Friday, May 24, 2019

Fromental Halévy, La Juive (1835)


So here's this. In some unspecified city, there are constant threats, tamped down to a greater or lesser degree, of anti-Jewish violence. There's a Jewish goldsmith, Éléazar, living with his daughter, Rachel, la Juive herself. In the past, his sons were burned as heretics by the local cardinal, Brogni. Rachel is being courted by "Samuel," a young Jew who happens to actually be Prince Léopold in disguise. Even beyond the fact that he's married, their differing religious affiliations would subject them to execution if known, but she doesn't know any of this. She goes to try to get a job as a maid for the Princess, sees Léopold and realizes his duplicity, and is PISSED OFF. She publicly accuses him of seducing her, and the two of them, along with Éléazar (who is just collateral damage, I guess) are arrested. She later withdraws her allegations to spare Léopold (so why are the two of THEM still in trouble? Just generalized anti-Semitism, pretty clearly). Éléazar, likewise PISSED OFF, tells Brogni that his infant daughter from before he was a priest? The one he thought was dead? Well, some Jew saved him, but he'll never tell. Alas for Brogni, he is unaware that he is a character in an opera, or he'd immediately leap to the right conclusion. But he's not, so he's tormented. It dawns on Éléazar that his intransigence is likewise condemning Rachel, so he decides to tell the truth, but his resolution is hardened when he hears a mob going by baying for Jewish blood. So...what you'd think would happen pretty much happens. Yikes.

So yeah, look, you would be forgiven for thinking that an opera from 1835 entitled "the Jewess" might be pretty unsavory, even if you knew the composer himself was Jewish, but let's be clear: no, La Juive is not anti-Semitic, and it's not even a tiny bit ambiguous. True, Éléazar does bear animosity for Christians, which leads to the final tragedy, but it is made extremely clear that this is because of their overwhelming persecution of him and his people. Frankly, it's kind of amazing to me that such a full-throated condemnation of Christian bigotry could be a hit at the time. You know, Wagner did indeed say some pretty unforgivably anti-Semitic stuff, but people are nothing if not complicated, and the fact that he championed Halévy in general and this opera in particular is certainly a point in his favor.

But don't take my word for it! Here is the actual factual first comment that appeared on the youtube video: "'Jews' HATE Christians! They've been killing them by the millions, especially since 1773! What a pointless plot!" Kid tested, neo-Nazi disapproved. What more do you need to know? Why is "Jews" in quotes you wonder? Well, because of a shaky understanding of English punctuation standards, obviously, but this undermining of the writer's own point amuses me nonetheless. And why 1773? Extremely difficult to say. A google search for "what do anti-Semites think happened in 1773?" turns up nothing. Probably best not to think too hard about it.

Okay, so that's all well and good, but how is the actual opera, regardless of cultural issues? Well, it's pretty damned great. I can see why it was a hit. The music (including the exquisite aria "Rachel, quand du Seigneur") is fantastic, and--even though I knew where it was heading--the climax is still shattering. I kind of wanted to cry.

However. However however however...I think probably the greatest single bit of praise I can give this is that it's still mostly able to work in spite of the production. I put off watching this for a long time just because I was a bit skeptical about it, and it turns out I was right to be. The cast is game--particularly Corinne Winters as Rachel, Roy Cornelius Smith as Éléazar, and Riccardo Zanellato as Brogni, but this production is baaaaaad. Really really fucking bad. The producer, Peter Konwitschny, is not a good producer (and he also has a history of abusing musicians, so COOL). I went through my list of operas seen, and the results are clear: this is the worst production I've seen, and it's not particularly close.

I don't mind that it's in modern dress. That's not an issue. But the first thing you'll notice is that the central...metaphor?...of the production is that Christians' hands are painted blue and Jews' yellow. Okay. This is strange and contributes nothing to the story and results in bits where characters have to hide their hands from one another because they're not meant to know others' religions. But I guess I could live with that, if it were all. But it's not: the whole thing is very abstract in an unappealing way, feeling almost theatre-of-alienation-esque. There are parts where characters sing while wandering through the audience, for no reason I could discern.

And then there's Act III. OH BOY is there ever Act III. So in this act, Rachel is wearing a long trenchcoat, and when she sees that her supposed boyfriend was actually the Prince, in her rage she opens it up, and she's wearing a suicide vest. Is she metaphorically blowing up the action of the opera? Is this meant to be some kind of half-baked commentary on Israel? It's juvenile and awful, whatever it is. Oh and you thought that was all? No. Because in the climax to the act, where Rachel, Éléazar, and Leopold are being condemned, suddenly this assembly line appears for no reason and the cardinal and Éléazar and the whole chorus--some of whom are now wearing green, red, and purple gloves for no stated reason--are building bombs. I can only assume this is supposed to be some sort of general commentary on religious intolerance? But there's just one problem with it: it fucking sucks. Jeez. This is the worst part; it gets slightly more normal after. But I also love this: in Act V, just before the fatal climax, a voice from off-stage shouts--in English--"kill the dirty fucking Jews!" So...yeah, earlier we were doing this abstruse, would-be-artsy bullshit, but now we're so unsubtle that we have to underline the not-notably-subtext? Gawd. What a mess.

So anyway! Great opera! I can only imagine how great it could be if done by someone who cared about the plot and characters!

2 comments:

  1. She later withdraws her allegations to spare Léopold, so why are the two of THEM still in trouble?

    Because they admitted to wrongly accusing Léopold, methinks. If you go around accusing your monarch of various crimes, and then swear that, no, actually, you fibbed, it should only be expected that consequences would be had.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, yes, that's the putative reason, but it's not like this is some sort of regulated court proceeding. It's pure mob justice, for which that's just the excuse.

    ReplyDelete