Everything turns out in the end - Turandot in Valencia with Semenchuk, Kunde and López Moreno - Sir Mark Elder conducts, Alex Ollé directs

Turandot is an operatic masterpiece. But it’s staging remains highly problematic. The two main characters, Calaf and Turandot, who does not even sing in the first act, have tour de force roles. If they cannot sing, then any production is a disaster. But the roles are very demanding and asking them to act as well is probably beyond most humans. Turandot’s character is perhaps uniquely static in opera, apart from Gianni Schicchi, of course, who does nothing but lie there to fulfil his role. Turandot, on the other hand, must have a powerful voice. There is that wonderful end of scene when she must stand out against an orchestra playing forte, a stage full of chorus in full voice, and the rest of the cast giving everything.  It is musical magic but does need a lot of wind. The role, however, does not allow much scope for acting or even action.

Calaf, on the other hand, can be mobile, especially in the first act. But, after sounding his gong at the end of the act, he spends most of his time pondering. And singing, of course, and that often has to be very powerful. The body does have its limits.

There are two lesser characters in Timur and Liu. Timur is old, lame and blind, so without Liu's help, he cannot credibly add movement. Liu has two very demanding sections and, it has to be said, has the opera’s best music. At other times, however, she is tied to Timur’s immobility.

Ping, Pang and Pong, the triple act of priests, sometimes threatening, sometimes comic, at root fed up with their lot, do offer a director an opportunity for action. This is often translated to dance, but the roles actually have some demanding singing, and finding a singer who can dance as well is hard – let alone three! This often leads directors to split the roles between different people – one who dances and one who sings for each role. For the audience, this creates spectacle but does nothing for the drama.

Add to this mix the Prince of Persia, whose only role in act one is to be beheaded, an emperor in failing health, and not in full voice, let alone full body, and then minor roles which hardly figure, and one concludes that finding action in Turandot is not easily solved.

The chorus, therefore, is the opera’s main stay in terms of action. But the chorus has to do quite a lot of singing at high volume. The solution for designers is often to tier the stage with the singers occupying the gallery, whilst the action takes place at ground level. Productions often resort to a fashion show, where poor oppressed Chinese peasants wear glittering colourful costumes. Not in Valencia…

So how about this production in the hands of Alex Ollé in Valencia? Galleries for the chorus were used. These consisted of Escher-like staircases that went up and down leading nowhere. The costumes were largely black (for peasants and guards) or white for dignitaries. The principles, Calaf, Timur and Liu wore tertiary neutrals.

The use of black and white was clearly indicative of a society where there was no political power for the masses, and no desire to accommodate them on behalf of the elite. This totalitarian society thus maintained itself by recruiting soldiers from the masses – (hence dressed in black) – who oppressed the masses from which they came on behalf of the white-clad elite.

There were no dancers until the temptresses for Calaf in act three, so Ping, Pang and Pong had to do their own vaudeville routines, which worked to an extent. The problem in this production with Ping, Pang and Pong was their roles. They simply did not know who they were. In act one they appear on the street as drunken louts who taunt Calaf about his obsession with Turandot. Their concern did not convince. They are revealed in act two as army officers who inexplicably had a day off when the Prince of Persia was being beheaded! They are disgruntled about the role they feel they have to play. It comes as no surprise. Then in act three they are dressed in white – presumably priests and therefore part of the elite – when trying to attempt to persuade Calaf not to go through with his plan. Doubling these roles with dancers adds confusion. To make their three appearances seem like different characters makes no sense whatsoever. Even the implied transition from street to elite did not communicate, as a result of the functional roles they have to play in the drama.

So what then were the pluses in this production? Above all, it was act three. The final scene of Turandot was not written by Puccini who had died with the completion of Liu’s suicide. Liu killed herself so as not to divulge Calaf’s name, and she killed herself out of love for him. This leads Turandot to a change of heart. If love can do that for Liu, maybe she should try it?

