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:
You can never tell anything from these clip medleys, but I am intrigued. Meaning, there’s a lot of weird shit in that preview and we can only hope that some of it sticks. The problem with the Tosca, IMHO, was that there was so little there there. Doesn’t look like this production is going to have that problem.
I’m going to the prima on Thursday and am excited!
I agree, If any standard rep opera practically demands weird shit it’s Hoffmann. I’ll have to settle for the HD broadcast on the 19th but after this teaser I’m exited. The “Ziegfeld Girls” in the Marie Antoinette wigs and glittery pasties are particularly intriguing – extras for the Venice act? I hope so – I’ve always felt that a little sleaze is what makes that act work.
I wish I could see this live, too, but will have to wait for the HD broadcast on Dec 19. And I just remembered I have plans for this Thursday night, too — argh! (A professional event, which I’d rather skip for the Sirius broadcast.)
This looks like the weirdest thing ever…which is Perfect for HOFFMANN. I only regret I won;t be able to see a live performance.
Also, I’m heartened by the fact that the clip shows Nicklausse singing the alternate Act 1 Couplets, which points to a musical score closer to Oesier or Kaye’s reconstructed editions than the traditionally-performed Choudens editions, which is a good thing. Hopefully, we’ll get at least a portion of the “trio des yeux” and Nicklausse’s aria in the Antonia act, which is so beautiful that I can never understand why it was cut.
Surely since the musical edition was planned with the star Garanca in mind for Nicklausse, the “Vois sous l’archet frémissant” was included.
What the Met will probably be using is the version which they’ve used in the past decade or so – concocted by Levine for the Salzburg Festival in 1981 (the performance is now available on Orfeo). It’s basically Choudens with some excerpts from Oeser, but nothing from Kaye. Although the Giulietta act is placed last (as was the intent of Offenbach and Barbier – this point is not debatable, as the recovered rehearsal manuscripts and censor libretto have ruled out any argument)it is performed in Choudens.All the aforementioned material, recovered during the 1980’s, is being ignored, alas. Oeser’s edition was a convenient stop gap, but as he was working from material that dated no later than 1879, before Offenbach had re-worked the score for a new cast and new venue, and before he completed the Giulietta act (and he DID complete the Giulietta act, despite what you might have read), it is full of mistakes and tamperings that make it, in my opinion at least, inadequate today. Contrary to what most people believe (and to what is generally written) Offenbach had the score almost entirely finalized (with the exception of parts of the orchestration) before his death – only the fifth act (generally known as the epilogue) remained somewhat sketchy. The reason why most people do not know this is because impresarios are, in my opinion, too lazy, otr too afraid of public opinion, to let Offenbach’s true intentions be heard – therefore they repeat tired old myths that began with Offenbach’s earliest biographers. I point a wagging finger at Levine for neglecting recent scholarship, although I generally respect him as a musician; it is because I respect Levine that his deliberate neglect has filled me with such disappointment.
I’ll get off my soap box now — as to the music, two points should be clarified in regard to this post: The “alternative” aria for Nicklausse (”Voyes-la sous son êventail”) is not really an alternative, as it had been abandoned by Offenbach himself in favor of “Une poupée aux yeux d’émail” long before rehearsals began; by using it in his edition Oeser gave the incorrect impression that Offenbach preferred this version (many audiences do prefer it, though.) As far as “Vois sous l’archet frémissant” goes, this was another cut made by Offenbach himself, though I cannot fathom why. I can only assume that he felt the Antonia act was too long (as it is, even without the aria, it’s the longest act in the opera), but he certainly couldn’t have been dissatisfied with it – it is arguably one of the most gorgeous things he ever wrote. In this case I vote for vetoing Offenbach and including it – it’s greatly in the spirit of E.T.A. Hoffmann and it gives Nicklausse a glorious moment (without it, Nicklausse has barely anything to do in this act).
As far as Sher’s production goes – I’ll be better able to assess it once I’ve seen it. I’m certainly not opposed to a non-traditional approach to the opera (one of its beauties is that it lends itself to analysis on so many different and varied levels), but what I’ve read recently in Opera News has lead me to believe that Sher has very little understanding of this work, and almost none of E.T.A. Hoffmann’s life and works, which inspired it. That’s just my opinion. I’m sorry if this post seems over-long and pedantic, I am currently engaged in research for a book I am writing on this most puzzling and misunderstood of all operatic masterpieces, a work I’ve been obsessed with since I was eight, and once I get started it’s hard for me to stop!
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
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.
I think Hoffman is so whacked out that it actually benefits from non traditional stagings…and Calleja sounds really good, I think. I loved the Hoffman set in an insane asylum — nightmarish and heartbreaking.
PS…Why don’t we get Claycomb at the Met…she’s wonderful.
