A real Lulu??? (Live opera 25.5.13)

[LeMartinPecheur]

Anyone up for this??

I saw this WNO production live in Plymouth a few weeks ago and found it um...interesting.

Am keen to hear it again to see whether it makes a different impression without the visuals. Not that I'm slagging off the production NB.

Will tell you more about what I felt about it live after we've heard it today...

(...if anyone's at all interested, said Eeyore)

[aeolium]

There were some comments on this production some months back here, LMP. I thought both production and musical performance were impressive.

[cloughie]

a real Lulu - is that something to Shout about?

[LeMartinPecheur]

There were some comments on this production some months back here, LMP. I thought both production and musical performance were impressive.

Thanks aeolium. This link will hopefully got straight to the review http://www.opera-britannia.com/index...iews&Itemid=16 I disagree with quite a bit of it: will tell you why later.

EDIT Links to Opera Britannica seem to be a bit randomized. I've replaced what I originally posted, which went to Vixen

[LeMartinPecheur]

OK, was this a real Lulu?

I'm no expert but had expected much more of my first live production. The problem for me was in the title role - I just couldn't believe that this woman could so dominate so many men's lives. For me she just wasn't any sort of sex-bomb, goddess, Urweib or anything much except a decent, not very glamorous soprano. In the first two acts the descriptions that came to my mind were 'soubrette' and 'operetta'.

She did build to some tragic stature in Act 3 but for me there was still a massive gap at the centre of the production. Pity, when so much of the rest was so good

[Petrushka]

OK, was this a real Lulu?

I'm no expert but had expected much more of my first live production. The problem for me was in the title role - I just couldn't believe that this woman could so dominate so many men's lives. For me she just wasn't any sort of sex-bomb, goddess, Urweib or anything much except a decent, not very glamorous soprano. In the first two acts the descriptions that came to my mind were 'soubrette' and 'operetta'.

She did build to some tragic stature in Act 3 but for me there was still a massive gap at the centre of the production. Pity, when so much of the rest was so good:sadface;

I do sympathise but it's a similar problem to the one faced by Wagnerians who have to suspend disbelief when encountering over-weight Brünnhildes and pot-bellied Siegfrieds. Perhaps Berg, like Wagner, was simply asking too much of his singers. I wonder how many sex-bomb sopranos there are out there who might come within the budgetary limits of the WNO and who can, moreover, sing the role?

[LeMartinPecheur]

I do sympathise but it's a similar problem to the one faced by Wagnerians who have to suspend disbelief when encountering over-weight Brünnhildes and pot-bellied Siegfrieds. Perhaps Berg, like Wagner, was simply asking too much of his singers. I wonder how many sex-bomb sopranos there are out there who might come within the budgetary limits of the WNO and who can, moreover, sing the role?

Petrushka: my point really is that one ought to believe via the on-stage chemistry that Lulu is having that effect. Some over-weight Brunnhildes and pot-bellied Siegfrieds can create the right illusion, the 'willing suspension of disbelief'. That's what I feel didn't begin to happen here. My first instinct was blame the Lulu but perhaps questions have to be asked about the direction and onstage support too But a much greater ability to dominate the stage and literally to 'embody' the role would have lent a stronger foundation IMHO.

[aeolium]

When I saw this opera in Cardiff 3 months ago I thought it was a very powerful performance in the title role, not overly demonstrative but changing as the fortunes and character of Lulu change throughout the opera so that her vulnerability appears. Of course it would have been nice to have had the young Louise Brooks with a backing singer but she wasn't available

[Belgrove]

Not having seen the show I can only comment on the quality of the broadcast, but it sounded an interesting and intelligent staging (but from the online photo's, I was intrigued to see that Mike Gatting was apparently playing Dr Schon). The use pre-recorded actors for the spoken sections did not work on the radio - how was it in the theatre and what was the point?

The thing about Lulu is the gorgeousness of the orchestra, the music of sex and death that should beguile and intoxicate, and I do not think that under Koenigs it had that dangerous allure. Maybe the acoustic of the venue, or rather the recording, had something to do with this. The Casino scene did not use the Cerha version. I'm not sure the accordion was an appropriate instrument to feature in this scene, it sounded unsophisticated. What was clear though was just how much of Berg's orchestration had been finished by the time of his untimely death, irrespective of which completion is used.

Marie Arnet sounded fine on the radio, not sure she was sexy though.

I agree that it is important that Lulu should look the part too. Christine Schafer at Glyndebourne was pint sized but dominated the stage (especially in her clinging black dress in the Casino), also Claron McFadden fitted the bill in the same production, she being rather more lithe and slinky. This is the best looking production of the work I have seen. It retained the movie interlude whose inclusion, despite Pountney's comments, I believe enhances the work. Agneta Eichenholtz in the last ROH production was young, beautiful, fragile, steely, sexy, in fact all the things that make Lulu essentially enigmatic and contradictory - this is probably the best acted version of the work I have seen, certainly the best played under Pappano. So good looking and acting, in addition to singing Lulu's have existed.

It is a great opera. WNO are to be congratulated for putting it on, and R3 for broadcasting it.