Early notes on DG

- Pretty charmless and ugly, but not quite as vile as it might have been. It could stand to be a whole lot better, however.
- If you're going to have Giovanni die from the mother of all overdoses, maybe consider establishing a serious drug habit for him beforehand. Instead of a couple of casual lines of cocaine followed by Excruciating Pyschadelic Death.
- Note to the props department: it's Baudelaire, not Beaudelaire.
- Who knew Catherine Carby was such a fierce actress? Not me! Amazing!
- The production deserved its outing for the sake of theatrical diversity, but I really hope it's not now going into repertory for the next twenty years. Once here, maybe once in Melbourne — that should do.
- See it for the singing — this is one of the strongest ensembles OA has fielded in a while. Which means, see it before the end of the month. In August the conductor and half the cast will change and who knows if they'll be able to save it the way this lot does.
- Did you know that Elke Neidhardt had a supporting role in Skippy? She was Dr Anna Steiner, bush vet, for nine episodes, after which her character was "referred to in several more episodes, and ... finally mentioned as having gone to Tasmania." And here's the photo to prove it.

More to follow soonish.

Comments

[travelling mezzo]

And did you also know Elke Neidhardt appeared naked in a film called Libido a series of four films on sexual themes - she was in “The Husband” (written by Craig McGregor, directed by John B. Murray)?

[Stefan]

Well, having read these and your previous comments, oyou clearly prefer 18th century renditions and probably view your opera wearing a perfumed wig. That, of course, is your right.

Unfortunately it is always the conservative members of the audience who complain about directors attempts - be they successful or not - to provide a novel intepretation of a piece. I for one certainly prefer to see something that challenges me rather than a derivative production that brings nothing new to the table. Anyone who has seen her productions knows that Neidhardt sets out to push established (Australian) boundaries, and I admire her for this. Having said that, by her own admission, her shows would not turn heads in Germany (I have some vague idea about this, having lived in Berlin for twelve years), so your reaction is merely proof of the Australian provincialism you so vehemently defend.

Without going into it, I think your entire analysis and musical appreciation is disrobed as amateur grandstanding given your praise of the singing, which was extremely scratchy on opening night. This cast is capable of much better, and will doubtless deliver on its potential once the nerves have settled. What was already strong, however, was their acting ability, which carried the narrative that Neidhardt was evidently trying to present. You do not even mention the sets, costumes or lighting, all of which were top class.

When all is said and done, there is a gulf between the conservative audience and those who want to see a more progressive opera. This gulf will never be bridged, but that is fine, because a certain frisson is healthy. However, I think that you should hold back on some of the holier-than-thou observations until you present us with a better production directed by you personally.

That I await with breathless anticipation...

[Sarah]

I'm not really that horrible, am I?
I don't require 18th century productions, quite the opposite. It was Neidhardt's motivation as described in the media which worried me, not the fact of modernisation itself. And I acknowledged in that same post that this impression could have been down to the style of the coverage as much as Neidhardt herself. I actually have a lot of time for unusual productions, particularly of this opera, which I find fascinating. I thought I'd said as much, but perhaps that wasn't clear.
As for the lack of detail about sets, lighting etc - I think it's pretty obvious that the above is not meant to be a comprehensive review; I had to write one of those for another publication, hence the delay.
I approached this production with an open mind (again, both earlier posts stated my determination to do so) and there are aspects I enjoyed. When I didn't enjoy it, that wasn't because I was fainting from shock. If anything, I was expecting something more truly twisted.
And yes, I am an amateur. But in both senses of the world. I am unqualified; and I love it. Since I make no claims to qualification, I don't see anything wrong with expressing my amateurish passion. Nobody's required to read, or agree, or believe me.

[marcellous]

I knew about Skippy. See my comment here.