• 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.

37 responses to “The Peace and Unity and Order of the Church”

  1. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Kelvin,
    I should, of course, have written ‘on this site’ rather than ‘appear in this blog’ because such derogatory terms have been used in the main by some of the correspondents.

    However, as to your use of the term ‘misogynist’, while certainly not applying it to any individual you seemed to be suggesting that all who held such views on headship were misogynist – a word which my dictionary defines as a hater of women. I happen to know a number of clergy who take this view and while agreeing that they are seriously mistaken , in no way can they be described as women haters – a serious and unfair accusation.

    Your also referred in your comments on the Bishops’ New Statement to ‘homophobic bullying’ which I also find objectionable. Today, of course if one dares, even with good reason, to remonstrate with anyone it is very likely that an accusation of bullying will be made and if they happen be gay then it is just as likely to be accused of being homophobic.

    Finally the term ‘arch conservative’ was used by someone who contributed a comment. I apologise for giving the impression that it was a term used by you.

    The point I was trying to make is that the use of such intemperate language cannot be conducive to reasoned discussion or argument. It reduces the whole thing to name calling.

    1. Cynthia Avatar
      Cynthia

      “It reduces the whole thing to name calling.”

      What is church leadership calling ME when they treat me as lesser in the eyes of God and the church? What is the result of hateful and hurtful language? Depression, LGBT teen suicide, homeless LGBT teens who are cast out by their religious families, sexual abuse of these homeless LGBT teens, hate crimes, human rights abuses…

      The truth of the suffering caused at the hands of the church needs to be told. It isn’t a pretty story, nor is it a polite one.

  2. Kelvin Avatar

    Ross, I’ve done an electronic search and I can’t find many instances of the term arch conservative on this blog. I happen not to think it too terrible, not least because I can imagine people using the term arch liberal to describe me. Although that would be inaccurate, I’m not sure that I’d be that offended to be honest.

    But that’s not the point. I can find only one instance of someone commenting on this blog using that phrase. That’s one comment in 10500 comments. It doesn’t seem to me to be a phrase particularly commonly used on this blog.

    The terms homophobe and misogynist have sometimes been used, but I’m struggling to find any instances of them being used to describe any individual. Again, I’m not of the view that they’ve been particularly commonly used in those 10500 comments. There simply aren’t that many instances of the words being used on this blog at all.

    Generally speaking, I think it is OK to debate ideas – it seems to me to be reasonable to be able to describe homophobic ideas or actions. Generally it is not helpful to call people homophobes. There is a difference that I know and tend to be quite careful around.

    I stand by my description of last week’s guidelines as homophobic bullying. Indeed, I can’t think of a better example of such behaviour. However, I’m not in the business of calling people homophobes and the accusation that I am and even that I do so habitually, seems to me to be far from secure.

  3. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Kelvin

    I accept your comment about my comment about the use of the word ‘archconservative!! Apologies for overstating the case.

    Having re-read the Bishops’ statement I cannot for the life of me understand how you can suggest that any part of the document can be suggestive of homophobic bullying. Its obvious intent is to clearly state what the current situation is which is important given that there could be legal implications for any clergy who decides to act outwith the confines of the stated law of the land (i.e the Act permitting same sex marriage.)
    I’m not really sure what you expected the Bishops to do.

    I appreciate how emotive and divisive this whole issue is. Inevitably the peace and unity of our church is going to be (and is) seriously disturbed to the detriment of its mission.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      No-one can be surprised at the bishops letting people know they should not do anything illegal.

      However the surprise has come from clergy being told that they themselves should not marry. If the bishops knew they were going to say this previously then they should have said so before the General Synod and particularly before the Cascade Process began. Both the debate at General Synod and the Cascade would have been different if this had been known.

      It particularly targets anyone who is in training to become a priest or lay reader who may have been accepted for that training whilst being open and honest about being in a civil partnership. To publish this with just one week to go before the law changed was, to say the least, unhelpful.

      People make plans. Most things to do with marriage are planned more than a week in advance.

  4. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    My final comment -you’ll be pleased to know!

    But surely any ordinand who is in the situation you describe will be fully aware of the doctrine of the SEC regarding Christian marriage as expressed by Canon 31. At their ordination/licensing they can hardly promise to render due obedience to the Code of Canons if they plan not to abide by them.

    When I was ordained in the Church of England candidates for ordination were barred if they were divorced and had remarried. Through time the situation was changed. I would not be surprised if, in a few years time, the SEC changes its stance on same-sex marriage – I wouldn’t be surprised but I would not be happy. As I have commented before, as an Anglican my faith is based on Scripture, Reason and Tradition, all three of which bear witness to the truth that Christian Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      If someone in a same-sex marriage cannot subscribe to the Code of Canons because their manner of life puts them outside of the definition of marriage in Canon 31, then I can’t see any way that someone who is divorced can subscribe to the canons for the same reason.

      I personally think that someone’s subscription to the canons represents them accepting that this is the doctrine of the church. It is on that basis that I can subscribe to the Canons. Clearly I don’t believe the definition in Canon 31 to be adequate and have said so many times and very publicly.

