• American Lulu – review

    This review also appears on the Opera Britannia website

    Rating: ★★☆☆☆

    Taking Alban Berg’s Lulu as a starting point, Scottish Opera at the Edinburgh International Festival present American Lulu – a new re-envisioned interpretation of this piece by Austrian composer Olga Neuwirth, who re-orchestrates Berg’s original, attempts to set it within the context of the Civil Rights movement in America and provides a conclusion to compensate for the absence of anything satisfactory at the original composer’s death. Sadly, the end result is a tedious and rather pointless production whose only saving grace is some stunning singing. The cast work hard and cannot be blamed for a production that offers an object lesson in futility.

    There’s no doubt that a great deal of effort and work has gone into this. The piece was co-commissioned by The Opera Group and the Komische Oper Berlin and co-produced by The Opera Group, Scottish Opera, Bregenzer Festpiele and the Young Vic. Maybe things turned out so badly because it was effectively produced by a committee. However, one wonders why there was not someone with enough clout in any of those organizations who might have put their foot down and told the rest that this new reinterpretation of Lulu simply isn’t a work that is good enough to be worth staging.

    The new orchestration was for a wind-dominated ensemble which also included synthesizer and electric guitar. To these were added various recordings that were woven into the sound-scape, particularly those of spoken texts relating to the Civil Rights movement and recordings that have been made of a Wonder Morton theatre organ in New Jersey. The passages for organ include those which Berg originally specified should be played by jazz ensemble. Yes, that’s right, the opera has been rescored for what is basically a jazz ensemble except for the passages which were scored for jazz ensemble, which are now given over to theatre organ. Heaven knows why. The orchestration itself is muddy. One can hear lines emerging from the mix that are recognisably those of Alban Berg however a lot of work has gone into making them hard to pick out. The weakest parts musically came at the end of the piece – music which we must presume was all Ms Neuwirth’s own.

    The action begins though with Lulu, played by American singer Angel Blue, standing on a pouf, centre stage. She is only partly visible, having a loose curtain of shiny strips behind her separating her from the band at the back of the stage and a similar curtain separating her from the audience. Both of these curtains were then subject to drab video projection courtesy of Finn Ross who has done far more exciting work elsewhere. The curtains and the video were to come and go without obvious reason throughout the evening. For an Edinburgh International Festival audience still reeling from the video overkill that was Gary Hall’s Fideliojust a fortnight ago, it was a case of déjà vu. Why does it ever seem like a good idea to put an opera singer behind a curtain?

     

    However, the wonderful thing was that Ms Blue is a superb singer. Not only was her voice excellent throughout but it was matched by the rest of the cast. Though the production had its obvious problems there were none in the singing department and it was a pleasure to hear such a fantastic ensemble of voices. The lead role asks a lot from any singer; the score is tricky and a vast vocal range is expected but Angel Blue was flawless. Her upper vocal work had a particularly glitzy shine and there was a freshness to her singing which lasted through the whole evening. (100 minutes straight through – no time off for good behaviour either for cast or audience).

    Lulu goes through a number of lovers and the production is little more than a parade of her affections. First up was Paul Curievici as the Photographer with whom Lulu is enamoured. (He reappeared at the end as her final Young Man). His singing too seemed effortless – a fine tenor with crystal-clear diction. Then we met Donald Maxwell as Dr Bloom, Lulu’s patron and his son Jimmy sung by Jonathan Stoughton. Again, both had strong voices – Maxwell bringing a fabulous rich resonance to proceedings and Stoughton a convincing Southern American accent, the only real clue that we were in the American South.

    Composer Olga Neuwirth seems to have been responsible for this Southern setting rather than director John Fulljames. However, he must bear some responsibility for the clunky scene changes and confused narrative. None of this was helped by the recorded excerpts from Martin Luther King and fragments of poetry from June Jordan. The trouble here is that Lulu is, so we are led to understand, entirely untroubled by care for anyone other than herself. She isn’t part of any feminist struggle, black civil rights struggle or indeed any kind of struggle. Each snippet of speech was a reminder that the opera was floating along without paying any heed whatsoever to the context in which the characters had been thrust and to which they seemed entirely oblivious.

    Lulu may be a bit of a handful but she is no freedom fighter. Both composer and director seemed to lack any sympathy for any of the characters that they had conjured up. There was one line about this black Lulu ending up singing songs for an all-white audience which might have taken us somewhere in terms of social comment but which was instead simply left dangling around without purpose. (Wouldn’t it be good though if Scottish Opera were to start to think about the almost monochrome ethnic composition of its own audience?). The use of Martin Luther King gobbets to change scenes in an opera about a sleazy, murderous hussy in the week that marked the fiftieth year of Dr King’s great “I have a dream speech seemed frankly rather tawdry.

    Meanwhile, Lulu was working her way through her lovers. An Athlete appears for her to dally with. Again, Simon Wilding’s voice was more than adequate but apart from wandering on in American football kit, complete with helmet, he didn’t have much to do. (Do All-American boys really wear football helmets when they go a-whoring? It does seem unlikely). Similarly,Jacqui Dankworth seemed unable to go anywhere without clutching a microphone in her hand to establish her credentials as blues singer Eleanor. Both these characters were little more than singing cartoons. Ms Dankworth though had the great distinction of bringing a gorgeous bluesy voice into the aural mix. She alone amongst what was going on did convincingly take us into the jazz era, even if it was far from clear why we were there. Paul Reeves was nipping on and off stage in three smaller parts and Robert Winslade Andersonsang Clarence, who seemed to be being used as some kind of narrator.

    Unfortunately it was not always clear what was going on with this production. At one point there was quite a long near-blackout where the only thing that could be seen on the stage was the cast skulking around in the wings to the sound of a recording of Alban Berg’s music re-orchestrated for theatre organ.  Apparently, true to Berg’s original intention, a film sequence was due to be shown at this point which failed to trigger due to a technical problem.  Perhaps this film would have helped made sense of the rest of the production, though that does seem unlikely.

    Ultimately the trouble with this production is not its atonality but its banality. There’s no excuse for taking a femme fatale and making of her something so humdrum. There are so many lovers and so many deaths that one should surely feel something about Lulu, but in the end there is nothing much there to care about. Full marks to the cast who put their all into everything. It was, alas, never going to redeem a show which should never have got anywhere near an Edinburgh International Festival stage and which now moves to the Young Vic in London. The piece ends with Lulu staggering out from behind one of those curtains clutching at a wound that is ultimately going to kill her. It isn’t at all clear who struck the mortal blow – my money is on an opera lover.

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

  • Helen Percy

    We might sing a little hallelujah today for the tenacity and courage of Helen Percy. Her discrimination case with the Church of Scotland was settled out of court. The details of Helen’s case are not really the point any more – the principle that she established was that a minister could approach an employment tribunal…

  • During the Magnificat

    Just in case anyone thought that I was inventing liturgy on the hoof for the Festival Evensong on Sunday night, here is a lovely clip showing other people doing much the same at the altar during the Mag. Music is rather good too. I’ve a wee suspicion that all that I would share with these…

  • Festivals

    I rather like the cultural elision that is unfolding this year, as Diwali give way to Eid which in turn gives way to Halloween/All Saints/All Souls and then Guy Fawkes. (All festivals that are religious in one way or another). Basically it means lots of fireworks. However, Miss T is not so happy at the…