# Do You Like Weird Modern Opera Staging That Are Silly Looking?



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

You know the staging, it looks like a dumpster, or a messy construction site, or a street corner or whatever that really has nothing to do with the story. Moreover, people dressed up looking like weirdos, cross-dressing, weird masks, everything weird and distracting such that when the actors and singers move around on stage, it is a total mess.

It's all about the stage director and his "highly artistic / educated view" about making the opera relevant to audience today, and making some political or pseudo-Freudian-psycho-whatever analysis of the human condition whatever-whatever-whatevers.

Well, so do you enjoy such a stage production messing up the beautiful music and plot, whether Monteverdi, Handel, Mozart, Rossini, Verdi, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Puccini or whatever.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Here's one of Mozart's wonderful _Idomeneo_ based on minimalism-whatever staging. They interviewed the stage director, who was someone explaining 1950's ideas on minimalism. It was plain silly to watch the singers move around the stage in a vacuum of space. They might as well have done a concert version.

Silly.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I'm not in favour. To my admittedly conservative and possibly unimaginative eyes so much of it comes across as pretentious b*******. I continually fail to be convinced by the premise that any pre-20th c. opera benefits from modish visuals and trying to link the work to contemporary concerns - if an opera is set in an established time and place then the presentation should be faithful to that.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly = Weird = Modern = Silly.

Gee, Art, don't hold back, tell us what you really think, for the 279th time....


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

They call it Euro Trash for a good reason.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

As a relative newcomer to opera I want to learn about the traditional presentations before we go all artsy fartsy. I am deeply disappointed my first foray into the Ring cycle started out traditionally staged, but then evolved into some kind of WWII scenario by the fourth installment. Why?

Of course something like _Le Grand Macabre_ should be weird to begin with.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Talk about "silly" -- there's a loaded question for you!


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

nina foresti said:


> Talk about "silly" -- there's a loaded question for you!


Absolutely. If I ever want to learn how to start a thread with a loaded question and a closed mind, I need look no further.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

As long as it serves the music and entertains, then, Im fer it....If its just to be controversial and detracts from the work then...Im agin it! ( Unless it involves scandalous amounts of near naked or wholly naked participants in which case its High Art and should be encouraged!)


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Yes the weirder and sillier the better. I loathe all the overly precious treatment of beloved music, the worshipful deference to 19th century artists and contempt for 20th century artists. I want my art to live and breathe and speak, not only of its time but of now as well. I don't want faithful, stagnant museum pieces of art that carefully recreate the past as heritage.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

There seem to be a lot of failed directors operating in opera at the moment who are seeking to be notorious and come up with things to shock. I don't want to go to opera to be shocked or to see someone's half-baked production which takes no notice of the libretto. Opera is expensive and so the public are entitled to something which adequately reflects the composer's intentions.Within this there are a myriad ways of directing. the problem is many directors appear to be void of stagecraft and to compensate they put on these nonsensical productions which serve their own massive ego rather than the composer's intentions.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

"Hate them" is the most appropriate word, and the main reason for hate is not for my own sake (I can do fine with just a CD and libretto, actually I prefer listening to opera that way), but for the sake of other people I would like to introduce to full operatic experience - my man and any potential children. We buy tickets, we go into the opera house... and what do I tell these novices? "Now you should better close your eyes and just listen, because what you see has nothing to do with what you hear or with what you should see, according to the composer's intent, but rather with pot-induced hallucinations of some guy who is just too full of himself and does not care about the opera one slightest bit". Or maybe I should tell them: "You know, opera is supposed to be seen and heard, but at the present time, until things turn for the better, we are limited to the hearing part"? That is quite a dilemma.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Thank you all for your comments. There is overwhelming support that silly stage production that has nothing to do with the music and plot is pure distraction. And to think they spend so much money on the staging too.

Siegendesicht made good points. What/how do we explain this to someone who goes to the opera for the first time, when opera staged is supposed to be one of the highest form of entertainment? And tickets are not cheap either.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Gee, Art, don't hold back, tell us what you really think, for the 279th time....


I am talking about the staging, the production on stage, *not the music*.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

The most unusual opera staging I've seen was on youtube, this production of Die Walkure that looks like some kind of intergalactic space battle

Even if I think some of these kinds of ideas are silly, I think all art should be as open to interpretation. Some ideas may work, others may not, and that's why it should be a trial and error process, IMO


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

amfortas said:


> Absolutely. If I ever want to learn how to start a thread with a loaded question and a closed mind, I need look no further.


Yeah: Loaded Question. Closed Mind. But that is all better if you've got Ammo (not blanks) and a working Trigger Mechanism might be good, though skewed grammar will at least have your audience laughing -- at you.

Then again, I don't think anyone has every fully figured out conceptual performance art.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Cosmos said:


> The most unusual opera staging I've seen was on youtube, this production of Die Walkure that looks like some kind of intergalactic space battle
> 
> Even if I think some of these kinds of ideas are silly, I think all art should be as open to interpretation. Some ideas may work, others may not, and that's why it should be a trial and error process, IMO


The clip you posted is not as bad as some others. At least one could have an idea of what's going on and the staging, at a stretch, seems just passable and related to the story.

This one, while spectacular looking, is just distracting and totally weird.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Cosmos said:


> The most unusual opera staging I've seen was on youtube, this production of Die Walkure that looks like some kind of intergalactic space battle


It can be worse at least Wotan is one eyed and have a spear and at least Siegmund have a sword.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> The clip you posted is not as bad as some others. At least one could have an idea of what's going on and the staging, at a stretch, seems just passable and related to the story.
> 
> This one, while spectacular looking, is just distracting and totally weird.


No wonder they didn't have a couple of those Valkyries on horses. The poor things would have expired. One reason why I prefer confining Wagner to an audio only experience! I mean, this is laughable!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

DavidA said:


> No wonder they didn't have a couple of those Valkyries on horses. The poor things would have expired. One reason why I prefer confining Wagner to an audio only experience! I mean, this is laughable!


Yep. One thing I shall never understand is, why? Why do they always do these silly weird productions when it is clear that nobody - the ticket paying audience but a minority perhaps - enjoy these? Why do these self-centered stage producers get hired to do it this way? Do these decision makers/committees work in a vacuum out of touch with audiences?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Thank you all for your comments. There is overwhelming support that silly stage production that has nothing to do with the music and plot is pure distraction. And to think they spend so much money on the staging too.


