Vanessa: Glyndebourne Live Screening

[Conchis]

6.30pm tomorrow.

Who's up for it - and who will be watching it at the cinema?


It's a pity that Keith Warner has been assigned to this rare British production: his 11 year old Covent Garden Ring is deeply unimpressive as well as incoherent.

On the plus side, Emma Bell was a superb Elsa in WNO's Lohengrin back in 2013, so I have high hopes of her.

I think the opera itself is far more than a curio.

[zola]

Or live stream from Medici.

https://www.medici.tv/en/operas/samuel-barbers-vanessa/

[makropulos]

Definitely looking forward to this - thanks for the reminder. I agree that it's far more than a curio.

[Pulcinella]

Yes, going in York tomorrow.
Mentioned a while back, in posting #2 in the Saul thread, which we didn't go to.

[johnn10]

It is available on the Glyndebourne website until 21 August and well worth a look. However, those who are sensitive to such things are advised that the presenter is Katie Derham.

[Conchis]

It is available on the Glyndebourne website until 21 August and well worth a look. However, those who are sensitive to such things are advised that the presenter is Katie Derham.

Katie Derham presented the cinema relay, too, so there was no escaping her (I don't mind her, actually. There are plenty of worse presenters).

I thought that was excellent: a very worthwhile piece and I couldn't imagine a better performance. The role of Erika is one other singers should be queuing up to sing....

[Dave2002]

My guess is that it would have worked better in the opera house, but would it have been £200 better per seat? It was atmospheric, with a good cast. Aspects of Dickens - Great Expectations - not quite Miss Havisham - and Henry James - Washington Square. Maybe also based somewhat on some more sinister film genres.

[Dave2002]

Yes, going in York tomorrow.
Mentioned a while back, in posting #2 in the Saul thread, which we didn't go to.

Saul was/is an oddity. Sorry you didn't see it - it was very good. We are perhaps not sure what Handel intended/wanted, but as written Saul is an oratorio, not an opera. Evidence from Esther suggests that Handel was not averse to having biblical subjects acted on stage, and may have preferred that, but the Bishop of London prohibited that in 1731. This led to the development of the English oratorio - but perhaps Handel always hoped that it would be performed as a drama. As such the Glyndebourne production is/was very lavish, very probably anachronistic in most respects, with some scenes being a complete delight to behold. I watched some of the onine version, which actually seemed very close to the live 2018 version. Possibly Christopher Purves from earlier years was more convincing than this year's Saul, but both were effective. Overall then Saul was a treat, both visually and musically, and if it returns in the same form yet again I would rate this as a "must see", and funds permitting, definitely worth a trip to Sussex. Otherwise there will almost certainly be a DVD available.

I don't know how often Glyndebourne do repeat the same production - what the greatest number of year on year repeats is for any single work. Saul has had two runs that I know of so far.

Sorry for the slightly Off Topic reply - but this seems a reasonable response.

[Pulcinella]

My guess is that it would have worked better in the opera house, but would it have been £200 better per seat? It was atmospheric, with a good cast. Aspects of Dickens - Great Expectations - not quite Miss Havisham - and Henry James - Washington Square. Maybe also based somewhat on some more sinister film genres.

Glad to have seen it (partner less so).
I thought it more like something that could have been by Chekov. I would have preferred a libretto that was a bit tauter, to spur the drama (such as there was) on a bit (cut out the silly nonsense of the doctor getting drunk, for example), with a bit more explanation of how and why the three women were all 'shut up' together in the first place, especially since they didn't exactly all get on with each other! I'm a simple soul, and I like a good clear story. (Yes, I KNOW it's an opera! )
But that said, there was some glorious music, and I certainly recognised aspects of Barber's style that the violinist (deputy leader?) hadn't seemed to spot when he first came across the piece, according to his comments to dear Katie.

Regarding Saul: yes, sorry to miss, but the timing of the screening here was not ideal.

[Conchis]

Glad to have seen it (partner less so).
I thought it more like something that could have been by Chekov. I would have preferred a libretto that was a bit tauter, to spur the drama (such as there was) on a bit (cut out the silly nonsense of the doctor getting drunk, for example), with a bit more explanation of how and why the three women were all 'shut up' together in the first place, especially since they didn't exactly all get on with each other! I'm a simple soul, and I like a good clear story. (Yes, I KNOW it's an opera! )
But that said, there was some glorious music, and I certainly recognised aspects of Barber's style that the violinist (deputy leader?) hadn't seemed to spot when he first came across the piece, according to his comments to dear Katie.

