Indeed. Neither do I. Reiner's given one explanation of how a modern production can be the most productive approach. My own argument is not at all anti-modern productions, but rather anti- the sort of tired, clichéd productions one often sees and which seem to have more to do with each other than with the work in question.* I don't have a problem with productions that deliberately subvert aspects of the work, either. But I think that works better when the director is better-informed about the work's historical and intentional contexts, not worse.


______
*(There were elements of this in the recent ENO Satyagraha, as I think Reiner might agree: bits of newspaper that either meant not very much or, if you thought too deeply about what they were supposed to mean (symbolically or otherwise), actually seemed to carry the opposite message to that presumably intended, animals wandering across the stage because that's what animals do at the Coliseum these days, etc. etc. I think 'opera language' is weakened by these sort of flat, ahistorical, anxiously trendy elements.)

Hi Opilec,

Although I was working at the Coli at the time of the USA tour, I'd only recently joined the company, and consequently was not on the production team of any of the shows which were toured - I was left behind in St Martin's Lane.  Actually this was not such a penance as the Coli was being leased-out to the Merce Cunningham dance troupe whilst the company was away, and I got to see the entire Merce Cunningham season for free

I can't vouch for the veracity of that story about Lady Harewood,  but I don't suppose her husband even gave it a second thought


Entirely agreed.  This is what Stanislavsky called "gryaz" (literally "dirt") in a production - inessential piffle that dilutes the action instead of reinforcing it.   There's one of those "Ted Bovis" type theatrical sayings that's nonetheless true - "never bring on a prop that's only used once".  If you introduce something into a scene,  then it needs to be worked into the linear story you are telling so that it belongs in the storyline and plays a role in telling that story.  Otherwise it's just a gimmick - and that's unfortunately what the big bird-puppet was in Satyagraha.   

You can break this rule, of course, but like any broken rule, you have to want the effect that will result from doing so.  My favourite example is the penguin in the school corridor in "Gregory's Girl".

The thing that satisfied me least in Satyagraha was the portrayal of the Europeans...  they were two-dimensional "baddies" out of "The Beano".  We never found out why they were like that, or what they stood to lose from Ganghi's ascendancy...  if they had a poor or selfish motivation, we still needed to know what it was, so that we could assess it as poor or selfish.  Actually there was one worse thing than that, which was "two old bearded fat blokes appearing in holes in a wall".  Apparently they were Tolstoy and Tagore, but you'd only ever know that if you bought a program and read so...  otherwise they might have been Karl Marx, Borodin, or Santa? More "gryaz", unfortunately.

I've already said too much in this thread, so I will stop for a while in a mo... but there is one more thing which I would like to add, which is...

...  I think there is currently far too much emphasis on "production concept" in opera.  "Flying Dutchman On A Spaceship" (WNO has just done so, Pountney directed).  "Tristan & Isolde On Mars" (The Mariinsky did one, and regrettably Gergiev staged it himself - complete with full-screen projections of asteroid fields).  "Aida in Kosovo" (Novosibirsk Opera... but, Mr Chernyakov, in AIDA the Egyptians WIN the war, they don't LOSE it???)... blah-blah-blah.

Frankly we are all sensible people here.  Any of us in this discussion could easily think-up a new historic setting for a famous opera. 

This is only 5% of the job.

The other 95% consists of taking performers who usually had 0 stagecraft training in their time at Conservatoire or College, and teaching them the basics of how to perform on a stage (incline your body towards the other character but tilt your head towards the audience... remember when you come on and from where, and when you come off again...  sink into the mind of your character and their values...  never, ever try to imagine what you look like from the front or you are dead meat...  always know what you want in the scene you are about to do, and what you dream of achieving overall.... etc etc).  Then you have to come up with meaningful scenes which are full of interesting action,  and not (ehem, Mr Gergiev) two singers sitting on a bloody log for 32 minutes talking to each other...   you need to orchestrate the "picture", so that the scene is balanced, the power-relationships are clear...  on a tedious and banal level, the performers need to be standing in a place that will be lit when their cue comes (I saw a Gabriele Adorno dive-off into utter darkness last week, oblivious of the fact that no-one could see him at all)....   in other words, you have to get some acting out of the cast, so that we see what is happening, and why.

The latter 95% is vastly more important than thinking-up an intellectually challenging mise-en-scene "concept", and without it, even the most daring productions will flop utterly.   This is why Hytner is the best producer working in Britain currently - because he knows exactly what he wants,  and how to get it out of even the most wooden and unpromising performers.   I don't always agree with Keith Warner's production concepts, but again - he can secure stupendous performances from his cast, and that's the essence of the job.  Others are terrible at this - for example, Jonathan Miller, whose role is really that of "Executive Producer" (ie "conceptualiser-in-chief") - but provided there are good Production Assistants on hand to get the acting to flow, the result can still be good.

