In an interview, director Lydia Steier warns us that what we were about to see is an American staging of R. Strauss’s and Hugo von Hofmannsthal’s Die Frau ohne Schatten. And she hasn’t lied: social adaptation problems have to do with child abuse, guilty complex has to do with Catholicism, theres always some comic relief when things threaten to become profound and there’s more than a splash of Broadway. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. FroSch is notoriously difficult to stage, and many directors don’t even try to make something out of Hofmannsthal’s convoluted symbology. Not Ms. Steier. She really worked hard for her money, and being American herself, offered her very own “new world” approach to it. Although this is not the first staging I’ve seen directed by a woman (in a libretto primarily about what a woman should do), this very issue is the pillar that holds her staging together.
In order to give this multileveled story a backbone, she adds a silent character to it: a girl in a catholic institution for young women who went astray. She seems to have been abused, became pregnant and the baby is given to adoption. It is not clear if the events involving the Empress and the Dyer’s Wife are nightmarish visions or if the events involving the girl are flashbacks that explain the Dyer’s Wife present state of mind. The big question is “who are the empress and the emperor?”. There is an undeniable element of kitsch in Strauss (and in Hofmannsthal too) – and Ms. Steier aptly found in the score the answer to this question. There is this telefono bianco glamour in their music that is perfectly translated by the idea of showing them as Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire, whose screen personalities belong to a universe with no communication with what was going on with real people in the years after the post-Wall Street crash and around WW2. In a world where women had one single part to play (housewife and mother), who wouldn’t want to be Jean Harlow or Lana Turner? Some people like Jayne Mansfield gravitated between these two parts, not without a price. The catholic setting has one advantage in what regards the role of the Amme: she is obviously a nun, a woman in the service of an invisible father figure whose job is to correct girls who did not understand the rules. In the end, it is clear that Ms. Steier understandably does not agree with Hofmannsthal in the end? the Dyer’s Wife may have overcome her childhood trauma and found a way of fulfilling her duties as a family woman, but the child inside her is not happy at all about it.
Even if one finds Ms. Steier’s interpretation occasionally far-fetched, one has to concede her that she knows that this libretto demands big scenic effects, and she offers an unending supply of striking images, technically-challenging set changes, surprising tricks, the works. At moments, the sets themselves could have looked a bit more finished or designed (the last scene, for instance, looks a bit like high school theatre), but nobody can call this production boring or uncreative.
The musical side of this performance is in a way a patchwork of my previous experiences with this work. For instance, Kirill Petrenko was not a name that rang a bell until I saw him conduct FroSch in the premiere of the Bavarian State Opera’s current production. That was a performance of unusual polish, clarity and elegance, one of the best I have ever heard, and I was curious to discover what he would do with this score together with the Berlin Philharmonic. As much as in Munich, Mr. Petrenko kept it ligh, colorful amd forward-moving, which is more or less what Strauss himself advised. My memory is that the Munich performances were more transparent and structurally coherent, while this evening I was often impressed by how approachable this formidable opera sounded. Even the act 2 finale showed a balanced directness that somehow fitted Ms Steier’s pink sceneries and occasional little gags. This “lightness” paid off in an unusually clean third act. This is the part of the opera where normally things sound over the top and occasionally pointless, yet not this evening, when an extremely reliable cast was essential to the success of the show.
Elza van den Heever is a singer I had seen only once as Chrysothemis at the Met. Then I found her voice a bit on the green and cold side, and my impression this evening couldn’t have been more different. Her soprano now sounds rather blond and a tad grainy in the middle. She has no problem with high notes (a great advantage in this role). At first, some them seemed a bit glassy but she gained in strength and flashed some rich and bright acuti in the hall, especially in the “dream” scene. She seemed comfortable with her Ginger Rogers routine and danced quite well too. She deserved credit for an effective delivery of the monologue, where she used her spoken voice really effectively.
I had also seen Miina Liisa Värelä only once as a literally last minute replacement for Nina Stemme in Munich. Although she was announced indisposed (she wasn’t indeed able to sing last Wednesday), one could hardly notice that. She possesses an unusually beautiful and fresh voice for a dramatic soprano and also a remarkable ability of making everything sound musical and cantabile (what is even more notable in a party considered unsingable). In Munich, I had found her extreme high notes a bit tight, but not today. If she is not a terrific actress,. she does not embarrass herself either.
