The Met's "Faust"

[SandyMcKean]

I was astounded. I'm not saying I approve (yet), or that I even completely liked it, but it is certainly something that has never be available to opera spectacle until recent years. I found some of the video effects inspiring and others distracting (especially the reflections off the video screens). Who knows where this is all going to lead.

[bart]

Sandy, my response was similar to yours. The whole thing was extremely interesting. Oddly, I think it would look spectacular in a live performance and I wished that I had been at the Met itself. Somehow seeing these visual effects on a big movie screen -- a place where we're accustomed to seeing grand and elaborate visual illusions in movie after movie -- made this particular show seem a little flat.

I was struck by the fact that this was the only Met HDLive performance I've seen in which there was almost no applause in the movie theater at final curtain. (The audience at the Met, however. was enthusiastic.)

The video certainly opened up the production and were often quite imaginative and sometimes beautiful. However, the rigid stage set (scaffolding) on which they were projected seemed to restrain and constrict the characters. The non-stop visuals sometimes distraced from the singing. For example, it was difficult to concentrate on Faust's and Mephistopheles' singing while watching them clamber up stairs, over railings, and out onto ledges. I've seen Margurerites in the Gounod climbing stairs and ladders, but Susan Graham had to hoist hersself up a huge aluminum extension ladder while facing the audience. The harness and rope she had to wear were quite prominent. The Dance of the Spirits had to be performed in what looked from the audience point of view to be office cubicles connected by a long, narrow balcony floor; this limited the choreography which was repetitive and mostlyi done in place.

To compensate for the monster set, the director opted for numerous close-ups. These were not always flattering and sometimes made it difficult to figure out what was going on elsewhere on stage. . There we NO shots of the entire stage framed by the proscenium, only bits and pieces. Seen from so close, the images highlighted in the Met's advertising -- Faust and Mephistopheles galloping towards the town where Marguerite lives, etc. -- were rather disappointing. The famous shot of soldiers walking up a wall while the grass parts was eerie but not beautiful. At the top of the set, each soldier was shot, his limp body lowered by rope to the lap of his seated wife below. This led to one Pieta pose after another. Once was not enough. This principle of "too much, too many" was especially notable early in the opera when the image of the crucified Christ appeared (a live actor). The camera pulled back. There were FIVE crucified Christ. The "only begotten Son" apparently had four brothers. Too much, too many.

Whatever one things,s this is definitely the way of the future. . Even without LePage's interactive video, the multi-cubicle multi-level stages seems to be the latest trend. At least 2 other Met HDLive operas this season use quite similar set structures: Peter Grimes and the upcoming Orfeo ed Eurydice.

I am still wondering why there was so little applause in the movie theater and why the production left me strangely unmoved by the marvellous score. Susan Graham sang superbly, as did the rakish Mephistopheles John Relyea. Just as good were the members of the chorus who have quite a lot to sing and do in this opera.

[Helene]

I loved this production, with two exceptions: I thought the video of flames during Marguerite's great final aria was heavy-handed, and the other was a minor quirk, probably specific to the movie: as Marguerite ascended to heaven, there was some small white thing happening in video behind her, and I couldn't make it out.

I loved the water scenes so much more than Bill Viola's in his "Tristan und Isolde" -- they had much more flow and complemented the music perfectly. Despite the title, the two main characters are the orchestra and choruses, and both were superb. I like Giordani in this music; there haven't been heroic French tenors like Georges Thill for decades, although Jonas Kaufmann gave it a go in his latest CD, but I liked the more subtle approach he took to the role, actually vocalizing an older man in his opening aria, with a hint of the virility Faust had as a younger man. (In this age, he'd just order Viagra over the Internet and pretend he was 25 again.) I love how dramatically in this "Faust", Faust doesn't sell his soul to the devil to get Marguerite: with the help of Mephistopheles, he gets her, uses her up, and dumps her. It is only to save her that he sells his soul.

