# Booing at ROH



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Seems though Kaspar Holten is making a mess of things at the ROH. I saw his lousy production of Don Giovanni and was put off ever seeing anything from ROH while he is in charge. I was tempted to see William Tell but the following reviews aren't encouraging. Why do they employ these guys?

http://slippedisc.com/2015/06/covent-gardens-william-tell-is-inexcusably-nasty/


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Yes - there was a trenchantly-critical review in today's Telegraph too - 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...-Opera-House-review-lame-and-pretentious.html

The critic made the point that the orchestra was good, and the main singers were good, but the whole spirit of the opera had been changed. 
In defence, the management said that they had no plans to change the production, because the simulated rape showed that brutality to women is the reality of war. 
So that means that no play or opera that is set in a war or conflict can be shown without this didacticism - we are never to forget that war is brutal? 
Ergo, Falstaff's comic role in Shakespeare's Henry IV part One has to be balanced by some military atrocity...?
Per-lease, directors and managers, treat your audience like adults!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> Yes - there was a trenchantly-critical review in today's Telegraph too -
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...-Opera-House-review-lame-and-pretentious.html
> 
> The critic made the point that the orchestra was good, and the main singers were good, but the whole spirit of the opera had been changed.
> ...


These producers appear more concerned with making a name for themselves than being faithful to the spirit of the opera. There is absolutely no excuse for this in a work like Tell which rarely gets an airing on stage. Surely then there is a case for doing it 'straight' to give the audience an idea of what it is like as very few will have seen it before. Anyway, I'll be living with my CDs of the opera. I was tempted to see it but when I saw the reviews I thought I'd give it a miss. Same with ENOs Carmen tonight.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Yeah, they should also cut out the part with Leuthold in act 1. Étienne de Jouy and Hippolyte Bis had no business bringing sexual assault into this opera that's supposed to be about idyllic country life.

Quoting from the NYT article: "The scene came in Act III, where the libretto calls for Austrian soldiers to force local women to dance."

It's already in the subtext. And as soon as Tell is recognized as the person that helped Leuthold they call out to arrest him.


----------



## Loge (Oct 30, 2014)

> In defence, the management said that they had no plans to change the production, because the simulated rape showed that brutality to women is the reality of war.
> So that means that no play or opera that is set in a war or conflict can be shown without this didacticism - we are never to forget that war is brutal?
> Ergo, Falstaff's comic role in Shakespeare's Henry IV part One has to be balanced by some military atrocity...?
> Per-lease, directors and managers, treat your audience like adults!


The attitude of the management of the Royal Opera House is disgusting. The customer is always wrong. The arrogance. They only get away with Eurtotrash because it is state funded. Pull these stunts too often and the ROH will end up like the ENO.

Reading comment reviews of the production, the rape scene was the straw that broke the camels back. The audience thought the production was filled with Eurotrash clichés and that the entire production sucked. And what if there is booing at the Live HD broadcast?

It is a shame because William Tell is not performed often, so about the only chance you will get to see it is mired by 1980s style German direction. Even on the ROH website customers are complaining that they have had it up to here with shoddy productions. And that they will now only go to semi staged concert versions. You see it is all about the music.

Like the way the cast and conductor have to step in to save the production crew from being lynched..


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I of course have not seen the production and this scene could well have been done tastelessly and I find it horrifying that rape and sexual assault and violence against women in general are used so frequently and shallowly in many, many operas... but it's in their librettos, scores, the original productions, sometimes off stage (as in _Guillaume Tell_) but also on stage in many popular works.

A lot of opera stories are incredibly horrifying. Sometimes it is fitting to see that on stage. I am not going to say Michieletto's production works because I don't know. But I'm also not convinced that the audience's reaction is fair.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

the only course of action is to boycott the ROH until Holten and his clowns are removed due to lack of support. I've suffered through one of his idiot productions and never want to see another.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

mountmccabe said:


> Yeah, they should also cut out the part with Leuthold in act 1. Étienne de Jouy and Hippolyte Bis had no business bringing sexual assault into this opera that's supposed to be about idyllic country life.
> 
> Quoting from the NYT article: "The scene came in Act III, where the libretto calls for Austrian soldiers to force local women to dance."
> 
> It's already in the subtext. And as soon as Tell is recognized as the person that helped Leuthold they call out to arrest him.


Forcing local women to dance is not the same as simulated rape with full nudity of the 'victim'. (According to the Telegraph critic, the actress was 'pruriently' stripped naked.)

I don't know this opera, but the description of what happens in Act III (from Wiki) doesn't even sound like 'forcing them to dance' exactly: 
'The day is the hundredth anniversary of Austrian rule in Switzerland. Soldiers sing of the glories of Gesler and the Emperor. In commemoration, Gesler has had his hat placed on top of a pole and the Swiss are ordered and then forced to pay homage to the hat. *Gesler commands that there should be dancing and singing to mark the century during which the empire has "deigned to sustain [Swiss] weakness", and a variety of dances and choruses follow.* Soldiers have noticed Tell and his son in the crowd, refusing to pay homage to the hat, and drag him forward. Rodolphe recognises him as the man who assisted in Leuthold's escape, and Gesler orders his arrest...' 

It sounds as if the effect of the scene is to show that the Swiss feel obliged to join in a celebration, and Tell stands out against the crowd, thus showing heroism and gaining admiration.
A woman being stripped naked and raped in simulation draws another emotion from the audience: shock and/or disgust.

Not exactly the same thing & hard to argue that it's what the composer had in mind.

_(If it's the hundredth anniversary of Austrian power in Switzerland, then the opera is about a military regime, not 'war', which makes the management's justification sound even more specious.)_


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Why do they employ these guys?


so that to ruin the opera and its music.


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

mountmccabe said:


> But I'm also not convinced that the audience's reaction is fair.


Just my opinion but: The audience is the audience, I don't think the criteria of fairness applies to their reaction. Along with the rest of the company, the director is there in service of the audience - not the other way around. Or is this the natural next step in the ascendancy of the stage director above the musicians, the librettist, and the composer?

I've only seen Guillaume Tell in a concert performance, but it seems to me that the opera as constructed by Rossini did a fine job of portraying the inherent violence of war without the aid of directorial editorializing. The musical and dramatic high point of the opera is just where you'd expect is to be: where Tell is forced to shoot the apple off his son's head. The story has become a cliché in popular culture, however the opera jarringly portrays the unspeakable violence of this act perpetrated on Tell. To upstage this scene is to subvert the opera.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> Forcing local women to dance is not the same as simulated rape with full nudity of the 'victim'. (According to the Telegraph critic, the actress was 'pruriently' stripped naked.)


As I said, it was in the subtext. Bringing that subtext forward has been shocking to people.



Ingélou said:


> I don't know this opera, but the description of what happens in Act III (from Wiki) doesn't even sound like 'forcing them to dance' exactly:
> 'The day is the hundredth anniversary of Austrian rule in Switzerland. Soldiers sing of the glories of Gesler and the Emperor. In commemoration, Gesler has had his hat placed on top of a pole and the Swiss are ordered and then forced to pay homage to the hat. *Gesler commands that there should be dancing and singing to mark the century during which the empire has "deigned to sustain [Swiss] weakness", and a variety of dances and choruses follow.* Soldiers have noticed Tell and his son in the crowd, refusing to pay homage to the hat, and drag him forward. Rodolphe recognises him as the man who assisted in Leuthold's escape, and Gesler orders his arrest...'
> 
> It sounds as if the effect of the scene is to show that the Swiss feel obliged to join in a celebration, and Tell stands out against the crowd, thus showing heroism and gaining admiration.
> ...


The libretto says:


> Ici commence la fête. Un des lieutenants de Gessler fait entrer par la force des Tyroliens et des Tyroliennes qui dansent au son des voix seulement.
> 
> Here the festivities begin. One of Gessler's lieutenants has had brought in forcibly some Tyrolean men and girls who dance to the sound of voices only.


Then, further on:



> Les soldats de Gessler contraignent des femmes suisses à danser avec eux, les habitants témoignent par leurs gestes de leur indignation; à la fin de la danse tout le monde se prosterne devant le trophée.
> 
> Gessler's soldiers force the Swiss women to dance with them: the people show by their gestures their indignation at this violence. At the conclusion of the dance they all prostrate themselves before the trophy.


The first part seems like generalized oppression, but the soldiers forcing the women to dance with them sounds like a sanitized substitute for sexual violence. The librettists did not intend to specifically show a woman being subjugated by rape but they did explicitly include the subjugation of women by the foreign soldiers.

Either way is showing increasing oppression these soldiers and then Tell getting called out for not being subservient and getting recognized as the person who had previously helped someone who had responded with violence to sexual assault.

