Royal Opera's Ring Cycles

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Could someone convincingly explain to me why a director should/must interpret an opera out of its contemporary context? Wagner died in 1883, thus any, and I really mean ANY, pointer at anything happening after 1883 is a superfluous interpretation, a hineininterpretieren as the Germans say, of things/pictures/stages which impossibly could have be imagined by the composer, Wagner in this case.

But why should a director - having perhaps previously worked in the theatre on productions of Shakespeare, Euripides, Aeschylus, Racine etc etc - decide that Wagner (or Mozart or Handel or Monteverdi) has to be treated differently from the those dramatist, Roehre? Wagner's Music stays alive, reborn with each performance. His stage directions are of their time: quaintly risible, frankly diletantish and detrimental to the Music - the Peter Hall/Solti production demonstrated how weak and limited Wagner's theatrical vision was.

There are so many freakish modern performances of opera that merely lay bare their producer's egocentric quest for novelty and total inability to match the Music - but that's also true of "traditional" stagings. Don't let these flaccid mediocrities persuade you that these are the only ways to present the works: Wieland's stark, chilling psychodramas show what a real artist could achieve: a visual counterpoint to the shocking sounds.

EDIT: Ah! I see from our crossed posts that we're not so far apart in our views as your earlier post suggested! I suppose the short answer to your question might be "because the weaker ones are by flaccid mediocrities desperate to cover up their inability to match the glorious Music that is so beyond them"?

EDIT 2: No, that doesn't "answer" your question at all, does it?! Perhaps, "Because because the best productions reveal truths in the works about the human condition that have become apparent only since the composers' deaths. These revaltions enhance the works and should not be confused with the weaker works by flaccid mediocrities etc"?

[Flosshilde]

-which applies to all music, and therefore we for the same money can straight away abolish all HIP performed music.
It also applies to songs and other vocal works, of which the texts are in need to be interpreted for 21st c public. We don't change a jot of these.

But these aren't theatrical works - they weren't intended to be presented on a theatre stage.

I don't say it shouldn't be set in our time.

Oh, sorry, I thought that that was what this meant -

I really mean ANY, pointer at anything happening after 1883 is a superfluous interpretation, a hineininterpretieren as the Germans say, of things/pictures/stages which impossibly could have be imagined by the composer, Wagner in this case.

[Roehre]

Ah! I see from our crossed posts that we're not so far apart in our views as your earlier post suggested! I suppose the short answer to your question might be ""Because because the best productions reveal truths in the works about the human condition that have become apparent only since the composers' deaths. These revaltions enhance the works and should not be confused with the weaker works by flaccid mediocrities etc"?

Bingo

[Roehre]

I really mean ANY, pointer at anything happening after 1883 is a superfluous interpretation, a hineininterpretieren as the Germans say, of things/pictures/stages which impossibly could have be imagined by the composer

literally means that an interpretation set against future developments-happenings-politics IMO should be out of the question.
Whether newer weapons, uniforms, similar means of transport etc are introduced, is IMHO a matter of taste, hardly of interpretation - unless of course Nazi-like uniforms are presented on stage, e.g.

[Flosshilde]

That's a distinct wiggle.

[kernelbogey]

By a fluke today I got a ticket for Goetterdaemmerung on Monday - the end of the first cycle..[/URL].

As I'm starting at the end (which is, of course, only the beginning ) tomorrow night, I would appreciate any tips, comments or links Members have about the production as a whole, which might enhance my appreciation of the whole Gesamtkunstwerk of Goetterdaemerung, since I haven't seen the first three operas in this staging. I'll be listening to the whole cyele when broadcast - and doubt I'll get to attend any other performance - but I'm thinking of staging themes that might support my understanding of this production, seeing just the last of the operas.

[aeolium]

Perhaps, "Because because the best productions reveal truths in the works about the human condition that have become apparent only since the composers' deaths. These revaltions enhance the works and should not be confused with the weaker works by flaccid mediocrities etc"?

What are these truths about the human condition that have become apparent only since the composers' deaths, fhg? Are you referring to ideas like those of Freud, Jung, Einstein, or the chronicle of political and economic violence of the C20, or artistic movements like surrealism, the Theatre of the Absurd, etc? But isn't introducing these ideas into productions of composers who were unaware of them on a par with introducing modernist musical developments such as atonality which would surely be unthinkable? Why is the music and (generally) the libretto considered inviolable, while the staging is open season?

His stage directions are of their time: quaintly risible, frankly diletantish and detrimental to the Music - the Peter Hall/Solti production demonstrated how weak and limited Wagner's theatrical vision was.

