Wagging the Tale
La Cieca’s saturation coverage of the Met’s new Contes d’Hoffmann begins officially on Monday, when one of her most reliable and most devious spies promises a report from the dress rehearsal. You, the cher public, will be expected to sound off loud and clear during the opening night chat on Thursday at 8:00 pm. And, ça va sans dire, one of parterre’s crack team of critics from the New York beat will file a definitive review just as soon after the final curtain as his little paws can type. In the meantime, here’s a teensy preview of the show:
Cut these kids some slack, they are just students, but at least they know what Offenbach wrote!
httpv://www.youtube.com/user/Offenbach1880#p/u/15/TQBKf89wLBU
Why in the world would they cut the chorus interjections under Olympia’s coloratura? They also make the dreadful cut in the final chorus. Why? Probably because the stage director could not come up with a real coup de theatre for the finale, or just did not care enough to work to find one, so just cut it and get it over with!
as for this one: repulsive!
Too true, Cruz – his biogs say he was big into sports in his school days. Well, he was in his twenties when we met and was already showcasing an opulent silhouette to match the vocal talent.
Then again, I am certain that that’s precisely why some of those present sought him out for a pint. For a specialist minority-within-the-minority, it’s always gonna be Callejas over Costellos, Goernes over Gunns…
Yes but the Met is also still performing “Don Carlos” and “Les Vepres Siciliennes” in Italian. They had a cast a few years ago that had performed the opera in French previously (Radvanovsky and Casanova) and the chorus probably mostly had never performed it since it hadn’t been done since around 1982 with Scotto. The Met just went with what it knew.
This is a problem with Levine. His musical knowledge and tastes are stuck in the seventies and early eighties.
And did we note Mr. Sher’s toadying comment in OPERA NEWS that he had listened to several recorded versions and found Levine’s to be the best?
A minority view.
No.
Sher will get what he deserves: a one way ticket back to Seattle.
Amoeba, fascinating! Thank you! Would you answer me this if you can: Cd’H is one of very very few operas that leaves me feeling bad and depressed. I can’t figure out why. I’ve seen it many times, with wonderful casts, yet I hesitate at any further exposure because it is such an unpleasant story, so ‘down,’ so 19thC — in the end so hopeless. And again and again I ask myself, is it worth all this trouble. Mozart or Wagner it is not; they contain some ‘uplift,’ some good reason for being heard: Cd’H does not. I shall avoid it. Have you heard this reaction before? e
No one cares a whit what Sher thinks about singing.
Anna, I think the St. Louis production will be given at Santa Fe next summer, 2010. I don’t think their tenor (Groves) can sing it, otherwise cast seems OK.
It seems to me that both of you missed the point of the quotation, part of which wasn’t even direct.
Sher says not a word about singing. Further, it seems quite clear that he’s not offering an opinion of Levine’s recording of Hoffmann, but rather of his “take” on the opera, i.e., what music he keeps, what he doesn’t keep, and in what order. At least on the basis of what is actually quoted here, Sher doesn’t seem to be saying much more than that the Olympia-Antonia-Giulietta running order (Levine’s choice to make, not his) is in agreement with Sher’s vision of the piece as a story about “artistic history” rather than a sentimental love story.
From what Sher says elsewhere in the interview about the ramp in Barbiere, it’s clear that he understands that Levine still wields gigantic clout at the Met and therefore is to be worked with rather than against. So even if Sher took exception to the edition of the score Levine has cobbled together, it would be at best ill-advised for him to complain about it to Opera News.
I did. Two photos, actually. I’d be happy to email them to you.
I know that but there are rumors about which edition will be used.
Michael Kaye has been the major enemy of the Kaye edition. When he first started shopping it around, he insisted on no cuts in a score longer than Parsifal in his edition. He also accused a pair of theaters that had perusal copies of his magnum opus of trying to steal his work, which would not encourage them to want to deal with him. The Kaye edition, which is dubiously described as representing Offenbach’s intention is disastrous in the theater. One of the conductors who recorded the score in the 90’s described it to me as unworkable if done as Kaye insists is correct.
As to it being published, I know that Cologne did do his version in a multi-language version, and that the results were fairly disastrous.