No, the final scene of Turandot is usually dramatically about as convincing as Ping, Pang and Pong’s characterization in this production. Apparently, this icy princess, who has killed every suitor that has approached her, suddenly has a change of heart. It’s about his convincing a sainthood to a nonbeliever.

Alex Ollé in this production saved his master stroke until the end and – after many years of seeing productions of the opera – this was dramatically convincing and wholly in character. Calaf and Turandot walk around the dead Liu whose body remains in full view, professing their selfish love for one another, which really is love for themselves and their own interests. But Turandot does not convince anyone. Surely, she is leading her suitor on.

In Alex Ollé’s version, Turandot retrieves Liu's knife and hides it in her sleeve. Then, as she admits that it was love that changed everything, she too commits suicide as the chorus repeats Calaf’s earlier “Vincero”, meaning that it is Turandot who won in the end, still her pure self in death. She has not compromised and it makes an utterly convincing finale.

Add to that Mark Elder’s insistence that “Nessun dorma” should finish dramatically in context and not with rousing major chord and applause for the tenor. So the evening was musically convincing as well.

So what had been up to that last act an average performance of the opera, beautifully sung and played, of course, not withstanding the poor characterization of some roles and an average staging, was elevated to magical status by making sense. Gregory Kunde, Ekatarina Senenchuk, and Carolina López Moreno as the principles was superb as well, but it is the ending that will endure.

The Concertgebouw Chamber Orchestra under Michael Waterman play Puccini, Shostakovich and Tchaikovsky in a memorable concert

Sometimes, not often, a concert program stands out as inherently interesting. I thought that when I saw the Concertgebouw Chamber Orchestra’s offering last night in Alicante’s ADDA auditorium. The works on offer were by three of the most played composers, but their form in each case was unusual. Giacomo Puccini is justly famous for his operas, but a string quartet in an arrangement for string orchestra…? There followed the String Quartet No8, Op110, perhaps the best known of Dmitri Shostakovich’s fifteen string quartets, arranged in an equally famous version for string orchestra by Rudolph Barshai. And then Tchaikovsky’s underplayed string sextet Souvenir of Florence in a new arrangement for string orchestra by the evening’s concert master and director, Michael Waterman. It’s not often in decades of concert going that I have been privileged to hear a string sextet, certainly many fewer times than I have heard a string orchestra.

I Crisantemi is a piece of six minutes or so written by Puccini for string quartet. The music is delicate, as delicate in places as a flower petal. But it is also lyrical, and, as one would expect from Puccini, the music is song like. It was written alongside Manon Lescaut and at times the string writing is very reminiscent of the intermezzo from that opera. I Crisantemi seems to be an exercise in understatement, but this is not to suggest that it makes anything other than a powerful piece in performance. The arrangement for string orchestra lost none of the music’s delicacy.

Dmitri Shostakovich dedicated his eighth quartet, Op110, to victims of war, but musically it’s about only one thing: “Me… Me… Me…” The four notes, DSCH in German notation, D, E flat, C, B natural in English, form the composer’s musical signature, and, in this twenty-minute quartet, which sounds like it has several movements played without a break, this signature motif provides almost all the material that the composer uses. At times, it is bleak and depressed, at times upbeat and dancing, at times angry and threatening: the quartet number eight almost mesmerize listeners into a trance. Rudolph Barshai was a founder member of the Borodin Quartet and later made a career as a conductor, spending many years directing the Moscow Chamber Orchestra. He also prepared a Chamber Symphony, Op110a, from the Shostakovich eighth quartet. Not only did the composer approve of Barshai’s arrangement, but he also actually gave the piece its name. This is music of almost frightening intensity, whose final pianissimo actually increases the tension transmitted to the audience. There is no tranquil ending here for a work that in effect rips open the emotions of its listeners. And in this performance by the Concertgebouw Chamber Orchestra, raw meat was exposed.

