Huge thanks. Will think on and return.
-
-
And thanks from me for a most helpful and profound review.
Ah, Francis Bacon - should have realised. Serves me right for being too stingy to fork out for the programme, I used to collect them but these days resent the perfume/watches ads that take up so much of the space (that pay for it, I suppose
)
Re the inappropriately sized Simon O'Neill - some thoughts in the paper the other day from Hugh Canning on how when it comes to fattism there appears to be one rule for female singers (Deborah Voigt) and another for men (O'Neill, and one or two other recent examples), and wondering how Margaret Price would have fared today.Comment
-
My wife whispered to me quite early on something about Gérard Depardieu as Obélix which didn't help matters.Originally posted by Richard Tarleton View Post
Also there on Sunday. Thanks to Belgrove for detailed thoughts. Some of the valid points made did not strike me at the time and I did get a lot out of the production including many new insights, especially having recently been trying to get to grips with Buddhism, eg re Kundry's suffering due to pre-existing guilt:
Kenntest du den Fluch,
der mich durch Schlaf und Wachen,
durch Tod und Leben,
Pein und Lachen,
zu neuem Leiden neu gestählt,
endlos durch das Dasein quält!
Denoke may not have been the very best sung Kundry ever but her acting and stage presence was compelling. The white box worked for me and a chill went through me when we saw Amfortas on a hospital bed with drip attached and when it appeared as an empty tomb (nirvana?) at the end.
Very detailed Wagner Society review hereComment
-
Belgrove, thanks so much for that wonderfully detailed and thoughtful account. Yes, it's interesting to have an answer to Parsifal's 'Wer ist der Gral' - even if I'm not quite convinced by the director's literal response to P's metaphorical blindness... And thanks, gurnemanz, for the link to that very lengthy Wagner Soc review - with some interesting material in the comments, too.
Anyway, I now feel much better prepared for my trip to the local cinema this afternoon.Comment
-
May I second that, a wonderful review that puts to shame almost everything found in the press and even Opera Magazine.Comment
-
I fear that that review smacked to me of coming from the tailor by appointment to the Emperor for his new suit. Whatever sophisticated analysis on paper, opera and Parsifal almost more than any other opera I know depends on what EXACTLY is being staged and thus what we actually SEE in the theatre.
The instant identification of the Grail with a 12 yr old naked boy who is then ritually and bloodily cut, and then to repeat appearance of boy in Act 3 and then to whisk him away such that the Grail is actually emptiness more or less pulls the ground entirely from under the feet of the MUSIC's whole trajectory, and no amount of clever philosophical pin-dancing will alter that. Does a composer really spend X hours painfully, carefully working towards a sublime and subtly managed finale to produce ON STAGE nothingness / emptiness as the Grail as a solution?
Simon O'Neill may have a decent enough voice, but he LOOKS lumbering, and acts far, far stupider and unaware than any reine tor. And while I could just about go with the fat playboy act in Act 2, and even if he is indeed as dumb as he portrays Parsifal, his enlightenment does NOT happen in Act 3. Listen to what he says when he returns with the spear: he has come back from his world-wandering KNOWING what he is to do with it. It does NOT happen in Act 3. The blinding images are otiose and actually not grounded in what the libretto NOR the music tells us.
I admire the reviewer's ingenuity, his learning, and his skill as polemicist. But much of what the review says is undermined by what actually happens on stage in the Langridge production.Last edited by DracoM; 19-12-13, 13:40.Comment
-
I saw the first 2 Acts last night at the RoH (decided that the last act was not worth catching a very late train for so didn't see the enlightened fool in operation) - O'Neill as a choice fitted in with the producer's idea of giving a lie to the words - 'beautiful lad' replaced by a middle aged yob with looks and belly to match - the voice is fine and came over well on radio but the stage presence is a mess - certainly came over as a slow tempo from Papano in first act - Pape(Gunemanz) was good voice but stage presence as about as mobile as the telegraph poles in the forest surrounding the 'cube' - Willard White again good voice but evil? and what became of the sign (presumeably the cross) by which Parsival defeats him.Originally posted by DracoM View PostComment
-
I was there last night. It was my first time at the ROH and my first live opera. I'm still in a daze by the spectacle of it all, and the stunning clarity of the acoustic, which I wasn't expecting in the Upper Amphitheatre. The best acoustic I've experience in my concert-going life, and that includes venues in Paris. I want to let the performance sink in a bit, so I won't comment at great length for the moment*.Originally posted by DracoM View Post
Caveat Lector: I am new to Wagner, and whilst I have listened a lot/read a lot this year, I clearly lack the vast experience of other forumites.