John Relyea: Mephistopheles is the best role I've ever seen him in, dramatically and vocally. Where do I sign?

[Alexandra]

I loved this production too. As a matter of fact, I'll go so far as to say this is the best NEW thing I've seen in the past 10 years. LePage understands Romanticism! I think Berlioz would have loved it. That age was all about special effects and excess, too, and all the visuals were organic -- not someone's brilliant idea plunked down next to something else.

That said, when I was leaving the theater, I heard two women say that they hated the spectacle, that it interfered with the singing.

Our fairly large theater was sold out, by the way, and the transmission was flawless.

[Helene]

There was dancing in it, and it actually was ballet. The women used the balcony railings like a barre at times, and I thought the movement suited their roles and the music.

My favorite physical gesture wasn't on stage: it was the tiniest pause Levine made during his walk through the entrance hall to orchestra pit after he confirmed verbally that everyone was ready for him; he then made his commitment to go forward. that they cut this into a DVD!

Edited to Add:

That said, when I was leaving the theater, I heard two women say that they hated the spectacle, that it interfered with the singing.

If one shuts one's eyes, there's nothing to interfere with the singing

[bart]

Alexandra, I really appreciate your point about Romanticism. I share your belief that Berlioz would have loved this production, especially given the superb quality of the musical performances.

Helene, you write:

If one shuts one's eyes, there's nothing to interfere with the singing.

From time to time I actually did this, realizing that I was starting to concentrate too much on the visuals. You're right; it worked!

It's interesting that Lepage himself claims to derive everything from careful listening to the score. Opera News quotes him as follows:

All the solutions and the answers are in the music. I spend a lot of time going to musical rehearsals. It's as important for me as working out the blocking, just listening to them sing..

Lepage has been hired by the Met to create their new Ring Cycle in 2010-12. It will be interesting to see where we go from here.

Here's the NY Times article about the production, published several days before the opening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/arts/mus...amp;oref=slogin

And here's Anthony Tommasini's review of opening night.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/arts/mus...a%22&st=cse

Lepage's statement above is taken from an excellent article about Robert Lepage in the October 2008 Opera News (August Ventura, "Dreamcatcher")

[Alexandra]

Thanks for the links, bart!

Helene, I also liked the dancing a lot (and the dancers). If they had been wearing unitards, it would have been vague torso-twisting fusion moves on pointe. BUT they wore Romantic-era-like white dresses, and their hair was down. The torso twisting was appropriately "Romantic" -- and they were convincing, too, as "pretty little minstrels from hell."

I've never read about the dancing in the original production, but there is a lot of ballet music in it, and it's at the height of the Jockey Club era.

[SanderO]

In light of some of the discussions on this board about "new" classical ballet productions, such as the recent Sleeping Beauty a few things can be gleaned as far as I can tell.

Ballet is much more frozen in time. There seems to be more of "demand" to maintain the original production in as many aspects as possible. This certainly applies to the choreography which as in seen in attempts to recreate, for example, Petipa or even Balanchine productions.

Opera seems to be more open to taken the libretto and restaging the entire thing. Yes, you can close your ears and not see the staging and the music is supposed to be the same and aside from artistic interpretations of the musical director and the artists - it is. This "trick" is harder to do with ballet. When you close your eyes all you have is the music. There is no way to change the costumes, or the sets.

But this quality also explains how we can listen to opera on recording and enjoy it without ANY staging whatsoever required for enjoyment. No correlation to ballet. In fact videos do a horrible job at capturing the theater experience.

Ballet is like classical architecture in a sense, you can't interpret it too much or it loses its center. I suppose the real genius presents when an AD can find a way to may a classic new without destroying it in the process.

[Alexandra]

Ballet is like classical architecture in a sense, you can't interpret it too much or it loses its center. I suppose the real genius presents when an AD can find a way to may a classic new without destroying it in the process.

