What Can I Say About Figaro?

           Reviewing your favorite opera is no easy task. A part of me just wants to rave about how much I love Le Nozze di Figaro, but with this particular production, a lot of unique, creative choices were made to entertain today's audience. Being critical about something you deeply care about is nearly impossible—but I’ll try! So in a word, how can I describe this production? Modern, modern, modern!

            Mozart was pretty far ahead of his time when he created this opera. It addresses the class-system, ridicules nobility, and introduces early feminist ideas, all while wrapped in a gorgeously written, 18^th century package. The creative team didn’t have to do anything crazy with this production to make this opera beautiful—the composer accomplished that over 300 years ago—but they went crazy anyway!

            Usually, it’s the job of the Director (Richard Eyre) and the Set/Costume designer (Rob Howell) to pick up where the composer left off in terms of period and style. Since the opera is set during the Enlightenment in Spain, one could expect the curtain to rise on a brightly-colored set with elegantly dressed performers—pomp, frills, and puffy-sleeves galore. However, none of this is what you get. The curtain doesn’t even rise. Upon entering that enormous auditorium, the audience is greeted by a darkly lit, relatively bare castle that takes up about the whole stage. We don’t have to wait very long to actually see the performers. The action begins with the Overture, and the set starts to rotate like a life-size dollhouse. This way, we are given a glimpse of what the main players of the story are doing on this particular morning. The Countess slept in late, the Count was clearly up all night, Figaro is attempting to record measurements (with his feet?) and Susanna is bubbling with glee among the other servant girls while they try on her wedding veil. The rotating castle allowed for very fluid movement from scene to scene, and was a unique addition to this production. Even more surprising than the set was Mr. Howell’s costume designs. They don’t seem to come very far from 2014. We first see Almaviva in a plain, maroon satin robe, and his wife is in a floor-length matching dress, which wouldn’t be too out of place today. Figaro’s vest outfit (and tuxedo later on in the act) can probably also be found on some occupants of the Orchestra seats on opening night. Susanna, probably the most surprising of all, is in a standard 1930’s-esque maid costume, as opposed to the lavish, frilly dresses her actress usually dons in other productions. Modern definitely seems to be the theme here.

            In keeping with this modern direction, Mr. Eyre seemed to bring the character development a bit closer to the current century, too. Every single character had 3 dimensions, and at least one side that you could really relate to (well, except maybe Dr. Bartolo, but you can’t really help that) Even the members of the ensemble each had little unique things to do here and there, like awkwardly giving Susanna her flowers and generally interrupting the normal flow. It made them seem more like a bunch of humans rather than a static mass of singers that decorate the stage. Out of all the characters, the standouts for me were Susanna and Cherubino. Susanna had a more sassy, more flirty, even more promiscuous side to her character that isn’t usually brought out as much. She took advantage of her power over the men in this story rather than playing the helpless victim. Cherubino went from well-loved character to full out scene-stealer in this production. He remained the growing girl-crazy adolescent, but he also had a genuinely sympathetic side to him that other players sometimes miss. When he embraced Susanna one last time after Non Più Andrai, it didn't seem like he was trying to do anything silly, that he was whole-heartedly going to miss her when he left. I felt it.

            Vocally, a dress rehearsal is pretty difficult to judge. It’s hard to gauge how much the singers were holding back when they performed that day. I had listened to recordings of some of these singers prior to their performance, and a lot of the ornamentations and other fun little additions that I had heard on the internet just weren't present in their live performance—most of the arias were sung straight. Then again, back in high school, when I was working on a musical that was just days away from opening, I certainly didn’t sing out all of my best notes at a dress rehearsal. Of course, those practices weren’t in front of a nearly full audience at a world famous opera house, but still, a rehearsal is a rehearsal, right? Either way, most of the arias had all of the passion and emotion you’d expect, although a few of them (including my personal favorite, Deh Vieni, Non Tardar) were definitely sped up a bit. I guess for company Musical Director James Levine, modernity meant increased speed. (I’m skipping entirely over how beautiful the voices were—I could go on forever about that, and I’d rather leave that part up to you and your ears)

            If you open up your Met Opera 2014-15 season book, you’ll find Le Nozze di Figaro right under “New Productions.” New, indeed! The creative team managed to add many contemporary twists to a truly timeless classic. This may not be my favorite production of this opera out of all of the different versions I’ve seen, but it was simply breathtaking to get to hear some of my favorite music ever being made in the very same room I was sitting in. Bravissimi!