Of course there's agreement that "silly" is bad. The debate is about what constitutes silly.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> Of course there's agreement that "silly" is bad. The debate is about what constitutes silly.


It is what people think; the people who pay a lot of money to attend operas and buy the production on disc to view. I would be disappointed to attend these stupid stage production if I paid $100 or more to see a grand opera. (Not that I have that much money to do that.)

Edit: opera is supposed to be "magical", take you away into a stylized world of beautiful music and staging.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> Yep. One thing I shall never understand is, why? Why do they always do these silly weird productions when it is clear that nobody - the ticket paying audience but a minority perhaps - enjoy these? Why do these self-centered stage producers get hired to do it this way? Do these decision makers/committees work in a vacuum out of touch with audiences?


They do them because they can.
People will go and see the operas anyway because it is the only option they have to see these operas. Remember that even for the most popular operas you have to wait at least 10 years for them to be staged again and opera houses are not close to each other and most of an opera house budget is not financed by tickets of course this is a good thing since it means that more people can afford going to see the operas but it is a factor.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I just looked at parts of the latest Met Figaro directed by Richard Eyre. Whatever the merits of the production it is completely flawed by the updating. Much of the plot of Figaro revolves around the count's Droit du seigneur which obviously didn't exist in that form the period in question, even though the nobility no doubt took advantage of their sevant girls.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Edit: opera is supposed to be "magical", take you away into a stylized world of beautiful music and staging.


I completely disagree with this. As does a lot of opera, even as written and/or originally produced.

I also see no reason that every production has to be entirely literal and/or approach the opera in the same way as the original creators and/or earlier productions. These operas are richer than that.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

What I hate is Ameribore stagings of warhorses where people applaud the scenery. Yes, Otto Schenk, I'm thinking of you.

Bring on the Rat Lohengrin and the Copenhagen Ring (two of my favourites)


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> What I hate is Ameribore stagings of warhorses where people applaud the scenery. Yes, Otto Schenk, I'm thinking of you.
> 
> Bring on the Rat Lohengrin and the Copenhagen Ring (two of my favourites)


UUUUGGHHHH :lol:


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I just looked at parts of the latest Met Figaro directed by Richard Eyre. Whatever the merits of the production it is completely flawed by the updating. Much of the plot of Figaro revolves around the count's Droit du seigneur which obviously didn't exist in that form the period in question, even though the nobility no doubt took advantage of their sevant girls.


The _droit du seigneur_ didn't exist in *any* time period.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ahammel said:


> The _droit du seigneur_ didn't exist in *any* time period.


Wiki (the fount of all knowledge) mentions supposedly real examples of this custom, albeit outside Europe. A related custom: The _droit de prélassement_, or right of lounging. It was said that a lord had the right to disembowel his serfs to warm his feet in. Good fun in those days, I guess.

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


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I recently watched this excellent Opera:










It got trashed in many reviews because of the "weird" staging - which I personally had no problem with. So I guess I do like silly looking modern staging, and I'm glad I didn't read any reviews before I purchased this DvD.


----------



## wagner4evr (Jul 10, 2010)

We call those productions "slabs": a term that refers to hyper-minimal set designs featuring a 'slab' of floor material, clotheslines/drapery to represent walls, and perhaps a chair or couch if you're really lucky. For operas that more easily lend themselves to era updates, it's fine. I'm reminded of Seattle's hilarious '05 Cosi production that greatly _benefited_ from its sparse set. But more often than not, I find modern 'interpretation' anachronistic, visually irritating, and often pretentiously abstract. It's all eye of the beholder though. I'm imaginatively challenged and mostly struggle with it, while others find it refreshingly unrestricted.

That said, the meticulously painted background/drapery of Sant'Andrea della Valle in Seattle's Tosca was total eye candy. I was a happy camper.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

tdc said:


> I recently watched this excellent Opera:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Loved this DVD - staging was great.


----------



## cliftwood (Apr 17, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> Of course there's agreement that "silly" is bad. The debate is about what constitutes silly.


Silly is only in the eye of the beholder. It's purely subjective.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

cliftwood said:


> Silly is only in the eye of the beholder. It's purely subjective.


Buster Keaton is objectively silly.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

mountmccabe said:


> I completely disagree with this. As does a lot of opera, even as written and/or originally produced.
> 
> I also see no reason that every production has to be entirely literal and/or approach the opera in the same way as the original creators and/or earlier productions. These operas are richer than that.


You understood my post incorrectly. I never suggested any production has to be entirely literal and/or approach in the same way as the original. Rather, every production should make sense *to convey the story, plot and emotions of the characters*. Having a heroic knight holding a woman's high heel shoe in one hand and singing a war raging aria about revenge is plain silly. Having a modern dumpster looking construction site with Hercules wooing women over is plain weird. You can easily pick more real examples. None of these work. They all need the stage producer doing fancy weird explanations that explain it was representative of nothing but their own tasteless imagination. The operas suffer.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

You can also have weird, original staging


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Anything but minimalism though! I hate bare stages low lighting and high prices. Sometimes I think its just laziness not to have scenery and adequate lighting.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I prefer contemporary staging over boring traditional productions.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> You can also have weird, original staging


What do you mean by original? That's not original Baroque practice, obviously.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

albertfallickwang said:


> I prefer contemporary staging over boring traditional productions.


I don't mind contemporary, so long as it makes sense. Here is a contemporary Peter Sellers Mozart Cosi, it makes perfect sense. I approve.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> What do you mean by original? That's not original Baroque practice, obviously.


I'm pretty sure that this staging was inspired by the original but I'm not a 100% sure. Do you often go to opera?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> I'm pretty sure that this staging was inspired by the original but I'm not a 100% sure. Do you often go to opera?


So what if the stage director was "inspired" by original practice? His realization of that "inspiration" looked bad. No, I do not go to opera, I can't afford the tickets. But I do watch it on disc/online.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> I don't mind contemporary, so long as it makes sense. Here is a contemporary Peter Sellers Mozart Cosi, it makes perfect sense. I approve.


To me it makes little sense. I frankly find it downright annoying!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

DavidA said:


> To me it makes little sense. I frankly find it downright annoying!


I can see your point of view. It's just acceptable as a contemporary interpretation. But of course, I much prefer a period or more stylish looking staging, not a downtown cafe setting.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> I can see your point of view. It's just acceptable as a contemporary interpretation. But of course, I much prefer a period or more stylish looking staging, not a downtown cafe setting.