Very well put. The Danes once did this very well, and this is what I learned from watching Kronstam work, and hearing many stories about Hans Brenaa, who brought Bournonville back from the dead. Trust what is there. Some change will happen -- line has changed totally since the 19th century, and so both Bournonville and Petipa ballets look totally different and would probably repulse their audiences. But the bones are still there.

Plays and operas don't have the same problem -- we don't have to recreate how Burbage moved in Hamlet, nor the exact intonation of his voice. I will that I say that I would love to see an opera or a Shakespeare play that leaves the work alone, that's set in its own time, and planet, and is without Freudian/popculture/contemporaryhistory overtones and undertones. But this "Faust" was done for the new medium of live HD broadcast, and in that context, I think it worked.

[bart]

The choreographers, by the way, are listed as Johanne Madore and Alain S. Gauthier. Were they also the choreographers of the 1999 Japan (and later Paris) production? That production used a similar scaffold set.

Alexandra, your points about the Romantic style make me wished I'd talked to you before seeing the performance. I still think that the constricted and awkward space alloted to the dancers by this set limited the choreography. On the other hand, the layout worked very well as a setting for action and the musical set pieces.

[SandyMcKean]

To compensate for the monster set, the director opted for numerous close-ups. These were not always flattering and sometimes made it difficult to figure out what was going on elsewhere on stage.

I completely agree with this. In fact, this is my biggest complaint about seeing this amazing opera in the movie theater via HD b'cast. It was not just that they were so close, but that they panned too. Sometimes they panned while the image was also moving.....one got practically sea-sick. I have nothing per se against the "moving camera", but they did the "close up" thing too often in this b'cast IMHO.

I am still wondering why there was so little applause in the movie theater and why the production left me strangely unmoved by the marvellous score.

There was good applause at my theater in Seattle. I do agree that one could have been left less moved than one might otherwise be.....I'd say because the spectacle was so amazing and interesting that oft times I almost forgot to listen to the music.

the other was a minor quirk, probably specific to the movie: as Marguerite ascended to heaven, there was some small white thing happening in video behind her, and I couldn't make it out.

I too saw that; in fact, I saw it (or a similar "it") several times. I finally figured it out. If you looked very closely, you could just make out that this little moving imp was a reflection of Maestro Levine being reflected off the video screens. I don't know if it was of him directly or perhaps of a monitor that contained his image. Once I figured it out, it was definitely a miniature Levine conducting.

There was dancing in it, and it actually was ballet. The women used the balcony railings like a barre at times, and I thought the movement suited their roles and the music.

This was my wife's (Kathy) favorite part. I too found it extremely effective.

Plays and operas don't have the same problem.....

Altho I agree with your overall view on this, one could add a wrinkle and perhaps put these art forms on a more even footing. If one were to consider the notes in a score for opera, or words on the page for plays, then opera and the theater have the same rigidity as ballet (more so even). Since ballet is nearly all visual (leaving the music aside), it is far harder to modify that visual with integrity -- just as one would be reluctant to change one of Wagner's notes or Shakespeare's words.

Overall, I think I am in the "loved. loved, loved it" camp. I almost certainly would be if such productions cut back on the "too much, too many" principle (as bart called it), took out much of the camera movement and close ups, and generally showed us less video tricks (such as Helene's rightly criticized flaming Marguerite) while retaining the many excellent visual effects. I think I'm going to have to go to the "encore" performance 12/3 so I can get totally off the fence regarding this production (not to mention our likely exposure to such video effects in many other productions to come).

Did everyone else love the riding horses as much as I did? I found it not only mesmerizing but was struck at how well the images fit the libretto -- I can't imagine how traditional staging would reflect that wild ride of Faust and Mephistopheles as the words in the libretto describe it.

[Helene]

. I almost certainly would be if such productions cut back of the "too much, too many" principle (as bart called it), took out much of the camera movement and close ups, and generally showed us less video tricks (such as Helene's rightly criticized flaming Marguerite) while retaining the many excellent visual effects.

If the flames had been interesting, and not like the Channel 11 Yule Log multiplied several dozen times, I wouldn't have found it so heavy handed.

