Andrew Richards
aka Twin Peaks Bob

Because the any Bieto production is such a personal statement by the director, the performances of the singers are not as commonly discussed. However, it should be noted that in the Stuttgart Parsifal, the cast was as close to perfect as a cast can get. Especially notable were: Andrew Richards as Parsifal, Stephen Milling as Gurnemanz, Gregg Baker as Amfortas and Christiane Ivan as Kundry. If you are not familiar with the charismatic Andrew Richards, check out the clips of his performances on YouTube and read his amusing and insightful blog at http://tenorrichards.blogspot.com/. Folks following this thread will especially enjoy his blogs on the Parsifal rehearsals.

Also, while I agree that Parsifal cannot be read as “Buddha II, The Revenge” (“This time it’s personal!”), I think that Parsifal, like the Buddha of legend was a young man of tremendous intrinsic gifts who learned the truth of his gift (and of the world) by experiencing the falsity of the world of phenomena.

Kind of like if Mother Teresa had started off as a star on an MTV “reality show” like “The Hills.”

I would further question your assertion that “the real world of phenomena is unreal” etc. in Parsifal. He doesn’t gain enlightenment through meditation, but rather by suffering in the real world. Parsifal’s real qualification to become the new guardian of the Grail is that he is not working from any abstract philosophical basis, but an intuited empathy gained through real experience.

Though Wagner was influence by his readings in Buddhism (and more so in the same vein via Schopenhauer), his own thought (as expressed in Parsifal was not strictly Buddhist. Essentially his approach was syncretic, combining elements of Buddhism and mystical Catholicism with the early humanistic philosophy inherent in the Parsifal stories he used as source material.

I have to disagree!!! Do you really mean to suggest that Wagner had anything as outre as social realism in mind when he wrote PARSIFAL??? Heck, even the SOCIAL REALISM of his time was romanticized and sanitized – Dickens, Thackeray. . .

Please explain how a realistic setting has any special validity in Parsifal (over, say, the more typical romanticized mis en scene) given the obvious mythic, fairy tale, NON_REALISTIC (indeed one of the whole points of P., if you ask me, is that the real world of phenomena is UNREAL and false).

I liked “end” better than “hand”.It has a kinkier feel to it.And it also has an ambiguous
quality. Who’s “end”? Lassie or Klytie?

Sometimes it’s best to go with your original thought.

Does that count, jv?

I’ll assume these are highlights ad can therefore dismiss it as more eurotrash.

P.S To think people here want to discuss the merits of such shit in the first place….or make statements like ” Gee, I would love to see this Parsifal ‘F………………k!!!!!

I agree with you that Bieto’s Parsifal makes one really think about the opera and Wagner’s genius.

The creative process is about just that, process, more than it is about content. This is particularly true for recreative artists like singers. Or actors, who from time to time do scripts of no particular literary value because they enjoy taking on the various acting challenges posed by a shallow but exciting play.

Another point here, one that I posted to Richards’ blog earlier today, is what Martha Graham called “the divine discontent.” Artists are chronically dissatisfied with their work and think it falls short of their ideal of what it might have been. As such, they’re never really happy with the work in retrospect and may come up with various reasons why it didn’t go they way they hoped it would. But according to Graham (who cribbed the idea from Goethe) that sense of dissatisfaction is in fact to be cherished because it’s the goad that leads the artist on to take on new and greater challenges. Satisfaction would lead to complacency and so no more art.

So when I talk about commitment of singers, dedication and all that, it’s not referring to loyalty to a director’s personality or even belief in the ideas he spouts. Rather, that sense of passion arises from the artist’s striving to surpass his limitations, to overcome the “divine dissatisfaction.” It’s an impossible task, but it’s what Emerson was counseling when he said “hitch your wagon to a star.”

That’s my take, anyway. I would venture to say that this “divine dissatisfaction” is one of the forces that tempts singers to attempt roles for which they are not ideally suitable– which, again, inspires some of the greatest opera performances. This has its dangers too of course, but as La Cieca has said elsewhere, all life is a gamble, and the best we can do is to try to understand the odds before placing our bets. (Say, is that a neat metaphor or what?)

I think.

. . . on the other hand. . . .

(or end)

Or a Forza del Destino with Don Carlo saying, “Fuck it. I’ve got an Econ test tomorrow. You and Leonora do what you want.”

These unhappy endings are such downers.

I note for those who remain staunchly against “Euro-trash” that I’ve never had an artistic experience where the Big Issues of our time have been so vehemently talked about, by the artist, in the press, in the foyer. I now understand how important it is to not simply consume art, but argue and fight and disagree and discuss what we take in, what we worship.
(Here.)

And more (including a crossover mp3) here.

As an occasional reader I was wondering what had happened to Mr. Richards with that Regie Rant post. Thanks La Cieca. He’s simply human.

I also hope my comment was not misconstrued. I simply wondered whether it would be considered an equal act of genius to turn a seemingly bleak work like Wozzeck into an uplifting one, as it currently seems to be when turning a purportedly uplifting one like Parsifal into a “questioning” one. In other words, I only wonder whether regie-genius is only defined in one direction.