# Another dire opera production



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Went to see broadcast of ROH Don Giovanni at the cinema last night. 
Not worth reviewing this abysmal production. Michael Tanner says it all here:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts/opera/9130392/the-least-sexy-don-giovanni-i-can-remember/

Or in the words of an audience member I talked to on the way out: "Typical Royal Opera House - absolute crap!"

You know, it's hard to mangle a masterpiece like the Don but the producer surely managed it. What should send you away elated as an evening of high art leaves you frustrated and angry that such incompetents are let loose on society in general and art in particular. Disappointing evening, especially as the cast was generally very good.

I'll write to ROH and ask if we can have Mozart's Don next time!


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Actually, it seems to me that DON GIOVANNI is one of the more frequently "mangled" operas in the repertoire; somehow it seems to lend itself to odd productions. I guess because the Don is such an archetype, directors feel the need to make the opera "relevant to our times." I'm sure many fine productions have been put on at Covent Garden recently (for instance, I really like the look of their current RIGOLETTO). Sorry to hear that this wasn't one of them.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

I'm still going to go when/if it makes its way to our cinemas here. I seem to be one of the few people in the world who like Kasper Holten's productions:
























Actually I think that the Tote Stadt production is the best I know.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bellinilover said:


> Actually, it seems to me that DON GIOVANNI is one of the more frequently "mangled" operas in the repertoire; somehow it seems to lend itself to odd productions. I guess because the Don is such an archetype, directors feel the need to make the opera "relevant to our times." I'm sure many fine productions have been put on at Covent Garden recently (for instance, I really like the look of their current RIGOLETTO). Sorry to hear that this wasn't one of them.


Yes, Tanner said in his review that he would nominate the ROH for worst production of the Don only there are so many bad ones to choose from!


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

These two are my least favourite, the first because it is so dull and dark and stodgy (even Thomas Allen looks bored and disengaged); and the second because it is totally incomprehensible and has Bo Skovus in the title role:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> These two are my least favourite, the first because it is so dull and dark and stodgy (even Thomas Allen looks bored and disengaged); and the second because it is totally incomprehensible and has Bo Skovus in the title role:


Dear old Bo with his poor acting. Send any woman running!


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> I'm still going to go when/if it makes its way to our cinemas here. I seem to be one of the few people in the world who like Kasper Holten's productions:


I personally know several people who've seen it live and in the cinema and they have loved it. It's the professional critics who have been so scathing.

According to Kasper Holten, it's going to be shown on BBC4 in April so many of us will then be able to make up our own minds.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

DavidA said:


> Dear old Bo with his poor acting. Send any woman running!


It's really the singing I strongly object to.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

sospiro said:


> I personally know several people who've seen it live and in the cinema and they have loved it. It's the professional critics who have been so scathing.
> 
> According to Kasper Holten, it's going to be shown on BBC4 in April so many of us will then be able to make up our own minds.


Well I'm not a professional critic and I'm scathing about it! I have a problem with productions that are full of ideas (however smart) that contradict the composers obvious intentions in the text. The other thing was that the whole thing was disengaged. Often singers weren't given looking at each other. Most of the time they didn't react. Pity!


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

hey, I'm seeing it tonight. Based on what I read so far it looks overly busy but if the singing is great I might still go easy on it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

deggial said:


> hey, I'm seeing it tonight. Based on what I read so far it looks overly busy but if the singing is great I might still go easy on it.


The singing was good. More's the pity about the production. But enjoy!


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

In productions like these (good singing, monstrous regie hijinks), do you think they will agree to a reduced price in tickets if you wear a blindfold while sitting in the audience?


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

well, I liked it, I thought it was far from monstrous  the orchestra was too loud, though.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> It's really the singing I strongly object to.


:lol:

............................


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

deggial said:


> well, I liked it, I thought it was far from monstrous  the orchestra was too loud, though.


Semi-monstrous, then?


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

1/3 monstrous  kidding, it was fine, really. Here's some *shameless self promotion*, you can read my detailed entry on it.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

deggial said:


> 1/3 monstrous  kidding, it was fine, really. Here's some *shameless self promotion*, you can read my detailed entry on it.


For some reason, the following headline keeps flashing before my eyes: Chuckie....the opera. I think a certain baritone would be great for it.... but no, I won't say who. (And no, it's not Bo.)


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

deggial said:


> 1/3 monstrous  kidding, it was fine, really. Here's some *shameless self promotion*, you can read my detailed entry on it.


A good review. I thought pretty much the same about most things but the production lost it for me. It seemed to be saying,"aren't we clever!" but ended up being plain irritating. Mozart's DG is not a psychological drama but a morality tale. This whole business that Don Giovanni is lonely, as espoused by the producer, is nonsense. After all he's made love to more than 2000 women! Then one day he suddenly gets lonely and it kills him? Come off it! One problem with this production is that it gave Don Giovanni a conscience. In the original libretto he has no conscience at all!


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

^ I agree. You can play around with ambiguous characters but DG isn't one.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

deggial said:


> ^ I agree. You can play around with ambiguous characters but DG isn't one.


Spoilt brat with no limits or empathy, or cynical roué deliberately causing havoc? I've seen him played as both, both convincingly.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> Spoilt brat with no limits or empathy, or cynical roué deliberately causing havoc? I've seen him played as both, both convincingly.