And, again, this is a particularly horrible thing to depict. But this wasn't out of nowhere, unrelated. But it's in the libretto. This is what is actually going on, even if it is not explicitly depicted on stage.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Cavaradossi said:


> Just my opinion but: The audience is the audience, I don't think the criteria of fairness applies to their reaction. Along with the rest of the company, the director is there in service of the audience - not the other way around. Or is this the natural next step in the ascendancy of the stage director above the musicians, the librettist, and the composer?


If the response to a production of _Lulu_ is complaints about it being a lurid story of sex and murder... then I do not believe that is a fair response from the audience. If the response to seeing _Die Zauberflöte_ was that there was too many high notes and too many low notes then I don't consider that a fair response.

Not everyone has to like opera. Not everyone has to like _Lulu_. But if we're talking about a production of _Lulu_ we have to be okay with opera as an art form and we have to be okay with the subject matter of _Lulu_.

Sexual assault is already the subject matter of _Guillaume Tell_. The complaints have just been, Oh, no, nudity! Oh, no, rape!



Cavaradossi said:


> I've only seen Guillaume Tell in a concert performance, but it seems to me that the opera as constructed by Rossini did a fine job of portraying the inherent violence of war without the aid of directorial editorializing. The musical and dramatic high point of the opera is just where you'd expect is to be: where Tell is forced to shoot the apple off his son's head. The story has become a cliché in popular culture, however the opera jarringly portrays the unspeakable violence of this act perpetrated on Tell. To upstage this scene is to subvert the opera.


This, however, is a very different criticism. This is a very good point that has been missing from the other reviews I've seen.

I cannot defend the scene from this because I have not seen the production and have no idea what it does, dramatically, to the work as a whole. But it makes sense that this scene could have taken things too far and thus would require a lot more from the second scene for it to retain the dominant spot.

And based on the scandal reviews the first scene of act three has gotten all the attention.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

@mountmccabe: :tiphat:No - sorry, I disagree.
Pushing someone in anger is not the same as assaulting them, punching someone on the shoulder is not the same as killing them, and manhandling a woman so that she feels obliged to dance with you is not the same as stripping her naked and gang-raping her.

It is also not helpful for the management to talk about having to show the brutality of war, as if the theatre is real life, or as if an opera about a man's heroism in facing up to a military regime is the same as experiencing a military atrocity.

In real life we would not sit quietly in a comfortable seat while someone was raped, and it evokes visceral feelings of horror, unease, disgust and shock. This is not helpful to the theatrical experience of an opera which is not a tragedy, and if the scene is taken seriously it drowns out the emotions that one supposes the composer meant one to feel - indignation and sympathy at the treatment of the women, admiration for Tell, anxiety about what would happen to him, empathy about the forced shooting at his son and so on. 

As Cavaradossi says, above, 'To upstage this scene is to subvert the opera.'

Moreover this whole shock-horror thing about war, rape, nudity, violence and so on has been done to death already, at least since the 1960s. So the alternative to unease & shock at this rape scene - which I would have felt - was disgust and weariness and frustration felt by the more seasoned opera-goers at seeing yet another potentially wonderful musical experience being ruined by yet another director whose goal was 'épater la bourgeoisie'.

I feel sorry for singers who have to have their musical talents overshadowed by these extraneous pieces of business, and sorry for the actresses involved in these nude, graphically-sexual scenes - to my mind, ironically, it seems as if it's the director who is actually exploiting women here.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2015)

I wouldn't normally read opera reviews...but it was the row of men sitting on toilets that...intrigued me...!

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/30/opera-controversy-william-tell


----------



## Loge (Oct 30, 2014)

dogen said:


> I wouldn't normally read opera reviews...but it was the row of men sitting on toilets that...intrigued me...!
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/30/opera-controversy-william-tell


Yeah, the Der Ring des Nibelungen - directed by Richard Jones, Royal Opera, London, 1994-96, was worse than the current production.

Nude body suits 1


Nude body suits 2

Ewwwe, in every dream home a heartache......


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I've just seen the ENO broadcast of Carmen. I wish these directors would find out the meaning of the phrase 'Less is more'!


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Loge said:


> Yeah, the Der Ring des Nibelungen - directed by Richard Jones, Royal Opera, London, 1994-96, was worse than the current production.
> 
> Nude body suits 1
> 
> ...


This was my first live Ring cycle, and I enjoyed it. It was generally derided at the time, but compared to what has cropped it since, it doesn't seem so bad. It certainly seemed to be comically low budget. Famously it had Brunnhilde with a paper bag on her head. The overheating and steaming old fashioned kitchen stove in Siegfried Act I was a lot of fun!

Anyway, back on topic...

I was planning to see William Tell at the cinema on Sunday, but definitely won't now as I find the portrayal as described to be _wilfully offensive_ (and I say this as a libertarian and atheist, certainly not religious or conservative.)

I'm speechless at Holten's pathetic apology and justification. He seems to be defending the indefensible and should not be let off the hook on this one.

Bottom line... this incident and Holten's stance does nothing positive for opera's profile, and is (IMO) more likely to put off new audiences rather than entice them.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I did consider going but decided against it. If you'd bought tickets, this is the email you'd get. No mention of a refund and a bit late to change your mind.

I like Kasper Holten and want him to succeed but he's not looked as his client group carefully enough. People who come to ROH tend to be a bit on the conservative side and that's why they like the traditional productions. What is wrong with putting on a new but traditional production? People would love it.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Don Fatale said:


> this incident and Holten's stance does nothing positive for opera's profile, and is (IMO) more likely to put off new audiences rather than entice them.


and that's exactly the result those behind such productions want to get.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

there's a conspiracy to destroy fine arts completely.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

In time the fashion will change. and directors will show how creative they can be while promoting the spirit of the original. A bit of a shame for those of us stuck in this in-your-face tendentious age!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

sospiro said:


> I did consider going but decided against it. If you'd bought tickets, this is the email you'd get. No mention of a refund and a bit late to change your mind.
> 
> I like Kasper Holten and want him to succeed but he's not looked as his client group carefully enough. People who come to ROH tend to be a bit on the conservative side and that's why they like the traditional productions. What is wrong with putting on a new but traditional production? People would love it.


The problem is that Holten is a lousy director himself, as anyone who watched his completely misguided Don Giovanni would realise. Anyne, that is, who cares about the concept Mzart / da Ponte wrote. But Holten is one of those arrogant jack-of-little-talents who believes he knows better than the geniuses who wrote the opera. Similarly with the Tell. See the production team smiling on the stage as if causing to audience (most of whom had paid good money for what was a disastrous production, according to most reviews) to boo and express displeasure was their purpose in life. When will these clowns get it into their head that opera is an entertainment and they should be pleasing not offending the paying public?


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Oh, that letter is something else, and in many ways the condescending stance toward the audience and critics is as offensive and damaging as the scene itself. To not offer refunds, even to those planning to take children is immature and irresponsible.

Putting the obligation solely on the audience (and critics) to accept their stance that productions must realistically depict any brutality, and the audience accept it, is to completely miss the point of why people go to opera. For this, Holten should be sacked.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

in this case, the ROH supervisors want to convey a political agenda by depicting the Austrians as brutal rapists, in order to defame the Austrian Empire and its heritage altogether, at the dispense of the audience, of course.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> To not offer refunds, even to those planning to take children is immature and irresponsible.
> 
> .


This is something I hadn't previously considered. My daughter had seen half a dozen opera's before she started secondary school.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Loge said:


> Yeah, the Der Ring des Nibelungen - directed by Richard Jones, Royal Opera, London, 1994-96, was worse than the current production.
> 
> Ewwwe, in every dream home a heartache......


Why are they making these nude things? It scares me.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

How many people commenting here have seen the production?

The "Tell gang rape scandal" is complete and utter nonsense. I saw the production (and the so called offending scene) this evening and the production does not include a rape scene. In my opinion, the media influenced by a group of opera critics who have decided that they don't like Kasper Holten have exaggerated the detail of the scene for their own sensationalist ends. Rape by definition has to include penetration and no penetration was simulated, suggested or implied in Michieletto's production of the opera.

However, the scene is distressing as it shows a woman being humiliated, stripped (but the audience only gets a flash of nudity as the woman covers herself with a tablecloth) and then the Austrian officers thump their fists on the table in time with the music (presumably they want her to dance for them as Gessler has told the Swiss people that they will dance to celebrate the Austrian national day). At this point Tell stops them tormenting her and she exits traumatised. Of course we can only imagine what would/could have happened had Tell not stepped in, but what could have happened next is left in the mind of the beholder. Whilst uncomfortable to watch (and it is not my intention to minimise degrading humiliation of another human being), it was distinctly different to the reports in the newspapers describing the scene. I guess the media couldn't resist the sensationalist ring that the word 'RAPE' has. Why was there no booing during Les Vepres Sicilienne which DID include a simulated rape on a ballerina?

