Mamma Mia! from Glee Across the Universe to Rock of Ages

That was not an attempt to jam as many titles into one sentence as possible.  Okay, maybe I was playing a bit but that’s not all I was attempting…

I am sitting watching Glee as I write this.  When the show first appeared I cringed at the publicity, the pictures I’d seen of Sue (Jane Lynch) in the “L” for loser posture.

I didn’t get it.  How could I? at least not without having a look.  And if you haven’t seen it, I hope this essay makes some sense.   But I had heard the buzz, especially through my music-theatre friends on Facebook.  And so I had a look, and just from one episode succumbed to the fascination.

It’s odd.  I don’t watch television, except when I want to check the weather report.  No that’s a lie.  I always make time for special events: operas, championship sporting events, election debates, walks on the moon.  And to that list let’s add Glee.

The show is a double threat (and all you triple threats out there, please hear me out).

The plot is a loosely constructed premise for a series of songs, confronting us with the eternal balancing act of the musical, and come to think of it, opera as well.  The best operas or musicals do not struggle to find that balance, because they seem to flow organically.  And their songs don’t remind us of the arbitrariness of the form.

That’s what’s different in Glee, and come to think of it, a whole series of recent musicals, including Rock of Ages, Mamma Mia and Across the Universe.

If I am watching West Side Story, and Tony begins to sing Tonight, he is singing a song that was written for Tony by Leonard Bernstein, a song –at least as far as I know –with no prior life before West Side Story.  When I encountered I Feel Pretty during the film Anger Management, on the other hand, I had to mentally filter the song’s previous life –in that same 1950s musical West Side Story—with the more recent comedy starring Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler.  It’s a curious mix of the two.

Linda Hutcheon, the celebrated Canadian literary theorist & scholar, described this effect when we encounter an adaptation.  She used the analogy of the palimpsest, a page where we can see one text written over top of another; the point of the analogy is that with this kind of adaptation it’s as if we’re looking through layers, seeing both the original version and the newer one.  And so for example, the experience in Anger Management is enriched by our ability to see these two very different moments simultaneously, remembering for example, that a room full of Latinas sing the original song, not two churlish men in a car.  It’s curious that it doesn’t really matter whether Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler sing the song with skill.  The shy tentative start from Sandler’s character is a perfect mirror to our own doubt about the suitability of the song, which seems so unlikely in this situation.

I believe that’s what we’re working with in Glee.  For example, there was an episode with Brittney Spears as guest, whereby the plot contrived to give three different characters dreams each starring Brittney singing one of her songs in an ensemble with a cast member.  The awkwardness of that combination –the highschool students in Glee and, oh my, Brittney Spears?—was precisely what made it jarring, and meant that whether it was well-sung or not, we’d accept the mashup. It’s a hybrid, a remix, and no longer like either of the things we had before, and definitely greater than the sum of its parts.

Rock of Ages and Mamma Mia are similar, in taking songs that we already know, and giving them new life in a dramatic treatment.  It doesn’t matter that the story is obviously constructed for the express purpose of connecting the songs.  It’s clear that we’re there to hear the songs, no matter how the plot turns out.  This is easy enough to confirm by asking anyone who has seen the plays the following loaded question. What do you remember better: the characters and contours of the plot on the one hand? or the songs?

Julie Taymor’s Across the Universe is a film musical cut from the same cloth.  While Taymor does manage to cobble a skilful story connecting some of the best known songs of the last half-century – in other words, songs so central to our sensibilities as to resist the comparatively weak pull of the story—the effect is largely the same as for Rock of Ages or Mamma Mia.  We emerge from the theatre remembering a few great moments.

