Someone else does the heavy lifting for a change
La Cieca introduces a new feature on parterre.com, the guest review. First up to bat is longtime print zine stalwart Little Stevie, who saw Lucia di Lammermoor last night.
Take this as you will: based on this evenings performance the new Met Lucia is pretty bad. The acclaimed Ms. Zimmerman simply doesn't know how to direct opera. The chorus work was among the WORST I have ever seen in any theatre - no motivation, and some of the most boring groupings you can imagine - very static. The highly touted "nuanced portrayals" of the principles translates to "can't get the performances past the footlights". As viewed from Parterre Box 12 tonight, my impression was that the relationships were so poorly realized that everyone was acting in their own opera with no connection happening between any of them. Dessay and Giordani hit the mark in the Act 1 love duet, but prior to and after that the opera turned into an emotional black hole.
As each act came about I could feel the performance slipping away dramatically. This was unfortunate for Ms. Dessay's Mad Scene - which was very well sung, with reinstated pages of music new to my ears, and extremely interesting and difficult coloratura tailored to her abilities. If the opera had actually built up to this scene it would have been an experience to remember. The production lets her down, and the scene is an island in a vast ocean of emptiness. You really must experience Act 3 Sc. 1 between Edgardo and Enrico to believe it. Passionless, limp, "cross the stage on this line" type of directing - no conflict, no danger. It played as thought they were an East Village avant garde opera troupe making fun of the structure of the piece in a deconstructionist production. There was barely enough applause to cover the time to black out and raise the scrim (see below) on Sc. 2.
I have read that Ms. Zimmerman traveled with her designers to Scotland to soak up local color and get inspiration for this production. Well the only thing they seemed to have soaked up are several hundred gallons of sea foam green paint, and not a very stage worthy or pleasant shade either. Based on the designs released prior to opening I was expecting darkly foreboding landscapes, expressionistic backgrounds, gloomy yet appropriate spaces. The grassy mound in Act 1 works, yet I couldn't shake the feeling that it was the anorexic sister of the Met's Parsifal set. Act 2 is a deluge of the aforementioned "sea foam green" - from the floor to way up past our site lines - all three walls of the set.
Act 3 is where it really falls apart. Scene 1: Lightning out of your local carnival's "spooky house" housed in a black scrim that materializes into Wolf's Crag Castle thanks to two cutouts at top and bottom with part of the Scene 2 stairs sticking out. Edgardo enters to a bare stage with your uncle's ugly yellow wing backed chair the only piece on stage. Scene 2 was the most confusing - the costumes, giant wooden stairs and balcony (read faux-finished cat walk) seemed to place the scene in the Wild West and looked to be straight out of Miss Kitty's Saloon from Gunsmoke!! Perhaps up close the impression was richer, but from my seat it sure didn't read as Scotland. The Ravenswoods cemetery was a particular embarrassment - 2 or 3 cutout headstones that looked to be supported in the back by 2x4's. Cheap cheap CHEAP!
The singing was OK. Myers (as Normanno in Act 1 Sc. 1) was inaudible when the ensemble was singing, and weak on solo lines. Relyea was wooly and tended to go flat. Giordani was Giordani - very good but just shy of superstar tenor quality. Kwiecien - I wish I could rave - but he has one dynamic - mezzo forte - a short breath line - and was quite cardboard tonight. He also really sang over Dessay in their scenes together. Stephen Costello projected youth, vigor, and a super fine tenor that has alot of ring top to bottom, though the absolute top didn't quite bloom bigger as one might want - but what a fantastic sound. -- Little Stevie
If you would like to be a guest critic on parterre.com, please contact La Cieca. First priority will be given to regular commenters.
Take this as you will: based on this evenings performance the new Met Lucia is pretty bad. The acclaimed Ms. Zimmerman simply doesn't know how to direct opera. The chorus work was among the WORST I have ever seen in any theatre - no motivation, and some of the most boring groupings you can imagine - very static. The highly touted "nuanced portrayals" of the principles translates to "can't get the performances past the footlights". As viewed from Parterre Box 12 tonight, my impression was that the relationships were so poorly realized that everyone was acting in their own opera with no connection happening between any of them. Dessay and Giordani hit the mark in the Act 1 love duet, but prior to and after that the opera turned into an emotional black hole.