The problem is that Cosi is an Enlightenment piece and any updating will make the (already implausible) plot even more implausible. Go to Glyndebourne 2006 to see how the opera can be done straight but still made to fizz!


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

DavidA said:


> The problem is that Cosi is an Enlightenment piece and any updating will make the (already implausible) plot even more implausible. Go to Glyndebourne 2006 to see how the opera can be done straight but still made to fizz!


You're right but many (most?) operas require the audience to suspend disbelief to some extent. Updating the setting of Rigoletto to the Rome of La Dolce Vita or La Boheme to 1950's Paris requires just a bit more of that suspension - it's really not hard to do. I am only grateful that none of the updated operas I've seen have dared to change the libretto as so often happens when plays are made into movies, particularly Shakespeare plays.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

DonAlfonso said:


> You're right but many (most?) operas require the audience to suspend disbelief to some extent. Updating the setting of Rigoletto to the Rome of La Dolce Vita or La Boheme to 1950's Paris requires just a bit more of that suspension - it's really not hard to do. I am only grateful that none of the updated operas I've seen have dared to change the libretto as so often happens when plays are made into movies, particularly Shakespeare plays.


I agree that some operas can take updating. The recent Falstaff from the Met was a good example - very well done and a great evening's entertainment. But some operas appear to lose far more than they gain. Cosi is one of them - Figaro is another.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

mamascarlatti said:


> What I hate is Ameribore stagings of warhorses where people applaud the scenery. Yes, Otto Schenk, I'm thinking of you.
> 
> Bring on the Rat Lohengrin and the Copenhagen Ring (two of my favourites)


I've seen several operas, not just in the US but here in Sydney as well where the scenery has merited applause. It is part of the production after all - I can't think of why you would care.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> So what if the stage director was "inspired" by original practice? His realization of that "inspiration" looked bad. No, I do not go to opera, I can't afford the tickets. But I do watch it on disc/online.


I disagree that it looks bad. It looks amazing and the entire production is pretty awesome.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Opera is an art form that gets together Music, Poetry, Drama,... But, to keep it simple, let's say we need a score, a libretto, singers, instrumentalists (including, in most cases, a conductor) and staging. We need all this to recreate the magic of live Opera, in a theater, that is the best way to experience Opera, the art form.

Now, that doesn't mean that *all* of those elements are equally important. They aren't. This is very simple to understand and agree, at least for pragmatic people. There are concert performances, there are CDs, there are tickets sold with no visibility (in traditional U-shaped houses),... Now imagine we can watch a staging with no music, or a ticket sold with full visibility but no hearing... Impossible, right?.

So, what we got directly in the scores from Verdi, Wagner, Puccini or Mozart is much more than a collection of words and musical notation, it is the most important component of Opera, while staging is *not essential*. The music, and the libretto, already carry most of the drama.

But when the staging goes with the story the music is telling, everything is fine. I'm one for updating operas, for instance. I do think moving Hamlet out of medieval Denmark would be the right thing to do 9 times out of 10.

But when there is a divorce between the score and what's happening on the stage, I think this is detrimental to the piece and it's like "cheating" on the audience.

About the point at hand, there are good stagings and bad stagings, as well as there is good singing and bad singing. But what we watch sometimes in the theater is the stage director own personal vision. The problem is when this personal vision of the stage director is in flagrant contradiction with the score and the libretto.

Let's use an example, _Die Tote Stadt_, by Erich Wolfgang Korngold (the libretto is also by Korngold, and his father, Julius). At the end of the opera, Paul, the protagonist, awakes from a nightmare, and can finally accept that his wife is dead, and he needs to start a new life. Well, many times the stage director feels this is not the right way to present the story, and Paul just needs to get crazy or he must commit suicide. Fine, this could be a *personal* vision, after all. Regrettably, this is not what's written either in the score (we are hearing in the orchestra the 'Return to Life' motif, as well as given a reprise of the love duet in Act 1), or in the libretto. So, the audience is watching a divorce between the text, the music and the staging (the *visual* scene), and they have a right to feel cheated. Especially the ones that are watching the opera for the first time.

Opera is not spoken theater. In the words of one contemporary composer, Mark Adamo:

_Dressing Leporello in Beau Brummels rather than breeches isn't the same as deeply understanding how characters are expressed in music and text, guiding a cast to realize those characters, and designing stage pictures and patterns that arise from, not merely frame, those characters' interplay. This is a more thankless job in opera than in the spoken theater, because the opera composer is really the director. He's made so many non-negotiable choices about the pacing, interpretation, and emotional temperature of any given scene that there's less room for a director to make the decisions that really color the performance of a play. This, however, is not Mozart's problem. Want more interpretive room? Direct plays: they're more flexible documents. Plan to direct opera? First admit that the score (at least from the 18th century onward) has done much of your work._


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> I don't mind contemporary, so long as it makes sense. Here is a contemporary Peter Sellers Mozart Cosi, it makes perfect sense. I approve.


This is how I imagine an opera based on _Run for Your Wife_ would look like.


----------



## Loge (Oct 30, 2014)

Would liked to have seen Rigoletto on the Planet of the Apes, just so I could say I have seen Rigoletto on the Planet of the Apes.



















Yes it was a real production

http://intermezzo.typepad.com/intermezzo/2007/07/rigoletto-in-mu.html

Ah those crazy zany Germans.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

One problem modern directors have appears to be critics who constantly want to see something new. So a good, traditional production of a piece often gets lukewarm reviews because it "doesn't say anything new about the piece." Actually most operas have been produced so many times there is little new to say. What we want is the composer's intentions.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Loge said:


> Would liked to have seen Rigoletto on the Planet of the Apes, just so I could say I have seen Rigoletto on the Planet of the Apes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now I've seen everything!


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Actually most operas have been produced so many times there is little new to say.


Splutter! An extraordinary narrow selection of operas are continually recycled. Maybe if they played something else...


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Now I've seen everything!


:lol:...........................


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> One problem modern directors have appears to be critics who constantly want to see something new. So a good, traditional production of a piece often gets lukewarm reviews because it "doesn't say anything new about the piece." Actually most operas have been produced so many times there is little new to say. What we want is the composer's intentions.


