What is in Kelvin's Head?

Scottish Opera – Il Trovatore review – ****

11/05/2015

This review was published at Opera Britannia.

Rating:

It was a particular joy to see Il trovatore at the Theatre Royal, not only because it is a well directed, well sung sure-fire summer hit for Scottish Opera but also because I was seeing it in the company of someone who had never been to the opera before. This was a perfect production for an opera virgin. It looked good, sounded marvellous and was full to the brim with all the drama and passion that Verdi demands.

Someone, one suspects, somewhere along the way thought a bit about the rather busy plot and realised that essentially the shadows of the past come back to haunt the present. A mix up over an infanticide 15 years before is the driving force behind all vengeance and passion that is presented on the stage. Thus came the idea to use the shadows of the performers so prominently. Low side lights on either side of the stage allow the silhouettes of the performers to act out the plot behind the singers themselves. It is slightly creepy. It also works brilliantly.

The set is sparse but flawless. No crenelated battlements here – but plain grey walls which have something of the manner of a granite worktop in an ultra-minimalist kitchen about them. There’s not that much colour but of course that means that when there is a flash of something bright, it hits one between the eyes and Robert B Dickson’s lighting design was striking.

Scottish Opera have made much in their marketing of the production of the quote attributed to Caruso that all it takes for a successful performance of Il trovatore is the four greatest singers in the world. This is perhaps a dangerous game for a marketing department to play and it is fortunate that there’s a lot to rejoice in with regard to the singing.

First up was Jonathan May’s Ferrando, the Captain of the Guard. His narration of the prior events that give rise to our story was wonderfully measured and brilliantly clear. The gentlemen of the chorus meanwhile lolled all over the stage in their soldier’s outfits. Brilliantly lit, they presented as some kind of pewter relief sculpture. They came to life in more ways than one when they began to sing. Throughout the evening, the chorus, particularly the men, were wonderfully strong.

Roland Wood has plenty of experience on the Scottish Opera stage and was using it all in his portrayal of the Count di Luna. His “Il balen del suo sorriso” in the second act was wonderfully gentle and compassionate. Director Martin Lloyd-Evans tends to allow the principals to take centre stage and just sing their great arias in this production without a great deal going on. Rather than feeling static, it instead focuses the ability of the music itself to provide all that is needed to move the plot along. The effect when Wood was singing was mesmerising.

The object of the Count’s affections was a magnificent Claire Rutter as Leonora. She had the sense to keep something in reserve for the fireworks demanded of her in the final act but this was a consummate performance from beginning to end. “Oh,” murmured my opera-virgin companion during the applause which greeted Ms Rutter’s “D’amor sull’ali rosee”, “oh, how beautiful – I never realised it would be so beautiful”. Quite so. This was a Leonora around whom the rest of the world seemed to spin. Ms Rutter also brought a gentleness into her singing though without losing any of the crispness and vitality of her coloratura.

As for the troubadour himself, Gwyn Hughes Jones as Manrico also had a great deal to praise. His vocal work had a great deal of animation and was a joy to listen to. I have a suspicion that the coda of the great cabaletta “Di quella pira” did not go quite as well as he expected it to. The rest of his singing was captivating though – his voice managing both to dance and also express wonderful colours too.

Last amongst the principals was Anne Mason who made a wonderfully possessed Azucena, the gypsy around whom the plot continually thickens. She seemed to have been driven to the point of madness by the events of 15 years before and there was a burning, urgent passion in her voice.

Down in the pit, Tobias Ringborg was managing to get the most sensitive playing out of the orchestra that has been heard in the Theatre Royal all year. Consistently quite reserved tempi allowed the singers the chance to shine and there was a wonderful (and in Glasgow, rarely achieved) balance between the pit and the stage. At just one moment in the third act did it seem that there was the danger of everything going out of kilter but this was soon rectified. Musically this production was something of a triumph.