I find that operas constructed of obvious segments, that are not as through-composed, seem to invite us to a similar GLEE-full space, where we are aware of the aria and the performer, and also aware of the sometimes weak connective tissue contrived to get us from one glorious aria to the next.  When the musical form successfully integrates the elements into an organic unit that isn’t obviously just a loose collection of songs, we start to have a different relationship to the show and its performers.   Chances are a musical or opera that is a loose collection of songs can be an excellent star vehicle; and therefore the stars singing those songs (or arias) are the selling point.   When the form matures — for example, when the opera or musical is a more accomplished composition, we start noticing the composer as well as the singers, and that person also becomes the selling point.

Posted in Dance, theatre & musicals, Essays | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Genoveva November 17th

How good is Robert Schumann’s Genoveva?  It depends who you ask.  Conventional musicological wisdom from a generation ago consigns Schumann to the same kind of niche as other virtuosi such as Chopin and Liszt.  Their solo piano works are brilliant but once an orchestra comes into the picture the musicologist smiles indulgently, while shaking his head.

And of course that viewpoint is as out of date as the assumption that the musicologist must be a “he”.

If you’ve had the good fortune to hear historically informed performances of Schumann’s symphonic repertoire (for example, the recordings conducted by Norrington or Harnoncourt), you’ll recognize that up until quite recently, we didn’t really know what Schumann’s orchestral music sounded like.  Calling Schumann a bad orchestrator on the basis of recordings made before 1985 is a lot like dismissing Mussorgsky on the basis of the Rimsky-Korsakov version of Boris Godunov: because the version we encountered had been tampered with, and the original had been distorted in the process.

In case you can’t tell, I like Genoveva.  I can’t claim to have seen the opera either, but i saw enough to know it’s worth producing, after having had the pleasure of a concert performance by Bill Shookhoff’s Opera By Request.  Given that this is Schumann’s only attempt I feel certain he would have improved his understanding of the form had he written more than the one opera. It wasn’t just a coincidence that Mussorgsky came to mind.  Like Boris, Genoveva is an opera that deserves to be more influential than it is, a cul de sac rather than a new pathway, and a marvellous solution to the composer’s challenge of putting words to music.

Having put my heart on my sleeve in this declaration of love, I will now explain why Genoveva likely will never be more than an offbeat choice of repertoire.

First and foremost, the tale is a curious juxtaposition of oddball characters and straight-laced conservatism.  The two most interesting characters—Margaretha and Golo—are not the leads.  Sadly, neither of the principals –Genoveva and her husband Siegfried—is very interesting dramatically, notwithstanding the lovely music they’re asked to sing.  It doesn’t help, either, that the hero is a baritone, and the quirky tenor part is very difficult to sing.  Perhaps once we have a performance tradition, and singers have had a chance to experiment, the work will seem more coherent than it does at this point.

I couldn’t forget Schumann’s madness as a gruesome subtext for me throughout.  Golo—that tenor part I spoke of—felt to me like an alter-ego of the composer, which is to say, a character whose grasp of reality at times feels as shaky as that of the composer, an obsessive and dissembling mess of a man.  The opera’s plot is fundamentally about illusion and reality, the kind of metaphysical tale that must have been attractive to Schumann precisely because of his own struggle.

One can see several resonances to other romantic operas.

Wagner’s Lohengrin:

  • innocent woman, needing rescue,
  • her plight as a Christian allegory
  • everyone thinks she is guilty
  • Pagan witch character (cf Ortrud)
  • Purportedly loyal man actually treacherous (Telramund)
  • National crusade of war as backdrop
  • Big choruses

Berlioz’s Damnation de Faust

  • Big choruses, including drunken common folk, pastoral music, chorus as part of magic effect
  • Magical moments, conjured by an evil character
  • Final triumphal scene
  • Tenor role that is almost unsingably difficult

Otello

  • Innocent wife framed (Desdemona)
  • Treacherous friend who seems to be loyal (Iago)

Die Meistersinger

…and given the number of times I’ve mentioned Wagner in this list, I can’t help but wonder whether Wagner dismissively scorned the opera precisely because he was influenced by it and didn’t want anyone to notice.

