![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnSo when I signed up for Met on Demand I of course had to look at the La Traviatas. (what with youtube and met on demand and being able to transfer video to my phone I feel like I'm living in the future! I can watch operas five minutes at a time at home -- which is not ideal, of course, but really the only way I am going to actually do it right now.) Having had ALL THE FEELINGS about the 2005 Salzburg Netrebko/Villazon/Hampson Traviata, what struck me the most was how different the Met Yoncheva/Fabiano/Hampson (2017) was, though it is the same staging and even shares one of the singers. This Met production has a very different interpretation (and there have been a number of changes made to the choreography to support that interpretation), one that pretty much guts all the relationships in the opera -- which I found interesting, and worth watching, but substantially less utterly compelling than the Salzburg, which uses the staging and choreography and interpretation to highlight and sharpen those relationships.
Yoncheva has a very different take on Violetta (and death) than Netrebko. Netrebko's Violetta's arc was about coming to terms with her death, with accepting it. Yoncheva's Violetta is not doing any accepting whatsoever. She hates her impending death, she is angry about it, she fights it, and continues to fight up until her very last words. (She's also visibly angrily resigned, rather than self-sacrificially resigned as Netrebko sold so well, at having to give up Alfredo for the dictates of society, though her "Ah! dite alla giovina" is as beautiful as any I've heard.) It makes Violetta/Alfredo interestingly ambiguous, because it's never quite clear to me, even in their love scenes, how much she is actually in love with Alfredo and how much she is simply clinging to the hope that gives her to stave off death.
This makes the Giorgio-Violetta duet in Act II make more visceral sense to me than it's ever done before -- it's never made much sense to me that Giorgio saves his last best argument to be "oh, well, guys can be fickle, he might not always love you!" and that Violetta buys that at all, I mean, they're desperately in love, in the honeymoon period! But if Violetta knows that her love is impure, then that makes her uniquely vulnerable to that argument -- would she still love Alfredo if she didn't think he could help her put off death? And if she's unsure of that, then -- well -- she knows Alfredo loved her for her looks before he knew her at all; maybe Giorgio is right that if she was no longer as beautiful that maybe he wouldn't love her either...
This harder-edged Violetta also is clearly going to have more problems connecting with Giorgio, and vice versa. Hampson also plays Giorgio Germont in 2017 as rather more expressive and much less awkward and stiff than in 2005, which paradoxically plays into the lack of connection; awkward!Germont is clearly awkward in large part because he is struggling through so many internal Issues, but expressive!Germont, though he may be grateful to Violetta by the end of their duet, is just... not really seeing her. To reinforce this, pretty much all the choreography that suggests a growing connection between Giorgio and Violetta has been cut. At the end of their duet, Violetta offers him her hand, and although in 2005!Salzburg this was always going to be an embrace and understood as such by both the characters, here it looks like they're going to shake hands (and so 2017!Giorgio is startled when it becomes a hug, and it's rather one-sided). The 2005 take where Violetta's repeat of "Dio dai rimorsi ti salvi allora" and "chi nel ciel tra gli angeli prega per lei, per te," were both directed as Violetta speaking to/about Germont (which, okay, I'm sure is contra Verdi's intention but I LOVE IT) is cut. On Germont's side, there's no agonized epiphany for 2017!Germont with "Di sprezzo degno" (if anything, it seems like he blames Alfredo for the whole thing), or anything like the pronounced remorse for his actions and connection to Violetta that you can see forming in 2005!Germont (and very much reinforced by the Salzburg choreography) at the end of Act II.
As for the relationship between Germont père and his son -- in 2005, this was played very much as a father who loves his son and has no earthly idea how to talk to him, sometimes making disastrous decisions when he tries. The 2017 relationship, with Hampson turning on his full expressivity, reads more to me as Germont being oblivious than awkward. Fabiano also feeds into that by reacting much more strongly to Hampson than Villazon ever did -- there's a distinct implication that there's a history there, that this might not have been the first time Germont has tromped all over his son's emotions.
