Lohengrin at Met ?
can...@webtv.net
Did anyone attend the opening?
thanks
BerdeTal
Oh, yeah, I was there. While I agree almost verbatim with the opinions
expressed by James Jorden, I had perhaps a bit more patience with the
production than he did. My chief gripe is that it didn't pack any sort of
emotional punch at the end. I was surprised at this, since the work of Rob't
Wilson that I've seen at B.A.M. has not fallen into the contemporary vice of
emotional detachment. Oh, well, win some, lose some. And, yes, derivative is
the ultimate effect. Some scenes looked lifted out of the production books for
the first Wieland Wagner "Tannhauser" (1954, I believe). So much for
"cutting-edge."
As for the musical side of things, Heppner didn't do it for me, Voigt did, and
Polaski definitely didn't - but I try to avoid these discussions since they're
pretty futile. The important matter for the readers on this thread is the
chorus. There has been some talk of late about the Met chorus. Well, perhaps
they have been sounding funny lately because they've been busy rehearsing this
production - and not just the stylized movements. They sounded truly excellent,
and I thought Levine did an excellent job. Many refinements over his last
outing with the score in NY 12 yrs ago.
I imagine this production will bring forth a lot of opinions. I just hope we
don't fall into the absolute duality one sees in Germany where people who hate
the weird productions are assumed to be fascists and leftists are supposed to
hate everything remotely traditional. This is America, and personal tastes and
sense of "what's appealing to me" should still count for something.
William Berger
Terrymelin
>As for the musical side of things, Heppner didn't do it for me, Voigt did,
>and
>Polaski definitely didn't - but I try to avoid these discussions since
>they're
>pretty futile.
>
I wonder if you might elaborate here. "Didn't do it for me" isn't very
descriptive. Might you make some comments on the singers and "why they did or
didn't do it for you?"
Terry Ellsworth
PeteyOPMan
Terrymelin wrote in message
<19980310162...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>I wonder if you might elaborate here. "Didn't do it for me" isn't very
>descriptive. Might you make some comments on the singers and "why they did
or
>didn't do it for you?"
>
>Terry Ellsworth
Well, I was there. And this production isn't sympathetic to its performers.
I felt that it stifled the full expression that these forces *could have*
brought in a more traditional direction. I think energy can flow from
performers when they can touch and see each other. (Our poor soloists
seemed so stunned by the end of the show that they didn't know how to take
their curtain calls.) In the end, I thought we could have had deeper
feelings and emotions all around. The sets were nice and the costumes as
well. I wish the direction could just be allowed to be more "realistic".
This "equation" or "formula" that was being used, which completely didn't
allow for performers to even smile, does not let this production add up.
Sorry, but this was a serious disappointment, when you know what these
forces could have really done without this brain-dead approach. I must
state that the singers really did beautifully. Their voices were gorgeous.
But the directing is the focus of this post.
I almost never sit through an opera just dying for it to end. This version
gave me the feeling that I was watching a catastrophe happen. I knew it was
horrible, and it was so unbelievable that I was complelled to watch it. NOT
a good reason to spend big bucks for tickets.
I just wondered, that as denatured as a recording studio can be (when the
soloists are all present), could that have been better than this? And my
answer would be "YES". This is a directing style that is devoid of
humanity. Some of the stuff the performers were asked to do seemed to be
done because someone may have thought they would just "look cool".
Maybe I think the drama has enough subtext of its own and I just don't
appreciate this injected and absolutely phony one that RW (hah, he must have
been hired for his initials :-) ) given us.
OK, well I am going on a bit so I will give you what you asked for:
Big OUCH-ERS in this production:
In General:
- Everyone walks around like they are daydreaming and have these "Egyptian"
hand-arm gestures
- Everyone is stiffly standing straight all the time
- Everyone's eyes are BULGING and GAPING
- The constant use of the "don't speak" (ala Bullets Over Broadway) gesture
is just stupid
- the lack of eye contact is another annoying staple
- Ortrud's motioning with her hands when she smashes one into the other
(with her fist or with her pointed finger) is downright comical
Act 1
- what is all that shifting of the "weapons" in the chorus in unison?
