SandyMcKean

My, my....aren't we cynical Hey, I'm with Wagner: "Gesamtkunstwerk", remember? Opera is nothing if it ain't drama. For my money, opera is the ultimate art form, and for sure the ultimate dramatic vehicle. "The Voice" has always only been a part of that "Gesamtkunstwerk" concept. Lighting counts. Customes count. Why not physical appearance? And I don't mean gratuitous looks either, but a look that serves the story. In short......a look that is part of a "Gesamtkunstwerk". (Naturally, this takes balance; but that's what artistic directors and general directors are for -- to provide that balance. I think, on the whole, they do a pretty fine job of it.) Personally, I don't want Merrill Streep playing Peter Pan regardless of her acting prowess.

It's interesting how many of us put Carrie Imler at the very top of our lists. I have been in awe of her for years. She deserves all the praise we heap on her. I've observed that she seems to be a superb role model for all the young girls in the PNB school too. Who could possibly be better for them to look up to?? P.S. I will certainly be excited to see Carrie in something so classic for her talents as CB..........but frankly, I am even more excited to see her as a stomper in "In The Upper Room". Seeing her and Chalnessa Eames doing stompers together the last time "In The Upper Room" was done here is one of my most cherished memories.

Thanks Helene, as always, for the casting sheets. I can only go one weekend. As far as I can tell, all 3 casts perform the 3 performances on the 1st weekend, and all casts perform the 4 performances on the 2nd weekend (except for some very minor switches -- such as Kitchens for Gilbreath for a single performance). Am I missing anything? I hope not because if I have this right, I can see all 3 casts in one weekend (looks like I'll be going the 1st weekend).

Oh, but Sandi, you only ask it when it's appropriate to do so......

A typo......I think you meant Act III. P.S. I too saw both casts and loved both in this energetic and well directed production. There was something very realistic about the characters and their movements I found very satisfying. The singing was glorious by both casts, tho I think I liked the chemistry btwn Fabiano and Black the best. It was a real kick seeing Fabiano on stage (as well as having such an obviously successful career on his hands) after having seen him in the fabulous documentary "The Audition". Michael was the "star" of that film in many ways (in the sense that one was unlikely to forget him). I've seen the film several times and the line that most sticks out for me is when the Met coaches comment on the incredible power of Fabiano's voice and say something along the lines of "What a voice....if he doesn't kill himself" (meaning "playing his instrument" so loud, and thru exhaustion or a nervous breakdown).

Birdsall, I'm with you 100%. I'm a highly emotional guy.....the kind that cries at touching TV commercials . Rarely does an Act go by without me crying at least once (normally because I find the music so incredibly beautiful, not normally because of the story). So I get really, really into it while the performance is on (I too detest those who insist on making noise.....and I am wont to indicate that to them in no uncertain terms). But once that curtain drops, I could care less what happens. Strike up a rock band if you like; I won't mind. I do often sit there for a minute or two just stunned by what I have seen, and emotionally exhausted, but soon I recover and wander about or in the case of the HD broadcasts, listen/watch to whatever is shown. I like the interviews and everything else that typically occurs. There is one thing that can bug me a bit: some of the questions that are asked. Some questions just seem so inane or "standard". Frankly, I'd rather hear about how the costume fits that night than to hear one more time: "How has your approach to the role changed over time?" (I think if I were ever asked that ubiquitous question, I'd say something like: "Well, you know, it changes over time.")

Those PJs are one of my favorite things in the ballet. Touch those, and I'll have to...............

I was aware of this connection, but I know nothing of the von Eschenbach poem. Can you give me some general idea of what the costumes, sets, and overall feel of a production might look like if the director/designer wanted to be true to that poem?? Are you aware of any production that attempted this?

cubanmiamiboy, I "hear" what you're saying, and for such operas, let's say La Boheme for sake of argument, if a company does a production (as some in Europe might) that completely takes the opera out of context (i.e., Paris during the Bohemian period), then I'd agree with you totally; but with an opera like Parsifal, there really is no defined context. What setting is "natural" for Parsifal? For me at least, Parsifal is not of this time and not of this place. It is timeless. There is no story per se, but rather an exploration into the inner world of spirit and existence. Indeed, I will go so far as to say that this production clarified the meaning. Frankly, I don't know how Act II could be more clear that Parsifal goes into the "world" and is tempted away from the purity, integrity, and peace to be had with the Knights of the Holy Grail (BTW, I disagree with Wagner that such "purity" offers anything other than cloister-ism to coin a word). As I see it, Parsifal is an opera you can set in almost any way imaginable without negatively impacting the "story". As an aside, the young lady (she's about 30) I spoke of did not attend the opera with me. We were in 2 different theaters 100 miles apart. We have attended the same theater in the past (this was her 4 opera I think), but this time we simply texted at intermissions and used email after the performance......ah, today's world of technology . Birdsall, I agree with almost all you say except for the usefulness of pre-performance lectures. Here in Seattle, the Seattle Opera does a marvelous job of educating its audience with lectures and post-performance Q&A. As it happens, I saw La Boheme Friday night (just 12 hours before Parsifal.....quite an experience to see those 2 vastly different operas in less than 24 hours let me tell you!!). I know Boheme very well having seen it many times, but the lecture enhanced my experience immensely. Clearly, the quality of the lectured material makes the difference; and here at Seattle Opera, we have folks who prepare incredibly insightful material. That you would have found it boring, I can't imagine. (BTW, the lectures at Seattle Opera are always full of musical examples -- played over the speakers, sometimes played live on a piano, and often discussed with a section of the score displayed on the screen.) Just one aspect of the lecture opened me up to something I had never seen in La Boheme before.....the use of the metaphor of "the seasons" to express the passage of time as one progresses thru life as a youth, to full adult, to the wisdom of pain and suffering......the loss of innocence. Sure enough there were all sorts of such references in the text of the libretto, as displayed in the super tiltles, that I had never appreciated before that lecture.

