BENJAMIN
BRITTEN – A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM - GLYNDEBOURNE FESTIVAL OPERA - 1981
First the libretto.
There is little to say about the
libretto of this opera adapted from the eponymous play by William Shakespeare.
Their adaptation is essentially a shortening of the text but it is mostly a
text that comes directly from Shakespeare’s play, hence in Shakespeare’s
language which is poetical, musical and extremely rich, in the case of this
comedy, in humor, even satire of both society and the practices or customs of
the dramatic stage in Shakespeare’s time. The social criticism can be just
implied though not directly expressed. It is the case of marriage practices. For
both the wealthy and the powerful marriage was a family business: the father
authorized, hence gave consent, to a marriage if it fitted his economic or
social interests, particularly his influence and power.
This compulsory consent up to the
age of twenty-one in a time when life expectancy was twenty nine years, was
duly enforced with a minimum age for the marriage of girl in Shakespeare’s time
between ten and thirteen with only one obligation: consent from the father, a
parent, the guardian or some official if the previous ones were absent. In the
play the law that is criticized is Athenian and the father can require death
for a daughter who refuses to marry the man this father has chosen, with for
the Duke of Athens the possibility to commute this death penalty into a life
“imprisonment” in the temple of some goddess that will impose celibacy and
virginity.
It is well understood that
economically the men and the women are from the same social condition, meaning
wealthy. That’s the part Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears cut off, hence the
whole beginning of Shakespeare’s play. There will only be some allusions to it,
especially at the end but it will have little value since the young people have
solved their own problem with a little help from their friends the fairies.
This choice is wise since such a situation does not speak to us any more except
when we are considering the practice of forced marriages in some foreign
civilizations and within the context of some religions in the world,
particularly in the Moslem world.
The play starts in the forest and
will stay in the forest till the second and last scene of the third act. This
is also a wise choice because it makes the play even lighter than in
Shakespeare’s version. It becomes a real entertainment that could be seen as a
masque or even a pantomime due to the fairies and magic. Puck, Oberon and
Titania are all beings of the underworld, which used to be a difficult subject in
Elizabethan times, but which is today banal and common place though generally
in children’s literature. Harry Potter is today a master in the field but he is
not alone. Some may say that Harry Potter is not really for children but rather
for young adults. Let’s say some people are precautious and we can consider a
fifteen year old person either an older child or a younger person, not yet an
adult but not far from it. The text of the libretto is very systematically
ambiguous between a sexy reading or just a farcical reading. Of course as soon
as it is set to a stage some choices are necessary that make this ambiguity
either a pun-like discourse, playing on words, or a choice towards one interpretation.
That’s why we can hesitate in front of this libretto: is it a children’s piece
of literature and entertainment, or is it a farce based on innuendo, ambiguous
meanings and erotic situations and language. That’s the main merit of this
libretto. It really let the conductor and director free to go one way or the
other.
One thing is sure in the
libretto. Since most of the opera takes place in the underworld, in a forest,
during one night, the midsummer night, Saint John’s day and night, with
celebrations generally around or on the Summer solstice, a festive period in
the fertile and happy direction, we can consider we are in foreign territory
and thus we, the audience, are the foreigners. But in this foreign territory we
have four young people, two women and two men, who are spending the night there
more or less by accident and who are going to be the victims of tricks, pranks
and mistakes from Puck and Oberon. These four are the first group of
foreigners, or strangers. The second group counts six artisans, craftsmen or
tradesmen from Athens
who are preparing a play for the Duke’s marriage. They will also be the
victims, particularly Bottom who is bottomless or without any bottom, who is
turned into an ass, meaning a donkey, but also a synonym of bottom, to satisfy
Oberon’s revenge on Titania who has estranged him from her bed because she
refuses to yield a young infant or child she has recuperated from some Indian
queen, hence in Shakespeare’s time, a child that would be assumed to be a gypsy
child. The six tradesmen are foreigners or strangers in the forest, but the
infant who is at stake between Oberon and Titania is a real foreigner both in
fairyland and in Athens,
in human land.
But in Shakespeare’s time fairies
and fairyland would have been seen, understood and even by some resented as
some strange and foreign underworld not to be mentioned. This dimension
disappears in modern times and Benjamin Britten and his partner Peter Pears
(who sang the part of Lysander, one of the two young men lost in the forest)
play on this fairyland as an estrangement for the audience and the last scene
brings the audience back to earth with yet another estrangement with the play
in the play that brings on the stage a lion, talking mind you, the moon, also
talking and a wall that has a lot to say. Estrangement inside the bringing back
of the audience from a long and previous estrangement of another sort, more
magical. The whole play works because of these dimensions and the opera here
amplifies this aspect by cutting off the opening part in the Duke’s palace in Athens.
In other words, a good libretto
for a modern opera that can be read in many different ways.
Second then the opera and the
music.
