Opera review: Eugene Onegin (2013)
Pyotr Tchaikovsky (1879)
The Metropolitan Opera: Live in HD
In Russian with English subtitles
A good opera critic would not let personal feelings get in the way of her review. Good thing I'm not a good critic.
I was surprised to hear one of between-acts interviewees (if I recall right, the conductor Valery Gergiev), describe Tchaikovsky's music as not sentimental. There is a meaning of the word, however, that has to do with excess and extravagance, and there I absolutely agree with him. Eugene Onegin is a quiet opera, nothing like the extremes of Verdi, and the best productions of EO understand that. This is a best production.
One person dies in the storyline, but the opera goes on. It is hard to say if there is a hero character, but there is most certainly a heroine. The harsh, even violent, contrast between realism and fantasy is a fine line in Eugene Onegin, and amazingly, this new production by Deborah Warner is right on target. I say "amazingly"; well, being mostly dialogue, EO is infamously difficult to stage. I have tried before to watch the previous Met performance, starring Dmitri Hvorostovsky and Renee Fleming. That left me extremely bored (not a good thing when you are watching the opera of your favorite book, sung by your favorite baritone).
This production is quite different. It was surprisingly Wagnerian, the way it kept moving. The entire beginning of the opera was particularly well-done, with the overture, quartet, and chorus pieces all blended together into one, actually good intro. There was no carousel of set transformations, but it wasn't woefully minimalist, either. Instead, the costumes were tasteful, the props were lovely, and every moment was intensely choreographed. It was like a movie (better than the movie). It was one of the least "stagey" operas or opera clips I've seen, and it managed to be cinematic without giving up the integrity and artistry of the music.
A few more thoughts on the production... I'd had doubts about the Anna Karenina-esque setting, but it did not detract from the story. Admittedly, it fit into Tchaikovsky's music very well. Tatyana herself was also wonderfully scripted, as her noble-hearted, unoperatic self. The seconds of silence at the end were perfection - no flailing or crying, but absolute deliberation, just perfect. (Proof: the audience was remarkably quiet, too.)
In short, I left the theater, as another blogger put it, "emotionally drained." Literally. It deeply moved me and stuck with me for days. It was that feeling you get when you read the book for the first time. It was that good.
Between acts they played an ad for next year's Werther. Maybe I will go (because Jonas Kaufmann). Yet the irony is Eugene Onegin is great because it's not Werther. EO is so diametrically opposite that it has no character substantially like him, not Onegin and not even Lensky. Onegin is vastly more endearing than Werther, despite his faults. I guess that is why Werther must remain in the Romantic Era, and Eugene Onegin, though equally poetic and Byronic, has stayed relevant.
***
Going out on a limb now - there is a particular issue with these Live in HD screenings I just wanted to mention. For those of you who have attended these Live in HD shows, what are your thoughts on the following? Am I just reading into it too much?
In both this and last December's Un Ballo, at least one of the between-acts interviews with the major leads unfolded rather awkwardly. What happens is that as soon as an act is over - literally minutes after stepping off-stage - the singer is expected to answer questions to the international audience of Live in HD viewers. This strikes me as somewhat unreasonable. It is no wonder that after an emotional closing scene, the singer comes into the interview a bit dazed, the Live in HD hostess is put in an awkward situation, and the interview is not very flattering to either of them. (Again, this is not the case with every singer interviewed, but this has certainly occurred once at both live screenings.)
It might be better if the interviews were prerecorded, instead of conducted live. In that way, the singer has time to consider the question, and neither s/he nor the hostess is put on the spot. Live interaction with the audience could then be omitted, or limited to a simple greeting that is much more manageable for all concerned... Just an idea. :)
Pyotr Tchaikovsky (1879)
The Metropolitan Opera: Live in HD
In Russian with English subtitles
A good opera critic would not let personal feelings get in the way of her review. Good thing I'm not a good critic.
I was surprised to hear one of between-acts interviewees (if I recall right, the conductor Valery Gergiev), describe Tchaikovsky's music as not sentimental. There is a meaning of the word, however, that has to do with excess and extravagance, and there I absolutely agree with him. Eugene Onegin is a quiet opera, nothing like the extremes of Verdi, and the best productions of EO understand that. This is a best production.
