Les Troyens: Staatsoper Nuremberg
Oct 15th 2017
This review of the performance is going to be on a larger scale than simply a response to the production as it has taken some time to process – not least, because I feel that much of what I say about the performance is necessarily related to the nature of the work itself.
It is a rare work to be staged – in 40+ years of opera going I have never seen it - but it did seem to me to be pretty static dramatically. It was ‘operatic’ in the sense that characters stop/spend most of their time communicating about their thoughts and feelings and an onward drama of relationships is not a central characteristic of this work – certainly not in Part 1, somewhat in part 2. Very oddly, in this sense, it reminds me of opera seria – a comparison that I suspect has not been made very often, if at all!
The chorus is of vital and central importance – both musically and dramatically - and in Nuremberg they rose magnificently to the demands of the work. They are, in a way I think, the central characters of the drama and their block movement of the staging emphasised this.
Part 1 is dominated by Cassandra and here Roswithe Muller was stunningly superb. It seems to me to be a brute of a part to sing – it manages to be both declamatory and lyrical at the same time – often parts are one or the other – and in that peculiarly demanding and unique French style. This is quite unlike the Germanic tradition where, I think, being able to sing in this style (a considerable and rare accomplishment) does not necessarily mean that one can also manage the German one. This difference is intriguing and I wonder if it is anything to do with the nature of the two languages where, I think, German is much more consonant-heavy, as opposed to the more vowel-strong French. However, going back to the drama, Cassandra is, necessarily, a rather one-note character I terms of dramatic significance; ‘we’re all doomed’ wholly defines her, a bit like an heroic/classical version of Fraser in Dad’s Army. Her lover Chorebe is also a rather static creation dramatically – a foil to her who does not come across as dramatically important. He often seemed rather detached from the action.
Visually this first part was, as suggested, quite static; the performers spent much time at the front of the stage against a white screen with an outline of a horse on it. One review said that this involved the audience more due to their proximity, but I am not convinced. I think that it is difficult given the nature of the work, to make it visually interesting in terms of character.
Part 2, largely because there is the developing relationship between Didon and Aenee, which provides a dramatic focus that the first part did not have in terms of characters, relationships and their developments. Here the stunningly good Mirko Roschkowski really came into his own. He has a wonderfully powerful yet at times plangent voice that is perfectly suited to this unique way of writing for the voice –and his glorious ringing top was completely chest and not head. An amazing sound that cut through everything yet always retained its sweetness even when at full power. A wonderful and thrilling performance.
Katrin Adel as Didon was almost as good; she had the power and the style if not quite the great sweetness that Mirko had. Her character, visually, was interesting and I am still puzzled. Her costume suggested someone rather cheap to be honest. She had a slightly tight, electric blue satin-look two-piece with a short (ish) skirt and blonde back-combed hair. I could not quite get a hold on why this was the case – as with many of the costumes. For example, the chorus were in wholly modern costumes btw for all including intriguing outfits for the chorus in Part 2 with what looked like/recalled hazmat suits. I’m really not sure why. And this was a problem I had with the whole production. I was expecting something different from Bietio and in one sense I was not disappointed. However, unlike other of his productions I have read about (this was my first direct experience of him in the theatre) I did not have the sense of an over-arching idea or concept that held the production together. Surely, in any modern/radical/regie-theatre style production this is utterly essential if it is to succeed and not be an apparently random collection of unusual staging/set/costume details that do not cohere. To be honest, here, I did not feel this. Disappointing.
There were a number of interesting ideas/sights in the production though. The massive wooden construction revealed at the end of Part 1 and the (occasionally revolving) focus in Part two was impressive – but again, what is represented/suggested was not clear. The Hunt was again, interesting with striking masks used but lacked any sense of the physical excitement indicated in the music (which from first to last was superbly performed by the top class orchestra and Marcus Bosch). The wonderful love duet had D and A pouring oil over a naked man at the front of the stage and smearing it on themselves –again baffling and tbh rather pointless; what was b trying to suggest here? Oil/wealth/power – possibly as money bills were often flung around with extravagant gay abandon in Carthage in much of this part.
Aenee’s suicide (rather than abandonment) of Didon was sort of an interesting idea (although utterly impossible dramatically with subsequent events) and the reminders form the ghost of Hector(?) about Aenee needing to fulfil his destiny and found Rome was therefor made nonsensical. But it did give a sort of liebestod idea to the end which, potentially was interesting – but nothing was really made of it, like many other details and aspects of this production.
So, interesting (mostly) but I think its biggest flaw was that it did not do the one thing that any theatrical production in whatever form must do – tell the story clearly and interestingly.