• The Opera Project – Purcell and Poulenc

    The Opera Project was a double bill of Purcell’s Dido and Aeneas and Poulenc’s Les Mamelles de Tirésias at the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland. This review appeared originally at Opera Britannia.

    Rating: ★★★★☆

    At first sight, the pairing of Dido and Aeneas with Poulenc’s surrealist piece Les Mamelles de Tirésias seems to make little sense at all. However, glorious madness was very much the spirit of the evening and the pair of works – billed as The Opera Project was a brilliant success and a showcase for a number of young singers from the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland.

    Dido and Aeneas was the more conventional of the works staged. At the very heart of this was a rock-solid Dido in the form of Eirlys Myfanwy Davies. Shimmering into view from an on-stage haze in a dazzling red and sequin dress, she looked stunning. She was also not going to be upstaged by her costume; her voice was just as shiny. Wonderfully, she had a Belinda alongside her (Victoria Stevens) who was just as good as she was.

    The staging was sparse – a small orchestra (harpsichord, theorbo, baroque guitar and some strings), conducted by Timothy Dean, were sitting in an apse at the back of the stage and in view all the time. Behind them was the chorus who took no part in the dramatic action. Sitting where they were, somehow the choruses became a compassionate commentary on what was unfolding in front of them – something I’ve not felt with anything like this intensity when seeing the work before.

    Storytelling had been thought about a lot. A small box kept appearing and different characters took their turns to stand on it to sing directly to the audience as though taking on the aspect of a narrator, Ms Stevens being wonderfully knowing. Dido’s love interest, Euros Campbell as Aeneas, had a slightly uneasy first entrance but any worries about intonation very quickly disappeared and a shining, bold voice appeared. During the first half of the evening it seemed clear to me that Mr Campbell was more of a singer than an actor but, as we shall see, the second half made me question that judgement.

    Meanwhile, there was much to enjoy from Sorceress Jane Monari and the witches – Charlotte Hoather and Anna Churchill. Ms Monari was particularly confident and had a gorgeously smooth tone. She had been present from the beginning as a member of Dido’s court and her sudden revealing of herself by the removing of her hair was a brilliant moment of stagecraft. The only thing that really got in the way of this production was a group of dancers who, though no doubt doing all that they had been told, struggled to add anything to what was going on around them. Several of them need to think a little more about facial expression – there are few smiles to be had in the court of the queen of Carthage. A number of slightly uncomfortable pauses for applause – which-never-came, were generated by the need for the dancers to form several tableaux.

    When it came time for Dido to depart this world, Ms Davies gave a very eloquent rendition of the famous lament. It was simple and very beautiful. My only worry was that this deathbed scene, with lovely bed, sumptuous white linen and flower petals trickling down from above was just a little bit more John Lewis than most deaths really are. However, this reservation should not take away from the beauty of Ms Davies’s singing and the real sense of grief from Ms Stevens’s Belinda at the awful end.

    It was difficult to know what we would be treated to after the interval. I have to confess that I had never heard Les mamelles de Tirésias performed before  – however, this was such a great rendition of a tricky piece that I’ll look out for it in the future. Poulenc claimed this to be one of his favourite works which makes it something worth taking notice of. But it is also crude, rude and hilariously bonkers from beginning to end and deserves to be much better known that it is.

    Before the action proper took place, Poulenc’s haunting song Bluet was sung by Matthew Thomas Morgan. This elegy for the fallen and the damaged of war set the scene beautifully for the madness that was to follow.

    Les mamelles de Tirésias (Tirésias’s boobs!) has a plot that is so barmy that one struggles to keep up. The most widely available synopsis begins – “Thérèse tires of her life as a submissive woman and becomes the male Tirésias when her breasts turn into balloons and float away. Her husband is not pleased by this, still less so when she ties him up and dresses him as a woman.” This covers just the first couple of minutes and things get more and more out of hand the more we see and hear.

    Euros Campbell reappeared as the theatre director who assured us that he was responsible for the surreal events that we would see before us and was clearly more confident bouncing about the stage as though he were in charge than he had been earlier in the evening. The stand-out performance of the evening was Barbara Cole Walton as Thérèse / Tirésias. She managed to keep on top of the soaring score with absolutely sparkling singing.

    Playing opposite Ms Walton was Jonathan Cooke as the hapless husband – Le Mari who rather swiftly ended up loosing his dignity as the fearless protofeminist Thérèse tied him up and went off on her own way. Cooke’s spirited singing anchored the plot, which was getting sillier by the minute and his comic timing was as sharp as the rest of the cast.

    The audience loved Brian McBride and Kenneth Reid as the duelling comedy pair Presto and Lacouf who ultimately end up killing one another because they can’t quite decide which end of France they are in. Interestingly, they sounded as though they came from different parts of France too – one sounding to my ears as though he had a more southern accent, though whether that was by lucky accident, I’ve no idea. Another great comedy turn came from David Horton as the policeman. A shout-out ought to go to his reliable hobbyhorse upon which he galumphed about the stage.