In total contrast, the gay abandon of Tchaikovsky’s Souvenir of Florence is filled with joy, exuberance, dance, and beauty. It sounds like a piece that a composer might rattle off very quickly, so spontaneous does it sound. But Tchaikovsky was a composer with considerable craft, and he was still revising it some two years after its initial composition. Michael Waterman’s version for string orchestra retained the fresh sound that this piece achieves when played by a sextet, the extra players in the arrangement adding depth, but neither weight nor clumsiness to this vibrant music. It has to be said that it was largely down to the skill and togetherness of this ensemble that they brought brilliance to this music. A four-movement structure suggests that the composer might have something symphonic in mind and, indeed, Tchaikovsky’s approach reminded me of the Mendelsohn string symphonies. Perfect ensemble, and a very skilful arrangement combined to make this performance utterly memorable.

There was a short encore, another arrangement, this time of a motet, Locus Iste by Bruckner. It was another quiet work that again demonstrated that in a good hall with an attentive audience, a handful of players can fill the place with music. I repeat the experience was utterly memorable.

It’s all in the detail – Madama Butterfly in Valencia, December 2021

Puccini’s Madame Butterfly is a very well-known, much loved, and indeed popular opera. The genre is replete with femmes fatales, Butterfly, Tosca, Manon, Carmen, Lucía, Violetta and Katya, just for example, who get it in the end, so one might think there is nothing much to see in terms of new perspectives when such a familiar work with such a well-worked theme is staged. Opera lovers, however, will confirm that there most definitely is!

Audiences tend to fall into two distinct groups, those for whom any diversion from their own preconceptions signifies the end of civilization, and those for whom radical interpretation is a welcome challenge to the establishment. There is another perspective, however, in which directors, via minor changes to staging, can completely transform the way we understand these often rigidly interpreted stories. Such was the success of Emilio Lopez, the director of the recent production in Valencia. His 2021 staging of Butterfly will be broadcast on Opera Vision on Sunday 19 December and will be available through that website for some weeks. It is successful on several levels, one of which is revelatory.

Let’s start with the term verismo. That certainly applied to the way Puccini approached his work and it implies that the setting should not be palatial and that characters might be depicted as everyday folk. We may assume that the composer never experienced the mid-19 century Japan of the opera’s setting, so if verismo applies to Butterfly, then it applies principally on an ideological level. That said, the opera’s potential for costume drama usually so overcomes designers and directors that even recognition of verismo in the result is obscured. In other words, everything gets pretty before it can become credible. And it is verismo that suffers.

In act one, Cio-Cio-san describes how she is from a poor home and became a geisha because of lack of opportunity. The ceremonial dagger which she eventually uses to take her own life was presented to her father by the Mikado with request that he use it on himself. We must assume that Butterfly’s family were thus already in disgrace. She then compounds this disgrace by rejecting her cultural and religious traditions, an act that uncle Bonze condemns, prompting her friends and community to reject her, all except Suzuki of course. The fact that Puccini then takes us into the love scene of the wedding night often obscures this rejection. In the Valencia production, a backdrop that had featured cherry blossom becomes the starry night of the couple’s ecstasy, but it does so by melting like celluloid in an overheated projector, implying that the comforting blossoms of the past have been destroyed. The starry night persists into acts two and three, but thus becomes a symbol of continued isolation and of Butterfly’s insistence, nay imperative to live in the past.

Cio-Cio-san often comes across as a meek and thus stereotypical Asian woman, who has never even practiced the word “boo” with geese nearby. As a result, she often becomes the single-, even simple-minded naïve devotee of Pinkerton, despite the fact that, as a geisha, she must have had experience of the fly-by-night sailor. The supplicant image endears her to audiences, perhaps, but strips her of the identity and individuality she certainly has, otherwise she would never have pursued her own, private wishes so single-mindedly.

The point is she does not have a great deal of choice. She is poor. She is a geisha. She has done her job. Pinkerton offers her a way out, which she, perhaps naïvely accepts. But once she has made the commitment, she cannot go back. She wants to please him, but by doing so she suffers the rejection of her own community. But she has to go through with the risk.

