Met HD Don Carlo

[Helene]

Today was the live HD broadcast of Verdi's "Don Carlo". This past week I've been immersed in the Copenhagen "Ring of the Nibelungen" DVD's -- I've watched the first three -- and I think that as a combination of direction, thinking, design, and acting, it is the best production I've ever seen. Director Kasper Bech Holten makes some controversial choices, like having Sieglinde remove the sword from the tree and the Wanderer breaking his own spear, but for production values, apart from the makeup job on Stig Andersen's Siegfried that would have been more appropriate for Gustav von Aschenbach, the side camera (handheld?) in Mime's kitchen, and the Valkyrie wings, which were a bit too "Angels in America" for my taste, the filming and production values are fantastic.

As a result, I was expecting to be disappointed by "Don Carlo", and was I ever wrong: I think this is my favorite HD broadcast. I was riveted by the first two acts, and the only miss of a scene was during the auto de fe at the end of the third, which must be a cow to try to stage. In theory there is a vicious and incited crowd calling for blood with religious fervor; however, to keep up that kind of energy for a very long scene would have become tedious, and the music doesn't sustain that kind of action, either. As it was staged, they were very well-behaved and didn't need the guys in armor to keep them in check, but it took the bite out of the scene.

I found Bob Crowley's sets evocative and his costumes a knock out. The hats and coats on the ladies at the end of the first scene were divine. The direction by Nicholas Hytner was detailed, rich, and beautifully paced and registered exceptionally well on video. Kudos to the makeup department for making the singers look great. My only quibble was with Alagna's hair: for some reason the hair people let it have wings.

Hytner was lucky in having so many talented actor singers, particularly Marina Poplavskaya (Elisabetta), Simon Keenleyside (Don Rodrigo), and Ferruccio Furlanetto (King Phillip). Marina Poplavskaya is simply a splendid actress. Elisabetta is a tough role, easily played as a victim, but Poplavskaya portrayed her as a young woman who's been brought up for duty, and she's planning to uphold her end of the bargain, even if it costs her every day of her life, starting in the Fontainebleau scene, when the courtiers beg her to agree to the strategic alliance and to stop the war. She was determined rather than pious, and she didn't leave her brains or will at the door when she married: in the scene where the King humiliates her by asking why she's unattended because he gave an order that she was never to be alone, she gave an understated but clear snarl when she sang that she would remain silent over the unfair accusation. Her Elisabetta has a spine. Details like this, and the complete lack of chest grabbing and gasping, the default opera heroine gestures, her preternatural steeliness and relative calm in the face of duty, and her willingness to remain still when nothing was called for made her exceptionally compelling.

This really came to light in a scene in which she wasn't even present: when Don Carlo meets Eboli in the garden, thinking it is Elisabetta who has invited him, mistakenly proclaims his love, and then, realizing his error, tells Eboli that it won't work, she correctly assumes that he is in love with Elisabetta. She incorrectly assumes that Elisabetta is having an affair with him, and that she is faking piety and fidelity. Eboli sees hypocrisy, manipulation, and cheating, because she is a hypocrite, manipulator, and cheater, and assumes that the rest of the world, and specifically Elisabetta, must be, but Poplavskaya has already established Elisabetta as someone whose behavior was the point, regardless of the depth of her feelings; as Queen, her behavior must be approach, and her marriage, a deal, was one she was going to keep. Elisabetta is nothing like Eboli.

It's hard for me to judge voices in the theater, and in the Scotiabank Theatre Vancouver, she sounded like she used a wide range of dynamics, especially in the last act, which was breathtaking, but didn't have that much heft. I assume she sounded richer in the house, particularly in the Family Circle.

Rodrigo is usually played as a perfect guy: best friend and loyal to Don Carlo, freedom fighter, etc. etc., and since the baritone is rarely the good guy, I can see the temptation to play him that way. I've heard a number of descriptions that talked about Keenleyside's portrayal as the "gay Rodrigo", but I saw something quite different, which he explained at intermission: Rodrigo is a political zealot, and he has to manipulate to further the cause. This doesn't mean he doesn't have genuine affection for Don Carlo or that he isn't a patriot ready to go to war for his country -- whatever the King through the Church decides -- but that every ball he juggles is towards an end, and sometimes, like when he disarms Don Carlo in the auto de fe scene, to clean up the mess in front of him. What made Kennleyside's portrayal so powerful and rich was that he stayed true to that idea and interpreted with enlivening detail rather than softening the edges and and playing broad and generic; he is a remarkable singing actor.

