RIPOSTE
by RIP RENSE |
|
RENSE
REBUTS SWED'S "SIEGFRIED" REVIEW
(Oct. 5, 2009)
Mark Swed
is, of course, a vastly knowledgeable music critic, with
a distinctive and engaging writing style and distinguished
resume. His history is, to a great extent, one of nobly
championing performances and interpretations that are breaks
from tradition, even radical breaks. While it is laudatory to
cheerlead for novelty and innovation, it can also stray into
championing newness for its sake, and I fear this has
been the case with Swed.
I write as one who loves
nothing better in music than for a tried-and-true staple of the
operatic or symphonic repertory to sound (or appear) fresh,
invigorated. I think back to Giulini’s L.A. Philharmonic
renderings of Brahms’ second symphony, and Beethoven’s third,
with some awe. It was as if I’d never heard these pieces before,
instead of hundreds of times. More recently, I cite new L.A.
Philharmonic conductor Gustavo Dudamel’s terpsichoric reading of
Berlioz’s “Symphonie Fantastique,” which I never imagined could
seriously compel my ears again, let alone be more fun than a
barrel of monkeys.
RENSE
REVIEWS "SIEGFRIED"
HERE |
What’s more, I have
immensely enjoyed film director William Friedkin’s crafty
staging of L.A. Opera’s “Bluebeard” by Bela Bartok, as well as
his
cinematic rendering of Puccini’s “Suor Angelica,” that I found
beautiful, moving. David Hockney’s pop-artish abstract expressionist
sets for “Tristan?” A joy. L.A.’s wooden funhouse for
Shostokovich’s “Lady MacBeth of Mtsensk” worked admirably, and I
got a kick out of Woody Allen’s rethinking of “Gianni Schicchi”
in filmic black-and-white a la late ‘40’s Italian farces.
But I do not support
radicalism for its own sake, and I believe that Swed strays into this territory. There is a nearly panicky supposition
in his reviews suggesting that music and opera are dying out due
to “traditionalism,” and only novelty can save them. In fact, I suspect
this fuels his frequent campaign on behalf of experimental
approaches, such as the L.A. Phil stage performance of “Tristan”
with lots of Bill Viola video projections, for random example. (My feeling: video generally
distracts from, rather than embellishes, the music at hand.
Though I freely confess to having enjoyed the 2008 L.A. Phil
premiere of Michael Gordon's "Dystopia" and accompanying film by
Bill Morrison, not to mention those good old nasty dinosaurs in “The
Rite of Spring” sequence of “Fantasia.”)
Swed’s attitude, I think,
generally boils down to newness and radicalism somehow “saving”
what he characterizes as an imperiled art form. The fact that
symphonic music and opera are more popular and pervasive today
than at any time in history, with the majority of performances
distinctly traditional in bent, does not mute his proclamations,
which can border on the hysterical. This is a man who, after
all, has rhapsodized in print that the radically designed Disney Hall might
“change the world.” and "Frank Gehry's concert hall interior,
designed like a ship, becomes an actual vessel for a spiritual
journey."
Yet I think the critic
has topped himself in raving about what I find to be the
downright silly and idiosyncratic treatment of Wagner’s “Der
Ring des Nibelungen” by German artist Achim Freyer. I am, not
incidentally, hardly alone in my dismissal of the Freyer “Ring,”
as is evidenced by a healthy chorus of boos among the requisite
bravo-shouting competition following the Sept. 29 debut of the
third “Ring” opera, “Siegfried.” As well as the scores of
mostly
disagreeing comments from
readers following all of Swed’s
reviews and commentaries concerning this “Ring.”
In his
“Siegfried” write-up, Swed has tried to dismiss criticism of
Freyer---all booing, especially---as the snarling of
“traditionalists” and “Wagnerians.” This is most disingenuous on
his part. He knows very well that there are solid, perfectly
legitimate grounds for rejecting Freyer’s “Ring” conceit, which
all but ignores the narrative arc, dramatic tension, settings,
intricacy of character relationships (and, by Swed’s own
admission, is not geared to the singing!)