That slipped disc article is so full of errors I don't have time to list them here. Surely the true outrage is that so called responsible news outlets could give a four and a half hour musical nirvana a one star review due to a four/five minute scene where the libretto calls for the depiction of the humiliation of a group of women, but the director choose to have one victim instead of a group.

So, why all the fuss? I have a theory, some of the old guard amongst the Garden's audience haven't liked the idea of Kasper's appointment even before he started and it seems that there is a campaign to force a resignation or a sacking. There was no booing tonight, only applause cheers and a few standing ovations. Why did the first night audience find the production so offensive, but the second night loved it? Could there be people who go to the first night of new productions with the sole intention of booing the production team when they come out at the end? I imagine a couple of the most vocal booers realised that booing during a production would cause even more of a stir when they saw a flash of nudity and then the booing spread like a virus.

As for the YouTube video of the curtain call, it is no different from many other new productions that weren't liked. (Furthermore you can hear some cheering for the production team as well.)

Don't believe a word the press has published about this, decide for yourself. In any case the production is being filmed on Sunday and I am absolutely certain that in fifty years time history will prove Michieletto, Holten and the ROH right.


N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

sharik said:


> there's a conspiracy to destroy fine arts completely.


Exactly, opera is about music. Not exclusively, but music is an important element of the art form. However, increasing numbers of people are only interested in the production and not the conducting or the singing. These people will cheer an incompetent Trovatore quartet who haven't got four voices to rub together, but loudly boo a production because there was a ten minute scene with a set in an ugly shade of yellow.

N.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I booed the audience and applauded the producers for having the guts to transpose the opera into Bosnia and making a political statement.

Now bring this production to the United States. I would fly to see it.

Now just get some good singers and then we have a better production.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Albert7 said:


> I booed the audience and applauded the producers for having the guts to transpose the opera into Bosnia and making a political statement.
> 
> Now bring this production to the United States. I would fly to see it.
> 
> Now just get some good singers and then we have a better production.


The three singers in the main roles wouldn't have been my first choice, however you could tell that they had worked extremely hard with Pappano at the piano and all gave far more than I have heard from them in the past. You also wouldn't get Pappano conducting it in the USA. But the production is definitely worth seeing again, with or without these performers. This really didn't deserve one and two star reviews.

N.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

The Conte said:


> How many people commenting here have seen the production?


I haven't but I have spoken to friends who have. (not critics)

I would have felt very uncomfortable watching the rape scene but my biggest gripe would have been the three and a half hours of grunge.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> How many people commenting here have seen the production?
> 
> N.


You don't need to fall off a cliff to know it hurts!

In any case why transport the thing to Bosnia?

As I say I saw Holten's idiotic production of Don Giovanni. If there's conspiracy to get him out it's by opera lovers who want to see what the composer actually wrote not what a daft producer has made up to inflate his ego!


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

The Conte said:


> How many people commenting here have seen the production?


i haven't but i have seen innumerous production like that. Boris Godunov recently staged by the Met sprang to mind immediately as i read about this one; but of course there are many more operas have been savaged and botched by production saboteurs.



The Conte said:


> However, increasing numbers of people are only interested in the production and not the conducting or the singing.


well, when you are ill at ease about what they come up with next to spoil your evening and make you feel depressed to the point of committing suicide, then no wonder... i for one believe that all these 'contemporary' stage directors should be stood up in court for inflicting psychological damage on the vulnerable.



The Conte said:


> These people will cheer an incompetent Trovatore quartet who haven't got four voices to rub together


i might well be one of them, have to agree, i'm not an expert in good singing, i only want that the vocalists sang loud enough so that the conductor wouldn't have to hush the orchestra; but this does not mean anyone has a right to insult me by mangling my favorite operas.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

sharik said:


> in this case, the ROH supervisors want to convey a political agenda by depicting the Austrians as brutal rapists, *in order to defame the Austrian Empire* and its heritage altogether, at the dispense of the audience, of course.


The Hapsburg Empire was vile. No defamation is occurring.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> You don't need to fall off a cliff to know it hurts!


You've missed the point. Just because a newspaper headline reads 'Man falls off cliff' doesn't mean that the story isn't mostly made up.



DavidA said:


> In any case why transport the thing to Bosnia?


Why not? In any case it wasn't set in Bosnia, the time and place were unspecified. Certain elements of the production made people think about the Balkans conflict in the 90s, that's all.



DavidA said:


> As I say I saw Holten's idiotic production of Don Giovanni. If there's conspiracy to get him out it's by opera lovers who want to see what the composer actually wrote not what a daft producer has made up to inflate his ego!


I wasn't keen on Holten's production of Don Giovanni. I did think it was visually stunning, though. Have you not considered that he might have been having an off period for that one? His Krol Roger didn't get booed.

N.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

The Conte said:


> So, why all the fuss?
> N.


Given the huge publicity this has received it is tempting to consider that a Rite of Spring style opening night 'rent-a-mob' has been employed.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

sharik said:


> i haven't but i have seen innumerous production like that. Boris Godunov recently staged by the Met sprang to mind immediately as i read about this one; but of course there are many more operas have been savaged and botched by production saboteurs.
> 
> well, when you are ill at ease about what they come up with next to spoil your evening and make you feel depressed to the point of committing suicide, then no wonder... i for one believe that all these 'contemporary' stage directors should be stood up in court for inflicting psychological damage on the vulnerable.
> 
> i might well be one of them, have to agree, i'm not an expert in good singing, i only want that the vocalists sang loud enough so that the conductor wouldn't have to hush the orchestra; but this does not mean anyone has a right to insult me by mangling my favorite operas.


I'm glad we've got that sorted.

N.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Albert7 said:


> I booed the audience and applauded the producers for having the guts to transpose the opera into Bosnia and making a political statement.
> .


Is making a political statement an important consideration when staging an opera? I should have thought it came way below the musical and artistic considerations. Besides, ironically, *William Tell* is already a political statement - it's about the Austrian Empire, and Switzerland. It seems silly to change it into being about twentieth century Bosnia.

The Telegraph critic gave the production three stars, praised the main singers, and said that the orchestra showed 'thoroughbred' playing, by the way. There's no reason to think that it was anything other than a fair review.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

The Conte said:


> How many people commenting here have seen the production?
> ...
> Don't believe a word the press has published about this, decide for yourself. In any case the production is being filmed on Sunday and I am absolutely certain that in fifty years time history will prove Michieletto, Holten and the ROH right.
> 
> N.


Thanks for an interesting perspective, representing an alternative viewpoint.

Tempting as the _see and judge for yourself_ thing is, I've been in that situation a good few times, and pretty much I've always been left feeling like a sucker as a result. They've had my money I've had a bad evening.

Therefore I'm content to take my cue from a knowledgeable and worldly-wise Convent Garden audience and the critics on this one. Conte, you seem to be downplaying the impact of the scene (which is fine) but the statements from Holten et al indicate they were aware that this was likely to cause some comment.

I'm curious. In what way exactly is Michieletto, Holten et al's art going to be proved right in 50 years?

A month ago I gave a lecture on logical fallacies and one of my own coining was the _The Right of Spring fallacy_. Just because something causes a riot at the time doesn't mean everybody will love it in 50 years.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Don Fatale said:


> A month ago I gave a lecture on logical fallacies and one of my own coining was the _The Right of Spring fallacy_. Just because something causes a riot at the time doesn't mean everybody will love it in 50 years.


Neighbour, I'd be interested to hear more about your Rite of Spring fallacy.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

The Conte said:


> Don't believe a word the press has published about this, decide for yourself. In any case the production is being filmed on Sunday and I am absolutely certain that in fifty years time history will prove Michieletto, Holten and the ROH right.


Let's get things straight. Rossini's opera is art. This production is not _art_, it's a _production_. It's more like a distorted mirror, as it fails to reproduce the art faithfully, even if the hideous images tickle someone's fancy.
An example: a truly great conductor is not the one who messes with the score so his ego "shines" through in every possible way. Parasite is more fitting term. I highly doubt if in 50 years the producer saying "Okay, and here we should add the rape scene because we need more press but budget is tight" would be considered "an artist". Do you believe these guys are artists just because both the name of the composer and producers' credits are in the same font size on the website?

In Rossini's times everyone praised the composer (even though he wasn't going to get decently paid for his art). "Producers" (impressario) were keeping the money but no one was pretending impressario created an art - his only duty was to "impress" to make theater-goers pay in cash. If he believed an elephant on stage would double his return on investments, he would go for it. Still, it's not an art.

Nothing has changed, but since there are no more great opera composers around, producers claimed the "art" part to themselves (not every producer, mind you).


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Wood said:


> Neighbour, I'd be interested to hear more about your Rite of Spring fallacy.