Did everyone else love the riding horses as much as I did? I found it not only mesmerizing but was struck at how well the images fit the libretto -- I can't imagine how traditional staging would reflect that wild ride of Faust and Mephistopheles as the words in the libretto describe it.

Oh yes, and I loved how they opened up across the stage!!!

Many thanks for the ID on James Levine.

[bart]

the other was a minor quirk, probably specific to the movie: as Marguerite ascended to heaven, there was some small white thing happening in video behind her, and I couldn't make it out.

I too saw that; in fact, I saw it (or a similar "it") several times. I finally figured it out. If you looked very closely, you could just make out that this little moving imp was a reflection of Maestro Levine being reflected off the video screens. I don't know if it was of him directly or perhaps of a monitor that contained his image. Once I figured it out, it was definitely a miniature Levine conducting.

A nuimber of people commented on this at our theater. I assumed it was a glitch, possibly a left-over phantom image of one of those swimming spirits we'd seen earlier. Sandy, your solution makes sense. Did you notice how often the singers themselves were reflected from the back -- as though the back wall behind them were made of plate glass -- as they performed on the scaffolding? I wonder how that was achieved and whether it was intended or or not.

Question regarding the galloping horses and riders. I agree that this was (or must have been in the theater) an amazing visualization of this wonderfully driven music. The photo on p. 23 of Opera News shows the entire set as you would see it from a rear orchestra seat at the Bastille in 2001. Faust and Mephistopheles stand at the left. each in his own cubicle. My memory of the camera work for HDLlive was of closeups of a single horse and rider, with the live rider clearly superimposed on a slightly faded image of a galloping horse. The trick behind the illusion was clearly visible in closeup. In the theater it must have been sheer magic, an incredible image.

So far Sandy, Helene, Alexandra, Kathy (via proxy), Sando0, and I have posted on this historic performance. There MUST have been others in attendance. Please share your thoughts about what you saw.

[SandyMcKean]

A nuimber of people commented on this at our theater. I assumed it was a glitch, possibly a left-over phantom image of one of those swimming spirits we'd seen earlier. Sandy, your solution makes sense. Did you notice how often the singers themselves were reflected from the back -- as though the back wall behind them were made of plate glass -- as they performed on the scaffolding? I wonder how that was achieved and whether it was intended or or not.

I was of the same mind for most of the performance. I thought that maybe it was an artifact of the digital process (as you say some "left-over phantom image"). But near the end I finally saw quite clearly an image that could only have been a distorted image of Levine waving his arm as he conducted. Then I realized that's what that "phantom image' had always been -- it just looked different from time to time depending on the angle from the camera to the digital screen and then back to Levine. (Note the reflection might also have been of a TV monitor that showed Levine's conducting rather than Levine directly. I know that opera houses have such monitors so that singers/chorus/etc can see the conductor's direction from odd angles.)

As to the singers reflections....at first I thought that double image was another video artifact. Then I thought it was designed that way to purposely make the video screens look like plate glass or mirrors. Then I went "duh* -- the 2nd image was of the back side of the person and therefore could not possbly be the designer simply telling the system to add a duplicate image to fake a reflection. There was only one explanation left, a true optical reflection from whatever presumably shiney screen they were using to display the video images. After a while I convinced myself that's exactly what those reflections were -- especially given how the 2 singer/person images changed in relation to each other as the camera moved thereby changing the reflection angles. At some points I also saw clearly reflected spot lights in those screens. I wonder how noticable all these reflections were in the actual theater.

Allow me to add my plea to that of bart. I'd love it if someone who was actually in the Met theater were to comment on how things looked.

[kfw]

Allow me to add my plea to that of bart. I'd love it if someone who was actually in the Met theater were to comment on how things looked.

In today's Washingon Post opera critic Anne Midgette reflects on this "Faust," the differences between experiencing it live and experiencing it on screen, and the strengths and weaknesses of opera on screen: "Faust" Sells Its Soul Short at the Multiplex.