I love Laura Claycomb. Such an artist. Every time I hear someone is singing Cleopatra for the first time, I give them a copy of her performance from HGO…it’s quite simply ideal.
Claycomb’s voice is tiny. Sills was much better as Cleopatra.
Well, Enzo, thanks so much for that pat and unsupported comment.
The truth is the truth
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!
What an interesting looking staging. I’m quite excited to see this now!! (and I second Zerbinetta’s comments in post 1)
I predict a triumph for the Met….the cast is sounding great and the staging looks appropriately whacky.
this looks lovely. i think its time to get a standing room ticket for thursday!! la prima here i come!
by the way, last night as I was waiting outside the stage door of the met BY MYSELF (which was weird coz there’s usually this old lady who goes off on so many tangents but she wasnt there) after Figaro, Garanca and Alagna came out. Garanca was so beautiful, but damn, she was cold as ice.
Alagna on the otehr hand looked like he was having the time of his life despite Draculette’s existence.
rommie, I am sorry to learn of Garanca’s coolness. I have met very few major names on perf night – Bartoli after a recital, a pint of Guinness with Calleja at the Wexford Festival and – get this – an encounter in the men’s room at Dublin Castle with Simon Keenlyside (purely warming up, so nothing of niche interest to report) prior to a recital when he later removed his shoes for us all, owing to a poorly-sprung floor – but in Vienna two years back I got to meet most of the headliners from Norma and Die Walkure.
Best impressions came from Johan Botha and la Garanca. Edita Gruberova was lovely, too, but then I broke the ice at the outset by saying that I had once met Ann Murray’s mother and asked her who her favourite performer was. That’s right – Bratislava’s finest!
see, Botha was grumpy when i met him. none of the festivities that you experienced, surely. both he and garanca were like,,,cranky. well, i’ll wait for her reception after Carmen.
Maybe you needed to buy them a Guinness.
good idea CRUZSf.
Balsamic, how did these interactions come about?
Yes, wierd as shit is what this calls for. The stories themselves are even more disturbing. Hoffman is buried in the same Berlin cemetery as Mendelssohn and his family, and Hoffman has the larger headstone. When I visited, someone thoughtfully left a bottle of absinthe (unopened).
Opera Theatre of St. Louis’s production a couple of summers back was based on What Would Offenbach Have Wanted, with Offenbach as a character. I loved it, tho not as much as Carsen’s brilliant production for Paris. We’ll see what Sher comes up with. Have to miss the prima but I rely on you all for the color commentary.
Fantastic! I wish you had taken a picture of that bottle of absinthe at Hoffmann’s grave. I’m sure Hoffmann appreciated it.
I did. Two photos, actually. I’d be happy to email them to you.
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.
I know that but there are rumors about which edition will be used.
totally off topic but this is a must watch!
as for this one: repulsive!
Am I in the minority here? I love Hoffmann done…………………the traditional Choudens way. Pity that Pffebach critically died around the period of its intended original premiere. As a result we suffer the on going problems. All the messed up directors’ re-conception shit, like where Olympia may become a Marilyn Monroe doll, or a Dr Jekyll may lurk in the Venetian scene pisses me off. If one has collected the various recording from just the last 20 years, ‘this and that is added or omitted’, or characters moved to a different voice range. It is but a constant ‘re-adaption’ of a score. I.E Instead of being a solid thought -through book show it has descended into a mixed variety show of various Hoffmann tunes.
If any opera calls for Marilyn Monroe dolls and Dr. Jekyll it’s Hoffmann. It may be delightfully tuneful – but ultimately it’s three demented acts dreamed up by a drunken poet (in a seedy tavern) about being thwarted in love by a thinly disguised “Satan”. Choudens turns it into a nearly first rate 19th century French tunefest and glosses over its odder moments. I liked the opera for a decade or so prior to hearing the Oeser and Kaye discoveries. Now it’s one of my favorite operas.
Absolutely. It is a credit to Offenbach’s genius that the opera gained worldwide fame even in the truncated and sugared version(s) which Choudens published (there are at least five Choudens versions, by the way). But now that we have the real deal it’s time to consign Choudens to the garbage heap of yesterday (would anyone today think of performing “Lulu” without the third act?)It’s not that Choudens doesn’t work (it obviously does so)but that it misrepresents Offenbach’s masterpiece and does the opera a dis-service in the process. I believe that most people, once having gained an acquaintance with the original version, will (eventually) prefer it because it makes so much more dramatic sense.
Mis-spelling again. I should have said Offenbach not ‘Pffebach’.
Another production for the garbage heap.
I had a choice of ALNM or Hoffmann on Thursday and I’d rather see Angela as Madame Armfeldt!
