No, but thanks for axing
Playbill Arts reports more intrigue out of San Francisco: Natalie Dessay will not do the Mary Zimmerman production of Lucia di Lammermoor there next summer as originally announced. Oh, don't worry, la Dessay will indeed sing the role, but the SFO is substituting a Graham Vick staging, citing "the physical dimensions of the [Metropolitan Opera] production and extensive rebuilding required to adapt the sets for the War Memorial Opera House." Ah, yes, of course. The extensive rebuilding, that's it.Labels: dessay, diva, san francisco
POSTED at
2:51 PM
49 Comments:
Oh Damn. I was looking forward to that production, Photographer and all.
Is this a new staging by Graham Vick, or is this the one from about 10 years ago, which opened in Florence with Mariella Devia and Zubin Mehta?
It then made the rounds in several European theaters, including Geneva, where I saw it in 1999 (also with Devia).
If so, it is a great, great staging. The sets and design have their "weird quirks" as is the case with Vick, but its approach to the psychology of the characters is unsurpassed.
Surprised? Anyone?
Apparently, Mr. Gockley is more in tune with his star singers than Mr. Gelb is...
Now let's wait and see what happens in March. Will la Dessay be back for those performances at the Met and the Broadcast?
Will she sing Sonnambula?
I guess I should have read the playbill article first :)
It is indeed the 1996 Vick staging from Florence.
Diva seems to know how to pull strings... have to give her credit.
Yah Dessay had a huge success in the Zimmerman production. I can see why she wouldn't want to do it again.
I believe that picture is from last year's Bastille production.
I have not read previous posts about this...but are you all implying that the Zimmerman production was unsuccessful?...I know there was tension in rehearsals because of Zimmerman's lack of experience in working in the Met environment but I saw the production and I thought she was refreshingly faithful to the spirit of the music...as for the photographer in the wedding scene, I thought Zimmerman's intention to show the falseness of marriage was a wonderful idea...and we all know that sextet backwards and forward...so what if someone tries to read a new subtext into it?...it was worth the try....it was not like Adrian Noble's Macbeth where directorial choices were going against the grain of Verdi's music...and also, Natalie Dessay's temper seems to be about achieving artistic results....c'est tout
Sharon--- how did the Noble staging "go against the grain of Verdi's music"? I saw it last night and thought it very effective.
Yes, we all know that sextet backwards and forwards, and so what if someone tries to read a new subtext into it?
We also know Beethoven's Ninth backwards and forwards, so let's put the 4th movement up front, then the slow movement, then the first movement, and top it all of with the scherzo. Then let's set it to video of Hitler's speeches. So what if someone tries to read a new subtext into it?
We also all know Horatio's closing speech from Hamlet backwards and forwards - Good night, sweet Prince. Let's have Hamlet come back to life and have Horatio and Hamlet saunter off to bed together arm in arm where flights of angels will sing them to their uhm... "rest". Who cares if someone tries to read a new subtext into it?
Does nobody trust the composer's and author's intentions and instincts anymore?
When I see Lucia, I expect time to stand still for the sextet so that I can hear the simultaneous thoughts all blended at once, without fussy distracting staginess - that is what opera does: it lets us hear the thoughts and feel the emotions without the trappings of busy work. Couldn't she have put the photographer business in the background, in the scene leading up to the sextet? I am generalizing here, but this seems to be indicative of the trend we see lately in opera, that the music is just background noise for the director to hang a picture on.
There is not an opera in the repertory that has survived because of clever staging or some director's conceit. It survives because the composer wrote great music -- don't shove it behind some gratuitous stage business.
i tried to post this earlier, hope it's not a repeat:
did anyone attend Macbeth on wednesday night? how was Ms. G?