One person dies in the storyline, but the opera goes on. It is hard to say if there is a hero character, but there is most certainly a heroine. The harsh, even violent, contrast between realism and fantasy is a fine line in Eugene Onegin, and amazingly, this new production by Deborah Warner is right on target. I say "amazingly"; well, being mostly dialogue, EO is infamously difficult to stage. I have tried before to watch the previous Met performance, starring Dmitri Hvorostovsky and Renee Fleming. That left me extremely bored (not a good thing when you are watching the opera of your favorite book, sung by your favorite baritone).
This production is quite different. It was surprisingly Wagnerian, the way it kept moving. The entire beginning of the opera was particularly well-done, with the overture, quartet, and chorus pieces all blended together into one, actually good intro. There was no carousel of set transformations, but it wasn't woefully minimalist, either. Instead, the costumes were tasteful, the props were lovely, and every moment was intensely choreographed. It was like a movie (better than the movie). It was one of the least "stagey" operas or opera clips I've seen, and it managed to be cinematic without giving up the integrity and artistry of the music.
- Anna Netrebko. I first heard of her some years back, when she collaborated with violinist Joshua Bell. I don't listen to sopranos generally, but here it became suddenly clear that casting Tatyana is the most important thing - it is her story, anyways. Netrebko's singing sounded very heartfelt; she was invested in the role, which you don't see all the time. She also looked the part, easily portraying Tatyana at both stages of her life. Five stars just for her.
- Some were disappointed Hvorostovsky was not cast as Onegin (which part, opposite Netrebko, he sang in Vienna this spring). To be honest, I think Mariusz Kwiecień is better in this particular role. Like Tatyana, Onegin has an emotional, vulnerable side - he's only supposed to be twenty-six. Kwiecień looks much older, but in my book, he aced the character and matched Netrebko's portrayal very effectively in terms of stage presence. His voice is gold, and in this performance he was totally charming, callous, and tragic...in a word, Onegin.
- Lensky (Piotr Beczala) and Olga (Oksana Volkova) were both excellent. For some, Lensky's aria was the highlight of the show. I thought he sang it beautifully, but something about the set/costumes was a little off (maybe anti-climactic?).
- The whole cast was very good; I was especially impressed by the performances from Elena Zaremba (Mrs. Larina) and Larissa Diadkova (Tatyana's nurse).
A few more thoughts on the production... I'd had doubts about the Anna Karenina-esque setting, but it did not detract from the story. Admittedly, it fit into Tchaikovsky's music very well. Tatyana herself was also wonderfully scripted, as her noble-hearted, unoperatic self. The seconds of silence at the end were perfection - no flailing or crying, but absolute deliberation, just perfect. (Proof: the audience was remarkably quiet, too.)
In short, I left the theater, as another blogger put it, "emotionally drained." Literally. It deeply moved me and stuck with me for days. It was that feeling you get when you read the book for the first time. It was that good.
Between acts they played an ad for next year's Werther. Maybe I will go (because Jonas Kaufmann). Yet the irony is Eugene Onegin is great because it's not Werther. EO is so diametrically opposite that it has no character substantially like him, not Onegin and not even Lensky. Onegin is vastly more endearing than Werther, despite his faults. I guess that is why Werther must remain in the Romantic Era, and Eugene Onegin, though equally poetic and Byronic, has stayed relevant.
***
Going out on a limb now - there is a particular issue with these Live in HD screenings I just wanted to mention. For those of you who have attended these Live in HD shows, what are your thoughts on the following? Am I just reading into it too much?
In both this and last December's Un Ballo, at least one of the between-acts interviews with the major leads unfolded rather awkwardly. What happens is that as soon as an act is over - literally minutes after stepping off-stage - the singer is expected to answer questions to the international audience of Live in HD viewers. This strikes me as somewhat unreasonable. It is no wonder that after an emotional closing scene, the singer comes into the interview a bit dazed, the Live in HD hostess is put in an awkward situation, and the interview is not very flattering to either of them. (Again, this is not the case with every singer interviewed, but this has certainly occurred once at both live screenings.)
It might be better if the interviews were prerecorded, instead of conducted live. In that way, the singer has time to consider the question, and neither s/he nor the hostess is put on the spot. Live interaction with the audience could then be omitted, or limited to a simple greeting that is much more manageable for all concerned... Just an idea. :)