As each act came about I could feel the performance slipping away dramatically. This was unfortunate for Ms. Dessay's Mad Scene - which was very well sung, with reinstated pages of music new to my ears, and extremely interesting and difficult coloratura tailored to her abilities. If the opera had actually built up to this scene it would have been an experience to remember. The production lets her down, and the scene is an island in a vast ocean of emptiness. You really must experience Act 3 Sc. 1 between Edgardo and Enrico to believe it. Passionless, limp, "cross the stage on this line" type of directing - no conflict, no danger. It played as thought they were an East Village avant garde opera troupe making fun of the structure of the piece in a deconstructionist production. There was barely enough applause to cover the time to black out and raise the scrim (see below) on Sc. 2.
I have read that Ms. Zimmerman traveled with her designers to Scotland to soak up local color and get inspiration for this production. Well the only thing they seemed to have soaked up are several hundred gallons of sea foam green paint, and not a very stage worthy or pleasant shade either. Based on the designs released prior to opening I was expecting darkly foreboding landscapes, expressionistic backgrounds, gloomy yet appropriate spaces. The grassy mound in Act 1 works, yet I couldn't shake the feeling that it was the anorexic sister of the Met's Parsifal set. Act 2 is a deluge of the aforementioned "sea foam green" - from the floor to way up past our site lines - all three walls of the set.
Act 3 is where it really falls apart. Scene 1: Lightning out of your local carnival's "spooky house" housed in a black scrim that materializes into Wolf's Crag Castle thanks to two cutouts at top and bottom with part of the Scene 2 stairs sticking out. Edgardo enters to a bare stage with your uncle's ugly yellow wing backed chair the only piece on stage. Scene 2 was the most confusing - the costumes, giant wooden stairs and balcony (read faux-finished cat walk) seemed to place the scene in the Wild West and looked to be straight out of Miss Kitty's Saloon from Gunsmoke!! Perhaps up close the impression was richer, but from my seat it sure didn't read as Scotland. The Ravenswoods cemetery was a particular embarrassment - 2 or 3 cutout headstones that looked to be supported in the back by 2x4's. Cheap cheap CHEAP!The singing was OK. Myers (as Normanno in Act 1 Sc. 1) was inaudible when the ensemble was singing, and weak on solo lines. Relyea was wooly and tended to go flat. Giordani was Giordani - very good but just shy of superstar tenor quality. Kwiecien - I wish I could rave - but he has one dynamic - mezzo forte - a short breath line - and was quite cardboard tonight. He also really sang over Dessay in their scenes together. Stephen Costello projected youth, vigor, and a super fine tenor that has alot of ring top to bottom, though the absolute top didn't quite bloom bigger as one might want - but what a fantastic sound. -- Little Stevie
If you would like to be a guest critic on parterre.com, please contact La Cieca. First priority will be given to regular commenters.
Labels: dessay, giordani, guest critic, met, stephen costello
POSTED at
11:02 AM
31 Comments:
La Cieca, your guest is clueless. 95% of the reviews so far have been very positive, and most of his/her complaints are irrelevant.
Great coverage by Little Stevie, although I'm wondering whose Parterre Box Little Stevie was sitting in?
The Met hyped this production like crazy and so, not surprisingly we get a turkey (or so it appeared on the video screen).
Maybe after three successive out-of-kilter Lucia productions, they'll either give up on this work or next time around find a director and designer who knows how to stage bel canto opera. Attilo Colonello got it more or less right for Dame Joan, so a workable Luica production is possible.
I enjoyed reading this review. It's much better than one usually reads today, and certainly more insightful than one usually reads in the comments section. I still can't get over those raves for Racette!!
Isn't box 12 the General Manager's box?
Just finished watching a Charlie Rose interview with Natalie Dessay. She said that it was the day of the Butterfly dress rehearsal. She speaks beautiful English and can express herself quite well. Came across as an intelligent, professional, no non-sense lady. With regard to Mary Zimmerman, Natalie said that it was a good effort for Zimmerman's first try at directing opera in a big house but that she has much to learn about directing singers.