I, for one, completely agree with you here. Here my perspective is somewhat different, but not in principle. As I heard the interview (BTW, I like the interviews, and I sit thru them all.....peeing later ), I didn't hear him say those words as an absolute which would apply to everyone; rather I heard it as an attempt by the production team to increase the odds that it would seem more relevant to more audience members. For you, you obviously don't need the "assist", but for others it might have made a big difference. Let's face it, many, many folks who see Parsifal find it hard to relate to (including a young friend of mine just getting into opera who I tried to warn but who went anyway -- her first Wagner opera!!). For me, I fall in the middle. I didn't "need" the modern dress relevancy assist, but I did find it effective in disallowing me to place the entire spectacle into "another time and place...far, far away" as so often happens with Parsifal. To me, Parsifal is completely relevant for all human beings since it addresses the basic issues of what it means to be human. If modern dress makes that experience more accessible to more than a hand full of audience members, then I am all for the experiment.

cubanmiamiboy & sandik, We see eye to eye in some ways but not others.....which is just fine. When I say that we should not modify the original artist's intent simply to conform to our current sensibilities, I did not mean to extend that to moving an opera or ballet into a different time period or setting. The directors and designers (and others) are artists too, so we also need to allow them artistic license as they create. Some succeed in their efforts and some don't (and we each get to judge that success or lack of success for ourselves); however, I don't think such modern artists should modify a long dead artist's work in terms of content or meaning. Make the meaning more clear, give the meaning a new twist, update the meaning to make it more understandable (careful with this one tho).....all fine in my book; but change the original intent, or disguise the meaning not for artistic reasons but for reason that simply make it more acceptable, that makes a mockery out of art. In the case of Parsifal, Wagner's intent for both Kundry and the flower maidens is quite clear -- they are to be seductresses and temptresses -- not modern day business executives or some other image than emphasizes a more "acceptable" female image. Wagner is saying what he is saying. Modify how it is told perhaps, but let's not change what is being said.

My God, these choices were made 130 years ago! If you mean that the production designers and directors ought to tone down Wagner's choices.......that I vehemently oppose. The last thing we should ever do is water down the art of past centuries to somehow appease today's sensibilities.

Me too. It created an "other world" that to me is so appropriate for this spiritually based opera. Some of the video images were extremely effective. I also loved the stark contrast of Act I and Act III from Act II. Parsival wanders the "real" world in Act II before returning to the purity of the Holy Grail sanctuary where he so mysteriously found himself in Act I. Taking Wagner's point of view when he wrote this (rather than my POV), the "real" world is full of corruption and lack of integrity. This production made me feel that so strongly. Unlike a previous comment in this thread, I absolutely loved, loved, loved the way the flower maidens were portrayed. Let's face it, Wagner was obsessed by sex and the allure of the female charm (heck, it practically drove all his choices in his own life). As a man, I understood more than I can ever put into words the seductive power of the maidens that tempt Parsival. I think this production succeeded in spectacular fashion in its rendition of this very powerful tempting force I have no doubt Wagner felt in his life. My one regret is that I won't see this production in the theater. The HD broadcasts are terrific, but the nuances of the lighting (and everything else in this production) is so subtle that I don't think the dynamics of HD video technology can possibly capture what the theater audience must see. I understand this complaint (assuming its a complaint), but I don't agree it is valid. We can't place 21st century values on a mid 19th century piece of art. Parsival speaks to the spiritual inner being of us all (and I don't mean that religiously). That he picked an an all male order to represent purity of spirit, as well as picking a woman to represent temptation, is his prerogative. Clearly, the piece is some sort of homage to Christianity (its good parts, not its bad parts), and the role of Kundry is completely consistent with the first page of Genesis......besides Kundry does not freely choose this way of being; indeed, she struggles against it; she is trapped by Klingsor until she is redeemed by Parsival's forgiveness. Can't we just allow an artist to make his/her choices without all this hyper-sensitivity? I don't care if it's Kundry or putting cow dung on the Virgin Mary, everyone is free to dislike whatever piece of art they choose, but allow the art to stand.

