• Don Giovanni – Review – Scottish Opera

    Rating: ★★★☆☆

    Scottish Opera has http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6039/g3ox.jpgproduced a solid and pleasing Don Giovanni but one which, though it contains some fine singing, takes few risks and makes few demands of its audience. Sir Thomas Allen sang the title role for years so knows the piece inside out, therefore this opportunity to direct the work must presumably be a distillation of the insight and wisdom that he acquired though working with countless others on different productions.

    Things began well enough with a strange masked figure suddenly appearing centre stage and beckoning the audience in during the initial doom laden chords of the overture. The mask was the first clue that we had been transported to Venice. We seemed to be there rather than Seville in order for a gondola to make a couple of appearances at the back of the stage. Other than that, it wasn’t immediately apparent why we were not in Spain.

    The overture continued at a decidedly steady pace whilst the audience looked at a gauze screen in front of a dark stage. Eventually, when the lights on the stage went up, we found Leporello (Peter Kalman) hunched in a corner. Alas, the gauze remained firmly in place for the singing of the first scene, obscuring the view of what was going on. Some clichéd rushing clouds were briefly projected onto it. However, it is difficult to know why this was left in place unless to emphasise that the murder of the Commendatore (Jóhann Smári Saevarsson) was taking place at night when it was Difficult To See. If that were the case, it would have been better to trust the instincts of lighting designer Mark Jonathan who engineered a series of brilliantly moody atmospheres throughout the whole evening and who would have been better described as a Shadow Designer. The set by Simon Higlett was pleasant enough to look at – dusty street scenes and rich interiors but scene changes seemed ponderously long and sometimes rather noisy.

    http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/434/uj5v.jpg

    Kalman’s Leporello was the first voice to be heard in a balanced and reasonably confident cast. Indeed, his Catalogue Aria had more confidence than comedy about it, though he was later to get more laughs by continuing to sing whilst apparently eating chicken legs. He had a bold, assertive quality to his voice which one knew straight away was going to be one of the great strengths of the evening.

    Jacques Imbrailo’s Giovanni, http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/3301/h4zw.jpgmatched Kalman well and they made an interesting pair – sometimes more a couple of mates who had got themselves into scrapes than strictly master and servant. It is Giovanni’s mission to seduce all around him – not only his women but also his audience. This Imbrailo proceeded to accomplish with some aplomb. His baritone voice brought a polished and suitably aristocratic air to this Giovanni and there was no doubt that he was always one step ahead of everyone around him.

    One of the most difficult parts to make sense of in Don Giovanni is surely Donna Elvira. Her vacillations over whether or not she trusts the central character go backwards and forwards. Lisa Milne wrung her hands and wrung her heart out over whether or not to trust him. She managed to find the necessary light and shade in her voice to bring out these sudden changes in desire.  Though her fury was always more exciting than her affection she rose up and firmly grabbed hold of all that was expected of her.

    A late substitution of Anita Watson for Susan Gritton who had been billed to sing Donna Anna brought a very confident and bright soprano to the stage. Her apparently relaxed ability to step into this role was rewarding and quite a delight to listen to.

    Barnaby Rea’s Masetto was cheerful on the ear but grumpy by inclination as he became more and more exasperated by Zerlina, his intended. His attempt to keep her in one place by tying her up as she sang her apologies brought out something rather dark in their relationship, though she didn’t seem to be complaining. His rich and rewarding tone was a delight on its own and perfectly complimented Anna Devin’s Zerlina.

    Indeed, Ms Devin had the sweetest singing amongst the entire cast. It was not merely her dove-like gentleness which was a pleasure but also that the orchestra could be kept from overwhelming her. The sensitivity which conductor Speranza Scappucci managed to inspire from the orchestra was never more apparent than during her “Vedrai, carino” which was the most delightful way of banishing any memories of previous Musical Director Francis Corti’s domineering heavy-handed conducting which dogged the company right up until his departure earlier this year.

    Similarly, http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/8193/mhta.jpggentleness was the watchword for Ed Lyon’s Don Ottavio. Though bedecked in an unfortunate wig which resembled a wet day at a spaniel show, Lyon sang with a delicate purity, particularly during “Il mio tesoro”.

    Both dramatically and musically, this Don Giovanni was a little subdued. There were several good ideas which were not developed. The appearance of the masked figure at the very beginning was rather enticing. Could such a silent figure have been some kind of narrator or Puck-ish demon through the whole piece? We never found out – masked figures moved the scenery but never directly related to the audience again. Similarly, Leporello was much more implicated in the Commendatore’s murder than one usually sees (his hand was on the weapon along with Giovanni’s) yet though this was obviously a point deliberately made, it went undeveloped later on. The surreal appearance of two blank-faced nuns in the second act was never entirely explained. The splendid cornettes which adorned their heads told us that they were Daughters of Charity but didn’t really tell us much about why they were simply standing around on the streets of Venice. Meanwhile, Ms Scappucci tended towards rather cautious (or might we say indulgent) tempi throughout the piece.

    The most exciting dramatic moment came at the end of the first act when Don Giovanni made his escape by walking into the fireplace of his room and striding right through a blazing fire and into the darkness. This was breathtaking and one can only presume that he was wearing asbestos knickerbockers.

    Fire-proof underwear might well be a metaphor for what Scottish Opera needs at the moment. This production came just days after the news broke that it had already lost its new Music Director Emmanuel Joel-Hornak, who left without conducting a note of music less than two months after being appointed. Scottish Opera is currently subject to intense press speculation that not all is well within its company. Given the apparent crisis, it is commendable that such that a musically coherent new production such as this made it onto the stage at all. However, ultra-safe choices seem to be being made and this was one third of the company’s whole output for the main stage this year.

    This was a pleasing and pleasant production. However, Don Giovanni’s breeches were not the only things which didn’t quite catch fire.

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

  • Internet outage

    Am suffering an internet outage – not the best of weeks to have no internet connection.

  • Amnesty Exhibition

    Don’t forget the Amnesty Exhibition this week at the Hallion. 5pm to 10 om each day from Monday. “The exhibition is is part of Amnesty International’s aim to mobilise supporters in the UK by 2011, to coincide with their 50th anniversary. This exhibition is a testament to people in every walk of life standing up…

  • Health update

    Much sneezing here, so have made the reluctant decision to remain off work another couple of days rather than sneeze and wheeze all over the congregations tomorrow. Applications of soup, ginger, tea-tree oil, lemsip, whisky, paracetamol and garlic have so far proved to be only partially effective.

  • Conspiracy Theory Alert

    One of these pics shows the Compass Rose, symbol of the Anglican Communion set into the floor of Canterbury Cathedral, whilst the other shows the Compass Rose, symbol of the CIA set into the floor of CIA headquarters. Reports that the two organisations are one and the same are being denied by all parties, but…