# Boris Godunov in 2 hours!



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Next week I go to Covent Garden's new production of Boris.

Running time: 2 hours, no intermission.

I have recordings that run for 3 hours. Any Boris experts know what's going on here?


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> Next week I go to Covent Garden's new production of Boris.
> 
> Running time: 2 hours, no intermission.
> 
> I have recordings that run for 3 hours. Any Boris experts know what's going on here?


Probably the 1869 original version? I think that runs around 2 hours. Purists tend to stan for that one although I prefer the more adulterated Rimsky Korsakov bastardization.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Thanks. I'd better look into it. Hopefully I won't miss too many favourite scenes. I always thought of it as a long evening. I'll let you know how it turns out!


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

howlingfantods said:


> Probably the 1869 original version?


From the plot synopsis and the cast list (no Marina Mniszech, no Rangoni), I'd guess you are correct. It's strange that they don't state this clearly, though.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I've heard the original version, in Pittsburgh, and quite enjoyed it. One major difference is that that version doesn't end with the Kromy scene where the yurodiviy (holy fool) is left to sing his lament amid chaos right before the curtain. Instead, this music appears in the St.Basil's scene. There are other possibilities besides the original and revised versions, however. Sometimes parts of the two versions are conflated and reordered.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Don Fatale said:


> Next week I go to Covent Garden's new production of Boris.
> 
> Running time: 2 hours, no intermission.
> 
> I have recordings that run for 3 hours. Any Boris experts know what's going on here?


Thank goodness for small mercy's :tiphat:


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Don Fatale said:


> Next week I go to Covent Garden's new production of Boris.
> 
> Running time: 2 hours, no intermission.
> 
> I have recordings that run for 3 hours. Any Boris experts know what's going on here?


Boris is one of my favourites but I'm so sceptical about this production that I didn't book. I didn't want to be disappointed.

Hope it's brilliant though.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

As others have stated Boris Godunov exists in a number of versions. The first version (never performed in Mussorgsky's lifetime) was completed in 1869 is in one act and was written to be performed continuously without an interval (this is the version at Covent Garden), but was rejected by the Russian theatres and Mussorgsky was advised to make the opera more traditional by adding a love story to the plot (and I presume some lighter episodes to contrast with the gloomy tinta of the work).

He then created the 1872 version by adding the Polish act, a chorus in the third scene in the monastery and rewriting large parts of act two (Boris' two arias (with the map or globe and the clock scene) are more monologues than arias in the original version). He also cut a scene with the holy fool in front of St Basil's Cathedral, but then added a final scene after Boris' death which includes the holy fool. The original version also doesn't include the Song of the Drake in Act one scene two or the nursery rhyme in act two.

Whilst the earlier version is more compact and unified it makes for a long stretch of intensely gloomy broodings. The 1872 version may be more episodic and be a compromise on Mussorgsky's part to comply with the operatic conventions of his time, but I can't be without the clock scene.

That said, Richard Jones and Antonio Pappano, does it get any more vibrant than that?

N.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

The Conte said:


> it makes for a long stretch of intensely gloomy broodings.
> 
> N.


I can stay at home for that!

Thanks for the info. Quite fascinating, even though I'll have to live without the lovely R-K orchestrations.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I was going to catch this at the cinema when they do the live broadcast on the 21st. In the light of what has been posted I'm having a rethink. I'll probably still go but I'm disappointed that it's not the longer version. They don't make it clear in any advertising that it is the 1869 version.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

I actually like both versions, and I think the subtle differences in the way the main character is portrayed in both is fascinating.

The 1869 version is a dark, tight account of the rise and fall of Boris, without digression or distraction. It is a compelling, and deeply disturbing theatrical experience. 

The longer second version includes some of the most beautiful music ever written by Mussorgsky, and a more ambiguous and slightly more sympathetic portrayal of Boris.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Faustian said:


> I actually like both versions, and I think the subtle differences in the way the main character is portrayed in both is fascinating.
> 
> The 1869 version is a dark, tight account of the rise and fall of Boris, without digression or distraction. It is a compelling, and deeply disturbing theatrical experience.
> 
> The longer second version includes some of the most beautiful music ever written by Mussorgsky, and a more ambiguous and sympathetic portrayal of Boris.