WOW!! Dnitzer...couldn't have said it any better excellent post thank you
dear dnitzer
close your eyes when you go to the opera and you will get your desired effect...if you open your eyes even for a second you may unexpectedly let something in...and in doing so, there might be a disagreement between you and the director or the designers...in order to avoid such disgreements, the productions must be kept as neutral as possible so that nothing can intrude on your world.
june if that were true that you could "close your eyes" and avoid a directors poor choices.. most of us would but when directors chose people based on who looks good on hdtv.. then we are still screwed.. but thanks for the suggestion. :)
Lucia was a success because of Donizetti's masterful score and all those ads spread over city buses for months. Even a brainless director like Zimmerman or Dessay's overbearing presence can't be a liability to a masterpiece.
In retrospect almost everything about the production is indeed horrible, the photographer, the ghosts, the knife business in act 2, etc, the staging of the chorus (clueless) etc.
For a complete destruction of this Lucia production, please read the brilliant (but long) article by Daniel Mendelsohn which will come out Nov 22 on The New York Review of Books
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20831
That's quite a nasty thing to say about Mary Zimmerman, a past winner of a MacArthur Genius Grant and a Tony Award for Direction. I ask, are you a recipient of these prestigious accolades as well?
Better yet, have you even ventured outside an opera house to see Zimmerman's sublime stagings of "The Odyssey," "Metamorphoses," "The Trojan Women" and "The Secret in the Wings"?
Cut the woman some slack. Zimmerman did what she could with a stock and stiff bel canto opera with one famous mad scene. Let her loose on a 20th century opera like Braunfels' "Die Vogel" and you'll see Zimmerman's true genius at staging stories based upon ancient myths.
"but when directors chose people based on who looks good on hdtv..."
Minor point, but generally it's not the stage directors who do the casting.
"That's quite a nasty thing to say about Mary Zimmerman, a past winner of a MacArthur Genius Grant and a Tony Award for Direction..."
Theoretically, Zimmerman is just the sort of American stage director--experienced in the classics, but with a foot in the new--that Gelb should be attracting to the Met. (And frankly, this country hasn't a lot of such stage directors.) Practically, though, it's quite possible that Zimmerman was the wrong person for this particular score; directors should no more be regarded as generalists as singers are. I'll wait till I see it in March to reach my final verdict.
Big difference in staging Greek classics, or even Shakespeare, and staging opera.
And that difference is the music. The music dictates all the timing; it's effects are fragile and demanding of a completely different kind of sensitivity from unsung drama.
This is basic, however commonly it is completely lost on dirrectors, no matter how many awards they may deservedly have won in other media.
First of all, thanks for all who defended Zimmerman as an intellect and as a director...not as the direcor of Lucia, but in general...you see, if one lives in an operatic strasphere one is given to such blanket statements such as "brainless Zimmerman." These are people who don't want any visual commentary from the stage when they go to the opera, even though opera is partially theatre which makes it a visual art. They are there for the sound alone. It would much better for them to see concert versions of operas...but that would not work for them entirely either because in addition to the sound they need some pretty costumes and sets to accompany their musical experience...never mind that in many of these productions costumes and sets are waisted on people who cannot use them theatrically. One thing is for sure, at least this Lucia was directed...whether one personally liked it or not...many of the operas that have presented at the Met in previous years have not been directed...they have been staged...they have had the benefit of a traffic cop, but not a director...some of the great icons of opera, most of all Callas, worked with directors such as Visconti because they were keenly aware of the visual power of this artform...and as many of us remember, the Visconti Traviata was vilified because during "sempre libera" Violetta takes off her shoes: "a stage action that takes away from the sublime quality of the music." Get over it. You've gotten used to microwave ovens, you will get used to this. And if don't get over it, really who cares?...remember people like Mary Zimmerman are relevant (still) and the person who calls her "brainless" is not.
I was hoping they would insert some scantily clad dancing cowboys into the SFO production. Those seem to go with everything these days.
For the next production of Rigoletto I want a photographer for the quartet and a doctor to revive the dying Gilda. She still has some singing to do, you know?
Also for the quartet in Boheme and another shot for the dying Mimi.
And how about during Traviata's brindisi? A social photographer from the local newspaper would be appropriate. And Violetta could also use some vitamin shots in just about every act.
