RIPOSTE
by RIP RENSE |
|
BRAIN FREYER
(July 1, 2010)
“You can find lots of
superficiality and ignorance in the opera world masquerading as
genius. But Achim is an artist who really thinks deeply about
his work. Whereas I might not agree with every detail, I
certainly find the overall vision very compelling.”---L.A. Opera
conductor James Conlon.
I’ve come
full Ring circle. Or cycle. Well, sort of.
Some will accuse me of
brain Freyer. As if I’ve gone around once too many times on the
big Freyer Frisbee on stage at his much-debated L.A. Opera treatment of Wagner’s “Der
Ring Des Nibelungen."
No, I do not rescind my
booing of the Freyer Ring operas, as they premiered, one by one,
during the past year. I do not rescind all of my wildly
sarcastic declamations about same. (Try being wildly sarcastic
sometimes. It’s fun.) I mostly blame L.A. Opera for all
this---and for the massive, historic booing that the cycle
sustained as each chapter premiered.
Listen: would you mount a
production of “The Sound of Music” with penguins, cats, and
donkeys, and spring it on the public with no explanation? I
don’t know about you, oh sophisticated operaphile, but I needed
a primer, a guide, or at least---at least---an extended
interview with Freyer or conductor James Conlon to crack the
“Der Ring Des Nibelooney” code. Before Alberich so much as
pinched a Rhine Maiden’s bottom.
Turns out there is---hold
on to your Tarnhelm---method to Freyer’s apparent madness.
As for the sophisticates
looking down their snoots at me for my initial lack of
perception, well, to quote Monty Python, “I fart in your general
direction.” Much as the elderly gentleman did during the second
intermission of “Gotterdammerung,” (Cycle 2), fairly poisoning
Balcony A for about five minutes. Twilight of the Gods, indeed.
Hey, what can I say? I’ve
lived in L.A. all my life, I’m a college dropout, a former
newspaperman dilettante. I never claimed any vast intellect,
though it’s vaster than a breadbox. I have my blind spots. I
can’t even ever remember how to spell hemorhhoid. Or hemmorhoid.
Or whatever it is.
But I digress.
To see Freyer’s Ring, one
opera at a time, staggered over a year, is a bad idea. Very
bad. Like milktoast. With no explanation, no compass, no map to suggest that Freyer
is not just arbitrarily messing around with Wagner, you are
likely to conclude that. . .Freyer is just arbitrarily messing
around with Wagner. That this is another pretentious,
capricious, pseudo-intellectual ego indulgence that does not
enhance or grace the proceedings---but obfuscates and desecrates
them.
In other words, that it’s
just another in a long line of asinine “Eurotrashian”
productions where Valkyries are cast as, oh, lesbian bikers,
Rhine Maidens as pole-dancing whores, Donner the god of thunder
as a baseball player (this really happened), Wotan as a
CEO, and Valhalla is a mini-mall. Stunt
interpretation.
This is more or less what
I concluded after seeing “Rheingold” a year ago. How could I
have thought otherwise, with the gods looking like something out
of Mad Magazine, Froh (god of fertility) tooling around in a dilapidated Sopwith
Camel, everything taking place in darkness, more enigmatic dopplegangers
than you could shake a light saber at (there was no shortage of
those, either), and projected white vertical lines on a scrim
allegedly signifying “temporal time,” or something. Freyer?
Obviously just another mountebank manipulating the proceedings
for outré reasons (and possibly, as a long-time music critic suggested
to me, contempt for Wagner.) You walked away trying to justify
having spent hundreds of dollars for balcony seats, or several
thousand for orchestra, with such thoughts as, “Well, at least
he didn’t turn it into an “urban” treatment, a “Gangsta Ring.”
(Hey, it's not far-fetched---one of the “L.A. Ring Festival” events
featured an absolutely pathetic “fusion” performance called
“Gangsta Wagner.”)
Add to this little Achim
quotations in the opera programs including such Marxian (as in
Brothers) conundrums as “. . .time becomes immeasurable through
measureless, infinite measurability,” and hey, you could only
conclude that the guy was shy Aces and deuces. And that you are
being dealt a lousy operatic hand.
I mean, no one from conductor
Conlon to tenor James Treleaven (who, with soprano Linda Watson,
denounced Freyer shortly before the cycles began) to the guy walking down the
Dorothy Chandler Pavilion staircase behind me at
“Gotterdammerung” intermission has claimed to like or understand
everything Freyer did to---I mean, did with---Wagner here. And
that guy behind me, by the way, said something that I heard in
one form or another countless times during intermissions:
“I sure don’t get all the
symbolism.”