There are plenty of opportunities to let the orchestra off the leash, of course. Not least was during an exuberant Anvil Chorus where dozens of gypsies sang their hearts out whilst the shadows of just a few of them made a great tableau above their heads. Smoke and flames were projected onto the scenery behind them – so much more effective than dry ice.

There were lots of great though subtle touches of direction from Martin Lloyd-Evans. The elderly nun stopping a swordsman with a walking stick and a wry shake of the head was one delicious moment but there were plenty of others. Scottish Opera end their season on a high with this production. The verdict of my companion was “I’ll be back”. If next year’s season has the drive and passion of this production she won’t be disappointed.

41 responses to “The Columba Declaration”

Edward Andrews

11/02/2016

As Anglicans get down to the important issue of the niceties of Theology, lets get into the broad brush situation.
The relationships between the Churches of the Celtic tradition and the Southern tradition have been fraught since the 7th Century (Whitby). Part of the whole question surrounding the war of Independence (and before with King David was teh independence of the Scottish Church.
The irony is that the present attempt is to bring the Churches of the united Kingdom together may well blow back on them. While the Kirk today doesn’t mean much in Scotland the most secular part of the UK I’m not convinsed that playing footise over Bishops is going to impress the older members – the ones who voted No.
The fact is that the Scottish Episcopal Church has the Anglican franchise in Scotland. It is an authentic Scottish Church (especially if you ignore the instances when it has gone to England for Episcopal ordination.) and to negotiate over its head about something so sensitive it at the best discourteous.
Those of the reformed tradition don’t get wound up by the antics of a few Episcopalians. We seek whatever degree of true unity is available to us, but do not see the need for uniformity. I spent some very pleasant years as a guest of the Scottish Episcopal Church when the climate of the Kirk became unattractive to me, and am grateful for the table fellowship which I received.
The site of two big boys presuming to set things up is not pleasing. For the information of those who want to get up tight about the real presence, that is what the reformed tradition believes, we are Calvinists not followers of Zwingli. I am not going to seek to discuss which Greer philosopher we get our understanding of existence from.

Reply
Father David

12/02/2016

Father Ron: let us not forget that the great Arthur Michael Ramsey was born an ecumenical baby. His maternal Grandfather was Vicar of Horbling in Lincolnshire and his paternal Grandfather was a Congregationalist Minister. His Anglican Grandfather baptised him and when in adult years he visited Horbling parish church he was deeply moved when standing by the font – the place where this great man of God began his Christian pilgrim journey. However, as a child he worshipped with his family at the Congregationalist church in Cambridge. To the great benefit of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion – the kind of High Jinks that took place next door at Little St. Mary’s proved to be an attractive magnet and so the pull of Anglo-Catholicism brought to us a spiritual giant and a contender (in company with William Temple) for the title of the greatest Archbishop of Canterbury of the 20th century and a man who yearned and longed for Christian Unity.
Edward Andrews: Even as we all long and hope for the unity of all Christians your words are wise when you point to unity not uniformity.

Reply
Keith Barber

12/02/2016

Cynic I may be, but my first response is to ask what is the hidden agenda. For I’m pretty certain there will be one, whether it’s about trying to create an ecclesiastical bulwark against disintegration of the UK or get ++Welby an ally or two in the aftermath of the huge and hostile reaction to the Anglican Primates’ decision to punish TEC (sorry Kelvin) for its moves towards inclusion of LGBT people.

Reply
1. Jeremy Bates
  
  13/02/2016
  
  Or perhaps it’s like the Easter-calendar announcement–a convenient way of changing the subject, at Synod and elsewhere.
  
  Reply
Father Ron Smith

12/02/2016

Whatever the motivation for this ‘secret’ accord with the Church of Scotland; simple courtesy would require that the Church of England promoters consult with their Episcopally governed equivalent in Scotia.

Another point is this; do the Presbyerians realise that they may have signed up to the catholic premise of recognition of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Holy Communion? Are they happy with that?

