That’s perfectly true. But we’re not just talking about ‘a dramatist’, we’re talking about Puccini. I think it’s a fairly safe bet that, given how specific his instructions were all over the score, Puccini expected the production to give a pretty good idea of the locations invoked. It’s also amusing to note that, for Act I for instance, Puccini consulted with church officials when the libretto was being drafted to find out what kind of liturgical preamble there ought to be to the Te Deum. When he found out that the answer was none, he asked the librettists to include one anyway, because he wanted a bit of a spectacle.

For me, castles tend to be ipso facto opulent, even if they aren’t stuffed full of frescos or gilding. Giant bronze angels and battlements have an opulence of their own, wouldn’t you say?

However, what I do keep trying to get across is the fact that I don’t give a monkey’s where Tosca is set, as long as it’s effective. I like what I’ve seen of the Decker Traviata, I loved the Robert Wilson Aida at the Royal Opera, and I’d look forward to seeing a Tosca given a similar treatment.

In the case of Tosca, I would guess Puccini was less interested in opulence per se than in the contrast between the official image of the settings of the first two acts–the sanctity of the church, the august authority of the state– and the wordly doings that unfold within them. That’s where the drama lies–and the usefulness of the settings for the dramatist.

Come to think of it, I’m not sure the Castel Sant’Angelo qualifies as “opulent.” And certainly Puccini would have cast a cold eye on the showy and entirely unmusical scene changes that Z interpolated into the last act.

All I would say is that the locations in which each of Tosca’s 3 acts are set all exist, I’ve visited them, and they are, to greater or lesser extents, opulent, hence a production that is faithful to the work’s composer and librettists does need opulent sets.

Cocky–The logic here is flawed. Given, the original locations are opulent. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that the work itself, as the “composer and librettists” conceived it, calls for opulent sets, any more than a production of Hamlet requires the producers to rebuild the castle at Elsinore. (This would be especially true if the production were to try to replicate the staging practices of Shakespeare’s time.)

I am not going to pretend to be an expert on early-twentieth-century operatic staging. But I would guess that Puccini would have expected to see the opera use mainly flats–in other words, settings a lot less opulent than Zeffirelli’s.

All I would say is that the locations in which each of Tosca’s 3 acts are set all exist, I’ve visited them, and they are, to greater or lesser extents, opulent, hence a production that is faithful to the work’s composer and librettists does need opulent sets. But I personally have no problem with productions that do not stick religiously to the original locations and time-frames, so it isn’t something I care terribly deeply about, as long as the results are somehow effective.

The Royal Opera’s own Zeffirelli Tosca was replaced by a production that seemed equally traditional – in fact, it could almost be the same sets photographed from a different angle, so it seemed like pretty pointless exercise. I hope the Met does get something starker that throws the characters into more striking, immediate relief. That’s probably fairly likely, with Luc Bondy in charge. My own most pressing concern is that they manage to get Mattila to look good in a dark wig.

But Zeffirelli doesn’t make the opulence mean anything; it’s basically big and expensive only because an audience will ooh and ahh at anything that looks big and expensive. Essentially, then, Zeffirelli creates a Las Vegas production show suggested by Puccini’s “Tosca.”

There’s nothing wrong with Las Vegas, except that it’s not opera. It’s spectacle for the sake of spectacle. Like nudity for the sake of nudity or leather trenchcoats for the sake of leather trenchcoats, this kind of “effect without cause” really doesn’t belong in a serious opera house.

Or at least, it doesn’t need to stay at the same opera house forever. Zeffirelli’s “Tosca” had a run at the Met of 200 performances over 20 years. That is a very long run for an opera production, one of the longest (in number of performances) of any in the Met’s history. Why, then, the whining that the delicious shiny toy is being taken away, after only 20 years?

Still can’t quite believe Bullock is down for that Met Elektra. I found her woefully inadequate at Covent Garden this year.

I can try at giving you my opinion of a “Puccinian soprano”. It’s someone who does a lot of scooping, overuses portamento, attacks the notes from below, and indulges in lots of hysterics. Look up Magda Olivero for starters.