It's also a temptation to try to make King Phillip a sympathetic character, especially in his monologue scene. Listening to what he is saying, though, he has two complaints: he doesn't understand the human heart, and he thinks his wife doesn't love him. He is a man absorbed with court intrigues, international politics, war, and insurrection, all the while with the Grand Inquisitor and the Catholic Church on his back. However, he is the King and the center of the universe -- the most powerful secular ruler on the planet at the time -- and of course he doesn't understand the human heart: he has never had to put himself in anyone else's heart. It's all about him. (Similarly with Wotan, although Wotan has boxed himself in by himself, and he doesn't rule through the grace of the Church.) Why should Elisabetta love him at all? Her father sold her in an arranged, political marriage to end a war; it's not like she would have picked him given her choice. He claims to love her, but he has a funny way of showing it, by seducing her highest ranking lady in waiting. Yes, I know there is a double-standard for men/Kings, but it never occurs to him to look at it from her point of view. What's great about Furlanatto's portrayal is that he doesn't ask for cheap sympathy by downplaying the character's essential selfishness, however understandable it may be. His monologue was beautifully sung.

I have to wonder about the men in these operas: with all of their affinity for intrigue, they're not very quick on their uptake. When Eboli realizes Don Carlo is in love with someone else, accuses him of loving Elisabetta, insinuates that they're having an affair, neither he -- not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but he's all Don Rodrigo has to work with, a bit like Gunther to Don Rodrigo's Hagen -- nor Don Rodrigo -- who is excellent at political intrigue -- once thinks to tell her that it's someone else. Elisabetta has an entire chorus of retinue, and Don Carlos is the heir to the throne with a lot of time on his hands. Surely it is conceivable that he's have an intrigue or two with some of the royalty at court. (Likewise with Wotan: why he doesn't just agree to remove the magic from Nothung and let Siegmund fight Hunding as two mortals -- a fight Siegmund was perfectly capable of winning on his own as long as he had some arms -- instead of caving on everything is beyond me. Or maybe not, since Wotan is often an all-or-nothing kind of guy.)

Don Carlo as a character is a basket case. It's hard to know what to do with his character. Roberto Alagna did more than a credible job, and stayed away from as much cliche as possible aside from the side-by-side opera buddy duet stance, but there's only so much he could do actively, and of the major characters, his was most broad, perhaps because, as the saying goes, it's like trying to nail jello. He also looked great in those costumes, a period that isn't kind to most men. His big aria at the beginning of the opera was a mixed bag outside his upper range, but he sounded very strong to me after that. I had mixed feelings about Anna Smirnova as Eboli. She was a fine actress, but she didn't grab me until the end of "O don fatale" when she sang big.

The one singer who did not fit vocally or dramatically was Eric Halfvarson who sang the Grand Inquisitor. His grimacing during the confrontation scene with King Phillip was so out of place with the acting style of the rest of the cast, and his wobble was wide: he hit the right note once on the way up and once on the way down. It was a performance that seemed airlifted from another production. I didn't catch the name of the singers who sang the Queen's Page and who has a crush on Eboli -- she gave a perky trouser-role performance -- or the ghost of the late King Charles V. In the short role, he sounded wonderful, with a Russian sound.

I loved the orchestra. Yannick Nezet Seguin was the conductor; with his short-cropped hair and bow tie he looked a bit like Pee Wee Herman. He was interviewed on one of the intermission features, and his love for music and voices was quite evident in his enthusiasm in the interview and the pacing and shape of the orchestra. It's hard to say how much the beautiful balance between orchestra and voice was his vs. the sound engineers', but I'd bet on him. He mentioned that he had been a chorus master earlier in his career, something host Deborah Voigt let drop, and I can't help thinking that this was the root of his energy and generosity. He seemed very genuine, and the singers' appreciation of him seemed like more than the standard professional air kisses of praise.

