Louise T. Guinther wrote: "I don't need to be challenged to think about the
work, thank you -- I can do that on my own. In fact, that's one of the
reasons I go to the theater. I am perfectly capable of generating
substantive ideas without prompting, and I'd just as soon the staging's
ideas didn't come into direct conflict with mine."
I guess I just haven’t seen enough opera and also haven’t seen enough of it
in what must be the capital of imported, impenetrable and incomprehensible
stagings, the Metropolitan Opera House. All the Eurotrash lying about the
streets of the upper West Side must be one of the reasons for this nation’s
continuing balance of trade deficit.
So in my lack of experience I still like to be challenged to think about an
operatic performance. I am sure this will pass as I see and hear more works
for the lyric stage and realize that there is a right way and wrong way for
them to be presented and for the audience to experience them. I pray daily
that this realization will be granted soon.
Oddly enough, the same strictures do not apply to other staged works with
which I am much more familiar than opera—-some of the works of Shakespeare,
for example. Having seen about 25 different production of "Romeo and
Juliet" and a few more of "Hamlet", I still find that what can be
termed “untraditional” stagings will illuminate portions of the text that
had been opaque or slighted in other productions.
That must not work in opera, of course, so I will join Ms. Guinther in
saying "So there", although possibly not with the same vehemence as she
brings to the discussion.
[log in to unmask]