Time for the first 2015 installment in the occasional mash-up of SNLC with the opera series started by DK'er Demi Moaned, since appropriated by self. Thus, the standard start-up question for this diary:
Anyone see the Metropolitan Opera HD-cast of The Merry Widow today?
This is another comparatively infrequent opportunity to discuss comedy, and romantic comedy at that, or at least a "lighter" work on the opera stage. However, it must be said that the mash-up here has more relevance than usual, because of the mixed reviews that this production has received, at least one evening of technical mishaps prior to this afternoon’s performance, and the success rate, or lack thereof, of recent work by this production’s director. In addition, self was wondering, given one particular aspect of the mixed reviews, whether this production would work better on the movie screen than in the house. So why would 3CM bother to see this one? Well…..
The answer to that last question will come in the tip jar. But starting with 3CM’s usual formula for these diaries, a few review links to start the proceedings, for once not including the Columbia Spectator (but then the students there were on winter break lately):
(a) Anthony Tommasini, NYT
(b) Martin Bernheimer, Financial Times
The Met’s synopsis of Franz Lehar’s operetta is at this link. It must be first noted that this 'romcom' plot is set in…Paris. Now, there’s nothing in the story that lends itself to comment or reference on recent events, except perhaps the general idea of a Balkan nation on the verge of bankruptcy. Nor does the production or any of its performers do so, at least during this HD-cast. But it’s hard not to imagine that everyone on stage had thoughts of current Paris in the back of their heads, especially in Act I when Baron Zirko (Sir Thomas Allen) proposes a toast to the crowd, celebrating the friendship between France and the fictional nation of Pontevedro, which he represents as part of its diplomatic corps. That is, the cast might be pondering current events, when they aren’t simply trying to sing their notes, remember their dialogue (of which there is a lot), or hit their marks. Perhaps the deeply buried subtext here, regarding this production as a whole, is a message from the Met overseas to say, not "Je suis Charlie", but rather "We <3 Paris".
In fact, the dialogue was the focal point for Tommasini’s main criticism of this production. In advance of the opening night for this show, Zachary Woolfe had this article which mentioned the dialogue aspect of the show, in comparison to another classic operetta that the Met had done fairly last season, Johann Strauss II's Die Fledermaus:
'But [last season's Die Fledermaus] sagged under a flood of expository dialogue and jokes that didn't always hit their targets in the cavernous house. “What I've learned is, the less dialogue the better," [Met Opera General Manager Peter] Gelb said. "The Met is built for opera singing, not for spoken lines."'
But Tommasini commented, in what for him is a case of harsh criticism of anything Met Opera-related, after quoting that remark by Gelb in his own review:
"Exactly. At 3,800 seats, the house is a cavernous place for a genre that relies on dialogue. And if anything, Die Fledermaus is actually a better fit than The Merry Widow, a more intimate, soft-spoken piece. To make an operetta like this work in a house the size of the Met, compromises are required. It should not be surprising that the result seems compromised……
To make the spoken words audible, the singers wear body microphones throughout, though only the dialogue is amplified, not the singing. But the words were still hard to catch. The house is just too big for dialogue. And, despite what Mr. Gelb says he has learned, there is still too much of it in this show."
But what I was anticipating today was that the nature of movies and the HD-casts would compensate for the cavernousness of the house space, because of a certain "flattening effect" that is the nature of electronic sound transmission. Since people in the movie houses are, of course, not in the actual opera house, by obvious default, the sound has to be transmitted via some sort of technological medium. That medium allows voices of different volumes to be equalized, or made less inequitable, in transmitting the performance to ‘outsiders’. In other words, someone who might have a relatively 'small' sound in the house can be 'boosted' in the transmission to be more of a match for singers with bigger voices. Likewise, with the dialogue, that inherent discrepancy between the sound volumes of opera singing and spoken dialogue can more easily be balanced for a movie-going audience. Every word of dialogue came through crystal-clear in the movie house. It seems pretty unlikely that this was the case in the house itself (unless someone who was actually there in NYC today can comment otherwise).