By any measure, Freyer’s
is an extremely high-risk, controversial staging, from the fact
that it takes place entirely behind a scrim, entirely in
darkness, and that the figures on the stage barely move. . .to
costumes that look
scavenged from a Cirque du Soleil plane
crash. What's more, to decipher meaning from Freyer’s purported
“interpretation” is, at best, a low-rent parlor exercise in Jung
and Freud. He avers that “Siegfried,” a highly episodic, rather
action-packed saga, is about “waiting” (really), and
“penetrating,” whether dragons or women. Thus Wagner becomes
fodder for glib, intellectual bull session.
Or, to put it a bit more
crudely, and borrow a phrase from the artist, Don Van Vliet:
“It’s like trying to find
out what the bull ate.”
Throw in the Alice in
Wonderland parade of giant pots, pliers, mutant dogs,
zeppelin-sized breasts, hairdos that Cher’s designer would kill
for, and well, it would seem reasonable to think there is much
room for criticism here, and that such criticism would hardly be
the sour declamation of stodgy “traditionalists,” as the critic
suggests. For a man of Swed’s education, experience, and
erudition to make this claim is such an unconvincing pose, yet
it is a position he doggedly takes. To what end?
Likely this: Swed is
probably erring on the side of endorsement, on behalf of
L.A. Opera, partly because he realizes that this $32 million
“Ring” could prove a make-or-break proposition for the company
(which radically cut back this season, including a world
premiere of “Il Postino,” to accommodate Freyer), and partly
because of his penchant for endorsing arch revisionism.
Here is Swed on
“Siegfried:”
“Freyer received boos
Saturday, just as the German artist had for his earlier ‘Ring’
productions of ‘Das Rheingold’ and ‘Die Walkure.’ But he also
got cheers, and they were adamant.”
The second sentence reads
a bit like, “The good guys won!”, doesn’t it? It is not news
when a production receives cheers. Standing ovations have become
clichés, especially in Los Angeles, where they are nearly
automatic. Swed knows this. It is news when a production
receives boos, especially in "it's all good" Los Angeles, and in this case, when
it continues not only to receive boos, but when the boos have
increased, as they did from the previous “Ring” opera, “Die Walkure.” This is significant, yet Swed, whose critical duties
include being a reporter, downplays it.
Distortion, pure and
simple.
The last thing L.A. Opera
wanted, or needed, was booing for its first-ever “Ring” Cycle.
This is, after all, an event that has been planned and touted
for many years, and at one point included an announced $50
million version to have been done in cooperation with Industrial
Light and Magic, and staged at the Shrine Auditorium (it became
a casualty of 9/11.) Any amount of booing for this $32 million
undertaking is alarming, let alone the amount registered after
“Siegfried.” Then there is the fact that there were scores, if
not hundreds, of empty seats in the house, which is shocking,
given the amount of publicity and anticipation. Swed did not report this.
His “Siegfried” review
continues:
“Traditional
Wagnerians have reason to be bewildered. Those of us who
have admired Freyer's grotesqueries for many years have equal
reason to be bewildered. It all boils to how much you value
bewilderment.”
If you’ll forgive an
obvious quip, what a bewildering statement this is. So one must
conclude that “traditional Wagnerians” (reverse snobbery
implication: he is not among them) “value bewilderment” less
than he and other operagoers do? What, one wonders, is so
desireable about bewilderment? Is this an artistic aesthetic to
be enjoyed? Swed has coyly presented the concept as some kind of
asset. Does he exclaim excitedly to intermission companions,
“Oh, I loved the bewilderment!” Perhaps he does. It might be
stodgy, but I confess to a preference for intelligibility.
More of Swed’s thinly
veiled condescension toward “traditionalists” and “Wagnerians”
emerges in his acknowledgement that Freyer’s “Ring” does not
serve the singing. (Never mind that it is among the most
demanding singing in all of opera, that singing constitutes much
of the reason for attending, and. . .much of the reason for the
opera.) He writes:
“Heavy costumes, the
steeply raked and moving turntable as well as flashing lights
are all obstacles for singers. Furthermore, Freyer provides
little in the way of sound-reinforcing surfaces. This is not,
essentially, a singer's ‘Ring,’ which is one more upset to
traditionalists. But then, the Chandler is not an acoustically
apt space for Wagnerians, who happen to be an endangered
species, anyway.”