Some men just like to see the world burn.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

*here*'s a very in-depth post on DG (this particular production and DG in general).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

deggial said:


> *here*'s a very in-depth post on DG (this particular production and DG in general).


This is excellent summary. The production failed because the director tried to show us something that simply isn't there. DG is incapable of loneliness or even feeling - he is a study in psychopathy. That is why particularly the ending failed. It is simply not credible as Mozart wrote it. I must confess to being very irritated by productions that struggle against the composer's obvious intentions because some smart a***** producer wants to show us how clever he is.
The fact is by fucussing on DG and his imagine the feelings the production completely missed the point Mozart wants to show us. It is not DG whose feelings are wrecked it is all the people round him. Their lives are wrecked by their contact with this philanderer. Hence his final punishment by being consigned to hell is logical. The ROH production missed this completely. Feel sorry for DG? Not on your life. He shows no remorse whatsoever even when he is being dragged to hell.
With producers like this at the helm I cannot see a very bright future for the Royal Opera house.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I must confess to being very irritated by productions that struggle against the composer's obvious intentions because some smart a***** producer wants to show us how clever he is


I know and I agree. Contrary to what a lot of people think, some libretti are not hare-brained and even flimsier ones can be worked with because the music will give a lot of extra clues in regards to what these characters are like. I like the idea of updating but I do wish stage directors stuck with the actual characters instead of inventing things that aren't there. There are many ways to explore the same old characters via our contemporary sensibilities without compromising the integrity of the work.

Have you seen *How to Opera Germanly*? I just found it but I thought it was very astute.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

deggial said:


> *here*'s a very in-depth post on DG (this particular production and DG in general).


Read the blog on Cosi as well. Very astute!


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

yes, I gave him likes for both posts. I wish he wrote more about opera, he's very observant and has a lot of common sense.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

deggial said:


> Have you seen *How to Opera Germanly*? I just found it but I thought it was very astute.


Love this quote from how to opera Gemanly on rules for a modern director:

"Avoid entertaining the audience at all costs. If they boo, you have succeeded."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Another good quote, heavy with irony:

"The director is the most important personality involved in the production. His vision must supersede the needs of the composer, librettist, singers and especially the audience, those overfed fools who want to be entertained and moved."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Some productions are described as 'groundbreaking'. But there is some ground that is simply not worth breaking!
(Thought from Spectator this week)


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Love this quote from how to opera Gemanly on rules for a modern director:
> 
> "Avoid entertaining the audience at all costs. If they boo, you have succeeded."


--

How about just not_ going_? How about?: "They pretend to direct, and we pretend to show up."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

From a recent review of ENO's Rigoletto:

"The only thing wrong with this is that it is nonsense. "


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

What I read so far it's not THAT bad... but I'd have to see it myself. I have never seen a DG production that was perfect in my opinion, modern or conventional. I must admit it's a tough opera to stage. The previous DG production at the ROH was also flawed, but OK. I thought about going to London for this production but wasn't sure enough. If Gardiner would have conducted I would have without a shadow of a doubt.

So far Glyndebourne comes close. Recently I came across this on YT... will have to watch it. Cast looks good, Pisaroni as Leporello and Netrebko as Donna Anna. Be warned.. very bad image quality.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Peter Hall's staging of DG was really good as he allowed the staging to follow the lot rather than vice versa. Believe me, this ROH production was bad as it missed the whole point of the opera as the producer obviously thought he was a greater genius than Mozart / da Ponte.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Just watched the Met DG with Bryn Terfel. Although the production is not perfect how much more effective it is when the producer gives us the version Mozart / da Ponte intended!

Is it the greatest opera ever written? I believe Wagner thought so and who am I to disagree?


----------



## cournot (Jan 19, 2014)

I sometimes wonder how come the period of opera modernization and directorial distortion has coincided with the decades during which some other groups became fixated on period instrumentation and slavish adherence to what musicological research tells early music "should" sound like. It would seem as if those trends shouldn't have coincided over the last forty years. I know that this will rub some people the wrong way, but couldn't we have more historically authentic opera productions, while hearing more musically modern, even utterly anachronistic and romantic performances of early classical music?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

These idiot directors who mangled masterpieces are like a football manager who gets all his players playing out of position, then when they lose 10-0 he bows to the booing crowd with a smile on his face, thinking: "Well, at least I provoked a reaction from these plebs!"


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

cournot said:


> I sometimes wonder how come the period of opera modernization and directorial distortion has coincided with the decades during which some other groups became fixated on period instrumentation and slavish adherence to what musicological research tells early music "should" sound like. It would seem as if those trends shouldn't have coincided over the last forty years. I know that this will rub some people the wrong way, but couldn't we have more historically authentic opera productions, while hearing more musically modern, even utterly anachronistic and romantic performances of early classical music?


Well, I personally dislike Romantic performances of early music, but I understand your feelings. However, somehow we can find together the intention to recreate the sound universe, and also the staging. Look for instance at this performance of Le Poème Harmonique, of the comédie-ballet _Le Bourgeois gentilhomme:

_


----------



## jess (Mar 1, 2014)

Hello everyone ... new girl on the block here.

