Olga (Oksana Volkova), Eugene Onegin (Dmitri Hvorostovsky), and Tatyana (Nicole Car) Images: Bill Cooper/ROH |
Royal Opera
House
Tatyana – Nicole Car
Eugene Onegin – Dmitri
HvorostovskyYoung Tatyana – Emily Ranford
Mme Larina – Diana Montague
Filipyevna – Catherine Wyn Rogers
Olga – Oksana Volkova
Peasant Singer – Elliot Goldie
Young Onegin – Tom Shale-Coates
Lensky – Michael Fabiano
Monsieur Triquet – Jean-Paul Fouchécourt
Captain – David Shipley
Zaletsky – James Platt
Guillot – Luke Price
Prince Gremin – Ferruccio Furlanetto
Kasper Holten (director)
Mia Stensgaard (set designs)Katrina Lindsay (costumes)
Wolfgang Göbbel (lighting)
59 Productions (video)
Signe Fabricius (choreography)
The first revival of Kasper
Holten’s Royal Opera production of Eugene
Onegin (reviewed here
the first time around) brought one major advantage, undoubtedly worth the visit
to Covent Garden alone, namely the conducting of Semyon Bychkov – and, of
course, alongside that the playing of the Orchestra of the Royal Opera House.
Vocally, it was for me far more of a mixed bag, although the audience seemed
wildly enthusiastic. As for the staging itself, I was less convinced than last
time. There remains a good deal to have one think – presumably that was the
reason for the sadly predictable display from the house’s first-night
animal-noises department – but the changes made, combined with lesser acting
strength, above all in the title role, sometimes makes for a confusing evening
dramatically.
Young Tatyana (Emily Ranford) with her elder self |
The central idea of memory is a
good one; it is, after all, the work’s own. The bookish Tatyana receives her
inspiration through recollection and the haunting of the present – or, at
times, perhaps the future – by the central pair’s younger selves has
considerable effect. It would have more, however, were there more dramatic
commitment on Dmitri Hvorostovksy’s part; especially before the interval, he seemed
content merely to stand and sing. Moreover, his ‘double’ lacks the charisma of
Tatyana’s. The production offers confusion of its own; it is, for example,
unclear – and not, I think, in a productive fashion – why the elder Tatyana
sings the Letter Scene to her younger self. Would it not make more sense if
singers and ‘doubles’ swapped roles as appropriate (not the actual artists, of
course, but they could surely don younger and older ‘appearance’ and costumes).
Memory can play tricks, but I am not sure that is the point being made here;
perhaps it is, and I missed it.
More fundamentally, though, I
felt more strongly than last time the loss of what is surely the underlying
theme, even if involuntarily so on the composer’s part, of the opera. This is a
staging whose heterosexuality would warm the heart of Vladimir Putin. Perhaps
that allows greater agency on Tatyana’s part; I was especially intrigued by
thinking of her writing her drama as a counterpart to the ‘masculine’ – and, rightly
so, whatever the uncomprehending complaints one heard, often from people who
know not their Prague
from their Vienna – writing of Holten’s
Don Giovanni. That is not
strongly pursued, though, partly, I think, as a consequence of less dancing
than first time around; the doubles are there enough to irritate, but not long
enough now really to make their point fully coherent. That Tatyana is a
creation of a gay man – and surely this screams from the score – there is no
visual sign at all. More damagingly, though, the principal relationship in the
opera, that between Onegin and Lensky, is merely that of the frightened
surface. Of the homoeroticism that is less a subtext than the text of a non-ideological understanding of the work we again
see nothing. So Lensky is merely jealous of Onegin’s ‘flirtation’ with Olga.
That the truest and most deadly love is between the two men is entirely
ignored: a retrograde step indeed. I do not think for one moment that this
is intended in Russian
Minister of Culture fashion, but the likes of Vladimir Medinsky would have
little to argue with – which should give pause for thought.
Mme Larina (Diana Montague) and Lensky (Michael Fabiano) |
It is, then, perhaps a little
unreasonable to complain that the singers play their roles in such a way,
although I am sure that there was greater psychological depth in the relationship
between Simon Keenlyside’s Onegin and Pavol Breslik’s Lensky. Hvorostovsky proved
a little more engaged dramatically after the interval, but wooden indeed before,
although, given his recent travails, it was impossible not to feel sympathy for
him. His singing was often deeply impressive vocally, but that is not
necessarily enough; memories of Keenlyside were too strong for me. Mine
certainly seemed to be a minority view concerning Michael Fabiano’s Lensky; he
received a roar of applause both at the end and – deplorably – during the fifth
scene. I could not question Fabiano’s commitment, which put that of almost
everyone else to shame. However, for me, the timbre and, more important, the emoting
style of his performance did not quite sound ‘right’ for the work and the
character, more suited perhaps to the world of Italian verismo. It was, I have
to admit, a performance very much in keeping, though, with the heteronormativity
of the production; this was, as I said, a committed performance – of a lovelorn
young man distraught at the loss of his girl. Nicole Car offered an attractive
soprano voice as Tatyana, and acted well too; I did not, though, find a great
deal of insight beyond that. Memories of Krassimira Stoyanova, as with those of
her Onegin, were not effaced. Oksana Volkova was a decent enough Olga, but
again without any particular individuality. The stand-out performance was for
me Jean-Paul Fouchécourt’s deliciously stylish Monsieur Triquet, sung with such
perfect attention to words and line that I longed to hear it again. Ferruccio
Furlanetto’s Prince Gremin was a little rough around the vocal edges at times,
but still interesting to hear. Diana Montague as Mme Larina and Catherine Wyn
Rogers as Filipyevna shone as last time. The choral singing was excellent too,
save – and here some of the soloists were at fault too – for a few too many
discrepancies between stage and pit.
It was, however, as I started
by saying, in the pit that the greatest honours lay. Bychkov had the orchestra
sound – as it always does under him – as one of the greatest in the world,
utterly responsive to his touch. The strings were febrile and warmly Romantic, the
utter antithesis of any absurd ‘period’ affectations; the woodwind were as full
of character as I have ever heard in this work. Implacable brass at full
throttle might almost have been from St Petersburg. Rubato, especially the
lingering at the end of phrases, was greater than one often hears, always with
its own justification, always having one sit up and listen, both to savour the
moment and to breathe out when the story resumed. Broader tempo variations were
again well calculated, dramatically convincing. There was some breathtakingly
soft playing – for instance, the ravishing sonic cushion for M. Triquet’s final
lines – which could not have stood in greater, more tellingly intimate contrast
with the Fatal climaxes. Bychkov understands what is and what is not ‘symphonic’
in Tchaikovsky’s score – and communicated it in what, Daniel
Barenboim notwithstanding, is probably the best-conducted, certainly the most orchestrally variegated, performance of Eugene Onegin I have heard.