Ok, slightly off topic, but here goes... it's in no way a slight on The Rite of Spring, which is a fantastic piece, nor is this directed at Conte.
Logical fallacies (in the accepted modern usage) refer to statements made in conversations/arguments where the conclusion isn't supported by the argument presented, although the unwary listener might be taken in by it.

Therefore The Rite of Spring fallacy is employed to support an argument that something (in the arts) strongly disliked, 'rioted against', will become highly esteemed by subsequent generations. It simply doesn't follow. Speaking of riots in general (political, civil rights) it is far more likely that _their_ purpose is the one that is lauded generations later. As such, The Rite of Spring 'riot' should not be used to support an argument.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Don Fatale said:


> Ok, slightly off topic, but here goes... Therefore The Rite of Spring fallacy is employed to support an argument that something (in the arts) strongly disliked, 'rioted against', will become highly esteemed by subsequent generations. It simply doesn't follow. Speaking of riots in general (political, civil rights) it is far more likely that _their_ purpose is the one that is lauded generations later. As such, The Rite of Spring 'riot' should not be used to support an argument.


I wasn't there at the time, but wasn't there a sizeable proportion of the audience that strongly applauded the first performance and the riot was the conflict between those who supported and those who opposed the work?

Perhaps the _fallacy_ is that if there are vociferous opponents, it must mean that the work is rubbish or poorly appreciated?


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Developments

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...House-tones-down-rape-scene-after-outcry.html


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Another perspective and one which I would agree with. I have lost count of the number of times staff at ROH have been downright rude to me.

I was once accused by one of the Box Office staff, to my face, of being a ticket tout. It took six months of letters, phone calls and emails before I got a grudging apology.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I wasn't there at the time, but wasn't there a sizeable proportion of the audience that strongly applauded the first performance and the riot was the conflict between those who supported and those who opposed the work?
> 
> Perhaps the _fallacy_ is that if there are vociferous opponents, it must mean that the work is rubbish or poorly appreciated?


Not '_*the*_ fallacy' - but *another* fallacy, or perhaps the *converse* of the Rite of Spring fallacy? 

I wonder if the reviews or reporting of the boos caused some people to return their tickets and that's what's produced the partial climb-down at the Opera House?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Albert7 said:


> I booed the audience and applauded the producers for having the guts to transpose the opera into Bosnia and making a political statement.
> .


You have all the right in the world to like this production but how do they have guts for staging the opera in another time and place than it actually takes place when nearly everyone else do the same.


----------



## Loge (Oct 30, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> Not '_*the*_ fallacy' - but *another* fallacy, or perhaps the *converse* of the Rite of Spring fallacy?
> 
> I wonder if the reviews or reporting of the boos caused some people to return their tickets and that's what's produced the partial climb-down at the Opera House?


They climbed down because there is a live HD broadcast on Sunday. And the broadcast has unusually been given a 15 certificate. Cinemas might have had a lot of returns, because patrons tend to older who cannot make it into town. If there were mass boos during the broadcast, the ROH would loose face.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

sospiro said:


> Another perspective and one which I would agree with. I have lost count of the number of times staff at ROH have been downright rude to me.
> :lol:
> I was once accused by one of the Box Office staff, to my face, of being a ticket tout. It took six months of letters, phone calls and emails before I got a grudging apology.


So if I receive dirty looks from the ROH staff on Monday evening, I'll assume it's because I'm with you.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Loge said:


> They climbed down because there is a live HD broadcast on Sunday. And the broadcast has unusually been given a 15 certificate. Cinemas might have had a lot of returns, because patrons tend to older who cannot make it into town. If there were mass boos during the broadcast, the ROH would lose face.


I notice my local telecast cinema here in Malta hasn't sold even one seat more since this episode emerged.

I suspect that there won't be any HD close-ups of certain scenes during the telecast anyway. As you say there's a matter of censorship laws, with which ROH haven't complied, certainly not in spirit.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Loge said:


> They climbed down because there is a live HD broadcast on Sunday. And the broadcast has unusually been given a 15 certificate. Cinemas might have had a lot of returns, because patrons tend to older who cannot make it into town. If there were mass boos during the broadcast, the ROH would loose face.


Interesting - thanks!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Thanks for an interesting perspective, representing an alternative viewpoint.
> 
> Tempting as the _see and judge for yourself_ thing is, I've been in that situation a good few times, and pretty much I've always been left feeling like a sucker as a result. They've had my money I've had a bad evening.
> 
> ...


Only you can judge if it is worth your going to see or not. I prefer to see for myself as I don't always agree with the reviews.

As regards the Rite of Spring fallacy, of course not all fiascos become recognised as great successes at a later stage. However some do and I think this well thought out production will be understood differently in years to come. This because it was a dramatically effective, moving interpretation of the original. The second night audience gave it rapturous applause.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Azol said:


> I highly doubt if in 50 years the producer saying "Okay, and here we should add the rape scene because we need more press but budget is tight").


What's your source for that conversation?

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Loge said:


> They climbed down because there is a live HD broadcast on Sunday. And the broadcast has unusually been given a 15 certificate. Cinemas might have had a lot of returns, because patrons tend to older who cannot make it into town. If there were mass boos during the broadcast, the ROH would loose face.


Really? Do you have any proof of that or is it just speculation?

Has there been a climb down? The Telegraph update was wrong, the actress DID strip last night and was naked.

N.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Don Fatale said:


> So if I receive dirty looks from the ROH staff on Monday evening, I'll assume it's because I'm with you.


:devil:

I renewed my membership in October and it's taken until now to get my membership card. Each time I rang or emailed I'd get an abrupt "We've already sent it". Wrong answer. It should have been "I'm so sorry to hear that, I'll pop one in the post to you right now. Thank you once again for your continued support of the Royal Opera House"

You trap more flies with honey than with vinegar.


----------



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

sospiro said:


> :devil:
> 
> I renewed my membership in October and it's taken until now to get my membership card. Each time I rang or emailed I'd get an abrupt "We've already sent it". Wrong answer. It should have been "I'm so sorry to hear that, I'll pop one in the post to you right now. Thank you once again for your continued support of the Royal Opera House"
> 
> You trap more flies with honey than with vinegar.


Sounds like your experience smacks of complacency to me - how the hell can they expect loyalty when adherents like yourself are treated in so off-hand a manner?


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

I'm still a little puzzled by all this. I've heard boing at the end of productions that has been reported in the press before. But usually it was a few people and not at all reflectining the audience mood. IMO of course.

This time it was was during the performance and there's no evidence it was cordinated and planned. Has anyone ever heard of of a Covent Garden Claque? This is a worrying development no matter where you stand on the whole Purist/Regie artifical construct.

If the aim of the production team was to deliebrately gain notoriaty for this production then they may indeed have gone further than they thought and this may come home to hurt them?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...-Royal-Opera-House-pay-directors-so-much.html

I'm sure it will all blow over but our current Culture's vogue for discussing issues in headlines only is distressing.


----------



## Metairie Road (Apr 30, 2014)

I have no problem with 'political statements' in the arts. However, I do have a problem with hijacking another artists work to do it. At least John Adams writes his own damned operas to say what he has to say.

Anyway, to badly paraphrase Oscar Wilde; there's only one consideration - Is it good or is it bad?

I guess I'll have to see it to find out.

Best wishes
Metairie Road


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Metairie Road said:


> I have no problem with 'political statements' in the arts. However, I do have a problem with hijacking another artists work to do it. At least John Adams writes his own damned operas to say what he has to say.
> 
> Anyway, to badly paraphrase Oscar Wilde; there's only one consideration - Is it good or is it bad?
> 
> ...


Exactly! If these guys want to make political statements let them write their own works.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

sospiro said:


> Another perspective and one which I would agree with. I have lost count of the number of times staff at ROH have been downright rude to me.
> 
> I was once accused by one of the Box Office staff, to my face, of being a ticket tout. It took six months of letters, phone calls and emails before I got a grudging apology.


"The truth is that directors do these things because it is much less effort than engaging with the matters that actually concerned the authors: six-part ballet featuring Tyrolean dances; or a bit of titillation masquerading as social comment? Hm, tricky one. Then they award themselves brownie points for the relevance of what they are doing....

Opera has chosen to respond to its widely-perceived irrelevance by pretending to believe it is the obvious forum for examining such weighty matters as the rise of ISIS, FGM, homelessness, the banking crisis and God knows what else, in spite of how very clearly unsuitable most operas are for these purposes; and has been engaged in this for so long that it has come to believe it: so even the most gestural onstage reference to any buzz-issue generates a glow of righteous self-satisfaction inside opera houses.

However, glibly referencing an evil does not equal combating or even examining it. In short, it is vilely exploitative to depict sexual violence in order to shore up one's own moral credentials, and that is what happened here. The scene in Guillaume Tell did not 'remind' us of the horrors of war. What it did, through its sheer and obvious fakeness, was to cheapen those horrors, and to use them for self-serving ends."

