• Dido and Aeneas & Bluebeard’s Castle – Oper Frankfurt

    This review should appear in due course on Opera Britannia.

    Dido and Aeneas & Bluebeard’s Castle – Oper Frankfurt, Edinburgh International Festival
    Festival Theatre – 25 August 2013

    Rating: ★★★★☆

    “Please note, ” said the notice on the way into the Festival Theatre, Edinburgh, “this performance contains smoke, water-based haze, fog and nudity.”

    What they didn’t warn us of was that we were in for an exquisitely stylish double-bill with fine singing, precise direction and sharp acting. Oper Frankfurt are to be commended for creating an unexpectedly coherent evening from two very different works.

    Blackout. The curtain rises. Slowly, oh so slowly, the light returns, and we find the cast of Dido and Aeneas sitting stock still in silence on a long stage-wide bench in front of a concertina curtain at the front of the stage. They are arrayed in a glorious muddle of dress and undress from different ages. They stare out. The entire company stock still and staring. There is silence. More silence than is comfortable. Then the overture begins and then Belinda leans forward and sings.

    The start (and as we shall see, the end) of this production of Dido and Aeneas was hugely accomplished. The tiniest gestures becoming utterly captivating.

    Keteryna Kasper’s Belinda was pert and perky and with a voice to match. As she attempted to comfort Queen Dido she had an obvious sense of fun and a lightness of vocal technique that would have brought anyone out of the doldrums.

    Dido herself, resplendent in pink was centre-stage in every possible way. Paula Murrihy gave a knockout performance, perfectly negotiating the all the territory between haughty disdain and high-jinks. She had a versatile voice to match her dominance of the stage too.

    The Queen certainly perked up when Aeneas turned up and it was no surprise that she did. Sebastian Geyer’s Aeneas was handsome if a little high-maintenance. His voice was rich and powerful enough though his was the only voice that was obviously not that of a native English speaker. However, his delicious hard consonants (looK, forsooK and so on) did much to make one overlook his Germanic affection for vat his Qveen might do. In any case, Aeneas is supposed to be a foreign prince anyway.

    There was a lot going on in the chorus. Somewhere in the mix a comedy Adam and Eve were wandering around the Queen’s court dressed in floppy hats and little else. Along with the rest of the chorus they ended up for quite a lot of the action singing from the shallow pit, by the orchestra, yet still very much on show and given to gibbering wildly, standing on chairs or sitting stock still and staring again.

    The conniving baddies of the piece were three trangendered camp harpies in the form of three counter-tenors Martin Wölfel, Dmitry Egorov and Roland Schneider. Wölfel just had the slightly piercing evil edge on the other two but they made a formidable trio.

    Barry Kosky’s direction was assured, intelligent and interesting throughout. Never tempted to explain what was going on, he simply offered scenes which the audience recognised. Grief and sadness, shrieks of young love, jealousy and ultimately death were played out and often played for laughs. This is a funnier Dido than I could have expected.

    It was also sadder too. By the time we got to Dido’s Lament, she was alone on the stage. Whilst she sang her heart out (one felt almost literally) there was absolute stillness from the rest of the cast. Yet once she was done, the most dramatic action of the evening began. During the subsequent final chorus With Drooping Wings, Dido began to die before our eyes and the chorus began to leave through the side doors.

    One expects an opera diva to die with a heaving bosom and a trill upon on her lips. This Dido died a real death for us, gasping, retching and clutching at thin air she seemed to slowly disintegrate. And all the while, the chorus and then the orchestra departed from the pit and walked out of the theatre. This was, like everything else, perfectly timed, the last performer leaving after playing the penultimate note. The final resolution happened only in our heads. Dido gasped. Silence. Dido stared. Silence. Dido gasped again. Silence. Dido collapsed. Blackout.

    This was a completely assured performance that one simply didn’t want to end.

    After the interval, things took on a much darker tone with Bartók’s Bluebeard’s Castle. Once again, the curtain rose in silence. This time we saw the principle couple frozen in an almost-embrace, standing on a vast lunar circle in a stage that was otherwise completely empty. All the side and back walls and stage equipment were visible. Notwithstanding the early warning about nudity, one had not quite expected the theatre itself to be so suddenly stripped of its modesty.

    A whispered, pre-recorded prologue asked us to consider whether the stage was real or inside our heads. The conceit of showing us the stage almost completely empty suddenly brought home that question. It was obvious that this was going to be an interested psychological examination of a work that cannot be anything but an interior journey.