A first for me today ... just walked out on a production (okay, it was in cinema -- but would have done so even if I had been in the house!). The Met's new Prince Igor. Wanted to cry -- some of the most gorgeous music in opera, best singers on the planet, superb orchestra, etc. ... now, how can such a recipe for enchantment be violated like this -- especially after the work having been absent from the Met's repertoire for a hundred years. Stupid, ugly production! Couldn't take any more after the Polovtsian "ballet" (that wasn't a ballet at all, just some ridiculous-looking jumping up and down out of that awkward field of poppies). No sense to be made of the thing at all. Yes, I "got" the director's anti-war agenda, but what about Borodin's opera? :-( Oy gevalt. Glad I had my Mariyinsky/Giergiev DVD to come home to!

Thanks for letting me rant.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

The most dreadful Giovanni I've ever seen was when I unfortunately bought the DVD of the Zurich opera production w. Simon Keenlyside as the Don.

Singing was terrific, production was unwatchable.

And you're right, for some reason, Giovanni seems to be subject to endless bad interpretations and filigrees. I think most of them are an attempt to "modernize" the plot so that the outdated way women characters behave (not like modern women, hello! -- it's meant to be that way!) and an attempt to revise the conduct and behavior.

Face it: Giovanni is a rake. He's a cheat and scoundrel, he takes advantage of women. Women are stuck in their cultural molds and aren't fully realized as equal to men. And yes, the Statue's appearance is "real" and not imagined, and yes, demons drag the Don to hell.

First: It's a fantasy, dunces! Mozart and DaPonte KNEW this and even in the era in which the opera was produced, women's rights had advanced from that. But it's set in an age when women were pawns. Yeah, that's a theme of the opera, dammit.

It reminds me a bit of the novelette "Turn of the Screw" in which modernist productions try to show that the ghosts aren't real but are imagined by the principal "heroine" -- well, duh, it's a ghost story! That means "real" ghosts.

Best DVD of Giovanni is the Bryn Terfel, btw.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

deggial said:


> I know and I agree. Contrary to what a lot of people think, some libretti are not hare-brained and even flimsier ones can be worked with because the music will give a lot of extra clues in regards to what these characters are like. I like the idea of updating but I do wish stage directors stuck with the actual characters instead of inventing things that aren't there. There are many ways to explore the same old characters via our contemporary sensibilities without compromising the integrity of the work.
> 
> Have you seen *How to Opera Germanly*? I just found it but I thought it was very astute.


Thanks for the link! Excellent article...

My own experience w. Giovanni was when I sang chorus in a small pro company. The director revised the timeframe to the 1900 Mexican revolution, and cast the Don as one of the aristocracy, and the chorus as Mexican peasants. In the finale, rather than demons dragging Gio to hell, we appeared as revolutionaries, lined him up against the wall, and shot him with a firing squad.

Which was an "okay" interpretation of the original, I guess. Thing was, last rehearsal, all of us in the chorus showed up wearing t-shirts that proclaimed "I Shot Don Giovanni". I've still got mine and wear it to all operatic movies and other non-dressy functions.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Makes me glad i'm into cd's, not dvds.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

katdad said:


> Thanks for the link! Excellent article...
> 
> My own experience w. Giovanni was when I sang chorus in a small pro company. The director revised the timeframe to the 1900 Mexican revolution, and cast the Don as one of the aristocracy, and the chorus as Mexican peasants. In the finale, rather than demons dragging Gio to hell, we appeared as revolutionaries, lined him up against the wall, and shot him with a firing squad.
> 
> Which was an "okay" interpretation of the original, I guess. Thing was, last rehearsal, all of us in the chorus showed up wearing *t-shirts that proclaimed "I Shot Don Giovanni". *I've still got mine and wear it to all operatic movies and other non-dressy functions.


But you didn't shoot the Deputy (Leporello).

These type of talentless hacks destroyed the legitimate spoken theater, lo these many years ago, and were replaced in that venue by purveyors of such spectacopuppetmusicals as the Lion King, Spiderman, etc. Then they showed up in the opera world, like refugees. For the last couple of decades they have proceeded to destroy those productions with a frequency and relentlessness that seems almost systematic.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

jess said:


> Hello everyone ... new girl on the block here.
> 
> A first for me today ... just walked out on a production (okay, it was in cinema -- but would have done so even if I had been in the house!). The Met's new Prince Igor. Wanted to cry -- some of the most gorgeous music in opera, best singers on the planet, superb orchestra, etc. ... now, how can such a recipe for enchantment be violated like this -- especially after the work having been absent from the Met's repertoire for a hundred years. Stupid, ugly production! Couldn't take any more after the Polovtsian "ballet" (that wasn't a ballet at all, just some ridiculous-looking jumping up and down out of that awkward field of poppies). No sense to be made of the thing at all. Yes, I "got" the director's anti-war agenda, but what about Borodin's opera? :-( Oy gevalt. Glad I had my Mariyinsky/Giergiev DVD to come home to!
> 
> Thanks for letting me rant.


Hi jess and welcome to the forum.

I found your review fascinating because I didn't see this but I did listen to it live on BBC Radio 3 and I absolutely loved it. Maybe it's one of those productions you should watch with your eyes closed!! Some friends of mine were seeing it in the cinema so I listened to keep them 'virtual' company.

