• Jenůfa – Scottish Opera – Review

    This review should appear in due course at Opera Britannia
    Rating: ★★★★☆
    Scottish Opera have managed to present a very confident production of Janáček’s rather gloomy opera. It allows three fabulous female singers to shine brightly and makes a strong case for what might be regarded as a rather tricky original work.

    In what must have been a rather trying incident for all the performers, never mind the audience, the first night production was unfortunately delayed by three quarters of an hour whilst paramedics attended someone who had had an accident on the balcony steps. It was apparently not possible to put the house-lights down until the matter had been resolved and it was something of a relief by the time that the curtain eventually went up that it was going up at all.

    Fortunately, the delayed start didn’t affect the tought dramatic production and it was soon clear that this was going to be a night to remember.

    Jenůfa is a rather complex piece at the best of times. A certain amount of prior knowledge of the relationships between the characters is required right from the word go. This was provided in the programme along with the curious information that the director Annilese Miskimmon had set this production in the west of Ireland in 1918 rather than in rural Moravia.

    I have to confess that moving the action to Ireland accomplished very little. Fortunately it didn’t get too much in the way of the story and it did explain the large white cottage (with wonderfully smoking chimneys) which had landed in the middle of the stage like a tardis flying in from outer-space. Also, like the tardis, it proved larger inside than it appeared on the outside once it opened up for the interior action later in the evening. The interior of the cottage was a good deal more interesting than the outside though designers Nicky Shaw did manage to produce a very clinically clean early twentieth century rural Irish idyll.

    But enough about the set – on to the singing. After all, this was a night at the opera that succeeded precisely because of some highly spirited and accomplished singing.

    First up was Lee Bissett in the title role. Her Jenůfa was a fairly sad girl from the outset – we saw her first lamenting her lot leaning against the cottage wall. There was nothing sad at all about her voice though which glistened throughout the evening. By the time we got to Jenůfa’s prayer to the Virgin in the second act, she was managing to combine extraordinary passion and beauty.

    It was also clear early on that Anne-Marie Owens was going to be well worth listening to. Her grandmother character managed to combine despair with a certain mournful quality along with some cracking acting.

    Completing the trio of stand-out performances was Kathryn Harries as Kostelnička (ie Churchwarden’s widow) Buryjovka – Jenůfa’s step-mother, if I was keeping up with who was who. It is upon the Kostelnička that the whole story turns. She cares for Jenůfa to the point that she contemplates and eventually carries out the infanticide of Jenůfa’s child in order to facilitate the possibility of a marriage for the girl.

    Perhaps the most uncomfortable realisation in the whole evening is that Janáček dedicated the work to a dead child of his own. What can he have been thinking about?

    Ms Harries had an awesome dramatic intensity to her singing which was more than able to deal with the vast range that Jenůfa demands from the singer. When the Kostelnička is eventually exposed as a child murderer, her reconciliation with Jenůfa and resignation to her fate was genuinely touching.

    Things were not quite so secure amongst the male leads. Janáček calls for a pair of love interests for the leading lady, neither of whom a particularly attractive character. (One longs for a feminist reinterpretation of the ending whereby Jenůfa shakes her head at all that is on offer and marches off on her own but it wasn’t happening in this production).

    Peter Wedd made a reasonable stab at Laca but Sam Furness was a out of his depth as the hapless Števa. It is hard work being up against a full orchestra playing Janáček’s fabulous score at full pelt and Furness never really managed to make much of an impact against the wall of sound that was coming from the pit. Both men looked the part and there was nothing out of place in their acting abilities.

    Stuart Stratford the conductor could have kept a bit more of a lid on the orchestra but there’s no denying how interesting the orchestrations are and a slight tendency towards too much sound could be forgiven for the range of colour that was on display and there’s no getting away from the fact that there was some splendid orchestral playing to be heard. Pacing was quite slick and that only helped to keep ratcheting up the tension on stage.

    Honourable mentions go to two smaller parts. Jonathan May’s Mayor was perhaps the most distinguished male vocal singing of the evening. Rosalind Coad as Karolka their daughter was decidedly perky and fresh.

    A large chorus (described in the programme as The Chorus of Jenůfa) was in good voice as the villagers. Scottish Opera doesn’t seem to be having any more luck appointing a chorus master than appointing a musical director at the moment, but Philip White can feel very proud of what he managed to achieve here before he heads off to become Head of Music at Grange Park Opera later this year.