As for Little Stevie's review, I agree that the direction of the chorus was ineffective. I noticed it at the performance I saw and have seen it now a couple of times on TV clips: they have almost no reaction at all as Lucia goes on with her mad scene. The same earlier in the wedding scene when Edgardo comes in. As I said, I noticed it, but didn't bother me much because I guess in general I don't expect much acting in bel canto operas. I don't object if everyone just stands up facing the audience and sings.
Having said that, I'll also say that I was totally mesmerized by Dessay's interpretation.
And no one is really raving about the sets, right?
2 comments -
Dessay's mad scene ornamentation is actually much plainer than one normally hears in this opera. He is correct is saying that they are tailored to her current vocal capabilities, and combined with her performance commitment they very effective.
And while it's true that the chorus is used barely and badly in this production, we should all be grateful - you should see the fussy, overly detailed crap she had them originally doing en masse before most of it got cut (my favorite was when they all checked the time on their watches in unison).
In her interview with Charlie Rose, Dessay came across as an extremely intelligent, articulate and well all around grounded artist. Not all opera superstars can be so engaging, discussing their art with such an analytical mind, and leaving out personal "stuff" that can be so boring and demeaning.
It was interesting to watch Dessay being interviewed, but in a freakish-Glenn Close kinda way. So she'd rather be a theater actress.....isn't opera theater? She has a limited view of acting, singing or speaking on stage doesn't limit or enhance you abilities to portray a role, her successful (over)acting in Lucia is proof of that.
Dessay also said that Callas lost weight to look convincing in the roles she portrayed in opera. That's nonsense, everyone knows that wasn't the reason, Callas lost weight for vanity and for the benefit of her international jet-setting lifestyle later, as Di Stefano pointed out.
Dessay also seemed a bit jealous and defensive when Rose played a clip of Sutherland as Lucia. She praised the voice immensely but said Sutherland was not an actress. More nonsense. Go tell Zeffirelli that. Sutherland's dynamic mad scene is historic not only for the voice but also for the compelling sense of drama and her commitment in acting. And those stunning falls....Just compare the results: listen to the enthusiasm from the audience in the ovation for Sutherland and the same for Dessay.
If Dessay wants to act in straight plays, she should go for it. But she would've done it already if she were serious, I have a feeling she's just full of hot air.
Well, to Dessay's defense (try saying that three times, fast), she did mention in her September 2007 Opera News interview that she was scheduled to appear in a production of "straight" theater (is it ever?). Though I believe she will be playing a former opera singer...
"...Callas lost weight for vanity and for the benefit of her international jet-setting lifestyle later, as Di Stefano pointed out..." Callas did not start Jet-setting until about 5-6 years AFTER the weight loss...wouldn't take Di Stefano's word without a BIG grain of salt...
To TKLogan11809:
While I won't comment on your thoughts about my review, I will make a major correction in your assumption of Maria Callas' weight loss. It is not "nonsense" that Callas began the weight loss for her stage image. You claim that she did it for social reasons. However Callas lost her weight between late 1953 and early 1954, a time when she did not know Elsa Maxwell (who was responsible for bringing Maria into "jet set society") and would not meet her for another 2 years. It was not until September 1957 at a Venetian ball in her honor that Callas would first meet Onassis.
At the time of the weight loss Callas was totally devoted to the world of opera. She lived and studied like a hermit, completely committed to her art. She is quoted as saying a main factor in her weight loss was to project the angularity of features she saw in her mind for Medea. She wanted more beauty and freedom of movement for her characterizations. It is common knowledge that while the dieting may have taken a toll on her vocal production, her acting and stage presense gained a tremendous advantage from her new self image. What she did with that image later was another life choice. But for the period of time between late winter 1954 and September 1957 she had her greatest stage triumphs, conquered and held La Scala as the reigning Queen, and sealed her reputation as a great singing actress. These are simply the facts and the dates that are well documented in numerous sources. While your posting is not exactly "rrelevant" by your own choice of words I am not the only one posting on here who is "clueless".