Schumann’s musical treatment is so far ahead of its time as to be one of a kind.  It doesn’t have arias or full-stop numbers that segment the work.  Instead it is through composed, seeming more Wagnerian (in the sense that Wagner– or that second-generation Wagnerian, Claude Debussy– avoids full stops and virtuosity for its own sake) than anything in Wagner.  That is why I am reminded of Boris Godunov, another one-of-a-kind opera that moves quickly without numbers and seems to be instantaneous in its handling of dramatic situations.

The performance is a bit difficult to assess given that this is the first time I’ve encountered the work, and the first time most of us have encountered the music.  It’s much easier to undertake a role that one has heard since one’s childhood, than one that is unknown.  In other words, the achievement of this cast is much greater than one might think at first glance.

I have been an admirer of Bill Shookhoff for a long time.  Shookhoff plays with phenomenal precision, a choice that is especially remarkable considering how difficult Schumann’s piano accompaniment is, opting to support singers rather than going for big effects.  The performance Nov 17th at U of T at Scarborough’s Leigha Lee Browne Theatre was a case of good news bad news. While the theatre did offer us surtitles and the Scarborough College concert choir as chorus, the dry acoustic was more suitable for spoken word presentations than opera, sucking any colour from the voices.

The four principals all helped make the case for Schumann.  Mila Ionkova was a sympathetic Genoveva, while baritone Doug McNaughton as her husband Siegfried possessed a heroic sound.  Lenard Whiting managed to sing all the high notes of Golo, the most virtuosic of any of the roles.  Karen Bojti’s Margaretha was the most accomplished of any of the principals; admittedly her kind of role always steals the show.  Bojti was most able to transcend the limitations of the concert format.

Opera by Request returns with the following future projects:

  • Il Trovatore November 26 & 28
  • Tales of Hoffmann January 29th
  • Pelléas et Mélisande February 5th
Posted in Opera, Reviews | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

COC: Aida & Death in Venice

Once upon a time, the key to operatic success was understood according to the prestige associated with the famous singers in the cast.  Success required star-power, at least in the viewpoint of the influential impresario Sol Hurok, who changed our understanding of theatrical excellence for decades after.  We describe the great productions we remember from the middle of the 20th Century by citing the stars in the cast, even if the acting or ensemble qualities of those stars were a negligible contribution to the success of the show.

The Canadian Opera Company would bring in singers such as Joan Sutherland, on the premise that this is what audiences want; without recognizable stars you couldn’t build an audience, or so the thinking went.

That was then, but this is now.  The recent offerings by the COC don’t just demonstrate what it takes to be successful in the 21st century, they are certainly a strong indication of the direction that the COC will be taking with their new artistic directorship.  The scores of the two operas being presented –Britten’s Death in Venice, and Verdi’s Aida –couldn’t be more dissimilar, yet once we get to the productions we discover that the COC’s approach is remarkably consistent.  The common thread in the COC’s philosophy might be seen as the 21st century’s answer to Sol Hurok.

If the opera world had not changed, we’d be in big trouble, because there simply aren’t enough legitimate voices to cast operas such as Aida.  In a Sol Hurok style world, we’re running on empty, without very many stars – well-known personalities—and with an even bigger shortage of genuine voices.  And so it’s no wonder that the COC hadn’t staged Aida for a generation (over 20 years), and that many other companies face a similar talent shortfall.

No wonder, then, that opera is no longer being sold on the basis of its stars, when that old selling point simply won’t work (because of a talent shortage), and the new target audience –younger people—lack the experience to recognize the stars.  Instead, the visual aspects of the mise-en-scène (the look and feel) have become the new selling point, a value system much more amenable to marketing and much friendlier to the neophyte.  This leads to one of the recurring complaints of the most conservative among the long-time opera fans, that directors and designers flout the original text.  The most extreme form is the phenomenon known as Regietheater, an approach to mise-en-scène that superimposes an interpretation over top of the original, sometimes with little apparent connection to the text being presented.  This European phenomenon turns up in North America from time to time, often accompanied by a controversy that only serves to fill seats and thereby reinforce the apparent value of this approach.  At its best, as in the Patrice Chereau deconstruction of Wagner’s Ring at the 1976 centennial production at the Bayreuth Festival, one discovers something fresh to reinvigorate a moribund tradition.  At its worst such productions make it very hard to get at the text –either the singing or the dramatic presentation—because of the new text being presented.