I have the short version conducted by Gergiev. To my shame I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet. Now that I know that CG are doing that version I'll give it a couple of listens before I go to see it at the cinema. After all it's Bryn Terfel and hopefully he is in smooth Verdi voice and not barking Wagner voice like he was in the Lepage Ring.


----------



## Jeffrey Smith (Jan 2, 2016)

One of the best productions I have ever seen was the MET's BG from the late 1970s. A conflated version with Mussorgsky's music, not Rimsky Korsakov's version--so it was not the same as what you will be seeing. But if you have never heard the non RK version, you should grab this chance.

At the MET, btw, the chorus received the biggest ovations of the night, and deserved it: in MM's rendering, they were as much the central figure as Boris himself.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Don Fatale said:


> *I can stay at home for that!*
> 
> Thanks for the info. Quite fascinating, even though I'll have to live without the lovely R-K orchestrations.


I hope you don't mean that you aren't now going, after all one man's intensely gloomy broodings is another's... etc.

In fact there are at least four versions of the opera if we also include the various re-orchestrations by R-K, Shostakovich and others (R-K had two goes at it, I believe). Whilst I prefer the 1872 version, it is Mussorgsky's original orchestration that I think is the best, strikingly original and expressive. If you are used to the R-K 1872 version the CG performance could be a revelation to you, especially as you now know what to expect.

N.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Faustian said:


> The 1869 version is a dark, tight account of the rise and fall of Boris, without digression or distraction. It is a compelling, and deeply disturbing theatrical experience.


That's pretty much what we got tonight. A fuller review to come. Terfel wasn't ideal, although his singing was particularly fine in later stages. I'd have prefered a native Russian speaker.

The production by Richard Jones was warmly applauded, and rightly so. I feel with the right singers and more work on the direction of actors this could be excellent.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

First review. 5 stars.

https://www.thestage.co.uk/reviews/2016/boris-godunov-review-at-the-royal-opera-house-london-quote/


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

I've just seen the cinema broadcast.

This production uses Mussorgsky's first version. I prefer the later version of the opera, with the Poland act, the Forest of Kromy, and the fuller Terem act. Still, interesting to hear.

Director Richard Jones has said that he sees it as a drama of conscience, and isn't interested in the history. (!!!!) 

It's not clear when the production is set; the opera is meant to be set in the 1600s, but characters wear plastic coats and stylised business suits, wear backpacks, and look at photographs.

His production is drab and ugly. It looks cheap; the stage is bare, and too much of the action takes place against a black void. The split set does work; the upper level is used to show Boris's memories of the murder of Dmitriy, or scenes taking place elsewhere: the Lithuanian border or the anathema of the False Dmitriy. 

The coronation scene lacks grandeur - this is, like the Forest of Kromy scene (not in this version of the score), one of the most impressive scenes in opera. Elsewhere, Jones manages to make long stretches of the opera (notably the Pimen / Grigory scene) boring.

Terfel is miscast. Granted, he's never sung in Russian before, so this is his first performance both of Boris and in the language. His "Skorbit dusha" and "Dostig ya vishey vlasti" are underwhelming - there's little of the emotion or power Christoff, London or Nesterenko, for instance, bring. His singing of the death scene is better, but he gurns too much and his performance lacks inwardness.

The Dmitriy (David Butt Philip) is out of his comfort zone; his voice is weak and strained, and has nothing of the heroic quality Gedda, for instance, produced.

The production most comes to life in Act III, thanks to John Tomlinson's Varlaam. This is far and away the best performance in the opera; he's sung in Russian before, so is more comfortable with the language than the rest of the cast, and he brings a welcome humour and liveliness to the production. His "Kak bo gorode bilo vo Kazani" (Walls of Kazan) - with Missail playing the spoons - is the highlight of the evening.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

SimonTemplar, thanks for adding some informed insights onto my less knowledgeable impressions. Certainly agree about Terfel. I saw Khovanshchina in Amsterdam 2 days later with a largely Russophone cast and the difference in the delivery was telling. I really want to hear those emphatic Russian consonents.


----------