    I’ve always thought of Bluebeard as one of the great bullies of the operatic repertoire and Judith as an abused victim. This production challenged that considerably. Judith certainly fought back a good deal and one was left seeing a bitter battle of the sexes play out. Even more intriguingly, of course, is that whilst their relationship degenerated before one’s eyes on a stark, vast stage, one’s mind was still full of the fripperies of the Carthaginian court of the first half. Somehow the contrasts between these two such disparate works started to make sense. What we were exploring was the strange twilight world of heterosexuality. Strange and complex are human relationships and none so strange and complex as that between Bluebeard and Judith, also known as man and woman, Dido and Aeneas and yes, Adam and Eve.

    As the drama between the couple played out, the moon-white disc on which they were marooned began to revolve. It was the only scenery we got. As in the first half of the evening, a fabulous lighting design by Joachim Klein told us all we needed to know.

    This was a Bluebeard’s Castle stripped of any real set. No doors. No coloured light. Everything had to happen inside our heads and it is a tribute to all concerned that this theatre of the mind worked so well.

    Tanja Ariane Baumgartner had a voice that was incredibly dark and sorrowful. She brought to Judith an unexpected feistiness that had real edge. This was particularly on show when using the lower register of her voice – phrase after phrase an accusation against her man.

    Bluebeard himself, Robert Hayward was her perfect match. His bass-baritone had a somehow lonesome quality. Though he was often next to her on the stage, one felt that he was always alone and always would be.

    The score is a challenge for any singers. There’s a great deal of hard work to be engaged in just in order to reach over the fullness of the orchestra. There were no worries here. Baumgartner and Hayward squabbled their way into the minds of the audience each perfectly capable of capturing not only our affections but also kindling our fears.

    With just the two singing principles and no chorus, much of the texture comes from the pit. Constantinos Carydis did not disappoint. His conducting took a large orchestra to great heights. The great climax of the opening of the fifth door of the castle was simply vast, spacious playing. Fine work from the brass section enhanced an already powerful sound.

    Meanwhile on stage, other Bluebeards had appeared. As though conjuring up avatars of himself, he kept on appearing in multiple form. Though only one sang, the others were clearly him too. And they represented the opening of the doors with one minimalist theatrical trick after another. The lake of tears was represented by water dripping from the Bluebeards’s hands. The treasury by glittering gold-dust caught by Judith and cast about in the light all around the stage. Whilst the orchestra were having their fifth door moment, sudden plumes of smoke engulfed the four Bluebeards who stood stock still with all the drama being created by swirling grey vapours. The effect was stunning and showed how much interior drama can be created with simple ideas done well.

    When the other wives were eventually produced, three women dressed as Judith appeared. They each found their Bluebeard as we realised that the avatars were his earlier selves. Each Bluebeard embraced his Judith and they rocked backwards and forwards in time, each trying to make things better.

    Ultimately, Judith ended back in same frozen embrace that we found her in. Clearly, this journey was cyclical and one from which there was no end.

    Oper Frankfurt took some great risks in bringing these two operas together on one evening. Barrie Kosky somehow allowed each to shine whilst allowing interesting questions to arise. The ultimate effect was enthralling. Kosky’s intelligence enlightened his audience. One can scarcely ask for more from a director.

    Four stars

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

  • What people are looking for

    Here’s a list of things that people have been searching google for which have resulted in them arriving at this page recently, in order of popularity: pancake receipt kelvin’s head tim bennison apaisyl how to baptise midge bites how to baptise mp3 music easter vigil exsultet what is kelvin jo mallone

  • Sermon – 1 October 2006

    Where are the boundaries of God’s community? Who draws the lines which decide who is part of God’s realm of justice and joy? Our Gospel reading this morning takes up from the gospel readings that we have had over the last couple of Sundays. The disciples are squabbling. They don’t seem to have been a…

  • Ordinations

    Three ordinations this morning in the Cathedral. Lots of goodwill and love for the candidates, Judy, Eamon and Paul. An incident with a prominent member of the clergy and a staple nearly resulted in blood sacrifice at the altar, but this was averted by some nifty serving. A plaster was obtained from the first aid…

  • Paperwork Mountain

    Cartoon by Dave Walker. Find more cartoons you can freely re-use on your blog at We Blog Cartoons.