![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
muckefuckI see that, in a rare show of initiative, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bunj has beaten me to the punch on last night's opera. To avoid contamination, I'll record my own thoughts first and then add revisions in light of his analysis. (Normally, we would've had a rollicking discussion after an opera like this, but cut out lest the miserable saxophonist at Washington and Wacker drive the lovely melodies from my head.)
So, yes, there were lovely melodies in the opera, though not as many as I might've liked given its three-hour running time. For my money, the standout pieces were Oppenheimer's aria at the close of Act 1, the chorus near the end of Act 2, and the grand finale, although these were not the only highlights. I also really liked the incorporation of noise and speech samples in the music at the very end and at the beginning of each act and wished it had been featured throughout.
We all agreed the libretto is too talky, although it was less so in the second act. Sellars didn't write a word of it--it's entirely cobbled together from poetry and excerpts from the voluminous notes, reports, and other writings which were left behind. Asbunj noted during Intermission, this isn't necessarily a strength, since what was written doesn't always sound like what would've been spoken. (And the entire text is presented as being spoken, even if only as an internal monologue.) There was a lot of dialogue which could've been tightened considerably if he'd wielded a blue pencil more viciously. We wouldn't've minded so if the non-poetry bits felt more durchkomponiert, but they were recitatives in all but name (or, as e. phrased it, "They're just talking over music.").
Despite this, I can't say I was bored for a moment of the first act--and e. and I both have a problem with nodding off at about minute 38 (particularly since this catches us in the middle of a love duet more often than not). At first, the business on stage seems overdone--like a chatty Cathy leaning over to whisper "They're very busy!"--but as the suspense builds (which it does masterfully, despite the fact that we all know what's coming) it comes to seem integral. The climax of the first act, with Oppenheimer singing John Donne to the bomb, is just incredible; I was literally half out of my chair.
I thought they'd have trouble maintaining such a level of tension in the second act, and they did. Sellars and Adams try to counterpoint all the scientific jibber-jabber with some simulated Tewa folksinging and modern poetry from Muriel Rukeyser (who I admit I'd never heard of before last night), but it feels forced. Nevertheless, it's responsible for another highpoint: A near-duet between Pasqualita and Capt. Nolan. I was frustrated there weren't more lyric pieces for multiple soloists and would've liked to have heard their overlapping parts go on much longer.
At this point, I seem to be saying more about the opera I wished I saw than the one I actually did. So back to things that worked: The characterisation of the different personalities--primarily Oppenheimer, Gen. Grovers, Wilson, and Teller--is particularly well done. You feel you have a good sense of their personalities and beliefs without their being reduced to stereotypes, and that's gotta be hard to pull off given how rare it is even in more naturalistic media like cinema. I have my usual quibbles with the blocking (too much pantomime, too little visual illustration of the physics), but no major complaints on that score.
And some of the more poetic texts and their settings are quite memorable. For at least two hours after the show ended, I had running through my head the chorus singing:
Still, I haven't answered the question: If I haven't seen much (or any!) opera, should I go and see this one? I believe my answer is a qualified "Yes", but first let's see what my brother has to say.
ETA: No surprise, we're in agreement about most everything. I thinkbunj has his finger on it when he says that the balance between the chaos of the test site and the wide world is off in Act 2. I can see the motive for opening up the claustrophobic world of Los Alamos to reflect on larger issues, but I don't feel we get enough from it to compensate for the loss of tension.
Going into the opera, I--deliberately--didn't know when the blast would come and wondered if Adams planned to use the same structure as he did for Nixon in China, where the climactic meeting takes place in the first act and the second is dominated by the participants ruminating over what has taken place. I'm still not sure that wouldn't have been better.
bunj has beaten me to the punch on last night's opera. To avoid contamination, I'll record my own thoughts first and then add revisions in light of his analysis. (Normally, we would've had a rollicking discussion after an opera like this, but cut out lest the miserable saxophonist at Washington and Wacker drive the lovely melodies from my head.)So, yes, there were lovely melodies in the opera, though not as many as I might've liked given its three-hour running time. For my money, the standout pieces were Oppenheimer's aria at the close of Act 1, the chorus near the end of Act 2, and the grand finale, although these were not the only highlights. I also really liked the incorporation of noise and speech samples in the music at the very end and at the beginning of each act and wished it had been featured throughout.
We all agreed the libretto is too talky, although it was less so in the second act. Sellars didn't write a word of it--it's entirely cobbled together from poetry and excerpts from the voluminous notes, reports, and other writings which were left behind. As
bunj noted during Intermission, this isn't necessarily a strength, since what was written doesn't always sound like what would've been spoken. (And the entire text is presented as being spoken, even if only as an internal monologue.) There was a lot of dialogue which could've been tightened considerably if he'd wielded a blue pencil more viciously. We wouldn't've minded so if the non-poetry bits felt more durchkomponiert, but they were recitatives in all but name (or, as e. phrased it, "They're just talking over music.").Despite this, I can't say I was bored for a moment of the first act--and e. and I both have a problem with nodding off at about minute 38 (particularly since this catches us in the middle of a love duet more often than not). At first, the business on stage seems overdone--like a chatty Cathy leaning over to whisper "They're very busy!"--but as the suspense builds (which it does masterfully, despite the fact that we all know what's coming) it comes to seem integral. The climax of the first act, with Oppenheimer singing John Donne to the bomb, is just incredible; I was literally half out of my chair.
I thought they'd have trouble maintaining such a level of tension in the second act, and they did. Sellars and Adams try to counterpoint all the scientific jibber-jabber with some simulated Tewa folksinging and modern poetry from Muriel Rukeyser (who I admit I'd never heard of before last night), but it feels forced. Nevertheless, it's responsible for another highpoint: A near-duet between Pasqualita and Capt. Nolan. I was frustrated there weren't more lyric pieces for multiple soloists and would've liked to have heard their overlapping parts go on much longer.
At this point, I seem to be saying more about the opera I wished I saw than the one I actually did. So back to things that worked: The characterisation of the different personalities--primarily Oppenheimer, Gen. Grovers, Wilson, and Teller--is particularly well done. You feel you have a good sense of their personalities and beliefs without their being reduced to stereotypes, and that's gotta be hard to pull off given how rare it is even in more naturalistic media like cinema. I have my usual quibbles with the blocking (too much pantomime, too little visual illustration of the physics), but no major complaints on that score.
And some of the more poetic texts and their settings are quite memorable. For at least two hours after the show ended, I had running through my head the chorus singing:
At the sight of this, your Shape stupendous,(Here the panto--including the choristers extending their arms with their fingers splayed downwards to simulate fangs--worked beautifully.)
Full of mouths and eyes, feet, thighs and bellies,
Terrible with fangs, O master,
All the worlds are fear-struck, even just as I am.
Still, I haven't answered the question: If I haven't seen much (or any!) opera, should I go and see this one? I believe my answer is a qualified "Yes", but first let's see what my brother has to say.
ETA: No surprise, we're in agreement about most everything. I think
bunj has his finger on it when he says that the balance between the chaos of the test site and the wide world is off in Act 2. I can see the motive for opening up the claustrophobic world of Los Alamos to reflect on larger issues, but I don't feel we get enough from it to compensate for the loss of tension.Going into the opera, I--deliberately--didn't know when the blast would come and wondered if Adams planned to use the same structure as he did for Nixon in China, where the climactic meeting takes place in the first act and the second is dominated by the participants ruminating over what has taken place. I'm still not sure that wouldn't have been better.