Speaking of Fabiano! I thought Fabiano was brilliant in this production -- he really sells his love for Violetta, which is the one bright spot in a sea of terrible and disintegrating relationships. He is also the only character whose arc is more pronounced than usual -- here, the question is, how does the super-in-love Alfredo of Act I transform to the violent Alfredo of the end of Act II? Villazon's Alfredo dealt with this by always being a bit over-the-top obsessive about Violetta, but Fabiano's Alfredo isn't like that; his Alfredo is gentle and emotionally aware, even realizing that the couch covers have been removed. But over the course of Act II, you can see that gentleness questioned, turn to grief -- then he tries again with Violetta, and then, finally, he gets pushed one notch too far, and all that gentleness hardens briefly into rage. But only for that one moment -- it is clear from his "Ne sento orrore" and following that it was an aberration, it's not who he usually is or wants to be. It's really quite well done, and for the first time I found myself watching the second act of Traviata for Alfredo instead of Giorgio. (It's always a given one watches Traviata for Violetta, of course.)
But in general, the Met choices make a lot of the lines that are so tremendous to me in the Salzburg performance much less powerful -- when Netrebko sings "Grenvil, vedete? Fra le braccia io spiro di quanti cari ho al mondo!" it's the pinnacle of her arc in accepting death: the last step for her was giving away hope, giving away her hope of love: but the answer is that she has those who are dear to her, if only for that instant, and even Death must acknowledge that. And of course I have All The Feelings about Germont's Salzburg journey to "A stringervi qual figlia vengo al seno, o generosa!" The much flatter 2017 arcs and relationships take a lot of that meaning away.
Though one of the things I adore about the Decker staging in both versions is how at the end everyone gets back from Violetta something of what they gave her. Alfredo, who gave Violetta love, gets the camellia(/portrait of her). Annina, who gave her comfort and help at the end, gets an embrace of comfort. 2005!Germont, who overcame himself to hold out his hands to her, gets her hand briefly, a tiny moment of grace in a wasteland. 2017!Germont gets nothing.
Also, in Department of Random and Shallow: I notice that Violetta got to wear a bra at the Met, heh. Also also, why is the camellia pink in this production??
...aaaaand I wrote pretty much this entire post, not to mention all the earlier word-vomiting I have done over the past several weeks about different Traviatas and Germont and how he's not truly a bad guy, before the clue hit that of course I feel especially intense emotions about this opera and about Germont in particular, because my dad (who isn't a bad guy) basically did the same thing with me regarding my college boyfriend, for a reason that was even less good than Germont's. (But the same fundamental idea of "I can't handle this person you are dating for reasons that stem from my own issues and worldview." Which is why it totally baffles me when people say that Traviata isn't an opera for modern times!) I never got the Total Parent Validation ending (my dad still thinks he was right), but then again I also wasn't dying of consumption, in retrospect we weren't a good match in other ways... Anyway, I am about the least self-aware person ever, I guess. (Although a more generous way of reading that is to say that perhaps i've matured a bit in that I don't think about these things any more! :) )
(Next up: Macbeth (and aliens) and Don Carlo)
Yoncheva has a very different take on Violetta (and death) than Netrebko. Netrebko's Violetta's arc was about coming to terms with her death, with accepting it. Yoncheva's Violetta is not doing any accepting whatsoever. She hates her impending death, she is angry about it, she fights it, and continues to fight up until her very last words. (She's also visibly angrily resigned, rather than self-sacrificially resigned as Netrebko sold so well, at having to give up Alfredo for the dictates of society, though her "Ah! dite alla giovina" is as beautiful as any I've heard.) It makes Violetta/Alfredo interestingly ambiguous, because it's never quite clear to me, even in their love scenes, how much she is actually in love with Alfredo and how much she is simply clinging to the hope that gives her to stave off death.
This makes the Giorgio-Violetta duet in Act II make more visceral sense to me than it's ever done before -- it's never made much sense to me that Giorgio saves his last best argument to be "oh, well, guys can be fickle, he might not always love you!" and that Violetta buys that at all, I mean, they're desperately in love, in the honeymoon period! But if Violetta knows that her love is impure, then that makes her uniquely vulnerable to that argument -- would she still love Alfredo if she didn't think he could help her put off death? And if she's unsure of that, then -- well -- she knows Alfredo loved her for her looks before he knew her at all; maybe Giorgio is right that if she was no longer as beautiful that maybe he wouldn't love her either...