    Once again there were some superfluous dancers but they did not get in the way as much as in the first half. All was forgiven them for one particularly funny dying swan moment. This work is a useful reminder that ideas that begin in the world of the surreal and the absurd sometimes come to pass. The idea that lesbians might marry was clearly nuts in 1947. As was the idea of cloning and of men becoming women and women becoming men. All have come to pass. Apollinnaire’s libretto and Poulenc’s music were, in their day, a vehicle for the absurd. This performance was a reminder that the surreal is not so much a way of denying reality but a way of seeing it as it actually is. It is also useful to be reminded that Poulenc’s own sexuality is integral to his music.

    The work was performed in a version by Benjamin Britton for two pianos which were both on stage throughout. Pianists Marija Struckova and Michal Gajzler gamely kept the relentless musical pace going under musical direction of Oliver Rundell. 

    This was an hilarious farce and it is hard to remember the last time I had so much fun at the opera. Director Mark Hathaway is to be congratulated on a most satisfying evening. The senior students of the conservatoire promise much for the future.

11 responses to “Providence and Vocation for Liberals in Public Life”

  1. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    I was one of the Lib Dems who did foresee the calamity in 2015 and actively campaigned to get the party to change leader – after 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 it wasn’t difficult for anyone to see, but it was difficult for many nice Lib Dems to own up to the fact that they had allowed it to happen. I failed, but I don’t think it was part of anyone’s plan that I did (except possibly Ryan Coetzee and a few other true believers).

    There’s a lot in your points I can agree with, particularly regarding the naivety of referring to God’s plan, when many Christian’s have a view that his/hers/its plan is to let us get on with it and find our own way to salvation. However, the most interesting question is when you say “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.” Do you really mean that you have the right to force someone else to marry you who doesn’t want to and believes it is wrong, even though you have the right to and can get someone else to do the same job for you? Do individuals have the right to insist on being married by the registrar of their choice, or just the right to get married? Are you not perhaps just a bit assuming that your tree is that bit taller than the other guy’s?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories. I think that the equal rights tree is bigger than my tree and the registrar’s tree.

      I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them, not least because I don’t think it is a very real question – few people want to be married by someone who doesn’t want them to be married. I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.

      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        I think you are rather changing your ground here from your original piece. You started with “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.”

        You have now moved onto “I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories.” So we now have a right to expect, but only against a person who works in the public sector, and even if it is against that person’s conscience and only if you are in a specially protected category.

        It gets even more tenuous then as you accept when you then say “I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them.” So the right is not to a person wanting to be married at all.

        Finally we get “I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.” So the right is not to an individual at all, so definitely not “your rights” but to a public sector organisation. Hardly a human right, more of an employer’s right by your own statements.

        I rather think that your equal rights tree, however high you think it is, has decidedly peculiar roots.

        1. Graham Evans Avatar
          Graham Evans

          David, I thought most liberals accepted the view that in the provision of services to the general public, whether provided by the public sector or private sector, a policy of non-discrimination was an essential ingredient of a progressive society. I accept that there is a notable exception to this rule in terms of the provision of abortion, but this arises from the broad range of medical procedures undertaken by one type of doctor or another. Surgeons are specialised medical practitioners, as are nurses who assist them, so it is most unlikely then anyone who opposed abortion on conscience grounds would actually be faced with having to refuse to conduct an abortion. The provision of most services to the general public is also a specialist activity, and no-one forces people to engage in any particular activity. The idea that a registrar should be able to opt out of undertaking a civil gay marriage represents the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. If such people wish to opt out of doing so, then they should act as part of a religious community, such as a deacon in Anglican Church, which has the legal power to conduct religious marriages, are still recognised by the State.

          1. David Evans Avatar
            David Evans

            Quite simply Graham I disagree with your view that this is a level of discrimination in the provision of a public service of anything like the scale you imply makes it essential that every individual has to comply with it. The “go with it or get out” philosophy demanded of the state by so many in pursuit of their personal view of their rights is to my mind a greater threat to liberty than the fact that Fred or Freda don’t agree with something and don’t want to do it but George, Georgina, Harry, Harriette etc etc etc etc can do it instead. Ultimately you aren’t stopping someone from exercising their right; you are preventing someone from imposing their requirement on someone else.

            However, I note Kelvin hasn’t responded to my substantive point and I await that with interest.

