# The Magic Flute in abridged version



## Lipatti (Oct 9, 2010)

What are your thoughts on this production from the Met? 

I've waited almost three weeks for the DVD I ordered from play.com with a Royal Opera House performance of Die Zauberflöte, only to just find out that they messed up my order and I won't be getting it any time soon. So now that my free subscription time hasn't yet expired, I'm considering watching it on Met player, but I can't fully decide if I shall go with the older, more conservative version from 1991 or the newer one, which looks much more spectacular in visual terms. I've watched a couple of scenes from both version, but I still can't decide.

Has anyone seen any of them, or preferably both, to give me any suggestions?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Yeah, I've seen both - the old production in person at the Met, and the new one on Met in HD.
I didn't like either. The old one is too stiff, the new one is visually striking but I hate the fact that it is in English, and abridged. Maybe a better option is the one that came in the M22 box set which is also visually striking, in German, and not abridged.


----------



## Lipatti (Oct 9, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> Yeah, I've seen both - the old production in person at the Met, and the new one on Met in HD.
> I didn't like either. The old one is too stiff, the new one is visually striking but I hate the fact that it is in English, and abridged. Maybe a better option is the one that came in the M22 box set which is also visually striking, in German, and not abridged.


Thank you, exactly my thoughts. It's probably why I couldn't decide in the first place, since neither of them seemed particularly appealing to me. I think I'll spend the rest of my free time on something else.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

How about this one which is visually gorgeous, beautifully sung, full length and in German:


----------



## Lipatti (Oct 9, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> How about this one which is visually gorgeous, beautifully sung, full length and in German:


Yes, that is exactly the one I heard about and ordered at an incredible €8, but after almost a month of waiting, I hadn't yet received it. They refunded me my money back, but now it costs nearly €30, which is more than I'm willing to spend at this moment.


----------



## Herkku (Apr 18, 2010)

I had hoped more from Diana Damrau, who seemed to have been appointed the reigning Queen of the Night. The young Lucia Popp (in the Klemperer recording) remains my favourite in her accuracy in the coloratura.


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> How about this one which is visually gorgeous, beautifully sung, full length and in German:


Yes that is a good one.........

I like the *M22 Flute also with Damrau as queen a bit better*, more creative staging for me and just more fun, very vibrant colors










Damrau Video

Despite the english language (not a deal breaker for me) the *Julie Taymor MET production Flute* is my very favorite, goes from one amazing visual scence to another, brilliant!


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DarkAngel said:


>


I really don't understand you guys on this one. I almost left in the middle. It was a torture for me to watch it until the end, because it was in English (something I was regretfully unaware of when I bought my ticket and attended the broadcast). It's a total deal breaker for me, a travesty, a heresy. So, I was so p.o.'d, that the visual imagery didn't really touch me. I though, "yeah, yeah, cute, but what about this horrible sound of the English language in such a fabulous German-language opera???"

See, I don't mind operas in English when English is the original language of the libretto. But I hate translations. When good composers - and you know how good Mozart was - set a libretto to music, they take into account the sounds of the language, the vowels, the rhythm of the language, the stresses of certain syllables, the length of the words, etc., to set an efficient and beautiful musical phrase. Then when someone goes and translates it into a completely different language, the notes just don't match the sounds any longer.

Look, take an opera in English like Porgy and Bess. 
Think of that beautiful musical line: Sumertiiiiime... with the open sound of the_ i_ soaring and giving that expansive feeling of the bright and hot season.
Think of an eventual translation of this opera into French. 
How artificial and out of proportion would it be if then the line became: étééééééé...
See what I mean?
It's the wrong length of the word - the French word is too short and gets overstretched; it's got a different rhythm that doesn't allow for the wavy up-down-up swinging of the original word; it's the wrong sound with the closed, dark French _é _as opposed to the original open English _i;_ it doesn't have the satisfactory closing/resolution of the line with the _me_ syllable at the end. It just doesn't sound right and it isn't as beautiful.