This gives us the contexts for assessing both Aida as well as Death and Venice.   The COC cast two different women to play Aida, a role that few women in the world can sing with sufficient authority to be heard over the large orchestra Verdi employs.  One of them was Michelle Capalbo, a young Canadian taking a brave step with this role.  The other was Sondra Radvanovsky, an internationally famous singer who by coincidence has chosen to settle in Ontario.  At one time Radvanovsky would have been such an important draw for the company’s season that she would have been central to the marketing, the design of the production and the public expectation walking into the theatre for Aida.

But that’s not what happened.  The COC split the production roughly in half, giving Radvanovsky the first performances, and Capalbo the final ones.  As a subscriber I had no indication which of the two singers would be cast on my night; when I found out I would be missing out on Radvanovsky I purchased a second ticket to one of her performances as well.  The impression I had, however, was that to most subscribers the casting one way or the other simply was not an issue.  However much I like to take pride in the sophistication of our Toronto audience –who seem very savvy as theatre goers and adept at decoding complex directorial concepts & design schemes—at times I despair that nobody (here or anywhere else for that matter) cares about singers anymore.

The production, designed by Hildegard Bechtler (set) and Jon Morrell (costumes), with direction by Tim Albery, seems to conform to the recent COC template, as seen in their triumphant production of War and Peace, also directed by Albery.  The choice of opera plays directly to the company’s strengths.  Large chunks of the opera require excellent work from the orchestra and the chorus.  A more conventional production—that is, one without a significant design concept overlaid on the Egyptian tale in the original Ghislazoni libretto—can be stodgy, as the action stops for a series of set pieces.  By updating the work to a somewhat modern place, the celebrations of war and conquest in the work are interrogated and even dissected.  There is nothing boring in this production, no moments when you might nod off.

But the updating supplies a series of pluses and minuses.  The COC must have saved a lot of money by using a set that seems to employ the same tired office furniture seen in their recent Götterdämmerung.  If one comes to this Aida light-heartedly – that is, with a playful sensibility rather than with an expectation of something that follows the scenario of the opera you know and love—there are some magical moments.  Amneris, the Egyptian Princess who loves Rhadames, the Egyptian commander, is reinvented as a modern big-haired fashionista, using a design vocabulary owing more to Sex in the City and Mad Men than anything to do with ancient Egypt.  I couldn’t help but think that Albery must have found some scenes boring and enjoyed updating the parts of the opera that are the weakest scenes Verdi wrote.

But by making this radical re-write, Albery undermined the parts of Aida that are usually theatrical gold.  Rhadames’ last confrontation with Amneris in a modern space still works, but when we come to the final entombment –something I can only understand in a culture with pyramids and sarcophagi, not uzis and battle fatigues—the modernization becomes particularly weak.  For some reason in the final duet, Albery has Aida and Rhadames drift apart, dying with a 30 foot gap separating the lovers onstage.  And so I wanted to congratulate Albery, for improving the parts of Aida that were never going to carry the work, while undermining the parts that are important.  It’s as if he installed good mirrors and leather interior in a car without an engine.  Does anyone but the family of the ballet dancers in the Act II ballet actually go to Aida for the ballet?  Albery and his design team fixed the parts of the opera nobody really loves, while wrecking the parts people adore.

In fact Aida needs more than a good soprano or two, but requires an excellent ensemble.  Radvanovsky’s presence was conspicuous among a group where no one was even nearly her peer.  Capalbo, in comparison was from the same competent level as the rest of the cast; as a result her performance seemed balanced, and without the distraction of the traditional virtuosic element, whereby the audience appraises and cheers the performances of stars.

