The process of understanding and making sense of this production has been a fascinating one and my view of it now (after having seen the whole cycle over a short period) is VERY different to the feelings I had after Rheingold, as can be seen from my remarks about that work. Essentially, I feel that I have a reasonable idea of the overall ideas and concepts which, by and large, do tend to work, for me at least, although there is nothing like the rich and completely satisfying and wide-ranging comprehensiveness that marked Herheim’s Bayreuth Parsifal – and which I (and I suspect many other viewers) were hoping for.
After the Prologue and Act 1 my initial reaction was just OMFG! This was because, I think, I was now seeing the production as a whole (see above) and the superb musical quality of the performance. I liked the ironical use of the opera house foyer as the representation of the Gibichung’s hall. It was also very effective the way that the cloud-like shapes of said kinetic sculpture were later expanded and provided a background onto which images and colours could be projected – particularly good in the opening of Act 3 where the flowing shapes recalled the flowing Rhine. In Act 1 t was something of a meta-theatre move, I think, reminding us, the audience, that we were watching events unfolding in a theatrical performance. This idea, I think, was also the reason for the house lights being up on occasion (in this work and earlier) although I think I would need to see the whole cycle again to be sure I understood this significance and why this action occurred at the exact points that it did; I am not immediately sure that I could articulate this right now. Is it something to do with the fact that we are merely passively watching – and is this being taken as criticism of us? But the twisted static poses of the chorus near the start…not worked that out yet.
It was marvellous that the essential set (the stacked suitcases which, as the cycle progressed, seemed to work better and better and be far less puzzlingly obtrusive than they were earlier) here allowed the gods to be seen arrayed in Valhalla, overlooking, helplessly, the events as they unfolded.
The lighting was one of the greatest strengths of the production. It was remarkably finely controlled and placed, even when smoke was being used as the ‘screen’ and the way the colours could be separated was exemplary.
The Waltraute/Brunnhilde scene was remarkably gripping. I have always felt that this scene, like those between Wotan and Fricka and Wotan and Brunnhilde in Act 2 of Walkure are scenes that, while dramatically central, can vary very much in terms of how effective they are in the course of a performance as, musically, with the more declamatory style used (as opposed to the lyrical aspects of the work) they can easily drag. I felt the two aforesaid Walkure ones DID drag but here the scene was absolutely riveting, musically and dramatically. Odd. But pleasing to experience. This was a scene where auditorium lights were raised – but still pondering as to why here exactly…
There was a stroke of near-genius, however, in the final scene of Act one with the lines of the Tarnhelm-clas Siegfried being split between him and Gunther who was with him on the stage throughout. I do not know if this has been done before but it made superb dramatic and theatrical sense.
It interesting that we have not (yet) seen the chorus of refugees that appeared in earlier operas. What is the significance of this?
Vocally, the work was superb – everyone and with acting that matched the vocal quality.
The second act (probably my favourite act of the Ring as it is so superbly, musically and dramatically concise and powerful) And another superbly effective detail –Hagen using Wotan’s broken treaty spear on which to swear the oath. Of course only possible as the set allowed the gods to be seen and accessible. And here, for the first time, I really di begin to feel that the significance of who and when sit at the piano and ‘plays’ is an indication that that character is ‘in control’ of the drama at that moment – but I really would need to see this again, in every opera of the series, to decide of this is in fact the situation. But my instinct, here and now, is that it is. But the musical scores have not appeared so far – and did not in the last act. Reason? Significance? Perhaps that as Gotterdamerung is imminent, will do no good to look through the score (the ‘book of fate that lays down what will and must happen , in the way that the musical score does – you cannot change the notes.
And so the final act. The use of the not-quite ubiquitous white parachute silk was particularly effective as manipulated by the Rhinemaidens. And here, again, I felt that I gained clarity for a production characteristic – the use of white clothes, often underclothes. The reason I think is that not that it represents purity, but that when characters appear like this they are showing, honestly and unadorned, their true essence and nature. Hence underwear – they are not wearing clothes which are used to help establish the image that a person wishes to establish.
The final scenes -the killing of Siegfried, the funeral march, the Immolation and the final curtain, all completely worked for me with the images on stage completely matching and equalling the musical and dramatic performances. It was a wonderful climax.