The way this libretto is used in
this old adaptation of the opera by Glyndebourne Festival Opera is interesting,
first because it is a classic in the history of this opera, and second because
it is good in its period and in its style. It obviously has great qualities in
its realistic adaptation. The forest is a real forest but it would be static. So
to make the forest dynamic; able to recompose itself constantly the trees are
human beings, actors that can move around, and they do. This gives to a setting
that would otherwise be slightly humdrum an attractiveness that wraps up the
opera marvelously. It reduces the use of machine and machinery on the stage
tremendously. In 1981 such machinery looked artificial and was limited in
effect, even stiff at times. The choice here makes the stage fluid and very
dynamic.
The fairies are boys but it is
not essential in this production because they are not used separately. They are
always part of a mass of people. They are heavily dressed but in no real
particular striking way. Same thing with Puck who is a boy, good at doing his
antics, tricks and so on, but not as good as he should be as for expressing with
language, intonation and body language the emotions he is supposed to embody. He
is the only one among the supernatural people who actually has some empathy for
the humans and that requires a lot of experience to embody such emotions. In
other words he is slightly too young.
Yet his flying is artificial
enough to be credible. He goes up and down, as he says so well, on some kind of
small platform that makes him move up and down and even cattycorner across the
stage. It is a mechanical way of realizing what the libretto says when it makes
Puck vanish or move from one side to the other of the stage invisibly.
But the last scene at the Duke’s
palace in Athens
wants to be realistic too. That requires a change of setting during a musical
intermezzo and that setting has to be changed later on with the play in the
play that requires a platform to be performed. This is quite common on an opera
stage but yet it is of an older style, something that is too realistic for modern
tastes. To have people moving the setting around while the music goes on is
fine when the setting is artificial, not realistic, when this setting is blocks
on rollers and hardly anything else. Changing setting today is easier thanks to
special effects and machinery, but yet it remains heavy. Another solution is a
setting that contains everything and it is only a question of lights to
concentrate on one part, one section of the stage, or another. This is often
used in operas because that reduces setting changes to a minimum and lights are
easy to manage.
But this realistic setting gives
a good opportunity for Puck with his broom to become a real broom stick
engineer and clean up, in fact sweep up, the vast table of the banquet.
But what is most dated if not
outdated for an opera is the extreme stiffness of the actors who are singers
and not actors actually, apart from Puck himself. That stiffness in body
language, which is no real body language but some frozen postures and stances, accompanies
the stiffness of the music. The music is performed as if it were very regular
and frozen. I guess they stick to the score. But an opera is also a dramatic
play and the actors and what they do, their acting, are supposed to dictate how
the music is performed. Thus it could be slowed down or sped up according to
the moments. It does not seem to be performed in such a flexible way.
One example is the quartet of the
lovers in the first scene of the third act. The music is extremely good but the
acting is stiff and that impairs the music itself. In fact the only moment when
there is some animation on the stage is during the play in the play because
then the actors are acting in a grotesque and caustic way. They are well
obliged to have some body language when they are a wall, a lion, the moon or
whatever and the dying mimics have to be just plain funny. Yet the final dance
of these actors is stiff and the audience is not concerned, not associated, and
that is a mistake. It should be a Bergomask in which everyone joins.
There is a last element I would like to add: it
is the two typical mentions by Shakespeare of the “three sisters” and of the “triple
Hecate’s dream.” It is typical of Shakespeare because for Shakespeare, and this
is deeply rooted in his style, anything ternary is leading to turmoil, disorder
and even tragic or dramatic elements. The three sisters are the Fates: The Moirai were three sister deities, incarnations of destiny and
life. Their names were Clotho, the one who spins
the thread of life; Lachesis, she who draws
the lots and determines how long one lives, by measuring the thread of life;
and Atropos, the inevitable,
she who chose how someone dies by cutting the thread of life with her shears.
In other words they are one incarnation of the triple goddess of fame in Europe and mythology. The second incarnation is of course
the triple Hecate: Hecate goddess of the underworld and death; Selene Goddess
of the moon, night and in a way love; finally Diana the goddess of life,
procreation and birth. Note the disruptive third element in the Fairy Queen and
King couple: the Indian child that comes in-between the two and creates the
havoc that is the basic stuff of this play.
So this play is basically disquieting since it sets up
the simultaneous marriages of three couples. Note that this triplet of couples
is a perfect embodiment of David’s star or Solomon’s wisdom, hence an allusion
to the Old Testament and the Jews. No surprise that it brings disturbance,
since they are Jewish and Shakespeare is sweetly anti-Jewish, like most people
in his time. Note Shakespeare cannot close the play on such a disquieting note
and he adds the re-union of Oberon and Titania as a fourth couple after he fate
of the Indian child is solved and a binary, what’s more a double binary, what’s
more a triple binary structure is perfection and order for Shakespeare: 2-4-8
is the vision of perfection. In this play and opera it is slightly artificial but
in “As you Like It” Shakespeare makes it perfect with four human couples marrying
under the presiding presence of the god of matrimony, Hymen.
If we keep this in mind we can strengthen the remark about
the stiffness of the whole performance. It is true Oberon is crucial but unluckily
James Bowman, who sings his part very well, is a very straight and unbending actor.
His acting performance is very little fluid and versatile. That’s another time on
the opera stage but it is regrettable for this opera that requires a tremendous
versatility and changeability.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 7:22 AM