Mashinka Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Last night saw a sacred cow slaughtered at Covent Garden when the famous Zeffirelli production of Puccini’s Tosca was superseded after over forty years. I don’t think any production ever lasted so long in a company notorious for new productions with every opera revival staged. Of course many people refer to it as the “Callas production”, so synonymous it has become with her performance, rather than Zeffirelli’s production and it had attained almost legendary status amongst the Royal Opera fans that have seen generations of singers in the leading roles. At least on this occasion the ROH has stuck with a traditional rendering and not moved the action to another historical period (difficult with the references to Napoleon). Of the three acts the second was the best design-wise, with a set that managed to look intimate and threatening at the same time and where Tosca made her entrance wearing a ravishing white gown with a huge train. The church of the first act with grilles on two levels looked wrong with too many vertical lines everywhere and in the final act, the roof of Castel St Angelo resembled an urban car park with bollards in front As Cavaradossi Marcelo Álvarez gave a sound, conventional performance, but in spite of a couple of famous arias for him it is the tension between Tosca and Scarpia that is the heart of the opera. In the familiar Zeffirelli production Baron Scarpia was a haughty aristocrat, autocratic and debauched playing devious mind games, but in this version Scarpia is an unkempt brooding villain enjoying the prospect of inflicting pain in all its forms. Bryn Terfel was on cracking form in the role, a big man; he towered over the fragile Tosca emphasising her vulnerability, filling the audience with disgust as he pawed his victim; and that voice of his just gets better and better. The opera belongs to Tosca herself of course and Angela Gheorghiu looked stunning as the eponymous heroine, she sang like a dream in my opinion, but, a big but this, is that lovely voice of hers right for this kind of role? There were interval mutterings that the voice wasn’t quite ‘big enough’ for the role. Personally I don’t feel it matters a lot, but it must have mattered to others as there were isolated boos aimed at her at the end coming from the back of the amphitheatre, though perhaps these were from a couple of old-timers taking umbrage at Ms Georgiou’s criticisms of Callas in a recent interview. Apart from that it was a huge success with even the designer getting applauded (not always the case in the UK) but the warmest applause went to the massively popular Terfel whose travelling fan club was out in force, with a huge Welsh contingent including a lady with a large tattoo of a dragon on her upper arm: that’s taking patriotism a little too far in my book. For those interested in Ms Georgiou’s controversial comments; heres the BBC link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5048492.stm Link to comment
dirac Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Thank you for the report and the link, Mashinka. Quotes from Gheorghiu below: But the ghost of Callas does not haunt the Romanian singer, especially as she found her predecessor's portrayal wanting in some departments. "To my taste she didn't understand the role," she explains in slightly fractured but highly expressive English. "I think she was all the time furious, hysterical. I want to be much more feminine and have moments when I make decisions and have power." Well, not very diplomatic, and none too accurate IMO, but nothing to get too exercised about. It is a fact that both Callas and Gobbi were past their vocal if not their dramatic peaks by that time. And she's free to have different views about the character. How did Tosca make her entrance in the first act, BTW? What was she wearing? (One of the departures from tradition made by Zeffirelli in that production was to have Callas come in dressed less formally, not the grand lady with a walking stick often seen heretofore). Link to comment
Mashinka Posted June 15, 2006 Author Share Posted June 15, 2006 Tosca is dressed unpretentiously for her Act I entrance in this version, so not much change from Zeffirelli’s production. Difficult to know which is the right approach to the Tosca role; should she be depicted as a grand lady? Well, she is repeatedly referred to as a great diva, but her arias describing the fairly simple domestic and romantic pleasures she looks forward to with her lover seem to indicate a quite modest soul. In Act II her costume is sumptuous more because she was scheduled to sing that night and I failed to mention the massive cross of diamonds she wore that added to the extravagant effect. She looked dazzling. Can I add that I think the Callas mystique is finally fading as fewer and fewer operagoers remember her live performances. Certainly there is some disappointment among those listening to her CD’s for the first time, as Callas was perhaps a great stage performer rather than a beautiful voice. Link to comment