    Notwithstanding the curious decision to relocate affairs to Ireland, Annilese Miskimmon can be justly proud of producing one of Scottish Opera’s most interesting productions for quite some time. It is easy to recommend this co-production with Danish National Opera. It plays for a scandalously short run in Scotland – just three performances in Glasgow and two in Edinburgh. Worth catching if you can.

10 responses to “Where does the Church of Scotland stand?”

  1. Robin Avatar
    Robin

    I understand your sentiments, but both on this issue and on the ordination of women in the Church of England the weary words of Mrs Boyle in Sean O’Casey’s ‘Juno and the Paycock’ in reply to her son, who scorns the Irish Free State and wants an Irish Republic or nothing, are inclined to come to mind:

    “To be sure, to be sure — no bread’s a lot better than half a loaf.”

  2. Nick Brindley Avatar

    I think you’re right to think this is a disastrously wrong-headed attempt to avoid having to think the issue through, although we may not agree on what would be involved in such thinking (almost nobody agrees with me!)

    I think we need to revisit some pretty fundamental problems on the nature of the moral authority of the Bible, the meaning of “salvation” and what ministry is to make any real progress with this issue and there appears to be depressingly little appetite to do this in a spirit of mutual trust and of trust in the leading of the Spirit guiding our interpretation of scripture

    http://loveswork.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/failing-to-be-biblical-reflections-on-church-of-scotland-sexuality-debates/

  3. Frank keefe Avatar
    Frank keefe

    This is what happens when you water down Gods truth so the secular world will think what a progressive church you are.When a small secular wedge is pushed under a church door you can bet a larger one will be pushed under it in the not to distant future.I believe a liberal minded church like the Church of Scotland is more dangerous to the Christian faith than atheists like Richard Dawkins and his followers. Jesus found it hard to convince the Pharisees of their misguided beliefs if He walked our earth today He would find those modern day Pharisees in the Church of Scotland even harder to convince.

    1. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
      Rosemary Hannah

      Well, there you go – I think the exact opposite – that Jesus, who plucked corn, and healed, on the Sabbath, would be out partying tonight with all sorts of disreputable people. The Pharisees were the people who stuck rigidly to the law, breaking it even as they kept it. Jesus was the one who re-interpreted it.

      1. Frank keefe Avatar
        Frank keefe

        I find it amazing how those who look for sin to be accepted would try and use Jesus to back them up.First Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.The Pharisees abused Gods law with their legalism.Its why He said about the rescue of a sheep on that day.He didnt re-interpret it He was showing them how it SHOULD BE KEPT as God ALWAYS intended it.Its the church who is doing the interpretation and Jesus certainly wouldnt be “out partying” such disrespect of our Lords holiness is often the way with liberal ” Christians” Instead of the church being a light to the world that worlds darkness is putting out that light.

        1. kelvin Avatar

          Bless you for your faith, Frank. May it bring you happiness and joy.

  4. Graeme Cowie Avatar

    It’s a fudge, no doubt. And one which, far from preserving the “traditional” Kirk actually serves to undermine it in a number of ways, particularly concerning the status of “doctrine” and who gets to determine what it is, or at least what practical meaning it is for something to be “doctrine” rather than merely a personal religious sentiment. Explicitly to permit complete deviation from “doctrine” by congregations is not very Presbyterian, and the “traditionalists” either didn’t seem to realise that, or they care about preserving substantial doctrines at the expense of, well, what makes the Kirk the Kirk.

    To an extent, though, you could see it coming. I think the traditionalist wing sensed they would lose if it was a straight choice (unfortunate phrase) between 2A and 2B, and so tried to push for something that retains a symbolic attachment to historical doctrine whilst letting liberals have the lion’s share of the cake they want, which is to be able to ordain those in committed same-sex relationships and to be done with it. I know for a fact that a fair whack of liberal commissioners were swayed by 2D (not including my parents, who are CofS ministers who voted with option 2A), many seeing it as a way of letting the traditionalists have some sort of phyric victory whilst in fact enabling ministers to be in civil partnerships without any lasting problems. It is much more likely that 2D will make it through Barrier Act procedure now that it’s got the traditionalists’ name on it, and notwithstanding the extra year it’s going to take to turn it into a proper overture, I think the consensus of the Kirk is that they really want to stop talking about this.