Actually, I didn't mind the photographer business in Lucia. It reminded me Sondheim's "A Walk in the Park." Of course, my attention was directed to the visual while the music was only back there in the background. The doctor must go, though. What could he be injecting her with in mid-19th Century? Perhaps bringing a few leeches would have made more sense.
...The doctor must go, though. What could he be injecting her with in mid-19th Century? Perhaps bringing a few leeches would have made more sense...
Um, you're forgetting that even through the early 20th century, doctors used opiates for "medication" without any clue of how they worked or what the drug even did.
Women deemed "crazy" were often introduced to and eventually addicted to morphine, sometimes fatally. Even cocaine was fairly widely used as a "medicinal" remedy for artists and "sensitive" people.
Seeing as how women were frequently doctored into insensibility for something as stupid as PMS, it's hardly unlikely a woman who's just gone nuts and collapsed wouldn't be shot full of crap just on general principle.
June - Use a period "." once in a while for heaven's sake.
I agree completely that opera is "visual" as well as "aural". However, you seem to be making a crucial error in priorities. The music is BY FAR the more important factor: the two are not equal. As the nineteenth century progressed, operas did indeed become more "Grand" - and this was in part due to the expansion of "stage business" (to use an insuffcient blanket term). But unless I am mistaken, the idea of a "star" director didn't really come around until the early twentieth century, or even mid-century. Yes, opera can be a visual feast (in the right director's hands), but I daresay most operaphiles care first and foremost for the music. Dnitzer really did say it best, so keep your belittling remarks about him/her to yourself. There are MANY of us for whom opera IS a deeply personal experience. And yes, it can be true that we DO NOT care to have a director's conceit stamped all over our aural (and visual) experience of opera. Donizetti wrote that sextet precisely so that time could be suspended as dnitzer said. That Mary Zimmermann failed to understand this says much about her lack of knowledge of LUCIA and Donizetti.
I too did not appreciate her artistic choice in the sextet. But it perhaps would have been less intrusive if I felt that she had put some real purpose behind it in terms of its dramatic context. Zimmerman really did not do anything special in terms of directing the actual cast. I felt very little dramatic intensity in their interactions and was quite bored most of the time. The photographer, along with the ghost, then came off as such a gimmick, as such window-dressing, which is what infuriated me.
June -
I do not use the term "brainless Zimmermann" in the abstract because I disliked the production.
I use that phrase because I will not tolerate or respect any director who shows up to rehearsal unprepared, does not know the text, and does not know the music. All three of those statements apply to Zimmerman in this particular production, and no excuses can be made.
you see, you are all talking intellingently and critically about opera for once instead talking about some cute baritone's jock strap or some soprano's singing loudly offstage when a director is giving notes to a group of supers. I only bring up that point because so many of you claim you are totally focused on music. So, in effect Zimmerman's direction of Lucia has opened the door for some intelligent conversation. I would say that is a good thing.
Additionally, I heeded the criticism of the blogger who begged me to use "periods" once in a while...
This post has been removed by the author.
Braunfels' "Die Vogel"?? lolol great, let dreadful directors direct dreadful music. But masterpieces should be directed by artists who at least bother to learn the BASICS of the work. Zimmerman didn't even care to learn the meaning of most of the Italian words in the libretto of Lucia.
Brainless is too nice of a word for her. The New York Review of Books:
"Why Zimmerman should have chosen the late 1870s rather than the 1830s was anybody's guess: it seemed not only against the grain (the end of the nineteenth century, with its bold heroines, jars as a milieu in which to set a pathetic Romantic tragedy) but gratuitous, a decision never explained. And—worse—never capitalized on, never followed through.... Zimmerman doesn't excavate the possibilities of her own concept."
"Occasionally, Zimmerman's concepts do real damage to the carefully constructed meanings of the numbers....If the ghost is real to us, the audience, then our sense of the heroine's delicate emotional state is inevitably diminished—as is, just as inevitably, our sense of the final murderous madness as a culmination rather than an aberration."
