What to do with The Met’s La Boheme?

[+ g56whiz]

Recently The NY Times raised the issue of how to deal with dated productions of bread and butter operas, the ones that bring in the cash especially La Boheme.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/arts/music/la-boheme-puccini-opera-metropolitan-london-paris.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad

 

@hornytwells presaged this issue eloquently back in May in a thread that dealt with Der Rosenkavalier.

 

Also, a director has licence to impose his view, that's why he is the director. We don't have to like it or to agree, but the idea that every performance of an opera or a piece of art is not open to more than one interpretation is stifling and is a sure way to kill the art from. Lots of different views/interpretations are what stimulates art and discussions, even if you absolutely hate a concept.

 

Me? I’ve disliked The Met’s Zeffirelli La Boheme since it opened. He reportedly aimed to scale down the space of the Acts one and four garret to make it more “believable” for TV and for younger, smaller singers. Unfortunately he did that by raising that portion of the set maybe 10’ above the stage level into a known dead spot. (Ever compare the Queen of the Night’s first and second act arias in the old Chagall Die Zauberflöte?). Then Zeffirelli packed hundreds of supers into the second act. How can a company make any money on a bread and butter opera if they have to clothe then pay hundreds of supers? I’m not really an ardent Wagnerian, but I’m enough of a gasamtkunst guy that cheering for scenery really bugs me (as do most interpolated high notes and gratuitous encores). Of course the Zeffirelli La Boheme preceded Rent on Broadway by several decades but I think a Met La Boheme using the sets and costumes of Rent would have a whole lot more integrity.

 

What do you think?

[TruHart1]

I think I have to agree to disagree with you in regard to this particular MET Zeffirelli production, @g56whiz. Other Zeffirelli productions have come and gone, making way for such new productions as the awful Luc Bondy Tosca, mentioned in the article. I am of the opinion that Zeffirelli wanted to create a very cinematic Bohème with this production and he achieved it better than most of us could have dreamed! You did not like it from the beginning. Okay, that's your privilege. Personally, I've seen productions at major houses that look a bit threadbare after 10 years or less that should definitely be replaced.

 

This 36 year-old Bohème production shows no wear and still packs in the crowd, most of whom would disagree with your opinion. As for costs, if the MET budget can't afford it (and I don't believe that for a second!) no opera company could. Sorry. As far as I can tell, this is one production that falls in the category of actually being "beloved!" Add to that, La Bohème is the most popular "bread and butter" opera worldwide! I don't see this Zeffirelli production being replaced in the near future and I say, "Thank goodness!" JMHO

 

TruHart1

[bostonman]

I fear that if and when the Met replaces the current Boheme production, the new one will come off as some faux-conceptual nothingness in the manner of the current Met Traviata, where a red sofa and a giant clock provide us with oh-so-meaningful metaphorical bullshit. I'd rather have a set.

 

You could, in fact, stage Boheme, or many other operas, with that same Traviata decor, and it would be just as (in)effective.

 

We seem to be past the age where a set can actually be allowed to depict the actual locale and mood intended by the composer and librettist. The current Rosenkavalier, which might be renamed Guns Und Roses for its imposed and overthought/overwrought WWI setting is another idiotic example. Or, that expensive waste of plywood that stands in for the set of the current Met Ring Cycle.

 

At least the Bondy Tosca is finally being put to pasture. Perhaps Tosca will actually get to jump at the end again? "Ah, finalmente..."

[TruHart1]

I fear that if and when the Met replaces the current Boheme production, the new one will come off as some faux-conceptual nothingness in the manner of the current Met Traviata, where a red sofa and a giant clock provide us with oh-so-meaningful metaphorical bullshit. I'd rather have a set.

 

You could, in fact, stage Boheme, or many other operas, with that same Traviata decor, and it would be just as (in)effective.

 

We seem to be past the age where a set can actually be allowed to depict the actual locale and mood intended by the composer and librettist. The current Rosenkavalier, which might be renamed Guns Und Roses for its imposed and overthought/overwrought WWI setting is another idiotic example. Or, that expensive waste of plywood that stands in for the set of the current Met Ring Cycle.

 

At least the Bondy Tosca is finally being put to pasture. Perhaps Tosca will actually get to jump at the end again? "Ah, finalmente..."

I only disagree with your opinion of Lepage's Ring "Machine." Yes, it had too many technical glitches, but that was mainly because the MET should have scheduled an extra month of tech rehearsals, but instead ended up barely getting the machine constructed and/or semi-workable onstage in time for the scheduled Ring premiere. I enjoyed the scope and breadth of the "Machine" when it worked, and I appreciate the bigger than life concept behind it!

 

Mr. Gelb promises a much quieter, more smoothly, less glitchy, running machine on its return to the stage next season (2018 to 2019!) After spending $16 million for the original staging, it makes much more sense fiscally to use this production for the revival run of Ring cycle performances, especially since the technical problems are now worked out. At least this production never took place updated to 2010 or in space suits or all on a canted disc onstage. The projections and segments of the Machine were used to create a very traditional staging at its core. It is my sincere hope that next season's revival will be able to deliver the original concept without its problems.

 

http://operawire.com/metropolitan-opera-2018-19-ring-cycle-conductor-confirmed/

 

TruHart1

[bostonman]

I only disagree with your opinion of Lepage's Ring "Machine." Yes, it had too many technical glitches, but that was mainly because the MET should have scheduled an extra month of tech rehearsals, but instead ended up barely getting the machine constructed and/or semi-workable onstage in time for the scheduled Ring premiere. I enjoyed the scope and breadth of the "Machine" when it worked, and I appreciate the bigger than life concept behind it!

 

Mr. Gelb promises a much quieter, more smoothly, less glitchy, running machine on its return to the stage next season (2018 to 2019!) After spending $16 million for the original staging, it makes much more sense fiscally to use this production for the revival run of Ring cycle performances, especially since the technical problems are now worked out. At least this production never took place updated to 2010 or in space suits or all on a canted disc onstage. The projections and segments of the Machine were used to create a very traditional staging at its core. It is my sincere hope that next season's revival will be able to deliver the original concept without its problems.

 

http://operawire.com/metropolitan-opera-2018-19-ring-cycle-conductor-confirmed/

 

TruHart1

 

I unfortunately have to disagree. To me it was an unwieldy and unattractive display of lumber. The projections could have worked on any surface just as well. The “machine” was just plain ugly.

[TruHart1]

I unfortunately have to disagree. To me it was an unwieldy and unattractive display of lumber. The projections could have worked on any surface just as well. The “machine” was just plain ugly.

Well, you are certainly in agreement with most of the critics who reviewed that production. Personally, I'd rather see a magnificent disaster that attempts to open our minds to a bigger concept within the confines of the actual libretto than a more mundane "standard" production, or worse, a production that attempts to "update" a piece by staging it so it makes no sense at all if you know the libretto!

 

TruHart1

[+ g56whiz]

I’m with @TrueHart1 on this one! The “machine” was brought to The Met by the folks at Cirque de Soleil who’ve specialized in moving people and objects thru 3 dimensions in thrilling ways. Even with the creaks I kept wondering how to put the machine to work in other operas. Lohengrin and Parsifal came immediately to mind but how about Idomeneo or Les Troyen.