Cher Public

Para eso no hay que tener mucha vergüenza ni poca

La Cieca finds it difficult to imagine any more offbeat casting than the sublime Joyce DiDonato as “The Worst Singer in the World,” but she supposes that is where the acting will come in when the Yankee Diva portrays the title role in The Florence Foster Jenkins Story, a “documentary feature film” set for release in late 2016. [Facebook]

  • whiskey per tutti

    And the Meryl Streep version is in post production. Looking forward to competing Jenkins films later this year.

  • Camille

    Why all this interest in FFJ all of a sudden?

    I don’t understand where it is coming from.

    Schadenfreude?

    Non ci capisco più niente!

    • Joe Conda

      The resurgence of the Jenkins phenomenon started happening after Collup’s documentary, “Florence Fost Jenkins: A World Of Her Own” which came out in 2007. It has lots of juicy details.

      • armerjacquino

        On this side of the pond it predates that documentary- ‘Glorious’ opened in the West End in 2005.

      • PushedUpMezzo

        A great pity that nobody waited till Katherine Jenkins had perfected her soprano extension.

      • Camille

        Oh Joe! Thanks, and armerjay, too. I was unaware of all of these goings-on and they would likely explain it all.

        It’s just funny the way things start up again as I recall hearing about her in the mid to late sixties and she was impossibly old hat and ludicrous at that time. In the eighties I knew a lady who attended her concerts and filled me in a bit on them. She never missed a one!!

        I suppose Florence is happily looking on all of this now.

  • phillyoperalover

    So as anyone seen the latest updates of Future Met Wiki. These in particular

    Puccini’s Tosca
    Director: David McVicar
    Dates: December 31 to ?
    Tosca: Kristine Opolais/Liudmyla Monastyrska/ANNA NETREBKO
    Cavaradossi: Jonas Kaufmann
    Scarpia: Bryn Terfel

    and

    Boito’s Mefistofele
    Margherita: Angela Gheorghiu (The soprano has quietly announced that she consider this season’s “Tosca” her final Met engagement.)

    • Porgy Amor

      Even her announcements are quiet!

      • rapt

        lol!

      • Yes, but perfectly audible!!

    • Wow, Netrebko as Tosca is many an opera lover’s dream. If this is true, then she has got over her initial hesitations about the role. Huzzah!

    • antikitschychick

      I think I saw that Met Future Wiki entry a few days ago. Am happy they squeezed in Liudmyla between Kristine and Anna lol :-P. She sounded amazing the night I heard her and even more amazing on the broadcast on December 1st. Really hope Jonas sings all of the Cavaradossis! Think it’s fairly obvious who will get the HD for this if there is one; maybe there will be a fall and spring run instead of consecutive performances like this season; or maybe that formula worked? I’m not sure how well attended the performances were though there were empty seats on the day I went. I’d imagine Angela’s and Maria G’s performances were but not sure about the rest. In any case it’s great miss thanG will finally appear in a new production. Wish they would let AN sing Aida next season instead of her or at least have Dolora Zajick (a powerhouse!) sing Amneris or someone younger like Anita Rachvelishvili or Ekaterina Gubanova. I didn’t really like how Ekaterina Semenchuk sounded on the Warner classics recording with Pappano, Jonas, Anja, Erwin et al. Her voice sounded bottled up and she was over-singing imho. Maybe she’ll sound better in the house. Not too keen on hearing Jorge de Leon as Radames either. Maybe I’ll go hear Stoyanova instead.

      And on the topic of this thread, have to say am very excited to get to see Joyce in an acting role. Her acting has always been as good (if not better) than her singing. She is brilliant and if she ever does Broadway I’d go see her.

      I also saw the movie Carol last night. It was a good film. I enjoyed the cinematography and liked that it had a somewhat happy ending and I was impressed with Mara Rooney’s performance, but I didn’t like Cate Blanchett in the role of Carol. I think someone like Angelina Jolie would have been a more appropriate choice although I can understand why, from a strategic pov they cast Cate. I just thought she was too affected and bit stiff and mousy in her scenes with Rooney. I think Cate would be brilliant as Callas though, esp the older Callas. Noomi Rapace is a great actress but she doesn’t have Callas’s striking features. Guess we’ll see if that project finally comes to fruition.

      • armerjacquino

        I don’t think it’s a question of them not ‘letting’ Netrebko sing Aida next season: she hasn’t debuted the role yet and I doubt she’d want to do so at the Met.

        • antikitschychick

          I didnt mean to suggest they literally wouldnt let her. If she wanted to I’m sure they would. I meant I wish she would sing it already or that they’d cast someone else like Latonia Moore who only sang those 2 performances subbing in for Rad. We’ve talked about this before. She probably will debut Aida in Europe. She’s ready to sing it now though!

          • armerjacquino

            Silly me for so radically misunderstanding “Wish they would let AN sing Aida next season”. I’ll read more carefully in future ;-)

            • antikitschychick

              Well, to suggest that it’s a question of PERMITTING or disallowing her to do it is silly given the clout we all know she has and not at all the usage of the word/verb ‘let’ I was aiming for. Even when considering the most common usage of let, if read in context I don’t think it has to be read in such a literal manner but I suppose it’s up to the reader. I would have thought it was obvious I meant it as synonymous with wish they’d ASK her to do it or HAVE her do it next season in the spirit of wishful thinking which is included as one of the definitions/proper uses of ‘let’ according to Google as shown below. I thought it was essentially the same as saying “let her be the Aida!” since that’s also expressing a strong desire that something will happen…??