I wish it were about intellectual discussion and philosophy and concepts - but in reality it's mostly about rolling around on a dusty rehearsal-room floor "practicing dying credibly" for 3 hours at a time.   The real pros (mostly actors, rather than opera-singers, but some opera-singers too) master a "library" of emotional reactions - in the same way that pianists learn scales and arpeggios - so that they can use them whenever needed.  I know an actress who can burst into real tears at will, and in 4-5 different ways ("slow understanding of all hope having gone", "utter disappointment", "shock", etc)

One final thing... is that I don't believe there is such a thing as a "classic" production of a work (ie "the one which first-timers seeing the work ought to see before seeing some weird one").  Again, I'll use a musical analogy...  I'm sure the CBSO could play Beethoven #3 conductorless.  It wouldn't fall apart.  But is "playing the notes" enough in a Beethoven symphony?  In the same way there is always direction in a play or opera,  and if you take it out, all you have is a public reading with a lot of ad-libbing. 

He even managed to get a half-decent film performance out of Jennifer Aniston (The Object of my Affection)! But I guess I'm really lowering the tone there in a Wagner thread so I'll get me dinner.

I guess you had to be there    I see they didn't even put the Director's name on the front of the box?

This is a widely-circulated belief, but I think it's an exaggeration...  I think the situation was more that the role of the stage-director wasn't considered prestigious enough to be worthy of comment (or credit).  There had been actor-managers since Shakespeare's day, and in fact all of the troupes in early C17th London were actor-managed.  I'm afraid I know little about the performing conditions in Purcell's era.  However, as usual, Michael "Mick" Kelly is a mine of information about the latter half of the C18th.  We know that the York Playhouse (the only playhouse in England outside London where opera was regularly played) was run and directed by Tate Wilkinson, who directed all the productions.   If we turn our attention to countries outside Europe, Dario Fo (who was studied the topic extensively) will say that all the Commedia troupes were actor-managed from the C17th onwards - and moreover that almost all theatre in France was being directed by Italians anyhow.   Where I think this "there were no directors before the C19th" thing comes from is that there were no separate directors who didn't also act in the shows...  "You little University graduates who decided that if you couldn't act in the theatre then you'd OWN it instead, and force your ideas on people!" (c) "Theatre Of Blood".  I believe it's a mistake to imagine that actor-management is some kind of "second-best" form of direction...  quite a few opera singers have gone on to direct (Beverly Sills...) and I hear that Sir John Tom is indeed planning to do just that...   

In addition to this, it's also supposed that authors directed, or at least co-directed, the staging of their works - the idea that the author remained in his bedsit in Bayswater, banished from the theatre entirely, whilst Max Stafford-Clark or whoever wrestled with staging his work would have been completely unknown in previous centuries.   We also know that some impresarios also staged pieces - for example Sheridan staged works like Gretry's Richard, Coeur-de-Lion in London...  having shamelessly ripped-off the score and libretto from Paris, for which Gretry didn't receive a sou.


Richard, I despair when it comes to what the public thinks it sees    Most people seem to think the "producer" was the one who thought-up the scenery, and that the cast thought-up all that clever stuff themselves?   I suppose it ought to be a compliment when one's work isn't noticed - which meant that it all flowed naturally, no-one blocked anyone else, the inter-relationships between the characters were clear, etc.  However, there are productions - particularly in the sphere of "physical theatre" - which leave you dazzled when they are done well.  Berkoff's production of Kafka's "Metamorphosis" is one example.

If you want to see an example of what happens when opera singers aren't directed, then look at Gergiev's recent woeful "productions" (which have, I believe, been on tour in Britain)?   The worst of all is WALKURE...  a "Ride Of The Valkyries" which consisted of 16 (he doubled them up for extra sound) Valkyries walking out of the wings as though on their way to a bus-stop,  and then lining themselves up along the leading-edge of the pit...   and singing the entire thing utterly motionlessly from there?   Now what WAS that??   But it got worse...  Mikhail Kit's Wotan sat on a log with Brunnhilde for 32 unbroken minutes in which neither character moved.  Then he drifted off upstage, and by the time of "Lebwohl!" he was wandering away in the other direction.   This is what I mean about "direction"...   it's not primarily about fancy fire effects, or whether she's on a bonfire, in the centre of a circle of lasers, or sealed into a nuclear reactor....   it's about showing a father having to split with his daughter, even though they both know it was because she fulfilled his secret intention.  It's not about nuclear reactors...  it's about love.  It ought to be the most heart-wrenching moment in the opera,  and if it's not,  then the director's failed abjectly... AND betrayed Wagner's intentions into the bargain.

This post does not deserve a detailed response: suffice to say that many leftists who believe some of the ideological aspects of Wagner's work should not be ignored are in no sense Zionists or supporters of any form of nationalism. Also, how is the above post (with its talk of 'Zionist zealots and their floozies in the media', 'well-heeled reactionaries' and 'pipsqueak idiot liberals') not 'politically motivated'?