by Sam Juliano
The argument continues to rage after three years of Metropolitan Opera simulcasts of their Saturday afternoon matinee performances to multiplex movie houses around the world. Does one sustain a deeper operatic experience by attending the productions live in Manhattan, or is the ‘multiplex simulcast’ route the most enriching way to absorb the greatest of all art forms? There is no simple answer. As one who held partial season tickets to the Met for eight years, and still attends in person several times a year, there admittedly can be no replacement for being part of the intimacy that informs live performances in hushed and disciplined opera houses. In this sense, opera seen and heard on its home turf is not compromised by the intrusion of cameras and the subjective artistic decisions that dictate what one is to see, even if the hearing is unaltered or even enriched. For purists, there is no replacement to being in the opera house, even if one is doomed to the family circle in the upper rafters, or even forced to a standing room cubicle, as I have been on many occasions. Except in the rare instance where distance or angle might be so adversely extreme as to compromise vision, there can be no valid argument against lived performance as opposed to transcription to another medium. Yet, adherents of this hugely-successful public-relations venture to “bring the Met to the world” rightly claim some advantages to seeing the operas simulcast on movie screens. For one, those who are eternally doomed to seeing the operas at the Met from long distances because of spiraling ticket prices, can now enjoy glorious close-ups of their favorite stars, a close look at the scenery, and wonderful interviews during intermissions conducted by such high-profile luminaries like Renee Fleming and Placido Domingo. And with subtitles emblazoned legibly on the bottom of the screen, much like a foreign-language film, one doesn’t have to keep shifting their eyes from the stage to the back of the seat in front of them to negotiate the translation. And the simulcast ticket price is $20, far less than any ticket at the Met save for standing room.
For me, I think a compromise answer in much in order here. I believe if one has seen a specific opera or production at least once at the Met in all its resplendent glory, follow-up exposure could well be through the simulcasts, which are offered about eight Saturdays over the course of the season. I saw the Anthony Minghella production of Giacomo Puccini’s Madama Butterfly last year, and sat in a very good ‘dress circle’ seat, and I reviewed it, evincing some reservations about the singing that particular night, which I thought was sub-par. The singing this past Saturday afternoon was top-rank, no doubt largely fueled by the cognizance of the worldwide transmission.
As Pinkerton, the Italian tenor Marcello Giordani, who is admittedly a little on the ‘hefty’ side to physically convince as an American naval officer, is nonetheless an effectively immersed actor with a full-bodied voice, warm and lyrical. He is the production’s top singer. As Cio-Cio-San, Patricia Racette is excellent, if a bit wobbly during the high notes. She certainly is as rich as some others that have tackled this role over the years, and I prefer her myself to the Chilean soprano Cristina Gallardo-Domas, who also has played the role in this production, but Domas is physically more convincing than Racette (but Racette is a superior actress) in this penultimate Puccini tragic heroine role, and the one that has probably induced more tears than any other character in all of opera since the work first appeared to boos in 1904 by a conspiracy staged by jealous enemies of the composer. Today, opera house would have to fold without this opera and the composer’s other spectacularly-beloved work, La Boheme, generously on their schedules. Ms. Racette was highly-effective as Ellen Orford in the Met’s new production of Benjamin Britten’s Peter Grimes last season, which was also transmitted globally as part of the same ‘Live on HD’ series.
A wonderfully personable veteran singer/actress, Maria Zitchak does marvelous work as the under appreciated guardian Suzuki, (Zitchak has a lovely talk with Renee Fleming during the first intermission about her career and the significance of her role here) and the baritone Dwayne Croft is first-rate as a robust Sharpless.
Two men clad in black, and deliberately meant to appear at least partially-camouflaged operate the production’s showcase, puppet of the little son of Cio-Cio-San, who secures many of the audience tears expended on this tragic and heartbreaking tale. The child moves with eerily human gestures, and with bald head he seems carefree and happy, with a tinge of uncertainty. Reactions to this gamble have been largely favorable, as many have contended that the puppet looks “more real than any real child they could have had.” The piercing stare of this puppet boy may be the most provocative statement of verisimilitude in the entire opera, and one not easily shaken.