Interesting that you bring up Varnay as an example of a great voice, of course she was! did you know that she played the Cleaning Lady in The Makropoulos Case when Behrens did her stunning portrayal of Emilia Marty in Munich? “The great Brunnhilde of the 50′s washing the feet of todays reigning Brunnhilde…” said the reviews in 1989. Those reviews are approvingly quoted in Varnay’s own autobiography, she was extremely fond of Behrens, and stayed friends until the end. Behrens is off next week to Japan where she will be honored one more time with honorary titles, and give Master Classes.

I’m looking forward to House of the Dead because it’s been what? 20 years since it was last staged in New York? and I’ve only heard it once and much more into Janacek now than I was then. (Ditto for The Nose, Shostakovich.)

I’m looking forward to Jonas Kaufmann as Don Jose, even though I suspect the Met is too big for his voice.

I’m looking forward to Esther because I’ve never heard/seen it.

Otherwise it looks a rather tired season compared to, say, Chicago. Barely any Wagner. Three of the most exciting revivals (FrOSch, Lady M, Ben Cellini) were canceled. If I subscribed, I think I’d rethink.

Surely the highlight of the entire decade will be hearing the house erupt in cheers when Mme. Behrens makes her entry as the Cleaning Lady in 2011-12′s MAKROPOULOS CASE.

The thing that galls me about these Zeffirelli productions is not how “traditional” they are, but how willing they are to sacrifice “authorial intention” to gaudy scenic effect.

boring? hardly. people come for escape, to travel, to be in far off romantic lands, to see empire gowns somewhere other than the film the titantic. Opulence and respect for the composers wishes.

Jertiza did well in time period correct, callas THRIVED, Magda incinerated the auditorium in period correct, why kill FZ because he follows the composers wishes magnified for a house of 4000? They always sell well, which in this day is important.

of course they have to distract with smoke and mirrors now. modern day, poor man’s version of Jeritiza, not without a somewhat limited but available charm coming from Matila, they suddenly have to RETHINK this masterpiece. To fit what? Limited vocality? A bored general manager?

by all means germanize the italian rep. it lives on despite their best attempts to kill it. That house, national and international standing should have both.

with just a hint of petite malice but always respect dear hostess.

Is there some symbolic quality here that trumps the artistic, some arch-conservative spirit that equates FZ’s frippery to the good old days when aristocrats ruled the earth? In that case, why not have the Zef make a Met comeback directing a new production of “Ghosts of Versailles?” Talk about your perfect match of content with treatment!

FZ’s “Tosca” was always a crashing bore with only two moments passing muster: the gazillion-dollar procession to the altar finishing Act 1 (what the Vatican could do if they had money) and the use of the elevator stage to reveal Cavaradossi’s cell in the bowels of the Castel Sant’Angelo. The first of these effects is just that, an effect, without any real connection to the meaning of the piece — really if anything, it’s about gold-plated 1980s “more is more” New York.

The elevator actually is a great idea though it lasted only the first season since Pavarotti couldn’t climb the stairs. (Curiously, nobody at the Met seemed to think that this massive change in the staging was worthy complaining about, but, after all, the color of a prima donna’s wig is so much easier to throw a hissy fit over.)

Could someone please explain to me why there is so much (to my mind) necrophilic passion for these Zeffirelli productions?

Gelb has publicly stated that he has no plans to get rid of Boheme or Turandot, hasn’t he? Stop gripping.

I will miss Rosenkavalier if/when it is replaced. I don’t think it needs replacing. We’ll see after January.

My big must-sees are Elektra and Hoffmann. Bart Sher is a genius and can do no wrong in my eyes, and if the cast turns out to be good, this could be a highlight of the season. It’ll probably be a divisive production, as his Barbiere was, but I’m sure I’ll enjoy it. Meanwhile, Elektra looks perfectly cast and should be absolutely fantastic.

Don’t worry: they still have the Christmas show at Radio City.

I expect it will be like the first “Frau’s,” a real sleeper

Cheers
Odabella

My personal hot tickets are Esther and House of the Dead, two modern works I have not yet seen on a stage or, in Esther’s case, heard a note of. My interest in and passion for opera began when I was a child and very quickly encompassed everything from Monteverdi to what was written last week. God, how I love the stuff!