• Opera Review

    The following review should appear soon at Opera Britannia.

    Rating: ★★★★☆

    Janáček’s strange opera The Makropulos Case is a curious mix of psychological horror and puzzling fantasy. Who is the central character Emilia Marty and what gives her so much knowledge of the affairs of others?

    Opera North’s new production is a stirring attempt to showcase and make sense of a difficult plot which has naught for our comfort whilst taking us on a compelling and exciting musical ride.

    All of the business starts in a lawyers’ office where legal minds have been kept in clover for decades trying to sort out a particularly complicated inheritance case. As the curtain goes up, lawyers and their clerks are trying to sort through piles of casework. Within this cramped, oppressive set, it felt as though all the boxes of papers and legal bundles are about to fall on everyone’s heads. A moody colour scheme – olives and jades was given some excitement with a classy lighting design by Bruno Poet. Strong shadows seemed to conjure up the feeling of an old black and white thriller. Costumes too seemed to place us in the early years of the movies.

    Mark Le Broqc and James Cresswell put in confident performances as the legal team – clerk and lawyer respectfully. Even stronger though was Robert Haywood as Baron Prus. His expansive baritone was the perfect tool for declaiming the baron’s legal claims to property and inheritance that should have been sorted out years before. Sadly, this contrasted a little with Adrian Dwyer who was playing his son Janek. There felt to be something very easy and relaxed about Hawood’s voice, in contrast to the rather forced, narrow tone of his son. Janek dies an early death. We wept no tears for him.

    Stephanie Corley put in sterling work as Kristina, Vitek’s daughter. She is a putative opera singer and like many a diva in waiting before her, Ms Corley flitted around the stage, a whirlwind of anxiety and emotion. Through all of this though, she managed to hold on to her voice and punch her way through her part with a delightful precision.

    The male protagonist, Paul Nilon as Albert Gregor was confident and secure and a joy to listen to. He seemed to manage better than anyone else on stage to make sense of Norman Tucker’s sometimes rather ragged translation. Gregor needs must come to terms with falling in love with his great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother. (Or something like that – one started by thinking that Mr Freud would be a useful person to have around but ended by wanting a mathematician).

    Comic relief was provided by Nigel Robson as an elderly count with whom the central character had an affair many years before. Robson stoked up the fires of passion and showed what a giggle one can make from a cameo role with a belter of a voice and a twinkle in one’s eye.

    Amongst an otherwise well balanced cast, Ylva Kihlberg as Emilia Marty completely owned the stage from her first appearance. This central role is a tricky one for any singer. After all, she finally leaves us not with a consumptive cough but by aging 300 years before our very eyes. Such a transformation really does require a singer who really can act and Ms Kihlberg did not disappoint in that department at all. She was electric in the first Act where, from the moment she appeared, every other movement on the stage seemed either to be directed by or be a response to flashes from her eyes.

    Vocally she was perhaps not quite so fearless. Within the plot, Emilia Marty (or perhaps EM, as she inhabits various personalities always with those initials) is an opera singer. Oh the irony if the person playing her is unable to quite carry the hopes and expectations of the audience. A slightly tentative first Act didn’t show off Ms Kihlberg voice to the best of her ability but as the score became richer as the evening progressed, so thankfully, she managed to find a greater vibrancy.

    Emilia Marty, of course turns out to really be Elina Makropulos who was born in 1585 and who has been kept alive by means of a longevity potion invented by her father. The greatest drama of the evening came right at the end of the piece when the existence of the potion was revealed and was offered around the stage by EM to all those who had seen the anguish of her sudden aging. The men all refuse but young Kristina snatched it from EM’s hand with great flourish not to apply it to herself but to burn it forever. As she stood with a flaming page held aloft in her hand she looked for all the world like the Statue of Liberty. As the formula burns away, EM dies but even to her last breath it was clear that she was undecided whether she wanted to depart this life or live forever. The play is a brilliant judgement on our aspirations of longevity. Should we chose to extend our lives, we risk having seen it all, long before life leaves us. Freedom is only freedom when the expectation of losing it in death is both absolute and unpredictable.

    Down in the pit, it seemed that Richard Farnes and the orchestra were enjoying themselves though did take just a little while to get into their stride. There was more energy and vitality about them by the end of the evening than there was at the beginning. Top marks to the brass for fulfilling Janáček’s not inconsiderable demands.

    In directing this piece, Tom Cairns took relatively few risks. Sadly one interesting idea fell very flat with a very strangely timed curtain fall at the end of Act 1. The idea was to take us from the lawyers office in Act 1 to the stage of the theatre where EM has been performing. It was a very clever idea to try to introduce the scene on the theatre stage by having EM appear before an applauding audience and take her bows. The sound of an audience applauding had been recorded and was all ready to be played in the auditorium to give Ms Kihlberg something to curtsey to. Unfortunately the curtain had fallen too early in Act 1 for the audience to be sure of what was going on. Instead of greeting the first act with applause, when the music stopped rather suddenly, everyone looked at one another in complete puzzlement. Silence and then an awkward clapping was thus then followed by a recording of a much more appreciative audience. What might have been a coup de theatre if the stage could have been set very quickly, became rather embarrassing. Had the audience greeted the first act with rapturous applause and then EM appeared on stage to courtesy and take her bows leading in to the second Act which all takes place on a theatre stage after a production, the effect would have been simply stunning. One hopes that this rather clunky transition might be sorted out before the production hits the usual Opera North venues.

    Notwithstanding this stutter, the evening gradually became something more rather than less of the sum of its parts. Janacek’s stunning score helps of course. As the chattering rhythms ricocheted around the pit in the final Act, all the singers were fully engaged and one felt that the production was running at full pelt. As EM declaimed to one and all the frustrations of living an extra three hundred years she became more and more fascinating. As she aged, she appeared to inhabit different characters – at one time appearing to channel Garbo and yet all too soon embodying a savage but frighteningly glamorous Mrs Thatcher. Chilling, and naught for your comfort, as I said.

    Note to the Director: Brilliant idea having three prominent clocks on stage all counting towards midnight during the last act faster than in real time.
    Note to the Stage Manager: All the clocks need to keep the same time thoughout.

    Tick tock!

    Rating: ★★★★☆

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

  • Christmas Day – Light that can never be extinguished

    There is one image that comes back over and over again at Christmastime ? the image of Christ as the Light. When Jesus comes at Christmas it is as though a blindfold is being lifted or a light-switch flicked on. Suddenly, things become comprehensible which once made no sense. Suddenly, there is the possibility for…

  • Listen to the Angel

    The angel said to them: ?Do not be afraid; for see, I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people.: to you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is the Messiah, the Lord.? Let us listen to the angel this night.

  • Light

    Rejoice, rejoice – the light is coming back. The shortest day is past. I hate the darkness at this time of year. I've never understood why Christmas misses the solstice by just a couple of days. It would make more sense to me if they were o­ne and the same. I find the idea of…

  • Cat's Christmas Carol

    Tilly received a Christmas Card o­n Sunday. It features the Blessed Virgin holding the Christ-Child who is looking downwards to where a cat is sitting beside a bowl. The card bears the following rhyme by Dorothy Sayers: All praise to His bountiful name!I do not know why He came;But I'm sure this is true -…