• American Lulu – review

    This review also appears on the Opera Britannia website

    Rating: ★★☆☆☆

    Taking Alban Berg’s Lulu as a starting point, Scottish Opera at the Edinburgh International Festival present American Lulu – a new re-envisioned interpretation of this piece by Austrian composer Olga Neuwirth, who re-orchestrates Berg’s original, attempts to set it within the context of the Civil Rights movement in America and provides a conclusion to compensate for the absence of anything satisfactory at the original composer’s death. Sadly, the end result is a tedious and rather pointless production whose only saving grace is some stunning singing. The cast work hard and cannot be blamed for a production that offers an object lesson in futility.

    There’s no doubt that a great deal of effort and work has gone into this. The piece was co-commissioned by The Opera Group and the Komische Oper Berlin and co-produced by The Opera Group, Scottish Opera, Bregenzer Festpiele and the Young Vic. Maybe things turned out so badly because it was effectively produced by a committee. However, one wonders why there was not someone with enough clout in any of those organizations who might have put their foot down and told the rest that this new reinterpretation of Lulu simply isn’t a work that is good enough to be worth staging.

    The new orchestration was for a wind-dominated ensemble which also included synthesizer and electric guitar. To these were added various recordings that were woven into the sound-scape, particularly those of spoken texts relating to the Civil Rights movement and recordings that have been made of a Wonder Morton theatre organ in New Jersey. The passages for organ include those which Berg originally specified should be played by jazz ensemble. Yes, that’s right, the opera has been rescored for what is basically a jazz ensemble except for the passages which were scored for jazz ensemble, which are now given over to theatre organ. Heaven knows why. The orchestration itself is muddy. One can hear lines emerging from the mix that are recognisably those of Alban Berg however a lot of work has gone into making them hard to pick out. The weakest parts musically came at the end of the piece – music which we must presume was all Ms Neuwirth’s own.

    The action begins though with Lulu, played by American singer Angel Blue, standing on a pouf, centre stage. She is only partly visible, having a loose curtain of shiny strips behind her separating her from the band at the back of the stage and a similar curtain separating her from the audience. Both of these curtains were then subject to drab video projection courtesy of Finn Ross who has done far more exciting work elsewhere. The curtains and the video were to come and go without obvious reason throughout the evening. For an Edinburgh International Festival audience still reeling from the video overkill that was Gary Hall’s Fideliojust a fortnight ago, it was a case of déjà vu. Why does it ever seem like a good idea to put an opera singer behind a curtain?

     

    However, the wonderful thing was that Ms Blue is a superb singer. Not only was her voice excellent throughout but it was matched by the rest of the cast. Though the production had its obvious problems there were none in the singing department and it was a pleasure to hear such a fantastic ensemble of voices. The lead role asks a lot from any singer; the score is tricky and a vast vocal range is expected but Angel Blue was flawless. Her upper vocal work had a particularly glitzy shine and there was a freshness to her singing which lasted through the whole evening. (100 minutes straight through – no time off for good behaviour either for cast or audience).

    Lulu goes through a number of lovers and the production is little more than a parade of her affections. First up was Paul Curievici as the Photographer with whom Lulu is enamoured. (He reappeared at the end as her final Young Man). His singing too seemed effortless – a fine tenor with crystal-clear diction. Then we met Donald Maxwell as Dr Bloom, Lulu’s patron and his son Jimmy sung by Jonathan Stoughton. Again, both had strong voices – Maxwell bringing a fabulous rich resonance to proceedings and Stoughton a convincing Southern American accent, the only real clue that we were in the American South.

    Composer Olga Neuwirth seems to have been responsible for this Southern setting rather than director John Fulljames. However, he must bear some responsibility for the clunky scene changes and confused narrative. None of this was helped by the recorded excerpts from Martin Luther King and fragments of poetry from June Jordan. The trouble here is that Lulu is, so we are led to understand, entirely untroubled by care for anyone other than herself. She isn’t part of any feminist struggle, black civil rights struggle or indeed any kind of struggle. Each snippet of speech was a reminder that the opera was floating along without paying any heed whatsoever to the context in which the characters had been thrust and to which they seemed entirely oblivious.

    Lulu may be a bit of a handful but she is no freedom fighter. Both composer and director seemed to lack any sympathy for any of the characters that they had conjured up. There was one line about this black Lulu ending up singing songs for an all-white audience which might have taken us somewhere in terms of social comment but which was instead simply left dangling around without purpose. (Wouldn’t it be good though if Scottish Opera were to start to think about the almost monochrome ethnic composition of its own audience?). The use of Martin Luther King gobbets to change scenes in an opera about a sleazy, murderous hussy in the week that marked the fiftieth year of Dr King’s great “I have a dream speech seemed frankly rather tawdry.

