Experiencing a Ring cycle (not merely watching – that is too narrow and passive) in the way that I am currently doing, is proving to be a very satisfying and slowly unfolding experience where reactions, thoughts and questions that arise after one episode can often be clarified by the experience of the next – although of course new questions may be added. This is only possible with the sort of Regietheater that this production embodies as various elements are gradually coming into focus – what and why they are there in the production. As this cycle has unfolded I am now at the stage of starting to have a clearer understanding of the overall ‘plan’ and the starting of an awareness of the overriding concepts and beliefs that the director is working with. This is by NO means complete of course and there is much that is still puzzling/irritating etc – but light is I think beginning to dawn.
The piano that is such a central physical image in the production is far less intrusive, for me, than it initially was. The concept of having certain characters ‘play’ it at certain moments is, I think some sort of indication about how their actions at that particular moment are particularly significant and impactful – but I think I need to see to all again, with this idea in mind to see if it ‘checks out’. I am also increasingly sure that the use of the musical scores – when they are picked and looked at by characters – is a related idea, as I suggested at the end of my Walkure remarks – can the characters find out what is going to happen to them by looking at the score. The answer is no, whereas if they can ‘play’ the piano, then that is an indication that they have a degree of control over what is happening. And in this opera, the piano, so obtrusive to me at the start of Rheingold, was often blended/built in almost imperceptibly into the set which was very emphatically ‘suitcase based’ to coin a phrase. I am growing to like these suitcases although am not quite yet at the stage of being able to clearly articulate exactly what they represent and their reason for being there. Interestingly the ‘chorus’ was much less in evidence during this work, except for the Venusberg scenes at the very end of Act 3 – which I thought worked and this began to suggest to me a dramatic role in the telling of the entire sage for this particular feature with singing and acting beibg of equal affectiveness a literal representation of what is indicated in the score.
This work, I felt, was one where all the elements came together most successfully and it was starting to seem like a total organic experience and not one made up of various elements, some of which initially seemed obtrusive/baffling/irritating, as per my remarks about suitcases, musical scores, pianos and refugees. There is a gradual growing coherence to what is seen and enacted on the stage which is very dramatically and intellectually satisfying.
So, Siegfried. And perhaps because I am beginning to see and make sense of all the disparate elements of this production, I found this performance the most satisfying – musically it was superb, as all the previous ones have been, but because I am slowly comprehending the production (at least to my own satisfaction) for this reason the entire experience was more satisfying as there was not that conflict between awe at the musical quality but puzzlement at irritation at aspects of the production.
Alberich (Shanahan) was a significant presence throughout most of the work which makes sense dramatically as he is always in the background, trying to retrieve his stolen goods and his interactions with Mime were dramatically gripping – although I am not convinced by using the Heath Ledger Joker make-up; it seems a bit lazy even though there are common aspects to these characters and having the savage jokery of the Joker as a part of Alberich does give him a new and effective edge. Huang (Mime) was particularly fine with singing and acting being of equal power and effectiveness – and the self-pitying whining of Mime which can be overdone and make one rather anti-Mime was not as major a part of the portrayal as it often is – and so that portrayal was all the more powerful and effective. There was a greater seriousness in his maliciousness which made the character more dramatically engaging. Iain Paterson was a very fine Wotan – everything that the part demanded vocally and with a strong stage presence. The grimmer aspects of his character came out well too, particularly with his treatment of Erda – and the idea that he sent Erda back to eternal sleep as he killed her was darkly effective –and Kutasi was as superbly dark-toned and powerful as in Rheingold. Vocally the best performance must have been Clay Hilley as Siegfried – a superb powerful, unforced voice with if not absolute ease, certainly unforced comfort at the top of his range. And he also embodied Siegfried managing to convey his heroic stature as well as his pettiness – often I have found it is one of these two aspects that seem to be stressed in performances but here there was a very convincing balance of the two elements. Stemme was more than up to the demands of the final scene and again, the acting, physical interactions and responses of the two characters was superbly done – wonderfully directed so that the occasionally ridiculous aspects of what they say and do was acceptable (although ‘das ist kein mann’ did get a knowing titter from the audience!). Siegfried’s naivety and childishness can sometimes (often?) be difficult to be conveyed in this scene but here it was very finely done due to the very thoughtful and sensitive direction; their body languages were superb.
In terms of the production and what we saw on the stage, as indicated, this opera seemed to get everything pretty much if not absolutely right (is that ever going to be possible?) as dramatically plausible and convincing. The Act 1 climax with the swollen globe above and behind Siegfried was magnificent and the forging worked pretty well – again, like the Valkyries scene at the opening of Act 3, almost impossible to do wholly convincingly, realistically or otherwise but here it worked well enough. This globe also brought a significantly important element tom the forefront, that of the cosmic significance of what was unfolding and it being a lot more than the story of individuals. And I think for this reason, the use of the white-garbed chorus figures towards the end of Act 3 and the climax of the duet with the scenes and actions that turned the stage into a Venusberg were effective and convincing.
Other aspects –the dragon, the travelling up the mountain by Siegfried were again all very well and effectively done and I am really beginning to have much more of a sense of the overriding vision of Herheim’s concepts for this work – although whether I can yet fully articulate them, of course is another matter.
Finally, mention must be made of the Woodbird, MOST impressively played by a children’s choir member. He was dramatically important – and practically too, having to deal with the billowing parachute silk materials at one stage. Nice too to see him at the final curtain calls even though it must have been well past the performer’s bedtime!
So, the final part shortly (it’s mid- Sunday morning as I write this) and I am much more confident that by the end I will have the beginnings of a decent understanding of the views and concepts of Herheim – I might then even try and read the interviews he gave for the programme!