This was a weirdly entertaining operatic mash-up of the three operas that are based on Beaumarchais’s trilogy of plays about Figaro – in dramatic but not compositional order, Rossini and The Barber of Seville, Mozart and The Marriage of Figaro and Milhaud (no, I didn’t know he written this opera or that he had written a total of over 400 works) The Guilty Mother.
This last named, apparently more a psychodrama about the splitting of a family and the effect on the son, Leon, son of the Almaviva’s and dealing with his own split from his girlfriend, was the starting point for the whole enterprise, as Leon has entered a strange psychiatric facility to come to terms with his traumas and the staff of this facility created by Csaba Kantor who only now exists as a hologram and non-physical intelligence. His nature and character reminded me of Prospero in that he controlled his world and the people who lived in it. The staff of this institution take on the roles of characters from Leon’s past and they re-enact key traumatic moments for him which of course is the cue for the excerpts from the Rossini and Mozart.
The stage set is brilliantly surreal in terms of the larger-than-life objects that litter it and the very vivid colour scheme – largely a vivid and virulent yellow, a deep blue and a black. Very striking
In the course of the re-enactments however, the original characters come to life, although acted by institute staff and the traumas, issues and problems that occurred for them in their earlier lives are vividly re-enacted and begin to explain the issues that Leon is having to deal with. When this was happening I felt that we were sharing the drama of those times in the past for real and not just seeing something acted out for the benefit of someone else. In addition, we are also at times reminded that we are in a theatre and watching actions being acted out and not directly experienced.
Part 1 was very involving (it’s a lovely intimate little theatre and the English surtitles in this part were superbly clear) but I felt Part 2 was dramatically flabby and could have benefited from some cutting – I am not sure it was necessary to cover almost every significant action in Barber and Figaro, although I can also see that all the actions were significant, particularly in terms of future trauma and effects. Perhaps it’s a question of concision and style.
The work was unusual in that it seemed to have two endings – one which coincided with the ending of events in Figaro but then we returned to everyone and the lives and relationships of the institute staff then seemed to get blended with what they had bene enacting. I may have missed something here and it may well need a second viewing but it did seem at that stage that the scale they were starting to work on an even bigger meta-theatrical level – and I am not sure the work could bear that. Even the hologramic Institute director was involved – although this was not, on reflection, wildly surprising, given the sort of institute he had created.
But this was a fascinating piece of theatre, perhaps not quite as smart and perceptive as it at times thought it was, but great kudos to the company for going for something as challenging and radical as this.