There is the argument that as our culture changes old artworks must constantly be "re-evaluated" to keep pace with contemporary perceptions. I think there's some truth in this, and I accept that way we produce and perform works of earlier eras will and indeed should be in some sense "of our time." It isn't necessary, or to most people desirable, to mimic the acting styles or florid painted backdrops of the nineteenth century in order to be "faithful" to Verdi or Wagner; doing so would not have, for us, the effect of faithfulness, but of caricature, since we don't come at these things with the tastes and mental contexts of those composers' contemporaries. We have to find our own equivalents to the composer's truth, and that will always be a challenge. I suspect that many traditional productions are criticized because they clearly fail to meet this challenge, and just settle for the prosaically conventional. I would still prefer a papier-mache swan to a stageful of rat people in _Lohengrin_, and don't much care for _Cosi_ in a laundromat ("All Women Wash Like That":lol, but always hope that directors will devote their imaginative recreations to bringing us as near as possible to the composer's essential, timeless meaning and not some eccentrically personal or fashionably topical take on it.


----------



## Retired (Feb 15, 2015)

I have sung in may operas that were "rediscovered and interpreted" by young stage directors looking to make a name for themselves. Often it has been just to create controversy or to shock the public...or to make headlines. We need new works but that is expensive and risky. I remember seeing a Giovanni done in Europe where characters were on roller skates and there was gratuitous nudity. I think young and rising directors consider it a failure when they have done a show well and faithfully. They forget that we go to see the masterpieces because they are masterpieces...as if the Mona Lisa needed to be improved upon.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Retired said:


> I have sung in may operas that were "rediscovered and interpreted" by young stage directors looking to make a name for themselves. Often it has been just to create controversy or to shock the public...or to make headlines. We need new works but that is expensive and risky. I remember seeing a Giovanni done in Europe where characters were on roller skates and there was gratuitous nudity. I think young and rising directors consider it a failure when they have done a show well and faithfully. They forget that we go to see the masterpieces because they are masterpieces...as if the Mona Lisa needed to be improved upon.


Thank you very much for your insight, and offering your opinion based on your actual experience.

I so much agree. It makes perfect sense.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Now I've seen everything!


Have you seen a man eat his own head?


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> Have you seen a man eat his own head?


That David A! He's seen things you people wouldn't believe… Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate.

But I bet he's never seen this - despite it being lots of fun:


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Neuenfels gets the thumbs up from me in general


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

I loved _Written on Skin's_ minimalist set. The set should serve the music, not vice versa.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

dgee said:


> That David A! He's seen things you people wouldn't believe… Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate.
> 
> But I bet he's never seen this - despite it being lots of fun:


Yeah? I've seen a grown man involuntarily relieve himself of diarrhea as he desperately ran towards the public bathroom. Beat that, Roy Batty.


----------



## OperaMaven (May 5, 2014)

schigolch said:


> Let's use an example, _Die Tote Stadt_, by Erich Wolfgang Korngold (the libretto is also by Korngold, and his father, Julius). At the end of the opera, Paul, the protagonist, awakes from a nightmare, and can finally accept that his wife is dead, and he needs to start a new life. Well, many times the stage director feels this is not the right way to present the story, and Paul just needs to get crazy or he must commit suicide. Fine, this could be a *personal* vision, after all. Regrettably, this is not what's written either in the score (we are hearing in the orchestra the 'Return to Life' motif, as well as given a reprise of the love duet in Act 1), or in the libretto. So, the audience is watching a divorce between the text, the music and the staging (the *visual* scene), and they have a right to feel cheated. Especially the ones that are watching the opera for the first time.


Speaking of divorce between text/music and staging, how about the Woody Allen ending to _Gianni Schicchi?_ Should this _buffa_ opera end with Schicchi stabbed to death by an angry relative he has just cheated, or does that mess up the whole point?


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I will soon watch this production (it's scheduled to run at Teatro Real next June, with, inevitably, Plácido Domingo in the leading role), so I'll defer my final opinion until that date.

However, speaking in general terms, I think that Forzano's libretto is pretty perfect (Puccini wrote to Ricordi that it 'surpassed all my expectations'), and is giving also a lot of great staging clues. Of course, Puccini's music fitted the libretto like a glove, with the glorious "parlando", the two arias (or rather ariettas) of Schichi and the wonderful _Oh mio babbino caro_. T

The pacing is frenetic, all is happening almost in real time, before our eyes. It's difficult to tamper with this. It seems Mr. Allen is limiting himself to just some visual jokes, and this ending... But having Schichi address the audience at the end, it's not a fancy, it's a way to link the story with the _Commedia dell'Arte_, with the opera buffa tradition and with the literary sources. Is there really a dramatic need to mess with that ending?.


----------



## karenpat (Jan 16, 2009)

when I first started getting into opera I was very negative and preferred more traditional productions but now I love the modern ones. There are of course exceptions, but I'm positive in general. Some favourites (even though I don't know the names of the directors): 
Platée (just a clip, the video with the whole thing seems to have been deleted  )





La pietra del paragone





Messiah





L'incoronazione di Poppea (I attended this performance, I was seated next to a steady-cam operator)


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

OperaMaven said:


> Speaking of divorce between text/music and staging, how about the Woody Allen ending to _Gianni Schicchi?_ Should this _buffa_ opera end with Schicchi stabbed to death by an angry relative he has just cheated, or does that mess up the whole point?


Woody Allen is just pure awesomeness for opera. Check this bit out:


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

I enjoy new ideas. The warhorses are played too often for them not to be reinvented. Traditional productions grow boring. I have a special hatred for that 19th century dress that Violetta traditionally wears. So anything that avoids costuming like that gets my thumbs up  
What I don't like, is when there is no reason for such a change other than to shock the audience. Sometimes, lazy productions are mistaken for creativity.

Did LA Opera have any consideration for the ensemble when they did their Ring Cycle? How inspired are singers when they're dressed like Muppets? Imagine this being your introduction to opera.


----------



## davidsannderson (Aug 7, 2016)

To me, Wagner should look like something from out of Tolkien. In fact, I bet that would bring in lots of Tolkien fans who would be turned off by a modernist re-staging (people like me). Wagner's original stage directions would be great- I've seen photos from such stagings from the early 20th century! And for me, you don't get any more relavent then something Tolkienish- our own dreams for the way the world could be again!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

davidsannderson said:


> To me, Wagner should look like something from out of Tolkien. In fact, I bet that would bring in lots of Tolkien fans who would be turned off by a modernist re-staging (people like me). Wagner's original stage directions would be great- I've seen photos from such stagings from the early 20th century! And for me, you don't get any more relavent then something Tolkienish- our own dreams for the way the world could be again!