There is indeed a lot of dialogue in this show, so that it really does have the feel of a musical more than once, compared to the general nature of opera. But then, operettas have always had more dialogue, and really are the progenitors to musicals. Tommasini even summarizes that "this show never really lifts off the ground", which is as close to Bernheimer's full throttle venom and snark as Tommasini has ever gotten, certainly with respect to criticizing the Met or Peter Gelb, as AT generally is not a snarky type. (Perhaps the tarnishing of Gelb's image in light of the contentious labor negotiations last year has given AT more mental license to be a tad more willing to criticize Gelb, if subtly.) Bernheimer has no such reservations about his dislike of this production, which he pretty much dismisses as overproduced, in a word, not even bothering to concern himself with the issue of amplified dialogue. In Act III, set at Maxim’s, with the grisettes can-caning (complete with stereotypical shouts, timed to the music), I can actually see Bernheimer’s point about Stroman trying perhaps a bit too hard to tell the audience "hey, look at us, we're having fun; aren't you having fun watching this?" (BTW, the technical glitch night was noted at WQXR’s Operavore blog here, and turned out to be in Act III.)
Yet with time, I think, things seemed less tentative than what Tommasini reported from opening night. We are now 2.5 weeks into its run, after all, so that there’s been time for the performers to get more comfortable, and perhaps for director Susan Stroman and the cast to tweak details and iron out some rough spots. IMHO, Bernheimer’s characterization of the production as pretty much “over-everything” only grated on me at the start of Act III. And while both critics throw a brickbat or two at Jeremy Sams’ English translation (for some understandable reasons, at some moments, e.g. "chanteuses" and "floozies", besides some other PG-13-ish double entendres), I will give Sams credit for one skillful translation of one particular number, the Act II septet with Danilo (the romantic lead), Baron Zirko, and other Pontevedrian menfolk, basically singing "What is it about women?" in the number that begins, in German, "Wie die Weiber man behandelt", but given here as "Who can tell what the hell women are?". In German, one refrain has the men singing "Weib, Weib, Weib, Weib!" in quick succession. One English translation renders that passage as "Girls, Girls, Girls, Girls!", which makes sense on its own and fits the monosyllabic, repeating pattern. Sams, however, manages to avoid repetition completely in that line, in what seems like a nod to the song "A Hymn to Him" (the line "Why can’t a women / be more like a man?") from Lerner and Loewe’s My Fair Lady, where he has the men sing a line that roughly goes (working from memory; couldn’t write it down): "[Why can't they] – Be - More – Like – Us?" You can hear a bit of it from the dress rehearsal here:
But overall, perhaps because of subliminally diminished expectations from seeing the reviews in advance, I actually rather enjoyed this production overall, on the level of good semi-clean fun. Strong singing overall, and pretty good delivery of the dialogue, not to mention impressive dancing (even if, yes, the stage business was a touch OTT at Maxim’s). It's interesting to read, in all the comments, about how this is something of a "late-career" vehicle for Renée Fleming, the Hanna Glawari in this production:
Woolfe: "This Merry Widow had its genesis as a vehicle for Ms. Fleming. 'Renée, who is winding down her operatic career, wanted to do it,' Mr. Gelb said in a phone interview. 'And it seemed like the right time and the right place.'"
Tommasini: "Hanna is a good role for Ms. Fleming at a time when she is beginning to phase out her work in opera. She wants to leave the opera stage at the top; she looked and sounded lovely."
Bernheimer: "It served as a twilight vehicle for a glam veteran, Renée Fleming, en route to Broadway fame and, perhaps, fortune."
At the risk of self showing a lack of couth, RF does turn 56 this year. She looks great, but that is admittedly with the knowledge of her age. So it makes sense that she wants to start "phasing out" from opera at this time, as she certainly won’t lack for other kinds of work post-singing.
Baritone Nathan Gunn is in his mid-40s, and is perhaps past the "barihunk" stage of his career in terms of looks. His appearance at times reminded me a bit of another famous stage Nathan, namely Lane. But NG sounds terrific, and clearly was having a good time with the role. Both he and RF made that point in the intermission banter with hostess Joyce Di Donato (though obviously they’re never going to say that they’re not having fun). But they did address Tommasini's point, obliquely, about the dialogue, saying that this was probably the biggest challenge of this production in a house the size of the Met. They also alluded to learning their dance moves, and how well Stroman worked with them on the dance aspect of things.
