# Beczala takes a stand



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tenor Piotr Beczala has taken a welcome stand against stage directors who ruin operatic productions with half- baked ideas. He says:
I have a little “black book ” with the names of stage directors – and conductors – with whom I don’t want to work any more.
Calixto Bieito to start with. Also Hans Neuenfels and Martin Kusej, not for me. I am absolutely not against updating an opera, I am not against modern. I am against stupid, idiotic and far-fetched. I refuse to work as a group therapist for frustrated stage directors, I refuse to pay for their therapy.
Sometimes we do have words, lately with David Pountney in Zurich (Ballo), but after two days chat we came out, we managed. I’m in the very lucky position that I can choose. Most of my colleagues (especially the beginners) are not.
Some think they will make it if they are in a “sensational and controversial” production, but it doesn’t work like that. In our profession you have to rely on your musicality, and your integrity.
There are stage directors who think they are God, but you owe them nothing, you have to give yourself to the genius of the composer.

Would that more singers took this sort of stand! What do you think?e


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

:clap: where was it that I recently read about him bitching about stage directors? Was it here? Anyway, I'm not surprised but I am pleased. We, the public, might moan a lot when faced with a ridiculous production of a beloved opera, but it's them who have to suffer the indignity of looking silly when these directors think they're being clever (and if it's immortalized on DVD... ouch). I think other singers have bitched as well. They should keep at it. A two day chat was one of the lesser problems? Good lord. It must be total insanity. :tiphat: to Beczala.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

Good for Beczala! There's plenty of room for non-traditional opera stagings as long as the director loves and understands opera. But in some cases, productions seem to be all about the director, his/her neuroses, and/or political views.


----------



## Orselina (Mar 16, 2013)

I applaud him, and don't blame him for being against "half-baked" ideas.

I saws photos of a staging of "L'esire d'amore" was a modern day cruise ship with everyone in pastel velour tracksuits. :::shudder:::


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

^ to be fair, most of the characters are country bumpkins but still, pastel velour...


----------



## Orselina (Mar 16, 2013)

exactly. pastel velour. never forget, never forgive.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

He's completely right. I recounted here before that I saw Don Giovanni directed by Rufus Norris at the ENO, and there were extra-textual happenings there which were unnecessary, one being the directors idea of changing the order of some of the music "to help it dramatically."

Yeah right. Wolfgangerl sends his love to you, too.

There were other things, where they felt they should find reasons for why the Don was such an evil *******, real low-level social worker stuff. The ending was appalling, and yet this is an opera that should be a stage directors dream.

One interesting thing Beczala says:

I am absolutely not against updating an opera, I am not against modern. I am against stupid, idiotic and far-fetched. 

Absolutely. Often theatres are restricted by commerce when it comes to stage designs and costumes etc, so they modernise and it's easier. If done well, it can help modern audiences into the work without too much strain or compromise to the composers original work. But when they start their psycho-babble and 'explain' the work through the use of devices and gimmicks, then it all becomes too much.

I'm glad to see a star speaking out on this, because it gets to the stage where you might be familiar with the opera going in, but you're on the edge of your seat more for worrying that they'll make a dogs **** of it than for the dramatic content of the work! :tiphat:


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Kieran said:


> the directors idea of changing the order of some of the music "to help it dramatically."


I really don't get this. Here we have one of the greatest warhorses of opera, and somebody thinks it needs fussing with the order of the music, no less. Boggles the mind.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

deggial said:


> I really don't get this. Here we have one of the greatest warhorses of opera, and somebody thinks it needs fussing with the order of the music, no less. Boggles the mind.


Believe me, I didn't get it either...


----------



## suteetat (Feb 25, 2013)

I remembered Madame Butterfly at the Met in 1990's staging by Giancarlo del Monaco. Nothing obtrusive really but I remembered Malfitano had to walk around the big house in the middle of the stage during her entrace aria and when she was behind the house, you could not hear her because the house was blocking the sound. 
Del Monaco gave an interview and defended his direction that Butterfly had to walk around the house as it was her ritual dance of death or something to that effect. I have no idea where he came up with dance of death idea and beside himself, would anybody actually understand or care that it was a dance of death? However, I am sure everybody had problem hearing Malfitano behind that big house. 

Netrebko's Traviata from Salzburg was also an interesting production but I really hated the change in stage direction where Alfredo walked in at a different time than stated there was a big conflict between libretto and action on stage. The only effect I got was the thought that may be stage director did not read the libretto carefully. Not really sure if it served any real purpose either. 

Stage director does not have to create a radical production in order to ruin the opera either, it seems. Where is a little common sense regarding libretto, singing and voices?


----------



## Orselina (Mar 16, 2013)

The Salzburg production is actually my favorite staging of Traviata, but know you, I hadn't thought about that entrance issue until you brought it up. Huh, wow.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

suteetat said:


> I have no idea where he came up with dance of death idea and beside himself, would anybody actually understand or care that it was a dance of death? However, I am sure everybody had problem hearing Malfitano behind that big house.


proper verismo!