I assume you're talking about the _Ring_, primarily. The other operas all have their own spirit and style. The original stagings weren't entirely satisfactory even to Wagner, and I'm sure he would have wished to take advantage of the most advanced theater technology to improve the dramatic illusion. It would be an interesting one-off, though, to see the original productions with the kinks ironed out.

Welcome to the forum, by the way. I haven't seen you before.


----------



## davidsannderson (Aug 7, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I assume you're talking about the _Ring_, primarily. The other operas all have their own spirit and style. The original stagings weren't entirely satisfactory even to Wagner, and I'm sure he would have wished to take advantage of the most advanced theater technology to improve the dramatic illusion. It would be an interesting one-off, though, to see the original productions with the kinks ironed out.
> 
> Welcome to the forum, by the way. I haven't seen you before.


Yes, they all have their own style, but they should look more like Tolkien then, say, a modern industrial city. And I was also thinking specificly about Tristan and Isolde as well- I think it should look more like I imagine the romance of Beren and Luthien to be like- and I mean especially in spirit, I know the story of Beren and Luthien didn't take place on a ship and around castles (Though I suppose Menegroth is like a castle, somewhat).
I think of the original locations (forest, whatever) and the spirit they represent to be as much a part of the composition as the notes on the paper, and if going to a live concert were practical for me, I would be dissappointed if I weren't getting the original work.
Thank you for the welcome, by the way. I just joined a few days ago.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

davidsannderson said:


> To me, Wagner should look like something from out of Tolkien. In fact, I bet that would bring in lots of Tolkien fans who would be turned off by a modernist re-staging (people like me). Wagner's original stage directions would be great- I've seen photos from such stagings from the early 20th century! And for me, you don't get any more relavent then something Tolkienish- our own dreams for the way the world could be again!


As much as I agree with you I do like the Boulez/ Patrice Chéreau. 
Stunning staging .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

davidsannderson said:


> Yes, they all have their own style, but they should look more like Tolkien then, say, a modern industrial city. And I was also thinking specificly about Tristan and Isolde as well- I think it should look more like I imagine the romance of Beren and Luthien to be like- and I mean especially in spirit, I know the story of Beren and Luthien didn't take place on a ship and around castles (Though I suppose Menegroth is like a castle, somewhat).
> *I think of the original locations (forest, whatever) and the spirit they represent to be as much a part of the composition as the notes on the paper,* and if going to a live concert were practical for me, I would be dissappointed if I weren't getting the original work.


I agree completely. Wagner knew exactly what he was doing in specifying his locales. In _Tristan_ we want to see an ancient ship to create the feeling of legendary times and of a long, tiring, fatal voyage in progress. We want Isolde's cabin to be well-appointed to honor her status as a princess, yet it must feel claustrophobic to emphasize her sense of oppression. We want a tower in the forest and a nocturnal garden in act two where the lovers can forget the world under a magical, starlit sky, and we want this exquisite realm of "Night" to give way to the coldest, grayest dawn. In act three we want to see a deserted, crumbling castle wall and a lonely expanse of ocean, harshly lit by the glare of the sky, to show the emptiness of Tristan's soul in the world of "Day."

Wagner asks for all this, and does so because these things evoke feelings in us and help to tell his story. In some productions now we see none of it, indeed at times effects directly contrary to his intentions. In the upcoming, modern-dress Met production, Kurwenal apparently takes the wounded Tristan, not to his ancestral home in Kareol, but to an intensive care unit in a hospital. Somehow Isolde finds him there. I guess Kurwenal must have emailed her.


----------



## interestedin (Jan 10, 2016)

davidsannderson said:


> To me, Wagner should look like something from out of Tolkien. In fact, I bet that would bring in lots of Tolkien fans who would be turned off by a modernist re-staging (people like me).


But that's not what Wagner is and it's never going to happen.

I'm assuming we are not talking about Tolkien's novels which were built on imagination like Wagner's libretti. But of course a libretto unlike the novel does not work without being performed. So we are talking about (for example) a Nibelungen Ring that looks like one of those Peter Jackson movies. The reason those movies worked (for most of us) was that every single detail was adjusted to our eyes. We did not need imagination, everything was right there and looked magic. 
You can't have that on a opera stage. Start with the cast. You need lots of actors (Siegmund, Sieglinde, Siegfried, Brünnhilde) who look like they are in their 20s, who are very handsome, not fat, who can act and who are able to sing some of the most difficult music ever written. Never in 150 years of Ring history has there been a cast (or even a single singer) meeting those requirements. But even if they existed we could not change the fact that - strictly following Wagner's instructions and music - for most of the time they would be standing around and singing in a language you most likely don't understand. Even the best actor would have problems with turning that into a credible Tolkien-movie-like performance. Then go on with putting giant snakes, toads, castles on stage which do not look like the local Kindergarten doing a theatre week.

Have you seen Otto Schenk's Ring of the late 80s? Or the Seattle Ring of the 2000s? The former has been filmed, you might find it on Youtube. Those were naturalistic attempts as good as possible at their time. Did you like it? Do you think many Tolkien fans would like to watch 16 hours of that?

A few weeks ago I was at the opera house at a live performance of Götterdämmerung with not much on the stage and the protagonists _literally_ being dressed up as clowns. My eyes found that no more ridiculous than fat women riding on plastic horses. However unlike with naturalistic productions there was at least room for imagination, a space to escape to when you can't take what is on stage as "real".


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

interestedin said:


> But that's not what Wagner is and it's never going to happen.
> 
> I'm assuming we are not talking about Tolkien's novels which were built on imagination like Wagner's libretti. But of course a libretto unlike the novel does not work without being performed. So we are talking about (for example) a Nibelungen Ring that looks like one of those Peter Jackson movies. The reason those movies worked (for most of us) was that every single detail was adjusted to our eyes. We did not need imagination, everything was right there and looked magic.
> You can't have that on a opera stage. Start with the cast. You need lots of actors (Siegmund, Sieglinde, Siegfried, Brünnhilde) who look like they are in their 20s, who are very handsome, not fat, who can act and who are able to sing some of the most difficult music ever written. Never in 150 years of Ring history has there been a cast (or even a single singer) meeting those requirements. But even if they existed we could not change the fact that - strictly following Wagner's instructions and music - for most of the time they would be standing around and singing in a language you most likely don't understand. Even the best actor would have problems with turning that into a credible Tolkien-movie-like performance. Then go on with putting giant snakes, toads, castles on stage which do not look like the local Kindergarten doing a theatre week.
> ...