This harder-edged Violetta also is clearly going to have more problems connecting with Giorgio, and vice versa. Hampson also plays Giorgio Germont in 2017 as rather more expressive and much less awkward and stiff than in 2005, which paradoxically plays into the lack of connection; awkward!Germont is clearly awkward in large part because he is struggling through so many internal Issues, but expressive!Germont, though he may be grateful to Violetta by the end of their duet, is just... not really seeing her. To reinforce this, pretty much all the choreography that suggests a growing connection between Giorgio and Violetta has been cut. At the end of their duet, Violetta offers him her hand, and although in 2005!Salzburg this was always going to be an embrace and understood as such by both the characters, here it looks like they're going to shake hands (and so 2017!Giorgio is startled when it becomes a hug, and it's rather one-sided). The 2005 take where Violetta's repeat of "Dio dai rimorsi ti salvi allora" and "chi nel ciel tra gli angeli prega per lei, per te," were both directed as Violetta speaking to/about Germont (which, okay, I'm sure is contra Verdi's intention but I LOVE IT) is cut. On Germont's side, there's no agonized epiphany for 2017!Germont with "Di sprezzo degno" (if anything, it seems like he blames Alfredo for the whole thing), or anything like the pronounced remorse for his actions and connection to Violetta that you can see forming in 2005!Germont (and very much reinforced by the Salzburg choreography) at the end of Act II.
As for the relationship between Germont père and his son -- in 2005, this was played very much as a father who loves his son and has no earthly idea how to talk to him, sometimes making disastrous decisions when he tries. The 2017 relationship, with Hampson turning on his full expressivity, reads more to me as Germont being oblivious than awkward. Fabiano also feeds into that by reacting much more strongly to Hampson than Villazon ever did -- there's a distinct implication that there's a history there, that this might not have been the first time Germont has tromped all over his son's emotions.
Speaking of Fabiano! I thought Fabiano was brilliant in this production -- he really sells his love for Violetta, which is the one bright spot in a sea of terrible and disintegrating relationships. He is also the only character whose arc is more pronounced than usual -- here, the question is, how does the super-in-love Alfredo of Act I transform to the violent Alfredo of the end of Act II? Villazon's Alfredo dealt with this by always being a bit over-the-top obsessive about Violetta, but Fabiano's Alfredo isn't like that; his Alfredo is gentle and emotionally aware, even realizing that the couch covers have been removed. But over the course of Act II, you can see that gentleness questioned, turn to grief -- then he tries again with Violetta, and then, finally, he gets pushed one notch too far, and all that gentleness hardens briefly into rage. But only for that one moment -- it is clear from his "Ne sento orrore" and following that it was an aberration, it's not who he usually is or wants to be. It's really quite well done, and for the first time I found myself watching the second act of Traviata for Alfredo instead of Giorgio. (It's always a given one watches Traviata for Violetta, of course.)
But in general, the Met choices make a lot of the lines that are so tremendous to me in the Salzburg performance much less powerful -- when Netrebko sings "Grenvil, vedete? Fra le braccia io spiro di quanti cari ho al mondo!" it's the pinnacle of her arc in accepting death: the last step for her was giving away hope, giving away her hope of love: but the answer is that she has those who are dear to her, if only for that instant, and even Death must acknowledge that. And of course I have All The Feelings about Germont's Salzburg journey to "A stringervi qual figlia vengo al seno, o generosa!" The much flatter 2017 arcs and relationships take a lot of that meaning away.
Though one of the things I adore about the Decker staging in both versions is how at the end everyone gets back from Violetta something of what they gave her. Alfredo, who gave Violetta love, gets the camellia(/portrait of her). Annina, who gave her comfort and help at the end, gets an embrace of comfort. 2005!Germont, who overcame himself to hold out his hands to her, gets her hand briefly, a tiny moment of grace in a wasteland. 2017!Germont gets nothing.
Also, in Department of Random and Shallow: I notice that Violetta got to wear a bra at the Met, heh. Also also, why is the camellia pink in this production??