LS
TKLogan obviously has some sort sort of anti-Dessay agenda, which is fine, but PLEASE let's not distort the facts.
If you read anything about Callas' life you would know that she did indeed lose the weight so she would look like the characters she was portraying....I wouldn't call that vanity..
I thought Dessay was absolutely charming and very well-spoken on CHARLIE ROSE....she complained about the fact that she has to fight constantly to have people take the DRAMA of opera seriously...and she said that a lot of opera librettos are stupid....I don't think anyone would disagree....
She did not seem "jealous" of Sutherland, at all(who quite frankly looked AWFUL in the clip they showed)....Dessay lavished great praise on Sutherland as a singer...she just said that Sutherland was not an actress and let's face it that's not exactly a news bulletin!!!!
JF in DC and sugarmezzo: The General Manager's box is Box 15. Box 12 has been my subscription seats for years.
Just my opinion, of course, but I just find the whole Sutherland didn't act (and by inference, a lot of other great singers of the past) a statement that is a little intellectually lazy. There are all kinds of acting, and what Sutherland did with her voice, other people have to achieve doing cartwheels and carrying a family of wolverines on their backs while singing the Bell Song. And I don't buy the argument that it might as well be concert opera. True, Sutherland could be dramatically lazy because her priority was making as beatiful a sound as possible, but as Ethan Mordden said, when she was on (more often than she gets credit for) she sang with great dramatic intent and intensity. I love it when Mordden said that Callas was the great singer who was dismissed as a great actress while Sutherland was the great singer dismissed as... a great singer.
Perfidia, you are right, there ARE all kinds of acting: good acting & bad acting. You can contort yourself into all kinds of intellectual pretzels to convince yourself that Sutherland was a good actress but no one is buying it. Great singer, no question. Bad actress.
Finally someone Mrs. John Claggart recognizes as a mean bitch like herself! That's the kind of give no quarter, if you liked it you wuz born yesterday we need more of.
I detest Mary Zinnerman and think the production is ridiculous and I BET lots got changed/simplified.
I wonder where that Parterre Box is (I think it's in the middle of the ring but not the Gelb box). I will say that when Mr. John and I went to the opera we avoided the Parterre because it's hard to hear well there. Besides my sal de con bothered the other society ladies in those boxes. When Mrs. Carter Biddle began spraying sal volatile in the direction of my cuntchops I cried, "never more!!"
I saw it from row S orch and was invited back for what might have been a better seat in the front row of the balcony but I couldn't get my mammaries to churn enough for the trip from hell, I mean Philly, where I teach now (and I terrified twenty twenty year olds yesterday in my aesthetics class, some were weeping, who said there'd be no comforts in old age -- but those bitches and queens know who Heidegger was NOW!!!!)
I adore Dessay as a concept and loved her as a performer and might love her again, but honey, this is no Miss Lucy. If you're looking for a great actress, Pat Brooks wandering around covered in blood playing with the knife chilled all the blood in the house. She also had more in the middle than Natalie.
If you're looking for a Met sized Miss Lucy, then you channel Sutherland between 1959 and 1965. People were so astounded by what she was doing (physically too) they stood up during the mad scene, not knowing what to do.
Natalie is no dummy, knows her current nodes damaged voice and behaves well on a stage, ain't enough in that size house.
I see the Pirates all praising Giordani, I guess he sells to the marks out there -- I always think he's slightly under the pitch and delivers about half a performance. I also don't hear his as a quality timbre (though there's worse). The night I saw it I thought he was going to collapse in the last scene.
I thought the others were non entities. I think Levine has HUGE skills, but no soul, no heart and at this point probably no balls (he may have bartered them to the devil to obtain his power at the Met, he should have moved on fifteen years ago). Lucia isn't a conductor's opera, but I thought his phrases were leaden, his agogics better for Bach, and fate had wept or les garcons noir pissed on all the fire he might once have had in his sold soul.
Yet e'en in dire need hope erects and extends his arms -- Costello really did have the quality instrument that night (one might hear hints of what Natalie had but only as echoes) and though the you tube stuff looks like he needs a coach badly, he has promise.