(It is even less of a
"singer's Ring" than he might think, considering that John
Treleaven, who plays "Siegfried," injured his ankle on Freyer's
dark, angled, bizarre set during an Oct. 5 performance!)
You’ll pardon a “wow”
here. First, the director relegates the singers to second
fiddle---in a Wagner opera, no less---and Swed remarks casually,
“this is not. . .a singer’s ‘Ring.’” Isn’t singing rather
central to the proceedings here? Isn’t singing the, oh, main
point of opera? Yet because Freyer’s “Ring” is less interested
in the singing, or in illustrating the singing, this is only
upsetting to, Swed writes, “traditionalists.” Isn’t this a bit
like saying that a football game without a ball might upset
old-school fans?
This is pure Swed. Revisionist interpretation and staging
is merely objectionable to “traditionalists," he would have you
believe. So you are a
“traditionalist,” he implies, if you are bothered by the fact
that Freyer does not treat "Siegfried" like "a singer's opera."
That’s like being indifferent to the color, blue, in Picasso’s
Blue Period, isn't it? What operagoer, “traditionalist”or
otherwise, would not find this wrong-headed? Need it be added
that the critic altogether ignores, if not slights, the
“non-traditionalists” who object to Freyer’s conceit? I count
myself as one.
To read Swed, you would
conclude that there are two kinds of opera fans: stuffy,
close-minded, unreceptive “traditionalists,” and progressive,
modern, free-thinking liberals (such as the critic.) Nothing in between. A false
construct, and one frequently found in his reviews: the
depiction of opponents of "new" and "different" art as being
old-fashioned, unadventurous.
So it’s all the more amusing that Swed devoted an entire
commentary in the L.A. Times some months ago to denouncing
booing at the Freyer “Ring” (led by this columnist) on the basis
that it is a “mind-closing activity” and an “expression of
rigidity in the face of invention.” Further, he linked booing to
Internet “bile in the name of free expression.”
What, then, is he doing
in his “Siegfried” review---and all the other reviews where he
maligns so-called “traditionalists”---but booing them in print?
Next we come to
another in the long, long list of instances in which the
critic takes a swipe at the acoustics in the Dorothy Chandler
Pavilion. This is a fetish of Swed’s. He seems absolutely
obsessed with this subject, having made it the centerpiece of
his years of campaigning for the construction of Disney Hall.
During that time, hardly a review of the L.A. Phil in its old
hall passed without Swed groaning over, decrying, wringing his
hands about the dreaded Pavilion acoustics. Never mind how
successfully these acoustics served the orchestra and various
opera companies for what, thirty years? Never mind happy
audiences. To read Swed, you would think the Pavilion was the
old, defunct Philharmonic Hall, or a dilapidated barn in need of
a new roof. And now that he has his Disney Hall---no less than
former L.A. Phil general manager Ernest Fleischman has credited
Swed with getting the Silver Stunt built---he still can’t resist
being rude to old Dorothy:
“. . .the Chandler is not
an acoustically apt space for Wagnerians, who happen to be an
endangered species, anyway.”
Two birds with one stone.
Deride the Pavilion acoustics, and slam “Wagnerians” (read:
traditionalist fanatics) as an “endangered species.” How facile.
Here Swed is so disingenuous that it almost calls into question
his credentials for remaining a critic at what’s left of one of
America’s big newspapers. Wagnerians endangered? Then how would
one explain the indisputable fact that Wagner operas are
performed more often around the world than ever before? That the
“Ring” cycle is not only performed more than at any other time
in history, but that it is consensually regarded as any opera
company’s crowning achievement? That “Ringheads” routinely fly
all over the world to attend cycle after cycle? That opera
itself, let alone Wagner, has never been more widely embraced? That there are Wagner Societies around the
world?
How does Swed explain
Seattle Opera having made its highly successful reputation on
producing “The Ring” since the mid’70’s, partly enabling the
construction of a magnificent new McCaw opera house? That this
year’s three Seattle “Ring” cycles under general director
Speight Jenkins sold out, attracting attendees from dozens of
countries? That “Ring” recordings and paraphernalia are an industry? That newspapers all over the world cover “Rings” as
major artistic events, and that the New York Times devoted a ton
of space to a
travel piece about the Seattle production? That the
ever-weird goings-on with the descendants of Wagner and their
control of the annual Bayreuth Festival are
routinely examined at length in any number of media?