Good points. Of course, fat women on plastic horses and Siegfried dressed as a clown are not the only alternatives. Or have they become so in our shrunken imaginations?


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 9, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> You know the staging, it looks like a dumpster, or a messy construction site, or a street corner or whatever that really has nothing to do with the story. Moreover, people dressed up looking like weirdos, cross-dressing, weird masks, everything weird and distracting such that when the actors and singers move around on stage, it is a total mess.
> 
> It's all about the stage director and his "highly artistic / educated view" about making the opera relevant to audience today, and making some political or pseudo-Freudian-psycho-whatever analysis of the human condition whatever-whatever-whatevers.


Ideas that rejuvenate props/scenery/costumes, or highlight latent ambiguities in the plot, or result in interesting set and lighting design are always welcome if done tastefully. Those directors that see fit to transport e.g. Tosca to a planet of space monkeys or see fit to push irrelevant political agendas down the audience's throat have my wholehearted disapproval. The most revolutionary idea in our time of hyperbole and inflated directors' egos: dare to stage the opera as the composer intended and find ways to imprint your personal touch within those limits.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Aldarion said:


> Ideas that rejuvenate props/scenery/costumes, or highlight latent ambiguities in the plot, or result in interesting set and lighting design are always welcome if done tastefully. Those directors that see fit to transport e.g. Tosca to a planet of space monkeys or see fit to push irrelevant political agendas down the audience's throat have my wholehearted disapproval. The most revolutionary idea in our time of hyperbole and inflated directors' egos: dare to stage the opera as the composer intended and find ways to imprint your personal touch within those limits.


Tosca on the Planet of the Apes sounds at least fun but most of the time it is just something dark, gloomy and ugly.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Aldarion said:


> Ideas that rejuvenate props/scenery/costumes, or highlight latent ambiguities in the plot, or result in interesting set and lighting design are always welcome if done tastefully. Those directors that see fit to transport e.g. Tosca to a planet of space monkeys or see fit to push irrelevant political agendas down the audience's throat have my wholehearted disapproval. The most revolutionary idea in our time of hyperbole and inflated directors' egos: dare to stage the opera as the composer intended and find ways to imprint your personal touch within those limits.


"As the composer intended" is problematic. Composers can't be expected to anticipate the contributions of great actors or to leave detailed stage directions, and even when they do, it may be possible to tell the story, and capture the work's essential meaning and spirit, in stagings very different from anything the composer imagined. Faithfulness to the composer need not imply lack of creative imagination. I assume you agree with this in your phrase "ideas that rejuvenate props/scenery/costumes, or highlight latent ambiguities in the plot, or result in interesting set and lighting design."

There seem to be few directors now who can function effectively as servants of the music and drama and keep their need to "comment" on the opera in check, or who even see that as their assignment and their challenge as re-creative artists. An opera production is not an editorial or an analytical thesis which an audience is supposed to study and evaluate. Anything that interposes "concepts" between the audience and the impact of the music and the characterizations of the singers is irrelevant.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 9, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I assume you agree with this in your phrase...


Unreservedly agreed.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 9, 2016)

Sloe said:


> Tosca on the Planet of the Apes sounds at least fun...


It kind of does, doesn't it?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Aldarion said:


> It kind of does, doesn't it?


Better than just placing it in any time period between present and when it actually takes place.

Tosca is really not that much of a victim of Regietheater I don´t think it is possible to do much Regietheater out of Tosca. Compare this with the horrible treatment Turandot often gets.


----------



## davidsannderson (Aug 7, 2016)

Pugg said:


> As much as I agree with you I do like the Boulez/ Patrice Chéreau.
> Stunning staging .


As long as re-stagings like that don't replace the original. There's lots of room in the arts for re-doing stories- Humperdink's Hansel and Gretel is different from the original Grimm, as long as we still get to see a good traditional staging too. Usually that won't be practical, but a re-staging at Bayreuth doesn't compete for space at home.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Pugg said:


> As much as I agree with you I do like the Boulez/ Patrice Chéreau.
> Stunning staging .


I still think they could have left out the rifles and dress the singers in clothes appropriate for the iron age instead of suits.


----------



## davidsannderson (Aug 7, 2016)

interestedin said:


> But that's not what Wagner is and it's never going to happen.
> 
> I'm assuming we are not talking about Tolkien's novels which were built on imagination like Wagner's libretti. But of course a libretto unlike the novel does not work without being performed. So we are talking about (for example) a Nibelungen Ring that looks like one of those Peter Jackson movies. The reason those movies worked (for most of us) was that every single detail was adjusted to our eyes. We did not need imagination, everything was right there and looked magic.
> You can't have that on a opera stage. Start with the cast. You need lots of actors (Siegmund, Sieglinde, Siegfried, Brünnhilde) who look like they are in their 20s, who are very handsome, not fat, who can act and who are able to sing some of the most difficult music ever written. Never in 150 years of Ring history has there been a cast (or even a single singer) meeting those requirements. But even if they existed we could not change the fact that - strictly following Wagner's instructions and music - for most of the time they would be standing around and singing in a language you most likely don't understand. Even the best actor would have problems with turning that into a credible Tolkien-movie-like performance. Then go on with putting giant snakes, toads, castles on stage which do not look like the local Kindergarten doing a theatre week.
> ...


Actually, I was thinking of the Tolkien novels. And I was thinking of the spirit, not a literal representation. The Wagner operas have a very similar spirit to Tolkien, and to represent the original settings well, they should represent that spirit. Lifelike depiction is far less important than the spirit of the staging.
The literal representation would be different anyway, since the stories are so different in detail.
In fact, from photos I've seen, the traditional stagings we have had have that spirit all over! Some people have done better than I could ever hope for!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Sloe said:


> Better than just placing it in any time period between present and when it actually takes place.
> 
> Tosca is really not that much of a victim of Regietheater I don´t think it is possible to do much Regietheater out of Tosca. Compare this with the horrible treatment Turandot often gets.


Try the Decca with that horrible R.Carson staging, it's horrendous.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Pugg said:


> Try the Decca with that horrible R.Carson staging, it's horrendous.


As horrendous as this?


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

DavidA said:


> There seem to be a lot of failed directors operating in opera at the moment who are seeking to be notorious and come up with things to shock. I don't want to go to opera to be shocked or to see someone's half-baked production which takes no notice of the libretto. Opera is expensive and so the public are entitled to something which adequately reflects the composer's intentions.Within this there are a myriad ways of directing. the problem is many directors appear to be void of stagecraft and to compensate they put on these nonsensical productions which serve their own massive ego rather than the composer's intentions.