As for Callas, I think she thought in 1951--"Gosh I've damaged my voice by screaming from the chest up to the A and don't tell anybody, hear? -- to the B, now how else can I wreck my life! That's it! I'll go on the protean sparing fast which will devour all the fat deposits that are naturally there in my vocal folds and bleed the fat out of my muscles so I am weaker and my support goes!" But that didn't satisfy her either, so she said, "who is that hideous lesbionic plague plopping about -- Elsa Maxwell, I MUST conquer her and meet all these idiots who will distract me from my life's work", but that didn't satisfy her either, so she said, "who in the name of god is that hideous old man packing major meat? Maybe he can wreck my life for good?" Bingo! If you try hard enough, ladies, sooner or later your death wishes all come true!
Sutherland got bigger ovations that Dessay because she was one of the greatest coloratura sopranos in the history of the art form, NOT because she was a good stage actress (by this, I don't refer to acting with the voice). Running around the stage a few times and putting on a deranged expression on your face is not real acting. It's play acting. I'm not dissing Sutherland. She brought more to Lucia than just about any other soprano I can think of. But to even suggest that her stage acting got her the big ovations is just too funny.
(I shouldn't even be taking the bait...)
Good Lord
LOTS of posters seem to have missed their medication today (this week?). Entertaining to point, but dear me, how boring in the end. (Arguing about Sutherland's ACTING skills? Puhleaze!!!) Advice to Little Stevie: try to balance your rampage with a few positive comments and your views might be taken a bit more seriously (especially in light of the many other much more positive reviews that have already surfaced). Was Costello REALLY the best part of the evening? Come now. But much much more to the point: this is all such OLD NEWS. Been there, done that, formed my own opinion. Nice try, but a little late... (and as such, quite surprising on La Cieca's page - where news and views usually tend to be, well, current).
evenhanded:
A review can come in at any time. It represents what that individual perceived at the performance they attended. Old news? I don't think my opinion has really been expressed anywhere else. Most of what you will read about this Lucia is veiled in positive spin (good job on Gelb's publicity machine) so I feel my differing view is merited. As for balancing it with positive comments: I didnt' have any. Others have expounded on what they perceived as the good qualities - I have no reason to temper my impression just because my voice is a voice of dissent. I pay a ridiculous amount of money to attend the Met in the best seats, and I have been going to the opera for 3 decades. When I witness a debacle such as last night it makes me want to vent - I want opera to be great, I want the catharsis. When I don't get it due to a directors bad/lack of vision it pisses me off. I was an original subscriber to Parterre Box almost from it's original release as a dirty little hot pink rag that was xeroxed - and it's always promoted alternate views and extreme opinions from every side. This Lucia opened 2 weeks ago. It's not like I'm reviewing last seasons opening of Butterfly. Exactly how current does one have to be to be current? I'm reviewing performance number 5 of a new production. Seems like I'm still pretty up to date with this one. And please do not misquote me: I did not say that Costello was the best part of the evening. I complemented his voice as youthful and secure (also mentioning he didn't quite bloom at the top) but I didn't remark on his contribution to the evening other than that. I also didn't feel the need to analyze Ms. Dessay's voice for everyone because most here are very familiar with her abilities, and frankly the slew of positive press has already described that very well. I'm glad you have formed your own opinion from the performance you attended, and I don't begrudge you that. Just relax and let others express theirs too. It won't take away from the experience you had.
Dessay reallly really did not communicate the role of lucia in the met. She just does not have the voice for it in a house of that size. Zerbinetta maybe. And yes, the stage direction and sets were just about as average and boring as can be. Everything but the mad scene had me bored to tears.
Sutherland was a great vocal actress in Lucia, and though I never had the chance to see her live, I would gather that she could have done cartwheels during the mad scene and it wouldn't have mattered--the voice really said it all.
I will repeat what I said earlier in this thread. Little Stevie did a great covering "Lucia". If you don't agree with what he said fine, but no reason to hammer him. He is a very perceptive critic/reporter and an excellent writer.
In the Mariusz/Daniels thread -- which included some speculation about who is and who isn't -- Little Stevie pointed out that Nathan Gunn is happily married.
