tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post5666424749527758353..comments2024-02-25T13:20:20.620+01:00Comments on mostly opera: Chéreau and Boulez: Nibelungen Ring on DVD - the Bayreuth Centenary Ringmostly opera...http://www.blogger.com/profile/05653818157295091506noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-11038747429376108182013-04-03T00:59:35.770+02:002013-04-03T00:59:35.770+02:00The anonymous post above saying...
What I don'...The anonymous post above saying...<br /><br />What I don't get is why the same people who hate modern Wagner productions are generally quite happy with seeing the same modernist elements in a Shakespeare play. (i.e. machine guns in Hamlet) Why is it okay with Shakespeare but not with Wagner?<br /><br />Who are these people? I, for one, hate modernisations of Wagner (such as Norse gods in Henry Fitzgeraldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-83514195130131321182012-12-22T21:31:41.991+01:002012-12-22T21:31:41.991+01:00Let me point out, though, that Lucino Visconti was... Let me point out, though, that Lucino Visconti wasn't the first successful film director to make forays into opera. Max Reinhardt who directed his first movie in 1911 and attained world fame as a film director in 1912 with The Miracle. He directed opera, including the phenomenally successful premiere of Strauss's Der Rosenkavalier a production so influential that it was copied almost Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14279473113628377106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-87936427335780885822012-12-22T03:10:28.384+01:002012-12-22T03:10:28.384+01:00Great post; I just want to point out, though, that...Great post; I just want to point out, though, that Chereau wasn't the first successful film director to make forays into opera. In 1955 Lucino Visconti directed Maria Callas in La Traviata at La Scala. The production was controversial (the setting was moved up several decades), but it was a watershed moment. The reason it's not better known, perhaps, is because it's in the Italian Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-54949830147114036832012-10-14T15:34:39.054+02:002012-10-14T15:34:39.054+02:00What I don't get is why the same people who ha...What I don't get is why the same people who hate modern Wagner productions are generally quite happy with seeing the same modernist elements in a Shakespeare play. (i.e. machine guns in Hamlet)<br /><br />Why is it okay with Shakespeare but not with Wagner?<br /><br />(Also, you might want to check out the pre-1976 ring productions at Bayreuth to have an idea of what Chereau was actually Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-72085656291043845222009-09-25T19:33:08.180+02:002009-09-25T19:33:08.180+02:00This was my first full Ring, and it's wonderfu...This was my first full Ring, and it's wonderful despite its flaws. As flaws I count the casting of Siegfried, Hagen (yes, if they had Salminen, damn they should've been cast HIM! He's the best Hagen ever), and Erda.<br />But the staging is really beautiful. Suddenly all these gods and heroes became human and lovable. <br /><br />Of the singers:<br /><br />- Gwyneth Jones, in her primeRowena Shepardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07680273211678135320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-59826916362798220192008-12-10T19:35:00.000+01:002008-12-10T19:35:00.000+01:00I never thought King Kong was a movie « about » a ...I never thought King Kong was a movie « about » a giant ape. If I enter your logic and ask myself « about » what King Kong is, I would say it is a movie « about » exotism, different beings, tolerance, and conflicts between nature and civilization. Roughly the same subject as Lawrence of Arabia. <BR/><BR/>I can’t name a thing that is not a cultural construction because naming something impliesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-12421511568932927242008-12-10T03:06:00.000+01:002008-12-10T03:06:00.000+01:00NV: I stand by my claim that you're bonkers - but ...NV: I stand by my claim that you're bonkers - but since you "don’t understand how the thing to be interpreted could impose constraints on interpretation", allow me to explain.<BR/><BR/>What I actually said was that artworks impose constraints on <I>what counts as a reasonable interpretation</I>. Context cannot do the job alone - and this is obvious if you think about it. If you watch a movie, sayHenry Fitzgeraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09687700714419167860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-12205150649029084412008-12-09T22:24:00.000+01:002008-12-09T22:24:00.000+01:00I exactly meant what I said-and what you think is ...I exactly meant what I said-and what you think is entirely mad ! I don’t understand how the thing to be interpreted could impose constraints on interpretation. And there is a good reason for that. The good reason is that the question of the mere existence of a « thing » to be interpreted, and of the mere existence of an action you can call « interpretation » are themselves cultural constructionsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-45894078905069925982008-12-09T20:48:00.000+01:002008-12-09T20:48:00.000+01:00NV writes: “But it is funny to notice that the deb...NV writes: “But it is funny to notice that the debates about questions of taste hide most of the time huge conceptual divergences.”