It is not often that the opera world is shaken at an international level: its conflicts are usually domestic, internal and often petty. But a recent bombshell dropped by Deborah Voigt seems to have caused the awakening of a previously untapped common awareness unifying opera-lovers all over the globe. Voigt has recently revealed that she was sacked from the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, where she was engaged to sing Ariadne, because she is too large to fit into the black cocktail dress which is part of the design for the production.
All of a sudden, papers all over the world are reporting on what has now become ‘an incident’, and opera discussion boards on the web have gone mad. It is not the political incorrectness of the incident that is questioned, although somebody suggested the singer should talk to any association that protects against discrimination in the work place for fat people, should such associations exist.
It is really not much to do with Deborah Voigt herself. What has become the focus of the problem is the fact that a production decision has priority over a singer who has made Ariadne a signature role; Voigt is no doubt one of the best Ariadnes on the market, providing yet more confirmation that on today's operatic stage, production is given priority over vocal and even musical values. A contributor to a discussion forum appropriately questioned, ’When did the stage director take over the artistic director and the general manager’s job when it comes to casting? I do not want some stage director deciding who I will be hearing and who I won’t be hearing next season. There is someone else, much more knowledgeable about opera, who is paid to do that job’.
Part of the irony is that the person who is taking most of the blame for the Voigt affair is Peter Katona, the Director of Casting at the Royal Opera House, who has justified the decision taken by himself, the artistic director and the producer on grounds of ‘theatrical credibility’.
|
But what is not credible about a large lady portraying what is probably the greatest parody of the ‘operatic diva’ in the entire operatic repertoire? Looking at it, it would seem that the one who has a problem with understanding the ‘theatrical value’ of the piece is the producer, a story far too common in today's theatres.
I still haven’t managed to comprehend what has caused the rise of the producer to a figure of primary importance in opera, and the craze for regie-theater; maybe it is an historical or political phenomenon. But amongst its consequences, I believe, is a situation in which opera as an art form is now misunderstood by its own kind. In the wake caused by the reaction to the ‘stand and deliver’ school of operatic performance, opera as theatre and drama seems to have obliviated what is the basic nature of the art form. This nature is not theatrical, not musical, but essentially vocal.
What differentiates opera from any other form of theatrical or musical entertainment is its use of the singing voice and when the right voices are missing, opera can only be a parody of itself, even if it looks perfect (whatever that means). You can have actors who look the part, whether it is a sixteen year old Salome or a tall, dashing Rodolfo and singers who sing from the pit, but that is not opera. I am not sure what it is.
If looks take priority over voices (and we know that great voices don’t always come in what our image-conscious culture considers ‘good packaging’), the whole form loses its raison d'etre. Do operatic managements really understand their audiences, when they pigeon-hole them with television, movie, or pop audiences? Maybe they should forget market research and give opera-goers more credit.
Petra Torre
|