As they have often done, Nathan and wife Julie are appearing together on 10/21. The venue Lorin Maazel's Chateauville farm in northern Virginia, about 60 or so miles west of Washington. The program includes two "Flute" arias, some Schubert, and American songs (groan...).
Natalie Dessay said at her interview with Charlie Rose that her dream is to perform on a bare stage with only a chair, and with actors who can sing. She's too late. Decker beat her with Netrebko and Villazon in the 2005 Salzburg production of La Traviata with a sofa instead of a chair. Has Dessay seen the DVD?
Little Stevie –
Fair enough. I didn’t mean to imply that you shouldn’t contribute your opinion. On the contrary, I enjoy reading opinions. And I don’t think the “vision” of Parterre Box (in soliciting “extreme” opinions – if indeed that is the case) has anything to do with the present discussion (unless of course, you are willfully TRYING to be seen as extreme). As far as I am concerned, nearly every performance contains both positive and negative elements. For ANY review to focus exclusively on one angle or another negates the value of the criticism in my opinion. No single performance is flawless. Likewise, few (if any) performances can be truly as unremittingly negative as you have attempted to describe in your Lucia review. (Possibly the recently posted performance of Nessun Dorma from Bangkok is an exception – good God.) If your main goal was to “vent” as you say, then you should disclose that up front, because I would then be able to classify your writings as such (rather than as a “review”), and then cheerfully skip over reading it, as I am not interested in giving you (or anyone) the opportunity to “vent” (no offense to you intended). Additionally, I don’t see what the price of your tickets or the number of years you have subscribed to Parterre Box have to do with your qualifications to provide a balanced review of events at the MET.
For what it’s worth, I agree with much of what you said. I only (as I previously tried to point out) thought you did yourself a disservice by failing to mention ANYTHING positive (of which there was plenty, IMO). If you feel there was nothing positive worth mentioning, then fine – but that seems a little overly simplistic to me.
Oh Little Stevie, so much hath changed in der Welt. A lot of people who come here really can't read, a few more are really, really dumb, a few more are obscenely naive. I agree with all you said. Lucia is not a work to do by small degrees EVER. It's a work with two (and if you're lucky) three great wop parts, and they need major voices and huge personalities that work thrillingly in that style. It's not ENOUGH that Natalie knows her way around a stage and isn't fat and can more or less calculate her way over the tough spots. FALLS SHORT, honey, And you know that. It's not enough that Giordani is a dago with some of that sound, a little squillo, a top (screamy half the time) and more or less the accenti. AT THE MET THAT DOESN'T CUT IT. You know that too. The baritone is a juicy, fun role with some real vocal opportunities, he fell short too. In a 1200 seat house with a conductor with boiling blood, maybe this would have worked out better. In 4000 seats you are dead on, and it's good to read it even a few weeks after the prima.
And good for you to praise Costello -- of course we'll see when he has to do the entire part but that's a real voice and frankly, it was the only one that didn't show signs of damage.
I respect Dessay as a performer, some of her work ( including Zerbinetta at the Met) has been astounding, and maybe a few years back Lucia would have worked out better in a smaller venue--but though I am not sorry to have seen her she did not move me, and the more she tried to "act" the less she moved me.
She seems very bright; by her own admission in the foolish OPERA NEWS piece she does not know the history of singing and buys into -- as did that piece's author-- the nonsense that there were no operatic actors before Callas. The article treated all pre-Callas Lucias as unmusical tweety birds, including Marcella Sembrich, who was legendarily a great musician and also-- according to Bernard Shaw and W.J. Henderson-- a Lucia who really ACTED, along with Etelka Gerster (of whom we have no recorded evidence).
Whom does this "She Brought Us Fire" mythology serve ( besides EMI of course, with its 3000 CD set of every breath Maria ever emitted)?
There is a filmic record of many of Callas' contemporaries ( and elders) such as Taddei, Hoengen, Jurinac, Christoff, Simionato, London, Gobbi-- are we to believe that they learned all everything from Callas' example? What about people like Mark Reizen, one of the great operatic actors ever filmed, who would never have seen or heard Maria Callas? Let along Chaliapin and Farrar who look pretty convincing in ther non-operatic films...