"Damnation" would seem to be an ideal work for the cinema. Lepage's production, however, is conceived as live theater, and this proved a weakness in the simulcast. The fundamental tension of opera lies in the contrast between intimate emotions and grand scale, something Lepage's large-scale set emphasized . . . But the camera is about blowing open this contrast and revealing the intimacy in each moment. Some have seen this as a huge advantage of these simulcasts: The audience is truly able to see the singers. And certainly the camera made it a lot easier to follow what exactly was going on. But most of Lepage's achievements in this staging have to do with big set pieces . .

[bart]

Thank you so much, kfw, for that Link. It's the first article I've seen that attempts to compare the live performance with the HDLive.

Midgette makes some excellent points. (It's amazing how fond one can become of writers with whom one agrees! ) Here is what I think is the main point of the entire piece:

Lepage's production ... is conceived as live theater, and this proved a weakness in the simulcast.

And how about this (part of which kfw already quoted)?

The fundamental tension of opera lies in the contrast between intimate emotions and grand scale, [ ... ]

But the camera is about blowing open this contrast and revealing the intimacy in each moment. Some have seen this as a huge advantage of these simulcasts: The audience is truly able to see the singers. And certainly the camera made it a lot easier to follow what exactly was going on. But most of Lepage's achievements in this staging have to do with big set pieces, like the row of crucified Christs appearing to Faust, surrounded by the jewellike tones of slowly kaleidoscoping stained-glass windows. In the movie theater, some of this fell flat -- the theatrical effects were, after all, less impressive than your average film action shot -- and some of it got lost all together as the camera zeroed in on an insignificant detail.

I don't know how many video directors the Met has employed for the HDLive performances so far , but most seem to be oddly adverse to pulling back the camera and allowing it to rest on the entire stage as seen from the Met itself. The Last Emperor allowed us only a fleeting glimpse the entire massed chorus, standing on risers that seemed to climb to the heavens. We saw wonderful closeups of main characters who sang and moved along a narrow band of stage directly above the orchestra. But we did not see the masses of soldiers rising above them, which means we misssed a very important theatrical point. Damnation's director carried this emphasis on closeup -- and cutting or panning from one closeup to another -- to great extremes.

Another signature feature of the simulcasts is that everyone sounds great. [ ... ] Whatever system they're using for the movie-theater versions seems like the aural equivalent of pink lighting in the ladies' room: It evens out blemishes and flatters every complexion.

This explains why Giordani, whoses vocal problems were mentioned in most reviews from the Met itself, sounded so young, clear, vibrant in the simulcast. They all do. And they all tend to sound gorgeous.

There are two advantages of HDLive that are rarely mentioned in the press

1) Sitting in your taudry multiplex, you find yourself feeling a deep emotional kinship with the people in the Met itself -- especially if you are a former New Yorker. ("They're wearing heavy coats; the City must be freezing this afternoon!") You also participate in that wonderful excitement and risk-taking only found in live theater: the possibility of a spectacular unexpectedly pure high note; the chance that something will go wrong and that professional artists will have to cope with it on the spur of the movement in front of a huge audience.

2) There's also the fact that most of the opera audience in the world does NOT have regular access to a broad opera repertoire. Speaking of the U.S. only, we often live (now at least) far from New York, San Fancisco, Chicago, Houston. So we don't get a chance to see live performances of pieces like Dr. Atomic or The First Emperor -- or even Peter Grimes and Il Trittico. We are not visited by truly major stars except for recitals.

An example: south Florida (with an older, well-off, well-educated audience, many of whom from New York and other cultural capitals) has two high-level opera companies. Here's their rep for 2008-2009:

Florida Grand Opera (Miami and Fort Lauderdale): Traviata, Cenerentola, Lakme, Nozze di Figaro, Butterfly

Palm Beach Opera (West Palm Beach): Rigoletto, Norma, Nozze di Figaro (a different productdion), and (you guessed it!) Boheme. (Gatti-Casazza still lives!)