Very well said.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

DavidA said:


> the only course of action is to boycott the ROH until Holten and his clowns are removed due to lack of support. I've suffered through one of his idiot productions and never want to see another.


Empty seats speak louder than any booing.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MAuer said:


> Empty seats speak louder than any booing.


One reason I won't be seeing the broadcast Sunday


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

MAuer said:


> Empty seats speak louder than any booing.


DavidA: "One reason I won't be seeing the broadcast Sunday"

Very true, the success of a production can be measured by the number of bums on seats (at least in some part). Interestingly enough Guillaume Tell isn't a title that sells tickets and there were over 100 tickets left for all the remaining performances yesterday morning. Now the next three performances are almost sold out. It looks as though the booers' demonstration against Kasper Holten has backfired. Seeing the continuing lies in the press it looks like the critics plan to oust Kasper has ironically given the production the publicity boost it needed.

I can't wait to read the feedback from the cinema audience tomorrow. I can well imagine a more open minded international audience giving the production the praise it deserves.

N.


----------



## Loge (Oct 30, 2014)

The Conte said:


> DavidA: "One reason I won't be seeing the broadcast Sunday"
> 
> Very true, the success of a production can be measured by the number of bums on seats (at least in some part). Interestingly enough Guillaume Tell isn't a title that sells tickets and there were over 100 tickets left for all the remaining performances yesterday morning. Now the next three performances are almost sold out. It looks as though the booers' demonstration against Kasper Holten has backfired. Seeing the continuing lies in the press it looks like the critics plan to oust Kasper has ironically given the production the publicity boost it needed.
> 
> ...


Now they will be booing because they have cut the rape scene. Queues of disappointed punters asking for their money back

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...cane-of-booing-on-opening-night-10365981.html


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

The Conte said:


> DavidA: "One reason I won't be seeing the broadcast Sunday"
> 
> Very true, the success of a production can be measured by the number of bums on seats (at least in some part). Interestingly enough Guillaume Tell isn't a title that sells tickets and there were over 100 tickets left for all the remaining performances yesterday morning. Now the next three performances are almost sold out. It looks as though the booers' demonstration against Kasper Holten has backfired. Seeing the continuing lies in the press it looks like the critics plan to oust Kasper has ironically given the production the publicity boost it needed.
> 
> ...


Conte, selling a 100 or so tickets on the back of huge publicity is hardly any kind of vindication. You don't seriously believe these extra bums on seats are a measure of artistic success? Can you not accept that the production has been panned by critics and opera-goers? Only the music and the singers are getting any credit.

I'd still like Conte, or Mr Holten, to explain why it's such a good thing to portray graphic rape and abuse of a naked woman on a stage and in an opera where it was not written. Should those who suffered similar abuse in the Balkans be thrilled that it's now being re-enacted in an opera by Rossini?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Loge said:


> Now they will be booing because they have cut the rape scene. Queues of disappointed punters asking for their money back
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...cane-of-booing-on-opening-night-10365981.html


But they haven't cut the scene (which ISN'T a rape scene).

Why is everybody here sticking up for the press and repeating, embellishing and exaggerating their lies?

Does nobody here care for accuracy?

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Conte, selling a 100 or so tickets on the back of huge publicity is hardly any kind of vindication. You don't seriously believe these extra bums on seats are a measure of artistic success? Can you not accept that the production has been panned by critics and opera-goers? Only the music and the singers are getting any credit.
> 
> *I'd still like Conte, or Mr Holten, to explain why it's such a good thing to portray graphic rape and abuse of a naked woman* on a stage and in an opera where it was not written. Should those who suffered similar abuse in the Balkans be thrilled that it's now being re-enacted in an opera by Rossini?


What's this got to do with rape and a naked woman being abused?

Whether I personally liked the production or not is nether here nor there. Let me type this very, very, very slowly and carefully:

*My point is that the press is inaccurately reporting what happened and continues to do so as the situation develops.*

I'd like somebody here to explain why it's such a good thing for journalists to misrepresent the facts.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

The Conte said:


> Really? Do you have any proof of that or is it just speculation?
> 
> Has there been a climb down? The Telegraph update was wrong, the actress DID strip last night and was naked.
> 
> N.


<Crickets>

Surprise, surprise!

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> DavidA: "One reason I won't be seeing the broadcast Sunday"
> 
> Very true, the success of a production can be measured by the number of bums on seats (at least in some part). Interestingly enough Guillaume Tell isn't a title that sells tickets and there were over 100 tickets left for all the remaining performances yesterday morning. Now the next three performances are almost sold out. It looks as though the booers' demonstration against Kasper Holten has backfired. Seeing the continuing lies in the press it looks like the critics plan to oust Kasper has ironically given the production the publicity boost it needed.
> 
> ...


the old adage - no publicity is bad publicity. Anyway I have decided not to see any more productions Holten's involved with after his mauling of Don Giovanni. Few more people stayed away they'd perhaps get rid of him. The man is a menace to good taste. as a guy I was sitting near said, "Typical ROH. Load of ****"


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

The Conte said:


> What's this got to do with rape and a naked woman being abused?
> 
> Whether I personally liked the production or not is nether here nor there. Let me type this very, very, very slowly and carefully:
> 
> ...


Please don't condescend. That's not doing you any favours.

Has everything in the news come from a parallel universe or something? The 1 star review in the Times, similar in the Telegraph, Independent, Guardian headline "William Tell: nudity and rape scene greeted with boos at Royal Opera House", and many personal reviews too. You make it sound like we're all imagining this. I'd also love to know why every review mentions it in pretty much as the Guardian headline and you think they're all lying?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Please don't condescend. That's not doing you any favours.
> 
> Has everything in the news come from a parallel universe or something? The 1 star review in the Times, similar in the Telegraph, Independent, Guardian headline "William Tell: nudity and rape scene greeted with boos at Royal Opera House", and many personal reviews too. You make it sound like we're all imagining this. I'd also love to know why every review mentions it in pretty much as the Guardian headline and you think they're all lying?


There was no simulation of rape during Thursday night's production. I know one person who went to the first night and the second and the only significant change was that the woman was screaming on the first night. The people I know who went to the first night have also all told me that this wasn't a rape scene.

I would only be able to speculate as to why the critics and journalists writing about this production have misrepresented it. However, it is clear from the comments on the three relevant pages of the ROH website that a number of the people who booed, did so to send a message to the ROH management. Reading the comments of some of those who booed it becomes clear that this was as much a protest against productions from the last two years as it was about this particular production or any particular scene from it.

The power of suggestion shouldn't be underrated and it's not as if this type of phenomenon hasn't happened before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Slasher

I know seven people who have seen the production and none of them saw a rape scene.

N.


----------



## Proms Fanatic (Nov 23, 2014)

The Conte said:


> There was no simulation of rape during Thursday night's production. I know one person who went to the first night and the second and the only significant change was that the woman was screaming on the first night. The people I know who went to the first night have also all told me that this wasn't a rape scene.
> 
> ...
> 
> I know seven people who have seen the production and none of them saw a rape scene.


What did they see?


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Ok, so you seem to be saying that all the major critics, people paid to pay close attention, were all hallucinating? Hypnotised by power of suggestion. And the various climbdowns publicly announced by Mr Holten, we all just imagined those too? It seems clear from official statements that the scene has distinctly changed from the opening night. You weren't there, the critics and commentators were, so I must accept their account.

I seem to be the last person here to realise there's no point getting further involved in this increasingly bizarre and wilfully contrary conversation.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

I have little sympathy with unmusical directors who do not trust the music to carry the audience and therefore insert extraneous stage action often designed to be controversial. Sometimes they plainly want people to leave the theatre discussing the director. But with the ROH William Tell there is another problem, beautifully identified by the latest Spectator.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts/ope...ve-thing-about-royal-operas-new-william-tell/
Alexandra Coghlan concludes: " That Michieletto's poorly staged representation gained international headlines this week, while the daily reality of it in Syria, Afghanistan, Congo, even Colombia, goes unshouted is the only obscenity here."
Hear, hear!


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Plácido Domingo adds his 2Cs

" ... he prefers opera productions to stay close to the original intentions of the composer."

Indeed


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Proms Fanatic said:


> What did they see?


A humiliation scene.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Ok, so you seem to be saying that all the major critics, people paid to pay close attention, were all hallucinating?


Sorry, I may not have been clear. It only takes a couple of made up stories to start a case of mass hysteria. Most of the critics who were present have suggested at one time or another that changes in the management at the ROH would be a good thing, so there were some present with an agenda. I think a couple of the critics exaggerated the scene's contents and then... lazy 'copypasta' journalism did the rest. I am not asking you to believe me, read the comments from the booers on the ROH website where they make it clear that they were booing the ROH, not a particular scene.