Radvanovsky enticed the Rhadames of Rosario La Spina to sung louder than he probably intended.  By Act IV, he was a spent-force, after heroically singing himself out earlier, cracking and fading.  On the night I saw him with Capalbo, on the other hand, he stayed within his usual limits, and as a result never cracked.  At times the voice sounded lovely.  I am trying to imagine whether he would have been more credible in conventional costuming as an Egyptian (even if we would have been treated to B movie postures and clichés) rather than his unconvincing attire as a modern general.  The unfortunate result of the modernization is to invoke a realistic dramaturgy, and implicitly shining a bright light upon absurdities such as a man leading an army who looks as threatening as a tall, chubby bunny.  I found myself wondering if maybe he and not Amneris was the one in the royal family, given his improbable rise to the head of an army.  But his singing was very musical.

Jill Grove’s Amneris was a melodramatic reading from the Dolora Zajick school, namely angry, passionate, very loud, jealous to the point of balling her hands into fists through her duet with Rhadames in Act IV scene one.  But that scene, the true test of any Amneris, was powerfully sung.

I did not come to the theatre with any expectations of Radvanovsky as an actress; she actually made me cry twice with her acting.  The first time was the moment after her father Amonasro has persuaded her she must help him in the fight for Ethiopia, which means the betrayal of her lover Rhadames; there was a moment of recognition, when she shudders and then composes herself for the upcoming fakery.  The second was early in the tomb scene, when she hesitates for a moment before showing herself to Rhadames, distraught at what she faces.  In both cases she took the moment in an unexpected direction with great conviction.  I felt that Radvanovsky didn’t really start to sing in earnest until Act III. At times you hear echoes of the young Callas in her high notes, which have a piercing edge and a laser clear attack; at other times she slides up to the top, in an approach reminding me more of Jon Vickers (perhaps an odd analogy, given that they do not sound alike at all) , a gentle croon that happens to be loud enough to fill the hall, swelling on the note and gradually getting up to pitch. AND like Vickers, she cruises along until the really important singing comes, then throws it into a higher gear, blowing everyone else off the stage.

In contrast to the ensemble values of Aida, Death in Venice is almost a one man show.  I wonder, is Aschenbach the largest role in any opera? He’s onstage virtually the entire opera, singing much of the time, an enormous number of lines.  Anyone who sings the role achieves a tour de force.  Alan Oke sounded a lot like Peter Pears, the tenor voice that the composer Benjamin Britten imagined in the role, which is to say, this production had an undeniable authenticity to its sound.

This is not the story one recalls from the book or the film.  Opera faces an entirely different kind of challenge.  Whereas the silent moments when eyes meet can be full of mysterious portents in film, in opera the composer & librettist must externalize those feelings and tell us all about those secret silences; otherwise the opera would be a ballet, and those mysteries would stay mysterious (as they do in Visconti’s film).

Looking at the strengths of these two productions, both Aida and Death in Venice relied upon the chorus & orchestra, the pillars of the COC.  I found Death in Venice visually impressive, a flamboyant show from beginning to end.  Where the ballet that one expects in Aida was missing due to the modern reading, dance was central to Death in Venice, particularly the last few scenes.

I am still trying to get a fix on where the COC is going.  Visually they appear to be guaranteed to provide arresting images, and a tautly dramatic reading of whatever scores they undertake.  Their chorus not only sing fabulously, but provide a dramatic core for almost anything they might try.  On the musical side, while there’s a steady competence, I can’t tell how much it matters whether the occasional star graces the Four Seasons stage.  A company that promotes itself almost 100% on the basis of its visual appeal doesn’t appear to place a priority on high quality soloists, but then the audience doesn’t seem to notice one way or another.  Right now, particularly while the Four Seasons theatre still has its aura of newness, the audience appears to be ready to gobble up whatever the COC puts on the table.