I hope this comes out on DVD; I would buy it in a minute.

[bart]

Thank you! Helene. Don Carlo is the one Met HD performance I most wanted to see this season. Unfortunately, a weekend marathon of (live) Nabuccos got in the way. Now I have your wonderful analysis to keep me thinking until I see the Encore presentation in January.

P.S. Did you happen to read Gay Talese's article about Poplavskaya, in The New Yorker (Dec. 6)? Talese followed her from Russia to Barcelona to Buenos Aires to New York. She seems a slightly eccentric, fascinating, and very independent artist.

http://www.newyorker...6fa_fact_talese

(an intro. only; you need a subscription to get the full article)

[Helene]

I hadn't see the article, bart, until your mention. Wow. She has the energy of a cyclone.

[richard53dog]

Helen, thanks for the write up. I haven't seen this production yet but Don Carlo is a favorite piece of mine. It's really a huge, powerful piece with many facets and the libretto really seemed to inspire Verdi to bring out his best.

It's a bit uneven, certainly, most obviously the auto da fe scene. It's no wonder that it's hard to stage, all of a sudden Verdi goes for a rather abstract stretch of music, so Hytner wasn't the only director to have a bit of trouble here. Verdi went for a more obvious, pull out the stops, kind of approach to a similar scene in Aida, his next piece, probably with the difficulties he had in Don Carlo in his mind.

I hope this comes out on DVD; I would buy it in a minute.

Well I can't pretend to understand the logic behind what gets released and what doesn't, but I think a release of this performance is a bit unlikely. The production originated at the ROH, London and a DVD has been already been issued of that performance, with the same Elisabetta, Phillip, and Rodrigo.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003Y58CL2/ref=s9_simh_gw_p74_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1DSQCQ5788GCHP6D61TB&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846

That release also features the unfortunately ill-advised Don Carlo of Villazon, but in spite of the problems with his performance, his is still a name that sells a lot of media.

[Helene]

Thank you for the link to the existing DVD, richard53dog. It doesn't make sense for the Met to release it. I haven't been paying enough attention, because I thought this was a new Met production

I was thinking a lot about "Aida" while at the "Don Carlo" showing. I'd never seen DC before, although I've heard it many times. (The closest I've ever gotten is one of the sets -- I assume the garden set -- that was used for one "act" of Bing's farewell gala.) First in the scene where King Phillip summons Rodrigo and demands that he ask for a favor. (Can't have anyone too independent and not in debt around.) Then in the auto de fe scene, where the Flemish come with Don Carlo to plead for a more just solution in Flanders. Verdi combined the two ideas in "Aida", but he also simplified them greatly, and I wonder whether that was a result of the difficulty of the auto de fe scene in "Don Carlo". In "Aida" you watch Radames lose his one chance to marry Aida by being distracted to ask a humanitarian favor, all with the best of intentions. In "Don Carlo", there are the three people whom King Phillip most suspects or of whom he is unsure (Elisabetta, Don Carlo, and Don Rodrigo) pleading for the same humanitarian aim, and they are doomed: they are singing about the political, but to King Phillip, it is deeply personal. For me that makes it that much more gut-wrenching. It was really the crowd I didn't like.

[richard53dog]

Thank you for the link to the existing DVD, richard53dog. It doesn't make sense for the Met to release it. I haven't been paying enough attention, because I thought this was a new Met production

The Met is indeed promoting this as a "new" production. It is new, new in New York anyway. Seriously, there are a whole range of terms for productions that have moved from one theater to another, co-production, etc, etc, etc. The wording all depends on whether all the theaters were involved from the planning staqe or later on in the process. Usually it's just the ideas that travel, often the sets are recreated to fit the stage of each theater that gets the production and often there are some changes including costume changes .

Very recently the ROH in London premiered a new production of Adriana Lecouvreur. I've read that this production will be shared by a few other theaters including San Francisco. This kind of sharing is being done more and more.

[Helene]

I love co-productions: they are a great use of resources.