Don Fatale said:


> Hypnotised by power of suggestion. And the various climbdowns publicly announced by Mr Holten, we all just imagined those too? It seems clear from official statements that the scene has distinctly changed from the opening night.


Please point me in the direction of the evidence you have that Kasper Holten has said that the scene contained a rape and that the scene has substantially changed.



Don Fatale said:


> You weren't there, the critics and commentators were, so I must accept their account.
> 
> I seem to be the last person here to realise there's no point getting further involved in this increasingly bizarre and wilfully contrary conversation.


I find that an extremely rude comment, I am sorry if I have offended anybody here and that was in no way my intention. I find the suggestion that I am lying (and what's more, that my idea that journalists make up stories to further their own agendas could be labelled 'bizarre') insulting.

I will not go into a corner and shut up, the truth is far too important for that.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Ian Moffat responded on 30 June 2015 at 12:14pm Reply

"I went with an open mind, not knowing the music (apart from the Overture and the bits that Britten recycled) and not having read the Synopsis. Theatrically, the production works well in telling the story, with many political resonances for the modern day. Musically it was a treat, with the Chorus and Orchestra providing a sumptuous backing for some wonderful singing from Gerald Finley, John Osborn, Malin Byström et al.
...

Contrary to what is being reported, the disapproval was far from unanimous, with the production team taking a further 2 or 3 bows to shouts of "Bravo" after the booing had subsided."


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Conte thank you for standing up for what you saw. 

I realise you weren't at the Opening night so can't comment on the booing, but would you agree with the description of the actions you saw onstage described in the Opera Now editorial?

"At least on this latest occasion the ROH was joined in ignominy by all other parties to the flap: the director, the audience, the critics and the commentators. All for a ‘gang-rape’ scene that a) was nothing of the sort and b) would hardly have raised an eyebrow at English National Opera or in the straight theatre.

So what really happened? I’ll tell you: a young woman sitting in my row took noisy exception to a lengthy episode of molestation wherein a group of military officers indulge in conduct unbecoming with an unwilling female. This takes place to the jolly Tyrolean tunes Rossini provided for the forced merrymaking of Act III – one of those ballet divertissements composers were obliged to insert in Paris operas. Quite quickly a lot of other people joined in until the end of the scene was quite drowned in booing."


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Exactly! If these guys want to make political statements let them write their own works.


_Guillame Tell_ *is* a political work with political statements ... it is obviously a political work.

To take a clear and obvious example from the most well-known episode of the story, when Gesler puts the apple on Jemmy's head and orders Tell to fire at it, is this not the work of a sadist who represents an oppresssive Austrian regime?

It is very likely that contemporary audiences would have been aware of this (even if they chose to turn a blind eye or condone the tyrrany of the Austrian empire) and they may well have been aware of the implications of an Italian devising this work for a Parisian audience. I wonder how many of those who listen to _Tell_ understand just how _political_ the work really is


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

The Conte said:


> I find that an extremely rude comment, I am sorry if I have offended anybody here and that was in no way my intention. I find the suggestion that I am lying (and what's more, that my idea that journalists make up stories to further their own agendas could be labelled 'bizarre') insulting.
> 
> I will not go into a corner and shut up, the truth is far too important for that.
> 
> N.


You certainly don't need to shut up, and noone suggested you should. We're here to discuss things. If I'm finding the thread bizarre then that's my perception alone.

Bottom line is you still seem to deny what the critics say they saw on the first night, therefore, you're inviting us to have a conversation about conspiracy theories, cabals of critics with ulterior motives and 'power of suggestion'.

Is this the case? If so, that fine. Let's have some facts.

As you say the truth is far more important and I'd like to get it too.

Re: Belowpar's comment/quote from Opera Now, I'm concerned some commentaries (not here) are getting hung up with the definition of rape, ie. "_lengthy episode of molestation wherein a group of military officers indulge in conduct unbecoming with an unwilling female_". It was a graphic representation of rape by most other accounts, but it seems this Opera Now editorial writer needs to see the actual thing live on stage before deigning to use that word.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

How the media loves a scandal and how they have seized upon this one which is fast becoming a cause célèbre. I am not going to comment on this production because I haven't seen it and I prefer to make my own judgement rather than rely on critics and hearsay. I do wonder though whether there would have been boos and controversy if the scene as described had taken place in a modern contemporary opera on the same subject (resistance to occupied forces). I have a feeling it would have passed without comment. Audiences for nineteenth century bel canto opera can be notoriously conservative. I seem to recall similar objections to the nudity in David McVicar's recent production of Rigoletto at Covent Garden. I felt it really underlined the debauchery and total lack of morality in the Duke's court, but many objected. Many, it would seem, don't want to be reminded what the opera is actually about. They just want to sit back and enjoy the tunes.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

sospiro said:


> Plácido Domingo adds his 2Cs
> 
> " ... he prefers opera productions to stay close to the original intentions of the composer."
> 
> Indeed


and from the Don Carlos thread



sospiro said:


> ...but then I'm not keen on Domingo ...


You know it's war when your enemies enemy is your friend.

Sorry Sospiro just trying to inject some humour.

I do think this production is a strange one for war to have broken out over. Reading the comments on the ROH site no one can even seem to agree what we are fighting about, but still everyone takes sides for or against.

Sadly I doubt I could see this production without constantly thinking of all the ++++ hitting the fan offstage. Announcing the same producer for the upcoming Cav and Pag guarantees this "Storm" wont go away.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Belowpar, most things are about more than that which sets off the discussion. In this case, it seems to me as much a recurrence of the regietheatre argument. (i.e. the reaction to _opera by director_), and I think that's what helps to give this story its legs. Therefore we're left with increasing layers of discussion to unravel as the days go by.

Damiano Michieletto said he'd like to meet the British public (I think that was his phrase) to discuss this production, I wonder if he's done that yet. If the BBC had a serious to the arts this discussion should have been on TV by now. I'm not in the country, maybe it has.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> How the media loves a scandal and how they have seized upon this one which is fast becoming a cause célèbre.


I hardly think it's fair to blame the media. If they love a scandal it's because their consumers love a scandal. And while they undoubtedly play a malign role sometimes, they did not create this scandal. If the audience booed during the performance, it would be a really poor critic who failed to notice it.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Belowpar said:


> You know it's war when your enemies enemy is your friend. Sorry Sospiro just trying to inject some humour.


No need to apologise. Just because I'm not keen on PD's voice doesn't mean I don't have the utmost respect for him and for his point of view.


----------



## graziesignore (Mar 13, 2015)

It seems obvious that this Guillaume Tell -- whatever the real audience reaction was or however realistic or egregrious the rape scene was -- is a flashpoint (or, as some might think, scapegoat) for regietheater in general. It's a discussion the opera world desperately wants to openly have, but it's hard to have these broadly meaningful public discussions about, say, shock theater in Stockholm or wonky historical liberties taken in Brussels. This is the Royal Opera. At least you can still have meaningful public discussions about the arts in Britain, (whereas if you try to do so about the Met here in the States, you run smack dab into the Met partisans for whom the Met can do no wrong, etc.)

As for Domingo, I don't care for him as a baritone but I certainly do respect his opinion as an opera professional and great star. 

I'll add my own "STFU" to the debate and say: if opera snobs would stop looking down their noses at "opera in the square" on big screens or live streams and whining about how it "isn't really the true theatre experience" and "doesn't have the proper sound quality" whenever the rabble turn out at the cineplex for a good old fashioned traditional La Traviata... well, the only way to choke out the most egregrious abuses of regietheater IS to draw the crowds in for the traditional productions which take artistic chances more thoughtfully (or perhaps, no artistic chances at all). Carry on being snobs, though - because that's really helpful.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

graziesignore said:


> I'll add my own "STFU" to the debate and say: if opera snobs would stop looking down their noses at "opera in the square" on big screens or live streams and whining about how it "isn't really the true theatre experience" and "doesn't have the proper sound quality" whenever the rabble turn out at the cineplex for a good old fashioned traditional La Traviata... well, the only way to choke out the most egregrious abuses of regietheater IS to draw the crowds in for the traditional productions which take artistic chances more thoughtfully (or perhaps, no artistic chances at all). Carry on being snobs, though - because that's really helpful.


I'm a little confused by this statement. Who exactly are these opera snobs of which you speak? I've met countless fans, fanatics and obsessives, but not many opera snobs. Other kinds of snobs, yes.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Belowpar said:


> Conte thank you for standing up for what you saw.
> 
> I realise you weren't at the Opening night so can't comment on the booing, but would you agree with the description of the actions you saw onstage described in the Opera Now editorial?
> 
> ...


I wouldn't describe the scene as lengthy and I think molestation can have quite a wide variety of meanings, but yes this tallies with what I saw onstage.

N.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Wow living here in the States sucks. Why am I not seeing these Regietheater productions live? So sad.