Right. I didn’t, either.
I still don’t. But after seeing all four operas within a
nine-day span, I started to parse some of it. Aided by Freyer’s scant
explanations---picked up from an article here, a promo video
there---an earnest, overarching conceit began to unveil.
Really. I mean, Achim still might be full of. . .wit. . .but
there turns out to be serious thinking behind the puppets,
lights, and scrim. Zum Beispiel: In his weird ur-universe,
human time is not yet in motion, and there are Stephen Hawking
implications of everything happening everywhere simultaneously
in Freyer’s vertical lines, pacing black-tighted dopplegangers,
big rotating Frisbee. Really.
I must add that the
predictable enthusiasm of the L.A. Times’s Mark “Homer” Swed and
the haughty gushing of a couple of erudite, politically
correct local critics did not exactly predispose me to embracing
all the masks, crude cardboard costumes, Siegfried as a retarded clown, Fafnir the dragon as a Wally Gator, Brunhilde as a mutant Cher,
Wotan with that goddamn birdcage over his head, the Gibichungs
as an army of “Friday the 13th” Jasons, a woodbird with breasts,
giants with tiny cue-ball heads, and I’d better stop there
before I get riled up again.
Yes, of course I read
that Freyer was a protégé of Bertolt Brecht, but every
pretentious artiste seems to make reference to Brecht at one
time or another. In most cases, I think it’s because they like
to say “Brecht.” So I more or less dismissed this information.
Big mistake!
Had I taken this to
heart---er, head---it might have been easier to accept the fact
that the music was secondary to the proceedings. That the
traditional purpose of opera, which I would contend is to
involve viewers dramatically and emotionally in the story and
its interplay with music, was utterly, deliberately irrelevant
to the proceedings. This was The Achim Freyer Show, with
Wagner playing second fiddle. Or the Protégé of Brecht
Show, also starring Ricky and his Dancing Leitmotivs. The music and drama was subsidiary in
what Wagner termed “music-drama.”
I must also plead having
seen, in recent years, two very fine traditionally staged
“Rings” by Seattle Opera, including one that came after Freyer’s
“Rheingold” and before “Walkure,” which left me very
satisfyingly involved in story, characterization, mood, plot,
angst, heartbreak, transcendent beauty. We’re even talking
chills and tears here, folks. Call me a rube.
So I was in no mood for
indulging verfremdungseffekt, which is not a stool-based
bacterial infection, but the German word for Brecht’s
storytelling concept, “alienation effect.” Which, as a handy
website summarizes, essentially means that Brecht eschewed
emotion in favor of intellect: “(He) detested the ‘Aristotelian’
drama and its attempts to lure the spectator into a kind of
trance-like state, a total identification with the hero to the
point of complete self-oblivion, resulting in feelings of terror
and pity and, ultimately, an emotional catharsis.”
Oh! Wotan forbid that an
opera lead a viewer to such a banal thing as an emotional
catharsis! Not that! Well, there I go again. Too much
cantankerous in the tank. The preceding quote boils down to
this: the
staging of productions in such intellectual, analytical,
symbolic fashion as to demand emotional detachment from the
story. To alienate. Sort of creating an immunity to the traditional
“trappings,” which play to suspense and heart, and instead
interpret the proceedings strictly from the cerebrum.
Right, it’s not my
priority, either, but it was Freyer’s, and he succeeded in
applying it to the Ring. Succeeded spectacularly, for better and
worse. Whether I
found his symbology impenetrable, or his costuming ugly or
ridiculous, he succeeded. It took, again, experiencing all four
operas in a week to see this. It also took a lack of
outrage. When I went to see cycle number two, having been unable
to sell my tickets at less than half-price(!), I was free of:
the shock value experienced the first time around, the anger at
a opera company spending between $32 and $40 million on its
first “Ring” in such over-the-top eccentric fashion, and from expectations of being
"entranced" by the story and enchanted by the interplay of
Wagner-patented leitmotiv and drama.
Freed up, in other words,
to take the proceedings for what they were. Freed to objectively
assess Freyer’s ego indulgence, divorced from the complaints of
my own. And. . .revelation: it was fun! On the plus side, Freyer
created and sustained an original atmosphere and world(s) on
stage, start to finish, and spectacularly. Just how often is
this done with the “Ring,” or any opera? His proto-cosmos of
gods and giants and Valkyries was an ethereal, surreal, unreal
reality that was realized with an astonishing amount of garish,
grotesque costuming, nearly constant atmospheric morphing, and a
painterly aesthetic. Abstract expressionist painterly.