The Met was pretty clear that "Iphigenie" was a co-production. I wonder why not this one. Unless the Seattle showing was like an out-of-town tryout, whereas London getting DC first was like being the post-Broadway tour

[kfw]

Thank you for the link to the existing DVD, richard53dog. It doesn't make sense for the Met to release it.

Don't forget to watch for it on PBS, though. Most of the HD broadcasts seem to show up there eventually.

[abatt]

Alagna has been battling a throat illness. I saw this opera at the Met on Tues evening of this week, and Alagna was fading fast. Before the final intermission ended, a Met representative came out before the curtain to announce that Alagna was ill, but he would continue and complete the performance. I hope he sounded better in the HD broadcast than he did last week. By the way, I also saw this production earlier in the run (Thanksgiving weekend) and Alagna sounded great. I was most impressed by the improvements that Marina P. has made. I was so impressed with her, I decided the buy tickets to the new, eurotrash Traviata in January 2011. A great opera and a great cast. I hope they bring this one back soon to the MET.

[SandyMcKean]

I saw the "Live HD" of Don Carlos last Saturday too. I can't add much to what Helene has so ably said (and I agree with her about 98%), but I will add a couple of thoughts.

I'd never seen, or even heard, Don Carlos before. I've seen plenty of other Verdi, and love it all. I was really looking forward to this opera since I had heard so much about it over the years by knowledgeable opera lovers. I most often heard it described as a "masterpiece" but that it was difficult in some sense.

Indeed it is a masterpiece (IMHO), and the music superlative, but I did struggle with some things. The singers were universally terrific (to these ears).....especially the incredible Marina Poplavskaya who I had been blown away by as Lui in the Met's 2009 Turnadot (and as re-b'cast last summer). True, the plot is a bit overwrought, but I find that easy to overlook. My problem is with the character of Don Carlos himself. I just don't like him. It isn't Alagna's version of Don Carlos I have problems with, it is who Don Carlos is in the libretto. Elizabeth loves him to extraction as, of course, does Eboli. Don Rodrigo idealizes him and even happily lays down his life for Don Carlos even when it is unclear that it is necessary. Only the King seems to dislike his son, but even that seems more about fear of usurpation than of dislike.

I just can't see why these other characters think so highly of Don Carlos. He seem indecisive to me. He doesn't commit to anyone or anything (not really). True, he is head over heels in love with Elizabeth, but her noble commitment to duty and to her people just seems to go over his head. He loves her only to the extent that he wants her, not the sort of mature love that wants the best for her. I'd take Don Rodrigo over Don Carlos any day of the week. Carlos isn't even very smart.

So how do I take the libretto seriously when practically every solid person around is gaga over Don Carlos and I find him a bit of an empty suit?

P.S. I'll add one other thing. I agree with Helene that the auto de fe scene didn't work well. But for me it wasn't the fake bodies burning at the stake, it was all the skirming, blood soaked actors at the front of the stage forever and ever. The costumes were horrible and the blood about as fake looking as it gets. (I guess this could be the closeness of HD b'cast....perhaps in the house these actors and costumes looked believable.)

P.P.S. Helene.....your "Pee Wee Herman" quip was not only hilarious, but so on the money!

[Kyeong]

My problem is with the character of Don Carlos himself. Elizabeth loves him to extraction as, of course, does Eboli. Don Rodrigo idealizes him and even happily lays down his life for Don Carlos even when it is unclear that it is necessary. Only the King seems to dislike his son, but even that seems more about fear of usurpation than of dislike.

I just can't see why these other characters think so highly of Don Carlos.

It is too belated response, but, as SandyMcKean’s question is so fascinating, I’d like to add my little thoughts.

I’ve seen Don Carlos twice this season (Alagna HD, Mr. Lee live), and though those are all my experience with this opera, I, too, can’t find in the character of Don Carlos the answer to your question, why these people love him so much. So, I looked into the minds of the other people who love him, and here is my humble opinion: In short, they love him because of their own needs, to fill something they lacked in their own lives, maintaining their self-respect.