I have the Gergiev/Mariinski DVD and yes it's glorious.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Itullian said:


> Makes me glad i'm into cd's, not dvds.


it's not that bad  there are plenty good modernised productions out there. I don't know about you, but I'd love a DVD of this:


----------



## Gizmo (Mar 28, 2013)

jess said:


> Hello everyone ... new girl on the block here.
> 
> A first for me today ... just walked out on a production (okay, it was in cinema -- but would have done so even if I had been in the house!). The Met's new Prince Igor. Wanted to cry -- some of the most gorgeous music in opera, best singers on the planet, superb orchestra, etc. ... now, how can such a recipe for enchantment be violated like this -- especially after the work having been absent from the Met's repertoire for a hundred years. Stupid, ugly production! Couldn't take any more after the Polovtsian "ballet" (that wasn't a ballet at all, just some ridiculous-looking jumping up and down out of that awkward field of poppies). No sense to be made of the thing at all. Yes, I "got" the director's anti-war agenda, but what about Borodin's opera? :-( Oy gevalt. Glad I had my Mariyinsky/Giergiev DVD to come home to!
> 
> Thanks for letting me rant.


I also saw this at the cinema and I agree with all your comments.

During the ballet I was waiting for the Wicked Witch of the West's flying monkeys to appear and Toto to be jumping up and down at the heals of the dancers.


----------



## jess (Mar 1, 2014)

Thanks for your welcome, Annie/sospiro!

You are absolutely right – there was nothing not to love about the aural experience, emanating from the heavenly playing by the orchestral forces and the superb vocals by the ideally-cast Slavic singers. How I wish I had stayed home and listened to it on the radio as you did. I would at least have avoided this sour taste in my mouth that is persisting even 24 hours later.

I often imagined that if I found myself in a position in which I had ventured into an opera I really wanted to hear but found the “interpretation” intolerable once I was already in my seat, that I would, as you suggest, just close my eyes and listen. But faced with the unfortunate circumstance itself, I found it somehow impossible to actually carry out that plan … not sure why … I guess one wants to observe the physical aspects of the singers acting out their characters, despite the awful costumes, sets, stage directions, etc. – which can not then truly be ignored So, rather than remain exposed to what for me was the unendurable pain of the vandalism being done to this glorious opera (cf. the Mariyinsky production we know and love), I exercised the option to curtail my misery, and left.

Even given the prevailing premise that the “director” reigns supreme, yet more questions remain … like, why mess with the score? To start with, why omit that sublime, familiar overture? 

I’m so interested, what did your friends who went to the cinema screening have to say?


----------



## jess (Mar 1, 2014)

Comforting to hear I was not alone in my assessment, Gizmo. During the "ballet" I too was thinking, "Wizard of Oz, anyone?" (Dare I ask, did things get any better in the second and third acts?) :-(


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

jess said:


> Even given the prevailing premise that the "director" reigns supreme, yet more questions remain … like, why mess with the score? To start with, why omit that sublime, familiar overture?


That DID disappoint me!



jess said:


> I'm so interested, what did your friends who went to the cinema screening have to say?


They said they liked it but neither of them knew the opera beforehand.

Do you have a CD of Prince Igor?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I missed this Prince Igor as I had a previous engagement. Sounds as if I didn't miss a lot!


----------



## jess (Mar 1, 2014)

Annie, I do not have a CD (although I have often wished I could "listen" to my DVD on my car stereo*). I see there are a few CDs on amazon, including Christoff and Ghiaurov (both basses, while I have gotten used to hearing Igor sung by a baritone -- still ... )

While I believe it's generally thought of as a curiosity, I do also have the 1969 Soviet film with singers dubbing in for the (gorgeous) actors ... just let me tell you, Boris Khmelnitsky (the sexy on-screen Igor) is well worth looking at ;-)


* question for anyone: for fear of causing damage, I have never tried playing a DVD in a CD player ... can one hear the audio, does it harm the DVD, or does nothing happen at all? Thanks for any advice!


----------



## jess (Mar 1, 2014)

David, you missed a lot ... of garbage.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

jess said:


> Annie, I do not have a CD (although I have often wished I could "listen" to my DVD on my car stereo*). I see there are a few CDs on amazon, including Christoff and Ghiaurov (both basses, while I have gotten used to hearing Igor sung by a baritone -- still ... )
> 
> While I believe it's generally thought of as a curiosity, I do also have the 1969 Soviet film with singers dubbing in for the (gorgeous) actors ... just let me tell you, Boris Khmelnitsky (the sexy on-screen Igor) is well worth looking at ;-)
> 
> * question for anyone: for fear of causing damage, I have never tried playing a DVD in a CD player ... can one hear the audio, does it harm the DVD, or does nothing happen at all? Thanks for any advice!


You won't harm it - it just won't play. You can play a CD on a DVD player though.


----------



## Gizmo (Mar 28, 2013)

Jess, 
Things did not get any better, the ending included music that was not from Prince Igor.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

jess said:


> Annie, I do not have a CD (although I have often wished I could "listen" to my DVD on my car stereo*). I see there are a few CDs on amazon, including Christoff and Ghiaurov (both basses, while I have gotten used to hearing Igor sung by a baritone -- still ... )


Have ordered this so I'll report back when I've had a listen












jess said:


> While I believe it's generally thought of as a curiosity, I do also have the 1969 Soviet film with singers dubbing in for the (gorgeous) actors ... just let me tell you, Boris Khmelnitsky (the sexy on-screen Igor) is well worth looking at ;-)


I'll put that on my wish list


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Gizmo said:


> Jess,
> Things did not get any better, the ending included music that was not from Prince Igor.


what is this trend of including music that is not originally written for the particular opera? Most weird! I heard that was also the case with the Fidelio directed by Bieito.


