I was at the opening night of MISS FORTUNE which, by all accounts, should have been a fantastic night. The piece was of simple but meaningful subject matter, not too long, with an amazing cast and by Judith Wier, a successful opera composer. However, the piece laboured on for its entirety (only 90 minutes) and was told in such a poor manner, in which the action on stage never connected to what was happening in the pit.
The story is that of a Sicilian folk tale about a rich girl who goes off on her own to live in the harsh world. She is haunted by Fate (and his break-dancing baddies) which ruin every good thing she finds along the way until she confronts Fate and then her [personal] fate changes. It is excellent material for an opera. A bit timeless and somewhat poignant thinking about the current difficult economic times. However the end is confusing and the characters are all one dimensional and become either distorted or confused. The Prince, who has been nothing but good, starts to talk about tearing down his favorite laundrette, or even our Miss Forture, who has rejected wealth consistently in the piece, suddenly wants to win the lottery. These are nice character twists if appropriately developed, but motivation seemed to get lost along the way and seem to come out of nowhere to advance the story. And why did she have to go back in time to win the lottery, when we all knew she would anyway?
Addressing the music, as in the context of this blog, it was high on substance (what it was about) but low on the manner (the technique, or way it is said). The drawn out word setting and ensembles cut out the excitement where we expected it from them. The orchestra droned and dabbled on, while the stage was alive (or tried to create the excitement the story demanded) but there was a disconnect between the two. I never once heard a phrase in recitative, i.e. normal speech rhythms. Every line was suspended in slow time. But the entire idiom of opera is based on this manner of recit and aria; details/information and emotion. Here the entire piece was arioso. Therefore we were lost in a nebulous world of not knowing what is important to know and not knowing how the characters react to that information. The most indicative moment came when the singers were forced to speak instead of sing. Which was most likely chosen as a manner to heighten the drama, but instead, even with all the efforts of the performers, the scene and expectations in this moment fell flat. The orchestra dawdled on in low clusters breathing no life onto the sparkling stage (it actually did sparkle). The music was mannered in way that was never unpleasant, or distinctly pleasant. Even the final major chord seemed to come out of a texture in which a major chord seemed out of place, therefore undercut the entire aesthetic. It was a happy ending, but the chord was there only to signal the opera's end, rather than its celebration.
The disconnect continued throughout the piece, but was all the more elaborated by the break-dancing Fates. The street dance idiom we normally associate with modern hip-hop music. They took the stage during this amorphous, not quite tonal music, and did their thing. All the while we were caught in a dissonance as the audience. We were waiting for the music to tell us this was all ok, on purpose, and we would have a good time, but we could not enjoy the novelty of the dancing because it had no reason to exist. Not to mention the implications of faceless, dark-skinned break-dancing vandals...
The singers all gave fine performances even though the phrases were exaggeratedly long and the words and sentences rather short. This brought about a word clarity which is commendable in modern opera. But when there is emotional urgency, do we not as humans, say our words quicker, and perhaps repeat them, and achieve clarity in repetition? The texture was always the same and variety and patter not included in the bag of tricks. The manner failed, and even if the words repeated, as they did over and over in the ensembles, it was monotonous instead of developing variety.
Overall the piece had a wonderful production value, as one would expect from the ROH. But the piece fell flat on the libretto, structure and pacing, which all came from the composer. I do not like to be critical, but I submit this critique as a way of pushing a dialogue about new works. They must contain substance, like this piece did, and manner, which Anna Nicole had in spades, but lacked in substance (i.e. sympathetic subject). In order for high art to exist these two functions have to come together. Manner and Substance combined create masterpieces, they create the works of Puccini, Wagner and Verdi which are the opera house standards. I do not mean we have to go into the past to find great works. They are old and have their place in the museum. But what can we write today, that speaks to us in our time. These two elements need to be balanced. It is not a matter of tonal or a-tonal. It is a matter of what is being said and how one says it in a way that connects those two elements to an audience hungry for it.
For more on explanations on the manner/substance concept see my first three posts.
-BW
No comments:
Post a Comment