Herr/Senor Schrott, also clearly no fool to judge from his textual invetniveness, gave a similar interview in the UK where he talked about how in the old days pre-Callas ( and by implication pre-glam casting) it was all stupid ugly fat people screaming-- and now they were barred from opera.
Callas' achievemnt was staggering. But she did not invent the wheel, nor drama in opera, and nor is or should her legacy be pretty people excused and rewarded for singing badly.
mrs. John Claggart: I appreciate that you and I speak the same language and share a common view though we each voice it in our own way. Yes I saw all those things too, and I appreciate your support.
evenhanded: Frankly my review was kind on many levels considering what I saw on the stage that night. I could have ripped several of the singers a new ***hole but instead chose to edit my words, because artists can have an off night. Since I am not paid by an organization to view opera in a certain light I see no reason to be nice or for that matter "balanced". The price I pay for my tickets is my choice, and gives me no authority to review. The years I have read Parterre Box do not either (though one might argue that PB has in it's way informed me over the years). But I do have years of experience and training in music, opera, and the theatre and 30 years of international opera attendance that I draw my opinions from. And that's what counts.
PS - I did point to the Love Duet and the Mad Scene as being good. So my review was not "unremittingly negative" or "failing to mention ANYTHING positive". That's what I liked. That's pretty much all I liked. You might call that overly simplistic - but it's not as overly simplistic as having a chorus of 30+ people stand around looking like a cardboard cut out of Wild West saloon patrons uttering "Oh giusto cielo" in a way that makes you think they are wondering if there will be traffic in the tunnel on the way home after the show's over.
Little Stevie -
You said: "but it's not as overly simplistic as having a chorus of 30+ people stand around looking like a cardboard cut out of Wild West saloon patrons uttering "Oh giusto cielo" in a way that makes you think they are wondering if there will be traffic in the tunnel on the way home after the show's over."
And I can only laugh hard and long in agreement with this. As stated previously, I do agree with much of the substance in your original review. I respect your willingness to discuss the points of concern I raised as well. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts in the future.
Let me settle this argument once and for all. My mother lost weight for two very important reasons—vanity and for artistic reasons. First, I do believe, that it was for her art. She did not like the way she looked especially as Medea. She felt that a more gaunt, and angular look was more desirable for the role. No matter how much she slanted her eyebrows, the look was not to her liking. Plus she always was very hurt by the remark of one critic when she was singing “Aida” somewhere. The critic said her legs were so big that he thought that they were a column of some sort. She never got over that remark and no matter how thin she got, her legs remained very large. In addition, she had always considered herself an “ugly duckling” far homelier than her sister. She did, for once in her life, want to be considered attractive. The only way that was going to happen was to drop a few kilos; in her case it was 50 or 60 pounds. Guess what, the “ugly duckling” turned into a swan. After her initial weight loss, she wanted look like Audrey Hepburn. Yet more weight loss and sadly the voice too.
CallasOrphan
To continue the above--
Look at some of her pictures in 1958-1959. They are almost scary. She was so very thin. Yet she was trying to sing the same things that she had sung with more meat on her bones. She really did not care. After all, a very rich toad with an enormous amount of meat between his legs was “whipping it to her” every day and night and she had never experienced that before from her rather dreary husband. She was like Madelyn Kahn in “young Frankenstein” after doing it with the monster six or seven times, she was in LOVE.
CallasOrphan
OK, this may intrude into the discussion--but what do Doc and Kitty and Allan Sherman have to do with a Lucia production? And right now on on the finearts network Munsel is singing something from Louise; wasn't Pat a Diva too?
ljc: "the costumes, giant wooden stairs and balcony (read faux-finished cat walk) seemed to place the scene in the Wild West and looked to be straight out of Miss Kitty's Saloon from Gunsmoke"
And, yes, La Munsel was (and is) a diva indeed. And, speaking of TV westerns, did you know she once appeared on "The Wild Wild West" as a tempestous prima donna? (Yeah, like there's any other kind...)
Post a Comment
<< Home