• Jenůfa – Scottish Opera – Review

    This review should appear in due course at Opera Britannia
    Rating: ★★★★☆
    Scottish Opera have managed to present a very confident production of Janáček’s rather gloomy opera. It allows three fabulous female singers to shine brightly and makes a strong case for what might be regarded as a rather tricky original work.

    In what must have been a rather trying incident for all the performers, never mind the audience, the first night production was unfortunately delayed by three quarters of an hour whilst paramedics attended someone who had had an accident on the balcony steps. It was apparently not possible to put the house-lights down until the matter had been resolved and it was something of a relief by the time that the curtain eventually went up that it was going up at all.

    Fortunately, the delayed start didn’t affect the tought dramatic production and it was soon clear that this was going to be a night to remember.

    Jenůfa is a rather complex piece at the best of times. A certain amount of prior knowledge of the relationships between the characters is required right from the word go. This was provided in the programme along with the curious information that the director Annilese Miskimmon had set this production in the west of Ireland in 1918 rather than in rural Moravia.

    I have to confess that moving the action to Ireland accomplished very little. Fortunately it didn’t get too much in the way of the story and it did explain the large white cottage (with wonderfully smoking chimneys) which had landed in the middle of the stage like a tardis flying in from outer-space. Also, like the tardis, it proved larger inside than it appeared on the outside once it opened up for the interior action later in the evening. The interior of the cottage was a good deal more interesting than the outside though designers Nicky Shaw did manage to produce a very clinically clean early twentieth century rural Irish idyll.

    But enough about the set – on to the singing. After all, this was a night at the opera that succeeded precisely because of some highly spirited and accomplished singing.

    First up was Lee Bissett in the title role. Her Jenůfa was a fairly sad girl from the outset – we saw her first lamenting her lot leaning against the cottage wall. There was nothing sad at all about her voice though which glistened throughout the evening. By the time we got to Jenůfa’s prayer to the Virgin in the second act, she was managing to combine extraordinary passion and beauty.

    It was also clear early on that Anne-Marie Owens was going to be well worth listening to. Her grandmother character managed to combine despair with a certain mournful quality along with some cracking acting.

    Completing the trio of stand-out performances was Kathryn Harries as Kostelnička (ie Churchwarden’s widow) Buryjovka – Jenůfa’s step-mother, if I was keeping up with who was who. It is upon the Kostelnička that the whole story turns. She cares for Jenůfa to the point that she contemplates and eventually carries out the infanticide of Jenůfa’s child in order to facilitate the possibility of a marriage for the girl.

    Perhaps the most uncomfortable realisation in the whole evening is that Janáček dedicated the work to a dead child of his own. What can he have been thinking about?

    Ms Harries had an awesome dramatic intensity to her singing which was more than able to deal with the vast range that Jenůfa demands from the singer. When the Kostelnička is eventually exposed as a child murderer, her reconciliation with Jenůfa and resignation to her fate was genuinely touching.

    Things were not quite so secure amongst the male leads. Janáček calls for a pair of love interests for the leading lady, neither of whom a particularly attractive character. (One longs for a feminist reinterpretation of the ending whereby Jenůfa shakes her head at all that is on offer and marches off on her own but it wasn’t happening in this production).

    Peter Wedd made a reasonable stab at Laca but Sam Furness was a out of his depth as the hapless Števa. It is hard work being up against a full orchestra playing Janáček’s fabulous score at full pelt and Furness never really managed to make much of an impact against the wall of sound that was coming from the pit. Both men looked the part and there was nothing out of place in their acting abilities.

    Stuart Stratford the conductor could have kept a bit more of a lid on the orchestra but there’s no denying how interesting the orchestrations are and a slight tendency towards too much sound could be forgiven for the range of colour that was on display and there’s no getting away from the fact that there was some splendid orchestral playing to be heard. Pacing was quite slick and that only helped to keep ratcheting up the tension on stage.

    Honourable mentions go to two smaller parts. Jonathan May’s Mayor was perhaps the most distinguished male vocal singing of the evening. Rosalind Coad as Karolka their daughter was decidedly perky and fresh.

    A large chorus (described in the programme as The Chorus of Jenůfa) was in good voice as the villagers. Scottish Opera doesn’t seem to be having any more luck appointing a chorus master than appointing a musical director at the moment, but Philip White can feel very proud of what he managed to achieve here before he heads off to become Head of Music at Grange Park Opera later this year.

    Notwithstanding the curious decision to relocate affairs to Ireland, Annilese Miskimmon can be justly proud of producing one of Scottish Opera’s most interesting productions for quite some time. It is easy to recommend this co-production with Danish National Opera. It plays for a scandalously short run in Scotland – just three performances in Glasgow and two in Edinburgh. Worth catching if you can.

41 responses to “The Columba Declaration”

  1. Edward Andrews Avatar
    Edward Andrews

    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.

  2. Father David Avatar
    Father David

    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.

  3. Keith Barber Avatar
    Keith Barber

    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.

    1. Jeremy Bates Avatar
      Jeremy Bates

      Or perhaps it’s like the Easter-calendar announcement–a convenient way of changing the subject, at Synod and elsewhere.

  4. Father Ron Smith Avatar

    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?

    1. Edward Andrews Avatar
      Edward Andrews

      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.

      1. Father Ron Smith Avatar

        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

        1. Kelvin Avatar

          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.

          1. Edward Andrews Avatar
            Edward Andrews

            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.

  5. Augur Pearce Avatar
    Augur Pearce

    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.

    1. Seph Avatar
      Seph

      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.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • The cross-dressing bearded nun story

    Forgive me, but I can’t help but be interested in the cross-dressing bearded nun story which was in the Herald today. The short version of the story is that a minister removed a picture of himself dressed as a nun from facebook, where it was his profile pic, following a complaint from someone belonging to…

  • Wikileaks and the Guardian

    Can someone tell me the difference between Wikileaks publishing US government cables and the Guardian publishing the same cables. So far as I can see, neither organisation has actually leaked anything, they are both publishing the same material that has been leaked by someone else. I’m struggling a bit to see why the editor of…

  • Tuition Fees

    I’m disappointed to hear that Lib Dem ministers will be going through the government lobbies to vote in favour of raising tuition fees in England. The policy itself isn’t something that I agree with but nor is it something I know how to solve easily either. I do think that making all the tertiary education…

  • Sermon from Bishop Gregor

    Here is what Bishop Gregor had to say to us on Sunday, just after presenting the new Vice-Provost, the Rev Cedric Blakey with his licence.