    Meanwhile, Lulu was working her way through her lovers. An Athlete appears for her to dally with. Again, Simon Wilding’s voice was more than adequate but apart from wandering on in American football kit, complete with helmet, he didn’t have much to do. (Do All-American boys really wear football helmets when they go a-whoring? It does seem unlikely). Similarly,Jacqui Dankworth seemed unable to go anywhere without clutching a microphone in her hand to establish her credentials as blues singer Eleanor. Both these characters were little more than singing cartoons. Ms Dankworth though had the great distinction of bringing a gorgeous bluesy voice into the aural mix. She alone amongst what was going on did convincingly take us into the jazz era, even if it was far from clear why we were there. Paul Reeves was nipping on and off stage in three smaller parts and Robert Winslade Andersonsang Clarence, who seemed to be being used as some kind of narrator.

    Unfortunately it was not always clear what was going on with this production. At one point there was quite a long near-blackout where the only thing that could be seen on the stage was the cast skulking around in the wings to the sound of a recording of Alban Berg’s music re-orchestrated for theatre organ.  Apparently, true to Berg’s original intention, a film sequence was due to be shown at this point which failed to trigger due to a technical problem.  Perhaps this film would have helped made sense of the rest of the production, though that does seem unlikely.

    Ultimately the trouble with this production is not its atonality but its banality. There’s no excuse for taking a femme fatale and making of her something so humdrum. There are so many lovers and so many deaths that one should surely feel something about Lulu, but in the end there is nothing much there to care about. Full marks to the cast who put their all into everything. It was, alas, never going to redeem a show which should never have got anywhere near an Edinburgh International Festival stage and which now moves to the Young Vic in London. The piece ends with Lulu staggering out from behind one of those curtains clutching at a wound that is ultimately going to kill her. It isn’t at all clear who struck the mortal blow – my money is on an opera lover.

13 responses to “Peter Tatchell on Outing Bishops”

  1. Ann Avatar

    I agree — as The Rt Rev. Barbara Harris says, “it is okay to be in the closet as long as you are not using it as a machine gun nest”

  2. Erika Baker Avatar
    Erika Baker

    While the CoE policy is completely crazy and homophobic, it is consistent in itself.
    Gay sexual relationships are not permitted for clergy.
    So the official line is that all CP’s clergy follow this rule – and who knows, some may actually follow it! Stranger things have happened!

    But marriage is different because it is defined as a sexual relationship (and the Alice in Wonderland “I am not seeing reality” ignores marriages between people who cannot or do not want to have sex).
    And so no amount of looking elsewhere can distract from the fact that your married gay priest is not celibate.

    That’s the faultline.
    And outing non-married gay bishops, partnered or not, does not touch this.
    They can all to a man say that they are following church policy.

    1. Stephen Peters Avatar
      Stephen Peters

      Yes, Erica. But somehow, and more hugely, no. That Gay Bishops hide and allow gay clergy to be demonised on any front, is just not on. Church Policy or no = They should be working to change this appalling policy, not supporting it to harm the lives of truly loving couples.

    2. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
      Rosemary Hannah

      The whole insane situation is made more invidious by the fact that one of the arguments trotted out against marriage between people of the same gender is that they could not (in the eyes of some detractors) actually have sex. Sex was, to these people, certain acts and certain acts alone. I suspect the same arguments pertain in the HoB and that people in partnerships with another of their own gender can make what is, in the eyes of the HoB, a perfectly valid case they are not ‘having sex’ with their partner.

      The situation is nuts, perfectly nuts. The answer is for straight people, and for celibate people, who have the least to lose, to stand up, and shout. The higher up the ecclesiastical tree they are, the more important it is that they do this.

  3. Richard Avatar
    Richard

    Both Erika and Stephen make fair points. As I see things, those who scramble for scripture to justify treating people as second class citizens in a way that trench troops scramble for the last round of ammunition as the “enemy” marches inexorably
    forward, will view outing as inflammatory.
    If anything, this could widen the schism. Could this fracture the C of E in a way that women’s rights threatened to? As the breath of equality, dignity and fairness dominates the secular world and is very much present in many hidden corners of the church, possibly so. It could certainly further damage the church’s membership.
    If these are possibilities then perhaps the church’s leaders might be forced to discuss this in the open should outing occur. I remain sceptical that fundamentalists will cast aside their theological guns as it were, but the church will be a healthier place for having open and honest debate and reflection- and action. I’d rather see a reduced sized church that is founded on fairness and honesty rather than a larger body that hides behind the armour of theological confusion and hypocrisy on this issue.
    I’m saddened to reflect that I don’t believe that the main church will countenance or confer equality and dignity. Whatever the cost. Hopefully, I might be wrong.

  4. Dennis Avatar
    Dennis

    When you go outing an anti-equality CofE bishop be prepared for all sorts of ugly hate filled email. I saved a few of the nicer responses just because they were so amazingly horrible. A couple of emails were frightening and a right wing Anglican blog tracked down and posted my work contact information. Six and a half years later I still get sick at my stomach thinking about it. And honestly it has no impact on anyone other than the now out-of-the-closet bishop who will lie and deny deny deny. Do it but be prepared for an ugly situation on your hands.