Michael Levine’s sets are strictly abstract and largely black, with red and green rectangles. A slanted overhead mirror gives the production a haunting quality, as it reflects on-stage action, and sliding panels allow characters to appear and disappear. The colorfully elaborate costumes by Han Feng as surely a highlight, especially for the exotic look of the opera, which is a crucial element. The use of flower pedals is very effective is promulgating the opera’s marked lyricism and sensory strain.
All opera lovers (and even some who are not fans of the form) know that the center point aria Un Bel di Vedramo, is one of opera’s most beloved soprano pieces, and the long love duet that comes before is an example of how Puccini poured his heart and soul into a sustained stretch of inspired music. It’s simply one of music’s most extraordinarily beautiful compositions. The wrenching Addio fiorito asil, the tearful Io so che alle sue pene, the wedding intermezzo and the final unbearable sequence (which typically rehashes the opera’s most ravishing musical themes) are all exceedingly beautiful passages.
The two-intermission structure is a return to the original specifications when the opera was first performed, but I’m not all that sure it is better than the single break that had been used in previous Met productions of it. The extra break is intrusive on the flow, and the opera isn’t really long enough to warrant it. Thirty minutes after the first break, another one occurs. It’s too much.
Madama Butterfly is often promoted as an opera that might turn those whom are resistant, but more than that it’s one of those defining moments in the culture, when music, story and visual elements conspire to define what true beauty in the world looks and hears like. It’s an ethereal experience.
Note: I attended the Saturday afternoon Live in HD simulcast at 1:00 P.M. in the Edgewater multiplex. The theatre was packed and sold-out. Oddly, at 54, I think I was easily the youngest person in attendance, as the opera venue is strongly attracting the seniors in the local theatres. If you can’t afford opera tickets, or just can’t get over to the Met, this option is a lot better than many purists may think. This is the third simulcast I’ve attended this year after Berlioz’s “La damnation de Faust” and Massanet’s “Thais.” I’ve managed four others live at the Met.
As you know, I’m not the biggest opera fan out there, but this one is an exception (as is La Boheme) I’ll have to sample one of these HD broadcasts before the season ends.
Sam, Sue and I saw this staged at the New York City Opera in March of last year, with Mark Lamos directing. The role of Cio-Cio-San was sung by a soprano named Shu-Ling Li, and the rather “stiff” Pinkerton was James Valenti. I just called Sue for the information from that night’s program.
We enjoyed the production, but I’m sure it couldn’t compare to the one you describe here. Your writing is truly exceptional and eloquent. I can see what your first love is, and it’s not movies.
Peter: Thanks very much for sharing that experience. I saw that City Opera production with Shu-Ling Li a well, and it was decent enough, if not particularly distuinguished. I agree that Mr. Valenti was stiff, and the orchestra seemed set on low volume. The City Opera is always a good way to become ‘introduced’ to an opera before expending the big bucks at the Met.
Bobby: I am quite attuned to your adversity to opera in general, but I much appreciate your affinity for this work of art.
…..one of your best ever. I have never seen this, but I did see “Aida” several years ago, and also “Tosca” in a local production……
My own sentiments here are that an opera can be appreciated just as much in the HD broadcast presentation. Actually even more as far as I’m concerned. If you are sitting far away in an opera house, you really are never immerced in the experience. In such a situation you are tortured sitting there for 3 or 4 hours. You would really need to have a seat “close to the action” to enjoy the benefits of being at a live production. If you are struggling to see and hear, and if you are physically uncomfortable, I fail to see what the advantage is in spending big money to get a “lesser” experience than you would at an HD theatre broadcast, where you see everything up close. I really don’t get it. The opera houses of course will always promote being there, as they are only concerned about revenue.
David: That is a terrific argument there for the HD, and I can’t dispute any of your claims. Of course, (again) the purist would tke strong issue with the transference of form, but it all depends on what each viewer wishes to cull from the experience. Thanks very much for sharing that.
Thanks for the glowing compliment Frank.
‘Madama Butterfly’ is one opera I do love, and I could well-imagine the crowd it must have attracted in Edgewater. I once owned the video of the Ponelle film with Domingo and Freni.
This review is a work of art Sam. I love this opera so much.
I LOVE LA BOHEME!!!!!!!
MUSETTA’S WALTZ!!!!!
John: Thank You! I have that Ponelle film too, but I prefer the Mitterand.
Renee: Not quite that LOL!!! but thanks for the stellar support.