----------



## jess (Mar 1, 2014)

Annie ...
be sure to report! (Maybe I'll order the Ghiaurov and we can compare notes!)

deggial (by way of Gizmo) ...
Would you actually EVER consider seeing ANYTHING directed by that [unfit to print] Bieito? If so, I would warn you (most gently, of course) that you are in for the "most weird" experience of your life! For the love of opera, don't even think about it! BEWARE!!
Please consider this advice in friendship,
jess


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

jess said:


> Annie ...
> be sure to report! (Maybe I'll order the Ghiaurov and we can compare notes!)
> 
> deggial (by way of Gizmo) ...
> ...


I saw his Carmen and was rather surprised to be bored. I quite enjoyed what I saw of his PTSD Fidelio. Certainly seemed to bring out some interesting ideas about the effects of long solitary captivity.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

deggial said:


> what is this trend of including music that is not originally written for the particular opera? Most weird! I heard that was also the case with the Fidelio directed by Bieito.


Yes, after "_O namenlose Freude_," Florestan reverted to his compulsive behavior. Another selection by Beethoven was played while Leonore sat on the floor and just wept. It was very moving, but -- it wasn't what either the composer or his librettists intended. If Bieito would like to write his own play about PTSD, I'd be interested in seeing it. But Beethoven wanted to send an entirely different message with his opera, and I feel that should be respected.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

jess said:


> deggial (by way of Gizmo) ...
> Would you actually EVER consider seeing ANYTHING directed by that [unfit to print] Bieito? If so, I would warn you (most gently, of course) that you are in for the "most weird" experience of your life! For the love of opera, don't even think about it! BEWARE!!
> Please consider this advice in friendship,
> jess


why thank you for your kind warning  I have not seen any of his works in entirety yet but I saw a trailer of his new Boris Godunov for Bayerische Staatsoper which left me cold but not weirded out. I'm not easily shocked but if I don't think the director is making any sense or he's making things up I just stop watching.


----------



## jess (Mar 1, 2014)

Just in case anyone has not read this ... ("Why stage an opera if you don't believe in it?" -- re his Fidelio at ENO)

"Sex, sleaze, violence and body fluids are Calixto Bieito's speciality ... "

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/cultur...e-in-it-a-question-for-calixto-bieito-at-eno/

The article does make reference to his Abduction from the Seraglio, which I'm sure everyone here has heard tell about. It's not a matter of being shocked ... I am not easily shocked either, but to me, that is not the point of going to see an opera (or the point of directing one, either). It is precisely their compulsive obsession to shock that produces the most boring results. Seems to me these guys just about have to utterly hate and disrespect opera to do what they do to it ... that's why it puzzles me utterly that their services are so much in demand. They even admit to being the most gratified when they are "booed" by the audience. Go figure. Sorry, I know I am a totally boring (young) non-intellectual, but I just want my operas shown "as written". Doesn't mean people can't design new sets, fresh costumes, etc. -- but please adhere to the story as originally presented by the composer & librettist; and let the music and its performance be the "interpretation" for the day.


----------



## Gizmo (Mar 28, 2013)

I didn't realize this until now. The director for Prince Igor was Dmitri Tcherniakov, and he is the same guy who butchered Teatro alla Scala's La Traviata this past December.


----------



## jess (Mar 1, 2014)

Just did a quick search of that Traviata, Gizmo ... looks dreadful. Meanwhile, heard from another friend who saw a ghastly Trovatore by Tcherniakov.

Seems the world is becoming so full of these talentless opera-hating director-types that they are actually developing competition amongst their vile selves. Was hoping for better from Mr. Gelb, but I guess no place (not even the venerable Met or La Scala) is safe any more. Sigh.

....

Meanwhile, I feel guilty for having done WAY too much griping as a new member here, and I humbly appreciate the indulgence of you all. I'm not usually a nasty person by nature, honestly! ~


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

jess said:


> that's why it puzzles me utterly that their services are so much in demand.


I blame the opera management, it's who hires them, isn't it? They seem to think these "hip" antics will attract the young crowd whereas it's always the music that fills the house, for young and old. I'm pretty young by opera standards _and_ I've worked in visual arts yet when it comes to opera music is always my first concern. If I wanted to see weird interpretations first and foremost I'd watch experimental film.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

jess said:


> * question for anyone: for fear of causing damage, I have never tried playing a DVD in a CD player ... can one hear the audio, does it harm the DVD, or does nothing happen at all? Thanks for any advice!


As was said, no, it won't play but also won't harm the player or the DVD. Okay... CDs are the same size as DVDs and now Blu-ray HD. It's the density of the data on the track that is different. Both CDs and DVDs use a red laser but the DVD laser tracks a more narrow band of data, therefore you can pack more data (sound plus video) on a DVD whereas the CD can only hold sound (significantly less data).

Blu-ray isn't just a name. It refers to the use of a blue laser instead of red. Blue having a shorter wavelength than red, the HDTV disk can hold the high-res movie images, which require lots more data than the standard DVD movies.

Incidentally, a little history and debunking a pleasant but sadly false rumor. Word had it that once Sony had developed the music CD technology, the next question was "How big to make the discs?" where the larger the disc, the more music. Urban legend was that they chose Beethoven's 9th as the measuring rod, checked the longest length recording of that symphony available, added a bit more for fudge factor, and voila! the CD size.

I wish it were true but in fact Sony simply selected the largest diameter disc that would fit within a player, allowing for the mechanism surrounding it, that would fit in a standard stereo rack. Not as glamorous a legend, but hey...


