Spoiler alert
Cher public, if you plan to see the Met’s production of From the House of the Dead (and you might as well know that she expects you move heaven and earth to do so!), La Cieca urges and entreats that you avoid reading Anthony Tommasini’s review of the production in tomorrow’s New York Times.
Incredibly, about halfway through his critique, the scribe manages to disclose director Patrice Chéreau’s most spectacular coup de théâtre, which (duh!) is meant to be a surprise, Tony, and next time why don’t you just tell us the psychiatrist was dead the whole time?
Briefly: Tommasini loved everything about the production, the music, the direction, the naked guys. So now you don’t have to read his review.
And now La Cieca believes she is entitled to a well-deserved facepalm.
La C, Chereau’s coup de théâtre “beans” may have been spilled by MJ and Will in their commentary before the opera began last night. Thanks for the heads up though! At least AT kept the drool to a minium, unlike his NYCO Don G review.
House of the Dead was great and I got a chance to meet La Cieca what a pleasure. This production works on so many levels one I’m willing to see agin shortly. I haven’t see Tosca yet but am open minded about seeing a new production of anything and not about to call it bad when I haven’t see it yet. Directors, singers, costume designers everyone made House of the Dead a great treat.
After seeing House of the Dead I went next door the next evening to see Esther and was sadly disappointed. The libretto is the downfall of this work as well as some of the singing that wasn’t that great. The sound in the theater is about the same, the only thing I can say that was wonderful were the seats. I remember years agot the problem I had with the house was the aircondition was always on, even in the winter. With all that said, the house looks good and I’m looking to hear more music there in the near future.
oh no he didn’t!
ps ooh i can’t wait
I can’t wait for dear JJ’s review!
Hardly a spoiler, given that the Met itself shows it happening on a video on their own website. I was there last night, and having known what was coming, I was still impressed by the effect. Give Tony a break. He didn’t even droll over the naked guys, really only mentioned them, and rightly so, for the effect was important.
Omygosh no!
He didn’t tell about the dead horse that starts singing did he?
… ooops.
Well, if this was a Zeffirelli production, there would FOUR horses and they would be ALIVE!
If it were a Zimmerman production it would be about four horses appearing in an opera about four horses appearing in an opera…with a wedding photographer….and Natalie Dessay…
In the Zambello production the horses are dead and buried but we see their tombstones. In Vick’s they are carousel horses and in Guth’s they are slick segways. Wilson’s flourescent horses barely move and McVicar’s are drab, half-painted, unfinished wood sculptures. The chorus performs fellatio on real horses in Bieito’s. Sexual acts are implied in Konwitschny’s but it’s hard to tell for sure since the horses here are represented by soccer balls.
Sexual acts are implied in Konwitschny’s but it’s hard to tell for sure since the horses here are represented by soccer balls.
The best!
And they would appear with use of the stage elevator, whether it made sense or not.
At least tell us if it’s the same coup de theatre that the Times already described in its review of the Aix production two years ago? Or a new one?