|
 On Saturday, I went to see the Metropolitan Opera's production of Ambroise Thomas's Hamlet, presented Live in HD at Marcus Eastgate Cinemas in Madison. Eastgate is now Madison's second location for the Met broadcasts because the first, Point Cinemas, keeps selling out. This was my first experience with the wildly successful Live in HD series. I left with mixed feelings.
The performance itself was great. Simon Keenlyside is remarkable as the young Hamlet. I can't imagine any other singer maintaining the fine balance of subtle musicality and intense acting that Keenlyside does in this demanding role. It felt like a history making performance. Jennifer Larmore is thrilling as Gertrude, with James Morris serviceable as Claudius. Marlis Petersen as Ophelie was captivating in certain ways, but her voice had a softness that I found frustrating. Even in madness, it felt like she was never truly unhinged because her voice would not go to that visceral place.
I would agree with the general critical consensus that Thomas's opera is well worth dusting off. Despite the notorious mad scene and the violent emotions of the plot, the music mostly broods and wanders. Sometimes the wandering feels aimless and I wished for more flash and fury in the orchestra. Added to that, no melodies really stick, and at times it just sounded like a bundle of mid-nineteenth century operatic conventions. Still, the music does manage to heighten the drama, which, however removed from the original, is powerfully adapted. As the conductor Louis Langree said during intermission, it is a very French opera in that the words--the poetry of the French--almost play a more significant role than the music.
Regarding the production, the rugged, regal costumes, mostly in red wine hues, were excellent (even if predictably trench-coat heavy), but the sets seemed to me almost absurdly minimal, though I guess one could argue they added to the eerie emptiness of the piece's landscape. Either way, with the tightly framed cinematography of the Live in HD series, the sets don't matter all that much.
Which brings me to the Live in HD experience as a whole: it is not opera. It is a movie. This may seem obvious, and I know it has been said before, but I fear the distinction is slowly being forgotten. The live in HD opera experience does not in any way resemble the live in theater opera experience. First and foremost, the voices are filtered through recording devices: there is nothing that can recreate the experience of the unamplified voice. Second, the movie audience is practically never given the view that the audience in the theater has, which is to say a view of the whole stage, that beautiful framed box where acting singers create magic.
The way the operas are filmed more closely resembles TV soap operas, with predictable slow zoom-ins and lingering close-ups on facial reactions. More than once I was left hoping for Mr. Keenlyside to find a tissue offstage, so much time with his nostrils had I spent thanks to the Met film crew. Because the sets for Hamlet were intentionally sparse and the action character driven, this was tolerable. But the next Met broadcast of interest to me is the Robert Lepage Das Rheingold, where much of the impact of the production will surely depend on absorbing the full stage image. I can't imagine it will translate well, or accurately, to the movie screen.
One larger concern I left with was the long term effect of the close-up aesthetic of the series (a concern I've been told that set designer John Conklin has recently taken up). While the Met broadcasts are mostly attended by an audience even older than the live opera audience, there are the few young ones who will fall in love with the Met at the movies before they fall in love with real live opera, and they will be deeply frustrated in the auditorium when they cannot see every facial expression or hear every pianissimo. I've already heard it from the high school apprentices at Madison Opera, they just love the close-ups. This is fine if one can appreciate the two very different experiences, but there will eventually and may already be those who prefer their operas in the movie theater.
Which leads to the million dollar question: are the broadcasts taking away audiences from regional opera companies? From what I can discern, this is not the case. The Live in HD Series seems to appeal mostly to experienced opera goers looking to supplement their regular dose of the real deal, those who read about opera stars and Met productions in the New York Times and would like to be in the know. Plus in Madison at least, one can still get a ticket to an opera performance for as low as $16, compared to $24 at the movies. So it seems that right now the attendance situation is healthy, with 3D and HD happily coexisting, both fueling the other as far as awareness and enthusiasm is concerned.
But I would be more curious to learn if HD attendees are now donating to the Met, and if that means they are also cutting back on donations to their regional opera company. Again, nothing has led me to believe the latter is the case, but Renee Fleming was extremely convincing with her plea on Saturday. Caught up in the backstage excitement of it all, even I had a hard time resisting (the Met does a brilliant job of very prettily showing the nuts and bolts of their operation).
It sounds like I am complaining, and I probably shouldn't be. People are having a good time, the art form is gaining new recognition, and on a gut level, I enjoyed the broadcast because I got a taste of a rarely performed opera done very, very well. Would I change certain elements of the experience? Certainly. Do I think the broadcasts are harming local opera companies? No. But having now seen what all the hype is about, I can't help but feel some traces of concern.
As with all posts on CLASSICALIVE, any opinions expressed in this piece are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
|