- the duel between Lohengrin and Telramund consisted of staring each other
down and then approaching each other and turning around 180 degrees and
leaning their backs together and then they separate and Telramund falls over
with his right hand over his heart and the floating "spear" leans downward
Act 2
- when the kids in the chorus come out they're doing that hand stuff too
- the spotlights on the hands: very few may understand the meaning of this
- men's chorus is completely too far away
- the 4 conspirators talk spread-out across the stage and then they whirl
around and walk off stage-left in succession like they were on a fast
conveyor belt
- the only flash of real color in the production comes when Ortrud pulls out
a GIANT SIZED red curtain at the end of the act
Act 3
- as Lohengrin and Elsa are getting married, they are on opposites ends of
the stage... they creep up to each other and then continue on GOING PAST
each other and end up on the opposite ends again; bridal chorus is offstage
- when Telramund comes after Lohengrin with his goons, IF my hearing served
me right, Elsa's "rette dich,dein Schwert" is CUT, probably because no one
carries swords in this production
- the "toys" that Elsa's brother gets at the end look like garbage from a
Lego factory
- Lohengrin does not ride away on the swan (he walks off)
- the Bridal Chorus is completely offstage (this is not as bad as the other
stuff)
I could think of more. But to those who did or didn't see this, WASN'T THIS
STUFF JUST WEIRD?
Enough for now. Don't get too mad with me, I was just frustrated at the
production... Sorry if I have disturbed anyone...
Pete
James Jorden
PeteyOPMan wrote:
> - the "toys" that Elsa's brother gets at the end look like garbage from a
> Lego factory
An emory board, a funnel and a cockring, yes.
--
james jorden
jjo...@ix.netcom.com
http://www.anaserve.com/~parterre
"Was brauche ich einen Baum auf der Buehne, wenn ich eine Astrid Varnay
habe?"
-- Wieland Wagner
can...@webtv.net
Sounds more lohen-grim than grin. Are you sure Mel Brooks didn't direct
this production :)
PeteyOPMan
daniel kessler wrote in message <6e7v83$hd4$1...@news.cybernex.net>...
>You people are trying desparately to revive 'realism' in the theater. It
>died many decades ago but no one told you!
>I sincerely hope that as we approach the next century, that we can shed
>from the ranks of the opera audiences of those who want to move backward.
>
>
By the way, the Heerufer (and others) walked backwards in this production.
Is there something wrong with that? :->
I have often found myself in agreement with your posts, Mr Kessler.
However, if I interpret your post here correctly you are implying that
realism is dead and that there is not place for it in the future of opera.
This is a ludicrous and ridiculous statement. What is next in your
perceived progression of theater or opera (assuming they are synonymous,
from your post)? Could we have Michael Bolton-type voices singing Lohengrin
with really loud microphones so that we can use state-of-the-art audio
equipment in our "futuristic" theaters? Could we have people walking on
their heads and singing at the same time, because they CAN?
The truth is, that the Wilson version is not about Wagner's opera, isn't it?
It's more about Wilson's twisted, smart-ass, clever, and oh-so-cool
directing, isn't it? Give me a futuristic staging and costumes and a
director who gets the most out of what is in the score and the text; not
some tongue in cheek version that attempts to pick apart every stage
direction and emotion in the source and reverse the original intent (or
whatever he was doing).
If my wishes for a coherent, salient artistic result, with respect to its
source, is what you call "moving backward" YOUR version of the future is
bleak indeed. Besides, these operas were written in the past, so why should
it have ANY futuristic context? Maybe an opera, that hasn't been premiered
yet, could have NO REALISM and be just what you'd call "the future of opera"
and maybe you'll say you love it, but sorry, you can NOT say you could sit
through this version of Lohengrin and walk away saying "this is what Wagner
would have liked", or "this is what Wagner could have meant" or "this is the
Lohengrin I have waited 12 years to see". If you DO feel that way, I think
you need to have your head examined.