When HDLlive brings Tristan and Isolde or Macbeth, I personally am in heaven. Could I fly up to NY or Chicago? Yes. Am I likely to do so? Not really. In the meantime, HDLive -- whether its a conservative Puritani or an innovative spectacle like Damnation of Faust) is a gift beyond my wildest dreams.

[Helene]

I'm on a stealth visit to NYC, to see a close friend, to earn enough United miles for elite status, and to see the last performance "The Damnation of Faust". I bought the ticket before the HD broadcast, mainly to hear Susan Graham, who blew me away as Iphigenie last year, and I was lucky I did, since two days after the broadcast, only a few of the most expensive seats were left, and by tonight it was sold out.

I found the physical experience in the theater richer and deeper, while the broadcast experience was more exciting and urgent, which was not unexpected, since the sweep and, in some scenes, majesty of the whole stage picture is impossible to capture on film without sticking to long shots. (I sat in the front row of the Balcony, the last tier up, but much closer than the Family Circle, the top most section of the last tier.) The projections with architectural details, like the Inn scene, where above the grid the building was projected, were difficult to absorb in the film. I've read complaints that the LePage staging is too vertical and does not take advantage of the depth of the Metropolitan Opera stage. While it did not go deep, often on Met Opera sets, the performers look like ants when they do, and rarely does anyone take advantage of the vertical space, although this year there's a trifecta, with "Dr. Atomic" and "Orfeo ed Euridice" and, from all descriptions, "Tristan und Isolde". By using the vertical space to full advantage and a reflective background, the stage always looked full with half the number of performers. The dancers/sprites looked particularly fine with the muted mirror effect, which in an almost etherial effect hinted at the underwater projections. The male aerialist creatures looked a lot more natural and less stylized in their pas de deux with the sprites in the theater from a distance.

There is one image that I didn't notice in the film and couldn't identify for sure on stage. As Mephisto tempts Faust with a vision of Marguerite, there were swaying white blade-like things. I wasn't sure if they were tentacles, a very literal take on the scene although visually beautiful, or if they were some kind of algae, or none of the above. What I also couldn't see on the film was how these morphed into long blades of grass in water, like rice paddies, and after the aerialist/soliders climbed the wall, when the were shot/bayonetted and descended on their lines, the projections of water and grass were pushed away as they floated down, which was a stunning effect.

There were two things that I thought worked better on film: the underwater images were more immediate in the film version, and might have looked the same from the Grand Tier (tier 1) or the Dress Circle (tier 2); I may have been sitting a little to high to get their full impact. The other was the backward march of the soldiers and women across the tiers. By focusing on one or two soldiers at a time, the fact that they were out of synch, or fading after the 75th repetition, or did not have matching leg line didn't register, which it did on stage, where it just looked sloppy instead of sharp, like the film. The flames during the first half of Marguerite's "D'amour l'ardente flamme" were just as tacky onstage as on film (almost ), I think because they were contained within their grid . Midway through, though, there was a huge "whoosh!!!!" and the projection had the glow of a raging forest fire, with I think a stylized silouette of Faust in the flames, and a blurry version of Marguerite. THAT was a fire, and film didn't capture it. The image of the conductor that Sandy identified from the last scene was actually visible throughout most, if not all of the opera, as the mirrored part of the lowest level of the grid reflected the conductor and top of the orchestra.

There was a pre-curtain announcement that John Relyea, Mephisto, had a cold, and begged our indulgence, etc. Except for an occasional rumble, he sounded as good as I've heard him live. Susan Graham has a magnificent voice, secure and beautiful in all registers and at all volumes, and it was a pleasure to hear her live. I have very mixed feelings about Marcelo Giordano's performance. I think his voice is much more beautiful live than in broadcasts. Some voices bloom with a second or two delay and the house acoustics, while they sound drier miked relatively up close, but even in the house, each register at each volume sounded like a different voice. It is clear how he was trying to shape the performance, and the change in voice could be taken as the conflict in the character, one who while he has the body and enthusiasm of a young man, still is an older person in that body, but, unfortunately, he was covered by the orchestra too much. I think his interpretation was too subtle, especially for a fevered aria like "Nature immense"; until the end there was no Romanticism in it. His approach would have been better suited to "Pelleas et Melisande".