“the Olympia-Antonia-Giulietta running order (Levine’s choice to make, not his)”
With all respect to our hostess, but do you really believe that in the 21st century, such issues – as well as cuts, textual variations, etc. – are the sole decision of the conductor rather than being determined in collaboration between the conductor and director? Even in the last century when Levine did new productions of this opera with Schenk at the Met and Ponnelle in Salzburg, did Levine make the decision of order on his own, which those directors just humbly accepted?
I had a choice of ALNM or Hoffmann on Thursday and I’d rather see Angela as Madame Armfeldt!
I find it hard to respond to a post which I consider to be ugly, hateful, slanderous, and, most importantly, uninformed. I have a great deal of acquaintance with the Kaye edition and have seen it once live in the theater and believe me – it works. To say that it is as long as “Parsifal” is a gross exaggeration – I don’t have exact timings, but I would not hesitate to estimate that an uncut performance of Kaye would last about as long as an uncut “Faust” or “Romeo”. It’s not nearly as long as “Les Troyens” which is usually performed uncut even though, at one time, such a thing was considered impossible. I don’t want this to become a war, and you are entitled to your opinion, but in MY opinion I find your comment to be excessively mean spirited. And if you’re going to make slanderous accusations, back them up with hard evidence.I would advise anyone interested to compare the various editions (recordings of Kaye and Oeser both exist, as do Choudens, Bonynge, Felsenstein, etc.)and judge for themselves. Ultimately, that’s what we all have to do.
Arianna: Not “the conductor.” Levine. At the Met, edition and cuts in a Levine show are Levine’s call. And that, of course, is one of the big problems in trying to drag the house into whatever century: nobody dares to defy or even question a Levine decision about anything that starts with “M.”
That makes no sense at all. The Met is still publicizing the announced cast. You’re saying that they’re sending out “top secret” info by mass e-mail to pimply faced movie theater managers in Booneyville, USA, but they haven’t given it to their own PR department?
“How can Hoffmann experience the greatest love of his life [Antonio] after he’s lost his shadow?” This explanation, made in 1981 by one of Ponnelle’s assistants (Zenaida, I’ve forgotten her last name) has stayed with me since I saw JPP’s Salzburg production. The Olympia-Giulietta-Antonia sequence has seemed nonsensical since then.
well that clip left in a hurry.
mezzavoce: pimply-faced? pourquoi??? just repeating what I heard..or saw- ie an email.
Based on his pic, I’d buy him a pint.
Based on my personal experience with local movie theater managers.
The only way your info makes sense is if it was about the long-ago announced cast of Netrebko, Villazon, and Pape.
But, at your local multiplex, who knows any of these names at all? And who would care about an incorrect cast announcement (”Oh my God, Garanca isn’t singing Nicklausse, I want my money back!”).
To mrmyster:
Thank you for your kind words. I can completely understand your reaction, as the opera does have very dark undercurrents, particularly when the deleted material is restored in performance. As a child I loved the work for its flights of fancy, as an adult I can read more into it and can see how nearly nihilistic it can be. The key, however, is in the apotheosis, the magnificent finale to the work sung by the Muse. For me it is the key to the whole opera, it is about rebirth, rediscovery of self, and salvation through art. Although Hoffmann feels rejected, tormented, and sees his very soul as having been stolen, through his artistic genius he can find himself again – a better self, a transfigured self. In this sense, then, the opera’s original ending is, in my opinion, positive, optimistic and enormously real.
Offenbach himself knew how important this ending was, and had finished a draft of it before he had started working on anything else in the epilogue – it is criminal that it was cut after his death (shortly before the premiere) and not restored to the score until the late 1970’s (albeit in Oeser’s soupy version). The opera as it ended before this IS a real downer: Hoffmann passes out, dead drunk and Stella exits on the arm of Lindorf. Not much hope there. Thank God we rarely see this kind of staging nowadays.
I hope my thoughts might help you come to terms with “Hoffmann”. If not, and if the work continues to depress you, then avoid it (I have problems with “Wozzek” for the same reasons), not every work of art speaks to everyone, so don’t feel bad. But maybe if you see it in the light which I have indicated you may feel differently.
what amazing condescension and bile in response to my post! not that it matters but it’s not a multiplex, nor a manager but the very savvy owner of an independent theater, with an informed and avid opera audience. not all opera lovers live in Manhattan .
and the cast change notice came Nov 26
The Tales of Hoffmann is such messed construction and yet people are al trying to make it ‘authentic’. It is akin to a composer putting together ‘a new Broadway show’ and ripping bits & pieces out of other shows they did in the past- then adding & telling everyone it is a completely new show -the masterpiece people have been waiting for. This opera should be renamed…Scenes from Hoffmann’s Life.
