Bayerisches Staatsoper: Mussourgsky: Boris Godunov

Trailer:

This was a magnificent experience - not least as it falls into an unusual and quite rare category of ‘great operas that I have never seen staged or heard complete.’ Its alwasy thrilling to be able to do this - ad as one gets older, as with books, it becomes rarer and rarer.

I did check up on versions etc etc as I know it has a very complicated history. This was the first/original version (1869) and it is a lean piece of work. There is no fluffery in it, either musically or dramatically and the story is told rapidly. Musically to it seems ro be very distinct. The music seems to follow speech patterns closely with great rhythmical and tonal flexibility and expressive freedom (it reminded me of Janacek in that respect) and there are not really ‘operatic’ constructions but rather a focused telling through music of a thrilling story. Harmonically too there seems to be much use of whole tone scales (if this is right for what I think I heard). This helps to create a very distinct sound-world for the work, not least in the use, of bell-tones sounds and evocations - harsh and cold like the icy blue lighting that was such a visual characteristic of the production (along with, of course, harsh white security-style spotlights. As suggested, the production style and approach and the work seemed to me to be in perfect harmony, Bietio showing that his reputation purely as a schlock/shockhockmeister is a ridiculous simplification. He is someone who understands the works that he produces and does not go against them dramatically in any way (at least as far as the few productions of his that I have seen go). A detail I liked was the beating of the police batons on the security fences outside the cathedral which reflected the tolling of the bells.

The director saw this work very much as a political one and in one sense that made Boris slightly less of a dominant figure. Smooth and sinister Prince Shuisky and the ever-smiling Shchelakov, Clerk of the Duma were the powerful ones, it struck me and this was reflected in their psitioning and visibility at the very end of the opera. Their aims were power and the holiding on to power and they used all who would help the do that - and disposed of those who might thwart it. It was, obviously, modern dress with, in the opening scenes, Russian figures, most recognisably Putin, appearing on the banners although there was not a simplistic matching of Boris = Putin

The chorus played a major role in the drama but they were used by those in power who had wealth and this was established from the opening with the cowd chorus, beggarly dressed, were manipulated by their leaders, raising banners dutifully as instructed by the police and invariably separated from those in power by either fences or rows of armed security paramilitaries. This was the striking opening image of the performance; helmeted anonymous well-armed figues staring out at the audience and controlling the crowds. Even the children (a particularly large contingent) were equally threatening, tormenting the ‘holy fool’ front and centre of stage while the chorus was appealing for alms) near the end and being willing tools of the security forces, with one smilingly killing him at the end of his scene (not in the text but completely in keeping with the mature of this production). I was also intrigued by the limping, almost silent punk figure who appeared throughout - seemingly connected with the authorities but also a ‘part’ of the chorus. Not sure who this was and could not work out from the summary.

Boris was relatively young - a modern politician - and his family were signifcant. i loved the way the his son Fyodor was often on stage in many scenes playing with an inflatable globe which was a neat reminder of the implied global politics of the story and gave it a more international resonance - but while written as a mezzo (trouser) role) was costumed as female…?

The whole world created was a dark and corrupt one, as I have said well reflected in the set (modern/semi-abstract/strictly functional/glass and steel/all straight lines and lighting. At the end the scene in the Duma was violent and rowdy - and earlier on the bribery of the members with envelopes taken from a suitcase gave us a clear view of the sort of world we were in where what mattered was power and its retention.

Thsi was made very clear in the final scene where Boris’s ‘madness’ was very moving and superbly performed - but whedre all the other people on stage - th Prince and Se cretary of the Duma along with members, were just coldly standing back and observing. I did wonder if Boris would actually be killed at the end and, there was a close up of his face in the last moments of the performance where blood on it seemed to suggest this but it was left ambiguous - I think. But during this final scene his wife and two children were killed, showing that his succesors were going to ensure the complete end of ghe family line. It did recall, appropriately, the end oft he Romanovs (who were the dynasty who succeeded, if not immediately, Boris G and his family).

So, excellent quality, illuminating and a thought-provoking production. And very well filmed; the close-up’s were excellently chosen.

Boris GodunowAlexander Tsymbalyuk

Fyodor Yulia Sokolik

Xenia Anna Virovlansky

Xenia's wet nurse Heike Grötzinger

Prince Schuiskij Gerhard Siegel

Andrei Shchelkalov Igor Golovatenko

Pimen Anatoli Kotscherga

Grigory Otrepiev Sergey Skorokhodov

Warlaam Vladimir Matorin

Missail Ulrich Reß

Innkeeper Margarita Nekrasova