The next offerings from the COC are Mozart’s The Magic Flute and Adams’ Nixon in China early in 2011.

Posted in Opera, Reviews | 6 Comments

Self-promotions

When I have a show or some event to promote this is one place where i’d promote it.

As of Autumn 2012, I am

While some years I might be teaching at the University of Toronto, School of Continuing Studies, I am taking a sabbatical this year.  I taught the following last year, although next year might be different:

  • The Most Popular Operas, which offers an introduction to operas & famous voices
  • Cinematic Music: How we hear film, one of the few courses on this important subject. This is really a history of film using music as the lens.

I’ll update this space when I have something underway.

Posted in Personal ruminations & essays | 4 Comments

Eonnagata in Toronto

The opening image of Eonnagata, the latest production from Ex Machina, Robert Lepage’s company that premiered recently at the Sony Centre, reminded me of a seminal moment of Wagner’s Das Rheingold, the opera that begins the Ring cycle.  We see Donner the thunder god  summon a thunderstorm by means of a powerful hammer-stroke.  At this moment Donner is godlike because he is probably the first character in the history of stagecraft to be seen onstage moving in unity with the mise-en-scene, striking the stage with his hammer, causing an explosion of sound in the orchestra and a bolt of lightning.

How could Lepage not be influenced by his immersion in Wagner and opera?  Although Eonnagata concerns a cross-dressing diplomat who really existed in history rather than a norse god, nonetheless, there was Lepage himself playing god, wielding a sword that resembled an 18th century light-sabre.  Every strong gesture was punctuated by flashes of light and powerful sounds.  While the work was Lepage’s text, not Wagner’s, the unified effect was as Wagnerian as the opera seen at the Met last month.  How wonderful to see such an easy sense of mastery on display, at a moment of such vulnerability, self-disclosure and confession.  His power at the outset curiously served to put us at ease.

What’s in a name?  “Eonnagata” is a compound of Eon, part of the name of Charles de Beaumont, Chevalier d’Éon, and “Onnagata”, the cross-dressing Kabuki performer (usually a male actor who would play a woman).

Light and design and movement all supported this uncommon exploration.  At times it seemed to be a monologue, as if three different performers stepped into the role of Beaumont, or contrived to represent Beaumont from several aspects at once.  On a few rare occasions – as in the encounter between Beaumont and Pierre de Beaumarchais (the playwright who gave us Figaro)—we observed two objective characters onstage, but most of the evening appeared to be an exploration of Beaumont all by him/herself.

Lepage appeared to subdivide the dramatic figure among his cast (two men: Lepage and dancer/choreographer Russell Maliphant, and Sylvie Guillem).  At times all three were asked to move as dancers. The movements required of Lepage were never as taxing as those for the trained bodies of Maliphant & Guillem, although at times all three moved in a very simple style that largely levelled the playing field, such that we were often unaware of the discrepancy in the physical virtuosity of those onstage.

The historical figure of Beaumont is fabulous material, giving Lepage an opportunity to explore the construction of gender and identity.  Mirrors figure prominently, sometimes employing a mirrored surface with a doppelganger of the opposite gender pretending for awhile to be a mirror image even as the genders didn’t match, or matching then breaking the mirror effect.  This was as playfully subversive as when Harpo Marx did it.

At another moment a hoop skirt is used as a kind of net, to snare the free-spirited woman who has until that moment been uncontained.  When Lepage threw the skirt over top of Sylvie Guillem (both, please note, portraying aspects of Beaumont!), snaring her in the enclosure of women’s clothes, it’s as if the choice were the snare, something we sometimes see as an external imposition.  But such choices can just as easily be seen as a person’s choice, as part of their internal conversation.  At this moment at least, Beaumont was sub-divided among the available players, so that all three represented aspects of the one character.