Too bad the Met has become kinda stale by comparison.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Belowpar, most things are about more than that which sets off the discussion. In this case, it seems to me as much a recurrence of the regietheatre argument. (i.e. the reaction to _opera by director_), and I think that's what helps to give this story its legs. Therefore we're left with increasing layers of discussion to unravel as the days go by.
> 
> Damiano Michieletto said he'd like to meet the British public (I think that was his phrase) to discuss this production, I wonder if he's done that yet. If the BBC had a serious to the arts this discussion should have been on TV by now. I'm not in the country, maybe it has.


I haven't seen anything, but this would be the perfect type of item for a weekly arts magazine programme.

N.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Don Fatale said:


> I'm a little confused by this statement. Who exactly are these opera snobs of which you speak? I've met countless fans, fanatics and obsessives, but not many opera snobs. Other kinds of snobs, yes.


Even if I prefer traditional production I would rather see a regie production live in real life than a traditional production on a screen.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

From the horses mouth:

http://www.roh.org.uk/news/small-adjustments-made-to-production-of-guillaume-tell

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I've just looked in at the #ROHTell on Twitter, there is an overwhelming amount of positive tweets for today's cinema broadcast.

N.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Don Fatale said:


> Damiano Michieletto said he'd like to meet the British public (I think that was his phrase) to discuss this production, I wonder if he's done that yet. If the BBC had a serious to the arts this discussion should have been on TV by now. I'm not in the country, maybe it has.


Apparently it was discussed on Newsnight (this is a late night live and usually serious topical discussion programme) but I didn't see it and only found out about it the next day.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Re: Belowpar's comment/quote from Opera Now, I'm concerned some commentaries (not here) are getting hung up with the definition of rape, ie. "_lengthy episode of molestation wherein a group of military officers indulge in conduct unbecoming with an unwilling female_". It was a graphic representation of rape by most other accounts, but it seems this Opera Now editorial writer needs to see the actual thing live on stage before deigning to use that word.





Don Fatale said:


> Belowpar, most things are about more than that which sets off the discussion. In this case, it seems to me as much a recurrence of the regietheatre argument. (i.e. the reaction to _opera by director_), and I think that's what helps to give this story its legs. Therefore we're left with increasing layers of discussion to unravel as the days go by.
> 
> .


Don F!

Again I state I haven't seen this production but I am concerned with the varied reports of what went on.

I visited the mother in law to day and refreshed myself with the balanced world views presented on this 'Storm' in that well known bastion of fair thinking the Daily Mail. In their Music critic, David Mellor's review I read the word Rape once. From an article by their Theatre Critic Quentin Lett's I gave up counting the no of references to "Gang Rape", but I'm guessing it totalled in double figures. Conte assures me that neither of the above is a correct description of what he saw. I know you like Theatre have you seen David Mamet's Oleanna where a man's reputation is ruined by an accusation of rape? I think if we are to discuss this production we should at least be clear what happened.

Of course you are right people are now piling in with their long held beliefs. From the reviews I've read I am quite ready to accept that this production was poorly directed with clichéd stage design, but still wonder why now? Why has this production broken the 4th wall with this audience reaction?


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Entirely as an aside

ONe of the comments on THE ROH site says that these "Regie" productions used to be confined to the ENO and "look where that got them". 

There may be something in this. Mostly I fear that the ENO has no USP's today with the use of surtitles and the other house in town having a similar production style. I'm sure the ROH would not mourn the demise of the ENO.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

The Conte said:


> I've just looked in at the #ROHTell on Twitter, there is an overwhelming amount of positive tweets for today's cinema broadcast.


the roh hired shills ?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Steatopygous said:


> I hardly think it's fair to blame the media. If they love a scandal it's because their consumers love a scandal. And while they undoubtedly play a malign role sometimes, they did not create this scandal. If the audience booed during the performance, it would be a really poor critic who failed to notice it.


I wasn't aware I was apportioning blame to anyone. I was merely making an observation. Had the production been entirely traditional and passed without incident, it would not have been reported anywhere other than in the classical music press. So no they may not have started the scandal, but they certainly fanned the flames. I believe it's even being discussed in the Daily Mail, which is, in my opinion, nothing but a scurrilous right wing rag. I take everything I read there with a very large dose of salt.

That the media can, and do, twist the truth is a simple fact of life. The press misrepresented Callas as a capricious, temperamental prima donna all her life, and continue to do so, when the truth is far more complex. She was prone to a loss of temper, but only when she thought professional standards were being compromised. She was often the first to arrive at rehearsal and the last to leave, and her cancellation record was a good deal better than most singers. In fact she often sang against doctor's orders, for fear of the media creating another scandal. On the occasion of her Rome walk out in 1958, Pathe News completely fabricated a news item that purported to show Callas singing perfectly at rehearsal. It was actually a film of her singing at a radio broadcast a couple of years earlier.

The media is rarely blameless. As you say, their main purpose is to sell newspapers. For the tabloids at least, the truth is not that important.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Belowpar said:


> Don F!
> 
> I visited the mother in law to day and refreshed myself with the balanced world views presented on this 'Storm' in that well known bastion of fair thinking the Daily Mail. In their Music critic, David Mellor's review I read the word Rape once. From an article by their Theatre Critic Quentin Lett's I gave up counting the no of references to "Gang Rape", but I'm guessing it totalled in double figures. Conte assures me that neither of the above is a correct description of what he saw.
> 
> Of course you are right people are now piling in with their long held beliefs. From the reviews I've read I am quite ready to accept that this production was poorly directed with clichéd stage design, but still wonder why now? Why has this production broken the 4th wall with this audience reaction?


Quentin Letts is, in my opinion, quite the worst theatre critic I have ever come across, but I suppose he knows his audience. I don't think he'd be happy unless we were being fed a constant diet of Agatha Christie murder mysteries in traditional sets and costumes. In his review of DV8's *John* (DV8 are a movement based physical theatre group) he was shocked by the male nudity, and even more shocked by an erect member at one point. Well, I was at the same performance, as I was also there to review it. As much of the piece was set in a gay sauna, there was a fair amount of male nudity, but I certainly saw no erections, neither did my companion, and neither did the actress Zoe Wanamaker, who was sitting next to us. What we did see was a profoundly moving and beautiful piece of theatre, that moved Ms Wanamaker so much that she felt compelled to sit and discuss it with us until the ushers asked us to leave.

Like you, I have not seen this production of *Guillaume Tell*, and so cannot comment on whether it was good or not. I do think there could be justification for the scene that caused all the boos. Whether it was well executed or not, I have no way of telling. And I will repeat the point I made earlier. That a similar scene in a contemporary piece would probably have passed without incident. The problem is that it was in an Italian nineteenth century opera.

In all this we must not forget that the composers of these pieces often shocked and caused scandal in their own time. Verdi continually had problems with the censors and ran into trouble with both *Rigoletto* and *Un Ballo in Maschera*. *La Traviata* didn't work at first because of its modern (in Verdi's day) setting. *Stiffelio* suffered from similar problems. Not only was the modern setting a problem, but the subject matters (prostitution in one, adultery in another) were uncomfortable for many.

I believe art should challenge. Whether this production challenged or merely went for shock value, I would not be able to say unless I saw it.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> I believe art should challenge. Whether this production challenged or merely went for shock value, I would not be able to say unless I saw it.


This is a very good point, because often art can say things, or find ways of saying things, that are both more subtle and more effective than other, more conventional ways. And I agree that this is a useful maxim (though not always. I don't go to a Mozart piano concerto to be challenged but to be moved. But I believe I understand your point). 
My question to you is, when this is in conflict with authorial intention - as it often is - is that a problem? To what extent does the challenge have to rely on the context of the work of art in which it occurs. To pick an example which is absurd, would a gang rape scene be ok in the Barber of Seville? I imagine you'd say no, which leads to the question of where directors should draw the line?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Steatopygous said:


> This is a very good point, because often art can say things, or find ways of saying things, that are both more subtle and more effective than other, more conventional ways. And I agree that this is a useful maxim (though not always. I don't go to a Mozart piano concerto to be challenged but to be moved. But I believe I understand your point).
> My question to you is, when this is in conflict with authorial intention - as it often is - is that a problem? To what extent does the challenge have to rely on the context of the work of art in which it occurs. To pick an example which is absurd, would a gang rape scene be ok in the Barber of Seville? I imagine you'd say no, which leads to the question of where directors should draw the line?


Well obviously there would be no justification for it in *Il Barbiere di Siviglia* as there is no justification for such a scene in the libretto (though let's not forget that Beaumarchais's original play was extremely contentious and that Mozart's setting of its sequel *Le Nozze di Figaro* also ruffled quite a few feathers.