Russell: Tell me I never knew that! Ha!
Sam, this is an excellent discussion of the merits of the two ways of appreciating such a lovely and complex work of art.
I have yet to go to one of the theatrical simulcasts, but I have every intention of going sometime. Living here in a landlocked state far from the great ocean of opera, I am nothing but enthusiastic about technology that can bring any manner of top caliber performances here, however far removed from the live experience it may be. I would think the most dramatic difference between the two venues would be the acoustic quality and the feeling of having the room you are in filled with a sublimely beautiful song that’s come straight from another person’s throat only a few dozen feet away. The immediacy of such an art experience is something that cannot be replaced, and should not, but it in no way inhibits a simlucast production from having beauties, conveniences and much wider and more diverse audiences of its own.
I hope to have a chance someday to experience both forms, for as many beautiful works as life will allow. I hope that those of you lucky enough to have multiple ways of drinking in such art do not take them for granted.
Finally, practically speaking, if opera is to continue to be financed and produced not only in this lousy economy, but for generations to come, it’s going to need to continue to reach those people who will be the ones to enjoy it for generations to come. While we’re far from a time when Facebook and YouTube are flooded with viral videos of Renee Fleming, any creative new ways to help those soaring notes become more accessible and appreciated should not only be tolerated or commended, but should receive a standing ovation.
“I would think the most dramatic difference between the two venues would be the acoustic quality and the feeling of having the room you are in filled with a sublimely beautiful song that’s come straight from another person’s throat only a few dozen feet away. The immediacy of such an art experience is something that cannot be replaced, and should not, but it in no way inhibits a simlucast production from having beauties, conveniences and much wider and more diverse audiences of its own.”
“While we’re far from a time when Facebook and YouTube are flooded with viral videos of Renee Fleming, any creative new ways to help those soaring notes become more accessible and appreciated should not only be tolerated or commended, but should receive a standing ovation.”
Jenny Bee, I must tell you that I am awestruck at this tremendous comment, which states so eloquently and precisely the argument at hand, and how opera is an experience that for years has been celebrated as a live, intimate experience, which however well transcribed to another medium, is still incomparable in its naked form.
Your brilliant grasp is impossible to counter, but I wouldn’t want to; you have examined this quandary at its essence. You closing sentence with the “standing ovation” is definitive.
Thanks for expending this kind of enthusiasm and talent to this thread. I am eternally grateful for that.
I think you have long known what I think of this. I have seen it several times at both opera houses, and my vote here goes to being there in person. The simulcasts are fine, but they are clearly the choice only if a trip to NYC can’t be managed.
Impressive writing here Sam.
Frederick, thanks ever so much for the kind assessment.
Your argument is pretty much in line with what most opera fans feel. I do agree with you.
It’s wonderful that you include opera in your review lineup. It’s nice to have a little bit of this and a little of that. I think this my favorite opera of them all. Beautiful writing Sam. I went with Frank to see this five years ago.
I have just returned from a local HD broadcast of Minghella’s “Madama Butterfly” but my comments must be in stark contrast to those before me. Frankly, this was one of the worst Madama Butterflys I have ever experienced in 40 years of opera attendance and listening. Except for the Sharpless character all the leads are way too old to portray their characters. This was like watching Romeo and Juliet portrayed as middle-aged lovers. The emotional chemistry between Racette and Giordoni was utterly lacking and both obviously subscribe to the ludicrous old style opera singers of only addressing the audience not each other or anyone else on stage. While attempting to be nouveau, the paltry use of the “puppets” on stage was both distracting and pointless. The minimalist sets were not only unconvincing but lacked the potential full and creative use by someone with a sens eof drama and design.
The costumes were atrocious. Did no one actually take a look at a real geisha to see how an obi is supposed to look? They were banded much too high on the actresses and the ornate knotting in the back is not supposed to look like a backpack gone wild (as they did). Pinkerton’s uniforms weren’t even tailored! His tunics literally hung slackly off him like a Cuban’s Guayabera. AND this performance left off the powerful reprise of Un Bel Di before Cio-Cio San commits suicide (in this case ludicrously sticking herself in the neck with what looked like a bayonet instead of the traditional hari-kiri). My sister and I had a taste in our mouths like a cat’s hairball as we left the theater. This was unquestionably a Madama Butterfly that got just about everything wrong.