The chorus was fabulous, changing character from one scene to another. Kudos to Donald Palombo and his chorus! The orchestra was conducted by Derrick Inoue, and except for a little sour brass in the begining, the orchestra sounded very fine. Special mention to the percussion and brass in the Hell Scene with the male chorus which was fantastic!

[allegromezzo18]

Ballettalk.com is fantastic for Ballet. Does Opera have a similar bulletin board and if yes, what is the address or where is it located? Thank you for responding.

[Helene]

Sadly, none that I know of. There are opera list serve groups, like Opera-L.

[allegromezzo18]

Sadly, none that I know of. There are opera list serve groups, like Opera-L.

Helene,

Thanks. How do I find Opera-L?

Be Well,

Allegromezzo

[Helene]

I sent you a PM with details.

[bart]

Helene, I really appreciate your that live report from the Met.

I love the Met's HDLive (as many recent dvds of ballet performances). For most of us, it's our best chance of seeing these performances closeup and in detail.

But, in the end, NOTHING can give you the richness and complexity of a live performance, high tech or not.

[SandyMcKean]

What a treat, a review from someone who's seen both the live and the b'cast performance! And from none other than Helene who always illuminates dark corners for me. Thanks Helene.

For the first time, my wife and I went to the same Met HD b'cast a 2nd time. I never expected that to happen, but this production contained such beautiful music and singing, and most compelling, the use of ground-breaking digital effects, that we couldn't resist. We weren't disappointed. Some of my reactions to a 2nd viewing were not expected. I actually found the many camera angles, plethora of closes ups, and camera motion, less bothersome the 2nd time around. I concluded to myself that the reason is that with a 2nd viewing I came to better understand what the video director was trying to do. During this 2nd viewing each of the camera choices made sense to me. I still think they went too far, too often, but I was amazed how this camera direction element of seeing opera (which is of course totally missing when one sees a live performance) is just another aspect of opera that one needs to learn to understand and appreciate.

To Helene:

......Susan Graham, who blew me away as Iphigenie last year

Where did you see this?

By using the vertical space to full advantage and a reflective background,.....with the muted mirror effect....

I really like your insight into the use of vertical space instead of the usual horizontal space -- I hadn't really understood how fundamentally different this production was in that regard until you spelled it out (altho visually the effect is obvious). I am puzzled by one thing tho. Your description made me think that you are thinking that the designer purposely went for a "reflective background" with that "mirror" effect. I have been assuming that the reflective character was an artifact of using whatever video display screens they had to use rather than by design. I found the reflections distracting and would have loved to have seen this production without any reflective quality. IOW, I've been assuming that those reflections of people etc were something that just had to be tolerated rather than a positive design aspect of the production. Am I misreading your comments?

The chorus was fabulous....

I couldn't agree more. I was completely moved (both times) by the vision of of hell and heaven in the last scenes. In fact, I mentioned to my wife that I had never been so present to a vision of Christian hell and heaven as I was sitting there watching/hearing the finale to this production. It created a vision such as only art, the highest art, can create and bring to life. The chorus was a major, perhaps the major, component of that artistic vision. I shiver again just thinking about it. (As an aside, I have no belief whatsoever in a God or in Christian myth, but if I were ever to waiver and worry about the conscious entity I call "Sandy" having to spend eternity in either a heaven or a hell, given the vast difference such an eternal existence would be depending on whether Faust or Marguerite were my companion, the vision of hell/heaven created by this production and Berlioz's incredible music could push me over the edge into belief. Maybe one day I'll have a death-bed conversion ........not likely.)

