• 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.

10 responses to “Response from the College of Bishops”

  1. Father Ron Smith Avatar

    Thank you, Fr, Kelvin, for making the contents of the SEC Bishops’ Response to the Letter from 50 people concerned about their attitude towards the openness of the Church to the prospect of its eirenic treatment of clergy and Church members – desirous of solemnising Same-Sex monogamous relationships in the context of Marriage.

    It seems to me – an outsider, but a member of the New Zealand Anglican Church – that the Letter has challenged your Bishops to positive action on behalf of Christians – and others – who consider faithful Gay relationships to be equally acceptable to God as those of heterosexuals. The Church, surely, must act to affirm faithful monogamous relationships on both sides of the spectrum.

    Let’s hope your General Synod will move ahead to affirm such relationships, so that the Church may get on with other aspects of its mission; knowing that human justice for ALL people is paramount in the propagation of the Gospel. If SEC is pro-active in this important matter, it can only encourage churches like my own – in ACANZP – to follow suit.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      The General Synod is, to some degree, inhibited from sorting this out until the bishops themselves decide to back a proposal which would allow all to flourish in the church.

      The synod contains the bishops and they have an effective veto on canonical legislation.

      I’m baffled at the moment as to why they have not rallied around a position which allows all of us, both those in favour and those against, to act according to our consciences in this area. I think that this is a position which would re-unite the church again. I know those who disagree with me on the substantive question about lesbian and gay relationships who are as mystified and as frustrated as I am that we are taking so long to deal with this and who, like me, want to get on with the business of letting Scotland’s people know that God loves them.

      Everyone I know says they want to come to a resolution which does not de-church other Episcopalians. The position that the bishops have taken comes very close to de-churching some of us and I remain greatly concerned for the Province as a whole.

  2. Pam Avatar
    Pam

    From my reading, it’s a carefully worded document that attempts not to pre-empt what may happen at Synod. Talking to each other face-to-face is always better than written communication, in my opinion. This issue does need a resolution and I’m sure that people on both sides of the debate, in good faith, would want to honour each other. Bishops have a tough job but so do the people who don’t get the opportunity to attend Synod, for whatever reason.

  3. Chris Hansen Avatar
    Chris Hansen

    I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of being talked about by people who would rather not talk to me. This “listening process” that the C of E is going through is bull. They’ve been doing variations on that for years. Nothing comes out of it except more conversations. No progress is made thereby.

    The trick is to push the bishops to take a stand and do some prophetic leading.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      The current process in the Church of England is related to the Cascade Process that we’ve had in Scotland.

      Some people have benefitted from the process here. There’s no getting away from that. It has been a good thing for some but by no means all.

      Some have felt very disappointed and upset that the bishops themselves now appear not to have been working in accord with the principles of the process itself.

      And some, like me who have been working for change in this area for years, were excluded from the design of the process and from its major set piece provincial event.

  4. FakePete Avatar
    FakePete

    I feel very angry reading that.

  5. Steven Avatar
    Steven

    Dear Kelvin

    Interesting developments. Not much in that letter really.

    What would you do if you were Primus?

    The reality is the SEC has always (at least in my mind) been open to a more progressive stance on this kind of issue and yet does contain those for whom this would be (very?) difficult.

    Would you seek to maintain unity by some kind of compromise (CoE and women Bishops) or would you forge on ahead with prophetic change leaving those who didn’t like it to make their own choices (like the Episcopal Church)…?

    The New Testament Christians didn’t seem to care much for unity at the expense of integrity and justice.

    For my own part I think it is better for churches not to try and fudge this issue (look at the terrible mess in the Church of Scotland) but to agree a position and then firmly pursue same, come what may. People would not tolerate an institution that allowed a minority of people to adopt racist positions and so it should not really be any different for those who want to maintain positions that discriminate against same-sex couples.

    All this is – of course – easy for me to say.

    Steven

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      What would I do if I were the Primus? Well that’s a good question.

      The first thing I’d remember is that the Primus is simply the spokesperson for the College of Bishops and doesn’t have the authority that, for example, an archbishop might think he possesses.

      I would however as a bishop argue in a favour of a solution which allowed people to act according to their conscience in this area. I don’t agree that people should be forced to “firmly pursue” a particular stance over this issue. It isn’t who we are. In fact I think the problem at the moment is that people are being forced to pursue a position that they don’t agree with and that situation is unsustainable.

      The reasons for not forcing people to marry gay couples are these:

      1 – No gay couple wants to be married by someone who has been forced to do so but who would really prefer not to.

      2 – It would be illegal anyway and our canon law determines that we will abide by Scots Law.

      3 – We already have a precedent with divorce – no-one is forced to marry anyone who is divorced, they can chose whether or not to do so. I think that is a reasonable compromise and it has served the church well.

      4 – I don’t think anyone should be compelled to marry anyone and that is the situation that we currently have.

      However there are some positive things that a Scottish bishop could do at the moment. Although I agree that same-sex marriages cannot take place in churches or be done by SEC priests until there is a decision made by General Synod I don’t agree that it is the case that someone cannot affirm allegiance to the canons of the church because they happen to be in a same-sex marriage.

      I think de-coupling those two issues is urgent.

      I would argue in favour of an equal opportunities policy for the church.

      I would try to seek a way of bringing forward a synodical resolution which would allow same-sex marriage, allow those who don’t want to be party to it not to have to be and I’d argue in favour of that as a godly compromise that would allow us to get on with our gospel business of sharing the good news.

      If I were the Primus I would probably be encouraging the College of Bishops to allow me to say publicly that we regretted that some people had been excluded from the Cascade Process and I’d seek to commit the College to a more consultative leadership style. In particular I’d want to say that there should never be a process about people that did not include them in the design of the structures of the conversation. I’d want to say that we would never construct a conversation about the ministry of women without women being involved, we would never construct a conversation about ethnic minorities in the church without appropriate consultation with people who belong to ethnic minorities and I’d commit the church never to make the mistake that has been repeatedly made of constructing a conversation about LGBT people without their involvement.

      If I were wise, I’d be learning a lot more about the experience of trans people because I’d realise that trans issues are inevitably coming our way.

      Does that answer the question?

      1. Steven Avatar
        Steven

        Yes, it does rather. Thanks.

        For the avoidance of doubt I would not advocate forcing anyone to marry anyone. When I said it is better to adopt a position and then pursue that I meant in terms of whether or not to permit equal marriage in the SEC (which is not the same as saying that all priests would therefore be compelled to marry gay folk).

        We have just filed an equal marriage petition in Belfast, so thoughts and prayers all welcome!

        Steven

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Merry What?

    Just as a matter of interest, which of these two campaigns do you find offensive, if any? Either The alleged Sexmas campaign which is purported to be about to be launched which aims to keep people from unwanted pregnancy and contracting HIV and other STDs. (More details from the usual outraged suspects, for example the…

  • Pontifical High Evensnow

    Well, last night’s evening service was a delight, if an unexpected one. Earlier in the day in the face of all the snow and a heating system that had not come on overnight, leaving the church freezing, a decision was taken to postpone the Advent Carol Service until next Sunday evening. However, it was obvious…

  • Here is the sermon…

    Here’s the sermon I would have preached this morning if life had not been so cold….. In the name of God, Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier. Amen. The gospel reading that Chucks has just read is one that is very familiar to me. When I was younger, I used to go to churches which were very keen…

  • Advent Carol Service postponed

    Please note that the Advent Carol Service has been postponed until 5 December 2010 at 6.30 pm. The service this evening will be a Sung Evensong in the Synod Hall.