Sergei Rachmaninoff, The Miserly Knight (1905)

Pretty intense stuff. Somehow, a title like that just makes me think: comedy. 'Cause misers are funny, usually. Maybe it's just extreme amounts of Scrooge McDuck exposure making me think that, but hell, even though his story is ultimately a morality tale, even pre-redemption Ebenezer Scrooge is a broadly comic figure. So...yes. Of course, this sort of avarice is really a fictional conceit, or at least not a modern one. You look at our current vile, porcine billionaires, and sure, they do their damnedest to make sure they never have to pay any taxes or anything like that, but they're not miserly in the sense of agonizing over spending money on food or anything like that. It's a different sort of mindset, I think.

Well, anyway, this is not comic at all. I'd go so far as to say this is the starkest depiction of this sort of miserliness that you'll ever see. It's based on a Pushkin drama, a simple story, short, with sort of stark, minimal music, and, notably, no female roles. The Knight, who as far as I know doesn't have a name, is miserly. His son Albert wants money from him but can't get it. The Knight gloats about his money and is enraged at his son, refusing all demands, and then he dies. And that's all.

Sergei Leiferkus is extremely impressive in the title role; the second act--about a half hour--is just him--an impressive endurance test for sure. Richard Berkeley-Steele as his tortured son is also excellent, as are the minor roles. This production really plays up the tortured, nightmarish nature of the thing. It also features a silent role, a sort of demon child scarily played by Matilda Leyser, crawling around the stage and through the rigging in an unnatural, spider-like way, all representing the deadly sin in question in a tangible way. That was an inspired touch.

The wikipedia page says that "the characterization of the moneylender, who is identified in the story as being Jewish, has been criticized as anti-Semitic." But is this true? Well...no, not unless you think the bare existence of a Jewish moneylender is per se anti-Semitic--and of course, Jews were pushed into that role because Good Christians thought usury was sinful, but apparently they thought they could trick God by having Jews take on the role. Evidently they thought God wasn't that bright. AT ANY RATE, no, I wouldn't say that's a problem.