Finally getting around to this. Huguenots were French Protestants in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. They suffered a lot of persecution from the Catholic majority, and this concerns events leading up to probably the biggest persecution of all, the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre in which--according to wikipedia--between five and thirty thousand of them were murdered. That's quite a range, but horrendous even at the low end--though in fairness, the way some of the characters in this opera talk, it sounds as though the Protestants would've been happy to do the same, given opposite power differentials.
I say "events leading up to" the massacre, but I should clarify that these are all, as far as I can tell, wholly fictional events. So basically the Catholics are just doing their thing when this Protestant, Raoul de Nangis, shows up with his servant. There's a certain amount of tension, but things are basically cordial. Raoul tells about this woman he'd rescued from some sort of attack on the street and how he's in love with her now. But oh no, it turns out this woman (a count's daughter, named Valentine) is going to be married to de Nevers, this Catholic playboy type. But the queen's told her to break it off with him, because she wants her to marry Raoul instead to improve interfaith relations. But he refuses, because he thinks she's still involved with de Nevers. So she ends up marrying Nevers after all. Later, the Catholics are planning this massacre, and Raoul and Valentine are all oh no what should we do, we're still in love? He obviously wants to save his coreligionists, but her family, oh no, and eventually she converts to be with him and they're all martyred. And then Valentine's dad, who helped arrange the massacre, is sad. OH WELL. There are obvious affinities with La Juive, another story about religious intolerance that had premiered just a year prior. I don't know if it was a conscious influence.
So I did like this a lot. I didn't like it as much as Il crociato in Egitto (which I know is a weird opinion), but nonetheless. The music was what I expected, basically, but generally fun, with a lot of strong dramatic moments, and the climax is pretty intense. Robert le Diable had its Undead Nuns Ballet; this one has a ballet where gypsies appear for no reason and dance and then leave, not affecting the plot in any way. But their music rules!
Still, it must be said, the plotting here is...not great. First there's just the macro-level issue: the opera really never shows tensions increasing between the two factions, so you really don't get any idea of why they go from being sort of friendly to murderous in just a few acts. That seems important, somehow. But then there are the characters themselves: first, just in passing, let's note that Raoul and Valentine have literally no onstage interaction before they decide they're in love; I know people fall in love in operas with very little provocation, but this still seems excessive. Still, no big deal. More to the point, it's really not clear why Raoul refuses to marry Valentine; I know that in theory it's because she thinks he's still involved with de Nevers, but the text doesn't make this clear. Also, we just have to assume that she decided to marry de Nevers anyway, which just seems weird. And de Nevers himself: while all the other Catholics are planning the massacre, he objects that it would be dishonorable, so you think okay, the feckless playboy showing some spine, that's an interesting character thing, where is this going? Well, it's going nowhere, because the next and last we hear of de Nevers, we're told, with no further elaboration, that he's been murdered offstage. There's no world where that's good writing. I think the opera kills him off just because it's inconvenient to the plot for Valentine to still be married to him.
Still, it must be said, the plotting here is...not great. First there's just the macro-level issue: the opera really never shows tensions increasing between the two factions, so you really don't get any idea of why they go from being sort of friendly to murderous in just a few acts. That seems important, somehow. But then there are the characters themselves: first, just in passing, let's note that Raoul and Valentine have literally no onstage interaction before they decide they're in love; I know people fall in love in operas with very little provocation, but this still seems excessive. Still, no big deal. More to the point, it's really not clear why Raoul refuses to marry Valentine; I know that in theory it's because she thinks he's still involved with de Nevers, but the text doesn't make this clear. Also, we just have to assume that she decided to marry de Nevers anyway, which just seems weird. And de Nevers himself: while all the other Catholics are planning the massacre, he objects that it would be dishonorable, so you think okay, the feckless playboy showing some spine, that's an interesting character thing, where is this going? Well, it's going nowhere, because the next and last we hear of de Nevers, we're told, with no further elaboration, that he's been murdered offstage. There's no world where that's good writing. I think the opera kills him off just because it's inconvenient to the plot for Valentine to still be married to him.
I mean, I still liked it, but SHEESH, you write great music, why don't you want to have a decent libretto to accompany it?
I saw this 1990 production from the Sydney Opera House, which was part of a farewell gala to commemorate Joan Sutherland's retirement (it used to be on youtube, but I think it's been taken down). She plays the queen, naturally. It's kind of weird that she choose this as her final role, as the queen actually has a rather small role, only appearing in the second act (out of five, as grand opera generally went), and doesn't really get to distinguish herself vocally very much. And if you don't want to have a negative opinion about Joan Sutherland, you should definitely not read the following from her wikipedia page:
After retirement, Sutherland made relatively few public appearances, preferring a quiet life at her home in Les Avants, Switzerland. One exception was her 1994 address at a lunch organised by Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, when Sutherland commented: "It also upsets me that it is such a damned job to get an Australian passport now – you have to go to be interviewed by a Chinese or an Indian. I'm not particularly racist, but I find it ludicrous."
So Joan "not particularly racist" Sutherland nonetheless quivers in rage at the possibility of having to interact with an Asian person. Cool. You know, if I were ever inclined to be tolerant of this kind of thing from out-of-touch old people (which I wasn't), I now am less than ever. Racist garbage like this fucking sucks, so I am hereby officially declaring Joan Sutherland cancelled. There will be no appeal.
Still! Everyone else is fine. Amanda Thane is a striking Valentine, Anson Austin a passionate Raoul. Also, Suzanne Johnston in a smallish trouser role as the queen's page makes a strong impression.
Meyerbeer definitely isn't performed as much as he should be (how about the Met doing one of his operas Live in HD, when and if opera can ever be performed again?) but there is one other production of this available on disc:
Er...you all know that I like me some Eurotrash, but I think this might be a bridge too far. Is that the Catholics at some sort of pool party? What? And why is the title written in a "wacky" font as if this were some kind of comedy? Incredibly strange, and while I should keep an open mind, I just have very grave doubts about whether this supports the drama.
No comments:
Post a Comment