To Elisabeth, Don Carlos was the only man with whom she could cherish love without feeling cheating her husband because she had known him and loved him from before she married. Her marriage apparently lacked the love between husband and wife, and she couldn’t allow herself to begin another affair with any other guy, which will affect her nobility, her self-respect, seemingly the highest virtue to her. Further, clinging to the memory of love with him may have increased the gravity of her sacrifice made to save her nation and people, which in turn highlighted the nobility of her deed. If the love she had to give up turned out to be nothing by beginning to love another guy or simply forgetting him, she might also lose the price she thought she had paid by accepting and maintaining the unhappy marriage.

Eboli seemed to have thought of Don Carlos as the only one who could restore and reaffirm her self-dignity which was totally devastated by an affair with King Phillip, which I assumed may have begun by King Phillip’s coercion, at least in part. I think Eboli didn’t love Don Carlos until she mistakenly assumed Don Carlos loves her. By this misunderstanding, she came to be able to think again herself as someone who can be loved, who can be the object of innocent and genuine love, so, even after the truth was known, she couldn’t let him go because already at that time she placed the basis of her self-esteem at the love of Don Carlos.

In the case of Rodrigo, it is more difficult to find any deficiency in his character/life, so, I just suspect he may have some discontent with his ability to manipulate, seeing himself as a Machiavellian, therefore thinking highly of Don Carlos’s unrealistic idealist-like character. I also cautiously suspect he decided to lay down his life in Act 4 to prove "to himself" that he can be faithful when he could act otherwise. I also think a part of the reason why he made such decision lies in the fact that it was unlikely to win his cause then, considering all circumstances.

[Helene]

In the case of Rodrigo, it is more difficult to find any deficiency in his character/life, so, I just suspect he may have some discontent with his ability to manipulate, seeing himself as a Machiavellian, therefore thinking highly of Don Carlos’s unrealistic idealist-like character. I also cautiously suspect he decided to lay down his life in Act 4 to prove "to himself" that he can be faithful when he could act otherwise. I also think a part of the reason why he made such decision lies in the fact that it was unlikely to win his cause then, considering all circumstances.

Keenleyside explained his character when he said Rodrigo was a zealot and (not exact words) was doing a balancing act between Phillip and Don Carlo.

Rodrigo cares about the liberation of Flanders -- he reminds Don Carlo of their youthful pact to accomplish this in the libretto -- and while I doubt Don Carlo would have been his choice, Don Carlo is his only choice, since, although Rodrigo keeps having the conversation with Phillip, Phillip tells him the Church is pulling the strings, and Don Carlo doesn't have much connection or respect for the Church and its power. He decides to use the material he has to work with; it proves inadequate.

As for his appeal to Elisabetta, she's a young woman who was promised to Don Carlo, meets him, and realizes he's not an old, protocol-bound guy and that she's been luckier than most, since even with Don Carlo, it's a political marriage. Don Carlo has plenty of time to become king. Add in young angst and that he falls for her, too, and he becomes catnip. She never has to deal with the reality of a real relationship with him.

[SandyMcKean]

Kyeong & Helene,

Very interesting ideas. I tend to agree with your views. The main thing that seems to weave thru both your sets of ideas is that indeed Don Carlo is a bit of loser, and that the interest others pay to him is primarily to meet their own needs. That makes a lot of sense to me.

One additional situational thing I might add to the comments on Rodrigo (assuming I have the story right) is that Rodrigo, though noble, is not in a position to grant freedom to Flanders; OTOH, Don Carlos could grant such a historical shift once he becomes King. Rodrigo may think that Don Carlos will one day be compelled to grant freedom to the Flemish, regardless of the political consequences, since the Don owes his life to Rodrigo's sacrifice.

[Kyeong]

One additional situational thing I might add to the comments on Rodrigo (assuming I have the story right) is that Rodrigo, though noble, is not in a position to grant freedom to Flanders; OTOH, Don Carlos could grant such a historical shift once he becomes King. Rodrigo may think that Don Carlos will one day be compelled to grant freedom to the Flemish, regardless of the political consequences, since the Don owes his life to Rodrigo's sacrifice.