Yes, what had initially
seemed to me a kind of visual blabbering now revealed a
thoughtful, or at least organized, design. Freyer is an artist,
and he “painted” the “Ring” with light, color, mask, prop, and symbol. It
was an abstraction, but it was rich and complicated---as opposed
to more mannered and minimalist (and I think, pretentious)
abstract designs common in opera today (this means you, Robert
Wilson.) At least from the balcony, this Ring had the additional eerie
effect of appearing almost two-dimensional---canvas-like. I’ll
wager that there are hundreds---hundreds---of individual
snapshots that could be taken in the course of the four Freyer-staged
operas where the overall stage design stood as a completely
distinctive
"painting." That, in and of itself, is remarkable. That this
production was not filmed is tragic, although it’s an open
question if the atmosphere would carry over into film.
But why the
perpetually mutating light-show? Well, it seemed to me
that Freyer was going for a visual counterpart to Wagner
leitmotiv, though hardly as detailed or complex as in Wagner’s
score. Call it light-motiv. This arguably puts him in the good
company of the artist Wassily Kandinsky, who
spent a lifetime assigning emotive values to color. In Freyer’s
Ring, projected patterns and pigments fluctuate and recur along with
specific events,
symbols, and the director’s philosophical processing of the
story. Definitive or provocative, who knows? But no matter. Imagine my relief to find this was not just my
imagination, after reading a very valuable article I found only
in the program made available during the cycles, by Thomas May. Excerpt:
“(Freyer) has evolved an
iconography that mirrors the organic connections of Wagner’s
intricate musical web of motifs and associations. Strange and
surreal they are---including such signature images as Wotan’s
disembodied eye, a squeezebox rainbow, Fricka’s absurdly
extended arms, a kind of racetrack in Siegfried. . .yet Freyer’s
visual vocabulary is not arbitrary. . .It gains in suggestive
power as the cycle progresses.”
Exactly. These things
simply are not as apparent when viewing the cycle over a year’s
time, as opposed to a week. Wotan’s eyeball, for instance, is
almost comically present throughout the operas, in one size
or another (and sometimes in three different sizes at once!) It
is also to be found all over Brunhilde's womanly regions, and on Siegfried’s fatal
wound after he is stabbed by Hagen. What does it all mean? Aside
from the (painfully) obvious implication that Wotan’s imprint is
in every aspect of events, at all times, it could also stand as
a symbol of how every decision and action undertaken by the
ruler of the gods is doomed to snafu and self-defeat. He had sacrificed
that eye in order to win his endlessly nagging wife, and her
meddling ten-foot-long papier mache arms. Mistake
number one.
What of the accursed birdcage
over
Wotan’s bulbous, insect head? Yes, as I explained in my diatribes, it’s
meant to suggest the ring and its hold on his psyche. Is it overkill that the
same motif
appears repeatedly, projected over the scrim, and that at
times, even Freyer’s turntable on which the “action” takes place
becomes an enormous Ring? That’s a matter of taste. This is a
painter at work, more than a director. You get used to it after
while, rather the way you get used to a. . .leitmotiv.
I must defensively note
here that I did, in my initial pieces, praise some effects in
the production, including the marvelous depiction of the Rhine
via a huge piece of fabric undulated by hidden personnel
underneath. I absolutely loved the rendering of the “magic
fire,” with the hellish imp, Loge, lighting a series of
spinning lamps in time with the music. Gorgeous. I came to
endorse the
frightening facelessness and uniformity of the Gibichungs, which
I took as a comment on the sociopathic nature of humans and
their cunning constructs. The despoiling of Brunhilde via the stripping
away of her garments to reveal handprints? Well, it was
original, if heavy, um, handed. The “blood” (red fabric)
extending out from beneath her, and ultimately wrapping around
her, signifying both loss of godhead and maidenhead? Creative,
but gee, kind of. . .bloody. Still and all, this was Freyer,
take him or leave him. I would probably leave, for instance, the giant
Dalmatian (it was actually a comically slavering wolf), the
Carol Doda (use your imagination) and sundry other giant puppets that
seemed to signify lust and other Ring-related curses. I will definitely
leave the “sneak preview”
appearance of Siegfried in “Walkure,” as Brunhilde lies asleep
and Wotan wanders forlornly away. Siggy comes high-stepping
along with the golden Tarnhelm for a head (in the form of a gold top
hat, a reference to Weimar Republic aristocracy),
totally destroying the intended poignancy of the moment. But Freyer doesn’t do poignancy, so I guess I have to find that in
Seattle, or the Met.
