There was a lot of controversy swirling around this opera back when its existence became public. Maazel was a conductor; he was not known as much of a composer, and this was his first and only opera, written in his seventies. It premiered at Covent Garden, and given his connections, and the fact that he plowed a lot of his own money into the production, it was suggested that this was just a vanity project. It undeniably seems at least a little sketchy that he was paying for at least a large portion of it himself. I've got to imagine that looks as dubious in the opera world as it does in the world of publishing. Oddly enough, Maazel does not see fit to mention this detail in the DVD notes.
When it came out, reviews were...mixed. Andrew Clements raved in The Guardian: "It is both shocking and outrageous that the Royal Opera, a company of supposed international standards and standing, should be putting on a new opera of such wretchedness and lack of musical worth." Did I say "raved?" I meant the other thing. Some reviews were a bit less hyperbolic, but praise tended to be muted. Still! There's the one amazon review that starts by saying that "operas such as 1984 make it very difficult for an operaphile to return to the standard operatic repertoire, which has become suddenly and irrevocably outdated and irrelevant to our times." I think we can safely assume that this is the reviewer's actual opinion, since a paid operative would have rejected that sentence as implausibly fulsome. Or maybe that's just what they want me to think! Oh my goodness wheels within wheels.
Well, the truth (obviously, I am the only purveyor of truth here) is kind of boringly predictable: no, it's not anywhere near as bad as Clements claims. But it isn't very good either. Then again, I dunno, maybe the actual truth is that...the source material isn't that good either either? Blasphemy. It's definitely the most famous book I haven't read, but I think I have a pretty darned exact idea of the plot from cultural osmosis, and did even before I saw this. There's a whole aria here where one of Winston's coworkers explains the concept of Newspeak to us, and...I HAVE to assume this wasn't how it worked in the book? That it was actually explained by a third-person narrator? Because the whole thing falls apart into complete nonsense (I mean, more than it already does) if everyone's self-aware about what the state is doing to people and to institutional memory. Regardless, the entire concept is dumb and badly misunderstands how people use language--but then again, Orwell also wrote that embarrassing essay "Politics and the English Language" that people somehow think is profound, so that's nothing new. But really: this whole society obviously would not work on any level. It just wouldn't, dammit. Sure, you can point to individual aspects of authoritarian countries--Stalinist Russia erasing people from photographs, East Germans reporting on their neighbors--and go OMG LIKE NINETEEN EIGHT-FOUR, but these don't remotely add up to Orwell's vision. Apparently--to judge by that essay--he legit believed that English was in danger of devolving into a Newspeak like construct, but that's just because he was not smart when it came to language. I know it's not supposed to strictly speaking be a "realistic" story--at least, it better not be--but in that case...what's the point, really? A cautionary tale for a nonsense thing that could never happen? Why do we need this?
Getting off-topic here! Well, not exactly off-topic, given that this is kind of the plot of the opera, but you know. Argue about it all you want, but as far as I can tell, it's the same as the plot of the book, so THERE! Doggonit! Anyway, you can forgive a lot about an opera's plot if the music is good enough, but this...well, okay, it has its moments: nursery rhymes with violent lyrics while proles are being hanged. A pretty good love duet between Winston and Julia. Winston being tortured with rats...but for the most part, it's pretty bland and forgettable. Trying to be like Berg or Strauss or even Puccini in its more strainingly romantic moments, but not succeeding particularly well at any of these efforts. And the libretto: very, very awkward. I mean, in parts it's okay, but when it's not you get bits like Symes singing about Newspeak to you, which is truly cringe-inducing.
The biggest thing you can say in favor of this, or at least the DVD production: they got an impressive cast, including Simon Keenlyside in the lead and Laurence Brownlee and Diane Damrau in smaller parts (they also got Jeremy Irons to do some spoken Big Brother narration). Brownlee as Symes is forgettable in a forgettable part, but Keenlyside puts in great work as Winston, really giving the performance his all, whether in rebellion, love, pain, or submission. Double-plus good! Damrau, in a small dual role as "gym instructor/drunk woman" is also a treat. As you know, I have my issues with Damrau, but she's a huge about of fun here, particularly as the East-German-style gymnastics instructor. Hilarious. It's just one scene, but I wish it were a bigger one. I've uploaded it here. Richard Margison is chillingly avuncular as O'Brien. The production is by Robert Lepage (Maazel could certainly draw in the big names); it's appropriate without being particularly, I would say, striking. Some of the propaganda-film images are good.
But, really, the most important thing here is the opera's title: 1984. I know the book usually spells it out--Nineteen Eighty-Four--but here it's definitely just the number. Which means it edges out Handel's Acis and Galatea for the number one spot in my alphabetical list of operas, where it's likely to stay forever. Congratulations on your alphabetical prowess, Maazel! If for nothing else--and if not quite nothing, it's not that much else--I salute you.
Because the whole thing falls apart into complete nonsense (I mean, more than it already does) if everyone's self-aware about what the state is doing to people and to institutional memory.
ReplyDeleteNow see, this is explained in the book — which, by the way, you should read, if only because I want to see what you'd make of it in your inevitable review on this blog. The thing is that Winston is a member of the Party, though a low-ranking one. Members of the Party obviously know about the manipulations because they're the people who enact them. The real target audiences are the wider population, which is suitably clueless. It is the job of Syme (the Newspeak-explaining guy) to invent (part of) Newspeak, and it is the job of Winston, who works figuratively next-door, to doctor old photographs. Of course they know about all this; it doesn't mean the public at large does.
But also and more to the specific point: this isn't really realistic but the Party bigwigs are supposedly playing the really long game. The goal of Newspeak isn't to insidiously worm itself into the minds of people who grew up speaking regular English, even if there are really feverishly loyal Party members who studiously start speaking only Newspeak immediately. Rather, the point is to make sure that the future generations who grow up with Newspeak as their only way to interface with the world will genuinely be unable to grasp the abstract concepts not included in Newspeak.