But they were surely part of his vision, part of the Gesamtkunstwerk. Should one simply pick and choose which aspects of the Gesamtkunstwerk you want to use and which can be dispensed with? There is a commonplace today that the dramatic awareness of composers/librettists/designers of the past simply does not hold a candle to that of modern theatre directors, but I think this ought to be questioned - not least because of some of the crassly anachronistic and gimmicky productions which are to be seen today but also because of some of the images of set designs that have come down to us from the past: for instance the Weimar 1822 design for the Wolf Glen's scene in Der Freischutz, by Lieber and Schwerdgeburth, or Schinkel's 1815 set design "Die sternflammende Königin" for Die Zauberflöte (see the wiki pages), as well as such notable directors as Max Reinhardt in early C20 Vienna. The great care which Mozart took (as evidenced in his letters) to emphasise the drama in Idomeneo, including cutting arias which impeded the flow of the drama, showed that he was very interested in the way the opera was staged.

One of the things that really interests me about art works of the past - poems, novels, plays, operas, music - is the fact that they capture a very different way of looking at the world from our own, a different way of thinking, behaving, talking. I don't want an opera production that simply reinterprets a story according to modern ideas but with an old soundtrack (sometimes, to increase the incongruity, with historically informed performance). I don't want to see a production of Le Nozze di Figaro set in a time and place which essentially makes a nonsense of the concept of droit de seigneur which is so important to the whole plot. I don't want to see productions which create a constantly jarring tension between libretto/music on the one hand and stage action on the other, like the 1980s Leipzig/WNO production of La Clemenza di Tito in which Titus was portrayed as a tyrant - however true that may have been to ancient history and our modern understanding of how dictators behave, it was not true to the opera. I don't think a "historically informed" theatrical production need be dull and predictable - I am sure many of the real premieres were not - and it is surely worth trying.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

What are these truths about the human condition that have become apparent only since the composers' deaths, fhg? Are you referring to ideas like those of Freud, Jung, Einstein, or the chronicle of political and economic violence of the C20, or artistic movements like surrealism, the Theatre of the Absurd, etc?

Yes, all these.

But isn't introducing these ideas into productions of composers who were unaware of them on a par with introducing modernist musical developments such as atonality which would surely be unthinkable? Why is the music and (generally) the libretto considered inviolable, while the staging is open season?

Because the Music is what matters, despite what RW wanted: it remains new, astonishing, revelatory - in exactly the same way that the staging doesn't. The Musical visionary was an amateurish theatrical man of his time (and the libretti only work in the context of the vowels and consonants fitting exactly the rhythms and pitches of the Music). In the same way, Shakespeare is important because of his uses of language - the staging is and has to be revalued with each generation. The text (WS' words, RW's Music) is what matters and in the fullest possible sense of the word "matters": "is essential" "what's material" "has relevance".

But they were surely part of his vision, part of the Gesamtkunstwerk. Should one simply pick and choose which aspects of the Gesamtkunstwerk you want to use and which can be dispensed with?

I think so, because RW's gesamtkunstwerk is at best quaint, at worst poisonous. It's the Music that is great - the Music that so often betrays the inadequacy of the "whole", even contradicting the words.

There is a commonplace today that the dramatic awareness of composers/librettists/designers of the past simply does not hold a candle to that of modern theatre directors, but I think this ought to be questioned - not least because of some of the crassly anachronistic and gimmicky productions which are to be seen today but also because of some of the images of set designs that have come down to us from the past: for instance the Weimar 1822 design for the Wolf Glen's scene in Der Freischutz, by Lieber and Schwerdgeburth, or Schinkel's 1815 set design "Die sternflammende Königin" for Die Zauberflöte (see the wiki pages), as well as such notable directors as Max Reinhardt in early C20 Vienna. The great care which Mozart took (as evidenced in his letters) to emphasise the drama in Idomeneo, including cutting arias which impeded the flow of the drama, showed that he was very interested in the way the opera was staged.

I hope my previous posts have at least suggested that there's a lot of what you say here that I totally agree with: I'm far from being a fan of "novel" productions. There are many lazy productions that seek merely to startle the audience merely for the sake of startling it: I find these dull, predictable and risisble. But 'twas and 'tis ever thus: you mention Reinhardt - but for every Reinhardt there were dozens of figures whose names (and work) we have justly forgotten. Mahler's Vienna staged Wagner (and Mozart) with fidelity to the text but less er observation to what the composer "required" the audience to see. This helped to renew the Music for the new audience, because the Music (not RW's stage requirements) was rightly placed at the centre of the productions. This is what is important, and what I want to experience in a theatre: the Music urging the stage action into existence, rather than a scum on its surface. And this needs conductor and director to have a single idea about what the work "is" and can be.

Which, I hope, gives my response to your last paragraph;

One of the things that really interests me about art works of the past - poems, novels, plays, operas, music - is the fact that they capture a very different way of looking at the world from our own, a different way of thinking, behaving, talking. I don't want an opera production that simply reinterprets a story according to modern ideas but with an old soundtrack (sometimes, to increase the incongruity, with historically informed performance). I don't want to see a production of Le Nozze di Figaro set in a time and place which essentially makes a nonsense of the concept of droit de seigneur which is so important to the whole plot. I don't want to see productions which create a constantly jarring tension between libretto/music on the one hand and stage action on the other, like the 1980s Leipzig/WNO production of La Clemenza di Tito in which Titus was portrayed as a tyrant - however true that may have been to ancient history and our modern understanding of how dictators behave, it was not true to the opera. I don't think a "historically informed" theatrical production need be dull and predictable - I am sure many of the real premieres were not - and it is surely worth trying.