...aaaaand I wrote pretty much this entire post, not to mention all the earlier word-vomiting I have done over the past several weeks about different Traviatas and Germont and how he's not truly a bad guy, before the clue hit that of course I feel especially intense emotions about this opera and about Germont in particular, because my dad (who isn't a bad guy) basically did the same thing with me regarding my college boyfriend, for a reason that was even less good than Germont's. (But the same fundamental idea of "I can't handle this person you are dating for reasons that stem from my own issues and worldview." Which is why it totally baffles me when people say that Traviata isn't an opera for modern times!) I never got the Total Parent Validation ending (my dad still thinks he was right), but then again I also wasn't dying of consumption, in retrospect we weren't a good match in other ways... Anyway, I am about the least self-aware person ever, I guess. (Although a more generous way of reading that is to say that perhaps i've matured a bit in that I don't think about these things any more! :) )
(Next up: Macbeth (and aliens) and Don Carlo)
no subject
Date: 2018-04-26 01:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-04-26 04:09 pm (UTC)Though I think it is true that the bareness of the staging lends itself as a palette for highlighting different interpretations, especially by the Violetta, in a way that a more traditional staging doesn't necessarily as much. It might be worth looking at if you're ever on Met On Demand.
But also -- now after I've watched the ROH with Fleming I understand why you don't like Decker at all -- it really kind of does away with everything you like about a Traviata, doesn't it!
no subject
Date: 2018-05-09 07:19 am (UTC)LOVERSsympathetic antagonists, so I think this is why Traviata is hitting me the way it is, seeing that it is mostly a confluence of (1) to (5), lol ;)Which brings me to your personal story about your dad and "I can't handle this person you are dating for reasons that stem from my own issues and worldview". I gotta say that my view might be coloured by my love of Hampson, but I actually totally sympathise with Germont, who is not a bad person and is mostly doing his best in difficult circumstances. I mean, I don't think many 18th century parents would be thrilled about their darling son marrying a courtesan, and I say this as someone whose (very traditional Asian) parents weren't thrilled about my past boyfriends nor about Hub ;) I am not surprised that your dad still thinks he had a popint, and more to the point, possibly you've come round to seeing it from his perspective? Though as you say it is fortunate nobody was dying of consumption in your scenario (mine, either ;))
no subject
Date: 2018-05-10 05:19 am (UTC)I like your (2)-(4) as well -- (4) is interesting because it's sort of a fine line for me; it produces such intense feelings for me that sometimes I really really like it, and sometimes it's too much and I can't take it. It depends a lot on the circumstances -- with Germont it is like kryptonite to me; with Rigoletto it's too much (I still like Rigoletto, but I can't commit to it the way I've fallen for Traviata), and I haven't quite sorted out what the difference is. Maybe that Germont's actual child doesn't die (and anyway he doesn't actually cause anyone to die), and Rigoletto's does?
I TOTALLY AGREE Germont is not a bad person, just trying to do the best he can! (Some of these later Traviata posts also have a subtext of me arguing against
no subject
Date: 2018-05-15 06:25 am (UTC)I never actually thought about it in quite that way myself until I got back into fandom and started participating in fic exchanges and had to articulate what really got to me about characters I loved and about the stories I wanted to read for them? But yes, absolutely, many of the characters I love (and I'm totally with you on Germont and Javert and Spock, though I've yet to make a start on the Vorkosigan saga) are extremely guarded and restrained, and when they start to unravel despite themselves, that kind of vulnerability is my kryptonite. The Salzburg Germont encapsulates this perfectly -- as you say, Hampson's buttoned-up Salzburg Germont is hot despite himself and the stage directing, and when he falls apart it's even more delicious <3
I am feeding you all the same (Hampson, ha) performances I've watched, which are very Germont-empathic, and I guess it might be possible to interpret him a little less sympathetically
Haha, maybe? Although I'd suggest that a more prejudiced and selfish-acting Germont would still tread the story growth arc that makes you root for him? He's not by any means a one-dimensional villain, and the music makes it clear that Verdi really likes him <3
no subject
Date: 2018-05-17 04:59 am (UTC)You're right, here's yet another Hampson which is the least hot I've ever seen him -- I think it's the combo of the thick coat and the mustache and that I feel like this Germont is awfully mean to poor Violetta -- even the duet is much more adversarial than I'm used to. (Perhaps especially in the next one up, (7), where he can't actually bring himself to give her a hug.) But even here the story arc in the music is still there...