Month: October 2009

Upon entering the Metropolitan Opera the group I was with immediately got a ‘whiff’ of that air that the elite only get to breathe. We were awed by the posh landscape and wealthy ticket holders that were not us. Before entering the plaza with a fountain that preceded the Met’s entrance, we were in Manhattan. Once here however, a different setting engulfed us; we were amidst the ‘white collar’. Even our attendance to Broadway-when we went to see West Side Story- could not be compared to how out of place we felt at the premier of Le Nozza di Figaro. Enough about us, and more about me. I don’t know about the group I was with, but I truly felt socially ‘shorter’ there. Even past the opera doors where all the audience members independent of color, race, social class, etc. are belittled to merely spectators of this great art, I felt inferior. No one could tell, but within me I was in great awe. I was truly amazed at the performance. Everyone else around me-those who typically attend the opening night of Metropolitan Opera- seemed almost indifferent. I even heard booing once the entire cast came out for their curtain call.

In high school I acted, sang, and danced in all four annual performances within the four years of my being there. I was convinced that the art of theatre was a lost one, and that its value over time had been depreciated. I was right. I could not say that I was truly bothered by any of it. My own memories of being on stage and the amount of work it took made me appreciate and become inspired by the incredible talent before me. Whatever I was once did, was nearly 1/100^th of what these performers do every night. Whenever there was an intermission in the four acts of the opera, I overheard people talking. I give my respect to those who commended, but to those who complained about it because of time I endow my pity. After the midpoint intermission I was flabbergasted at how many people left, and even at one person who fell asleep. Perhaps its just me who would not want this audience if I were in the limelight or my sensitivity to performers, but this show was one that I would not forget. Although I preferred Figaro’s performance to Susanna’s I could not call any of it bland. Even Cherubino was able to tickle the funny bone of all of us at least once throughout the Opera! Even if this is the only reason you enjoyed it-because of Cherubino- it gives you at least one reason to not boo. What stood out the most to me was the conductor and his orchestra, which he lead beautifully. Dynamics and rhythm variations made enhanced the comedy, seriousness, and playfulness of the scenes. Overall, the music and actors made the show. I left only feeling inspired and wishing those around me could value what I just saw.

The Marriage of Figaro Review

From the moment the curtain was raised, I was enthralled by the show. The lighting on the set was the first thing that caught my eye. It was beautifully crafted and looked extremely genuine. For a few seconds, I found myself remembering what time it was again. It was a great way to pull the viewer in immediately.

One of the show’s major strengths was the actors/singers. I think it can be said that everyone on stage was not only an amazing singer, but also a good actor/actress, which really added to the whole presentation. I felt myself getting goose bumps during some of the parts where the voices of the artists really moved me. The countess and Susanna were such characters. Another strong aspect of the show was undeniably the set. The passing of time was shown beautifully through the way the light hit the rooms. The peak moment was definitely when near the end, the set actually rotated. It left the audience members awed. The fact that the actors were able to perform so perfectly even on an obviously tilted stage added to the awe.

All this being said, there were some aspects of the show that took away from the overall experience. Most of these lied in the actual plot and not in the way it was presented. For example, the whole show was almost three and a half hours long and most of this was because lines were repeated many times throughout the whole opera. On the other hand, I do understand that since the music comes first in the Opera, the lyrics and dialogue were not the topmost priority. Even still, it did make it a bit tedious at times. In addition, the ending of the opera was way too rushed and did not seem genuine. It did not seem possible that the Count would have such a sudden change of heart and be forever loyal to his wife.

It is obvious that every production and show will have some shortcomings and some amazing qualities. Figaro, while not being perfect was still extremely enjoyable and it really brought the audience back to when it was written. It would be even better if the audience would be able to participate in the production by making comments, as it would have been in those days. The music, needless to say, was phenomenal and the orchestra outdid themselves. The Marriage of Figaro was a successful opera on the whole.

An audience member with no knowledge of music can evaluate an opera only by the effect it produces within him. Performed at the Metropolitan Opera on Tuesday September 22, Le Nozze de Figaro made such a lay opinion easy to form. The music engendered the sensations of mirth, suspicion, melancholy, mischief, and humor in listeners at precisely the moment called for by the dialogue. As it was an Italian libretto written from a French play, with a score produced by a German composer in 1786, translated into English, German, and Spanish for Met viewers in 2009, the music’s correspondence with the story clearly transcends both language and time. Further, the music’s compelling beauty and the plot’s eternally familiar theme of adultery and mockery of the upper crust appeal to the innate passions of humans now as they did when first performed. Figaro still makes people laugh.