              let
              verb
              verb: let; 3rd person present: lets; past tense: let; past participle: let; gerund or present participle: letting
              1.
              not prevent or forbid; allow.
              “my boss let me leave early”
              synonyms: allow to, permit to, give permission to, give leave to, authorize to, sanction to, grant the right to, license to, empower to, enable to, entitle to; archaic suffer to
              “let him sleep for now”
              antonyms: prevent, prohibit
              allow to pass in a particular direction.
              “could you let the dog out?”
              synonyms: allow to go, permit to pass; make way for
              “Wilcox opened the door to let her through”
              2.
              used in the imperative to formulate various expressions.
              used as a polite way of making or responding to a suggestion, giving an instruction, or introducing a remark.
              “let’s have a drink”
              used to make a polite offer of help.
              ““Here, let me,” offered Bruce”
              used to express one’s strong desire for something to happen or be the case.
              ““Dear God,” Jessica prayed, “let him be all right.””
              used as a way of expressing defiance or challenge.
              “if he wants to walk out, well, let him!”
              used to express an assumption upon which a theory or calculation is to be based.
              “let A and B stand for X and Y, respectively”
              3.
              allow someone to have the use of (a room or property) in return for regular payments; rent.
              “homeowners will be able to let rooms to lodgers without having to pay tax”
              4.
              award (a contract for a particular project) to an applicant.
              “preliminary contracts were let and tunneling work started”

            • armerjacquino

              antik, it’s not the biggest deal in the world but it’s a bit outrageous of you to accuse me of misunderstanding and being over-literal.

              The reason I interpreted your post in the way I did is because that’s what you said. The usage you extensively quote of ‘please let this happen’ is not what you said: once you introduce the possessive ‘they’ then the verb ‘let’ takes on the idea of permission- ‘they’ are ‘letting’ the object of the sentence do something. As I say, not the biggest deal in the world and I would have let it be but if you’re going pompously to lecture me on being literal, and post screeds of the dictionary, then I’m going to tell you that you’re flat out wrong here.

            • Resistopiu

              Armer nice split infinitive “but if you’re going pompously to lecture me on being literal” or maybe intentional to give emphasis?

            • armerjacquino

              It’s not a split infinitive. ‘To pompously lecture’ would be the split infinitive version of that phrase.

            • antikitschychick

              You say it’s not a big deal but it clearly is a big deal to you, since you instigated the disagreement and you continue to write posts about it. And outrageous is a strong word.

              You singled out that one sentence in my post for the sole purpose of disagreeing that it’s not a question of the Met literally letting her sing it. When I responded essentially saying, of course its not; thats nit what I meant you kept mockingly quoting the sentence. So I provided the dictionary definitions to merely point out that there are other uses of the word let and that they can vary depending on the context. The question marks at the end of my post suggest that I did not intend that response as an absolute assertion but that I was merely posing an alternate view and leaving it open to discussion.

              I really dont think that saying that the sentence, when read in context of the entire post, our previous discussions about this AND knowing what we know about AN needn’t have been taken so literally, is either wrong or pompous. However your accusations are very telling. You accuse me of being “pompous” and “dead wrong” and then go on to lecture me about grammar because instigating petty disagreements with posters to self-satisfyingly come to the conclusion that they are “dead wrong” is obviously important to you. And if it’s truly that important to you then fine. You are right my dear. I did mean that I wish the Met would PERMIT Anna to sing Aida. I am pompous and I was dead wrong. Have a wonderful evening :-).

            • armerjacquino

              Whoa.

              I didn’t ‘single anything out for the sole purpose of disagreeing’. I fully accept I misunderstood the point you were making, but that’s because of the way you said it.

              Please don’t project motivations onto me. You’re the one who made this unpleasant. If you’d said ‘Sorry, I can see I phrased that confusingly’ none of this would have happened.

            • armerjacquino

              But look, this is mad. I’m not going to end up in a fight when all I thought I was doing was getting into a discussion about Netrebko’s future. So, sorry if anything I said bugged you- consider it done.

            • antikitschychick

              Lolllz so because I didn’t say exactly what you wanted me to say, I’m the unpleasant one (in addition to being pompous) and forced you to keep responding? Good to know. Btw: great job on conveniently leaving out the latter half of my sentence in order to twist what I had to say. It’s quite bold I have to say. Totally obvious but bold nonetheless.

            • armerjacquino

              Well, that’s one way to accept an apology.

      • embesemer

        Re: Carol

        Have you read the novel? “The Price of Salt,” Patricia Highsmith. I haven’t seen the film yet, as it won’t be coming to my local theater, but I have seen many clips. Based on those as well as what I have heard from others, it seems that Cate has done an excellent job portraying the character as she was written in the original novel.

        I’m not criticizing your comment (or you!), but I thought that if you compare the portrayal to the novel/original characterization, you might find that it’s just the character herself that is rather cold and restrained. (Although, given her circumstances, and the era in which the characters lived, I think it’s quite understandable.)

        • antikitschychick

          Hi embesemer,

          Thanks for your input. I haven’t read the novel but will add it to my list. You’re probably right that the charafter itself is cold and restrained and that did come across well. I just felt like the chemistry and dynamic between her and Mara Rooney was a bit off. The other scenes she was in were very compelling because she’s a great actress as we all know I just thought her performance lacked a bit of edge. I should say though that I didn’t watch the movie in very good quality so maybe that had something to do with it. Perhaps upon a second viewing I will be more convinced. It really doesn’t matter though as this is just my opinion and the critics gave her great reviews as you said. And no worries I didn’t think you were criticising me or my post at all! But it’s kind of you to clarify :-).

  • La Cieca wonders if this announcement is in any way related to this blind item from one year ago:

    http://parterre.com/2015/01/12/sight-reading/

  • Joe Conda

    To coin a phrase of Ed MacMahon would say, you are correct, madame.