Seems these
endangered “Wagnerians,” who Swed seems to regard so
dismissively, have done rather a lot to shore up opera revenues
throughout the world. More, one suspects, than the likes of
Achim Freyer and other shallow radicals. By the way, just what
is wrong with being a “Wagnerian,” and what exactly does that
term mean? Someone who greatly admires and enjoys the music of
Wagner? Is there something contemptible about that? Why should
“Wagnerians” be marginalized? Swed doesn’t address these things,
and merely engages in slur.
Unless I misunderstand
what he has written, there are only a couple realistic
conclusions to reach concerning the critic's assertions about
Wagnerians and “traditionalists:" he is skewing things to serve
his purpose in promoting radicalism, L.A. Opera, and the Freyer “Ring," or he
is or being slipshod in his research. I know Swed, and he is too intelligent to believe such simplifications.
As for the Chandler not
being “acoustically apt for Wagnerians,” Swed himself noted in
his review that since the removal of a screen (initially placed
over the orchestra to ensure invisibility, as per Wagner’s
direction), the orchestra has “much more presence.” Heaven
forbid that he say it any more forcefully, lest he verge on
complimenting the Pavilion’s acoustics. In truth, the difference
in sound projection was jaw-dropping, and the orchestra surged
and roared, and whispered and cooed, sounding as if it was
inhabiting. . .a great concert hall. Because it was. Aside: the
sound (and interpretation) was richer and bigger than it was at
the Seattle “Ring,” which I attended.
Speaking of which, if
L.A. Opera General Manager Placido Domingo had merely
transplanted the literally staged Seattle
production to L.A., or at least emulated it, he would have certainly had a tremendous hit
on his hands, and for about $8.5 million (the cost of that far
more successful and unanimously critically endorsed “Ring”)
instead of $32 million (which would have made room for "Il Postino.") Think: Seattle’s staging and James Conlon’s
conducting. In Seattle, designers not only made a forest look
like a forest and a dragon like a dragon, but did so---and Swed
would consider this a contradiction in terms---imaginatively.
The closing scrim-aided pastiche in Seattle's “Gotterdammerung”
was far more moving and effective than any of Freyer’s more
expensive effects, and just as “progressive.”
Yet Swed writes in the
close of his “Siegfried” review:
“With each ‘Ring’ opera,
L.A. Opera grows taller.”
To which I would add:
And the seats grow
emptier.
And the boos grow louder.
RENSE'S
RING COVERAGE. . .
Reviews and
commentaries of L.A. Opera's controversial staging of
Wagner's "Der Ring des Nibelungen."
Val-hell-a
(Feb. 25, 2009)
Rense reviews "Das Rheingold," the first in the series of
four operas.
The Lonely Booer
(Apr. 8, 2009)
Rense reviews "Die Walkure," the second in the "Ring" cycle.
Also, Rense reacts to L.A.Times music critic Mark Swed
noting the presence of a "lonely booer" letting loose at
the sight of director Achim Freyer. The "lonely booer"
was. . .Rense.
A
Boo For Swed (Apr. 8, 2009)
Rense comments in sidebar on Swed's assertion that
listening to Wagner might make you "want to keep company
with Hitler."
The Lonely Booer
2
(May 1, 2009)
L.A. Times music critic Mark Swed boos back at Rense, and
Rense responds.
Southland
Uber Alles (July 29, 2009)
Rense comments on L.A. County Supervisor Mike Antonovich's motion to
quash a citywide "Ring" Festival on the basis that
Wagner was an anti-Semite.
Siggy Stardust (Oct. 5, 2009)
Rense Reviews L.A. Opera's "Siegfried."
Rense Rebuts L.A. Times's Mark Swed on "Siegfried"
(Oct. 5, 2009)
Rense counters Swed's cheerleading for absurd Achim
Freyer production. |
BACK TO
PAGE ONE
|