In Valencia, Emilio Lopez recognizes that Cio-Cio-san is living in poverty. Ignored by Pinkerton for three years and still rejected by her own community, she and Suzuki live amidst decay and grime. The temptation to portray Butterfly still in full, opulent geisha regalia makes no sense and is avoided convincingly in this production. Suzuki confirms this poverty in the libretto. What too often comes across as blind faith on Butterfly’s part now becomes necessity, imposed by her community because of her rejection by and of them. She can’t go back. She has no other option. This is an element of verismo in the opera which directors often tend to overlook.

But in this Valencia production, the real surprise comes at the end. Pinkerton has returned but has refused to see Butterfly. He storms off because he cannot take it anymore... He does want the child, however. His new American wife and Sharpless are told by Butterfly to come back in half an hour to take the child. Note that Pinkerton has not heard her request.

Butterfly has her own plans, however, plans that involve using that ceremonial weapon her father used to kill himself. The elements are clear. Butterfly kills herself, the voice of Pinkerton returning is heard. Or perhaps not…

The usual way to treat this is to have Butterfly stab herself on the orchestral tutti and then for the sound of Pinkerton’s voice to be heard as she dies. If Pinkerton is not seen, it could be argued that he really was nasty all along and that Cio-Cio-san is imagining the voice, still therefore deceiving herself. If he does appear, then his character is rather let off the hook. If only Butterfly had delayed, then the ecstasy of the starry night might just have returned. But then she had already waited three years…

Sometimes Cio-Cio-san hears the voice and then stabs herself. Again, we have her imagining the sound as a possibility, but we then also have the possibility that she is suffering a form of self-loathing the result of the rejection. Again, this approach internalizes Butterfly’s suffering.

In the Valencia production, the orchestral tutti arrives with dagger drawn, but Butterfly turns to face the entrance to her house when she hears Pinkerton’s call. She waits for him to appear and recognize her and then she kills herself.

The effect is to transform her suicide into an act of defiance. She knows the child will be cared for. She has been rejected by her society and by Pinkerton. She is alone and has no future. But she is now also determined that he will not possess her, and she wants to demonstrate her contempt. You will not possess me as chattel, she thinks. And thus, her character is transformed from the meek and mild recipient of tragedy into a defiant individualist, albeit a dead one. At least she has asserted her own position. It’s different and surprising, which illustrates beautifully that sometimes the most radical transformations are achieved via detail.

It’s all in the detail – Madama Butterfly in Valencia

Puccini’s Madame Butterfly is a very well-known, much loved, and indeed popular opera. The genre is replete with femmes fatales, Butterfly, Tosca, Manon, Carmen, Lucía, Violetta and Katya, just for example, who get it in the end, so one might think there is nothing much to see in terms of new perspectives when such a familiar work with such a well-worked theme is staged. Opera lovers, however, will confirm that there most definitely is!

Audiences tend to fall into two distinct groups, those for whom any diversion from their own preconceptions signifies the end of civilization, and those for whom radical interpretation is a welcome challenge to the establishment. There is another perspective, however, in which directors, via minor changes to staging, can completely transform the way we understand these often rigidly interpreted stories. Such was the success of Emilio Lopez, the director of the recent production in Valencia. His 2021 staging of Butterfly will be broadcast on Opera Vision on Sunday 19 December and will be available through that website for some weeks. It is successful on several levels, one of which is revelatory.

Let’s start with the term verismo. That certainly applied to the way Puccini approached his work and it implies that the setting should not be palatial and that characters might be depicted as everyday folk. We may assume that the composer never experienced the mid-19 century Japan of the opera’s setting, so if verismo applies to Butterfly, then it applies principally on an ideological level. That said, the opera’s potential for costume drama usually so overcomes designers and directors that even recognition of verismo in the result is obscured. In other words, everything gets pretty before it can become credible. And it is verismo that suffers.

