Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail. Komische Oper, Berlin
April 28th 2018
So, regietheater (direotor’s theatre). – This begins it seems to me, with a concept or idea about what the work to be performed in this way is essentially or importantly about. Critics say that it is externally imposed and often does not come from the innate nature and subject of the work itself. This is often shown by changing the setting of the work – like Miller did with Rigoletto by taking it from 16th C Mantua and relocating it to Mafia-run Little Italy, NYC in the mid 20th C. This puts a work in an historical and location-specific setting in a different one but which not only, if it works, deals with the essential themes and ideas in the work but also can relate more closely to the beliefs and experiences of the modern audience, allowing them to see modern parallels. Critics say that at times the ideas revealed by this e.g. sexism/racism/gender issues etc etc are not there in the original work and so by doing this, the director is not being true to the original spirit of the work. I disagree as this approach can, if well and thoughtfully done, can shed new light on works that might be taken for granted, can provoke thought and debate amongst the audience. And not just because of specific actions seen on stage - although these are often the only aspect that are referenced and criticised…and invariably in isolation rather than as a part of the bigger picture.
So with Calixto Bieito’s (CB) take on Seraglio. The traditional story and setting is as follows; two Western women Constanze (significant name!) and her maid Blonde have bene captured and placed in the harem of a Turkish Pasha, under the eye of his overseer, Osmin. Ironically, given that historically eunuchs would be in that role, the fact that this role is one that has the lowest tessitura in almost all opera is amusingly ironical! Their two lovers, Belmonte and Pedrillo get into the harem in disguise but when attempting to escape are caught and death looms over them. However, the Pasha magnanimously pardons them, thus embodying, wholly historically unrealistically I suspect, the qualities of an enlightened ruler of mid 18th Century Western Europe such as for whom the work was originally written and who would be important audience members – Mozart knew how to ‘play the game’ and flatter his sponsors!
The music makes much use of the popular characteristics of exotic ‘oriental’ music that was very popular at the time with much percussion use. Mozart’s Turkish Rondo for piano is in the same tradition. Its very much a Western ear’s belief in what ‘exotic eastern’ music would sound like – an early example of western orientalism, so fascinatingly explored in Edward Said’s classic book.
In a more traditional approach – setting it in the environment indicated in the libretto a major emphasis would be on the singing as the roles are particularly demanding. Osmin’s part has a great vocal range, Constanze has multitudinous technical demands, most spectacularly in the vast aria Marten aller Arten,(of which more later) and Belmonte with sweet-toned floridity demanded in many arias. This reflects the time and way it was written with specific singers in certain roles for whom the composer was expected to write material that would show off their prowess. It also seems that the singing was what the vast majority of the audience would go to the opera for – the ‘canary fancier’ approach to opera, which is still popular today.
Bieito’s approach, like that of any regietheater director, was to look at what he saw as the essence of the opera. In his eyes, it is the story of women kept against their will in a strongly sexual, controlled and manipulative environment, where they are regarded merely as sexual playthings and expected to want to give themselves to their captors. I’m sure I don’t need to point out modern parallels – although specific reference to precise modern events were not made which resulted in the impact being greater. I think that this can often be a drawback of regietheater style where in the modern updating, very specific events and situations are referenced. I feel this is rather lazy.
By doing this I think that CB took the work very seriously.
So enough on the background; now the performance and production. CB set this in a modern brothel with the Pasha as the owner/manager/pimp and Osmin as his ‘enforcer’. When I entered the auditorium the stage picture as shown below and parts of the stage and auditorium were lit with pretty ‘trad feminine’ pink, thus giving us a sense of the most important aspect of this work that CB was planning to explore. The fact that part of where the audience were sitting was also a part of this colour scheme and at places in the performance the stage lights were also trained on the audience) had the slightly disturbing effect of making us be and perhaps feel complicit to what was happening on stage. The transparent boxes (which were on a revolve) were the rooms of the brothel’s inhabitants, many kitted out as one would expect and there was also a shower. At the front of the stage were two boxes which had inhabitants in them a la Amsterdam red light district and they were a constant and unvarying reminder of where we were. Hardly needs mentioning that this was also an effective way of showing women trapped/objectified….
However before continuing with comments on the productions, must comment purely on the vocal performances. Nicole Chevalier (Constanze) had a richly flexible and quite large voice that coped comfortably with the vocal pyrotechnics. Marten aller Arten held no terrors for her even with what she had to do and view while performing it. Nora Friedrichs as Blonde was equally effective and not the usual piping soubrette that we often get in this part; she contrasted effectively with Constanze. Jens Larsen was a fine Osmin although he did lack the fruity resonance of the lowest notes in the part – although there are few singers who have truly got that. Adrian Strooper and Johannes Dunz as Belmonte and Pedrillo respectively were both sweet-toned and coped with impeccably with the technical demands. What must also be stressed here is given the often extreme demands of what they had to do on stage while singing, the vocal performances were not in any way compromised - which can happen.
The orchestra under Ivo Hentschl was excellent – there was an edge to the performance with sharp phrasing and articulation so that the rhythmic and dramatic drive was sustained. No flabbily pretty Mozart here.