Reading your post, I was reminded of Elisabeth singing together with Don Carlo and Rodrigo at the plaza. I thought Rodrigo's choice of sacrifice was made out of sort of desperation because the hope of liberation of Flanders had almost gone - the King refused to free Flanders (or made clear he couldn't do that), and Don Carlo was prisoned, staring the execution in the face due to his insane public attack on the King. However, there was still Elisabeth - sympathetic to his cause, caring for Don Carlo who, still, had the slightest chance of being a king, and having the power to give birth to a next king (when Don Carlo fails to succeed the crown). Rodrigo's sacrifice would be pressure on both Don Carlo and Elisabeth, who Rodrigo believed would have the legal power to do what he couldn't do by himself. Then, Rodrigo's choice seems quite reasonable, far from desperate.

[bart]

I'm enjoying this discussion, especially since we have all seen the same production fairly recently. (Thank you Met HD Live. Thank you Ballet Alert.)

I agree with those who found a certain smallness of scale in Keenlyside's Posa. This is to me one of the most fascinating characters in opera, and one who is rather modern in the complexity and contradictions he seems to contain.

I've always thought of Rodrigo (Posa) as being torn between two competing loyalties: .

One loyalty is in the realm of the personal. Rodrigo's close, youthful friendship with Carlos remains alive for both of them. It is expressed and renewed in the Act II scene which follows Rodrigo's return from the wars in Flanders. This comes close to being -- musically and in the text -- a passionate love scene..

Rodrigo's other loyalty lies in the public, or political, sphere. It is to an idealized vision of his country, represented by the person of an anointed King who happens to be Carlos' father. To Rodrigo, the essential "Spain" is good. It betrays itself by warring against the Flemish people. Later in Act II , Rodrigo has a scene with Philip which also, in a strange way, comes across as a love scene. This interaction actually moves Philip so much that he opens his heart to Rodrigo in a way we do not see him do with any other character. (Philips. other big scene of self-revelation takes the the form of a monologue to himself and God, not not a confession to another human being.)

The conflict between the personal and the public/political recurs again and again in Verdi: Aida, Ballo in Maschera, Simon Boccanegra, Sicilian Vespers, Nabucco, etc. Rodrigo is just one of many victims.

All of this is complicated by Rodrigo's commitment to the liberty of Flanders. At the end of the Inquisition scene, when Carlos draws his sword on his father -- an act of lese-majeste that is treasonous by any definition -- Rodrigo automatically sides with the second of his loyalties -- to the idealized Spain in the person of the King -- intervening and demanding Carlos' sword. The scene ends in contradictions. Philip rewards Rodrigo with an unwanted dukedom; Carlos (who tends to personalize everything) is devastated; and the poor heretics are finally burned at the stake.

Verdi refuses to resolve these contradictions in the way they usually were in 19th-century grand opera. Rodrigo's death is particularly ironic. He is about to be arrested because he was found to be preserving his friend's Carlos's treasonable letters. Then he is assassinated by an agent of the Inquisition, the evil face of Spain. And THEN he is ... forgotten for the rest of the opera !!!

That is not fair, of course. But neither is life, as Verdi certainly knew.

[Helene]

All of this is complicated by Rodrigo's commitment to the liberty of Flanders. At the end of the Inquisition scene, when Carlos draws his sword on his father -- an act of lese-majeste that is treasonous by any definition -- Rodrigo automatically sides with the second of his loyalties -- to the idealized Spain in the person of the King -- intervening and demanding Carlos' sword. The scene ends in contradictions. Philip rewards Rodrigo with an unwanted dukedom; Carlos (who tends to personalize everything) is devastated; and the poor heretics are finally burned at the stake.

Rodrigo has to behave that way in public, or he'd lose Phillip's confidence completely and be banished somewhere, if not assassinated. Phillip knew what that gesture cost Rodrigo. Don Carlo, as the King's son, might be rehabilitated, but not Rodrigo.

[bart]

Helene, of course you are right. I was not thinking so much of the inner logic of the situation than of its emotional impact.

My own feeling is that if Posa had been a tenor, he might be the opera's hero, and a rather complex hero at that. However, the tenor here is the less interesting -- though more romantically conventional -- character of the King's son.. Which is why Verdi is able to drop Posa so quickly before the end.