  2. Iain Brodie Browne Avatar
    Iain Brodie Browne

    Firstly thank you for your posting.
    I have been expressing my concern elsewhere that the main voices we have heard in the debate about Tim’s faith have been firstly from those who think that it wholly a private matter and because his opinions are sincerely held and are derived from his faith the rest of us should back off and secondly those who seem to imply that having a religious faith at all is a negative factor. Until your contribution I am not aware that anyone has directly addressed the issue from different Christian understanding.
    I cut my political teeth at the end of the 1960s opposing the all ‘white’ rugby and cricket tours from South Africa. The dominant voices from the churches were from Trevor Huddleston and David Sheppard. They effectively contested the assertions of those who told us (and they did) that apartheid was part of God’s plan.
    Earlier in that decade Michael Ramsey spoke up clearly in support of what was then called homosexual law reform. David Steel, who pushed through the 1967 Act did so at a time when he was regularly introducing Songs of Praise.
    I regret that equal marriage and the removal of other discriminations against gay people –including the issue you raise about Registrars- have not been as effectively championed by Christians as those earlier reforms. It is fair to say that in the minds of those who you describe as ‘decent people in society’ Christians are seen as opposing these reforms. The priority for the churches appears to be to gain protection for those who oppose such reforms. Imagine if that had been the approach to apartheid.
    My own experience gives me hope that things are changing. Our local church got a new vicar who immediately began to pray for the defeat of the Equal Marriage legislation, got up petitions and lobbied. His views on women priests were no more in tune with ‘decent society’. In common with many churches these matters had not really been properly discussed. It was heartening how many members did openly contest his views and a significant portion of the congregation felt so strongly the eventually relocated to other churches. There is a good deal more support for liberal values amongst church goers than is popularly conceived.

    My view is much the same as expressed in the Independent’s editorial this morning which endorsed Tim but added the rider that : ‘It will be for Mr Farron to make clear to party members, the public at large, and this newspaper, that his faith can indeed be reconciled with a liberal view on matters of birth, marriage and death.’ If faith is the opposite of certainty then I have enough to believe that can be achieved but if would be of assistance not only to Tim but to others struggling to reconcile their faith with liberal views if more church leaders provide a Christian narrative as effectively as did Michael Ramsey and Trevor Huddleston did in their day.

    http://birkdalefocus.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/influencial-divine-former-libdem-ppc.html

  3. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    Personally, as a non-Christian, I find the attack on Tim Farron’s Christian faith distasteful, even disturbing. With the issue of gay marriage, something I wholly support, it is clear to me that Farron was trying to protect freedom of religious thought whilst also legislating for LGBT equality. There is nothing illiberal about that. Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental human rights, and something liberals should defend. Any definition of liberalism which does not include freedom of conscience, is one I have no interest in supporting.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Thanks for commenting, Andy.

      I’m not aware of people attacking Tim Farron’s faith. I am aware of people questioning whether someone who apparently has anti-gay views is an appropriate person to represent the Lib Dems as leader.

      When it comes to the vote about the registrars, that can either be interpreted as defending religious thought or as defending discrimination. I come to the latter view because if I substitute a couple who are gay for a couple being say mixed race (something many people would once have objected to on religious grounds) then I see clear discrimination at work.

      It is a strange day when people are arguing (as some are) that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has the right to hold distasteful views about gay people in private so long as he defends their rights in public. He does have that right but not the right to be taken seriously as well.

      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        Sadly there have been many who have been attacking Tim’s faith, some directly and some more with disdain. Comments such as listening to his sky fairy are not uncommon. Also portraying his views as apparently anti-gay are without doubt over egging it massively as opposed to the simple fact that as a liberals we should all have views which take into account the “balance of fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” and that this inevitably leads to differences of judgement on lots of individual issues, but do not undermine the fundamental decency and liberalism of many people like Tim, who have proved it over a great many years.

  4. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    Kelvin,

    It is a great disappointment to me that you have not come back to me with any further reasoning in response to my post on 30 June 02:19. Have you changed your views, reinforced them with new vigour or simply moved on?

    1. Graham Evans Avatar
      Graham Evans

      David, perhaps you could clarify what your substantive point is. Having reread the whole thread it’s certainly not clear to me.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • New Vice-Provost appointed for St Mary’s

    I’m delighted to be able to share the news that a new Vice-Provost has been appointed for St Mary’s. The Rev Canon Cedric Blakey will be taking up the appointment at the start of December and licensed by Bishop Gregor on 5 December 2010. The appointment of a full time priest to work along side…

  • Busy Day

    One of those times where the buildings have been humming with activity for 24 hours. Last night it was a Knowing Me, Knowing you with John Riches, then Morning Prayer to start Saturday. Then a very well attended Prayer and Poetry Worshop. Then a Justice and Aid Network meeting. All the while, the office has…

  • Who is the fairest of them all?

    I suppose that the idea of the political parties squabbling to represent themselves as the fairest of them all is something which we should welcome. Yet there is something about the current scrapping over public spending cuts which seems faintly unsavoury and its getting in the way of trying to think through different solutions to…

  • RSA Animations

    I love the animations that the RSA are producing these days. Here’s a good one on changing educational paradigms. Just over 10 minutes – lots of ideas, hard-core animation, first class communication skills.