"The second deeply falsified the text: in Act II, Zimmerman has Lucia, in a Tosca-like moment, sneak a knife off her brother's desk, apparently in prep-aration for the mayhem of Act III. But if Lucia is already premeditating violence in Act II, the mad scene falls apart —it's not as "mad" as we might think. (It's Medea.) This gratuitous insertion makes a hash of the libretto's carefully orchestrated sequence, as each act progresses, from isolated fragility to desperation to explosion."
Ouch!
La Cieca, I have been a fascinated reader of parterre box for a year now. Thanks to all for a unique site.
As someone with a longstanding interest in opera production, and also someone who, on the basis of two experiences in the house, found the Zimmerman/Dessay Lucia production a failure, I would like to echo TKLogan's post above: I hope that everyone will read the thoughtful and well informed review by Daniel Mendelsohn in the New York Review of Books. (N.B.: the current issue, which will become UNAVAILABLE on or around November 22). He is very hard on Zimmerman, as well as on Dessay's theatrical conception of the title role. I suspect many parterre readers will disagree with his views, but it clarified many of many own reservations, and is likely to be of great interest to everyone here. I am especially grateful to the way Mendelsohn addresses what I increasingly fear are Gelb's false claims to theatrical sopohistication about matters operatic. But may I be proved wrong! Also: anyone who engages Patrice Chereau and (as indicated on Met Futures) Peter Stein to stage works for the Met can't be all bad.
"That level of detail is, in Zimmerman's direction of the principals, often absent—and when it's present, it's misguided. Her approach to directing opera singers can be strangely amateurish; often she simply moves her principals downstage to sing, and then they stand there singing, and that's it. (She must be a conductor's dream.) This important director from the "straight" theater showed little concern for using the actors and their bodies (and the spaces between those bodies) to delineate character, to express something about the drama of the plot—or, indeed, the drama of the music."
Double-ouch!
"Such novelties, so effortfully contrived (Zimmerman wants us to believe that the images of skeletal tree branches on the show curtain before each act represent "the human vascular system in the brain"), stood in stark contrast to the director's inexplicable abandonment of the actors. Both times I saw this Lucia, I found my eyes wandering all over the stage (and sometimes the house) during even the most dramatic moments; there was nothing happening on the stage to hold the attention. Certainly nothing to do with the chorus, in which Zimmerman shows no interest: again and again they simply stood around in big clumps, bizarrely unresponsive to anything that was happening around them."
Triple-ouch
Well, I guess we don't actually need to READ the review under discussion since TKLogan is apparently going to quote the entire thing for us. (Ouch!)
ANYWAY, lest this turn into a Zimmermann bashing festival, I do want to say that I disagree with TKL 100% concerning Die Vogel: an outstanding opera (much undervalued, IMO) absolutely loaded with beautiful, fascinating music. I would no more want an uninformed director for this piece than for the Donizetti.
I love the dialogue that such a production promotes. The Sutherland Lucia from the 1980s was gorgeously sung but no one talked about the direction or the director, not because it was good but simply because there was nothing to talk about.
while the above debate has been very entertaining, the situation boils down to a few facts -
Zimmerman was unprepared to stage this opera, and what resulted was a rather traditional Lucia, only 3 new dramatic ideas - we see the ghost, Lucia steals the knife, a photographer takes a wedding picture. The ghost was a mistake, the knife-stealing an egregious misiterpretation of the drama, and the fotog was take-it-or-leave-it. The above hardly combines to form some great new interpretation of the opera.
While I loved the sets and costumes (although again, some didn't), this production came thrillingly alive ONLY in Dessay's mad scene, where it's common knowledge she did what she wanted with little input from Zimmerman.
Rehearsals were contentious, Dessay clearly not trusting or caring about Zimmerman's imput or lack thereof. Dessay has now put the kibosh on ever doing this production ever again, presumeably.
All the above point to a less than successful foray into opera for Ms. Zimmerman.
