• 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

25 responses to “Same-Sex Marriage Consultation Responses”

  1. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    I was so proud to be a member of St Mary’s when I read this, especially as I knew that for some vestry members it was very contentious issue. It is so good we can have strong views and hold together despite them. It is also good to know that we are unafraid to actually say something – something real.

  2. Lallands Peat Worrier Avatar

    Your last point on the situation vis-a-vis transgendered people is well made, though would require the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 to be revisited and amended, since it is that (which is, admittedly, propped up by the current definition of marriage) which requires the dissolution of marriages and civil partnerships where one partner’s gender is legally changed. That being the case, we can’t eliminate the potential injustice to transgendered people you refer too without updating the legislation on civil partnerships alongside changes to marriage. I enlarged somewhat on that point here:

    http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-defence-of-degendering-civil.html

  3. Duncan Hannah Avatar
    Duncan Hannah

    It is heart-warming to read this. It is the compassionate side to Christianity that can be seen too infrequently. It does make me proud, to be even vaguely associated with the Episcopal church, reading something so positive regarding same sex marriage. It speaks volumes for St. Mary’s that the vestry as a whole produced this response.

  4. Elizabeth Avatar
    Elizabeth

    I echo Rosemary’s comment. It’s a good day for St Mary’s.

  5. william Avatar
    william

    It is understandable that ‘pride/heart warming’ feelings have taken over in St Mary’s this week among those who genuinely believe that they are advancing equality etc and so offering more fulfilling days for those who engage in homosexual activities.
    The silence of another perspective which lies behind Rosemary’s statement [for a spectrum on this issue exists in every christian church, albeit not so wide as in society in general] “for some vestry members it was very contentious issue” suggests that it doesn’t seem to be what one does in St Mary’s,namely, to express openly[at least in this blog], any serious concerns about the trajectory being pursued. Or any concern that the approach being followed may be incurring God’s displeasure, and may be leading many well meaning members to find themselves under God’s judgement.
    Surely in any christian church one cannot just assume or have a settled conviction that such a God is not the God with whom we have to do. If that is the only view that is espoused at St Mary’s then again is that because the opprobrium which would follow [as this comment will produce] is too powerful to withstand.
    As in CoS I recognise that the Episcopal hierarchy are representing the broader view, and St Mary’s own statement recognises another understanding – but this blog is not yet exhibiting that balance, hence my encouragements to another outlook to make known its thinking to the world.
    Let me add, however, that the aim of such an encouragement is not simply to expose diversity, rather it is to encourage genuine biblical dialogue, so that the christian church may exhibit to the world the mind of its King and Head, the Lord Jesus Christ.
    The apostle Paul, quoting earlier prophets in Israel, had to say of those who were known in the ancient world as God’s people that the name of God was being blasphemed among the Gentiles because of their hypocritical behaviour.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      William – can I suggest that you simply read this blog post a little more carefully. You seem to be missing the point of what the Vestry has said.

    2. Ryan Avatar
      Ryan

      Do only Christians get married William? Of course not. Do only anti-gay Christians have an interest in getting married? Again, of course not. I’d imagine also that St.Mary’s vision statement shares some of your theological language and is considerably grander (in the best sense) and less dehumanising than ” offering more fulfilling days for those who engage in homosexual activities.” (which frankly sounds more suitable for a 70s-based STD clinic) . Your attempted contrast between the “biblical” view and the mere “broader” (and presumably broad for broad’s sake?) alternative understanding of relevant opinion is absurd.

    3. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
      Rosemary Hannah

      You know, William, Kelvin is being just too nice. (Words he never thought he would see me write, those). The whole point is that the Vestry has recorded that there was more than one opinion among it members, and recorded both or all sides, and yet put forward the majority view. The point is that mature people can disagree, and still respect each other, still further the views which they do not share.

      Gay people marry for the same reasons that straight people do – they love each other. Ad yes, you are right – it is more fulfilling to live with somebody you love rather than to meet them for brief, clandestine moments. I wish I could be sure you will be able to understand why – the reason is that it is hard to live with somebody, and to keep putting their needs and interests first. It is a whole heap easier to live alone, and have cornflakes for tea if that is what you want, and not have anybody else to consider, but just casual sex if you fancy it. Only, that way one tends not to grow up very much. Go figure. And go spot the links between paragraphs one and two of this little post.