In act one, Cio-Cio-san describes how she is from a poor home and became a geisha because of lack of opportunity. The ceremonial dagger which she eventually uses to take her own life was presented to her father by the Mikado with request that he use it on himself. We must assume that Butterfly’s family were thus already in disgrace. She then compounds this disgrace by rejecting her cultural and religious traditions, an act that uncle Bonze condemns, prompting her friends and community to reject her, all except Suzuki of course. The fact that Puccini then takes us into the love scene of the wedding night often obscures this rejection. In the Valencia production, a backdrop that had featured cherry blossom becomes the starry night of the couple’s ecstasy, but it does so by melting like celluloid in an overheated projector, implying that the comforting blossoms of the past have been destroyed. The starry night persists into acts two and three, but thus becomes a symbol of continued isolation and of Butterfly’s insistence, nay imperative to live in the past.

Cio-Cio-san often comes across as a meek and thus stereotypical Asian woman, who has never even practiced the word “boo” with geese nearby. As a result, she often becomes the single-, even simple-minded naïve devotee of Pinkerton, despite the fact that, as a geisha, she must have had experience of the fly-by-night sailor. The supplicant image endears her to audiences, perhaps, but strips her of the identity and individuality she certainly has, otherwise she would never have pursued her own, private wishes so single-mindedly.

The point is she does not have a great deal of choice. She is poor. She is a geisha. She has done her job. Pinkerton offers her a way out, which she, perhaps naïvely accepts. But once she has made the commitment, she cannot go back. She wants to please him, but by doing so she suffers the rejection of her own community. But she has to go through with the risk.

In Valencia, Emilio Lopez recognizes that Cio-Cio-san is living in poverty. Ignored by Pinkerton for three years and still rejected by her own community, she and Suzuki live amidst decay and grime. The temptation to portray Butterfly still in full, opulent geisha regalia makes no sense and is avoided convincingly in this production. Suzuki confirms this poverty in the libretto. What too often comes across as blind faith on Butterfly’s part now becomes necessity, imposed by her community because of her rejection by and of them. She can’t go back. She has no other option. This is an element of verismo in the opera which directors often tend to overlook.

But in this Valencia production, the real surprise comes at the end. Pinkerton has returned but has refused to see Butterfly. He storms off because he cannot take it anymore... He does want the child, however. His new American wife and Sharpless are told by Butterfly to come back in half an hour to take the child. Note that Pinkerton has not heard her request.

Butterfly has her own plans, however, plans that involve using that ceremonial weapon her father used to kill himself. The elements are clear. Butterfly kills herself, the voice of Pinkerton returning is heard. Or perhaps not…

The usual way to treat this is to have Butterfly stab herself on the orchestral tutti and then for the sound of Pinkerton’s voice to be heard as she dies. If Pinkerton is not seen, it could be argued that he really was nasty all along and that Cio-Cio-san is imagining the voice, still therefore deceiving herself. If he does appear, then his character is rather let off the hook. If only Butterfly had delayed, then the ecstasy of the starry night might just have returned. But then she had already waited three years…

Sometimes Cio-Cio-san hears the voice and then stabs herself. Again, we have her imagining the sound as a possibility, but we then also have the possibility that she is suffering a form of self-loathing the result of the rejection. Again, this approach internalizes Butterfly’s suffering.

In the Valencia production, the orchestral tutti arrives with dagger drawn, but Butterfly turns to face the entrance to her house when she hears Pinkerton’s call. She waits for him to appear and recognize her and then she kills herself.

The effect is to transform her suicide into an act of defiance. She knows the child will be cared for. She has been rejected by her society and by Pinkerton. She is alone and has no future. But she is now also determined that he will not possess her, and she wants to demonstrate her contempt. You will not possess me as chattel, she thinks. And thus, her character is transformed from the meek and mild recipient of tragedy into a defiant individualist, albeit a dead one. At least she has asserted her own position. It’s different and surprising, which illustrates beautifully that sometimes the most radical transformations are achieved via detail.

 

Giacomo Puccini by Wakeling Dry

 

Another Project Gutenberg book is a short biography and critical appraisal of Puccini, written around the time of Madame Butterfly's premiere. It's after Boheme, Manon Lescaut and Tosca, but before Turandot, of course. Puccini was certainly a man of his kind, and unapologetic to boot. Attitudes towards music and especially towards things people are unfamiliar with never fail to amaze.