• Mikado – Scottish Opera – Review – ***

    Rating: ★★★☆☆

    This review appeared first on Opera Britannia

    There’s a lot to like about this new production of The Mikado but unfortunately there’s quite a lot about it to cause concern too. There seems little doubt that it will bring in the crowds throughout a relatively long tour which goes to Belfast, Newcastle, Bristol and Southampton as well as Scottish Opera’s usual venues. With any luck, it might bed in fairly soon and be ready for most of those who see it.

    Let us focus on the positives first. This is a stunningly designed show. Designer Dick Bird has pulled off a show which instantly looks alive and vibrant. Quite where we were is something that I never managed to work out. That Japan might be one of the possibilities should not be surprising. However, the ladies of the chorus were wearing some rather splendid Victorian bloomers under their kimonos, whilst their gentlemen counterparts appeared to have escaped from a cross-dressing themed Busby Berkley musical that never got made. We sometimes seemed to be a the end of Victorian pier but it was a bit of a surprise when the Mikado himself arrived on a naval ship that looked like it was out to catch the Pirates of Penzance.

    However, let us be postmodern about this. The costumes and the set were executed with considerable aplomb. The sheer vibrancy of the colours on stage seeming to cock a snook at anyone who fondly thinks of Jonathan Miller’s much more washed-out Mikado of lasting ENO success.

    There was quite a lot of stage business going on at the beginning during the overture. Ko-Ko appeared ready to do a magic trick, cutting an apparent volunteer from the audience into pieces. The subsequently dismembered head, when the trick went wrong, then joining many others sitting on platters who introduced themselves as the Gentlemen of Japan. It was clever and as a bonus distracted considerably from a rather lumpy overture, taken (like a lot of the evening) at a rather turgid pace. However, once we’d got over the notion that the Gentlemen of Japan were all decapitated heads who had retained the ability to sing, they just disappeared along with the idea of Ko-Ko’s magic tricks. It was symptomatic of ideas being presented visually extremely well but which didn’t really feel as though they had been carried through to their logical conclusion.

    There’s quite a lot to like about the singing. Nicholas Sherratt had a gentle take on Nanki-Poo – a lyrical performance which did him credit. Rebecca Bottone’s Yum-Yum matched him well. There was an effortlessness about their duets which was very pleasing. The three little maids from school were completed with Sioned Gewn Davies’s Pitti-Sing and Emma Kerr’s Peep-Bo. Ms Davies’s voice was perhaps just a little too strong to blend well with Ms Bottone but the three of them looked the part and had lots of energy.

    Andrew Shore’s Pooh Bah was deliciously pompous. His voice was deliciously rich too. Ben McAteer, fresh from Scottish Opera’s stunning recent new commission The Devil Inside, demonstrated that he could hold his own in a very different genre. Here he was an absurdly camp comic Pish-Tush who was considerably more funny than most absurdly camp comic turns usually are. The Mikado himself, Stephen Richardson had a magisterial richness in his singing and when he tried to tell us that the punishment must fit the crime, he did so in a stately and very courtly manner.

    Generally speaking it was a vocally strong cast. Only Rebecca de Pont Davies gave cause for concern. Though her Katisha was brilliantly alarming, she was struggling again and again to keep the lower notes of her register in tune and one had to rely on the surtitles far more often than should have been necessary.

    By a long way, the figure on stage with the greatest experience of Gilbert and Sullivan was Richard Suart as Ko-Ko and that experience showed. He used plenty of rubato to play around with his lines which added interesting character to the singing. The Little List was magnificently rewritten and was laugh-out-loud funny. A particularly good joke about the Prime Minister’s pig-gate fiasco was made all the more funny for me as I seemed to be sitting next to the only person in the theatre who didn’t get it and didn’t find it amusing at all.

    The use of a ventriloquist’s dummy in the shape of a crow during Tit Willow was utterly inspired.

    The only thing that jarred about Suart’s performance was his spoken accent which seemed to be cockney with a side order of Australian strine. It was also not the only odd accent on the stage, Yum-Yum sounded terribly strangulated when she was speaking though beautifully fluid when singing. And I didn’t like Nanki-Poo’s “home counties with a slight speech impediment” accent all. Fortunately, neither did Nicholas Sherratt, as he dropped it more and more as the evening went on.

    The odd accents and the strange lurches from one genre to another (Katisha arrived on The Great Wave off Kanagawa but ended up chasing Ko-Ko through some kind of horror movie) meant that one was never sure where one was. Indeed, I realised about half way through that I’d not heard such strange and inconsistent accents on an opera stage since the last time Scottish Opera put on a Savoy Opera – Pirates of Penzance with the same director Martin Lloyd-Evans two years ago. Perhaps they are his trademark but they added nothing constructive to the show.

    Down in the pit, slapdash work was being made of Sullivan’s score. Conductor Derek Clark was very obviously struggling to keep the singers and the orchestra together. This was particularly so during “To Sit In Solemn Silence in A Dull Dark Dock” and the finale which was in grave danger of unravelling completely.

    Overall, one was left with the impression of a show which had a lot of good ideas washing around, not all of which were followed through and which was simply not ready for performance. No doubt things will tighten up a bit on tour but for Glasgow audiences it felt very much like a rehearsal for the real thing.

