• La Cenerentola – Scottish Opera – Review

    This review first appeared at Opera Britannia.

    Rating: ★★★☆☆

    A couple of top-notch singers rescue Scottish Opera’s new production of La Cenerentola from the doldrums but sadly it is a production that lacks a sense of direction and purpose from the word go. Uncertainty in the pit and a very mixed bag of voices contribute to an evening that is neither a complete success nor a complete disaster.

    Things got off to a very uncertain start with a very scrappy overture that suggested that the orchestra were under rehearsed and underprepared. Though tempi were rollicking along, there were no riches in the orchestral sound at all. Dynamically there wasn’t much on offer – the only real variation being between fairly loud and too loud.

    Meanwhile, there were some interesting though curious things happening on the stage. Firstly we had snow falling at the back of the stage. Little scraps of paper were falling in the darkness and very dramatically lit. Then a series of wooden cabinets could be seen moving about the stage, which were to remain in view for the whole evening. Finally, La Cenerentola herself could be seen sleeping central stage. A curtain revealed a number of cast members who then crept about the stage amongst the cabinets. It turned out that most of them were the chorus, dressed in dark grey jumpsuits with large ruffs around their necks. Oh, and the ruffs were illuminated from within.

    What was happening on stage was certainly striking but what did it mean and where were we? Having had the whole of the evening to think about this, I have to confess that I’m none the wiser. The best guess that I can make is that the opera was set in the mind of someone reading about postmodernity in the early 1980s. A bit of modern dress here and a medieval ruff around the neck there; a few visual references to carriages all over the place and beautifully lit fluttering snowflakes which were not referred to again. Sometimes the ruffs were lit up and sometimes they were not. It was all quite clever but it was no way to tell a story.

    The large wooden cabinets were to remain on stage throughout the whole evening, from time to time, doing their little ballet. Most of the entrances and exits were through the cabinets, leading members of the cast to be seen bounding from the wings into the cabinets in order to appear. Again, one simply doesn’t know why.

    However, this was an opera not a cabinet ballet, so we had better consider the singing. First up it is probably best to deal with the high points. This is simple – this opera is worth seeing in order to hear Victoria Yarovaya in the title role as Angelina and Richard Burkhard as Dandini. They are each in their way superb.

    Ms Yarovaya had a lovely rich voice – that was clear from the outset but of course, Rossini makes his audience wait for the fireworks. Though she sang well all evening, this Cinderella saved the real sparks for the coloratura of the final aria “Non più mesta”. This was an astonishing virtuoso performance delivered full face to the audience with no pesky stage action to distract from what was going on.

    Ms Yarovaya’s triumph came just after Rossini’s set piece sextet “Questo è un nodo avviluppato”. This itself was was also stunning – the singers managing to roll their Italian consonants in a completely grrripping fashion. Taken altogether, the finale was considerably more exciting than the rest of the evening, which, one supposes, is how it should always be.

    Richard Burkhard’s Dandini, the valet, exuded confidence and it often felt as though he was taking command of the stage. His sexy swagger and knowing ways with the women were exciting in themselves but oh, his voice was a dream. Always cutting right through the chatter of the other voices and soaring above the over-eager orchestra, Burkhard could not only be heard but one wanted to hear him too. This was an outstandingly rich, would-you-like-cream-on-top-of-that-hot-chocolate of a voice. Like Ms Yarovaya, it is worth going to see this production just to hear him and to have the two of them in one show feels as though one has come up trumps twice.

    The unfortunate consequence of these two great voices is that the ensemble was thrown a little out of kilter as the others were no match for them.

    John Molloy as Alidoro was the best of the rest. His long tall frame and rather creepy presence brought something malevolent to the stage. Vocally he was self-assured and confident. Nico Darmanin as the prince, Don Ramiro had the confidence and the vocal dexterity he needed but not the power to reach over the top of the orchestra. The two frightful step-sisters Rebecca Bottone and Máire Flavin had a reasonable line in comedy pouts and faints but sometimes could not be heard. Ms Flavin had the clear edge here but the pair of them were drowned out too often. The same fate befell Umberto Chiummo who was a last minute substitute singing Don Magnifico. His voice was great when singing with the forte-piano continuo but I couldn’t really pass any judgement on his singing with the orchestra – too often I couldn’t really hear him.

    When the chorus were not bearing their strange cold light on the stage they were being given silly things to do by choreographer Pascaline Verrier who for some reason thought it would be a good idea to get the men to do camp little dances behind the other action for a cheap laugh. The men of the prince’s palace had glitter in their hair. No, I don’t know why either. Perhaps they had been having a girls’ night in, to prepare for the ball.

    Particular mention must be made of Angelina’s outfits. The dress which she wore to the ball was by some distance the most unfortunate outfit I’ve seen on stage for a long time, looking as though a swan was auditioning for the role as the ugliest of ugly ducklings. She looked far more pretty back at home in her Cinders outfit.

    And thereby hangs the central problem with this production. A lot of attention had been paid to details that didn’t matter whilst the basic story was ignored. Add to that a mismatched cast and you have a fairly patchy evening.

    There were good bits, certainly, but this didn’t really hang together as a whole. Director Sandrine Anglade was making her Scottish Opera debut with this piece. Though she had thrown a lot of creativity to the exercise things simply didn’t hold together at all. At the end, we had the snow effect again that we had seen at the beginning. It was quite beautiful. However it had nothing whatsoever to do with the story at all.

    See it to hear some cracking singing from a couple of great voices. During the silliest of the action, close your eyes.

    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

  • web outage

    I’m back online at home following an unexpected web outage. Something blew up. Back online now using a spare something from the cupboard.

  • Liturgy Instruction Video

    [youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh_nqtp3VrU] There is so much to say about this video. The scary oversize puppets around the altar and the white sixty-somethings jigging about to African drums are parts of the mass that you just don’t expect, do you? Don’t miss the asperges that you can see three minutes in. And the censing of the gospel…

  • Count yourself in

    This Sunday is the Sunday on which the Scottish Episcopal Church counts whoever is in church. Each congregation is asked to give statistics each year which include the number of services you have through the year, the number of people on the roll and so on. One of the statistics is the number of people…

  • Busy weekend ahead

    Its a busy weekend ahead. Its the Feast of Christ the King which we are keeping on Sunday morning and we are nodding in St Cecilia’s direction later in the day with an organ recital at 3 pm from Peter Yardley-Jones and a big glorious Evensong at night. Somewhere along the way we’ve an AGM…