In addition to the execution of Mozart’s score, the set of Figaro contributed a great deal to the nuances of Tuesday’s performance. For a student arriving at Lincoln center – with a head congested with numbered carbons, feet resentful of Figaro for dress shoe blisters, and gut expecting over three hours of high-pitched, absurdly costumed women in moody settings – the first scene was a stunning surprise. As the curtains rose, morning spilled into the theater. Soft white artificial sunlight like the illumination of an eastward facing window in open country just after sunrise flooded the stage from the left. The light brown wood of the high shelves, ladders and knickknacks filling the back wall created an invitingly rustic and elegant morning as Susanna and Figaro, clad in light and cheerful tones, fussed over marriage veils and beds on opposite ends of the stage. The pale and simple background well represented the lighthearted joy and hope of the young couple, and the lighting emphasized the initial clarity of the characters’ minds. The dark red robe of the count, the playfully light blue outfit of the young Cherubino, and the muted muddy colors of the scheming adults complicate the scene visually in reflection of the intrusion of a tightly interwoven society into the plot, agendas hidden behind false politesse.

The setting of the second act – the bedroom of the countess – stands out in the opera as a sharp collection of Figaro’s themes and its portrayal of the preoccupations of the aristocracy. To the left, a vanity emphasizes fixation with appearances. Center in the back is a bed, symbolic of sexual desire and marriage; it is built into the back wall as it is into the background of the characters’ lives. The screen to the right, acting as a shield for a variety of hidden characters, conveys the incessant concealment of oneself and one’s motives. The light, having fallen some with the day’s progress contributes to the declining coherence among the jumble of persons and lies.

Finally, after the third act takes place in a sort of hall or study, the set morphs with the transition to the fourth and final act with the most impressive staging drama of the night. The entire set rotates until a courtyard area is revealed, with the whole surface of the prior act tilted at a striking angle. The madness of the day, with the various plots to catch betrayal and mistrust in partners comes to its climax here. The lighting has greatly diminished to evening darkness, and it is not until the countess appears in sparkling white at the end that light again reappears strongly on stage, as clarity and again emerge.

Even for those without musical knowledge, Le Nozze de Figaro, as performed and staged at the Met this Tuesday, was an impressive experience.

This was my first Opera and I was really impressed.  As the overture started I began wondering how the orchestra can play through the whole show. The opera singers at least get to take a break from singing when they are either changing or their character is not supposed to be on stage, but the orchestra plays more or less constantly. Then as the curtains parted I saw the tilted stage and the people on it and I thought that it was amazing that the opera singers could not only sing and act, but they can do it on a tilted stage and make it look effortless.The lighting was also incredible. I never imagined it was possible to show on stage the day going by, by varying the amount of light coming in through the windows. I thought that could be done only in movies.

Reading over the plot of the opera helped me a lot. I knew what to expect and I could follow along with what was happening, since the opera was not in English. The translation of the words on the back of the seat in front of mine helped a lot, but it was a little bit annoying looking down all the time and I felt that I might miss something in the time it took me to read the translation.

I didn’t enjoy the actual plot of the story a lot though. I thought that it was a little too fake. For example, in the beginning Susanna and Marcellina don’t really like each other, but then as soon as they find out that Figaro is Marcellina’s son, they all of a sudden get along. That was not very realistic and in real life, they would probably start to hate each other even more because they will be a part of the same family. Another thing I didn’t really like about the plot was all the “pretending to be somebody else” at the end, because it was very confusing.

Being my first trip to the opera, I was a bit nervous and did not know what to expect. Stereotypes of operas being long, boring events only wealthy people attended coursed through my mind. Arriving at the Metropolitan Opera house I was intimidated by its sophisticated air. Sitting quietly, waiting for the performance to begin, I had butterflies in my stomach. Throughout the course of the opera, I fell in love with the atmoshere.

Immediately upon the rise of the curtain, I was taken aback by the breathtaking sets. Never in my limited experiences of high school productions and Broadway shows had I seen such beautiful work on the scenery. The sheer amount of detail which went into making the sets appear real was staggering to me. One of the more impressive aspects was the control of light; I was amazed that the stage crews could create the effect of light coming through the windows, and then change the light according to the time of day. Also, the tilt of the revolving stage drew me in, as I could see the entire room, making me feel as if I was there. The tilt also made me commend the talent of the actors, as I imagine walking and dancing on a tilted floor would be difficult. Before each act began, I was eager to see the next part of the set. Another part of the spectacle of the performance that I thoroughly enjoyed was the costumes. Each character’s costume looked as if it had come straight out of a museum, and I commend the meticulous work of whoever tailored them.