Deh vieni, non tardar, o gioja opera!

Le Nozze di Figaro is amazing on its own. We all know
that. I mean, come on- It's Mozart. Of course it's going to be amazing. So
naturally when you're on your way to see the dress rehearsal of the Met's
production of this opera, you're expecting to hear some gorgeous arias and see
the same poof-y dresses that every rendition of Figaro ever has used when they
do this play. You also, if you're like me and seen some past productions on the
good old YouTube, are probably expecting the same old one-room-per-scene set
that all the other directors have used when they were coming up with the set
for this, right? Well- if this is what you're expecting, prepare to have your
whole world turned upside down- or rather turned around- because this
production is like nothing else you have ever seen or heard before.

First let's talk about this cast and how perfect they all are together. From a musical 

stand point, their performances were, in
one word, phenomenal. I have heard many recordings from various casts all
around the world and nothing- absolutely nothing- compares to this cast (Renee
Fleming forgive me!). To be perfectly honest, I never thought that I would be
able to like the opera ever again after hearing the soundtrack played over and
over again (specifically the soprano aria Deh Vieni Non Tardar that Susanna
sings in Act IV) when my roommate was learning that aria during freshman year.
I never thought I’d be able to hear that aria again, let alone the whole opera
that went with it. Then I saw this production. Needless to say, I am once again
in love with Marriage of Figaro. From
an acting standpoint, I simply must break it down in order to do this cast
justice.

The actors that play the main couple, Figaro and
Susanna, have a chemistry that makes you wonder if they are actually a couple
in real life (and if they are not, they need to get married right now because
they are just so perfect together). A lot of times when two actors are paired
together as romantic interests, it’s very difficult to make the love believable
to the audience. This is a struggle that many a shows, including other
productions of Marriage of Figaro, have had since theater started. How does
someone pretend they’ve known someone their whole life? How can you simply
create a life-long friendship or romantic relationship? I don’t know how, but
this cast made it happen and for that I salute them. With this production, you
would never have questioned anyone’s relationship because the whole cast had chemistry.
When you saw Marlis Petersen (Susanna) and Ildar Abdrazakov (Figaro) together, you
would have thought that they were soon-to-be husband and wife. Their
relationship on stage had that sort of unconditional love and acceptance paired
with their attraction for one another and their playful teasing that captured
what true love really does look like. Petersen and Abdrazakov have taken their
roles off of the page and brought them to life in a new, sassy, physical way
that would make Mozart and his librettist Lorenzo Da Ponte proud. 

The two that played Count and the Countess, however,
were faced with a different but equally difficult challenge with their roles as
well. You see, the show is set around the pretense of a certain feudal right
that allowed noblemen to take the virginity of their servant’s wives on the
night of their wedding before the husband did. Count Almaviva abolished this
right after marrying the Countess Almaviva (aka Rosina for those of you who
know Marriage of Figaro’s prequel Barber of Seville),, but, after a few
years of marriage, decided that sleeping with the same woman was getting too
boring for him and started having affairs with other girls in the country. One
of these girls is Figaro’s fiancée, Susanna. Because Figaro and Susanna are
working class and don’t have money for a dowry, the Count decides to provide a
dowry and a new room and furniture for them in exchange for a little something
from Susanna as a thank you. The dowry is supposed to be a bribe (or a threat depending
on how you look at it) for the couple to let him reinstate his feudal right to
bed Susanna on her wedding night because he knows that they need that money to
start their life together. If Figaro tries to confront him directly, they’ll
lose the money and their jobs. But if Figaro doesn’t do anything, then the Count
gets to sleep with his wife. To make the Count look even worse, he also gets
furiously jealous whenever he so much as sees another man look at his Countess
and at one point accuses her of having an affair.

From this angle it would be easy to play the Count
as the stereotypical skirt-chasing husband that doesn’t care about his wife unless
she might be cheating on him. It would also be equally as easy to play the
Countess as the stereotypical heartbroken wife that is too hopelessly in love
her man to leave him. We’ve seen that done before in both the play and the
opera. In this rendition, Count Almaviva, played by Peter Mattei, and Countess
Almaviva, played by Amanda Majeski, are shown as the well-rounded individuals
that Beaumarchais
intended them to be. 