On the other hand, Rossini's *Guillaume Tell* details the occupation and subjugation of one country by another. The horrors of such a thing, as we all presumably now know, would often include mass rape and genocide. So there could well be justification for such a scene. I would have to see it myself to decide whether it worked or not.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> Well obviously there would be no justification for it in *Il Barbiere di Siviglia* as there is no justification for such a scene in the libretto (though let's not forget that Beaumarchais's original play was extremely contentious and that Mozart's setting of its sequel *Le Nozze di Figaro* also ruffled quite a few feathers.
> 
> On the other hand, Rossini's *Guillaume Tell* details the occupation and subjugation of one country by another. The horrors of such a thing, as we all presumably now know, would often include mass rape and genocide. So there could well be justification for such a scene. I would have to see it myself to decide whether it worked or not.


Yes, one's judgment is necessarily subjective in such a case. But there are canons of better and worse that we can apply, as you have just done with the Barber, that show it is not merely a matter of taste. You may have written about this often and find it tedious to revisit - in which case my apologies and just say so - but what about authorial intent and drawing the line?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Steatopygous said:


> Yes, one's judgment is necessarily subjective in such a case. But there are canons of better and worse that we can apply, as you have just done with the Barber, that show it is not merely a matter of taste. You may have written about this often and find it tedious to revisit - in which case my apologies and just say so - but what about authorial intent and drawing the line?


Who draws the line and who can say what authorial intent might be, or how lenient the author would be when he is not around to ask? Some modern writers change and adapt their own work for each revival of their work (I know Tom Stoppard). They will often listen to the ideas of the director and modify accordingly.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

That riposte is fair. What I am trying to tease out is how far you maintain the remark that started this exchange, about the need for art to be challenging. My own position is that it often is, and when that happens it is particularly felicitous, but it is by no means a moral imperative. Art very often is political, for example, but it is a tendentious reading that insists it is always political. And the claim as you put it can justify excrescences in performance that your posts suggest you would not endorse. 
So if it is not an unalterable maxim that art must be challenging (and, while we are being careful, "challenging" needs unpacking too), how far and in what circumstances do you press it?
Forgive me, but my part in this discussion is ending for now - it is nearly 1am where I am, and I have an earlyish start.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Honestly the people who attend the operas live are more conservative than those who attend the broadcast versions. I bet those wealthy bankers lost their pretty dates on that first run when that scene popped up and that was why they booed. People who know Rossini well were probably less likely to boo this production.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I'd be interested in what people think about how the same third act ballet scenes were handled in this 1995 performance from Pesaro of a production by Pier Luigi Pizzi available on YouTube.






I attempted to have that queued to 18:23. Here the first part of the dance is depicted as soldiers pulling out one woman to dance for them. It starts nice but even 30 seconds in she looks terrified and then soldiers start forcing her to dance. The section (including Pas de Soldats) continues to 34:12.

The actions in the Pesaro performance are not what is written in the libretto, but I believe it is mostly effective dramatically. Doing it this way misses some of the build in the libretto and there's a little bit much of the soldiers dancing around generally, but the female soloist (Alessandra Ferri) is very evocative.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the Pizzi production is the same as the Michieletto production. The dance in the Pizzi conveys the oppression of the Austrian soldiers that Tell rebels against in a different way than the libretto, but still more tastefully than in the Michieletto.


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

The Conte said:


> How many people commenting here have seen the production?
> 
> The "Tell gang rape scandal" is complete and utter nonsense. I saw the production (and the so called offending scene) this evening and the production does not include a rape scene. In my opinion, the media influenced by a group of opera critics who have decided that they don't like Kasper Holten have exaggerated the detail of the scene for their own sensationalist ends. Rape by definition has to include penetration and no penetration was simulated, suggested or implied in Michieletto's production of the opera.
> 
> However, the scene is distressing as it shows a woman being humiliated, stripped (but the audience only gets a flash of nudity as the woman covers herself with a tablecloth) and then the Austrian officers thump their fists on the table in time with the music (presumably they want her to dance for them as Gessler has told the Swiss people that they will dance to celebrate the Austrian national day). At this point Tell stops them tormenting her and she exits traumatised. Of course we can only imagine what would/could have happened had Tell not stepped in, but what could have happened next is left in the mind of the beholder. Whilst uncomfortable to watch (and it is not my intention to minimise degrading humiliation of another human being), it was distinctly different to the reports in the newspapers describing the scene. I guess the media couldn't resist the sensationalist ring that the word 'RAPE' has. ...


I appreciate the first hand report and express my regret at taking the press at their word. I should know better, when these days, controversial tweets from inconsequential bloggers merit international headlines.


----------



## Loge (Oct 30, 2014)

When the paying public starts booing Fuhrertheater, it is funny how many Pseuds come out of the woodwork to defend Fuhrertheater. "You vill enjoy the Fuhrertheater production", they say, "Ve hav vays of making you like Fuhrertheater, you subhuman-reactionary svum!".


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Loge said:


> When the paying public starts booing Fuhrertheater, it is funny how many Pseuds come out of the woodwork to defend Fuhrertheater. "You vill enjoy the Fuhrertheater production", they say, "Ve hav vays of making you like Fuhrertheater, you subhuman-reactionary svum!".


Hope the hangover isn't too bad. The worst days are when you wake up thinking "Did I really say that?"


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Albert7 said:


> Honestly the people who attend the operas live are more conservative than those who attend the broadcast versions. I bet those wealthy bankers lost their pretty dates on that first run when that scene popped up and that was why they booed. People who know Rossini well were probably less likely to boo this production.


Ok, let's dispense with this banker thing straight away. The booing was mainly from the amphitheatre. Bankers must be in a parlous state if they're up there with the normal folk. I was at the ROH last night for a thankfully unchallenging production of Falstaff, and had a few conversations. The consensus was that the audience was so sick of this lousy production that by the nude rape scene (for that's what it was on the first night) it was the last straw for many. People at ROH don't boo nudity per se (it's pretty common), nor even rape scenes such as in I Vespri Siciliani recently. Let's not forget the savaging it got from most critics in parallel with the audience reaction.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Ok, let's dispense with this banker thing straight away. The booing was mainly from the amphitheatre. Bankers must be in a parlous state if they're up there with the normal folk. I was at the ROH last night for a thankfully unchallenging production of Falstaff, and had a few conversations. The consensus was that the audience was so sick of this lousy production that by the nude rape scene (for that's what it was on the first night) it was the last straw for many. People at ROH don't boo nudity per se (it's pretty common), nor even rape scenes such as in I Vespri Siciliani recently. Let's not forget the savaging it got from most critics in parallel with the audience reaction.


But interestingly enough, most of then feedback for the two further performances have praised the production. I admit I made an error when I said that in fifty years time this production would be considered a classic. I should have said in five days time.

N.


----------



## papsrus (Oct 7, 2014)

Don Fatale said:


> (...)
> 
> Re: Belowpar's comment/quote from Opera Now, *I'm concerned some commentaries (not here) are getting hung up with the definition of rape*, ie. "_lengthy episode of molestation wherein a group of military officers indulge in conduct unbecoming with an unwilling female_". *It was a graphic representation of rape by most other accounts*, but it seems this Opera Now editorial writer needs to see the actual thing live on stage before deigning to use that word.


Setting aside the classic production vs. regietheater production argument, the above distinction should not be dismissed as immaterial.

At least in the United States, rape and sexual assault are two very different things, legally speaking. Newspaper critics, as The Conte has repeatedly pointed out, were apparently writing "rape" when describing a scene that does not depict rape, but rather one that depicts sexual assault.

Sexual assault can include anything from an unwanted kiss to unwanted groping (which appears to be what this scene depicts). Rape is an altogether different matter, one that involves penetration against one's will.

The Conte is correct to call out apparently sloppy writing.

Whether or not any of it belongs on stage as a faithful interpretation of the libretto is a different question.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

"A sharp-eyed reader spotted that, in the opening-night programme for the ROH's notorious rape-scene William Tell, the lead sponsors were Simon and Virginia Robertson. On the website, however, their names have been removed.
Sir Simon is a retired banker, Old Etonian and staunch Tory. The couple have been prominent supporters of the ROH for many years. We asked Covent Garden to explain the omission.
The response was: 'Simon and Virginia Robertson were uncomfortable with the amount of attention this production received so we offered to remove their names. They have not withdrawn their support for the production and are long time philanthropists for the Royal Opera House and supported many new productions.'"
- See more at: http://slippedisc.com/2015/07/exclu...names-from-william-tell/#sthash.sNbCADWL.dpuf

Nothing like the withdrawal of sponsorship to change this "progressive" artistic policy?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Nothing like the withdrawal of sponsorship to change this "progressive" artistic policy?


Which, in turn, comes with its own problems, though, actually the Robertons have not withdrawn their sponsorship, as the article points out.

"the Robertsons have not withdrawn their support for the production."


----------