Met versions of operas like Salome, the new Eugene Onegin production,
Elektra, Rakes Progress, Cenerentola, Lombardi, and even Lucia, are ones
that I like because they give a new look and atmosphere, but these new looks
DO NOT COME AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PERFORMERS' ABILITY TO EXPRESS THEIR
CHARACTERS' FEELINGS IN A COHERENT FASHION. The "realism" in expression is
what I think should be a standard of all opera productions. This Lohengrin
completely denatures any feeling at all. No one smiles, no one touches
anyone tenderly, no one feels a thing (except maybe rage - Ortrud). This
tampers with the energy (an intangible in any live performance) that could
come out even in the world's greatest vocalists.
This production isn't the future, it's completely phony and misleading.
This opera used to be a possible first opera for the beginning opera-goer.
Now it's so convoluted, that you'd have to be an "experienced" theater-goer
(just like you) just to *begin* to understand what's going on in this
staging.
Your move,
Pete
PS - Can you possibly EXPLAIN any of the points I didn't understand in my
previous post? If you can do so, and perhaps enhance my next experience of
this production, *please* do. I am very anxious to possibly learn something
about the future of theater. Thanks. :-)
dtritter
daniel kessler wrote:
>
> You people are trying desparately to revive 'realism' in the theater. It> died many decades ago but no one told you!> I sincerely hope that as we approach the next century, that we can shed> from the ranks of the opera audiences of those who want to move backward.
Just what we needed, dimwit danny to conduct a purge trial of the
unanointed. Waiter, get that backward [read "decadent" in another
context] audience member a table near the kitchen, and next time, don't
take his reservation.
Tell us, derrida's dimwit danny, the innermost thoughts of Wagner. Now
cast them into a geometry lesson. Oh, Wagner? Who the hell's he?
dft
daniel kessler
daniel kessler
"PeteyOPMan" <OPPete...@aol.com> wrote:
.'I have often found myself in agreement with your posts, Mr
Kessler.'
Thank you!
>However, if I interpret your post here correctly you are implying that
>realism is dead and that there is not place for it in the future of opera. This is a ludicrous and ridiculous statement. What is next in your posts? Could we have Michael Bolton-type voices singing Lohengrin
Why are you bringing up Michael Bolton and whatever makes you assume I
approve of microphones for singers at the Met and what does it have to do
with judging this new LOHENGRIN???
>Your move,
>Pete
I very much appreciate that you have seem to have an inquriing nature and
want answers. I don't know all of the answers. There were things in the
production that were puzzling and further viewing will be needed which
makes it all very interesting and challenging.
We, as an audience, it seems to me, should be more tolerant when a
metteur en scene such as Wilson has interesting ideas that might spring
from elements in the Japanese theater. To dismiss out of hand because
some of us have no reference point or background in these elements seems
to me to be a form of 'cultural imperalism'...saying, in effect, whatever
there is in the Japanese theater is of no value to us!
Anyone who has taken the trouble to see their Bunraku puppets and their
Noh drama and tried to understand it will come away enriched.
can...@webtv.net
Wilson also applies the "bauhaus" mentality by having most of the
singers wear the same costumes - like the bauhaus concept of modern
architecture where "modern" buildings do not distinguish between front
and back entrances (all entrances are "equal") - so you may hear a male
voice, but if you're sitting upstairs, the stage lighting is so dark you
can't always be sure which of the men is singing! Oh, and Act 2 is
brought to you by the number 7 :)
James Jorden
can...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> Wilson also applies the "bauhaus" mentality by having most of the
> singers wear the same costumes - like the bauhaus concept of modern
> architecture where "modern" buildings do not distinguish between front
> and back entrances (all entrances are "equal")
That sort of mentality is actually very common among stage directors, I
believe. Especially when they are selecting their production
assistants.
Leah Coffin
In article <6e523s$n84$1...@newsd-144.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
can...@webtv.net wrote:
> Sounds more lohen-grim than grin. Are you sure Mel Brooks didn't direct
> this production :)
No, if Mel Brooks had directed this production, it would have been
outrageous, tasteless, vulgar, hilarious, lively, and, most importantly,
highly entertaining. Perhaps not an authentic Lohengrin, but at least it
would have kept people awake. :)
--
Leah C.
lco...@brynmawr.edu
To reply, take out the trash