So production. I find that regietheatre either does or does not work –and for me this definitely did. What we saw I felt worked with the music and added to it. The worst kind of production is where the drama and the music and the staging are at odds with one another – from minor anachronisms to a complete misinterpretation of a work by imposing a totally wrong and alien ‘concept’ on the work. Unfortunately, many people think that by not showing the time period in which the work was set (to take it at its simplest) one is automatically doing wrong.
The production was characterised by constant and often extreme physical and sexual violence inflicted by and on all – and often very explicit. At the back of the stage there was a running bi-lingual word display (English and German) of a range of extreme sexual acts and above the display boxes at the front of the stage a similar device designed as a reminder that the abusively sexual environment depicted was inescapable.
The Pasha embodied the manipulative power of the worst of men and their relationships with women. He wants C to give herself willingly to him. On her first appearance she is wheeled in in a covered metal cage (where actually she spends a good proportion of her time on stage) from which the Pasha triumphantly whips the covering and pulls C out by a leather lead around her neck. While she is singing her first aria, he is constantly pulling upon this and advancing threateningly and upon her. Here the coloratura becomes an expression of her fear and terror – near hysteria thus showing how the director’s ideas and the nature of the music work effectively together. This was most effectively shown in the staging of the ‘drinking duet’ Vivat Bacchus (Pedrillo and Osmin) and Marten aller Arten (Constanze) of which more later. This was also intriguingly shown in the love arias of Belmonte where his traditional expressions of love and desire for C gain a somewhat darker tinge. Given the situation and setting we are in, suddenly the romantic protestations about how much he desires and misses have a rather darker element – a sense of power dynamics was expressed which in a traditional production would not have been there. Some might argue that that is because they are not there in the words and music anyway but in this context, I think that this idea worked and it made at least a suggestion about the situation – is what he is saying really so lovely and innocent? This also gives us an ironically dramatic contrast between the musical expression and the emotions expressed through the words and the actions on stage. Does Belmonte in fact want a similar one-sided relationship with C such as Pasha is demanding? The Romanze that he sings gains a somewhat cloying quality in this case and the sense that he is rescuing C as much if not more for himself and his pleasure and her gratitude cannot be avoided I think.
There were two scenes where I think the effectiveness of this production were best shown – the Bachus duet and Marten aller Arten.
The Bacchus duet in the ‘original’ is a comic one between Pedrillo and Osmin. The teetotal Muslim Osmin is introduced to wine by Pedrillo and made drunk in order to facilitate the escape from the harem. The music is a patter duet, ostensibly very light in tone and style and I have seen it very amusingly staged in this way. Here however it has a much darker tone. Osmin as Muslim is not ‘the thing’ and we see him drinking right from the start. In this interpretation, the duet becomes a dangerous battle between the two with Osmin amusing himself by blindly and drunkenly firing a gun at Pedrillo and eventually wounding him in the leg. Pedrillo is at this stage working at the brothel and so the power dynamics between the two are not equal at all. Osmin has a zestful joy in the violence and terror he is inflicting and the patter music effectively conveys this. For Pedrillo on the other hand, this patter music is reflective of his terror – and yet he is trying to humour Osmin at the same time. I greatly admired the way CB managed to see these two elements in the same music and so cleverly demonstrated it on stage. This zestful joy in inflicting violence, Tarantino-style, characterises Osmin from the very start and early on, we see him joyously dancing around as he inflicts punishment on a brothel inhabitant.
Marten aller Arten, in which C defies the threats of the Pasha to make her succumb to him was brutally effective (it was this scene which prompted at least one walk-out from an audience member a couple of rows in front of me and I also heard the slamming of box doors as others obviously left). In this staging instead of being solo on stage and defying the Pasha in absentia as indicated in the libretto, she had been pulled out of her cage and was physically held by the Pasha while Osmin very brutally tortured a brothel member in front of her. This was horribly sustained as the aria has a notoriously long mini-concerto introduction, which, if traditionally staged, is always problematic…as to what C actually does during that lengthy introduction; there is a limit as to the number of times you can aggressively stride up and down the stage before you vocally express yourself. Here her defiance becomes almost meaningless and a reflection of her increasingly unstable state of mind. Here she sees what will happen to her if she does not succumb.
The ending was stunning. Instead of the enlightened forgiveness of the original libretto, there was a bloodbath; Pedrillo and Belmonte killed the Pasha and Osmin and then they took over the brothel – as they had been so twisted and corrupted by what they had seen that that seemed to be the natural thing to do. The triumphant chorus with which the work ends then became a chorus celebrating the new owner. However the most shocking element (and this is one which in terms of justifying by the actions of the libretto can be tricky) was C’s suicide in the final moments. This made sense in this productions terms as she was becoming visibly more unhinged as the action progressed and by the end is so damaged and traumatised that this seems to be the only way out.
This has been a long review/series of comments. I hope I might have managed to convey why I thought it worked but would love to hear comments and thoughts – both about the substance of what I say and, if necessary, writing style.