I was absolutely transfixed by the Saturday live HD broadcast. I have no data to back up this claim, but it seemed to me that this performance must have been Jonas Kaufmann's career best performance. Astonishing.

That's exactly how I felt about Paris's exit. Another great moment...... Here, I am in the opposite camp. I love all the silent "screaming" in this ballet. Every "scream" gives me goose bumps every time!

FWIW, I definitely saw this bit of business too (during the 2nd weekend also). In the moment I was put off by it, but then as I grasped this character in this production (intended or not), Paris is a real creep.....not a noble fellow who is simply too little, too late. He sniffs her like a animal might. In the end, I liked this touch -- it really added to the contrast between the sweet, youthful love between R & J, and the strict conventions of society that normally would have married J off (presumably for political advantage) to any well connected male even if he were an animal.

Jayne, I had very similar reactions to you. Luckily, I got to see all 4 casts....each had something special (e.g., Lindsi Dec blew me away as Lady C). I agree with this comment. OTOH, and this is big On The Other Hand, William Lin-Yee was absolutely terrific in the Friar role in the 2nd weekend Saturday Matinee. Indeed, since Karel Cruz became injured, William did it again Saturday night (which I also saw, and he was even better). Frankly, I had high hopes that William would be able to "break-thru" with this opportunity (I believe I've seen a big increase in his grace, acting, and character portrayal over the last year or so), and he didn't disappoint....actually, he exceeded all my expectations. He really created a "persona" in this difficult role.....far beyond "just dancing". I agree that William can do comedy (Dr Coppelius last season comes to mind), but for my money, William was far more powerful as the Friar.....not exactly a comedy role . And you have a good touch for casting since Joshua Grant is the other Paris!

I saw Foster's nurse last Friday, and she is excellent. I've seen Carrie's too. I'd say Carrie's is a bit more dead on in terms of the comedic nature of the role, and Rachel's is more intensely emotional (superbly so). The only negative is: as good as Carrie is as the nurse, the role does not give her a chance to show the full range of her incomparable abilities (e.g., Carrie in Square Dance is to die for).

This is an "extra" level of refinement to the excellent recommendations above, but in case someone needs one extra bit of incentive to choose one performance over another: Lindsi Dec's performance of Lady Capulet on Sat evening is spectacular. Not that Maria Chapman and Laura Gilbreath's are not, but Lindsi was made for this role. All three are terrific, but Lindsi will add just a extra bit of spice on Sat night.

This is absolutely correct. There is a lot of misunderstanding about this. People say such things as "I need a couple of days to acclimatize", but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what acclimatizing to altitude means. The human body can not acclimatize physiologically in less than about 3 weeks for typical inhabited altitudes (high altitudes can take even longer). True acclimatization is essentially an increase in the red cell count in your blood -- this takes time -- as well as other shorter term metabolic changes. OTOH, psychologically one does "feel better" after a couple of days at higher altitude, but this is only because you learn to lower your activity output per unit of time so as not to run out of breath or to avoid having to breathe hard. Your body does not adjust in so short a time, but you do become more familiar with your surroundings and you do modify your habits (e.g., how fast you walk up a flight of stairs). Frankly, I am somewhat surprised that union contracts have this 5000' clause since 2 days in not nearly enough time to acclimatize -- in fact, one is usually worse off after only a couple of days at altitude since your body is under some stress due to the lack of oxygen. OTOH, I suppose that given a typical dancer's hectic schedule, a couple days of rest always helps.

Jim Moore is principal!

More like 8000' (but that's still very high......I've done a lot of mountain climbing in my time, and I can atest that breathing at 8000' can be problematical if you are working hard; at 10,000' it is very noticable, and at 12,000' and above you never catch your wind regardless of how in shape you are. P.S. Actually SLC is under 5000'

An email was just issued by PNB that contained the following sentence from Peter Boal: "If you haven’t heard, I’ve got an announcement to make tomorrow night at the end of the show. If you aren’t in the house, you can find it on our website, facebook or twitter. It’s good news." So that ought to end half the speculation . Funny they are waiting until the end of the performance. Makes me think "promotion". P.S. More good news attached to the email....Lesley Rausch and Jerome Tisserand will be the guests at the Q&A after their debut on 2/9 matinee; and even more exciting Noelani Pantastico and Lucien Postlewaite will be the dancer guests at the Q&A that evening after their much anticipated performance.

sandik, I was out of town and had to miss this lecture. Thanks so much for taking the time to reprise it for us!

Thanks Helene!! I'm all signed in on iPhone now (am doing this post on phone now). I'll post the announce to this thread Friday. .