BENJAMIN BRITTEN – MYFANWY PIPER – TELEVISION OPERA – BBC –
1971
This opera was written and
composed for the BBC, hence as a television opera in 1971, a long time still
before high definition. The medium imposed some strict limitations and they are
used more than tolerated all along. The first one is the narrow and shallow
range of the TV camera and screen. The opera is systematically shot inside
rather small rooms entirely closed up. In the same way this medium could not
overload the picture with a lot of details and props and sure enough the
setting is not overloaded and when the audience is supposed to look at a detail
in the picture the camera zooms onto it and it becomes a close-up shot. That is
typical with the portraits at the beginning. We are shown them one after the
other in chronological order and with a zooming movement onto one section of them
when necessary.
The second element that is
typical of television (or cinema actually) is the editing of the whole opera.
By editing you can shift from one setting to another without any kind of loss
of time or movement. You can thus shift from one character’s close-up shot to
another character’s close-up shot without any movement of the camera. That
gives dynamism and flexibility to the visual story because television like
cinema is telling us a visual story. Think of the various settings that do not
have to me materially changed on the stage.
The third element that is used
all along is the fact that due to the low definition of television in those
days if you wanted to show the feelings and emotions of the characters you had
to give a close-up shot of their faces, which implied the actors, and in this
case singers too, had to work on their facial language, part of the general
body language. On a stage the body language is essentially carried by the
general movement of the body or of the limbs, particularly the arms. At the
same time it also uses the general posture of the body and particularly the
position and direction/orientation of the head.. On television the general
posture is not that interesting because we can have closer shots that can focus
on the face with eventually the eyes looking straight at the audience (meaning the
camera), the upper half of the body, one arm movement, a hand even, etc. I must
say that in this production the actors-singers are rather stiff in their
general postures and movements but they have worked a lot on their facial
expressions, which are rather secondary on an opera stage, even if the
spectators have binoculars.
A last note on this DVD is that
it must have been re-mastered and enhanced for modern big TV screen. We cannot
know what receiving it on the small screens of the time could have been. Note
though color TV had already arrived though the majority of TV sets must have
been black and white. Color TV was introduced on BBC 2 for Wimbledon coverage on
Saturday, July 1, 1967. The launch of the BBC 2 full color service took place
on December 2, 1967. Some British TV programs, however, had been produced in
color even before the introduction of color television in 1967, for the purpose
of sales to American, Canadian, and Filipino networks. Full-time color
broadcasts had been running since 1969. Full
nationwide color broadcasting was achieved in 1976. This opera was thus
received in black and white by a vast proportion of people either because their
territory was not covered or because they did not have a color TV. And actually
this production works a lot on darker colors that would have appeared as close
to black or dark grey on a black and white set, at least many shades of grey.
The amount of brown and even dark brown is extremely important.
The
last element is at the level of special effects. This production only uses
fading in and fading out as an editing technique that is slightly softer than
cut and paste, particularly to change from one scene to another or one moment
in one scene to the next. The other special effect is the blurring out of the
picture around the face of a character to express the inner language of the
character who is thus speaking to himself or herself and not to the other
people on the stage. It isolates each character.
I
insisted here on some of the technical means used in this production that
cannot be used on an opera stage and are also adapted to the low definition of
the TV picture at the time. A cinema production would gave been quite different
because of the high definition of the cinema picture. I also believe a TV
production today would be different because of the high definition of the
digital TV image. The opera was probably shot
with cinema standards, particularly the camera.
Without planning on exploiting
the whole plot because I have already said a lot about it when analyzing the
libretto (see ISBN-13: 978-0571515424 on Amazon.com, Amzon.co.uk
& Amazon.fr), I will insist here on the opera in this very production
considering it was the original vision Benjamin Britten had since it was done
with him.
The Prelude or Overture of the
first act introduces us to the various pictures of ancestors hanging in the
hall of Paramore. But instead of having a travelling picture we have a shift
from one to the next and the camera stops on each one to have a full vision of
each picture and at the same time zooms onto the top section of the body of
some pictures. The names and dates of each picture is provided super-impressed
onto the picture itself for a short instant, but long enough for us to be able
to read them. It is interesting to list them.