----------



## Gizmo (Mar 28, 2013)

This is what I posted about La Traviata back in December. 
Memorable Moments

The cooking class
The curly wig – (Tom Baker - Dr. Who style)
The Indian outfit
The blanket, the pills and the booze on the floor
Dying on the chair without falling off of it, better yet, the entire last act 

It was really sad. I was so looking forward to see this opening night live transmission from La Scala. This was broadcast live in many countries. What were they thinking ? I too blame the management who hires them.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

I was planning on seeing the theatre-cast of _Prince Igor_, but then Saturday overtime at work intervened, and I had to settle for the radio-broadcast. Sounds like a win-win, there.

All right, then- thanks to the Met for bringing awareness of this work back near the front of our consciousness. As for what was on the stage, sounds like "thanks-but-no-thanks."


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

Gizmo said:


> This is what I posted about La Traviata back in December.
> Memorable Moments
> 
> The cooking class
> ...


I'm a little surprised the cooking scene didn't give rise to all sorts of jokes about pasta with *Alfredo* sauce. :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MAuer said:


> Yes, after "_O namenlose Freude_," Florestan reverted to his compulsive behavior. Another selection by Beethoven was played while Leonore sat on the floor and just wept. It was very moving, but -- it wasn't what either the composer or his librettists intended. If Bieito would like to write his own play about PTSD, I'd be interested in seeing it. But Beethoven wanted to send an entirely different message with his opera, and I feel that should be respected.


Beethoven, one of the greatest musical geniuses, spent years perfecting Fidelio. And along comes some idiot who wants to 'improve' it. It's a joke!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

One problem is that the arts are subsidised so these guys get away with their dire productions because they feel they don't have to please the public who pays. In fact, they seem to actually hate and despise their paying customers - an artistic equivalent of Basil Fawlty!


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Gizmo said:


> The cooking class


how about a _Come dine with me_ La Boheme?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The problem is that conductors and artists put up with these hacks. I believe one of the reasons Karajan turned to directing is that he didn't trust directors. Mind you, someone said that a conductor like Karajan deserved a better director than Karajan! But then he was actually faithful to what the composer wanted which is infinitely preferable to the lunacies often perpetuated.
More recently Janowski resorted to concert performances of Wagner operas because of the horrors of what he saw on stage.
This is a ludicrous situation.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

There is a lot of very emotive and extreme language being used on this thread, it seems to bash any director who dares bring their own ideas to an opera. I recognize that sometimes directors go too far and that many audience goers want "traditional" productions (which usually seems to translate as "productions I grew up with"). Personally I'm willing to give everything a go, especially when it is an opera that I have seen multiple times like La Traviata or Don Giovanni, and where, to be honest, a "traditional" production has the potential to simply bore the pants off me, particularly, as is often the case, when more attention has been paid to the scenery than the acting. There are hits and misses, but an imaginative director can often make me see a familiar opera in a new way. 

Like the Bieito Fidelio, for instance. I have often thought in the past that Florestan bounces back rather quickly from his imprisonment, and Bieito brings this thought out nicely. Of course it's not the only Fidelio I would want, but it's an interesting addition.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> There is a lot of very emotive and extreme language being used on this thread, it seems to bash any director who dares bring their own ideas to an opera. I recognize that sometimes directors go too far and that many audience goers want "traditional" productions (which usually seems to translate as "productions I grew up with"). Personally I'm willing to give everything a go, especially when it is an opera that I have seen multiple times like La Traviata or Don Giovanni, and where, to be honest, a "traditional" production has the potential to simply bore the pants off me, particularly, as is often the case, when more attention has been paid to the scenery than the acting. There are hits and misses, but an imaginative director can often make me see a familiar opera in a new way.
> 
> Like the Bieito Fidelio, for instance. I have often thought in the past that Florestan bounces back rather quickly from his imprisonment, and Bieito brings this thought out nicely. Of course it's not the only Fidelio I would want, but it's an interesting addition.


I can go with new ideas as LNG as they stay faithful to the composer's intentions, which obviously Bieto doesn't from the reviews I have read. But I saw the brand new take on Falstaff from the Met and it was electric. Why? Despite the update it was faithful to Verdi and Boito's intentions. The problem comes when one of these hacks tries to force his own conception on the opera.

As to emotive language, it's because I feel cheated when I pay good money to see an opera by (say) Mozart and find what's going on on stage bears little resemblance to what Mozart wrote and conceived because some hack insists on putting his own four penny worth in! I just cannot imagine (for example) the impertinence of someone wanting to 'improve' Fidelio. That man must have an ego the size of the Albert Hall.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I saw the Tcherniakov-directed _Prince Igor_ in the house about a week before the broadcast. I have not written anything here because I wasn't sure what to say. Overall I was disappointed.

I would agree with jess that everything sounded wonderful. On that front I was completely overjoyed.

As for the cuts, I feel as if I have to defend what they were doing. These were not thoughtless cuts to make it fit some foreign story (though that might have resulted in something better!). The idea was to use the parts that Borodin wrote and to skip the parts composed by Glazunov or Rimsky-Korsakov. Glazunov composed the overture, so it goes. Glazunov composed almost all of Act 3 (escape from the Polotsvian camp), so it gets excised as well. [The Wikipedia page for the opera has a nice sortable table with more detail. That being said I would trust the information that Tcherniakov and Noseda and the musicologists they had working on this had over Wikipedia]

I don't think that this was very fruitful but for all the talk around here of respecting the composer's intentions... this [part of this production] seems to be taking that to the extreme.