William:
I just read your comment here over the phone to two friends, and we are all still laughing our asses off. You wrote this with such a scapel, and the writing is so witty, that even though I don’t agree with much that you say here, I tip my cap to you for your scintillating scrutiny.
I liked Giordani, and Racette was fine enough, although I also have seen better, especially as I am a Met regular, living in northern NJ and formerly holding partial season tickets through various BUTTERFLY stagings.
But I’ll give your criticisms further thought and will discuss them with another friend who is an opera fanatic.
I very much appreciate your comment, as it does give another perspective William, and I do plan on ereviewing the other HD broadcasts this season, in addition to a few planned appearances in person.
How can I not comment after reading Williams thoughts?
He appears to have the same reservations I have felt about various operas. One of the most offensive things to me aesthetically is opera’s love of placing aging matrons in the role of fair young damsels. To me this is ludicrous and jars badly. In fact, it’s got to the point where I’ll cancel a reservation if I feel the gap between the character and the singer is too wide to be credible. I mean would you really want to see a mainstream movie where a fat old bat (no offence meant, I’m one myself), plays a young, beautiful and innocent heroine and the audience is expected to believe it? I don’t think so.
I know many will say that operas were so often written for heroines in their teens or early twenties and that the vocal demands of these roles can only be met by older women with much experience – and this may be true. Yet there are so many upcoming, aspiring and very promising young lads and ladesses crying out for a chance to show their stuff. Just look at what the Met auditions pull out of the woodwork. I’d like to see more of them given an opportunity to take lead roles where appropriate.
The other thing which gets up my nose is minimalist sets. Ugh! Why didn’t I just stay home and listen to a CD? Surely an opera production demands the full and rich expression of all elements – top quality voices, acting ability, authentic sets, appropriate costumes, clever lighting, skilful choreography etc.
I shuddered when I saw Eugene Onegin with Renee Fleming. The sets were so minimalistically unreal as to divorce me from any immersion in the story or the characters. She seemed to be singing in a vacuum most of the time thanks to poor production techniques and wickedly bad sets. However glorious the voices may be I would prefer in such instances to have stayed at home.
Why are producers so fond of ‘modernising’ operas, imposing their own values, silly ideas and vain egos on a composer’s work. To me this is an affront.
I say, stay true to the times and intention of the original work, respect its integrity and the creative genius which brought it to fruition at the time.
Before closing, a word of thanks to Sam for a fine piece of writing. I agree with you about Patricia Racette’s excellent work in Peter Grimes, but to see her playing a 15-16yr old Cio-Cio-San … well, I gave this one a miss.
Jenna:
Thanks so much for stopping by and reviving this piece. I must say that I pretty much agree with you on the ‘mimimal staging’ and the moderization. I had a big problem with the latter this past Wednesday night when I attended a staging of the Bard’s THE MERCHANT OF VENICE at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. The updating and bizarre sets completely violated the work, much in the same way you pose here. And true, why attend something that’s excessively minimalistic, when you can just as well stay home and listen to the CD. There are exceptions of course, but the general sentiments are valid.
Thanks again!
Hello again Sam
Thank you Jenna for your comments – glad to see it’s not just me who eschews “matronly types” cast as ingenues and teens. It’s as true, of course, for the male singers — imagine Pavarotti trying to pull off a Romeo or one of the starving young Bohomeians of Paris. It does strain the credulity beyond the breaking point. I remember seeing the young Frederika von Stade perform early on and saying “Well, finally! We’ve got beyond the rotund Brunhilde types.” And I very much agree with the fact that there are many young singers with the ability to carry powerful roles if given the opportunity.
Minimalist sets can work (see the Met’s HD performance of Daughter of the Regiment, for a fine example — also it’s great fun!).
Cecelia Bartoli — although now settling into a more matronly Rubenesqueness — was another who earlier could carry off young roles and what a voice! You don’t have to have that much extra poundage or “maturity” to sing beautifully…it’s simply that many let themselves go like Pavarotti and Beverly Sills did.
I’m curious — among you opera fans — if you’ve seen productions/videos of the some of the very interesting new “musicals” such as the French Canadian/French Notre Dame de Paris or Le Hane. I’d compare them to a modern opera — with elements of ballet, choral singing, and arias but with quite modern staging as used with Les Miserables and Sweeney Todd.