Another aspect of this production that the NYT writers focused on was the "Broadway meets opera" collision, in having a noted Broadway director and choreographer, Stroman, directing this production, and one of Broadway's leading actresses, Kelli O’Hara, in the seconda donna (in Bernheimer’s snarky phrase) role of Valencienne. I’ve not yet seen O'Hara live, but all the reports rave about how great she is. Based on this performance, I can believe it. Even with the subliminal thought that perhaps the sound engineers tuned her performance to movie houses to be on par with Fleming, O'Hara more than held her own with RF in terms of stage presence, and in terms of vocal quality, has a very nice voice. O'Hara did have opera training in college, but obviously went in another direction in terms of a career, away from classical genres. Plus, if nothing else, having her image magnified on a movie screen enhances her eye-candy factor, which is already considerable. It also adds to the effect in her scenes with tenor Alek Shrader, as Camille de Rosillon, where her whole body says "OMG, I really want him, but I can't, because I’m married". (Lucky guy to be that close to her.) Shrader does fine as Camille, although the role is perhaps less show-offy compared to other tenor roles, certainly in the Italian bel canto work that Shrader is particularly known for (e.g. the famous aria from The Daughter of the Regiment with nine high C's – you can look it up on YT).
The Met Orchestra sounded just fine, as usual, in the pit, with Sir Andrew Davis guiding the proceedings. I’ve heard that he can be an arrogant pill at times with orchestras (which admittedly is par for conductors, so no surprise there), and I didn't see much bow-tapping from the musicians at his entrance just before Act II. But he definitely knows his stuff, and got terrific playing, with discreet showcasing of the harp in particular, as composer Franz Lehar does seem to like to feature the harp in his waltz passages (witness the main theme of a separate work, his most famous waltz, "Gold and Silver".) and speaking of the British contingent, it's nice to see Sir Thomas Allen, at age 70, holding his own with the youngsters in the cast.
On one point pre-flip, I mentioned a lack of recent success in the work of this production’s director. This is what that refers to, from Woolfe's article:
"Ms. Stroman's Met debut arrives at a sensitive moment in her career. Since her blockbuster staging of The Producers closed in 2007, she has failed to score another critical and popular success in New York. Her most recent Broadway production, Bullets Over Broadway, an adaptation of the Woody Allen film, received largely negative reviews and closed in August after just 156 performances. (Ms. Stroman said her newest musical, Little Dancer, with a book and lyrics by Lynn Ahrens and music by Stephen Flaherty, will travel this summer to the Ahmanson Theater in Los Angeles after receiving a mixed reaction at the Kennedy Center in Washington this fall.)"
Not having a hit, or at least a modest success, in 7-8 years is a bit unfortunate, especially given Stroman's strong reputation on Broadway. Based on the mixed reviews, it’s not certain whether this Met production has boosted her stock. It hasn't necessarily hurt, given that individual operas have limited runs by design anyway. And no one hits a home run all the time, of course. How she’ll do with rest of this run, and how her new show goes, who’s to say.
But if nothing else, this show seems to be a crowd-pleaser, and the house seemed reasonably full from glancing at the shots of the audience at the Met today. The movie house was certainly full for this HD-cast, which kind of surprised me, since I thought that the audience had tailed off in recent years for the Met HD-casts, at least in this area. Or perhaps people were in romcom mood. Woolfe had this passage about operetta in general from his article:
"The work’s librettist, Victor Léon, wrote that operetta 'is not caviar for the people. Its purpose is to serve as entertainment, pur et simple.' The genre, characterized by its cheerful stories, catchy tunes and spoken dialogue, is committed above all to pleasing."
Fair enough. With that, you can now either:
1. Talk about today’s HD-cast, or
2. Observe the standard SNLC protocol.
No reason you can’t do both, of course, if you so wish ;) .