1. I do agree that, visually, O'Neill looked wrong, but I felt there was a transformation between him between Acts 1 and 3, and not just an improved ability to navigate the stage without stumbling over stuff (this buffoni aspect was overegged) and the appearance of a beard. I felt his vocal mannerisms had changed, that he sounded more like a heldentenor, more certain, more declamatory. I had initially been shocked by his voice, which sounded poor, weak, juvenile but by Act 3 I felt that this had been an intentional naivety. This was one of many pleasing aspects of a performance which was rarely dull (even a novice like me felt Act 1 dragged tempo-wise).
2. Gurnemanz - Pape was static, nice 'top' but having heard deeper voices in this part, I guess I lean more towards the Moll/Frick sound. They seem to have a boskier character to their voices that speaks of age, wisdom and authority. Pape was the only voice that got lost beneath the orchestra at times.
3. Amfortas - Finley can act and sing. Is this a rarity? He has a nice 'top'.
4. Kundry - I haven't heard enough Kundrys to know how I'd like her to sound, though I felt there was enough range there - demented shrieks and laughs, seductive mellowness - to show characterisation. I never felt she sounded strained or faltering, but perhaps here my inexperience shows through.
5. Tinturel - from the applause he got, I take it he's a bit of legend, but I didn't like his voice.
6. The cube worked for me on so many levels, from seeing into the Amfortas ICU one minute to becoming an opaque symbol the next, it allowed so many clever bits of narration to be done. The whole stage craft really worked for me, and the clues in the programme suggest Francis Bacon (painter) was an influence, as were abandoned asylums...one to ponder further with respect to the Knights and the Grail...
7. The Grail as a boy. I thought this was a magnificent coup-de-theatre. The silhouetted image of the boy's hands pressing against the lit cube from within was very special: spooky, numinous...the boy's appearance blinking into the light was a jolt of horror at the potential spectacle of a truly pagan ritual - human sacrifice... It worked for me and for some of the reasons stated in this comment below the very negative Arts Desk review:
'Yes, the ritual has repellant aspects, but looked at completely dispassionately the Christian rite involving the eating of the flesh and blood of Christ or the symbols thereof might appear repellant or certainly peculiar. As a ritual, it is relevant to the Brotherhood in the terms portrayed. There is a thread of self-harm from the knights stabbing at there palms (perhaps representing the other wounds of Christ, namely from the nails on the cross), through to the ultimate self-harm undertaken by failed Brotherhood member, Klingsor. The mere fact of it being portrayed in the fashion it was, repellant or otherwise, has no impact on Pappano's conducting of the score in the scene, which was extremely fine.'
A boy as a vessel (chalice) for the body and the blood? Why not. It was almost as if the crucifiction were being re-enacted (see the teenage boy's Christ-like pose in Act 3) Another lamb of God? More consideration needed on this, too, as does the empty cube at the end, which raises many questions.
- What will the future grail ritual be? Who or what will be the grail? The empty bed where Parisfal's enlightening kiss took place?
- Is the director saying we can move beyond such rituals in Christian worship?
- or move beyond religion?
- and what of Parsifal? He looked transfigured, beatific, almost Christ-like...
Curiouser and curiouser.
As a work of Art and a Performance, it moved me; it made me question what I saw and what I had previously known of the work. I felt rough as hell (still recovering from norovirus), drank nothing but water, and subsisted on a sandwich bought off-the-premises (
), and almost didn't go, but I'm so, so glad I did.
--
Other observations:
- Loved the mix of high society dames in sparkling diamonds and students in Doc Martins.