The first is Owain Wynegrave in
1536. Nothing before though in the opera many mentions are made of medieval
battles in France or
elsewhere like Agincourt (1415), though not
Bouvines (1214). This date of 1536 is essential in British history. It is the
year Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII’s first wife died, but also the year when
Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII’s second wife was executed in the Tower of London,
and also the year when Henry VIII married Jane Seymour. And apart from this
marital story of Henry VIII we should consider this year as important since it
is the year of the first Suppression of Religious Houses Act. It is the birth date
of modern England.
This family is thus attached to Tudor history and it will be an essential
military asset to the English Crown.
The second is Sir Philip Wingrave
in 1576. Then we have Lady Wingrave in 1576, Edward Owen Wingrave in 1629,
Colonel Sir Philip Wingrave and Owen Wingrave, his son, in 1652. In this last picture
the camera zooms onto the faces and ends on the child’s face. We will learn at
the beginning of the second act what happened then. Note 1652 is under the Commonwealth of Oliver Cromwell, so what was the
position of the family dedicated to the Crown of England and not the
Commonwealth? This question will not be answered. Henry James had simply
situated the death of this Owen in the 18th century, hence in an
easier period.
The sixth picture is Colonel
Oliver Wingrave in 1670 (is that Oliver a homage to Oliver Cromwell?). Then we
have Jane Wingrave in 1745, General Sir Humphrey Wingrave in 1780, General Sir
Philip Wingrave in 1832 with a zooming movement onto his face (he is the
grandfather of the main character and he is still alive in the opera) and
finally Colonel Oliver Wingrave zoomed onto by the camera (the father of the
main character) who has the face of this main character and we shift directly
onto Owen Wingrave in his military prep class in London. It is important to say
that the father died in Afghanistan
and the mother died in childbirth immediately afterwards when giving birth to a
still born son in India.
Owen Wingrave is thus the last son of the family with no hope to get another
one, hence he is the one who is supposed to assume the continuation of the
family, hence of their “profession” as top officers of the royal military
forces. This position is not inherited. It has to be earned through a military
academy and field service in various wars. At the time of Owen Wingrave it
would be India or South Africa or
some other colonies. Note the only ones quoted are Afghanistan
and India.
Apart from the fate of the father
and mother we have all these details from the very start with this gallery of
portraits. We also know that the 1652 portrait must be a special case since it
is the only one with a father and a son and the son does not have his own
independent picture. Because of this duality in the picture itself, the absence
of the son’s autonomous picture and the first zooming movement of the camera
our attention is focused on them.
This opening and the whole opera
actually makes the feudal dictatorship of an aristocratic family on all the
descendants absolutely central. A child has no choice whatsoever and he or she
has to do what the family decides. As for a boy, the central figure here, he
has to follow the line of the clan and in this case it is to have a military
career at the service of the Crown.
There is no escape from that. In a way or another a son is to be a
soldier and the play shows with cruelty that this son has the courage of any other
in the family and that nothing frightens him. He can take any dare and go
through it. But unluckily the dare will lead him to die. The dare was motivated
by his refusal to be a soldier and he will die like a soldier in the face of
danger, here the curse of the family since 1652: an Owen Wingrave fights or
dies. If he dies when fighting, that’s glorious. If he dies when not fighting,
that’s cowardly, shameful, etc. You have to die on the battlefield or not at
all, well nearly not at all at least.
That’s what this opera is all
about: the rebellion of a son in the name of free choice, hence of freedom, and
the impossibility for these feudal aristocratic families to accept such a
freedom. Note a daughter would have to marry the soldier her family would
choose, full stop, period, that’s the end of it. We just wonder why Miss
Wingrave is not the widow of a military man. In fact she nearly is and is
paying back for this treachery by taking care of the widow of the military man
she should have married, and their daughter, Kate, promised to marry Owen.
It is true that Benjamin Britten
puts some flesh on the antimilitary discourse and Owen particularly, but not
only him, expresses some arguments against war, a lot more anyway than in Henry
James’ novella. That discourse is in line with what Benjamin Britten expressed
in many of his operas or vocal works, but it is not for me the central element.
The central element is the denunciation of feudal practices in some
aristocratic circles and such practices are at least partially true. The Tudors
have deeply impressed their mark on England
and probably Great Britain.
What is interesting though is
that in this opera, like in so many others; the character who dies in this
case, who is rejected in other cases, who even manage to escape in a couple of
cases, is estranged in his own family, is abducted by ideas he found in books
and in his heart, is made a foreigner and a stranger in his own clan or circle.