The opera itself was a joy to experience. I thought the plot shifts and twists were incredibly well done and humorous; Nozze di Figaro has become my new favorite classic comedy. Never having experienced live opera singing, I quickly realized that listening in person is starkly different from hearing a clip on the radio. The actor’s voices filled the entire opera house and evoked so many different emotions in me, depending on the mood of the song. I could not detect a single flaw while they were singing, whether that be attributed to my lack of musical training, or the actor’s perfection. My favorite parts were when multiple actor’s sang in unison, because I was so impressed by their synchronization. My only complaint throughout the whole show was not with the performance itself, but with the length of the intermissions. I wish that they had been shortened just a bit, as I felt the wait was too long.

When I first entered the Opera house, I did not know what to expect. This was my first time at an opera. If you were to ask the person sitting next to me, she would probably tell you I was riveted, my eyes glued to the stage. Even before the curtains had opened, I fell in love. While listening to the overture, I recognized it as a melody I heard, and loved, many times before. The music is not to heavy, it is catchy and stays in you head after it is over. Then the curtains opened and my eyes were presented with the most beautiful sets I had laid eyes on, act after act. What especially captured your attention was how the light progressed through the acts, from warm sunlight shinning through the large windows, to the cold moonlight of the last act. The lighting was so realistic and beautiful, I had a hard time believing it was coming from man made lights rather than a magical sun. The lighting gave life to the set and the actors’ faces. the costumes were equally realistic and beautiful, transporting us, effectively, back to the time when women wore large gowns and corsets.  The singing was beautiful, especially the arias. What I did dislike was the repetition of the same line over and over again, it made me want to fast forward through the drawn out conversations. The opera was hard to sit through for three hours, and I do know that there are operas longer than this one. The plot was a bit too much like a soap opera, with so many people misunderstanding and trying to get back at each other. At times the plot seemed to rushed and unrealistic, like at the end, when all of a sudden everyone was happy and all was forgiven in a matter of seconds. The acting was good too and it certainly added to the singing and the whole show.  Overall I have more praise than critique for this opera and it was an experience that made me want to come back for another performance.

Le nozze di Figaro is a funny and captivating storyline, transformed seamlessly and beautifully into poetic prose, and performed effusively and impressively at the Metropolitan Opera.

The storyline is not a cliche romance or tragedy, as many (I) would expect coming into an opera written so long ago. Instead, there are many comical events, many of which include miscues and ironic discoveries, such as those between the Count and Cherubino, who was masterful at playing a jester of sorts, drawing out many of the audiences laughs while not being too “over-the-top”.

The set was brilliant. While being clean and classical, it did not fail to engage the viewer with its vibrance. Like many other features of the performance, it was appealing and engaging, but most importantly served its purpose in complementing and magnifying the characters and their situations. With sets often cluttered with people hiding and running about, simplicity was absolutely a well thought out route.

The ending though, is a poor one. The Count spends over 3 hours betraying the Countess, and then, as if with the flick of a switch, the audience is expected to believe he has fallen back in love with the Count. Though playing up the satirical aspect of the opera, it is none the less too much of letdown for the casual viewer.

The tone is one of melancholy and lightheartedness, save for a few select moments magnifying a few of the characters emotion. The most notable of which takes place in Act 3, in which the Countess wonders what happened to the love between her and the Count and laments at its loss. Her voice is low and her movements work in complete synchronization with her singing, as she slowly drops to the floor, taking the viewer down with her in sympathy, as her voice drips with sorrow. Indeed the performances of the Countess and Rosanna were spectacular, both of whom playing their emotions with an understated tastefulness that was truly convincing.

The ending though, is a poor one. The Count spends over 3 hours betraying the Countess, and then, as if with the flick of a switch, the audience is expected to believe he has fallen back in love with the Count. Though playing up the satirical aspect of the opera, it is none the less too much of letdown for the casual viewer.

Nonetheless, I would certainly recommend Figaro to anybody, both experienced opera-goers and the not, as its greatest strength is its ability to entertain, a quality brought out by its comical and lighthearted nature.