    2. Lawrence Rosenfeld Avatar
      Lawrence Rosenfeld

      Ross, Parts of various articles in Ian Bunting’s collection, Celebrating the Anglican Way, can be paraphrased thus:

      “Anglicans understand the Old and New Testaments as “containing all things necessary for salvation” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith. ‘Reason’ and ‘Tradition’ are seen as valuable means to interpret Scripture (a position first formulated in detail by Richard Hooker), but there is no full mutual agreement among Anglicans exactly how Scripture, Reason and Tradition interact (or ought to interact) with each other.”

      To the best of my understanding, it is Tradition alone (and not a terribly old one, when compared with the Hebrew Bible as “Scripture”), that declares “that Christian Marriage can only be between a man and a woman,” given that for a great deal of the past millennium there may, indeed have been one man and one woman, but the rest of what was called “marriage” bore no resemblance to what we in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries recognize. I refer to women as chattel, marriage for political purposes, etc.

      I’m sorry that you are not happy, but I’m sorrier that you are subtly suggesting that, since I affirm that my Reason and reading of Scripture trump “Tradition,” that I am somehow less of an Anglican than you.

  5. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Surely the Canons are not articles of faith. They are laws to be abided by, not a creed to be believed. There is a huge difference between the two.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      My understanding is that it is something of an anomaly to have a doctrinal statement in a canon. The canons should indeed be regarded as the law of the church and not a doctrinal statement.

  6. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Apologies for making another comment after I stated that I had made my final one on this issue.

    I agree that canons are not doctrinal statements or articles of faith but they must and do reflect the belief of the church. As the Bishops’ Statement puts it ‘The doctrine of marriage of the SEC, as currently expressed in Canon 31 of the Code of Canons, is that marriage is “a physical, spiritual ad mystical union of one man and one woman.”

    I would, therefore, have to disagree with Rosemary’s claim that there is a ‘huge difference between the two.’ They are obviously very closely linked to each other and with the practice and life of the church

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      The important point to remember is that the statement regarding marriage in Canon 31 is “The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.”

      If it isn’t possible for those who advocate same-sex couples being able to enter marriage to edit that definition to suit their own ends then it can’t be possible for anyone else to do so either.

      If it isn’t possible for someone to subscribe to the canons because they happen to be in a marriage with someone of the same gender then it can’t be possible for someone to subscribe to the canons who is in a second or third marriage either.

      The way our church has dealt with divorce (which is also controversial for some people) has been to allow people to minister who are in relationships which fall outside the definition of marriage in Canon 31.1

    2. Lawrence Rosenfeld Avatar
      Lawrence Rosenfeld

      “Huge” or not “huge”? Rather than debating the size of a subjective term, perhaps we can try to find a more objective method for determining the relationship between the two.

      It seems to me – and I welcome debate on this point – that the Canons ought to flow from our faith (“reflect the belief of the church”). Assuming that is the case, then after we deal with the question of “what IS the belief of a church that encourages reason over dogma?”, we get to wrestle with the potentially circular nature of putting statements of belief into a governance document.

  7. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Not so. Canon 31.4 allows for a Diocesan Bishop to permit the marriage of person/s whose previous marriage has been dissolved and where one of the previous partners of that marriage is still living.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Yes, Ross. The Canon allows for a bishop to permit a marriage after divorce.

      However, that says nothing at all about subscription to the canons or anything about whether such a person should be fit for ordination.

      If it isn’t possible for someone to subscribe to the canons if they happen to be marrying a person of the same gender due to Canon 31.1 then I can’t see how a person can subscribe to the canons if they are in a second marriage which also falls outside the boundaries of Canon 31.1 regardless of whether such a thing was permitted in church.

      I think that a second marriage should not be an impediment to ordination. However, the Bishops’ recent guidelines have implications beyond those who happen to be gay and lesbian.

      These are all inconsistencies that come from a time when the Canon was revised to suit some circumstances (divorce) but before other circumstances (marriage of same-sex couples) were even thought about. We shouldn’t expect such Canons to answer questions they were never designed to ask.

      Notwithstanding that, one of the reasons that it was presumed by many that being in a same-sex marriage (which does indeed fall outside the doctrinal definition of marriage in the canon) would not be a bar to ordination is precisely because being in a second marriage (contrary to the doctrinal definition of marriage) isn’t. One can’t have it both ways.

  8. Seph Avatar
    Seph

    It seems to me that a bishop can either be a ‘focus for unity’ (a seriously dubious phrase in my opinion) or show real leadership—I don’t see how it is possible for one person to do both.

    I can’t see much evidence of either from the SEC bishops at the moment.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • 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.

  • Lightbox time

    I’ve alluded on this blog before to the fact that as autumn comes on I use a lightbox. Well, lightbox time is well and truly here. About 10 days or so I took it down from the cupboard where it lies hibernating for the spring and summer and set it up on my desk. 10000…

  • 10 10

    Hey, have you heard about the campaign to get everyone to try to cut their energy use by 10% in the year 2010? Well, if you haven’t and you are in St Mary’s, you can find some information on a temporary noticeboard at the back of church on Sunday. Anyway, I was thinking about this…

  • What am I listening to?

    Oh, thank you for asking, it seems like a while since you did. Firstly, its probably worth saying how I’m listening. I’m listening to music through the online service Spotify quite a lot these days. I’m lucky enough to have a “free” account which has the advantage of being free but the disadvantage of being…