     
    Rating: ★★★☆☆


    Other Reviews

    BachtrackRating: ★★★☆☆
    Daily RecordRating: ★★★★☆
    The ListRating: ★★★☆☆
    The StageRating: ★★★★☆
    ScotsmanRating: ★★★☆☆
    TelegraphRating: ★★★☆☆
    HeraldRating: ★★★★★

     

7 responses to “The BA Cross Story”

  1. Tim Avatar

    Hmmm. You’re the first person I’ve seen to view it this way around.

    Different, and I agree about “witnessing to the passengers” (I don’t particularly want proselytising, least of all on a plane) but I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion.
    A cross need not be particularly outlandish; many people wear them, some of whom don’t even regard themselves as christian (heirloom, etc), and who’s going to ask their motives before declaring it still a religious symbol?

    It’s unfortunate that this has come about with someone who sees the cross as her witness, but if this stands, companies will be allowed to have discriminatory uniform policies, and it doesn’t matter who the parties are, it’s just discrimination whichever way I cut it; all the more so when it leads to *a society* in which one hides from others rather than embracing them.

  2. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    As I understand it, the BA uniform policy has applied to all jewelry hanging around someone’s neck. It would not be fun to get one’s Cross, Crescent, Star of David or string of pearls caught in the check-in machinery.

    It is interesting that the principle sign of Christian membership in most parts of the various churches is essentially ephemeral – baptism by its very nature is invisible in material form once performed.

    When I was in Egypt, I was quite impressed with the tattoos that many Christians had done in order to identify themselves to one another. At more than one Christian gathering I went to, the locals were vetted at the door by showing their tattoos – the presumption being that no member of any group that the Church people were frightened of would ever have a cross tattooed on their skin.

  3.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yes, you’re quite right. A uniform is a uniform. If one absolutely wanted to wear something other than a uniform at work, then joining the Army mightn’t be the best place for me.

    Similarly, if joining the BA ranks implies wearing a uniform, and I insist on wearing some additional contraption, then , patently, possibly a position without a uniform would be better. Possibly as a clergy person?! That is if I were a compulsive proselytiser.

    Anent compulsive proselytising. There is this church building on the facade of which a sign threatens one and all with everlasting hell fire. No doubt those of that congregation consider it to be their loving duty so to do. However, to my mind, it is a most egregious assault on the urban landscape … and myself, every time I have cause to walk by.

    Yes. Yours is a most refreshing viewpoint. All the more so as it comes from within the ranks of the clergy. Possibly a reason why I’ve kept on coming back to this your blog…

    All the very best,

    Clyde Lad

  4. Alex Avatar
    Alex

    The real problem is that BA’s policy is inconsistent: turbans are allowed, hijabs are allowed and apparently Hindu bangles are allowed.

    For a uniform policy to be reasonable I think it either has to allow all, or allow none. I’m not fussed which they choose, but consistency is important.

  5. Ali Avatar
    Ali

    I think the difference between turbans, hajibs and bangles are the difference between a requirement of following a particular faith (or, rather, a conservative branch of a particular faith as with the hajob and the bangle), or a desire because of one’s faith. A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.

    I talked a little about this in the sermon this morning – on a day where the church celebrates the feast of Christ the King, surely a greater sign of being a member of that Kingdom, or a follower of Christ, is the way in which we treat this planet given into our care and all who inhabit it, rather than becoming sidetracked in petty bickering about which poppy is the most Christian or the “right” to wear a cross at work regardless of uniform policy.

  6. Alex Avatar
    Alex

    “A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.”

    I’m not sure that this is a difference that removes the inconsistency from BA’s uniform policy. Whether or not the turban, hijab or bangle is perceived as a ‘requirement’ of membership of a faith, it is still my choice whether or not to observe it.

    This is not to say that I think Ms Ewelda has taken the best course of action. My personal view is that she has made a mistake – instead of a greater witness, she has contributed to the perception of Christians as petty and whinging. I may have my differences with Paul(!) but I think his “Greek to the Greek, Jew to the Jew” approach has a lot to be said for it.

    But our disagreement with her position on how crucial to the Christian life is the wearing of the cross doesn’t change the fact that the policy applied treats her differently from members of other faiths.

  7. Mysterious stranger Avatar
    Mysterious stranger

    I am with you on this one.I do not like all the badges,ribbons,bands etc with uniforms.I also felt extremely uncomfortable with yesterdays interview.She has been offered the right to wear the cross on her lapel not round her neck.She can wear it inside her uniform and go with the lapel badge.

    Her fundamentalism grated.Sorry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • What causes it?

    Interesting documentary on BBC3 last night about a young man who had a stroke and “woke up gay” afterwards. It was both interesting and perplexing. That there has been a huge shift in his character and personality is clear. That he once dated women and now is attracted to men is easily shown. That he…

  • Unremitting Joy

    Don’t forget that Easter is not just a day but a season – 50 days of unremitting joy in fact. We’re 10 days in. Should you be feeling the joy start to droop, I suggest you have a listen to this lovely Regina Coeli: I’m not sure that it is quite so lusty as we…

  • The use of the word Catholic

    A couple of weeks ago, I asked for suggestions as to what I might blog about. One of the suggestions was this: the use of the word “catholic” as opposed to what people think, which is “Catholic”, as is the Church of Rome. Well, OK. Why not? The word Catholic is one of the things…

  • Be the Gold

    Steven has left a comment for me under the the post with my Easter sermon in it. I think it is worth replying to it here in a new post. Steven said: I don’t get it. The Christian endeavour seems so bound up in bizarre and exclusive metaphysical claims that it is very difficult to…