Pavel Smelkov (who conducted the performance I attended) also did additional orchestration, which I believe was for other Borodin pieces interpolated in to the final act. This is more questionable especially since, in my mind, it didn't fit. Nothing went together, the libretto, the music, the action on the stage all seemed at odds with each other (and I have no reason to believe that that was on purpose).

Additionally I'd say that the production, for the most part, looked wonderful. The great hall used in all the scenes in Putivl was strong and imposing and used the gigantic Met stage well. I thought the costumes were well designed and effective, and, again, looked great. The coma fantasy/dream sequence/Polotsvian imprisonment scene (all the flowers) probably looked gorgeous though I really wish they had done away with the empty video so that they could have raised the scrim and we could have seen it.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

The Abduction of Opera

A passionately written article that's a few years old, but relevant to the subject. I sympathize with the author, though I can't say I really share her passionate _hatred_ towards modern stagings. For me it's more of an indifference; I have no desire to view these types of productions and simply avoid them as best as possible. They have very little relation to the actual works put forth by their creators.

One interesting section in the article is where she quotes one director who makes this analogy:



> Wadsworth unapologetically embraces one of the most toxic words in the operatic lexicon today: "curating." The last thing a solipsistic director wants to be accused of is lovingly preserving and transmitting the works of the past. Wadsworth, however, accepts the charge. Those given responsibility for an opera production are akin to those given responsibility for great paintings, he believes. "It is not our job to repaint them. We should only be concerned with: Where to hang it? How to light it? In what context? How do we present it to the public in a way that the public can appreciate what it is, perhaps even contextualize it in terms of that painter's body of work or some other trend or school or idea? The list of curatorial concerns and responsibilities is long. And I think that a lot of productions that we see simply fail to meet them."


A good idea I think. Look, I'm far from a purist or a traditionalist, the last thing I want is for the same productions of operas to be trotted out year after year. But there's a large chasm between a director creating a new staging that brings new ideas to an opera, and a director intrinsically changing and marring the very nature of the opera. The Lepage Ring for example, despite all it's alleged failings, is an example of a entirely new production full of exciting ideas that is still faithful to it's creator. But when settings and characters are so far removed from their original context that they bear little affiliation to the music and dialogue, then so far as I'm concerned an aesthetic discord has been created. For me the whole reason opera is a meaningful and powerful experience is that composer and librettist have shaped music, story and poetry into a satisfying, compelling work of art. You can't radically alter one of those ingredients and expect to retain any kind of coherence.

But of course, modern directors often seem to me to be operating on what are flawed premises. They often are quoted as saying they want to make an audience "think" or to highlight particular "ideas" of an opera, which first of all often wrongly assumes the original work of art in it's proper context doesn't give the audience enough to think about, and secondly demonstrates they have a poor understanding of the nature of art. The expressive power of art is in it's conveyance of emotions and perceptions that is beyond words to express and concepts to encapsulate, so by conceptualizing these operas they are diminishing their transformative impact. You also hear them talking about the need to make these works "relevant" for modern audiences, meaning they either don't recognize or choose to ignore the universal themes in these masterpieces and the fact that they will _always_ be relevant.

I'm not sure where the line is. It's a blurry one for sure. To step outside opera, I absolutely love Kenneth Branagh's film version of _Hamlet_, even though it's been set in the 19th century rather than in the 14th century. But it's still set in a palace, characters and settings are still recognizable and correspond to the text beautifully. I guess it's one of those know it when you see it things. Or rather feel it. Because with most of these modern stagings you just get that gut feeling that something is artistically amiss.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> The problem is that conductors and artists put up with these hacks. I believe one of the reasons Karajan turned to directing is that he didn't trust directors. Mind you, someone said that a conductor like Karajan deserved a better director than Karajan! But then he was actually faithful to what the composer wanted which is infinitely preferable to the lunacies often perpetuated.
> More recently Janowski resorted to concert performances of Wagner operas because of the horrors of what he saw on stage.
> This is a ludicrous situation.


What they do to Wagner these days is laughable.
And I do.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

As for the production, I do not think it worked but I have no problem with the attempt.

The opera does not have a tightly woven plot that must be adhered to; it is fragmentary, episodic and largely symbolic as it stands. This production takes the Polovtsian imprisonment as a dream/coma fantasy of the wounded Igor. 

In this version his son has already been killed in the battle and Konchak and Konchakovna are figments of his imagination, as are the dancers. This act is meant to be foreign, unreal, exotic anyway and the only character we see in Putivl again is Prince Igor.

Personally I think it would have made sense to go further and make the Galitsky/Yaroslavna act (commonly act 1, played at the Met as act 2) as also a dream. The entire act is clearly the fantasy of a powerful man away from home anyway; it would do well to use that. It is all about how Igor’s home is in disarray because he left. The honorable men left for war so the scoundrels rule the roost and the women are at risk.

I don't think this production did anything to fix the dramatic issues with the opera but it did have some interesting ideas.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

mountmccabe said:


> I saw the Tcherniakov-directed _Prince Igor_ in the house about a week before the broadcast. I have not written anything here because I wasn't sure what to say. Overall I was disappointed.
> 
> I would agree with jess that everything sounded wonderful. On that front I was completely overjoyed.
> 
> ...


