Thursday, March 11, 2010

Review: Opera in Cinema's 2008 Valencia Siegfried


From the Opera in Cinema website:

"In the words of the prestigious German weekly "Die Zeit," the stage production of Wagner's "Rheingold" and "Walküre" by La Fura dels Baus "quite possibly shows us the path that musical theater will be taking in the future." There's no doubt about it: the city of Valencia is setting new accents in 21st-century opera not only with its spectacular new theater designed by Santiago Calatrava, but also with its visually transfixing production of Wagner's "Ring" staged by Carlos Padrissa and his theater group La Fura dels Baus. The Barcelona-based Fura blends music, dance, acrobatics and technology into unforgettable stage events of sometimes raw but always captivating power."



Photos: © Tato Baeza

Siegfried Visits Beaubourg
or Verfremdungseffekt vs. Gesamtkunstwerk

Larry and I were able to see the 2008 Valencia Siegfried during a recent screening of Opera in Cinema's season last weekend (2/14) in Cleveland. I left the theater less than overwhelmed, but further reflection has led to some insights -- and greater appreciation -- for what the director (Carlus Padrissa) may have attempted. Not having seen this cycle's Rheingold or Walküre is a distinct disadvantage in trying to figure out a meaningful arc to the Valencia Ring, but any one opera in the tetralogy should be able to stand alone well enough to stand at all. So, let's blame the initial confusion on the cinematography (for now).


The cast was universally strong -- particularly Lance Ryan (Siegfried), Juha Uusitalo (Wanderer), and Stephen Milling (Fafner). Franz-Josef Kappellmann (Alberich) and Jennifer Wilson (Brünnhilde) were also effective. Gerhard Siegel's Mime, however, may provide the key to the production -- less the buffoon than is often the case and genuinely overwhelmed and frustrated by his task. But, it was Siegfried's night, and Lance Ryan was superb, looking as though he could manage another hour or so by the time he had seduced Brünnhilde.


On face value, the production, however, just did not come across as anything but a mess -- at least the way it was filmed. Much of the "action" took place on huge, multiple, and very busy projections against a rear screen which was very close to the actors. This placement compressed the very broad "stage" into a very shallow space on which to act. A highly polished black floor surface reflected the backdrop screening, increasing the motion enveloping the singers. Dancers doubled as stage hands who moved the sets around, became props (a bench for Siegfried, forest debris), and in act one even mopped the floor.


In pure Brechtian terms, the mechanics of production were all visible and became part of the performance -- from Fafner's hydraulics linking a skin of movable triangular plates; Erda's "cherry picker" seat thrust out from a crack in the filmed earth; a recreation of the Giant machines, one controlled by the Wanderer; Wotan's spear with its clearly visible break-away mechanism; projection screens opening to reveal reverse-side framework; a mobile forest of hinged, highly-polished chrome boxes. These mobiles ended in small round platforms on which Wotan and Alberich confronted each other, rising and falling, swaying side to side as light and dark vied for command of the argument. The skeleton structure is no longer invisible but takes center stage.


The design concept is similar to those employed by Renzo Piano et. al. for the Pompidou Center (Paris, 1977) where all the structural elements are not only fully exposed but also color-coded to indicate the various mechanical systems normally hidden behind interior walls. Padrissa's conception strips away all artifice, exposing the power struggles residing at the heart of the Ring story. It is also primarily a struggle for the right to tell a story that is larger than any single, unified vision of truth.


The filming, however -- with its heavy emphasis on close-up shots -- undercut much (dare I say "most"?) of the overall effect one would have had in the theater where the audience could experience the entire project as a whole. The close ups significantly reduced the perception of the singer/actors overwhelmed by the activities swirling around them, a key component of the production. On stage, the singers would have appeared as only one aspect of the theatrical presentation rather than the center where tradition -- and the filming -- placed them. On the other hand, one might safely claim that the act of cinematic montage further fragmented what Brecht might have called the constructed reality of the work itself and, consequently, enhanced the defamiliarization effect on the audience. In terms Penn and Teller would appreciate (and thanks to Larry's analogy), Padrissa and his creative team created a new illusion by stripping away all illusion.


Even the costumes support a re-reading of the characters. Siegfried is no untutored adolescent but a primitive wild man -- complete with leather and fur skins -- confused by an alien world.Mime, in white lab coat, is more a chemist (alchemist) than a mechanic overwhelmed by his need to create the impossible -- carbuncle clusters showing his laboratory experiments to have physically attacked him. The act one "dancers" -- fully protected by masks, gloves, and foot covers -- function like a haz-mat cleaning crew having to cope with modernism gone wild.Other costuming decisions directly confront expectations. If you want a real bird, then I'll give you a bird -- complete with flapping wings -- but one that is heavily strapped into her very visible flying harness. You want a traditional breast plate for Brünnhilde, then I'll give Jennifer Wilson a breast plate -- but one fit for Natalie Dessay. In a complete reversal, it is Siegfried who strips away his clothes to reveal a very virile young man. Fortunately, Brünnhilde gets rid of her confining breast plate, but only to reveal an aging woman who remains bound in a corset of bulky straps like those used at an electrocution or in a straight jacket.


I now believe -- and am more than ready to test my theory in Valencia -- that the Valencia Ringis a deliberate confrontation between modernist realism and the illusion of romantic wholeness. Brecht's theories of theater face down those of Wagner. Throughout this performance, a new, stark realism contends with previously accepted -- and still anticipated -- familiarity. The familiar "realism" of the theater is challenged and stripped away, leaving only Wagner's music as the central "reality." If, like the Wanderer and Albrecht, the conflicting theories contend for supremacy, which wins depends on the degree of alienation experienced by the viewer.


When we left the movie, I felt I learned nothing new about Siegfried from this production -- and learning something is a key element of any new experience for me. But, like the LehnhoffParisfal which initially left me angry, the Valencia Siegfried has haunted me all week. What WAS Carlus Padrissa thinking? What new was he trying to say about Siegfried, about the Ring?If we grant that Padrissa -- or Achim Freyer in LA or Francesca Zambello in SF -- is an artistwith something significant to say, then it is incumbent upon me as a viewer to work with that new idea toward understanding and, only then, judge its success or failure on its own terms rather than on a 19th century theory which can no longer claim to be the final "truth."Unfortunately, I have no idea how the initially illusive signals were developed from Rheingoldthrough Walküre to Siegfried, and I don't know how they will be resolved inGötterdämmerung. But, I am willing to bet that what left me pondering in the Cedar Lee Theater will leave me overwhelmed in the Palau de les Arts Reina Sofia.


Sandra Molyneaux -- from snowy Columbus, OH

February 17, 2010




http://www.operaincinema.com/


And here are a few photos from Rheingold and Walküre:






No comments:

Post a Comment