Best Wishes.

[Belgrove]

... I would appreciate any tips, comments or links Members have about the production as a whole, which might enhance my appreciation of the whole ...

The drop curtain is covered with the equations of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, the world has got much more complicated than the primordial blackout that this Ring commences with, and maybe signifies Wotan's attempts, having retreated to his bunker, to arrest the turning wheel through intellect rather than deeds.

The Tarnhelm is the strongest visual leitmotiv that permeates this Ring, it being being a glass panelled cube, either worn, or even lived in (the Gibichung Hall - which is plush and decadent, but ultimately rather tacky - Brunnhilde's Rock at the end of Act 1). It's use in this way in Gotterdammerung is not particularly dependent on the preceding parts, so make of this what you will. Hagen is presented as being rather ascetic and scholarly, scheming quietly and taking copious notes (perhaps those are his equations?)

The conclusion of Act 2 (the greatest act in opera) is effectively staged on a kind of rotating boxing ring (appropriately enough) amid the tawdry religious trappings that the Gibichung's have accreted.

Apart from that, I can't remember much else in truth. As mentioned before, I did not find that the entire concept gelled into anything particularly coherent, it was all a bit episodic.

I hope you enjoy the show kernelbogey and look forward to reading your thoughts on the performance.

[kernelbogey]

Many thanks, Belgrove, for those thoughts. I'm looking forward to it.

[kernelbogey]

FHG et al - thanks for this very thought-provoking discussion about the staging of the Ring (et cetera). Most interesting,,,,

[Richard Tarleton]

The drop curtain is covered with the equations of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, the world has got much more complicated than the primordial blackout that this Ring commences with, and maybe signifies Wotan's attempts, having retreated to his bunker, to arrest the turning wheel through intellect rather than deeds.

The Tarnhelm is the strongest visual leitmotiv that permeates this Ring, it being being a glass panelled cube, either worn, or even lived in (the Gibichung Hall - which is plush and decadent, but ultimately rather tacky - Brunnhilde's Rock at the end of Act 1). It's use in this way in Gotterdammerung is not particularly dependent on the preceding parts, so make of this what you will. Hagen is presented as being rather ascetic and scholarly, scheming quietly and taking copious notes (perhaps those are his equations?)

The conclusion of Act 2 (the greatest act in opera) is effectively staged on a kind of rotating boxing ring (appropriately enough) amid the tawdry religious trappings that the Gibichung's have accreted.

Apart from that, I can't remember much else in truth. As mentioned before, I did not find that the entire concept gelled into anything particularly coherent, it was all a bit episodic.

I hope you enjoy the show kernelbogey and look forward to reading your thoughts on the performance.

And thank you from me, Belgrove – fascinating stuff. I’m coming to the conclusion I’m simply not sufficiently visually literate to decode all the iconography . How much of this do you think the average Ring-goer gets first time through , and how much is contingent on reading the reviews of cleverer people or by wading through the (expensive) programme notes, between the advertisments for watches, jewellery and perfume ? Should it be self-evident from what’s on stage? I think I missed the Tarnhelm leitmotiv in 2007...I shall be paying more attention this time round.

To take the equations – how many people apart from quantum physicists will have got that unaided? I’m reminded of a very enjoyable David Pountney Boccanegra at WNO where I only discovered from Hugh Canning’s review the following Sunday (you’re not Hugh Canning by any chance are you? ) that the writing on the back wall of the set was from a Petrarch sonnet.

And I’m still interested in that Nature theme in the Jones Ring. Of all the subtexts I should have picked that up. And Act 2 of GD - I must think about that.

[kernelbogey]

I hope you enjoy the show kernelbogey and look forward to reading your thoughts on the performance.

Thanks for your interest. Very sadly I was able to see only the first half of the first act in the auditorium, most of the rest of it on a monitor in the Crush Bar, but then had to leave the House so didn't see any of Acts 2 & 3.

From my brief exposure I found the production rather sterile. I saw Hagen and all the Gibichung Hall bit only on the rather poor quality monitor, with primitive sound (I think it's just the feed for the stage managers and lighting, so the quality is not important to them). So I'm none the wiser about the Tarnhelm or the Rubik's Cube metaphor. Tomlinson was in fine voice I thought but Vinke vocally rather weedy, and I don't much care for Bullock's vibrato: though all that may be sour grapes on my part.

Thank you for your comments on the production.

[Flosshilde]

Oh dear - I hope you weren't ill, kernel.

[kernelbogey]

Oh dear - I hope you weren't ill, kernel.

Thank you for your hope - not exactly ill, but unable to remain for complex reasons .