  5. James Byron Avatar
    James Byron

    What’s to be gained? The ’90s mass-outing did nothing to change the church’s homophobic trajectory, and I doubt a repeat would do an any better. Either the bishop will refuse to comment, and the story dies; or they admit it, and are forced to resign. It could backfire hugely, making the people doing the outing look vindictive. Many traditionalists would sympathize with the outed bishops.

    Besides, what makes people think there’s any gay English bishops to out? Everything I’ve seen to date has been rumor and innuendo, usually nudge-nudge comments about Anglo-Catholics with a love of white port and vestments.

    The problem is, at heart, economic: rich evangelical parishes could bankrupt the church overnight if they chose. A handful of bishops can’t change that. Instead, open evangelicals need to be convinced to change their minds. Any fight for equal rights that isn’t supported by people like Ian Paul, N.T. Wright, Graham Kings and Nicky Gumbel will go nowhere.

  6. Peter Ould Avatar
    Peter Ould

    From the conservative side, if you’re going to out anybody, out them because they’re being hypocrites. There is nothing to be gained from outing men who have been sexually active in the past but are not any longer, or who have always been celibate. But if there are members of the House of Bishops who are sexually active with someone of the same sex, outing them is less to do with homosexuality and more to do with hypocrisy. It is unacceptable in any line of business to demand one thing of your staff and then to do the exact opposite yourself.

    Of course, what will happen in practice is that men will be named who are celibate, or who have repented of previous sexual activity and this will just backfire, because it will be seen to be vindictive and nothing more. As far as I know, there are no hypocrites in the House of Bishops on this issue, but please do correct me if you have any knowledge to the contrary.

  7. Fr Steve Avatar

    It seems difficult to justify perpetrating one sin towards another on the basis of the fact they themselves have perpetrated an act of sin(hypocritical abuse of power). This doesn’t seem to me like the Jesus who stood before Pontius Pilate.
    We may ask ourselves what then do you do?….do we really gain anything by not just fighting sin with sin. But by promoting sin (outing)…for surely such it is! We do nothing to advance the cause of justice.

  8. Kelvin Avatar

    It is not my view that we can derive our ethics from scripture – for that reason, I’m a little hesitant about the comparison with Jesus standing before Pontius Pilate.

    There are quite a lot of examples, I think, when Jesus did speak directly about hypocrisy.

    There’s also Nathan the prophet confronting David over Bathsheba.

    None of these proves anything – scripture doesn’t prove an ethical decision to be right one way or another. It is worth noting though that scripture seems to me to be far from one-sided on this matter.

  9. Fr Steve Avatar

    Was very mindful Kelvin of these examples when jesus was confrontationist…..but outing is just horrible

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      We are in a horrible situation. Yes.

  10. Fr Steve Avatar

    I don’t actually agree with the statement “scripture doesn’t prove an ethical decision to be right one way or another”
    but do understand the complexity of: ‘that scripture seems to me to be far from one-sided on this matter.’
    At Mass yesterday (my first in my new parish: stmarymags125.blogspot.com.au)
    I was harangued by a parishioner who objected to the fact that I had told the congregation that ABM-A (Australian Church’s Missionary Agency) has launched a campaign for funds for Gaza
    She told me, as rightists do….that all Palestinians are wrong!….didn’t seem to know that most Anglicans in the Holy Lands are Arabs of Palestinian origin.
    She obviously hadn’t heard my first sermon …that catholic means universal and that our God & Jesus loves everyone! That is what ‘universal’ means.
    The Church is just awful…hypocritical yet loved by God…just as She loves those who are different from us.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Having Kept the Feast

    Last night’s service was absolutely beautiful. I’ve never heard the Duruflé Requiem live before and it was tremendous celebrating the Eucharist with all that going on. For me one of the most moving bits comes early in the Kyrie. I love the Sanctus too though it sounds as though the angels are singing their holy,…

  • Keeping the Feast

    It is All Souls Day – the Day of the Dead. The main celebration (and it always is a celebration) here is a full choral requiem (Duruflé) at 7.30 pm this evening. Gentle beauty. Strong memories. Powerful reflections. Black vestments. On this day, we remember by name in prayer those who have died. Never a…

  • Sheilagh Kesting

    Congratulations to Sheilagh Kesting. It was announced yesterday that she will become the next moderator of the Church of Scotland. Sheilagh has a passionate commitment to working ecumenically – she believes it more than most these days. No doubt that will be one of the key features of her moderatorial year. How delighted they must…

  • Playing on the MP3 Player

    Here is the playlist from the MP3 player for today’s trip to Edinburgh… (in no particular order of precedence) 1 – Tammy Wynette – Stand by your man 2 – Folk och Rackere – Stjärnhästen [Fond memories of Sweden in December]. 3 – Zelenka – Missa dei Patris 4 – Runrig – Heartland 5 –…