Following the disastrous circumstances of the creation of Donizetti’s Maria Stuarda, it has disappeared from the repertoire until the 1960’s. It is nonetheless the most popular item in the “Tudor Trilogy” – and one can see why. It is one of the rare bel canto operas that has enough room for two prime donne in equal standing, with a famous confrontation scene. It is also rather structurally square, and yet it shines in scenes and recitatives (a Donizetti specialty). If the arias are not the composer at his most inspired, they are dramatically effective in their “Mozartian” characterization: Stuarda is something of the Donna Anna to Elisabetta’s Donna Elvira.
As originally composed by Donizetti, both parts were written for the soprano voice. Yet at the official Milanese premiere, the title role was given to Maria Malibran, what involved lower options to fit her voice. That said, the audiences always expect the soprano to be the tenor’s beloved and the Donizetti revival would mean that Sutherland and Gencer would appear as the Queen of Scotts, while Tourangeau and Verrett would wear the English crown. That’s also what would we hear in the 1970’s and 1980’s in combos like Caballé/Berini or Gruberová/Baltsa. The recent interest in Malibran changed things a bit, making for a curious cast reversal: mezzo Stuardas against soprano Elisabettas, most famously at the Met with Joyce DiDonato and Elza van den Heever.
Last time this opera was heard in Geneva, DiDonato sang Elisabetta to Gabriele Fontana’s Maria. That is why I realized only 30 minutes before the performance that Elsa Dreisig would actually sing Elisabetta, with Stéphanie d’Oustrac in the role of Maria. I first thought it was a misprint – I couldn’t make sense of this cast. I can understand that Dreisig was chosen for all the Tudor roles in the ongoing trilogy, but their vocal nature says otherwise. Anyway, that train had already left the station, so there’s nothing one could do but keep an open mind.
Elsa Dreisig is not the kind of high soprano who can’t wait for the puntatura as one usually hears in this repertoire, but rather a lyric voice with a middle register solid enough for a part like Fiordiligi in Così fan tutte. As Elisabetta she did not find anything actually low. She sang securely and firmly throughout in very good Italian and with her customary classical poise. I was trying to look for a word an Italian opera goer would use to describe what was missing. “Morbidezza”? Her tubular soprano runs without any problem to its high notes, but it doesn’t truly blossom as with a bona fide bel canto soprano. She worked hard for characterization, but the fact that she sounds young and vulnerable (Elizabeth I was in her 50’s when Mary Stuart died) didn’t make her seem commanding, venomous or dangerous as we’re used to hear. And it’s a role that requires a little bit more playing with the text. Although Anna Caterina Antonacci was booed at La Scala when she sang it there, she plays the libretto around her little finger in a way you can almost find the Schiller in it. That said, in this production, Elisabetta is young and tight-corseted while Mary is sexy and womanly. So, ok, point taken. If this is the intended effect, it worked.
The situation with Ms. d’Oustrac’s Maria is quite different. Except in the confrontation scene, the role is all about long, floating legato (and this is probably why Caballé liked it so much). The problem: this is hardly a quality one would associate with this French mezzo. She actually offered some forceful acuti and even beautiful mezza voce, but the sound had little sensuousness, the text was cloudy and intonation wasn’t flawless. She is a terrific actress and gave her all in the scenic department. Live in the theatre, it was interesting, but that was ultimately what her fellow Frenchmen call a contre-emploi. The whole cursing and name calling in the confrontation scene is the single example in recorded history in which Joan Sutherland is more dramatically efficient than anyone else – her “t” in “bastarda” hurts like a slap – and I was expecting something thrilling this evening, but that was limited to her acting.
I wouldn’t have been surprised if someone with a microphone had informed us that Edgardo Rocha had the flu this evening. He sounded as if he were fighting mucus during the whole evening. It was amazing that he kept his cold blood and went through with a voice in the verge of breaking. At any rate, it didn’t – and he feels comfortable with the high tessitura, which is more than what one can say about almost anyone else in this part. Both Nicola Ulivieri (Talbo) and Simone del Savio (Cecil) were cast from strength, offering some of the best singing this evening. Last but not least, Ena Pognac was a characterful, firm-voiced Anna.
It is difficult to talk about editions in a work that sounds different every time you hear it. Conductor Andrea Sanguineti says in the program he finds the idea of faithfully following the critic edition (which was first recorded in the video with Carmela Remígio and Sonia Ganassi) unthinkable in a repertoire in which the composers themselves adapted everything to the forces available. As it was, we had no overture (which is a good thing) and the jolly opening chorus (I confess I prefer the “inauthentic” one used in the past). Predictably, one would recognize some Malibran variations and other embellishments plus fortepiano add-ons during numbers. Mr. Sanguinetti showed he is at home in bel canto. He knows how to breath with his singers, has a most flexible beat, excellent control of ensembles and offered the most musical confrontation scene I have ever heard. The concertato that closes it normally feels mechanical and a tad awkward. Definitely not this evening, even if the choral singing was a bit subpar.