Some of Lepage’s trademark devices re-appear.  We get slow motion movement, sometimes reminiscent of butoh.  We see figures move at bizarre and oblique angles on surfaces at strange angles, just as we saw figures crawling or walking along walls as if they were insects in the COC Erwartung and again in the Met’s Damnation de Faust, and sliding down slopes in Das Rheingold.

Puppets and masks figure throughout in various ways.  In some cases the figure is hoisted on strings or other devices –visible or invisible—behaving at times like a puppet (the soldiers climbing the walls in Damnation de Faust, or the Rhine maidens swimming on strings in Das Rheingold).  Humans are made to appear tiny next to an oversize puppet, reminiscent of the climactic effect in The Nightingale.

On two different occasions we saw an oversize ceremonial kabuki costume, with a very impersonal mask; underneath a normal sized human emerged as if being born from the inside of this puppet.  The effect was repeated using shadow puppetry, allowing us to see a different sort of detail, but the same disparity of scale between the giant puppet and the human playing the role.  At one point the puppet appears to be male but a female emerges.  Such surprising turnabouts of apparent gender occur frequently throughout the work.  Surprise and disorientation are a logical dramaturgical choice, in expressing a world split into arbitrary genders; the subtext for Lepage’s gentle dissection of Beaumont is to suggest that gender is merely an arbitrary construct, a series of signs that we decode in a particular way.  While Beaumont in a sense is a figure who would probably be far more comfortable in our own century, i couldn’t help feeling that Lepage is still ahead of his time with this exploration, and that his visual vocabulary could play a useful role in helping to explicate the ambiguities of this category we understand as “gender”.

As usual Ex Machina offer their usual heavy emphasis on brilliant mise-en-scène, almost to the exclusion of the performer.  The actor / singer / dancer always must be reconciled to the exquisite presentation, complex lighting, tromp l’oeil effects, which often appear to be the main objective rather than tools in the service of the text & the performance.

I understand from my online reading –Lepage has given interviews of course—that there is a personal and even auto-biographical component to Eonnagata.  As an artist poised between two languages & cultures, there are several ways that Lepage reminds me of Beaumont.

The work is a series of small moments, scenes, dances, effects, that are virtual meditations upon gender.  Those who come to a theatrical work that is so static—and by that I don’t mean lacking in motion, but rather, an absence of dramatic action—may be troubled that so little seems to happen.  Thank God. The brilliance of so much great theatre of the last half century is precisely in the rejection of actantial models of theatre, and the celebration of immanent beauty: that is, the sensuous experience in the here and now.

Charles de Beaumont is a remarkable subject for theatrical exploration considering that the actual gender is not known for certain; we know that in early life Beaumont was accepted as male, while later in life, the French Government accepted Beaumont’s requests to come home on the premise that the he had all along been a she.  Upon her death, an autopsy seemed to show that Beaumont was a male after all.  But in the magic of this presentation such questions are moot.  Gender is a profound mystery of aesthetics & human perception, worthy of such probing investigation.  My one regret is that I cannot return to the deep and poetic images of this work, to ponder, meditate, and rethink.  I hope we once again meet all these several portrayals of Beaumont, seen in Eonnagata, whether in a live incarnation or on video. There is much beauty here to celebrate.

Eonnagata appears again Nov 19th at the Sony Centre for the Performing Arts

Posted in Dance, theatre & musicals, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Welcome to Verbo City

November 19th… Seems like as good a day as any to start this blog. Hm…

I’ve been toying with the idea for literally ages.  I grew up in a world where you got other people to publish your words, and self-publishing was something understood as an act of vanity.  Obviously that’s over.

I sometimes become verbose –at least online– and in such fits of verbiage will post often.  Other times I may take a break, enjoying and loving what everyone else is saying.  I see this as part of the larger conversation I seem to be having with the world.

At one point I thought of calling this little part of the virtual world Verbo City.

Welcome!

 

Posted in Personal ruminations & essays | 7 Comments