He is disinherited, which is here a lot stronger than in Henry James novella
because in the novella he kept his mother’s inheritance, a yearly £300 pension,
which was rather acceptable for the 1890s. Here nothing, nothing at all. The
denunciation of the tyrannical power of the grandfather is extreme, singing his
accusations and sentence from behind closed doors: what a voice!
I would like to insist on one
more element. When Owen arrives home in Paramore he is received by a triplet of
women who all denounce his horrific rebellion in the strongest terms they can
find. One is his aunt and the others are Mrs. Julian, the widow of the other
soldier who could have married Miss Wingrave if she had not cancelled it at the
last minute, and Kate Julian, the promised wife of Owen. The three of them are
three weird sisters that are literally bullying and haunting Owen in some kind
of ambush where he cannot even defend himself since they are women. Later on a
fourth women will appear, Mrs. Coyle and she will defend or at least understand
Owen’s motivations.
This hostile triplet of harpies
are definitely an allusion to the three witches of Macbeth. Owen is saved from
the criminal act of becoming a soldier thanks to the fourth woman who provides
him with some support but at the same time the youngest of the three, Kate
Julian will coil her hostile embrace onto and around Owen to the point of
forcing him to confront the haunting ghost from 1652 by accusing him of being a
coward. This is surprising in Britten’s operas because he generally gives a
more balanced vision of women but in this one Mrs. Coyle is unable to prevent
the snake of a girlfriend Kate from killing her own promised husband. Death in
other words does part them before they ever had one single little chance to be
married.
Is Benjamin Britten keeping some
hope in such an opera? I am afraid hope is not on the syllabus or the agenda.
If there were any hope it would be on Mrs. Coyle side but she is powerless and
anyway totally marginal on the question. There is in such families a curse
running from generation to generation and they have no hope to ever break that
curse. They will die off because the last male in the family has just died, but
they will not accept any change in their lot or future. Better die than change.
It sounds like Brexit. Theresa May must be the Tudor monarch some accuse her of
being.
A last remark on the music. The Schönbergian
twelve tone scale is extremely effective to create some disquieting, disturbing
and even dis-balancing music and atmosphere. The music emphasizes the basic
maelstrom in the psyche of Owen and in the situation in the opera. The music is
part of the discourse, of the accusation that is needed to bring these last
elements of feudalism down, though that will not happen inside the plot. Note
the hammered percussion “nightmare rhythm” present in the prelude is perfect to
emphasize the shift from one picture to the next, hence the family curse, the
family dictatorship.
The second element I would like
to insist on is the ballad at the beginning of the second act; This ballad is
crucial for the plot since it tells us the full story of the 1652 Owen who was
killed by his father. Behind this ballad we have a film in sepia colors that
gives us the situation in mute visual form: Owen, the son, confronted to
another boy his age who is bullying him in a way refuses to fight against nthe
bully, thus stepping back and away from a challenge. His father sees it from an
upper floor window and chastises him, punishes him by killing him, first end of
the story. Unluckily the father will die without any wound next to his murdered
son. After such a drama you may wonder how the family managed to survive. But
in those days there were many children.
What is beautiful in this ballad
is the music that is different. It might be in a church mode, the mode in G
(not for ghost as Hubert Teyssandier suggested), but what is essential is that
the rhythm of the music is regular with stanzas and burdens. The burden is the
same all along: “Trumpet blow, trumpet blow, Paramore shall welcome woe.” This
chorus is the most pessimistic and submissive expression of fate. You “obey,
believe, accept” in this family and in that order. Obey first and believe and
accept afterwards, believe you were right and accept all consequences. In a
military family death is an honor, death is a glorious event for the one who
dies and for all his relatives. That ballad form is making this story from 1652
a popular, light though somber and in a way religious evocation. But be sure
that mode G is not any Gregorian song or tune. It is only medieval, hence
religious, since most music was religious in the Middle Ages, because that’s the
way music was composed before the invention of the modern scale and all the
tones attached to it.
A lot more would have to be said
but let’s conclude with this idea: Benjamin Britten has revived a rather mediocre
or average story by Henry James in which the ghost element was hardly present
and he has made it a modern tale about freedom, the freedom of choice of
children in their families. Once gain, the antimilitary tone and arguments are
only a second garb for the story, certainly not the major one. A great opera
that could be a deep ethical lesson for boys essentially, but also for girls,
and how they have to accept to fight for their freedom if they just want to
escape the worst possible fate and future of submission and mental if not
social slavery.
Dr
Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 10:27 PM