Freyer’s own reductions
of the stories, as translated from German, seemed broad, if not
simplistic, at least at first reading. “Walkure,” he explained,
is all about pursuit, “Siegfried” all about waiting (and various
types of “penetration,” from the impaling of Fafnir the dragon
to the defloration of Brunhilde.) I initially took these
observations to be almost silly, quipping that it was like
saying that “Hamlet” is all about “thinking,” but I now see
them more as distillations of the incestuously
complex Ring circus. Valid distillations. This was not an easy
conclusion to reach, but was buttressed by the fact that Freyer’s stagings are
very carefully constructed to suggest his ideology. That’s
laudable. Witness the kind of otherworldly “running track” of
“Siegfried,” where all is indeed waiting. On its own terms, this
is thought-provoking stuff.
Of course, Freyer does
not help the audience to understand these things, especially with statements
such as “The theater reiterates the processes and progress of
the prelude and two subsequent evenings in fatefully inevitable
sequence and superimposition. A generator of chance made of
self-repeating parallel loops.” I mean, really---huh? Again,
May’s article is helpful, in at least trying to make the case
that this is not merely a case of Achim in Wonderland:
“Freyer’s elusive
repertory of symbols---a mix of dark vaudeville and surreal,
dreamlike archetypes---plays out in tandem with his geometric
imagery of circles, lines and spirals on a steeply raked
rotating disc. The anti-realistic visual dimension, where we see
characters from the past coexisting with the unfolding action,
generates an intriguing counterpoint to the Ring’s mythological
cosmos. ‘Timelessness was Wagner’s dictum for the Ring,’ says
Freyer, adopting it as his own modus operandi.”
If you think this reads
like a guy who has no actual grip on what’s going on, but is
trying to persuade himself and the reader that he does, I agree
with you. And yet, the more you think about these ideas and
intentions---while seeing the cycle in the span of a week---the more meaning they
acquire. Perhaps that is at the core of the issue here. Freyer
has invested enormous effort in a frighteningly complicated staging
that is inarguably
original, steering clear of conventional illustration of
the story and its more obvious philosophy---yet he does draw from Wagner’s own
ruminations about time, the corruption of virtue, and more. If,
for example, the
hero, Siegfried, is drawn as a cartoon-panel buffoon, it is
because---you eventually find out from interviews---that Freyer
views him as an “inbred” stumblebum incapable of complex
thought, let alone discriminative reason. It’s an interesting,
perhaps cynical idea of
heroism as sheer purity---and that purity stemming not merely from lack of exposure to
deceit, but from genetic defect. Or maybe that’s sheer nonsense.
But that, I have to
admit, is the fun of this production. It gets you thinking. It
forces you to assess what you are watching, and to discuss. It
alienates you from the emotional experience to the extent
that you have no other choice but to try to make sense of
things. I
don’t think this is always a valid measure of artistic worth,
but I do think it is, in this case. Yet, you might ask, isn’t this
phenomenon true of any
conventional staging of The Ring? Isn’t Wagner thought-provoking
enough on his own terms? I would say it’s a question of degree.
You are much more likely to be stimulated to wonder “why is
this?” when confronted with the arch, almost psychedelic
abstraction---and genuine thoughtfulness---of Freyer than with literal depiction. But that is not
the purpose of literal stagings, which are intended more to mine
the emotional and narrative value. It is
unapologetically the Brechtian purpose of Freyer. (Did I just
type
“Brechtian?”)
And if I didn’t see all
this at first, I would draw an analogy to the experience of my
cousin, Will, who is an ardent Ring devotee (who enjoyed Freyer’s
depiction immensely.) When Will first visited India, years ago,
the poverty, chaos, crowding, disease, and brutal reality
against which the populace struggled, left him aghast, deeply
repulsed. He could not wait to leave, and
simply rejected the society entirely. On his second visit,
freed from the shock and revulsion he had first experienced, he
was able to find much to engage his interest, in and in the end,
he fell in love with the place.
I won’t go that far with
Freyer’s “Ring,” but I can say that I’m glad to have made a
second visit.
BACK TO PAGE ONE |