I agree with this. I'm not against directors updating the settings of operas; two of the best opera productions I've ever seen -- SALOME at Virginia Opera and GIULIO CESARE at Wolf Trap -- were "updated" ones. What I hate in a production is when it looks as though the director's main objective was to shock the audience, to make them uncomfortable. To me there's a "good" kind of "uncomfortable," when the audience reacts by saying, "That scene/that production was really _intense_." Then there's a _bad_ kind of uncomfortable, which is when the audience ends up embarrassed by what its seen when it should have been moved. I think that if the audience members are averting their eyes or walking out of the performance, then they've probably been made uncomfortable in the wrong way. Some directors seem to think they're "sticking it to the middle classes" or something by creating this type of production -- but if it turns the audience off and away, then what's the point? It's all about the director then, not the composer or the work.

As for productions that are just absurd looking and nothing more...I think they can be good for certain works (e.g. some of Rossini's, or certain 20th century works). However, I do think the current, Magritte-inspired Met production of LA CENERENTOLA, which was new in the late 1990's, has overstayed its welcome.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Couac Addict said:


> I enjoy new ideas. The warhorses are played too often for them not to be reinvented. Traditional productions grow boring. *I have a special hatred for that 19th century dress that Violetta traditionally wears. So anything that avoids costuming like that gets my thumbs up  *
> What I don't like, is when there is no reason for such a change other than to shock the audience. Sometimes, lazy productions are mistaken for creativity.
> 
> Did LA Opera have any consideration for the ensemble when they did their Ring Cycle? How inspired are singers when they're dressed like Muppets? Imagine this being your introduction to opera.


I like the idea of a LA TRAVIATA set in the 1920's, so that there's a conflict between the "new morals" and the older, Victorian or Edwardian values of Germont. I think there was a recent production in the US (San Francisco Opera?) that took this approach.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Sloe said:


> As horrendous as this?


This is also not my cup of tea, however Carson did Turandot in Antwerp, and the people who are atteninding that performance are still sick off it.
Besides stripping the whole stage so you could see the building stones a naked men on stage, suppost to be the prince send to death before the riddle. 
Nothing like Puccini wroth.


----------



## Weird Heather (Aug 24, 2016)

That clip of Turandot was... interesting? Without seeing the entire production, it is hard to tell whether it works or not, but the costume is quite garish - even by opera standards. The contrast with the minimalist stage is quite striking.

I come down firmly on both sides of this issue. It depends entirely on the specifics of the production. In general, I like the idea of messing with older works of art and doing something new and different with them. However, it doesn't always work out well, and there is always the potential that it will fail spectacularly. Additionally, I think it would be disastrous if these "innovative" productions entirely supplanted the traditional versions.

Since I live in the United States, where Regietheater productions aren't so common, I haven't had the opportunity to see such a production in person, but I have seen a few on DVD, and I have additional ones in my collection that I haven't watched yet. I have also seen some clips on YouTube, and I have read about a few. One I would like to see is the infamous "Planet of the Apes" Rigoletto. I suppose there is a chance that it would be successful, but it seems like such an ill advised concept that the likelihood of a catastrophic failure is high, and therefore it might be unintentionally funny. The thought of people in gorilla suits performing Rigoletto conjures up images of a hilarious artistic train wreck. Of course, I haven't seen it, so I can't pass final judgment. (I am a fan of things that are so bad that they are funny, so the "worst of the worst" in Regietheater may well appeal to me.)

A search for the unintentionally funny might be one reason to seek out Regietheater productions, but that is not the primary reason. If designed and executed properly, these productions can approach the original from an interesting new angle. In general, to be successful, I would argue that the production must work with the original opera, and not against it or independently of it. Successful productions engage with essential themes and concepts in the music and drama and present them in a new light. Two examples that I like are Willy Decker's 2005 Salzburg Festival production of La Traviata (starring Anna Netrebko and Rolando Villazon) and Jose Montalvo's 2004 production of Rameau's Les Paladins from the Théâtre du Châtelet. La Traviata is a minimalist staging with visual symbolism that works with the story, and Les Paladins is a chaotic, grand spectacle (as the original would have been), but in a very modern style that blends surprisingly well with the exuberance of the music and the craziness of the story. I know both productions have legions of detractors, and I'm sure there are more than a few here, but they worked well for me, and in the end, that's all that matters.

Traditional productions are valuable as well, and when properly executed, they are quite appealing, but when they are overdone, they can distract from the music and the story. (Extremely busy Regietheater productions can run into the same problem, of course.) I think it is important for traditional productions to continue to be available. I would not consider a radical Regietheater production of a well-known opera to be a proper introduction for someone new to opera; it is best to start by seeing opera approximately as it was originally intended, and then to branch out later. I have heard that Regietheater has completely taken over in some parts of Europe, and I think that is taking it too far. While I am the sort of person who enjoys seeing something strange, I don't want that all the time, and sometimes I would rather see the standard period costume drama or a modestly updated version.

Finally, I fall back on my philosophy that nothing is sacred. There is nothing inherently wrong with messing with a work of art that has been kicking around for a while, and sometimes somebody needs to scrawl a mustache on it to knock it off its pedestal and remind us of why we love it in the first place. I love La Boheme, for example, in all its mushy sentimental glory, but I don't want to see it as a period costume drama every time. If somebody does something new and interesting with it, that is great. If somebody dresses it up in gorilla suits and blows a raspberry at it, thereby making me laugh, that is fine too. If somebody tries something new and messes it up, then I'll forget about it and watch a different production the next time. There is room in the world for all kinds of productions.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Weird Heather said:


> That clip of Turandot was... interesting? Without seeing the entire production, it is hard to tell whether it works or not, but the costume is quite garish - even by opera standards. The contrast with the minimalist stage is quite striking.


The thing with Turandot is that she is an extremely pretty Chinese girl that men risk their life to get. Nina Stemme is not but with the right settings, make up and costumes the suspension of disbelief can be released. That production seems to go the opposite direction.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Sloe said:


> The thing with Turandot is that she is an extremely pretty Chinese girl that men risk their life to get.


Maybe its the music that Puccini wrote, meaning that a mature big voiced singer always tackles this. Hence I've never thought of her as 'extremely pretty'. The sex appeal has always seemed to be more towards the aloof Princess who needs warming. (Princesses bring a lot of power and that alone can be sexy- to some)


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Pugg said:


> Try the Decca with that horrible R.Carson staging, it's horrendous.