    The new system ought to be fairly robust once the Legal Questions Committee have had their teeth dug into it. The clear intention was conceded by the movers that they did not intend for Presbyteries to be able to discipline or annul decisions made by Kirk Sessions seeking to be allowed to appoint ministers in civil partnerships, and for a lot of liberals (and actually, a lot of those on the conservative wing too) this will be seen as a critical part of the compromise if it is to be laid to rest. My only real concern is that if the traditionalists are for any reason unhappy with the implementation by LQC it could lead to the whole debate re-opening in GA 2014.

    It’s clearly not enough for many liberal ministers, elders and members of the Church of Scotland, for whom this still presents a partial sense of “separate not equal” for congregation and minister alike, and it probably makes it more difficult for the theological position of the kirk formally to be moved away from same sex relationships being sinful, now that the “practical harms” are in a significant sense out of the way, but by Church of Scotland standards, it’s a major step forward for a very broad church, and one which has probably saved it from a major schism (though a handful of churches may still leave over and above The Tron and Gilc South). For those of us in the Kirk 5 years ago, this would have been virtually unthinkable, and momentum has picked up since the Rennie case 4 years ago. The good fight goes on, and hurdles remain, but if it gets through Barrier Act procedure I think the practical objectives, in a Kirk which already offers substantial liberty of personal opinion in matters of doctrine which do not enter into the substance of faith, have largely been met, albeit in a roundabout way.

    For more of my thoughts on this matter, see:

    http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2013/05/church-of-scotland-religious-progress.html

    and

    http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2013/05/presbyterianism-cracking-at-seems-cost.html

  5. Margaret of the Sea of Galilee Avatar
    Margaret of the Sea of Galilee

    And it still does not properly address how LGBTQ people (single or in civil partnerships) will be dealt with (dealt to?) when they offer themselves to Presbyteries as feeling called to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament. Will they be asked about their orientation? Questioned? Interrogated? What responses will allow them to or prevent them from pursuing that call?

    Who is this Albert Bogle anyway – is he about to become the first to be beatified by the Kirk and for what exactly? By-passing (even disregarding) Kirk “Order”, convincing his important friends to let him bulldoze ahead and his less important friends to print off 700 and something copies of a Deliverance which is incoherent and unimplementable.
    Off to read Revelation for other signs of The End Times…
    .

  6. Peter W Nimmo Avatar

    Kelvin, you make lots of good points in your post. But just to clarify- what is the doctrine and practice of the Scottish Episcopal Church on this issue? Does your doctrine approve of persons in civil partnerships being clergy, and is that put into practice?

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Yes – there are quite a number of clergy in civil partnerships. In England, Anglican clergy in civil partnerships are supposed to declare that they are “celibate”. That isn’t the case in Scotland.

      The pension scheme in Scotland recognises Civil Partnerships by giving such partners the same benefits as wives or husbands in marriages. Civil Partners also are treated in the same way with regard to housing as a straight spouse if a relationship breaks down.

      Any candidate for ordination who is in a Civil Partnership is expected to be honest about that at selection.

      The bishops of the church announced a few years ago that they would not consecrate anyone as bishop who was in a Civil Partnership. They were clear at the time that this was a moratorium. However it is not clear to me whether that moratorium still stands. I do expect there to be questions about that at the coming Synod.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Merry What?

    Just as a matter of interest, which of these two campaigns do you find offensive, if any? Either The alleged Sexmas campaign which is purported to be about to be launched which aims to keep people from unwanted pregnancy and contracting HIV and other STDs. (More details from the usual outraged suspects, for example the…

  • Pontifical High Evensnow

    Well, last night’s evening service was a delight, if an unexpected one. Earlier in the day in the face of all the snow and a heating system that had not come on overnight, leaving the church freezing, a decision was taken to postpone the Advent Carol Service until next Sunday evening. However, it was obvious…

  • Here is the sermon…

    Here’s the sermon I would have preached this morning if life had not been so cold….. In the name of God, Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier. Amen. The gospel reading that Chucks has just read is one that is very familiar to me. When I was younger, I used to go to churches which were very keen…

  • Advent Carol Service postponed

    Please note that the Advent Carol Service has been postponed until 5 December 2010 at 6.30 pm. The service this evening will be a Sung Evensong in the Synod Hall.