Evenhanded you are too kind. TKLogan is a moron, which he has already demonstrated. He has never heard ANY Braunfels, and doesn't read music, so he has no way to hear that music (there was a CD recording of Die Vogel but it's probably not available).
I identify morons in music this way: you put down music you either don't know or don't get to defend music that you like but that others have doubts about. Sheer philistine stupidity.
It's like another idiot on the opera 'net who calls Bach 'sewing machine music', but can't detect Milanov's endless pitch problems. These fools are around and they force bizarre and moronic choices.
MUST one put Donizetti down to favor Braunfels, or vice versa? Of course not. Donizetti had from the evidence of HIS SCORES (not some book about him or some fool's slobber) a very modest talent. But the comedies and certainly Lucia can be very effective in the theater, sympathetically mounted, which mostly means very well sung in the right style. Because Julie Styne could not have managed a Meistersinger, does not diminish his score for Gypsy. However to dismiss Meistersinger to favor Gypsy would be TKLoganish, that is imbecilic.
And of course there are jokes in Die Vogel that TK would be too dumb to get, including a quote from Donizetti rather nastily sent up in a bit of counterpoint.
Zimmerman is a major presence in the American Theater, though she does 'her own thing' as opposed to binding herself to a set play text. Opera in a huge house is always a set text, she was probably uncomfortable and like TONS of brilliant people likely had no prior interest in an artistic also ran like Donizetti, no wait, Homer is "LOL dreadful" -- TK Logan.
There is a lot more to Mendelsohn's essay than TKLogan has quoted. It's provocative beyond his criticism of
Zimmerman and Dessay. I found it an interesting read.
He repeats a truism about 19th c. opera, to the effect that the mortality rate of the sopranos is greater than that of the tenors. And he makes that one jumping off point for his view of LUCIA. It made me think about just how accurate that really is. I've always assumed it to be true, but I'm assembling a body count to test it. Categories: soprano dies; tenor dies; soprano and tenor die; only principal character other than soprano or tenor dies (basses are clearly survivors, baritones less so, mezzos pretty hard to kill off); everybody who sings for more than 30 minutes dies. Someone must have done this calculation before. Please feel free to spare me. Not much of a life, but the only one I've got.
Donizetti had a "modest talent"??? Come now!
As for this production at SFO. Gockley obviously saw it and decided that it wasn't worth it. And if the Vick production really is as great as deviafan describes, then he's made the right call. On the other hand, Gelb had committed to opening the season with a brand new production. He was stuck with his commitment.
As for Donizetti's "modest talent", it was large enough that Verdi stole themes and melodies from it on more than a few occasions...
Orestes - the research you seek is available! Dr. Eddie Persson (from Stockholm Gay Opera Lovers) has written a book on "deaths in opera" full of fascinating statistics. 45% of sopranos die in operas, but only 17% of basses. Sopranos and tenors are both 5 times more likely to die by being stabbed than mezzo sopranos, but tenors are nearly 4 times more likely to be killed by explosions. Unfortunately, this essential tome is only available in Swedish. Så synd!!
Dnitzer's mini-essay from 9:00pm (miles above this) conveyed what has bothered me about opera stage direction for a long time but which I am too inarticulate to express. Brilliant brilliant BRILLIANT! Not everybody who objects to imposing new concepts on opera is a reactionary phillistine! Thank you, dnitzer! (And thank you, Cieca, for this blog.)
I think I would hate Zimmerman's Lucia- I don't like being distracted.
I like the Lucia's with Mariella Devia because in the Mad Scene you almost get to see her tits.
What makes a Lucia a success? A great voice. Great singing. Dessay has neither (she's ok on both counts) and if she were truly a great actress, she wouldn't have to keep tellng us what a great actress she is. When's the last time you heard Meryl Streep blow her own horn? Her artistry speaks for itself.
mrs John Claggart loses every argument she gets in with anyone but the idiot just won't quit. Braunfels' Die Vogel is recycled Richard Strauss and I do own a recording of it on Decca which is playing on my computer as I type these words. It's still in print and mrs John Claggart can have if she wants it, it's trivial music and inconsequential. The enormity of mrs John Claggart's stupidity is such that she prefers to look ludicrous by defending a completely forgettable opera against an eternal work of art composed by a master, just so she can get in an another losing argument with someone.