<BR/><BR/>Or more often, conceptual <I>confusion</I>.<BR/><BR/>What you actually said – which may not have been what you meant – was indeed insane. You said, or seemed to be saying, that constraints on reasonable interpretation depend <I>entirely</I> on facts about Henry Fitzgeraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09687700714419167860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-52597707202139546732008-12-09T09:20:00.000+01:002008-12-09T09:20:00.000+01:00My point was not about « what behind-the-scenes me...My point was not about « what behind-the-scenes mechanisms make it the case that the implied intent of Wagner’s Ring is » this or that, because I don’t care about such an intent. The interesting mechanisms are those which make the case that WE (and Richard Wagner himself belongs to the WE, among others) interpret the Ring this or that way. The Ring, in itself, is not about anything special. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-19243412860195523502008-12-08T22:06:00.000+01:002008-12-08T22:06:00.000+01:00I haven’t read this particular piece of Eco, but “...I haven’t read this particular piece of Eco, but “there’s no such thing as intrinsic meaning” is either an empty tautology, or – the way you’ve paraphrased the thesis – an obvious falsehood (the thesis that constraints on interpretation are determined “EXCLUSIVELY by the logical, linguistic and cultural background of the community of interpreters”, for instance, is clearly insane). I’m willing toHenry Fitzgeraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09687700714419167860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-14563763395874351502008-12-07T16:53:00.000+01:002008-12-07T16:53:00.000+01:00We now learn that a work has implicit intentions. ...We now learn that a work has implicit intentions. Umberto Eco - of course nobody is obliged to agree with him but I find his analysis very convincing- demonstrates -as far as a demonstration in this field is possible- in « The Limits of Interpretation (Advances in Semiotics) » -Indiana University Press (March 1994), that there is no such thing as an intrinsic meaning – and a fortiori intention- Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-19211733113090863922008-12-07T01:45:00.000+01:002008-12-07T01:45:00.000+01:00Apologies for misreading AC Douglas – but I though...Apologies for misreading AC Douglas – but I thought I caught him saying that the author’s intentions should be respected simply because they happen to be the author’s intentions; that’s what I disagree with, and what I badly expressed as “loyalty to Wagner the man”. Like him, I think we should be loyal to the works, not the artist: so even if we uncover an authentic letter from Wagner saying thatHenry Fitzgeraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09687700714419167860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-47609782439960258342008-12-05T01:07:00.000+01:002008-12-05T01:07:00.000+01:00In response to some of the above comments, I find ...In response to some of the above comments, I find it only fair to add, that while I may disagree wildly with A.C. Douglas on Patrice Chéreau´s Ring (and on Regietheater in general), I do not find his comments offensive in any way. <BR/>On the contrary, comments like his make for excellent debate and are most welcome.<BR/><BR/>I plan to write an entire series on Regietheater in the near future, somostly opera...https://www.blogger.com/profile/05653818157295091506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-53389356901429438362008-12-03T19:12:00.000+01:002008-12-03T19:12:00.000+01:00Was gleicht, Wotan,wohl deinem Glücke?Viel erwarb ...Was gleicht, Wotan,<BR/>wohl deinem Glücke?<BR/>Viel erwarb dir<BR/>des Ringes Gewinn;<BR/>daß er nun dir genommen,<BR/>nützt dir noch mehr:<BR/>deine Feinde – sieh! –<BR/>fällen sich selbst –<BR/>um das Gold, das du vergabst.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-66626002898574386822008-12-03T16:39:00.000+01:002008-12-03T16:39:00.000+01:00Henry Fitzgerald wrote: Unlike A.C. Douglas, I do...<B>Henry Fitzgerald wrote:</B> <I>Unlike A.C. Douglas, I don’t have a problem per se with infidelity to Wagner the man.</I><BR/><BR/>Excuse me? By what twisted reading of anything I wrote could you arrive at the perverse idea that I "have a problem per se with infidelity to Wagner the man"? What an absurd idea. Wagner the man is nothing; his artwork everything. It's Wagner's artwork I defended,A.C. Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12090447201234367871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-549632583248791702008-12-03T13:42:00.000+01:002008-12-03T13:42:00.000+01:00There is no contradiction. I can perfectly accept ...There is no contradiction. I can perfectly accept the use of supernatural elements to illustrate natural ones. I can perfectly enjoy a work of fiction with gods, dragons, or love potions. <BR/>There are no speaking animals for instance. Yet, I have no problem with the Cunning little vixen. Because Janacek tells me things about this world. The problem is not the gods, the dragons, and the love Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-52125870542923763252008-12-03T11:21:00.000+01:002008-12-03T11:21:00.000+01:00To NV:Aha! So you don’t object to the supernatural...To NV:<BR/><BR/>Aha! So you don’t object to the supernatural elements of the opera – that “the problem is what those supernatural elements are supposed to stand for”.<BR/><BR/>This contradicts the reasons you gave in support of Chereau’s mangling: that our “consciousness that there is no back-world beyond the world has completely changed the deal”. You also said it was the revolution initiated byHenry Fitzgeraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09687700714419167860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-3606935495355268872008-12-03T09:18:00.000+01:002008-12-03T09:18:00.000+01:00Sorry M. Fitzgerald, but your rhetoric completely ...Sorry M. Fitzgerald, but your rhetoric completely misses my point. I never wrote-nor thought- that the XIXth century public took literally the characters – gods, dwarves, giants…- they saw on stage. I said that to enter someway Wagner’s purpose, they had to take literally what those characters symbolized. And when some of them refused to do so,-Nietzsche was the most famous of them- the entire Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-76119663799109311002008-12-02T22:04:00.000+01:002008-12-02T22:04:00.000+01:00NV has a curious reason indeed for supposing that ...NV has a curious reason indeed for supposing that a straight reading of Wagner (and by the sounds of things, anything written before, say, 1850) won’t do. It’s because we now know the content is false: there are no gods.<BR/><BR/>Well, duh. NV must think of nineteenth-century audiences consisted of complete morons. Most of them knew as well as we do that there were no such things as water spiritsHenry Fitzgeraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09687700714419167860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-68708191250036802422008-11-30T12:38:00.000+01:002008-11-30T12:38:00.000+01:00Of course I am dead serious. Of course I think tha...Of course I am dead serious. Of course I think that myths, ethics, God and the most important probably, Art itself, have nothing to do with what they were in Wagner’s times –Wagner himself was probably a latecomer, Nietzsche perfectly saw it- because consciousness that there is no back-world beyond the world has completely changed the deal. It has nothing to do with pseudo-science. The french Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-52083197393523819462008-11-30T01:19:00.000+01:002008-11-30T01:19:00.000+01:00When reading NV's last, one tries hard to imagine ...When reading <B>NV</B>'s last, one tries hard to imagine it's a spot-on caricature, even burlesque, of the postmodern mindset. Sadly, one comes quickly to the realization that it's nothing of the sort, but is instead an earnest, dead-serious expression of that mindset.<BR/><BR/>Is it any wonder that Eurotrash outrages such as the Chéreau centennial <I>Ring</I>, and the even more grotesque A.C. Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12090447201234367871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-45633349398055097722008-11-30T00:43:00.000+01:002008-11-30T00:43:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.A.C. Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12090447201234367871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-2240115872139240902008-11-30T00:13:00.000+01:002008-11-30T00:13:00.000+01:00NV continues to put his foot in by writing: “What ...NV continues to put his foot in by writing: “What Chereau perfectly knew is that it was impossible for cultivated men at the end of the seventies to take seriously Wagnerian myths because those myths had been deconstructed by decades of ethnological and sociological researches.”<BR/><BR/>Who are these “cultivated men”? That is, is there any independent criteria for what counts as “cultivated” by Henry Fitzgeraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09687700714419167860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5483678492345755723.post-55611794493565049422008-11-29T16:10:00.000+01:002008-11-29T16:10:00.000+01:00I find it sad that there are still people around w...I find it sad that there are still people around who feel that great works of art should be preserved in amber. If they had their way the only legitimate productions of the Ring would be ludicrous, moribund excercises like the Met Ring which for me have as much dramatic validity as a bus timetable.<BR/>The point about any great work of dramtic art is that it can be endlessly re-interpreted and curzonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05739148306934419721noreply@blogger.com