Director Mariame Clément connects Maria Stuarda to Anna Bolena via Elizabeth’s traumatic memory of her own mother’s execution – and the rather Freudian way she channels both her father’s tyrannical attitude and Leicester’s desire for Mary. Here the Stuart queen is the woman Elizabeth would like to be. While she is shown in short hair and trousers, Mary is seen in a pink, vaporous gown. The director tries to give Elizabeth some credit when she calls Mary scheming and manipulative, by staging the execution like a media stunt produced in order to sanctify her and make way for a comeback of the Stuarts. All that would be irrelevant if Ms. Clément hadn’t directed it in a way that hits home. I find it particularly commendable the way she uses the rigid cavatina/cabaletta structure on the context of courtly dance numbers in the first act, an idea that gave new life to scenes that almost always look a bit contrived.
I HEAR VOICES 
Did d’Oustrac follow Didonato and Baker in transposing the role? I’d have to think so, her voice is darker than either or theirs and seems to sit slightly lower.
I have to admit the Dreisig/d’Oustrac casting seems really bizarre. The latter seems to be be a born Elizabeth and the former seems IMO made for neither role but surely is more of a natural Stuarda. Puzzling
Peter, as I’ve told you, I’ve heard Stuarda in so many adaptations – think of the transpositions in the Tourangeau/Sutherland – that I am unable to give you a reliable answer. “Playing by ear”, I’d say some numbers sounded transposed while in others the line seemed rather rewritten to accommodate a lower voice. Nobody ventured in higher decorations.
Both DiDonato and Baker have/had brighter and more soprano-ish mezzos than d’Oustrac – and both capable of producing clean, pure-toned singing in soprano repertoire in a way d’Oustrac just can’t. In these moments, she sounded basically smoky. I agree that Dreisig is not a natural bel canto singer, but her basic tone fits Leicester[s description of Maria as “angelic” and “innocent”, while d’Oustrac would have been an interesting Elisabetta vocally and scenically. I still think she is not crispy enough with the Italian text (as Antonacci, for instance), but it would at least have made sense. I find it sad, for it was a very good show as a whole – well conducted, well directed, beautiful sets and costumes, a good tenor and two excellent basses, but I had to mentally adapt to what I was hearing whenever both ladies sang. As I said, even if Dreisig sounded as if the Countess Almaviva showed up in the wrong opera, she delivered the notes in a way consistent with the character as shown. It was like the “Sarah Michelle Gellar”-version of Elisabetta. With d’Oustrac, it just sounded wrong. The character was shown as appealing both as a woman who knows how to work her charm and as a political person who can look like a saint in the eyes of the public, yet she never sound seductive or angelic. And it is not like she didn’t try – she made her best with the voice she has. It is only definitely not the voice for the role. If you ask me, this might have been the director’s idea: Dresig was Boleyn and now she is Boleyn’s daughter, while d’Oustrac plays the other woman, full stop. It can’t have been a musical decision.
We’ve discussed it, so it might not be worth rehashing, but I don’t understand Dreisig at all aside from having a basically attractive sound. She’d hardly be a top choice for Maria but having her as Elisabetta strikes me as really perverse. d’Oustrac sounds miscast but at least there’s some kind of tradition of voices adjacent to hers having a go at the part. Dreisig seems all wrong for the vocal and dramatic character of the role that I agree it must have been some kind of stunt that the director (perhaps in tandem with the conductor made.
You should check out the concert performances conducted by Charles M. with Frittoli and Antonacci in the roles. Both are in their absolute primes and are in terrific shape. Antonacci in particular is really on fire. I think the role was either just getting to be beyond her at La Scala, or else she miscalculated the effect she could make in the house. I’m not sure, but I think she’s kind of neutered on that video. The production and conducting don’t help at all, but Devia shockingly makes a stronger dramatic impression between the two of them.
Yes, we’ve talked about Dreisig before. I like this kind of soprano voice à la Janowitz, but even Janowitz seemed to have more temper and affinity with Italian style than her. In any case, what I mean is she was in charge of what she sang (even if the effect was foreign to what that part is about). D’Oustrac, in spite of all her charisma, was often flat, chopped her phrases a lot to breathe and had a woOn-woOn approach to phrasing that is the opposite of legato. So, in purely musical terms, it could be disappointing. Again I find it sad because it was an ungrateful task for her.
I have the Frittoli/Antonacci here, but had forgotten entirely about it until now. At the time I got it, I wasn’t in a bel canto phase. At La Scala, I don’t find Antonacci awesome in vocal terms. If you have someone like Verrett in mind, ACA’s high register sounds pinched in comparison and I’d bet it didn’t fill the auditorium at all. Yet the way she handles the text puts everybody else to shame. I don’t think that Pizzi had much to say about Elisabetta in that production, and she felt a bit helpless there. Devia, on the other hand. was in a role tailor-made for her voice and personality. The execution scene is particularly impressive. She keeps wowing the audience with an unending sequence of technical feats, sustaining extremely long lines with refined dynamic variety. It’s really impressive.