Marnie

[Dave2002]

Just found the New York Times review by Zachary Woolfe (yes, the NYT allowed a critic to traipse to London for this one), and ZW is not impressed:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/arts/music/review-nico-muhly-marnie-english-national-opera-metropolitan.html

Given that this opera is set to travel to the Met down the line, this may not bode well critically (unless Tommasini reviews it here rather than ZW giving it another go).

The review seems muddled, but maybe that's a good reflection of the opera and production. I still have time to check it out, but I'm not convinced that it's going to be worthwhile.

I can't remember whether it's going to be broadcast, either on radio or on TV. Has anyone checked that out yet? I'm not over keen on TV productions, as even a relatively poor live production is often better than one for TV, but the TV and radio versions (if available) would have the merits of cheapness.

There are other reviews:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opera/what-to-see/seen-hitchcocks-marnie-eno-adaptation-will-disappoint-review/

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/nov/10/moving-marnie-why-hitchcock-troubled-heroine-is-made-for-opera

The Grauniad review looks as though it has borrowed from the NYT Review - or at least the reviewers have colllaborated.

[zola]

I can't remember whether it's going to be broadcast, either on radio or on TV. Has anyone checked that out yet?

See post 11 for radio details. As for a TV showing, you are being a tad optimistic ?

[Conchis]

The film's reputation as a masterpice has always baffled me. The production values are terrible and seriously undermine what Hitchcock was trying to achieve.

Why did such a bankable director have to work on such an inadequate budget?

[Darkbloom]

The film's reputation as a masterpice has always baffled me. The production values are terrible and seriously undermine what Hitchcock was trying to achieve.

Why did such a bankable director have to work on such an inadequate budget?

Psycho apart, I have always felt Hitchcock to be incredibly overrated. They often have memorable bits that make you forget the tedious (and often plain bad) stuff in between. North by Northwest being a good example.

[underthecountertenor]

In the interests of balance: George Hall liked it (and so, for what it's worth, did I).

https://www.thestage.co.uk/reviews/2017/marnie-review-at-the-london-coliseum/

[Lento]

Richard Morrison of the Times was unimpressed by the work (he refers to a score lacking passion, and to the turgid plot) although he compliments the performers.

[underthecountertenor]

Richard Morrison of the Times was unimpressed by the work (he refers to a score lacking passion, and to the turgid plot) although he compliments the performers.

I tend to be unimpressed by the work of Richard Morrison.

[bluestateprommer]

Bernard Hughes at The Arts Desk is in the "unimpressed" column (as is Tim Ashley from The Guardian):

http://www.theartsdesk.com/opera/mar...9t-hit-heights (but at least the article is getting comments and discussion, which most classical music reviews tend not to)

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/nov/19/marnie-review-london-coliseum-nico-muhly-eno

One wonders if Nico Muhly will do some tinkering post-ENO, pre-Metropolitan Opera. If one critic points out issues in isolation, that's one thing, literally. But when multiple critics see similar flaws independently, then it's a better shot that they're on to something about the work.

[Dave2002]

One wonders if Nico Muhly will do some tinkering post-ENO, pre-Metropolitan Opera. If one critic points out issues in isolation, that's one thing, literally. But when multiple critics see similar flaws independently, then it's a better shot that they're on to something about the work.

Hardly worth taking a flight across the pond to check out such a suggestion. The notion that critics work independently and without collusion may also be questionable.

[underthecountertenor]

The notion that critics work independently and without collusion may also be questionable.

Agreed. As is the notion that they work without an agenda. In this case the negativity of many of the reviews is strikingly at odds with the audience reaction on first night, at which Muhly received an ovation which many contemporary opera composers would envy.

[Dave2002]

Agreed. As is the notion that they work without an agenda. In this case the negativity of many of the reviews is strikingly at odds with the audience reaction on first night, at which Muhly received an ovation which many contemporary opera composers would envy.

Did you go? In the end I didn't, though I just ran out of time and spare days/evenings for that. Perhaps I'll have to take a flight to NY after all - please advise!

Maybe I should at least listen to the broadcast - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09hr3wj this Saturday, and then presumably on catch up.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It might be worthy saying that the new Muhly opera is based on the book by Winston Graham (of Poldark fame) and not the Hitchcock film. I am going to the first stage / orchestral run through next Monday and will report back.

How was it for you, NW?

[NickWraight]

ferney - apologies for the delay. The production was more than decent and I enjoyed the strong musical performances. There was a lack of drama due perhaps to the bright, colourful ("musical" like?) staging - very little atmosphere. Similarly the music which is not to say a lack of quality but more a shortfall in translating drama into the score.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Listening to the broadcast last Saturday certainly gave me no grounds for disputing your "shortfall translating drama into the score" comment.

[ahinton]

How was it for you, NW?

I think that I'd better not say how it was for me...