That Elisir d Amore clip, there must have been a wrongly consigned load of bridal costumes, sent to wardrobe. Love that chorus girl sliding her hand up the tenor’s leg…it is one way for him, ‘hitting a climatic top note’.
Hi rommie,
simple enough: with Bartoli it was your standard queue-up-after-the-show-and-have-her-autograph-your-Gluck-CD-booklet. Calleja: the support group Friends of Wexford have a party every Friday during the festival and it is expected that all cast members will mingle. It’s all rather Before They Were Famous, and besides, Ireland ‘does’ warmth and informality 24-7 (dear me, you should see the way we Irish men dress). I was fleetingly introduced to Juan Diego Florez there but, face it, a pint with Calleja easily beats that. I made him laugh when I observed that he was the only Malteser I’d ever met that wasn’t called Spiteri.
Arriving thirty minutes early for the Keenlyside recital at Dublin Castle in March 1996, I made for the men’s room and found him singing scales et cetera – it’s not a dedicated recital hall so he made do as he could.
As for Vienna, well, we linked up with somebody who was in a position to help us meet most of the solioists in question – not somebody that they had to be nice to, mind – but let me also say that it pays to stay at the Grand Hotel on Kaerntnerstrasse one block east of the Staatsoper. If it’s good enough for half the soloists, who prefer to by-pass the Sacher, it’s more than good enough for me!
Love the Guinness remark, Cruz (among many other posts from you). But, apart from Calleja as well as (green) tea with Ann Murray and a cousin, and a similar non-alcoholic encounter with Frederica von Stade, Martin Katz and a small Irish entourage – both of these in Ireland but not on the day of their professional engagements – I have made it a life-long habit never to drink with the stars. It keeps them trim.
LOL. Am looking at the Calleja cover of Opera News. He looks pretty stocky to me so maybe he shouldn’t have had that pint with you!
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…
Based on his pic, I’d buy him a pint.
Although I have to settle for HD production as well, I can’t wait! Calleja sounds marvelous in this clip as does Kate Lindsay(I assume that is Kate Lindsay). I can’t wait!
How one wishes in this music for artists of the class of McAlpine, Eddy, Collier, June and Kern.
a person I know who owns a movie theater that shows the Met HD’s was told not to publish the cast of Hoffmann which they had previously named. wondering if anything has changed…
Uh oh. Is it Nebs?
I think I mean Trebs.
No.
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?
Michael Kaye’s edition is yet to be published but the recordings made back in the 90s were revelatory. The restored music heightened the drama and gave coherence to the opera. Once the Kaye edition is published, I hope more houses will use it. Of course Offenbach would have made changes but that’s moot. Choudens isn’t the last word. It never was. BTW, the recording with Alagana, Van Daam, Dessay, Vaduva, and Jo is remarkable.
There’s a recording with both Natalie Dessay and Sumi Jo? Who sang the doll? What did the other sing then?
Dessay sings Olympia (of course) on the Nagano and Jo sings Giulietta. Don’t be surprised – Offenbach tailored the role of Giulietta for Adele Isaac, a woman with a very high coloratura range. She was supposed to sing all four heroines at the premiere but only sang Olympia, Antonia and Stella – the Giulietta act was cut entirely at the last moment because it was feared that the opera was running too long – a horrible mistake that had severe ramifications which continue to resound even in our own time. The tradition of casting Giulietta as a mezzo began some time in the 20th century.
You go girl! My sentiments exactly. Check out this video of Offenbach’s original finale for the Giulietta act -- it is dark and disturbing (probably why neither Guiraud nor Gunsbourg -- the two men most responsible for the “traditional Giulietta act) decided not to use it) and includes some of the most forward looking music Offenbach ever wrote. The despair in Hoffmann’s music in this scene is heart-wrenching and Giulietta finally gets a chance to explain her conduct. I love it more every time I hear it.
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
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.
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.
The more people are familiar with Offenbach’s original Giulietta act the more powerful it is. But it’s hard to change the way people expect to see this opera. This goes for stage directors, conductors, singers and the way they perform it. They get so bogged down in the rehearsal process of preparing the first three acts that by the time they arrive at the Giulietta Act with the major challenges it presents (especially when Giulietta is miscast as a mezzo-soprano) the more difficult it seems; the pressure of the final rehearsals looms and the act is short changed. In the case of the MET’s opting to ignore all authenticity, it’s just easier for them to do what they know – really lazy of them and they obviously don’t give a damn.
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 one cares a whit what Sher thinks about singing.
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.
“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?
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.”
“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.
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.)
Sher will get what he deserves: a one way ticket back to Seattle.
well that clip left in a hurry.
mezzavoce: pimply-faced? pourquoi??? just repeating what I heard..or saw- ie an email.
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!”).
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!’
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.
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.