No, please, keep an opera in the original language, it's an insult to the composer when you don't. Or if there is a second version in another language, it may - emphasis on may - be sort of OK *if* - and only if - the composer *himself* supervised the change and fine tuned some of the music, like it's happened for some operas, especially when Italian composers have set French libretti to music but latter have reworked the opera for an Italian language version.

But then, you get a powerful, extraordinary, precise masterpiece like _Die Zauberflöte_, and some nobody rewrites the lyrics into English, hundreds of years after Mozart was dead? Give me a break!
:scold:

In my opinion, if an opera *doesn't* suffer at all in a translation done without the composer's input, then it's because it wasn't as precisely set and well crafted as some sublime masterpieces were.

Maybe some Joe Nobody's opera can be easily translated from one language to the other. But please, don't mess with my favorite Mozart masterpieces!!!


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> ...
> No, please, keep an opera in the original language, it's an insult to the composer when you don't. Or if there is a second version in another language, it may - emphasis on may - be sort of OK *if* - and only if - the composer *himself* supervised the change and fine tuned some of the music, like it's happened for some operas, especially when Italian composers have set French libretti to music but latter have reworked the opera for an Italian language version.


I agree. I think Verdi supervised the translation of the original French version of Don Carlos into Italian.



Almaviva said:


> But then, you get a powerful, extraordinary, precise masterpiece like _Die Zauberflöte_, and some nobody rewrites the lyrics into English, hundreds of years after Mozart was dead? Give me a break!
> :scold:
> 
> In my opinion, if an opera *doesn't* suffer at all in a translation done without the composer's input, then it's because it wasn't as precisely set and well crafted as some sublime masterpieces were.
> ...


I've read some great reviews of the Levine English 'Flute' but I still wouldn't buy it for all the reasons you say.


----------



## Amara (Jan 12, 2012)

Hope you don't mind my resurrecting this old thread. I wanted to discuss these two productions.

I've been an opera fan for a few years and have been trying to see as many operas as possible. One of the most notable gaps in my opera experience has been The Magic Flute, so when the Met finally began offering a Roku channel, I started watching their 2006 production, which as has been noted, is abridged and in English. Although not the ideal way to experience an opera, I thought it made sense to start with the most recent production available, since not only did it feature a few singers I know and respect (Polenzani and Pape), but also since the production was by Julie Taymor, another amazing artist I respect and admire a lot.

But I got about halfway through the opera and just wasn't enjoying it or connecting to it at all. So, I tried the 1991 production and wow, what a difference! You'd think that the abridged version would be easier to get through and would have better pacing, but I found the opposite true. The full-length opera had better pacing to me because the music carries it along, as opposed to the abridged version which utilizes dialogue instead; the dialogue actually brings the pace to a grinding halt every few minutes.

I also found that, as talented and genius as Taymor is, I did not enjoy her style in this production. I am a huge fan of puppetry actually, but the three ladies, for example, worked better for me when you could see the actors' faces emoting as opposed to using puppets. I also appreciated the less abstract version of sets and costumes in the 1991 production, which felt less sterile and cold. It may be thematically relevant that Taymor's set is so dark for most of the opera, but it left me wishing someone would turn up the lights.

I also really appreciated the singing/acting in the 1991 production more, particularly the performances of Kathleen Battle, Francisco Araiza, and Manfred Hemm. In particular, Hemm was more effective comedically as Papageno than Nathan Gunn. The Papageno/Papagena duet is much cuter and more effective. I went back and watched the 2006 version of the duet after the 1991 one, and there is no comparison.

So, for a first-time viewer of this opera, I think the 1991 is a very enjoyable and effective production. Perhaps enthusiasts of this opera can name even better productions, but the 1991 one works well to showcase why this is such a famous opera, with standout singing and acting.


----------