Reply
1. Edward Andrews
  
  12/02/2016
  
  Well actually the Presbyterians believe “Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.” You will see the word real is there. Don’t know what the 39 articles say you believe.
  Those of us who are big on the real presence use the Platonic rather than the Aristotelian understanding of reality.
  
  Reply
  1. Father Ron Smith
    
    12/02/2016
    
    Not believers, then, in con-substantiation? Freely translated as bread and wine ‘together with’ the Body and Blood of Christ? Note, not the more literal trans-substantiation, which would nean the disappearance of the bread and wine. (although as some of my more scientific friends would say, this is a tautology.
    
    What all must agree on, though, is that some members of the Church of England, and many of its constituent partner Churches of the Anglican Communion, do have a problem with the ‘Real Presence’ – a reality that, for me, and I suspect most Anglican Catholics, means that the substance of the bread and wine consecrated at the Eucharist is truly “The Body and Blood of Christ” in accordance with the dominical instruction: “This IS my Body, my Blood” (Not, you will notice, “this REPRESENTS my Body, my Blood”). ‘A Sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace’ – this saying sums it all up pretty well, I think
    
    Reply
    1. Kelvin
      
      12/02/2016
      
      I think it is time to draw the discussion about the real presence to a close on this comment thread. It is hardly the main point and I’ve never ever known a comment thread about transubstantiation to be constructive.
      
      Comments on the Columba Declaration welcome. Comments trying to explain what transubstantiation *really* means – not so much.
      
      Reply
      1. Edward Andrews
        
        12/02/2016
        
        Thank you Kelvin. As I see it the C of E has come poaching in your preserves. This is wrong and unhelpful. If there were going to be Anglican/Presbyterian dialogue the SEC should be the lead player. I have my own problems with the declaration as a Member of the Church of Scotland who seeks an end to the United Kingdom. However as a Catholic Christian I am in solidarity with my SEC brothers and sisters who have been left out of the loop. Both the Cof E synod and the Kirk’ General Assembly should reject the document, but I don’t suppose that they will.
Augur Pearce

16/02/2016

A contribution to the ‘establishment’ discussion: In my book the terms ‘establish’ and ‘Church of England’ both have more than one meaning. ‘Establish’, for example, can mean ‘set up, bring into existence’ (sense E1), or it can mean ‘endow, privilege’ (sense E2).

Most people who use it of the C of E use it in sense E2, and they understand the C of E (in what I might call sense C3) as an association with its own rules, distinct from the English nation but privileged by law in various ways (with some concomitant obligations).

In fact I think this describes the C of S position fairly well, but is quite wrong as regards the C of E. The C of E (I contend) is not distinct from the kingdom of England, it is that kingdom ‘wearing its spiritual hat’ (sense C1). England, as church, has various spiritual responsibilities to discharge, and in order to do so, it establishes (=creates; sense E1), by its law, a complex of specialist institutions, offices, rules, and assets which itself becomes known derivatively as the C of E (sense C2).

One clear example of how the C of E (in sense C1) and the C of S have been differently understood from very early times is found in comparing Richard Hooker’s well-known words ‘There is not any man of the Church of England, but the same man is also a member of the commonwealth, nor any man a member of the commonwealth which is not also of the Church of England…’ with the Church Act 1567, declaring those ‘quha outher gainsayis the word of the Evangell ressavit and apprevit as the heidis of the Confessioun of Faith professit in Parliament of befoir in the yeir of God 1560 … or that refusis the participatioun of the haly sacramentis as thay ar now ministrat, to be na memberis of the said Kirk within this realme now presently professit’.

The Church of England, in short, is simply England; the Church of Scotland is a privileged sectional group.

Reply
1. Seph
  
  17/02/2016
  
  If this be so, it strikes me as uncomfortably caesaropapist. This may be one of the things that makes me uncomfortable when I am down south and find myself in a C of E church.
  
  Reply