  6. william Avatar
    william

    Rosemary, Kelvin is always nice, and even when we don’t agree, not only can we respect one another but love one another enough so that we would want to take each other’s thinking forward together as we seek to approximate to the mind of Christ. Didn’t Paul set that paradigm before us in his epistle to the Romans?
    That’s the nature, indeed the purpose of us together forming the body which is the church of Jesus Christ – a living organism united by the same Holy Spirit.
    “Gay people marry for the same reasons that straight people do ”
    There’s a statement which needs not only explication of at least four of its terms, but more particularly exploration of its intent – and that’s the matter that was not being explored in this current blog theme of ‘heart warming’ contentment.
    I am not calling for people to be direspectful of those with whom they ‘disagree’, or of the majority perception in St Mary’s of ‘same sex relationships’, but for robust biblical dialogue – but nobody seems to feel free, in the present regime there, to identify with any other perspective than the ‘majority’ one espoused in St Mary’s Response.
    Maybe it’s because Kelvin is too nice!

    1. kelvin Avatar

      I think you will find William that quite a lot of people are attracted to St Mary’s because they find it to be a church where the kind of pseudo-biblical judgementalism that you advocate is almost entirely absent, even when we are discussing things where we have clear differences of view. It just isn’t how people behave here. I’m guessing that folk here would generally find that positive rather than negative. There are plenty of churches where people behave in the kind of manner that you seem to want to impose from afar on St Mary’s. The truth is, people here just don’t behave like that.

      That’s what the deal is, you see. That’s one of the reasons people turn up.

      That’s why we are growing too.

      Though I fit into that ethos rather well, for once in my life I can say with all honesty: “It isn’t all about me.”

      It is who we are.

    2. Beth Avatar

      This is part of what I wrote to one member of the Vestry prior to that response coming out: “I think that part of what makes us an inclusive church and something that we as a church do tend to be quite good at, not just on this topic but on most topics, is that we don’t always agree with each other and that we do always make room for one another’s opinions.”

      William, as you seem to be reading only what you want to read, let me spell this out:

      The Vestry response to the question on same sex marriage contains an introductory paragraph explaining that there are differing views on this within St Mary’s. It then spends 77 words explaining the views of those in favour of same-sex marriage, and 101 words explaining the views of those who are not in favour of same-sex marriage.

      I do not understand how you can possibly read that in such a way as to think that only one view is expressed in the response or interpret it to mean that nobody within St Mary’s feels free to express differing opinions.

      1. william Avatar
        william

        Beth, I never had any doubt about the Vestry consultations, as Rosemary indicated – nor did I fail to recognise the differing views incorporated within St Mary’s Response –
        [ my blog 8 Dec “St Mary’s own statement recognises another understanding “].
        I was responding to this blog theme of “heart warming/ pride” which initially and is right up to your comment not exploring the view held by the majority in the christian church – even the Scottish Episcopal Church – that the bible may not sustain a ‘revisionist trajectory’, to use Church of Scotland language.

      2. Ryan Avatar
        Ryan

        William:

        That would be the same Scottish Episcopal Church that, back in 2005, said it had no problem with gay people (and no, not only the celibate kind) being clergy? And that in all of Glasgow has precisely one church that beats the anti-gay drum in the manner you’d deem biblical? And of course, one hopes that you are busy informing said anti-gay churches that really ought to listen to the voices of gay people in the interests of “balance”.

        1. kelvin Avatar

          Ryan, where exactly does one get an anti-gay drum? Do they come from anti-gay drum shops?

      3. Beth Avatar

        William, you are contradicting yourself.