Great explanation mountmccabe. Thank you.

Just proves what problems can be encountered when you start tinkering. And if the original has been tinkered with already, then it must be even worse.

Full marks to them for making an effort to restore the music to Borodin's own.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> The Lepage Ring for example, despite all it's alleged failings, is an example of a entirely new production full of exciting ideas that is still faithful to it's creator.


Apart from the giant creaky paddle-pop-stick machine, I failed to see one exciting idea in this production. Rheingold was especially dire, and in Walkure the machine took up so much room that the singers had nowhere to go.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> Apart from the giant creaky paddle-pop-stick machine, I failed to see one exciting idea in this production. Rheingold was especially dire, and in Walkure the machine took up so much room that the singers had nowhere to go.


I really liked the idea of the Creaky Paddle-Pop-Stick Machine, a single set-piece to tie everything together. It wasn't necessary but I found it satisfying.

I agree, though, that it left too little of the stage open at times. From watching _Wagner's Dream_ it really seems like LePage's plans were unrealistic and therefore unrealized; that is he expected the singers to be able to climb around the Machine effortlessly and just everything to go more smoothly.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> Apart from the giant creaky paddle-pop-stick machine, I failed to see one exciting idea in this production. Rheingold was especially dire, and in Walkure the machine took up so much room that the singers had nowhere to go.


The entire concept of a rotating set with it's different figurations and ability to interact with singers, the creative implementation of modern technology and projections of images onto the stage. Whether or not you liked the production is besides the point. I did, you didn't. And you may not have found any of the ideas exciting per say. But there's no denying that it was an entirely new way to produce the opera and one that Wagner would never have conceived of. And yet it was still discernible as Wagner's Ring and (mostly) in line with his intentions.

My larger point being that there's a ton of interpretative room for directors to run around in without having to disrupt the fabric of the opera.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> My larger point being that there's a ton of interpretative room for directors to run around in without having to disrupt the fabric of the opera.


This is the point!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> .
> 
> My larger point being that there's a ton of interpretative room for directors to run around in without having to disrupt the fabric of the opera.


That was the problem with Jonathan Kent's DG at Glyndebourne in 2010. The producer's ideas distracted from the drama not added to it.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

DavidA said:


> That was the problem with Jonathan Kent's DG at Glyndebourne in 2010. The producer's ideas distracted from the drama not added to it.


I'm not familiar with that specific production, but that does seem to be the problem, doesn't it? Critical evaluation and analytic interpretation have their place of course, and help us understand and better appreciate great works of art. But they should be outside the realm of opera directors, even though these days that sort of practice seems to be very much the _raison d'être_ of most. To take an obvious example, George Bernard Shaw's Ring commentary rightly highly regarded. It has its flaws, but it is often immensely effective and entertaining, and allows the reader to go back and experience the opera and see it from a new perspective. Making an analogous observation like Shaw does on the similarities between the dwarf Alberich and a big capitalist boss and can be enlightening, actually _turning him into_ a big capitalist boss on the stage creates all sorts of new connotations, forces the audience to make associations that were never intended to be there and changes the essence of the story.

Directors should be concerned with the very important and challenging task of bringing a composer's intentions to life. They should go about trying to obtain a better understanding of subtext in an opera to become familiar with the perspective of the composer/librettist and to get a better grasp on characters and their motivations. Then use that knowledge to spark their imaginations and unique visions to interpret how words on a page and stage directions should be translated and choreographed onto a stage; whether it be a realistic representation, impressionistic, minimalistic or whatever. By stepping too far over that line a director distorts the artwork they are presenting. They turn what should be a pure, unhindered aesthetic response by the audience into an intellectual exercise. Like Michael Tanner said in the original article you posted, "I was always trying to work out what had just happened, the last thing an operatic production should induce."


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> They turn what should be a pure, unhindered aesthetic response by the audience into an intellectual exercise.


yes, I agree. All this making you think business. Like the public isn't capable of coming up with their own interpretations. What I also dislike is when the directors give very clear motivations to certain characters and thus they take away the ambiguity (like what happened with Donna Anna in this production). For me at least, the best characters are the ambiguous ones, the ones you're not sure what they're about even after the opera ends. _That_'s worth thinking about.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> The expressive power of art is in it's conveyance of emotions and perceptions that is beyond words to express and concepts to encapsulate, so by conceptualizing these operas they are diminishing their transformative impact. You also hear them talking about the need to make these works "relevant" for modern audiences, meaning they either don't recognize or choose to ignore the universal themes in these masterpieces and the fact that they will _always_ be relevant.


yes, bears repeating. It's either relevant or it's not, in which case it fails as a work of art and you've got to wonder what is it still doing in the repertoire after 200 years.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

deggial said:


> yes, I agree. All this making you think business. Like the public isn't capable of coming up with their own interpretations. What I also dislike is when the directors give very clear motivations to certain characters and thus they take away the ambiguity (like what happened with Donna Anna in this production). For me at least, the best characters are the ambiguous ones, the ones you're not sure what they're about even after the opera ends. _That_'s worth thinking about.


The problem is that some director's idea of making you think is contrary to the expressed conception of the composer. The Donna Anna idea was ludicrous as it specifically contradicted what Da Ponte wrote. You therefore get the action struggling against the libretto. But it made me think. I thought, "how idiotic!"


----------

