell out. Even with the ones that do not, if you want a good seat you have to get to the theater an hour early. But then you can eat a lunch in the theater.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I've gone to "Live at the Met" a few times. No trouble getting a seat.
Occasionally there are electronic glitches that spoil things for a minute or so.
Better than nothing.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> The price of a good seat for the National Opera in Washington, DC (I live near the Kennedy Center) can be between $100 and $200 a piece!!!


if your venue has good acoustics you can live without a good seat.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The existence of film is a great thing for opera. Most obviously, good live opera is neither available nor affordable for most people. I grew up when there was still opera on network television; it was the only opera I got to see as a kid and it made a powerful impression. Film also has tremendous artistic potential. There is nothing about film in principle that makes it unsuited to presenting opera, and if it's taken seriously as a distinct medium it can open up all sorts of possibilities for effects not possible even in the technically sophisticated theaters of today. Operas with mythical or symbolic stories and settings would be the greatest beneficiaries: armored women carrying fallen heroes on flying horses, gods walking on rainbows leading to castles in the sky, swans bearing heroic knights down rivers, temples reached through underground vaults to the accompaniment of tolling bells... Well, operas by you know who! I have always dreamed of seeing Wagner's mythical visions brought to full, spectacular life as he would have seen them in his mind, and had he had film in his day I have no doubt that he would have been ecstatic at the prospect of not having to deal with swimming machines, mechanical dragons, creaking turntables, and menopausal sopranos and flabby tenors pretending to be fair Irish princesses and fearless youths.

Its true, there's nothing like live opera. But great filmed opera could be incomparable in its own way if our culture cared enough to produce it. Alas, I don't see much of it ahead, not in my lifetime.

But then there's animation...! _Avatar_, move over.


----------