- Spotted Will Self in the Amphitheatre Bar.
- Nice buzz about the place
- Spectacular building
- Biggest disappointment: badly-behaved audience members: coughs, bag rustling, papers, books, bottles dropped, a mobile phone that rang twice, and a moron who left as the curtain was coming down on Act 3 before the music had finished, and let the door bang. I wanted to throttle the uncouth swine. High society ain't what it used to be
* Liar.
Last edited by Thropplenoggin; 19-12-13, 15:03.It loved to happen. -- Marcus AureliusComment
-
We know he is evil inasmuch as he is the enemy of the brethren, of which he is a twisted and frustrated would-be member. He is surely more complex than just the embodiment of evil as such and does not need to appear as a kind of pantomime devil. I suppose you could argue that he needs to be plausible like Iago (another devilish character). In some ways he makes me think a little of Mephisto in Goethe's Faust - ("stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft" - always desiring evil but creating good). His action does achieve the opposite of its intention, ultimately spurring Parsifal on towards good (compassion rather than easy gratification).Originally posted by Frances_iom View PostComment
-
Thank you, from the extra chorus! More power to you; an excellent, measured and open-minded review with genuine enthusiasm and thoughtfulness.Originally posted by Thropplenoggin View PostI was there last night. It was my first time at the ROH and my first live opera. I'm still in a daze by the spectacle of it all, and the stunning clarity of the acoustic, which I wasn't expecting in the Upper Amphitheatre. The best acoustic I've experience in my concert-going life, and that includes venues in Paris. I want to let the performance sink in a bit, so I won't comment at great length for the moment*.
Caveat Lector: I am new to Wagner, and whilst I have listened a lot/read a lot this year, I clearly lack the vast experience of other forumites.
1. I do agree that, visually, O'Neill looked wrong, but I felt there was a transformation between him between Acts 1 and 3, and not just an improved ability to navigate the stage without stumbling over stuff (this buffoni aspect was overegged) and the appearance of a beard. I felt his vocal mannerisms had changed, that he sounded more like a heldentenor, more certain, more declamatory. I had initially been shocked by his voice, which sounded poor, weak, juvenile but by Act 3 I felt that this had been an intentional naivety. This was one of many pleasing aspects of a performance which was rarely dull (even a novice like me felt Act 1 dragged tempo-wise).
2. Gurnemanz - Pape was static, nice 'top' but having heard deeper voices in this part, I guess I lean more towards the Moll/Frick sound. They seem to have a boskier character to their voices that speaks of age, wisdom and authority. Pape was the only voice that got lost beneath the orchestra at times.
3. Amfortas - Finley can act and sing. Is this a rarity? He has a nice 'top'.
4. Kundry - I haven't heard enough Kundrys to know how I'd like her to sound, though I felt there was enough range there - demented shrieks and laughs, seductive mellowness - to show characterisation. I never felt she sounded strained or faltering, but perhaps here my inexperience shows through.
5. Tinturel - from the applause he got, I take it he's a bit of legend, but I didn't like his voice.
6. The cube worked for me on so many levels, from seeing into the Amfortas ICU one minute to becoming an opaque symbol the next, it allowed so many clever bits of narration to be done. The whole stage craft really worked for me, and the clues in the programme suggest Francis Bacon (painter) was an influence, as were abandoned asylums...one to ponder further with respect to the Knights and the Grail...
7. The Grail as a boy. I thought this was a magnificent coup-de-theatre. The silhouetted image of the boy's hands pressing against the lit cube from within was very special: spooky, numinous...the boy's appearance blinking into the light was a jolt of horror at the potential spectacle of a truly pagan ritual - human sacrifice... It worked for me and for some of the reasons stated in this comment below the very negative Arts Desk review:
'Yes, the ritual has repellant aspects, but looked at completely dispassionately the Christian rite involving the eating of the flesh and blood of Christ or the symbols thereof might appear repellant or certainly peculiar. As a ritual, it is relevant to the Brotherhood in the terms portrayed. There is a thread of self-harm from the knights stabbing at there palms (perhaps representing the other wounds of Christ, namely from the nails on the cross), through to the ultimate self-harm undertaken by failed Brotherhood member, Klingsor. The mere fact of it being portrayed in the fashion it was, repellant or otherwise, has no impact on Pappano's conducting of the score in the scene, which was extremely fine.'