I applaud Dessay for ditching this dreadful production and I hope she cancels her performances in March unless brainless Zimmerman gets rid of the photographer, the doctor, the ghosts, the knife business and all other of her insane and dishonest distortions. The woman simply had neither knowledge nor respect for the music. I also applaud The New York Review of Books for exposing Zimmerman as the clueless opera fraud that she is.
Yes and if TKLogan11809 had his way, he would have Ms. Zimmerman dragged into the street and shot for crimes against 19th century melodramatic opera.
Or else he would put her on a blacklist much like Braunfels was when he refused to write an anthem for the Nazi Party--therefore causing his works to be banned and labeled "Entartete."
I've seen a gorgeously sung and staged production of "Die Vogel" at the Wiener Volksoper and one suspects that if the Third Reich didn't suppress it, it could easy have entered the standard repertoire. After all, we don't hate "Hansel und Gretel" because it's watered-down Wagner the way "Die Vogel" sounds so lushly like Strauss.
Could someone please get James Conlon to get Ms. Zimmerman to stage this for LA Opera now that they have cash and a special initiative to stage these neglected works?
Concerning that Review of Books essay on which era to set Lucia in--the 1830s were, despite the rage for wan mad heroines on a stage, a time in Europe of revolutions(political and industrial), and constant turmoil. And Victoria became Queen in '37, and Over Here Andy Jackson was in the White House. Not really a period for weak women or weak tenors who stab themselves(even in an Italianate-Scotland.)
Sorry tk but no matter what you say I still find Mrs John Claggart one of the most entertaining contributors. You don't have to agree with her to appreciate the fact that some of her postings have been some of the wittiest and interesting posts we have seen on this- long may she contribute. Don't take things so seriously, I suspect that Mrs John doesn't.
Well, TKL -
My my. I think you protest a little too loudly. If you were so convinced that Die Vogel was trash, why did you feel the need to "play it on your computer as you type those words"? For that matter, why do you own it at all? Furthermore, Ms. Claggart (one of the more informed, balanced, and intelligent - if highly opinionated - contributors here) did not go to any lengths in "defending" the piece. So as usual, you are just looking for an argument.
Die Vogel is a musical product of its time, just as Lucia is. Whether you are enjoying the music (is it still playing on your computer?) is purely a matter of opinion. If you can't understand its musical language or are unwilling to try, then that's your shortcoming. In fact, the musical distillation of Aristophanes' textual sentiments is nothing short of miraculous. Someone else commented on the Nazi business in terms of supression of the work. While that may have been true when the piece debuted, we can now re-evaluate (well, those of us willing to actually LISTEN and are open to LEARNING something). I think the main problem is the role for nightingale (if memory serves, composed for Ivogun), which is very high, very long, and very difficult to sing well. There just aren't many sopranos around who could do it full justice. Neither Kwon (on the Decca) nor Dondalska (live) have fully succeeded here, IMO. It is NOT an easy work to pull off, nor is it in any way "trivial" (to use your term).
TKLogan and Mrs John Claggart bring back memories from my chemistry lessons of the electron and the positron and that fact that, should they ever meet, they would undergo the process of “mutual annihilation” and disappear in a flash of energy generated according to E=mc² .... which, in the case of Mrs JC, would be a great pity.
Kekszakallu, A thousand thanks! I was sure it had been done. Unfortunately, my Swedish is nil. How do the tenors stack up against the sopranos, irrespective of mode of death? Does Persson break the stats down by period, genre? I'd think the inclusion of much early opera and comic or semi-seria opera would skew the numbers. Forty-five percent does seem a little low for sopranos after 1800. Please feel free to email directly at orestes_atreides@hotmail.com.
Orestes, trying to think of tenors who die by explosion.
Post a Comment
<< Home