The image of the conductor that Sandy identified from the last scene was actually visible throughout most, if not all of the opera, as the mirrored part of the lowest level of the grid reflected the conductor and top of the orchestra.

Naturally, I looked more closely at these strange apparitions the 2nd time. It sounds like in the live performance you saw far more of these reflections than in the b'cast version (I presume that the reflection you saw would depend on where one is sitting in the opera house). In the b'cast version, I've become convinced (altho not 100%) that the reflection I was seeing was not the conductor directly, but rather a reflection of some TV monitor that had the image of the conductor on it. I'm pretty sure such TV monitors are used in opera productions so that the conductor can be seen from all angles on the stage. The main reason I concluded this on my 2nd viewing is that the image, when most clearly seen, seemed to be in black and white, and most importantly, the image would morph as the camera angle changed from a roughly rectangular image to an ever skinnier one than sometimes approached a 1 dimensional straight line. That is precisely the behavior I would expect from a flat surface (the video display screens) reflecting another essentially flat surface (a TV monitor) from various angles. Of course, the reflections you were seeing in the live performance and the artifact we were seeing in the b'cast version might not even be the same phenomenon.

[Helene]

To Helene:

......Susan Graham, who blew me away as Iphigenie last year

Where did you see this?

Sadly, I didn't see this, but heard it over the radio, both on the Saturday broadcast and again on Sirius Metropolitan Opera Radio, which broadcasts 3-4 live performances a week during the Met season (including the Saturday broadcast, once it starts up for the season). I LOVED her in it. In Seattle, the passion for me came from Polegato and Burden, as Orest and Pylade, but I wasn't knocked over by either gold or silver cast Iphigenie. Graham was the missing piece of the puzzle in this co-production with the Met.

It's really great to be able to hear several live broadcasts of the same opera, usually in a two-three week period, and sometimes broken up like the season is for some operas: a few performances in the fall and then another few in the spring. It's not great if, for example, you never want to hear "Tosca" again for the rest of your life -- then you skip it for a few weeks.

The issue being on the West Coast is that the operas usually start between 7-8, which is 4-5pm PT.

Apart from that, it's the standard argument over whether the voices are correctly represented in broadcasts. But I don't really care, because I judge what I hear in whatever medium, and I listen for others to describe what they heard in the other medium, if I can't experience both for myself. For example, whether a voice is big or small or carries and can be heard in the house, when that same voice carries well when miked from above the stage. If I hear that a singer doesn't carry, or is often covered by the orchestra, or is drowned out by his/her colleagues, I won't travel to see him/her, but will enjoy him/her on the radio, or will try to hear him/her with colleagues who have the same sized voices or in concert or in a hall that has better acoustics or is a better size for that singer. There are also voices, like Giordani's, that to me sound better and fuller live, although he's no slouch over the radio. (And I heard a brilliant "Benevenuto Cellini", also Berlioz, with him on Sirius this afternoon, from 2003.)

It's like judging dancers from video. I've almost never been impressed by Margot Fonteyn on video, but enough people have told me that video doesn't do her justice, so I conclude I'm seeing a different performer on film than on stage, and accept that I missed my chance to "get it", having seen her live only when she was at the end of her career, performances on which I know I can't judge her career. As much as I've been impressed by Maria Tallchief on video, I've been told by those who've seen her live that I couldn't begin to know the energy she brought to the stage from video. That gives me context for the video. Likewise, I loved Lopatkina on the recent "Swan Lake" video, and she bored me to tears live as Lilac Fairy. I wouldn't fly to another city to see Lopatkina live based on my experience, where I would for Alexandrova of the Bolshoi, or other Mariinsky dancers, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying the "Swan Lake" video.

[Helene]

I almost forgot:

The reflective background -- it was there on all levels, and it looked to me like I saw across the top of the orchestra as well as saw the conductor on the bottom level. I don't think it was just a monitor, since the performers looked straight out at the conductor throughout.