> Where is a little common sense regarding libretto, singing and voices?


you mean there's music involved?! hehe. Don't some of these hacks actually boast about not being aware about what actually goes on in the libretto?


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

deggial said:


> you mean there's music involved?! hehe. Don't some of these hacks actually boast about not being aware about what actually goes on in the libretto?


Pray tell, how many productions actually follow the libretto _exactly_? I can think of only one, and that is the Regie-fest that is Stefan Herheim's recently retired Bayreuth Parsifal.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

^ I agree but here I was specifically thinking about the said hacks who have expressed contempt for the libretto.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

deggial said:


> ^ I agree but here I was specifically thinking about the said hacks who have expressed contempt for the libretto.


The libretto is *not*the end-all and be-all of operatic performance. Has never been and will never be. It is simply a guide for the director to work from, which he/she/it may choose to follow as much or as little as he/she/it wants to. As long as it is compelling theatre, I don't really care a whole lot what is done in terms of staging.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Somehow in my mind's eye I can see Dom DeLuise playing one of these guys...


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

Aksel said:


> The libretto is *not*the end-all and be-all of operatic performance. Has never been and will never be. It is simply a guide for the director to work from, which he/she/it may choose to follow as much or as little as he/she/it wants to. As long as it is compelling theatre, I don't really care a whole lot what is done in terms of staging.


I'm not sure composers would agree with you . . .


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

MAuer said:


> I'm not sure composers would agree with you . . .


Yes, when you read about the care and trouble and endless letters to the librettist for Die Entführung , I would say that Mozart at least regarded the libretto and dramatic effects of the prescribed order of his opera as very important.


----------



## suteetat (Feb 25, 2013)

Aksel said:


> The libretto is *not*the end-all and be-all of operatic performance. Has never been and will never be. It is simply a guide for the director to work from, which he/she/it may choose to follow as much or as little as he/she/it wants to. As long as it is compelling theatre, I don't really care a whole lot what is done in terms of staging.


I thinki people go to opera because of the music and the singing first. I am not sure if there is anyone who go to the opera because of stage director or staging as priority. I think that stage direction should enhance the experience. It should be a compelling theatre but it should not go against the story first and foremost. I have no problem with update production, abstract production and any new idea as long as it does not interfere with singing and upset the story.

Afterall, I think that I would take great singing/performance in a boring, uninspiring staging over excellent production with horrible singers.

If a stage director feels that the libretto needs fixing or think he/she can do better than the composers/librettists, by all means, let he or she prodcue his/her own operas that is more suitable to their liking.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Aksel said:


> The libretto is *not*the end-all and be-all of operatic performance. Has never been and will never be. It is simply a guide for the director to work from, which he/she/it may choose to follow as much or as little as he/she/it wants to. As long as it is compelling theatre, I don't really care a whole lot what is done in terms of staging.


Then there is really no point in the opera in the first place. The men who wrote the great operas were geniuses and for some two-bit producer to over-ride their genius with his often half-baked ideas is tiresome to me.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Then there is really no point in the opera in the first place. The men who wrote the great operas were geniuses and for some two-bit producer to over-ride their genius with his often half-baked ideas is tiresome to me.


Again, I as the question: How many opera productions actually follow the libretto? Every time one puts on an opera, it has to be adapted. 2013 is not 1715, nor is it 1930.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

Aksel said:


> Again, I as the question: How many opera productions actually follow the libretto? Every time one puts on an opera, it has to be adapted. 2013 is not 1715, nor is it 1930.


Well, actually, the majority of operas I've seen followed the libretto. Most of us realize that some things which occurred 500, 200, or even 50 years ago would no longer be acceptable today. But that doesn't alter the fundamental human emotions to which these operas speak. Which is why I would argue that operas don't "have" to be adapted for modern audiences any more than the literature from the 18th or 19th centuries has to be rewritten for modern readers.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

MAuer said:


> Which is why I would argue that operas don't "have" to be adapted for modern audiences any more than the literature from the 18th or 19th centuries has to be rewritten for modern readers.


I'm with you. The situations and emotions are and will always be the same, regardless how much the world changes physically. Whether the singers are dressed in period costume or in suits makes no difference to the heart of the plot.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Aksel said:


> Again, I as the question: How many opera productions actually follow the libretto? Every time one puts on an opera, it has to be adapted. 2013 is not 1715, nor is it 1930.


Yes, but remember the operas were written in the past about the past.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Yes, but remember the operas were written in the past about the past.


Quite right. But they are performed in the present.
To perform it as a picture of that society's perspective on certain issues is certainly a valid way of presenting opera (although to which extent this is actually possible is another matter ENTIRELY), but so is performing it as this day and age's perspective on the same (or other) issues.


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

suteetat said:


> Netrebko's Traviata from Salzburg was also an interesting production but I really hated the change in stage direction where Alfredo walked in at a different time than stated there was a big conflict between libretto and action on stage. The only effect I got was the thought that may be stage director did not read the libretto carefully. Not really sure if it served any real purpose either.