A boy as a vessel (chalice) for the body and the blood? Why not. It was almost as if the crucifiction were being re-enacted (see the teenage boy's Christ-like pose in Act 3) Another lamb of God? More consideration needed on this, too, as does the empty cube at the end, which raises many questions.
- What will the future grail ritual be? Who or what will be the grail? The empty bed where Parisfal's enlightening kiss took place?
- Is the director saying we can move beyond such rituals in Christian worship?
- or move beyond religion?
- and what of Parsifal? He looked transfigured, beatific, almost Christ-like...
Curiouser and curiouser.
As a work of Art and a Performance, it moved me; it made me question what I saw and what I had previously known of the work. I felt rough as hell (still recovering from norovirus), drank nothing but water, and subsisted on a sandwich bought off-the-premises (), and almost didn't go, but I'm so, so glad I did.
--
Other observations:
- Loved the mix of high society dames in sparkling diamonds and students in Doc Martins.
- Spotted Will Self in the Amphitheatre Bar.
- Nice buzz about the place
- Spectacular building
- Biggest disappointment: badly-behaved audience members: coughs, bag rustling, papers, books, bottles dropped, a mobile phone that rang twice, and a moron who left as the curtain was coming down on Act 3 before the music had finished, and let the door bang. I wanted to throttle the uncouth swine. High society ain't what it used to be
* Liar.Comment
-
Simon, I'd forgotten when penning my "knee-jerk" (pace BelgroveOriginally posted by Simon Biazeck View Post) review of the first night that the Forum had someone on the inside - apologies for not mentioning the chorus (were you one of the "Knights in glasses"?) who were indeed magnificent. I can assure you I was cheering with the best of them for your curtain call.
Comment
-
That goes for me, too, Simon.Originally posted by Richard Tarleton View PostSimon, I'd forgotten when penning my "knee-jerk" (pace Belgrove) review of the first night that the Forum had someone on the inside - apologies for not mentioning the chorus (were you one of the "Knights in glasses"?) who were indeed magnificent. I can assure you I was cheering with the best of them for your curtain call.
Thanks for your reply. I take the subtext of it to be that not everyone is open-minded, and I was surprised at the yawning gap between my experience and the mostly negative reviews I'd read. That said, even in these the chorus seemed to garner a lot of praise, and well it should.
It loved to happen. -- Marcus AureliusComment
-
No need to apologize! Yes, I was in Act 3 but Jugend (!) chor offstage in Act I. Thank you too!Originally posted by Richard Tarleton View PostSimon, I'd forgotten when penning my "knee-jerk" (pace Belgrove) review of the first night that the Forum had someone on the inside - apologies for not mentioning the chorus (were you one of the "Knights in glasses"?) who were indeed magnificent. I can assure you I was cheering with the best of them for your curtain call.Comment
-
It could be argued that the music is so sublime that nothing could match it as a stage picture - certainly not the stuffed bird or red glow or large cup that is used in most 'traditional' productions - and that therefore it's best to have nothing.Originally posted by DracoM View PostComment
-
Whatever doubts (some of which are articulated far more coherently above than I could hope to attempt) I had about the production and some of the principals, the orchestra and chorus were magnificent last night. If beauty and magnificence of orchestral and choral sound were the only criterion this would have been hard to better. Not an insightful contribution, but credit where it's due.
PS - Thropplenoggin, while not a particularly regular visitor to the ROH, last night's was, without exaggeration, the stillest and quietest audience I've ever experienced there. By which I'm not denying what you say at all, merely noting that there's usually considerably more coughing and crashing about in my experience. At least the mobile phone ringtone was of the "brrring brrrring" variety rather than, say, than a cheesy polyphonic version of that *$£$ Nokia ditty...
Comment
Comment