Leaving the music history lecture on Wednesday with my friend to go and have a coffee we walked in a sort of stunned silence. My friend broke it first:
“I don’t understand. Why would you pay thousands of dollars on the perfect singers and period instruments, and then do that with the set?”
She was referring to the unfortunate rendition of Rinaldo by G. F. Handel we had just watched. A review written by Peter Wells describes the 2001 DVD's situation as this: “it is currently the convention in the staging of baroque opera to seek historical accuracy in the musical aspects but to juxtapose this with modernity of staging, setting and costume.” But he also notes that no one, not even director, explains why Rinaldo looks like a cross between an accountant and mafia member, nor why the set in Act 1 has wallpaper covered in palms with eyes drawn on them (honestly, whoever thought Pan’s Labyrinth would be a good basis for décor?).
 |
| I kid you not, this is an image from it. |
Rinaldo was the first original Italian opera to be performed in London, and it goes something like this: Rinaldo is a knight of the first crusade who along with Goffredo (yes, Godfrey) is laying siege to Jerusalem to capture it. Goffredo’s daughter Almerina is with them and she is the love interest of Rinaldo. Armida the sorceress is on the enemies side and sees the only way of winning is to capture Rinaldo, so she goes and steals aforementioned love interest. In turn Rinaldo mounts a rescue mission which ultimately means he is caught in Armida’s trap. Armida then falls in love with him and so he manages to escape after spurning her love. There are a series of battles, the crusaders win, and all live happily ever after (with the surprising inclusion of Armida, who converts to Christianity, which is quite different from the original story).
I would without hesitation describe Handel’s music as sublime. At age 25 when he arrived in England he was writing music scarcely rivaled to this day, hence we still listen to it and have DVD adaptions of it. And considering there are no more castrati today, I would say he would have been pleased with David Daniels' performance in this instance. With eyes shut, it sounded as authentic as any good rendition of Handel. As a piece of advice though, I would recommend to keep your eyes shut.
 |
| Somewhere out there, zombie-Handel has his eyes firmly shut. |
But this begs the question: Should we be reviving and modernizing things of the past? Is there value in mangling Monteverdi, or shifting Shakespeare? I would say yes, though this causes greater difficulty in operas than plays.
For heaven’s sake, maintain your form!
This would be my cry to all those who wish to bring new interest or enthusiasm for something that has long past. If you have kept the original script and not touched it, then do not alter the period set and costumes. Having a 1920s (though seriously, it looks more 1940s) set and keeping the musical style as accurately as you can to the 1710s is only going to cause confusion. My advice would be to just scrap anything remotely 1940s if you can. Anachronisms are just not pretty.
An example of modernization working can be seen in the more recent adaptions of Shakespeare which appeal to youth such as Ten Things I Hate About You (Taming of the Shrew) or She’s The Man (Twelfth Night). The key in this is if you have a modern setting, modernize the language.
I understand that there’s a huge limitation with modernizing an opera as opposed to a play. Composers have been deified and not one critic who knows his Handel would be happy with anyone modernizing the words and music to make it more appealing to youth. The story of Rinaldo has enough drama in it though to draw in a crowd if there were a revamp of the words: Battles, love triangles, pretty woman getting kidnapped. But I see little chance of anyone trying to alter the original masterpiece that it was without going insane. “Improving” and “Handel” do not go in the same sentence.
Unfortunately in all of this, I can only offer one simple solution: do not alter period setting and costume.
 |
| No opera should have polka-dots. I'm sure it's a rule somewhere. |
In conclusion, I would like to say that this particular version of Rinaldo should have either done everything in period costume or set, or had Armida as a home-wrecker and Rinaldo’s voice dropped an octave. Or two.
What are your thoughts? Comment below.
Further readings:
• William Weber, ‘Handel’s London: Social, Political, and Intellectual Contexts’, in The Cambridge Companion to Handel, ed. by Donald Burrows (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 45–54.
• Peter Wells, review of Rinaldo, 2001. http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2003/aug03/Handel_Rinaldo.htm
• Danielle Zimmerman, ‘Your definitive guide to the 10 best Shakespeare movie adaptations’ from Hypable.com. http://www.hypable.com/2013/06/21/best-shakespeare-movie-adaptations/
• Rinaldo synopsis from Handel House Museum. http://www.handelhouse.org/discover/george-frideric-handel/opera-synopses/rinaldo
Further listenings/videos:
• Full recording of Rinaldo: http://canterbury.naxosmusiclibrary.com.ezproxy.canterbury.ac.nz/streamw.asp?ver=2.0&s=31852%2Fcanterburynml09%2F3257761
• Excerpt from the Rinaldo watched in class: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0WsMimJ8S4
• Possibly the closest example to what a castrati would sound like for Rinaldo from the film Farinelli (and it even includes how to become one, score): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuSiuMuBLhM
No comments:
Post a Comment