Decker knows Traviata from top to bottom and inside out. This is all intentional. If you see the making of (bonus DVD) you get a good view of how this production developed. I'm sure Decker was overwhelmed by the rare chemistry between Trebs and Villazon at that time, so he just had to put them on stage together with some hanky panky scenes. Originally there is no place for this, so he changed the entrance of Alfredo in act II. It adds some extra weight to the events that are about to come. I admit, you could see it as a cheap trick. I'm more than OK with it. In the making of you see Decker experimenting wth this scene, and he admits that at first he was not sure about it. But after the rehearsals he left it in. There is also an interesting discussion with Hampson an Decker. If you like the production, the making of DVD is really worth watching.


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

I'm right with Beczala here. Don't forget he has done many regie productions. But there are some directors (really brave to name them BTW) that he doesn't want to work with. Those directors look at opera from an extreme point of view. For those directors it's their vision that counts and the libretto, music, singing and also good taste are just irrelevant to them. We don't need those directors. Why don't they write their own opera I always think.

When I first got interested in opera it was for the music. I didn't care for staging, I listened to the music on LP and CD in stead. Later I started to appreciate the total concept. But I'd still say singing and music is the larger part that attracts me to opera. An opera director should have a musical background, be able to read music and have a profound knowledge about music in general.

Modern productions can really add something. But you have to know what you are doing.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

According to an interview in the latest issue of _Opera News_, Ferruccio Furlanetto is another singer who's keeping a list of directors with whom he will not work. It stemmed from a Paris Opera production of _Macbeth_ directed by Dmitri Tcherniakov that was a nightmare experience for Furlanetto. As he explains it, singers must sign contracts anywhere from three to five years in advance, and when they do, there is no indication of which director they'll be working with. So the singers will arrive prepared to work, and then find themselves in an impossible situation where they can either drop out of the production (and lose pay) or stay and suffer though it. He also mentions that, early in his career, opera directors knew the music, the text, had ideas, and were prepared. Now the directors with whom he is often expected to work come from the theater, and have an attitude that knowledge of the music, knowledge of the text, and the language in which the opera is written are non-essentials. As he is quoted: "It is a terrible, terrible wave of -- what can I say? -- _amateurs_."


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

MAuer said:


> Now the directors with whom he is often expected to work come from the theater, *and have an attitude that knowledge of the music, knowledge of the text, and the language in which the opera is written are non-essentials*. As he is quoted: "It is a terrible, terrible wave of -- what can I say? -- _amateurs_."


(I know we're all preaching to the choir - well, most of us are) but, honestly, who are these people?! it just smacks of lack of professionalism. The way I see it, as an artist, you should have a working knowledge of *all* the related arts - as a director, you should be aware of other things you could be directing aside from your primary field. When you agree to direct an opera or a play, it just makes sense that you should get to know it inside out. I wonder how the plays these people are directing work out.


----------



## suteetat (Feb 25, 2013)

Dongiovanni said:


> Decker knows Traviata from top to bottom and inside out. This is all intentional. If you see the making of (bonus DVD) you get a good view of how this production developed. I'm sure Decker was overwhelmed by the rare chemistry between Trebs and Villazon at that time, so he just had to put them on stage together with some hanky panky scenes. Originally there is no place for this, so he changed the entrance of Alfredo in act II. It adds some extra weight to the events that are about to come. I admit, you could see it as a cheap trick. I'm more than OK with it. In the making of you see Decker experimenting wth this scene, and he admits that at first he was not sure about it. But after the rehearsals he left it in. There is also an interesting discussion with Hampson an Decker. If you like the production, the making of DVD is really worth watching.


Thanks, I will watch the making of DVD and see what all the fuss was about. I am not sure if his reason behind the change will justify this particular action on stage. After all, if an audience has to see a DVD later that explain why he did it in order to understand his stage direction then there is something wrong with that staging I think. 
Chereau's ring is another instance where the concept sounded interesting on paper and fascinating to think about it afterward but on first seeing it without any background information, it was a mess. 
One could argue that staging should be stimulating but should it make sense from the get go or should we accept the director's excuse for some high concept that most audiences probably don't care or most likely never bother to find out or understand because they don't have access to the making of DVD or book or whatever. 
I like the concept of this Salzburg's Traviata and think it works very well for most part. Just that particular entrance that really threw me off. I will have to see it again and see if the director's point is acceptable but that would mean that I would also have to competely ignore the words the singers were singing as well as it would otherwise made no absolute sense.


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

suteetat said:


> Thanks, I will watch the making of DVD and see what all the fuss was about. I am not sure if his reason behind the change will justify this particular action on stage. After all, if an audience has to see a DVD later that explain why he did it in order to understand his stage direction then there is something wrong with that staging I think.


Good point. I wonder if there was some background information in the program notes.


----------