While both actors showed the traits that are prominent
in the libretto that were listed before, they also interacted with each other
in a way that showed the audience that, even though their marriage was broken
and Rosina was heartbroken and the Count didn’t realize that what he was doing
was what started it all, you could still tell that they cared about each other.
It’s so easy to make a character like the Count seem like he doesn’t give a
damn about his wife, but it’s not true. He does love her- and he makes a point
to never mistake his feelings of lust for other women as love. He does care about
what she does- people generally don’t threaten to break down doors they think
their wife’s lover is hiding behind when they’re indifferent to what the other
person does. He’s just used to always getting what he wants and doesn’t like it
when things don’t go his way. His character isn’t as straightforward as you
would think and Mattei does a fantastic job at showing all the little
complexities in the Count’s character in his performance. Majeski also does a
fantastic job as portraying the Countess as heartbroken yet strong woman that
is cunning and smart enough to scheme with her friend/maid Susanna to get back
at her ungrateful husband, but also loving and kind enough to forgive her husband
after she catches him. Mattei and Majeski do a phenomenal job in their performance
and I would hate to have to follow that.

However, the one character that really stole the
show was Cherubino- the horny little teenage boy that is always finding trouble
around the castle. Isabel Leonard’s portrayal of the quintessential
trouser role is one that every mezzo-soprano should aspire to become. To quote
Tina Turner, it’s “simply the best!!!!!!!” 

Now let's talk about this set. The director Richard
Eyre, sets the opera in a 18th-century manor house in Seville during the 1930s,
which means no petticoats, no powdered wigs, and no ornate 18th century
Spanish costumes. And instead of the regular four sets for the four acts of the
opera that most directors use, this set designer Rob Howell created a modern
looking castle that revolved around the stage. I repeat- the set revolved on
the stage. The fact that the actors were able to go from room to room in the
house made the most incredible impact on the flow of the show. The acts were
fluid and the audience could flow the characters as they went from Figaro’s
room to the Countess’s room to the room where the wedding would be held to the
garden rather than having to stop, close the curtain, change the set, and start
the next scene. Suddenly, every aria and recitative flowed seamlessly and you
were able to actually believe the opera actually took place in a castle outside
of Seville in Spain and not on a set piece that was made to look like a giant
room on the Met’s gigantic stage. Howell is a genius and should be given a
Kennedy Center Honor award right now just for how he has transformed this show (note:
he is also the set designer for this seasons production of Carmen and after
seeing this show, I can’t wait to see what he did with Bizet’s masterpiece!)

And there you have it. Met’s season opener’s
performance of Le Nozze de Figaro is surely going to be a legend among opera
lovers. Beaumarchais, Mozart and Da Ponte would be proud.

Photos from Le Nozze di Figaro

Le Nozze di Figaro

It would be a waste of time to write a post about how the Metropolitan Opera's new production of Le Nozze di Figaro is a "good" or even a "great" production. It's the Met. They have not had a truly bad opera in years. It would be equally pointless to comment on how great the cast was as front-runners in opera news are heading up the show. Saying that this is a great production would not be enlightening or surprising. Due to the advent of the internet, I have already seen quite a few "great" versions of Le Nozze di Figaro, including a few previous renditions from the Met. However, this particular production is not just a "good" production. Thanks to the creativity and direction of the directing and design, this might be one of the best shows the Met has ever offered.

The design of this show is novel and fresh. The first thing one notices when they sit down is the set. Reminiscent of a castle and yet modern, there are two smaller towers on either side of the stage and a larger tower in the center. As the familiar overture plays, the cast begins acting out scenes that might have taken place in the castle. The floor under the center tower begins to rotate, revealing that there are actually four larger center towers, each representing a room of the Count's castle. All the scene changes go from one room to another, which means that there do not have to be any breaks in the story or music. Instead, every transition is remarkably fluid. Likewise, the costuming and directing also takes the classic story in a new direction. Instead of using classic or current costumes, the theme of clothing is like the 1940s, complete with suits and flash bulb cameras.

With its all-star cast, impeccable direction and the Met's quality, this production of Le Nozze di Figaro is one of New York's best.