The thing with Tosca is that you don´t need much to make a recognisable production. 
A painting and some church decorations for the first act.
A desk for the second act.
A wall for the third act.

Then you have decent settings for Tosca.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sloe said:


> The thing with Tosca is that you don´t need much to make a recognisable production.
> A painting and some church decorations for the first act.
> A desk for the second act.
> A wall for the third act.
> ...


You could do that, but you'd better have some awfully good singer/actors to keep the audience from getting grouchy.

Let's face it: _Tosca_ is a pretty tired little soap opera and needs a shot in the buns. So, in the spirit of this thread, my new production will set act one of the opera in the Castel Los Angeles Casino And Strip Club in Southern California during the presidential election season, where tabloid photographer Rodolfo Cavaradossi meets regularly with the tall, tanned, blond, blue-eyed exotic dancer Musetta L'Attavanti and photographs her in the nude (which his short, fat, pasty, brunette girlfriend, Mimi Tosca, star of the Studio Backlot Opera Workshop, is unaware of but would consider killing him for if she were to find out). One day, while the casino is hosting a school outing by a social studies class led by their teacher Mr. Sacristan, and Cavaradossi and L'Attavanti are taking a sex break during a photo shoot, Cavaradossi's buddy and political associate, democratic presidential campaign strategist Marcello Angelotti, runs in to warn him about Barron S. ("the Scorpion") Trumpery, Reno's compassionless conservative mayor and chief of police, who is running for U.S. president against bleeding-blackheart liberal Hellary ****on. The two friends are aware that the casino is owned by the Trumpery Organization and suspect that Angelotti's email may have been hacked, so Cavaradossi sends him backstage with L'Attavanti to be dressed in a sequined cape and a blond wig. L'Attavanti returns, and she and Cavaradossi rip off each other's shirts and begin rolling on the floor when suddenly the voice of Tosca is heard offstage. L'Attavanti quickly exits, and Tosca, having been tipped off by a text message from someone in the Trumpery Organization, finds Cavaradossi standing disheveled in front of a photograph of his mistress. He tells her that it's just a fashion assignment, pleads that he adores her but is late for another gig, and runs off leaving her somewhat dubious. Then "the Scorpion" himself enters, sees her standing there, bends over to pick up an iphone, realizes that it belongs to L'Attavanti who had dropped it on the way out, thrusts it into Tosca's hands, and sends her rushing away in a murderous prima donna rage. Trumpery, eyes fixed on her receding strapless bodice, hears music from the Catholic church next door, and feels certain that the choir's words "Te deum laudamus!" are all about him, because, of course, everything is.

Act two takes place at the Los Trumperos Police Station, where "the Scorpion" has arranged to meet Tosca when she's finished singing at Billy Bob Thornton's latest wedding at the Trumperitos de Los Angeles Chapel. We all know what happens in this act, but in this production Tosca fells the police chief with a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9mm / M&P .40 S&W which she conceals in her make-up kit. She is smart enough to know that a power-drunk paranoiac like Trumpery would never leave a knife lying around, and her evident understanding that under the patriarchy nothing short of premeditated murder will secure the rights of women makes us realize that there's more to this little diva's temperament than monthly periods. After she shoots him six times, screaming "Suffocate in your own blood! Die die, die, you pompous, bigoted, fraudulent, xenophobic, narcissistic mental pygmy!", she flips his corpse over on its stomach, reaches into his back pocket, pulls out his wallet and empties it of his cash, credit cards, and twenty-seven photos of himself. Shaking her head, she mutters "And before _that_, Atlantic City trembled???" She shoves the cash and credit cards into her purse - but, as she's about to leave, curiosity overcomes revulsion: she looks down at the body and, staring at Barron S. Trumpery's weird, wonderful, pouffy hair, bends over, reaches out slowly, and with just the tips of her fingers touches it to see if it's real. Then, amazed but satisfied, she goes out.

In most productions of this opera, not much happens in act three, since the most exciting stuff is all in act two and we already know that Cavaradossi and Tosca will end up dead. But in my view it's time we got over this 19th-century, sentimental fetish for couples living and dying for love. My Tosca isn't going to have her life ruined by a bunch of lecherous macho males, of _either_ political party. My Tosca knew how to deal with Scarpia when he pushed her too far, and knew it would only be a matter of time before she'd have to have a showdown with her two-timing lover. So when Cavaradossi meets his expected end, she's neither surprised nor unhappy. All that screaming she does is fake; it's just a signal for the person she's been longing for to come and take her away from all this hullabaloo, and in my production it isn't Trumpery's people who come for her - what do they care about a damned opera singer? - but Musetta L'Attavanti, whom Tosca had always loved but pretended to be jealous of in order to see how Cavaradossi would react. At Tosca's screams L'Attavanti runs in, the two embrace and kiss passionately, and then they climb the prison wall and leap off into space like Thelma and Louise, except that when we see them bounce back up over the ramparts we know that L'Attavanti, as careful a planner as her lover Tosca, has provided a nice big trampoline to make their elopement as much fun for us as it is for them.

After all she's been through in over a century of truly grim productions, Tosca deserves happiness as much as, or more than, the next girl. In other productions, as she's about to hurl herself to her death, she calls out "O Scarpia! Avanti a Dio!" But not my Tosca! My Tosca, holding her lover's hand, will cry out "O Scorpio! L'Attavanti e mia!"


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Sloe said:


> The thing with Tosca is that you don´t need much to make a recognisable production.
> A painting and some church decorations for the first act.
> A desk for the second act.
> A wall for the third act.
> ...


In this case the whole setting is turned around, apart from the things you mentioned the setting is a theatre as if we ( the audience are the performers and the artists watching us.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

I enjoyed François Girard's staging and direction of _Parsifal_ (Gatti, Kaufmann). Yeah, there are some head scratchers in there, the pools of blood on the floor, for example. That aside, I thought it was "weird done right"; it was simple, striking, haunting, with gorgeous backdrops.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Pugg said:


> In this case the whole setting is turned around, apart from the things you mentioned the setting is a theatre as if we ( the audience are the performers and the artists watching us.


Having these things you can set Tosca in what other time period and place you want and it will still be a recognisable Tosca.
To make it really awkward you would need something like what Woodduck suggested.
Compare with Madama Butterfly were you expect something like this:










But instead get this:


----------