        You did allude to the fact that the St Mary’s response recognises a ‘different understanding’, but the way you have written that sentence suggests (to me) that you’re saying that the St Mary’s response is different to that of the SEC hierarchy. You have elsewhere in this thread said that “nobody seems to feel free under the present regime [at St Mary’s] to identify with any perspective other than the ‘majority’ one espoused in the Vestry response”, that “some views are not expressed too openly at St Mary’s”, and that “it doesn’t seem to be what one does in St Mary’s, namely, to express openly any serious concerns about the trajectory being pursued”. The point that I am trying to make is that, contrary to what you have said here, various members of the congregation identify with perspectives that disagree with the Scottish Government proposals, they have expressed these views openly, and their opinions have been incorporated into the Vestry response.

        Perhaps part of the issue is that you seem to be having trouble differentating between this blog and St Mary’s and therefore trouble understanding that there is a difference (an enormous chasm of a difference, in fact) between the expression of one’s views on a personal blog and the dictatorial imposition of those views on one’s cathedral.

  7. william Avatar
    william

    Kelvin, I think you’ve just exposed why some views are not expresed too openly at St Mary’s – the ethos implies that such thinking is “pseudo-biblical judgementalism”
    And even the unwritten assumption “That’s what the deal is, you see”
    I am not trying to ‘impose’ anything in St Mary’s from afar, but it would seem you certainly are.
    The fact that numbers are growing – I wonder why you chose to enter that fact? – as you well know, proves nothing, albeit I’m encouraged to hear that any church has an increasing attendance these days.
    Every blessing.

    1. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
      Rosemary Hannah

      What you need to do william is to come and worship at St Mary’s – where you will find a warm welcome and an un-cowed congregation loudly expressing all of its views very openly. I don’t think imposing views is something Kelvin is much tempted to – but if he was I would advise him to find another congregation on which to do it. However, you will also find a lot of gay people. People know we have gay as well as straight clergy, and that means gay people know they will be welcomed there and not looked-down-on. Since that assurance is a moderately uncommon thing, we attract gay Christians. And it is, by and large, a very liberally-minded congregation. It means that somebody like me can worship there and know that I am not going to be harangued or looked-down-on for my views either, or find I am alone in openly expressing my views, which is exhausting. And not just views on equal marriage. I was made to feel criminal in another church for disliking one particular theory of atonement, and by the priest too. This freedom to think and argue is the very thing that makes it a congregation likely to hold views closer to Kelvin’s than to yours.

      1. kelvin Avatar

        Ooh, that reminds me, Fr Vice Provost did a workshop on atonement theories the other night that sounded really good. I think he described it to me as an Atonement Supermarket – several different theories all laid out in the room and people invited to position themselves in the room according to what theory or theories attracted them most. Excellent idea – worth repeating, I think.

      2. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
        Rosemary Hannah

        It seems I can’t reply to your reply to my reply. OOOh – no wonder I love St M’s – you will be intuitively there before me when I say I am not great on cosmic child abuse.

    2. kelvin Avatar

      Threaded comments only go two deep I think.

      I’m not surprised by you saying that at all. I’m very much attracted by a palatte of atonement theories though.

  8. Ryan Avatar
    Ryan

    I gather that they’re impossible to get a proper rhythm from, thereby frustrating the gays and their inate fabulous dancing skills 😉

  9. Pam R Avatar
    Pam R

    I was at the Atonement Supermarket on Wednesday night and it was fabulous. Definitely worth repeating.

    1. PamB Avatar
      PamB

      Was there any dancing?

  10. […] arguments against changing the law. She finds support from What’s in Kelvin’s Head? who reports that his congregation have sent in a response that’s in favour of the […]

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Paperwork Mountain

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

  • Veterinarian Bulletin

    “Just give her these pills twice a day, oh and could you bring in a urine sample too…OK?” We’ve been here before.

  • The Monastery

    The Monastery, the TV reality programme that put members of the public in, well, a monastery is going to be redone in the US. I hope we get to see it here.

  • Anglican Primates – adding up the numbers

    There was a bit of a flurry of news last week about things which are now euphemistically called Communion Issues. A band of Anglican Primates who claim to represent the “Global South” issued an extraordinary statement, the Kigali Communiqué, in which they seem to walk away from the rest of the Communion. (Or perhaps I…