parterre box

33 comments

• 1
  Sanford says:

  November 24, 2009 at 5:19 PM

  Is that a Chewbacca costume?
• 2
  The Vicar of John Wakefield says:

  November 24, 2009 at 5:27 PM

  She is scarcely to be compared to Margaret Curphey.
• 3
  Feldmarschallin says:

  November 24, 2009 at 5:27 PM

  His Parsifal at the Festspielhaus was the best production I have seen in my 30 years of going to the opera.
• 4
  javier says:

  November 24, 2009 at 5:44 PM

  Never heard of this guy before. He’s “pretty”.
• 5
  kashania says:

  November 24, 2009 at 6:07 PM

  I have a confession to make. I just don’t care of choristers in plain clothes. I’m not asking for traditional costumes — not at all. But I can’t stand looking at a stage full of choristers in Gap clothing. I know that casual clothing may be the most logical choice for a certain production but I can’t get over my prejudice. There, I’ve said it.
• 6
  Quanto Painy Fakor says:

  November 24, 2009 at 6:09 PM

  So would someone in their 20s-30s, please explain to me what they consider as rudimentary elements required to become a stage director / regisseur / producer of opera in these days?
• 7
  Alto says:

  November 24, 2009 at 6:14 PM

  Surely you don’t think the big hiring decisions are being made by 20- and 30-somethings?
• 8
  No Expert says:

  November 24, 2009 at 6:17 PM

  I see what you mean, kashania, visually, it’s a big colorful mess… like the first trash pick-up after Mardi Gras.
• 9
  kashania says:

  November 24, 2009 at 6:29 PM

  I feel shallow saying it but it’s purely a question of aesthetics. While some operas lend themselves to uber-realistic stagings, overall, I believe that opera needs a certain level stylisation. THis is especially true of works that have a staged chorus. I can see some exception, like in Peter Grimes, but I just don’t like the look of it.
• 10
  CruzSF says:

  November 24, 2009 at 6:38 PM

  No Expert, Ouch!
• 11
  No Expert says:

  November 24, 2009 at 6:51 PM

  A big colorful mess is not always a bad thing, but I think in this clip it’s distracting. It could still be Regie, just not so Busy.
• 12
  Hoffmann says:

  November 24, 2009 at 6:56 PM

  I have so been hoping that somebody tapes the Bayreuth Parsifal for DVD release, the stills I have seen look amazing…
• 13
  CruzSF says:

  November 24, 2009 at 6:59 PM

  I was just imagining everyone walking around the next day in the same clothes from the night before, eyes bloodshot and head aching. When they go to clutch their beads, they have a vague recollection of a leaving them in someone’s bed …
• 14
  squirrel says:

  November 24, 2009 at 7:59 PM

  yay!
  though this scene here is so different from the earlier footage, it makes me want even more to see the production and figure out what it’s all about.

  Herheim in NYC NOW!
• 15
  La Cieca says:

  November 24, 2009 at 9:13 PM

  Well, as I understand it, everyone is in street clothes until Lohengrin arrives, and it’s part of the magic he brings with him that everyone magically becomes bedecked in wimples and halberds and, uh, you know, festoonery. The critic I read suggested that Herheim’s purpose here is a critique of (German) people’s idea of a “protector” — they look for salvation to someone so unequivocal that he cannot possibly be real. Or, to put it another way, the people wish Lohengrin into existence and then want to follow him, forgetting that he is only a reflection of their own flawed ideals. In that (pessimistic) view, people actually reject free will, preferring instead to be puppets of what they like to think is some higher purpose but is in fact nothing more than the embodiment of their own worst prejudices. But they buy into that fraud because he’s dressed in pretty clothes.
• 16
  mrmyster says:

  November 24, 2009 at 9:55 PM

  Squirrely old thang, if you want to figure out puzzles try the Sunday New York Times crossword; if you want to hear Wagner’s message do not take your custom to Herr Herheim! Am I the only one who feels a bit put off by
  the regie-craze for puppets? I mean dears, really now!!!
  Puppets are IN, graceful commonsense narration following the composter’s text and music not so in?
  It will all wear off in time, but how tiresome along the way. I feel so jaded!
• 17
  mrmyster says:

  November 24, 2009 at 9:56 PM

  Very good comment, M. Fakor. Though it
  may overshoot many heads.
• 18
  kashania says:

  November 24, 2009 at 11:41 PM

  Well, that’s certainly a well thought-out concept.
• 19
  squirrel says:

  November 25, 2009 at 12:05 AM

  very well put!
  as Sven says: “Who can live with a man who comes from Glanz und Wonne?”
• 20
  mox says:

  November 25, 2009 at 12:43 AM

  I saw his Parsifal and just recently his Rosenkavalier, to both productions I would say:Less would be more. Brilliant moments, but every five minutes the sets are changing. The cast and the music get lost between flying, turning and moving decoration pieces. Wonderful the mirror at the end of Parsifal, in which the audience can see the first time ever the orchestra in Bayreuth. Wonderful the tavern scene in Rosenkavalier III act. Christoph Loy productions in London(Tristan, Lulu), Munich (Lucretia, Basseriden,Turco), Frankfurt (Mozart), Salzburg(Theodora, Armida), Düsseldorf(Monteverdi Cycle and Louise) and Vienna(Young Lord) ore the one from Carsen in Paris, Munich and Cologne are simple more interesting, because the audience has to use the brain also not only the eyes and ears.
• 21
  louannd says:

  November 25, 2009 at 12:48 AM

  You make an excellent point.
• 22
  tannengrin says:

  November 25, 2009 at 10:02 AM

  that also explains the Baer. As the ‘Wappentier’ of the City of Berlin it stands as a representation of authority, as does the Herald in Lohengrin.

  Now, is there a city out there that has a hunk in a loincloth (or less) as part of its coat of arms? They definitely should mount this production there.
• 23
  idreno says:

  November 25, 2009 at 5:29 PM

  ditto, only that, alas, my years of opera-going are more than 50!
• 24
  Cassandra says:

  November 26, 2009 at 12:21 PM

  A heartbeat?
• 25
  La Cieca says:

  November 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM

  Well, let’s see. Would studying a solo instrument, forming one’s own touring theatrical company, interning for several years at a national opera, then completing a four-year course under Goetz Friedrich at the Hamburg University of Music — all in addition to what seems to be a deeply questing intellect and a great love and respect for the operatic art form — would that stuff apply?

  Or is this a trick question, like: “but can he transpose at sight horn in B-flat from partitur?” or “does he follow literally every editorial stage direction that happens to appear in the version of the score with which I am most familiar?”
• 26
  squirrel says:

  November 26, 2009 at 3:30 PM

  brava.
• 27
  JedSF says:

  November 26, 2009 at 5:39 PM

  Great observation. Sounds much more interesting than the video clips from the Munich Lohengrin with Kaufmann (although his singing is amazing).
• 28
  rogwood says:

  November 26, 2009 at 5:41 PM

  I agree, but the additional “layer” of the Berlin opera house debate and the regie theater vs. traditional/conservative opera staging also works. After Wagner appears in the overture we see Elsa reading the score of Lohengrin “under” him. She subsequently (mistakenly) represents the belief of representing the “true” way of presenting the work. The chorus enters debating/commenting (through word posters) the three opera houses in Berlin (which have had different artistic profiles, fundings and audiences). The bear+king symbolize the city of Berlin (the King can even be interpreted literally as the mayor, especially since the chorus quotes his exact words when he came out as gay (”auch gut so”)) and are there to rule between Elsa’s conservative view and Telramund (in the role of modern opera director?) & Ortrud (in the role of wealthy opera patron seeking spectacular premieres?), who promote the modern.
• 29
  Cassandra says:

  November 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM

  “Or is this a trick question, like: “but can he transpose at sight horn in B-flat from partitur?”

  I’m not so sure that this is too much to ask. It may sound crazy to someone who can’t do it, but…
• 30
  La Cieca says:

  November 28, 2009 at 12:28 PM

  This is a perfectly reasonable basic requirement for a conductor and I think it’s even a fair question for a repetiteur. It’s a “gotcha” question for a stage director because it doesn’t relate to his understanding of how the music drives the drama — and the hidden message is that opera is a field for Musicians: everyone else are interlopers and frauds.

  But it’s very typically American to evaluate everyone on his resume and his ability to spout trivia on cue, which is one reason there is such a massive glut of smartass but clueless American singers in the world today.
• 31
  squirrel says:

  November 28, 2009 at 12:50 PM

  Can anyone shed some light on what kind of qualifications “traditionalist” directors like Zeffirelli or Schenk had for opera that were somehow greater than Herheim or anyone else today?

  True, the level of musical literacy in the world has dropped across the board. That, I lament. (Speaking as one who has some fluency with score reading).As Horowitz once pointed out, in the 50s I believe: “When I started playing recitals, half the audience could play my recital program: today, none can, and less than half own my records!”.

  An exception might be Nathaniel Merrill, who studied Musicology at Boston University and presumably had score reading skills. But how this makes him more qualified, that’s still beyond me.
• 32
  Cassandra says:

  November 28, 2009 at 12:50 PM

  “But it’s very typically American to evaluate everyone on his resume and his ability to spout trivia on cue, which is one reason there is such a massive glut of smartass but clueless American singers in the world today.”

  I’ll try not to take this personally, and I’ll also let slide the sweeping and undeserved generalization about “American singers.”
• 33
  La Cieca says:

  November 28, 2009 at 12:59 PM

  Not a generalization to say that there are a lot of well-educated but not particularly talented or individual American singers out there. Not every American singer is included in that “lot.”