Michaela Schuster is a singer who often appears in the role of the Amme. I myself have seen her in it a couple of times, and last year in Munich I had the impression that she might not longer be vocally up to it. That is definitely not my opinion this evening. She too was announced indisposed, yet her voice seemed in pretty solid shape. Hers was never the more powerful or voluminous mezzo in this part, and she always had to push a bit in the most challenging passages. That said, her voice withstood the heavy demand well (and she sang the part without the usual cuts) and projected consistently efficiently in the hall. She is a bête de scène and made amazing things with what the director gave her. Brava.
Clay Hilley was the Siegfried in the Deutsche Oper’s Ring last year and I expected something on the heavyweight side. However, this American tenor surprised me with a smoothly sung account of the part of the Emperor. He kept his medium and low registers light and natural and offered a neverending supply of round, big high notes, phrasing with sense of line and ardor. He also proved to be a trouper and fulfilled with gusto a very simplified version of a Freddie Astaire routine. I was also glad to hear again Wolfgang Koch in his best role (Barak) and in good voice too.
All minor roles were cast from strength this evening: Bogdan Baciu firm-toned as the spirit messenger, Agniezka Adamczak flexible and fruity as the voice of falcon and the guardian of the temple, the best group of women servants/voices of the unborn children I have ever heard live and a strong trio of brothers in the Barak family.
Most revealing review of this production I’ve read so far, but still I have some questions. – Was there any further indication of the time period in USA history that this production was set in? If the Kaiser & Kaiserin were from the period between the 2 world wars of the 1st half of the 20th century, was the rest of the regie depicted from that period too — or was it scattered in time vignettes? The situation of a wayward girl being put in a Catholic home was very common in mid-20th century USA: my sister was incarcerated in one of those Catholic institutions and she wasn’t even Catholic — in those days in USA these institutions had sort of a foothold in towns which had weak social service infrastructures and funding. But unlike the girl in this staging, my sister enjoyed herself very much — when she got out she had nothing but praise for the nuns, whom she said were not only lenient but spoiled the girls with outings and field trips all over the state – she enjoyed herself.
– As you describe above, Ms. Steier’s concept of this work appears to go against Hofmannsthal’s and is every typical 21st century feminist American hype – such is up on the news opinions on certain stations almost daily. Get plenty of it here already, don’t need to go to Baden for more.
– Saw Miina Liisa Värelä a few years ago as Färberin and Ortrud. Heard her more recently on broadcast as Sieglinde, wherein she was quite improved, particularly in her legato phrasing. Glad to read that she is even better now. Thanks for your writ!
1 – Hello, Jerold! I have to say I’ve struggled trying to establish a period in history. I used the name of Ginger Roberts, because the dress used by the Empress is very similar to the one Rogers wears in Swing Time (and that was 1936). When the Nurse starts to describe world of humans, we see images that look like footage from the period after the Wall Street Crash, but I wouldn’t be able to affirm that this was the case. In any case, they fit the description.
I had some problem, though, with Barak’s house, which here looked something rather 50’s-ish (you know, like stuff you would see in I Love Lucy), but that wouldn’t make sense to me. A posteriori, I would say that everything falls into place if we understand that it was set in the 1930’s, before WW2. I think it is important to the plot if we understand that there were not many socially acceptable possibility for women – and that would change a lot during the war.
I like the idea that the world of spirits is the world of movies, it feels a bit like Woody Allen’s The Purple Rose of Cairo (which is set in the 1930’s), in which Mia Farrow’s character has such a frustrating life, there is no money and she still spends the little she’s got in the movies to see women leading lives she’ll never ever live other than in her dreams.
So, answering your question, I wouldn’t say the director made a point in establishing when exactly the action takes place in her setting. It is my opinion that the 1930’s would be the most sensible option.
I don’t know, everybody likes to give the Catholic Church a beating. I mean, there’s a lot of bad things there, but the part in which it is pictured as the root of all evil does not make any sense to me (and I can’t say I have been truly catholic just because I have been baptised as such – so this is not me defending my “group”). There are many stories of people who are grateful for priests and nuns for helping them when they needed, as much as there are bad ones. Just like everything else.