The Character himself is like any drunk: they tell you ‘their life story’. Does it matter in what sequence it is told? Do we not form or come to the same final conclusions and judgments about what is actually being told? Are they really separate women or observed symbolic rejigged parts of the personality of just one, as seen by Hoffmann? The Olympia doll sequence is certainly not in touch with reality as we know it, on any level of comprehension. If we swallow his credibility on his temporary believability about Olympia, he is but stupid and a complete imbecilic clown to start with. Why care then, about any more of his supposed re-occurring ‘misfortunes’?
I have always found the casting of different singers in the main female roles …extremely jarring. IMHO I find it then becomes an Offenbach all star variety show. They might as well throw in scenes from say his ‘First Man on the Moon ‘,then perhaps a ballet ‘being so French’ or from other confections he wrote. All these latest conflicting editions of the work could have the opposite effect intended. A case of ‘Tales of Hoffmann…whose Hoffmann are we talking about?…There are so many!’
Giulietta before Antonia may have remained that way for a time because it’s perhaps easier to sing that way for the tenor and the bass? (And showier for the soprano to climax the show with the Antonia trio.)
Speaking of cast changes and theater posters for film opera performances. I have a one off color poster depicting Placido Domingo on the Castel San d Angelo in Tosca, below it is the supposed cast list….starring Hermann Prey, Teresa Berganza etc.???
The distributor was also handling the showing of The Barber of Seville and other operas. He got his cast lists for the poster wrong. Seemingly unaware of the mistake: as they already then, were being displayed in theater glass showcases. The distributor gave thanks: by offering (when I suggested it) to save just one of the posters for me, since he wanted to quickly collect and destroy all the embarrassing others. I had this unique gift copy- then laminated.
The fact is that there IS an authentic version of “Hoffmann” – a version most people don’t know about. Until the supposedly lost pages of rehearsal materials from the premiere were recovered (including lots of music cut after Offenbach’s death and just weeks before the premiere – mostly due to cast changes and events of that nature – not because anyone actually felt these cuts “improved” the work)we’ve been able to reconstruct almost exactly how Offenbach viewed the opera at the time of his death.
I do not blame anyone who is only familiar with the traditional version of the opera for finding the plot to be loosely constructed and nearly incomprehensible. But do not blame Barbier or Offenbach – blame the many editors and revisers who tried to second guess the opera’s creators. Many later editors (particularly Oeser)DID choose to recycle other music by Offenbach to make it more understandable (Oeser added over thirty minutes of music from Offenbach’s “Rheinnixen” to the Giulietta act, set to his own text), but these are hardly “authentic”. Finding the “authentic Hoffmann” is not a matter of adding new music or re-arranging the numbers – it is about going back to the sources and letting these sources speak for themselves. And they speak pretty damned well.
As far as the ordering of the acts – Barbier and Carre ordered them as Olympia-Antonia-Giulietta in their 1851 play “Les contes d’Hoffmann” and they did this for a reason. It’s very carefully thought out. The trajectory is from idealistic love for a non-responsive being (Olympia) to passionate love for a being who is too self obsessed or so fully inhabited by her art that she cannot give herself wholly (Antonia) to a rather degenerate sexual passion for a whore who eventually steals the lover’s soul (Giulietta), leaving him, seemingly, with nothing — or so he thinks. If we look at it this way – if we see Antonia not as a twin sister to Mimi but as a complex diva who cannot accept a life outside of art (Malfitano played her this way – as neurotic and obsessed – showing that she really understood what the character was all about)
and Giulietta as the deeply evil culmination of all three – the final step in a downward spiral, then it all makes much more sense. The acts are not like toy blocks that can be re-arranged to the director’s liking (Cherau oddly ordered them Giulietta-Olympia-Antonia)– they are in this order for dramatic reasons, and the sense is lost if they are re-arranged.
I’m not trying to convince people who do not like this work that they are somehow “wrong”. Over the course of my study of this opera I’ve met plenty of people who have told me that it’s a favorite and others who have dismissed it as drivel. That’s personal opinion, and I respect it. But give the thing a chance to live in the theater as it was meant to.