Regarding Saul: yes, sorry to miss, but the timing of the screening here was not ideal.

I was very glad I saw it alone: I couldn't think of anyone else I know (barring one person, who lives a long way away) who might have enjoyed it as I did.

Aspects of the story were left extremely unclear in this production but that didn't bother me too much.

[Constantbee]

I was very glad I saw it alone: I couldn't think of anyone else I know (barring one person, who lives a long way away) who might have enjoyed it as I did.

Aspects of the story were left extremely unclear in this production but that didn't bother me too much.

Partner duly despatched upstairs to listen to live football commentary. Result: both happy

I couldn't get into this until well into the performance, and even then I needed substantial help from libretto and plot websites to follow what was going on. It was much appreciated. I think the influence of the Isak Dinesen (Karen Blixen, the Out of Africa woman) short stories (Seven Gothic Tales) on the libretto has probably been overplayed. What's gothic about it? Surely this is not gothic as we know it. And why oh why did Blixen walk out of the first performance? We'll never know. The whole opera is a conundrum, but engrossing for all that. The lighting and back of stage projection in the Glyndebourne production certainly look as though they deserve the accolades they're getting. That would be more obvious in a cinema screening, of course. The casting was spot on and I particularly enjoyed the 50's costumes. I felt that the music in the second half, sublime as it was, kept on trying to break into a film score and was reminded of the domestic psychological tensions you see in later Joan Crawford movies. Quite an experience.

[Conchis]

Partner duly despatched upstairs to listen to live football commentary. Result: both happy

I couldn't get into this until well into the performance, and even then I needed substantial help from libretto and plot websites to follow what was going on. It was much appreciated. I think the influence of the Isak Dinesen (Karen Blixen, the Out of Africa woman) short stories (Seven Gothic Tales) on the libretto has probably been overplayed. What's gothic about it? Surely this is not gothic as we know it. And why oh why did Blixen walk out of the first performance? We'll never know. The whole opera is a conundrum, but engrossing for all that. The lighting and back of stage projection in the Glyndebourne production certainly look as though they deserve the accolades they're getting. That would be more obvious in a cinema screening, of course. The casting was spot on and I particularly enjoyed the 50's costumes. I felt that the music in the second half, sublime as it was, kept on trying to break into a film score and was reminded of the domestic psychological tensions you see in later Joan Crawford movies. Quite an experience.

I was under no illusions that I was watching some forgotten masterpiece, but I'd say the performance was about as good as you could get in this day and age.

[Dave2002]

I was very glad I saw it alone: I couldn't think of anyone else I know (barring one person, who lives a long way away) who might have enjoyed it as I did.

Aspects of the story were left extremely unclear in this production but that didn't bother me too much.

I don't know enough about the intentions of the composer and librettist. I had the feeling that it was not a case of a straightforward well explained plot, but that there are inevitable and deliberate ambiguities and mysteries in the work. Thus to respond to msg 9 "a bit more explanation of how and why the three women were all 'shut up' together in the first place ..." I don't think, from what I saw and read that there is an answer to that, or several other aspects of the work. Is it cyclical? Did the grandmother have the same/similar experiences as Vanessa? Will Erika's life turn out like Vanessa's over the next 20 years? Did Vanessa previously have the same kind of experiences? Are Vanessa and Erika more closely related? What about Anatol? Who is he? Is Anatol (2) real, or an imposter? Why - and how - are they living in an apparently isolated house, yet with a large staff of servants, and a doctor who drops in from time to time, and also a group of friends who manage to get there for New Year festivities. Why would they invite them if they generally prefer to be isolated? Why would those "friends" come? Is any of the action real, or is some or all of it imagined? Etc., etc., etc.

[Conchis]

One possible interpretation from the 'dumb show' at the beginning: that Anatol is the son that Vanessa bore her previous, lost lover and that she subsequently gave up, so their relationship is Oedipal.

[crb11]

One possible interpretation from the 'dumb show' at the beginning: that Anatol is the son that Vanessa bore her previous, lost lover and that she subsequently gave up, so their relationship is Oedipal.

That was the impression I got, mainly due to Oedipus being the book read from early on.