• Review: Orfeo ed Euridice, Scottish Opera

    This review originally appeared for Opera Britannia.

    Scottish Opera have managed to produce another underwhelming show that, though visually arresting, leaves one with more questions than answers. There are things to praise about Ashley Page’s directorial debut for Scottish Opera: his ballet background clearly has given him an intense sense of theatrical spectacle that was used to good effect. A company of eight dancers often held the attention far more than the musical drama which unfolded around them and from whom they often seemed quite separate.

    Things began quite confidently. The first scene clearly established that we were in a very glamorous 1950s world. Orfeo was lamenting his lost Euridice and we found ourselves at a society funeral. Very quickly it was also established that this performance was going to rely as much on dance as it was on the singing. From within the chorus, eight dancers emerged and began a fascinating dialogue with the music. It was still clear that it was the 1950s and so it was not surprising when the goddess Amore appeared to have taken the form of Grace Kelly. Ana Quintas, making her Scottish Opera debut sounded as glam as her A-line costume. Her singing was consistent throughout the evening and consistently fabulous. The dancers disappeared whilst she told Orfeo where he could find his true love if he wanted her back. Inevitably, he set off on his quest.

    It was at this point that the stage was invaded by eight red space-monsters in latex with glowing eyes on their heads. It looked as though the bar in the first Star Wars movie had suddenly decided to have a fetish night. It was quite astonishing, as was the noise of the latex creaking when they all sat down. Meanwhile, behind the space-monsters, the chorus had also reappeared and had seemingly been invited to a red and black steampunk party next door.

    Had all of this conveyed something of where we were then it might have been an extraordinary coup de théâtre. As it was, it represented the plot being comprehensively lost and it was difficult to know entirely where we were supposed to be for the rest of the evening without glancing at the programme notes.

    If we didn’t know quite where we were on the stage, then the same could also be said of the orchestra down in the pit. It was hard to know whether the conductor Kenneth Montgomery was aiming for an original instruments kind of sound or something full-on and modern. A thin overture was not particularly enhanced by a pair of natural trumpets fluffing their way alongside a modern pair of horns. Although things improved after a while there was never a great deal of excitement. A small off-stage ensemble did provide an interesting echo effect and some lovely playing. The most beautiful music though being the full version of the Dance of the Blessed Spirits. Wisely, the choice had been made to include this from Gluck’s Paris 1774 version of the piece even though most of what was presented was from his earlier 1762 work. The inclusion of more ballet music offered more scope for Ashley Page to show us what he is good at, though even with this extra music it was still a fairly short evening – less than two hours, including a 20 minute interval.

    Once the second half was underway and we were in Elysium, the chorus had thrown tie-died sheets over themselves and were wandering about in the manner of lime-green nuns, each wearing a headdress of flowers as though on their way to their final profession of their vows. At last, Orfeo found his Euridice who was hiding under a red polka-dot burka.

    Though it made little sense, the production was incredibly visually striking. The ballet duets that were danced here in Elysium were utterly beautiful, even if they were, at times, dancing around lime-green nuns. Amidst all this there was some singing though it was fairly obvious that this was not the focus of the evening.

    Orfeo himself was sung by Caitlin Hulcup. Her voice was a voice of two halves, however, the upper register being much more lyrically arresting than the lower voice. Her singing was never anything less than competent but there was no real passion anywhere and little to get excited about. The same was true for Lucy Hall. She was making her Scottish Opera debut and sang well enough, and if well enough is what Scottish Opera are aiming for them, all was well. The reappearance of Ana Quintas’s Amore only highlighted that she was singing everyone else off the stage.

    My Italian companion for the evening did remark on the crisp and flawless Italian pronunciation from everyone on stage, so congratulations are in order on that front to everyone, including the voice coaches.

    Sadly, the designer Johan Engels didn’t live to see the production. A sparse set consisted of a large acrylic box dominating the stage on a revolve. It presented the usual lighting problems that large, revolving, reflective boxes always do in opera productions and lighting superviser Robin B Dickson never entirely managed to stop random lights flashing in the audience’s eyes nor the ghostly appearance of the conductor in the middle of the stage.

    In summary then, we had an underwhelming evening of reasonably pleasant music, though the dance was considerably more interesting than anything that was sung. It is difficult to credit that this is one of Scottish Opera’s few main stage performances this year. It will run only in Glasgow and Edinburgh and for only 7 nights in total. It is becoming difficult not to wonder what this company gets up to when it isn’t putting on its occasional performances

    Rating: ★★★☆☆

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

  • Knowing Me, Knowing You (again!)

    Hey, remember the Knowing Me, Knowing You sessions that I ran a while ago? Well I’m doing another one this week. If you don’t remember what this is about, check out this description from an earlier one. These sessions are limited to 20 people in order that we can keep the conversation flowing. If you…

  • Consecration of new bishop in Kentucky

    The Diocese of Kentucky consecrates a new bishop today. The Diocese of Kentucky is one of Glasgow and Galloway’s Companion Dioceses. At about 4 pm UK time, the service will begin in Kentucky…. and, provided they can resolve their internet issues in Kentucky, on this blog: Now, ain’t that neat?

  • Home is the wanderer

    Ah, Glasgow. Here I am again. Today I arrived back in town after two weeks holiday. I’ve been to France, since you ask and I’ve had a lovely time. I was in the sud and so my body was warmed greatly by the sun. I tend not to tan a great deal, because I slap…

  • Archbishop Elect of Rwanda

    I’m seeing reports that Bishop Onesphore whom we know in Glasgow from our link with the diocese of Byumba has been elected as Archbishop of Rwanda to succeed Emmanuel Kolini. The warmest of congratulations to Bishop Onesphore at this time. All those friends in Glasgow will be interested in whether this election will lead to…