# Peter Grimes: Not really a thread but a Thank you!



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

I went to see Peter Grimes and it was an unqualified success! A wonderful night in the opera house and, without question, the sharing I received on here was a large part of the success. Thank you all. Finding a new love in the opera house is not a small thing as we all know. I could have posted this at the end of the other thread but I wanted to be sure it was seen.

The opera and the production and Allan Clayton.all grabbed me and never let go!!! My buddy still has a friend at the Met and we have been sitting downstairs for upstairs prices (last production was way upstairs and that probably plays some part in the two different experiences) and the orchestra and too such a big degree the chorus...important like Boris Godunov...came rushing over us. So many of the things you all spoke of filled some part of my attention at different times but without it getting cerebral. It was stark and the sea was a powerful presence and it was feeling and conflict through the music and man vs larger forces and January 6th and the inhumanity of England in the 50's and a misfit cousin I loved and so many things were evoked but the attention went always back to the compelling opera and music and Allan Clayton's heartbreaking embodiment. His entrance into the final scene still makes me cry.

Thank you all for the sharing. It really counted!!!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

I wish they would put it on HD


----------



## Dreadful_Engines (5 mo ago)

> January 6th


Is Peter supposed to be the protesters or the state here? I'm failing to see the comparison in either case.



> England in the 50s


It was written in the 1940s and set in the early 19th century.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Dreadful_Engines said:


> Is Peter supposed to be the protesters or the state here? I'm failing to see the comparison in either case.
> 
> 
> 
> It was written in the 1940s and set in the early 19th century.


You wouldn't have failed if you had sat there watching it...at least I hope you wouldn't.
*Mob mentality*.....enormous groups of people, acting on base instincts the vast majority of them never would have dreamed of on their own, feeling the cowardly empowerment, through the mob, to pursue Grimes or to commit a treasonous act.

And what does the year have to do with it? The reference to England in the 50's comes from one of the sharings my words above were acknowledging and thanking.

I'm not really sure you picked up on what I was doing here.


----------



## Dreadful_Engines (5 mo ago)

ScottK said:


> enormous groups of people, acting on base instincts the vast majority of them never would have dreamed of on their own, feeling the cowardly empowerment, through the mob, to pursue Grimes or to commit a treasonous act.


I'm not sure you can compare a mundanely misfortunate man with the most powerful state in the world, or a group of people with problems with that state (however foolishly formed) to the residents of the Borough, Britten said that it was about the experience of an individual against the crowd, the state is hardly an individual. The state is the villagers, at least as far as pacifists were concerned. The point is not that Peter is good and they are bad, but rather that they're all totally normal people, and Peter is just set apart by some mix of circumstance and conviction which ends badly for him and happily for the society (this is why Vickers' performance is such a travesty and such an insult to Britten, Pears and Slater). It's about the experience of finding yourself at odds with the people around you. Not about lunatics on either side.



> And what does the year have to do with it? The reference to England in the 50's comes from one of the sharings my words above were acknowledging and thanking.


I've seen that thread now and I think that's a totally stupid way to read it. It's extremely reductive and again completely failing to grasp the point of the work. People love to pin the homosexual thing on it but that's just because they love gossip and patting themselves on the back. Turing was working for exactly what Britten believed against. 



> I'm not really sure you picked up on what I was doing here.


It's a syntactical mess so I think I should be forgiven.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Dreadful_Engines said:


> I'm not sure you can compare a mundanely misfortunate man with the most powerful state in the world, or a group of people with problems with that state (however foolishly formed) to the residents of the Borough, Britten said that it was about the experience of an individual against the crowd, the state is hardly an individual. The state is the villagers, at least as far as pacifists were concerned. The point is not that Peter is good and they are bad, but rather that they're all totally normal people, and Peter is just set apart by some mix of circumstance and conviction which ends badly for him and happily for the society (this is why Vickers' performance is such a travesty and such an insult to Britten, Pears and Slater). It's about the experience of finding yourself at odds with the people around you. Not about lunatics on either side.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Was nice chatting with ya!


----------



## Dreadful_Engines (5 mo ago)

ScottK said:


> Was nice chatting with ya!


Exactly. You are the villagers.


----------