Yes, I don’t think any woman would be able to stage a non-feminist FroSch. Otherwise, it would be impossible to stage it at all. Although Hofmannsthal does not say there that only women are supposed to have a family role and sacrifice for the future generation, he shows Barak as a ready-made father (and the fact is that most families exist because mothers are there to make it happen, even when there is no father). The role of the emperor is the most tricky, because he pays the price of establishing a relationship that does not involve parenthood, but he does not experience any development either. When he is back to life, he is magically 100% into being a father and that’s it.
I actually believe Lydia Steier offered something constructive rather than destructive in her view of the story – I don’t think she is demonizing motherhood at all there. It is only that there is a huge price for it – and it’s not paid equally between father and mother. And maybe that’s the reason why the whole thing hasn’t been working as well as it should. Who knows?
2 – Värelä is a special one, and I believe that Strauss should be the core of her repertoire rather than Wagner. I’ve read she has sung Ariadne and I bet this should be an ideal role for her.
And again, thanks for writing – I’m glad you’ve enjoyed reading this one.
Late to the party, but surprised that Schuster came through. The broadcast of the concert performance was kind of alarming on her end.
Hello, Peter! I guess that at this point nobody knows how it’s going to be. It was always a bit on her limit – and as everybody else, she’s not getting younger.
To be honest, I would love to hear at this point someone sing this role as, say, Grace Hoffman used to do it. I mean, not as a character role.
Tanja ariane baumgartner.
I’d argue the role is more typically cast from strength these days then it was in Bohm’s day. Your more likely in general to see these “character” sung rather than shouted. I thought Schuster did sing it exceptionally well at one point. But the broadcast was really weak.
Indeed, I’ve never seen Baumgartner in it. I don’t disagree with you – there has always been this idea that this is a part that should sound “weird”. Some singers do make something of it, but I prefer it when you feel that the mezzo could be someone you’d hear as… Amneris.
I saw Schuster sing it a couple of times. I found she did very well in Berlin with Mehta, even if some of the high notes felt tense. In any case, she is a very good actress for the part.
Finally got around to listening to the broadcast of this. A broadcast is only a recording, so it is not to be taken as a completely accurate facsimile of a live performance. From what I heard Petrenko shone out above all (however, at the price of inadvertently flooding out the soloists, particularly in the long parlando recitative portions). There were lots of cuts throughout. Schuster was remarkable – she successfully changed her vocal tone (sounding like a different singer entirely) in her emphasis of the manipulative, dualistic Amme –> from sweet lyricism to grating stridency & everything in-between. The role is so treacherous that any technical errors are all forgiven when someone vocally acts such a detailed characterization as Schuster did. The men were fine. Heever vocally sounds regal but sort of a matronly Empress (as you write above, with a graying tone around the middle) but one who still has the fight in her. Someone remarked once that she didn’t record well. Perhaps not now, but I don’t agree completely. Her Elisabetta in Don Carlo (Strasbourg 2017) is one of the best I ever heard. Like so many of our contemporary singers, unfortunately it sounds as if she didn’t weather the covid years so well. Last time I saw her (2019) she still had plenty to offer. Värelä was excellent – the way she etched the line so clearly I could visualize the fabric of her voice as she sang. She has a very rapid almost indiscernible vibrato and it’s not a particularly beautiful voice, but so expressive and full of the fibers, tones & shades of earth itself.
Hello, Jerold! I am glad you were able to hear the broadcast. Was that recorded in Berlin or in Baden-Baden? Live in the festival hall, the orchestral sound was kept under leash, without any loss in tonal quality. In Berlin, however, they were on stage, and that changes the perspective entirely. In my opinion, Petrenko did a very commendable job, but I thought he was more impressive in terms of clarity in Munich some years ago.
Schuster’s voice might not be a deluxe instrument, but – in a good day – it’s good enough for the role, and in terms of interpretation she nails it entirely, including in the acting department. This was not an easy production, and I’m not sure all the director’s references were clear to all involved, but Schuster was entirely at ease in it.
I am not sure if Van den Heever’s voice is difficult to record. I’d rather say it isn’t. What I can tell is that it sounded really different from what I heard in New York. I would, however, say that Värelä’s voice may sound a bit “colder” in recordings.
Heard the Berlin broadcast with the orchestra onstage. If/when I get to it, I’ll try the Baden performance.