richard53dog Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Can I add that I think the Callas mystique is finally fading as fewer and fewer operagoers remember her live performances. Certainly there is some disappointment among those listening to her CD’s for the first time, as Callas was perhaps a great stage performer rather than a beautiful voice. Mashinka, I think what is happening is the cult status that really rose up with her early death is finally going away. This did her no real service, there where many that would claim she was the best in every role she did or recorded and I think that's nonsense so I'm glad that icon thing seems to be going away. But the mystique? No , I think that will always be there. The recordings of her in her best roles will keep a very important spot for her among great singers of the 20th century. So much of what she accomplished was with her singing itself and that is there on record. I don't buy at all that because of vocal flaws her recordings don't reflect what she did. And , sure some will be disappointed when first listening to her recordings. But less so than when the recordings originally came out. I think there is a greater sense of what to expect when approaching her work for the first time. Also EMI is sure selling tons of her recordings. Richard Link to comment
dirac Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Mashinka writes: Certainly there is some disappointment among those listening to her CD’s for the first time, as Callas was perhaps a great stage performer rather than a beautiful voice. I have heard it said that Callas was a great actress as opposed to a great voice, with the implication that drama covered up for her vocal deficiences, but this is far from the truth. The ghastly vocal decline that set in late in her career (although “late” is a relative term; she began experiencing serious problems around age 35, at a time when many singers are just approaching their peak) has much to do with this, I’m sure. But from the beginning her musicianship was as crucial to her success as her dramatic power; she appealed to connoisseurs as well as casual fans. Was she a great voice as opposed to a great singer? I guess you could debate that. I can understand initial disappointment with her recordings, however. (I gave away the first Callas LP I bought and didn’t see the light until later.) richard53dog writes: The recordings of her in her best roles will keep an very important spot for her amount 20th century. So much of what she accomplished was with her singing itself and that is there on record. I agree mashinka: Well, she is repeatedly referred to as a great diva, but her arias describing the fairly simple domestic and romantic pleasures she looks forward to with her lover seem to indicate a quite modest soul. Zeffirelli followed that line of thought when he was staging the first act, I believe. Link to comment
bart Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Thanks for your review, mashinka. I saw Callas in this before her problems with Rudolf Bing. I can (alas) report that it really is possible to have total lack of recall of the details something so significant. In my defense, I was sitting very, very far from the stage and was just a kid. This was pre-Zeferelli, and I'd love to hear someone's impressions of those earlier Met performances. Her recordings -- which even a novice could identify after hearing only a few lines on the radio -- grew on me and I came to love her in the role as in other roles. But I can also imagine a singer so different in appearance and voice as Gheorghiu doing equally well. Tosca is such an exceptional character -- one of the few opera heroines who is just as fascinating onstage as the story-line makes her out to be. Last week I made a of spur-of-the-moment pilgrimage to the locales of the 3 acts, walking from one to the next, in order. I guess I was thinking about the 1990s tv production that shot in the real locations. I'm glad Covent Garden has kept to a period design of a sort, but your account of the Castel Sant'Angelo scene struck be as being both quite funny and .... rather sad. Did they at least have a statute of Archangel Michael rising above the car park? Link to comment
Mashinka Posted June 16, 2006 Author Share Posted June 16, 2006 I'm glad Covent Garden has kept to a period design of a sort, but your account of the Castel Sant'Angelo scene struck be as being both quite funny and .... rather sad. Did they at least have a statute of Archangel Michael rising above the car park? The problem with Covent Garden is that most seats have a restricted view of some sort and as I was sitting over on the left, I couldn't see that part of the stage. According to the reviews there was a huge ominous wing above the Castel, but no mention of St Michael. As all the action seemed to take place stage centre I hadn't until I read the review realized I'd missed something, but set details do sometimes go unnoticed if you are sitting in the wrong place. Link to comment
Recommended Posts